The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDiv. of Water Pollution - 10/2/1975n d'Y Dow Kro Barnes f f. i 17 Moo l- p., a> t'i• - - t i ,mot' VW7 tr4y yowat b HATHEWAY & PATTERSON CO., INC. WM. V. HAYNES, PRESIDENT klul MANUFACTURERS OF DOUGLAS FIR CROSSARMS • ELECTRICAL POLE LINE EQUIPMENT • PRESSURE WOOD TREATING TELEPHONE 617-339-8934 DIRECT LINE 805TON TO MANSFIELD 698.6854 May 14, 1975 Mr. Jeffrey Gould District Engineer Massachusetts Dept of Natural Resources Pembroke, Massachusetts Reference: My letter, April 8, 1975 Dear Mr. Gould 15 COUNTY STREET MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSET75 02048 We are beginning to get some definition of,.plans to expand our trapping facilities near the Rumford River. The basic phases are: 1. Land clearing and site preparation 2. Prefabrication of two types of shoring panels in the various heights 3. On site excavation and shoring We are currently working on item one and procuring materials for item 2. We want to make our planning as careful as potsible to make this project effective. Yours very truly, , C William E. Haynes v� �, n (,--- A P'[-\' 1 5 HATHEWAY & PATTERSON CO., INC. WM. V. HAYNES, PRESIDENT MANUFACTURERS OF DOUGLAS FIR CROSSARMS • ELECTRICAL POLE LINE EQUIPMENT • PRESSURE WOOD TREATING TELEPHONE 617-339.8934 DIRECT LINE BOSTON TO MANSFIELD 698-6854 April 8, 19?5 Mr. Jeffrey Gould District Engineer Massachusetts Dept. of Natural Resources Pembroke, Massachusetts Dear Mr. Gould: 15 COUNTY STREET MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 02048 Subsequent to our discussions of yesterday, we have begun a review of the technical and administrative actions to extend our trapping facilities along the bank of the Rumford River. While the technical aspects are complicated by the height of the river bank in this area, our major problem is anticipated to be in the inherent administrative difficulties associated with working on the land of a third party. As of today, however, our legal counsel has been contacted so that he may proceed in this matter. We shall keep you advised of our progress. Also subsequent to our discussions, we inspected the Rumford River from our boom to Fulton's Pond wiithout finding any trace of accumulated oil or even a "rainbow". Inspection of the leeward side. of Fulton's Pond also failed to produce any evidence of oil. I would like to reiterate that we main- tain our booms on a daily basis and that at no time in well over a year have we seen any amount of oil other than an occassional small spot beyond our second boom. Thus we are still curious as to the amount and source of oil being observed downstream. I have contacted the Town Manager on this matter to insure that we have good communications on the local level. Until our plans become more defined and action can be taken, we will tighten up our current procedures to insure that the river remains as clean as possible.r Again, any technical references you can provide on this subject will be. appreciated. Yours very truly, William E. Haynes MM Tea William Mark Nr rat HatheW A; Patterwn G Manafield April 14• IV5 �}) Seal the downtream side of the trewh so that ail ulthin Mott traaah WoM mot tow Urou& the gMoeite sl4a. TOt William J. Marhoffer PRC141 Jeffrey E. Gould DATEa April 14, 1975 SUWECTz 1VNSF=LD NUT) RUIVORD RSVER - Hr'>2'FE !IX & PA9irRSONT CO. OIL• POLLUTI At 10:30 k.PQ., Monday April 7, 1975, the writer met with Pwal Boynton, Mansfield Conservation Commission Chairm=rk and Bert Seating, Mansfield Building Inspector, relative to a eronie problem of alleged oil accumulation in Porge Pord coming from upstream in the Rumford River. Mr. Boynton is presently concerx,ed that since the town has ,just recently completed a major task of cleaning up and deepening Forge Pond, it may lose out on federal fish stocking assistance when it is observed that Ail is present in the water and an oil problem exists such as Hathaway'& Patterson, upstream. Mr. Boynton, Mr. Keating and the writer inspected the oil contairzaent facilities presently maintained by Hatheway & Patterson Co. to entrap underlrmad oil seepage from past operations on their property entering the Rumford River, _.bout 20 or 30 gallons of No. 2 type oil was present within the plywood partitioned boom running parallel to the oil seeping river bank. About twenty feet from the river eight open. 55 gallon drums of retrieved oil were stored unprotected against vandalism or spillage. The two year old parallel intercepting trench had oil present, duo for pump -out and about twenty feet of the fi"t3y foot trench had collapsed. The floating plastic boom, downstream of the seep:ge, was in head of maintenance. After being shown other potential sources of pollution to the Rumford River, the writer visited liatheway & Patterson Co., and spoke with Mr. V,illism livynes, Jr, regarding the mornings inspection. Mr. Haynes stated that due to the previous friday's heavy rainstorm increased groundwater flow had been carrying much heavier quantities of oil to the river, and what was seen in the plywood boom area had seeped in sizice the errly mornings routine oil removal. Mr. Haynes agreed to accomplish the following steps to more ex;)eaitiou;;l,y handle the oil seepage problems 1) Remove the barrels of oil and, in the f'uv'�-re, seal all barrels of oil waiting to be removed. 2) Extend the present trench downstream, while anglin,G slightly away from the river basin, to avoid the possible weakening of the bank, t—rd trenching a right angle at the end to completely entrap underground flow. MEMO To: William Mari or re: Hathewa`y & Patterson C Mansfield April 14, 1975 3) Seal the downstream side of the trench so that oil within the trench will not seep through the opposite side. 4) Remove the accumulated oil from behind the floating plastic boom downstream. 5) Consider the idea of pumping water into the ground in an upland area to hasten the ground water activity in pushing the oil into the trench, Mr. Haynes anticipated about one month's time just to get legal clearance to reenter Grossman's property and initiate construction of the remaining trench. He will keep this office informed of the progress in this matter, JEG/em HATHEWAY & PATTERSON CO., INC. WM. V. HAYNES, PRESIDENT r,'A',<, 1 3 i�74 MANUFACTURERS OF DOUGLAS FIR CROSSARMS • ELECTRICAL POLE LINE EQUIPMENT • PRESSURE WOOD TREATING TELEPHONE 617-339.8934 DIRECT LINE BOSTON TO MANSFIELD 698-6854 March 8, 1974 Mr. Jeffrey Gould Mass. Dept. of Natural Resources Box 573 11. Pembroke, MA 02358 Dear Mr, Gould, In accordance with your request, this report on our program to control oil River in the vicinity of our plant in 1S COUNTY STREET MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 02048 letter is an interim seepage into the Rumford Mansfield, Direct seepage into the river has been effectively contained by a plywood boom parallel to the river bank and a series of barriers between the plywood and river bank. Any seepage trapped in this area is removed with absorbents on a daily basis. In the event of a contingency problem, a secondary containment system consisting of a floating boom placed at an oblique angle to the current flow is located several hun- dred feet downstream. A ditch parallel to the river and an excavated pond provide locations from which seepage can be removed by pumping before it reaches the river. All oil and water pumped up at the river are returned to our plant for processing in our waste handling system. Our plant utilizes a fully closed cycle by reducing the volume of waste water by evaporation, and requires no discharge into the ground, stream or municipal sewer. With the arrival of warmer weather we hope to make further attempts to determine the amount and distribution of oil remaining in the ground. The test holeswe have dug to date have yielded inconclusive results. Further large scale exca- vation is restricted because of potential mutual interference with railroad operations and the legal problems associated with work on land belonging to another party. Mr. Jeffrey Gould page 2 We can not estimate the total extent of this problem for lack of the following information. 1. Amount of oil released into the sumps in a given time 2. Amount or percentage of oil reclaimed from the sumps 3. Amount removed by industrial scavengers 4. Fvaporation rates of oil from saturated soils 5. Amount of oil from potential sources beyond our control. In conclusion, our main priority is given to protecting the river against oil contamination,and efforts to expedite removal of all oil are made as adaquate techniques and suitable opera- ting arrangements can be worked out. As of this time we can not project a date when this program will be fully concluded. If I can provide any additional information or if you have any suggestions to assist us, please do not hesitate to contact me. In addition please feel free to give my name to the management of any small company which might encounter a similar problem, if you feel that my discussing our problem with them would benefit both them and the Commonwealth. Yours very truly, L E2 William F. Haynes Vice -President A r IIVW O31dIlN37ONV O3tl(i3NI 'O3U31$ip3tl '1di333U Ntlnuv SIB L'30E'I IBE wmj Sd m m a w .N •p Z p p d L 0 ❑ ❑❑❑� `pG m yyc np �.'o � o o G. p A muzi 2 .I£ p 0. $ w 0E4ao °m 3 ❑5'� t' E0E H y 5' '� 7 C' h' n a Z.° 3 r Yri O tv g � t: 0 pp \ IA 'wj n M A. 77 yy o. 8 f' m q a �Z �.on r e r i i r i i 1 i t r y V^ N m z 0 2 o m 09 O v 319n � m n� m F� r O a � N D r=