The following editorial was published in the Conway Daily Sun and Carroll County Independent on March 31, 2022.
The argument in support of a gas station at the former Boyle’s Market on the border of Ossipee and Effingham centers on the claim that gas stations are safer than ever. Or, in the words of the applicant’s agent, Mark McConkey, they are practically “fail-proof.”
Last year, the “fail-proof” claim and DES’s approval of permits for the underground storage tanks (USTs) helped persuade Effingham’s ZBA to grant McConkey’s client, Meena LLC, relief from the town’s prohibition against new gas stations in the Groundwater Protection District. It’s an argument that continues to be used as a rationale for the ZBA approval, even though it only tells part of the story.
Gas station equipment is better than it used to be, thanks to regulations mandating improved environmental protections. Double-walled tanks, automated alarms and related improvements in USTs have lowered risk, and there have been improvements above ground as well, including automatic shut-off valves for hoses.
Despite that, DES’ latest gas station Environmental Fact Sheet (2020) reminds us that regulators and equipment designers have not succeeded in eliminating all groundwater contamination risks. Each year DES publishes data showing spills and leaks continue to be a fact of life. In Carroll County alone, there have been nine spills of more than ten gallons in recent years, including a 2020 spill in Bartlett that released 45 gallons.
So, here’s the rub: While the risk of a major gas leak or spill has been lowered, it is not zero; and that makes where a gas station is located a critical factor.
Consider two brand-new gas stations, both with state-of-the-art tanks and technology. Both have experienced operators and on-site personnel trained in DES’ best management practices. We can assume the risk of a contamination event at both sites has been lowered, but is not zero.
Let’s further assume that one station is situated in the kind of location DES recommends (which is away from drinking water sources) and the other is the Meena LLC property, a former gravel pit with highly transmissive soils sitting atop the region’s drinking water supply and adjacent to dozens of residential wells and a tributary that empties into Ossipee Lake.
The risk of a major gas spill is identical for both stations—reduced, but not zero. But if a major spill were to occur, the results would be quite different. A major spill at the first site could likely be contained and mitigated, while the environmental impact at the Meena LLC site would likely be catastrophic, with gasoline entering the aquifer and migrating to private wells and beyond.
As we said, what Mr. McConkey told the ZBA last year about the equipment and permits was only half the story. The other half concerns the high level of risk embedded in a worst-case scenario in which the location will determine the level of environmental damage.
DES has something to say about locations in its aforementioned Environmental Fact Sheet. It advises that even in an age of improved gas station equipment, the “likelihood” of spills, leaks and contaminants in stormwater runoff means towns should “consider restricting the siting of gas stations as they would any other land use that is likely to contaminate groundwater.”
Further: “If the municipality’s zoning ordinance prohibits the location of certain high-risk land uses in wellhead protection areas, aquifer protection areas, or other areas of high-value groundwater, gas stations should be considered for inclusion in the list of prohibited land uses.”
The state doesn’t mandate these protections in the same way that it regulates USTs. Instead, it delegates responsibility to the towns, 109 of which have created groundwater ordinances. That includes Effingham, where gas stations are prohibited in aquifer protection areas like the former gravel pit where the applicant proposes to pump gas—the site the ZBA last year said was suitable for a gas station because ‘the tanks are fail-proof and DES issued permits.’
Since that ruling, more than 850 people have viewed Dr. Bob Newton’s video about why the Meena LLC site is the “worst possible location” for a gas station. Additionally, the site plan application has been determined to be a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) affecting ten communities, some of which plan to exercise their abutter status and take a figurative ‘seat at the table’ when Effingham’s Planning Board begins deliberations on April 7.
As Effingham planners prepare for that hearing, we hope they will consider the example of how two brand-new gas stations can present the appearance of having the same low risk to the public’s health and safety while actually having a much higher level of risk based on location.
I fell the new owners of Boyles should had been inform of the denial of the gas station before the sale took place. Isn’t there a grandfather clause somewhere on this discussion ?
R. Ryan I totally agree they definitely should’ve been informed…but regardless there should not be a gas station there simply for the fact of it being dangerous or hazardous (like the article states) it’s also really just pointless considering there’s a gas station not 200 yards from there so it’s just completely unnecessary as is hazardous.
Doesn’t the average boat fuel tank Carry up to 40 gallons? These boats are ON THE WATER directly damaging our rivers more than a gas station could in the long run. I think you need to look at all facts before commenting and creating a bias against gas stations and our water safety.
I realize the article cites 10 gallon spills as some sort of threshold, however, the risk of a spill at a gas station could most certainly be hundreds or even thousands of gallons. I would be perfectly fine driving a few hundred extra yards to get my gas over taking any chance that my family could be consuming gasoline via our well water before any sort of alert or notification from the town could be communicated.
If we’re concerned about lake water and boat pollution we could certainly consider limiting boat access on weekends at the open ramp on rt 25.
About that gas station 200 yards away sitting on the same aquifer. How up to date are those pumps and underground tanks? Of course there are also 3 marinas on the lake that we could raise the same questions about. As for being informed I assume Meena hired contractors to assure all applicable approvals were in place prior to construction. His lawyer should be able to recoup any financial losses should the final outcome not be in his favor.
Reprint from previous article….
…so if the argument is there is risk and danger associated with the technologically upgraded gas station, and that’s why we shouldn’t do it, then I assume nobody here would ever fly on a commercial airplane. The fact that todays planes are far more technical and safer than ever doesn’t mean they wont crash.
I have been living “next” to the gas station for almost as long as it had been pumping gas. I never recall an incident with leakage or ground water contamination. Now the new owner wants to install a better containment, leak detection delivery system and all of a sudden it’s a huge environmental problem. I don’t buy it. Did anyone see the new huge concrete liner containment the tanks sit in?
I will admit there is risk just like every time I fly there is risk, but it is mitigated and statistically quantified as negligible.
If we really want to get serious about protecting the environment we might want to start by limiting some of the excessive, drop in boat traffic and obnoxious weekend and holiday rafting sessions that come with it. All I see is wreck less boating and how they sour the water with everything from trash to human feces.
Motor boats, marinas and the existing gas station are of course a risk. But there is no need to add another risk with a new gas station.
The buyer should not have been informed about the restrictions, it is the buyer’s job to conduct a due diligence about regulations. Meena LLC runs other gas stations and thus might be more aware than anybody else of the various regulations.
Last, but not least : the company began the construction work BEFORE authorisation was granted… Nobody would build his home without the necessary permit.
Ossipee Lake area does not need a new risk