American Onslaught

A few months later, Lynch removed Michael Nolin as director of the N.H. Department of Environmental Services, appointing Thomas Burack to lead the agency that would have to approve any cleanup plans offered by KeySpan Energy Delivery.

Under Burack’s lead, the DES preliminary approved KeySpan’s proposal, calling for only partial removal of the contamination, over the objections of town officials and residents worried about the health effects of leaving the coal tar in place. 

The estimated 93,500 tons of contamination remaining would be contained by a slurry wall. This technology has never been tested in such an application in the Granite State. 

This solution saved KeySpan more than $7 million, sparing KeySpan the full cost of $15.9 million for total clean up.

And most recently, the New Hampshire Attorney General’s office has chosen not to pursue legal action against KeySpan for failing to report the Liberty Hill site when they first had knowledge of it. The stance remains, even though “KeySpan had, prior to October 2004, knowledge of the most likely location of the 1952 discharge.”

During the three years Liberty Hill has graced the news, the site has generated a fair amount of controversy and commentary. The Citizen’s investigation into the story even elicited a response from Burack, defending KeySpan and the DES.

Last year, Burack took the unprecedented step of defending his agency and KeySpan in an editorial commentary issued while the agency was still weighing public testimony on proposal, before issuing a formal decision.

DES spokesman Jim Martin said Burack’s three-page commentary on the Liberty Hill site was only the second time the director has responded to newspaper articles, let alone on a case still pending before the state. A search of the DES press page reveals it is the only time Burack has made comments on an open case before the department made a ruling.

“I think it’s preposterous,” said Gov. Lynch’s press secretary, Colin Manning, of the suggestion that KeySpan’s donations to the governor’s campaign had anything to do with the favorable rulings on the coal tar cleanup. “This is a matter still pending before the Department [of Environmental Services] and all the Governor has done is encourage that the public safety is looked after, which he has.”

Still, Lynch has yet to offer a hard stance on the Liberty Hill cleanup issue one way or the other. Though through Manning, he has had a continual statement of confidence in the DES. 

“If anything, KeySpan is having more trouble than ever before trying to deal with the cleanup. So there certainly is not any indication that they are getting favorable treatment,” said Evan Carlson, spokesman for the Lynch campaign.

However, KeySpan paid funds to The Lynch Committee, the Governor’s fundraising organization, through both the corporation directly and through its Political Action Committee, KeySpan Federal Political Action Committee. A total of three $2,500 payments were made throughout the 2006 campaign season.

According to the Secretary of State’s office, individual contributions are limited to a total of $5,000. It should be noted that no one individual or corporate entity, other than KeySpan, gave over $5,000 to Lynch in 2006, based on what is on file with the state.

KeySpan made the first payment of $2,500 to Lynch’s campaign on December 1, 2005. This was followed by another $2,500 payment through KeySpan’s PAC on May 30, 2006 and then a final contribution by the corporation of $2,500 June 12, 2006.

KeySpan did not make any campaign donations to Lynch’s rival in the 2006 election, James Coburn.

Debra Hale is listed as the KeySpan PAC treasurer for 2006. Hale has been intimately involved with the Liberty Hill site since it was disclosed to the Department of Environmental Services in 2004, several days after information about the location was brought up in a federal trial. She works as the manager of New England Government and Community Relations for KeySpan.

Political Action Committees can be formed at the Secretary of State’s office for a fee of $50. PACs must be reregistered each year for the same fee.

KeySpan formed a PAC in 2004, though, according to state documents, no contributions were made to any candidate in that election year. 

Lynch Campaign Spokesman Evan Carlson explained the $2,500 given by the Political Action Committee was paid to Lynch’s inaugural committee, while the $5,000 from the KeySpan corporation went to Lynch’s PAC.

All this information can all be found by combing through the thousands of pages of donation records available at the Secretary of State’s office.

Charles Arlinghaus, President of the non-partisan think tank the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, explained that, while wealthier contributors tend to donate an average of $1,000, and the less wealthy give about $200, corporations tend not to make political contributions.

Until a few years ago, when a court ruling clarified the issue, corporate donations directly to candidates were considered illegal. Arlinghaus says it still is unusual for corporations to make donation because it tends to “raise eyebrows.”

This particularly applies to utilities that regularly conduct business before the state.   The occasional exception to this, explained Arlinghaus, is if there is a personal relationship with a candidate or if the candidate has been supportive of the company.

“I think it would be unusual for them to pick sides in an election,” said Arlinghaus.

This is a statement that New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission employee Steve Frink might agree with. In his capacity at the state, Frink reviews rates from numerous utilities doing business in the Granite State.

However, Frink himself has never seen a utility make a contribution to a candidate in a state election. This may, at least in part, be because it is not something these companies are allowed to build into their rates.

“It’s not something I see happening. It maybe happening but it’s nothing I see,” said Frink.

According to the auditing department at the PUC, while utilities do make political donations on occasion it is somewhat of a rarity.

Spokesman for Public Service of New Hampshire, Martin Murray, said PSNH has never in the past made any kind of political donations to a candidate. However, with the 2008 state elections upcoming the company has formed an employee funded PAC.

Murray said the PAC came about after many employees expressed an interest in advocating for candidates that supports the most beneficial policy outcomes for their company.

While Lynch received the largest donation made by KeySpan that year, the KeySpan Federal PAC also made donations to some other lower level state legislative hopefuls.

“We have not found it necessary to contribute directly, as a company, to a candidate for office – but believe that our employee PAC will be an effective method, going forward, to support candidates who best reflect our collective view on how to best serve our customers,” explained Murray.

This 1952 photograph depicts the dumping of toxic coal tar into a gravel pit on Liberty Hill. Now four homes rest above this former tar pit.

At the same times as these contributions were being doled out, things were heating up on Liberty Hill. 

Coal tar contamination that still exists under the Liberty Hill neighborhood today is the result of dumping that took place in the spring of 1952. At the time the manufactured gas plan was operated by Gas Service Inc, KeySpan’s predecessor. When the plant exploded in 1952, the coal tar byproduct was hauled to Liberty Hill by the truckload and poured into an old gravel pit. 

Even today, Lynch has yet to offer a hard stance on the Liberty Hill clean up issue one-way or the other. He has had a continual statement of confidence in the Department of Environmental Services, relayed through Press Secretary Colin Manning. 

Neither National Grid nor KeySpan returned several calls and emails seeking comment on the political contributions made for the 2006 election.