GCC MEETING MINUTES
June 30, 2005
Attending: Carl Shreder, John Bell, Tom Howland, Paul Nelson, Laura Repplier
GENERAL BUSINESS
MINUTES
MOTION to approve the minutes of June 16 with changes from Paul, Harry & Carl – Tom / Paul / Unam
47 WEST ST
Reps: Jim Luker, Gale Associates; Tim Toomey, SRT; Geoff Brown, ENPRO; Richard Morello, Owner
Jim – Are still learning more about dioxin & PCBs at the site. The presence of PCBs in part have prevented the disposal of the stockpile. If they are above a certain level the EPA considers that everything at the site is contaminated. That level was achieved in one sample on site. Have engaged the help of two experts – risk assessors / toxicologists. Geoff Brown, of ENPRO, is talking to the EPA trying to get the PCB issue under control.
Geoff – Showed a map to summarize the results of PCB sampling at the site. There was one area that exceeded 50 ppm. The highest reading was 74 ppm. Once the threshold level has been exceeded, some or all of the site is regulated by the EPA.
Carl – What depth were these found at?
Geoff – The contamination was in the first foot or so of the soil – which has precipitated a proposal by Jim Luker to strip the top 12” or so from the entire lot. Still costly, so looking at doing this in a selected area. We must put together a plan & have 30 days to review it. If we don’t do that then the EPA has the authority to levy fines. The location is in three areas on site – one area used before 1950s – and other areas near the stream. The area near the stream is not over 1 ppm. There are moderate levels elsewhere. If we move the soil pile the EPA may come back & say we preformed a clean-up action that should have been subject to federal notifification. We must finish the site assessment & then submit the plan before we go
ahead with any removal.
Richard Morello – We haven’t moved the pile. Wanted to do it 2 months ago but if we move it will be fined $25k.
Tim – All issues are conflicting. Are getting more expertise in. If had shipped the pile off now would have gotten everyone in trouble.
Carl – Have you contacted anyone in the EPA?
Geoff – We have been in contact with the co-ordinator for PCBs in the region. But she has not been able to give an opinion and not a formal submittal yet. EPA has practices for cleaning these sites.
Carl S – We have to do more sampling in the area.
Tim – That’s why we got more expertise. There is a problem with dioxin as well. Are trying to deal with the PCBs – to get idea of how much on site. They wanted contiguous samples with PCBs. We don’t have any non-detects so the whole site is considered over 5 ppm. Economics are = 4x as much to get rid of soil with PCBs. We have only one sample that caused alarm. Another sample from right next to it didn’t have half as much. >10 ppm is considered an imminent hazard. Wanted to make sure are dealing with PCBs over 75 ppm. Took samples from 5’ outward – got 4.3 and 1.8 ppm – well below the 5 ppm level.
We don’t know what the source is. Could have been one transformer or something much larger. We don’t know.
Paul N – There are declining levels of PCBs as you go outward from the detected hot spot. This would appear to indicated isolation..
Tim – Also have other points elsewhere on site with enormous lead levels. So it’s not just this one spot.
Carl S – We need a meeting between all parties and the EPA. We need to find out who’s requiring what.
Tim – First, we need to be able to say “this is what we know & this is what we’re doing”. It’s hard to get expertise & the test results take a considerable time to come back.
Carl S – Now that we know we have those materials we’re obviously concerned & need to explore the risk of it going into the town water. That would be a catastrophic event.
Jim – We performed sampling last fall but only found problems with 1-2 wells. The worst fears have not been demonstrated so far.
Geoff (ENPRO) – The contaminants that are of concern don’t move far.
Tom H – Are they exposed to rain now? We haven’t had this information until now.
Carl S – There is no documentation of conversations between the different groups & EPA. We need to know what’s being discussed & said in writing.
Geoff (ENPRO) – In the EPA’s program they leave it up to you to do the assessment according to the guidelines. Once we feel it’s sufficiently detailed we submit that information to the EPA & they have 30 days to review it. Can’t just send a pile of info to the EPA, we have to complete the assessment.
Jim Luker – If we take all that time it will take til next winter & the pile will still be there.
Carl S – Can we notify them we are going to move the pile on a certain date?
Geoff (ENPRO) – We can’t remove it without completing the profile. If it is found later to be a PCB site we could be accused of messing with the site without proper remediation.
Jim Luker – Our concern is the timeframe of months to get that all done.
Tim Toomey – We are proceeding with caution. Mr Morello can afford to do it.
Carl S – We want to see a much higher level of communication. What do they absolutely require to be done? We need to know. There are multiple issues that need to be resolved. We don’t want the EO to cause actions that violate federal regulations.
Paul N – How quickly can you come up with a plan to get the EPA on board?
Carl S – We need copies of all correspondence with the EPA.
Jim Luker – We can put a status report together.
Carl S – The Commission & agent need to be informed & in the loop.
John Bell – How big a pile are we dealing with?
Richard Morello – About 20 tons.
Geoff (ENPRO) – It is wrapped in plastic so is contained.
Jim Luker – There is contamination in the stream, eco-risk assessment, dioxins, PCBs – multiple problems.
Carl S – Everyone needs to communicate.
Tim T – We may be getting the pile out by next week.
Paul N – If the pile is contained it doesn’t matter so much. Note that at a meeting at the site w/ DEP, I believe the conundrum was solved by putting the soil pile in barrels – to be left on site.
Carl S – In terms of the MCP – when do you think you will have a viable plan?
Tim T – We are getting info next week from the risk assessors – Susan Sundstrom, Independent and Keith Veren, Spectrum Environmental
Jim L – Submittal is due with the DEP on July 20. Should we include the PCB workplan in there?
Tim T – We are meeting the DEP at the site.
Carl S – Agent & Jim Luker should be available for that meeting.
Tim T – I don’t think PCBs will be prevalent out there. But we are talking to the risk assessors to make sure. The EPA wants to be careful where it goes. We have to present the information to them just so.
Jim Luker – The eco-screening will probably fail. We’ll have to do a full study anyway.
Carl S – We need a detailed remediation plan. We need quantitative data. Can you have the action plan by next Friday, July 8th?
Jim Luker – July 20th is the date to get the imminent hazard report to the state. We can get all the reports together – including the evaluation of PCBs by the risk assessors.
Paul N – Can we get a draft by July 15th?
Carl S – Are you doing any work now?
Jim Luker – The dioxin test on & off the property was in exceedence. In the MCP if concentrations exceed we have to notify the DEP. Reportable concentrations were .03 pptrillion. On further investing is .04 ppt within the top 6” of soil. That’s why need experts. There has been no recent research since 1992. The EPA said if < 1ppbillion it’s not a concern. So whose numbers are we going with?
Carl S – Have you been talking to Ed Calabrese at the Department of Public Health?
Tim T – I’ll get in touch with him. There is a 120 day notification requirement.
Carl S – We need a containment EO to continue the investigation. We should issue documentation to cover that. We have to meet what the EPA and DEP want & meet by the July 20 deadline.
Jim Luker – The area is in plastic but need better gating to prevent incidental trespassing.
Richard Morello – We can put more fencing to close the gaps and confine it as best we can.
Carl S – We have to make sure we keep kids and other members of the public out of that site.
Richard Morello – Will send a check for $5k until get more reports & documentation.
MOTION to modify the current EO to cover continued sampling & investigation & ensure work follows DEP & EPA regulations & addresses the imminent hazard reports & production of frequent communication status reports by July 20 effective thru July 30 – Paul / John / Unam
HEARINGS:
CAMP DENISON MANAGEMENT PLAN
Reps: Bob Gorton, CDC; Ross Povenmire, Boxford Conservation Commission Agent
Ross P – Sent a comment letter. Are interested within 100’ of pond as per the MOU. We want to help make projects possible, not be an impediment to progress. When there are are routine maintenance items to cover, if can be described in the Management Plan it can go into an OoC lasting for years & we won’t need to keep coming back to them. This could be covered as part of a Vegetation Management Plan – any action consistent with that plan would be covered by the OoC.
Carl S – Would that relate just to the 100’ buffer or everywhere?
Ross P – It would have a shelf life of 5 yrs – with 2 1-yr extensions.
Paul N – If that Vegetation Maintenance section were tight enough could get along without ECs.
Ross P – It could cover key points in a broad way but also limited in some ways like no heavy equip within certain distance etc- bright lines of limitation would define the work possible.
The EC could say “within areas of active use” etc. BCC is in the process of developing a comprehensive approach to the management of all water areas Baldpate Pond has both invasive species & unique species. Are trying to address that & control it. They would be pleased to work with the CDC & be a partner in those control efforts. The Management Plan could speak to that. There should be municipal co-operation in protection of Baldpate Pond – CD is a key part of the eco-system.
Bob G – Bob Morehouse wrote the management plan in ’98. It was approved by the BCC & GCC then. It needs revisions & dates on the documents as we go forward.
Paul N / Bob G – The visitor log is not enforceable. Don’t include it.
Carl S - As far as the preservation aspects of Baldpate Pond go, the overt purpose of the plan is to make sure the pond doesn’t degrade.
3.c.10 what level of approval does BCC want? 100’ or further notification? CDC doesn’t have to file with them except within their buffer but their comments are welcome on anything. Where the plan says BCC has final acceptance of the management plan,that means they are an important part of the dialogue.
Ross P – We have joint permitting responsibility. It hasn’t been clear HOW permitting will be executed. BCC says 90% of the time the management plan will cover it so their responsibility will be covered already. But other activities, like construction of new structures, renovation of buildings, etc will mean a new filing & permitting. We need to talk about how do that – with co-ordination to minimize the burden on the CDC.
Bob G – Are thinking of starting the director’s house. Needs building permits etc. If use it for large groups of kids the porch isn’t large or strong enough. Add cantilevered supports to enlarge?
Carl S – That needs planning & a proposal.
Paul N – That’s a good example of how communication before the fact is needed.
Carl S – That needs a proposal & documentation . There’s also a funding question.
Bob G – We also needs $150 for a WiW scholarship for a Georgetown family.
MOTION to supply CDC with $150 for a WiW scholarship – Paul / Tom / Unam
Carl S – The review period – could be annual but flexible. We can massage the statement - add “as needed” - to make it flexible. Also need to define the Management Plan approval routing chain.
Paul N – re-interated that the review of the Management Plan needs to be a scheduled activity. Also, that changes to the Short Term Activities, Long Term Activities and Accomplishments would occur between actual Plan review dates.
For permits – if the project is large scale, large impact, and / or near the water GCC should be involved. Otherwise leave it to Mike DeFeo.
Paul N – need a `permit form’ – maybe one for minor activities and another for major activities that the ConCom would be involved with.
No smoking.
Additional land abutting CD is being pursued.
Ross P – The public boat ramp on the other side is off a public way, could post signs for CD there too. Would need to talk to state about putting signage there.
Alcohol – Not usually allowed at state / local areas, but is still an open issue.
Bob G – Alcohol would be permitted for family picnic situations only.
Carl S – It can be investigated.
Ross P – The next BCC meeting is on July 7.
MOTION continue to July 28, 05 at 7:30 – John / Tom / Unam
192 NORTH STREET IRRIGATION (GCC-2003-066)
Reps: Jay Billings, NE GeoScience; Mark Mastrianni, Pulte Homes
Public: Don Bade – Parker River Clean Water Association
Jay B – Have reproduced the tests of January 05.
Paul N – Is the recovery degrading as pumping goes on? Comparing piezometer data to recovery isn’t meaningful. How do we know you aren’t draining the aquifer?
Carl S – It’s a challenge to know where the water is coming from. If you pump more it could overwhelm the aquifer’s capacity.
Jay B – Irrigation is seasonal, it will re-charge off season. Pumping well data says it is a very good well.
Mark M - We have been here a number of times & haven’t shown that the wells are connected to the wetland. Fig 4 shows it going slightly down.
Carl S – Seems pretty close. We’re trying to interpret the future, determining what confidence we have in the data. What will it look like in 10 yrs?
Jay B – We have brought more data from a longer testing period.
Carl S – The data looks better this time.
Jay B – The drawdown & recovery curves are exactly what we expected to see.
Mark M – This is a fair solution for everyone. We don’t want to overwater, just want to provide irrigation for the development. At the April 18 meeting we suggested 1.4” / week (based on pervious acreage to water). We also showed .4” per week and also the average, which was very close to the test we just did. We want an average of 1” per week.
Jay B – 100k gal / day requires a state permit according to the Water Management Act.
Carl S – You shouldn’t be watering more than a golf course.
Jay B – There are physical limitations preventing that. It’s only a 7.5 hp pump with single phase power – less than a hose.
Carl S – 7k is too low, 20k is too high, we’re looking for 18k.
Mark M- We need an amended order of conditions.
Carl S – How can you guarantee any future management company will follow this agreement?
Jay B – It can’t physically be increased, the pipe is too small.
Carl S – The data is as good as we can get without a year long test.
Paul N – We can issue an amended OoC with perpetual conditions.
Carl S – Is this a significant change? If we say yes, the it documents the well on-site & defines the conditions.
Mark M – We are looking for approval to use the irrigation well. If we need to condition the flow we can do that.
Paul N – The special perpetual conditions have to go into the CoC for the future. This seems out of context w/ Carl’s next statement as we haven’t produced a CoC yet.
Carl S – If we don’t say it’s amended we can’t add perpetual conditions for the well.
Jay B – The well can’t produce more water because of the narrow dimension of the pipe embedded in the rock.
Mark M – All conservation technologies have gone into this system. We can put conditions on it to make it reasonable so the residents have a system that works.
Paul N - The data looks good but water tables are dropping all thru town. We have to make sure this isn’t impacting that. Comfortable with this data. Kind of out of context, but reflects how I feel. Open issue would be to determine exactly where the water is coming from and recharge issues, but that could be a major undertaking that no one is going to attempt unless forced to and there is not enough info for us to try to make that happen at this point.
Carl S – How does water get back into a deep aquifer? Water that drains into this area doesn’t recharge this aquifer.
Jay B - Precipitation comes down through the sand & gravel and enters through fractures in the rock
Don Bade (Parker River Clean Water Assoc) – Is there containment of the irrigation process to control pesticide runoff? Is it staying away from the river?
Jay B – This is way outside the buffer area. It meets stormwater regulationss. We shouldn’t have runoff if the irrigation is done properly.
Don Bade – If you’re putting pesticides on they will run off.
Jay B – The lawns are being managed by a single company of professionals, not 75 separate home owners. 1/3 property is currently landscaped.
Don Bade – Is it too late to use a grass substitute?
Jay B – Yes. The landscaper knows more water can’t come up from that pump so they are working to make the plantings more drought resistant.
MOTION that the data presented constitutes a significant change to the existing OoC. A new OoC will be issued adding restrictions on irrigation – that is, it will be limited to what can be pulled from the pump and the max number of inches of watering allowed (1.5)
– Paul / John / Unam
GEORGETOWN SHOPPING CENTER HOLDING TANK (GCC-2005-011)
Reps: James Dolansky, Seekamp Environmental; Linda Meiggs, Lisco Development; George Zamboras, Atlantic Engineering
MOTION to continue to July 14 at 7:35 – Tom / John / Unam
HEATHER ROAD WATER MAIN EXTENSION (GCC-2005-010)
Reps: William Simons, Mabbett Associates; George Zamboras, Atlantic Engineering
MOTION to accept the plan dated June 28, 2005 without accepting the wetland delineation. The agent will conduct additional site walks to verify the silt fencing placement. – Paul / Tom / Unam
MOTION to close the hearing – John / Tom / Unam
MOTION to adjourn – Tom / John / Unam
| 
