SUMMARY
GCC MEETING MINUTES
June 29, 2006
Attending: Carl Shreder, Mark Gauthier, Charles Waters, John Bell, Mike Birmingham, Paul Nelson, Steve Przyjemski, Laura Repplier
BUSINESS
CAMP DENISON APPOINTMENT
MOTION to appoint Joseph Levesque as Camp Denison Manager, contingent on receipt of clear CORI and SORI checks – John / Paul / 5 Yes, 1 Abstain
PENTUCKET POND FANWORT
NHESP gave approval for a full pond treatment for 2 years. Assess – Treat – Assess – Treat
OPEN SPACE
Acorn Way & Emma Harris Way – Steve recommends that GCC does not accept these open space parcels as they are either too wet or not accessible. Wet parcels are protected by the Wetlands Protection Act; parcels without access cannot be used by the public but might be useful to a neighborhood association.
HEARINGS
20 MEADOWVIEW ROAD (GCC-2006-12; DEP 161-0641) NOI (Cont)
Replacement of septic system for existing single family dwelling within 50’ of BVW.
The applicant’s engineer submitted a new plan showing the system moved back from the BVW closer to the road. This would require the removal of a number of large trees. The Commission requested that he look into moving the shed (on cement blocks) to accommodate the system farther from the resources in question.
4 ROSEMARIE LANE (GCC-2005-34; DEP 161-0637) NOI (Cont)
Convert an existing deck into a sunroom with a deck addition including the addition of a retaining wall for slope stabilization within 5 feet of a BVW.
The applicant submitted new plans moving the deck farther from the BVW and eliminating the retaining wall. It was agreed to accept the plan with an additional replication plan for the slope.
66 THURLOW STREET (GCC-2006-04) ANRAD (Cont)
Review over 3,800 linear feet of delineated Resource Area.
Applicant requested a continuation.
25 BAILEY LANE (GCC-2006-16) NOI (Cont)
Construct a gravel access driveway with associated grading and filling within 60’ of a BVW and within an NHESP endangered species area.
The applicant is currently under an Enforcement Order to cease and desist all filling and grading on site and to permanently block a road being used within 25’ of a BVW and the Parker River. Discussion centered on the delineation of the riverbank, which will be completed before the next hearing.
47 WEST STREET (TIDDS JUNK YARD)
The owner of the property and his new LSP (Licensed Site Professional) gave the Commission an update on activities and progress in the clean-up of the site. The Commission expressed concern that extensive soil sampling had been carried out without prior notification of the GCC. An Enforcement Order on the property indicates that no work should be conducted on site. The GCC was not notified of the sampling work and was therefore not present or represented when the sampling was done. The LSP submitted a new report re. contamination levels (from the new sampling) that indicates that the levels have dropped dramatically. The Commission questioned the validity of this testing. The owner will not conduct further testing without notifying the GCC beforehand. The owner must also get
direction from the DEP before proceeding. A new NOI will be drawn up to cover the remainder of the clean-up.
DETAILS
GCC MEETING MINUTES
June 29, 2006
Attending: Carl Shreder, Mark Gauthier, Charles Waters, John Bell, Mike Birmingham, Paul Nelson, Steve Przyjemski, Laura Repplier
GENERAL BUSINESS
MINUTES
MOTION to approve minutes of June 15 as amended– Paul / Mike / 5 Aye, 1 Abstain
CAMP DENISON APPOINTMENT
MOTION to appoint Joseph Levesque as Camp Denison Manager asap, contingent on receipt of clear CORI and SORI checks – John / Paul / 5 Yes, 1 Abstain
PENTUCKET POND FANWORT
NHESP gave approval for a full pond treatment for 2 years. Assess – Treat – Assess – Treat
OPEN SPACE
Acorn Way & Emma Harris Way – Steve recommends that GCC does not accept these open space parcels as they are either too wet or not accessible. Wet parcels are protected by the Wetlands Protection Act; parcels without access cannot be used by the public but might be useful to a neighborhood association.
HEARINGS
20 MEADOWVIEW ROAD (GCC-2006-12; DEP 161-0641) NOI (Cont)
Rep: Bob Grasso, Professional Land Services
MOTION to continue to 8:00 on July 13 – John / Mike / Unam
4 ROSEMARIE LANE (GCC-2005-34; DEP 161-0637) NOI (Cont)
Reps: John Paulson, Atlantic Engineering; Joseph Cifuni, Owner
John Paulson – We have revised plans as the applicant decided to submit new plans. The flood storage was in front of the wall but has been altered. We have taken the wall out and that removed the requirement for flood storage. We are planning to make the deck into a 3-season porch on the other side. The existing deck is 41.8’ from the wetland, the new deck is 43’ away – we are more or less maintaining the distance from the resource. There is one infiltrator to handle the increase in runoff from the roof.
Mark G, GCC – What about the erosion plantings we discussed before?
Joseph Cifuni, Owner – We are not doing that. There is stuff growing there now, we’ll let that continue.
Carl S, GCC – You could add groundcover for additional erosion cover.
Joseph Cifuni, Owner – Paul Nelson said that the problem is with sheet flow rather than eroding flow. So we’ll go with that assessment.
John Paulson, Atlantic Engineering – This slope is not as extreme as others that have eroded. Will water runoff over the course of time change it so we have to come back to GCC? We don’t know. It might happen & they will need to stabilize it later but it may never happen. The wall would have stabilized it forever but the GCC didn’t want a wall there.
Carl S, GCC - If you have enough plantings there you could safeguard that.
Paul N, GCC – There were cuttings from small trees etc when we went on the site visit. That’s what you need for erosion control – you need to have that sort of cover on that slope to guarantee against erosion.
Steve P, GCC Agent – You haven’t changed the distance to the wetland – now the stairs are closer to the wetland.
Joseph Cifuni, Owner – They’re just an access to the driveway. We did get rid of the wraparound deck.
Mike B, GCC – With exception of stairs, nothing comes closer to the wetland?
John Paulson, Atlantic Engineering – That’s right.
Mark G, GCC – Is this an all new deck?
Joseph Cifuni, Owner – Yes, your chairman suggested at the last meeting to take the deck straight across, so we did.
Paul N, GCC – Can we get plantings to stabilize the slope as a compromise for the deck?
Steve P, GCC Agent – That can go into the OoC & I will work with the applicant to work out the best plan.
Joseph Cifuni, Owner - What’s the difference between plantings & natural weeds?
Paul N, GCC – Proper plantings will hold it better & keep the slope more stabilized.
Steve P, GCC Agent – We aren’t talking a lot of plants, just enough & maybe a seed mix to add more stabilization. We are giving a variance from 50’ to 43’ from the regulations so this is a tradeoff.
John B, GCC – And the area had been cleared when we went on site visit. We saw the cut saplings.
Mark G, GCC – The whole deck is an addition to the footprint. What we would like to see in return is for you to stabilize the slope.
Carl S, GCC - It’s a simple tradeoff. We’re just trying to make sure that slope does stay stable. The OoC could address it.
John Paulson, Atlantic Engineering – This is a variance but considering the area is an existing structure within the 50’ No-Disturb Zone … it is in an area already being used. The slope is there, it is being maintained, why do we need plantings to be maintained?
Mark G, GCC – We said a planting was a good way to approach that erosion control & the wall wasn’t necessary.
John Paulson, Atlantic Engineering – As long as there is a limit to how much we might have to work it out later – give us a maximum we might have to deal with.
Charles W, GCC – Steve is talking about something very rudimentary, some blueberries, seed mix, etc. It won’t be extremely expensive.
MOTION to accept the plan dated 6/16/06 and issue an OoC with a replication scheme to be designed with the agent – Paul / Mike / Unam
MOTION to close the hearing – Paul / Mike / Unam
66 THURLOW STREET (GCC-2006-04) ANRAD (Cont)
MOTION to continue to 7:30 on Sept 21 – Paul / Mike / Unam
25 BAILEY LANE (GCC-2006-16) NOI (Cont)
Reps: Mark & Pam Unger, Owners; Bob Grasso, Professional Land Services
Bob Grasso, PLS – The EO led to this NOI. The site is 13.9 acres abounding the Parker River. Seekamp flagged the wetlands with an A series of flags & a B series. There is an existing SFH with a paved drive. The drive continues as gravel to the rear of the house. There is also an existing storage area for equipment. The 100’ buffer is shown on the plan. There is a fairly flat area at the back with an existing underground water service for new tree plantings at the back. There is a clear-cut flat area at back with a significant slope in the tree line down to the wetland. We propose to remove the dirt pathway out of the 50’ No-Cut Zone to within the 75’ buffer. The type of drive we are proposing is gravel with a grass strip in middle so
it would be pervious surface for re-charge. The impact would be less than a paved area.
The property is in the Zone II Public Drinking Water Supply Area so the Special Conditions of the regulations apply – including the firm 100’ No-Cut Zone.
Mike B, GCC – The Parker River has a 200’ riverfront buffer.
Bob Grasso, PLS – That 200’ line is way inside the 100’ buffer.
Steve P, GCC Agent – It appears that the 200’ was taken from the center of the river. It should be taken from the bank. You need to address the bank & not the center line.
Mark Unger, Owner – The NOI was required after the EO. This was an old gravel area that I started filling on my own. My intention is to keep filling – these trees are at 94’ – I would like to continue to the edge of field – it goes from 92 – 84’ elevation. My intention was to fill to meet the old grade. The driveway was a nice level road used to access the back – but it is within the 50’ No-Cut Zone. I want to have access to the back area so I can use my land. Putting the road between the well & house and the kids’ play area wouldn’t be good. I would rather drive behind the trees there.
Carl S, GCC – Are you driving up the driveway anyway?
Mark Unger, Owner – Yes, this area is sloped – the old road was on the level area. Closer to the house it becomes steeper. I don’t think it will damage the wetland as it will be over 50’ away & we’ll maintain the area as lawn to retain the pervious area.
Carl S, GCC – How do you propose filling without causing erosion getting into the resource area. There is a steep slope in that area.
Bob Grasso, PLS – It is steep, we want to pick up the grade, loam & seed it and maximize the berm. It is a steep slope which would continuously erode. Rip rap is a possibility. We will take the slope out & utilize the driveway here, and blend it into the existing slope to stop the erosion.
Paul N, GCC – We’re talking about a tremendous amount of fill – I have been to this site numerous times. There is a good sized groove where the road is so we’re talking about a serious amount of fill.
Carl S, GCC – How much fill?
Bob Grasso, PLS – We haven’t calculated that.
Paul N, GCC – Most of that is in the No-Disturb Area.
Bob Grasso, PLS – That’s right.
Steve P, GCC Agent – The EO is going as planned. They are compliant re. their replanting scheme.
Mark G, GCC – Where is the maintained lawn in the 50’ No-Disturb Area?
Steve P, GCC Agent – It’s actually a mowed wetland. It would regenerate as a wetland if it were not mowed.
Paul N, GCC – A lot of this plan is based on riparian & wetland lines. We have to establish where those lines are.
Steve P, GCC Agent – The applicant should flag the river bank first so the third party can check the flags rather than having to come back again after it’s done.
Mark Unger, Owner – The river is 6’ at its widest. This 200’ Buffer Zone has no impact on what I’m doing. Identifying the riverbank doesn’t serve a purpose.
Mark G, GCC – Steve thought it was much wider than that. We should find out. It is in your interest to have it all agreed at the beginning.
Mark Unger, Owner - It’s about 50’ from the 200’ Buffer Zone so it would have to be way off to meet that.
Carl S, GCC – We can’t approve plans without knowing what is out there. You should go back to your consultant, flag the river & our consultant will check it.
Mark Unger, Owner – How will you find it with the water so high?
Paul N, GCC – There is a defined way to identify that. The consultants will know how to do it.
MOTION for site walk on July 22 at 9:30 – Mike / Paul / Unam
MOTION for 3rd party review as contracted by agent – Paul / John / Unam
MOTION to continue to July 27 at 8:30 – Mike / John / Unam
47 WEST STREET
Reps: Richard Morello, Owner; Mark Paquin, Principal; Edward Cobbett, LSP; Jim Luker, Gale Associates
Edward Cobbett, LSP – Richard Morello asked me to take over the site. The information had been gathered but had not been given anywhere. I went back to the Simmons Environmental data, put it together, extracted as much information from the previous consultation as I could. I filed an IRA plan with the DEP for the PCB area – there is not an imminent hazard as originally thought as there was a lab malfunction. I put together a plan for the Phase II Scope of Work (SOW).
Steve P, GCC Agent – I gave the 14 page report summary to the Commissioners.
Edward Cobbett, LSP – I have been to the site to collect groundwater samples, we just got the preliminary results today. I took the data & went back to the wells. I sampled all the wells that had not been sampled in the past and sampled others for additional data. The results say the groundwater metals include one exc of cadmium .005 it the threshold, this one was .008 – but that result could be different & below that on another day. For volatile compounds (VOC) I sampled 5 wells, none had any VOCs in excess of the standard. For the EPA groundwater – I sampled 12 wells – all passed. I tested the groundwater for PCBs – 14 wells were tested and all passed. The aquifer is intact. There is no groundwater contamination from this site. There were a lot of questions from the DEP re the garage and the use of de-greasers on the top floor of the barn. The bottom floor is concrete & rubble. We drilled 8 holes in the concrete and collected soil samples. There were no detectable
volatiles at all. The soil from the former dismantling area, the fire area, and the area along the swale is going to be taken 6-8” off top & tested.
Carl S, GCC – The DEP is talking about additional grid samples. Was that done?
Edward Cobbett, LSP – Yes, along the swale of the wetland area. The rest of the soil is going off site any way. For all soil in the delineated areas the top 6-8” will be taken off site.
Carl S, GCC – There were cars all in the woods – they were all in that area as well.
Edward Cobbett, LSP – The PCBs did not come from cars but from other activities in that area. The groundwater is surprising clean. Sampling wells were drilled from 5 – 14’. The Phase II SOW has gone to the DEP. We also need to sample for particulate airborne matter.
Paul N, GCC – After the last year we reviewed there were contamination hot spots & the DEP proposed a very tight sampling matrix– now you’re saying it’s totally different & “nothing” is out there – and the DEP agrees?
Edward Cobbett, LSP – When you start sampling things a lot of guys go for the dollar … will go to the cheapest lab with less QC. The PCB reading was a lab contamination.
Paul N, GCC – Weren’t the PCBs from the fire?
Richie Morello, Owner – No, there was none near where they said they were.
Carl S, GCC – You get dioxins from burned PCBs – that’s where that came from.
Edward Cobbett, LSP / Richie Morello, Owner – We plan on removing all contaminated soil.
Paul N, GCC – How do you know what soil to remove?
Richie Morello, Owner – That’s what the testing tells us.
Paul N, GCC – The DEP came back and requested a 5’ grid last year & Mr. Morello didn’t want to do it.
Richie Morello, Owner – We do want to get this done.
James Luker, Gale Associates – I prepared 2 memos on those SOW documents. I haven’t seen any comments from the DEP. I need something in writing. The last information from them was that there are significant data gaps that they need fixed. With the PCB contamination – under the proposed plan I took 5 samples in the contamination area. It was proposed to take the soil to a lined landfill but 2.18 ppb is above the limit the landfill will allow. We will have 150 yards of PCB impacted material from the stormdrain on site. I’m not convinced the PCB levels will be below the levels required.
Richie Morello, Owner – The pile he’s talking about went to Waste Management in Rochester, NH.
Jim Luker, Gale Associates – We don’t want the same situation to happen again. We have low levels of PCBs up to 4 pts / mill. Do we doubt their assertion that the site is clean?
Carl S, GCC – Statistically, if we’re getting 5 hits above levels we will be averaging above the set point.
Jim Luker, Gale Assoc – What will the average level be once it is all stockpiled? The removed soil can’t go to a landfill if it’s too high.
Steve P, GCC Agent – There should be no activity on this site at all. This testing and soil removal is in violation of the EO. The GCC should’ve been notified of testing so our representative wasn’t there when they tested. Originally the site was extremely contaminated & now they say it’s clean – what happened?
Carl S, GCC – We need to communicate re. what you are doing & where we’re going with this.
Jim Luker, Gale Assoc – How do you propose to get rid of piles with concentrations over 2 ppm?
Edward Cobbett, LSP – It depends where you send it – a lined landfill, for thermal treatment…
Jim Luker, Gale Assoc – The IRA plan to treat the problem area is just a small piece of the whole project. Not a holistic view. The RAM plan originally was very different from now.
Carl S, GCC – The OoC was worked out over a long period of time, but was not followed and now it has expired.
Steve P, GCC Agent – We were not given any information about how many times you have been on site – each one was a violation. We were not informed until after the fact. We are supposed to be informed beforehand.
Edward Cobbett, LSP – I read the EO & the OoC & didn’t see why I couldn’t collect samples.
Steve P, GCC Agent – The EO specifically said not to do anything on site, and to inform us if you wanted to do something.
Carl S, GCC – We need to know what you are proposing out there & why. We can’t do that without communication.
Jim Luker, Gales Assoc – The Phase II SOW didn’t say to go by a geo-physical method, it was recommended for the RAM plan approved by DEP. The Electro-magnetic survey should have been done which Valerie (DEP) insisted on. There was no sampling of sentinel wells – the lapse of time meant they should have been sampled periodically to make sure nothing has changed. The contamination under the building was not seen in the SOW but was additional. 27’ grid sampling was in approval of the RAM plan the DEP wanted – was it to be done in the RAM plan or PhII SOW?
Edward Cobbett, LSP – You can’t go onto a junk yard with a metal detector. Once you get the soil off the site Mr Morello said he would dig test pits for further testing.
Jim Luker, Gale Assoc – Again, verbal promises are made and then things are done differently. We need a set plan re what we’re doing.
Edward Cobbett, LSP – That’s the RAM plan modification.
Carl S, GCC – I need to see DEP endorsement of that.
Richie Morello, Owner – I want that too.
Edward Cobbett, LSP - Particulate sampling for PCBs, volatiles (risk assessor said that was a waste of time)
Carl S, GCC – Who’s doing the risk assessment?
Jim Luker, Gale Assoc – According to regulations, we need to do PhII and as we’re so closed to the wetland we also need a PhII ecological assessment. I haven’t seen that in the proposal. No eco-risk has been done. They took soil out of the retention area & found it had PCBs & dioxins in that soil – that came out of the resource area.
Steve P, GCC Agent – The original NOI was to clean up some cars, we had no idea what we would find. We need to look at the big picture anew. That OoC didn’t deal with the clean up we found we needed to do.
Paul N, GCC – We need to write an OoC that deals with what we know to be the situation now. We need a new NOI.
Steve P, GCC Agent – I can’t say we can be comfortable with the testing results if our representative wasn’t there.
Carl S, GCC – The EO was to regulate activities on site. We needed to be kept advised of what was happening on site.
Steve P, GCC Agent – They are asking us to accept samples they took when we weren’t there. Our representative isn’t comfortable with it. Some samples were initially high & then came in low - why?
Jim Luker, Gale Assoc – I would rather the applicant spent their money to deal with the contamination. It doesn’t really matter if they’re taking it all out of there anyway.
Steve P, GCC Agent – How do we know we shouldn’t be taking out much more?
Jim Luker, Gale Assoc – The more soil you take out the better. I think there is a lot of contamination out there.
Richie Morello, Owner – Does the facility take it? They need the data to decide. We want to move asap on this soil removal.
Jim Luker, Gale Assoc – The applicant spent their money on a survey but Mr. Cobbett hasn’t worked within that survey. It’s important moving forward that we have survey controls so we know where everything is on the site.
Paul N, GCC – How do we go forward?. How do we determine that we have no more hot spots out there?
Jim Luker, Gale Assoc – We need more grid sampling throughout the site. There could be an imminent hazard area somewhere. Once that is gone you can take that soil away but how do we know where it is to begin with?
Paul N, GCC - Many areas have not been sampled at all.
Richie Morello, Owner – We used information from a 1950s survey regarding where they did the auto dis-assembly on the site.
Carl S, GCC – These are all reasons why we need a new NOI. We want to improve the violations history on this project.
Edward Cobbett, LSP – That’s no problem. There has been too much back & forth on this matter.
Harry LaCortiglia, Resident, 144 Jewett Street – I was one of the chief writers of the original OoC as a member of the Con Comm. Six months after the original OoC we saw the first of these violations – that led to a series of EOs. The GCC should get away from the EO cycle & go into the NOI process. The GCC is being asked to move forward with sampling & soil removal. You need to regulate that. Do not allow any activities – including sampling - until the OoC has been issued.
Paul N, GCC – The whole project was in limbo for a year. The onus was on the developer to get back to us to initiate activities on the site – that was not up to the GCC.
Jim Luker, Gale Assoc – This site is already over the 5-year window for clean-up. They have an extension but could be fined for not moving on it.
Carl S, GCC – We want you to file a new NOI.
Steve P, GCC Agent – We can leave the cease & desist in place at the same time until the new OoC is issued.
Mark G, GCC – We should know what fines have accumulated.
Steve P, GCC Agent – I’ll bring that information together.
Charles W, GCC – If this is a repeat violation we can’t continue to waive fines.
Paul N, GCC – Make sure Jim Luker is still involved in anything that goes on out there.
Steve P, GCC Agent – We also need more money in the monitoring account.
Edward Cobbett, LSP – We never received a copy of Jim Luker’s review of the SOW.
Jim Luker, Gale Assoc – I will send that to you.
GCC – We all need to communicate.
Steve P, GCC Agent – There has to be grid sampling of the site. We can’t go by historical stories of where activities were. This whole site was covered in debris. The DEP wanted a tight sampling grid. We can come to an agreement that is acceptable and addresses our concerns for the area.
Carl S, GCC – Or it can be done on a statistical basis. Take random samples & work out what we had from that.
Edward Cobbett, LSP – If there was any kind of catastrophic release on property it would have shown up in the groundwater. The water table is high there so we have to conclude there isn’t a lot of soil contamination there. And we’re taking a good portion of the soil offsite. PCBs don’t move in water. Volatiles show up in water – they show up for a long time when they get under the ground. Every well on site was sampled.
Carl S, GCC – We need a new NOI. There must be communication. We must address the sampling issues & work out a plan that is satisfactory to us, the applicant & the DEP. We can close the EO when we have an OoC in place. Then we’ll use another NOI for the construction phase. The NOI needs to address – all the cleanup (including outside the 100’ buffer zone), wetland issues, any we may need a new resource delineation.
Edward Cobbett, LSP – We are going to finish with the DEP first, then come back to you with the NOI. To complete we need to sample one well for volatiles, & another. The RAM plan has already been approved by the DEP.
Steve P, GCC Agent – The GCC hasn’t held up this project. There has not been a project manager.
Time does matter here –this is on the edge of our wells. That’s our drinking water. We do need to get this moving forward asap.
Carl S, GCC – They need to get straight with the DEP first.
| 
