beagenda

MINUTES

&nb= sp;

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/

INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

WATERTOWN, <= st1:State w:st=3D"on">CT

&nb= sp;

THURSDAY= , OCTOBER 11, 2007

WATERTOWN HIGHSCHOOL TECHNOLOGY CENTER

&nb= sp;

APPLICATION #610 – HENLOPEN MANUFACTURING

&nb= sp;

Members Present: &nbs= p; Mr. Donato Orsini, Vice Chairman (Chairman)

= &nb= sp; = Mr. Ed Undercuffler (Secretary)

= &nb= sp; = Mr. Joe Polletta

= &nb= sp; =

Memb= ers Absent: = Mr. Jim Zawadzki, Chai= rman

= &nb= sp; = Mr. Glen Dupliese

= &nb= sp; = Mr. Tom Murphy, Secretary

= &nb= sp; = Mr. Tony DiBona

Alternates Present: = ; Ms. Denise Russ – Sitting in for Mr. Glen Dupliese

= &nb= sp; = Mr. Scott Marotta – Sitting in for Mr. Jim Zawadzki

= ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp;

Alternates Absent: = ; Mr. Greg Hawes

Others Present: &n= bsp; = ; Mr. Moosa Rafey, Assis= tant Wetlands Enforcement Officer

= &nb= sp; = Mr. Chuck Berger, Town Engineer

= &nb= sp; = Mr. Chris Allan from Land Tech Consultants, Inc.

&nb= sp;

1. = Call Meeting To Order

Mr. Orsini, Vice Chairman, Called the Public Hearing to Order at about 7:15 p.m= .

2. &nb= sp; Roll Call

Mr. Undercuffler, Commission Member, executed the Roll Call.<= /p>

Mr. Orsini, Vice Chairman, read the ground rules for the record as follows:

“GROUND RULES FOR CONSERVATION COMMISSION/=

IN= LAND WETLANDS AGENCY”

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #610 – HENLOPEN MANUFACTURING

OCTOBER = 11, 2007

Page 2

The appl= icant or his representative will make his formal presentation to the commiss= ion stating the proposed regulated activities, the wetland impacts, and the alternatives which were considered by the applicant.=

All comm= ents, discussion and observations shall be made through the Chair after prop= er recognition by the Chairman. This is necessary to ensure that only one person at a time speaks on any issue, thus making it easier for everyo= ne to understand and for clearer legal transcription.

All pers= ons addressing the Commission shall begin by first clearly stating their n= ame and address for the record. If necessary, the person may be asked to s= pell his name for the record.

Followin= g the presentation of the application, the Conservation Commission Inland Wetland Agency will ask specific questions of the applicant.

After the Commission has asked its questions of the applicant, I shall then allow any members of the public who wishes to speak either in favor of this application or against it to address the Commission.=

I shall = then allow the applicant to respond to the comments of the members of the general public.

I shall = then allow any members of the general public who wish to present any additi= onal information or clarifying discussion to do so.

I shall = then provide an opportunity for the applicant to respond to these additional remarks if he or his representative so wishes.

The Conservation Commission/Inland Wetland Agency has thirty five days from the date the public hearing commences to complete the public hearing. = The Commission may ask the applicant for a thirty five day extension of the public hearing period if the commission requires any additional information or wishes to schedule a site walk to observe the situation= for themselves.

The Conservation Commission/Inland Wetland Agency has thirty five days from the date when the Public Hearing is closed to render its decision.

3. &n= bsp; Hearing of Cases=

&= nbsp; A. &n= bsp; Continuation of the Public Hearing from September 13, 2007 - Application #610 of Henlopen Manufacturing for wetland remediation and restoration at <= st1:address w:st=3D"on">401 Park Road, Watertown, CT.

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #610 – HENLOPEN MANUFACTURING

OCTOBER = 11, 2007

Page 3

The Public Hearing must be closed by October 19, 2007 unless applicant grants an extension of time.

Disc= ussion:

&nbs= p;

Jim Pfeifer, Environmental Resourc= es Management

Mr. Pfeifer: I’m here on be= half of Henlopen Manufacturing. First of all I think we owe you guys some public notification information that Moosa was looking for. I’m not sure whe= re to start on this, it’s a continuation. Do you want me to go through a= gain on the background?

Mr. Orsini: If you’d like t= o go briefly through it that is fine.

Mr. Pfeifer: Ok sure. For anyone = who is here to hear this. We are in the middle of an environmental clean up at Henlopen Manufacturing. ERM has been there on this project for six years. During Henlopen’s active 10 year in Watertown as a manufacturer there were some discharges of solvents that were used as = part of their operation. I have been the licensed environmental professional on = this project as I said for the last 6 years. We are probably 85% complete with o= ur investigation and remediation of this site. One of the big pieces of this remediation is the clean up of a wetland area that is on the property. We h= ave fully investigated this area and we have a defined clean up that we have presented to the board as part of the application for the wetland permit. We are really looking at this as we are going to be doing some damage to this wetland, for some short term damage to a long term benefit since we are cleaning up hazardous materials that have been discharged to this wetland o= ver the last 20 years or so. We are here to get the boards approval on conducti= ng this cleanup. It is part of a larger overall site remediation project that = is really being driven by the state of Connecticut and the remediation standard regulations. This is what we have to do by law based of the concentrations of solvents that are in the ground. We have loo= ked at various ways of addressing this issue and have come to the realization t= hat the only real way to address this is to remove and then restore the wetland= as best as possible to its pre-remedial conditions.

&= nbsp; Anne McManomy, Environmental Resource= s Management

Ms. McManomy: I’m a scienti= st on the project team. Since we met with you last time we did receive and the bo= ard did approve a letter from Land Tech Consultants dated October 3, 2007. When= we responded the next morning October 4, 2007 there were no real substantial issues raised, I believe the actually said it was a very thorough applicati= on. We also wanted to discuss that peer review and our responses to it this eve= ning and hopefully work towards completely the review of this remedial action.

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #610 – HENLOPEN MANUFACTURING

OCTOBER = 11, 2007

Page 4

Mr. Rafey: Do you want to go thro= ugh some of the issues that Mr. Allan raised in his report? If you want to resp= ond to those for the record?

Ms. McManomy: Sure. He made 7 com= ments that he numbered. One through 5 were actually factual comments about the contents and his opinion of the thoroughness and adequateness of those components. Do you want me to go through each of those?

Mr. Orsini: If you would.

Ms. McManomy: The first comment i= s that “The wetland boundary as flagged in the field and as depicted on the figures on the application report appea= r to be accurate”. So we accept that comment. Number two, “The appli= cant’s documents provide a thorough description of the existing wetland conditions= in the assessment of wetland functions and values and we concur with these sta= ted findings”. Number three, “We agree with report findings that the removal of contaminated soils and restoration of the impacted wetlands will have an overall long term environmental benefit that will outweigh temporary wetland impacts”. Number four, “The proposed restoration has be= en designed in accordance with the US Army Core of Engineers New England District Level Mitigation Plan Guideline= s. The plan includes such measures as re-creating micro-topography, replacing = the surface boulders and wood debris and re-planting with native material in an attempt to re-create as closely as possible existing wetland conditionsR= 21;. Number 5, “Since the wetland restoration will also be regulated by th= e US Army Core of Engineers, monitoring reports must be prepared by the applicant for a minimum of a 5 year period following the restoration. According to the applicant report, these annual monitoring reports will be forwarded to the = Watertown inland, = wetlands commission”. We will work on some conditional if you’d like to. Number 6 and 7 were ones that we wanted to speak to and we did in our respo= nse letter. Number six is about de-watering, “Up to 4 feet of soil may be= removed from the wetlands. It’s likely that some of the de-watering of excavations may be required. It’s recommended that a de-watering area= be specified and that a detail of de-watering area low flow weir or spreader s= wale be provided”. Jim will you speak to this?

Mr. Pfeifer: In terms of dewateri= ng the statement that the excavation is going to be four feet in depth isn’t actually true. There are some areas where we do dig that deep. Based on the data we generated, most of the excavation will be no more than 18 to 24 inc= hes deep with some pockets that are deeper than that going down between 3 and 4 feet. We have not prepared a detailed dewatering plan because we did not anticipate doing any dewatering. We really don’t need to do any dewatering to accomplish what we want to accomplish here. We’re going= to be digging soil out in areas. We are going to collect post excavation area samples in these areas. If water does collect after we’re done with t= his, it’s not something we’re really concerned with. As part of our restoration process any water that’s in

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #610 – HENLOPEN MANUFACTURING

OCTOBER = 11, 2007

Page 5

there isn’t really going to hurt anything. So we really didn’t cover = that in our application and in our actual remedial plan that we submitted to the state. Now with that said if we do have to remove any water at all, which a= gain I don’t

believe we’re going to have to, we will have a discharge permit with the stat= e to discharge water to the sanitary sewer. It is treated water of course which = we would treat through a carbon filter. The process of that would be that we w= ould pump water to a storage tank and from that point treat it and discharge it = to the sanitary sewer under that permit. We have done these types of permit in= the past and similar products and it’s pretty straight forward. This isn’t the type of project that is going to require any significant dewatering so therefore we didn’t really cover it. =

Mr. Polletta: I’d like to a= sk Chris Allan a question. Can you explain to why you recommended it and they = say that they really don’t need it.

Mr. Allan: I believe it was in th= eir application somewhere that they said that they may need to dewater some are= as and I think the process was that they were going to put it into a holding t= ank and then discharge it into a spreader. So if what you’re saying is th= at if you need to dewater it, you’re going to treat it and discharge it = into the sanitary sewer, and there is absolutely no problem with that. The commission may want just to make that a condition of approval. If there is = any dewatering activities, which it is taken care of.

&nbs= p; Mr. Pfeifer: Yes and one of the attachments of the application was the remedial plan indicated and we do intend to handle a= ny water present appropriately. That’s a condition that would be accepta= ble.

&nbs= p; Mr. Polletta: With the material tha= t you remove out of this ground, and I don’t recall what you said, are you going to remove this material offsite, or what will you do with it?

&nbs= p; Mr. Pfeifer: Some of the material w= ill be removed offsite. In particular, most of this material that we remove in this wetland is mostly sand and gravel. This is an upland wetland, it’s no= t 6 feet of muck that we will be digging in. The top 6 – 8 inches of material has a high or= ganic content which isn’t really contusive to treatment on site. One of the remedial options we’ve looked at is…

Mr. Polletta: But it is contamina= ted material right?

Mr. Pfeifer: It is contaminated, = absolutely so the material on the top would normally go offsite more than likely as a hazardous waste. We’ll take a look at that and the data we generate…

&nbs= p; Mr. Polletta: I’ve heard you = say before you were going to clean it on site.

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #610 – HENLOPEN MANUFACTURING

OCTOBER = 11, 2007

Page 6

&nbs= p; Mr. Pfeifer: The deeper material th= at we remove, the foot of sand and gravel that comes out in the deeper material t= hat we have to remove to demonstrate compliance and to get these concentrations down to where they’re acceptable

under the remediation standard regulations. That material is coarser sand and gra= vel and we may treat it on site. We’re still looking at that. That’= s a potential option. If it’s cost affective we’d like to take it a= ll off site because it’s a lot easier and cleaner and there is less questions whether or not it’s going to clean up sufficiently.

&nbs= p; Mr. Polletta: Ok so who makes that decision about who cleans up the material? How much needs to go out and if = you can clean it on site? Is Chris Allan going to be there or someone?

&nbs= p; Mr. Pfeifer: No I’ll make that decision.

Mr. Polletta: You’ll make t= hat decision. Ok then.

&nbs= p; Mr. Pfeifer: Yes this site has been= delegated to me = as the LEP. I need to manage this site in accordance to the RSR. Those types of decisions are absolutely on my time.

Mr. Polletta: Now you are doing t= his work but who is going to check you and make sure you are moving all the stu= ff out of there.

Mr. Pfeifer: Well at the end of t= his whole process, the DEP in Con= necticut, there already is a program where they will look at any work done by an LEP.= So at the end of the day although they say its LEP lead, this is the way this program is set up. I will be checked when this is all said and done.

Mr. Polletta: Last question that = I had, what is the calculation on the total impact on this project?

Mr. Pfeifer: I’m not sure I understand this question.

Mr. Polletta: How much wetland, t= he total calculation of the wetland will be impacted?

Ms. McManomy: It’s 16,040 s= q. feet.

Mr. Polletta: So this had to go b= efore the Army Core of Engineers because it was over the 5,000 sq. feet.

Ms. McManomy: The last comment was number 7, “During the wetland restoration activities we recommend that the small isolated wetland (Wetland B) west of the existing path be connect= ed to the larger eastern wetland (Wetland A)

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #610 – HENLOPEN MANUFACTURING

OCTOBER = 11, 2007

Page 7

through re-grading. Re-grading of the path area between wetland flags B-1/B-5 and A-23/A-24 could rest= ore a surface hydrology connection between the two wetlands and result in a slight gain in wetland area”. So what we’re talking about <= /span>

there is the Wetland A which is a little bit busy, it’s the biggest wetland= on the site, and it’s 16,040 sq. ft. The smaller wetland here that you m= ight have seen walking out of the site on the site visit, the Land Tech Consulta= nts suggest that we might try to in doing work out in the upland review area th= at we might try to make a hydrologic connection in these areas. ERM’s response to that was that we will consider that when we come in with the ne= xt stage. What I mean by that it since we filled this application with you and began the review process, we’ve been continuously collecting data on other portions of this site here and we have just today included that in the collection and know that we are going to need to submit am additional appli= cation to you or remediation in these 3 isolated wetlands, B that we’re spea= king about, then C and D. They are very small areas in comparison to the 16,040, they’re somewhere in the high 2,000 sq. feet, I don’t have an accurate number yet. Hopefully in November we’ll address the remediat= ion on this area and that should comprehensively address the site remediation in wetlands and upland review areas.

Mr. Marotta: With that additional= work, will you notify the Army Core of Engineers of your change in plans?

Ms. McManomy: I have already star= ted that process, and on October 3^rd, the DEP, Army Core, EPA and (inaudible) took up all the projects before them currently and ours was one= of them. I talked to the project manager earlier this week and the agencies ha= ve 10 days to put their comments in writing so we’re awaiting those. He actually was sick that day, and the project manager said he needed to ask w= hat some of their comments were on the file. But we will also be submitting to = them a map of these 3 areas and let them know what our intent was. Well will als= o be submitting an application so that will be in the next couple of weeks.=

Mr. Orsini: Any questions from the public?

Mr. Rafey: Mr. Chairman we have M= r. Allan here if he wants to add anything to satisfy and responses you received from the applicant.

Mr. Allan: I’m fine with th= eir responses, if they want to address that item seven in the next go around that’s fine. They will be coming back to you any way.

Mr. Orsini: Any other questions f= rom the commission? I’d like to get a motion to close the public hearing.=

Mr. Polletta: I’ll move that application #610 that the public hearing be closed.

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #610 – HENLOPEN MANUFACTURING

OCTOBER = 11, 2007

Page 8

Ms. Russ: Second.

&nbs= p; Mr. Orsini: All in favor?

Everyone: I

Mr. Orsini: All opposed?

MOTION: (Mr. Polletta, sec. Ms. Russ) to close Continuation of the Public Hearing from September 13, 2007 - Application #610 of Henlopen Manufacturing for wet= land remediation and restoration at 401 Park Road, Watertown, CT.

MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

Public Hearing Clos= ed at about 7:35 P.M. (no time given).

Respectfully submitted,

Jim Zawadzki, Chairman=

Conservation Commission

Inland/Wetland Agency

&= nbsp; __________________________________

&= nbsp; Jennifer Guerrera, Minutes Secretary