Loading...
2002-06-17CITY OF BEVERLY Public Meeting Minutes BOARD: Conservation Commission Special Meeting SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: June 17, 2002 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman David Lang, Richard Benevento, Anthony Paluzzi, Jon Mazuy, Jay Donnelly, Linda Goodenough BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Debra Hurlburt, Planning Director RECORDER: Jeannine Dion (tape) Chairman Lang calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Discussion – Algonquin Gas Transmission Company Lang states the Commission members would like to take a vote to reconsider motions made at the last meeting (June 12, 2002). Paluzzi moves to reconsider the prior vote of June 12, 2002 to approve the Orders of Condition, seconded by Goodenough. There is discussion regarding the motion. Benevento states he has been thinking since the Commission met last and questions if the Commission is compromising to get to some medium point or is the Commission “selling out?” He asks if the Commission is saying “We are putting the appropriate conditions on this project, but because of who the applicant is, and the clout that they have, that even though we are putting in what should be appropriate conditions, they are not going to fly.” He thinks in this particular case, he feels like he is somewhat selling out and saying that they are just going to appeal it and we are not going to get what we rightly deserve, but what project safeguards should be in place. Lang appreciates Benevento’s comments and believes other members have all had the same thoughts. He feels it is a bit unreasonable to have this 20-foot trench through Beverly harbor. There is a very narrow amount of chromium data (good or bad). If we were to try to have the applicant do additional testing or try to tie them to a bond because there is some additional pollution they are going to cause, there is no way to prove that. Lang states he would rather have the applicant do mitigation and come up with a monetary figure that is reasonable and take all the uncertainty and fit it into that category. The project is a very unique one and he would support not having to have them remove the sediments. Mazuy states he was under the impression that one or two of the members thought that condition #33 was not what they thought it was. To reopen the whole Orders of Condition is unfair. There Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes June 17, 2002 Page 2 is one member who was present at the last meeting and not present tonight. He expresses concern that the Commission has a sworn obligation and yet quite often the Commission is overruled by DEP more often than not. He does not consider that a reason to back down if a lawyer says he is going to take the Commission to court. He objects heartily to an effort to reopen the entire order for discussion. Mazuy states he thinks some Commission members are selling out to compromise for the sake of compromise and he does not think compromise is called for. Benevento reads through Condition #33. · Any contaminated sediments or soils encountered or disturbed as part of the contractor’s operation or as part of the pipeline installation shall be removed and legally disposed of. · The applicant shall take appropriate measures to prevent the disbursement of contaminated sediment to soil outside of the area of excavation or to any uncontaminated area. · The applicant shall remediate any previously uncontaminated area that is contaminated due to the disbursement of contaminated sediment to soils as a result of the work. · The applicant shall restore any area adversely affected by the work to its original or better condition prior to the work. Benevento states at the last hearing members discussed the encountering of contaminated sediments or soils and removing them, and legally disposing them. The discussion continued regarding the dispersion of contaminated materials onto uncontaminated areas and those contaminated sediments would be removed if they exceeded the 370 parts per million. That was what was under consideration the last time and that is what Benevento thought the condition was going to be revised to be. Paluzzi states that is what he thought, too and that is why he voted for it. Benevento states he does not think it is reasonable to allow contaminated sediments to float all over the place uncontrolled and contaminating previously uncontaminated areas. He understands that there is no baseline to monitor what was contaminated and what was not and if it was contaminated, to what level. As numerous other applicants were told by the Commission, the burden of proof is on the applicant. If they need to establish a baseline so that the Commission feels comfortable and confident that the dispersion of contaminated materials in excess of 370 parts per million is not going to be contaminating clean areas, that is their hunt, not the Commission’s. Lang asks what happens if they do this baseline and they find that the other areas are 2,000 parts per million? Benevento responds that the Commission would not have to worry about it. If the dispersion of contamination floats down over areas that are already 2,000 parts per million, then as far as he is concern, they haven’t made it any worse. But, if the contamination is now floating down to areas that are clean or less than 370, then he would expect that the applicant clean it up. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes June 17, 2002 Page 3 Why should the Commission allow the contamination to disperse further throughout the harbor, than it already is right now? Lang states there are some things such as silk curtains that can put up to stabilize or minimize the movement of sediment. Benevento recalls asking if the applicant if they were proposing that. He recalls that the applicant responded that they were expensive. Benevento states the applicant is in the business of getting the pipeline in and there are options. Lang asks members to consider the aforementioned motion as follows: Paluzzi moves to reconsider the prior vote of June 12, 2002 to approve the Orders of Condition, seconded by Goodenough. Motion carries 4-2. Discussion regarding Condition #30 Lang reads #30 into the record. There was discussion on this at the last meeting and Lang’s issue was that there is no baseline to show what the present concentrations are. Lang reads a revised version of Condition #30 for discussion. Benevento states he would be satisfied with ensuring that uncontaminated areas are not contaminated after the applicant is done. However we do that … whether the applicant has to provide some baseline data, special devices or kneel down and pray on the gods that it doesn’t happen, he doesn’t really care. He does not want uncontaminated areas contaminated. Lang states the DEP has said that the method that they are using currently is adequate. Benevento asks if the applicant is working in the winter and this “stuff” ends up getting spread all over the place, is that it? Does the applicant just walk away? Benevento states he would be willing to go along with that within the area where they are excavating, that is already contaminated. They just put it back to where they found it. He states he is stuck on contaminating uncontaminated areas. If the applicant wants to go outside the work area and provide us a baseline, then that is fine. Either that or they go out at 200-foot increments until they get to uncontaminated areas and they map the edge of the contamination area versus where it is uncontaminated. If the contamination spreads beyond that and it is greater than 370 parts per million, then they go out and they sweep it up. Lang states he believes that in all likelihood you would find that the areas are already above 370 parts per million. Benevento states the Commission is feeling around in the dark and trying to make a decision on Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes June 17, 2002 Page 4 what is appropriate. There is not enough baseline information and the Wetlands Protection Act specifically states that the burden of proof is on the applicant. Donnelly moves that the Beverly Conservation Commission issue three conditions on this project. Secure a performance bond, have an ability to monitor mitigation measures, and a condition to ensure no adverse impacts. There is no second. Benevento moves to revise Condition #30 to read: · The applicant shall take appropriate measures to prevent the dispersion of chromium contaminated sediments or soils in excess of 370 parts per million to any uncontaminated area. · The applicant shall remediate any previously uncontaminated area that is contaminated with chromium in excess of 370 parts per million due to the dispersion of contaminated sediments or soils as a result of the work. · The applicant shall restore any area adversely affected by the work to its original or better condition prior to the work. · The applicant shall provide the Commission with baseline data along 200-feet, either side of the pipeline installation, to determine the limits of uncontaminated areas. Seconded by Paluzzi. Motion fails. Goodenough states that she does not believe a baseline can be measured. Donnelly moves that the condition requiring that the applicant remove contaminated sediments from the construction site and haul to a licensed facility be deleted, seconded by Goodenough. Motion fails. (Turned tape over) Benevento states that he is concerned that there are uncontaminated areas that are going to be contaminated in excess of 370 parts per million when the applicant is done. Lang asks what happens to areas that are already contaminated beyond 370 parts per million. Benevento responds that anything over 370 parts per million is considered contaminated. What he is saying is anything that by their word in excess of 370 parts per million when they are done; they will have to clean it up. He does not think that is a lot to ask. Benevento reads his proposed revision to Condition #30: The applicant shall take appropriate measures to prevent the dispersion of chromium contaminated sediments or soils in excess of 370 parts per million to any uncontaminated area. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes June 17, 2002 Page 5 Mazuy states that the statement is so all encompassing in one statement. Benevento states if you lived two miles away and you had a nice beach in front of your house and a plume of contaminated chromium ends up at your beach, who cleans it up? Who is responsible? Mazuy states he thought there was a statement that it is not going to migrate more than 200 feet to either side of the excavation. He still has a question about who is going to tell the Commission what that condition is now and before the work starts. Benevento states that any other applicant before the Conservation Commission would be required to clean up contamination. Lang recommends the following: The applicant shall take the appropriate measures to prevent the dispersion of contaminated sediments from milepost 1.9 throughout 2.5 or soils outside of the area of excavation. The applicant shall place two monitoring stations at the entrance and exit points of the HHD at milepost 1.0 to 1.7. And at mileposts 2.2, water samples will also be collected to analyze for chromium and collected 4 times a day during trenching from milepost 19. to 2.4. Mazuy moves to keep current Condition #33 and add the two aforementioned conditions, seconded by Paluzzi. Motion carries (4 - 2). Lang states the Commission could increase the monitoring in the areas of entrance and exit, propose two monitoring stations. He states if the data shows a significant and detrimental impact from the monitoring that they have done, then you have the information to take an action later on. Benevento clarifies the motion: The applicant shall hire a full-time independent environmental inspector approved by the Commission, whose function shall include monitoring, to ensure compliance of the Orders of Condition. The independent environmental inspector shall be under the direction of the Conservation Commission. Paluzzi moves to amend the aforementioned motion to add the aforementioned language, seconded by Goodenough. Benevento moves to include the following language: The inspector shall be present during the transition trenching, trench dredging and during open excavations in the harbor. Lang states if somebody is out there five days minimum to 10 days maximum, it would meet the Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes June 17, 2002 Page 6 Commission’s needs. He recommends clearing it with the Harbormaster. Benevento moves to include the following language: The independent environmental inspector shall be available five to ten days whose function shall include monitoring the HDD transition trench dredging and any open excavation or dredging from milepost 1.9 to 2.4 or as directed by the Commission, seconded by Paluzzi. Motion carries 4-2. Condition #62 Lang recommends leaving it alone. The members concur. Condition #65 Lang recommends leaving it alone. He would rather have the applicant pay for a mitigation fund. Goodenough states that she has concern that you would not know if there is damage. She states she would rather have the money up front that the Commission can decide how to use. Goodenough moves to eliminate Condition #55 and replace it with a $1 million mitigation fund. There is no second. There are no further motions. Condition #67 Lang states that the applicant is willing to fish that area. Paluzzi moves that the applicant hire lobstermen to remove lobsters during the three-day period prior to the backfilling of the trench, seconded by Goodenough. Motion denied. Lang summarizes the Condition #30: The applicant shall take the appropriate measures to minimize the dispersion of contaminated sediments outside the area of excavation using at a minimum, a silt curtain, from milepost 1.9 to 2.5. The applicant shall place two monitoring stations at the HDD exit location at approximately milepost 1.0 and at milepost 1.7. A new monitoring station shall be located at mileposts 2.2. At that location chromium samples shall be taken in the area 4 times a day during the period of excavation. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes June 17, 2002 Page 7 Lang summarizes the Condition #52: The applicant shall hire a full-time independent environmental inspector approved by the Commission whose function shall include monitoring the HDD transition trench dredging and any open excavation or dredging at milepost 1.9 to 2.4 for a period of 5 to 10 days as directed by the Conservation Commission. The inspector shall be at the direction of the Conservation Commission. Benevento moves to approve the Order of Conditions, seconded by Paluzzi. Motion carries 4-2. Adjournment Mazuy moves to adjourn, seconded by Benevento. All members in favor. Motion carries.