These minutes are for information purposes only. For official minutes please contact the Town Clerk's office.

FEBRUARY 2, 2000

SPECIAL MEETING

1. CALL TO ORDER

Howard Beach, Chairman, called the Special Meeting of the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency to order at 7:10 p.m. in the Simsbury High School Amphitheater, 34 Farms Village Road, Simsbury. The following members were present: Helene Wade, Pierce Clayberger, Thomas Sharpless, William Nowak, Richard Miller and Andrew Bucknam. Also present were Laurie Whitten, Conservation Officer, and other interested parties.

2. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES

Chairman Beach appointed Commissioner Bucknam to serve for Commissioner Yocum.

3. PUBLIC HEARING - DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 18, 2000

a. Application of River Bend Associates, Inc. and Griffin Land & Nurseries, Inc., for a permit to Conduct Regulated Activities in Connection with "Meadowood" planned residential development, County Road, Hoskins Road, Holcomb Street, Firetown Road, and Barn Door Hills Road

Ms. Wade recused herself from this application because her husband is a partner with Robinson & Cole.

Bob Melvin, Robinson & Cole, distributed a document addressing 5 issues regarding the Conservation Commission (Addendum 1). Ms. Whitten distributed a 2/2/00 memo including questions from Environmental Risk Limited, information submitted by Joan Coe including the Cigar Valley News, a letter from Eric Boroush, and Dr. Callahan's overheads from the last meeting. Chairman Beach noted that the applicant distributed their Supplemental Submissions and Response Comments, dated 2/2/00.

Tim Hollister, Shipman & Goodwin, stated that he is preparing a response to Dwight Merriam and noted that Fairfield 2000 Homes is not the applicant for this project. Mr. Hollister reviewed the contents of the Supplemental Submissions and Response Comments. He stated that they are still working on (1) a revised soil mixing plan, (2) an aquifer recharging analysis, and (3) re- formatted soil data. He noted that they are only addressing the soil mix and pesticides in relation to the wetland area. Mr. Hollister stated that a feasible and prudent alternative will only address the impact to the wetlands area. He noted that they are replacing a conforming use with a restrictive and prohibitive use with regard to the aquifer. Mr. Hollister stated that the regulated activities proposed are the same as in a conventional subdivision plan and this wetlands application is not the result of a change in the underlying density.

Kevin Miller, Fuss & O'Neill, discussed the Human Health Risk Assessment which was completed for the site. He stated that the post-remediation concentrations of soil and ground water meet the standards for the Human Health Risk Assessment. He discussed the standards used and stated that they designed a sampling scheme, based on site standard industry practices, which accurately characterizes this site. Dr. Miller stated that there is a minimized possibility of hot spots due to the mixing of soils. He stated that any chemicals in the soil are a matter of "dose" and mixing the soil reduces the concentration. He noted that the tables included in the report are extensive and they are re-tabulating the data to make it easier to evaluate.

Dr. Miller addressed detection limits and stated that detection limits differ in different soil samples. He discussed pollutant mobility, noting that chlordane doesn't migrate due to the water dissolvability factor. He stated that chlordane and many pesticides bind tightly to organic carbon and have little water dissolvability. Dr. Miller stated that chlordane is generally not observed in ground water. He stated that they took a sampling of sediment, and based on a maximum concentration of the chemical at the site, the results were 3 orders of magnitude below the standard. Dr. Miller stated that since no chlorinated pesticides were stored on the site, there is no reason to look for dioxins in the soil.

Dr. Miller discussed how they developed the list of pesticides used on the site. He stated that they began with the Publication 42, Appendix A checklist. He stated that they did not look for any chemicals if they had evidence that they were not used. Dr. Miller noted that they performed a search of DEP and Town files, conducted phone interviews , contacted the agricultural station, the UCONN Cooperative Agricultural Center, the records at the Culbro offices, and previous Culbro employees to make a list of chemicals to consider. He reviewed the certification of Phoenix Laboratories.

Dr. Miller addressed fugitive air and stated that they did a risk assessment of the amount of contaminated topsoil lifted into the air during mixing. He noted that they used standard EPA assumptions and evaluated the amount of dust in the air before risk to human health. Dr. Miller stated that the risk for all models is one-third the allowed under the RSR'S. He stated that they will do air monitoring near the residences and analyze the filters during the mixing process.

Dr. Miller addressed the question regarding the degradation of organic carbon if it is mixed. He stated that due to the temperature reduction at 4 feet the degradation process is slowed and there is no additional degradation at 4 feet. He discussed the "Findings and Recommendations for the Remediation of Historic Pesticide Contamination," prepared by the New Jersey Historic Pesticide Contamination Task Force. He noted that one of their recommendations is for soil mixing. Dr. Miller stated that he believes the site will be healthier, than most agricultural land, after remediation.

Commissioner Nowak questioned whether the mixing will include 3 or 4 feet of soil. Dr. Miller stated that they will mix 3-4 feet of soil. Commissioner Clayberger questioned whether they have determined if the bams were full of tobacco when they burned. Jay Fisher, Griffin Land & Nurseries, stated that they tried to put as little pesticides as possible on the tobacco before drying it in the sheds. Dr. Miller stated that they tested some of the bams and there was negative consequence.

Commissioner Miller noted that the Connecticut Council of Environmental Quality stated that pesticides rarely show up as a single contaminant and you cannot be sure that pesticides are not in the water. Dr. Miller stated that most pesticides used today are more water soluble and are different from the pesticides being discussed with regard to this application. Commissioner Miller questioned whether they included EDB and other pesticides that do travel in water in their evaluation. Dr. Miller stated that the pesticides they tested bind to organic soils. Bob Potterton, Fuss & O'Neill, stated that they took 40 ground water samples and had 2 low level detects of EDB in wells. He stated that these wells were re-sampled twice and they could not repeat the data. He noted that they analyzed over 25 soil samples and not I had EDB. Commissioner Miller questioned whether none of the chemicals detected are water soluble. Mr. Potterton stated that organic pesticides were detected. He noted that EDB is 75,000 times more soluble than chlordane.

Commissioner Miller questioned whether a site specific risk assessment was done as an alternative to a remediation standards analysis. Dr. Miller stated that it is costly to do a Hwnan Health Risk Assessment, and you probably get higher numbers, so the DEP offers alternative analysis methods.

Commissioner Bucknam noted that 25 chemicals were not tested and he questioned if these chemicals are more water soluble. Dr. Miller stated that those 25 chemicals are more water soluble and are not common to thetobacco industry. He stated that if they were unsure if a chemical was used they left it on the list. He noted that they did not test for herbicides.

Commissioner Nowak questioned whether the impact from chemicals on the amphibians and wildlife was evaluated. Dr. Miller stated that they only evaluated the impact on human life.

Mr. Potterton addressed the memo from Gordon Brookman. He stated that when they receive the corrected lab reports they will distribute them to the commission. He discussed the soil study, as addressed in Sections 3 and 8 of the Supplemental Submissions and Response Comments report. Mr. Potterton stated that they chose a I acre spot and used various techniques and re-sampling of the areas to determine whether they can meet the RSR's with the soil mixing technique. He reviewed the revised tables in Section 3 of the report and stated that they met the RSR's in pre- mixing.

Mr. Potterton stated that the New Jersey study recommends similar remediation to what they are recommending for the Meadowood site. These recommendations include assessing the soil prior to development, frequent sampling at the site and a recommendation to the New Jersey DEP to adopt the mixing technique. Commissioner Miller pointed out that this is a substantial departure from the current technique. He questioned how experimental the mixing technique is and what states currently allow this type of remediation. Mr. Potterton stated that this is a fairly new technique which is used in Washington. He discussed Massachusetts' contingency plan and stated that Connecticut and New Jersey are the only states dealing with this issue.

Mr. Potterton stated that they took 12 samples around the barns, had 3 detections and 1 met the RSR'S. He stated that samples taken from the footprints of former barns had no detections. Mr Potterton stated that they will detail studies around the wetlands to determine the season high water table and include information on the depth of the ground water in the next plan. He noted that if they need to perform soil removal operations, they would transport the soil in covered dump trucks.

Mr. Potterton addressed the question's in Mr. Brookman's January 17, 2000 letter. He stated that the revised soil mixing plan addresses Meadowood west. He stated that the only pesticide to exceed the RSR's was a 1986 sample of chlordane. He pointed out that they didn't find any pesticides above the RSR'S, but they may do more detailed sampling around these 3 areas. Mr. Potterton stated that the revised soil mixing plan will provide more detail on the pre-mixing sampling. He noted that they may not do any mixing in Meadowood west. Mr. Potterton stated that they will include information on the electronic dust meter in the revised soil mix plan. He stated that they don't feel a high-volume sampler is necessary but they will use one as a precaution. He stated that the post-mixing confirmatory soil sampling will be performed 3-4 weeks after the mixing. Mr. Potterton stated that the sampling protocol is the SWA 40 method. He stated that they would mix 125 acres of soil on the east side and 3-4 acres of soil on the west side. He stated that the mixing time frame is an average of 1 acre per day, per machine.

Commissioner Miller questioned whether any areas, where they has been historical sand and gravel operations or site re-grading, have been sampled. Mr. Potterton stated that the sampling was done at Frances Farm. Commissioner Sharpless questioned the remediation options. Mr. Potterton stated that the options are vitrification, soil washing, thermal absorption or bio- remediation. Commissioner Sharpless questioned whether these options are suitable for low level contamination. Mr. Potterton stated that they can be suitable, given a limited quantity of soil and the appropriate site locations. Commissioner Sharpless questioned whether they analyzed residue for pesticides. Mr. Potterton stated that they analyzed the residue for pesticides and particulants. Commissioner Nowak questioned the soil testing that has been done in New Jersey. Dr. Miller stated that less than 20 locations have used soil mixing and to this point 6 have completed the remediation. Commissioner Nowak questioned whether soil mixing has been done at any agricultural sites in Connecticut. Mr. Potterton stated that soil mixing remediation has been done at Chase Orchards in South Windsor. Dr. Miller stated that they are working on getting information on additional soil mixing remediation sites in Connecticut.

Commissioner Nowak questioned whether air monitoring was done on the 1 acre site. Dr. Miller stated that air monitoring was done and the dust was never above 2.5 milligrams per meter cube which meets all of the criteria. Commissioner Sharpless questioned the level of confidence in the method of choosing a grid and random plots. Dr. Miller stated that the confidence level is 90% and the T-test is built into this method. Commissioner Sharpless requested a description of the numbers used to determine the number of samples. Mr. Potterton stated that they chose 20 samples within a release area to demonstrate compliance with RSR. Commissioner Sharpless questioned what data was used to determine the ultimate number of sites sampled. Dr. Miller stated that he can supply their data.

Commissioner Sharpless questioned why many of the samples are at high detection limits. Mr. Potterton stated that the lab reports are in error and the error was compounded when the data was entered into Fuss & O'Neill's database. Dr. Miller stated that they will supply the proper lab results and analysis.

Commissioner Miller questioned the sediment criteria. Mr. Potterton stated they performed a risk assessment of human exposure to sediments. He confirmed that they did not address the impact to the aquatic environment, only the impact to human health. Commissioner Miller pointed out that part of the Conservation Commission's charge is to address the effect on the wetlands and watercourses which would require additional analysis beyond that of human exposure.

Commissioner Sharpless expressed his concern that additional activities on the site may add pesticides. Mr. Potterton stated that they feel there will be adequate erosion controls in place. Commissioner Sharpless questioned why chlordane is not generally found in ground water. Dr. Miller stated that, based on the literature, any form of chlordane doesn't have a great capacity to impact ground water, except due to an accidental spill, not due to a residual concentration. Commissioner Sharpless requested a further description of the freeze stall cycle with regard to organic carbon degradation. Dr. Miller stated that that there is a degradation of organic soil material from the cycle of the ground freezing. Commissioner Sharpless pointed out that after the first freeze it doesn't make sense that the degradation would continue. He questioned whether there is a slower degradation at 4 feet due to the temperature. Dr. Miller stated that at 45-50 degrees there is no bacterial action and at 50-55 degrees there is slow bacterial action. Commissioner Sharpless suggested that at a depth of 3-4 feet the soil would be above 50-55 degrees during the summer. Dr. Miller stated that chlordane would be rebound to organic carbon at 4 feet. Commissioner Sharpless noted that the soil is slower to cool down at 4 feet. He stated that the moisture content is a factor at 4 feet and the continuous water supply may accelerate the bacteria process. Commissioner Sharpless questioned whether bacteria stops at 50-55 degrees. Dr. Miller stated that this is the opinion of Dr. Hill and he does not have a study to back this up. Commissioner Sharpless stated that he is not accepting that bacterial action stops at 4 feet. Dr. Miller stated that they measured organic carbon in 3 horizons and found a concentration of .1 %, and a concentration of 1.5% on the upper horizons. Commissioner Sharpless requested details of the study on the risk assessment.

In response to Commissioner Miller, Mr. Potterton stated that they meet the Direct Exposure Criteria and the DEP's Pollutability Criteria. He stated that they are protective of health and environment by meeting these criteria. He stated that the surface water detection criteria is based on the ground water. Commissioner Miller pointed out that there could be surface water from another source. He stated that this information should be used to depict the impact on aquatic life. He questioned how they will use the pollutant mobility criteria for remediation. Mr. Potterton stated that the SPLP and the mass analysis will meet the pollution mobility criteria. Commissioner Miller stated that there is a lack of testing and studies on the ecological impact which has an impact through the food chain.

Commissioner Sharpless stated that he is not convinced that soil mixing will not effect sediments. He suggested that the erosion of soils could increase the chlordane concentration and could increase the mobility of chlordane due to the soil mixing program. Mr. Potterton stated that he doesn't agree that there will be increased mobility. He stated that there are minute quantities sublimating and an active construction project will use erosion controls. Commissioner Sharpless suggested that chlordane could return to the surface in a less bound form than it currently is in. He stated that the total chlordane content found in soil depends on the method of sampling. Dr. Miller stated that method 8080 was used for the analysis, which is a hot solvent extraction. Commissioner Sharpless questioned whether there was any evidence of dioxins in the MSD'S. Dr. Miller stated that the MSDS's documented pesticides.

Chairman Beach addressed the physical impact to the wetlands. He noted that the wetlands contain vernal pools as detention basins which would have an impact on the ecological system of vernal pools. Chairman Beach expressed his concern with pollution mobility if there is soil mixing into the regulated areas. He pointed out that stripping the wetland area of soil, to move or mix the soil, removes the organic base which effects the wetland system. Commissioner Nowak requested clarification on whether soil mixing will take place up to the boundary of the wetlands.

Ed Pawlak, Connecticut Ecological System, stated that soil mixing will take place within the upland regulated area. He noted that these are currently cultivated areas and they will re-vegetate the fields which will return to their original condition. Mr. Pawlak state is no plan to use vernal pools as storm water basins. He noted that the storm water going into the vernal pools is there to maintain the hydrology of the vernal pools. Mr. Pawlak stated that they have agreed to plant 10 hydrophytic plants instead of cat tails for wetland mitigation. He stated that they will create 9 storm water basins which will create 3.77 new acres of wetlands. He stated that wetland mitigation will create shallow marsh conditions. Mr. Pawlak stated that they will use best management practices for storm water and they plan to improve the ground water leaving the site. He stated that Fuss & O'Neill is conducting a ground water analysis to address Great Pond and the aquifer.

Mr. Pawtak discussed the amphibian migratory patterns and noted the use of Cape Cod curbs along roadways to allow amphibians to migrate across roads. He stated that only deer cross the open fields. Mr. Pawlak stated that there is the possibility of movement in the wetlands corridor and Meadowood would not impact that movement. He noted that the wooded corridor will remain and there is only 1 road crossing. Mr. Pawlak stated that his wildlife inventory, which was concentrated in the uplands, involved 12 site inspections. He stated that he identified 79 species on the site, but noted that there could be additional wildlife on the site. Mr. Pawlak stated that currently 200 acres of the site is cultivated annually and he suggested that development will reduce the sediment load and improve the environment. He stated that only 2 wetlands connect to the Great Pond system and he suggested that amphibians migrate to closer vernal pools.

Commissioner Miller pointed out that amphibian migration across the road doesn't take into account the increased development, increased traffic and change in migration. Mr. Pawlak stated that it is evening migration and they have mitigated the situation the best way they can. Commissioner Bucknam questioned whether this proposal will effect the functional value of the wetlands. Mr. Pawlak stated that they have done everything to protect the attributes of the wetlands. Commissioner Bucknam questioned whether the storm water discharge will have any effect on the quality of the vernal pools. Mr. Pawlak stated that there will be no effect because the current vernal pools receive sediment from the cultivated fields and instead they will receive water from lawns. He pointed out that no road water will be discharged to the vernal pools.

Commissioner Sharpless questioned the width of the north/south corridor. Mr. Pawlak stated that it is 150 feet at the narrowest point and 550 at the widest point. Commissioner Bucknam questioned whether you can squeeze species into a smaller corridor, and where the 79 species will go once the area is developed. Mr. Pawlak stated that on 200 acres of cultivated land there are few species and the process would be no different than in any other developed area.

Chairman Beach expressed his concern that the increase in impervious surface will cause a dramatic change to the water regime and will change the character of the wetlands. Mr. Pawlak stated that they may need to bring in additional topsoil. Commissioner Miller pointed out that direct discharges will disturb the sediments and impact the wildlife. Mr. Pawlak stated that they pulled the discharges as far back from the wetlands as possible.

Dave Ziaks, Heskith Associates, addressed the catch basin discharge to the wetlands. He stated that they have a buffer between the impervious surfaces and the receiving water bodies, with storm water management basins, so there is indirect discharge. Commissioner Nowak questioned whether there will be soil removal in the buffer zone. Mr. Pawlak stated that there could be some removal of soil depending on the water table and the pesticide concentration, if it cannot be blended. He noted that they would replace any soil they removed.

Wayne Cobley, 8 Crestwood Road, stated that the lab exceeded the holding time for the EDB analysis. He stated that they did not meet the quality assurance protocol for valid data and he requested information which indicates where the hold time was exceeded. Mr. Cobley stated that a composite sampling infers that they mixed the sample locations. He pointed out that mixing the sample locations is not advised when contaminants are volatile in nature. He requested a spreadsheet indicating where they took a grab sample versus a composite sample. Mr. Cobley stated that Fuss & O'Neill haven't met the protocol as stated. He cited marketing documents distributed by Griffin Land and noted the areas which are inaccurate and inconsistent. He questioned why there was no conclusion on the sediment in the wetlands when runoff involves the top 6 inches of soil.

Joe Barner, 42 Windham Drive, noted the sewer discharges at the end of Windham Drive and stated that extra water will flood the backyards on the west side of Windham Drive. He requested clarification on whether they will be tilling, turning over, mixing or blending the soil. He stated that on Smokey Ridge the water was contaminated by EDB and they were told that it is not a concern at this time. Mr. Barner stated that the applicant has provided inaccurate information and he questioned whether the applicant should be trusted.

Jane McAlpine, 1 Scarborough Road, noted that chlordane was also used for termite control and infestation and she expressed her concern that chlordane was used at the barn sites. She questioned whether recycled organic sludge was used on the property. Ms. McAlpine read documentation from the EPA which states that chlordane movement to ground water can occur. She stated that there are 5 documented cases in New York and 1 on Cape Cod. Ms. McAlpine pointed out that chlordane can be inhaled and ingested, and expressed her concern with the tilling process and movement of chlordane to the ground water and environment. She stated that well 5 has low level contamination and she expressed her concern with the contamination in the aquifer area. She pointed out that the Farmington River Valley is a major source of water for the state and this major source of water could be effected by Meadowood.

Debbie Sweeney, 19 Squadron Line Road, stated that the applicant has not done studies pertaining to the wetlands which should be evaluated by the Conservation Commission.

Joan Coe, 26 Whitcomb Drive, stated that the runoff goes through a culvert onto her property. She questioned the effect on residents downstream. She stated that at Hall Farm they have an inventory of pesticides and she questioned whether similar chemicals were tested at the Meadowood site. Ms. Coe stated that Culbro abused the land and the town shouldn't have to suffer the consequences. She noted that there is no tried and true test that the tilling will work, and the residents will suffer the consequences. She pointed out that the applicant is asking people to live on contaminated soil and she questioned how they can prove it will be a safe environment in the future. Ms. Coe noted the list of chemicals in the Cigar Valley News and stated that the health and welfare of the community needs to be considered with this application

Matt Koch, 492 Firetown Road, President North Simsbury Coalition, questioned the time frame for the Public Hearing process. Chairman Beach stated that February 17th is the last date they can hold open the Public Hearing. Mr. Koch stated that the coalition's expert has not reviewed the new materials and they would like an opportunity to respond in writing and present additional information. Mr. Hollister stated that they intend on having the information Wednesday or Thursday of next week. He stated that there is a lot of data and they will give fair time to evaluate and review the data.

Commissioner Sharpless moved to continue the Public Hearing to February 16, 2000. T'he motion was seconded by Commissioner Bucknam and carried unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 11:12 p.m. and reconvened at 11:17 p.m.

4. PRESENTATION - DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE

a. No New or Pending Applications

5. DISCUSSION

None.

6. RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS

a. Meadowview Apartments - 971 Hopmeadow Street

7. CORRESPONDENCE/ANNOUNCEMENTS

Ms. Whitten distributed the Connecticut Wildlife Management publication. Commissioner Miller suggested that they begin the process to update their regulations.

8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of January 18, 2000

Commissioner Clayberger moved to approve the amended minutes of the January 18, 2000 meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bucknam and carried unanimously.

9. ADJOURNMENT

Commissioner Miller moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:28 p.m. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sharpless and carried unanimously.