Ms. Janet Robertson This is Me

 Web References

1. 1. P & Z - Town of Madison - Public Hearing Summary

   www.madisonct.org/Planning_Zon - [Cached]

   Published on: 5/5/2005   Last Visited: 10/14/2006

   Mr. MacMillan next addressed Ms. Welch's concern that the Commission should hear what the actual remediation plan is, and introduced Janet Robertson, Senior Scientist of Woodard & Curran.
   ...
   Ms. Robertson outlined the remediation plan, as shown on EXHIBIT CU submitted. Ms. Robertson prefaced her presentation by stating that the proposed plan is a pretty common form of remediation, called "dig and haul" in the business because, basically, you dig it up and haul it off. The reason it is the most common form of remediation used in both large and small sites in the State is that it's the simplest and it's the most effective. Ms. Robertson identified 2 types of contamination found at the site. The highest level of contamination is located in the building area and underneath the building, floor drains - foundry sand. That material is going to be dug up, stockpiled, tested, and most of it taken off site. Testing will be done on-site during excavation. Stockpiling will occur on-site awaiting disposal and will be stored on plastic and covered with plastic. Ms. Robertson pointed out the areas where that's most likely to occur, delineated in green on EXHIBIT CU.
   
   The second area of contamination Ms. Robertson identified, as shown in yellow on EXHIBIT CU, is in the area of the stormwater pond and has lower levels of contamination. Contaminated soil in that area will be dug out; the area will be backfilled with clean fill; and excavated soil will be moved into the main body of the facility, used as fill and covered with asphalt. Ms. Robertson testified that the contaminated soil will be environmentally isolated and will not leach.
   ...
   Ms. Robertson clarified that it was slightly, but it doesn't matter since it's being dug up anyway.
   ...
   Ms. Robertson stated that the contamination is below the industrial standards and that the reason it's being dug up is the potential for leaching.
   ...
   Ms. Robertson responded that it differs by contaminant, but clarified that it's cleaner than the soil it's being placed over. In places where it will cover hotspots, Ms. Robertson stated that it will be under the asphalt.
   ...
   Ms. Robertson stated that there is none required because there is 2"-4" of sealed asphalt and that as per the regulations, you have to keep that maintained.
   ...
   Ms. Robertson stated that it will get moved around, but mostly covered with asphalt. Mr. Alsobrook then stated that Ms. Welch testified that the public access area is required to meet residential standards and asked Ms. Robertson whether she agreed with that. Ms. Robertson responded that the residential standard assumes that someone will live there for their whole life, a child is going to grow up there their whole life and eat dirt for a period of years; and under those circumstances, you do need pretty clean dirt for that child to live there. Ms. Robertson distinguished that that's not the situation here. Under the commercial/industrial standard, it is assumed that someone will be there approximately 8 hours per day and that while there is a certain amount of contact, it is not so much. Therefore, Ms. Robertson stated that you can have a little higher level of contamination on the site; but, you have to sign a deed restriction that says it will never go residential. Ms. Robertson stated that there will be such a restriction on the site that will prevent any kind of future residential use. Regarding the child contacting the dirt, Ms. Robertson stated that in the area of the walkway, there is going to be 6" of woodchips, several feet wide, which will be placed on top of clean fill.
   ...
   Ms. Robertson stated that not much contaminated soil exists in the areas of concern, noting that the driving issue with the site is leaching.
   ...
   Ms. Robertson replied that it is less contaminated than the hot spots.
   ...
   Mr. Bashaw also questioned a statement by Ms. Robertson that sampling that's been done at this industrial site is more work than would be typically done.
   ...
   Mr. Bashaw next pointed out that Ms. Robertson indicated there is no lead on the property, and Mr. Bashaw sought to correct the record, pointing out a table that's attached to the raw data received that shows that there were 2 hits of lead that exceed the industrial/commercial direct exposure standard.