Thumbnail for 02/05/2026 Hardwick, MA. Board of Health Meeting

Aquifer Protection, Landfill Contamination, and Public Health Initiatives

Original title: 02/05/2026 Hardwick, MA. Board of Health Meeting

These meeting notes are AI-generated and unofficial. They are provided for convenience and are not official Town records or approved municipal minutes. Verify all details using the source video and official Town documents.

Meeting details

Date

February 5, 2026

Duration

1h 44m

Decisions

8 recorded

Action Items

40 assigned

Summary

The Hardwick Board of Health convened on February 5, 2026, addressing critical public health and environmental concerns. Key discussions included the development of Nicotine Free Generation (NFG) regulations, with a public hearing suspended to allow for an updated draft incorporating NFG language and aligning local fines with state standards. A significant portion of the meeting focused on confirmed groundwater contamination at the Hardwick Landfill, specifically with PFOA/PFAS and 1,4-dioxane, impacting the Muddy Brook Aquifer. The Board decided to hire a Licensed Site Professional (LSP) for data interpretation, is actively pursuing legal counsel, engaging the DEP, and drafting comprehensive aquifer protection regulations. Other agenda items covered Lower Road Landfill monitoring, rural health initiatives, and administrative reports, all aimed at safeguarding community health and resources.

Browse meeting notes

Now viewing

Discussion Highlights

A new draft of the Nicotine Free Generation (NFG) regulation was requested to include NFG language and consider a 24-month review period.
The hearing for the NFG regulation will be continued to next month to allow for an updated draft, including both redline and clean versions.
Significant amounts of vape and cigarette litter were noted in public spaces, highlighting their environmental impact.
Concerns were raised about nicotine's impact on individuals, particularly those with mental illness or on medication, citing strong scientific and medical reasons for protecting vulnerable populations.
Discussion occurred on setting a specific 'born on or after' date for the NFG, such as January 1, 2005.
Consideration was given to aligning local fines for selling to minors with state fines ($1,000 for first offense, $2,000 for second, $5,000 for third with suspensions), with legal consultation recommended.
The importance of local regulations was emphasized, as they encourage neighboring communities to adopt similar policies, contributing to better regional health.
Licensed Site Professional (LSP) Scott Parker was introduced to provide expertise on the Hardwick Landfill issues.
Concerns regarding the Muddy Brook Aquifer were raised by the Ware Board of Health and Hardwick residents (Hardwick Pond Area, HPPA).
The September 2025 annual groundwater test well results confirmed multiple contaminated wells at the Hardwick Landfill, with chemicals like PFOA/PFAS and 1,4-dioxane exceeding drinking water standards.
The landfill sits on a priority high-production aquifer, with water flowing southward towards Ware and Hardwick Pond wells.
The situation involves both Solid Waste Regulations and Waste Site Cleanup Regulations, with the latter requiring LSP oversight.
Concerns were raised about the DEP's inaction on contamination data, some dating back to 2009, and the lack of direction for further assessment.
There are currently no down-gradient points of compliance for PFOA/PFAS, leaving the extent of contamination spread unknown.
Data gaps and undersampling were noted, particularly around wetlands surrounding the landfill.
Climate change, leading to more violent storms and increased water events, is expected to exacerbate risks from unlined portions of the landfill.
A 30-year clock is ticking until the town takes over the landfill, creating urgency to resolve these issues.
An LSP is required only if an issue triggers a 'waste site cleanup' designation.
Evidence of downgradient contamination was noted, with upgradient test wells also showing contamination.
The current landfill operator (Casella) monitors wells around the landfill perimeter but not outside this area.
Monitoring costs for a similar site (Lower Road Landfill) are approximately $40,000-$50,000 annually, with PFAS testing adding $6,000.
Concerns were raised about homeowner wells, particularly within a 500-foot radius, and the cost of private testing.
Contamination includes not just PFAS but also dioxins, toluene, butane, lead, and heavy metals.
Existing regulations are sufficient; the key is ensuring the DEP enforces them, as the landfill owner will not act unless compelled.
PFAS compounds have a high affinity for water, dissolve readily, migrate with groundwater (estimated one foot per day), and do not break down easily.
Stopping the PFAS plume is considered 'very difficult, if not impossible,' with cleanup regulations focusing on risk-based assessment and response actions.
Treatment at the drinking water well (point-of-entry systems) is the likely response for affected properties, citing Westminster's example with 200 systems.
Landfill expansion or converting it into a regional landfill for New England was considered 'not a good idea'.
Current sampling maps are problematic because the plume exists under water where there are no wells, creating a 'huge hole in our knowledge'.
The landfill owner (Tycon) is responsible for defining the problem in three dimensions.
The Board of Health is empowered by Mass General Law 111, Sections 31, 122, and 123, to develop and adopt regulations for water supply protection.
The Lower Road landfill's contamination level is significantly lower than Muddy Brook's.
Post-9/11, Homeland Security is reportedly in charge of drinking water, leading to new requirements like fencing around water sources.
The Board of Health rejected Casella's proposal regarding the landfill, which could require the DEP to conduct a 'big study'.
The Town of Orange's experience of incurring $50,000 in legal fees after denying a special permit for a battery installation on Zone 2 of their public water supply was noted.
Draft aquifer protection regulations have been developed, focusing on large-scale contamination threats such as landfills, transfer stations, battery energy storage systems (BESS), petroleum depots, and expanding junkyards.
Agriculture is explicitly excluded from these aquifer protection regulations due to existing compliance with USDA farm plans and NRCS guidelines.
The aquifer protection regulations are health regulations, distinct from but intended to complement planning board zoning, and were developed over six months with input from various stakeholders.
The regulations were developed in conjunction with and modeled after the Town of Ware's bylaws for protecting the Muddy Brook Aquifer, as well as DPH model regulations.
Concerns were raised about farmland being destroyed by biosolids fertilizer and the presence of PFAS in certain products and local produce.
It was suggested that the Board of Health has a responsibility to educate the public about contaminants like PFAS.
The Board of Health reviewed a draft of the Earth Removal/Importation Bylaw and found no specific public health impact, deeming it 'very reasonable' and 'prudent'.
Three proposals were received for the continued monitoring of the Lower Road Landfill, with discussion on cost differences and procurement laws.
The Health Agent reported on inspections (D-box, Title 5 witness, septic tank install, perk test) and ongoing work drafting regulations and updating the town charter.
A recurring issue was noted regarding checks for services being made out to the 'Board of Health' instead of the 'Town of Hardwick'.
The Police Department recommended acquiring a compatible all-band radio for the Board of Health to enhance emergency communications, estimated at $10,000.
Shelving for the school container has been acquired.
The Lester Regional Public Health Coalition (LRPHC) provided an update on applications, food handler/manager certificates, and an open water damage/mold issue related to a water damage complaint.
A 'Meeting of the Minds' was held on rural health issues and 'healthcare deserts' in the Quabbin and Lester regional areas, organized by 'Friends of Mary Lane'.
Baystate has publicly announced plans to establish a 'convenient care and primary care' clinic in Ware.
An initiative is underway to create a cohesive coalition of Boards of Health in seven communities around Hardwick to advocate for rural health.
Arrangements have been made to collaborate with UMass to explore leveraging their digital health enterprise projects for rural health and telemedicine in the area.
A citizen expressed excitement and frustration, stating she had been working on a similar initiative independently, including a petition concerning the rebuilding of Mary Lane Hospital.

Transcript (18,631 words)

Lightly cleaned for readability. Each timestamp opens the video at that point.

00:00:00
Thank you. You're welcome.
00:00:01
>> So, you want to see a new draft that includes NFG language?
00:00:05
>> The NFG language. Yes.
00:00:06
>> So, why don't well finish the hearing.
00:00:09
But what I would recommend maybe continuing the hearing to next month and then I'll I'll get you guys an updated draft because we also have the 24-month review period. Um and then I can add back in the nicotine-free generation languages. I can tell I I'll
00:00:28
Point out there's going to be a few sections that changes throughout the document and then I can give you a red line which is helpful. If you print the red line, you can see what I changed from this draft >> and then I'll give you a [clears throat] clean >> and then you can do another hearing and
00:00:45
Then you can close that hearing and then you can vote to >> approve. I I would also add that and I'm sure Becky will agree with me that the environmental impact of this sort of regulation is not inconsequential.
00:01:01
We in our just our small little area of domain around the rail trail and the parks at both ends. Yes. We pick up endless numbers of vapes, cigarette butts, >> um packages, >> um everything. And so
00:01:22
Starting to remove that stuff from the environment because I'm sure it's spread everywhere around the town is is a wonderful thing.

[00:00:00] Thank you. You're welcome. [00:00:01] >> So, you want to see a new draft that [00:00:03] includes NFG language? [00:00:05] >> The NFG language. Yes. [00:00:06] >> So, why don't well finish the hearing. [00:00:09] But what I would recommend [00:00:11] um [00:00:13] maybe continuing the hearing to next [00:00:15] month and then I'll I'll get you guys an [00:00:18] updated draft because we also have the [00:00:21] 24-month review period. Um and then I [00:00:24] can add back in the nicotine-free [00:00:26] generation languages. I can tell I I'll [00:00:28] point out there's going to be a few [00:00:29] sections that changes throughout the [00:00:31] document and then I can give you a red [00:00:34] line which is helpful. If you print the [00:00:37] red line, you can see what I changed [00:00:38] from this draft [00:00:40] >> and then I'll give you a [clears throat] [00:00:41] clean [00:00:43] >> and then you can do another hearing and [00:00:45] then you can close that hearing and then [00:00:46] you can vote to [00:00:48] >> approve. I I would also add that and I'm [00:00:52] sure Becky will agree with me that the [00:00:54] environmental impact of this sort of [00:00:58] regulation is not inconsequential. [00:01:01] We in our just our small little area of [00:01:04] domain around the rail trail and the [00:01:08] parks at both ends. Yes. We pick up [00:01:12] endless numbers of vapes, cigarette [00:01:15] butts, [00:01:16] >> um packages, [00:01:18] >> um everything. And so [00:01:22] starting to remove that stuff from the [00:01:25] environment because I'm sure it's spread [00:01:27] everywhere around the town is is a [00:01:30] wonderful thing. [00:01:31] >> Yeah. Mrs. Scott, [00:01:33] >> um also [00:01:35] um having a um a mentally ill [00:01:40] a child who got sick at age 17 in living [00:01:44] in this town. I learned a great deal [00:01:48] about nicotine because and that the [00:01:52] acetylcholine pathway in the brain is a [00:01:56] very strong [00:01:58] frontal and uh temporal [00:02:02] pathway that is highly affected by [00:02:06] nicotine, right? And secondly, [00:02:11] any person on a medication [00:02:14] who has a um the enzyme [00:02:19] um a certain enzyme, a CYP enzyme, [00:02:23] um can reduce the level of their uh [00:02:28] neurolptic in their body by smoke [00:02:31] nicotine. And the CYP enzyme [00:02:35] um that decreases [00:02:39] >> the drug that they have to take. [00:02:42] >> Yeah. [00:02:42] >> Is from smoke to nicotine. [00:02:46] And so uh I thought it would was a [00:02:49] miracle when [00:02:51] Robert stopped smoking and that was [00:02:54] because he was in uh impatient at the [00:02:58] state hospital for 2 years and it takes [00:03:02] so long [00:03:04] and and the nicotine settlement [00:03:07] never looked into the fact that these [00:03:11] people were given state cigarettes every [00:03:14] half hour at the state hospital years [00:03:17] ago when there was thorazine. [00:03:20] >> So there's a huge uh scientific medical [00:03:25] biomemed [00:03:27] reason not only for our kids to be [00:03:30] protected but for uh those vulnerable [00:03:33] people [00:03:34] >> right [00:03:35] >> who may have to go on some of the drugs. [00:03:39] >> Okay. Uh at this point then [00:03:43] uh any further comments from Oh, nope. [00:03:47] >> Mine's like really quick. [00:03:48] >> Me too. [laughter] [00:03:51] >> Checks in the mail. [00:03:52] >> You want me to go first? [00:03:54] >> Go ahead. [00:03:54] >> Just some things to think about because [00:03:56] we did this in Belchure Town in Palum, [00:03:58] right? [00:03:58] >> Um is obviously the dates that you're [00:04:01] going to start the nicotine free [00:04:03] generation born on or after. You could [00:04:06] set it for this year, January 1st. um [00:04:10] 2005, [00:04:12] which would mean anybody that turned um [00:04:14] 21 starting this year in 2026 would not [00:04:18] be able to purchase. Um and then [00:04:22] thinking about how you want to fine. Do [00:04:25] you want your finding structure to be [00:04:26] the same as the state where if they sold [00:04:29] to somebody under 21, it's be a $1,000 [00:04:31] fine for the first offense, 2,000 for [00:04:34] the second, five for the third with any [00:04:37] sort of suspensions. [00:04:39] Or if you want to just kind of rope this [00:04:42] into your local regulation, you could do [00:04:44] the one, two, and three for the first, [00:04:46] second, third. My understanding is that [00:04:47] some of the fines are mandatory by the [00:04:49] state, [00:04:50] >> but you can set your your local finding [00:04:54] higher than one, two, and three. So in [00:04:57] Belchure Town, they decided to make it [00:05:01] similar to this the same as the state [00:05:03] finding for selling to a minor. [00:05:06] Just something to think about. [00:05:07] >> Yeah. Okay. [00:05:08] >> Yeah, this is Mark Odley again. I on [00:05:12] that point, I think there is some uh [00:05:14] there have been some updates to the um [00:05:17] um MA uh HB uh model rag reflecting some [00:05:23] recent decisions from the SJC that have [00:05:26] an impact on on I think the most [00:05:29] desirable fine structure to avoid any [00:05:32] legal complications. And I just [00:05:34] recommend as you are um amending a new [00:05:38] proposal um to uh to consult with uh [00:05:41] with that. [00:05:42] >> I think simplification is a you know a [00:05:46] big factor. [00:05:48] >> Yeah. And and just in general I really I [00:05:51] it sounds like you're going to move [00:05:53] forward with regulations and they may [00:05:55] include uh NFG. I hope they they do. Uh [00:05:59] it's just such an important thing for a [00:06:01] a small town to um to issue a regulation [00:06:05] even though there's only two retailers [00:06:06] here because I think it encourages your [00:06:09] neighbors to then adopt similar policies [00:06:11] and then there's strength to the growing [00:06:14] body [00:06:14] >> building better health in the region. [00:06:16] Yeah, absolutely. So I'm I'm very uh [00:06:19] happy to hear that. Thank you. [00:06:21] >> Okay. So the way I the way we have it in [00:06:24] right now [00:06:26] >> essentially like a local policy [00:06:28] violation is a,000,000,000 [00:06:31] but the state fines progress. So the [00:06:34] question is, do you want to have the [00:06:37] local fines progress like the state [00:06:39] fines or you want to leave them? [00:06:42] [snorts] [00:06:43] You know, [00:06:44] >> I I think I would I'd be inclined to [00:06:46] match the state. [00:06:47] >> Yeah, I would it's not it's not a big [00:06:50] language change, [00:06:51] >> you know, I would be inclined to do for [00:06:54] the sake of consistency if nothing. So [00:06:57] let me put that as a note too. [00:07:00] So that the fines are going to the local [00:07:03] fines will will be in line with the [00:07:05] state fines. [00:07:11] >> Yeah. Great. [00:07:15] Local state violation fines. [00:07:20] >> Do we vote to continue the hearing? [00:07:22] Yeah, I would move that we uh uh suspend [00:07:26] the hearing [00:07:28] uh until the next meeting at this point. [00:07:33] >> I'll second that. [00:07:35] >> All in favor? [00:07:36] >> I [00:07:38] will. [00:07:39] >> What's the time and date in place? [00:07:42] >> For the next hearing, uh we have to have [00:07:47] a discussion about the next meeting. [00:07:49] >> You have to adjourn. You have to hear. [00:07:52] We need to know exactly when the hearing [00:07:54] is. [00:07:54] >> Okay. [00:07:55] >> It's up to you. You're the [snorts] [00:07:58] limiting factor. [00:07:58] >> I'm going to be away the next [00:08:02] >> March would be [00:08:03] >> the second uh second Thursday in March. [00:08:06] >> March 12th. [00:08:07] >> 12th. [00:08:07] >> Do you want to do it at 6:45 this time? [00:08:09] >> Let's do it at 6:45. [00:08:11] >> Okay. March 12th, 6:45 [00:08:13] at the [clears throat] Myer and E. [00:08:14] Richardson building. [00:08:21] Okay. [00:08:22] >> All right. [00:08:23] >> Good. Thank you. Thanks for [00:08:27] >> you. [00:08:28] >> All right. And uh [00:08:29] >> health professionals very supportive. [00:08:32] >> If you can you will uh join us again [00:08:37] just in case the attorneys from RJ Wells [00:08:39] do show up. [00:08:42] >> [clears throat] [00:08:42] >> Can I leave you with a [00:08:46] >> I think I've got four of them little [00:08:48] packets and there's some materials in [00:08:50] there. Great. Andrew, you had some stuff [00:08:52] you wanted to leave. [00:08:53] >> Do you want this packet? [00:08:54] >> Yes, please. Thanks so much. [00:08:56] >> And then um this I don't know if you got [00:08:58] this in time, but I just printed it out [00:09:00] because she sent that in. Um she copied [00:09:03] me on it, but it came in a little bit [00:09:05] late. It was just more energy. [00:09:07] >> That's fine. And then this is just a [00:09:08] little bit on environmental justice. [00:09:11] >> The DPH mapping. [00:09:12] >> What was the percentage here? [00:09:14] >> 32.1% [00:09:18] right here. [00:09:25] >> Great. [00:09:27] >> All right. [00:09:33] Scott here. We got item three on it [00:09:36] there as far as the NGOs's for the [00:09:39] tobacco products. I think that's pretty [00:09:41] straightforward. They have to [00:09:44] >> the retailers have to be notified about [00:09:46] the NGOs's. [00:09:49] I think that this [00:09:52] uh [00:09:54] >> something where we just uh notify their [00:09:56] retailers by mail and just remind them [00:09:59] of the policy. [00:10:01] >> They have to have the [00:10:04] marketing orders [00:10:08] >> March. [00:10:12] If our administrative clerk isn't doing [00:10:14] anything, we'll give us something to do. [00:10:17] So, I'll get you guys. So, it's the 24 [00:10:20] month review of the local fines and line [00:10:22] the state fines and then I get free [00:10:25] generation language. [00:10:27] >> Okay. [00:10:28] >> And I'll actually just try to get it [00:10:30] done this weekend. [00:10:31] >> Okay. [00:10:33] You guys can post it online. [00:10:39] >> All right. [00:10:41] Uh item number four. All right. [00:10:47] Are you Scott? I am Jake. Come on up. [00:10:49] >> Here he is. The mic is back. [00:10:52] >> Yes. Let me try. Disable down. [00:11:00] >> Yeah. Have a seat right here. [00:11:04] >> Um [00:11:05] so let's see. Tonight, um, we, uh, are [00:11:10] presenting, um, um, uh, uh, Scott [00:11:14] Barker, who's a a licensed site [00:11:16] professional. Um, and, uh, I just want [00:11:19] to kind of recap a little bit of how [00:11:21] we've arrived at this point of hiring a [00:11:23] licensed site professional regarding the [00:11:25] Hardwork landfill in uh, the Moneyburg [00:11:28] Valley um, over Petra Hollow Road. But [00:11:31] you know, let me just uh bear with me [00:11:33] for a moment. But in June of 2025, the [00:11:35] hardwood board of health received a [00:11:36] written request from the wear board of [00:11:38] health to consider taking action to [00:11:40] protect the Muddy Brook aquifer that [00:11:42] lies in Hardwick as a zone 2 source of [00:11:45] wares municipal water source. That [00:11:48] request was followed by a similar [00:11:50] request in July 2025 by Hardwick [00:11:53] residents of Hardwood Pond area, the [00:11:55] HPPA, echoing the concerns and requests [00:11:58] of way of board health. In September of [00:12:01] 2025, the annual time bond hardwood [00:12:04] landfill um groundwater test well [00:12:07] results report uh was issued uh [00:12:11] confirming multiple contaminated wells [00:12:13] with various chemical substances known [00:12:15] to be harmful to human health and [00:12:16] safety. not being professionals in the [00:12:19] field of toxicology and environmental [00:12:22] health and hardwood of health in [00:12:24] November of 25 voted to hire a [00:12:26] consultant LSP for professional [00:12:28] assistance in interpreting the data [00:12:30] presented in the annual time bond [00:12:32] reports that they submitted to the DP [00:12:34] group most notably the 24 and 25 um [00:12:38] reports 2024 and 2025 in need of [00:12:41] assistance and interpretation as well as [00:12:43] guidance on how to move forward with [00:12:44] these reports the board of health [00:12:46] allocated funds for an initial [00:12:47] consultation [00:12:49] uh with Scott um uh which is being [00:12:52] presented tonight. It's, you know, it's [00:12:55] of the greatest intention of the board [00:12:56] of health to represent the concerns of [00:12:58] the residents of all of Hardwick, [00:13:00] especially those surrounding and [00:13:02] downgradient from the landfill and of [00:13:04] the and the town of Wear as well. Of [00:13:07] utmost concern to the board of health is [00:13:09] the health and safety of our [00:13:10] communities. Other important concerns [00:13:12] like property values and land liability, [00:13:15] landfill liability issues, although [00:13:17] important, are secondary of concern uh [00:13:20] to the board of health. So, I'll let [00:13:22] Scott introduce himself and um you know [00:13:25] uh it's going to be a dactic kind of [00:13:27] discussion. Um and um you know, we could [00:13:31] talk about the landfill [00:13:33] uh reports and um so yep, my name is [00:13:37] Scott Parker. I'm a licensed site [00:13:38] professional um and have been for [00:13:42] a long time. [00:13:44] Um and so you know Rick and I have [00:13:47] talked a little bit about the history of [00:13:50] what's going on that you know you have a [00:13:52] landfill that's closed it's in [00:13:53] postclosure monitoring [00:13:56] um being conducted by the owner and [00:13:58] specifically their consult bond. Um [00:14:02] there are two sets of regulations that [00:14:05] oversee the things that are going on at [00:14:08] landfills. the solid waste regulations [00:14:10] which are very specific to landfills, [00:14:13] but there's also overlap with the waste [00:14:16] site cleanup regulations which requires [00:14:20] oversight by an LSP. [00:14:22] Um, so that's kind of the the background [00:14:25] of what's going on, the things that sort [00:14:28] of apply to the conditions that are [00:14:30] present. Um, and I know that the the [00:14:35] board had several questions that I have [00:14:38] printed out here. Um, or you know, [00:14:40] members, um, you know, [00:14:45] based on the most recent sampling event, [00:14:48] which I have, I think the report was [00:14:50] dated September of 2025. [00:14:54] You know, what does it mean and what, if [00:14:57] anything, should the board do? Um, and [00:15:00] from what I can see, [00:15:03] they there are numerous wells that [00:15:06] exceed the drink and water standard [00:15:09] for POS and 14 dioxane. Um, and [00:15:17] that was noted in the report. It was [00:15:19] submitted to the D and under solid [00:15:21] waste. My understanding of those [00:15:24] regulations is that the ball is now in [00:15:27] the hands of the D. The consultant is [00:15:31] not required to make recommendations. [00:15:33] They don't [00:15:36] um sort of go out and do things [00:15:38] proactively. They're not obligated to do [00:15:41] that proactively. Um they need to have [00:15:44] discussions with the solid weight solid [00:15:46] waste regulators as to what the next [00:15:49] steps are. And that's sort of where I [00:15:52] think the board is sort of unclear as to [00:15:55] what's going on. Is the are the state [00:15:58] regulators [00:15:59] moving forward on additional assessment? [00:16:01] Do they need to and so forth? And you [00:16:04] know my interpretation of this is that [00:16:07] they have fairly significantly high [00:16:11] concentrations of POS in a number of [00:16:13] wells that exceed the drinking water [00:16:16] standards. It sits on top of a priority [00:16:19] high productive aquifer which by default [00:16:22] is given drinking water standards as the [00:16:26] um [00:16:28] the groundwater standard that applies to [00:16:31] that area under this waste site cleanup [00:16:33] regulations. [00:16:35] So, you know, the performance standard [00:16:37] generally for something like this would [00:16:39] be that you have points of compliance in [00:16:41] three dimensions because there's deep [00:16:43] and shallow portions of the aquifer that [00:16:45] are impacted as well as laterally. And [00:16:48] right now, I don't see that they have [00:16:51] any downgradient uh downgradient points [00:16:54] of compliance. [00:16:55] >> Any what? [00:16:55] >> No downgradient points of compliance [00:16:58] with regard to PAS [00:17:00] >> meaning measurements down. So they just [00:17:02] they [00:17:03] >> they know it's here, [00:17:04] >> but they don't know [00:17:06] >> they don't know where it go how far it [00:17:07] goes. [00:17:09] And you know, right now I don't know [00:17:11] that that's necessarily on the landfill [00:17:15] owner [00:17:16] being, you know, [00:17:19] unresponsive [00:17:21] or not having guidance or, you know, [00:17:25] direction from the D to say, okay, we've [00:17:27] seen what you did in September or [00:17:29] whatever the report was dated September. [00:17:32] Go drill more wells and get more [00:17:34] samples. We don't we don't know that. [00:17:36] And [00:17:37] >> well because PAS has only been tested [00:17:39] the last two years and 25 just started [00:17:43] that at the landfills [00:17:44] >> but plenty of other you know the dioxane [00:17:47] acetone you know I mean there's a lot of [00:17:50] other contaminants that have been in the [00:17:51] wells [00:17:52] >> for a long time. So, so we have we have [00:17:55] test data going back to 2009. Yep. [00:17:57] >> Which have been sitting on the board of [00:17:59] health shelf for, you know, we never [00:18:00] looked at it to be honest. As citizens, [00:18:03] we dropped them all, [00:18:04] >> right? [00:18:04] >> But in any case, there have been [00:18:06] contaminants going way back. Um, and D [00:18:10] has not acted to to do any other further [00:18:13] recommendations or test wells, you know. [00:18:15] And I think the feeling is that, you [00:18:18] know, sleeping dogs. Let's hope it goes [00:18:20] away or whatever. Um, but there has not [00:18:23] been any activity as as far as I'm aware [00:18:26] of by the DP in monitoring or in [00:18:30] assessing I should say how far this [00:18:32] plume potentially could exist, [00:18:34] >> right? [00:18:34] >> Um, we do know that the that the, you [00:18:37] know, the the the aquifer is deeper than [00:18:39] the quabit. I mean, it's 250 ft um deep [00:18:43] um exceeds a quab by 100 ft. Um, and [00:18:47] it's a very it's a high yield aquifer. [00:18:49] you know, to flow of water southward to [00:18:50] the Tennereware and to wells around part [00:18:53] of the pond. Um, so there are drinking [00:18:55] wells. They're not 500 feet. They're a [00:18:57] little bit further, but we don't know [00:18:59] how far it is, right? [00:19:01] >> So, um, yeah, I mean, and and we know [00:19:03] that these PAS is at least PAS 6 are, [00:19:07] you know, they're they're forever [00:19:09] chemicals, meaning they don't break [00:19:10] down. They travel far, they travel wide. [00:19:13] Yeah. [00:19:13] >> And they're carcinogenic. Um, I mean [00:19:16] there's 1500 different PAS, but six of [00:19:18] which are known carcinogens, [00:19:20] >> not counting arsenic and all the other [00:19:22] stuff that um, [00:19:25] >> so you know, in light of what happened [00:19:27] in Charleton and Southbridge uh, with [00:19:29] the landfill and Southbridge and the [00:19:32] plumes that cross the town border into [00:19:35] into uh, Charlton, you know, where has [00:19:38] raised their their concerns and [00:19:40] rightfully so that the, you know, that [00:19:42] landfill could be putting their water at [00:19:44] risk. [00:19:45] So, we're just wondering what what do [00:19:47] we, you know, what is, you know, what do [00:19:50] we do as a board of health and as a town [00:19:53] of hard, you know, the town of Hardwick? [00:19:55] Um, [00:19:57] as far as holding D's feet to the fire [00:20:00] or asking them for, you know, official. [00:20:02] >> Yeah. I mean the [00:20:04] I guess the first [00:20:06] step would be to contact and I you know [00:20:09] you and I have talked about this but to [00:20:10] contact whoever the project manager is [00:20:13] at solid waste that's handling this and [00:20:16] I don't know who it is [00:20:17] >> Dan Hall has been the person [00:20:19] >> is he the section chief or is he just [00:20:20] the project [00:20:23] >> and you know ask him if they're holding [00:20:26] you know the permit that they have [00:20:27] specifically tells them and I have it [00:20:29] here somewhere that they need to meet [00:20:32] these standards. It's in their permit [00:20:34] from uh 2009. [00:20:36] >> Mhm. [00:20:37] >> It doesn't specify PAS. It just says you [00:20:40] need to sample for these parameters and [00:20:43] PAS got added later. [00:20:44] >> Right. [00:20:45] >> Um and you need to meet the applicable [00:20:47] standards and then my interpretation [00:20:49] would be that the applicable standard [00:20:51] for this area would be GW1 which is [00:20:54] drinking water standards. The Thai bond [00:20:57] report specifies that there are no known [00:21:01] drinking water wells within 500 ft, [00:21:03] which is also one of the [00:21:07] things that would make it a GW1 area. [00:21:09] >> Mhm. Um, but the mapping of it by USGS, [00:21:13] you don't even need the bylaw because [00:21:16] the waste cleanup regulations specify [00:21:19] that any high yield aquifer mapped by [00:21:21] USGS is a GW1 potential drink water [00:21:24] source area. in 2009 [00:21:28] uh you know or seven or so 2007 one of [00:21:31] the statements by Ky Bond was that while [00:21:34] this is not really on a high medium [00:21:36] yield it's right on the border of a high [00:21:39] medium and low yield uh and so uh [00:21:42] therefore they're not under those they [00:21:45] don't need to follow all those rules [00:21:47] >> exactly so and and they presented you [00:21:49] know they they and we have some of the [00:21:51] maps the groundwater testing maps yeah [00:21:53] >> uh engineering maps that I' love for you [00:21:56] to look at. But in any case, that's why [00:21:58] we've moved forward with the regula [00:22:01] regulatory um um process, [00:22:04] >> right? Because [00:22:06] in our our feeling is that the gravel [00:22:08] bathtub um you know granite bathtub with [00:22:11] you know filled with gravel is whether [00:22:13] it's a whether you're polluting it low [00:22:15] yield or medium yield or just even in [00:22:18] the buffer zones [00:22:20] >> the only the only [00:22:24] thing that I can see in terms of the [00:22:26] that argument would be that they're [00:22:28] they're making that argument in order to [00:22:29] say that GW1 standards don't apply in [00:22:32] which case they don't exceed a [00:22:34] notification or an actionable threshold. [00:22:37] >> Okay. [00:22:37] >> Um but I would I would disagree based on [00:22:42] the mapping, [00:22:43] >> right? [00:22:43] >> Um and the fact that even though they [00:22:45] may be maybe maybe half of the landfill [00:22:47] is outside of that, that doesn't matter [00:22:50] because the other half and the [00:22:51] downgradient side is inside of it and [00:22:53] that would be the leading edge of the [00:22:55] plume which would then be entering into, [00:22:58] you know, it's going to get into the [00:22:59] GW1. So you need to you need to define [00:23:02] those limits down you know where you [00:23:05] have wells and samples that are below [00:23:08] the drinking water standard and in three [00:23:10] dimensions not just laterally. [00:23:12] >> And who's responsible for that? Is it [00:23:14] the landill or is that is that [00:23:15] >> it's the landfill would be responsible [00:23:17] for doing it but only after solid waste [00:23:21] tells them to [00:23:21] >> got okay so really we have to work with [00:23:24] solid waste [00:23:24] >> right and there is overlap with waste [00:23:27] site cleanup [00:23:28] >> right [00:23:28] >> where under certain circumstances [00:23:32] they would need to be operating under [00:23:36] both sets of regulations and the solid [00:23:39] waste regulations [00:23:41] default a lot of their requirements [00:23:43] ments to the wayside cleanup. In other [00:23:45] words, the they say you need to meet the [00:23:47] standards and the standards are in [00:23:50] waysite cleanup. [00:23:51] >> You need to perform assessment and [00:23:52] response actions. [00:23:56] You know, solid waste rags say you need [00:23:57] to perform assessment and response [00:23:59] actions consistent with those that are [00:24:02] defined in the waste cleanup reg. Okay. [00:24:04] So they kind of but they follow this [00:24:05] sort of parallel path but instead of [00:24:08] having LSP oversight they have Direct [00:24:12] oversight [00:24:12] >> way site cleanup this would all be on [00:24:14] the LSP I would look at this and say [00:24:17] this is a GW1 site we need to do this [00:24:19] this and this and when then we would go [00:24:21] do it and the D wouldn't get involved [00:24:23] >> at all right [00:24:25] >> are you talking about do it as in [00:24:26] remediation or [00:24:28] >> any whatever the assessment you need to [00:24:30] meet the performance standard so first [00:24:32] step would be define the problemation [00:24:35] then know who your receptors are. Are we [00:24:37] impacting any house wells? Are we [00:24:39] migrating 4 miles downstream [00:24:42] >> into the wear municipal well or wherever [00:24:44] it's going? [00:24:45] >> How would you even remediate? I mean [00:24:47] >> you would leave point of entry at this [00:24:48] point. [00:24:49] >> Yeah. Right. Cuz it's so broad. [00:24:50] >> Yeah. It would be it would have to be [00:24:52] done at the um wherever the receptor [00:24:56] was. [00:24:56] >> Right. Right. There's no there's just no [00:24:58] way to not [00:25:00] >> we have some maps here that were done by [00:25:03] um some um at BC that basically maps out [00:25:07] where the you know where the plume you [00:25:08] know where the [00:25:09] >> the test well data is and you know um [00:25:13] this is just PAS it's all like you said [00:25:16] right [00:25:18] >> so so where does what does the town do [00:25:21] from here I mean what like do we like [00:25:23] there's liability issues and and whatnot [00:25:27] uh do we you know do we go through town [00:25:31] council uh to [00:25:34] >> because we [laughter] at this point [00:25:35] there's a 30-year [00:25:38] period here that the times click times [00:25:40] uh the clock is running out. [00:25:42] >> Yeah. [00:25:42] >> The town's like the town takes over the [00:25:44] landfill in a certain amount of time and [00:25:47] so we would like to get this resolved [00:25:48] before that you know or at least you [00:25:50] know begin the process and you know stop [00:25:52] the clock if we can. Um I I know my [00:25:56] recommendation would be initially just [00:25:59] to you know either approach both [00:26:01] departments solid waste and just say [00:26:03] look we've made an observation that it [00:26:05] looks like [00:26:06] >> you know the standards aren't being met. [00:26:09] Have you communicated anything back to [00:26:11] them that they need to do something? It [00:26:13] should be a matter of public record. [00:26:15] It's just [00:26:16] >> we haven't because we were waiting for [00:26:18] that's why and maybe you can help us [00:26:20] craft the letter. [00:26:21] >> Sure. Um because we you know as I said [00:26:25] we're not professionals you know [00:26:27] physician the you know dental uh doctor [00:26:30] you know what you know we need you know [00:26:32] we we kind of we're not professionals in [00:26:34] this field [00:26:35] >> and I get you know any response from the [00:26:37] regulators would be a matter of public [00:26:40] record. The files are you know you could [00:26:42] do a [00:26:43] >> okay [00:26:43] >> file review request and go into the you [00:26:46] know the waste site cleanup all of that [00:26:48] is online. I can go in and look at every [00:26:50] single thing that's been submitted. [00:26:51] solid waste is still I don't know if [00:26:55] they make email or hard copy but it's [00:26:58] it's not online so you would have to go [00:27:00] to Springfield go into their files and [00:27:03] look and see what documents have been [00:27:06] submitted [clears throat] you know their [00:27:07] respon if there's even a response from [00:27:09] the state back to the landfill owner you [00:27:13] know subsequent to them reviewing this [00:27:16] September report at this point we don't [00:27:18] know [00:27:19] >> subsequent subsequent so since September [00:27:21] Right. Is there any is there any [00:27:22] documentation? [00:27:24] >> So Neil Halen Hardway for the record [00:27:27] >> who's on the physicians advisory panel [00:27:28] to the board of health. [00:27:29] >> So I I I mean I support obviously [00:27:31] support all this but I have concerns [00:27:35] about [00:27:37] the lack of knowledge that we have about [00:27:39] where the plume is. Um there's [cough] a [00:27:43] couple things at play that particularly [00:27:45] concern me. the the landfill is [00:27:48] surrounded on [00:27:50] at least two sides by sens by wetlands [00:27:54] and in fact um parts of the landfill [00:27:57] fall within the 100 foot buffer zone. Um [00:28:01] so I'm concerned that there's got to be [00:28:05] under sampling here and that we have [00:28:08] wetland risks here. Um, so not only do [00:28:11] we have drinking water and aquafer [00:28:12] issues, we have surface water and and [00:28:15] environmental risks from this. [00:28:17] >> Look at the study. Yeah, because they [00:28:18] they document surface water [00:28:20] contamination. [00:28:21] >> Yes, I know. So, but but we are [00:28:24] >> we have we are suffering sorely from a [00:28:27] lack of data. We we we don't have enough [00:28:29] sample points. [00:28:30] >> The second thing is is that you know [00:28:33] these these well there's comments about [00:28:36] about sampling difficulty at some of the [00:28:38] wells. um and that the wells are have [00:28:41] been dry upon occasion and that you know [00:28:44] we're looking at groundwater level [00:28:46] really is dependent on what your [00:28:48] sampling is going to be like. And one of [00:28:50] my concerns is that um with the in the [00:28:54] change in climate and the the the the [00:28:58] increase in more violent [00:29:02] storms, we will have greater events of [00:29:05] increased water events at a given time. [00:29:08] Instead of a small amount of rain over a [00:29:11] larger period of time, which the ground [00:29:13] can cope with, we're going to have [00:29:15] larger runoff events. so that um we are [00:29:19] at greater risk from the unlined portion [00:29:22] and and any damage perforations to the [00:29:24] lined portion because we're going to [00:29:26] have a larger water flux in defined [00:29:29] events. And so I'm really strongly [00:29:32] speaking towards [00:29:34] the board [00:29:36] pushing the state for increased [00:29:41] monitoring in three dimensions as you [00:29:44] say because we're going to have more [00:29:47] water and periodic higher water tables [00:29:51] >> than we might have in the past. And if [00:29:54] you're not sampling the the wells at the [00:29:57] correct time, we're [snorts] we're under [00:29:59] reporting. We're potentially going to be [00:30:00] under sampling [00:30:03] >> here. Here. [00:30:04] >> Yeah. So, [00:30:07] >> Jeff had a first. [00:30:09] >> Okay. [00:30:10] >> Well, you can go first. [laughter] [00:30:12] >> Thank you. [00:30:14] >> We're a friendly bunch. [00:30:16] >> Yeah, it's Bill. I'm Bill Cole. I had [00:30:18] this question. Um, so this testing began [00:30:22] well the closure was say in 2009 and the [00:30:26] contract for the closure. Um, I think it [00:30:29] said that that an LSP was required [00:30:32] during the closure and oversight. [00:30:35] >> No, no, only cleanup. [00:30:37] >> Only if something kicks it into way site [00:30:40] cleanup perview. So we we didn't have [00:30:44] this kind of consulting and while we had [00:30:46] tests, we didn't really look at them as [00:30:48] as you'd indicated and and the PASS [00:30:50] wasn't even something that was tested [00:30:52] until the last couple of years, [00:30:53] >> right? I think you indicated that there [00:30:56] was um evidence of downgradient [00:31:01] um contamination [00:31:03] uh and we're downgrading wells and so [00:31:05] and so my question too is and I know the [00:31:07] landfill folks would be saying uh it's [00:31:10] not our problem. Maybe it comes from up [00:31:12] above maybe. So has there been any [00:31:14] testing for above the landfill where [00:31:16] there is I think another I'd have to [00:31:19] look and see but typically that would be [00:31:21] part of the you know they must [00:31:24] >> well they did [00:31:28] they would include upgradient uh [00:31:31] background samples as well. There's a [00:31:34] before well there's a before test place [00:31:37] and then after [00:31:38] >> yeah so so there's surface water testing [00:31:40] upstream downstream and right at the [00:31:42] landfill that shows surface water [00:31:45] contamination the upgradient test wells [00:31:48] are contaminated as well. So but they're [00:31:51] just around the perimeter of the [00:31:52] landfill. They're not like you know up [00:31:54] towards Rainy Nobles or you know the [00:31:57] like further up valley. Um, and that's, [00:32:00] you know, that that does not that data [00:32:02] does not exist. I think the landfill, [00:32:05] you know, that Cassell has been doing or [00:32:07] hard landfill has been doing what [00:32:09] they're supposed to do and just [00:32:11] monitoring the wells around the [00:32:12] landfill, but not outside [00:32:16] any blame or or [00:32:20] >> demanding any, you know, cleanup or [00:32:22] such. It's it's it's going to come down [00:32:24] to where where is the problem and who [00:32:26] who can be proven to be responsible. So [00:32:29] I think historically or even from now [00:32:32] forward in comparison to these ongoing [00:32:35] tests something from upstream if you [00:32:38] will is going to be useful and the [00:32:41] contract itself we we don't seem to know [00:32:43] the best before but we talk about 30 [00:32:46] years. [00:32:47] >> Yeah. [00:32:47] >> Um I think the town's going to need to [00:32:50] know what what happens in 30 years and [00:32:52] what and you asked this a minute ago. [00:32:54] What are the what are the considerations [00:32:57] in terms of bringing this to light and [00:33:00] trying in some to prosecute a solution? [00:33:02] What what's [00:33:04] >> I think we have a model for what [00:33:06] happens. Uh it's called a lower road [00:33:08] landfill. [00:33:09] >> Oh yeah. [00:33:10] >> And uh [00:33:12] >> um the town has been engaged in [00:33:15] monitoring uh activities there for many [00:33:19] years. cost about4 to $50,000 of town [00:33:23] tax money every year. [00:33:25] >> Um [00:33:27] about 20,000 [00:33:28] >> it's it was 15 last year and it's going [00:33:33] up because of peak fast testing now by [00:33:36] $6,000. [00:33:38] But there was also the costs of um [00:33:41] monitoring wells [00:33:42] >> the monitoring wells. We have a one [00:33:44] failed monitoring well there that uh [00:33:47] we're putting before the uh capital [00:33:50] planning committee to replace. [00:33:52] >> You must mow and fence. [00:33:55] >> Well, it's it's not mowed or fenced. [00:33:57] It's used as a retail property by the uh [00:34:01] harbor co-op. [00:34:02] >> But again, we're on the we would be on [00:34:04] >> we're on the hook for monitoring and all [00:34:06] that, but the the uh the co-op sits on [00:34:09] the land. will be on the and talk I mean [00:34:11] look at Charlton South. I mean [00:34:13] >> we had to replace some of the wells [00:34:15] because they got paved over by the co-op [00:34:17] for the parking area. [00:34:18] >> I recently drove by this land though but [00:34:22] >> I recently drove by [00:34:25] >> I think [00:34:28] engaged town council. I mean I I think [00:34:30] we need legal advice and legal guidance [00:34:33] in this [00:34:34] >> situation. Would you agree Scott? I mean [00:34:37] >> I mean it can't hurt. I mean if this [00:34:39] particularly you know even absent the [00:34:43] pending [00:34:45] you know liability that the town will [00:34:46] have in 25 years or whatever the time [00:34:49] >> no it's about 8 years it's [00:34:52] >> the horizon is closer the 30 years [00:34:55] started a long time ago [00:34:57] >> yeah so you know that liability may not [00:34:59] be insignificant and certainly you know [00:35:02] >> in forcing [00:35:05] the at least the full delineation of the [00:35:07] problems So but right now [00:35:09] >> the liability is a complete unknown [00:35:11] >> right because we because we don't know [00:35:13] the extent we don't have a delineation [00:35:15] of the of the [00:35:16] >> of the problem and we need to force them [00:35:18] to delineate the problem [00:35:21] >> and you know [00:35:23] >> I would start with both [00:35:26] >> solid waste and wasteight cleanup. [00:35:30] >> Um most you know if if there are no [00:35:34] directly impacted receptors [00:35:36] >> Yeah. which at this point there aren't [00:35:38] any that we know of. [00:35:41] >> Way site cleanup will, you know, the the [00:35:44] overlap doesn't take over. [00:35:46] >> Okay. [00:35:47] >> Um [00:35:48] once you start to get house wells [00:35:50] involved, if there are and you know, you [00:35:52] said there's none within 500 ft, but is [00:35:54] it 600 ft? Is it 800? I don't know. [00:35:57] >> I mean, if I was down, if I was around [00:35:59] the heart of the pond, I would be [00:36:00] nervous. [00:36:01] and and you know that might be something [00:36:03] that certainly homeowners can sample [00:36:06] these on their own. There's nothing to [00:36:07] prevent a [00:36:08] >> down possibly but it's not an expensive [00:36:11] analysis. That's you know that's for [00:36:13] sure. [00:36:13] >> Um [00:36:15] >> and but it you know it is something that [00:36:19] >> we actually have a limited amount of [00:36:22] funding made available by a citizen to [00:36:25] test some of the private wealth. just [00:36:27] have to decide which is appropriate, [00:36:30] >> right? Yep. And sometimes this state has [00:36:34] I know they've gone in and and done some [00:36:36] testing [00:36:38] um in different areas of the state. I'm [00:36:40] not sure about Western Mass, but I know [00:36:42] they did it in central region. They did [00:36:43] it in the northeast. Um and you know [00:36:48] just initially just to see what's out [00:36:51] there because this is such a prevalent [00:36:53] contaminant [00:36:55] >> um that you know we were just trying to [00:36:58] get a background and one of them in [00:37:00] Kingsboro um [00:37:02] >> I think you and I talked about that one [00:37:04] that turned out to be you know a huge [00:37:06] problem because lo and behold there had [00:37:08] been one of the wells in the development [00:37:11] exploded while they were drilling it. [00:37:13] They hit a pocket of natural gas, caught [00:37:16] the rig on fire, [00:37:17] >> and the Tinsboro Fire Department came [00:37:19] out and put the fire out with with POS [00:37:21] foam, which went straight down the well, [00:37:24] >> and that was 20 years ago. [00:37:26] >> Wow. [00:37:28] >> Fast forward 15 20 years. And state [00:37:30] says, "Can we sample your well?" Sure. [00:37:31] And it came back like, you know, $1,500 [00:37:34] off the chart. [00:37:35] >> Huge numbers, right? And then they [00:37:37] couldn't figure out where it was coming [00:37:38] from until they found this article in [00:37:41] the well drillers journal talking about [00:37:43] this regular fire because they hit [00:37:45] a pocket of natural gas. But it's not [00:37:47] just PAS, right? There's there's there's [00:37:49] a lot of other indicative [00:37:52] >> contaminants in the groundwater. [00:37:54] >> Sure. [00:37:55] >> So PAS, you know, it's claimed to be [00:37:57] everywhere. in our in all our septic [00:37:59] systems, [00:38:00] >> but there's also dioxane, there's [00:38:01] acetone, tuine, [00:38:04] cycle, butane. There's all kinds of and [00:38:07] lead, you know, and heavy metals. [00:38:09] >> So, I'm just trying to uh how do we move [00:38:12] forward with the assessment? We're [00:38:13] trying to still trying to make a [00:38:14] diagnosis here to put in doctor term, [00:38:16] right? [00:38:17] >> You know, we don't have the data. We [00:38:18] don't have the the data points, [00:38:20] >> right? And we need to for you know we [00:38:22] need legal counsel and we need you know [00:38:26] D to get on board you know to force I [00:38:28] mean that's that's the key in terms of [00:38:32] you know sort of making sure that the [00:38:34] that the it's not there there doesn't [00:38:36] need to be new regulations. The [00:38:38] regulations are there. This is the [00:38:40] performance standard. And so it's really [00:38:42] just making sure that [00:38:45] that the you know the the landfill owner [00:38:48] is not going to do anything they don't [00:38:49] have to do. Right. [00:38:51] >> And [00:38:52] >> if the regulators are not telling them [00:38:55] this is what you need to do, they're not [00:38:57] going to do it. [00:38:58] >> Right. [00:38:58] >> Um but if it's a fox in the hen house [00:39:01] kind of thing, you know, if the fox is [00:39:02] watch guard the hen house, [00:39:04] >> you know, is the eper [00:39:07] fish to fry, you know, they they have [00:39:09] other big brownfield queen, you know. [00:39:11] >> Yeah, I'm sure. But [00:39:13] >> but I'm sure they probably think, you [00:39:15] know, let's let this sleeping dog lie, [00:39:17] right? And just to let go of [00:39:19] >> Yeah. I mean that could be and in that [00:39:20] case then you're right you might need [00:39:22] legal counsel to force their hand [00:39:25] >> um you know to make them [00:39:28] enforce the regulations they're supposed [00:39:29] to be enforcing [00:39:31] >> um and that's where I said that's where [00:39:32] maybe the overlap with waste site [00:39:35] cleanup if solid waste is not doing it [00:39:39] >> you know an appeal to wasteight cleanup [00:39:41] say look this is what we have [00:39:42] >> okay so we can appeal so we so the steps [00:39:45] would be we reach out DP and if that [00:39:47] doesn't work out we can appeal you to [00:39:49] waste [00:39:50] >> wastite cleanup as well. You say, "Look, [00:39:52] [clears throat] this is our situation. [00:39:53] Is there anywhere that this would fall [00:39:54] under that waist uh waste cleanup's [00:39:56] jurisdiction [00:39:58] and or can you at least work with solid [00:40:00] waste or you know maybe go to [00:40:04] >> the board and chief of you know the [00:40:06] whole western region?" I'm not sure who [00:40:08] that is off the top of my head, but you [00:40:10] know, you go above the section chief and [00:40:13] say this is a problem, but that would [00:40:15] probably be a town council move, [00:40:18] >> right? [00:40:19] >> Not my move. [00:40:20] >> Mike, you go. Do you have anything to [00:40:23] add to this? I know uh you're listening [00:40:25] in on this. [00:40:26] >> Yeah. In fact, I'm listening to um [00:40:30] I definitely think that you need to talk [00:40:32] to David Jenkins, your fiscal attorney. [00:40:36] Sure. [00:40:37] So, um, can can everybody hear No, [00:40:41] >> that's as loud as it goes. [00:40:42] >> That's loud as it goes. I'm sorry. [00:40:44] >> I'm trying to speak up a little bit. You [00:40:46] definitely need to speak to your to your [00:40:48] municipal attorney about those issues, [00:40:50] but I think I can help to to run a [00:40:53] little interference with D for you. [00:40:56] >> Okay. [00:40:56] >> We work we work with them. Uh, every two [00:41:00] weeks we meet with D. The coalition for [00:41:03] public health meets with them. And I [00:41:06] believe that the next meeting which is I [00:41:08] think it's next Monday uh I believe we [00:41:11] have the commissioner coming to us [00:41:14] >> the commissioner [00:41:16] >> statewide D [00:41:18] commissioner [00:41:19] >> okay not height I believe is coming [00:41:24] >> next I think it's next Monday and um uh [00:41:28] I will certainly raise this with her and [00:41:30] what she will do is detail somebody to [00:41:33] call me. That's the way it usually [00:41:35] works. Once once I put it on their [00:41:37] radar, I get a phone call from somebody [00:41:40] usually. [00:41:40] >> Okay. [00:41:40] >> And then we can try we can try to put [00:41:43] the pieces together uh and come up with [00:41:46] some kind of a strategy. But I I I [00:41:48] definitely I'm taking intense notes [00:41:50] here. [00:41:51] >> Okay. [00:41:51] >> I I I think that that's the part I can [00:41:54] help you with. Yeah. [00:41:55] >> Right now. So the the town getting town [00:41:57] council involved from KPA [00:42:00] um to review the contracts and whatnot [00:42:03] from 2000, you know, the closure [00:42:06] postclosure contract. [00:42:07] >> I think I think what you got to do is is [00:42:09] is just let them know that this is all [00:42:12] happening [00:42:13] >> to start with because the worst thing in [00:42:16] the world you can do is is come to them [00:42:18] once once once you're in a position [00:42:20] where things are moving way faster than [00:42:22] what you thought they might because that [00:42:24] could happen. uh it's very difficult to [00:42:27] to call the lawyer at that point and [00:42:28] say, you know, we've been working on [00:42:30] something for six or eight months and uh [00:42:33] oh, and oh, by the way, we need [00:42:34] something from you by Tuesday. [00:42:37] >> It's it puts them in a very bad [00:42:39] situation and that's a it's an extremely [00:42:41] busy firm and and catching their [00:42:44] attention. I think that they always [00:42:46] appreciate knowing that something's on [00:42:47] the radar. So [00:42:49] >> So we would have to go to town to the [00:42:51] select board and ask for That's correct. [00:42:53] >> They're here as citizens. They're not [00:42:55] board. Um and uh we have two [00:42:58] >> Yeah. Anyway, um we'd go to the select [00:43:00] board, ask for access to the town [00:43:03] council [00:43:04] >> and or maybe the select board could act [00:43:08] as a mediary [00:43:10] that they as residents have an [00:43:12] understanding of what's going on um and [00:43:16] ask for it. Uh their legal review. Well, [00:43:19] it sounds like what you're saying, Mike, [00:43:21] is we basically just at this point have [00:43:23] to put uh town council on notice. [00:43:27] >> I would put them on notice that this is [00:43:28] happening. Um and um and that way you're [00:43:32] not surprising them, but u I think that [00:43:36] I I think Mr. Taker, you're on the [00:43:38] you're on the select board. If I [00:43:40] >> We have two two members of the select [00:43:42] board with us. I [00:43:43] >> they're here, but they're here as [00:43:44] residents. They're not here as a select [00:43:46] board cuz it's on a select [00:43:48] boardformational purpose. [00:43:49] >> Okay. So I but I think you should then I [00:43:51] think you should schedule a uh a joint [00:43:53] meeting with the select board or or at [00:43:56] least get onto their agenda and then you [00:43:58] convene your own meeting so that you can [00:44:00] all talk about it in front of you know [00:44:02] on on the [00:44:03] >> record [00:44:04] but you should meet meet with them get [00:44:06] on their agenda for just even an agenda [00:44:09] item to put this on their radar also and [00:44:11] at that time that's when I would make [00:44:13] the request uh for access to to you town [00:44:17] council. [00:44:17] >> Okay. Okay. [00:44:20] >> And we could tell town council that [00:44:22] Scott Parker has been involved as a LSP [00:44:25] and makes recommendations. It's not just [00:44:27] >> Yeah. You tell people working with M3, [00:44:30] they they know us [00:44:31] >> very well. [00:44:33] >> Okay. [00:44:38] >> Jeff, [00:44:38] >> I had a I have a question. Um Jeff Shaw, [00:44:42] I'm also a select board member. Um, [00:44:48] you get your assessment done. It sounds [00:44:50] like there's contamination already [00:44:52] there. What can be done? Is is the genie [00:44:56] out of the bottle, so to speak, that the [00:44:59] water's going to be contaminated till [00:45:02] what these forever chemicals finally [00:45:04] break down in the environment or [00:45:07] >> they don't break down [00:45:08] >> more or less. That's the case. [00:45:11] [clears throat] Um [00:45:13] you know the particularly with the POS [00:45:16] those compounds are you know their high [00:45:20] affinity to be dissolved in water. Um so [00:45:23] they become dissolved and then they like [00:45:26] to stay there and they migrate you know [00:45:29] more or less with the groundwater but [00:45:32] little to no retardation. Um [00:45:35] and so yes in that case you know these [00:45:38] this plume is continuing to move you [00:45:41] know a high yield aquifer like this [00:45:42] maybe a foot per day something like [00:45:45] that. Um [00:45:47] so so the primary focus should be in [00:45:50] stopping. [00:45:51] >> Well the primary focus right now should [00:45:53] be [00:45:55] you there's it it's very difficult if [00:45:59] not impossible to stop [00:46:01] >> and that's why so the way site cleanup [00:46:03] regulations are all geared towards [00:46:06] riskbased assessment and risk based [00:46:11] response actions. So [00:46:13] >> you know in this case where you have [00:46:15] this you know very high concentrations [00:46:17] [clears throat] [00:46:19] a known source this this argument that [00:46:22] maybe it's an upgradient source is [00:46:25] >> that's a pretty high bar to prove I mean [00:46:28] maybe it is a coingle plume with some [00:46:30] other upgradient source but [00:46:31] >> there's nothing else upstream [00:46:34] a lot of defos in the leeched [00:46:37] some kind of uh [00:46:41] >> appliance stumps way upstream. [00:46:43] >> Way up miles. [00:46:45] >> But nevertheless, that isn't in my [00:46:47] opinion, that's not enough to [00:46:49] >> noate them from their [00:46:51] >> For all intents and purposes, we're [00:46:53] talking about the land, [00:46:54] >> right? The landfill needs to do what the [00:46:55] landfill should do. And and right now, [00:46:59] that is get your arms around the problem [00:47:01] and know who your receptors are. And [00:47:04] really, that means is anybody drinking [00:47:06] this water? [00:47:08] um because the surface water is a [00:47:11] problem but those numbers are much [00:47:14] higher than the drinking water [00:47:15] standards. Um it is not a inhalation [00:47:20] hazard. It's not something like [00:47:23] chlorinated solvents that migrate but [00:47:25] then partition back out of the [00:47:27] groundwater and then come up into your [00:47:30] breathing air for example like radon [00:47:32] because that [00:47:33] >> you know that's a problem for [00:47:34] chlorinated solvents not for PAS. So, [00:47:38] you know, even if you had a massive PAS [00:47:40] plume moving under this building, we [00:47:43] would not be at risk in here breathing [00:47:45] PAS contaminated air. It just doesn't do [00:47:47] that. That's just an ingestion problem. [00:47:49] And so identifying where those receptors [00:47:53] are [00:47:54] and then they, like I said, maybe you [00:47:57] figure out based on groundwater flow [00:47:59] direction where the first where the [00:48:00] closest house well is and let's sample [00:48:03] that one and see what we find. at at [00:48:05] that point you have an idea if that well [00:48:09] and even if that well is clean [00:48:12] it it's it's a very [clears throat] [00:48:13] difficult right because you don't know [00:48:16] it might be a you know well in this case [00:48:18] they're probably you know in the same [00:48:20] aquifer but um you know depends on where [00:48:24] the well is screened where the [00:48:26] groundwater flow regime is going um you [00:48:29] know there's vertical components of flow [00:48:31] where you know if you're only pulling [00:48:33] water out of the top 30 ft feet of the [00:48:35] water table and that plume dives and [00:48:37] comes out up here. It went right under [00:48:39] you and you didn't it but then this guy [00:48:41] gets it. [00:48:42] >> Mhm. [00:48:42] >> As it comes back up because all ground [00:48:45] water ultimately discharges to the [00:48:46] surface water. So it's going to be [00:48:49] headed either to Muddy Brook or you know [00:48:53] depending on where in the regime [00:48:56] >> it may dive and then come up you know [00:48:58] several miles down the street wells for [00:49:01] kind of where [00:49:02] >> treatment at the drinking water well [00:49:05] would be where we'd be looking [00:49:07] >> and that is the response that would be [00:49:08] done. Um you know I'm involved with the [00:49:11] town of Westminster and you know that [00:49:14] has a they have a massive PAS problem. [00:49:17] no town water. Um [00:49:20] >> they're drinking bottle water. [00:49:22] >> 200 [00:49:24] point of entry treatment systems online [00:49:26] right now. Um sampling in the [00:49:29] neighborhood of 300 or more houses. [00:49:31] >> That's because they had a company that [00:49:34] makes the human waste fertilizer. [00:49:38] >> That was part of it. Yes. It was a but [00:49:40] it was a that was a permitted composting [00:49:43] and recycling facility that was bringing [00:49:45] in paper pulp among other things. Um we [00:49:49] don't want that kind of headache for you [00:49:52] know I mean this is what we're trying to [00:49:54] >> get an assessment of at this point in [00:49:56] time. [00:49:57] >> I know but we've been doing this since I [00:49:59] was on the board of [00:50:00] >> but but we're trying to test the first [00:50:04] going into the Muddy Brook. I I want to [00:50:08] know what those levels of PAS were. [00:50:12] >> They're right here. I can give it to you [00:50:13] >> compared to the ones coming out. We need [00:50:16] to test the outflow of the hardwig pond [00:50:19] going into the wear [00:50:24] uh area and [00:50:27] >> let the professionals figure out where [00:50:29] the testing goes. [00:50:31] >> The point is we got to force them to do [00:50:32] the testing. [00:50:33] >> There needs to be motivation. [00:50:35] >> Right. Right. So we need to determine [00:50:38] I mean we need to force them to do the [00:50:40] testing in order to move this along for [00:50:42] for the town for the taxpayer for and [00:50:45] most importantly for the people that [00:50:47] live just downstream. I mean it's just [00:50:49] not fair to those people who it's their [00:50:51] homes it's their it's their health and [00:50:54] >> they don't know what they're dealing [00:50:55] with exactly at this point. [00:50:56] >> Right. [00:50:57] >> Who are we trying to manipulate to take [00:50:59] these tests and why aren't we the ones [00:51:02] taking [00:51:03] >> Well D Yeah. waste either either uh yeah [00:51:07] solid waste or waste site. [00:51:10] >> Yes, Bill. [00:51:11] >> Following up on Jeff's question about [00:51:13] possible remediation. So only at the [00:51:17] spots where somebody would be drinking [00:51:20] this water. It is [clears throat] [00:51:22] treatable in a sense. And those [00:51:23] treatments we know from other towns have [00:51:25] included just giving them regular [00:51:28] supplies of bottled water forever. [00:51:30] >> Okay. [00:51:30] >> Um or [00:51:31] >> or municipal municipal Yeah. Yeah, water [00:51:34] lines, which is what they did in [00:51:35] Charleton. [00:51:38] That was their their responsibility, but [00:51:40] they paid for it. They put in water [00:51:42] lines to the residents in Charleton. [00:51:45] >> Westminster is bringing in water from [00:51:48] the city of Fitsburg, [00:51:49] >> right? And um [00:51:51] >> yeah, [00:51:55] >> problems, etc. on and on, you know, so [00:51:57] the whole the whole theoretically the [00:51:59] whole area could [00:52:00] >> going down into where it could all need [00:52:02] remediation. It's a dramatic expense, [00:52:05] right, [00:52:05] >> from the whole thing. So [00:52:08] >> what could be unveiled? [00:52:10] >> We can't ignore it though and hope it [00:52:12] goes away. [00:52:14] >> I know. I know. Just you know this you [00:52:17] know 30 years ago, right? [00:52:19] >> Yeah. I mean it's there. Yeah. I mean [00:52:21] there are you know to [00:52:25] there are containment methods that can [00:52:28] be done to minimize what's leaving the [00:52:32] source area. Um [00:52:35] but [00:52:37] the [00:52:39] the best approach first is to understand [00:52:41] where your problem is and and where it [00:52:44] is and how big it is before you start [00:52:46] before you start trying to come up with [00:52:49] ways to you know either contain it. You [00:52:52] know groundwater recovery and treatment [00:52:54] on site is you know [00:52:56] >> it's not an inexpensive running process [00:52:59] to begin with. it's somewhat effective. [00:53:02] You know, making the making sure that [00:53:04] the cap is in good, you know, has good [00:53:07] integrity is obviously going to help a [00:53:10] lot. Capturing leech and making sure [00:53:12] that doesn't go into mid groundwater is [00:53:14] um, you know, obviously a better way to [00:53:16] go about it as well. So, you know, there [00:53:18] are mitigation [00:53:20] things that can be done to, you know, to [00:53:23] cut down on it, but, you know, for all [00:53:25] intents and purposes, the horse is out [00:53:26] of the barn for everything that's, you [00:53:28] know, 100 ft under the landfill at this [00:53:31] point is going to go on its course and [00:53:33] just [00:53:34] >> But one thing's Oh, just cuz I just want [00:53:36] to make a comment that one thing's for [00:53:38] sure is that landfill expansion [00:53:41] and making it into a regional landfill [00:53:43] for all of New England or, you know, [00:53:46] central is is zero. [00:53:48] >> Not a good idea. [00:53:49] >> No. [00:53:50] >> Disturbing this disturbing this land at [00:53:53] all, [00:53:53] >> right, [00:53:53] >> is not a So, let me if I could ask you a [00:53:55] question. Um, so we keep talking about [00:54:00] sampling [00:54:02] receptors, you know, personal wells [00:54:05] around the um around the the landfill. [00:54:11] One of the problems is as we look at [00:54:14] these beautiful maps in the background [00:54:16] here that a a large area that the plume [00:54:21] could exist under already is underwater [00:54:25] and it could be deep heading deep there [00:54:29] still. Right? We don't have people with [00:54:32] wells there. [00:54:34] >> We're going to have a huge hole in our [00:54:38] in our knowledge here. So, how do we how [00:54:42] do we best advocate for a plan that [00:54:47] allows us to understand [00:54:50] what's going on in the in the whole area [00:54:53] as opposed to just a few houses that run [00:54:56] down the west side and a few houses that [00:54:58] run down the east side. [00:55:00] >> That's to the engineers, [00:55:01] >> right? you know, the performance [00:55:03] standard is still on the landfill owner [00:55:08] to define the problem in three [00:55:10] dimensions. [00:55:11] >> Mhm. [00:55:12] >> All I'm saying is that for, you know, [00:55:15] the lowhanging fruit of the receptor [00:55:18] >> is something that, you know, either the [00:55:21] town could advocate or assist these [00:55:23] homeowners to sample them now rather [00:55:26] than wait until they go drill wells. And [00:55:28] as they sort of expand and they drilled [00:55:31] and now we still aren't there and now we [00:55:34] still aren't there and now we now we got [00:55:35] it. We're but these are still above the [00:55:38] drinking water standard. So now you have [00:55:40] to continually move that 500 ft line. So [00:55:44] if they've gone 1,000 ft from the [00:55:46] landfill to get their downgradient point [00:55:47] of compliance, they have to continually [00:55:50] reassess where the receptors are because [00:55:53] it's not 500 ft from the landfill. It's [00:55:55] 500 ft from that last failing point. [00:55:59] >> So if the most downgradient sample [00:56:03] that fails is 1,000 ft down gradient. [00:56:06] Mhm. [00:56:07] >> The receptor is another 500 ft from [00:56:09] there. So now I'm sure you're getting [00:56:12] into [00:56:12] >> well 500 ft from these test wells is [00:56:17] wet. [00:56:18] >> Right. [00:56:18] >> Right. But he's saying that the plume is [00:56:19] found to go thousand feet. What I'm [00:56:21] saying is to to drill the the 500 ft [00:56:25] >> test well is wet [00:56:28] >> is water is water. You're you're in the [00:56:30] marshes at that point. [00:56:32] >> So I'm just [00:56:34] >> it can be done right now is frozen. [00:56:36] >> Okay. [laughter] [00:56:37] >> Okay. I mean so this is an interesting [00:56:39] >> this is a technical issue that can [00:56:42] engineers come up with [00:56:46] the technology exists to be able to get [00:56:49] the short. Yep. So I had a question. Um [00:56:51] when you're talking about the [00:56:52] performance standards, you're talking [00:56:54] about DP the regulations. So they thon [00:56:58] should be testing, you know, [00:57:00] >> well is only going to do what the [00:57:02] landfill owner tells them to do and the [00:57:04] landfill owner is only going to do what [00:57:06] the D tells them to. There's nothing [00:57:09] under solid waste that requires them to [00:57:11] be proactive. [00:57:13] >> So they need a push, [00:57:14] >> right? the wing and wayside cleanup [00:57:19] has the LSP program which means that if [00:57:24] you have a problem and you have an LSP [00:57:27] the LSP says this is what we need to do [00:57:29] >> and then you have to do it or you get a [00:57:32] different LSP because [00:57:34] >> so so this is going to them and saying [00:57:36] this is what [00:57:37] >> this is a Direct oversight situation so [00:57:41] >> they have submitted their report they [00:57:43] told them what they down. They sort of [00:57:46] said they failed the performance [00:57:48] standard of, you know, delineation to [00:57:50] the drinking water standard. The [00:57:52] language is there. [00:57:55] It's sort of muted, but it's there. [00:57:57] >> Um, and then now they're waiting for, [00:58:01] you know, the regulators to come back [00:58:03] and say, "Hey, we noticed that you [00:58:05] failed. You don't have downgraded [00:58:06] control. We think you should put in some [00:58:09] more wells. Okay, where should we put [00:58:11] them?" And then they have a ne, you [00:58:12] know, a dialogue and where should we put [00:58:14] them, where should we screen them, how [00:58:16] many and so forth. [00:58:18] >> This is what we need to do. [00:58:20] >> But we need to find out that could be [00:58:22] happening. It's just that that that the [00:58:23] board is not in the loop if those [00:58:25] conversations are taking place. [00:58:27] >> Could you get us in the loop? [00:58:29] >> Yeah. [00:58:29] >> Yeah. That's we can that would be the [00:58:31] call to waste or solid waste. [00:58:33] >> So do we have mass impact yet on actual [00:58:36] residencies? [00:58:37] >> Not that I know. and the plume is [00:58:39] traveling at a certain rate, [00:58:41] >> right? [00:58:41] >> So if you establish monitoring [00:58:43] perimeter, but then over time we [00:58:45] eventually own it anyway, but there's [00:58:46] not yet a direct impact and when there [00:58:49] is in like 25 more years, we're still [00:58:52] >> and now we've done a study that proved [00:58:54] it was the land which now turns over to [00:58:56] Hardwick. So now we proved ourselves out [00:58:58] that we're liable because we've acquired [00:59:00] the land. Well, I don't think that the [00:59:03] performance standard of the like I don't [00:59:05] know the language of the contract, but I [00:59:07] would assume that the contract language [00:59:09] would say something to the effect that [00:59:11] that the problem is a known entity and [00:59:13] right now it's not. [00:59:14] >> I mean, you can't assume a liability if [00:59:17] it's an unknown. [00:59:18] >> No. And I don't think we this is all [00:59:20] theoretical anyway right now, right? [00:59:22] >> We have to make it known. [00:59:24] >> We have to make it [00:59:24] >> by testing. [00:59:26] >> Right. [00:59:28] >> Yeah. Uh you mentioned LSP. What is [00:59:30] that? LSP is a licensed site [00:59:33] professional. [00:59:33] >> Okay. [00:59:35] [laughter] [00:59:36] >> And that's a [clears throat] [00:59:37] certification that the state established [00:59:40] >> I think sometime in the late '9s. [00:59:43] >> Okay. [00:59:43] >> Um to make cleanup of contaminated [00:59:46] properties [00:59:48] um be less directed by D and more [00:59:54] sort of self-directed [00:59:57] um and it's been pretty successful [00:59:59] actually. It's become a model for a lot [01:00:01] of other states. Um, and [01:00:05] >> you know, [01:00:06] >> the owner hires the [01:00:07] >> owner hired the LSP. identify the [01:00:10] problem and then there's a whole set of [01:00:11] regulations that the LSP has to you know [01:00:14] and then when I sign and stamp and it's [01:00:16] I certify it with the pains and [01:00:17] penalties of perjury that everything [01:00:19] here is true and I did everything I was [01:00:21] supposed to [01:00:22] >> and the owner is submitting the cleanup [01:00:24] plan to the D for approval and you're [01:00:26] hiring an LSP to essentially like make [01:00:28] sure you are doing that correctly [01:00:31] >> and it has to be overseen and stamped by [01:00:33] an LSP sort of like a PE [01:00:35] >> right [01:00:37] >> you say Matt that we should use. [01:00:39] >> I'm sorry I missed Bill. [01:00:41] >> Thank you. Um, two questions. One, you [01:00:45] mentioned the landfill on lower road and [01:00:47] that it has shown contaminants for some [01:00:50] time. Um, I wonder if you can compare [01:00:53] that level of contamination to what's [01:00:57] been detected [01:00:59] um in Muddy at Muddy Brook. And the [01:01:02] second question is is has to do with [01:01:04] I've seen elsewhere sort of the planning [01:01:06] world that that some um I don't know [01:01:10] whether they're mandated or just [01:01:12] requested but private well results being [01:01:15] provided to the town [01:01:18] um either from the water testing [01:01:20] companies or realtors or people that did [01:01:23] it themselves. But those results [01:01:26] um have been made available through some [01:01:28] mechanism to to various boards. you [01:01:30] know, the tons. [01:01:32] >> I'm not sure how you do that, but it [01:01:33] sounds like it could be useful [01:01:35] information, [01:01:36] but what about the contaminants, the [01:01:38] relative levels? [01:01:40] >> I I couldn't speak for certain as far as [01:01:43] that goes. My impression in reviewing [01:01:45] the reports is that it's uh [01:01:47] significantly lower level. [01:01:48] >> Oh, yeah. Which is [01:01:50] >> the lower the lower road landfill is [01:01:52] much lower. [01:01:53] >> That's a much older land that landfill [01:01:56] that was closed. [01:01:58] >> All right. [01:02:00] before we invented all the really bad. [01:02:05] >> And some of those are gas wells, too. [01:02:08] >> Yes, they're gas monitoring wells. Yeah. [01:02:10] And the gas monitoring wells are [01:02:12] consistently uh below explosive [01:02:15] standards. [01:02:16] >> I just want to Can I make two what I've [01:02:19] learned? Number one, the state of [01:02:23] Connecticut sued the state of [01:02:25] Massachusetts [01:02:27] for contaminating the Connecticut River [01:02:30] that flows into Connecticut. [01:02:33] And at Bradley airport just above the [01:02:37] border they or on the border they uh you [01:02:42] know use a lot of PAS [01:02:45] and um but the ability for [01:02:50] it becoming a a waterway issue [01:02:55] which I just learned tonight that after [01:02:58] 911 Homeland Security is in charge [01:03:03] charge of our drinking water. [01:03:06] I whatever that means. [01:03:09] Um and that that's why they have new [01:03:13] requirements about fencing and stuff [01:03:16] around the [01:03:18] >> Anyway, your point [01:03:21] >> and and the other point I forgot. [01:03:24] [laughter] [01:03:26] >> Okay. No, just in the interest of time, [01:03:28] I know it's got [01:03:28] >> Oh, I [01:03:30] sent you [01:03:32] referrals from the former head of solid [01:03:37] waste, Nancy Sidman. I don't know if [01:03:40] that rings a bell. [01:03:42] The only time I ever spoke to DP [01:03:46] uh as the board of health, [01:03:49] they told me the fact that if the fight [01:03:53] with Cassella over the landfill [01:03:56] um goes to the very limits and we have [01:04:01] rejected the proposal as the board of [01:04:04] health then it goes to the department of [01:04:08] environmental protection in the state. [01:04:11] It's at that point where the the DP is [01:04:16] required to do what sounds to me like [01:04:19] the big study. [01:04:21] >> Yeah. Right. That's what we're hoping. [01:04:24] Hopefully Mike Hugo will be able to get [01:04:26] us in touch with that with the new with [01:04:28] the new, you know, secretary. [01:04:32] >> Can we could we just ask the D to do [01:04:34] that? [01:04:35] >> I think so. Yeah. I think we need to [01:04:37] formally ask, you know, investigate. [01:04:38] Maybe it's fascinating. It may already [01:04:40] be in process, [01:04:42] >> right? We just don't know. We don't we [01:04:44] we don't know what may or may not be [01:04:45] going on behind the [clears throat] [01:04:46] scenes between, [01:04:48] you know, the regulators of solid waste [01:04:51] and Cassella. They may well have sent [01:04:53] them a letter and said, "You need to [01:04:55] keep drilling." Um, but we don't know. [01:04:58] >> And if not, then we [01:05:00] >> And if they're not pushing that, [01:05:02] >> then we push [01:05:03] >> then, you know, we ask why not why [01:05:05] aren't you pushing them? because it [01:05:06] appears to us that you're, you know, [01:05:08] they're failing to meet the standard, [01:05:10] >> right? [01:05:11] >> Mhm. [01:05:11] >> Um, and you know, certainly I can, you [01:05:13] know, call them tomorrow and ask that. I [01:05:15] mean, it's, I said, it's a, you know, [01:05:18] once they made a correspondence, it's a [01:05:21] matter of public recording the file. So, [01:05:24] >> you know, we can look at the file and [01:05:25] see what's available and if there's any [01:05:27] communication and maybe they'll just [01:05:28] tell us, you know, over a phone call, [01:05:30] right? Yes, we're looking at it or we [01:05:34] got the report in September and we're [01:05:35] going to review it in April. You know, [01:05:38] we don't know. [01:05:39] >> Right. [01:05:40] >> Well, that's acceptable. [01:05:43] >> Right. If they say it's not a problem, [01:05:44] then we have to [01:05:45] >> Right. Yeah. Exactly. We have to figure [01:05:47] out different avenue to, you know, [01:05:49] leverage some extra. [01:05:51] >> Yeah. I think there is. You know, in [01:05:52] hard way, you don't have the budget to [01:05:54] really take this on. [01:05:55] >> No. [01:05:56] >> You know, you just don't. Um, we just [01:05:59] town town of Orange denied a special [01:06:02] permit for a battery installation on the [01:06:05] zone 2 of our largest public water [01:06:08] supply in Orange. And um, we just paid [01:06:12] we we dropped 50 grand defending [01:06:15] litigation. Um, um, the the battery [01:06:20] installer filed for uh, summary [01:06:22] judgement which was denied and then it [01:06:24] was going to go to trial court and then [01:06:25] they finally pulled [clears throat] 50 [01:06:27] grand later. So from the zoning board [01:06:30] saying nope, [01:06:32] >> we don't want the potential for, you [01:06:35] know, postfire contamination on our [01:06:39] primary public water supply for the [01:06:41] town. So this [clears throat] stuff just [01:06:43] gets very expensive very quickly. That's [01:06:45] just lawyer fees. [01:06:47] I mean, you're talking like [01:06:48] >> you know my time up there at my job [01:06:51] various department heads and testimony [01:06:53] like [01:06:54] >> speaking of which yeah send us an [01:06:56] invoice for what you got so far [01:06:57] [laughter] [01:06:58] >> but um yes um so um I don't know is [01:07:01] there anything else for Scott that you [01:07:03] can think of that [01:07:04] >> not that I can think covered a lot of [01:07:07] ground [01:07:07] >> yes thank you like me to call why don't [01:07:11] at least we do that just that's part of [01:07:13] the [01:07:15] tomorrow will let you know what they [01:07:17] say. Okay. [01:07:17] >> All right. [01:07:18] >> Good. Can you do me a favor and let me [01:07:20] know after you speak to them [01:07:23] where it all stands after you're [01:07:26] >> So, you're asking me or you're asking [01:07:27] Scott? [01:07:28] >> Asking Scott. So, on Monday when I when [01:07:30] I see D. [01:07:31] >> Oh, okay. Yep. [01:07:32] >> I'll I'll know what I'm talking about. [01:07:34] >> Yeah. I mean, it's Friday tomorrow. So, [01:07:36] you know, I'll call them in the morning [01:07:37] and [01:07:38] >> Yeah. [01:07:39] Hopefully, they'll maybe won't answer [01:07:41] the phone. I know that. [01:07:42] >> But, you know what? If they don't answer [01:07:43] the phone, that that gives me something [01:07:45] to talk about, [01:07:46] >> right? I you know, I'll leave him a [01:07:47] message and tell them why I called. And [01:07:49] >> do you know how to get in touch with [01:07:51] Mike? [01:07:51] >> I not. [01:07:53] >> Yes, you do. [01:07:54] >> I do. [01:07:55] >> Okay. [laughter] [01:07:57] >> Okay. Sounds good. [01:08:00] >> All right. Good. Thank you. [01:08:04] >> Thanks. [01:08:07] >> All right. [01:08:08] >> All right. I think [01:08:09] >> I'm gonna just I'm just going to keep [01:08:11] this running. I'm going to step away, [01:08:13] but I'm going to keep [01:08:14] >> We're going to talk about regulations [01:08:15] right now. Mike, just to um I'm going to [01:08:18] present the board of health with [01:08:20] >> I am going to stay. [01:08:21] >> Yeah. [laughter] [01:08:22] Um so on that note, um we are uh the [01:08:29] board of health, you know, has engaged [01:08:31] in this discovery process over the past [01:08:33] several months. And in December, we [01:08:36] voted to proceed with writing [01:08:38] regulations uh to protect uh the [01:08:40] groundwater uh of the Muddy Brook Valley [01:08:44] uh the water resources of the Muddy [01:08:46] Brook Valley. Uh we already have a zone [01:08:48] two in the lower part of the Muddy Brook [01:08:50] Valley here, but this aquifer runs up [01:08:54] and down this valley, runs down the [01:08:56] valley, I should say, to the town where [01:08:59] um these are very vulnerable resources [01:09:02] as we're finding out. Um and um the [01:09:06] board of health is empowered to um to [01:09:09] develop and adopt regulations under Mass [01:09:11] General Law 111 section 31 1223 for [01:09:15] water supply protection. Um so uh I went [01:09:20] ahead and started drafting regulations [01:09:22] for the board of health to consider. Um [01:09:25] Paul's not here but we'll get him a copy [01:09:27] and get you a copy back uh to look at. [01:09:30] Um but um with the assistance of [01:09:34] hydraologist um uh Scott Horsley uh a [01:09:39] very well esteemed hydraologist. [01:09:41] >> I didn't get that. Could you try again? [01:09:44] >> Please [01:09:47] um with the hydraologist um we developed [01:09:51] uh a model [01:09:53] >> of an area of protection with a buffer [01:09:55] zone. The buffer zone is is based on a [01:09:58] um formula uh with trans considering [01:10:02] transmissivity of the uh of the soils. [01:10:05] But in any case, we came up with with a [01:10:07] map of area to be regulated and uh the [01:10:12] regulations are [01:10:15] basically to um protect it from from [01:10:19] largecale contamination. This isn't like [01:10:21] for um you know a homeowner to to be [01:10:26] concerned about. This is a large uh [01:10:28] large scale contamination. Um and so the [01:10:33] the regulations are short and sweet for [01:10:36] the most part. They're they're um we [01:10:38] decided to um keep it simple. um we [01:10:43] decided not to um regulate uh [01:10:46] agriculture because of their compliance [01:10:48] with USDA farm plans um and [01:10:52] uh NRCS uh guidelines and and and plans. [01:10:57] Um so at this point um we have uh some a [01:11:02] draft to be considered by the board of [01:11:04] health. Um we will have to revise it as [01:11:08] as indicated as as we decide. We will [01:11:12] then uh present it to town council for [01:11:15] review and we will um in order um to [01:11:20] make it official. We will have a public [01:11:22] hearing regard, you know, properly post [01:11:24] it and have a public hearing. This will [01:11:26] happen over the next two months. Um [01:11:29] we'll want to move things along [01:11:31] relatively uh quickly. But again, this [01:11:34] is um we have maps here with with um [01:11:38] affected land owners, you know, of [01:11:40] parcels, tax parcels. Um but most of [01:11:44] it's within the valley. Um the [01:11:47] regulations, as I say, are for large [01:11:50] scale contamination um preventive [01:11:53] measures. Um and the regulations address [01:11:57] threats to the aquifer such as [01:11:59] landfills, [01:12:01] uh transfer stations, uh battery, um [01:12:04] energy storage systems best, petroleum [01:12:08] depots, um large uh expanding junkyards, [01:12:12] uh existing ones are um are exempt, but [01:12:17] uh if they're uh if you're thinking [01:12:19] about putting in [01:12:20] >> is prohibited. Yeah, the expansion is [01:12:22] prohibited. [01:12:23] uh hazardous waste storage. [01:12:26] So these are these are large scale um uh [01:12:29] threats, not not homeowner residential [01:12:32] type um threats. Uh you know, it allows [01:12:36] for [01:12:38] uh development, you know, um um [01:12:41] residential development and normal [01:12:42] residential activities. So um this is [01:12:45] this is really about the the large scale [01:12:48] um threats to to the uh to the aquifer. [01:12:51] So if I'm if I'm doing a brake job on my [01:12:53] car, I can still use brake clean. [01:12:55] >> Yes. Right. Right. Exactly. And you [01:12:57] still fertilize your lawn and you can [01:12:59] still do your power washing and stuff. [01:13:01] It just this is the the big stuff. Um so [01:13:06] these uh regulations are uh the draft I [01:13:09] should say is available. It's publicly [01:13:12] we'll be making it publicly available [01:13:14] for sure. We're still it's still a [01:13:17] working document. We're still in the [01:13:18] process of um modifying it. um and like [01:13:22] to hear from um Paul and yourself. Um [01:13:27] I'd be um very interested in getting [01:13:30] your your modifications. [01:13:33] Um so [01:13:35] are there any questions about um putting [01:13:38] forward? We finally, you know, issued [01:13:40] these regulations uh based on due [01:13:43] diligence over the past six months. Um [01:13:46] and we've had panel discussions. We've [01:13:48] uh we've entertained um uh a number of [01:13:52] um residents and farmers and whatnot to [01:13:55] um have input into this process. [01:13:58] Uh we've had grad students and you know [01:14:01] academic um individuals uh or [01:14:04] institutions um be involved in [01:14:07] development of the map mapping. Um and [01:14:11] um I don't know if there's any other [01:14:14] questions. Mike, do you have any uh [01:14:16] thoughts or about the issuing of [01:14:18] regulations here by the board of health? [01:14:21] >> I think is you know [01:14:22] >> water resources [01:14:24] >> you know the procedure you have to [01:14:26] present it and give your comments and [01:14:28] then vote on it with an open [01:14:29] deliberation but you're you're right on [01:14:31] the money as far as I can see. [01:14:32] >> Okay. [01:14:35] >> Anybody have any questions or [01:14:39] he was quick to raise his hand. [01:14:41] >> He's faster than you, Judy. You got to [01:14:43] move faster. Thank you. Um when um when [01:14:46] you gave us this presentation planning [01:14:49] board and we appreciated that some [01:14:51] questions came up about uh land use [01:14:55] uh within such a district. Um we know [01:14:59] it's an option. It could be a separate [01:15:02] zoning [01:15:04] district created but it doesn't have to [01:15:06] be as I understand but all the [01:15:08] properties within [01:15:11] your designated aquifer area there would [01:15:15] be would be subject to different [01:15:18] regulation [01:15:19] um and that would be but it would have [01:15:21] to be a zoning thing I guess. So is that [01:15:24] is that did I understand that right? [01:15:26] >> Is that right Mike? Would you would you [01:15:28] uh I mean I I would assume that's right. [01:15:30] It's residentially zones R60 I think. Um [01:15:33] West part [01:15:35] >> um and um [01:15:36] >> I I didn't hear the question. [01:15:37] >> Well, whether there's additional that [01:15:39] these are additional regulations in [01:15:41] addition to the planning board's zoning [01:15:44] um [01:15:46] >> right these are these these are health [01:15:47] regulations and and they're they're [01:15:49] separate apart from whatever zoning is [01:15:51] doing. [01:15:51] >> Okay. So their health regulations [01:15:53] >> as long as as long as zoning stays uh [01:15:58] in in such a position that it doesn't [01:16:00] affect the public health in a negative [01:16:02] way then they don't ever crisscross. [01:16:05] >> So don't reszone it industrial. [01:16:09] >> Well would it be like in concert uh with [01:16:12] the planning board to say well there's [01:16:14] no hazardous waste there's no battery [01:16:15] parts in this area that's in your health [01:16:17] regulations. So that would be in concert [01:16:20] with the planning [01:16:23] >> cuz that's not allowed, [01:16:25] >> right? It would have [01:16:27] >> if you have site plan review, [01:16:28] >> it might not need a whole designation of [01:16:30] a different district, but if somebody [01:16:32] was applying for a property for a use in [01:16:35] and their property was in that, then [01:16:37] we'd need to know about that. And by the [01:16:40] way, this is something that's we need to [01:16:42] be working on. I understand uh not us [01:16:45] but the town on having um coordinated [01:16:49] permitting and review from different [01:16:51] committees which is something we've all [01:16:53] long recognized and make good sense. [01:16:56] >> So these are health regulations in [01:16:58] addition to the other. So it is [01:17:02] >> is there any comparison with wear the [01:17:05] town of wear that is uh zoned the Mary [01:17:09] Lane hospital property as to be a health [01:17:12] district? [01:17:14] >> I wouldn't say so [01:17:15] >> there's no comparison. [01:17:17] >> I don't think so [01:17:18] >> because of its of its um [01:17:22] [clears throat] [01:17:22] being a source of the [01:17:27] basic elements of survival. the air, [01:17:30] water, [01:17:32] >> uh, soil. [01:17:33] >> We we are so the laws were written or [01:17:36] I'm sorry, the regulations were written [01:17:38] in conjunction and consideration of [01:17:41] where's bylaws that protect the Muddy [01:17:43] Brook aquifer south of the, you know, in [01:17:46] the town of Wear. So, wear already has [01:17:48] bylaws that protect the aquifer. Um, and [01:17:51] we just used our, you know, we ours were [01:17:54] modeled uh on theirs in the DE model [01:17:57] regulations for ports of health. So, [01:17:59] we've considered and used the wear [01:18:03] bylaws, but not specifically the Mary [01:18:05] Lane Health. [01:18:06] >> Yeah. But I'm I'm talking about [01:18:10] imagining uh within the public health [01:18:15] laws, chapter 1112. [01:18:18] >> Yeah. [01:18:19] >> Which we operate under because we don't [01:18:21] have local bylaws so far. [01:18:25] Um, [clears throat] [01:18:26] can you create in the zoning [01:18:31] uh a health entity [01:18:34] that that protects [01:18:37] and prevents uh illness through uh [01:18:42] environmental contamination? [01:18:45] >> Interesting. I mean, I think it's what [01:18:47] the board, you know, what these [01:18:48] regulations are intended to do. [01:18:50] >> Yeah. Okay. Um report. [01:18:54] >> So if I could um so one of the things [01:18:56] you [01:18:58] that is purposely been excluded is [01:19:01] agriculture and because they there are [01:19:04] other regulations. [01:19:05] >> Correct. [01:19:07] >> Commercial fertilizers are not exempt [01:19:09] but they there's [01:19:11] >> so so you bring up fertilizers which is [01:19:13] exactly what I was going to bring up. So [01:19:15] there is a one of the things just I [01:19:17] wonder you spoke about impacting the the [01:19:20] homeowner wouldn't necessarily impact [01:19:23] the homeowner. There are um there is a [01:19:27] particular type of fertilizer sold [01:19:29] through big box stores called Morganite [01:19:32] which is um post shall we say consumer [01:19:35] waste um that is processed and sold as [01:19:40] fertil organic fertilizer which has been [01:19:42] noted to have PAS in it. [01:19:43] >> Right. It is banned in several states uh [01:19:46] and it is banned in certain [01:19:48] municipalities. [01:19:49] I wonder if part of this um [01:19:53] >> you would incorporate that into a [01:19:54] regulation. [01:19:55] >> Yeah. because just it it that has been a [01:19:58] known thing and and we know that [01:20:00] farmland [01:20:02] has been destroyed and and ranch land [01:20:05] has been destroyed by the use of [01:20:07] bioolids [01:20:08] um fertilizer and but there's no real [01:20:12] regulation currently guiding the [01:20:14] homeowner and in fact since we know [01:20:16] there is a problem in a particular [01:20:18] product we might consider mentioning [01:20:20] that it's something like that [01:20:22] >> exactly I don't buy the produce produced [01:20:26] from the a local farmer because [01:20:30] uh numerous reports that they have used [01:20:33] this product [01:20:36] and and it's known and to um be the [01:20:42] forever chemical on that property and we [01:20:45] and [01:20:47] >> well we certainly take it into [01:20:49] consideration you know it's something [01:20:50] that we should [01:20:51] >> yes [01:20:51] >> flush out absolutely [01:20:53] >> have a point to say Morganite is [01:20:56] actually came from Milwaukee. That's the [01:20:58] Milwaukee sewage. That's [01:21:01] >> I was trying to be I was trying to say [01:21:04] that I was trying [01:21:06] to try to be a little more [01:21:08] >> again it is a rate to farm community. Um [01:21:11] so we have to be aware of that. But this [01:21:13] is for [01:21:13] >> this is a public this is this is this is [01:21:16] a public safety issue but it's also I'm [01:21:18] not talking about the farmers and they [01:21:21] shouldn't be using bioolids either but [01:21:23] I'm talking about the impact of of [01:21:26] people within the zone. [01:21:27] >> Well I mean to me that that would be [01:21:30] something to the extent to extend [01:21:32] townwide. [01:21:33] >> Yes. [01:21:34] >> Yeah. [01:21:36] I would be a separate uh you know just [01:21:38] >> I would love to to see that but I'm just [01:21:41] commenting since we're discussing this [01:21:45] >> and you mentioned that the sort of low [01:21:47] impact on the individual existing land. [01:21:50] We've tried to really tailor this to [01:21:52] have the least impact on, you know, and [01:21:54] and and out of respect for property [01:21:56] rights, you know, to have the least [01:21:58] impact to mic, you know, we don't want [01:22:00] to micromanage. It's really about the [01:22:02] big picture [01:22:03] >> uh threats, [01:22:04] >> but you know, what you say is something [01:22:06] we can certainly consider going forward [01:22:09] as a uh you know, a separate regulatory [01:22:12] >> petroleum depot. I mean, you know, if [01:22:14] someone wanted to put in, you know, fuel [01:22:17] storage, [01:22:18] >> Exxon Jun. [01:22:19] >> Yeah. Yeah, you know, these are things [01:22:20] that if they we [01:22:22] >> but it also could be an educational [01:22:24] thing if the board of health can to say [01:22:26] because I don't think people [01:22:27] particularly know that it has PAS. I [01:22:29] mean, [01:22:30] >> well, I mean, you know, that would be I [01:22:33] think [01:22:34] >> educational [01:22:34] >> an opportunity at a public hearing to [01:22:37] present that. [01:22:39] >> That's what I'm saying because I think [01:22:40] people a lot of consumers are not aware, [01:22:42] >> right? [01:22:42] >> It's the responsibility of the boards of [01:22:45] health to educate. [01:22:47] >> Yeah, [01:22:47] >> that's one of their in fact of all [01:22:49] health providers is to educate [01:22:53] >> so that we can prevent. [01:22:56] >> So, I I like that idea. [01:22:58] >> Yeah. Okay. [01:23:01] >> Okay. [01:23:02] >> All right. [01:23:03] >> All right. Moving on. [01:23:06] >> Uh, [01:23:08] finally to discussion of the Earth [01:23:10] renewal importation bylaw draft. I [01:23:13] assume that's a primary reason for your [01:23:16] >> Oh, [01:23:19] I'm I'm interested in the water and all [01:23:20] you're doing. [01:23:21] >> Maybe you want to do all the [01:23:22] contamination for us. [laughter] [01:23:24] Next item on the agenda, right? I think [01:23:27] Oh, the green barrel. [01:23:29] >> No, no, no. The uh the lower one you had [01:23:33] >> the uh No, no. Uh [01:23:35] >> we we did look over it. I I don't know [01:23:38] if Paul has seen it, but uh [01:23:41] >> Rick and I have uh looked through the [01:23:44] regulation. We don't see any um specific [01:23:48] public health impact [01:23:51] input that would we would want [01:23:52] >> for the earth removal by [01:23:54] >> for the removal bylaw. You know the [01:23:56] >> J asked for input. I know you guys [01:23:57] already discussed it, right? And quoted, [01:24:00] >> right? I'll summarize it quick if you [01:24:01] want. We we u in the course of reviewing [01:24:05] and updating um various bylaws um earth [01:24:09] removal which is hasn't been revisited [01:24:12] in many years um was being reviewed and [01:24:17] uh Jenna in particular wanted to see um [01:24:20] some [01:24:22] uh updates to that. And so right now [01:24:25] it's only in the form of a draft that [01:24:27] we've uh shared with different people [01:24:30] including this this board to see if [01:24:32] there was any feedback uh in in in [01:24:35] advance of drafting an article and then [01:24:39] having a hearing and then um bringing it [01:24:42] before the town for possible adoption. [01:24:44] That's [01:24:45] >> that's where we are. So if you had any [01:24:47] input fine it didn't it doesn't seem [01:24:48] like there's a [01:24:49] >> it seems very reasonable. [01:24:51] >> Yeah. from a port of health standpoint. [01:24:53] >> Right. Yeah. [01:24:54] >> Very prudent and [01:24:55] >> she was just being thorough, I think. [01:24:57] >> Okay. [01:24:58] >> Thank you, [01:24:59] >> Judy. [01:25:00] >> In terms of earth removal, um I remember [01:25:05] looking at the regs [01:25:08] regulations of the laws that if you move [01:25:13] more than 10 yards of whatever, [01:25:16] you have to get a permit from Is that [01:25:20] true, Matt? from the board of health. [01:25:23] >> Say that again. [01:25:24] >> To to move more than 10 yards to shovel [01:25:26] up more than 10 yards or some limiting [01:25:29] number of yards of uh gravel or dirt or [01:25:33] concrete. [01:25:36] Yeah. It's not under [01:25:39] health, [01:25:39] >> right? The permits required if as it [01:25:43] reads now probably won't [01:25:45] >> for removal or of more than 100 cubic [01:25:48] yard [01:25:50] >> and that's and and that's if it's not [01:25:51] agricultural [01:25:54] >> that's not a board health thing. [01:25:56] >> Okay. Uh moving on uh item seven uh we [01:26:02] have three proposals from uh various uh [01:26:08] entities for the continued monitoring of [01:26:12] the lower road landfill. Um you had [01:26:16] recommended a few people to we did get [01:26:19] responses from all of them from both of [01:26:21] them. Uh, [01:26:22] >> okay. Okay. [01:26:23] >> Mark and uh [01:26:25] >> Tim [01:26:26] >> Tim uh Tim's was uh [01:26:29] significantly higher than uh Stantech [01:26:32] and [01:26:34] uh Marks came in 1,200 plus lower um my [01:26:40] inclination in a budget pinch. [01:26:44] You know, $1,200 is $1,200. Um yeah, [01:26:49] >> you've been [01:26:49] >> I ran the same [01:26:50] >> happy with his work and [01:26:51] >> yeah, I ran the same exercise um in [01:26:54] another town and um we hired Mark [01:26:58] >> who's been doing landfill monitoring for [01:27:00] a very long list, you know, two pages [01:27:03] long. [01:27:04] >> So, you know, this is my first year with [01:27:06] Mark and another town and I'm I'm happy. [01:27:10] So I think uh [01:27:14] you know if you if you put out if you [01:27:16] put out a statement of work and you got [01:27:19] three prices [01:27:21] mass procurement law would would lead [01:27:24] you to hire the person with the best [01:27:26] price assuming it was a responsible [01:27:29] >> uh vendor [01:27:30] >> right yeah so my take on it is we should [01:27:33] probably proceed [01:27:35] motion [01:27:36] >> um I think shorten [01:27:40] What what's his last name? Mark uh Mark [01:27:43] Popp. [01:27:45] Uh make a motion to Mark Popp to do the [01:27:50] lower road monitoring. [01:27:53] >> I second that. [01:27:57] >> Any further discussion? [01:27:58] >> No. [01:27:59] >> All those in favor? I [01:28:01] >> we will proceed with the mark for [01:28:04] this coming year's uh landfill [01:28:08] monitoring uh beginning July [01:28:11] >> Lower Road. Yes. [01:28:13] >> Uh next health agent report. [01:28:17] >> I was just looking at my phone since the [01:28:19] last meeting and I haven't been in town [01:28:21] since December 19th since the ground [01:28:24] froze. But [01:28:27] >> so not much to report other than [01:28:29] regulatory development. [01:28:30] >> No, we had a few uh a few inspections [01:28:33] before Christmas. Um [01:28:36] debox title 5 witness a septic tank [01:28:38] install over on 665 lower road. That one [01:28:41] just got sold and we did a perk on 2700 [01:28:44] Greenwich. And then um after that I was [01:28:48] just writing up the draft rags and [01:28:51] >> but I mean I've been very busy [01:28:52] otherwise. [01:28:55] Orange adopted the charter. So [01:28:57] >> yeah. Um [01:28:59] >> Wow. [01:28:59] >> Busy busy [01:29:00] >> busy. That that'll take up a lot. [01:29:02] >> Yeah. [01:29:03] >> Um we had uh do you when you're in [01:29:08] contact with these people, do they uh go [01:29:11] over the fees with you? [01:29:14] >> Who? [01:29:15] >> Any of the uh people requesting the [01:29:17] inspections and so forth or just what [01:29:19] comes through our office? [01:29:21] >> Uh what goes through the office? [01:29:23] >> Okay. [01:29:23] >> Yeah. All right. Yeah, cuz we we we've [01:29:27] run into a problem uh a minor problem [01:29:30] with uh people making checks out to the [01:29:32] Harvard Board of Health. [01:29:34] >> Oh, [01:29:39] >> uh I would [laughter] that'd be great. [01:29:42] >> It might supplement that massive board [01:29:44] of health salary I collect. [01:29:48] So, uh, the point is, uh, you know, I [01:29:52] just want to make sure we plug all holes [01:29:54] and make sure everybody says, "Make your [01:29:56] check out to the town of Hardware." [01:30:00] >> There, are you happy now? [01:30:02] >> Yes. [01:30:02] >> And [laughter] [01:30:04] we'll jump. [01:30:05] >> Do you have a form or something that [01:30:07] they do? [01:30:08] >> It says on the form. [01:30:09] >> It says [laughter] on the form. It says [01:30:11] and we still get [01:30:13] >> and then Alyssa says [01:30:15] >> take it back. [01:30:17] >> Oh, people ask move, do I make that out [01:30:18] to you or no? [01:30:22] No, you're not. [01:30:23] >> You want cash? I'm like, no, I do not [01:30:25] give you cash. [01:30:26] >> All right. [01:30:27] >> Don't get away from me. I need cash. [01:30:30] >> Think we're ready for the administrative [01:30:31] clerk's report? [01:30:34] >> Yes. [01:30:36] >> Can you guys hear me? [01:30:37] >> Yes, you can. [01:30:38] >> Okay. [01:30:38] >> Oh, awesome. All right. some general [01:30:40] updates [01:30:43] that as you already know it's been slow [01:30:46] for Matt. Um I do have some applications [01:30:50] for him to look at. I will get them to [01:30:52] you back. Um [01:30:55] we've [01:30:57] had stereoscycle pickup for our first [01:31:00] pickup ever uh January 14th. Um, we've [01:31:05] been preparing for tobacco and the agent [01:31:07] for um, uh, theft update. I don't know [01:31:12] if Dr. M, you'd like to help with that. [01:31:15] uh with uh FEP. Um [01:31:19] we followed a recommendation from the [01:31:23] police department to try and enhance [01:31:25] communications by getting a compatible [01:31:29] allband radio for the um board of [01:31:34] health. Uh since they cost $10,000 [01:31:39] did not look favorably on the request [01:31:42] and in fact today rejected it. So, uh, [01:31:45] we'll have to revisit that issue with [01:31:48] police and fire in terms of how we want [01:31:50] to handle, uh, emergency scenarios and [01:31:54] the communication issues we encountered [01:31:56] in the tabletop exercise. [01:31:59] Uh, and that's really all I have to say [01:32:01] about FEP. They are looking at some of [01:32:03] our other requests. Uh [01:32:07] shelving for the container [01:32:11] uh up at the school is uh has been [01:32:13] acquired uh and we'll have to make a [01:32:16] trip to retrieve it from Worcester [01:32:18] before long. Uh however, they are [01:32:21] struggling to find a dolly kit to cart [01:32:24] that incredibly heavy generator around. [01:32:29] And that's all I got from FEP. [01:32:33] All right. So, next on my list is the [01:32:37] LRPHC. [01:32:38] Uh, that's the regional public health [01:32:41] coalition. Um, [01:32:44] I've been receiving applications for [01:32:46] them, sending them over to the health [01:32:48] agent. Uh, we have a couple questions [01:32:51] regarding the difference between food [01:32:54] handler, food manager certificates. [01:32:57] Matt will know the difference. [01:33:00] Um, [01:33:01] >> we've had one complaint come in and it [01:33:05] had to do with water damage um at the [01:33:09] Quabin states and Michelle um Michelle [01:33:15] from the LRPHC did an inspection [01:33:19] and [01:33:21] I do not have that report here but I [01:33:24] believe it's still an open case. [01:33:25] >> Um it's an open case. What? [01:33:28] >> They are uh the [01:33:32] owner has engaged the contractor to uh [01:33:37] handle the mold issue, [01:33:39] >> but okay. [01:33:40] >> We haven't had an update yet as to [01:33:41] whether it has been corrected. [01:33:45] >> And so [01:33:47] that's all I have. [01:33:49] >> Okay, [01:33:49] >> that's all I have. It's been a quiet [01:33:51] month, January. [01:33:53] >> Good thing time for recovery. [01:33:59] All right. [01:34:00] >> All right. [01:34:02] >> All set. [01:34:03] >> Thanks, Trish. [01:34:04] >> Okay. Uh [01:34:07] there was uh [01:34:10] do we have on the Trisha, you said we [01:34:12] had on the public agenda, uh [01:34:14] unanticipated business? [01:34:16] >> Yes. Okay. [01:34:17] >> Number 10. [01:34:18] >> Yeah. I don't see it on the printed uh [01:34:20] agenda they have in front of me. There's [01:34:22] It skips 9 to 11, [01:34:24] >> but that's fine. I I have it on mine. [01:34:26] >> Okay. Um [01:34:28] >> but and I don't believe we have any [01:34:30] >> Yeah, I don't see that the uh you said [01:34:32] somebody would be coming, but they I [01:34:34] don't see them anywhere in the room. [01:34:38] >> All right. [01:34:38] >> We're supposed to have a last minute, [01:34:40] but since we don't have any last minute [01:34:41] visitors. Uh I will entertain a motion [01:34:45] to adjurnn. [01:34:46] >> A motion to adjurnn. [01:34:50] >> Second. I can't vote. I was going to ask [01:34:52] you, do you want other minute issues, do [01:34:56] you want a brief report from the [01:34:58] >> Are you aware of this? Uh I assumed you [01:35:01] were, but [01:35:02] >> Oh, absolutely. [01:35:03] >> Uh we are going to go hold the journment [01:35:06] while we listen to Neil's report because [01:35:08] yes, I'm very interested. [01:35:10] >> Okay. [01:35:11] >> So, so um Judy Corsac and I have been [01:35:17] very busy. Um and um we [01:35:22] uh had a meeting of the minds on Monday [01:35:26] uh in where organized by the friends of [01:35:28] Mary Lane which brought together uh [01:35:32] representatives uh from all of the towns [01:35:37] we can think of that um might be [01:35:41] concerned with rural health [01:35:44] >> healthcare desert [01:35:45] >> um has healthcare desert uh in our two [01:35:47] cap two affected counties uh in the [01:35:50] Quabin and Lester uh regional areas. Um [01:35:56] when I say brought together all the [01:35:57] parties, I mean representatives from [01:36:00] towns, I think 10 or 12 towns. Uh we had [01:36:05] representatives from um the governor's [01:36:08] office. We had representatives from uh [01:36:10] the uh USDA. [01:36:13] uh multiple representatives from [01:36:15] different uh organizations representing [01:36:17] rural health initiatives uh [01:36:19] representatives from our state senator [01:36:23] uh and representatives. So there were it [01:36:25] was a big room um and we spent 3 hours [01:36:29] um learning and discussing about um [01:36:33] rural health issues as they affect our [01:36:36] different towns. Um, and I want to [01:36:39] separate the f the the issues that are [01:36:42] being discussed about establishing a [01:36:44] health uh a health facility in wear from [01:36:49] the greater rural health issues. Um, the [01:36:52] friends of Mary Lane and people in wear [01:36:55] are working diligently to try to to deal [01:36:58] with bringing physical bricks and mortar [01:37:02] health care to the wear area. Um there [01:37:06] is uh Bay State has announced publicly [01:37:09] that they're going to put in a um clinic [01:37:14] some somehow set up down there having [01:37:17] been officially granted the access and [01:37:20] management of the Gilbert Trust. So they [01:37:23] are now wholly controlling that and or [01:37:27] have announced publicly that they're [01:37:29] planning on putting in a uh whatever [01:37:31] they call it um convenient care and [01:37:34] primary care somewhere and where um [01:37:38] there's still a movement by the friends [01:37:40] of Mary Lane to have a to change that or [01:37:42] have a competing product. [01:37:44] We believe that's not going to go [01:37:46] anywhere but that's still a thing. Judy [01:37:49] and I have been very active in [01:37:51] organizing everyone else [01:37:55] um with the belief that our rural health [01:37:57] needs are somewhat different and the [01:38:00] people in Worcester County in [01:38:01] particular. So I have to talk to you [01:38:04] after the meeting. Um so uh we are [01:38:07] actually going to be meeting with the [01:38:09] boards of health in all of the I call [01:38:12] them the the seven families but in the [01:38:15] seven communities around Hardwick. um in [01:38:19] an attempt to [01:38:22] >> Warren um in an attempt to create a [01:38:26] cohesive coalition who will then go to [01:38:29] their select boards and allow us to [01:38:32] speak as a group for them. We have uh [01:38:37] already made um arrangements to begin uh [01:38:40] working with UMass [01:38:43] um to look at how their digital health [01:38:48] enterprise uh projects for rural health [01:38:52] and tele medicine could be leveraged [01:38:55] into this area and coming up with [01:38:58] demonstration projects which would [01:39:00] center on Hardwick. And if we can do [01:39:03] proof of concept in Hardwick, we would [01:39:05] look to expand those models into the [01:39:08] seven families. [01:39:09] >> Awesome. [01:39:10] >> So, um [01:39:13] there's a lot we have a lot of meetings [01:39:14] on our calendars and um this has finally [01:39:19] gained a bit of traction because the big [01:39:22] beautiful bill gave the hospitals access [01:39:26] to millions of dollars of grant money [01:39:29] and there's a deadline. And so now all [01:39:32] of a sudden [clears throat] people are [01:39:34] interested in talking to us um because [01:39:37] the money is only through the hospital [01:39:40] through certified health entities [01:39:43] for rural health. So they can't go out [01:39:45] and buy a new CT scanner with it. They [01:39:47] have to spend the money to enhance rural [01:39:50] health. And so we see this as a camel's [01:39:54] nose in the tent event. We're we have [01:39:56] that nose in the tent. We hope it will [01:39:59] now be very hard to keep the rest of the [01:40:01] camel out. [01:40:01] >> You heard that? Perfect. [01:40:02] >> My chair I have I had a chair who was [01:40:05] from Texas [laughter] and he used to say [01:40:09] all you got to do is get the camel's [01:40:11] nose in the tent and it's mighty hard to [01:40:14] keep the rest of the camel out. Um, [01:40:17] [laughter] so [01:40:19] >> so this has really exploded in the last [01:40:23] two weeks and I will have [01:40:26] >> we have meetings set up through March. [01:40:29] So um I hope to be able to report back [01:40:33] that we will have some traction on this. [01:40:36] Um we had very little traction until all [01:40:38] of a sudden we did. [01:40:39] >> So there's the there's that. [01:40:42] >> Okay. [01:40:42] >> I'm glad we didn't adjourn. [01:40:44] >> Good report. Good job. [01:40:46] >> No, wait a minute. [01:40:50] >> Who is we? [01:40:51] >> Judy Con and I [01:40:54] [clears throat] [01:40:54] >> I mean Cor and I have been appointed [01:40:58] from the town. I as a designate from the [01:41:00] board of health and she is a designate [01:41:02] from the select board to speak for [01:41:05] Hardwick. We are meeting with, as I [01:41:09] said, the boards of health in all the [01:41:11] surrounding communities [01:41:13] and we met with this large group on [01:41:16] Monday who represented agencies, the [01:41:19] state, counties. [01:41:21] >> That's awesome because I've been trying [01:41:23] to do the same thing on my own. [01:41:26] >> But you you didn't have $62 million in [01:41:30] your pocket, which has led to interest [01:41:32] in supporting this. And so this now has [01:41:35] some [01:41:35] >> That's not fair. [01:41:36] >> I'm sorry. [01:41:37] >> You do have 60 m. [01:41:42] [laughter] [01:41:43] >> No, I'm I'm dead serious. [01:41:46] >> And and I was called upon by um a nurse [01:41:51] from where because of what I wrote [01:41:54] something else. She said, "You have to [01:41:55] write a petition." So I was enlisted to [01:41:59] do this in my retirement and I did write [01:42:02] a petition not only to rebuild Mary Lane [01:42:08] Hospital but to introduce new medicine [01:42:14] [laughter] and now Neil is talking about [01:42:16] the very same things that is in my [01:42:19] petition [01:42:21] and I'm going out beating the streets [01:42:24] and I just came and got more signatures [01:42:28] and we're working at odds just what I [01:42:31] said in the select board meeting last [01:42:34] week is can we just work together now [01:42:38] Judy Corsick wrote emailed me and asked [01:42:42] for a copy of the petition [01:42:45] and but I'm maintaining [01:42:48] that it doesn't have to be me [01:42:52] involved [01:42:54] >> with you or and except that I want you [01:42:58] to know the history that I was trying [01:43:01] and [01:43:02] >> well Judy if I may I'm going to let you [01:43:04] have that discussion with Neil [01:43:06] afterwards. I'm going to adjourn a [01:43:08] meeting. [01:43:08] >> Okay. [01:43:08] >> Well, it is a public it is public issue [01:43:12] for for health care. [01:43:16] >> We still need to do the next month's [01:43:17] look ahead. [01:43:19] >> We do. [01:43:20] >> Yes. [laughter] [01:43:21] >> See, you couldn't anyway. [01:43:24] Do you have plans for next month? [01:43:26] >> We're going to continue a public hearing [01:43:27] next month [01:43:29] >> and we're going to continue [01:43:32] >> and we're going to review uh the aquifer [01:43:34] regulations. [01:43:42] Can [01:43:42] >> we still do green burial? [01:43:44] >> Uh we have to do that also. [01:43:47] >> We should get Well, let's get through [01:43:49] these. [01:43:50] >> Yes, [01:43:50] >> cuz we can always do green burial. [01:43:53] like an April or May. [01:43:54] >> We'll put those on. We'll discuss uh [01:43:56] other things as they come up. Okay. [01:43:59] >> About this. [01:44:03] >> All right. [01:44:05] There is a motion to adjourn. [01:44:08] >> Yes. Second. [01:44:09] >> All in favor? I [laughter] [01:44:11] >> third time around. [01:44:12] >> There we go. [01:44:14] >> All right. So, anyway, I'm so thrilled [01:44:18] that you have you and [01:44:20] >> Mike. Thank you, Mike. Thank you very [01:44:23] much. [01:44:28] >> I'm planning to attend. [01:44:33] [laughter] [01:44:33] >> I am waiting for the website to be [01:44:35] updated from 2025 registration to 2026. [01:44:38] I have your petition as does both.