Laserfiche WebLink
f <br /> Conservation Commission <br /> Executive Session <br /> April 3 , 1986 <br /> Page 7. <br /> fir. Rosenberg: This should be done by an independent engineer and that <br /> should be at their expense. <br /> Mr. Humphries : That will be done, there will be a sampling sieve analysis <br /> to compare and match statistically with the numbers and grain size and <br /> everything else but I think the main concern is the practical application <br /> of the s du Pont: an actual visual inspection, going down and seeing that <br /> before it is dumped. We' ve seen the stuff they have dumped before). <br /> . Rosenberg: What I am saying is that there ought to be an independent <br /> engineer and , if we are going to get the reports on some kind of a regular <br /> basis with somebody's stamp on them , if you go down there and have to stand <br /> while somebody -is inspect i. g .:th i,s and you- go. down and find debris , as has <br /> happened before, there is a quick and obvious remedy , right I think ,that <br /> with the history that I heard, I haven't been here with a lot of ghat was <br /> going on, everyone would feel a lot more comfortable with that kind of a <br /> procedure. <br /> Ms duPont: I think they will stand for the provision for a visual inspection <br /> so that they haven' t given the engineer a representative sample and then gust <br /> gene and gotten some excavation material such as drain tiles , cinder blocks <br /> and those things to pollute fill . Okay, if you could work those provisions <br /> into it Stan , we would appreciate it. <br /> V. Louise ehrman, One other suggestion , as it has been mentioned that this <br /> is a project that may possible be renewed after~ the orders have expired , as <br /> part of this order of condition we might provide for and provide a fee for <br /> an independent review of the success , or lack thereof, of this particular <br /> project prior to any appli-cation for any renewal of the project, or any part <br /> of it. <br /> . Morse. We could say after two applications s Behran , Whatever. <br /> Ms duPont: 're not giving thea carte blanche for three years and a project <br /> can be stopped if it is proved to actually be deleterious and I think they <br /> are doing that when they occasionally let someone put in a seawall or some- <br /> thing that they have to inspect over a period of ten years and actually take <br /> it out if it proves to be deleterious. <br /> Mr. Rosenberg: Before the second application there could be a report on <br /> what' s happened before each application after the first one, there be a <br /> report as to what has transpired. s duPont: There is actually an on-site <br /> inspection . ell , we do our ownon-site inspection, but I 'm talking about <br /> an independent inspection. ehrman : An evaluation. ) An independent <br /> engineer is report at their~ expense, a sort of mini-environmental report <br /> of what' s happened in the six month period. If it turns out the results <br /> are untoward or something , the appropriate can be made to D. . .E. o <br /> whatevear, but at least gives some monitoring to the procedure. <br /> Ms. duPont: We are just about at our thirty minute mark. Any other sugg- <br /> estions or comments or questions that Stan can incorporate into this for us <br /> Stan, i think you did an excellent ,fob, I appreciate it. Th re'� just one thing <br /> about the photographs that blurred the road , that road was stopped k it.ts con- <br />