Town committee to submit coordinated comments on EPA soils-and-sediment cleanup amendment and holding-basin report

A town committee met to coordinate comments to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on two draft documents: an amendment to the soils-and-sediment (SSS) remediation plan that adjusts cleanup areas around the holding basin and adjacent bog, and an ISS report documenting work already completed in the holding-basin footprint.

Pam, who convened the meeting, said the group’s immediate task was to compile page‑specific questions and technical concerns so Rey could assemble a consolidated comment letter. Rey told members he would lead drafting the committee’s comments and asked reviewers to provide page and table references to support specific questions. Members agreed on an internal timeline (comments due to the reviewers around April 22 for one item and by the end of April for the holding-basin report) so Rey could prepare the letter to EPA.

The committee’s substantive concerns fall into four areas. First, members asked the EPA to clarify security protocols for active work areas — whether the agency will use fenced work zones, 24‑hour on‑site personnel or cameras to prevent trespass and accidental exposure during construction. "We should clarify that there is going to be security on the site," one participant said, reflecting multiple speakers’ concern that people currently access the bog from trail edges.

Second, commenters asked whether "Jackie’s law," cited at a public town meeting, applies to the kind of trenches or daily open excavations the remediation contractor might use. Some members said their reading suggests the statute focuses on open trenches but may not apply to short‑duration work; the committee decided to ask EPA for a protocol describing how trenches would be secured or closed daily.

Third, reviewers asked for more transparency on how remedial‑action levels were derived. Lena was assigned to review the tables and derivations in the SSS amendment and flag instances where sidewall sample results or averages appeared high relative to the cleanup standard. The group requested that reviewers point to specific pages and tables so Rey could include exact citations in the committee’s submission.

Fourth, the committee discussed post‑cleanup restoration and public access at the bog. Members raised concepts such as decking or boardwalks, and suggested asking EPA and project planners whether the restoration work could accommodate future footings or pre‑graded paths to reduce later disturbance. Carlin Reed, identifying themself as a finance‑committee member, said the EPA presentation was informative and urged outreach options, including filmed site updates, to build community trust. "I was impressed with how many people actually spoke and . . . the depth of interest," Carlin Reed said.

The committee divided review responsibilities: Ed was asked to examine bog mitigation and security language; Lena to review remedial‑action levels and sampling tables; Glenn to check for unexpected changes in the amendment; and Rey to compile and draft the consolidated comments. Brad said he was satisfied with the uranium work specifically and did not plan to focus on other hazards.

Members also discussed an upcoming site walk‑through scheduled for April 29 (around 10:30–11 a.m.); participants were asked to contact the walk’s organizer, Paul, a select‑board member, to confirm attendance and logistics.

No formal votes were recorded during the meeting. The committee agreed to submit a consolidated set of questions and comments to EPA rather than sending multiple uncoordinated letters; Rey will circulate a draft for review before submission. The group adjourned after confirming assignments and deadlines.