Gloucester health panel accepts the blasting study for the Kondelin Road waste station and flags soil testing gaps to the Conservation Commission

A Gloucester Board of Health subcommittee that tracks the conditions on the planned construction waste transfer station at 24 Kondelin Road worked through three things Oct. 6: a memo to the Conservation Commission, a blasting study, and a sheet that tracks all 37 conditions of the board's 2025 approval.

What happened

• The subcommittee agreed that condition 19, a study showing the company can safely blast the ledge behind the planned building, has been met, while keeping the right to reopen it if later permits show otherwise.
• It approved a memo to the Conservation Commission pointing out that the commission's outside reviewer looked at only three of the eight conditions the board asked about, and did not address soil testing or the leachate tanks.
• It adopted a tracking sheet that sorts every condition by when it must be met: before the company applies to the state to build, before a city building permit, before the facility opens, or as an ongoing rule.
• The company has not yet started the soil testing required by condition 20, and has not yet turned in a year of truck trip logs the board wants before it applies to the state.
• The Conservation Commission takes up the project's wetlands filing Oct. 21.

The memo to the Conservation Commission

Eastern Waste Services filed a notice of intent with the Conservation Commission for stormwater work, repaving and a fence near a wetland. The commission hired an outside engineering firm to review it. The Board of Health had asked that review to consider eight of its conditions. It covered three.

A member who read the state rules told the subcommittee that the leachate tanks, which collect liquid that drains from stored waste, are regulated by the state Department of Environmental Protection, not the Conservation Commission. State rules already require secondary containment and a leak alarm, and the company must file stamped engineering plans with the state before it can build. The board's own conditions go further: the tanks must be double walled, alarmed, and the liquid can never go to the city's wastewater treatment plant.

The subcommittee decided not to accuse the reviewer of an incomplete job. Instead the memo lists the conditions the review skipped and asks the reviewer to explain, so the commission knows whether each one affects its decision.

The memo also says the project's stormwater design is being judged on unverified soils. The board's condition 20 requires soil testing under the state's cleanup rules before construction, because of the materials handled on the site in the past, a member said. The health director said the company is still looking for a licensed site professional to do that work and could not find any past testing to use as a baseline. She said the state told her it is watching that condition closely.

Condition 19: the blasting study

The company filed an engineering feasibility document saying it can blast about 4,400 square feet of ledge at the south end of the site to make room for trucks to turn behind the building. The fire department would not review it, the health director said, because it only reviews a licensed blaster's permit application. The city's sanitarian found the document addressed what the board asked for.

The subcommittee accepted the document as meeting condition 19. Its letter will say the board presumes the company hired a qualified expert, and that if the blasting turns out to be infeasible during state or city permitting, the condition reopens. The fire chief must still sign off on a site plan with enough room for emergency vehicles, which is a separate condition.

The tracking sheet

The health director presented a working document, to be posted publicly, that lists each condition, what will count as meeting it, and when. Some points from the walk through:

• Before applying to the state for permission to build, the company must brief the board on how its application addresses every condition, and provide actual and average daily diesel truck counts for the current recycling operation. The approval caps added truck trips at 136 a day, for 149 total, and the traffic studies all rest on that number.
• The company's supplemental traffic study skipped a required item, 18I, on the effect of added trucks on people walking and biking on Essex Avenue and a nearby street. The outside reviewer did not catch it. The board will write to the company about it.
• Before a building permit: a $10,000 yearly bond for road cleanup, the deed restriction banning drinking water from the site's wells, and stamped plans for the tanks.
• Before opening: proof that scale logs, a customer reservation system and site records will hold the facility to 270 tons a day and 149 trucks a day, plus a contracted independent inspector for quarterly reviews and a consultant for noise testing at four neighbors' properties.
• Ongoing: the board can inspect and pull the logs at any time. Going over the tonnage or truck limits would be grounds to rescind the site approval.

Members agreed the health director can meet with the company's attorney between meetings to keep the sheet current.

What was decided

• Minutes of Sept. 9: approved.
• Condition 19 (blasting feasibility): met, with the right to reopen.
• Memo to the Conservation Commission: approved, with the health director to finish the wording.
• Condition tracking sheet: adopted as a working document.

What happens next

• The full Board of Health heard the subcommittee's update at its Oct. 8 meeting. A vote on condition 19 was expected there.
• Wednesday, Oct. 21: the Conservation Commission takes up the wetlands filing, continued from Oct. 7.
• The subcommittee plans to review the company's waste ban compliance narrative at its next meeting.

Where to find the records

• Eastern Waste Services project page on the city website, with the application, hearing record and decision.
• Site assignment decision, June 18, 2025, with all 37 conditions.
• October 2026 past meetings, with the recording.

Earlier coverage: Gloucester health panel to review blasting study for planned Kondelin Road waste transfer station (Oct. 5), the preview with what the approval allows.

How we did this: Cape Ann Current watched the meeting online and checked names against the agenda and the board's roster on the city website. These are our meeting notes, not the board's minutes.