Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
Date and Time: Thursday, Jan. 14, 2010, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Amy Hamilton, Dan Ricciarelli, Rebecca Christie, Carole McCauley, and Julia Knisel
Members Absent: Michael Blier
Others Present: Carey Duques, Conservation Agent
Recorder: Stacy Kilb
Pabich calls the meeting to order.
Meeting Minutes— December 10, 2009
- Voting members are Amy Hamilton, Dan Ricciarelli, Carole McCauley, and Julia Knisel. Rebecca Christie arrived at 6:15PM and so did not vote on the minutes or agenda item #2, but did vote on the other items.
- Knisel motions to approve the minutes, and is seconded by Hamilton. Passes 4-0.
Continuation of a Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability— City of Salem 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA 01970. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the construction of a v-notch weir to monitor stream flow in the South River.
Request to continue to March 11th meeting.
Hamilton motions to continue until March 11th, Ricciarelli seconds; passes 5-0.
Continuation of a Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-494— Shallop Landing, LLC 40 Lowell Street Peabody, MA 01960. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss removal and replacement of an existing storm drain on Szetela Lane in association with the development of a subdivision.
Jim McDowell of Eastern Land Survey associates presents updated plans for offsite drainage of the site.
Pabich did not attend the last meeting and signs an affidavit of service stating that he listened to the meeting recording and read the minutes.
McDowell describes the new drains to be installed, including the tidegate. He reiterates from the last meeting the fact that the proposed Stormceptor will be on Shallop Lane and all drains, snow removal, etc. will be maintained by a Homeowner’s Association, with deed restrictions.
The DEP has been supplied new plans, and attorney Keilty should arrive with Green cards to give them to the Commission.
Discussion continues regarding drains, manholes, and elevations at certain parts of the development, as well as the tidegate and how it will function.
Rebecca Christie arrives 6:15PM
More discussion ensues about the Stormceptor; McDowell makes note of an error on the plan regarding its size and states that it will be corrected. He also clarifies Pabich’s question on maintenance of the system – everything inside the development is the responsibility of the home owners association, though the outfall pipe will be maintained by the City.
Pabich asks about methodology for installing pipe; McDowell describes it. There will be training of personnel handling all material, wetting material, monitoring, and they will make sure trucks are clean when leaving the site, even though the actual danger is low. He feels there is no risk if material is kept on site and covered.
Discussion ensues about whether or not to include the use of ductile iron as a condition; McDowell agrees but states that it is already on the plan. He then outlines the DEP comments on the change in the size of the pipes, and gives Duques a copy of the report.
Concerns regarding slopes and velocity are discussed. The conversation again turns to the use of iron-style vs. ductile tideflex tidegates; McDowell reiterates that he will do whatever the Commission asks him to and has no preference.
Ricciarelli voices his concern about backups when the tideflex gets stuck open due to debris. McDowell reiterates that he is open to any type of tidegate the city wants.
Green Cards from DEP are delivered to Duques from Attorney Jack Keilty).
McDowell wraps up his summary of the DEP comments and outlines erosion control measures at the top of the riprap bank, agreeing that this should be a condition.
Pabich also discusses snow removal and storage; anything over 4” would have to be taken to an approved location (not Collins Cove) as there is little room for storage in the development.
McCauley raises more concerns about the Stormceptor with regards to catching the contaminants on site; McDowell states that in such an urban environment more rigorous control is not called for as the use of ductile pipes will help.
Pabich opens to the public for questions/comments.
McDowell says he will add limits of work to the plan.
McCauley makes a motion, Ricciarelli seconds. Passes 6-0. Pabich also calls for a motion to issue an Order of Conditions.
Discussion of erosion control measures such as a silt curtain around the outfall and catch basin(s) on site; McDowell wants to add it to the two city drains outside Szetela Lane as well.
Duques outlines all conditions requested by the Commission:
- A stormwater pollution prevention plan should be in place
- A NPDES general permit must be obtained
- No dumping of snow into the resource area or buffer zone
- The tidegate must be approved by the Commission
- A sedimentation boom will provide erosion control outside of the existing outfall location
- Submit an annual stormwater maintenance report (documenting cleaning of the Stormceptor and catch basins) as an ongoing condition
- There will be a requirement for ductile iron drain pipes for the stormwater system
- The firm will provide a cross-section detail of embankment stabilization work for 75’ on either side of the outfall pipe, which will be added to the plan
- Visual inspection of the catch basin and manholes to ensure structural integrity.
Hamilton motions for conditions, Ricciarelli seconds; passes 6-0
Continuation of a Public Hearing- Request for a Determination of Applicability— Palmer Cove Yacht Club 78 Leavitt Street, Salem, MA 01970. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the construction of a vessel bottom pressure washing, water containment device at Palmer Cove Yacht Club 78 Leavitt Street.
Marc Winder and Richard Morneau for Palmer Cove. Pabich did not attend the last meeting and signs an affidavit of service stating that he listened to the meeting recording and read the minutes. Pabich asks for recap of the proposed project. Winder gives a summary of the plan.
Pabich questions the setup of the system and voices concerns about dissolved metals in the tank used to hold the recycled water used during the washing process.
Winder states that there are no heavy metals used in the paint applied to boats. The only material might be cooper oxide, which, as it is not on the hazardous materials list, is not something his company must contain and dispose of.
Pabich agrees but questions the presence of metals in the water again, wanting reassurance that it would be collected by a group like Clean Harbors and moved offsite should such contamination occur.
Discussion continues about which materials are to be dealt with, since just because a material isn’t on a hazardous substance list doesn’t mean it isn’t harmful.
Winder says that Coastal Zone Management dictates that only heavy metals and benzenes must be dealt with. He assumes responsibility for testing the wash water for dissolved substances not filtered out as per Pabich’s request.
Questions arise about what is to be done with both solid waste products and wastewater; Winder answers that 2.4 gallons per year of each, presumably, are allowed self-transportation by the DEP to an offsite disposal company.
Pabich requests a condition for proper disposal of wash water.
Ricciarelli questions the location of pad, asking why it’s so close to the dock.
Winder addresses his concerns, saying that it’s a matter of logistics in that during the summer, the yard is a parking lot and they don’t want people parking on the pad, and in the fall it serves as a parking place for boats in storage; if you had to go inland to wash, boats couldn’t be stored behind it. From the standpoint of CZM guidelines, the reason is so that boats aren’t being hauled around the yard.
Pabich opens to public.
He calls for motion to approve a Request for Determination of Applicability. Duques recommends a Negative 3, which means work within a buffer zone, with no impact to the resource area.
McCauley motions, Christie seconds. Passes 6-0 with the following conditions:
- An operation maintenance binder must be kept onsite at all times
- The company must keep track of solid wastes and water waste and if necessary document its proper disposal
- In no case will water be discharged as sheet flow or into any storm sewer
Pabich requests that the Yacht Club share any additional information with the Commission regarding vessel bottom washing systems and their operations.
Continuation of a Public Hearing— Notice of Intent— DEP #64-495— Harmony Grove Cemetery 30 Grove Street Salem, MA 01970. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposal for continued Cemetery leaf storage operations and install plantings within a Riverfront Area at Harmony Grove Cemetery 30 Grove Street.
Presenting are: Fran Mayo, lawyer, John Riordan, president of the board of Trustees and Peter Ogren of Hayes Engineering. Fran Mayo passes out a memorandum.
Mr. Mayo describes Harmony Grove and states his belief that this is a landscaping activity that doesn’t need to be approved by the Conservation Commission. The “landscaping” activity he describes is the depositing of mulched leaves along one edge of the property. This year when the mature compost was moved a complaint was filed against them, but Harmony Grove’s understanding was that this was landscaping, and so thought it was exempt, especially as the activity takes place more than 100 feet from the river and has no perceivable impact. The DEP has apparently also weighed in and stated that the activity has negligible impact on pollution, fisheries, etc. The current proposal also differs from historic use of the property.
Presenting next is Peter Ogren, who states that the first plan was not acceptable to the DEP, so he outlines the amended plan. This includes a defined mulching area delineated by a 3’ high, 2” vinyl clad fence which would be contained within the first 50’ of riverfront area. Previously disturbed areas would be seeded with a “conservation mix” of grass and wildflowers. The state wanted all disturbed areas up to the fence restored to natural riverfront; sweet pepperbush plantings are proposed for that area.
Ogren explains that an analysis of two other alternatives was also submitted, but neither was acceptable. The first involved mulching in other areas, but there are no suitable other areas for this purpose, and the second option were to truck it offsite, which was prohibitively expensive and also deprives Harmony Grove of a resource it depends upon.
Ogren also describes the setup of the road, which was laid out over 100 years ago, and is paved and has a fence alongside it, so the river has already been affected.
He is asking that the Commission grant an Order of Conditions to allow continued composting. The cemetery also agrees to clean up areas where trash has been deposited covertly by other residents, and will post signage saying that people entering the riverfront area must limit their activity.
Ogren describes the previously disturbed areas per Pabich’s request.
Flooding in the area is then discussed; no detailed studies have ever been done or elevation been determined, but overtopping of the banks of the North River has never occurred in the history of the area as a cemetery. It is currently shown as “Zone A” but no one knows how that was determined.
Pabich wants to wait for further DEP comments on the new submittal. Ogren asks if the Commission would like to continue, and Pabich suggests a site visit.
McCauley asks if the DEP’s definition of landscaping differs whether the area in question is residential or commercial.
Duques cites page 102 of the regulations. Discussion ensues over the vagueness of the regulations and Ogren and Pabich disagree on this issue. Ogren claims that it’s a “zero sum” activity since the mulch gets used on site, and not as fill or for excavation, while Pabich sees the activity as ongoing, with the mulch counting as storage of uncovered materials in a riverfront area.
Riordan then describes the fence around the mulch area, which is steel mesh, vinyl coated fencing, not chain link, 2x2” dark green, stapled to 4x4” wood posts. Duques asks if the mulch includes things on headstones such as wreathes, plantings, etc.
Riordan says no, those items go to a dumpster. Discussion ensues about the appearance and effectiveness of the fence; its purpose is clarified as simply delineating where work may take place rather than containing any sheet flow or other materials of concern. Pabich recommends a site visit to clarify the matter in question.
Pabich opens for public questions/comments and asks for a site visit, which is established for the 28th at 4:30PM, though Commissioners may stop by at any time before that.
The Commission requests that the cemetery flag the area that the fence will be prior to this visit so they know exactly what’s delineated. Harmony Grove agrees to try.
Pabich calls for motion to continue; Hamilton motions while Christie seconds. Passes 6-0
Old /New Business
- Review sampling plan and proposal to remove concrete slabs at Salem Suede Property 72 Flint Street DEP #64-492.
Presenting are:
Scott Grover, Attorney representing Salem Suede
Dennis Giustra, P.E. LSP Pennoni Associates,
Bruce Poole, SP Engineering
Larry Hurley, Regional Industrial Services, the demolition contractor
David Zion, involved in the site redevelopment.
The current condition of the site is outlined by Attorney Grover; demolition has been completed down to the slabs, to which Condition #47 applies; it states that the slabs must stay in place until it is determined that removing them would not allow contaminants into the North River. That report is now complete so the applicant would like to remove said slabs.
Mr. Poole presents to the Commission. He is familiar with the layout of the factory and the environmental assessments for redevelopment, and has analyzed the sub-soils beneath the slabs for sources of release. One hole was dug in each room or slab to test. He goes on to describe the levels and type of contamination found. The area around the boiler room is of particular concern.
He feels that most contaminants would not migrate to the river, but would like to cover one specific area (as noted in the report) with 12” of crushed brick to prevent surface erosion and the movement of pieces of leather (particulate chrome). The Commission has his report and recommendations.
Dennis Giustra, LSP and Senior Engineer at Pennoni Associates, then presents. He concurs with the conclusions above and asks if there are any questions.
Pabich asks if he (Giustra) was part of the preparation of the report, as is protocol. Giustra says he was not but that it wasn’t required, as the sampling plan met the requirements of the Order of Conditions. He thinks enough sampling was done.
Discussion ensues over the reason for slab removal if further characterization is required as materials would have to be removed a second time during remediation.
Giustra counters that further characterization can’t be done with slabs in place, and he reiterates that once removed, they will be pulverized and will provide cover in a 12” layer, except for the one slab which will stay in place. With all slabs in place soil and groundwater samples can’t be taken, and he would like the work to progress.
He then outlines the timeline for notification of the site, a 120-day reporting condition. There will also be additional assessment via excavation of certain areas.
Duques asks if the DEP has been notified of the report; they haven’t yet. The 120 day timeline has started under this condition; it will probably move faster. Duques confirms that work has currently stopped on the site.
Larry Hurley, of Regional Industrial Services, confirms that work has stopped.
Duques clarifies that the contract calls for removal of slabs and foundations.
Discussion ensues concerning the chrome storage tanks on site along with the setup of the various test pits and structure of the slab.
Pabich would like to have a licensed site professional (LSP) do a peer review of the sampling protocol before the Commission approves the report. He does not want to prematurely “uncap” the site.
Ricciarelli requests a plan showing development of the site, but currently only demolition is scheduled, although the Planning Department may have some plans for site redevelopment since plans were submitted to both the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Duques says the Conservation Commission hasn’t seen the redevelopment plans yet, but yes, the Planning Dept. has plans of site redevelopment.
The need to move quickly to avoid delays is also discussed, and there is further conversation regarding the need for outside peer review. It seems that an LSP only got involved once it was requested by the Commission; since Giustra was not involved in the actual sampling, the Commission would like someone outside the process to review the report and ensure the adequacy of the samples. The Commission requires that the firm pay for this review. The goal is to have clean soil on the side, under the slabs, so further review is warranted.
Hurley asks if can the Commission can approve pending the approval of their peer review – Pabich agrees.
Duques outlines the process for finding an LSP to review the samples: the Commission gets three quotes and accepts the lowest, with the applicant paying the fee. She wants to define the scope of the work to get more information. Objective review of the existing report will ensure that enough testing was completed relative to the removal of the slab.
More concerns are raised by Pabich as to how covering the site with the crushed slab will be effective in preventing chemicals to percolate into the river and groundwater; he would like more feedback first.
Dennis points out that there is a much faster time frame for the work to be done vs. how long the chemicals and materials have been there.
Poole debates the requirements (for an LSP, of the condition) with Duques, who asks if a filing could be made immediately. Giustra answers in the affirmative.
More discussion ensues over concerns about opening up the property to the movement of contaminants once the slab is removed. Hurley says that the crushed concrete, once laid down, will compact and not allow moisture through, kind of like another slab. Giustra says metals are not readily mobile, covered or no.
McCauley asks how the concrete is crushed, and the process is described. There will be some dust in the end product that gives it cohesion.
The peer review is discussed again, and Poole is reassured that it should be a fast process. He agrees to supply any requested historical information to the Commission’s LSP.
Pabich confirms that there are no questions and requests a motion to have the report from SP Engineering reviewed by an LSP.
Hamilton motions and is seconded my McCauley. Passes 6-0
Duques agrees to put together a draft scope of work to be reviewed by the Commission. An LSP of the Commission’s choice will review the report, focusing on the number and location of samples and recommended actions (with respect to removal of the slab). Removal can be recommended in specific areas and not others.
Poole would like a vote that they can proceed contingent upon the Commission’s LSP approval vs. having to come back again. Pabich agrees.
- Request for a Certificate of Compliance DEP #64-398—Costa Sideridis 2 Autumn View Salem, MA 01970.
Costa and Nick Sideridis
Duques reviews questions about the fence being installed; she shows pictures of the finished work. Although an as-built plan was submitted, the shape of the deck changed slightly after approval; the distance has not decreased from the wetland but it is minor. All work is on the outer edges of the buffer zone. She recommends a full Certificate of Compliance.
Pabich calls for a motion; Christie motions, McCauley seconds, and it passes 6-0.
- Request for an Extension to an Existing Order of Conditions DEP #64-441—North River Canal, LLC, 28 Goodhue Street Salem, MA 01970.
Work on this site has not started; there is a request for an extension for 3 years, since the applicant wants to construct 44 residential units but must secure funding first. Allowing the Order of Conditions to lapse would cause “extreme hardship to applicant,” who wants extension until Feb. 14, 2013.
Pabich calls for motion to grant said extension. Christie motions, Hamilton seconds, and it is approved 6-0
- Request for a Certificate of Compliance DEP #64-379—Tropical Products 220 Highland Avenue Salem, MA 01970.
Duques requests to continue since the applicant is not prepared and she has not received the monitoring reports, although the wetland appears to be in good condition.
- Review minor modification of South River Haborwalk.
This project has not been approved yet either. There is a need to increase width of the sidewalk, but National Grid has not approved it yet; they have an easement for high voltage lines.
- Review wetland replication and invasion of phragmities at Mass. Electric/National Grid property, 20 Pierce Avenue.
The company has tried to do wetland replication but was invaded by Phragmites. They submitted a final monitoring report and want to know if commission is OK with their attempts over past few years at wetlands replication. If not, they request another extension to eliminate the Phragmites, since the current Order of Conditions will expire soon. The site is contaminated, under ongoing monitoring, and is the former MGP site off of Bridge St.
Control over the Phragmites will still be unsuccessful; Duques feels that they should be granted a Certificate of Compliance whether or not they continue to fight the Phragmites, as it will be a losing battle.
The Commission agrees to grant the Certificate of Compliance as National Grid had done their part.
Duques:
Asks the Commissioners about availability to attend a site visit at the Salem Harbor Power Station to see the site, get context and understand what happens there (in regards to no particular project – there are many there). A potential site visit is scheduled for Jan 20th or Feb. 3rd at 4:30PM.
Re: The Commission needs an official vote for Dan and Julia’s nameplates to be paid for by the Commission. McCauley motions, Hamilton seconds, and it passes 6-0.
Re: MACC conference in March – Commissioners attending can be reimbursed but must pay up front.
Motion and second to close meeting:
Hamilton motions adjourn, Christie seconds. Passes 6-0
| 
