Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
Date and Time: Thursday, Jan. 28, 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, David Pabich, Michael Blier
Members Absent:
Others Present: Carey Duques, Conservation Agent
Recorder: Stacy Kilb
Pabich calls the meeting to order.
Meeting Minutes— January 14, 2010
Hamilton motions, seconded by McCauley; passes 7-0
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.
Peter Ogren, Hayes Engineering and Fran Mayo, Attorney
Ogren reviews the proceedings since the last meeting; additional issues have come up with the amended plan and they are trying to address them. There are concerns about flooding and he indicates that the fence line has been amended. There will be 11,800 square feet for mulching inside the fenced area. Ogren describes DEP’s recommendations for mulching. He would like the Commission to issue an Order of Conditions. He also outlines plans to put up signs declaring “Riverfront area – do not disturb” rather than using the recommended wetland markers. Fran Mayo concurs and has nothing to add.
Pabich reads a letter from Jonathan Reardon, President, Board of Trustees for Harmony Grove Cemetery, who was not present at the meeting. Said letter describes the mulching process and timing. Ogren says they did not talk to Mr. Lozzi, but the cemetery feels that the requested area is big enough, and not too large; they need all of the proposed space to compost. Ogren explains that this particular area has always been used for this purpose.
Pabich agrees with the DEP assessment and definition of riverfront area (200’) and opines that the activity shouldn’t be allowed where runoff could occur and carry higher nutrient loads to the River. He suggests some other locations for the mulching. Ogren says other areas are not suitable as they are wooded and used for chopping brush.
Marjorie Lavender, an employee of the cemetery, views the aerial photo of cemetery and the proposed sites for mulching. Lavender explains that one of the suggested areas will be developed for graves. Leaves there now are there because of the issue with the DEP. That particular area is dumping area for dirt only, not leaves.
Duques says that she spoke with Wayne Lozzi and discussed the changes; he had concerns about size but would be comfortable with an area 5000 square feet in size located within the riverfront to be used for composting. The cemetery has proposed 11,000 + square feet; Duques suggests using 5000 in the riverfront area and locating the rest outside of it.
Ogren says the grade there is not good for mulching; the current area is both flat and not visible from the road.
Duques asks if the dirt road could be shifted; Ogren says it can’t be.
Further debate ensues about the choice of area, the type of activity, and possible DEP intervention on the Commission’s decision. Ogren re-reviews the plan again for Blier, who was not present for the last meeting.
New plans are passed around for the Commission’s perusal. 14,400 square feet are what is actually needed, so Ogren feels that 11,000 square feet is a reasonable accommodation.
Pabich points out that even if activity was moved outside the 200’ riverfront zone, the impact would still be the same as far as nutrient runoff goes; Ogren thinks that if that is the decision of Commission he doesn’t think it productive to continue and suggests that the Commission do a site visit when there’s no snow. Duques says that Wayne Lozzi should be there. Duques discusses the difference between landscaping and mulching (mulching is an ongoing activity so doesn’t meet the exemption).
Mayo says the River Act doesn’t prohibit activity in the river area and none of specified interests therein are affected.
Pabich agrees to set up a site visit and a backup date. Pabich questions what the stakes mark – which turns out to be the original area, not the amended area. Mayo says they will mark the new proposed area for the next site visit. Pabich suggests walking along the roadway during that visit.
Ogren excuses himself from the meeting to attend another obligation. A site visit is set for March 11th at 5 pm by Pabich. Harmony Grove will continue this hearing to the meeting on March 11th at 6 pm following the site visit.
Old /New Business
- Discussion of peer review of Phase One Limited Site Investigation for the project at the former Salem Suede located at 72 Flint Street.
Duques explains that a scope of work was finalized and approved by David Pabich and circulated to four firms for them to bid on. Weston and Sampson was the lowest bidder and the applicant/property owner of Salem Suede agreed to pay the consultant to complete the peer review. Duques explains that George Naslas, LSP of Weston & Sampson reviewed the original report, along with other correspondence related to this site, and provided a report summarizing his findings and recommendations relating to the site, which was sent to the applicant as well as the Conservation Commission.
Naslas summarizes the report and what was sampled, and says it was a standard approach. He states that one finding was that the results were compared to S2 standards and should have been compared to S1 conditions because a residential development exists within 500 feet of the subject area. He explained that someone will have to report to the DEP for other phases of this project since reportable thresholds are exceeded.
As for transport of contaminants to the river, he has two areas of concern.
First, the area under the boiler room, backed by the data. Chromium is present throughout the site; chromium and metals in general don’t dissolve and tend to stay in soil except under very specific conditions. There is no groundwater data at the site. Naslas thinks crushing and capping the site, along with other measures, would mitigate the transport of contaminants. However, he would like to see a larger area of the slab left intact that what is currently planned.
The second main issue is groundwater. Since the current quality is unknown, he has some concerns. The site will go into the Mass Contingency Plan. He also has questions about what is in the lagoon (possibly sludge or leather wastes) and if it will be uncovered.
Overall, he agrees with this approach, except that he wants to increase the area that will be left intact. He is also concerned about long term groundwater quality – this is not a full assessment; one will need to get done.
Discussion ensues about the long term implications of crushing the slab if the site were to be left undeveloped. Naslas says more information is needed but does not seem very worried as he states that geologic systems move slowly; as long as the site isn’t left stagnant for many years.
Pabich questions if they would have to do groundwater sampling in next phase; Naslas responds yes, they will have to.
Discussion continues regarding the presence of chromium on the site and the type of testing that should be done. Naslas seems hesitant to recommend a course of action due to the lack of information about the current groundwater conditions, but states that in general he feels that the proposal is acceptable since metals don’t usually move. He would like to know if the concentrations are high enough to leach out and suggests a TCLP (Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure) test, though as he points out, this also can create additional removal costs. He states that he’s leaning towards the groundwater well approach rather than the TCLP, since the latter clues in RCRA and specific disposal requirements that can be costly.
Pabich asks for clarification if Naslas would be more comfortable with either more information on groundwater or on the tendency of materials to leach.
Naslas affirms this but says you would need to remove the cap in order to get said information. He outlines the possible options:
1. Run the TCLP
2. Leave the slab in place
3. Find out groundwater conditions
Jane Arlander of 93 Federal St./Friends of the North River questions the proceedings and how they will affect the area. She says there is a zoning appeal before them. Going ahead and removing the slabs without answers to unknowns seems wrong, mirroring the Commission’s concerns. She asks if chromium testing differentiates between chromium 3 and chromium 6. Naslas says that the current tests completed doesn’t distinguish them; he thinks more tests should be run to speciate how much of each type of chromium exists on the site. Jane mentions that there have been many chromium poisonings in the area from people working with chromium. She is very concerned.
Naslas reviews process again – at some point further investigations will need to be made to ensure there is no significant risk; what is before the Commission now is the initial information they have.
More discussion ensues about options for the site and timing. The Commission feels that the information they have is inadequate to make a decision, and of the three above options, the last one (groundwater testing) will have to be done anyway in order to go forward with development of the property, so there is no reason not to do it.
Debate continues about the timing, the speed at which groundwater moves (only centimeters per year) and the Contingency Plan. The fact that there has already been a reportable event also comes up.
Bruce Poole, of SP engineering, provides input on the topic. He states that the chromium on site is mostly 3 (Trivalent) and feels that because of the crushed concrete and PH of the water filtering through the chromium is completely precipitated and immobilized; Poole explains that chromium is immobilized at a PH of 8. Thus, putting crushed concrete on top decreases the mobility of the chromium.
Poole tries to use an example of another site to convince the Commission that the chromium situation in this case is under control, to no avail, so he moves on. He points out that water has been infiltrating the site for 100 years and the chromium 6 limit is 1.1 mg/L – not a hazardous constituent in salt water.
Duques questions why reporting hasn’t been expedited to the DEP. Poole says it’s because they want to finish this process, sell the property, and move on. The buyer would report, not the seller.
The Commission reiterates that a TCLP or groundwater testing are the only options, and speciation of the chromium is also important. They would prefer to do groundwater sampling pre-removal of slab.
Naslas says if groundwater is clean slab removal should be OK since the system doesn’t change that quickly. Other recommendations could be made if contamination is found.
David Zion, partner in Riverview Place development, speaks. He, too, is interested in proper cleanup but points out that, of the 180,000 square feet that comprise the site, only 25,000 of them are protected by this slab. He thought that testing under the slab was consistent with the rest of the site. If the slab and the rest of the site have the same conditions, what impact would its removal have?
Naslas is hesitant to agree; he doesn’t want to say one way or the other without more information.
Poole says that the entire area was filled in the 1890s and it is likely that material across the entire site has pockets of similar materials; what you find under slab is the same as around other areas.
Christie asks if the slab area had higher readings; Poole says no.
Pabich says the Commission wants additional data before it approves the removal of the slab. He also wants classification of the chromium or groundwater data so it can make a more informed decision.
- Request for a Certificate of Compliance DEP #64-379—Tropical Products 220 Highland Avenue Salem, MA 01970.
Tropical Products has now submitted Wetland Replication Report, installed erosion controls, re-graded, created wetland replicated areas by planting wetland species, and the plants have exceeded a 75% success rate. Duques recommends issuing a full certificate of compliance. Pabich asks about the status of the catch basins and Duques explains that grates have been cleaned out and are monitored on an annual basis at a minimum. Duques explains that the property owner is required to submit an annual report to the Con Com detailing cleaning of the stormwater system located on site.
McCauley motions, Ricciarelli seconds; approved 7-0.
- Review minor modification of South River Harborwalk.
Duques outlines a map and letter that got passed around. Frank Taormina, Harbor Coordinator and Planner for City of Salem, presents a minor change to the Harborwalk plan. The concrete Harborwalk was supposed to directly abut landscaping and a gravel walkway along with bricks, but engineers found that there would be a gap as it was originally planned. The entire Harborwalk was supposed to be built above grade, but there is a grade difference around the corner in question; also there is an old seawall underground and is starting to become exposed. They need to excavate on top of it so the minor change consists of excavation of 8-16” of wall that is becoming exposed and the small sliver of walkway that is supposed to abut the brick. The slab will only be 4” thick over that area,
while it will be thicker over rest of area. Taormina wants it to be noted in the record and let them know if there need to be additional conditions; they will submit final as-built plans when the Harborwalk is completed.
Blier asks why it was so thick to begin with. Taormina replies that this is because it was constructed above grade, with no footing. However, the 4” thick section will have a footing underneath, so it’s thinner.
Duques reminds the Commissioners that a tour of the Dominion Power Plant is scheduled for Wednesday, Feb. 10th at 4 PM.
Hamilton motions to adjourn, and is seconded by Ricciarelli. Approved 7-0. The meeting ends at 8 PM.
| 
