Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Approved Minutes 01/12/2012
Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting


Date and Time:  Thursday, January 12, 2012, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location:       Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present:        Chairwoman Julia Knisel, David Pabich, Michael Blier, Amy Hamilton, Dan Ricciarelli
Members Absent: Gavin McAuliffe
Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent
Recorder:       Stacy Kilb

Chairwoman Julia Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:05 PM.

Meeting Minutes—December 8, 2011

A motion to approve the minutes is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously.


Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-518—Michael O’Brien, 5 Broadmoor Lane, Peabody, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of slabs and footings and remediation of contaminated materials within riverfront area, land subject to coastal storm flowage and buffer zone to coastal bank at 72 Flint St (Former Salem Suede).

Devine comments that one of the neighbors wanted to ensure that their 12/8/2011 letter, which was submitted to Devine and to the applicant, was read into the record. Lorene Scanlon, president of Mack Park Condominium Association at 75-77 Mason St., reads the letter stating their concerns aloud.

Chairwoman Knisel summarizes the situation so far. In November, removal, cleanup and backfilling were discussed. Erosion control measures and the condition of the existing wall were also discussed. There was a site visit and meeting again in December. The location of stockpiled materials was to be relocated and the Commission requested that Mr. Poole bring a dust monitoring plan to them, and to have an LSP present at this meeting. Devine was also going to follow through with the Board of health regarding dust issues.

Larry Ramdin, the Salem Health Agent, speaks about the dust issues. They will be monitoring the entire construction phase, and dust, noise and odors fall under nuisance regulations, which his department enforces. The plan was received this afternoon, though other communication was received Monday regarding moving the stockpile. He is much more satisfied with the new location, but has not yet thoroughly reviewed the document. He will also be in contact with the LSP. He intends to monitor this project closely.

Presenting for the applicant is Bruce Poole. The LSP is not yet present as he was caught in traffic. Mr. Poole summarizes the changes made. The Health and Safety Plan (HASP) now contains more specific information on contaminants and their levels. Action levels and a monitoring plan for dust, noise and odor have been added. Groundwater monitoring has also been added. The decontamination steps for the equipment and vehicles leaving the site were also detailed.

He shows the Site Plan dated 12/5/11 to describe the changes. The piles have been moved from the back area only for the oily waste. Landfill and lagoon waste, which have the potential to be odiferous, will be moved behind the Bonfanti building, though there is no slab there. A secure trailer will be onsite for hazardous spill control materials and storage of air monitoring gear in the area. They will not need a generator as they will be connected to the Bonfanti electrical supply. There is also a slab in the decontamination area where all vehicles will be brushed of all solid material with brooms; the material will then be placed into a sludge dumpster, where all daily consumables, common trash, and food will go. If there is grease and/or staining on vehicles that cannot be removed mechanically, a pressure washer will be used and the liquid collected via lined sump, then placed into a frac tank.

The stockpiled concrete will be moved next to the Mason realty property. There will be four stations for air monitors. Locations are tentative as of now. One is near the North River to gauge particulates moving toward the resource area.

The purpose of the Health and Safety Plan is to protect the workers. They will use a device that measures particulates with a laser beam. Mr. Poole describes the process and setup of the equipment. Illustrations of the dust monitoring equipment are also presented. There will be some background such as pollen. If there are issues with dust, corrective actions such as stopping loading and movement will be taken. Surfaces will be wet down, they will wait for the wind to abate, and some piles, especially ash, may need to be covered hourly.

Area A, a sludge lagoon, may contain sulfur-based gasses. Certain levels will require them to put respirators on the employees. There is a threshold of 1 ppm. Twice a day they will attend to each station and test with the meter to detect any readings and take corrective actions such as spreading lime and cement kiln dust to reduce odor. The pile could be moved further if odor problems persist. Spray deodorant misters may also be used. The deodorant/masking agent combines with sulfides to neutralize odor.

The only volatile organic they have found is naphthalene. They will monitor all excavations. An action limit of 1ppm is also established for this compound. A manual log recording these numbers will be given to the Board of Health weekly.

If further VOC’s are found, they will identify the type and source, then cover and contain the area until it is identified.

A decimeter to measure noise will be used next to all equipment. Generally there is a 120 decibel limit for workers at the site; ear protection is recommended for over 85 decibels. The vehicular noise level regulations of 80 decibels are used at property lines. Equipment would be stopped or the rate of work slowed if noise levels exceed the acceptable level. Mats could also be placed on slabs so that the vibrations do not translate to noise as easily.

Most slabs are poured floor slabs of 4-6” with little steel. They were not load bearing floors and not much effort will be needed to break them up; however one of them is 12” thick with a lot of steel, and will be more difficult, requiring mats.

A building permit request has also been filled out. Devine is being included in the process, as is the Board of Health. Mr. Poole also attended the Mack Park Neighborhood Association (MPNA) meeting this past week and discussed issues with passersby. They are still awaiting the LSP for answers to questions on the RAM Plan.

Pabich asks if there are descriptions on how they will handle breaking up the thicker slab at the seawall. Mr. Poole states that if there will be a riverwalk there, in a setback of 25-30’, they could just leave it as it is in good shape, and make it into a seating area, similar to the one on the other side. Pabich asks if there are contaminated soils that must be remediated underneath. They can get close, and could go under it up to 6’; he is not doing it to avoid decontamination, but rather to avoid losing a good structure.

Pabich asks about what the actual plans are, and if there is a plan if the Planning Board doesn’t approve that one. The Planning Board would like a riverwalk so this is being considered. Pabich asks if he would like to continue until the plan of interfacing slab, seawall and river is in place.

Pabich would still like to discuss the process for protecting the resource upon demolition at that spot near the river. It will be broken up at right angles, in large pieces, hauled away, and broken up further. Riprap would be added back in. It is unknown how deep the footing of the wall goes. Pabich comments that it must be excavated and rebuilt. Contamination aside, what is the plan for the structure – fixing the wall, riprap, rebuilding? The current plan is to replace with riprap at the same slope as on each side. Currently there are no plans for what will support the riprap in back of the wall. It would have to be backfilled to grade. It is higher than grade by 3’. Pabich asks again what supports the building on the river side. There is a structure above or penetrating the riprap. Pabich would like to see an engineered plan regarding what is going to happen at that interface. Ricciarelli also comments on the size and structure of the slab. Pabich is concerned the riprap will fail if supporting structures are removed. Mr. Poole says the entire footing does not need to be removed, and could be left once contamination is removed. Treatment systems were broken down to grade level and backfilled in the last Order. Pabich would like to see as a condition a structural analysis of the situation, and a plan for it with several options.

Dave Bramley, the LSP, arrives at 6:45PM.

He comments that they have added more discussion on constituents’ concerns, including monitoring during remediation and groundwater sampling frequency, locations and analysis; in response to questions from DEP. Pabich comments that monitoring will occur morning and afternoon; what will be the routine time for air sampling? Dust sampling is continuous during all operations. Air will be monitored during movement periods.

Hamilton asks about use of soils onsite; there is no testing of stabilized material to make sure it is stabilized. They are not concerned with leaching as the soil at this particular location is not contaminated. It would be tested to find out which “recipe” works best to reuse it on site; if it cannot be used it will be disposed of. No leaching testing has been conducted so far, but would be conducted in advance of excavation. Hamilton says a protocol for stabilization would have to be in place. A contractor will be selected to do pilot testing. Hamilton is concerned that material be tested before being placed anywhere near the resource. It should be documented as being stabilized or under a cap first. A protocol will be in place before stabilization occurs, Mr. Bramley states. Mr. Poole comments that stabilized soils will only be used outside of the resource area. The parking garage will be large, and is where the soils in question will be used. Some material such as ash will not be stabilized, but the larger detritus will be.

Hamilton is concerned that there is no final plan, no soil plan, and no description of placement. She would like more detail to answer those questions. The LSP is not sure as the exact volume of soil is not known. Usually a site is excavated until clean soil is hit. Chair Knisel asks for a drawn up plan showing placement of stabilized materials outside the buffer zone. Pabich typically requests that plans be stamped by an engineer; the Heath and Safety Plan is not. Mr. Bramley says they are usually not stamped as they are electronically registered, but he can sign this if necessary
        
Chair Knisel asks if the plan should be a condition, or submitted before the Commission moves forward. Mr. Poole says it may be that no soil is used on site. There are several disposal options, with onsite stabilization as one possibility. Hamilton does not like that there is no detail as to how it will be handled, in that case.

Pabich asks about the bank and excavation near the B2 boring. What is the depth of excavation? It will be 3-4’ before hitting clay/natural materials. Pabich discusses elevations there again and Mr. Poole explains the setup. Pabich would like a work plan and description from a structural engineer describing how they will handle that impact along the riverfront. He seeks a letter to the Commission along with photographic documentation of pre-work conditions, followed by evidence afterward that the area was not disturbed. That can be provided. The contract on the site specifies that one as the last area that will be excavated, due to its sensitivity.

The area will be hand-shoveled as equipment will not be allowed there. No machines will go past the sludge tanks. Mr. Bramley states that a vacuum truck could also be used if soil is loose enough; Pabich states that the problem is that soil is holding up the structure. Mr. Poole states that work could be done incrementally. Pabich says that the riprap was not designed with proper bedding material and filter fabric; he would like to see that detail and design plan to rebuild if they have to go down further.

It could be conditioned in a letter, but there should be a dialogue between the Engineer and the Commission. Chair Knisel says they would have to come before the Commission and submit a plan. Mr. Poole is amenable to that. They will submit an engineering plan for the wall in any case.

Chairwoman Knisel recaps the conditions discussed:

  • Riprap: A structural engineering analysis of current conditions and type of work to be performed is required. If there will be disturbance to structural integrity, an engineered plan for reconstruction must be submitted. A letter must also be submitted evaluating the interface between the large slab in Area G and the wall; this should outline, in their best opinion, how that excavation should move forward for minimal disturbance.
  • Reuse of materials: The applicant must present documentation of sampling for leachability and the Commission requires a stamped plan showing potential zones where reuse of stabilized material will occur (which must be outside the buffer zone and riverfront area).
  • Soil stockpiling location and monitoring of activity by the Board of Heath have been satisfied, from a Commission perspective. Pabich says that the stamped plan should include both sets of data, from the Site Plan plus the location of the stabilized materials. The Plan should include potential reuse areas and be stamped by an LSP.
Chair Knisel opens to the public.

Bill Penta of 89 Flint St. speaks. He is concerned about protection for the residents, as protection for workers was all that is mentioned. If the box is beeping for three hours, before being discovered, that is a problem for dust monitoring. He asks if boxes can be placed on Flint Street on a telephone pole. They are on a tripod and covered. They are directly next to the property line of residences. Mr. Penta is concerned that they can move them wherever they want. Mr. Poole thinks they would be most sensitive there. If they are stationary, they cannot be repositioned.

Mr. Poole states that the units have computer information bases in them. If they failed to be read that day, they must report to the Board of Health. Mr. Penta is still not satisfied, as hazardous materials would be emitted in the meantime. Mr. Poole points out that this is concrete dust, not hazardous materials. Chemicals are in the soil and dust levels will be low. Mr. Poole says they are doing the standard procedure but Mr. Penta wants a guarantee that no one will be harmed.

He also asks about entering the site. One egress is the right of way on to Mason St., to 114, and the other is for Aggregate, a left onto Flint St., Boston St. to Lowell St.. The part of Flint St. with railroad tracks will not be used. Mr. Penta is still concerned with the plan. He will speak to residents. Chair Knisel offers to provide Mr. Penta with the Board of Health contact information.

Jane Arlander of 93 Federal St. wonders if the truck route being used could be specified in the Order of Conditions. Chair Knisel says she can work that out w/Mr. Poole offline, not here. Ms. Arlander also asks about groundwater testing. It came up in the first NOI and the LSP at that time said it would be done during cleanup. Mr. Poole states that, in the RAM plan, there will be additional monitoring wells installed and sampling conducted for a baseline condition prior to excavation. Some wells will be destroyed during excavation, and then replaced afterward and periodic groundwater monitoring will occur to assess effectiveness of the remediation.

Peter Phillips of Linden St. asks if a study has been conducted on impact to the South Essex Treatment Plant. The Commission has not received a plan for redevelopment of the site and is not reviewing that at this time. Mr. Phillips should come back when that is before us. Mr. Poole says that the tannery had a pretreatment system in 1985, which used to process 200-300K gallons/day, and processing 50K gallons/day up until closing. Their waste was strong so they needed such a system to release into the sewer. Normally there is no pretreatment for residential discharges.

Lorene Scanlon wants to confirm the timeframe of 6-9 months. The Bonfanti building will also be demolished in this timeframe; quotes are being solicited. Meg Twohey, of 122 Federal St., asks about the number and size of trucks onsite on an average day, and when it will peak. This is outside of Conservation Commission jurisdiction. Mr. Poole is allowed to answer briefly; there will be a 10 wheeler and medium excavator onsite. For slab demolition there will be a 2nd excavator and 2nd 10 wheeler. Material will only be moved when all can be taken to Aggregate; then trailer trucks and semis will be used. There will be 3-6 loads per day for one week, once there is a pile.

Ms. Twohey also asks about the inspection process; how does this Commission oversee the project and interact with the Board of Health? Devine will communicate with the Board of Health, and he can inspect work as frequently as he desires. Ms. Towey wonders if this be conditioned upon the Commission’s ability to inspect the site. Chair Knisel says if limits are exceeded, the Board of Health can contact Devine. That Board is not otherwise a part of conditions.

Steve Woolfenden of 85 Flint St. asks if there is a comprehensive list of all known contaminants on site. It is in the HASP and RAM plans, the results of 15 test bores, and 9 test pits; it is available on the DEP website and Mr. Poole can also print or email a copy.

Amber Wolfenden asks when work will start. It will begin two weeks after an Order of Conditions is in hand, after the appeal period is up. This would be at the end of February or beginning of March, lasting 6-9 months.

Pabich only wants to issue the Order of Conditions if the HASP is signed and stamped, with a letter, all being sent to the Commission through Devine prior to any work so they can review and approve it. Hamilton also approves of that.

To recap:
  • There will be a structural analysis of existing riprap and work to be performed in that area.
  • Testing of material to be reused onsite will occur, and a report will be delivered to the Commission if it will be reused.
  • Submission of stamped site plan with delineation of areas where soil will be reused (overlaid on the existing site plan) is required.
  • A letter from a structural engineer regarding Area G will also be submitted. This could be the same letter regarding how excavation will impact the wall, and should include a plan for dealing with any impact.
  • All of these are pre-construction conditions
Devine will draft the above and show Chair Knisel and Pabich for approval.

Ricciarelli asks if the Commission can condition stabilization of the site, in the event that the job is not finished on time. What condition will it be left in if not finished? There is boilerplate language in the standard Order of Conditions.  Blier comments that there is no notation on the drawing showing what the intention is, but Pabich says all excavations will be brought to grade on a daily basis, so there will never be any holes left in the ground.
There is some question as to what happens in the event that limits in the air monitoring plan are exceeded and when the Board of Health should contact Devine. The Commission will be sent the weekly monitoring report or daily notification of corrective action if limits are exceeded.

Pabich comments on the bank area again, and wants to see detail on any work done there. A small detail/ visual plan is acceptable.

A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously

Pabich motions to issue an Order of Conditions with conditions, is seconded by Ricciarelli, and the motion passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.
        

Old/New Business

  • DEP #64-492, 72 Flint Street (Demolition of former Salem Suede buildings): Request for certificate of compliance
Devine recaps: buildings are down; there was enforcement action, fines were issued and paid in full. Defects in the slabs have been addressed, and he has inspected the site and confirmed that the work complies with all conditions. The site is secure with no holes in the fence.

A motion to issue the Certificate of Compliance is made by Pabich, seconded by Blier, and passes unanimously.  This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.

  • DEP #64-501, 1 Dove Ave. (Shaughnessy-Kaplan Hospital): Request for certificate of compliance
Devine says that the Commissioners have materials for the sewer bypass project. The outstanding issue was the substitution of maple trees for cherry; they were not satisfied. The applicant had a wetland scientist assess the situation and recommend 8 shrubs; 12 were planted. The scale of shrubs is visible in the photos. Blier comments that shrubs may be more beneficial than maples.

A motion to issue is made by Hamilton, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.

  • DEP #64-513, 44 Columbus Ave.: Construction update
The house was approved for an addition on the seaward side, including a new foundation under the addition. A couple commissioners were concerned that the work exceeded what was permitted. The applicant did additional work piece by piece, with new walls, windows and roof. Pabich states that these additional elements are not typically the concern of the Commission if there is not disturbance to the ground. Devine agrees and says that nothing has occurred that requires further actions to protect the resource area beyond the protections already in place under the order of conditions.

  • Update on wetlands violations
US Biological: An unpermitted Comcast internet line was installed in the buffer zone along the wetlands between the building site and Swampscott Road. There were no erosion controls in place and they went into a critical area quite nearly into a swampy wetland and left it disturbed. Devine met on site with the contractors and had them stop work and install erosion controls. There will be an after-the-fact notice of intent assessing the impact. Spencer Contracting did the work.

Ricciarelli asks about imposing fines. Devine says although it is a serious violation, they responded and corrected the situation, addressing all points quickly. Devine issued a letter with a specific deadline for submittal of a notice of intent, so if they fail to meet that requirement, fines may be imposed. And if they fail to maintain their erosion controls or violate the stop work order for this location, fines should be considered. But since they responded rapidly to all of Devine’s requests, fines would not have much purpose. They may have to do some restoration of the resource area and buffer zone, which is a burden and an expense that could have been avoided if they had sought proper permitting for the work.

This unpermitted work was outside the area where the building is being constructed. However, Devine is monitoring all construction activities closely and has made it clear that further unpermitted work will have penalties.

77 Valley St.: Devine mail a certified violation letter regarding unpermitted activity around a stream.

Salt Marsh at Salem State Central Campus: Letters will be sent to all residents near the area of illegal dumping along Monroe Road.

McAuliffe, who is not present, had commented on the Burnham property abutting the North River, parallel to the North St. overpass. There is an informal walkway to the Commuter Rail station there. He had noted the excessive storage of materials there. Two Orders of Conditions had been denied previously and one was successfully appealed by the owner to make some improvements to the site, but the work was never completed. Enforcement action has been attempted years ago but was not successful.

Pabich says this has been an ongoing topic as long as he has been on the Commission and long before. The only thing to do would be put it to the Division of Solid waste – Burnham is landfilling material there; nonfunctional equipment is being stored. It appears to be a junkyard, not a staging area. It is embarrassing –this is how the City is greeting visitors – with trash. Zoning enforcement officer might be able to make him move it, or DEP. The issue could also go before the Building Inspector and Board of Health.

Robinson Road and Swampscott Road: Gravel had washed out onto other side of the street. Devine looked, and the gravel pile is in the buffer zone and work has been done there but he cannot tell what it was. There is new asphalt and a pile of gravel. He is worried that the Salem DPW did it, but hasn’t gotten any definite information yet. Pabich says it’s possible and probable that the road washed out and the gravel washed across, and DPW pushed materials that washed out aside. Devine says that the stockpiled gravel indicates gravel is being added to the area. Pabich says they are probably putting it back on the roadway where it washed out, up on Robinson Road. Devine will investigate further

Devine is requesting $110 registration fee plus mileage for the March MACC conference. Pabich motions to approve that amount, is seconded by Riciarelli, and all are in favor.

Carole McCauley is no longer with the Commission; her service should be recognized with a gift. The consensus seems to be to take up a collection to purchase rain boots, which will then be signed by the Commissioners.

A motion to close the meeting is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes unanimously.

                
Respectfully submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission

Approved by the Salem Conservation Commission on January 26, 2012