 |
City of Salem Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
Thursday, June 6, 2013
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, June 6, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. in the Cafetorium of Bentley Elementary School, 25 Memorial Drive, Salem, Massachusetts.
Chairman Puleo opened the meeting at 7:03 pm.
Those present were: Mr. Puleo (Chair), Mr. Ready (Vice Chair), Ms. Sides, Mr. Rieder, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Clarke, Ms. Yale, and Mr. George. Absent: Mr. McCabe.
Also present: Daniel Sexton, Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk.
May 15, 2013 Joint City Council and Planning Board draft minutes
Mr. Rieder noted that he was in attendance at this meeting. No other comments or corrections were made by the members of the Planning Board.
Motion: Mr. Clarke made a motion to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Mr. Anderson and a unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with an 8-0 vote (Mr. Puleo (Chair), Mr. Ready (Vice Chair), Ms. Sides, Mr. Clarke, Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Rieder) in favor and none opposed. Mr. McCabe was absent from the meeting. The motion was accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
May 16, 2013 Regular meeting draft minutes
No comments or corrections were made by members of the Planning Board members.
Motion: Mr. Clarke made a motion to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Mr. Anderson and a unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with an 8-0 vote (Mr. Puleo (Chair), Mr. Ready (Vice Chair), Ms. Sides, Mr. Clarke, Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Rieder) in favor and none opposed. Mr. McCabe was absent from the meeting. The motion was accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Project: Continued Discussion and Vote on the request for approval of a M.G.L. Chapter 121A designation for LORING TOWERS SALEM PRESERVATION ASSOCIATES, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and for approval of a 25-year extension to the 15-year period of exemption from property taxation under Section 10 of Chapter 121A for the property located at 1000 LORING AVENUE.
Applicant: LORING TOWERS SALEM PRESERVATION ASSOCIATES, LP
Location: 1000 LORING AVENUE
Mr. Sexton stated that staff was asked by Loring Towers Salem Preservation Associates, LP and Councillor O’Keefe to have the discussion and any action(s) on the application tabled until the next meeting. In advance of the next meeting, Mr. Sexton explained that a packet of supplementary information from the applicant was being provided to the Planning Board for consideration.
Motion: Mr. Clarke made a motion to accept the request for a continuance of the Loring Towers Chapter 121A application till the June 20th regular Planning Board meeting, seconded by Mr. Anderson and a unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with an 8-0 vote (Mr. Puleo (Chair), Mr. Ready (Vice Chair), Ms. Sides, Mr. Clarke, Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Rieder) in favor and none opposed. Mr. McCabe was absent from the meeting. The motion was accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Project: Continued Public Hearing on the Planned Unit Development Special Permit, Site Plan Review and Flood Hazard District Special Permit Public Hearing. Specifically, the requested petitions concern select demolition and redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power Station Site to include the construction of a new state-of-the-art Combined Cycle Gas fired electric generation facility on a 20+/- acre portion of the Site.
Applicant: FOOTPRINT POWER SALEM HARBOR DEVELOPMENT LP
Location: 24 FORT AVENUE
Atty. Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, representing the applicant Footprint Power reviewed what subjects had been discussed in previous meetings as well as gave an overview of the topics that would be discussed tonight. He stated that the presentations this evening would be in regards to the air modeling & noise evaluations, and referenced a study that was done around the project as well as the environmental assessment. Atty. Correnti described this as a “case in chief”. He continued describing what else has been going on with the project. He spoke of feedback they received from city’s peer reviewers and noted that they already responded to first set of comments and questions, and have since received the second set. They will continue to work with Planning Department staff. He said that the other local permitting is going on and in the past two weeks, they have filed an application with the Salem Board of Appeals. They have requested a variance on the height of the
buildings and structures on the property; and explained that they are currently not high, which means that they need relief from the height restriction. They are also getting a special permit for the use of the property itself as it’s not currently part of zoning. They are hoping this will be granted by special permit from BOA, on the 19th of June. Additionally, they are also preparing a Notice of Intent with Conservation Commission. They also went to Historical Commission and requested a demolition waiver to take down all the steel tanks and the middle of the three stacks which is a capped stack that is out of service. He concluded by stating that the permit was granted by Historical Commission.
Scott Silverstein, COO of Footprint Power, introduced John Evison of ATCO Emissions Management to talk about noise mitigation measures.
John Evison, ATCO Emissions Management, founded this company, which specializes in industrial noise control. He reviewed for the audience some of the previous and current projects. He presented a noise control plan. He began by describing the equipment involved in this particular project. He described primary contributors to far-field noise, including transformers, combustion exhaust stacks, combustion air inlet filter-face, as well as steam piping acoustic insulation and noted that they have dealt with this type of equipment on other projects. He presented and explained a slide titled “OEM ‘best’ Combustion Inlet System” and described the related pieces of the system and where they will be located in relation to the community. He described the acoustic wall assemblies,
transformer acoustic barriers, and explained that the drawings are rude representations of the louvers as they were designed “by a bunch of engineers trying to play architect”. He also showed slides on combustion exhaust acoustic flue silencer, the ACC without noise attenuation, the ACC acoustic baffles, where he described the louvers in greater detail, the ACC ducts, and the ACC Architectural Louvers.
George Lipka, consulting engineer with Tetra Tech, stated that he is working on air and noise mitigation, and gave a summary of the analyses for state regulatory processes. He showed a slide on air quality for demolition and construction and explained that this means that they are basically committing to pre-cleaned structures to minimize dust. He then explained some of the site requirements which include turning off diesel engines, and identifying the staging zones for trucks to minimize fumes. He reviewed the operational controls on the plant, stating that these are highly regulated federally by the Environmental Protection Agency as well as the state. He then showed a slide on Air Quality in relation to operational controls and discussed the best available control technology they are utilizing which will
have the lowest achievable emission rate. He stated that there is a catalyst to control nitrogen oxides and emissions from this type of facilities are really very low. He spoke of the use of advanced combustion technology and clean burning natural gas. Mr. Lipka then showed a slide on the federal new source performance standards and explained that there will be no waste products from this tank, as the tank will be enclosed in structure and within the structure is a dike with spheres which restrict evaporation. He presented on operational impacts from plant in regards to ambient air quality standards; and he explained that new facilities are required to do computer calculations that conduct dispersion modeling to evaluate future impacts on air quality. For comparative purposes he showed a graphic representing the standard for Sulphur dioxide, which is listed at 190 micrograms per cubic meter (millionth of a gram) and closest background for this is in
Boston and is at almost 60 micrograms per cubic meter. He then noted that the Salem Harbor Project is less than 1 microgram per cubic meter. He then described how they measure nitrous dioxide for the worst hour of the start before catalyst system starts up; but noted that when the plant is operating normally they are down in the single digits. For the particulates standard he stated that they are 35 micrograms per cubic meter; the background is less than 20 micrograms per cubic meter, and the Salem Harbor project will be less than five micrograms per cubic meter. He then gave a brief explanation about how the standard was developed and noted that air quality in the whole northeast has improved with more and more gas plants coming online.
Mr. Lipka moved onto his noise presentation. He began by reviewing acoustic impacts and discussed the construction hour restrictions on the project, as well as enforcement of on-site speed limits. He stated that they are going to put up temporary twelve foot high sound barrier. During operation they have an ambient noise policy/ regulation which states that the increase in sound noise is no more than ten decibels. He gave a steady squeal as an example. He stated that they measure background noise levels and calculate how noisy machinery is and must demonstrate that they will meet this standard. In his research, he found that plants do much better than the ten decibels requirement and their target is 6 decibels.
Chairman Puleo asked a question about construction hour restrictions, where there is a city ordinance that work can’t start before 8 AM. Atty. Correnti stated the he is referencing city limits. Mr. Clarke asked if they are asking for a waiver from noise requirements to which Atty. Correnti responded that they will probably ask for a waiver, which is another process.
Mr. Lipka continued showing a graphic on noise measurement sites, which highlighted predicted noise levels around the site during facility operation and was measured above ambient. Kathy Karsh, 76 Memorial Drive, asked when the studies were done, to which Mr. Lipka said sound study was done in April and November. Mr. Lipka continued describing the conditions and explained how to calculate decibels using logarithms. He stated that the general rule of thumb for determining if you hear decibels is about a change of three decibels, and concluded by stating that with these types of facilities, people don’t know it’s there.
Mr. Clarke stated that the chart is confusing and asked for clarification on the chart; specifically asked if every single place identified on the graphic has an increase in sound over what is there today to which Mr. Lipka said yes and noted that this was done without the plant running. Scott Silverstein, COO Footprint Power, stated that the existing Salem plant was not running when they need to get rates as required by state. Mr. Clarke stated that it would be better to have a comparison with the existing conditions versus future sounds as this is what people care about. Mr. Lipka stated that this question was also brought by the Siting Board in about November or December. Mr. Clarke asked when it was presented. He stressed that it is important to measure what was there as compared to what will be
there in the future.
Peter Furniss, CEO Footprint Power, stated that they tried to be as conservative as possible with the plant being gone, so that they can see what the worst case scenario would be. Everyone knows that the plant is shutting down. The ambient noise, with not plant in operation, was used as the baseline for noise testing, and they are happy to share the additional information. This was done to paint the facility in the worst possible light. Mr. Clarke asked if the numbers went down when they painted themselves in the worst possible light. Mr. Lipka responded that some went down, some didn’t and described areas where things went down and where they didn’t change.
Mr. Ready asked for further clarification as comparison of what the decibel level of regular speech. Mr. Lipka stated that he brought a sound machine and stated that it was calibrated and the room currently measures around 43 decibels when it is completely quiet; he then noted that with him speaking it measures into the 60 decibel range. Mr. Ready asked what an MBTA bus is, and Mr. Lipka said it would be in about the 70 decibel range; and Mr. Ready then asked about a train, to which Mr. Lipka said it would be in about the 90s.
Mr. Rieder stated that there are a number of people in the room that are concerned about the quality of the sound and noted that a lot of people have a problem with understanding the numbers and appreciates the meter. Mr. Silverstein offered to submit the response to the Siting Board. He then noted that the chart shows how the plant will be much quieter than the sound generated on site with the current plant shut down.
Mr. Sides asked how it will sound on a boat on a hot summer night and would be concerned about how it would sound on the water. Mr. Lipka responded that a person would have to be slightly up against the plant for it to get any louder. Mr. Silverstein noted that the Winter Island measurement site is quieter than it was in the room. Chairman Puleo noted that the condenser is closer to water.
Mike Billa, stated that he works on remediation for client services with TetraTec then presented an environmental evaluation and management of hazardous materials. He described the initial site characterization and noted that there are no reportable concentrations in the water. He described this as a blood pressure test for the site. He stated that there were no big ticket issues such as asbestos and PCB’s that were found there and noted that only things that were expected on this types of site was found there. He then described the demolition activities, which includes remediation and noted that this is typical of construction of that time. He then gave a brief history of the site, noting that the southern two-thirds of site formerly was water. In his experience, it is a rare occurrence that
this site wasn’t developed until this particular need was developed. He went on to describe previous uses of the site as well as current uses of the site, including remediation projects. He then reviewed the historic releases on the site, beginning with previously closed releases, and those that have been closed under the Mass Contingency Plan. He said that everything else has been evaluated by Licensed Site Professionals. He showed a graphic with sampling locations and evaluated areas of known releases. Mr. Silverstein clarified that all of the blue dots on the graphic represented a test boring and there were a large number of borings on this site.
Councilor O’Keefe, 28 Surrey Road, asked for clarification on the types of tanks, as he thought he heard the word “diesel”, to which Mr. Silverstein responded that the four tanks are D Series tanks, not diesel. Councilor O’Keefe responded that state regulations differentiate because of flash points, so there is a difference between diesel and ethanol.
Mr. Billa corrected himself and continued his presentation. He stated that there were tens of thousands of data points that were run for this, and again he reiterated that there were no groundwater exceedances, no PCBs, no asbestos in soil across the whole site. They find these results to be encouraging and manageable. He then moved on to discuss Nickel and Vanadium, and said that they were found in the former oil ash blending area, which is why they found the exceedances in some small sites. They are not finished looking under the coal piles, but thinks those are non-volatile materials. He then showed a map of the areas where nickel, vanadium and lead were found slightly elevated, but pointed out that they were well below standards and levels typically found in similar sites.
Chairman Puleo noted that the testing under current building not yet done, and asked if they will do it when they tear down the buildings. Mr. Billa said that they don’t expect a lot of material there based on what was done there and also the buildings are on bedrock which is close to the surface. They will take confirmatory samples, but not sure if floors are going to be demolished.
Mr. Billa continued his presentation, stating that moving forward, there will be filings done with Mass contingency Plan (MCP) timeline, they are continuing their investigation of the site, and they continue to have close communication with DEP with respect to the site evaluation. The big issue will be remediation efforts that can’t be done until after demolition which have to be done in coordination with construction planning. He noted that this is largely a construction project. He concluded, stating that because site was managed extremely well, he not surprised at how clean it is.
Chairman Puleo asked about the fill above grade to which Mr. Billa responded that the details for the design will be worked out by EPC. He guessed that it will be on pilings rather than excavate it out. He spoke of excise materials, noting that they would not remediate it, except for the excavation. He noted that it is part of contract documents to get it done right.
Mr. Anderson asked Mr. Evison if the insulation material is a specific material for sound attenuation, to which Mr. Evison responded in the affirmative and described how they determined the density. Mr. Anderson then asked if there are more complicated panels than what is shown to which Mr. Evison said yes, but they didn’t need them. Mr. Anderson asked where are the thicker assemblies, to which Mr. Evison responded that they are west-facing and south-facing walls, and explained the logic behind those choices. Mr. Anderson then asked what the difference is between the different louver systems. Mr. Evison explained that it was an architect decision, and explained the thickness of them. Mr. Anderson recommended that the more done around the ACC unit would be helpful. He then asked how often those run. To
which Mr. Evison said that they run very slowly. He pointed out the benefits from the west side from the building and described how the steam generation blocked from building towards the north. Mr. Anderson then asked about sounds going out towards the harbor. Mr. Evison recommended considering the reflections of sound, which will make the wall absorptive. Mr. Anderson recommends that they consider the harbor-side as it is a benefit of living in Salem and doing attenuation towards harbor-side. Mr. Evison stated that they can submit back to the Board the levels that they are expecting and he feels that the ACC will do a great job of blocking out the sound. He noted that the modeling shows that they don’t need to treat the east-facing side. Mr. Anderson then moved on to an air quality question and how that will be related to the stack. Mr. Lipka responded that it’s the main thing that they look at, but they also look at
diesel fire pump, which only runs in the event to pump water, as well as the auxiliary cooling tower. Mr. Anderson asked about how the height of stack has an impact on air quality. Mr. Lipka explained that the taller a stack is the more dilution down to the ground. Mr. Anderson then asked why the stack is not being designed to be higher. Mr. Lipka stated that the emissions are so low; there is no need to make it higher. Mr. Anderson asked how quickly emissions are dispersed for impact, to which Mr. Lipka responded that it will be about half a mile to a mile where max ground levels will occur.
Dave Derrig, AECOM, peer review consultant, stated that in terms of air quality, they have the FEIR certificate, and there are many favorable comments from DEP. He remarked that there was one item of note in regards to a dispersion analysis of PM and NOCs, and asked how will until that will be addressed. Mr. Lipka explained the significant impact level guidelines and they have to include other sources to meet compliance. They are finalizing documents to the DEP looking at comparisons around the area. Mr. Derrig asked that in terms of mitigation elemental concerns, particularly with construction vehicles, if they look at vehicles that will be coming back and forth to the construction site. Mr. Lipka responded that it is not something that the state has them look at. Mr. Derrig said that the noise
report review indicated that all of the measures are appropriate and effective, but asked for background aspects at noise levels. Mr. Lipka stated that it will be included in a supplement that will be filed with Mass DEP.
Issue opened to public for comment
Linda Haley, 43 Turner Street, stated that she has a lot of questions; in regards to noise, she said that neighbors have been told that air cooling plants are louder than water cooling plants. She asked if there are going to be times during the day that it will sound like a jet taking off. Mr. Evison responded by describing the reasons for implementing a steam pipe. Ms. Haley then asked if assuming that attenuation doesn’t work correctly, is there something that can be part of the regulations. Mr. Silverstein answered that they are working on long term communications and they expect to be part of the community benefits agreement. Their goal is to make sure that there is a process set up where neighbors and the power plant are sitting at the table and they will work to set that up. Ms.
Haley then asked the Board to consider a community benefits agreement that the city can make with neighbors as a contingency of the decision, which is a model that is more common with these types of projects. Ms. Haley then moved on to her concerns regarding the health effects of the plant. She asked how many pollutants will be added to the air, to which Mr. Silverstein stressed that this will lower the emissions significantly across the region. He continued, stating that as to what this plant alone will emit, there are regional issues not local issues. Mr. Lipka said that he could look at a chart of annual emissions, and would recommend looking at the amounts in terms of the micrograms rather than tons. Ms. Haley stated that she is concerned about theories in regards to the pollutants being added to the community, which with diseases like asthma there is a compounding of health impacts. Mr. Silverstein stated that Dr. Balberg testified that
these impacts are minimal. Ms. Haley responded that the Conservation Law Foundation disagreed and she is concerned that people living within a thousand yards are going to be breathing in dangerous pollutants. She also concerned about cooling tanks. Mr. Lipka stated that a cooling tower with water not treated properly can get bacteria growing in it. This small industrial site will have water treated and checked regularly. The plant will be staffed 24/7 and there is no risk of Legionnaires Disease.
Chairman Puleo stated that it is a good time to bring up their plan to go before the Board of Health. Mr. Anderson asked about the reduction in admissions in Salem, to which Mr. Lipka stated that for the purposes of the state requirements, they didn’t take credit for local reductions. He would have to look at the original filings. Mr. Anderson asked him to provide the local reductions.
Ms. Haley asked about PUD plans, where they didn’t have plans for the other parts for the site, they said they didn’t really have plans but upon further questioning showed that they do. She thought that it seemed like they had ideas for the Turbine Building and asked why that isn’t part of the plan. Mr. Silverstein responded that Ms. Haley is right, as they do have a lot of ideas but they don’t have final plans. The reasons are very simple: they need the space to do the demolition, lay down space, for the build-out of the other portions of the site. They weren’t precluding uses of the site. The answer is that they have a lot of great ideas and as they go through the phases of the plant and they will flesh out those ideas to amend the PUD.
Karen Kahn, 17 Sutton Place, asked how are noise issues averaged; and then asked what are the loudest sounds that they will hear and particularly at night. She also asked if comparable other plants are as close to neighborhoods. Mr. Silverstein stated that they looked at quietest times now as compared to the noisiest time at full operation. Mr. Lipka described it as a steady state operation. Mr. Evison stated that it is pretty close to what he looked at requiring acoustically insulate materials.
Chairman Puleo asked if the start up and shut down of plant is done on demand. Mr. Silverstein explained that it is a decision that ISO New England makes, and went on to explain the bidding process and economics. They are expecting this plant to operate at 80% for the first ten years, though on any given day this plant could have to shut down. They expect that the early years they had a handful of starts. There is the unknown to the extent of what the next ten years of renewable penetration will bring, which, he noted, this plant would support. Chairman Puleo asked how long does a start-up take, to which Mr. Silverstein responded that a warm start-up in quick start is about ten minutes; though a start-up with the full plant, when it is not in quick start, is about 2 hours. Currently the coal plant
takes about 16 hours to start up, and he compared that to Mystic which is a 6 hours start. Chairman Puleo asked when start up would begin and Mr. Silverstein stated that there would be a peak in the morning and then an afternoon peak.
Mike Turello, 4 Blaney Street, asked if they have done any testing with the run-off pond Mr. Billa stated that it is inaccessible right now without risking compromising the integrity of the pond. When that is no longer in use it will be cleaned out and if there are contaminants, they will be tested. They don’t expect a major problem. No, they haven’t tested it yet, but they will. Mr. Turello asked what the noise of 6 decibels would sound like to which Mr. Lipka described different areas in the room. Mr. Turello then asked about the prevailing winds to which Mr. Lipka described the winds as typically northwest in winter and southwest in summer, which is favorable for propagation. He noted that the model is more conservative. Mr. Turello asked about gas supply issues,
specifically in terms of if they need storage facilities to which Mr. Silverstein said no, and this is due to the feedback from the community. They reviewed history of the issue in question, and then met with ISO, where they hit on 4 of 5 parts of ISOs goal. They asked if they would consider fuel diversity, such as adding ultra-low sulfur diesel, but the community was not willing to accept. There is not going to be diesel storage on this site, and they heard loud and clear that the community does not want the tanks on the site anymore. By and large they are dealing with gas storage. He spoke of the LNG gas storage tank in Collins Cove, and stated that in order to have gas storage on site, they would need a lot of space and truck delivery of gas. In discussions with community members and the Mayor, they are not interested in having an LNG facility on the site. There is an option to contract for firm gas supply. The challenge in New
England is the way the electricity is set up there really is no mechanism to recover for fixed costs. He explained that bidding based on adjustable costs. Everybody else other than two in the state operates on an interruptible gas supply, and particularly on cold days this causes problems without firm delivery. The Boston area has had problems getting gas, having bottlenecks in Connecticut and New York, which have been improved but not that much. So they will be the southern end of gas coming from Canada rather than gas coming form the south which puts them in a better position to receive the gas without the bottlenecks.
Dick Babick, 35 Winter Island Road, suggested utilizing methane from SESD to be used to power the power plant. Mr. Silverstein said he would think about anything. They have been talking with them for quite a while, but anywhere where they can find synergies with local facilities they are open to.
Kathy Kush, 76 Memorial Drive, asked if there are other chemical components that will be used besides ammonia. Mr. Lipka said ammonia is the principal one then Mr. Silverstein said that ammonia is the only chemical that will be stored in bulk.
John Finnegan, 4 Settlers Way, asked if this is going to sound like a compressor in a refrigerator. He stated that he would like to be assured unequivocally that this plant will be less noisy than the current plant. Mr. Silverstein said that they are going to get more comparable numbers but in most locations it will either be the same or less noisy. The key is that it will be on the meter but it’s more important to show what it’s going to sound like. He feels very comfortable saying that, but it’s going to depend on where you are standing. Mr. Finnegan asked if will there be a situation where it can be remediated. Mr. Silverstein responded that if they go beyond the permits, then yes they will find a way to fix it and make the neighborhood happy. Mr. Finnegan then asked if it
is a low pitched or high pitched sound. Mr. Lipka thinks it’s going to be very difficult to pick out. Mr. Finnegan asked for further clarification on what type of sound it will be to which Mr. Lipka responded that it will be lower frequencies. Mr. Silverstein said that they are going to make sure that they will work with neighbors. Mr. Finnegan asked if there will be water vapor clouds, to which Mr. Lipka responded no. Mr. Finnegan then asked if it will make more noise during shut down and start up. Mr. Silverstein responded that the equipment makes more noise, but with the sound attenuation it will be much improved. Mr. Finnegan then asked where the gas route will run. Mr. Silverstein stated that Spectra Gas will run the line and he knows where the interconnect is, but it is up to them to come up with the site selection. Mr. Finnegan asked if that process has started at all, to which Mr. Silverstein responded that they
have to go through an extensive regulatory process.
Jeff Brooks, 14 Webb Street, asked about the size of main gas line. Councillor O’Keefe responded that it is 20 inches and 30 inches to the Kernwood Bridge then 20 inches to 16 inches. Mr. Brooks stated that there are concerns about problems with gas lines. There have been a lot of explosions with gas lines due to aging lines which carry larger than regulated gas and asked how they will address that with the gas company itself. He is concerned about recent gas line explosions that have occurred due to numerous defects in old lines. Mr. Brooks then asked about the age of the lines to which Mr. Silverstein responded that the 20 inch line was built in 2002, and the 30 inch line came in around the same time; and both of these have been subject to Department of Transportation guidelines. He
noted that this new line will be brand new. Mr. Brooks asked about the location to which Mr. Silverstein said that Spectra is doing the engineering on the lines so they are making the decisions, but they will share that once they know. Mr. Brooks stated that he is concerned that there is a new power plant being built that people don’t know about. Chairman Puleo asked Mr. Brooks to focus on questions about power plant, not gas line. Mr. Brooks stated that he has concerns about the use of ammonia. Mr. Silverstein said that they are using aqueous ammonia which is 80% water. He emphasized that safety is number one, and then he reviewed the ammonia storage tank, as well as the dike system. He explained that the first issue is evaporation, which is mitigated by several layers of protection for the highest degree of safety. Mr. Lipka said there is not going to be anything higher than 25 ppm. Mr. Brooks asked about the ammonia
transport levels to which Mr. Lipka responded that it will be a 19% solution. If it leaks from trucks then it goes into same dike. The ppm level in solution in trucks is 19,000. Mr. Lipka spoke of the safety procedures and DOT requirements.
Mr. Clarke asked if this is a City of Salem issue, to which Chairman Puleo responded that this is an issue in terms of what goes over our streets that he has asked about. He noted that as a Planning Board, they have no control over safety issues and are managed by whoever inspects the trucks.
Mr. Brooks continued his questions, asking about the air cooling tower size, and specifically how many BTUs it rejects. Mr. Silverstein stated that 145,000 includes cooling tower but is not all of it. Mr. Brooks said that he is concerned about lower stack and asked for clarification, noting that regionally it’s going to clean it up but in the City of Salem it is going to affect everyone. Mr. Lipka responded that this type of power is very clean. Mr. Furniss explained that the current plant has credits associated with it, that they are retiring so they can be sure that everything that is upwind will not get the NOCs credits. The other thing that Mr. Furniss pointed out is that regional emissions are critical in figuring out emissions; it’s ozone, not NOCs, which this reduces. Our benefits
extend system wide, regionally, and locally. This is an environmentally beneficial project and they are looking out for the safety of Salem.
Karen Kahn, 17 Sutton Place, asked if there has been a study done looking look at particulate matter and asthma cases. Mr. Silverstein responded that yes there have been, and they will submit those studies to Planning Board.
Ms. Haley asked what is the purpose of the Planning Board to which Chairman Puleo explained the purpose of site plan review and read from the ordinance and explained what the Board is able to regulate when the project is allowed. He pointed out that this already fits the zoning requirements. Board of Appeals deals with those issues only for the stack. Daniel Sexton, Staff Planner, explained the role of the Board of Appeals and what the applicant is applying for. He noted that in respect to the siting of the power plant, this is one of those aspects of the permitting process.
Dave Derrig, of AECOM, summarized the AECOM memos. Mr. Derrig reviewed the two sets of the comments provided to the Planning Department. He said that they have received the initial response from Tetra Tech which they will address. The second set of comments was provided last week and they expect to hear back from the applicant. Chairman Puleo directed a question to Tetra Tech as to when the questions will be addressed. Mr. Correnti responded that they are trying to make these cohesive presentations. They have gotten a first set of comments back and what they discussed with planning staff and based on the size of the project they will keep a tally of changes and make them at a later date with the revisions. The meeting on the 20th will be devoted to answering questions, then between
June 20th and July 18th, they will work with Planning Department staff and that may be the time to give the revised plans, which is how they have discussed it with the Planning staff. Mr. Derrig said that work for him, and they expect to have their next set of comment in the next week or so, which will wrap up most of the civil comments and will include the Sasaki comments.
Motion: Mr. Rieder made a motion to continue the public hearing of Planned Unit Development Special Permit, Site Plan Review and Flood Hazard District Special Permit for the redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power Station Redevelopment project until the regular meeting on June 20, 2013, seconded by Ms. Sides and a unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with an 8-0 vote (Mr. Puleo (Chair), Mr. Ready (Vice Chair), Ms. Sides, Mr. Clarke, Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Rieder) in favor and none opposed. Mr. McCabe was absent from the meeting. The motion was accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Chairman Puleo asked about striping on road in front of the CVS on Canal Street and noted that it didn’t last long. Mr. Sexton said he would look into that.
Mr. Sexton informed the Planning Board that he is leaving the Planning Department at the end of June. Frank Taormina will be taking over in the interim. Planning Board members congratulated Mr. Sexton on his new job.
Chairman Puleo asked if there were any further old/new business, there being none he asked for a motion to adjourn.
Motion: Mr. Clarke made a motion to adjourn the June 6th regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board seconded by Mr. Rieder, and a unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with an 8-0 vote (Mr. Puleo (Chair), Mr. Ready (Vice Chair), Ms. Sides, Mr. Clarke, Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Rieder) in favor and none opposed. Mr. McCabe was absent from the meeting. The motion was accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
| |
