64-80 - FORT AVENUE (SALEM HARBOR STATION) - CONSERVATION COMMISSION �� � � ��L�)� ��- �� �
_�. _ - -
� -
1
r
�' +
_ s a_
vjy.,
' N`
1
_ � I .. . . ,. �,/�
COPHONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
WETLANDS PROTECTION ACT
G.L. C.131 s. 40 , .�..
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
PROJECT LOCATION 25 Fort Avenue (Salem Harbor StationbATE Dec . 9 , 1982
6.4-gp Salem, MA.
FILE N0,
It is' hereby certified that the work regulated by an Order of Conditions
dated Mav 13, 1982 by the Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering [ ] . .Conservation Commission LA has been satisfactorily completed.
This Certificate shall be recorded in the Registry of Deeds for the J
district in which the land is located. The Order was originallyrecorded
on June 3 ; 1982 in Land Court Document #182201
Date Book Page
SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSIO.. -e�
Signature of Issuing '
ut it,
, I
On this day of F 02SYJell 19 2 a, before me personally
appeared a e Ll I � S
to. me known to be the person described in .and who executed the foregoing
.instrument and acknowledgeii"that he executed the same as his free act and deed.
Notory,Public,t, My commission expires
,:'�,
11F11
-30-
Forma DEOEHINo. 64-80; 64-85
(To be provided by DEQE)
City/Town SALEM
Commonwealth
of Massachusetts Applicant NEW ENGLAND POWER
Certificate of Compliance
Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, G.L. c. 131, §40
From Salem Conservation Commission issuing Authority
To New England Power Company 25 Research Drive, Westborough
(Name) (Address)
Date of Issuance Dec 12 1985
This Certificate is issued for work regulated by an Order of Condftions'issued to New England
Power Company dated 5/13/82 and andissuedbythe Conservation Commission
11/9/82
1. 0 It is hereby certified that the work regulated by the above-referenced Order of Conditions has
- been satisfactorily completed.
2. 0 It is hereby certified that only the following portions of the work regulated by the above-refer-
enced Order of Conditions have been satisfactorily completed:(If the Certificate of'Compliance
does not include the entire project,specify what portions are included.)
r
3. 0 It is hereby certified that the work regulated by the above-referenced Order of Conditions was.
never commenced.The Order of Conditions has lapsed and is therefore no longer valid. No future .
work subject to regulation under the Act maybe commenced without filing a new,lotice'of Intent
and receiving a new Order of Conditions.
.
- (Leave Space Blank)
8-1
4. ❑ This certificate shall be recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in
Which the land is located.The Order was originally recorded on (date)
at the Registry of Book Page
5. ❑ 'The following conditions of the Order shall continue:(Set forth any conditions contained in the
Final Order,such as maintenance or monitoring,which are to continue for a longer period.)
Issued by Salem Conservation Commission
Signature( i •
When issued by the Conservation Commisi n this Certificate must be signed by a majority of is members.
�yh cc
On this ay of / ?-r-)C;
m �. 19 O S before me
.personally appeared , 11-t- (i �c%�� - Il r; jan� (A to me known to be the
person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he/she executed
the same as his/her free act and deed.
Notary Public My commission expires
r
Detach on dotted line and submit to the Salem Conservation Commission
�0 Issuing Authority
Please be advised that the Certificate of Compliance for the project at
File Number !has been recorded at the Registry of
and has been noted in the chain of title of the affected property on ,19-
It
gIf recorded land,the instrument number which identifies this transaction is
If registered land,the document number which identifies this transaction h (/
Signature - - Applicant
8-2
Il
TESTIMONY OF
RONALD J. BOCHES
NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY
BEFORE THE SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION
April 22, 1982
I am Ronald J. Boches, Supervisor, Licenses and Permits,
here tonight representing New England Power Company.
On April 1 , 1982, New England Power Company filed a
Notice of Intent with the Salem Conservation Commission
requesting an Order to perform work within Zone A3 of the City of
Salem' s Flood Hazard District. We are proposing to construct a
chimney foundation at Salem Harbor Generating Station in
connection with the long-term conversion from oil burning to coal
burning.
As you may know, we are presently burning coal in one of
the three coal capable units at the station under a Delayed
Compliance Order issued by the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
The Delayed Compliance Order established a compliance
schedule for the long-term conversion. This schedule requires
all three units to be converted to coal burning within 43 months
after the burning of coal in any unit, but not later than
C T
-2-
December 31, 1985 . In order to meet our long-range schedule ,
work must begin on construction of the chimney foundation during
the early summer months.
The existing elevation of the land associated with the
proposed foundation work is at or near 14 .0 feet mean low water.
That is below the 100-year flood elevation of 15. 36 feet mean low
water established for this district.
The proposed foundation will be approximately 68 ' -0" in
diameter with the top of .the foundation set at elevation 15. 5
feet mean low water. This design will place the chimney itself
above the 100-year flood plain.
The site plan, SK31982, submitted as a part of our
Notice of Intent, shows the approximate relationship of the
proposed work to the horizontal limits of the Flood Hazard
District.
The proposed foundation will be composed of reinforced
concrete and designed for hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads,
including buoyancy effects.
In order to construct the foundation, sheet piling will
be driven to bedrock . The area within the sheet piling will be
excavated, concrete fill will be added to the excavated site,
reinforcing bars will be placed, and the concrete foundation will
be poured.
Of the seven statutory interests set forth in the
Wetlands Protection Act, the proposed construction will have an
effect on only two interests: flood control and storm damage
-3-
prevention . The effect upon these interests, however, will not
be significant, since the proposed foundation will occupy a
volume of only approximately 0. 12 acre-feet within the existing
flood plain. In the event of a flood, the volume of water
displaced will easily be contained within the boundaries of the
existing site. In addition, flood control and storm damage will
not be affected since the existing land contours of the site
insure that all resultant flood flows will be directed into Salem
Harbor and, as a result, will pose no impact to surrounding
landowners.
Since the proposed chimney foundation work will not
significantly impact upon any of the interests set forth in the
Wetlands Protection Act, we request that the Salem Conservation
Commission issue an order authorizing New England Power Company
to proceed with the proposed chimney foundation work.
Thank you for this opportunity to address the
Commission. I would be happy to answer any questions you may
have.
New England Power Company
20 Turnpike Road
d New England Power Westborough,Massachusetts 01581
Tel.(617)366-9011
March 31, 1982
Conservation Commission
City of Salem
One Salem Green
Salem, Massachusetts 09170
Commission Members,
New England Power Company (NEP) respectfully applies for the issuance
of an Order of Conditions to perform work associated with the construction
of a new chimney at its Salem Harbor Station.
The proposed work area is within Zone A3 of the City of Salem's Flood
Hazard District. An application for a Special Permit for work within this
district was filed with the Salem Planning Board on March 24, 1982.
In accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act regulations, enclosed
are five (5) copies of the Notice of Intent and Environmental Data Form
along with the accompanying locus map and plans. Three (3) copies of these
materials are being sent to the Northeast Region Office of the Massachusetts
Department. of Environmental Quality Engineering (MDEQE) .
The required $25.00 filing fee is also enclosed.
Please direct all correspondence concerning this application to
Ronald J. Boches, Supervisor, Licenses-and Permits, 25 Research Drive,
Westborough, Massachusetts 01581.
Very truly yours,
Andrew H. Aitken
Director of Environmental Affairs
RJB:bk
Enclosures
cc. MDEQE - Northeast Region Office
A New England Electric System company
l�
i �-
�Aie _re0mmoneveal,64 d/,Aa"ad tael�
" (�aeccctive ���ce o�C��zarixpnnze�zGru J�Y��ix1
s
700 7oamlaxicz'ff J`xed
Az&n, �&9ackaeC/d 0.2290 }
EDWARD J. KING ltti�
GOVERNOR
JOHN A. BEWICK rn nJ 1 l� 1Q'n�
SECRETARY \VAI^\
CERTIFICATE OF THE
SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
ON THE FINAL
) ) ) ) ) ) )
ENVIRONMENTAL
) )IMPACT
) )REPORT ) ) ) ) ) ) )
PROJECT NAME Salem Harbor Coal Conversion
PROJECT LOCATION Salem
EOEA NUMBER 3994
PROJECT PROPONENT New England Power Company
DATE NOTICED IN MONITOR March 22 , 1982
The Secretary of Environmental Affairs herein issues a
statement that the Final Environmental Impact Report on this
project DOES adequately and properly comply with Massachusetts
General Laws , Chapter 30 , Section 62-62H inclusive , and the
regulations implementing MEPA.
i ,'
rr
-- 2 --
Two important issues in this report do not seem to be
adequately assessed : disposal or reuse of waste ash and
discharge of contaminants to Salem Harbor . This discharge would
occur from the wastewater treatment system and the leachate
generation of the coal pile .
1 . LEACHATE DISCHARGE
Contrary to the implications of the FEIR (P .4-50 , 4-58
and 4-59) , the discharge of metals to Salem Harbor has created
problems (see Table XVII-9 from the 1979 Section 301(h)
Application for Modication of Secondary Treatment Requirements
for Discharges into Marine Waters , Volume 2 , September 13 , 1979
by Camp , Dresser and McKee - enclosed) . Data from Salem Sound
(Table XVII-11) indicates that some of these metals are taken up
in the food chain and can be present in shellfish for human con-
sumption. Inasmuch as this project proposes to add to the
discharges to the harbor , it should be reviewed by DEQE with that
in mind .
Numerous coastal areas have heavy metal problems due to
past industrial activities . While the metals are typically in
solution when discharged into the coastal waters , they tend to
settle out and contaminate the sediments . Minimizing all
discharges of heavy metals becomes very important .
The Final EIR seeks to demonstrate that
( 1 ) . this area and a similar area at Brayton Point have not yet
been contaminated to a level that would prohibit the
harvesting of the resident shellfish ; and
(2) . the two-year coal burn in the 1970s did not contaminate the
area .
The proper role of the EIR is not to demonstrate the absence of past
problems . Instead it is to analyse the potential impacts of the
project over its expected lifetime (20 years ) . The FEIR projects
4 .3 MG of rainwater to enter the soil through the coal pile .
This water would contain elements dissolved in the fresh coal
delivered to the site . The FEIR implies that the coal would be
clean because it is to be washed before being shipped. While
this washing removes dust and some of the contaminants , it cannot
completely remove those elements which can become leachate con-
taminants .
The data presented in the FEIR on concentrations of coal
pile runoff contaminants (as experienced at the Brayton Point
facility) can be used to quantify leachate contaminants if the
Brayton Point coal has also been washed . The contaminants from
the wastewater treatment facility can also be quantified (refer
to Table I which quantifies the yearly contribution from both
sources ) . The coalpile leachate figures are understated because
no allowance has been provided for water which is sprayed on the
working coal pile for fugitive dust suppression . The FEIR
indicates that the coal pile leachate flows slowly into the
1
-- 3 --
ground water and thence into Salem Harbor , This flow pro—
bably occurs in the fill material above the clay layers of
the site . This process will take some time , although the
presence of saline waters in the observation wells does indicate
significant percolation.
It is not clear that the two—year burn in the 1970s
would have resulted in maximum leachate concentration and
discharge to the harbor . (The Mt . Tom coal conversion EIR
quantified the expected movements to the river at that site , with
over twenty years required for contaminant levels to reach a
maximum) . Nor is there a rapid purging of contaminants following a
cutoff of the contaminant source . The current ground water
sampling reported in the FEIR did not show abnormally high
levels , but the coal on site has gradually lost its contaminants
over an eight year period and has been partially flushed by
water containing reduced contaminant levels . The proposed
leachate regime is projected to occur over a 20—year period.
In view of the slow contaminant buildup and the equally slow con—
taminant purging , the company ' s suggestion for future monitoring
seems to be a case of locking the barn door after the horse has
been stolen.
In order to minimize heavy metal discharge to the
harbor , one could upgrade the wastewater treatment process or
provide a lining for the coal pile or both. The amount of miti—
gation has not been quantified for either method , DEOE
should fully evaluate both options .
The FEIR does not address the question of whether a
ground water discharge permit will be needed for the 9400 gpd
leachate discharge .
2 . FLYASH RE—USE
Several questions remain regarding the safety of reusing
flyash. The reports included in the EIR do not contain
sufficient information to draw professional conclusions . For
example , both bottom ash and flyash have elevated levels of
chromium , but the report fails to identify the chemical form of
the chromium . Is the chromium trivalent or hexavalent? Those
materials produced in oxidizing environments tend to be
hexavalent and very active biologically .
Was the experimental site in Rehoboth producing leachate
which could be detected in the test wells? If so , there would be
confidence that new contaminants from the intermediate cover
would be detected at the same well after some period of time . The
EIR does not present enough data to resolve this matter. Also , it
is not clear whether any leachate could have been detected within
14 months . The data show a scattering of results , with both
elevations and drops in contaminant levels . Also , the infor—
mation included does not show the NaCl analysis referred to
elsewhere in the report .
-- 4
The report prepared by Herbet Glick of NEPCO states that
" there are no known elements or compounds in flyash which have
been shown to be toxic or physiologically dangerous . " This
conclusion seems to contradict other sources , as well as the
chemical analysis presented elsewhere in the FEIR . Indeed , a statement
on page 4-38 indicate that flyash may be hazardous .
Ideally , a future test site with existing surface water
infiltration and leachate generation should be utilized to
identify any environmental problems .
3 . FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION CONTROL PROGRAM
If the dust emission from the conveyor system are not
"minimal as expected" , what actions should be taken to reduce the
impact? Where is the area proposed for drying the ash windrow?
How is the drainage from this are to be handled?
4 . COAL PILE. RUN-OFF
How large is the lined basin for coal pile run-off? What
intensity of rain can be accomodated under this design? Where
would excessive run-off flow?
5 . OTHER COMMENTS
The report concludes on page 4-21 that Cadmium levels
would be reduced . However , no data is reported for Cadmium levels
in coal on Table 4 .2-1 .
Potential S02 violations are noted on page 4-26 . Which
wind directions and speeds are involved for such conditions?
Alterations of the site within the 100-year flood plain
and within 100 feet of that line are subject to the wetlands act ,
Chapter 131 , Section 40 , and require a filing with the Salem
Conservation Commission to determine if an order of conditions is
necessary . Some of the proposed activities will occur in the
velocity zone .
The request for extensive analysis of conservation as an
alternative would be appropriate for a proposal to place new
generating facilities on-line . However , the update of existing
generating facilities to produce electricity at lower cost does
not seem to require such an analysis . Thus , this requirement was
not included in the scope for this EIR.
4. ZV11WA4
DATE OHN A. BEWICK, S7
ARN'
TABLE I PROPOSED METAL DISCHARGES TO SALEM HARBOR'
Wastewater Discharge Runoff Leachate
004-lMGD lbs/year to GW and
lbs/year to harbor2 Harbor
Iron 429 1276
Maganese 60 30
Zinc 181 64
Cadmium 60 3
Copper 90 6
Chromium less than 90 1
Lead 302 9
Nickel 363 13
Aluminum 1514 320
Barium• 1514 14
Beryllium less than 15 .3
Selenium 130 4
Antimony 178 .5
Arsenic 12 9
Mercury less than 15 .1
Silver 90 1 .7
Thallium 302 2.8
Titanium less than 302 11
I . Calculations by David Shepardson
2. Based on contaminant levels at Brayton Point from attachment G
3. Based on contaminant levels in attachment G, (this does not appear to include
the water sprayed on the pile for fugitive dust control )
41, 1=1-jill11 is Till
JAW
1 ' rI 5' iIt L i l � l
0 IT
ti 11 1 1101 VIVID,ji"yo In �41"I I ITIO: 4 ji I P'll P n
11 1 , � . . �, It 1:
oll tiI I Ili Ing! ,fj 11
iI g wo Not lr
i, I 1111 rligy ;q W.
4
f Vic
j!j
Was I Ny 11 iryil �K j 1 W 0
�l I �l 11 l.. I ':)1 1 Q 1 fj�' .1 1 ildtl i'll i.I r.; 1 l
41' '' 1. , . I l I I i� I11,10
11 SIN
A, Rq 11
MIMI
I L t J�
f E .,I
tj
I km Pic
L J,
me tit Il 11 1.All
Twill 11,
I
MIA
oil
zilitI;, L4, IJ J i
I Dl I_41
Lill:
1j"1AI .lisI p
�, ; yI�I
Nil' 1hSII ! 1,
I KH
,lied
li 1
1h
OL 1.
1,511,11T t
71
in JUS.
Lit, ILI 11
il Will,N? I 1i
io-M
lot 11:1 ;mpll, 01 " Ill Cf�IFm. 1[ 11
Rl, 3 ", JIM, 1A
is 4 is WN 1 d ElioItl 6.
lip 1 INT
A
W
I OUIJ
lot!
All 11 1
Sim i+
, �;i
A 1111
I ll, S
4, 0'qij,
I 11 i IQ 'VILi; 11 .1 150 1
111 mill Ila
-A
4q,
JI
II I It 111T, I
Bill
ItAlbf jIr llq 'rl� 'e� bbbb3rq,1".I rVr q .i 1 u ! IY.
-IMF
1 8It' ,
Lit I J"i l
Oil
1111 p il
ji,r�".! �
Oil
U �� a
IS mm I I� 0 1
lit"
a P Of
OIL yi41 l V I
ro
i yp
An
11A 1V
TH UK
1i I Ii
! l
fix].
41 jlm my H191 it Oita
Jill 'I I
JILL,
PIP!DO,!,�Lpi
- SOUTH ESSEX SEWERAGE DISTRICT
TABLE XVII-9. ANALYSIS FOR SELECTED METALS IN SEDIMENTS
Lccation andConcentration Metals mq k 1
i Station No. H Se Be Cd Cr Cu Ni Pb Zn A As Sb T
ZID
S7 1 .460 <8.00 0.605 7.55 1500. 95.5 44.0 620. 410. 0.76 9.70 t9. <O.9
Beyond ZID
i
S8 1.1363 <8.00 0.54 8.05 490. 780. 27.5 800. 405, 2.60 15.5 <9. <0.9
S18 0.0013 <8.00 0.125 <0.05 X11.0 1.45 2.60 2.60 7.45 0.13 6.75 <9, <0,9
S23 0.1429 <8.00 <0.8 1.55 t-940. 55.5 17.5 210. 155. <1.0 9.60 <9. <0.9
Control
S21 1 0.0022 4.00 0.8 <0.05 -7.95 1.85 5.90 3.55 17.0 <1.0 6.20 <9, <0,9
S22 0.006 <8.00 0.250 <0.05 14. 2.00 2.25 3.90 11.0 <1.0 6.40 <9. <0.9
Proposed Outfall
S19 0.0065 <8.00 0.120 0.05 21.0 1.95 5.45 19.5 15.0 <1:0 10.5 <9, <0,9
S20 <0.0042 <8.00 0.610 <0.05 11.0 1.50 5.25 5 <3.30 0
1 1.0 9.45 <9. <09
Danvers River
S6 0.2415 <8.00 1.00 2.80 x'945: 115. 24.5 210. 185. <1.0 6.80 4, <0,9
Notations: NR : Not Reported
NO : Not Detected
►� NA Not Applicable
CD
0
1Metals expressed as mg/kg on a dry.weight basis.
I 1
SOUTH ESSEX SEWERAGE DISTRICT
TABLE XVII-11. ANALYSIS FOR SELECTED METALS IN SHELLFISH
Location and Concentration Metals ( 9 9/k m )I
Station No. Se Be Cd Cr Cu Ni Pb Zn Ag AS Sb 11
I
ZID
NF
Beyond ZID ,
NF
Control
I
NF
Proposed Outfall
SF25 (clams) <0.0119 <2.00 0.280 0.23 7.65 0.23 1.30 0.08 6.85 <0.007 0.76 <0.7 <0.07
SF25 (mussels) <0.0119 <2.00 0.120 0.40 1.65 2.4 1.15 0.23 53.0 <0.07 1.50 <0.7 <0.07
Notations: NR : Not Reported
NO : None Detected
NA : Not Applicable
NF : Shellfish Not Present in Dredge Samples
IMetals concentration as mg/kg on a wet weight basis .
i
x
C
rr
N
I
i
New England Power Company
,, 20 Turnpike Road
[�
New England rower Westborough,Massachusetts 01581
Tel.(617)366-9011
June 15, 1982
Conservation Commission
City of Salem
One Salem Green
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
RE: Wetlands Permit - DEQE File No. 64-80
Dear Commission Members:
Please be advised that the Order of Conditions issued to New
England Power Company on May 13, 1982 was recorded in the Essex South
Registry of Deeds in Salem, Massachusetts on June 3, 1982.
The document number which identifies this transaction is 1$2201.
Sincerely yours,
Ronald J. Boches
Supervisor, Licenses and Permits
RJB:bk
A New England Electric System company
New England Power Company
20 Turnpike Road
V New England Power Westborough,Massachusetts 01561
Tel.(617)3669011
June 15, 1982
Conservation Commission
City of Salem
One Salem Green
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
RE: Wetlands Permit - DEQE File X164-80
Gentlemen:
In accordance with condition No. 11 of the Order of Conditions
issued to New England Power Company, soil and groundwater analyses
have been conducted in the proposed chimney foundation area at Salem
Harbor Station.
Analytical results indicate that the soil and the groundwater
are free of volatile hydrocarbon contamination.
Two (2) copies of the test report are attached for your files.
Sincerely yours,
Ronald J. oches
Supervisor, Licenses and Permits
RJB:bk
Attached
A New England Electric System company
OONALDT.GOLDBERG
W ILLIAM S.201NC
JOSEPH D.GUERTIN.JR.
JOHN E.AYRES
GOLOBERG ZOINO6 ASSOCIATES,INC. JOHN P SULLIVAN
.
GEOTECHNICAL-GEOHYDROLOGAU
ICL CONSLTASTEVEN JTRETTEL
NTS JAMES H.REYNOLDS
MICHAEL A.POWERS
RICHARD M.SIMON
WILLIAM R.BELOFF
CONSULTANTS:
WALTER E JAWORSKI
STANLEY M.BEMBEN
June 4 , 1982
File No. M-3321-C,
Fluor Power Services, Inc .
200 West Monroe Street
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Attention: Mr. Stan Blatt
Document Control Supervisor
Re : Contract NEP 301
Salem Harbor Station
Salem, Massachusetts
Environmental Sampling
Gentlemen :
In accordance with the provisions of the above-referenced contract,
and in accordance with the telephone authorization of Mr . Ron
Brunton of May 24 , 1982 , we are pleased to present the results
of our exploration and testing program for volatile hydrocarbon
compounds at the site of the proposed chimney at the Salem Harbor
Station.
SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of work for this study was discussed and agreed upon
with Mr . Ron Bouches of New England Power on May 20 , 1982 .
The scope of work was as follows:
1 . Layout and execute three test borings in the vicinity of
the proposed chimney foundation excavation . Soil samples
in the borings were taken using a standard split spoon
sampler at intervals not exceeding 3 feet or change of
strata.
THE GEO BUILDING•320 NEEDHAM STREET•NEWTON UPPER FALLS, MASSACHUSETTS 02164•617/969-0050
BUFFALO,NY•VERNON,CT•MANCHESTER,NH•PROVIDENCE,RI
Fluor Power Services - June 4 , 1982 - File No. M-3321
Page Two
2 . Samples of soil from the test borings were stored for immediate
and possible future chemical analysis . One jar sample
of soil was stored in conventional glass jars with an aluminum
foil liner under the lid . Additional samples were stored
in sterile glass vials that were subsequently filled with
distilled water. These vial samples are kept refrigerated
for possible future laboratory chemical analyses.
3 . Soil samples in the standard glass sample jars were tested
using a portable organic vapor analyser and gas chromatograph
to detect total volatile hydrocarbons as well as the presence
of toluene, benzene, and ethyl benzene , in accordance with
the request of New England Power.
4 . Jar samples of groundwater were recovered from Well No. 720
previously installed at the site for Stone & Webster Engineering
Corp. These samples were recovered using a clean, stainless
steel and nylon bailer . Prior to sampling , approximately
8 to 10 gallons of water were removed and discarded from
the well , representing approximately 5 to 6 volumes of
water stored within the well casing .
5 . Prepare this engineering letter report containing all data,
conclusions, and recommendations.
EXPLORATIONS
Three test boring explorations numbered 301-8, 301-9, and 301-10
were executed at the site of the proposed chimney foundation .
The location of these borings were selected by Mr. Brunton of
Fluor to be approximately 5 feet south of previously executed
borings 301-1 , 301-2 , and 301-4. The new borings were executed
to a depth of 12 . 2 to 14 feet. The as-drilled locations and
elevations of the borings were determined by survey by Fluor
Constructors , Inc . Coodinates and elevations of the borings
are indicated on the boring logs prepared by this firm which
are attached to this letter.
ORGANIC VAPOR ANALYSIS
Total volatile organic vapor analyses were conducted on fifteen
soil samples employing a Century Systems Model- OVA-128 portable
organic vapor analyzer with gas chromatograph option . Total
volatile organic vapor was determined using the meter readout
of the analyzer . Each of the samples were then analyzed• in
the gas chromatograph mode for possible identification of organic
constituents.
Ga
Fluor Power Service - June 4 , 1982 - File No. M-3321
Page Three
The 8 ounce soil sample glass jars were filled half way with
soil and sealed with aluminum foil beneath the lid . Any volatile
compounds within the soil were allowed to collect in the head
space in the jar. The volatile organic vapor content of the
gas in the headspace was measures with OVA-128 analyzer within
four hours of collection typically . Each sample was brought
to room temperature ( 200-250 C ) and allowed to equilibrate for
a minimum period of one hour . A small hole was then punched
in the middle top of the jar, and a sterilized 3cc syringe was
employed to withdraw a specimen of the headspace gas. The contents
of the syringe were then injected directly into the OVA pick-up
probe , and the total organic vapor content of the sample was
displayed on the instrument readout dial and recorded .
The OVA-128 employs a hydrogen flame ionization detector with
a sensitivity 0 . 2 ppm ( parts per million ) for measurement of
organic vapors . The readout meter can be resolved to 0 . 2 ppm
in the mode used for the testing for this project . It should
be noted that the results of the organic vapor analyses represent
only relative quantities of organic constituents rather than
specific concentrations . The calibration of the OVA-128 is
based on methane and air ; hence , actual quantitative results
are accurate for methane alone . In samples of unknown composition,
only relative concentrations of total ( unidentified ) organic
vapors can be assessed . If significant quantities of unknown
vapors are identified, it would be necessary to carry out laboratory
chemical analyses to determine accurate identification and quanti-
fication of the organic compounds.
Results of the organic vapor analyses are indicated in the attached
Table 1. Of the fifteen samples tested, thirteen of them indicated
total organic vapor content in the headspace of less than 0 . 2
ppm. Two of the samples showed detectable quantities of organic
hydrocarbons . Sample 5A from boring 301-10 at a depth of 9
to 10 feet indicated 0 . 3 ppm, and Sample 3A from boring 301-9
at a depth of 5 . 2 to 6 . 0 feet indicated 4 ppm total organic
hydrocarbon in the headspace . ", he gas chromatograph readouts
for both of these samples indicate that the only discernable
hydrocarbon compound present in the headspace vapors is methane .
Methane is a product of the decomposition of naturally occurring
vegetation in soil. Visual classification of both samples indicated
the presence of minor amounts of organic material . Sample 3A
of boring 301-9 was tested for organic content using ASTM Procedure
D-2974 for determining moisture , ash, and organic matter of
peat materials . The results of this test indicate that the
organic content of the soil sample, not including volatile compounds,
was 1 . 8 percent of the total weight of the sample . The water
Fluor Power Service - JunP 4 , 1982 - File No. M-3321
Page Four
content of the sample was 26 . 7 percent of the dry sample weight .
This test result confirms the visual organic presence that ,
in our opinion, has lead to the measurable quantity of methane
present in the soil sample headspace.
Water samples were derived from observation well 720 installed
by Stone & Webster in October 1981 to a depth of 10 feet. This
well was flushed by removing 8 to 10 gallons of water prior
to obtaining water samples for testing . Specimens were collected
in completely full sterile vials. Additional samples were collected
and delivered to New England Power personnel at the Station .
Immediately prior to hydrocarbon testing, the vials were partially
emptied to created a headspace. After allowing time for evaporation
of volatile substances, the headspace gas was sampled and submitted
to the organic vapor analyzer. Less than 0.2 ppm organic hydrocarbon
substances were detected in the headspace vapor.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Three test borings and one observation well were sampled for
soil and water specimens in the vicinity of the proposed chimney
foundation excavation . Each of the samples was screened using
an organic vapor analyzer fog the presence of total organic
hydrocarbon as well as the specific presence of benzene, ethyl
benzene, and toluene. Measurable amounts of organic hydrocarbon
vapor were detected in only two of the soil specimens. In both
of these specimens, the only specific hydrocarbon vapor identified
by gas chromatography was methane. Methane is a natural byproduct
of the decay of vegetation that was observed in these two soil
specimens . In our judgment, none of the test results indicates
the presence of chemical contamination of the fill or groundwater.
Based on the results of the testing carried out so far, no further
chemical analysis is judged appropriate at this time . However ,
we are retaining in our refrigerated storage area the vial specimens
of soil and groundwater taken for this study . The specimens
would be available for further chemical analysis if you should
so desire . These specimens will be retained for a period of
one month ( 7/1/82 ) at which time we will consult with Fluor
and/or NEPCO prior to disposing of the samples.
Fluor Power Service - June 4 , 1982 - File No. M-3321
Page Five
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these special services
for this project . Should you have any question on these or
related matters, please do not hesitate to call us .
Your very truly,
Ric ar M . Simon
Associate
RMS/dmm
cc: Mr. Ron Brunton, Fluor Power Services
Mr. Ron BOuches, New England Power
Mr. Jack Scott, Fluor Constructors, Inc.
Attachments
Salem Harbor Station
Salem, Massachusetts
File No. M-3321
May 1982
TABLE 1
HEADSPACE ORGANIC VAPOR ANALYSES
TOTAL ORGANIC
BORING SAMPLE DEPTH HYDROCARBON, ppm
301-8 S-1 0 '-2 ' < 0. 2
S-2 2 '-3 . 5 ' < 0. 2
S-3 7 '-7. 5 ' < 0 . 2
S-4A 11 '-12 ' < 0 . 2
S-4B 12 '-12. 5 ' < 0 . 2
301-9 S-1 0 '-2 ' < 0 . 2
S-2 2 '-3 ' < 0. 2
S-3A 5. 2 '-6 ' 4
S-3B 6 '-6 . 5 ' < 0. 2
301-10 S-1 0 ' -2 ' < 0. 2
S-2 2 '-4 ' < 0. 2
S-3 5 '-7 ' < 0. 2
S-4 7 '-9 ' < 0 . 2
S-5A 9 ' -10 ' 0. 3
S-5B 10 '-10. 5 ' < 0. 2
720 Well Water < 0. 2
Sample recovered and tested May 26 - May 28, 1982 by Goldberg-Zoino
& Associates, Inc.
cfzx
SALEM HARBOR STATION
SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
LABORATORY TESTING DATA SUMMARY Reviewed by
Date
Project No. M-3321 Project Engr. RS Assigned By RS Date Assigned June 1982 Required
" o IDENTIFICATION TESTS ° STRENGTH TESTS CONSOL.
Laboratory Log
v o w Water Sieve Hyd Ge u o Torvane cTcor Qc Failure ?i-v3 Strain and
Depth a o LL PL Yd c °r oro Criteria or T' C�
E c Content -200 2
m i in i It. ° ° % % ° oµ pct - TyQe Qef Daf % eo Soil Description
`o /o /o /o O U Too
301-9 S3A 6.6 6 26.7 1.8
DC
CD
r3
mD
z �
Cj
30
Co TI
mr
AD
O)
m
m
GOLOBERG-ZOINO 8 ASSOCIATES, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL-GEOHYDROLOGICAL CONSULTANTS APPENDIX E-2 SM. 2
GOLDBERG • ZOINO 9 ASSOC., INC. PROJECT REPORT OF BORING N0. -8
GEOTECHNICAL/GEOHYDROLOGICAL NEP SALEM HARR R STATION SHEET I OF
CONSULTANTS __SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS DATE 5/27/72 FILE M-3321
BORING CO. Bay State Drilling Company BORING LOCATION W4+4.05; NO+2.2
FOREMAN Paul Wordell GROUND ELEV. — 13.0' mlw
G-Z-A ENGINEER Ralph Fine DATE START 5/27/82 DATE END 5/28/82
CASING SAMPLER GROUNDWATER READINGS
DATE DERTH CASING AIA STABILIZATION TIME
SIZE: NW TYPE_ 2" O•D• OTHER; 5/28 4.4' 4.0 ' Completion
HAMMER: 300 Ib. HAMMER 140 Ib. 12:30 pm
FALL: 24" FALL: 30"
CAS. SAMPLE a T; w
CL BL. s=ow w SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
o /FT. NO. PEN./REC. I DEPTH BLOWS/6 Nv o Burmister Z
-1 24"/8" 0-2 10-12-14-16 Gravelly SAND; Silty; about 50% fine 1.
to coarse Sand, 30% Gravel, yellow-
brown, dry (SM)
-2 18"/2" 2-3.4 15-19-28 Gravelly SAND; about 658 fine to 1.
coarse SAND; 25% Gravel; dark gray;
FILL, slightly Organic,dry (SM-OL)
-1 18"/11" 3.5-5 Cored NX C-1: BOULDERS 3.5'-7.0' (mostly hard 1.
GABBRO-DIORITE; minor Syenite)
5 -2 24"/24" 5-7 Cored NX
-3 6"/4" 7-7.5 3-100/U' Silty SAND; about 55% fine Sand;
-3 42"1/24" 7.5-11 Cored NX less than 5% Gravel; slightly
Organic; dark gray; wet (SM-ML) ;
(OL) Muck
10
_4A 18"/12" 11-12 16-19 SAND; about 95% fine to coarse Sand
less than 1% tiny Shell Fragments;
-4B 12-12.5 24 12.5' saturated; dark gray; (SW) ; marine
-4 12.4-14 Cored NX Sand
BOULDERS S_4B_ Gravelly SAND; Silty; about
60% fine to coarse Sand; 25% Gravel
yellow-brown; moist; dense (SM-GM)
Glacial Till
15
DIABASE, Black
REMARKS: 1. Additional soil samples taken for organic vapor detection; exception S-2;
insufficient material.
NOTES:=)"TER STRATIFICATION
REAONGSS REPRESENT THE HAVE BEEN MODE N THE DRIEL BHOLESRAT TIMES BETWEEN
AND UNDER ANDIL TYPES AND THE
STATED TRANSITION
ON THEMAY
BE GRAP�'
BORING LOGS,FLUCTUATIONS IN THE LEVEL
OF TME GROUNDWATER MAY OCCUR DUE TO OTHER FACTORS THAN THOSE PRESENT AT THE TIME MEASUREMENTS WERE MADE.
GOLDBERG • WIND a ASSOC., INC. PROJECT REPORT OF BORING NO.301-9
GEOTECHNICAL/GEOHYDROLOGICAL NEP SALEM HARBOR STATION SHEET 1 OF 1
CONSULTANTS SALE , MASSACHUSETTSMAssAcxvsETTs DATE 5/26/82 FILE M-3321
BORING CO. Bay state Drilling Company BORING LOCATION w3+77.95; NO+39.5
FOREMAN Paul Wordell GROUND ELEV. 12.8' mlw
G-Z-A ENGINEER Ral h Fine DATE START / /
p 5/26/82 DATE EN D 5 27 82
CASING SAMPLER GROUNDWATER READINGS
DATE DEPTH CASING AT STABILIZATION TIME
SIZE: NW TYPE 211 O•D. OTHER: 5/27 4.6' Out Completion
HAMMER: 300 Ib. HAMMER 140 Ib pm
FALL.: 2411 FALL: 3011
F CAS. SAMPLE FCDoz � w
Ia BL. Xxow w SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
o /FT. NO. PEN./REC. DEPTH BLOWS/6 w o Burmister Z
S-1 2411/14" 0-2 12-13-17-19 clayey SAND; gravelly, about 50% 1.
fine to coarse Sand; 30% Clayey Silt
of low plasticity; black to yellow
brown, moist (Sc)
S-2 1211/7" 2-3 8-24 Similar to the above (SC) 1.
C-1 26"/21" 3-5.2 Cored NX FILL
5
S_3A 14"/12" 5.2-6 7 Silty SAND; Organic, about 808 fine 1.
to coarse Sand; less than 5% Organic
IS-3B 6-6.6 20 6.6' (PT) with Fibers, dark gray, Wet
C-2 4311/22" .6-10.2 Cored NX - (SM-OL)
S-3B: Silty CLAY, about 95% Silty 1.
Clay; 5% very fine Sand, yellow-brow
minor gray, stiff (CL)
BOULDERS
BOULDERS 6.6'-12.2' (mostly hard
dark gray GABBRO-DIORITE, black
10 C-3 2411/16" 10.2-12. Cored NX Basalt (10.2-12.21)
12.2'
Bottom of Boring @ 12.2'
15
REMARKS: 1. Additional soil samples taken for organic vapor detection.
NOTES:.11TME ST)WATER LEVEL ATION REAONGS HAVE SEEN MADE IN THE REPRESENT THE DRIEL BMOLESRAT TIMES FANS UNDER CONDIT'.ONSIL TYPES AND THE
STATED TRANSITION
ON THEMAY
BE BORING LOGS.FLUCTUATIONS IN THE LEVEL
OF THE GROUNDWATER MAY OCCUR DUE TO OTHER FACTORc THAN INCISE PRESENT AT THE TIME MEASUREMENTS WERE MADE.
FIS
GOLDBERG • ZOINO a ASSOC., INC. PROJECT REPORT OF BORING N0. 10-10
NEP SALEM HARBOR PROJECT SHEET I OF 1
GEOTECHNICAL/GEOHYDROLOGICAL SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 5/26/82 M-3321
CONSULTANTS DATE FILE
BORING CO. Bay State Drilling Company BORING LOCATION W3+47.65; N0+30.6
FOREMAN Paul Wordell GROUND ELEV. 12.5' mlw
G-Z-A ENGINEER Ralph Fine DATE START 5/26/82 DATE END 5/26/82
CASING SAMPLER GROUNDWATER READINGS
DATE DEPTH CASING AT STABILIZATION TIME
SIZE: NW TYPE: 2" O.D. OTHER: 5/26 4.4' 4.0' Completion
HAMMER: 300 Ib. HAMMER 140 Ib 12:30 iDm
FALL: 24" FALL: 30"
F CAS. SAMPLE a w
w BL• cr=ow w SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
o /FT. NO. PEN./REC. DEPTH BLOWS/6 -� "Do 0
Burmister Z
S-1 24"/2" 0-2 10-12-14-16 Gravelly SAND; Silty; about 608 fine 2.
Sand, 258 Gravel, brown, moist (SM)
FILL
S-2 24"/2" 2-4 5-37-10-8* Similar to the above (SM) 1.
Boulders : 3'-5' (Hard GABBRO DIORITE 2.
C-1 24"/20" 3-5 ored BX
5
S-3 24"/4" 5-7 -3-27-7* Sandy GRAVEL; about 80% Gravel, 2.
158 fine tocoarse Sand, dark gray,
wet (GP)
S-4 24"/2" 7-9 -9-21-29 Similar to above (GP) 2.
S-5A 18"/12" 9-10 9-41 Sandy GRAVEL; above 60% Gravel, 358
10
10.0' fine tocoarse Sand, dark gray,S-SB 10-10.5 43 CLAY saturated (GW)
C-2 42"/7" 10.5-14 ored gx 10.5 S;B: Silty CLAY; about 95% Silty
Clay of moderate plasticity, 58 very
fine Sand; yellow-brown and gray,
stiff (CL)
BOULDERS BOULDERS; 10.5'-14' (mostly hard,
light gray Diorite and Syenite with
minor Gabbro Diorite)
15.
Bottom of Boring @ 14.0'
REMARKS: * Overdrove sample. 1. Cored 3'-5' (hole caved at 2.0' with boulder fallen in
hole. 2. Additional soil samples taken for organic vapor detection; exception
Sample 2 insufficient material.
NOTES: )WATER LEVEL STRATIFICATION A BE CRAN�'
READINGS HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE DRILL BHRISOIT
DRILL OLESAT TIMES AND UNDER LONVT:ONS STATEDONN Y
THEBORING LOGS.FLUCTUATIONS IN THE LEVEL
OF THE SROUNOWATER MAY OCCUR DUE TC OTHER FACTORS THAN THOSE PRESENT AT THE TIME MEASUREMENTS WERE MADE.
F. 1.3
r=
FORM 4
\l ORDER OF CONDITIONS
L . .
W E T L A N D S P R O T E C T I O N A C T
C.L. C. 131, s. 40
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CITY/TOWN SALE;,? `+
FILE NUMBER 64-80
i,
TO: NAME New England Power ADDRESS 25 Research Dr.
(Ronald Boches , Supervisor, Lic. & Wastborough, MA . 01581
CERTIFIED MAIL NUMBER 19031 Permits)
PROJECT LOCATION:
Address Fort Avenue (Salem Harbor Station) , Salem, M.
Recorded at Registry of Book Page
Certificate (if registered)
REGARDING:
Notice of Intent dated A pril-� l, 1982
Also Designated and plans titled and dated SK-31982 Site Plan Showing Flood
( Spoil Area for Hazard District and Proposed Uhimney roun a ion mar. 1982
soils from Chim- THIS ORDER IS ISSUED ON (date) May 13, 1982
i neY Found. -------------------------------------------------------
------------
Apr. 39, 1982
Pursuant to the authority of G.L. c. 131, s. 40, the Salem
Conservation Commission has reviewed your Notice of Intent
and plans identified above, and has determined that the area on which
the proposed work is to be done is significant to one or more of the
interests listed in G.L. c. 131, s. 40. The Salem Conservation Commission
hereby orders -that the following conditions are necessary to-protect
said interests and all work shall be performed in strict accordance
with them and with the Notice of Intent and plans identified above
except where such plans are modified by said conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
CONDITIONS
1. Failure to comply with all conditions stated herein, and with
all related statutes and other regulatory measures, shall be
deemed cause to revoke or modify this order.
1.
-1-
ti.
FORM 4
ORDER OF CONDITIONS CONTINUED FILE NUMBER 614-8o
2. This order does not grant any property rights or any exclu-
sive privileges; it does not authorize any injury to private
property or invasion of private rights.
3. This order does not relieve the permittee or any other per-
son of the necessity of complying with all other applicable
federal, state or local statutes; ordinances, by-laws and/ J,
or regulations.
w.
4. The work authorized hereunder shall be completed within one -
(1) year from the date of this order unless it is for a
maintenance dredging project subject to Section 5(9) . The
order may be extended by the Issuing authority for one or
more additional one-year periods upon application to the
said issuing authority at least thirty (30) days prior to
the expiration date of the order or its extension.
5.' Any fill used in connection with this project shall be clean
fill, containing no trash, refuse, rubbish or debris, includ-
ing, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, lumber,
bricks, plaster, wire, lath, paper, cardboard, pipe, tires,
ashes, refrigerators, motor vehicles or parts of any of the
foregoing.
.._ 6. No work may be commenced untill all appeal periods have
elapsed from the order of the�Conservation Commission or from
a final order by the Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering.
7. No work shall be undertaken until the final order, with '
respect to the proposed project, has been recorded in the
Registry of Deeds for the district in which the land is
located within the chain of title of the affected property.
The Document number indicating such recording shall be sub-
mitted on the form at the end of this order to the issuer
of this order prior to commencement of work.
8. A sign shall be displayed at the site not less than two
square feet or more than three square feet bearing the
words, "Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering, Number 64-8o "
9. Where the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
is requested to make a determination and to issue a super-
seding order, the Conservation Commission shall be a party
to all agency proceedings and hearings before the Depart-
ment.
C
_2_
ORDER OF CONDITIONS CONTINUED FILE NO.- 64-80
l�
10. Upon completion of the work described herein, the applicant
shall forthwith request, in writing, that a Certificate of
Compliance be issued stating that the work has been satis-
factorily completed.
11. The work, shall conform to the following described plans and
additional conditions.
a) Soil sampling will be performed at three equi-
distant stations within the excavated area at three
foot depth intervals or each change in soil strata.
Analytical results will be furnished to the Commis-
sion within three months from issuing date of this
Order in order to determine the final disposition of
the excavated mat•-_rial.
In the event the material excavated for the construction
of the stack foundation is to be used or stored at .or
below 15.36 mean. low water, the following test shall
be performed on the soil samples :
Total volatile hydrocarbons (unchlorinated)
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Benzene
b) Ground ,nater shall be sampled at the locati r `
the proposed foundation construction. If A he 'exist
in.- ground water well at the proposed site , }s oto bP used
it should be purged for a total of six volumiesio� kP__11`.
water before sampling. Analysis of ground �waLt6� �sh6urd
include the following:
Total hydrocarbons (unchlorinated) ....
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Analytical results will be furnished to the Commission
within thirty days of date of this Order or prior to
any de-watering at the proposed construction site .
-3-
ORDERS OF CONDITIONS - continued
The applicant, any person aggrieved by this order, any owner
of land abutting the land upon which the proposed work is to be C 1
done, or any ten residents of the city or town in which such land
is located, are hereby notified of their right to appeal this order
to the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering provided the
request is made ih -writing and by certified mail to the Department
within ten (10) days from the issuance of this order.
ISSUED BY Salem Conservation
Com-*_; ss ion
On this 13th day of ".Iay 1932, before me personally
appeared the a'bove_.am_j��anc to me
known to be the person described in, and who executed, the foregoing
instrument and acknowledged that he executed the same as his free act
rand„deed.
,• C
My Commission expires 4
DETACH ON DOTTED LINE AND SUBMIT TO THE ISSUER OF THIS ORDER PRIOR TO
COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
TO (Issuing Authority)
PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THE ORDER OF CONDITIONS FOR THE PROTECT AT
FILE NUMBER , HAS BEEN RECORDED AT THE REGISTRY OF
ON (DATE)
If recorded land, the instrument number which identifies this trans-
action is _
If registered land, the document number which identifies this trans-
action is r
Signed
Applicant
-4-
f FORM 3
WETLANDS PROTECTION"ACT
MASSACHUSETTS C.L. C. 131 s. 40
NOTICE OF INTENT
All parts of this form and the attached Environmental Data Form shall be completed
under the pains and penalties of perjury. Incomplete filings may be rejected.
DATE: 1 April, 1982
Conservation Commission of (City/Town): •Salem
1. Notice is hereby given in accordance with the provisions of Massachusetts G.L.
e. 1310 e. 40 that the proposed activity described herein is within the jurisdiction
of
(Cit /Town) Salem at Fort Ave. meet
y �
Host recent recording at the Registry of Essex South (Salem) , Book ,
Page
Certificate (if registered) 19031
I. The land oa which the work is proposed to be done is owned by:
NAME(a) New England Power Company ADDRESS 25 Research Dr. , Westborough,0AR81
3. The Applicant submitting this Notice is:
NAME New England Power Company ADDRESS 25 Research Dr.., Westborough,0A181
TELEPHONE
(Optional)The following person is hereby designated to represent the
applicant in matters arising hereunder:
Name Ronald J. Boches Supervisor, Address25 Research Dr. , Westborough,
Licenses and Permits
Telephone 366-9011, Ext. 3140
4. Plans describing and defining the work. Included herewith and made a part hereof,
are titled and dated:l.. SK-31982 - Site Plan showing Flood Hazard District and Proposed
Chimney Foundation. Dated March 1982. , 2. D-9853-0 Oil to coal conversion - Chimney Fdn.
Arr'g't, Dated March 23, 1982.
S. Identical material has been submitted by certified mail as follows:
Original to Conservation Commission (Date) 1 April, 1982
Three copies to appropriate regional office of the Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering (see map for regions and addresses). Date 1 April, 1982
Northeast x Southeast Central Western
(Tota 39 continued)
2 -
6. Has the required $25.00 filing fee, payable to the city or town, been included
with the submission to the Conservation Commission? Yes '
7. Has the Environmental Data Form been completed and submitted with each copy? Yes
B. Has a locus map (BSS ' x 11" copy of DSGS topographic sheet with the site marked) been
included with each copy? Yes
9.
(A)Have all obtainable permits, variances, and approvals required by local by—law been
obtained? N�
(B)If they have not been obtained, have they been applied for? Yes
If yea, include with this Notice of Intent any information which has been submitted
with such applications which is necessary to describe the effect of the proposed
activity on the environment.
10.
(A)Is the site of the proposed work subject to a wetland restriction order recorded
pursuant to G.L. C. 131, s. 40A, or G.L. c. 130, s. 105, by the Department of
Environmental Management? Yes No x Do not know
(B)Is the site of the proposed work in, or within 100 feet of: a coastal dune No ;
coastal bank No coastal beach No ; salt marsh No land under the ocean No
a salt pond No ; anadromous/catadromous fish run 0 do not know ?
11. Signature(s) of owner(s) of the land (if by agent or option holder, written authori—
zation must be attached) See Below
12. What is the purpose of the proposed project?
New England Power Company proposes to perform work associated with the
construction of a new chimney at its Salem Harbor Station.
This represents the initial phase of work associated with the long
term coal conversion at Salem Harbor.
13. I HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER THE PAINS AND PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT THE FORGOING NOTICE
OF INTENT AND ACCOMPANYING ENVIRONMENTAL DATA FORM ARE TRUE AND COMPLETE.
Signature of Applicant Date
Form 3 continued
CWETLANDS PROTECTION ACT
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA FORM
1 . All parts of this form are to be filled out by the applicant
or his agent under the provisions of G.L. C. 131, s. 40.
2. Where a section is not relevant to the application in ques-
tion, the words "Not Applicable" should be entered on the
appropriate line.
?vA^.E OF APPLICANT ---
New England Power Company
i ADDRESS OF APi'1.1 C4:dT
25 Research Drive
Westborough, MA 01581
MUNICIPALITIES WHERE ACTIVITY IS PROPOSED AND NOTICE IS FILED
City of Salem
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY INVOLVED IN r Part of an existing electric generation
E , the
APPLICATION (including the dimensions facility, Property is a highly developed
of any existing buildings, decks, marinasa within Zone A3 of the Flood Hazard
C existing cesspools) District.
(see attached Site Plan, SK-31982)
DESCRIPTION OF MODIFICATIONS PROPOSED Installation of a reinforced concrete
ON THE SITE, including grading, dredging, chimney foundation to provide support
removal of vegetation, etc. for the proposed chimney.
A. SOILS
1 . United States Department of Medium to fine silty sand
Aerin-ilture Soil Types (show on map) and silty clay
2. Perm—bility of soil on the site. (Dates of testing.)
NOT APPLICABLE
3. Rate of percolation of water through
the soil. (Dates of testing.) NOT APPLICABLE
B. SURFACE WATERS
1. Distance of site from nearest
surface water. (Date of measurement.)
The proposed chimney foundation will be located approximately 300 ft.
r from the existing discharge channel at Salem Harbor Station.
-4-
(Form 3, continued)
2. Sourcgs of runoff water. "
NOT APPLICABLE
3. Rate of runoff from the site.
NOT APPLICABLE
4. Destinatin P of runoff water.
Salem Harbor
5. Chemical additives to runoff
Mater n- -hk site.
None
C. GROUND CO\ER Impervious ground cover does not exist
in the immediate vicinity of the
1. Extent of existing impervious proposed chimney foundation location.
ground rover on the site.
Concrete chimney foundation
2. Extent of proposed impervious approximately 68'-0" in diameter.
ground cover on the site. See attached drawing, D-9853-0
3. Extent of existing vegetative None in the immediate vicinity of
cover on jhe site. the proposed chimney foundation.
t
4. Extent of proposed vegetative
cover o, te site.
None
D. TOPOGRAPHY In the immediate vicinity y of the proposed work]
I. Maximum existine elevation on site.
14.0 Mean Low Water
2. Minimum existing elevation on site.
12.5 Mean Low Water
3. Maximum proposed elevation of site.
No change
4. Min inum proposed elevation of site.
No change
5. Descriptic, cf proposed change in topography.
No proposed change in topography.
r
(Form 3, continued)
CE. GROUND WATER
1. Minimum denth to water table on site (at time of filing)
_ y NOT APPLICABLE
2. Maximum depth to water table on site (at time of filing)
NOT APPT.TCART.F
F. WATER SUPPLY
1. The source of- the water to be provided to the site.
NOT APPLICABLE
2. The expected eater requirements (g.pid.) for the site.
_._ NOT_APPT.TCARLF.
3. The uses to which water will be put.
__ — T--- NOT APPLICABLE
G. SEWAGE DISPOSAL
1. Sewage disposal system (description
and location on -the site, of system)
NOTPP .T RT.F.
2. Expected content of the sewage
Ceffluents (human waste, pesticides,
detergents, oils, heavy metals,
other chemicals)
NOT APPT Tf ARTF
3. Expected daily volume of sewage.
HT
NOT APPLICABLE
H. SOLID WASTE
1. Estimated quantity of solid waste -
to be developed on the site. '
NOT APPT T(ART F
2. Method for disposal of solid waste.
NOT APPLICABLE
3. Plans for recycling of solid waste.
NOT APPLICABLE
1. BOAT YARDS, DOCKS, MARINAS
1. Capacity of marina (number of
boats„ running feet)
NOT APPLICABLE
l '
–6–
(Form 3, continued)
2. Description of docks and floats
-
(site, 44injensions).
NOT APPLICABLE
3. Description of sewage pumpout
facilities (type of waste disposal).
NOT APPLICABLE
4. Description of fueling facilities
and fuel storage tanks.
NOT APPLICABLE
5. Description of fuel spill prevention
measures and eq,ripment
NOT APPLICABLE
S. IMPACT OF PROPOSED ACTION APPLIED FOR _
1. Effects on plant species
(upland and marfne).
------ - --- -------. _. .. ...- -- -SCONE--- --
2. Effects on marine species (shellfish, finfish) .
NONE
3. Effects on drainage and runoff Drainage patterns will be un-
affected: Runoff will essentially remain the same.
4. Effects on siltation of surface waters.
No Adverse effects
5. Effects on groundwater quality.
_,.. No Adv ca effePtR
6. Effects on surface water quality.
_T_ �In QlfVPYCe�affP!`tC
K. ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED ACTION
Various alternatives to the proposed
1. Describe alternatives to the action were considered but none
requested action were as feasible.
2. Describe the benefits of the requested
action over the alternatives.
Because of the developed nature of the site, the proposed action
y is the only feasible alternative.
-7-
Ilk
tA%)Z4wV .• r 1�
P l / 4 `l�. s l
\I ¢ yh eZ� -q`1 �� �A 2Pek f \ dd /,,1(\I/1�1,✓/
ri1X 9��
s
as�i``(,ib
0
��Igrn
All r n so- O t V �I 1) 10R�il1P�"�c
0 5
nNil �c �, t ' oe tal -�
y
tl Wpyd&fid �BM unulyk
> arrpy 62 it
e�
1�._ L o f Catch ,
c
touE� hJ`seh/�
w ,
�/ id,
f
A .Cove
< 6beza �F�' t�� / t♦ p� 6j F( i8 >( -a, ay A7149d evrl xv• .ia I' ..'.� o (Bfithouse
dQ Paek �,d �^ c) O AwJ r e �\ 5� Cote ospital Pt
1> L/ TMat flat I j
,�+,� +.w 'Wod bt
asoury P
YJ "eMno .
Gol4�q :se pi l- ala +sreN3f
��/ — ��oe .--BEVERLY
:
Petersr �. 2c .° LPK:. i rnis •�
PDinl ` l 6ernwootl '�\ rl .:,T� X.91f?BOR
Pak
c 7 t lobste •Tuck
— `______
11
corse I Rocks Pt -
e`' t� �� BEVEREY �� -
'
HARBOR "�r
v Great Hast.
lem Neck Islam
CemeteY �S <: A BM kY u� 6Lee,
�o t Les
e
\ I r Vmc\\Y \
Cov
a
��pvI Tial SALEM
At
a� > ° r.���i 0 7tlal 5��1 �? i �r51and
Fort Picker ng
i
I
31 A S OdaGuard
a / p wa � � v20� / 4 ���g � �• Station n
alem`%y� y� CJI �� �, . Mzlu;ne / Channel
lem
r'^Saie fu nal L�CU�
`- C wnarr i µth
� _btulo �tr ' r gavIM ?'t'"e o �� SAL EM � SD Naugus Cloutman plum
St r LI `\___,� $S�y '"`'@t kts�o IC St to• �i / ,Pad Pt r r Pt
/ Seb i� o�t_ �� ���♦ _ 'l �� Dolliber '.
Derry �HARBOR
r
wharf V'b i To e
1L Fsef 'AL
fel / f _ 4i 5 1 •� ��
$cfl I I 21.1-
V AJ`Q�V ,� I r <P4Al 1 ✓lamLDhg.Pt Q / .�. ill b� \ 4.
N s �O Fl .-. � L\ib_
Bch AAAS 1A r-EU - tr ;Plaxe 4untl17, _
kjv o �� POCMCT C� 6. A3� l .�- nrR
THAN CKS CoR,r C "- O -�{ P r
rr Salertr._i:r 19 �—�"D
calmer (��� �•., A_S_
Pi
NEW ENGLAND PUNER SERVICE COMPANY
S fl` � L-s�l tl rI VRI Of MC• fM41 IIOD EL!(.t RIE SYSTEM
cEA, � y+ \ � r I 'I, WEST SONO. MA55.
New England Power Company ;
\ N
Map Showing Proposed
sr
Location of Chimney Foundation
at Salem Harbor Station
in Salem, Massachusetts
sod iY - fir
f #� Scale 1"
31, 1982
2086' March s