64-85 - CONSERVATION COMMISSION li
'Y• 777....�.�«w ....-: _ .- .-.r+.w,.` .esa.- _ t� - �, �.+rv......+..•�.«�y... . ter..-j.
Form 8
DEOEFaeNo. 64-80; 64-85
(ro be provided by DEOE)
commonwealth CitylrovwF SALEM
Of Massachusetts AppreeM NEW ENGLAND POWER
�r
a "
Certificate of Compliance
Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act,G.L. c.131, §40
Fran Salem Conservation Commission
issuing Authority
TO New England Power Company 25 Research Drive. Westborough
(Name) (Address)-
Date
Address)-Date of Issuance Dec. 12, 1985
This Certificate Is issued for work regulated by an Order of Conditions Issued to New England
Power Combanv dated 5/13/82 and gndhondbyths.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. ❑ 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-(It the Certificate of Compliance
does not include the entire project,specify what portions are included.)
3. ❑ 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never commenced.The Order of Conditions has lapsed and Is therefore no longer valid.No future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 vkhouf tiling a now'No'feaf Intent
and receiving a new Order of Conditions.
..........................................................................................................._..._.._.---..-_.----
(Leave space ManIQ
C
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 s i,3 f a o ..A ,,,4948-2 (date)
attheRegistryofEssex South"District Land_jurailt'Court as,fftes Document //
182201 on Cert. of Title 19031 and Document #185300 on Certs. of Title
5. ❑ -h?SN 9tQA6J~iANWfl 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(
c .
C.
When Issued bythe Conservation Comm'si n this Certificate must be signed by a majority of is members.
On this ay of—yJm x r-- 18 Y' before me
personally appeared -C r1 Lui,w m qo me known to bs the
person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he/she executed
the sa701
his/her free act and deed. {
9. �\• - / A
Notary Public My commission expires
Detach on dotted line and submit to the Salem Conservation Commission
bleuYtg Authority
Please be advised that the Cedif tate of Compliance for the project at
Fite Number 'has been recorded at the Registry of_
and has been noted in the chain of title of the affected property on 'Is-
It
19It recorded land,the instrument number which identifies this transaction is
It registered land,the document number which identifies this transaction it f
Signature Applicant \
8-2
r2QA?'73
4 +
z t:.C.jf` SOUTH REGISTRYDtW
196
FS IOM _
RECEIVED O'CLOCK
REMSTRATIONBK __"cs1XA3Q
q�3
COMMONWEALTH 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
FILE N0.
64-80, Salem, -MA. _
It is' hereby certified that the work regulated by an Order of Conditions
dated May 13, 1982 by the Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering [ ] , Conservation Commission [ � has been, satisfactorily completed.
This Certificate shall be recorded.in the Registry of Deeds for the
district in which the land is located. The Order was originally.recorded
on June 3, 1982 in Land Court Document #182201 on cert. of Title
Date .. oA7 .
age No. .19031
�w tti
SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISS O Signa ure,of Issuing ut ,
t '
On this 41 1 day of 19 2.2. before me personally
appeared kJ - hA r»a 0e,1 cdYls
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 and deed.
Notary Public My commission expires
"F"
-30-
Gen. ouvi a 4J
DOCUMENT NO.
(Salem Steam Plant)
R EIVED FOR RECORD COPY
ENT ED WITH ESSEX S H
DISTRI T REGISTRY OF EOS.
SA
15M, 4SF "O 06
D 2 1982
a 0,Q SATZM CONSERVATION COMMISSION
800K AGE JG— TO
'nJ y0n 1 Neil ENGLAND PONER COMPANY
A : (7 �. A
REG
(000J ISTER DEfDS
p'S
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE -
I
ESSEX SOUTH REGISTRY DISTRICT
OEC 2? 1982
RECEIVED-,;LO'CLOCK
I.LA7 M
NOTED ON CERTIFICATE O
-tEGISTRATION BK. '77 PG. 03
New England Power Company
d land Power 25 Research Drive
New England Westborough,Massachusetts 01581
Tel.(617)366-9011
November 22, 1985 rSALEM
Ms. Dale Yale0 v z 5 1yd5
Conservation Commission
City of Salem PLAN vliVG DEPT.
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Ms. Yale:
RE: DEQE File Nos. 64-80 and 64-85
New England Power Company respectfully requests that a Certificate of
Compliance be issued for work at Salem Harbor Station covered by DEQE File
Nos. 64-80 and 64-85.
Attached, please find a letter from Floyd T. Johns, Project Structural
Engineer for the Salem Harbor Coal Conversion, bearing his engineering stamp
certifying that the work was done in compliance with the two Orders of Con-
ditions.
If this request meets with your approval, please issue the Certificates
to New England Power Company and forward them to me at the letterhead address.
If you have any questions or wish to view the project prior to issuing the
Certificates, please call me at 366-9011, Extension 2067.
Very truly yours,
Barry- A. Ketsc ke
Supervisor, Licenses and Permits
BAK:bk
Attachment
A New England Electric System company
FLUOR ENGINEERS, INC.
200 WEST MONROE STREET
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606
TELEPHONE:(312)368-3500
November 18, 1985
Conservation Commission
City of Salem
One Salem Green
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Gentlemen:
I
Re: Wetlands Permit - DEQE File Nos. 64-80 & 64-85
This letter is to certify that all work on the Salem Harbor coal con-
version covered under DEQE File Numbers 64-80 and 64-85 was completed,
substantially as proposed, and in accordance with the conditions contained
in the two referenced Wetland Orders.
Sincerely,
v. FLOYD
Floyd T. Johns ` JOHNS
Project Structural Engineer
;J Ni
FTJ:i rg N . 311 O �4
a9oF SSI01NPL���\��
Il�IS/8�
o �
i
FORM 4
ORDER OF CONDITIONS
\ •W E T L A N D S P R O T E C T I O N A C T
G.L. C. 131, s. 40
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CITY/TOWN Salem, MA. FILE NUMBER 64-85
TO: NAME New England Power ADDRESS 25 Research Drive
1581
(Mr. Ronald Boches , Supervisor, LiC . and Permits)
CERTIFIED MAIL NUMBER
PROJECT LOCATION:
Address Zq Fort Avenue (Salem Harbor Station) , Salem, MA.
Recorded at Registry of Essex South gook Page
Certificate (if registered) 19030 and 19031
- 1 REGARDING:
`-. Notice of Intent dated October 15 , 1982 •
and plans titled and dated (See listinq P. 3 of this form
anct Attacnment
THIS ORDER IS ISSUED ON (date) November 9 , 1982
--------------------------------------------------------=----------
Pursuant to the authority of G.L. c. 13.1, 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_
-------------
FORM 4
ORDER OF CONDITIONS CONTINUED FILE NU^MER 64-85
• 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/
or regulations.
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 r
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 64-85
9. Where the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
is requested to make = 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.
• t
-2-
f! ORDER OF CONDITIONS CONTINUED FILE NO. 64-85
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 be
en
factorily completed.
Il. The work shall conform to the Following described plans and -
additional conditions.
a)All work shall conform to plans and narrative referenced
below:
an entitled "New England Power Company, Salem Harbor
station, Coal Conversion Project; D::G :Y834 921-SKD1-46-1,
pV&e ared by Fluor Power Services , Inc.
Fkar. entitled "New England Power Company, Salem Harbor
at. ti,on, Final Grade Chimney and Ash Handling Areas"
� G fSKC-55¢ 57, prepared by Fluor Power Services , Inc .
Plan entitled "New England Power Company, Salem Harbor
Station, Oil to Coal Conversion, Water Run-Off Plan
After Conversion, " D?%1G -834 921-SK -40-3 , prepared by
Fluor Power Services Inc.
Plan entiled ":;-w England Power Company, Brayton Point
Station, Somerset, P,RA : General Arrangement , Bottom Ash
( Removal System: Basins and Hydrobin Area. ", 1)6121 ;�13386-
`, F1'1-S40T , prepared by Stone and Webster Engineering, 245
;.Summer St. , Boston, [;A . •
Plan entitled "?later Use Schematic, Brayton Point Station,
New England Power Company, " DWG ;",13386-?Pfi-8, dated 5-22-60 ,
prepared by Stone and Webster Engineering Co .
Plan entitled "New England Power Company; Salem Harbor
Station, Coal Conversion ?Waste Water Treatment Study
Operation before Conversion, " D1,1G. -Y834921-SK :?-45 and
DWG. ;7`834921-SKT:?-41-2, prepared by Fluor Power Services , Inc .
Table One--"Vlaste Water Characteristics--Air Pre-heaters .
Study entitled , ":dew England Power Company, Salem Harbor
Station, Report on Ulaste Vlater Characteristics and Treat-
ment Facilities Operation, " dated June 21, 1973 •
Report entitled, "New :England Power Company, Salem Harbor
Station, Conversion to Coal Burning , 11PA--Environmenital
Data Form, Project Description. " -
Plan entitled, ;e•;r :_n, land Pon,;,er Company ;alem Harbor
Station, Run-Off Pond Section, D4tG ; S1'C-25, dated 9-10-82 ,
prepared by Fluor Power Services Inc.
i� Plan entitled , " dew England Power Company, Salem harbor Sta-
tion, Settlir- Basins--Sections , D';I1. ,TSKC-23 , dated 9-10-82 ; �
prepared by Fluor Pov✓er3Services , Inc.
(see attachement "A" )
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
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 in writing and by certified mail to the Department
within ten (10) days from the issuance of this order.
7 7
ISSUED BY Salem
Commission :
On this 9th day of November 1932 , before me personally
appeared the above—_named persons 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
and deed.
My Commission expires q_9-RR
!'A
ft
r f
DETACH ON DOTTED LINE AND SU3MIT TO THE ISSUER OF THIS ORDER PRIOR TO
COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
TO (Issuing Authority)
PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THE ORDER OF CONDITIONS FOR THE PROJECT 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
Signed ------_ __ •...
Applicant
-4-
ATTACIU^'_NT "A"--N--W EN3LAND PC[+1'�'R CO.'�PANY--FILL ^` 64-85
Plan entitled, "New England Power Company, Salem' Harbor
Station, Ash Sluice Pump- Hsa, and Surge Basin Section,
SKS-24, dated 9-10-82 .
Plan Entitled, "New England Power Company, Saler Harbor
Station, General Arrangement of Fly Ash Silo and De-
watering Bins , " D11G. ,"SKC-17 , dated 9-3-82 , and SKC-18,
dated 9-3-82 , prepared by Fluor Power Services , Inc .
Plan entitled, "New England Power Company, Salem Harbor
Station; Fan ;-souse , FDN--Sections; "D' G.=E SKC-22 , dated
9-10-82 , prepared by Fluor Power Services , Inc .
Plan entitled, "New England Power Company, Salem Harbor
Station, Typical Drain Trench DETS and Typical Pipe
Rack: Sup . FDN" D!1G. #SKC-26, dated 9-10-82 , prepared by
Fluor Power Services, Inc.
Plan entitled, "New England Power Services Company, Part of
New England electric System, Westboro, VIA . , New England
Power Company, SalemHarborStation, Salem, to
Coal Conversion, Layout of I.D .Fans and Duct ':fork , "Sheet
1 and 2 , DWG.# 834921-SKm-43 and 834921-SKM-44, prepared
by Fluor Power Services , Inc.
Sketch showing Flood Hazard District and Existing Salem
Harbor Station, New England Power Company Salem Harbor •
- Station, General Plan of Yard and Fuel Handling Facilities .
DWG . ,'"Sk-101282 .
Plan entitled, "New England Power Services Company, Pard of
New England Electric System, Westboro , P.'A . , New -7ngland
Power Company, Salem Harbor Station, Salem, :A . , Oil to
Coal Conversion, Final Site Gradings, Sections , and Details , "
Plan #8-43553, dated 7-16-82 , prepared by Fluor Power.
Services , Inc.
Plan entitled, "Drawing Effect for Bid of Caissons, FDN. for
Coal Pile Lighting, Iiew England Power 316, New England
Power Services Company, part of New England Electric System,
Westboro , I-� . , ^'aw ` n land Power Company, Salem arbor Sta-
tion, Oil to Coal Conversion, General Plot Plan, Plant
Site , South End, " DWI. #B-4225-2 , dated 4-29-82 , prepared
by Fluor Power Services, Inc .
Plan entitled, "New England ;'ower Services Company, Part
of II ^_1 i. 1CC 1C ySt 2Sti ^rC , I ''eW En:land
Power Cc =ra_ny, SaleTi Harcor Station, Salem, .'A . , Oil to
Coal Conversion, Coal Pile Area, '1ra'ings and Trench, "-
D-. G. ,#B-4230-1 , dated 9-10-82 .
•
New England Power Company
d 25 Research Drive
New England Power
SEP 2 4 iy�5 Westborough,Massachusetts 01561
Tel.(617)366-9011
SALEM PLANNING DEPT.
September 18, 1985
Ms. Dale Yale
Conservation Commission
City of Salem
One Salem Green
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Dear Ms. Yale:
RE: DEQE File Nos. 64-80 and 64-85
New England Power. Company respectfully requests that a. .Certificate of
Compliance be issued for work at Salem .Harbor Station covered by DEQE
File Nos. 64-80 and 64-85.
Work under these file numbers involved the conversion of Salem Harbor
Station Units No. 1, 2 and 3 to coal burning. All work on this project
has been completed as proposed and in accordance with the two. Orders of
Conditions issued to New England Power Company on May 13, 1982 and
November 9, 1982.
If this request meets with your approval, please issue the Certificates
to New England Power Company and forward them to me at the letterhead
address. If you have any questions or wish to view the project prior to
issuing the Certificates, ,please call me at 366-9011, Ext. 2067.
Very truly yours,
i
Bafry A.. Ketschke
Supervisor, Licenses and Permits
BAK:gv
A New England Electric System company
New England Power Company
d New England Power 25 Research Drive
Westborough,Massachusetts 01561
Tel.(617)366-9011
November 21, 1983
Conservation Commission
City of Salem
One Salem Green
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Dear Commission Members:
RE: Wetlands Extension Permit
DEQE File No. 64-85
Please be advised that the Wetlands Extension Permit issued to New
England Power Company on October 13, 1983 under the Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering (DEQE) File No. 64-.85 was recorded in the Essex South
District Registry of Deeds in Salem, Massachusetts on November 14,1983.
The document number which identifies this transaction is 191327.
Sincerely yours,
114 /5;��
Barry A. Ketschke
Supervisor, Licenses and Permits
BAK:bk
A New England Electric System company
New England Power Company
d New England Power 25 Research Drive
Westborough,Massachusetts 01581
Tel.(617)366-9011
October 5,"1984
City of Salem
Conservation Commission
One Salem Green
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Dear Commission Members:
RE: DEQE File No. 64-85
New England Power Company respectfully requests an extension of the
Order of Conditions issued by your Commission on November 9, 1982.
Work on this project will be continuing throughout the coming year.
If you have any questions on this matter, please do not hesitate to
call me at (617)366-9011, Ext. 2067.
Very truly yours,
Bar et
Supervisor, Licenses and Permits
EAK:bk
A New England Electric System company
New England Power Company
20 Turnpike Road
New England Power Westborough,Massachusetts 01581
Tel.(617)366-9011
October 4 , 1983
City of Salem
Conservation Commission
One Salem Green
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Dear Commission Members ;
RE: D ,E .Q .E. File No . 64-85
New England Power Company respectfully requests an extension
of the Order of Conditions issued by your Commission on
November 9 , 1982 .
Work on this project will be continuing throughout the coming
year.
'If you have any questions on this matter, please do not
hesitate to call me at (617) 366-9011 , Ext . 2067 .
Very truly
ttrruly yours ,
Ai�-
Barry' A .Ketsc ke
Supervisor of Licenses and Permits
BAK:gv
A New England Electric System company
Form 7
CDEOE File No.E64-85 -
. _ (Tobe Provided by DEOE)
CommonwealthSalem
Cityrrorrn _
IOf Massachusetts - NEPCO--Atte. .Barry A.
Applicant
Ketschke, Supervisor
of Ligeltigbg'-and
- Pexrti$� s
Extension Permit c
Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Ac'
G.L. c. 131, §40 . IT ,5 ,
SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION
From:
7�� n
sswn (iuthorrtyr
"
To.
NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY ."-- - '20 Turnpike Road, Westboro, MA.
(Name)
(Address) -
The Order of Conditions(or Extension Permit)issued on November 9, 1982
New England Power Company (date)
t0 4 p y (name)forwork at 24 Fort,Ave. . Salem
Salem, MA. address is extended for tion)
( ) Y period of tWO years)from the
date it expires.
This Extension Permit will expire on November 9, 1984 (date)
This document shall be recorded in accordance with General Condition 8 of the Order of Conditions.
.........................I...................................................
_ (Leave Space Blank) -
7-1
Issued by SALEM \CON/)SERVATION COMMISSION
Signature(s) C�
r
I
r ,
Wit n issWby the Conservation Commission this Extension Permit must be signed by amajoriiy of Its
n 4 tin ``tii15s' J? 6� day of
before me
personally appeared —4.10M P —KY mP to me known to be the
person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he/she executed
the sahis/her free act and deed.
�nu
9 :
Notary Public
My commission expires _
76
r _
Detach on do"ed line and submit to the prior to commencement of work_:
To
- - Issuing Authority
Please be advised that the Extension Permit to the Order of Conditions for the project at
File Number has been recorded at the Registry of
has been noted in the chain of title of the affected property in accordance with General Condition 8 of the original order of Condi"kreson'.
,19 if recorded land,the instrument number which identifies this is
2
If registered land,the document number which identifies this transaction is.
Signature "fi -
App,
72
New England Power Company
d New England Power Wesstboroutborou 25 Drive
gh,Massachusetts 01561
Tel.(617)366-9011
November 15, 1984
Conservation Commission
City of Salem
One Salem Green
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Dear Commission Members:
RE: Wetlands Extension Permit
DEQE File No. 64-85
Please be advised that the Wetlands Extension Permit issued to New England
Power Company on October 25, 1984 under the Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering (DEQE) File No. 64-85 was recorded in the Essex South Registry
District of Deeds in Salem, Massachusetts on November 8, 1984.
The document number which identifies this transaction is 198224.
Sincerely yours,
Barr A. Ktschke
Supervisor, Licenses and Permits
BAK:bk
A New England Electric System company
C RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL-300: (plus postage)
T TO POSTMARK
OR DATE
ST7;
rrn
P.O.,SQTA�TEA D ZIP CODE
OPTIONAL SERVifj S F RrA001710NAL FEES
�$ 1. Shows t wl am an! date delivered ...........: 150
RETURN With livery to addressee only............ 65!
RECEIPT D y. Shows to whhin,Date end where delivered.. 35!
SERVICES With delivery to addressee only:........... 85!
r DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ...................................................... 55!
_._
Q SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required)
�fy PS Form 3800NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED— (See other side)
Apr. 1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL a cro:1171 0-sst-454'
STICK POSTAGE STAMPS TO ARTICLE TO COVER POSTAGE (first class or airmail),
CERTIFIED MAIL FEE,AND CHARGES FOR ANY SELECTED-OPTIONAL SERVICES.(see front)
1. If you want this receipt postmarked, stick the gummed stub on the left portion of the address
side of the article, leaving the receipt attached,and present the article at a post office service
—window or hand it to your rural carrier. (no extra charge)
2. If you do not want this receipt postmarked, stick the gummed stub on the left portion of
the address side of the article, date, detach and retain the receipt, and mail the article.
3. If you want a return receipt, write the certified-mail number and your name and address on
a return receipt card, Form 3811, and attach it to the back of the article by means of the
gummed ends. Endorse front of article RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED.
4. If you want the article delivered only to the addressee, endorse it on the front DELIVER TO
ADDRESSEE ONLY. Place the same endorsement in line 2 of the return receipt card if that
service is requested.
5(i. Save this receipt and present it if you make inquiry.
i0ro
Form 7 DECE Fie No. 64-85
• (To be provideC by DECE)
Commonwealth - city/Town SALEM
,7 ',� of Massachusetts ,p,� t New Enaland Power Co.
V3.—6 Attn. Barry Ketchke, Supervisor
or Licenses. & Permits
VI Extension Permit
Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act
G.L c. 131 , §40
From: SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION 'issuing Authority
NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY 20 Turnpike Road, Westborough, MA.
(Name) (Address)
The Order of Conditions(or Extension Permit)issued on Nov. 9, 1984 (date)
to New England Power Co. (name)forworkat24 Fort Avenue, Salem
(Salem Harbor Station) (address)is hereby extended for a period of 1 year(s)from the
date it expires.
This Extension Permit will expire on November 9, 1985 (date)
This document shall be recorded in accordance with General Condition 8 of the Order of Conditions.
.......................................................................................................................................................................................
(Leave Space Blank)
7-1
l0-t
Issued by SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Signature(s)
When issued by the Conservation Commission this Extension Permit must be signed by a majority of it
members.
25 October 84
On this day of 19 before me
personalty appeared the above-named , to me known to be the
person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he/she executed
the same//',s his/her free act and deed.
l/ Y 9-9-88
Notary Public My commission expires
Detach on dotted line and submit to the Salem Conservation Commission prior to commencement of work
7p Issuing Aumonty
Please be advised that the Extension Permit to the Order of Conditions 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 in accordance with General Condition 8 of the original order of conditions on
19 11 recorded land,the instrument number which identifies this transaction is
If registered land.the cocument number which identifies this transaction is
Signature Applicant
7-2
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 p g } be rejected.-
DATE: . October 15, 1982
Conservation Commission of (City/rbooa): Salem
1. Notice is hereby given in accordance with the provi-
sions of Massachusetts G.L. c. 131, s. 40 that the.
proposed activity described herein is within the juris-
diction of
City/amu Salem at 24 Fort Avenue $fry:
Most recent recording at the Registry of Essex South (Salem)
Book Page ,
Certificate (if registered) 19030 and 19031
2. The land on which_ the work is proposed to be done is owned
by. 25 Research Drive
NAME(s) New England Power Co. ADD Westborough, MA. 01581
. 3. The applicant submitting this Notice is:
25 Research Drive
NAME ' New England Power Co., ADDRESS Westborough, MA. 01581 .
TELEPHONE (617)' 366-9011
(Optional) The following person is hereby designated. to
represent the applicant in matters arising hereunder:
Ronald J. Boches, 25 Research Drive
NAME Supervisor, Licenses ADDRSS Westborough, MA. 01581
and Perm:Lt;
TELEPHONE 366-9011, ext. 3140
_1_
AP
Form 3 continued
4. Plans describing and defining the work, included herewith
and made a part hereof, are titled and dated:
See 'List of Drawings - Attachment No. 1 _
5. Identical material has been submitted by certified mail
as follows: A
Original to Conservation Commission (DATE) October 15, 1982
Three copies to appropriate regional office of the Depart- `
went of Environmental Quality Engineering (see map for
regions and addresses). Date October 15, 1982
NORTHEAST _x _ SOUTHEAST CENTRAL WESTERN
6. Has the required $25.00 filing fee, payable to the city or
town, been included with the submission to the Conservation
Comm IH!;Ioil? Yes
7. Has the Environmp—al Data Form been completed and submitted .
with each copy? Yes
8. Has a locus map (8�" x 11" copy of USGS topographic sheet
with the site marked) been included with each copy? Yes
9A. Have all obtainable permits, variances, and approvals /
required by local by-law been obtained? No
B. If they have not been obtained, have they been applied for?
YesIf yes, include with the 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.
10A. Is the site of the proposed work subject to a wetland
rn•striction order rveorded pursuant to C.L. c. 131, s. 40A,
or C.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 Yes ; a salt pond No L
anadromous/catadromous fish run ' No ; do not, know ?
11. Signature(s) of owner(s) of the land (if by agent or option
holder, written authorization must be attached)
See Below
(
-2-
` (Form 3 continued)
C12. What is the purpose of the proposed project?
New England Power Company proposes to perform work associated
with the long-term conversion to coal burning of Units No. 1,
2 and .3 at its Salem Harbor Station
13. I HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER THE PAINS AND PENALTIES OF PERJURY
THAT THE FOREGOING NOTICE OF INTENT AND ACCOMPANYING
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA FORM ARE TRUE AND COMPLETE.
October 15, 1982
VSignature of Applicant Date
-3-
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.
NAME OF APPLICANT
New England Power Company (NEP)
ADDRESS OF APPLICANT 25 Research Drive
Westborough, Massachusetts, ,01581
MUNICIPALITIES WHERE ACTIVITY IS PROPOSED AND NOTICE IS FILED
City of Salem'
For the purposes of this
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY INVOLVED IN application, the site is that
APPLICATION (including the dimensions portion of an existing electric
of any existing buildings, decks, marinas, generating facility which is
existing cesspools) located within the Flood Hazard District. For more
detail; see SK-101282 attached
DESCRIPTION OF MODIFICATIONS PROPOSED NEP proposes to excavate, fill
ationsnd
re w THE SITE, including grading, dredging, and install foundstructures, including ne
removal of vegetation, etc.
pollution control equipment. For a more detailed description, refer to
Attachment A
A. SOILS
1 . United States Department of Silty sand and clay
Aerinitlture Soil Types (show on map)
2. Perm»bility of soil on the site. (Dates 'of testing.)
Nn 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 site is contiguous to Salem Harbor
-4-
(Form 3, continued)
2. Sourcgs of runoff water.
Existing buildings, structures, paved areas and coal pile on site
3. Rate of,,runoff from the site.
Rate varies. Major discharges, which includes storm drains, are regulated
by an existing 9FDES permit
4. Destinatinpp of runoff water.
Salem Hatbor
5. Chemical additives to runoff
water o- *hp site.
None
C. GROUND COVER
1. Extent of existing impervious
ground cover on the site.
_J U. of site
2. Extent of proposed impervious
ground cover on the site.
27% of site
3. Extent of existing vegetative
cover on Fhe site.
i
3% of site
4. Extent of proposed vegetative
cover on tpe site.
— 2% of site --------- --
D. TOPOGRAPHY
I. Maximum existine elevation on site.
___ : 1(.0 Mean Low Water
2. Minimum existing elevation on site.
13.0 Mean Low Water
3. Maximum proposed elevation of site.
18.0 Mean Low Water
4. Minimum prnposed elevation of site.
_ No Change .
5. Descripti— cf proposed change intop p raph
The ash handling area will be raised by filling Yfom pyesent average grade
elevation 3Ti=to piolfosed�Teva ion ee ac__nenE A and Plan
B-4225.2
(Form 3, continued)
CE. GROUND WATER
I. Minimum depth to water table on site (at time of filing)
Elevation +10' Mean Low Water
2. Maximum depth to water table on site (at time of filing)
Elevation +7' Mean Low Water
F. WATER SUPPLY
1. The source of the water to be provided to the site.
No Change
c--`---1
2. The expected x,ater requirements (g:p d.) for the site.
No Change
3. The uses to which water will be put.
No Change
G. SEWAGE DISPOSAL
1. Sewage disposal system (description
and location on the site, of system)
City Sewer
2. Expected content of the sewage
Ceffluents (human waste, pesticides,
i detergents, oils, heavy metals,
other chemicals)
No Changer
- -ii-
3. Expected daily vnlume of sewage.
Not Applicable
H. SOLID WASTE
1. Estimated quantity of solid waste
to be developed on the site.
250 tons/day. This represents an increase of 60 tons/day over the present
production
2. Method for disposal of solid waste.
Offsite in an approved disposal area
3. Plans for recycling of solid waste.
Fly ash reuse in paving and concrete blocks, etc.
I. BOAT YARDS, DOCKS, MARINAS
1. Capacity of marina (number of
boats„ running feet)
Not Applicable
6
(Form 3, continued)
2. Descriptlun of docks and flouts '
• (site; 44 mpnslons).
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 Applicabje
J. IMPACT OF PROPOSED ACTION APPLIED FOR
1. Effects on plant species
(upland and marine).
Existinglawn and shrubs will be eliminated by the construction of the I.D. Fan
Building and Precipitators.- No 'other"degetario-t'7iYt–tr—affrctitd7-
2. Effects on marine species (shellfish, finfish) .
None
I 3. Effects on draif?a�ql�nd ru off
Drainage patterns and runo inot be affected. In addition, a coal pile
runoff collection system will be intalled
4. Effects on siltation of surface waters.
No adverse effect. Discharge of suspended solids is regulated by an NPDES permit
5. Effects on groundwater quality.
No adverse effects
6. Effects on s„rface water quality.
No adverse effects
K. ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED ACTION
1. Describe alternatives to the
requested act'on
Various alternatives to the proposed action were considered, but none 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 is the only
fgasible�alternptive _ –_
w',,`.' 1 p,�,�,,., .Now England Power Comp&ny.
'�T1'1! ErgrOnd Power - ZO Tumplke Road
Westborough,Massachusetts 0158,
Tel.(817)986-9011
November 17, 1980
Mr. Thomas C. McMahon, Director
Division of Water Pollution Control
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Quality Engineering
110 Tremont Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
Dear Mr. McMahon:
Enclosed, for your review, are the results of the coal conversion test
program as required by the NPDES permit for New England Power Company's
Brayton Point Station. The program was designed to evaluate potential changes
in wastewater discharges at the Station that might occur as a result of long-
term coal conversion. The program was conducted in 1980 while new source coal
was being burned under a Delayed Compliance Order (DCO).
Coal samples were collected from all cargoes delivered between January and
April 1980. The samples were composited and sent to the Colorado School of
Mines Research Institute for analyses of coal and ash. Fly ash and bottom ash
samples collected on one day were also sent to the School of Mines for analysis.
The results of these anahvses are attached.
Liquid streams were sampled on two different days. The samples were analyzed
by the Colorado School of Nines and Rhode Island Analytical Laboratories. The
results of these analyses have been averaged and presented on the attached tables
as concentration and pounds per day for discharge streams.
Coal Pile Runoff
Coal pile runoff samples were composits of runoff collected during two
rainfall events. They are felt to be representative of the runoff from new
source coal. The impact of coal pile runoff will be minimized as part of the
long-term coal conversion project. The runoff will be collected and pumped to
the existing wastewater treatment system.
The constituents of coal pile runoff which occurred at the highest levels
and could have an impact on Mount Hope Bay are suspended solids, iron and
aluminum. Fortunately, the existing wastewater treatment system will be
able to remove these materials with no difficulty. Iron, for example, was
present at 45 mg/1. The treatment system routinely receives wastewater with
iron concentrations of several hundred mg/l. Please refer to the New England
Power Company report , "Evaluation of Interim Wastewater Treatment Plant,, Salem
Harbor Station, Salem, Massachusetts" submitted on May 31, 1977 for review of
wastewater influent characteristics.
A New England Electric System company
Mr. Thomas C. McMahon — 2 November 17, 19so
In addition to the tests carried out under the coal conversion test program,
we will conduct a detailed observation of quahogs living in the vicinity of the
coal pile. The heavy metal burden of these quahogs will be compared to those
from a control station which have been observed over thers a
as
e a
Y part of the
biological monitoring program. From this
study, we will evaluate the potential
impact , if any, of coal pile and
leachate on Mount Hope Bay. The results
of the evaluation will be forwarded for your review as soon as possible.
If you have any questions about this material, feel free to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Andrew H. Aitken
Staff Asst. to Vice President Operations
.i
ILu.A:gv
Enclosures
cc: H. E. Cabana, Jr.
P. H. R. Cahill,
J. F. Kaslow
E. M. Keith
A. S. Lewis
H. C. Richardson, Jr.
G. P. Sasdi
- 11
New England Power Company
% 'New EMiQnd rower � P Turnpike Road
' 'i7 WestOorough,Massachusetts 01581
Tel.(817)355.9011
November 17, 1980
Ms. Leslie A. Carothers,, Deputy
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region I
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Dear Ms. Carothers:
Enclosed , for your review, are the results of the coal conversion test
program as required by the NPDES permit for New England Power Company's
Brayton Point Station. The program was designed to evaluate potential changes
in wastewater discharges at the Station that might occur as a result of long-
term coal conversion. The program was conducted in 1980 while new source coal
was being burned under a Delayed Compliance Order (DCO).
Coal samples were collected from all cargoes delivered between January and
April 1980. The samples were composited and sent to the Colorado School of
Mines Research Institute for analyses of coal and ash. Fly ash and bottom ash
samples collected on one day were also sent to the School of Mines for analysis.
The results of these analyses are attached.
Liquid streams were sampled on two different days. The samples were analyzed
by the Colorado School of Mines and Rhode Island Analytical Laboratories. The
results of these analvses have been averaged and presented on the attached tables
as concentration and pounds per day for discharge streams.
Coal Pile Runoff
Coal pile runoff samples were composits of runoff collected during two
rainfall events. They are felt to be representative of the runoff from new
source coal. The impact of coal pile runoff will be minimized as part of the
long-term coal conversion project . The runoff will be collected and pumped to
the existing wastewater treatment system.
The constituents of coal pile runoff which occurred at the highest levels
and could have an impact on Mount Hope Bay are suspended solids, iron and
aluminum. Fortunately, the existing wastewater treatment system will be
able to remove these materials with no difficulty. Iron, for example, was
present at 45 mg/1 . The treatment system routinely receives wastewater with
iron concentrations of several hundred mg/l . Please refer to the New England
Power Company report, "Evaluation of Interim Wastewater Treatment Plant; Salem
Harbor Station, Salem, Massachusetts" submitted on May 31, 1977 for review of
wastewater influent characteristics.
A New England Electric System company
Hs. Leslie A. Carothers - 2 - November 17, 1980
In addition to the tests carried out under the coal conversion test program,
we will conduct a detailed observation of quahogs living in the vicinity of the
coal pile. The heavy metal burden of these quahogs will be compared to those
from a control station which have been observed over the years as part of the
biological monitoring program. From this study, we will evaluate the potential
impact, if any, of coal pile runoff and leachate on Mount Hope Bay. The results
of the evaluation will be forwarded for your review as soon as possible.
If you have any questions about this material, feel free to contact me.
Very truly yours,,
Andrew H. Aitken
Staff Asst. to Vice President Operations
;y
AHA:gv
Enclosures
cc: H. E. Cabana, Jr.
P. H. R. Cahill,
J. F. Kaslow
E. M. Keith
A. S. Lewis
H. C. Richardson, Jr.
G. P. Sasdi
p ,O. Box 112 _._.
j Golden, Colorodo 80401 Ct
(303) 279-2581
COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES RESEARCH INSTITUTE
5377
COAL ANALYSIS REPORT
New England
Sponsor Power Co. Sample No. 1 Description
Lob No. Project No, Analyst Dote
Proximate Analysis (ASTM D 3172)
Moisture: Air Dry 3.44 . % Oven Dry 1.75 % Total 5. 13 /o
°
Moisture and
As-received Dry basis ash free basis
Volatile Matter 30.4
f ,n 7.62 % 8.03 %
Fixed Corb,on 56.8 % 59.9 %
Hec'ing Value(`ASTM D 3286) 13348 Btu/Ib 14065 Btu/Ib -- Btu/Ib
Ultimcte Analysis (ASTM D 3176)
Cc, bon . 75.0 % 79.0 % Hdry and 0dry are
Hydrogen 5.40 % 5.08 % corrected for
moisture
S 'fur 1.22 % 1.28 %
Norogen 1. 37 % 1.45 %
gen (by difference) 9.47 % 5. 18
Forms of Sulfur (ASTM D24921
Su'fote sulfur %
Pyritic sulfur %
Organic sulfur %
Hordgrove Grindability Index (ASTM D409) 66
Free swelling Index (ASTM D720)
Reducing Oxidizing
Fusibility of Ash (ASTM D1857) Atmosphere Atmosphere
Initial Deformation Temperature (IT) 2210 OF 2260 °F
Snf,ening Temperature (ST) 2460 OF 2670 °F
Hemispherical Temperature (HT) 2635 OF 2690 °F
Fluid Temperott re (FT) 6 2735 °F 2760 °F
'i Approved -1j11", 1r n �1,1 /,. i, p.
Colorado School of Mines Research Institute
P.O.BOX 112-GOLDEN.PHONE(303)279-25BII TWX 91&934-0 94`ORADO C9M Ree Gtdn ���i 1�
Sponsor: New England Power Co. Sample No. I
Description: Coal Composite Project No. A-00515
ASH MINERAL ANALYSIS (REPORTED AS % IN ASH)
Si02 48. 1 %
Al 203 28.9 %
Fe 203 9.33%
Ti02 1.36%
P205 0.60%
Cao 2.06%
MgO 1.01%
K20' 2.41%
Na20 0.52%
S03 2.52%
' eA.nursi Ind,iclry Ro6elrr91
Colorado School of Mine., Research Institute
Project Number: A00515 CS�I'1� '
. P.0 BOx 112•GOLDEN,COLORADO 80401
Sponsor: New England Power Co.. PHONE(30312792581
All PPM except otherwise noted.
Sb As Ba Be Cd Cr Cu Pb LU
1 Coal Composite 450 2.7 0.013 (%) 4 /110 16 15 10 0.04
2 Top Ash < 50 120 0.17 (%) 63 < 10 278 356 238 0.36
3 Bottom Ash <50 <0.4 0.063 (%) 16 < 10 202 85 21 0.05
Ni S.e Ag T1 Zn Fe Si Mn Ti
1 Coal Composite 14 7.0 <10 <50 14 0.52 (%) 1.78 (%) 16 0.064 (%)
2Top Ash 254 280 <10 < 50 546 8. 14 O 19.0 (%) 188 1. 16 (%)
3 Bottom Ash 138 1.4 <10 <50 42 12.9 (%) 20.2 (%) 83 0.83 (%)
Al
1, Coal Composite 1.21 (%)
2 Top Ash 13.5 (%)
3 Bottom Ash 12.9 (%)
Remarks: All values corrected to ppm or (%) in original sample.
Fly Ash Sluicing and Wastewater Treatment Discharge 004
Freshwater Fly Ash Wastewater Treatment
for sluicing Sluicewater Discharge - 004
Parameter Avg.-mg/l Avg --mg/1 Avg.-mg/l Avg.-lbs./day ,
pH 6.3 6.6 7.8 --
BODS < 1 2 11 376
COD 218 340 447 15,300
Total Organic Carbon 5.0 4. 5 22.3 762
Total Dissolved Solids 72 4,245 20,400 --
Total Suspended Solids 0.3 204 38.5 1,320
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 0.7 2.0 11. 8 403
Nitrite (as N) 0.25 1.8 0.08 2. 7
Sulfate (as SOO 18.3 311 1,975 67,500
Acidity (as CaCO3) 8.9 6.2 -- --
Alkalinity (as CaCO3) -- -- 100 3,420
Iron 0.08 30.0 0.14 4. 8
Manganese 0.04 0.59 0.02 0.68
Zinc 0.05 0.22 0.06 2.1
U Cadmium <0.01 0.01 0.02 0.68
Copper 0.02 0.30 0.03 1.03
Chromium <0.03 0.06 <0.03 --
Lead 0.03 0. 18 0.10 3.42
Nickel <0.05 6.34 0. 12 4.1
Aluminum 0.7 30.0 0.5 17.1
Barium dC 0.2 0.6 0.5 17.1
Beryllium < 0.005 0.013 < 0.005 --
Selenium C 0.005 0.088 0.043 1.47
Antimony < 0.005 0.014 0.059 2.02
Arsenic 0.003 0.148 0.004 0.14
Mercury < 0.005 <0.005 <O-005 --
Silver < 0.01 < 0.01 0.03 1.03
Thallium < 0.1 <0.1 0. 1 3.42
Titanium 0.25 0.08 <0.1 --
Bottom Ash Sluicing and Ash Pond Discharge - 019
Saltwater Bottom Ash Bottom Ash Pond
for sluicing Sluicewater Discharge - 019
Parameter
Avg.-mg/1 Avg.-mg/1 Avg.-mg/1 Avg.-lbs./day
PH 7.4 7.9 7.4 --
BOD5 1 < 1 <1 --
COD 688 2,783 1,178 6,380
Total Organic Carbon 17.3 272 5.0 27.1
Total Dissolved Solids 33,600 33,800 33,600 --
Total Suspended Solids 53.2 14,700 101 550
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 1.4 0.6 1.8 9.76
Nitrite (as N) 0.04 0.03 0.09 0.49
Sul`ate (as SOO 2,165 2,145 2,185 11,800
Acidity (as CaCO3) -- -- -- --
Alkalinity (as CaCO3) 105 112 112 607
Iron 0.31 98 2.01 10.9
Manganese 0.06 0. 26 0.17 0.92
Zinc 0.06 0. 22 0.07 0.38
Cadmium 0. 03 0.03 0.03 0.16
Copper 0. 05 0.27 0.05 0. 27
Chromium 0. 03 0.17 0.03 0.16
Lead 0. 23 0. 29 0. 23 1.25
Nickel 0.14 0.46 0. 26 1.41
Aluminum 0. 2 78 2.3 12.5
Barium 0. 3 0. 15 0.3 1.63
Beryllium -40. 005 0.045 0.003 0.02
Selenium <0.005 0.048 0.008 0.04
Antimony < 0.005 0.016 0.010 0.05
Arsenic <0.005 0.057 0.007 0.04
Mercury < 0.005 < 0.005 0.005 --
Silver 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.27
Thallium 0.3 0.3 0. 2 1.08
Titanium 0. 1 4.88 0.16 0.87
Coal Pile Runoff and Unit No. 4 Cooling Canal
Unit No. 4
Coal Pile Runoff Cooling Canal
Parameter
Avg.-mg/1 Avg.-lbs. /event Average-mg/1
5.2 4' 8.2
BO
BODS 3.0 4.8 4( 1
COD 999 1,600 109
Total Organic Carbon 483 780 11.3
Total Dissolved Solids 497 800 6,170
Total Susnendpd Solids 3,180 5,100 13.4
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 1.5 2.4 0. 7
Nitrate (as N) 0.2 0.3 0.04
Sulfate (as SOO 243 390 679
Acidity (as CaCO3) 9.8 15.8 --
Alkalinity (as CaCO3) -- -_
loo
Iron `45.0 72.4 0. 17
Manganese 1.06 1. 71 0.07
Zinc 2.26 3.64 0.03
Cadmium 0.01 0.02 0.01
Copper 0.23 0.37 4C0.02
Chromium 0.04 0.06 0.03
Lead 0.32 0.52 0.08
Nickel 0.46 0.74 0.03
Aluminum 11.3 18.2 0.3
Barium 0.5 0.8 0.3
Beryllium 0.010 0.016 -CO.005
Selenium 0.015 0.241 40.005
Antimony 0.018 0.029 <0.005
Arsenic 0.032 0.052 <0.005
Mercury 0.005 0.008 <0.005
Silver 0.06 0.10 <0.01
Thallium 0.1 0.2 < 0.1
Titanium 0.39 0.63 C 0.1
i
i
F
F
NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY
1_ ) SALEM HARBOR STATION
Salem, Massachusetts
Amory • REPORT ON WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
AND TREATMENT FACILITY OPERATION
nmmm
1270-2711-2 June 21 ,. 1973
r
c
E
F WI1 LI;,M 1M
�o SAN,;
15s3i
jr.
�frn
n�W
`Ss10NAL
11 '
TWM.V'EI4UMRUCKER
HALL MAIN
RICH
ARD CHAS.T. MAIN, INC.
C. A. BER Enyineers
SOUTHEAST TOWER, PRUDENTIAL CENTER, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02199 • TELEPHONE 617262.3200
June 21 , 1973 1270-2711-2
SUBJECT: New England Power Company
J Salem Harbor Steam- Electric Generation
Station
Report on Wastewater Characteristics and
Treatment Facility Operation
Mr. R. M. Dunn, Project Engineer
New England Power Service Company
Turnpike Road
Westboro, Massachusetts 01581
Dear Mr. Dunn:
MAIN is pleased to submit this report in which the wastewater discharges
are more fully documented than in our report of May 15 , 1972 , and re-
commendations are given for work needed to meet the tentative discharge
criteria of the Environmental Protection Agency. These were published
in a public notice on April 2 , 1973.
s
S
We have appreciated the opportunity of working with your associates and
look forward to assisting in the development of the Fly Ash Removal System,
FAR, and with compliance for the discharge permit.
# Very truly yours ,
CHAS . T. MAIN, INC .
WBD/ck �W B. bnnenberg ✓//41
G.C. Krusen , II 4%t 60-4-
IC•
R.S. Ca accio
1.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This report has been prepared for the purposes of serving as a compilation of
data for normal station operation, of defining cleaning waste discharges , of
indicating wastewater treatment efficiency, of recommending facility and opera-
tional changes towards meeting tentative EPA criteria , and of stating the status
of past recommendations . This report supplements the findings of "Report on
Liquid Waste Characteristics for New England Power Company, Salem Harbor
Steam-Electric Generating Station" , dated May, 1972.
For the parameters analyzed , wastewaters,, discharged to Salem Harbor during the
normal operation of Units 1 , 2 , 3 and 4 consistently meet all the tentative criteria
of the Environmental Protection Agency until March 17 , 1975, except for iron,
nickel and vanadium. The EPA criteria for iron, nickel and vanadium were less severe
than the goals set up in Salem Report No. 1 - May, 1972 . No data was obtained
on the parameters of oil and grease , chromium , zinc, aluminum, manganese and
phosphorus which are also of interest to the EPA.
ii
i Wastewaters discharged to the harbor during the cleaning of Unit 1 met all the
tentative EPA criteria except for phosphorus . The overall removal efficiencies of
• the treatment system for suspended solids , vanadium, nickel and iron were above
s
ninety percent. Data was not obtained for the tentative EPA criteria on oil and grease ,
y turbidity, chromium , zinc, aluminum and manganese.
Recommendations included in Salem Report No. 1 have been acted upon by New
England Power in the majority of cases . Additionally, the following recommendations
should be acted upon in order that discharge concentrations in excess of EPA criteria
be eliminated and that the New England Power Company will have more assurance
that the criteria will be met when the largest unit, No. 4, is cleaned.
1 . Install pumps and discontinue the usage of hydroejectors
during all station operations .
z 2 . Install flow distribution headers at the basin inlets to minimize
influent velocity thereby enhancing solids settling.
3 . Replace the filter dike with a solid barrier. The effluent from
the secondary basin will then be pumped to the discharge
a
channel, if available head does not allow for flow by gravity.
4. Conduct laboratory tests to determine better methods of
reducing metal constituents in the discharge.
S. Remove accumulated ash in the dry state during cleaning
operations where feasible . This will reduce the hydraulic and
pollutant loading on the treatment facilities .
6 . Install continuous pH monitoring equipment at the secondary basin
discharge.
7. Install automatic samplers to obtain composite samples , proportioned
to flow if flow fluctuations exist, at the secondary basin discharge.
• 8 . Obtain an atomic absorption spectrophotometer for in-house analysis .
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letter of Transmittal
Summary and Recommendations
Table of Contents
List of Tables
Purpose of Study
• SECTIONS PAGE NOS .
.� Introduction 1
Treatment Facilities 2
Wastewater Discharges - Normal Station Operation
A. Introduction 3
B. Discharges Prior to Unit 4 Operation 3-8
C. Discharges with Unit 4 in Operation 8-13
Wastewater Discharges - Unit 1 Cleaning
A. Introduction 14
B. Boiler Cleaning Operations
1 . Chemical Cleaning 14
• 2 . Fireside Washing 14-20
C . Sample Analysis 20-22
D. Wastewater Discharge
i
1 . Calculated Basin Inputs 23
2 . Calculated Basin Discharges 23
3 . Treatment Efficiency 23-32
F
2 -
SECTIONS PAGE NOS .
F
C
Discussion of Results
t
A. Suspended Solids 33
B. pH 34
C . Metals 34-35
• D. Phosphorus 35
1 ..
E. Turbidity 36
1
F. Other Parameters 36
G
E Conclusions 37-38
Status of Recommendations of Salem Report No. 1 39-41
Recommendations 42
Appendices
• A. Sample Calculations
B. Hydroejector Operation
•C . Analytical Results - Unit 1 Clean
D. Analytical Results - Unit 2 Clean
3
9
t
s
t
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE TITLE
I Salem Harbor Station Operating Periods
2 3 Units - Normal Operating Conditions
• Secondary Basin Discharge
3 Comparison of Data
May, 1972 Repo-t and Present Report
4 3 Units - Compiled Data
Secondary Basin Discharge
5 4 Units - NorMal Operating Conditions
Secondary Basin Discharge
6 Comparison of 4 Units Normal Operation
Discharges with Secondary
Basin Discharge Criteria
7 Comparison of Data - Normal Op^ration
3 versus 4 Units - Secondary
Basin Discharge
1 B Chemical Cleaning BreakdoArn
• 9 Fireside Washing Operation
10 Water Usage - Fireside Washing
11 Key to Sample Identification
4
12 Fireside Washing Input to Primary Basin
13 Primary Basin Wastewater Characteristics
14 Secondary Basin Wastewater Characteristics
15 Removal Efficiency
k.
TABLE TITLE
16 Comparison of Unit 1 Cleaning Discharges
With Secondary Basin Discharge
Criteria
17 Comparison of Data
Boiler Cleaning Units 1 & 2
Secondary Basin Discharges
18 Comparison of Data
Unit 1 Cleaning and 4 Units Normal
Operation
Secondary Basin Discharges
s
{
ri
4
a
7
x
i
i
3
PURPOSE OF STUDY
�s
MAIN submits this report for the purposes listed below:
1 . Determine whether recommendations implemented prior to Unit 1
cleaning were effective in reducing pollutant discharge to Salem
• Harbor.
2 . Determine whether the implementation of the other recommendations
o.° the initial report have been effective in reducing wastewater
discharges.
a
t�
3. Determine whether wastewater discharges during normal station
operations and during the Unit 1 cleaning meet tentative Environmental
t Protection Agency discharge criteria .
3 4. Establish what effect Unit 4 , brought commercially on-line August 24,
a
1972, has had on wastewater discharges to Salem Harbor.
5. Compile data pertaining to pollutant discharges during normal operational
• periods and cleaning periods at the Salem Harbor Station. Compare this
data to those published by the Environmental Protection Agency for
discussion at a joint public hearing on May 11 , 1973 .
6. Recommend further modifications to treatment facilities and modes of
operation to meet wastewater discharge criteria .
INTRODUCTION
Waste concentrations and quantities discharged into Salem Harbor from the
Salem Harbor Station of New England Power Company during periods of normal
1
9 station operation and boiler cleaning of Unit 2 were reported by MAIN in a
a "Report on Liquid Waste Characteristics for New England Power Company, Salem
• Harbor Steam-Electric Generating Station" in May, 1972 . This document will
subsequently be referred to as the Salem Report No. 1 .
MAIN initiated a more comprehensive sampling program in March, 1972 during
the boiler cleaning of Unit 1 at the Salem Harbor Station. Data from that operation
plus the accumulated data for the secondary basin d4scharge from March, '1972 to
March , 1973 is presented and interpreted in this repo4.
3
r
a
i
1
i
TREATMENT FACILITIES
The treatment unit operations at the Salem Harbor Station are pH control and
10 solids settling. All wastewaters , excluding condenser cooling water, are
treated within a system of three basins prior to discharge to the harbor.
pH control consists of the daily manual addition of 300 to 500 pounds of lime
• at the inlet to the primary basin. The analysis of daily grab samples has been the
basis of lime additions . During cleaning operations , the more acidic waste
discharges are neutralized using sodium hydroxide. The pH of discharged water
from the secondary basin has been controlled within the required range of 6 . 0
to 8.5 units .
.i
r
Solids settling is effective in removing about 90 percent of the suspended solids
generated during boiler cleaning. Input values during normal operation to the
primary basin were not measured and overall removal effectiveness cannot be
determined .
Gross solids are effectively removed by the treatment facilities with the finer
• suspended matter passing through the system. The basin system should be
modified to increase retention time and minimize flow fluctuations to help settle
• the finer material. This should be done by installing pumps 'Und discontinuing
the use of hydroejectors to propel wastewater to the basins , installing flow
distribution headers at the basin inlets , and by replacing the filter dike at the
secondary basin discharge with a solid barrier and pumping the secondary basin
,,, effluent to the condenser discharge channel , if the available head does not allow
for flow by gravity.
2
WASTEWATER DISCHARGES - NORMAL STATION OPERATION
A. Introduction
Normal station operating discharges from three units were discussed in
Salem Report No. 1 . Subsequently, additional analyses have been performed
by the Salem Harbor Laboratory and by Jarrell-Ash Division of Fisher Scientific
�• on samples taken from discharges occurring during normal station operation
of three and four units and during boiler cleaning procedures . The time periods
in which various combinations of operations occurred at the station are given
in Table .I.
B. Discharges Prior to Unit 4 Operations
Wastewater discharge data from the secondary basin while three units are
normally operating is presented as Table 2 . An average , a standard deviation
and a range are given for each parameter measured.
A statistical analysis of data from the Salem Report and TABLE 2 of the present
report is presented as TABLE 3 . Two assumptions were made for these calculations
to determine whether each pair of data (of color or suspended solids , etc.) can
be considered a sample from the same "population. " A statistical procedure , the t
• test, was applied to compare the means . The standard deviations are equal.
A sample calculation is included as Appendix A.
There is statistical evidence that proves that the means of the data of the two
reports are equal. This allows for the separate data to be compiled as one
reference for discharges from three units , normal operating conditions . In
TABLE 4 the means , ranges and standard deviations of the compiled data are
presented .
3
TABLE 1
Salem Harbor Station Operating Periods
Date Operation
March 1-17, 1972 3 Units - Normal
March 18 - April 16 Unit 1 - Annual Overhaul
April 17 - May 12 3 Units - Normal
May 13 - June 8 Unit 3 - Annual Overhaul
June 9 - July 10 3 Units - Normal
July 11 - October 1 3 Units - Normal, Unit 4
h On and Off
October 2 - January 9, 1973 4 Units - Normal
January 10 - January 12 Unit 4 - Down
January 13 - February 23 Unit 2 - Annual Overhaul
1 February 24 to March 3 4 Units - Normal
March 3 - Records end at March 26 Unit i - Down
•
1
t
1
(iF
4
TABLE 2
THREE UNITS - Normal Operating Conditions
SECONDARY BASIN DISCHARGES
Date pH (units) Turbidity(J. T. U.) Color (Pt-Co) S.S. Cu. Fe Ni V
i4/18/72 8.06 < 25 7 * 0 . 09 1 .00 0. 05 1 .0
4/25: 8.40 27 45 * 0 .05 1 .60 0 . 19 1 . 0
'• 5/3 8 . 33 < 25 35 * 0 . 13 0 . 90 0 . 75 3 .25
a 5/10 8. 10 < 25 40 * 0 .05 0 . 18 0 . 13 4 . 6
6/14 7. 17 < 25 > 70 * 0 . 05 0 .40 0 . 16 0.5
6/19 8.21 < 25 12 . 5 * - - - -
7/3 8. 10 < 25 5 4 .6 0 . 05 16 .40 2 . 10 1 . 7
7/1.1 7 .40 < 25 7 4 .2 0 . 05 0 .90 0 . 80 0 . 6
Mean (x) - 27.6 - 0 . 07 3 . 05 0 . 60 1 . 8
x0 . 05 0 . 181 I0 . 05 0 . 5
Range 7 . 17-8 .40 < 25 - 27 5 -> 70 - - -
_0 . 1316 .40j i2 . 10 4 . 6
Standard
Deviation - 22 . 1 - 0 .03 5 .45 0 . 68 1 .44
- • Notes: All data, except pH, turbidity and color, in mg/l.
Where greater than (>) , is indicated. The absolute
number was used.
* Limited data for suspended solids by direct weight measurement.
5
{
Y>.
TABLE 3
COMPARISON OF DATA
May 1972 Report - Present Report
THREE UNITS - Normal Operating Conditions
Secondary Basin Discharges
Statistic Turbidity(J. T.U.) Color (Pt-Co) Cu Fe Ni V
Mean 1 - 18 0 .037 0.62 0.53 3 .5
• Mean - 27 .6 0 .070 3 .05 0.60 1 . 8
-0.01 0 .43 0.05
Rangel 25 5-45 - - - 1-8
-0.0 8 _0 .9 0 .8
0 .05 70 . I8 0. 05 0 .5
Rangel < 25-27 5-70 - - - -
0 . 13 -16 .4 2 . 1 J4 .6
Standard Deviation - 14 . 6 0 .03 0 . 17 0 .26 3 . 1
Standard Deviation
2 - 22 . 1 0 .03 5 .45 0.68 1 .4
10,
Statistical Difference? - No No No No No
Notes: Subscripts 1 and 2 refer to past data of May, 1972
• Report and present reported data .
All results, except turbidity and color, in mg/l.
Statistical tests at 95% probability level with 10 to 13
degrees of freedom.
Z,
MEMO
m
6
TABLE 4
' THREE UNITS - COMPILED DATA
I From May, 1972 Report and Present Report
Statistic Turbidity (J. T. U.) Color(Pt-Co) Cu Fe Ni V
Mean () 23 0 . 05 2 .04 0.57 2 . 5
Range < 25-27 5->70 0 .01- 0 . 18- 0 . 05- 0 .5-
0. 13 16 .40 2 . 10 8 . 0
Standard Deviation - 19.5 0. 03 4 .30 0.55 2 .4
Note: All results, excep# turbidity and color, in mg/l.
Statistics are derived from three units, normal operating
conditions, from January to July, 1972 .
•
Mac
•
1
{
7
p.
Further discussion of these results is not relevant to the present situation at
Salem Harbor which has four units in operation,
C. Discharges with Unit 4 in Operation:
Unit 4 , a 450 megawatt steam-electric generating unit, was brought on-line
sporadically during July through September, 1972 . As a result, discharges from
the unit were not of a consistent quality until October, 1972 . Therefore, data
pertaining to secondary basin discharges during the period of four unit operation
• normal operating conditions , are tabulated from October until March, 1973 ,
with omissions during cleaning as indicated in TABLE 1 . A statistical analyses
of this data is presented as TABLE 5 with a comparison to the tentative En-
vironmental Protection Agency discharge criteria, dated April 11 , 1973 , presented
as TABLE 6 . The secondary basin discharge corresponds to E , P.A. discharge
serial number 006 .
The analytical results on basin discharge waters pertain to total waste con-
stituents discharged , which includes the constituents in the seawater entering
the station and waste added to the waters within the station. The tentative
EPA discharge criteria, in effect until March, 1975 , are given as waste con-
stituents added in the Station. MAIN assumes that the sampled metal
concentrations in the seawater are insignificant to those added in the Station..
• Wastewater discharges from the normal operation of four units are compared with
the discharges from three units in TABLE 7. Preliminary investigations indicate
that two station changes have directly influenced the results , The station has
r
been burning a fuel oil containing more vanadium and the fourth unit was brought
jj
on-line .
_f
8
TABLE 5
FOUR UNITS - Normal Operating Conditions
SECONDARY BASIN DISCHARGES
`s
Date pH(units) Turbidity(J.T. U.) Color(Pt-Co) S.S. Cu Fe Ni V
10/3/72 8.40 4 . 1 35 . 0 25 0. 07 0.25 1 .04 3 .0
10/11 8.27 2 .7 5 .0 28 .4 0. 07 0. 29 0 .84 4 . 0
10/25 7.50 3 .0 5 . 0 6 .8 <0. 05 0 . 21 0 .33 1 . 0
`' • 11/6 8 .03 2 .9 5 .0 10 .8 0 .26 0.84 2 .5
11/13 7.64 2 .4 5 . 0 2 . 8 0 . 01 2 .35 3 . 9
11/20 7. 16 7.6 20 .0 19.2 0.60 2 .50 8 .0
11/27 7.50 5 . 7 15 .0 12 .0 0. 82 2 .60 9. 8
12/5 7 .45 7 .5 2 .5 41 .2 0 .51 3 . 90 10 . 5
12/11 8 . 10 7.9 5 . 0 32 .0 1; 4 . 60 1 . 30 9 .5
12/19 8.46 4 .5 25 .0 13 . 2 0 .49 0.50 8.4
12/28 8 .30 5 . 0 30 .0 10 .0 0 . 18 0. 84 ' 9.4
1/2/73 8 .23 0 .5 25 .0 13 .6 0 . 34 2 .00 14 .5
1/10 7.25 9 .2 45 .0 20 . 0 1 . 15 1 . 35 13 .0
2/27 7.94 3 . 0 20 . 0 5 .6 0. 33 1 .90 13 . 0
j • Mean (x) - 4 . 7 17.0 17 .2 0. 05 0 . 72 1 . 59 7 . 9
r -05 0 . 18
8 �0 . . 0 . 33 1 . 0
Range 7 . 16-8 .46 0 .5-9 .2 2 .5-45 . 0 2 .
•
JI . 2 X0. 0 7 4 .60 3 .9.0 14 .5
Standard -
Deviation 2 .5 13 . 0 10 . 7 1 . 10 0 . 96 4 .2
Note: All results, except pH, turbidity and color, in mg/l.
Where less than W is indicated, the absolute number was
used.
9
1
y
i
f
Ip TABLE 6
Comparison of Four Units Normal Operating Conditions
mid
With Environmental Protection Agency
(Tentative) Criteria - Discharge 006
Parameter Observed Range Mean f lT * Criteria
Suspended Solids 2 .8-41 .2 17 .2 ± 10 . 7 70
• pH (units) 7 . 16-8 .46 - 6 .0-8 .5
Turbidity G.T. U.) 0 .5-9. 2 4. 7 + 2 .5 25
too Color (Pt-Co) 2 .5-45 17 + 13 -
Copper <0 .05-0 . 07 < 0 .05 + 0 0 .2
Iron 0 . 18-4 .6 0. 72 + 1 . 1 1 .0
t
. Nickel 0 . 33-2i%6 1 .59 ± 0. 96 2 . 0
Vanadium 1-14 .5 7.9 + 4 .2 2 . 8
Note: All results except pH, color, turbidity in mg/l.
* = standard deviation
** units
a operation of the four
IM
normal During p
t •
s
a
10
TABLE 7
COMPARISON OF DATA
j Normal Operating Conditions
Three Versus Four Units
Secondary Basin Discharge
Statistic Turbidity(J. T. U.) Color(Pt-Co) Cu Fe Ni V
Meant - 23 0 . 05 2 . 04 0 . 57 2 .5
•
Mean 2 4 . 7 17 0.05 0 . 72 1 .59 7 . 9
. • Rangel <25-27 5->70 0. 01- 0 . 18- 0 .05— 0.5-
0. 13 16.4 2 . 10 8
Rangel 0.5-9.2 2 .5-45 < 0. 05- 0 . 18- 0 .33- 1 . 0-
0.07 4 .6 2 . 6 14 . 5
{ Standard Deviationl 19 .5 0 . 03 4 . 3 0 .55 2 .4
Standard Deviation 2 . 5 13 0 1 . 1 0 . 96 4 . 2
Statistical Difference? - No No No Yes Yes
Between Means ?
• Note: Subscripts 1 and 2 refer to three and four units operating,
respectively.
• All results , except turbidity and color, in mg/1.
Statistical tests at 95% probability level.
1
LEM
Y
1-
t
11
t
6
S
y
The following comments can also be made pertaining to Table 7:
s
1. Nickel concentrations have increased when four units are
operating.
2 . Vanadium concentrations have increased when four units are
operating and with the use of fuel oil containing more vanadium.
d
• 3. Iron and copper concentrations have not increased. This in-
dicates that these metals are effectively controlled through
the lime addition.
Wastewater discharges from Unit 4 amount to aboat 700 , 000 gallons per day
.i
without the Fly Ash Removal system in operation. This additional hydraulic
load on the basin system has decreased basin retention time, which adversely
effects solids settling. The flows to the basins from all units should be
minimized through installation of pumps as substitutes for hydroejectors . The
less water consumed by New England Power, the greater will the basins'
effectiveness in settling become .
i
• A laboratory investigation of coagulants and coagulant aids to be used in
conjunction with lime is scheduled.
The hydroejector elimination which will aid in controlling surging through the
k basins , and the chemical addition of coagulants and coagulant aids should
resolve most problem discharges caused by settling inadequacies .
Sampling methods that will accurately represent the discharge characteristics
.i
is needed. Presently, grab samples , at a frequency of once per week, are
taken to serve as estimates of wastewater discharges . It is recommended that
t
12
composite samples be obtained over a maximum of one day periods , by
t sampling at a frequency of about every fifteen minutes and combining the
samples in proportion to flow to afford an accurate discharge representation.
If New England Poxer can minimize flow fluctuations , then automatic sampling
devices , which do not proportion sample size to flow could be used.
Rapidity of analysis is important if discharges of wastewater exceeding the
recommended criteria are to be eliminated. At the present time, analysis of
• grab samples for metal content is performed at an independent laboratory. The
time-lag between sampling and analysis is about one week. To eliminate this
time-lag, on-site analysis of wastewater discharges is recommended. Using
atomic absorption techniques , wastewater discharges exceeding the E .P.A.
criteria could be detected and contained within the basin facilities until treated
properly.
77
Basin facilities should be modified to permit storage of wastewater which exceeds
E.P.A. criteria within the basins . This would entail replacement of the secondary
i
basin filter dike with a solid barrier, and modifying piping as necessary to reroute
certain wastewaters for additional chemical treatment. Another modification
which should be incorporated into the basin design is flow distribution headers
• at the basin inlets to prevent bottoms scouring by inlet flows . This improvement
should result in better solids settling.
i
i
13
WASTEWATER DISCHARGES - UNIT 1 CLEANING
A. Introduction
Unit 1 , an 85 megawatt steam-electric generating unit, was scheduled for an
annual overhaul during March, 1972 . A sampling program was initiated by
MAIN personnel to observe the fireside washing operations and obtain repre-
sentative washwater samples .
• Mr. Jack Pitman, Chief Chemical Technologist for the station, was responsible
for providing basin discharge samples and maintaining pH control.
offs-
The three purposes for this sampling program were to obtain more accurate
fireside washing waste quantities , to calculate the effects of limited hydroejector
usage and lime additions on discharges from the treatment facilities , and to
obtain data from which basin efficiencies could be calculated .
B. Boiler Cleaning Operations
I IN1 , Chemical Cleaning
The chemical cleaning of Unit 1 occurred on March 20, 1972 , prior to
• MAIN's arrival at Salem Harbor. Therefore , it was not possible to sample
these wastes entering the primary basin. It was possible to predict, however,
• from waste flows and the volume of the basins that the chemical cleaning
wastes would enter the discharge channel in the period , March 21 -22 .
i
A copy of Dow's chemical cleaning log is presented as TABLE 8.
2 . Fireside Washing
3 The fireside washing began on March 22 , 1972 , and was completed in
eight days . The unit was manually washed with city water utilizing various
14
TABLE 8
CHEMICAL CLEANING BREAKDOWN
Event Elapsed
Time Time
0800- Dow Industrial Service personnel arrive on job-
0940 site, begin hooking up.
1:40 1:40
0940- Steam drum temp. 165°F
• 1200 Draining the boiler
2:20 4:00
1200- Lunch - pressure test - line up steam
• 1330 and water.
1:30 5:30
1330- Blend-fill boiler with HCI 0. 2 A120 inhibitor
1515 0. 25% Ammonium Bifluoride and enough Thiourea
to complex 200# of Copper @ 155°F.
1:45 7:25
9 1515- Soak period . 6:40
! 2155 14:05
a . 1800- Drain 2500 gal. from North water wall
1840 header and pump it into South water
1 wall header 0:45
b. 1915- Drain 2500 gal. from South water wall
2000 header and pump it into the North water
wall header 0:45
2155- Drain boiler neutralizing drain with 50%
• 2345 liquid caustic
1:50 15:55
2345- Backflush superheater
0020
0020- Draining unit 0:35 16:30
• 0135
1:15 17:45
0135- Fill unit with D. 1.S. after rinse @ 150°F
0355
2:20 20;05
0355- pH 9 . 6 at all points unit cleared for lite off
0425
0:30 20:35
15
wash equipment. The washing of the precipitator, short air heater,
primary superheat, economizer, long air heater, reheater and secondary
superheat was observed by MAIN. MAIN did not observe the washing
of the precipitator hoppers .
MAIN recorded the type of equipment used for the washing of each section
and the length of time that was devoted to washing each section. MAIN
E also sampled the effluent from the washing, section by section. This
information is given in TABLE 9.
win MAIN calculated the fireside washing flow rates and volumes by consideration
of the type of hose used, type of nozzle used, length of hose, water pressure
available , niumber of hoses used and the duration of washing for each
.
section. Flowr rates during the washing varied from 55 to 140 gpm for the
various sections . The flow rates , duration of washing and water volumes
1 are presented as TABLE 10.
e
4
The washwater flows to the hydroejector operates nominally at
2000 gpm. It is assumed for our subsequent calculation that a total
flow of 2000 gpm of salt water and washwater leave that piece of
r • equipment. Therefore, the washwater flow rates of 55 to 140 gpm
were diluted 35 and 14 times , respectively.
•
At MAIN's instructions , station personnel limited the use of the
s hydroejector to minimize hydraulic loading of the treatment facilities .
A log of hydroejector operation is presented as Appendix B. The water
volumes from the hydroejector were calculated by applying the 2000
gpm flow rate to the length of time of operation. The total undiluted
16
W
TABLE 9
FIRESIDE WASHING OPERATION
Type of No. of Type of Duration of Sample
Section Hose Hoses Nozzle Washing (shifts) No. s
Precipitator Hoppers -------------------Prior to MAIN's Arrival----------------------------------
Precipitator 1Z" Firehose 1 Z" solid 2 H. P.-2
Short Air Heater
Duct Work 121 " Firehose 1 2" solid 1
Tubes Garden Hose 4 lance 1 A.H .-2
Rinse 12" Firehose 2 Fog-spray 1 -
Neutralization Rinse 1 Z" Firehose 2 Fog-spray 1 -
Primary , Economizer,
Long Air Heater
Rinse 1Z" Firehose 2 Fog-spray 1
2 P.S .-2
Wash 12 Firehose 1 2 solid 2
Rinse lz" Firehose 1 Fog-spray 1 -
Reheater & Secondary
Superheat 1 2"' Firehose 1 2" solid 3 R.H .-2
17
-3 moves-
TABLE 10
WATER USAGE - FIRESIDE WASHING
Duration of Undiluted Undiluted Duration of Diluted
Section Washing (min.) Flow Rate (qpm) Volume (gal.) Hydroeiector Usage (min) Volume (gal)'
Precipitator Hoppers
Precipitator
First Day 195 60 11 ,700 360 720,000
Second Day 360 60 21 ,600 360 720 ,000
Short Air Heater
Ductwork 375 65 24 ,400 495 990,000
Tube 195 140 27 ,300 435 870,000
H2O Rinse 360 70 25 ,200 360 720,000
Neutralization Rinse 270 70 18 ,900 270 540 ,000
Primary , Etc.
Rinse 255 60 15 ,300 255 510 ,000
Wash 540 55 29 ,700 720 1 ,420,000
Rinse 165 60 9 ,900 165 330 ,000
Reheat, etc . 630 55 34 ,600 840 1 ,680 ,000
Total Water Usage 218 ,600 8 , 500,000
* Data Unavailable
18
volume is about one fortieth the •diluted volume from the hydroejector
flows . Therefore , the hydroejector lowers the retention time of the
basins by a factor of 40 . This probably results in reduced treatment
efficiency.
MAIN recommends substituting pumps for the hydroejectors as a means
of transporting wastewater to the basins .
• MAIN personnel sampled the washwater from the aforementioned sections
at the inlet to the hydroejector. The samples were composites with
the frequency of sampling varied from 15 minutes to 2 hours dependent on
the estimated duration of washing. Two samples were taken for the
primary sections and secondary sections . One was composited during
the first 6 - 8 hours of the washing and a second during the entire
section washing. The short air heater tubes and ductwork washings
were individually sampled to indicate which washing generated a greater
pollutant loading. The precipitator washing lasted for about four hours
on the first day and the sample was composited every 15 minutes over
that period .
New England Power Company personnel, under the direction of Mr. Jack
Pitman, sampled the primary and secondary basin discharges . Samples
were of the grab type and the frequency of sampling varied from one to
• three times per day. This sampling procedure should be modified to
give daily composites , which are more accurate indices of wastewater
characteristics than grab samples . Automatic samplers should be used for
this purpose, providing that New England Power can minimize flow
fluctuations .
19
A key to sample identification for all samples taken by MAIN and New
England Power is provided as TABLE 11 . The corresponding analyses
are given in Appendix C.
C. Sample Analysis
The fireside washing samples were analyzed for total solids , suspended
solids , soluble and insoluble iron, nickel, vanadium and copper, and total
acidity as calcium carbonate . The basin discharge samples were analyzed
• for suspended solids and the insoluble and soluble metals aforementioned .
Certain basin samples were also analyzed for ammonia-nitrogen and phos-
phorus . Where concentrations of iron and nickel were less than 0. 1 mg/l
t and vanadium less than 1 .0 mg/l , ND (not detectable) has been entered on
the analysis sheets . All analyses were performed by Anylcon, Inc. . The
results are given in Appendix C .
After reviewing the analyses , it was evident that the metal waste constituents
in the basin effluent were mainly in the insoluble form. The question was
raised after seeing these results as to what the distribution was between
soluble and insoluble metals in the samples originally taken during the Unit
2 cleaning , results of which are in Report No. 1 . Samples which had been saved
• from that cleaning were filtered and the filtrate analyzed for its metal content.
These results are shown in Appendix D .
There was a noticeable difference between the effluent from the basins during
the two cleanings . During cleaning of Unit 1 no soluble metal was detected ,
while there were soluble metals contained in the wastewater during the Unit 2
cleaning. The reason for this difference is discussed in a latter section of this
report.
d
's
20
d
. - .�.�
I'
TABLE 11
Key to Sample Identification
Sample No. Identification
Washwater Samples
H.P. -2 Precipitator washwater composite
A.H.-1 Short air heater vents washwater composite
A. H.-2 Short air heater tubes washwater composite
P.S.-2 Primary superheat, economizer and long air
• heater washwater composite (total period)
P.S.-1 Composite of First 8 hours of primary section
washing
• R. H.-2 Reheater and Secondary superheat washwater
composite (total period)
Lim
R. H.-1 Composite of first 6 hours of reheater section
washing
r'r
Primary Basin Discharge
P-IA 3-16-72 8:15 A. M.
P-2A 3-21-72 7:30 A. M.
P-3A 4:00 P. M.
P-4A Midnight
P-5A 3-22-72 4:00 A. M.
P-6A 4:00 P.M.
P-7A 3-23-72 11:30 A. M.
P-8A ' 3-24-72 11:30 A.. M.
• P-9A 3-25-72 11:00 A. M.
P-10A 3-26-72 11:30 A. M.
P-11A 3-27-72 12:45 P. M.
P-12A 3-28-72 1:00 P. M.
• P-13A 3-29-72 3:30 P. M.
P-14A 3-30-72 12:45 P. M.
Secondary Basin Discharge
S-IA 3-16-72 8:15 A. M .
S-2A 3-21-72 7:30 A. M.
S-3A. 4:00 P. M.
S-4A Midnight
S-5A 3-22-72 4:00 A. M.
S-6A 4:00 P. M .
S-7A 3-23-72 11:30 A. M .
S-8A 3-24-72 11:30 A. M.
S-9A 3-25-72 11:00 A. M.
21
r
E.
Sample No. Identification
Secondary Basin Discharge
S-l0A 3-26-72 11:30 A.M.
S-11A, 3-27-72 12:45 P.M.
S-12A 3-28-72 1:00 P. M.
S-13A 4:00 P. M.
S-14A 3-29-72 3:30 P. M.
S-15A 3-30-72 12:45 P. M.
•
i
a
22
D. Wastewater bischarge .
1 . Calculated Basin Inputs
The waste quantities , in pounds , that were discharged during the fireside
washing to the basins were calculated from the analyses and water volumes
obtained . Results from Appendix C were applied to the corresponding water
i volumes (undiluted column TABLE 10) to obtain these quantities . The results
are in TABLE 12 .
2 . Calculated Basin Discharges
• Daily flow values for normal operation of Units 2 and 3 were taken from
• the "Engineering Report Waste Water Discharges" prepared by the New
England Power Service Company. This report is included as Appendix A
in Salem Report No. 1 . The diluted water volumes presented in TABLE 10
ho I were added to the daily flows on the days each operation occurred . The
total daily flow was thus calculated as the washing flows from Unit 1
plus the normal operational flows from Units 2 and 3 . Concentrations
of pollutants discharged were averaged for each day and then applied to
the total daily flow. The summarized waste quantities are presented in
TABLES 13 and 14 for the primary and secondary basin discharges , respectively.
These quantities are therefore inclusive of fireside and chemical cleaning
• wastes for Unit 1 and normal operation wastes for Units 2 and 3 .
3 . Treatment Efficiency
• The data has been analyzed in two ways in order to be of maximum benefit
in the future. First, the decrease across the basin system is of interest
to evaluate treatment performance . However, very high removal effi-
ciencies do not necessarily indicate that the outlet concentration is
satisfactory. Therefore , the second measure of the operation of the basin
is the absolute level that can be obtained for the various parameters of the
outgoing waste. These are the values which must meet the criteria set
by the regulating agency.
23
TABLE 12
Fireside Washing Input to Primary Basin
Quantities (lb) from each Section
Short Air Heater Reheat & Primary,
Parameter Precipitator Tubes Ducts Sec. etc.
Acidity (as CaCO3) 240 600 1, 990 90 1 , 320"
• pH (units) 5 .4 4. 3 4 . 6 4 . 8 5 .4
Total Solids 28, 720 3, 240 18, 120 14, 600 8, 520
Suspended Solids 8, 330 690 51820 2 , 680 1 , 320
• Vanadium
Insoluble 2, 200 120 750 75 35
Soluble 100 0 0 90 110
Total 2 , 300 120 .y 750 165 145
Nickel
Insoluble 110 10 40 130 40
Soluble 80 20 80 30 60
Total 190 30 120 160 100
Iron
Insoluble 650 300 1 , 090 0 150
Soluble 10 140 100 130 260
Total 660 440 1 , 190 130 410
•
• i
3
� ._
24
e fAlm im
• TABLE 13 •
` i
PRIMARY BASIN WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS**
Date & Time Flow* V Ni Fe Cu pH
(MGA.L) S.S . sol. insol. sol. insol. sol. insol. sol. insol. (units)
3/21 7:30 A.M . 14 . 7 ND 0 . 60 ND 0. 12 ND 2 . 94 0 . 25 0 . 12 8 .36
4:00 P.M . 0 . 99 79 . 3 ND 0 . 36 ND 0 . 02 ND 1 .55 0 .20 ND 8 . 75
Midnight 25 . 0 ND 0.40 ND 0. 03 ND 7. 23 0 . 20 ND 8.21
3/22 4:00 A.M . 1 .22 20.3 ND 0.47 ND 0.02 ND 6 . 29 - - 8 . 09
4:00 P.M. 20 .0 ND 1 . 10 ND 0.08 ND 1 . 71 - - 8 . 00
3/23 1 .22 11 .5 ND 0.55 ND 0 . 11 ND 0. 82 - - 8 . 17
3/24 1 .22 4 .5 ND 0 .65 ND ND ND 0 .50 - - 7 . 94
3/25 1 . 22 15 .0 ND 2 .00 ND 0 . 08 ND 2 . 39 0 . 05 0 .01 6 . 70
3/26 0 .50 2 .0 ND 0. 50 ND 0 . 05 ND 0 . 80 - - 7 . 75
3/27 2 . 12 8 .0 ND 0 . 10 ND 0 . 15 ND 0 .38 - - 8 .49
3/28 3 . 38 17 . 0 ND 0. 60 ND 1 . 56 ND 4 .04 - - 8 .04
3/29 3 . 38 9 . 0 ND 1. 15 ND 0. 72 ND 1 . 39 - - 7. 74
3/30 0 .80 9 . 0 ND 0 .30 ND 0 . 06 ND 0 .61 0 .04 0. 01 7 . 95
QUANTITIES (lb.)
3/21 (Average 3) 328 4 1 32 2
3/22 (Average 2) 206 8 1 41 -
3/23 117 6 1 8 -
3/24 46 7 = 0 5 -
3/25 153 20 1 24 1
3/26 8 2 = 0 3 -
3/27 142 2 3 2 -
3/28 480 17 44 114 -
3/29 254 32 20 39 -
3/30 60 2 = 0 4 0
Total Period 1 , 794 100 71 272 3
* Flow includes: ** In mg/1
1 . Fireside washing
2 . Units 2 & 3 normal operation ND = Not detected
25
• .-
•
TABLE 14
SECONDARY BASIN WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS**
Date & Time Flow* V Ni Fe Cu pH
(MGAL) S . S. sol. insol. sol . insol. sol. insol. sol. insol. (units)
3/21 7:30 A. M . 1 . 0 ND 0. 05 ND 0. 01 ND 0. 17 0 . 15 ND 8 . 34
4:00 P. M . 0 .99 76 . 5 ND 0. 55 ND 0.04 ND 2. 13 0.20 ND 8 . 51
Midnight 12 . 0 ND 0. 25 ND 0. 03 ND 2 . 17 0 .25 ND 8 .31
3/22 4:00 A. M . 5 . 5 ND 0. 20 ND 0. 02 ND 2. 06 8 .24
4:00 P . M . 1 ' 22 8 . 5 ND 0. 55 ND 0. 02 ND 2 . 33
8 . 19
3/23 1 . 22 15 . 5 ND 0. 30 ND 0. 02 ND 0. 75 - - 7,68
3/24 1 . 22 19 . 5 ND 0. 25 ND 0. 06 ND 0. 39 - - 7,88
3/25 1 . 22 7 . 0 ND 0. 50 ND 0. 10 ND 0. 99 - 0 .01 7 . 55
3/26 0 . 50 6 . 5 ND 0.45 ND 0. 27 ND 0. 90 - - 7. 77
3/27 2 . 12 2 . 5 ND 0. 25 ND 0. 11 ND 0. 51 - - 7,92
3/28 (Ave.2) 3 . 38 9 . 0 ND 0.65 ND 0. 05 ND 4. 23 - - 6 .80
3/29 3 . 38 4 . 5 Nil 0. 80 Nu u. 14 ND 2 . 29 - - 7 ,24
3/30 0.80 2 . 5 ND 0 .40 ND 0. 24 ND 0.81 0.06 0. 01 7,86
QUANTITIES ( lb. )
3/21 (Average 3) 246 3 = 0 15 2
3/22 (Average 2) 71 4 0 22 -
3/23 158 2 0 12 -
3/24 199 3 1 4 _
3/25 71 5 1 10 0
3/26 27 2 1 4 _
3/27 44 4 2 - 9 _
3/28 (Average 2) 254 18 1 119 -
3/29 127 23 4 65 -
3/30 17 3 2 5 = 0
Total Period 1 ,214 67 12 265 2
* Flow = Primary basin flows
** In mg/l
ND = Not detected
26
i
It was not obvious from the measured concentrations what the detention
times within the basins were. For this reason no attempt was made to
adjust the data for this effect. However, since the total wash period of
eight days was much longer than the estimated total detention time (2
days) calculated from flow estimates , outlet and inlet quantities were
used as the basis for calculating removal efficiencies .
The input of fireside washing effluent to the basin system was presented
as TABLE 12 , These quantities were compared with the discharge from the
• basin system to yield overall removal efficiencies.
The efficiency of each of the two basins was also computed . The input
i
quantities of the fireside washing and the primary basin discharge quantities
(Table 13) were used to calculate removal efficiency in the primary basin,
The secondary basin discharge quantities (Table 14) , in turn, were used to
arrive at a removal efficiency for the secondary basin. This information
is summarized in TABLE 15 .
The indicated, overall, removal efficiency for the basin system was above
ninety percent for each of the four parameters listed in TABLE 15 . These
estimates are lower than the actual removals since only material washed
• from Unit 1 , not material from that source plus waste in the normal flows
from Units 2 and 3 , was used as the basis of the calculations .
' • Eighty-eight to 92% of the removal occurred in the primary basin. The
effectiveness of the secondary basin was hampered due to secondary basin
outlet design . The secondary basin outlet is a filter dike which allows Salem
Harbor tides to effect solid settling in the basin. Secondary removals , thus
S
affected , reached a maximum of only 32% .
f
i 27
TABLE 15
REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
Primaryl Primary2 Primary Secondary Secondary Overall
Parameter Inlet (lb) Outlet (lb) Removal(%) Basin Outlet (lb) Removal(%) Removal (%)
Suspended Solids 18, 840 1 , 790 90 1 , 210 32 94
, 3
Vanadium 3,480 100 92 70 30 98
Nickel 600 70 88 10 14 98
Iron 2 , 830 270 90 270 0 90
a
A.4
Notes: 1 . Does not include inputs from normal operation
2 . Primary outlet = secondary inlet
28
The other factor which effects settling in the secondary basin is the lower
settleability of solids which are discharged to this basin. Gross solids
are settled in the primary basin with fine particles carried to the secondary
basin. These particles are more difficult to settle out.
Wastewater discharge data during the Unit 1 cleaning is compared with
tentative Environmental Protection Agency Discharge Criteria for discharge
e
number 006 (secondary basin) in TABLE 16. The E.P.A. discharge criteria
are for periods of boiler cleaning until March, 1975 , and are less stringent
• than MAIN's earlier criteria (see Salem Report No. 1) . Results from the
Unit 1 and Unit 2 cleanings are compared in TABLE 17. The average
discharges concentrations from four normally operating units are compared
with the cleaning discharges in TABLE 18. The point of sampling for
discharge characteristics for the above three tables was the secondary
basin filter dike.
II
t •
1
29
TABLE 16
Comparison of Unit 1 Cleaning Discharges
With Environmental Protection Agency
g
(Tentative) Criteria - Discharge 006
a
a
EPA
Parameter Observed Range Mean f 6 * Criteria
Suspended Solids 1-76 .5 13 .2 + 18 . 9 245
• pH (units) 6 .8-8 . 51 - 6 .0-8.5
Copper 0 .07-0 .25 0 . 14 + 0 .09 1 .5
Nickel 0 .01-0.27 0.09 + 0 .08 5 .0
•
omn Iron 0 . 17-4 . 23 1 .52 + 1 . 1 8 .0
,i Vanadium 0 .05-0 . 80 0 .4 + 0.2 12 . 0
i
Phosphorus 4 .33 Note 2 1 . 1
Ammonia-nitrogen 0 Note 2 -
Note: 1 . All results , except pH, expressed in mg/1.
2 . Limited sampling for phosphorus and ammonia-nitrogen.
* ( = standard deviation
•
r
30
TABLE 17
COMPARISON OF DATA
Boiler Cleaning Units 1 and 2
Secondary Basin Discharges
Statistic
S.S.. Cu Fe Ni V
Mean)
13 . 2 0 . 14 1.52 0 .09 0 .40
•
Meant
63 .5 0 . 14 2 .00 0 .62 2 .3
Rangel 1 .0-76 .5 0 .01-0 .25 0 . 17-4.23 0 .01-0 .27 0 .05-0 .8
34-107 0 .01-0 .25 0 .9-3 .9 0 .27-0 . 95 0 . 7-6 .4
Rangel
Standard 18, 9 0 .09 1. 1 0 .08 0 .2
Deviation)
Standard 63 . 7 0 ,08 0 .8 0. 21 1 . 7
Deviation
Statistical Yes No No Yes Yes
Difference
Between Means ?
• Note: Subscripts 1 and 2 refer to Units 1 and 2 cleanings ,
respectively.
All results expressed as mg/1.
• Statistical tests at 95% probability level.
31
TABLE 18
COMPARISON OF DATA
Unit 1 Cleaning and Four Units Normal Operation
s,
Secondary Basin Discharges
t.
Statistic S. S. Cu Fe Ni V
Mean 13 . 2 0 . 14 1 .52 0.09 0 .40
} Meant 17.2 0 .05 0 . 72 1 . 59 7. 9
Rangel 1 . 0-76 .5 0 . 01-0 .25 0. 17-4 . 2 0 .01-0 . 27 0. 05-0. 8
Range 2 2 .8-41 .2 < 0 . 05-0 .07 0 . 18-4 .6 0 . 33-2 .6 1-14.5
Standard Deviationl 18 . 9 0 . 09 1 . 1 0 .08 0 . 2
i
Standard Deviation 10. 7 0 1 . 1 0 . 96 4. 2
Statistical Difference No No No Yes Yes
Between Means ?
Note: Subscripts 1 and 2 refer to Unit 1 cleaning and normal
operation of four units, respectively.
s All data expressed in mg/l .
• Statistical tests at 95% probability.
•
32
■
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
4 The discussion below is organized around each of the measured discharge para-
meters of interest to the EPA.
A. Suspended Solids
There were about 19, 000 pounds of suspended solids washed from Unit 1 . 75_
• percent of the solids were contained in washwaters from the precipitator and
ductwork above the short air heater. Observations during washing indicate that
0 the majority of these solids are easily settleable. Ninety percent of these solids,
with an overall removal of about 94%, settled in the primary basin. This treatment
resulted in a discharge of suspended solids of 120 lb/day.
.i
Average discharge concentrations of suspended solids during normal station
operation and Unit 1 cleaning were 17 . 2 mg/l and 13 . 2 mg/l , respectively which
is below the respective and tentative E.P.A. discharge criteria of 70 mg/l and
245 mg/1 . A statistical analysis was run to compare the average discharge con-
centrations during the two periods . There is no statistical evidence to refute the
hypothesis that the average suspended solids levels during the cleaning and during
• normal station operation are equal.
• The cleaning operations on Unit 1 resulted in secondary basin discharges that
contained about five times less suspended solids than during the February, 1972 ,
Unit 2 cleaning. It is presumed , since there is no knowledge to the contrary,
that the input levels of wastes from both 85 megawatt units was identical. The
difference in solids levels is attributed to more effective settling due to the daily
addition of lime (500 lb. ) initiated just prior to Unit 1 cleaning .
33
B. PH
During normal operation, the daily addition of 300 to 500 pounds of lime to waste
entering the primary basin resulted in maintaining a secondary basin effluent
within the tentative E.P.A, pH range of 6.0 to 8 . 5. pH values of secondary
basin discharges during normal station operation and boiler cleaning were ob-
tained on a random basis . Continuous pH monitoring equipment as required by
the E.P.A. , should be installed at the discharge location.
( During the Unit 1 cleaning, the pH range in the primary basin was 6.70 to 8 .75
compared with a range of 3 .14 to 9. 61 during the Unit 2 cleaning of February, 1972 .
The lower values which occurred during the Unit 2 cleaning resulted in the metal
constituents being in more soluble forms.
I
C . Metals
i
The metals iron and nickel were discharged from the secondary basin in the
insoluble hydroxide forms during the boiler cleaning of Unit 1 . Indications are
that the vanadium was absorbed onto the surface of these hydroxides . Copper,
probably bound in a soluble form through complexation with ammonia compounds
and chemical cleaning chelating agents, did not form insoluble hydroxides .
` • Carry-through of the hydroxide precipitates in the discharge water is indicative
of insufficient floc formation and settling time .
The tentative E. P.A. criteria were not exceeded during the cleaning. The lower
E.P.A. criteria pertaining to normal station operation were exceeded in the cases
of iron, nickel and vanadium . From analyses conducted during the Unit 1 cleaning,
metal constituents were present in the discharge as insoluble forms . There is no
reason to expect normal operating wastes , within the same pH range, to be different.
34
Control of the metal constituents during normal operation should be accomplished
through providing additional settling time and formation of larger flocs . The
fo-mer can be provided by replacing the hydroejectors with pumps , replacing the
secondary basin filter dike with a solid barrier having an overflow weir if there
is available head to allow for gravity flow, and by providing flux distribution
headers at basin inlets. The latter, formation of larger floc , will be investigated
in a labo-atory study of coagulents and coagulent aids .
• The average concentrations of nickel and vanadium in the secondary basin
effluent during Unit 1 cleaning were about one sixth to one seventh of those
during the Unit 2 cleaning . This is attributed to closer control of the pH in the
primary basin, where 90% of solids settling occurred, during the Unit 1 cleaning.
No difference was noticed in the cases of iron and copper. Copper, probably
bound as a soluble complex, was unaffected'by pH control. There are indications
that the iron concentrations , because reduction through pH control was not
accomplished, are at a lower limit for this treatment facility. If such is the case,
and treatment with coagulants is not effective, the addition of a polishing filter
Mm to remove residual suspended metals would be the most practical solution at this
time .
D. Phosphorus
Limited sampling during cleaning and normal operation were performed for
phospho-us analysis . There are indications that the tentative E. P.A, criteria
are exceeded. Until more data is obtained, valid statements cannot be made con-
cerning this parameter.
35
E. Turbidity
Turbidity has remained below the limit of 25 J.T.U .
F. Other Parameters
The tentative E.P.A. criteria list other parameters which should be analyzed
for during no-mal station operation and cleaning operations. These include total
j available chlorine, oil and grease, chromium, zinc, aluminum and manganese.
I
am
+i
r
I
•
•
36
CONCLUSIONS
Norma 1 Operation
1 . There is no statistical evidence to disprove the hypothesis that the
averages of the data fo- each parameter contained in the Salem Report
No. 1 and in this report, pertaining to the secondary basin discharges
• when three units are operating normally are equal. Therefore, the
separate data can be combined as a single average (see Table 4)
. representing the no-mal discharge concentration.
2 . The only effects upon secondary basin discharge concentrations when
three o- four units were operating normally were higher values for nickel
and vanadium in the latter case.
f3 . The use of fuel oil with a higher vanadium content caused the co-res-
x ponding increase pointed o,-it in item 2 . It is not known what caused the
increase in nickel concentration. The tentative E.P.A. criteria for secondary
basin discharge are exceeded, for parameters investigated, for iron, nickel
• and vanadium.
• Boiler Cleaning
1 . The fireside washing of Unit 1 consumed 220 , 000 gallons of water which
was diluted through hydroejector usage to 8 . 5 million gallons .
37
2 . Water from the hydroejector reduces the retention time of waste
within the basin system by a factor of 40 resulting in reduced settling
efficiency.
3 . Metal waste constituents in the basin effluent were in the insoluble
form . during the Unit 1 cleaning with one exception. Some soluble copper
was detected.
• 4. Each metal waste constituent , in the basin effluent during the Unit 2
cleaning of February , 1972 , had soluble and insoluble constituents .
90
5. Overall removal efficiency of suspended solids , iron, nickel and
vanadium by the treatment facilities was above 90%. The primary basin
removed from 83 to 92% of the waste quantities With the secondary basin
contributing a maximum removal of 32%. Secondary basin effectiveness
is hampered by the tidal effect transmitted through the outlet filter dike.
6 . The parameters investigated, iron, nickel, vanadium, copper, sus-
pended solids and pH were within the tentative E.P.A. criteria for dis-
charge. There is either no or insufficient data on other parameters of
• interest to the E.P.A. , namely, total available chlorine , oil and grease,
chromium, zinc , aluminum and manganese .
•
38
i
a
STATUS OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF SALEM REPORT
NO. 1
Recommendations pertaining to changes which must be made both in physical
SKI treatment facilities and mode of treatment operation were included in Salem
Report No. 1 . The status of these recommendations , in order of their in-
clusion in the cited report follows . It was recommended that the Salem Harbor
Station:
Mma
1 . Initiate a direct-weighing procedure in determining suspended
WP solids.
4
Use of this procedure was initiated on July 3 , 1972 . Much lower
levels of suspended solids were obtained as expected. All values
' in this report, subsequent to July 3 , were obtained using this standard
z
method.
2 . Use a criterion of 30% increase over influent levels (harbor water)
1
for suspended solids in the secondary basin effluent.
z • This has been replaced by the tentative E .P.A. criteria for operation
and cleaning procedures of 70 and 295 mg/1 , respectively. The permittee
3 can add these amounts to the intake water.
I�
•
3 . Refrain from acting on color removal until a later date.
The tentative E .P.A. criteria do not list color as an item of concern.
There is no reason to do more work on this item.
t
39
4. Measure turbidity with an instrument capable of measurements
below 25 J.T.U .
Such an instrument is now in use.
5. Continue alkali addition for pH control.
Three hundred to 500 lb/day of lime is being added to the primary
basin inlet. The resultant pH of the secondary basin discharge is now
• controlled within the tentative E.P.A. range, 6.0 to 8 .5 pH units .
. 6. Obtain additional data on phosphorus and ammonia-nitrogen discharges .
The taking of weekly grab samples for phosphorus and ammonia-
nitrogen determination has been authorized in a memorandum !11/14/72)
from E. M. Keith to A.V. Lindquist, all of New England Power Company.
7 . Determine phosphorus quantities discharged to Salem Harbor.
Whenever boiler blowdown occurs as a result of condenser tube
leakage, a log will be kept of phosphate usage. This action was also
initiated by means of the above cited memorandum .
•
8 . Add alkali in proportion to waste strength.
• Chemical feed pumps for continuous , non-propo-tioned chemical addition
will be incorporated into the treatment system.
MR
40
r
9. Limit the use of the hydroejector during boiler cleaning.
The hydroejector usage was limited during Unit 1 cleaning. 8 .5
million gallons of water was still used in the system, however, its use
will be discontinued when a new pumped sump is completed.
10. Schedule boiler cleaning procedures to provide maximum time span
between chemical cleaning and fireside washing operations.
Chemical cleaning wastewaters will be contained in the new center
• basin with fireside washwaters being treated separately in the other
basins . Therefore, this scheduling is not necessary.
• 11 . Reduce the use of phosphate chemicals to a minimum.
A systematic phosphorus balance to determine sources of phosphate usage
has not been done.
12. Substitute chemicals for those containing nitrogen during chemical
cleaning.
It is not feasible at the present time to substitute fog- nitrogen-
containing chemicals.
•
ME
41
1
1
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following modifications should be incorporated into the treatment facilities
and operating procedures at the Salem Harbor Station.
1 . Install pumps and discontinue the usage of hydroejectors during
all station operations .
•
2 . Install flow distribution headers at the basin inlets to minimize
. influent velocity thereby enhancing solids settling.
3 . Replace the filter dike with a solid barrier. The effluent from the
secondary basin will then be pumped to the condenser discharge channel
if the available head does not allow for flow by gravity.
4. Conduct laboratory tests to determine better methods of reducing metal
constituents in the discharge using coagulents and coagulent aids .
• 5. Remove accumulated ash in the dry state during cleaning operations
when feasible. This will reduce the hydraulic and pollutant loading on the
treatment facilities .
•
6. Install continuous pH monitoring equipment at the secondary basin
discharge.
7 . Install automatic samplers to obtain composite samples , proportioned to
flow if flow fluctuations exist, at the secondary basin discharge.
8. Obtain an atomic absorption spectrophotometer for in-house analysis
of basin samples .
42
t
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
1 . "t" test for testing the equality between means , assuming 61 = 62
Use color data for 3 units , normally operating as example:
(See Table 3)
X1 = 18 N I= 7 sl = 14. 6
• X2 = 27 . 6 N2= 8 s2= 22.1
S = N, (a;Z) + NZ (Q)
N, * NZ - 2
.i
`r'7(1i3,2) t BCH88.y) = 20 . 38
v '7+ 8 -z
MI
n = NI + N2-2 = 7 + 8 - 2 = 13
t(table)from statistical table for n = 13 , t = + 2 . 262
t calculated =
•
1A - 27,LIN6
20,36 %7 + %8
• t (calc)is within A 2 . 262 , therefore there is no statistical evidence
to refute the hypothesis that X = X
1 2 .
This method applies to TABLES 3 and 17 , where standard deviations are
assumed equal since data is drawn from same population.
A-1
2. "t" test for testing the equality between means , assuming61 X62 .
Use Nickel data as example (See TABLE 7)
X = 0.57 N1 = 12 sl = 0 .55
1
X = 1 .59 N2 = 14 s2 = 0 .96
2
• X - X
2 1
t calc=
g1 2/N1 + S2 / N2
.i
1 .59 - 0 .57 = + 3 .4
.5 11 o.96z
2
d.f = C(S12/N1 ) + S 2 2
/ N21� -------- - 2
(S12IN1 )21 (N1 + 1) + (SZ/N2)2 /(N2 + 1 )
= C(0_55�/1L + (0 . 962/14) 2 2
! (0 . 552/122/13 + (0.962/14)2/15
= 22
• t(table)= + 2 .074
t (calc)is not within + 2 .074 , therefo-e there is statistical evidence
to refute the hypothesis that
Xl - X2
This method applies to TABLES 7 and 18 , where standard deviations
are assumed unequal since data is drawn from different populations .
A-2
r
i .
Hydroaiector Operation
Date Time Use
3/18/72 8:40 a.m. - 11 :00 a.m. Hopper cleaning
3/19/72 8:30 a.m. - 10:00 a.m. Hopper cleaning units
2 & 3
2:30P
2:45-.m
P. .m. Boiler blowdown
• 3/20/72 8:00 a .m. - 12:30 p.m. #4 Unit
1 :00 p.m. - 3:15 p.m. Strainer Cleaning
9:30 p.m. - 2:00 a .m. HCI acid dump
3/21/72 Intermittant Blowdown of neutralizing
chemicals
3/22/72 -
3/23/72 4:15 p.m - 8:45 p.m. Unit #4 pit drained
3/24/72 8:00 a .m. - 5:30 p.m. Precipitator Wash of Unit#1
3/25/72 8:15 a .m. - 4:00 p.m. Precipitator Wash of Unit #1
3/25/72 8:00 a .m. - 10:15 a.m. #2 Ash pump
• 3/27/72 8:00 a.m . - 9:15 a .m. #2 Ash pump
9:15 a .m . - 2:30 a .m , on 3/30 Fireside wash of Unit #1
• 3/30/72 8:00 a .m . - 11 :00 a.m. #1 Ash pull
B-1
REEIVED
CHAS.T.MAIN,Inc.
MAY - 2 1972
REFER to
Anylcon, Inc. P.O. Box 86 RoiEn
Wide spectrum analytical & Boston, Mass.02122 NSW
consulting services Tel.617 267-0200 May 1, 1972
CLIENT: Chas. T. Main, Inc.
Southeast Tower
Prudential Center
Boston, Massachusetts 02100
Attention: Mr. Robert Capaccio
w�LASE NO. 1060
O
PURPOSE OF TEST : Chemical analysis of thirty-six (36) water samples
AMPLE IDENTIFICATION: P-lA thru P-14A A.H-1, A.H. -2 , P. S. -1 , P. S. -2
S-lA thru S-15A R.H.-1, R.H.-2, H.P. -2
METHOD OF TEST: A.P.H.A. Standard Methods
.i
' Suspended
r
Sample Solids Soluble Metals - Mg/L
Marked Mq/L Iron Nickel Vanadium Copper
P-lA 67 . 0 ND ND 9. 0 0. 20
P-2A 14 . 7 ND ND ND 0. 25
P-3A 79. 3 ND ND ND 0. 20
P-4A 25. 0 ND ND ND 0. 20
HE
P-5A 20. 3 ND ND ND ---
P-6A 20. 0ND ND ND ---
P-7A 11. 5 ND ND ND
8A 4 . 5 ND ND ND
-9A 15. 0 ND ND ND ---
P-10A 2. 0 ND ND ND ---
P-11A 9 . 0 ND ND ND ---
P-12A 17 . 0 ND ND ND ---
�13A 9. 0 ND ND ND ---
14A 9. 0 ND ND ND ---
S-lA 18. 5 ND ND ND 0.15
S-2A 1. 0 ND ND ND 0. 15
S-3A 76. 5 ND ND ND 0. 20
S-4A 12. 0 ND ND ND 0. 25
S-5A 5. 5 ND ND ND ---
S-6A 8 . 5 ND ND ND ---
S-7A 15. 5 ND ND ND ---
C-1
ta
Chas. T. Main, Inc a May 1 , 1972
Case No. 1060
2 -
Suspended Soluble Metals
Sample Solids Iron Nickel Vanadium Copper
Marked Mg/L Mg/L
S-8A 19. 5 ND ND ND ---
S-9A7 . 0 ND ND ND ---
S-10A 6 . 5 ND ND ND ---
11A 2 . 5 ND ND ND
12A 10. 5 ND ND ND
13A 7 . 5 ND ND ND -
S-14A 4 . 5 ND ND ND ---
.-15A 2. 5 ND ND ND ---
A.H.-\ 28 , 600 510 400 13 . 0 ---
A. H.-2 3 , 014 600 70 9. 0 ---
P. S. -1 6, 927 1, 220 280 ND ---
P. S .-2 3 , 509 700 160 300 ---
R.H. -1 7 , 951 460 200 350 ---
R.H. -2 9, 294 460 130 300 ---
H. P . -2 35 , 290 120 820 1 , 000 ---
Total Total Acidity Suspended Metals
Solids Mg/L as P.P.M. Of Suspended Matter
M L as CaCO3 Iron Nickel Vanadium
,.H.-1 89, 000 9,778 186 , 100 7 , 920 128 ,700
A.H .-2 14 , 200 2 , 682 438 , 000 9 , 950 182 , 500
P . S. -1 39, 600 1, 906 118 , 400 33 ;200 28 , 900
P. S.-2 22 , 700 953 114 , 000 31 , 350 28 , 500
1 74 ,100 494 755 49, 050 28 , 300
-2 50, 600 318 215 47 , 340 29 , 050
H.P-2 294 , 100 2 , 436 78 ,140 13 , 675 263 , 700
P-lA S-2A
Total Ammonia as NH3 , Mg/L 0. 48 0. 00
Total Phosphorous as P, Mg/L 7 . 73 4 . 33
ND = Not Detected
Limits of Detection: Iron & Nickel 0. 1 Mg/L
Vanadium 1 . 0 Mg/L
Respectfully submitted,
ANYLCON, INC .
C-2
Robert A. Sullivan
President
RAS :pr
. y5
i
Anylcon, Inc. P.O. Box 86
July Wide spectrum analytical & Boston, Mass.02122 JuY 11 r 1972 -
consulting services Tel.617 287-0200
CLIENT: Chas. T. Main, Inc . RECE,I �u
Southeast Tower F-:�_ 1' f,'• ii'i, Inc_
Prudential Center
Boston, Massachusetts 02100 JUL 131972
Attention: Mr. R. Capaccio ,; - -
• CASE NO. 1060
PURPOSE OF TEST: To determine iron, nickel and vanadium content
of suspended solids in water samples
METHOD OF TEST: Atomic absorption
RESULTS :
The suspended solids were filtered from the samples, dried at 105°C
and weighed. The samples were then dissolved in acid and the metals
measured as a percent by weight of the suspended solids .
Sample Iron as Fe Nickel as Ni Vanadium as V
Marked % By Weight % By Weight % By Weight
Pl, 1. 59 0.12 1 . 05
P2i 20. 0 0.82 4 . 09
P3 ( 1. 95 0. 02 0. 46
P4 28. 93 0. 13 1 . 60
P5 31. 00 0. 08 2.30
P6 8 . 53 0.42 5. 50
P7 7 . 13 0. 91 4 .78
P8 11. 22 ND 14 . 44
• P9 15. 90 0. 53 13 . 33
P10. 40. 00 2 . 25 25. 00
P11 4 . 75 1 . 88 1. 25
P12 23 .74 9. 17 3 . 53
P13 15. 39 7 . 94 12 .78
P141 6. 72 0. 67 3 . 33
i 2A 17 . 00 1 . 00 5. 00
3A 2 .78 0. 05 0. 72
4A 18 . 00 0. 21 2 . 08
7.
}
C-3
July 11, 1972
Chas. T. Main, Inc.
Case No. 1060
2 -
Sample Iron as Fe Nickel as Ni Vanadium as V
Marked % By Weight % By Weight % By Weight
5A 37 .46 0. 36 3 . 64
6A 26 . 18 0. 29 6.47
7A 4 . 87 0.16 1. 94
8A 2. 00 0. 33 1 .28
9A 14 . 21 1 .43 7 .14
10A 13 .85 4 . 23 6. 92
11A 20. 20 4 .40 10. 00
•112A 44 . 48 0. 24 7 .14
13A 50. 47 0. 80 7 .33
V14A 50 . 78 3 . 00 17 . 78
"15A 32. 20 9. 40 16. 00
Respectfully submitted,
r
ANYLCON, INC .
Robert A. Sullivan
President
RAS :pr
i
C-4
rl
Anylcon,Inc. P.O. Box 86
' Wide spectrum analytical & Boston, Mass,02122 August 16, 1972
consulting services Tel.617 287-0200
CLIENT: Chas. T. Main, Inc. RECEIVED
Southeast Tower CHAS. T. MAIN, Inc.
Prudential Center
Boston, Massachusetts 02100 AUG 191972
Attention: Mr. R. Capaccio REFER TO
NOTED
AN S'ND
CASE NO. 1060
PURPOSE OF TEST: Chemical analysis of twelve (12) water samples
OTHOD OF TEST : Atomic absorption
Sample Insoluble Soluble
Marked Copper - Mg/L Copper - Mg/L
P-lA 0. 08 ----
P-r2A 0.12 ----
P-3A Less Than 0. 01 ----
P-4A Less Than 0. 01 ----
P-9A 0. 01 0. 05
P-14A 0. 01 0. 04
S-lA Less Than 0. 01 ----
S-2A Less Than 0. 01 ----
S-3A Less Than 0. 01 ----
S-4A Less Than 0. 01
S-9A 0. 01 ____
S-15A 0. 01 0. 05
Total Iron Total Nickel Total Vanadium
• S-lA (Mg/L) 1 . 57 0. 34 5. 5
Respectfully submitted,
ANYLCON, INC.
Robert A. Sullivan
President
RAS :pr
C-5
RECEIVED
CHAS.T.MAIN, Inc.
SEP 141972
Anylcon,Inc. P.O.Box 86
Wide spectrum analytical& Boston,Mass.02122 NOI ED 10
consulting services Tel.617 287-0200
September 13, 1972
CLIENT: Charles T. Main, Inc.
Southeast Tower
Prudential Center
Boston , Massachusetts 02100
• CASE NO. 1257
PURPOSE OF TEST:
To determine vanadium content on seven (7) samples of water
METHOD : Atomic Absorption
RESULTS: Total Vanadium Soluble Vanadium Insoluble Vanadium
Sample Marked as V, mg/L as V, mg/L By Difference
P-2 6.4o 1 . 12 5.28
P-6 5.64 0.58 5,08
P-9 2.32 0.46 1 .86
P-13 5.76 4. 14 1 .62
S-2 5.44 3.96 1 .48
S-7 1 .98 0.74 1 .24
S-10 1 . 12 0.34 0.78
Respectfully 'submitted,
ANYLCON, INC.
Robert A. Sullivan
President
RAS/dmb
D-1
RECEIVED
CHAS. T.PAAJIN,� Ind
Anylcon, Inc. P.Q. Box 86 SEP 15 1972
Wide spectrum analytical & Boston,Mass.02122 REFER TO--
consulting services Tel.617 287-0200 P'OT;1)-.
8 At. _ ——
September 13, 1972
CLIENT: Charles T. Main, Inc.
Southeast Tower
Prudential Center
Boston, Massachusetts 02100
• CASE NO. 1089
PURPOSE OF TEST:
To determine the insoluble Iron, Nickel and Copper on seven (7)
samples of water
METHOD:
Atomic Absorption
Total metal content - sample as received was agitated and 100 ml
of sample removed. This was acidified with HCl and digested for
1 hour. The sample volume was readjusted to 100 ml and the metal
concentration measured.
Soluble metal content - the sample was filtered through Whatman
#41 filter paper and the soluble metals measured on the clear
filtrate.
The insoluble iron, copper and nickel determined by difference.
RESULTS: TOTAL METALLIC
Sample Marked Iron as Fe Nickel as Ni Copper as Cu
mg/L mg/L mg/L
P-2 19.80 2.30 1 .78
P-6 25.90 2.06 1 .62
P-9 17.50 2.43 -
P-13 2.53 0.88 -
S-2 4.00 0.93 0.32
S-7 5.23 1 .03 0. 19
S-10 3.47 0.94 -
D-2
�,r
Charles T. Main, Inc. -2- September 13, 1972
x
CASE NO. 1089 (continued)
RESULTS: (continued) SOLUBLE METALS
Sample Marked Iron as Fe Nickel as Ni Co er as Cu
L
mg/1- m-9 7-L mg
P-2 4.52 0.57 o.64
P-6 0.33 0.98 0.07
I P-9 0.25 1 .22 -
P-13 0. 13 0.22 -
S-2 0.20 0.21 0.07
f S-7 0.23 0.40 0.06
S-10 0.39 0.32 -
INSOLUBLE METALS
Sample Marked Iron as Fe Nickel as Ni Copper as Cu
mg/L mg/L mg/L
P-2 15.28 1 .7' 1 . 14
P-6 25.57 1 .08 1 .55
P-9 17.25 1 .21 -
P-13 2.40 0.66 -
S-2 3.80 0.72 0.25 {
S-7 5.00 0.63 0. 13
S-10 3.08 0.62 -
i
I
COMMENT:
Initially, attempts were made to measure the insoluble metals on
the suspended solids directly. The amount of material , 10 mgs or
less , was too small for accurate measurement.
I
• Respectfully submitted,
ANYLCON, INC ..
Robert A. Sullivan
President
RAS/dmb 4
i
I
i
D-3
s
New England Power Company'
2 Road1ew L^a.3nd Po„ter Westborough,
MBSSeChuElt1601581
Tel.(61 7)386-8011
June 13, 1980
Mr. Thomas C. McMahon, Director
s Massachusetts Water Resources Commission
Division of Water Pollution Control
110 Tremont Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
Dear Mr. McMahon:
RE: Plans for Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Brayton Point Long-Term Coal Conversion
Enclosed for your approval are plans for wastewater treatment facilities
for long-term conversion to coal of Units No. 1, 2 and 3 at Brayton Point
Station.
We are submitting these in compliance with MGL Chapter 21,
Section 27(13) .
Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions. We would
be pleased to meet with you to further explain the plans if such a meeting
would be beneficial to your review.
Very truly yours,
John W. Lebourveau
Manager of Environmental Affairs
BHS:djb
Enclosures
cc: Paul T. Anderson, P.E.
MDEQE, Lakeville
May 27, 1980
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
BRAYTON POINT COAL CONVERSION
UNIT NOS. 1 , 2, AND 3
NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY
GENERAL
Water is required for ash conveyance, process control, and equipment clean-
ing; functions which are necessary to support coal-firing for Unit Nos . 1 ,
2, and 3. These functions result in the production of wastewaters from the
following sources which require treatment prior to discharge and/or reuse:
1. Bottom ash and economizer ash sluicing
2. Boiler seals and other water seals
3. Equipment washing and ash truck washing
In addition, rainwater runoff from the coal storage pile will be collected
and be treated as wastewater.
The ash water treatment system for the coal conversion has been designed to
minimize water requirements and wastewater discharges for the above func-
tions by providing for reuse of these wastewaters . To the maximum extent
possible, ash sluice water and miscellaneous service waters are recycled.
These service water flows, such as boiler seals , were previously dis-
charged. Dry fly ash handling is being installed, eliminating this former
water use.
All discharges from the new facilities are sent to the existing wastewater
treatment system for pH adjustment and further "polishing" prior to final
discharge.
Sketch No. 13386-WW-8, Water Use Schematic, shows a flow schematic with the
design water requirements expressed as annual average flows for each func-
tion.
All wastewaters except coal pile runoff and fly ash truck washwater are
conveyed to ash settling basins for suspended solids removal . A portion of
the overflow from the ash settling basins is discharged as blowdown in
order to maintain dissolved solids concentrations in the recycled ash water
at acceptable levels for reuse. The blowdown is discharged to an existing
wastewater treatment system for pH adjustment and further solids removal.
The balance of the ash settling basin overflow flows by gravity to a surge
basin for storage and reuse by the ash sluicing and seal water functions .
The ash sluicing is intermittent and is served by high pressure pumps. The
seal function is continuous and is served by low pressure pumps.
The hydraulic design of the ash settling basins and the surge basin allows
for treatment and water storage responses necessary to support any station
operating condition. Collection and treatment may be achieved for any
combination of wastewaters by either using the settling basins separately
(i.e. , divided waste streams) or in combination (parallel flow of combined
_ 77U7,7777",
streams) with subsequent blowdown or reuse of any desired portion of the
flow of either basin.
Runoff from the coal storage pile is collected within a curbed area and
basin. The water is allowed to stand for suspended solids removal and is
then pumped to the existing wastewater treatment system for further treatment.
The following sections characterize the material flows for each wastewater
source, describe the design of the treatment facilities, and the
operation of the ash water treatment system.
WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION
This section describes the wastewater-producing operations, the types of
water required for their function, and material flows.
Ash Sluicing
Based on the design coal-firing rates for the three units (combined) of
812,400 lb/hr, a 12 percent ash coal, and a 20/80 percent split between the
bottom ash/fly ash components, respectively, total ash production at full.
load is estimated, as follows:
1 . Bottom ash 19 ,500 lb/hr
2. Fly ash (total) 78,000 lb/hr
Precipitator ash 70,200 lb/hr
Economizer ash 7,800 lb/hr
Total 97,500 lb/hr
Precipitator ash is collected, stored, and transferred to ash trucks by
pneumatic (i .e. , dry) ash handling equipment, arid therefore does not produce
wastewater.
Ash removal from the bottom ash hoppers and economizer ash impounding tanks
is performed by sluicing. Recycled water is withdrawn from the surge basin
by high pressure pumps. and discharged through eductors located at the
bottoms of the ash hoppers and economizer impounding tanks . Bottom ash and
economizer ash are removed by the flow induced by the eductors and are
discharged selectively to any of four hydrobins. In the hydrobins, most of
the ash is settled from the sluice water and is stored in the hydrobin
bottoms for periodic removal by ash trucks. Sluice water overflows to the
ash settling basins for further suspended solids removal prior to recycle.
Each bottom ash hopper and economizer ash impounding tank is sluiced once
per shift. Only one sluice operation, e.g. , bottom ash sluice or econo-
mizer ash sluice, may be performed at any time for each unit; either Unit
No. 1 or Unit No. 2 may be sluiced simultaneously with Unit No. 3. Since
the flow discharged from any of the eductors to the hydrobins is approxi-
mately 2,700 to 3,000 gpm, the maximum ash sluice flow discharged to the
ash settling basins via the hydrobin overflow is approximately 6,000 gpm.
2
Based on capacity factors of 85 percent for Unit Nos. I and 2 and 10 per-
cent for Unit No. 3, the total annual inflow of suspendedsolids to the
basins from the ash sluicing system is estimated to be 1.05 x 106 lb/yr,
based on the hydrobin manufacturer's estimate of hydrobin overflow quality.
Boiler Seals and Other Water Seals
Seals and other low pressure water uses include the following functions :
Boiler seal trough makeup and cooling water
Economizer makeup water
Header cooling water
Window wash water
Grinder seal water
Instrument water requirements
High pressure and low pressure pump seals
During normal operation, all of the above functions are continuous . The
total water requirement necessary to satisfy these functions for the three
units is approximately 1 , 180 gpm. About 80 gpm of the total flow is obtained
directly from city water supply, and is used for miscellaneous seals and
instrument water requirements. The balance of water requirements for the
other low pressure water uses is provided from the recycled ash transport
water.
All seal waters drain to a collection tank for each unit and are subse-
quently pumped to the ash settling basins. The maximum instantaneous flow
from all three seal water collection tanks discharged to the ash settling
basins is approximately 1,500 gpm.
Equipment and Truck Washes
Periodic equipment maintenance washes are required to remove ash accumula-
tion from heat transfer and other equipment surfaces for efficient operat-
ing performance. Such washes are performed on the following equipment
items•
Air preheater
Boiler fireside
Economizer
Precipitator
Stack
3
Ti
Water required for the equipment washes is provided by city water supply;
salt water service is used to augment the city water used for washing the
Unit No. 3 air preheater. Routine equipment washing is performed during
routine unit shutdowns for each of the units once per year. Additional
unscheduled washes may be performed when required due to changes in operat-
ing conditions.
All equipment washes, except those required for boiler fireside washing,
are drained to a washwater drain tank. Two 1,500 gpm transfer pumps dis-
charge the spent washwater to the ash settling basins for suspended solids
removal. Boiler fireside washes are collected by the bottom ash hoppers
and subsequently sluiced to the ash settling basins via the decanting bins .
The total annual washwater volume and associated quantity of ash discharged
to the settling basins are .estimated to be 7.5 x 106 gal/yr and 0.82 x 106 lb/yr,
respectively.
One truck wash station is located near the fly ash silos and another is
located at the hydrobin area. During a truck wash, a flow of approximately
60 gpm is required by each wash station.
Washwater for the truck wash stations is provided from city water supply.
Washstand drainage from the fly ash silo station is collected in trenches
and drained directly to the existing wastewater treatment system. Drainage
for the hydiobin area truck wash is directed to settling basin C. Annual
water requirerhents for the truck wash stations are estimated to be about
1 .4 x 106 gal/yr.
Coal Storage Pile Runoff
Coal pile runoff characteristics can vary considerably depending upon the
rainfall event (e.g. , intensity) , coal characteristics, etc. Generally,
low pH and moderate to high suspended solids concentration can be expected .
Based on a mean annual precipitation of 42.75 in. ', a conservatively high
runoff coefficient of 0. 752, and an area of about 11 .3 acres bordered by
the runoff collection trench, the mean annual volume discharged from the
collection sump is 4.8 x 106 gal/yr.
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Ash Sluice and Washwater
The ash water treatment system is composed of two ash settling basins, a
surge basin, and associated hydraulic structures required for flow
distribution. The arrangement of the ash water treatment facilities is
shown on Drawing No. 13386-FN-S40T, General Arrangement, Bottom Ash Removal
System, Basins and Hydrobin Area. Drawing No. B-4708-1 , Finished Grading -
Access Roads Bottom Ash Settling Area, shows some pertinent structural. and
grading details.
The piping design provides for distribution of the hydrobin, boiler seal
water, or equipment washwater flows to the influent distribution channel
for either of the settling basins. The influent channel is designed to
4
provide flow distribution across the width of the ash settling basins.
Supernatant from the settling basin flows over a weir, which extends across
the width of each basin, and is collected in a channel which c t is
open at
both ends. A movable gate is placed in the channel in one of multiple
positioning slots located along the channel. Overflow collected between
the movable gates is discharged to the existing wastewater treatment system
via a gravity drain. Weir overflow collected on the other side of the
movable gates -for each basin flows by gravity through a channel to the
surge basin for reuse.
The dimensions of each settling basin at E1 23 ft msl (top of effluent
weir) are 274 ft length by 119 ft width by 12 ft depth. Two ft of free-
board above the weir plate is provided. Capacity of each basin is approxi-
mately 242,000 cu ft at weir crest. The total influent loading is approxi-
mately 7.9 x 106 lb ash/yr from the combined wastewater flows. The total
annual volume of settled ash collected in the basins is approximately
175,000 cu ft, assuming 100 percent basin settling efficiency and 55 lb/ft3
dry density. The total capacity of both basins for effective storage of
settled ash is approximately 1.8 yr, assuming a mean settled ash depth of
8 ft. However, it is anticipated that the basins will be cleaned at least
once per year.
The maximum surface loading for either settling basin is 0. 1 gpm/sq ft
during parallel basin operation, based on the maximum influent flow of
7,500 gpm during normal operation at 100 percent load and the total avail-
able surface area of approximately 65,200 sq ft for the two basins . The
design surface loading has been conservatively selected at the lowest
practical level of settleability for conventional., gravity liquid/solid
separation. Overflow suspended solids concentrations are expected to
average below 150 mg/1, based on the performance of similar systems . For
example, a mean effluent total suspended solids concentration of 44 mg/l
has been determined from analyses performed on the ash settling ponds at 12
stations treating both bottom ash and fly ash sluice waters3.
The surge basin is designed for storage of the treated water prior to
reuse. Total capacity of the surge basin is approximately 180,000 cu ft at
a maximum water surface elevation of 19.0 ft msl. A freeboard allowance of
2.0 ft is provided.
To minimize consumptive water use, all basins are provided with impermeable
liners. The liner material will be 20 mil polyvinyl chloride. Drawing
No. B-4708-1 shows cross sectional details of the basins. The liner will
be protected by a 4.0-ft-thick covering layer. consisting of 2.0 ft of
select soil backfill overlain by 2.0 ft of rock. These materials protect
the liner' from mechanical damage during basin cleanout. The surge basin,
which will not be routinely cleaned since it does not function as a settl-
ing basin, will have a 1.0 ft-thick layer of select soil backfill and
1 .0 ft layer of rock to protect its liner material from sunlight and mechani-
cal damage.
Coal Pile Runoff Collection
The coal storage pile runoff collection system is shown. on Sketch
13386-WW-6, Coal Pile Runoff Collection, Study. It is designed to collect
and provide solids removal for the rainwater runoff from the 10-yr, 24-hr
5
i
rainfall event. Runoff is carried to a basin via a curbed trench which
surrounds the coal pile. The basin is pumped at a rate of 500 gpm to the
existing wastewater treatment system for pH adjustment and further sus-
pended solids removal.
Storage volume of the system is about 150,000 ft3 to accommodate a 4.9-in.
rainfall (10-yr, 24-hr event') . Overflow from rainfall events greater
than the design basis event is directed to Fit. Hope via an emergency spill-
way.
OPERATIONS
Ash Water Treatment System
During normal operation it is expected that both ash settling basins will
be used in parallel, with approximately 50 percent of the hydrobin overflow
and boiler seal waters being discharged to each basin. The ash settling
basin effluent weir and channel design permit variable blowdown flow con-
trol by manually repositioning the gates at the desired distance along the
effluent channel. For example, the recirculating ash/water blowdown flow
of 254 gpm shown in Sketch No. 13386-WW-8 would be achieved by positioning
the gates at approximately eight percent of the weir lengths. Thus, 8 per-
cent of the basin weir overflow is direicted to blowdown and 92 percent is
conveyed to the surge basin for reuse.
Equipment washwater chemical characteristics are variable depending upon
the equipment item being washed and the point in time at which the equip-
ment wash is sampled. Typically, air preheater washwater will be acidic at
the beginning of the wash with a pH near 2.0; the precipitator wash may
have varying pH depending on the chemical characteristics of the coal
burned. Towards the end of each wash, fewer soluble and insoluble deposits
are removed by the cleaning operation, and the spent washwater will gradually
reflect the characteristics of the .washwater source.
Since the washwater quality is expected to vary considerably from that of
ash sluicing and seal waters produced during normal operation, equipment
washwater will be segregated from the normal operating wastewater for
treatment. During equipment washing operations , hydrobin overflow and
boiler seal waters produced by the operating units will be directed to one
of the ash settling basins by use of the appropriate isolating valves at
the inflow distribution valve pit. The equipment washwater will be directed
to the other ash settling basin, and 100 percent of that basin' s overflow
will be discharged by repositioning the movable gate to the extreme end of
the effluent channel. Following completion of the equipment washing, the
basin may be partially or completely emptied by use of a portable pump and
may be cleaned out before normal parallel basin flow is reestablished.
As sludge depth increases in a basin, it is anticipated that the effluent
total suspended solids concentrations will gradually increase due to the
increase in basin cross-sectional flow velocity, resulting in scouring or
resuspension of settled ash. At such times, performance will be restored
by mechanical cleaning of the basin. The basin to be cleaned will be
isolated from all influent ash water; with all wastewater being treated by
the other basin (Hydrobin area truck wash drainage cannot be redirected
6
{
from basin C to B. However, this flow is sufficiently small to not inter-
fere with basin C cleaning operations). A portable pump will be used to
dewater the isolated basin. The ash is expected to be removed by clamshell
or
other mechanical dredging and deposited offsite b
P y truck. Following
removal of the deposits from the basin, normal parallel flow to both basins
will be reestablished, with makeup flow rates temporarily increased to
refill the cleaned basin.
Coal Storage Pile Runoff Collection System
The runoff basin provides initial sedimentation, although the extent
depends upon influent characteristics, flow, and volume. A 500-gpm pump,
actuated by level control, transfers the water to the existing wastewater
treatment system for pH adjustment and further suspended solids removal.
Coal fines collected in the basin will be periodically removed and recycled
to the coal storage pile.
REFERENCES
1. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1976. "Local Climato-
logical Data for Providence, Rhode Island," U.S. Climatological Center,
Asheville, N.C.
2. G. C. Kaercher and R. M. Rosain, 1977. "The Design of Waste Water
Treatment Facilities for the Detroit Edison Company," paper presented
at the 39th Annual American Power Conference, Chicago, Illinois .
Proceedings of the American Power Conference, V. 39: 889-895 .
3. T.-Y. J. Chu, R. J. Ruane, and P. A. Krenkel , 1978. "Characterization
and Reuse of Ash Pond Effluents in Coal-Fired Power Plants ," J . Vater
Pollution Control Federation, November 1978. p 2494 to 2508.
/.�iti ly o
O
/i DON r
Approved o .,,.- „?�P
Registered Professio Engineer No. 29236 '�y�'"%ua."V,'i'
State of Massachusetts
7
Copy to:
cc: - DWFitzgerald!Job-
Y'lliardin/C File
I Mrniley, Jr. CSS 13(9-13386-28)
DRMichael
I
UTSullivan
PDBurgess
DWFitzgerald
General Files
B£Logaa
j
Novasber 3, 1981
I Hr. E. J. Brailey
Project Engineer
i '
New 'England Power Company J.O. No. 13326
25 Research Drive BPS-2542
} Westborough, MA 01581
f+ BOTTOM ASH SETTLING BASINS
S£DIMEN' "ATIO? RATE
BRAYTON POINT STATION
i
I In accordance with your request, Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation
(S&W) has conducted a testing program to evaluate the performance and ca-
pacity of the ash settling basins at Brayton Point Station. It was deter-
mined that each of the two basins has a capacity of 2.2 years of ash storage.
S&W personnel visited the Bratton Point Station three times over a five week
i period to obtain water samples from the settling ponds during 'bottom ash and
economizer ash sluicing operations . Decanting bin effluent samples were
collected at the outlet of the pipe influent to basin inlet distribution
! channel. Basin effluent samples -were collected from the effluent weir or
the recycle trench. For the duration of the sluicing operation, decanting
bin effluent samples were taken at five minute intervals and basin effluent
samples were taken at approximately 10 minute intervals.
During the first two sampling sessions, only Unit 1 was operating and only
Basin C was in service. During the third session, back-to-back sluicing of
Units i and 2 occurred and water was distributed between Basins B and C.
Economizer sluice water was not sampled. However, based on previous grab
samples, it is-assumed that decanting bin effluent TSS concentrations are
similar to those bottom ash sluicing.
A total of 35 basin•iafluent and 13 effluent samples were collected. These
samples were analyzed for TSS by New England Testing Laboratory, Inc. , in
North Providence, Rhode Island, in accordance with Section 109D of Standard
Methods , :5th ed. Results are presented in Table 1 and summarized in
Table 2 . Basin effluent quality, TSS concentration, averaged 25 mg/l,
considerably below the less than. 150 mg/l target. Using flowrates, average
TSS, duration and frequency of sluicing, the 'annual contribution of solids
to the basins from bottom ash and economizer ash for all three units operat-
ing at 75 percent capacity factor is 1 .36 x 106 lb.
During the sampling periods there was intermittent flow from the boiler seal
water overflow tank which contributed a significant amount of the total
"Total Suspended Solids
V EJB 2 r
suspended solids loading on the sediment basins (two raadois grab samples
measured 376 and 697 mg/1). However; the piping of this discharge is being
modified so that these tanks will be periodically sluiced to the decanting
bins. This should help minimize solids contribution from these sources to
the basins . Nevertheless, the nearly continuous nature of this flow results
t in a modest contribution of solids estimated at about 0.83 x 1106 lb/yr
I assuming 540 mg/l in the overflow. Ash from equipment washes was previously
estimated at about 0.82 x 1O61b/yr. Hence, total ash to the basins is
estimated to be about 3.0 x 1106 lb/yr or 5.48 x 104 ft3/yr assuming 55 lb/ft3.
Each of Basins B and C has a volume of 2.4 x 105 ft3.
. It is projected to take over 4.4 years to reach a half-filled state of both
basins. Given the variatiuci in the data and possible variations in coal and
unit operations , it is probably more appropriate to state that the basins
have "several" years of storage capacity. frequency of ash removal is more
likely to depend on the impact on water duality of washwaters than an
! storage capacity alone .
It was observed that Basin C has filled to the crater line with ash for the
first 10-15 feet from the influent end. This is due to the excellent
settling characteristics of the ash and the fact that this area is very
shallow. It can be expected that this area will grow with time, although
much more slowly as basin depth increases with distance from the influent
end.
Sincerely yours ,
V
B. W. Fitzgerald
I
BEL:jdb
i
�aclaauPea
i
i
I �
i
i
i
i
TABLE I
i
i SAMPLING RESLITS
ASH SETTLING BASIS PERFORlANCE
SRAYTO\ P0114P STATION
i
Unit Sample Total Suspended Solids (mg/1)
j Sampling Date Sampled Number Influent Effluent
July 7, 1981 1 2 34
3 803
4 1,470
5 1, 142.5
6 1 ,063
- 23
8 21
9 1,212
11 1,475
12 800
13 63
14 18
Jule 16, 1981 1 20 270
21 323.5
22 366.5
23 295
�4 256
25 773.5
26 425
2-, 320.5
30 17.5
1 i5.5
32 27 .5
August 10 , 1981 1 34 555.5
35 532.5
36 19.5
37 468
38 419
39 17.5
40 673
41 671
42 13
43 448.5
44 469
45 25
46 460.5
47 559.5
48 27.5
I 49 527
i
9-13386-28A
TABLE 1 (Cont) .
c :
f Unit Sample Total Suspended Solids (mg/1)
Sampling Date Sampled Number Influent Effluent
2 50 115
j 51 311.5
52 709.5
53 28.5
54 607
55 856
56 23
57 641.5
�8 597
59 21.5
60 544.5
61 27
62 28.5
SEAL WAITR OVE.R" OW TASK cEm GRAB
S�LE5 TSS: 37b ®g, 1 June 7, 1
81
697 mg/1 Aug. 10, 1981
i
i
i
i
I
i
i
f 9-13386-28A
i
. 1
i' TABLE 2
�!If
i SUTMARY OF RESULTS
ASR SETTLING BASIN PERFORMANCE
i
BRAYTON POINT STATION
Influent Effluent
40. of Samples 35 18
TSS, Range 115 - 2,089 mg/l 13 - 63 mg/1
TSS, !lean 665 mg/l. 25 mg/1
Standard Deviation 410 mg/1 11 mg/1
i 1
i
i
9-13386-28B
M U = - a
TABLE I
WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS - AIR PREHEATERS
Sample Total Solids Suspended Solids Vanadium Nickel Magnesium Iron
Number mg/l lbs . mg/l lbs . mg/1 lbs . mg/1 lbsmg/1 lbs . mg/1 lbs.
I
P-1 , P-3 57 , 422 28 , 734 21 , 820 10 ,919 455 228 300 150 3 , 768 1 , 886 1 , 690 846
P-3 , P-5 46 , 950 23 , 494 12 , 127 6 ,068 381 191 253 127 2 , 025 1 ,013 1 ,588 795
P-5 , P-7 22 ,354 55 ,930 1 ,210 3 , 027 19 --948 - 42 105 750 1 , 877 748 1 ,871
P-7 , P-9 18 ,740 112 , 530 1 , 093 6 ,563 25,-' 180 54 324 1 , 032 6 , 197 1 ,075 6,455
P-9 , P-11 25 , 277 12 , 649 780 390 9�. .-a✓ 4 . 5 27 14 5 , 295 2 , 650 535 268
P-11 , P-13 22 ,636 62 , 110 1 ,020 2 ,799 11 30 31 85 5 ,244 14, 389 531 1 , 457
i P-13 , P-15 12 ,692 164 ,493 775 10 , J
044 �'�l.l 0 143 21 272 647 8 , 385 391 5 , 067
w P-15 , P-19 10 ,200 263 , 370 398 10 ,277 5 2 52 5 129 879 22 ,696 55 1 ,420
P-19 , P-21 12 , 781 30, 805 308 742 x, 21 5 4 10 2 , 662 6 ,416 30 72
P-21 , P-23 11 , 309 203 , 065 254 4 ,561 02 36 3 54 2 , 075 37 ,259 30 539
P-23 , P-25 7 , 627 59 ,793 Mr 268 2 , 101 2 16 3 24 75 588 28 219
P-25 , P-27 9 , 500 107 ,990J5 334 3 ,797 2� 23 4 45 150 1 ,705 31 352
P-29 , P-31 3 , 810 2 , 9555 1'.136� �1`05 2 " 1 . 7 1 8 182 141 103 80
P-31 , P-32 2 , 740 251-, ,� { ' 92 8 2 . 2 1 1 125 11 52 5
P-32 , P-34 2 , 139 1`"'1 ,606 116 87 - 2 ti 1 . 6 1 . 7 88 66 47 35
�e�
TOTALS 1 , 1'29, 7754 611488 � = �930 �' 1 ,341 105 ,279 19 ,491
e:
i
O
i
i
• t�.,r d
ATTACHMENT A
Y
"r
NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY
Salem Harbor Station - Conversion to Coal Burning
Wetlands Protection Act - Environmental Data Form
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following is a description of major structures and work proposed
within Salem's Flood Hazard District and associated with the conversion of
Salem Harbor Station Units No. 1, 2 and 3 from oil burning to coal burning.
1. PRECIPITATORS
Three electrostatic precipitators will be provided for removal of
particulates from flue gases of Units No. 1, 2 and 3. The Unit No. 1 and
No. 2 precipitators will each be approximately 48 ' long x 57 ' wide and the
Unit No. 3 precipitator will be 82 ' long x 57 ' wide. The top of the
precipitators will be approximately 110 ' above the ground. , Each
precipitator will have two steel hoppers on the bottom for removal of the
particulates. The precipitators will be constructed from stiffened A-36
steel plate with the lower third portion of the hoppers to be type 316
stainless steel and the precipitators will be insulated and lagged. Tne
hoppers of the precipitators will be located over the existing plant road
with a minimum clearance of 16 feet.
Each precipitator will be supported by nine columns, anchored Jin the
center and allowed to thermally expand outward from this center anghor.
Structural steel braced framing will be used to provide stiffness' and
lateral resistance. Each support column of the, precipitator structure
will be supported on reinforced concrete pier 4,'foundations conneged
together with reinforced concrete grade beams.
The precipitators and supporting structure will be designed to
accommodate internal pressures, vibration, seismic , wind, thermal and snow
loads. The design live loads will be as follows:
Grating Floors = 100 psf
Concrete Floors = 200 psf
Roof = 50 psf
Snow Load 30 psf
Ash Load = 80 pcf
Below the precipitator hoppers, two floors will be constructed; an
ash handling concrete floor at elevation 34'-9" and a hopper grating floor
at elevation 46 '-3". Both of these areas will be enclosed with insulated
metal siding panels. In addition to the service floors, each precipitator
will have a metal sided control room located at the roof level. Units
No. 1 and 2 Control Room will each be approximately 12 ' wide x 32' long x
10' high. Unit No. 3 Control Room will be approximately 12' wide x 45'
long x 10' high. Electrical equipment buildings will also be constructed
at grade level. These will consist of structural steel framing with
1
- 2 -
insulated metal wall panels. The foundations for these buildings will
consist of grade beams, individual column footings and a reinforced
concrete slab constructed over a compacted granular base. The top of
floor slab will be at elevation
Stairtowers from grade to the precipitator roof level will be located
at the east end of Unit No. 1 precipitator and the west end of Unit No. 3
precipitator. There will be stairways and platforms between units to
provide access to all levels and units.
2. OUTLET BREECHING AND SUPPORT STRUCTURES
(From precipitator outlet to induced draft fans and from induced
draft fan outlet to chimney.)
General
The outlet breeching or ductwork will convey flue gases from the new
precipitators to the new chimney via induced draft fans. The breeching
from the precipitator outlets will be supported by structural steel
framing from the new fan house roof and by braced steel frames extending
to grade and supported by concrete footings.
The outlet breeching will be contructed from A-36 steel plates with
stiffeners, at approximately 5'-0" on centers. This system will be
adequately anchored and guided to accommodate thermal movements. The
whole breeching system, including the supporting steel, will be designed
to accommodate seismic and wind forces, snow loads and internal
pressures. Turning vanes, expansion joints, instruments and service
platform will be installed as part of the whole system. The breeching
plates will be insulated and lagged with painted pre-engineered panels.
Units No. 1 and 2
Two separate flue gas paths will be constructed for each unit from
the precipitator outlet to the induced draft fan inlets. After leaving
the induced draft fans, each duct (approximate size 6 '-6" x 6 '-0") will
combine into a single duct (approximately 12'-0" x 6'-6") and enter the
chimney. The breeching before entering the chimney will be located at
elevation 55'-9" (top of bottom plate). The steel supports will frame
into the new fan house roof at elevation 45'-0" or will be supported by
braced steel frame extending to grade at elevation 15'-6". The steel
structure supporting the breeching will be supported by concrete footings.
Breeching entering the induced draft fans will also be supported from
the fan house roof.
Unit No. 3
Two separate flue gas paths will be constructed from Unit No. 3
precipitator outlets to the induced draft fan inlets. After leaving the
induced draft fans, each duct (approximately 8'-6" x 9'-0") will combine
into a single duct (approximately 17'-3" x 9'-0") and enter the chimney to
elevation 55'-9". The steel supports will be similar to Units No. 1 and 2
breeching except that physical size of supports will change to accommodate
the larger duct sizes.
- 3 -
770
l 3. Fan Building and I.D. Foundations
A new induced draft fan (I.D. ) .fan building will:ibe constructed just
south of the proposed precipitators. The building will be aproximately
50' x 200' x 30' high constructed of structural steel with a concrete roof
and enclosed with insulated siding. The building will house the new I.D.
fans for Units No. 1, 2 and 3.
The new induced draft fan foundations will consist of a reinforced
` concrete mat of (approximately 10' x 27 ' x 3' to 5 ' deep) constructed
independent of the building floor slab and founded on bedrock. Each
foundation will be designed for the weight of the equipment, seismic
forces and the unbalanced forces of the rotating parts. A dynamic
analysis will also be performed for these foundations.
The fan building columns will be supported on reinforced concrete
spread footings approximately 4 ' x 4' x 4' deep. An 8" grade wall by
4 deep will be constructed around the exterior. The floor slab will be
an 8" reinforced concrete slab (approximately 50 ' x 200' ) with. top of
finished floor at approximately .16'-0".
4. ASH HANDLING AREA �' r
/.;-
General
The ash handling area is defined as the area where the fly ash silo,
l/ dewatering bins, settling basins, surge basin and pump house are located.
103 Fuel oil tank B-2 formerly occupied this area and has since been removed.
------AEproximately 3 to 4 feet of structural fill will be placed to bring the
area up to approximately elevation 18'-0. The area will be ash -ted-with
drain trenches running under all ash ' equipment an emptying into the
propose basins, atch sins and sewer !--pipe will be installed for area
drainage. A trucls--wash is also included to wash down the loaded ash
trucks_before leavin —Water from the truckwashs collected in
, rent drained to the b ins.
An approximately 10' wide pipe bridge for supporting bottom ash and
fly ash piping will be constructed from the precipitators' structure to
the ash silo and dewatering bins. The bridge will be of structural steel
and approximately. 20' above grade.
An open steel stairtower will be constructed between the ash silo and
dewatering bins to provide access to all levels of the silo and bins.
Fly Ash Silo
One 32' diameter concrete silo will be constructed wth a roof height
of 86'-0" above grade and with a material storage capacity of 36,000 cubic
feet. The reinforced concrete shell will be supported on a reinforced
concrete foundation mat. The size of the mat will be aproximately
4' thick x 45' octagon founded on a 6" compacted granular base, with top
of mat at approximately elevation 18'-0". The silo will house the
unloader floor and the bin support floor located 18' and 36' above grade,
respectively. The unloader floor will support all the new unloading
- 4 -
equipment with provision for access opening, pipe penetrations, etc. A
steel stairtower will be provided for access to the unloader floor and the
roof levels. The silo concrete roof, designed for 50 psf live load, will
have an access manhole and all necessary flanged piping . connections. The
fly ash silo will be enclosed at ground level by a concrete shell with the
exception of truck entry and exit portals. At the ground level, the fly
ash silo will have a one-story truck enclosure at the entrance side,
approximately 20' wide x 22' long x 18' high attached to the silo. The
enclosure will be constructed from structural steel, girt system enclosed
with metal siding and provided with 12' wide x 14' high steel roll-up door
at the entering-traffic end.
The truck enclosure foundation will consist of a concrete slab on
grade with individual column footing and grade beams bearing on a six-inch
(6") compacted granular base. The fly ash silo will be designed as
follows:
Concrete Floor L.L. 200 psf
Concrete Roof L.L. = 50 psf
Snow Load 30 psf
Ash Load = 90 pcf
Wind Pressure Area = 35 psf
Seismic Zone 3
In addition, an elevated enclosure control room will be located in
the area under the unloader floor with access to grade level.
Dewatering Bins
Two at dewarPri'ny bins , 26' diameter x 57' high will be con-
structed west of the fly ash silo. The bins will be supported by braced
structural steel framing and spaced 36' apart. The steel framing supports
will be supported by a reinforced concrete mat bearing on a 6" compacted
granular base. The top of the concrete mat will be at approximately
elevation 18'-0".
The dewatering bins will house a concrete unloading floor below the
bin hoppper section at elevation 36'-0". At the top of the dewatering
bins, a catwalk and a pipe bridge will be provided with the access to the
fly ash silo stairtower. A valve enclosure approximately 8' wide x 10'
high with hoist and monorail will also be located on top of the bins. All
exposed exterior plate and structural steel will be painted. The hopper
area will be enclosed with uninsulated metal siding. The enclosure will
extend from the unloading floor at elevation 36'-0" to the top of the bin
support steel at approximately elevation 59' .
The dewatering bins and supporting structure will be designed as
follows:
Concrete Floor L.L. = 200 psf
Grating Floors L.L. - 100 psf
Snow Load = 30 psf
Wind Pressure Area 35 psf
Seismic Zone 3
- 5 -
In addition, a common control room serving both dewatering bins will
` be located between bins elevated above grade with access to grade level.
Settling and Surge Basins
f Two settling basins (approximately 60' x 100' x 10' deep) and one
surge basin (approximately 60' x 70 ' x 10' deep) will be constructed of
reinforced concrete with top of the walls being at elevation 18 '-6: The
Q basins are located in the ash handling area just west of the dewatering
5 bins. The basin walls will be designed for hydrostatic groundwater
pressure at approximately elevation 10' , soil pressure and the H-20 truck
loading. The basin slabs will be designed for soil pressure and
groundwater hydrostatic pressure. The excavat 'on will be no
—excavation using 1: 1 side slopes. TIFL— oundwater during ruction of
oun s wi 1 be collecte and removed by an intercept ditch draining
into a sump and then pumped to the existing wastewater treatment system.
11, Sluice Pump House Foundation------
An ash sluice pump house (approximately 50' x 60' ) will be
constructed adjacent to the surge basin. The pump house foundation will
interconnect with the surge basin. The reinforced concrete structure will
consist of a wet sump pit (13' x 40' x 13' deep) and a dry sump pit
(40' x 20' x 13' deep) with bottom slab at approximately elevation 5'-6".
The pump house foundation supporting a pre-engineered building will
consist of a reinforced slab at grade, column spread footing on an
exterior grade wall. The wall and slab connecting to the surge basin
walls will be designed for soil pressure, hydrostatic pressure of
groundwater at approximately elevation 10'-0" and H-20 truck loading.
Groundwater during excavation and construction will be removed in the same
fashion as for the basins.
1
5. COLLECTION SYSTEM FOR COAL PILE RUNOFF
Runoff from the active and inactive coal piles, surrounding roads and
areas between roads and the coal pile will be collected in asphalt lined
�7l ditches and will flow by gravity to an asphalt lined runoff pond,
\ constructed over compacted base fill material and underlined with a
subdrain pipe system to control groundwater levels.
The coal pile runoff pond is located above the res h of Mean High
Tide elevation 9'-0". Top of the berm is at elevation 15 _wand is above
the 100-year flood level. The design of the subdrain
8 system will include
in� provisions for a rise
Q groundwater elevation ation by incorporation of headers
� and one-way check valves. An adequate number of check valves, opening
into the pond, will be located throughout the pond area to relieve the
pressure caused by high ttroundwater. The groundwater will flow into the
unbalanced u on y when ward P the waterreasure. level in the, pond is low enough to cause an
unbalanced
P
The runoff water will be pumped underground through a cast iron line
to th istin wastewat eatmeni em. The pond is sized to handle
a 10-year, 24-hour
y , storm and will have a capacity p y of approximately 102,000
cubic feet.
ATTACHMENT B
NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY
Salem Harbor Station
Conversion to Coal Burning
LIST OF DRAWINGS
Title Number
Site Plan Showing Flood Hazard District SK-10182
General Plot Plan Plant Site - South End B-4225-2
General Arrangement of Fly Ash Silo and SKC 17 and 18
Dewatering Bins
Fan House FDN-Sections SKC-22
Settling Basins - Section SKC-23
Ash Sluice Pump House and Surge Basin Section SKC-24
Runoff Pond Section SKC-25
Typical Drain Trench Details and Typical Pipe SKC-26
Rack Support Foundation
Layout of ID Fans and Ductwork Sheets 1 and 2 of 2 SKM-43 and 44
q
Coal Pile Area Grading and Drainage B-4230
Final Site Upgrading-Sections And Details H-43553
_ UVixu of `alnit,
I,V 1`
\ \ 1[ttttttitt: !' Dzirl
C)ttc �a(rzn C�rrezt
CITY C;_t -If'S
SA_L:•t .
\ - November 18 , 1982
\SPECIAL PERiMIT
ETLANDS AND FLOOZ HAZARD DISTRICT
ISW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY
S_ LEM HARBOR STATION
2- Fort Avenue
SEIem, MA. 01970 - -- - - - - -
On Thursday, November 18, 1982 , •the Planning Board of the City of
Sal m held a public hearing regarding the application of New England
Pow r Companv for a Special Permit under Section P. , Wetlands and
Floc . Hazard Districts, of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, with respect
to t e -proposal to excavate, fill, and install foundations and
struc ':ures , including new pollution control equipment, as a part
of a onversion to coal burning at Salem Harbor Station.
At a -t gularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Board on November
18 , 19 :2 , the Board voted, by a vote of 5 in favor, none opposed,
one vo.iing Present, to approve the application as complying with '.
the rek 'A rements for the issuance of the permit with the following
condit `\\ns : --------
1 .
---
1 . That1all work shall be done 'in accordance with the following:
a) t\'-an entitled, "New England Power Service Companv, Dart
o'. New England Electric System, Westboro, 11A. , New
England Power Company, Salem Harbor Station, Salem, MA. ,
Oil. to Coal Conversion, General Plot Plan, Planned
Sie South end, " DWG. # B-4225-2, prepared by Fluor
Pow�r Services, Inc .
\ \ b) Plar`!., entitled, "New England Power Company, Salam Harbor
Station, General Arrangement of Fly Ash Silo and
�. De-watering Bins, " DWGS . ' SKC-17 , SKC-18 , SKC-22 ,
SKC-23, prepared by Fluor power Services , Inc.
c) Plan entitled, "New England Power Services Company, part
of New England Electric System, Westboro, MA. , New
England Power Company, Salem Harbor Station, Salem, M.A. ,
• �i O.il to Coal Conversion, Lay-Out of ID Fans and Duct
Work, "Sheets #1 and 2 , DWG. #834921-SKM-43, prepared
by Fluor Power Services , Inc .
2 . This order does not grant anv pronerty rights or anv exclusive
Privileges; it does not authorize any injury to Drivate/public pro-
perty or any invasion of public/private rights.
It
4
11
1
I �
W
r
SPECIAL PERMIT
NEP? ENGLAND POWER COMPANY--SALEM HARBOR STATION Page 2
•
This Special Permit shall not take effect until a copy of the
decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that twenty days
have elapsed and no anneal has been filed or that if. such anneal
has been filed, and it has been dismissed or denied, is recorded
in the Essex County Registry of Deeds and is indexed in the grantor
index under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted
on the owner ' s certificate of title. The fee .for recording or
registering shall be paid by the owner or applicant.
Walter Power III
Chairman, Plannina_��Board
WP/dey
•
fl*szair ®, i a -aF,
\ I �
\
A
�. ��""Ys'"''r '_"�.i'��°✓ � �,,�4 nr�__ .�_/f r r_ I :QO Il.•F" .
M , r i; � � ♦ 4 r s�1-� �'�`.. -t '� � i a..{i°N 1� ) h`ryJt'�j r � Y `� `, n ' .� - a4j��1'.+�! �'� i �I
> .�+� � 1 � Bch� ✓ ,.Sz�� -i If1Ht 6.., �a` I�tjt � ,7' 'Y`. t nCcnt ali = Y � r� �� �1. � i A�� ;
r ' ) " i` c Raz'a78 rti ) •� �\ +>! CemetOJ �r fi. r .� �� ,( ''
� y i V Atf
,-
E� ''Dere y ��
Vic[ '" 3dd � } `,+ ae<l �: av,� i -n1� w � l -Scl t• � r/ �
F Nr/ s t"�r
r �P ® rtQ 4e�� 11�
.'//
�£llslers Pt
I 'i` `CheaAEQ 4 ✓P l 6 �" U ..t1Xaa82rrt y -J ss °
■ 7` o } 'yBhihause
P.t > 1r� 9 u• 7
�- r.n^FIo50ital Pt
� tv t 4 7vaaf fat � �[ q
4 Pt
-
�r
Salters
\yJ Go se `� Pt Ir a /-f J"t' sT6M3�Q
BE VE RL/Y,
as s� '. 2 mak ✓ Jp�� -i
i �JPe[e18 � oA T I ZPp.� QMl5 =�tt
HyIZ BOR
I GoCoorse '} r1 =s Lobster Tuck /
( ro �� Rocks 'Pt
/ ae&R _BEVEREI T
r
AARBOR
e
i
r greeolawn / 'p., , � s alemlNeck_
Cemetery ` .B • r •""\
uniPer
eo A-^ ' ) i} .' H-m�\v.�' �'1��.. e 32a� - , �F� Lee .may FY ✓�. � ..�`Pt
- i�r��O V
��=poi,>3
" Frit °�li/ S LEM
o1rg" 12
r 9ar e aynl sn�' ; �� � 4 it �sland �il__
JC' '* +C
� C'4�n�i•,� �' ° L��iVJ i� a� I ��.'-�
r //t•� \ Y� � }\ /St e F C�vlyr` _ 9 t Fort Picker`
e/
4
, (e, h • -4 (J U $G&est Guard
3 � w, p,0° 2J �1�1�3 �•� ,. ArStation
Hl e ! .
ale"i N
Y y •` ate Mautme h.a.ttne1
Pa,k / /y '�M Jlf common C, �Sa.em Term el Rock G
wn
a t lu
oµ
�.t^.mb avi j iY»l / 1 �4 � P• + r" �� u e�.ylf+ar?s1L ro�5fte �I SAL EM/� �' ����da Ptoutman Fluen
t•¢Mry , ew9 ScAJawe f' if I��d }V J r,A Vit`\1, < _ -rte. �' Pl
ON
4K A R BOR L.zs tYvh o`J na '>
Wnor' �; 9 'ioh'eY a�/• v V Ate' I� X32 -sk�.eal h} r :e a �1.
✓ r � lF�
Long Pt c Q' romp O -F�3r :\ ♦'� '$-o�y Scb PJ YS Ountl � _ . 't� 1, .,>ca cps^°." ' I -'
Palroaer
�r
o _
\ Salem n 1 f 41 / ( \� o o
7 p
>y�si\ e!Palmer ..,Ce P
_ >
NEW ENGLAND POWER SERVICE COMPANY
�rsvE _ PART Of NEW E■GLS■■ ELECTRIC SYSTEM
_,:\\ MESTBORO. MASS.
�Yso-1r`s x-i�1/[ =i Iry oJ� For
��` \ z Nr a k \\ KPlcker, g NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY
P 8
er ` so Pt Ma Showing Location of
v ti t P saL'�M t v
i4�^TQ�a Coal Conversion Work at
oli Cod se} ` 3'` r r ` t +41. ■ \� � �Jg[e t� =8'p Salem $BrhOT $t ati0T1
q
r I sv 'r t �� V lantl
Salem, Massachusetts
.$ " t
Department of Energy
Washington, D.C. 20585 '140 "Ma...... g 983
• E@fid �G a�au�
Enclosed is a copy of the Salem Harbor Record of Decision (ROD)
and Floodplain Statement of Findings prepared by the U.S.. De-
partment of Energy (DOE) . This decision, prepared in connection
with the Department' s responsibilities under the Department of
Energy' s NEPA guidelines (45 FR 20694, March 28, 1980) , announces
DOE' s intent to issue final prohibition orders in connection with
the conversion from oil to coal for Units 1, 2 , and 3. o£ the New
England Power Company' s Salem Harbor Generating Station in Salem,
Massachusetts . This ROD has been issued in. conjunction with the
final Environmental Impact Statement for the Salem Harbor Genera-
ting Station which you previously received.
This ROD .complies with the requirements of 40 CFR 1505. 2 and the
Floodplain Statement of Findings , which is based on the floodplain
assessment incorporated in the final Environmental Impact Statement,
is made in accordance with DOE' s floodplain review procedures (10
CFR Part 1022) .
Sincerely,
'SE. .FeYg soya` '
Dir rcctor
Fuels Conversion Division
Office of Fuels Programs
Economic Regulatory.Administration
Enclosure
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 9, 1983 / Notices 8907
comments it receives by 4:30 p.m.,local A copy of the Proposed Remedial Act of 1978(FUA)as amended.
time April b. 1983.Any information or Order,with confidential information Following enactment of the Omnibus
data considered confidential by the deleted,may be obtained from James F. Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981
person eubrumng it must be identified Murphy,Manager,Crude Reseller (OBRA),which amended FUA to allow
as such in accordance with the Program,Economic Regulatory powerplant owners and operators to
procedures of 10 CFR 205.9(0. Administration,Department of Energy, certify to FUA's required technical and ,
Issued to Houston.Texas,on the 15th day P'0.Box 35228,Dallas,Texas 75237,or economic feasibility findings,to convert
of February,1983. by calling(214)767-7432.Within fifteen to coal as fuel,NEP elected to so certify.
Sandra K.Webb, (15)days of publication of this notice. DOE then reissued proposed prohibition
Director.Houston ERA Office. any aggrieved person may file a Notice orders to Unite 1,2 and 3 on December
IFR Doc."W Filed 38 8,45 amt of Objection with the Office of bearings 7.1981.The final prohibition orders will
BLUNo CODE e,so-or-111 and Appeals,Federal Building,Room prohibit NEP from using either natural
3304,12th&Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., gas or petroleum as a primary energy
Washington,D.C.20461, in accordance source in the affected units.On March 1,
The Parade Co.;Proposed Remedial with 10 CFR 205.193. 1982,NEP began limited coal burning at
Order Issued in Dallas,Texas,on the 18th day of the plant under the provisions of a Clean
Pursuant to 10 CFR 205.192(c),the February.19a3, Air Act Delayed Compliance Order
Economic Regulatory Administration Ben 4 Lomas, (DCO)issued by the U.S.Environmental
hereby gives notice of a Proposed Director,Dallas Office,Economic.Regulatory Protection Agency(EPA)on February 9,
Remedial Order which was issued to Administration. 1982(47 FR 5893).A Massachusetts Draft Environmental
The Parade Company of Shreveport, Dec.scoo Filed
o�y nes ami Impact Report pursuant to the
Louisiana. Massachusetts Environmental Policy
The Proposed Remedial Order chargee — Act was filed with the Massachusetts
this company with pricing violations to Record of Decision for New England Office of Environmental Affairs in
the amount of es of propane
aloe accrued Power Company Salem Harbor g January 1982 and was publicly available
interest, in sales of propane and natural
gas liquids during the period of February Generating Station Units 1,2 and 3 on March 22,1982.
1975 through January IND. AGENCY:Economic Regulatory DOE published a Draft Environmental
A co of the Impact Statement(DEIS)(DOE/EIS-
py Proposed Remedial Administration,DOE. 0086-D)in February 1982 and a Final
Order,with confidential information ACTION:Decision to issue final Environmenlel Impact Statement(FEIS)
deleted, may be obtained from David H. floodplain statement of findings and in October 1982(DOE/EIS-0086-F).
Jackson,Director,Kansas City Office, final prohibition orders to Salem Harbor
Economic Regulatory Administration, Unite 1,2 and 3. Description of Alternatives
324 East lith Street,Kansas City, EIS,DOE has assessed the
e th
In
Missouri 64106-2486.Within 15 days of SUMMARY:Pursuant to the Council on environmental the ental iacs of:
publication of this notice,any aggrieved Environmental Quality Regulations[40 impacts
person may rite a Notice of Objections CFR Pert 1505)implementing the A.No DOE action,i.e.,no prohibition
with the Office of Hearings and procedural provisions of the National order—NEP elects to continue burning
Appeals,12th&Pesmaylvania Avenue, Environmental Policy Act(NEPA)and oil,or retire the plant
N.W.,Washington,D.C.20461,in the Department of Energy's(DOE)NEPA B.DOE issues prohibition order—NEP
accordance with W CFR 205.1031 guidelines(45 FR 20894,March 28,1980), elects to convert to another fuel(low
.l coa
Issued in Kanw(Sty. m
, aeIlse lith the Economic Regulatory Administration sulfur )
day of Fehvry,IM (ERA)of DOE is issuing a Record of The"no action"alternative would
p&vW H. Decision on the environmental impact allow NEP continued use of oil at the
f�Oe
Director,Kerr d'fy OJJioe,Fccaorarc statement(EIS)prepared for the Salem units.and so would not change the
a
Regulatory Adeiaiatteitieu. Harbor Generating Station Unite 1,2, Present impacts to the environment.
and 3.DOE is also issuing the floodplain Thus the"no action"alternative is
Ins Dae.
B1 110111 Core ore raassa-sa ae�l statement of findings for the proposed considered the environmentally
sssearr action pursuant to 10 CFR 1022.18, preferable alternative.However,
Dacisies continued operation with oil would not
Petro-Thermo Carp;Proposal satisfy the purpose and goal of FUA to
Remedial Order The DOE will finalize and issue use energy other than oil or gas.
Pursuant to 16 CPR 206.1 prohibition orders for Units 1,2 and 3 of Fuels other than low sulfur coal
1111[c),the the Salem Harbor Generating Station, considered as potential major energy
Economic Regalatery,Administration located in Salem,Massachusetts as sources under the B option were high.
(ERA)of the Depat him I of Energy requested by the New England Power sulfur coal,coal-oil mix,refuse-derived
-� hereby gives notice of s Proposed Company(NEP).The final prohibition fuel and wood/wood chips.None of
Remedial Order which was leaned to orders will prohibit using either natural these is considered preferable to the use
Petro-Thermo Corporation at Snits 160, gee or petroleum as the primary energy of low sulfur coal either because they
LaFBdmoor BnRding,Hobbs,.Niew source for the three units.The owner of are not available in sufficient quantities
co 861110.This proposed Remedial the generating station plane to return the or because they necessitate additional
r alleges pricing violations in the three unite to burning low-sulfur coal. construction,transportation,or storage,
nt of SU4,2e1.34 plus interest In pro art Deecd tion or create environmental concern while
ction with the resale of avde ell J P reducing oil consumption by only 20%.
ces in eager of those permitted by On April 3,1980(45 FR 22163),DOE The major issues of concern in the
R Parts 205,210,and 212,Subparts published proposed prohibition orders environmental impact assessment were
L daring the time period for Salem Harbor Units 1,2 and 3 under air end water quality,noise,increased
mber 1973 through December 1979. the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use traffic,and lend use problems due to ash
9908 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 9, 1983 / Notices
1 disposal.Impacts to regional or site available or planned in this area during The Floodplain Statement of Findings Is
geology,aquatic or terrestrial biota, the life of the plant.There are existing attached.
r housing labor market or other dock facilities currently in use.While Basis for Decision
1 socioeconomic factors were of lesser converson will result in a slight net
significance, increase in dock use,existing facilities NEP is desirous of converting Salem
A prohibition order has enabled NEP remain sufficient due to the more rapid Harbor,Units 1,2,and 3 as evidenced
to obtain a DCO allowing the use of coal unloading rate for coal.Conversion of by its certification pursuant to Section
as fuel under prescribed conditions Units 1,2,and 3 will result in 25 1021 of OBRA and its current burning of {
while refurbishing the existing unloadings per year of the 30,000 ton coal by those unite pursuant to the DCO
electrostatic precipitators. collier.Due to the displacement of oil by issued in February 1982.
Air Quality coal,about one half of the present Conclusion
barge/ti<nker unloadings will be
'j Conversion to coal under the DCO eliminated to be replaced by collier While the no-action alternative can be
` allows slightly negative impacts due to unloadings.No dredging or other work described as environmentally preferred
` the increased particulate matter requiring a permit from the U.S.Army (40 CFR 1505.2),benefits derived from
( emission for up to 40 months(during Corps of Engineers is required. this conversion have been balanced
f refurbishing of the precipitator). paeermnatio4 against the potential environmental
Floodplain Determination f Following the DCO period particulate impacts.In addition,reasonably
I emissions will again be within Clean Air Since the generating station is an available alternatives have been
Act state implementation plan limits. existing facility whose dock and tank considered.As a result of these
SO2 emissions remain within allowable faun portions are located within the 100- evaluations,the proposed conversion to
limits and equivalent to current SO2 year floodplain,as delineated on the coal is the preferred alternative of the
emissions on oil firing.NO2 emissions appropriate HUD floodplain map for the FIS,and DOE will issue the final
were estimated to increase by 180 tons City of Salem,DOE was required to prohibition orders to-Salem Harbor
per year,well under the 250 tons per comply with its floodplain management Units 1,2,and 3.In addition,as a result
year exemption allowed by the regulations(10 CFR Part 1022). of its review of alternatives and
Massachusetts Department of DOE prepared a preliminary evaluation of the environmental
Environmental Quality Engineering. floodplain assessment which is included impacts,DOE has determined there is
s
Mitigative measures such awetting as Section 2.5 of the FEIS for Salem no practicable alternative to the existing
down of construction areae and the coal Harbor(October 1982).Alternatives to location of the generating station in the
pile to reduce impacts of increased duet this proposed action were identified. 100-year floodplain.All practical means
will be taken. environmental impacts evaluated and to avoid or mitigate harm in the
Water Quality mitigation measures were proposed.In floodplain will be used.
addition,the preliminary floodplain
The Salem Harbor Generating Station statement of findings concluded that no Issued in Washington,D.C.,on March 3,
currently operates under a National practicable alternatives exist to the 1983. .
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System continued location of the generating lames W.Workman,
(NPDES)permit which will remain station in the floodplain.No substantive Director,Office ofFoels Programs,Economic
essentially unchanged.Conversion to comments on this issue,either during RegulotoryAdministration.
coal will increase the size of the existing the review period for the DEIS or during Department of Energy,Floodplain
coal pile,and therefore increase the the 30 day hold period of the FEIS were Statement of Findings
potential for contamination of ground received by DOE.
water from coal pile runoff. Several of the modifications to the The Department of Energy proposes to
The principal sources of wastewater facility necessary to allow conversion to finalize prohibition orders under the
will include coal pile runoff,excess coal involved existing structures which Powerplant and the Industrial Fuel Use
water from the bottom ash sluice water are built in the floodplain,including the Act of 1978(FUA)for the Salem Harbor
treatment system,and an increased coal pile and settling basins.The Generating Station Unite 1,2,and 3.The
solids content in equipment washwaters structures cannot be relocated within final prohibition orders will prohibit
and boiler seat water,due to the larger the generating site boundary. using either natural gas or petroleum as
amounts of ash involved in coal firing. The proposedaction includes all the primary energy source for the three
Each of these sources will be routed practicable measures to minimize harm units.The owner of the generating
through the existing wastewater to the floodplain.Facilities constructed station plans to return the unite to
treatment system, in the floodplain that are subject to burning low-sulfur coal.
Solid Waste Disposal hurricane storm waves(V3 zone)will be The generating station is located in
P floodproofed to withstand wave forces Salem,Massachusetts on a 00 acre site
Approximately 104 tons of fly and and inundation.Floodproofing will adjacent to the Harbor(See Attachment
bottom ash per day will be produced at include such items as diking and A).The station has been in operation
Salem Harbor after conversion to coal. reinforcement to reduce storm damage. since 1952.The units were designed to
The utility will either market the ash or Since October 1982 DOE has further burn coal,and did burn coal until 1989.
dispose of it in permitted commercial evaluated the matter and has Most of the facilities needed to handle
landfills located within 30 miles of the determined that the proposed coal already exist.This includes the
plant. conversion will not change the existing unloading pier,the coal storage area,
Transportation character of the floodplain or alter the and the ash settling basins.
risk of loss due to flooding of adjacent Conversion of the units to burning
Various methods of transportation of property, coal will necessitate modification of
coal to the site were analyzed.The plant The Department has determined, existing facilities,including the coal
does not now have rail facilities,and based on the floodplain assessment,that storage area and the settling basins,
reactivation of such rail routes would be there is no practicable alternative to the which are located in a 100-year
difficult.No coal-slurry pipelines were continued use of the existing facilities. floodplain apd which,because of
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 9, 1983 / Notices 9909
physical constraints,cannot be coal pile and settling basins will not
relocated within the site to avoid the change the existing character of the
floodplain(See Attachment B). floodplain nor alter the risk of loss due
- Accordingly,the Department prepared a to flooding.Facilities in the floodplain
floodplain assessment for the proposed will be flood-proofed to withstand wave
action pursuant to 10 CFR Part 1022.The action and inundation in conformance
floodplain assessment is incorporated in with applicable floodplain protection
the final environmental impact standards.Flood-proofing will include
statement the Department prepared for such measures as diking and structural
the proposed finalization of the reinforcement.
prohibition orders(DOE/EIS-0088, The Department has determined, on
October 1982). the basis of the floodplain assessment,
As part of the floodplain assessment, that there is no practicable alternative
the Department considered alternate to the proposed facility modifications in
locations within the site and"no action" the floodplain and that tire proposed
as alternatives to locating the proposed action has been designed to minimize
action in the floodplain.Alternate potential harm to or within the
locations within the site that would floodplain.
avoid the floodplain are precluded by Issued in Washington.D.C.on March 2,
physical constraints.The"no action" 1983.
alternative would not serve the purposes William A.Vaughan,
of FUA.In addition,it would not
necessarily avoid the floodplain action AsstechIo ,Safi ty,a Environment°! -
since the utility could convert to coal Protection,Sgfrty,and E.nvir°nment°/
without the final prohibition orders. Preparedness.
The necessary modifications to the sautes cone 645"1-M
•
9910 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 9, 1983 / Notices
14 I
. i i � �`•.`{,�i� 9eL ... � dye F w r °�v .;t � � «
lh0L
Paas .�` �« h0 _ ��'7 ti : �r • ,,a«. Nat I 't
1'
-61 y„g, ,
ny`` ' .; � A fir^ -_-_ a 1i;'_s `� ✓e1. ooapury Pt
n rteyf�
`Salt pS SR3
+_BEVER4Y,
• ej�' Hy&BOR
— _
nwooa _
mx M
.. m. tel
R-1l i/
R x f P � 'I
—' - -
BE VHARR
E
Neck
ar s
✓.. 9 9 :..�•• :: sem: un: er
len ,y r ;r” A �. Y "•'' ' 1 Lw, f a ✓ �
P
s� J .4
Lute
f41 i} :'GO
°
7 O 71a11 � 5land .
'4 �. ilit cr � � 'P9 I +•' y
a� \ L? �j�✓•_ F %"•tea
All sl tl.n
c me Kq�wv /� �Channe!
I TneS .. aR.pNtt ar .:"ss Oy'tM1
1 • rw l_ srn t K. , _ '-GeSalemn trbStationr7 N3c8us Cloutman
Salem Harbor a Pt '
o
i 9
�.
a� �,t a �� s 1 ._
SALEM gin Pn. 1r o s; o
I :l3alwwa �� Long PtCrux
Q % o ,�,3•"'j/ .,.0
qp
J
lb
R v
Reference:USGS 1:25,OW Quadrangles
Lynn,MA„ 1970
Marblehead North,MA..1970
Marblehead South,MA.,1970
Salem,MA., 1901970 b 0 n
SCALE IN MILES ,
FIGURE 2.01
LOCATION MAP-SALEM HARBOR GENERATING STATION
t .'1
P.3 aF FF-15 3
J�PETRO
RELEUM
I \\\ TAILER'
6 {�
FUEL
OIL
/
FUEL TANKS O FORT
FUEL FUEL BITE
OIL TANK OIL TANK I OIL BOUryO m
/ 1 TANK
/ FUEL �O Ei� ENUE m
OILTANK FUEL
OIL O
TANq \
/ FUEL FUEL%
/ OILTANK ASH SETTLING OILTANK
61 COAL BASINS
/ SWITCHYARD
�TANKSE% ♦\ SOUTH ESSEX SEWERAGE
STACK DISTRICT WASTEWATER
a. COAL REC(q/M CONVEYOR COAL O O 1\ �K� ♦ TREATMENTPLANT m
EXISTING CEY 1 I _ z
ONV \ — O
COAL PILE ABN Sj
A NO
rrLI OR O
B8IN I BOIL1
QO O 1 ER 'ROOM
O i C
<
W X11 21A3 04
NARF DISCHARGE CHANNEL \` TURBINE!ROOM
SCREEN ---
HOUSE SCREEN WELL w
BASIN �� m
Rafennce:NEP Drawing HA&962,Juin 22,1981 INTAKE w
CHANNEL
NOTE:See aim Fipun 2.0-3
—�— Boundary of Special Flom m
Ha•ad Ana,Sae Fi9un 3.2-1 in Dnft EIS �
m
l00 0 14Q?00 W
SCALEIN FEETz
FIGURE 2.0-2 Attachicnt B
EXISTING SITE LAYOUT Taken moron p. 4 of FEIS i m
w
N
N
Attachment No. 1
NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY
Salem Harbor Station
,Conversion to Coal Burning
LIST OF DRAWINGS
Title Number
Sketch Showing Flood Hazard District and SK-101282
Existing Salem Harbor Station
General Plot Plan Plant Site - South End 8-4225-2
General Arrangement of Fly Ash Silo and SKC 17 and 18
Dewatering Bins
Fan House FDN - 'Sections SKC-22
Settling Basins - Section SKC-23
Ash Sluice Pump House and Surge Basin Section SKC-24
Runoff Pond Section SKC-25
Typical Drain Trench Details and Typical Pipe SKC-26
Rack Support Foundation
Layout of ID Fans and Dutwork Sheets 1 and 2 of 2 SKM-43 and 44
Coal Pile Area Grading and Drainage B-4230
Final Site Upgrading - Sections and Details H-43553
i
i
ATTACHMENT C
NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY
Salem Harbor Station
Conversion to Coal Burning
PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS
Issuing Authority Type of Permit
1. Dept. of Env. Quality Engineering Approval of Plans
2. Salem Board of Appeals Height Variance
3. Salem Planning Board Special Permit-Flood Hazard District
4. Salem Conservation Commission Order of Conditions
5. Salem Building Inspector Building Permit
I
I
i
3,Col
Conservation Commission
Salamsetts 01970
November 9 , 1982
Mr. David Beattie
c/o New England Power Comnanv
24 Fort Avenue
Salem, M.N. 01970
Dear Mr. Beattie:
Enclosed is the original Order of Conditions which was
voted at our meeting this evening . You are reminded that
this must be recorded at the Registry of Deeds . -
Please be advised that there is a ten-day appeal period.
Sincerely yours ,
i
Dale E. Yale
Clerk
Enclosure
cc to Mr. Ronald Boches , Supervisor of Licenses and Permits
New England Power Company_
25 Research Drive
Westboro, MA. 01581
New England Power Company
New20 Turnpike Road
England Power Westborough,Massachusetts 01581
Tel.(617)3669011
November 9, 1982
City of Salem
Conservation Commission
One Salem Green
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Commission Members:
RE : DEQE File No. 65-85
The following items confirm that additional information which New England
Power Company (NEP) supplied to certain members of your Commission on
November 3:
1. SKM-45 Wastewater Treatment Study Operation Before Conversion.
2. S131-41-2 - Water Use Plan Before Conversion.
3. SKM-46-1 - Wastewater Treatment Study Base Case After Conversion.
4. SKM-40-3 - Water Use Plan After Conversion.
5. Salem Harbor Station - Report on Wastewater Characteristics and
Treatment Facility Operation dated June 21, 1973.
6. Table I - Wastewater Characteristics - Air Preheaters.
7. June 13, 1980 letter to the Division of Water Pollution Control
requesting approval of plans for wastewater treatment facilities for
coal conversion at Brayton Point Station.
8. Sketch WW-8 - Water Use Schematic - Brayton Point Station.
9. FM-S40T - Brayton Point Station - General Arrangement Bottom Ash
Removal System Basins and Hydrobin Area.
10. November 3,. 1981 letter from Stone 6 Webster to NEP describing Bottom
Ash Settling Basins Sedimentation Rate at Brayton Point Station.
11. November 17, 1980 letter to Division of Water Pollution Control
describing the results of the coal conversion test program required
by the NPDES permit for Brayton Point Station.
12. SKC-55 - Final Grade at Chimney and Ash Handling Areas.
13. SKC-57 - Final Grade at Chimney and Ash Handling Areas - Sections.
A New England Electric System company
- 2 -
Also attached for your information are the following:
1. Schedule of Major Structures/Work associated with the coal
conversion project.
2. SKC-56 - Site Drainage at Chimney and Ash Handling Areas.
Very truly yours,
Ronald J. Boches
Supervisor, Licenses and Permits
RJB:gv
Enclosures
NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY
Salem Harbor Station Conversion to Coal
SCHEDULE OF MAJOR STRUCTURES/WORK
Structures/Work Start Finish
Precipitators 3/83 4/85'
I.D. Fan House 3/83 11/83
Ductwork 10/83 4/85
Ash Handling System 5/83 7/84
Groundwork 5/83 8/85
Coal Pile Runoff Collection System 5/85 8/85
�i
T TT T 1 T T• !-910MIc
( _ _ G-L.l
La LE (C0V*+TIfJ PC LS'
7r
--5E LIN IQ5 SETILIN '
f I
. A IIN i, rtlAStNNoS �?• i lli�rdE� 8
of -, `o x - N.w�
I
\w�1u - 1Crtc•r
u JOIN
PW
1 � I
_1"I N CNI ANNQLS
ST IR. TOWQ
IfLO7
. . . . . * -1
to
TAAIK` i � C.s
(MiW)
CAP �
Q d81. EA
4( rg
10'D/ x .36"-OH - � . c.g -C ��
ASK I �5;6/8.75
-�•��.
'-An& o2A1NINC, To C,M,L PILE RUN OFF PoND
EJ —ARS DR^IMIuqlTo BI.�SIN Wok FUEL 0
" PUi4P
—AQEA ow�,lulK To £x►ST.STokt� WATe2tIPA1 ' N(aC/.S,E
.ARBA DRn,1NINgToA`A SETTLING ap6,,j� f044i
+ RLMIR PCPAMM8aMV1Cg*o4M rlCW �4gL/\r4rf PbwE4. Co.
SITE MAjNkA§&c MMNiY 4AS11 M,40LIW
114 9,1 -
SkC-66
New England Power Company
20 Turnpike Road
New England Power Westborough,Massachusetts 01581
Tel.(617)366-9011
December 7, 1982
Conservation Commission
City of Salem
One Salem Green
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
RE: Wetlands Permit - DEQE File No. 64-85
Dear Commission Members :
Please be advised that the Order of Conditions issued to New
England Power Company on November 9, 1982 was recorded in the Essex
South Registry of Deeds in Salem, Massachusetts on November 24, 1982.
The document number which identifies this transaction is 185300.
Sincerely yours,
Ronald J. Boches
Supervisor, Licenses and Permits
RJB:bk
cc: A. S. Lewis
W. M. Macdonald
J. A. Walsh
A New England.Electric System company
New England Power Company
20 Turnpike Road
New England Power Westborough,Massachusetts 01581
Tel.(617)366-9011
October 15, 1982
Conservation Commission
City of Salem
One Salem Green.
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Commission Members:
New England Power Company (NEP) respectfully applies for the issuance
of an Order of Conditions to perform work associated with NEP's long-term
conversion from oil burning to coal burning at its Salem Harbor Station.
The proposed work area is within Salem's Flood Hazard District. An
application for a Special Permit for work within this District was filed
with the Salem Planning Board on October 8, 1982.
In accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act regulations, enclosed
are three (3) 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 (DEQE) .
The required $25 filing fee is also enclosed.
Please direct all correspondence concerning this application to me
at 25 Research Drive, Westborough, Massachusetts, 01581.
Very truly yours,
Ronald J. Boches
Supervisor, Licenses and Permits
RJB:gv
Enclosures
cc: Northeast Region Office, DEQE
A New England Electric System company
t �
TESTIMONY OF RONALD J. BOCHES
NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY
Before the Salem Conservation Commission
October 28, 1982
My name is Ronald J. Boches, I am Supervisor, Licenses and Permits, here
tonight representing New England Power Company (NEP).
On October 15, 1982, NEP filed a Notice of Intent with the Salem Conser-
vation Commission requesting an Order to perform work within and adjacent to
the City of Salem' s Flood Hazard District. We are proposing to excavate, fill
and install foundations and structures, including new pollution control
equipment at Salem Harbor Generating Station in connection with the long-term
conversion of Units No. 1, 2 and 3 from oil burning to coal burning.
We are presently burning coal in all of the three coal capable units at
the Station under a Delayed Compliance Order (DCO) issued by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
As you may recall from our earlier submittal to your Commission, 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 December 31, 1985. In order to meet our long-range schedule, work on
the overall project has begun and, in fact, the concrete shell of the new
chimney is now complete.
The existing elevation of the land associated with the proposed work
varies across the southerly portion of the existing Station from approximately
elevation 16.0 mean low water (MLW) to 13.0 MLW.
The site plan, SK101282, submitted as a part of our Notice of Intent,
shows the approximate horizontal limits of the 100-year flood plain as
determined by the Federal Insurance Administration Flood Hazard Boundary Map.
.. y
_ Z _
Major structures or work associated with coal conversion are three new
precipitators, an induced draft (I.D.) fan house, a new ash handling system, a
coal pile runoff collection system and miscellaneous piping, pipe racks and
drain trenches. The ash handling system will include a fly ash silo, two
dewatering or decanting bins, two settling basins, a surge basin and an ash
sluice pumphouse. Of these structures, the ash handling system and the coal
pile runoff collection system will be located on land which is below the
100-year flood elevation of 15.36 feet MLW. The precipitators and the induced
draft fan house will fall within 100 feet of the 100-year flood plain.
Many of the proposed structures are integrally related. At this point, a
brief explanation of the operation of each of the proposed structures might be
helpful.
When coal is burned, not all of it undergoes complete combustion. The
unburned portion remains behind as ash. The heavier ash, known as bottom ash,
falls into collecting bins known as hoppers. From there, it will be carried
by water to the proposed dewatering bins. The ash will be separated from the
water in these bins. The clarified water then goes to the settling basins
II where most of the remaining ash settles out and from there, the clarified
water is routed to the surge basin where it is pumped via the ash sluice
pumphouse back to the existing Station for reuse.
The lighter fly ash is transported via flue gas to the precipitators. The
precipitators collect the ash particles on electrically charged plates and the
Particles then fall into a hopper located below each precipitator. The fly ash
is then blown via enclosed pipes into the fly ash silo. The silo will
function as the storage receptacle for the ash. The induced draft fans
control the velocity of the flue gas traveling through the precipitators to
insure effective ash removal.
- 3 -
Finally, the coal pile runoff collection system, to be located at the most
southerly portion of the site, will collect runoff from rainfall in trenches
located along the edge of the coal pile and carry this runoff to a storage
pond.
A more detailed description of these structures was included as Attach-
ment A to our Notice of Intent.
In the ash handling area, we propose to place clean granular fill material
in. order to raise the existing grade from approximately 14.0 feet MLW to a
final grade of 18.0 feet MLW. This will .raise the grade level of the proposed
structures in this area to 18.0 feet MLW, which is well above the 100-year
flood plain. Once filled, this area will be paved. Runoff from this area
will be collected in area drains and routed to the new settling basins and
will then be used as makeup for the recirculating bottom ash system.
Outside of the ash handling area, where foundations are proposed for
aboveground structures, such as the I.D. Fan House, the lowest floor of all
such structures will be above elevation 15.36 MLW.
The proposed work will not have a significant effect on any of the seven
statutory interests set forth in the Wetlands Protection Act. The work will
place no additional demands on use of potable water. All fill will be clean
fill; therefore, groundwater will not be affected. Although the additional
work will displace some 3.1 acre-feet of flood storage, the removal of
facilities and the addition of a coal pile runoff storage pond provide
approximately 3.7-acre feet of new storage. Flood control and storm damage
protection, therefore, will not be affected. All appropriate precautions and
applicable State and Federal regulations relating to pollution control will be
complied with. Because the work will take place on land above the mean high
water line, neither shellfisheries nor marine fisheries will be affected.
- 4 -
Since the proposed structures and 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. NEP to proceed
with the proposed work.
Thank you for this opportunity to address the Commission. I would be
happy to answer any questions you may have.