The URL can be used to link to this page

24 FOREST AVENUE - CONSERVATION COMMISSION (2) z� �.�► � Oofi y,c��, F��py 3juk /�I�f 6��k� /u/,�4ce�1 wa,l� . -- � -- -- ?� CITY OF SALEM a t � CONSERVATION COMMISSION Ap 'iy' _ July 12, 2010 Nicole Wilkinson Dominion Resource Services, Inc. 40 Point Street Providence, Rhode Island 02903 Re: Determination of Applicability Dominion Energy at Salem Harbor Station—24 Fort Ave, Salem,Massachusetts Dear Ms. Wilkinson: Enclosed, please find the Determination of Applicability for the above referenced project. Following the 10-day appeal period you may proceed with your project. All the work approved in this Determination must be completed within three years from the date of issuance. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me 978-619-5685. Sincerely, #=ankTao inarbor Coordinator Interim Conservation Agent Enclosures Cc: DEP Northeast Regional Office Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 2 — Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 A. General Information Important When filling out From: forms on the Salem computer,use Conservation Commtaston only the tab key to move To: Applicant Pro Owner your cursor- Property (if different from applicant): do not use the Dominion Energy return key. Name Name 5000 Dominion Blvd °0 Mailing Address Mailing Address Glen Allen VA 23060 City/Town State Zip Code City/rows site Zip Code .. 1. Title and Date(or Revised Date if applicable)of Final Plans and Other Documents: Dominion Energy Oil Spill Response Bldg Surface Drainage Improvements May 26 2010 Title Date Dominion Energy, North Sheetpile Wall Regarding Lightweight Fill March 31, 2010 Date rale _- . _ Title Date 2. Date Request Filed: .June 28, 2010., B. Determination Pursuant to the authority of M.G.L. c. 131, §40, the Conservation Commission considered your Request for Determination of Applicability, with its supporting documentation, and made the following Determination. Project Description (if applicable): Repair sink holes behind existing bulkhead wall and near the Oil Response Building. All activities will occur landward of the existing bulkhead wall. Once sink holes are fixed they will be compacted and wrapped in geotextile. Gravel will be placed on top of the fill and geotextile aand compacted further. A new concrete pad will be constructed on the final grade for the storage of spill responseequipment. Project Location: 24 Fort Avenue Salem_ Street address - City/Town Map Lot Assessors MsplPlat Number Parcel/Lot Number rpefotm2 ooc•Determine of Appkabhty•rev.iommi _ Pepe 7 0!5 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands WPA Form 2 — Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Determination (cont.) The following Determination(s)is/are applicable to the proposed site and/or project relative to the Wetlands Protection Act and regulations: Positive Determination Note: No work within the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act may proceed until a final Order of Conditions(issued following submittal of a Notice of Intent or Abbreviated Notice of Intent)or Order of Resource Area Delineation(issued following submittal of Simplified Review ANRAD)has been received from the issuing authority(i.e., Conservation Commission or the Department of Environmental Protection). ❑ 1. The area described on the referenced plan(s)is an area subject to protection under the Act. Removing,filling,dredging, or altering of the area requires the filing of a Notice of Intent. ❑ 2a. The boundary delineations of the following resource areas described on the referenced plan(s)are confirmed as accurate.Therefore, the resource area boundaries confirmed in this Determination are binding as to all decisions rendered pursuant to the Wetlands Protection Act and its regulations regarding such boundaries for as long as this Determination is valid. ❑ 2b. The boundaries of resource areas listed below are nol confirmed by this Determination, regardless of whether such boundaries are contained on the plans attached to this Determination or to the Request for Determination. ❑ 3. The work described on referenced plan(s) and document(s) is within an area subject to protection under the Act and will remove, fill, dredge, or alter that area. Therefore, said work requires the filing of a Notice of Intent. ❑ 4. The work described on referenced plan(s)and document(s) is within the Buffer Zone and will alter an Area subject to protection under the Act. Therefore, said work requires the filing of a Notice of Intent or ANRAD Simplified Review(if work is limited to the Buffer Zone). ❑ 5. The area and/or work described on referenced plan(s)and document(s) is subject to review and approval by: Name of Municipality Pursuant to the following municipal wetland ordinance or bylaw: Name Ordinance or Bylaw Citation wpaformlA .Dmermine6m of APOhY•rev.10604 Page 2 of 5 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands 1 WPA Form 2 — Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Determination (cont.) ❑ 6. The following area and/or work, if any, is subject to a municipal ordinance or bylaw but not subject to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act: ❑ 7. If a Notice of Intent is filed for the work in the Riverfront Area described on referenced plan(s) and document(s), which includes all or part of the work described in the Request, the applicant must consider the following alternatives. (Refer to the wetland regulations at 10.58(4)c. for more information about the scope of alternatives requirements): ❑ Alternatives limited to the lot on which the project is located. ❑ Alternatives limited to the lot on which the project is located, the subdivided lots, and any adjacent lots formerly or presently owned by the same owner. ❑ Alternatives limited to the original parcel on which the project is located, the subdivided parcels, any adjacent parcels, and any other land which can reasonably be obtained within the municipality. ❑ Alternatives extend to any sites which can reasonably be obtained within the appropriate region of the state. Negative Determination Note: No further action under the Wetlands Protecfion Act is required by the applicant. However, if the Department is requested to issue a Superseding Determination of Applicability, work may not proceed on this project unless the Department fails to act on such request within 35 days of the date the request is post-marked for certified mail or hand delivered to the Department. Work may then proceed at the owners risk only upon notice to the Department and to the Conservation Commission. Requirements for requests for Superseding Determinations are listed at the end of this document. ❑ 1. The area described in the Request is not an area subject to protection under the Act or the Buffer Zone. ❑ 2. The work described in the Request is within an area subject to protection under the Act, but will not remove, fill, dredge, or alter that area. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent. ® 3. The work described in the Request is within the Buffer Zone, as defined in the regulations, but will not alter an Area subject to protection under the Act. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent, subject to the following conditions(if any). ❑ 4. The work described in the Request is not within an Area subject to protection under the Act (including the Buffer Zone). Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent, unless and until said work alters an Area subject to protection under the Act. wpaMm2. o •DerermIn m of PppImUldy•rev.1MI04 Pape 3 of 5 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 2 — Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Determination (cont.) ❑ 5. The area described in the Request is subject to protection under the Act. Since the work described therein meets the requirements for the following exemption, as specified in the Act and the regulations, no Notice of Intent is required: Exempt Act"(site applicable statuatory/regulatory provisions) ❑ 6. The area and/or work described in the Request is not subject to review and approval by: Name of Municipality Pursuant to a municipal wetlands ordinance or bylaw. Name - Ordinance or Bylaw Citation C. Authorization This Determination is issued to the applicant and delivered as follows: ❑ by hand delivery on ❑ by certified mail, return receipt requested on Date - .Date This Determination is valid for three years from the date of issuance(except Determinations for Vegetation Management Plans which are valid for the duration of the Plan). This Determination does not relieve the applicant from complying with all other applicable federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, bylaws, or regulations. This Drres: signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission. A copy must be sent to theonal Office (see http://www.mass.gov/dep/about/region,findvour.htm) and the propem the applicant). Si July 8, 2010 Date vgeform2 dw•Determination of"icaUft•rev.1016004 Pape 4 of 5 f Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands WPA Form 2 — Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 D. Appeals The applicant, owner, any person aggrieved by this Determination, 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 request the appropriate Department of Environmental Protection Regional Office(see http://www.mass.gov/dep/about/region.findyour,htm)to issue a Superseding Determination of Applicability. The request must be made by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department, with the appropriate filing fee and Fee Transmittal Form (see Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form)as provided in 310 CMR 10.03(7)within ten business days from the date of issuance of this Determination. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant if he/she is not the appellant. The request shall state clearly and concisely the objections to the Determination which is being appealed. To the extent that the Determination is based on a municipal ordinance or bylaw and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations, the Department of Environmental Protection has no appellate jurisdiction. wpaf MZR •Delaimin d Applies MY•rev.1QBIV0 Page 5 d 5 -- I OIL B RESPONSE BUILDING BUILDING DLEI pA— wxEO.NW O LIME i ,y ml � In cttICPETq PAO SOIL SLOPE — $8 IUT F I LED,_ \ OIL SPILL RESPONSE DETAIL t / i "j00's--�1 8 8vv li _ o NOTE'. ONLNOL R E PP6_LPE / o� CIX/KA/ CMFOHTT>O®EP LT7.��.&DATE EIAO a PPNR c.� ELp.. 'N.Ro — INT MMTRENR<l WV_ / IDEW ECGE6Brt i /\ IIJ- I �— / OE.T. LNLO GbIMAReM � 'F. EXISTING 8 PROPOSED CONTOURS IUNUINPIPNE01 SECTION AVEI�ENT LEGENO'. OO O��ppO TxNcwT (OINNmM1E59 —Isco—Pnc ssnco.,`D — 0 W,a NrcWxl • I axwuxsE --Fmo--FssnxccIN ` QS 1—BI➢G.L o.IP�lWcN010 cep® CH IN Nx NT &N[EPcwPSE 1 W� WEPMEOSLPSiNLE LIE @ wFTEPG\LD ly/1/iQL Eslm w 1 SEAL xenu uLr / - TYPICAL PAVEMENT SECTION EMHQ EILEcMr MANNo \ ,MPmR "': MOT iO SCNE ED B.I. ` ` NOTELOCUS r.�. \pN : PIi.LIXI WSCLNCNEIE I"Tc. IERL�,WMLEWc.NCEE RI Wi RPWNGiOOEMCgYF➢ 0111MppHSCWCI2IE b-A6PMµTPAVEL01r. NE.1® PEFEPENLEELLvnTICN SECTION B ae.c+wxr 1 Oil Spill Response DuilEing LSSA P1 urvOEP DaninlOn Energy New ErglPNtl.lnC. A�III R a G E I< ge mplp emenb Salem He1CCF Slatlm PGRconmPpcnox cpo ^yg cpcwwrx Salem,MeseOluseXa PLAN,SECTIONS, nw INOIIsspFMMEICH GNPm<exa T.L,ms DETAILS,B NOTES \ �» \ / * � �� }�i - � � r Figure 3 (cont.) - Photographs of Sink Hole 1 1 � S :tea�,•py�. 4 l� .� tA a 1. Photo 3: View of area to be graded and repaved—looking west. 44 I s* a h Photo 3: View of area to be graded and repaved—looking south. �rDQ/ ?YnominioW ominion R4 ourccs Servim,Inc. 5000 Dominion Boulevard,Glen Allen,VA 23060 itWeb Address:v w vdomxom June 23, 2010 B IVB D Mr. Frank Taormina 11 JUN 2 8 2010 Salem Conservation Commission Town of Salem DEPT. OF PLANNING& 93 Washington Street COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Salem, Massachusetts 01970 RE: Dominion Energy Salem Harbor, LLC, Salem, MA Request for Determination of Applicability— Sheetpile Wall Maintenance Dear Mr. Taormina: Dominion Energy Salem Harbor, LLC is submitting this Request for Determination of Applicability for proposed maintenance activities to the existing sheetpile wall at Salem Harbor Station. All work will take place on the upland side of the wall and no in-water work is required. Proposed activities will consist of the removal of existing backfill on the upland side of the existing sheetpile wall down to elevation 10.5' (above mean low water) and replace with a lightweight fill. Once existing backfill is removed, the area will be compacted with a vibratory roller and a geo-textile placed in the bottom of the excavation. Lightweight fill will be placed and compacted and wrapped in the geotextile. Gravel will be placed on top of the fill/geotextile in one six inch lift and compacted with a vibratory roller. A new concrete pad will be constructed on the final grade for the storage of spill response equipment(replacement of the existing). The sheetpile wall will remain at least 12-inches above the working and/or final grade, therefore there is no need or means of installing a silt fence. This work will take approximately three to four weeks to complete. No adverse impacts are anticipated from the proposed maintenance activities. All work will be done from the upland and no activities will take place within the water resource (Salem Harbor). Construction methods have been chosen in order to minimize potential impacts. The sheetpile wall will remain at a minimum of 1-foot above the working or final grade to prevent any erosion or sedimentation. Excess fill will be stored or used in an appropraite upland location away from the resource area. If you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact Nicole Wilkinson at(401) 457-9123. Sincerely, Cathy C. Ta for Director Electric Environ ental Services I. UNITED STAF&O OAP ftid *VAL: • Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box 0 0 M :9 Saienn Conservation Commission cz 0 120 Washington Street,3rd Fl Salem,MA 91970 z z o M OpA ZY &I A-L 01 ii SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY I ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Signature Item 4 If Restricted Delivery is desired. X ` f. O Agent ■ Print your name and address on the reverse - ❑Addressee so that we can return the card to you. B.,Received by(Printed Nar .,{, qpt Delivery ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,. ilu Lll Rl or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: D. Is delivery address ry different horn Rem 17 Oyes If YES,enter delivery address below: ❑No N+cvGe Wo Ikbso✓r I �JOrhrhlJn /�o✓�GS� Sew+tevif,.�Yrc. I 3. Service Type Certified Mall E3 Express Mell 0 Registered ❑Return Recelpt for Merchandise �orM 0 Insured Mail 0 C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery!(Extra Fee) 0 Yes z' Article Number 1490, 0002 1307_7; 3734 (rianslar from servka�. PS Form 3511,February 2004 Domestic Return Recelpt 102595.02-W1540 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First-Class Mail Postage&Fees Paid USPS I Permit No.G-10 Z t� • Sepdg: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box C= 0 0- >> o z } oSalem Conservation Commission Z3 120 Washington Street,3rd FI LU o Salem,MA 01970 o ISDA LV F r /V-v- ®+ ,ti S nk Adj fill III I,I Ih I,I I"'I I it",Ili„d.1311 1 1 111 111,1131 I SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. 819nat Item 4 If Restricted Delivery Is desired. �y 4 0 Agent ■ Ptint your name and address on the reverse X "'� v 0 Addressee so that we can return the card to you. B. Received by(Printed Name) C. DImAof D livery ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. Jy /'0 1. Article Addressed to: D. Is delivery address different from Item 1? ❑Yes If YES,enter delivery address below: 0 No pEP N� I I 3.4CertiType Certified Mail ❑Express Mail 0 Registered 0 Return Recelpt for Merchandise 0 Insured Mail 0 C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) 0 Yes I 2. Article Number 1 ; r - -q -r _1'�,, ` --- I, : - I f t ; (/ranter from service 11 : 7007 '1490 0002 X3077" 3741 1 _ PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 I cc: MADEP Northeast Region 205B Lowell Street Wilmington,MA 01887 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Salem WPA Form 1- Request for Determination of Applicability Ciry/rown Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 A. General Information Important: When filling out 1. Applicant: forms on the Dominion Resource Services, Inc. nicole.wilkinson@dom.com computer, use Name E-Mail Address only the tab key to move your 5000 Dominion Boulevard cursor-do not Mailing Address use the return Glen Allen VA 23060 key. City/Town State Zip Code 401-457-9123 888-539-8910 Phone Number Fax Number(if applicable) 2. Representative (if any): Firm Contact Name E-Mail Address Mailing Address Cityfrown State Zip Code Phone Number Fax Number(if applicable) B. Determinations 1. I request the Salem make the following determination(s). Check any that apply: Conservation Commission ❑ a. whether the area depicted on plan(s)and/or map(s)referenced below is an area subject to jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act. ❑ b. whether the boundaries of resource area(s) depicted on plan(s) and/or map(s) referenced below are accurately delineated. ® c. whether the work depicted on plan(s)referenced below is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act. ® d. whether the area and/or work depicted on plan(s) referenced below is subject to the jurisdiction of any municipal wetlands ordinance or bylaw of: Salem Name of Municipality ❑ e. whether the following scope of alternatives is adequate for work in the Riverfront Area as depicted on referenced plan(s). w aformi.doc Page 1 of 4 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Salem WPA Form 1- Request for Determination of Applicability City/Town Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 C. Project Description 1. a. Project Location (use maps and plans to identify the location of the area subject to this request): 24 Fort Avenue Salem Street Address City/Town Assessors Map/Plat Number Parcel/Lot Number b. Area Description (use additional paper, if necessary): The project location is the existing sheetpile wall which faces south and is located adjacent to the discharge canal at Salem Harbor Station. c. Plan and/or Map Reference(s): Figure 1 - Locus Map June 2010 Title Date Figure 2 - Plan, Section, & Notes March 31, 2010 Title Date Figure 3 - Photos June 2010 Title Date 2. a. Work Description (use additional paper and/or provide plan(s) of work, if necessary): Proposed activities will consist of the removal of existing backfill on the upland side of the existing sheetpile wall down to elevation 10.5'(above mean low water)and replace with a lightweight fill. Once existing backfill is removed the area will be compacted with a vibratory roller and a geo-textile placed in the bottom of the excavation. Lightweight fill to be placed and compacted and wrapped in the geotextile. Gravel will be placed on top of the fill/geotextile in one six inch lift and compacted with a vibratory roller. All work will be done from the upland and no activities will take place within the water resource (Salem Harbor). A concrete pad will be installed on the final grade for the storage of spill response equipment. The sheetpile wall will remain at least 12-inches above the working and/or final grade, therefore there is no need or means of installing a silt fence. This work will take approximately three to four weeks to complete. "aformt.doc Page 2 of 4 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Salem WPA Form 1- Request for Determination of Applicability Citylrown Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 C. Project Description (cont.) b. Identify provisions of the Wetlands Protection Actor regulations which may exempt the applicant from having to file a Notice of Intent for all or part of the described work(use additional paper, if necessary). The purpose of the proposed activities is to provide necessary maintenance to the existing sheetpile wall. No adverse impacts are anticipated from the proposed work. Construction methods have been employed to avoid any adverse impacts. The sheetpile wall will remain at a minimum of 1 foot above the working or final grade to prevent any erosion or sedimentation. Excess fill will be stored or used in an appropraite upland location away from the resource area. 3. a. If this application is a Request for Determination of Scope of Alternatives for work in the Riverfront Area, indicate the one classification below that best describes the project. ❑ Single family house on a lot recorded on or before 8/1/96 ❑ Single family house on a lot recorded after 8/1/96 ❑ Expansion of an existing structure on a lot recorded after 8/1/96 ❑ Project, other than a single family house or public project, where the applicant owned the lot before 8/7/96 ❑ New agriculture or aquaculture project ❑ Public project where funds were appropriated prior to 8/7/96 ❑ Project on a lot shown on an approved, definitive subdivision plan where there is a recorded deed restriction limiting total alteration of the Riverfront Area for the entire subdivision ❑ Residential subdivision; institutional, industrial, or commercial project ❑ Municipal project ❑ District, county, state, or federal government project ❑ Project required to evaluate off-site alternatives in more than one municipality in an Environmental Impact Report under MEPA or in an alternatives analysis pursuant to an application for a 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or 401 Water Quality Certification from the Department of Environmental Protection. b. Provide evidence (e.g., record of date subdivision lot was recorded) supporting the classification above(use additional paper and/or attach appropriate documents, if necessary.) wpaforml.doc Page 3 of 4 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Salem WPA Form 1- Request for Determination of Applicability city/Tom Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 D, Signatures and Submittal Requirements I hereby certify under the penalties of perjury that the foregoing Request for Determination of Applicability and accompanying plans, documents, and supporting data are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I further certify that the property owner, if different from the applicant, and the appropriate DEP Regional Office were sent a complete copy of this Request(including all appropriate documentation) simultaneously with the submittal of this Request to the Conservation Commission. Failure by the applicant to send copies in a timely manner may result in dismissal of the Request for Determination of Applicability. Name and address of the property owner: Dominion Energy Salem Harbor LLC Name 24 Fort Avenue Mailing Address Salem Ciryrrom MA 01970 State Zip Code Signatures: I also understand that notification of this Request will be placed in a local newspaper at my expense in accordance with Section 10.05(3)(b)(1) of the Wetlands Protection Act regulations. K3Ccom:o (01z312�io Signature of Applicant Date Signature of Representative(if any) Date w aforml.dcc Page 4 of Attachment 1 - Figures Locus Map Plan, Section, and Notes Photos Salem-Harbor Station ++ Salem Harbor II ` Location of Existing Sheet Pile Wall Figure 1 Salem Harbor Station Locus Map Salem, MA :> Dominion• �4 v N tQ O POWER (� CONCRETE ANCHOR 4 O PLANT BLOCK(BELOW) Bo00 I I 11 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I \ \ SALEM TIE ROD(BELOW)iOOO Ko HARBOR l I I I � I 1 I I I I I 11 II 11 11 II 11 11 11 11 1\ \\ EQUIPMENT PAD 1 1 1 1 1 1 1\ O Nk", n 11 \ 11 1 1 11 SHEETPILE WALL 1 n SHEETPILE WALL LOCUS NO SCALE PLAN 10 EXISTING GRADE AT GCOURSEURFACE WALL VARIES EL.11'-15' SPECIFICATIONS: COURSE EL.ILL CAP EL.16.0' 1. MATERIALS EXISTING LIGHTWEIGHT FILL 1.A. LIGHTWEIGHT FILL:NORUTEO EXPANDED SHALE AGGREGATE MEETING THE GRADE GEOTEXTILE B• REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM C-330. DRV LOOSE DENSITY�50 PCF;IN-SITU DENSITY (MOIST,SURFACE DRY)<60 PCF. SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF PARTICLES>1.2. 1 4'-0• GRADATION AS-DELIVERED: 1 SIEVE SIZE %PASSING 1- F 1' 100 ANCHORBLOCK 20'-0• WALE 314" 90-100 EL.10.5' 3B• 10-W 6-0• 714 0-15 �' TIE ROD EL.5.0' EL.0.0'MLW 1.8. GRAVEL:EXISTING STONE&SAND EXCAVATED ONSITE OR GRAVEL BORROW EXISTING FII TER NOT DISTURB) CONFORMING TO MHO SPEC.M1.03.1. 44'-0' 1.C. GEOTEXTILE:MIRAFIS 140N. 2. EXECUTION 2.A SCHEDULE WORK CONSIDERING TIDES,SUCH THAT NO WORK INVOLVING THE BATTER PILE EXCAVATION OR PLACEMENT OF FILL OCCUR$WHEN TIDE IS ABOVE EL.9.01. 2.B. REMOVE EXISTING EQUIPMENT PAD. MUDUNE 2.C. EXCAVATE TO ELEVATION SHOWN,TAKING CARE NOT TO DISTURB EXISTING (APPROX) FILTER OR ANCHOR&TIE ROD SYSTEM. 2.0. PROOF-ROLL SUBGRADE WITH A WALK-BEHIND VIBRATORY ROLLER. 2.E. PLACE GEOTEXTILE IN BOTTOM OF EXCAVATION. 2.F. PLACE AND COMPACT LIGHTWEIGHT FILL PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS. SECTION 2.G. WRAP GEOTEXTILE OVER TOP OF LIGHTWEIGHT FILL. 2.H. PLACE GRAVEL SURFACE COURSE IN ONE&INCH LIFT. COMPACT WITH AT LEAST THREE PASSES OF A WALK-BEHIND VIBRATORY ROLLER. ' L , DBmINen EnaW N. PLAN,SECTION,8 NOTES cNBrIM1 Blleatpile WaY YwnxY. Y G E I a< HaM,Inc, Re9a411g ILI9htxaipM1l FlO S` Salon DNor Stetlon Salem,Masaacnusam aav �� smucmox cea � 2ao u.�.. ax ccx �� ♦+'� LFII CML - F 195YFAiFA6CN MlI W M10 C£I MgaYMIBW,LW 1025 Photographs of the Existing Sheetpile Wall 12 1 Photo 1: View of the back of the existing sheetpile wall looking southwest. F r �v' �' � t•, � .rg.bY�')" F y,S.�rr'tr JJ"- '� v:y'a'Sr �..'+� � .ry . . 4 v to Photo ofthebackofthe existing sheetpilelooking Attachment 2 — Structural Calculations f , CALCULATIONS for North Sheetpile Wall Regrading Salem Harbor Station Salem,Massachusetts GEI Consultants, Inc. March 31,2010 Table of Contents Section' Pap-e(s) Discussion............................................................ . ,,. ..1...................... ......... .........l Cross*SectiowSketch ...... ........ ........2 WALLAAAnalysis ..:...................................................................,, .............3-13 NorliteQD Testing;Report�:. ......... ......... 17-23 Exce is from 1 5. Des1 Calculations 14-16 OF 1wds'l, CHARAE R 4 p M V Cid N .473110. l9 GIsTS �� y o�FSSION A1.EAG\ j:. f a I (pq'0"t Client: Dominion Prepared: I Project: North Sheetpile Wall Date: .Z.1-.d1�.- 2oI o Zol Project No.: 06469-0 Checked: T Luau Date: 28 Mme- Zola Design of Lightweight fill for North Sheetpile Wall The existing grade behind the sheetpile wall is approximately El. 13' MILK The grade needs to be raised to EI. 15'for equipment access. An analysis of the wall indicates that raising the grade using gravel fill or crushed stone would increase the loads on the sheet piles beyond acceptable levels. The proposed solution involves the use of lightweight expanded shale aggregate. The bulk unit weight of this material is less than half of that of typical soils. The existing fill within about 20 feet of the wall will be excavated to EI. 10.5,4 feet of lightweight aggregate will be placed and compacted, and a 6-inch-thick gravel wearing surface will be placed to bring the final grade to EI. 15. An analysis of the wall in its existing condition was performed by GEI in 2009. A revised analysis of the proposed configuration using lightweight fill demonstrates that there is no net increase in the loads on the sheetpiles or anchors. Critical to this analysis is the assumption that the area of lightweight fill covers the extent of the active wedge (Line A on the attached sketch). A review of the sketch indicates that the lightweight fill (Area 3)does cover most of the extent of the active wedge. The configuration therefore conforms to the assumptions made for the analysis. Another consideration that must be examined is the stability of the existing deadman anchors during construction (after the existing fill has been excavated to El. 10.5) and after the lightweight fill has been placed. During Construction - On the attached sketch, Area 2 is the passive wedge for the anchor in the existing condition. It can be seen that the proposed excavation does not intrude into the passive wedge. The driving force in the active wedge is reduced. Given these considerations, the anchor is OK during construction. • After Construction (Lightweight Fill In Place)- Placement of the lightweight fill and gravel surface course will result in essentially no change in weight of the active wedge from the existing pre-construction condition. There will be a small increase in the burial depth of the anchor, resulting in an increase in the net passive resistance, although this is partially offset by the overlap of the passive and active wedges (Lines A and B), Given these-considerations,the anchor is OK after construction. • It is also noted that the sheetpile wall was repaired in 1995. The repairs included the addition of the deadman anchors. The 1995 design calculations were based on an undrained shear strength of 500 psf in the seaward marine clay. Borings and laboratory testing by GEI in 2009 indicated a strength of 1100 psf for the clay, and subsequent analyses of the wall showed a reduction of 30% in the calculated anchor load (compared to the 1995 design). This consideration adds conservatism to the evaluation of the anchor for the proposed construction. Attachments - Cross-Section Sketch - Analysis of Wall (WALLAP) . - Excerpt from 1995 Design - Norlite Test Report (GEI, 2008) 1 1 � 1 O L3 W a' LJ ly M � � 1 W W �' W { it At rn _ o N s . ki, ti J �.. . T #. V ul or GEJ CONSULTANTS, INC. Sheet No. 3 Program: WALLAP Version 5.04 Revision A32.B47.R38 Licensed from GEOSOLVE Job No. 091840 Run ID. Norlite Made by CBG Salem Harbor Station - North Bulkhead Date:25-03-2010 Grade E1. 15 (Lightweight Fill) Checked :SLL --------------- ----------------------- _ . Units: lb,ft2.8.,o?-2ow INPUT DATA SOIL PROFILE Stratum Elevation of ------------------- Soil types ------------------ no. top of stratum Active side Passive side 1 13.00 1 Fill 1 Fill 2 -6.00 2 Org. Silt 2 Org. Silt 3 -16.00 3 Marine Clay 4 Marine Clay Sea Side SOIL PROPERTIES Bulk Young s At rest' Consol' Active Passive -- Soil type -- density Modulus coeff. state. limit limit Cohesion No. Description lb/ft3 Eh,lb/ft2 Ko NC/OC Ka Kp lb/ft2 (Datum elev.) (dEh/dy ) (dKo/dy) ( Nu ) ( Kac ) 1 Kpc ) ( do/dy 1 1 Fill 120.Oa, 0 0.500 NC 0.270, 3.700 130.Ob/( 10000), (0.330) (0.000) ( 0.000) 2 Org. Silt 90.00, 360000, 0.500 NC 1.000' 1.000' 150.Od (0.490)- (2.000) ( 2.000) 3 Marine Clay 120.0, 720000, 0.500 NC 1.000, 1.000' 1200d (0.490) (2.000) ( 2.000) 4 Marine Clay 120.0' 660000, 0.500 NC 1.000, 1.000 1100d Sea Side (0.490)' (2.000) ( 2.000) 5 Norlite 50.00a, 0 • 0.500 NC 0.260' 3.852 , 90.00b/( 25000) ' (0.330)/(0.000) ( 0.000) Note: (a) and (b) are Bulk Densities above and below the water table Additional soil Parameters associated with Ka and RP --- parameters for Ka --- --- parameters for Kp --- Soil Wall Back- Soil Wall Back- ------ Soil type ------- friction adhesion fill friction adhesion fill No. Description angle coeff. angle angle coeff. angle 1 Fill 35.09 0.000 0.00 35.06 0.000 0.00 2 Org. Silt 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 3 Marine Clay 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 4 Marine Clay Sea Side 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 5 Norlite 36.00 0.000 0.00 36.00 0.000 0.00 GROUND WATER CONDITIONS Density of water = 62.40 lb/ft3 Active side Passive side Initial water table elevation 5.00 0.00 Automatic water pressure balancing at toe of wall : No WALL PROPERTIES / Elevation of toe of wall = -44.00 Maximum finite element length = 3.00 ' C Youngs modulus of wall E = 4.1760E+09 lb/ft2 Moment of inertia of wall I = 0.013550 ft4/ft run E.I = 5.6585E+07 lb.ft2/ft run Yield Moment of wall = Not defined STRUTS and ANCHORS - Strut/ X-Section Inclin Pre- anchor Strut area Youngs Free -ation stress Tension no.. Elev. spacing of strut modulus length (degs) /strut allowed ft sq.£t lb/ft2 ft lb 1 5.00 6.00 0.018740 4.176E+09 45.00 0.00 1.000 No CONSTRUCTION STAGES A Construction Stage description `F stageno.. -------------------------------------------------------- I Install strut or anchor no.l at elevation 5.00 2 Excavate to elevation -17.00 on PASSIVE side 3 Change EI of wall to 4.9861E+07 lb.ft2/ft run Yield moment not defined Allow wall to relax with new modulus value - 4 Excavate to elevation 10.50 on ACTIVE side 5 Fill to elevation 14.50 on ACTIVE side with soil type 5 6 Fill to elevation 15.00 on ACTIVE side with soil type 1 i FACTORS OF SAFETY and ANALYSIS OPTIONS Type of structure - Retaining wall Stability analysis: Method of analysis - CP2 Factor on passive for calculating wall depth = 1.50 Factor on passive for calculating tie force = 1.00 Parameters for undrained strata: Minimum equivalent fluid density = 0.00 lb/ft3 Maximum depth of water filled tension crack = 0.00 ft Bending moment and displacement calculation: Method - Subgrade reaction model using Influence Coefficients Open Tension Crack analysis? - No Non-linear Modulus Parameter (L) = 60.00 ft ✓ Boundary conditions: Length of wall (normal to plane of analysis) = 150.00 ft i Width of excavation on active side of wall = 20.00 ftp Width of excavation on passive side of wall = 1000.00 ft Distance to rigid boundary on active side = 1000.00 ft Distance to rigid boundary on passive side = 1000.00 ft OUTPUT OPTIONS Results to be stored on disk? - Yes Results to be output on the printer? - No Stage ------ Stage description ----------- ------- Output options ------- no. Displacement Active, Graph. Bending mom. Passive output Shear force pressures 1 Install strut no.l at elev. 5.00 - No No No 2 Excav, to elev. -17.00 on PASSIVE side Yes Yes Yes 3 Change EI of wall to 4.9861E+071b.ft2/ Yes Yes Yes 4 Excav, to elev. 10.50 on ACTIVE side Yes Yes Yes 5 Fill to elev. 14.50 on ACTIVE side Yes Yes Yes 6 Fill to elev. 15.00 on ACTIVE side Yes Yes Yes * Summary output Yes - Yes Program WALLAP - Copyright (C) 2008 by DL Borin, distributed by GEOSOLVE 69 Rodenhurst Road, London SW4, UK. Tel: +44 20 8674 7251 , 'GES CONSULTANTS, INC. Sheet No... Program: WALLAP Version 5.04 Revision A32.B47.R38 Licensed from GEOSOLVE Job No. 091840 gunZD. Norlite'. I, Made by CSG' Salem Harbor- Station - No=.th Bulkhead Date:25-03-2010 Grade El. 15 (Lightweight :Fill.) Checked ---------------------------------------------- --------- Units:. lb,ft Stage No.6 FHI to elev.15.00 on ACTIVE side 15.00 Norlite 10.50 _5.00.---------�------------ 5.00 Fitl !` 0.00 r e -------------7------------ -6.00 - o \ Org.,61t \\\ Y. 5 f 1 -17.00 r 1 r t !' 4 r l � j'Maririe.Ctay, Marine ClaP Sea Side r � f \ ! 1 r 1 (� -44.00_ \� 5000 2500 0 2500' 5000 Water pressure(lb/ft2) ' GES CONSULTANTS, INC. Sheet No. Program: WALLAP Version 5.04 Revision A32.B47.R38 Licensed from GEOSOLVE Job No. 091840 Run ID. Norlite Made by CBG Salem Harbor Station - North Bulkhead Date:25-03-2010 Grade E1. 15 (Lightweight Fill) Checked '--------^------------------------------------------------------------------ Units: lb,ft Stage No. 6 Fill to elevation 15.00 on ACTIVE side with soil type 1 STABILITY ANALYSIS according to CP2 method Factor of safety on gross pressure (excluding water pressure) FOS for toe Toe elev. for Strut force elev. _ -44.00 FOS = 1.500 for F=1.000 --------------- ----;-------- ----------- Stage --- G.L. --- Strut Factor Moment Toe Wall Strut No. Act. Pass. Elev. of equilib.. elev. Penetr force Safety at elev. -ation lb/ft run 6 15.00 -17.00 5.00 2.624 n/a -26.52 9.52 12661.82 BENDING MOMENT and DISPLACEMENT CALCULATION - Assumptions: Subgrade reaction model - Boussinesq Influence coefficients Soil deformations are elastic until the active or passive limit is reached Open Tension Crack analysis - No Length of wall perpendicular to section = 150.00ft Rigid boundaries: Active side 1000.00 from wall Passive side 1000.00 from wall Node y Nett Wall Wall Shear sending Strut EI of no. coord pressure disp. rotation force moment forces wall 1b/f t2 ft rad. lb ft lb.ft ft lb ft lb.ft2/ft 1 15.00 0.00 -0.069 -1.19E-02 0.0 -0.0 49861000 2 14.50 29.56 -0.063 -1.19E-02 7.4 1.3 49861000 28.91 -0.063 -1.19E-02 7.4 1;2 3 13.00 63.37 -0.045 -1.19E-02 76.6 62.0 49861000 4 10.50 98.93 -0.015 -1.19E-02 279.5 414.7 49861000 116.41 -0.015 -1.19E-02 279.5 414.7 5 7.75 260.76 0.018 -1.20E-02 798.1 1951.9 49861000 6 5.00 281.69 0.051 -1.22E-02 1544.0 5354.8 11871.9 49861000 281.69 0.051 -1.22E-02 -10327.9 5354.8 7 2.50 475.52 0.082 -1.18E-02 -9381.4 -19505.4 49861000 8 0.00 667.48 0.110 -1..03E-02 -7952.7 -41236.4 49861000 9 -3.00 709.49 0.137 -7.27E-03 -5887.2 -61972.8 49861000 10 -6.00 761.17 0.152 -3.11E-03 -3681.2 -76408.8 49861000 1686.71 0.152 -3.11E-03 -3681.2 -76408.8 11 -9.00 1759.56 0.155 1.58E-03 1488.2 -79729.9 49861000 12 -12.00 1841.20 0.143 6.00E-03 6889.4 -67261.2 49861000 13 -14.00 1896.40 0.129 8.34E-03 10627.0 -49751.7 49861000 14 -16.00 1951.60 0.110 9.83E-03 14475.0 -24656.7 49861000 430.36 0.110 9.83E-03 14475.0 -24656.7 15 -17.00 421.30 0.100 1.01E-02 14900.8 -9969.6 49861000 -1778.70 0.100 1.01E-02 14900.8 -9969.6 16 -19.00 -1907.50 0.080 1.00E-02 11214.6 16190.7 49861000 17 -21.00 -2029.56 0.061 9.04E-03 7277.5 34633.6 49861000 18 -24.00 -2201.28 0.037 6.58E-03 931.3 47075.0 49861000 19 -27.00 -945.78 0.022 3.80E-03 -3789.3 45493.3 49861000 20 -30.00 149.89 0.014 1.53E-03 -4983.1 30048.7 49861000 21 -33.00 538.18 0.011 1.56E-04 -3951.0 15924.9 49861000 22 -36,00 536.81 0.012 -5.15E-04 -2338.5 6605.2 49861000 23 -39.00 364.31 0.014 -7.72E-04 -986.9 2095.4 49861000 24 -41.50 157.42 0.016 -8.44E-04 -334.7 809.3 49861000 25 -44.00 110.34 0.018 -8.64E-04 -0.0 0.0 --- Strut force at elev. 5.00 = 11871.89 lb/ft run = 71231.32 lb/strut Ruh ID. Norlite I Sheet No. Salem Harbor Station - North Bulkhead Date:25-03-2010 Grade E1. 15 (Lightweight Fill) I Checked -- ----- - (continued) Stage No.6 Fill to elevation 15.00 on ACTIVE side with soil type 1 Node Y ------------------------ ACTIVE side --------_<__________________ no. coord ------- Effective stresses ------- Total Soil Water Vertic Active Passive Earth earth stiffness press. -al limit limit pressure pressure coeff. lb/ft2 lb/ft2 lb/ft2 lb/ft2 lb/ft2 lb/ft2 lb/ft3 1 15.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0:00 0.00 0.00 28.5 2 14.50 0.00 60,00 16.20 222..00 29.56 29.56 171 0.00 60.00 15.60 231.11 28.91 28.91 428 3 13.00 0.00 135.00 35.10 519.99 63.37 63.37 1713 4 10.50 0.00 260.00 67.60 1001.46 98.93 98.93 3854 0.00 260.00 70.20 962.00 116.41 116.41 1541 5 7.75 0.00 590,00 159.30 2183.00 260.76 260.76 2484 6 5..00 0.00 920.00 248.40 3404.00 281.69 261.69 3426 7 2.50 156.00 1089.00 294.03 4029.30 319.52 475.52 4282 8 0.00 312.00 1258.00 339.66 4654.60 355.48 667.48 5138 9 -3.00 499.20 1460.80 394.42 5404.96 397.49 896.69 6166 10 -6.00 686.40 1663.60 449.17 6155.32 449.17 1135.57a 7194 686.40 1663.60 1363.60 1963..60 1374.71 2061.11 16190 11 -9.00 873.60 1746.40 1446.40 2046.40 1447.56 2321.16 16190 12 -12.00 1060.80 1829.20 1529.20 2129.20 1529,20 2590.00a 16190 13 -14.00 1185.60 1884.40 1584.40 2184.40 1584.40 2770.00a 16190 14 -16,00 1310.40 1939.60 1639.60 2239.60 1639.60 2950.00a 16190 1310.40 1939,60 0.00 4339.60 118.36 1428.76 32381 15 -17.00 1372.80 1997.20 0.00 4397.20 109.30 1482.10 32381 16 -19.00 1497.60 2112.40 0.00 4512..40 95.70 1593.30 32381 17 -21.00 1622.40 2227.60 0.00 4627..60 88.84 1711.24 32381 18 -24.:00 1809.60 2400.40 0.40 4800.40 89.92 1899.52 32381 19 -27,.00 1996.80 2573.20 173.20 4973.20 395.18 2391.98 32381 20 -30.00 2184.00 2746.00 346.00 5146:.00 812.14 2996.14 32381 21 -33.00 2371.20 2918.80 518.80 5318.80 995.95 3367.15 32381 22 -36.00 2558.40 3091.60 691.60 5491.60 1048.16 3606.56 32381 23 -39.00 2745.60 3264.40 864.40 5664.40 1044.74 3790.34 32381 24 -41:50 2901.60 3408.40 1008.40 5808.40 1019.02 3920.62 32381 25 -44:.00 3057.60 3552.40 1152.40 5952.40 1162.67 4220.27 32381 Node Y -------------------------- PASSIVE side --------------------------- no. coord -----. Effective stresses ------- Total Soil Water Vertic Active Passive Earth earth stiffness press. -al limit limit pressure pressure coeff. lb/ft2 lb/ft2 lb/ft2 lb/ft2 lb/ft2 lb/ft2 lb/ft3 1 15.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 2 14.50 0..00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0:00 0.0 3 13.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0..00 0.0 4 10.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 5 7.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 6 5.00 0.00 0100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 7 2,50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.,00 0.0 B 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 9 -3.00 187:20 O.OD 0.00 0.00 0.00 187.20 0.0 10 -6.00 374.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 374.40 0.0 11 -9.00 561.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 561.60 0.0 12 -12.00 74,8.80 O.DO 0.00 0.00 0.00 748.80 0.0 13 -14.00 873.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 873.60 0,0 14 -16.00 998.40 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 998.40 0,0 15 -17.00 1060.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1060..80 0.0 1060.80 0.00 0.00 2200.00 2200.00 3260.80p 60449 16 -19.00 1185.,60 115.20 0.00 2315.20 2315.20 3500.80p 60449 17 -21.00 1310.40 230.40 0.00 2430.40 2430.40 3740.80p 60449 18 -24.00 1497.60 403.20 0,00 2603.20 2603.20 4100.80p 60449 Run 10. Norlite Sheet No, O .Salem Harbor Station - North .Eulkhead Date:25-03-2010 O Grade El. 15 (Lightweight Fill) .Checked ----- -----' ------------- (continued) Stage; No.61 Fill .to elevation 15.00 on ACTIVE side with soil type 1 Node. Y ____________________ PASSIVE side ___-----------------_____-_ no. co_o_rd --=--- Sf.fective stresses ------- Total Soil Water Vertic Active Passive Earth earth stiffness press.. -:al limit limit, pressure pressure coeff. lb/ft2 lb/ft2 lb/fit lb/ft2 lb/ft2 lb/ft2 lb/ft3 19 -27:,00 1689.80 576.0.0 -0..00 2776.00 1652.-95 3337.75 60449 20 -.30.00 1872.00 748,80 0,,00 2948,..80 974,._24 2846.24 60499' 21 -33..00 2059:20. 921:_60 0..00 3121.60 769.71 2828•.97 60449 22 -36.00 2246.40 1094.41 0..,00 3294.41 :823.35 3069.75, 60499. . 23 -39.00 '2433.60' 1267.21, 0..00 3467..21 992.43 3426.03. 60449 24 -41:50 -2589.60. 1411.21 9.00 3611...-21 1173.60 3763.20 60449 25 -44:00 2745.60 1555.22 :0.90 3755.22 1364..33 4109.93 60449 Note: 2950%60a� Soil, pressure at active limit 4100..80p Soil pressure at passive limit GE1. CONSULTANTS, INC. ( Sheet No.. G Program: WALLAP Version 5.04 Revision A32.B47.R38 ( _1 Licensed from GEOSOLVE ( Job No, 091840 Run ID. Norlite Made by CBG Salem Harbor Station - North Bulkhead ( Date:25-03-2010 Grade E1. 15 (Lightweight Fill) ( Checked : --'---------^__--'-------------------------------------------- - --------- Units: lb,ft StageNo.6 Fill to elev.15,00 on ACTIVE side Bending moment(lb.ft/ft run) Displacement(ft) 100000 0 2100000 -0.2000 0 0.2000 15 15 I it 0 \,.... 0 t ...._..._ I 1 Elev. ,. i Elev � r -1515_:._: ....: _...::.: i :...:... �.__._.__ _.._.__...�_...:.._.. _...._...: Passive GL i -30 t I .._.._.._...,..... .30 1 I f -20000 0 I 20000 Q6—rm,.e n611k'.:„r .. Stage No.6 Fdl to elev.15.00 on ACTIVE side Active pressure(Ib/ft2) Nett pressure(Ib/ft2) 10000 0 -10000 4000 0 4000 15 15 I t i If . Elev: Elev. _ �5 i I .._..a»;� .15 .._. r :. I .. i ,..._.... Passive GI-7...-...,. ! r t 4 -30 + 1 ....._. -10000 0 10000 Passive pressure(Ib/112) , . GE4 CONSULTANTS; INC. :Sheet No.. .Program:: WALLAP Version 5.04: Revision: A32.B47.'R38 Licensed from GE0S01,VE Job No. 091840 Run ID. Norlite Made by CBG Salem Harbor Station - North Bulkhead - Date:25-03-2010. Grade E1. 15: .(Lightweight Fill) Checked : -------------------------------------------------------------------------- •Units: lb,ft Summary of results .STABILITY: ANALYSIS according to CP2 :method Factor of, safety. on -gross: Pressure (excluding water pressure) FOS for toe' Toe elev. for Strut .force •elev. = -44.00 FOS =1.500 for F=1.000. ---------------- ------------ --------- Stage --- G.L. --- Strut Factor Moment Toe Wall Strut No. Act. Pass. Elev. of equilib. elev. Penetr force !Safety at slew. -ation -Ib/ft run 1 13.00' 13.:00 5.00 Conditions not suitable for FOScalc. 2 13.00 -17.00 5..00 2.531 n/a -26.80 9.:80 - 12910.50 3 13.00 -17.0.0 5.0.0. 2.533 n/a =26.80 9.80 12910.5.0 4 10.50 -17.0.0 5.00.. 2.918 n/a -25.69 8.69 10554.85 5 14.50: -17.00 .5`.00 2.756 n/a -26.85 9.25 12070:11 6 15,06 -.17.00 5.00` 2.629' n/aa. -26.52 9..52 126:61.82 f GE1 CONSULTANTS, INC. Sheet No. Program: WALLAP Version 5.04 Revision A32.B47.R38 Licensed from GEOSOLVE Job No. 091840 Run ID. Norlite Made by CBG Salem Harbor Station - North Bulkhead Date:25-03-2010 Grade E1. 15 (Lightweight Fill) Checked : -----------___--------_------------------------------------------------- Units: ________________________ ___________--_______Units: lb,ft Summary of results SENDING MOMENT and DISPLACEMENT CALCULATION - Assumptions: Subgrade reaction model - Boussinesq Influence coefficients Soil deformations are elastic until the active or passive limit is reached Open Tension Crack analysis - No Length of wall perpendicular to section = 150.00ft Rigid boundaries: Active side 1000.00 from wall Passive side 1000.00 from wall Sanding moment, shear force and displacement envelopes Node Y Displacement Bending moment Shear force no. coord •maximum minimum maximum minimum maximum minimum ft ft lb.ft/ft lb.ft/ft lb/ft lb/ft 1 15.00 0.009 -0.078 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 2 14.50 0.009 -0.071 1.3 -0.0 7.4 0.0 3 13.00 0.010 -0.053 62.0 -0.0 76.6 0.0 4 10.50 0.010 -0.023 414.7 -91.3 309.1 -24.1 5 7.75 0.023 0.000 2154.6 -139.0 1044.1 -107.7 6 5:00 0.053 0.000 6295.7 -592.1 1844.8 -10394.9 7 2..50 0.082 0.000 0.0 -20973.0 0.0 -9449.9 8 0.00 0.110 0.000 0.0 -41432.4 0.0 -8045.7 9 -3..00 0.137 0.000 0.0 -62010.2 0.0 -5976.2 10 -6.00 0.152 0.000 0.0 -76532.2 98.8 -3742.4 11 -9.00 0.155 0.000 0.0 -79839.1 1553.9 0.0 12 -12.00 0.143 0.000 0.0 -67261.2 7073.3 0.0 13 -14.00 0.129 0.000 98.8 -49751.7 10890.9 0.0 14 -16.00 0.110 0.000 1196.5 -24656.7 14818.9 0.0 15 -17.00 0.100 0.000 1697.8 -10502.9 15130.9 0.0 16 -19..00 0.080 0.000 18019.1 0.0 11239.7 0.0 17 -21.00 0.061 0.000 36385.9 0.0 7277.5 -31.5 18 -24..00 0.037 0.000 47940.2 0.0 986.6 -161.0 19 -27..00 0.022 0.000 45493.3 0.0 0.0 -4084.1 20 -30.00 0.014 0.000 30048.7 0.0 0.0 -5019.5 21 -33..00 0.012 0.000 16019.6 0.0 0.0 -3951..0 22 -36.00 0.012 0.000 6847.3 0.0 0.0 -2338.5 23 -39.00 0.014 0.000 2267.4 0.0 0.0 -1041..2 24 -41.50 0.016 0.000 845.2 0.0 0.0 -378:2 25 -44.00 0.018 0.000 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 Maximum and minimum bending moment and shear force at each stage Stage >_------- Bending moment --------- ---------- Shear force ---------- no. maximum elev. minimum elev. maximum elev. minimum elev. lb.ft/ft lb.ft/ft lb/ft lb/ft 1 2275.9 -21.00 -2411.7 -3.00 598.8 -16.00 -329.6 2.50 2 47940.2 -24-.00 -79839.1 -9.00 15130.9 -17.00 -10372.1 5.00 3 47767.8 -24.00 -79671.9 -9.00 15105.6 -17.00 -10394..9 5.00 4 45655.6 -24.00 -77145.7 -9.00 14203.3 -17.00 -9285.9 5.00 5 46875.0 -24.00 -78957.2 -9..00 14737.5 -17.00 -10042.0 5.00 ' 6 47075.0 -24..00 .-7972.9.9 -9.00 14900.8 -17.00 -10327.9 5.00 C_ H A 06 E Ruff ID. Norl its Sheet No. Salem Harbor Station Norah Bulkhead ( Date:25-03-2.010 Z Grade, El. 15 (Lightweight: Fill) Checked ----— ------------------------------------------------------------- Summa*7 of results (continued) Maximum, andminimum displacement at each stage Stage. -.------- Displacement --.------- stage description no'. maximum elev. minimum elev. ------------------ ft ft 1- 0:'011. 2.50 0.000, 15:6,0 Install strut no.l at elev. 5.00 :2 0:140, -9'...00. -0.051 15.00 Excay. to elev. -17.00 on PASSIVE side 3 0..154 -9.00 -01.065 15.00: Change EIS of wall to 4.9861E+07'lb.'£t2/ft run 9- 0:1.48 -9:00 -6.078 15.00. Excav, to elev.. I0.5Q on ACTIVE side 5, .0.:152 -9.00 -0-.072 15.00 Fill to elev. 14.50 on ACTIVE side 'b: 0..155 -9.00 -0.069 15.00 Fi 11, to elev. 15::00 on ACTIVE .side Strut forces at each stage (horisontal components) Stage --- Strut no. 1 --- no. at elev. 5.00: lb/ft run. -lb/strut. 1 6.2 1.0 2 12087..7 7.2526.1 3 12239.6 . 73437.8 4= 9946.5 59678.7 I� 25 11326.5 67958:9 c r e' ds � 7 �. k. 6 11871.9' 71231..3. GETCONSULTANTS, INC. Sheet No.. Program: -WALLAP Version. 5.09 .Revision A32.B97.R38 Licensed from GEOSOLVE (. Job No. 091840 Run ID. Norlite Hide by CEG' Salem Harbor Station - North Bulkhead ( Date:25-03-2010 Grade E1. 15 (Lightweight Fill) ( Checked r ---------------------'---------- ------------------------------- - units: lb,.ft Bending moment, shear force, displacement envelopes Banding moment pb.ft/ftrun) Displacement(ftj 100000 0 -100000 •0.2000 0 0.2000 15 1 15 � i t i D ..... , w. :_ w...... o ... .. Eley. L �:, I Elev. I i _a 1 r ' { IIII � � k I 20000 0 20000 - - Shear force(Iblft:run) l4 ATTACHMENT A- CALCULATIONS Review of Proposed Repair to North Bulkhead Salem Harbor Station Salem,Massachusetts June 2, 1995 Prepared for New England Power Service Company Westborough, Massachusetts Prepared by GEI Consultants, Inc. 1021 Main Street Winchester,Massachusetts 01890-1970 %OF bfq y�q ' R. LEE wOl7rFA1 m.• No.37930 V• FBs�oxaL,sU� R. Lee Wooten,P.E. „,Q; Project Manager GEI Consultants, Inc. Project 9 y.337-y p.Be S,ne.r 3 orient �� Date r/2//r By Subject Checked S/a 31 QS By Approved By 71 -- - K T s /0-� exc'ece-"er f-4 ®i-s�Ocs te•.ag4 z %L 'r ro-.��A3 r'o). NEP CA) elod=4 'e Q s 20' 4�c .�sru,+�o��essS: o-tJnt`'�orw� 5urc�ti-w�Je = zoo Psi e. .b.rP 4� S __J r•J e F- e .r 5,,ely 4 - T7-0 k /FE IYW-rs,4�r Z,y% Z7c s Ore ; - re 2040 JOA-ede-9 r�;//r�'�.s .�N✓ 7�S r WA Q-5/�� +'f r a....-q� cg a drr��q /pLa-/QCs � Je - 4%D�d,(.le/ -// 2 -e/7-X,&$- .Lo��`. o%a:cf ct..v--�Qor-'s NS< {.•-gym — (/fs• / TLL�l4 [YL G�/'L� V Ib GEI Consultants, Inc. / n Project 94 33 7 page z.z A Caen Dnte y�/Y�9S By WXr Subject Checked Br P Appmvcd By 251 9' E/ i3 lags gc7t w.0 ,4e-�«rP ' s�+"��rvctr—s.� �lr S Sw aie ` h7 ' Fj� o d-' r-v /k-Orva�.�-'$' sce ia®) �— i•�-la.«-eo s6-�ceo e-F" f^�� slL.r �_��,/�� . r7 GEIC�! casacnn�wl _ Enai..t.l and April 18,2008 E" ng Project 071810 Mr.William H.Wolfe Senior Engineer « Norlite Corporation 628 South Saratoga Street Cohoes,New York 12047 Dear Mr.Wolfe: Re: Geotechnical Testing for Norlite Lightweight Aggregate Norlite Corporation Cohoes,New York This letter report presents the results of the laboratory and field testing program performed by GEI Consultants,Inc. on'/,-inch Norlite lightweight aggregate. The lightweight aggregate is an expanded shale material manufactured by the NoTlite Corporation. Material for the laboratory testing program was supplied by Norlite in early June 2007. Field testing was performed at the Norlite facility in Cohoes,New York on June 29,2007. The testing program was performed to evaluate geotechnical properties of Norlite's current production of 3/4-inch lightweight aggregate. Mr.William Wolfe of Norlite Corporation authorized our work by signed copy of GEI proposal 614618 (Rev. 1)dated August 21,2006,and subsequent proposal revisions. Scope of Work . Our scope included the following laboratory and field tests: 1. Grain size analyses 2. Density tests ■ Maximum-minimum density • Compaction 3. Permeabilityhests 4. Triaxial compression tests wvrw.geiconaulranta.com GEI Coneoltaz 'Inc. 400 Unicom Pads Drive.Wobum,MA 01801 781.721.4000 fix:781.721.4073 Mr.William H.Wolfe 2 April 18,2008 5. Electrical and chemical properties tests • Chloride content Sulfate content • Laboratory and Field Resistivity ' • pH • Organic content 6. Durability tests • LA abrasion • Soundness 7. California bearing ratio(CBR)tests Index,density,triaxial,pH,and organic content tests were performed by GEI at our Woburn, Massachusetts location. Permeability,LA abrasion,soundness, and CBR tests were performed by GeoTesting Express of Boxborough,Massachusetts. Sulfate and chloride content tests were performed by Alternative Testing Laboratories,Inc.of Lamont Furnace,Pennsylvania. The laboratory resistivity test was performed by Navarro&Wright Consulting Engineers,Inc.of New Cumberland,Pennsylvania. GEI performed field electrical resistivity measurements of lightweight aggregate stockpiles at Norlite's facility in Cohoes,New York. General Norlite lightweight aggregate'is manufactured at the Norlite facility in Cohoes by expanding and vitrifying shale in a rotary kiln at temperatures of about 2,000017. At this temperature,gases forming inside the shale particles cause expansion of the shale particles,and result in small cavities. The lightweight material formed in this manner is then crushed and sorted into various gradations. The dry density of this material,as defined in this report,is the oven-dried sample weight divided by the total sample volume. The total sample volume includes the volume of the entrapped air within the aggregate particles and the void spaces between aggregate particles. Grain Size Analyses We performed four grain size analyses in general accordance with ASTM C136,"Standard Test Method for Sieve Analyses of Fine and Coarse Aggregates." Two of the grain size analyses were performed on lightweight aggregate at the"as-delivered"condition. The third analysis was performed on the sample used for triaxial test S6 prior to performing the test. The fourth test was performed on the same material following completion of the triaxial test. A plot of the three grain size curves performed prior to any testing is shown in Figure Al, Plots of the grain size analyses performed on the sample prior to and following completion of triaxial test S6 are shown in Figure A2. Individual grain size curves are presented in Figures A3 to A6. Grain size analyses results from the three as-delivered samples'indicate consistent gradation of the lightweight aggregate. Examination of the grain size analyses in Figure A2 suggests some breakage of the lightweight aggregate during preparation and triaxial testing. - Iq Mr.William H.Wolfe 3 April 18,2008 Density Tests Maximum-Minimum Density Tests We performed maximum and minimum density tests in general accordance with ASTM procedures D4253 and D4254,respectively. The results of the tests are presented in Appendix B I. The maximum density test was performed using an eccentric weight,vertically vibrating table to densify aggregate placed in a mold. One maximum density was measured using oven-dried aggregate(Method 2A)and one using wet aggregate(Method 2B). Both tests were conducted using a 0.5 cubic foot mold The minimum density test was performed by pouring dry aggregate loosely into a 0.5 cubic foot mold using Method A. The maximum dry density of the lightweight aggregate was 43.2 lb/f?using the wet method and 43.5 lb/ft3 using the dry method. The minimum dry density was 42.5 lb&. Corppaction Tests To measure the compacted density,we performed one Standard Proctor in general accordance with ASTM D698,Method C and one test at a reduced compaction energy. The results of the Standard Proctor tests are shown in Appendix B2. The Standard Proctor test was performed using six trial points and water contents varying between 1.4 and 10.4 percent. The compacted dry density was determined to be about 531b/fe as shown in Table B2. As shown in Figure B2,the compacted density of the lightweight aggregate does not appear to be sensitive to its moisture content. The Standard Proctor compaction test caused visible grain breakage of the aggregate. The higher measured densities relative to the maximum density test densities are likely caused by grain breakage causing the void spaces to become partially filled with broken aggregate. A second compaction test was performed at a reduced energy to help evaluate the effects of grain breakage. The second test was performed using 25 blows per lift instead of 56 blows per lift. As shown in Table B2,the maximum compacted dry density of this test was 52.2 lb/ft3,with an average compacted density.of 491b/fe. The maximum dry densities determined by the modified Standard Proctor test are still higher than the maximum index density of the material. The higher densities at lower water contents shown in Figure Bl,may be a result of greater grain breakage of the drier materials. The natural"as-delivered"moisture content of the lightweight aggregate,is approximately 7.5 percent. Table Bl shows a compacted density of approximately 48 lb/ft'at that water content. The minimum index density of 42.51b e is very close to the average maximum index density of 43.4 lb/ft'obtained using the ASTM D-4253 procedure. Therefore,it appears that a relatively compact material can be achieved without much compactive effort. We anticipate,however,that regardless of the method of placement of the lightweight aggregate, some breakage will occur. Therefore,we performed the remaining tests on either"loose"material, at approximate dry densities of 42.5 lb/ft or lower,or"dense"material with approximate dry densities of 47 lb/ft3. The density of 47 We was chosen as approximately the average between the maximum index density(ASTM D4253)and the densities obtained from the modified Standard Mr.William H.Wolfe 4 April 18,2008 Proctor test(ASTM D698). This density,appears to be representative of the density of placed and lightly compacted lightweight aggregate in the field,the"as-placed"density. Permeability Tests GeoTesting Express performed two constant head permeability tests in a 10-inch diameter permeameter,in general accordance with ASTM D2434,"Standard Test Method for Permeability of Granular Soils (Constant Head)", The results of the constant head permeability tests are shown in Appendix C. The first test was performed in material loosely placed in the pemreameter,resulting in a measured dry density of 40.1 Ib/f' The second test was performed on material lightly compacted in the permeameter in lifts,resulting in a dry density of 47.0 lb/fl. To allow water to saturate the porous lightweight aggregate,both samples were soaked for 48 hours in de-aired water prior to testing. The tests were performed at gradients varying between 0.33 to 0.44 and 0.26 to 0.38 for the loose and dense samples respectively. The results of these tests are presented in Table Cl. The average permeability of the loose sample was 2.5 cm/sec. The average permeability of the dry sample was 1.1 cm/sec. Triaxial Compression Tests We performed two sets of consolidated-drained triaxial compression(CIDC)tests on loose and dense specimens of lightweight aggregate. The samples were prepared using different methods to compact the samples to achieve loose and dense samples. Three consolidation stresses were used for each set of tests. Due to the size of the aggregate,the tests were performed on specimens approximately 6 inches in diameter and 12 inches in height. Results of the triaxial tests are summarized in Table Dl and shown in Figures D1 through D6 of Appendix D. Photos of the testing are shown on the last page of Appendix D. Aggregate used for triaxial testing was soaked in de-aired water for 48 hours prior to testing. Loose specimens were prepared by loosely placing the aggregate in a membrane lined split mold, centered over the bottom pedestal of the triaxial test frame. Achieved dry densities varied between 41.5 and 431bW. Dense specimens were placed in the mold in one inch thicknesses and each lightly tamped. This method of placement resulted in densities ranging between 45.9 and 46.31bW. The specimens were subjected to a vacuum through the top and bottom platens to allow removal of the split mold,leaving the specimen intact. The compression chamber was then assembled and the cell was filled with water. All the specimens were back-pressure saturated to fill the voids between the aggregate particles with water. The loose samples were then consolidated to 0.74,2.2 and 4.1 kips/110' The dense samples were consolidated to 0.41,2.1 and 4.2 kips/fO. Once consolidated, the samples were loaded in compression and sheared with the drain lines open. Figures D 1 through D6 show that the friction angle decreased with increasing confining stress in both sets of tests. It varied from 42.1 to 37.5 degrees for the loose specimen and from 55,7 to 42.6 degrees for the dense specimen. Both loose and dense specimens dilated during shearing under the lower confining stresses,and became increasingly contractive with increasing confining stress. Mr.William H.Wolfe 5 April 18,2008 The membrane of test S2 developed a leak at the end of the test. The membrane of test S3 ruptured at 11.5 percent strain. Therefore,subsequent tests were performed using a double membrana, Electrical and Chemical Properties Tests . pH We performed a total of three pH tests on the lightweight aggregate in general accordance with AASHTO T289,"Standard Method of Test for Determining pH of Soil for Use in Corrosion Testing." The tests were performed on crushed material passing the No. 10 sieve, The average pH of the material was 6.76. Test results are summarized in Table El. Chloride Content Alternative Testing Laboratories performed one test for water soluble chloride ion content in soil. The test was performed in accordance with AASHTO T290,"Determining Water-Soluble Chloride Ion Content in Soil,"Method A,except the material was tested in its"as-delivered"condition. The AASHTO procedure calls for pulverizing the material and testing the portion that passes the No. 10 sieve. The material was tested"as-delivered,"because this condition would more accurately represent the placed condition of the lightweight aggregate, Placement of the material and light compaction of the material in the field would not result in pulverized material. The water soluble chloride content of the"as-delivered"lightweight aggregate was 24 ppm. The chloride test results are included in Appendix El. Sulfate Content Similarly,Alternative Testing Laboratories performed one test for water soluble sulfate ion content in soil, The test was performed in accordance with AASHTO T291,"Determining Water-Soluble Sulfate Ion Content in Soil,"Method B,except the material was tested"as-delivered". This AASHTO procedure also calls for pulverizing the material and testing the portion that passes the No. 10 sieve. The material was tested"as-delivered,"because this condition would more accurately represent the placed condition of the lightweight aggregate. Placement of the material and light compaction of the material in the field would not result in pulverized material The water soluble sulfate content of the"as-delivered"lightweight aggregate was 74 ppm. The sulfate test results are included nc in Appendix El. Organic Content We performed one organic content test on crushed material:passing the No, 10 sieve in accordance with AASHTO T267, "Standard Method of Test for Determination of Organic Content in Soils by Loss of Ignition". The organic content was determined to be 0.04 percent. The results are tabulated in Table El. Resistivity Tests To measure the resisitivity properties of the lightweight aggregate we perforated two types of tests: a laboratory procedure in general accordance with AASHTO T288,"Determining Minimum Laboratory Resistivity"and a field resistivity test in general accordance with ASTM G57, "Field Measurement of Soil Resistivity using the Wermer Four-Electrode Method." i Mr.William H.Wolfe 6 April 18,2008 Laboratory Resistivity Test Navarro&Wright performed the laboratory resistivity test. In accordance with AASHTO T288, the test was performed on pulverized material passing the No. 10 sieve. Due to the limiting size of the test apparatus,"as-delivered"lightweight aggregate could not be tested. The minimum resistivity measured was 18,172 ohms-cm. Test data are included in Appendix E2. Field Resistivity Test GEI perforated electrical resistivity tests on a stockpile of 3/4-inch lightweight aggregate at Norlite's Cohoes facility on July 29,2007. The tested stockpile was about 12 feet high and contained about 300 tons of lightweight aggregate. The stockpiled aggregate was placed in the stockpile without compaction. A sketch of the stockpile layout and its dimensions are shown in Figure E2-1. Free water was not observed between aggregate particles at the top of the stockpile. The material was observed to be moist 6 inches below the top of the stockpile. The average water content,as measured by Norliie,was 7.5 percent. The resistivity tests were performed using a Megger DET5/4 digital earth tester with a range of 0.01 ohms to 20,000 ohms,and in general accordance with ASTM G-57,"Standard Method for Field Measurement of Soil Resistivity Using the Wenner Four-Electrode Method." To determine the influence of the stockpile shape and base materials on the resistivity measurements,the probe spacing and the orientation of the test arrays were varied as shown on Figure E2-1. Arrays 1 a,2a, and 3a were oriented south to north in the center of the stockpile,whereas arrays las,2aa,and 3aa were oriented north to south in the center of the stockpile. The results indicate values above 300,000 ohm-cm in all tests performed. Because of the limited size of the stockpile,it was difficult to achieve the requirement that the probe depth be less than 5 percent of the probe spacing. This requirement was achieved for tests Ic,Id, Ice,and ldd of arrays 1 a and 1 aa. These test results are summarized in Table El. The electrical resistivities of these tests ranged from 381,500 ohm-cm to 564,200 ohm-cm. The above reported electrical resistivity values represent measurements of surface-dry Norlite lightweight aggregate. These resistivity values should not be used for aggregate placed below the groundwater. Because water is highly conductive,it will cause a large decrease in the electrical resistivity of the submerged aggregate. Durability Tests LA Abrasion Test GeoTesting Express perforated two LA Abrasion tests in general accordance with ASTM C131, "Resistance to Degradation of Small-Size Coarse Aggregate by Abrasion and Impact in the Los Angeles Machine,"(B grading). The test was modified in accordance with FM 1 T-096—Florida Method of Test to reduce both the weight of lightweight aggregate and the weight of the abrasive charge in the test cylinder. This modification was intended to maintain a volume of lightweight aggregate and abrasive charge in the Los Angeles machine cylinder equivalent to the volume used for normal weight aggregates. Mr. William H.Wolfe 7 April 18,2008 LA abrasion values for the two.tests were 24.3 and 24.5 percent loss. Test data are presented in Appendix F. Soundness Test GeoTesting Express performed one soundness test on the lightweight aggregate in general accordance with AASHTO C-88,"Standard Test method for Soundness of Aggregate by Use of Sodium Sulfate or Magnesium Sulfate". This method tests aggregates to estimate their soundness when subjected to weathering action. Five-cycles of the test were performed using the magnesium sulfate solution. The weighted percent loss was 3.41. Test data are presented in Appendix F. California Bearing Ratio (CBR)Tests GecTesting Express performed three CBR tests in general accordance with ASTM D1883, "Standard Method for CBR(California Bearing Ratio)of Laboratory-Compacted Soils." Two of the tests were performed on unsoaked material at a target water content of 8.0 percent,the approximate"as-delivered"water content of the material. The remaining test was performed on lightweight aggregate that was soaked in de-aired water for 48 hours. All tests were prepared to achieve a target density of 47 lb/f. The material was placed in five approximately 1-inch-thick lifts and tamped with a proctor hammer. The densities,water contents, and results of the CBR tests are shown in Appendix G. The results of the fust unsoaked test resulted in a CBR value of 13%at a penetration of 0.2 inches. The second CBR test on unsoaked material was performed to confirm the results of the first test. The second test resulted in a CBR of 18%at the same penetration. We believe that the difference in CBRs measured by the two tests may have resulted from the orientation.of lightweight aggregate particles below the 3-square-inch-diameter piston prior to load application. Depending on their orientation,shifting of the particles or crushing of the angular edges of the particles under load may have resulted in the different penetrations and CBRs. The results for the soaked material at a penetration of 0.2 inches was 14 percent,consistent with the first unsoaked test, Limitations Our professional services for this project have been performed in accordance with generally accepted engineering practices;no warranty,express or implied,is made. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, GE CONSULTANT ;P.�E C - Anastasia Yapadopoulo . Senior Project Manager ASP:rr V;VSP PnJatdP11810-No4te TaOngWotele Report.doa lip 4 CITY OF SALEM 9� CONSERVATION COMMISSION ��`MINB W City of Salem Conservation Commission Will hold a public hearing for a Request for Determination of Applicability under the Wetlands Protection Act, Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 131, Section 40 and Salem's Ordinance Pertaining to General Wetlands at the request of Dominion Energy, 5000 Dominion Blvd, Glen Allen,VA 23060. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the replacement of fill behind an existing sheetpile wall at Dominion Energy, 24 Fort Avenue within an Area Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage and a Buffer Zone to a Coastal Bank. This hearing will be held on Thursday,July 8,2010 at 6:00pm in Rm 313, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street. David A. Pabich, Chairman Please advertise on: July 1, 2010 Please send bill to: Dominion Resource Services, Inc. c/o Nicole Wilkinson 40 Point Street Providence, Rhode Island 02903 401-457-9123 City of Salem Department of Planning & Community Development Check/Cash Receipt and Tracking Form Please complete Mrm and make two copies. Date Received Zol v Amount ReceivedZS,°� Form of Payment Check Cash CHECK PAYMENTS: write check number -1033 CASH PAYMENTS: write client Initials N . W E] Sign Permit Application Fee i XI Conservatlon Commission Fee Payment received for F-1 Planning Board Fee what service? 0 Old Town Hall Rental Fee 0 Other Name of staff person receiving payment �rz�k �aor7 ,k2 Additional Notes 2` Fri 4vf /nj/n )",") KDA JAMES F. WILKINSONWILKINJR. 1733 NICOLE C. WILKIO 97 BRAMBLE BUSH RD COVENTRY, RI 02816 ;1 57-12/115 It (/ a Date Pay to the orderof $ J vv s 8 TRCiti ens ank Citizens Circle Account Rhode Island For 1:011, 500i204 1404 268 Lu• 1733 6 Original Check and Form: DPCD Finance Copy 1: Client Copy Z: Application File Page 1 of 1 Frank Taormina From: Nicole Wilkinson [nicole.wilkinson@dom.com] Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 6:14 PM To: Frank Taormina Subject: Dominion Salem Harbor Sheetpile Wall Repairs Attachments: PhotoLog.doc; 064690-1026-S1 0 (2).pdf Frank, Attached is a site plan showing the limit of the area that will be regraded and new pavement installed in order to bring the area to original grade and prevent surface water from collecting along the edge of the building. Currently the area eventually drains to the catch basin shown on the plan after ponding alongside the building which has caused a sinkhole and undermining of the building. The proposed minor grading will restore the original grade and allow this area to drain effectively to the existing catch basin. Inlet protection will be installed at the catch basin to prevent any sediment from entering while the work is being done. M you can see the existing wall and jersey barriers prevent surface water from entering Salem Harbor directly. Therefore, there is no need for a silt fence along the edge. If you have any questions or need any additional information please let me know. I will mail copies of the plan and photos to you along with the $25 check. See you on Thursday. Thank you, Nicole Wifkinson Dominion Resource Services, Inc. 40 Point Street Providence, RI 02903 (401) 457-9123 nicole.wilkinson@dom.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic message contains information which may be legally confidential and or privileged and does not in any case represent a firm ENERGY COMMODITY bid or offer relating thereto which binds the sender without an additional express written confirmation to that effect. The information is intended solely for the individual or entity named above and access by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please reply immediately to the sender that you have received the message in error, and delete it. Thank you. ii 7%1/2010 Figure 3 (cont.) - Photographs of Sink Hole 115 1 PP q t Y, k i1 Photo 1: View of the sinkhole east side of building. I t. y •4 y Photo 2: View from sinkhole looking south along wall. Figure 3 (cont.) - Photographs of Sink Hole 0 A r l w A Photo 3:View of area to be graded and repaved—looking west. rn[L, P 4„ v Photo 3: View of area to be graded and repaved—looking south. I I j Oh SPILLBUILDING E �' r 1 BUILDIDNG —` STEP IN. ,y/A— UNOEWIIIIEDMFA _ GUrtERLix ,1 CN�RIEx 1 / d \\ 1 I 1 1 \ � EIEI l ELBE. Y ) \ 1 I 1 1 1 \ ml RBF �M1 \//✓�� 1 I I l I �O rT i/ Fi Im10 SOIL SLOPE OIL SPILL RESPONSE — `01 `\l — BUILDING DETAIL I '"IB i i r I 1 I b 8 e DET / NOTE'. ry„ // pµ muaE _ \ ° IW. ✓ATOR I REP4LEW0R. PURON RCM LE / \ N PwO. — a / CONR�CE SIEPI / 8 CENTER / RIME ______ Wx�O'� $� V� ,/� IBEYOWI — \ "0"'NO, BE= E Nroiil ' P�o-rnl� / - urRmmENw � GER.COxC — NE� mEi EOOEa auaxueaR -rm EXISTING 8 PROPOSED CONTOURS WNccxNRNEOI SECTION1Cr- ' �, ,��PRNPN�°pNrWR I --f(q0-- Ex45TX6WMWR F—BIDG OR.IPROIECi Ca® CPi Hsi riNEEN[°uRSE Pi YO1EC\ Q Exlsn j / _.•, EL Bi �ecxroN - n• o cc I TYPICAL PAVEMENT SECTION R N.oR..xr I ew wnmN o a°NaRv Nr,,m LLOCUS ` "uxOERuule �\ w[v N+E I^PPRox.I wlwrls TO 9ExPnmiNSPECiFlurvl -- Ni .C . x kyE IEu M ICON CNNCRErH m""PA5°""Ei°"`� REE_ ®___.NEEEENW E. REiE SECTION rB •�� sxvOER DamNion Eneryy New Englantl,Ix. OII Spill Fespalse 9uiltlinp NO BBBi.-EIiii Salem HaMv SIaYOn Surface DlaiPape lmryovenwnls _ - 1T0 * G E I., SRIem.MaeaUNsehe PIAN,SECTIONS. vemA.N Duma T-1. DETAIL5,8NOTE5