The URL can be used to link to this page

64-210 - 50 FORT AVENUE - CONSERVATION COMMISSION Sesd Additional Treatment 64-210 I 1 i NryI f r .. F. �f 310 CMR 10.99DFP Me No. 64-210 NOV (To be provided by DFP) Form 7 'tl7 2 / SALEM C�ry/Iavn "� .a:d8➢I SES D b'�fyy:urup.i tst,i: AppGant coa®omrealth of nanaac6usatta _ 3 APu,, y EXTENSION PERMIT a 'd a , � . MASSACHUSETTS WETLANDS PROTECTION ACT j G.L. C. 131p 540 issuing Adthority;f ` Prom= SALEM CON -M=- 50 For To3South Essex -i (Name) �rto y (Address) � te;)._• The order of Conditiona(or Extension Permit) issued on November2 , ?19 _ to SES- (name) for work at 50 port (address) is hereby extended for a period of years(s) from the date it expires. This Extension Permit will expire on November 2 1995 _(date) This document shall be recorded in accordance with General Condition 8 of the order of eonditions> AFW96-66 iN 8eek //57�{ Dn�c 3z 8, . .. . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . .. . . .. .. . . .. . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . ... .. . . (Leave space Blank) ' VESTED r ARGtNA1-FtFF 5��! 1 1 S`� `�" • PAGE-�- e00V 7-1 Effective 11/10/89 Issued by SALEM CONS ' Signature(B) when issued by the conservation commission this Extension 't must be bay iorit of l.ts members. signed b a ma, Y 9 Y On this 1Zu day of October 19 95 , before me personally appeared the Coto me known to be-the.;_ _ i<i,pen... tson,mdescribed in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledge 1 eta thAha/she executed the same as hie/her free act and deed. f +.: N 'tary L'y�blic My cc mmiaeion expires SALEM CON�Fn _ prior to commencement of Work. Detach on dotted lana and snAait to the , ................................................................. issuing Authority io Please be advised that the Extension Pereit to the order of conditions for the project at Fila Mueber 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 g of the 19 original order of conditions on if recorded land, the instrument nuber which identifies this t�ais7et3a 's1� ^- JAI. 11 registered land, the document number which identifies this TrI301a9 action is Applicant Signature 7-2 1111 Liu It: I)LVA R I P:N I i it LN VI III.INAI LN I At. I'RW i Lt.I IUN 310 CMR 1u :- Forms GEPFWN.. I 64-210 r I-To m oiwo.a w OEPI r - G.iv iowo SALEM 3.==... ,cmmonwealth SESD -I .iaS5acnusetlS :ooiicanl Order of Conditions Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act G.L. c. 131 , §40 From Salem Conservation Same -o South Essex Se.• n;sI -___ (Name OI property owners Name of AppnCant) 50 Fort Avenue Aaaress .,ocress his Crcer is Issued and aeliverea as follows: (oate) by nano delivery to applicant or representative on � (date) by certified mad.return receipt reouestea on NO This protect is located at 50 Fort ' The property is recorded at the Registry of rict 3729 2679 35 100 2880 3133 Page 261 255 Boo 120 certificate tit registered) The Nonce of Intent for this protect was Ided on September 1 F 1 a dam_(date) October 8, 1992 (date) The puplic nearing was closed on Findings Salem CORCen �r ' r•,.m-+..-< _ha!reviewed the abdve•relerenced NOUce OI The Intent and plans and has new a public hearing on the project.Based on the intormation available to the Commission at this time.the--Cammisaleahas determined that fine area on which the proposed work is to be done is significant to the following Interests in accordance with the Presumptions of Significance set forth in the regulations for each Area Subject to Protection Under Ins Act tchecx as anproonale): ❑ Public water supply fl Flood control ;❑ Land containing shelllilh C] Private water supply 0 Storm damage prevention C3 Fisheries E3 Protection Of wildlife httbtbt [3 Ground water supply 0 Prevention of pollution Total Piling Fee Subtf teed !41 97r, _. State Share $775 CilyfTown Share $800 (th. fee in excess of 525) State Portion S Total Refund Due S Cilylfown Portion S (,h total)(Ili lot to It/10/89 310 CMR - 280.71 l iU (:Ml(: I)EPARIt.II.NI th LNVIM)NNILN IAL PROILCIR)N Theretore. the r,,,m+ of AQ nerepy finds that the following conditions are necessary, in accordance with the Performance Standards set forth in the reauauons. to orotect those inter- ests cnedKed above. The COtlmnlission orders trial all worK snail be penorrneci in accordance wurl sato conditions and won trie Notice Of Intent referenced above. To the extent that lite tdl- lowind conditions modify or differ from the clans. specifications or other proposals submitted wlln the Notice ct Intent. the conditions snail L.,...: . General Conditions 1 Failure to comply with all conditions stated herein. and with all related statutes and other regulatory meas- ures. shall be deemed cause to revOKe or modify this Order. 2. This Order does not grant any property rights or any exclusive privileges: It does not authorize any injury to private property or invasion of private rights. J. This Order does not relieve the permittee or any other person of the necessity of comotying with all other applicable federal, state or local statutes. Ordinances, oy-taws or regulations. The work authorized hereunder snail be completed within three years from the date at this Order unless either OI the following applyi lal the work Is a maintenance dredging project as provided tar in the Act: or (b) me time for completion nas been extended to a soecitied date more than three years. out less than live years. from the date at Issuance and both that date and the special circumstances warranting the extended time period are set fortn In this Order. 5- This Order may be extended by the Issuing authority for one or more periods of up to three years each upon application to the Issuing authority at least 30 days prior to the expiration date of the Order. 6. Any fill used in connection with this project snail be clean fill, containing no trash. refuse. rubbish or de- bris. including but not limited to lumber, bricks. plaster,were. lath, paper. cardboard, pipe, tires, ashes, refrigerators. motor vehicles or parts of any of the foregoing. 7. No work shall be undertaken until all administrative appeal penods from this Order nave elapsed or, if such an appeal has been filed, until all proceedings before the Department have been completed. B. No work shall be undertaken until the Final Order has been recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the lariats located,within the chain of title of the anected property. In the case of recorded land, the Final Order snail also be noted In the Registry's Grantor Index under the name at the owner of the land upon which the proposed work Is to be done.In the case of registered land. the Final Order shall also be noted on the Land Court Certificate of Title at the owner of the land upon which the proposed work Is to be done. The recording Information shall be submitted to free Cotetenission on the form at the end of this Order prior to Commencement of the work. 9. A sign shall be displayed at the site not less than two square feet or more than three square feet in size beating the words.'Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, File Number 64-210 t o. Where the Department of Environmental Protection is requested to make a determination and to issue a Superseding order. the Conservation Commission snail be a parry to all agency proceedings and hearings before the Department. 11.Upon completion of work described herein,the applicant Shall forthwithrequest in writing that a Certificate of Compliance be issued stating that the work has been satistactorlly completed. 12.The work shall conform to the following plans and special conditions: 1t/10/89 310 CMR - 280.42 wCMR: UEI'AItIKILN l' (A ENV IIIUNMENIAI. I,iMILCI IUN 10.99: conunueu Plans Tide Dateo Sionea ano SlaM0e0 OV On Foe wan Notice of Intent 9/16/92 efision and supporting Plans n Drainage Calculation 9/24/92 Conservation Commission Support Documentation THE A®OVE NOTICE, SUPPORTING GLANS, DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENYATO N DESCRIBE TWO =ATIVE—lr= WHICHEVER ALTERNATIVE IS IMPLEMENTED BY THE APPLICANT Soeual Conan ons )Use aooitional oaoer it necessary) SEE ATTACHED CONDITIONS ..............._ .. _... .. ..... ................................... .... ILeave Soace Bunki ti/10/89 310 CMR - 280.47 I W UAIKI IlLPAK 1 MLN 1 Ur LNVII<UNMLN I AL l'1lU ILLl IUN ssued Ev SALEM -onservation Commission Sicnalurel�l lc L j is Orcer must be signed by a malonty of the Conservation Commission. October 92 On[tits 22 day of 19 . before me The a ove men ion personally appeared . to me known 10 oe Ind ' person described In and wno executed me foregolnq instrument and aCknowledged mat tie/sne execuleC me same as tits/tier flee act and deed. c 1 r Notary °uouc My commission expires The azaiia il.IM owner any per,an aggnevea by Inss order.any owner PI two anunlnq IM jam upon wnitn ins aroposaa work IS to w own.or any Ion residents or ins city or low,in wri Cn sixty two is IOCalaa.are nereay Inputted of Ing,right Widows[Ins oeowmenl of Enwronmenm ProteClxln io Issw a superseding Order.oroylamq Ins r,,u8s,Is mew by Cantata marl or new delivery to Ins oeagnllent. wean Ind aporoonate ming Iw dna Fos Transminal Forrrl as provided In 310 CMR 10.03M.wnnm Ion days Imrn Ing data at issuance of tris belarmmation.A copy of ins reduest anal at Ins same IUM an sent by Cenlllaa Tsai or new dauirgry 10 Ne Canseryallori commission and ms aPPeCAnt. Detach andotted line and aueMluothe Salem Conservation CommissionPnormwmmencemeMotwaa. To Salem Conservation Commission Isslrrng Aumdnly Please 00 saymed,nat the Order of Conditions tar Ina droleei at 50 Fort Avenue F.Ie Humber 64-210 nam Veen reciprom at Ina Reglmlry of Essex, South District .ma nam dean noted in Ing Cham of Imo of Ind attested phaperry,in aeeoramnes wan Genera Conation 0 on 19� It recorded land.Ing MauMaia number wncn Ioenatas tius transaction a It registered two.the 00CNnaM num0ar which toennhes trim hadn"cl on is - - scristwe >OauOans t��10�B9 310 CMR - 280.45 SPECIAL CONDITIONS 64-210 SESD 1. All work shall conform to the above-referenced Notice of Intent, site plan and supporting documents and those final specifications which shall be filed with the Commission prior to construction. Any change made or intended to be made to the approved plans for work within wetland resource areas or buffer zone shall require the applicant to inquire of the Commission in writing whether the change is substantial enough to require the filing of a new Notice of Intent. 2 . Members and agents of the Commission shall have the right to enter and inspect the premises at all reasonable times with at least one (1) hour notice to the SESD District to evaluate compliance with the conditions in this Order. The Commission may require the applicant to submit additional data or information necessary for the Commission to conduct that evaluation. 3 . Upon completion of the project, the applicant shall submit, with the request for a Certification of Compliance, an affidavit, prepared by a professional engineer or land surveyor duly registered in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, stating that the site has been developed in accordance with the requirements of this Order of Conditions, the referenced site plan and supporting documents. 4 . This Order shall apply to every successor in control or successor in interest of the property described in the Notice of Intent and accompanying plans or part thereof. In the event this land or any part thereof changes ownership before or during construction, the current owner shall notify the new owner, by registered mail, of this order prior to the transfer of ownership and shall forward proof of this notification to the Commission. 5 . Notice shall be given this Commission no more than 2 weeks not less than 2 days prior to the commencement of construction activities. Said notice shall include, in writing, the name(s) , address(es) , and business and home telephone numbers of the project supervisor(s) responsible for insuring that operations are conducted incompliance with this Order. 6. A written schedule detailing the dates on which construction activities are planned shall be provided to the Commission no less than three weeks prior to commencement of construction. Any change to this schedule will be promptly communicated to the Commission in writing. 7 . A plan for landscaping and maintenance of vegetation for the buffer zone shall be developed and submitted for Conservation Commission approval prior to commencement of work. 8 . There shall be minimal pruning and no removal of any buffer zone or wetland vegetation downgradient of the siltation fence delineated on the above-referenced plan. 9 . Fertilizers used for landscaping and lawn care shall contain a low nitrogen content and be used in moderation. Pesticides and herbicides shall not be used within resource area or the buffer zone. 10. All disturbed soils shall be immediately and similarly revegetated upon completion of construction activities or shall be mulched until the next growing season. 11. During and after construction, no debris, garbage or refuse will be allowed to remain for an extended period within any resource area or the buffer zone. 12 . The width of all excavations within Conservation Commission jurisdiction will be kept to a minimum. 13 . Any temporary structures will be removed from Resource Area or the Buffer Zone following completion of construction. The applicant will submit for Commission approval, a plan to restore all sediment controls and other areas disturbed by construction and not otherwise covered by this Order. The approved restoration plan will be implemented to the satisfaction of the Commission. 14 . The design details and calculations for the sediment and erosion control measures will be submitted to the Commission prior to construction. 15. A procedure and schedule for cleaning and maintaining the catch basins and sediment controls will be provided to the Commission prior to construction. 16. No equipment refueling or maintenance will be conducted in the "staging area" or the buffer zone. 17. Wash down of vehicles will occur outside the buffer zone. 18 . A tarp or other method sufficient to prevent erosion and airborne entrapment of particulates will be instituted for the clean fill stored onsite. 19. The applicant will institute measures to assure that nay caustic or toxic substance used to disinfect new or reconstructed potable water lines be discharged only to the sanitary sewer. 20. Prior to commencing dewatering operations, the Applicant will require the contractor to conduct additional groundwater samplings in the area of construction. The Contractor shall not discharge water from the dewatering operations directly into any live or intermittent stream, channel, wetland, surface water or any storm sewer. Water from dewatering operations shall be treated by filtration, settling basins or other approved method to reduce the amount of sediment contained in the water. The increase in turbidity of the receiving waters must not exceed 25 standard turbidity units (s.t.u. ) . 21. During the Commission' s site visit on October 2 , 1992 , members noticed a white, frothy substance in the vicinity of outfall #3 . Within six weeks of the issuance of this Order, the applicant will investigate and report back to the Commission the constituents in this material. 22 . The Pollution Prevention Plan discussed in Section 6 of the Notice of Intent will be submitted to the Commission prior to construction whether or not an NPDES permit has to be issued. 23 . The Order of Conditions, and Special Conditions will be included in all contractual documents signed between the applicant and its site Preparation and Construction contractors. 24 . The Commission considers the Notice of Intent and related documents submitted to date to be preliminary requirements. Based on the content of the plans and documents specified above, to be submitted to the Commission prior to construction, the Commission reserves the right to require additional information that may result in more stringent measures to protect the resource area. 25. The following conditions are ongoing and do not expire upon completion of the project or issuance of a Certificate of Compliance: 25a. Certification that the cleaning and maintenance plan referenced in Special Conditions 16 has occurred will be forwarded to the Commission annually on December 15. ex/dh/ordcond.sesd SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1995 DEP File No. 64-210 South Essex Sewerage District Construction of Secondary Wastewater Treatment Facilities at 50 Fort Avenue Extension Permit for Order of Conditions dated November 2, 1992 Appearing on behalf of South Essex Sewerage District: John E. Darling, Esq. Serafini, Serafini and Darling 63 Federal Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Raymond D. Masak, South Essex Sewerage District Senior Project Manager 50 Fort Avenue P.O. Box 989 Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Guillermo J. Vicens, Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. Senior Vice President Ten Cambridge Center Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142 Jane D. Wheeler, Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. Environmental Scientist Ten Cambridge Center Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142 James Maher, Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. Resident Representative P.O. Box 4487 Salem, Massachusetts 01910 J�� Ess South Essex Sewerage District h� �ST.191S 50 Fort Ave., P.O. Box 989 Salem, MA 01970 • (508) 744-4550 xd �f 0 August 17, 1992 Ms. Susan Tierney, Secretary Executive Office of Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street Boston, MA Re: South Essex Sewerage District EOEA No. 7059 Dear Secretary Tierney: This letter serves as a Notice of Project Change for the South Essex Sewerage District wastewater treatment and disposal facilities project (EDEA No. 7059). The project change described herein involves some minor refinements to the recommended layout for the secondary WWTP presented in the Final EIR/Final Facilities Plan (FEIR/FFP) that was filed with the MEPA Unit in May 1992. The refined layout, shown in Figure 1 and hereinafter referred to as Concept G, is essentially identical to the FEIR/FFP layout (hereinafter referred to as Concept B) with the following minor modifications: (1) maintain and re-use, rather than demolish, the existing administration and maintenance complex, the existing effluent pump station, and the existing chlorination building; (2) eliminate the deck over the secondary clarifiers; and (3) shift the process tankage to District-owned land in the northeast portion of the site. All of the proposed secondary facilities are still within the confines of Site 53 (Existing Plant Site), in spite of some shifting in the location of facilities on the site. These layout refinements will not result in any substantive changes in the magnitude or type of environmental impacts and mitigation measures that were identified in the FEIR/FFP The District also reaffirms its commitment to meet the mitigation goals described in that document and is currently developing121ans to im2llement an environmental mitigation program, consonant with the FEIR/FFP the FEIR/FFP comments, and the MEPA Certificate on the FEIR. This Notice of Project Change is being submitted solely to provide the MEPA Unit with information on the latest project developments, rather than as notification of additional environmental damages or additional mitigation requirements. In fact, the refinements may result in fewer impacts. - ri c FORT AVENUE -- --- 40 -� 20.x./. -- -- _____ ___ 1 j�I VO NEW ENGLAND POWER _ -/�/ i [ 1 _ _ _. _ __ - FORT AVENUE _ - i COMPANY EASEMENT -I ' i ( I �,kj --I` I _ _ INFLUENT[ 1 i L ADMINISTRATION' -PUMPING- ---� �!`- --�-' ! 1 i BUILDING = 1 I I��I 111 STATION ! i 1 I 1 '1--�_--I- ! ! SLLOGE� '' I '1! I 1 II 1 1 t STORAGE i i I FUTURE AERATION BASIN I r --�-- [-Y - -- - - - 1 r i BACK-UP FUTURE SECONDARY CLARIFIERS - v LIME TANKS i ( } MAINTENANCE I m 1 I 1 11 I 1 i (� COLUMBUS STABILIZATIO C i 1 ! 1 FACILITY y 1 r I I 1 11 I 1 25TORY � ( n AERATION 1 1 I C m [ ADDITIONS y I 1 PRODUCT SLUDGE PRIMARY 1 ! ! I i OI 1 BASINS 1 11 LUDG CLARIFIERS i xPled- THICKENING 1 i STORAGE DEWATERING ! yl 1 I I II IV SECONDARY EFF. i { I (BELOW GRADE) 1 ( ALTERNATIVE 1 --C` �- COLLECT FUTURE 1 i [ HEADWORKS i THICKENING& i I 1 LOCATION FOR AWi GALLERY _ 1 i1 LT_n I STORAGE AREA I 1 20 II N I __�__ �_ I _ _ I -_ BLDG GALLS - SE I I f i 11 1 ! i� \ (BLDG - - ( AWT i • i SLUDGE 1 V-�� _ (I '-I 1 AERATION 1 I I I � __ _ __ _ _�i BLDG 1 i STAG A PELLETIZING ---- �� iT p — I BASINS I 1 I BUILDING ADDITION! O AIR EMISSION 20 _ O!)❑ 1 Iy ( 1 ONTROL A AIR EMISSION STACK B• ODOR • O S•K D STACK CONTROLE ( CONTROLI STACK OXYGEN ]_ - 1 • 'AIR EMISSION FAC EXISTING 10 1 - - - - r ___-_ ! STACK E DISINFECTION Q / --BURIED-- ; CONTROLS ODOR S `DISINFECTION TANK' ONTROL BUILDING _ DRYER "^Ye - � EXISTING EFFLUENT -'-'-' EMISSIONS PUMPING STATION CONTROLF 55 O - SMITH POOL CH NEW ENGLAND POWER CO. CONCRETE SALEM HARBOR STATION - / CAT COVE 50 25 0 50 100 SCALE IN FEET South Essex Sewerage District NOTICE OF PROJECT CHANGE FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL Camp Dresser&McKee Inc. I Figure 1 Plant Layout Concept G Ms. Susan Tierney, Secretary Executive Office of Environmental Affairs August 17, 1992 Page Three The District believes that the proposed refinements are consistent with your statement in the July 1, 1992 Certificate for the project, page 10, that "In concept, I am very supportive of the effort to incorporate cost saving measures into the facilities design, as long as it can be demonstrated that the changes will not compromise the mitigation measures proposed for the environmental impacts nor adversely affect plant performance or reliability." Overview of Developments Since Submittal of FEIR/FFP Although facilities design did not begin until July 1, 1992 per the Consent Decree, some pre-design activities were undertaken prior to that date to ensure a smooth start and help accelerate the design schedule. In addition to geotechnical, archaeological, and survey studies at the site, other pre- design activities included the review of the plant conceptual design by a team of independent consultants (the Conceptual Design Review Team); continued discussions with the City of Salem on plant layout, design, and mitigation; and soliciting input on design preferences from the plant neighbors. The goal of these activities was to identify and incorporate improvements to the conceptual design and layout presented in the FEIR/FFP such that design could proceed on July 1 with a more defined and cost-effective concept. During early June 1992, the District assembled several independent consultants to review the treatment plant design concept (Concept B) prepared by Camp Dresser & McKee Inc., which was presented in the FEIR/FFP. Because of the accelerated schedule established by the Consent Decree, it was not possible to complete this review and to incorporate any resulting design concept revisions into the FEIR/FFP. This Conceptual Design Review Team consisted of recognized experts in each of the following disciplines: electrical, instrumentation, process, operations, architecture, logistics, and civil/site design. In addition, the Board voted to invite the consultants for the City of Salem (Messrs. Standley and Graber) and for Eastman Gelatine Company (Stearns & Wheler) to participate in the review. Each of these consultants Ms. Susan Tierney, Secretary Executive Office of Environmental Affairs August 17, 1992 Page Four participated in review sessions and presented their comments to the other reviewers and directly to the Board. The reviewers were given the following mission statement by the District: "The purpose of this particular task is to provide an independent review of the CDM findings in the conceptual design report. This review will include a review of the configuration and sizing of the proposed treatment processes. In addition to the review of the treatment processes, the conceptual design will be reviewed for efficiency of use of the available land and existing facilities, projected impact on ongoing District operations and anticipated means and methods which may be employed by the contractor or contractors to construct the facility." The results of the Conceptual Design Review Team process are summarized below and are more fully described in the text that follows: • The review team affirmed the treatment process described in the FEIR/FFP, with some recommendations for further analysis of selected systems as the design develops. • There are opportunities for improving upon the economic, operational, and visual aspects of the recommended plan presented in the FEIR/FFP. Specifically, the review team had concerns about the deck over the clarifiers and maintenance area, and recommended that some of the existing facilities that were proposed for demolition be rehabilitated, primarily as a cost-saving measure. A neighborhood meeting was held on June 1, 1992 as part of the pre-design process to present the FEIR/FFP recommended plan to neighbors of the plant and obtain feedback from them on their preferences for recreational facilities, landscaping, and visual aspects of the design. The most prominent theme at the meeting was control of odors. Minimizing odors was considered by attendees to be the most critical issue, followed by visual aesthetics. The consensus of the attendees at the meeting was that a well-landscaped, visually unobtrusive plant was preferable to a plant site I Ms. Susan Tierney, Secretary Executive Office of Environmental Affairs August 17, 1992 Page Five that offered active recreational facilities (picnic tables, playing courts and fields, etc.). In fact, neighbors indicated that they would not take advantage of active recreational facilities and were concerned that such facilities would exacerbate traffic problems in the neighborhood and perhaps encourage vandalism. Many of the members of the Conceptual Design Review Team were present at the neighborhood meeting to hear firsthand the neighborhood priorities. This information was considered in their recommendations for design refinements. Additional discussions were also held with the City of Salem officials and technical consultants to review the recommendations of the Conceptual Design Review Team and to obtain further comments on the proposed design refinements. The Citizens Advisory Committee was also given the opportunity to comment on the refinements. Concept G Summary As a result of the Conceptual Design Review Team recommendations, and input from neighbors of the plant, several aspects of the recommended plan presented in the FEIR/FFP have been refined and incorporated into Concept G. Specifically, the refinements are: • Several facilities that were proposed to be demolished in the FEIR/FFP would be retained, including the existing effluent pumping station, the existing chlorination building, and the administration/maintenance building. An addition would be constructed on the administration/maintenance building to provide necessary supplemental space and the effluent pumping station would be rehabilitated. • The deck over the secondary clarifiers would be eliminated, although the clarifiers would still be covered and a lawn provided on top. Ms. Susan Tierney, Secretary Executive Office of Environmental Affairs August 17, 1992 Page Six • Process tankage would be shifted to the northeast portion of the site, but would still be solely on District-owned property. The above refinements are proposed as cost-saving features and will achieve the mitigation objectives defined in the FEIR/FFP. No additional impacts are anticipated, nor are additional mitigation measures needed to implement Concept G relative to Concept B. In fact, Concept G provides more opportunity for visual buffering along Fort Avenue than Concept B and may result in fewer construction-related impacts due to reductions in excavation and demolition. Air emissions controls will be the same as that proposed for Concept B in the FEIR/FFP, the same construction and operational noise mitigation programs will be implemented, and the District will continue with the other mitigation measures as described in that document. Because no additional impacts or mitigation measures are expected and because there would be considerable cost savings associated with the refined design, the District's Board has decided to file this Notice of Project Change to seek your approval of Concept G as an alternative to Concept B presented in the FEIR/FFP. Pending your determination, the Board has voted to carry both Concept B and Concept G through preliminary design (approximately mid-September) such that no time is lost in the design schedule required by the Consent Decree. After this point, it will be necessary to finalize the layout so that final design and permitting may proceed using a single layout. Description of Concept G and Comparison to Concept B Layout Concept G maintains the same unit processes for secondary treatment and the same level of treatment as was presented in the FEIR/FFP for Concept B. Under both Concepts B and G, the secondary treatment facilities will be covered for emission control and aesthetic design. In both cases the treatment facilities will be designed to treat design year average flows of 29.7 mgd with an allowance for future expansion to 41 mgd. The Ms. Susan Tierney, Secretary Executive Office of Environmental Affairs August 17, 1992 Page Seven recommended treatment process for both concepts consists of the follow- ing: • Four trains of oxygen reactors with four stages per train. Each train will be preceded by an aerobic selector. • Stacked rectangular secondary clarifiers. • A distribution chamber to split primary effluent and return activated sludge to the selectors/oxygen reactors. • A transverse pumping gallery to house waste activated sludge pumps/piping and ancillary facilities. • A longitudinal piping gallery running the length of the oxygen reactors and secondary clarifiers to house various piping and ancillary facilities. • A pressure swing adsorption oxygen generation system with LOX storage. • Contact tanks which provide disinfection with sodium hypochlorite and dechlorination with sodium bisulfite. Concept G maintains and reuses three existing structures -- the adminis- tration and maintenance complex, the effluent pump station, and the chlorination building. In order to provide the program space required for a secondary treatment facilities, an addition would be required to both the administration and maintenance facilities. Saving the administration and maintenance building would shift the process tankage to the northeast, towards the Cat Cove Marine Lab property, but all process tankage would still be constructed on the existing treatment plant property, Site 53. The chlorination building would be maintained and upgraded to house the chlorination and dechlorination storage tanks and feed pumps, and new pumps would be installed in the existing effluent pump station. Ms. Susan Tierney, Secretary Executive Office of Environmental Affairs August 17, 1992 Page Eight Maintaining these buildings precludes the need for the deck over the secondary clarifiers which, under Concept B, would house the new maintenance facilities, chemical storage and the new effluent pump station. Thus, rather than the landscaped deck, with a top elevation of 45.0 ft. (SESD Datum) as in Concept B, the top of the secondary clarifiers under Concept G would be covered with grass (similar to the existing primary clarifier) at elevation 25.0 ft resulting in a lower profile over those units. An influent and effluent structure would be located on either end of the secondary clarifiers to conceal the drive motors and other equipment associated with the clarifiers. These buildings would be approximately 40 ft. wide, 15 ft. high, and would extend the width of the clarifiers. Note, the surface area provided for the secondary clarifiers is the same under each concept, however under Concept B the required area would be achieved with 6 stacked sets, whereas under Concept G, 7 stacked sets would be provided. In both concepts, the anaerobic selectors and the oxygen reactors would be landscaped to an elevation to conceal the aerator motors, approximately elevation 33.5 ft. The oxygen generation facility would be located in the same general vicinity in both concepts. In both concepts the chlorine contact tanks would be below grade, however for Concept B the chlorine contact tanks would be located along Fort Avenue adjacent to the Cat Cove property, whereas the chlorine contact tanks for Concept G would be located between the secondary clarifiers and the existing effluent pump station. The space allocated for future aeration and clarifier capacity would be shifted in Concept G to the Fort Avenue side of the site. This would provide a landscaped buffer between the roadway and the process tankage, and may allow the existing knoll which rises to elevation 40.0 to be maintained, further screening the site, and reducing rock excavation requirements by about 48,000 cubic yards. In Concept G, space allocated for future AWT, if required, could be provided on the existing plant site, requiring relocation of the Ms. Susan Tierney, Secretary Executive Office of Environmental Affairs August 17, 1992 Page Nine administration/maintenance building, or on the Cat Cove Marine Laboratory (CCML) site. In Concept B, space for future AWT could be provided partially on the existing plant site, with some overlap onto the CCML property. Slight process modifications were suggested by the Conceptual Design Review Team and were incorporated into Concept G. Primarily the changes revolve around sizing of the activated sludge system. The aeration basins would be reduced in volume, resulting in a reduction in the depth of the tank from 22.5 to 18.5 ft. The stacked secondary clarifiers would also be reduced in depth from 15 ft. per stack to 12 ft. per stack. These modifications would not change the footprint of the facilities but, because of the reduction in depth, would reduce the rock excavation required. The volume of the chlorine contact tanks would also be reduced slightly by incorporating the detention time in the interprocess piping in the calculations for required detention time. The ability to maintain the existing primary plant operation during construction would be simplified with the refined layout, Concept G. When the primary plant was constructed; a distribution structure was built with two pipe stubs for a future connection to secondary treatment. Under Concept B, this structure would be demolished and a temporary primary effluent bypass would be required. Under Concept G, this structure would be maintained and the existing primary effluent lines would not be disturbed during construction. A breakdown of the cost estimates of the two concepts is presented in the attached Table 1. An estimated cost savings of $19 million could be achieved by incorporating existing structures into the final plant layout, removing the deck over the secondary clarifiers, and reducing the depth of tankage. TABLET SOUTH ESSEX SEWERAGE DISTRICT BREAKDOWN OF LIQUID TREATMENT FACILITIES COST REDUCTIONS Base Plan, Item Concept B Concept G Common Costs $23,400,000 $ 23,400,000 Anaerobic Selectors, Aeration Basins and Oxygen Generation Facilities 24,100,000 21,900;000 Stacked Secondary Clarifiers including Sludge Pumping 24,000,000 24,000,000 Effluent Pump Station 7,300,000 3,600,000 Disinfection/Dechlorination 4,500,000 4,000,000 Maintenance Building 3,700,000 1,100,000 Administration Building 9,500,000 3,600,000 Deck, Effluent Structure, Earth 6,900,000 2,600,000 Civil/Site 10,400,000 10,400,000 TOTAL SECONDARY TREATMENT $113,800,000 $94,600,000 CAPITAL COST COST REDUCTIONS -- $19,200,000 Note: Common costs include instrumentation, air emissions, and land acquisition. Ms. Susan Tierney, Secretary Executive Office of Environmental Affairs August 17, 1992 Page Eleven Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Associated with Refined Layout The refined layout would not result in any additional impacts or require any supplemental mitigation measures beyond those described for Concept B in the FEIR/FFP. In fact, construction impacts may be lessened due to the decrease in rock excavation and the significant decrease in building demolition, and additional opportunities for visual buffering would be provided along Fort Avenue. A 'summary of environmental criteria and minor differences in impacts and mitigation measures between Concept G and Concept B is provided in Table 2. A more detailed description of several of the environmental criteria (construction noise, construction air quality, construction traffic, operational noise, operational air quality/odors, and landscaping/visual aesthetics) is presented below. These criteria are summarized in greater detail because (1) they were highlighted in the FEIR/FFP, and (2) there are some subtle differences between the concepts with respect to criteria impacts. Construction Noise. The FEIR/FFP focused on noise generated during rock drilling and blasting since these will be the noisiest construction activities. It was estimated that rock excavation would last for about 5-6 months, based on an estimate of about 120,000 cubic yards of rock to be removed to implement Concept B. One of the mitigation measures that received considerable attention in the FEIR/FFP was offering to purchase residences across Fort Avenue or, alternatively, to install sound reduction measures in those homes so that the noise impact due to rock drilling and blasting would be minimized. With Concept G, less rock excavation is anticipated (total of about 72,000 cubic yards), which could reduce the duration of excavation activities by a month or more and therefore reduce the duration of the noise impact. There would also be a reduction in noise associated with demolition activities since the existing administration/maintenance building, effluent pump station, and chlorination building would be retained. TABLE2 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS/MITIGATION BETWEEN CONCEPT B AND CONCEPT G Concept B Concept G Construction Impacts & Mitigation Impacts Mitigation Impacts Mitigation - Noise Rock drilling & Purchase or Rock excavation Same as presented in blasting may be soundproof homes reduced; therefore FEIR/FFP disruptive for 5-6 within buffer zone; duration will be less months conduct blast than 5-6 month (3-4 monitoring months) - Air Quality Fugitive dust Water spraying, Reduced rock Same as presented in during construction street cleaning, excavation & reduced FEIR/FFP covering of demolition result in vehicles, etc. less fugitive dust - Traffic Existing traffic Improvements to Some reduction in Same as presented in volumes cause Webb St./Bridge St. traffic volume due to FEIR/FFP congestion in site propose, restricted decrease in rock area; construction trucking hours, excavation and traffic alone not bussing of demolition and no significant construction concrete deck. workers - Wetlands & Surface Water Construction in Erosion & siltation Same as presented in Same as presented in buffer zone controls will be FEIR/FFP FEIR/FFP implemented TABLE2 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS/MITIGATION BETWEEN CONCEPT B AND CONCEPT G (cont'd.) Concept B Concept G Operational Impacts & Mitigation Impacts Mitigation Impacts Mitigation - Land Use Incompatible with Relocation of Same as presented in Same level as CCML and CCML; landscaping FEIR/FFP, although presented in residential areas & sensitive design some shifting of FEIR/FFP; more across Fort Ave. will be provided; facilities will occur; opportunities for offer to purchase more area needed on buffering along Fort homes in buffer CCML site for AWT, if Ave. zone required. - Operational Noise Increase in noise Enclosure or Same as presented in Same as presented in levels at residences covering of most FEIR/FFP; Concept B FEIR/FFP noise-producing deck was not equipment; offer to considered in purchase or install determining noise sound reduction impacts in the measures in FEIR/FFP homes in buffer zone TABLE2 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS/MITIGATION BETWEEN CONCEPT B AND CONCEPT G (cont'd.) Operational Impacts & Mitigation Concept B Concept G Impacts Mitigation Impacts Mitigation - Air Quality & Odors Emissions of VOCs, Covering of process Same as presented in Same as presented in trace metals & tanks & venting FEIR/FFP FEIR/FFP odorous exhaust through compounds stacks. Air emissions control to comply with state AALs and established odor criteria - Traffic Existing traffic Improvements to Same as presented in Same as presented in volumes cause Webb St./Bridge St. FEIR/FFP FEIR/FFP congestion in site proposed area; operational traffic insignificant - Landscaping & Visual Aesthetics Expansion of Limit industrial Several structures to existing site use; appearance; be retained such that reduction in open provide public this concept space on existing access & recreation; represents less of a plant site provide visual change over landscaping; existing conditions; TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS/MITIGATION BETWEEN CONCEPT B AND CONCEPT G (cont'd.) Concept B Concept G Operational Impacts & Mitigation Impacts Mitigation Impacts Mitigation - Landscaping & Visual Aesthetics Provide landscaped Shifting of facilities Although landscaped (cont'd.) deck over clarifiers back from Fort Ave. deck eliminated and & maintenance provides additional some shifting of garage buffer opportunities facilities toward CCML, same mitigation goals will be achieved through design & landscaping - Ecology No impacts No mitigation Same as presented in Same as presented in anticipated necessary FEIR/FFP FEIR/FFP - Wetlands No impacts No mitigation Same as presented in Same as presented in anticipated necessary FEIR/FFP FEIR/FFP Flood Hazard Areas Proposed plant All structures More of plant located Same as presented in located within areas floodproofed & 1st in A-zone (about FEIR/FFP of A-zone (about floor elevations 36,400 ft2 of 13,700 ft2) will be 2 ft. above permanent structures) stillwater flood level TABLE2 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS/MITIGATION BETWEEN CONCEPT B AND CONCEPT G (cont'd.) Concept B Concept G Operational Impacts & Mitigation Impacts Mitigation Impacts Mitigation - Surface Water & Drainage Some increase in Stormwater control Same as presented in Same as presented in runoff due to measures (collection FEIR/FFP FEIR/FFP increase in systems, catch impervious areas basins); implementation of BMP - Archaeological & Historic May affect Avoidance of Same as presented in Same as presented in Resources potentially archaeologically- FEIR/FFP FEIR/FFP significant sensitive areas if prehistoric deposits possible; recovery & identified onsite; recording of visual impacts to significant artifacts historic resources if unavoidable; architectural mitigation will be defined through consultation process set forth by Section 106 of NHPA Ms. Susan Tierney, Secretary Executive Office of Environmental Affairs August 17, 1992 Page Seventeen g Ins spite of the reduction in magnitude and duration of noise impact, the P same mitigation commitment made in the FEIR/FFP for Concept B (offer to purchase homes or install sound reduction measures in homes within the designated buffer zone) would apply to Concept G. The boundary of the buffer zone (which was based on the more conservative of the 250-foot distance from processing facilities or the 75 dBA noise contour) for Concept G would not change enough to include additional properties or exclude properties that were addressed in the FEIR/FFP (see Figure 2). Other mitigation measures proposed in the FEIR/FFP would also apply to Concept G (e.g., noise barrier, blast monitoring program, etc.). Construction Air Quality. Fugitive dust emissions will be generated throughout construction of either layout. However, it is anticipated that less dust would result from construction of Concept G because less rock would be excavated and less building demolition would occur. The measures to control fugitive dust from construction of Concept G would be the same as those that were applied to Concept B described in the FEIR/FFP. Construction Traffic. There will be a slight decrease in the total number of construction vehicles due to the reduction in excavated rock, the reduc- tion in demolition activities, and elimination of the concrete deck. A reduction of 48,000 cubic yards of excavated rock translates to a reduction of about 2,400 truck trips over a 6-month excavation period. However, the number of daily truck trips would remain substantially the same during removal of excavated materials since the schedule would likely be reduced instead of the number of truck trips (same number of trucks over a shorter excavation period of 3-4 months instead of fewer trucks over a longer excavation period of 5-6 months). The same mitigation measures described in the FEIR/FFP for Concept B would be applied to Concept G (e.g., Webb Street realignment, Webb Street/Bridge Street intersection improvements, restricted trucking hours, bussing of construction workers, etc.). / 1 CONCEPT B BUFFER ZONE 00, 3 , j' CONCEPT BUFFER ZONE i a i J �Ole South Essex Sewerage District NOTICE OF PROJECT CHANGE FOR o WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL Camp Dresser& McKee Inc. Figure 2 Buffer Zone Ms. Susan Tierney, Secretary Executive Office of Environmental Affairs August 17, 1992 Page Nineteen Operational Noise. In spite of the shifting of some facilities on the site for the refined layout, operational noise impacts are expected to remain unchanged. Elimination of the deck proposed for Concept G would not result in any impacts beyond those described in the FEIR/FFP because no credit was taken for any noise reduction which might be provided by the deck in the original noise analyses conducted for that document. The FEIR/FFP analyses assumed that the primary noise sources would be enclosed and adequately controlled. The deck was added after the analyses were completed. Concept G assumes that noise sources would be enclosed and adequately controlled as in the FEIR/FFP. Subtle shifting in the location of some of the facilities would not change the conclusions of the noise analysis. The locations of the oxygen generation facilities, the aeration basins, the secondary clarifiers, and the disinfection facilities would all change for Concept G; therefore, the distances to the receptors may also change. The changes in noise levels resulting from this would be very small; this is due to the fact that as some distances to receptors would decrease, others would increase. For example, the aeration basins would be closer at receptor 53-13 directly across Fort Avenue, but the pumping station would be further away. Table 3 presents the noise levels associated with Concept G and Concept B. None of these levels would exceed the established mitigation standard set by the District in the FEIR/FFP (maximum noise increase over background of 3 dBA at the nearest sensitive receptor, and no emissions of pure tones as defined by current state guidelines). It is also important to note that there will be additional modeling conduct- ed at various design stages to ensure that proposed operational equipment will not jeopardize meeting the standard. Operational Air Quality and Odors. Concept G would not result in any changes in the air pollution control technology used to minimize air emissions and odors. All process tanks would be covered and exhaust would be vented through stacks. Air emissions would be captured and/or TABLE3 ESTIMATED NOISE LEVEL INCREASES AT RECEPTORS Concept B Concept G increase increase Concept B over back- Concept G over back- Receptor Background level ground level ground 53-11 47.5 49.0 1.5 49.0 1.5 53-12 47.5 49.9 2.4 50.1 2.6 53-13 47.5 49.7 2.2 49.2 1.7 53-14 42.5 45.6 3.1 45.1 2.6 53-15 42.5 43.8 1.3 43.6 1.1 53-16 42.5 43.3 0.8 43.3 0.8 53-17 46.5 46.8 0.3 46.8 0.3 53-18 46.5 47.3 0.8 47.3 0.8 Ms. Susan Tierney, Secretary Executive Office of Environmental Affairs August 17, 1992 Page Twenty-One treated to achieve compliance with state AALs and established odor criteria. Similarly, the District remains committed to achieving compli- ance with an odor dilution to threshold ratio of 4 to i at the District property boundary and will continue to investigate whether further reductions in odors below this level are reasonably achievable (for example, a dilution ratio of closer to 1/1 at the edge of the buffer zone). The District is initiating additional odor studies now as part of design. Landscaping and Visual Aesthetics. Similar to that provided in the FEIR/FFP for Concept B, an analysis of the visual impacts associated with Concept G was conducted. Four locations were chosen which provide the clearest view of both existing and proposed site conditions (see Figure 3). By superimposing the information shown on the Concepts B and G facility site plans onto existing conditions photographs, an image of the proposed facility could be compared against foreground and background images. Figures are provided showing the location of the four viewpoints selected for the analysis, the existing conditions views from these points, and the same view following construction of Concept B and Concept G. From Fort Avenue (View 1), the existing facility is clearly visible (see Figure 4 Existing Conditions). Concept G proposes maintaining the existing administration/maintenance building, effluent pump station, and chlorination building and moving the aeration basins and clarifiers to the north. The existing administration and maintenance building would be expanded, which would have some visual impact on the view of Cat Cove and Winter Island (see Figure 5 Concept G). The view would be similar to existing conditions, although views of Cat Cove would be somewhat more restricted. The stacked nature of the clarifiers in Concept B would require clearing of additional vegetation and an extensive wall system along Fort Avenue (see Figure 5 Concept B). The top elevation of the aeration basins pro- posed in Concept G (El. 33.5) is higher than in Concept B (El. 25.0), but would be partially screened by existing vegetation, landforms, and the existing maintenance facility. By maintaining the buildings for Concept G, / 42-16 V O � VIEWPOINT 3 1-1413 �® VIEWPOINT 2 r VIEWPOINT 12 l Q 0rj J � 4 VIEWPOINT o J South Essex Sewerage District NOTICE OF PROJECT CHANGE FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL Camp Dresser&McKee Inc. ® Figure 3 SCALE: 1"-300' Location of Viewpoints WINTER ISLAND PARK PUMP STATION ADMINISTRATION& MAINTENANCE BUILDING 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS VIEW FROM FORT AVENUE South Essex Sewerage District FIGURE 4 NOTICE OF PROJECT CHANGE EXISTING CONDITIONS WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL VIEW 1 Camp Dresser& McKee Inc. PUMP STATION AERATION BASINS WINTER ISLAND PARK ADMINISTRATION&MAINTENANCE BUILDING EXPANSION yP .r s I CONCEPT G FROM FORT AVENUE ACCESS TO COVERED MAINTENANCE COVERED AEMTION TANKS AND CHEMICAL STORAGE LOX BUILDING t} Y y CONCEPT B FROM FORT AVENUE South Essex Sewerage District FIGURE 5 NOTICE OF PROJECT CHANGE PROPOSED CONDITIONS WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL VIEW 1 Camp Dresser& McKee Inc. Ms. Susan Tierney, Secretary Executive Office of Environmental Affairs August 17, 1992 Page Twenty-Five the existing and proposed views are very similar, involving less visual impact on existing conditions than for Concept B. However, Concept B would allow for more extensive landscaping on top of the facility and would open up views of Cat Cove from View 1. Another view from Fort Avenue (see Figure 6 Existing Conditions View 2) shows the relationship of the proposed aeration basins in Concept G to the existing pump station (see Figure 7 Concept G). The background view of Winter Island would be maintained for Concept G, however, the majority of Cat Cove would be screened. A buffer of undisturbed land would be main- tained between Fort Avenue and the proposed facility. This would allow existing vegetation to remain, thereby screening the clarifiers. During winter months, a lack of foliage would allow a more open view of both the clarifiers and the maintenance building under Concept G. Since the existing buildings dominate the site, and these buildings would be retained, Concept G would have little visual impact on the existing view. In Concept B, the stacked clarifiers would screen all of Cat Cove and most of Winter Island (see Figure 7 Concept B). From Winter Island Road (see Fig. 8 Existing Conditions View 3), a good foreground screen would be provided for the Concept G facility (see Figure 9 Concept G). In Concept B, portions of the clarifiers may be visible through openings in the vegetation, primarily during winter months (see Figure 9 Concept B). However, the existing vegetation could be easily supplemented to screen these views. The view of the NEPCO facility would be unchanged and continue to dominate the background. Overall, the proposed Concept G would have little or no impact on the existing view, and differs little from Concept B. Winter Island Park (View 4) provides a clear view of the existing facility and adjacent land uses (see Figure 10 Existing Conditions). A view of the proposed Concept G facility would be unobstructed (see Figure 11 Concept G). Since the existing buildings would remain, the proposed facility would only Al WINTER ISLAND t EXISTING PUMP STATION :e An ,��. me �t �$r t'pi� �giY •'��` 991{atiP �--w. _ ...,-. """'-.. EXISTING CONDITIONS VIEW FROM FORT AVENUE South Essex Sewerage District FIGURE 6 NOTICE OF PROJECT CHANGE EXISTING CONDITIONS WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL VIEW 2 Camp Dresser& McKee Inc. WINTER ISLAND PARK PROPOSED EXISTING PUMP STATION CLARIFIERS PROPOSED AERATION BASINS aA w CONCEPT G FROM FORT AVENUE Irk WINTER ISLAND PROPOSED SECONDARY CLARIFIERS CONCEPT B FROM FORT AVENUE South Essex Sewerage District FIGURE 7 NOTICE OF PROJECT CHANGE PROPOSED CONDITIONS WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL VIEW 2 Camp Dresser& McKee Inc. o5- EXISTING POWER PLANT EXISTING MARINE LAB nh _ _ rk y- EXISTING CONDITIONS VIEW FROM WINTER ISLAND ROAD South Essex Sewerage District FIGURE 8 NOTICE OF PROJECT CHANGE EXISTING CONDITIONS r WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL VIEW 3 Camp Dresser& McKee Inc. i F EXISTING P WEP PLANT IXISTING MARINE UB CONCEPT G FROM WINTER ISLAND ROAD r[_ vaovoseD �y ADMINISED BUILDIND j A 1• .M CONCEPT B FROM WINTER ISLAND ROAD South Essex Sewerage District FIGURE 9 NOTICE OF PROJECT CHANGE PROPOSED CONDITIONS WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL VIEW 3 Camp Dresser& McKee Inc. A E STING ADMINISTRATION AND MAINTENANCE BUILDING ERISTING PUMP STATION ri F Y14a e V v Y�•ST d � � SL .gi' � n r r r :Y EXISTING CONDITIONS VIEW FROM WINTER ISLAND South Essex Sewerage District FIGURE 10 NOTICE OF PROJECT CHANGE EXISTING CONDITIONS WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL VIEW 4 Camp Dresser& McKee Inc. EXISTINGLEXPANDED PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION BLDG. OXYGEN GENERATION PROPOSED AERATION BASINS FACILITY EXISTING EXISTING PUMP STATION ++p CHLORINATION BUILDING PROPOSED CLARIFIERS 'gyp `a s a e88 a CONCEPT G FROM WINTER ISLAND e � v �� . � �. P„ R„aµ;,+r e yr ¢ d r5 CONCEPT B FROM WINTER ISLAND South Essex Sewerage District FIGURE 11 NOTICE OF PROJECT CHANGE PROPOSED CONDITIONS WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL VIEW 4 Camp Dresser& McKee Inc. Ms. Susan Tierney, Secretary Executive Office of Environmental Affairs August 17, 1992 Page Thirty-Two have a visual impact on the area north of the pump station where the clarifiers would replace existing vegetation. In Concept B, the two-story administration building above the stacked clarifiers would have a greater visual impact (see Figure 11 Concept B). Although the aeration basins and clarifiers would be visible from this viewpoint, they would be compatible with the existing buildings and adjacent land uses. Overall, the proposed Concept G would have little visual impact on the existing view. Concept B would require more clearing of existing vegetation, but would also allow for more landscaping and berming, creating a less visible facility from View 4. The proposed Concept G layout would employ several mitigation measures to reduce the visual impact of the proposed facility. These include: 1. Maintaining the existing undisturbed buffer between Fort Avenue and the proposed facility, supplemented with additional evergreen vegetation. Because facilities would be located closer to Fort Avenue in Concept B, buffer opportunities along Fort Avenue for Concept B are more limited than for Concept G. 2. A proposed park adjacent to the facility on the CCML property (for either concept). 3. Careful construction practices to protect the vegetation around the CCML property (for either concept). 4. Berming along the east side of the aeration basins and clarifiers supplemented with a mix of deciduous and evergreen vegetation (for either concept, although more space available for Concept B). In general, Concept G would result in less visual change over existing conditions than Concept B, primarily because Concept G would retain several of the existing structures. The District will continue to work closely with the City of Salem and neighbors of the plant as building treatment and landscap- ing plans are further refined during the design stage. Ms. Susan Tierney, Secretary Executive Office of Environmental Affairs August 17, 1992 Page Thirty-Three Institutional and Financial Considerations of Refined Layout Permitting Permitting. No changes in permitting requirements are anticipated to implement Concept G, nor is Concept G anticipated to be less or more acceptable to the regulatory agencies than Concept B. Site Acquisition and Relocation. The same acquisition and relocation issues apply to both layouts. The CCML would be acquired and lab facilities relocated for either layout, and the offer to purchase land across Fort Avenue would be made to the owners of the same 13 properties. Implementation. There are no additional implementation issues associated with Concept G relative to Concept B. Financial Impacts. A reduction in construction cost of $19 million for Concept G would result in a total cost reduction (including interest during construction and financing costs) of $21.5 million. This would reduce the annual borrowing costs associated with the secondary facilities by approxi- mately $2.2 million. As a result, total annual expense would drop from approximately $39.5 million to about $37.3 million, a change of about 5% overall. This would result in a savings of approximately $25 per household per year from the amounts previously forecast. Conclusions Concept G, as described in this Notice of Project Change, involves some minor refinements to the Concept B layout presented in the FEIR/FFP. However, none of the changes would result in additional environmental impacts or the need to implement additional mitigation measures. In fact, Concept G may have fewer construction impacts than Concept B due to less excavation and less demolition, and would provide additional visual buffering opportunities along Fort Avenue. In determining whether a project change might significantly increase environmental consequences of a project, 301 CMR 11.17(3) establishes Ms. Susan Tierney, Secretary Executive Office of Environmental Affairs August 17, 1992 Page Thirty-Four several factors to be considered. As outlined in the foregoing discussion, when viewed against these factors, the proposed project change: a) does not increase the project size or the frequency of activity; b) does not generate further impacts; c) does not increase emission of pollutants during or after completion; d) does not change the start or end dates for the project or change the work schedule (except to reduce building demolition and rock excavation); e) does not relocate the project to a new project site; f) does not require new permits or new requests for financial assistance; g) does not prevent attainment of improvement in environmental quality. The goal of providing secondary sewage treatments is maintained according to the same schedule. Concept G incorporates the same type of mitigation measures as set forth in the FEIR/FFP. Accordingly, the District respectfully requests that you determine, as provid- ed in 301 CMR 11.17(1) and (3), that the proposed changes do not significantly increase the environmental consequences of the project and that the District may proceed with the project in accordance with the proposed Concept G layout. The District remains committed to the mitigation measures and goals described in the FEIR/FFP, regardless of layout. The District will also continue working with the City of Salem to resolve any outstanding issues with respect to mitigation. It is the District's intent to upgrade and strengthen mitigation commitments during design. In fact, steps are being taken now towards that end, including development of protocols for additional noise and odor studies. Ms. Susan Tierney, Secretary Executive Office of Environmental Affairs August 17, 1992 Page Thirty-Five The District requests your immediate attention to this Notice of Project Change such that the project can continue on schedule and in compliance with the Consent Decree. The District will continue to inform the MEPA Unit of any future changes in design, level of impacts, or mitigation mea- sures. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Andrew H. Sims, Jr. Executive Director South Essex Sewerage District tl DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NEW ENGLAND DIVISION, CORPS Of ENGINEERS 424 TRAPELO ROAD WALTHAM, MASSACHUSETTS 02254-9149 REPLY TO ATTENTION Of October 15, 1987 Operations Division Regulatory Branch CENED-OD-R-25-87-16O1N PUBLIC NOTICE Modern Continental Construction, 2277 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140 has requested a Corps of Engineers permit under Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 to transport via dump scow for ocean disposal at the Foul Area disposal site 2500 c.y, of clean, blasted ledge material dredged from Beverly Harbor. A Corps of Engineers permit was previously issued to South Essex Sewer District ( Permit Number MA-SALE-bb-14-bT--to-r—permission to dge the material as part of the Danvers-Beverly Relief Interceptor Project. The original permit was for upland disposal of the material . The contractor is proposing to now dispose of the material at the Foul Area. The proposed disposal site, as shown on the attached map, has been designated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as an approved interim site. The dredged material has undergone physical analysis and has satisfied Part 227.13 (b) ( 1 ) ( 3) of the exclusionary criteria of the Ocean Dumping Act reguarding biological testing. It is our preliminary determination that the material is acceptable for disposal at the Foul Area site. In order to properly evaluate the proposal, we are seeking public comment. Anyone wishing to comment is encouraged to do SO. Comments should be submitted in writing by November 5, 1987. If you need additional information, please contact Phil Hetzner at the above address or by telephone at 617-647-8494, or use our toll-free line 1-800-343-4789 ( use 1-800-362-4367 if calling within Massachusetts) . Any person may request, in writing, within the comment period specified in this notice, that a public hearing be held to consider the application. Requests for a public hearing shall specifically state the reasons for holding a public hearing. The Corps holds public hearings for the purpose of obtaining public comments, when that is the best means for understanding a wide variety of concerns from a diverse segment of the public. S1 rely, mothy me SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR Chief, Proces 'ng Section DETAILS OF EVALUATION Regulatory Branch FACTORS Operations Division The decision whether to issue a pemit will be Weed on an evaluation of the probable inject of the proposed activity m the public interest. That decision will reflect the national coots toc both protection and utilization of Layortant resources. The benefit which reasonably my be expected to accrue from, can proposal must bre balanced against ice reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors which any be relevant to the proposal Will be considered tacledisg the cumulative effects thereof; aeshg the" are mneerveclon, ecmmlte, mothcles, literal eavironeaatal comcerme, wsclaYs, cultural value, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards. (load plain m1was, lead use, novlgatlm, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation. ester supply and conservation, star q"Llty, energy mode. "foci, feed prductim and, is Samrsl, the mods ad welfare of the people. Whom the activity loveless the discharge of dredged or fill meterial into enters of the United States or the tramper- cation of dredged material for the pucpM of dlaponing at It In our meters. Tbb evaluation of the impact at the activity oe the public interest will ales lnelude application of the guidelines pramel{atad by the asdefstrater, O.S. Revireemea"l Protection Agency, weder authority of Section 404(b) of the Clem water Act, sad/or Section l02(a) of the Marion Protection Research ed Sanctuaries act of 1972 as riled. based on his initial revlsw, the Division faglaxer lied dateralaeA that little likelihood exists for the proposed wort to impinge upon properties listed is or eligible for llating in the eaclaeal ReSlscar of Slatorte flame W m !wether coaslderecfon et the ryulr manta of the fresed,vacion of Mletorieal and ereheeeleafeal as act of 1974 is mercury. This determination 10 rad m one or zero of the foLlowing: a. The pewit area hoe bone extensively modified by previous were. b. The permit area has been recently crested. c. The proposed activity is of limited "curs and scope. d. Revton of the latest published version of the Matloml Register shows that m prssesce of registered proportion or properties listed as being eligible for Lacluston therein are in the permit area or general rlcisity. presently utknom a[efizelogiml, scientific, pro-historic or historical data any be lost or deetreped by work te be accomplished under the rpnesced permit. The Division Legieamr had air comulced the Latest published list of threatened or endangered species W has Wa A pralialuap deterelneCIM that can proposed activity will not affect those species listed or their ctttital babltat. The initial dstecml"tinea ode herein will be reviewed in light of Cacti submitted to response to this notice. The following authorizations have bese applied fee or hen Wen or will be obtained: (01 rermic: Limned or Assent from State. gaff (/T permit from label Wetlands Agency or Conservation Coeslasim. (Ij water Quality Cactificacion in accordance with Section 401 of the Clean water Act. tan Stated of Comeacticut, Malmee lfaeaatheeacts, Now Hampshire, and !bode I6111A hes approved Coastal Lome Maagamesc progress. Ube" applicable, the applicant states Chet the proposed activity complies with and will be codueted in a seamed, that is c dmLatMc with this sppmved Coeatal Zone Mampmeet Program. Issusrm of a State permit fro Of appropriate State agency will ldicata cosemrronm with this Statement of Comslacanc). All comments will be considered a matter of public record. Cepiea of tatters of objeitim wlu be feemerded to the sppliemec who will normally be c"uteCed to eeetmt objectors directly is an effort to reach me emdarstadlega TUS otic= ZS Mr AlRMUZATI= TO 00 AIR WR. IF TM WOOD PREFER MOT TO CONTIMS RRCB;ITUM FDBLIC NOTICES. PLEASE a= mm Q AND RETDRN THIS PORTION OF THE PGBLTC NOTICE TO: DEPARTMENT OF TRE ARKY NEW DMAND DIVISION CORPS OF ENG , I El4 ATTN: REGMATORT BRANCH 424 TRAPELO ROAD WALTHAMp MA. 02254 NAME: ADDRESS: - SrON iO. BEVERLY _ WATERS HARBOR `.SESD :+BEVERLY i• ` ees, ?. h PUMPING 100 m,/•�'� STATIONLobst Rocks Pt Pt ck'• ,f OPOSED HARBOR CROSSING �\� BEVERL Y 0, !r .(;•. o `• HARBOR M.::: WILLOW =J '.'' '?::'•'' PARK .. o Salem •�T ;:;` ! Neck _— ~ T Tj�;•?. '• ., J� •.• Vic• ) rt L �_ •,�-,•ti�7:;i•} ice..i. ' -��. W/ r . :;:::1. . . •:% C �H .;� fi •� � -. a ••• .✓U/I%f�fll 0 �• Cove 0 Iwo 2WO Y FEET VICINITY MAP ATTACHMENT A SESD DANVERS-BEVERLY INTERCEPTOR- BEVERLY HARBOR CROSSING LOCATION PLAN FOR: MOD6RN COkT/NFA/TAL AT: SEVFRLY #4,fbe Ar✓6PC1;/NA SCALE: /:/Zroo DATE : 9/C4 MINCMESiE1r %/.To:n xa' 70.40' ..;.:'. W. Hd'r4 ¢6 /190 ..'... k1Y1i 17.....:::'1_'i�l; Ma9^^li.ggetllel 9/61/ Iki•f:.l: ' Y 172 MANCHESTER 149 . fiY1:1 .:; .'-. BAY 145 '.:Yllliil ' v• Grem Misery(mak Hornell 1 IS6 167 141 ]• Ha.yi41 Pt 1 13 159 52 '60 V Ey6pl. Npp900 OOMO S�yfy 153 I]I 196 00 6 /1t 5 A E E M 5 B.ker. I � Cyayy2,y 12 162 91 16S 63 JJr�+7 v 210 Eagle 1 B W1 173 16 137 189 161 156 .y4 0p 117 206 A !� 00 0 204 I 167 163 65 180 197 196 236 yF' 91 1.6 226 ' .:,:.�:'.•:_ l-e 779 i • xslfrr.y Rk 163 V, 215 16] .r:.•. .EIO,' � ? �,{•SEN._+� f AT 226 255 M.rblehe.a neck 97 236 N6n 7i.bn 141 174 17 j 169N2W Q 264 176 237 162 163 J 9y 216 - Rem 1 161 137 O) 232 � 227Q1M M6 36 m Ml2Z/ 203 160 Gre.t Pill R«k. 129 b0 IS• I NIST 216 240 123 132 136 136 124 J 2W Ar 251 306 K7 144 267 2N! 106 120 121 132 150 151 130 47 16! 1176 255 246 160 161 136 100 13p O 13 k 270 260 105 106 126 117 lie 126 156 21 11 t 101 211 O D2 199 2S 24 117 /•. 159 H° 162 131 ? 204 210 2ro 7• 105 as II7 123 136114 117 126 1441 /-117.4 191 J2• 275 271 90 65 130 107 18 111 120 130 ISO 278 304 267 75 94100 99 104 f6 90 11< too 123 IW132 136 139 216 226212 26] 268 261 4W 91 77 90 92 85 116 111 216 59 66 62 IR 100 W 115 150 66 192 251 7.1 294 SS 73 13• 176 2I7 10 261 270 92 95 171 196 275 M SSACHUSETTS 216 264 • 17 160 23T 267 N y4 7 GS 76 96 109 136 2 b• - 216 Cn y h7 O 85 6 2S9 270 276 230 > H O 07 133 135 (p .. 77 51 107 W 106 IW BO 77 I17 1A I]0 156 227 213 r1 67 260 276 fa7 •sY 80 72 6 69 291 .. p 76 60 109 73 111 1S4 ISO 17! 6uunUln94 An In FM 1B S 67 61 63 74 7 N)9 IH 60 2 6 < E.. 13 31 73 15 70 2 g6 BAY 120• / 1•• r O FOUL AREA DISPOSAL SITE 3Z Description: This site is a circular area with a diameter of 2 nautical miles and center at 42°-25.7'N, U z 70°-34.0'W. From the center, the Marblehead Tower bears true 282° at 24,300 yards and Baker Island r Horn bears true 300° at 24.300 yards. The authorized disposal point (within the overall disposal area) is specified for each dredging project in other project documents. Depth Range: 159 to 304 feet MLW � a NOTE: The map depicts the disposal site's location in relation to landmarks. It is not intended for use in navigation. 41 LEGEND NOTES r • • —• • MEAN NIGH MATER 1. ALL ELEVATIONS REFER TO MEAN LOW WATER DATUM , R T 3 WHICH Is 4.44• • • • MEAN LOM WATER USC G i! MEANiCET 34EA BELOW [EL BN-1 DATUM. ECT BORING LOCATION } CUG AND NUMBER 2. GRID COORDINATES REFER TO C-11 BUOY LOCATION MASS.STATE GRID SYSTEM. .fie AND NUMBER aoeo o Boos etue s. peer LOCATION PLAN Z FROM U.S.G.S.SALEM,MA.OUAO. Os f 25' MIN. DISTANCE �P FROM TOE Of SLOPE GOO MINA TO t OF FORCE MAIN to a ■.10 ' KVERLY G BEVERLY /El ' H A R'B O RPUMa 3QAaOeAll ICY LOWwAMaim waits eIEWIATE LOCATION OF W �m 3 34'•3 = 30 C.I.FORCE MAIN W J yV 0• ' �G� SE NO. G! y W p = > �V7 �D !_r /N IA eOoi 8K-2 A m EM DOCKO.I I LevFs AREA S s 430-30'-000 c urns os 42� FORCE MAIy CONTRACTOR TO PROTECT DREDGED CHANNEL S 111 TOE OF SLOPE OF JETTY YACHT CLUB FLOAT PLAN s 100 O 100 200 300 SCALE IN FEET PURPOSE. RELICF AND REPLACEMENT W DUSTING FORM MAIN. }h � PROPERTY OWNERS A RYAN. x. O WILLIAM R. MIO DORIS G REN '�� CNa 2493 Olt WATER STREET• BEVERLY, MA. b W 014110`+� OJwILEE YACHT CLUB Rl4 to 129 WATER STREET, BEVERLY,MA. O3 CITY OF BEVERLY, SEVMv,MA. Q 9/io�IS O SOUTH Essex SIEWEMK DISTRICT ( no.rw.tam.,wG.age"" GeE urrt& F • EDOT. INC.. [MINCERS PLAN ACCOWANTIMB PETITION OF LOCATION PLAN FOR:Na46R.! SWN QSa Kwowse DISTRICT #AW30NYAL AT: 8,I:y�,�L y NRPdOR DIS✓SPLj�NA SX BSA!!' • SCALE : /a a JOe r DATE : ¢-/0-Qt TO CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN A wEP7: 3 ads HALF "Aur LEGEND TOM C / IN EARTHTI W ROCK 2' i - ' - - MEAN NIGH WATER PLACED SAGS FILLED 3'-B" 3'-I' MEAN LOW WATER WITH CONCRETE , BACKFILL WITH BN-1 SEE NOTE 2 i2- I I SUITABLE B BORING LOCATION I2 I EX AVATED AND NUMBER 2 MIN. - ERIAL COASTAL BEACH ' BANK RUN GRAVEL SESD DATUMS USDA pATUM.4 a6' NOTES: 1 42"0.1.FORCE MAIN I. 12h CONCRETE FILTER I- 2 _ COMPACTED PROPERTY OWNERS SAND HOT REQUIRED BETWEEN SCREENED O STA. 27.002AND2B.00. 6 MIN. GRAVEL I CITY OF SALEM, SALEM, MA. 2. BETWEEN STA.3.00AND IBi.00 _ UNDISTURBED MATERIAL O2 CITY OF SALEM SALEM, YA. PLACE "LAP BAGS FILLED WITH CLASS S CONCRETE. - 2 CONCRETE FILTER SAND Q CITY of SALEM. SALEM, MA. TYPICAL TRENCH SECTION ? p NO SCALE SALEM W RAMS 10CINc OpO 000 N APP R MATE LOCATION Of 211 2 W t EK15T.30 I. FORCE 1w 4!ST=32" SASES F0 H814-4 IS-00 s.7D 22 DO 8H-$A S.`j6•.0'+ •t EzIST .a • ' BI%VERLr F M = SN-6A S340-57'-SeE / Q�IO J MEAN LOW WATER / ?�O = MEAN HIGH WATER 1 42" FORCE PAIN i BEVERLY a HARBOR LIMIT OF e 100 YEAR w 3 FL000(IS.46) O J r PLAN 100 0 100 200 300 SCALE IN FEET NOTES= 1. ALL ELEVATIONS REFER TO MEAN LOW WATER DATUM. 2. GRID COORDINATES REFER TO MASS. STATE 9410 SYSTEM, Au.P00e(N44„ NAAA.40.e40a Dart METCALF B EDDY, INC„ ENGINEERS PLAN ACCOMhNYING PETITION OF SOUTH ESSEX SEWERAGE DISTRICT SALEM# MASS, LOCATION PLAN TO CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN A I FOR:/h A"A; GNr/NAwr 1, SING 42" FORCE MAIN UNDER AT BbvERtY l +apR Jw;lzea 4A AND ACROSS BEVERLY HARBOR SCALE : /^sJDOI DATE: BEVERLY S SALEM, MASS. fir` y•�� • SHEET 2 OF 3 I _ slit 7 P+Je Al JOV 7 �z' 1jeo.p 3A TA3ON W a z 1^ ut < o W atom c I J W z` J O 0 If ` CL W s NO < I ~ a e ' e t 11; ► Y I O p r Zf • A Y J .Y L rY 8 ~ low C4 ~IL ♦ o W= F 4 25 * � OH= 8 ` •_ Z < < C V t " qK • 7 J S <� o oo O+f a s E �x � • kit o � 43 � � o o lo•�i 4 v �: = u ° 0 r O • w nw a� '1' • _ Na vis a fld A1a3 A3B • LOCATION PLAN •0 'tLS FOR: #60fRA1 Cownvv rmJ �� AT: QEVERc.Y 1lV&R 6fNb 6Y A/Ay s • Y r =j SCALE :/'r s JOO I DATE:Q,m,er MaLSO 'a'l'w IVA 13 S'°{r DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY ENGINEER 01VISION. NEW ENGLAND _v y CORPS OF ENGINEERS 424 Tnpolo Road Waltham. Massaehusatts 02254-9149 l ocr 19er L u OPPHN^MUSINa3f SKr reu MVwn use NOOD—B IMPORTANT This is A01 a *clfar. Mayor City Hall Salem, MA 01970 � II 5,. 1 • / \•: I h 114 9 PEABODYj� SALEM . Ix � J MAP OF SALEM 69 r i / / / / i r � <� - SALEM PEABODY � j. a' µ i ' COQ -R).. MAP OF SALEM 69 y..sf s4nST �r.l r�4 ry � :.• "i.:r -. . �. - - :. � '. r F ol S. RUSSELL SYLVA 07.e%nieal - Commissioner o p October 28, 1987 Dear Commission Members: We are at present attempting to identify sources of nonpoint pollution and the water bodies they affect. Nonpoint sources include: runoff from paved areas, agricultural areas (animal concentrations and tilled land), forest areas which have been or are being harvested, mining (sand and gravel operations), dumpsites/landfills, as well as leachate from failing or improperly located septic systems or groundwater discharges, and discharges from boats and other vessels. They affect surface waters (both salt and fresh) and groundwater. Our present information is based on available data and is, for the most part broad, and in some cases, may be out of date or inaccurate. V We have enclosed a map of your town with the information (either known or probable problems) coded on it. We would appreciate it if you could look over these maps and make any additions, corrections or deletions your com- mission knows of and finds appropriate. We would appreciate your comments (self-addressed stamped envelope enclosed) by November 20, 1987 if at all possible. This information is needed to help establish a nonpoint source program in Massachusetts. Any future monies from this program may be used to evaluate suspected sources and to determine the feasibility of correc- tive measures. Funds may also be available in the future to finance in part or in whole, projects throughout the state to study problems and correct them. We felt this would be an excellent opportunity to avail our- selves of the local knowledge of problem areas, as well as to work with the local commissions to alleviate some of the problem areas they may find in their communities. Thank you in advance for your help. If you have any questions or problems please write or call either Jeff Smith or myself at (617) 366-9181. Sincerely, i Eben W. Chesebrough Environmental Engineer EWC/ac Enclosures SERAFINI, SERAFINI AND DARLING `FU ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2 2 IyyJ 63 FEDERAL STREET L SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 sal efil 1-1k�iA7'mou uo pl. JOHN R. SERAFINI. SR. TELEPHONE JOHN R. SERAFINI.JR. 508-744-0212 JOHN E. DARLING 617.581.2743 ELLEN M. WINKLER TELECOPIER JOSEPH C. CORRENTI 508-741 46133 September 22, 1995 BY HAND DELIVERY Frederick J. Harney, Jr. , Chairman Salem Conservation Commission One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 RE: DEP File No. 64-210 South Essex Sewerage District Construction of Secondary Treatment Facilities Order of Conditions issued November 2 , 1992 Dear Mr. Harney: I am writing on behalf of the South Essex Sewerage District to request that the Commission issue an Extension Permit for the above-referenced Order of Conditions which will extend the Order from its current expiration date of November 2 , 1995 to November 2, 1998 . This request is made pursuant to 310 CMR 10. 05 (8) , Extensions of Orders of Conditions, and General Condition 5 of the Order. The Order of Conditions governs a portion of the construction work on the District' s secondary treatment facilities project. When the Notice of Intent for the project was filed in 1992 it was expected that the project would not be completed until late 1997 and that there would be need for an extension permit. While the Consent Decree schedule calls for the District to achieve full operation of the new facilities by October 29, 1997 , there may be unfinished construction details after that date or unanticipated delays. For those reasons, the District believes it is advisable to extend the Order for a full three years. Frederick J. Harney, Jr. , Chairman September 22 , 1995 Page 2 The District requests that this matter be placed on the Commission's agenda for the meeting of October 12 , 1995. The District is preparing a status report on the activities under the Order and will also be prepared to make a general presentation on the project at the meeting if the Commission would find that helpful. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, John E. Darling JED:jaf cc: Raymond D. Masak Jane Wheeler ADDENDUM TO SESD NOTICE OF PROJECT CHANGE FOR SECONDARY TREATMENT FACILITIES The attached site plan for treatment plant Concept B is taken from SESD's Final EIR/Final Facilities Plan for Wastewater Treatment and Disposal (May 1992). It is provided to reviewers of the August 17, 1992 Notice of Project Change to facilitate a comparison of the Concept B layout presented in the Final EIR/Final Facilities Plan, and the Concept G layout presented in the Notice of Project Change. -------------------- - ( v o 1 - � I 0 30 � !� y O ��-- WHICLE AERA ON SCE C SLUDGE — — V N AND $TUR. STORAGE BACK-UP g TANKS GGALLERYGALLERY Q11ME 4� STABILIZATION p ; yF { SECONDARY CIMIFlam in AERA NSaI�n� ti z mem PRODUCT AND MMULVERING AREA STORAGE '^ (GALLERY BELOW) tU0 GAIJ.ERY SECONDARY OFFIC C • 2 FUTUREQ i FUTURE AERATION BASINS I SECONDARY CLARIFIERS AR CRYING _ p_yy FOR PELLE7IZINQ 6c 6 — — 20 — , — — — — — — AI L. Sf —ANt fML$SWN SU4(B -_____i • — — — — — i ALLOCATION FOR R� ci TURE AWT _ • NTROD'E 1 S0 `� STNXE MEON=] 0000I )0� AIR SSION 1 ONTROL B 1 DRYER �� ____ MISSIONS �� —► — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — J I CONTROL F B 0 Y' -1 / •� • � 1 South Essex Sewerage District PHASE II FACILITIES PLAN FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL Camp Dresser& McKee Inc. FEIR/FFP Figure 5-2 _^ 700 SO 0 TOO 200 Recommended Plan Site Layout 5-10 I CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. environmental engineers,scientists, Ten Cambridge Center planners,&management consultants Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142 617 252-6000 August 21, 1992 Conservation Commission City of Salem Salem City Hall Salem, MA 01970 Dear Commissioners: Enclosed please find a copy of the South Essex Sewerage District's Notice of Project Change. This document has been submitted to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Unit (MEPA Unit) for public review and comment. Any comments should be directed to Secretary of Environmental Affairs, Susan F. Tierney at the following address: MEPA Unit Executive Office of Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street Boston, MA 02202. Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. Sincerely, CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. Jae W. Wheeler , Environmental Scientist ; SITE PREPARATION CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE (Contract No. 93-3) Activity Date Notice to Proceed August 1993 Mobilization August - September 1993 Install Noise Barrier September- October 1993 Site Clearing September 1993 Excavation of Overburden September - December 1993 Rock Drilling/Blasting and Excavation October 1993 - May 1994 Miscellaneous Work and Cleanup June 1994 Complete Construction - Site Preparation July 1994 _ I ii PaA.c_m=ems Iv tOL h O"u--G-AAs- -C-cF-I q)-w}- - - � X e Lam,or. �. (dal - i �' I i ii I� i' _ �. ��' !�� j{ I 'i �I !i i� '� 'I i i i, APPENDIX 01060-A CONTRACT PACKAGE NUMBER CP-202 SCHEDULE OF PERMITS PERMIT ISSUING STATUS COPY TITLE AGENCY AS OF ATTACHED 1/31/92 YES/NO Order of Conditions* Boston Conservation Issued Yes Commission 10/26/90 NPDES** Mase DEP/US EPA Applied For No 7/91 Notice of Proposed*** Federal Aviation Issued Yes l Construction or Administration 9/28/90 J Alteration (Construction cranes) * The Order of Conditions regulates all work within the buffer zone (100 feet extending from the top of coastal bank) . ** All dewatering or rainfall/runoff flows generated during facilities construction must be disposed through a permitted outfall or sedimentation pond. The CM is obtaining NPDES permit(s) for construction discharges. CM anticipates the effluent limitations imposed by DEP/EPA on these discharges will be as follows: i Parameter Avg. Concentration Max Concentrat on Oil & Grease, ppm - 15 i i Total Suspended Solids, bt' ppm 30 45 +� pH, Unita NA between 6 to 9 Volatile Organic Compds (VOCs) , ppm NA 100 _ J CP-202 01060 - A - 3 3/19/92 4r New England Power Service Company d New England Power Service 25 Research Drive Westborough, Massachusetts 01582-0099 A New England Electric System company Telephone: 15081 366-9011 September 29, 1992 Conservation Commission City of Salem Subject: Proposed Transmission Line Maintenance Salem, Massachusetts Commission Members: Recent inspections of New England Power Company's 115,000 volt transmission lines (highlighted on the attached map) have revealed deteriorated poles and crossarms at several structure locations. A program has been initiated to restore these structures to their original sound condition by replacing the deteriorated poles and arms. New England Power, Company proposes to do this work in accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act's maintenance exemption for existing facilities used to provide electric service. No fill in wetland areas is proposed; siltation control devices will be installed to protect resource areas adjacent to work sites; access to structures in wetland areas will be via temporary swamp mat access roads; and upon completion of the work, disturbed areas will be restored to approximately original grade and contours, mulched, and allowed to revegetate. This maintenance work will start this month and will be completed in early 1993. If you have any questions or require additional information, I may be reached at (508) 366-9011, extension 3341. Very truly yours, Gerald A. Pepi , Engineer Transmission Engineering c:\trans\gap\conserve c: G. F. Cahill , Massachusetts Electric R SEP 16 i992 4 7'r7' •1 1� • .e=� Mt %mip WE IVANOR am—MoJiWWWa �i�, AN WINSag .i I'r3{ p i/ 7/��► QRS `� '3 ``�k ' .r7' •-e,'�` �� m S1 p 1 3�,ANO � . 1/ •� ' � � G , Z'� _ams J• l's LII iMrS NW—To T SERAFINI, SERAFINI AND DARLING ATTORNEYS AT LAW 63 FEDERAL STREET SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 JOHN R. SERAFINI. SR. TELEPHONE JOHN R. SERAFINI,JR. 508-744-0212 JOHN E. DARLING 617-581-2743 ELLEN M.WINKLER TELECOPIER JOSEPH C. CORRENTI October 27, 1992 508-741-4683 Ms. Deborah Hurlburt Salem Conservation Commission City of Salem One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Re: Notice of Intent South Essex Sewerage District DEP File No. 64-206 Dear Ms. Hurlburt: Enclosed in connection with the above are the following as requested: 1. Letter to the Commission enclosing corrected pages to the Notice of Intent; 2 . Suggested clarifications to the plan reference and to the Order of Conditions from my notes. Sincerely, -� - k E. Darling !/ JED/kel Enclosures cc i��►ss? SERAFINI, SERAFINI AND DARLING ATTORNEYS AT LAW 63 FEDERAL STREET SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 JOHN R. SERAFINI, 5R. TELEPHONE JOHN R. SERAFINI,JR. 506-744-0212 JOHN E. DARLING 617-581-2743 ELLEN M. WINKLER TELECO PIER JOSEPH C. CORRENTI October 27, 1992 50 B-741-4683 Betsy Horne, Chairperson Conservation Commission City of Salem One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Re: Notice of Intent South Essex Sewerage District DEP File No. 64-206 Dear Ms. Horne: As agreed at the public hearing, on behalf of the Applicant, South Essex Sewerage District, I enclose copies of pages 2-5, 4- 11 and 5-1 of the Notice of Intent which have been revised to correct typographical errors. I have initialed each page. Please insert these into the Notice of Intent as substitute pages. Sincerely, enE. Darling JED/kel Enclosures cc: Raymond Masak, SESD Jane Wheeler, CDM AFV Cn Dec 5 19 CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. environmental engineers,scientists, `�tl/n 92 Ten Cambridge Center planners,8 management consultants Cambridge,Massachusetts 02142 S /)nh` 617 252-6000 December 14, 1992 �vY4 Betsy Horne, Chairperson Conservation Commission City of Salem One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 RE: Order of Conditions for Construction of SESD Secondary Sewerage Treatment Facilities, dated November 2, 1992 Dear Ms. Horne: On behalf of the Applicant, South Essex Sewerage District (SESD), this letter summarizes results of a site inspection conducted on December 7, 1992 in compliance with Special Condition #21 of the Order of Conditions dated November 2, 1992. As specified in Special Condition #21, representatives from SESD and Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (CDM) examined the area surrounding Outfall #3 during low tide on December 7, 1992 for signs of a "white frothy substance" that was found by Commission members on October 2, 1992. Upon finding such a substance, SESD planned to determine its constituents and provide sampling results to the Commission. However, no traces of the substance were found during the December 7 site inspection, nor have District representatives observed any evidence of the substance since the October 2 Commission visit. SESD will periodically inspect the area and will notify the Commission if any white frothy substance is found. In the meantime, if you have any questions please contact me. Sincerely, CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. Jane W. Wheeler Senior Environmental Scientist JWW:kw cc: R. Masak, SESD J. Darling, SS&D JON COA�'�s 2 ��s Conservatim Comm ssim Salem. Massachusetts 01970 W HASS CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION Will hold a public hearing for a Notice of Intent under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act , Mass . G.L. Chap. 131 , section 40, at the request of the South Essex Sewage District . The proposal involves site grading , paving and construction of additional treatment facilities , within the Buffer Zone of a Coastal Bank and the Resource Area Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage, at the South Essex Sewage Treatment Plant facility, located at 26-34 Fort Avenue . The hearing will be held on Thursday, September 24, 1992 at 7 : 00 p.m. , One Salem Green, Second Floor Conference Room. Bet Horne Chair September 24, 1992 inie notiee posted on "offieial Bulletin Boaxdo ii%y Hall Ave. , Salem, Maas. on S • /E1119 a at 16:19 Am in•acoosr�daanaase�with Chap. 6394. of tle Acts of 1958. 1� • SERAFINI, SERAFINI AND DARLING ATTORNEYS AT LAW 63 FEDERAL STREET SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 JOHN R. SERAFINI, SR. TELEPHONE JOHN R. SERAFINI,JR. 5 08-744-0212 JOHN E. DARLING 617-581-2743 ELLEN M.WINKLER TELECOPIER JOSEPH C. CORRENTI May 27, 1993 508-741-4683 BY HAND DELIVERY Betsy Horne, Chair Conservation Commission City of Salem One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Re: South Essex Sewerage District DEP File No. 64-210 Construction of Secondary Wastewater Treatment Facilities at 50 Fort Avenue Dear Ms. Horne: I am writing on behalf of the South Essex Sewerage District to provide the Commission with further information concerning the work on the above project as required by Special Conditions 1, 14 , and 15 of the Order of Conditions dated November 2 , 1992 . The District is now advertising for bids on the initial phase of the construction of the project which consists of excavation and other site preparation work. The site preparation phase has been designated as Contract 93-3 and is expected to begin in August 1993 and end on or about July, 1994. This site preparation contract will be followed by a separate contract for the actual building of the treatment works which has been designated as Contract 93-1 and is scheduled to begin in July, 1994 . Special Condition 1 of the Order of Conditions requires the District to file final specifications with the Commission prior to commencing construction. In compliance with this requirement, filed along with this letter are: 1. two sets of the contract plans entitled: "South Essex Sewerage District, Salem, Massachusetts, Wastewater System Improvements, Contract No. 93-3 , Site Preparation, BMF-20-843-02 , April 1993 , " prepared by Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. , the District's consulting engineers; and Betsy Horne, Chair May 27, 1993 Page 2 2 . two sets of pertinent sections of the specifications for Contract 93-3 concerning sedimentation and erosion control, dewatering, special provisions, environmental protection procedures and emergency response plan requirements. As a result of the final design process for this site preparation phase of the project, the plans and specifications contain some minor modifications to the procedures for sedimentation, erosion control and dewatering as outlined in the Notice of Intent. These are shown on the plans and are summarized below. First, Plan 10 from the Notice of Intent showed a drainage swale and sediment basin running along the property boundary between the District and the Cat Cove Marine Laboratory (CCML) . The swale and basin were originally proposed to control surface runoff from the CCML property entering into the excavation area. This system was also designed to route surface runoff from Fort Avenue around the excavation and to the sedimentation basin. This system is not necessary for the early site preparation phase of the project for the following reasons: 1. Surface runoff from the Fort Avenue area will now enter a catch basin (shown on Sheet SP-5 of the plans) to be constructed at the northern edge of the excavation near Fort Avenue. This catch basin will be fitted with a filter box and the flow will be diverted to the west around the excavation area and will discharge through the District's storm drain system. Surface runoff from the CCML property will now flow directly into the excavation area and will be pumped from there to a sedimentation basin. The water from the sedimentation basin will, in turn, now be pumped to the treatment plant's effluent pump station wet well, where sampling will occur, and will be discharged through the District 's effluent outfall in Salem Sound. The discharge must comply with the District's NPDES permit for the outfall. Surface water from other areas of the site will be handled as described in the Notice of Intent. 2 . Groundwater from dewatering the excavation was originally proposed to be discharged through the storm drain system into Cat Cove. Instead, the groundwater will be pumped to the sediment basin and will then be pumped to the effluent pump station and discharged out the effluent outfall in compliance with the District's NPDES permit. Betsy Horne, Chair May 27, 1993 Page 3 Second, as a result of further refinements in the design of the proposed secondary treatment facilities, the site locations of some structures had to be shifted. Engineering feasibility studies have shown that because of the hydraulics involved with pumping effluent through the proposed outfall diffuser, the pumps in the effluent pump station need to be upgraded. The new pumps will be too large to fit into the existing effluent pump station, and as a result, a new pump station to house the larger pumps will be required. The Notice of Intent noted that the existing effluent pump station was to be retained. Instead, a new station will be added as part of the secondary treatment facilities work and the existing pump station will be demolished at the end of the construction. To accommodate the new effluent pump station, the chlorine contact tanks had to be shifted slightly to the east on the District's property. The impact of this change on the site preparation work is to shift the excavation for the chlorine tanks slightly to the east. The enclosed plans also note that the District has arranged for a permission zone which extends 100 feet into the Cat Cove Marine Laboratory (CCML) property. This area will be used for utility relocation and for the proposed noise barrier. The proposed noise barrier is a temporary structure that is being placed to help mitigate noise levels during the construction period. As the plans show, the noise barrier will extend into the buffer zone on the CCML property where the District has easement rights. The physical disruption from placement of the proposed noise barrier will be similar to that of placing a fence. The District also proposes to extend the silt fence to this area to protect downslope wetlands. The District also notes the following concerning other requirements of the Order of Conditions: 1. In compliance with Special Condition 6, a construction sequence and schedule for the work under the site preparation contract is filed with this letter. Design is continuing on the secondary treatment facilities and will be completed by the Consent Decree date of August 28, 1993 . At that time, the District will make an additional filing with the Commission concerning the secondary facilities construction. 2 . The District proposes to install oil/water separators during the secondary facilities construction. Filter boxes and absorbent pads will be placed around catch basins as detailed in the enclosed plans and specifications during the site preparation work. Betsy Horne, Chair May 27, 1993 Page 4 3 . The Pollution Prevention Plan required by Special Condition 22 is being prepared at this time and will be forwarded to the Commission prior to the start of the site preparation work. 4 . Condition No. 20 calls for the contractor to conduct additional testing on the groundwater before dewatering of the main excavation area. As discussed above, the dewatering discharge will be routed to the effluent pump station wet well and will be sampled prior to discharge through the effluent outfall. 5. The final landscaping plans are being prepared as part of the secondary facilities contract and will be completed by the Consent Decree date of August 28, 1993 . These plans will be forwarded to the Conservation Commission for approval of landscaping within resource areas and the buffer zone. The District is scheduled to make a presentation concerning the above matters at the Commission' s meeting of May 27, 1993 and will be pleased to provide additional information as the need arises. Sincerely, n E. Darling Y JED/kel Enclosures SITE PREPARATION CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE (Contract No. 93-3) Activity Date Notice to Proceed August 1993 Mobilization August - September 1993 Install Noise Barrier September- October 1993 Site Clearing September 1993 Excavation of Overburden September - December 1993 Rock Drilling/Blasting and Excavation October 1993- May 1994 Miscellaneous Work and Cleanup June 1994 Complete Construction - Site Preparation July 1994 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Department of ' Environmental Protection William F. Weld G.Greenbaum JUL 141993 Daniel S.Greenbaum Commissioner South Essex Sewerage District c/o John E. Darling, Serafini, Serafini & Darling 63 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 Re: Waterways License Application No. W93-2062 : Dear Sirs: The Waterways Regulation . Program (WRP) has received your application requesting authorization to perform certain activities in state waterways pursuant to G.L. Chapter 91, . Waterways Licensing. The WRP has assigned your filing with the referenced application number. IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT YOU REFER TO THIS APPLICATION NUMBER WHENEVER YOU SUBMIT OR REQUEST INFORMATION FOR THIS FILE. Attached is the WRP's public notice for this application. You are required to publish this notice, at your expense, in the local newspaper(s) having circulation in the area affected by the proposed activity. This notice must be published no later than the designated "Notification Date" for at least one day in the local newspaper(s) . There is a prescribed public comment period imposed from the date of publication. You are required to submit proof. of publication to the WRP by sending a copy .of the newspaper notice showing the date of publication or a letter from the newspaper indicating the date the notice was published. The WRP will concurrently notify the appropriate municipal officials of the proposed activity for their review and comment. The WRP cannot commence licensing review and authorization until at least forty-five (45) days after the municipality has been notified of this application. Also, should this project exceed the MEPA waterways thresholds, thereby requiring completion of the MEPA review process, the WRP will publish the public notice in the Environmental Monitor. Furthermore, pursuant to 310 CMR 9 . 00, Licensees are required to provide compensation for private use of structures (or fill) on Commonwealth tidelands which interfere with the rights of the public to use such lands. Said compensation includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the allowance of the public to pass on foot, for any lawful purpose, within the area of the subject property lying seaward of the high water mark. The WRP may contact the Applicant, if it has not already done so within the .text of this letter, requesting information and/or possible revisions necessary to comply with this requirement. One Winter Street 0 Boston,Massachusetts 02108 • FAX(617)556.1049 0 Telephone(617)292-5500 Q - 2 - F Lastly, . the WRP cannot begin review of this application .for license issuance until the following information has been submitted to the file: Proof of publication of the public notice _ Expiration of the statutory 45 day comment period Receipt of a DEP, Water Quality Certification Should you have any question with regard to the foregoing, please contact me at (617) 292-5695. Sincerely, on t r Licensing Engineer Waterways Regulation Program cc: Salem Mayor & City Council Sal em.Cons.ervatton—Commission; Salem Harbormaster DEP Regional Office, NE, Wetlands Section #64-212 MEPA Unit Office of Coastal Zone Management DEM, Ocean Sanctuaries Division of Fish & Wildlife Massachusetts Historical Commission Division of Marine Fisheries WRP Application File (2) L DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION WATERWAYS REGULATION PROGRAM -------------------------------------------------------------------- Notice of License Application pursuant to M.G. L. Chapter 91 Waterways License Application No. W93-2062 South Essex Sewerage District Notification Date: July 28 , 1993 Public Notice is hereby given of the application by South Essex Sewerage District to construct and maintain a multiport diffuser near Great Haste Rock in the Municipality of Salem in and over the waters of Salem Sound. The proposed use of the structure(s) and/or fill is to improve effluent discharge and is a water-dependent use project. The Department will consider all written comments submitted thirty (30) days subsequent to the "Notification Date" in order to decide whether to grant authorization for the proposed activity pursuant to G.L: ' Chapter 91. A public hearing may be held upon request by the Municipal Official. Furthermore, a municipality, ten citizen group or any aggrieved person that has submitted written comments may also petition to intervene to become a party before the close of the comment period. Failure to submit such petition will result in the waiver of any right to an adjudicatory hearing. Further information regarding this application may be obtained by contacting the Division at (617) 2,92- 5695. Plans and documents for this application are on file with the Department for public viewing, by appointment only, at the address below. Written comments must be submitted to. John A. Simpson, Section Chief, DEP/Waterways Regulation Program, One Winter Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02108 . Massachusetts Department ofEngronmental Protection 48091 Bureau of Resource Protection—Waterways Program TnnsmiNarl BRP WW 01 Waterways License or Permit: Non Amnesty t BRP WW 02 Waterways Amnesty License or Interim Approval BRP WW 03 Waterways Amendment to License or Permit General Waterways Application See Instructions on page 1 before Project Information completing sections A-D of 1. Which permit category are you applying fon? 7. Project description: this form g0 BRP WW 01 ❑ BRP WW 03 The project involves construction of ❑ BRP WW 02(Amnesty) _......._......_..........................................__...... _.. a 660—foot multiport outfall diffuse 2. Applicant: in Land Under the Ocean. See Sectio ......................................................................._..-- -----—— South Essex Sewerage District _.......__.._.._...._..._......—...._.._.._........._.........._...... 1 and Appendix A for more details. _..-.................................._........................._—..... --- 50Fort Avenue ......_._.._.__..__...—------------------ —.._.__.._. . IAa11IngAtlOress Salem, MA 01970 8• Description of existing and proposed use(s): clry/rewn Sale - The diffuser will be •consr.ructed on N/A —.__......�508�_•,744=4SS4--- —._.. --- ...__..._..— -........... on Teloftm proorcj-- • -• (Oak) the end of the existing outfall 3. Authorized agent(if any): terminus. The current discharge of John E. Darling, Serafini Serafini & xa.V..........................................-art n-g -� - .......•_ _ ............... ..... - effluent will .......................... ..........................__._—_ 63 Federal Street _..................................................._................--•---........._................ Adams 9. Is this application for an Amnesty Interim Approval? Salem, MA —01970 ❑ Yes W No aIwown sme If"Yes",submit plans prepared in accordance with (508) 744-0212 .. ApcendixA. ................. .... ..._.._..._................... ..._..._._._. Ielepfrone - 4. Property owner: 10. What is the approximate total cost of the project(including materials 8 labor)? TtLe_g& &2,andc are held in I-rimt The estimated cost without construct Naim(gaieoenrlmm apolranq ,contingencies•--is__ 1,6_mi,-],-),. .,-,_. by the Commonwealth talNo.(s) erocr smgrKsim 11. List the name and complete mailing address of each abutter (attach additional sheets,9 necessary): tmam/meerawmss) Not Applicable. Project is taking ury/!mm 6oanb place 1.4 miles offshore. 5. Name of the water body: Salem Sound, Massachusetts Bay ...._......._..........._............_.........__..._...._......_.. — 12. '1 have attached project plans in accordance with the 6. The wafer body at the project site is: instructions contained in._': (check 1 or more of both a 8 b) 1 ❑ Appendix A(for Interim Approval applications) a. 9 Tidal ❑ Filled Tidelands ❑ Great Pond ❑ Appendix B(for Permit applications) ❑ River/Stream ❑ Uncertain ff Appendix C(for License applications) b. E Natural ❑ Man-Made ❑ Uncertain Appendices A-C begin on page 7 of this Application . Package. r Massachusetts Department of Enviroamentat Protection Bureau of Resource Protection—Waterways Program 48091 Trr48091 nsmiltalt BRP WW 01 Waterways license or Permit: Non Amnesty BRP WW 02 Waterways Amnesty License or Interim Approval BRP WW 03 Waterways Amendment to license or Permit General Waterways Application o ' certification Please type or Drioall information All applicants, property owners and authorized agents must sign this page.All future application correspondence may be provided on this signed by the authorized agent alone. i � tatm. I hereby make application for a permit or license to _..._.........................-��..........___.:..._.__ ._ authorize the activities I have described herein.Upon my ^0psrD"'o ° � H. Sims Jr. signature, I agree to allow the duly authorized representatives 5-7-93 of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Dare and the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program to enter upon the premises of the project she at reasonable times --SAME__-_--_ for the purpose of inspection. rmpeny owners svnew ptoUnuent Mao appt my I hereby certify that the information submitted in this application is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.' Date �nwms piapp / ohn E. arcing ................r�.—..7. .:. ...........:.._............_..---.._.—_ We Waterways Dredging Addendum 1. Provide a description of the dredging project. Dredging will occur by gently pushing aside the 0 to 3 feet of surficial ...... _ .... ........._........._...._....._...._.:__.._....:_---:......................_ along t -§e3iinents-by-use'-of--a'��Timited-depth plow or similar device along the 660-foot diffuser al, nment (See Appendix A) . 2. What is the purpose of the dredging. To push aside geoterhnical_y unsuitable sediments which are unable to suppor the weight of the diffuser pipe. 3. What is the volume(cubic yards)of material to be dredged? Approximately 500 cubic yards 4. What method will be used to dredge? A limited-depth plow or similardevicewill geptly-_push_aside_.&eotechpEa_]ly unsuitable sediments along the diffuser alignment (see Appendix A) . 5. Describe the disposal method that will be used and give the disposal location(include a separate disposal site location map): Most of the surficial sediments will settle within 10 feet of the diffuser alignment. They will not be removed to or disposed of in another location. BEVERL Lr" N 9 Beverly EXISTING HiafbQ _ OUTFALL TFALL PIPE-FFUSER � 'Sal m Nedc — — , \\�\ � ��\ r RESTRAINED `� 'y `\ DI i \ EXISTING I O F4 \ \ ` Salem W1NTP ro OF-7 \ Harbor p ;1 1 $ i 2500 0 2500 5000 SCALE LIMITS OF STA 6+ ``, IN FEEL R ES,7R AI N ED j JOINTS STA.6+20 ! I i 30 p 0? F�. \ .. i OF , 660 FT 54" 54" DIAM. PCC DIAPCC PIPE WITH i t STA. 1+60 TO 4+00 r 5'D 1 RADIUS = 1100 FT. DIFFUSER PER PORTS EVERY 10' O.C. OF o F- i O F 2A LIMITOFPIPE OF-5A\1TRANSITION PROTECTION pF_i PIPING AT END SYSTEM �� ;\ F-5 , OF EXISTING OUTFALL EXISTING ..S01. 54" DIA. OUTFALL j 1 LIMITS OF 27.67 RESTRAINED 'k 25.67 GRID SYSTEM IS JOINTS 1`\ 23.67 BASED ON MASS. 2y 21-67 STATE PLANE F -6? �� COORDINATES 0 60 160 ��y GREAT NAD 1983. ® o HASTE SCALE IN FEET ROCK ? AREA OF ABUNDANT BELOW THESESDDATUM, ELEVATIONS ARE IN FEET ! ROCKS/POSSIBLE ROCK OUTCROPPING WHICHBELOW THE BELOW HE192 4.46 N 8 AUGUST 1993 GEOTECHNICAL BORINGS BELOW THE 1929 NGVq OR 0.33 FEET BELOW MEAN LOW WATER. ® SEPTEMBER 1992 ENVIRONMENTAL BORINGS Plans Accompanying Petition of the South Essex Sewerage District to Construct a 660-Foot Multiport Diffuser in the Vicinity of Great Haste Rock, Salem Sound, City of Salem, County of Essex, Massachusetts May 1993 SHEET 1 OF 5 20 100-Year Flood 14.1 10 __ _ __ _ MHW, 9.2 EXISTING 54" Mean Tide,4.8 OUTFALL PIPE — — — (SESD MLW_0.3 DATUM)0 EXISTING MLLW, -0.3 TERMINUS LIMIT OF ARMOR PROTECTION 10 NORMAL GRADE, BOTTOM TOP OF PIPE OF PIPE AT EL. = -28 I ARMOR OCEAN FLOOR PROTECTION -20 -30 \ DENSE TO VERY 54" PLUG DENSE BROWN SURFICIAL BLACK SAND BEDROCK I FINE SAND I (TO BE DISPLACED) 40 -1+50 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 07+00 BEGINNING OF 6+60 DIFFUSER END OF DIFFUSER VERTICAL SCALE 10 SCALE IN FEET 0 HORIZONTAL SCALE 0 50 100 ELEVATIONS ARE IN FEET BELOWTHE SESD DATUM,WHICH IS 4.46 FEET BELOW THE 1929 NGVD, OR 0.33 FEET BELOW MEAN LOW WATER. Plans Accompanying Petition of the South Essex Sewerage District to Construct a 660-Foot Multiport Diffuser in the Vicinity of Great Haste Rock, Salem Sound, City of Salem, County of Essex, Massachusetts May 1993 SHEET 2 OF 5 54" DIAMETER PIPE SACKED NORMAL GRADE -28 �CONCRETE TWO LAYERS OF ARMOR ROCK, 2.5 � 1 BALLAST STONE ROCK BEDDING h - MUD LINE ..: :.., SCREED DEPTH 1' CRUSHED STONE 'IT L(DEPTH TO DENSE PIPE BEDDING BROWN SAND VARIES) 10' 10' 10 PIPE PROTECTION SYSTEM 5" DIAM.DIFFUSER 54" DIAMETER PIPE PORTS EVERY 10' 0.C. NORMAL GRADE-28 TWO LAYERS OF ARMOR ROCK 2.5 1 BALLAST STONE ROCK BEDDING - _-- MUD LINE SCREED DEPTH V CRUSHED STONE lllll��(DEPTH TO DENSE PIPE BEDDING BROWN SAND VARIES) 10' 10' 10' 0 5 PIPE PROTECTION SYSTEM AT PORTS SCALE IN FEET Plans Accompanying Petition of the South Essex Sewerage District to Construct a 660-Foot Multiport Diffuser in the Vicinity of Great Haste Rock, Salem Sound, City of Salem, County of Essex, Massachusetts May 1993 SHEET 3 OF 5 I 4-LIMIT OF EXISTING 1 FT. GRANITE SLABS EXISTING EXISTING 54" 6 (`---- 6 ROCK FILL, CI PIPE 1/4 TO 2 - - - TONS EACH - - - 4' - - - � - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - -- - i EXISTING CONCRETE i TERMINUS i - - - - - - - - - - - EXISTING ROCK REFILL SLOPES DOWN, ` - - - - - -- - --- -- 1 ON 1 FROM LIMIT OF THIS LINE ON ALL APPROXIMATE 0 SIDES LIMIT OF EXISTING PIT 0 4 8 BLASTED INTO BEDROCK EXISTING OUTFALL TERMINUS (PLAN) SCALE w FEET 54" COUPLING APPROX. LIMIT 54 5" DIAM. PORTS DRESSER FABRICATED OF EXISTING PIT PCC PIPE 10' O.C. TO FIT EXISTING 54" CI AND NEW 54" PCC --- - - - - - --- -- - - - - -- -- - -I 1 54" X 54" PCC TEE 54" 900 PCC BEND PCC PLUG PROPOSED TRANSITION PIPING (PLAN) Plans Accompanying Petition of the South Essex Sewerage District to Construct a 660-Foot Multiport Diffuser in the Vicinity of Great Haste Rock, Salem Sound, City of Salem, County of Essex, Massachusetts May 1993 SHEET 4 OF 5 EXISTING 54' C.I. PIPE BELL APPROXIMATE LIMIT CAST IN CONCRETE TROUGH OF EXISTING BACKFILL 4' 4' 4' F15' 10' APPROX. GRANITE SLABS SURFACE OF SOUND 1 I 1 ROCK 1 00 0 1 1 ROCK FILL 1 2.5 Y INVERT OF EXISTING CI EXISTING GRAVEL FILL IMMMIESM111- --Or APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF EXISTING PIT, EXISTING 4 4 BLASTED IN BEDROCK WxWx6' SILLS -6' ON CENTER 23 > 1 0 4 8 EXISTING 10"x10"x18' YELLOW PINE SILLS MEQ;;;;Q GRAVEL SCALE IN FEET FILL EXISTING OUTFALL TERMINUS (ELEVATION) 54" 5' DIAM. 54" COUPLING , PCC PLUG PORTS DRESSER FABRICATED 54" X 54" 10' O.C. TO FIT EXISTING 54" PCC TEE 10, 10, CI AND NEW 54" PCC 54" 1�APPROX. MUD PCC PIPE LINE (SEA BED) _ - - - - - - - NORMA L _ _ _ ___ MAL GRADE, BOTTOM PE AT EL. _ -28 90° PCC BEND APPROX. SURFACE OF ROCK CONCRETE FILL - EXISTING CONCRETE TERMINUS TO BE REMOVED REMOVE AND REUSE EXISTING ROCK AND GRAVEL BACKFILL PROPOSED TRANSITION PIPING (ELEVATION) Plans Accompanying Petition of the South Essex Sewerage District to Construct a 660-Foot Multiport Diffuser in the Vicinity of Great Haste Rock, Salem Sound, City of Salem, County of Essex, Massachusetts May 1993 SHEET 5 OF 5 a Commonwealth of,Massachusetts , fir, Executive Office of Environmental Affairs ` Department of SEP 0 3 1993 Environmental Protections William Ualem �,� ryt9lr, p lliam F. Weld g Ue t. Governor Daniel S.Greenbaum Cam missioner August 31, 1993 Bernadette Kolb Re: Water Quality Certificate Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. BRPWP39 , Trans. # 48088 100 Cambridge Center outfall diffuser Cambridge, MA 02142 Salem Harbor Salem Dear Ms. Kolb, The Division of Water Pollution Control has reviewed the refer- enced application filed on behalf of the South Essex Sewerage District for construction of a diffuser .at the end of the existing outfall pipe. Although dredging in the 'traditional sense is not proposed, we have reviewed this application as a dredging project to determine if the environmental impacts would be similar. The waters of Salem Harbor are classified SB in the Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Stan- dards. Such waters are designated as habitat for fish, other aquatic life and wildlife and for swimming and boating. The new structure will attach to the existing 54-inch outfall and will be 660 'ft long, 54 inches in diameter with diffuser ports every 10 ft, and rest one foot below the harbor bottom. A coupling will accommodate the depth and alignment differences from the existing out- fall . In order to provide stable support for the diffuser pipe, a two foot depth of sediment will be pushed aside creating a 10 ft. wide trough. A screed or trenching device will be used for this task. The sediment displaced (460 cu.yds) is expected to remain primarily within 10 feet of the trough on either side. The same area will later be occupied by ballast stone and armoring material (stone or mats) placed beside and on top of the diffuser. This impacted area is a little less than 0 . 5 acre. In order to expose the. end of the partially buried outfall , granite blocks and ballast stone will have to be removed so that the end of the outfall can be cut off and the coupling piece installed for the diffuser. The removed material will then be replaced along with concrete at this location. One Winter Street 0 Boston, Massachusetts 02108 0 FAX(617) 556-1049 9 Telephone (617) 292-5500 2 . Grain size analysis and chemical tests of the surface sediment horizon at four locations along the diffuser alignment in September 1992 indicate primarily granular material (23% fines at most) with low metal and organic contaminant concentrations. The diffuser alignment contains primarily DWPC Category IA material , with the exception of Category II chromium in two of the samples. The maximum chromium value of 150 mg/kg dry weight is considerably lower than the 5400 mg/kg found in 1987 at the end of the outfall . (At that time there were also Category III concentrations of lead, mercury, and zinc. ) One of the 1992 samples had PAHs at 39 . 55 mg/kg whereas all the others had non- detectable PAHs. The reason for the high PAH value is not known. Because the trenching device will be towed slowly and the sedi- ments contain relatively low levels of silts and clays, water column turbidity is expected to be minimal and temporary. 1996. Diffuser construction in Salem Harbor is planned for June 1, On July 1, 1992 MEPA issued a Certificate on the Final Environ- mental Impact Report, EOEA # 7059, prepared for the secondary sewage treatment plant, of which the diffuser is a part. We understand the diffuser project will receive a nationwide # 7 permit from the Corps of Engineers. In accordance with the provisions of MGL Ch. 21, s. 43 , 314 CMR 9 . 00 and Section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended (Public Lasa 95-217) , this Division has determined that the project has been designed and conditioned to minimize impacts to waters and wetlands and that there is reasonable assurance that the project can be conducted in a manner which will not violate applicable water quality standards, as required by 314 CMR 9 . 04 . The Division issues this Water Ouality Certification relative to this project, subject to the following conditions: 1. This project could result in a violation of water quality stan- dards adopted by this Division. All waters and wetlands are protected by -anti-degradation provisions of the MA Surface Water Quality Standards (314 CMR 4 . 00) . Therefore, reasonable care and diligence shall be taken by the contractor to assure that the proposed activity will be conducted in a manner which will minimize violations of said standards. 2 . Sediment shall not be displaced underwater by use of water or air jetting. 3 . The Department shall be notified of any change(s) in plans affecting waters or wetlands. The Department will determine whether the change(s) require a revision to this certification. [ J 3 . Failure to comply with this certification is grounds for enforce- ment, including civil and criminal penalties, under MGL c. 21 §42 , MGL c. 21A §16, or other possible actions/penalties as authorized by the General Laws of the Commonwealth. This certification does not relieve the applicant of the obliga- tion to comply with other appropriate state or federal statutes or regulations. Any person aggrieved by this certification may obtain judicial review, pursuant to MGL c. 21 §46A, by filing an application for review in Superior Court within thirty days after receipt of this certifica- tion. Please contact Judith Perry (617-292-5673) if you have questions about this document. Very truly yours, Brian M. Donahoe, Director Division of Water Pollution Control BD/JP/yg 41: salem-hrb.wqc cc: Andrew Sims, South Essex Sewerage District, 50 Fort Avenue, Salem, MA 01970 Conservation Commission, City Hall, Salem, MA 01970 DEP/NERO - Wetlands Brad Chase, Division of Marine Fisheries, Cat Cove Marine Laboratory, Salem, MA oi97d .J}I a i�ONSiRUcj'O a D & C CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. � _�c NORWELLI MAT02061 ORPORP TEL: 1-617-659-1382 FAX: 1-617-659-1835 September 20, 1993 Salem Conservation Commission Salem, MA 01970 Subject: Wastewater System Improvements Site Preparation Salem, MA SESD Contract #93-3 Members of the Commission: In accordance with the requirements of the Order of Conditions, Special Conditions 64-210 SESD, Item #6, for the captioned project, enclosed please find our construction schedule. A brief summary of the schedule is shown below. 9/6/93 -> 9/16/93 Installation of sedimentation and erosion control measures 9/20/93 -> 9/30/93 Clearing, grubbing and stripping of topsoil Construction of temporary facilities: wash station, fencing, trailers, etc. 10/1/93 -> 10/30/93 Relocation of existing utilities Excavation and disposal of contaminated soil Installation of dewatering and treatment systems 11/1/93 -> 11/30/93 Begin excavation of overburden and rock Begin installation of lateral earth support system .A 12/1/93 -> 12/30/93 Relocation of 48" force main Continue excavation of rock 1/1/94 -> 1/31/94 d Complete relocation of force main and existing sewers '� ONSiq ' e D & C CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. o _ �0 908 MAIN STREET RROAP NORWELL, MA 02061 TEL: 1-617-659-1382 FAX: 1-617-659-1835 Salem Conservation Commission September 20, 1993 Page 2 2/1/94 -> 3/31/94 Installation of ground water cut-off wall Complete lateral earth support system 4/1/94 -> 7/28/94 Complete rock excavation and final site preparation Please contact me if you have questions, comments or concerns. Very truly yours, & C CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. Duncan Peterson Supervisor DP/js Enclosure Field Office Trailer: (508) 740-240 i 9 ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION OR COST AT 1993 1994 NUMBER OUR COMPLE7I011 SEP lorT 1KIF DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY Tom Notice to FFocaad 213 0 Not is I 1020 MOBILIZATION 213 0 MOB1L1 9 1060 Oaliver Eggs' irae lei 2 700D6 Ol IOEO vre-corot. 5lrvep & video 1 I590 P,const, Survey 4 Video ~ 1100 Mob.I i m Erar ip 4 Tools 3 25000 ® MoNi l ize Equip 4 Too)-, "�!f V O 1120 Layout 6 5labin9 2 5000 Layout t StaKing ll9D SEDIMENT L EROSION CTRL. 213 0 1 SEOIH 1160 511t Fence 4 Silt D, 1 '1000 I Silt Fence R Silt Oe V. 1190 Sedin. Basins 243 2 41000 Sedin. Ba.im 243 ID lV 1200 ELEC C. C3M14 a FT AVE ENT 213 0 Z ELEO ¢ U r U 1220 SWaltto) & Review 15 0 5,00ittet 4 Review 4 F 1240 .narwlf Manrwles x Cwlyuit 1S 2sCA0 Manuf. Mantglea 4 Conliurt F 1260 Instal] Duet air S 3SC4J '® Install Duct Bank 1290 WENT CIE.-MASH STATION 213 0 VEHICL 1300 Prepare SwgraUe C Piping 2 1St1110 Prepare 5d+91-aCe 4 Piping - 1 1320 Form 4 Pour Cnncrete 4 25000 ® Form & Pbur Concrete 1310 Fabricate T fees 1011m Fabricate Tiabens 13P0 OR0.lNilf;E: 213 O ,l, �M MM m / DRAIN 1. '� 1380 Install 12' R.C.P. 9 55000 ® Install 12' R_C.P. 0 a 1400 Install Paved Swale 4 MOO Install Pared Swale 1520 CONSTRUCT NEW ENTRANCE 213 0 CONSTA 1440 Relocate Si9m 1 1500 Relocate Sign N1t60 Pavement t Fence Deno 1, 1 0 I Pavement a Fen. Deno] Q O+ N 1480 F 111 t Ruulh Grace 3 15000 It ll B RONAII Grade It e M1 w 1500 GatesfGOardreils/Bollards 5 55900 ® Gatesr Guartlrai]sl Bol larbs 1520 6' Qrusbed Stuns 1 9000 6' Crushed StA I 1540 NEPCO MEMENI 213 0 / / �� NEPCO 1 1560 Stcare mass. Elec apo'orals 10 5000 iJ Secure Nat.. El.. [yprova lu 1580 SWni It al a Reriee 20 0 ® 5�bnittal a Review NO 2 1600 Nalw.rraclore Equltment 30 O Nanufsrtura Equipeenf t] I U 1620 Inetal']/Relocate Riles 3 15000 Tnstmll/Releraie Pules Q H 07 1640 Inatal', lclenbone Cab]. 3 f0000 � ].stall Yelepflune Cable E (660 Instal] A, Elec S-v 5 20000 Install Pri, Else Sra 1680 Install Equip. t UM rgrwnd 6 40000 0 Install Equip a UndergrpuM 1 st10 D.. Exisi Structures 2 1:000 hemp Exisi 5tructures 1:20 Relxalc Trailer 3 moo Relocate Trmilcra 19N PreF Pavlry 9 21900 Prep Pacing l 1760 Cun I. ilrea fenei nR � 15 24000 � Lgnst. Area Fencing 'ID 1490••� PIaoe Stone Laver 2 10000 1 Place Store Layer m li 1900 GRADE L. PRVE 213 0 GRADE Ion Fine GraOe t RRIL 1 5900 Fine GPSDP L P612 1840 Pavin9 1 25000 Paving) N1860 FHD, AREA SITE PREP. 213 0 FND. A m N lose Install 66" Plugs 1 14000 �' - � Install 66" P1ugc a a F .+ 1900 Clear t LruDDl n9 6 20000 � clear t Gruhbing ID 1920 Renvve Detr is 1 6500 seauve Detrls 1940 Strip t Nal Lvam 7 64000 Stn P t Haul Loan 1960 5!rlp Pavement t Curb 2 5010 Strip Pavement L Curb Iqw Frurc/aI ion Layout 5 1Sma 1 ® fvonC tion layout = 20011 RDISF HARRIER - 2130 1i /� � i1 %%/ii%7 //I/%�/� �f NOISE U L' 2040 Fabr;caie a Deliver 60 SOOM Fabricate L Deliver a � r 07 2060 J.nta n Noise Barrier 52 120000 Install Noise Barri E I 2000 E%GAYAT20N of CONTAMINANTS 213 0 E%CAV I Pine Sobmi Itala 20 0 ittely - 212b Eveavat ion Area 1 7 31 ® E.cavat tan Area I 2140 Teat area 1 10 0 Test Arm I® 2160 Excayate Area 11 1 1 H Exl:avate Area 11 zleu lest Area 11 10 0 Eli lest Area 11 2200 r 0isposel 10 48 OiaPosa3® a 2220 RELDC. EXISTING UTILITIES 213 0 REL00. 2240 Teat Pits 2 10000 Test Pits 2260 12" L R- Mater Veins 10 S6500 ® 12' L 8' Mater Haters 2280 Nev Utility Pole t Service 1 2000 NEW Utility Pole L Service UI m 01 2300 Ele. L 1e1. Do11 6.1K 4 20500 ® Ele. L TO Duct Bank I a a F w 2320 Transfer Elec. L Tel 5 19500 � irpns;er Elec. L Tel 2340 Install New Gas Main 3 10000 Install New Gac Main 2360 L" Nater Service 5 31500 �"—� 4' Hater Service 2380 OE-NRTE R[NG 213 0 Df-Mil 2400 Swbmi Ltal 8 Revie 20 5000 5ubaiita1 8 Revier Z 2420 Install Perineter 5u 5 80000 Inas ell Pm Encicr Swop U U 2440 [..tell Treeteenl System 2 50000 � install Treatment System Q F . (G 2460 aewater Clearance System 188 25000 Dews 2480 Oewatei Fnvndatiun Excavai lun 151 117500 Ua 2500 LATERAL SUPPORT L EXCRYRTIRN 213 0 LATERA I 2520 Svbn:t4a3 8 Revier 30 GOOD ® Sabaittal L Review 2540 51-Rx East Boundary 3 50000 SJ-H I Slam East Boundary 2560 Slam H,-ih Bavndary 6 195000 Slope Rath Bvan6ara 2580 Sa-I Rai] - Nest Balndary 10 250ODO I 50,1 Nail - Nayl Bolmdeq it 1 2600 Install Piles - wfCut-o# all B 100000 Install Piles - v/Cnt-o4f "It a 2620 Install Piles - 66" FM 5 75000 Install Piles - 66" FPO 2640 Lagging along Cut-Opt hall 10 150000 Legging along Cut-off Mall® 2660 I Lagging along 66" FM 5 150000 La99iLtg along 66" FME 2660 Slope SOUthxest Corner 5 25000 Slap- ggutfnxst Corner 9 N N 27170 Haul - Yarlous Sites It 10 75000 ® N..1 - various sites It F .4 2720 Naul - Oi4pese Ph. 1 5 162500 ® Haul - DIepose Ph 1 P940 Raul - bvpose Ph, 11 20 162500 Haul - Diepooe Ph. 21m 2760 UNDERPIN 66" DUTFOLL 213 0 UNDERIF 2760 Excavate 6 EYPOSP FM 2 40000 Ercavate L Expose FMI 2800 :nsta_! Un[Serp lnnirg 4 50000 install Un. ,,innin,a N N 2820 Cmirml 8 Non icor 2 rxtt)enan4 84 25000 Control t Monitor 5ettiament i U U 2640 RELOCATE 40' FDRCE MAIN 213 0 � RELDC F I Rl 2060 Sabo iiia) a Reviaw 20 0 5ubmittal 8 Review E 2680 teat Pits 2 1DOCO �"-- � I—f Pi is 2900 Perform fa tor, Test it, 20 0 ® Perform Factor, T-sting 2920 Frorufact-re it Deli.•er 45 115000 Manu4ecfura a Deliver 2940 fte-Bleat Exceratim 4 11500 ® Pre-Bleat Excavativn 2960 txcavate P11 a 42' PCCP 5 57000 Excavate Pit o 42' PCCPm 2900 Excarate P>l a 4B" Cl 2 18500 Excavate Pit a 1N" CIO i .m 3000 fab, Lireatap Sleere30 20000 >✓ I "I Feb. Linrtop 51ee•e a 302D Install 42' Hat Tap 4 10000 Install 12- Hat Tap 3040 Instal( 49- Rot Tap 2 7000 Install 58- Het Tapp 3060Install 42- Linestop 4 47000 Intal] 42" Llne6lou ID Install 48- Lineslop 3080 3 33000 Install 48' Linestop® 0 I 3100 Irctal: 36- Bypass l 5 50500 ]retall 36- By P.—m It h .-I 3t2t1 7renefer FIaV ID 1 0 Tr•ans4er Flew 3140 =nstaT1 48' PCCP }3 49000 Install 48' ACCP® 3160 Field les-i ny 2 5500 Fie16 7es11ng9 3180 Transfer f'[r to Hee Pipe } NCO Transfer Fl.. to Res Pipe 3200 Dismantle EQW p. 8 Lineatnp 3 7500 aisnantle Equip. E Linestop® 2 3220 Cmeact B' FR 1 4500 U Carieci R' F11� r4 U 3240 REPLACE INFLUENT 5ENER 213 0 Q • _. REPLO F- 00 3260 8' PYO 1 11500 E 8' PVC 3200 18' PVC 1 1850A 18' PVCl 3300 RE-FEED ELEC SRV 10 PUMP STATFON 213 0 RE-FEE 3320 Iaata L' Dat Bank 4 10000 Install D.ei 8.4 3340 Electrical RerK 4 20000 Elecirlc0l korK® E360 RENOYE OBSTRUCIION 213 0 REMOVE 338A Raeere AL Siroct 8 pipe 2 20000 Rl� eban0 Strutt i PIPe� m •X3400 GROUNDWATER CUT-OFF WALL 213 0 GROUND 1 3120 S1Miital c Reeler � 0 �--�— �+ � 516nittal t Reeler 3440 Install Cut-oif hall 12 312500 Install tut-oN Nal[® 3160 PERIIEVF FENCE 213 O PERIME N348D Iretal] Fence 10 15000 0 Install Fence® N Q+ 1500 ROCK E%OAYAIIDN s BLASTING 213 0 a It I RnC E h ID 3'+c"`0 sbmi ttals 10 0 ® Suhnittals 8510 Pre-Blast 5ury py 3 5000 Pre-Blast Svwy 3560 Blast.. - 12' RCP - 9 50000 BlacTin g - 12' RCA 3560 ppri A Blasting 12" t B' Neter" 9 10000 Perform Nlastlry 12" t B' Naler 3 10 Blasting - 48" R-a-Excav 4 1D000 Bluing - 48" Pi-o-Excav, N N 3520 Drill R Ricci Fnd. - Ph I [p�� 2 40 960000 �[d D,;)iB Rlas•1 Fn6. - Ph I U w U 3640 Brill t K7 sl Fd - Ph 11 30 220000 / Drill t Blast Fd - Ph 11� a 01 366D Naul Blasted RocN - Fh I 45 350000 Raul Rlzated Rack - Ph E 3660 Gaul Blaaicd Rack - Ph 11 35 150000 Naul Bl as11x1 Rock - Ph It 9J00 Final Fnd. Prepy-atim 6 15000 Final Frrl Pr¢paratior® 3720 MISCELLANEOUS NORK 213 0 MISCEL 3140 Provide L. alized DeraYering 155 0 P�vv e76D Dual Control 170 40000 Dust CmTrO] :YlBU Paverent Repafra *70J 3valw Pav t • A•e�Mtl \ 39W Mi ac. lent Pita J `w 4 1 ll-so. lest Pita a 3820 R-101 atlan a Cleeni ng (0 33919 R¢atOret ten L geeninN® 3840 PRDJECT MILESTONES 213 O PROJE 3a50 Prriml CiWORlim Date 0 D Project CoaPl@tion OateQ 3080 Operation of System O 20000 0Pemtlon of Systerta/^t Q L, ai OI o900 Traisfer of Srxte•�s a n0 0 Traefa of Syete-A It M1 'i •D •D N Z U w U a w E L RUR! MATE 10SEPA3 OESCSTART DATE 03SEP93 DATA DATE 035EP93 LFINISH DATE 06JUL94 S SURETRAK SESD Site Preparation SERAFINI, SERAFINI AND DARLING ATTORNEYS AT LAW 63 FEDERAL STREET SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 JOHN R. SERAFINI, SR. TELEPHONE JOHN R. SERAFINI,JR. 506-744-0212 JOHN E. DARLING 617-561-2743 ELLEN M. WINKLER TELECO PIER JOSEPH C. CORRENTI 506-741-4683 October 12 , 1995 Frederick J. Harney, Jr. , Chairman Salem Conservation Commission One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 RE: South Essex Sewerage District DEP File No. 64-210 Construction of Secondary Wastewater Treatment Facilities at 50 Fort Avenue Dear Mr. Harney: I am writing on behalf of the South Essex Sewerage District (the "District") to provide the Commission with a status report on actions required of the District by Special Conditions 1, 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, 22 and 25a of the Order of Conditions dated November 2, 1992 . The District is proceeding with construction of the new secondary facilities as described in the Notice of Intent and supplementary documentation submitted to the Commission over the past three years. The status of each of these Special Conditions is discussed below. Special Condition 1Condition 1 requires the District to file final specifications with the Commission prior to commencing construction. Before construction began in 1993 , pertinent sections of the specifications concerning sedimentation and erosion control, dewatering, environmental protection procedures, and emergency response plan requirements were submitted to the Commission. These specifications will remain in effect through the end of construction. f Frederick J. Harney, Jr. , Chairman October 12, 1995 Page 2 Special Condition 5 requires that the Commission be notified of the name, address, business and home telephone numbers of the project supervisor. Because it has now been three years since the beginning of work, the District would like to confirm that Raymond D. Masak, P.E. , the District's Senior Project Manager, who has been in charge of the project from the beginning, will continue to be in charge for the balance of the project. He can be contacted as follows: Raymond D. Masak, P.E. South Essex Sewerage District 50 Fort Avenue P.O. Box 989 Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Office Telephone: (508) 744-4550 X 130 Home Telephone: (508) 664-1339 In case Mr. Masak is not available, the Commission may contact Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. Is resident representative for the project as follows: Mr. James Maher Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. Field Office 50 Fort Avenue P.O. Box 4487 Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Office Telephone: (508) 740-5000 Home Telephone: (617) 639-1238 Special Condition 6 requires that a construction schedule be submitted. Construction began in late August 1993 , as indicated in a May 27, 1993 letter to the Commission and activity at the site will proceed continuously until October 29, 1997, when the new treatment plant must achieve full operation in accordance with the Consent Decree. The major part of the construction activity, construction of the secondary treatment facilities themselves, is scheduled to be completed by April 29, 1997 . Some final site work is expected to take place following that date. Special Condition 7 specifies that a landscaping plan for the buffer zone be developed and submitted to the Conservation Commission prior to the commencement of that part of the work. The landscaping work is expected to be undertaken by the Frederick J. Harney, Jr. , Chairman October 12, 1995 Page 3 contractor in the Fall of 1996 and the Spring of 1997 . The District will make a presentation to the Commission in advance of the start of work on this part of the project so that the Commission may review and approve the proposed landscaping plan for the areas of the site covered by the Order. Special Conditions 14 and 15 require the submission of additional information pertaining to sediment and erosion control measures. As stated above under Special Condition 1, pertinent specifications were submitted to the Conservation Commission in May 1993 . These specifications will remain in effect for the duration of construction, including compliance with specific performance requirements for installation and maintenance of all sedimentation and erosion control devices. Special Condition 22 requires submission of a Pollution Prevention Plan which was submitted to the Commission prior to the beginning of construction. The Pollution Prevention Plan was also incorporated into the contract specifications. Special Condition 25a states that certification of compliance with the cleaning and maintenance plan for catch basins and sediment controls must be forwarded to the Commission in December of each year. To ensure contractor compliance with environmental protection requirements, the District's engineering staff conducts an inspection of the siltation controls once per week as well as after each storm event. The contractor is notified and required to correct any deficiencies. The District prepares a written report of each weekly inspection and of any corrective work performed. Reports have been maintained since the beginning of work in late August 1993 . After reviewing its records, the District notes that although it has taken these regular steps to ensure contractor compliance, it has not filed the required annual certification with the Commission. In order to correct this omission, the District has prepared a certification covering the period from the beginning of the project in late August 1993 to date. The certification is enclosed for the Commission's files. The weekly reports are also available for inspection by the Commission. The District assures the Commission that it will file the certification annually hereafter. Frederick J. Harney, Jr. , Chairman October 12 , 1995 Page 4 The District hopes that this information will be helpful to the Commission. We will be prepared to answer questions concerning the project at tonight's meeting. sincerely, John E. Darling JED: jaf Enclosure oJ`" Fss� South Essex Sewerage District ST.19 q QZS 50 Fort Ave., P.O. Box 989 • Salem, MA 01970 • (508) 744-4550 M n �E 0� October 12, 1995 Frederick J. Harney, Jr. , Chairman Salem Conservation Commission One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 RE: South Essex Sewerage District DEP File No. 64-210 Construction of Secondary Wastewater Treatment Facilities at 50 Fort Avenue Dear Mr. Harney: The South Essex Sewerage District hereby certifies, in accordance with Special Condition 25.a. of the Order of Conditions dated November 2 , 1992 for the above project, that the catch basins and sediment controls at the project site have been monitored on a weekly basis since the beginning of the project in late August 1993 and have been cleaned and maintained as necessary in accordance with the Pollution Prevention Plan for the project. The District's procedure is to have a staff engineer inspect each of the control devices weekly, to fill out an Inspection and Maintenance Report on the form attached, and thereafter to follow up with the construction contractor to make sure that any required maintenance is performed. We have a log book at the District which contains the weekly reports since the beginning of the project. This can be inspected by the Commission at any time. Frederick J. Harney, Jr. , Chairman October 12, 1995 Page 2 The District acknowledges that it has inadvertently neglected to file an annual certification in December of each year. We regret this oversight and wish to assure the Commission that the environmental controls required by the Order have been maintained and that we will file the annual certification hereafter as required. Sincerely, SOUTH ESSEX SEWERAGE DISTRICT *,aD ' Raymond D. Masak, P.E. Senior Project Manager inspection and Maintenance Report Page I of 2 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for Construction Activities Report No. 0 South Essex Sewerage District Salem, Massachusetts The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)covers construction of secondary wastewater treatment and residual processing facilities at the SESD site located on Fort Avenue in Salem. It meets the requirements of the NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Sites, published by EPA in the Federal Register on Sept. 25, 1992 (57 FR 44412).The General Permit requires the site, initially, to be inspected every every 7 days and within 24 hours of a rainfall event of 0.5 inches or more. Once the site has been finally stabilized, such inspections shall be conducted at least once per month. INSPECTOR: DATE: POSITION/QUALIFICATION: DAYS SINCE LAST RAINFALL: AMOUNT OF LAST RAINFALL: INCHES Erosion and Sediment Controls Tem orar 5tak (iaatioa Practices Control Complies with Maintenance If Yes,to be Date to be Date Performed SWPPP(Yes/No) Required(Yes/No) Performed by Performed by Clearing &Grubbing Mulch Erosion Control Blanket . Comments: Flnat Stabilization Practices Control Complies with Maintenance If Yes,to be Date to be Date Performed SWPPP(Yes/No) Required(Yes/No) Performed by Performed by Loaming& Hydroseeding Comments: Inspection and Maintenance Report Page 2 of 2 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for Construction Activities Report No. • South Essex Sewerage District Salem, Massachusetts N .. ...... *..... on ols,.. ..................... I El I I 1 .0 Control Complies with Maintenance If Yes,to be Date to be SW`PPP(Yes/No) Required(Yes/No) Performed by Performed by Date Performed Sift Fences Interceptor Ditch Sediment Traps Catch Basin Fitter Boxes Block&Gravel Filter Boxes Crushed Stone Comments: Other Stormwater Controls ................. ...... ................. ....... Structiraf ...... ....... '_K ........ Controls• .......P.,.. .... Control Complies with Maintenance If Yes,to be Date to be SWPPP(Yes/No) Required(Yes/No) Performed by Performed by Off-site Vehicle Tracking Date Performed Waste Materials Sanitary Waste Contaminated Soils Non-stormwater Discharges Comments: Revisions to the SWIPIPIP REVISIONS(TO BE COMPLETED AND IMPLEMENTED WITHIN SEVEN CALENDER DAYS OF THIS INSPECTION) REASONS FOR REVISIONS: I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a • system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system,or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information,the information submitted is,to the best of my knowledge and belief,true,accurate,and complete.I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information,including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations. SIGNATURE: DATE: s�� South Essex Sewerage District V'sr.'°�r go. 50 FortAve.,P.O.Box 989 • Salem, MA 01970 • (508)744-4550 Fax No. (508) 741-0478 December 12, 1995 11k4 14 WJ Frederick J. Harney, Jr., Chairman Salem rA. ...... ' Salem Conservation Committee One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 RE: South Essex Sewerage District DEP File No. 64-210 Construction of Secondary Wastewater Treatment Facilities at 50 Fort Avenue Dear Mr. Harney, The South Essex Sewer District hereby certifies, in accordance with Special Condition 25.a of the Order of Conditions dated November 2, 1992 for the above project,that the catch basins and sediment controls at the project site have been monitored on a weekly basis since the beginning of the project in late August 1993 and have been cleaned and maintained as necessary in accordance with the Pollution Prevention Plan for the project. Typically,the control devices are cleaned after each rain event or more frequently if needed. The District's procedure is to have a staff engineer inspect each of the control devices weekly, to fill out an Inspection and Maintenance Report on the form attached, and thereafter to follow up with the construction contractor to make sure that any required maintenance is performed. We have a log book at the District which contains weekly reports since the beginning of the project. This can be inspected by the Commission at any time. Very truly yours, South Essex Sewer District �wl/)4raoWA Raymond D. Masak Senior Project Manager cc: J. Darling J. Wheeler W. Vicens J. Maher A. Knight c:\text\ray\consv_It.doc December 12, 1995 12:06 PM I � I J 142-38/3 SECTION 01110 EMRONMENNTAL PROTECTION PROCEDURES PART 1: GENERAL 1.01 SCOPE OF WORK A The work covered by this Section consists of furnishing all labor, materials and equipment and performing all work required for the prevention of environmental pollution in conformance with applicable laws and regulations, during and as the result of construction operations under this Contract. For the purpose of this Specification, environmental pollution is defined as the presence of chemical, physical, or biological elements or agents which adversely affect human health or welfare; unfavorably alter ecological balances of importance to human life; affect other species of importance to man; or degrade the utility of the environment for aesthetic and/or recreational purposes. B The control of environmental pollution requires consideration of air, water and land, and involves management of noise and solid waste, as well as other pollutants. C Schedule and conduct all work in a manner that will minimize the erosion of soils in the area of the work. Provide erosion control measures such as diversion channels, sedimentation or filtration systems, berms, siltation fence, seeding, mulching or other special surface treatments as are required to prevent silting and muddying of surface waters. All erosion control measures shall be in place in an area prior to any construction activity in that area. Specific requirements for erosion and sedimentation controls are specified in Section 02270. D These Specifications are intended to ensure that construction is achieved with a minimum of disturbance to the existing ecological balance between a water resource and its surroundings. These are general guidelines. It is the Contractor's responsibility to determine the specific construction techniques to meet these guidelines. E All work shall be in accordance with the Salem Conservation Commission Order of Conditions, appended. Sedimentation and erosion control measures as specified and shown on the Drawings are considered to be the minimal acceptable means to control siltation and erosion. It is the Contractor's responsibility, however, to meet the specified turbidity standards in the receiving waters. If the established plans are not sufficient in conjunction with the Contractor's operation to meet specified standards, the Contractor shall submit to the Engineer for review plans outlining additional erosion control measures. Failure to submit plans does not relieve the Contractor from these responsibilities. All additional erosion 001190 01110-1 142-38/3 control measures required shall be furnished and installed by the . Contractor at no additional cost to the Owner. 1.02 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A Comply with all applicable Federal, State and local laws and regulations concerning environmental pollution control and abatement. 1.03 NOTIFICATIONS A The Engineer will notify the Contractor in writing of any non-compliance with the foregoing provisions or of any environmentally objectional acts and corrective action to be taken. State or local agencies responsible for verification of certain aspects of the environmental protection requirements shall notify the Contractor in writing, through the Engineer, of any non-compliance with State or local requirements. The Contractor shall, after receipt of such notice from the Engineer or from the regulatory agency through the Engineer, immediately take corrective action. Such notice, when delivered to the Contractor or his authorized representative at the site of the work, shall be deemed sufficient for the purpose. If the Contractor fails or refuses to comply promptly, the Owner may issue an order stopping all or part of the work until satisfactory corrective action has been taken. No part of the time lost due to any such stop orders shall be made the subject of a claim for extension of time or for excess costs or damages by the Contractor unless it is later determined that the Contractor was in compliance. 1.04 IMPLEMENTATION A Prior to commencement of the work, meet with the Engineer to develop mutual understandings relative to compliance with this provision and administration of the environmental pollution control program. B Remove temporary environmental control features, when approved by the Engineer, and incorporate permanent control features into the project at the earliest practicable time. PART 2: PRODUCTS (NONE THIS SECTION) PART 3: EXECUTION 3.01 EROSION CONTROL A Erosion Control is as specified in Section 01170 and Section 02270• 3.02 PROTECTION OF STREAMS, WETLANDS AND SURFACE WATERS A Care shall be taken to prevent, or reduce to a minimum, any damage to any surface water, drainage ditch, storm drain, or sewer from 001190 01110-2 142-38/3 pollution by debris, sediment or other material, or from the manipulation of equipment and/or materials in or near such areas. Water that has been used for washing or processing, or that contains oils or sediments that will reduce the quality of the water in the surface waters, shall not be directly returned to the surface waters. Such waters will be diverted through a settling basin or filter before being directed into the surface waters. B The Contractor shall not discharge water from dewatering operations directly into any live or intermittent stream, channel, wetlands, surface water or any storm sewer. Water from dewatering operations shall be treated by filtration, settling basins, or other approved method to reduce the amount of sediment contained in the water to allowable levels. C All preventative measures shall be taken to avoid spillage of petroleum products and other pollutants. In the event of any spillage, prompt remedial action shall be taken in accordance with the Emergency Response Plan specified in Section 01115. Spillage of petroleum product or any other hazardous material due to negligence by the Contractor shall be remediated at no cost to the Owner. D Water being flushed from structures or pipelines after disinfection, with a C12 residual of 2 mg/1 or greater, shall be treated with a dechlorination solution, in a method approved by the Engineer, prior to discharge. 3.03 PROTECTION OF LAND RESOURCES A Land resources within the project boundaries and outside the limits of permanent work shall be restored to a condition, after completion of construction, that will appear to be natural and not detract from the appearance of the project. Confine all construction activities to areas shown on the Drawings. B Trees and other vegetation designated on the Drawings or directed by the Engineer to remain shall be protected from damage by all construction operations by erecting suitable barriers, guards, and enclosures, or by other approved means. Clearing operations shall be conducted in a manner to prevent falling trees from damaging trees and vegetation designated to remain and to the work being constructed and so as to provide for the safety of employees and others. C Protection shall be maintained until all work in the vicinity of the work being protected has been completed. D Heavy equipment operation or stockpiling of materials shall not be permitted within the branch spread of existing trees. E Any damage to existing tree crowns, trunks, or root systems shall be repaired immediately. Roots exposed and/or damaged during the work shall immediately be cut off cleanly inside the exposed or damaged 001190 01110-3 Y 142-38/3 area. Cut surfaces shall be treated with an acceptable tree wound paint, and topsoil spread over the exposed root area. F When work is completed, all dead and downed trees shall be removed. Live trees shall be trimmed of all dead and diseased limbs and branches. All cuts shall be cleanly made at their juncture with the trunk or preceeding branch without injury to the trunk or remaining branches. Cuts over 1-in in diameter shall be treated with an acceptable tree wound paint. G Construction activities shall be restricted to those areas within the limits of construction designated on the Drawings and within easements provided by the Owner. Adjacent properties and improvements thereon, public or private, which become damaged by construction operations shall be promptly restored to their original condition, to the full satisfaction of the property owner. H Outside of areas requiring earthwork for the construction of the new facilities, the Contractor shall not deface, injure, or destroy trees or shrubs, nor remove or cut them without prior approval. No ropes, cables, or guys shall be fastened to or attached to any existing nearby trees for anchorage unless specifically authorized by the Engineer. Where such special emergency use is permitted, first wrap the trunk with a sufficient thickness of burlap or rags over which softwood cleats shall be tied before any rope, cable, or wire is placed. The Contractor shall in any event be responsible for any damage resulting from such use. I Where trees may possibly be defaced, bruised, injured, or otherwise damaged by the Contractor's equipment, dumping or other operations, protect such trees by placing boards, planks, or poles around them. Monuments and markers shall be protected similarly before beginning operations near them. J All trees or other landscape feature scarred or damaged by the Contractor's equipment or operations shall be restored as nearly as possible to its original condition. The Engineer will approve what method of restoration shall be used and whether damaged trees shall be treated and healed or removed and disposed of. All scars made on trees by equipment, construction operations, or by the removal of limbs larger than 1-in in diameter shall be coated as soon as possible with an approved tree wound dressing. All trimming or pruning shall be performed in an approved manner by experienced workmen with saws or pruning shears. Tree trimming with axes will not be permitted. Climbing ropes shall be used where necessary for safety. Trees that are to remain, either within or outside established clearing limits, that are subsequently damaged by the Contractor and are beyond saving in the opinion of the Engineer, shall be immediately removed and replaced. 001190 01110-4 142-38/3 K The locations of the Contractor's storage, and other construction buildings, required temporarily in the performance of the work, shall be as shown on the Drawings and shall require written approval of the Engineer and shall not be within wetlands or flood plains. The preservation of the landscape shall be an imperative consideration in the selection of all sites and in the construction of temporary facilities. Drawings showing storage facilities shall be submitted for approval of the Engineer. L All debris and excess material will be disposed of outside wetland or floodplain areas in an environmentally sound manner. 3.04 PROTECTION OF AIR QUALITY A Burning. The use of burning at the project site for the disposal of refuse and debris will not be permitted. B Dust Control. The Contractor will be required to maintain all excavations, embankment, stockpiles, access roads, plant sites, waste areas, borrow areas, and all other work areas within or without the project boundaries free from dust which could cause the standards for air pollution as defined in 310 CMR § 7.00 to be exceeded, and which would cause a hazard or nuisance to others. C An approved method of stabilization consisting of sprinkling or other similar methods will be permitted to control dust. The use of petroleum products is prohibited. The use of chlorides may be permitted with approval from the Engineer. D Sprinkling, to be approved, must be repeated at such intervals as to keep all parts of the disturbed area at least damp at all times; and the Contractor must have sufficient competent equipment on the job to accomplish this if sprinkling is used. Dust control shall be performed as the work proceeds and whenever a dust nuisance or hazard occurs, as determined by the Engineer. E The Contractor shall control dust associated with the traffic generated by the work performed under this Contract. The following describes the minimum required of the Contractor in this regard. The Contractor shall assure that all roads used for this purpose within the Site, the portions of Fort Avenue utilized by construction vehicles, and Webb Street (the "Construction Traffic Route") are kept free from debris and that dust is adequately controlled. Weather permitting, the Contractor shall arrange for street sweeping of the Construction Traffic Route as necessary, but at least twice weekly during construction period. Weather permitting, the Contractor shall, within two weeks of discovery or notice from the City of Salem through the Owner, repair all portions of the Construction Traffic Route which are damaged as a result of construction-related traffic and which, therefore, poses a threat of generating noise, vibrations, significant quantities of dust or damage to vehicles as a result of such traffic. The Contractor shall assure that any open body truck transporting material with the potential to generate spillage or dust 001190 01110-5 142-38/3 shall have its bed securely covered by a canvas or plastic tarp prior to exiting the Site or the staging/laydown area or entering the City to ensure that its load is contained and to minimize spillage or dust. In addition, all trucks transporting materials with the potential to generate odors shall be tightly covered or closed. The Contractor shall also assure that all construction-related vehicles will be washed as necessary, weather permitting, or otherwise cleaned prior to leaving the Site or returning to the City, to remove significant dirt and dust which may be emitted from them during transit. In the event that these minimum measures prove inadequate and the Owner receives verifiable and reasonable complaints covering dust generated by construction-related traffic, the Contractor shall furnish such additional dust control measures as may be required to control the dust so generated. 3.05 NOISE CONTROL A The Contractor shall make every effort to minimize noises caused by his operations. Equipment shall be equipped with silencers or mufflers designed to operate with the least possible noise in compliance with State and Federal regulations. B Except as otherwise provided herein, during daytime construction (7:00 am to 5:00 pm) noise levels shall be limited to seventy-five (75) dBA at the nearest existing residential dwelling outside the Buffer Zone. If overtime work during evening hours (5:00 pm to 8:00 pm) is approved, the daytime noise levels shall be further reduced to the extent practicable. Noise from site maintenance work (such as dewatering) during nighttime hours (8:00 pm to 7:00 am) shall not be audible at the nearest residential dwelling outside the Buffer Zone. The Contractor shall employ controls during construction sufficient to assure that the above limits are achieved. If the Contractor determines, based on subsurface testing at the Site, that pile driving is required in connection with construction, the Contractor shall promptly notify the Engineer and, if the daytime noise standard set forth above cannot be achieved, shall implement noise control measures to minimize the noise from pile driving to the extent practicable. Pile driving shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 am to 4:00 pm Monday through Friday, except legal holidays. In the event that the Owner receives verifiable and reasonable complaints concerning noise generated by the construction activities which is above the limits set forth above, or if verifiable and reasonable complaints are so received concerning noise generated by construction-related truck traffic along the Construction Traffic Route as defined in Section 01046, the Contractor shall furnish such additional noise control measures as may be required to control noise at or below the limits set forth above. END OF SECTION 001190 01110-6 142-38/3 SECTION 01115 EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN REQUIREMENTS PART 1: GENERAL 1.01 DESCRIPTION A The Emergency Response Plan applies to personal injuries sustained on the site and to the discovery of and/or including personal injuries sustained as a result of contact with hazardous material that could be detrimental to human health or the environment. The Emergency Response Plan required by this section does not relieve the Contractor from the requirements of OSHA regulations as referenced elsewhere in these specifications and the requirements of other sections of these specifications. The procedural requirements contained herein are intended to address unanticipated contact with chemicals or hazardous materials during the project. The Emergency Response Plan will also address the Contractor's/Subcontractor's responsibilities should workers sustain personal injuries on-site or the threat of personal injuries or the spread of contamination exist on the site related to unanticipated contact with chemicals or hazardous materials. Should an unanticipated incident occur that is considered serious and/or an imminent hazard by the Contractor's Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO) work within the area influenced by the incident will be suspended until the emergency situation has been brought under control, the incident has been evaluated, and site conditions which contributed to the emergency have been mitigated. An emergency situation or imminent hazard includes, but is not limited to, the following: 1. buried drum(s) with unknown or known toxic contents 2. groundwater or soils of an unnatural color or odor 3. levels of volatile organic compounds (as measured by a photoionization detector) in excess of critical action levels established by the Contractor's CIH in the Hazardous Materials Health and Safety Plan. 4. spills or leaks of chemicals or petroleum products on-site 5. other perceived threats. Site personnel shall report all incidents to the Contractor's SSHO and the Engineer's on-site representative as soon as possible. The Contractor's SSHO will determine the appropriate steps to be taken 01115-1 ,r 142-38/3 subject to the Engineer's concurrence. All site incidents, will be investigated and documented by the Engineer. Specific mitigation actions to deal with the emergency are not included within these procedures. 1.02 DESCRIPTION OF REQUIREMENTS A The site-specific Emergency Response Plan shall be submitted to the Engineer for review before any work covered in the specific procedures can be initiated. It is the Contractor's responsibility to implement appropriate emergency response actions to protect their workers and their subcontractor's workers' safety. Therefore, the Engineer will not approve the Emergency Response Plan but only review to verify that items specified in this section are addressed. The Contractor shall implement, maintain and enforce these procedures at the appropriate time prior to and during all phases of the Work. B The Contractor shall utilize the services of an industrial hygienist having working knowledge of state and federal occupational safety and health -regulations and certified by the American Board of Industrial Hygienists (ABIH) to develop and implement the Emergency Response Plan. 1.03 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND APPLICABLE PUBLICATIONS A The site specific Emergency Response Plan shall be consistent with the requirements of: 1. National Contingency Plan, Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). 2. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Emergency Operations Plan Requirements. 3. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) (Standards and Regulations contained in Title 29 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1910.120 "Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response". 4.. Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP), 310 CMR 40.000. 5. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regulations contained in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 112, "Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan." B The Emergency Response Plan shall include but not necessarily be limited to, the following components as required by OSHA 29 CFR 1910.120 and Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 112: 1. Site Description and Evaluation. 2. Names of key personnel and alternate responsible for site safety and health (responsibilities and chain of command) . 01115-2 142-38/3 3. Emergency Equipment and First Aid Requirements. 4. Emergency Response Plan and Contingency Procedures. C The site specific Emergency Response Plan shall be submitted to the Engineer within 14 days after the Effective Date of the Agreement, in an acceptable format for review prior to commencement of any on-site work. D Any disregard for the provision of these specifications shall be deemed just and sufficient cause for termination of the Contract without compromise or prejudice to the rights of the Contractor. 1.04 EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND CONTINGENCY PROCEDURES A The Contractor shall develop an emergency response and contingency plan for on-site and off-site emergencies, as specified in OSHA 29 CFR 1910.120, which shall address at a minimum: • Pre-emergency planning • Personnel roles, lines of authority, training and communication • Emergency recognition and prevention • Safe distances and places of refuge • Site security and control • Evacuation routes and procedures • Decontamination ' • Emergency Medical treatment and first aid • Emergency alerting and response procedures • Critique of response and follow-up • Personnel Protection Equipment and emergency equipment B In the event of any emergency the Contractor shall without delay: take diligent action to remove or otherwise minimize the cause of the emergency; alert the Engineer; and institute whatever measures might be necessary to prevent any repetition of the conditions or actions leading to, or resulting in, the emergency. Should the emergency be related to the contact of unanticipated contaminated material, the Contractor shall enact emergency response activities or shall evacuate the area until the emergency is otherwise mitigated in compliance with the Emergency Response Plan. C Emergency medical care services shall be prearranged at a nearby medical facility with established emergency routes. D The Contractor shall establish emergency communications with health and emergency services. The name of this facility, name of contact, emergency routes and emergency communications arrangements shall be 01115-3 142-38/3 posted at the site. The posted list shall include the following minimum points: 1. Ambulance service and fire department telephone numbers. 2. Procedure for prompt notification of Engineer and DEP. 3. Location of emergency showers/eye wash facilities. 4. Location of self-contained breathing devices. 5. Specific procedures for handling personnel with excessive exposure to chemicals or contaminated soil. All emergency contact names and telephone numbers shall be posted at all project phones. All designated site emergency vehicles shall be equipped with route maps providing directions to the off-site medical facility. All drivers of support vehicles shall become familiar with the emergency route and the travel time required. E In the event that an accident or some other incident such as, an explosion, an exposure to toxic chemical levels, spill of chemicals or petroleum products occurs during the course of the project, the Engineer and DEP shall be telephoned immediately and receive a written notification within 2 hours. The report shall include the following items: 1. Name, organization, telephone number, and location of the Contractor. 2. Name and title of the person(s) reporting. 3. Date and time of accident/incident. 4. Location of accident/incident, i.e. site location, facility name. 5. Brief summary of accident/incident giving pertinent details including type of operation ongoing at time of accident. 6. Cause of accident/incident, if known. 7. Casualties (fatalities, disabling injuries) . 8. Details of any existing chemical hazard or contamination. 9. Estimated property damage, if applicable. 10. Nature of damage; effect on contract schedule. 11. Action taken by Contractor to insure safety and security. 01115-4 142-38/3 12. Other damage or injuries sustained (public or private) . F Contingency Planning: Procedures and Contractor personnel responsi- bilities for potential emergencies shall be identified in the Emergency Response Plan. Emphasis in the contingency planning section shall be placed on procedures. END OF SECTION 01115-5 142-38/3 SECTION 01170 SPECIAL PROVISIONS PART 1: GENERAL 1.01 GENERAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE CONTRACTOR A General obligations of the Contractor shall be as set forth in the Contract Documents. Unless special payment is specifically provided in the payment paragraphs of the specifications, all incidental work and expense in connection with the completion of work under the Contract will be considered a subsidiary obligation of the Contractor and all such costs shall be included in the appropriate items in the Bid Form in connection with which the costs are incurred. 1.02 CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYMENT A The Contractor shall advertise for and give preference in hiring qualified workers from within the District (Salem, Peabody, Beverly, Danvers .and Marblehead) for any available positions associated with the work included in this Contract. The Contractor shall undertake positive efforts to meet this requirement which shall include, but not be limited to, placing employment advertisements in newspapers serving the communities within the District, interviewing persons from within the District who may apply for positions, and hiring subcontractors and suppliers from within the District. The Contractor shall file a report with the Owner monthly during the time of the Contract which details its efforts to meet the requirements of this paragraph. 1.03 COORDINATION WITH LOCAL AGENCIES A The Contractor shall provide the Engineer and City of Salem's fire chief with sufficient advance notice of all inspections of the SESD Facilities by state Public Safety Department inspectors to enable a representative of the fire department to accompany such inspectors. B The Contractor shall notify the Engineer and appropriate City officials in advance if there is ever a need to transport from the SESD Facilities any hazardous waste or materials encountered during construction. C In addition to inspections required by law or regulations, at the request of the Owner, the Contractor shall provide reasonable access to the construction site for other City officials. In addition, construction conditions and liability considerations permitting, the Contractor shall provide a reasonable schedule of tours of the construction site to residents or officials of the City. 0992 01170-1 142-38/3 1.04 PUBLIC UTILITIES A The Contractor shall comply with the requirements of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Statute - Chapter 82, Section 40, for excavations in public and private property. Compliance shall include the following: 1. The Contractor shall notify public utility companies in writing at least 72 hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays) but not more than 30 days before excavating in areas where underground utility plant (pipes, cables, manholes, etc) exist. 2. The Contractor shall be responsible for providing the Utility Companies with a schedule of his activities in areas where the utilities exist. 3. The Contractor shall immediately notify utility companies of any damage to their utilities resulting from construction operations. B The Contractor shall notify DIGSAFE at 1-800-322-4844 at least 72 hours before digging, trenching, blasting, demolishing, boring, backfilling, grading, landscaping or other earth moving operations in any public ways, rights of way and easements. 1.05 PROVISIONS FOR CONTROL OF EROSION A Portions of the work, potentially impact upon restricted wetland areas. The Contractor shall fully comply with the Salem Conservation Commission "ORDER OF CONDITIONS" appended to this Specification. B The Contractor shall take sufficient precautions during construction to minimize the run-off of polluting substances such as silt, clay, fuels, oils, bitumens and calcium chloride into the supplies and surface waters of the Commonwealth. Special precautions shall be taken in the use of construction equipment to prevent operations which promote erosion. C Disposal of drainage shall be in an area approved by the Owner. The Contractor shall prevent the flow or seepage of drainage back into the drainage area. Drainage shall not be disposed of until silt and other sedimentary materials have been removed. Particular care shall be taken to prevent the discharge of unsuitable drainage to a water supply or surface water body. D As a minimum, the following shall apply: 1. In open areas brush and stumps shall not be removed until no more than 1 week prior to the start of excavation in that area. The existing ground surface shall be disturbed as little as possible until no more than 1 week prior to the start of excavation. 0992 01170-2 142-38/3 2. Silt fence shall be provided at points where drainage from the work site leaves the site, to reduce the sediment content of the water. Sufficient silt fence shall be provided such that all flow will filter through the fence. Other methods which reduce the sediment content to an equal or greater degree may be used as approved by the Engineer. 3. Drainage leaving the site shall flow to water courses in such a manner to prevent erosion. 4. Loaming and seeding or mulching of cross country areas shall take place as soon after excavation as practicable. This shall be considered part of the work and full payment for the work need not be made until it has been completed. E Measures for control of erosion must be adequate to assure that turbidity in the receiving water will not be increased more than 25 standard turbidity units (s.t.u.) , or as otherwise required by the Commonwealth or other controlling body. 1.06 PERMITS A The Contractor shall be required to obtain all necessary permits for proper execution of certain phases of the project. The Contractor shall fill out all forms and furnish all drawings required to obtain the permits. A copy of the approved permit shall be submitted to the Engineer. All fees associated with these permits shall be paid by the Contractor as part of the project. Work shall not commence on any phase of the work requiring a permit until the permit is obtained. B The Contractor shall obtain required street opening permits for excavations within streets or sidewalk areas. C The Contractor shall abide by any permit requirements imposed in the Salem Conservation Commission's Order of Conditions appended. 1.07 DISRUPTIONS TO THE EXISTING UTILITIES A The Contractor shall make test excavations to locate existing utilities where shown on the Drawings. If during the course of the excavation, the Contractor for whatever reason causes the existing utility to fail, the Contractor shall restore service in the shortest possible time, working around the clock if necessary. 1.08 HURRICANE PREPAREDNESS PLAN A Within 30 days of the date of the Notice to Proceed, submit to the Engineer and the Owner, for approval, a Hurricane Preparedness Plan. The Plan shall describe in detail the necessary measures which the Contractor will perform, at no additional costs to the Owner, in case of a hurricane warning. Revise Plan as required by the Engineer and Owner. 0992 01170-3 142-38/3 1.09 WEATHER PROTECTION A In the event of inclement weather, the Contractor and subcontractors shall protect the Work and materials from damage or injury from the weather. If, in the opinion of the Engineer, any portion of the Work or materials has been damaged by reason of failure on the part of the Contractor or subcontractors to so protect the Work, such Work and materials shall be removed and replaced with new materials and Work to the satisfaction of the Engineer. B The Contractor is responsible for snow removal required to maintain access to the construction site. 1.10 TRAILER RELOCATION A The three existing trailers northeast of the Operations and Maintenance Building are rented by Owner from Waste Management (Attn: Don Germain, Tel. (617) 933-2113). These trailers shall be moved to new locations as shown on the Drawings. B The Contractor shall act as Owner's agent and make arrangements for the relocation of these trailers including, if necessary, new skirts, stairs and adjoining accessways. The Contractor will be responsible for providing new connections to potable water, sanitary sewer, power, and telephone services. All piping shall be protected from freezing. These connections may be integrated with those being provided for the Engineer's and Contractor's offices but•separate power and telephone lines shall be installed for use by the Owner. C Within twenty-one days after the Notice to Proceed, Contractor shall submit to Engineer for approval, a plan that includes a schedule and sequence for relocating the trailers, and their contents, and proposed layout of relocated trailers on-site. END OF SECTION 0992 01170-4 a 142-38/3 SECTION 02270 SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL PART 1: GENERAL 1.01 SCOPE OF WORK A Furnish all labor, materials, equipment and incidentals necessary to perform all installation, maintenance, removal and area cleanup related to sedimentation control work as shown on the Drawings and as specified herein. The work shall include, but not necessarily be limited to; installation of vehicle wash station, silt fences, stone filter boxes, block and gravel filter, sediment traps, sediment removal and disposal, pavement cleaning, device protection and maintenance, removal of temporary devices, temporary mulching, erosion control blanket installation, and final cleanup. 1.02 RELATED WORK A Earthwork is included in Section 02200. B Granular fill materials are included in Section 02200. C Loaming and hydroseeding is included in Section 02930. D Cast-in-place concrete and reinforcing steel for vehicle wash station is included in Section 03301. E Frame and grate for sump at vehicle wash station is included in Section 02605. F Ductile iron pipe for drain at vehicle wash station is included in Section 02616. 1.03 SUBMITTALS A Within 10 days after Notice to Proceed, the Contractor shall submit to the Engineer for approval, technical product literature for all commercial products to be used for sedimentation and erosion control and vehicle wash station including valves, backflow prevention, hose bib connection, hose, spray nozzle and hose rack. 1.04 PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS A The Contractor shall be responsible for the timely installation and maintenance of all sedimentation and erosion control devices necessary to prevent the movement of sediment from the construction site to off site areas or into the stream system via surface runoff or underground drainage systems. Measures in addition to those shown on the Drawings necessary to prevent the movement of sediment off site shall be installed, maintained, removed, and-cleaned up at the expense of. th- Contractor. No .additional charges to the Owner will be considered. 02270-1 142-38/3 B Sedimentation and erosion control measures shall conform to the requirements outlined in the Salem Conservation Commission Order of Conditions appended to these Specifications. C All vehicles leaving the site shall be clean and void of mud and construction related debris. A vehicle wash station shall be provided as detailed on the Drawings or as approved by the Engineer. The intent of the vehicle wash area is the complete removal of all mud and construction related excavation materials and to ensure that these materials are not tracked off site. A concrete masonry unit filter box with wire mesh and crushed stone shall be installed to filter water and trap suspended sediments. PART 2: PRODUCTS 2.01 MATERIALS A Crushed stone for sediment filtration devices, access ways, beneath riprap swale and staging areas shall conform to Mass DPW "Standards and Specifications for Highway and Bridges" Section M2.01.3, for "surfacing". B Berm structural stone shall be riprap as specified in Section 02200. C Silt Fence 1. Steel posts shall be a minimum of 5 feet in length, 2-1/2-in x 2-1/2-in x 1/4-in angle post with self-fastening tabs and a 5-in x 4-in (nominal) steel anchor plate at bottom. 2. Welded wire fabric shall be 4-in x 4-in mesh of 12 ga. x 12 ga. steel wire. 3. Silt fence fabric shall be 42-in wide, woven, polypropylene, ultraviolet resistant material such as Mirafi 10OX as manufactured by Mirafi, Inc. , Charlotte, N.C. or equal. 4. Tie wires for securing silt fence fabric to wire mesh shall be light gauge metal clips (hog rings), or 1/32-in diameter soft aluminum wire. 5. Prefabricated commercial silt fence may be substituted for built-in-field fence. Pre-fabricated silt fence shall be "Envirofence" as manufactured by Mirafi Inc. , Charlotte, NC or approved equal, installed with support net. D One quarter inch woven wire mesh for filter boxes shall be galvanized steel or hardware cloth. E Straw mulch shall be utilized on all newly graded areas to protect areas against washouts and erosion. Straw mulch shall be comprised of threshed straw of oats, wheat, barley, or rye that is free from noxious weeds, mold or other objectionable material. The straw mulch shall contain at least 50 percent by weight of material to be 10 inches or 02270-2 142-38/3 longer. Straw shall be in an air-dry condition and suitable for placement with blower equipment. F Latex acrylic copolymer, such as Soil Sealant with coalescing agent as manufactured by Soil Stabilization Co. , Merced, California or approved equivalent shall be used as straw mulch tackifier. G An asphalt tackifier shall only be used when temperatures are too low to allow the use of a latex acrylic copolymer and only with prior written approval from the Engineer. H Erosion Control Blanket 1. Erosion control blanket shall be used as indicated on the Drawings and shall conform to the following requirements: a. Minimum grab strength of 120 pounds per ASTM D-1682. b. Equivalent open size (EOS) to be equal to or greater than the U.S. Standard Sieve No. 100 (0.210 mm) per ASTM D-442. c. Percent open area not to exceed about 25 percent. The percent open area is defined as the ratio of the sum of 20 or more individual open areas (times 100) to the sum of the corresponding 20 or more individual total areas. d. Coefficient of permeability shall not be less than 10-2 cm/sec. e. Erosion control blanket shall be Curlex Blanket by American Excelsior Company or equal product by Mirafi or equal. I Fabric for riprap swale shall be Mirafi 70OX or equal. J Vehicle Wash Station 1. Water used for washing vehicles shall be potable, and if obtained from on site, shall be separately metered for payment by Contractor. 2. Wood timbers, spacers, shims and sill plates shall be treated according to Section M9.05.1 of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts DPW Standard Specifications for Highway and Bridges, .current edition. The type of timber to be used shall be Southern Yellow Pine or Douglas Fir or other species subject to the approval of the Engineer. 3. Bolts, nuts and washers shall conform to the requirements of ASTM A307 and shall be of the size shown on the Drawings. Bolted connections shall be designed to develop the required joint strength. Galvanizing shall be by the hot-dipped process and shall conform to the requirements of AASHTO M111. 02270-3 142-38/3 K CMU units for block and gravel filters shall conform to ASTM C90, lightweight Grade N, Type I, hollow units of 8-in x 16-in nominal face size. PART 3: EXECUTION 3.01 INSTALLATION A Silt Fence Installation 1. Silt fences shall be positioned as indicated on the Drawings and as necessary to prevent off site movement of sediment produced by construction activities as directed by the Engineer. 2. Dig trench approximately 6 inches wide and 6 inches deep along proposed fence lines. 3. Drive metal-stakes, 8 feet on center (maximum) at back edge of trenches. Stakes shall be driven 2 feet (minimum) into ground. 4. Hang 4 x 4 woven wire mesh on posts, setting bottom of wire in bottom of trench. Secure wire to posts with self-fastening tabs. 5. Hang filter fabric on wire carrying to bottom of trench with about four inches. of fabric laid across bottom of trench. Stretch fabric fairly taut along fence length and secure with tie wires 12 inches o.c. both ways. 6. Backfill trench with excavated material and tamp. 7. Install pre-fabricated silt fence according to manufacturer's instructions. B Filter Box Installation 1. Construct filter boxes as detailed on the Drawings from 1/4-inch mesh woven wire, or hardware cloth and wood. Fill with crushed stone and place over inlet structures in locations shown on the Drawings. 2. Square filter box to be placed on top of square or round grates shall be equally dimensioned on all four sides to match the largest dimension of length, width, or diameter of the covered grate. C Stone Filter Berm Installation 1. Place berm stone above and around low point of swale. Face upstream side of berm with crushed stone as shown on the Drawings. D Construct sediment traps, by excavating silt storage area and cutting outlet ditch on downhill side. Construct stone filter berm across outlet ditch with rip-rap and crushed stone as shown on the Drawings. 02270-4 142-38/3 E NEPCO staging area shall be surfaced with a minimum depth of 6 inches of crushed stone as shown on the Drawings and as directed by the Engineer. F Vehicle Wash Station Installation 1. Vehicle wash station shall be installed as detailed and to the dimensions as shown on the Drawings or in a manner as approved by the Engineer. 2. Vehicle wash station shall be installed and fully usable as approved by the Engineer prior to excavation activities. G Block and Gravel Filter Box Installation 1. Construct block and gravel filters as detailed on the Drawings from 1/4-inch woven wire mesh, CMU, and crushed stone. 2. Vehicle wash area - Single course of CMU shall be laid with horizontal openings facing to the north and south ends of the vehicle wash station. Other CMU shall be placed with openings facing up. Other areas - Single course of CMU shall be laid with horizontal openings on all sides. 3. Cover horizontal CMU openings with woven wire mesh and pile crushed stone as shown against wire mesh. 4. Place CMU with stone around drop inlets in locations shown on the Drawings. 3.02 MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTIONS A Inspections 1. Contractor shall make a visual inspection of all sedimentation control devices once per week and promptly after every rainstorm. If such inspection reveals that additional measures are needed to prevent movement of sediment or wind blown dust to offsite areas, Contractor shall promptly install additional protection devices as needed. Sediment or wind blown dust controls in need of maintenance shall be repaired promptly. 2. Contractor shall be responsible for inspecting and maintaining existing on-site and adjacent off site pavements free of mud and other foreign materials by washing, sweeping, or other cleaning methods to ensure pavements are kept clean on a daily basis, or as directed by the Engineer. 02270-5 r 142-38/3 B Device Maintenance 1. Silt Fences a. Remove accumulated sediment once it builds up to one-half of the height of the fabric. b. Replace damaged fabric, or patch with a two foot minimum overlap. c. Make other repairs as necessary to ensure that the fence is filtering all runoff directed to the fence. 2. Block and Gravel Filter and Filter Boxes: Replace crushed stone when it becomes saturated with silt. 3. Stone Filter Berms and Sediment Traps a. Muck out trapped silt from dewatering operations when it has built up to within six inches of the crest of the spillway to the filter berm. b. Replace crushed stone filter when saturated with silt. 4. Add crushed stone to access ways and staging areas as necessary to maintain a firm surface free of ruts and mudholes. 5. Sediment Trap a. Remove accumulated sediment once it builds up to one-half of the height of the silt pit. 6. Vehicle Wash Station a. Muck out trapped silt from block and gravel filter box before it reaches the top of the filter box. b. Replace crushed stone when it becomes saturated with silt. c. Replace wood timbers, spacers, shims and sill plates and hardware as directed by the Engineer and immediately prior to Contract Closeout. d. Clean out sump and remove trapped sediment, crushed stone and debris as it becomes filled with washed material on a daily basis or as approved by the Engineer. 3.03 TEMPORARY MULCHING A Apply temporary mulch to areas where rough grading has been completed but final grading is not anticipated to begin within 30 days of: the completion of rough grading. -. 02270-6 142-38/3 B Straw mulch shall be applied at rate of 100 lbs/1000 ft2 and tackified with latex acrylic copolymer at a rate of 1 gal/1000 ft2 diluted in a ratio of 30 parts water to 1 part latex acrylic copolymer mix. 3.04 EROSION CONTROL BLANKET A Erosion control blankets shall be installed in all seeded drainage swales and ditches as shown on the Drawings and as directed by the Engineer in accordance with manufacturer's instructions. The area to be covered shall be properly prepared, fertilized and seeded with permanent vegetation before the blanket is applied. When the blanket is unrolled, the netting shall be on top and the fibers in contact with the soil over the entire area. The blankets shall be applied in the direction of water flow, and stapled. Blankets shall be placed a minimum of three rows (of four foot) wide (total approx. 12 ft width) within the drainage swale/ditch and stapled together in accordance with manufacturer's instructions. Side overlaps shall be 4 inches minimum. The staples shall be made of wire, 0.091-in in diameter or greater, "U" shaped with legs 10-in in length and a 1-1/2-in crown. The staples shall be driven vertically into the ground, spaced approximately two (2) linear feet apart, on each side, and one row in the center alternately spaced between each side. Upper and lower ends of the blanket shall be buried to a depth of four inches in a trench. Erosion stops shall be created every 25 feet by making a fold in the fabric and carrying the fold into a silt trench across the full width of the blanket. The bottom of the fold shall be four inches below the ground surface. Staple on both sides of fold. Where the blanket must be cut or more than one roll length is required in the swale, turn down upper end of downstream roll into a slit trench to a depth of four inches. Overlap lower end of upstream roll four inches past edge of downstream roll and staple. To ensure full contact with soil surface, roll blanket with a roller weighing 100 pounds per foot of width perpendicular to flow direction after seeding, placing blanket, and stapling. Thoroughly inspect channel after completion. Correct any areas where blanket does not present a smooth surface in full contact with the soil below. 3.05 REMOVAL AND FINAL CLEANUP A Once the site has been fully stabilized against erosion, remove temporary sediment control devices and accumulated silt as approved by the Engineer. Silt fence shall be retained and repaired, and disturbed areas shall be stabilized from erosion as approved by the Engineer prior to Contract Closeout. B Dispose of silt and waste materials in proper manner. Regrade all areas disturbed during this process and stabilize against erosion with surfacing materials as indicated on the Drawings. 02270-7 r 142-38/3 ,,�� i C VeoQ1e wash down station shall be retained, repaired and cleaned prior to Contract Closeout for use under subsequent contracts. END OF SECTION 02270-8 iL2 CDM Camp Dresser ♦ McKee SOUTH ESSEX .SEWERAGE ' DISTRICT 1 � NOTICE OF INTENT FOR SECONDARY WASTEWATER— ell TREATMENT- FACILITIES '. Submitted to: i Salem Conservation Commission Massachusetts Department of Environmental ' Protection ' Prepared' by: ' Gulf of Maine Research. Center Inc. Serafini, Serafini, & Darling ' -Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. 1: J September 1992 L SERAFINI, SERAFINI AND DARLING. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 63 FEDERAL STREET SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 JOHN R. SERAFINI. SR. TELEPHONE JOHN R. SERAFINI.JR. 508 744-0212 JOHN E. DARLING 617.551.2743 ELLEN M. WINKLER TELECOPIER JOSEPH C. CORRENTI September 15, 1992 505.741.4563 Ms. Juli Riemenschneider Salem Conservation Commission City of Salem One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Re: Notice of Intent for Secondary Wastewater Treatment Facilities South Essex Sewerage District 50 Fort Avenue, Salem, Massachusetts Dear Ms. Riemenschneider: Enclosed is our check in the amount of $800. 00, representing the City's share of the fee for the above Notice of Intent. As referenced in the Notice of Intent, the District is a government agency and has in the past always been exempt from payment of the filing fee. However, apparently, DEP has now decided to review the question and has declined to issue a file number unless the fee is paid. In order to expedite the consideration of this Notice of Intent and the issuance of an Order of Conditions, the District is paying the fee, but does so under protest, reserving its right on this issue. We appreciate the Commission' s patience and cooperation with this matter. Sincer ly, / n E. Darling JED/kel Enclosures cc: Raymond G. Bouchard 1 r V n o a r Contents 1 NOTICE OF INTENT ' TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Pae ' 1.0 NOTICE OF INTENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 ' 20 PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 21 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 ' 22 TREATMENT PLANT LAYOUTS . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3 ' 2.2.1 Concept B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4 2.2.2 Concept G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5 ' 2.3 DESCRIPTION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SITE WORK . . . . . 2-5 2.3.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5 ' 2.3.2 Early Site Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6 2.3.4 Construction of Wastewater Treatment Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7 ' 3.0 WETLANDS REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 3.1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 3.2 SITE LOCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 ' 3.2.1 Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5 3.2.2 Site Maps and Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5 ' 3.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5 3.3.1 Concept B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6 3.3.2 Concept G . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.4 RESOURCE AREA IDENTIFICATION AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS . 3-7 3.4.1 Coastal Bank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7 3.4.2 Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7 ' 3.4.3 Coastal Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8 3.4.4 Rocky Intertidal Shore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8 3.4.5 Land Under the Ocean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9 ' 3.4.6 Land Containing Shellfish' . . . . . . . . 3-9 3.4.7 Buffer Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9 t NOTICE OF INTENT ' TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd.) ' Section Paee 3.5 MITIGATION AND PROTECTION MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10 3.6 SITE DRAINAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11 3.7 WATER QUALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11 ' 3.8 RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12 3.9 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12 ' 4.0 EXISTING AND PROPOSED SITE DRAINAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 4.1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 4.2 METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 ' 4.2.1 Flow Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 4.2.2 Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2 ' 4.3 PERMANENT DRAINAGE SYSTEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3 4.3.1 Existing Site Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3 4.3.2 Proposed Site Drainage - Concept B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6 4.3.3 Proposed Site Drainage - Concept G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6 4.3.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11 ' 4.4 CONSTRUCTION PHASE DRAINAGE SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11 4.4.1 Storm Water Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11 ' 4.4.2 Dewatering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-14 4.5 STORM WATER QUALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-14 4.6 DEWATERING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-16 ' 5.0 SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 ' 6.0 SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 1 1 NOTICE OF INTENT I ' TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd.) 6.1 PERMANENT DRAINAGE SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 ' 6.2 POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2 ' 6.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2 6.2.2 General Objectives . 6-2 6.2.3 Contractor's Responsibilities During Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2 1 1 1 ' LIST OF TABLES Table P4e 2-1 CONSENT DECREE MILESTONES & SCHEDULE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2 ' 4-1 EXISTING DRAINAGE CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5 4-2 CONCEPT B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8 ' 4-3 CONCEPT B - COMPARISON OF EXISTING & PROPOSED DRAINAGE . . . . . . 4-9 ' 4-4 CONCEPT G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12 4-5 CONCEPT G - COMPARISON OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED DRAINAGE . . 4-13 LIST OF PLANS Plan P4e 1 EXISTING PLANT.PRE-DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2 ' 2 CONCEPT B PROPOSED CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3 3 CONCEPT G PROPOSED CONDITIONS . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4 4 EXISTING PLANT PRE-DEVELOPMENT WATERSHEDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4 ' 5 CONCEPT B POST-DEVELOPMENT WATERSHEDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7 6 CONCEPT G POST DEVELOPMENT WATERSHEDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10 ' 7 SITE LAYOUT, GRADING, AND SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN I CONCEPT B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9 ' 8 SITE LAYOUT, GRADING, AND SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN II CONCEPT B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10 ' 9 SITE LAYOUT, GRADING, AND SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN I CONCEPT G. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-11 ' 10 SITE LAYOUT, GRADING, AND SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN II CONCEPT G. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-12 3 Se6tion One. r . , 310 CMR 10.99 ' Form 3 f�.,..` DEP iN Commonwealth `� (ro W OEM pt Massacnusetts _- C.:� to-n Salem Aoo„can, South Essex Sewerage Notice of Intent District Under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, G.L. c. 131 , §40 and Application for a Department of the Army Permit ' Part 1:General Information 1 . Localiom Street Address 50 Fort Avenue Salem MA ' LOINurnDer Assessor ' s Map 42 , Lot 98 2. Protect: Tyoi!ublic 'Utility Descnotion The apnl i rant proposes to rnnsrrnCt ' facilities necessary ro upgrade rhe current treatment plant for ✓ ' secondary treatment. Minimal work in Cnastal Resource Areas and ' Buffer Zones is proposed. including site grading and minor rnad construction. 3. Registry: County Essex. South Districr Current Book -3729 2670 &Page 35 100 2880 3133 261 255 ' Certificate(if Registered Land) 6429 120 ' Aoolicant South Essex Sewerage District Tel. (508) 744-4550 Address 50 Fort Avenue Salem, MA t5. Prcoenv Owner South Essex Sewerage District- Tel. (508) 744-4550 ' Address 50 Fort Avenue Salem, MA Attorney John Darling; Serafini, Serafini & Darling Attys . SReoresen;auve ' i63 Federal Street Salem MA (508) 744-0212 ' . Tel. and Gulf of Maine Research Center, Inc . Address 204 Lafayette Street Salem. MA (508) 745-6618 ' 7. a. Have the Conservation Commission and the Depanmenrs Regional Officeeachbeen sent, by terrified mail or Kana delivery, 2 copies of completed Notice of Intent, with suppohmg plans and documents? Yes Z No -- b. b. Has the tee been submitted? M Yes :: No c. Total Filing Fee Submitted ,$1 575 d. City/Town Share of Fling Fee $800 State Share of Filing Fee S 7 7 5 ' (sent ;o Cirv/Townl (112 of fee in excess of S25, sent to DEP) e. Is a brief statement aracned indicating how the applicant calculated the fee? 7: Yes E No Eflecuve 11110/89 1 8. Have all Obtainable permits.variances and approvals reduRed by local by-law been Obtained? Yes — No x Obtained: Apaied For: Not Applied For: ' Building Permit ' 9. Is any portion o1 the site subject to a Wetlands Restriction Order pursuant to G.L. c. 13 1 . §40A or G.L. c. 130. §105? Yes I No t 10, Ust all plans and supporting documents submrtted with this Notice of Intent. **See attached list of enclosed Plans Identitying Number/Letter Title. Date Site Locus (Ml) USGS Salem/Marblehead North Quadrangle Section 2 (S2) Project Description Section 3 (S3) Wetlands Report ' Section 4 (S4 ) Existing and Proposed Site Drainage ' Section 5 (S5) Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Measures Section 6 (S6) Mitigation Measures ' 1 1 CheCK triose resource areas within which work is proposed: (a) X Butier Zone (bl inland: Bank• Land Subject to Flooding. ' = Borcennc Vegetated Wettand' _ Bordering Lanc Under Water Body 8 Waterway' _ isolated ' cl Coas;a:: Designated Po — Land Unger the Ocean' n Area' Coastal Beach• _ Coastal Dune Barrier Beach = Coastal BB each Inlertical Shore' Salt Marsh cc Uncer Salt Pond' _ Land Containing Shellfish =sriRun X Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage 'L:kely to involve U.S. Army Corps of Engineers concurrent jurisoiclion. See General Instructions for Cc.^pie,,nc r,c!,ce of Inlent ' ., 2 it 1 ' 10 (con't). List all plans and supporting documents submitted with this Notice of Intent. ' Identifying Number/Letter Title.Date P1 Existing Plant: Predevelopment Conditions (1992) P2 Concept B: Proposed Conditions (1992) P3 Concept G: Proposed Conditions (1992) P4 Existing Plant: Predevelopment Watersheds (1992) P5 Concept B: Postdevelopment Watersheds (1992) ' P6 Concept G: Postdevelopment Watersheds (1992) P7 Site Layout, Grading and Erosion & Sedimentation Control Plan I: Concept B (1992) ' P8 Site Layout, Grading and Erosion & Sedimentation Control Plan II: Concept B (1992) P9 Site Layout, Grading and Erosion & Sedimentation Control Plan I: Concept G (1992) Pl0 Site Layout, Grading and Erosion & Sedimentation ' Control Plan II: Concept G (1992) t 3-2a ' 12. Is the wetland resource area to be altered by the proposed work located on the most recent Estimated Habitat Map fit any) of rare. ..state-lisled" vertebrate and Invertebrate animal species occurrences provided to the conservation commission by the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program? YES ( J NO (g ) Date printed on the Estimated Habitat Map issued ' NO MAP AVAILABLE ( J (if any) 1992 edition If yes, have you completed an Appendix A and a Notice of Intent and filed them, along with supporting documentation with the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program by Certified mail or hand delivery, s0 that the Program shall have received Appendix A prior 10 the filing of this Notice of Intent? YES ( J NO ( J I 3-3 fart If:Site Description �dlcate wnlCh Of the following information has been provided (On a pian,in narrative description or calcula- ns)to clearly,completely and accurately describe existing site conditions. Identifying 'ONumber/Letter f plan. narrative or calculations) Natural Features: S3 Soils 53 Vegetation M1 s 1`1210 TOOography s P1-Pio Open water bodies(including ponds and takes) S3 Rowing water bodies(including streams and rivers) S3 P1-P10 Public and private surface water and ground water supplies on or within 100 feet of site 53 Maximum annual ground water elevations with dates and location of test !, S3 . pl-P3 Boundaries Of resource areas checked under Part 1,item 1 1 above . 53 Other '. Man-made Features- S3 eatures: S�.�1-37.0_ Structures(such as buildings, piers, towers and headwalls) 53 S4 p7-34 Drainaoe and flood control facilities at the site and immediately off the site. including culverts and Open channels (with inverts).dams and dikes N.A. Subsurface sewaae disposal systems S3 Pl-P10 Underground utilities S3 , pl-P10 Roadways and parking areas S3 Pl-P10 Property boundaries. easements and rights-of-way N-A. Other III: Work Description I Kate which of the following information has been provided ion a plan,in narrative description or caicuia- lions) to clearly,completely and accurately describe work proposed within each of the resource areas tcked in Part I, item 1 1 above. Identifying Number/Letler plan. narrative calcutations I Planww anC C.CSs Section of S3 P2-P3 Struc:.:res(such as Ouiicincs. Olers. lowers and headwalls) 53 54 SS S6 Drainage and flood control facilities, including Culverts and open criannels(with inverts). dams and dikes S3, P2-P3 Subsurlace sewage disoosal systems d underground utilities N.A. Filling, aredding and excavating, indicating volume and composition of material N.A. Comoensatory storage areas. where redulred in accordance with Part IN. Section 10:57 14) of ne reculations IN.A. Wildlife habitat restoration Or replication areas N.A. Other ?Dint Source Discnarce A. Descnot:on of charactenstics of discharge from point source (both closed and Coen c^annel). vnen DOjnI c' Cischarge falls within resource area cnedKed under Part I, item 1 1 above. as suooCned Ov standard engineering calculations. cava anc plans. muuaing out not limited to Ine following: 3.4 I - Coastal Reswce Area Type ioMwvng nymph or IepM mono of sy000rt cocvm ,@ i — I I I ' I ' 2. Clearly. completely and accurately describe.with reference to supporting plans and calculations where necessary: ' lal all measures and designs to regulate work within the Buffer Zone so as to ensure that said work does not alter an area specified in Part 1, Section 10.02(1)(a)of these regulations; or (bl it work in the Buffer Zone will alter such an area,all measures and designs proposed to meet the ' performance standards established for the adjacent resource area.specitied in Part II or Part 111 of these regulations- 'I 3. Coastal Resource Area Tyoe Borcereo By t OO-Foot of oreaonary Zone: loenntymg numcer or fener - I^anoCOASTAL BANK of su000n pocuments .The applicant proposes construction of new facilities and upgrade of S2 ,I existing structures to allow secondary sewerage treatment on the Site. I S3 Activties in the Buffer Zone will include minor grading, limited paving, S4 piping and construction of a sediment trap and chlorine contact tanks S5 (the latter for Concept G only). Silt fences will be used to protect S6 the Resource Area from sedimentation and delineate a "no-work" zone. P1 through Barriers will remain in place following construction until soils are Plo fully stabilized. Sediment traps, gravel filter boxes, and temporary I diversion swales will further ensure the protection of Resource Areas I from sedimentation. Discharge onto Resource Areas will be pre-treated with oil and grease separators. I � � I ' 36 ' iDelineation of the drainage area comnbuting to the Dom, of dlscnarbe 2. Pre-and post-development DeaK run-off from the drainage area, at the oomt of discharge. for at least the 10-year and 1 00-year freouency storm 3. Pre- and Dost-Aevelooment rate of infiltration contributing to the resource area cnecked under Part 1. item ' 11 above. - d -Estimated water duality characteristics of ore- and post-development run-oft at the DOmt of discharge. I ' Part IV: Mitigating Measures 1 . Clearly. COmDletely and accurately describe. with reference to su000rnng Clans and calculations where t - necessary. (a) All measures and designs Droposed to meet the Dertormance standards set forth under each re- source area specified In Part It or Part III of the regulations: or ' (b) why the presumptions set form udder each resource area sDecdleo In Part It or Part III of the fegula- Ions do not aDDIy. X Coastal Resource area Tyoe lcent eving numoer or lane' _ ,,and LAND SUBJECT TO COASTAL STORM FLOWAGE of su000n bocumenls Work is proposed in Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage. This S2 work involves grading and building if a roadway and construction of S3 a drainage system. The proposed activities will not impede or redirect S4 the flow of flood waters. Discharge onto Resource Areas will be pre- S5 treated with oil and grease separators. S6 P1 through P1O ' = Coastal Resource Area Tvoeloenllfv,ng number W lener ,nano I of su000n oocuments I I 3.5 Part V: Additional Information for a Department of the Army Permit I COE Application No. 2 ' Ito be crovlaea ov COE) (Name of waterwayl 3 Names and addresses of prooerty owners adloinlno your property: SEE ATTACHED LIST Document corer project alternatives(i.e.. other locations and/or construction methods. vanicuiarly triose ' that would e0minate the discharge of creaaea or till material Into waters or wetlands). 855- x 1 1 - arawlnas In Dlanvlew and cross-section,-showing the resource area and the proposed activ. ' ity within the resource area. Drawings must be to scale and should be clear enough for photocopying. ' Certification is reouired from the Division of Water Pollution Control before the Federal permit can be Issued.Certification may be obtained by contacting the Division of Water Pollution Control, 1 Winter Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02108. ' Where the activity will take place within the area under the Massachusetts approved Coastal Zone Management Program,the applicant certifies that his proposed activity complies with ana will be conducted in a manner that is consistent with the approved program. Information provided will be used in evaluating the application fora permit and is made a matter of public record througn issuance of a public notice.Disclosure of this information isvoluntary,however,if necessary ' information is not provided, the application cannot be processed nor can a permit be issued. I hereoy certlfv under the Dams and penalties Of perjury that the foregoing Notice Of Intent and accompanying clans, eocume and sup Ortlng cava are true and ecmplete. to the best of my knowledce. ' `S at of Adpncant Date Signaw of Accllcant s Representative Date ' N E D FORM 10 0 1 i E S T) ....... ie ENG faro 101! .Pere..6 6y HGL'SACC_ 6 M.. 196]" 1 MAY E? T\.. ,< m n, fen<..n. . fe.ne Unoem•m el 16. Ars. . e rule el Mu e<nuvw .PPi.<.u.n le. . e.fine w e61.m nfm.um a P.f lefm .Pu.em .w Gu.6 $ue.. ..f.f.. T6. OfUe. ' of M ....... .ria Bunt 10M81 K.. .Pe<e..e Ue.* eeeu.eee feee1n6 6. 16, US Afm. Care. i Ennne.f. OMB Sumeu 0707-0036 end ..P.fouee uu sl 10 S.Pieme.f 1993 ePon..- T6.. ..II 6. ..1 •n 6 Pem. 1.ee 3.7 1 13 - ' FILING FEE CALCULATION WORKSHEET Plants. roadways/drivewaye NOT subject to 310 CMR 10.53(3e) SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL FEES ' CATCCURY 1 $55 PCR ACTIVITY No. if under a Sif said activities are reviINCLC NOT f $525 x 3 A. Existing House/residential lot (sddltlon, deck, C. CunstrucLion of EACH ROADWAY/DRIVEWAY within the _ ' garage,poo 1, nhed,or DRIVEWAY) — Butter tone or Coastal floodtone NOT reviewable B — under 710 CMO 10.53 (3e) and NOT associated with a SFH . Site Preparation (removal of vegetation, exca- vation grading wtwre. home construction isn't D. HAZARDOUS WASTE CLEANUP (except as noted in proposed under this NUI) category 4) ' C. Control of nuisance vegetation by removal, herb- _ — TOTAL CATEGORY 3 ACTIVITIES 5525 x 3 icides, etc. within a Resource Area PER LOT Pursuant to 310 CMR 10.53(4) CATEGORY 4 $725 PER ACTIVITY ' D. Resource Area Improvement pursuant to 310 CMR — 10.53 (4) other than 1C nbuve A. EACH WETLAND FILLING/CROSSING LIMITED PROJECT _ ACCESS ROADWAY/DRIVEWAY under 310 CHR 10.53 (3e) f.. SEPTIC SYSTEMS or any port thereof/repairs, associated with COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, iNSTITU- ' replacement, UPGRADING — TIONAL DEVELOPMENT OR RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION - CONSTRUCTION. ('see category 29 for SIH driveweys•) F. Monitoring Wells/well --— B. Flood ControlStructures (construction, REPAIR, TOTAL CATEGORY 1 ACTIVITIES end/or modification) ' C. LANDFILLS-public h private CATCGOHY 2 $250 PER ACTIVITY D. SAND A GRAVEL OPERATIONS ' A. EACH NEW single family house (SFH) INCLUDING — — E. NEW railroad linea or EXTENSIONS of EXISTING site preparation, retention/detention basins, utilities, SEPTIC SYSTEM, roadway/driveway other lines then those pursuant-to-310 CMR 10.53(3e)' F. Control of NUISANCE VEGETATION under 310CHR _if reviewed under a SINGLE NOT 10.53(4) other then on a SfH lot B. Parking lot/ ANY size — C. BRIDGES (construction, reconstruction, expansion,_ _ C. Beuch Nourishment maintenance) ASSOCIATED with a SFH lot ' D. Coastal Activities pursuant to 310 CMR 10.24 H. Raising or lowering WATER LEVELS (78-6 including Electric Generation Facilities 70-Public Utilitieses,, 7c-Coast8l Limited Projects 1, . ALTERATION OF RESOURCE AREA d diversion of water _ ' including REPAIR/MAINTENANCE of EXISTING piers, associated with HAZARDOUS WASTE CLEANUP, non- buildings culverts, etc. mosquito control projects, or for ANY OTHCR PURPOSE NOT C%PRESSLY IDCNIIFIF.O f.LSCWIICRE IN THIS FEE SCHEDULE F. LIMITED PROJECT ACTIvI TITS pursuant to 310 CMR 10.53 lo-dl ANU 310 CHR _10.53 (f-1) per footprint J. DREDGING ACTIVITIES not associated with a NCW _ ' dock, pier or other structure described in categor F. NEW agriculture l/equecultu rnl projects y 5 — TOTAL CATEGORY 4 ACTIVITIES _ C. EACH WCTLAND DRIVEWAY CROSSING associated with _ ANY pursuant to 310 CMR 10.53(3e) — CAiCGORY 5 $2 PER LINEAR FOOT; TOTAL FEET NOT TO 8E LESS M. ANY paint source discharge MAN $50 NOH MORE THAN E1000 1. ANY OTHER ACTIVITY not described in categories A. Construction, reconstruction, REPAIR, or replace- 1,3,4 A 5 meet of DOCKS, PIERS, RLVCIHCN15, DINES, or other engineering structures on COASTAL or INLAND RESOURCE TOTAL CATEGORY 2 ACTIVITIES - ANCAS including the placement of RIP-RAP or other — material on coastal or inland resource areas ' CAICrOliY 3 $525 PER ACTIVITY TOTAL CATEGORY 5 ACTIVITIES A. SITE PREPARATION for ANY development other than TOTAL FILING FCC CALCULATED $ 1575 ' for a SFH INCLUDING removal of vegetation, excavation d grading when actual construction is PCRSON CALCULATING Fit SCHIOULL (Print Name) NOT proposed under this NOT Mark B. SherfY Gulf of Maine Research Center Inc 111, CUNSTRUCIIUN Of EACH BUILDING within commercial, _ AUORCSS 204 Lafayette Street Salem, PIA 01970 I ndustrial, institutional, or spar tment/condo/ towntwuue type Of d"v'Inpmcnt , ANY PART of which TCLCPHQNC NUMBER (508) 745-6618 is in a BUf1-GR ZONE or RLSOUNCC AREA. Associated activities: site prepnration retention/detention SIGNATURE' DATE _basin constructlon,septic systems, parking Iota, utilltiea, point source discharges, sewerage treatment ' NOTICE OF INTENT FEE-TRANSMITTAL FORM DEPARTMENT OF FNtVIRONKRIM PR71T7CTICN ' DIVISICN OF WEILhNDS AND WATERWAYS ' NOTICE OF INTENT (NOI) APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: Name South Essex Sewerage Dist . Name South Essex Sewerage District Street 50 Fort Avenue Street 50 Fort Avenue City/Town Salem City/Town Salem ' State MA Zip Code 01970 State MA zip Code 01970 . Phone Number (508) 744-4550 ' Project Location: Street/Lot Number 50 Fort Avenue City/Town Salem, MA DEP FILE NUMBER (if available) ' NOI FILING FEE DISPUTED FEE Total NOI Filing Fee: $ 1575 Total Disputed Fee: $ 1575 ' (as d„rerm;ned'in Notice of State Share of Filing Fee: $ 775 Insufficient Fee letter from (1/2 of fee in excess of $25.00) conservation commis ion) ' City/Town Share of State Share of Fee: $ 787.50 Filing Fee: $ 800 (1/2 of total disputed fee) ' City/Timm Share of Fee: $78.7 . 50 (1/2 of total disputed fee) INSTRIX.TICNS ' 1. Send Thia Fee T!ransnittal form with a check or money order, payable to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to the DEP Lock Box at: ' Department of Environmental Protection Box 4062 ' Boston, MA 02211 2. Attach a gay of this farm to the Notice of Intent sub=mitted to the local Conservation Commidssibn. ' 3. Attach a cow of this farm and a gm of the DEP check to each of the Notice of Intent forms submitted to the DEP regional office. 11/10/89 � � �� ' /❑❑ ��-'�±`•.. '>_•- -,all � FA - OF gal eWass 0 URI "I'Llp.....Sr NO—S, WERE I I • n i��cifE r. r``v/ i��mr�i�—,� I • A 'oma f14\�I �V•� valid`1(/ --� •III � /'�� ®'►"sus � -?; `��. 1 �� 1 :��i.�4��si i •' I SIGN II I� SewerageSouth Essex District PROPOSED SECONDARY LOCUSWASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY SITE . Dresser i r , i i tion. i ITwo Two 1 , 1 I • t 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION I ' 2.1 INTRODUCTION ' The South Essex Sewerage District (the District) is currently in the process of designing and implementing new secondary wastewater treatment and disposal ' facilities in order to comply with federal and state environmental laws and meet the requirements of a Consent Decree (United States et al. v. South Essex Sewerage ' District, et al., Civil Action No. 83-2814-Y) filed by the U.S. EPA, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, and Conservation Law Foundation. The ' purpose of this document is to describe the types of improvements that will occur as part of this project. The District's existing 41-mgd primary treatment plant, located on Fort Avenue in ' Salem, serves the communities of Beverly, Danvers, Marblehead, Peabody, and Salem. The District is now bound to a Consent Decree to bring the wastewater facilities into compliance with the federal Clean Water Act, which requires secondary treatment. The Consent Decree provides a schedule for wastewater ' facilities planning, design, and implementation. This schedule is outlined on Table 2-1. ' The following Phase II environmental documentation has been prepared and submitted per the Consent Decree: • Draft Phase II Environmental Impact Report (September 1991); 1 • Draft Phase II Facilities Plan (January 1992); • Supplemental Draft Phase II Environmental Impact Report (January 1992); Final Phase II Environmental Impact Report/Facilities Plan (May 1992) 2- 1 1 TABLE 2-1 CONSENT DECREE MILESTONES AND SCHEDULE ' Milestone Consent Decree Date ' Receive MEPA Certificate, EPA/MDEP September 1, 1992 Approval of Final EIR/FP Start WWTP Design September 1, 1992 Submit Final WWTP Design August 30, 1993 MDEP Approval of Plans and December 30, 1993 ' Specifications Advertise for Bid - WWTP February 14, 1994 ' Award Contract -.WWTP June 30, 1994 ' Commence Construction - WWTP July 29, 1994 Complete Construction - WWTP February 28, 1997 ' Full Operation - WWTP August 29,1997 2-2 The facilities planning/EIR phase of the project resulted in selection of the expanded ' primary plant site on Fort Avenue in Salem for liquid and residuals processing; and use of the existing Peabody Landfill for disposal of residuals. ' On July 2, 1992 the Secretary of Environmental Affairs issued a Certificate finding that the Final Phase II EIR/Facilities Plan adequately and properly complies with the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act with the exception of issues pertaining to ' the analysis of residuals disposal. A Supplemental Final EIR/Facilities Plan will be prepared to address outstanding issues on residuals disposal. Portions of the Final t EIR/Facilities Plan pertaining to treatment facilities and the effluent outfall were approved by the Secretary and, therefore, design and permitting on those aspects of the project are proceeding; specifically design and permitting activities are underway for the following design components: ' • site preparation, including demolition of some existing structures, rock excavation, site grading and clearing, and utility relocation; • construction of secondary treatment facilities; and 1 • addition of a diffuser to the existing effluent outfall. The remainder of this project description focuses on the first two items -- early site ' preparation activities on the treatment plant site, and construction of the secondary treatment facilities. 2.2 TREATMENT PLANT LAYOUTS 1 Two different treatment plant layouts are currently under consideration -- one known as Concept B, which was presented as the recommended plan in the FEIR/FFP, and one known as Concept G, which was developed subsequent to the 2-3 1 �, ' FEIR/FFP as a result of independent review by a conceptual design review team. A Notice of Project Change was filed with the MEPA Unit on August 17, 1992 on ' Concept G. ' Each of the alternative layouts is described in this summary. The the District Board will select one of these two layouts following a decision from the MEPA Unit on the [Notice of Project Change and further consideration of design information. ' Both layouts are on District-owned property and involve the same commitments to environmental mitigation.. There are no significant environmental differences ' between the two, in terms of level of impact or required mitigation. A description of each is provided below. ' 2.2.1 CONCEPT B ' Concept B, the recommended plan from the FEIR/FFP, proposes demolition of the existing administration and maintenance building and demolition of the existing ' chlorination building. The existing effluent pump station would be retained. The new process tankage abuts the existing primary clarifiers and extends towards the Cat ' Cove Marine Laboratory property. The aeration basins are concealed under loam and vegatation, and a deck over the secondary clarifiers conceals the maintenance ' facilities and chemical storage areas housed below. The administration building, located at the end of the deck, near the Cat Cove property, houses the laboratory and ' the administration and engineering staff. Parking and a green space is provided on top of the deck. Although the deck hides the maintenance and lay down areas under ' the deck, the deck itself is visually prominent, extending up to elevation 45.0 (versus the high point in Fort Avenue of 39.0). The deck concept results in a cave-like ' environment for the maintenance workers and results in increased operational costs to ventilate and light this interior space. 2- 4 K- �F 2.2.2 CONCEPT G Concept G maintains and re-uses, rather than demolishes, the existing administration and maintenance facilities, the existing chlorination building, and is the existing effluent pump station. Since the existing maintenance and chlorination buildings are maintained the deck is not necessary; thus, it is eliminated in this concept. A green space would be provided on top of the clarifiers at approximately elevation 25.0, between the required influent and effluent buildings which rise to elevation 40. The process tankage, still within the confines of the existing plant h property, shifts to the northeast portion of the site. Additions would be required on the administration and maintenance facilities to supplement the programmatic space requirements, and both the effluent pump station and the chlorination r building would be upgraded. The above refinements are proposed as cost-saving 't features and will achieve the same mitigation objectives defined in the FEIR/FFP for �YY Concept B. Concept G moves the future tankage requirements to the Fort Avenue side of thesk side, thus providing more opportunity for visual buffering along For Avenue than Concept B. u k� 2.3 DESCRIPTION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SITE WORK lt: 2.3.1 OVERVIEW ,7f The secondary wastewater treatment plant will be constructed on a 13.2-acre parcel ' owned by the South Essex Sewerage District located on Fort Avenue in Salem. The existing primary facilities are located on the same site. Although all secondary 4 facilities will be located within District-owned property, the District is in the process v �e of negotiating acquisition of some adjacent properties as buffer zone. Specifically, 13 homes across Fort Avenue from the plant will be bought by the District or sound reduction measures will be provided to mitigate construction noise impacts. In , addition, the District is in the process of negotiating with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Division of Marine Fisheries regarding acquisition of the Cat 3{ A: 2-5 +i +:a gyp'' �F• Yea: r y ' 2.2.2 CONCEPT G ' Concept G maintains and re-uses, rather than demolishes, the existing administration and maintenance facilities, the existing chlorination building, and the existing effluent pump station. Since the existing maintenance and chlorination buildings are maintained the deck is not necessary; thus, it is eliminated in this concept. A green space would be provided on top of the clarifiers at approximately elevation 25.0, between the required influent and effluent buildings which rise to ' elevation 40. The process tankage, still within the confines of the existing plant property, shifts to the northeast portion of the site. Additions would be required on ' the administration and maintenance facilities to supplement the programmatic space requirements, and both the effluent pump station and the chlorination ' building would be upgraded. The above refinements are proposed as cost-saving features and will achieve the same mitigation objectives defined in the FEIR/FFP for ' Concept B. Concept G moves the future tankage requirements to the Fort Avenue side of the side, thus providing more opportunity for visual buffering along Fort ' Avenue than Concept B. ' 2.3 DESCRIPTION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SITE WORK 2.3.1 OVERVIEW t The secondary wastewater treatment plant will be constructed on a 13.2-acre parcel ' owned by the South Essex Sewerage District located on Fort Avenue in Salem. The existing primary facilities are located on the same site. Although all secondary ' facilities will be located within District-owned property, the District is in the process of negotiating acquisition of some adjacent properties as buffer zone. Specifically, 13 ' homes across Fort Avenue from the plant will be bought by the District or sound reduction measures will be provided to mitigate construction noise impacts. In addition, the District is in the process of negotiating with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Division of Marine Fisheries regarding acquisition of the Cat 2- 5 ' Cove Marine Laboratory property, located to the northeast of the plant site. Specific plans for use of this property have not been developed. Because acquisition of the ' Cat Cove Marine Laboratory property may not occur before the start of site preparation, it is assumed for the purposes of facility and site design that the marine ' lab site will not be developed concurrent with the treatment plant site. Therefore, all drainage calculations and other supporting information were developed ' assuming continuation of the existing conditions on the Cat Cove site. This assumption applies to either Concept B or G. ' A small piece of the adjacent New England Power Company (NEPCO) property ' (about one acre of land to the southeast of the plant site) will also be leased for staging during site preparation and plant construction for both concepts. Minimal ' preparation of this parcel is required since it is currently used by NEPCO for equipment laydown. It also provides direct access to the plant site. Use of this parcel ' was factored into development of drainage calculations and other supporting information. This parcel will be used as a storage and laydown area for construction. ' Materials to be stored in this area will include loam and clean fill, rebar, and plant equipment as it is delivered to the site. ' 2.3.2 EARLY SITE PREPARATION ' Because the Consent Decree dictates an aggressive schedule for plant design and construction, the District has decided to initiate an early site preparation contract to ' allow site excavation and building demolition to proceed in advance of plant construction activities. Early site preparation would begin as early as July 1993 and ' would include the following activities: ' • installation of noise barrier • site clearing • removal and relocation of utilities • set-up of dewatering system 2-6 1 ' • demolition of administration and maintenance building, chlorination building (for Concept B) ' • rock excavation for secondary clarifiers, aeration basins, and contact tanks ' It is estimated that these activities would be completed in July 1994. The duration of early site preparation would be less for Concept G than for Concept B.since at least ' 15% less rock would be removed, no buildings would be demolished, and utility relocation is minimized under Concept G. ' 2.3.4 CONSTRUCTION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT Construction is anticipated to commence in August 1994 with completion in ' February 1997 per the Consent Decree. Building construction involves assembly of concrete forms, pouring of concrete, and disassembly of forms for development of all ' tanks, buildings, and other required structures. Concrete construction is the most labor and equipment intensive activity. Underslab piping and embedded mechanical and electrical items will be installed concurrently with concrete ' placement. General building activities, including equipment installation, interior and exterior masonry, windows, doors, architectural items, roofing, HVAC, and ' weatherproofing systems, will follow. Site landscaping and other finishing activities (painting, hook-ups) will be the last activities to be completed. The plant will be in ' full operation by August 29, 1997 per the Consent Decree. 2- 7 ,I_e g; m CD ection , Three ' 3.0 WETLANDS REPORT 3.1 INTRODUCTION ' The purpose of this document is to provide further information regarding construction and implementation of secondary wastewater treatment and disposal ' facilities by the South Essex Sewerage District (hereinafter referred to as "the District') adjacent to protectable Coastal Wetland Resource Areas. The applicant ' proposes modifications to the existing primary treatment plant (see Plan 1), located on Fort Avenue in Salem, Massachusetts to bring the facilities into compliance with the federal Clean Water Act. The Gulf of Maine Research Center, Inc. (GMRC) of Salem, Massachusetts, identified ' the boundaries of all Coastal Resource Areas on the property (hereinafter referred to as "the Site") and served as consultants for the wetland permitting phase of the ' project. Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. (CDM) of Cambridge, Massachusetts conducted Site surveys and served as project engineer. The proposed Site layout and design ' protects the Coastal Resource Areas defined in the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (M.G.L. c.131 s.40) (hereinafter "the Act') and Regulations (310 CMR 10.00) (hereinafter "the Regulations") and the City of Salem Wetlands and Flood ' Hazard District Regulations (hereinafter "the local Ordinance"). ' The District has proposed two alternatives for modification of the existing plant, Concept B (Plan 2) and Concept G (Plan 3). This document identifies and describes the existing protectable Resource Areas and discusses measures to ensure protection of the interests identified in the Act, Regulations and local Ordinance in reference to ' both Concepts. 3.2 SITE LOCATION 1 The existing primary treatment plant is located on a 13.2 acre parcel of land owned by the District on Fort Avenue in Salem, Massachusetts (see Fig. 1 and Section 1). The proposed actions will involve modification to existing structures and construction of 3 - 1 1 45'43'51 Q co 'n.®ice in• •.s w s • � � RT p n o It left LEGEND O ..m •^ 0 0 �y s* ANp AINTRTIpNS Q 1 -0 '"• 4 b ' Flood Zone Boundary jo t r1 100' Wetland Buffer \ NIR FII •� I rb m � j�`VI qhs, czr � (\c -t- A b— . un41 ioyy'Aa. A A7T \00 2 r - op �• J COWAIIyUS FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES C `,`r,"� "r Sccp ^ SQUAR6 ONLY ' > y NDARYLJ O • ' �� h • AQIF or nrY �- b —_� a al A I Q OUTFALL#1A OU`T1 � °metol Bonk 1 .. •.�. ,>e ti • o c�,'. f� �. OUT Coast I ❑ �oBeach / \ \ J ?IIOIM6R YAQ ••.ti \ CXT COVE (4T1AiVTIC OCF.9N) •—� .0 cwst.rr.(s>•Hort pr.py 1 I t C42" COVE JOHN C.B. "ITH AffAlORl (4MiVTIC OCF,4iV) AL POOL 100 50 0 100 200 DESIGNED BY: i CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY: - SOUTH ESSEX SEWERAGE DISTRICT CONCEPT G SHEET CHK'D BY: - SHEET NO. CROSS CHK'O BY: - -- --- -- - APPROVED BY SECONDARY TREATMENT FACILITIES PERMITTING PROPOSED CONDITIONS 3 NO. DATE: planners, & management DATE DRWN CHKD REMARKS environmental engineers, scientists,consultants IA D NO. its, 454351" u , d O LOT IV •A11t v a q q r �''yp •-tel LEGEND +y,o rr w, J ` e Y f�� v d • b Flood Zone Boundary \t I •4•b r � c �5. • , `� gELERY ` gRIF1ERS 1 A+, 5, r \ p a 100' Wetland Buffer " ► A. i kp FIERS \ COLUAfBUS � ��_ rvwa�. •• AN ° r SIpN� S UARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES T`` ti_ •�� ADMIN Q ONLY OUTFAS*__jit , • uIN o� 9017k � a CIV' • of er 9 1 OUTFALL#3 ` • .,, -v ��\ � c etln d B a #VSE Coos Beach • a r.a,uas.ws m aor.• � �\ \\ CAT COVE ('ATLANTIC OCEAN) m w Q \ 1 1 11 01 \ 1 CAT COVE JOHN C.B. SAUTH .Af"ORIAL POOL ('ATLANTIC OCEAN) 100 50 0 100 200 I DESIGNED BY: CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. PROJECT N0. DRAWN BY: SOUTH ESSEX SEWERAGE DISTRICT CONCEPT B SHEET CHWO BY: __ - - SHEET N0. CROSS CHWD, BY: REV ------' APPROVED BY: environmental engineers, scientists,CpM SECONDARY TREATMENT FACILITIES PERMITTING PROPOSED CONDITIONS 2 NO. DATE DRWN CHKD REMARKS DATE: planners, R management consultants 45'4357" W ur — a r o, P,raas ♦ r ♦ r.r _r LEGEND _ � • • / /• PRI I � o r•M 4✓ Flood Zone Boundary 100' Wetland Buffer � ie • n s �'I \ 4_ IBO 0 COL IIA fB US b x mar �6 r� • r"r SQUARE o ` O ¢ • r W" sFOR PERMITTING PURPOSES 01 g • - Ys„�,b . '�' ,�. ONLY O OUTFALL # \' `r � J FA Oak .,, a O I OUTFALL#etIci nd But � Beach ,w,.,,,,, CAT COVE (ATLANTIC OCEA)V) 1\�1 CAT COVE ✓ON.IV C.B. SA/ITH Aff")?IAL POOL (ATLANTIC 0CEAiV) , 100 50 0 100 200 DESIGNED BY: CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY: SOUTH ESSEX SEWERAGE DISTRICT EXISTING PLANT SHEET CHK'D BY: ---- . --.-- ._ _ SHEET N0. CROSS CHK'D BY: REV. APPROVED BY: env;ronmental eng;neers, sa;enfists, SECONDARY TREATMENT FACILITIES PERMITTING PREDEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS N0. DATE DRWN CHKD REMARKS DATE: planners, & management consultants r ' new facilities necessary for secondary wastewater treatment. The Site is bordered to the northeast by the Cat Cove Marine Laboratory, a single family residential area to ' the west and southwest and the New England Power Company generating facility to the south. To the east is the Cat Cove inlet of Salem Harbor, both of which are ' tidally influenced. Most of the perimeter of Cat Cove bordering the Site is stabilized with a concrete retaining wall, while some of the remainder of Cat Cove has been rip- rapped. 3.2.1 SOILS According to the U.S. Soil Conservation Service's Soil Survey of Southern Essex County (1981), soils at the Site are classified as Urban Land (Ur). This indicates that more than 75 percent of the surface is covered by buildings, industrial areas, or ' paved areas. Topography, slope and underlying soil characteristics are highly variable in this soil unit. ' 3.2.2 SITE MAPS AND PLANS The following Figures show the location of the Site on a topographic map (Fig. 1) and a Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map (Fig. 2). Also included are plans showing the Current Site Conditions (Plan 1) and proposed activities under Concepts B (Plan 2) and G (Plan 3). 3.3 PROTECT DESCRIPTION tThe proposed project will involve upgrading of the District's primary wastewater treatment facility on the Site to a secondary"treatment facility. This action is required for the facility to comply with the Clean Water Act, and by a Consent Decree (United States et al. v. South Essex Sewerage District, et al., Civil Action No. 83-2814-Y). Selection of the site and the final plan for treatment plant construction are discussed in the District's documents "Phase II Draft Environmental Impact Report" ' (September 1991) and "Phase II Final Environmental Impact Report and Final Facilities Plan" (May 1992). There are currently two alternative plant layouts under 3-5 ■ -✓ rd ran :kWf ' �SBt tlhr W<Y BMffi 7�- - + b �ma� .colYCq'A,i= Po et 1 0 ' � owbod e»\, , 'r. .��'h th fr ��gM BOR U, It CO.", +P'r. } F \ pt LOOSIo T .; BEVEL 'r HARBOR r dem Neck u 1. N' Ceury r ' Ft F 'y • .i 'aMlk �,R` m 1 gni er / m t Le ,k Pt T� a The site S EM y raa44i OP and � Qr 10 M1l oo � y , T • � v .e-• ' - port Pxkey ng,, zo .- �• - i�ir Spoon h '� ��' alem`\\ �� • �`+ e MElit{de X �X-auihel S e Ye�m:na Ro4h B ,"� tit C o • Wn ,� .' �1k - t / 5 N ugPS_ I F $ARBOR ro _ vC ♦ ° ails 416 Lohg P1 dmer o/dI111er 7 r j,� � •ice_ � M � % Raw xi ForpgfR 1ckeri/ig P7 r N FIGURE 1. SITE LOCATION GULF OF MAINE RESEARCH CENTER PROJECT:SESD Treatment Plant PROJECT NO.: 22140329 Salem MA SCALE: 1' - approx. 2083' DATE: September 3, 1992 SOURCE: USGS 7.5 Minute Topgraphic Series, Salem & Marblehead Nort ZONE A4 P3, 1EL 117AN E� EL 111 \ ZONE 8,' VJ'fNTI"K�- LAN O - ZONE C ON ' \ (DEPTAH PPS 4 ZONE C I jWINTER ISLAN a The Site � I aNE 'ZONE �H C `pP l � i � p �'...xRM 8 ZONE A4 (EL 11) / ZONE ZON ZONE A2 (EL 14) E ' ZONE A4 (EL 10) IVZONEC .. 11:111800 jv FIGURE 2. LOCATION OF ZONE A4 FLOOD HAZARD AREA AT THE SITE GULF OF MAINE RESEARCH CENTER PROJECT:SESD Treatment Plant PROJECT NO.: 22140329 Salem MA SCALE: 1' . approx. 500' DATE: September 3, 1992 ' SOURCE: F.E.M.A. Flood Insurance Rate Maps, Salem, MA; Panels 1 & 2 ' consideration. Concept B was recommended in the Final EIR, while Concept G was later developed as a result of review by an independent conceptual design review ' team. The existing plant layout includes three outfalls into Cat Cove. Neither Concept proposes the addition of outfalls. Work is proposed in the Resource Area ' Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage and in the 100-foot Buffer Zone of the Coastal Bank Resource Area. ' 3.3.1 CONCEPT B ' The plan recommended in the Final EIR (Concept B) proposes minimal work in the Buffer Zone and Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage (LSCSF) Resource Area. ' Components of this Concept which involve activity in the Buffer Zone and LSCSF include rerouting and reconstruction of a road and parking area, demolition of the ' existing chlorination building, construction of new secondary clarifiers and a new administration building, and construction of a stone outlet sediment trap and ' associated drainage swale. These activities have been designed to minimize impact in the Buffer Zone and LSCSF. Section 2, entitled "Project Description", gives further details concerning activities proposed under Concept B. 3.3.2 CONCEPT G The plan proposed after completion of the Final EIR (Concept G) would retain more ' of the existing plant structure and entail more activity in the Buffer Zone and LSCSF than Concept B. Buffer Zone and LSCSF activity under this Concept includes ' upgrades to the effluent pump station, construction of new aeration basins and secondary clarifiers, and construction of a new access road. Stone outlet sediment trap and drainage swale are proposed to minimize impact in the Buffer Zone and ' LSCSF. Section 2, entitled 'Project Description", gives further details concerning activities proposed under Concept G. � I 3- 6 1 3.4 RESOURCE AREA IDENTIFICATION AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ' Any activity proposed or undertaken within an area subject to protection under the Act which will remove, fill, dredge, or alter that area subject to protection under the ' Act requires the filing of a Notice of Intent (310 CMR 10.02). The state Regulations (310 CMR 10.02 2.b.) also provide a 100 foot Buffer Zone outside of the Site's Coastal ' Resource Areas. Any activity in this Buffer Zone must not destroy or otherwise impair a protected Coastal Resource Area. In addition, the Regulations also state that no project shall have an adverse effect on rare vertebrate or invertebrate species that occur within resource areas. The ' Regulations (310 CMR 10.04, 10.59) define a rare species as any vertebrate or invertebrate officially listed as endangered, threatened, or of Special Concern by the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife under 321 CMR 8. ' According to the Regulations, the Site contains or borders on the following protectable Coastal Wetland Resource Areas. ' 3.4.1 COASTAL BANK ' Coastal Bank is defined in the Regulations (310 CMR 10.30) as "the seaward face or side of any elevated landform, other than a coastal dune, which lies at the landward ' edge of a coastal beach, land subject to tidal action, or other wetland". Coastal Bank is considered significant to storm damage prevention and flood control. Coastal ' Banks may supply sediments to coastal beaches, coastal dunes, and barrier beaches. All Coastal Bank present at the site is currently stabilized with a concrete wall, making sedimentation unlikely. No work is proposed in this Resource Area. 3.4.2 LAND SUBJECT TO COASTAL STORM FLOWAGE ' Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage (310 CMR 10.04) is defined as "land subject to ' any inundation caused by coastal storms up to and including that caused by the 100- year storm, surge of record or storm of record, whichever is greater" This Wetland 3- 7 ' Resource Area does not have a one hundred (100) foot Buffer Zone subject to protection under the Act. Unlike other Resource Areas subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection ' Act, Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage does not have a Preamble, Definitions, or Performance Standards regulating its use. The Regulations for Coastal Wetlands ' (310 CMR 10.24, 1.) state that "if the issuing authority determines that a Resource Area is significant to an interest of the Act for which no presumption is stated in the Preamble to the applicable section, the issuing authority shall impose such conditions as are necessary to contribute to the protection of such interest". ' According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map for the City of Salem (1985), portions of the Site are within Zone A4 (elevation 11.0 ' feet N.G.V.D.), an area within the theoretical one hundred (100) year floodplain (Figure 2). According to the same map, the Site does not fall within an area of ' theoretical 100-year coastal flood with wave velocity. The 100-year A-zone floodplain is shown on the accompanying plans for Concepts B and G (Plans 2 &3). 3.4.3 COASTAL BEACH ' Coastal Beach is defined in the Regulations (310 CMR 10.27) as "unconsolidated sediment subject to wave, tidal, and coastal storm action which forms the gently t sloping shore of a body of salt water and includes tidal flats." Coastal Beaches are considered significant to storm damage prevention, flood control and the protection ' of wildlife habitat. They also serve as sediment sources and dissipate wave energy, providing storm damage prevention. No work is proposed in this Resource Area. ' 3.4.4 ROCKY INTERTIDAL SHORE Rocky Intertidal Shore is defined in the Regulations (310 CMR 10.31) as "naturally occuring rocky areas, such as bedrock or boulder-strewn areas between the mean i ' high water line and the mean low water line." Rocky Intertidal Shores are likely to be significant to storm damage prevention, flood control, and protection of habitat 3- 8 . ' for marine fisheries, wildlife, and potentially for shellfish. No work is proposed in this Resource Area. 3.4.5 LAND UNDER THE OCEAN Land Under the Ocean is defined in the Regulations (310 CMR 10.25) as"land extending from the mean low water line seaward to the boundary of the municipality's jurisdiction and including estuaries." Nearshore areas of Land ' Under the Ocean are likely to be significant to storm damage prevention, flood control, and protection of wildlife habitat. No work is proposed in this Resource Area. 3.4.6 LAND CONTAINING SHELLFISH ' Land Containing Shellfish is defined in the.Regulations (310 CMR 10.34) as "land ' under the ocean, tidal flats, rocky intertidal shores, salt marshes and land under salt ponds when any such land contains shellfish." Land Containing Shellfish is significant to the protection of shellfish populations and marine fisheries. No work is proposed in this Resource Area. ' 3.4.7 BUFFER ZONE tThe Buffer Zone is defined in the Regulations (310 CMR 10.04) as "that area of land extending one hundred (100) feet horizontally outward from the boundary of any ' area specified in 310 CMR 10.02(1)(a)." Unlike Resource Areas subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act, Buffer Zone does not have a Preamble, Definitions, or Performance Standards regulating its use. Regulation 310 CMR 10.05 (3)(a)(2) requires filing of a Notice of Intent for any activity in a Buffer Zone. Said activity may not alter or otherwise negatively impact the adjacent Resource Areas. ' For the purposes of this filing, Buffer Zone was defined as the area of land extending one hundred (100) feet horizontally outward from the boundary of Coastal Bank. ' Because Coastal Bank is the most landward of the Resource Areas present at the Site, ' 3-9 ' this definition provides maximum protection for all Areas defined under the Act, Regulations and local Ordinance. ' 3.5 MITIGATION AND PROTECTION MEASURES ' Several measures will be employed during and after the construction period to minimize impacts on protectable Resource Areas. These measures apply to either Concept B or Concept G. Diagrams and detailed descriptions of erosion control ' structures are presented in Section 5. Silt fences will be placed downgradient from all construction areas to reduce sedimentation into protectable Resource Areas. Silt fences will delineate a "no- work" zone, beyond which no human activity or construction equipment will be permitted. A stone outlet sediment trap downgradient from a permanent rip-rapped t drainage swale will collect and filter runoff during the construction process. Storm inlet sediment traps will filter storm runoff prior to its entering catch basins. Filter Boxes and Block and Gravel Filters placed throughout the Site, will provide further ' filtering of surface runoff before it reaches outfalls to Cat Cove. Filters will be inspected and cleaned periodically to ensure proper operation, especially prior to ' and/or following extreme rain events. A temporary diversion swale will be constructed to concentrate runoff and minimize overland flow and erosion. This swale will be positioned and graded to maximize interception of surface runoff. Permanent drainage structures will be in place early in construction and will be lined with erosion control blankets. Block and gravel filter boxes will protect the permanent drainage system from silt buildup and ensure that the outfall to Cat Cove ' is free of sediment. Grading and use of rip-rap in the permanent drainage system will prevent erosion and minimize velocity of outflow. 3- 10 CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. MEMORANDUM TO: Salem Conservation Commission Members FROM: Jane Wheeler ;�•/v SUBJECT: Requested documents and plans for SESD WWTP Notice of Intent DATE: September 28, 1992 As you requested at the September 24, 1992 hearing, enclosed is one copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted on behalf of the South Essex Sewerage District. Each of the seven members of the Commission and Mr. David Graber, one of the City of Salem's technical consultants, are provided with a copy of this NOI. At the September 24 hearing, the Commission also requested copies of the landscaping plan for each concept. The landscaping plan is part of the erosion and sedimentation control plans, which are included in each copy of the NOI. However, we will provide one photographed set of the colored landscaping plans, as presented at the September 24 hearing, to each Commission member at the October 2 site walk. In addition to the above information, we are also submitting an errata to the original NOI submission. Section 3.6 Site Drainage (page 3-11) incorrectly summarized some of the increases in impervious area, peak runoff rate, and increases in total volume of drainage. This page has been corrected in the enclosed copy of the NOI. We apologize in advance for any confusion this may have caused. We will also notify MDEP of this correction. Section 4.0, which discusses site drainage in detail is correct as originally submitted. We are also submitting a copy of backup engineering calculations and computer outputs generated for the site drainage section (Section 4.0) in order to supplement the information regarding site drainage. r CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. Memorandum Salem Conservation Commission September 28, 1992 page 2 If there are any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. John Darling of Serafini, Serafini & Darling at (508) 744-0212 , or me at (617) 252-8230. We look forward to meeting with you again on October 2 and 8. Enclosures cc: MDEP Northeast Region John Darling, SS&D Hugh Mulligan, GOMRC Ray Masak, SESD Files I 3.6 SITE DRAINAGE Quantity and velocity of drainage from the site will not significantly increase as a result of either proposed action. Under current conditions, outfalls and overland flow on the Site drain a total of 21.1 acres, including some off-site areas. Actions proposed under Concept B would increase the impervious area on the Site from 6.4 acres to 8.7 acres. However, total volume of runoff for the statistical 10-year storm would increase by only 5 percent, and peak discharge would decrease by 6 precent. Under Concept G, the impervious area increases to 9.2 acres, total volume of runoff for the 10-year storm increases 5 percent, and peak discharge increases 8 percent. Runoff volume from the 100-year storm would increase 4 and 6 percent, respectively, under Concept B and G. Results from computer modelling of drainage characteristics are given in Section 4. 3.7 WATER QUALITY Neither proposed action will generate any pollutants in the outfall to Cat Cove which would impede the present uses of Salem Harbor. Pollutants in runoff are expected to be at or below the levels typical for roadway runoff, and are presented in Section 4. Chemical pollution of the outfall discharge will be prevented by a recycling system from chemical holding areas to the plant recycle sewer. This will prevent direct discharge of chemicals in the event of a spill in these areas. Filtering systems discussed in section 3.5 of this report will remove many pollutants which may be present in surface runoff. During construction, fueling and lubrication of construction equipment will not be allowed in the LSCSF or Buffer Zone. All petroleum products, fuels and lubricants will be stored off-site or in appropriate, clearly marked containers that are protected from rainwater. Construction activities on the Site will be regulated under a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System stormwater permit, requiring protection of designated water uses of surrounding water bodies and mitigation of pollution from site runoff. 3- 11 1 r 3.6 SITE DRAINAGE ' Quantity and velocity of drainage from the site will not significantly increase as a result of either proposed action. Under current conditions, outfalls and overland ' flow on the Site drain a total of 21.2 acres, including some off-site areas. Actions proposed under Concept B would increase the impervious area on the Site from 6.4 acres to 8.8 acres. However, total volume of runoff for the statistical 10-year storm would increase by only 5 percent, and peak discharge would decrease by 4 precent. Under Concept G, the impervious area increases to 8.7 acres, total volume of runoff ' for the 10-year storm increases 5 percent, and peak discharge increases 8 percent. Runoff volume from the 100-year storm would increase 3 and 4 percent, respectively, under Concept B and G. Results from computer modelling of drainage characteristics are given in Section 4. 3.7 WATER QUALITY ' Neither proposed action will generate any pollutants in the outfall to Cat Cove which would impede the present uses of Salem Harbor. Pollutants in runoff are ' expected to be at or below the levels typical for roadway runoff, and are presented in Section 4. Chemical pollution of the outfall discharge will be prevented by a recycling system from chemical holding areas to the plant recycle sewer. This will prevent direct discharge of chemicals in the event of a spill in these areas. Filtering ' systems discussed in section 3.5 of this report will remove many pollutants which may be present in surface runoff. ' During construction, fueling and lubrication of construction equipment will not be allowed in the LSCSF or Buffer Zone. All petroleum products, fuels and lubricants ' will be stored off-site or in appropriate, clearly marked containers that are protected from rainwater. Construction activities on the Site will be regulated under a ' National Pollution Discharge Elimination System stormwater permit, requiring protection of designated water uses of surrounding water bodies and mitigation of ' pollution from site runoff. 3- 11 ' 3.8 RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES According to the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife's Atlas of Estimated Habitats of State-Listed Rare Wetlands Wildlife (1992 edition), no Estimated Habitat exists at the Site. Therefore, an Appendix A filing (310 CMR 10.37) is not required and no additional measures to protect rare or endangered species are ' necessary. 3.9 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONS Construction plans for both Concepts have provided for sufficient site preparation ' and mitigation measures to minimize impact on protectable Resource Areas both on and off the Site. Direct impacts will be limited to minor construction in the Buffer ' Zone and Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage, which will not negatively impact quality or quantity of any Resource Areas present in Cat Cove. The Resource Areas ' Coastal Bank and Coastal Beach will be protected by silt fences, and no activity will be allowed in these Resource Areas. The construction plans provide structrual and procedural measures to minimize erosion, sedimentation and pollution and will ' ensure that quantity and quality of outfall from the treatment plant, both during and after construction, will not adversely impact any Resource Areas. 3- 12 1 1 1 � I 1 T i Section n - Four i � 4.0 EXISTING AND PROPOSED SITE DRAINAGE 4.1 INTRODUCTION This attachment describes the existing and proposed drainage conditions for the ' South Essex Sewerage District Secondary Wastewater Treatment Facility. Three site plans are described--the existing site and the proposed Concept B and Concept G, one ' of which will be constructed by the District. The evaluation of the site drainage includes peak flows and flow volumes for the existing site and the two proposed site ' layouts. Water quality impacts from construction and long-term operation of the plant are also evaluated. The site drainage work will take place within the 100-foot ' Buffer Zone of Coastal Bank; however, the existing storm drain outfalls will be used so that work in wetland resource areas will be limited to Coastal Land Subject to tStorm Flowage. ' 4.2 METHODOLOGY 4.2.1 FLOW QUANTITY ' The hydrologic analysis for changes in flow quantities involves the determination of storm runoff quantities and flow rates for different storm frequencies from rainfall ' and catchment data such as land use, slope and soil types. The methodology used to perform the hydrologic analysis was developed by the U.S. Soil Conservation ' Service: "Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds", June 1986, Technical Release 55 (TR-55). This method, recommended by DEP, establishes a rainfall-runoff relationship for drainage areas and allows for the computation of peak discharges and runoff volumes at select locations. A computerized version of this model is available, and was,used for this analysis. 1 4- 1 r i ' The TR-55 model requires as input: size of subdrainage area, curve numbers, land use types, time of concentration and rainfall distribution specific to the site's location. For this analysis, four subdrainage areas were used: Outfall 1, Outfall 3, overland east and overland south. Curve numbers were developed to represent the ' infiltration characteristics of each subarea and were based on the hydrologic soil group and the land use. This site is underlain by type C and D (high runoff) soils, and includes land use types categorized as impervious (buildings and pavement), pervious (gravel and open space) and mixed (residential). ' Flow paths were developed for calculating the time of concentration for each ' subarea. Each path typically includes segments of overland flow (sheet flow and shallow concentrated flow) and pipe flow. Travel times for each segment are based ' on the slope of the land and the land cover and summed to determine the time of concentration. ' The design rainfall pattern used in this analysis is the SCS Type III rainfall L ' distribution developed for the east coast. This rainfall distribution has become the standard SCS design rainfall pattern for use in the coastal regions of New England. The TR-55 model can be used to compute peak discharges and runoff hydrographs at ' selected locations. For this analysis, the 10-year and 100-year storm frequencies were examined and the peak discharges were calculated for these storms as required for the Notice of Intent. 4.2.2 WATER QUALITY Existing storm water quality data from the literature were used for this evaluation ' since no storm water data are available for the site. For construction impacts, it was assumed that storm runoff from excavated areas would require some type of treatment before discharging to the harbor. Data for groundwater are available from ' 4- 2 ' a Phase I Limited Site Investigation conducted under M.G.L. c.21(e) and the Massachusetts Contingency Plan. 4.3 PERMANENT DRAINAGE SYSTEMS 4.3.1 EXISTING SITE DRAINAGE The existing site is subdivided into four major drainage areas: Outfall 1, Outfall 3, overland east and overland south (see Plan 4). Drainage from the existing wastewater treatment facility collects in two separate storm drain systems, and discharges to the ocean through Outfall 1 and Outfall 3. Runoff from east and south of the facility bypasses the storm drain system and flows directly to the ocean as overland runoff. The total drainage area, including on-site and off-site areas, is approximately 21.1 acres. In addition, a portion of the adjacent New England Power Company site will be used as a construction staging and lay-down area. This area will be equipped with a silt fence, although no work is proposed there. ' The existing storm drain system to Outfall 1 consists of an extensive network of ' pipes, sized from 12 to 36 inches, which drain the majority of the treatment plant site. Outfall 1 is a 36-inch pipe, and preliminary calculations show that it has a ' capacity of about 70 cubic feet per second (cfs). It has a drainage area of 8.4 acres. The existing storm drain system to Outfall 3 consists of several 15-inch pipes which receive mostly overland drainage from the undeveloped eastern portion of the site as well as off-site. Outfall 3 is a 10-inch pipe with an estimated capacity of about 2 cfs, ' and its drainage area is 10.2 acres. The drainage area consists of 6.3 acres of impervious area, 11.5 acres of pervious area ' and 3.3 acres of residential (mixed) area from off-site, north of Fort Avenue. Outfall 1 receives 8.4 acres of drainage, outfall 3 receives 10.2 acres of drainage, the overland ' east area is 1.8 acres, and the overland south area is 0.7 acres. Table 4-1 shows the subdrainage areas for existing conditions. 4- 3 MEMORIAL DRIVE / N d� • Q a 4's nd b <q o \ 4k�/V o O O MEMO IAL o _ VIE- )y eny O U O VV o S / cp r 40 u o 'o s ss oa DcNn RESTgURgNT ROW Ln _b D So _ 1p1 0 b O .Ya c i _ . <w Outfall 1 a L 1 T 1 O O I TfA'IN!'t BUS + v rra! �y 4 UTFALL 1 1 fG. � � ,�c. • 11 C b ° /\ coL COLIWBUS u BUs SQUARE A VE CJ✓ wove ° ..w uR - r... [� Overland a Q Q OUTFAtC'#1 OUTFALL#2 r. u a Q OUTFALL#3 t lff W\ � Y ✓ ' a CAT COVE ATLANTIC OCEAN) Q ' ' , _�- \ O 1 FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY CAT CONE JOHN C.B. SWITH MEWORIAL POOL 1 ATLANTIC OCEANS / O ALVIN C. y PP`.t11N N CIVf L l Cl °a' 100 50 0 100 200 DES�CNEO BY: - _— CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. PROJECT No. DRAWN BY: _ SOUTH ESSEX SEWERAGE DISTRICT EXISTING PLANT SHEET CHK'D BY: _ _ _ ` SHEET N0. CROSS CHK'D BY: REV' DATE DRWN CHKD REMARKS APPROVED BY: gs �D� SECONDARY TREATMENT FACILITIES PERMITTING PREDEVELOPMENT WATERSHEDS 4 N0, DATE: planner; & manog"wtconsultonfs TABLE 4-1 Existing Drainage Conditions Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant South Essex Sewerage District Peak Runoff Rates(cfs) Subdrainage Area Characteristics(acres) Total Drainage Area Impervious Pervious Mixed Subdrainage 10-year 100-year Roof Pavement Gravel Open Space Residential Area Outfall1 25 39 1.7 2.8 0.4 3.5 8.4 Outfall3 22 37 0.1 1.7 0.1 5.0 3.3 10.2 Overland East 4 7 1.8 1.8 Overland South 2 3 0.4 0.3 0.7 TOTALS 53 86 1.8 4.5 0.9 10.6 3.3 21.1 Note:Peak runoff rates are theoretical maximums,achieved only if peaks occur simultaneously. r ' 4.3.2 PROPOSED SITE DRAINAGE- CONCEPT B ' The proposed facility will include modifications to the Operation and Maintenance building and two new buildings, with associated driveways and parking. Drainage to ' Outfall 1 will increase to 8.5 acres, drainage to Outfall 3 will decrease to 7.8 acres, drainage from the overland east area will increase to 3.3 acres, and drainage from the roverland south area increases to 1.2 acres as more area is diverted off-site. Total site drainage is decreased by 0.3 acres under this scenario, as some drainage from Fort Avenue is diverted off-site (see Plan 5). Under this proposed scenario, the impervious area will increase to 8.7 acres, thereby decreasing the pervious area to 8.8 acres. The residential area off-site (north of Fort Avenue) will continue to drain onto Fort Avenue, but instead of discharging to open land as it does now, the Fort Avenue storm drain system will be connected to r the proposed drainage network to Outfall 3. Table 4-2 shows the subdrainage areas for the proposed conditions under Concept B. Table 4-3 presents a comparison of existing and proposed peak runoff from the site, at the four identified locations and in combination. Additionally, this table reports the total runoff volume expected (per unit of drainage area) from the site under r Concept B. While the impervious areas increase by 37 percent with construction of the new facility, the table shows that for the 10-year storm, the total volume of runoff increases by only 5 percent, and the peak discharge rate increases by 6 percent. 4.3.3 PROPOSED SITE DRAINAGE -CONCEPT G ' r The proposed facility will include modifications to the administration building and rtwo new buildings, with associated driveways and parking. Drainage to Outfall 1 will increase to 9.8 acres, drainage to Outfall 3 will decrease to 8.0 acres, drainage from the overland east area will increase to 2.7 acres as more flow is diverted off-site, and drainage from the overland south area will remain 0.7 acres (see Plan 6). 1 ' � 4- 6 -- — -- ---- -- — 1 ,Ad, U L t \ d� MEMORIA DRIVE Q q ��a d Oo 00 < qR Oo iN MEMO IAL kO O Oa > \a ci SNF 0 AVE � o � ao O VIOTORY � \ O � s 0 E: O L S RES TgURgNT O R°w N O (A � r • • S SO S °Lot - o -I � ce q y 1 1 °•��r n� ` PT/yARY yy� "'7' 4 °k V. A � � .� ° -• " Outfall 1 /• Y ` b ` OP uw Ii. a o _ _ _ - c 1 I A�LERY R•-, ' - - ' • �y' i s + tr � COLUMBUS oOLU BUS qVE ADMIN .va mw•ortyvr 12vawtund El $ tanYwGsnev � � 9pyu�` , awvarw sxuwr o Q w OU . o , TFALL#1 •�� a � OUTFALL#2 • Q OUTFALL#3 --��---� ,o � 0 /\ � •• ® may,py � P_' Il J/tl y 10 7 (/ R• Y- — 13 a o-nc. e /{/ •a°•na{°.T[DOC '\��\� I • 4/ !F MOI M 2R IMRI' '011 lM• \ \ CAT COVE • �{� �' \� \�� O ATLANTIC OCEAN) D I wwDw.a a \ � FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY CAT COVE JOHN C.D. SMITH MEMORIAL POOL (ATLANTIC OCEAN) • ��M p`,ygps `. U �� 100 50 0 100 200 T .i PROJECT NO. DESIGNED BY: CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. DRAWN BY. SOUTH ESSEX SEWERAGE DISTRICT CONCEPT B SHEET N0. SHEET CHK'D BY: CROSS CHK'D BY: - -- APPROVED BY: SECONDARY TREATMENT FACILITIES PERMITTING POSTDEVELOPMENT WATERSHEDS Rte' DATE DRWN CHKD REMARKS DATE: P environmental& ma gement scientists, �D� N0. /anners, R management consultants TABLE 4-2 Concept B Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant South Essex Sewerage District Peak Runoff Rates(cfs) Subdrainage Area Characteristics(acres) Total Drainage Area Impervious Pervious Mixed Subdrainage 10-year 100-year Roof Pavement Gravel Open Space Residential Area Outfall1 26 41 3.1 2.0 0.1 3.3 8.5 °o Outfall3 19 30 1.5 1.6 1.4 3.3 7.8 Overland East 8 14 0.5 2.8 3.3 Overland South 3 5 0.4 0.8 1.2 TOTALS 56 90 4.6 4.1 0.5 8.3 3.3 20.8 Note:Peak runoff rates are theoretical maximums,achieved only if peaks occur simultaneously. TABLE 4-3 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Drainage Concept B Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant South Essex Sewerage District i Peak Runoff Rates (cfs) Drainage Areas (acres) Description 10-Year Storm 100-Year Storm Description Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Outfall1 25 26 39 41 Impervious 6.3 8.7 Outfall3 22 19 37 30 Pervious 11.5 8.8 Overland East 4 8 7 14 Overland South 2 3 3 5 Mixed 3.3 3.3 Total Peak Runoff from Site* 53 56 86 90 (cfs) Total Drainage 21.1 20.8 Total Volume Runoff** Area per unit of Drainage Arev 3.1 3.3 5 5.2 (inches) * Note: Theoretical peak runoff, achieved only if peaks occur simultaneously. ** Note: Average of Total Volume Runoff per unit of Drainage Area of Outfall 1 and Outfall 3. 1 Q� MEMORIAL DRIVE a � O Q a .�o \ �� r„o . o0 LO �qR OO MEMO I AL Q D IVe a O VIOTORY ROgO � \ 0 Ln / / RESTgURgNT LI-1 ROW O N • N M Y�• O 0 a ra umr S ter 1 1 O 11 11 / `4"jn it j s OR4trr r<.vii;r 1 A 0 U tf o l I avp ISTIpATlpk a y PqE i e r4 a a \ RY AR N 1 = .GAtt �;�-- COLU O S ASI a' \ COLUWUS BUAVE SQU,4RE U7 ^-� SECpN �r � �as tl � K m•blM -j. � k twvsrrernK rrur arur war �1/e/�nnd S .�. +� r V• •,9c:Ya(sr.wrr rrr. o " OU I r A #1 �' O w OUTFALL#2 , i • ° u � Q OUTFALL#3 IM ., y ropy C,4T COVE (4TL,4/VTIC OCEWV) N AinPotlWrt 90[ .nr rort o \ 101 FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES \• �\ `��' ' ONLY C,4T COVE JOHN C.A. SAIITII AEAIOR14L POOL 1\ A (ATLdiVT/C OCEAN / i Y f 12MIN , 0 U` Yic. 100 50 0 100 200 ONAL �N I , OJ DESIGNED BY: CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. PRECT NO. - - -� DRAWN BY: SOUTH ESSEX SEWERAGE DISTRICT CONCEPT G -- — --- -- - --- -- - SHEET CHK'D BY: - SHEET NO. CROSS CHK'D BY: -- APPROVED BY: SECONDARY TREATMENT FACILITIES PERMITTING POSTDEVELOPMENT WATERSHEDS NO. 6 REV. DATE: plonners, B management connsultsult or(DATE DRWN CHKD REMARK'S environmental engineer, nts CDM Under this proposed scenario, the impervious area will increase to 9.2 acres, thereby decreasing the pervious area to 8.7 acres. The residential area off-site (north of Fort Avenue) will continue to drain onto Fort Avenue, but instead of discharging to f open land as it does now, the Fort Avenue storm drain system will be connected to the proposed drainage network to Outfall 3. Table 4-4 displays the subdrainage areas for the proposed conditions under Concept G. Table 4-5 presents a comparison of existing and proposed peak runoff from the site, at the four identified locations and in combination. Additionally, this table reports p the total runoff volume expected (per unit of drainage area) from the site under Concept G. The table shows that impervious areas increase by 43 percent with construction of the new facility, while for the 10-year storm, the total volume of runoff and increases by 5 percent, the peak discharge rate increases somewhat by 8 percent. 4.3.4 CONCLUSIONS The results from the TR-55 model show that increases in the quantity of runoff from the site, for both Concepts B and G, will be small. These changes will not increase Flooding problems downstream because the site discharges to the ocean. Therefore, increases in stormwater flows are not considered a problem. 4.4 CONSTRUCTION PHASE DRAINAGE SYSTEM 4.4.1 STORM WATER DRAINAGE During construction, the two existing outfalls and portions of the existing drainage systems will continue to be used. Temporary drainage facilities will be also be constructed that will drain to the existing system. Conceptual site drainage is shown on Plans 4 5 for Concept B and Plans 4,to -7 for Concept G (See Section 5). 7 and 8 9 and 10 \ 9r,, `//f 4- 11 1 ' ' Under this proposed scenario, the impervious area will increase to 9.2 acres, thereby decreasing the pervious area to 8.7 acres. The residential area off-site (north of Fort Avenue) will continue to drain onto Fort Avenue, but instead of discharging to open land as it does now, the Fort Avenue storm drain system will be connected to ' the proposed drainage network to Outfall 3. Table 4-4 displays the subdrainage areas for the proposed conditions under Concept G. 1 Table 4-5 presents a comparison of existing and proposed peak runoff from the site, at the four identified locations and in combination. Additionally, this table reports the total runoff volume expected (per unit of drainage area) from the site under Concept G. The table shows that impervious areas increase by 43 percent with construction of the new facility, while for the 10-year storm, the total volume of runoff and increases by 5 percent, the peak discharge rate increases somewhat by 8 ' percent. 1 4.3.4 CONCLUSIONS ' The results from the TR-55 model show that increases in the quantity of runoff from the site, for both Concepts B and G, will be small. These changes will not increase ' flooding problems downstream because the site discharges to the ocean. Therefore, increases in stormwater flows are not considered a problem. ' 4.4 CONSTRUCTION PHASE DRAINAGE SYSTEM 1 4.4.1 STORM WATER DRAINAGE ' During construction, the two existing outfalls and portions of the existing drainage 1 systems will continue to be used. Temporary drainage facilities will be also be constructed that will drain to the existing system. Conceptual site drainage is shown on Plans 4 and 5 for Concept B and Plans 6 and 7 for Concept G (See Section 5). it 4- 11 TABLE 4-4 Concept G Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant South Essex Sewerage District Peak Runoff Rates(cfs) Subdrainage Area Characteristics(acres) Total Drainage Area Impervious Pervious Mixed Subdrainage 10-year 100-year Roof Pavement Gravel Open Space Residential Area Outfall1 30 47 2.7 3.1 0.6 3.4 9.8 n Outfall3 18 29 1.4 1.5 1.8 3.3 8.0 Overland East 7 12 0.5 2.2 2.7 Overland South 2 3 0.4 0.3 0.7 TOTALS 57 91 4.1 5.1 1.0 7.7 3.3 21.2 Note:Peak runoff rates are theoretical maximums,achieved only if peaks occur simultaneously. TABLE 4-5 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Drainage Concept G Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant South Essex Sewerage District Peak Runoff Rates (cfs) Drainage Areas (acres) Description 10-Year Storm 100-Year Storm Description Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Outfall1 25 30 39 47 Impervious 6.3 9.2 Outfall3 22 18 37 29 Pervious 11.5 8.7 Overland East 4 7 7 12 Overland South 2 2 3 3 Mixed 3.3 3.3 Total Peak Runoff from Site* 53 57 86 91 (cfs) Total Drainage 21.1 21.2 Total Volume Runoff** Area r unit of Drainage Are 3.1 3.3 5 5.3 (inches) * Note: Theoretical peak runoff, achieved only if peaks occur simultaneously. ** Note: Average of Total Volume Runoff per unit of Drainage Area of Outfall 1 and Outfall 3. ' 4.4.2 DEWATERING ' Dewatering operations will be required to lower the water table for construction of foundations. Sumps and well points will be installed by the contractor near ' excavation areas and will pump continuously to maintain a lowered water table. This water will discharge to the storm drain system under the provisions of the ' NPDES storm water permit for the construction site. All water from the dewatering system will pass through a sediment trap. The pumping rate is expected to be 150 to 200 gallons per minute (0.3 to 0.4 cfs). 4.5 STORMWATER QUALITY ' The construction and long-term operation of the plant will be covered by separate NPDES permits and state surface water discharge permits. Therefore, the eight ' interests specified in the Wetlands Protection Act are presumed to be protected as stipulated by 310 CMR 10.03(4). Because the drainage system is proposed rather than existing, water quality data for storm water are not available. Instead, data from engineering studies and reports for ' similar land use types have been used to estimate the storm water quality of the proposed drainage system. The system will collect surface runoff from rooftops, ' roadways, parking areas, and grass areas (references are included at the end of this Attachment). The following is a list of pollutants and the expected levels to be ' generated by the site: ' Pollutant Flow-weighted Composite (mg/1) Oil and grease 110 Biochemical oxygen demand 1 Chemical oxygen demand 65 Total suspended solids 10.2 ' Total Kjeldahl nitrogen 1.5 Nitrate and nitrite nitrogen 0.68 4- 14 Total phosphorus 0.44 Zinc 0.16 ' Copper 0.034 Lead 0.144 These pollutants, at these concentrations, will not impair the existing or the designated uses of Salem Harbor. Under state regulations, the Harbor is a SB ' waterbody with restricted shellfishing and combined sewer overflows. The proposed facility will not generate any unusual pollutants or pollutants in excess of typical roadway runoff levels. All chemicals will be stored indoors with provisions for containing spills. Drains in the chemical tank holding areas and chemical filling areas are connected to the plant recycle sewer, preventing chemical discharges through the storm drain system. ' For stormwater discharges, therefore, all performance standards will be met for the wetland resource areas to which the site drains. These resource areas and their ' performance standards are summarized below: Land Under the Ocean There will be no: - altering of bottom topography (310 CMR 10.25(5)) or - adverse effects on specified habitat sites of rare species (310 CMR 10.25(7)). ' The project will be designed and constructed using the best available measures to minimize adverse effects on marine fisheries habitat or wildlife habitat (310 ' CMR 10.25(6). ' Coastal Beach ' There will be no adverse effects on: erosion or sediment transport (310 CMR 27(3)) or t 4- 15 specified habitat sites of rare species (310 CMR 10.27(7)). ' The project will be designed and constructed using the best available measures to minimize adverse effects on marine fisheries habitat or wildlife habitat (310 ' CMR 10.27(6)). ' Coastal Bank ' There will be no adverse effects: due to wave action on the movement of sediment (310 CMR 10.30(4)), ' - on the stability of the Coastal Bank (310 CMR 10.30(6)), or on specified habitat sites of rare species (310 CMR 10.30(8)). ' During construction, adverse water quality impacts could occur because of erosion ' and sedimentation. An erosion and sedimentation control plan to prevent this is described in the next section. ' 4.6 DEWATERING ' During construction, water from the dewatering of the excavations will be discharged through the storm drain system. Data for groundwater quality are ' available from the Phase I Limited Site Investigation that was conducted in 1992. This study concluded that it is unlikely that soil or water removed during ' construction will pose any threat to human health or the environment. Additional sampling at the site will be conducted at the site to confirm this. 4- 16 REFERENCES FOR STORMWATER RUNOFF QUALITY Gietz, R.J., Stormwater Runoff Treatment by Impoundment: Barrhaven Pilot Study, Works Department Pollution Control Division Regional Municipality of Ottawa Canada, 1975. ' Klemetson, Stanley L., "Factors Affecting Stream Transport of Combined Sewer Overflow Sediments;' in Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 57 No. 5, May 1985. ' Schueler, Thomas R., Controlling Urban Runoff, Washington Metropolitan Water Resourses Planning Board, 1987. ' Table 1.1 "Urban 'C' Values for Use with the Simple Method;' National NURP ' Study Average (1983). 4- 17 a J ------------- ,yv Section Five fD U7 5.0 SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES During construction of the proposed facility, soil erosion and sediment control measures are proposed which are applicable to either Concept B or Concept G. These measures are designed to maintain existing drainage patterns wherever possible, provide for temporary drainage systems where required, and limit the amount of sediment leaving the site. i. i; li A temporary gravel construction entrance is proposed adjacent to the administration 4 "' and maintenance building. A vehicle washdown station is proposed for the vicinity of the proposed oxygen generation facility. The washdown station will be equipped with a silt fence and will drain to a storm inlet sediment trap which will discharge to the storm drain system. Two stone outlet sediment traps, designed to accommodate i a maximum drainage area of 5 acres each, are proposed to collect runoff during jl construction, provide for site dewatering, and filter sediment. In Concept B, one trap is proposed at the downstream end of a temporary diversion Swale. Additionally, storm inlet sediment traps are proposed for existing catch basins. Silt fences are proposed downstream of all construction activity. Details for each of these measures are provided as part of the Notice of Intent. A site specific layout for Concept B is shown on Sheet No.-G-8-aM-G-9- The layout for Concept G is shown on Sheet No.-C—„ -aj�ckE-8- 7 and 9and 10 Cy/ Y s Y qt: 5- 1 y4 t{ ' 5.0 SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES During construction of the proposed facility, soil erosion and sediment control ' measures are proposed which are applicable to either Concept B or Concept G. These measures are designed to maintain existing drainage patterns wherever possible, ' provide for temporary drainage systems where required, and limit the amount of sediment leaving the site. ' A temporary gravel construction entrance is proposed adjacent to the administration ' and maintenance building. A vehicle washdown station is proposed for the vicinity of the proposed oxygen generation facility. The washdown station will be equipped ' with a silt fence and will drain to a storm inlet sediment trap which will discharge to the storm drain system. Two stone outlet sediment traps, designed to accommodate ' a maximum drainage area of 5 acres each, are proposed to collect runoff during construction, provide for site dewatering, and filter sediment. In Concept B, one trap ' is proposed at the downstream end of a temporary diversion swale. Additionally, storm inlet sediment traps are proposed for existing catch basins. Silt fences are ' proposed downstream of all construction activity. Details for each of these measures are provided as part of the Notice of Intent. A site specific layout for Concept B is shown on Sheet No. C-8 and C-9. The layout for Concept G is shown on Sheet No. C- ' 7 and C-8. 5- 1 t ' SILT PIT FILTER BERM EXISTING GRADE 3' MIN 1 �- 1 .5' 5' S h•h•h•h•h•h•h h 'i i !•r•r•r•r r•i•r• 1 �.. M1•\•M1.h•h•h•h•h•h•M1•h•1:1 1 f•I•J f•r•hJ !•JV M•r r•/•J•. .5' Min. 2 4 4•h K•h hN•litii\.M1K•M1 YYh•h J I f•IN fMN•H fN•J•rNM•!•J•. ♦•h•h•♦•5.h•ti.h.M1•ti.\•h•h.1.h•h.h•h.h.• ^"�:. r•!•r•J•r•r r•J•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•!•f•r•. _•h.tii i�i:i:i:i�•h.h.h.vah.M1. M1.M1.M1.M1.M1.h.h.h.. h•h•M1 r•r r.l.l.f,:`:�r�:i:.r.J.r.J.f.r! 4h•Yh•M1•M1•h' 77�� 1•M1•\.L.L.h•h:\:4aiL.ti:4�{�4 T max ' :�•:�\:M1:•::... r:r.r.r.:.:.:. 1 �—RIP-RAP FILTER FABRIC 1 COARSE AGGREGATE FILTER SECTION 1 DESIGN SETTLED TOP 1 5' MIN. WIDTH OVERFILL 6"-2:1 FOR SETTLEMENT 2' Mi (COMPACTED FILL) 11 .5 Ft. Min. •fy:ti�4:ti•4itiitiiti�hJh�hr 1 .5 Ft. Min. r;;•r r•r;::tr 2:1 SIDE SLOPE MAX 1 2' Max. FILTER FABRIC 1 3' Min. NATURAL GROUND 1 EXCAVATED SOIL ELEVATION IN PIT SECTION. 1 BERM SILT PIT 1 TRAP# B WIDTH LENGTH 1 1 2 3 ' 4 1 1 SEDIMENT TRAP 1 7 NOT TO SCALE 2:1 SLOPE. COARSE r'i % ;i%iSi1}iiitiiti; ;:i:i:;3;i;:i;:, ' '••••'•'� • ' • • • • 4.y YL•.....• AGGREGATE FILTER c::::':::::::::::l::J:J::::::::::::.:.J.:•J.:.r.J :i:r:i�i�: •J;l;:::•J C.M.0 AS SPECIFIED �.r•r• r r•r•J J J : 4.4 ..• •J;J;J;fir yry!!iil�% • 4.4.4.4• 4.4.4.4H•' DRAIN INLET A4•• 1.4.4.4.Li: :i.i.i.f;i •J;J•r;f• tir•f•r•f•f J•!•J•J•f •.,.4....... � 1.4.4..,.4. �'r•::i ,•'�•r•J;i1i 13 •f:i: f:i•i 1.1.4•..•4. �r�r;�:�J r rNHH•f .f.i.J.: 4.4.•..••.4. bL•V,.•4r m El Li4r4ihil' •r•J•J.J.r / f.f.r.f•r •r;j;l;:;: ,.1,4+4 4�4J4�' TOP COURSE C.M.0 •• • 1.•.••,••,.•,.•..h.4.4.4.••.4.4.,.4.4.4.4.4.4.•,. `i;i;:;i;isi•r•J•r•r.f•J•J•r•J•J•r•r•r•J•J•J•r•ra•r•r • 4•••••.••.••.•4.1.4.4.1•h••.•1.4.4•L•4.4.4•h•y1• 'OPEN AT TOP ::`'`•';'1?1�1r;;1J;;;r.J.r.r.f.l...l.f...l.r.l.r.l. 'J•J•:•j;:•f•i�f•i:J; L.\•4.4•.,•4.4.4.4.4.4.4.1.4•• r•J•r•r•J•r•r•J•r•J•r•r•J•r•: ..4.L • 4.4.. 4.L.4.\.4•h•4•..•L•1.4.4.4.4.y.4.• ••r;i;i;J;r;r;J;r;l;J;r;r;J;J;J•r;r;J;J;r;r• ROP INLET PLAN BOTTOM COURSE M.U. OPEN TO SIDE ( _ 1/4" WIRE MESH OVER 15�. C 4 yy4.1 . 4 4 4i1r1f1:�n. M.U. OPENINGS :14R.M.4 4 yayyy4.4•y- .i•i.i•i r J J r•!.r•r•!•r•J.J.. 1 6• • r•J•r•r•J•! ! • r r•}.} i•J•r r r ry a.4.4•yMy4.4 4 h h E Ny 4 1 4 4 1 1.4 4• b it J•f•l•1.1.1•/ J r f J .,,� W3 - r•r•i•i•i•i.i•r•i•J • r•. w':5..:4:5445454445 - 1,L_y�4,y�y44,4�4�4; 144 SEDIMENTR\%\\moi,\��\ . pr//" No 0F///,\\\\X\\COIL owINS 11 h SECTION A BLOCK & GRAVEL FILTER ' NOT TO SCALE 1 1 'WRAP 1/4" WIRE MESH AROUND SIDES 2 x 4 SCRAPWOOD OF BOX AND ATTACH TO FRAME '3/4"-2" DIAMETER CRUSHED STONE COLLECTED RUNOFF SHOULD BE REPLACED WHEN SATURATED WITH SEDIMENT ' SILT LADEN RUNOFF ..M1.M1 '.•YM1•• • cu.: .J;r.r r.r;r r•r• • YM1�M1 . M•. ih y4.H SEDIMENT EXISTING GRADE GRATE INLET OR MAN HOLE COVER I , SECTION FOTER BOX SCALE ' 12 GAUGE 4"x4" WIRE HOOKED ONTO DIE CUT TABS ON POSTS ' FABRIC SECURED TO WIRE WITH METAL CLIPS 12" O.C. MAXIMUM SEDIMENT STORAGE LEVEL M SHEET DRAINAGE 1\F// \V GRADE 01 x. . ANCHOR FABRIC WITH SOIL, TAMP BACKFILL CARRY WIRE DOWN 0 INTO TRENCH j\ METAL POSTS 8'-0" \ / O.C. MAXIMUM SECTION ' SILT FENCE NOT TO SCALE ' SPOIL PILE 12" MIN. t 3:1 SLIDE SLOPES OoVqNHILL \% \ �� NOTE: MINIMAL j\j/ ��% "`��j�.\j\j LONGITUDINAL j\INI,I j\j\ SLOPE _ 1/2% I ' \\\\\X SECTION 1 1 TEMPORARY DIVERSION SWALE NOT TO SCALE ' STRUCTURAL MEASURES ' Figure 46.3 STORM INLET SEDIMENT TRAP (USDA Soil Conservation Service) ' STORM INLET SEDIMENT TRAP ST-III Flow ' / Fbe Flow 1-11 / / \.\ Floe ' YARD DRAIN AS Ro alnd "y, Imn I:i or Flatter 1 I:I or Flatter ' S CROSS SECTION ' CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATION FOR ST-III ' 1. Sediment shall be removed and the trap restored to its original dimensions when the sediment has accumulated to � the design depth of the crap. . ' Removed sediment shall be deposited in a suitable area and in such a manner that it will not erode. 2. The volume of sediment storage shall be 1800 cubic feet per acre of contributory drainage. 3. The structure shall be inspected after each rain and repairs made as needed. ' G. Construction operations shall be carried out in such a manner that erosion and water pollution shall be minimized. S. The sediment trap shall be removed and the area stabilized when the constructed drainage area has been properly stabilized. 6. All cut slopes shall be 1:1 or flatter. - ' Maximum Drainage Area: 3 Acres ' U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE - STORM INLET STANDARD DRAWING SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICESEOIMEN7 TRAP COLLEGE PARK,MARYLANO ST-� ' BMPS FOR CONSTRUCTION S-105 MARCH 1991 ' STRUCTURAL MEASURES ' FlgUre 46.5 STONE OUTLET SEDIMENT TRAP (USDA Soil Conservation Service) ' STONE OUTLET SEDIMENT TRAP Y � a ` 1•a.b.A. 1'Min I �I 2'mw, ' I Mat. PROFILE �. 1 Mena ' fmm Getwo PLON ! �� 2 U,aaaeaea Ane Ir ever Coal 11 allow Cmle Examine For massive Serge aFea ' CROSS SECTION A-A OPTIONk A me foot layer of 2e atom may be placed an the upstream aide of the riprap in Place of the embedded filter cloth. CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS 701 ET-p 1. Arae under embankment Shall be cle,red, grubbed and stripped of any wagerer&= and root ' mat. The pool area shall be clanred. Ail 2. The fill material f= the embankment shall be fru of rest@ and other woody Vegetation as well as ower-siaed stoma, rocks, organic Material or other objectionable meterial. Tho embankment shall be compacted by traversing with equipsmnt Mile it is being constructed. ' I. All cut and fill slope, shall be LI or flatcar. 0. The atom used in the ontlet shall be mall riprap 6"-S" al=g with a 1' thickness of 2" ' aggregate placed on tha up-Srade aide on the mall riprap La embedded filter cloth in the riprap. S. Sediment shall be removed and trap restored to its original dimensions Maa the sediment has accumulated to 11 the design depth of the trap. 6. The structure shall be imported after each rain and repairs made m needed. 7. Coutruttion operations shall be carried =t in such a memer than erosion and water pollution is minimised. S. The structure shall be removed and the area stabilised when the drainage area has been properly stabilised. Maximum Drainage Area: S Acres =COLLEGE DEPARTMENT AGRICULTURE 50WOMD DRAWING SERVICE STONE OUTLET SEDIMENT TRAP RTLAND ST-Y BMPs FOR CONSTRUCTION S-107 MARCH 1991 e c o E F c R dr 1 / ^ : -.•^' . ,\\ \ Oji; \ 1 : • - -..' ..... -- ..- ._,- ._._._ �"`.. \,,,.` `• \\ \\\\j\� `\ \ � � • I i r ,�' r ` ... t., it '- "• \\ Z W N IN ILLI \ rr + 11r \• cn \ ` '\ti'�'J\•; J`v'. r`�f..( ^lCt_) (r t �': -"i.,.. -.'^♦a. -'� •+` \.\.�`Y`\ \\� _;1 I \., ;;; \Viet''': ` / \� l• •r' 1 .' i4.13';/ I 1 1{ �. '1 ;Firt'„� { I'.-• . v1 % L tw� a5� _ -- `` ^� .;«`±«`-.. / , 1 ` i I i�. > •I , \��` ; � T / � // �.: , s \ CEJ O~ _ , �... 5791 24' WIDE MAINTENANCE �q�.�SS' �� Py 4 , x( //y '/:,Ji \ _.� i , , + I ` , •ty A 'i , /, / ,r" i 1 .i I l 7 i r 11 i f. 1 • t , r s t ,..-.... -.x „ .... ....t✓ ...._._... ..._. _..__y...,. __...a... \ __ .. _ .:[:,� .la , — _'T._ _ - yy.�..:.., „/._.,. 11 . ........ _ ./ _:.�tyh_ y .. +. a.;i. CRETE t'"' .> c_2 - ., /.r / /y� L f •`.� "=1•-�. �.�'.«,�-.^•„ _ —�-•� rt-Yr. /.r' . + , __ .' { 'J i l \ 'jit i — - 5 , If \ Z FER PLANTING .-.�' . .. -- - 24 WIDE _ SC 1 "=40'-O" _ - , x .. ACC SS AIOAD _ ' - - -- '—, _-+__ -- r +r 7-�-- 33.7r \ I• L if TIE NEW WALL AND SIDEWALK � ' ; � I � :�•'`' % �•, 5' WIDE CONCRETE SIDEWALK Rit1 ' ' INTO EXISTING WALL AND xG SIDEWALK NEW ELECTRIC"' tE� .tea . , > ^ *so f i 4 \ , 1 7 f P fa R K I N 5 i PAC , _ a _ W111,0 99:1 t ,. �; 39 > ,/ , ;. � _- :"iA �' , • �._ �, ter— E--RAISEb PLANTING ARE -�`.� t �..... I :...n_I, /tl.. v 1: �.. ', ,, £ .v '':.e,,, „ i , .a'r;'i \.. y .td r:" ::. _ . \ /`-_.. 'r ` , I•. ", / ) R'IEl�3-C F#i.C�R fN r.-: Le•f 'y+,3 '.1 J.)'-/.. V uee+ \ , r -•: ACT TANKS 1 ;•H _ -- ' +�! \ I�� , �'.:, : { U;( , _ I TOP OF"DECK STRUCTURE Al �-• x � ` fit ... YL:AN ITIL !3jy ' ,' ' / t 1' �c" j ,s :, ' AASH':} \ \r.• .5. 30 'i. ' E�-• 1 Y `••• 'r' ..T :Z ,"y jU,� \Ltd.' Mdij1{I . r -/ R f�. RAI W LANTI -AREA , • • _ ..•� (/ rn , _ 1 - t 71.. .'i" /'// ♦ t f-L s ! h R F„C " ` - ` ;: l Z � �..i-� , ,ittK .•.-e�t �ytfE•,,�` , • �a-.`� ,. �� i ...;-•"' co — ., � . r .'j i � • ''/ `a:, ;` ,- ��,P" ` b.''Tl t.{lft,•E � i L�:- ti .. n. c r .5 RAISED'PLANTERS IN PLAZA 3L.�8 i L7 y.� ,\ \/, • ^., vE Y 1 / �C 11 � . Y C ..ax : .5 ,� '. ,. . ,. \ ,� ` .. _>.� , �^�,7 ;-., _.✓.'�`!'' Mme/ " •-' y __'_b-. _ II �II II •a iM `C4 1 9 S �. S I 'NG + E �F2 5 1 NJ �CRr E1J S+.�ALE r1 + w k\ ! .- . ✓ s PCI' \ \ >,._�' s, �+., 6 > IA�I L V` . I ..� .os2,k • - ` \�- �. / �,� '� _ ql>< '�• .7, 1af- a i _ gIWL C� r� n - - v - / .��p y,� ,�'ice,,� ,t , i RA15EI ` \ ..Y t' -iy,•7 \ _ r I LTO7. Ar `;r G t4 t"te 1 .�! e 3C 'PURE ION A: �,L. - 1r" eyt -. le .. .% ,. "` ` ' u, a ,`��.--•cn.` ' '.yi'.�Ti'�i,' -. ., - __ .._r' i -... ... _... _'. '''r \\`! - .. S U B�1'A \ 4' WIDE MAINTENANCE : t E --�� 1¢ p \ ,CCESS ROAD - r AMARI -LAS y C a , T COV sad' 24' Wft7E PEf�IM�T�R +Iv 3 >1c a'� _. _.. P ` .,-,. \ ,. (• a. l _ . �, .ko a a i , I r,. `-�` .-. \ a..' f r^` v h'..1C'��,{ _ f'.r: k^f1". l ,'I'/ i,{. '.^Y,'.. y . - N. . C as • ._Y gyt�- ' �\•�:. .; : r•.i ,i ` r '.';.� 21-7Y may✓ ,,' ` Iv- is' 4v- r 1 .« .. ... .- .. . . �..� {.� � �- 1v tet'Gt1, .._`.[..../.. . � /`y.{'' ... l___. .... ._.... _................ _.... _ _... . \ _ T UMP IFtf y �] r STATION � _. � , rt r .� -- \ 1..�- t , •-�`' UA: � \� � .` '� � Oct . '-R" ('\'iy.. .� ;'st�`1" -�i �/ \\ , _.i ( j .ic-,` •` ;.,; ..' �.'. l . y� 5+ \IE � I t` � � V _i� � �• �_ Shtt•Mt.Y 5 ,- "�::_. _ � _ . � �--''r`, `Y 1 r:.. y c , , ��t. ; �•-. 7 .._�.. -,l 3y.�i / ok e'. S:r r �� - , 1 - - .. ,.. � � ._..__ - - - 5. , r - y '' -`� / , •� 's i^F_ ,'/ i�� .,'f/J _ -./' ING S/ LE�1F'NECK --' k1 OS `,.'.: ! �.�- ,T, : __ . � ., � \\ >• ��t}MP NATION;`- � ;'` ;-�;��' - , y�C� • . ,;.;�• �;;;� ,' \ , R. _...- r /, f �t 4� \ ! 4 EXIST` 6 Al 1�, �rt,r�ri�� .. / \, , i cs� 3 c. -•' _, ,/ v �' �� e� a �� , �_. ;:fiELEASE. AMd$ER- : ._ . .. , . > ..�;,,� � ��?,� ,�: ..... /. _ . _ ,, :r..y.� .:.✓w. _. ..... ....-. e.4 f+`•"...... _ _._. .�` ,. -W 1„ „'v... Y ..i� / ...d) ,../,... �,y \♦ l- 6�' i �/ ELECTRICAL '�..1r FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES X z�UBSTATION '7:7 / � 4 OIVI.Y ENtSE� LIQ GUE £ - i Atyl a a$ 7 OR4 � Ev 570R'l 114LEr \; -.. . __ . .._ y\ _ \ \`i , ti \� i t ? .C{ xw�y�%'s ,tj. 9 ♦,l 40 35' 6' w s�DIrlF�tf TRAP \ %" / i i •" ,� \r\ t+' IN � J - ✓ It :At' ` •� /. :.. . .!�` :. Sn. .r� .... .gyp �..r•'P.r' <_.. C3 If M M E OS 17 _ t / E -V 41 53 SKYLIGHT ;� --- r RAISED PARIfING D RAISED 1 ANO PLANTER ACCESS ROAD ' AVENUE 5'WIDE CONCRETE J/ SIDEWALK \ ,,atlas 1 ` ..... �y SECTION A-A Tv C 1\ SCALE- 1"_20•-0" DESIGNED BY: CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. SOUTH ESSEX SEWERAGE DISTRICT PROJECT NO. SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 142-38 DRAWN BY, SITE LAYOUT, GRADING, AND SHEET DNK'D Br. WAST WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS SHEET CNK,D BY, CONTRACT N0.2 WINNOWER EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN II SHEET N0. CROSSAPPROVED BY: WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CONCEPT B I� REV. DATE DRWN CHKD REMARKS SEPT 1992 rvnarmwol W#/VWa.su"I.V . NO. DATE, pbrraL i0womw/mrWMr cm D 1D 0 U Z 0 LJ U) <E > N L -J <1 ' A I --rEA POP& co iA 5TP�u C-1-1 01� .J1 rENTAY PLANTING AND SIG14A IGE' 1 EXISTING CONCRETE jIQL-E:T' 'IF-0'JLJ\17 Fli._TEJ�, BUFFER PLANTING BOTH RETAINING WALL F Dfl L 0�1 (IMPROVED SITE ACCESS I I \ ,,- SEE NOFE 014 t QP SIDES OF FENCE LINE N, " A '011v _125 41Z 24'1�r 5 R ACCP�ftOA �; - 00 1 1 P, I , I + + V11 act N StPEVVJk'E "A 215 C�NCRETJ� E .#7V Co C SCALE: 1 "=40'-O' tS;03 431AVE EN ap- UFF�FfP. ' NTING GENERAL NOTES: it El NEW ELECTRIC IT.-N\ I All roadways and parking areas shall be paved with SUBSTATION bituminous concrete pavement and edged with 6 inch curbs. 2. All parking spaces are shown at maximum standard size. -INFLUENT PUMP + 3. Primary roadways can accommodate large tractor trailer 9TATION- trucks. RY PLANTING LAWN 4. Planting (deciduous and evergreen trees, shrubs and lawn) 'Nd StGWAZGE is conceptual and shall mitigate the visual impact of off-site T' 0 0 1 views of the facility as well as enhance the aesthetic Z J < ';1" • M -PEDESTRIAN ACCE'89 appearance of the facility itself. BITVWNOU� CbNCfwiE 0 _j STRUCTURE 5. Signage is provided for more convenient site circulation and 0 (n facility identification. Z (n , 1, . 6. Contours are shown in 2 foot intervals. NEW ELECTRICA� CID SUBSTATTOT14-- _j 0 as 7. Sedimentation and erosion control information is shown in Z LLr boxes. El El 8. Dewatering activity shall be directed to the proposed co sediment traps. u__ SLUDGE Z U_ W w ACCESS HATCH (TYP.) PROCESS" UJ (BELOW LkoJtl 000 >� \� ' BUILDING _j 4%1 14 _'Z7.e�? Ir iL 0 < FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES tu HEADWORKS Z El Cl El PRODUCT _jy j ONLY STORAGE cr_ PEDESTRIAN ACCESS. 04 it 3t STRUCTURE or A A A PLANTING to OCNTROL a. 0 ZO SWW Y . ................. 2 iia CA 18 4q NEW ELECTRICAL ZZ. 21. 4WE rZ 1 r V RFK 6L �"STATION *S*16 t�s ecoit4s 6 P C 6jS+C S1 AIR EMISSIONS fV- STACK 7 (TYF CONTROL 14 . 2 .5 Z ODOR LEGEND ROL AIR OCONT ' V.5 0 cz KEY DESCRIPTION -.,CONTROL ==F EXISTING CONTOUR Cie 64GE'N KNERATIO� ODOR DRYER EMISSIONS 7--RA� PROPOSED CONTOUR CONTROL VTFtOL TA00b" 17,Z PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION OR + it + 17 t 0 PROPOSED CATCH BASIN IR04 EL. WELL 0 PROPOSED DRAIN MANHOLE Z -C4 ' 7 4 S46 FL 17.0 �JTATIQI� SfALL.t SHRUBS 7— r4 Vf- Y/A5ii `)rA7Ic%4 SEDIHFaI"r TRAP % PROPOSED EVERGREEN TREE PROPOSED DECIDUOUS TREE A0 0 OMAW Co. 11 SILT FENCE C SEDIMENT TRAP CONSTRUCTION STAGING FILTER BOX/BLOCK & GRAVEL FILTER CRUSHED STONE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE VEHICLE WASHDOWN AREA EROSION CONTROL MATTING 5 OR RIP RAP elr' ♦ "A PROJECT NO. DESiGNED BY: CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. SOUTH ESSEX SEWERAGE DISTRICT I rFti DRAWN BY, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 142-38 SITE LAYOUT, GRADING, AND SHEET CHK'D BY: ...ASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN I SHEET NO. CROSS CHK'D BY, CONTRACT NO.2 CONCEPT B REV. APPROVED BY: WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE NO. DATE DRWN CHKD REMARKS DATE, SEPT 1992 A B C D E F G H X _._ _. / .___. . . \•' __.. . v -.-�._ - -_ `moi - '.�y •.q, r • i Y ' > .._ i < LU �C ' I 1 \ t n 'h✓!' Tr;MPoRP2Y c ST��r�c } _ Pyr tip � 4 EXISTING CONCRETE w W 0y� IMPROVED SITE ACCESS _ ,. ' - - >\'" - RETAINING WALT BUFFER PLANTING BOTH " EJ�I�"BY PLA, tN & N��E (P,o�L 1C 'GO' WIDE) ENTRY PLANTING AND SIGNAGE 51DES OF FENCE LINE 1"� NOTE "14 Vt Q - �� - - _ __ _ - - ..� _ may.... , � t � `� ' '''�"� •. 7 _ v �.-yS..�. Lyle. � . � � � ...v• y� y��{j ` . , % R LasEii� BITUMINOUS COG 24 WIDE PERItV1ETER ACCE S ROA©-- _'� - SCALE: 1 "=40'-O _.. _ 8tto �� PAVEMENT ~ �� 7ea 0 `v14 $ A Ej tC ZZ GENERAL NOTES: } 1. All roadways and parking areas shall be paved with h 1 r^ �., #• S / bituminous concrete pavement and edged with 6 inch curbs. ,•,, 2. All parking spaces are shown at maximum standard size. CIONEW ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION r �+ 3^ 3. Primary roadways can accommodate large tractor trailer a / [ � F 4 trucks. Planting (deciduous and evergreen rtlawn)l ADMINISTRATION Z is conceptual and shall mitigatehe visual impact of off-site INFLUENT PUMP - O views of the facility as well as enhance the aesthetic }` STATION ENTRY PLANTING �� t NTRY PLAZA p appearance of the facility itself. Atf6-SIGNAGE Z I 5. Signage is provided for more convenient site circulation and O ACCESSIBLE RAMP a facility identification. BITUMINOUS CONCRETE Z = 6. Contours are shown in 2 foot intervals. PAVEMENT 7.p - Sedimentation and erosion control information is shown in � in boxes. NEW ELECTRIC xc 8. Dewatering activity shall be directed to the proposed _ SUBSTATION m Z 2 L SLUDGE Z Se sediment traps. I PROCESS w LL } wtt�` [ BUILDING w Q I atri EL MAINTENANCE .En }_ Q FACILITY , LL Z FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES Q (BELOW GRA[JE') SlyEt flpR HEADWORKS oC `.,ET + Z ONLY PRODUCT a �'TL t �.� - ,� LLj STORAGE ' Fig az 3tlxK E HP Z79 CJRAN`� - MAINTENANCE VEHICLE (� )cc STo(CM 1 -7 (TYPE t " MANEUVERING AREA Q v atreG *S2.las ' � 'TL 7-6.8 PPOR rTROL - . ; O TI STRUCTURE #1 P C S r CONCRETE VAULT 2Z d, 6415 DRYING/ 4 PELLETIZING ' 3 io ' NEW ,"ECTRICAL U) "" [ �� SUBSTATION U �, %.7;1 OXYGEN - CHLORINATION \\V 2 BUILDING r' AIR EMISSIONS \ GENERATION d CL 74 O O FACILITY u ODOR ?� �,_.__ •_�y, `I! t�24' w/ '!§f4CK • AIR EMISSION F O CONTROL �7 a 1 LEGEND OTYP. CONTROL �ETION PE � RI ( - __ . _� t> _ f K DESCRIPT �ACC - FF LAN _ -� - - _ - / RSS ODOR �" 1pgD ; • ` �l EXISTING CONTOUR ., DRYER EMISSIONS �** o �> `K•g °CONTROL • CONTROL at t 18 5 ".0— I$ PROPOSED CONTOUR i _ ,. f Ott x.51 z SUBSTkTION NEW ELECTRIGi + .,_ , : 1 y,2 .R;; t 17. Z ETE PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION LF SSy AD .,» R"M ec.=zing 's.7 13PROPOSED CATCH BASIN M O BUF PLA TI PROPOSED DRAIN MANHOLE rt `57A7L;kl S _- rE�ICE (T�') /�\ s SHRUBS PROPOSED EVERGREEN TREE E �"= NCW � ptJ!�E , ' ••u.% PROPOSED DECIDUOUS TREE I CONSTRUCTION STAGING O �L AREA t . SILT FENCE 9 ' SEDIMENT TRAP I_I FILTER BOX/BLOCK & GRAVEL FILTER CRUSHED STONE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE \\ VEHICLE WASHDOWN AREA ' s EROSION CONTROL MATTING N/A- OR RIP RAP _ DESVGNED BY:• CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. SOUTH ESSEX SEWERAGE DISTRICT PROJECT No. DRAWN BY: SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 142-38 - - - WASTEWATER svSTEM IMPROVEMENTS SITE LAYOUT, GRADING, AND SHEET c�K'D a : SHEET N0. CROSS GHK'D BY: CONTRACT NO.2 EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN I APPROVED BY: e�,,nn�n,o,e9, s,s ,en,;sWAST EWATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CONCEPT G `G DA I E DRWN CHKD REMARKS DATE, SEPT 1992 pon ers.& MlVgem n/c SUIIfanls CDM A B C D E F G H 'V ti l n.J crLn1 LO wwm \ \ . • .a a 'a i \ 1 1 \ comz .,_ ,.., ., ,.', .. ,,,. , �• ..... # ,,a � \rte 5 . ) "'4 .+ . k"\ :• . ` ` .\ t _- . •'_. "` ...` .._ __ _._. ._. <. ! ..moi , _ : ,: Qv • V . ,` rya •`,m-;.,h. '' � I ; .. ,__ \, ,, ,,,' \X _ ``;— _ _ _ _ / r, , ` _ } _ y , , - " i SfoRr1 I NL-E # \ W. � Slott 3; AL-.- '•.`i;F. # f a , S , 3*34 lkz 3a BUFFER PLANTING Y1 P A R K 1 N G '' P A C E S . A ZAP k, JO 1 �H� + (^4_ a✓3 ,. l � I � "•.d. < . / /r'\..5 •.% / '-' __... F t v7 �" "\ �' , ''1.1\\t ��\ #Y.,/" /r� - A_- + 4 -02 + 510 45 5,vt 43 .96+- �! r, __.. c .. .t A , 3Z 540 32 { � , `� �/ , � , •.. � -T v'C'� pia \ . .�,- �'�, 3z ♦ . _ _ ' 13 2 3 LU ,0 :. \Yd.......... ;. � �.._'. 'Y \J,r .. ._ -, 1\t. 1{'A•..' It `:�.rt WWfWW •`/ <L"' V 4-' e . :..__ T 4'`� 1 ,yt j" y ' � •ye'1� ...., f .. ',s ' • CCESS HATCHES (TYP.) ".A E� _ 4- L .�i- .... / ." i , " .':'' .,3i ? .; 1' fl M � 7 "`' X14 JP _ ❑ ASK £�' .- SSS gi"_.y `,�• ,` /�, �. ,/, _.'../ R1�' •� �-� �� f� } ❑ :r 1 LAWN '�r o / ` • p�CE WI Ito p� 1ESTRIM « •52� r LAWN - - , .. _ Z.lo * 4 , r ✓}"y'WJ ` Aw y ..t Y , ' CCES STRUURE + 13 v �° �' s > ;.� •. Rl1A �' 1 s (zP RAP It•I• /:;r"r,tj" t ,y:- ik' %sir / ^-c,v �aY>t • e^,mi�j 7 . c u ;fl'' '`�. `. Ems-= '�, ` \• _ A.c: 4'F _::w ,/• ,. 'v Z'si f-/> _ / ' . iii`/� ,+:. 7yyr� ``.'r , # J \ , ❑ � '1u11 A }..: /. .�. , {�r.� l ^3, _. -_: y;r x 1.��. _ _y F . ...... .\i''+• _� _G ... . Y.,. _ w �� \�• ELECTRICAL L8 i Y ��tt a L , .... . < • 3 _' NEW . - t.a ,1 N x' c�.,;, .. l ` • �7 - Terri Q ', ;- ._ \.: `4. .,• •r�., 1 i,, A ... ., .. .,'7.. '� / ., S B STAT10 ( X `ak- -TE 'd4> 31'' ` z E4:°,'t�• ter, -4v�I.,yQ! y�„ \_r S{, -! / _ _ _ 3 L�SiE ,�� slYJ [ .. . - ♦ •a_ ;}& .� {1i� , :. '.F. �.�. p� Y; \ ./�''��i � .,- •i # 't .. _ r�t .i i'•,...^.. .❑.. �. ...'K �;. / ! t 1 ,` - .l'1 yj,.� \ �• CAt�C6VE -„ a ` ^'t•"r ar,•' ysj. ! .•. #:.-•. ,` ` •� • ti ' r VIF 's y cl 5Z 5<6 M N L/F6 _ MA RM 356 r , L 17'S + IS TRUCK DOL` 'a �:-4y l 'S '•F •'!-J+f .` •'11r"l / '.:.I't' �', :+1. T�. ' , A` ,1,� \ / . f ❑ ' ED RINE EFFLUENT PUMP S # i-•��, .. .+ pit" r:.^'`"•�' .. Y �, . STATION .. a I • a , \ , lkp A �.. ce•, � 4 — . :. , cs•2 .Lg /� � _ _ EXISTING SALEM NECK . _ < NP � �f tit I6. 3 PUMP STATION . n 2�3 WIDE PE ESS ti Q 4, t. EWA or lE I f t EcYT�p a4• /r , ' 4 `• r ,y, i.Ay'f - wv-G ` 2e / • �j s.10 ' FILTE9 COC � OL EXISTING AIR G�ytc�El1 � CUHCR 6RAYEL FILTER RE EAS CHAMBER �, FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES Op,51Lv o.-1 ,`�$ „22.6 SToKr1 INLET CNP) \ / "' '' IwF Ott SILT F�-1IcE �Tl ) ` 5 40 35.06' w ! �•u ONLY cl- ALA- _ Z� ! 5 ..................... . DESIGNED BY: CAMP DRES;ER & McKEE INC. SOUTH ESSEX SEWERAGE DISTRICT PROJECT NO. SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS SITE LAYOUT, GRADING AND 142-38 DRAWN BY: SHEET CHK'D BY: WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN II SHEET NO, CROSS CHK-D DY: CONTRACT NO.2 CONCEPT G APPRDVI:. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE / U REV. DATE DRWN CHKD errvnomiewrcg sneers ultolss, CDM No. REMARKS DArE, SEPT 1992 donro�s.s mo,agareM consunoMs i L r ection SIX" ' 6.0 MITIGATION MEASURES 1 6.1 PERMANENT DRAINAGE SYSTEM ' The permanent drainage system will be in place during the earlier stages of ' construction. Steps will be taken to limit the amount of sediment carried and discharged by the permanent drainage system during the remainder of the ' construction phase. Erosion control blankets will be placed in swales and ditches leading up to catch basins to prevent erosion and assist the growth of vegetation. ' Block and gravel filter boxes will be constructed around catch basins to trap any sediment which may be in the surface runoff from the construction site. Fabric silt ' fences will also be placed near the outlet of each discharge point to filter out suspended sediment for the duration of construction activity. These measures not ' only prevent erosion and discharge of silt to the surrounding surface waters, but will protect the permanent drainage system from silt buildup and scouring during the ' remainder of the construction phase. The permanent drainage system is designed to minimize outflow velocities at ' discharge points, preventing erosion and possible scouring. Rip rap will be incorporated at each discharge point to further protect against erosion and outlet ' pipe damage. The catch basins will receive regular maintenance and cleaning to prevent pipeline blockages and sand buildup in the drainage system. Also, all ' chemical fill stations and storage areas of the proposed wastewater treatment plant will have drains which will connect to the wastewater treatment plant recycle sewer system. This prevents chemical spills in these areas from being discharged to Salem Harbor. 6- 1 1 ' 6.2.3.2 Preventative Measures tStoring Materials. To minimize the potential for contaminants to enter runoff during construction activities, all petroleum products and other hazardous materials must be stored in clearly marked sealed containers in a secure storage area. A secured storage area will either be protected from rainwater (i.e. temporary storage ' shed, inside existing buildings) or paved and bermed to collect any spillage. The contractor will include a list of any hazardous substances that will be kept on site during construction. 1 Refueling and Lubricating. Refueling and lubricating of equipment should be performed in one designated area to minimize the area subject to fuel and lubricating materials. Equipment should be in excess of 100 feet from any wetland resource area before refueling or lubricating. Fuel and lubricants will be stored in appropriate containers, and empty containers will be stored in secured storage areas until disposed of. Inspection of Facilities. The contractor will designate a supervisor responsible for making periodic inspections to ascertain that the storage, handling and disposal of materials is in compliance with the SPCC Plan. Waste Removal. The contractor will maintain a clean and orderly work environment at all times. Hazardous waste generated during construction will be stored in secured storage areas until a licensed disposal company removes the materials from the site. All non-hazardous waste will be stored in dumpsters on site and removed by a local disposal company. The contractor will supply a list of appropriate local disposal companies for hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. Equipment Maintenance. General maintenance of equipment should be performed 1 in excess of 100 feet from wetland resource areas. ' 6 - 3 Equipment Cleaning. On-site cleaning of equipment will be restricted to an area located more than 100 feet from wetland resource areas. This washdown area will be equipped with a silt fence and will drain to a storm inlet sediment trap, and from there to the storm drain system. 6.2.3.3 Response Methods Detection. Any leaks discovered or suspected on equipment, storage containers or tsediment control devices should be reported to the supervisor designated by the contractor. Repairs to the damage should be conducted immediately. Containment. Spills should be contained by immediate berm construction. If spills are likely to reach the harbor, booms should be placed in the water to prevent additional contamination. Clean up and Disposal. All contaminated soils and water will be contained and removed from the area by the designated disposal company. ' Displacement of Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. Soil erosion and sediment control measures that have been disrupted should be repaired or replaced immediately. Prior to predicted extreme rain events, the supervisor should inspect the measures. Emergency Response. Excess materials should be kept on-site for responding to emergency situations such as leaks, spills, or displacement of erosion and sediment tcontrol measures. These materials should include but not be limited to: absorbent blankets, oil containment booms, sand bags, sediment control fence and empty containers. In anticipation of a potential emergency, the contractor should maintain a list of personnel and emergency response companies that are available to assist at any time. 1 ' 6-4 1 ' 6.2 POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN 6.2.1 INTRODUCTION Construction at the site will be regulated under a NPDES stormwater permit. One of the requirements of this permit is expected to be the submission of a Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP). This section provides a summary of the PPP covering storing, handling, and disposing of contaminants and hazardous materials during construction of the SESD ' Secondary Treatment Plant. 6.2.2 GENERAL OBJECTIVES The overall objectives of this plan are to provide for compliance with the terms of the NPDES permit for construction period storm water and dewatering discharges, to protect the designated water uses of the surrounding water bodies, to mitigate pollution from site runoff, to prevent and contain accidental leaks, spills, etc. from materials storage areas, and to prevent improper use of waste disposal systems. 6.2.3 CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITIES DURING CONSTRUCTION 6.2.3.1 General Requirements Each contractor shall complete a detailed Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC) describing mitigative measures, and monitoring , activities which will be provided by the contractor during construction. The plan ' will contain, but not be limited, to the following items. 6-2 i This list should include but not be limited to: local police and fire departments, all construction contractors (including home phone numbers), disposal companies, hazardous contamination emergency personnel, and DEP. 1 6-5 . 1 1 . 1 I 1 - environmental engineers,scientists, - - - planners,&management consultants CAMP DRESSER & McKEE offices worldwide - Pnnted on Recycled Paper . ' I DRAINAGE CALCULATION SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION FOR SOUTH ESSEX SEWERAGE DISTRICT'S "NOTICE OF INTENT FOR SECONDARY WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES" September 1992 • Summary of Drainage Information • TR-55 Data and Computations McRY RCA CML ' 9Na 31888 IST� t ONk.� 1 1 II SUMMARY OF DRAINAGE INFORMATION SHOWN IN ACRES revised 6/24/92 revised 8/26/92 RESIDENTIAL PERVIOUS. TOTAL TOTAL OPEN ABOVE IMPERVIOUS ARE IMPERVIOUS IMP BELOW COMPARE DRAINAGE AREA SC AR OUTFALL SPACE GRAVEL FORTAVE BUILDINGS PVMT/GONG FORTAVE SUBTOT FORTAVE WITH AREA DRAINED CN 80 GN 91 CN 80 CN 98 CN 98 CN=98 2.56 0.26 4.56 0 21 823 8 47 Existing 1 3.50 0.41 1.74 . 8.49 1, (adjusted) 3.51 0.41 1.74 2.57 0.26 4.57 8.23 3 5.21 0.08 3.32 0.09 1.00 0.78 1.87 6.38 6.08 4 0.09 0 0 3. (adjusted) 4.97 0.08 3.32 0 9 10. 0.78 05 0 01 6.7.91 08 1.81 0.01 overland, east 1.80 0,02 0.66 0.66 overland, soutl 0.25 0.39 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.08 21.22 triangle 0.07 8.44 Concept B 1 3.24 0.14 3.07 1.82 0.17 5.06 8.27 8.42 8.59 1, (adjusted) 3.30 0.14 3.13 1.85 0.17 5.15 8.427 83 3 1.38 0.00 3.32 1.53 0.91 0.69 3.13 3.82 3.85 7.86 3. (adjusted) 1.39 0.00 3.32 1.54 0.92 0.69 3.15 3.85 3.33 overland, east 2.83 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 3.33 0.02 1 19 1,19 . overland, anuli 0.78 0.39 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.00 21.05 loaner 7riangU 0.07 20 Concept G 1 3.51 0.65 0.00 2.83 2.95 0.26 6.04 9.94 9.58 19 84 1, (adjusted) 3.36 0.63 2.73 2.84 0.26 5.93 9.587,95 3 1.78 0.00 3.32 1.40 0.67 0.78 2.85 3.85 3.83 2.70 0.47 0.47 2.70 overland. east 2.23 0.02 0.66 0.66 overland, soull 0.25 0.39 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.08 21.23 triangle 0.07 j TABLE 4-1 Existing Drainage Conditions Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant South Essex Sewerage District Subdraina a Area Characteristics(acres) Total ]:P:ea:kRunoff Rates(cfs) Pervious Mixed Subdotal e Drainage Area Imperviousear 100-year Roof Pavement Gravel Open Space Residential Area Outfall1 25 39 1.7 2.8 0.4 3.5 8.4 Outfall3 22 37 0.1 1.7 0.1 5.0 3.3 10.2 Overland Fast 4 7 1.8 1.8 2 3 0.4 0.3 0.7 Overland South TOTALS 53 86 1.8 4.5 0.9 10.6 3.3 21.1 Note:Peak runoff rates are theoretical maximums,achieved only if peaks occur simultaneously. TABLE 4-2 Concept B Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant South Essex Sewerage District Subdrainage Area Characteristics(acres) Total Drainage Area Peak Runoff Rates(cfs) Impervious Pervious Mixed Subdrainage 10-year 100-year Roof Pavement (:ravel Oen Space Residential Area Outfall 1 26 41 3.1 2.0 0.1 3.3 8.5 Outfall 3 19 30 1.5 16 1.4 3.3 7.8 Overland East 8 14 0.5 2.8 3.3 Overland South 3 5 0.4 0.8 1.2 TOTALS 56 90 4.6 4.1 0.5 1 8.3 3.3 20.8 Note:Peak runoff rates are theoretical maximums,achieved only if peaks occur simultaneously. 1w, Mo. no Am aw ow 111ro iw In swam Oka wo am am M TABLE 4-5 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Drainage Concept G Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant South Essex Sewerage District Peak Runoff Rates (cfs) Drainage Areas (acres) Description 10-Year Storm 100-Year Storm Description Existing Proposed Existing Pro osed Existing Proposed Outfall1 25 30 39 47 Impervious 6.3 9.2 Outfall3 22 18 37 29 Pervious 11.5 8.7 Overland East 4 7 7 12 Overland South 2 2 3 3 Mixed 3.3 3.3 ERunoff 91 Site* 53 57 86 Total Drainage 21.1 21.2 Area noff** 5 5.3 ge Are 3.1 3.3 * Note: Theoretical peak runoff, achieved only if peaks occur simultaneously. ** Note: Average of Total Volume Runoff per unit of Drainage Area of Outfall 1 and Outfall 3. TABLE 4-3 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Drainage Concept B Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant South Essex Sewerage District Peak Runoff Rates (cfs) Drainage Areas (acres) VDescriipton 10-Year Storm 100-Year Storm Description Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed tfall1 25 26 39 41 Impervious 6.3 8.7 Outfall3 22 19 37 30 Pervious 11.5 8.8 Overland East 4 8 7 14 Overland South 2 3 3 5 Mixed 3.3 3.3 tDrainage 90 Peak * 53 56 86 Total Drainage 21.1 20.8 Area Total ** 5 2 er unre 3.13.3 5 * Note: Theoretical peak runoff, achieved only if peaks occur simultaneously. ** Note: Average of Total Volume Runoff per unit of Drainage Area of Outfall 1 and Outfall 3. TABLE 4-4 Concept G Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant South Essex Sewerage District Subdraina a Area Characteristics(acres) Total Peak Runoff Rates(cls) Pervious Mixed Subdrainage Impervious Drainage Area 10-year 100-year Roof Pavement I Oen Space Residential Area Outfall 1 30 47 2.7 3.1 0.6 3.4 9.8 Outfall 3 18 29 1.4 1.5 1.8 3.3 8.0 12 0.5 2.2 2.7 Overland Fast 7 Overland South 2 3 0.4 0.3 0.7 TOTALS 57 91 4.1 5.1 1.0 7.7 3.3 =21.2 Note: Peak runoff rates are theoretical maximums,achieved only if peaks occur simultaneously. Device c Directory TR-55 LOAD Data Routine Version 1. 11 _ ------------------ ---= ---------------------------------------- OLEAST . 55 PATHIA .55 CPATHlB . 55 PATHIC .55 IOLSO . 55 TRIANG _ . 55 P�H3A 551 PATH3B 55 �GPATH A .-55 !GPATHIB 5S GPATHIC .55 GPATH3A .55', GPATH3B .55 G'PATH1A. 55 G'PATH1B. 55 G'PATH1C.55 G'PATH3A. 55 ',GOLEAST . 551 G'OLEAST. 55 1CONCEPTB_55 1BPATHS .551 ------- ------------------------- Type in file name for loading, then press enter c:_ TR-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION VERSION 1. 11 Project : SESD User: ht Date: 08-21-92 County : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: Subtitle: EXISTING CONDITION, OUTFALL 1 Subarea : OUTF1 ---------------- ' ----------------------------------------------------Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D ---------------------------------- Acres-(CN) FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab. ) ,� Open space (Lawns,parks etc. ) _ - 3 . 51(80) - Good condition; grass cover > 75$ Impervious Areas _ _ - 4 . 58 (98) Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways Streets and roads _ _ - .41 (91) Gravel (w/ right-of-way) lTotal Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) _8_5 --------------------------- SUBAREA: OUTF1 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 8.5 Acres ----WEIGHTED- - CURVE NUMBER_90* -- ---------------------------------------------- --- ----- - * - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method TR-55 Tc and Tt THRU SUBAREA COMPUTATION VERSION 1. 11 'Project : SESD User: ht Date: 08-21-92 County : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: Subtitle• EXISTING CONDITION, OUTFALL 1 ----- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code-------(sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) Sheet 3 . 1 210 0.053 E 0. 192 Open Channel 504 .0097 .0133 . 14 6.28 0.020 Time of Concentration = 021* --- Sheet Flow Surface Codes - A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense --- Shallow Concentrated _-- B Fallow (No Res. ) G Grass, Burmuda --- Surface Codes -- C Cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods, Light P Paved D Cultivated > 20 % Res. I Woods, Dense U Unpaved E Grass-Range, Short * - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method i TR-55 GRAPHICAL DISCHARGE METHOD VERSION 1. 11 Project : SESD User: ht Date: 08-21-92 County : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: Subtitle: EXISTING CONDITION, OUTFALL 1 Data: Drainage Area 8 . 5 * Acres Runoff Curve Number 90 * Time of Concentration: 0. 21 * Hours Rainfall Type III Pond and Swamp Area NONE Storm Number --1-- ---2-- ---3-- 4 5 6 7 Frequency (yrs) 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 24-Hr Rainfall (in) 2 .5 3 . 1 3.9 4. 5 5. 4 5.9 6. 5 Ia/P Ratio 0. 09 0.07 0.06 0.05 0. 04 0. 04 0. 03 Used 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 Runoff (in) 1. 53 2 . 08 2 .82 3 .40 4.26 4.75 5.33 Unit Peak Discharge 0.871 0.871 0.871 0.871 0.871 0.871 0.871 (cfs/acre/in) Pond and Swamp Factor 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0% Ponds Used _ _ _-Peak-Discharge-(cfs) ----_11_-_--15-_-__21--__-25-_---32-----35_-__-39-- * - Value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines �I TR-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION6LrrFA LL 3 VERSION 1. 11 #Project : SESD User: of Date: 08-22-92 County : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: S----------------------------------- ubtitle: Existing Condition, OUTFALL 3 Subarea : OUTF3 ---------------- - ------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) --------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab. ) Open space (Lawns,parks etc. ) _ _ - 5. 21 (80) Good condition; grass cover > 75% Impervious Areas _ _ - 1.86 (98) Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways Streets and roads - .08 (91) Gravel (w/ right-of-way) - - Residential districts Avg % impery (by average lot size) 2 acre 12 _ _ - 3 . 32 (82) Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 10_4 SUBAREA_ OUTF3-_TOTAL-DRAINAGE-AREA: -10_47-Acres ---_-WEIGHTED-CURVE-NUMBER_84*_ �' * - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method TR-55 Tc and Tt THRU SUBAREA COMPUTATION VERSION 1. 11 Project : SESD User: of Date: 08-22-92 County : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: Subtitle: Existing Condition, OUTFALL 3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) -- (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ----------- --------------------------------------------------- Sheet 3 . 1 300 .05 a 0.262 Shallow Concent'd 598 . 042 u 0. 050 Shallow Concent'd 50 . 048 p 0.003 Open Channel 83 .0046 . 0131. 23 3 .93 0.006 Open Channel 185 . 008 .0131.23 . 011 Time of Concentration = 00 1 33* --- Sheet Flow Surface Codes --- �. A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense --- Shallow Concentrated --- B Fallow (No Res. ) G Grass, Burmuda --- Surface Codes --- P Paved C Cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods, Light D Cultivated > 20 % Res. I Woods, Dense U Unpaved E Grass-Range, Short * - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method r TR-55 GRAPHICAL DISCHARGE METHOD VERSION 1. 11 'Project : SESD User: of Date: 08-22-92 County : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: Subtitle: Existing Condition, OUTFALL 3 Data: Drainage Area 10.47 * Acres Runoff Curve Number 84 * Time of Concentration: 0. 33 * Hours Rainfall Type III Pond and Swamp Area NONE Storm Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ---------------------- ------ ------ ------ ---------------------- - Frequency (yrs) 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 24-Hr Rainfall (in) 2.5 3 . 1 3 .9 4. 5 5.4 5.9 6.5 Ia/P Ratio 0. 15 0. 12 0. 10 0.08 0. 07 0.06 0.06 Used 0. 15 0. 12 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 Runoff (in) 1. 12 1.60 2 .28 2 .82 3 .64 4 . 10 4 . 67 Unit Peak Discharge 0.724 0.740 0.753 0.753 0.753 0.753 0.753 (cfs/acre/in) Pond and Swamp Factor 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 0. 0% Ponds Used ------ ------ ------ Peak Discharge (cfs) - --- 8 -- 12 -- 18 2229-----32=====37== -------------- * - Value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines TR-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION VERSION 1. 11 Project : SESD User: of Date: 08-22-92 ACounty : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: Subtitle: Existing Condition, Overland East Subarea : OLEAST --------------- -------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ---------------------------------------------- ---------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab. ) Open space (Lawns,parks etc. ) _ _ 1.8 (80) Good condition; grass cover > 75% Impervious Areas _ _ - 012 (98) Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways i Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 1. 81 ,�- SUBAREA: -OLEAST-TOTAL-DRAINAGE-AREA:-1_812-Acres -----WEIGHTED CURVE-NUMBER:80*_ * - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method 1 i 1 TR-55 Tc and Tt THRU SUBAREA COMPUTATION VERSION 1. 11 Project : SESD User: of Date: 08-22-92 County : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: Subtitle• Existing Condition, -Overland-East -- --------------- ----------------p---------- ------ Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area W VelocityTime rain (ft) (ft/ft) code-------(sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) --------- ------ ---------------------- -------------------- -- Sheet 3 . 1 300 0.074 E 0.224 rhallow Concent'd 70.4 0. 149 U 0.003 Time of Concentration = 023* --- Concentrated Sheet Flow Surface Codes --- --- --- A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense - Shallow B Fallow (No Res. ) G Grass, Burmuda Surface Codes C Cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods, Light P Paved D Cultivated > 20 % Res. I Woods, Dense U Unpaved E Grass-Range, Short * - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method Q TR-55 GRAPHICAL DISCHARGE METHOD VERSION 1. 11 Project : SESD User: of Date: 08-22-92 County : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: Subtitle: Existing Condition, Overland East Data: Drainage Area 1.812 * Acres Runoff Curve Number 80 * Time of Concentration: 0.23 * Hours Rainfall Type III Pond and Swamp Area NONE Storm Number 1 ---2-- ---3-- ---4-- ---5-- ---6-- ---7-- Frequency (yrs) 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 24-Hr Rainfall (in) 2 . 5 3 . 1 3 .9 4 . 5 5.4 5.9 6. 5 Ia/P Ratio 0.20 0. 16 0. 13 0. 11 0. 09 0. 08 0. 08 Used 0.20 0. 16 0. 13 0. 11 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 Runoff (in) 0.89 1. 33 1.96 2.46 3.24 3. 69 4 . 24 Unit Peak Discharge 0.789 0.812 0.831 0.841 0.848 0.848 0.848 (cfs/acre/in) Pond and Swamp Factor 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 0. 0% Ponds Used - ----i- ----2- ---- Peak Discharge (cfs) 3------4------567__ * - Value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines 1 TR-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION VERSION 1. 11 Project : SESD User: of Date: 08-22-92 County : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: Subtitle: Existing Condition, Triangle Subarea TRIANG Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) --------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab. ) Impervious Areas _ _ - 014 98 . Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways ( ) Streets and roads _ - _ Gravel (w/ right-of-way) 065 (91) Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) _079 ------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ SUBAREA: TRIANG TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: . 079 Acres----- WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:92* ----------------------------------------------- ------------------ * - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method TR-55 Tc and Tt THRU SUBAREA COMPUTATION VERSION 1. 11 Project : SESD User: of Date: 08-22-92 County : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: Subtitle. Existing Condition, Triangle ----- ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) ---code-------(sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ------------------- ---------------------- Sheet 3 . 1 47 . 5 021 a 0. 011 Time of Concentration = 0_01_ --- Sheet Flow Surface Codes --- --- --- A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense - Shallow Concentrated - B Fallow (No Res. ) G Grass, Burmuda Surface Codes C Cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods, Light P Paved D Cultivated > 20 % Res. I Woods, Dense U Unpaved E Grass-Range, Short ITR-55 GRAPHICAL DISCHARGE METHOD VERSION 1. 11 (Project : SESD User: of Date: 08-22-92 County : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: Subtitle: Existing Condition, Triangle Data: Drainage Area . 079 * Acres Runoff Curve Number 92 * Time of Concentration: 0. 10 Hours Rainfall Type III Pond and Swamp Area NONE Storm Number 1 ---2-- ---3-- 4 5 6 7 ----------------- ----- ------ Frequency (yrs) 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 24-Hr Rainfall (in) 2.5 3 . 1 3 .9 4 . 5 5.4 5.9 6. 5 Ia/P Ratio 0.07 0. 06 0. 04 0.04 0. 03 0.03 0.03 Used 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 Runoff (in) 1. 69 2 . 26 3 . 02 3 . 60 4 .48 4.97 5.56 Unit Peak Discharge 1. 034 1. 034 1. 034 1.034 1. 034 1.034 1.034 (cfs/acre/in) Pond and Swamp Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0. 0% Ponds Used _ _ _ ____ ==Peak-Discharge-(cfs) ======0======0======0======0======0======0======0== * - Value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines TR-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION VERSION 1. 11 Project : SESD User: of Date: 08-22-92 County : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: Subtitle: Existing Condition, Overland South Subarea : OLSO _ --------------- '----------------------------------------------------Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D -----------------Acres (CN) --------------------------------------- ------ FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab. ) open space (Lawns,parks etc. ) - _ _ 25(80) Good condition; grass cover > 75$ I Impervious Areas _ _ - 024 (98) Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways Streets and roads _ _ - 0. 39 (91) Gravel (w/ right-of-way) Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) _664 ---------------------------------------------------- - SUBAREA: OLSO TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: . 664 Acres-_-_- WEIGHTEDCURVE NUMBER:87* ----------------------------------------------- ---------------- * - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method TR-55 Tc and Tt THRU SUBAREA COMPUTATION VERSION 1. 11 Project : SESD User: of Date: 08-22-92 County : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: Subtitle: Existing Condition, Overland South ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Flow Type---2 year---Length-- SlopeSurface-- n-- AreaVelocity- Time ( rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft)t) (ft)ft) (ft/sec) (hr) - - Sheet 3 . 1 276 063 e -0224 Time of Concentration = 0.22* --- Sheet Flow Surface Codes --- --- --- A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense - Shallow Concentrated - B Fallow (No Res. ) G Grass, Burmuda Surface Codes C Cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods, Light P Paved D Cultivated > 20 % Res. I Woods, Dense U Unpaved E Grass-Range, Short * - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method S I 1 TR-55 GRAPHICAL DISCHARGE METHOD VERSION 1. 11 Project : SESD User: of Date: 08-22-92 County : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: Subtitle: Existing Condition, Overland South Data: Drainage Area . 664 * Acres Runoff Curve Number 87 * Time of Concentrations 0. 22 * Hours Rainfall Type III Pond and Swamp Area NONE Storm Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Frequency (yrs) 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 24-Hr Rainfall (in) 2 .5 3 . 1 3.9 4. 5 5.4 5.9 6. 5 Ia/P Ratio 0. 12 0. 10 0.08 0.07 0. 06 0.05 0.05 Used 0. 12 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 Runoff (in) 1.31 1.83 2 .55 3 . 10 3 .95 4.42 5. 00 Unit Peak Discharge 0.848 0.859 0.859 0.859 0.859 0.859 0.859 (cfs/acre/in) Pond and Swamp Factor 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 0.0% Ponds Used ----1- ------ ------ ------ ------ ---- Peak-Discharge-(cfs) ======1223======3== * - Value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines 1 ITR-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION VERSION 1. 11 Project : SESD User: ht Date: 08-25-92 County : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: Subtitle:.i CONC^ EPT � Subarea OUTF7 -- --------------- ---------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab. ) Open space (Lawns,parks etc. ) _ Good condition; grass cover > 75% - - 3. 30 (80) Impervious Areas _ - 5. 15(98) Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways - Streets and roads _ _ - 0. 14 (91) Gravel (w/ right-of-way) � r Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 8.59 SUBAREA_-OUTF1- TOTAL-DRAINAGE_AREA: -8_59_Acres __---_WEIGHTED_CURVE-NUMBER_91 y ITR-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION VERSION 1. 11 Project : SESD User: ht Date: 08-25-92 County : E SES X State: MA Checked: Date: Subtitle: CONCEPT B Subarea i0UTF3 S _ ---------- Subarea------------ -------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab. ) - - Open space (Lawns,parks etc. ) - 1. 39 (80) Good condition; grass cover > 75$ Impervious Areas 3 . 15 (98) Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways Residential districts Avg % impery - (by average lot size) 3. 32 (80) 1/2 acre 25 i Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 3_32 4_54 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: OUTF3 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 7 .86 Acres _--_ WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:87 ------------------------------------------------ TR-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION VERSION 1. 11 Project : SESD User: ht Date: 08-25-92 County : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: Subtitle: ; CONCEPT B Subarea : IOVLEAS ________________ ------------------------------------------------------ Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) --------------------------------------- ---------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab. ) Open space (Lawns,parks etc. ) - _ - 2 , 83 (80) Good condition; grass cover > 75% impervious Areas _ _ - 0. 50 (98) Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 3_33 ----------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- ■ SUBAREA: OVLEAS TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 3 .33 Acres----- WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:83 1 1 1 1 TR-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION VERSION 1. 11 Project : SESD User: ht Date: 08-25-92 County SSEX State: MA Checked: Date: Subtitle: ICONCEPT B Subarea : 'OVLSOU ------------------------------ Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab. ) Open space (Lawns,parks etc. ) _ _ - 0.78 (80) Good condition; grass cover > 75% Impervious Areas _ _ - 0.02 (98) Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways Streets and roads _ _ - 0. 39 (91) Gravel (w/ right-of-way) Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 1-19 ---------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: OVLSOU TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 1. 19 Acres--_-- WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:84 ----------------------------------------------- ------------------ 1 1 ITR-55 Tc and Tt THRU SUBAREA COMPUTATION VERSION 1. 11 Project : SESD User: ht Date: 08-25-92 County : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: Subtitle' CONCEPT B ---- .: . _� i L ---------------------------- --------------------------- P---------- -- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area W VelocityTime rain (ft) (ft/ft) --code _-__--_(sq/ft) -_(ft) --(ft/sec) (hr) Sheet 3. 1 210 0.053 E 0. 192 Open Channel 504 .0097 . 0133 . 14 6.28 _0020 Time of Concentration = 0.21* ------- -- Subarea #2 - OUTF3 '-----------P---------------- Flow Type---- 2-----y-ear L-ength----- Slope Surface n Area W Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ------300 --- Sheet 3 . 1 300 0. 05 E 0.262 Shallow Concent'd 394 0.018 P 0. 040 Shallow Concent'd 50 0.04 P 0.003 Open Channel 684 . 0347 . 0131.23 3 .93 _0019 Time of Concentration = 0. 32* ------------------- --------- ' Subarea #3 - OVLEAS -------------------------Time Flow Type 2 year Length SIope Surface n--Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code--_-_--(sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ------------------------------------- ------ ----------------------0.086 Sheet 3 . 1 80 0. 058 E 0. 041 Sheet 220 0.017 A 0.031 Shallow Concent'd 399 .0486 U Open Channel 25 0. 024 . 0131. 23 3.93 0.001 Time of Concentration = 0. 16* -------------- --------------- '.Subarea #4 - OVLSOU �---------------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length SIop�—Surface- -n---Area Wp Velocity Time t) (ft/sec) (hr) rain (ft) (ft/ft) code_----_- ------------------ (sq/ft) (f ------------------------------------------- ----------- ---- 246 Sheet 3 . 1 275 0.049 E 0' Time of Concentration = 0.25* --- Sheet Flow Surface Codes --- __ A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense ___ Shallow Concentrated _-- B Fallow (No Res. ) G Grass, Burmuda Surface Codes C Cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods, Light P Paved D Cultivated > 20 % Res. I Woods, Dense U Unpaved E Grass-Range, Short * - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method TR-55 GRAPHICAL DISCHARGE METHOD VERSION 1. 11 Project : SESD User: ht Date: 08-25-92 County : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: Subtitle: CONCEPT B Data: Drainage Area 8.59 Acres Runoff Curve Number 91 _ Time of Concentration: 0. 21 * Hours y ' Rainfall Type III Pond and Swamp Area NONE Storm Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Frequency (yrs) 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 24-Hr Rainfall (in) 2. 5 3 . 1 3.9 4.5 5.4 5.9 6.5 Ia/P Ratio 0. 08 0. 06 0.05 0. 04 0.04 0. 03 0. 03 Used 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 Runoff (in) 1. 61 2 . 16 2.92 3 .50 4. 37 4 .86 5. 45 Unit Peak Discharge 0.871 0.871 0.871 0.871 0.871 0.871 0.871 (cfs/acre/in) Pond and Swamp Factor 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0. 0% Ponds Used _____ ------ ---------------------- __ _-Peak_Discharge_(cfs) 12_-__-16-__-_2226_-__-33-__-_36-__-_41__ * - Value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines NTR-55 GRAPHICAL DISCHARGE METHOD VERSION 1. 11 Project : SESD User: ht Date: 08-25-92 County : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: 'Subtitle: CONCEPT B Data: Drainage Area 7 .86 Acres Runoff Curve Number 87 _ Time of Concentration: 0. 32 Hours Rainfall Type III Pond and Swamp Area NONE eStorm Number2======3======4-- ---5-- ---6-- ---7 - ----- ------ ------ ------ --- Frequency (yrs) 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 24-Hr Rainfall (in) 2 .5 3. 1 3 .9 4 .5 5.4 5.9 6. 5 Ia/P Ratio 0. 12 0. 10 0.08 0.07 0. 06 0.05 0.05 Used 0. 12 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 Runoff (in) 1.31 1.83 2 . 55 3 . 10 3 .95 4.42 5. 00 Unit Peak Discharge 0.750 0.762 0.762 0.762 0.762 0.762 0.762 (cfs/acre/in) Pond and Swamp Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0$ Ponds Used ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ --- Peak Discharge (cfs) 8 11 15 19 24 26-----30-- 1 TR-55 GRAPHICAL DISCHARGE METHOD VERSION 1. 11 ,Project : SESD User: ht Date: 08-25-92 County : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: Subtitle: CONCEPT B Data: Drainage Area 3 . 33 Acres ! ' " ' � O V. Runoff Curve Number o 83 Time of Concentration: 0. 16 Hours Rainfall Type III Pond and Swamp Area NONE Storm Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Frequency (yrs) 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 24-Hr Rainfall (in) 2.5 3. 1 3 .9 4 . 5 5.4 5.9 6. 5 Ia/P Ratio 0. 16 0. 13 0. 11 0.09 0.08 0. 07 0. 06 Used 0. 16 0. 13 0. 11 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 Runoff (in) 1. 06 1. 53 2. 20 2.73 3 .54 4. 00 4. 56 Unit Peak Discharge 0.899 0.918 0.933 0.936 0.936 0.936 0.936 (cfs/acre/in) Pond and Swamp Factor 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 0. 0% Ponds Used _ _ ------ --Peak_Discharge-(cfs) 3---_-_578_---_111214-- 1 ITR-55 GRAPHICAL DISCHARGE METHOD VERSION 1. 11 ,Project : SESD User: ht Date: 08-25-92 County : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: ,Subtitle: CONCEPT B Data: Drainage Area 1. 19 Acres Runoff Curve Number 84 Time of Concentration: 0.25 Hours _ Rainfall Type III Pond and Swamp Area NONE Storm Numberi=====Z======3-- -- 4======5======6======7 ----- --- ---- ------ ----- Frequency (yrs) 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 24-Hr Rainfall (in) 2.5 3 . 1 3.9 4.5 5.4 5.9 6. 5 Ia/P Ratio 0. 15 0. 12 0. 10 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.06 Used 0. 15 0. 12 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 Runoff (in) 1. 12 1. 60 2.28 2 .82 3 . 64 4 . 10 4 . 67 Unit Peak Discharge 0.796 0.813 0.826 0. 826 0.826 0.826 0.826 (cfs/acre/in) Pond-and Swamp Factor -100- -1 00- -100- -100- -100- -100- ------ 1 - 00 0. 0% Ponds Used Peak Discharge (cfs) 1 2 1 2 ----3------4------4--------- . r II r i 1 TR-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION VERSION 1. 11 Project : SESD User: AF Date: 08-21-92 County : ESSEX --:OUTFALLState: MA Checked: Date: ONCEPT Subtitle: (CG, 1 Subarea : O-UTY1 ---------------------------------------------------- _Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab. ) Open space (Lawns,parks etc. ) - - - Good condition; grass cover > 75% 3 . 38 (80) Impervious Areas - - Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways - 5. 83 (98) Streets and roads - - - Gravel (w/ right-of-way) 0. 63 (91) Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 9.84 ------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- - SUBAREA: OUTF1 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 9.84 AcresWEIGHTEDCURVE NUMBER:91* ----------------------------------------------- ------------------ * - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method 1 TR-55 Tc and Tt THRU SUBAREA COMPUTATION VERSION 1. 11 Project : SESD User: AF Date: 08-21-92 County : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: Subtitle: CONCEPT G, OUTFALL 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- , Flow Type---2- - - year---Length-- SlopeSurface-- n-- AreafVelocityTime ( rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft)t) (ft)t) (ft/sec) (hr) Sheet 3 . 1 210 0.053 E 0. 192 ' Open Channel 504 . 0097 .0133 . 14 6.28 0. 020 Time of Concentration = 0.21* --- Sheet Flow Surface Codes --- -- -- A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense - Shallow Concentrated - B Fallow (No Res. ) G Grass, Burmuda --- SurFace Codes --- C Cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods, Light P Paved D Cultivated > 20 % Res. I Woods, Dense U Unpaved E Grass-Range, Short * - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method I� TR-55 GRAPHICAL DISCHARGE METHOD VERSION 1. 11 Project : SESD User: AF Date: 08-21-92 County : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: Subtitle: CONCEPT G, OUTFALL 1 Data: Drainage Area 9.84 * Acres Runoff Curve Number 91 * Time of Concentration: 0.21 * Hours Rainfall Type III Pond and Swamp Area NONE ------------------------------ Storm Number 1 ---2-- ---3-- ---4-- ---5-- ---6-- ---7-- ---------------------- ------ Frequency (yrs) 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 24-Hr Rainfall (in) 2. 5 3. 1 3 .9 4.5 5.4 5.9 6. 5 Ia/P Ratio 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.04 0. 04 0.03 0.03 Used 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 Runoff (in) 1.61 2. 16 2 .92 3 . 50 4. 37 4 .86 5.45 Unit Peak Discharge 0.871 0.871 0.871 0.871 0.871 0.871 0.871 (cfs/acre/in) Pond and Swamp Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 O.0% Ponds Used ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ----- --Peak-Discharge-(cfs) -----14-----19-----25-----30-----37-----42-----47-- * - Value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines TR-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION VERSION 1. 11 Ili Project .• SESD User: of Date: 08-22-92 County : ESSEX _ __ State: MA Checked: Date: ' Subtitle: CONCEPT G, OUTFALL_P Subarea : 5UTF3 --------------- ------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) --------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab. ) Open space (Lawns,parks etc. ) Good condition; grass cover > 75% - - _ 1.78 (80) Impervious Areas _ _ _ 2,85(98) Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways tResidential districts Avg % impery (by average lot size) _ - 3 .32 (82) 2 acre 12 - Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 7_95 -------- ----- ----- -------- ----- ---- ----- -------- ----- --------- - SUBAREA:-OUTF3- -TOTAL-DRAINAGE-AREA:-7.95- ------ Acres WEIGHTED-CURVE-NUMBER:87* ------------------------------------------------------------ ' * - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method 1 TR-55 Tc and Tt THRU SUBAREA COMPUTATION VERSION 1. 11 ' Project : SESD User: of Date: 08-22-92 County : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: Subtitle: CONCEPT G, OUTFALL 3 1 Flow Type---2-year---Length-- SlopeSurface-- n--------AreaVelocity- Time ( -------- rain (ft) (ft/ft)) t)code - (ft)ft) (ft/sec) (hr) Sheet 3 . 1 300 .05 a 0.262 ' Shallow Concent'd 414 . 02 u 0.050 Shallow Concent'd 50 .04 p 0.003 Open Channel 83 . 0046 .0131.23 3 .93 0. 006 ' Open Channel 761 .021 . 0131.23 3.93 -0028 Time of Concentration = 0. 35* --- Sheet Flow Surface Codes --- -- --- A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense - Shallow Concentrated - B Fallow (No Res. ) G Grass, Burmuda --- Surface Codes ' C Cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods, Light P Paved D Cultivated > 20 % Res. I Woods, Dense U Unpaved E Grass-Range, Short * - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method r TR-55 GRAPHICAL DISCHARGE METHOD VERSION 1. 11 Project SESD User: of Date: 08-22-92 County : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: ' Subtitle: CONCEPT G, OUTFALL 3 Data: Drainage Area 7.95 * Acres Runoff Curve Number 87 * Time of Concentration: 0.35 * Hours Rainfall Type III ' Pond and-Swamp-Area--c--NONE------------------------------------- -Storm-Number--------- ---1-- ---2-- ---3-- ---4-- ---5-- ---6-- ---7-- Frequency (yrs) 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 24-Hr Rainfall (in) 2 .5 3 . 1 3.9 4. 5 5.4 5.9 6. 5 Ia/P Ratio 0. 12 0. 10 0.08 0.07 0.06 0. 05 0. 05 Used 0. 12 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0 . 10 Runoff (in) 1. 31 1.83 2.55 3 . 10 3 .95 4.42 5.00 Unit Peak Discharge 0.727 0.738 0.738 0.738 0.738 0.738 0.738 (cfs/acre/in) 1 Pond and Swamp Factor 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 0. 0% Ponds Used -_Peak_Discharge-(cfs) ----__8-----11-_-__15--__-18-__--23--__-26-__--29 ' * - Value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines ITR-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION VERSION 1. 11 Project : SESD User: of Date: 08-22-92 County : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: ' Subtitle: iCONCE ?T G OVERLAND EAST Subarea : OLEAST ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab. ) Open space (Lawns,parks etc. ) _ _ _ 2 , 23 (80) Good condition; grass cover > 75$ ' Impervious Areas _ _ - 0.47 (98) Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways ' Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) _2_7 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' SUBAREA ------_OLEAST TOTAL_DRAINAGE AREA: -2_7_Acres -_--_--WEIGHTED-CURVE NUMBER_83*_ * - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method TR-55 Tc and Tt THRU SUBAREA COMPUTATION VERSION 1. 11 Project : SESD User: of Date: 08-22-92 County : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: ' Subtitle: CONCEPT G, OVERLAND EAST ------------------------------------------------------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) --------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- ---- Sheet 3. 1 80 0.058 E 0.086 Sheet 220 0. 017 A 0. 041 Shallow Concent'd 389 0.063 U 0.027 Open Channel 25 0.024 . 0131. 23 3 .93 0. 001 Time of Concentration = 015* --- Sheet Flow Surface Codes --- --- --- A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense - Shallow Concentrated - B Fallow (No Res. ) G Grass, Burmuda Surface Codes C Cultivated < 20 % Res. H Woods, Light P Paved D Cultivated > 20 % Res. I Woods, Dense U Unpaved E Grass-Range, Short * - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method t TR-55 GRAPHICAL DISCHARGE METHOD VERSION 1. 11 Project SESD User: of Date: 08-22-92 County : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: Subtitle: CONCEPT G, OVERLAND EAST Data: Drainage Area 2 .7 * Acres 1 Runoff Curve Number 83 * Time of Concentration: 0. 15 *. Hours Rainfall Type III -Pond-and-Swamp-Area --�--NONE ------------------------------------- -------------------- Storm Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 --------- ----- ------ Frequency (yrs) 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 24-Hr Rainfall (in) 2.5 3 .1 3.9 4. 5 5.4 5.9 6. 5 Ia/P Ratio 0. 16 0. 13 0. 11 0.09 0. 08 0.07 0.06 Used 0. 16 0. 13 0. 11 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 Runoff (in) 1. 06 1.53 2 .20 2.73 3 . 54 4 .00 4.56 Unit Peak Discharge 0.914 0.933 0.948 0.951 0.951 0.951 0.951 (cfs/acre/in) Pond and Swamp Factor 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00' 0.0% Ponds Used __ _ _ _ _ ------ Peak Discharge (cfs) 3 4 6 7 9 10 12 _PeakDischarge (cfs) 346791012 ' * - Value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines 1 South Essex Sewerage Pistrict Salem, Massachusetts :SCOPE OF WORK: -SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/SUPPLEMENTAL ,z FINAL FACILITIESPLAN FOR RESIDUAL`S DISPOSAL LANDFILL January 1993 Camp CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. environmental engineers,scientists, Ten Cambridge Center planners,&management consultants Cambridge,Massachusetts 02142 January 15, 1993 an 252-8000 ' Mr. Paul A. Taurasi,P.E. Assistant Commissioner MA Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Municipal Facilities One Winter Street Boston,MA 02108 ' RE: Scope of Work for SFEIR/SFFP on SESD Residuals Disposal (EDEA #7059) Dear Mr. Taurasi: On behalf of the South Essex Sewerage District enclosed is the proposed scope of work to prepare a Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Report/Supplemental Final Facilities Plan (SFEIR/SFFP) to address the disposal of SESD residuals. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP) Bureau of Municipal Facilities in various correspondence and discussions,and the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act(MEPA)Unit,in its July 2, 1992 Certificate on the District's FEIR, indicated that additional documentation is needed on the feasibility of the FEIR recommended plan to dispose of the District's dried sludge pellets, and grit and screenings, in the vertical expansion area above the existing Peabody Landfill. The proposed scope of work included herein addresses those issues,per our discussions with MDEP staff. Since the completion of the FEIR in July, the District has reached an agreement with the City F ' of Peabody to purchase the "air rights"above the existing landfill for disposal of residuals. Therefore, the scope addresses only the vertical expansion of that landfill and no other development scenario on other portions of the site. The District plans to proceed with the studies and documentation described in this scope of work on or about March 1, 1993. We would appreciate receiving any comments prior to that date. Very truly yours, ' CAMP DRESSER& McKEE INC. uillermo J. c ins,P.E. Senior Vice resident ' cc: Janet McCabe/Nancy Baker,MEPA Andrew Sims,Jr.,SESD Ray Masak,SESD John Darling, SS&D George Harding,EPA Diane Chabot, EPA Elizabeth Yu, USDOJ Douglas Wilkins, MA Dept. of the Attorney General 1 SOUTH ESSEX SEWERAGE DISTRICT SCOPE OF WORK Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Report and Supplemental Final Facilities Plan for Residuals Disposal Landfill (EDEA File No. 7059) Transmittal Letter Table of Contents Introduction Task 1.0 Settlement and Stability of Vertical Expansion at Peabody Landfill Task 2.0 Hydrogeologic Field Work and Data Collection Task 3.0 Hydrogeologic Analysis Task 4.0 Contingency Plan for Leachate Treatment Task 5.0 Evaluation of Pellet/Residue Co-Disposal Task 6.0 Twenty-Year Capacity for SESD Task 7.0 Institutional Issues Task 8.0 Surficial Drainage Flow Patterns Task 9.0 Environmental Studies ' Task 10.0 Prepare SFEIR/SFFP Task 11.0 Project Management Vertical Expansion Site Plan (Map Pocket) DRAFT (4) -1- 01-14-93 INTRODUCTION �This document presented the proposed scope of work to prepare a Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Report/Supplemental Final Facilities Plan (SFEIR/SFFP) to address the disposal of SESD residuals. The Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) Unit, in its July 2, 1992 Certificate on the District's FEIR, and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP) ' Bureau of Municipal Facilities in various correspondence and discussions, indicated that additional documentation is needed on the feasibility of the FEIR recommended plan to 1 dispose of the District's dried sludge pellets, grit and screenings bulked with soils, in the vertical expansion area above the existing Peabody Landfill. The proposed scope of work included herein addresses those issues. Since the completion of the FEIR in July 1992, the South Essex Sewerage District (the District) has reached an agreement with the City of Peabody to purchase the air rights above the existing landfill for disposal of residuals. Therefore, the scope of work addresses only the vertical expansion of that landfill and no other development scenario on other portions of the site. Reference to the vertical expansion in this scope of work means the proposed vertical expansion over the North and South Mound areas of the Peabody Landfill. The vertical expansion is shown on the Vertical Expansion Site Plan in the attached map pocket. All work plans and technical memoranda prepared under this scope of work will be submitted in draft form to the District for review. In addition work plans will be submitted to MDEP for approval. All final technical memoranda will be incorporated directly into and/or summarized and appended to the SFEIR/SFFP document. DRAFT (4) -2- 01-14-93 Task 1.0 SETTLEMENT AND STABILITY OF VERTICAL EXPANSION AT PEABODY LANDFILL ' I. OBTECTIVE Provide detailed analyses of the stability and expected settlements at the Peabody Landfill (North and South Mound areas only) due to the loading from the proposed vertical expansion. These analyses will be utilized in Task 6.0, 20-year capacity to develop grading plans and conceptual liner systems based on the results of the stability analysis and ' estimated settlements. H. SCOPE OF WORK Task 1.1 FIELD WORK Total and differential settlement of the existing North and South Mound landfills under planned grade increases of the proposed vertical expansion are to be determined. The best available method to assist settlement predictions is the construction and settlement monitoring of a test fill. Two separate test fills are proposed for the North and South Mound areas. To obtain meaningful data from the test fills and permit realistic settlement predictions, landfill and subsurface conditions must be defined within the limits of the North and South Mounds. Additionally, samples must be obtained of the landfill refuse, to permit a determination of the state of decomposition of the materials. This will allow the rate and magnitudes of long-term refuse decomposition settlements to be predicted. The above will be accomplished by conducting geophysical investigations (seismic refraction) and approximately 14 test borings. Refuse samples will be obtained from the borings for chemical testing. Surface settlement platforms will be installed to monitor total settlement of refuse under the weight of the test fills. DRAFT (4) -3- 01-14-93 f Accordingly, the following work will be undertaken: a. Prepare a "Site Specific Health & Safety Plan" for the conduct of the work based on our understanding of the potential risks to which our field personnel may be exposed when conducting work at the site. The plan will specify the preventive measures to be followed, monitoring instrumentation to be used and personnel protective equipment to be worn or utilized. Perform field work in accordance with the plan, and modify the plan during the project as warranted, as information on site conditions is gained. 1 b. Prepare and submit a detailed work plan of all proposed field work to MDEP for review and comment. C The work plan will include subsurface explorations including 14 test borings and 6 days of seismic refraction work to better define the variation of landfill thickness and subsurface conditions within the North and South Mound areas (See Vertical Expansion Site Plan in map pocket). The seismic refraction survey will be performed along seven parallel traverses that are oriented east-west and one traverse that is oriented north-south. The total linear footage of the survey is estimated to be 8,300 ft. The seismic refraction survey will be performed utilizing a GEOPRO 12-channel signal enhancement seismograph with 40 Hz geophones separated by 20 ft. and a 16# hammer energy source. Certain areas of the landfill may prove difficult to survey with this source. When such areas are discovered during the course of the survey, a higher energy explosive source will be utilized as an alternative. ' Processing of the field data will be performed employing time delay and ray tracing techniques to derive depth estimates below each geophone of each spread. Results will be presented in the form of vertical profiles depicting refractor horizons below each traverse. DRAFT (4) -4- 01-14-93 Background noise can influence the results, and, therefore, must be kept to a minimum. It may become necessary, when seismic measurements are being taken, to periodically suspend landfill operations within 500 ft. of a seismic line 1 for a 5 to 10 minute period approximately every hour during the survey. Test borings will be drilled to depths ranging from about 50 to 100 ft. Test borings will not be located in areas where existing landfill liners exist. Arrange to have the test borings conducted by a qualified boring contractor. Contract with a qualified subcontractor to perform the seismic refraction survey. Layout and determine ground surface elevations along seismic refraction lines and at as-drilled boring locations. d. Provide technical monitoring of borings so that depth and location of borings can be varied to meet the subsurface conditions encountered. e. Provide general criteria for construction of two test fill embankments, including material characteristics, estimated unit weight, and compaction requirements. The North Mound test fill is planned to be 120 ft. by 120 ft. in base area and 20 ft. in height. At approximately one horizontal to one vertical side slopes it will be 80 ft. by 80 ft on the top. Similarly, the South Mound test fill will be 100 ft. by 100 ft. in base area and 20 ft. in height, tapering to 60 ft. by 60 ft. on the top. Thus, the North Mound and South Mound test fills will consist of approximately 7,400 and 4,800 cu. yd. of granular material, respectively. The specific geometries of the individual test fills are based primarily on the ' different waste thickness existing at the two locations. It is important that the existing refuse waste material be stressed through its entire thickness, to at least about 50 percent of the pressure applied at the surface. DRAFT (4) -5- 01-14-93 f. Assist SESD arrange and monitor construction of the test fills. The contract for test fill construction will be directly between SESD and/or the City of Peabody and the earthwork contractor selected for the work. It is suggested that material for this purpose be obtained from the large quantities of granular soil (sand) stockpiled at the site for covering of refuse. rg. Plan an instrumentation program for the test fills which will monitor total settlement of the refuse under the imposed loading. It is anticipated that the instrumentation would consist of a total of about 24 surface settlement platforms. h. Provide and install a total of about 24 settlement platforms. Equipment includes ' materials required to install subsequent riser pipes as filling progresses. All survey measurements will by made at periodical intervals during test fill construction and for about a three month period thereafter (approximately 18 sets of readings are anticipated). i. On several days during test fill construction, conduct field density tests to determine the average in-situ density of the fill placed. j. Process and review settlement data following each survey. It is assumed that 18 data sets will be plotted. The continued applicability and frequency of settlement ' observations and required duration of test fill program will be evaluated. Task 1.2 LABORATORY TESTING Geotechnical ' Perform laboratory tests to assist geotechnical engineering analyses. Standard and large diameter split-spoon samples of the refuse fill obtained from test borings will be examined and classified relative to their visible characteristics. A laboratory testing program will be undertaken to determine index properties of each characteristic segment. It DRAFT (4) -6- 01-14-93 1 is expected that about 30 unit weight, 30 natural water content, 30 solid-volatile solid (organic content), 30 pH and 30 grainsize distribution tests will be conducted. If in-situ refuse conditions are amenable to obtain thin-wall tube and/or stationary-piston undisturbed samples, up to six consolidation (oedometer) and ten triaxial compression strength tests will be conducted to obtain parameters pertinent for settlement (i.e., other than due to decomposition) and stability analyses. AIn addition to the refuse material, the laboratory program will include tests to determine the index properties of Chemfix stabilized cover materials. Test results, together with the SPT-Blow Count data and visual examination of the samples will be used in assessing the physical characteristics of the Chemfix stabilized sections of the existing landfill. Chemical Composition Obtain up to 30 samples of landfill refuse from the test borings and perform 30 suites of laboratory chemical tests (total solids, total volatile solids, total organic carbon, lignin, pH) to assist in analyzing the state of decomposition of the landfill and to permit prediction of ' the rate and magnitude of long-term refuse decomposition settlement. Task 1.3 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING ANALYSES ' Settlement Analyses (North and South Mound Areas) The key elements which control the magnitude and rate of settlements are the thickness (geometry) of the compressible strata, compression/consolidation parameters, initial (i.e., prior to loading) effective stress profile through the strata and the induced loading (Le, vertical expansion). ' Data on thickness of the existing refuse materials at the North and South Mound areas will .be provided by the geophysical surveys and the test borings. In addition, these data will be used to establish various substrata with different characteristics. DRAFT (4) -7- 01-14-93 Compressibility of the overall refuse mass will be determined from the test fill performance ' data. Settlement versus. time data from the test fills will be evaluated to establish parameters representing the three settlement components: a. initial settlement which occurs immediately upon loading, and is associated with large scale ravelling (collapse) in the structural matrix of the refuse, b. time-dependent consolidation settlement which is associated with discharge of water from the refuse matrix, and small scale structural re-arrangement of refuse elements within the matrix (i.e., primary and secondary compression), ' c time-dependent settlement which is associated with the chemical decomposition on-going within the refuse. Parameters for chemical decomposition will also be determined independently by laboratory chemical testing. ' Data obtained from test borings (i.e., SPT-N Blow Counts) and geotechnical laboratory test results will be incorporated with the test fill and chemical decomposition data to determine the compression parameters for settlement analyses. Based on available data, it will be assumed that compression within the natural soil strata underlying the refuse will be ' insignificant under the proposed vertical expansion loading. Initial effective stress profiles through the existing refuse masses will be determined using unit weight data obtained from the tube samples. Distribution of vertical stress increments through the refuse mass due to the vertical expansion loading will be determined by using appropriate elastic solutions. Represent- ative unit weights for bulked sludge pellets will be determined in establishing loads due to the vertical expansion as applicable to the particular segments of the landfill. ' A comprehensive review of reported cases of landfill settlements as well as currently used methodologies for landfill settlements will be undertaken. Parameters for the three components of settlements, referenced above, will be established for similar conditions. DRAFT (4) -8- 01-14-93 Spatial variations of magnitude of settlements across the landfill will be determined and presented graphically for successive stages of the vertical expansion. Such presentations will provide direct input on anticipated differential settlements which will be critical in the design of liners and leachate collection systems. Also, the results of the settlement analyses will form the basis of remedial measures (e.g., preloading) to control total and differential settlements within tolerable limits. Stability Analyses (North and South Mound Areas) Data on shear strength of the existing refuse mass for stability analyses will be obtained from the test borings (i.e., SPT-blow counts), and index and engineering properties from the geotechnical laboratory testing program. Settlement (deformation) data obtained from the ' test fills will also be evaluated to establish strength properties reasonably compatible with the deformation properties. Shear strength parameters for special areas such as refuse versus liner interface, existing refuse versus future fill (pellets), and interfaces within the composite liners will be considered. A comprehensive review of reported cases of landfill stability problems, as well as currently used methodologies for landfill stability analyses, will be undertaken. Strength parameters used by others for conditions similar to the project conditions will be established. Several modes of stability analyses, including shallow surface slip, deep-seated circular sliding and composite wedge-type sliding will be undertaken as applicable to different segments of the project. Criteria on factors of safety for different stability considerations will be established and used in analyses. Seismic stability analyses-will be undertaken relative to the "design earthquake" specified in the Massachusetts Solid Waste Regulations [310 CMR 19.038(c)]. Two currently used methods, Newmark Sliding Block Analysis, and Seed-Makdisi Modified Newmark Analysis will be utilized in seismic stability analyses to determine expected permanent I ' deformations under the "design earthquake". DRAFT (4) -9- 01-14-93 Estimated permanent deformations will be compared with tolerable levels of deformations for critical landfill components such as leachate and gas collection systems. iIII. DELIVERABLES rIn addition to the Health and Safety Plan and the work plan for field work, a geotechnical engineering technical memorandum will be prepared. Geotechnical Engineering Technical Memorandum A draft geotechnical engineering technical memorandum will be prepared which will include all field and laboratory data, and the results of the settlement and stability analyses undertaken. The draft memorandum will be submitted to the District for comments. Specifically, the field data will include the results of the geophysical explorations, test boring logs and settlement performance of the two test fills. Results of the geotechnical and chemical (decomposition) laboratory tests will be summarized. ' Evaluation of the field and laboratory test data and determination of pertinent compressibility and strength parameters will be provided as the basis of engineering analyses. Results of the settlement and stability analyses will be presented in a graphical format as appropriate. Preliminary recommendations will be provided, if and as necessary, for remedial measures to be incorporated into the project design to adequately address settlement and stability considerations. The final technical memorandum will be incorporated into the SFEIR/SFFP in Task 10.0. DRAFT (4) -10- 01-14-93 1 Task 2.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC FIELD WORK AND DATA COLLECTION ' I. OBTECTIVE To install monitoring equipment and collect data relative to bedrock contours, groundwater flow, velocity, and direction, and water quality in the vertical expansion area and the adjacent area to the north, west, and southwest. The data collected in Task 2.0 will be used to develop a detailed hydrogeologic report as described in Task 3.0. 11. SCOPE OF WORK Task 2.1 GEOPHYSICAL EXPLORATION 1 A seismic refraction survey will be conducted north, west and southwest of the vertical ' expansion area. The purpose of this survey is to define the bedrock contours, water table elevation and generalized soil units adjacent to the existing and proposed waste deposition limits as shown on the Vertical Expansion Site Plan (see map pocket). The proposed locations of the hydrogeologic study seismic lines are identified on this plan. Borings drilled as part of subsequent cluster well installation (Task 2.3) will be surveyed to reference the seismic refraction to the local datum. ' The seismic lines located on the west and southwest sides of the site will provide bedrock ' data for subsequent well installation work. Specifically, this data will be used to design screen locations for cluster wells. The data will also be used to plot bedrock contours in the vicinity of Cedar Pond and Suntang Lake for an overall hydrogeologic view of groundwater migration patterns toward these two water bodies. The data will also be compared to the identified groundwater and surface water divides on this side of the site. The seismic lines to the north of the site will be used to develop information on that area of the site where only a few studies have been conducted in the past. A groundwater and surface water divide will also be evaluated in this area. The following survey lines and field tasks are i proposed: ' DRAFT (4) -11- 01-14-93 e • 15 seismic refraction lines totalling 8600 linear feet. Line lengths are as follows: 8 lines @ 800 ft 4 lines @ 400 It 3 lines @ 200 ft • Hydrogeologic supervision of seismic survey work • Data reduction and evaluation Task 2.2 BORINGS A series of soil borings have been proposed in locations shown on the Vertical Expansion 1 Site Plan. The borings will be installed as a cost-effective means of determining more detailed soil, groundwater and bedrock data in areas where insufficient data currently exists. During soil boring installation, split spoon samples will be collected to identify soil matrices in the areas to the southwest, west and north of the landfill complex. These borings are ' necessary to determine the method of intercepting and collecting groundwater in these areas and to provide corroboration of seismic data generated in Task 2.1. Evaluation along the easterly side of the vertical expansion area will be based on existing data. It should be noted that the boring program has been designed to complement the work being conducted in Task 1.0 on the landfill area. The Task 2.2 borings are proposed for the area beyond the limits of the Task 1.0 work. The following borings are proposed: • Install 3 soil borings to bedrock on the southwest side • Install 3 soil borings to bedrock on the west side • Install 2 soil borings to bedrock on the north side It should be noted that three (3) of these borings are designated as contingency borings. Their locations are based on the data generated by the first five (5) borings and the seismic refraction surveys. tTask 2.3 CLUSTER WELL INSTALLATION A series of two and three point cluster wells are proposed along the north, west and southwest boundaries of the vertical expansion area. Four (4) locations (one two-point, 1 three three-point) clusters are proposed, for a total of 11 sampling points. Deep well points DRAFT (4) -12- 01-14-93 will be installed in bedrock at the three-point clusters. The actual locations will be determined, in part, by the results of the seismic refraction survey. The estimated depth of installation is 50-100 feet, depending on depth to rock. Split spoon samples will be collected from the deepest well installation at each cluster location. Blow counts will be recorded, soils will be characterized and screened for the presence of volatile organics with a Photoionization Detector (PID), and detailed boring logs/well construction diagrams will be prepared. All borings and well installations will be monitored during installation. The intent of the cluster well program is to provide sufficient groundwater data (vertical ' and horizontal) to adequately characterize the flow regions across the site. Data from these well points will allow for the preparation of flow nets, groundwater contour maps and ' other information to evaluate flow. The clusters were also located along seismic lines to confirm the data generated during Task 2.1. The specific cluster well locations were chosen to provide comprehensive coverage in areas where data is currently lacking. The scope of this task was developed in conjunction with the separate installation of five (5) wells by ' GCR on the Salem Country Club parcel. The Task 2.3 cluster wells have been located so as to incorporate the GCR data in this evaluation. Among the tasks to be included are: • Evaluation of seismic data to finalize boring location • Hydrogeologic supervision of all well installation • Preparation of boring log/well construction diagrams and tabulation of all related field data. Task 2.4 SITE SURVEY ' A site survey will be conducted to reference cluster wells and seismic lines to a common reference datum. The survey will include measurements on the existing monitoring wells at the Peabody and GCR landfills in addition to the new cluster wells. The survey is necessary to coordinate all relevant groundwater, seismic and other site related data. The DRAFT (4) -13- 01-14-93 survey tasks will include: • Site survey for horizontal and vertical control of site wells and seismic survey lines. • Hydrogeologic supervision of survey work III. DELIVERABLE Existing site hydrogeological data will be compiled and evaluated. A summary of site hydrogeological conditions will be developed along with plans and cross-sections of the area for incorporation in the hydrogeological report referenced in Task 3.5. Technical Memoranda on the field activities will also be compiled for incorporation in the hydrogeological report. i DRAFT (4) -14- 01-14-93 Task 3.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC ANALYSIS I. OBTECTNE ' To consolidate and analyze available data (water quality, water flow, etc.) for the vertical expansion site. Develop a conceptual water quality and flow model to evaluate future ' impacts of the proposed project. In addition, sample and analyze groundwater quality from proposed existing groundwater and surface water sampling points. A final report will be prepared to be incorporated in the SFEIR/SFFP. All field work will be conducted in one sampling period to meet the timing of SFEIR/SFFP submittals required to allow the project to proceed. 11. SCOPE OF WORK ' Task 3.1 GROUNDWATER ELEVATION DATA ' Groundwater elevation measurements will be collected from all new and existing monitoring wells at and adjacent to the vertical expansion site. Recorded data will be ' transferred to an updated site plan. Data will be utilized to develop a water table map of the vertical expansion site and the adjacent area. In addition, the data will be used to develop estimated vertical flow gradients and flow lines emanating from the fill areas. Groundwater divides identified by other studies in the area will be confirmed and expanded using the new data. The following specific activities are proposed: • Data collection and reduction ' 0 Site plan development • Groundwater contour development • Prepare cross-sections and develop flow lines i ' DRAFT (4) -15- 01-14-93 Task 3.2 COLLECT EXISTING DATA Existing groundwater and surface water quality data will be compiled and summarized. Historical data from the Peabody landfill, the GCR landfill and Eastman Gelatine will be gathered and summarized in one document to form an overall review of groundwater quality of the area surrounding the vertical expansion site. An effort will be made to identify additional potential water quality data sources to be incorporated into the general summary. Data will be compiled into a unified data base for use in evaluating water quality 1 data collected from the proposed monitoring wells and for developing a site-wide isopleth plan of chemical parameters for use as baseline conditions. The task will include: • Identify data sources • Obtain copies of all available data ' • Compile data base Task 3.3 SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSES After installation of the groundwater monitoring points described in Task 2.3, groundwater ' samples will be collected and analyzed for the parameters listed in the Massachusetts Solid Waste regulations (310 CMR 19.132 (h)) including general parameters, inorganics, and ' volatile organics as determined by the amended Method 624. Each of the 11 proposed cluster well points and 13 existing well points will be sampled and analyzed for general ' parameters, inorganics, and volatile organics. The results of these analyses will be incorporated into the general summary developed in Task 3.2 above. A detailed workplan specifying monitoring wells to be sampled, sample parameters as well as rationale for the proposed sampling scheme will be submitted to DEP prior to sample collection. This data is essential for evaluating areas which have yet to be studied, and for expanding the data base and water quality isopleth mapping developed in Section 3.2. The task will include: • Submit work plan • Sample collection ' DRAFT (4) -16- 01-14-93 f • Laboratory analyses at 11 proposed and 13 existing groundwater sampling points • Incorporate results into database Task 3.4 STATISTICAL REVIEW The data compiled under Tasks 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 will be reviewed to determine any ' discernable trends in time or space. Data for some monitoring wells extend as far back as 1983. Statistical correlations between pollutant parameters will be evaluated for further use in conceptual groundwater quality evaluations. Numeric and graphical summaries of the statistical review will be incorporated into report format for the hydrogeological report ' described in Task 3.5 and the SFEIR/SFFP. This data will be incorporated into a final report as detailed in Task 3.5. This task will include: • Prepare statistical summaries • Evaluate correlations ' Graphical presentation ' Task 3.5 HYDROGEOLOGICAL REPORT ' The results of Tasks 3.1 through 3.4 will be reviewed and interpreted for the preparation of ' a hydrogeological report which details the groundwater and surface water flow conditions of the vertical expansion site and adjacent area, and evaluates the potential for contaminant ' migration. The report will be presented to address the hydrogeologic information required as part of a solid waste permit. Regulatory standards for groundwater analytical testing, as ' per 310 CMR 19.132, will be used as the criteria values for evaluating the environmental impacts of the proposed project. The results and conclusions will be summarized in a ' technical memorandum for inclusion in the SFEIR/SFFP and a subsequent solid waste permit application. This task includes: ' Summarize results of Tasks 3.1 through 3.5 in technical memoranda. • Prepare a final report detailing these results in a format acceptable for the SFEIR/SFFP. DRAFT (4) -17- 01-14-93 III. DELIVERABLE Deliverables for Task 3.0 include: • Work plan for groundwater sampling and analyses • Water elevation data on groundwater flow maps ' Laboratory reports for all analyses • Numeric and graphical statistical review • Technical Memorandum summarizing all work conducted under Task 3.0 and engineering interpretation will be submitted to District for review ' Final Report for inclusion in SFEIR/SFFP. 1 ' DRAFT (4) -18- 01-14-93 II' Task 4.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN FOR LEACHATE TREATMENT I. OBTECTIVE ' Develop a preliminary containment and contingency plan to address the control of a potential release of contamination into the groundwater at the vertical expansion site from sources that are within and contiguous to the vertical expansion site. The potential contamination sources included in this work are the components of the Peabody Landfill ' (Area B, North and South Mounds and the proposed vertical expansion). II. SCOPE OF WORK Task 4.1 COLLECTION SYSTEMS Evaluate the potential contaminant pathways around the periphery of the vertical expansion site, and independently evaluate groundwater interception/collection methods for each independent potential pathway. The anticipated flow rates associated with each potential pathway will be calculated based on information obtained in Tasks 2 and 3. Schematic drawings for the recommended collection system(s) for each of the potential pathway areas will be developed. The following three (3) potential systems are being considered. ' South and southwest sides of the vertical expansion site ' West side of the vertical expansion site • North side of the vertical expansion site ' Task 4.2 TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY Evaluate on-site treatment and direct discharge strategies available for the estimated I , groundwater flows from the areas of the Peabody Landfill versus on-site pretreatment with discharge to the sanitary sewers. The pretreatment evaluation will incorporate compliance ' DRAFT (4) -19- 01-14-93 with the SESD Local Limits. The existing sanitary sewer capacity and the capability of SESD to treat the anticipated flow will also be evaluated. Schematic drawings for the recommended treatment/pre-treatment strategies will be developed. The recommended treatment and discharge system(s) will also be evaluated as they relate to proposed EPA Categorical Pretreatment Standards. ' The items of work under subtask 4.2 include the following: • Literature research • Treatment system evaluation ' 0 Evaluation of discharge options • Sewer and SESD capacity evaluation • Develop treatment system schematics • EPA Categorical Pretreatment Standards evaluation ' M. DELIVERABLE Technical Memorandum ' A draft Technical Memorandum will be prepared and submitted to the District summarizing the evaluations described above and providing recommendations for remediation plans that can be implemented in the event that groundwater contamination from the vertical expansion site is identified and determined to require mitigation. A final technical memorandum will incorporate District comments and will be included in the SFEIR/SFFP. I 1 DRAFT (4) -20- 01-14-93 i Task 5.0 EVALUATION OF PELLET/RESIDUE CO-DISPOSAL I. OBTECTIVE Provide a technical basis for the proposal for landfill disposal of dried sludge and grit and screenings without being hydraulically separated from the ash and Chemfix® mixture which is currently being landfilled in the South Mound area at the Peabody vertical 1 expansion site. This proposal was made in the FEIR because hydraulic barriers will exist at various depths in the South Mound area by the time SESD pellets are available for disposal, and these barriers could be utilized for the collection of leachate from sections of the vertical expansion (an hydraulic separation is required by the MDEP regulations 310 CMR 19.00 unless a variance is approved by MDEP.) Disposal of pellets bulked with native soils will be evaluated. This evaluation acknowledges that a hydraulic barrier is required on the ' North Mound area because there are currently no liners in these areas. ' 11. SCOPE OF WORK Task 5.1 REGULATORY REVIEW/REQUIREMENTS ' Establish regulatory concerns and requirements for co-disposal. The basis for current t regulations requiring hydraulic separation of other solid wastes from the ash residue will be explored, including file review and discussions with MDEP. A Demonstration Project Permit Application will be prepared and submitted for MDEP approval. This will include a detailed work plan for these Task 5.0 evaluations. This subtask includes: ' Establish regulatory requirements/concerns • File review • Discussions. with MDEP 0 Prepare Demonstration Project Application A • Prepare work plan ' DRAFT (4) -21- 01-14-93 Task 5.2 LITERATURE REVIEW The available technical literature on co-disposal will be reviewed. This will include computer aided database search (DIALOG). A summary of findings will be prepared. This subtask includes: • Literature search • Summary literature review memorandum Task 5.3 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS ' Physical, chemical and engineering properties of sludge pellets, chemfix, ash residuals and soils will be characterized. An evaluation of Chemfix co-disposed with ash residue is ' included to provide a baseline reference to current approved disposal practice. Undigested sludge pellets will be obtained from either Hagerstown, Maryland or Cobb County, Florida. Previously summarized sludge quality data from SESD and Hagerstown or Cobb County will be compared. Any other available data on properties of residue, pellets and/or chemfix materials will be compiled. Additional analyses will be performed to evaluate the physical properties of each material including unit weight, natural water content, permeability and ' Cmpression. Chemical analyses will include analyses for each material for pH, percent vtiles, percent solids, and TCLP. Analyses for various metals and inorganics will be ' performed for each material. The attached Table 5.1 presents the proposed sampling program. A complete sampling protocol will be submitted as part of the work plan. Data ' will be compiled in summary form for use in the SFEIR/SFFP and further bench scale testing. This subtask includes the following: ' 0 Review available sludge data - SESD ' - Hagerstown or Cobb County • Review available Chemfix data • Review available residue data ' 0 Review other pertinent field data ' DRAFT (4) -22- 01-14-93 TABLE 5.1 WASTE CHARACTERIZATION d P NUMBER OF ANALYSES— _ 1:1 PELLETS RESIDUE CHEMFIX SOIL PELLETS & SOIL PHYSICAL PARAMETERS --- ---------- -- Unit WGJ M1&Water Content 2 2 2 2 2 Steve Analysis -- _– -- 2 Triaxial Permeability 2 2 2 -- 2 One–D Compression 2 2 2 __ 2 TOTAL PHYSICAL PARAMETERS 6 6 6 4 6 CHEMICALP&RAM[MBS �.i PH 3 3 3 3 3 %Volatile 8%Soids 3 3 3 3 3 TCLP(metals) 3 3 3 Volatiles(1624) 3 3 3 Semi lafts(1625) 1 1 1 -- -- PCBs(8060) 1 1 1 MetaMnorganics(long Ust)0) 1 1 1 Metals/Inorganics(short fist)M 2 2 2 2 -- TOTAL CHEMICALPARAMETERS 17 17 17 B 6 TOTAL CHEMICAL S PHYSICAL 23 23 23 12 12 M Nitrate,Alkafinily,Specific Conductance,TOS,As, Be.Cl,CN, Fe,Hg,So,SO4.Ag,Mn, W4,NH3,Cd,Cu,Cr,Pb,W. Ni,Zn f4 NH3, Cd,Cr,Cu,Pb,Mo,Ni,Zn,Specific Conductance 0 'P w ' e • Obtain Chemfix samples • Obtain pellets from Hagerstown or Cobb County • Obtain residue samples • Identify soils for use, obtain samples • Physical and chemical analyses (see Table 5.1) • Summarize data Task 5.4 BENCH SCALE TESTING A bench scale pilot testing program will be developed using nine simulated test cells (approximately 2 sq. ft. by 3 feet deep each). Triplicates are proposed to provide statistically significant data. Test cells to be used are as follows: e Test Cell Description 1 a,b,c Chemfix and ash residue layers (3 replicates). These will serve as the "control" to reference other test cells to current approved disposal practices. e2a,b,c Pellets plus soil mixed in a 1:1 ratio (3 replicates). These will serve as the basis for evaluating disposal of pellets without the combined influence of eash residue or Chemfix. 3 a,b,c, Pellets plus soil (1:1) above Chemfix and ash residue layers (3 replicates). 1 These will serve as the basis for evaluating disposal of pellets mixed with soil placed above the in-place ash residue/Chemfix fill without a hydraulic barrier. eTest cells will be constructed to collect any free draining liquids for chemical analyses. Pellets, Chemfix, ash residue and soils will be placed in the test cells to simulate placement in the proposed landfill. The test duration will be as long as practical within the constraints of the regulatory deadline for completion of the SFEIR/SFFP. Physical test parameters will include: unit weight and water content, triaxial permeability, moisture density and one- dimensional compression. Analyses from Task 5.3 will serve as "initial conditions" results. At the end of the test period, both the solids and liquid portions will be analyzed. Chemical e eDRAFT (4) -24- 01-14-93 parameters will include pH, volatiles, TCLP and metals for solid samples. Parameters for liquid samples will also include BOD, TSS, COD, metals and inorganics and priority organics. Table 5.2 presents the proposed sampling program for the bench scale testing. Additional sampling will be conducted midway through the test period for pH, percent volatiles, percent solids on solid and liquid samples and BOD, TSS and COD on liquid samples (estimate nine each). Temperature will be monitored throughout the test duration. Data will be compiled in summary form for use in the SFEIR/SFFP. The time constraints to meet the regulatory deadline for completion of the SFEIR/SFFP limit the test duration for the bench scale testing. It is anticipated that anaerobic conditions will prevail within the test cells for most of the test period. Test cells will be covered to regulate moisture entering each cell and anoxic conditions are expected to develop quickly. An analyses of temperature data over the test period will be performed to determine ' whether further decomposition is likely to take place. This subtask includes: Develop written protocol • Construct test cells • Test monitoring • Chemical analyses - interim results 18 each - pH, percent volatiles, percent solids 09 each - BOD, TSS, COD • Physical and chemical analyses - final results - see Table 5.2 • Data analysis and evaluation If, at the end of the test period, the involved parties desire to continue the bench scale testing to determine trends over a longer time period, this can be arranged. However, any additional data collection and/or review have not been included in this scope of work. ' DRAFT (4) -25- 01-14-93 TABLE 5.2 t7 BENCH SCALE TESTING H NUMBER OF ANALYSES PELLETS PELLETS RESIDUE R SOIL RESIDUE CHEMFIX d SOIL d CHIEMFrX ABOVE LAYER LAYER RESIDUE PHYSICAL PAA86WT_f d C34EMFIX Unit Weight 6 Weler Content 2 __ __ 4 4 TrfaxWPermeabtitiy 2 4 4 MolriureDensity 2 -- -- 4 4 One—D Compraasfon 2 -- -- 4 4 TOTAL PHYSICAL PARAMETERS8 0 0 16 16 CHEMICAL PA ETERS SOLIDS %Volatile a%Sows 6 6 TCLP(Metals) y __ -- 6 6 Volaties(1624) 3 __ -- 6 s Semboldwas(1625) __ __ _ _6 6 PCBS(8060) — MelalsAnorganks pang list)M Matel0norgenks(short&m)01 3 -- LI9LI4 BOD,COD,TSS 3 3 3 — pH 3 3 3 — — — %Volatilei%Solids 3 9 3 -- Volelllas(624) 3 3 3 -- SemNolelfies(625) 1 1 1 -- -- PCBs(606) 1 1 1 —— MclaWnorganics Pang list)(1) 1 1 —— —' Motalsilnorganlcs(whorl list)M 2 1 0 TOTAL CHEMICAL PARAMETERS 32 17 17 30 30 TOTAL CHEMICAL d PHYSICAL 40 17 17 46 46 'Q w nt Nitrate,Alkalinity,Specific Conductance,TDS,As,Ba.Cl, CN,Fa,Hg,Se,SO,.Ag.Mn, Cr" .NI I„ Cd,Cu,Cr,Pa.Mo, NI,Zn (a NH3.Cd,Cr,Cu,Pb,Mo,NI,Zn, Specific Conductance ' Task 5.5 REPORT PREPARATION The results of items 5.1 through 5.4 above will be used to evaluate the suitability of co- disposal of pellets with residue and/or disposal without a hydraulic barrier between pellets and the existing Chemfix and ash residue fill. Recommendations will be made, in the form of a Technical Memorandum, regarding the chemical/physical stability of the in-place waste. Project coordination to integrate the results of the bench scale testing into the SFEIR/SFFP is included. This subtask includes: Report writing • QA/QC Review • Project Coordination III. DELIVERABLE ' Deliverables for Task 5.0 include: • Work plan • Demonstration Project Permit Application ' Literature review memorandum • Laboratory reports for chemical and physical analyses • Technical Memorandum for District review and incorporation into the SFEIR/SFFP. 1 1 DRAFT (4) -27- 01-14-93 Task 6.0 TWENTY-YEAR CAPACITY FOR SESD I. OBTECTIVE Develop conceptual layouts that will provide the required twenty-year capacity for disposal ' of SESD pellets and grit and screenings. 11. SCOPE OF WORK Task 6.1 VERTICAL EXPANSION OF PEABODY LANDFILL An evaluation will be performed of the proposed vertical expansion of the Peabody Landfill for the disposal of District residual pellets bulked with soil, and grit and screenings. This evaluation will include the preparation of a base grading plan for the North and South Mound areas based on the results of the settlement and stability analyses performed in Task 1.0. A conceptual final grading plan will be developed and will be used to estimate the volume available in the vertical expansion. An estimate of landfill life expectancy will be made. Conceptual schematics will also be prepared for the leachate collection systems, and gas collection/venting systems. 1 The tasks associated with subtask 6.1 include the following: • Develop a base grading plan • Develop a final grading plan ' Develop schematics for leachate and.gas control ' Estimate volume available and landfill life estimate ' III DELIVERABLE ' Technical Memorandum ' Develop a work plan for review and approval. Prepare a draft technical memorandum ' DRAFT (4) -28- 01-14-93 ! summarizing the evaluations of Scenario 1 and 2 for submittal to the District. A final technical memorandum will be incorporated into the SFEIR/SFFP. The specific deliverables associated with this item of work include: • Develop work plan ! Prepare draft and final technical memorandum 1 I ! i DRAFT (4) -29- 01-14-93 Task 7.0 INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES ' I. OBTECTIVE ' Describe the institutional arrangements that address the contingency plan described under Task 4.0 and potential remediation plans. II. SCOPE OF WORK Task 7.1 INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS The SFEIIZ/SFFP will describe the ownership and operational responsibilities of the facilities, the contractual provisions to be made between and among the parties to provide a long-term assured solution for SESD, and the commitments of the responsible and affected parties to assure that appropriate remediation for the vertical expansion site will be accomplished, if such remediation is necessary. An organizational schedule will be prepared based on the contractual obligations developed ' through the on-going negotiations mentioned above. ' III. DELIVERABLE 1 Technical Memorandum ' A draft Technical Memorandum summarizing institutional arrangements will be prepared and submitted to the District. The final technical memorandum will be incorporated into the SFEIR/SFFP. DRAFT (4) -30- 01-14-93 1 Task 8.0 SURFICIAL DRAINAGE FLOW PATTERNS ' I. OBTECTIVE i To evaluate current and proposed surface water management for the vertical expansion site. 11. SCOPE OF WORK Task 8.1 COMPREHENSIVE TOPOGRAPHIC PLAN Prepare a base topographic plan at a horizontal scale of 1 in. = 200 ft. and 10-foot contour ' intervals. The plan will incorporate the Peabody Landfill, GCR Landfill, and land adjacent to and surrounding these parcels. The plan will define the land forms of the site and ' surrounding areas. The GCR landfill will be representative of its final grades, whereas the City of Peabody land form will be representative of conditions that exist currently. The 1 topographic plan will also be used for several of the previous tasks. The topographic plan will be compiled using the following information: ' City 1992 aerial topographic plan • GCR final grading plan 1 Area B final grading plan ' Aerial topography of land surround the above landfill areas • Vertical and horizontal ground control ' Task 8.2 DIRECTION AND ESTIMATED DRAINAGE FLOW RATES Conduct a net stormwater flow evaluation for both the present and future conditions of the ' vertical expansion site. Design storm analyses will include the 10, 25 and 100-year frequency DRAFT (4) -31- 01-14-93 storm events. The analyses will be based on design points selected at the perimeter of the ' study areas. Present and future (final grading over the vertical expansion site) condition hydrographs will be compared to determine the net over-land flow characteristic changes. ' An evaluation of the applicability of the new EPA stormwater regulations will also be conducted during this portion of the work. Specific portions of the work under this subtask include: • Conduct stormwater flow evaluation ' present conditions future conditions • Analyze 24-hour 10, 25 and 100 year storm events • Develop pre and post condition hydrographs • Evaluate applicability EPA stormwater regulations iIII. DELIVERABLE ' Technical Memorandum Develop a draft Technical Memorandum for submittal to the District that summarizes the evaluations described in 8.1 and 8.2 above. The draft Technical Memorandum will describe ' any mitigating measures necessary to adequately control contaminant migration associated with surface water runoff. ' The final Technical Memorandum will be incorporated into the SFEIR/SFFP. DRAFT (4) -32- 01-14-93 1 Task 9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES I. OBJECTIVE 1 Evaluate environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with disposal of dried residuals pellets and grit and screenings bulked with soil in the Peabody Landfill vertical expansion site. It is assumed that any meetings with the Citizens Advisory ' Committee (CAC) would be combined with CAC and other public meetings conducted for the WWTP design studies. II. SCOPE OF WORK Task 9.1 EVALUATE ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA ' Extract from DEIR, Draft Facilities Plan, SDEIR, and FEIR/FFP and documentation on GCR ' Landfill expansion pertinent information regarding environmental issues associated with landfill development. Use existing documentation to establish baseline conditions where appropriate. Evaluate ' impacts and mitigation measures associated with construction and operation of the proposed residuals disposal plan. ' With the exception of historic architectural resources, the analysis provided in the DEIR 1 and FEIR for vertical expansion will remain essentially unchanged. The information and analysis presented in the DEIR and FEIR will be verified and updated if necessary in light of 1 information derived through the preceding Tasks 1.0 — 8.0. The criteria and analyses that will be verified and updated if necessary are described below. • Land use, including identification of existing on site and surrounding land uses ' and compatibility with these uses. DRAFT (4) -33- 01-14-93 0 ' • Wetlands, including identification of wetland areas on site, as shown in previous reports. No new delineation of wetland areas will occur. Impacts, if any, on these areas due to construction and operation will be discussed and necessary measures to mitigate impacts will be proposed. • Ecology, including a summary of any endangered or rare species and/or unique habitats on site, as identified in previous reports. Possible impacts, and measures to reduce impacts, will be described as appropriate. • Flood hazard areas, including identification of flood hazard areas from available maps, and a description of impacts and mitigation, as appropriate. • Surface water and drainage, including identification of surface water bodies on ' site, and a summary of impacts and mitigation associated with site drainage from Task 8.0. ' Groundwater, including a summary of existing and anticipated groundwater conditions from Task 3.0 • Construction and operational noise assessment including verification of analysis and conclusions presented in the FEIR/FFP. • Traffic assessment involving verification of analysis and conclusions presented ' in the FEIR/FFP. • Landscaping and visual aesthetics analysis involving an evaluation of the pre- and post-development aesthetics of landfill development/expansion on the ' site. Measures to reduce the visual impact will also be proposed. ' Architectural, historical and archaeological analysis involving an evaluation of the visual impact of site development on surrounding historic resources, per ' Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Massachusetts ' DRAFT (4) -34- 01-14-93 Historical Commission. No additional archaeological investigations are proposed. • Air quality and odors assessment involving verification of analysis and ' conclusions presented in the FEIR/FFP ' Task 9.2 REVIEW LANDFILL SITE SUITABILITY CRITERIA ' The landfill site suitability criteria contained in 310 CMR 16.00 and 310 CMR 19.00 will be reviewed and site location relative to these criteria will be assessed. A general evaluation of ' the ability of the site to meet the siting criteria will be conducted. ' Task 9.3 REVIEW PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS ' Evaluate permitting requirements for the proposed residuals disposal plan using permit listing and description in the FEIR/FFP as a starting point and amending it as necessary. ' Provide description of anticipated permits, triggering activities, and review procedures. Preparation of permit applications is not included in this task. ' III. DELIVERABLE ' Provide written documentation of Task 9.0 as a draft Technical Memorandum for review by the District. This Technical Memorandum responds to comments as necessary. The final memorandum will be incorporated into SFEIR/SFFP (Task 10.0). r ' DRAFT (4) -35- 01-14-93 , . Task 10.0 PREPARE SFEIR/SFFP I. OBTECTIVE Prepare documentation in the form of a SFEIR/SFFP for submittal to appropriate review parties. ' II. SCOPE OF WORK Task 10.1 PREPARE SFEIR/SFFP Following District review of technical memos and interim deliverables, as indicated in ' Tasks 1.0 — 9.0, prepare Supplemental Final EIR/Supplemental Final Facilities Plan (SFEIR/SFFP). ' III DELIVERABLE ' Delineate under this task include the SFEIR/SFFP for submittal to the District, MEPA Unit, the Consent Decree parties, review agencies, and other recipients of the FEIR/FFP. Prepare and distribute 100 copies of main text volumes and 50 copies of appendices. DRAFT (4) -36- 01-14-93 Task 11.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT I. OBTECTWE Establish clear lines of communication between (1) the District and the Project Team, and (2) between Project Team members (CDM, H&A, T&B), and with regulatory agencies. Also ' manage project progress through regular, systematic project reporting in order to meet schedule and budget. ' Il. SCOPE OF WORK AND DELIVERABLES Task 11.1 MANAGEMENT, QUALITY CONTROL AND MEETINGS Perform project oversight and quality control through project team meetings, regulatory ' agency meetings, and a Technical Review Committee (TRC) meeting. ' Establish and implement project reporting, including attendance at Board meetings, holding progress meetings with District staff, and monthly written progress reports. ' DRAFT (4) -37- 01-14-93 i 155^ J � 141 0 ob .1605 0� �AS 7,150 i `r .152 S 160 iS �� ■IS70 1 1745 i� \I 1390 A 50 5 i 170 U/C 4 / 0 `•� ' A` 1530 / �� 1S \`.\ .1440 r \ —� / ,/ - / V / O 1 �� f 1690■ 4j \ - 165 ° D11570 \ � � / i leo a - �g5 165 1B4 5 160 _ B-5 O ,54 \ \ ■ ers .172 5 \ 175 1735 _ .1775 .196 S 157 C; / ISS \ \\ � a I75 .. 16 '10 178 0 165y � �+ r ' \ .. aYu adr 160 \ \. 1590 1870 \ �� 0 jry 1. .1815 adL 1 Q �� _ •�166 5 k' \ ) - - —17 165 5 O O - .1855 N/F '83 1�.__ � 1 J /`. I 1 \ MAX DAM M 0 -- . 186 18101 -4 \ -- — 0 ti .1540 W . 1e6 5 ✓ (ESTATE) Mw?•�,ao�lt Seo ` \�= 165 -1610 \ 1620. O I 1610 4 l- 5 \ .1710 16 S ^" /65 167-5 _ o L V 21 JJJ .166 o � ,685 � T �,) .198 _ U/C -`s . 1660 \ GCR-I/ 41, ��-3 3 , I e 4 0 )SALEM COUN/+ 0 a -1930 INC. \ 16e 5 53 0 _ .209 5 'b .1690 � 'Y,S 'v: b n JPA O '1 I - 176 C. )1685 \1 1875 .170 S .7 5 I . 1775 \ 1680GB 1 I . I � � � / � a17 f COUNTRY CLU�; 1 , 17 .z16oA � � .Yrls I ec FORMERLY 1 9-4 COU �SR- CLUB I 1 1 V ■189 S 1� 1 / _ ■164 5 ',!TOWER 1/ 1 210 CR-J4 CITY OF , adw SR-11 t � � .1560 O .1940 •za, o , ( 1 \ 1 1740 7jS I t 170 .19eo 05z10 it I,�� ¢aa WA-�l,1 30 � rF 4.0, i .1n ten. TAB � % �o �� - - � 1 ) I 11 1 I �� 1 1960 7)S 1740 1�14I- 1' XI �•M 1G�' , I L�tVD 16651 �B0 .2020 IF 5�� I o 0 m .le m 1 m voEl ,2020 r I SR-9 . 2060 N ,leo �coo O I )�)� ES �FI ' q�I I1i 1 1�1 I 91940 _ '2045 - .197 0 0 � 111 111 i � ) 1 1 � •� �. G,C ;R-;p � �- o 0 NER RA D "" _ ,rte `` - 204 5 \--� ' 1 \1 1\ I530 \ ))) a 95 l 0 �� . 13 s HA-10 SOU J ITE 1 � ) HA 125 5 178 0 SR-6 10 .1910all 11 .� ado /�. 7 �� 1) •}; X11 • � � / ' •� � .1460 1^' 185 P4 61- 78 S ISO - 5 1 I � \♦ �" � G1680 _ ��90 � � ■1 74'11 3 • 205 I /"1 1 \� e (CC, 167 oo _ ORN PARC / 0 p o J l ti� J 0 ) Of C �) i � X03 I• 30 �, l ) ,� � ,. � � ASO� SBS � r �_-- � 1 ,�A � � •�'�� nx1 W) 4-8516 WE /20.5 ) w1 � R � - .196 .•r MW_ ,2,3 0 ' / RH©/1, 1 145 , ri o0195— � g Z ■2000 h - �l � 1975 � / / /J - � � / 1390 5 . 142, 00o v 2, . (�� i W 129 82 1380 \ ■ 1305 ,4 .1995 ■ 131C /33 �' A i� - - K, 30 .1270 %A 419.5 \� \__ -_� ••O � j ._ 112.0 105 11� 105 100 a � j 9 7 h \`O 194 S 3 - - %945 c)s WE 940 AL 1124 5 / . ■94 S � 98.0 . 9B 4411, CEDAR POND .940 P 1400 1 ) 10 7z5 +34 i LEGEND BOUNDARY OF VERTICAL EXPANSION. BOUNDARY OF SITE 311, ENTIRE AREA. PROPERTY LINES VERTICAL EXPANSION SITE PLAN t--- SR-1 �� SEISMIC REFRACTION (HYDROGEOLOGIC) SR-A SEISMIC REFRACTION (WASTE DEPOSITION) PROPOSED RTE. 128 MODIFICATIONS GWDGROUNDWATER DIVIDE. SWOP SURFACE WATER DIVIDE PROPOSED EXPANSION AREAS SANITARY LANDFILL EXPANSION &MW-1 GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL EXISTING PEABODY SGCR-I GCR GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL SANITARY LANDFILL BB-1 SOIL BORING (HYDROGEOLOGIC) SWAMP DEWATERING EASEMENT CITY OF PEABODY, MASS . & HA-I TEST BORING (WASTE DEPOSITION) NOTES: TIGHE 81 BOND, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS I. DRAINAGE DIVIDE IS APPROXIMATED BASED ON COUNTRY CLUB PARCEL/GCR DRAFT E I R MARCH , 1992. WESTFIELD, MASS. - SCALE: 1° 200' DATE; OCTOBER , 1992 �;4 ��4 �� f _ ,�'�t�� ' .. � ` I _�� . � . � ' �"� � �'r � � U� �.f,.R y v i '_,`!1 �� .M. J (;�.� ir'' .. GJt 'yG��t`Nv t��y .. f�� - �?� - "� ��I • �P Y � 1 � �1lFiW SII . + •i 10 c\ \ . w - - - . 2 < \� a'§Jf . ~ � ��az \� )/ � �d � ` � ¥>%�� ^ . - �\ » 2 ` ® � 2 < . «��ƒm ^®^ � . , ��\^� � � \l\� � � % � . . :<�� . ��2 �> \ \�� . ` �� \ : �� ` . . - � \ � � < �� ` f » `�� / \` . . < - . : p ; , a a� w Z -�\\ . \ . \ - . \�'< «, - ©/ 2f�\ = *« x« »' \w�» � ^�� > » \�-� . � �A � f\�\ . ¥ � �222 . : J3� . : : , �� ~ � / mg : . � a .b zz � � � �.:p:�� \��/f �� . =; , t.- �, , P - i �• ' � - � .� _ :, , � ;:ti. '(;' �� . . Ili F�C� ..lY , .� ' r F ♦ t Y R' � �. 1� ! T� �+ ��}w'"^f2� y- '`�=,� e'ayS. i T "",yy`•.�F v' a. v a #� . {f t i .�� / l 1 � ! ,1 _ t\r`�`, _ .1�P�9-•'�'� _. .. �. ``� _ r Gilc1YC=� . p�I`7- - ,r` � rel .. C ,F •t�\i � aS• � r �' � 1 c 'r"ilRVI tt.{'�^vr � ,r kii 1 �K / k < �*, '"''r'�• 1 r1 mrd r�� y, .-y_,1� ^I Gtr• (r Tt';vo+ '� CA J ✓ . h 1 ♦ ` �1 J .� :1� 1 1 � C �• w�.a r4,.. Ff , ,ag1,r 'may ItFa'� 1 1*4 k -Y I - q?•r--i Ili ' r ti\ .yP ` FOR] IPjg IC bD w1061 V-- L d SEE NOTE '14 _ k°" +PN3 �� I Elu •ma vyv F,l:- .rte xsoN]m].0 \� - . ,_ W N S K" I is a SCALE: , ,i1� FlmvAl ..,, ` I X v0 •�8'1 . -51'. �-:' ❑ I <• '. � _ / �- �� Im� _: v i I ov w - f 1 _ _._ I_ - _#OYVJ _ �- .tl '_' 1 ,nS •� _ � �..... � I EP++"a , .e\\ I : --_- '"" I ' =iTATION F '1 twp,.a I\�--' .. __--: :i►' # f�a ° ❑ I -!. ^gr'�� \ _ - t P Ax K w _ •'.0 i s'F�� ].� �� ______ --------- -------- BA�P. •y] �S J •� .'• on w —_ _ �-P`x� �\ _ t�-. e•i�•_9b`EEE �ev / ,If4-iri )II•+ e 5�,r- I S ; Ex I i � � I �t .: �`3 •'" -f x f �_ I I ❑ J�w I . ❑ t ❑ ❑ .III �'�ZSHiFB � 1/ � n .I i A UE PW 0 .v ° % iii I' _C: I I _ _- . . j'C•�. AEa,Ej EasEJ� tb owa - sill �..<. - I�I�I ° ]clen. t I ��. .ti --v /- .:/i•'�/ �I >r L4 Q owmac f �i x""' •,,,` ,W.r<,E - g8ly ' o'er I+ ; 'sl/�\ \ i .x l .,,,�Q W _ \ t ., . �.ssy n I _ � li •zw � p._c., 'o-• ° tI I � ti� �.i � I to IV I • ,j carve av s � . ..+.E nT Svc*'° I 'fA ?'.' s i' �.w ! •l . ',,"al\u �'.�-. , �-\` � /l`` .. \ N III _ m v� -•�, >s I a P: o-,-``-fi _' _ x � I., �\� - _ _ _ � / _ �a� '_ , ~ �`� si�I _ ,.w. . E- __ - - ��. _ I ILII •s _ - _ T I fl Rll e6 i+a'T 'p2 - \�\�- .,k' x Q. \, fl� i W - I _ I -: 7 •y:. ' \, \ i� Ba^'�•4H _ P°'E`�1 l \. I ltv / 4 �l-iE 1 �/ / y4 ' Ft}e �� \ � ' \\,'\ ' L 35 _ ✓ I '_ I-L N,:x. r aE I{. /f� s� p 1 ,jC - 11i� ll/ '�I ��Fl s. � l �__>�', • : 'F':xlw rnxFvr : - av�_-' -_ L / ��' < 1/ n i / ~ 'n ..wrt � .vNr"'�'� ,�� l� ]/G/1) . �. .. ..: ...� C �', —z � ai&LY I' ` s PAIISSION9: ..s :. T�_ .1/ wcl �� J I M U v 4� .,- cE/ W a � ,.,1 ] �, .�.w �Pn i 8, I r k,•.\ m. WiC :: 'e, '- e °� .o-....,mac O,x a•u ms ,' .\`` I\l, }� I .\ i e> .M.. c. v�r s _ - ou6q i .x o �el.�I \s•° . � - RfIYP `t �--J/ - _ \ -: ..Y• nMl i— .. ;wW: m.s '.y,n `ABCFdMs�lRlxs �' . ,aE�,su - Gf.N _ � :] A'J/Ox rwM 8 �_V ° \ �v%'f %Tc '..ri\ l m vE a \_ o aa��A .. ,. ♦M5. x e P r P `� I ` ..•w.v I ' �,�d _ °�' s n a I¢mnrrPe v�y�]�K'^` � i I','� ,. _ pEV T'b moi_ '�;l-_ �'� 'e 4•�4M Os—; ry o �s_W °" � Pam ,. 3� os �_� 1 `�\ .1. •a.�•, lwsE - d � x- \Nax 1� ,E�y`��-.� ! - r✓_ I -�' ••• I wn xAE 'T - - � rs 3sa�� 5�� u �,s>..' �....,F '.s] n a 5 � 211- s, / j -"\ �- ! _ •.», i ,. I '"/ cwsE aEaa'c°"aa I I +. �� \_' �� 4 I eRm+,"iy�' /1 ...a ] FOftM'CRLR Co. OS'es'a s .a �\• v I s : 'J ? - �•� ' : I �1 I h / � I/ ,w �� ` I- CA TCO VE CAMP DRESSER 6 M°KEE INC. SOUTW FssEC SE wEgme°ISTgICT SA-EM.MASSAMSETTS a< / I �I]I Is+- a _-_ WPSi W>IEO SYSTEM IMPgaVEMENTS oil ITE LSP-�OIJ'( �L(lN J( I C '\ e�1 // •I CONTRACT N0,2 I 1 .W C WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE /owefT fj F I ! �!.. / ~r .•L?j P E 'ti;� v �_i gAPIU1M u o m ( tl _ -.a rwmEwNwW]m wlomwAul Z : A t-1 J I ! \ ( ;1 /� = \ !� s y I 1 � � � �� .� L I � � � �� \I � �� V ��♦ � � � \l tl �, � ��_ � 'dad I \ .F r IP��i i[ 6U'VIUEIs v� �p�ip A 1 \ 1A 4 \ A gi ,,,yqN. r � d• . 1 -.vY_3 :. _' A _I .. a B-�. "� :� I. ! A I /y II•' i ti� � � �a ,.� 1 . t AFz9 L EE IS . pvLi4• fv .. F, 7 VWI'Elfvsiei >< •y3.'♦.• •as [Biv.•f'1 e(e.-^KrwEa lE ' m�'N nH . �\ ND _ �� Ep mp' 1-1 •s .' E a. _; - __ '. �° -1-7w _ SCALE:hmC0'-0• ' _ .: --- Fn --• � .� _ _ -- 7 - . _�- . � .'.___• _- ___ s,,, _(- _. ti ♦ -9s__ ..._ v - ._ _..<\�.n. `''"i' ` c0 . I rl •i / I \Q 1 SeF y w •f,9, M- , VM •h♦ - t 1. _ .1 - - t ._ .. _-_ lC• _ N •, _ AGMIN LOON R IK .• ' i �` a _',\�'•. r I \ P e r � + 11t \•\ � P _Y� _� ``\\ 1 1 4 �� %./ g£. �.i e 1 1 D 1 I � T,� __ - "• �� - `_E' --------- ---------- +,2 +,2 ss R. Y'/ ,2 _ , T16M E`'J C Y^... � t I I ✓ ❑ � �+. 11\ "\ �� 1 � Vi,I '. .M. Il bi ,� I --_�— 3S •,•° c _ _9 � 1t L ' oR. Ij�i /s _ _L.' ____ _n. 1.II�I•.,. -,.,X °': \ppI,OeN E p�,�.�AON nsmd _a:. \m� 1I ` pTry`�•\ \\ -1 IS.w'_t-^_ - - `°`•._c '.I. t' IIlI'i I 11II J I'�"%ti` aT/'I// RINC ED'R K QeEav WAX' a .•c y, / ♦ t 1I!.n�9�\)`4I'\T\^\�`I\tF.i \ em. .�.j\t�1B< _ `-_y' � �/f�/.. 4 /��C♦ \ _�' _' MgADW kiKB l� mol _ •g. s a\ , 1❑ i Ill'i"ii / ❑-� .❑ ❑ moltESL io a iCTO {6 •N2."i% `• J'y�' I //ll'I.I WN iN� INvI}5 I _ I .`..r ppn^a u I \ I •ac vice Nun_ug`¢ .IS7T• 11�i 111111 �°ra wn P- n vl II IL, �„♦' - -�_ / �' 1. A,, rl n„o.+ia'' E , �,s,rx I 5 /„Irl. t fi. :su to t y •�� R Z CONTROL'D•' t .Ivx+ t \ � nET f. •b/i .p w r ..e l \ I d_ 4 �~ '/c _i � w'�r _ P „: '' I � � .PE i-1 vE.__ _ •3Bp,.///�'71 t:O° A ^\ ''^ _ q � "�' ._ _ -_ ♦.�, ° I s•a_._� fm.1 A. �_ i eSL •m+ _ie==_ —,�' .I _ '*' •”` � er�T-r; .s>» .a iw \ \�} K "�-•9 � `; Fes: ♦�\\.t • N \ 1 TiY44B ,. I - ..-y =I=� ,.. I�� -_.-_ '$+-'1� /. /.-- - ,�i,G'� I .s t�` t _.� V4•' � .. '�C�I s ( t 't ��es*1c �r e°.`�'i'?S_ p _ � MRCC >`' .' �.1pi yf 11 I. .' _ _ _ -3u ,_ ./1/ _ - £:�rt�nsie B�M•� `ts5s oe i � u,w�\\� j J �/-� x '��f" '\ ,\ �'I\.n� r/y�. `< .. ei' pd ,,, M•., •Yn 'l \ t ` i yw+�,- - _ __ - _T_SILiEN t IORINAl1oN ipY E �/ `p`R �{` �. I ��iir." \` ,tl ! 41 ,11 , I : _ /s •s 25_ __ _ 2.. II EINLONo I, \ \ � fpm m s-�=.�irk' � Q��x u I m20 s i I '� E "� _ '15 � � 1'!� {�•' \\i+ 1` ./ �C �s . E,N ` E'—�__ _R ISSFX y rr✓a" � .. REWSSIONS � ate" •,,, -- ,�.,-_ -s 9:.;P 5�--.m -. \ .; � awR ,q„,: � LCN�P �I Fs � ti \�� • I 'O V �.-Y a v.aa_ ��,I srw .a d^ �a fH�HS �� •^ O�ye 6•v D tiD= � I r ,oe,w N' �� ._ ' "._ ,.,C-D a La•le � sem. ..sns—f u« s� / sn •mss 's .n � -- _ _. r , ( / `) 4 .,v[ i... ! p m 3.1.Ba - /”, y p s R/p• s •N pwf i �'"\• � J'f ,[.R' • " •� C// LI nA $]9 VEL E' y i / I '-�._ •_, -- tl Y^� /g! esa• I s _ � ^'e �- �R.Draro+`" _ � xn sW ` l � _ - - - rN s I ' . I � .,�/ -ti °1E1. . DT��Ap • (..rtW'� \\� W l -- - 'ate T•,?- - i " - _. _ _ <spn m I.♦„ i.. ,FF,_ts--\ •{frt'— ✓, ,./ i -Wn tea. - _ Lys[ ' 4.: �" .tis , I __-__ .. a __ h�4t eUt � J� � L£o""£p6°1E I `t °=�_ _v 7-�µ'�F`\;\'�-. ` ,�„`EY"'$.'• .y 1 44, 122.0 5•0 'W FDNEP Go. f � / - f•� ]$B6 PU �I� ; , e .� •::::. \ .( NEN - - / . ._ _, -- - -- , _.. _ ._ _ �_ __ __- —- - ,t ��'1 �p .� ,- t / i ATA ' CAT COVE CAMP DRES`ER & McKEE INC. sourN RAOE rnsrRrrr SALEM. EM.NA55SSACMfiEriS / fI \\f NWASTEWATER$vSrEIM MVNOVEMENrS !�ITO SAY C)UT 1 {.<1` i ` CONTRACT NO.2 /yWASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE •\j `/ \ ...�.cm I IJ I \ S'91L n IC 6D NIUEI k S Rrd b +:f \b+n-� it :1 -1, 1 •�. ENOiE..lq ' \ ;. -FOR1 I \ 1 /}q•'4 VU)'Z' ' \" 1 I +` ,, .I :u ':ra La�rv�m+ a• :•>•+•.v ..,xa �.w '�¢..svegs lases ww .a, � 1 \ � ` I . � - o `°.°F'y: pc _ - - / _ /• \_ - �� _ _ SCALE: 1•vA0' Il�41, ls.,wxlw T a o0 Y"'n"s xs ,°\ v+r. •.�.: 1 1 XI I,7y ° ✓ L�;t � ,IEP,+ ' _ +. _ _ t_- _I ¢ - ee k_ ��f`jn}.-•'-�W { .. _ +-- 3 •WA CIA,`e a RI / K I '` \\ p! r L i I �__ I r`. , Yt .[aPEP Rpt; ,.+ ;•,ao I. s ',� \ *az6 - \1� ��. I Bzam• \� b� asA�`\\\\�\\ ..1�1 ] i • a^E i�l��il//�� /�' I �� " F33a - ,� Iw�X"a�� s��.� a• \iI\II . //� _.._ `�: \'�\\\ _ ^` tli .,$ /��],+ I �� x 1 ON L ��.- - II ml....a• < �dT'"cu5f4tE4AT€RIN4 Ep 9� \ / .:.aa �• 1 i li �� L� •..e 'x K�j�IV3 4fJRA0E �m ®CLOY 49 1 OM1 R yqP T m 1 N:.Er _ 1 I 11I 11 l W°�N+N• ap / ) a• J tT•11V st6- .. \ •.'- /i j�:/ -' ... .r • sG' f 3.i+1tEI'•,. PEEN.2, 10 ., u I / `/ .1 ' 1 k M€AbWORIEs Rxoouc: 'r' snL ..• s '>' •n] i❑ j 11(i Q, ❑ ❑ ,<:.:, I / •'li . s as.. •� 6 i .--/' i yv LL l I uBLUD E IVEI, L \i w xc k I •,W, •r wr. I 'lryl�l wN .we ,. o` 1 » � I \ r . - �� 1 •v,s aC zro- .¢. �•na I liil 1 .z9 4,.I6T y&'�O LE Y• 'I I 1 / aaw p.fayi I E_ \ 1 'ud Fl- s`n:.4ftxv ..e- �.✓ �Bp 5f Y p y JI... w \ F Y ) I�Im - A ON B �INB aW U'• �L.�/ g \\w+•n' to V` RA ' r ^ \ _ / /�' •N, ;sa _ g t}lia•6piB. R 'l- 1 _ ��` IF cWiMt a L.e.a \t. 1°h , - \ "a u � fib.////Lltr �•�na 9.T P .,.a _ \\ 4 \�y�PSI K_ � \��__ =ill+ - \ __ ;L �•_' .. —_ _ .. __ I / - a?�S 1 1 1. \ cs• '•,N :a 'C�x \"t� �eR M^' NAef REYIBB U MiT I /'6ri1' c I _ �_ - - - -_' ' _ .a s- .�•,� .I,J, �, Sia 'Ht R lI r� t__fIIRl / 1 n f EV• \ �� 11 �,/ � � Ennox '' µelllintB'a' 'SP. EE D'.... .e�1a1 .1 KIS •1 i/ �-,xN,el �;�`-1 \ .tl � / .a'1��,'' 1 _ `w`= R -L_. -- .I Iqv Eu4gir( - - - ._. _ - 11 V y . •/ . E `,`nawik` •..a I�W w�a.5:n AA96 .> <a sb IE -AI UISSIOQS -�_ _ � -- _ i \ Ii�. _ • ` _� 005 - y wLl a .. .. v* •' -- ! _ _ esr„ w / •� t \Imo\ \ i \. •`. - 1 .O �i:•'i+)-Ems...- '-. ..� \a Y' .r� DDDR � _fL'�yI�C _ xxL c`.�'�© ��GPUMP I y { l� .r_� �c 4 1 i. —_ E•,m a MM6M165BN19 l e _ - ✓E� \ _ a i a 6./ _ FA" FAY',, r rnC@NEROL a•e� a _ x n° I Ecu Ke( L�Fn _ J � 1 F. �• � I ! BE •:r, ass `=-`1—° . 4•ru. 'le-�-. s—'-8- -... _,ms_s s s / s •t r s sem„ • / s `a �/L / I.' ` .. •ms 1 .., � ...1 ._� � ° : L::c° ba ° �;,, r . ° ., t10B .-� I ° n�s.,. a �� s--s e-I__ s s ® s n6 WNP ly. .n s� C:�v\s e li q`41lpj RL.9V, wi•] l 1-.,---.;., � _._- _=._ . ._._ _ ,. _ ___.`<.,^"EmL "a�.x, _— _ lam__-'� ;:i.,:6. .-.- - 'wY_ I sM• _ •�.' a .n 1 �� 1� s/ pp{EEp DatsEIE°�x �E.E ' `\ �'7Yt� • e`v i __ _ I a 1 ��----�..I 14 �. 5�'E'fEtE+,\5� 4x.69 `"\ \ \ , ai 1 I . I//, 1 IIA. � 1� � � � --�•� - VA V I CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE INC. LAT LOVE 90Ut SEWERAGE 015iWR / / �:. / 'O✓Ej' 9ALEK LEMMp55pCXN$Ei15 Wp$if.WgrER 5V5lEM WPROVEMENiS <�ITB LQYGUT 'LPN /� \ �,A CONTRACT Noz LI �M WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRAD€ GoldcePr G _ 1 -I� 1 . .. I 5 _ I { \ •r- I ' l ♦ ( l 1 _ f 1 i./V, '\ \\ _♦ L ° \ r - \ ♦� 4 i:\ ,, .!. ('L' I,. /' �� i y <I - >I L-- it 1 r FOR��. IP�gIIC EO'WIOEI . •Ms Ar _� A ,pi .y ' B r � e e SEE NafE •1° li f .z;._ a - - _ .- - ' � �t a >• {!F . I mfr ' Ss�'"P� c s -- ,� zs I E w e e�w.zua a°++:. w is" ° ;° 'ons'o� mNNwn...rtb \\\ +;.\ �♦ _ A.esdy,`' . - - .. i � F w- _� _ _ 'r _ �i,R+� Csu / 34r 'f-• 1' { �� r ,7 i ie �I r. -.. II ry.� z� q �E 'ib • •u rte, _. �.. /r 17 \. r � Y I SCALE: 1'ya-0• ❑ m y.. r � � apt I ' ,� :N�i •..�. m I I { e \ _ __. � _° ( r - ^I.A 1 I �cn 0 M• :r r•,' 0 n*\ � � 1 M+� 'v»asryLtbN:Fr- . _'.z yH•a _,' - \ ,-- '.' -x'es / o-. �I y l ,.�\ - \ .. _ ,� r __ ___ - - ,.� 'v ,AIN tjr I + � 1°_ .zE+EW �. s �•aC .y z ' � � a. .. oN eAsms ♦'\1 , CE � l e I I t /� 1. / / /; � f � i= v W 'c I LF4°✓�'�. ❑ - ❑X" :III R�fG1._`�..: - - ^,\I iY� j / 1 0 ' ,. r .ww a- NBIM6Bro1U1ae ° ,5ELLE0 • i > �� ?P Vm,..° I i ' , Y* 6 _ / .: :�: I BIAEEA:G I j MLO._.e EI s�E: at E�tsz I .:Y i i d M1 � ❑ l �� .. III' iw a,n r � _ / _ - �e j'- %r �+ oouerl P / � E •� GR, •Y, I �>" �Y4 ` i _ .c,:v',. �. f/Irf�I.r ELE�v.41.5• � ! �� s \'a - �// X�/v .r� EP°O .n. N IV moo,. {f .x.e nrb"` .. O u/. a - 1.1 '� N , .I`4 ��. ♦ . . /. ,.: v,.Y • 1 � CQNiPOL P• t. - - - .y Via. - o-m �♦ `P�. _ :� ; C. FYLtl lE I -r+ O vh >.�. F_.,J. . ._Fb -.L.� C �e . : W°wz__ - -• / � `E.. ° -io r ino kl 's>pp i^. _ _ v `s \ �o.♦',1 rm• •s . I - .p i �, alb .+ !. ` y \ 1 , p I I� �I� -- - - _ .,. (I •'s,p, ❑ d/ F i �` ♦ L �1�,'I\ z�, : �� . I ^-, `_= ,'rtxcE, � � � saw_, �- -._ � _ �/ / _� /r I� Yi r., a .E./ rnv r 1 \ .rr. fir., w / Wa♦ Ir�IpE.m �r. �_ s L sm 'a--�'_�g°g - // -•,°" m__ .� `\ •o z. .e ♦ Ij � ice. ISHION�Ft rsWYFLI 9Y ...¢ c i - I mm e ',a t� / ♦ C �_ .\ s W., ma•°,>: F' :.° \ � ,. ODOP I' _ \/.rn,:: *''.� - O t� �. ... -F1�FL`UWTTIIYP '"F ..,e , _ \. / w , - 'M°+'0, lEj°e N _ S n�- ":d 6tA'!q, w" 8 •�.-. • \ �1'� v • 4 FF - V ° �• .,6 W OL W .a o--. rc of -f' N ii Emc er q.YE. ♦9' .aa- 'S x r.m '4 L � 5 ° �E a 9 '� ,�{ .a y• - I • °•, n ° u ,u' L' s— A. .-H b so 's\ -� 'ns I O o.. �t Ji ,T:♦^ n,sa ! z \Nax v 4' _.�:7�4s _ r _\ .y• i L,II.N • 9-56'09,V-r � 5 5 pO [ ®jm\ L. �.:1F/h"' : \ _,\ -tii '.. ,-.__�.�./ I '. � �.. _ s ,'p,1E .,Eu,.s�. _ _ ,, IS .� It oCac'vf j� �+� •'�I j° ter. E �«rwn°"a �:'\ � 'w `J b.��.� 'G.q.gn,�n v - _ =NCUR p of I' .�� \ h ' `wx• . *` ° \ eaw'Ys .:.. Ef siL"",14- szz.5s v. NOENi,LPNO POM r ... '} � I + \\1 IC A it C O V E _ E •v � /r Iz.o ` SIG !III ♦ I7 _� I �♦ } / . k, - `; �' ":,, .•., � '.. - �_ _ - ' ?'Irl/ 4� J1 (J � ':c• x .� _ - I it ✓// bw � �0-n°'#�'di Y o m / / ' CAW DRESSER 6 YceEE INC. SOUTH EX sSwEPscE olstP¢, Wu _-- r AM SSACHVSEIis .{ 441 WP51 W4IEN SYS IEN IMPROVEMENTS �I NO.2 CON141 L L-A-(OuT RA j , s r.DMI WASTEWATER TREATMENT FCANT UPGRADE smbWsvrt