Loading...
64-212 - 50 FORT AVENUE - CONSERVATION COMMISSION 64-212 SESD Construction of _ _ Affluent Outfall Near Haste Rock issued by SAL signature(s) 1 i When issued by t conservation commission this Extension permit must be signed by a majority of its members-. on this 28th day of March 19 96 , before me personally appeared to me known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he/she executed the same as his/her free act and deed. Notary public Hy commission expire- Detach on dotted line mid bm suit to the prior to commencement of work. ....................................................................... issuing Authority To Plasma be advised that the Extension permit to the order of conditions for the project at Fit* mu ber has been recorded at the Registry of and has been noted in the chain of title of the affected property in accordance with General Condition 8 of the 19 original order of conditions on if recorded lend, the instrument number which identifies this transaction is if registered land, the document number which identifies this Transaet ton is Applicant Signature 7-2 i ..i 310 CHR 10.99 DPP Re Nn 64-212 (Co be pt dcd by DEP) Form 7 6ty(ra a Salem AppbmsiSouth Essex Sewerage Distri co®onvealth of Massachusetts EXTENSION PERMIT NAssACHUSETTS WETLANDS PROTECTION ACT G.L. c. 131. 540 From: Salem Conservation Commissi. sssuing Authority: , ,.o Dicrr;tt Fort Avenue Salem. MA To: South Esse s,._.._., (Address) (Name) The order of conditions(or Extension Permit) issued on March 31, 1493 (date) to South Essex Sewerage District (name) for work at Near ('rPat Haste R^.rk — in Salem Sound (address) is hereby extended for a period of yeare(s) from the date it expires. This Extension Permit will expire on March 31 1999 (date) This document shall be recorded in accordance with General condition 8 of the order of conditions. . .. . . . . . . . . .. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. . (Leave.. . Space Blank) 7-1 Effective 1.1/10/89 310 CMR 10.99 DPP Pik No. 64-212 (To be provided by DEP) Fors S �n� SALEM AMbma SESD cosanorsalth of xasaaahnaetts Order of Conditions Nassachuetta Wetlands Protection Act Q*L. c. 131e $40 From Salem Conservation Commission issuing Authority TO Srn Mh Fssav Cc+aa raga nictrirt f`..mmv.m.+cnl t}. ..f (Nape of Applicaat) (Name of property owner) Address 50 Fort Avenue Address This order is issued and delivered as follwss _ - ❑ by hand delivery to applicant or representative on (date) ® by certified mail, return receipt requested on March 31, 1993 (date) This project is located at N ar ( rear Nesta Rnrk in Salam SnnnA The property is recorded at the Registry of N/A Hook N/A page N/A certificate (if registered) N/A The Notice of intent for this project was filed on ?larch 1. 1993 (date) The public heariay was clns.d on_ March 11, 1993 Findings The Salem Conservation COMWSs reviewed the above-referenced wotice of Intent and plans and has held a public hearing on the project. Basso on the information available to the Commission at this time, the ('-4-4-- has determined that the area on which the proposed Vora is to be done is significant to the following interests in accordance with the Vresuiptidrn of Significance set forth in the regulations for each Area Subject to Protection unoer the Act (check as appropriate): public water apply Flood Control La1d containing shellfish Private water supply store does" prevention Fi shlrles Ground water apply Pro antion of pot lution protection of Wildlife habitat Total Filing pee Submitted 5175(1 State Sham 5017 h(1 (1/2 fee in excess of S25) ctty/Town Shan $637.50 Total Refund Due S City/Town portion S State portions (1/2 total) (1/2 total) Effective 11/10/89 5-1 Therefore, the [ hereby finds that the fni.lowing cor6itions are necessary, in aceoraanca with the Performance Standards eat forth in the regtllatiOn/, to protect those interests checked above. The Commicainn orders that all work shall be performed in accordance with said conditions and with the Notice of Intent referenced above• To the specifications orent at the other proposals conditions modify or differ from the plans, spe submitted with the Notice of Intent, the conditions shall control. General conditions 1. Failure to comply with all conditions stated herein, and with all related statutes and other regulatory measures, shall be deemed cause to revoke or modify this order. 2. The order does not grant any property rights or any exclusive privileges; it doe/ not authorize any injury to private property or invasion of private rights. 3. This order does not relieve the with all otherttee or any other erson applicable federal, stateforhlocal necessity of complyingng statutes, ordinances, by-laws or regulations. 4 . The work authorized Hereunder shall be completed within three years from the date of this order unless either of the following apply: (a) the work is a maintenance dredging project as provided for in the Act: or (b) the time for completion has been extended to a epeeified ate more than three years, but less than five years, from the date of issuance and both that date and the special circumstances warranting the extended time period are set forth in this order. 5. This order may be extended by the issuing authority for one or more periods of un to three years each upon application to the issuing authority at least 30 days prior to the expiration date of the order. s . y '_'_ uses in conneot%nn with the ; �Iect - '.aii Se clna., fill. conta_-_ny no trash, refuse, rubJish or dztcia, _n.luding i.nt not finita_ to lumber, tricks, plaster, wire, lath, paper, cardboard, pipe, tires, ashes, refrigerators, motor vehicles or parts of any of the foregoing. i . No work shall be undertaken untilall administrpeaativeene appeal utileriodds from all this 7ner have elapsed or, . such proceedings before the Department have been completed. g. 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 land is located, within the chain of title of the affected property. In the case of recorded land, the Final order shall also be noted in the Registry's Grantor Index under the name of 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 of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work isCo=ssione The on the formgatnthe endnofhall thisborder submitted to the prior to commencement of the work. 9. A sign shall be displayed at the site nbt less than two eau are feet or more than three square feet in size bearing the words, •Massachusetts6De artment of Environmental Protection, File Number 1 10. where the Department of Environmental Protection is requested to make a determination and to issue a Superseding, order. theconservationgs before Co ission shall be a party to all agency proceedings the Department. 5-2 i 11. upon completion of tha work described herein, tY.e applicant shall forthwith request in writing that a certificate of compliance be issued stating that the work has been satisfactorily completed. 12. The work shall conform to the following plans and special conditions: Plans: Title Dated Signed and Stamped by: on File with: ffSEI Dutfall Diffuser Plan & Alvin C. Firmin Conservation Commission ro ie SEgD OuEfBlj D}if3Ler PrnrPCtion Alvin C. Firmin Cnnaen»rinn Cnmmiccinn an Por a al PESSDngutfall Diffuser Transition Alvin C. Firmin Conservation Commission 1pispecial conditions (use additional paper if necessary) SEE ATTACHED CONDITIONS (Leave space .Blank) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3A Pians: Title Dated Signed and Stamped by: on File with: Special conditions (use additional paper if necessary) (Leave space Blank) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3B :ssued By Salem conservation caamiasion signature(s) 2 This order must be signed by a majority of the conservation commission. r1� on this I I day of /1' 10N ( h 19 q 2 , before me personally appeared r7:, r.nr; :,._ inrr'T; ,n., to mo known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he/she executed the same as his/her free act and deed. r ; , VaTlry Public 777 My commission expires The applicant, the owner, any person agrrieved by this Order, any owner of land abutting the lard upon which the proposed work is to be done, or any ten residents of the city or town in Mich such land is located, are hereby notified of their right to request the Department of Envirorsnntal protection to issue a Superseding Order, providing the request is made by certified ail or hard delivery to the Department, with the appropriate filing fee and Fee Transmittal Form as provided in 310 CNR 10.03(7), within ten days from the data of issuance of this determinstion. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified ail or herd delivery to the Conservation Commission and the applicant. Detach an dotted lit* and submit to the Salem C'nnservatinn Cnmm- prior to commencement of wore. ............................................................................................................ To Salem Conservation Cnmmissinn Issuing Authority plisse be advised that the order of conditions for the project at Great Haste Rock at Salem Sounc File muteer 64-917 has been recorded at the Registry of Essex and has been noted in the chain of title of the affected property in accordarnee with general Condition D on .19 If recorded land, the instrument riumer which identifies this transaction is If registered land, the document Hander which identifies this transaction is Signature Applicant 5-4A tissued by the pepar agent of Envirotmental Protection signature on this day of 19 before me personally appeared to me known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he/she executed the aeons as his/her free act and deed. 1 Notary Public my commission expires The applicantthe owner, any person sarieved by the superseding Order,tW.�rL. 3OOfl twW @buttt1111CA, are h�e 'WW upon which the proposed work Is to be dory. or arty tan persons pratant upon which of their right to request an adjudicatory hearing plrslsnt to C.L. c.30A, f10, providing the notif le is who by rigcerht r ayes or hand delivery to the 0epartmeet, with the eppraprista filing foe and - receseSFee Transmittal Fore as provided in 310 CHR 110.03M. within ten days frac the data of issuance of this Superseding Order, and is eaoressw to. Docket Clerk, Office of General Counsel, Department of Erwironeental Protection, Ons winter Street. Roston, NA 0210U• A COW Of the request $hall at the tale time be sent by certified ail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission, the applicant, and any other Carty. A Notice Of Claim for on Adjudicatory Nearing shall comply with the Ottertment's Rules for Adjudicatory Proceedings, 310 C1(R 1.01(6), and shall contain the following info nom Zion' (a) the DEP wetlands File Nu bar, name of the applicant and address of the project; (b) the Complete nems, address and telephone number of the party filing the request, and, if represented by Counsel, the now and address Of the attcrrmlt; (c) the names and addresses of all other parties, if lawman; (d) a clear ad Concise statement Of (1) the facts which are grounds for the proceedings, (2) the objections to this Superseding Order, including specifically the manner in which it is alleged to be inconsistent with the Department's wetlands Regulations (310 CNR 10.00) and does not contribute to the proelctnon of tre interr_ts identified in the Act, and (3) the relief sought through the aniudicstary hearir., 1,1'x41,:g sor.•fically the _.•anges oe;ired in the Suoerseuine Orc ; (e) a srateet CCat a CVpy of the r2ou.st her been sent to the &DpllCant, Che Jonser^Jt10n COI1mli ebiT end rn each other party or represen:a:ive of sutai party, if known. Failure to submit all necessary information may result in a dismisss( by the Department of the Notice of Claim for an Adjudicatory Hearing. Detach on dotted line mrd stbmnt to the ori or to commencement of worn. ...................................................................................... Issuing Authority. TO Please be ewe sed that the Order of Conditions for the project at File Number has been recorded At the Registry of and has been noted in the chain of title of the effected Property in accordance with General Condition B on 19 if recorded land, the instrument runder which identifies this transaction is If registered land, the document hunger which identifies this transaction is Applicant Signature , 5-4B 2 Conservatim f Salem. Massachusetts 01970 tfAtiS SPECIAL CONDITIONS DEP FILE #212 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 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 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 Certificate 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 . 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. 6. 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 in compliance with this Order . 7. This Order of Conditions, and Special Conditions will be included in all contractual documents signed between the applicant and its site preparation and construction contractors. 8. The effluent limitations to be contained in the NPDES permit issued for the project, as they may be amended from time to time, shall be deemed incorporated into this Order of Conditions pursuant to 310 CMR 10. 24 ( 4 ) (c) . 9 . Construction equipment must be maintained to prevent leakage or discharge of pollutants. Equipment sufficient to contain any accidental leakage or discharge of pollutants shall be readily available on the construction barge( s ) and other watercraft at all times. 10 . There shall be no spill or discharge of products or other pollutants into any resource ara during the work on this project . EX\DH\CC212ORDER SERAFINI, SERAFINI AND DARLING ATTORNEYS AT LAW RECEE IV E D 63 FEDERAL STREET SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 [[ ry�JAFNp 19 1f9,r96�A�q p�¢ JOHN R. SERAFINI. SR. QaJe a' Via',!JZ€JQ'E IatIE JOHN R. SERAFINI,OR. 5006-744-0212 JOHN E. DARLING 617-5 81-2743 ELLEN M.WINKLER TELECOPIER JOSEPH C. CORRENTI 506-7414663 January 19, 1996 BY HAND DELIVERY Frederick J. Harney, Jr. , Chairman Salem Conservation Commission One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 RE: DEP File No. 64-212 South Essex Sewerage District Construction of Effluent Outfall Diffuser Near Great Haste Rock in Salem Sound Order of Conditions issued March 31, 1993 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 March 31, 1996 to March 31, 1999. 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 the construction of an effluent outfall diffuser near Great Haste Rock in Salem Sound. This project is part of the construction of the District's larger secondary treatment facilities project. When the Notice of Intent for this project was filed in 1993 , 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 secondary facilities, including the outfall diffuser, 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. l Frederick J. Harney, Jr. , Chairman January 19, 1996 Page 2 The construction contract for the outfall diffuser was awarded on December 29, 1995 to Jay Cashman, Inc. , 285 Dorchester Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02127. Initial phases of the work are scheduled to take place this spring and summer. The District will provide the Commission with a more detailed schedule of construction activities prior to the commencement of actual construction as required by Special Condition 5 of the Order. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, John E. Darling JED:jaf cc: Arthur A. Knight, Jr. Raymond D. Masak Jane Wheeler iirECEIVED SERAFINI, SERAFINI AND DARLING MAH 26 1996 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 6e"A6C'm riciantaai j UePL. 63 FEDERAL STREET SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 JOHN R. SERAFINI, SR. TELEPHONE JOHN R. SERAFINI.JR. 506-7440212 JOHN E. DARLING 61756t-2743 ELLEN M. WINKLER TELECO PIER JOSEPH C. CORRENTI 508-741-4683 March 26, 1996 BY HAND DELIVERY Frederick J. Harney, Jr. , Chairman Salem Conservation Commission One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 RE: DEP File No. 64-212 South Essex Sewerage District Construction of Effluent Outfall Diffuser Near Great Haste Rock in Salem Sound Order of Conditions issued March 31, 1993 Dear Mr. Harney: I am writing on behalf of the South Essex Sewerage District to provide the Commission with the information required by Special Conditions 5 and 6 of the above Order of Conditions. Special Condition 5 requires that the District submit a written schedule of construction activities for the project. Special Condition 6 requires submission of advance notice of commencement of construction activities and the information concerning the person to be in charge of the project. As we previously informed the Commission, the construction contract was awarded by the District on December 29, 1995 to Jay Cashman, Inc. , 285 Dorchester Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02127. Since that time, the contractor has been proceeding with preparation of shop drawings and ordering of materials. As required by Special Condition 5, the following are the dates of the remaining construction activities: Frederick J. Harney, Jr. , Chairman March 26, 1996 Page 2 ACTIVITY COMMENCING ON OR ABOUT Fabricate and deliver pipe April 1, 1996 Outfit work barge and mobilization May 1, 1996 Begin construction on the water June 1, 1996 End of construction (except for final November 1, 1996 connection of new diffuser to existing outfall pipe) Connect diffuser During the period April 29, 1997 through October 29, 1997 As reflected in the last two activities, construction of the new outfall diffuser is expected to be completed in the late Fall of 1996. However, the final connection to the outfall pipe will not be made until sometime following the completion of the new secondary treatment plant in the Spring of 1997. As required by Special Condition 6, the name, address and telephone number of the District's project supervisor are as follows: Raymond D. Masak, Project Manager South Essex Sewerage District 77 Fort Avenue, P.O. Box 989 Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Business telephone: 508-744-4550, Ext. 130 Residence telephone: 508-664-1339 Sincerely, John E. Darling JED:jaf cc: Raymond D. Masak Commonwealth of Massachusetts can - Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Department of Environmental Protection AecsfVJ r Metro BostorVNortheast Regional Office e� k4q � William Wiereld 18 /YGwa4 3 Daniel S.Greenbaum 1 ,1441V 64-212 �� This project has been assigned the following file #: DATE: March 16, 1993 RE: NOTIFICATION OF FILE NUMBER WETLANDS/ Salem (city/town) The Department is in receipt of the following application filed in accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act (M.G.L. Ch. 131 s. 40) : APPLICANT• South_ Essex-Sewerage District OWNER: Commonwealth of Massachusetts ADDRESS: 50 Fort Avenue ADDRESS: Salem, MA 07970 PROJECT LOCATION• Near Great Haste Rock in Salem Sound/Lot No. NLA _ Although a file # is being issued, please note the following: No file # will be assigned to this project until the following missing information is sent to this office to complete the filing in accordance with the Act: ( ) Notice of Intent ( ) Locus Map ( ) Fee transmittal form ( ) Title 5 Plans ( ) Appendix A Documentation ( ) Plans COMMENTS: 1. (x) Application has been forwarded to Waterways Licensing Program to determine if a Chapter 91 License is required. 2 . ( x) Applicant is advised to forward a copy of the Notice of Intent to the Corps of Engineers for Sec. 404 review (Call 1-800-362-4367 for further information) . (see page 2 for additional information) 1 10 commerce Way 9 Woburn,Massachusetts 01601 • FAX(617)935-6393 • Telephone(617)935.2160 3 . (X) The project described in your Notice of Intent requires a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DEP. See below for further information 4 . (X) Before the activity described in the Notice of Intent can commence, you must obtain a Water Quality Certification (WQC) from this Regional Office. Please complete and file the enclosed application form with this Regional Office for review. 5. ( ) Your project involves dredging of greater than 100 cubic yards of material, or requires a permit from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for work in "waters of the Commonwealth" . Therefore, your proposed project is subject to 314 CMR 9 . 00 and requires a Water Quality Certification. Please complete and file the enclosed application form with the DEP/ Division of Water Pollution Control, One Winter Street, Boston, NIA 02108 . You may contact the Division of Water Pollution Control at 617-292-5655 if you have any questions. 6 . ( ) The Department of Environmental Protection has reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and finds that there is reasonable assurance that the project or activity will be conducted in a manner which will not violate Massachusetts water quality standards, provided that: a) the applicant receives and complies with a Final Order of Conditions from the local conservation commission or the Department; and b) the Order of Conditions does not cause the loss of more than 5, 000 sq. ft. of bordering vegetated wetlands and land under water; .and c) the project: is subject to 310 CMR 10. 00 (i.e. , not exempt from the MA Wetlands Protection Act - c. 131, § 40) , is not part of a subdivision ; and does not cause the loss of any wetlands of Outstanding Resource Waters, or any salt marsh. Therefore, provided that the above conditions are satisfied, this will serve as the Water Quality Certification for this project. This Certification does not relieve the applicant of the duty to comply with any other statutes or regulations. ISSUANCE OF A FILE NUMBER. INDICATES ONLY COMPLETENESS OF FILING SUBMITTED, NOT APPROVAL OF APPLICATION. Please contact the following NERO Wetland Staff person assigned to this file with any questions relative to this letter: Libby Sabounjian cc: Conservation Commission (x) ( ) U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Reg Branch ( ) Coastal Zone Management ( ) Board of Health ( ) Building Inspector (Xyj Representative (both_). ( ) DEP - WPC, Boston 7, ��, SERAFINI, SERAFINI AND DARLING ATTORNEYS AT LAW ANI{ 2 6 1996 63 FEDERAL STREET SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 0ftSM Flaniging Uopy3 JOHN R. SERAFINI, SR. i9 Ad' 1"6• TELEPHONE JOHN R. SERAFINI,JR. 508-744-0212 JOHN E. DARLING 617-581.2743 ELLEN M.WINKLER TELECO PIER JOSEPH C. CORRENTI 508-741-4683 April 23, 1996 Frederick J. Harney, Jr. , Chairman Salem Conservation Commission One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 RE: South Essex Sewerage District DEP File No. 64-212 Extension Permit Dear Mr. Harney: Enclosed for the Commission's file is a copy of the Extension Permit for the Order of Conditions for construction of the effluent outfall diffuser. The document was recorded with the Essex South District Registry of Deeds on March 29, 1996 in Book 13481, Page 73 . Sincerely, /� Q John E. Darling JED: jaf Enclosure l H SOUTIi REGIST#$V OIST' _T NLOWRIFIV4R.. -11 FROF0, 310 CHR 10.99 DPP Fide No. 64-212 DATE norm 7 ,.j��f��/( (To be provided by DEP) - —7'.d..�.•• cuy/Cowm Salem '"VELA CLOC� ami South Essex Sewerage Distric 72 Componwealth of )ussachusetts EXTENSION PERMIT MASSACHUSETTS wZTLANDS PROTECTION ACT G.L. C. 131, $40 Frosts Salem Conservation Commissio Issuing Authority - C g�niatrirr Fort Avenue Salem. MA ToiSouth Fccax - '4 (Name) (Address) The order of Conditions(or Extension Permit) issued on March 31, 1693 (date)--' to South Essex Sewerage District (name) for work at nog. aLQai vaaro Rnrk in Salem Sound (address) is hereby extended for a period of years(s) from the date it expires. * Recorded with Essex South District Registry of Deeds in Book 11829, Page 363. This Extension Permit will expire on March 31 1999 (date) This document shall be recorded in accordance with General Condition 8 of the order of Conditions. ... .. ... ... . ... . . . . ..... .. ............ ... .. . . . . . . . .... . . .. . ... . . .. . . . . . (Leave Space Blank) ' 7-1 Effective 11/10/89 CON q CZ Tn Issued by SAL i signature(s) t whom issued by tt7 conservation commission this Extension permit moat be signed by a majority of its members• , on this 28th day of March 19 96 before me the above named , to me known to be the,•, personally appeared person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he/she executed the same as hie/her free act and deed. Notary public by commission expires prior to eat Of Wwt' Detach on dotted line and sant to the Issuing Authority To Please be advised that the Extension Permit to the order of Conditions for the project at and File Ruaber has been recorded at the Registry of has been noted in the chain of title of the affected property in accordance with General Condition 5 of the 19 original order of conditions on if recorded land, the instrument nanber which identifies this transaction is if registered land, the donment mcber which identifies this Transaction is Applicant signature 7_2 SERAFINI, SERAFINI AND DARLING ATTORNEYS AT LAW � e,J Ei 4+' E±d 63 FEDERAL STREET y J v SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 JAM 1 IJ 1996 i JOHN R. SERAFINI, SR. JOHN R. 5ERAFINI.JR. ` $�08.7744-444--0212 JOHN E. DARLING 617-561-2743 ELLEN M. WINKLER TELECOPIER JOSEPH C. CORRENTI 506-741-4663 January 19, 1996 BY HAND DELIVERY Frederick J. Harney, Jr. , Chairman Salem Conservation Commission One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 RE: DEP File No. 64-212 South Essex Sewerage District Construction of Effluent Outfall Diffuser Near Great Haste Rock in Salem Sound Order of Conditions issued March 31, 1993 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 March 31, 1996 to March 31, 1999. 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 the construction of an effluent outfall diffuser near Great Haste Rock in Salem Sound. This project is part of the construction of the District's larger secondary treatment facilities project. When the Notice of Intent for this project was filed in 1993, 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 secondary facilities, including the outfall diffuser, 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 January 19, 1996 Page 2 The construction contract for the outfall diffuser was awarded on December 29, 1995 to Jay Cashman, Inc. , 285 Dorchester Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02127. Initial phases of the work are scheduled to take place this spring and summer. The District will provide the Commission with a more detailed schedule of construction activities prior to the commencement of actual construction as required by Special Condition 5 of the Order. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, John E. Darling JED: jaf cc: Arthur A. Knight, Jr. Raymond D. Masak Jane Wheeler 310 CMR 10.99 DEP Pik No 64-212 s.; (To be pmrded b/1)EP) Eosm 5 cmyfrose SALEM ^c^ Commonwealth of lussachusetts Order of Conditions Massachuetta Wetlands Protection Act G.L. c. 1311, 540 Prom Salem Conservation Commission Issuing Authority TO Rnnth Rc¢Pv SPR)P ra on Pictrirt !'n+m,v+nc+oal th rF TA----- E cc..r l...rortr (Name of Applicant) (Name of property owner) Address 50 Fort Avenue Address This order is issued and delivered as follows: ❑ by hand delivery to applicant or representative on (date) ® by certified mail, return receipt requested on March 31, 1993 (date) This project is located at Near Great NasrP Rork in Salam Srn,nA The property is recorded at the Registry of N/A Book N/A Page N/A Certificate (if registered) N/A The Notice of Intent for this project was filed on March 1. 1993 (date) The public heariny was closad on March 11, 1993 -_(date) Findings The Salem Conservation ComZ,s reviewed the above-referenced Notice ofIntent and plans and has held a public hearing on the project. Based on the information available to the Commission at this time, the Cnm iccinn has determined that the area on which the proposed wore is to be donte 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 the Act (check as appropriate): Public water supply Flood Control Land containing shellfish Private water supply Storm damage prevention Fisheries Ground water supply Prevention of pollution Protection of Wildlife Nabitat Totes Ffling Fee SLAMsitted S175(1 State share 5612.60 (1/2 fee in excess of s25) City/Town Share 5637.50 Totel Refund Due s City/Town Portion t State Portions (1/2 totat) (1/2 total) Effective 11/10/89 5-1 Therefore, the r : a+ & --hereby finds that the fu11Owing cor6itions are necessary, in accordance with the Performance standards set forth in the regulations, to protect those interests checked above. The (.nmmiccinn orders that all work shall be performed in accordance with said conditions and with the Notice of Intent referenced above. To the extent that the following conditions modify or differ from the plans, specifications or other proposals submitted with the Notice of Intent, the conditions shall control. General conditions 1. Failure to comply with all conditions stated herein, and with all related statutes and other regulatory measures, shall be deemed cause to revoke or modify this order. 2. The 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. 3. This order does not relieve the permittee or any other person of the necessity of complying with all other applicable federal, state or local statutes, ordinances, by-laws or regulations. 4 . The work authorized hereunder shall be completed within three years from the date of this order unless either of the following apply: (a) the work is a maintenance dredging project as provided for in the Act; or (b) the time for completion has been extended to a specified date more than three years, but less than five years, from the date of issuance and both that date and the special circumstances warranting the extended time period are set forth in this order. 5. This order may be extended by the issuing authority for one or more periods of un to three years each upon application to the issuing authority at least 30 days prior to the expiration date of the order. ; . ;. ,y f 11 ubea in connection with tht I _I �Iect _::aii Se Glen., fill, contai-:_ry no trash, refuEe, r'uLJibh or d?tciu, in.ludinq Lut t.ot li.U_4`2 to lumber, bricks, plaster, wire, lath, paper, cardboard, pipe, tires, ashes, refrigerators, motor vehicles or parts of any of the foregoing. i . No work shall be undertaken until all administrative appeal periods from this order have elapsed or, if such an appeal has been filed, until all proceedings before the Department have been completed. 8 . 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 land is located, within the chain of title of the affected property. in the case of recorded land, the Final order shall also be noted in the Registry's Grantor index under the name of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work is to be done. in the ease of registered land, the Final order shall also be noted on the Land court Certificate of Title of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work is to be done. The recording informatin shall be submitted to the Commission 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 bearing the words, "Massachusetts 64 21artment of Environmental Protection, File Number 10. Where the Department of Environmental Protection is requested to make a determination and to issue a superseding. order, the conservation Commission shall be a party to all agency proceedings and hearings before the Department. 5-2 i 11. upon completion of tho work described herein, the applicant shall forthwith request in writing that a certificate of compliance be issued stating that the work has been satisfactorily completed. 12. The work shall conform to the following plans and special conditions: Plans: Title Dated signed and stamped by: on File with: PESEI qutfall Diffuser Plan & Alvin C. Firmin Conservation Commission rgo i et 77 1 SRdDPottf�eEanll f"CPr Pr n tPction Aloin (:_ Firmin C:nncpn nhirnn fnmmi ecinn PESDngutfall Diffuser Transition Alvin C. Firmin Conservation Commission 1pispecial conditions (use additional paper if necessary) SEE ATTACHED CONDITIONS (Leave space .Blank) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3A zians: Title Dated Signed and stamped by: on File with: special Conditions (use additional paper if necessary) (Leave space Blank) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-38 :ssued By Salem conservation comm,asion Signature(s) i ( ��Q �.1 2 This order must be signed by a majority of the conservation commission. on this I I day of /t1(� 4r k 19 q z , before me personally appeared ';i':, rrnt; :,._ /,I; y ,r„1 , to me known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he/she executed the same as his/her free act and dead. ratgiry Public My commission expires The applicant, the owner, any person agrrieved by this Order, any owner of land abutting the lard upon which the proposed work is to be done, or any ten residents of the city or tam in which such land is located, are hereby notified of their right to request the Department of Environmental Protection to issue a superseding order, providing the request is made by certified mail or hard delivery to the Department, with the appropriate filing fee and Fee Transmittal Form as provided in 310 CMR 10.03M, within ten days from the date of issuance of this determination. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and the applicant. Detach on dotted line and submit to the Salem C'nngPryatiOn Cnmm, prior to commencement of work. ............................................................................................................ To Salem Conservation Commission Issuing Authority Please be advised that the order of conditions for the project at Great Haste Rock at Salem Sounc File Number 66-919 has been recorded at the Registry of Essex and has been noted in the chain of title of the affected property in accordance with General Conditimn 8 on ,19 if recorded land, the instrument ranter which identifies this transaction is if registered land, the document ranter which identifies this transaction is Signature Applicant 5-4A issued by the peparcment of Environmental Protection signature on this day of 19 , before me personally appeared to me known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknovledged that he/she executed the same as hie/her free act and deed. I Notary Public my commission expires The applicant, the owner, any person aggrieved by the Superseding order, arty ower of lard abutting the lard upon Which the proposed work is to be done, or arty ten persons pursuant to G.L. c.30A 110A, are hereby notified of their right to request an adjudicatory hearing puraunt to G.L. c.30A. 110, providing the request is ands by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department, With the appropriate filing fee and Fee Transmittal farm as provided in 310 CMR 10.03(7), Within tan days from the date of issurtee of this _ Superseding Order, and is addressed to: Docket Clerk, Office of General Counsel, Department of Environmental Protection, One winter Street, Boston, MA 02108-A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission, the applicant, and any otner party. A Motice of Claim for an Adjudicatory Hearing shall comply with the Department's Rules icr Adjudicatory Proceedings, 310 CMR 1.01(6), and shall contain the following information: (a) the DEP wetlands file Number, name of the applicant and address of the project; (b) the complete name, address and telephone number of the party filing the request, and, if represented by counsel, the name and address of the attorney; (c) the names and addresses of all other parties, if known; (d) a clear and concise statement of (1) the facts which are grourds for the proceedings, (2) the objections to this Superseding Order, including specifically the manner in which it is alleged to be inconsistent with the Department's wetlands Regulations (310 CMR 10.00) and does not contribute to the prom>cn on of the int!r.mts identified in the Act, and (3) the relief sown+ through the aniudiatory heanr0, suw.•..fic.nlly the _:angel desired it the Supersedine Ord' (e) a sratf::'eot tnat a c:oy of the raqu_ST her been Sent to the sopLicanT, Che Loner-ration cammis0,,n and each other party or representative of sum.n party, if known. Failure to submit all necessary information may result in a dismissal by the Department of the Notice of Claim for an Adjudicatory Hearing. Detach on dotted line and submit to the orior to commencement of work. To Issuing Authority. Please be advised that The order of Conditions for the project at File Mummer has been recorded at the Registry of and has been noted in the chain of title of the effected property in accordance with General Condition B on 19 If recorded land, the instrument number which identifies this transaction is If registered land, the document number which identifies this transaction is Signature Applicant 5-4B �oN Cp�� Conservatim Commission Salem. Massachusetts 01970 'IA tiS SPECIAL CONDITIONS DEP FILE #212 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 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 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 Certificate 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. 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. f 6. 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 in compliance with this Order . 7. This Order of Conditions, and Special Conditions will be included in all contractual documents signed between the applicant and its site preparation and construction contractors. 8. The effluent limitations to be contained in the NPDES permit issued for the project, as they may be amended from time to time, shall be deemed incorporated into this Order of Conditions pursuant to 310 CMR 10. 24( 4) (c) . 9 . Construction equipment must be maintained to prevent leakage or discharge of pollutants . Equipment sufficient to contain any accidental leakage or discharge of pollutants shall be readily available on the construction barge( s) and other watercraft at all times. 10 . There shall be no spill or discharge of products or other pollutants into any resource ara during the work on this project. EX\DH\CC212ORDER L �I JAY CASHMANN. f JUL 19 1996 MARINE&GENERAL CONTRACTORS July 16, 1996 Salem Conservation Commission 1 Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Reference: S.E.S.D. Waste Water Treatment Plant Outfall Diffuser Contract #93-2 D.E.P. File No. 64-212 Dear Board Members: Please be advised that Jay Cashman, Inc. is under contract with South Essex Sewer District to install six hundred sixty feet of outfall pipe in the vicinity of Haste Rock in Salem Harbor. The work will commence on approximately July 29 , 1996, and continue until November 3 , 1996. Very truly yours, J/P. INC. 5— Jakaves St Manager JPS/ms cc: Richard P. Hudson, CDM - Cambridge C:\WPDOCS\SALEM\HARBOR 285 Dorchester Avenue, South Boston, MA 02127 • Tel:617-567-7500 • Fax 617-561-7116 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Department ®f Environmental Protecti®n William F. Weld Governor -'MAR 121993 6�r99 Daniel S. Greenbaum �® Commissioner Swin �/R�,1 S 1Y93 . South Essex Sewerage District ten]///8 c/o Serafini , Serafini & Darling Dept 63 Federal Street AV 1A Salem, MA 01970 Attn: John Darling RE: Construction of multi-port outfall diffuser, near Great Haste Rock, Salem Sound, Salem Dear Sir: This office is in receipt of information and documentation regarding the reference proposed structure, fill or activity which, our research indicates, lies within the jurisdiction of MGL Chapter 91, the ------ Public--waterfront-Act.- Wearetherefore requiring you-to exercise -one of the two options listed below. ti.. Option 1. Complete the enclosed Waterways License Application and return it to this office; or Option 2 . Submit information demonstrating either that the referenced proposed structure, fill or activity is already t` authorized under Chapter 91, or that it is outside the jurisdiction of C. 91. Please be advised that unauthorized structures, fill or activities within the jurisdiction of Chapter 91 may be subject to fines. Should you have any questions in regard to this matter, please feel free to contact me at (617) 292-5695 . Sinerely, /Ronald Licensing Engineer Waterways Regulation Program cc: ISalem Conservation_Commission DEP Wetland Section, NE Region, #64-212 Salem Harbormaster One winter Street 0 Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • FAX (617) 556-1049 • Telephone (617) 292-5500 1 RECEIVE® MAR 16 1993 Salem tr-fanning (dept. March 7, 1993 MEMORANDUM TO: Yvonne Gonzalez, OGC, Boston FROM: Ralph Kardon/Wetlands, NERO SUBJECT: Dispute fee - South Essex Sewerage District, Salem - DEP #64-212 Enclosed herewith please find letter and fee data from Attorney John Darling, with respect to the applicant's appeal of the wetlands filing fee, for DEP File # 64-212. This is being forwarded to you for response, since Attorney Darling has requested a written explanation (i.e. , Legal Opinion) pertaining to DEP's stance in this matter. For your information, the wetlands case has been assigned for review to Libby Sabounjian. Enclosures cc: William Krol, Wetlands Section Chief, NERO Libby Sabounjian, Wetlands, NERO Sabin M. Lord Jr. RE, NERO Salem Conservation Commission SERAFINI, SERAFINI AND DARLING ATTORNEYS AT LAW 63 FEDERAL STREET - SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS01970 �- JOHN R. SERAFINI, SR. TELEPHONE JOHN R. SERAFINI,JR. - 508-744.0212 JOHN E. DARLING 617-581-2743 ELLEN M. WINKLER September 15, 1992 TELECOPIER JOSEPH C. CORRENTI 508-741"4683 Department of Environmental Protection Box 4062 Boston, Massachusetts 02211 Re: Notice of Intent for Secondary Wastewater Treatment Facilities South Essex Sewerage District 50 Fort Avenue, Salem, Massachusetts Dear Sir or Madam: On behalf of the South Essex Sewerage District, 50 Fort Avenue, Salem, Massachusetts, enclosed is our check in the amount of $775. 00 in payment of the state's share of the filing fee for the above Notice of Intent, together with the Fee Transmittal Form. Please note that the District disputes the filing fee in its entirety. The District was created by Chapter 339 of the Massachusetts Acts of 1925 and provides sewage treatment services for the Cities of Salem, Peabody and Beverly, the Towns of Danvers and Marblehead, parts of Middleton, and certain agencies of the Commonwealth. In the past, the District has been exempt from filing fees on Notices of Intent. However, DEP apparently has changed its long standing practice in response to this filing. The District has paid the fee in order to allow the project, which is part of a construction program mandated by a federal Consent Decree, to proceed. However, the District requests a prompt review of this matter and a written explanation for the change in DEP ' s interpretation of its regulations as applied to the District. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, `1� n Darling JED/kel Enclosures cc: Raymond G. Bouchard, SESD GULF OF MAINE RESEARCH CENTER INC. 2041AFAYETTE STREET SALEM, MA 01970 (508) 745-6618 DAT9/16/92/ 6/92 1Oe Ro. FAX (508) 741-8648 ATTENTION/1 RE: TO Department of Environmental Protection Box 4062 Boston, MA 02211 =r- WE ARE SENDING YOU LXAttached ❑ Under separate clover via the following items: ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 Filing fee and transmittal form for Notice of Intent for South Esser. Sewerage District THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submitcopies for distribution ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return_corrected prints ❑ For review and comment ❑ ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS COPY TO SIGNED: � k �811LF ^ AINE RESEARCH CENTER INC ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING SERVICES w. D �•J"`-`� ��.1 -L"' ,.. ...j 1'.: FC`i'1 204 LAFAYETTE STREET, SALEM, MA 01970 . T�"�a- Department of Environmental Protectio.i Box 4062 Boston, AIA 02211 - o P 926 025 188 BOX #4062 COMMONWEALTH OF MASS - DEQE 770024 09-18-92 . 0004062 4062037 3 004 04-11111111 MINOR CA OF SERAFINI,SERAFo MM AND DARUNO 24951 .^�`. wFfuun ETMEET — wFAL MASSACl JWM 01170 O res PAY wrs w rK o�ot+o. gra innlo.7waaQf�E /`/SSS. : �� ' 1 � � } P02495Lw C01�OOD2061: d4 006965 200 .'00000 7 7 500x' NOTICE OF INTENT FEE TRUISM= FCFM f DEPAIiIMENr OF ENVIR2tIEM AI+ P%71FX. ON DIVISICN OF WETLANDS AND FDTRIMYS - NOTICE OF INTENT (NOI) APPUCV?r: PRDPERTY CWNER: Name South EssexSewerage Dist . Name South Essex Sewerage District Street 50 Fort Avenue Street 50 Fort Avenue City/Town Salem City/Town Salem State MA Zip Cbde 01970 State MA Zip Code 01970 Phan mxnber ( 508) 744-4550 Project Location: Street/Lot Number 50 Fort Avenue City/Town Salem, MA DEP FILE NCtOER (if available) NOI FI1MC FFA DISPf7TED FEE Total NOI Filing Fee: $ 1575 Total Disputed Fee: $ 1575 (as derermined'in Notice of State Share of Filing Fee: $ 775 Insufficient Fee letter fran (1/2 of fee in excess of $25.00) conservation crymiion) City/Town Share of State Share of Fee: $ 7 8 7 . 5 0 Filing Fee: $ 800 (1/2 of total disputed fee) City/Tuwn Sure of Fee: $187 - 50 (1/2 of total disputed fee) 1. Send thio Fee Ttarnsaittal form with a check or army order, payable to the C== wealth of Massachusetts, to the DEP Lock Box at: Department. of Environmental Protection - Boot 4062 Boston, MA 02211 2. Attach a of this form to the Notice of Intent submitted to the local Conservation Comni_ssion. 3. Attach a cry of this farm and a of the DEP check to each of the Notioe of Intent foss submitted to the DEP regional office. �I f11/10/89 CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. (i environmental engineers,scientists, Ten Cambridge Center planners,&management consultants Cambridge,Massachusetts 02142 617 252-8000 March 1, 1993 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Metro Boston/Northeast Regional Office 5 Commonwealth Avenue Woburn, MA 01801 Dear S' On behalf of the South Essex Sewerage District, enclosed please find two copies of a Notice of Intent for Outfall Diffuser Construction. The disputed filing fee and transmittal form have been forwarded to the DEP lock box in Boston. If there are any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at (617) 252-8232 or John Darling of Serafini, Serafini, and Darling at (508) 44-0212. Sincerely, CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. ii liam corn William L. Keough Environmental Scientist 4 SERAFINI, SERAFINI AND DARLING ATTORNEYS AT LAW 53 FEDERAL STREET SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 JOHN R. SERAFINI, SR, TELEPHONE JOHN R. SERAFINI,JR, 506.744-0212 JOHN E. DARLING 617-581-2743 ELLEN M. WINKLER TELECOPIER JOSEPH C. CORRENTI March 1, 1993 508-741-4683 Salem Conservation Commission City of Salem One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Re: Notice of Intent for Construction of Effluent Outfall Facilities near Great Haste Rock, Salem Sound South Essex Sewerage District, Applicant 50 Fort Avenue, Salem, Massachusetts Dear Sir or Madam: Enclosed is our check in the amount of $637 . 50, 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 rights on this issue. Sincerely, , John E. Darling y JED/kel Enclosures cc: Raymond G. Bouchard SERAFINI, SERAFINI AND DARLING ATTORNEYS AT LAW 63 FEDERAL STREET SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS01970 JOHN R. SERAFINI, SR. TELEPHONE JOHN R. SERAFI N I.JR. 508-744-0232 JOHN E. DARLING 617-581-2743 ELLEN M. WINKLER TELECOPIER JOSEPH C. CORRENTI 508-741-4663 August 30, 1995 BY HAND DELIVERY E LC"pEIVE'I-) Frederick J. Harney, Jr. , Chairman AUG 31 11y) Salem Conservation Commission One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 saie f9 riaiigulw Dept. RE: DEP File No. 64-212 South Essex Sewerage District Construction of Outfall Diffuser in Salem Sound Dear Mr. Harney: The South Essex Sewerage District has asked that I write to the Commission to provide the written schedule of construction activities required by Special Condition No. 5 and the information required by Special Condition No. 6 of the Order of Conditions for the project issued on March 31, 1993 . As you may recall, at the time that the District submitted its Notice of Intent, the details and the dates for the various construction activities were uncertain because the District was still negotiating these matters with the federal and state governments in accordance with the Consent Decree issued by the U. S. District Court. The District did provide a tentative schedule in the Notice of Intent which indicated that the project would begin in the Fall of 1995 and be completed in the Summer of 1997. Special Condition No. 5 was inserted into the Order so that the Commission would be notified of the final schedule approved by the federal and state governments three weeks in advance of the start of construction activities. Enclosed is a schedule of activities for the project and the following is a brief narrative description. Frederick J. Harney, Jr. , Chairman August 30, 1995 Page 2 The schedule indicates that initial work, consisting of the taking of confirmatory sediment samples, will begin on September 25, 1995 subject to weather conditions. The design of the outfall diffuser was based on borings that were performed over three years ago under an earlier Order of Conditions (DEP File No. 64-206) . Because waves and currents may have altered the distribution of sediments along the ocean bottom since that time, it is important to confirm ;the thickness of sediment layers in the construction area. The confirmatory sampling activity is not as extensive as the original boring program which involved a barge and drill rig. In this case, 2 . 5 inch diameter cores of the sediments will be taken along the outfalll diffuser alignment using a core sampler and a lobster boat or similar vessel. The activity is expected to take approximately three or four days. The information from the cores will be used to update the construction plans and bidding documents. The remainder of the work on the project will take place following bidding and award of a contract. Under the Consent Decree, bidding must commence on October 1, 1995 and a contract must be awarded by January 1, 1996. During the Winter and Spring of 1996 the contractor will mobilize its forces, order pipe and other materials. In June of 1996, the contractor will begin the replacement of the existing outfall terminus with a new connector to allow the new diffuser to be constructed. That activity is expected to take about two weeks. The diffuser construction will then proceed over the next three months, dependent upon weather conditions. The work is expected to be completed in the Fall of 1996 prior to the Consent Decree deadline of February 28, 1997. The diffuser will be placed into operation by June 30, 1997 when the District's secondary treatment facilities are scheduled to begin operations. Full operation of the diffuser, in compliance with the District's federal and state discharge permit, must be achieved by october 29, 1997 . Early in 1996, the District also plans to request an extension of the Order of Conditions for the project which will expire on March 31, 1996. As a final matter, as required by Special Condition No. 6, the name, address, business and home telephone number of the project supervisor for this project are as follows: Frederick J. Harney, Jr. , Chairman August 30, 1995 Page 3 Raymond D. Masak, P.E. South Essex Sewerage District 77 Fort Avenue Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Business telephone number (508) 744-4550, Ext. 130 Home telephone number (508) 664-1339 Please feel free to call me if there are any questions concerning the above. Sincerely, John E. Darling JED:jaf Enclosure cc: Raymond D. Masak, P.E. , SESD Bernadette Kolb, Camp, Dresser & McKee Inc. CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE DEP FILE NO. 64-212 SOUTH ESSEX SEWERAGE DISTRICT OUTFALL DIFFUSER ACTIVITY DATE CONFIRMATORY SEDIMENT SAMPLING 9/25/95 ADVERTISE FOR BIDS 10/1/95* AWARD CONTRACT 1/1/96* CONTRACTOR MOBILIZATION 3/1/96* CONSTRUCT A NEW OUTFALL TERMINUS 6/1/96 AND NEW OUTFALL DIFFUSER COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION 2/28/97* PLACE DIFFUSER INTO OPERATION 6/30/97 ACHIEVE FULL OPERATION OF DIFFUSER 10/29/97* IN ACCORDANCE WITH DISCHARGE PERMIT NOTES: 1. Activity start dates and duration are dependent upon weather conditions 2. *Indicates date set in Consent Decree SOUTH ESSEX 'SEWERAGE ■� DISTRICT , • l�� NOTICE OF INTENT FOR •� OUTFALL DIFFUSER CONSTRUCTION y V SUBMITTED TO: SALEM CONSERVATION,COMMISSION & MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PREPARED BY: r GULF OF MAINE RESEARCH CENTER INC. SERAFINI, SERAFINI, & DARLING CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE INC. MARCH 1993 ti^ i i t i Contents' 1 - ' TABLE OF CONTENTS ' Section P ' 1.0 NOTICE OF INTENT 1-1 20 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-1 21 Consent Decree and MEPA Process 2-1 ' 22 Predesign Activities 2-3 23 Site Location and Description 2-4 2.4 Proposed Activites 2-5 ' 3.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS 3-1 ' 3.1 Introduction 3-1 3.2 Water Quality 3-1 ' 3.3 Sediments 3-2 ' 3.4 Biological Communites 3-5 3.5 Ecologically Important Habitats 3-6 4.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS 4-1 4.1 Resource Area and Performance Standards 4-1 ' 4.2 Impacts On Water Circulation 4-2 4.3 Impacts On Eelgrass and Widgeon Grass Beds 4-2 4.4 Impacts Related To Sediment Grain Size 4-3. ' 4.5 Changes In Water Quality 4-4 4.5.1 Dissolved Oxygen 4-4 4.5.2 Temperature 4-5 4.5.3 Turbidity 4-5 4.5.4 Addition of Pollutants 4-6 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) ' Section 4.6 Alterations of Shallow Submerged Land 4-7 4.7 Conclusions 4-8 APPENDIX A - Contruction Methods 1.0 INTRODUCTION A-1 2.0 CONNECTION TO EXISTING OUTFALL TERMINUS A-1 2.1 Removal of the Existing Terminus Protection A-2 2.2 Excavation and Bracing Around the Existing Terminus A-2 2.3 Removal of Existing Terminus A-3 2.4 Installation of Connection Pipe and Fittings A-3 3.0 PLACEMENT OF OUTFALL DIFFUSER PIPE A-3 3.1 Displacement of Surficial Sediments A-3 3.2 Placement and Levelling of Bedding Layer A-4 3.3 Pipe Laying Operations A-4 3.3.1 Individual Pipe Length Placement A-7 3.3.2 String -of-pipe Placement A-7 ' 3.4 Placement of Protection A-9 3.4.1 Armor Stone A-9 ' 3.4.2 Armor Mats A-9 3.4.3 Combination of Armor Materials A-11 ' iii ' LIST OF TABLES Table Edge 2-1 Consent Decree Milestones & Schedule for Outfall Activities 2-2 3-1 Chemical Constituents of Sediment Samples From Salem Sound 3-3 ' LIST OF FIGURES Fig u e EWE 1 U.S.G.S. Site Locus Plan 1-9 3-1 Sediment Sampling Stations of Surface Sediments Around the Outfall Terminus 3-4 A-1 Examples of Plows A-5 A-2 Example of Tremie Pipe and Barge (Dumping Method C) A-6 A-3 Example of Horse and Pipe Section A-8 A-4 Example of Armor Mat System A-10 ' A-5 Example of Armor Mat Placement A-12 ' LIST OF PLANS ' Plan 1 1 SESD Outfall Diffuser Plan and Profile 2 SESD Outfall Diffuser Pipe Protection and Port Details 3 SESD Outfall Diffuser Transition Piping i iv 0 0 ODULion One- . .. 310 CHIC 10.99.. DEP Rte No, (1b be Ptovi ad by DPP rozn 3 atylroao Salem - Appttont South Essex Sewera e 1 trict co=onvealth Department of of Xassachusetts Defense United States Notice Of Intent of America Under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, Q.L. C. 131, 540 and Application for a Department of the Army Permit Part it General Information 1. Location: street Address Near Great Haste Rock in Salem Sound Lot Number N/A Municipal 2. Project: Type uti,iry Description The applicant proposes construction of a 660-foot multi-port outfall diffuser in the Resource Area Land Under the Ocean. A 21.000 s.f. area of botton sediments will be disturbed by plowing the seabed and placing armor rock. The proiect will not adversely impact water quality. 3. Registry: County Essex Current Book N/A a Page N/A ' certificate (if Registered Land) N/A a. Applicant South Essex Sewerage District .Tel. (508) 744-4550 Address 50 Fort Avenue Salem MA 0197.0 5. Property owner Commonwealth of Massachusetts .Tel.. ' Address Attorney John Darling Sera ini Serafini fi Darl 'ng 6. Representative63 Federal Street, Salem, MA 01970 Tel. (508) 7�+4-0212 1 Gulf of Maine Research Center Inc. Address 204 Lafayette Street Salem MA 01970 ( 509) 745-66181 7. a. Have the Conservation Commission and the Department's Regional office each been sent, by certified mail or hand deliver, 2 copies of completed Notice of Intent, with supporting plane and documents? Yes ® NO ❑ b. Has the fee been submitted? Yes ® No Q c. Total Filing Fee submitted $1250 d. city/Town share of Filing Fee$637 . 50 state share of Filing Fee $612 . 50 (sent to City/Town) (Yo of fee in excess oC S25, sent to DEP) ' e. is a brief statement attached indicating how the applicant calculated the fee? IN Yes ❑ No ' Effective 11/20/92 3-1 ' 8. Have all obtainable permit-, variances and approvals required by local by-law been obtained? Yes ❑ No IM ' obtained Applied tor: Not Applied For: 9. Is any portion of the site subject to a Wetlands strictl'pn order pursuant to G.L. C. 131, S30A or G.L. c. 130, 51057 Yes No 1�! 10. List all plans and supporting documents submitted with this Notice of Intent. Identifying Title, Date Number/Letter Figure 1 USGS Salem Quadrangle Section 2 (S2) Proiect Description Section 3 (S3) Existing Conditions Section 4 (S4) Impact Analysis ' Appendix A14)__ Construction Methods _____.__-- Site Plans 11. Check those resource areas within which work is proposed: ' (a) ❑ Buffer zone (b) Inland: ❑ Bank* Land Subject to Flooding ' ❑ Bordering vegetated Wetland* ❑ Bordering ❑ Land Under water Body i Waterway* ❑ Isolated ' (c) Coastal: ® Land Under the ocean* ❑ Designated Port Area* ❑ coastal Beach* ❑ coastal Dune ' ❑ Barrier Beach* ❑ Coastal Bank ❑ Rocky Intertidal shore* ❑ Salt Marsh* ❑ Land Under Salt Pond* ❑ Land Containing shellfish* ❑ Fish Run* *Likely to involve U.S. Army Corps of Engineers concurrent jurisdiction. See General instructions for completing Notice of intent. ' 3-2 ' 12: is the o;oje_t within esUmated habitat which is indicated on the most recent Estimated Habitat Map of state-Listed Rare wetlands wildlife (i'_ any) published by the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program? YES [ ] NO [X.j Date primed g2the Estimated Habitat Map No MAP AVAILABLE [ ] (if any) 11 y If yes, have you sent a copy of the Notice of Intent to the Natural Heritage ' and Endangered Species Program via the o.s. Postal service by certified or priority mail (or otherwise sent it in a manner that guarantees delivery within two days) no later than the date of the filing of this Notice of Intent with the conservation co ission and the DEP regional office? ' YES [ ] NO [ ] If yes please attach evidence of timely mailing or other delivery to the ' Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program. Part IIs Site Description Indicate which of the following information has been provided (on a plan, in narrative description or calculations) to clearly, completely and accurately describe existing site conditions. ' Identifying Number/Letter (of plan, narrative or calculations) Natural Features S3 soils/Sediments S3 Vegetation S3 _ Topography ' S3 open water bodies(including ponds and lakes) ' N/A Flowing water bodies(including streams and rivers) N/A Public and private surface water and ground water supplies on or within 100 feet of site N/A Maximum annual ground water elevations with dates and location of test S3 Boundaries of resource areas checked under Part 1, item 11 ' S 3 above Other ' Man-made Features: S2 , A, SP Structures (such as buildings, piers, towers and headwalls) ' S2 , A, SP Drainage and flood control facilities at the site and immediately off the site, including culverts and open channels (with inverts) , dams and dikes S2 , A, SP Subsurface sewage disposal systema II S2 , A, SP underground utilities ' 3-3 N/A Roadways and parking areae N/A Prop"ty bouaer_ries. :ase;aento and rights-of-aAy S2 , A, SP other ' Part III: work Description Indicate which of the following information has been provided (on a plan, in narrative description or calculations) to clearly, completely and accurately ' describe work proposed within each of the resource areas checked in Part I, item 11 above. Identifying Number/Letter (of plan, narrative or calculations) Planview and cross section oft ' S2 . A. SP structures(such as buildings, piers, towers and headwalls) S2 , A, SP Drainage and flood control facilities, including culverts ' and open channels(with inverts), dams and dikes S2 , A, SP subsurface sewage disposal systema i underground utilities ' S2 , A, SP Filling, dredging and excavating, indicating volume and composition of material ' N/A compensatory storage areas, where required in accordance with Part III, section 10.57(4) of the regulations. ' /A wildlife habitat restoration or repiicaticn areas S2 , A, SP other Point source Discharge S2 , A, SP Description of characteristics of discharge from point source (both closed and open channel) , when point of discharge falls within resource area checked under Part I, item 11 above, as supported by standard engineering calculations, data and plans, including but not limited to ' the following: 1. Delineation of the drainage area contributing to the point of discharge; ' 2. Pre-arid post-development peak run-off from the drainage area, at the point of discharge, for at least the 10-year and 100-year frequency storm; 3. Pre- and post-development rate of infiltration contributing to the resource area checked under part I, item 11 above; 4. Estimated water quality characteristics of pre- and post-development run-off at the point of discharge. 3-4 Part IV: Mitigating measures i. ctea. iv. -.omtstely .rd accurately deserlhe, with reference to supporting plans and calculations where necessary (a) All mature* and designs proposed to amt the perfors:aruee standards set forth under each ' resource area specified in Part II or Part III of the regulations; or (b) why the presumptions set forth under each resource area specified in Part 11 or Part III of the ' - regutatio s do not apply. . . m ❑ coastal Resource Area Type: identifying number or ❑ Inland letter of support Land Under the Ocean documents ' The applicant proposes the addition of a 660-foot multipon outfall diffuser to Sections IA the existing treated sewage effluent outfall,located near Great Haste Rock in Salem Appendix A Sound. Construction of the diffuser will require disturbance of bottom sediments Site plans (via plowing and placement of armor protection)which will be approximately 21,000 feet,or OS acres. The placement of armor rock will provide hard-bottom . habitat for mollusks,crustaceans and macrophytic algae. No removal of sediments is proposed,and sediments are expected to settle within a few hours of displacement. The limited-depth plow will be operated at _ minimal speed to reduce temporary sediment suspension and turbidity. No changes in water circulation patterns,turbidity,temperatur4 salinity or pollutant levels will occur as a result of the proposed project. Water quality in Salem Sound will improve as a result of the proposed project due to increased dispersion and dilution ' of effluent and the addition of secondary treatment facilities at the DistricPs Fort ❑ coastal Resource Area Type: Identifying number or ❑ inland letter of support documents ' 3-5 ' ❑ Coastal Resource Area Type: "lentifying number or ❑ Inland letter of support documents ' 2. Clearly, completely and accurately describe, with reference to supporting plans and calculations where necessary: (a) all aeasures 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 )0.02())(a) of these regulations, or (b) if work in the Buffer Zone will alter such an area, all measures Mrd designs proposed to seat ' The performance standards osublished fer tht adjaceW resource area, specifies ir. Part It o^ Part III of these regulations. ❑ Coastal Resource Area Type Bordered Identifying number or ' ❑ Inland By 100—Feet Discretionary Zone: letter of support documents The Resource Area Land Under the Ocean is not bordered by a 100-foot Buffer Zone. The proposed project will not impact the Buffer Zone of any Coastal or Inland Resource Area. 1 i 3-6 1 Part Vt Additional Information for a Department of the Army Permit 1. COE Application No. 1 (to be provided by COE) 2. (Name of waterway) 1 3. Names and addresses of property owners adjoining your property: 1 1 4. Document other project alternatives (i.e., other locations and/or construction methods, particularly those that would eliminate the 1 discharge of dredged or fill material into waters or wetlands) , 5. 84" x 11" drawings in planview and cross-section, showing the resource area and the proposed 'activity within the resource area. Drawings must be 1 to scale and should be clear enough for photocopying. certification is required from the Division of Water pollution control before 1 the Federal permit can be issued. certification may be obtained by contacting the Division of water Pollution Control, 1 winter. street, Boston, Massachusetts 02108. 1 Where the activity will take place within the area under the Massachusetts approved Coastal Zone Management program, the applicant certifies that his 1 proposed activity complies with and will be conducted in a manner that is . onsistent with the approved program. Information provided will be used in evaluating the application for a permit 1 and is made a matter of public record through issuance of a public notice. Disclosure of this information is voluntary; however, if necessary information is not provided, the application cannot be processed nor can a permit be 1 issued. I hereby certify under the pains and penalties of perjury that the foregoing Notice of Intent and accompanying plana, documents and supporting data are 1 true and comple , to the best of my knowledge. 61. 1 /1/ 3 1 tura of p 'cant Date 1gnat of Applicant's Repres tative Date FORM "Exception to ENG Form 4345 approved by NOUSACE, 6 May 198211 1 YED 100 (TEST) 1 MAY 82 "This document contains a joint Department of the Army and State of Massachusetts application for a permit to obtain permission to perform activities in United States waters. The.Office of Management and _ Sudget(OMS) has approved those questionsrequiredby the US Army Corps of Engineers. OMB Number 0702-0036 and expiration date of 30 September 1983 applies". This statement will be set in 6 point type.. 3-7 ' NOTICE OF INTEDTT FEE 1RANS rrML Fes! DEPARTMM OF ENVnENM NML PROIB=ICN ' DIVISION OF WEITRW AND WATMULYS ' NOTICE OF nRIM (NOI) APPISCAMr: PROPERLY OWM: Name South Essex Sewerage Name Commonwealth of Massachusetts District Street 50 Fort Avenue street City/lbws Salem, MA 01970 City/Town ' state MA Zip Code 01970 State Zip Code phone Number (508) 744-4550 Project Location: Street/Lot Number Near Great Haste Rock in Salem Sound City/T,mm Salem, MA DEP FILE NUMBER (if available) ' NOI FILIM FEE DISFUTED FEE Total NOI Filing Fee: $ 1250 Total Disputed Fee: $ 1250 (as determined in Notice of ' State Share of Filing Fee: $ 612 .50 Insufficient Fee letter from (1/2 of fee in excess of $25.00) conservation commission) City/Town Share of state Snare of Fee: $ 625 Filing Fee: $ 637 .50 (1/2 of total disputed fee) City/Town Share of Fee: s_±_2_5 (1/2 of total disputed fee) INSTRUCTIONS '. 1. Send this Fee 7twvmittal farm with a check or money order, payable to the C=nonwealth 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 submitted to the local Conservation cunnissian. ' 3. Attach a co of this form and a copy of the DEP check to each of the Notice of Intent forms submitted to the DEP regional office. 11/10/89 FILING FEE CALCULATION WORKSHEET plants, roadwaya/driveweye NOT subject to 310 CMR 10.53(Se) SMALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL FEES TECORY 1 $55 PER ACTIVITY $ No. if said activities are reviewed under a:SINGLE NOT A. Existing House/reaidential lot (addition, deck, C. Construction of EACH ROADWAY/ORIVEWAY within the garage,pool, ahed,or DRIVEWAY) — Buffer zone or Coastal Floodzone NOT reviewable under 310 CMR 10.53 (3e) and NOT associated with a SFH . Site Preparation (removal of vegetation, exca- vation _ D. HAZgR00U5 WASTE CLEANUP (except as noted in grading where home construction Isn't � proposed under this NOI) category 4) . Control of nuisence vegetation by removal, herb- — TOTAL CATEGORY 3 ACTIVITIES _— icides, etc. within a Resource Area PER LOT ` ' pursuant to 310 CMR 10.53(4) CATEGORY 4 $725 PER ACTIVITY . Resource Area Improvement pursuant to 310 CHR _ A. EACH WETLAND FILLING/CROSSING UNITED PROJECT _ 10.53 (4) other than 1C above ACCESS ROADWAY/DRIVEWAY under 310 CMR 10.53 (3e) associated with COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, INSTITU- TIONAL DEVELOPMENT OR RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION replacement, UPGRADING CONSTRUCTION. (*see category 2g for SFH driveways*) F. Monitoring Wells/well B. Flood Control Structures (construction, REPAIR, _ 10 TAL CATEGORY 1 ACTIVITIES end/or modification) C. LANDFILLS-public S private _ ATECORY 2 $250 PER ACTIVITY D. SAND 6 GRAVEL OPERATIONS — EACH NEW single family house (SFH) INCLUDING — E. NEW railroad lines or EXTENSIONS of EXISTING site preparation, retention/detention basins, lines — ' utilities, SEPTIC SYSTEM, roadway/driveway other — than those pursuant to 310 CMR 10.53(3e) F. Control of NUISANCE VEGETATION under 310CHR If reviewed under a SINGLE NOI 10.53(4) other then on a SFH lot B. Parking lot/ ANY size _ G. BRIDGES (construction, reconstruction, expansion,_ '. Beech Nourishment maintenance) ASSOCIATED with a SFH lot WATER LEVELS D. Coastal Activities pursuant to 310 CMR 10.24 250 1 • H. Raising or lowering — (7a-c) including 7a-Electric Generation Facilities, 1. ALTERATION & RESOURCE AREA A diversion of water _ — 7b-Public Utilities, 7c-Coastal Limited Projects associated with HAZARDOUS WASTE CLEANUP, noo- including REPAIR/HAINTENANCE of EXISTING piers, mosquito control projects, or for ANY OTHER PURPOSE buildings culverts, etc. NOT EXPRESSLY IDENTIFIED ELSEWHERE IN THIS FEE SCHEDULE ,. LIMITED PROJECT ACTIVITIES pursuant to 310 CMR — J, DREDGING ACTIVITIES not associated with a NEW _ 10.53 (a-d) AND 310 CMR 10.53 (f-1) per footprint dock, pier or other structure described in category 5 NEW agricultural/equacultural projects — TOTAL CATEGORY 4 ACTIVITIES EACH WETLAND_DRIVEWAY CROSSING'aasociated with _ a SFH pursuant to 310 CMR 10.53(3e) CATEGORY 5 $2 PER LINEAR FOOT; TOTAL FEET NOT TO BE LESS ANY point source discharge THAN $50 NOR MORE THAN $1000 ANY OTHER ACTIVITY not described in categories A. Construction, reconstruction, REPAIR, or replace- 1000 _ 90 — went of DOCKS, PIERS, REVETMENTS, DIKES, or other 1,3,4 8 5 engineering structures on COASTAL or INLAND RESOURCE �TAL CATEGORY 2 ACTIVITIES 250 _ AREAS including the placement of RIP-RAP or other material on coastal or inland resource areae TOTAL CATEGORY 5 ACTIVITIES TEGORY 3 $525 PER ACTIVITY 1000—— SITE PREPARATION for ANY development other then TOTAL FILING FEE CALCULATED ..11 _for-a_SFH INCLUDING-removal of xegetetion, -- PERSON CALCULATING EEC SCHEDULE (Print Name) —exeavetion��rad ing when actwZ eonstroetlon 4a __ — Mark H. Sherfv, Gulf of Maine Research Center Tnc. OT proposed under this NOI -_ _ - _ _ - CONSTRUCTION OF EACH BUILDING within commercial, _ ADORES 204 Lafayette -Street, Salem, MA 01970 industrial, institutional, or apartment/condo/' TELEPHONE NUMBER (508) 745-6618 townhouse type of development, ANY PART of which /�� in a BUFFER ZONE or RESOURCE AREA. /detention ec roSIGNATURE DATED/93 tctivltfeen elle preparation tentlon/detentlon basin construction,aeptic systema, parking Iota, ' utilities, point source discharges, sewerage treatment WA WAR r�i v MEMOAXIOM IMP "WA 13 INVER th 9'. CHANNEL 0 to Rmk • � l • • �' a v e ` I Z- . LEGEND Existing Ouffall Pipe Existing Outfall Terminus Proposed Diffuser Sri 1:25,060 VW/ Source: U.S.G.S 7.5 Minute Topographic WIN Z1.4 Quadrangle South Essex SewerageDistrict NOTICE OF INTENT FOROUTFALL Figure 1 DIFFUSER CONSTRUCTION U.S.GS Site Locus Plan Camp 1 i � s 1 CD of 1 1 5ectIon Two i i 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 CONSENT DECREE AND MEPA PROCESS The South Essex Sewerage District (the District) is currently in the process of designing and implementing new secondary wastewater treatment and disposal facilities to comply with federal and state environmental laws and meet the requirements of a Consent Decree 1 (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. Improvements that will occur as part of this project include upgrading the level of treatment at the wastewater facilities and adding a multiport ' diffuser to the existing outfall pipe. ' 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. The date for full operation of these facilities is set as August 29, 1997 by the Consent Decree. The Consent Decree, however, does not specify dates for the design, bidding, or construction ' of the outfall diffuser. The District has proposed dates for these activities and these are subject to continuing negotiation with the Consent Decree parties. The proposed schedule is outlined in Table 2-1. As part of the MEPA process, the following Phase II environmental documentation has been prepared and submitted as required by the Consent Decree: • Draft Phase II Environmental Impact Report (September 1991); • Draft Phase II Facilities Plan (January 1992); ' • Supplemental Draft Phase II Environmental Impact Report (January 1992); and • Final Phase 11 Environmental Impact Report/Facilities Plan (May 1992). 2-1 TABLE 2-1 ' CONSENT DECREE MILESTONES AND PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR OUTFALL ACTIVITIES 1 Milestone Consent Decree Date Receive MEPA Certificate, EPA/MDEP September 1, 1992 Approval of Final EIR/FP Start Outfall Diffuser Design September 1, 1992 Submit Final Outfall Diffuser Design August 30, 19931 Advertise for Bid - Outfall Diffuser October 20, 19951 1 Award Contract - Outfall Diffuser January 1, 19961 Commence Construction - Outfall Diffuser March 1, 19961 Complete Construction - Outfall February 28, 19971 Diffuser .� Full Operation - Outfall Diffuser August 29, 19971 Note: 1 = These dates are proposed by the District and are subject to ongoing negotiations with the Consent Decree parties. 2-2 The facilities planning/EIR phase of the project resulted in selection of the primary plant site on Fort Avenue in Salem for liquid and residuals processing; use of the existing Peabody Landfill for disposal of residuals; and use of the existing outfall site with the ' addition of a 660-foot multiport diffuser. 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 EIR/Facilities Plan pertaining to treatment facilities and the effluent outfall were approved by the Secretary, including approval on November 25, 1992 of a notice of project change for the treatment facilities which changed the layout to design Concept G. As a result, design and permitting ' activities are underway for the following components: • site preparation, including demolition of some existing structures, rock excavation, site grading and clearing, and utility relocation, • construction of secondary treatment facilities; and • addition of a diffuser to the existing effluent outfall. The remainder of this project description focuses on the final item: addition of a diffuser to the existing outfall. 1 2.2 PREDESIGN ACTIVITIES At the completion of facilities planning, additional data were needed to establish the horizontal and vertical alignments for the proposed diffuser pipe. The information sought, which was collected as part of outfall predesign, included bathymetric, geophysical, marine ' archeological, sediment quality and geophysical data. The latter two data collection programs (sediment quality and geotechnical) were the subject of the 1992 NOI for the 23 ' District's outfall. As required by the Order of Conditions, the results of these investigations were submitted to the Conservation Commission on January 4, 1993, and are summarized below. Sediment quality analyses were conducted to determine disposal requirements if dredging took place. Results of these analyses indicated that concentrations of chemicals in surficial sediments have decreased significantly, particularly chromium concentrations. It is expected that this trend will continue given the upgrade in treatment and given that the location of the outfall terminus is not in a depositional area. Geotechnical investigations were conducted to characterize marine substrates. Results of these investigations indicated the surficial sediments (0 to 3 feet in depth) at the proposed diffuser location are not geotechnically suitable for supporting the load of the proposed diffuser pipe. However, the marine deposits beneath the surficial sediments were found to be capable of supporting the load (within reasonable settlement tolerances) imposed by the proposed outfall diffuser. ' 2.3 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The site of the proposed outfall diffuser construction lies approximately 1.4 miles offshore from Salem Neck, near Haste Rock (just east of Great Haste Island). The proposed diffuser will be constructed as an extension of the existing treated sewage outfall. The proposed project will occur in the Coastal Resource Area Land Under Ocean (310 CMR 10.34). The existing outfall has been in use since the 1920s, and currently is used as the point of discharge for treated sewage effluent from the District's primary treatment plant. The existing outfall consists of a 54-inch diameter pipe, which terminates in a single upturned bellmouth structure. The outfall terminus is located in approximately 27 feet of water at mean low tide, and consists of a precast concrete trough with no diffuser system. Discharge from the outfall is vertically upward. Section 3.0 provides a detailed description of water quality, sediments, and biological communities in the vicinity of the proposed diffuser pipe. ' 2-4 ' 2.4 PROPOSED ACTIVITIES ' The proposed multiport outfall diffuser will begin at the terminus of the existing treated sewage outfall. The diffuser will extend 660 feet in a northeasterly direction, and will ' consist of a 54-inch diameter pipe that will rest on the ocean floor. No changes to the existing portion of the outfall are proposed other than removal of the existing precast concrete trough and exposure of several feet of the existing cast iron pipe. ITherefore, all construction activities will be limited to the area at and beyond the terminus of the existing outfall. Although some details of the outfall diffuser design have not been finalized (e.g., the type of armor material), all designs under consideration will result in similar disturbance of the bottom, in terms of footprint size. Thus, the physical, chemical, and ecological impacts will II, ' be similar for all designs. , ' Construction of the outfall diffuser involves installation of junction piping and the diffuser pipe. Placement of the diffuser pipe will require preparation of the ocean bottom through 1 use of a limited-depth plow (also known as a screed) or similar device. The limited-depth plow will push aside surface sediments that are an unsuitable substrate for supporting the diffuser pipe. Stone backfill will then be placed in the trench to support the diffuser pipe. After placement of the diffuser pipe, a protective layer of ballast stone and armor rock will be placed around and over the pipe. The protective layer will be approximately 1 to 2 feet thick above the diffuser pipe, and will taper to the ocean floor at a 2.5H:ly slope (see Plan 2). 1 The total volume of rock fill placed (including the diffuser pipe volume) will be approximately 3,000 cubic yards, with a resulting footprint of approximately 21,000 square ' feet (0.5 acre) (see Plan 1). ' Sediments displaced by the limited-depth plow will be covered by the rock fill, and will not be dredged or otherwise removed from the construction site. it ' 2-5 The sections that follow in this document provide greater detail about the following areas: ' • Existing Conditions (Section 3.0); and • Impact Analysis (Section 4.0); and • Construction Methods (Appendix A). r i r � t r 2-6 g � Section Three 3.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 INTRODUCTION The site of the proposed outfall has been the subject of numerous studies of water quality, sediment characteristics, and biological communities. These studies have indicated that impacts to water and sediment quality, and marine biota have shown a temporal reduction, particularly over the past 20 years. Given the historically industrial nature of the North Shore, it is clear that contamination and impacts detected in Salem Sound were in part attributed to the District's former discharges of raw sewage and sewage sludge. Therefore, it follows that the significant recent ' improvement in environmental conditions in Salem Sound is most likely attributed to changes in sewage treatment by the District. The existing outfall pipe was used for raw sewage disposal from the 1920s until the commencement of primary treatment in the 1970s. Ocean disposal of sludge from the outfall was terminated in 1984. Since the mid-1970s, significant improvements in water quality and biological communities have been documented in the vicinity of the outfall. In addition to these improvements, improvements in effluent quality attributed to the District's industrial pretreatment program have also contributed to an overall improvement water quality in Salem Sound. 3.2 WATER QUALITY rThere is excellent circulation in Salem Sound, primarily from tidal influence. The freshwater discharges to Salem Sound (e.g., the Danvers River) have little influence on current within the sound, but can depress salinity during periods of high flow. Summertime stratification in the sound, however, is largely thermally controlled. The waters near the existing outfall are classified as SB by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (310 CMR 4.00). The District's existing primary effluent discharge meets all standards for SB waters with the exception of toxics (e.g., metals). Additionally, the discharge of treated effluent partially contributes to the high level of 3-1 nutrients (nitrogen) at the existing outfall site. However, this is a common characteristic of most coastal marine environments, and results from natural as well as human-related ' discharges of nutrients to coastal waters and coastal upwelling phenomena. ' During the period from 1982 to 1986, heavy metal concentrations in the District's treated sewage effluent declined significantly, as did levels in samples of seawater taken from near the existing outfall. Since 1986, the concentrations of some of the heavy metals detected in the District's effluent have continued to decrease, while others have not changed substantially. Additionally, a reduction in influent load to the District's treatment facilities has occurred as a result of the decrease in industrial activities within the District's service area. This has also contributed to the overall improvement of water quality within Salem Sound. 3.3 SEDIMENTS ' The physical characteristics of the sediments in the vicinity of the existing outfall are similar to those found throughout Salem Sound, and are dominated by medium to coarse sand. The ocean bottom typically consists of irregular bedrock outcrops interspersed with sandy, gravelly till. Ocean bottom currents are relatively strong, leading to exposure of bedrock outcrops above the sediment surface. As noted in Section 2.2, quality of site sediments is improving due to this improvement in wastewater treatment practices. The results of recent and historical sediment samples are shown on Table 3-1; the sampling locations are shown on Figure 3-1. Historically, elevated levels of chromium and other heavy metals have been found in sediments throughout Salem Sound and are attibuted to heavy historic use by the local tanning and other industries. Concentration maxima of several metals have been documented near the existing outfall, although chromium levels were the highest. Table 3-1 indicates that maximum concentrations of each metal in the 1992 samples have decreased by an order of magnitude (and often more) when compared to the historic samples. ' 3-2 w w� w� w� w� �w w w w� w� � w w■ r w w w � r� TABLE 3-1 CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS OF SEDIMENT SAMPLES FROM SALEM SOUND METALS: SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLE PESTI- TOTAL TOTAL ID DATE DEPTH* As B Cd Cr Cu Pb Hg Mo Ni Se AK Zn CIDES PCBs PAHs 1992 SEDIMENT SAMPLES OF-5-1 9/92 0-3 4.31 9.39 <0.10 37.5 113 86 0.152 6.04 9.11 4.00 <2.00 109 ND ND ND OF-5A-1 9/92 0-2.2 3.18 10.4 <0.10 150 87 32.4 0.35 6.68 9.80 <1.00 <2.00 60.5 ND ND 33.26+ 9/92 duplicate 3.42 9.25 <0.10 115 33 35.2 0.252 6.33 9.92 <1.00 <2.00 50.3 ND ND 39.55tt OF-5A-2 9/92 2.2-8.4 3.14 6.59 <0.10 8.78 9.18 <1.00 <0.02 6.54 12.40 <1.00 <2.00 33 ND ND ND OF-6-1 9/92 0-3 <0.500 5.4 <0.10 10.3 5.56 <1.00 <0.02 6.63 8.29 4.00 <2.00 21.5 ND ND ND OF-6-2 9/92 3-9 7.59 5.15 <0.10 Il 7.49 <1.00 <0.02 7.01 9.51 <1.00 <2.00 28.7 ND ND ND OF-7-1 9/92 0-1.2 3.47 6.41 <0.10 186 9.35 16.2 0.087 6.51 6.75 <1.00 <2.00 36.8 ND ND ND OF-7-2 9/92 1.2-7.2 5.77 5.37 <0.10 10.5 9.52 <1.00 <0.02 5.73 8.89 <1.00 <2.00 27.3 ND ND NO HISTORICAL SEDIMENT SAMPLES 5901 7/87 surfical 5.4 8.5 5,400 330 660 4.2 44 0.7 770 0.63 93.76 lA 10/85 surfidal 3.29 621 550 462 1.035 57.6 378 IA surfidal 3.4 617 648 533 0.711 14.7 348 1B 10/85 surfidal -15.4 5,970 190 294 1.847 24.6 489 1B surfidal 16.1 5,820 189 358 1.917 24.5 498 1C 10/85 surfidal 1.23 417 12.7 31.8 0.218 6.91 63.2 1C surfidal 1.16 2,760 12 30.3 0272 6.14 55.8 ID 10/85 surfidal 3.6 1,170 39.3 62.1 0.621 11.5 122 ID surfidal 3.28 926 35.5 57.9 0.459 - 10 107 VE 10/85 swfidal 10.1 3,075 100 177 1.91 21.5 334 IE surfidal 10.2 3,015 100 174 1.104 19.2 319 Bt 8/86 surfidal ND 2.8 360 134 18 Bl 10/86 surfidal ND .4.51 477 742 ND B2 8/86 surfidal ND 1.89 469 43.6 9.5 B2 10/86 sl fidal 1.69 ND 163 23.6 NO B3 8/86 surfidal ND 2.18 392 98 13.07 B3 10/86 surfidal 3.38 3.38 744 48.5 NO B4 8/86 surfidal ND 0.8 152 16.7 89.4 114 10/86 surfidal 2.4 1.02 70.4 14.8 - ND B5 8/86 surfidal ND 0.85 376 30.7 16.2 B5 10/86 surfidal 3.78 3.78 869 57.6 ND AQC-2A 7/76 surfidal 1.52 382 18.3 45 0.203 2 42 AQC-2B 7/76 surfidal 1.88 157 16.3 23 0.146 9.2 34 AQC-3A 7/76 surfidal 2.25 1,042 26.7 71 0.15 11.9 117 AQC-3A 7/76 1.0 0.81 65 3.9 11 ND 4.3 18 AQC-3B 7/76 surfidal 2.82 545 55.2 76 0.135 36 161 AQC-3B 7/76 1.0 0.51 25 5.8 8 0.044 21.1 120 AQC-36 7/76 1.6 0.7 21 7.5 5 0.072 22.3 41 •-sample depth apae.eed in teetbelow seabed. AB measurement.in pane per milBon,dry weight,uNess omerwise naed. ND-Not delened.Below detection Omib, - blaok'-CmAimenl not aoalyaed. t- Detected PAH.: Naphthalene-0.369,Amaphlhene-0681,Fluorene0.898,PhmanNrene5.99,Anthrnoent,l81,FluomnNmeS%,Pyon".0,Bmxo(a)anthacene-0449,Chrynme-255, 6 o(b)Iluoranh.e2.11.Benaa(k)0uoranthene-255,Benao(a)pyrene-200,Indeno(1,21cd)pyrme-0898,and Bmxa(gh,i)perylme W5 11-D wOMPAH.: Naphthalene-0.458,Acenaphthene-0741,FluormPt.@,Ph...ntho,n-6.83,AnNmcmrl.9l,Fluoranlhene-710,Pytene6.0.Betao(a)anNm<me-0.507,Chrysm.390, Berzo(b)IluonnNme2.55,B .(k)Iluoranlheoo-IN,Benzc(a)pyrme-304,indeno(1.2,1cd)pyrene-1.27,and Benza(g,h.i)perylme-1 l3 t t t 70°48Q' _. BEVEgLY "- >. ..... .. ...,,. B20 SITE O A .:../ EXISTING GC3�y .113p . , �' B1Cb AO O1B 42°32' 84 1E%lD 3 i 6 5 Q LEGEND 01C Q O CATEGORY 2 5/4LEM "' O AGC-2 s D CATEGORY 1 , 5 r SEW MF-AN i�W wgTF,ff � ,. �y 5 MAR(3LEREAD , , ` . NAUTIGALMILES '� South Essex Sewerage District Figure 3-1 Notice of Intent for Outfall Diffuser SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATIONS OF SURFACE Construction SEDIMENTS AROUND THE OUTFALL TERMINUS Camp Dresser&McKee Inc. I _ _ ' 3.4 BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES ' Previous research (CDM, 1986; 1991) has indicated that balanced indigenous populations of phytoplankton, zooplankton, lobster, and demersal fish exist at the existing outfall site. Although species abundance and community structure vary slightly from those at surrounding control sites (located north of Bakers Island), the variations are minor and not ' indicative of pollution or contamination. ' The most significant recent change in the biological community at the outfall site is a reduction in numbers of Capitella capitata, a benthic species that is an indicator of polluted ' conditions. A benthic macroinvertebrate survey done in 1978-79 found that species diversity was extremely low, with Capitella capitata as the dominant species. These ' indications of degraded conditions were noted within the zone of initial dilution of the outfall and up to 1.7 miles away. The high occurrence of pollution indicator species, such as Capitella captita, at the time of this study is attributed to the influent load from industry within the District's service area, the lack of industrial pretreatment, and the discharge of ' sewage sludge. ' Data from a 1986 study of Salem Sound (CDM, 1986) indicate a dramatic improvement in the benthic community. Capitella capitata was still found near the outfall but was no ' longer a dominant benthic species. In fact, previous to the 1986 study Capitellids had represented more than 96% of the total abundance of the benthic community. Data from the 1986 study indicate that, with the exception of one sample, Capitellids comprised less than 10% of the population. This change is attributed to the reduction in high levels of organic matter (e.g. sludge) as a result of the District ceasing to discharge sewage sludge into Salem Sound. ' Recreational shellfishing within Salem Sound is limited. The majority of the shellfish flats has been closed for several years due to excessive coliform counts attributed to nearshore discharges. The taking of scallops for recreational purposes is essentially limited to scuba divers, who represent a relatively small percentage of the total number of persons using the marine-related recreational facilities within Salem Sound. The nearest known recreational diving areas to the existing outfall are over a mile away. The commercial shellfish i 3-5 ' resources in Salem Sound are primarily clams and scallops. Soft-shelled clams are found in intertidal areas. The nearest known clam beds are over a mile away from the existing ' outfall. Additionally, with the exception of one bed in Marblehead, clam beds in Salem Sound are closed due to reasons stated earlier. Both commercial and recreational lobstering take place in Salem Sound. The known ' commercial lobster fishery nearest to the existing outfall is located over three miles away. Recreational lobstering does take place within the vicinity of the existing outfall, however, ' the extent to which this takes place is difficult to quantify. However, based on information compiled from the Massachusetts Department of Marine Fisheries, significant impacts to ' lobstering do not appear to result from the District's effluent discharge, other municipal discharges, or nonpoint sources (CDM, 1991). Reports by commercial and recreational lobsterers indicate that the lobster populations have remained relatively constant and this is consistent with a statewide trend over the past five years. Salem Sound is a spawning ground for estuarine and near-coastal fishes, the most ' significant of which (considering abundance, fishery value and biomass) are winter flounder, cunner and windowpane. Among these, winter flounder is by far the most ' abundant species (CDM, 1986; 1991). During late winter and spring, rainbow smelt, alewife and blueback herring migrate through Salem Sound to the spawn in the Danvers River. ' These species do not spawn in the Sound itself. Previous research has indicated that fish populations in the vicinity of the existing outfall are balanced and composed of ' characteristic indigenous species, with no pronounced alterations in species composition or indication of increased disease rates. 3.5 ECOLOGICALLY IMPORTANT HABITATS ' The following marine, subtidal and intertidal habitats of ecological importance exist within Salem Sound: ' • Spawning and nursery grounds for winter flounder, cunner, and windowpane; 1 • An anadromous fish migratory route for blueback herring, alewife and rainbow smelt to reach spawning areas in the Danvers River; 3-6 • A lobster fishery; • Areas of rocky intertidal zone; • Soft-shelled clam flats; • Recreational sea scallop beds; • Kelp beds in rocky subtidal regions; • Salt marshes; and ' • Eel grass beds. Of the above, the first three may be found in the vicinity of the existing outfall diffuser, and ' are thus the most likely to experience potential impacts from the proposed project. The remaining six habitats occur in intertidal or subtidal regions of Salem Sound, the nearest of which is approximately one mile from the outfall location. Regardless of their proximity to the construction site, none of the above habitats are unique to the Salem Sound area, but are in fact common to the embayments of coastal Massachusetts. 1 3-7 M I yY S-ec tion Four 4.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS source area, Land Under the Ocean proposed work will r where p p This section identifies the e take place. In addition, this section identifies the performance standards associated with ' that resource area, the impacts associated with the proposed work, and measures which will be taken to insure that performance standards are met. 4.1 RESOURCE AREA AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ' Land Under the Ocean is defined as "land extending from the mean low water line seaward to the boundary of the municipality's jurisdiction." The proposed site for the District's multiport outfall diffuser is in the nearshore area because it is not 'beyond the point where the land is 80 feet below the level of the ocean at mean low water." Nearshore areas of 1 Land Under the Ocean are likely to be significant to the protection of marine fisheries, shellfish, storm damage prevention, flood control and protection of wildlife habitat. The performance standards for activities in nearshore areas of Land Under the Ocean state that projects shall not cause adverse effects by altering the bottom topography so as to increase storm damage or erosion of coastal beaches, coastal banks, coastal dunes, or salt marshes. Water-dependent projects must be designed so as to minimize effects on marine fisheries or wildlife habitat caused by: O1) alterations in water circulation; ' 2) destruction of eelgrass (Zostera marina) or widgeon grass (Ruppia maritime) beds; 3) alterations in the distribution of sediment grain size; 4) changes in water quality, including, but not limited to, other than natural fluctuations in the level of dissolved oxygen, temperature or turbidity, or the ' addition of pollutants; or 5) alterations of shallow submerged lands with high densities of polychaetes, mollusks or macrophytic algae. 41 ' Water-dependent projects (uses) are defined in 310 CMR 10.04 to include "any other uses ' and facilities as may further hereafter be defined as water-dependent in 310 CMR 9.00," which is also known as the Waterways Regulations. The Waterways Regulations further define water-dependent projects (uses) to include, "discharge pipes, outfalls, tunnels, and diffuser systems for conveyance of stormwater, wastewater, or other effluents to a receiving ' waterway" (310 CMR 9.12(2)(a)(13)). 4.2 IMPACTS ON WATER CIRCU ATION The regulations state that water-dependent projects must be designed and constructed so as to minimize adverse effects on marine fisheries habitat or wildlife habitat caused by alterations in water circulation (via alterations of bottom topography) so that increases in storm damage or erosion of coastal banks, coastal dunes, or salt marshes will not occur. Overall water circulation within Salem Sound will not be altered due to the construction ' and operation of the proposed diffuser. Currents over the diffuser and its protective .. structure could increase, although the effect is limited to the immediate vicinity of the diffuser. In fact, the horizontal extent of the increased currents will be at most 20 feet to either side of the pipe. The nearest coastal resources are over one mile away from the proposed contruction area. Consequently, adverse effects such as increases in storm damage or erosion of coastal beaches, coastal banks, coastal dunes, or salt marshes will not occur. 4.3 IMPACTS ON EELGRASS AND WIDGEON GRASS BE The regulations state that water-dependent projects must be designed and constructed so as ' to minimize adverse effects on marine fisheries habitat or wildlife habitat caused by the destruction of eelgrass and widgeon grass beds. Eelgrass (Zostera marina) and widgeon grass ' (Rupia maritina) beds do not exist within the vicinity of the existing outfall or within the area where the proposed diffuser will be constructed. Thus, no direct impacts to these areas ' will occur. ' Indirect impacts could only occur if construction or operation of the outfall diffuser resulted in significant increases in current velocities in Salem Sound or if toxics from the effluent were transported in significant enough concentrations to the sites where these beds exist. ' 4-2 Since an overall increase in current velocities (Section 4.2) in Salem Sound will not occur, eelgrass or widgeon grass beds will not be destroyed or damaged as a result of diffuser construction or operation. In addition, toxic concentrations outside of the zone of initial dilution will be below the criteria for the protection of aquatic life, as per the District's NPDES permit. Since eelgrass and widgeon grass beds do not exist near or within the zone of initial dilution, they will not be affected as a result of operation of the diffuser. Thus indirect impacts to eelgrass and widgeon grass beds will not occur as a result of this project. 4.4 IMPACTS RELATED TO SEDIMENT GRAIN SIZE The regulations state that water-dependent projects must be designed and constructed so as to minimize adverse effects on marine fisheries habitat or wildlife habitat caused by 1 alterations in the distribution of sediment grain size. Sediment characteristics along the diffuser alignment do not vary significantly, as evidenced by the similar characteristics of sediments from borings taken during the geotechnical and water quality programs. (See NOI for Outfall Geotechnical Borings File No. 64-206 and the summary of these investigations submitted to the Conservation Commission on January 4, 1993.) The construction of the diffuser involves creating a trench using a limited-depth plow or similar device that gently pushes the surficial deposits of fine sediments from the diffuser alignment. Most of these sediments will accumulate within approximately 10 feet to either side of the trench, and are not expected to settle in an area with a significantly different bottom composition. Thus, the distribution of sediment grain size will not be altered as a result of construction because the process minimizes the distance that the surficial sediments will be displaced. As stated in the construction methods description (see Appendix A), it is necessary to protect the diffuser pipe from natural destructive forces such as scour and from man-made destructive forces such as ship anchors. To provide this protection, rock armor must be placed around the diffuser pipe. The armor material will extend, at most, 15 feet to either side of the outfall alignment and as a result surficial sediments in this area will be covered tby rock. The footprint of the diffuser structure with rock protection will be approximately 0.5 acres. This will result in a change from soft-bottom to rocky-bottom habitat. 43 1 It should be noted, however, that soft-bottom habitats are pervasive in Salem Sound. In comparison to the amount of soft-bottom habitat available in Salem Sound, the alteration of 0.5 acres to rocky-bottom habitat is nominal. Additionally, the new rocky-bottom habitat will increase available habitat types in the vicinity of the outfall diffuser. Lobster and mussels require rocky-bottom habitat. The increase or addition of these species will increase the overall diversity and abundance of marine fisheries and wildlife in the vicinity of the outfall. Thus, marine fisheries and wildlife will not be adversely affected. 4.5 CHANGES IN WATER QUALITY The regulations state that water-dependent projects must be designed and constructed so as to minimize adverse effects on marine fisheries habitat and wildlife habitat caused by changes in water quality, including, but not limited to, other than natural fluctuations in the level of dissolved oxygen, temperature or turbidity, or the addition of pollutants. The construction methods proposed for the outfall diffuser will minimize adverse effects on marine fisheries habitat and wildlife habitat. Nor will operation of the diffuser have adverse effects on marine fisheries or wildlife habitat. In fact, the upgrade in effluent quality with the addition of secondary treatment is expected to improve marine fisheries habitat. A more detailed description of specific areas of concern (e.g., levels of dissolved oxygen, temperature, and addition of pollutants) is provided below. 4.5.1 DISSOLVED OXYGEN The small amount of sediment suspended during construction will not reduce dissolved oxygen levels in the bottom waters surrounding the proposed diffuser below the Massachusetts Water Quality Standard or 5 mg/l (60% saturation) for SB waters. The minimum theoretical dissolved oxygen saturation concentration in the bottom water at the site is 8.0 mg/l, based on a maximum measured bottom temperature of 17°C and a salinity of 32 parts per thousand (ppt). The dissolved oxygen deficit predicted for the site is 0.8 mg/1 due to the oxygen demand of the sediment (CDM, 1991). Therefore, the dissolved oxygen concentration will not fall below 7.2 mg/l (or 90% saturation) in the bottom waters due to the construction of the outfall, and the Massachusetts Water Quality Standards will be met. 4-4 During operation of the diffuser, the treated effluent will meet the requirements of the District's NPDES permit. Analysis conducted as part of the Phase Il Draft Environmental Impact Report (CDM, 1991) indicates that the dissolved oxygen levels in Salem Sound that will result from the secondary effluent discharge through the diffuser will meet water quality standards. The total dissolved oxygen deficit (water column and sediments) predicted at the site is 1.8 mg/1. This value represents the change in dissolved oxygen within a 1,500-foot radius circle of the site. Therefore, dissolved oxygen in this area will not fall below 6.2 mg/1 (or 78% saturation) during diffuser operation. 4.5.2 TEMPERATURE Construction only involves the physical movement of surficial sediment, therefore, construction of the diffuser will not affect water temperature. The operation of the proposed diffuser will meet both the numeric and narrative sections of the state water quality standards for temperature through continued compliance with the District's NPDES permit (CDM, 1991). 4.5.3 TURBIDITY While some sediment suspension will occur in the immediate area of construction operations, most of the displaced sediment will settle within 10 feet of either side of the diffuser. Elevated turbidity levels should not extend further than 1,000 feet beyond the diffuser alignment. The proposed construction method should also limit elevated turbidity levels to within six feet of the bottom. Sediments will settle quickly, and turbidity will approach background levels in a matter of hours after cessation of operations. The use of the limited-depth plow is a preferred construction method over traditional dredges when construction does not the require permanent removal of sediments. Plowing does not physically remove sediments from the seabed or transport them through the water column, therefore, turbidity levels will be lower when compared with traditional dredging methods. The lower the turbidity level, the more light that penetrates the water column. Thus, phytoplankton and other primary producers are not expected to be light limited as a result of the turbidity levels from the plowing operations as they might ordinarily be from 4-5 i turbidity levels associated with more traditional dredging techniques. Since phytoplankton form the bottom of the food chain, the minimization of impacts to this community may also result in a reduction of impacts to marine fisheries and wildlife. 4.5.4 ADDITION OF POLLUTANTS The construction of the diffuser will not result in long-term degradation of the overlying waters due to remobilization of contaminants. Short-term degradation will be limited to ithe minor resuspension of sediments and their associated contaminant load resulting from the plowing of the surficial sediments. As discussed in Section 4.5.3, the area of elevated turbidity during plowing operations will be small, and turbidity will approach background levels within hours of cessation of operations. The contaminants of concern in sediments are heavy metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). As discussed in Section 3.3, the concentrations of these contaminants in sediments have decreased significantly in recent years, thus further minimizing the short-term degradation of water quality. �I The potential for impacts on marine life from the release of contaminants during the plowing operation can be estimated from an elutriate test. An elutriate test simulates the oxidation of sediments to estimate the potential remobilization of contaminants due to thorough mixing of the sediments in the overlying water. The concentration of contaminants in the water can then be compared to EPA ambient water quality criteria (AWQC). The AWQC are water quality standards set at concentrations sufficiently low to protect aquatic life from toxic effects. Elutriate tests were conducted on six sediment samples along the proposed diffuser alignment, and the results were compared to EPA's chronic AWQC. The concentrations of all metals and PAHs in the filtered samples were lower than the AWQC. This indicates that the metals in the sediments remain sorbed to solids, and are not released in significant concentrations to the water column. By reducing the resuspension and release of metals in the water column the impacts to marine fisheries and wildlife habitat will be minimized. ' 4-6 II Operation of the outfall diffuser will also not add significant quantities of pollutants to the water column or sediments. The discharge will meet the requirements of the District's NPDES permit, thus standards for toxic pollutants will be met during operation. 4.6 ALTERATIONS OF SHALLOW SUBMERGED LAND The regulations state that water-dependent projects must be designed and constructed so as to minimize adverse effects on marine fisheries habitat or wildlife habitat caused by alterations of shallow submerged lands with high densities of polychaetes, mollusks, or macrophytic algae. Mollusks and macrophytic algae live in rocky-bottom areas rather than in soft-bottom areas. The area where the proposed diffuser will be placed is a soft-bottom habitat, and thus is not a suitable habitat for mollusks or macrophytic algae. This was confirmed by studies done in 1 the 1970s and 1980s (CDM, 1991) that did not identify the presence of mollusks or macrophytic algae in the vicinity of the existing outfall terminus or the proposed outfall diffuser. Thus construction of the diffuser will not alter shallow submerged lands containing mollusks and macrophytic algae. •� However, completion of the diffuser construction will result in the addition of 0.5 acres of rocky-bottom habitat thus providing suitable habitat for mollusks and macrophytic algae that previously did not exist in this area. The colonization of this area by mollusks and macrophytic algae will help increase overall animal and plant community diversity and abundance in the vicinity of the outfall diffuser. Thus, operation of the outfall diffuser has the positive effect in providing habitat for these species. Soft-bottom areas are preferred habitat for polychaete worms and other benthic marcorinvertebrates. As noted in Section 3.0, polychaete worms have been found in the vicinity of the existing outfall terminus and the proposed diffuser. Construction of the diffuser will result in the loss of 0.5 acres of habitat for these species, however, this type of habitat is pervasive throughout Salem Sound, thus the relative loss in this type of habitat is nominal. Additionally, the studies noted in Section 3.0 and in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (CDM, 1991) indicate that improvements in the overall abundance and 47 i diversity of polychaete populations have occurred with each improvement in treatment of the District's effluent. The upgrade to secondary wastewater treatment and the addition of the outfall diffuser will result in another significant improvement in effluent quality and thus will improve water quality in Salem Sound. With each improvement in treatment quality, improvements in the biotic community have also been observed. This trend is expected to continue. 4.7 CONCLUSIONS 1 The proposed project is designed to achieve an overall improvement in water quality in Salem Sound. Additionally, as a water-dependent project (use) this project minimizes the impacts to marine fisheries and wildlife habitat caused by alterations or changes in the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the project area. Construction methods proposed for this project will minimize impacts to marine fisheries and wildlife habitat. Furthermore, the improvement in overall water quality as a result of the District's upgrade to secondary treatment and the addition of a diffuser will help improve the ability of Land Under the Ocean in the vicinity of the project area to provide for marine fisheries and wildlife habitat. N r 4-8 r ! Appendix APPENDIX A CONSTRUCTION METHODS i f 1.0 INTRODUCTION There are two basic elements to diffuser construction. The first is connection of the diffuser to the outfall terminus. The second is placement of the diffuser pipe on the ocean bottom. Each of these elements are described in greater detail below. The descriptions presented are general methods of construction for outfall diffusers. The specific method to be used by the selected marine contractor will reflect the particular equipment that he has. For example, construction barges may use anchors or spuds to secure their horizontal positioning. In the discussion that follows, we have pointed out the areas where the possible variation in construction methods would or would not result in different impacts. In some cases, more than one design or method of construction is considered viable. As the design is refined, it is possible that certain designs and/or methods of construction will be eliminated from further consideration. It is also possible that the final design will include design alternates. The purpose of the alternate designs is to allow flexibility to the contractors bidding on this project to obtain cost-effective prices for construction. As with the variation in contractors' equipment discussed above, the potential for different impacts from various designs/methods of construction are included in the discussion that follows. Construction of the diffuser pipe will require a shore-based staging area or laydown yard. The size of the staging area will depend on the construction method proposed by the contractor. Siting of the storage area is also the responsible of the contractor. 2.0 CONNECTION TO EXISTING OUTFALL TERMINUS Pipe fittings will be used to make the connection from the existing outfall to the new diffuser. This will involve removal of the existing terminus protection (granite slabs), removal of the gravel backfill around the terminus, bracing around the existing terminus, A-i and replacement of the terminus with the connecting piping. The area to be excavated during construction will be limited to the existing pit into which the terminus was installed, and will not impact the native sediment outside this existing pit. 2.1 REMOVAL OF THE EXISTING TERMINUS PROTECTION The existing terminus, shown in Plan 3, is a precast concrete structure, having approximate dimensions: 15 ft x 7 ft x 6 ft (length x width x depth). During the 1920s construction, a pit was blasted in the bedrock to contain the outfall terminus. The space between the rock ledge and the precast concrete terminus was filled with ballast rock. The top of this terminus is about one foot below the existing ocean floor, and is protected by one-foot thick granite blocks. These granite blocks would have to be removed to allow access to the terminus. Removal of these blocks likely would be accomplished by a barge-mounted crane. Upon removal from the existing terminus, the granite blocks would be set to the side on the ocean bottom for temporary storage. If possible these granite blocks would be reused as armor rocks in the pipe protection system. 2.2 EXCAVATION AND BRACING AROUND THE EXISTING TERMINUS The existing outfall and terminus would remain on-line during construction. Thus, it would be necessary to provide bracing to the terminus to prevent it from movement when the existing ballast stones around it are removed. Metal braces first will be installed between the existing terminus and the surrounding rock ledges. These braces will secure the terminus in position while the surrounding ballast Istones are being removed. The ballast stones then would be removed and set aside for temporary storage, later to be reused as backfill if possible when the existing bedrock pit is ' refilled. A-2 2.3 REMOVAL OF EXISTING TERMINUS The 54-inch cast iron pipe that immediately connects to the existing terminus would be cut, using an underwater torch. The existing terminus would be removed, hoisted by a barge-mounted crane transported off the site, and disposed at a landfill authorized to accept wastes and construction spoilage of this nature. 2.4 INSTALLATION OF CONNECTION PIPE AND FITTINGS Several feet of the existing 54-inch cast iron pipe will be exposed to allow for a coupling to 1 be installed. This coupling will connect to the fittings that will make the pipe transition from the existing outfall to the diffuser. These fittings, shown on Plan 3, will be flanged and thrust-restrained. To the extent possible the excavation pit will be backfilled using the gravel and granite removed previously. 3.0 PLACEMENT OF OUTFALL DIFFUSER PIPE The construction of the proposed diffuser will consist of four basic activities: (1) Ldisplacement of surficial sediments, (2) placement of the bedding layer, (3) placement of the diffuser pipe, and (4) placement of the armor protection. 3.1 DISPLACEMENT OF SURFICIAL SEDIMENTS The surficial black sands that comprise the top 0 to 3 feet of the existing sediments must be removed from the diffuser alignment, due to potential compaction of the sediments under the proposed load, beyond acceptable settlement levels. Because it is necessary to remove the material from only a narrow width along the alignment, the material will gently be pushed aside, possibly by a depth-limited plow or backhoe mounted to a barge. A-3 Plow is the generic name for a system that directs sediment onto the adjacent seafloor. Generally the term refers to a blade suspended from and stabilized by a frame that is moved along the seabed (Figure A-1). This operation has been successful in a variety of sediment types, water depths and positioning systems. The plow may be pulled over the seabed by a barge, which is positioned by and moves by ' pulling against the weight of its anchors or spuds. The towing force required is one to two times the weight of the plow. Should a plow be used, the pulling speed will be limited to about 3 feet/minute to minimize any associated turbidity. This speed corresponds to the rate at which bottom scrapers move in flocculation chambers in wastewater treatment plants without resuspension of the light flocs. The plowing operation may be restricted during certain periods of the year based on biological considerations. These restrictions will be negotiated with the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, and will likely be included in the Chapter 91 Waterways License. 3.2 PLACEMENT AND LEVELLING OF BEDDING LAYER Placement of the bedding layer will occur after the surficial sediments have been removed. The bedding material will be directed into the trench, possibly using a retractable Tremie pipe (Figure A-2), or clamshell bucket. Bedding material, the gradation of which is to be determined, will be placed to provide support for the proposed diffuser pipe. Levelling of the bedding material may require special controls should a small tolerance be required. The leveller may be required to make a second pass over the tremied gravel to achieve the desired vertical alignment. A land-based laser system fixed to the leveller may be used to achieve vertical control. ' 3.3 PIPE LAYING OPERATIONS There are several methods of laying pipe in the marine environment, generally categorized as the following: (1) those that place one or two pipe lengths, and (2) those that place A-4 1 4000 sono BDDp CAT bed-leveller 70DO available 8000 Necessary apace on deck up to 30 metres depth di Floating Hopper 0 Articulated Graded Tub Spar Buoysfor farrGraaded e Position and Grade Control Hopper Tremie I'Gravel—Nc Fines Grade Frame Hydraulic Jack Leveling Devices i 1 Screed Blade Scree Source: Gerwick, 1986 and Van De Graf, 1987 South Essex Sewerage District NOTICE OF INTENT FOR OUTFALL Figure A-1 DIFFUSER CONSTRUCTION Examples of Plows Camp Dresser& McKee Inc. r o ° 1 r 1 1 r 1 ° r r Source: Kuik, 1986 South Essex Sewerage District NOTICE OF INTENT FOR OUTFALL Figure A-2 DIFFUSER CONSTRUCTION Example of Tremie Pipe and Barge Camp Dresser& McKee Inc. i several pipe lengths which have been connected. Regardless of methodology, the entire diffuser must be installed at the specified horizontal and vertical alignment. The potential impacts from these methods are similar, as pipe placement requires the use of barges. 3.3.1 INDIVIDUAL PIPE LENGTH PLACEMENT A barge-mounted crane is required to lift the individual pipe lengths from the crane barge or an attending supply barge and to place the pipe on the bedding material. After the I sections have been lowered to the seabed, either cables, threaded rods,bolts, or hydraulic jacks can be used to position the pipe horizontally i.e., pull the pipe length into the previously laid pipe section. Because the precise maneuvering required to correctly place each successive length is difficult to achieve by a crane alone, it may be necessary to employ a cradle, or "horse." A horse consists of a frame with extendable legs for vertical positioning, and a traveller that allows for precise horizontal positioning of the pipe (Figure A-3). The pipe is secured by curved pads or slings, which are an integral part of the traveller. Depending on the structure of the horse, either the pipe may be lowered into the horse, or ' the horse may be lowered onto the pipe aboard the barge. The crane then lowers the horse and pipe onto the seabed, where the pipe length is properly aligned and connected, with the aid of computer or diver positioning instructions. It may also be desirable to connect two pipe lengths on the barge before placement in the horse, depending on the size of the horse and the pipe lengths. 3.3.2 STRING-OF-PIPE PLACEMENT Instead of placing each length individually in-the-wet, several lengths may be strung together in-the-dry, either onshore or on a barge. Unless the buoyancy provided by sealing both pipe ends is sufficient to float the string, flotation devices may be attached to the connected pipes. The string-of-pipe is then positioned and sunk into place. (The pipe will be open to seawater on the bottom and should not retain internal air pockets.) A-7 r r Source: Parsons, Brinckerhoff Quade& Douglas, Inc., 1991 South Essex Sewerage District ' NOTICE OF INTENT FOR OUTFALL Figure A-3 DIFFUSER CONSTRUCTION Example of Horse and Pipe Section Camp Dresser& McKee Inc. 3.4 PLACEMENT OF PROTECTION Three schemes are currently under consideration to provide protection against hydrodynamic forces and ship anchors: (1) armor stone, (2) armor mats and (3) a combination of both armor mats and stone. The plans included with this NOI indicate the use of armor rocks. As stated in Section 2.4, all pipe protection designs under consideration would result in a similar area of disturbance in terms of foot print size. Plans I and 2 provide longitudinal and lateral cross-sections of the pipe protection system using armor rocks. The armor stone or armor mats will be underlain by ballast rock. Ballast rock (likely up to 6 inches in diameter) will surround the diffuser up to the diffuser ports at the crown of the pipe. A Tremie pipe or clamshell bucket could be used to place this material. Special precautions will be taken so that the ballast stone does not interfere with flow through the ports. The ports will be covered by removable caps or plugs to prevent the ballast rock from falling inside the diffuser pipe. 3.4.1 ARMOR STONE The armor layer will consist of rock placed at a 2.5H:1V slope. Armor stone may be placed by dumping onto a deflector plate, or slide, which channels the material into the desired position. Individual placement may be necessary if (1) the impact of the falling stones on the bedding layer and diffuser is unacceptable, (2) the armor stone is sufficiently large, or (3) the additional material necessary in the deflector plate method increases cost over that of the individual placement method. Divers may also manipulate armor stone using underwater jets. 3.4.2 ARMOR MATS Prefabricated armor mats consist of individual concrete blocks or bags held together by a Kevlar (or similar material) mesh (Figure A-4). Two methods for placement are under consideration: I , A-9 0 C3 II:JI� i11 ' .0. '0 a..,,.a..,,..�.,r LL 000,910,91C 0 Cq 10111 00:CABLE TUNNELS a 0`I 0 :0:I• u I a) TYPICAL CONCRETE ARMOR CELL 0 • • • b) TYPICAL • MAT OF CONCRETE •' CELLS TOGETHERCABLED 8. Ir PIPELINE c) MATS �a��a�i���������i���������i����i����•����� • OVER PIPELINE NOTICESouth Essex Sewerage District OF • ' OUTFALL DIFFUSER CONSTRUCTION Exampleof Armor Camp Dresser Source: GervAck, 1986 South Essex Sewerage District NOTICE OF INTENT FOR OUTFALL Figure A-5 DIFFUSER CONSTRUCTION • Longitudinal placement - A large mat may be placed on one or more floating reels later connected to a barge; each reel is unwound and the mat placed as an integral unit in the same direction as the diffuser pipe (Figure A-5). Positioning and temporary stabilization of the ends may require the presence of an additional vessel. Divers would be required to connect the mats, since one 660-foot mat may not be possible. The mat nearest the end of the diffuser may require permanent additional stabilization. • Lateral placement - Alternatively, a series of smaller mats (approximately 8 feet by 30 feet) may be placed with the long axes perpendicular to the diffuser pipe. Each mat will rest between port pairs spaced 10 feet on center. The mats would be placed from a surface vessel and manipulated underwater by divers using water jets or by a ' second vessel. 3.4.3 COMBINATION OF ARMOR MATERIALS Lateral placement of the armor mats between ports may also be combined with armor stone placed up to the pipe crown. The armor stone protects the pipe in addition to securing the mats; the mats, in turn, protect the crown of the pipe. A slight variation of the alternative involves the use of concrete-filled bags placed on the pipe crown between ports instead of linked armor mats. Unlike the moat, the concrete-filled bags conform to the shape of the pipe. 1 i r 1 1 r 1 A-11 r REFERENCES iCDM. 1986. Section 301(h) Revised Application for Modifications from Secondary Treatment for Discharges into Marine Waters. South Essex Sewerage District, Salem, ' MA. CDM. 1991. Phase II Draft Environmental Impact Report for Secondary Wastewater Treatment Facilities: Appendix D. South Essex Sewerage District, Salem, MA. Gerwick, B.C. 1986. Construction of Offshore Structures. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 552 pp. 1 Grace, R.A. 1978. Marine Outfall Systems. Prentice-Hall, Inc., N.J. 600 pp. Kuik, L. J. 1986. Desing and Construction of Stabilization and Protection of Subsea Pipelines and Cables Up to 1000 m Water Depths. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Volume 2. pp. 557-564. ' Van de Graaf, I.C.J. 1987. The Use of Ploughs or Bed-Levellers in Maintenance Dredging. Maintenance Dredging, Insitution of Civil Engineers, Thomas Telford, London. 281 ipp I � r 1 r r 1 A B C p E F G H 1 i i U 54" FLANGED . / PCC PIPE 6' �O 6 O54" COUPLING j ROCK REFILL SLOPES DOWN, 1 ON 1 — — — — — — — — —� i FROM THIS LINE ON ALL SIDES. SEVEN GRANITE SLABS 12" THICK (2) 1/3 — BENDS EXISTING OUTFALL FLANGED FCC TERMINUS TO BE REMOVED LIMIT OF PIT EXCAVATION i PLAN 0 2 PLAN 4 4 15' 10' ► - I 54" FLANGED JL PCC PIPE ROCK FILL 1 ., 2.5 1—FT. GRANITE SLAB '-r- •a 54" C.I. PIPEBELL CAST IN r•'r '•r•:�-., }Y �Y CONCRETE TROUGH �� '�+i' • �"' 6'-6" .�,;, Oris:'4•t��•i:� _ SURFACE OF SOUND ROCK . .. . . 54" COUPLNGINVERT GRADE LIMIT OF 3 LIMIT OF r r_ PIT EXCAVATION PIT EXCAVATION 8"x8"x6' SILLS — C.TO C. 00 {�. . _ -_ r ': I J ,S � �i�� ,r`F--✓�\ •l t ��T r�� ;� 1r � 4 J' {rr--{V GRAVEL REFILL J - _ s a OCEAN FLOOR ff; r ' 10"x10"x18" YELLOW PINE SILLS I 4' 3.0 4' SURFACE OF SOUND ROCK 1'_6" Li H ELEVATION - ._;7 J _ z - _ t _ ELEVATION (2) 1/3 BE 4 FLANGED PCC NDS 10' 8, 10' EXISTING OUTFALL TERMINUS TO BE REMOVED 2 1 1 2.5 REMOVE EXISTING 1 11 1 ROCK AND GRAVEL ;00BACKFILL ROCK REFILL '. '' ROCK REFILL t'�•� y - y .j ri. r TRANSITIONP II ,.� i ` li' , -�' 6'-6" .::•S , S•'r. _! iTt=1 ._�r-?; • :_' 1• _ 4• y ,.0 .J tra ft•.,, ti • u.. _ ., j I -� FORY X11 }✓ *•�. ' _ 1.`-_ ! . 11.-r- w-. I .I(.-r4n it-.!:i( :�.i il•.. IhI!�I :I—!'4 I +� ��$'" F, Yu 1 , 5 , kt!slldtf•,j,• i r ray' EXISTING OUTFALL TERMINUS / ,. DESIGNED BY: CAMP DRESSER 8 McKEE INC. SOUTH ESSEX SEWAGE DISTRICT PROJECT NO. DRAWN BYSALEM SOUND 142-38-D05 SHEET GHK•D BY, BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS SESD OUTFALL DIFFUSER SHEET NO. CROSS CHK•D BY. TRANSITION PIPING APPROVED BY: �� OUTFALL EXTENTION 3 REV. envlraengineers. scientists. NO. DATE DRWN CHKD REMARKS DATE, p(onners.s. 8 8 monogemenl consu(tonls I A B C D E F G H l l 54" DIAMETER PIPE ` 54° DIAMETER PIPE 5" DIAM. PRE-PACKED DIFFUSER PORTS GROUT BAGS 1 TWO LAYERS OF EVERY 10' O.C. 1 TWO LAYERS OF ARMOR ROCK ARMOR ROCK ROCK BEDDING ROCK BEDDING BALLAST STONE I BALLAST STONE `4 T S 7. �.,,.f 1Flf- � f s,4' � iGJ"•. � r 4r• .�nLe•.l�.. ', i. .vA< j{ VI. • ( ',W... (•Y y4 t1. Y W� � .LAT( �l , /M '1 • Y Y .1 L tryr}th vP.:i yr,: f�r�v 'A''• a' •t f: tv, 1' OCEAN FLOOR OCEAN FLOOR 10' - 1 p' 10' ►{ 10' 10' - 10' SCREED DEPTH SCREED DEPTH 2 PIPE BEDDING (DEPTH TO DENSE PIPE BEDDING (DEPTH TO DENSE BROWN SAND VARIES)� SAND CRUSHED STONE VARIES) CRUSHED STONE PIPE PROTECTION PIPE PROTECTION SYSTEM AT PORTS SYSTEM I 3 J 4 61fly rr" PROJECT No. DESIGNED BY: CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. - SOUTH ESSEX SEWAGE DISTRICT 142-38-D05 DRAWN BY: SHEET DHK.DBY! SESD OUTFALL DIFFUSER SHEET NO. CROSS CHK'D BY: PIPE PROTECTION AND PORT DETAILS APPROVED BY: rri OUTFALL DIFFUSER 2 REV. DATE DRWN CHKD REMARKS environmental 9 mo engineers, nsulsctet nt s. ��1 J��LL�:j✓✓ FL/ N�. DATE: 0(onrters. 8 monagemen/consultants X11 4{.. Ep8 p � Ile ` • I I—III III =1 11=1 I = 11=1 I I=1 I i I-III-I I ISI I I _- -`-� 660 FT. 54" DIAMETER I 1 _ ---moi O DIFFUSER PIPE /J V I OF-4 �-- �� r PIPE .' OF-6 LIMIT OF 1 —7® ® PROTECTION SYSTEM / OF-2 i '• 0 LEGEND IAM. PLUG ISOLATED TARGET/ROCK _ EXISTING OUTFALL - — AREA OF ABUNDANT � __ - ROCKS POSSIBLE ROCK 2 TERMINUS ._- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- -- -- _ _ -- 3 OUTCROPPING PATH OF GEOPHYSICAL . SWEEP 5" DIAM - "" _ . ' . -- _ - -- I --- _ _ DIFFUSERPORTS - ^ _ - ® BAUGUST ORINGS 1992 GEOTECHNICAL 9LZ__ -5A EVERY 10' O.C - :__ SEPTEMBER 1992 1 - - - OF- ENVIRONMENTAL CORES r r -1 I I=1 I I=i =III ISI=III- - - - - - - - -;-' - - - -- -- -- --_— - - - - - - - - - — -- - - - TRANSITION _I I I=1 11=111=1 11=1 11=1'� PIPING M I 1=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 I - =111=1 -- =1 I 1=111= _ III—I I Ii I-1 I I—I I I�i - , - - - - - — - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - — -- - — _ - - - - - - — 1=1 11=111= _ - V - J � r 2 - t .^11J fTI 11=1 I I-1 I 1=1 I''1=1 I I 1 ill III III II1=111=III- 0 =1111 I ISI HEI1 =111=111=I I ISI I I=11 I- ° ---- - r =11 ISI I 1=1 I I I I I�1 I 1=1 I 1=1� ���° - , ,- -- ,,,- _ _ _. - ,��, __ __ __ -_ ssp -1 11= 111-11 I-1 I ISI 11-11 I-1 I I-1 11= App - h _ 10 ------ - -- ------ - - - -- _. .. - -- -- LIMIT OF ARMOR PROTECTION NOTES: i 1. GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY INFORMATION CROWN OF DIFFUSER PIPE ' ' PROVIDED BY OCEAN SURVEYS, INC. EXISTING OF OLD SEABROOK, CT. TERMINUS -:- 2. NTOURS DEPTH CO ARE IN FEET BELOW 4 THE SESD DATUM, WHICH IS 4.46 FEET OCEAN FLOOR BELOW THE 1929 NGVD. 3. COUNTOUR INTERVAL IS ONE FOOT. SURFICIAL BLACK SAND INVERT OF DIFFUSER PIPE �- 4. GRID SYSTEM IS BASED ON _ _ _ MASSACHUSETTS STATE PLANE -30 EXISTING 54" , - — _ — — — _ — — — — — — — _ — — ` COORDINATES, NAD 1983- OUTFALL PIPE i — 54' PLUG -Ih GLACIAL\ MEDIUM TO COARSE SAND HORIZONTAL SCALE =1 TILL \ 1" = 40' =1 11= VERTICAL SCALE ? =1 I I=1 I I _ 1 _ \ ' x � >�r -111=1I I I I—I —I1I _ 4' =4 ,> . 1=1 I =III=111 111-1 111 17 BEDROCK —111—III-111=11 -111=1�1 III—I I M I i-111 111=111 _ . DATUM ELEV -40.00 — — — — " a rn M O> 0) O M 5 (t O M t, Ln c0 00 ON 1- 00 N � (n 0) •'^tPLTN Or , .. N N N N cJl N N N N N N N N N I I I I I I IIID%' S -1+50 -1+001 -0+50 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 6+60 7+00 BEGINNING OF • END OF DIFFUSER DIFFUSER / •,,� t DEVGNED BY: CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY: SOUTH ESSEX SEWAGE DISTRICT 142-38-D05 SHEET CHK'D BY: SESD OUTFALL DIFFUSER SHEET NO. CROSS CHK-D BY: DO ///""" PLAN AND PROFILE APPROVEDBY: ,rri OUTFALL DIFFUSER REV. DATE DRWN CHKD REMARKS eners, 8 man engineers, sdenHs/s, l`ti /w NO. DATE: planners, 8 management consullarnts ,J 1 1 1 • CDM 1 . environmental engineers,scientists, - - - - Planners,&management consultants CAMP DRESSER &'McKEE ' offices worldwide Printed on Recycled Paper ' South - Essex Sewerage District Environmental Notification Form Alternative Residuals ' w Management Plan ■ May 1994 Submitted to: 1 Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Unit 1 r South Essex Sewerage District 1 ■ Environmental Notification Form Alternative Residuals Management Plan May 1994 Submitted to: Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Unit ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION FORM ' 1. SUMMARY A. Project Identification South Essex Sewerage District 1. Project Name Alternative Residuals Management Plan Address/Location 50 Fort Avenue City/Town Salem, MA 01970 2. ProjectProponentSouth Essex Sewerage District Address 50 Fort Avenue, Salem, MA 01970 3. Est. Commencement 1994 . Est. Completion 1997 Approx. Cost $ 9,729,000.0 , Status of Project Design 100 %Complete. 4. Amount(if any)of bordering vegetated wetlands,salt marsh,or tidelands to be dredged, filled, removed,or altered (other than by receipt of runoff) as a result of the project. 0 acres 0 square feet. 5. This project is categorically included and therefore requires preparation of an EIR. Yes No X 7 B. Narrative Project Description Describe project and site. A full project description is presented * Attachment I B and is summarized below. ' The Alternative Residuals Management plan described herein is a modification'to"the_manag m ten plgn foi thewastewater residuals:portion of the SESD secondary wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) project, as presented in the May 1992 Final EIR/Final Facilities Plan (FEIR/FFP), the August 1992 Notice of Project Change, and the December 1993 Supplemental FEIR/FFP (EDEA No. 7059). These documents were approved by the MEPA Unit in July 1992, November 1992, and January 1994, respectively. The Alternative Residuals Management plan includes an alteration in the handling of residuals and a resulting revision to the layout for the residuals handling facilities at the WWTP in Salem, MA, and a change in the ultimate disposal of the residuals. As presented in the FEIR/FFP, the District proposed to dewater, dry, and pelletize the residuals at the plant site, and market the pelletized product or, alternatively, dispose of the pellets at the Peabody Landfill, if a market was unavailable. The Alternative-Residuals Management plan calls for dewatering of the residuals at the..plant site (with provision for subsequent lime stabilization, if required),-,followed by—offsRi7disposal bya privat e vendor.)The process modifica- tions necessitate a change only in the layout of the residuals handling portion of the plant. j Copies of the complete ENF may be obtained from (proponent or agent): Name: Jane W. Wheeler Firm/Agency: Camn nrpsser & McKee Inc. Address: W Cambridge Ctr, Cambridge, Phone No. (617) 252-8000 1987 THIS IS AN IMPORTANT NOTICE. COMMENT PERIOD IS LIMITED. For Information. call (617) 727-5830 Continued from page 1 of ENF Under the Alternative Residuals Management plan, the District would continue to dewater sludge at the Fort Avenue treatment plant site, but the sludge processing facilities would be changed. The sludge processing building will contain dewatering facilities, sludge cake hop- pers, an area for loading trucks, lime stabilization facilities and new odor control facilities. These facilities will replace the sludge dryers, pelletizers and associated odor control facilities as presented in the May 1992 FEIR/FFP and the August 1992 Notice of Project Change. The outside storage silos will be eliminated under the alternative plan. The proposed project will: ■ keep the thickening of secondary sludge using mechanical belt thickeners; ■ continue with the current practice of using belt filter presses for sludge dewatering; ■ continue to dispose of minor residuals as follows: scum with blended sludge, screenings as a solid waste with other refuse, and grit in a commercial landfill; The proposed project result in the following changes to the residuals management practices: ' ■ replace the drying and pelletizing system with: dewatered sludge storage hoppers, a drive-through truckway, an additional train of lime stabilization (as a backup facility), and two-stage scrubbers with carbon for emissions control (instead of the regenerative thermal oxidizers provided with the drying system); and ■ oc ntract for disposal of dewatered sludge cake with a private-ve d ■ reserve the Peabody Landfill-site-as a backup disposal site,rat`h�er-than as_thT` a prim ry iusposal option (after marketing of pellets) as described in the FEHZ/FFP and Supplemen- tal FEIR/FFP. These process modifications will not result in any substantive changes in the magnitude or type of environmental impacts and mitigation measures at the treatment plant site that were identified in the FEIR/FFP or August 1992 Notice of Project Change. In addition, the District has committed to and is meeting the mitigation goals described in the November 16, 1992 Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Salem and Salem Action for the Environ- ment (SAFE), which is based on the previously referenced MEPA-approved documents. page 2 P.2 C. List the State or Federal agencies from which permits or other actions have been/will be sought: Agency Name Permit Date filed; file no. Massachusetts Department of Non-Major Plan Environmental Protection- Approval Modification Division of Air Quality Control Massachusetts Department of Facilities Plan Modification Environmental Protection- Approval Bureau of Municipal Facilities D. List any government agencies or programs from which the proponent will seek financial assistance for this project: Agency Name Funding Amount Massachusetts Department of Environmental The SRF application already filed Protection - State Revolving Fund (SRF) for the SESD WWTP project will be modified to reflect the cost savings associated with the Alternative Residuals Management plan described in this ENF. E. Areas of potential impact (complete Sections If and III first, before completing this section). 1. Check all areas in which,in the proponent's judgment,an impact of this project may occur.Positive' impacts, as well as adverse impacts, may be indicated. ' Construction Long Term Impacts Impacts Inland Wetlands. . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 Coastal Wetlands.,Beaches. .. . . ... ... .. ... . .. ..... 0 0 Tidelands.... . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . .. . . ... .. .. . . .. . .. . 0 0 Traffic....... .. ... . . ..... . . . . .. ....... ..... .. . .. . .. 0 0 OpenSpace/Recreation. . . . . . . .. .. . . .. . . . . . 0 0 Historical/Archaeological. . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. ... 0 0 Fisheries/Wildlife. . . .. . . .. . . ... ..... ... .. . .. .. . .. . 0 0 Vegetation,/Trees 0 0 Agricultural Lands. . . . . . . . . . . ..... . ..... . . . .. . .. 0 0 Water Pollution... .. .. . . .. .... .. . ... ...... . . . . ... .. 0 0 Water Supply/Use. . .. . . ... ... .... ... ... . . . . . . ..... 0 0 ' Solid Waste. .. ... .. ... .. . . .. ... . ................ . 0 0 Hazardous Materials. . . . . . . . ..... ... .. .. . . ... . .. .... 0 0 Air Pollution... .. . . ..... . . .. . . ... .. ....... ......... 0 0 Noise....... .. .. .. . . .. .. . . . .. . . ...... .. 0 0 ... . ...... . Wind/Shadow. .... .. .. ... ................... ..... .... ...... 0 0 Aesthetics.. .. . . . . . . . ..... ... . . ... .. .. .. .. . ... . ... . 0 0 Growth Impacts. . . . . . . . . 0 0 Community/Housing and the 0 0 Built Environment... ..... . . .. .. . .... .... . . . . .... Other(Specify) Key: 0= No impact expected beyond that discussed in previous MEPA submittals (EDEA No. 7059) 2. List the alternatives which have been considered. Drying and pelletizing of residuals with marketing of pellets and, if necessary, disposal at the ' Peabody Landfill as described in the May 1992 FEIR/FFP, the August 1992 Notice of Project Change, and the December 1993 Supplemental FEIR/FFP (EOEA File No. 7059). ' P.3 ' F. Has this project been filed with EOEA before? No Yes X EOEA No. 7059 Alternative described under item E2 was previously filed with MEPA. G. WETLANDS AND WATERWAYS ' 1. Will an Order of Conditions under the Wetlands Protection Act (c.131s.40) or a License under the Waterways AcX(c.91) be required? Yes No ' 2. Has a local Order of Conditions been: See Below a. issued? Date of issuance ; DEQE File No. b.appealed? Yes ; No X ' 3. Will a variance from the Wetlands or Waterways Regulations be required? Yes , No X The Salem Conservation Commission issued an Order of Conditions (DEP File No.NE 64-210) for the W WTP. The area where the Alternative Residuals Management Plan facilities are to be ' constructed,is not in an area subject to the Commission's jurisdiction. 11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Map; site plan. Include an original 81/2 x 11 inch or larger section of the most recent U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute series scale topographic map with the project area location and boundaries clearly shown. If available,attach a site plan of the proposed project. ' A U.S.G.S. Map with the W WTP site locus is Figure 1 of Attachment I B. A site plan with detail on the Alternative Residuals Management facilities is Figure 2 in Attachment I B. * B. State total area of project: 0.3 acres. Estimate the number of acre (to the nearest 1,/10 acre)directly affected that are currently: 1. Developed ..... . . ....... 0'3 acres 6.Tidelands ............... acres 2. Open Space/ 7. Productive Resources ' Woodlands..'Recreation 0 acres Agriculture ....... . . .... 0 acres 3. Wetlands . . 0 acres Forestry . ............... 0 acres 4. Floodplain . . . .. . . ... .. . . 0 acres 8. Other ...... ............. 0 acres 5. Coastal Area ............ 0.3.3 acres * (Sludge processing area on WWTP site only) C. Provide the following dimensions,if applicable: Existing Increase Total Length in miles .... . ...... .............................. NA NA NA NA Number of Housing Units ............................. Number of Stories .. . ... 3 3 0 3 0 3 Gross Floor Area in square feet 78,481 17,718 96,199 Number of parking spaces . . ...,,,,,, No change from FEIR/FFP Total of Daily vehicle trips to and from site See Attachment II C (Total Trip Ends) .. . ....... .. .. .............. ........ .. Estimated Average Daily Traffic on road(s) See Attachment II C servingsite .. . .. .... .. .. . . . . ...... .. ... . .. ... .... ...... 1. 2. 1 3 D. TRAFFIC PLAN. If the proposed project will require any permit for access to local roads or state highways, attach a sketch showing the location and layout of the proposed driveway(s). Not applicable. PA ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Instructions: Explain direct and indirect adverse impacts, including those arising from general ' construction and operations. For every answer explain why significant adverse impact is considered likely or unlikely to result. Positive impact may also be listed and explained. Also, state the source of information or other basis for the answers supplied. Such environmental information should be acquired at least in part by field inspection. ' Sources are enclosed in parentheses ( ). ' A. Open Space and Recreation 1. Might the project affect the condition, use, or access to any open space and/or recreation area? Explanation and Source: No,all work will occur on the existing WWTP site on Fort Avenue in Salem,so there will be no impacts to the condition,use,or access to any open space or recreation area. Open space and recreation issues at the W WTP site were discussed in detail in the FEIIt/FFP. (CDM) 2. Is the project site within 500 feet of any public open space,recreation,or conservation land? Explanation and Source: ' Yes, at their closest point,the Alternative Residuals Management facilities are within 420 feet of Cat Cove and Salem Sound. This is noted in Figure 2 which is part of Attachment I B. (CDM) B. Historic and Archaeological Resources 1. Might any site or structure of historic significance be affected by the project? (Prior consultation with Massachusetts Historical Commission is advised.) ' Explanation and Source: No, the Alternative Residuals Management facilities on the WWT? site will not affect any site or structure of historic significance. Historical investigations conducted for the EIR/Facilities Plan phase of the WWTP project noted that there are no onsite historic resources,and visual impacts to historic resources will not change from those presented in the FEIR/FFP. (CDM,B.U.Office of Public Archaeology,Massachusetts Historical Commission) 2. Might any archaeological site be affected by the project? (Prior consultation with Massachusetts Historical Commission is advised.) Explanation and Source: No, the Alternative Residuals Management facilities on the plant site will not affect any archaeological site. Archaeological investigations conducted for the EIR/Facilities Plan phase of the WWTP project noted that there are no archaeological sites affected by the proposed project. (Boston University Office of Public Archaeology) C. Ecological Effects 1. Might the project significantly affect fisheries or wildlife, especially any rare or endangered species? (Prior consultation with the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program is advised). Explanation and Source: No,the Alternative Residuals Management facilities on the W WTP site will not affect any fisheries,wildlife,or any rare or endangered species. The site currently hosts the primary wastewater treatment facilities. Given the developed nature of the area affected by the proposed project,habitat for fisheries and wildlife are non-existent. A complete description of ecological resources at the WWTP site was provided in the FEIR/FFP. (CDM) P.5 ' 2. Might the project significantly affect vegetation, especially any rare or endangered species of plant? (Prior consultation with the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program is advised.) (Estimate approximate number of mature trees to be removed: 0 ) Explanation and Source: No,the Alternative Residuals Management facilities on the plant site will not affect vegetation or any rare or endangered species of plant. The portion of the waste water treatment facility ' site affected by the proposed project is already a developed area. There are no plant species in this area. A complete description of ecological resources at the site was provided in the FEIR/FFP. (CDM) ' 3.Agricultural Land.Has any portion of the site been in agricultural use within the last 15 years? If yes,specify use and acreage. ' Explanation and Source: No, the primary treatment facilities have been located at this site since 1977. In addition, this site has been used for the conveyance of waste water for a number of decades. A description of historical uses of this site was provided in the FEIR/FFP. (CDM) D. Water Quality and Quantity 1. Might the project result in significant changes in drainage patterns? Explanation and Source: No,the Alternative Residuals Management facilities on the plant site will not affect any of the ' drainage patterns beyond what has already been approved in the Order of Conditions (DEP File No.NE 64-210) issued by the Salem Conservation Commission or in the NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit. (CDM) ' 2.Might the project result in the introduction of any pollutants,including sediments,into marine waters, surface fresh waters or ground water? ' Explanation and Source: No,the Alternative Residuals Management facilities will not result in the introduction of any pollutants or sediments into marine waters,surface fresh waters or ground water. (CDM) 3. Does the project involve any dredging? No X Yes Volume . If 10,000 cy or more, attach completed Standard Application Form for Water Quality Certification, Part 1 (314 CMR 9.02(3), 9.90, DEQE Division of Water Pollution Control). P.6 4. Will any part of the project be located in flowed or filled tidelands, Great Ponds, or other waterways? (Prior consultation with the DEQE and CZM is advised.) ' Explanation and Source: No,the Alternative Residuals Management facilities will take place in areas outside of filled or flowed tidelands. There are no other waterways on the site. (CDM) 1 5. Will the project generate or convey sanitary sewage? No X Yes If Yes, Quantity: gallons per day ' Disposal by: (a) Onsite septic systems . . .... . ................... Yes No (b) Public sewerage systems (location; average and peak daily flows to treatment works) .. .. . . .. ... . . . . . . . . ...... ... ..... . Yes No ' Explanation and Source: No, the Alternative Residuals Management facilities will not generate or convey sanitary sewage. (CDM) 6. Might the project result in an increase in paved or impervious surface over a sole source aquifer or an aquifer recognized as an important present or future source of water supply? ' Exalanation and Source: No,the Alternative Residuals Management facilities will not result in any proposed structures that might be incompatible with existing adjacent structures in the vicinity in terms of size, physical proportion and scale,or significant differences in land use. (CDM) The facilities are consistent with the existing use of the site(wastewater treatment)and will not be distinguishable from the surrounding structures. 7. is the project in the watershed of any surface water body used as a drinking water supply? Explanation and Source: No,the project is not in the watershed of any surface water body used as a drinking water supply. (CDM) ' 8. Are there any public or private drinking water wells within a 1/2-mile radius of the proposed project? Explanation and Source: No,the project is not located within a 1/2-mile radius of any public or private drinking water wells. (CDM) P.7 i 9. Does the operation of the project result in any increased consumption of water? ' Approximate consumption gallons per day. Likely water source(s) Explanation and Source: No,the Alternative Residuals Management facilities will not result in any increased consumption of water. (CDM) E. Solid Waste and Hazardous Materials 1. Estimate types and approximate amounts of waste materials generated, e.g., industrial, domestic, hospital, sewage sludge, construction debris from demolished structures. How/ where will such waste be disposed of? ' Explanation and Source: The STI'is expected to produce 41,000 tons/year of dewatered sludge cake in an average year,which will be hauled off-site by a private vendor. If the sludge cake were dried and pelletized,the amount of residuals would be 9,900 tons/year. However,the number of truck trips will not increase beyond what was previously presented since the type of trucks used will change(see Attach- ment II C). The District's approach to long-term residuals disposal is presented in Appendix A. In addition,no structures will be demolished to accommodate the Alternative Residuals Management facilities. (CDM) 2. Might the project involve the generation, use, transportation, storage, release, or disposal ' of potentially hazardous materials? Explanation and Source: No,the Alternative Residuals Management facilities will not result in the generation,use, transportation, storage,release, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials. (CDM) ' 3. Has the site previously been used for the use, generation, transportation, storage, release, ' or disposal of potentially hazardous materials? Explanation and Source: Yes, in January 1980, DEQE classified the ash generated by the multiple hearth incinerators as hazardous waste per RCRA standards. The incinerators were taken out of service in February 1980. This area is part of an ongoing remediation under the supervision of EPA and MDEP. The Alternative Residuals Management facilities that are the subject of this ENF are located ' outside the areas where the remediation is taking place. (CDM) F. Energy Use and Air Quality 1. Will space heating be provided for the project? If so, describe the type, energy source, and approximate energy consumption. Explanation and Source: No,the Alternative Residuals Management facilities will decrease the estimated amount of energy(natural gas)consumption from what was presented in the FEIR/FFP by approximately 1 1,400,000 therms/year. (CDM) P.8 2. Will the project require process heat or steam? If so, describe the proposed system,the fuel type, and approximate fuel usage. Explanation and Source: No,the Alternative Residuals Management facilities will not require process heat or steam. (CDM) ' 3. Does the project include industrial processes that will release air contaminants to the atmosphere? If so, describe the process (type, material released,and quantity released). Explanation and Source: See Attachment III F 4.Are there any other sources of air contamination associated with the project(e.g.automobile traffic,aircraft traffic,volatile organic compound storage, construction dust)? ' Explanation and Source: There will be no significant increase of air contamination from other sources. Watering of ' unpaved construction areas and truck washing will be performed to reduce construction dust impacts, as is the current practice for on-going construction. (CDM) 5. Are there any sensitive receptors (e.g. hospitals, schools, residential areas)which would be affected by air contamination caused by the project? Explanation and Source: Yes, sensitive receptors, consisting of a residential area and an elementary school, are located in ' the vicinity of the project. However, impacts to these receptors will be mitigated by implementa- tion of appropriate control technologies. Attachment III F summarizes results of air quality modeling conducted for the Alternative Residuals Management facilities. (CDM) G. Noise 1. Might the project result in the generation of noise? (Include any source of noise during construction or operation, e.g., engine exhaust, pile driving, traffic.) Explanation and Source: See Attachment III G P.9 2. Are there any sensitive receptors (e.g., hospitals,schools, residential areas) which would be affected by any noise caused by the project? Explanation and Source: Yes, sensitive receptors, consisting of a residential area and an elementary school, are located in the vicinity of the project. Noise impacts to sensitive receptors were measured as part of the noise modeling program, and are not expected to be significant due to the implementation of appropriate noise mitigation measures. Attachment III G summarizes results of the noise evaluation for the Alternative Residuals Management facilities. (CDM) 3. Is the project a sensitive receptor,sited in an area of significant ambient noise? Explanation and Source: ' No,the project is not a sensitive receptor sited in an area of significant ambient noise. (CDM) ' H. Wind and Shadow ' 1. Might the project cause wind and shadow impacts on adjacent properties? Explanation and Source: ' No, the project is not expected to cause wind and shadow impacts. (CDM) 1. Aesthetics 1. Are there any proposed structures which might be considered incompatible with existing adjacent structures in the vicinity in terms of size, physical proportion and scale, or significant differences in land use? ' Explanation and Source: No, the Alternative Residuals Management facilities will not result in any proposed structures that might be incompatible with existing adjacent structures in the vicinity in terms of size, physical proportion and scale, or significant differences in land use. The fadlities are consistent with the existing use of the site (wastewater treatment) and will not be distinguishable from the surrounding structures. (CDM) 2. Might the project impair visual access to waterfront or other scenic areas? Explanation and Source: No,the Alternative Residuals Management facilities will not impair visual access to waterfront ' or other scenic areas. (CDM) P.10 ' IV. CONSISTENCY WITH PRESENT PLANNING Discuss consistency with current federal, state and local land use, transportation, open space, recreation and environmental plans and policies. Consult with local or regional planning authorities where appropriate. ' This Alternative Residuals Management Plan will be part of and is consistent with the secondary wastewater treatment and disposal project, which is required under a Consent Decree in the matter of United States, et al. v. South Essex Sewerage District, et al. (Civil Action No. 83-2814-Y). V. FINDINGS AND CERTIFICATION ' A. The public notice of environmental review has been/will be published in the following newspaper(s): Salem Evening News May 5, 1994 Beverly Times May 5, 1994 ' (NAME) Peabody Times (Date) May 5, 1994 Marblehead Reporter May 5, 1994 ' Danvers Herald May 5, 1994 ' B. This form has been circulated to all agencies and persons as required by 301 CMR 11.24. See Attachment V B 2 8 4Al / Date S*19qature of Responsible fficer Date Signature o person preparing ' Pro "imsrop en ENF(if different from above) Andrew H. . , P.E. , DEE Jane W. Wheeler Name (print or type) Name(print or type) South Essex Sewerage District Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. Address 50 Fort Avenue Address -Cambridge, 10 Cambridge Center Salem, Cam ri ge, MA UZ14Z ' Telephone Number (508) 744-4550 Telephone Number (617) 252-8230 Attachment I B Project Description - SESD ENF ' Introduction The Alternative Residuals Management plan described herein is a modification to the manage- ment plan for the wastewater residuals portion of the SESD secondary wastewater treatment ' plant (WWTP) project, as presented in the May 1992 Final EIR/Final Facilities Plan (FEIR/FFP), the August 1992 Notice of Project Change, and the December 1993 Supplemental FEIR/FFP (EOEA No. 7059). These documents were approved by the MEPA Unit in July 1992, November ' 1992, and January 1994, respectively. The Alternative Residuals Management plan includes an alteration in the handling of residuals and a resulting revision to the layout for the residuals handling facilities at the WWTP in Salem, MA, and a change in the ultimate disposal of the residuals. The site locus for the WWTP facilities is presented in Figure 1 of this Attachment; a site plan with detail on the Alternative Residual Management facilities is presented in Figure 2 of this Attachment. Proposed Project ' As presented in the FEIR/FFP, the District proposed to dewater, dry, and pelletize the residuals at the plant site,and market the pelletized product or, alternatively, dispose of the pellets at the ' Peabody Landfill, if a market was unavailable. The Alternative Residuals Management plan calls for dewatering of the residuals at the plant site (with provision for subsequent lime stabilization, if required), followed by offsite disposal by a private vendor. The process modifica- tions necessitate a change only in the layout of the residuals handling portion of the plant. Under the Alternative Residuals Management plan, the District would continue to dewater ' sludge at the Fort Avenue treatment plant site, but the sludge processing facilities would be changed. Figure 2 presents the WWTP site plans, highlighting the sludge processing building which contains dewatering facilities, sludge cake hoppers, an area for loading trucks, lime ' stabilization facilities and new odor control facilities. These facilities would replace the sludge dryers, pelletizers and associated odor control facilities as presented in the May 1992 FEIR/FFP and the August 1992 Notice of Project Change. The outsidestorage silos will be eliminated under the alternative plan. ' The proposed project will: ■ keep the thickening of secondary sludge using mechanical belt thickeners; ' ■ continue with the current practice of using belt filter presses for sludge dewatering; ' ■ continue to dispose of minor residuals as follows: scum with blended sludge, screenings as a solid'waste with other refuse, and grit in a commercial landfill; CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 1 B'1 Attachment 1 B Project Description-SESD ENF ' The proposed project will result in the following changes to the residuals management practic- es: ' ■ replace the drying and pelletizing system with: dewatered sludge storage hoppers,a drive-through truckway, an additional train of lime stabilization (as a backup facility), and two-stage scrubbers with carbon for emissions control (instead of the regenerative thermal oxidizers provided with the drying system); and ■ contract for disposal of dewatered sludge cake with a private vendor; ■ reserve the Peabody Landfill site as a backup disposal site,rather than as the primary disposal option (after marketing of pellets) as described in the FEIR/FFP and Supplemen- tal FEIR/FFP. t These process modifications will not result in any substantive changes in the magnitude or type of environmental impacts and mitigation measures at the treatment plant site that were identified in the FEIR/FFP or August 1992 Notice of Project Change. The District has commit- ted to and is meeting the mitigation goals described in the November 16, 1992 Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Salem and Salem Action for the Environment (SAFE), which is based on the previously referenced MEPA-approved documents. ' tBackground,lnformatiorl-; ' The District has proposed the Alternative Residuals Management plan that is the topic of this ENF (and revised from the FEIR/FFP) for the following reasons: ■ (the recent promulgation by.EPA of it's_503.(residuals)_regulations (40-CFR Part503 __,. CStandards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge)-hasencourage'd residuals ma`rke Loptions not available atthe time'of the FEIR/FFP;-7 ■ the operationalTincidents experienced_ln the -at-their drying and-pelletizingI ' t facility,raised concerns about the potential'for"sinrilar incidents to occur at the District's facilities; ' ■ both of the above factors appear to have modified regulatory agency positions with respect to both out-of-District and non-beneficial reuse options; ' ■ a financial analysis of proposals received from outside vendors showed that substantia_ ll construction, operation, and maintenance costs could-be.realized-by_modifv� ' in the residuals processing facilities-and contracting for disposal`through.a-private - —�.::,_.._ _ _ vendor,and CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 1 B-2 Attachment I B Project Description-SESD ENF ■ less emphasis is given by the District to the potential for beneficial reuse of the residuals product especially in light of the substantial additional cost of producing such a product. The District is committed to actively seek ways to comply with regulatory requirements, while reducing costs. This approach is consistent with Secretary Tierney's statement in the July 1, ' 1992 Certificate for the secondary WWTP project,page 10, that "In concept, I am very support- ive 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." The District's,Board of-Directors has deternun�'�'ed athath t implementation of the Alternative ' Residuals Management plas^will'result insignificant savings inmitial construction costs;with no increase in operation and maintenance costs over the life of the facilities. Specifically, the capital costs saviiigs'at the wastewater plant for the change in the residuals portion of the plant t total about'$8.l.million In-addition, the District would'avoid'the $12:8 million in-capital_ costs-, (for:the-Peabody-Landfill:_The annual operations and maintenance costs for residuals process- ing and disposal would essentially be the same under both scenarios.Overall;the District t `anticipatesnetsavings-in capitatcosts of almost $21_.million;and-in annualized costs of approxi=-� _ s & tmately$2 million per year,by the change in processing and disposal approach. In view of the public concern over the costs of the facilities as originally planned, the Board has voted to proceed with the alternative plan pending agreement by the Consent Decree parties or action by the Court. While the District's plan to contract for disposal of dewatered sludge cake with a private vendor is not within the scope of this ENF, a summary of the District's approach is presented ' for informational purposes in Appendix A. The remainder of this ENF exclusively addresses the Alternative Residuals Management plan at the plant site on Fort Avenue in Salem. The use of the Peabody Landfill, although only proposed as a backup option under the alternative plan,was previously addressed in the Supplemental FEIR/FFP. ' CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 1 B-3 ``°`(► MAI -0O ftavga a��j :•� s+f > as •� .� NAT FFF 0z 10 cK AlldoB REARM d • Tw Tw \ . �( �' • '� 4J�- y �Sr `/ ?' \ ME r. I T.On F1 �I :—,dam "£ .•' ► aim C�$I(l''_r%� . . I I - v -k: its NOW,VA M0 uWSki�l 6 � � t, _ �.� � ��► i � i����`., �i''' .,iii •.��, � s`^�6 ��� � •; �\ � �`� dll III PROPOSED . . e ' --------------- ---- I- -----' `-—ATET---FACILITY --- FORT AVENUE -- I _ l j ! FORT AVENUE fp PEIBWY/SALE y y /,/ ,[� SIPIA CErI -vT\' COM Bus 5 awa�En noN \I C7 LDu BUIIpRI G � N I C ya U - P S� AR ;)D ON BGL AREA OFF LIMITS i7--- ------------------ ,FAC T TO CONTRACTOR OO BE EO I �7 rANC BY P^ERAIroNS nN0 13 EA O O� i^ ryryo waK/ O�4 ! r00 11 Ell El MMiENNE 6ftNOXYGEN REACTORS REACTORSm• ____ O OR ECONDAR CVWOUENT SECONDARY CLARIFIERS EFFLUENT GO . BUILDING BUILONGOWG " © © ® © . 3 v 9 __ CAT COVE ° F ® © © © REa<.o a MARINELAB FA - --- CILITY - '"- o $ © CCML "T m CTRICA FAN © CHLORINE,CONTA C TANKS FAN UILDING BURIED) 1 LOWG BLDG. EFFLUENT PUMP STATION ir " __J ° •I ._�= 1 SALEM NECK I .�H $-� E PUMP STATION I 3,•�� M9 4 ��B.M. c NO.C- El F ICE V SEE SHEET SEE SHEE r _ \ N0.C-2 ) N0.C-I A ERS i (TEMPORARY) / PLAN D ;.; '. PLAN I ?s ° TEMPORARY L - }--_ _ OCCUPANCY 1 -�� N/F NEW EN ND O AREA IIl 3I A .-. ' POWER COM ^O I I =i REFERENCE LI �p ' --- -.- --- - (NfPC0) ✓�/ u REFERENCE LIM1E $ ` ./ ' iC T COVE SMITH POOL ( A TA If TIC OCEA NI i 1 000 PROPOSED CHANGES IN RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT FACILITIES SOUTH ESSEX SEWERAGE DISTRICT = P`o NOTICE OF PROJECT CHANGE rt4Rs 93 �P5P2{ytE 4 5 FIGURE 2 ' SECONDARY WWTP WITH MODIFIED OI OFFICIAL BUILDING NUMBERS RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT PLAN °® CDM ' SCALE IN FEET environmental engineers, scientists planners, & management consultants 1 Attachment II C ' Vehicle/Traffic Information The Alternative Residuals Management plan does not result in the need for any permit for access to local roads or state highways. Under the current operations at the plant site, residuals produced by the primary treatment process fill about 103, 13-ton (15 cubic yards) containers in a 30-day period. This results in an average of 5-6 truck trips per day based on a 5-day schedule. The FEIR/FFP estimated that based on a 5-day schedule and using 10 cubic yard capacity trucks, the sludge drying process would result in 20 truck trips per day for transport of the dried pellets to the Peabody Landfill. The Alternative Residuals Management plan discussed in this ENF will involve use of 24- to 36-ton watertight trucks and/or containers for residuals transport.fThese trucks-are-being� a 1 [specially designed for this—project.to preclude the possibility of any leakage of residuals. It is estimated that 41,000 tons of dewatered sludge would be produced on an annual basis, resulting in an average of 3 to 4 truck trips per day on a 5-day schedule. The trucks needed to transport dewatered residuals under the Alternative Residuals Management plan will have a larger capacity than those currently used for hauling residuals. Should the backup lime stabilization be required, the volume of residuals to be transported increases. Approximately 6 to 9 truck trips per day on a 5-day schedule would be required under the backup plan. The Alternative Residuals Management plan will result in a decrease in truck traffic from that projected in the ' FEIR/FFP and no change in the number of trucks used for current operations. CDM Camp Dresser & McKee Attachmerd 11 C-1 ' Attachment III F Air Quality Stationary Sources The proposed Residuals Management Alternative plan calls for dewatering of residuals with transfer of dewatered residuals to vendor trucks. The District's consultant has performed extensive modeling to estimate odor impacts from the entire secondary wastewater treatment and residuals treatment process (including the backup lime stabilization process). With respect to the Alternative Residuals Management plan, this modeling exercise and the corresponding results are very conservative since lime stabilization is not part of the proposed primary plan. The lime stabilization process is considered worst-case because it generates more air and odor contaminant emissions than the dewatering process. Comparing the predicted hydrogen sulfide concentrations from this conservative modeling exercise (which includes lime stabilization) with the MDEP hydrogen sulfide odor threshold, indicates that the MDEP threshold may be exceeded. However, the District and its consultant believe that a higher H2S odor threshold is more appropriate and will resolve this issue through the permitting process with MDEP. Odor concentrations associated with ammonia are well below the state odor threshold value. Therefore, ammonia odors are considered insignifi- cant. In addition, uncontrollable volatile organic compound (VOCs) impacts are below applicable ' Allowable Ambient Limits (AALs) for each individual air emission source. Overall, the District anticipates that its on-site odor control strategy for the Alternative Residu- als Management facilities will be as effective as for the original facilities described in the FEIR/FFP. The alternative plan will achieve compliance with a dilution to threshold ratio of 4:1 at the District property boundary, as stipulated in the FEIR/FFP and the Memorandum of Understanding. The District further agrees to use its best efforts to achieve the 1:1 threshold ratio which is established as an "odor goal" in the Memorandum of Understanding. Results of the air modeling are presented in Appendix B. Trucks The contractor will use tractor-trailer vehicles to haul the District's residuals from the WWTP on Fort Avenue to the contractor' s processing and/or disposal facility. The trailers will be sized to haul 24 to 36 tons of residuals per trip. The tailgate will be equipped with a gasket to prevent leakage. The trailer will be equipped with a rigid cover extending over the entire top of the trailer, with multiple hatches for use in loading District residuals into the trailer. The Alternative Residuals Management facilities are equipped with a truckway and odor control equipment. Contractor trucks will be loaded in the truckway where odors will be mitigated by the odor control equipment. The truck hatches will be closed prior to leaving the WWTP site. ' CDM Camp Dresser & McKee III F-1 Attachment 111 F Air Quality 1 The rigid covers will be designed to minin+;ze the release of odors during transportation. The covers will provide more consistent containment of odors than conventional open-top trailers with canvas covers. i 1 CDM Camp Dresser & McKee III F-2 Attachment III G Noise The Alternative Residuals Management plan calls for dewatering of residuals with removal of dewatered residuals by a contracted vendor. Lime stabilization facilities will also be constructed ' but would only be used as a backup (please see Appendix A for a further description). In terms of noise generation, construction of the Alternative Residuals Management facilities will generate construction noise levels similar to the original design. Llo noise levels are expected to be less than 75 dBA during the daytime hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Construction noise levels should also be below the Housing and Urban Development construction noise standard of Ld„ = 65 dBA. No pile driving will occur during construction. From an operational standpoint, operation of the back-up lime stabilization (specifically, lime truck blowers), if implemented, would generate more noise than the primary operation of dewatering and removal of dewatered residuals by a contracted vendor. Noise modeling was performed to determine operational noise impacts associated with the secondary WWTP and backup lime stabilization, which is a conservative assumption since lime stabilization would occur only as a backup option to disposal by a private vendor. Projected noise levels were added to background 1,90 noise levels measured at six locations within the Fort Avenue neigh- borhood. It anticipated that noise levels will only increase 3 dBA. This is below the MDEP 10 dBA allowable increase over background noise levels. In addition, the new facilities will not emit any pure tones. This noise increase is also in compliance with the 3 dBA noise criterion set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding between the District and the City of Salem and SAFE (November 17, 1992). Results of the noise modeling are provided in Appendix C. CDM Camp Dresser & McKee III G-1 1 Attachment V B Distribution List Ms.Trudy Coxe,Secretary EOEA,MEPA CONSENT DECREE PARTIES Mr. Peter Shelley Conservation Law Foundation Mr. Steven J. Silva U.S. EPA, Region I Ms. Diane Chabot U.S. EPA,Region I Ms. Elizabeth Yu U.S. Department of Justice Mr. Douglas Wilkins Department of the Attorney General Mr. Brian Donahoe MDEP, Division of Water Pollution Control SESD BOARD OF DIRECTORS Mr. Craig Stepno Mr. Charles S. Quigley Salem Mr. Richard Rogers Danvers Mr. George Zambouras Beverly Mr. Dana Snow Marblehead Mr. John Seites Peabody REGULATORY AGENCIES Mr. Alan Slater MDEP, Bureau of Municipal Facilities Mr. Tom Mahin MDEP, Solid Waste Section Mr. George Harding U.S. EPA, Region I, Water Compliance Section Representative MDEP Division of Wetlands and Waterways Ms.Judy Perry MDEP Division of Water Pollution Control Mr. Jan Smith Mass. Coastal Zone Management Ms. Judith McDonough Mass. Historical Commission PUBLIC AGENCIES Executive Office of Communities and Development Metropolitan Area Planning Council City of Peabody Planning Board City of Salem Planning Board City of Beverly Planning Board Town of Marblehead Planning Board Town of Danvers Planning Board City of Peabody Conservation Commission City of Beverly Conservation Commission ' Town of Marblehead Conservation Commission Town of Danvers Conservation Commission City of Salem Conservation Commission Town of Marblehead Board of Selectman CDM Camp Dresser & McKee V B'1 Attachment V B Distribution List. PUBLIC AGENCIES (Continued) Town of Danvers Board of Selectman City of Beverly Board of Aldermen City of Salem Mayor and City Council City of Peabody Mayor and City Council PUBLIC INFORMATION REPOSITORIES Noble Public Library Beverly Public Library Abbot Public Library Salem Public Library Peabody Institute Library CAC MEMBERS Robert Field Naomi Cohen Vincent Cotreau Leonard Milaszewski �. Robert Blenkhorn Dawn Stapyra John Fortsch John Bettencourt Charles Papuchis Bruce Eaton Frederic Merriam James McClune Oddvar Solstad Jill Goldman Senator W. Boverini Senator F. Berry Rep. Michael Cahill Rep. Sally Kerans Rep. Michael Ruane Rep. Thomas Walsh Rep. Douglas Petersen NEIGHBORHOOD LIASON COMMITTEE Michael O'Connor Councilor Jane Stirgwolt Joseph Tracey 1 James R. Michaud John Melin 1 CDM Camp Dresser & McKee V B'2 Attachment V B Distribution List OTHER Michael Parsons, P.E. Tighe & Bond Regina Villa RVA Associates Paul Boord Malcolm Pirnie t CDM Camp Dresser & McKee V B-3 .�l Appendix .A Alternative Residuals Management Plan Summary of Long-Term Disposal Options 1 Appendix A Summary of Long-Term Disposal Options �I Long-term disposal is not addressed in this ENF beyond the impacts of transport off the SESD plant site since i t ii—imE ental approvals for.disposal of"the dewatered-sludge would bei obtained by thee vendor'contracted for disposal`service?_th fact, most vendors that responded to the District's request for proposals proposed out-of-state facilities. However, a summary of the District's approach to long-term residuals disposal is presented below for informational purposes. While not the subject of this ENF, this description provides background information to enhance understanding of the project. 1. As its primary plan, the District would design and permit the first cell of the residuals landfill described in the Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Report/Final Facili- ties Plan for the project. The District would also design and permit the remaining cells to the extent that the design and permitting could be accomplished prior to completion of the underlying Peabody Landfill. 2 Concurrent with above activities, the District would enter into a long-term contract with a private vendor for receipt, transportation and disposal of the dewatered sludge. The contract would provide for an initial-term of-five-years vith three five-year.option_periods 1 exercisable at the District's sole discretion. During the term of any such long-term dispos- al contract, the District would reserve the option of re-advertising for proposals prior to the expiration of each five-year period in order to maintain the flexibility of obtaining sludge transportation and disposal services at the most cost-effective rate as market conditions change. 3. Once the primary vendor has been selected, the-District-would-enter into a reserves 1capacitycontract witfi'another vendor to supply sludge transportation and disposal services for up to two years in the event that the primary contractor could no longer provide the services. In addition, the District would begin the process of procuring another short-term reserve capacity contractor as a backup to the one being utilized. 4. The District would advertise for bids and construct the first cell of its planned residuals landfill (at the Peabody Landfill) if the primary contractor could not continue to provide services and the District could not find a replacement contractor. Construction of the cell could then be accomplished during the remainder of the reserve capacity contract. The District would dewater and lime-stabilize the sludge for disposal at the landfill, and would simultaneously continue its efforts to find a long-term transportation and disposal contractor. Subsequent cells would be built at the Peabody Landfill as necessary. �r CDM Camp Dresser & McKee A-1 J t 1 t t t Appendix B Alternative Residuals Management Plan Air Quality Modeling Results t Appendix B Air Quality Modeling Introduction This section presents the air quality impacts predicted in accordance with the Modeling Proto- col submitted to MDEP Division of Air Quality Control (DAQC) on November 17, 1991. Note that this discussion addresses emissions from the entire secondary process, including the lime stabilization backup process, instead of emissions from just the Alternative Residuals Manage- ment plan. 1 The pollutant concentrations were estimated using EPA guideline dispersion models and techniques approved by DAQC prior to performing the analysis. The principal objectives of this air quality modeling study are to: ■ Estimate off-site impacts of emissions from existing and proposed operations; ■ Compare modeled ground-level concentrations of acute toxic compounds and carcinogens with Massachusetts Allowable Ambient Limits (AALs); and ■ Compare modeled ground-level concentrations of odorous compounds to odor detection threshold levels. The SESD secondary wastewater plant including lime stabilization (WWTP) will be designed with all processes enclosed and vented through stacks. Emissions from liquid treatment systems and from sludge dewatering operations will be vented through stacks after odor controls. As stipulated in the FElR/FFP and the Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Salem and SAFE, the treatment facilities will be designed to achieve compliance with a dilution to threshold ratio of 4:1 at the District property boundary. The following sections discuss the air quality criteria, describe the air quality modeling per- formed, and calculate ground-level impacts. WWTP-generated volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and hydrogen sulfide concentrations beyond the property boundary are compared with Massachusetts AALs for individual VOCs and odor thresholds for individual odorants. Guidelines on Toxic Air Pollutants The MDEP Division of Air Quality Control has adopted 24-hour and annual average Allowable Ambient Limits (AALs) for more than 100 chemical compounds. These non-promulgated toxic exposure limits are not-to-be-exceeded 24-hour and annual ambient concentrations. MDEP's Office of Research and Standards (ORS) has summarized the basis for AALs in Chemical Health Effects Assessment Methodology and the Method to Derive Acceptable Ambient Levels (or -� CHEM/AAL), May 1990. Predicted ground-level impacts are compared to AAVs in the Compar- CDM Camp Dresser & McKee B-1 Appendix 8 Air Quality Modeling ison with Allowable Ambient Levels section. The compounds selected for detailed evaluation in this section have been detected in the primary effluent or in exhaust gases from each plant process, and have been critical to the permitting of other WWTP facilities in New England. Odor Criteria The MDEP has not established regulatory odor detection or recognition thresholds for individu- al odorants. A source must simply demonstrate that it will not cause or contribute to a condi- tion of air pollution. For an odor to constitute a condition of air pollution, it must be recogniz- able and persistent. Odor thresholds for individual compounds are characterized as either detection thresholds or recognition thresholds. Detection thresholds are defined as concentrations at which 50% of an odor panel can detect an odor, but not necessarily identify the odorant. The recognition threshold is defined as the concentration at which 50% of the odor panel can identify the odor characteristic of the compound. Testing methodologies and results from different studies often vary. In this analysis, odor detection thresholds of 12 µg/m3 and 26 µg/m3 for hydrogen sulfide and ammonia respectively, were used, although recognition thresholds may be a more 1 appropriate odor criteria. Odor detection thresholds were used rather than odor recognition thresholds because they are a lower limit for assessing odor impacts and, therefore, produce more conservative results. Although the human olfactory sense reacts instantly to the stimulus of a compound, for an odor to constitute a condition of air pollution, it must be persistent. Therefore, the frequency at which the odorant is perceived or the averaging period over which the observation is made must be such that it represents a repetitive or continuous event. For this reason, the highest 1- hour average concentration within the 43,824 hours of the 5-year period from 1987 to 1991 predicted at any of the receptors surrounding the proposed facility was used as the basis for demonstrating compliance with the odor criteria. Results are documented in the Summary of Odor Impacts section. Air Quality Modeling Analysis An air quality modeling protocol was submitted to MDEP, Division of Air Quality Control on November 17, 1991. The air quality modeling prepared for the plan presented in the FEIR/FFP and for the proposed Alternative Residuals Management plan, presented herein, was prepared in accordance with this protocol. Dispersion Model Selection The Gaussian plume dispersion model used in the analysis is EPA's Industrial Source Complex Short-Tenn Model (ISCST2), version 93109. A refined analysis was used to predict 1-hour, 24- hour, and annual ground level impacts. The analysis used actual meteorological data, stack locations, an omni directional cartesian receptor grid and structure-induced downwash. Emission sources from the WWTP have stack heights that are subject to building-induced CDM Camp Dresser & McKee B-2 y . . - . ,.. . '40 . < � • � ` r ] . w � .,A r l i 1 1 �•t f r,. Appendix B Air Quality Modeling cavity and wake effects. The U.S. EPA ISCST2 model is acknowledged as the only guideline model capable of estimating the effects of structure-induced downwash on the distribution of downwind ground-level impacts (EPA, 1988). Additional model options are discussed in detail in the following section. Dispersion Model Options The dispersion models include numerous options that may be selected to simulate the impacts from the expanded treatment facilities. The ISCST2 options that were selected are presented in Table 1. The modeling options used in the dispersion analysis conformed to MDEP procedures and EPA modeling guidance as presented in the Guideline on Air Quality Models — Revised (EPA, 1986) and included: ■ Final plume rise. The dispersion models are capable of evaluating the dispersion of a plume based on either final plume rise or gradual plume rise with distance. Gradual plume rise is the preferred option, if terrain above stack-top occurs closer to the stack than the distance at which final plume height is realized. In this case, final plume height is reached before encountering terrain above stack-top, and for the cases of downwash, the calculation for gradual plume rise occurs within the ISC model downwash algorithm for those hours in which downwash is predicted to occur. Therefore, the final plume rise option was used. ■ Stack-tip downwash. This option allows modification of the stack height when the ratio of gas exit velocity to stack-top wind speed is less than 1.5 to account for downwash effects induced by the stack(Briggs,1974). ■ Buoyancy induced dispersion. This option increases the dispersion coefficients at the tpoint of plume release to account for buoyancy enhancement, and hence greater initial dispersion associated with buoyant plume. Land Use Classification land use within 3 km of the site was evaluated using digitized land use data. CDM's ARGIN- �, FO utilities were used to interpret the digitized data and calculate the urban and non-urban percentages,based on the recommendations of Auer (1979). The land use analysis for the site is classified as 61% non-urban. Because less than 50% of the land circumscribed by a 3 km radius circle (centered at the facility) is classified as "urban;' the dispersion models were executed in the non-urban mode, incorporating equations for dispersion coefficients that approximately fit the Pasquill-Gifford curves (Turner, 1970), non-urban mixing heights, and wind profile expo- nents recommended by EPA for regulatory applications in non-urban areas (EPA, 1986). ,, CDM Camp Dresser & McKee B-3 TABLET DISPERSION MODELING OPTIONS SESD WWTP Option Description ISCST2 Dispersion Coefficients Non-Urban Wind Profile Exponents .07,.07,.10,.15,.35,.55 Potential Temperature Default Gradients(°C/m) Final Plume Rise Only Yes Stack Tip Downwash Yes Buoyancy Induced Dispersion Yes Chemical Transformation No EPA DECALM Option Yes Anemometer Height(m) 6.1 ' Upper Bound Concentration Yes ' Meteorology 1987-1991 Sequential Hourly Data Receptors Cartesian Grid Terrain Yes Terrain Adjustment Factors N/A N/A:Not applicable Appendix B Air Quality Modeling Meteorological Data The refined modeling analyses used actual meteorological data representative of the Salem area to estimate 1-hour, 24-hour and annual averaged impacts. Digitized meteorological data were obtained from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). Data were selected for the recent 5-year period of 1987-91. Surface data are from the Boston (Logan International) Airport (NWS station 14739), and mixing height data are from the Portland International Jetport (NWS station 14764) in Portland, Maine. The surface and mixing height data were obtained from NCDC in standard sequential hourly and twice daily format, respectively. The data were then processed into the format required by the dispersion model. Rural mode wind profile expo- nents and mixing heights were applied based on the discussion above on land use classifica- tion. Receptor Grid For the refined modeling analysis, a cartesian receptor grid was used along with actual source location coordinates. The receptor points were located every 100 m out to 1 km, every 500 m out to 5 km, and every 1 km out to 10 km in every direction. For the grid, the highest elevation value within half the distance to the next receptor point was assigned to each grid receptor point. Plant property boundary receptors located at 10-degree intervals around the plant site added to the receptor array additional discrete receptors. Summary of Air quality Standards DAQC has designated an air toxic program by establishing allowable ambient limits (AALs) for VOCs from new and modified sources. In addition, the state odor standard requires that a source not cause a nuisance to the local population. These rules and guidelines have been established to prevent, the maximum extent possible, the emissions of substances which may cause or contribute to a present or potential hazard to public health, welfare or environment. Comparison with Allowable Ambient Levels ' VOC Impacts Normalized ground-level concentrations for the highest 24-hour, and annual averaging periods were identified from ISCST2 output for each stack (see Table 2) and were multiplied by the uncontrolled VOC specific emission rate. Then, the highest concentrations for each averaging period and for each compound from each stack were added together for each of the ' five years modeled, even though these highest values may not have occurred on the same day or in the same location. This is a conservative approach because the impacts from each individu- al source do not occur in the same location or at the same time. These worst-case, unpaired-in- space-and-time, total concentrations were then compared with the appropriate MDEP AAL. Results are shown in Tables 3 and 4 for 24-hour and annual averages, respectively. CDM Camp Dresser & McKee B-5 TABLE 2 MAXIMUM NORMALIZED GROUND-LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS ISCST2 REFINED MODELING RESULTS SESD WWII Normalized Concentration((gg/m^3)/(g/s)) ISCST2 Results Averaging Stack Identification by Year Time A B C E G 1987 24-Hour 12.01 8.03 38.50 53.83 17.55 IAnnual 1.28 0.427 3.57 35.39 2.18 1988 24-Hour 18.17 6.32 36.52 51.46 16.62 Annual 1.25 0.534 3.58 5.08 1.95 1989 24-Hour 13.75 8.56 41.38 66.95 17.23 Annual 1.37 0.458 3.71 4.59 2.16 1990 24-Hour 19.83 6.27 52.94 44.95 25.06 Annual 1.31 0.513 3.44 5.00 1.91 1991 24-Hour 27.24 5.67 39.21 49.44 42.64 Annual 1.37 0.381 3.05 3.13 2.02 i TABLE 3 COMPARISON OF COMBINED IMPACTS TO AALS 24-HOUR AVERAGE SESD WWTP Highest Combined DEP AAL Concentration in 24-Hour CAS Five-Year Period Guideline Compounds(1) Number (µg/mA3)(2) (µg/mA3) %of AAL Volatiles Acetone 67641 2.945 160.54 1.83% Benzene 71432 0.027 1.74 1.58% 2-Butanone(MEC) 78933 0.572 10.88 5.26% Carbon Disulfide 75150 0.469 0.27 173.76% (3) Carbon Tetrachloride 56235 0.031 85.52 0.04% Chlorobenzene 108907 0.019 93.88 0.02% Chloroethane 75003 0.482 717.55 0.07% Chloroform 67663 0.085 132 0.06% 1,2-Dichloroethylene 540590 0.289 11.01 2.62% 1,1-Dichloroethylene 75334 0.024 1.08 2.26% (Vinylidene Chloride) 1,1-Dichloroethane 107062 0.023 22.3 0.10% Trans-1,2 Dichloroethene 0.289 215.62 0.13% Ethylbenzene 100414 0.053 118.04 0.04% Methylene Chloride 75092 0.672 9.45 7.11% (Dichloromethane) Styrene 100425 0.053 115.81 0.05% Tetrachloroethylene 127184 0.108 922.18 0.01% Toluene 108883 0.203 10.24 1.98% 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71556 0.153 130 0.12% Trichloroethylene 79016 0.026 36.52 0.07% Vinyl Acetate 108054 3.896 38.29 10.17% Total Xylenes 1330207 0.261 11.8 2.21% Carbonyl Compounds _ Acetaldehyde 75070 0.147 4.89 3.00% Formaldehyde 50000 0.145 0.33 43.94% 2-Hexanone 591786 0.110 10.88 1.01% (1)Listed are only those compounds with 24-hour AALs,except for hydrogen sulfide and ammonia which are compared in Table 8 against their odor threshold limits,since these are more stringent than the corresponding AALs. (2)These concentrations represent the sum of individual source impacts unpaired in time and space for the worst-case year. (3)This exceedance represents the conservative approach of adding individual source impacts without considering space and time. TABLE 4 COMPARISON OF COMBINED IMPACTS TO AALS ANNUAL AVERAGE SESD WWTP Highest Combined DEP AAL Concentration in Annual CAS Five-Year Period Guideline Compounds(1) Number (µg/mA3)(2) (ug/mA3) %of AAL Volatiles Benzene 71432 2.10E-03 0.12 1.75% Carbon Tetrachloride 56235 2.13E-03 0.07 3.04% Chlorobenzene 108907 1.06E-03 6.26 0.02% 1 Chloroethane 75003 2.53E-02 358.78 0.01% Chloroform 67663 8.86E-03 0.04 22.15% 1,2-Dichloroethylene 540590 1.28E-02 0.04 32.08% 1,1-Dichloroethylene 75344 1.57E-03 0.02 7.85% (Vinylidene Chloride) 1,2-Dichloroethane 107062 1.40E-03 0.04 3.50% Trans-1,2 Dichloroethene 1.28E-02 107.81 0.01% Methylene Chloride 75092 4.19E-02 0.24 17.45% (Dichloromethane) Styrene 100425 3.34E-03 1.75 0.19% Tetrachloroethylene 127184 5.12E-03 0.02 25.60% Trichloroethylene 79016 2.18E-03 0.61 0.36% ' Vinyl Acetate 108054 5.00E-02 9.57 0.52% Carbonyl Compounds ' Acetaldehyde 75070 1.22E-02 0.44 2.77% Formaldehyde 50000 1.21E-02 0.08 15.08% (1)Listed are only those compounds with annual AALs. (2)These concentrations represent the sum of individual source impacts unpaired in time and space for the worst-case year. Appendix B Air Quality Modeling Impacts summarized in Tables 3 and 4 (24-hour and annual) represent the highest Concentra- tions modeled for all the receptors in the study area (comprising a 10-km radius around the site). The impacts for 24-hour and annual periods are the sum of the "unpaired" maximum impacts for the set of five stacks operating onsite. The highest impacts for each stack occurred within a distance of 600 meters of the receptor grid centered at Stack B. All maximum uncon- trolled impacts are below applicable AALs, except for carbon disulfide which is 174 percent above its 24-hour AAL. Individual source carbon disulfide impacts are all below the 24-hour AAL. Because this impact is based on the summation of maximum individual source carbon disulfide impacts, this concentration impact is unrealistically high. A more realistic approach which will be conducted during the permit process is to sum the individual source impacts that occur at the same location and at the same time. This combined carbon disulfide concentration is expected to be below the 24-hour AAL. Summary of Odor Impacts In this analysis, two odorants (hydrogen sulfide and ammonia) were modeled using the same dispersion modeling methodology as in the VOC analysis. The inorganic compound hydrogen sulfide is often the most significant odorant from a wastewater treatment plant. It has a much lower odor threshold than most other compounds that are produced at a treatment plant and thereby can be a significant nuisance if not mitigated. The effective abatement of hydrogen sulfide gas migration from its production sources usually ensures that other sulfides are well- controlled. A nitrogen-bearing odorant, ammonia, is liberated during sludge stabilization because of a rapid increase in pH. (Note that ammonia release during dewatering is insignifi- cant). Additionally, many of the low molecular weight, toxic, and VOCs that were previously discussed have odor thresholds, though none are as stringent as their AAL. 'r Consistent with assumptions used in the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) Deer Island Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan (1988), it is assumed that odors at the SESD facilities can be modeled by total reduced sulfides (TRS). Hydrogen sulfide was assumed to constitute approximately all of the TRS. Testing at the MWRA facility has shown that 95% of the TRS was hydrogen sulfide (H2S). Hydrogen sulfide was therefore modeled in the odor i modeling conducted for this analysis. Dispersion modeling for hydrogen sulfide was performed for the four odor sources (Stacks A, B, E & Q. The emissions estimates for hydrogen sulfide and ammonia are summarized in Table 5. Odor perception can occur over very short time periods, often ranging from seconds to min- utes. The highest 1-hour ground-level concentrations of odorants can be interpreted as being representative of several-minute concentration averages, because the Pasquill-Gifford-Turner dispersion coefficients used in the models are based on concentration sampling periods of several minutes. This suggests that the use of worst-case emission rates in the dispersion modeling adequately represents maximum impacts representative of odor perception over CDM Camp Dresser & McKee B-9 i TABLE 5 ESTIMATED EMISSION RATES OF HYDROGEN SULFIDE AND ' AMMONIA FROM THE SESD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT Inlet Control Outlet Flow Controlled Concentration Efficiency Concentration Rate Emission Rate Stack No. (ppm) (ppm) Win) (9/S) Hydrogen Sulfide: A 17 99.4% 0.1 40,969 2.69E-03 B 15 99.4% 0.1 72,096 4.74E-03 E 10 99.0% 0.1 15,000 1.00E-03 G 10 99.0% 0.1 43,955 2.89E-03 Ammonia: G 25 0% 25 43,955 3.43E-01 1 Appendix B 1 Air Quality Modeling short-time durations. The ISCST2 Gaussian dispersion model was used to predict maximum 1-hour ground level concentration for comparison to odor thresholds (see Table 6). Odor threshold concentrations (the odor concentration at which 50% of an odor panel detected the odor for that compound) for most of the VOCs and inorganic compounds potentially emitted to the atmosphere from the proposed treatment facilities were obtained from litera- ture. The odor threshold level and AAL for each compound were then compared. Those compounds with threshold limits lower than the AAL were modeled as an odorant and the resulting concentrations were compared to the odor threshold limit. The odor threshold 1 concentrations used in this analysis are compared to the AALs in Table 7. It was determined that VOCs found in the waste stream have AALs that are more stringent than odor thresholds. Therefore, further modeling of VOCs was not done for the odor study. Modeling results in Table 8 show that the combined (A, B, E and G) hydrogen sulfide concentra- tion will not exceed the odor threshold for hydrogen sulfide of 12 ug/m3,but would exceed the MDEP odor threshold of 0-65 ug/m3. Recent odor studies have found hydrogen sulfide odor detection of 12 ug/m3 to be more realistic than the MDEP hydrogen sulfide odor threshold of 0.65 ug/m3. Further discussions with MDEP will occur during the permit process to discuss the appropriateness of the hydrogen sulfide odor threshold. The ammonia odor concentration consumes only 35 percent of the ammonia odor threshold value (per state standard). There- fore, ammonia odors should not be detectable. Overall, the District anticipates that its on-site odor control strategy for the Alternative Residu- als Management facilities will be as effective as for the original facilities described in the FEIR/FFP. The alternative plan will achieve compliance with a dilution to threshold ratio of 4:1 at the District property boundary, as stipulated in the FEIR/FFP and the Memorandum of Understanding. The District further agrees to use its best efforts to achieve the 1:1 threshold ratio which is established as an 'odor goal' in the Memorandum of Understanding. CDM Camp Dresser & McKee B-11 TABLE 6 MAXIMUM NORMALIZED 1-HOUR GROUND-LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS ISCST2 REFINED MODELING RESULTS SESD WWTP ' Normalized Concentrations((µg/mA3)/(g/s)) ISCS12 Results Stack Identification by Year A B C E G 1987 138.25 25.41 164.69 242.04 249.82 1988 146.10 25.61 164.69 220.73 171.59 1989 144.64 25.66 164.69 246.83 226.00 1990 124.46 24.59 164.69 263.92 240.22 1991 235.91 25.41 164.69 263.87 255.91 ' TABLE 7 SESD WWTP COMPARISON OF 24-HOUR AALs AND ODOR THRESHOLDS 1 Odor Threshold AAL 24-Hour Concentration Average Reference Compound (Itg/m^3) (4g/m^3) Number Acetone 20,700 160.54 5 1 Ammonia 26 4.7 3 Benzene 14,900 1.74 2 2-Butanone 350 32.1 1 Carbon Disulfide 652 0.3 2 Chloroform 1,000,000 132.8 4 1,2-Dichloroethylene 341 215.6 4 Ethylbenzene 615,000 118.0 4 Hydrogen Sulfide 0.65 3.8 2 Methylene Chloride 743,400 9.5 2 4-Methyl2-Pentanone 410 55.7 1 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 3,480 18.7 4 Tetrachloroethylene 34,400 922.2 4 Toluene 640 10.2 1 Total Xylenes 220 11.8 4 References: I National Academy of Sciences 2 Leonardos,G., "Odor Threshold Determinations of 53 Odorant Chemicals," Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association,Vol.19, 1969,pg.91. 3 K.Verschucren, "Handbook on Environmental Data on Chemicals" Second Edition.NY, 1983. 4 Final EIR for the Deer Island W WTP(CDM, 1988) 5 Odor Panel on Solvent Samples sponsored by PPG Industries Inc., Allison Park,Pennsylvania(February 7, 1985) ' TABLE 8 rCOMPARISON OF MAXIMUM CONTROLLED 1-HOUR ODOR IMPACTS TO ODOR THRESHOLD CONCENTRATIONS SESD WWTP ' Predicted Stack Control Concentration(1) Pollutant Designation Efficiency(%) (gg/mA3) %of OTC(2) ' Hydrogen Sulfide (3) A 99.4% 0.635 5.3% (-100, 100)(4) B 99.4% 0.120 1.0% (100,400) E 99.0% 0.264 2.2% (-200, 100)(4) ' G 99.0% 0.73957 6.2% (-200,100) Combined(A,B,E&G) 1.03456 8.6% (-200,100) Ammonia G 0% 9.22808 35.5% ' (-122.6,44.6)(4) ' Notes: (1)Receptor grid location of each predicted impact is shown in parentheses(x,y)in meters relative to the grid origin(0,0)near Stack B. (Actual location of Stack B is(-5.5,5.5)). (2)OTC=Odor Threshold Concentration Hydrogen Sulfide Odor Threshold Concentration= 12.0µg/mA3 (3)Combined impact has been spatially and temporally resolved. (4)Receptor location is at the property boundary. Source: CDM Inc., 1994 1 Appendix C Alternative Residuals Management Plan 100 Percent Noise Modeling Technical Memorandum SOUTH ESSEX SEWERAGE DISTRICT REVISED RESIDUALS PROCESSING DESIGN 100 PERCENT NOISE MODELING TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Introduction This document reviews the noise modeling of the revised residuals design of the South Essex ' Sewerage District (SESD) Secondary Wastewater Treatment Facility. The revised noise modeling reflects the substitution of the Drying and Pelletizing and Regenerative Thermal Oxidation (RTO) systems with an additional residuals processing building. It also includes design changes to the existing sludge processing building. This document will describe the noise modeling of revised residuals processing design and will present final total facility results. These are presented in Table 1. '1 Noise modeling indicates that the 3 dBA allowed increase above existing levels noise criteria set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding between the District and the City of Salem ' (November 17, 1992) will not be exceeded. The modeling analysis includes appropriate noise attenuation methods, such as fan and ventilation silencers, soundproof windows and doors, and lagging of ductwork. Methodology A comprehensive list of equipment expected to operate in the new residuals processing building and equipment changes in the sludge processing building was prepared. For each piece of equipment, octave band sound power levels were gathered or calculated from vendor data, literature and actual measurements. If no sound level data were available, then worst-case sound power levels were estimated based on equipment size and operating conditions including horsepower, motor type,volume flow rates, static pressure, etc. The equipment for the new residuals processing building includes: • Odor Control Facility G Fans and Scrubbers • Lime Stabilizing Room Pugmills 1 • Boilers • Chemical Room Pumps • Lime Truck Blower • Miscellaneous Rooftop Equipment Equipment changes and additions to the sludge processing building include: • Replacing air compressors with smaller units • Removing of water chiller • Adding lime transfer blowers Cavanaugh Tocci Associates, Inc. Page 1 SESD 100 Percent Noise Modeling Technical Memorandum The sound power levels for each equipment item were then used in a spreadsheet model to determine sound pressure levels at nearest receptors. These sound pressure levels were added to those calculated in the original design once contributions of the drying and pelletizing building, RTOs, and original sludge processing building were removed. Equipment remaining from the original design includes: • Oxygen Generation Facility • Secondary Clarifiers • Disinfection &Effluent Pumping Building ' • Odor Control Facilities A, B, C, and E • Mixing Aerators (Types 1 through 4) • Anaerobic Selector Mixers (ASMs) • Transformers • Miscellaneous Air Handling Units (AHUs) The model includes the effects of atmospheric absorption and attenuation by noise mitigation techniques and equipment. ' Mitigation ' A number of sound mitigation measures have been included in the analysis. Buildings, although not primarily considered a means of noise mitigation, nevertheless serve to control sound from ' equipment and activities. Generally, the planned use of concrete block and face brick wall systems for building has been adequate to control the transmission of sound from equipment and activities inside buildings to the environment. When needed sound isolation performance of ' buildings has been enhanced through the use of soundproof windows and doors, and 6" thick concrete roof decks. Buildings also serve to shield neighborhoods from site noise sources as well. This has involved judiciously locating noise sources to take advantage of shielding of noise by building structures on-site. Rooftop HVAC units and building fans and ventilation openings have been included in this model, most requiring three foot long duct silencers to mitigate sound from inside equipment or 1 from fans or rooftop units themselves. In the noise model, Industrial Acoustics Company (IAC) Type 3L duct silencers are used in conjunction with the following pieces of equipment or ventilation openings: • Odor Control Facility G Building Exhaust Fans Building Ventilation Intake Cavanaugh Tocci Associates, Inc. Page 2 SESD 100 Percent Noise Modeling Technical Memorandum • Chemical Room Building Exhaust Fans • Lime Transfer Blower Rooms (Sludge Processing Building (SP) Building Ventilation Intake Building Exhaust Fans • Dewatering/thickening area (SP) Rooftop Make Up Air Unit ' • Lime Stabilizing Room Rooftop Make Up Air Unit ' • Basement (SP) Make Up Air Unit#8911 Intake Make Up Air Unit#8912 Intake (located on East Face of New Residuals Building) ' • Lime Storage Room Rooftop Make Up Air Unit • Air Compressor Room (SP) Building Ventilation Intake ' Exhaust Fan ' • Cake Storage Room Rooftop Make Up Air Unit For the odor control fans, a five foot long IAC Type 5S duct silencer is needed to adequately mitigate sound transmitted to the community through the stack. Since lime truck deliveries are made approximately once a week, adequate control of sound produced by the truck's transfer fan and transmitted to the community can be achieved through ' shielding by the building and limiting deliveries to daytime hours only. Note that data in Table 1 reflect night time sound levels and do not include noise produced by lime truck transfer fans which should only operate during daytime hours. Ductwork serving the odor control and building ventilation fans must be double-walled to reduce break-in and break-out noise. Cavanaugh Tocci Associates, Inc. Page 3 SESD 100 Percent Noise Modeling Technical Memorandum Noise Modeling Equation 1 is the fundamental relationship between octave band sound pressure level at a receptor location and source sound power level plus other parameters including distance from each source to each monitoring location, barrier attenuation (reduction in sound level due to shielding by buildings and walls), directivity of noise (reduction in sound level due to source ' characteristics directing sound away from receptors), and atmospheric absorption. As stated above, source octave band sound power levels were estimated or obtained from vendors for each piece of equipment. Lp =Lw-10*log[2*3.14162*(dist./3.28)2]-[barr. art.]-[direct.]-[atm. abs.] Eq. (1) ' Where: Lp = sound pressure level (dB Re: 20 microbars) Lam,= sound power level (dB Re: 1 picoWatt) Dist. =distance from source to monitoring location (ft) Barr art. = banner attenuation (dB) Direct. =directivity (dB) ' Atm. abs. =atmospheric absorption (dB) The fust factor inside the argument of the logarithm (2) signifies hemispherical spreading. This accounts for a reflection from hard ground, which increases sound slightly over that for sound propagating over sound absorptive ground. ' In most cases, equipment items have each been represented as more than one noise source. For ' example, a fan exhausting air out of an enclosed space might be modeled as six separate noise sources as follows: 1. Fan sound transmitted out through the relief air vent serving the space. 2. Fan sound transmitted through the air exhaust. ' 3. Casing radiated fan sound transmitted into the room containing the fan and then ' transmitted out through a closed door. 4. Casing radiated sound transmitted out through the building roof. ' 5. Casing radiated sound transmitted out through the building windows. 6. Casing radiated sound transmitted out through the building walls. Cavanaugh Tocci Associates, Inc. Page 4 SESD 100 Percent Noise Modeling Technical Memorandum ' Rather than estimating casing radiated sound transmission through building components for each ' individual fan, sound power levels for all sources inside each room in the building were totaled and transmission through building components for this totaled sound level were determined. At each study location, individual sound pressure level contributions estimated for each source from the new and sludge processing buildings were logarithmicaly summed. This sum was added to the total secondary facility sound level (minus the drying and pelletizing, RTO, and ' original sludge processing sources) as determined from a previous calculation dated August 4, 1993.This new sum is the revised total secondary facility sound level. The new estimated background sound level at each location is the existing lowest measured background sound level ' (monitored at each location in September 1992 - see Noise Monitoring Results Technical Memorandum, dated November 2, 1992) plus the secondary facility sound level determined through this noise modeling. ' Noise Modeling Results Figure I identifies the location of the monitoring locations. Table 1 presents the following summary of information for each monitoring location: • Estimated facility sound level from all secondary components • Lowest measured ambient sound level measured at each study location • New ambient sound level, i.e., estimated facility sound level plus lowest measured ambient noise level (logarithmic sum of the above two items) • Salem noise limit (lowest measured ambient sound level plus 3 dB) • The amount by which the new ambient sound level exceeds the Salem noise limit. Conclusion The 100 percent noise modeling results indicate that operation of the secondary facilities and residuals processing will meet the 3 dBA Salem noise criterion stated in the Memorandum of Understanding. SRS/elg/9220525.apr Cavanaugh Tocci Associates, Inc. Page 5 SESD 100 Percent Noise Modeling Technical Memorandum ' o J �cr � f'�7, South Essex Sewerage District 1O %�`7�✓i-/ NOISE MONITORING PROGRAM SCALE: 1"=300- 6 y /' Camp Dresser 8 McKee Inc. A-W..gMeE Noise Measurement Locations \ j Figure 1 \� Noise Monitoring Locations 1 1 1 1 t 1 - 1 CDM 1 environmental engineers,scientists, planners,8 management consultants 1 CAMP DRESSER & McKEE offices worldwide � � Printed on Recycled Paper ' 1 DRAINAGE CALCULATION SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION FOR SOUTH ESSEX SEWERAGE DISTRICT'S 1 "NOTICE OF INTENT FOR SECONDARY WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES" 1 September 1992 1 1 • Summary of Drainage Information • TR-55 Data and Computations 1 1 1 1 OP a GARYW. MERCER 1 �No.31888 /STF' 1 1 1 1 1 SUMMARY OF DRAINAGE INFORMATION SHOWN IN ACRES revised 8/24/92 revised 8/26/92 RESIDENTIAL PERVIOUS. TOTAL TOTAL OPEN ABOVE IMPERVIOUSARE IMPERVIOUS IMPBELOW COMPARE DRAINAGE AREA SCENARIO OUTFALL SPACE GRAVEL FORTAVE BUILDINGS PVMT/CONC FORT AVSUBTOT FORTAVE WITH AREA DRAINED CN 80 CN 91 CN 80 CN 98 CN 98 CN 98 E.isling 1 3.50 0.41 1.74 2.56 0.26 4.56 8.21 8.23 8.47 1, (adjusted) 3.51 0.41 1.74 2.57 0.26 4.57 8.23 8.49 3 5.21 ` 0.08 3.32 0.09 1.00 0.78 1.87 6.38 6.08 10.48 3, (adjusted) 4.97 0.08 3.32 0.09 0.95 0.78 1.82 6.08 10.18 overland, east 1.80 0.01 0.01 1.81 1.81 overland, soul) 0.25 0.39 0.02 0.02 0.66 0.66 triangle 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.08 21.22 Concept B 1 3.24 0.14 3.07 1.82 0.17 5.06 8.27 8.42 8.44 1. (adjusted) 3.30 0.14 3.13 - 1.85 0.17 5.15 8.42 8.59 3 1.38 0.00 3.32 1.53 0.91 0.69 3.13 3.82 3.85 7.83 3, (adjusted) 1.39 0.00 3.32 1.54 0.92 0.69 3.15 3.85 7.86 overland. east 2.83 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 3.33 3.33 overland, soult 0.78 0.39 0.02 0.02 1.19 1.19 former triangle 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.08 21.05 Concept G 1 3.51 0.65 0.00 2.B3 2.95 0.26 6.04 9.94 9.58 10.20 1, (adjusted) 3.38 0.63 2.73 2.84 0.26 5.83 9.58 9.84 3 1.78 0.00 3.32 1.40 0.67 0.78 2.85 3.85 3.83 7.95 overland, east 2.23 0.47 0.47 2.70 2.70 overland, soult 0.25 0.39 0.02 0.02 0.66 0.66 triangle 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.08 21.23 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. 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 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 4-5 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 per unit of Drainage Arez 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. 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) 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 Are 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. 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 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 rales are theoretical maximums,achieved only if peaks occur simultaneously. r T cX l 111L C„- � �i tom\ LL I TR-55 LOAD Data Routine Version 1. 11 evlce c Directory ------ ---------------- ----=-- ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------r-- - OLEAST . 55 PATHIA .55 PAHIB . 55 PATH1C . 55 COLSO_j . 55 ITRIANG55 G 5 �H3 55C_PATHIB GPATHIC .55 GPA T A . 55 PATH3B . 55 G'PATHIA.5 G'PATHIB_ . 55 G'PATH1C.55 G'PATH3A.55 �GOLEAST . 5J G'OLEAST. 55 ICONCEPTB.S BPATHS . 551 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ,Type in file name for loading, then press enter c:_ ' TR-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION VERSION 1. 11 roject : SESD User: ht Date: 08-21-92 ounty : ESSEX State: MA . Checked: Date: ubtitle: EXISTING CONDITION, OUTFALL 1 Subarea : OUTF1 --------------------------------------------------Hydro------Soil--roup------ _ Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D - --------------- Acres (CN) ----DEVELOPE--URBAN-AREA------------ - ------------------ ULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab. ) --------------------------------------- #pen space (Lawns,parks etc. ) - - Good condition; grass cover > 75$ - 3 . 51(80) Impervious Areas Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways - - - 4 . 58 (98) Streets and roads Gravel (w/ right-of-way) - - - .41(91) total 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 To and Tt THRU SUBAREA COMPUTATION VERSION 1. 11 toject : SESD User: ht Date: 08-21-92 unty : 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) t ------------------------------- ------------------------------------ eet 3 . 1 210 0. 053 E 0. 192 Open Channel 504 . 0097 . 0133 . 14 6. 28 0. 020 ' Time of Concentration = 0_21* 1 --- 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 �roject : SESD User: ht Date: 08-21-92u onty : 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 Numberi======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 ' TR-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION6'rrFALL 3 VERSION 1. 11 oject : SESD User: of Date: 08-22-92 unty ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: btitle: Existing Condition, OUTFALL 3 Subarea : OUTF3 ----------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D ----------------Acres (CN) ---------------------------------- ------------------- LLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab. ) Open space (Lawns,parks etc. ) Good condition; grass cover > 75% - - - 5. 21 (80) pervious Areas Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways - - - 1. 86 (98) rStreets and roads Gravel (w/ right-of-way) - - - . 08 (91) sidential districts Avg % impery (by average lot size) 2 acre 12 - - - 3 . 32 (82) r Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 10.4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BAREA: OUTF3 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 10. 47 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 84* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method 1 r r r � r r r r TR-55 Tc and Tt THRU SUBAREA COMPUTATION VERSION 1. 11 roject : SESD User: of Date: 08-22-92 ounty : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: ubtitle: Existing Condition, OUTFALL 3 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11--ow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ----------- ------------------------------------------- heet 3 . 1 300 . 05 a 0.262 hallow Concent'd 598 . 042 u 0.050 Shallow Concent'd 50 . 048 p 0. 003 pen Channel 83 . 0046 . 0131.23 3 .93 0. 006 pen Channel 185 . 008 . 0131. 23 3 .93 0. 011 Time of Concentration = 0. 33* --- 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 1 TR-55 GRAPHICAL DISCHARGE METHOD VERSION 1. 11 ■roject SESD User: of Date: 08-22-92 bounty : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: ubtitle: 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 22 29 32 37 * - Value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines TR-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION VERSION 1. 11 roject : SESD User: of Date: 08-22-92 ounty : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: Subtitle: Existing Condition, Overland East ubarea : OLEAST ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ----------------------- ULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab. ) pen space (Lawns,parks etc. ) - - Good condition; grass cover > 75$ - 1.8 (80) 'mpervious Areas - - Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways - . 012 (98) total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 1.81 --- rUBAREA: OLEAST TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 1.812 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:80* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method TR-55 Tc and Tt THRU SUBAREA COMPUTATION VERSION 1. 11 �roject : SESD User: of Date: 08-22-92 ounty : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: Subtitle: Existing Condition, Overland East I------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ----------3 . 1---------300---------0. 074----- 1heet ------------------------------------------- E 0.224 hallow Concent'd 70.4 0. 149 U 0.003 Time of Concentration = 0.23* ' --- 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 toject : SESD User: of Date: 08-22-92 unty 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 IPeak Discharge (cfs) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ----------------------- Value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines 1 � X TR-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION VERSION 1. 11 'roject : SESD User: of Date: 08-22-92 ounty : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: Subtitle: Existing Condition, Triangle ubarea : TRIANG ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------ --------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab. ) mpervious Areas Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways - - - . 014 (98) ' Streets and roads - - Gravel (w/ right-of-way) - .065(91) total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) . 079 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UBAREA: 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 oject : SESD User: of Date: 08-22-92 unty : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: Subtitle: Existing Condition, Triangle t-------------------------------------------------------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area WP Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) ---code-------(sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) Leet--------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 1 ' TR-55 GRAPHICAL DISCHARGE METHOD VERSION 1. 11 oject u SESD User: of Date: 08-22-92 unty 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 Numberi======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) 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 * - Value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines TR-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION VERSION 1. 11 toject : SESD User: of Date: 08-22-92 unty : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: Subtitle: Existing Condition, Overland South barea : OLSO ------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group C- COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D---------------------------------------------------- Acres (CN) ------------------ FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.) en space (Lawns,parks etc. ) Good condition; grass cover > 75% - - - . 25 (80) pervious Areas - - Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways - . 024 (98) ' Streets and roads - - Gravel (w/ right-of-way) - 0. 39 (91) ttal Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) .664 t----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: OLSO TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: . 664 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:87* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Generated for use by GRAPHIC method ' TR-55 Tc and Tt THRU SUBAREA COMPUTATION VERSION 1. 11 roject : SESD User: of Date: 08-22-92 ounty : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: Subtitle: Existing Condition, Overland South I------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) ---code--------------------------------- ------ (sq/ft) -- (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) theet--------3 . 1------276------- 063 e -----------0.224 ' Time of Concentration = 022* --- 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 �oject : SESD User: of Date: 08-22-92 unty : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: Subtitle: Existing Condition, Overland South 1 Data: Drainage Area . 664 * Acres Runoff Curve Number 87 * ' Time of Concentration: 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 Peak Discharge (cfs) 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 * - Value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines 1 TR-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION VERSION 1. 11 �oject : SESD User: ht Date: 08-25-92 unty : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: Subtitle:,( CONCEPT barea : OUTF1 --------- --------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------ FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab. ) en space (Lawns,parks etc. ) Good condition; grass cover > 75% - - - 3 . 30 80 pervious Areas Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways - - - 5. 15 (98) t Streets and roads - - Gravel (w/ right-of-way) - 0. 14 (91) total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 8.59 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: OUTF1 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 8.59 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:91 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' TR-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION VERSION 1. 11 Roject : SESD User: ht Date: 08-25-92 unty E SEX State: MA Checked: Date: Subtitle: CONCEPT B barea LOUTF3 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group ' COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab. ) I?en space (Lawns,parks etc. ) - - - Good condition; grass cover > 75$ 1. 39 (80) pervious Areas Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways - - - 3 . 15 (98) rsidential districts Avg % impery (by average lot size) 1/2 acre 25 - - 3 .32 (80) - Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 3 . 32 4 . 54 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BAREA: OUTF3 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 7.86 Acres----- WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:87 --------------------------------------------- ------------------ TR-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION VERSION 1. 11 oject : SESD User: ht Date: 08-25-92 unty : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: Subtitle: CONCEPT B barea : IOVLEAS --------- ------------------------------------------------------------ Hydrologic Soil Group ' COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) � LLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab. ) - - en space (Lawns,parks etc. ) Good condition; grass cover > 75% - 2.83 (80) pervious Areas Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways - - - 0.50 (98) total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 3 . 33 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BAREA: OVLEAS TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 3 . 33 Acres----- WEIGHTEDCURVENUMBER:83 -----------=--------------------------------- ------------ 1 1 ' TR-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION VERSION 1. 11 lroject : (SESD User: ht Date: 08-25-92 ounty SSEX State: MA Checked: Date: Subtitle: CVLSOUONCEPT B ubarea --------- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Hydrologic Soil Group ' COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab. ) pen space (Lawns,parks etc. ) - - Good condition; grass cover > 75$ - 0.78 (80) mpervious Areas Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways - - - 0.02 (98) Streets and roads - - Gravel (w/ right-of-way) - 0. 39 (91) total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 1. 19 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UBAREA: OVLSOU TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 1. 19 AcresWEIGHTEDCURVE NUMBER:84 ---------------------------------------------- ------------------ i ' TR-55 Tc and Tt THRU SUBAREA COMPUTATION VERSION 1. 11 oject : SESD User: ht Date: 08-25-92 county : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: Subtitle: CONCEPT B 'low Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain ft ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- heet 3 . 1 210 0. 053 E 0. 192 pen Channel 504 . 0097 . 0133 . 14 6. 28 0.020 Time of Concentration = 0.21* ------------------------------ Suba_rea -#2 --_OUTF31----------------------------- ,low Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- fheet 3 . 1 300 . 0. 05 E 0. 262 allow Concent'd 394 0. 018 P 0. 040 allow Concent'd 50 0. 04 P 0. 003 Open Channel 684 . 0347 .0131. 23 3 .93 0.019 Time of Concentration = 0_32* - - - - Subarea #3 - OVLEAS ---------------------------- -- --- - - - ---- ----- low Type 2-year---Length- Slope-_-Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time -------------rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) ft sec ------------------------------------------------(- / ) (hr) 'heet 3 . 1 80 0. 058 E 0. 086 heet 220 0. 017 A 0. 041 Shallow Concent'd 399 . 0486 U 0. 031 pen Channel 25 0. 024 . 0131.23 3 .93 0. 001 Time of Concentration = 0. 16* ----- --- ---------- (Subarea #4 - OVLSOU .4---------------------------- 11-o-w--T-y-pe 2-year Length S oT>-p-a--­Sur1f&ce---rn Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ----------- ----------------- --------------------------- heet 3 . 1 275 0. 049 E 0. 246 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 oject : SESD User: ht Date: 08-25-92 unty : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: ubtitle: CONCEPT B Data: Drainage Area 8. 59 Acres Runoff Curve Number 91 Time of Concentration: 0. 21 * Hours L(- Rainfall (Rainfall Type III CDNc�fr .j Pond and Swamp Area NONE -Stoub -m--er 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ----r-m-N- ----------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 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 22 26 33 36 41 * - Value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines I ' iITR-55 GRAPHICAL DISCHARGE METHOD VERSION 1. 11 oject : SESD User: ht Date: 08-25-92 unty : 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 0.750 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 TR-55 GRAPHICAL DISCHARGE METHOD VERSION 1. 11 toject : SESD User: ht Date: 08-25-92 unty : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: Subtitle: CONCEPT B ' Data: Drainage Area 3 . 33 Acres c\, c Runoff Curve Number 83 �. c�c-L ) 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 I--Peak ------ ------ ------ ------ ---Discharge (cfs) 3 5 7 8 11 12 14 --------------------------------------------- - --------------------- ---- ----- TR-55 GRAPHICAL DISCHARGE METHOD VERSION 1. 11 oject : SESD User: ht Date: 08-25-92 unty 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 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 0.796 0.813 0.826 0.826 0. 826 0..826 0. 826 (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) 1 2 2 3 4 4 5 ' TR-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION VERSION 1. 11 roject : SESD User: AF Date: 08-21-92 ountyESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: Subtitle: LCONCEPT G, OUTFALL 1 rubarea : OUTF ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D ---------------------------------------- Acres (CN) -------------- ------------------ FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab. ) pen space (Lawns,parks etc. ) - - Good condition; grass cover > 75$ - 3 .38 (80) mpervious Areas Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways - - - 5.83 (98) ' Streets and roads - - Gravel (w/ right-of-way) - 0. 63 (91) ,notal Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 9,_84 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAREA: OUTF1 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 9.84 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:91* ----------------------------- ----------- ------------------ - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method 1 TR-55 Tc and Tt THRU SUBAREA COMPUTATION VERSION 1. 11 �roject : SESD User: AF Date: 08-21-92 ounty : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: Subtitle: CONCEPT G, OUTFALL 1 I------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) code-------(sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) ----------------------------------- ------- ---------------------- ' heet 3 . 1 210 0. 053 E 0. 192 open Channel 504 . 0097 .0133 . 14 6. 28 -0020 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 TR-55 GRAPHICAL DISCHARGE METHOD VERSION 1. 11 roject : SESD User: AF Date: 08-21-92 ounty : 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 0. 0% Ponds Used Peak Discharge (cfs) 14 19 25 30 37 42 47 ----------------------- - ---------- --------- -- -------- ----------------------------------- ------- - * - Value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines I 1 TR-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION VERSION 1. 11 'roject : SESD User: of Date: 08-22-92 ounty : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: Subtitle: iCONCEPT G, OUTFALL 3 ,ubarea OUTF3------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab. ) 'pen space (Lawns,parks etc. ) - - Good condition; grass cover > 75$ - 1.78 (80) impervious Areas Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways - - - 2.85 (98) residential districts Avg % impery - - - (by average lot size) 2 acre 12 3 . 32 (82) Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 7 .95 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UBAREA: OUTF3 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 7.95 Acres------WEIGHTED-CURVE NUMBER:87* ---------------------------------------------- ------------ i. - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method I f TR-55 Tc and Tt THRU SUBAREA COMPUTATION VERSION 1. 11 'roject : SESD User: of Date: 08-22-92 ounty ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: Subtitle: CONCEPT G, OUTFALL 3 1------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time rain (ft) (ft/ft) ---code -------(sq/ft) --(ft) (ft/sec) (hr) heet--------3. 1- -----300-------05- - e -----------0. 262 Shallow Concent'd 414 . 02 u 0. 050 'hallow Concent'd 50 . 04 p 0. 003 pen Channel 83 . 0046 . 0131. 23 3 .93 0.006 Open Channel 761 . 021 . 0131. 23 3 .93 0. 028 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 I 1 ' TR-55 GRAPHICAL DISCHARGE METHOD VERSION 1. 11 �oject : SESD User: of Date: 08-22-92 unty : 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 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) 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 TR-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION VERSION 1. 11 Uotoject : SESD User: of Date: 08-22-92 unty : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: Subtitle: CONCEPT G, OVERLAND EAST barea OLEAST -_ -- -------------- Hydrologic Soil Group ' COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D Acres (CN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS . (Veg Estab. ) en space (Lawns,parks etc. ) Good condition; grass cover > 75% - - - 2 . 23 (80) rPpervious Areas aved parking lots, roofs, driveways - - - 0.47 (98) Notal Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 2 .7 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- rUBAREA: OLEAST TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 2 .7 Acres------ WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:83* --------------------------------------------- ------------------- ' - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method 1 ' ' TR-55 Tc and Tt THRU SUBAREA COMPUTATION VERSION 1. 11 toject : SESD User: of Date: 08-22-92 unty : 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) ----------_1------ --------0-5--------------- ---------------------- eet 3. 1 80 0.058 E 0.086 Sheet 220 0. 017 A 0. 041 allow Concent'd 389 0.063 U 0.027 en Channel 25 0.024 . 0131.23 3.93 0.001 Time of Concentration = 0. 15* --- 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 j ' TR-55 GRAPHICAL DISCHARGE METHOD VERSION 1. 11 toject : SESD User: of Date: 08-22-92 unty : ESSEX State: MA Checked: Date: Subtitle: CONCEPT G, OVERLAND EAST ' Data: Drainage Area 2 .7 * Acres 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 t- Value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines 1 ,