Loading...
2009 BETA GROUP DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FROM BOH PUBLIC HEARING y i 1Norwood,MA 02062 n 315 Norwood Park South Group, Inc• (781)255-1982,fax(781)551974 Engineers • Scientists ♦ Planners www.BETA-Inc.com November 18,2009 Mr. David Greenbaum,Health Agent City of Salem,Board of Health 120 Washington Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Re: Minor Permit Modification—Public Hearing Documents Salem Transfer Station&Landfill Closure Project Swampscott Road Dear Mr.Greenbaum: Forwarded herewith are the following documents produced in response to requests from the Board of Health during the public hearing for the referenced project: • Updated traffic generation matrix for the existing condition and proposed future condition,prepared by BETA in association with Jeffrey Dirk of Vanasse&Associates.The matrix has been updated to reflect the peak tonnage delivered to the facility on the peak day(500 tons)anticipated in the future; • Updated Epsilon Air Impact Study,taking stationary sources into account and using a 10-foot high stack for emissions from the transfer station;and • .Revised Transfer Station floor plan. We have also contacted the Salem Planning Department and confirmed that the results of the previous traffic impact study are still valid. The future development projects reflected in the December 2007 traffic study remain relevant as they are active and either have been or are planned to be constructed There are no additional defined development projects that have been submitted to the City for review that would materially impact traffic volumes along Highland Avenue beyond those included in the December 2007 traffic study. Additionally,the two projects that were mentioned at the 11/10 Board of Health public hearing (Wal-Mart expansion and Lowe's)have not been submitted to the Planning Department and no plans are currently available. We are awaiting one additional letter from Vanasse & Associates, Inc. that will document that the updated trips documented in the traffic generation matrix will not materially affect the conclusions outlined in the Supplemental Traffic Impact Study submitted to the Board during the public hearing. That letter will be provided to you later tonight or early tomorrow morning. Please call me with any questions related to this submission. Very truly yours, BT'AuuGr u ,Inc. w� � A�Fwn�T. W2s�i5?,�`�ar Alan D.Hanscom,LSP Senior Associate cc: Beth Rennard,City Solicitor Robert George,NSC Bill Thomson,Jr.,NSC Lincoln,RI Norwood,MA Rocky Hill,CT Salem Transfer.Station Trip Generation Matrix Trips Est. Avg. Existing Conditions Future Peak Conditions Tonnage Peak Hour* Avg. & Peak Day Peak Hour" Peak Day Dump Trucks Incoming 1.7 3 26 3 26 Outgoing 0 4 26 4 26 Cars/Pick-Up Trucks Incoming - C&D 0.6 3 24 3 24 ncoming Yard:llVastes� � -:_ � - 1'7 2 j7 Outgoing 0 6 41 6 41 Packers Incoming 15.2 0 0 3 29 Outgoing 0 0 0 4 29 Dump Trailers Incoming 0 1 3 3 19 Outgoing 22.7 1 3 4 19 Subtotals...................................140.......................................90 Total Vehicles (Peak Day).......................................................230 "Peak traffic volume hour on a weekday which was found to occurr between 7:45 and 8:45 AM. ;l f+ EXTEND WALL 23' EMEND WALL 23' -- - -------------------------- - -------------------------- I°y Z ELIMINATE 2 ELIMINATE MECHI g O WALLS O STO/BREAKRMS. O 2 O Z o ---_-------,� a ELIMINATE _ WALLS w ELIMINATE w ELIMINATE FLOOR OPENING z LOADINGAREA q �70 LOAD/NG BELO'N� s J s ----- —————————— NEW LOADING ELIMINATE - NEWFLOOROPENING ELIMINATEFLOOR OPENING L- —AREA— L— LOADING AREA TO LOADING BELOW O LOADING BELOW J REVISED J REVISED LOADING FLOOR TIPPING FLOOR ml m-_ol Proposed Salem Transfer Station City of Salem - Board of Health Public Hearing a _ r r iP 1 f d y 9 COi 55{5- wit • Y 5` .y 4` yy Noverrc er" 10, 2009 "° a d� 1 � 8 r i V'ro Presentation Overview ➢ Handout. . . . . ...typical questions ➢ Environmental Permitting to Date ■ Wetlands NOI - Order of Conditions ■ Massachusetts Environmental Protection Act Process ➢ Review of Key Environmental Issues ■ Traffic Impacts ■ Noise Issues, ■ Air Quality - Particulates and VOCs ➢ Q&A Session Wetlands Protection Act (N- OI) Order of ConditionsSupplemental 1 1 i );III, Visual debris to be removed from Forest River \ Operations and Maintenance Plan to include quarterly sweeping, catch basin inspections/cleaning . , "No Dumping" Signs to be posted No Y stockpiling of debris, fill or excavated material near wetlands inspections by Conservation Agent during landfill closure < Vie,• .ryl. BETA MEPC Process (Expanded ENS) MEPA Certificate - Conditions of Approval July 2008) ➢ Submit final Transfer Station design plans to MassDEP for approval ➢ Design slope stabilization to prevent erosion of waste materials to the Forest River ➢ Minimize impacts to air quality, traffic, and noise, where possible ➢ Storm water management system to comply with new regulations ! ,,,���`iiiJyyC�++*� kg ,y II�£ V ♦ t 1 WIP B E �T �A Trip Generation Matrix Trips Est. Avg. Existing Conditions Future Peak Conditions Tonnage Peak Hour* Avg. & Peak Day Peak Hour* Peak Day Dump Trucks Incoming 3 3 26 3 26 Outcoming 0 4 26 4 26 Cars/Pick-Up Trucks Incoming 0.6 5 38 5 38 Outcoming 0 6 38 6 38 Packers Incoming 16 0 0 3 26 Outcoming 0 0 0 4 26 Dump Trailers Incoming 0 1 6 3 22 Outcorning 25 1 6 4 22 Subtotals...............................140......................................84 Total Vehicles (Peak Day).................................................224 *Peak traffic volume hour on a weekday which was found to occur between 7:45 and 8:45 AM. i Traffic Issues Existing Vehicle Traffic • Avg Weekday Traffic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . .140 trips Peak Day - 500 Tons per Day • Additional Weekday Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...84 trips ➢Traffic mitigation projects along Route 107 recently implemented m ➢ Implementation of emissions controls & low sulfur fuel . . . . . . . . . . . .No Significant Impact O � FOREST 1� If+ q i + 4yi?* # arses t ;` � "•yam —'�� ��p� f 2'' u� �" s*y SWAMPSCOTT ROAD L 3 . B ' E ,T A 1 • Level Measurement Locations ReportNoise Impact Assessment Epsilon LEGEND 0 short Tom sound Levai measurernwort Location Predictive Modeling Locedlon lut Project Site 9 �} .rte` • i .,s, + f ' rX�.,.r."� �. ' .-- �. . .+-. W��¢��� ".i Qui-r=tGz de /i; R ;�,E yyu '�` >•�.. rt R � � � O� %�s���1�, � � � � " Noise Issues ➢ Proposed Transfer Station located as far from primary residential areas as possible ➢ Worst-case increases in background sound levels will range from 3 — 4* dB at nearest residences ➢ "Pure Tones" modeled: negligible increase compared to current levels * DEP maximum allowable increase = 10 dB Air Modeling Locations Air Quality Monitoring ReportEpsilon Associates, LEGEND Modeled oi ♦ SY ` ` ';w.` . I ��(, •'19` , r lY RQTM�{ 'y;�r , T*` •1' ; �e4 , lLi.1}l7 -�3 �Q J 1. `� ,l `© � ). � 1`� ♦ ^.�S .. � y .O• 'v. k, � S vCa„"�,�P '�e�f • in7,�� ��.y�i- �-♦ ,jl"`� P Xq, l���y•. � �"+ e� \ •i y1� C}OJT (yZl:� , h�,y \ .11' a ;,,.Ari. iJ l r � �� v�-.'Ck ,�' ��•'. �alb' A k; sF�{/�� �1:�^�} k! La` � � tax`�1 a. � �ie �d��� l }�•l?-C.I` F y�,j'•,. F I Uj t .31111 1111111111111 t «.� r .�� � ♦ a Air Quality Impacts ➢ Residents assumed continually exposed (24 hrs/day, 365 days/yr, 30 yrs) to the maximum predicted concentration ➢ Both fine and course diesel particulates) well below National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).... <0.01ug/m3 vs. 15 ug/m3 annual average ➢ Emissions from increased truck traffic contribute less than 10% of the potential -Fr ' health risk associated with emissions from non-transfer station traffic - ➢ EPA phased implementation of emissions controls and 97% reduction in sulfur content of diesel fuel (2007) i ificant Impact — Below NAAQS N• S �n r ! Human Health Risk Assessment V OC S AND PAHs Current Use Scenario Proposed Expansion Scenario k Non-Cancer Cancer Non-Cancer Cancer Risk Source t Hazard Index Risk Hazard Index Subchronic Chronic Chronic Subchronic Chronic Chronic Exposure____.Exposure '_ Exposure Exposure _ Exposur_e_. Exposure . Transfer Station Total 0.007 0.02 6 x 10'a 0.008 0.02 6 x 10-' Non-Transfer Station Total 0.2 0.3 2 x 10 0.09 0.2 1 x 105 Maximum Acceptable Level 1 1 1 X104 1 1 1 x 105 Y DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTER Source Scenario Non-Cancer Hazard index Curtent/ChronicExposure 0.002 Transfer Station Traffic Proposed Expansion/Chronic Exposure 0.002 Maximum Acceptable Level 1 Wilcox&jBarton.u. I s . . i° r e. J Revised:4XIM City of Salem Salem Transfer Station & Landfill Closure Project Present Worth Analysis of Construction Costs and Services Construction Activity/Service Initial Cost Annual Value Type of Value Present Worth(6% Comments interest,20 yrs.) 1 Recycling Drop-Off Center $25,000 $30,000 Services $0.40 Million West side of Forest River 2 Yard Waste Drop-0ff $22,000 $100,000 Services $1.27 Million West side of Forest River 3 Preferred Rate to Salem Residents NA $65,000 Services $0.81 Million Ongoing Service 4 Bulky Items&White Goods Drop-Off NA $20,000 Services $0.25 Mllllon Ongoing Service 5 Acceptance of City Dept.Solid Wastes NA $40,000 Services $0.50 Million Ongoing Service 6 Permitting,Design&Const.Phase Services' $55,000 NA Services $0.05 Million See Section C of Proposal 7 Landfill Closure $2,200,000 NA Construction $2.20 Million Includes Permitting,Negri& Construction Phase Services 8 Lease of Western Portion of Site NA 530,000 Property Lease $0.37 Million Compost 8 Recycle 9 Host Community Fee(City) NA $187,000 Cash $2.33 Million Assumes$1.50yron and 400 TPD,6 days per Week 10 Host Communky Fee(Salem Public Schools) NA $31,200 Cash 50.38 Million Assumes$0.25JTon and 400 TPD,6 days per Week 11 Landfill Monitoring NA $16,000 Services $0.20 Million Subject to DEP Oversight 12 Property Taxes NA $25.000 Cash $0.31 Million Estimate provided by City Subtotals $2,302,000 $544,200 Total Present Worth Value to City ........ ........$9.07 Million 'Related to Yard Waste and Recycling Facilities N�r City of Salem - Board of Health Public Hearing November 10, 2009 Salem Transfer Station Proposed Minor Modification to Existing Site Assignment rF �+5 •..I I/•I I I.I I I I.I.I I I I I I I I I I I I.I I. Before After General 1. What is the purpose of tonight's meeting? Tonight's meeting is required to be held by the Board of Health under the Massachusetts DEP's Site Assignment Regulations, prior to acting on a request by the City and Northside Carting, Inc. to increase the allowable daily tonnage of the existing transfer station from 100 to 400 tons per day. The Board of Health is seeking public comment on the request prior to granting or denying the request 2. How was Northside Carting selected for development of this site? When Mayor Driscoll took office in January 2006, her staff performed extensive research of available funding sources and options to redevelop the former Salem Landfill site where the City's former municipal solid waste incinerator(current transfer station) is located. Ultimately, the City decided that a Request for Development proposals would be issued to solicit any viable redevelopment of the site, provided that the selected developer assume responsibility for closure of the former landfill and demolition of the former incinerator and stack. A total of 17 RFPs were taken out for the redevelopment project, but only two proposals were received by the City. Both proposals were for ongoing use of the site as a solid waste transfer station, since ongoing use of the site as a transfer station would allow for the generation of user fees that could be applied to pay for closure of the landfill, demolition of the existing structures, plus payment of taxes and annual host community fees to the City. After extensive review, the City awarded the project to Northside Carting in July 2007. 1 3. How does the City benefit from expansion of the transfer station? The City will benefit from expansion of the transfer station as follows: ➢ Closure of the abandoned Salem municipal landfill at, including demolition of the former municipal solid waste incinerator, an estimated cost of$2.3 Million; ➢ Payment of local taxes and a host community fee of $1.75 per ton, estimated to result in an annual revenue stream of approximately $250,000 per year. Of that total, approximately$31,000 per year is earmarked for the Salem Public Schools; ➢ Ongoing use of the facility by Salem residents for drop-off of yard wastes; ➢ Collection bins for recyclable materials(paper, plastics, metal, eWastes, etc.); ➢ Avoidance of significant DEP fines associated with over forty years of non- compliance with solid waste regulations requiring closure of the Salem Landfill; ➢ Cleanup of a long-standing eyesore for area residents; and ➢ Reduced waste disposal rate of $0.06 per pound for Salem residents, with no minimum. The present worth value of the project to the City over the next 20 years is estimated to be approximately$9,000,000. 4. A residence located at 1 DiPietro Road was identified after the environmental studies were performed. Have the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed expansion of the Transfer Station been assessed for this location? Yes. Over the past few days, Environmental Consultants have reviewed prior modeling results and confirmed that projected noise and air quality impacts to the residence at 1 DiPietro Road meet MassDEP standards. The maximum projected increase in noise is 3 to 4 decibels,well below the 10 decibel level established by the MA DEP for mitigation. "Pure tones" anticipated to be generated from backup alarms on trucks delivering wastes to the Transfer Station have also been taken into account in the modeling. Due to the distance to the nearest residence, including an elevation change of over 60 feet and the presence of a retaining wall at the Site, any increases in "pure tone" should be negligible at 1 DiPietro Road compared to pure tones from current backup alarms. Similarly, modeling performed to assess air quality impacts has concluded that the increased traffic will not significantly impact air quality at 1 DiPietro Road, located approximately 300 feet to the northeast The model assessed impacts at the property line between the transfer station and the Hess Gas Station, and that is only 160 feet away from the station building. Details will be available at the public hearing. 2 'v Environmental Permitting To Date 5. An Order of Conditions was issued by the Conservation Commission last year for closure of the landfill and expansion of the landfill. How are the environmental impacts dealt with in the Order? In addition to the standard conditions dealing with environmental protection, the Salem Conservation Commission included the following significant supplemental conditions in the Order: ➢ Visual debris to be removed from Forest River ➢ Operations and Maintenance Plan to include quarterly sweeping, catch basin inspections, cleaning as required ➢ "No Dumping" Signs to be posted ➢ No stockpiling of debris, fill or excavated material within wetlands buffer ➢ Weekly inspections by Conservation Agent during landfill closure 6. An Environmental Notification Form was filed with the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs in May 2008 and a Certificate was issued in July 2008. What recommendations were set forth in MEPA's Certificate? MEPA concluded that an Environmental Impact Study was not required; however, based upon the comments received during the review period, the following recommendations were set forth in the Certificate: ➢ The embankment along the Forest River should provide adequate stabilization to prevent erosion of wastes (ash) into the river; ➢ The storm water management system must be designed, installed and maintained in accordance with current storm water management regulations; ➢ Environmental mitigation measures should include the following: ■ Retrofitting of existing NSC vehicles with new emissions control equipment • Limiting outgoing truck traffic, to the extent possible, during peak hourly traffic times • Posting and enforcing anti-idling regulations • Minimization of fugitive dust emissions through "Best Management Practices" (water misting equipment) • Use of"negative air"ventilation to reduce dust emissions during operations 3 Traffic Concerns 7. How much additional traffic will expansion of the Transfer Station create on Swampscott Road and nearby streets? Are any roadway and/or intersection improvements proposed as part of this project? The additional traffic is projected to include approximately 54 additional vehicles during an average day when 400 tons of wastes are delivered to and shipped from the site. In order to assess traffic impacts, the peak hour traffic was determined to be between 7:45 AM and 8:45 AM. For the peak day,when 500 tons (400 tons average, plus 100 ton surcharge) of wastes are delivered to and shipped from the site, an additional 84 trucks(Packer trucks and dump trailers) are projected. Since the original traffic counts were made and the study was completed by Vanessa & Associates, improvements to seven intersections along Route 107 have been largely implemented. These improvements included geometric improvements at Marlboro Road, along with new/upgraded signals and traffic controls at seven intersections. A supplemental traffic and safety study will be performed within one year after startup of the expanded Transfer Station to assess impacts to traffic and to determine whether any additional changes or improvements need to be made. Note: Certain sensitive traffic routes have been identified by City Officials. We are committed to working out acceptable routes for incoming and outgoing traffic to help minimize impacts to traffic and sensitive areas. Noise Issues 8. The noise study indicates that the maximum increase in noise will be 3 to 4 decibels at the closest residence. In the event the noise level and/or "pure tone" backup alarms on the trucks pose a nuisance condition, what measures can be taken? Existing noise levels were measured and modeling was performed to project noise levels and the impact of"pure tones" emitted from the site. The impact is projected to be minimal; however, in the case where noise causes a nuisance condition, sound attenuation surfaces and/or walls would be a typical cost effective solution to mitigate the condition. Other options exist, but would be dependent upon site specific circumstances. Air Quality Issues 9. It appears that the Air Quality Study has not included emissions from the Transfer Station itself. Why were such emissions not included? The emissions from the Transfer Station are projected to be insignificant, compared to diesel emissions and other fugitive air sources. During the MEPA review process, a commitment was made to use misting sprays to control dusts generated within the station and that ventilation equipment would also be installed. 4