The URL can be used to link to this page

TRANSFER STATION MISC. DOCUMENTS (, IMPORTAAW MESSAGE FOR �/ C f DATE '�' �� d� TIME m C� PHONE _ AREA CODE NUMBER EMENSION O FAX ❑ MOBII F AREA CODE NUMBER TIME TO CALL TELEPHONED 5EASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU -WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL WILL FAX TO YOU a MESSAGE � SIGNED//- e y FORM DOB MADE 56RCT A UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE �, �'XCw�:`c�i..`` �I+ Mail ii Ice s. 'P it No.G-10 • Sender: Please print your name, addddress;and QIP+ inEhls=bo ' —— �r.r.{ ffflflli'lf/flf�1(fit%fif!(lllff11f4f3'(!f�lf l:ffYfi fYlf�lf!)Rfef) Lao M CN•l So=mile,, ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A natu item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. �...,,�ppyy,, 0 Agent ■ Print your name and address on the reverse. t%//`-"1f7L. 0 Addressee_ so that we can return the card to you. B. Received by(Pn�ted Name) . D to of Delivery ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, t, or on the front if space permits. t _ D. Is delivery address different from Rem 17 0 Yes 1. Article Addressed to: .. R YES,enter delivery address below: 0 No 417aly-54 = � y 3. Service Type �/Ka()C . P 1U Oq F//l/- ❑ certified Mat ❑Fpres small yil; ealo's ❑Registered ❑Return Recel pt for Merchandise / 10 00r)1b`1 e S7 ❑Insured Mail E3 C.O.D. AQSd071 � 4. Restricted Delivery?(Entre Fee) 0 Yes 2. Article Number 7pp7Thfi]" OQOO r1353TT8 9 Yom' ffimmfer fmm service laben PS Form 3811,February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 10259e-0RM-1540 jUNITED STATES POSTAL yySERVICE <. - jrSt-GPdSS'1Gta11 Ad 0.0-10 •. - _• .• . = Rr�pp�;i:u )titl bfl1�ai Y. Lz ip • Sender: Please print your name, address, anP+gthis bg> e panvle ti�<�, o� W q fogt Cl lao a5h�� '7� 0/7 70 �d4u44CKN•�wLlii1y1.1�Y•lp•i1Ur� •i i ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A Si nature Item 4 If Restricted Delivery is desired. �t] 0 Agent ■ Print your name and address on the reverse �c7y' �. 0 Addressee_ so that we can return the card to you. B. Recelvetl by(r/ifnteC Name , C. a of Delivery ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, (� v or on the front if space permits. - _ 1. Article Addressed to: D. Is delivery address different from hem 11 0 Yes \ If YES,enter delivery address below: 0 No /�✓ /CIc�tN�� &mrr, Ac�f-y /moi/CSD✓ Ma-s Exec ocpQ. Env- AQP//s MEPA OF ice 3. Service Type 0 Certified Mail 0 Express Mail 0"A 4. ��i G �'�• -Su/f� 9�d 4Registered 0 RetReturnRecelpt for Merchandlk A t7 �� ❑ Insured Mail ❑C r% D r . Restricted Delivery?(Extra a Fe Fee) 13 yes 2. Article Number —7007 2680 0000 1353 8558 (i)ansfer from servIce labeh PS Form 3811,February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M. GREEN S 216 ,MA i Ddve OQuincy,y,MA 02116969 ENVIRONMENTAL Telephone (617)479-0550 Fax: (617)479-5150 Email.EI(elley®GreenErMumend com CONSULTING SERVICES Web. v GreenEnvironmental.com CONTRACTING SERVICES WASTE MANAGEMENT CIVIL ENGINEERING Eric Kelley SITE DESIGN Staff Scientist CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF HF-1LTH 120 WASHINGTON STRE>✓T,4"'FLOOR TEL. (978) 741-1800 IQMBERLEI DRISCOLL FAX(978) 745-0343 MAYOR u(ater.Nlsnunl n�sni a,;nt.cona DAVID GREENBAUM A(:'1'ING HF.AI XI-I AGI3N1' Elizabeth Rennard, Esq. City Solicitor City Of Salem 93 Washington Street Salem, MA 10970 July 9, 2009 Dear Beth, As a follow up to our phone conversation on Tuesday, July 9, 2009, and in response to the application for a Minor Site Assignment Modification of the transfer station this letter is to serve as written request for an extension for the Board of Health to hold a public hearing regarding the transfer station application. As the Board of Health does not hold a regular meeting in the month of August the board respectfully requests that an extension, until September 15, 2009, be granted for the purpose of holding a public hearing regarding this application. A written response to this extension is requested. For the Board, David Greenbaum Acting Health Agent Cc: Kimberley Driscoll, Mayor Paulette Puleo, Chair David Knowlton, City Engineer Robert George, Northside Carting, Inc. Bill Thomson, Jr., NorthSide Carting, Inc. Jerry Magnan, P.E., BETA Tony Wespiser, P.E., BETA David Murphy, Tighe & Bond Attorney Ken Whittaker, Ph.D. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF HEALTH 120 WASHINGTON STREET,4""FLOOR TEL. (978) 741-1800 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL FAX(978) 745-0343 MAYOR D(.1WFNBAON1011 Ai.r.ni.rOM DAVID GREENBAUM Ac,i'IN(i HEAL'n i AGI?N'r Elizabeth Rennard, Esq. City Solicitor City Of Salem 93 Washington Street Salem, MA 10970 July 9, 2009 Dear Beth, As a follow up to our phone conversation on Tuesday, July 9, 2009, and in response to the application for a Minor Site Assignment Modification of the transfer station this letter is to serve as written request for an extension for the Board of Health to hold a public hearing regarding the transfer station application. As the Board of Health does not hold a regular meeting in the month of August the board respectfully requests that an extension, until September 15, 2009, be granted for the purpose of holding a public hearing regarding this application. A written response to this extension is requested. For the Board, David Greenbaum Acting Health Agent Cc: Kimberley Driscoll, Mayor Paulette Puleo, Chair David Knowlton, City Engineer Robert George, Northside Carting, Inc. Bill Thomson, Jr.,NorthSide Carting, Inc. Jerry Magnan, P.E., BETA Tony Wespiser, P.E., BETA David Murphy, Tighe & Bond Attorney Ken Whittaker, PTLD. • CITY Or SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF HE�,I:I'H 120 W_\SHINGTON STREET,4""FLOOR TEL. (978) 741-1800 I IMBERLEY DRISCOLL FAX(978) 745-0343 MAYOR ucara.Ne,wnl�snr.cac mi DAPID Gju; .NBAu,1 ACTING HFALT11 AGI?N'I' Elizabeth Rennard, Esq. City Solicitor City Of Salem 93 Washington Street Salem, MA 10970 July 9, 2009 Dear Beth, As a follow up to our phone conversation on Tuesday, July 9, 2009, and in response to the application for a Minor Site Assignment Modification of the transfer station this letter is to serve as written request for an extension for the Board of Health to hold a public hearing regarding the transfer station application. As the Board of Health does not hold a regular meeting in the month of August the board respectfully requests that an extension, until September 15, 2009, be granted for the purpose of holding a public hearing regarding this application. A written response to this extension is requested. For they Board, David Greenbaum Acting Health Agent Cc: Kimberley Driscoll, Mayor Paulette Puleo, Chair David Knowlton, City Engineer Robert George,Northside Carting, Inc. Bill Thomson, Jr.,NorthSide Carting, Inc. Jerry Magnan, P.E., BETA Tony Wespiser, P.E., BETA David Murphy, Tighe & Bond Attorney Ken Whittaker, Ph.D. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS a BOARD OF HEALTH 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 4TH FLOOR o SALEM, MA 01970 - TEL. 978-741-1800 FAX 978-745-0343 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL JSCOTT@SALEM.COM MAYOR JOANNE SCOTT HEALTH AGENT Facsimile Transmittal To: be p lee eoej Fax # q-7 & 9V— 3X47 RE: SaLewi -Ira-o S-(✓ S{a 4a-,i za" /-F/// / Date : ) — V—U -) Page(s): including this cover# Message: tow v 1 & u S r t)ci ai l n a /a ase-i Board of Health News ------------------------------ -- - -- - ----- -For Your Information OFFICE HOURS: Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM Thursday 8:00 AM to 7:00 PM Friday 8:00 AM to 12:00 NOON • HP Fax Series 900 Fax History Report W Plain Paper Fax/Copier Joanne Scott Sal@d1 lI 978 745 0343 Jan 03 2008 2:15pm Last Fax Date Time Twe Identification Duration Pa= Result Jan 3 2:15pm Sent 919786943497 0:24 1 OK Result: OK - black and white fax Page 1 of 1 Joanne Scott From: Joanne Scott Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 4:30 PM To: Beth Rennard Subject: GTransfer Station Clean-Up Dear Beth: Where can I find documentation from an LSP regarding the extent of the contamination at the Transfer Station and the estimated cost to clean it up? It would be helpful for the Board to have as much information as possible to consider prior to the request for a determination. Are there engineering/architectural drawings of the proposed building and the layout of the facility including the truck paths, queuing areas, the recycling area, etc? Thank you. Joanne 12/19/2007 Page 1 of 1 Joanne Scott From: Joanne Scott Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 9:14 AM To: 'Alan Hanscom' Subject: FW: GTransfer Station Clean-Up Dear Alan: Would Beta be able to supply the information requested below? Thank you, Joanne Scott From: Joanne Scott Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 4:30 PM To: Beth Rennard Subject: GTransfer Station Clean-Up Dear Beth: Where can I find documentation from an LSP regarding the extent of the contamination at the Transfer Station and the estimated cost to clean it up? It would be helpful for the Board to have as much information as possible to consider prior to the request for a determination. Are there engineering/architectural drawings of the proposed building and the layout of the facility including the truck paths, queuing areas, the recycling area, etc? Thank you. Joanne 1/4/2009 Page 1 of 1 Joanne Scott From: Beth Rennard Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 6:07 PM To: Joanne Scott Subject: FW: Salem Transfer Station permitting Attachments: monitordates2008.doc FYI From: Alan Hanscom [mailto:AHanscom@BETA-Inc.com] Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 8:38 AM Subject: RE: Salem Transfer Station permitting Assuming that the air quality and noise impact studies are completed by the end of this month, the MEPA filing should be submitted by February 15th, so that it can be published in the February 20th Environmental Monitor. As indicated on the attached schedule, ENF comments from agencies and the public would be due by March 11 th and MEPA decisions would be issued by March 21st. Please call me with any questions. Alan D. Hanscom, P.E., LSP Senior Associate BETA Group, Inc. 315 Norwood Park South Norwood, Massachusetts 02062 Tel: 761/255-1982 Fax: 781/255-1974 Cell: 617/699-1878 1/4/2009 Environmental Monitor 2008 Publication Schedule, Comment Deadlines and Decision Dates Comment and decision dates are subject to change if extensions are granted Environmental ENF . Monitor ENF.Decisions` Submittal Dates Comments EIR Decisions="` Publication Due EIR Comments ° Date 12-18-07 to 12-31-07 1-9-08 1-29-08 Fri. 2-8-08 Fri. 2-15-08 1-1-08 to 1-15-08 1-23-08 2-12-08 Fri. 2-22-08 Fri. 2-29-08 1-16-06 to 1-31-08 2-6-08 2-26-08 Fri. 3-7-08 Fri. 3-14-08 2-1-08 to 2-15-08 2-20-08 3-11-08 Fri. 3-21-08 Fri. 3-28-08 2-16-08 to 2-29-08 3-12-08 4-1-08 Fri. 4-11-08 Fri. 4-18-08 3-1-08 to 3-18-08* 3-26-08 4-15-08 Fri. 4-25-08 Fri. 5=2-08 3-19-08 to 3-31-08 4-9-08 4-29-08 Fri. 5-9-08 Fri. 5-16-08 4-1-08 to 4-15-08 4-23-08 5-13-08 Fri. 5-23=08 Fri. 5-30-08 4-18-08 to 4-30-08 5-7-08 5-27-08 Fri. 6-6-08 Fri 6-13-08 li 5-1-08 to 5-15-08 5-21-08 6-12-08 Fri. 6-22-08 Fri. 6-29-08 5-16-08 to 6-2-08* 6-11-08 7-1-08 Fri. 7-11-08 Fri. 7-18-08 6-3-08 to 6-16-08* 6-25-08 7-15-08 Fri. 7-25-08 Fri. 8-1-08 6-17-08 to 6-30-08 7-9-08 7-29-08 Fri. 8-8-08 Fri. 8-15-08 7-1-08 to 7-15-08 7-23-08 8-12-08 Fri. 8-22-08 Fri. 8-29-08 7-16-08 to 7-31-08 8-6-08 8-26-08 Fri. 9-5-08 Fri 9-12-08 8-1-08 to 8-15-08 8-27-08 9-16-08 Fri. 9-26-08 Fri. 10-3-08 8-16-08 to 9-2-08* 9-10-08 9-30-08 Fri. 10-10-08 Fri. 10-17-08 9-3-08 to 9-15-08 9-24-08 10-14-08 Fri. 10-24-08 Fri. 10-31-08 9-16-08 to 9-30-08 10-8-08 10-28-08 Fri. 11-7-08 Fri. 11-14-08 10-1-08 to 10-15-08 10-22-08 11-11-08 Fri. 11-21-08 Fri. 11-28-08 10-16-08 to 11-3-08* 11-10-08 12-1-08* Wed. 12-10-08 Wed. 12-17-08 11-4-08 to 11-17-08* 11-24-08 12-15-08* Wed. 12-24-08 Wed. 12-31-08 11-18-08 to 12-1-08* 12-10-08 12-30-08 Fri. 1-9-09 Fri. 1-16-09 12-2-08 to 12-15-08 12-24-08 1-13-09 Fri. 1-23-09 Fri. 1-30-09 12-16-08 to 12-31-08 1-7-09 1-27-09 Fri. 2-6-09 Fri. 2-13-09 (*= rollover from a weekend or holiday) Page 1 of 2 Joanne Scott From: Beth Rennard Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 10:13 AM To: Joanne Scott Subject: RE: mepa That is just a term they use when an applicant files more docs. than is required by MEPA. Having everything submitted that they could possible ask for(and more than what they ask for) speeds up the process. In response to a prior email's questions, the proposed layout, roads, etc. can be found in northside's proposal. Do you have your copy still? As for LSP, it is my understanding from DEP,that one is not required and everything is covered by the solid waste regs. Anything else you need at this time? Elizabeth Rennard, Esq. City Solicitor City Hall 93 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 978-619-5631 978-744-1279 (fax) From: Joanne Scott Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 9:13 AM To: Beth Rennard Subject: RE: mepa Dear Beth: Do you know why MEPA suggested an "expanded" ENF and what it means to be expanded? Thanks, Joanne From: Beth Rennard 1/4/2008 Page 2 of 2 Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 4:49 PM To: Joanne Scott Subject: mepa Here's a note from Alan. He said they are waiting for reports due end of month and then will send it in (Feb) We have started preparation of the"expanded" Environmental Notification Form (ENF) at MEPA's suggestion, but we will need the traffic, air quality and noise impact studies to submit with the original ENF. That is our best chance at getting rapid response from MEPA that we will make available to the BOH and other City Departments. According to our MEPA contact, failure to provide the information with the ENF would likely result in delays, until such time as the studies are provided. Elizabeth Rennard, Esq. City Solicitor City Hall 93 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 978-619-5631 978-744-1279(fax) 1/4/2009 Site.Information Page 1 of 1 New Senrch I Espy t to Eaeel Definitions Pont Site Inforepafinn Site Number }0022340 Category 72 HR Site Name SALEM LANDFILLaRANSFER STATION Release Type ADQREG Address 12 SWAMPSCOTf RD Correatdate Il12/2003 Toxin SALEM Phase Zippode 01970-0000 RAO class Official notification date 11202002 Location type MUNICIPAL Initial status dale 11/202003 Source UNKNOWN 12espnnse Aefiun Infurmatinn Chemicals Response Action Type RAONR-RAO Not Required Chemical Amount Units Status ADQREG-Adequately Regulated ARSENIC Submetal Date 1/17/2003 UNKNOWN CHEMICAL OF TYPE- RAO class HAZARDOUS MATERIAL Activity&Use Limitation LEAD CADMIUM Response Action Information CHROMIUM Response Action Type IRA-Immediate Response Acton COPPER Status CSRCVD-Completion Statement Received MERCURY Submetal Data 1/02003 RAO class _ LSPs Activity&Use Limnalmn LSPp Name Response Action Information NIA GENEWICZ,JOHN Response Action Type ME-Release Notification Farm Received Status REPORT-Reportable Releasem Thereof Release Submittal Date 1V42002 Location RAO class ,.g Activity&Use Limitation f0 Response Acfinn Infnrmaa e Response Action Type REL-Potmual Release or Threat of [ ReleaseJ j 035 .L Scams REPEPORT-Reportable Release or Threat of S Release Submittal Date III20I200E RAO class Activity&Use Limitation i r 3� .aay y- Imagery®200)DigilalGlobe,MassGIS,Commonwealth of Mas 0 Oprn Sec T Cbsa1 Bike Closed Sits wish Use Limimtita http://db.state.ma.us/dep/cleanup/sites/Site Inflo.aspiJItextfield RTN=3-0022340 12/4/2007 t� tlfv of 'Salrm, 4assar4usrffs /a Offiee of f4L @Ii#g @Iouneil 'sae i titg Abu COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE MATTHEW A.VENO WARD COUNCILLORS PRESIDENT 2007 2007 MARK E. BLAIR CHERYL A. LAPOINTE LUCY CORCHADO THOMAS H. FUREY CITY CLERK MICHAEL SOSNOWSKI JOAN B. LOVELY JEAN M. PELLETIER ARTHUR C.SARGENT III ,,..,,....„w LEONARD F.O'LEARY RCA � NED MATTHEW A.VEND PAUL C. PREVEY DEC 7- 2001 JOSEPH A.O'KEEFE, SR. EM December 6, 2007 hEAL.TH Ms. Joanne Scott Health Agent City of Salem Salem, MA 01970 Dear Ms. Scott: At a regular meeting of the Salem City Council, held in the Council Chamber on Thursday,November 15, 2007, the enclosed Committee Report was adopted. Very truly yours, CRYL A. LAPOINTE CITY CLERK Enclosure SALEM CITY HALL • 93 WASHINGTON STREET • SALEM, MA 01970-3592 •WWW.SALEM.COM Cots CITY OF SALEM A � OF IN CITY COUNCIL, November 15, 2007 The Committee on Ordinances, Licenses & Legal Affairs co-posted with to whom was referred Committee of the Whole The matter of declaring surplus and disposal of city owned parcel located at 12 Swampscott Road (Transfer Station) has considered said matter and would recommend That the matter remain in Committee until such time as the Committee receives a copy of the Traffic Impact Study, Air Quality Impact Study, property appraisal and an updated appraisal from the Board of Health regarding health issues, noise and air quality. Page 1 of 1 Joanne Scott From: Joanne Scott Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 1:21 PM To: Barbara Poremba; Carol Rainville; Chris Harrington; Christina Harrington; Joanne Scott; Icorchado@salemstate.edu, Martin Fair; Noreen Casey; Paulette Puleo; Tracy Giarla Subject: Follow-up Dear Board Members: I had planned to e-mail you my Newsletter from home on Friday, that is why I had done the test e-mail-so that I would have your addresses on my home computer. Unfortunately I was not able to do that mainly because I did not have the information from Beth Rennard regarding the Transfer Station until today. I apologize for the confusion of that"test". Tonight's City Council consideration is to determine if the Transfer Station should be designated "surplus property' so that it maybe sold You may remember that Beth Rennard said that the City had put out a Request for Proposals regarding that property and the only two respondents said that they wanted to buy it and use it as a Transfer Station. Beth gave me a timeline: Nov. 14th Request for disposition of property by City Council Nov. 20th Traffic study submitted Dec. 20th Air Quality study submitted Jan. 8th Disposition of land by City Council to Northside Carting Jan Board of Health public hearing As you probably remember, an application must be submitted to MEPA. MEPA had wanted the Board of Health to conduct its public hearing before the application was filed. However, I had thought that we, and the public, should have the application to review prior to our public hearing. So Beth said that MEPA will talk to me about the timing. I will let you know, but it probably won't be today. The High School has asked that I give a presentation about MRSA to the parents of the winter athletes tonight at a meeting they attend. That is at 6:30. 1 have asked to be first on the agenda so I should be almost on time for our meeting. Tracy will be with me. Thankyou, Joanne 11/13/2007 RE: Peer Review, 12 Swampscott Road, Salem Page 1 of 2 V Joanne Scott From: David A. Murphy [DAM urphy@tigheBond.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:10 AM To: Joanne Scott Subject: RE: Peer Review, 12 Swampscott Road, Salem Hi Joanne, Just checking in. I was curious if the City has made any decisions regarding the peer review selection. As a side note I have had the opportunity to review some of your files and am about as up to speed as one can get before actually coming on board. If it's of any value in your selection, I have been in all three positions over my 23 professional years.... 1. The regulator reviewing and permitting these types of facilities 2. The engineer representing the developer trying to permit the same kind of facility in a similar city, and 3. The peer review engineer representing the municipality that has to review the developers proposal. Good luck with your selection. Please don't forget that we represent SESD and the City of Peabody and that we work right beside your fair city every week. David Murphy David A. Murphy P.E. Tighe & Bond 446 Main Street Worcester, MA 01608 Direct Line: (508) 471-9620 Main: (508) 754-2201 x106 Cell: (617) 319-0447 Fax: (508) 795-1087 From: David A. Murphy Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 12:22 PM 4/24/2008 RE: Peer Review, 12 Swampscott Road, Salem Page 2 of 2 To: 'jscott@salem.com' Cc: Dana Huff Subject: Peer Review, 12 Swampscott Road, Salem Hi Joanne, Thanks for taking my call and for your consideration of Tighe and Bond to serve your peer review needs at the Old Salem ash landfill site. I thought you might be able to use the attached GIS orthophoto we plotted of the transfer station and ash landfill site. It is in PDF format and can be easily printed on a color plotter. We would be glad, at our cost,to provide you with a larger 24" x 36" plot if that would be helpful. If you don't select Mike at W&S you have my permission to tell him I'll treat him to lunch next time! O Have a great weekend David Murphy << File: aerial_SwampscottRd_Landfill.pdf>> David A. Murphy P.E. Tighe & Bond 446 Main Street Worcester, MA 01608 Direct Line: (508) 471-9610 Main: (508) 754-2201 x106 Cell: (617) 319-0447 Fax: (508) 795-1087 4/24/2008 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Daily Digest Page 1 of 7 Joanne Scott From: Paulette Puleo [prp600@msn.com] Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2008 10:35 AM To: Noreen Casey; Carol Rainville; Joanne Scott, Christina Harrington; Barbara Poremba; Martin Fair Subject: Fw: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Daily Digest Bulletin Thought everyone would find the 1st article interesting..........Paulette -----Original Message ----- From: U.S. Environmental Protection Ao_encv_ To: pro6000a.msn.com Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2008 12:48 AM Subject: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Daily Digest Bulletin You have requested to receive a Daily Digest e-mail from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Message: 1 From: "U.S. EPA" <usaeoaCubaovdeliverv.com> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:02:35 -0600 (CST) Subject: Air News Release (Region 1): Capitol Waste Services, Inc. Pays $107,300 for Excessive Idling News Release U.S. Environmental Protection Agency New England Office January 25, 2008 Contact Information: Jeanethe Falvey, 617.918.1020 Capitol Waste Services, Inc. Pays $107,300 for Excessive Idling (Boston, Mass. - January 25, 2008) An eastern Massachusetts waste hauler has recently paid a penalty of $107,300 to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) for exceeding the state idling limit in Massachusetts. In 2007, EPA observed pervasive unnecessary idling by Capitol's refuse trucks at Capitol's lot in Revere, MA. This action is part of EPA's ongoing effort to reduce unnecessary engine idling. Idling wastes fuel, emits greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change, and degrades air quality. EPA's enforcement effort is complemented by providing assistance to fleets and facilities to help them find alternatives to idling. Since an idling truck or bus can waste nearly a gallon of fuel per hour and incurs significantly more engine wear than driving, curbing excessive idling is a win-win situation for both fleet owners and the environment. "The pollution from idling engines contributes to ozone smog, fine particle pollution and climate change, all of which pose immediate and long-term threats to human health," said EPA Regional Administrator Robert Varney. "Our enforcement of anti-idling regulations sends the message that excessive idling will not be tolerated." Dieselengines emit pollutants that can cause or aggravate a variety of health conditions such as asthma, other respiratory illnesses, and heart disease. Long term exposure to diesel exhaust can 1/28/2008 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Daily Digest Page 2 of 7 also cause lung cancer. People with asthma or other respiratory/cardiac conditions, and children whose lungs are still developing, are particularly vulnerable. Capitol's lot in Revere is adjacent to a residential area. Four New England states-Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Rhode Island-have idling limits. Thus far, EPA has the authority to cooperatively enforce idling limits in Massachusetts and Connecticut. For more information, please visit: www.epa.gov/region1/eco/diesel/index.htmI Note: If a link above doesn't work, please copy and paste the URL into a browser. View all Reaion 1 News Releases Message: 2 From: "U.S. EPA" <usaepa@govdelivery.com> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:04:06 -0600 (CST) Subject: Water News Release (Region 1): Massachusetts Municipal Lighting Plant Settles Clean Water Violations News Release U.S. Environmental Protection Agency New England Regional Office For Release: January 25, 2008 Contact: Dave Deegan, (617) 918-1017 Massachusetts Municipal Lighting Plant Settles Clean Water Violations (Boston, Mass. - Jan. 25, 2008) - The Taunton Municipal Lighting Plant (TMLP) will pay a $15,000 fine and undertake an extensive Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP) to settle Clean Water Act (CWA) violations. An EPA inspection of the facility in March 2006 found that the Taunton Municipal Lighting Plant (TMLP) violated several provisions of its permits under the Clean Water Act (known as a "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System" (NPDES) permit). EPA's complaint alleges that TMLP failed to properly conduct monthly monitoring between June 2004 and February 2006 for oil and grease and failed to operate and maintain adequate laboratory controls and appropriate quality assurance procedures as required by its NPDES permit. The individual NPDES permit violations related to oil and grease monitoring and inadequate laboratory practices are significant because failure to follow approved monitoring procedures calls into question the accuracy of pollution monitoring results. TMLP also failed to maintain the pH in wastewater discharges to the Taunton River within acceptable limits. The pH of water is a scientific measurement that describes how acidic or alkaline (basic) the water is. The pH violations are significant because discharges with a low pH can cause harm to the habitat on the banks of water bodies. 1/28/2008 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Daily Digest Page 3 of 7 A municipal electric utility that produces and distributes electricity to approximately 33,000 customers, TMLP's facility includes the main power generation building, oil storage tanks, a switchyard, a cooling tower, a chemical storage building, a water intake house, fuel oil receiving houses, and a guardhouse. The area surrounding the facility is rural, consisting of wetlands, wooded areas and the Taunton River. Finally, EPA's inspection revealed violations of TMLP's storm water permit. In addition to having an individual NPDES permit, TMLP is required to obtain coverage under EPA's general storm water permit known as the Multi-Sector General Permit for Industrial Activities (MSGP). TMLP failed to conduct quarterly monitoring for Total Recoverable Iron in violation of the MSGP. The MSGP violations are significant because the federal stormwater program is important to ensuring that stormwater runoff does not contribute to the impairment of water quality. The SEP TMLP will perform involves providing $50,000 to the University of Massachusetts- Dartmouth to create and implement portions of a Lake Management Plan for Lake Sabbatia, located in Taunton, Massachusetts. Lake Sabbatia is the largest lake in the city of Taunton and the most popularly used. The Lake is located within the boundary of a state designated Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). ACEC's are places in Massachusetts that receive special recognition because of the quality, uniqueness and significance of their natural and cultural resources. A principle goal of the SEP will be to support the restoration of the water quality of the Lake Sabbatia system so that the full system meets its designated water quality standards and once met that the water quality will remain at its designated levels. The Lake Management Plan will include an inventory of natural resources; an inventory of structures on the Lake including dams, docks, and boat ramps; an evaluation of the impacts of existing structures and management practices on Lake resources; studies and assessments related to water quality; and recommendations for protecting the Lake's natural resources. More information: EPA's enforcement of the Clean Water Act in New England (epa.gov/regionl/enforcement/water) EPA's storm water program in New England (epa.gov/regionl/npdes/stormwater) Note: If a link above doesn't work, please copy and paste the URL into a browser. View all Reaion 1 News Releases Message: 3 From: "U.S. EPA" <usaepa@govdelivery.com> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:05:29 -0600 (CST) Subject: Awards and Recognition News Release (Region 1): Connecticut Schools Lead the Nation for Healthy Indoor Air News Release U.S. Environmental Protection Agency New England Office January 25, 2008 Contact Information: Jeanethe Falvey, 617.918.1020 Connecticut Schools Lead the Nation for Healthy Indoor Air 1/28/2008 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Daily Digest Page 4 of 7 (Boston, Mass. - January 25, 2008) Two out of eleven national Special Achievement Awards were received by Connecticut associations during the Tools for Schools National Symposium in Washington D.C. this past December. The Ridgefield Public Schools District and Philip Apruzzese of the Connecticut Education Association were among the national honorees for their successful implementation of EPA's Tools for Schools Indoor Air Quality program. All of the winners demonstrated significant commitment, passion and dedication to ensuring the health and wellness of students and staff, and in doing so have left a lasting impact their school systems and communities. With more than 53 million children spending a significant portion of their day in the classroom, poor indoor air quality can pose health risks in schools for both students and staff and lead to asthma attacks, decreased performance or diminished concentration. "A healthy learning environment is vital to ensuring a good education for our region's children," said Robert Varney, regional administrator of EPA's New England Office. "New England is fortunate to have such dedicated individuals working to achieve healthy indoor air quality, helping their districts to become national leaders." The three-day, December symposium highlighted school districts effectively using Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) management programs. Additional events focused on the latest environmental health research and information on such topics as: radon, mold, asthma management, maintaining ventilation systems for good IAQ, 'green' cleaning products and practices, and the stand-out components of high-performing schools. A study recently released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that about half of the nation's schools have IAQ management programs in place and that 86 percent of those schools relied on EPA's Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools (IAQ TfS) program to guide their actions. Further information about the EPA's Indoor Air Quality Tool for Schools program is available at: http://www.epa.gov/iaq/schools/ Note: If a link above doesn't work, please copy and paste the URL into a browser. View all Reaion 1 News Releases Message: 4 From: "U.S. EPA" <usaepa@govdelivery.com> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:07:06 -0600 (CST) Subject: Superfund and Brownfields News Release (Region 1): Agreement Reached for Groveland, Mass. Superfund Site News Release U.S. Environmental Protection Agency New England Office January 25, 2008 Contact: David Deegan, (617) 918-1017 1/28/2008 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Daily Digest Page 5 of 7 Agreement Reached for Groveland, Mass. Superfund Site (Boston, Mass. - Jan. 25, 2008) - The U.S. District Court in Massachusetts on January 9 entered a settlement agreement (Consent Decree) for the 850 acre Groveland Wells Nos. 1 & 2 Superfund site in Groveland, Mass. Settling with the United States, on behalf of EPA, is Groveland Resources Corp. and Valley Manufacturing Products Co. Under the terms of the agreement, the Settling Defendants will pay 100 percent of the Net Sale or Net Lease Proceeds in the event their property on the Site is sold or leased to reimburse the United States for costs incurred at the site. The Settling Defendants will also be required to impose certain deed restrictions or institutional controls on the Site in order to protect EPA's cleanup actions at the site. The Groveland Wells Site is located within a residential area in the southwestern part of the Town of Groveland. Valley Manufactured Products Co. manufactured screw products as well as metal and plastic parts from 1963 until 2001. The site is contaminated primarily with trichloroethene (TCE) which was used to clean (degrease) finished parts. TCE was released into the ground from a variety of sources including, underground storage tanks, underground disposal systems and intentional dumping. The Groveland site was added to EPA's National Priority List in September 1983. EPA has been conducting cleanup actions at the site that address the contamination in the soil and groundwater. The consent decree was lodged with the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on November 9, 2007, and published in the Federal Register on November 23, 2007. It was subjected to a 30-day public comment period and has been approved and entered in federal court. More information: The consent decree may be reviewed on the following web site: https://ecf.mad.uscourLs.gov/cgi-bin/ShowIndex.pt To get access to the pleading, use the civil action number: 1:07-cv-12120. The Consent Decree is also available at the Langley-Adams Library, 185 Main Street, Groveland, 978-372-1732, and at EPA New England's Records Center, 1 Congress Street, Boston, 617-918- 1440. EPA's Web site for Groveland Wells Nos. 1 & 2 Superfund Site is: www.epa.gov/region1/superfund/sites/groveland Note: If a link above doesn't work, please copy and paste the URL into a browser. View all Reaion 1 News Releases Message: 5 From: "U.S. EPA" <usaepa@govdelivery.com> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:08:42 -0600 (CST) Subject: Superfund and Brownfields News Release (Region 1): Wilmington Environmental 1/28/2008 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Daily Digest Page 6 of 7 Restoration Committee Awarded EPA Grant to Oversee Olin Chemical Superfund Cleanup News Release U.S. Environmental Protection Agency New England Office January 25, 2008 Contact Information: Jeanethe Falvey, (617) 918-1020 Wilmington Environmental Restoration Committee Awarded EPA Grant to Oversee Olin Chemical Superfund Cleanup (Boston, Mass. - January 25, 2008) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recently awarded a $50,000 technical assistance grant (TAG) to the Wilmington Environmental Restoration Committee, Inc. (WERC) for oversight of cleanup activities at the Olin Chemical Superfund site. The TAG program was established in 1986 provide opportunity for concerned citizens to hire independent experts, such as toxicologists, chemists and biologists, who can help interpret and communicate complex technical data and site hazards so the affected community can become more knowledgeable about the Superfund cleanup process. EPA New England has awarded 49 of these grants. "EPA looks forward to working closely with members of WERC and the local community throughout the Superfund process," said Robert Varney, Regional Administrator of EPA's New England Office. "The commitment of Wilmington citizens working towards a safe and effective clean-up of the Olin site is commendable and an excellent example for other communities to follow." With this grant, WERC plans to meet regularly with EPA and Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) representatives to discuss work progress to help keep local residents informed during the site investigation and cleanup. "The Wilmington Environmental Restoration Committee (WERC) is pleased to hear we have been approved to receive the US EPA's Technical Assistance Grant. Having the ability to hire a technical assistant will assist us and the community in the assessment and evaluation of the technical information regarding contamination associated with the Olin Chemical site and its effect on the Maple Meadow Brook Aquifer," said Martha Stevenson, President, WERC. "We are eager to work in cooperation with the governmental agencies, potentially responsible parties, and the general public to further the residents' understanding of the remedial activities and the technical work products generated under the auspices of the EPA at the Olin Chemical Superfund Site." Chemical manufacturing began in 1953 at the Olin property, located at 51 Eames Street in Wilmington, Massachusetts. The facility produced specialized chemicals for the rubber and plastics industry including, blowing agents, stabilizers, antioxidants. Prior to 1970, chemicals were discharged into several central pits and ponds in the property. Contaminants found in the groundwater at the site include ammonia, chloride, sodium, sulfate, chromium, and N- nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA). These chemicals were also present in several of Wilmingtons municipal drinking water wells at Maple Meadow Brook. In 2003, these wells were taken out of service. With significant impacts to town drinking water supplies, the town of Wilmington retained the consulting firm, GeoInsight, Inc., who will continue to oversee Superfund activities. "The Town of Wilmington has invested a tremendous amount of energy and resources in an effort to ensure a safe and plentiful drinking water supply for its residents", said Michael A. Caira, Wilmington Town Manager. "We welcome the involvement of the Wilmington Environmental 1/28/2008 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Daily Digest Page 7 of 7 Restoration Committee and we look forward to working productively with all of the parties involved in the clean-up and remediation activities associated with the Olin site." The Olin Chemical property was added to EPAs Superfund National Priorities List in April 2006. In June of 2007, EPA reached a settlement agreement with a group of Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs). EPA believes these parties among others, are responsible for investigating and evaluating cleanup options with EPA oversight, under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). This process will provide an overview of current site conditions, after which EPA can determine where gaps exist that require additional studies and field work. The remedial investigation will also determine possible risks posed to human health and the environment by any contaminants present in the nearby groundwater, soils and air. Lastly, with EPA and MassDEP oversight, the settling parties will evaluate various methods for the cleanup of the contamination which poses unacceptable risk. More information is also available on the web at: http://www.epa.gov/regionl/olin Note: If a link above doesn't work, please copy and paste the URL into a browser. View all Reaion 1 News Releases Update your subscriptions, modify your e-mail address, or stop subscriptions at any time by clicking here to access your Subscriber Preferences. You will need to use your e-mail address to log in. If you have questions or problems or need assistance, please contact SUDDort(claovdelivery.com. This service is provided to you at no charge by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Visit us on the web at http://www.et)a.aov/. Sent by the U S Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington DC 20460 202-564-4355 1/28/2008 Landfill Closure & Proposed Transfer Station Project — 12 Swampscott Road Proposed Permitting & Construction Schedule Meeting/Activity Target Date Board of Health Coordination Meeting September I, 2007 City Council Public Hearing (Status Report) November 13, 2007 File Notice of Intent with ConComm February 14, 2008 3 ➢ Public Hearing#1 February 14, 2008 ➢ Public Hearing 42 February 28, 2008 ➢ Public Hearing#3 March 13, 2008,, ➢ Order of Conditions Issued March 19, 2008 City Council Mtg (Excess Property Designation) February 28, 2008 Supplemental Site Reviews by Northside Carting, Inc. ➢ Traffic Impact Study Draft Complete ➢ Air Quality Impact Study Draft Complete ➢ Noise Study Draft Complete DEP Enforcement Conference March 13, 2008 Modify Existing ACO with DEP April 2008 Updated Property Appraisal (underway by City Appraiser) April 2008 MEPA Filing—Environmental Notification Form April 2008 Site Assignment - Minor Permit Modification Request to BOH April -May 2008 ENE Comments Due May 2008 MEPA Findings May 2008 BOH - Public Hearing (Site Assignment& Tonnage Increase) June 2008 Salem City Hall—93 Washington Street—Salem, MA 01970-3592 Ph. 978-745-9595 Fax 978-744-9327 r City Council hearing re. Transfer of Property to Northside Carting June-July 2008 NSC to Initiate Final Design July 2008 Submit Final Landfill Closure Plans to DEP October 2008 Initiate Demolition of Existing Incinerator Buildings February 2009 Initiate Landfill Closure & Transfer Station Construction April 2009 Salem City Hall—93 Washington Street—Salem, MA 01970-3592 Ph. 978-745-9595 Fax 978-744-9327 Good Evening. My name is Attorney Kenneth Whittaker and I am legal counsel to the City of Salem Board of Health with regard to the Swampscott Road Solid Waste transfer Station. By majority vote of the Board I have been asked and will serve as the Hearing Officer for tonight's public hearing, and subsequent continued hearings, if any. According to 310 CMR 16.22(3), any request to modify a site assignment to increase daily or annual tonnage limits at a transfer station, with the exception of temporary increases related to emergency conditions which are not relevant here, are deemed by MassDEP to be Minor Modifications to the original site assignment. As stated in those regulations, a local Board of Health may modify a site assignment to address a proposed Minor Modification, at the request of the facility owner or operator, without requiring the filing of a new application for site assignment or issuance of a site suitability report by MassDEP. For this provision to apply however, the local Board of Health must provide public notice of and hold a public hearing in accordance with the requirements of 310 CMR 16.00 prior to deciding on the Minor Modification application. This hearing has been scheduled and will be held to meet this requirement. At the outset I note that public notice of this hearing regarding the request for Minor Modification to the Site Assignment for the Swampscott Road Solid Waste Transfer Station was published in the Salem News on , 2009, thereby meeting the regulatory requirement of 21 days notice. For the record, the published notice of the public hearing reads as follows: Does the applicant wish to provide any other documentation of notice of the hearing to possibly affected other parties or interested persons at this time? To begin, I believe it would be useful to review the Board's jurisdiction in this matter, what issues are appropriately brought before us for consideration, and how we intend to proceed in conducting this hearing. Our task here is limited to consideration of the Minor Modification to the site assignment proposed to increase in the tonnage throughput limits for an expanded transfer station operation. This Board fully recognizes that there are a variety of other elements and aspects of this project which may generate public commentary and perhaps very strong opinion, both positive and negative, such as the closure of the existing landfill on the property. However, those aspects of the project are not within our jurisdiction and are therefore not the subject of this hearing. We therefore ask that speaking parties refrain from offering comment on these additional matters. If speakers are not prepared to provide this courtesy, the Board reserves the right to dismiss and/or terminate the speaker's presentation. In a similar vein,the Board reserves the right to dismiss or terminate any testimony which it deems to be extraneous to the matter at hand or which is unduly repetitious or adversarial. We ask that you appreciate the decorum of this Board and hearing, and maintain a respectful and informative tone when making your comments. Repeat offenders will not be recognized by the chair nor given an opportunity for further comment. The Board's role in this matter is to evaluate whether the proposed expanded transfer station operation may constitute a danger to public health, safety, welfare or the environment. Legitimate areas of concern include, but are not necessarily limited to, possible impacts on groundwater and surface water supply, air quality, creation of nuisance conditions, traffic and pedestrian safety, vector control and stormwater runoff. The Board intends to provide a full and fair hearing of the public health issues associated with the expanded operations at the transfer station. According to Massachusetts Regulations, this public hearing process "is designed to permit the flexibility and informality appropriate to a board of health proceeding, while providing the board of health with procedural direction and authority to create a record and render a decision within a limited time period which is amenable to the procedures and the standards of judicial review. "To this latter point I note that, although we hope that this does not result, suitably aggrieved and impacted parties who do not agree with the Board's final decision in this matter will have the right to appeal that decision in the courts. Should you decide to proceed in such a matter, we strongly advise that you seek appropriate legal counsel as will the board in the event of any such appeal of its decision. We will start this hearing by asking the applicant,Northside Carting, to present its case. The members of the Board will ask questions and seek information from the applicant at their discretion. Once the Board finishes its initial round of questioning, comments and questions to the applicant will be entertained from potentially aggrieved parties or the public at large. When you rise to ask a question, please identify yourself by name, address and your relationship to the site either as an abutter, other aggrieved or interested party or merely as a concerned citizen. The applicant will be afforded the opportunity to answer questions as they arise, but the Board will also allow the applicant to defer any answer, if appropriate, for further consideration and subsequent discussion in a continued public hearing. Members of the Board may interject questions to the applicant or other speakers during the course of the question and answer sessions. We ask that you keep your comments as brief as reasonably possible, and that those wishing to speak await recognition by me as the chair. Please note that this hearing and all subsequent hearings will be audio taped. It is not our intent at this time to prepare a written transcript of these proceedings, but interested parties will be afforded an opportunity to have a written transcript made at their own expense and in accordance with Massachusetts regulations relevant to this hearing. If this is done,the Board is entitled by regulation to a copy of that transcript at no cost. Following the question and answer session with the applicant, the Board intends to allow all interested parties speak to the issues while maintaining an informal and non- confrontational atmosphere. However, if that process becomes unwieldy because of the length of the testimony or the number of parties wishing to speak, the Board reserves the right to limit testimony to parties who specifically by regulation have standing to comment, including but not necessarily limited to abutters, citizen group representatives and other aggrieved parties. Again, I remind you that the Board reserves the right to interrupt, terminate or refuse to recognize any speaker offering comments or questions that are abrasive, threatening, non-responsive, irrelevant to the issues or unduly repetitious. Presenters who wish to present testimony will be invited to speak in the order their names appear in the sign-up sheet at the front of the hall. If you intend to offer testimony this evening I ask that you add your name and affiliation to this sheet. Depending on how things go this evening,the Board may continue this hearing to additional sessions. Any such hearings will take place at the same location and time as this evening's session, and the date of scheduling, if any, will be established at the end of each session including this one. The Board is obligated to render a decision within 45 days of this hearing, so all further sessions must be completed within this time. Written submissions will be accepted within 30 days from today's date. Those submitting written comments should identify in their submission who they are representing in this matter. Please submit three copies to the Board. Commenters should also be prepared to submit copies of their comments to specifically identified interested or potentially aggrieved parties in this matter. The Board will provide a list of such parties upon written or oral request within three days of this public hearing. Would any member of the Board care to make any additional introductory comments at this time? We now welcome the applicant for the Minor Modification for Site Assignment and ask that you provide an overview of the project for this Board and the interested public. City of Salem, Massachusetts Board of Health Public Notice Modification To Site Assignment Public Notice In accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 111, Sections 150A and 150A '/z and the regulations promulgated thereunder, 310 CMR 16.00 "Site Assignment Regulations for Solid Waste Facilities," an application for a minor modification to an existing site assignment has been filed with the Salem Board of Health for the solid waste transfer station located at 12 Swampscott Road in Salem. The purpose of the requested modification to the site assignment is to allow an increase in the allowable solid waste handling capacity of the transfer station from 100 to 400 tons per day. The area under consideration is approximately 9.2 acres and will be used in part for a transfer station that will accept construction and demolition debris, municipal solid waste, and commercial solid waste. Hours of operation are proposed to be from A.M. to _P.M, Monday through Saturday. The applicant and proponent of the modification is Northside Carting, Inc., 210 Holt Road in North Andover, MA, which is currently operating an existing transfer station at the location of the proposed expanded operation. A Public hearing on the Modification to Site Assignment application will be held at*G.- 123 _ °r�— on . September /S, 201 at 7P.M. The hearing may be continued at the discretion of the Salem Board of Health, the time and date of such continued hearings to be announced at the close of the September hearing session. Copies of the Modification to Site Assignment application may be reviewed at the offices of the Salem Board of Health, 120 Washington St., Salem, MA between the hours of 9:30 A.M. to 3:30 P.M. Additional copies can be found at the Salem Public Library at The Salem Board of Health shall receive comments on the proposed modification to site assignment for 30 days from the date the applicant provides proof to the Board of Health that this Public Notice has been published and that other public notice requirements have been met. All comments regarding the proposed modification to site assignment should reference Salem Board of Health File Number and be mailed to David Greenbaum, Actingdealth Agent, Salem Board of Health, 120 Washington Street, 4th Floor, Salem, MA Testimony may be presented to the Board orally or in writing during the public hearing on this matter. City of Salem - Board of Health Public Hearing November 10, 2009 Salem Transfer Station Proposed Minor Modification to Existing Site Assignment liillli llll R..dill.!.R illlll.RRlli Before After � Get►eral �. �:+3,4 E�� . f � � ., ¢ 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. i 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 longstanding 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 Ili Environinenta#P rmitting�7o Date M1 _ __ 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: D 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 +r:, Tw?°s' ��m� "3t.m"a { sl'a 'a+iy. �% ..&'r54 a•Ta +�:_ A7. How much additional traffic will expansion of the Transfer Station create on Swampscott Road and i5 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 identfed 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. 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. 4 ..A-5i:rx�*w�''�`«3R'�.:.e ._Rl-vd`�.a:'. :'n,-. c.,. "S_vex.� - _ .Y�••--_--�-:«...->'a ...a�'.er..n t .n�x .. .-.x.�9. It 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 t Proposed Salem Transfer Station . City of Salem - Board of Health Public Hearing f;4 f ary Y �J� _ 8b_+�.".. � Y3 � „• {9'V� &lW��p h4 .�j4NSa �' y } g n8 ,fes•"a �'6,��#�tu y� � �p yw� Syzge'" -� y�n x•+ r� Mb.pti� Ms`(,sa* ,;5:`S �' .xk �' s�� s y y NAM - # qp -y.�aa.._L".. t d hay } r�tv' n `, y� d '%7+' •.F s �^ h• ff' y IF✓ 3" Proposed Salem TransferStation T. V T - W e � � y* -. m,7''' µ r s�� .pr ..✓ �%•" DIY-^' ��I. ,K':a...� '. Before BETA 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 iit - A Orderof Conditions • • Provisions (March 200i Visual debris to be removed from Forest River Operations andMaintenancePlan toincludequarterly • basincatch • 1 Weekly "No Dumping" Signs to be posted No stockpiling of debris, fill or excavated material near wetlands inspections by Conservation Agent during landfillclosure ' o __ ___. __=--aL"+...,1�'.xK L.r�.,."_.,_.ate. :�. ;. ..e; r•�.;: BETA .PA. Process (Expanded NF) MEPA Certificate — Conditions of Avvroval (Tule 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 1 . 1 • • ' ' . k''n.+'� ''"�i ��^„ � '® '{i�. .✓rf R � t 1 ty - .� vim:: d E1y� % pmt �LA' \ � �.✓ ..'^ Sir. ✓d� I` a .n..T ,+'✓' .r' l' '�.;y�ti t iki z' ��tr 's✓' •- 1f?l/ t �tv `ttr�^rr" f '1 f C 11 �VI' o ,•T- . r ri ♦ y.x l .^.. . 1 i y ` rf/� L7��i'��rn��T.=��'ia�.,: iai�'�: '� E�. '�u�YJ?� � •�"�.�y'��'� �'.. �f YP y 'a Li'l � f i �h`�� t �r(�v�v{y�y{yi?/" \ �'1�"•1� �:" t� �lS�"Fl��, l�i y�1�. )��1 F1.y'x �F i; 1 ��i t.[ . \_^ke 4:+'n �' j� �� . ti.>r V '"��4 \_y�y"��'a( i/ ;U+� �r�1 �'•' +Y,�7 +,iw Y' +�'�{ e�"'�` Zw .:�_4 y,e � 'a...1 ^"" , 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 ICarslPick-Up Trucks Incoming 0.6 5 38 5 38 Outcoming 0 6 38 6 38 fPackers1 Incoming 16 0 0 3 26 Outcoming 0 0 0 4 26 (Dump Trailers i Incoming 0 1 6 3 22 Outcoming 25 1 6 4 22 lSubtotals...............................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. Traffic Issues Existing Vehicle Traffic • Avg Weekday Traffic. . . . ... . .. . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . ... . . . _ p ..140 trips Peak Day — 500 Tons per Day • Additional Weekday Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .... . . . . ....... . . ...84 trips ➢Traffic mitigation projects along Route 107 t.- recently implemented ➢ Implementation of emissions controls & �I low sulfur fuel . . . . . . . . . . . .No Significant Impact X4— " J � { CW .4.�"��`'�e+K µ�k� A�` �"k'",�.."�cas'�f.""tY^-Tie • i ' iii •�• c� - � BETA Iq K f^Ztf •. r S f f, 'sY a ��• n '�. • , r Y h ( ( V�Yp.41.3 > � • n !' t i ,� 1�� y ( s �'4 , � .' :. E ©�.i� •a (+c! �r moi' �'I i 0 r f 4 4L1� �� :� • ! t$ Norse 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 ��y �`I'�>�n,.a"• �u ... `..; ; .o�ti�� a1exrY.�i'ctr�.�s .. -��np . 4 : _ FTMI • riTFUMMMM � 9 go .c: t ♦ °\I ��} i�3'.p a*�s9 �l� � �.-' rF ♦d � It e4 .. r a F I MY i s. : ® Air Quality Impacts ➢ Residents assumed continually exposed (24 hrs/day, 365 days/yr, 30 yrs) to the maximum predicted concentration ➢ Both fine and course dieselarticulates) well below National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQ4.1... <0.01uQ/m3 vs. 15 uQ/m3 annual average ➢ Emissions from increased truck'traffic r contribute less than 10% of the potentialfi health risk associated with emissions from non-transfer station traffic ➢ EPA phased implementation of Y' emissions controls and 97% reduction in sulfur content of diesel fuel (2007) }��"', _.o° i TZ WIN MMM f..� LK.ce1 Q; `di— �1 y r'..t�n i:'N..`,<°"$d"'a'' ' ii 4.: n .+g;4;'';a. ,vr. r".-. `.a� Human Health Risk Assessment � S i Transfer Station Total 0.007 0.02 6 x 10" 0.008 0.02 6x 10's Non-Transfer Station Total I 0.2 I 0.3 I 2 x 10 I 0.09 I 0.2 I 1 x 10'6 Maximum Acceptable Level I 1 I 1 I 1 x 10' I 1 I 1 1 x 10-' r" i � a .0�� r. ... ,.. - - - - - Transfer Station Traffic Curtent/CbronicExposure I 0.002 Proposed Expansion/CbronicExposire I 0.002 Maximum Acceptable Level II II 1 WjIgox&BaMn 'ti' • { # �' .si>!`"..�" ,.,. Y,. �. a a''+Y;t°, `�_ 3�4 . .nt } y,.. t '.�xa„ _ n u..x, � 'I AY& � i ..Ste, y 1447, Ve _ ,.^>" n, ktti�.:u'te:,�;\' - '::�w�'$��mga '-+'rte•� s''�� 4jiv,.�"".��&'biti�-�:'k�^'�'r&� 'r.sr,`,�%'-#.cM "�•' sE�'++:s:�.d�� .. *,�_yj'V . ReNsed:4N1A6 City of Salem I:r..r..n_,:se,:P,p .,:... .✓„^„tPa^.arvm a.- ,.� .�.... .,... e..,.. .+6 � _.:w ..�: "..' .w. �,.. ,�. ,�-•y,.•r_ .it..-... .+_..q.. .._.: .` Salem Transfer Station&"Landfill Closure"Project Present Worth Analysis of Construction Costs and Services Construction Activity f Service Initial Cost Annual Value Type of Value Present Worth(56/6 Comments interest,20 yrs.) ''Y'1Ray g;DropOR Cen� =y *¢�_ ,000t -w "-,*.t 530;000 yv *;. -=",w„ Setvk:es�," '*-:t' $0:90.Millibnt�''?: ''"ablest aide ofFore`shRWe 2 Yard Waste Drop-Oft $22,000 $100,000 - Services $1.27 MillionWest 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-0R NA $20,000 Services $0.25 Million Ongoing Service 5 Acceptance of City Dept.Solid Wastes NA $40,000 Services $050 Million Ongoing Service 6 Permitting,Design 8 Const Phase Services' $55,000 NA Services $0.05 Million See Section C of Proposal 'X "_xd trv'tr. .sar:;:'=.-” . :NAt _ <tniction' -'ssE•=.r.• ";"" „ ..' rwluiles Psrmh6n . .,. 7" -Landfill Cbstrre-i $$200,000 — �'=. u"_'Core °� 5220 Million " a' 3il9..Desdgn 8", consbuction Phase Services 6 Lease of Western Portion of She NA $30,000 Property Lease $0.37 Million Compost&Recycle 9 Host Community Fee(City) NA $187,000 Cash $2.3$Million Assumes$1.60yronand 400 TPD,6 days per week 10 Host Community Fee(Salem Pudic Schools) NA $31,200 Cash $0.38 Million Assumes$0.25yron 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 1111i 15i :1.1 i iiiii r1 sp 11 - ...•- , .. '"'tdG.aacaw,�xS:. Related to Yard Waste and Recycling Facilities ao £ it 1 MMIMI• • • Dear Farfard Condominium Resident: I would like to take this opportunity to inform about proposed development in your neighborhood. You may have read in the Salem Evening News that Northside Carting (NSC) has been selected from a Request for Proposals(RFP)to redevelop the transfer station. As a candidate for Ward 3 City Council,I felt it was important to provide you details of the proposal and a schedule of public participation. NSC is proposing to purchase the City transfer station located on 12 Swampscott Road for$1. In exchange,they are proposing to invest$8.9 million into a new transfer station. The following is a breakdown of that investment: -Closure and long term monitoring of the landfill, in accordance with DEP requirements -Demolition of the existing incinerator building and stack -Construction of a new 400—ton per day transfer station -Construction of a new Salt Bam that will serve as a temporary transfer station during the new station construction and then be accessible to the City -Relocation of the existing yard waste drop off area -Quarterly payment of 50 cents per ton Host Community Fee to the City -Construction of a recycling drop off area As you may know,April 2005 MA Department of Environmental Protection(MADEP) required the City of Salem to develop a plan to cleanup the contaminated transfer station and cap the blighted areas of the site. This proposal would accomplish both of these requirements. NSC is proposing to do that as well as monitor the ground water and gas monitoring associated with the closer of the landfill for up to 30 years as required by MADEP In addition to the cleanup efforts,NSC is also offering: -Acceptance of 50 pounds of non-hazardous household solid wastes,per trip from Salem Residents free of charge -Acceptance of white goods (with refrigerants removed) from Salem residents free of charge -Pickup of up to 150 temporary small dumpsters located at City Owned and/or operated facilities across the City for Special Events(i.e. Cancer Walk,Heritage Days) The following is a list of permits and regulatory approvals that need to he accomplished prior to this proposal being accepted by the City: 2 Botts Court • Salem, MA 01970 978.744.3182 • UsoviczforSalem.com -2- -Obtain approval from the City of Salem to declare the transfer station as surplus property -Conservation Commission- files a notice of intent with the ConCom for approval of the closure of the landfill and construction new transfer station. Public Hearing will be held -Board of Health- obtain a permit from Board of Health to increase transfer stations capacity from 100 to 400 tons per day -Submit an application for an Environmental Notification (ENP)to determine whether a full Environmental Impact Report(EIR)needs to be drafted for the project. Permit application for Army Corps of Engineers. Both of these submittals will require public meetings to address any concerns from the public -Permits such as MADEP solid Waste Authorization to Construction,Storm water discharge permit, sewer connection permit with South Essex Sewer District, Local Building If you are interested in obtaining a full copy of NSC proposal for the transfer station, please contact the City's Purchasing Department. If I am successful on Tuesday,November 6 and become your Ward Councilor, I would work very hard to keep you informed through my website www.usoviczfbrsalem.com as this project progresses. Please feel free to either contact me by phone (978-744-3182)or e-mail me at my website. I hope that this letter will provide you with additional information that you may or may not have had regarding this project in your neighborhood. Sincerely, Mars vicz Candidate for Ward 3 A I B C I D E I F I G I H I I I J K I L I M I N O I P c / A / v COMMONNEALTH OWFF MASGCXUSETTS STOP sDO 00 GT ENTER$IGN �L STOP SIGN EMPLOYEE DO NOT ENTER SON PARKIGNL STOP SKIN / (5EE DETAIL F110) —STOP SIGN 9TOP SIGN STOP SIGN _ -� �' °i a.p - ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ ___ _ _ I T` _ _ EMPLOYEE _ ` [t`\� \ \ 1 ___'- -e_� �1 r r \ _ 1 '� ._ _ _ _ PARKING SIGN y I \)__--- -_3 HOLT_____ e PITeLc -IB€-iea�couHTvu °. ,ROAD ---------- S ______________ \ 17- T xl-z-•=� +\ /-//_14-z /�/� lit'/ \ . _.I - --•,' - —"' '-_. ; - - -,i li� r l 11 ♦ • EP+RES II IXISTWI EMPLOYEE \ PARKIGSn II 1.\\V' \ 't /1 .• PARK q f y J _ I C E INK «eXF \ F 10 I I! I r" PARKIG SIGN i C ---•]`Sll3 .YYY - 1 I � � � ,g 19 \ "S�}" I -n• ---''~~-;-- 3.�- "" � _ I a �a l '3 PROPOSED SOLID WASTE FRANCEso SULLrvgN (\ y\, I •w [€�� i ,gym i�l u 18 I B HANDLING BUILDING(30,000 S.F.) E;I 1 _ I •ExcnnigpR�s,luc. mREvocABLE TRusT r 0 EMPLorEE HANDICAPFED - ` °� t5 1 F.F?88.0' �/• / PARKING SIGN T J % n u+en wi_ ' � PARKWG&ION �, / i I 1a z }} j p[ \1i\ �_._( \� ! j ° fc-.iEF , I c./'..Y /.'G'%w5l'<9/✓'/!L' //.'uPv%/U1'y/f//L NKIGG %IPA FrFn.•�•10eSwdmY lm� PINKING/�o p�j, �y 1 S'tRL �❑Sy qmy2 li�rYO O ." 2 y lL 4 �.1�ggFA� - - +. Az- :'•" I/�'*!�-m.m -+- - \II TEMPO. STORAGE PRINGMEA aoADep DINS /;I1. EMPLOTEEMSRCR UNL DING AND TRUCKS) EbROYEESITERMI F ° PARKING SIGN SIGN b, — *A'NMf.W f -J ;E i PAROIGPFEp '' '\ �!`'�-.��__-Y___ -__"`.. � ♦ ,II, s P � n i PARKING aION _ ____ — _ , ry I' i ` e 'H- I z u -- _ `\`- � ' L' 1 / ._�B SPACE9 _ _ _ __ _ f_ __ y - - i TRUCK PARKING _ I I AJX N ��- _ $ \ ° . - _- ,& / F&1 ccNC WF =O`_l t J,� �\ 1, ___\..�� - XOTLG091GV ♦ J4 .4RNE P0START TLEALtt�INC (DESIGNATEDHOTLMDARFA \ ) \ . 3 /yJJg/ � PROPoSZ>EO \� CHAIENINaMK \ \ ' - TRANSFER STATION COMPONENTS TABLE ✓ \ -,_,� ��\ �\ \ e •M +M �'\• za rP,L t CONTAINER ION LEGEND IICIYDFwAWRENCE BULLARD STONEWALL ID MAI'Eo u - CATCH BASIN ^� TREE LINE 6 I ♦ wwewiYFew eumFP reexim I 1\ / \ l \/ .'// \ �. 1 __// J i I 1 \a56 _a.v5 R) DRAIN MANHOLE EXISTING HARDWOOD TREE DRILL HOLE - - EXI EDGE OF PAVEMENT FIRE HYDRANT - IX6TMG EDGE OF WETLANDS m 6 e •oaux,rman vi¢or+rtn xa¢ ® MANHOLE COVER . E.YISTING SPOT GRADE mo.E°,oPwm+.Kx c+,. .D NOTES: OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS R MARBOK EWE OF PAVEMENT ''°w °°x TP. 1 ALLTMFFMSIGMGESHALLCOMPLYWITHTHESTAME SIGN g X m.mwaex ertE uuuwuu,niel MASSACXUSETTS HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT SPECIFICATIONS USE-OFFICE,MANUFACTURING,ASSEMBLY,FABRICATION,ETC. EYFiTWG RETAINIG WALL _ +l• $PoTFLEVg1pN —LITH. 1O°� re R.TMFFM LINES&FLOW ARROWS SHALL BE PAINTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MINIMUMSPACEa REWIRED - EGSTMG CHAIN LINE n anvwoxExwm urrt�ms +mo,eurtox• THE ST ATE OF MASSACHUSETTS HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT SPECIFICATIONS OFFICE-I SPACE PER 300 SOGRE FEET OF OFA UTRIT'POLE u e.,vweov.'ereo o/AT w.Eum • EXISTING MAN. MANUfgCNRIG-MINIMU WORKING SHIFT OR THE y�, WATER SHUT OFF ,e a+,vwwOExv[o N'm'Exvuw mwxrrhww meEmmmT 9.THFFACILITY ENTRANCE SICIURYNAME,N SHAUL OWNER UDE AMINIMORDAUM THE MINIMUM WORKING SHIFT APACE - • E%19TMG GTCHB/31N FOLLOWING IMFORMATIGK FACIIIIY NAME OWNER,OPERATOR,DAYS AND PER I=GFA(WXICXEVER 5 GREATER) E%ISTMG CONTOUR c'c eww Kane XOURSOFOPERATION,ANDM HOUR EMERGENCYCONTACTTELEPIKMEEXISTING STORMCEPTOR CI NUMBER(S}THE FACWN G THAN SWILL BE LARGER AN]5 SOV+RE FEET G -O_ CALCULATION EXISTING FENCE $gg IN AREA AND WILL COMPLY WITH SECTION a 0 OF THE TOWN OF NORTH SITE PLAN OFRC (l STING)-5,000SFI300SF-16.7(17SPACE6) PROPOSEOPARKIGSPACES Aq 'x m rs rart+aRn Nw cc a aT F +'� ANDOVER ZOJIG BYIAWS. MANUFACTURING(PROPWEDSEKISTING-49.SWSFI1,..-4]SM9SPACE4) — GUARD RAL 0 d0 IN TOTAL REOUIREN SOSPACES COLONISED TRAFFIC FLOW d VEHICLETURNIG MDAII ARE BASED ON MSXTO WBfii REQUIREMENTS. OVERHEAD WIRES SGLE IN FEE! PARK GAL TRU PRWIDEP WSPACE6 ® PGPoSEO PAVEMENM TMKING - y` ADDITIONAL KTRUCK PARKING SPACES 16 SPACES g LA'E IS R INCHES .I EXTERNAL REFERENCES IMAGE REFERENCES Y ' F NEW., F GTT"TSf EaMC 1R0IKKil �`- -- IZWE REV OF.IHP`UDN BY DATEJ APP PROPOSED TRAFFIC PLAN + � 1. ALOEDEMFLOYEEAGNCA000WS.Fl PAAKIG RIF. O3Rgi PNS AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT ac 3zi°°ate°KM. 3kp MIDDLEBOROUGH,MASSACHLJSET SI �_ aGLLE 1.0 I IAYDUTFASTUF BLW FOR SEPTIC SYSTEM TBI INC. cI1 BBPKGILGT'AIMBFA •' IOESIGNEP wC0 w.VED TOFO ON EAST&WEST PROPERTY TIUHOLTROAD y SUBMITTED, GTE IpMWIt c xnucc wrrLu - RF I BUUNpAGFS I NORTH ANDOVER.MASSACHUSETTS IIOIECKEo- PREPARED FOR Q O.PPROVEp: GTE: �, I 2 LT'muogyp�mMOM16Acn+w[OTEW,vapxWG RJF L&MPNJ TBI INC. Q� erv„wxiwuuwm.[u PPPRO\/Ei]: A"el Wi,pbppEARE�pxTy w+meacuxxEMUG SXFFINLYI9EH LL,r I I I (wR)kfiszam I d OF 12 A I B I C I D I E F I G I h ( I I J I K I L I M I N 1 0 P Page 1 of 12 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FMF# 39974 In the Matter of: ) ADMINISTRATIVE CONSENT ORDER City of Salem ) AND NOTICE OF NONCOMPLIANCE ' and Northside Carting,Inc ) ACOP-NE-XXXX (a.k.a Salem Environmental, ) AMENDMENT NO. 1 Inc.) ) I. THE PARTIES 1. The Department of Environmental Protection (the "Department") is a duly constituted agency of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts established pursuant to M.G.L. c. 21A, §7, with a principal office located at One Winter Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02108, and a regional office located at 205B Lowell Street, Wilmington, Massachusetts 01887. 2. The City of Salem ("City") is a municipal corporation located in Essex County and duly organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, with its principal offices located at City Hall, Salem, MA 01970. The City owns and has a Solid Waste permit for a Solid Waste Transfer Station located on Swampscott Road in Salem(the "Facility"). 3. Northside Carting, Inc. ("NCP') - a.k.a. Salem Environmental, Inc - is a Massachusetts corporation with a place of business at 210 Holt Road North Andover, Ma. 01845. Mr. Robert George is President of NCI. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND LAW 4. The Department is responsible for the implementation and enforcement of M.G.L. c. 111, §§150A and 150A1/2, and the regulations promulgated thereunder at 310 CMR 16.00 and 19.000. The Department has authority under M.G.L. c. 21A, §16, and the regulations promulgated thereunder at 310 CMR 5.00, to assess civil administrative penalties to persons in noncompliance with its regulations. 5. The City is the owner and permittee of the Salem Transfer Station. NCI operates the Facility. The City and NCI are collectively referred to as the"the Respondents." SalemLDf ACOP&M-06_02.doc 6/02/08 Page 2 of 12 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 6. On April 4, 2002 the Department, the City and NCI entered into an Administrative Consent Order, File No. ACOP-NE-01-4005, (the "2005 Order") requiring the City to perform or cause the performance of the following actions: A. Prohibit any person, including NCI, from conducting any and all solid waste activities at the site except as authorized by the Department in writing; B. Comply with the landfill assessment process as set forth in 310 CMR 19.150 and in the Department's corresponding Landfill Technical Guidance Manual (revised May, 1997) ("Guidance Manual") and implement any remedial responses approved by the Department; C. Undertake the landfill assessment and any necessary corrective action(s) according to the following schedule: i. By May 6, 2001, submit to the Department an Initial Site Assessment(ISA) and Comprehensive Site Assessment Scope of Work (CSA Scope) in accordance with the regulations at 310 CMR 19.000 and the Guidance Manual. ii. Within ninety(90) days of the Department's approval of the CSA Scope, initiate the CSA, and install the required monitoring wells in accordance with the approved schedule established in the CSA Scope. iii. Within sixty (60) days of each sampling event, submit the results of the sampling round, and include any proposed modifications to the CSA Scope. iv. Within ninety (90) days of the completion of the final round of environmental sampling approved in the CSA, submit a final CSA in accordance with the regulations at 310 CMR 19.150 et seq, the corresponding Guidance Manual and, the approved CSA Scope. v. Within ninety (90) days of completion of the final round of environmental sampling approved in the CSA, submit a scope of work for a Corrective Action Alternatives Analysis (CAAA Scope), with a schedule to complete the CAAA, in accordance with the regulations. vi. Within sixty (60) days of the Department's approval of the CAAA scope, initiate the CAAA and complete the CAAA in accordance with the schedule approved by the Department. vii.Within sixty (60) days of the Department's approval of the CAAA, submit, for the Department's approval, a Corrective Action Design (CAD), if necessary, in accordance with the regulations. The CAD shall include final design plans, an implementation schedule and details of any existing unapproved or proposed post- closure use(s). If it is determined that a CAD is not necessary then, within this same sixty(60) day period, submit an application for any existing unapproved or proposed post-closure use(s). viii. By November 1, 2004, complete all necessary corrective actions, including the installation of an approved final cover system and obtaining approval of any existing unapproved post-closure uses, in accordance with the regulations, Guidance Manual and, the approved CAD. SalemLDf ACOPdrf08_06_02.doc 6/02/08 Page 3 of 12 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY vix. Submit a certification report within sixty(60) days of the completion of any corrective actions. 7. The City failed to complete any of the required actions by the deadlines established in ACOP-NE-01-4005. 8. The 2005 Order (ACOP-NE-01-4005) also required NCI (the "Operator") to perform or cause the performance of the following actions: A. By May 6, 2001, the Operator shall provide to the Department a Financial Assurance Mechanism (FAM) for the closure and post-closure monitoring of the Landfill in accordance with the provisions of 310 CMR 19.051 Financial Assurance Reauirements; B. Submit to the Department a quarterly report following the signing of this Consent Order, by the fifteenth (15`h) of the following month, indicating the steps it has taken to comply with the requirements of this Consent Order. The quarterly report shall be submitted until the Department receives a certification report pursuant to section 111.15.13.8. of the 2005 Order or it has been determined by the Department that final cover is not necessary; C. Within thirty (30) days of the effective date of the 2005 Order submit a Waste Ban Plan in compliance with and as required by 310 CMR 19.017 et. seq.; D. Upon the effective date of the 2005 Order prohibit any person from conducting any and all solid waste activities at the site except as authorized by the Department in writing; E. Continue to ensure the removal of all solid wastes and recyclable material from the facility site; and F. Immediately commence maintenance of a Daily Log at the Facility in compliance with and as required by 310 CMR 19.220(this is now 19.207(22)). 9. NCI failed to complete any of the required actions by the deadlines established in the 2005 Order(ACOP-NE-01-4005). 10. On March 31, 2005,the City submitted to the Department for approval an application for a Corrective Action Alternatives Analysis (BWP SW 24, Corrective Action Alternative Analysis, Transmittal Number W062414) for the closure of the Salem Landfill. SalemLDf ACOPdr1D8 06 02.doc 6/02/08 Page 4 of 12 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 11. On April 20, 2005,the Department issued a Conditional Approval of the CAAA to the City and concurred with the selection of Option 4 for the design of closure of the landfill subject in part to the following conditions: 1. The closure design shall: a. Extend the limits of the cap to cover the C&D waste materials. In accomplishing this extension of the cap, either the FML may be extended under the new building with the FML and related layers designed to accommodate the loads, or the building foundation shall be integrated into the impervious layer of the cap. b. Design the new building foundation to protect the building and its occupants from explosive gases. 2. The Corrective Action Design (CAD, i.e. the closure plans) application shall be signed by the appropriate official of the City of Salem. Reports, plans, etc., shall be signed and sealed by the engineer of record. Each shall include certification pursuant to 310 CMR 19.011, as required. 3. The Department reserves the right to amend, modify, suspend or revoke this approval as necessary to protect the public health, safety or the environment, or as otherwise necessary to insure compliance with applicable law and/or regulation. 4. The City shall obtain and comply with the requirements of all applicable state, federal and local laws, regulations, and permits. Concurrently with submitting the CAD application the City shall submit documentation that the applications for such other permits and approvals as may be required have been applied for. 5. In consideration of the commercial operating nature of the transfer station by Northside Carting Inc. and the interdependence of the reconstruction of the transfer station on the corrective action design, the Department's review of the CAD shall not be subject to the exemption from application fees granted to municipalities. The application shall be subject to payment of the applicable fees for privately owned/operated facilities as established at 310 CMR 4.00. 6. The Department reserves the option to require Northside Carting, Inc. to obtain a permit, issued to Northside Carting, Inc., for future operation of the facility, and/or otherwise pay an annual compliance fee as applicable to privately operated facilities. SalemLDf ACOPdrt08 06 02.doc 6/02/08 Page 5 of 12 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 12. Paragraph III.15.C.7 of the 2005 Order, (ACOP-NE-01-4005), required the City to submit to the Department a Corrective Action Design(CAD) within sixty (60) days of the Department's approval of the CAAA, that being June 20, 2005. 13. On June 20, 2005, the City failed to submit the CAD in violation of Paragraph III.15.C.7 of ACOP-NE-01-4005 and the Department's conditional approval of the CAAA. 14. NCI failed to provide to the Department a Financial Assurance Mechanism (FAM) for the closure and post-closure monitoring of the Landfill in accordance with the provisions of 310 CMR 19.051 Financial Assurance Reauirement in violation of Paragraph 111.15.D. of the ACOP-NE-01-4005. 15. The Department alleges that the City has violated the following requirements: A. 19.081. Enforcement Provisions The regulation states: (1) General. Any failure by any person whose activities are governed by M.G.L. c. I11, § 150A, as amended, and 310 CMR 19.000, to comply fully with their provisions or the terms and conditions of any order, permit, authorization, determination, or approval issued under 310 CMR 19.000, or with the terms of a site assignment, shall constitute a violation of the statute and 310 CMR 19.000. Nothing in 310 CMR 19.000, or in any order issued pursuant thereto, shall be construed to limit any right of the Department to take enforcement action pursuant to any other authority. B. 19.020: Permits Reouired for Solid Waste Manaeement The regulation states: (2) Inactive Landfill Facilitv Filine Schedule (a) Prior to January 1, 1992, the owner of an inactive landfill or dumping ground that was in operation after April 21, 1971 but ceased operations prior to July 1, 1990 shall file: 1. proof that the facility was closed in accordance with plans approved by the Department; or 2. a final closure and post-closure plan in accordance with 310 CMR 19.030(3)(c)5. if the facility was not closed in accordance with a closure/post-closure plan approved by the Department. Salem LDf AC0Pdrt08 06 02.doc 6/02/08 Page 6 of 12 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY C. 19.051. Financial Assurance Requirements. The regulation states: (1) Applicabilitv. The provisions of 310 CMR 19.051 apply to: (a) landfills; and (b) other facilities which the Department determines on a facility specific base should provide such financial assurance. (2) Financial Responsibility for Closure. Post-Closure and Corrective Action. (a) The owner or operator of a facility identified in 310 CMR 19.051(1) shall establish or obtain, and continuously maintain, financial assurance that is adequate to assure the Department that the owner or operator is at all times financially capable of complying with the provisions of3I OCMR 19.00 governing the closure of the facility and its post-closure maintenance. An owner or operator of a facility shall meet this financial assurance obligation by using any of the methods authorized in 310 CMR 19.051 (an approved financial assurance mechanism) and shall file with the Department and maintain in current form approved documents constituting or evidencing compliance with this obligation. Where the Department establishes a form for a financial assurance instrument the instruments submitted must be identical to the approved form. Where the Department does not establish a form the applicant shall submit a draft of the proposed financial assurance mechanism for Department approval. ...... III. DISPOSITION AND ORDER For the reasons set forth above, the Department hereby issues, and Parties hereby consent to, the following Amended Consent Order. This Amendment shall be deemed incorporated into ACOP-NE-01- 4005, which in all other respects shall remain in full force and effect, and shall be enforceable under it. 16. The Department's authority to issue this Order is conferred by M.G.L. c. 21A, §16, and the regulations promulgated thereunder at 310 CMR 5.00. 17. The Parties hereby waive their right to an adjudicatory hearing before the Department on, and judicial review of, the issuance and terms of this Consent Order and to notice of any such rights of review. 18. This Consent Order shall be binding on the Respondents and on their officers, employees, agents, successors, heirs and assignees. The Respondents shall not violate this Consent Order and shall not SalemLDf ACOPdrf08_06_02.doc 6/02/08 Page 7 of 12 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY allow or suffer their officers, employees, agents, successors, heirs, assignees or contractors to violate this Consent Order. The Respondents shall provide a copy of this Consent Order to each successor or assignee concurrent with establishing any succession or assignment. 19. Nothing in this Consent Order shall be construed or operate as barring, diminishing, adjudicating or in any way affecting (i) any legal or equitable right of the Department to issue any additional Order or to seek any other relief with respect to the subject matter covered by this Consent Order, or (ii) any legal or equitable right of the Department to pursue any other claim, action, suit, cause of action, or demand which the Department may have with respect to the subject matter covered by this Consent Order, including, without limitation, any action to enforce this Consent Order in an administrative or judicial proceeding. Notwithstanding the foregoing,the Department agrees that it will not seek to assess the Parties civil administrative penalties beyond those described in this Consent Order for the violations alleged in Part I1 above, provided that the Parties satisfy the terms and conditions of this Consent Order and any approval issued hereunder. 20. This Consent Order shall not be construed or operate as barring, diminishing, adjudicating, or in any way affecting, any legal or equitable right of the Department with respect to any subject matter not covered by this Consent Order. 21. The existing 2005 Order, (ACOP-NE-01-4005), shall remain in full effect except as otherwise modified by the provisions of the following: The City shall perform or cause the performance of the following actions: A. Upon the effective date of this Consent Order prohibit any person, including NCI, from conducting any and all solid waste activities at the site except as authorized by the Department in writing. B. Comply with the landfill assessment process asset forth in 310 CMR 19.150 and in the Department's corresponding Landfill Technical Guidance Manual (revised May, 1997) ("Guidance Manual") and shall implement any remedial responses approved by the Department including, without limitation the following: 1. Within one hundred twenty days (120) days of the effective date of this Consent Order, the City shall submit, for the Department's approval, a Corrective Action Design (CAD). The CAD shall include final design plans, an implementation schedule and details of any existing unapproved or proposed post-closure use(s). 2. By April 1, 2009, the City shall initiate construction of the landfill closure in accordance with the approved CAD. SalemLDf ACOPdrf08_06_02.doc 6/02/08 Page 8 of 12 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 3. By December 31, 2009, the City shall complete all necessary corrective actions, including the installation of an approved final cover system in accordance with the regulations, Guidance Manual and, the approved CAD. 4. The City shall submit a certification report to the Department within sixty (60) days of the completion of the construction of the closure in accordance with the approved CAD. NCI shall perform or cause the performance of the following action: D. By August 1, 2008, NCI shall provide to the Department a Financial Assurance Mechanism (FAM) for the closure and post-closure monitoring of the Landfill in accordance with the provisions of 310 CMR 19.051 Financial Assurance Reauirements that has been approved by the Department; 22. The Department hereby determines, and the Respondents hereby agree,that the deadlines set forth above constitute reasonable times to perform the acts agreed to in this Consent Order and to address the alleged instances of noncompliance sited in Part II above. 23. Should the lease and/or contract between the Respondents be discontinued for any reason, the City agrees to assume all responsibility for the actions required to be completed by NCI delineated herein. 24. The actions required by this Consent Order are subject to approval by the Department and shall be performed in accordance with M.G.L. c. 21C, §5, and the regulations promulgated thereunder at 310 CMR 30.000, M.G.L. c. 111, §§142A-N, and the regulations promulgated thereunder at 310 CMR 6.00-8.00, M.G.L. c. 111, §§150A and 150A1/2, and the regulations promulgated thereunder at 310 CMR 16.00 and 19.000, M.G.L. c. 211, and the regulations promulgated thereunder at 310 CMR 50.00, M.G.L. c. 21, §§26-43, and the regulations promulgated thereunder at 314 CMR 3.00, 5.00, 7.00, 8.00 and 15.00. and all other applicable federal, state and local laws,regulations and approvals. 25. The City shall pay to the Commonwealth the sum of One Hundred Thirteen Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty ($113,750) Dollars as a civil administrative penalty for the violations listed in Part Il above, as follows: A. Within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this Consent Order, the City shall pay to the Commonwealth the sum of Thirteen Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty ($13,750) Dollars. The Department through this paragraph demands payment of the suspended portion of the civil administrative penalty assessed under the Paragraph 11I.20.B of ACOP-NE-01-4005. Paragraph 111.203 of ACOP-NE-01-4005 provided in the event the City violates any provision of ACOP-NE-01-4005,the City shall pay to the Commonwealth the sum of Thirteen Thousand SalemLDf ACOPdrf08_06_02.doc 6/02/08 Page 9 of 12 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Seven Hundred Fifty ($13,750) Dollars within thirty (30) days of receipt of the Department's written notice thereof. B. In the event the City fails to meet the requirements cited in Paragraph III.21.B.1. above,the City shall pay to the Commonwealth the sum of Twenty Five Thousand ($25,000) Dollars within thirty(30) days of receipt of the Department's written notice thereof. C. In the event the City fails to meet the requirements cited in Paragraph II1.21.13.2. above,the City shall pay to the Commonwealth the sum of Twenty Five Thousand ($25,000) Dollars within thirty(30)days of receipt of the Department's written notice thereof. D. In the event the City fails to meet the requirements cited in Paragraph III.20.13.3. above,the City shall pay to the Commonwealth the sum of Twenty Five Thousand ($25,000) Dollars within thirty(30) days of receipt of the Department's written notice thereof. E. In the event the City fail to meet the requirements cited in Paragraph III.20.13.4. above, the City shall pay to the Commonwealth the sum of Twenty Five Thousand ($25,000) Dollars within thirty(30) days of receipt of the Department's written notice thereof. 26. In addition to the penalty in Paragraph III.25 above, if the City violates this Consent Order, the City shall pay stipulated civil administrative penalties to the Commonwealth in accordance with the following schedule: For each day, or portion thereof, of each violation, that party shall pay stipulated civil administrative penalties as follows: Period of Violation Penaltv ver day 1 st through 15th day $500 per day 16th through 30th day $1000 per day 31 st day and thereafter $2000 per day Stipulated civil administrative penalties shall begin to accrue on the day a violation occurs and shall continue to accrue until the day the City corrects the violation or completes performance, whichever is applicable. Even if violations are simultaneous, separate penalties shall accrue for separate violations of this Consent Order. Stipulated civil administrative penalties shall accrue regardless of whether the Department has notified the City of a violation or act of noncompliance. The payment of stipulated civil administrative penalties shall not alter in any way the City's obligation to complete performance as required by this Consent Order. All stipulated civil administrative penalties accruing under this Consent Order shall be paid within thirty (30) days of the date the Department sends a written demand therefor. If a court judgment is necessary to execute a claim for such stipulated penalties under this paragraph, the City agrees to assent to the entry of SalemLDf ACOPdrf08_06_02.doc 6/02/08 Page 10 of 12 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY such judgment. The stipulated civil administrative penalties set forth herein shall not preclude the Department from electing to pursue alternative remedies or alternative civil or criminal penalties which may be available by reason of the City's failure to comply with the requirements of this Consent Order. In the event the Department collects alternative civil administrative penalties, the City shall not be required to pay such stipulated penalties pursuant to this Consent Order. 27. The City and NCI shall pay all civil administrative penalties due under this Consent Order by certified check, cashier's check or money order payable to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The City clearly print "City of Salem", the file number (ACOP-XXXX), and its respective Federal Employer Identification Number on the face of its payment, and each shall mail it to: Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Commonwealth Master Lockbox P.O. Box 3982 Boston, Massachusetts 02241-3982 The City and the Operator each shall deliver a copy of the payment to: Edward Pawlowski, Section Chief, Bureau of Waste Prevention Department of Environmental Protection Northeast Regional Office 205B Lowell Street Wilmington,Massachusetts 01887 In the event the City fails to pay in full any civil administrative penalty on or before the date due under this Consent Order, and in the manner and form required by this Consent Order, the City shall pay to the Commonwealth three (3) times the amount of its civil administrative penalty, together with costs, plus interest on the balance due from the time the civil administrative penalty became due and attorneys' fees, including all costs and attorneys' fees incurred in the collection thereof. The rate of interest shall be the rate set forth in M.G.L. c. 231, §6C. 28. If NCI violates this Consent Order NCI shall pay administrative penalties to the Commonwealth in accordance with the requirements of the ACOP-NE-01-4001 including without limitation the suspended penalty provisions of paragraph 20.C. and stipulated penalties provisions of paragraph 21 thereof. 29. The City and NCI agrees to provide the Department, and the Department's employees, representatives and contractors, access at all reasonable times to the Facility for purposes of conducting any activity related to its oversight of this Consent Order. Notwithstanding any provisions of this Consent Order,the Department retains all of its access authorities and rights under applicable state and federal law. SalemLDf ACOP&M 06 02.doc 6/02/08 Page 1 I of 12 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 30. For purposes of M.G.L. o, 21A, §16, and 310 CMR 5.00,this Consent Order shall serve as a Notice of Noncompliance for the Parties' alleged noncompliance with the requirements cited in Part II above. 31. This Consent Order shall not be construed as, or operate as, relieving the City or any other person of the necessity of complying with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. 32. This Consent Order may be modified only by written agreement of the Department and the Parties hereto. 33. This Consent Order shall become effective on the date of the last signature set forth below. 34. Each undersigned representative hereby certifies that he/she is fully authorized to enter into the terms and conditions of this Consent Order and to legally bind the party on whose behalf such representative is signing to this Consent Order. 35. All engineering work performed pursuant to this Consent Order shall be under the general direction and supervision of a qualified registered professional engineer. Any contractual relationship between the City and an engineer to perform such services shall require the engineer, as a condition of the contract, to implement work consistent with the provisions of this Consent Order. The City shall provide the Department with a copy of such contracts within thirty (30) days of written request by the Department. The Department shall not be deemed a party to any such contract and does not assume any liability under any such contract. 36. The City shall pay all permit application fees due under this Consent Order in accordance with the instructions set forth in the permit application and shall deliver a copy of the payment to: John A. Carrigan, Section Chief Department of Environmental Protection Northeast Regional Office 205B Lowell Street Wilmington, Massachusetts 01887 37. This Consent Order may be executed in three (3) or more counterparts each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. CITY OF SALEM: NORTHSIDE CARTING. INC.: By: By: Stanley Bornstein Director Robert George, President City of Salem Northside Carting,Inc. SalemMf ACOPdrfll8_06_02.doc 6/02/08 Page 12 of 12 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Department of Public Services 210 Holt Road 93 Washington Street North Andover, MA 01845 Salem, MA 01970 Telephone: 978-686-2020 Telephone 978-745-9595 Federal Employer ID# Federal Employer ID # Date: Date: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION: By: Richard Chalpin, Regional Director Metropolitan Boston/Northeast Regional Office 205B Lowell Street Wilmington, Massachusetts 01887 Telephone(978)694-3200 Date: SalemLDf ACOPdrfll8_06_02.doc 6/02/08 ' , r Site Assignment Application Filed September 1, 2004   SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION BWP SW l - TRANSMITTAL W049793 SITE SUITABILITY REPORT FOR A NEW SITE ASSIGNMENT     1.0 INTRODUCTION  Abington Transfer Station, LLC (ATS) submits this application for Site Suitability for a New Site Assignment for the proposed construction and operation of a solid waste transfer station at 1477 Bedford Street in Abington, Massachusetts. This project was previously determined suitable by the Department and was site assigned by the Abington Board of Health as an 1,800 ton per day solid waste handling facility that was to accept municipal solid waste (MSW) and construction & demolition (C & D) debris. On August 16, 2001, the Abington Board of Health, due to public opposition, rescinded the site assignment issued by the Department. This Application is being filed in accordance with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection's (DEP or the Deparment) Site Assignment Regulations, codified at 310 CMR 16.00. These regulations require that an application for Site Suitability for a New Site Assignment (BWP SW 01) be filed when a proponent proposes to construct and operate a waste handling and/or processing facility. The proposed change from the previous site assignment will be to reduce the permitted capacity to 600 tons per day, an approximate 67% reduction in capacity, and to accept only C &D debris.    .1  ',,,, Site Description   The site is located on the east side of Bedford Street (also known as Route 18) in North Abington, Massachusetts, as shown on the Locus Plan in Attachment 2. It is about one- quarter mile south of the Weymouth town line. The area surrounding the site is comprised of various commercial, industrial and retail businesses. The property is 1 located in an area that was formerly zoned Light Industrial by the Abington Zoning By- Laws. During the period when the previous site assignment was being opposed, the site's zoning was changed to Highway Technology. Despite the zoning change, use of the land subject to this Site Assignment Application as a solid waste handling facility is allowed as a matter of right under Chapter 584 of the Acts of 1986. That statute provides that a solid waste facility, as defined by MGL c. 111, s. 150A, must be permitted under local zoning on any parcel zoned industrial as of July 1, 1987. The site was zoned industrial as of that date and consequently the protections afforded by Chapter 584 apply.   ,Immediately_abuttin�g_p� r�op ie`includceplumbing-supply'war_eho_use_and school=bus parking lot to the south, retail establistunents to-the north and the west (across Route 18) and vacant land to the east of the site on the Brendan Realty Trust (BRT) property. Other property uses in the vicinity of the site include two large trucking terminals (to the north and south of ATS along Route 18) and a precast concrete plant to the west of the BRT property along Route 58. Ulie_facilit-y is to be located on a site that consists of 6.9-acres;of which-4:4-acres were issued a site assignment-in 1992�T-he 2,5-acres of the site that was not included-in the originalsite assignment is a parcel.ofland that-was conveyed from the adjacent BRT site to:the-A-TS_site.�This-site-assignment-application.includes_the_2.5 acres to make the propose-d.site-assignment area-the—entire 6-.9 acres-oftth property._S he Locus Plan land-the Existing Conditions Plan in Attachment 2. The primary vehicle acc tsse o the site is-froii Ro-ute-18_at.the southern-end-of--the-eastenl-sideline._Entering from the Route 18 acc` ce s,the existing-office-building and maintenance garage (constructed-by.previous owner)_are-on-the-left,ornorth side of the property. area Yo the-west-side of the building-is.paved-for parking and,an area to,the south_of the building has been-paved to r .provide-access-to themaintenance garage. The paved area to the south of t1iFbuilding can also be used to park vehicles. A paved driveway, along the south property line, allows vehicle movement between the two parking areas and access to and from Route 18. The driveway is approximately twenty five feet wide.   The site is slightly higher than the surrounding properties. The elevation near the west property line, adjacent to Route 18, and the area around the existing building is approximately 180 feet above mean sea level. The ground surface slopes downward from the building, toward the eastern limit of the formerly site assigned area, where the ground elevation is approximately 165 feet above mean sea level. The land continues to slope downward to an elevation of about 155 feet at the wetlands along the eastern property line.   The existing-building occupies approximately_7,800.square feet ofthe site:This building contains a two-story office area and a five-bay vehicle maintenance area. The site had been operated by Suburban Disposal, Inc. as an administrative and vehicle storage and maintenance facility for a solid waste hauling company. Atlantic North Waste Services currently conducts the same operations on the site. The site is serviced by public water and sewer.   The control of storm water in the western portion of the site is accomplished by two bituminous-concrete swales located at the driveway entrance, which capture run-off and divert it to an existing drain pipe. The drain pipe is located in an easement along the southern boundary and discharges through a head wall near the east property line of the site. Runoff from the eastern two thirds of the property is uncontrolled and flows overland to the east and the wetlands that are along that side of the site. A two stage stormwater detention basin has been constructed along the eastern boundary of the site in accordance with an Order of Conditions issued by the, Abington Conservation Commission. There are no runoff flows currently diverted to this basin since the stormwater collection system that is to be a part of the proposed facility has not yet been constructed. 1.2 Site History The original project involved the construction of a solid waste transfer station and recycling facility at the site of the former Suburban Disposal Company's office and maintenance facility at 1477 Bedford Street in Abington. The proposed project was originally planned to be a 250 ton per day (tpd) facility constructed adjacent to the existing office and maintenance building. Construction at the site was to include a building addition to house the recycling and transfer station operations, and associated site work to properly handle stormwater runoff, potential leachate generation, internal vehicle traffic and improvements to the access to Bedford Street (Route 18).   An Environmental Notification Form (ENF) was submitted to the MEPA Unit in accordance with 310 CMR 11.00 on April 30, 1991. The Secretary of Environmental Affairs issued a Certificate on June 7, 1991, stating that no further MEPA review was required. On January 6, 1992, Suburban Disposal submitted an NPC for a proposed increase in tonnage from 250 tpd to 280 tpd. The Secretary of Environmental Affairs issued a Certificate on January 16, 1992, which determined that no further MEPA review was required.   Before submitting its Notice of Project Change, Suburban Disposal filed a site assignment application, dated October 28, 1991, to the DEP and to the Abington Board of Health. On May 11, 1992, the DEP issued a Report on Site Suitability, in which it determined that the site was suitable for the proposed development of a solid waste transfer and recycling facility. The Abington Board of Health subsequently issued a site assignment of the facility after conducting a public hearing.   Suburban Disposal submitted an Application for Authorization to Construct the proposed facility to DEP on July 16, 1993. It included an Operations Plan and drawings of sufficient detail for regulatory review. The DEP issued a Draft Permit for Authorization to Construct the proposed Facility on July 22, 1994. No further action was taken to finalize the permit process because Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc. (BFI) acquired Suburban Disposal in late 1993 and decided to take no further action.  <l--[endif]--> In April of 1998, BFI sold the Facility and all its interest in it to ATS, which reactivated the permitting process. On May 27, 1998 ATS submitted an NPC. It was required because ATS proposed an increase in the capacity of the facility to handle up to 1,800 tons per day of solid waste. ATS made subsequent submissions to MEPA, including a new traffic study, to respond to questions that arose during the public review period, dealing primarily with traffic, noise and nuisance impacts potentially resulting from the proposed expansion. On September 9, 1998 the Secretary issued a Certificate on the NPC that determined that no further MEPA study of the project was required.   ATS submitted.an application dated November 2, 1998 for a modified site assignment to DEP, the Abington and Weymouth Boards of Health and to the Department of Public Health in accordance with the Site Assignment Regulations, 310 CMR 16.00. Such an application is required when a proponent proposes to Expand a Site as that term is defined at 310 CMR 16.08(1). DEP issued a positive Site Suitability Report on January 15, 1999. The Abington Board of Health held a duly-advertised site assignment hearing on February 11, 1999. It issued a modified site assignment on April 5, 1999. There were no appeals.   On June 8, 1999 ATS filed a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the Abington Conservation Commission for work within the 100 foot buffer zone of Bordering Vegetated Wetlands (BVW). The work was limited to construction of a portion of an access road and stormwater controls, required to meet DEP Best Management Practices (BMPs). On August 18, 1999 the Commission issued an Order of Conditions to ATS, which was subsequently recorded in the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds. ATS submitted an Application for an Authorization to Construct a solid waste handling facility to DEP on June 15, 1999. On October 14, 1999, DEP issued a Draft Permit Decision for the Authorization To Construct. ATS subsequently conducted the required abutter notifications and published the required public notice on October 26, 1999 in the Patriot Ledger, which initiated a 30-day public comment period. Following the completion of the public comment period and a time extension during which ATS prepared and MEPA reviewed a Single Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), DEP issued a Final Permit for Authorization to Construct the proposed facility on September 15, 2000.   On November 30, 1999 ATS submitted another NPC. It was primarily required by MEPA's determination that the development of the ATS and BRT sites potentially represented a single "project", as defined by MEPA, that might cause cumulative impacts that were different from the project previously considered by MEPA. At this time opposition to the project began to develop. While it was generally acknowledged that ATS and BRT had followed all necessary regulatory requirements including public notification criteria, there was a demand that the public should again have the opportunity to review and comment on the project, even though the numerous, previous opportunities had not been used in accordance with the applicable regulations. The MEPA Unit conducted an informational meeting on December 15, 1999 to seek public input on the project. Based upon comments made at the December 15 meeting and subsequent written comments submitted to MEPA the Secretary determined that a SEIR was required for the project. In his January 7, 2000 Certificate, the Secretary issued a specific scope for the FIR. In accordance with that Certificate, ATS prepared an SEIR, and distributed copies in accordance with the Secretary',s directions. Following MEPA review of the SEIR, the Secretary issued a Certificate on July 31, 2000, determining that the SEIR "adequately and properly complies" with the MEPA regulations and his prior Certificate. With this Certificate, DEP was able to finalize the ATC, as described above.   About the time (October 1999) that DEP issued its Draft ATC, public opposition to the project began to increase. One result of this public opposition was the MEPA requirement to prepare the SEIR, as described above. Another result is that the Board of Health that had modified the site assignment was recalled during the spring of 2000 and replaced by five new Board of Health members. On July 10, 2000 the new Board of Health voted to call a site assignment hearing to consider rescission, suspension or modification of the site assignment. The hearing was conducted in 29 sessions that began on August 16, 2000 and concluded on April 4, 2001. The Board issued a "Decision and Statement of Reasons" on August 16, 2001, which rescinded the site assignment. The appeal by ATS of the decision is pending. This Application is without prejudice to that appeal. ATS reserves the right to proceed with the project as originally proposed should it prevail in the appeal.   On December 31, 2003 ATS submitted another NPC. This project change reduced the proposed tonnage of the facility to 600 tons per day and limited the waste stream to C&D materials. On February 23, 2004, the Secretary issued a Certificate on the NPC that determined that no further MEPA study of the project was required.  <--[endif]-->   2.0 FACILITY INFORMATION   The sections below provide the supplemental information requested on the DEP permit application form BWP SW I -Site Suitability for a New Site Assignment in the sequence presented on the form. The application forms are in the beginning of this Application. A more detailed response to sections which are applicable to the requested suitability determination and which require greater description than is allowed by the forms, are made in these sections. <--[if!supportEmptyParas]-->  SECTION 1. GENERAL INFORMATION   A. Site Location & Project Description   6. Capacity and expected life of proposed facility   b. The estimated average daily capacity is assumed to be 450 tons per day for the ATS facility. The estimated rates for average daily capacity are based on observed typical fluctuations in daily and seasonal waste generation rates.   C. The ATS facility will operate five and one half(5.5) days per week, from Monday through Saturday morning. Based upon a maximum daily capacity of 600 tons per day and a 5.5 day operating week, the annual capacity of the ATS facility will be 171,600 tons per year.   8. Project Description The site is located at 1477 Bedford Street (Route 18) in Abington, Massachusetts. The site presently consists of 6.9 acres, within which 4.4 acres were issued a site assignment in 1992 by the Abington Board of Health. Prior to any solid waste handling operations being conducted on the site, the Abington Board of Health rescinded the site assignment on August 16, 2001. The 2.5 acres of the site that was not included in the original site assignment is a parcel of land that was conveyed from the adjacent BRT property to the site. This site assignment application includes the 2.5 acres to make the proposed site assignment area the entire 6.9 acres of the property. See the Locus Plan and the Existing Conditions Plan in Attachment 2. The site has been mostly cleared of vegetation and developed with a building and paved area. The existing building occupies approximately 7,800 square feet. The building and property is currently used for the operation of a solid waste hauling company, Atlantic North Waste Systems. The office is used for administration and the garage is used for vehicle maintenance. One of the previous owners of the property, Suburban Disposal, Inc., also operated a solid waste hauling company from this site using the site in the same manner as it is currently used.   The proposed facility will accept only C&D materials. Waste will be delivered in roll-off trucks. ATS will not allow packer trucks or pickup trucks to use the facility. Each load of incoming waste will be thoroughly inspected to ensure that improper, hazardous or banned waste materials do not enter the processing building. C&D material will be handled initially by sorting out large items of wood, metal or other materials. These sorted materials will be placed in roll-off containers for disposal at processing facilities. The remainder of the C&D materials will be placed in open top trailers for transport to C&D material handling facilities or to landfills. The presorted recyclables will be placed in separate containers for each material type and then transported to recycling facilities for subsequent processing. All waste handling operations will be conducted within the processing building in order to mitigate potential impacts from operations. Surface water and groundwater protection systems will be constructed and maintained in accordance with DEP Best Management Practices. Any water from the roll off trucks that reaches the floor inside the building will be collected in a closed drainage system and will not discharge to groundwater or surface waters. In addition to complying with the rigorous solid waste permitting process, the facility will be required to obtain other state and local permits.   ATS is proposing the 600 tons per day (tpd) capacity of the solid waste transfer and recycling facility because of the demand for this size and type of facility in the South Shore area. There are currently very few municipal or commercial landfills that remain open within the service area (Eastern Massachusetts) of the Facility. Since DEP has not permitted additional disposal sites, many municipal and commercial solid waste generators and haulers have to travel distances to disposal facilities or recycled material users, many of which are located out of state. Even if the DEP were able to permit new solid waste disposal facilities to meet the anticipated shortfall that the DEP's Master Plan identifies it will take several years for those facilities to be permitted and operational. The development of a couple of handling facilities in the vicinity of Abington have helped relieve the critical nature of the of the capacity shortfall. However, ATS has made a business decision that additional solid waste handling capacity is needed in the region. Significant growth is anticipated in the area of the proposed Facility, such as the proposed mixed use development of the South Weymouth Naval Air Station which is within one half mile of the site. With the uncertainty of future regional disposal capacity in a growing area of the state, a transfer station of sufficient capacity will be an important component in the region's economy, infrastructure and environmental protection.   Facility Design   A single clear-span, 32,000 square foot, metal-frame building expansion will enclose the Facility. The clear span ceiling height will be approximately 26 feet within the building. The proposed building expansion will connect to the east wall of the existing vehicle maintenance building. The transfer station building will be equipped with roll-up doors on four bays along the north side of the building, where transfer trailer trucks will enter and receive waste from the tipping floor. The tipping floor entrances and exits along the south side of the proposed building, which are for the trucks that are bringing waste to the transfer station, will also have roll-up doors.  q--[endif]--> The building is designed with four waste handling bays with a continuous tipping floor for dumping and handling the waste. The tipping floor of the facility will be of reinforced concrete and will have floor drains that will collect incidental drippings from the trucks or waste that is brought into the building and floor wash water. These floor drains will discharge to a contained system, as described below, which will not discharge to surface waters or the environment. Fifteen foot (15') high concrete push walls will be constructed between each of the tipping floor area bays and partially in front of the transfer trailer bays. Refer to the Floor & Yard Piping Plan which is included in Attachment 2.   Lighting of the working area will be provided by translucent panels in the roof and lights suspended from the ceiling and mounted on the walls. The tipping floor area will not be heated. Man doors will be provided for access by authorized personnel. All heat and smoke sensors and other equipment that may be required by the appropriate building code and the Town of Abington Building and Fire Department's will be provided. Fire protection will be provided by multiple levels of systems, including a sprinkler system designed by an expert in fire suppression systems, by hydrants located on the property which will be connected to the public water system on Route 18, by fire extinguishers that will be provided throughout the Facility, and by a small diameter yard hydrant system located in the proposed building.   The site's existing pavement area will be significantly increased as part of the proposed site improvements. Refer to the Site Plan that is included in Attachment 2 for the proposed pavement area of the site. The site's proposed access onto Route 18 has been developed from discussions with, and the requirements of, the Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD). The existing driveway to Route 18 will be abandoned. A new entrance of the driveway will be created just north of the approximate middle of the Route 18 frontage. The width will be 40 feet and the exit radii will be increased to 50' in accordance with MHD requirements. In accordance with requests made by the MHD and the Towns of Abington and Weymouth during previous MEPA review, ATS had proposed to widen the north and southbound lanes of Route 18 along and to a few hundred feet north and south of the site as acceleration/de-acceleration/passing lanes. In the intervening period MHD plans to widen Route 18 have progressed and are likely to occur during the project planning period, thus providing the recommended widening in the MHD's comprehensive roadways improvement program for Route 18. Because of this ATS will coordinate its access design with MHD to insure it provides safe and efficient site access and egress for both initial and long term operating periods. All design changes to the site's entrance and egress will require MHD approvals, in the form of a curb cut permit. ATS will prepare the curb cut permit application to be consistent with the recommendations made by MHD. MHD has noted that it will consider the proposed access road to Route 3 that may be located along the ATS north property line, when it is reviewing ATS permit application. Other expansions of the site's paving will include areas in front (south side) of the transfer station building which will allow adequate room for vehicles bringing waste to the facility to queue up, if necessary, and to maneuver into the building. Access will extend around the building from the south side, along the east side to the north side and then to the new entrance, as discussed above, on to Route 18.   A Cape Cod berm will be provided along both sides of the roadway to ensure that run-off water is diverted to the appropriate drainage structures. The pavement will be extended up to the building, as indicated on the Site Plan. Adequate parking will be provided for 25 employee and visitor automobiles. During operating hours there is sufficient area to park five transfer trailers and 20 roll-off containers on the site without interference to operations. During non-operating hours there will be additional area to store 20 transfer trailers or 40 roll-off containers within the building.   The site's stormwater management system will be improved by adding new drainage structures, including catch basins, pipes and manholes. These structures will collect stormwater runoff and transport it to the existing sedimentation/detention basins for treatment prior to discharge to the adjacent wetlands. The existing basins were constructed in accordance with an Order of Conditions issued by the Abington Conservation Commission and will provide Best Management Practices (BMP) for stormwater treatment and control. The 30 inch diameter discharge drain pipe that is located in the rear (east) of the site has been relocated in accordance with the Order of Conditions. Catch basins in the yard area of the site will be constructed with deep sumps and hooded outlets to provide oil/gas separation. 'french drains will be constructed along the outside entrance to the transfer trailer bays. Roof drains from the proposed building will be provided with direct connections to the stormwater management system. The stormwater management system is a completely separate system from the building drains. The two systems are designed specifically to separate liquids that may be in contact with waste (leachate) from those liquids (stormwater) that are to discharge to surface waters.   The existing drainage system along Route 18 will not be significantly changed, nor will the runoff characteristics from this area significantly change since there will be relatively minor alterations to impervious area. This runoff will continue to be collected by the existing drainage system, with minor changes to allow for the relocation of the access onto Route 18. The MHD, as part of a roadway improvements project for Route 18, plans to construct some drainage improvements in the vicinity of the site. ATS will coordinate its curb cut permit application with the final MHD design.   The proposed stormwater collection system will discharge to the three stage sedimentation basin system that has been constructed at the eastern limit of the site. The basin system is designed to control and treat stormwater runoff before it discharges to the adjacent wetlands. The three-stage basin system consists of two structural components; the first stage and structural component is a sediment forebay to remove a majority of sediment; the second structural component includes the second stage permanent wet pond and third stage extended detention pond. When runoff is routed to the system it will discharge to the wetlands along the eastern edge of the site. The sedimentation pond system will serve two purposes: 1) to control post-development stormwater run-off rates to below pre-development rates (quantity), and 2'1 to capture sediment in the stormwater collected through the drainage system (quality).   The proposed stormwater and sedimentation control system has been approved by the Abington Conservation Commission in an Order of Conditions. The stormwater and sediment control system has been designed to meet the performance standards of and to be in accordance with the DEP's Stormwater Management Policy and conforms to the procedures and standards of DEP's Stormwater Management Handbook. DEP's Stormwater Management Form and supporting calculations for the hydrologic performance of the proposed system under two year, 10-year, and 100-year storm conditions were included for MEPA review in the SEIR. Design conditions have not changed from the design that was previously reviewed by MEPA and approved by DEP in the Authorization to Construct and the Conservation Commission's Order of Conditions.   In its Final ATC, DEP required ATS to add a gate valve on the outlet pipe of the sedimentation pond system. The purpose of the valve was to allow ATS to shut off the discharge to the pond if a release of contamination, such as a fuel leak, occurs in the yard area. With the discharge of the pond halted the water in the pond can be pumped out for disposal or treated in the pond. Closing the valve will create a temporary containment capacity of approximately 25,000 cubic feet (187,000 gallons) above the maximum elevation of a two-year storm event. ATS will have to acquire Conservation Commission approval to construct this minor modification to the system. ATS will also place and continually maintain adsorption booms around the discharge structure of the sedimentation basins. The booms will adsorb oils and greases that may run off of the paved area of the site. The booms are effective in adsorbing both low volume oils and greases that are typically in runoff from any paved surface and for immediate remediation of a larger, sudden release such as gasoline or diesel fuel from a ruptured fuel tank.  Q--[endif]--> Grading and placement of floor drains, as shown in the design plans, eliminate the potential of liquids from the waste handling areas discharging to the environment. This design, using conventional engineering applications, provides complete assurance of the elimination of potential discharges of contaminated materials to groundwater or surface water. Liquids that may collect on the tipping floor and in the trailer bay areas will be collected in a series of floor drains, which are either catch basins (tipping floor) or trench drains (trailer bays). The water collected in the trailer bay trench drains will be pumped up to the floor drain system by individual pumps in each drain. The combined flow of the trailer bay trench drains and the tipping floor catch basins will flow by gravity through a system of pipes and manholes to a pump station located adjacent to the southeast corner of the transfer station building. The pump station will discharge the collected floor drain water through a force main, for discharge to the public sewer. The pump station will be provided with automatic controls, a high water alarm and adequate reserve capacity to allow for power outage conditions. The pump station discharge to the public sewer will require a discharge permit from the Abington Sewer Commission and approval from the City of Brockton Sewer Department. If either of these approvals is not obtained, the floor drain liquid will be collected in the pump station chamber as a tight tank and hauled, by pumper truck, to a publicly owned treatment facility that will accept the liquid waste.   In order to satisfy the requirements for a two-foot vertical separation between high groundwater and the area where waste handling is to occur as established by the Site Suitability Criteria of the Site Assignment Regulations, 310 CMR 16.40, ATS proposes an underdrain system which will lower the groundwater table to provide four feet of separation which is double the required distance. Groundwater table elevations were measured from a series of groundwater monitoring wells that have been installed on the site. The underdrain system is depicted on the Floor & Yard Piping Plan which is included in Attachment 2. The underdrain system is designed to passively (by gravity, without pumping) lower the groundwater elevations in the areas of the transfer trailer bays. The lowest points where waste is "handled" are the floor drain systems in the transfer trailer bays and the system's pump station. The bay floors and the floor drain system will be underlained with a subgrade of 3/4" to 1 %" crushed stone, which will direct the groundwater to flow to the lowest points within the excavated areas. The crushed stone will be underlain by geotextile to prevent migration of fine soil particles into the crushed stone. These materials and design provide a very stable structural base for the building. The system is designed to produce a four-foot separation between the groundwater and the sumps of the trench drains. Perforated pipe will be installed within the crushed stone that is placed below the floor drains. The groundwater that is collected in the underdrain system will flow through a series of pipes and manholes to an existing discharge pipe near the wetlands along the eastern side of the site. This system is a typical underdrain system, consistent with MHD standards and systems used in building foundation drains. While the system provides highly preferable gravity flow, it is capable of being back flushed for cleaning or supplemented by connecting a pump at the access manholes. While it is extremely unlikely that groundwater will or can be impacted by waste handling operations at a transfer station with the numerous mitigation design components proposed for the facility, the groundwater discharging from the underdrain outlet will be sampled quarterly and analyzed by an independent laboratory for the presence of contamination. The underdrain outlet pipe also allows for the contingency of collecting groundwater for disposal, should the groundwater ever be impacted by solid waste operations.   In the Final ATC the DEP required that ATS install at least four groundwater monitoring wells (piezometers) to monitor the groundwater separation distance during the operating life of the facility. ATS will place these monitoring wells below the transfer trailer bays, adjacent to or in the trench drains and will be monitored, at least every other month, to assure compliance with the DEP's requirements. If, in the highly unlikely event, groundwater ever approaches or comes within the regulatory limit of two feet of the bottom of a trench drain, it is most likely to occur in the westerly trailer bay, since it is the most up gradient, relative to groundwater flow. If this occurs, operations within that bay will be suspended until the minimum required separation distance is reestablished.  4--[endif]--> The existing electric power system will be upgraded to accommodate the requirements of the planned improvements, if needed. High intensity lighting will be provided, both inside and outside the proposed building for security and operational purposes.   Water for domestic uses and fire and dust suppression will be provided to the facility by the municipal water distribution system. A large diameter water line of at least eight inches will be extended into the transfer station from an existing 12" diameter water line that runs along the northern side of the property, which loops the water line on Bedford Street (Route 18) to the water line on Adams Street (Route 58). An internal water supply system will be designed and constructed to provide greater than the required water volume and pressure needed to meet conservative fire suppression system demands. The internal water supply system may include water storage (volume) and booster pump (pressure) components, as will be determined by the design of the fire suppression system. These supplemental components may be provided, notwithstanding the testimony of Daniel Callahan, the Manager of the Abington/Rockland Joint Water Works, during the 2000 site assignment hearings that he was not concerned with fire suppression flows (Volume III, Page 76). The on-site fire suppression system will, at a minimum, consist of fire hydrants and sprinkler or deluge systems that will exceed the requirements of the Abington Building and Fire Departments. Design of these facilities will require flow testing of the public water system in accordance with the requirements of the Abington/Rockland Joint Water Works.   Domestic sanitary wastewater will be handled by the use of the existing service connection to the public sewer that is located along Bedford Street (Route 18). Floor drain flows will be collected and pumped to the public sewer by a separate system. Maximum wastewater flows are estimated to be approximately 700 gallons per day from the site. This is based on a total of 300 gallons per day domestic use (an assumed 20 employee and non-employee users at the Title 5 usage rate of 15 gallons per day per capita) plus up to 400 gallons per day flows from the floor drain system. Of the 400 gallons per day that is expected to come from the floor drain system, 200 gallons per day is assumed to be from use of the public water system for dust suppression and floor washing and 200 gallons per day of this flow would come from liquids that might drain from the waste or from the truck beds. Actual floor drain flow rates will be dependent on weather conditions at any point in time. During dry weather, flows from use of the public water system will increase because of additional dust suppression needs and during wet weather, flows will increase because of drainage from waste with higher moisture content and from vehicles.   The primary and most effective air quality control will be the construction of the transfer station's structural building and the conduct of all solid waste handling operations within that structure. The conduct of waste handling operations within the enclosing structure will significantly reduce the dispersion of potential adverse impacts associated with air quality, such as dust, odors and noise, to a point where no detectable impact to receptors will occur. The potential impacts are most likely to be created by the actions of dumping the incoming waste onto the tipping floor; handling or moving the waste across the tipping floor; and loading the waste into the transfer trailers. All of these actions will be conducted within the building. Also, all loading operations of the transfer trailers will be conducted with the trailer bay doors closed. This will eliminate the flow through of wind, which could carry dust or odors to the ambient atmosphere for potential dispersion to receptors. See Attachment 8 for the Air Quality Assessment.   ATS will construct a fixed nozzle dust and odor suppression mister type system. This type of system creates a mist in the upper areas of the building. As the mist settles, it collects the airborne dust and carries it to the tipping floor. This type of a system can be flexibly adjusted to increase dust suppression capacity in areas of greater dust generation, such as where waste is dumped, or in the doorways. It also functions very effectively for odor control. Odor suppressing chemicals are added to the mister system discharge, which effectively neutralize odors. The system is readily controllable to increase application rates of water and/or odor suppressant chemicals, in reaction to prevailing conditions. Such systems have been successfully used in many solid waste handling and wastewater treatment facilities. Manufacturer's information on a fixed nozzle odor control system that has been used in transfer stations is included as part of Attachment 10, the Facility Impact Assessment.   ATS has also decided to install a high rate ventilation and dust removal system in the transfer station. The ventilation system will rapidly draw air from space above the tipping floor at a height where small diameter dust particles can be captured. The ventilation,system will then discharge through either a cartridge filter, a bag filter or a cyclone settler, to remove the dust. An odor control system could be added to the ventilation system. The treated air would be discharged to the atmosphere so that the flow of air within the transfer station is controlled, or the air could be recycled back to the station.   In addition to these primary air quality controls of conducting all solid waste operations inside the transfer station building with active dust and odor control systems, there are other controls that will be used to reduce adverse impacts to air quality. Dust will be controlled by the application of water to individual waste loads that are dusty. Yard hydrants are being provided in the transfer station building for this purpose. The hoses will also be used to wash down the tipping floor periodically to reduce dust generation. Additional controls for odor will be provided by the spot application of odor suppressants. Portable odor suppressant application containers will be used as a supplemental odor control system to the fixed nozzle system. There will be several suppressant application containers stored around the tipping floor, ready for immediate use by the transfer station's operating personnel. The operating personnel will apply the suppressant immediately, upon detection of an odor problem and will continue to apply the material until the problem has been mitigated. These controls will limit dust and odor conditions to the inside of the transfer station and eliminate the potential for any off site impact from the transfer station's operation.   ATS is required by DEP to have the facility and its operations independently inspected at least every other month (bi-monthly). These inspections must note the presence of any odor or dust conditions that are evident in or outside of the transfer station building. In addition, DEP and the Abington Board of Health have open access to the facility during normal operation hours, to inspect all aspects of operations. These agencies can require additional abatement measures and can impose conditions in the operating permits they issue to ATS including closing the facility if nuisance conditions develop at the facility. Although that is the case, the two principle mitigation measures will provide complete dust and odor control such that there will be no adverse impacts to receptors and no additional contingency actions will be necessary. These are: (1) the conduct of all solid waste handling operations inside of the transfer station building and (2) the operation of the active, fixed nozzle dust and odor suppression systems along with the proposed air handling/filtration system   Facility Operations   When the Transfer Station improvements described above are completed, the operations of the Facility will be conducted in an orderly and controlled manner. All incoming vehicles will stop first at one of the two scales located to the south of the building and will weigh-in. A scale attendant will be responsible for controlling traffic flow to the tipping floor and recording the full-weight of the incoming material. There is enough room to have six or seven vehicles waiting to weigh-in between the scale and Route 18, without blocking access to the site or causing a back-up onto Route 18. After being weighed, all incoming vehicles will proceed to the transfer station tipping floor where at least four vehicles at a time may back in and off-load in the building. There is adequate paved area south of the transfer station building for at least eight trucks to wait to enter the building, after they have been weighed, without obstructing the movement of trucks in this area.   A spotter, or Inspector, will be responsible for inspecting loads as they are discharged onto the tipping floor. At that time, unacceptable materials, including waste ban materials, will be removed and recyclables recovered. Unacceptable materials will be handled in accordance with current DEP regulations. Recyclables will be pulled from the load and set aside for delivery to a recycling facility, for eventual delivery to an end market. After depositing its load each vehicle will exit the building and weigh out if necessary. Depending on the truck traffic congestion along the entrance route, trucks may exit the site by going around the building to the east and entering Route 18.   The tipping floor is large enough to accommodate the off-loading of construction/demolition waste at different loading bays. There is sufficient area to segregate refuse from recyclable materials and also to allow for the operation of equipment used to compact the refuse and load the transfer trailers. Material will be deposited at the mid-point of the tipping floor of each of the bays and moved to the east or west against the push walls. Waste that is handled for disposal will be compacted by operating equipment, pushed against the push-walls and loaded into a transfer trailer. Waste wood, asphalt, brick and concrete (ABC) rubble and other selected materials from construction/demolition waste stream will be handled in a similar manner on the tipping floor. However, these selected materials, which will be subject to waste ban requirements, will be put in separate transfer trailers for transportation to processing facilities rather than disposal facilities. Metals for recycling will be taken off the tipping floor and loaded into a container located on the tipping floor.   Transfer trailers will move into each of the four loading pits, where they will be loaded with refuse or recyclable materials. The loading pits are located along the north side of the building. Each trailer will be covered with a tarpaulin before leaving the building. The exiting, loaded transfer trailers will be weighted on the scale located to the north of the station building and will then depart from the site onto Route 18. The trailers will deliver the waste to appropriate regional waste disposal or recycling facilities. Loaded trailers will be removed from the site within 24 hours.   B. Fees 1310 CMR 16.08(4)]   1. Proof of Payment of Technical Fee   Abington Transfer Station, LLC has paid the Maximum Technical Fee to the Town of Abington. A copy of the check is included in Attachment 3.  <--[endif]--> 2. Calculation of Technical Fee <--[if!supportEmptyParas]--> <--[endif]--> From 310 CMR 16.99 Annendix A Table 2, the Maximum Technical Fee For Handling Facilities is based on the maximum daily volume of waste, measured in tons per day (tpd), that is proposed to be accepted at the facility. Abington Transfer Station is proposed to operate at a maximum daily volume of 600 tpd. The Maximum Technical Fee for the proposed facility capacity is $3,000 for the handling facility plus $20 per tpd, or:   $3,000.00 + ( 600 tpd x $20.00 / tpd) _ $15,000.00   The total of the Maximum Technical Fee ($15,000) is to be adjusted for inflation by a factor determined by the ratio of Boston Consumer Price Index (BCPI) for September of the year preceding the current year, divided by the BCPI for September 1988. Per information provided by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, the BCPI for September 2003 was 206.8 and September 1988 was 126.2. Applying the adjustment factor results in the following Maximum Technical Fee for the proposed Abington Transfer Station.   $15,000 x (206.8/126.2) _ $24,580.03   F. Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) 1310 CMR 16.08 (5) (d)]   As stated above, the Abington Transfer Station has been issued several MEPA certificates (EDEA #8694) for a solid waste handling facility with a capacity of up to 1,800 tons per day. As a result of public opposition to the project the site assignment was previously issued and modified following MEPA review, was rescinded by the Abington Board of Health. A Notice of Project Change (NPC) was submitted to MEPA on December 31, 2003 which described the modifications proposed to the project as discussed in this application for a Site Assignment. Following MEPA review of the NPC, the Secretary of Environmental Affairs issued a Certificate on February 23, 2004, that determined that no further MEPA review was required for the Abington Transfer Station. A copy of the Secretary's Certificate is included in Attachment 4.   G. Wetlands Resources   1. Buffer Zone  Q--[endif]--> On June 8, 1999 ATS filed a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the Abington Conservation Commission for work within the 100 foot buffer zone of Bordering Vegetated Wetlands (BVW). Proposed work to be conducted within the 100 foot buffer zone was limited to construction of a portion of an access road and stormwater controls, which were required to meet DEP Best Management Practices (BMPs). On August 18, 1999 the Commission issued an Order of Conditions to ATS, which was subsequently recorded in the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds. A copy of the Order of Conditions is included as Attachment 5. The approved work has since been constructed at ATS in accordance with the Order of Conditions.   Under the Final Permit for Authorization to Construct issued by DEP on September 15, 2000, DEP required ATS to add a gate valve on the outlet pipe of the sedimentation pond. The purpose of the valve is to allow ATS to shut off the discharge to the pond if a release, such as a fuel leak, occurs in the yard area. With the discharge of the pond halted, the water in the pond can be pumped out for disposal or treated in the pond. Closing the valve will create a temporary containment capacity of approximately 25,000 cubic feet (187,000 gallons) above the maximum elevation of a two-year storm event. ATS will have to acquire Conservation Commission approval to construct this minor modification to the system. ATS will also place and continually maintain adsorption booms around the discharge structure of the sedimentation basins. The booms will adsorb oils and greases that may run off of the paved area of the site. The booms are effective in adsorbing both low volume oils and greases that are typically in runoff from any paved surface and for immediate remediation of a larger, sudden release such as gasoline or diesel fuel from a ruptured fuel tank.   There has previously been concern expressed about a risk to public health, safety and the environment because liquids from the facility might potentially have an adverse impact on French's Stream, a surface water body which is reported to be "impaired" or "overburdened". There is no risk of adverse impact from the proposed facility because ATS will meet or exceed Best Management Practices (BMP) in the facility design and operation. Moreover, the DEP previously determined that in regard to the much larger facility that ATS had previously proposed (which facility is subject to the full reservation of its right to proceed on the proposal if it prevails in the pending appeal) that the proper operation of the transfer station will not impact wetlands, streams or water supplies and stated that the Department may require additional environmental monitoring during the facility's operating period. The Abington Conservation Commission agreed by issuing an Order of Conditions under the Wetlands Protection Act, G.L. c. 131, §40, approving the surface water and sediment control system which ATS has incorporated in its current design.   The surface water quality protection systems that ATS is proposing to construct are addressed above in the Facility Design section. The systems will intercept, collect and treat any liquids that may be present on the site. There are two basic surface water protection systems. The first system is for liquids exposed to contact with waste. These liquids are technically required to be described as leachate. It bears considerable emphasis, however, that these liquids would result from very brief contact of water and waste materials. Even under the worst case, they might contain only minute amounts of impurities. In no way, however, would these liquids ever be comparable to landfill leachate. Landfill leachates result from long-term contact between water and landfilled materials. Consequently they contain contaminates at levels that are many orders of magnitude higher than would be contained in transfer station liquids. The floor drain system will collect any liquids that accumulate on the transfer station floor that might have emanated from contact with solid waste. It will ensure the safe disposal of these liquids at a public treatment plant and thereby entirely prevent any discharge of such liquids to nearby surface waters.  <--[endif]--> The second system is for stormwater runoff. Stormwater runoff from the site will be collected in deep sump catch basins and treated by means of a three-stage retention/detention basin system. Discharge from the basin will be able to be shut off by means of a valve that will be added to the outlet of the pond system. The valve will be closed in the unlikely event there is a release of contaminants, such as fuel from one of the vehicles using the facility, onto the paved area of the site. Should that occur the sedimentation pond would then be treated by either pumping and removing all water from the pond or treating the water in the pond. ATS will place and maintain floatation devices at the sedimentation pond outlet structure to adsorb dissolved and floating petroleum, oils and greases that may result from normal runoff of paved surfaces or from a sudden fuel release on the site.   2. Riverfront Area   "The Riverfront Area" is defined at 310 CMR 10.58 (2)(a)3.a. as "the area of land between a river's mean annual high-water line measured horizontally outward from the river and a parallel line located 200 feet away......." The closest River shown on the current U.S.G.S. map is an unnamed stream that is tributary to French Stream, and is located on the BRT property. No work within the 200 foot Riverfront Area of the unnamed stream is proposed. See the Water Resources Site Plan in Attachment 2.   3. 100-Year Floodplain <--[if!supportEmptyParas]-->  The waste handling area will not be within the limits of the 100-year FEMA floodplain.   4. Order of Conditions   A Notice of Intent was filed with the Abington Conservation Commission. An Order of Conditions was issued on August 18, 1999 by the Commission. Attachment 5 includes the issued Order of Conditions. ATS will be required to submit a Notice of Intent for the proposed improvements to the existing stormwater management system that have been required by DEP in its ATC.   5. Variances   ATS is not seeking any variances from the Wetlands Protection Regulations.   G. Maps   1. Groundwater Contour Map   A Groundwater Contour Map is included in Attachment 2 - Plans and Figures. Based upon groundwater investigation using measurements taken during April 1998 from a series of seven groundwater monitoring wells that are located on the site, a groundwater contour map has been developed for the site. As can be noted from this figure, the inferred groundwater contours range from about elevation 176, in the vicinity of the existing building, to between 170 and 161 toward the eastern edge of the site.   2. Locus Map   A Locus Map is included in Attachment 2 - Plans and Figures.       3. Water Resources Site Plan   A Water Resources Site Plan is included in Attachment 2 - Plans and Figures. This plan indicates the location of the listed water resources that are within a one half mile radius from the site boundary. <--[if!supportEmptyParas]-->  4. Land Use Site Plan   A Land Use Site Plan is included in Attachment 2 - Plans and Figures. This plan indicates the location of the listed land.use criteria that are within a one half mile radius from the site boundary.  <l--[endif]--> SECTION 11. FACILITY SPECIFIC CRITERIA   A. Landfills   Not Applicable.  <--[endif]--> B. Combustion Facilities   Not Applicable.   C. Waste Handling and Processing Facilities   The Facility-specific Site Suitability Criteria that are applicable to the proposed Abington Transfer Station facility are presented below (in italics) as they appear in, or are paraphrases of the regulations at 310 CMR 16.40 (3)(d) or on the BWP SWOT Application Form. Each criterion is addressed with respect to the proposed ATS facility.   Criteria for Solid Waste Handling Facilities No site shall be determined to be suitable or be assigned as a solid waste facility where:    1.<--[endif]--> The waste handling area mould be within the Zoned of a public water supply.   The ATS facility is not within Zone I of a public water supply.    2.<--[endif]--> The waste handling area would be within the Interim Wellhead Protection Area (MTA) or a Zone II of an existing public water supply well within a proposed drinking water source area, provided that the documentation necessary to obtain a source approval has been submitted prior to the earlier of either the site assignment application, or if the MEPA process does apply, the Secretary's Certificate on the Environmental Notification Form or Notice of Project Change, or where applicable, the Secretary's Certificate on the EIR or Final EIR, unless restrictions are imposed to minimize the risk of an adverse impact to the groundwater; and either   i. The proponent can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Department that die facility cannot reasonably be sited outside of the IWPA or Zone II; or ii. There would be a net environmental benefit to the groundwater by sitting the facility within the Zone II or the IWPA where the site has been previously used for solid waste management activities.   The ATS facility is not within an IWPA of an existing public water supply well or a Zone II of an existing public water supply well. The facility is not within the medium yield portion of the so-called French's Stream aquifer as was shown on Figure 6.2-1 of the SEIR (copy included in .Attachment 2). Most importantly, the "aquifer" does not meet the definition of a Potential Public Water Supply under the requirements of the Site Assignment Regulations, 310 CMR 16.40(3)(d)(2), because the initial MEPA submission for the transfer station in 1991 predated the submissions in 2002 of source approval documentation for any potential public water supply in the French's Stream aquifer by some eleven years.   These considerations fully demonstrate compliance with this site suitability criteria. Nonetheless, assuming for the sake of discussion that there is disagreement on this disposition, because consultants for the South Shore Tri- Town Development Corp. have identified a proposed drinking water source on the South Weymouth Naval Air Station property. The ATS site is outside of the preliminary Zone II (proposed drinking water source area) set forth in the Request for Site Exam filed by Woodard & Curran in August of 2002. (See the Water Resources Plan and Preliminary Zone II figure located in Attachment 2.) There is no reliable data in the form of results of a long-term pumping test and water quality testing as to whether potential yields would even support a viable and sustainable drinking water source anywhere in the aquifer.   There are no less than eight Superfund sites in or immediately adjacent to the aquifer which is the subject of the Woodard & Curran study. These sites have caused it to be polluted with hazardous wastes and known carcinogens such that it is unfit for human consumption. The Department of the Navy, which has acknowledged responsibility for the pollution, is currently carrying out remediation of these sites.   There are still many important questions surrounding the completion and efficacy of the remediation of these Superfund sites. Moreover, studies aimed at determining the suitability of any portion of this aquifer as a public water supply source are still underway. ATS has been unable to establish the date by which Navy will have completed its cleanup. This is important because the cleanup may not be finished during the operational life of the transfer station.   After reviewing the Request For Site Exam by Woodard & Curran, DEP issued an Approval to Site Source, dated October 11, 2002. See Attachment 11. Although it approved the proposed public water supply well locations for further investigation by a prolonged pump test, DEP indicated in no uncertain terms that it did not believe that the proposed wells are a viable potential source for drinking water:   C "There are many potential contamination threats to the wells within the preliminary Zone II wellhead protection area, primarily from historic activities at the Base. Some of these are Superfund sites." <--[if!supportEmptyParas]-->  C "The contamination threats at the Base pose a risk to the long term viability of the wells, and the potential stream flow impacts from the wells, along with the vernal pool adjacent to Site 1-01, will pose significant permitting issues that could result in denial of the wells or severe restrictions on their use." C "Preliminary water quality analyses show that the well water is extremely high in iron and manganese and will require filtration treatment."   C "The capital costs of providing treatment to make the well water acceptable for potable use appear to be high."   C "DEP recommends that the on-site wells be considered a fallback option, rather than a first option for water supply . . ....   C "Because the alternative sources of water supply are limited, DEP will approve the well sites for further testing, with the understanding that DEP does not consider the well sites to be optimal." <--[if!supportEmptyParas]-->  Although DEP has determined that treatment will be required, at least for iron and manganese removal, these is no indication that the Navy intends to install a treatment works to address any contamination that it is unable to remove. It is critical to determine whether treatment is required before one can further assess the potential impact of the ATS site on this questionable aquifer. ATS believes that its site engineering and operational safeguards will ensure that no pollutants leave its facility. In the unlikely event that they might, the treatment works required to address existing contaminants in the French's Stream aquifer would likely also treat any pollutants from ATS facility should they even reach the aquifer.   There is unquestionably a stigma that attaches to every Superfund site. Add to this the concerns that will certainly arise based on the documented carcinogens in the aquifer. It thus seems unlikely that residents would ever allow their drinking water to be drawn from such a questionable source even were authorities to claim that it is "safe to drink" after treatment.   In light of these factors, it seems unduly speculative to attempt to assess further the potential impact of small amounts of the improbable release of low level contaminates that might possibly escape the multiple levels of safeguards ATS proposes to install at the facility on future drinking water supplies that come from an historically contaminated aquifer that has Superfund sites within or along its boundaries.     Finally, the French's Stream aquifer is shallow, as determined by all previous investigations, and contains significant amounts of wetland areas. While the long term pumping test and subsequent groundwater and surface water modeling will evaluate the effects of a water withdrawal on these resource areas, it is likely that current Water Management Act regulations regarding long term water withdrawal may limit the amount of water that can be withdrawn to the point that the project is not viable.    3. The waste handling area would be within the Zone A of a surface drinking water supply.  <--[endif]--> The ATS facility is not within the Zone A of a surface drinking water supply.  4. The waste handling area would be within 500 feet upgradient, and where not upgradient, within 250 feet, of an existing or potential private nater supply well existing or established as a Potential Private Water Supply at the time of submittal of the application, provided hozoever, the applicant may show a valid option to purchase the restricted area including the well and a guarantee not to use the well as a drinking zoster source, the exercise of Which shall be a condition of any site assignment.   There are no known existing or potential private drinking water supply wells within 500 ft. of the ATS facility. Existing private water supply wells that are located within a one half mile radius are indicated on the Water Resource Site Plan in Attachment 2. <--[if!supportEmptyParas]-->   5. The waste handling area of(a) a transfer station that proposes to receive less than or equal to 50 tons per dap of solid waste and utilizes a fidly enclosed storage system such as a compactor unit.........(b) any other transfer station or any handling facility is 500 feet from: (i) an occupied residential dwelling, or( ii) a prison, health care facility, elementary school, middle school or high school, children's preschool, licensed day care center, or senior center or youth center, excluding equipment storage or maintenance structures.   i. There are no occupied residential dwellings within 500 feet of the waste handling area of the proposed ATS facility. There is a residence at 1530 Bedford Street that is within 500 feet of the existing ATS building. There will be no waste handling done within the existing building. Based on the field surveyed location of this residence, the closest corner of the proposed transfer station building will be located 501 feet from that residence. The closest actual waste handling area (loaded transfer trailer) will be twenty feet further from the residence. See the Land Use Site Plan in Attachment 2 for the surveyed location of the residence at 1530 Bedford Street relative to the proposed waste handling area of the ATS facility.   ii. There are no prisons, health care facilities, elementary schools, middle schools or high schools, children's preschools, licensed day care centers, or senior centers or youth centers within 500 feet of either the area proposed to be used for waste handling at the ATS facility or the proposed site assigned area.     6. A waste handling area would be within the Riverfront Area as defined at 310 CMR 10.00.   A "River" is defined at 310 CMR 10.58(2)(a)l.a, as a perennial stream, where "The issuing authority shall presume that river or stream shown as perennial on the current United States Geologic Survey (U.S.G.S.) or more recent map provided by the Department is perennial unless rebutted by evidence from a competent source asserting to the contrary or a finding by the issuing authority." "The Riverfront Area" is defined at 310 CMR 10.58 (2)(a)3.a. as "the area of land between a river's mean annual high-water line measured horizontally outward from the river and a parallel line located 200 feet away......." The closest River shown on the current U.S.G.S. map is an unnamed stream that is tributary to French Stream, and is located on the BRT property. No work is proposed to be conducted within the 200 foot Riverfront Area of the unnamed stream.  <!_[endif]--> 7. The maxinuau high groundwater table is within two (2)ft. of the ground surface in areas where waste handling or processing is to occur unless it can be demonstrated that a two (2)ft. separation can be designed and operated to the satisfaction of the Department.  <!_[endif]--> Based upon groundwater investigation using measurements taken during April 1998 from a series of seven groundwater monitoring wells that are located on the site, a groundwater contour map has been developed for the site. The Groundwater Contour Plan is included in Attachment 2. As can be noted from this figure the inferred groundwater contours range from about elevation 176, in the vicinity of the existing building, to between 170 and 161 toward the eastern edge of the site.   In order to satisfy the requirements for a two-foot vertical separation between high groundwater and the area where waste handling is to occur, ATS proposes an underdrain system which will lower the groundwater table to provide four feet of separation which is double the required distance. In order to accomplish this, ATS has raised the building and tipping floor elevations an additional one foot and the transfer trailer bay floors an additional two feet above the elevations proposed in the previous design. In addition, the catch basin floor drains in the trailer bays will be replaced with shallow trench drains, which will each have a pump that will discharge to the floor drains on the tipping floor. The trench drains will be designed with an underdrain system that will lower groundwater in their vicinity to approximately four feet below the collection trenches. All collected floor drain liquids will discharge to a pump station located at generally the same elevation of the tipping floor, where groundwater is some 16' below the finished elevation. As previously described, the pump station will discharge to the public sewer on Bedford Street, or if this is not permitted, it shall function as a tight tank. The underdrain system is depicted on the Floor & Yard Piping Plan which is included in Attachment 2.   The system is designed to produce a four-foot separation between the groundwater and the sumps of the trench drains. Perforated pipe will be installed within the crushed stone that is placed below the floor drains. The groundwater that is collected in the underdrain system will flow through a series of pipes and manholes to an existing discharge pipe near the wetlands along the eastern side of the site. This is a typical underdrain system, similar to MHD standards and systems used in building foundation drains. While the system provides gravity flow, it is capable of being back flushed for cleaning or supplemented by connecting a pump at the access manholes. While it is extremely unlikely that groundwater will or can be impacted by waste handling operations at a transfer station with the numerous mitigation design components proposed for the facility, groundwater discharging from the underdrain outlet will be sampled quarterly and analyzed by a laboratory for potential contamination. The underdrain outlet pipe also allows for the contingency of collecting groundwater for disposal, should the groundwater ever be impacted by solid waste operations. In the Final ATC the DEP required that ATS install at least four groundwater monitoring wells (piezometers) to monitor the groundwater separation distance during the operating life of the facility. ATS will place these monitoring wells below the transfer trailer bays, adjacent to or in the trench drains and will monitor these wells, at least every other month, to assure compliance with the DEP's requirements. If, in the highly unlikely event, that groundwater ever approaches or comes within the regulatory limit of two feet of the bottom of a trench drain, it is most likely to occur in the westerly trailer bay, since it is the most upgradient, relative to groundwater flow. If this occurs, operations within that bay will be suspended until the minimum required separation distance is reestablished.   SECTION 111. GENERAL CRITERIA  <l--[endif]--> The General Site Suitability Criteria outlined in 310 CMR 16.40(4) apply to all types of solid waste management facilities, and address concerns such as traffic and access to a site, threatened and endangered species, and Areas of Critical Environment Concern. Each criterion is presented in italics, followed by an evaluation of the relationship between that criterion and the ATS facility.   General Site Suitabilitv Criteria The following Site Suitability Criteria shall apply to all types ofsolid waste management facilities.   a. Aericultural Lands. No site shall be determined to be suitable or would be assigned as a solid waste management facility where......(a 100 ft. buffer would not be present between the facility and defined classifications of agricultural land).   There is no land meeting the defined classifications of agricultural land within 100 ft. of the ATS facility.   b. Traffic and Access to the Site. No site shall be determined to be suitable or be assigned as a solid waste management facility where traffic impacts firom the facility operation would constitute a danger to the public health, safety, or the environment taking into consideration the following factors: (1) traffic congestion, (_') pedestrian and vehicular safety, (3) road configurations, (4) alternate routes, and (S) vehicle emissions.   A traffic analysis for a 600 tons per day transfer station on the site was prepared by Vanasse & Associates, Inc. of Andover, Massachusetts. The full traffic study document is included as Attachment 6. This traffic study was performed in accordance with the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs/Executive Office of Transportation and Construction (EOEA/EOTC) guidelines for the preparation of Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs). The study analyzes the impact of the project on traffic and identifies the proposed mitigation commitment by ATS to address the project's impacts. This analysis was conducted in accordance with the MEPA certificate and the analysis presented in the previous SEIR.     The study area is consistent with previous filings and was developed based on comments from local and state agencies including MEPA and DEP. In total, the study area includes 12 intersections in both the Towns of Weymouth and Abington and the proposed site driveway.   A capacity analysis was completed for the 2003 existing, 2008 No-Build and 2008 Build traffic volume conditions. The analysis was completed for the weekday morning and evening peak hours in addition to the Saturday midday peak hour. As a result of the relatively low amount of traffic generated by the project, there will be no change in any present or future levels of service at any of the study area intersections.   The Route 18 and site driveway intersection will operate similarly to any unsignalized driveway along Route 18 with delays expected for left turning traffic. However adequate spacing between vehicles on Route 18 in the traffic stream do exist for exiting traffic to enter Route 18. The driveway design allows for safe traffic movement into and out of the project.   The final phase of the analysis process is to identify the mitigation measures necessary to minimize the impact of the project to the roadway system. The following recommendations for improvements to the study area intersections and roadways adjacent to the site, and design of the proposed site access facilities have been developed to address potential concerns arising from current traffic, from future traffic, from other developments, and traffic added to the roadway system due to the proposed project.   Pronosed Site Drivewav at Route 18   The site driveway is located on Route 18 along the western sideline of the site. MassHighway is advancing planned roadway improvements to widen Route 18 from the Weymouth town line, past the ATS site to the Whitman town line in Abington. The site driveway will be designed in coordination with MassHighway to insure safe and efficient site access and egress. The design will take into account the planned MassHighway widening of both the north and south bound lanes of Route 18 for acceleration and deceleration lanes, and will be dependent on MassHighway approvals. Also, new pavement markings will be provided along Route 18 in front of the site. The proposed site driveway will consist of one 20-foot wide entering lane and a 20-foot wide exiting lane. The proposed driveway will be designed to provide 50-foot corner radii to accommodate truck turning movements. The exiting lane will be striped with a painted STOP-bar, and will operate under STOP sign control.   Off-Site Location 4--[if!supportEmptyParas]-->  The off-site traffic impacts are minimal due to the downsized project and resulting low traffic generation. The level-of-service analysis indicates that the proposed project will not change any operating conditions at the study area intersections. In order to insure optimal operation conditions in the area, the project proponent proposes to review signal timing and phasing at the Route 58 and Route 139 intersection, the Route 58 and Route 123 intersection and the Route 18 and Route 123 intersection, within one year after the opening of the facility and implement those changes as approved by MHD.   As documented in the Vanasse study, the proposed 600 tons per day solid waste facility will result in very small traffic increases on Route 18 and will not be noticeable to the average motorist. During the study periods, the highest hourly directional traffic volume increase will range between 10 to 12 vehicles or one every five to six minutes. This increase will not change operating conditions at any of the study area intersections. The site driveway will be designed to ensure safe and efficient traffic operations, including provision of appropriate traffic control (pavement markings and signage), as well as design requirements to accommodate truck-related activity. In addition, the project proponent has agreed to review signal timings and phasing and implement changes by MassHighway at three study area locations within one year of the project opening.   Overall, this mitigation plan addresses the incremental impact of the project, and allows improved traffic operations under future conditions. With these improvements in place, efficient access and egress to the ATS facility can be provided, with minimal impact to the surrounding transportation system.   In total, the study area includes 12 intersections, which were reviewed with respect to the project's incremental impact on traffic operations and safety. As documented in the study, the project will result in very little traffic impact to the area and mitigation has been recommended to enhance traffic operations at area intersections and to provide safe and efficient driveway operations. With respect to the suitability criteria for traffic and safety, the following can be concluded:   (1) Traffic Congestion: The project is estimated to generate a total of 302 daily vehicle trips consisting of 151 entering trips and 151 exiting trips. During the peak commuter hours of Route 18, the project will generate 32 vehicle trips during the morning peak hour and 28 vehicle trips during the evening peak hour, or approximately one vehicle every two minutes. The project will not create any traffic congestion in the area and traffic increase to any area roadways will be less than one percent.   (2) Pedestrian and Vehicular Safetv: A comprehensive analysis has been completed for the project. The project is not expected to generate any pedestrian traffic. An analysis of accident data was completed at the study area intersections, which indicates that some of the intersections exceed the State Critical Crash Rates. Roadway improvements by MassHighway are planned to improve traffic operations and safety conditions. The proposed project will not adversely impact safety conditions in the area.   (3) Road Configurations: The site driveway onto Route 18 will be designed in coordination with MassHighway and will provide safe and efficient access. There are planned MassHighway improvements to the area, including widening the roadway, that are designed to improve traffic operations within the study area. The proposed project will not require any additional geometric modifications to the area roadways, than those that will be part of the MassHighway's improvement program. MHD has noted that it will consider the proposed access road to Route 3 that may be located along the ATS north property line, when it is reviewing ATS permit application. The project proponent has committed to review signal timings and phasing at selected intersections, in coordination with MassHighway to optimize traffic operations.   (4) Alternate Routes: The majority of truck traffic is expected to travel to the north utilizing Route 18 to access the regional highway system via the Route 3 interchange. While an alternative route exists to Route 3 southbound via Pleasant Street, all truck traffic will be directed to utilize Route 18. Traveling to the south of the site, traffic is expected to utilize both Route 18 and Route 58.  <--[endif]--> (S) Vehicle Emissions: Attachment 8 includes a report titled "Air Quality and Noise Analvsis of the Abington Transfer Station" by Tech Environmental, Inc. This report documents that trucks and equipment that travel to or are stationed on- site, will release a total of only 0.19 tons per year (tpy) of Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) on the site under a worst case scenario where the facility operates at its permitted capacity, six days per week, and every truck queues on site (not anticipated). EPA uses DPM as a surrogate for total diesel emissions in health assessments, and EPA has established an annual average inhalation reference concentration (RfQ of 5 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/ru ) for DPM which is a no-observed-adverse-health-effects threshold for continuous lifetime exposure, with a margin of safety. Maximum DPM air concentrations at the property line of the site (from project operations and background levels) will be only 0.8 µg/m3. Thus, air emissions associated with the proposed ATS project will not adversely affect public health or air quality in nearby residential areas, or anywhere in Abington or Weymouth.   In summary, a comprehensive analysis of impacts from the project has been completed and it can be concluded that the project will not adversely impact public health, safety, or the environment, with respect to traffic and access to the site.   C. Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat. No site shall be determined to be suitable or be assigned as a solid waste management facility where such sitting would:   1. have an adverse impact on Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern species listed by the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program of the Division of fisheries and Wildlife in its data base:   The Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) most recently responded to an inquiry regarding the existence of any endangered, threatened or special concern species, on or near the Abington Transfer Station site, by a letter dated July 27, 2004. This letter is a response to an inquiry submitted to NHESP for an updated determination. The NHESP stated that they are not aware of any rare or endangered species in the area, consistent with a previous determination by NHESP on the same issue. NHESP notes that the project "is near Certified Vernal Pool #1287". The closest Certified Vernal Pool identified on NHESP's latest (I1`h Edition) Natural Heritage Atlas, is located across Route 18 and about 500 feet north and upgradient of the ATS site. Consequently, the ATS site can not effect this Certified Vernal Pool. Copies of the requests and the NHESP responses are included in Attachment 7.    2. have an adverse impact on an Ecologically Significant Natural Community as documented by the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program in its data base; or   The Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) most recently responded to an inquiry regarding the existence of any ecologically significant natural community, on or near the Abington Transfer Station site, by a letter dated July 27, 2004 The NHESP stated that they are not aware of any ecologically significant natural community in the area. Copies of the requests and the NHESP response are included in Attachment 7.    3. have an adverse impact on the wildlife habitat of any state Wildlife Management Area.   According to the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, there are no state designated Wildlife Management Areas in the vicinity which would be adversely impacted by the Abington Transfer facility. -  d. Areas of Critical Enviromnental Concern. No site shall be determined to be suitable or be assigned cis a solid waste management facility where such sitting.,    1. would be located within an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), as designated by the Secretary of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs; or   2. would fail to protect the outstanding resources of an ACEC as identified in the Secretary's designation if the solid waste management facility is to be located outside, but adjacent to the ACEC.   There are no ACECs in the vicinity of the ATS facility.   e. Protection of Onen Snace. No site shall be determined to be suitable or be assigned as a solid waste management facility where such sitting would have an adverse impact on the physical environment of, or on the use and enjoyment Of..    2. State forests; 2. state municipal parklands or conservation land or other open space held for natural resource purposes in accordance with Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution; 3. MDC reservations; 4. Lands with conservation, preservation, agricultural, or watershed protection restrictions approved by the Secretary of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs; or 5. Conservation land owned by private non-profit land conservation organizations and open to the public.   There is no property in the vicinity of the ATS site that meet these descriptions.   f. Potential Air Oualitv bnnacts. No site shall be determined to be suitable or be assigned as a solid waste nnanagement facility where the anticipated emissions from the facility would not meet the required state and federal air quality standards or criteria or would otherwise constitute a danger to the public health, safety or the environment, taking into consideration:  <!_[endifj--> 1. the concenb-ation annd dispersion of emissions; 2. the number and proximity of sensitive receptors; and 3. the attainment status of the area.  <--[endif]--> The proposed facility will not constitute a danger to the public health, safety, or the environment from anticipated air emissions. The following clarifies and substantiates those conclusions when considering the listed factors.  <--[endif]-->  LThe concentration and dispersion of emissions; The proposed ATS facility will require an approved Operations and Maintenance Plan. The Operations and Maintenance Plan will include wetting dusty areas and waste loads to reduce dust generation. Paved surfaces and tipping floor areas will be regularly cleared by a vacuum sweeper to reduce dust generation. The tipping floor will be within an enclosed building which will mitigate wind blown dust migration. Active dust suppression system, including a fixed nozzle mister system and an air ventilation and filtration system, will be incorporated into the Facility's design. See the discussion on dust control under the Nuisance section, below.  <--[endif]--> Attachment 8 includes a report titled "Air Quality and Noise Anal vsis of the Abington Transfer Station" by Tech Environmental, Inc. This report documents that trucks and equipment that travel to or are stationed on-site, will release a total of only 0.19 tons per year (tpy) of Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) on the site under a worst case scenario where the facility continually operates at its permitted capacity, six days per week, and every truck queues on site (not anticipated). EPA uses DPM as a surrogate for total diesel emissions in health assessments, and EPA has established an annual average inhalation reference concentration (RfC) of 5 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) for DPM, which is a no-observed-adverse-health-effects threshold for continuous lifetime exposure, with a margin of safety. Maximum DPM air concentrations at the property line of the site (from project operations and background levels) will be only 0.8 µg/m3.   EPA has also established and proposed National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particle matter (PMI()) and very fine particulate matter (PM25). As described in Attachment 8, the proposed facility will contribute minimal amounts of PM 10 and PMZ 5 and that when those amounts are modeled and added to background levels at the property line, all established and proposed NAAQS are met.   The results in the Air Quality Assessment demonstrate that the ATS Project will not adversely affect air quality. Maximum air concentrations of PMio and PMZ 5 are safely in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and maximum air concentrations of DPM are safely in compliance with the EPA Reference Concentration (RIC). Thus, air emissions associated with the proposed ATS project will not adversely affect public health or air quality in nearby residential areas, or anywhere in Abington or Weymouth.   2. The number and proximity of sensitive receptors; Hospitals and schools are the primary sensitive receptors to the site. The closest hospital is South Shore Hospital located approximately two miles, directly north of the site on Route 18 in Weymouth. The closest school is the Woodsdale Elementary School on Chestnut Street, which is located approximately 1.4 miles from the site. There is one residence (1530 Bedford Street) that is on the opposite side of Route 18 and is 500 feet from the proposed transfer station building. While there are some sensitive receptors in the general, but not immediate area of the ATS site, there will be an insignificant level of air pollution emissions from the site, with resulting unperceivable impacts to those sensitive receptors.   3. The attainment status of the area. Southeastern Massachusetts is currently classified as a Moderate Non-Attainment Area for ozone and is classified as In Attainment or Unclassified for all other criteria pollutants for which EPA has established air quality standards. The compliance date for attaining the new 8-hour ozone standard is June 2010. The ATS design meets all Town and State setback requirements and will not adversely affect nearby sensitive receptors.   g. Potential for the Creation of Nuisances. No site shall be determined to be suitable or be assigned as a solid waste management facility where the establishment or operation of the facilihv would result in nuisance conditions which would constitute a danger to the public health, safety, or the environment, taking into consideration the following factors: (1) noise; (2) dust; (3) litter; (4) vectors (vermin) such as rodents and insects; (5) odors; (6) bird hazards to air traffic, and(7) other nuisance problems.   1. Noise: As part of the previous permitting process that was conducted on the ATS site a Noise Impact Assessment was conducted and included in the June 2000 Environmental Impact Report. That Noise Impact Assessment was reviewed and updated in the Tech Environmental, Inc. report, "Air Quality and Noise Analysis of the Abington Transfer Station". With the exception of reducing the tonnage capacity and traffic volume that will utilize the facility, which will reduce the noise from the project, there are no other changes to the project that will effect noise conditions generated by the project. Also there are no significant background changes in the vicinity of the site that would alter the results of the 2000 Noise Impact Assessment. The conclusions of that Assessment were that the then proposed 1,800 ton per day facility resulted in acceptable project sound levels at all community locations including the nearest residences. Sound levels along the southern property line would exceed DEP criteria, but the industrial use of the effected properties would result in no negative impact. A copy of the Noise Impact Assessment is included as Attachment 9 and the Tech Environmental update is in Attachment 8.  <!_[endif]--> 2. Dust: Dust suppression measures will be actively taken. The primary and most effective dust control will be the construction of the transfer station's structural building and the conduct of all handling operations within that structure. The atmosphere of the interior of the building will be adequately controlled so that waste handling operations within the structure will not result in the dispersion of dust to a point where detectable impact to receptors will occur. The transfer station building will be equipped with exhaust fans and dust filters, designed to control air flow and mitigate potential emissions from the building. The fans will be sized such that at least two complete air exchanges will occur per hour. Filters will be replaced as necessary to ensure proper dust capture and airflow. The system will be designed to function effectively with either closed or open doors. The transfer station building will be equipped with a ceiling mounted dust suppression misting system and a chemical addition system for odor control. The misting system creates a mist in the upper areas of the building. As the mist settles, it collects the airborne dust and carries it to the tipping floor. Another dust control method will be the direct application of water to a tipped waste load that is dusty. Yard hydrants are being provided in the transfer station building for this purpose. The hoses will also be used to wash down the tipping floor periodically to reduce dust generation. Additionally, all access roads, parking areas and travel ways will be paved and those paved areas will be regularly cleaned with vacuum sweepers for dust removal.   3. Litter: All vehicles that will transport materials either to or from the ATS facility will be required to be covered in order to prevent incidental littering. All waste handling and unconfined moving operations will be restricted to inside the building, partially shielding and limiting pathways for wind to move the waste as litter. In addition, facility personnel will police the site and abutting properties to pick up any incidental litter that may result from operations.    1.<--[endif]--> Vermin: The environment around the ATS site is one that includes wetlands and open areas. This environment compels the assumption that there is an existing population of vermin in the vicinity of the site, including rats and insects. ATS will institute a program that will not allow the current vermin population to proliferate. The best counter to the potential vermin problem is to propose best management practices, which will limit the potential access of vermin to the waste, along with an aggressive program of vermin control and monitoring, designed to prevent any problems associated with the site and to adjust the control program based on monitoring results. Overall, vermin control will be implemented by an integrated pest management strategy that will feature best management practices in a tiered approach for all vermin problems. The strategy will involve the following:   Prevention: Various measures specific to the different vermin and pest species will be taken to prevent them from accessing either the site or the waste or readily establishing an identifiable population. These measures include the rapid movement of solid waste through the facility; all handling operations will be conducted inside the building; removal of all waste from and cleaning the tipping floor at the end of each day; installation of barriers such as netting and spikes to prevent roosting; elimination of incidental open water on the site and continual conduct of good overall housekeeping practices.   Trans: The site will maintain species specific traps which will be regularly monitored. The traps will be selected and maintained by a professional exterminator. There are available traps that have proven to be effective in the control of rats, mice, mosquitoes, cockroaches, flies and other vermin. The actual traps employed will be selected by the professional exterminator after careful consideration of the design features and advantages of each method.   Chemical Control: As will be determined by the contracted professional exterminator, chemicals (pesticides, rodenticides, insecticides, etc.) may be applied where deemed appropriate to control observed or anticipated vermin presence. In this way, chemicals will only be applied by a licensed professional, in a manner that will be most effective for the control of vermin, while resulting in no impact to other receptors.    2. Odors: Odors are typically generated by the municipal solid waste (MSW) stream, which the ATS facility will not be accepting. Since only construction & demolition (C & D) waste will be accepted, there is no anticipation of.the generation of nuisance odors. The ATS facility, however, will implement a series of odor control procedures and equipment including the handling of all waste within the transfer station building, the use of portable odor suppressant equipment, and the implementation of procedures to ensure that the building remains closed if an odor problem develops. ATS will install a fixed nozzle, mister dust and odor suppressant system, of the same design that has been used successfully at several solid waste transfer stations. Moreover, ATS has committed to the installation of air handling and filtering equipment, as described in the Dust section, above. The addition of the proposed air handling equipment will allow for greater control of air quality in and around the waste handling area.    3. Bird Hazards: Properly designed and managed solid waste transfer stations do not attract birds to any significant degree, as the solid waste is constantly being moved by heavy machines inside a roofed structure. The few number of birds that may be attracted to the facility will not cause a nuisance, let alone be a hazard to aircraft. However, as a precaution, several mitigation measures will be implemented as bird deterrents. The rapid removal of waste from the tipping floor and site reduce the food source access for birds, particularly seagulls. Physical deterrents will be installed in and on the building, including nets, wires and spikes strategically located to repel birds from roosting. These repellant measures along with the substantial distances from the site to airports will eliminate a risk of bird hazards to aircraft. 4--[if!supportEmptyParas]-->   4. Other: The proposed transfer station will be enclosed within a building. This structure is anticipated to mitigate other nuisance impacts that may be associated with the facility.   h. Size of Facilitv. No site shall be determined to be suitable or be assigned as a solid waste management facility if the size of the proposed site is insufficient to properly operate and nnaintain the proposed facility. The minimnan distance between the waste handling area or deposition area and the property boundary shall be 100 feet, provided that a shorter distance nnav be suitable for that portion of the waste handling or deposition area which borders a separate solid waste managennent facility.   The proposed solid waste transfer operations will be conducted within an adequately sized structure that will include a tipping floor, separation area, transfer trailer loading area and roll-off containers to store the sorted materials. The yard area outside of the structure will provide adequate space for truck maneuvering and storage of empty roll-off containers. The site will be designed to maintain the 100-foot property boundary and 500-foot residence offsets from the wastehandling area, which will be within the newly constructed building.   Attachment 2 includes an Existing Conditions Plan and a Site Plan of the existing and proposed ATS facilities. Proposed improvements to the existing facility include the construction of a 32,000 square foot, four-bay building addition for the solid waste transfer station tipping floor and trailer loading areas. All incoming vehicles will stop first at one of the two scales located to the south of the existing building and weigh-in. A scale attendant will be responsible for controlling traffic flow to the tipping floors and recording the full-weight of the incoming material. There is enough room to have at least eight (8) hauling vehicles waiting to weigh-in within the queuing area between Bedford Street and the scales, without blocking access to the site or causing a back-up onto Bedford Street. After being weighed, all incoming vehicles will proceed to the ATS transfer station tipping floors, where at least four vehicles at a time may back in and off-load in the building. There is adequate paved area in front of the transfer station building for at least eight vehicles to wait to enter the building, after they have been weighed, without obstructing the movement of vehicles in this area.   At peak operating conditions, such as described above, approximately twenty two incoming waste loads can be handled by the ATS facility at one time. Assuming that the critical, or controlling, action through the facility is the inspection and dumping operations on the tipping floors; and that these operations will conservatively take no more than ten minutes to complete; and that four trucks can be conducting these operations simultaneously; then the station can handle 24 vehicles per hour. With an estimated average of eight to ten tons of waste per incoming load, the assumed hourly operating capacity of the station is between 192 and 240 tons per hour, which is between approximately 32% and 40% of the facility's permitted capacity. With a daily permitted capacity of 600 tons per day and a twelve hour operating day, the average hourly permitted capacity is 50 tons per hour. Consequently, the estimated operating capacity of between 192 and 240 tons per hour represents approximately a four to five times (3.8x to 4.8x) peaking factor above the average hourly permitted capacity. As noted in Attachment 6, Traffic Impact Study, the actual peak hour incoming waste hauling vehicle rate is estimated to be about 9.5 vehicles (19 trips per hour), thus the facility size is capable of handling over double the anticipated peak incoming vehicle rate.   i. Areas Previously Used for Solid Waste Disposal. Where an area adjacent to the site of a proposed facility has been previously used for solid waste disposal the following factors shall be considered by the Department in determining whether a site is suitable and by the board of health in determining whether to assign a site:   1. The nature and extent to which the prior solid waste activities on the adjacent site currently adversely impact or threaten to adversely impact the proposed site.   2. The nature and extent to which the proposed site may impact the site previously used for solid waste disposal.   3. The nature and extent to which the combined impacts of the proposed site and the previously used adjacent site adversely impact the public health, safety, and the environment taking into consideration:   a. whether the proposed site is an expansion of or constitutes beneficial integration of the solid waste activities with the adjacent site; b. whether the proposed facility is related to the closure and/or remedial activities at the adjacent site; c. the extent to which the design and operation of the proposed facility, will mitigate existing or potential impacts from the adjacent site.   These criteria are not applicable to the ATS facility, since there are no adjacent areas that have been used for solid waste disposal.    i. Existing Facilities. In evaluating proposed sites for new solid waste management facilities the Department and the board of health shall give preferential consideration to sites located in municipalities in which no existing landfill or solid waste combustion facilities are located. This preference shall be applied only to )tell,facilities which will not be for the exclusive use of the municipality in which the site is located. Tire Department and the board of health shall weigh such preference against the following considerations when the proposed site is located in a community with an existing disposal facility:   a. the extent to which the municipalitv's or region's solid waste needs will be met by the proposed facility; b. the extent to which the proposed facility incorporates recycling, composting, or waste diversion activities.   There are no existing landfills or combustion facilities in Abington. The proposed facility is new and will not be for the exclusive use of the Town of Abington, thus the proposed ATS facility should be given preferential consideration.   k. Consideration of Other Sources of Contamination or Pollution. The determination of whether a site is suitable and should be assigned as a solid waste management fa cdity shall consider whether the projected impacts of the proposed facility pose a threat to public health, safety or the environment, taking into consideration the impacts of existing sources of pollution or contamination as defined by the Department, and whether the proposed facility will mitigate or reduce those sources ofpollution or contamination.   In accordance with Department guidance, ATS has prepared a Facility Impact Assessment (FIA) in order to assess the potential impact of the proposed facility in conjunction with other local potential sources of contamination or pollution. The conclusion of the FIA is that there will be no significant impacts to receptors in the vicinity of the site and that Best Management Practices will be employed to mitigate any potential impacts from the facility. The FIA is included in Attachment 10 of this Application.   1. Reeional Particination. The Department and the board of health shall give preferential consideration to sites located in municipalities not participating in a regional disposal facility. The Department and the board of health shall weigh such preference against the following considerations when the proposed site is located in a commnunityparticipating in a regional disposal facility:   According to the DEP and the Town of Abington, there are no immediate plans for the Town of Abington to participate in a regional solution of providing transfer stations and recycling facilities. In accordance with the site assignment, regulations, the DEP and the Abington Board of Health should give preferential consideration to sites located in municipalities not participating in regional solutions.   1. the extent to which the proposed facility meets the municipality's and the region 's solid waste management needs: and The proposed facility contributes to the Town of Abington and its region's ability to provide an economic and efficient means to handle construction and demolition (C & D) debris and recyclables to the private and public sectors.   2. the extent to which the proposed facility incorporates recycling, composting, or waste diversion activities.   The proposed facility includes recyclable handling and limited C &D material separation processing operations. Waste ban materials will be separated from the waste stream for transport to processors or recyclers.   SECTION IV. INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT   Not applicable.   SECTION V. WAIVERS  ATS is not requesting any waivers of the Site Suitability Criteria. t HatCityBLOG Page 1 of 7 Keeping you informed about Danbury CT since July 19 2005 Transfer Station meetinLy TONIGHT Wednesday-January 30-2008 ' Time:10:03 AM The latest round in the battle between residents and davelnoers haooens toniaht as the Planning_ Commission hear from the public reoardino the Transfer Station nr000sal on Plumtrees Road. I'm a little behind in rnvrrino this stnry and for that. I aooloaize to the residents of the 4th Ward who are workino tirelesshi to Ston this transfer station in it's tracks For a orimpr far tonight. later I'll update this nnst with links to the first and second nublic hearino as well as the nnan forum held hefore the or000sal was oresented to the commission. For now. here's a coov of the recent traffic recent that was done on the or000sal and submitted to the Plannino and zoning Department (note the rnnchmion on the raoort). ..... . ... .... ................................................... ...... ...... .... ...... .................................... . ... .. ....... .. .. ..... .................................................... CITY OF DANBURY 155 DEER HILL AVENUE DANBURY.CONNECTICUT o6810 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FARID L.KHOURI.P.E. ' (Zo3)_79'L-46gi CITY ENGINEER 6 FAX(20'4)7o6-1r86 (( dor m To s January 10.2oo8 tee �{IJES l cj�(p�e o l��,eer�`I t �ophY'° . as+ fe i MEMO TO:Chief Alan Baker i Local Traffic Authority �,YW i POYIfr'P,n FROM:Abdul Ba ��a4 n ot''S'e- Barry C()YtC�m �p c1(cPef Y TrafficEne_ineer -TPUM �tSc�Q.(tas ineof)3Pu E hCtc�7t� ce�� hr� h�� ` Subiect:MSW Associates.LI.0 i i�11e�S+�l,a L oPena�fvn lot@i��. �f1C2� at � 16 Plumtrees Road Pl._annine Code No.SE 664 € I have reviewed the submitted site_plans dated January_5 2007 revised through_S_eptember 2 , 2oo7_prepared by Anchor E�neering Services Inc.as well as the accomoanving site Traffic Impact and Access Analvsis dated Sep tember22o_o7 prepared by Frederick P.Clark Associates�Inc., for the proposed transfer station on Plumtrees Road.To facilitate our work.several literature has http:i,. cityblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/transfer-station-meeting-tonight_30.htm1 4/9/2008 ' jyBLOG Page 2 of 7 i been utilized in the review.This includes the following; • Seelion y_>_,a_)oxi of the Regulations of Connecticut State,mcies(RCtiA J s US EPA Waste Transfer Stations:A Manual for Decision_Making,zone • _11Sll'I*0 Folio on G_eometric Design of Hryhwatiyss and Streets.^_pot • TRB's National Cooperative Hi liwa,_Research Program Reoort Nn. :e1S,203 • ConnDOP Traffic Accidents and Volume Data Rennrtc 2ona-2oo6 • State of Cotulect_ieut Solid Waste Management Plan�Ameuded 2o06 • Email corresoondenre from Jonathon Claw. E.eacutive Dirertnr tNCP.0 to Sharon ('alitro Deput)_I?)uniting Directo_r._Januaa" 3,_>00Nregarding safetyissues along_Newtown Road HV"CI' D:rtaon traffic s tfety alb Newtown Road. A:Traffic Generation Waste Transfer facilitieszrepredmminant-tydenendent.on-the.use.ofrhea) vehi les.foyr_their operations Co Igvon'.Itleks�af6 h6r6l lly�sin e �rt..(SiS eks w t 8 1Q tons'c "aci 'ta meascxiug__p,to 4zTet(n,lengfli_ TraSrsfer tucks are normal interstate sem etlarlerstwith'zb`3o. Yoiis'caoacit)c.and'measu a You90 feet iii lenetfi:`-""''� rs : nd' R''taa z az In accordance with Tables of the oroiect Traffic Imoact&Access Analvsis.it is expected that the proposed.site will generate a total of 284_yehicle trips a day.Ninety-two-19-z)_perceri or 26o of the total site venerated trins will he composed of heaw trucks traffic. B:Source and Destination of Waste Waste Transfer facilities are generally beneficial to host communities when small trucks are utilized in the collection of waste from local neighborhoods and laree_semi trailers are used for_Long haul transportationof consohdate_d.materials to landfills and/or Waste-to-Energy Incinerators.In such cases.the negative effects of the heave trucks traffic are normally off-set bv_ the value of the garbage collection and disposal services rendered to the communes. However,when a Waste._Transfer facility is predominant)}�in_v_olv_ed in the importation of waste,a host community normallv suffers as such facilities create insignificant benefits to off-set their negative effects.Therefore,in order to clearlydeterm_ine_effects of the proposed facility it is requested that the applicantprovide information regarding source and destination of the waste material that will be handled.This reouest is consistent with the repuirements of Section 22a-200-a (ii)of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies on Solid Waste Management. C:_Passenger_Car Equivalency Based on—size weight and power-to_weigh_t ratio.trucks and semi-trailers are difficult to maneuver and slow in their acceleration.Thev occuov more roadwav space and reouire gentle slopes and smooth_curves As a result,they_generally-decrease roadway capacityand contribute to traffic congestion.Each single_axle_truck is considered to be equivalent to 1 S-z.o passenger cars. Therefore,in order to fully_determine the impact of the site generated traffic at critical intersections. it is requested that the heavy truck trios to be generated by_the proposed site be converted into passenger cars and the result be utilized in the evaluation of operations at roadwav intersections. D:Imoact of Site Traffic on Newtown Road. easterly of Plumtrees Road In accordance with the oroiect Traffic Imoact and Access Analvsis.fifty(so)percent of the site traffic will travel to and from Newtown Road,easterly of Plumtrees Road intersection,However, based.on the most_crrent CunnDOT data,the roadway experiences a relativ_elyhigh number of accidents. During the period January i,zoo4_through December ai,zoo6_a.total of z76 vehicle http://hatcityblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/transfer-station-meeting-tonight_30.html 3/21/2008 tyBLOG Page 3 of 7 / crashes were recorded.This translates to an average of g45_accidents_per mile or 92 accidents,per year.Mostof the accidents are turning and rearend_types of accidents.W_eare concerned that the heaw trucks traffic to be generated by the facility would exacerbate the current roadwav safety condition.. s� E:Impact of Site Traffic on _Newtown Road,_westerly-of Plumtrees Road The-project Traffic Impact&Access Analysis also indicates that twenTy-five(2g)_percent of the.site venerated traffic will travel along the wrctrrIv sertinn of Newtown Rnad hrtwrrn Plnmtreec Road and Old Shelter Road intersections.The two-lane roadway.currently_carries z6,000 vehicles.daily. During the e period from_January 1,2004 through December 31,2oo6_a total of 228 vehicle crashes were recorded.This translates to an average A22 vehicle crashes ner mile cit of 76 vehicle crashes per year, It should also be noted that acc_Ordi_ng to H-_VCEO,the State of Connecticut Department of Transnortation has identified a least six locations alone the roadwav to be among the maior traffic accidents sites in the State.We,therefore,seek information from the applicant as to what mitigating measures would be implemented_to Tee*or ensure that the site generated heave trucks traffic would not make the current condition much worse. F_Impact at the Intersec..tion of Newtown Road and Plumtrees Road The aoolicant's muiections indicate that seventv-five(70 nercent of the site generated traffic will utilize the.intersection of Newtown.Road and Plumtrees Road.HoweverJ1Le ro'ectTrafiic Impact &Access Analysis indicates that currently the queue length for ninetv five(osl Dercentile of the westbound left turning traffic volume from Newtown Road into Plumtrees Road exceeds the existing lane capacity In addition.based on the.20o4-20o6,the intersection exDeriences a relatively high average accident rate of fifteen(151 vehicl_e_crashes_per year.The majority of the accidents involve turning and rear- end types of accidents.We seek information from the applicant regarding the_proposed mitigating measures that would be taken to alleviate the negative effects that would be caused by the site generated traffic. G:Restriction on to use Shelter Rock Road for Access Page 15of the project Traffic Impact_&Access Ana ysis.indicates that at least twenty-five(251 percent site generated traffic._would travel to and from the southerly section of Plumtrees Road.We recognize that due to the existing steep yerucal.grades and sharp horizontal curves along the roadway.no vehicle triDs to bevenerated by the facility have been assigned to Shelter Rock Road_, However.based on the Droximity of the roadwav to the site as well as its abilitv to Drovide a short- cut access to other partsof the_City of Danbur ay s well as_the Town of Bethel, request that potential impact on the use of the roadwav be evaluated.It should be noted that neither the applicant nor the_City of.Danbut will have the abili to monitor.enforce or restrict use of the roadway by.private haulers. H_Noise.Vibrations and Emissions The_hea__vy trucks traffic to be venerated by the site will cause._noise,_vibrations_and emissions when accessing the site,during loadine and unloading of waste,dronning and nicking no of containers as well as when queuing or idling at the weight scale.It is our concern that_these negative impactsw_il_l affect the Duality of life of the residential develooments located that alone Paving Road.Plumtrees Road Shelter Rock Road as well as the low income housing develooment that abuts the Drouosed facility.The degree to which_these impacts may be considered nuisance or harmful are to be determined by the Planning Commission. I:Size of the Proposed Facilitv Page a of the US EPA Manual for Decision-Making on Transfer Stations Drovides a series of http://hatcityblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/transfer-station-meeting-tonight_30.htm1 3/21/2008 1 ItBLDG Page 4 of 7 y formulas that help to determine--apaci of.proposed transfer facilities. Based on tippiiX floor space,a ru,000 square foot facility_has a capacity to handle a maximum of 3So tons of waste per 1 f. day. igt � In addition.Section 22a-20o-0(2)of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies on Solid Waste Management indicates that the_proposed facility would be reguired-_to_provide a twenty.-four(24) hours storage canacity.Therefore.based on the US EPA and State DEP information on canacity «, requirements it likely that the request to processoo�tons per day is far be far and beyond then Y I ability of the facility.Any reduction......in te tonnagtF processed_ er da wo Id have a direct effect p y u in the reduction of site generated traffic.For this reason.we seek the following:. • Tntiirm2tign on_c_1lculalit ns of design clU:ac'Ity of the fac_ili L. ; • information un size and location of the twenty-four 24 hours storage cacacity as reuuired by CC DEP. J;Design_of Sfte Driveway Although it is stated.on_Page z of the project Traffic Impact&Access Analysis that the site driveway shall be designed to accommodate large vehicles.this does not annear to be the case.It is our opinion that the design of the driveway at or within its close.proximity_of Plumtrees Road lacks the necessary featu_res for safe and effic ent operation of semi trailers,The design features that need to be incornoratedin the site plans are as follows: • Provision gf.uleguate turnins_pgth width for eraeHn;;_and_exitinginterstate(WB-G2)senrri- traders lu accordance frith AASIPFO.a�feet tit rning,*path widths are requited for both entering and existing traffic.Absence of the feature would result in unsafe potential conflicts between the. inbound and-outbound traffic_ • The maximum vertical grade forthe drhewav within too feet.measured from the back of the street sidewalk into the site should he reduced from about eight j8)_per cent to threc(3)_percent. _>ASHTO indicates that heavy trucksgnerally decrease speed by up to seven(7_perceutor ntom when ascending vertical grades and increase soeeds by pu to five(r.)nereent or more when on downgrades.The reduction in grade will facilitate smooth transition of heap—trucks from Ylumtre_es Road into the site as well as allow easN-stOMmee at the STOP line while exiting the _site,es erJUdvBurin_ginclefneutw_eatherconditions. • US EPA recommends that both deceleration lanes and turning lanes be nrovided tit Waste a_ransfer facilitie=setas to separate heml_trucks.tromthe stream o eneral traffic and,therefore, enhance,traffic operations. For this reason.it is requested that within reo feet on both sides of tire,site drivaPlunitrees Road is tn_he widened to govidea_northbound-exclusive left-turn lane and southbound deceleration lame into the site. Rig*hts-of-way within the earn-a-1k0 roadway impmv_ements isis pit-tially owned bythe applicant and the City of Danbur>_ K:Site Traffic Circulation Several concerns are raised relative to design lavout of site.These include the following: f • 'Che sitelacks sign_tge ui_d_pae ementmarkings to dlt:get_or gu_de the flow of h_affic.It.isnot clear as to whUher the inbound vehicles would_be required to beartn the riahtor the leftof the scale house. • It annears that the weight scale shown on the site is intended to cater for both the inbound collection Uvcl:s and the outbound semi trailers. In order to minimize confusions and Dotential {I unsafe conditioi?s,theEPA Manual o-nTransfer Statimts,recommends that separate~gales for inhot?nd endoutboundvebicleti_are to be provided at such facilities, I http://hatcityblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/transfer-station-meeting-tonight_30.htm1 3/21/2008 • The site is to he orm tdf-d with al enqt Onp 1 it limidican snacv.The soar N to lip In"'It"Cl within dwe.lijuxlioit.� of the administrative office/niain 6icililybuilding. L_Summary Conclusions It is my professional o von, PW that-thJus-appri—catio-n—ks subraft—ted,may—rimu—It In conditions tons adversely affect traffic safety and cause undue truffle, congestion.This opinion is based on the followin -r g . easons. t f"�� ''C V j, The applicant has not provided information relative to source and final destinations of the waste materials,therefore the cumulative broader impacts to assessment of air issions; infrastructure and noise impacts are currently-Unkno—WIL 4:"*,-.y"" t 2. The intersection of Newtown Road and Plumtrees Road as well as thesectionof the roadway Yreasterly ofthe intersection are.operating poorly.Unless of—im_proved it appears that the site generated trucks traffic would make the existing condition ranch worse, 3. Due to its Dhvsical characteristics we are concerned rpgnrrlinv the notpntial use of Shelter Rock Road for access to and from the fadlity.The City or the applicant will not have ability to monitor,control or enforce utilization of the roadway haulers." -pnKate hat 4. Weare concerned regarding-the negative impacts Lon lity life for those residing within -qqa— -of e. close proximity of the facility as wellas along its access routes in terms noise,vibrations and emissions that would be generated by the trucks traffic. 5. Much is desired in the design of the site driveway in terms of its ability to accommodate semi-trailer traffic. In addition the flow traffic along the site frontage need to be enhanced. 6. Internalliv.the site lacks traffic sienaee and markings to dirprt the flnw of traffic, 7. The lavout of the facility loading bays would reouire semi-trailers to make frerment unsafe backing maneuvers into a one-way exit driveway. 8. W have regarding the _._e_ __questions�regard pm(n��iLig-ai3�tstorage-capacity-Qf the proposed facility. th— Revisionofit AAly cararitvtnthPnr)prg a s -tonnage -- - - _priate level would have direct effect in on of its negative impacts. Chapter 4_of the sate of.ConnecticutSolid.Waste Management Plan,amended;Zo-o6advises that as part of review and approval proc--e--s--s-of n—ew_ Waste Management-f—acilft es the public is to be made fullv aware of need and impacts of the new nronosnlq thrringh a mhllqt participation process.It is within this framework that this reporthasbeen -prepare-d. hostedtink I by cttopgger at 1 O�03 AM L._4 Perma http://hateityblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/transfer-station-meeting-tonight_30.htm1 3/21/2008 Page 1 of 1 Joanne Scott From: Paulette Puleo [prp600@msn.com] Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 12:31 PM To: Joanne Scott; Paul Prevey Subject: permitting for transfer station Joanne & Paul, When reviewing Salem's City ordinance on the transfer station's TPD permit, it appears to be a permit for 100 TPD of C&D material only, not for any other type of waste. The applicant is requesting a minor modification of the Site Assignment to increase the TPD to 400 TPD of solid waste material. I called The Commonwealth of Mass. Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs (Ian Bowles office) and was told that a transfer station needs individual permits for the different materials they will be handeling. Therefore, it does not appear that they can legally ask for and increase in TPD for solid waste with a C&D permit! If this accurate, then it negates the whole process. Salem City Ordinance Sec. 36-3 Use of Transfer Station Ian Bowles office also referred me to Karen Regis at the DEP 617-292-5500, however she is out of the office until March 3rd. Thoughts or suggestion on how to go forward on this. 3/6/2008 1 Environmental Justice comment[K>]:Barb,I wouldn't any this If there are legal issues then l suggest you comader going into executive nvironmental justice(EJ)refers to the inequitable environmental burdens borne by groupsk session,I wouldn't introduce as a ---------J--------' q--- - potential topic in an open publ o meeting such as racial minorities and residents of economically disadvantaged areas or developing and I wouldn't moment me at au in your nations.This principle applies specifically to communities in which poor,working-class, introductoryremarks No need. indigenous,refugee and communities of color bear a disproportionate burden of economic, Deleted:Potentate Remarks 12/81099 environmental,public health and social impacts in the places where they live,work,play,pray, Conduct of Meeting¶ and go to school. 9 The remainder oftms meeting ofthe BOB well be designated to deliberations meexam lesof ou saffectedb e_n_vi_r_on_men_t_al_injustice are ;� reprding the expansmn ofthe TS em p - p -- -Y J ==i................... - -� ,� SwampscoH Road.I wish to remind those F i present that this 1s a BOB public meeting 1.Black or African Americans;Blacks are affected by a variety of environmental justice �'� and not a public hearing In the public p e sues.One such notorious example is the"Cancer Alley"region of Louisiana.This 85 mile heanng the BOB has listened(o.your and comments,and the stretch of the Mississippi River between Baton Roue and New Orleans is predominately In' mmonscs to those, ate on this proposal. PP g p Y p' As per regulations,this meeting is open inhabited by poor,black residents but is home to 125 companies that produce 1/4 of the 1111 to the public.Thus,the discussion from In I the board is intended to be with other petrochemical products manufactured in the United States. Illy board members,not(he public.The it public has no role in the morning beyond 2.Indigenous groups,such as Native Americans,are often the victims of environmental 11III that of observer and..at refrain from any outbursts or actions which would injustices.Native Americans have suffered abuses related to uranium mining in the American ill 1 obstruct the board from conducting its 1 i mission.Anyone who veolams these rales West. A Navajo territory in Church Rock,New Mexico was home to the longest continuous ;111 ' may 11 [ ] uranium mining operation. K2 Comment :Barb,Nes is new and �u 1u fm not conv¢ed of theswan issue with 110 BOB)unsdecNun.. Let's talk about this 3.Latinos:The most common example of environmental injustice among Latinos is the 1 u tomorrow and whether the meenng is the 1i1 best Ovum Io descau this osue I should exposure to pesticides faced by farm workers.After DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbon 1 be in the once all day,aftemoon would !r be better,or drop me an email and lel on, pesticides were banned in the United States in 1972,farmers began using more toxic 11 know where and when I should all you - organophosphate pesticides. Large portions of farm workers in the US are here illegally,and as a I n R result of their political disadvantage,are not able to protest against regular exposure to 1 p' Deleted:will pesticides. I I !t Deleted: be asked to leave th s I J meeting.Additionally,az per standard - 1 11V ete of this board,this meeting will These are Ipxple ams of Environmental Injustice.- - ---------------------------- 1 Deleted:may � Deleted: nmberecordedor deotaped.We greatly appreciate your Premise n 'e 1 understanding and cooperation in this 9 l! 9 The premise presented at the public hearing was that Salem meets the criteria for a community of I 1 Chair's Introduction To Members of environmental injustice.The 2 basic criteria of environmental injustice are: the Bong e Fnst,I want m thank all board mefll 1.That a community be determined poor or low income and Deleted;811 Deleted:potential health issues 2.That a community be considered to be of color due to large populations of ethnic and associated with proposed expamsmn of racial minorities. opetmm mnsthe TS Under the guidance sei . _ ofour contractors consultant,we 121 iI Deleted:1 will now presem to the board " a III Deleted: I These indicators will now be presented and analyzed. Deleted:A Deleted:ofthese am 2 I_Income: 1.Median income in whole numbers. The median income Mass is$55,000;Salem is$52,000.This is similar and not significantly different. By contrast,in our neighbor city of Lynn,the median income is$37,000. Therefore,the median income in Lynn is nearly 1/3 less than that of Salem. Deleted: e of F ¶ 2.Percentagamilies Living Below the Poverty Level_ The percent of families below the poverty level in Salem is 6.3%and in Lynn 13.2%; This means that Lynn has more than twice the level of poverty than Salem. II. Communities of Color, Minority Groups: The total population of Salem is about 42,000.Lynn is 89,000 and more than doubles that of Salem. The White population of Salem represents about 85%of the total population. In contrast the White population of Lynn is 68%or 2/3 of the total population and the minority population in Lynn represents 1/3 of the total population. Therefore,in contrast to Salem,the minority population in Lynn is twice that of Salem. Racial breakdown: 1.Black population in Salem is 3.2%: Lynn 10.5%. Lynn has more than 3 times greater a Black population than Salem. 2.Hispanic...Salem has 11%;Lynn has 18.4%,almost double that of Salem. 3.Asian...Salem has 2%;Lynn has 6.4%which is more than 3x greater than Salem. Health Indicators: In the public hearing,asthma was repeatedly identified as a significant respiratory problem in Salem. 3 The asthma rate in Salem is 153 per 100,000 population;the rate in Mass is 147 per 100,000. Thus,the rate in Salem is only 4%greater and does not constitute a significant difference. In contrast,the asthma rate in Lynn is 216 per 100,000 population. Thus the asthma rate in Lynn is significantly different from that of the State and Salem. In fact,the rate in Lynn is 40% greater than that of Salem. In regards to air quality and its effects on respiratory conditions,the expansion of the TS may ultimately reduce the overall carbon footprint in the entire north shore area.Presently,trash compactors from Salem now have to travel to North Andover via such communities as Lynn, Swampscott,Peabody,Danvers and Middleton.However,the expanded TS will allow much shorter trips to the Salem facility and less overall trips to North Andover due to larger packers holding increased loads.This is applies the environmental"green"principle and the principle of environmental justice. LDeleted-.n ' 'rcomment tK3]:As befom,1 don't 1I Conclusions? i have s substantive role m thrs meeting and should be consulted only ifthere are ' it nsued related to the hearing land then, The conclusions that mV be drawn from this analysis are: probablym only executive session) I'll plan on hndmgm the weeds unless you i think there are certain issue you'd like me 1.Salem is not a low income or poor,community of color and therefore does not meet the to address qualifications for an environmental injustice community. Deleted:This proposed expansion many include mandating conditions which will be outlined and presented by 2.Lynn is a poor,community of color and therefore does meet the qualifications for an on,engmeermg consultant as environmental injustice community. regmrementa for the approval oftbe expansion ofthe TSI ' i We will now,begin our del damumns by 3.Therefore,the expansion of the TS on Swampscott Road does not meet the criteria of rev¢wing the hstofposmble conditionsas presented by our own engineering environmental injustice to the community of Salem I consultant Mr.David Murphy and then a presentation by our legal consultant Or i� Our deliberations regarding the expansion of the TS will include if a state of the art facility for Ken Wbutaker. — q Deleted:Upon conclusion ottM1ese waste management can provide a public health service to the community without compromising events,the board will take a vote to deny, y approve or approve with condamns,the the health and safety of the residents of Salem or other neighboring communities under the % expansion ofthe TS on Swampscott Road I principle Of environmental)LLSnee.I --------1 , l will now ask Mn Murphy to present his ______________ ______ findings and proposed conditions.¶ Therefore after review of this data and the alication of theprincple of economic justice,one I - ---------------------- such condition that I present to the board involves: n Mandating that a0 NSC trucks exit the TS from Swampscott Road via Lynn. n� ¶ Such a mandate would constitute an environmental injustice to this neighboring community. ¶ Given this rational,I will recommend to the board that the burden of truck traffic be equally (Tb is a condition that 1 would hke to present when we get to this on the Inrt of shared by both communities. 1, condmons...I Deleted:However I propose as a condition that the designated truck route to and from the TS for NSC vehicles Deleted:at)I should be assigned via the Lynn route on M,W,F and the Salem route on T,Th,Se_ ¶ Deleted:I IPage 1: [3] Deleted_ Student_ 12/7/20091:40_:0_0_PM not be recorded or videotaped. We greatly appreciate your understanding and cooperation in this. Chair's Introduction To Members of the BOH First, I want to thank all board members for the due diligence you have each done. This includes but is not limited to, reviewing all data and testimony presented,both written and verbal as well as making site visits to the Salem and North Andover facilities. Our charge now is to deliberate on the proposed expansion of the TS to determine if there are any significant public health issues and to conclude if the proposal should be denied, approved, or approved with conditions. Our deliberation will include reviewing LPage 1:[2] Deleted Student 12/7/2009_1:40:00 PM J potential health issues associated with proposed expansion of operations at the TS. Under the guidance of our engineering consultant, we will review recommendations which include but are not necessarily limited to traffic, air quality, noise, groundwater contamination, vermin, and odor. We will also consider any legal concerns or obligations presented by our consulting attorney[KII. However, the public health tenet of environmental justice had not been considered prior to testimony presented at the public hearing. That presentation designated Salem as community experiencing environmental injustice. As this is potentially a serious public health concern, this must be investigated and addressed. Since neither consultant is versed in this public health tenet, I have assumed the responsibility as chairperson to investigate this and present my findings and conclusions to the board[K21. SUMMARY OF "WASTE TRANSFER STATIONS: A MANUAL FOR DECISION MAKERS" through p.35 INTRODUCTION: Transfer Station purpose: consolidating waste from multiple collection vehicles into larger, high volume transfer vehicles for more economical shipment to distant disposal sites (landfill, waste-to-energy plant, or composting facility). There is no long term storage of wastes, the transfer generally takes place within hours. Transfers Stations allow crews to spend less time travelling and more time collecting; reduces fuel consumption and vehicle maintenance costs; produces less traffic, air emissions, and road wear. They also allow for waste screening for recyclables or inappropriate waste. Recycling of appropriate materials diverts them to a MRF, materials recovery facility. Transfer Stations allow greater flexibility in choosing final disposition of wastes based on economic conditions. Transfer Stations may include a convenience center for residents to directly dispose of items. TRANSFER STATIONS: Wastes Types of waste include: Municipal Solid Waste (MSW); Yard Waste (green waste; Household Hazardous Waste (HHW); Recyclables; Construction & Demolition (C&D). Sometimes C&D is managed separately; sometimes it is mixed in with MSW. Wastes generally not accepted, unless specifically set up to do so, include: large bulky items (tree stumps, mattresses); infectious medical waste; hazardous waste; explosives; radioactive wastes; fuel tanks; appliances; dead animals; asbestos, liquids & sludges; dust-prone materials Public may have access. Public unloading areas and traffic patterns are usually kept separate from commercial vehicles for safety and efficiency. Size & Capacity Salem facility size would be fixed and not dependent on the following typical factors. • Definition of service area • Amount of waste generated within service area Pertinent Considerations for Salem Transfer Station: • Types of vehicles delivering waste • Types of materials transferred (compacted vs. loose; yard waste, etc) • Daily and hourly arrivals of trucks. These tend to cluster mid-day. Peak hourly arrivals tend to dictate a facility's design more than average daily arrivals. The maximum rate at which waste is delivered is a crucial consideration • Speed of loading transfer trailers • Expected increase in tonnage from service area during life of facility Same factors determine size of transfer station features such as • Amount of vehicle queuing. Queue line should block public streets or impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic. • Number & size of unloading stalls and transfer trailer loading positions. • Short term waste processing and storage areas. Tipping Floor Space Required: • One approach is to calculate how much tipping floor space is required to store a full day's waste in case of an extreme emergency. Begin with base area of 4,OOOsq.ft. and add 20 sq.ft. for each tom of waste received in a day. Therefore, 4000sq.ft + (400TPD x 20 sq.ft./ton) = 4000 + 8000 = 12,000 sq.ft. • Other formulas on p. 9 i What formula used by Northside Carting? The proposed facility size, according to the Q&A provided by "BETA"is 7,500 sq.ft. The square footage discussed by Finance Director Richard Viscay, in a April 19, 2007 memo to the Mayor, says the proposed building is 6,160 sq.ft. (70'x 88). If using the above formula with 7500 sq. ft. building: 7500= 4000 + 20x where `k"is the # of tons/day X= 175 tons per day for this size building If the proposed size of building exceeds the existing square footage by more than 10%, a Major Modification Permit would be required for the Site Assignment. 7,500 square feet is the size of the existing facility plus the stack. Number & Sizinq of Transfer Stations Large facilities tend to concentrate impacts to a single area, creating a perception of inequality. The single facility must have additional equipment in case of equipment failure or other emergencies, because it does not have a back-up facility to divert trucks if it is having a problem. Site must be of sufficient size to minimize impacts on the surrounding community. Site Selection Our situation is not a "site selection"but a modification of an existing permit. Environmental justice: "Overburdening a community with negative impact facilities can create health, environmental, and quality of life concerns. "The public must be a legitimate partner in the facility siting process to integrate community needs and concerns and to influence the decision- making process. Community-specific criteria include: environmental justice, as above; air quality impacts; impacts on local infrastructure; adjacent land uses; proximity to schools, churches, recreation sites, residences etc. Please see Site Assignment Regulations for Solid Waste Facilities, 310 CMR 16.40 (3) (d) Criteria for Solid Waste Handling Facilities, and (4)General Site Suitability Criteria, pages 598-600. Again, this is for a new site assignment, and the Board may or may not think it applies to this increase in tonnage. Queuing & Traffic If adequate queuing area not possible, consider a truck holding area off-site where they can be dispatched to the transfer station via radio command. Waste collection trucks can be up to 40' long and transfer trailers can be up to 70' long. They need wide roadways and gentle slopes to operate safely. Onsite roadway space needed to to form lines without impacting public roads. Surges of traffic tend to occur near mid-day and at the end of the day. Will there be an increase in tonnage to accommodate increase in demand, in the years to come? Expanding existing facilities is less expensive than building a new one. To mitigate impact, the transfer station should be located in an area that provides separation from sensitive adjoining land uses, such as residences. Host Communitv Agreement (Conditions in addition to adequate facility design and operation) Specify design requirements, operating restrictions, oversight provisions, other services and benefits that the community may receive. These could include: per ton fees to community; reduced fee for community use; preference to community residents for employment; use of low emission or alternative fueled vehicles or retrofitting vehicles with particulate filters; litter control on access roads; restrictions on operating hours and traffic routes; financial support for oversight; independent 3` party inspections; use of video equipment; funding for road improvement and maintenance; financial support of other community activities; community reps have access for inspections. DESIGN & OPERATION Design "A facility's design must accommodate its customers' vehicles and the technology used to consolidate and transfer waste, provide for employee and public safety, and address environmental concerns related to safeguarding health and being a good neighbor to the surrounding community." • How will citizen traffic be separated from commercial traffic to ensure safe and efficient unloading? • What type of wastes will be accepted? • What other functions will occur at transfer station, such as material recovery, vehicle maintenance? • What transfer technology will be used? • What is the volume of material? What is the facility designed to receive during peak hours? • How will weather and climate effect operations? • How will environmental impacts be lessened? • How will employee health and safety be insured? Site Desiqn Plan shows a layout of transfer station site's major features including: access points, roadways, recycling areas, yard waste areas, vehicle maintenance areas, buildings, parking lots, utilities, surface water drainage features, fences, adjacent land uses, topography, natural features such as rivers, and landscaping. Site plan should show the following features: road entrances/exits; traffic flow on- site; queuing areas; scale house; transfer station building with tipping floor, tunnels, ramps, etc.; other buildings including entrances/exits for people and vehicles; parking areas; public conveniences including separate tipping area, recycling drop-off areas; buffer area; and holding area for inspecting incoming loads and holding inappropriate waste loads or materials fro removal. Example in document, page 22, is for a 500 ton/day facility and is 25 acres with a 40,000 sq.ft. building. The proposed Salem site is 9 acres with a 7,500 sq.ft. building. Less space is required if there is "direct loading" where waste is loaded right into the transfer vehicle. However then there can be no screening or sorting of waste. Tvues of Trucks Using Facilitv • Residents using cars and pick-up trucks. Less frequent in communities with municipal trash collection. • Business/industry hauling their own wastes such as roofers, contractors, landscapers. Variable type of vehicle. • Public/private waste haulers with packer, 5-10 tons per visit. • Public/private waste haulers with roll-offs., 2-8 tons per visit • Transfer vehicles hauling from the transfer station, 15-25 tons per trip. If you assume all waste coming in is from waste hauler packers, 400 divided by 7.5 = — 54 trucks in, 54 out. If you assume 20 tons per truck leaving, 400 divided by 20 = 20 trucks in, 20 out. Design Issues • Packer trucks and roll-offs require 25-30 ft vertical clearance. • Does the Salem design use a tipping floor for unloading or is it a direct deposit into the pit? • Tipping floor method requires more room since the truck must pull forward as the load is deposited on the floor. • Packer and rolloffs require large areas to turn, back up, and maneuver into unloading area. • Residential loads take more time, often done by hand. Many facilities have separate areas for residents. • Large turning radii needed on access and public roads • Slopes should be no more than 8%. • Colder climates require sanders, plows, etc. Transfer Technologies Options for unloading waste include: • Directly into the top of a container or transfer trailer below • Onto a tipping floor at the same level as the unloading vehicle • Unloading into a surge pit below the level of the unloading vehicle. Short term storage on the tipping floor or into a pit allows the transfer station to handled waste more efficiently during peak waste delivery periods. Options for reloading waste into a transfer container or vehicle include: • Directly from tiping floor or pit into top-load containers below • Into compacter packing waste into end of container or transfer vehicle • Into a pre-load compactor that then ejects a log into transfer vehicle • Onto baler to be fork lifted onto flatbed What technology will be used at Salem Transfer Station? Transfer Station Operations "Operating a successful transfer station involves properly executing many different tasks.' To ensure proper operations, there should be written operations and maintenance plans. See p. 32 for list of elements to be included. Operatinq Hours Deciding when to open for customers, must consider: • Collection schedule of vehicles • The local setting • Operating hours of disposal facility May take into consideration traffic peaks Waste Screening Screen wastes for unacceptable wastes. Develop fact sheets. Inform driver how to dispose of item Screening can begin at scale house with interview, visual and smell observations, radioactive detectors. Observers should be on hand to watch for unacceptable materials during unloading. Set aside area for holding unacceptable wastes until it can be handled. Emerqencv Situations Include emergency procedures in written operations plan. • Power failure (back up power generation?) • Unavailability of transfer vehicles • Unavailability of scales • Fire: Sprinkler systems on high ceilings might not be activated soon enough, so have fire fighting equipment on hand. • Spill containment: As an example from compaction equipment on trash trucks can leak. Have absorbent materials for small spills and a plan to prevent large spills from entering storm drains or sewers. Page 1 of 1 Joanne Scott From: Joanne Scott Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 9:14 AM To: 'Alan Hanscom' Subject: FW: GTransfer Station Clean-Up Dear Alan: Would Beta be able to supply the information requested below? Thank you, Joanne Scott From: Joanne Scott Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 4:30 PM To: Beth Rennard Subject: GTransfer Station Clean-Up Dear Beth: Where can I find documentation from an LSP regarding the extent of the contamination at the Transfer Station and the estimated cost to clean it up? It would be helpful for the Board to have as much information as possible to consider prior to the request for a determination. Are there engineering/architectural drawings of the proposed building and the layout of the facility including the truck paths, queuing areas, the recycling area, etc? Thank you. Joanne 1/4/2008 Page 1 of 1 Joanne Scott From: Beth Rennard Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 6:07 PM To: Joanne Scott Subject: FW: Salem Transfer Station permitting Attachments: monitordates2008.doc FYI From: Alan Hanscom [mailto:AHanscom@BETA-Inc.com] Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 8:38 AM Subject: RE: Salem Transfer Station permitting Assuming that the air quality and noise impact studies are completed by the end of this month, the MEPA fling should be submitted by February 15th, so that it can be published in the February 20th Environmental Monitor. As indicated on the attached schedule, ENF comments from agencies and the public would be due by March 11th and MEPA decisions would be issued by March 21st. Please call me with any questions. Alan D. Hanscom, P.E., LSP Senior Associate BETA Group, Inc. 315 Norwood Park South Norwood, Massachusetts 02062 Tel: 7811255-1982 Fax: 7811255-1974 Cell: 617/699-1878 1/4/2008 Environmental Monitor 2008 Publication Schedule, Comment Deadlines and Decision Dates Comment and decision dates are subject to change if extensions are granted Environmental ENF . , .. - Submittal Dates Monitor Comments ENR Decisions EIR Decisions Publication Due EIR Comments Date 12-18-07 to 12-31-07 1-9-08 1-29-08 Fri. 2-8-08 Fri. 2-15-08 1-1-08 to 1-15-08 1-23-08 2-12-08 Fri. 2-22-08 Fri. 2-29-08 1-16-06 to 1-31-08 2-6-08 2-26-08 Fri. 3-7-08 Fri. 3-14-08 2-1-08 to 2-15-08 2-20-08 3-11-08 Fri. 3-21-08 Fri. 3-28-08 2-16-08 to 2-29-08 3-12-08 4-1-08 Fri. 4-11-08 Fri. 4-18-08 3-1-08 to 3-18-08* 3-26-08 4-15-08 Fri. 4-25-08 Fri. 5-2-08 3-19-08 to 3-31-08 4-9-08 4-29-08 Fri. 5-9-08 Fri. 5-16-08 4-1-08 to 4-15-08 4-23-08 5-13-08 Fri. 5-23-08 Fri. 5-30-08. 4-18-08 to 4-30-08 5-7-08 5-27-08 Fri. 6-6-08 Fri 6-13-08 5-1-08 to 5-15-08 5-21-08 6-12-08 Fri. 6-22-08 Fri. 6-29-08 1 5-16-08 to 6-2-08* 6-11-08 7-1-08 Fri. 7-11-08 Fri. 7-18-08 6-3-08 to 6-16-08* 6-25-08 7-15-08 Fri. 7-25-08 Fri. 8-1-08 6-17-08 to 6-30-08 7-9-08 7-29-08 Fri. 8-8-08 Fri. 8-15-08 7-1-08 to 7-15-08 7-23-08 8-12-08 Fri. 8-22-08 Fri. 8-29-08 7-16-08 to 7-31-08 8-6-08 8-26-08 Fri. 9-5-08 Fri 9-12-08 8-1-08 to 8-15-08 8-27-08 9-16-08 Fri. 9-26-08 Fri. 10-3-08 8-16-08 to 9-2-08* 9-10-08 9-30-08 Fri. 10-10-08 Fri. 10-17-08 9-3-08 to 9-15-08 9-24-08 10-14-08 Fri. 10-24-08 Fri. 10-31-08 9-16-08 to 9-30-08 10-8-08 10-28-08 Fri. 11-7-08 Fri. 11-14-08 10-1-08 to 10-15-08 10-22-08 11-11-08 Fri. 11-21-08 Fri. 11-28-08' 10-16-08 to 11-3-08* 11-10-08 12-1-08* Wed. 12-10-08 Wed. 12-17-08 11-4-08 to 11-17-08* 11-24-08 12-15-08* Wed. 12-24-08 Wed. 12-31-08 11-18-08 to 12-1-08* 12-10-08 12-30-08 Fri. 1-9-09 Fri. 1-16-09 12-2-08 to 12-15-08 12-24-08 1-13-09 Fri. 1-23-09 Fri. 1-30-09 12-16-08 to 12-31-08 1-7-09 1-27-09 Fri. 2-6-09 Fri. 2-13-09 (*= rollover from a weekend or holiday) Page 1 of 2 Joanne Scott From: Beth Rennard Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 10:13 AM To: Joanne Scott Subject: RE: mepa That is just a term they use when ain applicant files more docs. than is required by MEPA. Having everything submitted that they could possible ask for (and more than what they ask for) speeds up the process. In response to a prior email's questions, the proposed layout, roads, etc. can be found in northside's proposal. Do you have your copy still? As for LSP, it is my understanding from DEP, that one is not required and everything is covered by the solid waste regs. Anything else you need at this time? Elizabeth Rennard, Esq. City Solicitor City Hall 93 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 978-619-5631 978-744-1279 (fax) From: Joanne Scott Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 9:13 AM To: Beth Rennard Subject: RE: mepa Dear Beth: Do you know why MEPA suggested an "expanded" ENF and what it means to be expanded? Thanks, Joanne From: Beth Rennard 1/4/2008 Page 2 of 2 Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 4:49 PM To: Joanne Scott Subject: mepa Here's a note from Alan. He said they are waiting for reports due end of month and then will send it in (Feb). We have started preparation of the"expanded" Environmental Notification Form (ENF) at MEPA's suggestion, but we will need the traffic, air quality and noise impact studies to submit with the original ENF. That is our best chance at getting rapid response from MEPA that we will make available to the BOH and other City Departments. According to our MEPA contact, failure to provide the information with the ENF would likely result in delays, until such time as the studies are provided Elizabeth Rennard, Esq. City Solicitor City Hall 93 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 978-619-5631 978-744-1279 (fax) 1/4/2008 International Finance Corporation Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines for .,JA Waste Management Facilities leachate migration potential and the need for These guidelines are for the design,construction additional design requirements. and operation of facilities for the management of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes,including c) Special consideration should be given to site landfills,incinerators,solvent recovery systems, proximity to developed areas and potential and other waste management systems. The impacts resulting from air emissions,odor, guidelines incorporate the general provisions of contamination of water resources(i.e., the World Bank policies for cultural properties, groundwater and/or surface water),vector indigenous peoples,involuntary resettlement, attraction,noise and truck traffic. biodiversity,water resources management and wlldlands. Environmental issues that are d) The project site should include enough land identified by the project sponsor or other area to provide a buffer zone to minimize interested parties,but not addressed by World aesthetic impacts. Bank policies or guidelines,must be brought to the immediate attention of IFC for consideration e) Land acquisition must be carried out in and guidance. accordance with World Bank resettlement policy which requires quantification of impacts on land- Project Siting based livelihood,and fair compensation to landowners and people relying on the land for The principal elements of World Bank policy their residence and/or livelihood. regarding siting,land acquisition and development of waste management facilities and f) Selection of the site should be made after associated project features are summarized consultation with government agencies,affected below. Sites should be chosen through a communities and concerned nongovernmental systematic,documented process that includes organizations. consideration of alternatives and their environmental impacts. The sponsors must Project sponsors must provide IFC with a provide information regarding project siting, complete record of the process by which the site addressing the following guidelines: was selected,including the analysis of alternative sites,and the consultation with government a) The site and access routes must be selected agencies,affected communities and taking environmental factors into consideration nongovernmental organizations. in a manner which will minimize,to the extent possible,impacts to natural resources,land use Erosion and Sediment patterns,sensitive ecosystems and cultural resources. Project sponsors should develop an erosion and sediment control plan to minimize erosion in b) A surface and subsurface investigation of construction areas and along access roads,reduce geology,soils,groundwater and surface water the risk of sediment discharge to nearby streams, resources should be conducted to determine and provide for long-term maintenance and operation practices that will control erosion and The information is intended for use by staff of the International Finance Corporation and its consultants in carrying out the policies set out in the Operational Policy on Environmental Assessment IOP 4.01)and related documents U International Finance Corporation Waste Management Facilities July I, 1998 Page 2 sedimentation. The control plan should include, f) Include materials recovery facilities in the but should not be limited to,the following project to receive,separate,process and market measures. or reclaim materials cohere possible. a) The area cleared of vegetation to g) Ensure proper maintenance of collection accommodate construction of should be vehicles to ensure safe collection and transport of minimized and slopes should be stabilized to wastes. prevent erosion. General Environmental Requirements b) Cleared areas should be promptly revegetated with native grasses,shrubs and trees. a) Project facilities must be designed to minimize impacts to air and water resources,and c) Overland drainage should be controlled to may include,where appropriate:venting and gas prevent channeling and sediment transport by collection systems;adequate depth between the diverting flows from areas where soils are bottom of waste piles/landfills and the top of the exposed,and/or by providing filter barriers or aquifer;adequate horizontal distance between settling basins to remove sediment before the waste treatment facilities and the nearest surface runoff is discharged to surface waters. water;stormwater runoff control systems;and leachate collection and treatment systems. d) Revegetated areas and areas subject to erosion should be monitored and maintained b) Prior to construction,project sponsors must during project operation. devise a program to:survey, identify and assess cultural resource sites within the project area; Waste Collection,Handling and train construction personnel in the identification Transport of cultural resources;and mitigate adverse impacts resulting from project development. Project sponsors must conduct a survey to assess the waste management requirements of its c) The potential impacts to vegetation and service area and develop a compatible program wildlife habitat as a result of the project should for the collection,handling and transportation of be assessed and a plan established to mitigate the wastes. The program should include the impacts. following measures to mitigate potential adverse impacts to the environment,as well as public and d) Landfill design must include gas control employee health and safety. systems to protect deep-rooted vegetation in the project area and minimize the potential for a) Ensure scheduled collection services and explosions or toxic conditions from the public awareness of such services. accumulation of landfill gas in buildings. b) Provide waste generators with appropriate Project Operations refuse containers to segregate hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. a) Facilities should have separate receiving and handling areas for hazardous and non-hazardous c) Provide enclosed refuse collection vehicles or wastes. cloth tarps to cover open vehicles. b) Wastes should be analyzed prior to disposal d) Minimize waste handling and maximize for compatibility with treatment and disposal waste containment during all operations. methods. e) Control odors and the loss of wastes during c) Air quality control measures must be transportation and at loading and unloading implemented to minimize fugitive dust from areas. materials loading/unloading,and odors from land disposal sites and composting systems. The information is intended for use by staff of the International Finance Corporation and its consultants in carrying out the policies set out in the Operational Policy on Environmental Assessment(OP 4.01)and related documents • International Finance Corporation Waste Management Facilities Page 3 July I, 1998 d) Adequate and environmentally sound and b) Buildings and other support structures must contained storage areas must be available for be designed to criteria appropriate to the local materials that cannot be treated or disposed of seismic risk,wind and snow loading,and any immediately upon arrival to the facility. other dynamically imposed loads associated with climatic and geological factors inherent at the e) All containment cells should be covered with location;certification of the design criteria used soil or other suitable cover material at the end of must be provided by the structural engineers or each working day to minimize odors and architect. infringement by animals. Employee Health and Safety f) Waste should be composted whenever possible. Project sponsors must develop an Employee Health and Safety Program that includes the g) A monitoring program should be following: implemented to detect any groundwater contamination or gas migration as a result of a) Employees working in hazardous waste project operations. facilities must undergo a medical examination when they are hired and,at a minimum,every h) Treated leachate and other liquid effluents two years thereafter. from the waste management facility and associated project facilities must meet the b) Emergency escape routes should be provided requirements for liquid effluents in the General for all employees in the event of fire,toxic gas Environmental Guidelines. emissions,explosions,radiation and other hazards exposure. i) Maintenance practices should include routine checks for failure of spill containment facilities, c) Firewalls and other fireproof structures air quality controls and emergency devices. should be incorporated into the facility design. Incinerator Stack Emissions d) No smoking,eating or drinking rules should be strictly enforced in all work areas. Concentrations of contaminants emitted from the stacks of incinerators,or other significant sources e) Unauthorized personnel should be prevented of air emissions,including boilers,furnaces,and from entering hazardous or restricted areas. electrical generating equipment should not exceed the following limits: f) An operations and public emergency response program should be implemented for Parameter/Pollutant Masinu ti Value spills,fires and major accidents,including Particulate Matter 100 mg/Nm3 emergency equipment and trained personnel, Nitrogen Oxides,as NOz and critical components of the program tested on Coal fired 750 mg/Nm3 a regular basis. Oil fired 460 mg/Nm3 Gas fired 320 mg/Nm3 Training Sulfur Dioxide 2,000 mg/Nm3 Dioxin 1 ng/Nm3 a) Personnel involved in the construction and Furan 1 ng/Nm3 operation of the project must be trained on the hazards,safety procedures and emergency Hazards Protection response plan associated with their tasks in accordance with the General Health and Safety a) Waste management facilities should be Guidelines and the General Environmental Guidelines. located,to the extent possible,to minimize potential risks from earthquakes, tidal waves, b) Training should incorporate information floods and fires from surrounding areas. from the Material Safety Data Sheets(MSDSs)for potentially harmful materials. The information is intended for use by staff of the International Finance Corporation and its consultants in carrying out the policies set out in the Operational Policy on Environmental Assessment(OP 4.01)and related documents. International Finance Corporation Waste Management Facilities July I, 1998 Page Record Keeping And Reporting c) Personnel should be trained in environmental,health and safety matters a) The sponsor must maintain records of including accident prevention,safe lifting significant environmental matters,including practices,the use of MSDSs,safe waste handling monitoring data,spills,occupational accidents practices,and proper control and maintenance of and illnesses,and fires and other emergencies. equipment and facilities. b) Records of public complaints and accidents d) Project sponsors must provide training for involving the general public must be maintained. monitoring and mitigating the effects of the project on environmental and sociocultural c) The above information must be reviewed and resources, evaluated to improve the effectiveness of the environmental,health and safety program,and an annual summary provided to IFC. The information is intended for use by staff of the International Finance Corporation and its consultants in carrying out the policies set out in the Operational Policy on Environmental Assessment(OP 4.01)and related documents �pF IlIS7p� �azr!I City of Salem INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR TRANSFER STATION PROPOSERS Updated August 14, 2007 1. In your proposal, you propose to increase the tonnage from 100 tons per day to 400 tons per day. Note: At the City's option, we will initiate the permitting process to increase the tonnage to 650 tons per day (TPD) immediately. Simultaneously, we will proceed with completion of the Transfer Station design and other critical path items to achieve the schedule presented in our proposal. If we arc successful in permitting the 650 TPD Facility, we will agree to increase the Host Community fee to $2.00 per ton. (a) If you are successful, how many trucks will visit the site each day? Currently, there are between 10 and 15 trucks visiting the site per day. We anticipate approximately 20 to 30 more trucks, for a daily total of approximately 30 to 40 trucks coming into the Transfer Station. �1 (b) What are the sizes of the trucks? Most of the larger trucks will be either 30 cubic yard roll-offs or 31 cubic yard rear-load packers. Both vehicles are approximately 32 feet long. Note that we have already re-designed the entrance with a larger turning radius, so that the subject vehicles will be able to readily access the site and avoid impacts to traffic flow along Swampscott Street. 4yla51` I Y0/( 6�� Xva Page 1 of 6 eazr<: (c) What is the schedule of drop offs? The arrival times for the majority of the trucks will be scheduled to avoid impacts to peak traffic times in the morning and late afternoon. Since most of the vehicles coming to the site will be NSC trucks, we will have direct control over the scheduling. (d) Will trucks be stored on site? If so, how many? There are currently three vehicles on site that are directly related to operations: a truck to move roll- off containers; a yard spotter for moving trailers; and a tractor for moving the metals trailer. No additional vehicles will be stored on site. Note: This does not include any City vehicles that may be stored on that portion of the site where we propose to construct the Salt Barn and recycling/yard waste drop-off facilities. (e) What is the DEP and Board of Health process for increasing the tonnage? A Minor Modification to the current "Site Assignment" is required under DEP Regulation at 310 CMR 16.22(3). Note that the minor modification approval process is administered through the local Board of Health. Because the proposed 400-TPD Facility will not exceed the footprint of the existing facility by more than 10%, we have been advised by DEP that a minor modification to the site assignment is the appropriate compliance pathway. Note: In the event a 650-TPD Facility is endorsed by the City, a Major Permit Modification will be required for the Site Assignment. Page 2 of 6 eaan,r J (f) What type of debris will be brought in, C&D or MSW? The wastes`are expected to consist of_a combination of Construction'Demolition Debris (C&D); Municipal Solid-Wastes-(MSW) and Commercial Solid Wastes'(CSW)? In addition, we are proposing to accept residential yard wastes and recyclable materials year round. (g) Where will the waste be generated from?Proposer's contracts? The majority of the wasteswill be generated from Salem residents and businesses, plus wastes from neighboring communities. We currently have contracts with the City of Salem and Nahant for collection of municipal wastes. (h) What is the size of the station itself? Does it exceed the footprint of the existing structure? The overall dimensions of the proposed Transfer Station are approximately 75 feet by 100 feet, or ..7,500'squa`re feet. That is equivalent to the square footage of the existing structures, including the stack. Discussions with the DEP have confirmed that the,pr_oposed'construction-will'not exceed the-7 footprint of the existing site facilities; therefore, only a minor permit modification to the site assignment will be required. J Page 3 of 6 . mph f HS/IIS 'Bn:rrrJ. 2. Tell us about your experience managing a transfer station. Size? Capacity? NSC personnel have extensive experience operating similar transfer station facilities in this area as demonstrated in the following table. NSC Transfer Station Experience Facility Primary Size of Duration of Key NSC Location Operator Facility Direct Personnel (TPD) Involvement Salem NSC 100 13 yrs RG, Thomsons Somerville WM 19600 12 yrs Thomsons Methuen WM 100 2 yrs Thomsons Newbury NSC 49 3 yrs RG, Thomsons Roxbury Laidlaw 19000 15 yrs RG 1 Peabody Laidlaw 19000 5 yrs RG Key NSC personnel include Robert George (RG) and the Thomsons (Bill Sr, Bill Jr, Brian, Jeffrey, and Kevin), all of whom have a direct ownership interest in the Company. 3. Other than a transfer station, do you have any plan to utilize other portions of the site? If so, for what use? As discussed in our proposal, we plan to construct a new Salt Barn and new recyclinglyard waste drop-off facilities on the western portion of the site. Initially, the Salt Barn will be used to temporarily house transfer station operations while the new Transfer Station is constructed. We have proposed to enter into a 99-year lease for the western portion of the site, with the understanding that NSC will be responsible for operation of the yard waste/recyclable materials drop-off area. Page 4 of 6 �Ohi 115/p�. 4. What (if any) will be used as an "escalator"for the royalty/tipping fee to the City? While not specifically presented in our original proposal, we will agree to apply a $0.10 per ton escalator per year to the proposed host community fee, in accordance with our previous proposal to the City prior to issuance of the current RFP. 5. Describe what your improvements (buildings/equipment) will be to the parcel. a. Size ofbuilding(s) The Building footprint will be 75 feet by 100 feet; it will be two stories high, with an upper story for incoming loads and a lower story with two loading tunnels for receiving direct dumping of material into open top trailers. b. Construction materials used (i.e. cement pad with steel corrugated body and roof, 30' in height, etc.) The tipping and tunnel floors and walls will be cast in place concrete; the superstructure will consist of a pre-engineered metal building with a 35-foot eave height, with a minimum of 30-foot clear height within the building. Much of the new building will be pile supported. c. What types of equipment would be housed in each building There will be no processing equipment within'the building;only11VAC equipment;electrical '(�� Q✓5 .panels and other building support systems.*A 1,500 square foot office space / lunch room is proposed to be constructed over the tunnels. 6. Will residents be able to take waste there free of charge during normal operating hours? Yes, as stipulated in your RFP. Page 5 of 6 �OfiCHS7g�. 7. What do you envision being your operating hours? Weekdays: 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM —year round, except holidays Saturdays: 8:00 AM to 1:00 PM —year round, except holidays Sundays*: 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM - three Sundays in Spring; three Sundays in Fall * Actual dates to be coordinated with City. Page 6 of 6 rr .: CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS Kimberley Driscoll Mayor April 4, 2008 Honorable Salem City Council Salem City Hall r :ie,!' Salem, Massachusetts 01970 r,% t Re: Swampscott Road Landfill Closure APR 14 2008 and Redevelopment Update c-tY r- � �:,-,J SOAHD OF HEALTH Ladies and Gentlemen of the Council: 1 would like to take this opportunity to update the Council on the status of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) ordered landfill closure of the former incinerator site at 12 Swampscott Road and the proposed transfer and redevelopment of the site. As you know, City officials were ordered by DEP to attend an Enforcement Conference on March 13, 2008, for the purpose of providing an update on the status of the landfill closure plan. In addition, the conference gave the City an opportunity to work on negotiating an agreement with DEP to modify our existing Administrative Consent Order (ACO) timeline for completion of the landfill closure, thus bringing us into compliance in an effort to avoid paying a civil administrative penalty. DEP advised the City that it may be subject to a penalty of$13,750.00, plus $2,000.00 per day dating back to November 1, 2004 - the date the closure was to have taken place pursuant to the original ACO. If a penalty of that magnitude were to be assessed, the City's potential liability would exceed $2 million dollars. DEP officials were clear that their preference is to work with municipalities on mutually agreeable closure plans, rather than penalize communities with high fines. However, they were equally clear that the completion of the landfill closure of the former incinerator site at 12 Swampscott Road is long overdue and must proceed in a forthright and timely manner for the City to avoid potentially hefty fines. I personally attended the March 13`h conference at DEP, along with Councilors Pelletier and Pinto, City Solicitor Elizabeth Rennard, Board of Health Chair Paulette Puleo, Bill Thomson and Robert George of Northside Carting, and Alan Hanscom of Beta Engineering. At the hearing, the City presented an update to DEP officials of our work to date with regard to soliciting re-use proposals for the site, a description of the proposals received, and the anticipated process to move forward with the review and approval of the recommended proposal. In addition, we presented a revised draft schedule which would initiate final closing of the landfill by April, 2009, provided that DEP officials would agree to extend the closure date in accordance with the proposed timeline. DEP agreed to amend the ACO to reflect the proposed new closure date, but informed us that they would hold the penalties dating back to November 1, 2004 in abeyance, pending our successful closure of the landfill by the submitted timeline. A copy of the revised closure schedule discussed and agreed to by DEP is attached. As you will notice from the Salem City Hall—93 Washington Street—Salem, MA 01970-3592 Ph. 978-745-9595 Fax 978-744-9327 h 1 schedule, the project has received approval from the Conservation Commission and will be moving through the MEPA and Board of Health (BOH) review and permitting processes shortly. As part of the MEPA and BOH processes, several studies have been completed by Northside, the proposed developer and purchaser of the site, relative to air quality, traffic, and noise. The BOH will be retaining consultants to conduct peer reviews of these reports, in addition to a review and cost verification of the proposed closure costs prepared by Beta Engineering. Given the City's budgetary challenges, we do not have the estimated $2.8 million dollars necessary to pay for the costs associated with closing the landfill. Assuming the project receives the required approvals from the Board of Health and City Council as proposed in the attached timetable, we will need to work diligently to meet the agreed upon closure schedule. In other words, in order to avoid further DEP penalties, closure by 2009 will require that the project approvals occur in accordance with the attached timeline. Most importantly, by transferring the site to the proposed developer, we will be able to avert the cost of closure at the site (currently estimated at $2.85 million), while at the same time putting the property back on the tax rolls and generating annual revenues from both real estate taxes and the proposed per ton tipping fee (combined estimate at $200,000 per year). Lastly, the aesthetics of the site would be markedly improved and residents would still be able to avail of certain services at the facility, such as yard waste drop off and the disposal of bulky and white goods. I encourage you to support this project as it will benefit the entire community and relieve the City of a substantial liability. Please feel free to contact me with any additional questions or concerns regarding this matter, or if there is additional information that you feel would be helpful. Very truly yoyours, 1 �i - ,' Kimberley Driscoll cc: Salem Board of Health Salem City Hall-93 Washington Street-Salem, MA 01970-3592 Ph. 978-745-9595 Fax 978-744-9327 1 City of Salem Landfill Closure & Proposed Transfer Station Project — 12 Swampscott Road Proposed Permitting & Construction Schedule Meeting/Activity Target Date Board of Health Coordination Meeting September I, 2007 City Council Public Hearing #1 (Status Report) November 13, 2007 File Notice of Intent with ConComm February 14, 2008 ➢ Public Hearing #1 February 14, 2008 > Public Hearing #2 February 28, 2008 ➢ Public Hearing #3 March 13, 2008 ➢ Order of Conditions Issued March 19, 2008 City Council Public Hearing #2 (Excess Property Designation) February 28, 2008 Supplemental Site Reviews by Northside Carting, Inc. ➢ Traffic Impact Study Draft Complete ➢ Air Quality Impact Study Draft Complete > Noise Study Draft Complete DEP Enforcement Conference March 13, 2008 Modify Existing ACO with DEP April 2008 Updated Property Appraisal (underway by City Appraiser) April 2008 MEPA Filing— Environmental Notification Form April 2008 Site Assignment - Minor Permit Modification Request to BOH April -May 2008 ENF Comments Due May 2008 MEPA Findings May 2008 Salem City Hall—93 Washington Street—Salem, MA 01970-3592 Ph. 978-745-9595 Fax 978-744-9327 4 h BOH - Public Hearing (Site Assignment & Tonnage Increase) June 2008 "Transfer of Property to Northside Carting June-July 2008 NSC to Initiate Final Design July 2008 Submit Final Landfill Closure Plans to DEP October 2008 Initiate Demolition of Existing Incinerator Buildings February 2009 Initiate Landfill Closure & Transfer Station Construction April 2009 Salem City Hall—93 Washington Street—Salem, MA 01970-3592 Ph. 978-745-9595 Fax 978-744-9327 Sa],m Landfill Questions Page 1 of 2 t t Joanne Scott From: Argento, Jeanne (DEP) [Jean ne.Argento@state.ma us] Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 6:26 PM To: Beth Rennard; Joanne Scott Cc: Carrigan, John (DEP) Subject: Salem Landfill Questions Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Beth and Joanne: Listed below, please find the Department's response to your questions presented at the July 8th meeting. Please note that none of the information provided below is, in any way, intended to be - nor should it be relied upon -as the provision of legal advice by the Department. 1. Is the Transfer Station classified according to the Hines Amendment? A transfer station would not have been listed according to the Hines Amendment. With that being said, we could not find anything in our records indicating that the Salem Landfill was classified according to the Hines Amendment-which is logical since Salem was not an active landfill at the time of the Hines Amendment. As noted in my July 31, 2008 e-mail - I forwarded to Salem via snail mail a package regarding DEP's guidance "Criteria for Classifying Unlined Landfills"which is dated October 14, 1993. 2. What are the VOC levels, according to SSEIS, for the new Irving Gas Station, next to the Transfer Station? The Department does not know what the VOC levels are for the Irving Gas Station. I am still trying to find information on this question if 3. Is there a trigger for a Major Modification if the proposed building exceeds the current building square footage by more than 10%? I could not find anything in the SW regs nor MEPA regs regarding the 10% Major Mod trigger 4. Does the DEP/Board of Health lose the ability to rescind the permit for the Transfer Station if the project uses "industrial revenue bonds"? MGL 40D sec. 21 (h) governs the state industrial bonding procedure. No one can rescind an assignment if the site is financed by municipal bonds, unless the rescission results from an issue pertinent to the original assignment. (h) ... the assignment of a site may not be rescinded, other than on appeal from the original assignment, pursuant to said section or otherwise. Neither DEP nor Salem BOH lose their ability to enforce against the Transfer Station for a violation of public health and safety or environmental laws The industrial revenue bond issue only comes into play if the City would try to rescind the Site Assignment. The legislative intent behind the inability to rescind the site assignment is to prevent municipalities from rescinding their own site assignment therefore cutting off revenue through which the industrial bond would be repaid. 5. Does the City have to hold a formal hearing for a Minor Modification? Yes- 310 CMR 16 20 and 16.22 require a formal hearing for a Minor Modification. 8/13/2008 Salem Landfill Questions Page 2 of 2 ,Jeanne Argento Senior Regional Counsel Northeast Regional Office Department of Environmental Protection 2056 Lowell Street Wilmington, MA 01887 Direct Dial. 978.694.3331 Fax: 978.694.3496 E-mail:jeanne.argento@state.ma.us 8/13/2008 J ' -' "i / n ♦Y e 4 .-w.^�..�r ��'.+ ..�", � .fir. y..w.^./`n r`,7y� .,\ _ ,�,,,..��,,, x � ......� r- 4 ... -rYY e N TCs__ r � ,. ✓S w•iWti g i Salem Landfill Closure and Redevelopment of Transfer Station- . =r_rl-i'1-_r� i �Tr ._� rl`� �_i�_r_ri1�` :jTrl I��/ [( � ��i'ri J March 31 , 2008 �4 01Y by 0 s bA �� ,� •• � ate � stor� .. � �,;ty � � �, �, �, gec ance: sox�h Non-�'4�np & prese'�� to � , t r + 1 1 Y t � . F �K I ! i I I t i i Existing Salem l Landfill & Transfer I Station ' I 1� t 1vWtC.3�kN'E...+.. .. -.. VOW 9 I I ! 1 I I Y I ^ ,..w+y. ,—:ima--•w+uw'M1NlMM^ti�.;' �'k M.�.r. C e � > --- - If 11 , ( I { ; Group, Inc. I � t i i Sife His�tory i } i • Solid Wast6 Incinerator Opens; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1963 • IncmeratorCeases Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1968 Incinerator 'Building Converted for Tran" I'� • � � sfer Station . . . . . . . . 1975 • Transfer Station Operations by City Cea!se. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1993 • Northside Carting leases Transfer Station. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 1��994 • DEP Issues Notice of Non-Compliance (Landfill) . . . . . . . . . .2000 ' f + Tree Part} Agreement to Close Landfill . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .2002 • ISA, CSA c CAAA keports submitted to DEP . . . 2003 — 2005 B.I E (THEA? Group, Inc. 3 I i I I 1 I I I I Recent ctio ' s b City :! _ -. � arc 2006 - Obtairf ACO Extension from DEP 1 • February 2007 .- Solicitation of Proposals for Reuse of Site�� I, I • March 2007 Receipt of Proposals (2) • August 2007 - Selection of Northside Carting, Inc. (NSC) • February, 2 108 File with Conservation Commission • Murch 2008 - City ouncil Vote to Surplus Property • March 200 = DEP IEnforceinent Conference • March 200$ - ConComm Issues Order of Conditions B,IfE fTI� Group, Inc. 1 t I I 1 i I 1 1 t 11 t t <, COnP i 1 �. OIN w i i 1 i 1 a 1 1 t Capp to, be mate � 1 a este. es s 1. ingot 1J end nt Capp °n filed to mei o � �' µ. r . .,, ; ,rou�lTn�. f 1 � Of der i Consent 1 1 '1 �&YJAAAs�r 1 1 , 1, 1 b i1Y Y 1 1 k i I i I 7 i I i i I 4k Be , efitslo City 4 i -r �: • Siete Aesthetics & benefit to Fo' est River !� .Closure of Landfill =� $2.3 to $2.85 Million F Host Community Fee - $ 1 .50per ton ($ �� 87,200 / yeas) Salem Public School - $0.25 per ton ($ 1 ,200 / year) 1 • Etimated Taxes ' -. $2a5 X000 per year •� r • Residential Drop-off.of-BulkyItem's & White Goods G a r r r � i F 1E T A. croup, Inc. i r I . ' r r �SV C T t d 4f.. S _ ` U � ---------- p � O --- - ------ � O Q� ct . . N ct u ct . 3 f4 c Cn ct ct �:.. ct. . : o � . ct U I I I I I I i �x r Site Im rovenents I I + Demolition of Existing Incinerator Building & Stack � I + Capping of Landfill + Improved Access off Swampscott Road r + Storm Water Managementprovisions + R moval of debris; from Forest River + New Recycling and Yard waste Composting Facilities fI I I I �- r Group,Inc. i Bey i i � �Ikf'Y Environmental Ipacts' & Assessment Rmpi thaws . h 7 Wei land Protection Act MEPA (ENF� Filing) . f I ra M c , I pact ' t u d,,,%/ ■ i 1 r Qm ity l ,pact ll`,tu Y Noise Impact Stud3� Engineering Peer Review = ` • BOSH = Minor Permit- x ' Modification� r k Group, Inc. 1 i i , 1 , 1 i 4 l t1 n Ab -vyp °T pt ° 1 -en,ys ted 0" ° � ,*"r4. -i.dX� i • .<i i 4 �� ' , vNe1a �Y te1�p(45� SQ Po r •* we�ijall �ep� � � "' �' �„ �as :. p � Vin , z 1330 sati d by to pled ti s lss ,,_ � v� tlp , , ser`'a , 1 4 1 \ 4 4F � t , 4 1 x pt p af�� - � � ' � • � � �� trips � � 4 a,A�'eeyj ,�ktafl� S4Vlps� ' ' 1 , oal Cot,w 1 1 5 f 1 V 1 �Ilv � V 3 � � tll\11 Oil rol'I 10� So 11 ; 4 ti .{.ry`e. y o iri'` • �+wo � �ar� Jf�wit� � � - � `r r's`',„�: . ,:�,,.,:' �,•'k•.._•:: � .`�''L. >c} ' � s ,•µ NS 4 �� r �� +:r'F i�dw � i di y . h of a �aeQ Yi•,� �n ��M +NIP, yj It y IA yy t n � It 1y+d 11�.. K.`2000 tele Ail b '� "a ` y. -TIM` .1 • i� � i , � �• �`��.. !.W Group,Inc. I ' , i I .A� uaQlitpact Study _ ` • Analysis performed by Epsilon Associates; Inc, Diesel truck emissions (particulates) well below G National. Ambient Air Qudlit y Standards EPA phased imple{ mentation of emissions controls flnrj� CZ . , Naltional Ambient Air Quality Standards x E � Group, Inc. (,i a r�ov�e A3, t �ssess TOO ate tatlon lora °�� txa�s-der s posed e ; � ., r s S 1 1 i , � 1 1 1 F \ t� CO � Net 4 JOIA G a 'Y11g51� oteC ox�l � al Pr 1, C e v alo . xonte nt ; . . f c CAA, ` d AOIN toric �;�1at �� 2.d ea1t s of prof ; '`. G OOP'jtze. 0s V ote on r c k ;r i ,1 .o �. ip AIVw IV liu Group, Inc. A t. . • a }MLr..r S t: _ ..w.. �„ �� .�a�. j+ -�� F f � 1 ' .,. � ,-i y*y ��, ,e p � . F kM." � �\, �"� _ ,.gym•^�� _yMt.�►. Four gore In#fora�t �on. Contac� tVv � _ OP E ail : Mayor's Office - c/'o, _Jason. Silva Qsilva(a salem.com) i V Joanne Scott From: Paulette Puleo [prp600@msn.com] Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 2:07 PM To: Joanne Scott Subject: FW: Transfer Station Meeting Follow-Up Attachments: Presentation032808final.pdf I_J Presentat',n03280 8final.pdf(1... >From: "Jason Silva" <JSilva@Salem.com> >To: "Jason Silva" <JSilva@Salem.com> >Subject: Transfer Station Meeting Follow-Up >Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 11:47: 17 -0400 >Hi All: >I would like to take this opportunity to thank ycu for attending the >meeting on Monday to discuss the transfer station on Swampscott Road. �., >Attached you will find the transfer station presentation that was >delivered by Mayor Driscoll and Alan Hanscom of BETA Group at the >meeting. The presentation has also been posted on the city website - >www.salem.ccm <http: //www.salem.com/> . The direct link to the ' >presentation and the completed traffic study is >http: //salem.com/Pages/SalemMA Recycling/transfer. If you experience >any difficulty accessing the information online p-ease let me know and >I will send you hard copies of both documents. >We all found the meeting extremely useful and productive. Many of you >offered constructive criticism on the proposal. We heard your concerns >loud and clear with respect to traffic issues and cleanliness of the >facility and will continue to work with Northside Carting to mitigate >any impacts to the best of our abilities. >I hope you find this information helpful. If you have additional >questions or concerns please feel free to contact me at (978) 619-5603 >or via email. y >Thanks! 7� > > >Best Regards, > 1 >Jason' Silva >Chief Administrative Aide >Office of Mayor Kimberley Drisco-1 >93 Washington Street >Salem, MA 01970 >(978) 745-9595 ext. 5603 > (978) 744-9327 fax >jsilva@salem.com <mailto:jsilva@salem.com> 2 Board of Health Representation Page 1 of 2 Joanne Scott From: Joanne Scott Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 1144 AM To: Kim Driscoll; Beth Rennard Cc: Barbara Poremba; Carol Rainville; Chris Harrington; Christina Harrington; Joanne Scott; Icorchado@salemstate.edu; Martin Fair; Noreen Casey; Paulette Puleo; Tracy Giarla Subject: FW: Board of Health Representation Dear Mayor and Beth: This is the attorney I mentioned yesterday that I believe the Board would like to use for the Transfer Station process. As you can see, the firm has experience representing applicants before Boards of Health on solid waste matters. 310 CMR 16.30 (1) (c)allows for"Alternate Systems" for fees. I hope that NSC will see the benefit of paying for the engineering, legal, and air quality experts and a stenographer at the public hearing. This expertise will allow the Board of Health to be confident in its evaluation of the request and to render a determination in complete regulatory compliance. Please let me know when I may meet with you and NSC, including Bill Thompson I hope. am sure that the Board will be fair and objective in this process. Thank you, Joanne From: Fitzgerald, Robert H [mailto:rfitzgerald@goodwinprocter.com] Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 10:53 AM To: Joanne Scott Cc: Davis, Christopher P Subject: Board of Health Representation Joanne: It was a pleasure to speak with you today. As I mentioned, we do have experience in Site Assignment matters having represented other clients before Boards of Health (though not in Salem)on similar issues. Although we would serve whatever role the Board required, I believe we would be most helpful in working with the Board to assure that the necessary procedures are followed throughout the hearing process and that the application (and ultimately the Board's written decision on the application) satisfies the applicable regulatory criteria. We would also work in conjunction with your other consultants to prepare questions the Board might consider asking of the applicant during the course of the hearing in order to elicit the testimony/information necessary to reach a final decision. I also mentioned that we are performing a conflict check internally, and that process tends to take a few days to complete. I will let you know if any conflicts issues arise on our end. Beyond our internal conflicts review, I understand that it is our firm's policy that any attorney that represents a municipal board in a matter needs to be designated as a special municipal employee under c. 268A of the General Laws for that limited purpose. The City Solicitor is probably intimately familiar with that process, but I wanted to let you know now that this would be one item we would need to address before taking on the representation (in addition to the fee issues we discussed). 4/17/2008 Board of Health Representation Page 2 of 2 w Thank you for the opportunity to represent the Board, and I hope to speak again soon. Best regards, Bob Robert K Fitzgerald Goodwin Procter LLP Exchange Place Boston, MA 02109 T: (617) 570-1343 F: (617)227-8591 rfitzgerald@goodwinprocter.com www.000dwin:)rocter.com IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS,we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of(i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or(ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. This message is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated recipient,you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you. 4/17/2008 Board of Health Representation Page 1 of 2 C Joanne Scott From: Joanne Scott Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 11:44 AM To: Kim Driscoll; Beth Rennard Cc: Barbara Poremba; Carol Rainville; Chris Harrington; Christina Harrington; Joanne Scott; Icorchado@salemstate.edu, Martin Fair; Noreen Casey; Paulette Puleo; Tracy Giarla Subject: FW: Board of Health Representation Dear Mayor and Beth: This is the attorney I mentioned yesterday that I believe the Board would like to use for the Transfer Station process. As you can see, the firm has experience representing applicants before Boards of Health on solid waste matters. 310 CMR 16.30 (1) (c) allows for"Alternate Systems' for fees. I hope that NSC will see the benefit of paying for the engineering, legal, and air quality experts and a stenographer at the public hearing. This expertise will allow the Board of Health to be confident in its evaluation of the request and to render a determination in complete regulatory compliance. Please let me know when I may meet with you and NSC, including Bill Thompson I hope I am sure that the Board will be fair and objective in this process. Thank you, Joanne From: Fitzgerald, Robert H [mailto:rfitzgerald@goodwinprocter.com] Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 10:53 AM To: Joanne Scott Cc: Davis, Christopher P Subject: Board of Health Representation Joanne: It was a pleasure to speak with you today As I mentioned, we do have experience in Site Assignment matters having represented other clients before Boards of Health (though not in Salem)on similar issues. Although we would serve whatever role the Board required, I believe we would be most helpful in working with the Board to assure that the necessary procedures are followed throughout the hearing process and that the application (and ultimately the Board's written decision on the application) satisfies the applicable regulatory criteria. We would also work in conjunction with your other consultants to prepare questions the Board might consider asking of the applicant during the course of the hearing in order to elicit the testimony/information necessary to reach a final decision. I also mentioned that we are performing a conflict check internally, and that process tends to take a few days to complete. I will let you know if any conflicts issues arise on our end. Beyond our internal conflicts review, I understand that it is our firm's policy that any attorney that represents a municipal board in a matter needs to be designated as a special municipal employee under c. 268A of the General Laws for that limited purpose. The City Solicitor is probably intimately familiar with that process, but I wanted to let you know now that this would be one item we would need to address before taking on the representation (in addition to the fee issues we discussed). 4/17/2008 Board of Health Representation Page 2 of 2 Thank you for the opportunity to represent the Board, and I hope to speak again soon. Best regards, Bob Robert H. Fitzgerald Goodwin Procter LLP Exchange Place Boston, MA 02109 T: (617) 570-1343 F: (617) 227-8591 rritzgerald@goodwinprocter.com www.000dwinDrocter.com IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS,we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of(i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. This message is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated recipient,you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you. 4/17/2008 Board of Health Representation Page 1 of 2 J Joanne Scott From: Joanne Scott Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 11:44 AM To: Kim Driscoll; Beth Rennard Cc: Barbara Poremba; Carol Rainville; Chris Harrington; Christina Harrington; Joanne Scott; Icorchado@salemstate.edu; Martin Fair; Noreen Casey; Paulette Puleo; Tracy Giarla Subject: FW: Board of Health Representation Dear Mayor and Beth: This is the attorney I mentioned yesterday that I believe the Board would like to use for the Transfer Station process. As you can see, the firm has experience representing applicants before Boards of Health on solid waste matters. 310 CMR 16.30 (1) (c) allows for"Alternate Systems" for fees. I hope that NSC will see the benefit of paying for the engineering, legal, and air quality experts and a stenographer at the public hearing. This expertise will allow the Board of Health to be confident in its evaluation of the request and to render a determination in complete regulatory compliance. Please let me know when I may meet with you and NSC, including Bill Thompson I hope. am sure that the Board will be fair and objective in this process. Thank you, Joanne From: Fitzgerald, Robert H [mailto:rtitzgerald@goodwinprocter.com] Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 10:53 AM To: Joanne Scott Cc: Davis, Christopher P Subject: Board of Health Representation Joanne: It was a pleasure to speak with you today. As I mentioned, we do have experience in Site Assignment matters having represented other clients before Boards of Health (though not in Salem)on similar issues. Although we would serve whatever role the Board required, I believe we would be most helpful in working with the Board to assure that the necessary procedures are followed throughout the hearing process and that the application (and ultimately the Board's written decision on the application) satisfies the applicable regulatory criteria. We would also work in conjunction with your other consultants to prepare questions the Board might consider asking of the applicant during the course of the hearing in order to elicit the testimonylinformation necessary to reach a final decision. I also mentioned that we are performing a conflict check internally, and that process tends to take a few days to complete. I will let you know if any conflicts issues arise on our end. Beyond our internal conflicts review, understand that it is our firm's policy that any attorney that represents a municipal board in a matter needs to be designated as a special municipal employee under c. 268A of the General Laws for that limited purpose. The City Solicitor is probably intimately familiar with that process, but 1 wanted to let you know now that this would be one item we would need to address before taking on the representation (in addition to the fee issues we discussed). 4/17/2008 Board of Health Representation Page 2 of 2 Thank you for the opportunity to represent the Board, and I hope to speak again soon. Best regards, Bob Robert H. Fitzgerald Goodwin Procter LLP Exchange Place Boston, MA 02109 T: (617) 570-1343 F: (617)227-8591 ffitzgerald@goodwinprocter.com www.aoodwinDrocter.com IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS,we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used,for the purpose of(i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or(ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. This message is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated recipient,you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you. 4/17/2008 a' {► u �• Page t of 2 Joanne Scott From: Joanne Scott Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 4:39 PM To: 'Davis, Christopher P' Cc: 'Paulette Puleo'; Carol Rainviile Subject: RE: Salem Transfer Station [2j Dear Chris: Thank you very much for your interest in this project. Attorney Fitzgerald would be the legal representative we hope to obtain. The Board of Health is holding a special meeting this Thursday to discuss, and probably vote on, a request to North Side Carting for funds to cover legal, engineering, and clerical costs. It is my understanding that NSC's attorney is Thomas Mackie of Mackie, Shea and O'Brien, Newbury Street, Boston. It is necessary for the Board of Health to have an attorney of equal caliber and experience to represent it in this matter. Without the proper resources, the Board is more likely to be overwhelmed and deny the application. This project must have a significant monetary value to NSC, so I feel confident that I can word the request to them in a way that will garner a positive response. The Code, 310 CMR 1$.00, has a formula for calculating fees. If this were a Major Modification, Table 2 allows for a maximum technical fee of$23,000. 1 know that communities have assessed higher fees to cover higher costs, even when the request is for a Minor Modification, and petitioners pay it This is the case in Taunton which is similar to Salem because the actual applicant is the City, but the operator of the transfer station pays the tilts. Do you or Mr. Fitzgerald think we can do by mutual agreement legally? Thank you again, Joanne From: Davis, Christopher P [maiito:cdavis@goodwinprocter.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 3:25 PM To: Joanne Scott Cc: Paulette Puleo; dktrcar@msn.com; Fitzgerald, Robert H Subject: RE: Salem Transfer Station [2] Joanne--I think Bob Fitzgerald, senior counsel in our environmental practice, would be well suited to advise and represent the Board of Health in this matter. Bob is an experienced environmental lawyer with an engineering background and considerable experience in similar regulatory permitting and compliance work, including air quality and permitting issues. I'd be happy to forward Bob's resume and put him in touch with you. His current hourly rate is$495. Please let me know if you would like to talk with Bob and receive a copy of his resume.—Chris Christopher P. Davis Goodwin Procter LLP Exchange Place Boston MA 02109 T. (617)570-1354 F: (617)227-8591 cdavis@goodwinprocter.com 4/(7/2008 Page 1 of 2 Joanne Scott From: Joanne Scott Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 4:39 PM To: 'Davis, Christopher P' Cc: 'Paulette Puleo'; Carol Rainville Subject: RE: Salem Transfer Station (2] Dear Chris: Thank you very much for your interest in this project. Attorney Fitzgerald would be the legal representative we hope to obtain. The Board of Health is holding a special meeting this Thursday to discuss, and probably vote on, a request to North Side Carting for funds to cover legal, engineering, and clerical costs. It is my understanding that NSC's attorney is Thomas Mackie of Mackie, Shea and O'Brien, Newbury Street, Boston. It is necessary for the Board of Health to have an attorney of equal caliber and experience to represent it in this matter. Without the proper resources, the Board is more likely to be overwhelmed and deny the application. This project must have a significant monetary value to NSC, so I feel confident that I can word the request to them in a way that will gamer a positive response The Code, 310 CMR 16.00, has a formula for calculating fees, If this were a Major Modification, Table 2 allows for a maximum technical fee of$23,000 1 know that communities have assessed higher fees to cover higher costs, even when the request is for a Minor Modification, and petitioners pay it. This is the case in Taunton which is similar to Salem because the actual applicant is the City, but the operator of the transfer station pays the bills. Do you or Mr. Fitzgerald think we can do by mutual agreement legally? Thank you again, Joanne From: Davis, Christopher P (mailto:cdavis@goodwinprocter.com) Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 3:25 PM To: Joanne Scott Cc: Paulette Puleo; dktrcar@msn.com; Fitzgerald, Robert H Subject: RE: Salem Transfer Station [2] Joanne--I think Bob Fitzgerald, senior counsel in our environmental practice, would be well suited to advise and represent the Board of Health in this matter. Bob is an experienced environmental lawyer with an engineering background and considerable experience in similar regulatory permitting and compliance work, including air quality and permitting issues. I'd be happy to forward Bob's resume and put him in touch with you. His current hourly rate is$495. Please let me know if you would like to talk with Bob and receive a copy of his resume.—Chris Christopher P. Davis Goodwin Procter LLP Exchange Place Boston MA 02109 T (617) 570-1354 x: (617)227-8591 cdavis@goodwinprocter.com 4/17/2008 Page f of 2 Joanne Scoff From: Joanne Scott Y Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 4:39 PM To: 'Davis, Christopher P' Cc: 'Paulette Puleo; Carol Rainville Subject: RE: Salem Transfer Station [2] Dear Chris: Thank you very much for your interest in this project. Attorney Fitzgerald would be the legal representative we hope to obtain. The Board of Health is holding a special meeting this Thursday to discuss, and probably vote on, a request to North Side Carting for funds to cover legal, engineering, and clerical costs. It is my understanding that NSC's attorney is Thomas Mackie of Mackie, Shea and O'Brien, Newbury Street, Boston. It is necessary for the Board of Health to have an attorney of equal caliber and experience to represent it in this matter. Without the proper resources, the Board is more likely to be overwhelmed and deny the application. This project must have a significant monetary value to NSC, so I feel confident that I can word the request to them in a way that will garner a positive response. The Code, 310 CMR 16.00, has a formula for calculating fees. If this were a Major Modification, Table 2 allows for a maximum technical fee of$23,000. 1 know that communities have assessed higher fees to cover higher costs,even when the request is for a Minor Modification, and petitioners pay it. This is the case in Taunton which is similar to Salem because the actual applicant is the City, but the operator of the transfer station pays the bills. Do you or Mr. Fitzgerald think we can do by mutual agreement legally? Thank you again, Joanne From: Davis, Christopher P [maiito:cdavis@goodwinprocter.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 3:25 PM To: Joanne Scott Cc: Paulette Puleo; dktrcar@msn.com; Fitzgerald, Robert H Subject: RE: Salem Transfer Station [2] Joanne--I think Bob Fitzgerald, senior counsel in our environmental practice, would be well suited to advise and represent the Board of Health in this matter. Bob is an experienced environmental lawyer with an engineering background and considerable experience in similar regulatory permitting and compliance work, including air quality and permitting issues. I'd be happy to forward Bob's resume and put him in touch with you. His current hourly rate is$495. Please let me know if you would like to talk with Bob and receive a copy of his resume.--Chris Christopher P. Davis Goodwin Procter u.r+ Exchange Place Boston MA 02109 T. (617)570-1354 F: (617)227-8591 odavis@goodwinprocter com 4/17/2008 Page 1 of 2 Joanne Scott From: Joanne Scott Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 4:39 PM To: 'Davis, Christopher P Cc: 'Paulette Puleo'; Carol Rainville Subject: RE: Salem Transfer Station (21 Dear Chris: Thank you very much for your interest in this project. Attorney Fitzgerald would be the legal representative we hope to obtain. The Board of Health is holding a special meeting this Thursday to discuss, and probably vote on, a request to North Side Carting for funds to cover legal, engineering, and clerical costs. It is my understanding that NSC's attorney is Thomas Mackie of Mackie, Shea and O'Brien, Newbury Street, Boston. It is necessary for the Board of Health to have an attomey of equal caliber and experience to represent it in this matter Without the proper resources, the Board is more likely to be overwhelmed and deny the application. This project must have a significant monetary value to NSC, so I feel confident that I can word the request to them in a way that will gamer a positive response. The Code, 310 CMR 16.00, has a formula for calculating fees. If this were a Major Modification, Table 2 allows for a maximum technical fee of$23,000. 1 know that communities have assessed higher fees to cover higher costs, even when the request is for a Minor Modification, and petitioners pay it. This is the case in Taunton which is similar to Salem because the actual applicant is the City, but the operator of the transfer station pays the bills. Do you or Mr. Fitzgerald think we can do by mutual agreement legally? Thank you again, Joanne From: Davis, Christopher P [maiito:cdavis@goodwinprocter.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 3:25 PM To: Joanne Scott Cc: Paulette Puleo; dktrcar@msn.com; Fitzgerald, Robert H Subject: RE: Salem Transfer Station [2] Joanne--I think Bob Fitzgerald, senior counsel in our environmental practice, would be well suited to advise and represent the Board of Health in this matter. Bob is an experienced environmental lawyer with an engineering background and considerable experience in similar regulatory permitting and compliance work, including air quality and permitting issues. I'd be happy to forward Bob's resume and put him in touch with you. His current hourly rate is 3495. Please let me know if you would like to talk with Bob and receive a copy of his resume.--Chris Christopher P. Davis Goodwin Procter t.t_v Exchange Place Boston MA 02109 T.(617)570-1354 F: (617)227-8591 cdavis@goodwinprocter.corn 4/17/2008 rage i ui .� �r Joanne Scott From: Beth Rennard Sent: Tuesday,April 15,2008 1:07 PM To: Joanne Scott Cc: 'Paulette Puleo' Subject: BOH RFP Questions Joanne, I received your email yesterday, but I have been in negotiations and my assoc. is on vaca. Here is my response to your recent questions. How does this RFP allow for the contract with the Air Quality review expert from BU? The RFP may be edited to allow for separate proposals for each report to be reviewed. Please send me a marked up copy of the RFP with any additions Al has made and this added (and any other edits discussed below). The Respondents may also retain technical experts or subconsultants if they feel they need technical support. Firms who routinely perform these services most likely have either in-house experts or they have relationships with subconsultants who do. I don't think what the Board of Health is requesting a "peer" review" but a "technical review." Regardless of what it is called, the review needs to include the items listed in the RFP, including review of the technical aspects of the proposed redevelopment and compliance with regulatory permitting and other project requirements. Reference to the tasks outlined in 310 CMR 16.30 (2) (c) 3 can be added to the RFP. What does the paragraph "to understand the objectives of the peer review process" mean? If the engineering company has done this before, they will understand that the objective is to comply with the DEP code, 310 CMR 16.00. There are other issues that must be addressed beyond the scope of 310 CMR 16.00. It is my understanding that Northside Carting will be submitting an Expanded Environmental Notification Form, including the traffic, air quality and noise studies, to MEPA on or about May 1st. Those studies need to be reviewed and the Board should feel free t0 ask any other questions they feel are appropriate. Otherwise, because the site already has a Site Assignment from the BOH, many of the requirements outlined in 310 CMR 16.00 do not apply. Written comments should be submitted to the Board of Health, not the City Engineer, because the company is working for the Board in this review. Because this is a City project involving significant liability, financial and technical issues, the City Engineer should be directly involved to support the review n 11�IlnnQ rnyc � vi � T process. Nevertheless, you can request that the selected firm respond to both the Board of Health and the City Engineer. Under qualifications, we should ask for Registered Professional Engineers, and not LSP's since LSP's are mainly concerned with remediating contaminated soils and water under different DEP requirements and laws. Both Engineers and LSPs are involved with these activities; some LSPs may be more qualified than some Engineers in dealing with the technical and regulatory compliance issues. We should probably allow the Respondents staff the project as they see fit, based upon the qualifications of the individuals they propose to use. The wording in the RFP needs to reflect what is said in the Code regarding Technical Review. You could site that part of the code, 310 CMR 16.30 (2) (c) 3 or include its wording. it says that the Technical Review is to assist the Board of Health in: Reviewing the application (which could mean the MEPA application); reviewing the request for the minor modification; reviewing public comments and any subsequent amendments or additions to the application. Tasks could include; Determining completeness and accuracy of the data in the application; determining whether the correct analytical techniques were used, whether valid data was obtained; whether the data support the proposed conclusions; determining what other data should be obtained, the means to obtain it and its potential significance; examining municipal and other relevant documents and consulting with DEP staff; visiting the site to make a visual inspection; preparing and submitting comments to the Board of Health on technical issues relating to the site; reviewing data submitted prior to and during the public hearing; preparing a written report of comments and determinations. The RFP can be amended to include reference to 310 CMR 16.30 (2) (c) 3. Under:" Schedule" I would ask the engineering company for a review of all documents submitted to MEPA so that any deficiencies or concerns could be addresses prior to filing with the Board of Health. Once the MEPA determination is made, I would anticipate a filing with the Board of Health. If I understand the Code correctly, the Board is required to advertise a public hearing within 7 days, hold a public hearing within 30 days, and make a determination within 45 days of the public hearing. Of course, the public hearing could last more than one day. The Board will need this time to make an informed, articulate determination. Reference is made to the ENF and supporting documents in the Overview section of the RFP; the selected firm will be requested to review all pertinent documents. With respect to the schedule, it is my understanding that Northside Carting will be filing the ENF with MEPA on or about April 29th. We are not certain when they will be filing with the Board of Health, but they have indicated they will be filing in late May or early June. nr �YfM4 rage J in J On a different note, I was told that NSC has Attorney Thomas Mackie of Mackie, Shea & O'Brien, 137 Newbury Street, working for them. Since you will be representing the City in this application before the Board of Health, and NSC has a firm who advertises a completed project as, "Solid Waste- Negotiation of a multi-faceted host community agreement for the new owner of a regional solid waste landfill", the Board must have independent council. It has discussed writing a formal request for legal council to assist it in this process. This is extremely common in all communities that we know have gone through this process. The communities you are referring to likely involve new Site Assignments under DEP regulations. The public hearing for this project is for a minor modification of an existing Site Assignment under 310 CMR 16.22(c) and is not for a new Site Assignment. The Board should focus on the environmental impacts to the area associated with the increase in traffic and operation of the new transfer station, but it should also consider the benefits of landfill closure to the Forest River and the benefits to the City. As I have indicated in the past, the City does not have the funds to hire outside counsel, if you are able to secure a commitment from Northside, that would be fine. I would suggest that you may want to wait to see how much $ you will be requesting for the technical review so you will have an idea how much $ is available for legal counsel. According to 310 CMR 16.99 Appendix A, the maximum tech fee the bd, may charge is $11,000. See also section 16.30(4) re. limitation of technical fee toward legal,... Elizabeth Rennard, Esq. City Solicitor City Hall 93 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 978-619-5631 978-744-9327 (fax) 1 fift'T f')I1t7Q rage r ci .] Joanne Scott From: Beth Rennard Sent: Tuesday,April 15, 2008 1:07 PM To: Joanne Scott Cc: 'Paulette Puleo' Subject: BOH RFP Questions Joanne, I received your email yesterday, but I have been in negotiations and my assoc. is on vaca. Here is my response to your recent questions. How does this RFP allow for the contract with the Air Quality review expert from BU? The RFP may be edited to allow for separate proposals for each report to be reviewed. Please send me a marked up copy of the RFP with any additions Al has made and this added (and any other edits discussed below). The Respondents may also retain technical experts or subconsultants if they feel they need technical support. Firms who routinely perform these services most likely have either in-house experts or they have relationships with subconsultants who do. I don't think what the Board of Health is requesting a 'peer' review" but a "technical review." Regardless of what it is called, the review needs to include the items listed in the RFP, including review of the technical as of the proposed redevelopment and compliance with regulatory permitting and other project requirements. Reference to the tasks outlined in 310 CMR 16.30 (2) (c) 3 can be added to the RFP. What does the paragraph "to understand the objectives of the peer review process" mean? If the engineering company has done this before, they will understand that the objective is to comply with the DEP code, 310 CMR 16.00. There are other issues that must be addressed beyond the scope of 310 CMR 16.00. It is my understanding that Northside Carting will be submitting an Expanded Environmental Notification Form, including the traffic, air quality and noise studies, to MEPA on or about May 1st. Those studies need to be reviewed and the Board should feel free to ask any other questions they feel are appropriate. Otherwise, because the site already has a Site Assignment from the BON, many of the requirements outlined in 310 CMR 16.00 do not apply. Written comments should be submitted to the Board of Health, not the City Engineer, because the company is working for the Board in this review. Because this is a City project involving significant liability, financial and technical issues, the City Engineer should be directly involved to support the review All aJ�nnv rit�c t vi . process. Nevertheless, you can request that the selected firm respond to both the Board of Health and the City Engineer. Under qualifications, we should ask for Registered Professional Engineers, and not LSP's since LSP's are mainly concerned with remediating contaminated soils and water under different DEP requirements and laws. Both Engineers and LSPs are involved with these activities; some LSPs may be more qualified than some Engineers in dealing with the technical and regulatory compliance issues. We should probably allow the Respondents staff the project as they see fit, based upon the qualifications of the individuals they propose to use. The wording in the RFP needs to reflect what is said in the Code regarding Technical Review. You could site that part of the code, 310 CMR 16.30 (2) (c) 3 or include its wording. It says that the Technical Review is to assist the Board of Health in: Reviewing the application (which could mean the MEPA application); reviewing the request for the minor modification; reviewing public comments and any subsequent amendments or additions to the application. Tasks could include: Determining completeness and accuracy of the data in the application; determining whether the correct analytical techniques were used, whether valid data was obtained; whether the data support the proposed conclusions; determining what other data should be obtained, the means to obtain it and its potential significance; examining municipal and other relevant documents and consulting with DEP staff; visiting the site to make a visual inspection; preparing and submitting comments to the Board of Health on technical issues relating to the site; reviewing data submitted prior to and during the public hearing; preparing a written report of comments and determinations. The RFP can be amended to include reference to 310 CMR 16.30 (2) (c) 3. Under:" Schedule" I would ask the engineering company for a review of all documents submitted to MEPA so that any deficiencies or concerns could be addresses prior to filing with the Board of Health. Once the MEPA determination is made, I would anticipate a filing with the Board of Health. If I understand the Code correctly, the Board is required to advertise a public hearing within 7 days, hold a public hearing within 30 days, and make a determination within 45 days of the public hearing. Of course, the public hearing could last more than one day. The Board will need this time to make an informed, articulate determination. Reference is made to the ENF and supporting documents in the Overview section of the RFP; the selected firm will be requested to review all pertinent documents. With respect to the schedule, it is my understanding that Northside Carting will be filing the ENF with MEPA on or about April 29th. We are not certain when they will be filing with the Board of Health, but they have indicated they will be filing in late May or early June. r rage J ul i On a different note, 1 was told that NSC has Attorney Thomas Mackie of Mackie, Shea & O'Brien, 137 Newbury Street, working for them. Since you will be representing the City in this application before the Board of Health, and NSC has a firm who advertises a completed project as, "Solid Waste- Negotiation of a multi-faceted host community agreement for the new owner of a regional solid waste landfill", the Board must have independent council. It has discussed writing a formal request for legal council to assist it in this process. This is extremely common in all communities that we know have gone through this process. The communities you are referring to likely involve new Site Assignments under DEPregulations. The public hearing for this project is for a minor modification of an existing Site Assignment under 310 CMR 16.22(c) and is not for a new Site Assignment. The Board should focus on the environmental impacts to the area associated with the increase in traffic and operation of the new transfer station, but it should also consider the benefits of landfill closure to the Forest River and the benefits to the City. As I have indicated in the past, the City does not have the funds to hire outside counsel. If you are able to secure a commitment from Northside, that would be fine. I would suggest that you may want to wait to see how much $ you will be requesting for the technical review so you will have an idea how much $ is available for legal counsel. According to 310 CMR 16.99 Appendix A, the maximum tech fee the bd. may charge is $11,000. See also section 16.30(d) re. limitation of technical fee toward legal,... Elizabeth Rennard, Esq. City Solicitor City Hall 93 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 978-619-5631 978-744-9327(fax) All'71)nn4 Board of Health Representation Page 1 of 2 Joanne Scott From: Joanne Scott Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 11:44 AM To: Kim Driscoll; Beth Rennard Cc: Barbara Poremba; Carol Rainville, Chris Harrington; Christina Harrington; Joanne Scott; Icorchado@salemstate.edu, Martin Fair, Noreen Casey; Paulette Puleo; Tracy Giarla Subject: FW: Board of Health Representation Dear Mayor and Beth: This is the attorney I mentioned yesterday that I believe the Board would like to use for the Transfer Station process. As you can see, the firm has experience representing applicants before Boards of Health on solid waste matters. 310 CMR 16.30 (1) (c) allows for"Alternate Systems"for fees. I hope that NSC will see the benefit of paying for the engineering, legal, and air quality experts and a stenographer at the public hearing. This expertise will allow the Board of Health to be confident in its evaluation of the request and to render a determination in complete regulatory compliance. Please let me know when I may meet with you and NSC, including Bill Thompson I hope. I am sure that the Board will be fair and objective in this process Thank you, Joanne From: Fitzgerald, Robert H [mailto:rfitzgerald@goodwinprocter.com] Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 10:53 AM To: Joanne Scott Cc: Davis, Christopher P Subject: Board of Health Representation Joanne: It was a pleasure to speak with you today. As I mentioned, we do have experience in Site Assignment matters having represented other clients before Boards of Health (though not in Salem) on similar issues. Although we would serve whatever role the Board required, I believe we would be most helpful in working with the Board to assure that the necessary procedures are followed throughout the hearing process and that the application (and ultimately the Board's written decision on the application) satisfies the applicable regulatory criteria. We would also work in conjunction with your other consultants to prepare questions the Board might consider asking of the applicant during the course of the hearing in order to elicit the testimony/information necessary to reach a final decision. I also mentioned that we are performing a conflict check internally, and that process tends to take a few daysto complete. I will let you know if any conflicts issues arise on our end. Beyond our internal conflicts review, I understand that it is our firm's policy that any attorney that represents a municipal board in a matter needs to be designated as a special municipal employee under&,268A of the General Laws for that limited purpose. The City Solicitor is probably intimately familiar with that process, but I wanted to let you.know'now that this would be one item we would need to address before taking on the representation (in addition.to the fee issues we discussed). 4/17/2008 Board of Health Representation Page 2 of 2 ~ Thank you for the opportunity to represent the Board, and I hope to speak again soon. Best regards, Bob Robert H. Fitzgerald Goodwin Procter LLP Exchange Place Boston, MA 02109 r: (617) 570-1343 F: (617) 227-8591 rfitzgerald@goodwinprocter.com www.000dwin procter corn IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS,we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of(i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. This message is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated recipient,you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you. 4/17/2008 Page 2 of 2 www.goodwinprocter.com From: Joanne Scott [mailto:JScott@Salem.com] Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 2:45 PM To: Davis, Christopher P Cc: Paulette Puleo; dktrcar@msn.com Subject: Salem Transfer Station Dear Mr. Davis: I am the Health Agent for the Salem Board of Health, following up on Carol Rainville's e-mail to you. The applicant for the Minor Modification request(regulated by DEP's Code 310 CMR 16.00, "Site Assignment Regulations for Solid Waste Facilities")to the Salem Board of Health is the City of Salem, who currently owns the property. An RFP for the sale of the property has been awarded to the current operator of the Transfer Station, NSC, pending City Council approval. North Side Carting, Inc. (NSC) is owned by Robert George and several Thompson Brothers. The modification is to increase the daily tonnage average from 100 tons to 400 tons and to accept"municipal solid waste" (msw)in addition to"construction & demolition" (c&d)that is brought there now The plan includes building a new transfer facility- The Board of Health must review the request, hold a public hearing, and review technical information regarding air quality impacts, facility and building design, traffic impacts, etc. The Board has the option to accept the request, deny the request, or accept the request with conditions. As the Health Agent, my major concern is the political pressure that will be exerted because the actual applicant is the City. In addition, the City is under the threat of significant DEP penalties because of an outstanding(for several years)order to cap the ash landfill that exists on the property. The Board of Health will be asking the City to allocate money (probably received from NSG)to pay the expenses of an attorney, engineering company, and air quality expert. Since the City Solicitor represents the City in this application to the Board, it does not seem possible for her to also represent the Board in this matter. The Board of Health attorney would guide the Board to ensure compliance with the DEP Code including specific time requirements for the filing and holding of a public hearing, and for the time allowed for a written decision to be rendered. Legal assistance would also be needed to write the decision and the specific conditions if the request was approved with conditions. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Joanne Scott 978-741-1800 jsaatt@salem.com 4/17/2008 Page 1 of 2 Joanne Scott From: Joanne Scott ' Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 4:39 PM To: 'Davis, Christopher P' Cc: 'Paulette Puleo, Carol Rainvilie Subject: RE: Salem Transfer Station [21 Dear Chris: Thank you very much for your interest in this project. Attorney Fitzgerald would be the legal representative we hope to obtain. The Board of Health is holding a special meeting this Thursday to discuss, and probably vote on, a request to North Side Carting for funds to cover legal, engineering, and clerical costs. It is my understanding that NSC's attorney is Thomas Mackie of Mackie, Shea and O'Brien, Newbury Street, Boston. It is necessary for the Board of Health to have an attorney of equal caliber and experience to represent it in this matter. Without the proper resources, the Board is more likely to be overwhelmed and deny the application. This project must have a significant monetary value to NSC, so I feel confident that 1 can word the request to them in a way that will garner a positive response. The Code, 310 CMR 16.00, has a formula for calculating fees. If this were a Major Modification, Table 2 allows for a maximum technical fee of$23,000. 1 know that communities have assessed higher fees to cover higher costs,even when the request is for a Minor Modification, and petitioners pay it. This is the case in Taunton which is similar to Salem because the actual applicant is the City, but the operator of the transfer station pays the bills. Do you or Mr. Fitzgerald think we can do by mutual agreement legally? Thank you again, Joanne From: Davis, Christopher P [matito:cdavis@goodwinprocter.comI Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 3:25 PM To: Joanne Scott Cc: Paulette Puleo; dktrcar@msn.com; Fitzgerald, Robert H Subject: RE: Salem Transfer Station [21 Joanne--I think Bob Fitzgerald, senior counsel in our environmental practice, would be well suited to advise and represent the Board of Health in this matter. Bob is an experienced environmental lawyer with an engineering background and considerable experience in similar regulatory permitting and compliance work, including air quality and permitting issues. I'd be happy to forward Bob's resume and put him in touch with you. His current hourly rate is $495. Please let me know if you would like to talk with Bob and receive a copy of his resume.--Chris Christopher P. Davis Goodwin Procter LLP Exchange Place Boston MA 02109 T: {617} 570-1354 F. (617)227-8591 cdavis@goodwinprocter.com 4/17/2008 rage 1 w a f Joanne Scott From: Beth Rennard Sent: Tuesday,April 15,2008 1:07 PM To: Joanne Scott Cc: 'Paulette Puleo' Subject: BOH RFP Questions Joanne, I received your email yesterday, but I have been in negotiations and my assoc. is on vaca. Here is my response to your recent questions. How does this RFP allow for the contract with the Air Quality review expert from BU? The RFP may be edited to allow for separate proposals for each report to be reviewed. Please send me a marked up copy of the RFP with any additions Al has made and this added (and any other edits discussed below). The Respondents may also retain technical experts or subconsultants if they feel they need technical support. Firms who routinely perform these services most likely have either in-house experts or they have relationships with subconsultants who do. I don't think what the Board of Health is requesting a "peer' review" but a "technical review." Regardless of what it is called, the review needs to include the items listed in the RFP, including review of the technical aspects of the proposed redevelopment and compliance with regulatory permitting and other project requirements. Reference to the tasks outlined in 310 CMR 16.30 (2) (c) 3 can be added to the RFP. What does the paragraph "to understand the objectives of the peer review process" mean? If the engineering company has done this before, they will understand that the objective is to comply with the DEP code, 310 CMR 16.00. There are other issues that must be addressed beyond the scope of 310 CMR 16.00. It is my understanding that Northside Carting will be submitting an Expanded Environmental Notification Form, including the traffic, air quality and noise studies, to MEPA on or about May 1st. Those studies need to be reviewed and the Board should feel free to ask any other questions they feel are appropriate. Otherwise, because the site already has a Site Assignment from the BOH, many of the requirements outlined in 310 CMR 16.00 do not apply. Written comments should be submitted to the Board of Health, not the City Engineer, because the company is working for the Board in this review, Because this is a City project involving significant liability, financial and technical issues, the City Engineer should be directly involved to support the review A 11?IgnnQ L t ki�'G G Vl J I process. Nevertheless, you can request that the selected firm respond to both the Board of Health and the City Engineer. Under qualifications, we should ask for Registered Professional Engineers, and not LSP's since LSD's are mainly concerned with remediating contaminated soils and water under different DEP requirements and laws. Both Engineers and LSPs are involved with these activities; some LSPs may be more qualified than some Engineers in dealing with the technical and regulatory compliance issues. We should probably allow the Respondents staff the project as they see fit, based upon the qualifications of the individuals they propose to use. The wording in the RFP needs to reflect what is said in the Code regarding Technical Review. You could site that part of the code, 310 CMR 16.30 (2) (c) 3 or include its wording. It says that the Technical Review is to assist the Board of Health in: Reviewing the application (which could mean the MEPA application); reviewing the request for the minor modification; reviewing public comments and any subsequent amendments or additions to the application. Tasks could include: Determining completeness and accuracy of the data in the application; determining whether the correct analytical techniques were used, whether valid data was obtained; whether the data support the proposed conclusions; determining what other data should be obtained, the means to obtain it and its potential significance; examining municipal and other relevant documents and consulting with DEP staff; visiting the site to make a visual inspection; preparing and submitting comments to the Board of Health on technical issues relating to the site; reviewing data submitted prior to and during the public hearing; preparing a written report of comments and determinations. The RFP can be amended to include reference to 310 CMR 16.30 (2) (c) 3. Under:" Schedule" I would ask the engineering company for a review of all documents submitted to MEPA so that any deficiencies or concerns could be addresses prior to filing with the Board of Health. Once the MEPA determination is made, I would anticipate a filing with the Board of Health. If I understand the Code correctly, the Board is required to advertise a public hearing within 7 days, hold a public hearing within 30 days, and make a determination within 45 days of the public hearing. Of course, the public hearing could last more than one day. The Board will need this time to make an informed, articulate determination. Reference is made to the ENF and supporting documents in the Overview section of the RFP; the selected firm will be requested to review all pertinent documents. With respect to the schedule, it is my understanding that Northside Carting will be filing the ENP with MEPA on or about April 29th. We are not certain when they will be filing with the Board of Health, but they have indicated they will be filing in late May or early June. A 11 4/7nAQ Ya�C J ill J J On a different note, I was told that NSC has Attorney Thomas Mackie of Mackie, Shea & O'Brien, 137 Newbury Street, working for them. Since you will be representing the City in this application before the Board of Health, and NSC has a firm who advertises a completed project as, "Solid Waste- Negotiation of a multi-faceted host community agreement for the new owner of a regional solid waste landfill", the Board must have independent council. It has discussed writing a formal request for legal council to assist it in this process. This is extremely common in all communities that we know have gone through this process. The communities you are referring to likely involve new Site Assignments under DEP regulations. The public hearing for this project is for a minor modification of an existing Site Assignment under 310 CMR 16.22(c) and is not for a new Site Assignment. The Board should focus on the environmental impacts to the area associated with the increase in traffic and operation of the new transfer station, but it should also consider the benefits of landfill closure to the Forest River and the benefits to the City. As I have indicated in the past, the City does not have the funds to hire outside counsel. If you are able to secure a commitment from Northside, that would be fine. I would suggest that you may want to wait to see how much $ you will be requesting for the technical review so you will have an idea how much $ is available for legal counsel. According to 310 CMR 16.99 Appendix A, the maximum tech fee the bd, may charge is $11,000. See also section 16.30(d) re. limitation of technical fee toward legal,... Elizabeth Rennard, Esq. City Solicitor City Hall 93 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 976-619-5631 978-744-9327 (fax) All WI)MQ REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS The City of Salem requests qualifications and proposals from engineering firms with project development experience in Massachusetts, including all phases of environmental permitting. The use of specialty sub-consultants with pertinent experience is acceptable in meeting the qualification and experience requirements outlined herein. Such services are anticipated to include technical peer review of recent environmental documents related to evaluation of environmental impacts of expanding the existing 100 ton-per-day Transfer Station at 12 Swampscott Road to a new 400 ton-per-day facility at the same location. Review of documents associated with closure of the landfill is not included under this solicitation. Overview After an extensive solicitation process and review of proposals for redevelopment of the subject site, the City of Salem selected Northside Carting, Inc. (NSC) of North Andover, Massachusetts, as the preferred developer. NSC has proceeded with the initial phases of permitting and design, including the filing of a Notice of Intent with the Salem Conservation Commission and preparation of the following study reports to support an expanded Environmental Notification Form (ENF) submittal to MEPA: • Traffic Impact Study prepared by Vanasse &Associates, Inc., and • Air Quality and Noise Impact Analyses prepared by Epsilon, Inc. Additional environmental assessments and documents to support an expanded ENF will also be made available for review. Proposed Scope of Services As part of the peer review, the selected Consultant will be required to perform the following tasks. • Attend a kick-off meeting with the Board of Health, the City Engineer and other City representatives to better understand the objective of the peer review process; • Review and provide written comments to the City Engineer related to the technical information presented in the respective reports and supporting documents, and • Attend a review meeting with the BOH, the City Engineer, NSC and their representatives to discuss any questions or concerns related to review of the available documents. Any additional tasks will be performed on a time and expenses basis. Qualifications Respondents to this RFP must demonstrate compliance with the following minimum selection criteria. • Three representative development projects within the past five years that have at a minimum involved the evaluation of traffic, air quality and noise impacts. The use of specialty subconsultants on such projects is permissible. • One or more registered Professional Engineer(s) and/or Licensed Site Professional(s) who will be responsible for signing all review submittals to the City. Proposal Requirements Please provide your letter response, along with any supplemental understandings and/or clarifications of the stipulated scope of work and resumes of key staff and sub-consultants, if any, by 5:00 PM on . Any questions related to this RFQ/P shall be addressed to at 978/ Schedule The schedule is extremely critical due to the time lines established in the Administrative Consent Order with the DEP. It is expected that the selected Consultant will need to review all documents and provide written comments within two weeks after receipt. The review meeting will anticipated to be held during the last week of May 2008. Page 2 of 2 www.goodwinprocter.com From: Joanne Scott [malito:]Scott@Satem.com] Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 2:45 PM To: Davis, Christopher P Cc: Paulette Pufeo; dktrcar@msn.com Subject: Salem Transfer Station Dear Mr. Davis: I am the Health Agent for the Salem Board of Health, following up on Carol Rainville's e-mail to you. The applicant for the Minor Modification request(regulated by DEP's Code 310 CMR 16.00, "Site Assignment Regulations for Solid Waste Facilities")to the Salem Board of Health is the City of Salem, who currently owns the property. An RFP for the sale of the property has been awarded to the current operator of the Transfer Station, NSC, pending City Council approval North Side Carting, Inc. (NSC) is owned by Robert George and several Thompson Brothers. The modification is to increase the daily tonnage average from 100 tons to 400 tons and to accept"municipal solid waste" (msw) in addition to"construction & demolition" (c&d)that is brought there now The plan includes building a new transfer facility. The Board of Health must review the request, hold a public hearing, and review technical information regarding air quality impacts, facility and building design, traffic impacts, etc. The Board has the option to accept the request, deny the request, or accept the request with conditions. As the Health Agent, my major concern is the political pressure that will be exerted because the actual applicant is the City. In addition, the City is under the threat of significant DEP penalties because of an outstanding(for several years) order to cap the ash landfill that exists on the property. The Board of Health will be asking the City to allocate money (probably received from NSC)to pay the expenses of an attorney, engineering company, and air quality expert. Since the City Solicitor represents the City in this application to the Board, it does not seem possible for her to also represent the Board in this matter. The Board of Health attorney would guide the Board to ensure compliance with the DEP Code including specific time requirements for the filing and holding of a public hearing, and for the time allowed for a written decision to be rendered. Legal assistance would also be needed to write the decision and the specific conditions if the request was approved with conditions. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Joanne Scott 978-741-1800 isc_ott,@salem.com 4/17/2008 Page 2 of 2 r. www.goodwinprooter.com From: Joanne Scott [mailto:JScott@Satem.com) Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 2:45 PM To: Davis, Christopher P Cc: Paulette Puled; dktrcar@msn.com Subject: Salem Transfer Station Dear Mr. Davis I am the Health Agent for the Salem Board of Health, following up on Carol Rainviile's e-mail to you. The applicant for the Minor Modification request(regulated by DEP's Code 310 CMR 16.00, "Site Assignment Regulations for Solid Taste Facilities")to the Salem Board of Health is the City of Salem, who currently owns the property. An RFP for the sale of the property has been awarded to the current operator of the Transfer Station, NSC, pending City Council approval North Side Carting, Inc. (NSC) is awned by Robert George and several Thompson Brothers. The modification is to increase the daily tonnage average from 100 tons to 400 tans and to accept"municipal solid waste" (msw) in addition to"construction & demolition" (c&d) that is brought there now The plan includes building a new transfer facility- The Board of Health must review the request, hold a public hearing, and review technical information regarding air quality impacts, facility and building design, traffic impacts, etc. The Board has the option to accept the request, deny the request, or accept the request with conditions. As the Health Agent, my major concern is the political pressure that will be exerted because the actual applicant is the City. In addition, the City is under the threat of significant DEP penalties because of an outstanding(for several years)order to cap the ash landfill that exists on the property. The Board of Health will be asking the City to allocate money (probably received from NSC)to pay the expenses of an attorney, engineering company, and air quality expert. Since the City Solicitor represents the City in this application to the Board, it does not seem possible for her to also represent the Board in this matter. The Board of Health attorney would guide the Board to ensure compliance with the DEP Code including specific time requirements for the filing and holding of a public hearing, and for the time allowed for a written decision to be rendered. Legal assistance would also be needed to write the decision and the specific conditions if the request was approved with conditions. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Joanne Scott 978-741-1800 jscott@salem.com i 4/17/2008 1 Page 2 of 2 www.goodwinprocter.com From: Joanne Scott (mailto:JScott@Salem.com] Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 2:45 PM To: Davis, Christopher P Cc: Paulette Puleo; dktrcar@msn.com Subject: Salem Transfer Station Dear Mr. Davis: I am the Health Agent for the Salem Board of Health, following up on Carol Rainville's e-mail to you. The applicant for the Minor Modification request(regulated by DEP's Code 310 CMR 16.00, "Site Assignment Regulations for Solid Waste Facilities') to the Salem Board of Health is the City of Salem, who currently owns the property. An RFP for the sale of the property has been awarded to the current operator of the Transfer Station, NSC, pending City Council approval North Side Carting, Inc. (NSC) is owned by Robert George and several Thompson Brothers. The modification is to increase the daily tonnage average from 100 tons to 400 tons and to accept"municipal solid waste' (msw) in addition to"construction & demolition" (c&d)that is brought there now The plan includes building a new transfer facility. The Board of Health must review the request, hold a public hearing, and review technical information regarding air quality impacts, facility and building design, traffic impacts, etc. The Board has the option to accept the request, deny the request, or accept the request with conditions. As the Health Agent, my major concern is the political pressure that will be exerted because the actual applicant is the City. In addition, the City is under the threat of significant DEP penalties because of an outstanding (for several years)order to cap the ash landfill that exists on the property. The Board of Health will be asking the City to allocate money (probably received from NSC) to pay the expenses of an attorney, engineering company, and air quality expert. Since the City Solicitor represents the City in this application to the Board, it does not seem possible for her to also represent the Board in this matter. The Board of Health attorney would guide the Board to ensure compliance with the DEP Code including specific time requirements for the filing and holding of a public hearing, and for the time allowed for a written decision to be rendered. Legal assistance would also be needed to write the decision and the specific conditions if the request was approved with conditions. Please let me know if you have any questions Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Joanne Scott 978-741-1800 iscottna salem.com 4/17/2008 Page 2 of 2 www.goodwl n p rooter.com From: Joanne Scott[mailto:JScott@Satem.com] Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 2:45 PM To: Davis, Christopher P Cc: Paulette puled; dktrcar@msn.com Subject: Salem Transfer Station Dear Mr. Davis: I am the Health Agent for the Salem Board of Health, following up on Carol Rainville's e-mail to you. The applicant for the Minor Modification request(regulated by DEP's Code 310 CMR 16.00, "Site Assignment Regulations for Solid Waste Facilities")to the Salem Board of Health is the City of Salem, who currently owns the property. An RFP for the sale of the property has been awarded to the current operator of the Transfer Station, NSC, pending City Council approval North Side Carting, Inc. (NSC) is owned by Robert George and several Thompson Brothers. The modification is to increase the daily tonnage average from 100 tons to 400 tons and to accept"municipal solid waste" (msw) in addition to"construction & demolition" (c&d)that is brought there now The plan includes building a new transfer facility. The Board of Health must review the request, hold a public hearing, and review technical information regarding air quality impacts, facility and building design, traffic impacts, etc. The Board has the option to accept the request, deny the request, or accept the request with conditions. As the Health Agent, my major concern is the political pressure that will be exerted because the actual applicant is the City. In addition, the City is under the threat of significant DEP penalties because of an outstanding (for several years)order to cap the ash landfill that exists on the property. The Board of Health will be asking the City to allocate money (probably received from NSC)to pay the expenses of an attorney, engineering company, and air quality expert. Since the City Solicitor represents the City in this application to the Board, it does not seem possible for her to also represent the Board in this matter. The Board of Health attorney would guide the Board to ensure compliance with the DEP Code including specific time requirements for the filing and holding of a public hearing, and for the time allowed for a written decision to be rendered. Legal assistance would also be needed to write the decision and the specific conditions if the request was approved with conditions. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Joanne Scott 978-741-1800 jscott@salem.com 4/17/2008 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS The City of Salem requests qualifications and proposals from engineering firms with project development experience in Massachusetts, including all phases of environmental permitting. The use of specialty sub-consultants with pertinent experience is acceptable in meeting the qualification and experience requirements outlined herein. Such services are anticipated to include technical peer review of recent environmental documents related to evaluation of environmental impacts of expanding the existing 100 ton-per-day Transfer Station at 12 Swampscott Road to a new 400 ton-per-day facility at the same location. Review of documents associated with closure of the landfill is not included under this solicitation Overview After an extensive solicitation process and review of proposals for redevelopment of the subject site, the City of Salem selected Northside Carting, Inc. (NSC) of North Andover, Massachusetts, as the preferred developer. NSC has proceeded with the initial phases of permitting and design, including the filing of a Notice of Intent with the Salem Conservation Commission and preparation of the following study reports to support an expanded Environmental Notification Form (ENF) submittal to MEPA: • Traffic Impact Study prepared by Vanasse&Associates, Inc.; and • Air Quality and Noise Impact Analyses prepared by Epsilon, Inc. Additional environmental assessments and documents to support an expanded ENF will also be made available for review. Proposed Scope of Services As part of the peer review, the selected Consultant will be required to perform the following tasks: • Attend a kick-off meeting with the Board of Health, the City Engineer and other City representatives to better understand the objective of the peer review process, • Review and provide written comments to the City Engineer related to the technical information presented in the respective reports and supporting documents; and • Attend a review meeting with the BOH, the City Engineer, NSC and their representatives to discuss any questions or concerns related to review of the available documents. Any additional tasks will be performed on a time and expenses basis. Qualifications Respondents to this RFP must demonstrate compliance with the following minimum selection criteria: • Three representative development projects within the past five years that have at a minimum involved the evaluation of traffic, air quality and noise impacts. The use of specialty subconsultants on such projects is permissible. • One or more registered Professional Engineer(s) and/or Licensed Site Professional(s) who will be responsible for signing all review submittals to the City. Proposal Requirements Please provide your letter response, along with any supplemental understandings and/or clarifications of the stipulated scope of work and resumes of key staff and sub-consultants, if any, by 5:00 PM on . Any questions related to this RFQ/P shall be addressed to at 978/ Schedule The schedule is extremely critical due to the time lines established in the Administrative Consent Order with the DEP. It is expected that the selected Consultant will need to review all documents and provide written comments within two weeks after receipt. The review meeting will anticipated to be held during the last week of May 2008. E REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS The City of Salem requests qualifications and proposals from engineering firms with project development experience in Massachusetts, including all phases of environmental permitting. The use of specialty sub-consultants with pertinent experience is acceptable in meeting the qualification and experience requirements outlined herein. Such services are anticipated to include technical peer review of recent environmental documents related to evaluation of environmental impacts of expanding the existing 100 ton-per-day Transfer Station at 12 Swampscott Road to a new 400 ton-per-day facility at the same location. Review of documents associated with closure of the landfill is not included under this solicitation. Overview After an extensive solicitation process and review of proposals for redevelopment of the subject site, the City of Salem selected Northside Carting, Inc. (NSC) of North Andover, Massachusetts, as the preferred developer. NSC has proceeded with the initial phases of permitting and design, including the filing of a Notice of Intent with the Salem Conservation Commission and preparation of the following study reports to support an expanded Environmental Notification Form (ENF) submittal to MEPA: • Traffic Impact Study prepared by Vanasse&Associates, Inc.; and • Air Quality and Noise Impact Analyses prepared by Epsilon, Inc. Additional environmental assessments and documents to support an expanded ENF will also be made available for review. Proposed Scope of Services As part of the peer review, the selected Consultant will be required to perform the following tasks: • Attend a kick-off meeting with the Board of Health, the City Engineer and other City representatives to better understand the objective of the peer review process; • Review and provide written comments to the City Engineer related to the technical information presented in the respective reports and supporting documents; and • Attend a review meeting with the BOH, the City Engineer, NSC and their representatives to discuss any questions or concerns related to review of the available documents. Any additional tasks will be performed on a time and expenses basis` Qualifications Respondents to this RFP must demonstrate compliance with the following minimum selection criteria: • Three representative development projects within the past five years that have at a minimum involved the evaluation of traffic, air quality and noise impacts. The use of specialty subconsultants on such projects is permissible. • One or more registered Professional Engineer(s) and/or Licensed Site Professional(s) who will be responsible for signing all review submittals to the City. Proposal Requirements r� ,r Please provide your letter response, along with any supplemental understandings and/or clarifications of the stipulated scope of work and resumes of key staff and sub-consultants, if any, by 5:00 PM on . Any questions related to this RFQ/P shall be addressed to at 978/ Schedule The schedule is extremely critical due to the time lines established in the Administrative Consent Order with the DEP. It is expected that the selected Consultant will need to review all documents and provide written comments within two weeks after receipt. The review meeting will anticipated to be held during the last week of May 2008. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS The City of Salem requests qualifications and proposals from engineering firms with project development experience in Massachusetts, including all phases of environmental permitting. The use of specialty sub-consultants with pertinent experience is acceptable in meeting the qualification and experience requirements outlined herein. Such services are anticipated to include technical peer review of recent environmental documents related to evaluation of environmental impacts of expanding the existing 100 ton-per-day Transfer Station at 12 Swampscott Road to a new 400 ton-per-day facility at the same location. Review of documents associated with closure of the landfill is not included under this solicitation. Overview After an extensive solicitation process and review of proposals for redevelopment of the subject site, the City of Salem selected Northside Carting, Inc. (NSC) of North Andover, Massachusetts, as the preferred developer. NSC has proceeded with the initial phases of permitting and design, including the filing of a Notice of Intent with the Salem Conservation Commission and preparation of the following study reports to support an expanded Environmental Notification Form (ENF) submittal to MEPA: • Traffic Impact Study prepared by Vanasse &Associates, Inc.; and • Air Quality and Noise Impact Analyses prepared by Epsilon, Inc. Additional environmental assessments and documents to support an expanded ENF will also be made available for review. Proposed Scope of Services As part of the peer review, the selected Consultant will be required to perform the following tasks: • Attend a kick-off meeting with the Board of Health, the City Engineer and other City representatives to better understand the objective of the peer review process; • Review and provide written comments to the City Engineer related to the technical information presented in the respective reports and supporting documents; and • Attend a review meeting with the BOH, the City Engineer, NSC and their representatives to discuss any questions or concerns related to review of the available documents. Any additional tasks will be performed on a time and expenses basis. Qualifications Respondents to this RFP must demonstrate compliance with the following minimum selection criteria: • Three representative development projects within the past five years that have at a minimum involved the evaluation of traffic, air quality and noise impacts. The use of specialty subconsultants on such projects is permissible. • One or more registered Professional Engineer(s) and/or Licensed Site Professional(s) who will be responsible for signing all review submittals to the City. Proposal Requirements Please provide your letter response, along with any supplemental understandings and/or clarifications of the stipulated scope of work and resumes of key staff and sub-consultants, if any, by 5:00 PM on . Any questions related to this RFQ/P shall be addressed to at 978/ Schedule The schedule is extremely critical due to the time lines established in the Administrative Consent Order with the DEP. It is expected that the selected Consultant will need to review all documents and provide written comments within two weeks after receipt. The review meeting will anticipated to be held during the last week of May 2008. Attachmcnr to Order of C Onchtions 4 64-473 bAb Ie Page le>f 7 SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION DEP FILE #64-473 City of Salem Transfer Station 12 Swampscott Road City of Salem, Massachusetts f � ADDiT16NAL FINDINGS Based on the Estimated Habitats or,Rare Wildlife and Certified Vernal Pools Map (lune 1. 2003) from Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP) of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, it has been determined that this project does not occur near any habitat of state-listed rare wildlife species nor contains any vernal pools. This Order is issued under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection flet,M.G.L.Chapter 131,Section 40 and the City of Salem Wetlands Protection Ordinance,Salem Code Chapter 34, Section 34-1 —34-13. This Order permits the capping and renovation(includinh slope stabilization, repaving,grading)of the existing City of Salem transfer station and upgrade of City of Salem yard waste drop-off area (installation of retaining walls and repaving) at the closed ;olid waste landfill, In further detail, this Order of Conditions permits the work proposed in the Notice of Intent filed kWh the Conservation Commission on February 11, 2008 which is further described in Supplemental information,provided to the Conservation Commission on February 28, 2008 and March 13, 2008. The activities approved:finder this Order of Conditions include demolition of the existing former incinerator building, including the building and the smoke stack. The Commission approves the demolition procedure proposed in the application. The applicant shall obtain all necessary local and state permits necessary to complete this demolition. 'Phis Order permits the capping of the landfill as described in the Notice of Intent application. The Commission approves this plan so long as it is in compliance with DEP's regulations. If changes are made to the proposed capping technique the landowner shall provide the Conservation Commission with the new proposed approach to capping the landfill. The Commission approves the construction of a new transfer station building to be 75 feet by 100 feet, as proposed in the Notice of Intent application. This Order pennits repaving on the Site including areas within the 200 foot River-front area. In order to address runoff and reduce the total suspended solids entering into the river the landowner shall install a Stonnceptor 9001 unit. per DEP comments made on March 4, 2008. In order to control stormwater during construction the landowner shall provide a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP)to the appropriate agencies and provide the Conservation Commission with a copy. This Order permits the development of concrete block push walls and retaining walls within the Riverfront area as proposed on the Overall Site Plan dated February 2008 stamped by Gerald R. Magnan. This project proposal includes the relocation of the yard waste drop-off area and the creation of a recyclable drop-off area to the rear (southern) portion of the site. The Conservation Commission is requiring that no dumping signs be installed along the perimeter of the drop-off area and along the top of the river. Condition #46 outlines the specifics of design, quantity and location of the signs. This Order permits the creation of a water quality swale around the perimeter of the drop-off area as described in the Notice of Intent application. Phis Order permits site improvements, specifically the removal of approximately 60 linear feet of the upstream portion of a culvert that currently conveys the Forest River under the existing access road to the yard waste drop-off area located to the rear,southern,side of the Site. This Order permits the removal of the 48"and the installation of a A 4 't Anichmcat to Order of Condlnlms # 04-473 Page 2of 7 12" pipe at inlet to control flow and maintain existing conditions. All material removed as a result of the day- lighting of the river shall be handled appropriately according to DEP requirements. 'fhe river shall be protected throughout the entire process of removing the 60 linear feet, taking necessary precautions to limit sediment, equipment, etc. from entering the river. Final stamped plans showing the removal of the pipe shall be submitted to the Conservation Agent or Conservation Commission prior to the start of construction and post the inspection of the drainage pipe. The landowner shall remove debris from the Forest River,including but not limited to"white goods-such as washing machines.dryers,bicycles,etc. Equipment used to remove this debris shall not enter the river and spill kits shall be on Site at all times. An Operations and Maintenance Plan shall be maintained on site by the landowner and shall be available for review by the Conservation Agent or others who are interested. The Conservation Agent will be inspecting the site on a weekly basis during construction. The Conservation Agent shall be notified if changes are made to any section of the approved application. GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. This Order of Conditions must be recorded in its entirety (all 7 pages)at the Essex County Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located, after the expiration of the i 0-day appeal period and within 30 days of the issuance. A copy of the recording information must be submitted to the Salem Conservation Commission before any work approved in this Order commences. 2. Approval of this application does not constitute compliance with any law or regulation other than M.G.L Chapter 131, Section 40, Wetlands Regulations 310 CMR 10.00 and the City of Salem Wetlands Protection Ordinance, Salem Code Chapter 34, Section 34-1 —34-13. 3. All work shall be performed in accordance with this Order of Conditions and approved site plan(s). No alteration of wetland resource areas or associated buffer zones, other than that approved in this Order, shall occur on this property without prior approval from the Commission. 4. Prior to any work commencing,a sign shall be displayed showing DEP File#64-473,and not placed on a living tree. 5. No work approved in this Order may commence until the ten(10)day appeal period has lapsed from the date of the issuance of this Order. 6. With respect to this Order, the Commission designates the Conservation Agent as its agent with powers to act on its behalf in administering and enforcing this Order. 7. The Commission or its Agent,officers,or employees shall have the right to enter and inspect the property at any time far compliance with the conditions of this Order,the Wetlands Protection Act MGL Chapter 131, Section 40,the Wetlands Regulations 310 CMR 10.00,and the Salem Wetlands Ordinance, and shall have the right to require any data or documentation that it deems necessary for that evaluation. 8. The term "Applicant'as used in this Order of Conditions shall refer to the owner, any successor in interest or successor in control of the property referenced in the Notice of intent,supporting documents and this Order of Conditions. The Commission shall be notified in writing within 30 days of all da .Utachntent to Order of Conditions # G4-)73 e'Yft Pal;c Sof 7 transfers of title ofany portion of the properly that takes place prior to issuance of the Certificate of Compliance. 9. It is the responsibility of the applicant to procure all other applicable federal, state and local permits and approvals associated with this project. These permits may include but are not necessarily limited to the following: (1) Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act(P.L. 92-500. 86 stat. 816), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2) Water Quality Certification in accordance with the Federal Water Pollution Control under authority of sea 27(5)of Chapter 21 of the Massachusetts General laws as codified in 314 CMR 9.00. (3) Sewer Extension Permit from the DEP Division of Water Pollution Control under G. L. Ch. 21A ss7 and 314 CMR 7.00. Any Board of Health permit for septic system design for any portion of the septic system within 100 feet of wetlands shall be submitted to the Commission prior to construction initiation. (4) Design Requirements for Construction in Floodplains under the State Building Code(780 CMR 744.). 10. If there are conflicting conditions within this Order, the stricter condition(s)shall rule. If.. All work shall be performed so as to ensure that there will be no sedimentation into wetlands and surface waters during construction or atter completion of the project. 12. The Commission or its Agent shall have the discretion to modify the erosion/siltation control methods and boundary during construction if necessary. 13. The Commission reserves the right to impose additional conditions on portions of this project or this site to mitigate any actual or potential impacts resulting from the work herein permitted. 14. The work shall conform to the following attached plans and special conditions: Final Approved Plans See Attached Sheet for a Listing of all Plans (Title) (Dated) (.Signed and Swooped Qv) City of Salem Conservation Commission Waffle With) 15. Any proposed changes in the approved plants)or any deviation in construction from the approved plants)shall require the applicant to file a Notice of Proiect Chance with the Commission. The Notice shall be accompanied by a written inquiry prior to their implementation in the field, as to whether the change(s) is substantial enough to require filing a new Notice of Intent or a request to correct or amend this Order of Conditions. A copy of such request shall at the same time be sent to the Department of Environmental Protection. #a L'zF Anachment it)Order of C,ndnion # 64-473 Page 4of 7 16. In conjunction with the sale of this property or any portion thereof belbre a Certificate of Compliance has been issued,the applicant or current landowner shall submit to the Commission a statement signed by the buyer that he/she is aware of an outstanding,Order of Conditions on the property and has received a copy of the Order of Conditions. 17. Condition Number 50 and 51 as indicated shall continue in force bevond the Certificate of Compliance, in perpetuity,and shall be referenced to in all future deeds to this property. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION 18. Prior to the commencement of any activity on this site other than activities listed above, there shall be a Pre-Construction Meeting between the project supervisor, the contractor responsible for the work,and a member of the Conservation Commission or its Administrator to ensure that the requirements of the Order of Conditions are understood. The staked erosion control line shall be adjusted, if necessary,daring the pre-construction meeting. Please contact the Conservation Commission Agent at (978)619-5685 at least forty-eight(48)hours prior to any activity to arrange for the pre- construction meeting. 19. Prior to the pre-construction meeting and commencement of any activity on this site,sedimentation and erosion control barriers shall be installed as shown on the approval plan(s)and detail drawings. The Commission and/or its Administrator shall inspect and approve such installation at the pre-construction meeting. 20. No clearing of vegetation, including trees,or disturbance of soil shall occur prior to the pre-construction meeting. Minimal disturbance of shrubs and herbaceous plants shall be allowed prior to the pre- construction meeting if absolutely necessary in order to place erosion control stakes where required. 21. There shall be twenty(20)hay bales and wooden stakes under cover on the site to be used only for emergency erosion control. EROSION CONTROL 22. Appropriate erosion control devices shall be in place prior to the beginning of any phase of construction, and shall be maintained during construction in the wetland areas and buffer zones. The erosion control specifications provided in the Notice of Intent and the erosion control provision in the Order will be the minimum standards for this project; the Commission may require additional measures. 23. All debris, fill and excavated material shall be stockpiled a location far enough away from the wetland resource areas to prevent sediment from entering wetland resource areas. 24. Erosion and sedimentation control devices shall be inspected after each storm event and repaired or replaced as necessary. Any accmnulated silt adjacent to the barriers shall be removed. 25. "file area of construction shall remain in a stable condition at the close of each construction day. 26. Any de-watering of trenches or other excavation required during construction shall be conducted so as to prevent siltation of wetland resource areas. All discharge from de-watering activities shall be filtered through hay bale sediment traps, silt filter hags or other means approved by the Commission or its Administrator. 27. Within thirty (30)days of completion of construction on any given portion of the project, all disturbed areas in the completed portion of tite site shall be permanently stabilized with rapidly growing vegetative cover, using sufficient top soil to assure long-term stabilization of disturbed areas. •�•!� Attachment to Order of Cundunms N 64-473 9 Pzgc Sof 1 28. If soils are to be disturbed for longer that two(2) months, a temporary cover of rye or other grass should be established to prevent erosion and sedimentation. If the season is not appropriate for plant growth, exposed surface shall be stabilized by other appropriate erosion control measures, firmly anchored, to prevent soils from being washed by rain or flooding. DURING CONSTRUCTION 29. A copy of this Order of Conditions and the plan(s)approved in this Order shall be available on site at all times when work is in progress. 30. No alteration or activity shall occur beyond the limit ot'work as defined by the siltation barriers shown on (fie approved plan(s). 31. All waste products,grubbed stumps,slash;construction materials,etc,shall be deposited at least 100 feet from wetland resource areas and 200 feet from river. 32. Cement trucks shall not be washed out in any wetland resource or buffer zone area, nor into any drainage system. Any deposit of cement or concrete products into a buffer zone or wetland resource area shall be immediately removed. 33. All exposed sub-soils shall be covered by a minimum of three(3) inches of quality screened loam topsoil prior to seeding and final stabilization. 34. Immediately following drainage structure installation all inlets shall be protected by silt fence,haybale barriers and/or silt bags to filter silt from stormwater before it enters the drainage system. 35, There shall be no pumping of water from wetland resource areas. 36. All equipment shall be inspected regularly for leaks. Any leaking hydraulic lines,cylinders or any other components shall be fixed immediately. 37. During construction,all drainage structures shall be inspected regularly and cleaned as necessary. 38. The applicant is herby notified that failure to comply with all requirements herein may result h)the issuance of enforcement actions by the Conservation Commission including,but not limited to.civil administrative penalties under M.G.L Chapter 21 A,section 16. AFTER CONSTRUCTION 39. Upon completion of construction and final soil stabilization, the applicant shall submit the following to the Conservation Commission to request a Certificate of Compliance(COC): (1) A Completed Request for a Certificate of Compliance form (WPA Form 8A or other form if required by the Conservation Commission at the time of request). (2) A letter front a Registered Professional Engineer certifying compliance of the property with this Order of Conditions. (3) An"As-13uilt" plan signed and stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer or Land Surveyor showing post-construction conditions within all areas under thejurisdiction of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act. This plan shall include at a minimum: (a) All wetland resource area boundaries with associated buffer zones and regulatory setback areas taken from the plan(s)approved in this Order of Conditions; Attachment to Order of Coodltums # 64-47.3 Page hof 7 (b) Locations and elevations of all stormwater management conveyances, structures and best management designs, including foundation drains, constructed under this Order within any wetland resource area or buffer zone; (c) Distances from any structures constructed under this Order to wetland resource areas- "structure 'include, but are not limited to,all buildings, septic system components,wells, utility lines, fences,retaining walls,and roads/driveways; (d) A line delineating the limit of work-"work" includes any tilling,excavating and/or disturbance of soils or vegetation approved under this Order; 40. When issued,the Certificate of Compliance must be recorded at the Essex County Registry of Deeds and a copy of the recording submitted to the Salem Conservation Commission. 41. If the completed work differs from that in the original plans and conditions,the report must specify how the work differs;at which time the applicant shall first request a modification to the Order. Only upon review and approval by the Commission, may the applicant request in writing a Certificate of Compliance as described above. 42. Erosion control devices shall remain in place and properly functioning until all exposed soils have been stabilized with final vegetative cover and the Conservation Commission and/or its Administrator has authorized their removal. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS 43. The applicant shall obtain all necessary state and local permits prior to demolition occurring on site. The Conservation Commission shall receive copies of these permits, 44. Final plans outlining the partial removal of the Forest River Culvert shall be submitted to the Conservation Agent and approved before construction on this portion of the project can begin. The plans shall contain,elevation of culvert project area post construction, exact length of culvert to be removed, location of erosion control measures to be installed during construction, identification of area where material excavated will be placed,dewatering plan(if necessary), restoration plan proposed for the river banks, and details of cement headwall to be placed on inlet end of culvert. 45. The applicant shall remove debris from the Forest River. Excavators or other equipment used to remove debris from the river shall not enter the river. Spill kits shall be on Site. 46, The applicant shall coordinate with the Conservation Agent regarding the layout, wording,design, quantity, etc of no dumping signs to be installed adjacent to resource area and in the rear, southern, portion of Site near the recycling and yard waste drop-off area, 47. The applicant shall submit letter from adjacent property owner agreeing to be an applicant on the Notice of Intent. 48. The applicant shall submit letter from adjacent property owner granting a construction casement over the property owned by NSSS Limited Partnership located at 38-52 Swampscott Road in Salem, MA or documentation proving the convey ance of the property to the applicant prior to start of construction. 49. Che Conservation Commission shall be copied on all documents submitted to the DEP and other state agencies. 50. The applicant shall provide the Conservation Agent with hydrologic calculations, pre and post removal of the 60 feet of ctttver. Final plans for the headwall and any structure to be installed at the upstream Auaclonou to Order of Conditions # 64-473 ty J Page.7of 7 inlet of the Forest Ricer shall also he submitted for review and final approval by the Conservation Agent or Conservation Commission and City Engineer, 51. Fhe applicant shall update the Operations and Maintenance manual prior to starting construction to reflect quarterly street sweeping and supplemental sweeping as necessary. 52. Tile applicant shall update the Operations and Maintenance manual prior to starting construction to reflect inspections of catch basins quarterly and annual cleaning of the catch basins with supplemental cleaning as necessary. 53. Applicant shall update plan showing Toe of Landfill Cap Detail with rip rap covering the impervious liner above and below the water surface. 54. Applicant shall submit annual report by December 31 of each year to the Conservation Agent showing that the catch basins have been cleaned and street sweeping has occurred. 55. The applicant shall install four(4) foot sumps in each of the catch basins located on site. 56. Applicant shall complete and submit a stonmvater report meeting DPP standards prior to performing construction. 5T Site visits shall be conducted weekly by the Conservation Agent upon the start of construction. 58. Applicant shall note on site plans snow storage areas. 54. Applicant shall appear before the Conservation Commission with final plans stamped by an engineer upon submitting plans to DEP and prior to beginning construction. PERPETUAL CONDITIONS 60. The applicant shall maintain an Operations and Maintenance Manual for the stormwater system that is accessible on Site. 61. Sodium based products shall not be used within the Riverfront Area,200 feet from the river. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands DEP File Number: WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions 64-473 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 A. General Information Important: Salem When filling From. t Conservation Commission out forms on the computer, 2.This issuance is for(check one) a ® Order of Conditions b 0 Amended Order of Conditions use only the tab key to 3. To: Applicant: move your cursor-do not David Knowlton City of Salem and North Side Carting, Info use the return a First Name b Last Name provided on attached sheet key. c Company 120 Washinqton Street m it Mailing Address Salem MA 01970 e.City/Town f State g.Zip Code ria 4. Property Owner(if different from applicant): The City of Salem a First Name b Last Name c Company 120 Washington Street d Mailing Address Salem MA 01970 e.City/Town f State g.Zip Code 5 Project Location: 12 Swampscott Road Salem a.Street Address b.City/Town Map 7 Lot 68 c Assessors Map/Plat Number d Parceittot Number Latitude and Longitude, if known (note: 42.498960 -70.925349 electronic filers will click for GIS locator): a Latitude f Longitude s, Property recorded at the Registry of Deeds for(attach additional information if more than one parcel): Essex a,County b,Certificate(if registered land) 39004 173 c.Book d.Page February 11, 2008 March 13, 2008 March 19, 2008 7. Dates: a.Date Notice of Intent Filed b.Date Public Hearing Closed c Date of Issuance 8. Final Approved Plans and Other Documents (attach additional plan or document references as needed), Site Plan with Samplinq Locations a.Plan Title BETA Group Gerard R. Magnan b.Prepared By c Signed and Stamped by February 2008 1.1=50' it Final Revision Date a Scale See Attached Sheet for listing I Additional Plan or Document Title g Date wpdform5 hoc• my ]nlUS Page r of 9 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands DEP File Number: i; WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions 64-473 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Findings 1 Findings pursuant to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act: Following the review of the above-referenced Notice of Intent and based on the information provided in this application and presented at the public hearing, this Commission finds that the areas in which work is proposed is significant to the following interests of the Wetlands Protection Act Check all that apply. a ® Public Water Supply b. ❑ Land Containing Shellfish c ® Prevention of Pollution d Habitat® Private Water Supply e ® Fisheries f. ® Pro tat of Wildlife g, ® Groundwater Supply h ® Storm Damage Prevention i ® Flood Control 2. This Commission hereby finds the project, as proposed, is: (check one of the following boxes) Approved subject to: a. ® the following conditions which are necessary in accordance with the performance standards set forth in the wetlands regulations. This Commission orders that all work shall be performed in accordance with the Notice of Intent referenced above, the following General Conditions, and any other special conditions attached to this Order. To the extent that the following conditions modify or differ from the plans, specifications, or other proposals submitted with the Notice of Intent, these conditions shall control. Denied because. b. ❑ the proposed work cannot be conditioned to meet the performance standards set forth in the wetland regulations. Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a new Notice of Intent is submitted which provides measures which are adequate to protect these interests, and a final Order of Conditions is issued. A description of the performance standards which the proposed work cannot meet is attached to this Order. c. ❑ the information submitted by the applicant is not sufficient to describe the site, the work, or the effect of the work on the interests identified in the Wetlands Protection Act. Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a revised Notice of Intent is submitted which provides sufficient information and includes measures which are adequate to protect the Act's interests. and a final Order of Conditions is issued. A description of the specific information which is lacking and why it is necessary is attached to this Order as per 310 CMR 10.05(6)(c). Inland Resource Area Impacts: Check all that apply below. (For Approvals Only) 3. ❑ Buffer Zone impacts: Shortest distance between limit of project disturbance and wetland boundary (if available) a.linear feet Resource Area Proposed Permitted Proposed Permitted Alteration Alteration Replacement Replacement 1200 1200 1200 1200 4. ® Bank a linear feet b linear feet c linear feet it linear feet 5. ® Bordering Vegetated 450 Oso 450 450 Wetland a square feet b square feet c square feet d square feet 3600 3600 3600 3600 6. ® land Under WaterbodleS a square feet b.square feet c-square feet d square feet and Waterways e cu yd dredged f,cu yd dredged wpolorm5 doe• rev,3/1105 Page 2 0 9 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection DEP File Number: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions 64-473 i , Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §44 B. Findings (cont.) Resource Area Proposed Permitted Proposed Permitted Alteration Alteration Replacement Replacement 7. ❑ Bordering Land Subject to Flooding a,square feet b,square feet c square feet d.square feet Cubic Feet Flood Storage e.cubic feet f cubic feet 9 cubic feet h.cubic feet a. ❑ Isolated Land Subject to Flooding a,square feet b.square feet Cubic Feet Flood Storage c cubic feet d cubic feet e.cubic feet f.cubic feet 157000 157000 s. ® Riverfront area a.total sq.feet b total sq feet 83000 83000 83000 83000 Sq ft within 100 ft c square feet d.square feet a square feet f.square feet Sq It between 100-200 ft 74000 74000 74000 74000 g square feet h.square feet i.square feet I.square feet Coastal Resource Area Impacts: Check all that apply below. (For Approvals Only) 10. ❑ Designated Port Areas Indicate size under Land Under the Ocean, below ii. ❑ Land Under the Ocean a square feet b square feet c cu yd dredged d cu yd dredged 12. ❑ Barner Beaches Indicate size under Coastal Beaches and/or Coastal Dunes below 13 ❑ Coastal Beaches a square feet b square feet c.Gy nourishri d.dy nourishmt. 14 ❑ Coastal Dunes a square feet b,square feet c Gy nourishmt d Gy nourishmt 1s ❑ Coastal Banks a linear feet b linear feet 16. ❑ Rocky Intertidal Shores a.square feet b,square feet 17. [] Salt Marshes a square feet b square feet c square feet d.square feet 18. ❑ Land Under Salt Ponds a square feet to square feet c cu yd dredged it cu yd dredged 19 ❑ Land Containing Shellfish a square feet b square feet c square feet d square feet 20. ❑ Fish Runs Indicate size under Coastal Banks, inland Bank, Land Under the Ocean, and/or inland Land Under Waterbodies and Waterways, above a.cu yd dredged to cu.yd dredged 21. ❑ Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage a square feet b.square feet wpalorm5 pa• rev.3I1ro5 Page 3 M 9 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection DEP File Number: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions 64-473 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (only applicable to approved projects) 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, bylaws. 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, If this Order is intended to be valid for more than three years, the extension date and the special circumstances warranting the extended time period are set forth as a special condition in this Order. 5. This Order may be extended by the issuing authority for one or more periods of up to three years each upon application to the issuing authority at least 34 days prior to the expiration date of the Order. 6. Any fill used in connection with this project shall be clean fill. Any fill shall contain no trash, refuse, rubbish, or debris, including but not limited to lumber, bricks, plaster,wire, lath, paper, cardboard, pipe, tires, ashes, refrigerators, motor vehicles, or parts of any of the foregoing. 7, This Order is not final until all administrative appeal periods from this Order have elapsed, or if such an appeal has been taken, until all proceedings before the Department have been completed. 6. No work shall be undertaken until the Order has become final and then 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 the 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 done. The recording information shall be submitted to this Conservation Commission on the form at the end of this Order. which form must be stamped by the Registry of Deeds, prior to the commencement of work 9 A sign shall be displayed at the site not less then two square feet or more than three square feet in size bearing the words, "Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection" [or, WA DEP") "File Number 64-473 WPaf0"5 doc• rev 311105 Page 4 of 9 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection DEP File Number: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions 64-473 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act 10. Where the Department of Environmental Protection is requested to issue a Superseding Order, the Conservation Commission shall be a party to all agency proceedings and hearings before DEP. 11. Upon completion of the work described herein, the applicant shall submit a Request for Certificate of Compliance(WPA Form 8A)to the Conservation Commission, 12. The work shall conform to the plans and special conditions referenced in this order. 13. Any change to the plans identified in Condition#12 above shall require the applicant to inquire of the Conservation Commission in writing whether the change is significant enough to require the filing of a new Notice of Intent. 14. The Agent or members of the Conservation Commission and the Department of Environmental Protection shall have the right to enter and inspect the area subject to this Order at reasonable hours to evaluate compliance with the conditions stated in this Order, and may require the submittal of any data deemed necessary by the Conservation Commission or Department for that evaluation. 15- This Order of Conditions shall apply to any successor in interest or successor in control of the property subject to this Order and to any contractor or other person performing work conditioned by this Order. 16. Prior to the start of work, and if the project involves work adjacent to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland, the boundary of the wetland in the vicinity of the proposed work area shall be marked by wooden stakes or flagging. Once in place,the wetland boundary markers shall be maintained until a Certificate of Compliance has been issued by the Conservation Commission. 17. All sedimentation barriers shall be maintained in good repair until all disturbed areas have been fully stabilized with vegetation or other means. At no time shall sediments be deposited in a wetland or water body. During construction, the applicant or his/her designee shall inspect the erosion controls on a daily basis and shall remove accumulated sediments as needed. The applicant shall immediately control any erosion problems that occur at the site and shall also immediately notify the Conservation Commission, which reserves the right to require additional erosion and/or damage prevention controls it may deem necessary. Sedimentation barriers shall serve as the limit of work unless another limit of work line has been approved by this Order 18 All work associated with this Order is required to comply with the Massachusetts Stormwater Policy Standards, Special Conditions: If you need more space for - - additional conditions, select box to attach a text document wpaform5 dor.• rev.3/IM5 Page 5 of 9 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection DEP File Number: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions 64-473 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 D. Findings Under Municipal Wetlands Bylaw or Ordinance t. Is a municipal wetlands bylaw or ordinance applicable? ® Yes ❑ No 2. The hereby finds(check one that applies): Conservation Commission 3 ❑ that the proposed work cannot be conditioned to meet the standards set forth in a municipal ordinance or bylaw specifically a Municipal Ordinance or Bylaw b Citation Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a revised Notice of Intent is submitted which provides measures which are adequate to meet these standards, and a final Order of Conditions is issued a ❑ that the following additional conditions are necessary to comply with a municipal ordinance or bylaw: a,Municipal Ordinance or Bylaw It.Citation The Commission orders that all work shall be performed in accordance with the following 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. If you need more o The special conditions relating to municipal ordinance or bylaw are as follows: space for additional The special conditions attached to this Order of Conditions relate to both the City of Salem's local conditions, select box to ordinance and the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act. attach a text document wpefonn5 doc• rev 31165 page 6 of 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands DEP File Number: WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions 64-473 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 E. Issuance This Order is valid for three years, unless otherwise specified as a special March 19, 2008 condition pursuant to General Conditions#4, from the date of issuance. I.Date of Issuance Please indicate the number of members who will sign this form: 4 (four) This Order must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission. 2 Number of Signers The Order must be mailed by certified mail(return receipt requested)or hand delivered to the applicant, A copy also must be mailed or hand delivered at the same time to the appropriate Department of Environmental Protection Regional Office, if not filing electronically, and the property owner, if different from applicant. Signatures: Notary Acknowledgement Commonwealth of Massachusetts County of Essex 13 March 2008 On this Day of Month Year Before me, the undersigned Notary Public, K. Cornacchio, D. Pabich, M. Blier, K. Glidden personally appeared Name of Document Signer proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identification, which was/were personally known Description of evidence of identification to be the person whose name is signed on the preceding or attached document, and acknowledged to me that he/she signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose. As member of Salem Conservation Commission City/Town Signature of Notary Public Carey R. Duques Printed Name of Notary Public Place nota seal and/or an stamp above August is 2013 notary y p My Commission Expires(Date) This Order is issued to the applicant as follows. ❑ by hand delivery on ® by certified mail, return receipt requested, on March 19, 2008 Date Date wpaform5,aoc• rev 11N5 Page 7 of 9 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection — Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands DEP File Number: WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions 64.473 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 F. Appeals The applicant, the owner, any person aggrieved by this Order, any owner of land abutting the land subject to this Order. or any ten residents of the city or town in which such land is located, are hereby notified of their right to request the appropriate DEP Regional Office to issue a Superseding Order of Conditions. The request must be made by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department,with the appropriate filing fee and a completed Request of Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form, as provided in 310 CMR 10.03(7)within ten business days from the date of issuance of this Order. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant, if he/she is not the appellant Any appellants seeking to appeal the Department's Superseding Order associated with this appeal will be required to demonstrate prior participation in the review of this project. Previous participation in the permit proceeding means the submission of written information to the Conservation Commission prior to the dose of the public hearing, requesting a Superseding Order or Determination, or providing written information to the Department prior to issuance of a Superseding Order or Determination. The request shall state clearly and concisely the objections to the Order which is being appealed and how the Order does not contribute to the protection of the interests identified in the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, (M.G.L. c 131, §40)and is inconsistent with the wetlands regulations(310 CMR 10.00). To the extent that the Order is based on a municipal ordinance or bylaw, and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations, the Department has no appellate jurisdiction. Section G, Recording Information is available on the following page. wpafcrm5 doc• rev 3/1105 payee of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection DEP File Number. >_-- Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions 64-473 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §44 G. Recording Information This Order of Conditions must be 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 subject to the Order. In the case of registered land, this Order shall also be noted on the Land Court Certificate of Title of the owner of the land subject to the Order of Conditions. The recording information on Page 7 of this form shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission listed below Salem Conservation Commission Detach on dotted line, have stamped by the Registry of Deeds and submit to the Conservation Commission -------------- To: Salem Conservation Commission Please be advised that the Order of Conditions for the Project at: 12 Swampscott Road 64-473 Project Location DEP File Number Has been recorded at the Registry of Deeds of: County Book Page for: Property Owner and has been noted in the chain of title of the affected property in: Book Page In accordance with the Order of Conditions issued on. Date If recorded land, the instrument number identifying this transaction is: Instrument Number If registered land, the document number identifying this transaction is: Document Number Signature of Applicant wpatorm5 d.• rev 311105 Usge 9 a19 rage r ui .� tr' Joanne Scott From: Beth Rennard Sent: Tuesday,April 15, 2006 1:07 PM To: Joanne Scott Cc: 'Paulette Puleo' Subject: BOH RFP Questions Joanne, I received your email yesterday, but i have been in negotiations and my assoc. is on vacs. Here is my response to your recent questions. How does this RFP allow for the contract with the Air Quality review expert from BU? The RFP may be edited to allow for separate proposals for each report to be reviewed. Please send me a marked up copy of the RFP with any additions Al has made and this added (and any other edits discussed below)_ The Respondents may also retain technical experts or subconsultants if they feel they need technical support. Firms who routinely perform these services most likely have either in-house experts or they have relationships with subconsultants who do. I don't think what the Board of Health is requesting a "peer' review" but a "technical review." Regardless of what it is called, the review needs to include the items listed in the RFP, including review of the technical aspects of the proposed redevelopment and compliance with regulatory permitting and other project requirements. Reference to the tasks outlined in 310 CMR 16.30 (2) (c) 3 can be added to the RFP. What does the paragraph "to understand the objectives of the peer review process" mean? If the engineering company has done this before, they will understand that the objective is to comply with the DEP code, 310 CMR 16.00. There are other issues that must be addressed beyond the scope of 310 CMR 16.00, it is my understanding that Northside Carting will be submitting an Expanded Environmental Notification Form, including the traffic, air quality and noise studies, to MEPA on or about May 1st. Those studies need to be reviewed and the Board should feel free to ask any other questions they feel are appropriate. Otherwise, because the site already has a Site Assignment from the BOH, many of the requirements outlined in 310 CMR 16.00 do not apply. Written comments should be submitted to the Board of Health, not the City Engineer, because the company is working for the Board in this review. Because this is a City project involving significant liability, financial and technical issues, the City Engineer should be directly involved to support the review A r i^ Ptnn4 process. Nevertheless, you can request that the selected firm respond to troth the Board of Health and the City Engineer. Under qualifications, we should ask for Registered Professional Engineers, and not LSP's since LSP's are mainly concerned with remediating contaminated soils and water under different DEP requirements and laws. Both Engineers and LSPs are involved with these activities; some LSPs may be more qualified than some Engineers in dealing with the technical and regulatory compliance issues. We should probably allow the Respondents staff the project as they see fit, based upon the qualifications of the individuals they propose to use. The wording in the RFP needs to reflect what is said in the Code regarding Technical Review. You could site that part of the code, 310 CMR 16.30 (2) (c) 3 or include its wording. It says that the Technical Review is to assist the Board of Health in: Reviewing the application (which could mean the MEPA application); reviewing the request for the minor modification; reviewing public comments and any subsequent amendments or additions to the application. Tasks could include: Determining completeness and accuracy of the data in the application; determining whether the correct analytical techniques were used, whether valid data was obtained; whether the data support the proposed conclusions; determining what other data should be obtained, the means to obtain it and its potential significance; examining municipal and other relevant documents and consulting with DEP staff; visiting the site to make a visual inspection; preparing and submitting comments to the Board of Health on technical issues relating to the site; reviewing data submitted prior to and during the public hearing; preparing a written report of comments and determinations. The RFP can be amended to include reference to 310 CMR 16.30 (2) (c) 3. Under:" Schedule" 1 would ask the engineering company for a review of all documents submitted to MEPA so that any deficiencies or concerns could be addresses prior to filing with the Board of Health. Once the MEPA determination is made, I would anticipate a filing with the Board of Health. If I understand the Code correctly, the Board is required to advertise a public hearing within 7 days, hold a public hearing within 30 days, and make a determination within 45 days of the public hearing. Of course, the public hearing could last more than one day. The Board will need this time to make an informed, articulate determination. Reference is made to the ENF and supporting documents in the Overview section of the RFP; the selected firm will be requested to review all pertinent documents. With respect to the schedule, it is my understanding that Northside Carting will be filing the ENF with MEPA on or about April 29th. We are not certain when they will be filing with the Board of Health, but they have indicated they will be filing in late May or early June. n rr znnnv ti` rage .] ui 0 On a different note, I was told that NSC has Attorney Thomas Mackie of Mackie, Shea & O'Brien, 137 Newbury Street, working for them. Since you will be representing the City in this application before the Board of Health, and NSC has a firm who advertises a completed project as, "Solid Waste- Negotiation of a multi-faceted host community agreement for the new owner of a regional solid waste landfill", the Board must have independent council. It has discussed writing a formal request for legal council to assist it in this process. This is extremely common in all communities that we know have gone through this process. The communities you are referring to likely involve new Site Assignments under DEP regulations. The public hearing for this project is for a minor modification of an existing Site Assignment under 310 CMR 16.22(c) and is not for a new Site Assignment, The Board should focus on the environmental impacts to the area associated with the increase in traffic and operation of the new transfer station, but it should also consider the benefits of landfill closure to the Forest River and the benefits to the City. As I have indicated in the past, the City does not have the funds to hire outside counsel. If you are able to secure a commitment from Northside, that would be fine. I would suggest that you may want to wait to see how much $ you will be requesting for the technical review so you will have an idea how much $ is available for legal counsel. According to 310 CMR 16.99 Appendix A, the maximum tech fee the bd. may charge is $11,000. See also section 16.30(d) re. limitation of technical fee toward legal,... Elizabeth Rennard, Esq. City Solicitor City Hall 93 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 978-619-5631 978-744-9327(fax) n1r��nn¢ rayc 4 vs r Joanne Scott From: Beth Rennard Sent: Tuesday,April 15,2008 1:07 PM To: Joanne Scott Cc: 'Paulette Puleo' Subject: BOH RFP Questions Joanne, I received your email yesterday, but I have been in negotiations and my assoc. is on vaca. Here is my response to your recent questions. How does this RFP allow for the contract with the Air Quality review expert from BU? The RFP may be edited to allow for separate proposals for each report to be reviewed. Please send me a marked up copy of the RFP with any additions Al has made and this added (and any other edits discussed below). The Respondents may also retain technical experts or subconsultants if they feel they need technical support. Firms who routinely perform these services most likely have either in-house experts or they have relationships with subconsultants who do. I don't think what the Board of Health is requesting a "peer" review" but a "technical review." Regardless of what it is called, the review needs to include the items listed in the RFP, including review of the technical aspects of the proposed redevelopment and compliance with regulatory permitting and other project requirements. Reference to the tasks outlined in 310 CMR 16.30 (2) (c) 3 can be added to the RFP. What does the paragraph "to understand the objectives of the peer review process" mean? if the engineering company has done this before, they will understand that the objective is to comply with the DEP code, 310 CMR 16.00. There are other issues that must be addressed beyond the scope of 310 CMR 16.00. It is my understanding that Northside Carting will be submitting an Expanded Environmental Notification Form, including the traffic, air quality and noise studies, to MEPA on or about May 1st. Those studies need to be reviewed and the Board should feel free to ask any other questions they feel are appropriate. Otherwise, because the site already has a Site Assignment from the BOH, many of the requirements outlined in 310 CMR 16.00 do not apply. Written comments should be submitted to the Board of Health, not the City Engineer, because the company is working for the Board in this review. Because this is a City project involving significant liability, financial and technical issues, the City Engineer should be directly involved to support the review A rr�1�nne 0 CQ�{G L Ul J process. Nevertheless, you can request that the selected firm respond to both the Board of Health and the City Engineer. Under qualifications, we should ask for Registered Professional Engineers, and not LSP's since LSP's are mainly concerned with remediating contaminated soils and water under different DEP requirements and laws. Both Engineers and LSPs are involved with these activities; some LSPs may be more qualified than some Engineers in dealing with the technical and regulatory compliance issues. We should probably allow the Respondents staff the project as they see fit, based upon the qualifications of the individuals they propose to use. The wording in the RFP needs to reflect what is said in the Code regarding Technical Review. You could site that part of the code, 310 CMR 16.30 (2) (c) 3 or include its wording. It says that the Technical Review is to assist the Board of Health in: Reviewing the application (which could mean the MEPA application); reviewing the request for the minor modification; reviewing public comments and any subsequent amendments or additions to the application. Tasks could include: Determining completeness and accuracy of the data in the application; determining whether the correct analytical techniques were used, whether valid data was obtained; whether the data support the proposed conclusions; determining what other data should be obtained, the means to obtain it and its potential significance; examining municipal and other relevant documents and consulting with DEP staff; visiting the site to make a visual inspection; preparing and submitting comments to the Board of Health on technical issues relating to the site; reviewing data submitted prior to and during the public hearing; preparing a written report of comments and determinations. The RFP can be amended to include reference to 310 CMR 16.30 (2) (c) 3. Under:" Schedule" I would ask the engineering company for a review of all documents submitted to MEPA so that any deficiencies or concerns could be addresses prior to filing with the Board of Health. Once the MEPA determination is made, I would anticipate a filing with the Board of Health. if i understand the Code correctly, the Board is required to advertise a public hearing within 7 days, hold a public hearing within 30 days, and make a determination within 45 days of the public hearing. Of course, the public hearing could last more than one day. The Board will need this time to make an informed, articulate determination. Reference is made to the ENF and supporting documents in the Overview section of the RFP; the selected firm will be requested to review all pertinent documents. With respect to the schedule, it is my understanding that Northside Carting will be filing the ENF with MEPA on or about April 29th. We are not certain when they will be filing with the Board of Health, but they have indicated they will be filing in late May or early June. r rage ) ut , r 0 On a different note, 1 was told that NSC has Attorney Thomas Mackie of Mackie, Shea & O'Brien, 137 Newbury Street, working for them. Since you will be representing the City in this application before the Board of Health, and NSC has a firm who advertises a completed project as, "Solid Waste- Negotiation of a multi-faceted host community agreement for the new owner of a regional solid waste landfill', the Board must have independent council. It has discussed writing a formal request for legal council to assist it in this process. This is extremely common in all communities that we know have gone through this process. The communities you are referring to likely involve new Site Assignments under DEP regulations. The public hearing for this project is for a minor modification of an existing Site Assignment under 310 CMR 16.22(c) and is not for a new Site Assignment. The Board should focus on the environmental impacts to the area associated with the increase in traffic and operation of the new transfer station, but it should also consider the benefits of landfill closure to the Forest River and the benefits to the City. As I have indicated in the past, the City does not have the funds to hire outside counsel. If you are able to secure a commitment from Northside, that would be fine. I would suggest that you may want to wait to see how much $ you will be requesting for the technical review so you will have an idea how much $ is available for legal counsel. According to 310 CMR 16.99 Appendix A, the maximum tech fee the bd. may charge is $11,000. See also section 16.30(d) re, limitation of technical fee toward legal,... Elizabeth Rennard, Esq, City Solicitor City Hall 93 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 978-619-5631 978-744-9327 (fax) 1 ' l a h/I 7P1/V}R M.G.L. - Chapter 111, Section 30 Page 1 of 1 The General Laws of Massachusetts - sea��n,tne haws_, Go To: Next Section Previous Section PART I. ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT Chanter Tahle of Cnntants MGL Search Pace General Court Home TITLE XVI. PUBLIC HEALTH Massgov CHAPTER 111. PUBLIC HEALTH CITY AND TOWN BOARDS OF HEALTH Chapter 111: Section 30. Agents; appointment; inspections Section 30. Boards of health may appoint agents or directors of public health to act for them in cases of emergency or if they cannot conveniently assemble, and any such agent or director shall have all the authority which the board appointing him had; but he shall in each case within two days report his action to the board for its approval, and shall be directly responsible to it and under its direction and control. -- An agent or director of public health appointed to make sanitary inspections may-make complaint of violations of any law, ordinance or by-law relative to the public health. http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/l I 1-30.1nm 9/1/2008 .r DRAFT BOARD OF HEALTH MINUTES OF MEETING July 8, 2008 The City of Salem Board of Health held its regular meeting at City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street, 3`tl floor conference room on Tuesday July 8, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. Present were Paulette Puleo, Chairwoman, Noreen Casey, Barbara Poremba, Christina Harrington. Also present Joanne Scott, Health Agent. Excused Martin Fair& Carol Rainville, also Tracy Giarla, Public Health Nurse. Meeting called to order at 7:16 p.m. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING Christina made a motion to accept previous minutes with changes, Barbara 2ntl, all in favor, motion passed. PUBLIC HEALTH NURSE REPORT ------------------------ -------------- Joanne reviewed Tracy's June 2008 report and was accepted as read. MONTHLY REPORTS Monthly reports were reviewed and accepted as informational. NEW BUSINESS Witch City Ink, 1 Museum Place Mall, Salem, MA, Mr. Nathan Lin, Owner. Mr. Lin thanked the Board for reviewing his information he submitted. Mr. Lin said Salem has no language in the regulations to have guest artists from other states and countries. Mr. Lin said it is customary for reputable body art business to occasionally invite famous artists from abroad to work at their business. Mr. Lin said he currently has artists from Holland, Italy, and Japan who have inquired about becoming guest artists. Joanne said she worked for a year with Mr. & Mrs. Murphy from Purple Scorpion to make sure they follow all of the regulations. Paulette said we should form a subcommittee to review the Apprenticeship Procedures. Barbara and Noreen said they would like to be on the subcommittee. Mr. Lin would like a fish tank in the waiting room and he would like the Board to consider his request. Paulette said they will check into this issue. Paulette said the Board will be very busy with the Transfer Station in the coming months and they will get back to him as soon as they can. A discussion took place regarding all that Mr. Lin presented to the Board. Christina made a motion to have Joanne look over Mr. Linn's documents and Body Art permits from Cambridge & Saugus and allow the variance as provided by four credit course, Noreen 2"d, all in favor, motion passed. Department of Environmental Meeting. Joanne said the meeting was held with John Carrigan in Wilmington, MA. DEP Legal Council, has concerns about Air Quality, Irving Gas Station, Salem Hospital because they are within a mile of the Transfer Station. The Board reviewed the letter to be sent to the Mayor about the contract for Waste Management. A discussion took place. Christina made a motion to send the letter, Noreen 2nd, all in favor, motion passed. Paulette said there will not be a Board Meeting in August. The next regular Board of Health meeting is scheduled for September 9, 2008. ADJOURNMENT Barbara made a motion to adjourn the meeting Noreen 2nd, all in favor, motion passed. Meeting_adjourned-at-9:15-p.rr _-Respectfully-submitted, Mary Page, Clerk of the Board United States of America Massachusetts Boston attorneys, lawyers and law firms listed in Martin... Page 1 of 1 LexisNexise Led II .intact 9s GUM r�. martindale.com" Premier Destination for Sophisticated Buyers of Legal services ± Fine Lawyers IS Firms Search Legal Topics Proreselonal Resources News&Events About Martindale-Mubbelf Hour I Seauh Racro y Your search for Lawyers named Thomas Mackie,In Boston,Massachusetts,United States Of America tou rid II Nar Sean 11 ESI,Saar[I Vievr to that match bride eearN .. Related Top 1O1L19i Di•5 arm, hCOmparya r mart)ndale.mn ;>ii., syoreorcd Results Ya By Vislbil)[y: r • join the definitiveAamce far Arbitration kMedlmmn P,.,ignnera • United States of Americu!" loin the Martmoale-HubOeIlC International Dlspun,RasoWUon Dlrecdu,where you Can present Your aeuenoele,and stmn restrict elnnG i H hand&Knlaht 11 l-. from firm for Gmxmg Ido.—tonal espaswe 2 Greeff lyyrg rau lg�'Y 3 DLP Pit, $hawc05e your p3gr_3£Ylgw1l gFNg_SYIF71 PYRLRavi4W_Ratlp9 Acknowledgements View all LealzNexls MalonEale-nobbell knowb Ine autres of your GIM depeld,do Cpx ycurcllenK iv ca—your suds and ethim`stanJcde Snewcase e.pemor wnlle givinG Dark to NC I"in ce:nmune, Name: Thomas A.Mackie Position: Member Ofgamaabnm Mackie 5mat O'Brien,PC f Freddie.Areas Environmental Law,Insurantt Law;Corporate Law;Public dining Idw,Mediation O^ffice: Boston,Massachusetts(Suffolk Co) _ L <Sele.for Side-by-Side Comparison View profile �Cpmpale; About Lexlsrvexls I About Martindale-H,mhrll Law Firms I Few, R55 I Bions,Slte MaoContact U Terms 6 Can CaPy9ht 211Ce b•ru^w:r q 3 L vrzlcr-f l ccs t1;-111,rc Al r"ho msewrd. i R in F / http://www.martindale.com/Results.aspx 4/14/2008 Thomas A. Mackie Lawyer Profile on Martindale.com Page 1 of 1 OB LexisNexise- Log in :ontocr 11 1 Molal marMciale.com" Premier Destination for sophisticated Buyers of Leal services Find Lawyers As Firms search Legal Topics Professional Resources News&Events About Martindale-Hubbell ,@n_>Law Firm P3 r I It>Picini >Lawyer PmNe Thomas A.Mackie -Lawyer Profile Thomas A.Mackie NV.Soard, Lou SI rch About This Firm Member Mackie Shop D'Bric. tc. Add lawyer to My Martindale Overview 137Newbury Street Network Boston,Masschusepts 02116 (Suffolk Co) As a registered user of People marfmdele corn you can add lawyers to your Martindale Practice Areas&Lltlustnes Telephone,617 266-5700 Network You Cao securely add Telecopler 61]-266-523] opprone,iis,compam lawyers In onto/,www lawmtn on on your network,and a[ee55 these Offices lawyers with one clack from your Email Coegh Lia eml main paid com homepage AV Peer Fellow Ra W d Learn More ^• Rdd to My Network Experience&Credentials ....... .. . ........ ..n.,.r Predicts Areas Environmental Law,Insurance Law,Corporate Law,Public brings Law;Mediation Compare this Lawyer Peer Review Rating AV Rated What this? Compare this lawyer to other lawyers In Your Martindale Education Suffolk Un ohinly,3 D,wm lends,1981,Hobart College,B.S.,Bmlogy,19]] Network Admitted 1981,Massachusetts,1982,rvew York Compare Lawyers it �......... ....._.._v , Memberships Boston and Massachusetts Bar Associations Born 1955 Dd,nulard m MY Duaonx Commis Biography Former Mediator for Commonwealth of MawacNnetts,Department of Enw onmenlal Protection r. .....11 Tr,Pon, Wetlands Program Author "Solid Waste Law, Massachusetts Environmental Law,Ml 199E IYI re v 2002 Director Environmental f usmm¢o[a ess Council or New England:Chairman of EnmfonI —PliLI-L'SildeSSe s.n Business Council Soho Wase Communise LSLN 905271227 Lal.d,dwi I al.rci,,.Idlt�jdc I k 1 A,usull24.e¢ I r11L naamnan BE hndalaw rn I'L I I"a.n...I fR About LexPiNexls j About Martimme-Hahhon Law Flan£1 LaMY"I W KSI blo0i $i[e Map I Contact Us Terms&CandpaO,�C.eyr Yllt 1066 LCUVN,re.,a r.ue.oh.Of P.:-U FkenPs Ii'- L'.Ights 1,11•..;0, http://www.martindale.com/Thomas-A-Mackie/660064-lawyer.htm 4/14/2008 Mackie Shea O'Brien, PC - Boston, Massachusetts Office Profile on Martindale.com Page I of 1 0BLexisNexis- Login 'burIC[U, Global martindale.come Premler oeormation for Sophisticated Buyers of Legal Someone Fina Lawyers B Firms Search Legal Topics Professional Resources News A,Events About Martindale-Hubbell tfo e>Law FmPrzfn>Qllnes>olnce Profile Mackie Shea O'Brien,PC -Office Profile About This Firm Mackie Shea O'Brien,PC New S1111111 GIJJt Boston,Massachusetts Office VB.all r.Fires Add firm to My Martindale rner,aw 137 Newbury Street Network Boston,Marlorm.setls 02116 A5 u rel stared user of People (Suffolk Co) uni tNalesom you can add firms To your Martindale Network You Predict,Area,&Indu51nB5 Telephone'612-266-5700 .rely add comments, T:Bdodler612-266-5237 dominate firms In your network,and Full.,11www I—ello ternss these firms with one onto Offices none your menedah,cam Contort via mall homepage. Learn More mPw,M Poo1.=11 hit In, "tto"' " Add to MY Neark.�y -Bar Register Practice Areas: I earn Mme Ghent the Bar Nemster Appellate Produce [Aronmenral Law Compare this Firm Compare[his firm to other firms In Statement of Practice Summary: your Martindale Network Envlronmenlal,Land Use,Govemment Regulation,Corporate,Coll and Appellate Practice In all Court;Medlelve (Compare F7rmsI Return to the Markle shra n-mb— Pr Firm Overvlew Download to My Qulron Co atls E mall Ihls Page Prier f rendv Votam I.w"o'em Anwaptadn Il,r lutdeno.d I we miuiI rlvlalawyur,I: II About LexlsNexls About manmdale-Hubbell I Law Firms y ass l Bloog•she Mag Contact Terms B Conditions l Copyraht 200a I m,rm ri 1-1 FII IP,,A I uahh rc•e Id http://www.martindale.com/Mackie-Shea-OBrien-PC/660061-law-firm-office.htm 4/14/2008 Mackie Shea O'Brien, PC Lawyers and Legal Personnel on Martindale.com Page 1 of 1 4eLexisNexisan Log In .unman U> tJlubul martindale.coma on....,o.mnrtmn far ae,b6N=area auyem or Legal servmec Find Lawyers&Firms Search Legal Topics Professional Resources News&Events About Martlmdalp-r ubbell Learn,>L,,,,j],,,PLgft[q>People •• •• People:Mackie Shea O'Brien,PC About This Firm New Saaal L"Se- ,arch View People: ;Jna I Th s Prt•e• F��IrrName. yµ�,, _ test Name Printer rrmnnl,Vnn ar ve Orview min' '. v.,. , ..;" 1>1 I People Office: Practice Area P mam,Kwasubu.e.Bol—ci -alPtcro,aeee- Pract¢e Arai&Industries Boston,Massachusetts(Main Office)Office Offices Timani A Ma LAID,Miunber AV Raleal Office:Boston,Massachua,ms Practice Areas:Environmental Law,Insurance Law,Corporate Law;Public Bidding law;Mediation Joint r Shea,Member AV Rated Office:Boston,Massachusetts Practice Ani Environmental Law;Land Use,Enforcement Defense MvbrJ,xatlr;yi nmwn Member Office:Boston,Massachusetts Practice Areas:Enwmnmental Law,land Use Law,Enforcement Defense ----------:Boston,Massachusetts(Main Office)Office Ga L.Moue ,I Ve,Associate Offen,Boston,Massachusetts Practice Areas Emuronmental Law terrYerr,Icrl I rr,.T eirel✓r Lk F.nvalillue ac nrl.tle oo it i -n-'.none to 1 ndala!•,t _, w2I About Lexiarli5 i Ah..I m.n,..a.m-L.i nmll i LavLE1tIlF I Lawygr}Ili, BSS I Blogy I Site Map Contact Us Terms&Conditions I Copymlght 19081 e,,IN,,,,a 1,'-.^,e of Peed Flsr ale,Inc A Ngh6 nst^..ad http://www.martindale.com/Mackic-Shea-OBrien-PC/550983-law-firm-660061-people.htm 4/14/2008