PART I CONSTRUCTION METHODS AND ACTIVITIES …MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation August 2004 Appendix C – Construction Methods

MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

August 2004 Appendix C – Construction Methods and Activities

PART I

CONSTRUCTION METHODS AND ACTIVITIES


August 2004 Appendix C – Construction Method and Activities C-1

APPENDIX C: CONSTRUCTION METHODS AND ACTIVITIES C.1 CONSTRUCTION METHODS DECONSTRUCTION AND REMOVAL OF BUILDINGS

Following internal contaminant removal, building shell deconstruction would proceed. As demolition has the potential to generate considerable environmental impacts, an incremental deconstruction process would be undertaken, and it is envisioned that full scale deconstruction would commence with the 200, 204 and 194 Broadway buildings. These buildings range between one (1) and three (3) stories and should not represent critical deconstruction difficulties. Once the construction and demolition (C&D) debris from these buildings has been removed from the site, deconstruction of the shell of 198 Broadway would commence. This building is 12 stories high and would require the staged deconstruction of each floor. Rubble and debris would then be systematically lowered to the cleared adjacent sites below. The material may be sorted on site, and then removed, or mixed debris may be removed and sorted in a remote location, in accordance with a Waste Management Plan (see Chapter 4, Section 4.2.4). Several of the buildings proposed for deconstruction have basement levels. These subsurface structures would also be removed. Due to the proximity of other buildings, deconstruction activities would be performed using construction equipment with the lowest vibration levels available. Blasting techniques would not be used. CUT-AND-COVER TUNNELING TECHNIQUES

Cut-and-cover is expected to be used for the construction of the Dey Street Passageway, the AC Mezzanine, and other project elements, due to a number of factors that render other methods unsuitable. The option of tunneling through bedrock is not feasible due to the depth of the rock strata below Dey Street and other considerations, leaving soft soil mining as the only feasible option to cut-and-cover. Soft soil mining is not considered likely for the following reasons:

• Spatial constraints associated with the width of the new structure which occupies the breadth of the street, leaving no space for the initial supports of a tunneled excavation;

• Scheduling constraints associated with the need to establish launching and receiving pits for the tunnel construction; and,

• Potential delays as the Dey Street Passageway construction could not start until the Entry Facility basement is in an advanced stage.

In addition, the vast array of utilities located immediately below the surface of Dey Street would still require removal and excavation of the street surface, lessening the scheduling and reduced disruption benefits that mining could offer. Consequently, it is expected that the entire width of Dey Street would be excavated simultaneously, using a cut-and-cover process, and that the street would be closed to vehicular traffic, although emergency access and local delivery access would be maintained. Construction activities may be undertaken in stages to reduce the overall impact. LATERAL EARTH RETENTION SYSTEMS

Central to cut-and-cover construction methods is the stabilization of the side walls of the excavation prior to the removal of subsurface material. There are several different types of lateral earth support systems that may be used depending upon site conditions, depth of water table, type of soil, and proximity of adjacent building foundations. These include slurry wall construction, driven sheet-piles and drilled concrete secant piles. For the purposes of the analysis, slurry walls have been assumed to be the method that would be used, as this method is considered to have the greatest potential for disturbance and allows the “reasonable worst-case” scenario to be evaluated. Driven sheet piles are pre-fabricated steel sheets that are driven, or forced, into the subsurface material. This method can cause substantial noise emissions and vibration and is not considered a likely method of construction for the FSTC. Details on drilled



concrete secant piling, which would most likely be used in the vicinity of historic buildings with vibration-sensitive façades, are presented in Chapter 4, Section 4.5.10. Slurry wall construction is a method that creates a watertight contiguous wall to the base of the required excavation, preventing the ingress and localized draw-down of the ground water table. Slurry wall construction does not require the use of pile driving equipment. Disadvantages include the fact that slurry walls are generally thicker than conventional retaining structures, they require substantial site space to locate the slurry batch plant and recycling facility, and they can temporarily expose up to 15 feet of laterally unsupported soil, which may cause instability in adjacent structures that are founded on loose friable material. In addition, slurry wall construction has greater potential to cause leakages that may adversely affect groundwater or enter sewers. DETAILS OF TUNNELING FOR UNDERPASSES

A sequential process would likely be employed, whereby excavation would progress laterally through the tunnel in small incremental widths. Each sequence would require the installation of new piles or other methods of support beneath the base level of the proposed passageway designed to support the new underpass sidewalls at either side of the excavation, and the installation of beams designed to span the entire width of the passageway. This process would be repeated until the tunnel is complete. Spoils from tunneling operations would be removed through the tunnel excavations to street-level for hauling from the site. All tunneling work is estimated based on two (2) eight (8)-hour shifts, commencing at 7 AM and running to 11 PM, six (6) days a week. Grouting and underpinning operations would most likely be performed overnight and on weekends to minimize disruption to transit operations. No street closings are anticipated for this work to take place, since the grouting would be performed within the subway tunnels and the tunneling work would be performed from the cut-and-cover excavation of Dey Street and the open excavation for the FSTC. Grouting beneath the existing subway tunnel would be performed within the tunnel and would involve the use of compressed air-operated drill rigs and grout pumps. Access to the tunnel would be from NYCT maintenance access points; a minimal lay-down area exterior to the tunnel would be necessary. Tunneling beneath the subway lines would occur from the cut-and-cover and open excavations. Tunneling would be accomplished with a tunnel roadheader and would require the removal of existing piling that supports the existing tunnel, and replacement with new piles/foundations. Spoils would be removed by lifting to the surface with a crane and skip box. ALTERNATIVE/SUPPLEMENTARY CONSTRUCTION METHODS

Large scale construction is a complex process that depends on many variables that can only be determined with more certainty when engineering has advanced to a detailed level. As engineering has not yet advanced to such detail, this DEIS assumes typical construction methods and techniques commonly applied in New York City on similar projects. Where different methods could be applied, the method with the greatest potential to cause environmental impacts was selected as the basis for a conservative environmental impact analysis, thereby ensuring that impacts would not be underestimated. In addition to the typical methods described in the preceding sections, alternative construction methods were explored that, while less conventional, warranted further investigation as they could conceivably result in fewer or less intense environmental impacts. The discussion below discusses such alternative construction methods from a design and construction management perspective, as well as a transportation perspective. DESIGN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT / CONSTRUCTION FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

In order to minimize potential construction impacts, NYCT proposes to incorporate Environmental Performance Commitments (EPCs) into the implementation of the project (see Appendix A). The EPCs



consist of measures that would be proactively implemented to avoid or minimize potential adverse effects of the project on the environment. The EPCs will be integrated into design and construction in accordance with MTA NYCT’s Design for the Environment (DfE) and Construction for the Environment (CfE) guidelines. These include energy-saving features in design, the use of ultra low-sulfur emission diesel construction equipment, construction coordination protocols and protection plans. Where applicable, the technical analysis chapters provide a discussion of how the project will implement protective measures to proactively minimize adverse effects on the environment in the form of EPCs and the anticipated benefit of the EPCs for the environment, both natural and man-made. SPOILS AND MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION

The option of removal of spoils and delivery of construction materials by barge was evaluated as part of the DEIS process. This option would involve the transportation of spoils and materials to and from a waterfront facility such as Pier 6, located in the East River (see Chapter 4, Figure 4-1). This option was evaluated as a potential approach to the reduction of traffic, air quality and noise impacts that could be associated with conventional spoils removal using trucks. An independent Goods Movement Study (The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2003 – see Section C.2 Barging Study), concluded that barging was not a cost-effective solution to transportation of spoils associated with construction, and would not result in an overall reduction in potential environmental impacts. The study did also conclude, however, that barging could present a more economical option if spoils generated from construction of the FSTC were transported in conjunction with those generated as a result of other Lower Manhattan projects (see Chapter 2: Analysis Framework for list of projects). As the timing of the construction schedules and spoils removal programs of the other projects are currently unknown, barging is not considered a feasible alternative to trucking for the FSTC, and was not evaluated further within the DEIS. The use of the existing subway system was also evaluated as a potential method of spoils and material transportation. The conclusion, based on information provided by MTA NYCT Operations Planning, was that the use of subway trains to transport spoils and materials associated with the FSTC would not be practical or feasible. This is because:

• Although NYCT uses small freight trains to move equipment within the system, the use of freight trains directly conflicts with the provision of passenger service, and could compromise the existing LOS if applied to a project of the scale of the FSTC;

• The infrastructure to transfer spoils and materials into and out of freight trains does not currently exist within the subway system; and,

• Freight movements could only occur at night and would conflict with existing maintenance and repair work currently being undertaken at these times and the planned two (2)-shift FSTC construction schedule.

TUNNELING/ MINING VERSUS CUT-AND-COVER

As explained above, the cut-and-cover method is expected to be used for the widening of the AC mezzanine and the Dey Street Passageway. The use of tunneling, or mining, was evaluated for both of these elements. This method was not considered feasible for several reasons, as presented below. The depth of the rock strata, the complexity of mining in unpredictable soil conditions, schedule considerations, and the spatial constraints of the site make it unlikely that soil mining from beneath the street surface would be undertaken. The absence of bedrock would mean that mining through soil and fill would be required, which is unpredictable and could cause excessive surface settlement. This could only be avoided by the use of a preinstalled canopy, such as a pipe arch or jet-grouted arch. Ground treatment to resolve potential geotechnical problems would also be required. The existence of utilities between the roof of the tunnel and the street would not allow space for the construction of such a canopy, as the



passageway roof would be less than 20 feet below the surface of Dey Street. The presence of utilities would also make the incorporation of ground treatment inherently difficult. Mining also carries greater risk of structural impacts on adjacent buildings in comparison to cut-and-cover, as it does not provide the equivalent level of rigid support when compared to slurry or secant pile walls which would be installed prior to excavation. Mining could also lead to schedule implications due to the need for launching and receiving pits for the tunnel construction. If tunneling methods were utilized for the Dey Street Passageway construction, the construction could not start until the Entry Facility basement was in an advanced stage, which would result in a considerable delay to the construction schedule. Consequently, it is expected that the entire width of Dey Street would be excavated simultaneously using a cut-and-cover process, and that the street would be closed to vehicular traffic, although emergency access and local delivery access would be maintained. Construction work may be undertaken in stages to reduce the overall impact. CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT

Within the Construction Environmental Protection Plan (CEPP), a range of measures would be included to protect the environment and avoid or reduce adverse environmental impacts. Examples of such measures include details on ground and surface water protection, specifications for work involving hazardous materials, and guidelines for scheduling truck movements and direction on the use of equipment generating high levels of noise. Efforts would be made to utilize alternative types of equipment to reduce impacts, such as the selection of middle-range jackhammers, which can achieve a reduction in noise levels of about 10 dB(A) over large jackhammers (Safety Line Institute, 1999). In addition, for both pavement breakers and jackhammers, equipment can be selected with the lowest noise emissions. Proper maintenance can contribute to a further reduction in noise. C.2 BARGING STUDY The purpose of this study is to evaluate and compare transportation options to: (1) remove excavated material (spoils) and C&D debris from the Fulton Street Transit Center (FSTC) project, and (2) deliver construction materials and equipment to the proposed project site. The transportation options considered include: conventional trucking; trucking with transfer to a marine barge; mechanized conveyance to a marine barge; use of existing infrastructure such as the Staten Island Ferry, New York City Transit (NYCT) subway, Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH) trains, and existing New York City Department of Sanitation (DSNY) marine transfer facilities. It was assumed that spoils and C&D debris from the FSTC would receive a Beneficial Use Determination (BUD) from state and city regulatory agencies. Potential beneficial uses for the unconsolidated urban fill material excavated from the site include highway construction, landfill capping, fill material for abandoned quarries, and railroad bed construction material. These final uses would be contingent upon the composition of the spoils. It is unlikely that the material would be allowed to be used for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) artificial reef program or as shore protection material. Title 6 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) Part 360 establishes standards and criteria for solid waste management and contains provisions that enable particular materials to exit the solid waste stream when beneficially utilized. The BUD regulations identify certain solid wastes that are no longer subject to regulation under Part 360 when used in a particular manner. For solid waste not specifically named in Subdivision 360-1.15(b), procedures and criteria are included to enable NYSDEC to grant case-specific BUDs. Once NYSDEC grants a BUD, the waste material ceases to be considered a solid waste. If granted a BUD, materials excavated for the project would not be considered solid waste and would thereby mitigate construction impacts associated with the proposed project. If a BUD is not granted, the spoils would be considered a “solid waste” under Part 360.



The FSTC project is one of several Lower Manhattan redevelopment projects undergoing environmental analysis and engineering design. Relative to these other projects, the FSTC would generate a small quantity of spoil (approximately 139,500 cubic yards (CY), see Chapter 2: Analysis Framework for list of projects). However, the FSTC project is expected to be one of the early Lower Manhattan Recovery projects to be constructed. DEBRIS AND SPOILS PROCESSING

Material that would need to be removed from the project site includes C&D debris from the deconstruction of the existing buildings and excavated material or spoils. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES INVOLVING DEMOLITION DEBRIS

Further details on C&D debris associated with the FSTC are provided in Chapter 4 of this DEIS, and are summarized here. C&D material to be removed from the project site would be generated by the:

• Deconstruction of existing buildings at 189, 194, 196, 200 and 204 Broadway; • Removal of existing vaults under the northern sidewalk at 195 Broadway along Dey Street, and

under the sidewalk along the frontage of 7 Dey Street; • Removal of existing ramp systems; and, • Modification of other project elements, including stairs, entrances and escalators.

The first stage in the construction of the FSTC would be the deconstruction and removal of existing buildings on the sites of the FSTC Entry Facility and Dey Street Access Plaza. Affected buildings would be vacated and stripped of all internal furnishings. A comprehensive system of contaminant assessment would then follow in order to determine the level of potential airborne particulates from deconstruction activities and to assess the nature of spoil for disposal. Following internal contaminant removal, building shell deconstruction would proceed. It is envisaged that that full scale deconstruction would commence with the 200, 204 and 194 Broadway buildings. Once the debris from these buildings has been removed from the site, deconstruction of the shell of 198 Broadway would commence. This building is 12 stories high and would require staged deconstruction of each floor. Rubble and debris would then be systematically lowered to the cleared adjacent sites below. The material may be sorted on site and then removed, or mixed debris may be removed and sorted in a remote location. The buildings at 194, 200 and 204 Broadway would be demolished from within the footprint of the existing buildings with lane closings and sidewalk closings along Broadway and Fulton Street to facilitate staging of dump trucks for debris removal and safety. The building at 198 Broadway would be demolished from the top down from within the site, with debris brought to ground level for sorting and loading out. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES INVOLVING SPOILS EXCAVATION

Cut-and-cover construction—used when the roadway surface is removed, utilities relocated, lateral earth support systems installed, and the tunnel excavated from above—is a common method of construction in New York City. The majority of the rail and subway lines have been constructed in this manner. Cut-and-cover construction would be used for the construction of the Dey Street Passageway and the widening of the AC mezzanine, as it is assumed that the rock strata elevation below Dey Street and the AC mezzanine lies beneath the proposed depth of excavation. It is expected that the entire width of Dey Street would be excavated simultaneously, and that the street would be closed to vehicular traffic. It is also assumed that the entire width of Fulton Street would be excavated during the widening of the AC mezzanine, and the street would also be closed to vehicular traffic during this process.



Central to cut-and-cover construction methods for the Dey Street Passageway, the AC mezzanine widening, and the construction of the Dey Street Access Plaza and FSTC Entry Facility is the stabilization of the side walls of the excavation prior to the removal of subsurface material. There are several different types of lateral earth support systems that may be used, dependent upon site conditions, depth of water table, type of soil, and proximity of adjacent building foundations. Subsurface Excavation - Dey Street Passageway Following construction of slurry walls on both sides of Dey Street, the subsurface width between the retaining walls would be excavated to the proposed invert elevation of the concourse tunnel. Excavation would be slowed at intermediate levels to allow the installation of struts to brace the concrete retaining walls across the excavation. It is assumed that struts would be installed to support the temporary roadway decking above the tunnel. Excavation work would be performed from within the closed portion of Dey Street and would require a lane closing on Church Street or Broadway to accommodate a staging area for dump trucks and material deliveries of structural steel for support of the slurry wall and support of the temporary precast roadway over the excavation. As the excavation progresses, the spoils would be lifted to the surface via crane. Subsurface Excavation - FSTC ENTRY FACILITY Following the completion of the earth retention systems, the site of the Entry Facility would be excavated to the proposed level. Excavation work would be performed from within the footprint of the Entry Facility. A lane closing would be required on Broadway and Fulton Street to queue dump trucks and to allow access to the site. As the excavation progresses, temporary support for the slurry wall and soldier beams would be provided. Tunneling for 45 Line Underpass The current FSTC conceptual design locates an underpass directly beneath the 45 line located beneath Broadway. In order to maintain traffic on Broadway, and to limit disruption to subway service, tunneling for this underpass would most likely require an incremental underpinning sequence of adjoining structures along the east side of Broadway between Fulton and John Streets, in conjunction with careful monitoring of vibration and subway track movement. It is assumed here that access for construction of the underpass would be from within the existing subway tunnels. Spoils from tunneling operations would be removed through the cut-and-cover excavations to street-level for hauling from the site. All tunneling work is estimated based on one (1) eight (8)-hour shift commencing at 7:00 AM and running to 3:30 PM. Grouting and underpinning operations would most likely be performed overnight and on weekends to minimize disruption to transit operations. No street closings are anticipated since the grouting would be performed within the subway tunnels and the tunneling work would be performed from the cut-and-cover excavation of Dey Street and the open excavation for the FSTC. C.2.1 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE

It is expected that the construction of the Dey Street Passageway, the deconstruction of the existing structures on the site of the Entry Facility, the AC mezzanine widening, and the various rehabilitation and structure removal components would commence at the earliest opportunity, and would advance simultaneously. As the Entry Facility site becomes vacant, construction would commence on the Entry Facility itself. The sequence below assumes that the existing buildings on the site of the Entry Facility would be demolished early in the schedule. It logically assumes that construction of the underpass under the 45



subway line cannot occur until either the transit center or the concourse has been excavated to the final design level.

• Peak Construction Period – It is assumed that the peak construction activity on this project would occur within a 12-month period during 2005-2006; and,

• Construction Phasing – It is assumed that the following project elements of the FSTC would be constructed simultaneously within the Peak Construction Period:

o Transit Center Entry Facility; o Dey Street Passageway and Dey Street Access Plaza; o Widening of AC mezzanine; and, o Underpass beneath the RW.

C.2.2 CONSTRUCTION AND DEBRIS TRANSPORT SCENARIOS

Figure C-1 presents the potential routes of the various transportation scenarios considered in this study to remove spoils from the FSTC. Based on professional experience, it is assumed that New Jersey would have the greatest demand/market for beneficial uses of the material. Long Island is not considered to offer any significant beneficial reuse opportunities due to lack of demand. TRUCKING

New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) has designated approved truck routes in Lower Manhattan (Figure C-2). Potential truck routes suitable for use by FSTC C&D debris removal trucks include routes north to the East River, crossing at the Williamsburg Bridge; to points west using the Holland Tunnel (for smaller trucks - Classes 1, 2, 3 which are small two (2)- and three (3)-axle trucks); or to the Lincoln Tunnel (for larger trucks - Classes 4, 5, 6 which are four (4)-, five (5)-, and six (6)-axle trucks). FSTC trucks crossing the East River would use either Water or South Streets. Trucks using Broadway and Church Street would ultimately use Canal Street, which could be used for east-west travel. Truck traffic for the project would avoid Route 9A.

Based on the routes depicted in Figure C-1, the following approximate distances are required to truck the material from the project site to points in New Jersey:

• Trucking (via Holland Tunnel to where HWY 1 & I95 meet) – seven (7) miles; • Trucking (via Holland Tunnel to Newark) – 11 miles; and, • Trucking (via Lincoln Tunnel to where HWY 1 & I95 meet) – 13 miles.

TRUCKING WITH TRANSFER TO BARGE

Since the FSTC would generate a relatively small amount of material, it would not be cost-effective to construct or refurbish an existing pier that is in disrepair in order to transfer C&D waste by barge. Therefore, barging would need to utilize an existing pier in the area, with additional surface area provided by a floating pier if required. Since access to the Hudson River is precluded due to larger construction projects that are planned for a similar timeframe (e.g., World Trade Center (WTC) Memorial and Redevelopment Plan and Route 9A Project), it is assumed for this analysis that the most suitable location for barge operation would be a pier on the eastern side of Lower Manhattan. The closest existing DSNY marine transfer stations in Manhattan to the project site are located at West 59th and East 91st Streets (Figure C-3). Given their distance from the project site, they are not considered viable options as transfer points for the project. The remaining barge transport options considered potentially viable are as follows:

• Truck spoils through Brooklyn Battery Tunnel (BBT) which the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) owns (distance approximately 2.5 miles) to piers in Brooklyn with barging to a disposal site in New Jersey. Total transport distance approximately 14.5 miles; and,

• Truck spoils to Pier 6 (distance approximately one (1) mile) with barging to a disposal site in NJ from Pier 6. Total transport distance approximately 13 miles.

MTA N

ew York C

ity Transit Fulton Street Transit C

enter FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

August 2004 Appendix C

– Construction M

ethod and Activities C

-8

Figure 1. Transportation Scenarios & Routes Considered for FSTC Spoils. Removal

Figure C-1. Transportation Scenarios & Routes Considered for FSTC Spoils Removal.



Figure C-2. Potential Truck Haul Routes in Lower Manhattan.



Figure C-3. Marine Transfer Facilities in New York City. Source: City of New York Department of Sanitation, Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, FEIS (October 2000).



Truck transport to the Brooklyn waterfront piers would be conceptually similar to the use of Pier 6 with additional transit miles required by trucks to reach the piers. Distance from the FSTC site to the Brooklyn waterfront piers through BBT is approximately 2.5 miles. Barging distance, depending on which pier is used, would be approximately 12 miles. It was assumed that barge/crane mobilization costs would be similar for both Pier 6 and the Brooklyn waterfront. Given the additional trucking distance and associated additional trucking costs, this option was dropped from further consideration on the basis of cost. The Pier 6 barging option was carried forward for additional analysis. Pier 6 is located on the East River near Coenties Slip. It was used following September 11 for removal of debris from the WTC site. (The barging facilities used for that recovery effort have since been removed.)

As the FSTC does not have an inherent easement to Pier 6, it is assumed that spoils from the FSTC site would be transported by truck. The most likely route from the FSTC site to Pier 6 would be south on Broadway to State Street, then onto South Street and to Pier 6 (Figure C-2). The travel distance between the FSTC and Pier 6 is approximately one (1) mile. The return trip for trucks would be from Pier 6, traveling north on South Street to Old Slip to north on Water Street, onto Fulton Street and the FSTC site. Distance is approximately one (1) mile. The loading time at the FSTC site is assumed to be approximately 10 minutes, travel time to the pier approximately 10 minutes and unloading time at pier 10 minutes. The return trip would also take 10 minutes, with reloading taking 10 minutes. In order to utilize Pier 6 for the FSTC, placement of three (3) barge cranes would be necessary; these would be fixed in the water for the duration of construction (approximately eight (8) months). One (1) crane barge, approximately 240 feet long and 70 feet wide, would be adjacent to the existing bulkhead to allow vehicles to drive over the water to facilitate loading and unloading. Two (2) barge cranes (120 feet by 60 feet) would be placed to the north and to the east of this storage barge to load and unload materials to and from the vehicles. Piles would be used to secure the crane barges. Only one (1) hopper barge (140 ft long by 40 feet) would be moored at any time due to the relatively long period of time it would take to fill the barge. In contrast, the crane barges would remain as fixed platform coverage, totaling approximately 30,000 square feet, for the duration of the construction period. Although the ultimate location and end use of these spoils has yet to be finalized, it is assumed that the spoils would be barged to a transfer area located at Port Newark (Weeks Marine). In addition, the DSNY Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, FEIS (October 2000) identified Linden, New Jersey as an out-of-city barge-to-rail unloading facility. MECHANIZED CONVEYANCE TO BARGE

This transport scenario entailed construction of a temporary, above-street cable system with cars to convey construction debris and excavation soils to the loading dock at Pier 6. Given the distance of the FSTC site to the East River waterfront/Pier 6, approximately one (1) mile, mechanized conveyance through the streets of Lower Manhattan is not considered a viable option.

USE OF EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE

The use of existing infrastructure includes the potential use of:

• Staten Island Ferry – trucks or containerized spoils could be loaded onto the ferry with transport to Staten Island with an ultimate destination to a landfill in New Jersey. If containers are used, a transfer facility would need to be provided on Staten Island to move the containers from the ferry to trucks;

• NYCT – Subways could be used to transport containerized spoils to existing waste transfer facilities with trucking or barging to an ultimate destination at a landfill in New Jersey; and,

• PATH Trains – Could be used to transport containerized spoils to New Jersey. A transfer facility would need to be provided with trucking to an ultimate destination at a landfill in New Jersey.



Based on input received from representatives of the agencies in charge of the infrastructure types (e.g., NYCDOT, NYCT, MTA, and Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) use of existing infrastructure was examined and dismissed as a viable option. There are many potential conflicts and disruptions to passenger transport if the public transportation infrastructure is used for materials management and transport, especially with respect to heavily used systems such as NYCT subways, PATH trains and the Staten Island Ferry. Long dwell times associated with loading and unloading of spoils would prevent subway service from operating. Even if freight movements would only occur during the midnight hours, they would conflict with the voluminous repair and maintenance work that is performed during that time. Vehicles equipped to transport people would need to be replaced with vehicles equipped to transport the waste. In addition, there would need to be a transfer mechanism constructed at the end point of the system. Moreover, there would also be additional transfers and material handling not realized under the other transport options. The barge would be offloaded using a crane equipped with a 10-yard clamshell bucket. The crane would transfer the material to a stockpile, which would be loaded into 20 cubic yard dump trailers. It is assumed for this analysis that the spoils would be used as landfill cover at various locations across the Tri-State Area (within 100 miles). C.2.3 ESTIMATED SPOILS VOLUMES FOR THE PROPOSED

FSTC PROJECT AND OTHER LOWER MANHATTAN RECOVERY PROJECTS

FSTC PROJECT

Spoils removal estimates have been prepared for purposes of the environmental analysis (Table C-1). Current estimates are preliminary and are expected to be refined as the preliminary engineering of the FSTC progresses. Estimates exclude soil quantities credited as backfill and represent the excess material to be transported from the jobsite.

Table C-1 Spoils Removal Estimates for the FSTC

Alternative 9 and Alternative 10 - the Preferred Alternative

Activity

Soil (CY) Construction and Demolition Debris (CY)

Pedestrian Underpass Excavation 21,000 0

Dey Street Passageway Excavation 29,500 0

Entry Facility Excavation 49,000* 0

Building Deconstruction** 0 37,000**

AC Mezzanine Widening 2,000 1,000

TOTAL 101,500 38,000 *Approximately 42,000 CY under Alternative 9 **Approximately 29,600 CY under Alternative 9

OTHER PROJECTS IN LOWER MANHATTAN

For comparison, the following spoils estimates are provided for other projects proposed in Lower Manhattan:

• WTC - approximately 773,000 CY of excavated spoils and 184,950 CY of C&D debris; • South Ferry Terminal - approximately 140,000 CY of spoils over four (4) months beginning in

late 2004. The material would be comprised primarily of unconsolidated urban fill;



• No. 7 Line Extension - approximately 1,055,000 CY (swelled bedrock volume); and, • Second Avenue Subway - approximately 7,000,000 CY of material.

COORDINATION WITH OTHER LOWER MANHATTAN FEDERAL RECOVERY PROJECTS

Coordination with other Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects would be considered in the future as plans for these projects advance. Projects that are in various stages of preliminary planning and that have been identified for coordination include the WTC Memorial and Redevelopment Plan, the South Ferry Terminal, No. 7 Line Extension and Second Avenue Subway. C.2.4 TRANSPORT METHODS AND IMPACT ANALYSIS

Of the four (4) transportation scenarios initially studied, only the trucking and barging scenarios were considered to be viable. Mechanized conveyance and use of existing infrastructure were not considered to be viable options and are therefore not carried forward for further impact analysis. Figure C-2 depicts the potential truck routes that could be utilized for the FSTC. Potential destinations in New Jersey were also evaluated in the comparison of various transport scenarios. The following sections describe the two (2) viable transport methods to be considered for the FSTC project and their attendant potential impacts. TRUCKING As previously discussed, during construction, the FSTC would generate approximately 101,500 CY of spoils/soil and 38,000 CY of construction and demolition debris that would need to be transported from the site. Assuming that 15 CY (or 20 Ton) trucks would be used, approximately 6,766 truck trips would be needed to remove the spoils and approximately 2,533 truck trips would be needed for the construction debris, irrespective of final destination. For the trucking-only option, the transfer process would include only loading and offloading of trucks. Approximately 50 CY trucks per day would be required to transport the excavated material from the site, based on peak truck trips of up to 10 trips per hour. Traffic Based on the number of trucks required to transport material from the project site, there are no anticipated impacts to the existing level of service (LOS). Air Emission Screening for FSTC Trucking Under the conventional trucking option, the truck loading, spoils removal and transport would result in air emissions releases and higher ambient concentrations during the construction period (see Tables C-2 and C-3). These emission source points include unpaved road movement emissions, crane-to-truck during transfer of spoils, park staging area, material loaded onto trucks, truck traveling, and other diesel equipment, etc.



Table C-2

Parameters and Assumptions

During Construction Period Average Vehicle Miles Travel (VMT) per truck:

Round Trip In New York Area

Round Trip In New Jersey Area*

12 miles + (15 mile x 20%)** 24 miles x 80%***

= 15 miles = 20 miles

* Miles traveled to I-95, assumed the final destination mileages from this point would be the same for various alternatives. ** 20% of the trucks to the east through Williamsburg Bridge. *** 80% of the trucks to the west (New Jersey). Assume roadway speeds would be 10 mph in New York, and 40 mph in New Jersey areas. Assume maximum total truck trips = (101,000 + 38,000)/15 CY per truck = 9,300 truck trips (within 12-month period). Average dump truck and delivery truck power = 200 horsepower (HP). Barge capacity = 800 CY - - (101,500 + 37,000) CY/800 CY = 174 barges. One (1) Tug Boat @ 500 HP (every (2) days @ engine operating two (2) hours). One (1) Crane @ 250 HP (engine running six (6) hours/day). Two (2) Cranes @ 150 HP (engine running six (6) hours/day). One (1) diesel loader or equipment @ 75 HP One (1) clamshell bucket for offload (New Jersey site) @ 250 HP (six (6) hours/day).

Table C-3 Trucking Alternative Typical Air Emission NOx Estimation

Emissions from Heavy Diesel Truck

In New York Area* In New Jersey Area Total Truck Emissions

1.5 hr x 200 HP x 0.75 grams(g)/HP-hr

0.5 hr x 200 HP x 0.75 g/HP-hr

9,300 trucks x 300 g

= 225 g = 75 g = 2,790 kg * Stand-by idling at construction sites are the same for various alternatives and are not included

The detailed air quality analysis performed for this draft Environmental Impact Study (DEIS) evaluates impacts resulting from on-road truck movement, traffic diversion, and off-road (on-site) equipment utilization. Potential impacts include mobile source emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter (PM) from trucking and possible local traffic diversion, as well as PM and fugitive dust emissions from on-site activities. The analysis evaluates the effects of relevant emissions at intersection locations within the study area and the sites where significant project impacts are predicted to occur. The analysis was conducted taking into account the Environmental Performance Commitments (EPCs), including use of ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel in off-road construction equipment; use of diesel engine retrofit technology to further reduce emissions - such technology may include Diesel Oxidation Catalyst/Diesel Particulate Filters, engine upgrades, engine replacements, or combinations of these strategies; limited use for unnecessary idling times on engines up to three (3) minutes; keeping air emission exhausts away from fresh air intakes; and control of dust at the construction site through a soil erosion sediment control plan, etc. The prediction of truck-generated CO and PM concentrations in an urban environment characterized by meteorological phenomena, traffic conditions, and physical configurations is a challenging problem. Air



pollutant dispersion models simulate mathematically how traffic, meteorology and geometry combine to affect pollutant concentrations. The air quality analysis of the FSTC in this DEIS included the selection of intersection locations and sensitive sites for micro-scale analysis based on a screening analysis of traffic conditions. Truck cruise and idle emissions were computed using the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) MOBILE6 for CO and PART5 for PM. Impacts were calculated by using EPA’s CAL3QHC dispersion model. Where this model yielded pollutant levels that exceed standards, or significant air quality impacts are predicted, the EPA’s refined intersection model, CAL3QHCR, was used. CO and PM pollutant levels were compared with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) standards and applicable de minimis criteria. PM impacts were assessed on a site-specific basis when a significant number of diesel trucks and heavy equipment were predicted to be utilized. A review of existing PM data and parameters monitored by NYSDEC, New York State Department of Environmental Protection (NYSDEP) and EPA was conducted. In conducting dispersion modeling, conservative meteorological conditions were used. Emission modeling considered both on-site trucking or equipment activities and the diversions to existing traffic conditions. The analysis took into account the intensity and duration of construction activities, proximity to sensitive sites, and amount of existing traffic. The off-road (on-site) trucking and construction equipment engines’ emission factors were determined using the latest NONROAD model and latest information available in AP42, as established by EPA. Dispersion was modeled using Industrial Sources Complex (ISCST3) and 1997–2001 meteorological data, and would be extracting both maximum daily and maximum annual results from five (5) full years of meteorological data. The combined annual impacts from both on-road trucking and off-road construction equipment sources, as predicted by CAL3QHCR and ISCST3, respectively, were determined by adding the results from models at each receptor location. The DEIS includes a detailed assessment of the potential air quality impacts of the project’s construction activities and material management for each of the areas covered within the FSTC study area, and traffic diversions resulting from construction staging, deliveries and other truck transporting activities. The analysis considers the potential effects of the various stages of construction, as well as the cumulative effects of other relevant projects in construction at the same time. The air quality impact analysis also considers the potential closure of lanes, sidewalks and other trucking services during the various phases of construction. This analysis identifies the potential for significant adverse impacts and specifies mitigation measures. The benefit of using ULSD and the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) to reduce emissions from trucking and construction machinery was also assessed in the analysis. The following are specific air emission data/regulations for equipment likely to be utilized on the project:

• For diesel-powered trucks with ULSD: future Tier 4 regulation: 0.3g nitrogen-oxides (NOx)/HP-hour operation;

• The current diesel truck NOx emissions are approximately 2.5 times higher than the proposed future emissions; i.e. 0.75g NOx/HP-hour operation;

• The NOx emission for trucks using current diesel is approximately three (3) g/HP-hour. operation. The most recently established low sulfur requirements (federal & New York State) in diesel fuel for trucks would be adopted by 2006 and is already taken into account in the FSTC analysis. The NOx emission would be reduced by 75 percent to 0.75g/HP-hour.;

• The Tier 4 requirement for construction vehicles (bulldozer, dump truck, etc.) by using advanced emission-control technologies, such as a manufacturer-developed catalytic converter on new vehicles (also requiring ULSD) would start in 2008 and be fully phased in by 2014. The NOx emission would be further reduced by 60 percent to 0.3g/HP-hour. (equivalent to 90 percent reduction from existing level); and,

• For diesel tug boat: Tier 1 regulation (new marine diesel engines manufactured January 1, 2004 or later) - approximately 10g NOx/HP-hour, operation.



Noise Under the conventional trucking option, the truck loading, spoils removal, and transport would result in increased noise at the construction site and along truck routes during the construction period. Typical noise sources include on-site truck idling, crane and loader operation, on-road truck operation, etc. The noise from on-site equipment operation would result in noise level increases at areas adjacent to the operation site, specifically the truck loading and staging area. The equipment-generated noise would be calculated based on acoustical principles by considering various factors associated with truck loading operation, including equipment noise emission levels, usage factor, location, presence of any physical obstruction, etc. The DEIS includes a detailed assessment of the potential noise impacts of the FSTC’s construction activities and material management. The analysis considers the potential effects of the various stages of construction, as well as the cumulative effects of other relevant projects under construction at the same time. Costs The total estimate for transportation and disposal of C&D debris and soils from the project site to New Jersey is $97.50/CY. TRUCKING WITH TRANSFER TO BARGE

Trucking with transfer to barges would involve a minimum of three (3) transfers/handling points: (1) when excavated material would be placed in trucks at the construction site, (2) when material is removed from the trucks and placed into barge(s) at the loading facility – Pier 6 – using cranes, and (3) when it is removed from barges at the offloading facility in New Jersey and placed onto trucks for ultimate disposal. The DSNY utilizes open-hopper barges with a draft of eight (8) feet with the maximum payload amount of approximately 715 tons (DSNY generally does not load in excess of 650 tons of solid waste). Barge slips at DSNY marine transfer stations are generally dredged to a depth of 19 feet below mean low water (mlw). Assuming the use of 800 CY barges (for loads transport on inland waters (140 feet long by 40 feet wide with 12 feet draft)), approximately 127 barges would be generated during the transportation of the spoil (106 barges) and C&D debris (47 barges) during the life of the project. Traffic Based on the number of trucks required to transport material from the project site, there are no anticipated impacts to the LOS. Air Emission Screening for FSTC Trucking and Barging Alternatives Potential impacts on air quality associated with barging would be analyzed using similar methodology as utilized for the air quality analysis in this DEIS. This would be used to evaluate emissions from marine diesel engines, barge cranes and facilities, tug boat engines, spoils removal, trucks, on-site cranes, transfer operation, unpaved road, off-road diesel equipment and trucking routing, etc. Air emissions associated with the barging alternative include truck to crane spoils transfer, crane to barge spoils waste, staging areas, materials delivery areas, loading areas, and other transfer operations (see Tables C-4 to C-7). The marine vessels emissions and off-road equipment emissions analyses would be conducted based upon EPA AP-42 and NONROAD model procedures, while mobile sources emissions would be analyzed using the most recent MOBILE and PART5 models. The impact analysis for barging can be divided into two (2) major components below.



Table C-4

Potential Sources of Barging Alternative Parameters and Assumptions

During Construction Period

Average VMT per truck: Round Trip

In New York Area Round Trip

In New Jersey Area* Two (2) miles 10 miles

* Miles traveled to I-95, the final destination mileages are assumed to be the same for various alternatives. Assume roadway speeds would be 10 mph in New York and 40 mph in New Jersey areas. Assume maximum total truck trips = (101,500 + 38,000 CY) / 15 CY per truck = 9,300 truck trips (within 12-month period). Average dump truck and delivery truck power = 200 HP. Barge capacity = 800 CY - - (101,500 + 3,800) CY / 800 CY = 174 barges. One (1) Tug Boat @ 500 HP (every two (2) days @ engine operating two (2) hours). One (1) Crane @ 250 HP (engine running six (6) hours/day). Two (2) Cranes @ 150 HP (engine running six (6) hours/day). One (1) diesel loader or equipment @ 75 HP. One (1) clamshell bucket for offload (New Jersey site) @ 250 HP (six (6) hours/day).

Table C-5 Typical Air Emission NOx Estimation

Emissions from Heavy Diesel Truck

In New York Area* In New Jersey Area Total Truck Emissions 0.67 hr x 200 HP 0.25 x 200 HP 9,300 trucks

x (134+37.5)g x 0.75=134g x 0.75 = 37.5g = 1,595.0kg

* Stand-by idling at construction sites are the same for various alternatives and are not included.

Table C-6 Emission from Barging Activities

Tug Boat Load Offload Total

Large Crane Two (2) Cranes On-site Diesel Equipment

Clamshell

(500 HP) (250 HP) (150 HP) (75 HP) (250 HP)

174 barges x two (2)

hrs

Six (6) hrs x Six (6) hrs x Four (4) x 222 six (6) hrs x

x 500 HP 222 days x 222 days x x 75 x 0.75 222 days

x 10 g/HP-hr 250 HP x 150 HP x = 75 kg x 250 HP

= 1,740 kg 0.75 g/HP-hr 0.75 x two (2)

cranes x 0.75

= 250 kg = 300 kg = 250 kg =2,615 kg



Table C-7

Air Emission Comparison For Alternatives (Using Diesel Equipment) Emissions from

Trucking Activities Emissions from

Barging Activities Total NOx Emission

Trucking Alternative 2,790 kg 0 2,790 kg/yr Barging Alternative 1,595 kg 2,615 kg 4,210 kg/yr

Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2003. For barges and off-road (on-site) activities, diesel engines are the major uses for nonroad engines. They currently release about 44 percent of diesel PM emissions and 12 percent of total NOx emissions of mobile sources nationwide. Between 1996 and 2000, Tier 1 emission standards were established for all nonroad land-based diesel engines greater than 50 HP to reduce NOx emissions from previous 1994 levels by 30 percent. Phasing in between 1999 and 2000, EPA adopted the standards for nonroad diesel engines less than 50 HP and marine engines. For new diesel engines between 2001 and 2006, EPA has adopted more stringent standards (Tier 2) to control NOx, hydrocarbons and PM emissions for all engine sizes. Furthermore, EPA is establishing Tier 3 standards for diesel engines between 50 and 750 HP which would be built from 2006 to 2008. The Tier 3 standards would further reduce nonroad diesel engine emissions by 60 percent for NOx and 40 percent for PM from Tier 1 emission levels. With the EPA-proposed low-sulfur fuels program (starting in 2007, fuel sulfur levels in nonroad diesel fuel would be limited to a maximum of 500 parts per million (ppm) and advanced emission-control technologies, the potential to reduce NOx and PM emissions can reach a 90 percent reduction level as planned in the proposed Tier 4 standard. For marine diesel engines ranging in size from 700 to 11,000 HP, including tugboats, pushboats, supply vessels, barging vessels, and other commercial vessels, a most recent emission standard would be applied to engines manufactured January 1, 2004 or later (EPA420-F-03-001, January 2003). The barges and on-site activities impact assessment would contain a discussion of impacts of related CO, PM, fugitive dust, and other criteria pollutants emissions, and the measures to reduce impacts. Barges and on-site equipment engines emission factors were determined using the latest NONROAD model and latest information available in AP42, as established by EPA. Dispersion would be modeled using ISCST3 and 1997 – 2001 meteorological data, and would be obtained by extracting all maximum term-average and maximum annual concentration levels according to NAAQS from five (5) full years of meteorological data. The emission removal efficiencies applied to off-road diesel engines due to reduction technologies can be estimated as 40 percent for PM and 50 percent for CO emissions. During construction and material handling activities, an on-site five (5) mph speed limit for equipment would be applied at all sites as a current City general practice. Thus, the off-road (on-site) dust emissions resulting from tire/brake on surface would not be substantial under low speed and are not necessary to model according to New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) practice. The PM emissions from off-road (on-site) equipment engine exhaust tailpipes would be calculated by using the NONROAD model and AP-42 factors for emission determination, and ISCST3 for ambient impacts at analyzed locations. The ISCST3 off-road (on-site) sources impact modeling would use 1997-2001 meteorological data with surface level air data from LaGuardia Airport and upper-air data from Brookhaven. The FSTC construction impacts of on-road trucking mobile sources as a result of truck movements between barging locations and construction sites and traffic diverting would be analyzed as described below. During construction, the prediction of on-road motor-vehicle-generated CO concentrations in Lower Manhattan would be characterized based on meteorological conditions, traffic conditions and physical configurations. Air pollutant dispersion models would simulate mathematically how traffic, meteorology



and geometry combine to affect pollutant concentrations. The first step would be to assemble the trucking and traffic data and forecasts provided by the traffic team. These traffic data include peak hour or design hour volumes, vehicle operating speeds, hot/cold start estimates, turning volumes and signal timing (as applicable). Operating conditions used in the air analysis may be obtained from New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) EPM guidelines. On-road construction vehicle CO emission factors, such as idle or cruise emissions from trucks, would be predicted using MOBILE5b (or MOBILE6.2 when applicable for New York State). The air quality analysis would evaluate the effects of project-generated traffic on CO and other pollutant levels at intersection locations. The ambient air impacts would be calculated by using EPA’s CAL3QHC dispersion model. At locations where this model yields pollutant levels that exceed standards, or significant air quality impacts are predicted, the EPA’s refined intersection CO model, CAL3QHCR, would be used. To assess potential on-road construction and material management activities impacts, relevant PM pollutants would be assessed by evaluating the number of diesel trucks and other heavy equipment to be utilized. The PM impact analysis would include a review of existing data and parameters monitored by NYSDEC, NYSDEP and EPA; an evaluation of PM emissions using EPA’s MOBILE6.2 model (if applicable and available from New York State) based on regional and site-specific assumptions; and dispersion modeling using conservative meteorological conditions. A coordinate system would be established to allow combined model results of components from multiple projects. It is proposed that such a coordinate system be shared among the pertinent agencies to facilitate data exchange. For analyses within the FSTC study area, a set of PM analysis sites would be established for the analysis of both on-road sources and off-road emission sources. The total PM10 concentrations would be calculated by CAL3QHCR and adding the 24-hour and annual PM10 background concentration obtained from State or City available monitoring data or published background values to the highest modeled concentrations and comparing the total results with the NAAQS. The predicted PM2.5 impacts would be compared to the applicable interim guidance criteria established by NYCDEP and NYSDEC for PM2.5. These criteria are set to determine the potential for significant adverse impacts. The NYCDEP criteria are:

• Predicted incremental impacts of PM2.5 greater than five (5) µg/m3 averaged over a 24-hour period at ground or elevated locations; and,

• Predicted incremental ground-level impacts PM2.5 greater than 0.1 µg/m3 on an annual average neighborhood scale basis averaged over receptors placed over a one (1) kilometer by one (1) kilometer grid, centered around the location where the maximum impact is predicted.

In addition, NYSDEC is considering incremental annual impacts of PM2.5 greater than 0.3 µg/m3 at any discrete ground-level or elevated location as having a potential for significant impact. The PART5 model would first be utilized to calculate emission factors for PM (including sulfates) and idling, with a cutoff size of 2.5 or 10 micrometers. The New York State MOBILE6.2 would be used for PM when this model becomes applicable in New York State, in order to include diesel fuel and diesel vehicle regulations and to replace PART5. The ambient PM concentrations would be modeled by CAL3QHCR for on-road mobile sources using 1997-2001 meteorological data with surface data from LaGuardia Airport and upper-air data from Brookhaven. The combined annual impacts from both mobile and construction on-site sources, as predicted by CAL3QHCR and ISCST3, respectively, would be further determined by adding the results from both models at each receptor location. NYCT’s directives also ensure that PM emissions from the use of diesel-powered construction equipment are minimized. The NYCT has implemented an agency policy directing that all future contracts for capital construction projects follow diesel emission controls for off-road equipment. These controls require that all heavy equipment use ULSD fuel and employ diesel particle filters, or other retrofit technology to reduce diesel emissions. In addition, idling time for off-road and on-road equipment must be limited to three (3) consecutive minutes, except in certain limited circumstances. This policy is recommended by the NYSDEC and non-governmental organizations attempting to minimize pollutant emissions. ULSD fuel has a maximum sulfur content of 15 parts per million; not only does it in itself reduce emissions of



SO2 and related PM, but it also permits the use of advanced pollution control technologies. Implementation of these measures would reduce the emissions of particles from the combustion process by approximately 85 percent. The barging facilities would primarily be used as a transfer and storage facility. The operations at the barging facility would include trucks, front-end loaders and cranes, loading spoils and unloading materials, truck and equipment movements on paved surfaces, and diesel emissions from non-road equipment. The barge site would accommodate spoils and materials delivery trucks and would also include tug boats, which have their own emissions. Noise The use of barging would result in truck loading, spoils removal and transport operations which would result in increased noise at the construction site and along truck routes between the construction site and barging staging area. Typical noise sources would include truck idling, crane and loader operation on the construction site, barging facility, on-road truck operation and tug idling and movement. There are commercial and office buildings, open space (park), residential and institutional uses within a thousand feet of the potential barging site at Pier 6. Table C-8 presents typical noise levels for construction equipment that would be utilized.

Table C-8 Noise Level Calculation for Peak Eight (8)-Hour Shift

FSTC- Pier 6 Barging Site

Eight (8)-hr Leq (dBA) Equipment Utilized #

Lmax (dBA) at 50 feet

Usage Factor 50ft 100ft 200ft 300ft 400ft 1000ft

Wheel loader 1 85 40% 81 75 69 65 63 55 Dump truck 1 88 40% 84 78 72 68 66 58

Crane 1 83 20% 76 70 64 60 58 50 Tug Boat 1 88 5% 75 69 63 59 57 49

Overall Leq 87 81 74 71 68 61 Criteria 80 80 80 80 80 80 Impact y y n n n n

To determine the number of impacts, the exact locations of the docks/cranes would be required. It is not likely that residential areas would be impacted by barging-generated noise. Barging noise would be expected to be considerably lower than the existing traffic noise associated with the Franklin D. Roosevelt Highway on Manhattan’s east side. The noise analysis would evaluate impacts resulting from on-road truck movement, traffic diversion and on-site equipment utilization. A detailed analysis would evaluate the potential traffic noise increases as the result of increased truck traffic on the designated truck routes. It is estimated that there would be approximately 23 truck trips per day due to the construction of the FSTC. Considering the existing traffic on truck routes such as Broadway and Church Street, which carry tens of thousands vehicles per day, noise increases would be unnoticeable as the result of on-road spoils trucking. The noise from on-site and barging facility equipment operation would result in noise level increases at areas adjacent to the operation sites, specifically the truck loading/offloading and staging area. The equipment-generated noise would be calculated based on acoustical principals by considering various factors associated with the truck loading operation, including equipment noise emission levels, usage factor, location, presence of any physical obstruction, etc.



Costs The total estimate for transportation and disposal of C&D debris and soils from the project site to New Jersey is presented in Table C-9.

Table C-9 Costs of Barging Alternative

Action Cost

Transport material to Pier 6 $9.25/CY Load barge*1 ~$10/CY

Transport barge**2 ~$2,800 per 800 CY barge (~$3.50/CY) Unload barge/load trucks ~$15/CY (estimate)

Transport within 100 miles3 ~$500 per 15 CY Dump Trailer (~$30/CY) Dispose of material in New Jersey ~$35/CY (estimate – ultimate location to be determined)

Total Estimated Barge/Truck/Disposal Cost from Project Site to New Jersey: ~ $102.75/CY

*Assumptions: • 350 CY/day delivered by 15 CY dump trucks for eight (8) months (labor and equipment for trucking NOT included). If

spoils rate is reduced and project duration is extended, the loading cost would increase by approximately $4 per CY per month;

• Includes labor, equipment and materials to handle spoils on pier barge and load into hopper barges; • Assumes 12 hr/day equipment operation (two (2) CY loader and excavator with 14 CY Clamshell bucket) for labor; and, • Assumes monthly rental of loader, excavator, pier barge and three (3) hopper barges.

** Assumptions: • Total of 174 barges (800 CY) to be moved for entire project; • Only one (1) Tug Boat necessary for an eight (8)-hour day for each barge; and, • Tug Boat crew includes Tug Captain, First Mate, Dockhand and Engineer.

1Source: Means Heavy Construction 2002; NYC Blue Book Equipment Rates; Weeks Marine, Inc. 2Source: www.morantug.com and privileged information for rates on similar work in NYC. 3Source: EISCO. Based on a conversation with an EISCO representative, since there is virtually an unlimited source of soil on the market, it would be unlikely that the spoils from this project would generate any revenue. In fact, depending on the quality of soil, use of this material as landfill cover would cost the same as disposing of it at a non-hazardous landfill. There may be some additional costs realized for preparation of the pier area for transfer of material. Permitting If dredging is required at the berthing area(s) to accommodate the draft of the barges, a US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 permit would be required. If the spoils materials are granted a BUD transfer of the material, the project would not require marine transfer permitting. Other Barging operations may generate potential conflict with heliport operations due to the proximity of these operations. COMPARISON

Table C-10 provides a summary and comparison of the anticipated impacts from the trucking versus the trucking-with-transfer-to-barging alternative.



Table C-10

Summary of Impacts Trucking Only Barging

Action Vehicle Miles Cost Air

Impacts Noise

Impacts Vehicle Miles Cost Air

Impacts Noise

Impacts Permitting

Excavation1 na TBD TBD ? na TBD TBD ?

Pier Preparation na na na na TBD ? ? potential

Trucking to Landfill

New Jersey2

10 – 50 $97.50/CY 2,790 kg/yr no na na na Na na

Trucking to Pier 6 na na na na ~ 1 $9.25/CY 1,276

kg/yr ? no

Barging to New

Jersey3 na na na na 13 $28.50/CY 2,615

kg/yr no potential

Trucking from New

Jersey Pier to Landfill

New Jersey4

na na na na 10+/- $65/CY 320 kg/yr ? no

Total 10 – 50 $97.50/CY5 2,790 kg/yr 15 – 50 $102.75/CY 4,210

kg/yr 1 excavation costs would be similar under both transportation scenarios. 2 landfill site yet to be identified but assumed within 50 miles of FSTC project site. 3 includes cost to load barge (approx. $10/CY), barge material (approx. $3.50/CY), and unload barge (approx. $15/CY), includes mobilization of cranes, barges, etc. 4 includes trucking and $35/CY disposal cost at landfill 5 includes $35/CY disposal cost at landfill na = not applicable, TBD = To Be Determined based upon further engineering design and detail.

C.2.5 CONCLUSIONS/SUMMARY

Based on an evaluation of potential transportation scenarios for the excavated material from the FSTC site, and potential delivery of construction materials into the project site, it appears conventional trucking would be the most cost-effective method and result in the least environmental impact to Lower Manhattan for the FSTC. The following is a list of the conclusions reached in this study:

• Barge transport is approximately $5.25/CY more expensive than conventional trucking. Therefore, assuming approximately 101,500 CY of spoils and 38,000 CY of deconstruction debris (total = 139,500 CY), total barging costs would be approximately $732,375.00 more than trucking;

• Trucking would be required for the transport of the excavated material to the barge facility (Pier 6) or the delivery of construction materials and equipment from the barge facility to the project site. Therefore, environmental impacts to air quality and noise to Lower Manhattan would be approximately the same for both the conventional trucking and barging scenarios. However, barging would result in higher NOx emissions in the region; approximately 4,210 kg/yr versus 2,790 kg/yr.;



• Barging would introduce additional impacts to Lower Manhattan in the form of tug and offloading equipment air emissions and noise not realized under a trucking-only scenario;

• Barging would present potential conflicts with current uses at existing piers such as the heliport operations at Pier 6;

• Barging may become more cost effective if larger quantities of materials are handled in conjunction with other projects planned in Lower Manhattan. However, the timing of the projects and anticipated waste removal schedules are unknown at present and attempts to coordinate between independent projects could result in construction delays, which could result in adverse environmental impacts;

• Barging may require additional regulatory approvals in the form of a USACE Section 404 and Section 10 permit if dredging of the berthing area and pier rehabilitation, respectively, are required; and,

• Barging would minimize impacts to neighborhoods adjacent to roadways outside Lower Manhattan by keeping additional trucks off the roadways. However, wherever the final barge destination point is located, trucks would be required to transport the material to its final destination point. Areas adjacent to the barge offloading facility would realize impacts to air quality and noise from the offloading and transfer operations.

C.2.6 REFERENCES

City of New York Department of Sanitation, Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, FEIS (October 2000). http://www.morantug.com Means Heavy Construction Cost Data Book, 475 pp. New York City Comprehensive Commercial Waste Management Study. Preliminary Report, June 2002, New York City Department of Sanitation and Urbitran Associates, Inc. OENJ, September 24, 2003, pers. comm.. Weeks Marine, Inc., September 23, 2003, pers. comm. C.3 CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATES FOR PURPOSES OF

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The following tables present an estimate of the construction equipment and traffic that could be associated with the construction of the Fulton Street Transit Center (FSTC). These tables have been compiled for the analysis of the worst-case potential scenario for construction and are not intended to present a projection of precise equipment usage and truck generation that would occur during construction. For the purposes of the analysis, and as explained in Chapter 4 of the draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), the construction equipment and traffic associated with either Alternative 9 or 10 are not considered to be substantially different between alternatives. Current maintenance and protection of traffic plans are included in Figures C-4 to C-19 (at the end of the appendix). These are the results of preliminary engineering and are subject to change. C.3.1 TUNNELING FOR UNDERPASSES – TRAFFIC AND

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT

45 UNDERPASS

Estimated construction traffic associated with the 45 underpass is presented in Table C-11. Tables C-12, C-13 and C-14 present the estimated equipment required.



Table C-12 Estimated Construction Equipment Associated with Underpinning

Equipment Type Size Engine

Type Size HP

Quantity (Peak

Calculation)

Quantity (Cumulative Calculation)

Percentage Daily of

Use Duration

Air Operated Grout Drills 4 1.3 90%

Concrete Pump

150 CY/Hour – 100 foot

boom Diesel 300 1 0.33 20%

Concrete Trucks

10 CY Tandem or

Tri-axle Diesel 325 2 0.0 5%

Air Compressor

for Drills 1600 CFM Diesel 460 2 0.67 90%

Welding Machines

35 HP Diesel Engine 2 0.67 70%

6

Mon

ths

HP = Horsepower

Table C-13 Estimated Construction Equipment Associated with Spoil Removal


Type Size HP

Quantity (Peak

Calculation)


Percentage Daily of

Use Duration

Crawler Crane 100 Tons Diesel 450 1 0.3 90% Roadheader for Tunneling

12 foot diameter Diesel 120 2 0.67 90%

Dump Trucks 15 CY Tandem Diesel 325 4 3.2 5% 6

Mon

ths

Table C-11 Estimated Construction Traffic Associated with 45 Underpass

Delivery Type Quantity Units Total No. Of Truckloads

Trips per Day (Peak Day Impact Calculation)

Trips per Day (Cumulative

Impact Calculation)

Estimated Duration

Spoil Removal 7,000 CY 470 8 6.5 Underpinning 1,000 Tons 50 2 0.7 Concrete / Steel 1,000 CY 100 4 1.4 Service/Utility /Fuel 4 2 Subcontractors Light Trucks 10 6

6 Months

Construction Workers 15 to 20 N/A Arriving by Personal

Vehicle 3 to 4 N/A

Arriving by Mass Transit 12 to 16 N/A Supervisory/QA 3 to 8 N/A

Arriving by Personal Vehicle 1 to 2 N/A

Arriving by Mass Transit 2 to 6 N/A CY = Cubic Yards



Table C-14

Estimated Construction Equipment Associated with Concrete Liner


Type Size HP

Quantity (Peak

Calculation)


Percentage Daily of Use

Duration

Hi-Lift (Forklift) 5 ton – 40 foot boom Diesel 120 2 0.67 90%

Crawler Crane for Material and Form Support

100 Tons Diesel 350 1 0.33 80%

Concrete Pump 150 CY/Hour

– 100 foot boom

Diesel 300 1 0.33 30%

Concrete Trucks 10 CY

Tandem or Tri-axle

Diesel 325 2 0.7 5%

Welding Machines

35 HP Diesel Engine Diesel 35 2 0.67 90%

6 M

onth

s

RW UNDERPASS

Estimated construction traffic associated with the RW underpass is presented in Table C-15. Tables C-16, C-17, and C-18 present the estimated equipment required.

Table C-15 Estimated Construction Traffic Associated with the RW Underpass

Delivery Type Quantity Units Total No. of Truckloads

Trips per Day (Peak Day

Impact Calculation)


Impact Calculation)

Estimated Duration

Spoils Removal 7,000 CY 470 8 3.3 Underpinning 1,000 Tons 50 2 0.35

Concrete / Steel 1,000 CY 100 4 0.7 Service/Utility /Fuel 4 2

Subcontractors Light Trucks 10 6

12 Months

Construction Workers 15 to 20 N/A Arriving by Personal Vehicle 3 to 4 N/A


Arriving by Personal Vehicle 1 to 2 N/A Arriving by Mass Transit 2 to 6 N/A



Table C-16

Estimated Construction Equipment Associated with Underpinning

Equipment Type Size Engine Type

Size HP

Quantity (Peak

Calculation)


Percentage Daily of

Use Duration

Air Operated Grout Drills 4 1.33 90%

Concrete Pump 150 CY/Hour – 100 foot boom Diesel 300 1 0.33 20%

Concrete Trucks 10 CY Tandem or Tri-axle Diesel 325 2 0 5%

Air Compressor for Drills 1600 CFM Diesel 460 2 0.67 90%

Welding Machines 35 HP Diesel Engine 2 0.67 70%

12 M

onth

s

Table C-17 Estimated Construction Equipment Associated with Spoil Removal


Size HP

Quantity (Peak

Calculation)


Percentage Daily of

Use Duration

Crawler Crane 100 Ton Diesel 450 1 0.33 90% Roadheader for

Tunneling 12 foot

diameter Diesel 120 2 0.67 90%

Dump Trucks 15 CY Tandem Diesel 325 4 1.6 5% 12

Mon

ths

Table C-18 Estimated Construction Equipment Associated with Concrete Liner


Type Size HP

Quantity (Peak

Calculation)


Percentage Daily of

Use Duration


Crawler Crane for Material and Form Support

100 Ton Diesel 350 1 0.33 80%


Concrete Trucks 10 CY Tandem or Tri-axle Diesel 325 2 0.35 5%

Welding Machines


12 M

onth

s

C.3.2 CONCOURSE CONSTRUCTION UNDER DEY STREET – TRAFFIC

AND CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT

UTILITY RELOCATIONS

Estimated construction traffic associated with utility relocations is presented in Table C-19. Table C-20 presents the estimated equipment required.



Table C-20 Estimated Construction Equipment Associated with Utility Relocations


Size HP

Quantity (Peak

Calculation)


Percentage Daily of

Use Duration

Hydraulic Excavator 1.5 CY Diesel 138 2 2 90%

Rubber Tire Loader 3.5 CY Diesel 196 2 2 90%

Rubber Tire Backhoe/Loader 1.25 CY Diesel 88 4 4 90%

Dump Trucks

15 CY Tandem or Tri-axle

Diesel 325 4 0.9 5%

Pumps for Dewatering

4” Gasoline Powered

Gasoline 16 2 2 90%

Compressor 185 CFM Diesel 80 2 2 80% Pavement Breakers 90 Lbs 2 2 80%

Generators Gasoline Powered Gasoline 12 2 2 90%

Air Hammers (ringing and

ripping) Gasoline Gasoline 2 2 25%

3 M

onth

s

SLURRY WALL

Estimated construction traffic associated with the slurry wall is presented in Table C-21. Table C-22 presents the estimated equipment required.

Table C-19 Estimated Construction Traffic Associated with Utility Relocations



Impact Calculation)


Impact Calculation)

Estimated Duration

Spoils Removal 1,000 CY 67 8 1.8 Service/Utility /Fuel 4 2 Subcontractors Light Trucks 10 6

3 Months


Vehicle 2 to 3 N/A

Arriving by Mass Transit 18 to 27 N/A

Supervisory/QA 3 to 8 N/A Arriving by Personal

Vehicle 1 to 2 N/A




Table C-21 Estimated Construction Traffic Associated with the Slurry Wall




Impact Calculation)

Estimated Duration

Slurry Wall – Exc. 4,500 CY 300 8 6.3 Slurry Wall – Conc. 4,500 CY 450 12 9.4 Slurry Wall - Rebar 1,000 Tons 50 2 1 Service/Utility /Fuel 6 6 Subcontractors Light Trucks 12 10

4 Months


Vehicle 4 to 6 N/A



Vehicle 1 to 2 N/A


Table C-22

Estimated Construction Equipment Associated with the Slurry Wall


Size HP

Quantity (Peak

Calculation)


Percentage Daily of Use Duration

Slurry Plant Mixing Plant

100m3 per hour – Diesel

50 HP Diesel 50 1 1 90%

Desanding Plant 100m3 per

hour – Diesel 50 HP

Diesel 50 1 1 50%

Crawler Crane w/clam shell 100 Ton Diesel 350 1 1 90%

Crawler Crane 100 Ton Diesel 350 1 1 50% Crawler Crane w/Pile Driving

Setup 100 Ton Diesel 350 1 1 50%

Compressor for Piling Driving 800 CFM Diesel 310 1 1 50%

Hydraulic All-Terrain Crane

35 Ton Diesel 165 1 1 80%

Hi-Lift (Forklift) 5 ton – 40 foot boom Diesel 120 1 1 90%

Concrete Pump 150 CY/Hour – 100 foot boom Diesel 300 1 1 40%


Tandem or Tri-Axle

Diesel 325 6 4.7 5%

Dump Trucks Tandem Axle – 15 CY Diesel 325 4 3.1 5%


Diesel Generators 100 HP Diesel 100 2 2 90%

4 M

onth

s



EXCAVATION

Estimated construction traffic associated with excavation is presented in Table C-23. Table C-24 presents the estimated equipment required.

Table C-23 Estimated Construction Traffic Associated with Excavation

Delivery Type Quantity Units Total No. of Loads


Impact Calculation)


Impact Calculation)

Estimated Duration

Excavate to Invert 25,000 CY 1,670 40 34 Service/Utility /Fuel 6 4 Subcontractors Light Trucks 8 6

4 Months


Vehicle 4 to 6 N/A



Vehicle 1 to 2 N/A


Table C-24 Estimated Construction Equipment Associated with Excavation


Type Size HP

Quantity (Peak

Calculation)


Percentage Daily of

Use Duration

Hydraulic All- Terrain

Crane (Struts)

50 Tons Diesel 165 1 1 50%

Crawler Crane 100 Tons Diesel 350 1 1 70%

Hydraulic Excavator 3.5 CY Diesel 320 1 1 100%

Dozer 100 HP Diesel 100 1 1 70%

Dump Trucks Tandem Axle – 15 CY Diesel 325 20 17 5%

Welding Machines

(Strut Installation)

35 HP Diesel Engine Diesel 35 1 50%

Air Compressor for Pavement

Breakers

800 CFM Diesel 310 1 1 25%

Pavement Breakers 90 Lbs. 2 2 25%

4 M

onth

s



CONSTRUCT CONCOURSE

Estimated construction traffic associated with concourse construction is presented in Table C-25. Table C-26 presents the estimated equipment required.

Table C-25 Estimated Construction Traffic Associated with Concourse Construction

Delivery Type Quantity Units Total No.

of Truckloads


Impact Calculation)


Impact Calculation)

Estimated Duration

Concrete 12,440 CY 830 26 8.6 Structural Steel 1,000 Tons 100 6 0.35 Fitout 500 CY 50 2 0.35 Service/Utility /Fuel 6 4 Subcontractors Light Trucks 12 10

12 Months


Vehicle 4 to 6 N/A


Arriving by Personal Vehicle 1 to 2

N/A


Table C-26 Estimated Construction Equipment Associated with Concourse Construction


Type Size HP

Quantity (Peak

Calculation)


Percentage of Daily Use Duration

Crawler Crane 100 Ton Diesel 350 1 1 90%

Hi-Lift (Forklift)

5 ton – 40 foot boom Diesel 120 1 1 90%

Concrete Pump

150 CY/Hour – 100 foot

boom

Diesel 300 1 1 50%

Concrete Trucks

10 CY Tandem or

Tri-Axle Diesel 325 13 4.3 5%



12 M

onth

s

REINSTATE DEY STREET

Estimated construction traffic associated with reinstating Dey Street is presented in Table C-27. Table C-28 presents the estimated equipment required.



Table C-27

Estimated Construction Traffic Associated with Reinstating Dey Street



Impact Calculation)


Impact Calculation)

Estimated Duration

Refill 11,000 CY 730 40 30.4 Service/Utility /Fuel 6 4 Subcontractors Light Trucks 8 6

2 Months




Table C-28 Estimated Construction Equipment Associated with Reinstating Dey Street


Size HP

Quantity (Peak

Calculation)


Percentage Daily of

Use Duration

Hydraulic All-Terrain Crane

(Struts) 50 Tons Diesel 165 1 1 50%

Crawler Crane 100 Tons Diesel 350 1 1 70% Hydraulic Excavator 3.5 CY Diesel 320 1 1 100%



Welding Machines (Strut Installation)

35 HP Diesel Engine Diesel 35 1 1 50%

Air Compressor for Pavement Breakers

800 CFm Diesel 310 1 1 25%


2 M

onth

s

C.3.3 BUILDING STABILIZATION – TRAFFIC AND CONSTRUCTION

EQUIPMENT

CORBIN BUILDING

Estimated construction traffic associated with Corbin Building stabilization is presented in Table C-29. Tables C-30 and C-31 present the estimated equipment required.



Table C-30 Estimated Construction Equipment Associated with Corbin Building Stabilization

Equipment Type Size Engine Type Size HP Quantity Percentage

of Daily Use Hydraulic All-Terrain Crane 50 Tons Diesel 165 1 50% Crawler Crane w/Auger or

Pile Driver 100 Tons Diesel 350 1 50%

Air Compressor for Pile Driving

1600 CFM Diesel 460 1 50%

Table C-31 Estimated Construction Equipment Associated with Temporary Façade Support


Size HP Quantity Percentage

of Daily Use Crawler Crane 200 Tons Diesel 450 1 90% Hi-Lift(Forklift) 5 ton – 40 foot boom Diesel 120 1 90%

Tractor Trailer Tandem Axle Tractor w/45 Foot Trailer Diesel 325 2 1%

Welding Machine 35 HP Diesel Engine Diesel 35 1 90% Air Compressor for Impact Wrenches 800 CFM Diesel 310 1 90%

Impact Wrenches 1” Socket Drive 4 90% Welding Machine 35 HP Diesel Engine Diesel 35 1 90%

C.3.4 TRANSIT CENTER CONSTRUCTION

DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS (194-204 BROADWAY)

Estimated construction traffic associated with building demolition is presented in Table C-32. Table C-33 presents the estimated equipment required.

Table C-29 Estimated Construction Traffic Associated with Corbin Building Stabilization


Trips per Day

Estimated Duration

Mobilization 4 Ea 4 2 2 Days Pile Foundation for Support System 12 Ea 2 2 2 Days

Structural Steel Support System 500 Tons 25 2 2 Months Service/Utility /Fuel Trucks 2 2 Months Subcontractors Light Trucks 4 to 6 2 Months Construction Workers 15 to 20 N/A


Supervisory/QA 3 to 5 N/A Arriving by Personal Vehicle 1 to 2 N/A




Table C-33 Estimated Construction Equipment Associated with Building Demolition


Size HP

Quantity (Peak

Calculation)


Percentage Daily of

Use Duration

Crawler Crane w/clamshell or

grapple 200 Ton Diesel 450 1 1 90%

Hydraulic Excavator w/Hoe Ram 3.5 CY Diesel 320 1 1 90%

Hydraulic Excavator w/Grapple 3.5 CY Diesel 320 1 1 90%

Track Loader w/Waste Handling

Bucket 5.5 CY Diesel 160 1 1 80%

Dump Trucks Tandem Axle – 15

CY Diesel 325 10 7 5%

Air Compressor for Pavement Breakers 1600 CFM Diesel 460 1 1 50%

Pavement Breakers 90 Lbs. 4 4 50% 3

mon

ths

SLURRY WALL AND SHEETING/SHORING

Estimated construction traffic associated with the slurry wall is presented in Table C-34. Table C-35 presents the estimated equipment required.

Table C-32 Estimated Construction Traffic Associated with Building Demolition



Impact Calculation)


Impact Calculation)

Estimated Duration per stage

Demolition Debris 1,000 Tons 500 20 13.9 Service/Utility /Fuel Trucks 8 6 Subcontractors Light Trucks 6 4

3 Months

Total Construction Workers 20 to 25 N/A Arriving by Personal Vehicle 4 to 5 N/A

Arriving by Mass Transit 16 to 20 N/A Supervisory/QA 3 to 5 N/A Arriving by Personal Vehicle 1 to 2 N/A




Table C-34 Estimated Construction Traffic Associated with the Slurry Wall




Impact Calculation)

Estimated Duration

Slurry Wall – Exc. 3,900 CY 260 8 5.4 Slurry Wall – Conc. 3,900 CY 390 10 8 Slurry Wall - Rebar 1,000 Tons 50 2 1 Service/Utility /Fuel 6 4

Subcontractors Light Trucks 12 10

4 Months


Vehicle 4 to 6 N/A



N/A


Table C-35 Estimated Construction Equipment Associated with the Slurry Wall


Size HP

Quantity (Peak

Calculation)


Percentage Daily of Use Duration


100m3 per hour – Diesel 50 HP

Diesel 50 1 1 90%

Desanding Plant

100m3 per hour – Diesel 50 HP

Diesel 50 1 1 50%

Crawler Crane w/clam shell 100 Tons Diesel 350 1 1 90%

Crawler Crane 100 Tons Diesel 350 1 1 50% Crawler Crane w/Piling

Driving Setup 100 Tons Diesel 350 1 1 50%

Hi-Lift (Forklift) 5 ton – 40 foot boom

Diesel 120 1 1 90%

Concrete Pump

150 CY/Hour

– 100 foot

boom

Diesel 300 1 1 50%

Concrete Trucks

10 CY Tandem or Tri-Axle

Diesel 325 5 4 5%

Dump Trucks Tandem Axle – 15

CY Diesel 325 4 2.7 5%

Rubber Tire Loader 3.5 CY Diesel 196 1 1 80% Diesel Generators 100 HP Diesel 100 1 1 90%

4 M

onth

s



EXCAVATION

Estimated construction traffic associated with excavation is presented in Table C-36. Table C-37 presents the estimated equipment required.

FOUNDATION

Estimated construction traffic associated with foundations is presented in Table C-38. Tables C-39 and C-40 present the estimated equipment required.

Table C-36 Estimated Construction Traffic Associated with Excavation

Delivery Type Quantity Units

Total No. of Loads


Impact Calculation)


Impact Calculation)

Estimated Duration

Worst Case

Excavate to Subsurface 45,000 CY 3,000 200 83 Service/Utility /Fuel 6 4 Subcontractors Light Trucks 8 6

3 Months




Table C-37 Estimated Construction Equipment Associated with Excavation


Size HP

Quantity (Peak

Calculation)


Percentage Daily of

Use Duration

Crawler Crane 100 Tons Diesel 350 1 1 50% Hydraulic Excavator 3.5 CY Diesel 320 1 1 90%

Hydraulic Excavator 2 CY Diesel 300 1 1 90%



Welding Machines (Support

Installation)

35 HP Diesel Engine Diesel 35 1 1 50%

Air Compressor for Pavement Breakers 800 CFM Diesel 310 1 1 50%


3 M

onth

s



Table C-39 Estimated Construction Equipment Associated with Foundations


Size HP

Quantity (Peak

Calculation)


Percentage Daily of

Use Duration

Crawler Crane 200 Ton Diesel 450 2 0.67 90% Crawler Crane w/Pile Driving

Setup 100 Ton Diesel 350 1 0.33 90%

Compressor for Pile Driving 1600 CFM Diesel 460 1 0.33 90%



– 100 foot boom

Diesel 300 1 0.33 50%


Tandem or Tri-Axle

Diesel 325 10 0 5%

Diesel Generators 100 HP Diesel 100 2 0.67 90%

Tractor Trailer Tandem Axle Tractor w/45 Foot Trailer

Diesel 325 2 0.1 5%

Welding Machines


6 M

onth

s

Table C-38 Estimated Construction Traffic Associated with Foundations

Delivery Type Quantity Units Total No.

of Truckloads


Impact Calculation)


Impact Calculation)

Estimated Duration

Concrete 3,000 CY 200 20 2.8 Reinforcing Steel 600 Tons 30 2 0.42 Service/Utility /Fuel 20 12 Subcontractors Light Trucks 20 12

6 Months

Construction Workers 80 to 100

N/A


N/A



N/A




Table C-40 Estimated Construction Equipment Associated with Foundations


Size HP

Quantity (Peak

Calculation)


Percentage Daily of

Use Duration

Crawler Crane 200 Tons Diesel 450 2 1.33 90%



Concrete Trucks 10 CY Tandem or Tri-Axle Diesel 325 8 1.4 5%



Diesel 325 2 0.21 5%

Welding Machines


6 M

onth

s

SUPERSTRUCTURE

Estimated construction traffic associated with superstructure is presented in Table C-41. Table C-42 presents the estimated equipment required.

Table C-41 Estimated Construction Traffic Associated with Superstructure



Impact Calculation)


Impact Calculation)

Estimated Duration

Structural Steel 1,500 Tons 75 4 1 Structural Steel – Grand Space 3,000 Tons 150 4 2

Curtain Wall 400 Tons 20 2 0.28 Service/Utility /Fuel 20 12 Subcontractors Light Trucks 20 12

6 Months


Vehicle 16 to 20 N/A



N/A




Table C-42 Estimated Construction Equipment Associated with Superstructure


Size HP

Quantity (Peak

Calculation)


Percentage Daily of

Use Duration



Concrete Pump 150 CY/Hour – 100 foot boom Diesel 300 1 1 50%


Tandem or Tri-Axle

Diesel 325 8 2 5%



Diesel 325 5 2 5%

Welding Machines 35 HP Diesel Engine Diesel 35 2 2 100%

Air Compressor for Impact Wrenches

1600 CFM Diesel 460 2 2 100%

Impact Wrenches 1” Socket Drive 10 10 80%

6 M

onth

s

C.3.5 WIDENING OF AC MEZZANINE – TRAFFIC AND

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT

UTILITY RELOCATIONS

Estimated construction traffic associated with utility relocations is presented in Table C-43. Table C-44 presents the estimated equipment required.

Table C-43 Estimated Construction Traffic Associated with Utility Relocations



Impact Calculation)


Impact Calculation)

Estimated Duration

Spoils Removal 1,000 CY 67 8 0.62 Service/Utility /Fuel 4 2 Subcontractors Light Trucks 10 4

9 Months

Construction Workers 20 to 30 N/A Arriving by Personal Vehicle 2 to 3

N/A

Arriving by Mass Transit 18 to 27 N/A Supervisory/QA 3 to 8 N/A Arriving by Personal Vehicle 1 to 2

N/A




Table C-44 Estimated Construction Equipment Associated with Utility Relocations


Size HP

Quantity (Peak

Calculation)


Percentage Daily of

Use Duration

Rubber Tire Loader 3.5 CY Diesel 196 1 0.25 90%

Rubber Tire Backhoe/Loader 1.25 CY Diesel 88 1 0.25 90%

Dump Trucks

15 CY Tandem or Tri-axle

Diesel 325 4 0.23 5%

Pumps for Dewatering

4” Gasoline Powered

Gasoline 16 2 2 90%

Compressor 185 CFM Diesel 80 2 0.25 80% Pavement Breakers 90 Lbs. 2 0.25 80%

Air hammers (ringing and

ripping) 2 0.1 80%

9 M

onth

s

SLURRY WALL

Estimated construction traffic associated with slurry walls is presented in Table C-45. Table C-46 presents the estimated equipment required.

Table C-45 Estimated Construction Traffic Associated with AC Mezzanine Widening Slurry Walls

Delivery Type Per Segment Quantity Units Total No. of

Truckloads


Impact Calculation)

Trips per Day

(Cumulative Impact

Calculation)

Estimated Duration

Slurry Wall – Exc. 2000 CY 35 6 1.9 Slurry Wall – Conc. 2000 CY 50 6 2.8 Slurry Wall - Rebar 120 Tons 2 2 0.1 Service/Utility /Fuel 6 4 Subcontractors Light Trucks 12 10

6 Months






Table C-46 Estimated Construction Equipment Associated with AC Mezzanine Widening Slurry Wall


Size HP

Quantity (Peak

Calculation)


Percentage Daily of

Use Duration


100m3 per hour – Diesel

50 HP Diesel 50 1 1 90%

Desanding Plant 100m3 per

hour – Diesel 50 HP

Diesel 50 1 1 90%

Crawler Crane w/clam shell 100 Tons Diesel 350 1 1 90%




– 100 foot boom

Diesel 300 1 1 35%


Tandem or Tri-Axle

Diesel 325 3 1.4 5%


Rubber Tire Loader 3.5 CY Diesel 196 1 1 50% Compressor for

Pavement Breakers 1600 CFM Diesel 460 1 1 25%

Pavement Breakers 90 Lbs. 10 10 35% Diesel Generators 100 HP Diesel 100 2 2 90%

6 M

onth

s

MEZZANINE WIDENING

Estimated construction traffic associated with slurry walls is presented in Table C-47. Tables C-48 to C-51 present the estimated equipment required.

Table C-47 Estimated Construction Traffic Associated with AC Mezzanine Widening

Delivery Type Per Segment Quantity Units Total No. of

Truckloads


Impact Calculation)


Impact Calculation)

Estimated Duration

Excavation 8000 CY 266 26 5 Bracing Delivery 600 Tons 30 2 0.28 Concrete for Mezzanine 2400 CY 240 6 2.2 Reconstruct Fulton St 4,000 Tons 200 10 1.85 Service/Utility /Fuel 6 4 Subcontractors Light Trucks 12 10

9 Months






Table C-48 Estimated Construction Equipment Associated with Grout Injection for AC Mezzanine

Widening


Size HP

Quantity (Peak

Calculation)


Percentage Daily of

Use Duration

Air-Operated Grout Injection

Drills 3 1.3 90%

Compressor for Grout Injection 1600 CFM Diesel 460 3 1.3 90%

Grout Plant 10m3 per hour Diesel 50 1 0.44 90%



Compressor for Pavement Breakers

1600 CFM Diesel 460 1 0.44 25%

Pavement Breakers 90 Lbs. 10 4.4 25%


9 M

onth

s

Table C-49 Estimated Construction Equipment Associated with Excavation for AC Mezzanine Widening


Size HP

Quantity (Peak

Calculation)


Percentage of Daily

Use Duration



Hydraulic Excavator 2 CY Diesel 300 1 0.14 90%

Hydraulic Excavator w/Hoe

Ram 2 CY Diesel 300 1 0.14 90%




1600 CFM Diesel 460 1 0.14 90%



9 M

onth

s



Table C-50 Estimated Construction Equipment Associated with Concrete for AC Mezzanine Widening


Size HP

Quantity (Peak

Calculation)


Percentage of Daily

Use Duration




– 100 foot boom

Diesel 300 1 0.44 50%


Tandem or Tri-Axle

Diesel 325 5 1.2 5%



9 M

onth

s

Table C-51 Estimated Construction Equipment Associated with Street Reconstruction


Size HP

Quantity (Peak

Calculation)


Percentage of Daily

Use Duration

Asphalt Paving Machine

10 Foot Screed Width Diesel 153 1 0.14 90%

Asphalt Compactor

Vibratory 10 Ton Diesel 70 1 0.14 90%

Dump Trucks (Asphalt Paving)

Tandem Axle – 15 CY Diesel 325 5 0.19 5%

Rubber Tire Loader 3.5 CY 196 1 0.14 50%


1600 CFM 460 1 0.14 20%


9 M

onth

s C.3.6 45 AND RW UNDERPASSES AND JMZ ADA ACCESS

Table C-52 presents the estimated construction traffic associated with the construction of the 45 and RW underpasses, and JMZ ADA access, and Table C-53 presents the estimated construction equipment expected to be required.



Table C-52 Estimated Construction Traffic Associated With

Construction of 45 and RW Underpasses

Delivery Type (Per Underpass) Quantity Units Total No. of

Truckloads Trips per

Day Estimated Duration

Trips During AM Peak

Mobilization 6 Ea 6 0 5 Days 0 Spoils Removal 7,000 CY 470 8 6 Months 1 to 2 Underpinning 1,000 Tons 50 2 6 Months 0 Concrete / Steel 1,000 CY 100 2 to 4 6 Months 1 Service/Utility/Fuel 2 to 4 6 Months 1 Subcontractors Light Trucks 4 to 10 6 Months 2 to 5 Construction Workers 15 to 20 N/A Arriving by Personal Vehicle 3 to 4 N/A



Table C-53 Estimated Construction Equipment Associated With

Construction of 45 and RW Underpasses and JMZ ADA Access

Equipment Type Size Quantity Percentage of Use

Air Operated Grout Drills 4 50% Roadheader for tunneling 12 foot Diameter 2 50%

Concrete Pump 150 CY/Hour – 100 foot boom 1 20% Concrete Trucks 10 CY Tandem or Tri-axle 2 5%

Welding Machines 35 HP Diesel Engine 2 80% C.3.7 STATION REHABILITATION

45 LINE

Since the majority of the work will be within the existing station structures, it is anticipated that no construction equipment will be operating at street-level to support the rehabilitation of the station and platforms. It is also assumed that the work within the station will be more cosmetic than structural (except for the connections to the FSTC) and will be performed by hand with handheld demolition and cutting tools. The construction of new stairways at Cortlandt Street and Broadway will involve minimal surface activity to open up the shaftways and to construct the stair structures within them. Table C-54 presents the estimated construction equipment expected to be required; additional traffic is assumed to be minimal.



Table C-54

Estimated Construction Equipment Associated With 45 Line Rehabilitation and Construction of Stairways


Size HP Quantity Percentage

of Use

Hydraulic All Terrain Crane 50 Tons Diesel 165 1 50%

Hydraulic Excavator w/Hoe Ram 3.5 CY Diesel 320 1 100%

Dump Trucks Tandem Axle – 15 CY Diesel 325 2 20%

Air Compressor for Pavement

Breakers 800 CFM Diesel 310 1 100%

Pavement Breakers 90 Lbs. 4 100%

23 LINE

The rehabilitation of the 23 line Fulton Street Station is assumed to occur entirely within the confines of the existing station, with removal of demolition debris and delivery of new interior construction materials being the only activities that will occur at street-level. It is possible that demolition activities within the station will require compressed air to operate demolition tools such as pavement breakers and jack hammers. This may require the positioning of an air compressor at street level within a staging area adjacent to a stairway or shaftway. Table C-55 presents the estimated construction equipment expected to be required; additional traffic is assumed to be minimal.

Table C-55 Estimated Construction Equipment Associated With

23 Line Rehabilitation


Size HP

Quantity Percentage of Use

Hydraulic All-Terrain Crane 50 Tons Diesel 165 1 50% Dump Trucks Tandem Axle – 15 CY Diesel 325 2 20%

Air Compressor for Pavement Breakers

800 CFM Diesel 310 1 100%

Jack Hammers 65 Lbs. 2 50% Pavement Breakers 90 Lbs. 4 80%

Fulton Street Transit Center

Maintenance and Protection of

Traffic Site Wide Street Level

Construction Key Plan

Figure C-4

,.

320240160800

Sources: ARUP

Plans provided for illustrativepurposes only and subject to change

603001530

Sources: ARUP

Plans provided for illustrativepurposes only and subject to change


Maintenance and Protection of Traffic

Street Level

23 Mezzanine Extension-Config. V

Figure C-5

,.

806040200

Plans provided for illustrative purposes only and subject to change

Sources: ARUP



Street Level

23 Mezzanine Extension - Config. VI

Figure C-6

,.

603001530

Plans provided for illustrative purposes only and subject to change

Sources: ARUP



Street Level

23 Mezzanine Extension-Config. VII

Figure C-7

,.

603001530

Plans provided for illustrative purposes

only and subject to change

Sources: ARUP



Street Level

45 South Entrances Config. I

Figure C-8

,.

603001530



Sources: ARUP



Street Level

45 South Entrances Config. II

Figure C-9

,.

603001530



Sources: ARUP



Street Level

45 South Entrances Config. III

Figure C-10

,.

603001530



Sources: ARUP



Street Level

45 South Entrances Config. IV

Figure C-11

,.

60 8040200



Sources: ARUP



Street Level

Dey Street Concourse - Stage 1

Figure C-12

,.

60 8040200



Sources: ARUP



Street Level

Dey Street Concourse - Stage 2

Figure C-13

,.

60 8040200



Sources: ARUP



Street Level

RW Underpass - Stage 1

Figure C-14

,.

60 8040200



Sources: ARUP



Street Level

RW Underpass - Stage 2

Figure C-15

,.

60 8040200



Sources: ARUP



Street Level

RW to EConnector

Figure C-16

,.

60 8040200



Sources: ARUP



Street Level

Fulton Street Secant Pile Wall Step 3

Figure C-17

,.

90 12060300



Sources: ARUP



Street Level

45 Ventilation Work

Figure C-18

,.

60 90300



Sources: ARUP



Street Level

AC West Mezzanine Widening

Figure C-19

,.

60 90300



Sources: ARUP



Street Level

JMZStation Rehabilitation

Figure C-20

,.


August 2004 Appendix C – Construction Methods and Activities

PART II

4/5 UNDERPASS OPTIONS REPORT

MTA - New York City Transit

CM-1252 - Fulton Street Transit Center, Manhattan

4/5 Underpass Options Report

Report ref 03-05-23-0001-0


CM-1252 - Fulton Street Transit Center, Manhattan

4/5 Underpass Options Report

November 2003

Ove Arup & Partners Consulting Engineers PC155 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10013

Tel +1 212 169 Fax +1 212 352-1354 www.arup.com

Job number 130035

MTA - New York City Transit CM 1252 - Fulton Street Transit Center, Manhattan4/5 Underpass Options Report

J:\FSTC\03 UNDERGROUND STRUCT\3-05 REPORTS\03-05-23 4_5 UNDERPASSES OPTIONS\03-05-23-0001-0- 4_5 UNDERPASS OPTIONS REPORT.DOC

Page 1 Ove Arup & Partners Consulting Engineers PCIssue 0 November 25, 2003

1. INTRODUCTION

This report documents the comparison of five main options for creating pedestrian underpasses below the 4/5 line connection to the A/C southbound platform. This report has been prepared at the request of NYCT to document the evaluation that NYCT has undertaken with the FSTC Design Team regarding which option to take forward in the Preliminary Engineering (PE) Design. It supplements the concept work documented in the Conceptual Design Report, October 2003.

Stemming from technical issues related to the feasibility and placement of the stair/escalator set within 195 Broadway (and even the desire to investigate the potential for the elimination thereof), five proposals (A through E) have been analyzed and compared in this report; schematic plans for these proposals, accompanied by descriptions, immediately follow.

The FSTC Design Team has prepared various analyses; conclusions in the form of an evaluation matrix, are presented at the back of this report.

In summary, NYCT have confirmed to the FSTC Design Team that Proposal E is to be carried forward into PE due to the following:

Ease of passenger flow

Enhanced wayfinding

Spatial continuity




2. BACKGROUND TO OPTIONS

2.1 Proposal A

The Conceptual Design Report (CDR) shows two new separate underpasses. These basically provide:

An unpaid connection from the Dey Street Concourse into the basement of the Corbin Building and Transit Center.

About 70 ft. to the north, a separate 30’-6” paid connection below the 4/5 line connects the middle of the northbound to the middle of the southbound track.

The motivation and justification for this Proposal A are well defined and documented in Arup’s July 2002 Study report, as well as the October 2003 Conceptual Design Report.




Proposal A

Figure 1 - Proposal A - Platform and Concourse Plans



Page 4 Ove Arup & Partners Consulting Engineers PCDraft #A October 27, 2003

2.2 Proposal B

Reuse, with widening to 17 ft. of the existing pedestrian tunnel under Fulton Street in the north of the Transit Center, plus a new 21’-6” wide opening crossing over the southbound A/C tunnel and into the corner of 195 Broadway.

Figure 2 - Proposal B - Platform and Concourse Plans




2.3 Proposal C

Reuse of the existing 13 ft. wide pedestrian tunnel under Fulton St. in the north with new staircase and new elevator, plus a new 13 ft. wide tunnel with new 8’-2” wide staircase (mid-platform).

Figure 3 - Proposal C - Platform and Concourse Plans




2.4 Proposal D

30’-6” wide angled underpass, with turnstiles and glass panel separating it from the Dey Street Concourse. Co-location of the paid and unpaid underpasses so they align with Dey Street. The lengthening of the distance between the A/C mezzanine and the 4/5 underpass introduces opportunities to eliminate use of stairs.

Figure 4 - Proposal D - Platform and Concourse Plans




2.5 Proposal E

31’-6” wide angled underpass provides access to southbound platform of 4/5 line. Turnstiles and a glass panel separates paid and unpaid underpass from Dey Street Concourse.

Figure 5 - Proposal E - Platform and Concourse Plans




2.6 Presentation of Options and Agreed Options

Please refer to preceding pages for schematic plans of the five proposals.

During a workshop session with NYCT representatives, which took place on Monday, November 03, 2003, Proposals A, D and E were chosen for further evaluation. Proposals B and C were eliminated for not meeting pedestrian LOS and rail operations minimum criteria.

On November 6, another workshop was held with NYCT representatives to reach a final decision. The concept of a ramped transition between the A/C mezzanine and the Dey Street Concourse across the Transit Center was generally well received and deemed preferable to a stepped transition. The pedestrian traffic flow is facilitated by this solution, which also creates less of a squeeze under the mezzanines above.

Solution E was recommended by the FSTC Design Team as preferable, from both a passenger flow and wayfinding point of view. It also contributes to the stated objective of a unified sense of space in the Transit Center where all connections are as visible as possible. The FSTC Design Team will further investigate the design of the ramped transition, investigate opportunities for “back-of-house” transit functions using the existing underpass, and proceed with Solution E with further underpinning under the 4/5 tracks to make the transition as open and clear as possible.

Through the next sections of the report, these three proposals (A, D, and E) are discussed; merits and deficiencies of each from a particular discipline point of view. In addition, constructibility, schedule, and cost implications are reviewed. A summary matrix, with rankings is provided in a conclusion at the end; a recommendation has been provided in the beginning of this report.

Proposal E has been approved by NYCT for Preliminary Engineering.

Proposal E as shown on the opposite page in plan, was, and confines to be developed such that the shaded area on the figure opposite has been removed. See figure on page 12 in the minutes of the meeting November 6, 2003 appended to this report.



03-05-23-0001-0


3. PEDESTRIAN FLOW EVALUATION

3.1 Introduction

The proposed alternatives are analyzed against each other according to the qualitative and quantitative objectives outlined here.

3.1.1 Criteria

The following criteria were employed when analyzing the five proposals:

Quality and Level of Service

Efficient Access, Movement and Wayfinding

Passenger Safety

Rail Transit Operations

Quality and Level of Service (LOS) means that the appropriate space, flow rate and population density for traveled corridors, stairs and mixing spaces will be maintained. NYCT’s adopted standard for LOS is the breakpoint between C and D as measured by the levels developed by John J. Fruin. Quality of Service (QOS) is measured against the standards set throughout the FSTC. For this analysis, QOS specifically means that escalators are provided for passenger movement in both upward and downward vertical transitions.

Access, movement and wayfinding are grouped together as a qualitative measure of design functionality. In practice, this category translates to minimized walk distances, logical routing that avoids switchbacks and promotes conflict free paths.

Passenger safety is a qualitative measure of the design. Ways to minimize safety concerns within the design are to maximize platform widths and access to egress elements, assure that escalators have sufficient run-off and queuing areas, provide clear paths of movement, and avoid creating choke points.

The favored design for Rail Transit Operations (RTO) will promote distributed platform and train car loading in an effort to minimize delays on headways and increase line capacity. Specifically for the 4/5 platform, this is attained by locating egress corridors away from the endpoints of the train.

3.1.2 Scenario

The vertical circulation connecting the paid zone of the FSTC and the southbound 4/5 platform will be heavily utilized during both the AM and PM peak periods. During the PM rush, passengers coming from the East side of midtown Manhattan will travel down the vertical circulation and transfer back to the A and C trains. During both AM and PM periods there is also a significant passenger movement traveling from the Dey Street Concourse to and from the A and C trains.

In an effort to objectively measure LOS for each of the proposals, a specific travel demand scenario was analysed based on demand volume projections and distributions given to the FSTC Design Team by NYCT Operations Planning, listed below by received date and description:



03-05-23-0001-0


October 20, 2003 - AM peak hour platform exits and transfers for 2025 +20%

October 31, 2003 - AM peak hour street entries for 2025 + 20%

These volumes do not represent any reconciliation with PANYNJ passenger projections, as NYCT has not delivered that completed volume set to the FSTC Design Team.

In this scenario, the flow at the mouth of the 4/5 underpass (near the base of the vertical circulation) is at its peak and LOS is measured as a flow rate around the columns (if any) into the Transit Center itself. The peak passenger flow occurs during the period in which a southbound 4 or 5 train alights, and both of the down escalators and the stair into the underpass are at capacity. There is also a relatively small concurrent counterflow through the section (using the up escalator).

Other aspects of the designs are measured subjectively according to the goals outlined in the previous section. Descriptions within this report focus mainly on the differences between the alternatives. Elements that are equitable across all options are not discussed.

3.2 Proposal A

At the 4/5 platform level, the access to the underpass is located just south of the historic wall. Entry to the transfer stairs and escalators is obstructed by a single 3’-6” column.

The position of the transfer circulation is an improvement over the existing condition because it brings the access point closer to the midpoint of the platform.

At the concourse level, the connection to the FSTC is located farther north than in other options. In doing so, the travel distance to the A/C is minimized, but the position of the underpass also encourages end of platform loading at the A/C platform level.

The mouth of the entrance, the widest provided of all alternatives, affords a flow rate LOS of C. However, the underpass can still be considered a tunnel into the FSTC, which raises safety concerns for the visibility of the passageway.

3.3 Proposal B

The underpass in Proposal B is placed at the same location as the existing 4/5 underpass, but is widened to the maximum width possible.

Although this proposal incorporates adequate vertical circulation capacity from the southbound 4/5 platform, it provides inadequate width through the underpass corridor to achieve LOS C/D (20 ft. of effective width is required; in this option, the effective width is limited to less than 16 ft.)

The underpass location focuses the transfer movement from the 4/5 directly to the endpoint of the A/C, which encourages crowding and circulation problems at the A/C platform level.

For these reasons, Proposal B is not considered a practical option.

3.4 Proposal C

Proposal C supplements the existing underpass with an additional 13 ft. wide underpass, accessible by an 8’-2” stair from the 4/5 platform.



03-05-23-0001-0


There is sufficient passageway width to attain LOS C. However, it is highly doubtful that both underpasses will be utilized in an equitable manner, in which case the northern most underpass will operate below the design criteria of LOS C/D.

Inadequate vertical circulation is provided from the platform level to the paid connections.

Proposal does not include escalators to serve the transfer movement, thus not meeting the quality of service found in other FSTC areas.

For these reasons, Proposal C is not considered a practical option.

3.5 Proposal D

Analysis of Proposal D demonstrates that this option is better than Proposal A in that it moves the major movements south to the entrance of the Dey Street Concourse. This is an improvement from a safety perspective, as it creates a unified entrance to the FSTC for both the Dey Street Concourse and the 4/5 Underpass.

However, passengers transferring from the 4/5 southbound to the A/C will have to switchback more than 90 degrees – a move that is counterintuitive in that it brings passengers south in order to access a destination to the north.

The mouth of the entrance to the underpass within the paid area, if effectively and entirely utilized, will operate at LOS D+. The runoff length at the base of the vertical circulation meets NYCT’s design criteria, but there is a set of 3’-6” columns about 12 ft. from the base of the escalators. From this set of columns to the face of the next row of columns is less than 8 ft. It is extremely unlikely that the necessary proportion of passengers will travel around the first set of columns to pass between the two column rows. Since the area between columns is discounted for LOS calculations, the 13’-6” wide opening can be calculated to function at LOS E-.

Figure 6 - Proposal D - Pedestrian Flow



03-05-23-0001-0


At the platform level, access to the transfer corridor is located in the middle of the historic wall, at about the northern quarter point of the platform. This is an improvement over the existing end of platform loading condition, but is not the optimal position.

3.6 Proposal E

This option represents the preferred option for passenger flow.

Proposal E is superior to all other options at the platform level because the position of the transfer movement access at the midpoint of the 4/5, providing for a large, column-free entry location adjacent to the street level connection at the Dey Street Headhouse. The transfer access is also at the widest point of the platform.

At the concourse level, the connection to the FSTC is made just north of the location in Proposal D, allowing for the widened, unified entrance with the Dey Street Concourse. The movement from the 4/5 to the A/C does not require passengers to turn back on themselves, and provides a clear line of sight from the A/C platform stairs to the underpass entry. The width of the mouth at the underpass allows for LOS C- and is impeded only by a single column.

4. WAYFINDING

Using diagrams of main pedestrian flows, three options (Proposals A, D and E) were analyzed for the 4/5 Underpass.

4.1 Proposal A

4.1.1 Possible problems

There are stairs between the A/C mezzanine and 4/5 corridor.

The stairs to the downtown 4/5 are not visible from the A/C mezzanine.

The exit to the Dey Street Concourse is not visible for passengers coming from the downtown 4/5 stairs.

4.1.2 Advantages

The A/C mezzanine is not visible to passengers coming from the downtown 4/5 stairs.

4.2 Proposal D


From the downtown 4/5 stairs, the A/C mezzanine is not directly visible; however those passengers needing to transfer do not need to go through the exit.

4.2.2 Advantages

There are no stairs between A/C mezzanine and 4/5 corridor.

The stairs to the downtown 4/5 are highly visible from the Dey Street Concourse, and vice versa.



03-05-23-0001-0


The stairs to the downtown 4/5 are highly visible from the A/C mezzanine.

The A/C mezzanine is visible from the Dey Street Concourse, and vice versa.

4.3 Proposal E


The exit to the Dey Street Concourse is hidden from passengers coming from the downtown 4/5 stairs.

4.3.2 Advantages

There are no stairs between A/C mezzanine and 4/5 corridor, and vice versa.

The A/C mezzanine is not visible to passengers coming from the downtown 4/5 stairs.

4.4 Conclusion

Proposal D is the most preferable solution, since the problem in this option can easily be solved.

If the column at the east side of the stairs were removed, it would create more views to the A/C mezzanine.



03-05-23-0001-0


5. FIRE LIFE SAFETY ANALYSIS

5.1 General

Preliminary comments on the updated Dey Street Concourse 4/5 Underpass proposals are provided below with regards to fire safety. Please note that an overall egress strategy is being developed, and currently for calculating exit widths, it is assumed that occupants evacuating from the Transit Center or Dey Street Concourse have sufficient and independent egress capacity elsewhere and will therefore not need to use the 4/5 Underpass as a means of egress. In addition, there will be some compartmentation needed to separate the Transit Center from the 4/5 Station/Dey Street Concourse as previously discussed. Locations for the separations need to be incorporated into these proposals.

Proposals are thus viewed on a comparative basis from the master plan scheme.

5.2 Proposal A

This proposal is that presented in the Conceptual Design Report, as such it is the baseline. All others are compared to this baseline.

5.3 Proposal B

Note that the width is reduced, however, this provides more separation and remoteness of exits than some of the other proposals, which is better from the standpoint of one limiting incident affecting multiple exit routes.

5.4 Proposal C

Note that this provides more separation/remoteness of exits than some of the other proposals, which is better from the standpoint of one limiting incident affecting multiple exit routes.

5.5 Proposal D

The entrance to the 4/5 Underpass is closer to the Dey Street Concourse interface with the Transit Center than in Proposal A. This makes it more likely that a fire or other type of threat/event in one space could block multiple exits, including those serving the 4/5, Dey Street Concourse and the Transit Center.

The slope of the ramp in the Transit Center should be kept to less than 1 in 12. Care must be taken as the path of travel may be cross slope, which would require the slope to be less than 1 in 48 (2%).

Separation may be difficult to achieve at the lower level and may need to be at platform level of the southbound 4/5.

5.6 Proposal E

The entrance to the 4/5 Underpass is closer to the Dey Street Concourse interface with the Transit Center than in Proposal A but is provided with a separation.



03-05-23-0001-0


The entrance to the concourse at the platform level is closer to the Dey Street Entrance. This makes it more likely that a fire or other type of threat/event in one space could block multiple exits, including those serving the 4/5, Dey Street Concourse and the Transit Center.

The slope of the ramp in the Transit Center should be kept to less than 1 in 12. Care must be taken, as the path of travel may be cross slope, which would require the slope to be less than 1 in 48 (2%).

Separation may be difficult to achieve at the platform level and may need to be at the lower level of the southbound 4/5.



03-05-23-0001-0


6. RISK AND SECURITY ANALYSIS

Each proposal poses a number of risk and security concerns. Risks include the threats of extreme events like CBR (chemical, biological or radiological) or explosive blast attacks, while security deals with safety issues under normal operations, such as robberies or assaults. Fire Life Safety has been considered separately in the previous section.

The proposals provide for various degrees of space separation between the Dey Street Concourse, the Transit Center, the 4/5 Underpass and the A/C Mezzanine. Compartmentalization is desirable for isolating CBR and smoke to a single area. Where areas are open but fitted with fire doors, the closed fire door scenario is adequate to separate spaces. Open spaces are difficult to protect against blast or CBR attacks, yet have several security advantages, as crimes are less likely to occur in open, well-lit areas with long sight lines. Finally, the use of glazing creates risks for pedestrians following an explosion, as the greatest cause of injuries and disruption from an explosive device is the fragmentation and projection of window glass, which can break into dagger-like shards.

6.1 Proposal A

Proposal A provides the Dey Street Concourse, the Transit Center and 4/5 Underpass with good separation. Areas can be closed off following an extreme event, thus limiting the spread of CBR or smoke and maintaining operations in unaffected, or safe, areas. This is the most desirable option when considering the need for compartmentalization to separate spaces and limit the spread of CBR and/or smoke.

This option provides limited views for pedestrians coming from the Dey Street Concourse, and an isolated tunnel serving as a 4/5 Underpass at the concourse level. Security systems will be required to increase safety of these areas. A dead-end corridor leading to an elevator at both the concourse and platform levels are also potential hazards, requiring security systems such as video monitoring or convex mirrors.

6.2 Proposal B

Proposal B employs a similar separation of spaces at the concourse level as Proposal A, indicating that areas can be closed off if required, protecting areas against extreme events in adjacent spaces. As with Proposal A, at the concourse level, an isolated corridor serves as an underpass to the southbound 4/5 platform, with several isolated areas near the stairs to the southbound 4/5 platform. These create unsafe pedestrian areas and require security systems such as video monitoring or convex mirrors.

6.3 Proposal C

Space compartmentalization shown in Proposal C is good, and provision of fire doors would seal off various spaces if required. Two isolated tunnels are proposed which will require twice as much security as a single tunnel option.

6.4 Proposal D

Proposal D presents a more open concept for the connection between the Dey Street Concourse, the Transit Center and the 4/5 Underpass, which provides less space separation. This option does not compartmentalize areas as well as Proposals A, B and C. Glazing will



03-05-23-0001-0


likely be used to separate paid and unpaid zones in an open concept design, posing the hazard of fragment projection to pedestrians following a blast event.

Proposal D’s openness makes it the most desirable option for pedestrian safety, as visibility between three functional areas is significant. Sight lines extend from the Dey Street Concourse to the A/C Mezzanine at the concourse level. This proposal eliminates the need for isolated tunnels passing under the 4/5 subway line, thus increasing the safety of the overall system.

At the intersection of the three spaces tollbooths, ticket machines and turn-styles will be placed. These are all high-risk elements for security, as they are targets for robberies. Safety measures such as video monitoring and police presence will be required. A small number of isolated corridors for this proposal require security systems such as video monitoring, and can potentially be reduced through design.

6.5 Proposal E

Proposal E provides good sight lines from the stairs to the southbound 4/5 platform to the A/C Mezzanine, yet not for the Dey Street Concourse, which is closed off from the rest of the system. This separation between the Dey Street Concourse and the Transit Center can restrict the spread of CBR and/or smoke. Should glazing be used at the interface, projectile fragments would be an important hazard consideration.



03-05-23-0001-0


7. MEP ANALYSIS

7.1 Mechanical

From a cooling, heating, ventilation and air-conditioning standpoint, there is no significant difference between the proposals. There may be some additional coordination effort required to make Proposal C work because the passageways are narrower.

In all cases, the space would be heated, cooled and ventilated using equipment in the correct fire zone. In the case of Proposals A, B, and C, this will probably be the Transit Center, although this must be developed with the fire engineers. In the case of Proposal D and E, where the underpass abuts the Dey Street Concourse, this equipment may be that in the Dey Street Concourse rather than that in the Transit Center. The fire engineering strategy and architectural layouts will need to be developed to show where solid partitions can be tolerated and where not, and an appropriate smoke management strategy developed.

7.2 Electrical

In the case of Proposal A, a Con Edison manhole M-56113 is located mid-stream of the north side of the underpass. If excavation is done from the top (unlikely) the manhole may need support / relocation.

In the case of Proposals B and C, the locations of the North Underpass has a Con Edison manhole M-35346 in the southeast corner. The manhole provides power to the 4/5 line, and will have to be supported during excavation for the underpass (if excavation is required from the top).

In the case of Proposals D and E, electrical manholes are not in the proposed underpass locations. However, electrical ductbanks run along Broadway, and these will have to be supported if any excavation / construction (unlikely) is done from street level.

7.3 Plumbing and Fire Protection

There are no discernable differences between the various proposals with respect to plumbing and fire prevention systems.



03-05-23-0001-0


8. GEOTECHNICAL / UNDERPINNING ANALYSIS

The purpose of this section is to consider the geotechnical implications of relocating the proposed paid 4/5 tunnel underpass at 195 Broadway to a location adjacent to the Dey Street underpass.

The current concept plan includes an underpass from near the middle of the southbound platform of the 4/5 line to the middle of the Broadway side of the Transit Center, herein referred to as the north underpass. The underpass includes purchasing and re-working some interior basement levels of the building at 195 Broadway for vertical transportation between platform and underpass levels. New geostructural construction would take place in order to tunnel underneath the Broadway 4/5 station up to the exterior foundation wall of 195 Broadway.

Additionally, there will be an underpass constructed at the intersection of Dey Street and Broadway, herein referred to as the south underpass. This unpaid underpass will facilitate the movement of passengers between the Dey Street Tunnel and the Transit Center. For the purpose of this discussion, this underpass is considered fixed in location and passing perpendicularly under the 4/5 station in alignment with Dey Street.

Two construction cases are considered in this section.

Proposal A: North Underpass Centered on 195-Broadway - In this case, the underpasses are separated by approximately 90 ft. of soil.

Proposals D or E: Both underpasses “adjacent” to each other - The underpasses are as close as practical to each other. For the purpose of this section, it is assumed that a width of approximately 10 ft. of soil separates the two underpasses.

8.1 Discussion

Geotechnical work that will be required to construct the underpasses, regardless of their locations, will include ground improvement/stabilization, support of existing tunnel structures (underpinning), groundwater control by cutoff, lateral support of excavation, and instrumentation. Proposals D or E will require one larger area of ground improvement, while two smaller areas will required for Proposal A. In either case, two separate tunnel excavations will be required.

Ground improvement could include a jet-grouting program undertaken from the 4/5 station or possibly horizontally from the Transit Center excavation and/or from inside 195 Broadway. In comparing the proposals, the volume of improved soil may be slightly greater for Proposal A than Proposals D or E, because there will likely be overlap that can be reduced. Grouting operations will take place in two smaller locations for Proposal A, rather than a single larger area for Proposals D or E.

Support of existing structures will be associated with underpinning of the 4/5 station. The total amount of underpinning will be the same in both cases and therefore there will be no significant difference between the two.

Groundwater cutoff will be needed on the north and south sides of each of the underpasses. Cutoff will likely be achieved by jet-grouting done from the 4/5 station. For Proposal A, four individual cutoffs (the north and south boundary of each tunnel) will have to be created.



03-05-23-0001-0


For Proposals D or E, only two cutoffs will be necessary because the two underpasses can be treated as a single large opening with respect to groundwater control.

Excavation support requirements will likely be minimal because it is anticipated that the jet-grouted areas will for the most part be stable requiring only local soil support of remedial grouting. Little difference in excavation support requirements is expected for the two cases.

A thorough monitoring program will be necessary in existing subway structures, buildings, and on temporary structures of adjacent excavations. Although the same total track length is being underpinned for both cases, a greater area will be influenced by Proposal A because of the separation in the two underpasses. Therefore, it is anticipated that more instrumentation will be required for Proposal A, but the incremental increase will not be substantial.

8.2 Summary

In summary, the differences between the two cases are not expected to be substantial. The most significant difference is expected to be the amount of groundwater cutoff grouting for the two cases with more grouting being required for Proposal A than for Proposals D or E.



03-05-23-0001-0


9. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND CONSTRUCTIBILITY ANALYSIS

9.1 Generic Proposal Assumptions

The construction sequences for all five of the proposals make assumptions regarding the condition and structural capacity of existing structures of both 195 Broadway and the 4/5 subway line. In particular, Proposals A, B, D, and E call for an underpinning of several building columns of 195 Broadway. All proposals require the underpinning of the 4/5-subway structure. Proposals B and C have most limited impact on the subway.

The 195 Broadway building columns rest on steel beam grillages, which, in turn, are supported by concrete caissons. The caissons form a continuous 7 ft. thick wall around the perimeter of the building, whose top of concrete elevation varies from 101’-2” to 105’-7” (refer to Figure 7). Since these elevations are higher than the desired underpass elevation, some building columns will have to be extended downwards. This involves the partial removal of concrete caissons and steel beam grillages.

At this time, two options are being considered for the building column underpinning procedure:

1. Rest the column loads temporarily on the existing caissons, while structure removal and column extension takes place. This option is highly dependent on (a) the structural capacity of the caissons (strength and long-term stiffness) and (b) the space available to place the temporary supports on the caissons.

2. Rest the column loads temporarily on minipiles, drilled on both sides of the caissons. This option may necessitate very large temporary transfer structures due to the width of the caissons and the conditions in the lower basement levels.

Actual site conditions may require a combination of the two methods. Both methods rely on weldability of the building steel.

The 4/5 underpinning involves sequential minipile drilling, installation of temporary steel beam grillages underneath the tracks and platforms, installation of permanent girders and columns, excavation, and construction of the new underpass structure. Refer to earlier reports, for a more detailed description. All five options considered in this report are equivalent in terms of the methodology used. They differ, though, in the extent of the underpinning (i.e., the underpass width).

Where open excavation is proposed for subway construction below the groundwater table, the ground will need to be secured. The most likely process that could be successfully applied is jet grouting.



03-05-23-0001-0


Figure 7 - Plan Showing Caisson Elevations



03-05-23-0001-0


9.2 Review of the Proposals

9.2.1 Introduction

In reviewing the proposals, the relative merits of the arrangements with respect to operational considerations have been excluded from this discussion. The proposals and hence their ranking, is based only on their constructibility and the relative risks involved in the construction.

Figure 8 - 195 Basement Cross Section

9.3 Proposal A

9.3.1 Summary of the Structural Measures

9.3.1.1 195 Broadway

Partial removal of the floor framing of basements A and B, approximate area 40 x 60 ft. at both levels.

Reinforcement of remaining floor framing (beam-to-column connections)



03-05-23-0001-0


Introduction of escalator and stair support structure at Basements A and B; new beams or new brackets to existing beams.

Possible introduction of new flying beams at Basement A level to stabilize double-height columns and/or reinforcement of internal columns.

Underpinning of five building perimeter columns, removal of column support grillages, partial demolition of supporting caissons down to required level. Possible installation of minipiles (minimum of 4 piles per column). Extension of existing columns downward, fabrication of rigid connections between new and existing column sections. Possible local reinforcement of caissons.

9.3.1.2 4/5 Subway

Clear tunnel width approximately 28.5 ft.

Removal of existing underpinning sidewalk framing. Introduction of new transfer girder to carry sidewalk framing.

Possible removal of footings of cast-iron platform columns to gain head height in the new tunnel. Introduction of new transfer girder to carry platform columns.

Underpinning of remaining subway structure (Platforms, tracks, slabs, center columns, historic platform wall on the east side). Introduction of beam grillages below platforms and below tracks, introduction of new transfer girders to carry platform wall on the east side. Securing of excavation and groundwater.

Possible construction of, say, three center columns to support subway structure, including spread concrete foundations.

Construction of two tunnel sidewalls: concrete spread footings, steel columns with concrete infill.

Construction of tunnel floor: concrete slab on grade

9.3.2 Constructibility

The three key construction activities that are involved in constructing this proposal are the underpinning of the columns in 195 Broadway, the installation of piles from within the 4/5 lines and provision of jet grouting to stabilize the ground.

The key risks associated with these activities are:

Damage to the structure and façade of 195 Broadway

The discovery of unforeseen obstructions and structural information associated with working around existing structures

Interruption of subway services in an unplanned manner due to engineering overruns or greater than predicted ground movements



03-05-23-0001-0


9.4 Proposal B

9.4.1 Summary of Structural Measures

9.4.1.1 195 Broadway:

Partial removal of the floor framing of basements A and B, approximate areas: 40 x 60 ft.



Possible introduction of new flying beams at basement A level to stabilize double-height columns and/or reinforcement of internal columns.

Underpinning of one façade column, complete or partial removal of column support grillages, partial demolition of supporting caissons down to required level. Possible installation of minipiles (minimum of 4 piles per column). Extension of existing columns downward, fabrication of rigid connections between new and existing column sections. Possible local reinforcement of caissons.

9.4.1.2 4/5 Subway:

Widening of the existing northern underpass under the 4/5 to a clear width of approximately 17 ft.

Underpinning of the existing underpass floor structure. Underpinning of the 4/5 subway tracks and platform above. Jet grouting of soil under the 4/5 and around the A/C tunnels. Support of excavation installation. Installation of new underpass sidewalls, roof, and floor structure. Demolition of existing sidewalls.


Construction of underpass access to 195 Broadway.


The key construction activities that are involved in constructing this proposal are the underpinning of the columns in 195 Broadway, the installation of piles from within the 4/5 subway line, the provision of jet grouting to stabilize the ground, the construction of a new underpass section directly above the southbound A/C tunnel.







03-05-23-0001-0


9.5 Proposal C


9.5.1.1 195 Broadway:

Stair from southbound platform down to Concourse level outside 195 Broadway. Reuse of an existing passageway.

195 Broadway not affected

9.5.1.2 4/5 Subway:

Clear width of southern underpass approximately 13 ft.

Removal of existing underpinning sidewalk framing. Introduction of new transfer girders to carry sidewalk framing.

Assumption: tunnel location between platform columns does not require a transfer girder. However, underpinning of the two adjacent cast-iron platform columns. Removal of footings, construction of new columns and new spread footings.

Underpinning of remaining subway structure (Platforms, tracks, slabs, center columns, historic platform wall on the east side). Introduction of beam grillages below platforms and below tracks, introduction of new transfer girders to carry historic platform wall on the east side.

No center columns required.

Construction of two tunnel sidewalls: concrete spread footings, steel columns with concrete infill.

Construction of tunnel floor: concrete slab on grade.


There are no major constructibility issues associated with this proposal. The works described can be achieved with techniques that have been commonly applied before.

The risks associated with the construction of this proposal are not extraordinary, are well understood in the construction industry and could be effectively managed.

9.6 Proposal D


9.6.1.1 195 Broadway:

Partial removal of the floor framing of basements A and B, approximate areas

40 x 60 ft. Basement A 40 x 50 ft. Basement B





03-05-23-0001-0



Underpinning of possibly seven façade columns, removal of column support grillages, partial demolition of supporting caissons down to required level. Possible installation of minipiles (minimum 4 piles per column). Extension of existing columns downward, fabrication of rigid connections between new and existing column section. Possible local reinforcement of caissons.

9.6.1.2 4/5 Subway:




Construction of one (northern) underpass sidewall: concrete footings, steel columns with concrete infill.

Construction of, say, six columns to support subway structure, including spread concrete foundations. These columns in addition to the Dey Street Concourse columns. Construction of tunnel floor: concrete slab on grade


The three key construction activities that are involved in constructing this proposal are the underpinning of the columns in 195 Broadway, the installation of piles from within the 4/5 line and provision of jet grouting to stabilize the ground.





The operations involved in creating the underground space are similar to those in Proposal A. However, the amount of work involved is more by virtue of the increased width of the underpass below the 4/5 line. This will negatively impact the project schedule, and increase the cost and risk involved in construction.



03-05-23-0001-0


9.7 Proposal E


9.7.1.1 195 Broadway:

Partial removal of the floor framing of basements A and B, approximate areas

40 x 60 ft. Basement A 40 x 50 ft. Basement B




Underpinning of possibly five façade columns, removal of column support grillages, partial demolition of supporting caissons down to required level (refer to Figure 9). Possible installation of minipiles (minimum of 4 piles per column) Extension of existing columns downward, fabrication of rigid connections between new and existing column sections. Possible local reinforcement of caissons.

9.7.1.2 4/5 Subway:




Construction of one (northern) underpass sidewall: concrete footings, steel columns with concrete infill.

Construction of, say, six columns to support subway structure, including spread concrete foundations. These columns in addition to the Dey Street Concourse columns. Construction of tunnel floor: concrete slab on grade


The three key construction activities that are involved in constructing this proposal are the underpinning of the columns in 195 Broadway, the installation of piles from within the 4/5 line and provision of jet grouting to stabilize the ground.






03-05-23-0001-0



The operations involved in creating the underground space are similar to those in Proposal A. However, the amount of work involved is more by virtue of the increased width of the underpass below the 4/5 line. This will negatively impact the project schedule, and increase cost and risk of construction.

Figure 9- Plan Showing Affected Columns in Proposal E



03-05-23-0001-0


10. NYCT RAIL OPERATIONS ANALYSIS

Note: All of the proposals include construction of the Dey Street underpass, which would have negative effects on operations during underpinning and tunneling operations.

10.1 Proposal A

Provides significant pedestrian flow benefits by separating passengers transferring to/from the southbound 4/5 to/from the A/C, 2/3, and J/M/Z services accessible through the Transit Center. These passengers will not mix with those coming to/from the Dey Street Concourse.

By closing the existing underpass at the extreme north end of the platform, and instead providing this paid-to-paid transfer path, the fare control area at the northern end of the southbound platform will remain clear of transferring passengers. With a wide underpass at this location, transferring passengers will be better distributed along the southbound platform, relieving platform congestion, reducing station dwell times, and alleviating access and egress congestion. Street entries and exits will take place at the extreme northern and southern ends; transfers from/to the N/R and WTC complex will be focused around Dey Street, and transfers from the FSTC complex will be directed toward the platform’s wider northern end.

Construction of the two underpasses will have negative effects on operation during underpinning and tunneling operations; it is expected that intermittent closures during weeknights and weekends will be required.

Construction of the separate passageway beneath the 4/5 will be phased to utilize the same service diversions as the Dey Street Concourse underpass. As such, no significant additional operational impacts during construction are expected due to provision of this second underpass. Some additional impacts at the platform level will result from this construction; however, the majority of this work will be performed from within the property at 195 Broadway and will be transparent to patrons of the station.

10.2 Proposal B

Provides many of the same benefits as Proposal A with respect to distribution of passenger loads along the southbound 4/5 platform. Passengers transferring from the A/C, 2/3, and J/M/Z will be directed through the widened existing north end underpass to the center of the platform’s northern end. Passengers transferring from the WTC Complex and the N/R will utilize the proposed headhouse at 189 Broadway.

Fare control area at the northern end of the southbound platform will remain clear of transferring passengers. Improved passenger distribution will help relieve platform congestion, reduce station dwell times, and alleviate access and egress congestion.

Will require significant additional operational impacts, however, due to the widening of this underpass. Widening of the existing underpass would be phased to utilize the same service diversions of the 4/5 as for construction of the Dey Street Concourse underpass. As such, impacts to the 4/5 service would be comparable.

Widening of the existing underpass will require additional service diversions of the A/C line, since the existing underpass runs above and between the two tunnels for this line



03-05-23-0001-0


(while impacts are expected on this line for construction of the widened Broadway-Nassau mezzanine, these will not require significant diversions of through service). Any significant widening of the existing north end underpass will likely require through service diversions during nights and weekends.

Widened north end underpass is proposed to have a width of only 17 ft., which is likely inadequate to handle the expected transfer volumes.

10.3 Proposal C

Operationally less desirable than Proposal A; narrower underpass widths will be less inviting and more possible paths of travel may confuse transferring passengers.

Using a narrower underpass requires maintaining the existing underpass. This limits the extent to which the entrance and fare control area on the northern end of the southbound platform can be redesigned, and potentially limits the A/C mezzanine’s configuration.

Passengers transferring from the A/C, J/M/Z, and 2/3 will tend to use the closest underpass (the one at the northern end). Accordingly, this proposal will not relieve platform and stairway congestions as well, and would have less benefit in reducing station dwell times for southbound trains.

Construction should provide only minor reductions in expected track outages relative to Proposal A. As discussed, impacts to existing services will be required for the Dey Street Concourse underpass in any event, and the additional underpass construction would be phased so that these impacts would be simultaneous.

10.4 Proposal D

Will afford relatively similar benefits as Proposal A in terms of reduction of platform and stairway congestion, distribution of passenger loading along the length of the platform, and reduction of station dwell times by southbound 4/5 trains.

Creating an “expanded” Dey Street Concourse underpass, however, may be less attractive in terms of passenger operations within the underpass. A fare control area will need to be created directly beneath the Lexington Avenue 4/5 station; this could present security and station monitoring concerns since it would be better to "sort" passengers in the centrally located and wide open Transit Center.

Conflicts will be created between passengers transferring from the larger FSTC complex and passengers trying to enter from the Dey Street Concourse into the paid underpass.

Combining the paid underpass for transferring passenger from/to the southbound 4/5 with the Dey Street Concourse underpass would also complicate construction and increase its associated risks. While Proposal A’s separate underpasses could likely be constructed in parallel with the Dey Street Concourse to utilize the same service diversions, Proposal D’s expanded underpass concept will lengthen the expected duration of necessary service diversions to complete underpinning and tunneling operations. The wider underpass will be significantly more difficult to construct, requiring more track outages over a longer period of time. The Lexington Avenue Line is the only subway service to the east side of Manhattan, and is one of the most heavily used lines; proposals that minimize the expected extent of service diversions should be favored.



03-05-23-0001-0


10.5 Proposal E

Will provide largely the same benefits as Proposal A in terms of separating passengers transferring from the A/C, J/M/Z, and 2/3 and those transferring from the WTC Complex and the N/R services. However, this separation will only be achieved at the Dey Street Concourse level.

At 4/5 platform level, the vertical circulation from the underpass rises to the south and will direct passengers to the center of the southbound 4/5 platform. As this is directly where street entries from Dey Street and transfers from the WTC Complex will be directed, this proposal will not afford the same benefits as Proposal A in terms of reduction of platform and stairway congestion, distribution of passenger loading along the length of the platform, and reduction of station dwell times by southbound 4/5 trains.

Street entries from Fulton Street via the reconfigured north end fare control area would be expected to be light in comparison with those from the Dey Street Concourse, which would mix with transfers from the larger Broadway-Nassau Complex at the center of the platform. As such, train and platform loading would be concentrated at the center and those passengers desiring to make transfers via the proposed underpass would conflict with access/egress from Dey Street.

Preferable to Proposal D in terms of the relationship between the fare control array and the vertical circulation to the 4/5 southbound platform. Proposal E provides a large area on the paid side of the array where passengers can choose to either go into the Transit Center or go up to the 4/5 platform. With Proposal D, this choice would have to be made directly at the base of the vertical circulation.

Provides adequate room for heavy transfer path (those transferring from the larger FSTC complex to the southbound 4/5 and those trying to enter from the Dey Street Concourse into the Transit Center).

Creating one wide underpass with separate paid and unpaid sections for transferring passengers from/to the southbound 4/5 and from/to the Dey Street Concourse respectively will increase construction complexity and risks relative to Proposal A. The significantly wider underpass will lengthen the expected duration of necessary service diversions to complete underpinning and tunneling operations. The Lexington Avenue Line is the only subway service to the east side of Manhattan, and is one of the most heavily used lines; a detailed constructibility review must be undertaken to ensure that this wider underpass can be constructed with intermittent nighttime and weekend service diversions only.


August 2004 Appendix C – Construction Method and Activities

PART III SAMPLE ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION OF NYCT LOWER MANHATTAN RECOVERY PROJECTS* * Not available prior to the publication of the May 2004 DEIS.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SAMPLE ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR

DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION OF NYCT LOWER MANHATTAN

RECOVERY PROJECTS

Page

1.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................... 1 1.1 General ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Construction Environmental Oversight Program (CEOP)............................................... 1 1.3 Sustainable Design .......................................................................................................... 2

2.0 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS – AIR QUALITY ..................................................................... 3 2.1 Scope of Work ................................................................................................................. 3 2.2 Sample Environmental Performance Specifications........................................................ 4 2.2.1 Diesel Emissions Controls ..................................................................................... 4 2.2.2 Construction Site Dust Control.............................................................................. 6 2.3 Quality Assurance............................................................................................................ 8 2.3.1 Products ................................................................................................................. 8 2.3.2 Materials ................................................................................................................ 8 2.4 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) ..................................................... 10

3.0 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS – RECYCLED MATERIALS .............................................. 12 3.1 Recycling Program ........................................................................................................ 12 3.1.1 During Construction ........................................................................................... 12 3.1.2 Execution – Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) ............................................. 14

4.0 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS – HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ........................................... 16

5.0 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS – CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM (CRMP)................................................................................................................... 17

6.0 NOISE AND VIBRATION ......................................................................................................... 18 6.1 Noise Control................................................................................................................. 18

7.0 CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION MATERIALS MANAGEMENT ......................... 20 7.1 General Requirements ................................................................................................... 20 7.2 Waste Management Plan ............................................................................................... 20 7.3 Waste Management Plan Implementation ..................................................................... 21

8.0 CONSTRUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN (CEPP) ...........Following 22

Sample Environmental Requirements for Design/Construction of NYCT Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects

1

1.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS

1.1 GENERAL

NYCT has conducted environmental impact analysis and prepared environmental documentation in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) for federally-funded transportation projects (Projects) in Lower Manhattan, in support of the revitalization of Lower Manhattan in response to the events of September 11.

The environmental impact analyses were conducted to assess potential impacts of these projects on human and natural environments. As part of the environmental analysis, commitments with respect to design and construction of these Projects were made to lessen impacts on the environment and the local community. These Environmental Performance Commitments (EPCs) have been formalized in an Environmental Analysis Framework agreed upon by the FTA, MTA, NYSDOT and PANYNJ for the Lower Manhattan Transportation Recovery Projects. The Contractors for NYCT’s recovery projects will be required to incorporate, to the fullest extent possible, all commitments, including but not limited to the EPCs, in the environmental documentation prepared and approved for these Projects into the design and construction of these Projects.

The Contractor is required to submit the following documents for approval by NYCT:

Environmental Remediation Plan;

Construction Environmental Protection Plan;

Cultural Resources Management Program; and,

Noise and Vibration Program.

In addition to the environmental requirements and procedures set forth in the document above, related work includes, but is not limited to:

SPDES Permit for Construction;

Archaeology;

Diesel Emission Control;

General Clauses (Noise control);

Waste Management Guidelines;

Green Design Requirements;

Maintenance and Protection of Traffic and Work Site;

Construction Dust Control; and,

Hazardous Materials.

1.2 CONSTRUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL OVERSIGHT

PROGRAM (CEOP)

As the first public agency in the United States to be certified as ISO 14001 compliant, NYCT intends to make its Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects a practical and effective demonstration of environmentally responsible 21st century rail transit facilities.

The contractors for these Projects are required to prepare a CEOP that reflects ISO 14001 considerations as well as regulatory, permit and good engineering practice considerations. The project contractors are required to implement the CEOP during any necessary field activities for which they are responsible.


2

The project contractors are required to develop a Construction Environmental Protection Plan (CEPP) as part of the program. The CEPP identifies the necessary engineering and scientific staff, methods, materials, practices and procedures to monitor construction conformance with all applicable environmental regulations, guidelines, permits and/or agreements, including environmental commitments specified in the environmental documentation for the Projects.

The CEPP includes a Monitoring Plan for all environmental commitments referenced in the project contract. The Monitoring Plan should include but not be limited to, monthly status reports, log of information requests/complaints and disposition, noise and vibration results and mitigations, if any.

1.3 SUSTAINABLE DESIGN

The design and construction of NYCT’s Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects is required to demonstrate responsible environmental behavior and create the benchmark for others to replicate, thus promoting “Green Construction”.

The Project Contractor is required to ensure that the design team uses Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) as a design guide and proceeds as if the project would qualify for a LEED rating if it were to seek certification.

The Contractor is also required to ensure that the design and construction team are well versed in sustainable design and construction practices. The contractor is required to arrange a workshop for his design and construction team to ensure best practices are well coordinated and integrated into the project design and construction. The Engineer approves the agenda for the workshop.

To address certain Environmental Performance Commitments (EPC’s) agreed to by Project Sponsors of the Lower Manhattan Transportation Recovery Projects, specifications with respect to air quality, dust, waste and green materials are required to be enforced. These and additional requirements are noted below. Additionally, the Contractor is required to make a concerted effort to demonstrate commitment to Air Quality by using at least one vehicle, preferably a truck, with zero emission.


3

2.0 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS –

AIR QUALITY

2.1 SCOPE OF WORK

To obtain acceptable Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) for the completed project and minimize the environmental impacts of the construction and operation, the Contractor during the construction phase of this Project shall implement the following procedures singly or in combination:

o Select products that minimize consumption of non-renewable resources due to their manufacture, packaging or transport, that consume reduced amounts of energy and minimize amounts of pollution produced, and employ recycled and/or recyclable materials;

o Maintain indoor air quality by careful placement of exhaust and air intakes in relative positions that prevent cross contamination, the use of low VOC adhesive, paint, sealant and caulk, and construction period installation sequencing. No use of asbestos or asbestos containing materials will be allowed;

o Conserve water during construction; o Recycle during the construction period and minimize waste; o Protect other environmental factors, such as the Ozone Layer, through the avoidance of

CFC’s as blowing agents for insulation. Protection of Endangered Ecosystems and support of sustainable forestry practices by avoiding consumptive use of endangered rain forest species and obtaining products from certified sustainable sources;

o Maintain a materials logbook and obtain verification that materials used have been reviewed for environmental considerations; and,

o Control sources of potential IAQ pollutants by controlled selection of materials and processes used in project construction in order to attain acceptable IAQ.

Products and processes that achieve the above objectives to the extent currently possible and practical shall be selected and utilized, provided that they meet or exceed the product and/or process specifications called for in all divisions of the specifications. The Contractor is responsible for maintaining and supporting these objectives in developing means and methods for performing the work of this Contract and in proposing product substitutions and/or changes to specified processes.

Require Diesel Vehicle and Construction Equipment Emission Control using ultra low sulfur diesel fuel and retrofit technology.

An effort to reduce pollution by use of non-internal combustion engines for power is highly encouraged – for example use of grid or other non-internal combustion engine power source for electric driven air compressors.

Control dust at construction site with: o Non-hazardous biodegradable dust suppressing agent; o Erection of site barriers; o Enforcement of strict containment guidelines; o Proactive monitoring; and, o Identify and include dust suppression measures to be adopted during deconstruction and

construction.


4

2.2 SAMPLE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS

2.2.1 Diesel Emissions Controls FOR “NON ROAD” EQUIPMENT ONLY:

All Contractor and Sub-contractor diesel powered non-road construction equipment with engine horsepower (HP) ratings of 50 HP and above that are on the Project or are assigned to the Contract shall have:

• Tier 2 compliant engines or better retrofitted with Diesel Particulate Filter and use Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel (maximum 15 parts per million of sulfur).

• In the event that Contractor is unable to use Diesel Particulate Filter technology, Contractor shall

request approval of the Engineer to use an alternative retrofit technology. These requirements shall apply to:

• All Non-Road Diesel engines / equipment; • Diesel Engines 50 Horse Power and above; • Stationary and Mobile equipment; and, • Owned, Leased and Rented Equipment.

The retrofit technology / retrofit emission control device shall be:

• Included on the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Verified Retrofit Technology List or certified by the US EPA to achieve emission reduction of 70%-99% Hydro Carbon (HC), 70%-99% Carbon Monoxide (CO), 85%-99% Particulate Matter (PM)

The Contractor shall submit to the Engineer before commencing construction work, a list of non-road diesel powered construction equipment that has been retrofitted. The list shall include:

• Contractor / sub contractor name / address / contact person; • Equipment data plate info, type, model, serial number; • Engine data plate info, engine serial number, make, model, year of manufacture; • Retrofit type, make, model, manufacturer, EPA verification number, installation date; • Certification in original from the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) that engine is Tier 2

compliant; • Certification in original that equipment is fitted with Diesel Particulate Filter; and, • Test results on exhaust gas emission at idle, 50%load and 100% load. Include test (s) performed

and diesel fuel used.


5

The Contractor shall submit a bi-weekly report to the Engineer. This report shall be in two parts:

An update of the initial list of non-road diesel equipment showing addition and deletion of diesel equipment.

Engine hour meter reading

Certified copies of fuel deliveries for the report time period identifying: o Source of supply; o Quantity of fuel; and, o Quality of fuel.

Information storage, retrieval and automated report generation:

The contractor shall create a protected web site, post all of the above information in real time, and design report generation.

Equipment shall prominently display a message of ‘Clean Exhaust’ such as, this machine is equipped with an air pollution control device and uses Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel fuel.

Non-compliant equipment shall be removed immediately from the site.

FOR “NON ROAD” AND “ON ROAD” EQUIPMENT:

All motor vehicles and construction equipment (both on-highway and non-road) shall comply with all pertinent State and Federal regulations relative to exhaust emission controls and safety.

The Contractor shall establish truck-staging zones for vehicles waiting to load or unload material at the Work Site. Such zones shall be located where diesel emissions have the least impact on abutters and the general public.

Idling time shall be limited to three consecutive minutes for delivery and dump trucks and all other diesel powered equipment except as follows:

When a “mobile source” is forced to remain motionless because of traffic conditions or mechanical difficulties over which the operator has no control;

When it is necessary to operate heating, cooling or auxiliary equipment installed on the “mobile source” when such equipment is necessary to accomplish the intended use of the “mobile source”;

To bring the “mobile source” to the manufacturer’s recommended operating temperature;

When the outdoor temperature is below twenty (20) degrees Fahrenheit; or,

When the “mobile source” is being repaired.

The Contractor shall ensure that diesel emissions do not cause harmful effects to adjacent sensitive receptors. Sensitive receptors include but are not limited to hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, elderly housing and convalescent facilities.

The Contractor shall ensure that diesel powered engines are located away from fresh air intakes, air conditioners, and windows.

A Diesel Emission Mitigation plan is required when work will be performed in close proximity (less than 50 feet) to sensitive receptors. No construction shall proceed until a Diesel Emission Mitigation plan is submitted in writing to the Engineer and is accepted by the Engineer. The mitigation plan shall address control of diesel emissions from all diesel-powered equipment including equipment not retrofitted.


6

2.2.2 Construction Site Dust Control

GENERAL

This specification covers requirements for controlling dust generated during the period of this contract. It supplements requirements associated with excavation.

The Contractor is responsible for control of dust at all times during Contract, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, including nonworking hours, weekends, and holidays.

REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

Work of this contract shall be conducted in a manner that will not result in excessive particulate matter emissions, nuisance dust conditions, or PM10 concentrations exceeding the National Air Quality Standard of 150 micrograms per cubic meter of air (µg/m3) on a 24-hour average basis.

SUBMITTALS

Submit product literature and Material Safety Data Sheets for dust suppression wetting agents and stabilizers.

Submit a dust control plan that outlines in detail sources of dust and the measures to be implemented by the Contractor to comply with this section, including suppression, windscreens and barriers, prevention, cleanup, and other measures. Measurement and verification process shall be clearly stated.

Submit photographs of dust control mitigation measures.

MATERIALS

Dust suppression wetting agents shall be water soluble, non-toxic, non-reactive, non-volatile, and non-foaming.

Windscreens shall be a durable fabric mesh of 50 percent porosity, attached to a construction fence.

Wind barriers shall be solid wood fences, solid durable fabric attached to a construction fence, or other solid barriers intended to block the passage of wind.

Covers for stockpiles shall be plastic tarps or other material covering. Contaminated soil covers are not permitted.

Wet suppression shall be used to provide temporary control of dust. Several applications per day may be necessary to control dust depending upon meteorological conditions and work activity. The Contractor shall apply wet suppression on a routine basis as necessary or directed by the Engineer to control dust.

Wet suppression consists of the application of water or a wetting agent in solution with water. Ensure wetting agent is not used on plantable soils.

Wet suppression equipment shall consist of sprinkler pipelines, tanks, tank trucks, or other devices capable of providing regulated flow, uniform spray, and positive shut-off.

Storm / sewer basins must be protected.


7

Provide windscreens and wind barriers in locations where they would be effective in minimizing wind erosion and spread of dust. The Contractor shall keep windscreens and barriers in good repair for the life of the Contract.

The use of petroleum products for dust suppression is not permitted.

PUBLIC ROADWAY DUST CONTROL

Vehicles leaving the construction site shall have no mud and dirt on the vehicle body or wheels.

Haul truck cargo areas shall be securely covered during material transport on public roadways.

Vehicle mud and dirt carryout, material spills, and soil washout onto public roadways and walkways and other paved areas shall be cleaned up immediately.

All public roadways and walkways affected by work of this contract shall be cleaned up daily. A wet spray street sweeper shall be used on paved roadways. Dry powder sweeping is prohibited.

CONTROL OF EARTHWORK DUST

During batch drop operations (i.e., earthwork with front-end loader, clamshell bucket, or backhoe) the free drop height of excavated or aggregate material shall be reduced as practical to minimize the generation of dust.

To prevent spills during transport, freeboard space shall be maintained between the material load and the top of the truck cargo bed rail.

CONTROL OF STOCKPILE DUST

Use the following methods to control dust and wind erosion of active and inactive stockpiles:

Wet suppression without wetting agent during active stockpile load-in, load-out, and maintenance activities. Salty and brackish water shall not be used on soils to be planted;

Soil stabilizers applied to the surface of inactive stockpiles; and,

Plastic tarps on stockpiles, secured with sandbags or an equivalent method to prevent the cover from being dislodged by the wind. Repair or replace covers whenever damaged or dislodged.

DEMOLITION DUST CONTROL MEASURES

Closed chutes shall be used for the handling of debris. Dropping or throwing of debris is prohibited.

Debris shall not be stockpiled. Debris shall be removed promptly from the site.

During transport of debris, the truck cargo area shall be securely covered.

Removal of asbestos-containing or hazardous material is not covered in this section and shall be in accordance with provisions stated in Division 12 of the specifications.

EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN

Contractor shall submit a Soil Erosion Sediment Control Plan that includes, among other things:

Spraying of a suppressing agent on dust pile (non-hazardous, biodegradable);

Containment of fugitive dust; and,


8

Adjustment for meteorological conditions as appropriate.

Conform to a site sediment and erosion control plan that conforms to best management practices in the EPA’s Storm Water Management for Construction Activities, EPA Document No. EPA-832-R-92-005, Chapter 3.

The following documents shall be submitted by the controller for approval by NYCT:

Product Literature;

Dust Control Plan;

Photographs; and,

Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.

2.3 QUALITY ASSURANCE

Perform the work of this Section as a supplement and in accordance with applicable requirements of the Contractor Quality Control Program.

2.3.1 Products

2.3.2 Materials

The following special IAQ and environmental impact requirements apply to materials specified in their respective technical specification sections, including definitions of low VOC content and recycled content. If a specific material type is not used, the requirement for that material does not apply.

SITEWORK

Site Clearing: Stockpile and reuse, unless otherwise specified, non-contaminated, non-hazardous on-site excavated soil. Use off-site borrows when on-site sources are exhausted. This will only be allowed when off-site material meets criteria specified in Division 2 as well as when off-site material is deemed not contaminated or hazardous.

Prevent loss of soil during construction by storm water run off and / or wind erosion including protecting excavated soil for reuse.

Prevent sedimentation of storm sewer or receiving streams and / or air pollution with dust and particulate matter.

Minimize site disturbance including earthwork and clearing of vegetation.

PAVING

Aggregate Base Course (ABC) for on-site paved areas shall maximize use of recycled ABC;

Asphaltic Concrete Paving shall maximize use of recycled asphalt paving; and,

Portland Cement Concrete Paving:

Fly-ash and/or other recycled content

Fly-ash:

Concrete shall contain a minimum of 15% and maximum of 25% fly-ash by weight of total cement. The use of fly-ash in concrete must meet product specifications, as available, listed in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Comprehensive Procurement Guideline for Procurement of Products Containing Recovered Materials. 65 Fed. Reg. 3,070 (final, January 19, 2000 (codified at 40 CFR 247.1). (“EPA


9

CPG”)Specifications available at www.epa.gov/cpg. Fly-ash cannot be obtained from facilities where hazardous waste materials are included in the fuel mix used to create the ash.

Other recycled content additives:

Use a minimum of 10 percent by weight recycled materials content in aggregate (such as recycled glass or recycled expanded polystyrene beads) or as fiber reinforcement (such as recycled carpet fibers) in concrete. Document the quantity of recycled content used.

Non-hazardous bond breakers, curing compounds, form release agents

All bond breakers, curing compounds and form release agents must be composed of non-petroleum based, non-hazardous (i.e., without chlorinated solvents or heavy metals) ingredients.

Formwork

Formwork made from expanded polystyrene shall be manufactured without the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) or hydro chlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs).

Landscaping

All wood fiber or cellulose hydro mulch shall be 100% recovered content; and,

All herbicides must be EPA approved and applied per manufacturer's instructions. NYCT must approve all herbicide use.

Concrete

Cast-in-Place Concrete shall:

Include flyash or blast furnace slag in the mixture at 15% minimum to 25% maximum by weight of total cement;

Maximize recycled scrap steel content in reinforcing bars;

Use low VOC content form release agents; and,

Use low VOC content liquid membrane-forming curing and sealing compound.

Structural Precast Concrete shall:

Include flyash or blast furnace slag in the mixture at 15% minimum to 25% maximum by weight of total cement;

Maximize recycled scrap steel content in reinforcing bars; and,

Use low VOC content form release agents.

Architectural Precast Concrete:

Maximize recycled scrap steel content in reinforcing bars; and,

Use low VOC content form release agents.

Concrete unit Masonry:

Concrete Unit Masonry shall maximize the use of recycled materials; and,

Reinforcing bars shall maximize the use of recycled steel.


10

Metals

Structural Steel: Framing steel shall maximize the use of recycled steel.

Thermal and Moisture Protection

Joint Sealant

Interior sealant shall not contain mercury, butyl rubber, neoprene, SBR (styrene butadiene rubber), or nitrile;

Silicone sealant shall be low VOC content;

Polyurethane sealant containing mercury shall not be used;

Compressible foam joint fillers, polyester polyurethane foam impregnated with neoprene rubber or acrylic ester styrene copolymer used in this facility shall not be manufactured with CFC blowing agents; and,

Sealant formulated with aromatic solvents (organic solvent with a benzene ring in its molecular structure) fibrous talc or asbestos, formaldehyde, halogenated solvents, mercury, lead, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, or their components shall not be used.

2.4 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

The Clean Air Act, which was last amended in 1990, requires EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. The Clean Air Act established two types of national air quality standards. Primary standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of "sensitive" populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against decreased visibility, damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings.

The EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) has set National Ambient Air Quality Standards for six principal pollutants, which are called "criteria" pollutants. They are listed below. Units of measure for the standards are parts per million (ppm) by volume, milligrams per cubic meter of air (mg/m3), and micrograms per cubic meter of air (µg/m3).


11

Table 2-1

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant Standard Value Standard Type

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

Eight (8)-Hour Average 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) Primary

One (1)-Hour Average 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) Primary

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.053 ppm (100 µg/m3) Primary & Secondary

Ozone (O3)

Eight (8)-Hour Average 0.12 ppm (235 µg/m3) Primary & Secondary

One (1)-Hour Average 0.08 ppm (157 µg/m3) Primary & Secondary

Lead (Pb)

Quarterly Average 1.57 µg/m3 Primary & Secondary

Particulate Matter (PM10) – Particles with Diameters of 10 microns or less

Annual Arithmetic Mean 50 µg/m3 Primary & Secondary

24-Hour Average 150 µg/m3 Primary & Secondary

Particulate Matter (PM2.5) – Particles with Diameters of 2.5 microns or less

Annual Arithmetic Mean 15 µg/m3 Primary & Secondary

24-Hour Average 65 µg/m3 Primary & Secondary

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.03 µg/m3 (80 µg/m

3) Primary

24-Hour Average 0.14 µg/m3 (365 µg/m

3) Primary

Three (3)-Hour Average 0.50 µg/m3 (1300 µg/m

3) Secondary

Note: * Parenthetical value is an approximately equivalent concentration.


12

3.0 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS -

RECYCLED MATERIALS

Under Section 6002 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the EPA has set guidelines for Federal, State and local procuring agencies, using appropriated Federal funds, to purchase items composed of the highest percentage of recovered materials practicable. The EPA requires that it’s facilities follow the guidelines of the Comprehensive Guidelines for Procurement of Products containing Recovered Materials, Final Rule 40 CFR 247, Federal Register, Monday, May 1, 1995; Recovered Materials Advisory Notice (SWH-FRL-5198-8) Federal Register Monday, May 1, 1995; Comprehensive Procurement Guide II, 62 Federal Register 60961, November 13, 1997; and Recovered Materials Advisory Notice II, 62 Federal Register 60976, November 13, 1997. Provide documentation if CPG products are used. The following exceptions are allowed: (1) When the cost is unreasonable; (2) Inadequate competition exists; (3) Items are not available within a reasonable period of time or; (4) Items do not meet the solicitation performance standards.

3.1 RECYCLING PROGRAM

3.1.1 During Construction

The Contractor shall submit a Construction Period Recycling plan that outlines the materials chosen to be recycled on or off site. Within 30 days after Award the Contractor shall submit this outline proposal with a complete Construction Period Recycling plan that lists materials to be recycled on or off site, the methods employed to recycle those materials, identify the off-site receiver of those materials and detail the ultimate use of those materials by the receiver. A listing of low VOC content levels for various materials is presented in Table 3-1. A listing of materials and their minimum recommended amount of recycled content is presented in Table 3-2


13

Table 3-1

Definition of Low VOC Content Levels

Material or Product Low VOC Content Level

Form Release Agents 350 g/L VOC content

Plastic Laminate Adhesive 20 g/L VOC content

Casework and Millwork Adhesives 20 g/L VOC content

Transparent Wood Finish Systems 350 g/L VOC content

Cast Resin Countertop silicone Sealant 20 g/L VOC content

Garage Deck Sealer 600 g/L VOC content

Water based Joint Sealants 50 g/L VOC content

Non-water based Joint Sealants 350 g/L VOC content

Portland Cement Plaster 20 g/L VOC content

Gypsum Drywall Joint Compound 20 g/L VOC content

Terrazzo Sealer 250 g/L VOC content

Acoustic Panel Ceiling Finish 50 g/L VOC content

Resilient Tile Flooring Adhesive 100 g/L VOC content

Vinyl Flooring Adhesives 100 g/L VOC content

Carpet Adhesive 50 g/L VOC content

Carpet Seam Sealer 50 g/L VOC content

Water-based Paint & Polychromatic finish coatings 150 g/L VOC content

Solvent -based Paint 380 g/L VOC content

High Performance Water-Based Acrylic coatings 250 g/L VOC content

Pigmented Acrylic Sealers 250 g/L VOC content

Catalyzed Epoxy coatings 250 g/L VOC content

High Performance Silicone 250 g/L VOC content

Casework Sealant 50 g/L VOC content

Liquid membrane-forming curing & sealing compound 350 g/L VOC content


14

Table 3-2

Required Minimum Recycled Content of Materials

Material or Product Recommended Recycle Content

Asphaltic Concrete Paving 25% by weight3

Reinforcing Steel in Concrete 60% recycled scrap steel1

Reinforcing Bars in Precast Concrete 60% recycled steel1

Concrete Unit Masonry 50% recycled content

Reinforcing Bars in Concrete Unit Masonry 60% recycled steel1

Framing steel 30% recycled steel1

Fiberglass batt insulation 20% recycled glass cullet2

Fiberglass board insulation 20% recycled glass cullet2

Mineral wool insulation 75% recycled material (slag)2

Mineral wool fire safing insulation 75% recycled material by weight (slag)2

Gypsum board 10% recycled or synthetic gypsum

Facing paper of Gypsum Board 100% recycled newsprint including post consumer waste2

Mineral Fiber Sound Attenuation Blankets 75% recovered material by weight (slag)2

Steel studs, runners, and channels 60% recycled steel1

Acoustic Panel Ceilings 60% recycled material by weight

Ceiling Suspension Systems 60% recycled material1

Rubber floor tiles 90-100% recycled materials2

Hydromulch 100% recovered materials2

Structural fiberboard 80-100% recycled content2

Notes:1. 60% represents the average recycled content for the U. S. steel industry. Use of U. S. manufactured steel

will meet this requirement. 2. As per EPA Comprehensive Guideline for Procurement of Products Containing Recovered Materials (60

FR 21370, effective May 1, 1996). 3. As per North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) recommendation.

3.1.2 Execution – Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS)

GENERAL

Submit to the Engineer for review and approval product data such as MSDS and environmental impact data prior to ordering project materials.

Prepare and maintain a Materials Log, providing information on content of materials, where specific materials are to be used, MSDS, and environmental specifications of the material. Maintain the logbook weekly as materials are ordered and submit a bound copy to the Engineer and Sustainability Division on a quarterly basis.

Maintain a notebook with sectional dividers for each material specification. Each divider shall be labeled with the specification section number and shall record the VOC content as specified in Table 2.1, the recycled content as specified in Table 2.2, and other environmental specifications of the material. The section will also include the Manufacturer's Safety Data Sheet (MSDS), product label and manufacturer's data verifying conformance with the environmental specifications, and shall identify by quantity (weight & volume) of where the product is used. This notebook shall be maintained weekly as materials are ordered, shall be accessible to the Engineer at all times, and submitted to the Engineer in bound form for review on a quarterly basis.


15

Provide a spreadsheet of all materials used on the project highlighting recycled content materials. Include the percentage of post-consumer and post-industrial recycled content for all recycled content materials and the cost of all materials for the Project.

Provide a spreadsheet of all materials used on the Project highlighting locally manufactured materials. Include the location of material manufacturer, the distance from the manufacturer to the Project Site.

FIELD QUALITY CONTROL

The Contractor is responsible for verifying and documenting compliance of actual materials with specifications and requirements of this Section, and is required to submit the following documents for approval:

Materials Log;

Spreadsheet;

Compliance Report; and,

Construction Recycling Plan.


16


HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

The project contractors are required to perform necessary hazardous materials investigations and assessments necessary to supplement any investigations conducted by NYCT, to define all hazardous materials conditions that may affect construction of the Project. The project contractors are required to:

Review the Hazardous Waste Screening Study (furnished upon request) conducted by NYCT and perform any necessary supplementary literature and other investigations to identify and document potential hazardous materials situations affecting the Project.

Review all environmental investigations/assessments conducted by NYCT and perform any necessary additional work to evaluate the right-of-way for non-takings along the public way, including soil and groundwater testing, where construction is planned.

Develop and implement an environmental remediation plan for contaminated/hazardous soil, groundwater and other materials specified in a Project’s contract, except as otherwise noted.

Provide all services, equipment, materials and labor to perform: o environmental sampling in soil, groundwater, soil gas and other materials; o sample transport, storage, and disposal; o sample analysis by certified laboratories; o data validation; o surveying; o sample archiving; o quality assurance of all related efforts; and, o data reporting and analysis.


17


CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM (CRMP)

Contractors for NYCT’s Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects are required to:

Review the existing Historic Survey Reports in connection with the Section 106 review process of the Project;

Implement a CRMP, written by an individual retained by the Contractor meeting the The Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications (36 CFR 61), that identifies the necessary engineering and scientific methods, practices, procedures and resources essential to be employed throughout the design and construction to ensure conformance with the applicable requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act, New York State Historic Preservation Commission, and New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission. The CRMP shall incorporate, at a minimum, an Archaeological Resources Management Plan (ARMP) (if applicable) and the Programmatic Agreement with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and FTA; and,

The Contractor shall coordinate such work with NYCT’s Cultural Resources Manager, as directed by the NYCT Engineer.


18

6.0 NOISE AND VIBRATION

6.1 NOISE CONTROL

Comply with all the requirements of the New York City Noise Control Code and all its regulations. The Contractor's attention is specifically called to Section 24-216, Noise abatement contract compliance, of Title 24 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York which requires:

“Devices and activities which will be operated, conducted, constructed or manufactured pursuant to this Contract and which are subject to the provisions of the New York City Noise Control Code shall be operated, conducted, constructed or manufactured without causing a violation of the code.

“Such devices and activities shall incorporate advances in the art of noise control developed for the kind and level of noise emitted or produced by such devices and activities, in accordance with regulations issued by the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection. Regulations promulgated pursuant to Section 24-216 after the opening of bids for this Contract shall not alter its terms, conditions and specifications.”

Conduct all work in compliance with the regulations set forth below controlling maximum noise levels due to construction work. At the site of the Project special precautions and noise abatement measures shall be taken by the Contractor to reduce public exposure to noise.

The project contractors are required to develop a noise and vibration program that will evaluate Project impacts during construction. In support of the program, the project contractors shall at a minimum:

Review and supplement as necessary, the baseline ambient noise assessment (available in the environmental documentation) conducted by NYCT and conduct a baseline vibration levels assessment in the Project area.

Review and supplement as necessary, the survey of local noise-sensitive areas including all buildings and public areas in a Project’s vicinity conducted by NYCT, to determine susceptibility to construction-generated noise.

Assess noise and vibration impacts anticipated during construction.

Establish a plan to mitigate noise and vibration impacts during construction.

The program shall be consistent with all applicable Federal, State and New York City codes, regulations and ordinances including strict adherence to environmental guidelines and Environmental Performance Commitments established for Lower Manhattan construction. Specific criteria for the development of the program shall be in direct conformance with the Noise and Vibration and Specifications.

The consultant shall implement mitigation measures that shall include but not be limited to: o Sequence and schedule construction activities – avoid concurrent utilization of heavy

equipment; o Locate and/or enclose soundproofing construction machinery or activities with acoustic

barriers to reduce noise levels to the maximum amount practicable; o Prepare contingency measures in case established limits are exceeded; o Provide for proactive monitoring; and, o Use sound attenuated equipment.

Measure sound levels for public exposure to noise due to construction at the closest point adjacent to the site of the Project in normal use by the public while construction work is in progress. Noise levels shall not exceed 90 DBA.


19

Measure additional sound levels for noise due to construction at the street line of the structure adjacent to and along the area of the Contractor's operations and plant. Sound levels measured at the street line shall not exceed the following:

RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES: o Daily, except Saturday and Sunday, 7:00A.M. to 11:00P.M.: 75 dBA; and, o At all other times: 60 dBA.

BUSINESS-COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES: o Daily, including Saturday and Sunday, all hours, a maximum of 85 dBA, unless

otherwise permitted by the Engineer; and, o The existing Authority facility is considered a Business-Commercial structure.

FACTORY-COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES: o Daily, including Saturday and Sunday, all hours, a maximum of 90 dBA. o The Sound levels given above are measured on the A scale of a general purpose

integrating sound level meter conforming to ANSI S1.4 for Type 2 meters at slow response. All levels are hourly Leq.

Provide equipment and sound-deadening devices and take such noise abatement measures necessary to comply with the requirements of this Contract, consisting of, for example, the following:

Shields or other physical barriers to restrict the transmission of noise;

Sound proof housings or enclosures for noise producing machinery;

Use of electrically operated hoists and compressor plants, unless otherwise permitted by the Engineer;

Silencers on air intakes of equipment;

Maximum sized intake and exhaust mufflers on internal combustion engines;

Gears on machinery designed to reduce noise to a minimum;

Line hoppers and storage bins with sound deadening material;

The prohibition of the use of air or gasoline driven saws, unless otherwise permitted by the Engineer;

Conducting the operation of dumping rock or other materials and carrying it away in trucks so that noise is kept to a minimum; and,

Routing of construction equipment and vehicles carrying rock, concrete or other materials over streets that will cause the least disturbance to residents in the vicinity of the work.

See Special Conditions.


20

7.0 CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION MATERIALS

MANAGEMENT

7.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

The Contractor shall use resources and energy efficiently in the completion of the Project. Resource efficient aspects to be considered in completing this Project include use of techniques for recycling of waste generated during the Demolition / Construction process. Requirements for removal of hazardous materials are covered under Division 12.

7.2 WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Within 30 days after the date of the Notice of Award, the Contractor shall furnish the Waste Management Plan by which he proposes to implement the requirements of this Section for acceptance by the Engineer.

The Contractor shall be responsible for implementation of the Waste Management Plan.

Prepare and submit a waste management/deconstruction plan, identify deconstruct sequence and estimate waste management potential in terms of recyclable quantity of materials such as concrete, bricks, steel, wood, glass, and any other material. Identify materials that can be reused.

Use “green building” materials that are made from recycled or renewable resources, are themselves recyclable, and that have been manufactured in a manner that is least damaging to the environment.

o Use recycled content and environmentally preferable construction materials consistent with EPA procurement guidelines.

o Select materials that have low energy consumption both in the production and in transportation to the site.

o Select materials that do not off gas IAQ contaminants and chemicals. o Select materials based on product life cycle energy use and cost.

The Waste Management Plan shall contain the following:

Analysis of the proposed job site waste to be generated, including types, quantities and source.

Land Fill Options. o The name of the landfill where trash will be disposed of; and, o Alternatives to land filling.

Salvageable Materials: The following need to be included in this plan. o A list of the waste materials from the Project that will be salvaged for reuse or recycling; o List all materials to be salvaged for reuse; o Identify licensed haulers of recyclable materials; o List those materials that will be recycled for example, cardboard, metals, concrete,

asphalt, land clearing debris, wood, plastic, glass, gypsum board, etc; and, o Identify manufacturers and reclaimers who recover construction/demolition scrap of their

products for recycling. List materials that are economically feasible for reclamation and any special handling requirements for each material.

Meetings: As part of the job progress meetings, the implementation of the Waste Management Plan will be discussed.

Materials Handling Procedure: A description of the means by which any waste materials identified in the Waste Management Plan, other than hazardous material which is covered under Division 12, will be protected from contamination.


21

Transportation: A description of the means of transportation of the recyclable materials, for example, whether materials will be site separated and self hauled to designated center or whether mixed materials will be collected by waste hauler and removed from the site, and destination of materials.

7.3 WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

The Contractor is responsible for instructing workers and overseeing and documenting results of the Waste Management Plan for the Project. The Contractor shall provide on-site instruction for covering appropriate separation, handling and recycling, salvage, reuse and return methods to be used by all parties at the appropriate stages of the Project. In accordance with Section 1J, the Contractor shall provide documents from licensed haulers, manufacturers and reclaimers as proof of the proper implementation of the Waste Management Plan.

The Contractor shall designate a specific area to facilitate separation of materials for potential salvage, recycling and waste. Recycling and waste bin areas are to be kept neat and clean and clearly marked in order to avoid contamination of materials.

Hazardous wastes shall be disposed of according to provision of Division 12.

The Contractor shall submit a monthly report with a rolling summary in electronic form and paper copy, and prior to Substantial Completion, a final report based on the implementation of Waste Management Plan. Data shall be submitted in both the British (FPS) and Metric (MKS) system. Photographs in support of the plan implementation shall be submitted.

Table 7-1

Submittal Approvals

Item

No.

Paragraph

No.Submittal Approval By

1 1.2 Waste Management Plan Engineer

2 1.3 Monthly Report & Rolling Summary in electronic & paper Engineer

3 1.3 Photographs Engineer

4 1.3 Final report Engineer


22

8.0 CONSTRUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION PLAN (CEPP)

Please refer to the CEPP plan which is attached immediately following this section.


CM-1252 Fulton Street

Transit Center

ConstructionEnvironmental Protection Plan

DRAFT 1


CM-1252 Fulton Street Transit Center

Construction Environmental Protection Plan

June 2004

Ove Arup & Partners Consulting Engineers PC

155 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10013 Tel +1 212 229-2669 Fax +1 212 352-1354

www.arup.com

Job number

C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\JMONTES\MY DOCUMENTS\HERB\DRAFT CEPP JULY 2004.DOC

Ove Arup & Partners Consulting Engineers PCDraft 1 June 22, 2004

Document Verification

Page 1 of 1

Job number Job title CM-1252 Fulton Street Transit Center

File reference Document title Construction Environmental Protection Plan

Document ref

Revision Date Filename 02-01-05-0005-#A- Construction Environmental Protection Plan.doc

Description First draft

Prepared by Checked by Approved by

Name Samantha Plourde Craig Covil Jonathan Drescher

Draft 1 06/22/04

Signature

Filename

Description


Name

Signature

Filename

Description


Name

Signature

Filename

Description


Name

Signature

Issue Document Verification with Document

MTA - New York City Transit CM-1252 Fulton Street Transit CenterConstruction Environmental Protection Plan



CONTENTS

Page

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. PROJECT INFORMATION 1

3. RESPONSIBILITIES 1

3.1 Program Management Team 1

4. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONTROLS 1

4.1 Environmental Compliance Process 1

4.2 Compliance Matrix and Reports 1

4.3 Environmental Specifications and Construction Planning 1

4.4 Environmental Inspections (Contractors) 1

4.5 Environmental QA Inspections (Contract Managers) 1

4.6 Environmental Compliance Inspections 1

4.7 Environmental Compliance Tracking, Reporting and Meetings 1

4.8 Emergency and Compliant Response 1

4.9 Construction Contractor Training Program (Environmental Awareness Training) 2

5. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS AND MITIGATION METHODS 2

5.1 Community Relations 2

5.2 Historic Resources 2

5.3 Archaeological Resources 2

5.4 Noise Control 2

5.5 Vibration Control 2

5.6 Traffic Management 2

5.7 Contaminated Materials 3

5.8 Settlement 4

5.9 Sediment/Erosion Control and Water Quality 4

5.10 Soil Reuse and Tracking 4

5.11 Remedial Action Work Plans 4

5.12 Waste Management 5

5.13 Dust Control 5

5.14 Housekeeping and Site Sanitation 6

5.15 Vector Control 6

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Preliminary Engineering - Environmental Commitments Matrix

APPENDIX B

Permits Matrix

APPENDIX C

Environmental Compliance Checklist




APPENDIX D

Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan

APPENDIX E

Spill Prevention, Control, and Containment Plan

APPENDIX F

Environmental Awareness Training Program



Page 1 Ove Arup & Partners Consulting Engineers PCDraft 1 June 22, 2004

1. INTRODUCTION

2. PROJECT INFORMATION

3. RESPONSIBILITIES

3.1 Program Management Team

3.1.1 Design Managers or the Design/Build Contractor

3.1.2 Construction Manager Consultant (CMC)

3.1.3 Resident Engineers (RE)

3.1.4 CMC Environmental Group

3.1.5 General Engineering Contract (GEC)

3.1.6 Contractors

3.1.7 Construction Traffic Engineer

4. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONTROLS

4.1 Environmental Compliance Process

4.2 Compliance Matrix and Reports

4.3 Environmental Specifications and Construction Planning

4.4 Environmental Inspections (Contractors)

4.5 Environmental QA Inspections (Contract Managers)

4.6 Environmental Compliance Inspections

4.7 Environmental Compliance Tracking, Reporting and Meetings

4.8 Emergency and Compliant Response

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulation 29 CFR 1910.120(a)(3) defines emergency response as any “response effort by employees from outside the immediate release area or by other designated responders (i.e., mutual-aid groups, local fire departments, etc.) to an occurrence that results, or is likely to result, in an uncontrolled release of a hazardous substance.”




The FSTC Design Team, in compliance with OSHA 29 CFR 1910.120 and 1926.65, will establish the procedures that will be followed by the CCM and the Contractors in a project specific Emergency Response Plan (EAP). The role of the CCM will typically be limited to public protection, site evacuation, notification of emergency response personnel, notification of responsible officials, and limited medical/first aid, as may be necessary and appropriate. A summary of anticipated hazards and hazard prevention is provided in the project Health and Safety Plan (HASP).

The CCM personnel who have been assigned authority to implement and enforce the specific provisions of the EAP are defined in the Emergency Contact Information attached in Appendix ____. The primary contact at NYCT for reporting an emergency is Emil F. Dul, P.E., Principal Engineer (646 252-2405).

All inquiries by media representatives and/or the public will be directed to Adrienne Taub at (718) 694-5125, who is the designated NYCT representative. Other than as necessary to effect evacuation or secure the site of a release, CCM and FSTC Project Team employees will NOT communicate with the media or the public, unless authorized by NYCT.

4.9 Construction Contractor Training Program (Environmental Awareness

Training)

5. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS AND MITIGATION METHODS

5.1 Community Relations

5.2 Historic Resources

5.3 Archaeological Resources

5.4 Noise Control

5.5 Vibration Control

5.6 Traffic Management

Traffic Management for the project includes public roadways and sidewalks and the maintenance of access to residences, businesses and public services throughout the Study Area. A cooperative of transportation agencies will review and monitor a comprehensive traffic mitigation plan that will address all impacts during construction. The cooperative will comprise of such agencies as Metropolitan Transportation Authority, NYCT, New York City Department of Transportation, NYPD, FDNY and New York State Department of Transportation, and the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey. Traffic delays and reductions in roadway capacity are anticipated during aspects of the construction of the subway. Vehicular, pedestrian and surface transit traffic will be impacted at a number of locations; however, such impacts will be minimized through the development of Maintenance of Traffic Plans.




Maintenance and Protection of Traffic concepts will be prepared to provide specific guidance on traffic management for various portions of the construction zones and construction staging. The concepts will be developed as the basis for the development of specific Maintenance and Protection of Traffic (MPT) Plans for individual contract packages. The MPT plans will be coordinated all Lower Manhattan projects and will be modified to coordinate with other project street and sidewalk closures.

The types of mitigation measures to be implemented by the construction contractors will be based upon the FEIS as well as the approved MPT plan, on a site-specific basis and will include:

Advance public notice to motorists of the nature, extent, and duration of lane closings and detours.

Detour signage placed in strategic locations, and use of appropriate warning signs.

Construction during off-peak hours whenever feasible.

Efforts to minimize disruption of access to residences and businesses; maintenance of at least one entrance to a property where multiple entrances exist.

Coordination with other projects in the area that have potential to impact roadways and create cumulative effects.

A parking policy for construction workers that will help minimize impacts to residences and businesses. Encourage contractors, inspectors and other personnel to use mass transit and dissuade the use of private vehicles in Lower Manhattan.

Installation of signage and barriers for protecting and guiding pedestrians.

Relocation of bus stops at construction sites to minimize the impacts on surface transit passengers.

Removal of curbside parking where necessary at construction zones to provide maximum road width for traffic lanes. Loading and unloading areas would be relocated to minimize the impact on businesses in the areas.

5.7 Contaminated Materials

5.7.1 Control of Groundwater (Allowable Drawdown)

Drawdown limits will be established in final design by the FSTC Design Team consistent with EIS commitments, site-specific subsurface conditions, and anticipated construction procedures. Final design submittals will be reviewed for consistency by the FSTC Design Team geotechnical department with geotechnical reports.

For the CatEx and other Design Bid Build (DBB) phases of the FSTC project, a Groundwater Monitoring Plan will be prepared by the FSTC Design Team to be carried out by the Contractor and the CCM. However, no dewatering is anticipated during CatEx.

Should dewatering activities be required, the Contractor will, at a minimum, monitor groundwater levels from wells to ensure that drawdown levels do not exceed allowable limits. Data loggers will be installed in the wells for 24-hour recording.




5.7.2 Soil Sampling

Soil sampling for the purposes of waste characterization and proper disposal will be performed by the Contractor. Oversight of the Contractor's sampling, soil reuse, tracking methods, waste management program, site sanitation, and spill prevention control and containment plan will be provided by the CCM. Contractor Safety & Health Plans will be reviewed and approved prior to the start of construction activities. The potential impact from contaminated or hazardous materials during construction will be determined and health risks to construction workers and the public will be assessed.

5.7.3 Air Quality Monitoring

5.8 Settlement

A comprehensive settlement monitoring program will be prepared by the FSTC Design Team during for DBB phases of the FSTC project. A pre-construction survey has been performed by the FSTC Design Team, in all existing nearby buildings to document baseline conditions. Criteria established by the FSTC Design Team will define the limits of acceptable ground movements and levels of ground movements for which remedial or mitigation measures will be considered. To apply these criteria, the monitoring program will be implemented by the Contractor, to measure ground movements, movements of existing facilities, and groundwater levels, including surface and deep settlement points, before, during and after construction.

Oversight geotechnical monitoring by the CCM will be undertaken, to ensure that settlement criteria is being met. The CCM will have the authority to enforce continued work shutdown until correct conditions are reestablished.

5.9 Sediment/Erosion Control and Water Quality

5.10 Soil Reuse and Tracking

5.11 Remedial Action Work Plans

The FSTC Design Team has not identified any active NYSDEC Spill or Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites within the CatEx project areas. As such no Remedial Action Work Plans (RAWP) have been prepared by the FSTC Design Team. If spill conditions or hazardous materials are encountered during excavation and construction activities, then the Contractor and CCM will follow the procedures outlined in Appendix D (Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan) and Appendix E (Spill Prevention Control and Containment Plan).

Contractors will prepare Environmental Compliance and Safety and Health plans related specifically to remedial actions involving soil reuse, sampling, hazardous materials (including lead and asbestos), spills, and material handling. Those plans will be submitted to the FSTC Design Team and both plans are components of this CEPP.

Disposal facilities selected for use will be those licensed for the particular type of material and acceptable to the affected property owner/operator or NYCT. A list of acceptable facilities will be compiled by NYCT and added to the Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan (Appendix D).




Reporting on remedial actions will be incorporated into a progress report prepared by the Contractor and submitted to NYCT on a monthly basis for soil reuse (if required). The Contractor covering all remediation activities throughout the project will also prepare an end of project report. NYCT will submit the reports to NYSDEC, if required.

5.12 Waste Management

5.13 Dust Control

Dust control measures to protect air quality will be implemented by Contractors for earthmoving and trucking operations. Additionally, trucking and operation of heavy equipment will occur with consideration of air quality impacts on abutting residents and businesses.

Air quality mitigation measures will be tailored according to the specific work-site conditions and locations along the project alignment. Contractors will implement Best Management Practices and the methods described below:

All vehicles transporting soil to/from the work sites will have their loads covered to minimize spillage and fugitive dust.

Gravel cover will be applied to soil (unpaved) surfaces where they will be regularly traveled at egress and ingress routes from/to work sites; wheels will be cleaned as necessary prior to leaving sites to control tracking.

Water or a dust/erosion control agent will be applied as necessary by truck to unpaved surfaces used for trucking during dry weather conditions, with adequate frequency to limit the generation of dust from vehicle traffic.

All materials deposited on public roadways and sidewalks from construction-related activities will be cleaned up within one day or sooner except in designated lay-down areas. Laborers and/or street-sweeping equipment will be available and used where necessary to clean paved surfaces.

All piles of soil and aggregate that could cause fugitive dust generation through wind erosion will be covered with a tarp or watered-down regularly. Contractors will be responsible for monitoring and controlling dust generation from their specific work areas and materials.

All stockpiles of soils designated for reuse will be placed on, and covered with, waterproof material until removed for placement elsewhere.

Dust screens will be used as feasible where added dust controls are needed when work abuts sensitive receptors.

Contractors will practice the following materials handling methods:

Reduce the amount/frequency of material handling operations (i.e., avoid multiple handling of materials).

Minimize the frequency of stockpile disturbance and the size of areas disturbed.

Reduce material drop height when loading-out to stockpiles and trucks.

All vehicles traveling onsite must obey appropriate speed limits for safety and to minimize dust generation.




Trucks and heavy equipment will not idle for extended periods (e.g., longer than five minutes) adjacent to residential and commercial buildings. Trucking schedules will be established to minimize cues.

Established truck routes will be used to minimize air quality impacts to local residents and businesses.

The REs will provide daily visual monitoring of work site conditions and give direction for implementation of mitigation measures where needed. CMC Environmental Group personnel will make spot-checks to measure levels of fugitive dust (total suspended particulates) at site perimeters, immediately prior to and during construction, as warranted based on local site conditions and proximity to sensitive receptors. The CMC Environmental Group will monitor the cumulative effect of simultaneous construction activities on fugitive dust emissions at the construction site perimeters. Contractors will be directed by the CMC, to provide additional mitigation measures for dust control, if the cumulative effect of construction produces unacceptable emissions.

5.14 Housekeeping and Site Sanitation

NYCT, CMC and all Contractors will implement housekeeping practices as part of site maintenance, health and safety, and waste management efforts on all work sites. This includes dust control as described above, spill prevention as described in Appendix E, and general site cleanliness. These actions relate to community aesthetics, safety, public health, odor control, and pest control. Laborers will be assigned housekeeping tasks to help control dust, refuse, and debris associated with construction activities and personnel.

Mitigation practices will include:

Informing all personnel about the need to prevent littering and random disposal of materials

Use of dumpsters with tight-fitting lids for storage of refuse

Use of adequately sized containers and keeping dumpster lids closed

Use of refuse containers with domed lids at construction trailers and lunch areas

Use of roll-off containers for debris (not for refuse or garbage)

Daily policing of work sites for litter and refuse associated with construction

Timely collection and disposal of refuse, construction debris, and old hay/straw bales

Keeping storage areas organized

Hand sweeping of spillage or tracked material from streets or sidewalks.

5.15 Vector Control

During PE, the GEC will develop a vector control plan that will be included in the Contract A procurement contract. This plan is required to be implemented by the construction contractors as part of each construction package.




The Contractor will be responsible for developing and implementing a vector control program at each construction site. A rodent abatement program will be initiated and will include placement of rodenticide and signage to advise workers on how to avoid contact with the poison. The program will also require the Contractor to remove dead rodents from the construction site and dispose of corpses appropriately. Construction trailers should be placed and construction materials stored in a manner that prevents rodent burrowing, either on concrete or gravel pads. Construction trailers should be situated without skirts that could provide harborage for rodents or other pests.

APPENDIX A

Preliminary

Engineering -

Environmental

Commitments Matrix



Page A1 Ove Arup & Partners Consulting Engineers PCDraft 1 June 22, 2004

A1. PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING – ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS

MATRIX

APPENDIX B

Permits Matrix



Page B1 Ove Arup & Partners Consulting Engineers PCDraft 1 June 22, 2004

B1. PERMITS MATRIX

B2. PERMITS AND APPROVALS

APPENDIX C

Environmental

Compliance Checklist



Page C1 Ove Arup & Partners Consulting Engineers PCDraft 1 June 22, 2004

C1. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST

C1.1 Environmental Compliance Checklist

C1.2 Environmental Field Report

C1.3 Deficiency Report

C1.4 Deficiency Report Log

C1.5 Corrective Action Report

C1.6 Spill Report Form

C1.7 Certificate of Equipment Noise Compliance Form

C1.8 Noise Measurements Report Form

C1.9 Vibration Measurements Report Form

APPENDIX D

Solid and Hazardous

Waste Management

Plan



Page D1 Ove Arup & Partners Consulting Engineers PCDraft 1 June 22, 2004

D1. SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN

D1.1 ACCUMULATION OF WASTES ONSITE

D1.1.1 Generator Identification

The CCM will identify the generator of specific waste at each project site.

The project’s generator classification will be determined by the waste generator ID number applied for by NYCT. A project’s status depends on the volume of waste accumulated per calendar month and determines the requirements with which the project will comply.

D1.1.2 Accumulation Areas

Accumulation areas will be managed per the generator classification. Contractors will manage the day-to-day activities of their own waste accumulation areas. Contractors will designate a person to manage these areas and this designation will be presented in their waste management plan. This person will be the point-of-contact for inquiries

D1.2 INTRODUCTION

Solid waste management is an important component in maintaining environmental compliance for the project. NYCT is committed to properly managing the minimization, generation, handling, storage, and disposal of solid wastes in an environmentally responsible manner.

NYCT and its Contractors will implement this Waste Management Plan to comply with applicable project requirements and Federal, state and local regulations. This plan addresses the various aspects of waste management (e.g., identification, generation, documentation, inspection, handling, storage, transportation and disposal) for the construction phase of the project. This Plan contains details regarding how to manage the expected types of solid waste generated (e.g., hazardous, universal, sanitary, non-hazardous, construction) by the project.

D1.3 REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS

The project will comply with applicable Federal, State, and Local waste management regulations and requirements. Where applicable sections of local law have parallel requirements, the more restrictive requirements will be followed. In addition, protocols established by operating agencies will be followed for work performed on their property.

D1.4 DEFINITIONS

Accumulation Area – Areas to be used to temporarily accumulate and store hazardous materials onsite.

Closed – A tank or container is closed if it would not release any of its contents if “knocked-over”.

Container – A portable device in which a material is stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise




handled. Examples of containers are: sample bottles, 200 L (approx. 55-gallon) drum, and tote tanks.

Containment area – are areas to limit or prevent discharges or the spread of released hazardous materials.

Empty – A container or inner liner is empty, and not a hazardous waste, if:

all waste has been removed that can be removed by using common practices such as pouring, pumping, and aspirating.

no more than 2.5 cm (1 inch) of residue remains on the bottom.

it can be accurately determined in the field that no more than 3.0% by weight of the total capacity of the container remains in the container, or the inner liner if the container is less than or equal to 400 L (approx. 110 gallons) in size, or no more than 0.3% remains if the container is larger than 400 L in size.

Hazardous Material – Any material that has been identified as a hazardous substance, hazardous waste, or other hazardous matter that may not be defined as a substance or waste.

Industrial Waste – any waste generated in manufacturing or industrial processes and operations that are non-hazardous. Also included are non-hazardous oil spill cleanup waste and dry non-hazardous chemical waste.

Ignitable Waste – any waste that has any one of the following properties:

a liquid, other than an aqueous solution containing less than 24% alcohol by volume and has a flash point less than 140 F;

not a liquid and is capable, under standard temperature and pressure, of causing fire through friction, absorption of moisture, or spontaneous chemical changes and when ignited burns vigorously and persistently;

a compressed gas as defined in 49 CFR 173.300; or

an oxidizer as defined in 49 CFR 173.151.

Secondary Containment System - A concrete dike, earth berm with impermeable liner, double wall tank, or other CMA-accepted method used to contain a release from a container or tank holding a hazardous material. The capacity of the containment area will be equal to 110% of the volume of the largest single container/tank held within the area.

Satellite Accumulation Area – Areas to be used to temporarily accumulate and store hazardous materials onsite.

TSD Facility – A state permitted treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facility of solid waste.

D1.5 RESPONSIBILITIES

The waste management responsibilities of the CCM and Contractors are outlined below:




D1.5.1 Consulting Construction Manager

The CCM will oversee Contractor-approved procedures to ensure compliance with the project Waste Management Plan, project commitments, and applicable agency regulations. The CCM will:

provide a liaison function with regulatory agency representatives, as required

obtain a U.S. EPA Hazardous Waste Generator ID Number for the project. (Note: Use of existing NYCT Hazardous Waste ID Numbers may be possible at some project locations)

inform Contractors of pre-existing wastes at project sites

oversee implementation of Contractor Waste Management Plans

notify the RE, NYCT and owner/operator representatives (e.g., in the event of a large spill), as required

D1.5.2 Contractors

Contractors have the responsibility to manage any wastes that are generated by their onsite activities, including:

Preparation of a Waste Management Plan to address the proper management (i.e., minimization, handling, storage, transportation, and disposal) of their wastes. The Contractor’s plan will be limited to their scope of work, compliant with contractual commitments, to include Federal, state, and local regulations.

These plans will be approved by the CCM prior to, or immediately after, beginning work for the project. Once approved, these procedures will become an attachment to this Waste Management Plan for the project. As it applies to their scope of work, Contractor’s Waste Management Plan(s) will include procedures to:

identify a designated Environmental Compliance Officer

train applicable personnel in the handling of hazardous and other wastes and emergency procedures relevant to their scope of work

identify waste streams (i.e., hazardous or non-hazardous) in accordance with Federal and state regulations

minimize wastes generated

manage recyclables

manage solid waste

manage hazardous waste

manage universal waste

manage used oil

manage other special wastes (i.e., any regulated wastes unique to Contractors scope of work)

prevent, contain, and control spills




provide necessary spill response equipment and materials in accordance with expected types and amounts of hazardous wastes generated

respond to emergencies (i.e., identify an emergency response team)

manage the transportation of hazardous and other wastes to appropriate disposal facilities

D1.6 TRAINING

Contractors will have personnel onsite that are trained in waste management procedures.

It is mandatory that Contractors train their personnel to be thoroughly familiar with waste handling and emergency procedures, as it applies to their scope of work. Each Contractor will provide the CCM an outline of this training and the training log of personnel trained, prior to commencement of fieldwork. For those personnel whose duties are to handle hazardous wastes, additional training (i.e., OSHA 40-hour HAZWOPER) will be required.Contractors will provide the CCM with these training records for the project permanent record.

The Environmental Awareness Training will include:

· good construction practices of waste management (e.g., housekeeping, HAZCOM);

· handling hazardous wastes (i.e., to be done by properly trained personnel); and

· response to emergencies.

D1.7 WASTE MINIMIZATION

Contractors will make a good faith effort to minimize the generation of solid waste by applying waste minimization methods. To minimize wastes the following considerations will be made by the CCM and Contractors, as appropriate:

toxicity reduction (e.g., material substitution)

volume reduction (i.e., procuring or using no more than is necessary)

source reduction (e.g., material changes, technology changes, good construction practices)

recycling/reuse/reclaim activities

regarding the proper management of the accumulation area(s). This person will ensure accumulation areas have the proper spill control equipment and materials and fire-fighting equipment for responding to emergencies. The CCM will oversee the proper management of these accumulation areas.

D1.7.1 Solid Wastes

General construction debris and waste generated during construction by Contractors must be collected and disposed of in accordance with local requirements for disposal and recycling.




D1.7.2 Hazardous Wastes

Location of accumulation areas will be approved by the RE. The location(s) will be selected to minimize the threat to human health or the environment in the event of a release of hazardous waste. Accumulation areas will be:

clearly signed as an accumulation area of hazardous wastes;

within a controlled area to restrict access;

not within 50 feet of a project property line, except where impractical;

have an impervious surface free from cracks and gaps;

will not have drains that lead to sanitary or stormwater sewers;

will not be directly up-slope of surface waters or drainage to surface waters;

use secondary containment designed to contain 110% of the volume of the single largest liquid container held within an area;

have adequate ventilation;

sloped to collect releases (e.g., spills) or have containers placed on pallets; and

implement and practice “housekeeping” measures.

D1.7.3 Containers and Tanks

Containers and tanks will be:

in good condition (i.e., free of leaks and ruptures);

compatible with the material being held;

clearly and properly marked (see Section 7.2.3.1);

not allowed to overfill;

kept closed unless adding/removing hazardous material; and

stationary tanks (e.g., fuel tanks) will have secondary containment and overfill protection devices.

D1.7.4 Markings

Markings must be durable and printed on or permanently affixed to the surface of the container. Markings will be clearly readable and unobscured on the container.

Containers of hazardous waste will be marked with the statement: “HAZARDOUS WASTE—Federal and state law prohibit improper disposal; If found, contact the nearest police or public safety authority or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or the New York Department of Environmental Conservation”. Include the following:

Generators Name and Address

Contractor Name

U.S. EPA Waste Identification Number




State Manifest Document Number (i.e., provided when manifested for transport)

U.S. EPA Waste Code

Waste Accumulation Start Date

a brief description of the waste and its associated hazards (e.g., degreasing agents – flammable)

Contractors may choose to use pre-printed labels to standardize and reduce time for this requirement.

D1.7.5 Handling

Hazardous wastes will be handled to prevent ruptures of containers or spills to the environment. Good construction practices include:

only properly trained (e.g. 40 hour HAZWOPER) personnel will be allowed to handle the hazardous waste(s)

using equipment designed for the handling containers (e.g., drum grapples)

using dollies, carts and forklifts to move containers (i.e., not rolling or dragging containers)

if susceptible to freezing, containers will be designed for these conditions

ground ignitable or reactive wastes (i.e., prevent sparking)

if stored on pallets, secure containers to pallets prior to moving

not allowing containers to overfill

D1.7.6 Storage

Container storage of hazardous waste will:

not be stacked

be protected from precipitation

have ignitable or reactive wastes stored no less than 50 feet from the project boundary

allow for adequate access to containers for inspection

all hazardous and/or regulated waste storage areas will have a secondary containment system

have incompatible materials segregated

D1.7.7 Inspection

Accumulation areas will be inspected weekly by the Resident Engineer to ensure that these areas are being properly maintained as agreed to in the Contractor’s plan. Areas where containers are stored will be checked for leaks and deterioration caused by corrosion or other factors.




D1.7.8 Satellite Accumulation Points

Satellite accumulation points are used to increase the efficiency of waste collection and to reduce the costs of waste disposal. Satellite accumulation points may be used by Contractors and will be managed by the operator of the process generating the waste. The CCM will oversee the proper management of these satellite accumulation points. The RE will approve the location of the satellite accumulation points. Satellite accumulation points will meet the following requirements:

clearly signed as a satellite accumulation point;

container(s) will be in good condition;

containers will be permanently marked with the statement:

“HAZARDOUS WASTE—Federal and State law prohibit improper disposal; If found, contact the nearest police or public safety authority or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or the New York Department of Environmental Conservation.”

No more than 55 gallons of hazardous waste or 1 quart of acutely hazardous waste is accumulated

Within line-of-site of the process that generates the waste

Be kept closed, except when necessary to add or remove waste

Wastes may be collected at satellite accumulation points indefinitely or until 55 gallons of hazardous waste or 1 quart of acutely hazardous waste is generated. When this limit is exceeded, the Contractor will mark the container with the date when the excess began accumulating. The excess waste will be moved immediately to either an accumulation area or to a permitted RCRA Subtitle C TSD facility.

Satellite accumulation points will be inspected regularly by a Resident Engineer, or designee, to ensure that these points are being properly maintained as agreed to in the Contractor’s plan. Containers that are stored will be checked for leaks and deterioration caused by corrosion or other factors.

Proper spill response equipment and supplies and fire-fighting equipment will be immediately accessible to satellite accumulation points.

D1.7.9 Inventory

Each Contractor, as it applies to their scope of work, will submit and maintain a hazardous materials inventory of hazardous materials brought onto the site. This inventory will be updated as additional hazardous materials are brought onto, or generated on (i.e., hazardous wastes), the site that were not identified by name and/or quantity in their initial inventory. Contractors will review, update, and submit to the CCM this inventory quarterly (i.e., every 3 months) while on the project. If no changes to the inventory were made, the Contractor will provide a written statement of this fact to the CCM.

D1.8 USED OIL

The NYSDEC Standards for the Management of Used Oil (6 NYCRR Part 373-1) apply. This regulation assumes that used oil will be recycled and therefore, it is not as stringently regulated as RCRA hazardous wastes. However, used oil that contains total halogens (e.g.,




chlorine, fluorine) at concentrations greater than 1000 ppm are presumed to be hazardous waste and cannot be recycled. Used oil that exceeds this limit must be managed as a hazardous waste. Typically, used oil is not expected to exceed the total halogens limits, unless it has been mixed with another waste stream (e.g., chlorinated solvent used for degreasing). Therefore, the Contractor will prevent the mixing of used oil with any other waste stream that may cause it to be categorized as a hazardous waste.

Contractors will provide the CCM with the list of names, addresses and ID numbers of state-approved used-oil transporters and recyclers that may be used.

The Contractor will:

Control access to used oil collection

Ensure containers for used oil are in good condition

Keep containers closed at all times unless adding/removing oil

Clearly mark containers of used oil with the words, “USED OIL”

D1.9 UNIVERSAL WASTE

Universal wastes are regulatory defined hazardous waste lamps (e.g., fluorescent, halogen, mercury-vapor), batteries (e.g., lead-acid batteries), pesticides, and thermostats. However as a universal waste, they do not have the same stringent requirements as RCRA hazardous wastes. At a minimum and as it applies to their scope of work, Contractors will manage their universal wastes in the manner outlined below:

Ensure employees handling universal wastes are thoroughly familiar with the proper handling and emergency procedures related to their responsibilities

prevent the release of the waste or waste components to the environment

spills of these wastes will be cleaned-up immediately

send these wastes to an approved destination facility, or another universal handler

D1.10 TRANSPORTATION

Before transporting hazardous wastes offsite, Contractors will:

Provide the names, addresses, and U.S.EPA license numbers of the state-approved transporters to be used to the CM for approval. Adequate time (not less than 14 days) must be allowed for the CM approval process.

Use a licensed hauler or obtain a license for the transport or self-transport wastes.

Contractors will consider the following when contracting with a transporter of hazardous waste, the transporter:

is qualified and licensed (i.e., has an U.S. EPA identification number) to perform services;

bears the responsibility for cleanup in case of accident during transport;

has adequate transporters' insurance;




only transports wastes to the TSD facility identified on the manifest (i.e., U.S. EPA form 8700-22); and

receive prior permission from the Contractor before disposing of material other than as provided in the contract.

Before offering containers with hazardous waste to a transporter, the Contractor will ensure that containers are:

in good condition

are authorized for the waste

closed

properly marked and labeled

packaged according to DOT regulation

D1.11 DISPOSAL

The Contractor will provide the CCM with the name, address, and U.S. EPA license number of the state permitted treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities that it intends to use to recycle, treat, or dispose of waste. The property owner may stipulate the preferred TSD facilities to be used.

The Contractor must receive approval from the CCM before transportation of the waste to the facility(ies). Adequate time must be allowed by the Contractor (not less than 14 days) for the CCM to check the status of the TSD's licenses and/or permits as required by the regulatory agencies (i.e., Department of Transportation [DOT], NYSDEC, U.S. EPA), before approval will be granted.

When CCM approval is received, the Contractor will contract directly with the TSD facility.

APPENDIX E

Spill Prevention,

Control, and

Containment Plan



Page E1 Ove Arup & Partners Consulting Engineers PCDraft 1 June 22, 2004

E1. SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND CONTAINMENT PLAN

E1.1 INTRODUCTION

The Spill Prevention, Control, and Containment Plan (SPCC Plan) is intended for use by the CCM and Contractors during the construction of the Fulton Street Transit Center Project. The purpose of this plan is to ensure compliance with project commitments and policies and applicable Federal and state laws with respect to spill prevention, control, and containment of hazardous materials, petroleum products (e.g., fuels, lubricants), and solvents. Relevant state legislation that must be complied with includes 6 NYCRR Part 595 – Release of

Hazardous Substances and 6 NYCRR Part 613 – Handling and Storage of Petroleum.

Each Contractor will prepare a SPCC Plan for their component of the project and submit it to the CCM for approval. The SPCC Plan will describe how the Contractor will prevent the occurrence of spills through good construction practices and will also outline a procedure to adequately respond to spills if they occur. Contractor SPCC Plans will consider, and where appropriate incorporate, the topics outlined in the following sections.

E1.2 RESPONSIBILITIES

The spill prevention and response responsibilities of the CCM and Contractors are outlined below:

E1.2.1 Consulting Construction Manager

The CCM is responsible for the following actions:

Review Contractor-prepared SPCC and monitor implementation of Contractors spill prevention and response plans

In the event of a spill on railroad property, notify the representative identified in Appendix D of this Construction Environmental Protection Plan (CEPP), Project Contacts responsible for environmental compliance for the respective railroad. The CCM will maintain in the project files documentation of compliance with the New York State Navigation Law if oil contamination is discovered in connection with the project

In the event of a spill on property other than railroad property, notify the property owner and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and ensure compliance with New York State Navigation Law

E1.2.2 Contractors

The Contractor will be required to:

Submit a spill prevention and response plan with implementation procedures that will include:

- a spill prevention awareness training outline

- methods used to prevent spills

- procedures used to handle and store hazardous materials

- procedures used to respond to small spills




- procedures used to respond to large spills

- a designated Emergency Response Team (i.e., member names and contact numbers)

Train personnel in handling hazardous materials (must be 40-hour HAZWOPER), spill prevention measures, and spill emergency response

Provide necessary spill response equipment and materials in accordance with expected types and amounts of hazardous materials utilized

Implement the approved spill prevention and response plans

Notify the appropriate CCM representative in the event of a spill

E1.3 DEFINITIONS

The following definitions of terms are provided for clarity and are used throughout this SPCC Plan.

Accumulation Area – Areas onsite that are authorized for use to temporarily accumulate and store hazardous materials.

Closed – A tank or container is “closed” if it would not release any of its contents if knocked-over.

Container – A portable device in which a material is stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise handled. Examples of containers are: fuel bladders, 55-gallon drum, and tote tanks.

CEPP – Construction Environmental Protection Plan for the FSTC project, Prepared by the FSTC Design Team.

Empty – A container or inner liner is empty, and not a hazardous waste, if:

All waste has been removed that can be removed by using common practices such as pouring, pumping, and/or aspirating.

No more than 1 inch of residue remains on the bottom.

It can be accurately determined in the field that no more than 3.0% by weight of the total capacity of the container remains in the container, or the inner liner if the container is less than or equal to 110 gallons in size, or no more than 0.3% remains if the container is larger than 110 gallons in size.

Note: Although not expected to be used on the project, the requirements for containers that held acutely hazardous materials are more restrictive and the state regulations should be consulted in the event that this type of material is used.

Hazardous Material – Any material that has been identified as a hazardous substance, hazardous waste, or other hazardous matter.

Large/Significant Spills - Large spills can result from the quantity or type of hazard (e.g., fuel bladder, extremely hazardous) that poses an immediate threat to human health and/or the environment. Large spills cannot be safely cleaned up without the assistance of trained emergency response personnel and/or offsite emergency response equipment. Large spills include spills which directly impact offsite areas (e.g., watercourses, residential areas, drinking water) or if the material spilled exceeds its reportable quantity.




Release - Any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing into the environment, including the abandonment of barrels, drums, containers, or other closed receptacles, of any hazardous materials.

Reportable Quantities (RQs) - Reportable quantities are those which are listed with regulatory agencies as requiring a report to that agency if a spill of that type and quantity occurs.

Small/Incidental Spills – Small spills can be contained safely in the immediate vicinity of the spill, by onsite personnel with available spill response equipment (e.g., diapers, small booms, absorbents, shovels). These spills do not threaten or cause an immediate threat to human health and/or the environment.

Secondary Containment System - A concrete dike, earth berm with impermeable liner, double wall tank, or other state-accepted method used to contain a release from a container or tank holding a hazardous material. The capacity of the containment area will be equal to 110% of the volume of the largest single container/tank held within the area.

Tank – A stationary device designed to contain an accumulation of hazardous materials.

E1.4 TRAINING

The Environmental Awareness Training Program (Appendix I of the ECP) will identify:

the use of good construction practices (e.g., housekeeping) to help prevent spills;

safe and timely spill response responsibilities, as appropriate (i.e., small spills vs. large spills); and

notification and documentation requirements.

It is mandatory that Contractors train their personnel in spill prevention and emergency response procedures. In addition, 40 hour OSHA (HAZWOPER) training is required for any personnel handling hazardous materials. Each Contractor will provide the CCM an outline of the training performed and the training log of personnel trained, prior to or immediately following their beginning work. The CCM will retain these training logs as a part of the project’s permanent records.

E1.5 SPILL PREVENTION

As part of normal construction activities, hazardous materials will be used and wastes generated. Hazardous materials will be temporarily stored at accumulation areas until they can be used, recycled, or arrangements made for final offsite disposal. These areas will be prepared for spill control with proper equipment including secondary containment, spill response equipment and supplies, and fire-fighting equipment.

E1.5.1 Storage Management

E1.5.1.1 Tanks and Containers

Tanks and containers holding hazardous materials will be:

in good condition (e.g., no leaks, ruptures, degradation)




used with materials that are compatible with the container

handled and stored to prevent ruptures or spills to the environment, for example:

using equipment designed for the handling of containers (e.g., drum grapples);

if stored on pallets, secure container(s) to pallet(s) prior to moving;

not allowing containers to overfill.

kept closed except when in use (i.e., adding/removing material)

grounded if containers are holding ignitable materials (i.e., to prevent sparking)

contained within a secondary containment system

suitable for freezing conditions, if they are expected

stored at the ground surface (i.e., not stacked, no underground storage tanks)

segregated from non-compatible materials

accessible to on-site spill response equipment

In addition, accumulation areas should be:

clean, organized, and well kept

not located up-gradient of surface waters or direct drainage(s) to surface waters

clearly signed for the hazards present to advise personnel to use caution

located away from the path of construction activities

E1.5.1.2 Accumulation Area Inspections

The CM Environmental Lead, or designee, will perform regular inspections of hazardous material accumulation areas. At a minimum, the following will be inspected:

housekeeping practices

containers checked for leaks, ruptures, and other defects

secondary containment systems are intact and functional

proper segregation practices implemented and maintained

spill response equipment and supplies are immediately available

Contractors should inspect their own accumulation areas at least weekly

E1.5.2 Spills

E1.5.2.1 Small Spills

Small spills may occur as a result of normal construction activities. Small spills typical of construction activities are those resulting from equipment failure (e.g., broken hoses) that contain fuels, oils, or hydraulic fluids. Regular maintenance of equipment will help minimize leaks and ruptures. Contractors will conduct regular maintenance inspections of equipment and make needed repairs to prevent failures and spills.




E1.5.2.2 Large Spills

Large spills can be prevented or minimized if good construction practices are implemented throughout the project. The potential for large spills increases during the following construction activities:

maintenance of heavy equipment;

transporting hazardous materials;

fueling operations;

handling hazardous materials; and

working in or on steep slopes.

E1.5.3 Construction Activities

Sections 5.3.1 to 5.3.4 detail methods of preventing or minimizing spills during some high spill risk construction activities.

E1.5.3.1 Maintenance and Fueling Activities

With the exception of dewatering pumps, all equipment will be serviced or fueled only in approved areas and not directly upslope of surface waters or water supply wells.

Will occur on flat and dry ground when possible.

Not be conducted directly upslope of any surface waters or drainage to surface waters.

Proper spill response equipment and supplies will be onsite.

Drip pans and/or absorbent material should be placed underneath stationary equipment and hose connections.

Fueling will only occur with approved pumps, nozzles, or containers.

E1.5.3.2 Transporting Hazardous Materials

Stay alert of current road conditions and immediate traffic

Obey traffic laws (e.g., speed limits)

Avoid transporting materials during hazardous conditions

E1.5.3.3 Handling of Hazardous Materials

Proper handling of hazardous materials, as per regulatory requirements and spill prevention methods listed in Section 5.1.1 of this plan.

E1.5.3.4 Working In or Near Sensitive Resources

If applicable, review the site-specific plan for specific requirements. Ensure that all equipment is operating properly prior to beginning work. Use secondary containment for dewatering pumps. Do not leave fuel cans unattended or unsecured when not in use.




E1.6 SPILL CONTROL

Contractors will provide their own spill control equipment and supplies and have an amount appropriate to respond to spills. Contractors will prepare their own Spill Response Procedures (as per the example procedure provided in Appendix H of the ECP), which will be reviewed by the CCM before construction activities commence.

Contractors will designate an Emergency Response Team (ERT) to assist in responding to spills when necessary. An ERT contact list will be provided to the CCM with the names and contact numbers for the members of the ERT as a part of the Contractor’s SPCC Plan. ERT members will be on-call whenever that Contractor is conducting work on the project.

E1.6.1 Accumulation Areas and Satellite Accumulation Areas

Contractors will designate a person to manage accumulation and satellite areas. This person will be the point-of-contact for any inquiries of the proper management of the area. This person will ensure there is an appropriate amount of spill control equipment immediately available at these areas.

The type and amount of spill control equipment and supplies staged at a hazardous material accumulation area or satellite area(s) depends on the vendor specifications, the type and amount of hazardous material, and its location. Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS1) should be referred to for further storage guidance. Where drains are used, a drain covering or plug will be available to prevent the spill from running out the drain.

E1.6.2 General Construction Activities

Contractor personnel (e.g., foremen, mechanics, operators, laborers) will be trained to respond to spills and have the appropriate spill response equipment to immediately react to small spills. Contractors will be responsible for providing this training2. The type and amount of spill control equipment issued will be determined by the size of the largest fuel/oil reservoir in the work area. Typically, a work crew will have a few dozen absorbent pads/pillows, some absorbent booms, salvage drum(s) and plastic bags (i.e., to contain any contaminated material), hand tools, and the appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE).

E1.6.3 Crossings of Sensitive Resources

The type and amount of spill control equipment staged with a work crew during the crossing of a sensitive resource should be that described in Section 5.2 of this SPCC Plan plus any additional requirements described in the site-specific crossing plan or any pre-crossing meetings. Considerations during crossings include:

secondary containment for dewatering pumps;

have absorbent booms in-place downstream of a water crossing;

do not leave fuel containers unattended and unsecured; and

minimize in-water activity to the greatest extent possible.

1

An MSDS for the spilled material will be included in the project’s permanent file records.2

The Environmental Awareness training provided by the PMT is not intended to provide sufficient spill prevention

and response training for Contractors.




E1.6.4 Spill Response Equipment

The following equipment should be considered as spill response equipment for the project and incorporated into spill kits, where applicable:

personal protective equipment (PPE) (e.g., gloves, boots, goggles, respirators);

absorbent material (e.g., pads, pillows, booms, granular);

neutralizing absorbents (i.e., for corrosive releases);

hand tools (e.g., brooms, shovels, dustpan);

salvage drums and/or plastic bags;

pumps;

wire or plastic ties (i.e., to tie booms together);

excavators and bulldozers may be used to create trenches or berm diversions to prevent the spilled material from going off-ROW or impacting resources; and

blank spill reports.

To determine the appropriate amount of absorbents to be supplied, the vendor providing the

absorbents should be consulted as vendor specifications vary.

E1.7 CONTAINMENT

Provided below are general outlines of procedures to be followed in the event of a small or large spill. Contractors will be responsible for creating more detailed procedures and implementing them.

E1.7.1 Small Spills

1) Stop the source of the spill

2) Contain spilled material (i.e., prevent from going off-ROW or into sensitive resources)

3) Contact the Emergency Response Team (ERT), if necessary

4) Adequately cleanup spilled material (i.e., cleanup activities will be continuous until completed) and any uncontaminated spilled materials should be collected for re-use

5) Properly dispose of contaminated materials and used abatement materials

6) Notify the Resident Engineer (RE), who will determine how the spill will be documented and if additional notifications are necessary

E1.7.2 Large Spills

1) Use maximum safety precautions when trying to control or contain a large spill

2) Stop the source of the spill

3) Contain spilled material; prevent from going off-ROW or into sensitive resource. (Excavators and/or bulldozers may be used to create trenches and diversion berms to accomplish this task)




4) Keep a person onsite until the appropriate spill response is initiated (i.e., to prevent other personnel from entering spill area)

5) Notify the ERT

6) Personnel with 40-hour OSHA training should be called on-site immediately

7) The Contractor will contact the RE as soon as practical

8) Appropriate corrective actions will be determined and action will begin as quickly as possible; refer to the MSDS(s) of the spilled materials if available

9) Corrective action will continue until the area is cleaned up to the satisfaction of the Construction Superintendent, or designee

10) Any uncontaminated spilled materials should be collected for re-use

11) Properly dispose of contaminated materials and used abatement materials

12) The RE, or designee, will document the spill and response actions

E1.8 SPILL REPORTING

All reports of releases of hazardous substances must be made to the NYSDEC hotline (800-457-7362) within two hours of the release. Reporting of suspected or probable release of a hazardous substance must be made to the NYSDEC hotline within twenty-four hours of discovery.

If a spill occurs that requires reporting3, a spill report will be prepared by the onsite lead person (e.g., CCM, or RE). At a minimum, the spill report will include the following information:

Location of spill (i.e., general description and approximate ROW stationing);

date and time of spill;

name of the person documenting the spill;

name of the Contractor(s) involved with the spill;

type of material spilled;

quantity of material spilled;

method of containment and control;

if the spill came in contact with water, soil, or air;

if the spill created a sheen on any surface waters;

other action(s) taken; and

3 Releases of hazardous substances must be reported if the release exceeds the reportable quantity of that

hazardous substance, or for a lesser quantity if any of the following conditions exist: a) The release may result in fire with potential off-site impacts. b) The release may cause an explosion. c) The release may cause a contravention of air quality standards. d) The release may result in vapors, dust or gases that may cause illness or injury. e) The runoff from fire control or dilution water may cause contravention of water quality standards.




persons notified of the spill.

A Spill Report Form is provided in Appendix C of the CEPP.

1 Releases of hazardous substances must be reported if the release exceeds the reportable quantity of that

hazardous substance, or for a lesser quantity if any of the following conditions exist: a) The release may result in fire with potential off-site impacts. b) The release may cause an explosion. c) The release may cause a contravention of air quality standards. d) The release may result in vapors, dust or gases that may cause illness or injury. e) The runoff from fire control or dilution water may cause contravention of water quality standards.

APPENDIX F

Environmental

Awareness Training

Program



Page F1 Ove Arup & Partners Consulting Engineers PCDraft 1 June 22, 2004

F1. ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS TRAINING PROGRAM

F1.1 PROJECT GOAL

To construct the FSTC project with minimal impact to the local environment and communities, and in full compliance with requirements established by Federal, state, and local agencies.

This training is not intended as a substitute for OSHA training, as required by Federal regulations for personnel handling hazardous materials.

F1.2 TRAINING OBJECTIVES

By the end of this training session, participants will be able to describe:

The importance of environmental compliance

Permitting agencies and regulatory requirements

Important mitigation methods and where they should be used

Quality control and quality assurance procedures for environmental compliance

Communication, problem prevention, and compliance tracking methods

F1.2.1 TRAINING TOPICS

F1.2.1.1 Introduction

Why environmental management and compliance is important

Regulatory agencies and permit conditions

Communities and natural environments in the project area

Mitigation overview and pro-active strategy

Planning the work and sharing responsibility for environmental awareness

F1.2.1.2 Environmental Inspections and Compliance Tracking

QC role of the Contractors

QA roles of the CCM

Oversight role of the Resident Engineer (RE) Inspection process and reporting

Deficiency reports, corrective actions, and enforcement actions

Regulatory agencies and site coordination

Public or regulatory agency complaints

Contacts for assistance and technical support




F1.2.1.3 Sediment/Erosion Control and Water Quality

Permitting requirements

Use, inspection, and maintenance of sediment and erosion controls

Protection of storm drains and systems

Controlling limits of disturbance and stormwater flow

Dewatering operations

F1.2.1.4 Dust Control and Air Quality

Visual and olfactory evidence

Speed reduction on unpaved roadways

Wheel wash and gravel egress points

Wetting of unpaved roadways and street sweeping

Truck routes, idling, and covering of loads

Appropriate locating of staging and unloading zones

Dust control during demolition activities

Dust suppressants, such as organic (sap/mulch) type

Wind breaks and covered stockpiles

Odor control

F1.2.1.5 Noise and Vibration Control

Regulations

Use of approved truck routes and speed control

Impact devices and operations (jackhammers, pile driving)

Back-up alarms and other nuisance noise (e.g., street decking)

Temporary noise barriers and enclosures

Noise control curtains and walls

Mufflers and equipment operation

Monitoring methods

Scheduling and work site locations

F1.2.1.6 Cultural Resources

Regulatory requirements, including Section 106 and Programmatic Agreement

Locations of historic resources

Locations of archaeological resource sensitivity




Encroachment avoidance and fencing to protect resources

Reporting and contingency plans for impacts to historic resources

Reporting and contingency plans for archaeological discoveries

Noise, dust, and vibration control

Measures to protect and preserve historic materials

F1.2.1.7 Traffic Management

Maintenance of Traffic Plan

Work force parking restrictions

Local coordination on trucking routes and street closings

Pedestrian access

Scheduling of deliveries

Routing heavy equipment to avoid sensitive locations

Community issues

F1.2.1.8 Housekeeping and Sanitation

Site cleanup daily


August 2004 Appendix C – Construction Method and Activities

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN* * Not available prior to the publication of the May 2004 DEIS.

MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center

Final Environmental Impact Statement Public Involvement Plan

Goals of the Plan

• Educate the public about the Fulton Street Transit Center project in general and the FEIS process in particular.

• Provide a forum for gathering information, identifying and resolving public issues and concerns as they arise, and generating consensus.

• Provide the public the opportunity to share their perspectives in order to help shape the results of the planning process.

• Build a constituency for the project.

Basic Requirements of the Plan

• Comprehensive mailing list of stakeholders, interested citizens, civic and business groups, major institutions, community-based organizations, professional and trade organizations, advocacy groups and elected officials.

• Adequate public notice of public involvement activities with sufficient time to review and comment at key decision points in the study.

• Reasonable public access to reports, project updates and other important publications by and about the project

• Documentation of all public outreach activities and comments received. Activities/Materials: I. General public meetings

Beginning with the scoping meeting and concluding with a public meeting to discuss the final version of the FEIS, these public meetings will be held to provide updates and to discuss important issues in the Fulton Street Transit Center project as they are reached. All persons included in the comprehensive mailing list will be invited to attend. In addition, the media (including newspapers) will be used to advertise the meetings. General public meetings will typically be held on weekday evenings at venues convenient to Lower Manhattan.

1

2

II. Meetings by request

Every effort will be made to honor requests by elected officials and the community board to brief them on the project and to present updates.

III. Tours/Site visits To increase interest and address issues related to the impact of the project in terms of planned routes and potential construction activities, visits may be arranged for elected officials, community board members and other selected audiences.

IV. Ongoing communications

The outreach effort may include any or all of the following methods for maintaining ongoing communications with the public:

• Website • Newsletters • E-mail address • Media coverage (MTA Press Office)

V. Informational materials

The outreach effort may include any or all of the following printed and other information materials in order to distribute information about the project to the public:

• Brochure • Fact sheets • Reports on specific concerns • Display boards and other presentation materials

VI. Target audiences and interested citizens

• Elected officials • Community board • Community-based organizations • Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) • Residents of study area/concerned citizens • Schools, hospitals, and other institutions (public and private) • Private professional/technical/business associations/groups • Urban/transit planners/ transit advocates • Environmentalists

3

VII. Timing of meetings and other activities

The scheduling of public meetings, public hearings, and the distribution of materials will depend to a great degree on the following factors:

• Achieving milestones and new phases of the project • New and/or unanticipated developments in the FEIS • Requests from elected officials and other interested parties • Schedule of special events/meetings that may provide outreach opportunities.

VIII. Staffing

MTA NYC Transit Government & Community Relations will oversee public involvement. This effort will be supported by the MTA and MTA NYC Transit Press Offices, MTA Capital Construction, the project team and consultants.

IX. Future Activities

• Community Task Force: Modeled on our success with other major rehabilitation projects, a community task force will be established forming a partnership with the public including, but not limited to Community Board #1, local elected officials, the Downtown Alliance, the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation and the project mailing list. Community task force meetings will be held to provide a forum to receive comments from the public and assess community-based issues. These meetings would be scheduled to coincide with project milestones, typically on a quarterly basis. The FSTC mailing list is comprised of those who have attended a public meeting for this project or who have requested information about the project via a written request or through the MTA website. It is expected that the first meeting will be held in Fall 2004, following the award of the first construction contract. NYC agencies, such as the NYC Department of Transportation, may be invited as needed to attend the community task force meetings. In addition to a meeting notice that will be sent to the project mailing list, the meeting will be advertised on the MTA and Downtown Alliance websites as well as local newspapers.

• Informational Take-One:

A summary overview of the project, in the form of a take-one flyer, will be available in subway stations throughout the study area. This information will be periodically updated and made available to the public.

• Meet the Planners:

A “Meet the Planners” session, where the public will have an opportunity to speak one-on-one with members of the project team, may be conducted in the Winter 2004-2005. This event would be held at the Fulton Street-Broadway Nassau Station.

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Documents

PART I CONSTRUCTION METHODS AND ACTIVITIES …MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation August 2004 Appendix C – Construction Methods