PE APP-DCG

8/13/2019 PE APP-DCG

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pe-app-dcg 1/223

1 9 9 9

T h i s p

r o j e c t i n v o l v e d

r e c o n s

t r u c t i n g a p r i v a t e

e n t r a n

c e r o a d i n t o a

C o r p o

r a t e E n t r a n c e

D r i v e f o r a n e w

C o r p o

r a t e

H e a d q

u a r t e r s .



I w o r k e d o n t h e d r a i n a g e , s t o r m

w a t e r ,

a n d s e w e r s y s t e m d e s i g n a n d l a y o u t .





h i s i s o n e o

t h e p r o i l e

s h e e t s I w o r k

e d o n f o r t h i s

p r o j e c t .



W e r a n i n t o a

p r o b l e m w h e r e t h e

s u r v e y d i d n ' t m a t c h

e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n s

v e r y w e l l . I h e l p e d

t o r e s o l v e t h e

p r o b l e m b y

d e s i g n i n g t h e

l a y o u t o f a

r e t a i n i n g w a l l .



a s s i s t e i n

c o m i n g u p w i t h a

c o n s t r u c t i o n s e q u e n c e p l a n

b e c a u s e t h i s f a c i l i t y r e m a i n e d i n

o p e r a t i o n d u r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n .



e p r o p o s e

g u a r d s h a c k r e q u i r e d a

b a t h r o

o m a n d t h e s o i l s

i n t h e a r e a w e r e n o t

s u i t a b l e f o r s u b s u r f a c e

d i s p o s

a l . I h e l p e d

d e s i g n

a n d p e r m i t a

t i g h t t a

n k u n t i l t h e p u m p

s t a t i o n

w a s c o n s t r u c t e d

w h e n t h e n e w b u i l d i n g

w a s c o m p l e t e d .



1 9 9 9

A s p a r t o f t h e S i m p l e x

H e a d q u a r t e r s p r o j e c t , t h e T o w n

o w n e d p u m p s t a t i o n h a d t o b e

u p g r a d e d t o h a n d l e t h e

a d d i t i o n a l f l o w .

I d e s i g n e d a

t a n d e m w

e t w e l l a n d

r e p l a c e m e n t o f t h e e x i s t i n g

d u p l e x p u m p s y s t e m w

i t h l a r g e r

p u m p s a n d n e w

c o n t r o l p a n e l .







C:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 3 for 1352-Cape Cod Nursing.zip\1352 - Cape Cod

Nursing Home Bourne MA\phase I\1352 - ccnh solids problem letter.doc

Job Number: 1.1352.00 Last printed 7/19/2012 2:36:00 PM

September 7, 2000James Mammery

Cape Cod Nursing Home

8 Lewis Point Road

Bourne, Massachusetts 02532

Dear James Mammery:

On August 30, 2000, Daylor Consulting Group Inc. conducted a site walk through of the

wastewater treatment facility with the purposes of producing a punch list for Emerald

Excavating’s portion of the new treatment system. While conducting this walk, a faintsewage odor was detected. Further investigation resulted in the discovery that the

comminutor (grinder) was clogged and not operating. There were no alarms or lightstriggered in the building and the switch was in the auto position with the power lampilluminated. While on-site the comminutor switch was turned to the hand position, and

the comminutor began operation, clearing the majority of the back up. Upon leaving the

site the comminutor was left operating with the switch in the hand position. Emerald willinvestigate the reason for the malfunction while in the auto position and the lack of an

alarm indicating a problem and take corrective action as necessary. Emerald will also be

cleaning out the comminutor manhole and any manhole that was backed up with solids as

a result of the comminutor not operating. This will hopefully take care of the odors.

While investigating the odor problem, however, it was evident that foreign objects were

still finding their way into the sewer system. The comminutor blockage contained rubbergloves, cigarette butts, diapers, plastic, and other foreign matter (see attached photos).

While the comminutor is designed to grind this material, it is still not desirable to send

objects such as these into the septic system. After Emerald has corrected the comminutor problem and Daylor has confirmed that it is working correctly, it will become Cape Cod

Nursing Home’s responsibility to unclog the comminutor, reset the control panel, and

clean any resulting solids accumulation should the comminutor become clogged again.

There will be a company operating and maintaining the system once the project iscomplete, but clogs or damage from foreign matter in the sewage stream is most likely notgoing to be covered under the agreement. Daylor suggests that actions be taken to educate

the staff and residents of what should and should not be sent into the sewer system.

Very truly yours,Daylor Consulting Group, Inc.

Scott Schluter

Staff Engineer

2000After construction of this large septicsystem repair, we were gettingcomplaints of a faint septic odor. Whileon a site visit, I discovered the potential

cause: a blocked comminutor. Thisletter explained the situation to thenursing home owner.



C:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 3 for 1352-Cape Cod Nursing.zip\1352 - Cape Cod

Nursing Home Bourne MA\phase I\1352 - ccnh solids problem letter.doc




2 0 0 0

T h i s i s t h e a s - b u i l t p l a n I

p r o d u c e d t o c l o s e o u t

t h e p r o j e c t . I m a n a g e d

a n d o v e r s a w

t h e

c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h i s l a r g e

s e p t i c s y s t e m

r e p l a c e m e n t p r o j e c t

w h e n t h e o r i g i n a l p r o j e c t

m a n a g e r l e f t t h e

c o m p a n y .







1

Special Outlet Report August 12, 1998 International Cargo Port, Boston, MA

1.0 Storm Water Treatment

1.1 Summary

This report addresses the use of “new” special outlets for the proposed redevelopment of Buildings 117

and 118 of the South Boston Army Base for the International Cargo Port project located in Boston.

Included in this discussion are the methods that will be employed to meet the DEP StormwaterManagement Policy. These measures will mitigate any potential adverse impacts.

In a report entitled “Hydrologic & Hydraulic Analysis, International Cargo Port-Boston, South Boston

Army Base Building #117 and #118, Boston, Massachusetts”, dated June 29, 1998, Daylor Consulting

Group, Inc. proposed a closed drainage system comprised of existing catchbasins and manholes, new area

drains, and two VortechsTM Stormwater Treatment Units. This report can be found in Appendix A. The

design involved coring through an existing concrete reinforced Quay wall apron on the south side of the

pier, and an existing concrete reinforced deck on the north side of the pier, and installing area drains.

The area drains were to be then connected to one of four main drain lines running along the pier inboard

of the Quay wall on the north side of the pier and outboard of the Quay wall on the south side of the pier.

The drain lines were to be then connected to a VortechsTM Stormwater Treatment Unit, one on the north

side of the pier, one on the south side of the pier. The VortechsTM Stormwater Treatment Units were tothen outlet to the ocean. The original design is shown on Figure C1.03 in Appendix A.

Upon preliminary construction and structural design, it was then determined that the proposed drainage

design would prove to be at best difficult to construct. The drain lines would have to be cored through

grade beams, or through the Quay wall itself (over six feet thick in places). The VortechsTM Stormwater

Treatment Units would have to cantilever atop existing pile caps, which also proved to be difficult.

Daylor Consulting Group, Inc. was asked by Lee Kennedy Co., Inc. (the contractors) for input on

alternatives.

Daylor Consulting Group, Inc. obtained hard copies of drawings entitled “ Rehabilitation of Birth 10 at

EDIC’s Marine Industrial Park, Wharf Reconstruction Details” dated November 1992, last revised

February 18, 1993, from Boston Redevelopment Authority’s Record Drawing collection. In thereconstruction of the wharf (Black Falcon), special drain inlets were utilized as a Best Management

Practice (BMP). Daylor Consulting Group Inc. proposes to use the concepts approved for these plans for

the proposed International Cargo Port project.

1.2 Proposed Special Outlet

Daylor Consulting Group, Inc. proposes to use special outlets as BMPs in the International Cargo Port

project. The special outlets consist of an H-20 load rated cast iron angle frame and grate on top of the

deck to collect storm runoff. The runoff will then drop through a 12" diameter stainless steel basket

suspended in a hole cored through the deck. The basket, made of #4 mesh 0.063"∅ wire, will trapsediments while being easily maintained. The runoff will then drop into a High Density Polyethylene

(HDPE) custom structure that is suspended from below deck. This 27" diameter structure will have a 2.5'

deep sump and 6" diameter HDPE outlet including a 6" HDPE tee.

The special outlets will be implemented where the area drains were proposed. The locations are shown

on Sheet C1.03 in Appendix B. The special outlets on the south side of the pier will be mounted to the

underside of the Quay wall apron, and to the underside of the deck on the north side of the pier as shown

2000Stormwater management was tricky for this project. The site is awharf in Boston Harbor constructed behind quay walls. The wharfwas open underneath at low tide and submerged almost to thebottom of the deck during high tide. We were required to providesome stormwater treatment. I designed a hanging basket systemthat could be mounted to the bottom of the deck. This is a portionof the report I wrote to obtain approval of these units.



Proposed Special Outlet Report Daylor Consulting Group, Inc.

2Special Outlet Report August 12, 1998 International Cargo Port, Boston, MA

in Figure 1 in Appendix B. The south side special outlets will discharge directly from the structure, the

north side outlets will be pipes through the openings in the Quay wall to the ocean. Figure 2 in

Appendix B shows a detail of the proposed special outlet. As additional stormwater treatment, Daylor

Consulting Group, Inc. proposes to use Boston Water and Sewer commission (BWSC) inline particle

separators on the roof drains for the proposed building addition as shown on C1.03 and detailed in Figure3, both in Appendix B.

The proposed design allows for approximately 10 cubic feet (75 gallons) of stormwater storage, and

approximately 7 cubic feet of oil and grease storage. The combination of the sediment basket, oil and

grease storage volume, deep sump and the addition of BWSC inline particle separators to the roof drains

of the proposed new building will provide a Total Suspended Solids (TSS) removal rate of greater than

80%, thus meet all applicable standards of the DEP Stormwater Management Policy.

1.3 Existing Special Outlets on Berth 10

During the reconstruction of Berth 10 at EDIC’s Marine Industrial Park, special drain inlets were used forstormwater treatment. The drain inlets were incorporated to the deck reconstruction which involved

replacement of the reinforced concrete deck. The inlets were 3'-6" by 3'-6" waterproofed, reinforced

concrete boxes structurally integral with the new deck. A cast iron frame and grate was mounted over

the box, and a 15" diameter by 24" high stainless steel basket was placed in the bottom of the box to trap

sediments. A 6" ductile iron tee and elbow was used as an outlet. The structure has a 1'-6" sump

allowing for approximately 9 cubic feet (67 gallons) of stormwater storage, and approximately 9 cubic

feet of oil and grease storage. A site visit to Berth 10 confirmed that the outlet are at present, in good

working order. Evidence of trapped sediments were found in the existing baskets at the bottom of the

structures, thus proving their ability to remove TSS. Figure 3 in Appendix C shows a detail of the

existing drain inlets.

1.4 Comparison of Berth 10 and International Cargo Port Special Outlets

The reconstruction of the deck at Berth 10 allowed the use of drain inlets that were structurally built into

the new deck. The proposed International Cargo Port project does not involve reconstruction of the

deck. Daylor Consulting Group, Inc, thus had to design a structure that could be suspended from the

underside of the pier and still withstand storm and tidal actions. Site grading limitations due to the

presence of railroad tracks that are not to be altered on the north side of the pier also meant the structures

had to be installed inboard of the Quay wall on this side. The Quay wall has periodic openings of

approximately 3' wide which limit the size of the structure to be suspended from the deck in these areas.

Given the approval of the Berth 10 drain inlets, Daylor Consulting Group, Inc. attempted to match the

design with the above mentioned constraints. The use of HDPE assemblies provides for a light yet

durable structure that can be installed in the field relatively easily. The volumes of the proposed

structures are comparable to the existing Berth 10 inlets and incorporate baskets which are easier toempty, and deeper sumps thus providing higher TSS settlement.





2 0 0 0

T h i s

i s

a

d e t a i l o f t h e

s p e c i a l o u t l e t t h a t I d e s i g n e d .



T h i s d e t a i l s h o w e d h o w t h

e s p e c i a l o u t l e t

w a s i n s t a l l e d

i n t o t h e q u a y w a l l .



Engineers – Planners – Scientists – Surveyors

C:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 4 for 1846-jpi ashland.zip\1846 - JPI

Ashland\Soils\Final\1846-soil reportfinal.doc

Job Number: 11846.01 Printed 7/17/2012 1:47:00 PM

Daylor Consulting Group, Inc.

10 Forbes Road

Braintree, MA 02184

Phone: (781) 849-7070

Fax: (781) 849-0096

FIELD REPORT

Project # 1.1846.01 Date: 12/5/00 – 12/13/00

Project: JPI Ashland Time: Full Days

Location: Ashland, Massachusetts Weather: Varied

Present:

Purpose: Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal

Introduction

Daylor Consulting Group (Daylor) is pleased to present to JPI the results of our soilsuitability assessment for on-site sewage disposal at the Jefferson at Ashland Station site

in Ashland, Massachusetts. The site is located in the Town of Ashland and is bounded to

the north by the MBTA commuter rail line and Megunko Road, to the east by CherryStreet and West Union Street (Rte 135), to the south by the Orchard Hill and Orchard Hill

II residential subdivisions, and to the west by High Street. Daylor made deep observation

holes and performed percolation testing from December 5th

to December 13th

focusing onthe southwest third and the southeast corner of the site.

A summary of the results is presented below. A full analysis of all soil types encountered

during the program follows.

2000

For this project, I performed asoil suitability assesmentthroughout the site and wrotethis report of my findings.









Area C

Area C is located along the ground moraine, found in the southeast corner of the site, and

encompasses approximately 6 acres. Compact glacial till with low silt content, gentleslopes, variable depth to seasonal high groundwater, and moderate permeability

characterize this area. This area is considered to be the most suitable for an on-site

sewage disposal system because of the relative homogeneous soils throughout the area.However, design of a large system in this area would also require additional testing to

determine the extent of the ledge/rock outcrop areas and to verify the limits of the area

suitable for a soil absorption system.

Evidence of seasonal high groundwater was found from 18” below grade to no evidence122” below grade. Because of the similarity of the soils in all the test pits excavated in

this area one percolation test was conducted resulting in a rate of 10 MPI. Based on the

percolation rate, soil type and DEP Title 5 regulations for subsurface discharge of sewagethe following areas of subsurface disposal area may be required.

• 500 unit JPI development at 88,000 gallons per day – approximately 4.5 acres

• 190 unit assisted living at 28,500 gallons per day – approximately 1.4 acres

• Total disposal area – approximately 5.9 acres

Soil Analysis

A Soil Evaluator Form 11 for each test pit can be found in Appendix A through AppendixC. The soil logs have been divided first into soil areas (A,B,C), second into soil

classification.

Area A

The southwest third of the site is characterized by a large till ridge in the north-northwest

direction. Area A is located on this till ridge. Soils found on till ridges are typically

glacial tills as was evidenced by the soil observations. The 1988 preliminary USDA SoilSurvey categorizes the soils found in the areas of test holes within Area A in two broad

groups consisting of Paxton series soils and Woodbridge series soils. Figure 2 shows the

soil boundaries (determined by the USDA), and test pit locations. Soil evaluator form

can be found in Appendix A.

Paxton Soil Series

The Paxton series soils found in Area A are shown in Figure 1 as 123B and 123D.

Paxton soils consist of well-drained loamy soils formed from glacial till. Paxtonsoils are characterized by slow to very slow permeability as evidenced by the

percolation test results. The Paxton series soils located on the site are brokendown into the following soil classification subtypes:

• 123B: Paxton Fine Sandy Loam, 3-8% slopes

• 123D: Paxton Fine Sandy Loam, 15-25% slopes







123B: Paxton Fine Sandy Loam, 3-8% slopes

The Paxton soils located on the eastern side of the till ridge are exemplified by

test pit numbers 7, 8, 15, 16, 17, 26. Evidence of seasonal high groundwaterwas found from 26” below grade to 41” below grade. One percolation test in

this area resulted in a rate of 17 MPI, one percolation test resulted in a rate of

25 MPI , and one percolation test failed (>30 MPI). The variable depth toseasonal high groundwater and the variation in percolation rates are typical of

glacial till soils where conditions may vary over short distances.

123D: Paxton Fine Sandy Loam, 15-25% slopes

The Paxton soils located on the northern half of the till ridge side are

exemplified by test pit numbers 5, 6, 14, 20, 25, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38,39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44. Evidence of seasonal high groundwater was found

from 20” below grade to no evidence 124” below grade. One percolation testin this area resulted in a rate of 24 MPI, while three tests failed (>30 MPI).The variable depth to seasonal high groundwater and the variation in

percolation rates are typical of glacial till soils where conditions may vary

over short distances.

Woodbridge Soil Series

The western side of the till ridge top located in the southwest corner of the siteconsists of Woodbridge series soils. The Woodbridge series soils are shown in

Figure 1 as 83B. Woodbridge soils consist of moderately well drained loamy

soils formed from glacial till. Woodbridge soils are characterized by slow to very

slow permeability. Percolation tests were not performed in this area of the sitedue to the silty and compact nature of the soils. The Woodbridge soils on this site

are of soil classification subtype Woodbridge Fine Sandy Loam, 3-8% slopes.

83B: Woodbridge Fine Sandy Loam, 3-8% slopes

The Woodbridge soils located on the western side of the till ridge top are

exemplified by test pit numbers 9, 18, 19, 27, and 28. Evidence of seasonal

high groundwater was found from 23” below grade to 34” below grade. No percolation tests were performed in this area due to the silty and compact

nature of the soils. It was determined that the soils would inevitably fail

percolation tests (>30 MPI). The relatively high seasonal high groundwater is

typical of these compact glacial till soils.

Area B

The till ridge, located in Area A, drops down steeply to a kame terrace surrounding the

Nyanza Superfund cap. Area B is located along this kame terrace. Soils found on kameterraces are typically glacial till and outwash soils as was evidenced by the soil







observations. The 1988 preliminary USDA Soil Survey categorizes the soils found in the

areas of test holes within Area B in one broad group consisting of Narragansett seriessoils. Figure 2 shows the soil boundaries (determined by the USDA), and test pit

locations. Soil evaluator form can be found in Appendix B.

Narragansett Soil Series

The Narragansett series soils found in Area B are shown in Figure 1 as 120B, and

120C. Narragansett soils are well-drained loamy soils formed as ice-contactoutwash from glacial till. Narragansett soils are characterized by moderately-

rapid to rapid permeability. The Narragansett series soils located on the site are

broken down into the following soil classification subtypes:

• 120B: Narragansett Silt Loam, 3-8% slopes

• 120C: Narragansett Silt Loam, 8-15% slopes

120B: Narragansett Silt Loam, 3-8% slopes

The Narragansett soils located along the flattest portion of the kame terrace tothe southwest of the Nyanza Superfund cap are exemplified by test pit

numbers 4, 12, 13, 21, 22, 22A, 23, 23A, 24A, and 31. Evidence of seasonal

high groundwater was found from 22” below grade to no evidence 125” belowgrade. Five percolation tests in this area resulted in rates varying from under

2 minutes per inch (MPI) to 22 MPI. The variable depth to seasonal high

groundwater and the variation in percolation rates are typical of glacial tills

and outwash soils where conditions may vary over short distances.

120C: Narragansett Silt Loam, 8-15% slopes

The Narragansett soils located along the slopes of the kame terrace to the

southwest of the Nyanza Superfund cap are exemplified by test pit numbers 1,

2, 3, 10, 11, 32, and 33A. Evidence of seasonal high groundwater was foundfrom 30” below grade to no evidence 131” below grade. Three percolation

tests in this area resulted in rates of less than 2 MPI, 8 MPI, and 20 MPI. The

variable depth to seasonal high groundwater and the variation in percolationrates are typical of glacial tills and outwash soils where conditions may vary

over short distances.

Area C

The southeast corner of the site is characterized by a ground moraine sloping towards the

wetlands to the northeast corner of the site. Soils found on ground moraines are typically

glacial tills as was evidenced by the soil observations. The 1988 preliminary USDA SoilSurvey categorizes the soils found in the areas of test holes in two broad groups







consisting of Narragansett series soils, and Hollis series soils. Figure 2 shows the soil

boundaries (determined by the USDA), and test pit locations. Soil evaluator form can befound in Appendix C.

Narragansett Soil Series

The Narragansett series soils found in Area C are shown in Figure 1 as 120C. Narragansett soils are well-drained loamy soils formed as outwash from glacial

till. The Narragansett soils in Area C are of soil classification subtype

Narragansett Silt Loam, 8-15% slopes. Narragansett soils are characterized bymoderately-rapid to rapid permeability.

120C: Narragansett Silt Loam, 8-15% slopes

The Narragansett soils located along the ground moraine are exemplified bytest pit numbers E and G. No evidence of seasonal high groundwater was

found 120” below grade on either test pit. No percolation tests were

performed in this area due to the loose materials and similarity to other pits in

Area C.

Hollis Soil Series

The Hollis soils found in Area C are a combination of Hollis and Narragansettsoils and are shown in Figure 1 as 17C. Hollis soils are well-drained loamy soils

formed as glacial till. Narragansett soils are well-drained loamy soils formed as

outwash from glacial till. The Narragansett and Hollis soils in Area C are of soil

classification subtype Narragansett-Hollis-Rock Outcrop Complex, 3-15% slopes. Narragansett soils are characterized by moderately-rapid to rapid permeability,

and Hollis soils are characterized by moderate to moderately rapid permeability.

17C: Narragansett-Hollis-Rock Outcrop Complex, 3-15% slopes

The Narragansett soils located along the ground moraine are exemplified by

test pit numbers A, B, C, D, F, and H. Evidence of seasonal high groundwaterwas found from 18” below grade to no evidence 122” below grade. One

percolation test in this area resulted in a rate of 10 MPI. The variable depth to

seasonal high groundwater is typical of soils where rock outcrops are found.





2 0 0 0

I d i d t h e s i t e d e s

i g n f o r t h i s

p r o j e c t w h i c h i n v o l v e d

e x p a n d i n g a n d p

r a v i n g a

p a r k i n g l o t f o r a

b u s y n u r s e r y .

T o p o g r a p h y a n d

c l o s e

r e s o u r c e a r e a s w e r e l a r g e

c o n s t r a i n s .



C:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 1 for 1868 - Ox Pasture Lane.zip\1868 - Ox Pasture

Lane\1868-review letter 10-04-00.doc


October 10, 2000

Krikor Baytarian

Hampstead on Marshfield Hills

P.O. Box 252

Marshfield Hills, MA 02051

Re: Ox Pasture Lane

Cohasset, MA

Dear Krikor Baytarian:

Daylor Consulting Group, Inc. (Daylor) is pleased to present to you the results of ourreview of the Ox Pasture Lane plans with regards to the development of five-bedroom

dwellings on the proposed lots following local and state regulations. Materials reviewed

for this report were the following: Sheets 1 of 7, 2 of 7, and 5 of 7 of a set of plans

entitled “Wheelwright Estates, Ox Pasture Lane, Cohasset, Mass” by Murphy & Wait,P.C. dated July 27, 2000; a plan entitled “Test Pits Plan” by Murphy & Wait, P.C., dated

September 9, 1999; and, percolation test results (51 sheets) provided by Murphy & Wait,

P.C, various test dates.

From our review, there has been not enough testing performed to properly design septicsystems for all the lots as suggested on Sheet 2 of 7 following the regulations set forth in“310 CMR 15.000, The State Environmental Code Title V: Minimum Requirements for

the Subsurface Disposal of Sanitary Sewage” and set forth in “Cohasset Board of Health

Supplemental Rules and Regulations to Title 5 of the State Environmental Code, 310CMR 15.000 Standard Requirements for the Siting Construction, Inspection, Upgrade, and

Expansion of Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal of Septage”.

There are five different scenarios for the siting of septic systems on the land shown on the plans:

1. Design of septic systems based on tests performed on the proposed Lots

6, 7, and 3 as shown on the plans.2. Design of septic systems based on tests performed on the proposed Lots

6 and 7 as shown on the plans, realignment of the lot lines to create twoor three lots that fall within the tested area of Lot 3.

3. Design of individual septic systems located on each lot with additional

testing on Lots 1, 2, 4, and 5 as shown on the plans.

2000For this project I was tasked to peerreview design documents for asubdivision. This is a letter with myfindings.








c. Lot 3:

There are many areas a septic system could be sited on Lot 3. Any system sizein this area would fall somewhere between the size of Lot 6 and Lot 7 above,

depending on which two percolation tests are used to size the system since the

percolation rates vary between less than 2 minutes-per-inch and 12 minutes- per-inch.

Scenario 2: Septic Systems Design with Lot Reconfiguration

a. Lot 6:Same as Scenario 1.

b. Lot 7:

Same as Scenario 1.

c. Lot 3:

Realignment of the property lines within the area of the test performed in Lot 3

could result in two or more systems in this area, depending on the Town ofCohasset Zoning Regulations regarding lot shape and size.

Scenario 3: Individual Septic Systems on All Lots

a. Lot 6:

Same as Scenario 1.

b. Lot 7:

Same as Scenario 1.

c. Lot 3:

Same as Scenario 1.

d. Lots 1, 2, 4, and 5:Additional testing would be required to design septic systems that fall within

each Lot.

Scenario 4: Shared Septic Systems In Lot 3

a. Lots 6 and 7:






Septic systems could be designed the same as in Scenario 1.

b. Lots 1-5:

A shared septic system could be designed in the area of the percolation tests performed in the vicinity of Lot 3. Five lots of five bedrooms each result in a

2,750-gallon per day design flow. Design of a shared septic system using TP

8-3, TP 8-4, TP 8-17, TP 8-6, TP 8-19, TP 8-8, and TP 8-13 with a 12 minute- per-inch Class II soil and a 0.56 Long Term Acceptance Rate (LTAR) would

require 4,911 square feet of leaching area (310 CMR 15.242). Under

Cohasset’s Supplemental Regulation to 310 CMR 15.240, “all plans must be

designed for garbage grinders”. This design restraint requires the area be

increased by 50% (310 CMR 15.240), resulting in the necessity of 7,366 squarefeet of leaching area. Using conventional 2-foot wide by 2-foot deep trenches

spaced 6-feet apart (reserve areas between), 13-trenches at 95 foot long wouldrequire a 102-foot by 95-foot leaching area. With evidence of a seasonal high

water table as little as 36” below the surface and a 4-foot separation to the

bottom of the leaching facility, proposed finish grade could be raised at least4.73-feet above the lowest existing grade in the vicinity of the test pits.

Depending on final grades of the proposed site, this could result in the design

of a mounded system.

Under 310 CMR 15.254, a pressure dosing would be required since the design

flow exceeds 2,000 gallons per day. Under Cohasset’s SupplementalRegulations to 310 CMR 15.231, the dosing chamber would be required to bedesigned with a 48-hour emergency holding capacity.

Design of a shared system under 310 CMR 15.290 would require the following

additional details:

(a) complete plans and specifications for the system as required by 310

CMR 15.201 through 15.255;

(b) a description of how the proposed shared system compares to systems

constructed in full compliance with 310 CMR 15.100 through 15.293 interms of its capacity to protect public health, safety, welfare and theenvironment;

(c) a proposed operation and maintenance plan for the shared system;






(d) a description of the form of ownership which any component of thesystem serving more than one building or dwelling will take, together

with relevant legal documentation describing or establishing that

ownership including, without limitations, easements, condominiummaster deed, or homeowners’ association documents. All forms of

private ownership of system components serving more than one

building or dwelling shall establish that each user of the system has thelegal ability to accomplish any necessary maintenance, repair, or

upgrade of the component;

(e) a description of the financial assurance mechanism proposed to ensure

effective long-term operation and maintenance of the system. A copyof a proposed insurance policy, for example, naming the local

approving authority and the Department as additional insureds, which provides for upgrade of the shared system in the event the shared

system fails to protect public health and the environment pursuant to

the criteria established in 310 CMR 15.303 shall be deemed to satisfythis requirement. The actual insurance binder shall be provided to the

local approving authority and the Department prior to construction of

the system; and

(f) a copy of a proposed Grant of Title 5 Covenant and Easement

essentially identical to that contained in Appendix 1 shall be recordedand/or registered with the appropriate Registry of Deeds and/or LandRegistration Office within 30 days of the latter of the following: receipt

from the local approving authority of the approved Covenant andEasement or the expiration of the 30 day DEP constructive approval

period pursuant to 310 CMR 15.293. The applicant shall file a certified

Registry copy of this Covenant and Easement with local approvingauthority and the Department within 30 days of its date of recordation

and/or registration, and prior to construction of the system.

Design of a shared system under 310 CMR 15.292 would require the

following additional details:

“(b)” the applicant demonstrates that the design flow from the facility or

facilities to be served by the shared system does not exceed the

design flow which could have been constructed in compliance with

310 CMR 15.100 without the use of a shared system.






The above additional requirements means that additional percolationtesting would have to be performed on Lots 1&2 and Lots 4&5 to prove

that a system could be built on the each lot prior to the approval of one

shared system. The DEP and the Cohasset Board of Health would have toapprove the system and all supporting documents required under 310 CMR

15.290.

Scenario 5: Individual Septic Systems Lot 3 Vicinity

a. Lot 6:

Same as Scenario 1.

b. Lot 7:Same as Scenario 1.

c. Lots 1 through 5:

Five individual septic systems could be constructed where percolation tests

were performed in the vicinity of Lot 3. Test pit pairs for the five systemswould result in the following designs:

Using TP 8-21 and TP 8-20 with a 18 minute-per-inch Class I soil and a 0.53Long Term Acceptance Rate (LTAR) would require 1038 square feet ofleaching area (310 CMR 15.242). Under Cohasset’s Supplemental Regulation

to 310 CMR 15.240, “all plans must be designed for garbage grinders”. Thisdesign restraint requires the area be increased by 50% (310 CMR 15.240),

resulting in the necessity of 1557 square feet of leaching area. Using

conventional 2-foot wide by 2-foot deep trenches spaced 6-feet apart (reserveareas between), 5-trenches at 52 foot long would require a 38-foot by 52-foot

leaching area. With evidence of a seasonal high water table 48” below the

surface and a 4-foot separation to the bottom of the leaching facility, proposedfinish grade could be raised at least 3.6-feet above the lowest existing grade in

the vicinity of the test pits. Depending on final grades of the proposed site, thiscould result in the design of a mounded system.

Using TP 8-19 and TP 8-9 with a 6 minute-per-inch Class I soil and a 0.56

Long Term Acceptance Rate (LTAR) would require 983 square feet of

leaching area (310 CMR 15.242). Under Cohasset’s Supplemental Regulationto 310 CMR 15.240, “all plans must be designed for garbage grinders”. This






design restraint requires the area be increased by 50% (310 CMR 15.240),resulting in the necessity of 1475 square feet of leaching area. Using

conventional 2-foot wide by 2-foot deep trenches spaced 6-feet apart (reserve

areas between), 5-trenches at 50 foot long would require a 38-foot by 50-footleaching area. With evidence of a seasonal high water table 42” below the

surface and a 4-foot separation to the bottom of the leaching facility, proposed

finish grade could be raised at least 6.1-feet above the lowest existing grade inthe vicinity of the test pits. Depending on final grades of the proposed site, this

could result in the design of a mounded system.

Using TP 8-13 and TP 8-8 with a 10 minute-per-inch Class II soil and a 0.60

Long Term Acceptance Rate (LTAR) would require 917 square feet ofleaching area (310 CMR 15.242). Under Cohasset’s Supplemental Regulation

to 310 CMR 15.240, “all plans must be designed for garbage grinders”. Thisdesign restraint requires the area be increased by 50% (310 CMR 15.240),

resulting in the necessity of 1376 square feet of leaching area. Using

conventional 2-foot wide by 2-foot deep trenches spaced 6-feet apart (reserveareas between), 5-trenches at 46 foot long would require a 38-foot by 46-foot

leaching area. With evidence of a seasonal high water table 40” below the

surface and a 4-foot separation to the bottom of the leaching facility, proposedfinish grade could be raised at least 4.0-feet above the lowest existing grade in

the vicinity of the test pits. Depending on final grades of the proposed site, this


Using TP 8-4 and TP 8-3 with a 6 minute-per-inch Class II soil and a 0.60

Long Term Acceptance Rate (LTAR) would require 917 square feet ofleaching area (310 CMR 15.242). Under Cohasset’s Supplemental Regulation

to 310 CMR 15.240, “all plans must be designed for garbage grinders”. This

design restraint requires the area be increased by 50% (310 CMR 15.240),resulting in the necessity of 1376 square feet of leaching area. Using

conventional 2-foot wide by 2-foot deep trenches spaced 6-feet apart (reserve

areas between), 5-trenches at 46 foot long would require a 38-foot by 46-footleaching area. With evidence of a seasonal high water table 36” below the

surface and a 4-foot separation to the bottom of the leaching facility, proposedfinish grade could be raised at least 4.3-feet above the lowest existing grade inthe vicinity of the test pits. Depending on final grades of the proposed site, this


Using TP 8-18 and TP 8-17 with a 6 minute-per-inch Class I soil (Percolationtest not performed in TP 8-18, assumed rate equal to TP 8-17, further testing






would be required) and a 0.70 Long Term Acceptance Rate (LTAR) wouldrequire 786 square feet of leaching area (310 CMR 15.242). Under Cohasset’s

Supplemental Regulation to 310 CMR 15.240, “all plans must be designed for

garbage grinders”. This design restraint requires the area be increased by 50%(310 CMR 15.240), resulting in the necessity of 1179 square feet of leaching

area. Using conventional 2-foot wide by 2-foot deep trenches spaced 6-feet

apart (reserve areas between), 5-trenches at 40 foot long would require a 38-foot by 40-foot leaching area. With evidence of a seasonal high water table

52” below the surface and a 4-foot separation to the bottom of the leaching

facility, proposed finish grade could be raised at least 3.0-feet above the lowest

existing grade in the vicinity of the test pits. Depending on final grades of the

proposed site, this could result in the design of a mounded system.

Construction of these septic systems would require variances to the setbackdistances of the soil absorption systems from property lines. Easements would

have to be established in the deeds to the lots containing septic systems of

other lots. The septic tank and pump chamber (if necessary) for each housewould have to be constructed on the lot the house is constructed on.

In summary, given the test pit information and the current lot configuration, there are onlythree lots that a septic system could be designed for under “310 CMR 15.000, The State

Environmental Code Title V: Minimum Requirements for the Subsurface Disposal of

Sanitary Sewage” and set forth in “Cohasset Board of Health Supplemental Rules andRegulations to Title 5 of the State Environmental Code, 310 CMR 15.000 StandardRequirements for the Siting Construction, Inspection, Upgrade, and Expansion of Onsite

Sewage Treatment and Disposal of Septage”. Additional lots could possibly be designedwith a reconfiguration of the lot lines in the area of the current Lot 3 percolation tests and

no additional testing. Additional percolation testing would have to be performed to site

the full 7 lots as shown on the plans, whether shared or individual systems on each lot.Finally, easements could be established for Lots 3 and 4 to allow the construction of septic

systems for Lots 1, 2, and 5 on these lots. If you have any questions or comments, please

do not hesitate to call me at 781.849.7070 ext 259.


Scott SchluterStaff Engineer



2 0

0 0

O n t h i s p r o j e c t , I l a i d o u t t h e

h o

u s e s a n d d r i v e w a y s ,

t h e n

g r

a d e d e a c h o f t h e l o t s a s

t h

e y w e r e p u r c h a s e d .

T h e

t r i c k w a s t o l e a v e t h e g r a d i n g

o p

e n e n o u g h t o a n t i c i p a t e

g r

a d i n g o f t h e l o t s o n e i t h e r

s i d e s i n c e t h e y w e r e n o t s o l d

i n

o r d e r .



2 0 0 1

T h i s i s a s e p t i c s y s t e m I

d e s i g n e d f o r a s i n g l e

f a m i l y r e s i d e n c e .

I t

r e q u i r e d s e v e r a l

v a r i a n c e s .

O n e o f t h e m

w a s s e t b a c k t o a c e l l a r .

I p r o p o s e d a n

i m p e r v i o u s b a r r i e r t o

p r e v e n t s e e p a g e i n t o

t h e b a s e m e n t .



Project No.: 1748

Project: Grove Street Subdivision

Date: May 25, 2001

PRE VS. POST PEAK FLOWS

Storm Event

Existing PeakFlow to Burnt Plain

Swamp (cfs)

(Reach 1)

Proposed PeakFlow to Burnt Plain

Swamp (cfs)

(Reach 1)

Existing Peak Flow toBurnt Plain Swamp

(cfs)

(Reach 2)

Proposed PeakFlow to Burnt Plain

Swamp (cfs)

(Reach 2)

2-year 0.91 0.93 0.35 0.34

10-year 6.02 5.28 1.65 1.59

100-year 19.20 17.37 4.38 4.33

BASIN CHARACTERISTICS

Basin A Basin B

Bottom of Basin

Elevation (feet) 111.00 113.00

Top of Berm


Spillway


100 Year High

Water Elevation

(feet) 114.00 117.20

Peak Flood

Volume Stored

(acre-feet) 0.13 0.68

Infiltration Rate

(feet/minute) 0.0000 0.0028

100 Year Peak

Outflow (cfs) 2.53 0.17

2001This is a summary sheet from my stormwater management design.



WETLANDS "E" SUMMARY

2-year storm 10-year storm 100-year storm

Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed

Bottom of

Depression

Elevation (feet) 110.4

Flood Elevation(ft) 112.0

Peak Water

Elevation (ft) 110.4 110.4 110.6 110.6 111.1 111.1

Peak Flood

Volume Stored

(acre-feet) 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.10 0.36 0.34

Peak Flow i nto

Wetlands (cfs) 0.02 0.03 0.42 0.60 3.35 3.89

WETLANDS "F" SUMMARY



Bottom ofDepression


Flood Elevation

(ft) 112.0

Peak Water

Elevation (ft) 109.0 109.2 109.2 110.8 111.1 111.8

Peak Flood

Volume Stored

(acre-feet) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.05

Peak Flow i nto

Wetlands (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.51

GROVE STREET DEPRESSION SUMMARY



Bottom of

Depression


Flood Elevation

(ft) 125.0 125.0

Peak Water

Elevation (ft) 123.1 123.0 123.3 123.2 123.8 123.5

Peak Flood

Volume Stored

(acre-feet) 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.03

Peak Flow i nto

Depression (cfs) 0.18

0.11 0.66 0.46 1.66 1.17



D A Y L O R

C O N

S U L T I N G G

R O U P I N C .

C L O S E D

D R A I N A G

E S Y S T E M C

A L C U L A T I O N S

1 0 0 - Y E A R

F R E Q U E N C Y

P r o j e

c t :

G r o v e S t r e e t S u b d i v i s i o n

P r o j .

# :

1 . 1 7 4 8 . 0 1

N o t e s : n = 0 . 0 1 3

D a t e

:

A p r i l 2 7 , 2 0 0 1

c = 0 . 9 5 ( R o o f a n d P a v e m e n t s )

B y :

R E L

c = 0 . 3 5 ( L a w n s a n d W o o d e d A r e a s )

C k d b y :

L i n e

L e n g t h

A r e a

R u n o f f

C A

S U M

T i m e o f

R a i n f a l l

R e q . C a p .

P i p e

S l o p e

F l o w F u l l

D e s i g n V e l .

R i m

I n v . E l e v a t i o

n s ( f t )

P i p e C o v e r T i m e i n

F r o m

T o

( f t )

( a c r e s )

C

C A

C o n c e n .

I ( i n . / h r . )

Q d ( c f s )

( i n )

( f t / f t )

Q f ( c f s )

V f ( f p

s )

V d ( f p s )

E l e v . ( f t )

U p p e r

L o w e r

Q / Q f

( f t )

P i p e ( m i n )

C B 1

- 1

D M H 1 - 1

2 1

0 . 0 4

. 8 5

0 . 0 3

0 . 0 3

5 . 0 0

7 . 4

0 . 2 5

1 2

0 . 0 1 0

3 . 4 8

4 . 4 3

2 . 2

1 2 1 . 6 2

1 1 8 . 1 0

1 1 7 . 9 0

0 . 0 7

2 . 5 2

0 . 1 6

C B 1

- 2

D M H 1 - 1

2 1

0 . 0 5

. 8 5

0 . 0 4

0 . 0 4

5 . 0 0

7 . 4

0 . 3 1

1 2

0 . 0 1 0

3 . 4 8

4 . 4 3

2 . 3

1 2 1 . 6 2

1 1 8 . 1 0

1 1 7 . 9 0

0 . 0 9

2 . 5 2

0 . 1 5

D M H

1 - 1

D M H 1 - 2

8 2

0 . 0 8

5 . 1 6

7 . 4

0 . 5 7

1 2

0 . 0 0 9

3 . 3 4

4 . 2 5

2 . 7

1 2 3 . 0 0

1 1 7 . 8 0

1 1 7 . 0 8

0 . 1 7

4 . 2 0

0 . 5 1

C B 1

- 3

D M H 1 - 2

5 5

0 . 1 6

0 . 6 0

0 . 1 0

0 . 1 0

5 . 0 0

7 . 4

0 . 7 1

1 2

0 . 0 1 1

3 . 7 2

4 . 7 4

3 . 1

1 2 5 . 5 0

1 2 1 . 0 0

1 2 0 . 4 0

0 . 1 9

3 . 5 0

0 . 3 0

C B 1

- 4

D M H 1 - 2

1 8

0 . 2 3

0 . 6 1

0 . 1 4

0 . 1 4

5 . 0 0

7 . 4

1 . 0 4

1 2

0 . 0 2 8

5 . 9 4

7 . 5 6

4 . 8

1 2 4 . 4 5

1 2 0 . 9 0

1 2 0 . 4 0

0 . 1 8

2 . 5 5

0 . 0 6

D M H

1 - 2

H W 1 - 1

1 0 8

0 . 3 1

5 . 3 0

7 . 4

2 . 3 2

1 2

0 . 0 1 0

3 . 5 6

4 . 5 3

4 . 2

1 2 4 . 0 0

1 1 6 . 9 8

1 1 5 . 9 0

0 . 6 5

6 . 0 2

0 . 4 3

C B 2

- 1

D M H 2 - 1

8

0 . 7 0

0 . 5 6

0 . 3 9

0 . 3 9

5 . 0 0

7 . 4

2 . 9 0

1 2

0 . 0 1 2

3 . 9 8

5 . 0 7

4 . 8

1 2 5 . 5 0

1 2 2 . 0 0

1 2 1 . 9 0

0 . 7 3

2 . 5 0

0 . 0 3

C B 2

- 2

D M H 2 - 1

7

0 . 1 7

0 . 7 7

0 . 1 3

0 . 1 3

5 . 0 0

7 . 4

0 . 9 7

1 2

0 . 0 1 4

4 . 2 6

5 . 4 2

3 . 7

1 2 5 . 5 0

1 2 2 . 0 0

1 2 1 . 9 0

0 . 2 3

2 . 5 0

0 . 0 3

D M H

2 - 1

D M H 2 - 2

2 1 1

0 . 5 2

5 . 0 3

7 . 4

3 . 8 7

1 2

0 . 0 1 8

4 . 8 4

6 . 1 7

6 . 0

1 2 5 . 7 7

1 2 1 . 8 0

1 1 7 . 9 0

0 . 8 0

2 . 9 7

0 . 5 8

C B 2

- 3

D M H 2 - 2

4

0 . 4 3

0 . 5 0

0 . 2 2

0 . 2 2

5 . 0 0

7 . 4

1 . 5 9

1 2

0 . 0 0 5

2 . 5 2

3 . 2 1

2 . 9

1 2 1 . 0 8

1 1 7 . 5 0

1 1 7 . 4 8

0 . 6 3

2 . 5 8

0 . 0 2

C B 2

- 4

D M H 2 - 2

4

0 . 1 9

0 . 6 0

0 . 1 1

0 . 1 1

5 . 0 0

7 . 4

0 . 8 4

1 2

0 . 0 0 5

2 . 5 2

3 . 2 1

2 . 4

1 2 1 . 0 8

1 1 7 . 5 0

1 1 7 . 4 8

0 . 3 3

2 . 5 8

0 . 0 3

D M H

2 - 2

D M H 2 - 3

1 9 0

0 . 8 5

5 . 0 2

7 . 4

6 . 3 0

1 2

0 . 0 1 8

4 . 7 7

6 . 0 8

6 . 9

1 2 1 . 4 2

1 1 7 . 4 0

1 1 3 . 9 9

1 . 3 2

3 . 0 2

0 . 4 6

D C B

2 - 5

D M H 2 - 3

8

0 . 4 7

. 5 1

0 . 2 4

0 . 2 4

5 . 0 0

7 . 4

1 . 7 7

1 2

0 . 0 0 5

2 . 5 2

3 . 2 1

3 . 0

1 1 8 . 5 0

1 1 5 . 0 0

1 1 4 . 9 6

0 . 7 0

2 . 5 0

0 . 0 4

D C B

2 - 6

D M H 2 - 3

8

0 . 5 3

0 . 5 6

0 . 3 0

0 . 3 0

5 . 0 0

7 . 4

2 . 2 0

1 2

0 . 0 0 5

2 . 5 2

3 . 2 1

3 . 2

1 1 8 . 5 0

1 1 5 . 0 0

1 1 4 . 9 6

0 . 8 7

2 . 5 0

0 . 0 4

D M H

2 - 3

H W 2 - 1

4 9

1 . 3 9

5 . 0 4

7 . 4

1 0 . 2 7

1 8

0 . 0 1 0

1 0 . 5 1

5 . 9 5

6 . 2

1 1 8 . 9 7

1 1 3 . 8 9

1 1 3 . 4 0

0 . 9 8

3 . 5 8

0 . 1 3

C B 3

- 1

H W 3 - 1

3 4

0 . 2 1

0 . 7 6

0 . 1 6

0 . 1 6

5 . 0 0

7 . 4

1 . 1 8

1 2

0 . 0 1 5

4 . 3 2

5 . 5 0

4 . 0

1 1 6 . 8 8

1 1 3 . 8 0

1 1 3 . 3 0

0 . 2 7

2 . 0 8

0 . 1 4

P : \ P R O J E C T S \ 1 7 0 0 \ 1 7 4 8 \ C A L C S \ 1 7 4 8 - r a t i o n a l . x l s

T h i s i s t h e s p r e a d s h e e t I

d e v e l o p e d a n d u s e d

t o s i z e

t h e s t o r m d

r a i n s u s i n

g t h e

R a t i o n a l M e t h o d .



1S

Westerly portion of site

3S

Area trib. to Wetlands

"D"

4S

Trib. to Wetlands "F"

5S

Tributary to Wetlands

"E"

7S

Subcatchment 2-4

12S

Subcatchment 1-2

13S

Subcatchment 1-3

(roadway)

21S

Detention Basin catchment

22S

Northerly portion of

roadway

23S

Roadway detention

pond

62S

Southeast portion of site

1R

2R

1P

Detention Pond @ Road

2P

Wetlands "D"

3P

Wetlands "F"

4P

Wetlands "E"

5P

Depression at Grove

Street

11P

Detention Pond at

cul-de-sac

Drainage Diagram for 1748-GROVE ST.-PROPOSED CONDITIONSPrepared by Town of Falmouth, DPW, Engineering, Printed 7/20/2012

HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 07153 © 2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC

Subcat Reach Pond Link

These are some pagesfrom the stormwatermodel I made for thisproject.



1748-GROVE ST.-PROPOSED CONDITIONS Printed 7/20/2012Prepared by Town of Falmouth, DPW, Engineering

Page 2HydroCAD® 9.10 s/n 07153 © 2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC

Area List ing (al l nodes)

Area

(acres)

CN Description

(subcatchment-numbers)

5.220 30 Wooded, A Soils (1S, 3S, 4S, 5S, 62S)2.480 39 Open Space, A Soils (1S, 3S, 4S, 5S, 62S)

0.870 39 Open Space, A soils (13S)

3.920 55 Wooded, B Soils (1S, 3S, 7S, 12S, 21S, 22S)

0.100 55 Wooded, B soils (13S)

3.820 61 Open Space, B Soils (1S, 3S, 7S, 12S, 21S, 22S, 23S, 62S)

0.210 61 Open Space, B soils (13S)

0.640 98 Burnt Plain Swamp (62S)

0.110 98 Driveway (13S)

0.080 98 Impervious (3S)

1.080 98 Pavement (4S, 13S, 22S)

0.550 98 Pavement, ex. residence (1S, 12S)

0.450 98 Rooftop (1S, 4S, 5S, 7S, 12S, 13S, 21S)

0.830 98 Wetlands (1S)

0.140 98 Wetlands "D" (3S)

0.710 98 Wetlands "E" (5S)

0.020 98 Wetlands "F" (4S)

21.230 TOTAL AREA



TYPE III 24-HR Rainfall=6.80"1748-GROVE ST.-PROPOSED CONDITIONS Printed 7/20/2012Prepared by Town of Falmouth, DPW, Engineering


Summary for Subcatchment 1S: Westerly port ion of site

Runoff = 16.08 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1.154 af, Depth> 1.81"

Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.04 hrsTYPE III 24-HR Rainfall=6.80"

Area (ac) CN Description

* 0.200 98 Pavement, ex. residence* 0.830 98 Wetlands* 2.210 55 Wooded, B Soils* 1.500 30 Wooded, A Soils* 1.190 39 Open Space, A Soils* 1.650 61 Open Space, B Soils* 0.050 98 Rooftop

7.630 55 Weighted Average6.550 85.85% Pervious Area

1.080 14.15% Impervious Area

Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)

4.5 40 0.1500 0.15 Sheet Flow, Segment ID:Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 3.30"

2.1 337 0.0270 2.65 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Segment ID:Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps

6.6 377 Total

Subcatchment 1S: Westerly portion of si te

Runoff

Hydrograph

Time (hours)20191817161514131211109876543210

F l o w

( c f s )

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Runoff=16.08 cfs @ 12.09 hrs

TYPE III 24-HR

Rainfall=6.80"

Runoff Area=7.630 ac

Runoff Volume=1.154 af

Runoff Depth>1.81"

Flow Length=377'

Tc=6.6 minCN=55

16.08 cfs @ 12.09 hrs



TYPE III 24-HR Rainfall=6.80"1748-GROVE ST.-PROPOSED CONDITIONS Printed 7/20/2012Prepared by Town of Falmouth, DPW, Engineering


Summary for Pond 5P: Depression at Grove Street

Inflow Area = 0.430 ac, 2.33% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 2.17"Inflow = 1.17 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 0.078 af Outflow = 0.13 cfs @ 13.04 hrs, Volume= 0.074 af, Atten= 89%, Lag= 58.6 minPrimary = 0.13 cfs @ 13.04 hrs, Volume= 0.074 af

Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.04 hrsPeak Elev= 123.53' @ 13.04 hrs Surf.Area= 2,733 sf Storage= 1,405 cf

Plug-Flow detention time= 132.7 min calculated for 0.074 af (95% of inflow)Center-of-Mass det. time= 115.3 min ( 928.5 - 813.2 )

Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description

#1 123.00' 7,538 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below

Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store

(feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet)123.00 1,449 0 0124.00 3,889 2,669 2,669125.00 5,848 4,869 7,538

Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices

#1 Primary 123.00' 2.016 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area

Primary OutFlow Max=0.13 cfs @ 13.04 hrs HW=123.53' (Free Discharge)1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.13 cfs)

Pond 5P: Depression at Grove Street

InflowPrimary

Hydrograph

Time (hours)20191817161514131211109876543210

F l o

w

( c f s )

1

0

Inflow Area=0.430 ac

Inflow=1.17 cfs @ 12.06 hrs

Primary=0.13 cfs @ 13.04 hrs

Peak Elev=123.53'

Storage=1,405 cf

1.17 cfs @ 12.06 hrs

0.13 cfs @ 13.04 hrs



FORM 11 - SOIL EVALUATOR FORM

Page 1 of 8

DEP APPROVED FORM - 12/07/95

No. Lot A Date: 5/30-6/1

Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Norwell, Massachusetts

Soil Suitability Assessment for On-site Sewage Disposal

Performed By: Scott Schluter, Daylor Consulting Group Date: 5/30-6/1

Witnesses By: Brian Flynn,Town of Norwell Board of Health

Map 7D, Lot 15

Town of Norwell

Assessor’s Map

Robert B & Linda F Whiddop &

Eileen Trubia

Office Review

Published Soil Survey Available: No Yes X

Year Published: 1977 Publication Scale: 1”=2000’ Soil Map Unit: MfB. MfC, and DeB

Drainage Class: Soil Limitations:

Surficial Geologic Report Available: No X Yes

Year Published: Publication Scale:

Geologic Material (Map Unit):

Landform: Depression

Flood Insurance Rate Map: Community Panel Numbers 250276 0006 B and 250276 0003 B dated July 19, 1982Above 500 year flood boundary: No Yes X

Within 500 year flood boundary: No X Yes

Within 100 year flood boundary: No Yes X

Wetland Area:

National Wetland Inventory Map (map unit):

Wetlands Conservancy Program Map (map unit):

Current Water Resource Conditions (USGS) Month: May

Range: Above Normal X Normal Below Normal

Other References Reviewed:

These are sheets from the soillogs I did for this project.




Page 2 of 8


Location Address or Lot No. A

On-site Review

Deep Hole Number: 1 Date: 5/30 Time: 9:30 Weather: Overcast 50's

Location (Identify on site plan): DH #1Land Use: woods Slope (%): 10 Surface Stones: yes

Vegetation: Pine, Oak

Landform: Depression

Position on Landscape (sketch on the back):

Distances from:

Open Water Body: feet Drainage way: feet

Possible Wet Area: feet Property Line: feet

Drinking Water Well: feet Other:

DEEP OBSERVATION HOLE LOG*

Depth from

Surface (Inches)

Soil Horizon Soil Texture

(USDA)

Soil Color

(Munsell)

Soil

Mottling

Other

(Structure, Stones, Boulders, Consistency, %

Gravel)

0-24 Fill - - - -

24-29 A Sandy Loam 10 YR 4/4 - Friable

29-49 B Sandy Loam 10 YR 5/8 - Very little Gravel

Friable

49-156 C Medium Sand 10 YR 5/6 - Gravel, Cobbles, Stones

Loose

* MINIMUM OF 2 HOLES REQUIRED AT EVERY PROPOSED DISPOSAL AREA

Parent Material (geologic): Till Depth to Bedrock: -

Depth to Groundwater: Standing Water in the Hole: 132" Weeping from Pit Face: 144"Estimated Seasonal High Ground Water: 132"




Page 6 of 8


Location Address or Lot No. A

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

Norwell, Massachusetts

Percolation Test*

Date: 5/30 Time: PM

Observation Hole # 1 2

Depth of Perc 54" 67"

Start Pre-soak 2:35 2:25

End Pre-soak 24 Gall@2:42 24 Gall@2:31

Time at 12"

Time at 9"

Time at 6"

Time (9" -6")

Rate Min./Inch <2 MPI <2MPI

* Minimum of 1 percolation test must be performed in both the primary area AND reserve area.

Site Passed: X Site Failed:

Performed By: Scott Schluter, Daylor Consulting Group

Witnessed By: Brian Flynn, Norwell Board of Health

Comments:



L O T 1

L O T 3

L O T 9

L O T 1 0

L O T 1 1

L O T 1 2

M A T C H L I N E

R O A D B

G R O V E

S T R E E T

( P U B L I C

4 5 ' W I D E )

OTIS HILL ROAD

(PUBLIC

50' WIDE)

H i n g h a m , M A 0 2 0 4 3

1 0 7 S o u t h S t r e e t

c / o A . B . K a h a n e A s s o c i a t e s , I n c .

2 0 0 1

T h e s e a r e s h e e t s f r o m t h

e

d e f i n i n i t i v e s u b d i v i s i o n p l a n I

w o r k e d o n .

G r a d i n g t h i s h i l l y

s i t e ,

f i t t i n g i n r o o m f o

r s e p t i c

s y s t e m s , a n d l o c a t i n g

s t o r m w a t e r f a c i l i t i e s w e r e d i f f i c u l t

w i t h t h i s p r o j e c t t h a t c o n t a i n e d

m a n y s e n s i t i v e r e s o u r c e a r e a s .



L O T 3

L O T

4

L O T 5

L O T 6

L O T 7

L O T 8

M A T C H L I N E

H i n g h a m , M A 0 2 0 4 3

1 0 7 S o u t h S t r e e t

c / o A . B . K a h a n e A s s o c i a t e s , I n c .





2 0 0 2

T h i s i s t h e s u b c a t c h m e n t p l a n

f o r t h e c o m p l e x s t o r m w a t e r

m o d e l .






C:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 5 for 2221 Cyr-North Andover.zip\2221 Cyr-North

Andover\Reports\2221 memo 09-03-02.doc

Job Number: 1.2221.00 Printed 8/7/2012 7:44:00 AM

OFFICEMEMO

To: Stephen P. Cyr.

From: Scott Schluter

Cc: Zoltan Juhasz, File

Date: September 3, 2002Re: Red Gate Pasture - Peer Review

After a review of the supplied plans, entitled “Red Gate Pasture Definitive SubdivisionPlan” dated November 22, 1996 and last revised February 26, 2001, by New England

Engineering Services, Inc., and a set of calculations entitled “Drainage Report” dated

April 4, 1999, by New England Engineering Services, Inc., Daylor offers the followingcomments:

Predevelopment Drainage

• No drainage maps were provided.

• The time of concentration (tc) summaries show that sheet flow lengths greater than50’ were modeled. According to the DEP’s “Basic Hydrologic Calculations for

Conservation Commissioners” and general engineering practice, it is not common

practice to exceed 50’. Since much of the travel time is generated by the sheetflow portion of tc calculations, it appears that the total concentration times were

over estimated.

• Due to a shift in the distribution of the stormwater flows that is caused by

directing flows to the detention basin, it would have been more accurate toanalyze the impacts of stormwater flows into the existing closed drainage system

in the street. The logical design point would have been the downstream drainmanhole, in front of the east abutting property, in order to determine if theexisting downstream drainage structure was capable of handling the shift in

stormwater flow. (See Post Development Drainage below for further

explanation).

2002This is a memo I wrote as part of apeer review of a subdivision plan by

another engineering firm.







Post Development Drainage

Drainage Calculations

• No drainage maps were provided.

• The time of concentration (tc) summaries show that sheet flow lengths greater than

50’ were modeled. According to the DEP’s “Basic Hydrologic Calculations forConservation Commissioners” and general engineering practice, it is not common

practice to exceed 50’. Since much of the travel time is generated by the sheetflow portion of tc calculations, it appears that the total concentration times were

over estimated.

• In the predevelopment scenario, the stormwater flow is spread out fairly evenly

across the property frontage; however, in the post development scenario a large portion of the stormwater flow is concentrated as outflow from the detention basin

that is directed toward the catchbasin in the street directly in front of the basin.

No analysis was made as to the impacts of concentrating the flow to this one

location or the impacts on the existing closed drainage system. It would be more

beneficial to model the existing drain manhole in front of the abutting property asthe design point and to check that the existing drainage appurtenances

downstream of the detention basin outlet were capable of handling the higherconcentration of the stormwater flow.

Closed Drainage System Calculations

• A 10-minute time of concentration was used for all of the catchbasins in theRational Method calculations; however it appears many of the catchbasins should

have a 5-minute concentration time which results in an increase in the intensity

from 4.35 to 5.4 inches per hour. Therefore, it appears some of the closeddrainage structures may be inadequate.

• Pipes at CB-01 and DMH-01 exceed the 12-foot maximum cover recommended by the Massachusetts Department of Public Works. These pipes should be Class

IV or greater.

• Pipes at CB-06 and CB-07 are less than the 18” minimum cover recommended by

the Massachusetts Department of Public Works. These pipes should be Class IVor greater.

• The pipe calculations indicating a 100-year design storm actually uses the 10-year

storm intensity, 6.2 inches per hour should have been utilized.

• The basin does not appear to be adequately sized. It appears that a larger portion

of Woodchuck Hill drains through the property in the predevelopment scenariothan is accounted for (only the extents of the property is utilized in the

calculations). Under the post development scenario, it appears that anystormwater flows generated uphill of the proposed cul-de-sac is conveyed, viaswales, towards CB 1 where stormwater flows enter the closed drainage system

and are eventually collected in the detention basin. The flow into the system is

grossly underestimated by utilizing the property extents since the true drainagearea should extend to the top of Woodchuck Hill, or provisions should be made to

ensure that only the areas indicated in the calculations will enter the closed









• Additional soil observations and ground water determinations should be providedin the areas of the proposed basements due to the extent of the proposed

excavations.

• Additional soil observations and ground water determinations should be provided

in the areas of the rear hill excavation due to the proposed depth of excavation.+

• Calculations should be provided showing the estimated time to drain for thedetention basin. The time water stands in the basin should be minimized.

• In order to construct the basements of lots 2 and 3, over 20-feet must beexcavated. How is this construction proposed? It is likely that groundwater or

perched water will be encountered several feet below existing grade as evidenced by the nearby existing isolated wetlands.

• The excavation into the hill at the rear of the site is severe and there will likely besome issues with groundwater or perched water. The length of the 2:1 slope

along this excavation may warrant the use of some erosion protection, proposed

grades at a shallower slope, or the use of a retaining wall.

• No calculations have been provided for the foundation drains utilized for the

proposed houses. The proposed grading plans show a lot of grading that directsstormwater flows towards these houses; assurances should be made to provide dry

basements and minimize the risk of flooding and erosion around these homes.

• What prevents clogging of CB 1, CB (no number provided), and the flared endsection located in the depression? These structures are proposed within overland

flow areas and beehive grates or other structural methods to prevent clogging

should be proposed.

• The proposed design shows three proposed catch basins connected to one existingcatchbasin. Chain basins to this extent are not desirable and a different layout at

the proposed entrance should be explored.

• A tree is erroneously proposed in the middle of the driveway serving Lot 1.

Scott Schluter

Staff Engineer

Daylor Consulting Group



I d e s i g n e d t h e

s e p t i c s y s t e m f o

r

t h i s p r o j e c t . I t

i n v o l v e d

c o n n e c t i n g t h r e e

s e p a r a t e

s t r u c t u r e s t o t h e

s y s t e m .





2 0 0 2

T h i s i s a s h e e t f r o m t h

e

p e r m i t t i n g s e t f o r a

w a r e h o u s e e x p a n s i o n t h a t I

d i d t h e w o r k f o r .




C:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 8 for 1781-jpi-providence.zip\1781 - Jefferson at

Providence Place\Construction\1781-shop trans 2-21-02.doc

Job Number: 1.1781.01 Printed 7/20/2012 2:37:00 PM

Daylor Consulting Group, Inc.10 Forbes Road

Braintree, MA 02184Phone: (781) 849-7070

Fax: (781) 849-0096

TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM

To: Chris Brindamour From: Scott SchluterProject Manager Staff Engineer

O. Ahlborg & Sons, Inc. Extension 259

1000 Providence Place [email protected], RI 02903

Cc:

Date: February 21, 2002

Re: Submittal 02000-02 rev. 0 -Site piping/paving

We are sending you via FedEx the following:

Copies Date Description

6 2/21/02 Shop Drawing: 08 Roof Drain Piping –SDR 35 PVC 8”*

5 2/21/02 Shop Drawing: 09 Sewer Line – SDR 35 PVC 6”&8”**

5 2/21/02 Shop Drawing: 10 Common Borrow – Test Reports**

5 2/21/02 Shop Drawing: 11 Structural Gravel – Test Reports*

5 2/21/02 Shop Drawing: 12 Reprocessed Gravel – Test Reports**

5 2/21/02 Shop Drawing: 14 Precast Concrete Bumper Curbs**

5 2/21/02 Shop Drawing: 15 Granite Curbing**

6 2/21/02 Shop Drawing: 16 Asphalt Binder Mix**

6 2/21/02 Shop Drawing: 17 Asphalt Surface Mix**

* Returned, Not in Contract** No Exception Taken

2002This is one of theshop drawingsubmittal responses.



SK-C-001

In response to RFI 11231-00075

I created this datum conversion sheet as a responseto elevation questions by the contractor.



This site containedcontaminated soils. We had tokeep all excavated soils onsite. I designed a mountagainst the parking garagethat also acted as a visual

buffer to the properties acrossfrom the highway ramp.



S K - 0 0 0 7 6 - A

D R A I N A G E R E V I S I O N S ( O V E R L A Y

O F

P I F P L A N )

2 0 0 2

I h a d t o " t h r e a d t h e n e e d l e " w i t h

t h e s t o r m w a t e r p i p e s g o i n g

t h r o u g h t h e c o u r t y a r

d s , p r o p o s e d

b u i l d i n g s , a n d b u r i e d

f o u n d a t i o n s

f r o m p

a s t b u i l d i n g s .



These are the hand calculations I did forthe septic system design.











ese are some o t e an

calculations for the recirculating sandfilter that I designed.
























C:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 35 for 1833-alder streetmedway.zip\1833\Construction\1833-rev memo 1-24-02.doc



Braintree, MA 02184

Phone: 781 849 7070

Fax: 781 849 0096

MEMORANDUM

To: William Conroy


Cc:

Date: July 17, 2012

Re: 51 Alder Street, Medway RFI and CD revision information

Bill:

Below is a summary of information requested by Fleet Construction and summaries ofrevisions to date.

Fleet Construction Memo Dated 01/08/02:

1. The labeling of the 8,000 gallon tanks is correct as shown on the constructiondrawings (CDs)

2. The automatic distributing valve chamber invert is 254.0 as shown on the CDs.3. The electric valve inverts are 253.6 as shown on the CDs.4. The detail is correct, the vent line is a separate line from the laterals.5. The pumps are guided by rails; there is a chain attached to pull the pumps up the

rails.6. The emergency storage information is correct as shown on the CDs.7. The depth dimension of the 8,000 gallon tank is corrected as shown on the CDs.

8. The invert between the tanks is 246.7 as shown on the CDs.9. The invert elevation out of the pump station is 253.14 as shown on the CDs.10. Please refer to electrical engineer for alarm panel information.11. Please refer to electrical engineer for control panel information.12. The override timer float is set to 80% tank depth as shown on the CDs.13. The high level alarm float is set to elevation 253.38 as shown on the CDs.

This is a response to a Request forInformation by the selectedcontractor prior to construction.








Control Panel Indication Information

The following items should be included in the control panels for the subsurface sewagedisposal system if not already included in any standard manufacturer panel:

1. A red valve fault light: to be triggered in the event a valve fails to open. A resetswitch should be associated with this light.

2. Counters for each valve indicating the number of times each valve has opened.3. An amber indicator light for each valve to be lit when the valve is in the open

position.4. A red indicator light for each valve to be lit when the valve is in the closed

position.5. A manual override switch for each valve with the following positions available:

auto, open, close, and off.6. A green indicator light for each pump to be lit when the pump is running (all

pumps including rsf and pressure dosing)7. A red indicator light to be lit for high-level alarm in pressure dosing chamber.8. A red indicator light to be lit for high-level alarm in rsf dosing chamber.

9. Hour indicators for each pressure dosing pump.10. Cycle count indicators for each rsf dosing pump.11. A manual override switch for each pump with the following positions: hand, off

and auto. (all pumps including rsf and pressure dosing)12. A manual alarm test switch to trigger audible alarm, visual alarm, and autodialer.13. Any additional lights or counters as required by the manufacturer of all

components or as indicated by the electrical engineer.14. All lights, counters, switches, etc are to be clearly marked as to their purpose.

Inspection Requirements

The following is the inspection schedule that is required by Title V and The Town ofMedway regulations during the construction of commercial subsurface sanitary sewagedisposal systems. The inspection schedule has to be followed in order to receive aCertificate of Compliance for the system. A Registered Engineer from DaylorConsulting Group will approve the inspections of the system. The Town of Medwayrequires that the Health Agent be contacted 48-hours prior to the required inspections.An “As-Built” drawing of the constructed system will also be required in order to acquirethe Certificate. Elevations of all inverts, manholes, and structures of the septic system prior to backfilling will have to be obtained by Daylor in order to produce the “As-Built”drawing. The schedule is as follows:

Title V Inspection Requirements:1) Inspection of initial excavation of the septic system area prior to any placement of

backfill, sub base, or structure. Daylor will perform this inspection with the BOH present.

2) Prior to backfilling of the system a complete inspection of the system is required.Daylor and the BOH will inspect the system to insure that all components






installed match the design drawings. A clear water test will be run, the contractwill have filled the pump chamber with ample water to run the system for severalminutes. Holes will be drilled in laterals at various locations along the leachingareas to verify even distal head across the fields. The holes will be plugged by thecontractor prior to backfilling the system.

3) Prior to backfilling, all tanks will have to be subject to a watertight test. Daylorwill observe the tanks 24-hours after being filled with water to verify proper jointseals.

4) Prior to backfilling a detailed survey of all inverts, manholes, and structures of thesystem will be performed by Daylor. No backfilling will occur without approval by Daylor.

5) A final survey is required after all site work over the septic system has beencompleted.

Town of Medway Inspection Requirements:

1) Bottom Inspection – The Health Agent is required to inspect the bottomexcavation of the septic system prior to any backfilling or installation of thesystem. This inspection has a $50 fee required by the Town. Contractor to contactthe Health Agent 48 hours in advance.

2) System Inspection – The Health Agent will inspect all components of the septicsystem prior to any backfilling. This inspection has a $100 fee required by theTown. Contractor to contact the Health Agent 48 hours in advance.

Contact Information:

Town of Medway Board of HealthWilliam Fisher, Health AgentMunicipal Building155 Village Street

Medway, MA 02053Phone: (508) 533-3206 Fax: (508) 533-3276

Thank you,

Scott SchluterStaff EngineerDaylor Consulting Group



Operations and Maintenance Manual

Medway Business CenterRecirculating Sand Filter andSubsurface Sewage Disposal System51 Alder StreetMedway, Massachusetts

Owner:Conroy Development

600 Technology Center DriveStoughton, MA 02072

Prepared by:Daylor Consulting Group, Inc.Ten Forbes RoadBraintree, MA 02184(781) 849-7070

This is the Table of Contents for theOperations and Maintenance Manual Iwrote for the septic system.



Medway Business Center Recirculating Sand Filter and Subsurface Sewage Disposal SystemOperations and Maintenance Manual

Daylor Consulting Group Inc. 1-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1-4 1.1 Wastewater Treatment Pant (WWTP) Operation and Maintenance Manual...1-4

1.2 Facility Description..........................................................................................1-52.0 Permits and Standards .........................................................................................2-7

2.1 Permits..............................................................................................................2-72.2 Standards ..........................................................................................................2-7

2.3 Technical Data..................................................................................................2-7

3.0 Descriptions, Operation and Control of Wastewater Treatment Plant ...........3-9 3.1 Description of Operation – Normal Operations ...............................................3-9

3.1.1 Sewer Manholes .....................................................................................3-11

3.1.2 Septic Tank.............................................................................................3-13

3.1.3 Effluent Filter Tee Assembly .................................................................3-133.1.4 Sewer Cleanouts.....................................................................................3-16

3.1.5 Overflow Manhole with Diversion Weir and Alarm Float ....................3-183.1.6 10,000 Gallon Recirculating Sand Filter Pump Chamber......................3-203.1.7 Recirculating Sand Filter Chamber Pump Vault....................................3-20

3.1.8 Recirculating Sand Filter Distributing Valve.........................................3-24

3.1.9 Recirculating Sand Filter Bed ................................................................3-24

3.1.10 Pressure Dosing Pump Chambers ..........................................................3-273.1.11 Valve Pit.................................................................................................3-30

3.1.12 Leaching Areas.......................................................................................3-32

3.1.13 Vent Assemblies.....................................................................................3-323.1.14 Control Panels ........................................................................................3-36

3.2 Emergency Operations ...................................................................................3-39

3.2.1 Emergency Contacts...............................................................................3-403.2.2 Response Patterns...................................................................................3-42

3.2.3 Emergency Conditions ...........................................................................3-43

4.0 Maintenance...........................................................................................................4-1 4.1 Septic Tank.......................................................................................................4-1

4.2 Recirculating Sand Filter Dosing System ........................................................4-3

4.3 Recirculating Sand Filter Bed ..........................................................................4-5

4.4 Pressure Dosing System...................................................................................4-74.5 Valve Pit...........................................................................................................4-9

4.6 Leaching Areas...............................................................................................4-11

4.7 Control Panel..................................................................................................4-12

4.8 Medway Board of Health Requirements........................................................4-135.0 Effluent Quality Sampling....................................................................................5-1

6.0 Record Management.............................................................................................6-2 6.1 Operating Records............................................................................................6-3

6.2 Maintenance Records .......................................................................................6-3

6.3 O&M Cost Records..........................................................................................6-4

7.0 Safety ......................................................................................................................7-1





7.1 Safety Program.................................................................................................7-1

7.1.1 Training ....................................................................................................7-1

7.1.2 Maintenance of Safe Conditions ..............................................................7-2

7.1.3 Accident Investigation..............................................................................7-2

7.1.4 Safety Bulletin Board ...............................................................................7-37.2 Safe Practices ...................................................................................................7-3

7.2.1 Safety Equipment .....................................................................................7-47.2.2 Good Housekeeping .................................................................................7-5

7.2.3 Material Lifting ........................................................................................7-5

7.2.4 Ladder Operations ....................................................................................7-67.3 Equipment Safety .............................................................................................7-7

7.3.1 Motors and Electrical Panels....................................................................7-7

7.3.2 Mechanical Equipment.............................................................................7-8

7.4 Confined Space Entry.......................................................................................7-9

8.0 Site Utilities............................................................................................................ 8-1

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3-1: Recirculating Sand Filter Control Panel

Table 3-2: Pressure dosing System Control Panel

Table 4-1: Septic Tank Preventative Maintenance

Table 4-2: Recirculating Sand Filter Dosing System Preventative Maintenance

Table 4-3: Recirculating Sand Filter Bed Preventative Maintenance

Table 4-4: Pressure Dosing System Preventative Maintenance

Table 4-5: Valve Pit Preventative Maintenance

Table 4-6: Leaching Area Preventative MaintenanceTable 4-7: Control Panel Preventative Maintenance

Table 4-8: Medway Board of Health Requirements

Table 5-1: Maximum Discharge Limits





LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1: Facility Site Plan

Figure 3-1: Wastewater Treatment Facility Flow ProfileFigure 3-2: Sewer Manhole

Figure 3-3: 31,000 Gallon Septic Tank

Figure 3-4: Effluent Filter Tee Assembly

Figure 3-5: Sewer Cleanouts

Figure 3-6: Overflow Manhole with Diversion Weir and alarm

Figure 3-7: 10,000 Gallon Recirculating Sand filter Pump Chamber

Figure 3-8: Biotube Pump Vault

Figure 3-9: Recirculating Sand Filter Bed

Figure 3-10: 8,000 Gallon Pressure dosing Pump Chambers

Figure 3-11: Valve Pit

Figure 3-12: Leaching AreasFigure 3-13: Vent Assemblies

Figure 3-14: Control Panels

LIST OF APPENDICIES

APPENDIX 1 Septic Tank

APPENDIX 2 Recirculating Sand Filter System, Orenco Inc.

APPENDIX 3 Pressure dosing System

APPENDIX 4 Valve Pit

APPENDIX 5 Control Panels

APPENDIX 6 Conditions of ApprovalAPPENDIX 7 Recirculating Sand Filter Design Calculations

APPENDIX 8 Pressure Dosing System Design Calculations

APPENDIX 9 Construction Drawings

APPENDIX 10 Record Drawings

APPENDIX 11 Construction Photographs





1.0 Introduction

The Medway Business Center is a multi-service building offering office andwarehouse space that was constructed between 2002 and 2003. The site is located

at 51 Alder Street in Medway, MA.

During the winter of 2002-2003, construction was completed on the subsurface

sewage disposal system for this building. The automated subsurface sewage

disposal facility was designed to conform to the Massachusetts Department ofEnvironmental Protection 310 CMR 15.000 - Title 5 requirements with additional

requirements set by the Medway Board of Health in their May 24, 2001 Conditions

of Approval for a Disposal Works Construction Permit.

The Construction Drawings for the project can be found in Appendix 9. In the

hardcopy version of this O&M manual only the sheets pertinent to the subsurface

sewage disposal system are included; the attached electronic version of the O&Mcontains the complete Construction Drawings as well a copy of this entire

document.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts requires that this Wastewater

Treatment Plant (WWTP) be operated and maintained in accordance with

Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control 314 CMR 12.00 –

Operations and Maintenance and Pretreatment Standards for Wastewater

Treatment Works and Indirect Discharges.

The operator of the facility must be certified in accordance with Massachusetts

Board of Registration of Operators of Wastewater Treatment Facilities 257

CMR 2.00 – Certification of Operators of Wastewater Treatment Facilities.

1.1 Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Operation and MaintenanceManual

This Operation and Maintenance Manual (O&M Manual) has been prepared for the

Medway Business Center Wastewater Treatment Plant in accordance withCommonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Water Pollution Control, 314 CMR12.00. This manual provides guidelines and procedures for the proper operation

and maintenance of the facility. It is intended that this manual be used in

conjunction with the manufacturers O&M Manuals, shop drawings, and productdata provided by the equipment suppliers. For specific procedures related to

equipment breakdown, parts replacement, and step-by-step maintenance procedures

these manuals should be consulted. Some of the shop drawings and manufacturersO&M Manuals are included as appendices to this manual.

This Manual is organized in 8 sections. Section 1 provides an introduction andoverview of this manual and the facility, Section 2 provides information on permits,

standards, and facility design criteria, Section 3 provides guidelines for normal and





emergency operations, Section 4 presents guidelines for preventative maintenance,

Section 5 covers sampling and laboratory analysis, Section 6 covers reporting and

records keeping, Section 7 covers site safety, and Section 8 describes facility

utilities.

1.2 Facility Description

The layout of the system is shown on Figure 1-1: Facility Site Plan. A single 6-inch sewer line services flow from the building. Wastewater discharged from the

facility is directed to a dual-chambered 31,000-gallon septic tank where an effluent

tee filter (manufactured by Zabel Environmental Technologies) is fitted to the outlettee.

Flow from the septic tank enters a diversion manhole structure where, under normaloperating conditions, the effluent is directed to the recirculating sand filter pump

chamber. Under conditions where a blockage occurs in the recirculating sand filter

system, effluent is directed over an overflow weir to the pressure dosing pumpchambers.

The recirculating sand filter pump chamber is a 10,000-gallon tank containing

pumps that continuously recirculate the effluent through the sand filter prior todirecting the effluent to the pressure dosing pump chambers.

The pressure dosing pump chambers consist of two 8,000-gallon tanks in series, the

second of which contains two solids handling pumps that dose the fields witheffluent four times per day at the maximum daily design flow of 9,800 gallons

(2,450 gallons per dose).

Individual dosing of the four leaching areas is managed by a valve system

contained in the valve pit that is located after the pressure dosing pump chambers.

The valve system consists of four solenoid-actuated valves that are operated by thecontrol panel located in the control room.

The purpose of this WWTP facility is to comply with the Conditions of Approval

for a Disposal Works Construction Permit that was issued by the Medway Board ofHealth on July 11, 2001.







Table 4-1: Septic Tank Preventative Maintenance

PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE

REQUIREMENTS

VENDOR

LITERATURE

REFERENCE

SUGGESTED

FREQUENCY

RECOMMENDED

MATERIALS Inspect the liquid level of the septic

tank. The liquid level should never

be lower than the outlet pipe invert.

Appendix 2 Monthly ---

Inspect effluent filter tee assemblies. Appendix 2 Every 3

Months

---

Inspect sludge and scum thickness

Note: Sludge accumulation can be

measured using a 2 x 4 stud or wood

closet pole; plunge rod into tank andsludge level can be measured from

bottom of rod. Scum accumulation

can be measured using the same rod; plunge rod through scum layer

estimating where the bottom of the

layer is and scum level can bemeasured from the bottom of the rod.

Appendix 2 Inspect every

6 months.

Pump when

sludge level

reaches 28inches and/or

scum levelreaches 14

inches within

tank

Plunge rod for

measurements

of scum and

sludge.

Pump accumulated sludge from

bottom septic tank.Appendix 6 Annually ---

Clean effluent filter tee by housing it

off into the septic tank.

--- Annually ---



2 0 0 2

T h e s e a r e s o m e o f t h e d r a w i n g s s e t f r o m a

p r o j e c t t h a t I w a s t h e p r o j e c t m a n a g e r f o r f r o m

b e g i n n i n g t o e n d . I d i d t h e d e

s i g n , d r e w

t h e

d r a w i n g s , a n d o v e r s a w

t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n .

T h e p r o j e c t w a s s i t e d e s i g n f o r a p r o p o s e d

1 6 4 , 0 0 0 s f b u i l d i n g i n c l u d i n g

t h e d e s i g n o f a

9 , 7 9 5 g p d s e p t i c s y s t e m i n c l u

d i n g a

r e c i r c u l a t i n g s a n d f i l t e r t h a t I d e s i g n e d f r o m

s c r a t c h .













































C:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 65 for 5-0011-Camp Ramah.zip\5-0011-Camp

Ramah\Report\50011-letter.doc

Job Number: 5.0011.02 Last printed 7/10/2012 11:48:00 AM

February 1, 2002

Board of Directors

Camp Ramah in New England

35 Highland Circle

Needham, MA 02494

Good day and Shalom:

Attached to this letter is Daylor Consulting Group's Engineering Report for Camp Ramah

in Palmer, MA. The report analyzes various options available to Camp Ramah in regards

to complying with the current DEP Administrative Consent Order, health issues, andfuture expansion possibilities of the camp. The main issue facing the camp is to resolve

the wastewater issue since the Camp is under an Administrative Consent Order from theDepartment of Environmental Protection to either connect the Camp to a municipal sewer

or to construct an onsite wastewater treatment plant under either the DEP’s Ground Water

Discharge Permit Program or Surface Water Discharge Permit Program.

Daylor has made several site visits to the camp including meetings with Jim and Joel to

discuss the project's intent, met with and had several conversations with Palmer and Ware

officials, met with Thorndike Water, and have had several phone calls with the DEPlocated in Springfield, MA.

Daylor's recommendation is for the Camp to connect to the Palmer sanitary sewer systemlocated in River Street (about 9,700 feet from the Camp). Daylor also recommends that

the Camp connect to the Thorndike Water system in a common trench with the sewer

force main. The water line connection would be approximately 8,500 feet long.

The water line would connect to the water line already existing in the Camp (with someinfrastructure work required) and would have a Master meter for billing purposes. The

Camp’s sewer system would have to be replaced with a small diameter sewer system with

several grinder pumps to pump sewage to a new central sewage pump station most likelylocated in Village A.

We are recommending the water and sewer connections because you cannot treat and

dispose sewage on the Camp properly without impacting groundwater quality. You mustrelocate your water supply well to an area of the Camp that will not impact the protective

zone of the well as defined by DEP, known as the Zone 1 radius. You could possibly

locate a new well in Village D, however there is no guarantee that you'll find good water

2002This is a letter I ghost wrote for myboss summarizing myrecommendations to address an

Administrative Consent Order andsolve the water and sewerproblems for a summer camp.




Ramah\Report\50011-letter.doc


quality and cost-wise, the municipal connection is comparable to onsite water but is muchmore reliable.

Onsite wastewater disposal is not recommended because of the difficulties associated with

seasonal use facilities and the tough requirements that DEP requires for effluent qualityunder a discharge permit.

Please review the attached document. I am available for discussion before our scheduledconference call at 781-884-2527 (w), or 781-760-6186 (cell) or at home at 781-341-8546.

Sincerely,Daylor Consulting Group, Inc.

Steven L. Bernstein, P.E.

President



Camp Ramah in New England

Water Meter Readings for water meter #3129108

Date Reading (Gallons) Gallons Used Running Total Elapsed Days Running Total Average Running Average

(Gallons) (Days) (Gallons) (Gallons)

7/16 59400

7/17 110700 51300 51300 1 1 51300 513007/18 151000 40300 91600 1 2 40300 45800

7/19 211700 60700 152300 1 3 60700 50767

7/20 257900 46200 198500 1 4 46200 49625

7/21 308400 50500 249000 1 5 50500 49800

7/22 370900 62500 311500 1 6 62500 51917

7/23 398600 27700 339200 1 7 27700 48457

7/24 456400 57800 397000 1 8 57800 49625

7/25 532300 75900 472900 1 9 75900 52544

7/26 598100 65800 538700 1 10 65800 53870

7/28 653600 55500 594200 2 12 27750 49517

7/29 705500 51900 646100 1 13 51900 49700

7/30 755700 50200 696300 1 14 50200 49736

7/31 804100 48400 744700 1 15 48400 49647

8/1 856500 52400 797100 1 16 52400 49819

8/2 911300 54800 851900 1 17 54800 50112

8/3 946200 34900 886800 1 18 34900 49267

8/4 1025300 79100 965900 1 19 79100 50837

8/5 1091900 66600 1032500 1 20 66600 51625

8/6 1146300 54400 1086900 1 21 54400 51757

8/7 1220700 74400 1161300 1 22 74400 52786

8/8 1276400 55700 1217000 1 23 55700 52913

8/9 1310000 33600 1250600 1 24 33600 52108

8/10 1356100 46100 1296700 1 25 46100 51868

8/11 1436200 80100 1376800 1 26 80100 52954

8/12 1491300 55100 1431900 1 27 55100 53033

8/13 1532800 41500 1473400 1 28 41500 52621

8/14 1602600 69800 1543200 1 29 69800 53214

8/15 1662200 59600 1602800 1 30 59600 53427

8/16 1730800 68600 1671400 1 31 68600 53916

8/17 1796400 65600 1737000 1 32 65600 54281

8/18 1880300 83900 1820900 1 33 83900 55179

8/19 1901500 21200 1842100 1 34 21200 54179

8/20 1943300 41800 1883900 1 35 41800 53826

8/21 1981400 38100 1922000 1 36 38100 53389

8/22 2003800 22400 1944400 1 37 22400 52551

8/23 2031600 27800 1972200 1 38 27800 51900

8/24 2062700 31100 2003300 1 39 31100 51367

8/25 2096300 33600 2036900 1 40 33600 50923

Median 52400

Mode 33600

Maximum 83900

Average 52228

One of the first things I did was tohave a water meter installed. This is asummary analysis of water use for thiswell. This helped me estimate sewerflows.



7 5 9 0 0

7 9 1 0 0

7 4 4 0 0

8 0 1 0 0

8 3 9 0 0

4 0 0 0 0

5 0 0 0 0

6 0 0 0 0

7 0 0 0 0

8 0 0 0 0

9 0 0 0 0

r a g e G a l l o n s U s e d

C a m p R a m a h N e w E n g l a n d

W

a t e r M e t e r R e a d i n g s

S u m m e r 2 0 0 2

0

1 0 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 0

3 0 0 0 0

W - 7 / 1 7

T h - 7 / 1 8

F - 7 / 1 9

S a - 7 / 2 0

S u - 7 / 2 1

M - 7 / 2 2

T u - 7 / 2 3

W - 7 / 2 4

T h - 7 / 2 5

F - 7 / 2 6

S u - 7 / 2 8

M - 7 / 2 9

T u - 7 / 3 0

W - 7 / 3 1

T h - 8 / 1

F - 8 / 2

S a - 8 / 3

S u - 8 / 4

M - 8 / 5

T u - 8 / 6

W - 8 / 7

T h - 8 / 8

F - 8 / 9

S a - 8 / 1 0

S u - 8 / 1 1

M - 8 / 1 2

T u - 8 / 1 3

W - 8 / 1 4

T h - 8 / 1 5

F - 8 / 1 6

S a - 8 / 1 7

S u - 8 / 1 8

M - 8 / 1 9

T u - 8 / 2 0

W - 8 / 2 1

T h - 8 / 2 2

F - 8 / 2 3

S a - 8 / 2 4

S u - 8 / 2 5

A v e

D a t e o f M e t e r R e a d i n g

T h i s i s t h e w a t e r m e t e r d a t a i n

g r a p h f o r m .






C:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 48 for 5-0011-Camp Ramah.zip\5-0011-CampRamah\Correspondence\Office\5-0011 DCG memo 3-25-02.doc


OFFICEMEMO

To: Steven L. Bernstein P.E.


Cc: Jim Ferrara

Date: March 25, 2002Re: Camp Ramah 3/25/02 Meeting

The following is a list of concerns/issues/etc. that were brought up during the 3/25/02meeting:

CRNE does not own the parcel of land at the River St. and Bennett St.intersection.

The Town would like to conduct a survey of who would be interested inconnecting to the sewer force main. Daylor needs to determine from what pointin River Street this is possible.

Daylor needs to go before the Board of Selectmen for the following:o Street Opening- No presentation required

o Connection-Plans and presentation may be required Would the sewer force main be considered a public utility? The issue has to do

with fees, the example being the recent gas lines that were charged a fee per footof installation. The DPU may need to be contacted for this. Daylor’s stance isthat camp Ramah would not receive funds for the sewer force main; the Townwould in the form of sewer connection fees, etc.

The following two permits were specifically mentioned:o NOIo Road Opening

Concerns over dewatering issues were raised. Construction details discussed:

o Highway Supt. Requested flowable fill be utilized from the bottom of the pavement surface down. What are the minimum design requirements thatwould satisfy the Highway Dept? Send specifications to the Supt.

o Highway Supt. mentioned that Bennett Street needs an overlay.o Highway Supt. requested that the patch to pavement joints be hard sealed.

This is a memo covering an important meeting forthe project. We were coordinating work for theCamp with the various Town bodies.




C:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 48 for 5-0011-Camp Ramah.zip\5-0011-CampRamah\Correspondence\Office\5-0011 DCG memo 3-25-02.doc


o Highway Supt. mentioned the use of crushed stone aggregate for all pipe bedding. (did not like the HDPE pipe on native soil)

o Highway Supt. mentioned 1-foot of gravel under the pipes whereunsuitable native soils were encountered.

Sewer fees were discussed:o

Town fee of $150.00 per entrance (residential).o Town fee of $? Per square foot (commercial).o Daylor to provide examples, proposal of fees.o WWTP and Town Administrator will approve prior to Board of Selectmen

final approval. Water connection fees were waived for Camp Ramah. Boring info should include the following:

o Thickness of pavement.o Materials encountered (details).o Water table.

There is a road opening moratorium in effect Nov. 15 to Apr. 1.

Calculations will need to be provided for the final sewer connection pipe.o Can it hold the additional capacity?o How are we going to handle the current freezing issues.

Members in attendance:Stephen L. Bernstein: Daylor Consulting GroupJim Ferrara: Daylor Consulting GroupScott Schluter: Daylor Consulting Group

Phillip Sampson: Highway SuperintendentShop: 413-283-2615Home:413-289-1356

Michael S. Marciniec: Chairman, Planning BoardTel: 413-283-2605Fax: 413-283-2637

Jean M. Bubon: Town PlannerTel: 413-283-2605Fax: 413-283-2637

Richard Perssons: Acting Sewer Superintendent (Assistant Sewer Superintendent)

John Griffin: Town Administrator



Brief Summary of Proposed Sewer Project for Camp Ramah, Palmer,

Massachusetts

Camp Ramah New England of Palmer, MA is planning on doing the followingconstruction project involving a new sewer system project planned to begin this summer(2003) The project includes:

1. The abandonment of 40 existing septic systems in various conditionswithin the Camp’s property;

2. The construction of a new onsite sewage collection system includinggravity sewers and small sewage pump stations; and,

3. The connection to an existing municipal sewer system via a largesewage pump station, in Palmer, Massachusetts.

In January, 2002, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (the“DEP”) entered into an agreement with the Camp in the form of an AdministrativeConsent Order for violations of 310 CMR 15.00 and 314 CMR 3.00 and 5.00, which dealwith wastewater flows. The DEP has jurisdiction over existing facilities with wastewaterflows greater than 15,000 gallons per day, requiring a groundwater discharge permit orconnection to a municipal sewer system for such facilities. The Camp chose to connectto an available sewer system in River Street as a solution to the Administrative ConsentOrder. The DEP issued a Sewer Connection Permit with Pump Station (BRP WP14) this past March 2003. This application is for the work required to fulfill the SewerConnection Permit.

1.1 Project Site

The Camp encompasses approximately 140 acres of land, streams and ponds at 39Bennett Street in Palmer, Massachusetts. The main parcel of the camp is anapproximately 124 acre parcel bounded to the west by the Ware River, and to the north,south, and east by railroad tracks owned by the State of Massachusetts Executive Officeof Transportation and Construction (“MA/EOTC”) with the entrance located off BennettStreet. Encompassed within the main parcel of the camp is 2 acres of private property parcels containing one year round and several seasonal homes with frontage onPattaquattic Pond. To the north, an approximately 9 acre parcel is separated from themain parcel by the MA/EOTC railroad track; this parcel is bound to the west by the WareRiver, to the south and east by MA/EOTC railroad tracks, and to the north by private property. To the southeast, an approximately 4.5 acre parcel is separated from the main parcel by MA/EOTC railroad tracks; this parcel is bound to the north and south by private property, to the west by MA/EOTC railroad tracks, and to the east by LaurenDrive. The main parcel of the camp is divided into two areas consisting of Village Alocated on the south side of Pattaquattic Pond, and Villages B and C located on the northside of Pattaquattic Pond. The Proposed Project will also extend along portions ofBennett and River Streets.

This is a summary of the project as itfinally panned out.



1.2 Proposed Project

The Proposed Project includes the abandonment, in accordance with 310 CMR 15.00, of40 existing septic systems in various conditions; the construction of a new onsite sewagecollection system including gravity sewers and small sewage pump stations; and theconnection to an existing municipal sewer system via a large sewage pump station. Thefinal discharge for the project will be an 8” gravity sewer owned and operated by theTown of Palmer located in River Street approximately 1.7 miles from the southerly tip ofthe Site. The proposed work will be in accordance with a DEP issued Minor SewerConnection Permit with Pump Station (BRP WP14). Under the Proposed Project a sewerforce main will be constructed from the Camp to the existing municipal sewer in RiverStreet; routed along Bennett Street and River Street. The proposed work also includesmaintenance and upgrade repairs to portions of the existing gravity sewer system in RiverStreet to ensure adequate hydraulic capacity in these sewers A large pump station will be constructed within the maintenance yard of the Camp, where access is possible via themain entrance road to the Camp. A new sewage collection system will be constructedthroughout the Camp consisting of small diameter gravity sewer line systems and severalsmall sewage pump stations

In two locations, the proposed sewer force main will be constructed via directional orhorizontal drilling. Where Bennett Street and Central Mass Railroad intersect, ahorizontal drilling operation will be used to construct the sewer force main beneath therailroad tracks. The sewer force main will also pass under a culvert at Forest Lake; adirectional drilling operation will be used for this crossing. On the Camp property twosewer force mains will be constructed beneath an existing corrugated metal pipe culvert.A portion of the culvert will be unearthed to determine the condition of the pipe, and

either a segment or the whole pipe will be removed for open cut construction of the sewerforce mains. Finally, either the pipe will be repaired or entirely replaced dependant on thecondition of the pipe.

No new water work is included and the existing Camp’s well will remain in service.

The entire project would be bid as one project and the Contractor would proceed to do thework as follows:

1. Sewer construction on River Street, start Summer 20032. Sewer construction on Bennett Street, start Fall 2003

3. Sewer construction within the Camp, start Fall 2003, end Spring 20044. Pavement completion, River Street Summer 2004

The Total Project Cost estimated at $1,700,000. The estimated first year operation cost for

operation of the new sewer system will be approximately $20,000 based on a average flow rate of54,000 gallons per day for summer use.



1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Property Description

The National Ramah Commission oversees 7 overnight camps throughout North America, 5 day

camps in the United States, and an Israel Program. Camp Ramah in New England (CRNE, thecamp) is one of the commission’s overnight camps. CRNE encompasses approximately 140

acres of land, streams and ponds at 39 Bennett Street in Palmer, Massachusetts. The main parcel

of the camp is an approximately 124 acre parcel bounded to the west by the Ware River, and to

the north, south, and east by railroad tracks owned by the State of Massachusetts ExecutiveOffice of Transportation and Construction (MAEOTC); the entrance is located off Bennett

Street. Encompassed within the main parcel of the camp is 2 acres of private property parcels

containing one year round and several seasonal homes with frontage on Pattaquattic Pond. Tothe north, an approximately 9 acre parcel is separated from the main parcel by MAEOTC

railroad track; this parcel is bound to the west by the Ware River, to the south and east by

MAEOTC railroad tracks, and to the north by private property. To the southeast, anapproximately 4.5 acre parcel is separated from the main parcel by MAEOTC railroad tracks;

this parcel is bound to the north and south by private property, to the west by MAEOTC railroad

tracks, and to the east by Lauren Drive. Further to the southeast an approximately 0.5 acre parcelis owned by CRNE; this parcel is bound to the north by Bennett Street, to the east and south by

River Street, and to the west by private property. The main parcel of the camp is divided into

two areas consisting of Village A located on the south side of Pattaquattic Pond, and Village B

located on the north side of Pattaquattic Pond.

The approximate boundaries of CRNE are shown on Figure 1: Project Locus. An aerial

photograph showing the approximate boundaries and layout of the camp is shown on Figure 1a:

Aerial Photograph (1997). Protected areas in and around the camp are shown on Figure 2:

Reserved and Protected Areas; the areas indicated on this map are Priority Sites and EstimatedHabitat of Rare Wildlife associated with the Ware River and the surrounding wetlands, brooks,

and streams, as well as several potential vernal pools located on or near the camp property asdefined by the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (not equivalent to certified

vernal pools). Areas mapped as flood zones as part of the Federal Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)

program of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are shown on Figure 3:

FEMA Flood Zone Boundaries; the majority of the CRNE property is located within the 500-

year and 100-year flood zones with the majority of the buildings located outside of these flood

zones. Public water supplies in and around the camp are shown on Figure 4: Water Supply

Protection Areas; the camp’s three wells are shown with the associated Interim Wellhead

Protection Areas (IWPA), which is essentially reserved, the same protection as a Department of

Environmental Protection (DEP) approved calculated Zone II.

1.2 Exist ing Water and Wastewater Systems

Operation of CRNE typically occurs from June through August each year, with a maximum of

approximately 275 staff members and 500 attendees at any one time. Under 310 CMR 15.203(Title V), the estimated peak wastewater design flow for the camp is calculated at 35 gallons per

day (gpd) per person multiplied by 775 persons, or 27,125 gpd. Estimated water consumption

would fall within this range as well.

This is a portion of the DesignReport for the project.



Water for the camp is provided via three DEP registered community water supply wells and one

private well. Of the three registered wells, the one located near the kitchen in Village B is theonly active potable water source for the camp; the well near the infirmary is abandoned, and the

well located behind the cabins in Village A is for emergency use only. The private well supplies

water to the maintenance worker’s home and the maintenance building only. Many of CRNE’s

facilities are located within the Zone I radii of the wells; although existing structures andsubsurface sewage disposal systems located within a Zone I radius are “grandfathered”, no new

construction is allowed within the Zone I radius of a community water supply. It is also

recommended that any subsurface sewage disposal systems located within a Zone I radius bemoved outside the radius as they pose potential health risks to community drinking water

supplies.

In July of this year, a water meter was installed on Well #1227010-01G, the Camp’s active water

supply well, and water meter readings for most of the 2002 camp year was recorded daily. Thedaily readings and a graph for the water use can be found in Appendix A of this report. It was

revealed that the camp had an average daily demand of 52,228 gpd and a maximum daily

demand of 83,900 for the 2002 camp season. These values were utilized for design purposes.

Also found in Appendix A are wellhead protection radii based on the metered water use data.Since the well is proposed to be abandoned for potable use upon connection to the Palmer

municipal water system, the IWPA and Zone II will no longer be applicable once no longer in

use.

Daylor Consulting Group performed Title V inspections of the 40 on-site subsurface sewage

disposal systems on September 10 through September 12. The disposal systems generally

consisted of a septic tank discharging to either a leaching pit or leaching tank, however three

systems are permitted tight tanks, and one system is a dosed system. There appeared to be few problems with the existing systems, full results of the inspections can be found under separate

cover.

1.3 Department of Environmental Protection Actions

On April 28, 2000, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) issuedZone I and IWPA radii calculations for CRNE’s three onsite water supplies. The DEP indicated

that the camp’s water supply system is in the “Transient Non-Community” category and consists

of three wells with registration numbers of 1227010-01G (01G), 1224010-02G (02G), and

1227010-03G (03G). Well 01G is located near the camp’s kitchen in Village B. Well 02G islocated south of the camp’s infirmary along the western property line. Well 03G is located

behind cabins in Village A along the eastern property line. The DEP determined that well 01G

has a 332 foot Zone I radius and a 1178 foot IWPA radius, well 02G has a 286 foot Zone I radiusand a 789 foot IWPA radius, and well 03G has a 286 foot Zone I radius and a 789 foot IWPA

radius.

On January 18, 2001 the camp’s well operator, George Fournier, made a formal request to the

DEP to register well 02G as an emergency source and to register 03G as an inactive source.Daylor’s January 2002 site visit revealed that this letter might have been inaccurate. The camp’s

maintenance personnel indicated that well 02G, near the infirmary, is no longer in use, well 03G,

in Village A, is used for emergency fire protection, and well 01G is still used as the camp’ssource for potable water. Further investigations are required to determine the status of each well



and file for corrections with the DEP if necessary. Abandonment of all the camp’s well for the

purposes of potable water supplies will be completed once the camp is connected to themunicipal water supply.

On October 12, 2001, CRNE notified the DEP of the camp’s intent to rebuild a library located

within the Zone I radius of well 02G, and additional construction plans for four cabins, a

guesthouse, and dining commons in various locations on the property. The DEP and CRNErepresentatives met on November 1, 2001 to determine the proper course of action to continue

with construction of the library and other construction activities. At this point the DEP indicated

that the camp could proceed with construction of the library provided that it is connected to a

DEP permitted tight tank on a temporary basis.

On January 9, 2002 an Administrative Consent Order (ACO) was issued to CRNE by the DEP

for violations of 310 CMR 15.00 and 314 CMR 3.00 and 5.00, which deal with wastewater

flows. A copy of the ACO can be found in Appendix B. The DEP has jurisdiction over existing

facilities with wastewater flows of 15,000 gpd or greater, requiring a ground water discharge permit filed under 314 CMR 5.00, the Ground Water Discharge Permit Program or 314 CMR

3.00, the Surface Water Discharge Permit Program. CRNE does not currently operate under a

discharge permit and is thus required by the ACO to come into compliance with the regulations by obtaining an approval for a permit filed under the Ground Water Discharge Permit Program

(314 CMR 5.00), the Surface Water Discharge Permit Program (314 CMR 3.00), or 314 CMR

7.00 Sewer System Extension & Connection Permit Program. The DEP also indicated that thecamp may proceed with the construction of the library provided that the camp submit an

Abandonment of Water Source application (BRP WS 36) for well 02G, and submit a Tight Tank

application (BRP WP 64a) for a minimum 2,500 gallon tank for the new library’s wastewater

collection on a temporary basis. The Tight Tank application was filed (by others), approved, andthree tight tanks were constructed and utilized for the 2002 camp season.

The ACO required the camp to notify the DEP by January 31, 2002 (an extension of this was

granted) of its intent to either connect to the Palmer or Ware municipal sewer system or secure aground water or surface water discharge permit. The DEP required the camp to submit a sewer

connection or extension permit by June 2002, and complete connection or extension by June2003. The DEP also required that a complete inspection report of all onsite septic systems in

accordance with 310 CMR 15.302 be filed by September 30, 2002, with inspections occurring

within 3 days of camp closure but no later than September 15, 2002. Daylor completed these

inspections, the results can be found under separate cover.

The ACO deadline to submit the sewer connection or extension permit was extended originally

to October 31, 2002, then requested and approved by DEP to December 15, 2002, and requested

by Daylor to January 30, 2003. Camp Ramah and Daylor have been meeting with the Palmer

Board of Selectmen since October 2002 to obtain signatures on the sewer connection application.

Approvals and signatures were received on January 8, 2003. Please see Appendix I forExtension letters and comment letters from the Town. The Department has approved the concept

of a common trench construction for the water line and sewer force main. Details of thisapproval can be found in Appendix C.



2.0 AVAILABLE MUNICIPAL SYSTEMS

2.1 Town of Palmer

Portions of the Town of Palmer are serviced either by municipal water, municipal sewer, or both.

Water for the town is supplied via well fields located in Belchertown approximately 3-tenths of amile north of the Swift River, and the Upper and Lower reservoirs located in Palmer

approximately 6-tenths of a mile south of the Massachusetts Turnpike. Wastewater for the town

is treated in a wastewater treatment plant located in Palmer to the north of the convergence of

Ware River, Chicopee River, and Quaboag River.

2.1.1 Water

The Town of Palmer is divided into four water and fire districts as follows: BondsvilleFire and Water District (Bondsville), Three Rivers Fire District (Three Rivers), Palmer

Water District (Palmer), and Thorndike Water (Thorndike). A water commission

composed of elected officials serves each of the four districts. The operation andmaintenance of all water supply systems is contracted out to East National WaterSystems. Information obtained through conversations with the various water

commissions and analysis of a water distribution map provided by the Town revealed

three water lines in close proximity to CRNE: a 6” asbestos cement (AC) pipe in RiverStreet owned by Thorndike, an 8” AC pipe in State Street owned by Bondsville, and a 6”

AC pipe in Summer Street owned by Thorndike. It was determined during a January 11,

2002 reconnaissance that River Street water line was the most favorable connectionroute. The locations of the utilities in relation to the camp are shown on Figure 5.

River Street

The route to the 6” AC pipe in River Street is approximately 8,000 linear feet in lengthand would involves one railroad crossing at Bennett Street, and one crossing under power

lines in River Street. The starting elevation at the camp is approximately 374 feet (all

elevations are in NGVD obtained from survey data), the ending elevation at the existingwaterline is approximately 408 feet, the highest elevation along the route appears to beapproximately 414 feet, and the lowest elevation is at the camp at approximately 374 feet.

This route can best be described as a rural road with rolling slopes along the base of

Kings Mountain located south of the Ware River.

Existing Water Line Condition and Capacity

In November of 2001 East National Water System Supply Inc. conducted a hydrant flow

test on the River Street 6-inch AC water main end hydrant. A hydrant flow test reportcan be found in Appendix D.

The capacity of the water main extension was analyzed; the calculations and results are

shown in Appendix D. For the analysis, full build out and connection of the abutting

properties along River Street and Bennett Street was assumed with a 3-bedroom per

home model.



Fire flow analysis of both the existing River Street end hydrant and the water main

extension proposed end hydrant on Bennett Street were analyzed the results are shown inAppendix D.

It was determined that a flow rate of approximately 388 gpm with a static pressure of51.3 psi and a residual pressure of 25.8 psi will be available to Camp Ramah at the

entrance of the camp. It is calculated that at 20 psi, a fire flow of 459 gpm with a 37 psi

static head and a 25 psi residual head is currently available at the existing end hydrantlocated in River Street. It is predicted that at 20 psi, a fire flow of 433 gpm with a 51.3

psi static head and 25.8 residual head will be available at the hydrant located at the

entrance to Camp Ramah. It should be noted that the three existing wells could beutilized as fire wells in the event of an emergency (no cross connection is allowed).

2.1.2 Sanitary Sewer

The Town of Palmer has one sewer district. Information obtained through conversationswith the Highway Division and analysis of a sewerage system map provided by the town

revealed three sewer mains in close proximity to CRNE: an 8” vitrified clay (VC) pipe inRiver Street, a 10” VC pipe in State Street, and a pipe in Summer Street. It was

determined during a January 11, 2002 reconnaissance that the River Street manholewould be the most practical connection point. The Town is currently in the process of

eliminating some of the combined sewers located in the main portions of town. The

locations of the utilities in relation to the camp are shown on Figure 6.

River Street

The route to the 8” VC pipe in River Street is approximately 8,500 linear feet in lengthand would involve one railroad crossing at Bennett Street, and one crossing under power

lines in River Street. Highway Division personnel indicated that there have been

problems in the past with this line freezing; and that any allowed connection to this sewermain would involve investigation into these claims and possible corrective actions to this

problem.

Existing Gravity Sewer Condition and Capacity

In August of this year, Pipe Explorers conducted a video inspection and cleaning of thegravity sewer line from the proposed force main connection downstream, approximately

3,400 linear feet of pipe total. A summary report prepared by Pipe Explorers can be

found in Appendix E. Proposed repairs and maintenance can be found on the SewerConnection Permit Plans on the “Gravity Sewer Maintenance and Repair Plan.”

The capacity of the gravity sewer line was also analyzed; the results are shown in Table

1. For the analysis, full build out and connection of the abutting properties was assumed

with a 3-bedroom per home model. The existing full build out capacity was analyzed and

compared to the proposed design flow in order to study the adequacy of the gravity sewersystem. It was determined that approximately 510 linear feet of vitrified clay pipe needs

to be replaced with polyvinyl chloride in order to handle the additional flows.

Replacement of this pipe is included as part of this project.



3.0 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

On September 25, the Department approved the conceptual design plans for constructing the

sewer force main and the water line in a common trench. (See Appendix C) The attached set of

plans entitled “Sewer Connection Permit Plans Camp Ramah Bennett Street in Palmer,

Massachusetts” dated October 2002, is the permitting plan set for the proposed project andinclude the use of the approved common trench construction.

3.1 Water Line

The proposed water line will be constructed of Class 52 (Pressure Class 350) cement linedductile iron (CLDI) with Tyton Push on Joints. Hydrants are proposed with spacing of

approximately every 500 feet and at intersections and other appropriate locations. Gate valves

are proposed with spacing of approximately every 1000 feet and typically coincide with hydrantlocations were possible. The water line will be installed a minimum of five feet below grade on

a bench separated a minimum six feet horizontally and eighteen inches vertically from the sewer

force main. The water line will be routed around the proposed sewer force main cleanout and airand vacuum release manholes. The water demand is estimated at approximately 84,000 gpd on

the maximum day and 53,000 gpd on the average day.

3.2 Sewer Force Main

The proposed sewer force main will be constructed of DR 17 high-density polyethylene (HDPE)

fusion butt-welded pipe. Cleanout assemblies will be constructed in manholes located at the low

points of the proposed route. Air and vacuum release valves will be constructed in manholeslocated at the high points of the proposed route. The sewer force main will be installed a

minimum of eighteen inches vertically below the proposed water line and a minimum six feet

horizontally from the water line. The design flow for the proposed force main will be 235 gallons

per minute. The final connection to the existing gravity sewer will be at a new HDPE customsewer manhole that will replace the existing sewer manhole at the end of the gravity line.

3.3 Sewage Pumping Station

An eight-foot diameter, seventeen-foot deep HDPE wet well was selected for the proposed

project. Wet well sizing calculations can be found in Appendix F. The potential for additionalcapacity was built in to the sizing of the wet well in addition to allowances for the future

collection system design. Two Gorman Rupp T3 pumps with 20 horsepower motors are

proposed for the proposed project, for design details see Appendix G. The pumps will be set tooperate at 235 gallons per minute, which will provide a force main velocity of 2.9 feet per

second. The pumping rate in conjunction with the wet well working volume will result in a cycletime of approximately 17 minutes on the maximum day and approximately 23 minutes on the

average day.

Odor control will be provided in the pump station and connected to the cycling of the pumps to

eliminate odors and reduce potential for odors in the receiving manholes



3.4 Addit ional Design Considerations

3.4.1 Pipe Jacking

The proposed water line and sewer force main route includes crossing an active railroad

track owned by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts through the Executive Office ofTransportation and Construction (MAEOTC). Since the tracks are active and service

cannot be interrupted, it is proposed that the utility lines will be installed in a sleeve thathas been jacked under the tracks. In order to do the pipe jacking, a permit for the request

of use and occupancy will be submitted to the MAEOTC. Preliminary conversations

with MAEOTC have begun; similar operations have been performed on the same railroadtracks in town as part of the sewer separation project that is currently in progress. Design

of the pipe jacking operations will meet all applicable standards set by the MAEOTC and

have not been included as part of this permit set. The details pertinent to the sewer

connection permit are that each utility line will be installed in an individual PVC sleevethat will be grouted in place within the steel jacking sleeve. The benched trench

construction will not be followed in the area of the pipe jacking operations; it is assumedthat by placing each pipe in its own sleeve, more than adequate protection will be provided.

3.4.2 Directional Drilling

The proposed water line and sewer force main route includes crossing an eight foot byeight foot box culvert connecting two sides of Forest Lake along River Street. River

Street is only a few feet above the top of this culvert so it is proposed to route the water

line and sewer force main under the culvert. It is proposed that the water line materialwill change over to HDPE pipe for the culvert crossing and that both utilities will be

cross under the culvert at the same elevation. The crossing will be performed with a

directional drilling rig so that excavation along this narrow portion of River Street will bekept to a minimum. Since both pipes will be constructed of HDPE, which is considered

joint less, it is assumed that more than adequate protection will be provided.

3.4.3 Notice of Intent

Since this project involves work within buffer areas of wetlands and within Riverfront

Areas, a Notice of Intent will be filed with the Palmer Conservation Commission prior to project startup. Since the majority of the work will be performed within an existing street

right-of-way and the project will have a positive impact on the environment by

abandoning the existing septic systems, it is anticipated that there will be no construction

issues beyond good engineering standards with regards to erosion controls.

The geographic information systems database also indicates the project route falls withina site listed as Priority/Estimated Habitat PH 806/WH 630. A query to the Division of

Fisheries & Wildlife reveals that the species in question are aquatic species and since

none of the proposed work falls within areas under water, it is anticipated that the projectwill have no detrimental affect on these species if proper erosion controls practices are

followed.



4.0 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

4.1 Soil Borings

During July of this year, soil borings were performed along the proposed water line and sewer

force main route and throughout the camp. It was previously indicated by Town officials thatthere were several locations along the route where ledge may be encountered; however no ledge

was encountered during the boring operations. See Appendix H for soil boring data.



June 14, 2002

Mr. Paul J. Nietupski

Wastewater Program Coordinator

Bureau of Resource ProtectionExecutive Office of Environmental Affairs

Department of Environmental ProtectionWestern Regional Office

436 Dwight Street

Springfield, MA 011037

Subject: Administrative Consent Order ACO-WE-029-1001

Camp Ramah, Palmer, MA

Dear Mr. Paul J. Nietupski:

On behalf of Camp Ramah in New England, owner and operator of Camp Ramah, in Palmer, MA,

we hereby request a design detail approval for the above-mentioned Administrative Consent Order

(ACO). During a February 14, 2002 phone conversation with Kurt Boisjolie, it was indicated that

construction details of a common trench containing both a water line and a sewer force main

would have to be approved by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP, the

Department). The purpose of this letter is to obtain this approval.

On the following page is an analysis of the proposed common trench construction.

It is Daylor Consulting Group, Inc’s (Daylor) opinion that since the sewer line will be a force main

in this instance and will be constructed of a High Densitiy Polyethylene (HDPE) pipe that is butt

fusion welded, more than adequate protection to the Cement Lined Ductile Iron (CLDI) water linewould be provided with a common trench construction method. The proposed design includes the

parallel installation of a 6” HDPE sewer line and an 8” CLDI water line. The water line would be

installed on a bench of natural earth a minimum of 18” above the top of the sewer force main. The

water line would be Tyton Push on Joints, utilizing Megalug joint restraints and thrust blocks at all

bends and valves. Proposed construction details can be found on the attached sample plan entitled“Sewer Connection Permit Plans at Camp Ramah in Palmer Massachusetts”.

Very truly yours,


Scott Schluter

Staff Engineer

I submitted to MassDEP toinstall the sewerforcemain andthe water main in a commontrench to save constructioncosts. In the end, the watermain was not constructed due toa lack of funding, however we

did get approval to construct in acommon trench had we gonethat way.




Ramah\Correspondence\DEP\DEP-6-14-02 trench.doc


Why construct the sewer line and the water line in a common trench?

Regulations Provide Guidance for this:

1. “2001 Guidelines and Policies for Public Water Systems” 9.7 Separation of Water Mains and

Sewers 2. states:

“Parallel Installation – water mains shall be laid at least 10 feet horizontally from any existing or proposed sewer. The distance shall be measured edge to edge. IN cases where it is not practical to

maintain a 10-foot separation, it is permissible to install a water main closer to a sewer. However,the water main must be laid in a separate trench or on an undisturbed earth shelf located on one side

of the sewer at such an elevation that the bottom of the water main is at least 18 inches.”

Construction Costs are minimized by this: Camp Ramah in New England is a non-profit

organization that exists under the educational and religious auspices of the Jewish Theological

Seminary (Mission Statement?)

1. A common trench would be approximately 6-foot wide. Two separate trenches would be

approximately 7-foot wide total.

2. High groundwater in various locations will require dewatering; less trenching in these areas will

cost less.

3. Construction in one trench on one side of the road is logistically easier than constructing twotrenches on either side of the road.

River Street Physical Limitations warrant this:1. River Street is narrow with two travel lanes and one emergency lane for most of the length of the

road where construction is proposed.

2. Most of the utility poles are located on the east side of River Street. A single trench on the west

side of the road avoids conflicts. The power company has asked for 5-foot separation fromtrenches minimum; ten feet preferably.

3. An emergency lane is located on the west side of River Street. A single trench constructed in this

area will have the least impact on traffic flows along this semi busy street.

4. There are several wetland pockets located on the east side of River Street. A single trench

constructed on the west side of the street will impact these the least.5. Approximately 16 driveways are located on the east side of River Street; one driveway is located

on the west side. Construction of a single trench along the west side will impact residences theleast.

6. Almost all of the drainage structures in River Street are located along the east side with the

exception of the Summer Street area where both sides of the street contain drainage structures. A

single trench located on the west side of the street will avoid the drainage structures the most. Asingle trench in the middle of the street near Summer Street will also avoid the drainage structures

the most.

7. Erosion control measures will be easier to maintain along a single trench located at the west side of

the street and will impact the traffic the least.

Protection Provided by this:

1. 24-inch horizontal separation.

2. 18-inch vertical separation, water over sewer.

3. Benched trench configuration.4. Materials

a. 6” High Density Polyethylene sewer force main, butt fusion welded joints, considered

“jointless”. b. 8” Cement Lined Ductile Iron water main, Tyton Push on Joints.



When we were originallyincluding construction of awater line and the sewerline, I got MassDEP toapprove construction ofthe water main and thesewer forcemain in thesame trench. This is adetail I created for thispurpose.



Camp Ramah New England Page 14 Recommendations for Water

and Sewer Upgrades

Document1

5.0 COSTS SUMMARY

Cost estimates for the four options are summarized below in Table 1: Costs Summary;individual cost estimate tables can be found in Appendix B. The least expensive options would

be for CAMP RAMAH to connect to the Palmer sanitary sewer system and develop a new water

supply well or for CAMP RAMAH to connect to the Thorndike Water system and connect to thePalmer sanitary sewer; connection to both public utilities is the better option of the two due to

health reasons and future camp expansion possibilities.

Table 1: Costs Summary

Option Total

Estimated

Construction

Costs

1

Annual

Estimated

Operational

Costs

Annual

Estimated

Town

Fees

Public Water &

Onsite Wastewater

Treatment

$2,231,5913 $30,0003 $04

Public Sewer &

Onsite Water$1,769,832 $10,000 $7,3002

Onsite Wastewater

Treatment &Onsite Water

$2,015,2823

$35,0003

$0

Public Sewer &

Public Water$1,806,993 $5,000 $7,3002,4

1. Includes onsite water infrastructure improvements and an onsite sewagecollection system infrastructure as applicable.

2. Based on a sewer rate of $235 per EDU (flow/73000) gallons, and 75 days ofoperation.

3. Additional costs that would be associated with operating a wastewater treatmentplant on a seasonal basis are not included, further studies would be necessary.

4. Water fees for Thorndike Water were not available at this time.

This is part of a recommendations reportI wrote for the Camp Board of Directorsto decide how to address theAdministrative Consent Order.




and Sewer Upgrades

Document1

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Daylor recommends that the camp connect to the Thorndike Water’s water supply system and

connect to the Town of Palmer’s sanitary sewer system, both located in River Street, in order tosatisfy the DEP’s ACO, allow future expansion of the camp, and address potential health hazards

associated with onsite subsurface sewage disposal and onsite water supplies.

It is not clear if the DEP will consider the sewer force main a connection or extension, it would

likely depend on whether the force main would remain the property of CAMP RAMAH and notinvolve any other connections along the route or if the force main would become the property of

the Town of Palmer and possibly involve connections (current or future) along the route. Should

the Town of Palmer seek ownership of the force main and desire to connect residences along theroute there could be additional costs associated with the installation of backflow preventers, but

there could also be the possibility of some sharing of the costs with the Town. Should CAMP

RAMAH maintain ownership of the force main there could be maintenance and repair issues inthe future and issues of whether new customers could be connected to this force main. Further

meetings with the Town of Palmer and the DEP would reveal answers to these issues.

The construction of a water line in a public way would also raise issues of final ownership and

possible connections of other users. Thorndike Water would take ownership of the water lineafter construction and require CAMP RAMAH to rent a water meter from them and it would be

likely that in the future new connections could be made to the waterline. Further meetings with

Thorndike Water and possibly East National Water Systems would reveal answers to these

issues.

Daylor also recommends that CAMP RAMAH consider the following additional actions in order

to provide safe conditions at the camp:

The camp should immediately hire a licensed septage hauler to pump out all onsite septic

tanks.

The camp should engage a licensed septage hauler to immediately clean out the existingkitchen grease trap.

The camp should install a water meter on well 01G (in Village B) and maintain daily

readings during the summer 2002 camp sessions so that a more accurate Zone I radiuscan be calculated and filed with the DEP, and/or more accurate data could be used for

any new water supply sources.

The camp should hire a surveyor to stake out the existing 332 foot Zone I radius

associated with well 01G and install signs in several areas that clearly indicate the presence of a water supply well and the associated protection of that well.

The camp should inspect all onsite water fixtures and repair or replace all faulty fixtures

and replace all non-water conservation fixtures with water conservation fixtures,

including but not limited to toilets and shower heads not meeting low flow requirement ofcurrent plumbing codes.




and Sewer Upgrades

Document1

The camp should keep accurate attendance records for the summer 2002 sessions so that

proper population numbers may be used for future designs. In addition, the camp shouldestimate future population increases or decreases.

The camp should not proceed with construction of buildings other than the library

without prior approval by the DEP.

The camp should determine if well 02G has been properly abandoned through an

Abandonment of Water Source application (BRP WS36), and if not, proceed to file forthe abandonment.

The camp should determine if well 03G has been properly abandoned through an

Abandonment of Water Source application (BRP WS36), and if not, proceed to file for

the abandonment. Also, any cross connection of this well to the water supply system ofthe camp should be abandoned. The camp should utilize this well for fire protection

purposes only and there should be no connection between this well and the drinking

water supply of the camp.




C:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 11 for 5-0004 Camp Ramah.zip\5-0004 Camp

Ramah\Water & Sewer Project\5-0011 4-5-02 memo.doc



Braintree, MA 02184

Phone: 781 849 7070

Fax: 781 849 0096

MEMORANDUM

To: Joel Stavsky


Cc: Steven Bernstein

Jim Ferrara

Date: April 5, 2002

Re: Camp Ramah New England ACO

Mr Stavsky:

I just wanted to drop a line about our progress on your project. Below is a progress list

pertaining to the project:

Kurt Olson has finished the wetland and riverfront flagging and has provided the

information to Sherman and Woods (the surveyors) on the locations. He is also

preparing a report that will be used for the Notice of Intent.

Survey is continuing work on the road and onsite. Detail for the camp entrance to

the River Street and Bennet Street intersection has been provided to Daylor.

These plans allow us to proceed with the Rail Road crossing design.

Daylor has inspected the manholes in River Street and determined that additional

information should be obtained in the form of televising and cleaning the sewerlines from the end to the first 10" pipe located in River Street. Daylor has several

companies providing estimates on this work. The televising is necessary for the

purposes of providing a record of the condition of the pipes prior to ourconnection and as an indicator of any rehabilitation work (roots, breaks,

infiltration and inflow, etc.) that may be necessary in order to connect to this line.

Any reports generated from this work will be sent to you. Estimates for the

This is a progress memo that Iwrote for the Board of Directorsas the design was underway.







televising work should arrive early next week, we will inform you of our selection

and schedule for this work.

Daylor is coordinating a fire hydrant flow test to be performed at the same time asthe sewer cleaning and televising, if possible. The hydrant flow test data is

another measure to provide a record of existing conditions prior to the connection;

the data obtained will also assist in calculations further in the design of the project.

Daylor performed a walk of the proposed utility route; initial observationsindicate that possibly a large portion of the trenching can be done outside of the

paved area in River Street, this would drastically reduce costs, especially if the

Highway Department still requires flowable fill under paved surfaces. Theexisting conditions plans will provide a better idea of where the utilities can be

placed outside of the pavement.

There is currently an internal struggle over who the water line would belong toupon completion; Palmer Water District has indicated that the Camp is within

their district so they should own the pipe, Bondsville (whom Daylor assumedwould be the owner) owns the waterlines we are ultimately connecting to.Bondsville sells water to the Thorndike Water District. Under the advisement of

various Town officials, we are providing the Town with a letter of intent asking

that the appropriate departments contact us. A copy of the letter will be providedto you (it is basically a statement of your intent to connect to the utilities in River

Street). Daylor intent is to stay out of the argument; the end result should have no

effect on the Camp unless connection fees were no longer waived. The hope isthat the departments will see the project for the greater good for the whole town;

set some politics aside and compromise on who owns what. Once it is determinedwhich district/departments the project will be dealing with, Daylor will provide a

memorandum of understanding to the Town (to be reviewed by you prior tosubmission).

Daylor has obtained permitting documents for the Railroad Crossing from

MAEOTC. Daylor is awaiting a copy of a recent permit filed by another

engineering firm for a similar crossing in Palmer (why reinvent the wheel?). The permit package is the same for aerial and subterranean crossings so when the

secondary access has been located, a copy of the permit package is here and can

be sent to whomever is filing this permit.

Preliminary discussions have begun with the power company for the process of

providing three-phase power to the camp. The work order required for this project cannot be started until we have located exactly where the three-phase power will be brought into the camp. When the details of Village “A” are

provided, we should be able to site the sewage pump station and appurtenances.

Does the camp intend to make use of the three-phase power for any other purposes? The power company will need a load estimate; Daylor can provide

information for the pump station, any additional loads will have to be provided to







the power company prior to starting a work order. The work for the pump station

and any grinder pumps will likely not need an electrical engineer on board since

the plan is to utilize standard control panels, however if the camp wishes to

consider utilizing the three-phase power for the library, dining commons or otherareas, an electrical engineer should be brought on board. Does the Camp have an

electrical engineer it uses?

Investigations have begun into the ownership of and the process of crossing the

power line easement across River Street.

Daylor is in the process of hiring a boring company to provide soil information

along the proposed utility route. This information will allow the bidders to

provide a more accurate bid instead of adding a higher allowance for unforeseenconstruction costs associated with ledge, boulders, organic materials, etc. Daylor

will inform you of our selection and schedule soon.

Daylor will continue to perform the work that can be done without existing condition plans so that when these plans are completed, full attention can be paid to the design

aspects of the project

Please don't hesitate to contact me with any questions, comments, or concerns. I can be

reached at 781-849-7070 ext259, or [email protected].

Thanks,

Scott S.




C:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 33 for 5-0011-Camp Ramah.zip\5-0011-CampRamah\Construction\5-0011-WWTP memo-4-8-05.doc

Job Number: 5.0011 Printed 7/10/2012 11:35:00 AM


Braintree, MA 02184

Phone: 781 849 7070

Fax: 781 849 0096

MEMORANDUM

To: Joel Stavsky


Cc:

Date: April 8, 2005

Re: Sewer Fees

Joel:

I met with the Town of Palmer Water Pollution Control Superintendent, GeraldSkowronek yesterday after our meeting at the Camp. We discussed two items, flowmeters and sewer charges.

Gerald is satisfied with our Remote Terminal Unit (RTU) with the website interface. Heshould be provided with the username and password that you provided to Mission (seeDCG fax dated January 28, 2005). It would probably be easiest if you provide him acopy of all those forms so he knows exactly who gets calls in the event of an alarm. Thiswill allow Gerald to log on to your pump station website monthly and record the flows.

Gerald explained the process for sewer fees. As a commercial property, they will bill youon an Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) basis. The Town defines and EDU as 73,000gallons and currently charges $300 per EDU. The town currently bills twice a year, inMarch and in September. Simply put, he will add up all the flow from the September

meter reading to the March reading, divide by 73,000 and multiply by 300 to arrive at the bill for March. For example, assuming that all the water used from your well goes intothe pumping station, and using the 2002 water meter data, between 7/16/2002 and8/25/2002, 2,036,900 gallons of water were used. Divide 2,036,900 by 73,000 (1 EDU),then multiply by $300 (cost of 1 EDU) and you arrive at $8,370, the cost of dischargingsewage to the Town for that period of time. The Town currently has an estimate of4,000,000 gallons of use for the camp for an entire year and estimate that the yearly total

I negotiated with the SewerDepartment for the sewer fees for the

Camp. This is a memo to the CampDirector regarding my meeting withthe Sewer Department.




C:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 33 for 5-0011-Camp Ramah.zip\5-0011-CampRamah\Construction\5-0011-WWTP memo-4-8-05.doc


would be $16,500 for sewer fees. The camp will only pay what is actually used thoughso any conservation measures will only help lower sewer fees for the Camp (low flowshower fixtures, low volume toilets, repair leaky fixtures).

Gerald is the person you need to speak with to make arrangements for billing. His phonenumber is 413-283-2671; I think you will find Gerry a very pleasant person to work with.

Please let me know if you have further questions, comments or concerns.

Scott SchluterSenior EngineerDaylor Consulting Group, Inc.



P u m p C u r v e D a t a P o i n t s

S a f e t y F a c t o r =

1 . 2

A

B

C

M y e r s

M

y e r s

M y e r s

M y e r s

M y e r s

C r a n e

N e w P V C

N P

S H

W G L 2 0 C u r v e

W G L

2 0 C u r v e

W G L 2 0 C u r v e

W G L 2 0 C u r v e

W G L 2 0 C u r v e

O G V F

Q

T D H

( 3 - 1 / 8 " i m p e l l e r )

( 3 - 3 / 4

" i m p e l l e r )

( 4 - 1 / 2 " i m p e l l e r )

( 5 " i m p e l l e r )

( 5 - 1 / 2 " i m p e l l e r

)

( 3 " i m p e l l e r )

( g p m )

( f t )

( f t )

( f t )

( f t )

( f t )

( f t )

( f t )

( f t )

0

1 6 . 0

1

0 . 0

0

3 2 . 0

0

5 0 . 0

0

7 0 . 0

0

8 6 . 2

5

1 0 5 . 0

0

3 1 . 0

0

2 . 5

1 6 . 0

9

0 . 0

0

3 1 . 2

5

4 8 . 7

5

6 9 . 0

0

8 5 . 5

0

1 0 3 . 0

0

3 1 . 0

0

5

1 6 . 2

9

0 . 0

0

3 0 . 5

0

4 7 . 7

0

6 8 . 0

0

8 4 . 0

0

1 0 2 . 0

0

3 1 . 0

0

7 . 5

1 6 . 6

1

0 . 0

0

3 0 . 0

0

4 7 . 5

0

6 7 . 0

0

8 3 . 0

0

1 0 0 . 0

0

3 1 . 0

0

1 0

1 7 . 0

4

0 . 0

0

2 9 . 0

0

4 6 . 0

0

6 5 . 0

0

8 2 . 0

0

9 8 . 7

5

3 0 . 0

0

1 2 . 5

1 7 . 5

7

0 . 0

0

2 6 . 2

5

4 3 . 7

5

6 3 . 7

5

8 0 . 0

0

9 6 . 2

5

2 9 . 5

0

1 5

1 8 . 2

1

0 . 0

0

2 3 . 7

5

4 2 . 0

0

6 2 . 0

0

7 8 . 7

5

9 3 . 7

5

2 8 . 0

0

1 7 . 5

1 8 . 9

4

0 . 0

0

2 1 . 2

5

4 0 . 0

0

6 0 . 0

0

7 6 . 2

5

9 1 . 5

0

2 6 . 0

0

2 0

1 9 . 7

8

0 . 0

0

1 7 . 5

0

3 7 . 0

0

5 7 . 5

0

7 4 . 0

0

8 9 . 0

0

2 4 . 0

0

2 2 . 5

2 0 . 7

0

0 . 0

0

1 2 . 5

0

3 3 . 7

5

5 5 . 0

0

7 2 . 0

0

8 6 . 0

0

2 2 . 0

0

2 5

2 1 . 7

3

0 . 0

0

3 1 . 0

0

5 2 . 5

0

6 8 . 7

5

8 4 . 0

0

2 0 . 0

0

2 7 . 5

2 2 . 8

4

0 . 0

0

2 6 . 2

5

4 9 . 0

0

6 6 . 0

0

8 0 . 7

5

1 8 . 0

0

3 0

2 4 . 0

5

0 . 0

0

2 1 . 2

5

4 6 . 0

0

6 2 . 5

0

7 7 . 5

0

1 5 . 0

0

3 2 . 5

2 5 . 3

5

0 . 0

0

4 2 . 5

0

5 8 . 0

0

7 4 . 0

0

1 3 . 0

0

3 5

2 6 . 7

4

0 . 0

0

3 8 . 0

0

5 3 . 7

5

6 9 . 7

5

1 0 . 0

0

3 7 . 5

2 8 . 2

2

0 . 0

0

3 3 . 0

0

4 8 . 0

0

6 5 . 0

0

7 . 5

0

4 0

2 9 . 7

8

0 . 0

0

2 6 . 2

5

4 1 . 2

5

5 5 . 7

5

5 . 5

0

T h i s i s a p o r t i o n o f m y p u m p s e l e c t i o n

c a l c u l a t i o n s f o r o n e o f t h e s

m a l l p u m p

s t a t i o n s i n t h e c o l l e c t i o n s y s t e m f o

r t h e

c a m p .

I l o o k e d a t s e v e r a l p

u m p s a n d

c h o s e t h e b e s t f i t .



5 0 . 0 0

5 5 . 0 0

6 0 . 0 0

6 5 . 0 0

7 0 . 0 0

7 5 . 0 0

8 0 . 0 0

8 5 . 0 0

9 0 . 0 0

9 5 . 0 0

1 0 0 . 0 0

1 0 5 . 0 0

1 1 0 . 0 0

y n a m i c H e a d ( f t )

J

o b - S y s t e m C

u r v e

N e w

P V C

T D H

( f t )

N P S H

( f t )

( 3 - 1 / 8 " i m p e l l e r )

( 3 - 3 / 4 " i m p e l l e r )

( 4 - 1 / 2 " i m p e l l e r )

( 5 " i m p e l l e r )

( 5 - 1 / 2

" i m p e l l e r )

C r a n e 3 "

1 0 . 0 0

1 5 . 0 0

2 0 . 0 0

2 5 . 0 0

3 0 . 0 0

3 5 . 0 0

4 0 . 0 0

4 5 . 0 0

0

2

. 5

5

7 . 5

1 0

1 2 . 5

1 5

1 7 . 5

2 0

2 2 . 5

2 5

2 7 . 5

3 0

3 2 . 5

3 5

3 7 . 5

4 0

T o t a l D

F l o w R

a t e ( G P M )

T h e s e a r e t h e p u m p

c u r v e s f o r m y p u

m p

s e l e c t i o n s h e e t .



July 18, 2003 Job # 5.0011.01

Sewer Connection Construction Bid

Documents

SEWER CONNECTION AT C AMP R AMAH IN

P ALMER M ASSACHUSETTS 39 BENNETT STREET

P ALMER , M ASSACHUSETTS

Submitted to:

Prospective Bidders

Submitted by:


10 Forbes Road

Braintree MA, 02184

Prepared by:


I produced the BidDocuments for thisproject.




Camp Ramah In New England, Inc

Railroad Crossing Application 01300 – SUBMITTALSC:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 61 for 5-0011-Camp Ramah.zip\5-0011-Camp Ramah\Railroad

Crossing\Specifications\01300.doc

SECTION 01300

SUBMITTALS

Part 1 - GENERAL

1.1 PROGRESS REPORTS, RECORDS AND DATA

A. The CONTRACTOR shall submit to the OWNER such schedules of quantities and costs,

progress schedules, payrolls, reports, estimates, records and other data as the OWNER may

request concerning work performed or to be performed under this CONTACTOR.

1.2 SHOP DRAWINGS, SAMPLES, PROJECT DATA

A. The CONTRACTOR shall submit for review by the ENGINEER six copies of all shop drawings,

setting schedules and such other drawings as may be necessary for the prosecution of the work in the

shop and in the field as required by the DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS or the ENGINEER's

instructions. Deviations from the DRAWINGS and SPECIFICATIONS shall be called to theattention of the ENGINEER at the time of the first submission of shop drawings and other drawings

for consideration. The ENGINEER's review of any drawings shall not release the CONTRACTOR

from responsibility for such deviations. Shop drawings shall be submitted with such promptness as

to cause no delay in his work or the work of any other CONTRACTOR

B. When submitted for the ENGINEER’s review, all shop drawings shall bear the CONTRACTOR's

certification that he has reviewed, checked and approved the shop drawings, that they are in harmony

with the requirements of the PROJECT and with the provisions of the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS,

and that he has verified all field measurements and construction criteria, materials, catalog numbers

and similar data. The CONTRACTOR shall also certify that the work represented by the shop

drawings is recommended by the CONTRACTOR and the CONTRACTOR's Guaranty will fully

apply.

C. All samples called for in the SPECIFICATIONS or required by the ENGINEER shall be furnished by

the CONTRACTOR and shall be submitted to the ENGINEER for his review. Samples shall be

furnished so as not to delay fabrication, and to allow the ENGINEER reasonable time for the

consideration of the samples submitted.

D. Checking of submittals is only for general conformance with the design concept of the project and

general compliance with the information given in the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. Any action

shown is subject to the requirements of the plans and SPECIFICATIONS. CONTRACTOR is

responsible for: dimensions, which shall be confirmed and correlated at the job site; fabrication

processes and techniques of construction; coordination of his work with that of all other trades; and

the satisfactory performance of his work.

E. The CONTRACTOR may only proceed with fabrication and construction for items on returned

submittals marked "No Exception Taken" or "Make Corrections as Noted." Resubmit submittals if

marked "Rejected", "Revise and Resubmit" or "Submit Samples or Additional Information."

This is one of theSpecifications I wrote forthis project.




Camp Ramah In New England, Inc

Railroad Crossing Application 01300 – SUBMITTALSC:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 61 for 5-0011-Camp Ramah.zip\5-0011-Camp Ramah\Railroad

Crossing\Specifications\01300.doc

F. The CONTRACTOR shall furnish such samples of material as may be required for examination and

test. All samples of materials for tests shall be taken according to ASTM SPECIFICATIONS or as

provided in the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.

G. All samples shall be submitted by the CONTRACTOR with a covering letter indicating that such

samples are recommended by the CONTRACTOR for the service intended and that the

CONTRACTOR's Guaranty will fully apply.

H. All materials, equipment and workmanship shall be in accordance with samples guaranteed by the

CONTRACTOR and reviewed by the ENGINEER.

1.3 CONTRACTOR'S ORDER OF CONSTRUCTION

A. The CONTRACTOR shall, within 30 days after award of CONTRACT, provide and submit to the

ENGINEER for approval, the schedule he plans to maintain in order to successfully construct the

work within the time allotted. This schedule shall include a Critical Path network and a computer

generated print out. The schedule shall account for all SUBCONTRACTS in addition to the work of

the CONTRACTOR. In addition to all reasonably important construction activities, the schedule

shall provide for the proper sequence of construction considering the various crafts, purchasing time,shop drawing approval, material delivery, equipment fabrication and similar time-consuming factors.

B. The network shall be provided in the form of a time scaled schedule. The computer print out shall

include as a minimum, the earliest starting, earliest finish, latest starting, latest finish dates, and the

total float for each activity. The CONTRACTOR shall update (monitor) and run the schedule daily

and shall submit to the ENGINEER anticipated deviations from the schedule.

1.4 CONTRACTOR'S COST BREAKDOWN

A. Within 30 days of the CONTRACT award, the CONTRACTOR shall provide the ENGINEER with a

complete breakdown of the cost of the lump sum items in the Proposal in such a manner that the

breakdown may be used as a basis for estimating the value of work completed to the end of anymonth. The extent and basis of the breakdown shall meet the ENGINEER's approval.

** END OF SECTION **





Ramah\Construction\Shop Drawings\5.0011-Shops trns-7-8-04 set 3.doc

Job Number: 5.0011.02 Printed 7/10/2012 11:36 AM


Braintree, MA 02184Phone: (781) 849-7070

Fax: (781) 849-0096

TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM

To: Andy Smetana From: Scott Schluter

Project Manager Senior EngineerLudlow Construction Inc. Extension 25919 Carmelina’s Circle [email protected]

Ludlow, MA 01056

Cc:Date: July 8, 2004

Re: Camp Ramah Shop Drawings 7/8/04

We are sending you via FedEx the following:

Remarks:1 No Exception Taken

2 Rejected

3 Submit Samples or Additional Information4 Revise and Resubmit

5 Make Corrections as Noted

Copies Date Description

4 7/8/04 Barnes SGVF2022L Pump1

4 7/8/04 Barnes BAFEZ 1.25x2 break away fitting & guide bracket &lifting chain

1

4 7/8/04 Flowmatic ball check valve, 208S1

4 7/8/04 Simplex Control Panel1

This is one of my shopdrawing approvaltransmittals.



August 1, 2005

Andy Smetana

Project Manager

Ludlow Construction Inc.

19 Carmelina’s Circle

Ludlow, MA 01056

Subject: Camp Ramah Punchlist

Dear Andy:

Following is a punch list of items that need attention prior to a reduction in retainage to

1% for the Camp Ramah project. This list was compiled from notes by Bob Lemoine andJoel Stavsky. In order to release the retainage from the contract down to 1%, these items

must be addressed.

1. The main pump station motor does not appear to be cycling. This motor is

supposed to startup once a week.

2.

The water to the main pump station needs to be turned on.

3. Camp Ramah’s electrician claims that the stockade fenced pump station pumps arenot operating at the proper amperage. This needs to be investigated. Can Ludlow

provide estimates for a solution to the possible clogging that is occurring due to

the accumulation of feminine products in the pump station? (Stainless steel screen?Mixing valve?)

4. As-Built markups are to be submitted to Daylor for electronic production. As part

of the as-builts, Ludlow is to make sure to provide ties to all buried cleanouts and

to show Jim Dupres in person where they all are.

5. The odor at the stockade fenced pump station is getting worse. This situation must

be investigated and a solution provided ASAP. Please call me to discuss theoptions. (Raise the vent pipe? Adjust the floats to reduce retention time in the wet

well? Move the odor control from the main pump station on a trial basis?)

This is a punch listletter to thecontractor after myinspection of the

project prior torelease of theretainage andproject closeout.





June 16, 2005

Kurt Boisjolie, Wastewater Management

Department of Environmental Protection

Bureau of Resource ProtectionWestern Regional Office

436 Dwight Street

Springfield, MA 01103

RE: Administrative Consent Order ACO-WE-029-1001

Camp Ramah, Palmer, MA

Dear Mr. Boisjolie:

On behalf of Camp Ramah-New England (the Camp), owner and operator of Camp Ramah, inPalmer, MA, Daylor Consulting Group, Inc. (Daylor) hereby wishes to inform you that thecamp is entirely connected to the Town of Palmer municipal sewer collection system and

abandonment of all onsite sewage disposal systems is complete.

Attached are the Contractor’s As-Built plans for the onsite collection system as you requested.

With the completed connection of the camp to a municipal sewer system, abandonment of all

existing onsite subsurface sewage disposal systems, and submission of As-Built plans, in our professional opinion, Camp Ramah has fulfilled the requirements of the Administrative

Consent Order within the timeframe provided in the Order. Having completed all the

requirements, the Camp seeks confirmation from the Department of Environmental Protectionthat it has returned to compliance with Title V regulations.

Please call me directly, if you have any questions regarding this request at 781-884-2559.

Very truly yours,


Scott Schluter

Senior Engineer


This is the letter I wrote to obtain aCertificate of Compliance andrelease from the AdministrativeConsent Order.



Kurt Boisjolie

7/10/2012

Page 2


Ramah\Correspondence\DEP\DEP-compliance letter #3-7-5-06.doc

Job Number: 5011 Last printed 7/10/2012 11:39:00 AM

cc:

Paul Bernard- Chairman, Palmer Board of Health

Town Administration Building4417 Main Street, Palmer MA 01069

Gerald Skowronek-Superintendent, Palmer Water Pollution Control

1 Norbell Street, Three Rivers MA 01080

Saul Schapiro - Rosenberg and Schapiro

44 School Street, Boston MA 02108

Joel Stavsky - Camp Ramah39 Bennett Street Palmer, MA 01069



T h i s s h e e t f r o m t h

e C o n s t r u c t i o n

D r a w i n g s s h o w s t h e h o r i z o n t a l b o

r e I

d e s i g n e d a n d p e r m i t t e d i n o r d e r t o

c r o s s t h e a c t i v e r a i l r o a d t r a c k s w i t h

t h e s e w e r f o r c e m a i n .





T h i s i s t h e

s h e e t f o r t h e

p u m p s s t a t i o n

t h a t I d e s i g n e d .



T h i s i s o n e o f t h e s h e e t s I u s e d f o r

d e s i g n i n g a n d p e r m i t t i n g t h e b o r e

b e n e a t h t h e r a i l r o a d t r a c k s .




C:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 1 for 2295 Mosaic Commons Cohousing,

Harvard.zip\2295 Mosaic Commons Cohousing, Harvard\05-02-03-submittal\2295-mosaic memo 5-1-03.doc



Braintree, MA 02184

Phone: 781 849 7070

Fax: 781 849 0096

MEMORANDUM

To: Chris ScottHanson


Cc:

Date: May 2, 2003

Re: Mosaic Common Cohousing Community

The following is a summary of our preliminary findings relative to potential on-site

wastewater disposal and drinking water alternatives for the above referenced project.

As part of the analysis, Daylor reviewed the following information pertaining to the site:

MassGIS datasets:

Figure 1 depicts the locus of the project Figure 2 depicts an aerial view of the project locus Figure 3 shows that the locus falls outside of Reserved and Protected areas

mapped by the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program. The

nearest indicated Protected Areas appear directly across the street from the project along Stow Road.

Figure 4 shows that there is a mapped FEMA Flood Zone B associated with

the intermittent stream located in the southeast corner. Analysis of the online

FEMA maps show that the Flood Zone has no elevation associated with it (seeattached figures from the FEMA website with no numbers).

Figure 5 shows that the locus falls outside of any mapped Zone IIs and

IWPAs associated with Public Water Supplies. The nearest protective radiusis to the north in Boxboro, an IWPA for a well there.

2003

I was the Project Manager forthis project. I was tasked withassessing the suitability of asite for wastewater disposaland potable water supply fora cohousing project.







Soil Testing Information by others:

Two Septic system plans entitled “Sewage Disposal System” (both) for lots 1-

A and lot 2 by David E. Ross Associates, Inc. Plan entitled “Existing Conditions Plan” by David E. Ross Associates, Inc.

Layout plan by others Plan entitled “Site Plan Harvard Site” by Kraus-Fitch Architects, Inc.

State Regulations (assuming Comprehensive Permit setting aside local rules andregulations in favor of State rules and regulations):

310 CMR 15 (Title V, subsurface sewage disposal regulations) 310 CMR 22 (Drinking water regulations)

2001 Guidelines and Policies for Public Water Systems (Volumes I and II)

Below is a summary of the regulatory constraints and site limitations in regards todrinking water and sewage disposal for the site. More detailed descriptions of the various

constraints follow.

Regulatory Constraints

84 Bedroom maximum build out based on Title V nitrogen loading constraints(based on 440 gallons per day per 40,000 square feet).

Approximately 37,000 square feet (sf) leaching area based on provided soil

information (based on assumed percolation rate of 30 minutes per inch, classII soil, 110 gallons per day per bedroom sewage generation).

A minimum 245-foot protective Zone I radius (based on 9,240 gallons per daywater demand).

Stormwater management retention/detention basin with an estimated 11,000 sffootprint (based on 13% of proposed impervious area required for

retention/detention basins)

Site Limitations

Variable soil conditions with four failed percolations in past soil testing.

High seasonal groundwater reported in past soil testing. No aquifers are indicated for the locus, however a medium yield aquifer is

mapped relatively close. A more detailed hydrogeologic evaluation of the site

is needed to determine if a well of the capacity required for this project is

feasible.

Below is more detailed discussion about the regulatory and site constraints in regards to

drinking water and sewage disposal, expanding on the summary above.







Septic Systems

Nitrogen Loading

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) limits

development of a project to a maximum nitrogen loading rate of 440 gallons per

day (gpd) per 40,000 sf when both a well and septic system are proposed for thesame facility. The 40,000 sf does not include land under roadway surface or land

under water. The total area of the site is approximately 891,000 sf, minus the

approximately 42,000 sf of land under roadway and water (based on the April 11,2003 layout by Kraus-Fitch Architects Inc. and available USGS data) results in

the potential of 84 bedrooms being developed on this parcel under Title V

nitrogen loading regulations (based on 110 gpd per bedroom, per Title V).

The nitrogen loading limitation would not apply to a wastewater treatment system

constructed under a DEP groundwater discharge permit where the federal Safe

Drinking Water Act standard of 10 parts per million (ppm) is met. A groundwaterdischarge permit is a lengthy permit involving, among other things, detailed

studies and the design of a wastewater treatment plant far more complex than aconventional Title V system.

Wells and Onsite Septic Systems

When a facility includes both a community well (see Drinking Water section) and

an onsite septic system, the site is classified as a Nitrogen Sensitive area, which in

conjunction with a sanitary sewage flow rate over 2,000 gpd, requires the use of aDEP approved innovative/alternative septic system. The innovative/alternative

septic systems are typically packaged wastewater treatment systems that havereceived DEP approval as a complete system and are less complex than what is

required for a groundwater discharge permit. These systems treat wastewater to ahigher level than conventional septic systems. Obtaining a permit to construct

and innovative/alternative system involves less detailed studies than agroundwater discharge permit.

Wells and Groundwater Discharge Permits

When a site includes both a community well (see Drinking Water section) and a

groundwater discharge permit, the DEP’s Interim Guidelines for Reclaimed WaterUse may be applicable resulting in further detailed studies and a more complex

wastewater treatment system and possible treatment requirements for the well.

Leaching Area Requirements

Based on the maximum nitrogen loading rate of 84 bedrooms and available soil

data, a leaching area of approximately 37,000 sf would be required. The totalarea could be divided into several smaller areas sited throughout the site since a

pumped system is required by the DEP for flows over 2,000 gpd. The leaching







areas can be located under pavement. Although Drawings 1 and 2 depict

potential alternative locations for the disposal areas, a more detailed evaluation

and soil testing is necessary to determine the feasibility of any location.

Leaching Area Setback Requirements

The following table summarizes a few of the setback requirements applicable tothis project.

Item Leaching Area Setback

Property Line 10 feet

Cellar Wall or Pool 20 feet

Slab Foundation 10 feet

Surface Water or BVW (wetlands) 50 feet

Vernal Pool 100 feet

Drinking Water

Community Water Systems

The DEP defines a water supply as a Public Water System when the system

consists of 15 service connections or greater or more than 25 persons are served by the system. The DEP views ownership when defining a system so several

wells for the same site still constitutes a single water system. The DEP further

defines a water supply as being a Community Water System when the previouslymentioned services are for year round use. Development of a well for a Public

Water Supply System requires DEP approval, which involves detailed studies and

completion of a well testing program.

Wellhead Protective Areas

Public Water supplies require land use restrictions for areas around the wellhead.The first protective area is called a Zone I and is based on the water use. For an

84-bedroom development a 245-foot Zone I radius would be required. All land

within this 245-foot radius has to be owned or controlled through easements bythe facility that is served by the well. Very little activity is allowed with the Zone

I of a public well, typically restricted recreational uses are allowed but buildings

and parking lots would not be allowed.

The second protective area is called an Interim Wellhead Protection area or

IWPA, which is also based on water use. For an 84-bedroom development, an

IWPA of 606 feet would be required. Land within the IWPA is far less restrictedthan the Zone I and does not need to be controlled or owned by the facility;

certain developments cannot be within an IWPA such as landfills and junkyards(among several others).







An IWPA is interim in nature, eventually the DEP requires a detailed analysis and

mapping of the watershed contributing to a wellhead called a Zone II which has

the same restrictions as a Zone I but can cover more or less area than the IWPA,

dependent on the site.

The following is a summary of some of the potential solutions to drinking water and

sewage disposal.

Development Alternatives

Two site alternatives were chosen for analysis. The first alternative involves developing

the well in the southern corner of the site and the sewage disposal areas along the westernedge of the site. The second alternative involves developing the well in the western

portion of the site and the sewage disposal areas midway along the southern edge of the

site. Both alternatives show stormwater management area footprints preliminarily

calculated based on the current layout to establish a rough idea of this constraint; the finalstormwater management system could be completely different. A 50-foot buffer around

the stormwater management area was chosen to allow grading around thedetention/retention basin.

Alternative 1(See attached Drawing Alternative 1)

The drawing, Alternative 1, depicts potential locations for the well and sewage

disposal areas. With the well located in the southern corner of the site, the

majority of the Zone I protective area associated with the well is located inwetland resource areas. However, it should be noted that there is no information

available about the potential to develop a well with adequate capacity for the project. The location of the well as shown takes an aggressive approach to

placing the wellhead within the wetlands, which is allowed but could raiseconcerns with the local Conservation Commission; the well could be sited just

outside of the wetlands with minimal changes to this alternative.

With the sewage disposal fields along the western edge of the site and the well in

the southern corner of the site, the current layout of the site appears to work butadditional costs associated with pumping the sewage to this proposed disposal

area could be costly since this portion of the site is at a much higher elevation

than the development would likely be constructed at. The location of the sewagedisposal areas upgradient from the water supply well would likely require a

detailed analysis of the hydrogeologic characteristics of the site to ensure there is

no potential of contaminating the well with sewage effluent. It should be notedthat no soil information was provided about this area so it would still need to beexplored for the potential to construct a leaching area here. With the available

soil testing data showing variable soil conditions, potential high groundwater, and

failed percolation tests, the siting of disposal areas anywhere on the site could prove to be difficult.







An alternative location for the sewage disposal areas is midway along the

southern property line. This location is considerably closer the well and could

raise some issues about contamination of the water supply well. Construction in

this area could also be problematic due to likely high groundwater and the proximity to the wetlands; a relatively high retaining wall would be likely for

construction in this area since the slope is so steep. There is no soil data available

for this area either so further exploration would be necessary. This location forthe disposal areas would also impact the layout of the development as shown on

the current plans since no buildings could be built within 20-feet (10-foot if slab

construction is used) of the sewage disposal area.

A third alternative location for the disposal areas that is not shown would be to

split the disposal areas up, and spread the development out enough to placedisposal areas amongst the buildings and under parking areas. There would likely

be considerable additional construction costs associated with this alternative, and

the development would spread out across the site considerably to provide

adequate setback distances to the leaching areas (20-feet for cellars, 10-feet forslabs). If the groundwater is found to be high in any of the proposed locations,

construction around mounded disposal areas would be an issue.

Alternative 2(See attached Drawing Alternative 2)

The drawing, Alternative 2, with the well located in the western portion of thesite, a large portion of the current layout falls within the Zone I protective area

associated with the well, which the DEP would prohibit. The benefit of this

scenario is that the well is located where it is likely to be upgradient of the sewagedisposal fields. This means that contamination of the well by sewage effluent

would not likely be an issue, but a hydrogeologic study may still be necessary.As mentioned previously there is no data available about the potential of

developing a well with adequate water capacity, and the higher elevation mightrequire a deeper well to reach any potential water source.

The limitations of this sewage disposal area location were discussed previously in

alternative 1 and still apply. Reconfiguration of the final disposal area locations

may be desired to provide a larger developable area along the northern edge of the property; however location of large disposal areas along the slope of the hill

involves less construction issues than construction perpendicular to the slope. As

was also discussed in alternative 1, the disposal areas could be broken up andspread among the buildings; however the limited amount of buildable area left by

this scenario would likely result in a lower unit count.

If you have any questions, comments or concerns, please don’t hesitate to contact me; Ican be reached at 781-849-7070 ext 259.

Scott SchluterDaylor Consulting Group, Inc.



Ten Forbes RoadBraintree/MA 02184

781 849 7070FAX 849 0096www.daylor.com

DaylorConsultingGroupInc.

March 14, 2003

Scott Peckham

Churchill Development

16 Coolidge Road

Andover, MA 01810

Subject: 378 West Broadway Condominiums

South Boston, Massachuestts

Dear Mr Peckham:

Daylor Consulting Group, Inc. (Daylor) is pleased to present to you the results of our

shadow study at 378 West Broadway Condominiums. The study was performed utilizingthe methods set forth by the Boston Redevelopment Authority, which have become the

standard for shadows studies in the Boston Area. The report has been supplied to you in

an electronic “portable document format” (pdf); hard copies will be mailed to you today.Further analysis can be performed for different dates and times at your request as well.

We were pleased to assist you with this small task and hope that is will serve you well in

your efforts to redevelop this parcel. At Daylor, we take great pride as professionals and as

citizens in participating in the re-creation of our great City. On summary, DaylorConsulting Group, Inc. provides quality consulting services in environmental analysis, land

planning, landscape architecture, civil engineering, GIS mapping and surveying. Servicesencompass the complete development process from initial site acquisition study,

development feasibility analysis, technical due diligence, survey, financing documentation,

land planning, site and infrastructure design, permitting, construction layout andobservation to final compliance certification. With an expertise in navigating Boston’s

permitting approval processes such as the BRA’s Article 80, the Public Improvements

Commission and the Boston Water and Sewer Commission, Daylor’s project types include

environmental studies, waterfront development, commercial and residential development,coastal protection, utilities, transportation facility planning, and community / open-space

planning. Our client roster includes real estate developers, institutions, corporations,government agencies, contractors, consultants, communities and individuals.

Years of experience with the environmental regulatory process as well as federal, state, and

local agency representatives have earned Daylor an estimable reputation for obtaining realestate and project development permits and approvals. It is this experience that well

2003I was the project manager for this

project. I was hired to perform ashadow study for the BostonRedevelopment Authority.



qualifies Daylor to guide large, complicated projects through the approval process. Daylor

professionals have a comprehensive knowledge of the regulatory process, which enablesthem to serve clients through all permitting phases from permit requirement definition and

pre-application conferences to application preparation, follow-up and hearing

presentations. In so doing, Daylor staff has also gained extensive experience in working on

community outreach with local civic groups to resolve project impact concerns. Securing permit approvals requires more than just knowledge of regulations. Often, substantial

supporting documentation must accompany even simple application forms. This

documentation may include alternatives analyses, engineering or environmental studies,zoning requirements and other calculations. Consultants must understand public and

agency viewpoints in developing permit strategies that can succeed within institutional

constraints. Daylor has acquired this expertise through years of experience and professional relationships with regulatory agencies at federal, state, regional, and local

levels.

To learn more about the firm, our people and the clients we help please check out

www.daylor.com, and the enclosed literature. If you have any questions, comments orconcerns about the shadow study, please don’t hesitate to contact me; I can be reached at

781-849-7070 ext 259.

Very truly yours,


Scott Schluter

Scott SchluterProject Engineer



This is oneof the manyfigures I hadto come up

with for thestudy.



L O T #

T o t a l

S e w a g e

A r e a R e q u i r e d

T o t a l

T o t a l A r e a o f

T o t a l A r e a

N u m b e r

D e s i g n F l o w

f o r N i t r o g e n L o a d i n g

L o t A r e a

P a v e m e n t a n d

A v a i l a b l e f o r

o f B e d r o o m s

a t 1 1 0 g p d

a t 6 6 0 g p d / a c r e

L a n d U n d e r W a t e r

N i t r o g e n

W i t h i n t h e

p e r B e d r o o m

L o a d i n g R a t e

W i t h i n t h e L o t

L o a d i n g

L o t

( g p d )

( s f )

( s f )

( s f )

( s f )

1

4

4 4 0

2 6 6 6 7

3 8 8 2 6

0

3 8 8 2 6

2

4

4 4 0

2 6 6 6 7

2 9 1 7 9

0

2 9 1 7 9

3

4

4 4 0

2 6 6 6 7

2 9 2 7 5

8 6 2

2 8 4 1 3

4

4

4 4 0

2 6 6 6 7

2 8 0 6 8

1 0 5 7

2 7 0 1 1

5

4

4 4 0

2 6 6 6 7

2 9 5 1 7

1 0 5 6

2 8 4 6 1

6

4

4 4 0

2 6 6 6 7

2 8 1 9 9

1 0 8 0

2 7 1 1 9

7

4

4 4 0

2 6 6 6 7

2 8 2 6 1

1 0 6 7

2 7 1 9 4

8

3

3 3 0

2 0 0 0 0

2 1 2 4 5

7 6 5

2 0 4 8 0

9

4

4 4 0

2 6 6 6 7

3 3 4 7 7

0

3 3 4 7 7

1 0

4

4 4 0

2 6 6 6 7

2 8 4 5 4

1 3 0 7

2 7 1 4 7

1 1

4

4 4 0

2 6 6 6 7

2 9 0 9 7

1 4 8 0

2 7 6 1 7

1 2

4

4 4 0

2 6 6 6 7

3 0 0 6 2

2 9 2 0

2 7 1 4 2

1 3

6

6 6 0

4 0 0 0 0

5 0 5 9 6

1 0 0 7 3

4 0 5 2 3

1 4

4

4 4 0

2 6 6 6 7

3 0 0 5 0

2 6 6 9

2 7 3 8 1

1 5

4

4 4 0

2 6 6 6 7

2 9 9 9 6

2 8 7 4

2 7 1 2 2

1 6

4

4 4 0

2 6 6 6 7

3 0 3 8 2

2 4 8 6

2 7 8 9 6

1 7

6

6 6 0

4 0 0 0 0

4 5 7 6 3

5 4 9 6

4 0 2 6 7

1 8

5

5 5 0

3 3 3 3 3

3 7 5 5 7

1 2 5 5

3 6 3 0 2

1 9

3

3 3 0

2 0 0 0 0

2 0 9 7 6

0

2 0 9 7 6

2 0

4

4 4 0

2 6 6 6 7

2 7 0 0 6

0

2 7 0 0 6

2 1

4

4 4 0

2 6 6 6 7

2 7 0 7 1

0

2 7 0 7 1

2 2

4

4 4 0

2 6 6 6 7

2 7 8 4 0

8 4

2 7 7 5 6

2 3

5

5 5 0

3 3 3 3 3

3 6 4 7 7

3 1 3 9

3 3 3 3 8

2 4

6

6 6 0

4 0 0 0 0

5 1 5 5 9

7 4 3 0

4 4 1 2 9

2 5

4

4 4 0

2 6 6 6 7

3 4 1 7 4

1 4 7 4

3 2 7 0 0

2 6

3

3 3 0

2 0 0 0 0

2 2 0 3 5

0

2 2 0 3 5

2 7

3

3 3 0

2 0 0 0 0

2 4 6 5 3

0

2 4 6 5 3

2 0 0 3

T h e s e a r e s o m e

s h e e t s f r o m a

4 0 B

p r o j e c t I w o r k e d o n a s

t h e A s s i s t a n t P r o j e c t

M a n a g e r . I t i n c l u d e d

p r i v a t e p o t a b l e w a t e r

w e l l s o n e a c h l o t a n d

s h a r e d s e p t i c s y s t e m s .



L O T #

T o t a l

S e w a g e

A r e a R e q u i r e d

T o t a l

T

o t a l A r e a o f

T o t a l A r e a

N u m b e r

D e s i g n F l o w

f o r N i t r o g e n L o a d i n g

L o t A r e a

P a v e m e n t a n d

A v a i l a b l e f o r

o f B e d r o o m s

a t 1 1 0 g p d

a t 6 6 0 g p d / a c r e

L a n

d U n d e r W a t e r

N i t r o g e n

W i t h i n t h e

p e r B e d r o o m

L o a d i n g R a t e

W

i t h i n t h e L o t

L o a d i n g

L o t

( g p d )

( s f )

( s f )

( s f )

( s f )

1

4

4 4 0

2 6 6 6 7

3 8 8 2 6

0

3 8 8 2 6

2

4

4 4 0

2 6 6 6 7

2 8 3 9 4

0

2 8 3 9 4

3

4

4 4 0

2 6 6 6 7

2 8 2 3 1

0

2 8 2 3 1

4

4

4 4 0

2 6 6 6 7

2 7 0 1 1

0

2 7 0 1 1

5

4

4 4 0

2 6 6 6 7

2 8 4 6 1

0

2 8 4 6 1

6

4

4 4 0

2 6 6 6 7

2 7 1 1 9

0

2 7 1 1 9

7

4

4 4 0

2 6 6 6 7

2 7 1 9 4

0

2 7 1 9 4

8

3

3 3 0

2 0 0 0 0

2 0 4 5 1

0

2 0 4 5 1

9

4

4 4 0

2 6 6 6 7

3 9 2 1 1

0

3 9 2 1 1

1 0

4

4 4 0

2 6 6 6 7

5 1 2 7 1

0

5 1 2 7 1

1 1

4

4 4 0

2 6 6 6 7

1 5 4 0 4 0

5 4 2 6

1 4 8 6 1 4

1 2

4

4 4 0

2 6 6 6 7

4 7 5 6 4

6 8 8 3

4 0 6 8 1

1 3

6

6 6 0

4 0 0 0 0

4 7 2 7 6

6 7 5 3

4 0 5 2 3

1 4

4

4 4 0

2 6 6 6 7

2 8 2 8 7

9 0 6

2 7 3 8 1

1 5

4

4 4 0

2 6 6 6 7

2 8 7 9 2

1 6 7 1

2 7 1 2 1

1 6

4

4 4 0

2 6 6 6 7

2 8 7 7 2

8 7 6

2 7 8 9 6

1 7

6

6 6 0

4 0 0 0 0

4 4 3 6 6

4 0 9 8

4 0 2 6 8

1 8

5

5 5 0

3 3 3 3 3

3 6 0 5 3

2 5 1 6

3 3 5 3 7

1 9

3

3 3 0

2 0 0 0 0

2 0 4 7 7

0

2 0 4 7 7

2 0

4

4 4 0

2 6 6 6 7

2 7 0 0 6

0

2 7 0 0 6

2 1

4

4 4 0

2 6 6 6 7

2 7 0 7 1

0

2 7 0 7 1

2 2

4

4 4 0

2 6 6 6 7

2 7 0 3 6

0

2 7 0 3 6

2 3

5

5 5 0

3 3 3 3 3

1 8 6 4 5 9

6 8 6 2

1 7 9 5 9 7

2 4

6

6 6 0

4 0 0 0 0

4 4 1 2 9

0

4 4 1 2 9

2 5

4

4 4 0

2 6 6 6 7

3 9 9 2 4

0

3 9 9 2 4

2 6

3

3 3 0

2 0 0 0 0

2 9 5 2 2

0

2 9 5 2 2

2 7

3

3 3 0

2 0 0 0 0

2 4 6 5 3

0

2 4 6 5 3



System Lots Discharging Number of Total System

Designation to System Bedrooms Design Flow

(gpd)

A 1 4

2 4

3 4

26 3

27 3

Total: 18 1980

B 4 4

5 4

6 4

7 4

Total: 16 1760

C 8 3

9 4

10 4

11 4

Total: 15 1650

D 12 4

13 6

14 4

15 4

Total: 18 1980

E 24 4

25 6

Total: 10 1100

F 16 4

17 6

18 5

19 3

Total: 18 1980

G 20 4

21 4

22 4

23 5

Total: 17 1870





2 0 0 3

F o r t h i s p

r o j e c t I w o r k e d u n d e r

t h e o w n e r o f D a y l o r C o n s u l t i n g

G r o u p t o

p e r m i t t h i s

s u b d i v i s i o

n .

L a t e r , I w o r k e d

w i t h t h e d

e v e l o p e r t o l a y o u t

t h e l o t s a n d r e g r a d e t h e m f o

r

p e r m i t t i n g

w i t h t h e

C o n s e r v a

t i o n C o m m i s s i o n .

O n e o f t h

e l o t s i n v o l v e d

w o r k i n g w

i t h t h e a b u t t e r o n a n

A d v e r s e P o s s e s s i o n c l a i m .



N O

S T E P N

O S T E P







2 0 0 4

F o r t h i s p r o j e c t I l a i d

o u t t h e s i t e , g r a d e d

t h e l o t , d e s i g n e d t h e

s t o r m w a t e r

m a n a g m e n t s y s t e m ,

a n d d e s i g n e d t h e

s e p t i c s y s t e m .

T h i s

i s a s h e e t f r o m t h

e

s e p t i c p l a n s .



2 0 0 4

T h i s i s a p r o j e c t w h e r e t w o

h o u s e s w e r e c o n s t r u c t e d o n

e a c h l o t . T h e s i t e w a s a

k e t t l e h o l e s o a s e w a g e

p u m p s t a t i o n w a s r e q u i r e d .



I d e s i g n e d t h e

r o a d w a y l a y o u t a n d

p r o f i l e a s w e l l a s t h e



T h i s

i s

t h e

l a y o u t p l a n

f o r t h e

s u b d i v i s i o n .



T h i s i s t h e u

t i l i t y p l a n .

W i t h s o

m a n y h o u s e

s o n t h e s e s m a l l l o t s ,

I

h a d t o a v o i d

c o n f l i c t s b e t w e e n a

l o t o f u t i l i t i e s

i n a s m a l l s p a c e .



T h i s

i s

t h e

c o n s t r u c t i o n

p h a s e i n g

I

s e t u p

f o r

t h i s

p r o j e c t .



I w a s t h e d e s i g n

e n g i n e e r f o r t h i s

P r e l i m i n a r y

S u b d i v i s i o n P l a n . I

d i d t h e g r a d i n g ,

u t i l i t i e s , l a y o u t , a n d

s t o r m w a t e r

m a n a g m e n t . I h a d

t o a v o i d l a r g e

s e w e r l i n e s i n

e a s e m e n t

t h r o u g h o u t t h e

p a r c e l .









2 0 0 4

F or t h i s pr o j e c t ,

w or k i n gwi t h

t h e

P r o j e c t M an a g er I

d e s i gn e d t h e

r o a d ,l ai d o u

t t h e

l o t s , gr a d e d

t h e

s i t e , an d d e s i gn e d

t h e s t or mw a

t er

m an a g em en

t

s

s t em.



J u l y

2 0 0 5

J o b # 2 4 3 4

N i t r o

g e n L o a d i n g A g g r e g a t i o n P l a n

S u b m i t t e d P u r s u a n t t o B R P W P 5 8 a

M I L E

S T O N E

S U B D I V I S I O N

M I L E S T

O N E R O A D

N A N T U

C K E T ,

M A S S A C H U S E T T S

S u b m i t

t e d t o :

D e p a r t m

e n t o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l P r o t e c t i o n

2 0 R i v e r s i d e D r i v e

L a k e v i l l

e M A ,

0 2 3 4 7

S u b m i t

t e d b y :

D a y l o r C

o n s u l t i n g G r o u p ,

I n c .

1 0 F o r b e s R o a d

B r a i n t r e e M A ,

0 2 1 8 4

P r e p a r e d b y :

D a y l o r C

o n s u l t i n g G r o u p ,

I n c .

M i l e s t o n e R o a d

S u b d i v i s i o n

N i t r o g e n L o a d i n g A g g r e g a t i o n P l a n

4

J u l y 2 0 0 5

2 4 3 4 - n i t r o g e n a g g r e g a t i o n 2 . d o c

T a

b l e 1

. N i t r o g e n

A g g r e g a

t i o n

C a

l c u

l a t i o n s

A r e a

R e q u

i r e d

N u m

b e r

o f

a t 6 6 0 g p

d / a c r e

A r e a

A v a

i l a b l e

B e

d r o o m s

D e s

i g n

F l o w

N i t r o g e n

L o a

d i n g

f o r

N i t r o g e n

L o a

d i n g

L o

t #

( D e s

i g n

)

( g p

d )

( s f )

( s f )

1

3

3 3 0

2 0 , 0

0 1

5 , 0

0 4

2

3

3 3 0

2 0 , 0

0 1

5 , 0

1 4

3

3

3 3 0

2 0 , 0

0 1

5 , 0

0 0

4

3

3 3 0

2 0 , 0

0 1

5 , 0

0 0

5

3

3 3 0

2 0 , 0

0 1

5 , 0

2 5

6

3

3 3 0

2 0 , 0

0 1

5 , 4

5 9

7

3

3 3 0

2 0 , 0

0 1

5 , 1

8 0

8

3

3 3 0

2 0 , 0

0 1

5 , 0

2 4

9

3

3 3 0

2 0 , 0

0 1

5 , 4

2 8

1 0

3

3 3 0

2 0 , 0

0 1

5 , 1

0 0

1 1

3

3 3 0

2 0 , 0

0 1

5 , 0

0 0

1 2

3

3 3 0

2 0 , 0

0 1

5 , 0

0 0

1 3

3

3 3 0

2 0 , 0

0 1

5 , 0

1 6

1 4

3

3 3 0

2 0 , 0

0 1

5 , 0

2 2

P a r c e l A

0

3 5 , 3

1 0

O P E N

1

-

-

0

1 4 , 2

5 6

O P E N

2

-

-

0

2 8 , 9

6 0

O P E N

3

1 8 , 4

0 7

O P E N

4

-

-

0

1 6 , 7

2 8

O P E N

5

-

-

0

2 1 , 6

3 7

O P E N

6

-

-

0

6 9 , 3

7 4

F u t u r e

6 , 5

4 1

T o

t a l :

4 2

4 , 6

2 0

2 8 0

, 0 1 4

2 8 2

, 4 8 5

N o t e s :

1 .

L a n d

u n d e r w a t e r n o t i n c l u d e d i n n i t r o g e n l o a d i n g c a l c u l a t i o n s .

2 .

R o a d

w a y p a v e m e n t i n r o a d r i g h t - o f - w a y s n o t i n c l u d e d i n n i t r o

g e n l o a d i n g c a l c u l a t i o n s .

3 .

A n a c r e i s d e f i n e d b y D E P a s 4 0 , 0

0 0 s f .

4 .

D e s i g n f l o w s b a s e d o n 1 1 0 g p d p e r b e d r o o m , a s s u m e d 3 b e d

r o o m s p e r l o t .

5 .

D u e t o i n c r e a s e i n a l l o w a b l e n i t r o g e n l o a d i n g f o r u s e o f a l t e r n

a t i v e s y s t e m s ,

t h e d

e s i g n f l o w

s h a l l n o t e x c e e d 6 6 0 g p d p e r a c r e .

2005 For this project, I designed three septic systems that used SeptiTech 3000 I/A unitsand Presby Enviro-Septic units for the leaching area. The project involved 14 small lots andopen space parcels that required a Nitrogen Loading Aggregation Plan permitted throughMassDEP. I performed the deep observation holes, the septic design and permitting,construction layout, construction oversight, and as-built approval for this project.





4.1 Daylight Analysis

4.1.1 Introduction

Daylor Consulting Group performed a daylight study to determine the extent towhich the Proposed Project restricts the amount of daylight reaching streets or pedestrian ways in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site. This study evaluates

daylight obstruction for the existing (no build) and proposed (build)

configurations on the property. Two additional studies were performed. The firststudy involved 59 Brainerd Road (the Vicomte apartment building), which is

directly across Griggs Street from the Project, representing the area context of the

building height, in the immediate vicinity of the Project. The second study

involved a theoretical building meeting the as-of-right zoning with a maximumheight of 35’ as allowed under the zoning requirements for the Allston/Brighton

Neighborhood District and setbacks to match the surrounding area.

4.1.2 Methodology

The daylight study was performed utilizing the Boston Redevelopment Authority

Daylight Analysis (BRADA) computer program. Using BRADA, a silhouette

view of the building is taken at ground level from the middle of the adjacent citystreets or pedestrian ways centered on the building(s) in question. The façade of

the building facing the viewpoint, including heights, setbacks, corners, and other

features is plotted onto a base map using lateral and elevation angles. The two-dimensional base map produced by BRADA represents a figure of the building in

the “sky dome” from the viewpoint chosen. The percent obstruction of daylight

from the viewpoint is calculated by BRADA based on the width of the view, the

distance between the viewpoint and the building, and the massing and setbacksincorporated into the design of the building.

Because the façade along Griggs Street is 258’ long, it is beyond the constraintsthat can be analyzed by BRADA using conventional methods. Analysis of the

Griggs Street facade was performed on two halves and the sum was used.

4.1.3 Observation Points

This daylight analysis considered two observation points around the Project Site,

and one building representing the neighborhood context:• Brainerd Road (Observation Point A): No Build, Build, As-of-Right

• Griggs Street (Observation Point B): No Build, Build, As-of-Right

• 59 Brainerd Road, known as The Vicomte (Observation Point C): Context

2006This is portions a typical Daylight Analysis Idid for our Planning Department as required

in plans before the Boston RedevelopmentAuthority.



4.1.4 Results

A daylight analysis was conducted to evaluate the daylight obstruction of the

Project. Figure 4.3-1 identifies the observation point locations analyzed.

Figures 4.3-2 through Figures 4.3-7 graphically illustrate the analysis results.

The results of the daylight analysis are summarized in Table 4.3-1 below.

Table 4.3-1: Summary of Daylight Obstruction

Observation

Point

Street/Elevation Existing

(No Build)

Configuration

Proposed

(Build)

Configuration

As-of-Right

Configuration

A Brainerd Road 17.3% 61.3% 58.7%

B Griggs Street 39.1% 70.6% 70.7%

C Griggs Street(Vicomte)

68.1% NA NA

4.1.5 Analysis of Results

Brainerd Road Elevation – Observation Point A

Observation Point A is located in Brainerd Road, centered halfway along the

property line.

Figure 4.3-2 shows perspectives of the No Build and Build configurations.

Under the existing case, 17.3% of the daylight is obstructed, while the Project hasa 61.3% daylight obstruction according to the BRADA analysis. As-of-Right

development would create 58.7% daylight obstruction, as shown on Figure 4.3-3.

Griggs Street Elevation – Observation Point B

Observation Point B is located in Griggs Street centered halfway along the

property line. The width of the building along this elevation required the model

to be split into two segments analyzed separately; the sum of these analysesrepresents the total daylight obstruction for this elevation.

Figure 4.3-4 shows the perspective of the No Build configuration. Figure 4.3-5 shows the two segments of the Build configuration, which were totaled to obtain

the overall daylight obstruction value of 70.6%.

Under the existing case, 39.1% of the daylight is obstructed, while the Project has

a 70.6% daylight obstruction. As-of-Right development would create 70.7%

daylight obstruction (see Figure 4.3-6).



4.1.6 Summary

Brainerd Road

While the Proposed Project increases daylight obstruction significantly over the

existing conditions along Brainerd Road, the 61.3% value is only slightly more

than the as-of-right value of 58.7% for this property.

Griggs Street

While the Proposed Project increases daylight obstruction significantly over theexisting conditions along Griggs Street, the 70.6% value is virtually the same as

the as-of-right value of 70.7% for this property.

While the proposed building, at 65’, is higher than the As-of-Right height of 35’,

a setback of 0’ was used for the As-of-Right design. The proposed building is set back 5’ from the sidewalk, which allows more daylight at the street level.







E n g i n e e r s – P l a n n e r s – S c i e n

t i s t s – S u r v e y o r s – L a n d s c a p e A r c h i t e c t s

D o c u m e n t 1

J o b N u m b e r : X X X

P r i n t e d 1 1 / 1 / 2 0 0 6 9 : 2 8 A M

D a y l o r C o n s

u l t i n g G r o u p , I n c .

1 0 F o r b e s R o a d

B r a i n t r e e , M A 0 2 1 8 4

P h o n

e : ( 7 8 1 ) 8 4 9 - 7 0 7 0

F a x

: ( 7 8 1 ) 8 4 9 - 0 0 9 6

F I E

L D

R E P O R T

P r o j e c t #

1 . 2 4 3 7 . 0 5

D a t e :

1 0 - 3 1 - 0 6

P r o j e c t :

C a p e C o d V e t e r i n a r y S

p e c i a l i s t s

T i m e :

2 : 0 0 P M

L o c a t i o n : B o u r n e

W e a t h e r : W i n d y , 5 0 ’ s

P r e s e n t :

S c o t t S c h l u t e r , D a y l o

r C o n s u l t i n g G r o u p , I n c .

J a c k S a w y e r , B u f f t r e

e C o n s t r u c t i o n

H e a t h e r , B o u r n e B o a

r d o f H e a l t h

P u r p o s e : S e p t i c S y s t e m O p e r a t i o n I n

s p e c t i o n

S y s t e m a p p e a r s t o b e i n s t a l l e d c o r r e c t l y , i s l e v e l , c o r r e c t n u m b e r o f t r e n c h e s , v e n t p i p e

p r e s e n t , c l e a n o u t s p r e s e n t .

S y s t e m w a s p a r t i a l l y b a c k f i l l e d . M a n i f o l d , f o r c e m a i n , a n d m a j o r i t y o f t r e n c h e s n o t

v i s i b l e . T w o a c c e s s r o a d s c o n s t r u c t e d

o v e r t o p o f s y s t e m .

S e p t i c t a n k h a s s a n i t a r y t e e i n l e t a n d e

f f l u e n t f i l t e r w i t h s u p p o r t i n s t a l l e d .

P u m p c h a m b e r h a s t w o p u m p s , w e e p h o l e s , a n d f l o a t s i n s t a l l e d - n o c o n t r o l p a n e l y e t .

W e o b s e r v e d 2 0 + i n c h e s s q u i r t h e i g h t

o n t w o d r i l l h o l e s i n c l e a n o u t s o n o p p o s i t e c o r n e r s

o f t h e s y s t e m . O n l y o n e p u m p o p e r a t e d a n d n o a l a r m s c o u l d b e t e s t e d .

B o a r d o f H e a l t h s t a t e d t h e y d o n o t n e e d e n g i n e e r e d a s - b u i l t s , c o n t r a c t o r p l a n s a r e o k f o r

t h e m . B o a r d o f H e a l t h s t a t e d t h e y w o

u l d m a k e s u r e b o t h p u m p s o p e r a t e d a n d t h e a l a r m

w o r k e d w h e n t h e c o n t r o l p a n e l w a s i n

s t a l l e d a n d w e d i d n o t n e e d t o v e r i f y t h e s e i t e m s f o r

t h e m .

E n g i n e e r s – P l a n n e r s – S c i e n t i s t s – S u r v e y o r s – L a n d s c a p e A r c h i t e c t s

D o c u m e n t 1


P r i n t e d 1 1 / 1 / 2 0 0 6 9 : 2 8 A M

I i n f o r m e d t h e c o n t r a c t o r w e w o u l d l o o k a t t h e s u r v e y i n f o r m a t i o n o b t a i n e d i n t h e

m o r n i n g a n

d l e t t h e m k n o w i f i t w a s o k t o b a c k f i l l t h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h e s y s t e m .

T h e r e s t i l l i s t h e i s s u e o f t h e e x i s t i n g w e l l f o r S a n d y ’ s r e s t a u r a n

t . T h e s y s t e m w i l l n o t

m e e t T i t l e 5 r e g u l a t i o n s u n t i l t h i s w e l l i s a b a n d o n e d . T h i s w a s

n o t d i s c u s s e d o n s i t e b u t

r e m a i n s a D

a y l o r i s s u e a n d a n y C e r t i f i c a t e o f C o m p l i a n c e s h o u

l d n o t b e s i g n e d b y D a y l o r

u n t i l t h i s w e l l i s a b a n d o n e d .

I o b s e r v e d s a w c u t t i n g o p e r a t i o n s o n s i t e a n d e v i d e n c e o f r e c e n t s a w c u t o p e r a t i o n s i n

B o u r n e B r i d g e A p p r o a c h r o a d .

T h e b u i l d i n

g i s f r a m e d a n d t h e v a p o r b a r r i e r i s o n .

E l e c t r i c c o n

d u i t s a n d m a n h o l e s a r e i n s t a l l e d f r o m B o u r n e B r i d g e A p p r o a c h t o t h e

b u i l d i n g .

P i c t u r e s f o l

l o w :

4 ” v e n

t p i p e w i t h c h a r c o a l f i l t e r i n s t a l l e d o n o p p o s i t e s i d e

o f s y s t e m f r o m p l a n s .

2006This is a summary memo from a site inspection for a septic system I designed andoversaw the construction of. We performed a pressure dosed system "squirt test" totest the pumps.



E n g i n e e r s – P l a n n e r s – S c i e n

t i s t s – S u r v e y o r s – L a n d s c a p e A r c h i t e c t s

D o c u m e n t 1


P r i n t e d 1 1 / 1 / 2 0 0 6 9 : 2 8 A M

S e p t i c t a n k e f f l u e n t f i l t e r .

D u p l e x p u m p s y s t e m w i t h a l a r m f l o a t s .

E n g i n e e r s – P l a n n e r s – S c i e n t i s t s – S u r v e y o r s – L a n d s c a p e A r c h i t e c t s

D o c u m e n t 1


P r i n t e d 1 1 / 1 / 2 0 0 6 9 : 2 8 A M

S q u i r t t e s t . ( f a r c l e a n o u t s q u i r t i n g o u t h o l e i n c o v e r )

E l e c t r i c c o n d u i t s a n d m a n h o l e .




36 Burnell Street, Nantucket Page 10 Site Analysis Report

storage tank with a new water main from the pump station for the Sconsetsystem so that the provision of water service to development on the subject sitecould be accommodated by the existing distribution network. Site developmentwill have to connect to the existing 6-inch water main by constructing a new water service line into the property to serve new residential development on the

site.

Sewer Service- The subject site is located outside of the Sconset Sewer Districtservice area as shown on Figure 7. But, as shown on that figure, the SewerDistrict service does extend to within 300+-ft of the site within Clifton Street.Daylor has visually located the end of that sewer service within the street.However, while the service is close to the site, the Town has not allowedprevious requests to connect to the Sewer District and most probably will notallow any connections to the subject site.

A recent review of sewer rates (Sewer Rate Study-2005-06 by the Abrams

Group) has determined that there are only 527 sewer users in the Sconset toadequately cover the cost of construction, maintenance and operation of theSconset Treatment Plant. If separate enterprise fund accounts are establishedfor each of the two island treatment plants, then the small Sconset users groupwill be required to cover the significant costs of maintenance and operation,either by special assessments or the establishment of significantly higher sewerservice charges. In light of this potential for increased costs, it may be worthpursuing a request to extend sewer service to the subject site since any sitedevelopment would add additional rate payers for minimal capital improvement tothe system.

Soils- Daylor’s certified soil scientist and septic system designer has performedtwo-days of intensive test pit investigations and percolation tests on the property.This investigation, while focused within the area of the Family Land on thesubject property, also provided general soils information for the Disposition Land.The hydrogeologic mapping for Nantucket has determined that the regionalgroundwater elevation is elevation 9 (referenced to the Nantucket Half Tide Level

–HTL datum); at least 35-feet below the ground surface of the subject site. Ourinvestigation was site specific and determined the type of soil, soil classification,soil profile, percent mottles (if any) soil layers, and percolation rates of the soil fordrainage, septic system and reserve areas (see Attachment 2, Soils forms).

Our investigation confirmed the presence of Riverhead-Nantucket complex (RfB)

predominantly loamy sand soils throughout the site. This soil type is suitable fordevelopment. However, the soil profile includes a loamy, brittle subsurfacehorizon that includes fine sand, silt and clay which limits the soil porosity. Thislayer is characterized by soil mottles indicating poor aeration and impededdrainage. This layer is ubiquitous throughout the site, found generally at three(3) feet below the ground surface. Daylor’s test pits and the soil percolation testswere witnessed by a member of the Nantucket Board of Health (BoH) and it is

This is my portion of thereport where I provided myopinions on subsurfacesewage disposal solutions.




36 Burnell Street, Nantucket Page 12 Site Analysis Report

their opinion that the soil mottle layer is an indicator of high groundwater. TheBoH determination that groundwater is generally 3-ft below the ground surface isa constraint to any residential site use. All on-site septic systems will have to bedesigned to provide for six (6) feet of separation above this layer, with additionalcover over the leaching area, requiring “mounded leaching fields.” This is a

typical and accepted septic leaching field design solution in areas of “highgroundwater” on Nantucket and has been approved for residential developmentabutting the site.

On-site Septic Systems- Without a connection to the Sconset Public Sewersystem, any proposed residential construction at the subject site will require thaton-site subsurface sewage disposal systems be constructed. As shown onFigure 6, a minor portion of the subject site is located within the Nantucket PublicWellhead Protection District for the Siasconset Public Water Supply Wells. This3,830+-sf area in the southwest corner of the site is considered a nitrogensensitive area. This 3,830+-sf area must be subdivided out of the larger parcel

so that future residential development will not be encumbered by the stricterzoning requirements of the Wellhead Protection Overlay District. The stricterrequirements that are applicable to property located within a Nitrogen Sensitive

Area are defined by DEP regulations at 310 CMR 15.215: Designation ofNitrogen Sensitive Areas. Please note that such a designation limits thedischarge of sanitary sewage for an onsite system to 110-gallons per day per10,000-sf of land. If this limitation is extended to all of the subject property, itwould substantially limit the development potential of the total 13.34-acres(581,090-sf). Based on 110-gpd per 10,000-sf, any residential development onthe site would be limited by this requirement to a maximum of 58 bedrooms forthe entire 13.34-acres. Creation of a separate lot for this 3,830+-sf portion of thesite is necessary to avoid an upper limit on the number of bedrooms that couldbe created for any development that may be planned for the Disposition Land.

Stormwater Management- Any site development will have to managestormwater runoff in conformance with the MA DEP Stormwater ManagementGuidelines as well as the referenced guidelines contained in the Zoning Bylawregulations. All roof runoff will need to be directed to drywells. All site runoffshould be directed to on-site detention areas or deep infiltration systems. Daylorhas recently designed a Low Impact Development for the Sconset Hydrangeasproject near to the subject site that has been well received by the PlanningBoard. Such a design should be considered for this site.

Open Space- There is designated open space nearby the site and one parcel ofopen space area owned by the Sconset Land Trust adjacent to the southwestcorner of the site. Open Space areas are shown in Figure 8- Open Space. Anyproject site design will be required to provide for an efficient use of the land inharmony with the natural open, shrub dominated features at the subject propertyand on the adjacent parcels.



F o r t h i s p r o j e c t I

w a s t a s k e d w i t h a

c o n c e p t u a l p l a n

f o r s e p t i c s y s t e m s

f o r t h i s

s u b d i v i s i o n .



Ten Forbes RoadBraintree/MA 02184

781 849 7070FAX 849 0096www.daylor.com

DaylorConsultingGroupInc.

February 27, 2006

Lyn Small

Project Manager

Northeast Engineers & Consultants

Aquidneck Corporate Park

55 John Clarke Road

Middletown, RI 02842

Subject: Forest Commons

Dear Lyn:

The following is a summary of a peer review performed by Daylor Consulting Group, Inc.

(“Daylor”) for The Residences at Forest Commons project in Middletown, RI (the “site”).The Engineer, Northeast Engineers and Consultants Inc. (“NE&C”), provided Daylor with

stormwater mitigation calculations and plans for the review. The following items were

provided:

• Plan entitled “Existing Watershed Plan with off Side Areas” dated January 24,2006.

• Plan entitled “Proposed Watershed Plan with off Side Areas” dated January 24,2006.

• HydroCAD printouts for the existing conditions 2,10,25 and 100 year storm

calculations• HydroCAD printouts for the existing conditions 2,10,25 and 100 year storm

calculations

In addition to the plans and calculations, Daylor met with NE&C on February 7 2006, both

at their office and at the project site.

The following items were not provided and therefore a complete review of the stormwater

mitigation measures was not possible:

• Closed drainage system calculations (pipe sizing).

• Closed drainage system plans (pipe network, rims, inverts).

• Stormwater mitigation narrative (A note was made that NE&C was still working onthe supporting narrative at the time of the review).

• Detail sheets for the detention ponds and outlet control structures.

• Detailed information for the proposed swales (and culvert under the road) that willdirect the offsite stormwater flows through the proposed project.

2006I was the Project Manager for thisproject. I was tasked withperforming a peer review for a

residential development designedby another engineering firm. This ismy review memo.



Following are our questions, comments and concerns raised during our review of the

materials listed above.

1. Exist ing Conditions1.1.1 Watershed Plans

The existing watershed is divided into four subcatchments. A small subcatchment at thefront of the lot is indicated to discharge into the drainage system in Forest Avenue. The

remaining three subcatchments are indicated to eventually discharge to Bailey Brook,which is located offsite in the northwest corner of the project.

During the site visit it was noted that the stone wall near the eastern edge of the property isa drainage divide continuing southeasterly to the athletic fields (we did not walk further up

towards Forest Avenue). Subcatchment Area 101 is indicated to straddle both sides of the

stonewall divide, and the time of concentration path (“Tc”) is indicated to go through thewall. Is there a break or breaks in the wall to suggest that this is one drainage area that

flows to the site and not to the drainage ditch to the north of the athletic field? The stone

wall that runs approximately east-west towards the middle of the field isn’t a drainagedivide either? The contours against this wall suggest swales on either side of the wall, and

it appears that the upper portion of the site discharges to the west abutting subdivision if

there isn’t a break or breaks in this wall, yet the Tc path is drawn across this wall.

No existing closed drainage system for the abutting school is indicated on the plans, is this

correct? None of this area drains into Forest Avenue? No existing closed drainage system

for the lots on Ann Court is indicated on the plans, is this also correct?

The Tc path shown for Subcatchment 102A indicates a sharp turn towards the drainage

ditch to the rear of the athletic fields; however, the contours shown on the plan do not

indicate that stormwater flows in this direction. The drainage ditch may be part of thesubcatchment area but the Tc path does not have to flow through it; it is likely that

overland flow, perpendicular to the contours down to the break in the stone wall is the

more likely path. This should be reviewed and corrected or the plans should indicate whythe flow path across the contours was chosen.

While the detention basin shown in Subcatchment 102B is likely to control stormwater

flows for an assumed closed drainage system, there would also be some flows from this

offsite area not routed through the basin (for example downstream of the basin), none ofthese areas are indicated on the plan.

The ASSF, drainage easement, and design points should be labeled.1.1.2 HydroCAD Calculations

While four subcatchment areas are shown on the watershed plans, only three are modeled.Without a narrative provided, the reason Subcatchment 102B is not modeled is not clear.

Since the proposed watershed map shows this subcatchment enlarged, it should be

modeled or the proposed watershed map should be revised.





There appears to be two sets of proposed contours on the plans provided. The extra

contours need to be removed. No closed drainage information was provided. Without thisinformation and the conflicting grading, it is not apparent how all the overland flow is

making it into the closed drainage systems for the two ponds.

It is not clear what the two dots shown in subcatchment 202B are meant to indicate. A

continuous line is shown between these dots, and continues across the street and betweentwo sets of units before changing over to a dashed line; it is not clear what these are meant

to indicate. The calculations indicate that there may be a swale here but there are no

details about the swale if that is what this line is. Also, if this is a swale, portions of thesubcatchments that this swale runs through should be delineated to be part of the drainage

area to the swale. The Tc path for Subcatchment 204B is shown cutting right across this

line which seems improbable if the line is a swale. If this is a swale, all adjoining drainage

areas should either be revised or additional grading detail should be provided showing hownone of the overland areas are draining into this swale, and a new Tc path should be

calculated for subcatchment 204B. If this isn’t a swale, and is actually a culvert, the model

should be revised to reflect this. Also, the dots should be labeled to indicate what they are.

The subcatchment division lines for Subcatchment 204B indicates this area discharges to

Pond 2 in the rear however; upon closer observation it appears that portions of what isshown on the plans do not flow to the basin, rather discharge overland to the easement (i.e.

the end of the cul-de-sac area.)

The new stone wall between the school and the project appears to be a drainage divide. It

is not clear how the stormwater gets across this wall and into the closed drainage system as

the calculations appear to indicate.

The line weights for the subcatchment divides change throughout the drawing, making itdifficult to determine where the subcatchment boundaries are; this drawing should be made

clearer. Labels should be added to indicate which pond is which. The ASSF should belabeled. The design points should be labeled. The drainage easement should be labeled.

Soil test pit information was not provided and no indication of where the seasonal highgroundwater is at the locations of the Stormwater ponds. Pond 1 will be a wet pond that

we were told would be concrete lined. Since the proposed bottom of this pond is between

6 and 12 feet below existing grade, detail should be provided regarding how potential

groundwater will be dealt with. Pond 2 has an outlet at the bottom so it is assumed to be adry pond after Stormwater events have been dissipated. Since portions of the proposed

bottom of this pond are up to 3 feet below existing grade, more detail should be providedregarding the potential for groundwater inflow to the pond.

2.1.2 HydroCAD Calculations

Subcatchment 202B shows an increase in size compared to the existing subcatchment102B. Neither subcatchments 202B nor 205 are in the model, and yet with this reduction

of overall area shown in the plans, there is only 0.10 of an acre difference indicated in the

calculations. This does not appear to be correct; the proposed model total area should be



less than the existing model area based on what is shown on the plans. All areas should be

accounted for in the model, whether calculations are generated for them or not, so that theexisting conditions modeling extents matches the proposed conditions modeling extents.

The Tc calculations for subcatchment 204B indicates a 520’ shallow concentrated flow(“grass, behind wall”?) segment, this does not appear on the plans. It also appears that a

portion of the Tc path should be through pipes (assuming there are catch basins there) priorto discharge into the stormwater basin however, this is not in the model. The Tc path

calculation should be revised for this subcatchment or the plans should be revised to match

the calculations.

Some of the Tc calculations do not appear to match what is shown on the plan (length,

slope of the land); these should be reviewed and revised as necessary. It appears that

Subcatchment 203 should utilize the same Tc flow path for existing and proposed as itappears the work in this area wouldn’t change the flow path. The closed drainage system

should appear on these plans in some form to make Tc paths clearer. The pond outlets

should appear on these plans to indicate how the ponds discharge where the calculationsindicate they do. The new swale (or culvert) should be labeled on the plans for clarity.

No details have been provided for the stormwater basins or the outlet control structures.The calculations indicate a 36” culvert outlet, 133’ long between Pond 1 and Pond 2;

however, it appears that the distance between these ponds is much greater than 133’; more

detailed information is needed for a complete review. The control structure should beshown and detailed. The calculations for Pond 2 indicate three 12’ long, 127° trapezoidal

weirs yet the grading plan does not indicate where these are. The calculations for Pond 2

also indicate that there may be an outlet control structure with an 18” and a 24” orifice

prior to a 24” culvert. It is not clear where this control structure is. The outlet pipe is not

shown and it is not clear how the discharge is directed to Bailey’s Brook. A level spreaderis not indicated. With the invert of the outlet pipe near the brook, the flood elevations of

Bailey’s Brook should be accounted for in this model. Daylor recommends that outletculverts be modeled separately, as a reach for a better analysis of this pipe for all storm

conditions.

Calculations for the sizing of the new swale and the culvert under the road at the new

swale should be provided. Also, calculations for the closed drainage system should be

provided.

Company name should be corrected in the final version. The storms should be indicated

on printout (i.e. 2YR, 10 YR, etc.). The time span in Existing and Proposed conditionsmodels should be consistent.

3. ConclusionsBased on what was provided to Daylor for this review, there is a considerable amount ofinformation missing and/or revisions to be made to the plans and calculations. The plans,

calculations, Stormwater narrative, and an operations and maintenance plan should be



included to make a complete stormwater management plan. The plans should agree with

the calculations and accurately reflect the existing and proposed watershed conditions.

Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions, comments or concerns. I can be

reached at 781-849-7070 ext 259.


Scott Schluter

Senior Engineer



November 2, 2006 Job # 1.2625.00

Notice of IntentSubmitted Pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 131, Section 40 (MA Wetlands

Protection Act) and the Billerica Wetlands Protection By-Law

G ATEPOST ESTATES 85 A LLEN R OAD

BILLERICA , M ASSACHUSETTS

Submitted to:Billerica Conservation Commission

365 Boston Road

Billerica, MA 01821

Submitted by:Frederic Brown

85 Allen Road

Billerica, MA 01821

Prepared by:


2006I was the Project Manager for this proposedsubdivision. I did all of the design and calculations aswell as the permitting. This is portions of the NOI



Notice of Intent Page 1 85 Allen RoadBillerica, MA

1.0 PROJECT N ARRATIVE

1.1 Introduction

Daylor Consulting Group is filing this Notice of Intent (NOI) on behalf of the Applicant,

Frederic R. Brown, for approval of subdividing the land under the Massachusetts WetlandsProtection Act (M.G.L. Chapter 131, Section 40) and the Town of Billerica Wetlands Protection

By-Law (Article XXII).

1.2 Project Site

The site is located on a 6.98-acre parcel located on Allen Road and Porter Street in Billerica, MA

(the “Site); assessor’s map 62, lot 10-1. (See Figure 1 – Project Locus and Figure 2 – Project

Aerial). An area of Isolated Land Subject to Flooding (ILSF) is located along the western property boundary. No other Land Subject to Flooding or wetland resource areas occur on or

near the site (see Figure 3 and Figure 5).

1.3 Proposed Project

The Applicant is proposing a six (6) lot subdivision with limited alteration to the area of ILSF

and its 100-foot Buffer Zone (protected under the Billerica Wetlands Protection By-Law) for the

construction of one single-family house lot and roadway access to Porter Street. The accessroadway to Porter Street has been designed to comply with Billerica Planning Board

requirements (local Rules and Regulations). In order to mitigate impacts to the ILSF, the project

will meet regulatory performance standards through the construction of the proposed roadway

drainage system. With the construction for one single-family dwelling in Lot 1, the project willcomply with the 50-foot “No New Construction” set back and the 25-foot “No Disturb” set back

from the ILSF, as required under the local by-law. The boundary of the ILSF was approved,September 27, 2006, by the Billerica Conservation Commission in a positive Determination ofApplicability (See Appendix C).

1.4 Jurisdict ional Determination

Due to the positive Determination of Applicability, issued on September 27, 2006, theConservation Commission determined that Isolated Land Subject to Flooding occurs on the site.

The proposed project falls under the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act(310 CMR 10.00) and the Town of Billerica Wetlands Protection By-Law because proposed

work will be within the Isolated Land Subject to Flooding resource area, as well as the 100-foot

Buffer Zone protected under the local by-law. (A copy of the positive Determination ofApplicability can be found in Appendix C.) State and local performance standards will be met

for all work under the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and Billerica

Wetlands By-Law.

1.4.1 Isolated Land Subject to Flooding (ILSF)

The proposed project will alter 784 square feet (323 cubic feet) of Isolated Land Subject

to Flooding protected under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and the Billerica




Wetlands Protection By-Law. Of these impacts, 641 square feet will be permanently

altered for the proposed roadway and drainage structure construction, and 145 square feetwill be temporarily altered for the installation of the drainage structure within the ILSF.

General Performance standards for ILSF are designed to be protected by the proposed

project in the following ways.

1) The source of water for the ILSF is the inlet culvert that discharges drainage from

the off-site roadway. The proposed stormwater management system has beendesigned to mitigate the effect of the off-site drainage. As a result of the

stormwater management system, the proposed project will not lead to flood

damage from the proposed filling due to any lateral displacement of water thatwould otherwise be confined to the ILSF. The loss in flood storage to the ILSF

will be mitigated by the drainage design, which meets current DEP Stormwater

Policy for mitigating peak flows leaving the site. In addition, the drainage design

will reduce the volume of water that will be stored in the ILSF.

2) Local residences in the vicinity of the site are on town water – thus, the projectwill not affect public and private water supply. Impacts to groundwater will be

mitigated by recharging clean roof runoff from the proposed subdivision, in

compliance with DEP Stormwater Policy.

3) In compliance with DEP Stormwater Policy, groundwater quality will be

protected by recharging clean roof runoff. Surface water quality will be protected by the proposed street sweeping program, the use of catch basins with sumps, the

proposed stormwater drainage basin, and the proposed Downstream Defender

system.

4) The ILSF is not a certified vernal pool. Therefore, the project will not result in an

impairment of the ILSF to provide wildlife habitat.

1.4.2 Buffer Zone to ILSF (Billerica Wetlands Protection By-Law)

For the proposed residential construction, regulatory performance standards under the

Billerica Wetlands Protection By-Law will be met and the proposed Project will comply

with the 50-foot “No New Construction” set back and the 25-foot “No Disturb” set backfrom the ILSF. For the proposed roadway access to the site, disturbance to the ILSF and

its Buffer Zone have been minimized to the extent practicable, while providing access to

the site in a manner acceptable to the Planning Board. The project will incorporateerosion control and stormwater management measures to protect nearby wetlands and

water quality in accordance with DEP policy. In addition, since the ILSF is not presumedto be important to wildlife habitat due to the lack of certified vernal pool functions,

alteration of its 100-foot Buffer Zone will not result in an impairment of the ILSF to provide wildlife habitat. As a result, the proposed project has been designed to protect

the wetland values associated with the ILSF under the By-Law.

There are no jurisdictional setbacks bordering ILSF under the Massachusetts Wetlands

Protection Act, and ILSF is not bordered by a Buffer Zone under the Act.




1.4.3 Prevention of Flooding, Storm Damage and Pollut ion

These interests will be protected by the Stormwater Management System. The

Stormwater Management System has been designed to meet performance standards for

the ILSF by preventing off-site flooding, as well as meeting the Massachusetts DEPstormwater requirements preventing an increase in peak flows and impacts to water

quality.

In addition, the Stormwater Management System will restore the hydrology of the site to

drain in an easterly direction toward Allen Road.

The Stormwater Management System is fully discussed in the Stormwater Management

Report. (See Figure 3 – FEMA Flood Boundaries).

1.4.4 Protection of Public and Private Water Supplies and Groundwater

Residents are serviced by public water supply through the Town of Billerica.

1.4.5 Protection of Wildlife Habitat

Protected wildlife habitat will not be affected by the proposed project. (See Figure 4 –

Reserved and Protected Areas).

1.4.6 Protection of Fisheries and Shellfish Beds

No impact to shellfish beds or fisheries will result from the proposed project.

1.4.7 Protection of Rare and Endangered Species

Examination of the Natural Heritage Rare and Endangered Species Atlas, 2006, revealsno rare or endangered species habitats or vernal pools at the project site. (See Figure 4 –

Reserved and Protected Areas).

1.4.8 Protection of Areas of Criti cal Environmental Concern

The project area is not within an Area of Critical Environmental Concern.

1.5 Summary

The proposed project, as discussed in this NOI, will have limited alterations and impact to the

Isolated Land Subject to Flooding and its 100-foot Buffer Zone (as protected under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act ). All work that is proposed will comply with the local

and state regulatory performance standards. The proposed alterations will enhance the

Stormwater Management of the site by preventing off-site flooding, increases in peak flows, andimpacts to water quality.

Therefore, we respectfully request that after review, an Order of Conditions authorizing the

project as presented be issued by the Billerica Conservation Commission.



Definitive Subdivision

Gate Post Estates, Billerica MA Page 1 Stormwater Management Report

1.0 STORMWATER M ANAGEMENT REPORT

1.1 Introduction

Daylor Consulting Group, Inc. (Daylor) has prepared a detailed design of the stormwater management

system in conjunction with the proposed construction of a 6 lot subdivision located at 85 Allen Road in

Billerica, Massachusetts. Included in this report are the methods that will be employed to prevent any

potential adverse hydrologic impacts as well as water quality impacts due to the proposed construction.

The objective of this Stormwater Management Program is to direct and collect stormwater runoff through

catch basins, drain manholes and underground piping and to distribute the runoff to stormwater

management facilities developed in accordance with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental

Protection Stormwater Management Guidelines. The proposed stormwater quantity mitigation measures

include one new detention basin and work within an existing retention basin that has been determined to

be Isolated Land Subject To Flooding (ILSF). The proposed stormwater quality mitigation measures

include a street sweeping program, deep sump catch basins, and a particle separator (Downstream

Defender). The supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations for the proposed project are included as

Appendices to this report.

1.2 Method of Calculations

The hydrologic and hydraulic model created to analyze this site was developed by using the Soil

Conservation Service (SCS) Technical Release No 20 (SCS unit hydrograph procedures) and SCS

Technical Release No. 55 (for Times of Concentration and Curve Numbers). The Town of Billerica

supplies rainfall data for the hydrologic analysis (24 hour total rainfall for the 2, 5, 10, and 100 year storm

event) in the Subdivision Regulations, the Boston Area IDF Curve was used to obtain rainfall intensity for

the pipe sizing analysis (Rational Method, 2, 10, 25 year storms). The stormwater detention facilities weremodeled using the SCS Storage Indication Method.

To assist in the analysis, HydroCAD software (developed by Applied Microcomputer Systems) was

utilized. The HydroCAD program calculates the runoff based on rainfall and watershed characteristics,

and produces a runoff hydrograph (a runoff rate versus time curve). Then the stage-storage-discharge

curves for a specific retention area are used to compute an outflow hydrograph by hydraulically routing

an inflow hydrograph through a detention basin. This procedure calculates the relationship of the inflow

hydrograph with the characteristics of the detention area to determine the outflow, stage, and storage

capacity of the detention area for a given time during the specified storm event.

The proposed underground stormwater collection pipes that divert water to the new detention basin have

been designed, utilizing the Rational Method, for capacity for the 25 year storm event and a minimum

velocity of 2.5 fps for the 2 year storm event. The proposed underground stormwater collection pipes that

discharge water from the detention basins have been designed for capacity for the 100 year storm event

utilizing the Manning equation and input from the HydroCAD 100 year storm event results.

This is portions of the drainagereport.





1.6 Stormwater Mitigating Measures

The stormwater mitigating measures Daylor selected for this project include the following

Best Management Practices (BMPs): a street sweeping program, deep sump catch basins,

and a “Downstream Defender” stormwater treatment unit for pretreatment of roadway

runoff. These measures will prevent potential increases in the peak rates of runoffsfollowing the construction of the proposed development and will provide water quality

treatment in accordance with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection

Stormwater Management Guidelines. See Appendix E for detailed Water Quality Volume

Calculations, Downstream Defender Sizing Calculations, and the Stormwater Management

Form. Existing recharge to groundwater will be approximated by the installation of

infiltration chambers for the roofs of each of the new houses. See Appendix E for recharge

information.

1.6.1 Stormwater Pre-treatment

Lot 2-1

Direct Discharge: Stormwater runoff generated along the northern edge of the site (P3 in

HydroCAD) will discharge directly to the abutting property (2-1 in HydroCAD) without

treatment since this area will be lawn and an overall decrease in stormwater peak

discharge and stormwater volume is expected in the post-construction conditions.

Lot 25

Direct Discharge: Stormwater runoff generated along the southern portion of the site

(P10 in HydroCAD) will discharge directly to the abutting property (25 in HydroCAD)without treatment since this area will be lawn and an overall decrease in stormwater peak

discharge and stormwater volume is expected in the post-construction conditions.

Allen Road

Detention Basin: Stormwater runoff collected by the roadway drainage system (P9a and

P9b in HydroCAD) will discharge to the proposed detention basin (3P in HydroCAD),

after passing through a water quality inlet (Downstream Defender unit). An overall

decrease in stormwater peak discharge is expected in the post-construction conditions due

to mitigation provided by the proposed detention basin.

ILSF: Some of the stormwater from the closed drainage system in Porter Street and overlandfrom the abutting properties that is collected in the ILSF will discharge through a new closed

drainage system that ties into the Allen Street drainage system. These flows are not the result of

development, but an existing condition caused by the improper disposal of stormwater flows onto

the project site. In order for the ILSF to work as a formal detention basin, the standing water

level will be reduced from approximately elevation 220 to 217 via a proposed outlet control

structure.





1.6.2 Stormwater Detention Basin

To attenuate possible increases in the rate of stormwater runoff from the site due to

construction of this project, a detention basin has been introduced into the site design.

The detention basin has been sized to adequately store projected stormwater runoff up to

and including the 100-year storm. See detail sheets on the Definitive Subdivision Plansfor basin construction details.

Detention Basin Summary (HydroCAD 3P)

Storm Event Qin Qout Volume Stored Peak Elevation

2 year (3.08 in.) 6.18 cfs 0.33 cfs 12,562 cu. ft. 172.01




To mitigate downstream flooding from the off-site drainage in Porter Street, the ILSF

will be retrofitted with an outlet control structure. The outlet control structure has been

sized to adequately store projected off-site stormwater runoff up to and including the100-year storm. See detail sheets on the Definitive Subdivision Plans for basin

construction details.

Isolated Land Subject to Flooding (HydroCAD ILSF)

Storm Event Qin Qout Volume Stored Peak Elevation





1.6.3 Storm Drainage Pipe System

The proposed pipes will generally be Reinforced Concrete Class III (RCP) pipes. Thestorm drainage pipes were sized for minimum velocity (2.5 fps) by analyzing the 2 yearstorm event (4.1 inches per hour) and for capacity using the 25 year storm event (6.0

inches per hour). Pipes discharging from the basins were sized for the 100 year storm

event using the Manning’s equation and discharges reported in the HydroCAD model forthe 100 year storm event. See Appendix F for detailed calculations.





1.7 Stormwater Flow Management

Peak runoff flows from the site have been calculated for the pre-construction and post-

construction conditions for the 2, 5, 10, and 100 year storms. A peak runoff rate

comparison between pre-construction and post-construction condition is shown below. As

a result of the proposed stormwater mitigation measures, the proposed development willreduce peak flow rates at all Design Points for all the storm events. (See Appendix C and

D for detailed calculations).

Peak Runoff Comparison at Design Point Lot 2-1

Storm Event 2 Year 5 Year 10 year 100 Year

Pre-construction

Discharge 2.00 cfs 3.39 cfs 4.63 cfs 17.39 cfs

Post-Construction


Peak Runoff Comparison at Design Point Lot 25


Pre-construction


Post-ConstructionDischarge 0.24 cfs 0.37 cfs 0.48 cfs 0.82 cfs

Peak Runoff Comparison at Design Point Allen Road


Pre-construction


Post-Construction




Downstream Defender Sizing CalculationsPROJECT: Gatepost Estates, Billerica MA

JOB #: 1.2625.00

CALC BY: SCS DATE: 01/05/2007

Total Runoff Required to Be Treated

2.96 acres

2.96 ac x 1.14 in/hr x =1529 gp

1529 gpm= 3.41 cfs

13.67 cfs

7.0/15.9 cfsDesign Flow/Capacity Range=

453 gpm/ac-in/hr

Use 8 ft. diameter Downstream Defender Unit

Department of Environmental Protection has developed a relation between storm intensity and

the depth of runoff (See "Development of a Rational Basis for Designing Recharging

Stormwater Control Structures adn Flow And Volume Design Criteria" MADEP 99-06/319).

This allows the sizing of the treatment unit based on a flow rate instead of a volume. (See Table

Based on the first 0.50 inches of rainfall on the mainland (off Cape-Massachusetts) with a 95%

probability, use max. storm intensity of 1.14 in/hr (Table 2).

P-9A

Downstream Defender Sizing

Design Flow =

100 year flow =

This is a calculationto size ahydrodynamicstormwater unit.



S T O R M D

R A I N A G E C A L C U L A T I O N S B Y M A N N I N G ' S E Q U A T I O N

P R O J E C T :

G a t e p o s t E s t a t e s , B i l l e r i c a

C A L C

B Y :

S C S

D A T E :

1 1 / 2 0 / 2 0

0 6

S U B J E C T :

R a t i o n a l M e t h o d D r a i n a g e

C H E C K B Y :

D A T E :

J O B # :

1 . 2 6 2 5 . 0 0

D E S I G N

S T O R M : 2 , 2 5 Y e a r

L O C A T I O N

D R A I N

C

T O T A L

R A I N -

Q

T O T A L

F R O M

T O

A R E A

C

x A

T c

F A L L

C a

Q = C a C i A

( A c r e )

( - )

( A c r e )

( m i n )

( i n / h r )

( C F S )

D A - 1

C B 1

0 . 0 9

0

. 9

0 . 0 6

0 . 3 5

T o t a l

0 . 1 5

0 . 1 0 2

5

4 . 1

1

0

. 4 2

D A - 2

C B 2

0 . 0 8

0

. 9

0 . 0 3

0 . 3 5

T o t a l

0 . 1 1

0 . 0 8 3

5

4 . 1

1

0

. 3 4

D A - 3

C B 3

0 . 0 9

0

. 9

0 . 0 5

0 . 3 5

T o t a l

0 . 1 4

0 . 0 9 9

5

4 . 1

1

0

. 4 0

D A - 4

C B 4

0 . 0 8

0

. 9

0 . 0 5

0 . 3 5

T o t a l

0 . 1 3

0 . 0 9 0

5

4 . 1

1

0

. 3 7

D A - 5

C B 5

0 . 0 8

0

. 9

0 . 1 7

0 . 3 5

T o t a l

0 . 2 5

0 . 1 3 2

5

4 . 1

1

0

. 5 4

D A - 6

C B 6

0 . 1 1

0

. 9

0 . 4 1

0 . 3 5

T o t a l

0 . 5 2

0 . 2 4 3

5

4 . 1

1

0

. 9 9

D A - 7

C B 7

0 . 0 5

0

. 9

0 . 0 3

0 . 3 5

T o t a l

0 . 0 8

0 . 0 5 6

5

4 . 1

1

0

. 2 3

D A - 8

C B 8

0 . 0 1

0

. 9

0 . 1 1

0 . 3 5

T o t a l

0 . 1 2

0 . 0 4 8

5

4 . 1

1

0

. 1 9

D A - 9

C B 9

0 . 2 3

0

. 9

0 . 5 5

0 . 3 5

T o t a l

0 . 7 8

0 . 4 0 0

5

4 . 1

1

1

. 6 4

D A - 1 0

C B 1 0

0 . 1 2

0

. 9

0 . 3 9

0 . 3 5

T o t a l

0 . 5 1

0 . 2 4 5

5

4 . 1

1

1

. 0 0

D A - 1 1

N e w

c b - y a r d

0 . 0 2

0

. 9

0 . 4 9

0 . 3 5

T o t a l

0 . 5 1

0 . 1 9 0

5

4 . 1

1

0

. 7 8

D A - 1 2

e x i s t i n g c b - d r i v e

0 . 1 3

0

. 9

0 . 1 6

0 . 3 5

T o t a l

0 . 2 9

0 . 1 7 3

5

4 . 1

1

0

. 7 1

2 - Y e a r S t o r m E v e n t ( V e l o c i t y C a l c u l a t i o n )

S T O R M D

R A I N A G E C A L C U L A T I O N S B Y M A N N I N G ' S

E Q U A T I O N

P R O J E C T :

G a t e p o

s t E s t a t e s , B i l l e r i c a

C A L C

B Y :

S C S

D A T E :

1 1 / 2 0 / 2 0 0 6

S U B J E C T :

R a t i o n a l M e t h o d D r a i n a g e

C H E C K B Y :

D A T E :

J O B # :

1 . 2 6 2 5

. 0 0

D E S I G N

S T O R M : 2 , 2 5 Y e a r

L O C A T I O N

D R A I N

C

T O T A L

R A

I N -

Q

T O T A L

F R O M

T O

A R E A

C

x A

T c

F A

L L

C a

Q = C a C i A

( A c r e )

( - )

( A c r e )

( m i n )

( i n / h r )

( C F S )

D A - 1

C B 1

0 . 0 9

0 . 9

0 . 0 6

0 . 3 5

T o t a l

0 . 1 5

0 . 1 0 2

5

6

1 . 1

0 . 6 7

D A - 2

C B 2

0 . 0 8

0 . 9

0 . 0 3

0 . 3 5

T o t a l

0 . 1 1

0 . 0 8 3

5

6

1 . 1

0 . 5 4

D A - 3

C B 3

0 . 0 9

0 . 9

0 . 0 5

0 . 3 5

T o t a l

0 . 1 4

0 . 0 9 9

5

6

1 . 1

0 . 6 5

D A - 4

C B 4

0 . 0 8

0 . 9

0 . 0 5

0 . 3 5

T o t a l

0 . 1 3

0 . 0 9 0

5

6

1 . 1

0 . 5 9

D A - 5

C B 5

0 . 0 8

0 . 9

0 . 1 7

0 . 3 5

T o t a l

0 . 2 5

0 . 1 3 2

5

6

1 . 1

0 . 8 7

D A - 6

C B 6

0 . 1 1

0 . 9

0 . 4 1

0 . 3 5

T o t a l

0 . 5 2

0 . 2 4 3

5

6

1 . 1

1 . 6 0

D A - 7

C B 7

0 . 0 5

0 . 9

0 . 0 3

0 . 3 5

T o t a l

0 . 0 8

0 . 0 5 6

5

6

1 . 1

0 . 3 7

D A - 8

C B 8

0 . 0 1

0 . 9

0 . 1 1

0 . 3 5

T o t a l

0 . 1 2

0 . 0 4 8

5

6

1 . 1

0 . 3 1

D A - 9

C B 9

0 . 2 3

0 . 9

0 . 5 5

0 . 3 5

T o t a l

0 . 7 8

0 . 4 0 0

5

6

1 . 1

2 . 6 4

D A - 1 0

C B 1 0

0 . 1 2

0 . 9

0 . 3 9

0 . 3 5

T o t a l

0 . 5 1

0 . 2 4 5

5

6

1 . 1

1 . 6 1

D A - 1 1

e x i s t i n g c b - y a r d

0 . 0 2

0 . 9

( P 5 )

0 . 4 9

0 . 3 5

T o t a l

0 . 5 1

0 . 1 9 0

5

6

1 . 1

1 . 2 5

D A - 1 2

e x i s t i n g c b - d r i v e

0 . 1 3

0 . 9

0 . 1 6

0 . 3 5

T o t a l

0 . 2 9

0 . 1 7 3

5

6

1 . 1

1 . 1 4

2 5 - Y e a r S t o r m E v e n t ( C a p a c i t y C a l c u l a t i o

n )



E 1

P o r t e r S t r e e t D r a i n a g e

P 1

0

T o L o t 2 5

P 2

O v e r l a n d t o I L S F

P 3

T o L o t 2

- 1

P 5

N e w Y a r d C a t c h b a s i n

P 6

D r i v e w a y C a t c h b a s i n

P 7

T o L o t 1 0 - 2

P 8

T o L o t 2 1 2

P 9 a

C l o s e d d r a i n a g e t o

d e t e n t i o n b a s i n

P 9

b

O v e r l a n d t o d e t e n t i o n

b a

s i n

P 9 c

T o L o t 2 1 1

2 - 1

2 R

O v e r f l o w

t o I L S F

2 5

R O A D

A l l e n R o a d D r a i n a g e

S y s t e m

1 P

C B

E x i s t i n g 1 5 " P i p e

2 P

C B

C B

3 P

D e t e n t i o n b a s i n

4 P

C B

D D 1 t o P o n d

5 P

C B

C B

6 P C B

N e w C B

7 P

C B

3 - 1 t o 3 - 2

8 P

C B

3 - 2 t o 3 - 3

9 P

C B

3 - 3 t o 2 - 9

1 0 P

C B

2 - 1 t o 2 - 2

1 1 P

C B

2 - 2 - t o 2 - 3

1 2 P

C B

2 - 3 t o 2 - 4

1 3 P

C B

2 - 4 t o 2 - 5

1 4 P

C B

2 - 5 t o 2 - 6

1 5 P

C B

2 - 6 t o 2 - 7

1 6 P

C B

2 - 7 t o 2 - 8

1 7 P

C B

2 - 8 t o 2 - 9

1 8 P

C B

2 - 9 t o 2 - 1 0

1 9 P C

B

2 - 1 0 t o 2 - 1 1

2 0 P

C B

2 - 1 1 t o 2 - 1 2

2 1

P C

B

2 - 1 2 t o 2 - 1 3

2 2 P

C B

2 - 1 3 t o E x i s t . D M H

2 3 P

C B

6 t o D D 1

I L S F

R e g r a d e d I L S F

D r a i n a g e D i a g r a m f o r

2 6 2 5 - P R O P O S E D

C O N D I T I O

N S - o u t l e t s p l u g g e d

P r e p a r e d b y T o w n o f F

a l m o u t h , D P W , E n g i n e e r i n g ,

P r i n t e d 7 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 2

H y d r o C A D ® 9 . 1 0 s / n

0 7 1 5 3 © 2 0 1 0 H y d r o C A D S o f t w

a r e S o l u t i o n s L L C

S u b c a t

R e a c h

P o n d

L i n k



2 0 0 6

T h e s e a r e

s h e e t s f r o m t h e

S u b d i v i s i o n

P l a n . I d i d a l l

t h e w o r k f o r

t h i s p r o j e c t .





2 0 0 7

T h i s i s a s

h e e

t f r o m

t h e

p l a n s e

t o

f o n e o

f t h e m a n y

t i m e s

I d e s

i g n e d

f o r

t h i s

s a m e

l o t , e a c

h t

i m e a

d i f f e r e n

t d e v e

l o p e r .

I d i d

t h e g r a

d i n g ,

u t i l i t i e s ,

a n

d

s t o r m w a

t e r m a n

a g e m e n

t

f o r

t h e

P r o

j e c

t M

a n a g e r

e a c

h t i m e .



Project No.: 2648

Project: 391-401 D STREET

Date: September 6, 2007

PRE VS. POST PEAK FLOWS

Storm Event

Existing PeakFlow to

Southwest E1

(cfs)

Proposed PeakFlow to

Southwest U1

(cfs)

Existing PeakFlow to

Southwest E4

(cfs)

Proposed PeakFlow to

Southwest U4

(cfs)

Existing PeakFlow to D

Street R1

(cfs)

Proposed PeakFlow to D

Street 5L

(cfs)

2-year 2.14 2.14 3.56 1.59 3.54 11.71

10-year 3.26 3.26 5.77 2.48 11.79 17.85

100-year 4.83 4.83 8.93 3.73 18.94 26.05

BASIN CHARACTERISTICS

Cultec

Chambers

Bottom of

Stone


Top of

StoneElevation

(feet) 14.04

2 Year High

Water


10 Year High

Water


100 Year High

Water


Peak Flood

Volume Stored

(cf) 3,313

100 Year PeakOutflow (cfs) 5.51



Downstream Defender Sizing CalculationsPROJECT: 391-401 D-Street, Boston

JOB #: 1.2648

CALC BY: SCS DATE: 9/6/2007

P1-Southern Pavement

0.57 ac

0.21 ac

0.78 ac

Flow = 0.78 x 1.00 in/hr x 453 gpm/ac-in/hr = 353.34 gpm

0.79 cfs

100 Year (from HydroCAD) 7.05 cfs

3.0/8.0

P2-Central Pavement

0.29 ac

0.93 ac

1.22 ac


1.23 cfs


3.0/8.0

P4-Northern Pavement

0.42 ac

0.28 ac

0.70 ac


0.71 cfs


3.0/8.0

Total Impervious area:

Design Flow/Capacity Range=

Total Roof Area:

Total Runoff to Be Treated:

Use 6 ft. diameter Downst ream Defender Unit






Subcatchment Surfaces

BWSC requires 1 inch per hour storm intensity for design.


Total Roof Area:



Total Roof Area:








2 0 0 7

T h i s i s t h e

p l a n

f o r t h e s e p

t i c

s y s t e m I

d e s i g n e d f o r m y

o w n h o u s e .



T h i s i s a p o

r t i o n o f t h e

p e r m i t t i n g p

l a n s f o r a

s e p t i c s y s t e

m f o

r a

p r o p o s e d e

a r l y c h i l d h o o d

l e a r n i n g c e n t e r .



2 0 0 7

F o r t h i s p r o j e c t , t h e P r o j e

c t

M a n a g e r a s k e d m e t o s o

l v e t h e

d r a i n a g e i s s u e s f o r t h i s e

x c e s s i v e l y

s t e e p s l o p e . I d e s i g n e d a s y s t e m

t h a t w o u l d b u b b l e u p t o h

e l p a v o i d

e r o s i o n .



T h e s e a r e

t h e

d e s i g n p l a

n s

f o r t h e I / A

s y s t e m I

d e s i g n e d f o r

t h e h o m e I

b u i l t f o r m y s e l f .

