HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous - 285 HOLT ROAD 4/30/2018 (2)Location H
No. -,: �-) 6 Date
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
Certificate of Occupancy $
'34 us Building/Frame Permit Fee $
Foundation Permit Fee $
Other Permit Fee $
TOTAL s 3c;?S
Check #
46 9 "m 4� (
Building Inspector
E, I
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER BUILDING DEPARTMENT
APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT REPAIR, RENOVATE, CHANGE THE USE OR OCCUPANCY OF, OR DEMOLISH ANY BUILDING
OTHER THAN A ONE OR TWO FAMILY DWELLING
111,3
0 zgggg, MERU-, M"17 -0
0
1� YMIS.- 'Mal 404,04 -229 M, �0
WINNINNam!;; NO s Section for Official Use OnI
mw
BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER: DATE ISSUED:
-Xs)
&- -�5- C) 0
SIGNATURE:
Building Commissioner/lamwor of Buildings Date
1. 1 Property Address: 1.2 Assessors Map and Parcel Number.
Mao Number Parcel Number
Ift 14-
KC4. MALA) FoA.
1.3 Zoning Information:
1.4 Property Dimensions:
Zoning District tMosed Use
Lot Area (sf) Frontage (ft)
1.6 BUILDING SETBACKS (ft)
Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard
Required Provide ReTlired Provided ReqW -Provided
1.7 Water Supply M.G.L.C.40. 54) 1.5. Flood Zone Information: 1.8 Sewerage Disposal System:
Public 0 Private 0 zone - Outside Flood Zone 0 Municipal OnSiteDisposal System 0
R."W"M M-219"', I all Iffil"21104" =I-
2.1 Owner of Record
176AIJ-zrv� lAq- 1&7-,?04,�
Name (Print) Address for Service:
,,, Sce
Signature Telephone
2.2 Authorized Agent
S�% 7,- T 2� ;_1 Bps
Name Print Address for Service:
o. (
r9 ;7 je;
Signature Telephone
3.1 Licensed Construction Supervisor
Not Applicable 0
J-ir, Z-"rv-,
5 0314 5 50
Address
License Number
/ -3
3
Licensed Construction Suofvisor:
Expiration Date
-Telephone,
r-327cgjstered,!�q
.W�provcrnent Contractor
Not Appli6able (I
Company Name.
Registration Number
Address
Expiration Date
Signature Telephone
0
M
90
0
-n
M
G)
as Owncr/Authonzed
Agent
Hereby declare that the statements and information on the foregoing application are true and accurate, to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
Signed under the pains and penalties of pe�ury
Print Name
-q 2." 6 /
'e"
Signature of Owner/Agent D�te
Item
Estimated Cost (Dollars) to be
Completed by
permit applicant
1. Building
(a) Building Permit Fee
1.01,
i;0-1 000
Multiplier
2 Electrical
(b) Estimated Total Cost of
Construction from (6)
3 Plumbing
Building Permit fee (a) (b)
4 Mechanical (HVAC)
5 Fire Protection
6 Total (1+2+3+4+5)
Check Number
igxg
NO. OF STORIES SIZE
BASEMENT OR SLAB
SIZE OF FLOOR TIMBERS I ST 2 ND 3 RD
SPAN
DEMENSIONS OF SILLS
DEMENSIONS OF POSTS
DIMENSIONS OF GIRDERS
HEIGHT OF FOUNDATION THICKNESS
SIZE OF FOOTING x
MATERIAL OF CHIMNEY
IS BUILDING ON SOLID OR FILLED LAND
IS BUILDING CONNECTED TO NATURAL GAS LINE
ON- MAIN'-
Workers Compensation Insurance affidavit must be completed and submitted with this application. Failure to provide this affidavit will result in the denial ofthe
issuance of the building permit.
Signed affidavit Attached Yea ...... )�k No ....... 0
5.1 Registered Architect:
Name:
Address
Signature
Telephone
LLC -
Responsible in Charge
Not Applicable 0
Area'of Responsibility
Registration Number
Expiration Date
Name:
Address:
Signature Total
Not applicable 0
Registration Number
Expiration Date
Name:
Address
Signature Telephone
Area of Re*nsibility
Registration Number
Expiration Date
Name
Address
Signature Telephone
J.
Area of Responsibility
Registration Number
Expiration Date
Name
Address
Signature Telephone
LLC -
Responsible in Charge
Not Applicable 0
. . .... 0(00
MY
New Co nstruction 0
Existing Building 0 Repair(s) [I
Alterations(s)
Addition 0
Accessory Bldg. 0
Demolition Other 0 Specify
Brief Description of Proposed Work:
0
0
USE GROUP (Check as applicable)
CONSTRUCTION TYPE
A Assembly 0 A-1 0
A4 0
A-2
A-5
0 A-3
0
0
]A
113
0
0
B Business 0
2A
2B
2C
0
0
0
C Educational 0
F Factory 0' F -I 0 F-2 0
H High Hazard 0
3A
3B
0
0
I Institutional [3, 1-1 0 1-2 0 1-3 0
M Mercantile 0
4
0
R residential 0 R -I 0
R-2
0 R-3
0
5A
5B
0
0
S Storage 0 S-1 0 S-2 0
U utility 0 Specify:
M Nfixed Use 0 Specify:
S Special Use 0 Specify:
COMPLETE TIHS SECTION ]IF EXISTING BULLDING UNDERGOING RENOVATIONS, ADDITIONS AND OR CHANGE IN USE
Existing Use Group:
Existing Hazard Index 780 CUR 34:
Proposed Use Group:
Proposed Hazard Index 780 CMR 34:
Mi
BUELDING AREA
EMSTING (if applicable)
PROPOSED
Number of Floors or Stories Include
Basement levels
Floor Area per Floor (sf)
Total Area (sf)
Total Height (ft)
Independent Structural EngineeriM Structural Peer Review Required Yes 0 No 0
SECTION 10a Owner Authorization - TO BE COAWEETED WHEN
OWNERS AGENT OR CONTBACTOR APPLIES FOR BUHDING PERMff
I, 'Se -.0- 77
Hereby authorize�_�A
My behalf, in all matters
Owner of the subject property
two work authorized by this builcling permit application
.0 (Ole f
Owner Date
to act on
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
.Department of Industrial Accidents
Office of Investigations
Boston, Mass: 02111
Workers'Compensation Insurance Affidavit
I Name Please Print
Name:
Location:
cily Phone
F-1 I am a homeowner performing all work myself.
F-1 I am a sole proprietor and have no one working in any capacity
I am an employer providing workers! compensation for my employees working on this job.
Company name:
Address
Cily: Phone#:
insurance Co.. P0-1icv #
Company name:
Address 1f::J
cipc 4"..) 101 (!1 0 Phone#: q-73—q(pS--00,r�,�—
+1Y
— ;),ON 9).S--
�ai6re' to secure�c'overage as required under Section 25A or MGL 152 can lead to the imposition of criminal penalties ofo fine up to $1,50C
and/or one years' iMpris6nment-;�s-wefl-as-civii-pena#ies.jn-ffie-fi=WASTOP -wORK.
-oRbtk..arld
-.a finenfl.$1-00-OD --aiday.agixinst -me. I
understand that a copy of this statement maybe forwarded to the Office of Investigations of the DIA for coverage verffida6on.
/ do hereby certify undgr U/0 pa�qp�o Pprialties of pefjury that the information provided above is true and correct.
Print
Offici;; = only do not write in this area to be completed by city or town ofticial'
O(V-04-0
— (4 (PS-- DOES—
City or Town Permit/Licensing
El Building Dept
E] Check if immediate response is required Udensin_q Board
Sqlectman's Office
Contact person: Phone #.- Health Department
El Other
- - - - - --- - - -
Town of North Andover tAORrh
6
0
Building Department 0 Z. %-.W..
27 Charles Street
North Andover, Massachusetts 0 1845
(978) 688-9545 Fax. (978) 688-9542 ,,Teo
A C IN u
DEBRIS DISPOSAL FORM
In accordance with the provisions of MGL c 40 s 54, and a condition of
Building permit-# the debris resulting from the work shall be disposed
of in a properly licensed solid waste disposal facility as defined by A4GL c 11, sl 56a.
The debris will be disposed of in /at:
Facility location
i.Aitire of
Date
NOTE.- A demolition permit from the Town of North Andover must be obtained for this
project through the Office of the Building Inspector.
FORM - U - LOT RELEASE FORM
INSTRUCTIONS- Ms form is, used to verify that all -necessary approval/ permits frorn
Boards and Mpartments ' havingjunsdiction have been obtained. This. does not relieve the
applicant and'or landowner from compliance with any applicable requirements.
x a ff a 0 a a 0 a a a a 0 N.Jff a so 0 0 0 0 0 a a 0 0 a 0 a a a 0 a a a a a a a a a me a 0 0 a a a a a a a a n a a a a 0 0 a 0 0 0 a a a U 10 a 0 a a a 0
—APPLICANT Z�0,rv%pekk (—L(, PHONE—
ASSESSORS MAP NUMBER%-- LOTNUMBERC--
SUBDIVISIONt— LOTNLMBER
STREET,Y-- IkOk-� U STREET NUNfflER-7_—)--3 5'
I as &$am a &—a a a a a 0 ages a Asa ONO as was a a am ON a a so a ON AND am a Doom a Sams soon am a Nam a aw-es*
OFFrICIALUSE ONLY
I moves a a moms a an a won mom 6 own on a on amanown'sonow on -as women was* an 0
RECOMMEENDATIONS OF TOWN AGENTS
I ON so 5 a 0 smon was 0 we wages mows sea
DATE APPROVED
CONSERVATION ADMINISTRATOR
DATE REJECTED
CoNflyffi_�M
DATE APPROVED
TOWN PLANNER
CONB&INTS
FOOD INSPECTOR -'HEALTH
SEPTIC !NSPECTOR - HEALTH
CO&RvIENTS
PUBLIC WORKS - SEWER / WATER CONNECTIONS
DRIVEWAY PERMIT
COMIVENTS
DATE REJECTED
DATE APPROVED
DATE REJECTED
DATE APPROVED
DATE REJECTED
WOaqt6 ( DATE APPROVED
DATE REJECTED
RECEI'VED BY BUI1,DING INSPECTOR DA
jok
BOARD OF BUILDING REGULATIONS
License: CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISOR
Number CS 034550
Birthdate: .06108/1953
x - - E ires: 008/2002 Tr. no: 24982
p
Restricted Tix% 00
JAMES C ZAMP61-
15 WM FAIRFIELD DR
WENHAM, MA 01984 Administrator
7 -
Houston Headquarters: 877nl3-6224
Houston Northwinds: 8GO/356-4416
Adel, GA 888/446-6224
Atlanta, GA 877/512-6224
Atwater, CA 800/829-9324.
Boise, ID 800/632-3340
Chester, SC 888/624-1990
Dallas, TX 1100/611-6224
T'
Indianapolis, IN 800/735-6224
Jackson, MS 800/467-5585
Lubbock, TX 800/758-6224
Mattoon, IL. 800/926-5799
Memphis, TN 800/206-6224
Oklahoma City, OK 800/597-6224
Omaha, NE 800/458-6224
Phoenix, AZ 888/533-6224
Richmond, VA 800/729-6224
Rome, NY 800/559-6224
Salt Lake Cit34 UT 800/874-2404
San Antonio, TX 800/598-6224
Tampa, FL 800/359-6224
International Sales Office: 800/359-6224
7.2 Panel
36" --
7.200" 451
P)
(5 �PITCHES) 2.146'--� (T�P)
1 112 2.146-4
lfts�@
Metal Roof and Wall Systems
DID
Signature is a registered trademark of Metal Building Components, L.P. Galvalume Plus is a registered and protected trademark Of BIEC International, Inc.
Consult the MBC1 TECHNICAL MANUAL for proper product application, design details and other product information.
PANEL PRICING:
1. All 7.2 panel pricing is based on a 39 1/8.1 sheet width (see chart on opposite page).
2. Add $0.95 per sheet for lengths under 4'-0".
3. Add $7.00 per square for embossing.
PACKAGING COST:
Net
Yield
Weight
Maximum 3000 pounds or 75 panels per bundle.
PRICE PER SQUARE
2.
Block and band only .................
Gauge
Girth
Eal
Per Sq.
I
Finish
0-19
20-49
50-99
100-300
Over
300
29
29
36"
80,000
71
Galvalume Plus@
87.85
84.60
81.10
78.05
76.50
Special Order Only
36"
80,000
71
Signature@ 200*
115-65
111.30
106.75
102.75
100.70
26
26
36"
80,000
96
Galvalume Plus@
96.50
92.85
89.10
85.70
84.00
36"
80,000
96
Signature@ 200*
122.80
118.20
113.40
109.10
106.95
24
24
36"
50,000
118
Galvalume Plus@'
116-95
112.50
107.95
103.85
101.85
36"
50,000
118
Signature@ 200*
150.65
145.00
139.05
133.85
131.20
22
22
36"
36"
50,000
146
Galvalu'me Plus@
136.95
131.85
126.45
121.70
119.30
50,000
146
Signature@ 200*
100 Square
Minimum
Order
164.30
161.05
* See Commercial/industrial
Color Chart for available
colors.
Signature is a registered trademark of Metal Building Components, L.P. Galvalume Plus is a registered and protected trademark Of BIEC International, Inc.
Consult the MBC1 TECHNICAL MANUAL for proper product application, design details and other product information.
PANEL PRICING:
1. All 7.2 panel pricing is based on a 39 1/8.1 sheet width (see chart on opposite page).
2. Add $0.95 per sheet for lengths under 4'-0".
3. Add $7.00 per square for embossing.
PACKAGING COST:
1.
Maximum 3000 pounds or 75 panels per bundle.
2.
Block and band only .................
3.
4.
Block and band, waterproof paper wrap ......... *.'.'.'.*.'.*.,.,.,.,.,.*.*.,.,.*.*.*.,
Block and band, waster sheet top only
$'1'3*.'6'5'(*u'p*to1'5")`
$8.20
'$'24.45 (over 15')
5.
' * * ... * .......
Block and band, waster sheet top and bottom ..........................
$14.80 (up to 16)
$27.20 (up to 15)
$27.20 (over 15)
$50.25 (over 16)
6.
LTL Package - block and band, waster sheet
7.
top and bottom, angle board sides and ends ............. $61.10 (up
Export Package - block and band, waster sheet
to 15) $74.65 (16 to 26)
$84.45 (over 25')
top and bottom, steel and wood boxed .............................................
Special Order Only
DELIVERY:
1.
2.
29, 26 and 24 gauge - stocked Signature@ 200 colors (see color chart) ..........
22 gauge - (see color chart) ........................................................
Approximately
14 Working Days
Please Inquire
SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTIr.;: q;:r: vvuvw Mhf-ii t -AM rnD f-1 MOCK-
Cl)
m
m
DO
m
m
m
Cf)
m
Cl)
0
m
CA
10
CD
a z
CCO
CL
C)
CD
06
cr
CD 0
CD
a: a)
to CD
CA
co
Cl)
CO2
Cl)
CO)
-0 .
Cl)
CO2
CD
CD
CD
a
CO2
CD
CA
z
CD
CD
CD
1*10 -0 =r
CD ocr wo
dc CO)
ECO 10
CO 0 cv
c 3 m
ci CL C -j
=rlo CO)
to — CO3 :�i
0
r
I
CL m
=r -0 CO)
CD -400
r co CD
IE CD
CO)
C2 CR
CO
0 CC 22
CA
C2
CD
r
L
Er
CD CO)
CD
CD i t
co
CL ir
co=.
cn
CD
cn
CD 42
CA
CD
*
CD
ED
cn
cn
CD
non,
c:
CD:
C/)
0
C/)
w
z
M
>
7�
gi
�-p
cp
GO)
n
�v
gi
COD
:p
n
T
0
C/)
C/)
0
a.
7�
M
m
M
ON
0
41�
Location
No. Date 09-0101- CX3
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
I - *1 1.
Certificate of Occupancy $ Zoe
$
Building/Frame Permit Fee
C..S
Foundation Permit Fee $
Other Permit Fee $
TOTAL $
Check# ';; 14-
1 C1 46 Building -Inspector
6
z
w
om
sm
IS
CD
ts
1p
E S
0 CD
Fts
C.3
CM 3�
E
ilr
41 :E
RE
cm
CLU S.:
cr-
co
fo c
0.0
0 ;j
&M3
CC=
=Cp
:R
s w CD CD
co CD
m C
M Z
E
CD
ui CD
CD O=F- c
co
x
C/)
CIO
z
0
u
C/)
I
u
0
TIT
1�6)
MP
u
co
0
E
co
z
0
m
ca
0
LA
E
co
CD
Q
m
ran
cop)
CL
L)
CO)
r-mlbl
co
CD CM
C =
C3
co C12
c CD
i2m. CD
CL
cc
0 CD
t5
CD
CO)
LLJ
0
C/)
uj
U)
T-
ui
LLI
ui
Lli
C/)
0
GO
z
cc
Cc
u
—co
co
r.
ow
z
6
z
E
E
(U
10
V)
w
om
sm
IS
CD
ts
1p
E S
0 CD
Fts
C.3
CM 3�
E
ilr
41 :E
RE
cm
CLU S.:
cr-
co
fo c
0.0
0 ;j
&M3
CC=
=Cp
:R
s w CD CD
co CD
m C
M Z
E
CD
ui CD
CD O=F- c
co
x
C/)
CIO
z
0
u
C/)
I
u
0
TIT
1�6)
MP
u
co
0
E
co
z
0
m
ca
0
LA
E
co
CD
Q
m
ran
cop)
CL
L)
CO)
r-mlbl
co
CD CM
C =
C3
co C12
c CD
i2m. CD
CL
cc
0 CD
t5
CD
CO)
LLJ
0
C/)
uj
U)
T-
ui
LLI
ui
Lli
C/)
v
ui
om
CD
% P -C;
ts
CD
E S
R"
00
.0 'S
cc
=C, -
0.0 -V
0
.z
Cc, COL.
COO
ED —M m
cc E 5-o
uj 0 o A2 cm
CL 0.50,0
0 . m =
L. = C=c
CL *-
.V—
E
W
cm
cm
cc
f
0
cm
z
C2
CIO
0
C/)
I
C/)
z
0
u
CIO
C/)
I
V
u
0
lzr
(U
�:4
4-4
CO)
CD cm
CD
CA CL)
-E co ca
0 0 CD
L— J6.
iDm% CO
CD
C.3
M
C.3 -510
EL CD
ca ts
CD
0 CL
C.) CO)
cc
CO)
LIJ
LU
U)
T-
LLJ
Lli
CC
Lli
LU
U)
0
= op
0
44
0
P-4
u
_9
u
ro-
cli
79D
co
r
co
V)
Cf)
ui
om
CD
% P -C;
ts
CD
E S
R"
00
.0 'S
cc
=C, -
0.0 -V
0
.z
Cc, COL.
COO
ED —M m
cc E 5-o
uj 0 o A2 cm
CL 0.50,0
0 . m =
L. = C=c
CL *-
.V—
E
W
cm
cm
cc
f
0
cm
z
C2
CIO
0
C/)
I
C/)
z
0
u
CIO
C/)
I
V
u
0
lzr
(U
�:4
4-4
CO)
CD cm
CD
CA CL)
-E co ca
0 0 CD
L— J6.
iDm% CO
CD
C.3
M
C.3 -510
EL CD
ca ts
CD
0 CL
C.) CO)
cc
CO)
LIJ
LU
U)
T-
LLJ
Lli
CC
Lli
LU
U)
0
. It
I.
6
z
w
am
C,
co
E
R
0
ft
C.
G).S E
CD
m
0
V) 4 ID
cm
E
ca m
-trg
CD 0 cm
CD
it.
4D
cm
ea
a
(D ca
14 An
cc
12-B cm
CL E
0M.
4D.2 �— CD
CO) Cc,
LA: Rp ra m 0
MO) CLC- -.E- Z
0.0 0 w CD
LU ca a .2
co 0 Ir
CL
ul
0
. CL. -
V)
0
C/)
z
01
u
C/)
z
0
u
C40
I
u
0
6
u
0
CL)
E
CD
C
ts
co
z
0 CO)
CID
J—
CL
.0
CD
C.3 CL
M =
E:
5
R
0. 0 Co
ul ts
CD
CL
cc
"a
CO)
LLJ
C)
C/)
LLJ
U)
T-
uj
uj
cr
LLJ
LU
Cf)
0
UW
cn
0.
ro-
C:
0
PQ
Cw
z
U-)
V)
w
am
C,
co
E
R
0
ft
C.
G).S E
CD
m
0
V) 4 ID
cm
E
ca m
-trg
CD 0 cm
CD
it.
4D
cm
ea
a
(D ca
14 An
cc
12-B cm
CL E
0M.
4D.2 �— CD
CO) Cc,
LA: Rp ra m 0
MO) CLC- -.E- Z
0.0 0 w CD
LU ca a .2
co 0 Ir
CL
ul
0
. CL. -
V)
0
C/)
z
01
u
C/)
z
0
u
C40
I
u
0
6
u
0
CL)
E
CD
C
ts
co
z
0 CO)
CID
J—
CL
.0
CD
C.3 CL
M =
E:
5
R
0. 0 Co
ul ts
CD
CL
cc
"a
CO)
LLJ
C)
C/)
LLJ
U)
T-
uj
uj
cr
LLJ
LU
Cf)
C17 -V
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Department of Industrial Accidents
Office of Investigations
Boston, Mass. 02111
Workers' Compensation Insurance Affidavit
Please Print
A,)j�l a) 022 -
F-1 am a home6wner performing all work myself.
I am a sole proprietor and have no one working in any capacity
I am an employer providing workers' compensation for my employees working on this job.
Address
citv: 0 -?C)7? Phone #: 9219r 91J-V—
Insurance Co. Poligy# (o R1
Comony name:
Address
City: Phone
insurance Co. Policy #
to secure coverage as required under Section 25A or MGL 152 can lead to the imposition of criminal penalties of a fine up to $1,500.00
and/or one yebrs' imprisonment as well as civil penalties in the form of a STOP WORK ORDER and a fine of ($100.00) a day against me. I
understand that a copy of this statement may be forwarded to the.Office of Investigations of the DIA for coverage verification.
I do herby certify under
Signature.
Print
petiury that the information provided above is true and correct.
4 6; 92 Ply --f - V Qf -
Official use only do not write in this area to be completed by city or town official' F-1' Building Dept
FlCheck if immediate fesponse is required Building Dept E] Licensing Board
E] Selectman's Office
Contact person: -Phone A- F-1 Health Department
0 Other
FORM WORKMAN'S COMPENSATION
fqlmrd
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER BUILDING DEPARTMENT CWR.Ucm
APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT REPAIR, RENOVATE, CHANGE THE USE OR OCCUPANCY OF, OR DEMOLISH ANY BUILDING
OTHER THAN A ONE OR TWO FAMILY DWELLING
2-11`112122������ 9 on for Official Use
BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER:
ISSUED:
T6A–TE
SIGNATURE: :S�
a. C>2, —oo.
Buildij ComniissiMer�nVdor of Buildings Date
1. 1 Property Address:
1.2 Assessors Map and Parcel Number:
/—g5 /i/—/—?
Map Number Parcel Number
1.3 Zoning Information:
1.4 Property Dimensions:
ZoningDistrict Proposed Use
Lot Area (sf) Frontage (11)
1.6 BU11DING SETBACKS (ft)
Front Yard
Side Yard
Rear Yard
Required Provide
Required
Provi&d
ReqWmd
Provi&d
1.7 Water Supply M.G.L.C.40. § 54)
1.5. Flood Zone Information:
1.9 Sewerage Disposal System.
Public 0 Private 0
zone — Outside Flood Zone 0
muni4al On Site Disposal System 0
I 'I �� -61 M, M, . �N'�M
2.1 Owner of Record
Awno,j,rM .2� 14&7 -
Name (Print)
Address for Service:
^j
) 6
Signature
Telephone
1
2.2 Authorized Agfent
/01JL�
Name Pn'
Address for Service:
Sign&re
Telephone
3.144Gwwwd.Construction Supervisor Not Applicable
Address I
License Number
/ Zn ko.-4�e
Licensed ConstruAon Sup6visor:
F,51— Exptratton Date
Signature
Telephone
3.2 Registered Home Improvement Contractor
Not Applicable 0
Company Name',
Registration N umber
Address
Expiration Date
Signature
Telephone
CA
>
M
d-)
0
M
Z
0
Z
M
90
0
,n
ic
M
Z
G)
A
1, as Owner/Authorized
Agent
Hereby declare that the statements and information on the foregoing application are true and accurate, to the best of my
knowledge and belief
Signed under the pains and penalties of pe�ury
Print Name
Signature of Owner/Agent Date
R �1.1
Item
Estimated Cost (Dollars) to be
';�ggg �u
Completed by applicant
permit
1. Building
gs— 000:p
(a) Building Permit Fee
Multiplier
2 Electrical
(b) Estimated Total Cost of
9W-0
Construction from (6)
<6
3 Plumbing
Building Permit fee (a) x (b)
4 Mechanical (HVAQ
us e—
/ J--t�.
5 Fire Protection
-ro-m L
Z.
6 Total (1+2+3+4+5)
Check Number '514-
lk� V,
I ;"" t �
53A
I
"
�iv-"' t, ''.
"'E i�j
M4,
Ng
NO. OF STORIES SIZE
BASEMENT OR SLAB
SIZE OF FLOOR TRvMERS i ST 2 ND 3 RD
SPAN
DEMENSIONS OF SILLS
DEMENSIONS OF POSTS
DIMENSIONS OF GIRDERS
HEIGHT OF FOUNDATION THICKNESS
SIZE OF FOOTING x
MATERIAL OF CHIMNEY
IS BUILDING ON SOLID OR FILLED LAND
IS BUILDING CONNECTED TO NATURAL GAS LINE
Workers Compensation Insurance affidavit must be completed and submitted with this application. Failure to provide this affidavit will result in the denial ofthe
issuance of the building permit.
S igned affidavit Attached Y ea ..... No ....... 0
SEC7161WI PROVESMOT,
UOT
4M JS
5.1 Registered Architect:
Name:
,Address
SiFature Telephone
Nami.
Address:
Area of Responsibility
Registration Number
U I .
ICompany Name:
I Responsible in Charge of Construction
Telephone
Expiration Date
Not Applicable 0
1
Expiration Date
�ignature Total
Not applicable 0
Registration Number
Expiration Date
Name:
Address
Signature Telephone
Area of Responsibility
Registration Number
Expiration Date
Name
Address
Signature Telephone
Area of Responsibil, , ity
Registration Number
Name
Address
U I .
ICompany Name:
I Responsible in Charge of Construction
Telephone
Expiration Date
Not Applicable 0
1
New Construction 0 Existing Building
0
Repair(s) X-
Alterations(s)
Addition 0
Accessory Bldg. 0 Demolition
0
Other 0 Specify
Brief Description of Proposed Work:
le- el ,-i
0
]A
1 B
0
0
B Business 0
BUILDING AREA E)GSTING (if applicable) PROPOSED
Number of Floors or Stories Include
Basement levels
Floor Area per Floor (sf)
Total Area (sf)
Total Heiaht (ft)
Independent Structural Engineering Structural Peer Review Required Yes 0 No 0
SECTION 10a Owner Authorization - TO BE COMPLETED WHEN
OWNERS AGENT OR CONTRACTOR "PLIES FOR BUILDING PERMIT
1, as Owner of the subject property
Hereby authorize to act on
My behalf, in all matters relative two work authorized by this building permit application
Signature of Owner
Date
USE GROUP (Check as applicable)
CONSTRUCTION
TYPE
A Assembly 0 A-1 11
A4 0
A-2
A-5
11 A-3
0
0
]A
1 B
0
0
B Business 0
2A
2B
2C
0
0
0
C Educational 0
F Factory -0 17-1 0 F-2 0
H High Hazard 0
3A
3B
0
0
1 Institutional co 1-1 0 1-2 0 1-3 0
M Mercantile 0,
4
0
R residential 0
R -I 11
X1 R-3
0
5A
5B
0
El
S Storage -.0 S-1 0 S-2 0
U utility 0
M Nfixed Use 0
S Special Use 0
Specify:
Specify:
Specify:
COMPLETE TIUS SECTION IF EXISTING BUILDING UNDERGOING RENOVATIONS,
ADDITIONS AND OR CHANGE IN USE
Existing Use Group:
Existing Hazard Index 780 CMR 34:
Proposed Use Group:
Proposed Hazard Index 780 CMR 34:
BUILDING AREA E)GSTING (if applicable) PROPOSED
Number of Floors or Stories Include
Basement levels
Floor Area per Floor (sf)
Total Area (sf)
Total Heiaht (ft)
Independent Structural Engineering Structural Peer Review Required Yes 0 No 0
SECTION 10a Owner Authorization - TO BE COMPLETED WHEN
OWNERS AGENT OR CONTRACTOR "PLIES FOR BUILDING PERMIT
1, as Owner of the subject property
Hereby authorize to act on
My behalf, in all matters relative two work authorized by this building permit application
Signature of Owner
Date
RTjj Town Of North Andover
Community Development & Services
27 Charles Street
North Andover, Massachusetts 01845
Fax 978-688-9542
Board of
Appeals
(978) 688-9541 INTERNAL MEMORANDUM
Building
Department
Date: September 7, 2000
(978) 688-9545
To: vBob Nicetta, Building Commissioner
Conservation
Fire Chief Bill Dolan
Department
(978) 688-9530
Mark Rees, Town Manager
Board of Selectmen
Health
Department
Cc: Scott Emerson, AM
(978) 688-9540
Board of Health
Bill Scott, Director CD&S
Public Health
Nurse
From: Sandra Starr, Health 1)
�978) 688-9543
William J. Scott
Director
(978) 688-9531
Planning Earlier today the Health Inspector and I inspected the Wheelabrator plant on Holt
Department Road to determine its status after the recent fire. All trash that had been brought
(978) 688-9535 outside during the incident has been removed. The site has been cleaned and cleared
of all extraneous material and debris. From the Public Health perspective, and
speaking specifically to conditions caused by the trash fire, the facility meets our
requirements and can be reopened at any time.
I recommend that a concerted effort be made by those departments also involved
with this post -fire cleanup to re -open the incinerator as soon as possible. Some of
the facilities that have been taking MRI's overflow trash can no longer do so beyond
this week. If the North Andover incinerator does not re -open soon, there will be a
cause for Public Health concern because of trash backlog and buildup.
SW—% r
Board of Selectmen Minutes September 5, 2000 DRAFT
Beverly Longueil of North Andover, asked if sludge from other communities was going to be
brought into North Andover. Septic waste was discussed in the past but it is very different from
sludge. You have to be very specific. Attorney Ken Kirnmell will look into the agreement to
make sure it covers both septic waste and sludge. He believes the Selectmen have veto power
over both septic waste and sludge.
NESWC Update. Joan Kulash wrote a letter that she would like the Board of Selectman to
review, make necessary changes and submit to the DEP, Governor and State Officials after the
fire at the incinerator. This letter to the DEP is asking them to take immediate action in expediting
a study of the dioxin buildup in the region. The study should include but not be limited to
regional soil, fish and cow milk samples. DEP was at the fire and very concerned but the real
heros were our firemen, Fire Chief William Dolan and Jeff Coco from Emergency Management.
Joan Kulash stated that the Department of Environmental Protection just looks at ambient air and
does not look at any of the deposition, meaning things as they fall on the ground.
Gayton Osgood from the Board of Health says it would be a mistake to tie the dioxin study with
the fire as the fire is a transitory event, no indication that the fire itself caused unusual emissions
of dioxins. The State is not going to go out and do a dioxin study every time there is a fire in a
dump or a house. He agrees a dioxin study should be done but tying it to the fire would be a
mistake.
Joan Kulash wants us to ask Wheelabrator, before the incinerator goes back online, if they have a
corrective action plan to identify the source of what was the problem. Why the fire occurred, why
'�l
it grew out of proportion the way it did, what resources are needed and will they be available next
time to prevent it from getting out of proportion.
Rosemary Smedile feels if the Town completed a few limited dioxin soil studies around town and
did find something, we would have much more leverage demanding that further dioxin studies be
done. This could be an alternate plan if the State or DEP does not do the study.
John Leeman made a MOTION, seconded by Keith Mitchell, to authorize Keith Mitchell, Joan
Kulash and Town Manager Mark Rees, to finalize the letter Joan Kulash drafted to the DEP
(Department of Environmental Protection). Also, have the Town Manager contact the Fire Chief
inquiring about suppression equipment and find out what other steps need to be taken before the
facility become operational again; vote approved 3 — 0.
John Leeman also said to be sure a bill is sent to Wheelabrator, for expenses incurred due to the
fire.
ADJOURNMENT: Keith Mitchell made a MOTION, seconded by John Leeman, to adjourn the
meeting at 8:35 PM; vote approved 3 — 0.
Kathleen O'Neill
Administrative Secretary
Keith Mitchell, Clerk of the Board
--- --------
a a
September 7, 2000
Scott Emerson
Plant Manager
Massachusetts Refusetech
285 Holt Road
No. Andover, MA 01845
RE: COMPLETION OF CRITICAL BRACING REPAIRS
FIRE DAMAGE TO HANDLING BUIIDING
(DEI Project No. D0345)
Dear Scott:
At your request we visited the site on Thursday September 7, 2000 to review the critical bracing
repairs which have been completed along line "E" of the Handling Building. The completed repairs
have been done in compliance with Daigle Engineers' Report dated August 30, 2000, Daigle Engi-
neers'drawing S-2 revision #1 dated 08/29/00, and additional directives by our office.
Although there are still some non-critical structural issues to be addressed, we take no exception
to the plant resuming normal operations at this time. A final report from our office, outlining the
remaining non-critical structural issues, will follow shortly. It is our understanding the plant will
be addressing the remaining issues as expeditiously as possible, and that our office will continue
to monitor the progress Qf the ongoing structural repairs. We xvill continue to provide directives as
necessary to assure the remaining structural work is completed correctly.
We trust this will address your needs at this time. Please feel free to call if you should have any
questions or concerns regarding this project -
Very truly,
DAIGLE ENGINEERS INC.
le �,,Ihan �.�,ngchamp, M.S., P.,E. (ext. 17)
Vice President/Lead Structural Engineer
DA101e EnAneerS, Inc -
I East River P)atce
Methuen, MAO 1844-3818
9786921748
978 (582 6421 fax
www,daiglepexorn
JONATHAN
M.
[.ONGCHAMP
STRUCTURAL
No 35867
e? , IT, O'D
over 20 Years in Business - Est, 1979
DEI + 9171M - 11:41 AM * # 03451000907.dot + Put, I *J'?
16.
— —1 --- . I I 1 1-1 1 __ I --- — — 1. -1 — � I — � / � U"e— I
CONSTRUCTION CQ�[IRQL AFFIDDAVI
(This document is for construction review only. It does not include a design affidavit)
PROJECT LOCATION: zes Hour ieo4i - mo. 4,.%,wey_ . t14
NAME OF PROJECT: _hmsw"cM tetFtAS9Mi1_Ai - Fjoeg 4,"A%:,6
PROJECT NO,- 4c>B45
SCOPE OF PROJECT: C1Z(11(_AL 4(r eeftgg 10 W"U��&
� _ffA ___B
S-Wa c:que,.ft AMKI IzS t/ R t-Feit 1b 6 e = bgAw I pi (r s R C -it S I jw :1 hA7V�, e. ZAT,60'�
Wb h9T R6-PdY-n �ATEt) 6-24-00 Awb 8-30-0a.
I .3otiMRitr4 m. of IA6--E EN67NE6W wC submit that our office shall
p�r_form the necessary professional services and be present on the construction site on a regular and periodic basis to
determine that, generally, the structural work is proceeding in accordance with the construction documents and shall be
responsible for the following as specified in Massachusetts State Building Code Section 116-2-7:
1. Review, for conformance to the design concept. shop drawings. samples and other submittals which are
submitted by the contractor in accordance with.the requirements of the construction documents.
2. Review and approval of the quality control procedures for all code -required controlled materials.
3. Be present at intervals appropriate to the stage of construction, and complexity of the project, to become
aenerally familiar with the progress and quality of the work.. and to determine, in gcneral, if the work is
bein- performed in a manner consistent with the construction documents.
Our office shall submit periodical (after a "periodic" inspection as deemed necessary by the complexity -of this project)
pro 'gress reports, provided the owner notificS OUT office of when the project has progressed to predetermined stages. At
the compIction of the construction. we shall submit a final repoit to the building official. The report shall certify, to the
best of our information, knowledge, and belief, that the structural work has been satisfactorily completed in substantial
compliance with the intent of the �onstruction documents.
We submit this affidavit based on the prQvision that an occupancy permit will not be issued until a final affidavit is
submitted to the building official by our office. We shall be released from all construction verification liability for
aspec . ts of construction not viewed., if said final affidavit is not received.
jONA7-HAN
AA.
LON(-'CVA&!P
STRUCTU;IAL
S5867
f -7 - 0-0
NOTARY STATEMENT;
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
NOTARY PUKIC
Signature: Ivse&-
Massachusetts Registration No, -9 35667 M4
5T)OU -n(Ue_,ft f"e.
day of
scpr6wa�� / ge�>ew-->
/4
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES ON
M-whAu'leal Com�cflnn Contfol P�.rndot
r-. "
CONSTRUCTION CONTROL CONLIPLETION AFFIDAVIT
PROJECT LOCATION- z e 5 Rb t -i go)tb - ri o. ti,4baVL_-Yt
NAME OF PROJECT; _r1A5SA<AfuS1---7n
PROJECT NO:
-IMS A-FfIb/Wi7' f'e'rZ-7*,JS 7b 71W U-141VUO-nad 47-- C04-P66L
F C %J F r r\. 1.
O&A-c4W, r_e-ftA� 1W #7tW&4,-xrfUiL-h1,J(, AW& Ci,,PE "a"' PRZ be -r Aywtr
t� ATet,� 6 - 3e> - o e, Av h b e -Z b w& 5- 2- ke4. # I bI A -7-6t a -,247,6 6. do-ri -eje4 17 e^ i",es
,4S 6U-M1,Jet 10 bET 04.--A-K_r bA-rJA 'VJ'-00 AO -C d7-J6m^1Cr.
i -J�fti-47yrj m ' L&r46t*hi-mP of LA-T&LG G\VAAn-'Y-S submit th3t our office has per-
fon,ned the following professional services.. as specified in MassachUSetTS State BUilding Code Section 116.2-2 and as
related to the structural portions of the work:
I . Reviewed for conformance to the design concept, shop drawings, samples and other submittals which are
;r a,
submitted by the contractor in accordance with the requirements ofthe construction documents.
2. Reviewed ind approved the quality control procedures for all code -required controlled rniterials.
Been presentat intervalsappropriate to the stage ofconstniction,arid complexity of the project, to become
generally familiar with the progress and quality of the work-, and determine to the extent practical and pos-
sible the work, was being performed in a inanner consistent with the structural construction documents,
Our observations during site visits do not relieve the Contractor or its subcontractors of their responsibilities and obli-
gations for quality control of the work, for iny design work which is included in their scope of services (i.e. design
delegation), and for full compliance with the requirements of the Construction Documents and applicable building,
codes. FUrthennore, the detection of, or the failure to detect, deficiencies or defects in the work- during our site visits
does not relieve the Contractor or their subcontractors of their responsibility to COITeCt all deficiencies or defects,
whether detected or undotected, in all parts of the work, and to otherwise comply with all requirements of the Construc-
tion Documents,
To the best of our information, knowledge, and belief '. the Structural work has been Satisfactorily completed in substan-
tial compliance with the intent of the construction document,,i� AS
��Jiii U�.
'ON T AN
LON P
STPU TUR L
No 3.5867
1/5'
'�!Rq T
Subscribedand sworn to before me this
Signature -
V
Massachusetts (gistration No. 3 5 8 67 MA
sna4c'-U'"t R e,
Oayof
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES ON
INIUMN-10S C*W"V;0� COW101 COMPI.6�n AfTH-Mot
naig
August 30, 2000
Scott Emerson
Plant Manager
Massachusetts Refusetech
285 Holt Road
No. Andover, MA 01845
RE: INTERIM STRUCTURAL REPORT
FIRE DAMAGE TO HANDLING BUILDING
(DE1 Project No. D0345)
Dear Scott:
To expedite the reconstruction process we are sending you this preliminary report and a revised
copy of Daigle Engineers Drawing S-2 depicting structural bracing repairs.
On Friday August 25, and Saturday August 26 we performed a visual review of the structural steel
framework at the handling building. Daigle Engineer's was assisted with this review by Donald
Dusenberry of Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, as well as Bob Vescovi of Wheelabrator APC.
Our visual review was performed with the aid of boom lifts located on the tipping floor and on
each end of the crane deck. We were able to utilize one of the overhead bridge cranes as a work
platform to review suspect areas of the roof framing and upper level bracing at the handling
building. Utilizing safety harnesses we walked each crane rail to visually assess the condition of
the rails, runway girders, girder seats and superstructure bracing along lines "E" and "H". We
also performed a visual review of the W36 steel columns and frame work behind the deflector
plates along line "E". Since the steel along line "H" is common to both the handling building and
boiler buildings, we also performed a walk through review of the boiler building framing directly
adjacent to line "H".
Our review did not discover any distortion to the major structural steel eleffents of the building as
a result of direct exposure to flame or high temperatures. Distortion that was observed was pri-
marily limited to the steel "X -bracing" and inverted "V bracing" along line "E". The central "X -
bracing" over the crane pulpit, and one inverted "V -brace" member (behind the north hopper)
along line "H" were also slightly distorted. It is our professional opinion that the bracing distor-
tion occurred as a result of thermal expansion of the building's structural steel framing.
Daigle Engineers, Inc.
I East River Place
Methuen, MA 01844-3818
9786821748
978 682 6421 fax
www.,daigiepe.com
Over 20 Years in Business - Est. 1979
DEI * 8/30/00 + 4 50 PM * * D0345L00083O.doc * Page I of 3
Z.)
W
I
17aliLgli
Page 2 of 3
August 30, 2000
Interim Structural Report
Scott Emerson
We recommend the bracing along line "E" be replaced as depicted on the attached DEI drawing S-
2, dated 8/29/00. As this bracing is critical to the stability of the building, the repairs along this
line must be completed prior to resuming operations. The bottom of the deflector plates along
Line "E" will also need to be re -attached. It is our opinion that the bracing repairs along line "H"
are not critical to normal operations and therefore it is not crucial that this bracing be repaired
prior to restarting the plant operations. Bracing contained in the north and south walls (lines 1
and 9 respectively) did not show any signs of distress.
As a result of direct exposure of selected area so . f the steel framing to fire and elevated tempera-
tures, we have removed six 7/8" diameter A-325 bolts and sent them out for metallurgical testing.
Bolts which were removed from these areas were replaced in kind so as not to jeopardize the per-
formance of the structure. We do not suspect the temperatures reached a level that would have
affected the metallurgical properties of the bolts, however, we believe the testing is a prudent step
toward confirming the structural adequacy of the connections. Hopefully testing on the bolts will
be completed by Friday, September 1, 2000. We also visually inspected selected welds at connec-
tions in the high heat zones and did not discover damage to the connections. Should the bolt
testing produce unfavorable results, we will have to review the hottest areas to determine which
bolts need to be replaced and also if additional metallurgical testing is necessary for the structural
steel members.
As requested, we performed a brief review of the northern overhead crane bridge girders and have
made some recommendations with respect to the re -certification of the bridge crane by "Whiting",
the bridge crane manufacturer. We did not review the southern bridge crane as this was not ex-
posed to direct flames nor the high temperatures to which the northern crane was exposed.
Please note that the final review of the bridge cranes is beyond the level of DEI's expertise and
should be performed by the crane manufacturer. We can assist with coordinating metallurgical
testing if Whiting should determine it to be necessary.
In summary, it does not appear the major structural elements of the building's steel frame have
been seriously affected by the recent fire. Bracing repairs along line "E" and positive results of the
bolt testing should be considered minimum structural requirements to resume operations at the
facility. Overhead bridge crane re -certification will need to be performed by Whiting. Other non-
critical structural damage such as replacement of several damaged hor�z_ontal braces, roof bar
joists, wind girts, decking, siding etc., will need to be done as soon as practical (prior to snow or
high wind loads). Various other issues concerning general maintenance, as well as general obser-
vations, will be covered in our final report which we anticipate completing early next week. As we
understand we will be kept informed of the status of the bracing repairs so we can visit the site to
verify the work is proceeding in conjunction with the repair documents.
DE1 * 8/30/00 * 4 50 PM * * D0345L000830.doc * Page 2 of 3
1 alki
!�2
Page 3 of 3
August 30, 2000
Interim Structural Report
Scott Emerson
We hope this report addresses your needs at this time. If you have any questions please do not
hesitate to call.
Very truly, OF 4,
JONATHA
DAIGLE ENGINEERS INC. M.
LONGCHAMP
STRUCTURAL c -n'
No.35867
T1
Jonathan M. Longchamp, M.S., P.E. (ext. 17)
Vice President/Lead Structural Engineer
jlongchamp@daiglepe.com
encl.: Reduced size DEI drawing S-2 (dated 08/29/00) - Bracing Repairs on Line "E"
JML/keo
DEI * 8/30/00 * 4:50 PM * * D0345L000830.doc 4 Page 3 of 3
rai�g!
August 24, 200.Q
Scott Emerson
Plant Manager
Massachusetts Refusetech
285 Holt Road
No. Andover, MA 01845
RE: PRELIMINARY STRUCUTRAL ASSESMENT
FIRE DAMAGE TO HANDLING BUIDLING
(DE1 Project No. D0345)
Dear Scott:
As requested we have completed our preliminary structural assessment of the damage to the han-
dling building at your North Andover Facility. The structural damage reviewed was a result of a
fire in the refuse stock piles contained within this structure. The fire occurred during the early
morning hours of August 22, 2000.
As you know we visited the site on Wednesday August 23, 2000 to review the general extent to
which the steel framework of the building structure was affected by the fire. Due to poor visibility,
and lack of direct access to review the affected areas it was agreed we would return the following
day to better access the situation and formulate a strategy for performing a more complete struc-
tural evaluation.
On Thursday August 24, we performed a secondary walk through evaluation of the steel super-
structure of the handling building. We were assisted with this walk through survey by Donald
Dusenbury of Simpson, Gumpertz & Heger Consulting Engineers, as well as Bob Vescovi a
Structural Engineer with Wheelabrator APC of Pittsburgh Pennsylvania. The general consensus
amongst Daigle Engineers and the other parties is that there is no immediate danger of collapse of
the super structure as it currently exists.
Based upon the information available to us at this time it is our professional opinion that entry to
the structure by qualified personnel for the purpose of repairs can be considered safe. We do not
consider the super -structure to be vulnerable to failure under ordinary everyday environmental
loads which would be expected at this time of year.
Daigle Engineers, Inc.
I East River Place
Methuen, MA 0 1844-3818
978682 1748
978 682 6421 fax
www.daiglepe.com
Over 20 Years in Business - Est. 1979
DEI + 8/24iOO * 4 58 PM * + d03451000824.doe + Page I of2
ITaliLgo!
Page 2 of 2
August 24, 2000
Preliminary Structural Assessment
Scott Emerson
Our evaluation will continue from this point with the assistance of the above mentioned individu-
als to further assess the damage and specify any repairs which may be necessary prior to the re-
start of plant operations. Our evaluation will follow the guidelines set forth by the National Fire
Protection Agency (NFPA) and the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) with respect to
structural steel framing which has been exposed to fire and elevated temperatures. At this point
we envision repairs will include selected replacement of various steel braces, roof joists, roof deck,
wind girts and cladding.
Daigle Engineers will be the S.E.R. (Structural Engineer of Record) for the; reconstruction process.
We will be overseeing the evaluation and testing efforts and, ultimately, will provide documents
defining which structural elements are to be repaired or replaced, essentially rebuilding the
structure in kind.
We trust this will address your concerns at this time. Please feel free to call if you should have
any questions or concerns regarding this report.
Very truly,
DAIGLE ENGINEERS INC.
or
X)NATH N
c- LONG HAMP
STRUCTURAL
No.35867
onathan M. Lonngchamp, M.S., P.E. (ext. 17) 10
Vice President/Lead Structural Engineer
jlongchamp@daiglepe.com
JML/keo
6 - -Z+- 0c,
DEI 0 8/24/00 # 4*58 PM * 4 d03451000824.doc * Page 2 of 2
08-29-00 11:05 From- T-555 PAI/03 F-893
WAPC/WT
285A HOLT ROAD
NOP-TH ANDOVER, MA. 01845
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
TO. MOM
Jhwt-A RAY"%os%at
COMPANY; DATE -
FAX NUMBER. TOTAL NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVEIL
8 - 1751f 2 -
PHONE NUMBER. SENDER -S REFERENCE NUMBER:
RE- YOUR RF-FFJMNCE NUMBEP,
Assewme,t
ffuRGENT E3FOR, RF-111FW PLFASF COMMENT OP1.17A.SF REPLY PLEASE RECYCLE-
NOTES/COMMENTS:
A4AC4'.4 -'s copy of
A-",r.ssw,e*,4-
wk: cA, cosicivotcs
At 04-
cc Ila, ?.co v
,.s s4e
-6r MR r +o
okret
-6 on'tKe th a
4,
17 w: 11
cc -i4r. (+ Yov
vie4, W:-�h
rep";
VA., In �
bw',!51e-'s S4rvc--bv--Lt
4h4 th e4r- i's ;,"on eJ;Jt
+6#t,jt--%5 36s. - =+
6 we wgpriL� Aa co,%4ewc4jvt-s ;oi
m e cessgti-,v mt?4;ej 4v ee4yr- 1h c
A$ SVC-%- 4$ pos�s: 61c wke. i-,Ae
av% "I f*r
yo Y06�v- *;A�3 as 4o
.5 4AA
-the cleftA. foltowlbs
.5
C�t : S'opf E-"empA
285 HOLT ROAD
NORTH ANDON'CR ' MA 01845
(978) 557-8150
(978) 557-8140 FAX
08-29-00 11:05 From-
ra7igl
August 24, 2000
Scott Emerson
Plant Manager
Massachusetts Refusetech
285 Holt Road
No. Andover, MA 01845
RE: PRELMNARY STRUCUTRAL ASSESMENT
FIRE DAMAGE TO HANDLING BIJIDLJNG
(DE1 Project No. D0345)
Dear Scott:
T-555 P-02/03 F-893
As requested we have completed our prelitidnarY structural assessment of the damage to the han-
dling building at your North Andover Facility. The structural damage reviewed was a result of a
fire in the refuse stock piles contained within this structure. The fire occurred during the early
morning hours of August 22, 2000.
As you know we visited the site on Wednesday August 23, 2000 to review the general extent to
which the steel framework of the building structure was affected by the fire. Due to poor visibility,
and lack of direct access to review the affected areas it was agreed we would return the following
day to better access the situation and formulate a strategy for performing a more complete struc-
tural evaluation.
On Thursday August 24, we performed a secondary walk through evaluation of the steel super-
structure of the handling building. We were assisted with this walk through survey by Donald
Dusenbury of Simpson, Gumpertz & Heger Consulting Engineers, as well as Bob Vescovi a
Structural Engineer with Wheelabrator APC of Pittsburgh Pennsylvania- The general consensus
amongst Daigle Engineers and the other parties is that there is no immediate danger of collapse of
the super structure as it currently exists.
Based upon the information available to us at this time it is our professional opinion that entry to
the structure by qualified personnel for the purpose of repairs can be considered safe. We do not
consider the super -structure to be vulnerable to Mure under ordinary everyday environmental
loads which would be expected at this time of year.
Daigle Engineers, Inc.
I East RWer Ptace
Methuen. MA 01844-3818
978 68Z 1748
978 68Z 6421 fax
www.daigtepe.com
Over 20 Years in Business - EsL 2979
DE # 8124M 4 4:59?M 4, * dD3451WM4_&c * PaSt I of2
08-29-00 11:05 From-
�ra_il 'I
L
T-555 P.03/03 F-893
Page 2 of 2
August 24, 2000
Preliminary Structural Assessment
Scott Emerson
Our evaluation will continue from this point with the assistance of the above mentioned individu-
als to further assess the damage and specify any repairs which may be necessary prior to the re-
start of plant operations. Our evaluation will follow the guidelines set forth by the National Fire
Protection Agency (NFPA) and the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) with respect to
structural steel framing which has been exposed to fire and elevated temperatures. At this point
we envision repairs will include selected replacement of various steel braces, roof joists, roof deck,
wind girts and cladding.
Daigle Engineers will be the S.E.R_ (Structural Engineer of Record) for the reconstruction process.
We will be overseeing the evaluation and testing efforts and, ultimately, will provide documents
defining which structural elements are to be repaired or replaced, essentially rebuilding the
structure in kind.
We trust this will address your concerns at this time. Please feel free to call if you should have
any questions or concerns regarding this report.
Very truly,
DAIGLE ENGINEERS INC.
onathan M. Longchamp, M.S., P.E. (ext. 17)
Vice President/Lead Structural Engineer
j1ongchanW&aig1epe.com
JML/keo
ONATHAN
W
tONGCVAMP
MUCTURAL
No35867
1�1' 10
1, �/ S T tV�_�
�6. ?,+. 00
DEI * 9174(00 * 4:59 PM * # 603451000924.doc * Pue 2 of2
MASSACHUSETTS REFUSETECH, INC.
A WASTE MANAGEMENT COMPANY
CT8'5 -H61t Road .— - -:�
North Andover,I�IA 01845
(978) 688-9011
(978) 794-8058 Fax
January 9, 2001.
Town of North Andovl-.r
Board of Health
27 Charles Strcef
Ndrth'AndoVeE MA 1&1845,
Dear Sir/Madam.:
Enclosed are the tonnage receipts at Massachusetts REFUSETECH Ine.c(MRI)--for the calendar
month.of December, 2000.
1. certify under penalt'% of law that this document and all'attachments, were prepared undei- my
direction or su-ervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that. qualified personnel
properly gathf�r and evaluate!tjle �iiifo3:i-p�aLlo),i�,qu"b�i-F.ittpii:I 'Basoel on'iTr,,;:i4quiry of the person or
persons who .-�t:nago 1he syst.�,.m, or !hose persons. directly respo-n-sible for gathering
intormation, the inform ation sc.Hinitted is to thc�:best of nry 'R---qowledgl..: and belief true., accurate
and complete.
If vou should have any questions. please contact, me at 978/688-9011.
Very truly yours,
14
Plant Controller
cc: file
4.1.14
p
nj!!,.1y\no. and WordPerfect subj/geni
4
Apt 11
[c],
ft A
SUMMARY OF TOTAL REFUSE RECEIVED
Date
Total
Contract
Communities
P -H
Contract
Guaranteed
P -H
Spot
Private
Hauler
Subtotal
Grand
Total
19 -Nov
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
20 -Nov
862.42
292.71
524.86
817.57
1,679.99
21 -Nov
867.62
286.36
595.09
881.45
1,749.07
22 -Nov
870.70
25&�96
513.45
772.41
1,643.11
23 -Nov
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
24 -Nov
916.69
321.91
546.73
868.64
1,785.33
25 -Nov
736.18
266.05
372.55
638.60
1,374.78
26 -Nov
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
27 -Nov
842.32
364.57
558.28
922.85
1,765.17
28 -Nov
901.97
356.71
519.81
876.52
1,778.49
29 -Nov
787.01
431.53
451.62
883.15
1,670.16
30 -Nov
822.82
300.32
546.94
847.26
1,670.08
01 -Dec
682.89
395.72
566.77
962.49
1,645.38
02 -Dec
145.36
74.03
0.22
74.25
219.61
03 -Dec
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
04 -Dec
661.31
345.34
571.37
916.71
1,578.02
05 -Dec
895.65
348.24
492.97
841.21
1,736.86
06 -Dec
753.80
345'.78
513.80
859.58
1,613.38
07 -Dec
755.81
38 5.70
423.99
809.69
1,565.50
08 -Dec
707.30
273.42
545.31
818.73
1,526.03
09 -Dec
125.28
114.75
3.43
118.18
243.46
1 O -Dec
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11 -Dec
662.99
360.82
521.34
882.16
1,545.15
12 -Dec
790.94
328.71
553.32
882.03
1,672.97
13 -Dec
791.98
458.87
462.90
921.77
1,713.75
14 -Dec
472.55
481.98
449.58
931.56
1,404.11
15 -Dec
440.72
421.16
326.19
747.35
1,188.07
16 -Dec
111.50
47.83
0.56
48.39
159.89
17 -Dec
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
18 -Dec
744.74
615.24
496.50
1,111.74
1,856.48
19 -Dec
853.97
506.67
524.71
1,031.38
1,885.35
20 -Dec
672.77
494.41
470.63
965.04
1,637.81
21 -Dec
772.11
576.26
479.27
1,055.53
1,827.64
22 -Dec
711.66
480.39
558.80
1,039.19
1,750.85
23 -Dec
104.08
96.03
13.85
109.88
213.96
24 -Dec
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
25 -Dec
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
26 -Dec
610.70
493.90
406.91
900.81
1,511.51
27 -Dec
842.02
511.47
378.49
889.96
1,731.98
28 -Dec
853.43
536.25
362.33
898.58
1,752.01
29 -Dec
829.11
648.20
538.67
1,186.87
2,015.98
30 -Dec
667.08
426.45
458.62
885.07
1,552.15
31 -Dec
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
WEEK #1
4253.61
1425.99
2552.68
3978.67
8232.28
WEEK #2
4182.37
1922.88
2643.64
4566.52
8748.89
WEEK#3
3899.15
1813.23
2550.87
4364.10
8263.25
WEEK#4
3270.68
2099.37
2313.89
4413.26
7683.94
WEEK#5
3859.33
2769.00
2543.76
5312.76
9172.09
ALENDAR
15,659.75
9,767.62
10,120.53
19,888.15
35,547.90
MONTH
!raigi
61 -
May 19, 1999
Robert Nicetta
Inspector of Buildings
Town of No. Andover, MA
Town Hall - 120 Main Street
No. Andover, MA 0 1845
RE: STRUCTURAL PEER REVIEW
MASSACHUSETTS REFUSETECH, INC
APC RETROFIT PROJECT
HOLT ROAD - NO. ANDOVER, MA
(DEI Project No. DOO 15 )
Dear Mr. Nicetta:
Our firm has been retained by Wheelabrator Air Pollution Control Incorporated (WAPC) to conduct
an independent structural engineer review of various portions of the proposed structural work as-
sociated with the referenced project.
The objective, of this review. being to determine if the structural plans and specifications for the
noted portions of the referenced project, are in compliance with Structural Code requirements,
following the guidelines established in " Section 110. 11 and Appendix I " of the Massachusetts
State Building Code, 780 CMR, Sixth Edition. This objective is limited in that it is to be only to
the extent necessary to render an opinion regarding the stability and integrity of the primary
structural system of the building. At no time shall it be construed that our office (Daigle Engi-
neers, Inc.), the Structural Engineer Project Peer Reviewer, through this peer review, is supplant-
ing, or joining with, the S.E.R. (structural engineer of record) in his or her professional responsi-
bility for the design of the Structural System.
Phase I of the work, for which this report is applicable, consists of.
1) The Ash Storage Building superstructure and foundations.
2) The Spray Dryer Absorber foundations.
3) The Fabric Filter foundations.
4) Conveyor Gallery structure and foundations.
The structural work in Phase I is as defined by WAPC's request for proposal specification #
0501/00, dated March 9, 1999.
RECEIVED
Daigle Engineers, Inc.
I East River Place JUN 0 7 1999
Methuen, MA 0 1844-3818
978 682 1748 BUILDING DEPT.
978 682 6421 fax
www.daiglepe.com
DEI * 5/19/99 4:15 PM DOO I 5L990519. doe * Page I of 3
ra7i
Page 2 of 3
May 19, 1999
Structural Peer Review
Robert Nicetta
Phase 11 of the work, which is not covered under the scope of this report, includes review of:
1) The Lime Silo foundations.
2) The SNCR tank foundations.
3) The Contact Water Storage Tank foundation.
4) The pacts tank foundation.
5) MCC building foundation.
6) Fly ash conveyor support foundation.
7) Duct support foundations.
Review of the structural design for Phase II is scheduled for a later date.
For our Phase I review, the owner provided i us with contract drawings depicting the proposed
work, and corresponding structural sections of the specifications. The Structural Engineer of Re-
cord (SER) Eugene H. Gales, P.E., of S/D Engineers, Inc., prepared said documents. A copy of the
geotechnical report prepared by Haley and Aldrich, and the SER's calculations for specific ele-
ments were also submitted.
As stipulated in " Appendix I " of 780 CMR, our office performed the following tasks:
• Checked to assure that the design loads are in conformance with the requirements of
the Massachusetts State Building Code, 780 CMR - Sixth Edition.
• Checked that the design criteria and assumptions conform to 780 CMR, and are in
general compliance with accepted engineering practice.
• Reviewed the Geotechnical report for verification that the design properly incorporates
its results and recommendations.
• Checked that the organization of the structure is conceptually correct and that the load
paths are adequate to deliver forces from the building frame through the foundations
and into the supporting sub grade.
• Performed independent calculations for a representative fraction of the systems, mem-
bers and details, adequate to form a basis for our conclusions.
During the course of our review, we exchanged correspondence with, and conferred directly by
phone with Mr. Gales, the SER, to request clarifications and discuss issues of concern. All such
issues of concern have been resolved to our satisfaction and we have been informed the final con-
struction will incorporate the necessary adjustments.
It is our professional opinion that the design loads and design assumptions used for the design of
this project conform to the requirements of the Massachusetts State Building Code, 780 CMR,
and are in accordance with accepted engineering practice.
We further state that there are no unresolved disputes between the structural engineer of record
Eugene H. Gales, P.E. - S/D Engineers, Inc.) and the independent structural reviewing engineer
(Daigle Engineers, Inc).
DEI * 5/19/99 # 4:15 PM * * D0015L990519.doc 4 Page 2 of 3
W
lTajiLg!
Page 3 of 3
May 19, 1999
Structural Peer Review
Robert Nicetta
We trust that this will satisfy the needs of your office. Please call if you have any questions or
concerns.
Very truly,
DAIGLE ENGINEERS INC
Johathan M. Longchamp, M.S.P.E.
Vice President/ Structural Engineer
x/c: Bill Pifer - Wheelabrator Air Pollution Control Inc.
Gene Gales, P.E. - S/D Engineers, Inc.
JML/keo
JONATHAN
C"
M.
�ONGCHAMP
k M
fATRUCTURAL
LoNo. 35867
- GIS
GISTS -I&
mi;IA&M
DEI * 5/19/99 * 4:15 PM * * D0015L990519.doc * Page 3 of 3
21 Mffieelabrator Air Pollution Control
A&A A WMX Technologies Company Phone 412 562 7300
441 Smithfield Street Fax 4125627254
Pittsburgh, PA 222
FROM:
(WILLIAM A. FIYEKr_/
REFERENCE: MASSACHUSETTS REFUSETECH, INC.
MASSACHUSETTS REFUSETECH, INC. RR
APC RETROFIT PROJECT
WAPC CONTRACT NO. 06-3830-001
DATE: June 3,1999 PAGE I
TRANSMITTAL NO.: 22
TO: e�m M017E, WAP ' C,
C/O NORTH ANDOVER RESCO
285 HOLT ROAD
NORTH ANDOVER, MA 0 1845
Attention: JIM MOTTE
TYPE CODE
Original. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
Photocopy . . . . . . . . . . . . . PC
COPIES TO
TYPE CODE
COPIES TO
TYPE CODE
W. PIFER
R
ELEV. AND DETAILS
P 09-24-AO04
Diskette . . . . . . . . . . . . . E
J. MCKELVY
S/D ENGINEERS - ASH STORAGE BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL
Print . . . . . . . . . . . . . P
ENGR. SVCS. FILE
0
0
RFI
Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . R
ELEV. AND SECTS.
Transparencies . . . . . . . . . . . . T
0
RFI
S/D ENGINEERS - ASH HOUSE AND BOILER BLDG. MODIFICATIONS
P 09-24-AOIO
Transmittal. Letter OnLy . ... . . . .
RF1
S/D ENGINEERS - DOOR, HARDWARE & FINISH ARCHITECTURAL
STATUS CODE
SCHEDULES
P 09-25-EO19
0
RFI
Released For Information . . . . . . . RFI
P 09-25-EO20
0
RFI
S/D ENGINEERS - GROUNDING DETAILS
ReLeased For Review and Comment . . . . RFR
0
RFI
S/D ENGINEERS - ASH HANDLING AREA AND STACKING CONVEYOR
Released for Approval. . . . . . . . . RFA
LIGHTING PLAN
P 09-27-MOO5
I
Released as Final. RAF
S/D ENGINEERS - ASH HANDLING AREA PHASE 2 PLAN
P 09-27-MOO6
I
RFI
Released for DetaiLing . . . . . . . . RDL
P 09-28-P200
0
RFI
S/D ENGINEERS - ASH CONDITIONING BUILDING - UNDERGROUND
Released for Design . . . . . . . . . . RFD
PIPING - RELOCATION ARRANGEMENT
P 09-28-P201
ReLeased for Bid . . . . . . . . . . . RFB
RFI
S/D ENGINEERS - APC AREA - UNDERGROUND PIPING - RELOCATION
ReLeased for Fabrication . . . . . . . RFF
ARRANGEMENT - SHT. I OF 2
P 09-28-P202
0
RFI
ReLeased for Construction . . . . . . . RFC
Certified for Construction . . . . . . CFC
Approved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APP
Approved as Noted . . . . . . . . . . . AAN
Not Approved . . . . . . . . . . . . . NAP
MMARKS: Jim Motte, drawings are re-released for permit application.
THE FOLLOWING DRAWING(S) ARE TRANSMITTED FOR THE PURPOSE(S) AS INDICATED IN THE STATUS COLUMN.
I TYPE I IDENTIFICATION IREVISTATUSI DESCRIPTION
P 09-24-AO03
0
RFI
S/D ENGINEERS - ASH STORAGE BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL PLAN,
ELEV. AND DETAILS
P 09-24-AO04
0
RFI
S/D ENGINEERS - ASH STORAGE BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL
ELEVATIONS
P 09-24-AO06
0
RFI
S/D ENGINEERS - ASH CONVEYOR ENCLOSURE STRUCTURAL PLAN,
ELEV. AND SECTS.
P 09-24-AO08
0
RFI
S/D ENGINEERS - ASH HOUSE AND BOILER BLDG. MODIFICATIONS
P 09-24-AOIO
0
RF1
S/D ENGINEERS - DOOR, HARDWARE & FINISH ARCHITECTURAL
SCHEDULES
P 09-25-EO19
0
RFI
S/D ENGINEERS - GROUNDING PLAN
P 09-25-EO20
0
RFI
S/D ENGINEERS - GROUNDING DETAILS
P 09-25-EO34
0
RFI
S/D ENGINEERS - ASH HANDLING AREA AND STACKING CONVEYOR
LIGHTING PLAN
P 09-27-MOO5
I
RFI
S/D ENGINEERS - ASH HANDLING AREA PHASE 2 PLAN
P 09-27-MOO6
I
RFI
S/D ENGINEERS - ASH HANDLING AREA PHASE 2 SECTION
P 09-28-P200
0
RFI
S/D ENGINEERS - ASH CONDITIONING BUILDING - UNDERGROUND
PIPING - RELOCATION ARRANGEMENT
P 09-28-P201
0
RFI
S/D ENGINEERS - APC AREA - UNDERGROUND PIPING - RELOCATION
ARRANGEMENT - SHT. I OF 2
P 09-28-P202
0
RFI
S/D ENGINEERS - APC AREA - UNDERGROUND PIPING - RELOCATION
Wheelabrator Air Pollution Control
///2L A WMX Technologies Company Phone 412 562 7300
441 Smithfield Street Fax 4125627254
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
FROM:
(WILLIAM A. PIFER)
REFERENCE: MASSACHUSETTS REFUSETECH, INC.
MASSACHUSETTS REFUSETECH, INC. RR
APC RETROFIT PROJECT
WAPC CONTRACT NO. 06-3 830-001
DATE: June 3,1999
TRANSMITTAL NO.: 22
TO: JIM MOTTE, WAPC
c/AbRTH ANDOVER REsco
285 HOLT ROAD
NORTH ANDOVER, MA 01845
Attention: JIM MOTTE
PAGE 2
P
09-29-SO03
0
RFI
AFMANUEMEN I - bti 1. Z U11 2
S/D ENGINEERS - ASH CONVEYOR ENCLOSURE - FOUNDATIONS &
TRENCH PLAN, SECTIONS & DETAILS
P
09-29-SO04
0
RFI
S/D ENGINEERS - SDA & FABRIC FILTER - FOUNDAT10N PLAN
P
09-29-SO05
0
RFI
S/D ENGINEERS - SDA & FABRIC FILTER - PIER DETAILS
P
09-29-SO06
0
RFI
S/D ENGINEERS - SDA & FABRIC FILTER - GROUND FLOOR SLAB PLAN
P
09-29-SO09
0
RFI
S/D ENGINEERS - ASH CONVEYOR ENCLOSURE DRAIN PIT - PLAN,
SECTIONS & DETAILS
P
09-29-SO14
0
RFI
S/D ENGINEERS - ASH STORAGE BUILDING AND TRUCK AISLE -
FOUNDATIONS PLAN & SECTS.
P
09-29-SO15
0
RFI
S/D ENGINEERS - ASH STORAGE BUILDING AND TRUCK AISLE -
FOUNDATIONS SLAB PLAN & SECTS.
P
09-29-SO35
0
RFI
S/D ENGINEERS - DEMOLITION
P
09-29-SO37
0
RFI
S/D ENGINEERS - SDA & FABRIC FILTER PIER DETAILS
I
SID Engineers, h7c.
355 Fifth Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
DOCUMENT TRANSAUTTAL
From: R. W. Bock (412.562.7525)
Date: 5119/99 Transmittal No: 110
To: Wbeelabrator Air Pollution Contro4 Inc.
441 Smithfield Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
[ Attn: Bill Pifer
Massachusetts Refusetech, Inc. - APC RetrOflt
Ref.
S/D Engineers Contract No.; 01-0069-00
The following documents are tlwismitted for the purpose indicated in the status column:
em
It*
- Type
Identift2tiOn
Re -
Sta tus
1
10, 2P,
09-24-AO03
0
RFC
Ash Storage Building – Architectural – Plan,
IH
Elev., & Details
2
10, Vg�
09-24-AO04
0
RFC
Ash Storage Building – Architectural –
IH
Elev o
3
10, 2P,
09-24-AO06
0
R]FC
Ash Conveyor Enclosure – Architectural –
IH
plan, Elev., & Sections
4
10, 2P,
09-24-AOOS
0
RFC
Ash House and Boiler Building –
IH
Architectural – Modifications
5
10, 2P,
09-24-AOIO
0
RFC
Door, Hardware, & Finish – Architectural –
IH
Schedules
6
10, 2P,
09-25-EO19
.0
RFC
Grounding Plan
IH
7
10, 2P,
09-25-EO20
0
RFC
Grounding Details
IH
8
10, 2P,
09-25-EO34
0
RFC
Ash Handling Area and Stacking Conv.
IH
Lighting Plan
9
10, 2P,
.09-27-MOO5
I
RFD
Ash Handling Area – Phase 2 – Plan
IH
10
10, 2P,
09-27-MOO6
I
RFD
Ash Handling Area – Phase 2 – Section
I H
11
10, 2P,
09-28-P200
0
RFC
Ash House – Underground Piping -
IH
Relocation Arrangement
12
10, 2P,
09-28-P201
0
RFC
Apc Area – Underground Piping –
IH
Relocation Arrangement Sheet I
13
10, 2P,
09-28-P202
0
RFC
ApC Area – Underground Piping –
1H
Relocation An-angement Sheet 2
14
10, 2P,
09-29-SO03
0
RFC
Ash Conveyor Enclosure – Foundations &
1H
Trencli – Plan, Sections, & Details
15
10, 2P,
09-29-SO04
0
RFC
SDA & Fabric Filter – Foundation Plan
I H
16 1
10, 2P,
09-29-SO05
0
RFC
SDA & Fabric Filter – Pier Details
IH
a—
TYPE CODE STATUS CODE
ITEM
TYPE
MPE
IH
11. Kac=rmrck, I
Original.-..--.--- . .-....0 For lnfonmtion..--.--...--.R 1. Emerson, S.
For Review and Comment.....–JM 2. Raymond, D.
IH
12. Smay. R.
Transrnittal Only ........... X Preliminary ......................... P 3. Brown, G.
1H
13. Bock, R.
x
Released for Approval ............ RFA 4. Chamey, S.
P -Partial
14. Dept. File
Diskette ....................... D Released for Bid ..... . . ---....-..RFB 5. Gales, E.
P-Pardal
15. Flat File
I?
I I X 17 Reduction ........ H Released for Construction .. . ..... RFC 6. Jhaveri, Y.
P-Pardal
16. Project File
IH
Reproducible ............... R Released for Purchase ............ RFP 7. Moffit. J.
P-Pardal
17. Trans. File
x
Proceed ............ PRO 8. Swaney, F.
Is.
Proceed as PAN 9.Thomas, I
P-Parta.1
19.
Correct & Resubmit ............. CRS 10. Walcott. T.
20.
SID E17gl[ILY&S. 117r.
355 Fifth Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
DOCUMENT TRANSAIMAL
From: IL W. Bock (412.562.7525)
A
S/DEngineersContr2d NO.: 01-0069-00
" #V;� , i —4,
-T
Date: 5/19/99 7ra�ft2l NO: 110
To: Wheelabrator Air Pollution Control, Inc.
441 Smithfield Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Attn: Bill Pifer
Ref.- Massachusetts Refusetech, Inc. - APC Retrofit
Prniart
17
10, 2P,
IH
59--29-SO06
0
RFC
SDA & Fabric Filter — Ground Floor Slab
plan
18
10, 2P,
'09-5-S009
0
RFC
Ash Conveyor Enclosure — Drain Pit — Plan.,
Sections, & Details
19
I
10, 2P,
IH
09-29-SO14
0
RFC
Ash Storage Building and Track Aisle —
Foundation Plan & Sections
20
10, 2P,
III
09-29-SO15
0
RFC
Ash Storage Building and Track Aisle —
Foundations Slab Plan & Sections
21
10, 2P,
III
09-29-SO35
0
RFC
Demolition
22
10, 2P,
I H
09-29-SO37
0
RFC
SDA & Fabric Filter — Pier Details
9. Thornas, I
P -Partial
19.
10. Walcott, T.
20.
IREMARKS:
These drawings are issued for permit application purposes only.
print sent to W. Pifer c/o L Motte at site.
Cornment.—FR,
.................. P
............ ITA
—.—.—.-.--RFB
truction...--RFC
hase ............ RFP
PRO
Proceed as Noted. .................. PAN
Correct & Resubrnit ............. CRS
Note: Original plus one
J TYPE CODE
raw
TYPE
1. Ernerson, S.
Original ....... . . . ....
For Inforrnation..
Co . ........
For Review and
Transmittal Only
.......... X
Prelirninary .......
Print ...........................
P
Released for Appi
Diskette .......................
D
Released for Bid..
I I X 17 Reduction ........ H
Released for Cons
Reproducible ................
R
Released for Purc
1p
6. Jhaveri, Y.
Proceed ............
Cornment.—FR,
.................. P
............ ITA
—.—.—.-.--RFB
truction...--RFC
hase ............ RFP
PRO
Proceed as Noted. .................. PAN
Correct & Resubrnit ............. CRS
n7m
TYPE
raw
TYPE
1. Ernerson, S.
IH
11. Ka=narek, I
Z Raymond, D.
IH
IZ Stnay, R.
3. Brown, G.
IH
13. Bock, R.
x
4. Charney, S.
P -Partial
14. Dept File
5. Gales, F.
P-P2rtial
15. Flat File
1p
6. Jhaveri, Y.
P -Partial
16. Project File
IH
7. Moffit. J.
P -Partial
17. Trans. File
x
8. Swaney, F.
Is.
9. Thornas, I
P -Partial
19.
10. Walcott, T.
20.
MAP
Town -GL,
PARCEL
1%1�0f L 1, C,- -tU CN NORTH ANDOVER.
u BUILDING PERMIT INSPECTION- REPORT
PERMIT NO.: PROJECT: 12cl&4VINSPECTION DATE:
UNIT NO,: FLOOR: WING: -1 B - UILDI - N . G NO.:
REMARKS:
lig ee
/ x -0sr -�
e-1 Al
�-Zl-ti
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
LOCAL APPROVAL DECISIONS
FORTHE
MASSACHUSETTS REFUSETECH INC.
EMISSIONS CONTROL PROJECT
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
. BOARD OF HEALTH
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
PLANNING BOARD
SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS
FEBRUARY 10, 1999
ATITST:
A True Copy
BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION
-n r%
17 4 .1
RE C E tV EO,
JOYCE BRADSHAW
TOWN CLERK
NORTH ANDOYER
Massachusetts REFUSETECH, Inc.
285 Holt Road DECISION
North Andover, MA 0 1845 Petition 9Qi-22
S:-Tsedirom dale cl'dec�L!on :Izj
T �
4hijut N-4 I g of
I n
an
Ima
TOM clefk
The Board of Appeals held a public hearing on Tuesday evening May 19, 1998, i and con tinued
that public hearing to June 9, 1998, and to July 14, 1998,. to consider the application of
Massachusetts REFUSETECH, Inc. requesting, with respect to premises at 285 Holt Road, North
Andover, the following zoning relief- (1) a VARIANCE from Section 7.4 of the Zoning Bylaw to.
allow the height limitations of the Zoning Bylaw to be exceeded; (2) a MINOR
MODIFICATION OF A VARIANCE issued on April 13, 1982, from Section 7.4 of the Zoning
Bylaw to confirm that the existing boUer building at 285 Hold Road falls within the terms of that
variance; and (3) a DETERMI NATION under Section 8.1.5 of the Zoning Bylaw that the
proposed number of off-street parking spaces at 285 Holt Road is adequate. The following
members were present throughout the publ.ic hearing, and voted on the requested zoning relief -
Chairman William Sullivan, Vice-Chaitman %1terSoule, Robert Ford, Ellen McIntyre, and
George Early. Notice of the public hearing vAs advertised in the North Andover Citizen on April
28 and May 5, 1998, posted, and mai.led to parties in interest as required by G. L. c. 40A, § 11.
Upon duly made and seconded motions, Board voted unanimously to GRANT the application for
the reasons set forth below.
FINDINGS
I Massachusetts REFUSETECH, Inc. ("MRI") owns and operates an existing resource
recovery facility located at 295 Holt Road in North Andover (the "facility").
The facility operates within the framework of 20 -year service agreements between MRI
and 23 communities, including North Andover, that are members of the North East
Solid Waste Committee ("NF -SWC"). The service agreements ensure that the facility
meets the municipal solid waste disposal needs of the NESWC communities. The
facility also serves private waste haulers on a contract basis.
3. The facility was constructed in the early 1980s. As part of the construction planning
process, MRJ sought a variance so that the tall boilers required for a resource recovery
facility could be enclosed by a boiler building. The Board issued a variance- on April
13, 1982. allowing the facility to be constructed to approximately 1021 fee,, above the
abovi� gra��,�; i;;,u-, vallarict"). t --'Is
oor (eq U1 VL-"' '�o .' 1 .5 f el -t
bu;'t. the height of the exis6ng boile,- building is 106.5 ifeet above the elevation of the
M14 0/9/0
INI III U 2 '_QP 0 rr, N Q : 0 6
rrt
X
co
5!Z
I= , x PN P A-. 7 q
di_
RECC' iYED
JOYCE BRADSHAW
'J
TOWN CLERK
2 NORTH ANDOYER
tipping floor (equivalent to 122 feet above grade). The Bo�l 6 gdsl?hktOex'�Lance
does not implicate any of the interests protected by the Zoning Bylaw.
4. In addition, on June 2, 1982 the Board granted a second variance from the height
requirements of the Zoning Bylaw to allow construction of the existing stack at the
facility to a height of 230 feet.
5. Federal and state requirements adopted pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 require that additional air emissions control equipment be
installed at the facility by no later than December 19, 2000.
6. The proposed project consists of the addition of advanced air emissions control
equipment and necessary appurtenant structures, including, among other things, spray
dryer absorbers ("SDA's") and lime storage silos. The project is shown on three
drawings submitted to the Board, entitled as follows: 1) "Plan to Accompany
Application for Zoning Variance," dated July 14, 1998 (Drawing No. 86458-001-003
Rev. 1; 2) Lime Preparation Retrofit, General Arrangement Elevation", dated April 16,
1998, (Drawing No. 86458-001-005); and 3) "Air Emissions Control System, Retrofit
General Arrag't Elevation," dated April 16, 1998 (Drawing No. 86458-001-004).
(These three plans shall hereafter be referred to as "the Plans.") '
7. As a result of design requirem ents, the SDA's must be 110 feet above grade, while the
lime storage silos must be 88 feet, 1.5 inches above grade. Under the Zoning Bylaw,
the maximum allowable height is 85 feet. However, the SDA's and lime storage silos
are at heights lower than the approved height of the existing facility and stack set forth
in the previously issued variances.
8. The existing facility is substantial and unique. It was designed, constructed, and
permitted for the sole purpose of serving as a resource recovery facility, the only such
facility in the 1-2 zoning district and the only such facility in the Town as a whole.
Unlike certain other industrial facilities, such as factories that can change assembly
lines or mill buildings that can be converted to offices or residences, there is no
reasonable use for MRI's facility except as a resource recovery facility.
9. The continued use of MRI's facility requires the installation of state-of-the-art
emissions control equipment adequate to meet the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's ("EPA") new technology-based emissions standards. EPA established the
new sulfur dioxide and hydrogen chloride limits based on the use of SDA's. SDA's
have been demonstrated in practice to be very efficient and reliable. No alternative
emissions control equipment that is as efficient and reliable as an SDA could be
installed at a height of less than 85 feet. The proposed height of the SDA's is based on
the flue gas residence time necessary to achieve compliance with the new emissions
limitations and reaction product drying time. The residence time is a function of and is
directly related to the height of the SDA. In addition, the height of the lime silos has
V = E 0
RECLI
JOYCE BRADSHAW
TOWN CLERK
3 NORTH ANDOVER
QQ
been minimized to the extent practicable by providing two one,-10size1?siio' . s 'Ii',�a th"6Y
than a single larger silo. The proposed height is required to provide the necessary lime
storage volume, vertical space requirements for the lime slaking equipment and storage
volume for the lime slurry Product.
10. Literal enforcement of the height limitation in this case would result in, substantial
hardship to MRI because without the timely installation of the proposed equipment, the
facility could not be put to its special purpose use.
11. The proposed emissions control equipment and associated lime storage. silos will be no
taller than the existing boiler building, and will merely be new components of a facility
that has been in existence for over 13 years. The new structures will not change the
character of the facility's industrial neighborhood from an aesthetic or any other
standpoint. The proposed equipment is bracketed by taller portions of ithe facility on
both sides, and will be barely be noticeable from any vantage point sur i rounding the
facility. Moreover, the sole purpose of the proposed emissions control! equipment and
associated silos is to reduce emissions of air pollutants, and the Massachusetts Secretary
of Environmental Affairs has already certified that "the project will have significant air
quality benefits." Certificate of the Secretary of Environmental Affairs on the
Environmental Notification Form at 2 (Mar. 13, 1998).
12. The facility's largest shift is currently 35 employees, which will increase to 36 as a
.1 .
result of the emissions control project. While the facility's current 52 parking spaces
(including two handicapped spaces) are adequate to meet the facility's parking needs,
MRI plans to increase the number of parking spaces to 56 (with three spaces designated
for handicapped use, including one van accessible handicapped space).
13. The off-street parking requirements in Section 8.1.2 of the Zoning Bylaw do not
address the parking needs of a resource recovery facility.
GRANT OF ZONING RELEEF
Based on the findings set forth above, the Board concludes that MRI has satisfied the
provisions of Section 10.4 of the Zoning Bylaw with respect to the request for a variance.
Specifically, the Board determines that:
(1) there are unique circumstances relating to the structures on this site that are not
present generally within the zoning district in which the land is located;
(2) because of those unique circumstances, a literal enforcement of the provisions of
the Zoning Bylaw would cause substantial hardship, financial and otherwise, to
the petitioner by preventing the installation of the emissions control equipment
required by law and thereby preventing lawful use of the existing, substantial,
P. 9 - - - e:% :.4
Cq-z 7 =I
RECENED
JOYCE BRADSHAW
TOWN CLERK
4 NORTH.ANDOYER
special purpose buildings and equipment which comprik19 re&�4t�ecllry
facilities;
(3) desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good
and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of
the Zoning Bylaw which allows resource recovery facilities as a matter of right
in this zoning district; '
(4) the addition of new emissions control equipment will promote the public good
and satisfy the primary�purpose the Zoning Bylaw, namely, "�he promotion of
the health, safety.... and welfare of the inhabitants of the Town -of Nor-th
Andover" (section 1) by ensuring that air emissions from the facility are lower
than the current emissions and are in compliance with federal and state laws
designed to protect the public health, safety, and the environment.
On the basis of these findings and conclusions, the Board grants the variance, subject to
conditions 1-8 below.
The Board further grants the requesied modification of the 1982 variance to allow for
the existing building to be 106.5 feet above the Upping floor, subject to condition 9 below.
Finally, the Board determines that th 'pro I osed increase in off-street parking spaces
� P
from 52 tb 56 will be adequate to accommo&te the parking needs generated by the facility.
CONDITIONS TO GRANT OF RELIEF
1. Within seven days from the date of this decision, NIRI shall revise the Plans to
show the height of the buildings and structures from a) ground level; and b) mean sea level.
2. NMI or any transferee of this variance shall comply at all times with all applicable
federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and/or permit conditions.
3. This variance shall not be con�trued as authorizing an increase in the capacity of
the plant beyond the currently permitted capacity.
4. Th�is variance shall not be construed to either explicitly or implicitly authorize the
construction of any building or structure other than those buildings or structures specifically
shown on the Plans.
5. The construction of the project shall be in full compliance with Phase I, Phase II,
and Phase IH documents referenced in a letter dated July 2, 1998 from David Spencer to Steven J.
Comen and Michael T. Gass, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, as they may
be amended by David Spencer or his successon
REOUVEC
�Oyi3E BRADS'O*
TOWs CLERK
5 14011TH �HOOVER
17 .-1 -n -11 P^
J j. j.. i 1 1.3
6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, final desil� n' �Pans lslalll be submitted to
the Building Commissioner for determination as to whether the plans are in conformance with this
decision.
7. The Plans as revised pursuant to Condition I shall be recorded in the Essex North
Registry of Deeds at the time that this Variance Decision is recorded.
8. If NEU or any transferee requests any waiver or exemption of any kind from any
federal or state law, regulation, or permit requirement governing air emissions from the NEU
facility, it shall provide notice of this request to the North Andover Town Manager at the time it
makes the request.�
9. MRI shall prepare and submit to the Board plans showing the existing boiler
building from a frontal and cross-sectional view. These plans shall provide the elevation of the
existing building from ground level and mean sea level. These plans shall also be recorded
with the plans identified in condition 7.
North Andover Board of Appeals
By: ILI
1:\CLIENTS\NAN\ZBAVARiNAN
ESSEX NORTH REGISTRY OF DEEDS
LAWRENCE, MASS.. 42-2LJ��
A TRUE COPY: ATTEST:
7 46.)
61 ?
REGISTER OF DM -6
?,rsed from date of decision iflW
.ii;:ng of a n wped-
Dai� / V :7
Jc';c,, A. B.adshaiii
ro�fr C I zer,
,ORT�j
�Xl`
*1 1A, 0
7 A
�0
4.
02�
Z
J0 YC7 a Rl�
AITEsm.
Mrue copy
v., W
A
j2
TowN — ,
�v L 1:
NORTH Aho�) Y E.R
SAC US
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSACHUSETTS
Any appeal shall be riled BOARID OF APPEALS
within ( 0) days afte the
date cf riling of this notice
in the office of the Town Clerk. NOTICE OF DECISION
PROPERTY- 285 Holt Rd.
NAME: Massachusetts Refusetech, Inc. :6/11/98
ADDRESS: 285 Holt Rd. PETITION: 023-98
North Andover, MA 01845_ — HEARING: 6/9/98
25 2 28
AITEsm.
Mrue copy
j2
Toilm cienk
The Board of Appeals held a regular meeting on Tuesday evening, June 9, 1998 upon the application of
Massachusetts Refusetech, Inc., 285 Holt Rd., North Andover, MA., under Section 10.4 of the Zoning
Bylaw from determinations made by the Building Commissioner concerning the construction of air
emissions control equipment and adjacent lime storage silos at a height that exceeds the maximum
building and structural height limitations and the maintenance of an existing boiler building that was the
subject of a variance issued on April 13, 1982. Applicant requests a determination that a building permit
for the proposed air emissions control equipment and adjacent lime storage silos does not require a
variance from the applicable height limitation in 1-2 District.
The following members were present: William J. Sullivan, Robert Ford, Scott Karpinski, Ellen McIntyre,
George Earley.
The hearing was advertised in the Lawrence Tribune on 5/26//98 & 6/
by regular mail, 2/98 and all abutters were notified
Upon a motion made by George Earley and seconded by Robert Ford thism Rnnrfl f A NOV 2 19,8 -,,,2:05
I U ppeals
unanimously voted to make a positive determination that the petitioner does require a VARIANCE for
height of proposed addition and/or modifications of existing buildings. It is the opinion of the Board that
this facility (MRI) is not exempt from local zoning under Governmental immunity principles because MRI
is itself neither a State nor a political subdivision of the State nor an agent of the State or any political
subdivision in seeking the variance for the retrofit of the facility. Critical to this determination is the fact
that when the facility was first proposed the Commonwealth represented that it would be subject to local
zoning. Consistent with this representation, MRI applied for and obtained zoning variances, without ever
claiming that it was immune from zoning. The Board also finds the zoning immunity under
Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 40A., Section 9, isn't applicable because the height limitation and
variance requirements were in place prior to 1987. Finally, the Board finds that the earlier variance was
intended for the specific facilities as set forth in the plans that accompanied the earlier variance
application and not the proposed additions and modifications. Voting in favor: William J. Sullivan,
Robert Ford, Scott Karpinski, Ellen McIntyre, George Earley.
decoct/15
BOARD O� PEALS
William j.)Suilivan. Chairman
Zoning B ard of Appeals
ellnco /,/ n)A oa,,
M
I
op
X
P
01
00 Tjq
Z'. , + F. C.-. - . I
". '0 0 .'U. - I-; ' -,
0 L 0 Y C E
Tow A
N C L
NORTH
VER
:Z.C. us 4UG
US 44
:�:ar�sed from date of deci�;!O,. TOWN OF NORTH ANOOVER
; '190
"; ' r -_
Date MASSACHUSE77S
Joyce A. Bramlavi
To�n Cict
BOARD OF AFPE:ALS A Mme copy
%b -.M Clerk
BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION
Massachusetts REFUSETECH. Inc.
235 Holt Road
North Andover. MA 0 1345
DECISION
Petition #023-98
71c Board of Appeals held a public hearing on Tuesday evening May 19. 1993. and continued that public
hearing o ' n June 9, 1998 and to Julv 14, 1998, and Au, -'Mt 11, 1993'to consider the application of
Massachusetts REFUS==CH. Inc. requesting an Earth Removal Permit with respect to premises at 235
Holt Rd., North Andover. Mass 0 1345.
7lie following conditions apply:
I - 'nie soils to be excavated are comprised of original site soils plus clean structural fill.
2. The excavation material will be stockpiled on-site, not trucked off-site.
3. While stored on-site. measures will be taken to prevent wind and water erosion of the stockpile
containment. silt fences. hav bales, seeding, etc.).
4. The soils will be re -utilized on-site for backfilling foundations and rc-grading construction area
contours.
If e_xcavated soils are sent off-site. thev will be tested and managed in accordance with the applicable
regulatory standards.
6. That all movement of soil is in accordancevOth the Dust Control Plan (as attached) dated July 29,
1998, for Mass RET-7JSETECH. Inc., by "EMCON" of 3 Riverside Drive. Andover, Tv'[A 0 18 1 . 0. .
7. The quantity requested of e=th removal to be no more than 3.000 yards (well below the 5.000 vard
limit).
The following members were present throughout the public hearing, and voted to ggant the requested
Earth Removal Pernuit. Chairman William J. Suillivan. VicC-Chainnan Walter F. Soule. kobert Ford.
Ellen IvIcintyre. and George Earlev.
WMiam 1. Sullivan
Zor�ng Board of Appeals
attachment/
mi/soii
F i - I I
L' 5 1 162142`7 P 6 "� 30 E)
DUST CONTROL PLAN
FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
MASSACHUSETTS REFUSETECH, INC.
EMISSIONS CONTROL PROJECT
NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS
Prepared for
The North Andover Zoning Board of Appeals
August 13, 1998
Prepared by
EMCON
3 Riverside Drive
Andover, MA 0 1810-1121
Project 86458-001.000 --- Task 00006
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION
2 CONTROL REQUIREMENTS
2.1 General
2.2 Separation of Materials
2.3 Schedule
2.4 Applicability
3 CONTROL TECHNIQUES
3.1 General
3.2 Passive Techniques
3.3 Active Techniques
ene-andvri -j:\86458001.000\final\061ocal\dust2.doc-96\dstoehre: I
ii
-T!,
K -D .- I
1-1
2-1
2-1
2-1
2-2
2-2
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
L11% %.'Li -f i
I INTRODUCTION
This Dust Control Plan was prepared for the Massachusetts REFUSETECH, Inc. (MRI)
site located at 285 Holt Road in North Andover, Massachusetts. The purpose of the plan
is to minimize the potential for fugitive dust generated by construction activities
associated with the Emissions Control Project.
The plan is being submitted to the North Andover, Zoning Board of Appeals to
supplement the application for an Earth Removal Permit submitted'by MRI, dated April
15,1998.
ene-andvr] -J:\86458001 .000\final\061ocaMust2.doc-95\dstoehre: 1
86458-001.000--- Task 00006
Rev. 0, 8/13/98
r
2 CONTROL REQUIREMENTS
2.1 General
L K s. d.. 1,
Areas of the site that are undergoing excavation, grading, filling, or cutting, or are subject to
other dust -producing activities, will be subject to dust minimization practices. Appropriate dust
control measures will be implemented to ensure that fugitive dust emissions are minimized from
all excavations, stockpiles, haul roads, permanent access roads, and all' other construction work
areas within the site boundaries. The proposed dust control measures are discussed more fully in
Section 3.
As discussed in the application for Earth Removal Permit for the Emissions Control Project,
approximately 3,000 cubic yards of soils will be excavated during the proposed construction for
the installation of foundations, buried piping and electrical systems, etc.' All excavation will be
incidental to construction of the. buildings, structures, and buried services. It is presently
anticipated that the excavated soil Will be temporarily stored on-site prior to being reused on-site.
Due to the congested conditions on site, it is anticipated that most of the excavated material will
need to be moved to a central stockpiling area, rather than be left next to the excavation areas.
Most of the excavated soil will be needed for backfill. Engineered fill material was brought in to
level the site during original construction. Therefore, most of the excavated soil is expected to be
L
suitable for backfilling of excavations for the Emissions Control Project. Excess material not
F utilized for fill will be temporarily stockpiled on site and utilized for regrading and contouring of
the site. The area adjacent to (north oo the boiler building is the selected on-site location to
stockpile this material. This location can be utilized to store up to 3,000 cubic yards of material.
EMCON Drawings (86458-001-002) entitled Soil Stockpile Area, dated February 19, 1998
(attached) is a partial plan of the site showing the on-site location and proposed method of
temporarily storing soil before it is reused on site. For any soil storage, careful location,
containment, and erosion control measures will be utilized to prevent storage pile runoff. The
figure, EMCON Drawing (86458-001-008, rev. 0) entitled Stake Hay Bales and Silt Fence
Details, dated February 12, 1998, illustrates typical erosion control measures.
2.2 Separation of Materials
Prior to initiating excavation activities, any ash, chemicals, or other products that could come
into contact with excavated soils shall be removed from the existing surfaces. These surfaces
; L.L shall be thoroughly washed down before commencing excavation activities. To prevent ash from
mixing with excavated or stockpiled soils, appropriate physical barriers (such as Jersey barriers
ene-andvr I -j:\86458001.000\final\061ocal\dust2.doc-95\dstochre: I Rev. 0, 8/13/98
86458-001.000--- Task 00006 2-1
F-
r -
P C. 7 i -i
i 1.2. --, U
and/or hay bales) will be installed and maintained to separate ongoing ash handling operations
from construction activities.
2.3 Schedule
Passive erosion and dust control structures, sdch as silt fencing and haybales, shall be installed as
part ' of the initial preparation for construction activities. If necessary, additional passive dust
control methods, such as mulching and vegetating, shall also be implemented during construction
activities. All dust control measures shall be regularly maintained and/or replaced, as necessary,
throughout construction activities.
Active dust control methods shall be performed daily as the work proceeds and whenever a dust
nuisance occurs. Inactive soil stockpiles shall be tarped or covered within seven days of
placement, or sooner if required by weather conditions, in order to minimize potential dust or
erosion conditions.
2.4 Applicability
The requirements of the plan shall be enforced by �M on all Emissions Control Project
contractors and subcontractors performing work regulated by the Earth Removal Permit. Each
contractor and subcontractor will be required to review the Plan prior to commencing
construction activities.
ene-andvr I -j:\86458001.000\final\061c>caMust2.doc-95\dstoehre: I Rev. 0, 8/13/98
86458-001.000--- Task 00006 2-2
L
F_
3 CONTROL TECHNIQUES
3.1 General
C7 e'� -n "I
J 12
Dust and erosion control measures shall be implemented to prevent wind and water erosion to
so] I stockpiles. Dust shall also be controlled on all roadways and other construction areas at the
site at all times during construction activities. Dust control shall be accomplished through the
combined use of passive and active dust control techniques.
3.2 Passive Techniques
Passive erosion and dust control methods include silt fencing, hayb es, mulching, vegetating,
al
jersey barriers, railroad ties, and tarping, or a combination of two or more of these methods. Silt
fencing and haybales shall be constructed in accordance with Drawing No. 86458-001.008, Rev.
0, attached.
Anchored mulch may be applied to non -traffic areas that are subject to dust generation through
wind and blowing. Temporary and permanent vegetation should be established as soon as
possible in any areas designated for landscaping.
Liquid palliatives and penetrating asphaltic materials will not be permitted as a method for dust
control.
3.3 Active Techniques
Acceptable methods of active dust control include motor sweepers, vacuums, spraying water, or
a combination of these methods. Spraying water shall be repeated at such intervals to keep dust
to a minimum at all times. Sufficient suitable equipment to accomplish this shall be maintained
at the site at all time. The Building Commissioner or his/her designee shall have the authority to
require additional equipment or additional control measures if they determine such additional
equipment or measures to be necessary. All such measures shall be at the cost of �M.
lt is anticipated that water sprays will be the primary means of controlling dust during active
construction activities. Tarps or other suitable cover materials will, however, be pla�ced on
ulr��inactive soil stockpiles within seven days of establishing the stockpile, or soon if'feq y
weather conditions, in order to minimize potential dust or erosion conditions. The Building
Commissioner or his/her designee shall have the authority to require additional equipment or
additional control measures if they determine such additional equipment or measures to be
necessary. . All such measures shall be at the cost of NM.
enc-andvrl -j:\86458001.000\final\06]ocal\dust2.doc-95\dstoehre: I Rev. 0, 8/13/98
86458-001.000--- Task 00006 3-1
D1 .1 C7 171 in �_j
F1,0W 4" VERTICAL FACE
III EXISTING GRADE
EMBEDDING VIEW
ANGLE STAKE TOWARD
PREVIOUSLY LAID SALE
FLOW
WIRE OR NYLON BOUND,
STRAW BALES
2 RE—BAR STEEL PICKETS, OR 2-x 2"STAKES
DRIVEN 2' INTO GROUND
STRAW BALE DETAILS
Emcon)
1
D
MF
DVVN S
APPR
RE V
PROJECT NO.
864J58-001.000
POLE
,-NETTING BACKED
FILTER FABRIC
-BACKrILL
WATER FLOW
DIRECTION
Fa— _!
NATIVE SOIL
'E DETAILS
Drawing No. 86458-00i.008 Rev 0
MASSACHUSETTS REFUSETECH, INC.
NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSE17S
STAKE HAY BALES AND
SILT FENCE DETAILS
ESSEX NORTH REGISTRY OF D
S
S
LAWRENCE, MASS.
A TRUE Copy.� ATTES Tj:
110 -
REGISTER OF DM
EME—ANDVR2/DATA.- N:\DWr.\B"Ool\000\ANSHF-02.dg xrots: ANSMOI
1.00 DImSmie: 1 0 1.00 Date: 1/16/98 Time: 1:22 PM OPerator ACADONE
(m
in
:3 m
0
0
lw
LP4
o
rn
rrl
N.
m
co
0
gz
0
W
0
0
A
03
m
z
0 go
0.1
(2 co CA G)
0 U) owl
0 0
:0
0
. .. .......
..........
.. . ... ...... !
. . ........ . .......
........ ............
f%)
--1 (4
0
0
r-jo o a 0
ROOZrn
> z8z5;0
=1 f ;� ;o c m
ompmm;o
Z;o W CA
, 0
;mv
c
z o a z
(n,
a a) OT
z m 2 m;o
> Z.:� rl�
Z -00 Z
a Fn- r -:=l
K 0
M Z
z
0
U)
> r1i
i
C- n,
U-1111 ><
z
n o z
0 m 0
T
U)
X
m m
U) G)
X
0
0 -n
n 0
00A
C/) ;o
-4
ot
m
0 ;o
OCE
46 CO -I
>0>
0 -< p
;>
v 0
a
cn �
z
0
C13
0
m
X
co
c
z
0
rri
X
CA
z
I
I
Q�
C�)
I
SON
0
Q)
bD
,TV.
w Cd
0
m
00
Q)
4-1
:J
:J
bn
P
w
H
x
a)
a)
0�
z
0
--i
Q)
<
0
bjO
-0
cd
CH
-P
�Q
Cd
0
x
W
00
4-)
Lo
cf)
w
w
H
4-)
cd
00
M 0
(A
w
z
r-4
0
cd
Cd
.H
C/)
sn'
2
xi
CY)
C/)
0
U
H
0:3
00
r�
0
Lf)
+-)
t -
4-3
H
C�
W
1
0
0)
co
00
0
op
-j
<4
t-
p
.
H
4--)
00
co
00
1
L-
4-)
L�
cli
00
0
C, (a)
0 �:
W
H
LO
L --
5
0
z
N
2 C'-
H
CO
6
Cd
m
zo,
0
7,
4-
C) 0
u
a)
bO
14,
9
vs
U)
IS
9
9 E
0
i
Cd
0
-P
x
cd
d
I
0
Q)
bD
,TV.
w Cd
0
m
00
Q)
4-1
:J
:J
bn
P
w
H
x
a)
a)
0�
z
0
--i
Q)
<
0
-0
cd
CH
-P
�Q
Cd
0 CIO
x
-
-H
--
w
w
---
4-)
cd
00
M 0
w
z
0
cd
.H
C/)
sn'
2
xi
a)
C/)
0
U
H
4--)
r�
0
0
Q)
bD
,TV.
w Cd
0
m
00
Q)
4-1
:J
:J
bn
P
w
H
x
a)
a)
0�
z
0
�4
0
LIF
CLd
--i
Q)
<
0
-0
cd
CH
-P
�Q
Cd
0 CIO
x
-
-H
--
w
w
---
4-)
cd
00
M 0
w
:2
0
cd
.H
C/)
sn'
xi
a)
C/)
0
U
H
4--)
r�
0
0
+-)
-H
4-3
Cd
z
0
1
0)
00
0
00
-j
oo
t-
p
C) cd
4--)
co
00
1
L-
�:l
L�
cli
00
0
C, (a)
0 �:
0
C4
LO
L --
5
0
z
N
2 C'-
H
CO
6
8
m
zo,
0
7,
C) 0
u
14,
9
vs
oz,
IS
9
9 E
0
i
Cd
�4
0
LIF
CLd
cd
z
Ak V3
0
z
Cd OZ
0
0
C7-) 0
11-1
<
0
0
0 CIO
s
4-)
M 0
.H
C/)
sn'
C/)
0
U
H
4--)
r�
0
0
+-)
-H
m
Cd
>
1
0)
00
t-
-j
oo
t-
p
4--)
co
00
1
L-
�:l
L�
cli
00
0
LO
L --
I
N
H
CO
0
r -i
0
Cd
r-1
b.0
4-)
0
0
9i
Q)
Z
-H
0
to
�-q
4-)
0
0
NO
-ri
0)
-H
r -i
m
I-
t-
cd bjO
o
0
0
w
<
0
0
4--)
Cd
4--)
LO
Z
Cd
4-)
H
p
Q
cy)
0'*'
0
a)
+-)
NO
�o
04
co
r -i
z
Cd
LO
0
0
pq
r -i
00
co
0
Cd
LO
'Ci
>)
(a
00
V)
LO
w
Cd
N
m
0
zo
0,
00
tEi
cq
z
Z,
CY)
I
"
z
0
6
z
w
<
z
u
9
0
co
CIO
0
cd
z
Ak V3
0
z
Cd OZ
0
0
C7-) 0
11-1
<
0
0 CIO
s
M 0
.H
C/)
sn'
C/)
cd
z
Ak V3
0
z
Cd OZ
0
0
C7-) 0
0
H
Cd
ro
w
PL4
11-1
<
0 CIO
s
M 0
.H
C/)
sn'
C/)
H
4--)
r�
0
0
+-)
-H
m
Cd
>
1
0)
00
t-
-j
oo
t-
p
4--)
co
00
1
L-
�:l
L�
cli
00
0
LO
L --
I
N
H
CO
0
0
H
Cd
ro
w
PL4
<
0 CIO
s
<
The Commonwealth of Massachusefts
Department of Industrial Accidents
flffleff efloyestIff2aaffs
600 Washington Street
Boston, Mass. 02111
Workers' Compensation Insurance Affidavit
I 1111MEMPHOMMEMMM M
narric* Massachusetts REFUSETECH Inc. attn: JAMES P. MCIVER
location: 285 Holt Road
Ci[Y North Andover, MA 01845 12hone #979-688-9011
I am a homeowner performing all work myself.
I am a sole proprietor and have no one working in any capacity
I arn an employer providing workers' compensation for my employees working on this job.
—Wli-de'labrator A:ir' To*llutibn-�:, ont-rol
44-1. Smithfield Street . .....
address: ... ...
city- Pittsburgh, PA 15222 phone#- 412-562-7177
Voijay WAD15158-2*- :&�M: '01:101/00
rznce cc, Reliance National Indemnft-:Z
I am a -sole proprietor, general contractor, or homeowner (circle one) and have hired the contractors listed below who have
the following workers' compensation polices: Construction Manager
Subcontractors will be selected later,
........ . ....
WAPC will secure insurance certificates from all subco�iractors
gddress-�
prior to start of work.
phone N- . ...............
city:- ...
.......................
. .......... X.:
..........................
. ........
... .... ...
.. . ..... ... . ......
........ .........
2ddrcm:
cim. phone 9,
oN c -,r �f
Failure to secure coverage as required underScction 25A ofiVIGL 152 can lead to the imposition o(criminal penalties of& fine up to S1,500.00 and/or
out years' imprisonment as Well 25 Civil penalties in the form ofa STOP WORK ORDER and a fine of S100.00 a day against MC- I understand that Z
copy of this st2temcat may be forwarded to the Office of Investigations of the DIA for coverage verification . .
I do hereby cenify under the pains and penalties ofperjury that the information provided above is'lrue and correct.
I
Signarure—w�-L�- ---Date
Print name William A. Pifer Phone# 41*2-562-7177
official use only do not write in this area to be completed by city or town official
city or town: permit/license rIBuilding Department
(3 Licensing Board
C3 check if immediate response is required C]Sclectmcn's Office
C]Hc2lth Department
CGn(2Ct person: phone 9: f-10ther
(r�uad 3/95 PIA)
I C
In
FORM U - LOT RELEASE FORM
INSTRUCTIONS: This form is used to verify that all.necessary approvals/permits from
Boards and Departments having jurisdiction have been obtained. This does not relieve
the applicant and/or landowner from'compliance with any applicable or requirements. '
**** 1 A* ***********APPLICANT FILLS OUT THIS SECTION'" � *% - * ** -
APPLICANT. Massachusetts REFUSETECH INC. P HONE 978-688-9011
LOCATION: Azsessor's Map Number 34 PARCEL21
SUBDIVISION n/a LOT (S) n/a
STREET Holt Road 285
ST. NUMBER
**'*�OFFICIAL USE ONLY***%#x*%*-**.A***
D 10 OF OWN AGENTS:
7:71
CONSERVATION ADMINI!iTRATOR
COMMENTS
DATEAPPROVED 4111 17
DATE- REJECTED
;F'OWN PLANNER DATEA�PPROVED
DATE REJECTED
COMMENTS
cd/t kc- V
( �- (o�l ��
FOOD INSPECTOR -HEALTH DATEAPPROVED
,�z�i� DATE REJECTED
SEPTIC INSPECTOR -HEALTH
COMMENTS
DATE -APPROVED_
DATE REJECTED
t I A
PUBLIC WORKS - SEWER/WATER CONNECTIONS— KI /A vf 2! — I Z —�ql
DRIVEWAY PERMIT z - I z - 4ig-
FIRE DEPARTMENT
RECEIVED BY BUILDING INSPECTOR
Ir ivED
FEB 10 1999 -
BUILDING DEPT.-
FEB -16-1999 11:56 BERNSTEIN,CUSHNER&KIMMELL
BERNSTEIN, CUSHNER & KIMMELL
P.C.
ATrORNEYS AT LAW
7420170 P.02
ONE COURT STREET, SUITE 700 BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02108
VoiCO(617)742-4340 Facaimile(617)742-0170 E-maji:bckboston@bck.com www.bck.com
Jeffrey M. Bernstein
Stuey L. C"hner
Kenneth L. K*mmell'
EHsabcth C. Goodman
Charles Harak
Crisfin L. Rodduss; —
Erin M. O'Toole
Alm AdRb'Md la Pmedee In
capfwft
Aiso Admkwd to Pmcdce Irs Now York
wW DWW�r of Cohmibla
ALM Adrdftd to PfWdm in Canr4ofiw
CONMENI= "D PRIVILWED
ATTORMUICUENT COMMUNWAIWN
To: Bob Mica%, Ka*lm Colwell
From: Kenne& L. Kimmell
Daw Feb9my 16, 1"9
ft: ME building. permit for ash storage fuility
westem Manachusetts Office:
20 BANK ROW, SUITE 200
PITTSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 01201
(413)442-3773
Facsimile (413) 442-3774
E-mail; bckberkGbckcom
I hwe zovwvmd a memo from Ka&lm ColwX dated Febnkuy 12, 1999 and daeussed
it with Bob brumm and Kaddeen. Her memo listed eight items that must be completed belbre
a hilding permit is imied to MR1 for the ash Map Aed. Aft discussion, however, it was
-agreed dot some of ftm items do no need to be done at the present time- Spedfically, items
1-3 wl= to the designated truck route. That maner is currently on hold pending resolutm of
*e litigation with the City of Haverhill. Also, items 7 and 8, which deal with te recording of
the site p1m approval and prwf of the resolution of the lawsuit, are notyet ready to be
completed. As this permit is for the ash AW only, it was agreed that items 7 and 8 need not
be completed in order for the building permit to be issued. I understand dw Bob Ificetta. may
issue a &partial . to bw that makm it clear that hm is proceedi�g at its own risk.
Pleme do not hesitak to contwt me.
recycled p4wr
REFCC/1 0-
VED
IEB 17 199.q
BUILDING
DEp-r
TOTAL P.02
0
00
0 z
K (1)
K m
Cl)
0
z 0
z
I
I
I
E
E
310 CMR 10.99
Fcrrn
Commonwealth
of massachuserts
16�
258 Holt Road
POSITIVE Determination af Applicability -1, §40
Massachusetts Wetlands Protectiari Act, G.L. c. 1 -.1
�j
(ro tw Crowded bY OEF)
r,ly,Town North Andover
Look Kass Refusetech, Inc..
211-9/98
NORTH ANDOVER CONSERVATION COKKISSION
Issuing Aut�.Onty
To Mass Refusetech, Inc. Commonwealth of MA 11
(Nameof nerson making request) (Name of prooeny o wrior)
Address 258 Holt Zoad AddreSS
Tills deterTninaticn is izzued and delivered as tollowS:
'date)
0 by hand defivery to cerson making request on
XX—X by certified mail. return receipt reques:ed on March 5, 1998 (.dare)
Pursuant to the authoritY of G.L c. 1:31, §40. the No ch Andover Conservatio
has considered y0* ur recuest, for a Oetermination of Acolicability and its sucocning documentallon. andha*
mace Ine tcliowing determinaticri (c�reck whichever is ar.QIiczcIe1,:
Lccaticn: Street Address 258 Holt Road
L.ot Number: . a dpscribed in your recuest. is ;�n
The area descnbea below, which incluces ail/=r� Of '�he a"e
Area Subjec: to PtcEec*icn Under the Act. Theretore. any (Lmoving, filling, drecoincl or
altering of ulat area requires the filing of a Notice Of Intenc.
Plan entitled "Site Topography & Wer -land Delineation" Drawing #1
prepared by Emcon daced.12/9/97.
2.- 1-7 The work cesvibed teiow, which inC!L0eS . all,';;arl of trie work desc"bed in your recuest. is wit"lin
an Area Sutlec—tc Protecdon Under the Ac, and -Niii remove, or'atter that area. T�--ere-
fore. said worx recuires Me Ming of a'Notice of lnte"(.
F-Hactive 11/101E9
Z-1
r
MAR 1 2 1998
EN!
ED
m >
Town of North Andover 14ORTh
OFFICE OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES
146 Main Street
Nor0a Andover, NWsachusetts 0 184:�__. 44roo w
SACHU
WH.LTAM J. SCOTT
Director
July 29, 1998
Mr. Richard Rowen, Chairman
North Andover Planning Board
120 Main Street
North Andover, MA 0 1845
Dear Mr. Rowen:
During the past few months, the Board of Health has been evaluating the proposed
retrofit of the MRI solid waste incinerator on Holt Road. Most notably, a series of public
meetings were held whereby the proponents and opponents� of the project were able to
present their views to the Board of Health. Also, in conjunction with your Board, the firm
of Alternative Resources Inc. (ARI) was hired to look at all aspects of the N41U retrofit
and to make a report to the BoardsMth a recommended course of action. David Minott
of ARI worked closely with the Board of Health and attended all of the public meetings.
You have received copies of the ARI Report.
Although much evidence was presented to the Board ' of Health regarding the
dangers inherent in some of the emission products from the MRI incinerator, it is the
opinion of the Board that in the quantities expected to be released after the retrofit that
these emissions will not pose a health threat to the citizens of North Andover. We
recommend that the monitoring requirements presented in the ARI Report be included as
part of any decision that your Board makes. In.addition, we would recommend that the
BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BMDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 BEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535
I
July -29, 1998
page - 2 -
Planning Board formally designate the Route 495/Route 125 connector- a's the access route
for incoming and outgoing trash trucks. This has informally been the designated route for
a number of years, but the Town would benefit by making this designation explicit.
GO:gb
cc: Robert Halpin, Town Mgr.
Francis MacNfillan
John Rizza
Ken Kimmell
David Minott
Sincerely,
f �Oo d�,Cth a Vir m a �n
Ga on sgo
North Andover Board of Health
N
00
n z
> z
o
>
a
.OR rm
0 1 . "'.3 .. . I +
0.
J 0 Y C E
ToW
N RTH
0 A H C..;'
uVER
SAC �USO AUG 44 138
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
MASSAC�4USETI'S
BOARID OF APPEEALS
BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION
Massachusetts REFUSETECH, Inc.
285 Holt Road
North Andover. MA 0 1345
DECISION
Petition 9023-98
The Board of Appeals held a public hearing on Tuesday evening May 19, 1998, and continued that public
hearing on June 9, 1998 and to July 14, 1998, and August I L 1998 to consider the application of
Massachusetts REFUSETECH. Inc. requesting an Earth Removal Permit with respect to premises at 235
Holt Rd, North Andover, Mass 0 1845.
The following conditions apply:
I . The soils to be excavated are corryprised of original site soils plus clean structural fill.
2. The excavation materW will be stockpiled on-site, not trucked off-site.
3. While stored on-site. measures will be taken to prevent wind andwater erosion of the stockpile (e.g.;
containment, silt fences, hay bales, seeding, etc.). i
4. The soils will be re -utilized on-site for backfilling foundations and re -grading construction area
contours.
5. If excavated soils are sent off-site. they will be tested and managed in accordance with the applicable
regulatory standards.
6. That all movement of soil is in accordance with the Dust Control Plan (as attached) dated July 29,
1998, for Mass REFUSETECH, Inc., by "EMCON" of 3 Riverside Drive. Andover, MA 0 13 10.
7. The quantity requested of earth removal to be no more than 3,000 yards (well below the 5,000 yard
limit).
The following members were present throughout the public hearing, and voted to grant the requested
Earth Removal Permit. Chairman William 1. SuIllivan, Vice -Chairman Walter F. Soule, Robert Ford,
Ellen McIntyre. and George Earley.
Wil.liam 1. Suilivan
Zoning Board of Appeals
attachment/
ml/soil
L
=* dw-t bvanv (C -,
�Oyw AN jm�, VZ_ BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION
Tom Clerk
L.C—;
R E C rE - *%i -- C
JOYCE 0PAU-r._,iAW
TOWN CLEIK
NORTH ANDOYER
! . !.; I Z9 Q :111 NY '148
Massachusetts REFUSETECI-L inc.
285 Holt Road DECISION
North Andover, MA, 0 194 5 Petition #4Za-_q.O
ATTFZD.
ATMO COPY
Ar.as&��
Town Clerk
The Board. of Appeals held a public hearing on Tuesday evening May 19, 1999, and continued
that public hearing to June 9, 1998, and to July 14, 1998, to consider the application of
Massachusetts REFUSETECH, Inc. requesting, with respect to premises at. 285 Holt Road, North
Andover, the following zoning relief: (1) a VAR.IANCE fi-om Secticn 7.4 of the Zoning Bylaw to
allow the height limitations of the.Zoning Bylaw to be exceeded; (2) a MIXOR
MODIFICATION OF A VARIANCE issued on April 13, 1982, from Section 7.4 of the Zoning
Bylaw to confirm that the existing boiler building at 285 Hold Road falls within the terms of that
variance; and (3) a DETERAMATION under Section 8.1.5 of the Zoning Bylaw that the
proposed number of off-street parking spaces at 28S Holt Road is adequate. The following
members were present throughout the public hearing, and voted on the requested zoning relief,
Chairman William Sullivan, Vice -Chairman Walter Soule, Robert Ford, Ellen McTntyre, and
George Early, Notice of the public hearing was advertised in the North Andover Citizen on April
28 and May 5, 1998, posted, and rnaUed to parties in interest as required by G. L. c. 40A, § 11.
Upon duly made and seconded motions, Board voted unanimously to GRANT the application for
the reasons set forth below.
FINDINGS
Massachusetts REFUSETECH, Lic, (11MR1") owns and operates an existing resource
recovety facility located at 285 Holt Road in North Andover (the "facility").
2. The facility operates within the; framework of 20 -year service agreements between MRI
and 23 communities, including North Andover, that are members of the North East ,
Solid Waste Committee ("NESWC"). The service agreements ensure that the faciliLy
meets the municipal solid waste disposal needs of the NESWC communities. The
facility also serves private waste haulers on a contract basis.
3. T'he facility was constructed in the early 1980s. As part of the construction plannilig
process, MRI sought a variance s6 that the tall boilers required for a resource recovery
facility could be enclosed by a boiler building. The Board issued a variance on April
13, 1982 a)lowing the facility to be constructed to approximatcly 102 feet above the
height of the tipping floor (equivalent to 117.5 feet above gradej C1992 vu�,qace"). Al
built, the height of the existing boiler building is 106.5 feet above the clevation of the
08/19/98 WED 11: 3 8 1TX/RX NO 519.91
RE CrE N D
JOYCE BRADSHAW
TOWN CLERK
NORTH ANDOVER
J11L.
BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION
Massachusetts REFUSETECI-L Inc.
285 Holt Road DECISION
North Andover, MA 0 1845 Petition
The Board of Appeals held a public hearing on Tuesday evening May 19, 1998, and continued
that public hearing to June 9 1998, and to July 14, 1998, to consider the application of
Massachusetts REFUSETE&L Inc. requesting, with� respect to premises at 285 Holt Road, North
Andover, the following zoning relief. (1) a VARIANCE from Section 7.4 of the Zoning Byla�y to
allow the height limitations of the Zoning Bylaw to be exceeded; (2) a MINOR
MODIFICATION OF A VARIANCE issued on April 13, 1982, from Section 7.4 of the Zoning
Bylaw to confirm that the existing boiler building at 285 Hold Road falls within the terms of that
variance; and (3) a DETERMINAnON under Section 8.1.5 of the Zoning Bylaw that the
proposed number of off-street parking spaces at 285 Holt Road is adequate. The following
members were present throughout the pubfic hearing, and voted on the requested zoning relief -
Chairman William Sullivan, Vice-Chaitman: Walter Soule, Robert Ford, Ellen McIntyre, and
Geor'ge Early. Notice of the public hearing vAs advertised in the North Andover Citizen on April
28 and May 5, 1998, posted, and mailed to parties in interest as required by G. L. c. 40A, § 11.
Upon duly made and seconded motions, Board voted unanimously to GRANT the application for
the reasons set forth below.
FE14DINGS
1. Massachusetts REFUSETECH, Inc. ("MRI") owns and operates an existing resource
recovery facility located at 285 Holt Road in North Andover (the "facility").
2. The facility operates within the framework of 20 -year service agreements between MRI
and 23 communities, including Norih Andover, that are members of the North East
Solid Waste Committee ("NESWC"). The service agreements ensure that the facility
meets the municipal solid waste disposal needs of the NESWC communities. The
facility also serves private waste haulers on a contract basis.
3. The facility was constructed in the early 1980s. As part of the construction planning
process, MRI sought a variance so that the tall boilers required for a resource recovery
facility could be enclosed by a boiler building. The Board issued a variance on April
13, 1982 allowing the facility to be constructed to approximately 102 feet above the
height of the tipping floor (equivalent to 117.5 feet above grade) ("1982 variance"). As
built, the height of the existing boiler building is 106.5 feet above the elevation of the
RE CE- iVED
JOYCE BRADSHAW
TOWN CLERK
2 NORTH ANDOVER
'Xetipping floor (equivalent to 122 feet above grade) The Bo�l � ?Ads I lk4 e dance
does not implicate any of the interests protected by the Zoning Bylaw.
4. In addition, on June 2, 1982 the Board granted a second variance from the h eight
requirements of the Zoning Bylaw to allow construction of the existing stack at the
facility to a height of 230 feet.
5. Federal and state requirements adopted pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act.
Amendments of 1990 require that additional air emissions control equipment be
installed'at the facility by no 1�ter than December 19, 2000.
6. The proposed project consists of the addition of advanced air emissions control
equipment and necessary appurtenant structures, including, among other things, spray
dryer absorbers ("SDA's") and lime storage silos. The project is shown on three
drawings submitted to the Board, entitled as follows: 1) "Plan to Accompany
Application for Zoning Variance," dated July 14, 1998 (Drawing N6. 86458-001-003
Rev. 1; 2) Lime Preparation Retrofit, General Arrangement Elevation is , dated April 16,
1998, (Drawing No. 86458-001-005); and 3) "Air Emissions Control System, Retrofit
General Arrag't Elevation," dated April 16, 1998 (Drawing No. 86458-001-004).
(These three plans shall hereafter be referred to as "the Plans.")
7. As a result of design requirements,� th6 SDA's must be 110 feet above grade, while the
lime storage silos must be 88 f6al 1.5 inches above grade. Under the Zoning Bylaw,
the maximum allowable height is 85 feet. However, the SDA's and lime storage silos
are at heights lower than the approved height of the existing facility and stack set forth
in the previously issued variances.
8. The existing facility is substantial and unique. It was designed, constructed, and
permitted for the sole purpose of serving as a resource recovery facility, the only such
facility in the 1-2 zoning district and the only such facility in the Town as a whole.
Unlike certain other industrial facilities, such as factories that can change assembly
lines or mill buildings that can be converted to offices or residences, there is no
reasonable use for MRI's facility except as a resource recovery facility.
9. The continued use of MRI's facility requires the installation of state-of-the-art
emissions control equipment adequate to meet the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's ("EPA") new technology-based emissions standards. EPA established the
new sulfur dioxide and hydrogen chloride limits based on the use of SDA's. SDA's
have been demonstrated in practice to be very efficient and reliable. No alternative
emissions control equipment that is as efficient and reliable as an SDA could be
installed at a height of less than 85 feet. The proposed height of the SDA's is based on
the flue gas residence time necessary to achieve compliance with the new emissions
limitations and reaction product drying time. The residence time is a function of and is
directly related to the height of the SDA. In addition, the height of the lime silos has
171 0 -
RECEiVEO
JOYCE BRADSHAW
TOWN CLERK
3 NORTH ANDOVER
been minimized to the extent practicable by providing two one'Nagsize'?sA O*AQ �
than a single larger silo. The proposed height is required to provide the necessary lime
storage volume, vertical space requirements for the lime slaking equipment and storage
volume for the lime slurry product.
10. Literal enforcement of the height limitation in this case would result in substantial
hardship to MR1 because without the timely installation of the proposed equipment, the
facility could not be put to its special purpose use.
11. The proposed emissions control equipment and associated lime storage, silos will be no
taller than the existing boiler building, and will merely be new components of a facility
that has been in existence for over'13 years. Ile new structures will not change the
-character of the facility's industrial neighborhood from an aesthetic or any other
standpoint. The proposed equipment is bracketed by taller portions of the facility on
both sides, and will be barely be noticeable from any vantage point surrounding the
facility. Moreover, the sole purpose of the proposed emissions control; equipment and
associated silos is to reduce emissions of air pollutants, and the Massachusetts Secretary
of Environmental Affairs has already certified that "the project will have significant air
quality benefits." Certificate of the Se�cretary of Environmental Affairs,on the
Environmental Notification Form at 2 (Mar. 13, 1998).
12. The facility's largest shift is currently'35 employees, which will increase to 36 as a
' result of the emissions control project. While the facility's current 52 parking spaces
(including two handicapped spaces) are adequate to meet the facility's p�xking needs,
MRI plans to increase the number of parking spaces to 56 (with three spaces designated
for handicapped use, including one van accessible handicapped space).
13. The off-street parking requirements in Section 8.1.2 of the Zoning Bylaw do not
address the parking needs of a resource recovery facility.
GRANT OF ZONING RELI]EF
Based on the findings set forth above, the Board concludes that NM has satisfied the
provisions of Section 10.4 of the Zoning Bylaw with respect to the request for a variance.
Specifically, the Board determines that:
(1) there are unique circumstances relating to the structures on this site that are not
present generally within the zoning district in which the land is located;
(2) because of those unique circumstances, a literal enforcement of the provisions of
the Zoning Bylaw would cause substantial hardship, financial and otherwise, to
the petitioner by preventing the installation of the emissions control equipment
required by law and thereby preventing lawful use of the existing, substantial,
io�'CC BRA SHAW
TOWN CLERK
4 NORTH ANDOVER
special purpose buildings and equipment which comprika- re&�Oec'Nery
facilities;
(3) desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good
and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of
the Zoning Bylaw which allows resource recovery facilities,as a matter of right
in this zoning district; '
(4) the addition of new emissions control equipment win promote the public good
and satisfy the primary �purpose the Zoning Bylaw, namely, "the promotion of
'the health, safety.... and welfare of the inhabitants of the Town *of North
Andover" (section 1) by ensuring that air emissions from the facility are lower
than the current emissions and are in compliance with federal and state laws
-designed to protect the public health, safety, and the environment.
On the basis of these findings and conclusions, the Board grants the variance, subject to
conditions 1-8 below.
The Board further grants the requesied modification of the 1982 variance to allow for
the existing building to be 106.5 feet above the tipping floor, subject to cbndition 9 below.
Finally, the Board determines that the'proposed increase in off-street parldng spaces
from 52 to 56 will be adequate to accommodlite the parldrig needs generated by the facility.
CONDMONS TO GRANT OF RELIEEF
1. Within seven days from the date of this decision, MRI shall revise the Plans to
show the height of the buildings and structures from a) ground level; and b) mean sea level.
2. I�M or any transferee of this variance shall comply at all times with all applicable
federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and/or 'permit conditions.
3. This variance shall not be con�trued as authorizing an increase in the capacity of
the plant beyond the currently permitted capacity.
4. This variance shall not be construed to either explicitly or implicitly authorize the
construction of any building or structure other than those buildings or structures specifically
shown on the Plans.
5. The construction of the project shall be in full compliance with Phase I, Phase II,
and Phase I[I documents referenced in a letter dated July 2, 1998 from David Spencer to Steven I
Comen and Michael T. Gass, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, as they may
be amended by David Spencer or his successor.
I
I
REGQVE�� W
3011, 1 RADSO
rows CLERY,
Orti" ANDOVER
6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, final desiA �Lslslail besubmitted to
the Building Commissioner for determination as to whether the plans are in conformance with this
decision.
7. The Plans as revised pursuant to Condition I shall be recorded in the Essex North
Registry of Deeds at the time that this Variance Decision is recorded.
8. If MRI or any transferee requests any waiver or exemption of any kind from any
federal or state law, regulation, or permit requirement governing air emissions from the MRI
facility, it shall provide notice of this request to the North Andover Town Manager at the time it
makes the request.:i
. 9. -MRI shall prepare and submit to the Board plans showing the e!xisting boiler
building from a frontal and cross-sectional view. These plans shall provide the elevation of the
existing building from ground level and mean sea'level. These plans shall also be recorded
with the plans identified in condition 7.
MCLIENTSWANMAVARNAN
North Andover Board of Appeals
r
t fl i
By:
J
z
z
z
G)
(33
0
0
Town of North Andover I
.0
OFFICE OF 0
0
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES
30 School Street
North Andover, Massachusetts 0 1845
rMLLAM 1. SCOrr
Lj Director NOTICE OF DECISION
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
in
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
Any appeal shall be filled
within (20) days after the
date of filling this Notice
in the Office of the Town
Clerk.
Petition of REFUSETECH , INC.
Premises affected 285 Holt Road
Referring to the above petition for a special permit from the
requirements of the North Andover Zoning Bylaw Section 8.3 (site plan review)
so as to allow construction of 21,493 of new gross floor area.
After a public hearing given on the above date, the Planning Board
voted to APPROVE the SPECIAL PERMIT- SITE PLAN REVIEW
based upon the followl i ng conditions:
Signed ku\�dA
CC: Director of Public Works
Building Inspector
Natural Resource/Land Use Planner
Health Sanitarian
Assessors
Police Chief
Fire Chief
Applicant
E ngineer
Towns Outside Consultant
File
interested Parties
Richard S.Rowen, Chairman
Alison Lescarbeau, V. Chairman
John Simons, Clerk
Richard Nardella
Joseph V. Mahoney
Planning Board
CONSERVATION - (978) 688 9530 - HEALTH - (978) 6M9540 - PLANNING - (978) 688-9535
*BUILDING OFFICE - (978) 688-9545 * *ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - (978) 688-9541 * *146 MAIN STREET
C->
CD
C> C"
Date August 19�, 1998
Date of Hearing -- June 16, 1998, J&L-Zy
�§98
August. 4,- 1998, A st
18, 1998
Referring to the above petition for a special permit from the
requirements of the North Andover Zoning Bylaw Section 8.3 (site plan review)
so as to allow construction of 21,493 of new gross floor area.
After a public hearing given on the above date, the Planning Board
voted to APPROVE the SPECIAL PERMIT- SITE PLAN REVIEW
based upon the followl i ng conditions:
Signed ku\�dA
CC: Director of Public Works
Building Inspector
Natural Resource/Land Use Planner
Health Sanitarian
Assessors
Police Chief
Fire Chief
Applicant
E ngineer
Towns Outside Consultant
File
interested Parties
Richard S.Rowen, Chairman
Alison Lescarbeau, V. Chairman
John Simons, Clerk
Richard Nardella
Joseph V. Mahoney
Planning Board
CONSERVATION - (978) 688 9530 - HEALTH - (978) 6M9540 - PLANNING - (978) 688-9535
*BUILDING OFFICE - (978) 688-9545 * *ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - (978) 688-9541 * *146 MAIN STREET
Town of North Andover Of "ORT�j
A0,
OFFICE OF
0
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES
384 Osgood Street 0
North Andover, Massachusetts 0 1845
.LIAM I. SCOTT
Director
August 25, 1998
Ms. Joyce Bradshaw
Town Clerk
120 Main Street
No. Andover, MA 0 1845
Re: Special Permit/Site Plan Review 285 Holt Road
Dear Ms. Bradshaw:
The North Andover Planning Board held a public hearing on Tuesday everning, June 16,1998 at
7-30 p.m. in the Department of Public Work 384 Osgood Street on the application
REFUSETECH, Inc. 285 Holt Road, North Andover, MA 0 1845 for a special permit under
Section 8.3 (Site Plan Review) of the North Andover Zoning Bylaw. The legal notice was
properly advertised in the North Andover Citizen on May 27 and June 3, 1998 and all parties of
interest were duly notified. The following members were present: Richard S. Rowen, Chairman,
Alison Lescarbeau, Vice Chairman, John Simons, Clerk, Joseph Mahoney, Richard Nardella and
Alberto Angles, Associate Member. Kathleen Bradley Colwell, Town Planner was also absent.
The petitioner was requesting a special perrruit to allow the construction of a 21,493 SF of new
gross floor area and is in the (1-2) Industrial -2 Zoning District.
Dom Scalise was present to represent 285 Holt Road. Mr. Rowen stated the Planning Boards
role is to ascertain whether or not this project meets with the Town's Zoning Bylaw. The Board
is not reviewing the merits of the retrofit itself Mr. Rowen stated that the Board has hired an air
quality consultant at the applicant's expense to review the technology. All health concerns should
be brought up at Board of Health meetings. The Board of Health will make a presentation to the
Board on August 4, 1998.
Attorney Marty Healy stated that they must meet the Clean Air Act or the site will be shut down.
There is no change in the use, there is no increase in the design capacity and there is no work
outside the developed area of the site. They are filing for site plan review because the new gross
floor area is greater than 2,000 SF. They would like to start construction in November and start
the engineering at the beginning of July.
Dave Raymond stated that the structure would stay the same. Mr. Raymond stated that this
project would have a significant positive impact. Mr. Raymond went. over the process on the
plans with the Board. The site consists of 14.6 acres. All proposed construction will be within the
DARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535
perimeter of the road. They have shown the wetland lines on the plan. Mr. Raymond stated that
the lot coverage will go from 21% to 23% and the floor area ratio will go from 19% to 20%.
Jim Conn--olly of Emcon, stated that they have 52 parking spaces and they presently have only 3 5
employees. Mr. Connolly stated that the Building Inspector asked if they could show future
parking spaces if needed. A NOI is not required. They have included an attachment on the lighting
with the application. Mr. Connolly stated that an ENF was submitted to NEPA and that they
received a certificate. There will be no changes to. the utilities and there is no increase in public
service. Architectural consistency will be maintained. Mr. Connoly stated that; they are in the 1-2
zoning district and the use is allowed. The project is consistent with the ToVM''s Master Plan and
there is no loss of open space. A noise study was conducted and they will comply with the D.E.P.
sound level criteria. W Connolly stated that there are no visual impacts. Mr. Raymond showed
the Board some pictures of what the site will look like from different sides of the property. Mr.
Connolly stated that we believe that our application will conform with the zoning bylaw and that it
is not detrimental on abutting properties and will have minimal impacts on traffic.
Mr. Rowen asked how would the plant operate during construction. Mr. Connolly went over the
plan for operation during construction. Ed Meaghger, People for the Environment, stated that
there will be a meeting regarding this site at the North Parish Church on July 9, 1998. Ms.
Lescarbeau asked that if at the next meeting they were going to speak about on the noise. Mr.
Connolly stated that they submitted a noise impact study with the application. The Planning
Board will send the noise study out for review by a consultant. Mr. Nardefla asked what
variances were needed for the site. Ms. Colwell stated that they only need one for the height.
The Board scheduled a site walk for 6:00 p.m. on June 24, 1998.
Continued until July 7, 1998.
The North Andover Planning Board held a regular meeting on July 7, 1998. The following
members were present: Richard S. Rowen, Chairman, John Simons, Clerk, Alberto Angles,
Associate Member and John Simons. Kathleen Bradley Colwell, Town Planner was also present.
Dom Scalise was present to represent 285 Holt Road. Mr. Scalise stated that on behalf of the
applicant they would not like to hold a hearing tonight because there is only 4 members present
and at the last meeting there was 6 and they are afraid that it might be a problem when it comes
time to vote. Ms. Colwell stated that we did receive a copy of our traffic consultants comments
but, we did not ask him to attend this meeting becausewe thought your consultant would not
have time to respond. Mr. Rowen stated that he has put together a Est of things that he would
like to see during the permit process. Mr. Rowen stated that he is not keen on surprises and
would like to pass them out to you. Mr. Rowen went over his punch list with the Board and the
applicants. Ms. Colwell stated that the noise proposal went out today to the 3 companies. Ms.
Colwell also stated that the People for the Environment are holding a meeting Thursday night July
9, 1998 @ 7:00 p.m. @ the North Parish Church.
Continued until August 4, 1998.
I
The North Andover Planning Board held a regular meeting on August 4, 1998. The following
members' were present: Richard S. Rowen, Chairman, Alison Lescarbeau, Vice Chairman, John
Simons, Clerk, Alberto Angles, Associate Member, Joseph Mahoney and Richard Nardella.
Kathleen Bradley Colwell, Town Planner was also present.
Mr. Rowen stated that we have had a consultant review the entire project as a health issue. The
consultant responded and the Board of Health wrote a letter stating that although much evidence
was presented to the Board of Health regarding the dangers inherent in some of the emissions
products from the MRI incinerator, it is the opinion of the Board that in the quantities expected to
be released after the retrofit that these emissions will not pose a health threat to the citizens of
North Andover. David Minott of ARI stated that after the upgrade this would meet EPA limits, it
meets the zoning bylaw and emissions will go down. Mr. Minott stated that after the upgrade the
stack emissions would meet State and Federal standards. Mr. Minott stated that the total
exposure from 1985 - 2030 would not be significant. Mr. Minott stated that with the upgrade the
ash dust will be collected in a totally enclosed system and MRI has proposed a scrubber that
would control the ash dust. NdRIhas also incorporated a procedure to clean the ash off the tires.
Mr. Minott stated that this ash has been tested in labs and based on the testing at other
Wheelabrators it will come back O.K. Mr. Minott stated that they have made recommendations
for permit conditions. The Planning Board will ensure that the public has access to latest
emissions data by requiring MRI to install a computer at the library to display emissions data.
The town will hire a monitor to inspect records on air quality and ash issues. Mr. Rowen stated
Mr. Minott's position is that the design if approved will meet State and Federal government
regulations if run properly. Mr. Nardella asked what ARI's recommendation is on unannounced
visits. Mr. Rowen stated that the Board required a monitoring plan and asked if ARI has come up
with one yet. Mr. Minott stated that frequent inspections would be required initially, but this
could be reduced in future years to perhaps going to the plant four times a year and looking at
records once a month. Mr. Minott stated that if you saw something that raises your eyebrows
you could come back more frequently. Mr. Nardella stated that he would like to see a monitoring
plan. Mr. Nardella questioned DEP's standards for mercury and how it sways away from EPA
standards. Mr. Minott went over DEP's standards, indicating that Mass. DEP had the strictest in
the nation limit on mercury. Mr. Nardella asked if the upgrade will meet Massachusetts
standards. Mr. Minott stated that it would. I& Rowen stated that in the decision it will need to
state that we will have unannounced visits. Mr. Simons asked what scientific. methodology Mr.
Minott used to review the proposed design. Mr. Minott stated that he reviewed the data given to
him by both MRI and the regulatory agencies. He also stated that he did extensive interviewing.
Mr. Minott stated that he did not do independent health risks but, he did check the conclusions of
the consultants. Mr. Simons questioned the epidemiological studies that were done. Mr. Minott
stated that the studies done dealt with the issues of cancer and asthma. Mr. Minott stated that
those studies as described found no link between this waste energy plant and the observed rates of
the studied health problems. Mr. Minott stated that he is not a doctor and he did not challenge
those studies. Mr. Minott stated that one last point is that DEP is conducting a commutative
impact study and they are looking at the future and existing site conditions. DEP indicates that
total impact does not show significant risk. Mr. Simons asked if he was aware of any larger
studies. Mr. Minott stated no. Mr. Simons asked if it was possible to show disparities with
I
tracking results. Mr. Minott stated that for example they track the twenty four hour running
average and then compare that to the permit limits. Mr. Minott stated that sampling is conducted
several times per hour and the display will be updated. Mr. Rowen stated that we don't want to
see a twenty four hour delay in reporting data. Mr. Nardella stated that they are proposing twelve
hours. Mr. Nardella asked if he were sitting on this Board what would you consider reasonable to
ask for. Mr. Minott stated that what he would want would be instant data and valid computer
data as soon as he could get it ' Ms. Lescarbeau questioned the complete history of MRI and if
they have any violations. Mr. Minott stated that the issues are more procedural problems. Mr.
Angles asked if there are any new technologies that may be better fit for the MRI plant. Mr.
Minott stated no, this upgrade would use the best equipment. Mr. Minott stated that with new
strict limits. there isn't a margin for further gain for the pollutants.
Julie Kneedham questioned whether ash is a toxin or is it safe. Mr. Minott stated that in a
regulatory sense the ash is to be tested regularly. If the ash is tested O.K. it is transported as
non -hazardous. If tested bad it will be treated as. ha7.q dous. Mr. Rowen stated all the ash are
tested. Julie Kneedham stated that she has concerns with where they will be traveling with the
hazardous waste. Mr. Rowen stated that it will be discussed later in the meeting. Eric Weltman
stated that the testing is to ascertaimi whether the toxins will leach out of the ash. Higher dioxin
levels have been shown because of incinerators. Leah Kettlesen stated that this report is highly
misleading to the Board and the Board needs to be looking at health issues. Ms. Kettlesen stated
that if ARI's telling the Board that NIRI is meeting health standards I don't think they're telling
what they are not meeting. Mr. Simon stated that he has not seen anything scientific and he wants
to deal with fact. Mr. Rowen stated that health issues were discussed at the Board of Health
meetings this meeting was to discuss issues pertinent to the Planning Board decision.
Andrew Reiner stated that there are people in this room that would like to speak. At the Board of
Health meetings they let Mr. Minott speak and then they voted and then they got up and left. Mr.
Nardella stated that the Board of Health stated that there is not a health threat. Gayton Osgood,
Chairman of the Board of Health stated that we made it very clear we would only listen to the
concerns and was it. The Board of Health meeting wasn't there to criticize the ARI report and
the issue was studied for three months. Mr. Reiner stated that they had no opportunity to express
their concerns with Mr. Minott's report. Mr. Rowen stated that the Planning Board asked the
Board of Health to review the report. Mr. Reiner stated that this Board has responsibilities to
listen to the public's concerns. Mr. Simon stated that he would like to hear the criticism. Mr.
Rowen stated that we deliberately had several meetings and determined that the best forum would
be that the health issues be conducted by the Board of Health. They have written to us and stated
that the retrofit is not going to be a health hazard to the Town. What you're telling me is that the
Board of Health did not conduct a good recommendation in your opinion. Atty. Marty Healy
stated that there has been several Board of Health meetings and this Board has no jurisdiction.
Ms. Lescarbeau stated that she's a member of the Planning Board and not a scientist. She would
be happy to sit here until midnight to listen to the people but, she is basing her decision on the
information provided by the experts hired to review the project. Mr. Mahoney stated that he is
ftilly aware of the Friends for the Environment and. he sat at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting
for three hours. Mr. Mahoney stated that he accepts the comments of Town Council and he is not
willing to stay here all night. His position is that we're beyond where we should be.
I
Joan Kulash stated that there was not a series of public hearings held by the Board of Health.
There were two meetings hosted by MRI and there were no opportunities to speak. Ms. Kulash
stated that she asked to have Betsy Conte of Haverhill state that she wrote a letter to the Board of
Health and never got a response. Ms. Conte stated that they are downstream getting the smoke.
Ms. Conte questioned if they have hired an environmental lawyer. Mr. Simon stated that he is
willing to listen to the science. Fred Glorin asked other than NGJ where did you get your
information. Mr. Minott stated that he got it from Massachusetts DEP and fifteen years of
experience working with these facilities. Fred Glorin stated that their statistical information was
from DEP that was submitted from MRI, was there independent study? Thea Fornier stated that
she is an environmentalist speaking in terms of scientific data. If you had a family member being
affected by having two hundred seizures a month and couldn't breath. Ms. Fornier stated that she
had to track these plants down and if she had waited until the data was submitted her son would
have died. Ms. Fornier stated that the children are our jewels and if you just rely on scientific data
you will be a loser. Mr. Simons stated with all due respect that's why I asked for studies and I
haven't seen them. Joan Kulash stated that Mr. Minott is not an epidemiologist and he does not
have the background to say that this is not a health issue. Ms. Kulash read from Mr. Minotts
report. Ms. Kulash stated that he did not mention the permits for dioxin and that this incinerator
has the highest mercury. He seems to be poo poohing the violations for NEU. Ms. Kulash read
over her comments on ash. Ms. Kulash stated that she asked the Board to use their common
sense, that if NEU is saying this ash is O.K. Ms. Kulash stated that the EPA says that Dioxin is a
known human toxinigen. Ms. Kulash stated that we can't afford to make a mistake once because
there is a lot at risk here. Ms. Kulash read from her notes. Ritch Rothstein a resident, asked if
Mr. Minott could give him more insight of meeting the new D.E.P. mercury limit. Mr. Minott
stated that he looked at the data from one or two of the other plants.
Mr. Nardella asked if the testing for mercury would be done every nine months. Mr. Minott
stated yes, every nine months. Mr. Rowen stated that he understood about the problems that the
residents are concerned about but, Mr. Minotts task was to find out if this plant would meet the
Federal and- State requirements for permits. Mr.-Rowen stated that he wants a monitoring plan
and would welcome public comments because we're trying to ensure compliance. Attorney Healy
stated that MRI is fighting people who care about the environment. Mr. Healy stated that he
would like Frank Ferraro to speak. Mr., Ferraro stated that they have been very quiet through the
proceedings. The EPA officer stated that they have filed a Notice of Violation (NOV) for MRI.
Mr. Ferraro stated that there have been many inaccuracies. The issue was an old permit. The
permit was modified in 1992. The NOV was based on the wrong data. Mr. Ferraro stated that in
regards to the ash the citizens did the wrong drinking water test which has been confirmed by the
EPA. All MPJ's tests have been done by the agencies. Mr. Ferraro stated that with regards to
the mercury we are meeting twenty eight. This is a modem plant and he is sorry that Ms. Kulash
is using old data. David Urry 209 Vest Way, asked if Mr. Minott was familiar to the EPA dioxin
limit. Mr. Minott stated that he does -not know the limit but, he does know that one exists.
David Urry 209 Vest Way asked if Mr. Minott was aware that they are one hundred times stricter
f6r this permit. Mr. Minott stated that he does not believe that is a fact and questioned where he
got that information. David Urry 209 Vest way stated that he got it out of the 1994 EPA study.
I
David UrTy 209 Vest way asked what Mr. Minott suggests we do if MRI fails to comply. Mr.
Minott stated that State and Federal permits have the authority to shut down the facility.
Attorney'Healy stated that there will be no work outside of the limit of work. The traffic impacts
will be an increase of two additional workers per day. There will be no change in level of service.
Paul Hajec, Town's traffic consultant made three recommendations. One was to have striping
and signage on Rt. 125. The second would be center and shoulder painting per the approval of
DPW. The third thing would be the installation of a yield sign per the approval of Mass. Highway
or DPW. Mr. Heally stated that they are submitting a letter agreeing to a truck turn warning sign
subject to the approval of Mass. Highway. Mr. Rowen asked if there was going to be any
additional trash. Mr. Heally stated that there would not be. A resident asked what the total
number of trash trucks per day. Jim Connolly stated that there are sixteen and it will go up to
eighteen trucks per day. Paul Hajec stated that he has gone back and fourth with Derrruit Kelly
and he has received a copy of their final results. Mr. Simons stated that in Mr. Hajecs letter it
stated that he had concerns with left hand turns. Mr. Hajec stated that the signs are to alert cars
that trucks are turning. Mr. Hajec stated that he would like to see them trying to get the trucks to
use the road on off peak hours. Ken Kimmell stated that he has been working with the Board of
Health developing regulations so that there will be fines for the trucks. Mr. Rowen stated that all
the trucks will be heading North on Rt. 125. A resident asked who will be enforcing these trucks.
Mr. Rowen stated that these haulers have contracts with NEU and it will be part of their contract
that they must follow these regulations. Mr. Rowen stated that the intent is to keep them on Rt.
495.
Steve Ambrose was present to speak on the noise study he prepared. Mr. Ambrose stated that he
has been involved with noise for twenty years. Mr. Ambrose stated that the State regulations
permit a 10 dB increase. Mr. Ambrose went over examples of dB. A quiet whisper is 10 dB. For
you to speak to someone id 55-60 dB. Mr. Ambrose stated that a 10 dB noise difference is the
minimal needed to notice something change. Mr. Ambrose stated that typically in a neighborhood
where people live during the day is 50 dB and at nighttime it would be I OdB. Commercial
property would be 60-65 dB. Mr. Ambrose stated that this site has an advantage because of the
distance to the community. Mr. Ambrose stated that for a forced draft, or induced draft fan you
would typically put in a silencer to tone out the frequencies . Mr. Ambrose ' stated that the two
residential areas near this site on a quiet night may hear change in sound but, not in level. Mr.
Ambrose stated that he found that the report that was prepared by NSI was adequate and thinks
it is very achievable. Mr. Rowen asked if he would recommend putting in a silencer on the fan.
Mr. Ambrose stated that usually duct work is installed.
U Mr. Rowen stated that we have hired a consultant to review the plant design to see if it would
achieve permit levels established this. We have asked him to make a recommendation to the
Board of Health and the Board of Heath wrote us a letter stating that it would not be an adverse
health problem. Andrew Reiner stated that the environmental considerations is part of your
concerns and is specifically sited in the zoning bylaw. Mr. Reiner started asking questions, not
pertinent to their scope of the meeting. Ken Kinimell stated that he has never been to a Planning
Board meeting that a lawyer in the audience tried to interrogate a member. Ken Kimmell asked if
Mr. Rowen wanted to respond. Mr. Rowen stated that he did not.
E
11
Mr. Rowen stated that he would like to add in the decision that the trucks are to take Rt. 495 per
trucks routes established by the Board of Health. Jim McIver the plant manager, stated that the
ash contracts will go out to bid. I Mr. Rowen asked if there is a way that he can ensure other
NESWIC communities where we stand. Steve Rothstein stated that if were ever informed of a
violation we will inform the Town Manager and we will work with Mr. Kimmell. Mr. McIver
stated that all revenue goes to NESWIC so he would have to talk to them before they break a
contract with a driver. Mr. Nardella stated that what ever he could do to help would be a plus.
Mr. Rowen asked how MRI will be aware of a violation. Mr. McIver stated that he is sure they
all get phone calls. Mr. Rowen asked if there will be a mechanism to report'calls. Mr. McIver
stated that there would be. Mr. Nardella asked if there was a way to number the trucks so that if
they do, do something wrong a resident can report it. Mr. McIver stated that he could look into
that.
Joseph Mahoney left at 11:00 p.m. but he heard all pertinent information regarding the special
permit and the information that he rn�issed was the discussion of the decision. -
Mr. Rowen went over the list of permit actions dated July 31, 1998, Mr. Rowen stated that if a
resident does not have a computer they can go to the library to look up the data. David Urry 209
Vest way asked if there is a way they could get a website. Frank Ferraro stated that this goes well
beyond what we've done in any other community and it takes human intervention to put data into
the website. Mr. Simons stated that the cost of a website is trivial and it is easier to go to a
website. Mr. Ferraro stated that he would like to keep that open for discussion. Mr. Nardella
stated that the computer will be part of the decision. Mr. Ferraro stated that mercury and dioxin
are not continually monitored but, we have indicators showing we are controlling it. Ken
Kimmell stated that we will have a air consultant to read the data in a worse case scenario. Mr.
Ferraro stated that if they have a malfunctioning system it will be reported to D.E.P. Mr. Rowen
stated that the monitor will operate unannounced visits and interpret data. Joan Kulash stated
that we need a physician not hired by the applicant. Mr. Rowen stated that the point of the
monitor is for monitoring the operation as we get data. A resident asked if the reported data will
be n the permits. Mr. Rowen stated absolutely, we have asked them to put the data publicly. A
resident stated that he hopes that this Planning Board does not regret this in twenty to thirty
years. David Urry 209 Vest Way asked what is to prevent if the computer does not work. Mr.
Nardella stated that it will work and it will be a condition in the decision. W. Rowen stated that
we're not going to shut them down. Marty Healy stated that they added that the plant manager
be present when they do inspections for safety reasons. Mr. Nardella asked what the
requirements for notification if you were to shut down the plant per D.E.P. W. Heally stated that
if we find a problem and we shut down we're not in violation. Ms. Lescarbeu wanted to know
why they could notify us as soon as they notify the regulatory agency. Mr. Rowen stated that
when they notify the regulatory agency then notify us at the same time and when you are just
shutting down one side you have 24 hours to notify us.
Mr. Nardella asked if a truck tips over and clean up is needed who is responsible for the cost. Mr
McIver stated that it is the haulers responsibility. The driver would call a tow truck and the state
police and they would clean and they would then leave. Mr. Nardella asked if he conceived the
Town would have to pay the cost. Mr. McIver stated no. Attny Healy stated that the Board of
Health can request us to report new D.E.P standards. Mr. Nardella asked Mr. Kimmell to look at
the 3d buffet on the last page of.the letter dated July 31, 1998. Mr. Kimmell Stated that he
would. Ms. Lescarbeau asked if we have incorporated a the comments form ARI and
specifically the shut down issues on page 10-13 of the report. Mr. Rowen stated that he still
wants ARI to get a monitoring plan. Mr. Minott stated that the permit condition Will require to
be tested every nine months and the Town needs to make sure there consultant is on site during
the tests. Mr. Rowen stated that when the mercury and dioxin tests will be conducted the Town's
consultant will witness the tests. Ken Kimmell asked if the monitoring plan is not complete by
August 18, 1998 when would the Board like the deadline to be. Mr. Minott'stated that it would
be rushed if it was to be in by the August 18, 1998. Mr. Rowen stated that if NEU is stepping up
they should provide the information in a timely manner. Mr. Simons asked what would happen if
an epidemelogy study was found. Ken Kimmell stated that if there is a report that is credible that
this plant is causing cancer I would not want to put that in the decision. Mr. Nardella asked Mr.
Minott if he has worked with any consultants that look at epidemeology. Mr. Minott stated yes.
David Urry 209 Vest Way stated that he is not a lawyer but, the Town has been notified of the
risks of dioxin. Mr. Urry stated that if dioxin is proved to be carcinogenic the Town could have a
class action law suit.
Mr. Rowen stated that he appreciates everyone for coming tonight.
On a motion by Mr. Simons, seconded by Ms. Lescarbeau, the Board voted unanimously to close
the Public Hearing.
The North Andover Planning Board held a regular meeting on August 18, 1998. The following
members were present: Richard S. Rowen, Chairman, Alison Lescarbeau, Vice Chairman, John
Simons, Clerk, Alberto Angles, Associate Member, Joseph Mahoney, Richard Nardella and John
Simons. Kathleen Bradley Colwell, Town Planner was also present.
The Board started to go over the decision. Joan Kulash asked for the Public Hearing to be re-
opened. The Board did not re -open the Public Hearing. Mark DiSalvo stated1hat he would like
to speak. Mr. Nardefla asked if there is a guideline that Wheelabrator suggests for shutting down
the plant in case of CEM equipment failure. Marty Healy stated that the decision should follow
permit requirements set by the EPA and DEP. Mr. Rowen asked if a thermocouple fails is there a
time you would feel uncomfortable running without monitoring and is there something in DEP
that states that you would have to shut down. It was pointed out that there is redundant
equipment monitoring through temperatures in the zombusters and at the filter fabric inlets.
Timothy Porter stated there was no specific time in the permit after which the plant would shut
down after loss of CEM. However, the permit calls for continuous monitoring and meets the
qualifications. Ms. Kulash tried to speak but Mr. Rowen stated to the public that the Public
Hearing was closed two weeks ago at the last meeting. Joan Kulash asked what would make you
not want to hear us speak. Marty Healy stated that if this becomes a debate he will be very
concerned. If this becomes a Public Hearing he will withdraw his comments. Ken Kir=eU
stated that we had an air quality consultant to answer issues to require automatic shut down. Mr.
Kimmell stated that we should leave it for another day and have the consultant respond to the
Planning Board with data. Mr. Kimmell thinks that the air quality consultant should get back to
the Board with a shut down time. Mr. DiSalvo stated that he would like to have the public speak.
Mr. Rowen stated that we had the Public Hearing two weeks ago. "Mr. DiSalvo stated that this
topic wa - s not on the table at that time. Mr. Rowen stated that any point was on the table at that
time. A resident asked why the Board let the public in tonight. Mr. Rowen stated that if they
have one speaker he will listen to the speaker. A resident stated that there is no reason to rush
this through. Joan Kulash stated that we're not your enemies, were due your ears. A resident
asked if the Board would like the public to leave the room so they could have a candle lit room to
talk. Mr. DiSalvo stated that the Board should make their decision only when the Board has
received all the information if it is only a week. Mr. Healy stated that Mr. DiSalvo's comments
are misleading. Mr. Healy stated that if MRI is meeting EPA standards we don't have to shut
down the plant. Mr. Healy stated that we have also set up a program to share our information
with the community. Joan Kulash started to speak out. Mr. Rowen asked her to sit down . Ms.
Kulash asked why the Board is shutting us out. Ken Kimmell went over his draft amendments for
the decision. Mr. Nardella asked if MRI was to have a wish list of back-up parts what would you
pick. Timothy Porter stated that -they have an independent parts manager who is on call and he
gets there within twenty four hours for unexpected failures. Mr. Nardella stated that what you're
saying is that within twenty four hours most monitoring issues will be resolved. Ken Kimmell
read his revised comments. Mr. Kimmell stated that he would like to add in "The air quality
consultant retained by the Town shall specifically investigate and address the extent to which
NfPd's continuous emissions monitoring equipment is not functioning and report to the Planning
Board based on actual data as to whether a standard stricter that imposed by DEP and USEPA
should be imposed to address this issue. Such stricter standards may include but are not limited
to, imposing a requirement that a combuster be shut down if a continuous emissions monitoring
system fails for an excessive amount of time, or requiring redundant continuos emissions
monitoring equipment. The Planning Board reserves the right to revisit this issue after receiving
reports from the air quality monitor. A resident handed the Board an editorial from the Citizen.
Mr. Nardella went over his changes for the draft decision. Mr. Simons stated that he would like
to see dioxin tests be done on a quarterly basis. Mr. Healy stated that he feels that it would be
objectionable to go above what DEP and EPA require. Mr. Rowen stated that the one thing he
would like to include in the decision would be that the town's monitor should be informed two
weeks prior to testing, and that all mercury and dioxin testing be done at a time which accurately
represented the operation of the facility. Cynthia Hibbard of Camp, Dresser and McKee stated
that they test quarterly for mercury and every nine months for dioxin. Even though NIRI is not
constantly tracking mercury they are tracking surrogates whose performance is an indicator of
mercury emission performance. Mr. Porter stated that it is the solid waste law to test every nine
months. Mr. Simons asked what the dioxin test involved, how much it cost and how long it takes.
Mr. Porter stated that it takes two days to do one combuster for five hoursand each combuster
$15,000 and there are two combusters. Mr. Simons stated that he would like to have them test
quarterly for dioxin. Mr. Simons stated that mercury and dioxin are the public health hazards and
this is where the risk is. Mr. Rowen stated that he would like to certainly have them do it for the
first year of operation and if the tests are consistent we could back off. Sean Brewster
representing NESWC stated that we look at DEP and EPA rules that are really protective and he
thinks the town will be adding costs that are not necessary. Mr. Simons stated that MRI can do
extra tests for a year and then if the tests come back O.K. they can do away with the extra. Mr.
I
anyway. Ms. Lescarbeau went over
DiSalvo stated that our tax dollars are paying for the tests
her amendments for the draft decision. Mr. Mahoney went over his amendments for the draft
decision.. Ms. Colwell stated that she would like to specifically riference the plans and the reports
that were submitted. Mr. Rowen stated that there will be five voting members. Mr. Angles, Ms.
Lescarbeau, Mr. Rowen, Mr. Simons and Mr. Nardella. Mr. Mahoney will be abstaining. A
resident asked if the Board incorporated the ash in the decision and who's responsible for the ash
once it leaves the incinerator. Mr. McIver stated that it will be owner by NESWC untiI it gets to
the landfill. A resident asked for the clarification on who's responsible for the ash. Mr. Rowen
stated that the responsibility for the ash is outside the scope of this Board.
On a motion by Ms. Lescarbeau, seconded by Mr. Simons the Board voted 4-1-0 to approve the
draft site plan review decision for Mass. REFUSETECH at 285 Holt Road.
Mr. Angles
yes
Ms. Lescarbeau
yes
Mr. Simons
yes
Mr. Nardella
no
Mr. Rowen'
yes
Mr. Mahoney
abstained
Mr. Mah I oney stated that he abstained because he left early at the last meeting. Mr. Mahoney
stated that he spent ten hours listening to the people for the environment, reading the citizen and
d all
three hours at a ZBA meeting listening to your issues. Mr. Mahoney state that he is tot y
aware of their concerns. Mr. Mahoney stated that he heard all the testimony. relative to the site
plan approval application but, he did not vote because he left early one meeting and he thought he
could be challenged. Mr. Nardella stated that our zoning bylaw requires us to look into the
environment. Mr. Nardella stated that he for one would like to note although he did work hard
on this, we got the best decision we could get but� he couldn't vote for it.
Attached are the conditions.
incerely,
Richard S. Rowen, Chairman
North Andover Planning Board
E k�'
U1
I
SITE PLAN APPROVAL/SPECIAL PERMIT
MASSACHUSETTS REFUSETECH, INC.
EMISSIONS CONTROL PROJECT
Background
The Planning Board hereby approves with conditions the Special Permit/Site Plan Review
for the construction of emissions control equipment ("the Project") at the existing solid waste
incinerator located off of Holt Road and owned and operated by Massachusetts Refusetech, Inc.
("MR1"). The locus of this incinerator is 285 Holt Road, Assessors Map 34, Lot 2 1. The land is
owned by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and has been leased to MRI.
MRI applied for a Special Pern-lit/Site Plan Approval on or about Ma ' y 15, 1998. The
project involves the installation of air pollution control equipment required by the Clean Air Act
and the regulations promulgated thereunder. MRI proposes to replace the existing electrostatic
precipitator and dry sorbent injections systems with new equipment consisting of spray dryer
absorbers, fabric filters, a selective non -catalytic reduction system, a powder ' ed activated carbon
injection systen-4 and natural gas-fired auxiliary burners. The project also *involves enclosing the
existing ash storage shed to better control potential fugitive emissions from I he ash pile. 1h
The Planning Board held a duly noticed public hearing on the project on June 16 , 1998,
and continued that hearing to August 4", 1998. The Planning Board closed Ithe public hearing on
August 4h, and voted on the application on August 18, 1998. In addition to� hearing testimony
from MRI and its consultants and members from the public, the PI g Board also received
independent expert analyses from the following individuals: 1) D . d . otatil, of Alternative
Resources, Inc., who presented a written report and oral testimony regarding' air emissions from
the facility and potential public health impacts; 2) Stephen Ambrose, who pre:sented a written
report and oral testimony regarding noise impacts; and 3) Paul Hajec of Haj6c Associates, who
presented a written report and oral testimony regarding traffic impacts. While this application
was pending before the Planning Board, the North Andover Board of Health, also held three
public meetings to hear testimony on the potential health effects of the facility. At the conclusion
of these public meetings, the Board of Health voted unanimously to inform the Planning Board
that on the basis of its review, the facility would not cause adverse public health effects. The
chairman of the Board of Health sent a letter to the Planning Board so indicating.
Findings
The'Planning Board has evaluated the application with respect to all relevant review
criteria and design guidelines set forth in Section 8.3.6 of the Zoning Bylaw and the special permit
criteria set forth in Section 10.3 of the Zoning Bylaw. On the basis of this extensive review, the
Planning Board makes the following findings as required by the North Andover Zoning Bylaw §§
8.3 and 10.3.
I
1 . The site is an appropriate location for the project. The site is within the Industrial
2 zone, and resource recovery facilities are allowed as of right in that district. In addition, the
facility has been operating at this site since the mid- 1980's.
2. Provided that MRI complies with all conditions to this approval, the Project will
not. cause any adverse effects on the neighborhood. The visual impacts are minimaL as the new
structures are lower than existing structures, and will be placed within the existing developed
footprint of the facility. The noise impacts can be controlled to acceptable levels with proper
design and engineering. Most importantly, the NIRI facility will emit significantly lower
concentrations of pollutants as a result of the Project.
3. There will be no nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles or pedestrians. The Project
will cause a mininial increase in truck traffic on Route 125 and Holt Road, and these minimal
impacts will be more than mitigated by conditions imposed on this permit.
4. MRI's plans provide for adequate and appropriate facilities for the proper
0 peration of the facility. As noted, this is an existing facility, and the existing infrastructure is
adequate and appropriate. To the extent the Project imposes additional demands upon
infrastructure, ME has appropriately addressed these additional demands in its application.
I
5. The Project is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Bylaw. As
noted, this type of use is allowed as of right in -the Industrial District. Also, the Project will result
in lower emissions of pollutants, thereby providing a healthier and safer environment for the
residents of North Andover, compared to existin� g conditions.
6. MRI has submitted all information required by Section 8.3.5 of the Zoning Bylaw.
7. The Planning Board further finds that the Project should satisfy all relevant review
criteria and design requirements set forth in section 8.3 of the Bylaw.
8. The Planning Board finds that conditions are required in order to ensure full
compliance with Sections 8.3 and 10.3 of the Bylaw. The Planning Board he'reby grants an
approval to NIRI subject to the following conditions.
Special Conditions
1) Truck Routes/Traffic
a) The Planning Board finds that the appropriate route for trash trucks entering and exiting
the MRI facility is as follows: 1) enter the facility via Route 495, to the Route 125 /Ward
Hill Connector, to Route 125 South, to Holt Road, and 2) exit the facility via Route 125
North, to the Route 125/Ward Hill Connector, to Route 495 (hereafter referred to as "the
Designated Route").
2
b) Commencing upon the date of filing this decision with the Town Clerk, MRI shall assist in
ensuring compliance with the Designated Route by placing language in all new contracts
with NfRI, and in all renewals of existing contracts between MPU, and municipal solid
waste haulers, ash haulers, and metals haulers (collectively referred to as "Nm Contract
Haulers") requiring such haulers to use the Designated Route, and any applicable truck
route regulations that may be issued by the Board of Health. This condition will apply to
all contracts that NM enters into directly with the haulers. To the extent that equivalent
provisions do not already exist in the existing contracts, MRI will use its best efforts to
incorporate the above requirements in the existing contracts by January 31, 1999. The
term best efforts includes, but is not limited to, sending to such haulers a copy of this
decision and a written request that the contract be amended to incorp orate the above
requirements. A copy of any such written request shall be copied to the Town Manager,
and MRI shall follow up the written request with additional efforts should the Town
Manager request it.
c) With respect to the hauling of municipal solid waste that is collected within North
Andover, the Planning Board did not hear testimony on whether it is practical to require
haulers to use the Designated Route. However, the Planning Board understands that the
Board of Health is in the process of promulgating comprehensive regulations designed to
address trash truck traffic, and the Board of Health regulations are expected to determine
the proper route for waste haulers to use for waste collected in North Andover. Once the
issue of North Andover trash trucks are addressed by the Board of Health, MRI shall
place language in all new contracts, and in all renewals of existing contracts, requiring
MRI Contract Haulers to comply with any applicable truck route regulations that may be
issued by the Board of Health for such trash trucks. To the extent that there is any
conflict between the Designated Route and the Board of Health regulations, the latter shall
control.
d) Within thirty days of the date of filing of this decision with the Town Clerk, and at least
annually thereafter, and whenever requested by the Town Manager, MRI shall send to
MRI Contract Haulers reminders of the Designated Route with a reminder that failure to
comply with the route restrictions may result in revocation of the contract or suspension
of tipping privileges. MRI shall promptly send copies of such reminders to the Town
Manager.
e) Within five days of learning of a violation of the above route restriction, MRI shall provide
written warnings to any MRI Contract Hauler that MRI determines has violated the route
restriction notifying the hauler that failure to comply with the route restrictions may result
in revocation of the contract or suspension of tipping privileges. MRI shall promptly send
copies of such warnings to the Town Manager.
f) Within thirty days of the date of filing of this decision with the Town Clerk, and at least
annually and whenever requested by the Town Manager, MRI shall send reminders of the
route restrictions to NESWC with a request that NESWC advise its member communities
about the route restrictions. MRI shall promptly send copies of such reminders to the
Town Manager.
I
I
I
g) MRI shall propose and f'und the installation of truck turn warning signage along Route
125 northbound, just prior to the Route 125/Holt Road intersection, subject to approval
and implementation by the Massachusetts Highway Department.
h) MRI shall propose and fLmd center and shoulder -fine painting along Holt Road between
Route 125 and the MRI facility, subject to approval and implementation by the North
Andover Department of Public Works.
i) MRI shall propose and fund installation of a YIELD sign for right turns from Holt Road
onto Route 125 southbound, subject to approval and implementation by the Massachusetts
Highway Department and the North Andover Department of Public Works.
j) MRI shall apply for approvals of the Massachusetts Highway Department and the North
I
Andover Department of Public Works no later than October 31, 199 ' 8, and shall make
best efforts to ensure that the conditions g, h, and i are implemented no later than March
1,1999.1
2) Air Quality Monitoring and Access to Data and Records
a) Public Access to Compliance Data in Real Time. Prior to operation of the Project, MRI
shall arrange for public access to Plant data by establishing an Internet website accessible
using common web browser software such as Netscape or Microsoft Explorer. Data
from MRI's database computer shall be downloaded to the website for the purpose of
providing public access to continuous emissions and operational operating data, suitably
time -averaged for compliance demonstration as defined by DEP and US EPA permit
conditions, regulations and guidelines. Public access in this regard shall be unrestricted as
to who may access the data, and as to time of day or day of the week. MRI shall provide
the data to the website continuously throughout each day on a basis as near to a real time
as is reasonably practical, but not more than twelve hours following the end of the data
time -averaging period required for compliance demonstration. MRI shall install a
computer, modem telephone line, and modem in the Town's library to facilitate ready
public access to the data.
'The Planning Board recognizes that there is case law to the effect that a local board may not
impose conditions that require the approval of other agencies, such as the Massachusetts Highway
Department. Should a court determine that Conditions g, h, I, and j are invalid on that basis, it is
the Planning Board's intent that those conditions be deemed severable from the remainder of this
decision. The annulment of those conditions would not affect the Planning Board's ultimate
determination that the Project meets the criteria in the bylaw, including traffic -related criteria.
4
a
b) The specific continuous monitoring data to be made publicly available is as follows:
i) Most Recent CoMphance Data: The latest monitored emissions and operating levels,
compared with permit limits (graphical format), specifically:
(1) Summaries of time periods during which each continuous monitoring system was
malfiinctioning while the facility was operational, as "operationar, is defined by
applicable regulations.
(2) Quarterly cumulative summaries of such malfunction time.
iv) Should MRI be required by US EPA or DEP to modify the frequency, nature, extent,
or type of sampling and reporting, MRI shall promptly adapt the above database so
that it is consistent with any such modifications.
c) Compliance Records. Commencing at the time this decision is filed in the Town Clerk's
office, at the same time that MRI submits such reports to regulatory agencies, MRI shall
deliver to the Town Manager two copies of each periodic (e.g., monthly, quarterly, 9 -
month, annual) report required by federal, state, or local permits and/or regulations
relating to air quality.
E
(1) Sulfur Dioxide, 24-hour average geometric mean concentration and the removal
efficiency
(2) Nitrogen Oxides, 24-hour daily arithmetic average concentration
(3) Opacity, 6-niinute average percentage values, daily summary
(4) Carbon Monoxide, 4 -hour block arithmetic average
(5) Flue Gas Temperature at the fabric filter inlet, 4 -hour block arithmetic average
(6) Mercury, Dioxin, and any other parameter that is tested but n I ot subject to
continuous emissions monitoring data, the latest test results. M� shall test
quarterly for dioxirL The Planning Board reserves the right to amend this
condition and allow less frequent testing if the test results during the first year of
operation reveal levels of dioxin substantially below the permitted Emits.
ii) Summaries of Historical CoWHance with Applicable Limits:
(1) For each continuously monitored parameter above, an historical compliance
summary shall be provided that includes, at a minimum, the prior week's data and
the last six months' data. The format, graphical or tabular, shall clearly convey the
number, dates, and magnitudes o f any exceedances of applicable limits.
(2) For mercury, dioxin, and any other parameter that is tested but not subject to
continuous emissions monitoring data, the preceding three years of test data, in a
format that clearly conveys the number, dates, and magnitudes of any exceedances
of applicable limits.
iii) Continuous Emissions Monitoring Equipment Malfunction Summaries:
(1) Summaries of time periods during which each continuous monitoring system was
malfiinctioning while the facility was operational, as "operationar, is defined by
applicable regulations.
(2) Quarterly cumulative summaries of such malfunction time.
iv) Should MRI be required by US EPA or DEP to modify the frequency, nature, extent,
or type of sampling and reporting, MRI shall promptly adapt the above database so
that it is consistent with any such modifications.
c) Compliance Records. Commencing at the time this decision is filed in the Town Clerk's
office, at the same time that MRI submits such reports to regulatory agencies, MRI shall
deliver to the Town Manager two copies of each periodic (e.g., monthly, quarterly, 9 -
month, annual) report required by federal, state, or local permits and/or regulations
relating to air quality.
E
9
d) Inspection of Facility Operations and Records. Commencing at the time this decision is
filed in the Town Clerk's office, the Board of Health and its Agents shall have the right to
both unannounced and scheduled inspections of any and all facility operations and
operating records generated after this decision is filed with the Town Clerk as required to
assess ongoing compliance of the facility with permit limits and conditions imposed by US
EPA, DEP, and the Town, and compliance with the applicable air quality regulations of
those entities. The right to such inspections is unrestricted in frequency, timing, or
duration, provided that such inspections are conducted in the presence of the Plant
Manager or his designated representative, in a manner that does not unnecessarily disrupt
MRI facility operations and in compliance with MRI health and safety policies and
procedures. Without limiting the foregoing, MRI shall provide fourteen days prior notice
to the Board of Health and its designated representative before conducting tests for
mercury, dioxin, and/or any other pollutant that is not tested on a continuous emissions
monitoring basis. The Board of Health and/or its designated representative shall have the
right to be present at the facility during such tests, and shall have access as may be needed
to ensure that the tests are representative of the facility's operations. � The test shall be
representative of actual facility operations.
0 3) Solid Waste Monitoring
a) Inspection for Ash Dusting. The Board of Health and its Agents shall have the right to
periodic unannounced inspections for the purpose of determining whether ash -handling,
storage, and load -out operations comply with the US EPA and DEP requirements
restricting visible emissions, with such compliance to be determined as specified by those
agencies' regulations. Such inspections shall be conducted in the presence of the Plant
Manager or his designated representative, in a manner that does not unnecessarily disrupt
MRI facility operations and in compliance with MRI health and safety policies and
procedures.
4) Shut -Downs of Combustor Units and Other Problems
a) Shut -Down of Combustor Units. MRI is required to promptly cease the charging of
municipal solid waste to a combustor unit or units if any of the following criteria is met as
to that combustor unit or units:
i) Potential for Stack Exhaust Fan Failure. The forced draft or induced draft fan ceases
to function. An interlock is required that automatically prevents the ftirther charging
of waste to the affected combustor unit(s), until the fan resumes service.
ii) Potential for Excess Emissions from Inadequate Combustion Efficiency. On startup,
furnace gas temperature, as measured at Elevation 125'- 0" (TI & T2), less than 1600
F (which is equivalent to 1800 F at the one -second gas residence time plane). An
interlock is required that automatically prevents the charging of waste to the affected
combustor unit(s), until the temperature criterion is met.
I
a
During waste combustion, furnace gas temperature measured at Elevation 125'- 0"
drops below 1600 F for more than three hours. Operator must promptly cease the
charging of waste to the affected combustor unit(s), and cannot resume charging until
the temperature criterion is met.
iii) Potential for Excess Emissions from Failure of the Fabric Filter. More than three
fabric filter modules are out -of -service (isolated). Operator must promptly cease the
charging of waste to the affected combustor unit(s), and cannot resume charging until
sufficient modules are in service.
iv) Potential for Excess Emissions from.Scrubber Failure. Temperature exceeds 450 F at
fabric filter inlet; i.e., following the spray -dry absorber (scrubber). An interlock is
required that automatically prevents the ftirther charging of waste to the affected
combustor unit(s), until proper scrubber functioning is restored, as evidenced by the
temperature at the fabric filter inlet.
Lime -slurry feed to the spray -dry aDsorber interrupted for more than four hours.
Operator must promptly cease the charging of waste to the affected combustor unit(s),
until lime -slurry feed is restored.
v) MRI shall maintain a written record on site of the occurrence (date and time) of any of
the above events, and the reason, to the extent known, for the occurrence.
b) If there is a shut down of a combustor unit(s) for the reasons set forth in Condition 4(a),
MRI shall promptly notify the Town Manager of the shut down. The term "promptly"
means if the shut down occurs during Town business hours, within three hours of the shut
down, and if the shut down occurs after Town business hours, no later than 10:00 A.M.
on the next normal business day of the town. MRI shall also post any such notices to the
Town Manager on the database referenced in Condition 2(a).
c) Commencing at the time that this decision is filed in the Town Clerk's office, whenever
MRI is required by permit to notify a regulatory agency of an accident or violation, MRI
shall also notify the Town Manager at the same time that it notifies the regulatory agency.
MRI shall also post any such notices to the Town Manager on the database referenced in
Condition 2(a).
Q5) Miscellaneous
a) MRI shall not cornbust sewage sludge in the combustor units.
b) Noise: Noise from the facility as upgraded by the Project shall not increase the broadband
level by more than I OdBA above the ambient levels or produce a "pure tone" condition as
set forth in DAQC Policy 90-001, the guideline for 310 CMR 7.10. Inordertoensure
compliance with this condition, MRI shall perform ambient testing prior to operation of
the Project, at Location 5 as referenced in a document entitled "Sound Level Evaluation
III
E - -
for the Massachusetts Refusetech, Inc. Emissions Control Project, prepared by Michael D.
Theriault Associates, Inc., and consistently with the testing that was done in that report.
MRI shall then perform testing at Location 5 not later than one hundred and eighty days
from completion of on-site construction, and compare the test results to determine
compliance. MRI shall submit the test results with a report indicating whether the test
results indicate compliance with this condition. If the test results indicate non-compliance,
MRI shall devise and implement measures to ensure compliance.
c) MRI shall comply with all applicable federal and state laws, regulations, and permit
E conditions governing the operations of the facility.
d) MRI shall pay to the Town the lump sum of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) on
or before January 2, 1999, in addition to any payments made under the Host Community
Agreement between MRI and the Town, for the purpose of fundingair quality monitoring
activities relating to the facility. MRI shall pay the lump sum of $25 000 on or fore
January 2 of each year thereafter, and this obligation shall cease one year after the
termination of the operation of the entire facility.
MR1 shall provide financial security in d form acceptable to the Board, such as a proper
bond analogous to that required under the Subdivision Control Law, G.L. c.41, §81U, in
"the amount of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) to be used by the Town for expenses
incurred by the Town should the facility be ab�ndoned or extraordinary expenses incurred
by the Town to provide emergency services at the facility while it is in operation. The
financial security shall be renewable and reinstatable and shall be maintained on a yearly
basis, and MRI shall notify the Town Manager when the financial se curity is established,
and each time it is renewed.
0 Unless otherwise specified, the conditions herein shall be effective upon operation of the
I
emissions control project. Operation shall be defined as the date upon which MRI
submits its initial performance test to DEP in accordance with the new Clean Air Act
regulations.
g) All conditions to this Special Permit/Site Plan Approval are binding upon any and a
successors, assignees, and transferees of MRI.
h) Without limiting the remedies available to the Town, violations of these conditions are
subject to fines and/or injunctive relief to the fullest extent authorized by law.
i) The'air quality consultant retained by the Town shall specifically investigate and address
the extent to which MRI's continuous emissions monitoring equipment is not functioning
and report to the Planning Board based on actual data as to whether a standard stricter
than that imposed by DEP and USEPA should be imposed to address this issue. Such
stricter standards may include but are not limited to, imposing a requirement that a
combustor be shut down if a continuos emissions monitoring system fails for an excessive
amount of time, or requiring redundant continuos emissions monitoring equipment. The
I
a
Planning Board reserves the right to revisit this issue after receiving reports from the air
quality monitor.
j) Prior to the date of Operation, MRI shall submit to the Board an as -built plan, certified
by a professional engineer, indicating that the Project has been constructed substantially in
compliance with the plans contained in the Application for Site Plan Review.
k) The Application for Site Plan Review, dated May 15, 1998, and revised July 7, 1998 and
the attachments thereto, shall be deemed part of this decision, and the Project shall be
constructed in accordance with those documents and plans including the following:
i) Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by R. D. Vanasse & Assoc., Inc., 10 New
England Business Center Drive, Suite 3 14, Andover, MA 0 18 10,1 prepared for
EMCON, 3 Riverside Drive, Andover, MA 0 18 10, dated January 28, 1998, rev.
August 3, 1998.
ix) Plan titled: Massachusetts Refusetech Inc., 285 Holt Road, North Andover, MA Plan
to Accompany Application for Site Plan Review, prepared by EMCON, Inc., Andover,
MA, dated 4/15/98, rev. 5/13/98, and 7/7/98.
I
ii) Air Quality Monitoring Report prepared by Earth Tech, 196 Baker Avenue, Concord,
MA 0 1742, prepared for Massachusetts REFUSE TECH Inc., 285 Holt Road, North
Andover, MA, dated January 1998.
iii) Sound Level Evaluation prepared by Michael D. Theriault Associates, Inc., prepared
for EMCON, Inc., Andover, MA, dated January 1998, rev. July 1998.
iv) Visual Impact Analysis prepared by Young Associates, 121 Juliand Hill Road, Greene,
NY. 13778, prepared for Massachusetts REFUSETECH Inc., 285 Holt Road, North
Andover, MA, dated January 6, 1998.
v). Independent Air Quality Review of Proposed MRI Emissions -Control Upgrade,
prepared by ARI, 9 Pond Lane, Concord, MA, for Town of North Andover Planning
Board and Board of Health, dated July 1998.
vi) Noise Study Peer Review prepared by Stephen E. Ambrose, Noise Control Engineer,
4 Old Great Falls Road, Windhan-4 ME 04062, prepared for the North Andover
Planning Board, dated July 30, 1998.
vii) Traffic Review prepared by Hajec Associates, 375 Common Street, Lawrence, MA
0 1840, prepared for the North Andover Planning Board, dated July 2, 1998.
viii)' Plan titled: Massachusetts Refusetech Inc., 285 Holt Road, North Andover, MA
Air Emission� Control System Retrofit General Arrg't Elevation, prepared by
MA, dated 4/15/98, last 5/21/98
EMCON, Inc., Andover, rev.
ix) Plan titled: Massachusetts Refusetech Inc., 285 Holt Road, North Andover, MA Plan
to Accompany Application for Site Plan Review, prepared by EMCON, Inc., Andover,
MA, dated 4/15/98, rev. 5/13/98, and 7/7/98.
I
x) Plan titled: Massachusetts Refusetech Inc., 285 Holt Road, North Andover, MA Lime
Preparation retrofit General Arrangement Elevation, prepared by EMCON, Inc.,
Andover, MA, dated 4/15/98, rev. 5/13/98.
Cc. Director of Public Works
Building Inspector
Health Administrator
Assessors
Conservation Administrator
Drainage Consultant
Planning Board
Police Chief
Fire Chief
Applicant
Engineer
File
MRI - Site Plan Review
10
Interoffice Memo
Wheelabrator Air Pollution Control
ALL
A WMX Technologies Company Phone: 412.562.7177
441 Smithfield Street Fax: 412.594-7818
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
February 9, 1999
To: David Raymond
From: W. Pifer l,'mA
Subject Massachusetts REFUSETECH, Inc
Phase I Construction
The existing ash handling system at the Massachusetts REFUSETECH, In&.. facility is being
expanded and modified as phase 1 of the air pollution control retrofit prcje�'Ct.
The north and west walls of the existing ferrous metals bunker will be demolished with new
push walls being built. This will then form the new bulk materials area blinker.
The east push wall of the existing bulk materials bunker will be extended to' the South thus
forming the new ferrous metals bunker. A new enclosure consisting of painted structural steel
and FRP roofing and siding will be erected over and around both bunkers with the south side
of the bunkers remaining open.
All necessary demolition, new foundations and grade slabs will be provided as required for this
work.
Inside the existing Ash House/Conditioning Building, a new support structure will be erected
for the existing Drum Magnet just to the west of its current location and the magnet will be
relocated to the west. The existing Yard Transfer conveyor and its chutes in: this same
building will also be modified such that this conveyor will feed metals to the Ferrous Metals
Vibrating conveyor in its new location and ultimately to the new ferrous receiving bunker (new
Ferrous Metals Day bunker).
The push walls of the existing Bulk Materials Day bunker just north of the Ash House will be
extended and enclosed along with a new Ferrous Metals Day bunker being constructed. The
enclosure consisting of painted structural steel and coated metal roofing and siding will be
provided for both of these new bunkers to match the existing building siding.
David Raymond
February 9, 1999
Page - 2
The ash conditioner in this same Ash House will be relocated such that it too will feed the
I
existing Ferrous Metals Stacking conveyor. Platforms will be erected around the relocated ash
conditioner for access.
Also included as part of this work will be any necessary electrical and piping
installation/relocation work. I
The following drawings are attached to further clarify the phase 1 scope:
09-27-MOOl
rev. A
Site Plan ,
I
09-27-MO30
rev. 1
Ash House G.A. Plan View
09-27-MO31
rev. 0
Ash House G.A. Sections
09-27-MO40
rev. 1
Ash Storage Encl. G.A. Plan
09-27-MO41
rev. 1
Ash Storage Encl. G.A. Section A - A,
WAPC conservatively estimates the value of all phase I work to be $941,400. This estimates
includes all demolition, materials and construction costs. I
Thanks.
WAP
ATTACHMENTS
ISSUE RECORD
A
:c
rr, w
:I> Ul ul
13 _4 r
Z c rn
I'm
r)
F cAA9
/I
7.
zo
cm �v x
r M 'n > t
z -n
0
4 co
I IR_
z
n Z M M
:z 0 0 >
im Cl)
C) >
10 Z o a I- IL I i D
0 C) , :c _< >
a)
LTV 0 Z r- ITI
> :3> > a
'q
0
z s
0
+ -A
(n z
7 r-
Ap
(\j
C�
CD
HOLI Rorc
nRASS AREA
------------
-----------------------
---
...............
EMPLOYEE- PARKING
b?vg
COL. 'A -A E 5152.210y
TIPFI.% FLOOR
EL. 81.00
ul—
E 5 8 :00
RE FUSE PIT
EL. 46.00
rrl
............. ..
ri J
c4ea
i
BOILER ROOM
EL. GG12
LT
dw
;r
-A\ X W
;7
J,
15.
"p
3>
R:6
rA .*STAQ(
STORAGE
. ING
U 10
!F2
IS
PAV:4z--NT
. . ............. .........
....... .........
p
PUW ROOM COUNG -3%ER
AND SUMP
S2 m
oz
E 5eaz
N4
30
A
'W el't
r3R
E 6000
mz
mz
6200
/I
7.
zo
cm �v x
r M 'n > t
z -n
0
4 co
I IR_
z
n Z M M
:z 0 0 >
im Cl)
C) >
10 Z o a I- IL I i D
0 C) , :c _< >
a)
LTV 0 Z r- ITI
> :3> > a
'q
0
z s
0
+ -A
(n z
7 r-
Ap
(\j
C�
CD
z
,w
rl
8MM-- rl
:,-n LA
rl
Z 6 -P Z
�g_ rq
��c R Z
,Z < C)
-Z< :2gl
ISSUE RECORD
z
D
V)
rn
zo
rn
M
—z
A
p P
0-
i
30 cn
rM --4
U)
0
rn
c
cn en
r -n
4
0
n
0 CD
z
M
r
>
(A
a; M
'I
o
0
M
+ (A
z
1>
z
M
I
c
9 %
Z MI M
0 0 >
co M >
(:> >g < C
0 z — -n
>0 oz - U�t
s
Ac�
�6
2-22S2-239
M
jz
Q-- 0--
15'- 6 10'-6'
on
mx 1
NO
m I NEW WALL
�cj
EXTENSION
r--------
"'H
w
:r
C]
z
4—
V
uD:
SEIM
[n
4 -
ID
----------
--------------
----------------
............ .....
41-4—
auIM
IQ' RISP -.L.
........... ................. Qm - ------------
i 4ZA IN LAB
................. 14
I'm
9E?M . ......... ........
.Y'r- R:
�4 ...... f. .... .. .
4--il ----------
c
..................
E: ��emo L
- ---------- ------------------- ...........
1>
...... . ......
....... ::.- ........
gm
C§ T
z
j
:r
C]
z
4—
V
uD:
SEIM
[n
4 -
ID
----------
--------------
----------------
............ .....
41-4—
auIM
IQ' RISP -.L.
........... ................. Qm - ------------
i 4ZA IN LAB
................. 14
I'm
9E?M . ......... ........
.Y'r- R:
�4 ...... f. .... .. .
4--il ----------
c
..................
E: ��emo L
5'-7- 6'-3-
ct-, (D 0. -
CD
(Y)
I
- ---------- ------------------- ...........
...... . ......
....... ::.- ........
z
j
A ai
rm
<
M
j;o
M 5
rM
-Lj
li-
;<
I
5'-7- 6'-3-
ct-, (D 0. -
CD
(Y)
I
N\N
7'
I
r- �
C3
E CO
�: -01,
M
11-1
cl
ISSUE RECORD
rurl Z
WIC3: tz
I z
to
MAClMxm
C�Mmcc
11 -1
1z"
*4
z z
M.M
Tlcx
P��
mn
00
LIE, y
rl
a,
M
I>
c
m L.j m Z,
u -.c, >
Lz-
C4
<Z <:Z�
cz
MQ
z
m C3
4
Ali
-Z
<
rnc3>
c, � z
In In
I- -
-
'i
;0
UM
74
A
N\N
7'
I
r- �
C3
E CO
�: -01,
M
11-1
cl
ISSUE RECORD
rurl Z
WIC3: tz
I z
to
5
0
i
it
i A
-C
05 a
zrl 11: 4:
M bpm
z
m
3>
:00>
cnxLo A r.m
rntm
M z
4c,)=
mc:X
z (n
(nzm
U)
m
z a
A In
m
r
m
m
0
X
m
afta 4
C7 z
cl
>
9.,
;,4
�vw
In
M
mn
C3
zIn
It �Ay rL, r. r�
'F'f-'p
14
94
C)
C3
rl x
.rnm
M.
Z rLl
-013
.. . ...........
.?G. , 76'
(APPROU
;A m L% g A
9
M
-oa
— ---e.
AM, In,
�LJ
W
< z
Lj
C6 Lj -- --------
Ll
...........
c2
In
,z ----------------------
lo ... ...........
�0: z -""*"-,,-"-" . .. . ........
C! i ................ .........
Nwl
................
z I A
.................
------------
E::777:777'.".
<
. .........
a,
c
z Amm
o o >
E CO
�: -01,
.0, > < 0
01 z 0
11-1
Ln ?5 z
al >
r—
;A m L% g A
9
M
-oa
— ---e.
AM, In,
�LJ
W
< z
Lj
C6 Lj -- --------
Ll
...........
c2
In
,z ----------------------
lo ... ...........
�0: z -""*"-,,-"-" . .. . ........
C! i ................ .........
Nwl
................
z I A
.................
------------
E::777:777'.".
<
. .........
a,
All
P
ISSLE RE:*"
9
M
z
Mtn
m --I
f
M 3), C')
rImM f
7>m
ZDM
ZZ 0
C)(-)
mr-
* CD
Z§
MI
C3
8
10 1.
�:c
0
R ae,
aw.
a
m
Pum
0
R ae,
aw.
a
I
'A
... . .. ................
-------------- ........ ...... ......
....... --., ........ i if
Lr ............. -------
i
if
z T
x
C;c7 I ---- ---
C� A- M C, i:
QD
cok,
;u
rn
r MAE<
rn 1*11
> M
0
0
0
m
z
�1> z A m
>
> C-)
co >K< "/o
— 1' n
Zoo
?)- z
> o
=c
...........
0"
---s
101
-S
..........
if
I
'A
... . .. ................
-------------- ........ ...... ......
....... --., ........ i if
Lr ............. -------
i
if
z T
x
C;c7 I ---- ---
C� A- M C, i:
QD
cok,
;u
rn
r MAE<
rn 1*11
> M
0
0
0
m
z
�1> z A m
>
> C-)
co >K< "/o
— 1' n
Zoo
?)- z
> o
=c
...........
0"
---s
101
-S
I" A
42
ISSUE RECORD
Rl
j;
ULM
C)
z m
C5 om > 0
>
> K < 0
r- rrs 0) z o -n
al 0 z
7>
C) Ln
m
z
E2
mm
ZM
I>M
:> ZZ n
A, R A 'i
3�mr- ri
CL':'
Tc
--4=
m
CD 6,1E
0
M
>
m
c) i2;A P,
4
W
LTJ M
41.
4
0 f
71
Cc in
u
I
10
CD
>
i
-- - --------------------------
ci
I'm
S2 I -
IZZI
j*r
SUPPIRT TWER
i
-- - --------------------------
j*r
i
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOV � v,
SYSTEM PUMPING RECO
DATE— ��6 — ae,,
SYSTEM OWNER &-X5D�RESS
DATE OF PUMPING
SYSTEM LOCATHO—N
QUANTITY PUMPED.
CESSPOOL NO YES SEPTIC TANK NO
NATURE OF SERVICE: RdUTINE EMERGENCY
OBSERVATIONS:
GOOD CONDITION
HEAVY GREASE
ROOTS
EXCESSIVE SOLIDS
SOLID CARRYOVER.
SYSTEM PUMPED BY
COMMENTS:
CONTENTS TRANSFERRED TO
FULL TO COVER
BAFFLES IN LACE
LEACHFIELD RUNBACK
FLOODED .
OTHER EXPLAIN
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOvER
SYSTEM PLWING RECORD
DATE k --o v
0
SYSTEM OWNER & ADDRESS
u's ate-,Xlel I-- AIIG��
SYSTEM LOCATION
OF jT4
. Al
DATE OF PUMPING. —QUANTITY PUMPED 1-5'04�6
CESSPOOL NO il-11 YES SEPTIC TANK NO— YES
NATURE OF SERVICE: RdUTINE--,—/ EMERGENCY
OBSERVATIONS-.
GOOD CONDiTioN
FULL TO COVER
HEAVY GREASE
BAFFLES IN LACE
ROOTS —
LEACHFIELD RUNBACK
EXCESSIVE SOLIDS
FLOODED
SOLID CARRYOVEI�—
OTHER EXPLAIN
SYSTEM PUMPED BY
-7 e
7f
CON4MENTS:
"r
CONTENTS TRANSFERRED TO �!
2�0 �,&, �z �-EA-