HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-08-19 Correspondence SPR r ,H
BERNSTEIN
ONE G N, R'r $°l"ITEET, SUITE 700 },3 T 1 , UASSACH SEFII" 02108 �r��'�)742-4, ��,r,s���11�%�
Jr.ffn.`y�w°lh,-rtllm� i a t hl ssearh s kt Office
Smcc-y L, 4 81"S'm'IIber
Kennn ob,l., Ca:nrl!nimelm . PVTTSF IELD,MASSAC,;HUSETTS(11A)
ElisaFr°11n(7, (:Too llrli'rrn (413) 44 -3773
CIo,Mrlr° l l trsacsimila�('41 )442-3 74
E-mail;E bckberNa,01br .rsrnrnr
Erin M,O'Toole
Sr�r nnnn � m.FLMaartla June 11, 19'
'rel o��"4u�avm�lrvadl$u�Pw sttlwd'>�r I�
Akm Mmrtlw i fox Pu yr P Lo io,N viv Yort
ppA Pir,11 ic; od fidu�ribila
BY FACSIMILE' ORIGINAL VIA MST CLASS MAIL
Kathleen Colwell
North Ajiclover Planning Board
Tort offNorth Andover
120 Main Street
North Anduver, MA 01:845
c; ➢ ] Retrot t bite p'➢apt Review Application
Dear Mis. Colwell.,
Enclosed please find a rmm mor mnd'm.ni relating to time scope of the Planning,Board's review
f the above-referenced matter. ff took forward to attending the hearing on Jun 16"'. Please d
moot hesitate to contact erne before that firn ..
A,
N.
offmat➢l� �, imrvru`m .➢
LK/e o
c. Roblert Halpin
Martin Healy, Esq.
rmdr w Rainer, Esq.
m:�):�1!Au: T M A m L.ETI.NAN
v o m rye"
a ,°q°
AA°fO11NEY�i Al L:AW
ONE COURT STF11EEJ,, SUITE 700 ROSTON,, MASSACHUSETTS 02108 (617)742-4,1 0 Fac4srrwiiile (611) d" 2•b���1
E_rrtiail UaCia'Wa
1u lnditi:,f 1wi. 1.1eAnslemirx Western Massaramarsp"s off co�
1aM m °n,-d'rr"lntrcm 20 BANK RO'wrV, SU1n°E 200
Em-tmmmr &1i L. Khnnbc�H "
f'1"1 rSPIELD,.Ihv1m���SA�HUSETTS 01201
E:1isxi1 olhi 1"-0001drn aAim m., F�&ur: i�n77�iN a(413)44,2 377'
Cho 1Larak E-mail; ba*bnrk bick.com
E 1.41 M,O'T"ruuole
uur�mmmw�m 1.l..a'NLatmlivi
" .,ray A4x�oo'virlk",tilY'I�i r"d:yrlpu�rn;Wnn
a"•r"fri�inroda7
" Ahmi A dwtirooded 10 F r'9icleRiin fikwe YLA
and Diddid 01 Columba
NI 'R ND R1M:
To. Members of the North Andover Planning,Board
From: Kenneth.LW lCirnmell., Bernstein, 'luuslnruer& Kimmell, Y.C.
Date.. June 1 1, 19918
Tie; M.p Retrofit Site Plana Application
You have asked) this ffurrun to provide general guidance on the scope of the Planning
Board's review of the application for site plan review presented by Massachusetts Reltusetecln,
Inc. MRI"), Set forth below is that generaiguidance. In providing that guildance,, I tried to
anticipate and address the issues that may be of interest to, the Board. However, it is likely that
once the hearing crurnmeauces„ issues,es that I have not addressed will be raised.
t. At the outset, it is critical to note tliat the use of the property for a solid waste
incinerator is allowed as of right in this district. Siee ZoningBylaw, section
4 1 (at lowing as of right a"'rescuurce recovery l~aciIit -") It is very w ell settled
that when a Planning Board reviews a site pal<`n1u p r a use tlntnt, is allowed as ofright,
the Planning Board's jurisdiction is quite limited. Asset
C4 ofAinerica v. , 'oorri(,1 A1)1)ea1s of exlkvoo(l, 23 Mass. App, C t- 7 , 28,1'-
282 N86), in n!clu in El nnocs,, "the board [hoed not >ra4ve discrctio nx,i, powerto
deny ,., , , [quite plain appr vale„ but instead [is] lianiited to imposing reasonable terniuns
and conditions, on the: proposed, u~nse i"'
I arnn aware that section .3(l)(1n} off"the bylaw states that a Site Plan Review application
shag be reviewed e l as a special permit. However, I dry not believe that this provision reupuair s
to meet the Substantive requirements offa special permit. if it were so construed, it Would be
inconsistent with the tact that MR1 is allowed to operate an incinerator as of dight., Tn addition,
irnnp ou sinn, a special permit reu uircnnnent on as of right rases merely, because they are subject to site
plan review ouuld raise substantial questions about the valid.ity ofthe bylaw. See SC.IT, Jhu:,, v.
Planning 'oar((l of BPWn1ree,, 19,Mass,. App. C't. 10 ll 1 4)(rualiang; invalid a bylaw that reupu,uired
all uuses in a business district to obtain a special permit),
2
......................................................................................... .............................................. . 'There are two narrow exceptions to this rifle.,.... ' tit ai rk liel(i rri r7f eritr' i }..t ie........................ . . .....
Planning Board may deny the site plan application if it finds that a) the applicant
has failed to furnish sufficient information to allow the Planning Beard to ascertain
whether the site plan review criteria has berri met; or b) that "the site plan,
although proper in form, may be so intrusive on the interests of the public in orle
regulated aspect or another that rejection by the board would be tenable." 23
Mass. App, Ct. at 283-284, n. 9. This tniglit occur when`°despite best efforts, no
form of'reasonable conditions could be devised to satisfy the problern with the
plan." Id
3. While issues such as air emissions and health impacts may arguably be considered
by the planning hoard, these issues are not the p6mary thmst of s to plan review.
Instead, the zoning bylaw states that the purpose of site plan review is to consider-
"the impact on public services and infrastructure, environmental, unique, and
historic resources, abutting properties, and community character and ambiance."
Section S.3(t (a)- Notably, air emissions and health impacts are directly within the
purview of the Environinental Protection Agency and the Departm(-,nt of
Environmental Protection, both of whom will address these issues when MR1
applies far air quality perm 6 for the proposed retrofit,
- i oreover, the North Andover Board of Health has scheduled thi ee public hearings
to bear evidence relating to air emissions and public health impacts. That Board of
Health will be assisted in this of art by a feclurical consultant retained by this
Board, and the Board of Health intends to submit recommendations on air
emissions and health issues to the Planning Board. Tbus, I would recommend that
this Board not roars pdricipally an these issues, acid instead to deter to the Board
of11calth and the technical consultant,
5. Y also do not believe that choice, of technology issues arc properly before this
Board. That is, the question of whether MRi has Qhosen the best or the most cost
effective technoloo to limit air emissions is not part of#lie swipe of the Board°s
review. Again, these are issues that the state and federal author-ities will be
reviewing in subsequent permit processes. These issues are also being debated
between N 1 and NESWC under the service contracts,
6- The proper focus of'atIention Should be on determining whether #Ile site plan
application complies with the criteria set forth in the zoning bylaw. The criteria
consists afiirfarinational requirements set forth in section 8-3( ), and
review/design criteria set forth in 8,3(b), If the Board finds that the plan doe., not
meet that criteria, it is their obligated to devise conditions so that the proposed
retrofit does meet that orileria. Agairi, it may only decry the site plan applications if
it finds that there are no conditions that could be irnpmd to ensure that the
retrofit meets that criteria- Such a finding would need to be uppotied by very
strong evidence to survive judicial sei rfury.
3
............................................. is--of ssi�iaiict-to you-and.l.look--forwai-d-to-attend ing..tha,.Juo ............................. ......
161 hearing-
F:1C:�.,R R�Tt;�+#ANIPI3hiE�if13-,�+A6!
ATTOR N 1NYS'.AT LAN
ONE,
CC,I URT S"T I RE�E I T, SU 11 ITIE700 ,1§0,',3tbN�,'MA�'8�A CH'U"S'E:'1I I"S'N i 08..............
Voice, (617)742-4340 Facs1imile (617) 742-0170, E-mafl:bckb0sI0n@bckxm wwwIck.1com
jeffrcy M, Tern mein Wes�eirri Mag�s,aur(,,,Jjotts Office-I
Stacey L.Cushmier 20 BANK HOW, StATE 200
K ennedi 1,� irnimel 1
PITTSFIELD,MASSACHUSETTS 0,1201
K (413)4421-3773
Efisabdh C,Goodman Facsimihe(4 1'3)44?-3774
Chad es Hoak E-maR, Ibckbefk bckcon,i
Crisfin L.IR ol I duss...
Efln.M.0"Ttwde August 14, 1998,
Mfm Adoridied Io Praffx-;
AfY„wsm Ad nnl&d I.o Prarum bl,III-w YGA
and DhTif:i of GolambO
Ahyp'Admldled to Fork'n in curmedicul:
VIA FIRVT CLASS MA 11,
Kathleen Colwdl
Planning Board of North Andover
384 Osgaod. Str t
North Andover, MA 018,45
Re:� MRISile Plan AI)jitication,
Dear Kathleen:
Encl � please find a final. draft of the Site Plan decisioq, and a disk containing, the
document in word perfect and Micrasoft word forniats.
T Will See YOU on J'u esday evening at a ppo rxima My 9 010 P.M'.
KLK/erno
Enclosure
NAN
recycladl paper
SITE PLAN APPRO AUSPL IAL PERM T
MASSACHUSE'l-I'S REFIJSETECIFi, LN .
........... .................... . ........................................................................E MISSIONS-'C NTR L'I"R JE S'.......... ... ..............................................................
Background
The Planning Board hereby approves with conditions the Special permitisite Plan Review
for the construction of emissions control , [quipmenl "the Project") at the existing Sobel waste
incinerator located off of Holt Road and owned and operated by Massachusetts Refusetech, Inc.
C"IVM1" The locus of this incinerator is 285 Holt Road, assessors wrap 34, Lot 2 1. The land is
owned by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and has been leased to NiR1-
WU applied for a Special Permit/ itc Plan Approval on or about.may 15, 1 98. The
project involves the.installati011 of air pollution control equipment required by the Clean Air ,Act
and the regulations promulgated thereunder. GMR1 proposes to replace the existing electrostatic
precipitator and dry sorbent injections systems with new equipinent wnsisting of spray d1 er
absorbers, f~abr!Q filters, a selective nor-catalytic reduction systern, a po dca-ed activated carbon
injection system, and natural gas-fired auxiliary burners- The project also involves enclosing thn
existing ash storage shed to better control potential fugitive emissions from the ash pile.
The Planning Board lield a duty noticed public headng on the project on Jone 16'F', 1998,
and conthied that hearing to August 4", 1998. The Planning Board closed the public hearing on
August 4"', and voted on the application on August 18, 1998. Ire addition to hearing testimony
from N U and its consultants and niernbers froru the public, the Planning Board also received
independent a pert ai)a€ ses from the following individuals- 1) David Minott of Alter-native
Resources, Inc., who presented a written report and oral testimony regarding air emissions from
the f46Iity and potential public health impacts; 2) Stephen Ambrose, who pi,esentcd a written
report and rural testimony regarding noise impacts; and 3)Paul Ila}eo of Hajcc Associates, who
presented a.written report and oral testimony regarding n-affic impacts- V hile this application
was pending before the Planning Bowd, the Forth Andover Board of Health also lield three.
public,meetings to bear testimony on the potential health eff`vots of the facility. At the conrJusion
oftlicse public meetings, the Board of Health voted unanirnously to h)form the Planning Board
that on the basis of its review, the facility would not cause adverse public health eff`ccts. I'lie
ohairman of the,Board of Health sent a letter to the Phoning Board so ind irati ng-
t4idbnws
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 sct forth in Section 10.3 of'the Zoning Bylaw. On the basis of this extensive review, tile,
Planning Board makes tt)e following findings as required by tbe North Andover Zoning Bylaw §
8.3 and 10-3-
......... . .......................................1................11)C.site.is.an.appropri ate.Iocatio-n.fbr.hr,..prgjeat..... .......................... ...
zone, and resource recovery facilities are allowed as of right in that distnot_ In addition, the
facility has been operating at this site since tine mi d-19 80's_
. Provided drat WT complies with all conditions to Ihis approval, thr,ProjeU wiII
not cause any adverse effects on the neighbor•liood_ The visual ii-rpacts are minimal, as the new
structures are lower than existing structures, and will be placed within the existing developed
footprint of the facility. `l'he noise impaUs can be controlled to acceptable lever with proper•
design and engiPeedng, Most importantly, the IvIRT facility will cmit sigrnihcantly 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 rii nimal inrri me in truck traffic on Route 125 and Dolt Road, and these minimal
inipacts will be more than mitigated by conditions imposed on this permit_
4. MRi's plans provide for adequate and appropriate facilities for the groper
operation of the facility. As rioted, this is an existing facility, and the ex3Sting infrastructure. is
adequate and appropriate. To the extent the Project impo-,es additional demands upon
infrastructure,, MRI has appropriately addressed these additional demands in its application.
5. The Project is in harrrrony with the general purpose and intent of the Bylaw. As
rioted, this type of use is allowed as ofr-ight in the Ind€ratrial District_ Also, the Project will result
in lover- cn�ssions of pollutants, thereby providing a healthier and safer envii-onmcnt for the
residents of North Andover, compared to existing conditions.
b, MR1 has submitted all information required by Section 8.3.5 of the Zoning Bylaw.
?_ 'I'lic Plan ning Board further finds that the Project should satisfy ail relevant review
criteria and design rtxluiretnents set forth in section 8.3 of the,Bylaw.
8_ The Planning Board finds that c&)nditions are required in order to ensure full
compliance with Sections 8.3 and 10,3 of the Bylaw. The Planning Board heir-by grainis an
approval to i 11U subject to the following conditions.
Special C.ujidifion
A. Truck Roar#.es/Traffic
1. The Plamiing Board finds that the appropriate route for trash trucks en tering and
exiting the MR1 facility is as follows: 1) enter [lie facility via Route 495, to the,Route
125 / and Hill Connector, to Route 1 5 South, to Dolt Road, and ) exit the facility via
Route- 125 Forth, to the Route 1 5/Ward Hill Connfkctor, to Route 495 (lremifter refcrr m to
as "tile Designated Rout&").
5
x
.............................. . ......................... ................. o li }cal ii g.. port e t of f1Fng.. i R ci ion with the Town.. ler•1c�...TvJ Y...................................
shall assist shall: in ensuring compliance with the Designated Rotate by placing language in all
new contracts with MRI, and in all renewals of existing contracts with MRI, with municipal
solid waste haulers, ash haulers, and rnetals haulers (colle tavely referred to as 'MRI Contract
Harilers") requiring such haulers to use the Designated Route, and any applicable truck route
regulations that may ba issued by the Board of Health, This condition will apply to all
contracts that MRI eaters 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 efforls ineludes, but is not limited to, sending to such haulers a copy of this dcersron and a
written request that the contract b4-- amtnded to incorporate the above requirements. A copy of
any such written request shall be copied to the Town Managtr, and MRI shall follow up the
written request with additional efforrts should the Town Manager request it.
3. With respect to the hariling of municipal solid waste that is collected within
North Andover, the Planning Board (till not hear testimony on whether it is practical to require
haulers to use the Designated Route, Flowever, the planning Board understands that the Board
of Health is in the process of promulgating comprehensive regulations designed W address
trash truck traffic, and the Board of Health regulations are expect to determnee the proper
route for waste haulers to use for waste collected in Forth Andoven Once the issut, of North
Andover trash frueks are addressed by the Board of HeAth, MRI shall place, language in all
new contracts, and in all renewals of existing contracts, requiring MRI Contract Maulers to
comply with any applicable- truck route regulations that may be isstied by the Board of Health
for such trash trucks. To the extent that there is any conflict between the, Designated Ratite
and the Board of 1 e 1th regulations, the latter shall control.
4. Within thirty days of the date of filing of this decision with tbQ Town Clerk,
and at least annually thereafter, and whemeverrequested by the To n Manager, MRI shah
send to MRI Contract Haulers reminders of the Designated Route with a reininder that failurc
to comply with the route restrictions may resiOt. in revocation of the contract or suspension of
tipping privileges. MRI shall send copies of such reminders to the Town Manager.
S. Within five days of learning of a violation of the above route restriction, MR]
shall provide written warnings to any MRI Contract Hauler that MRI determines has violated
the route restriction} notifying the liauler that failure to comply with the route restrictions may
result in revocation of the contract or suspension of tipping privileges. MRI shall scud copies
of such warnings to the Town Manager.
6. Within thirty days of the elate of filing of this decision with the Town Clerk,
and at least annually arnd whenever requested by the Town Man agcx, MR1 sh'al l send rcminders
of the rutite restrictions to NESWC with a request that N SWC advise its mcinber
commurdties about the ratite restrictions. MRI shall send codes of such reininders to the
Town Manager.
4
.............................................................................................................. ................................ ............ ................................I....................... ........
7. I1+il shall propose aind fund the installation of truck tarn waTinng sign e
Route 125 nofflhbotind, just prior to the, Route 1. 5/Holt Road lnterscction, subject to approval
and finpiemrnWion by thi�, Massachusetts Highway Department.
8. M 1 shall propose and fund center and shoulder-line paiEtting along Hall toad
between Route 125 and the M FU fatcility, subject to approval and iroplcnicrrtaUon by the North
Andover Department of Public Works.
9. MRI shall propose and fund itistallatiott of a FIELD sign for right turns from
Volt Road onto Roche 125 southbound, subject to approval and impltmettta,tion by the
Massachusetts Higb ay Department and the Forth Andover Department of Public Works.
10_ M.RT shall apply for approvals of the Massachusetts Highway Depailment and the
North Andover Depitiment of Public Works no later than October 31, 1998, and shall snake best
efforts to ensure that the conditions 7, 8, and 9 are,impkmented no later than March 1, 199 .i
H. Air Quality Monitoring and Access to Data a a d Rccor€ts
11. Public Access to Compliancc 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 1 ctscape or Microsoft Explorer.
Data from MRI's database, computer shall be forward-d to the website for tile,prtrpose of
providing public access to continuous eEnissions and operational opetating data, suitably titne-
averaged for mpliance dernonstration as defined by EP and US PA permit corEditions,
regulations a guelines. Public access in this regard shall lie unrenricted as to who rrray
ndid
access the, data, and as to time of day or day of the, week. MRI shall provide the data to the
website conthmously throughout each day on a basis as near to a real time as is rtasonably
practical, but not more than twelve hours following the end of the Plata time-averaging period
required for comp]iancc demonstration. MRI shill instalI a comp rEter, nio€lem telephone 1ine,,
and modtin in the To n's library to facilitate ready public access to ibe, data.
'The PIanning 13c nyd reccoiizes that there i5 case law#o the effect tj��ri a locall board may
E1ot impose cotid3tions that require tltc approval ofotl,,-,f agencies, such as tl1C viassachuset s
I--ligh ay Depar finent. Should a court determine that Gonditlow; 7, 8, and arc invalid on that.
basis, it is the Planning Board's intent that those cond3t[on s be dcemed severable from the
remaindcr of this decision. The annulment of those conditions would not affect the PlaMittg
J3aard's trltirroate cictermination that the Project meets the criteria in tine bylaw, including trarf�ic-
related criteria.
5
...................................................... .................................................y
beJnade pub tc }+ av�ti ri a�s .....................................
12, The specIrIc contin OUs lnomio--. ,fik data to
follows:
a.
The latest monitored emissions and operating levels, cuplipared with Permit
hinits (graphical formal), specifically:
i. Sulfur Dioxide, 24-hour average geomctric mean concentration
and the removal efficiency
E. Nitrogen Oxides, 24-hour dally arithinetic average concentration
iii. Opacity, -minu(t average percentage values, daily summary
iv. Carbon Monoxide, 4-hour block arithmetic average
V. Flue Gas Temperature at the. fabric filter inlet, 4-hour block
arithmetic average
vi. Mercury, Dioxin, and any other pararneter that is tcstM but riot
subject to con irnuous emissions monitoring data, the latest lost
results.
b. 53}111majes ref Historical CQmpliance with Applicable Li
i, for each continuously monitored paratnetcr above, an historical
compliancc 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,
litimber, elates, and magnitudes of any e ce dances of applicable
lirriits.
ii. 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
coliveys the number, dates, and magniuides of any e cee-dances
of applicable limits.
c. r�ntinotts Emissions ]Vlo�i ,lrir�g FtipnzctMI
,t rt�� rlaries
i. s Lill,III aries of tit re periads daring wlaicfi eiich continuous
monitoring systeln was mailfuzictioning While the facility was
operational, as "operational" is defined by applicable regulations.
ii. ne.
Quarterly cumulative summaries of sueh malfunctiotry tu
6
....................................................................... ............... .. ..........................................................
d. Should IVRI be required by ITS EPA or DEP to modify the frequency,
nature, extc.nt, or type of sampling and rel)orting, MRT shall adapt the
above database so that it is consistent with any such modifications.
13. Compliance. Records. Commencing at the time this decision is filed in the
Town Clerk's office, at the sage time that MR1 submits such reports to regulatory agencies,
MR1 Aall deliver to the Town Manager two copies of each periodic e.g., monthly , quarEerly,
9-month, annual) report required �y federal, state, or local perwits and/or regulations relating
to air quality,
14, Inspection of Facility Operations and Records. Commencing at the Brno this
decision is filet/ 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 geiierated after this decision is filul with the Town Clerk as required to
assess ongoing compliance. of the facility with permit limits and conditions imposed by U
EPA, DEP, and the 'Town, and compliance with the applicable air quality regulations of those
entities. Tha 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 r sinner that does not unnecessarily disrupt MR1 facility
operations and in compliance with MR1 health and safety policies and procedures. Without
limiting the foregoing, MM shall provide fourteen clays prior notice to the Doard of th and its
designated representative beffire conducting testy for mercury, dioxin, and/or any other pollutant
that is not tealed oil a continuous emissions moP)itoring basis_ The,Board of Health and/or its
deli naled i-epresentative shall have the right to be present at the N6I ty during such tests, and
shall lave acs;ess as may lie heeded to ensarc that the test; are representative of the facility's
operations. The test shall be representative of actual facility operations-
C. Solid Waste Monitoring
l 5. hispection for Ash Dusting. The Hoard of Health and its Agents shall have thc
right to periodic unannounced inspections for the puWse of determining whether ash-
handling, storage, and lead-out operations comply with the US EPA and DFP requirements
restricting visible cinissions, with such compliance to he dctermined as specified by these
agencies' regulations. SuclI insl)eclioiis shall be conducted in the presence of the Plant
Manager or his designated representative, in a manner that dace not unnecessarily disrupt MRI
facility operalions acid hi compliance with MRI health an(l safety policies arld procedures.
D. Shut-Dowmis orC:onibustor Units sad 0thei• Pro blerns
16. Shut-Down of Combustor Units. MRI is required to prninptly cease the
charging of municipal solid waste to a combustor unit or units if any of tlic following criteria
is inel as to that combaslor unit or units:
7
.......................................................................... .......................................................................... . ........................................................................................
a. Potential for Stack Exhaust Fairy Failure, The forced draft or induced
draft fan ceases to function. Are interlock is required that automatically
prevents the further charging of waste to the affected combustor unit(s),
until the fan resullies service.
b. Potential for Excess Emissions from Inadequate Combus.0on Efficiency.
on startup, fbinace gas temperate , as rn cured at Elevation 125' - 0"
(TI & '1 ), less than 1600°F (which is equivalent. at 1 00°F at the cnr'-
second gas residence time plane). A n interlock is required ilia[
automatically prevents the charging of waste to the affccttd combustor
unit(s), until the temperature criterion is met.
During waste combustion, furnace gas temperature memured at
Elevation l 5' - 0" drops b0ow 1604°F for more than threc hours.
Operator rnust 1romptly cease flit charging of%vaste to the a,ffeeted
corbustor unit(s), and cannot resunit charging until the temper'aturt
criterion is met.
C. Potential for Ex ess 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 affect combustor
unit(s), and cannot resume charging until sufficient inodules are in
service.
d. Potential for Excess Emissions from Scrubber Fallcrc. Temperature
excee& 4 0'F at fabric filter inlet; i.e., following the spray-dry
absorber (scrubber). An interlock is required that automatically prevents
the further 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.
Linic-slurry feed to the spray-dry absorber interrupted for more than
four 11ours. operator mttst promptly cease the charging of waste, to the
affected combustor unit(s), until lime-slurry feed is restored.
C. t Rl shall maintain a written record an site of tine occurrencc (date, and
time) of any of the above events, and the reason, to the extent known,
for tilt occurrence.
17. if there is a shut down of a combustor unit(s) for the rca.,sons set forth ill
Condition 16, NIRI shall promptly notify the Town Manager of the shut down. The tcrin
'promptly" interns if the shut down} occurs duuz»g Town business fours, within three hours of
the shut down, and if the shut dawn occurs after Town business hours, no later than 10:00
.. .... . ........... ...... . ........................................................................................................................................................ .................................... ...................................................
A,M, on the next normal business day of the town. MR1 shall also past any such notices to the
Town Managtr on the database references in Condition 11.
I& Commencing at the time that this decision is filed in tb(-, Town Clerk's office,
whenever MR1 is required by permit to notify a regulatory agency of an accident or violation,
MR1 shall also notify the Town Manager at the sarne time that it notifies the regulatory
agency. MR1 shall also post any sucli notices to the Town Manager on the database referenced
in Cordition I L
F, Miscellaneous
19. MR1 shall root combust sewage sledge in the combustor units.
0. Noise from the facility as upgraded by fte Project shall not increase the
broadband level by more than 10dRA above the ambient levels or produce a "pore tone"
condition as set forth !in DA C Policy 90-001, the guideline for :ilk} CMR 7,10. Xn order to
ensure compliance with this condition, MRf shall perform ambient testing prior to operation of
the Prof t, at Location 5 as referenced in a document entitled ",found Level Evaluation for the
i assacbusetts Refusete h, Inc. Bmissions Control Project, prepared by Michael D. Theriault
Associates, Inc., and consistently with the testing that was done in that report. MR1 shall thcn
perform testing at Location 5 not lacer than one hundr i and eighty days fro in completion of
orgy-site construction, and compare the test results to dctttmine compliance. MRl shall submit
the test resulls with a report indicating whether the test re.sults indicate compliance with this
condition. If the test results indicate non-compliance, MRI shall devise arld implement
narasures to ensure compliance.
1. MR1 shall comply with all applicable fe&raf and state laws, regulations, and
permit Bondi€ions governing the operations of the facility.
2. MR1 shall pay to the Town the lump sum of twenty-five thousand dollars
($25,(W) on or before January 2, 1999, in addition to any payments made under the Lost
Community Agreement between MR1 and the Town, for the purpose of funding air quality
rnonitorrrig activities relating to the facility, MR1 shall pay the lump Bunn of$2.5,OW on or
before January 2 of each year thereafter, and this obligation shall cease one year alter the
termination of the operation of the entire facility.
3. M R I &ha€1 provide financial se iprity in a form acceptable to the, Board, stich as a
proper bond analogous to that rquirecl under the Subdivision Control Law, fx.L. e.41, §8113,
in t h c, amount of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) to be used by the Town for expenses incurred
by the Town slituId the facility tic aband oned or extraordinary e pcnses hicurred 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, anci MR1 shall
notify the 'ro n Manager whan the financial security is established, and e-Rch 6 m e it is
resew ,
9
o ridiarjiis--hef6n--slid]I-ha-cff ctive-u n.............................................
operation of the einissions control project. Operation shall be defined as the date upon which
R1_ subnnts its initial performance test to D P in accordance with the new Clan Air Act
regulations.
25. All conditions to this Special Permit/Site Plan Approval are binding upon any
and all successors, assignees, and transferees of MRL
. Tlie Application for Site Flan. Review, dated May 15, 1 5, and the attachments
thereto, shall be deemed part of this decision, and the Project shall be constructed in
accordance with those documents.
27. Without limiting the remedies available to the,Town, violations of these
conditions are subject to fines aindlor injunctive relief to the fullcst extent awhori7erl by law.
28. Prior to the date of Operation, MRI shalt submit to the Board an as-built plan,
cer-6lied by a professional engineer, indicating that the Project has been constricted
substantially in compliance with the plans contained in the Application for Site Plan Review,
]ACE.]i;NTS ]r4�TtiF`ELDF..C5.NAN