Pe App-Dcg

1999 This project involved reconstructing a private entrance road into a Corporate Entrance Drive for a new Corporate
Headquarters.
I worked on the drainage, stormwater, and sewer system design and layout.
This is one of the grading sheets that I worked on for the project.
This is one of the profile sheets I worked on for this project.
We ran into a problem where the survey didn't match existing conditions very well. I helped to resolve the problem by designing the layout of a retaining wall.
I assisted in coming up with a construction sequence plan because this facility remained in operation during construction.
The proposed guardshack required a bathroom and the soils in the area were not suitable for subsurface disposal. I helped design and permit a tight tank until the pump station was constructed when the new building was completed.
1999 As part of the Simplex Headquarters project, the Town owned pump station had to be upgraded to handle the additional flow. I designed a tandem wetwell and replacement of the existing duplex pump system with larger pumps and new control panel.
May 8, 2000
2000 I did some nitrogen loading calculations using the Cape Cod Commission's prescribed method for a subdivision in Bourne. this is the letter I wrote to the Owner explaining my findings.
Mr. Donald Quinn, Trustee Water Pipe Trust 32 Court Street Plymouth, MA 02360 Subject: Water Pipe Trust DRI Application
Dear Mr. Quinn: Daylor Consulting Group, Inc. has performed calculations in accordance with Technical Bulletin 91-001 (Final), entitled NITROGEN LOADING, dated April 1992 by the Cape Cod Commission Water Resources Office for the area shown on the set of drawings entitled SUBDIVISION PLAN OF LAND IN BOURNE, MA, prepared for Water Pipe Trust C/O Donald P. Quinn P.C., dated June 16, 1998, last revised May 8, 2000, by Daylor Consulting Group. Conservative assumptions made for the twenty-two buildable lots resulted in a nitrogen loading rate of 1.55 mg/l, far below the 5 mg/l threshold. Calculations are provided separately. Although the calculations indicate a low nitrogen loading rate, further reduction of the nitrogen loading rate could be provided through the use of innovative technology septic systems on the lots. Title 5 of the Massachusetts Environmental Code, 310 CMR 15.00,has provisions for the use of innovative and alternative technologies (I/A) with Department approval. Current approved I/A technologies that provide nitrogen credit (removal) include: Amphidrome Process, Bioclere system, Fast System, Recirculating Sand Filter (RSF), RUCK System, and Solviva Biocarbon. Any of these systems would provide further reduction in the nitrogen loading through the removal of nitrogen from the wastewater flows generated by the constructed houses. If you should have any questions please do not hesitate to call me at (781) 849-7070 ext. 259.
Very truly yours, Daylor Consulting Group, Inc.
Scott Schluter Staff Engineer

C:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\TEMP\TEMPORARY DIRECTORY 2 FOR 1457-BOURNE.ZIP\1457 - DON QUINN\1457 - NITROGEN LOADING LETTER 5-8-00.WPD
September 7, 2000 James Mammery Cape Cod Nursing Home 8 Lewis Point Road Bourne, Massachusetts 02532 Dear James Mammery:
2000 After construction of this large septic system repair, we were getting complaints of a faint septic odor. While on a site visit, I discovered the potential cause: a blocked comminutor. This letter explained the situation to the nursing home owner.
On August 30, 2000, Daylor Consulting Group Inc. conducted a site walk through of the wastewater treatment facility with the purposes of producing a punch list for Emerald Excavatings portion of the new treatment system. While conducting this walk, a faint sewage odor was detected. Further investigation resulted in the discovery that the comminutor (grinder) was clogged and not operating. There were no alarms or lights triggered in the building and the switch was in the auto position with the power lamp illuminated. While on-site the comminutor switch was turned to the hand position, and the comminutor began operation, clearing the majority of the back up. Upon leaving the site the comminutor was left operating with the switch in the hand position. Emerald will investigate the reason for the malfunction while in the auto position and the lack of an alarm indicating a problem and take corrective action as necessary. Emerald will also be cleaning out the comminutor manhole and any manhole that was backed up with solids as a result of the comminutor not operating. This will hopefully take care of the odors. While investigating the odor problem, however, it was evident that foreign objects were still finding their way into the sewer system. The comminutor blockage contained rubber gloves, cigarette butts, diapers, plastic, and other foreign matter (see attached photos). While the comminutor is designed to grind this material, it is still not desirable to send objects such as these into the septic system. After Emerald has corrected the comminutor problem and Daylor has confirmed that it is working correctly, it will become Cape Cod Nursing Homes responsibility to unclog the comminutor, reset the control panel, and clean any resulting solids accumulation should the comminutor become clogged again. There will be a company operating and maintaining the system once the project is complete, but clogs or damage from foreign matter in the sewage stream is most likely not going to be covered under the agreement. Daylor suggests that actions be taken to educate the staff and residents of what should and should not be sent into the sewer system. Very truly yours, Daylor Consulting Group, Inc.
C:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 3 for 1352-Cape Cod Nursing.zip\1352 - Cape Cod Nursing Home Bourne MA\phase I\1352 - ccnh solids problem letter.doc Job Number: 1.1352.00 Last printed 7/19/2012 2:36:00 PM
C:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 3 for 1352-Cape Cod Nursing.zip\1352 - Cape Cod Nursing Home Bourne MA\phase I\1352 - ccnh solids problem letter.doc Job Number: 1.1352.00 Last printed 7/19/2012 2:36:00 PM
2000 This is the as-built plan I produced to close out the project. I managed and oversaw the construction of this large septic system replacement project when the original project manager left the company.
1.0 1.1
2000 Stormwater management was tricky for this project. The site is a wharf in Boston Harbor constructed behind quay walls. The wharf was open underneath at low tide and submerged almost to the bottom of the deck during high tide. We were required to provide Storm Water Treatment some stormwater treatment. I designed a hanging basket system that could be mounted to the bottom of the deck. This is a portion Summary of the report I wrote to obtain approval of these units.
This report addresses the use of new special outlets for the proposed redevelopment of Buildings 117 and 118 of the South Boston Army Base for the International Cargo Port project located in Boston. Included in this discussion are the methods that will be employed to meet the DEP Stormwater Management Policy. These measures will mitigate any potential adverse impacts. In a report entitled Hydrologic & Hydraulic Analysis, International Cargo Port-Boston, South Boston Army Base Building #117 and #118, Boston, Massachusetts, dated June 29, 1998, Daylor Consulting Group, Inc. proposed a closed drainage system comprised of existing catchbasins and manholes, new area drains, and two VortechsTM Stormwater Treatment Units. This report can be found in Appendix A. The design involved coring through an existing concrete reinforced Quay wall apron on the south side of the pier, and an existing concrete reinforced deck on the north side of the pier, and installing area drains. The area drains were to be then connected to one of four main drain lines running along the pier inboard of the Quay wall on the north side of the pier and outboard of the Quay wall on the south side of the pier. The drain lines were to be then connected to a VortechsTM Stormwater Treatment Unit, one on the north side of the pier, one on the south side of the pier. The VortechsTM Stormwater Treatment Units were to then outlet to the ocean. The original design is shown on Figure C1.03 in Appendix A. Upon preliminary construction and structural design, it was then determined that the proposed drainage design would prove to be at best difficult to construct. The drain lines would have to be cored through grade beams, or through the Quay wall itself (over six feet thick in places). The VortechsTM Stormwater Treatment Units would have to cantilever atop existing pile caps, which also proved to be difficult. Daylor Consulting Group, Inc. was asked by Lee Kennedy Co., Inc. (the contractors) for input on alternatives. Daylor Consulting Group, Inc. obtained hard copies of drawings entitled Rehabilitation of Birth 10 at EDICs Marine Industrial Park, Wharf Reconstruction Details dated November 1992, last revised February 18, 1993, from Boston Redevelopment Authoritys Record Drawing collection. In the reconstruction of the wharf (Black Falcon), special drain inlets were utilized as a Best Management Practice (BMP). Daylor Consulting Group Inc. proposes to use the concepts approved for these plans for the proposed International Cargo Port project.
1.2
Proposed Special Outlet
Daylor Consulting Group, Inc. proposes to use special outlets as BMPs in the International Cargo Port project. The special outlets consist of an H-20 load rated cast iron angle frame and grate on top of the deck to collect storm runoff. The runoff will then drop through a 12" diameter stainless steel basket suspended in a hole cored through the deck. The basket, made of #4 mesh 0.063" wire, will trap sediments while being easily maintained. The runoff will then drop into a High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) custom structure that is suspended from below deck. This 27" diameter structure will have a 2.5' deep sump and 6" diameter HDPE outlet including a 6" HDPE tee. The special outlets will be implemented where the area drains were proposed. The locations are shown on Sheet C1.03 in Appendix B. The special outlets on the south side of the pier will be mounted to the underside of the Quay wall apron, and to the underside of the deck on the north side of the pier as shown 1
Special Outlet Report August 12, 1998 International Cargo Port, Boston, MA
Proposed Special Outlet Report
Daylor Consulting Group, Inc.
in Figure 1 in Appendix B. The south side special outlets will discharge directly from the structure, the north side outlets will be pipes through the openings in the Quay wall to the ocean. Figure 2 in Appendix B shows a detail of the proposed special outlet. As additional stormwater treatment, Daylor Consulting Group, Inc. proposes to use Boston Water and Sewer commission (BWSC) inline particle separators on the roof drains for the proposed building addition as shown on C1.03 and detailed in Figure 3, both in Appendix B. The proposed design allows for approximately 10 cubic feet (75 gallons) of stormwater storage, and approximately 7 cubic feet of oil and grease storage. The combination of the sediment basket, oil and grease storage volume, deep sump and the addition of BWSC inline particle separators to the roof drains of the proposed new building will provide a Total Suspended Solids (TSS) removal rate of greater than 80%, thus meet all applicable standards of the DEP Stormwater Management Policy.
1.3
Existing Special Outlets on Berth 10
During the reconstruction of Berth 10 at EDICs Marine Industrial Park, special drain inlets were used for stormwater treatment. The drain inlets were incorporated to the deck reconstruction which involved replacement of the reinforced concrete deck. The inlets were 3'-6" by 3'-6" waterproofed, reinforced concrete boxes structurally integral with the new deck. A cast iron frame and grate was mounted over the box, and a 15" diameter by 24" high stainless steel basket was placed in the bottom of the box to trap sediments. A 6" ductile iron tee and elbow was used as an outlet. The structure has a 1'-6" sump allowing for approximately 9 cubic feet (67 gallons) of stormwater storage, and approximately 9 cubic feet of oil and grease storage. A site visit to Berth 10 confirmed that the outlet are at present, in good working order. Evidence of trapped sediments were found in the existing baskets at the bottom of the structures, thus proving their ability to remove TSS. Figure 3 in Appendix C shows a detail of the existing drain inlets. 1.4 Comparison of Berth 10 and International Cargo Port Special Outlets
The reconstruction of the deck at Berth 10 allowed the use of drain inlets that were structurally built into the new deck. The proposed International Cargo Port project does not involve reconstruction of the deck. Daylor Consulting Group, Inc, thus had to design a structure that could be suspended from the underside of the pier and still withstand storm and tidal actions. Site grading limitations due to the presence of railroad tracks that are not to be altered on the north side of the pier also meant the structures had to be installed inboard of the Quay wall on this side. The Quay wall has periodic openings of approximately 3' wide which limit the size of the structure to be suspended from the deck in these areas. Given the approval of the Berth 10 drain inlets, Daylor Consulting Group, Inc. attempted to match the design with the above mentioned constraints. The use of HDPE assemblies provides for a light yet durable structure that can be installed in the field relatively easily. The volumes of the proposed structures are comparable to the existing Berth 10 inlets and incorporate baskets which are easier to empty, and deeper sumps thus providing higher TSS settlement.
2
Special Outlet Report August 12, 1998 International Cargo Port, Boston, MA
2000 This is a detail of the special outlet that I designed.
This detail showed how the special outlet was installed into the quay wall.
2000 For this project, I performed a soil suitability assesment throughout the site and wrote this report of my findings.

10 Forbes Road Braintree, MA 02184 Phone: (781) 849-7070 Fax: (781) 849-0096
FIELD REPORT
Project # Project: Location: Present:
1.1846.01 JPI Ashland Ashland, Massachusetts
Date: Time:
12/5/00 12/13/00 Full Days
Weather: Varied
Purpose: Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal
Introduction
Daylor Consulting Group (Daylor) is pleased to present to JPI the results of our soil suitability assessment for on-site sewage disposal at the Jefferson at Ashland Station site in Ashland, Massachusetts. The site is located in the Town of Ashland and is bounded to the north by the MBTA commuter rail line and Megunko Road, to the east by Cherry Street and West Union Street (Rte 135), to the south by the Orchard Hill and Orchard Hill II residential subdivisions, and to the west by High Street. Daylor made deep observation holes and performed percolation testing from December 5th to December 13th focusing on the southwest third and the southeast corner of the site. A summary of the results is presented below. A full analysis of all soil types encountered during the program follows.
Engineers Planners Scientists Surveyors

C:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 4 for 1846-jpi ashland.zip\1846 - JPI Ashland\Soils\Final\1846-soil reportfinal.doc Job Number: 11846.01 Printed 7/17/2012 1:47:00 PM
Summary of Results
Based on the results of the test pit program the site can generally be divided into 3 areas. The areas are designated as Areas A through C and are shown on Figure 1. The required areas identified are based on Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Title 5 regulations for septic systems. It is likely, because of the higher treatment level associated with this project, that DEP would reduce the area required for the subsurface disposal system. Area A Area A is located along the till ridge, found in the southwest corner of the site, and encompasses approximately 27 acres. Based on the results of the test pit program, this area is not suitable for an on-site sewage disposal system. Compact glacial till soils, steep slopes, variable depth to seasonal high groundwater, and slow to very slow permeability characterize this till ridge. Area B Area B is located along the kame terrace, found to the north and northeast of the till ridge, and encompasses approximately 14 acres. Ice-contact outwash soils, moderate slopes, variable depth to seasonal high groundwater, and low permeability characterize this kame terrace. This area shows poor potential for an on-site sewage disposal system because of low soil permeability and seasonal high groundwater depth.

Area C Area C is located along the ground moraine, found in the southeast corner of the site, and encompasses approximately 6 acres. Compact glacial till with low silt content, gentle slopes, variable depth to seasonal high groundwater, and moderate permeability characterize this area. This area is considered to be the most suitable for an on-site sewage disposal system because of the relative homogeneous soils throughout the area. However, design of a large system in this area would also require additional testing to determine the extent of the ledge/rock outcrop areas and to verify the limits of the area suitable for a soil absorption system. Evidence of seasonal high groundwater was found from 18 below grade to no evidence 122 below grade. Because of the similarity of the soils in all the test pits excavated in this area one percolation test was conducted resulting in a rate of 10 MPI. Based on the percolation rate, soil type and DEP Title 5 regulations for subsurface discharge of sewage the following areas of subsurface disposal area may be required. 500 unit JPI development at 88,000 gallons per day approximately 4.5 acres 190 unit assisted living at 28,500 gallons per day approximately 1.4 acres Total disposal area approximately 5.9 acres
Soil Analysis
A Soil Evaluator Form 11 for each test pit can be found in Appendix A through Appendix C. The soil logs have been divided first into soil areas (A,B,C), second into soil classification. Area A The southwest third of the site is characterized by a large till ridge in the north-northwest direction. Area A is located on this till ridge. Soils found on till ridges are typically glacial tills as was evidenced by the soil observations. The 1988 preliminary USDA Soil Survey categorizes the soils found in the areas of test holes within Area A in two broad groups consisting of Paxton series soils and Woodbridge series soils. Figure 2 shows the soil boundaries (determined by the USDA), and test pit locations. Soil evaluator form can be found in Appendix A. Paxton Soil Series The Paxton series soils found in Area A are shown in Figure 1 as 123B and 123D. Paxton soils consist of well-drained loamy soils formed from glacial till. Paxton soils are characterized by slow to very slow permeability as evidenced by the percolation test results. The Paxton series soils located on the site are broken down into the following soil classification subtypes: 123B: Paxton Fine Sandy Loam, 3-8% slopes 123D: Paxton Fine Sandy Loam, 15-25% slopes

123B: Paxton Fine Sandy Loam, 3-8% slopes The Paxton soils located on the eastern side of the till ridge are exemplified by test pit numbers 7, 8, 15, 16, 17, 26. Evidence of seasonal high groundwater was found from 26 below grade to 41 below grade. One percolation test in this area resulted in a rate of 17 MPI, one percolation test resulted in a rate of 25 MPI , and one percolation test failed (>30 MPI). The variable depth to seasonal high groundwater and the variation in percolation rates are typical of glacial till soils where conditions may vary over short distances. 123D: Paxton Fine Sandy Loam, 15-25% slopes The Paxton soils located on the northern half of the till ridge side are exemplified by test pit numbers 5, 6, 14, 20, 25, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44. Evidence of seasonal high groundwater was found from 20 below grade to no evidence 124 below grade. One percolation test in this area resulted in a rate of 24 MPI, while three tests failed (>30 MPI). The variable depth to seasonal high groundwater and the variation in percolation rates are typical of glacial till soils where conditions may vary over short distances. Woodbridge Soil Series The western side of the till ridge top located in the southwest corner of the site consists of Woodbridge series soils. The Woodbridge series soils are shown in Figure 1 as 83B. Woodbridge soils consist of moderately well drained loamy soils formed from glacial till. Woodbridge soils are characterized by slow to very slow permeability. Percolation tests were not performed in this area of the site due to the silty and compact nature of the soils. The Woodbridge soils on this site are of soil classification subtype Woodbridge Fine Sandy Loam, 3-8% slopes. 83B: Woodbridge Fine Sandy Loam, 3-8% slopes The Woodbridge soils located on the western side of the till ridge top are exemplified by test pit numbers 9, 18, 19, 27, and 28. Evidence of seasonal high groundwater was found from 23 below grade to 34 below grade. No percolation tests were performed in this area due to the silty and compact nature of the soils. It was determined that the soils would inevitably fail percolation tests (>30 MPI). The relatively high seasonal high groundwater is typical of these compact glacial till soils. Area B The till ridge, located in Area A, drops down steeply to a kame terrace surrounding the Nyanza Superfund cap. Area B is located along this kame terrace. Soils found on kame terraces are typically glacial till and outwash soils as was evidenced by the soil

observations. The 1988 preliminary USDA Soil Survey categorizes the soils found in the areas of test holes within Area B in one broad group consisting of Narragansett series soils. Figure 2 shows the soil boundaries (determined by the USDA), and test pit locations. Soil evaluator form can be found in Appendix B.
Narragansett Soil Series The Narragansett series soils found in Area B are shown in Figure 1 as 120B, and 120C. Narragansett soils are well-drained loamy soils formed as ice-contact outwash from glacial till. Narragansett soils are characterized by moderatelyrapid to rapid permeability. The Narragansett series soils located on the site are broken down into the following soil classification subtypes: 120B: Narragansett Silt Loam, 3-8% slopes 120C: Narragansett Silt Loam, 8-15% slopes 120B: Narragansett Silt Loam, 3-8% slopes The Narragansett soils located along the flattest portion of the kame terrace to the southwest of the Nyanza Superfund cap are exemplified by test pit numbers 4, 12, 13, 21, 22, 22A, 23, 23A, 24A, and 31. Evidence of seasonal high groundwater was found from 22 below grade to no evidence 125 below grade. Five percolation tests in this area resulted in rates varying from under 2 minutes per inch (MPI) to 22 MPI. The variable depth to seasonal high groundwater and the variation in percolation rates are typical of glacial tills and outwash soils where conditions may vary over short distances. 120C: Narragansett Silt Loam, 8-15% slopes The Narragansett soils located along the slopes of the kame terrace to the southwest of the Nyanza Superfund cap are exemplified by test pit numbers 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 32, and 33A. Evidence of seasonal high groundwater was found from 30 below grade to no evidence 131 below grade. Three percolation tests in this area resulted in rates of less than 2 MPI, 8 MPI, and 20 MPI. The variable depth to seasonal high groundwater and the variation in percolation rates are typical of glacial tills and outwash soils where conditions may vary over short distances.
Area C The southeast corner of the site is characterized by a ground moraine sloping towards the wetlands to the northeast corner of the site. Soils found on ground moraines are typically glacial tills as was evidenced by the soil observations. The 1988 preliminary USDA Soil Survey categorizes the soils found in the areas of test holes in two broad groups

consisting of Narragansett series soils, and Hollis series soils. Figure 2 shows the soil boundaries (determined by the USDA), and test pit locations. Soil evaluator form can be found in Appendix C. Narragansett Soil Series The Narragansett series soils found in Area C are shown in Figure 1 as 120C. Narragansett soils are well-drained loamy soils formed as outwash from glacial till. The Narragansett soils in Area C are of soil classification subtype Narragansett Silt Loam, 8-15% slopes. Narragansett soils are characterized by moderately-rapid to rapid permeability. 120C: Narragansett Silt Loam, 8-15% slopes The Narragansett soils located along the ground moraine are exemplified by test pit numbers E and G. No evidence of seasonal high groundwater was found 120 below grade on either test pit. No percolation tests were performed in this area due to the loose materials and similarity to other pits in Area C. Hollis Soil Series The Hollis soils found in Area C are a combination of Hollis and Narragansett soils and are shown in Figure 1 as 17C. Hollis soils are well-drained loamy soils formed as glacial till. Narragansett soils are well-drained loamy soils formed as outwash from glacial till. The Narragansett and Hollis soils in Area C are of soil classification subtype Narragansett-Hollis-Rock Outcrop Complex, 3-15% slopes. Narragansett soils are characterized by moderately-rapid to rapid permeability, and Hollis soils are characterized by moderate to moderately rapid permeability. 17C: Narragansett-Hollis-Rock Outcrop Complex, 3-15% slopes The Narragansett soils located along the ground moraine are exemplified by test pit numbers A, B, C, D, F, and H. Evidence of seasonal high groundwater was found from 18 below grade to no evidence 122 below grade. One percolation test in this area resulted in a rate of 10 MPI. The variable depth to seasonal high groundwater is typical of soils where rock outcrops are found.

2000 I did the site design for this project which involved expanding and praving a parking lot for a busy nursery. Topography and close resource areas were large constrains.
2000 For this project I was tasked to peer review design documents for a subdivision. This is a letter with my findings.
October 10, 2000 Krikor Baytarian Hampstead on Marshfield Hills P.O. Box 252 Marshfield Hills, MA 02051
Re:
Ox Pasture Lane Cohasset, MA
Dear Krikor Baytarian: Daylor Consulting Group, Inc. (Daylor) is pleased to present to you the results of our review of the Ox Pasture Lane plans with regards to the development of five-bedroom dwellings on the proposed lots following local and state regulations. Materials reviewed for this report were the following: Sheets 1 of 7, 2 of 7, and 5 of 7 of a set of plans entitled Wheelwright Estates, Ox Pasture Lane, Cohasset, Mass by Murphy & Wait, P.C. dated July 27, 2000; a plan entitled Test Pits Plan by Murphy & Wait, P.C., dated September 9, 1999; and, percolation test results (51 sheets) provided by Murphy & Wait, P.C, various test dates. From our review, there has been not enough testing performed to properly design septic systems for all the lots as suggested on Sheet 2 of 7 following the regulations set forth in 310 CMR 15.000, The State Environmental Code Title V: Minimum Requirements for the Subsurface Disposal of Sanitary Sewage and set forth in Cohasset Board of Health Supplemental Rules and Regulations to Title 5 of the State Environmental Code, 310 CMR 15.000 Standard Requirements for the Siting Construction, Inspection, Upgrade, and Expansion of Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal of Septage. There are five different scenarios for the siting of septic systems on the land shown on the plans: 1. Design of septic systems based on tests performed on the proposed Lots 6, 7, and 3 as shown on the plans. 2. Design of septic systems based on tests performed on the proposed Lots 6 and 7 as shown on the plans, realignment of the lot lines to create two or three lots that fall within the tested area of Lot 3. 3. Design of individual septic systems located on each lot with additional testing on Lots 1, 2, 4, and 5 as shown on the plans.
C:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 1 for 1868 - Ox Pasture Lane.zip\1868 - Ox Pasture Lane\1868-review letter 10-04-00.doc Job Number: 1.1868.00 Last printed 7/17/2012 1:56:00 PM
4.
5.
Design of a shared septic system for Lots 1 through 5 located in the vicinity of Lot 3 which involves proving the ability to site individual septic systems on each lot. Design of individual septic systems for Lots 1 through 5 located in the vicinity of Lot 3 which involves easements for each system.
Design of any of the scenarios would involve five-bedroom houses at 110 gallons per bedroom per day (310 CMR 15.203) that results in 550-gallon per day design flow per lot. Scenario 1: Septic Systems Design on Given Information a. Lot 6: Using TP 19 and TP 20 with a 15 minute-per-inch Class II soil and a 0.56 Long Term Acceptance Rate (LTAR) would require 983 square feet of leaching area (310 CMR 15.242). Under Cohassets Supplemental Regulation to 310 CMR 15.240, all plans must be designed for garbage grinders. This design restraint requires the area be increased by 50% (310 CMR 15.240), resulting in the necessity of 1,475 square feet of leaching area. Using conventional 2-foot wide by 2-foot deep trenches spaced 6-feet apart (reserve areas between), 5trenches at 50 foot long would require a 38-foot by 50-foot leaching area. With evidence of a seasonal high water table 48 below the surface and a 4foot separation to the bottom of the leaching facility, proposed finish grade could be raised at least 3.0-feet above the lowest existing grade in the vicinity of the test pits. Depending on final grades of the proposed site, this could result in the design of a mounded system. b. Lot 7: Using TP 22 and TP 24 with a 4 minute-per-inch Class II soil and a 0.6 Long Term Acceptance Rate (LTAR) would require 917 square feet of leaching area (310 CMR 15.242). Under Cohassets Supplemental Regulation to 310 CMR 15.240, all plans must be designed for garbage grinders. This design restraint requires the area be increased by 50% (310 CMR 15.240), resulting in the necessity of 1,376 square feet of leaching area. Using conventional 2-foot wide by 2-foot deep trenches spaced 6-feet apart (reserve areas between), 5trenches at 46 foot long would require a 38-foot by 46-foot leaching area. With evidence of a seasonal high water table 38 below the surface and a 4foot separation to the bottom of the leaching facility, proposed finish grade could be raised at least 4.4-feet above the lowest existing grade in the vicinity of the test pits. Depending on final grades of the proposed site, this could result in the design of a mounded system.
c. Lot 3: There are many areas a septic system could be sited on Lot 3. Any system size in this area would fall somewhere between the size of Lot 6 and Lot 7 above, depending on which two percolation tests are used to size the system since the percolation rates vary between less than 2 minutes-per-inch and 12 minutesper-inch. Scenario 2: Septic Systems Design with Lot Reconfiguration a. Lot 6: Same as Scenario 1. b. Lot 7: Same as Scenario 1. c. Lot 3: Realignment of the property lines within the area of the test performed in Lot 3 could result in two or more systems in this area, depending on the Town of Cohasset Zoning Regulations regarding lot shape and size. Scenario 3: Individual Septic Systems on All Lots a. Lot 6: Same as Scenario 1.
b. Lot 7: Same as Scenario 1. c. Lot 3: Same as Scenario 1. d. Lots 1, 2, 4, and 5: Additional testing would be required to design septic systems that fall within each Lot. Scenario 4: Shared Septic Systems In Lot 3 a. Lots 6 and 7:
Septic systems could be designed the same as in Scenario 1. b. Lots 1-5: A shared septic system could be designed in the area of the percolation tests performed in the vicinity of Lot 3. Five lots of five bedrooms each result in a 2,750-gallon per day design flow. Design of a shared septic system using TP 8-3, TP 8-4, TP 8-17, TP 8-6, TP 8-19, TP 8-8, and TP 8-13 with a 12 minuteper-inch Class II soil and a 0.56 Long Term Acceptance Rate (LTAR) would require 4,911 square feet of leaching area (310 CMR 15.242). Under Cohassets Supplemental Regulation to 310 CMR 15.240, all plans must be designed for garbage grinders. This design restraint requires the area be increased by 50% (310 CMR 15.240), resulting in the necessity of 7,366 square feet of leaching area. Using conventional 2-foot wide by 2-foot deep trenches spaced 6-feet apart (reserve areas between), 13-trenches at 95 foot long would require a 102-foot by 95-foot leaching area. With evidence of a seasonal high water table as little as 36 below the surface and a 4-foot separation to the bottom of the leaching facility, proposed finish grade could be raised at least 4.73-feet above the lowest existing grade in the vicinity of the test pits. Depending on final grades of the proposed site, this could result in the design of a mounded system. Under 310 CMR 15.254, a pressure dosing would be required since the design flow exceeds 2,000 gallons per day. Under Cohassets Supplemental Regulations to 310 CMR 15.231, the dosing chamber would be required to be designed with a 48-hour emergency holding capacity. Design of a shared system under 310 CMR 15.290 would require the following additional details: (a) complete plans and specifications for the system as required by 310 CMR 15.201 through 15.255; (b) a description of how the proposed shared system compares to systems constructed in full compliance with 310 CMR 15.100 through 15.293 in terms of its capacity to protect public health, safety, welfare and the environment; (c) a proposed operation and maintenance plan for the shared system;
(d) a description of the form of ownership which any component of the system serving more than one building or dwelling will take, together with relevant legal documentation describing or establishing that ownership including, without limitations, easements, condominium master deed, or homeowners association documents. All forms of private ownership of system components serving more than one building or dwelling shall establish that each user of the system has the legal ability to accomplish any necessary maintenance, repair, or upgrade of the component; (e) a description of the financial assurance mechanism proposed to ensure effective long-term operation and maintenance of the system. A copy of a proposed insurance policy, for example, naming the local approving authority and the Department as additional insureds, which provides for upgrade of the shared system in the event the shared system fails to protect public health and the environment pursuant to the criteria established in 310 CMR 15.303 shall be deemed to satisfy this requirement. The actual insurance binder shall be provided to the local approving authority and the Department prior to construction of the system; and (f) a copy of a proposed Grant of Title 5 Covenant and Easement essentially identical to that contained in Appendix 1 shall be recorded and/or registered with the appropriate Registry of Deeds and/or Land Registration Office within 30 days of the latter of the following: receipt from the local approving authority of the approved Covenant and Easement or the expiration of the 30 day DEP constructive approval period pursuant to 310 CMR 15.293. The applicant shall file a certified Registry copy of this Covenant and Easement with local approving authority and the Department within 30 days of its date of recordation and/or registration, and prior to construction of the system. Design of a shared system under 310 CMR 15.292 would require the following additional details: (b) the applicant demonstrates that the design flow from the facility or facilities to be served by the shared system does not exceed the design flow which could have been constructed in compliance with 310 CMR 15.100 without the use of a shared system.
The above additional requirements means that additional percolation testing would have to be performed on Lots 1&2 and Lots 4&5 to prove that a system could be built on the each lot prior to the approval of one shared system. The DEP and the Cohasset Board of Health would have to approve the system and all supporting documents required under 310 CMR 15.290. Scenario 5: Individual Septic Systems Lot 3 Vicinity
a.
Lot 6: Same as Scenario 1.
b. Lot 7: Same as Scenario 1. c. Lots 1 through 5: Five individual septic systems could be constructed where percolation tests were performed in the vicinity of Lot 3. Test pit pairs for the five systems would result in the following designs: Using TP 8-21 and TP 8-20 with a 18 minute-per-inch Class I soil and a 0.53 Long Term Acceptance Rate (LTAR) would require 1038 square feet of leaching area (310 CMR 15.242). Under Cohassets Supplemental Regulation to 310 CMR 15.240, all plans must be designed for garbage grinders. This design restraint requires the area be increased by 50% (310 CMR 15.240), resulting in the necessity of 1557 square feet of leaching area. Using conventional 2-foot wide by 2-foot deep trenches spaced 6-feet apart (reserve areas between), 5-trenches at 52 foot long would require a 38-foot by 52-foot leaching area. With evidence of a seasonal high water table 48 below the surface and a 4-foot separation to the bottom of the leaching facility, proposed finish grade could be raised at least 3.6-feet above the lowest existing grade in the vicinity of the test pits. Depending on final grades of the proposed site, this could result in the design of a mounded system. Using TP 8-19 and TP 8-9 with a 6 minute-per-inch Class I soil and a 0.56 Long Term Acceptance Rate (LTAR) would require 983 square feet of leaching area (310 CMR 15.242). Under Cohassets Supplemental Regulation to 310 CMR 15.240, all plans must be designed for garbage grinders. This
design restraint requires the area be increased by 50% (310 CMR 15.240), resulting in the necessity of 1475 square feet of leaching area. Using conventional 2-foot wide by 2-foot deep trenches spaced 6-feet apart (reserve areas between), 5-trenches at 50 foot long would require a 38-foot by 50-foot leaching area. With evidence of a seasonal high water table 42 below the surface and a 4-foot separation to the bottom of the leaching facility, proposed finish grade could be raised at least 6.1-feet above the lowest existing grade in the vicinity of the test pits. Depending on final grades of the proposed site, this could result in the design of a mounded system. Using TP 8-13 and TP 8-8 with a 10 minute-per-inch Class II soil and a 0.60 Long Term Acceptance Rate (LTAR) would require 917 square feet of leaching area (310 CMR 15.242). Under Cohassets Supplemental Regulation to 310 CMR 15.240, all plans must be designed for garbage grinders. This design restraint requires the area be increased by 50% (310 CMR 15.240), resulting in the necessity of 1376 square feet of leaching area. Using conventional 2-foot wide by 2-foot deep trenches spaced 6-feet apart (reserve areas between), 5-trenches at 46 foot long would require a 38-foot by 46-foot leaching area. With evidence of a seasonal high water table 40 below the surface and a 4-foot separation to the bottom of the leaching facility, proposed finish grade could be raised at least 4.0-feet above the lowest existing grade in the vicinity of the test pits. Depending on final grades of the proposed site, this could result in the design of a mounded system. Using TP 8-4 and TP 8-3 with a 6 minute-per-inch Class II soil and a 0.60 Long Term Acceptance Rate (LTAR) would require 917 square feet of leaching area (310 CMR 15.242). Under Cohassets Supplemental Regulation to 310 CMR 15.240, all plans must be designed for garbage grinders. This design restraint requires the area be increased by 50% (310 CMR 15.240), resulting in the necessity of 1376 square feet of leaching area. Using conventional 2-foot wide by 2-foot deep trenches spaced 6-feet apart (reserve areas between), 5-trenches at 46 foot long would require a 38-foot by 46-foot leaching area. With evidence of a seasonal high water table 36 below the surface and a 4-foot separation to the bottom of the leaching facility, proposed finish grade could be raised at least 4.3-feet above the lowest existing grade in the vicinity of the test pits. Depending on final grades of the proposed site, this could result in the design of a mounded system. Using TP 8-18 and TP 8-17 with a 6 minute-per-inch Class I soil (Percolation test not performed in TP 8-18, assumed rate equal to TP 8-17, further testing
would be required) and a 0.70 Long Term Acceptance Rate (LTAR) would require 786 square feet of leaching area (310 CMR 15.242). Under Cohassets Supplemental Regulation to 310 CMR 15.240, all plans must be designed for garbage grinders. This design restraint requires the area be increased by 50% (310 CMR 15.240), resulting in the necessity of 1179 square feet of leaching area. Using conventional 2-foot wide by 2-foot deep trenches spaced 6-feet apart (reserve areas between), 5-trenches at 40 foot long would require a 38foot by 40-foot leaching area. With evidence of a seasonal high water table 52 below the surface and a 4-foot separation to the bottom of the leaching facility, proposed finish grade could be raised at least 3.0-feet above the lowest existing grade in the vicinity of the test pits. Depending on final grades of the proposed site, this could result in the design of a mounded system. Construction of these septic systems would require variances to the setback distances of the soil absorption systems from property lines. Easements would have to be established in the deeds to the lots containing septic systems of other lots. The septic tank and pump chamber (if necessary) for each house would have to be constructed on the lot the house is constructed on. In summary, given the test pit information and the current lot configuration, there are only three lots that a septic system could be designed for under 310 CMR 15.000, The State Environmental Code Title V: Minimum Requirements for the Subsurface Disposal of Sanitary Sewage and set forth in Cohasset Board of Health Supplemental Rules and Regulations to Title 5 of the State Environmental Code, 310 CMR 15.000 Standard Requirements for the Siting Construction, Inspection, Upgrade, and Expansion of Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal of Septage. Additional lots could possibly be designed with a reconfiguration of the lot lines in the area of the current Lot 3 percolation tests and no additional testing. Additional percolation testing would have to be performed to site the full 7 lots as shown on the plans, whether shared or individual systems on each lot. Finally, easements could be established for Lots 3 and 4 to allow the construction of septic systems for Lots 1, 2, and 5 on these lots. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call me at 781.849.7070 ext 259. Very truly yours, Daylor Consulting Group, Inc.
2000 On this project, I laid out the houses and driveways, then graded each of the lots as they were purchased. The trick was to leave the grading open enough to anticipate grading of the lots on either side since they were not sold in order.
2001 This is a septic system I designed for a single family residence. It required several variances. One of them was setback to a cellar. I proposed an impervious barrier to prevent seepage into the basement.
2001 This is a summary sheet from my stormwater management design.

Project No.: 1748 Project: Grove Street Subdivision Date: May 25, 2001
PRE VS. POST PEAK FLOWS

Existing Peak Flow to Burnt Plain Swamp (cfs) (Reach 1) 0.91 6.02 19.20 Proposed Peak Flow to Burnt Plain Swamp (cfs) (Reach 1) 0.93 5.28 17.37 Existing Peak Flow to Burnt Plain Swamp (cfs) (Reach 2) 0.35 1.65 4.38 Proposed Peak Flow to Burnt Plain Swamp (cfs) (Reach 2) 0.34 1.59 4.33
Storm Event 2-year 10-year 100-year
BASIN CHARACTERISTICS
Basin A Bottom of Basin Elevation (feet) Top of Berm Elevation (feet) Spillway Elevation (feet) 100 Year High Water Elevation (feet) Peak Flood Volume Stored (acre-feet) Infiltration Rate (feet/minute) 100 Year Peak Outflow (cfs) 111.00 115.00 114.00 Basin B 113.00 118.00 117.50
114.00
117.20
0.13 0.0000 2.53
0.68 0.0028 0.17
WETLANDS "E" SUMMARY

2-year storm Existing Proposed Bottom of Depression Elevation (feet) Flood Elevation (ft) Peak Water Elevation (ft) Peak Flood Volume Stored (acre-feet) Peak Flow into Wetlands (cfs) 10-year storm Existing Proposed 100-year storm Existing Proposed
110.4 112.0 110.4 110.4 110.6 110.6 111.1 111.1
0.01 0.02
0.01 0.03
0.10 0.42
0.10 0.60
0.36 3.35
0.34 3.89
WETLANDS "F" SUMMARY

2-year storm Existing Proposed Bottom of Depression Elevation (feet) Flood Elevation (ft) Peak Water Elevation (ft) Peak Flood Volume Stored (acre-feet) Peak Flow into Wetlands (cfs) 10-year storm Existing Proposed 100-year storm Existing Proposed
109.0 112.0 109.0 109.2 109.2 110.8 111.1 111.8
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.01 0.05
0.02 0.04
0.05 0.51
GROVE STREET DEPRESSION SUMMARY

2-year storm Existing Proposed Bottom of Depression Elevation (feet) Flood Elevation (ft) Peak Water Elevation (ft) Peak Flood Volume Stored (acre-feet) Peak Flow into Depression (cfs) 10-year storm Existing Proposed 100-year storm Existing Proposed
123.0 125.0 123.1
123.0 125.0 123.0 123.3 123.2 123.8 123.5
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.05
0.03
0.18
0.11
0.66
0.46
1.66
1.17
This is the spreadsheet I developed and used to size the storm drains using the Rational Method.
DAYLOR CONSULTING GROUP INC. CLOSED DRAINAGE SYSTEM CALCULATIONS 100-YEAR FREQUENCY
Project: Notes: n= 0.013
Grove Street Subdivision c=0.95 (Roof and Pavements) c=0.35 (Lawns and Wooded Areas)
Proj. #:
1.1748.01
Date:
April 27, 2001
By:
REL
Ckd by: CA CA 0.03 0.04 0.08 0.10 0.14 0.31 0.39 0.13 0.52 0.22 0.11 0.85 0.24 0.30 1.39 0.16 0.16 5.00 7.4 1.18 5.04 7.4 10.27 18 12 0.30 5.00 7.4 2.20 12 0.24 5.00 7.4 1.77 12 5.02 7.4 6.30 12 0.11 5.00 7.4 0.84 12 0.005 0.018 0.005 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.22 5.00 7.4 1.59 12 0.005 5.03 7.4 3.87 12 0.018 0.13 5.00 7.4 0.97 12 0.014 0.39 5.00 7.4 2.90 12 0.012 3.98 4.26 4.84 2.52 2.52 4.77 2.52 2.52 10.51 4.32 5.30 7.4 2.32 12 0.010 3.56 0.14 5.00 7.4 1.04 12 0.028 5.94 7.56 4.53 5.07 5.42 6.17 3.21 3.21 6.08 3.21 3.21 5.95 5.50 0.10 5.00 7.4 0.71 12 0.011 3.72 4.74 5.16 7.4 0.57 12 0.009 3.34 4.25 0.04 5.00 7.4 0.31 12 0.010 3.48 4.43 0.03 5.00 7.4 0.25 12 0.010 3.48 4.43 2.2 2.3 2.7 3.1 4.8 4.2 4.8 3.7 6.0 2.9 2.4 6.9 3.0 3.2 6.2 4.0 Concen. I (in./hr.) Qd (cfs) (in) (ft/ft) Qf (cfs) Vf (fps) Vd (fps) SUM Time of Rainfall Req. Cap. Pipe Slope Flow Full Design Vel. Rim Elev.(ft) 121.62 121.62 123.00 125.50 124.45 124.00 125.50 125.50 125.77 121.08 121.08 121.42 118.50 118.50 118.97 116.88 Inv. Elevations (ft) Upper 118.10 118.10 117.80 121.00 120.90 116.98 122.00 122.00 121.80 117.50 117.50 117.40 115.00 115.00 113.89 113.80 Lower 117.90 117.90 117.08 120.40 120.40 115.90 121.90 121.90 117.90 117.48 117.48 113.99 114.96 114.96 113.40 113.30 Q/Qf Pipe Cover Time in (ft) 2.52 2.52 4.20 3.50 2.55 6.02 2.50 2.50 2.97 2.58 2.58 3.02 2.50 2.50 3.58 Pipe (min) 0.16 0.15 0.51 0.30 0.06 0.43 0.03 0.03 0.58 0.02 0.03 0.46 0.04 0.04 0.13
Line
Length
Area
Runoff
From
To
(ft)
(acres)
CB 1-1
DMH 1-1
21
0.04
.85
CB 1-2
DMH 1-1
21
0.05
.85
DMH 1-1
DMH 1-2
82
CB 1-3
DMH 1-2
55
0.16
0.60
CB 1-4
DMH 1-2
18
0.23
0.61
DMH 1-2
HW 1-1
108
0.07 0.09 0.17 0.19 0.18 0.65
CB 2-1
DMH 2-1
0.70
0.56
CB 2-2
DMH 2-1
0.17
0.77
DMH 2-1
DMH 2-2
211
CB 2-3
DMH 2-2
0.43
0.50
CB 2-4
DMH 2-2
0.19
0.60
DMH 2-2
DMH 2-3
190
DCB 2-5
DMH 2-3
0.47
.51
DCB 2-6
DMH 2-3
0.53
0.56
DMH 2-3
HW 2-1
49
0.73 0.23 0.80 0.63 0.33 1.32 0.70 0.87 0.98 0.27
CB 3-1
HW 3-1
34
0.21
0.76
2.08
0.14
P:\PROJECTS\1700\1748\CALCS\1748-rational.xls
These are some pages from the stormwater model I made for this project.
21S
Detention Basin catchment
22S 23S
Northerly portion of roadway Roadway detention pond
12S 2P
Wetlands "D"
13S
Subcatchment 1-3 (roadway)
3S
Subcatchment 1-2 Area trib. to Wetlands "D"
1P
Detention Pond @ Road
3P
Wetlands "F"
4S
Trib. to Wetlands "F"
11P 1S
Detention Pond at cul-de-sac
4P
Wetlands "E"
5S
Tributary to Wetlands "E"
Westerly portion of site
1R
62S
Southeast portion of site
2R
5P
Depression at Grove Street
7S
Subcatchment 2-4
Subcat
Reach
Pond
Link
Drainage Diagram for 1748-GROVE ST.-PROPOSED CONDITIONS Prepared by Town of Falmouth, DPW, Engineering, Printed 7/20/2012
HydroCAD 9.10 s/n 07153 2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
1748-GROVE ST.-PROPOSED CONDITIONS

Prepared by Town of Falmouth, DPW, Engineering
Printed 7/20/2012 Page 2
Area Listing (all nodes)

Area (acres) 5.220 2.480 0.870 3.920 0.100 3.820 0.210 0.640 0.110 0.080 1.080 0.550 0.450 0.830 0.140 0.710 0.020 21.230 CN 30 39 39 55 55 61 61 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 Description (subcatchment-numbers) Wooded, A Soils (1S, 3S, 4S, 5S, 62S) Open Space, A Soils (1S, 3S, 4S, 5S, 62S) Open Space, A soils (13S) Wooded, B Soils (1S, 3S, 7S, 12S, 21S, 22S) Wooded, B soils (13S) Open Space, B Soils (1S, 3S, 7S, 12S, 21S, 22S, 23S, 62S) Open Space, B soils (13S) Burnt Plain Swamp (62S) Driveway (13S) Impervious (3S) Pavement (4S, 13S, 22S) Pavement, ex. residence (1S, 12S) Rooftop (1S, 4S, 5S, 7S, 12S, 13S, 21S) Wetlands (1S) Wetlands "D" (3S) Wetlands "E" (5S) Wetlands "F" (4S) TOTAL AREA

TYPE III 24-HR Rainfall=6.80"

Summary for Subcatchment 1S: Westerly portion of site

Runoff = 16.08 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1.154 af, Depth> 1.81"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.04 hrs TYPE III 24-HR Rainfall=6.80" Area (ac) 0.200 0.830 2.210 1.500 1.190 1.650 0.050 7.630 6.550 1.080 CN 98 98 55 30 39 61 98 55 Description Pavement, ex. residence Wetlands Wooded, B Soils Wooded, A Soils Open Space, A Soils Open Space, B Soils Rooftop Weighted Average 85.85% Pervious Area 14.15% Impervious Area Velocity (ft/sec) 0.15 2.65 Capacity (cfs) Description Sheet Flow, Segment ID: Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 3.30" Shallow Concentrated Flow, Segment ID: Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps
* * * * * * *
Tc Length Slope (min) (feet) (ft/ft) 4.5 40 0.1500 2.1 6.6 337 377 0.0270 Total
Subcatchment 1S: Westerly portion of site

Hydrograph
18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 Flow (cfs) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Time (hours) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
16.08 cfs @ 12.09 hrs
Runoff
Runoff=16.08 cfs @ 12.09 hrs TYPE III 24-HR Rainfall=6.80" Runoff Area=7.630 ac Runoff Volume=1.154 af Runoff Depth>1.81" Flow Length=377' Tc=6.6 min CN=55

TYPE III 24-HR Rainfall=6.80"

Summary for Pond 5P: Depression at Grove Street

Inflow Area = Inflow = Outflow = Primary = 0.430 ac, 1.17 cfs @ 0.13 cfs @ 0.13 cfs @ 2.33% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 2.17" 12.06 hrs, Volume= 0.078 af 13.04 hrs, Volume= 0.074 af, Atten= 89%, Lag= 58.6 min 13.04 hrs, Volume= 0.074 af
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.04 hrs Peak Elev= 123.53' @ 13.04 hrs Surf.Area= 2,733 sf Storage= 1,405 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 132.7 min calculated for 0.074 af (95% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 115.3 min ( 928.5 - 813.2 ) Volume #1 Elevation (feet) 123.00 124.00 125.00 Device #1 Routing Primary Invert 123.00' Avail.Storage 7,538 cf Storage Description Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below Cum.Store (cubic-feet) 0 2,669 7,538
Surf.Area (sq-ft) 1,449 3,889 5,848 Invert 123.00'
Inc.Store (cubic-feet) 0 2,669 4,869
Outlet Devices 2.016 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area
Primary OutFlow Max=0.13 cfs @ 13.04 hrs HW=123.53' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.13 cfs)
Pond 5P: Depression at Grove Street

Hydrograph
1.17 cfs @ 12.06 hrs
Inflow Primary
Inflow Area=0.430 ac Inflow=1.17 cfs @ 12.06 hrs Primary=0.13 cfs @ 13.04 hrs Peak Elev=123.53' Storage=1,405 cf
Flow (cfs)
0.13 cfs @ 13.04 hrs

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Time (hours) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
These are sheets from the soil logs I did for this project. FORM 11 - SOIL EVALUATOR FORM Page 1 of 8
No. Lot A Commonwealth of Massachusetts Norwell, Massachusetts
Date: 5/30-6/1
Soil Suitability Assessment for On-site Sewage Disposal

Performed By: Scott Schluter, Daylor Consulting Group Witnesses By: Brian Flynn,Town of Norwell Board of Health Map 7D, Lot 15 Town of Norwell Assessors Map Robert B & Linda F Whiddop & Eileen Trubia Date: 5/30-6/1
Office Review Published Soil Survey Available: No Yes X 1=2000 Soil Map Unit: MfB. MfC, and DeB Year Published: 1977 Publication Scale: Drainage Class: Soil Limitations: Yes Surficial Geologic Report Available: No X Year Published: Publication Scale: Geologic Material (Map Unit): Landform: Depression Flood Insurance Rate Map: Community Panel Numbers 250276 0006 B and 250276 0003 B dated July 19, 1982 Above 500 year flood boundary: No Yes X Yes Within 500 year flood boundary: No X Within 100 year flood boundary: No Yes X Wetland Area: National Wetland Inventory Map (map unit): Wetlands Conservancy Program Map (map unit): Current Water Resource Conditions (USGS) Month: May Normal Below Normal Range: Above Normal X Other References Reviewed:
DEP APPROVED FORM - 12/07/95
FORM 11 - SOIL EVALUATOR FORM Page 2 of 8

Location Address or Lot No. A
On-site Review
Date: 5/30 Time: 9:30 Weather: Overcast 50's Deep Hole Number: 1 Location (Identify on site plan): DH #1 Land Use: woods Slope (%): 10 Surface Stones: yes Vegetation: Pine, Oak Landform: Depression Position on Landscape (sketch on the back): Distances from: Open Water Body: feet Drainage way: feet Possible Wet Area: feet Property Line: feet Drinking Water Well: feet Other:
DEEP OBSERVATION HOLE LOG*

Depth from Surface (Inches) Soil Horizon Soil Texture (USDA) Soil Color (Munsell) Soil Mottling Other (Structure, Stones, Boulders, Consistency, % Gravel) -
0-24
Fill
24-29
Sandy Loam
10 YR 4/4
Friable
29-49
Sandy Loam
10 YR 5/8
Very little Gravel Friable Gravel, Cobbles, Stones Loose
49-156
Medium Sand
10 YR 5/6
* MINIMUM OF 2 HOLES REQUIRED AT EVERY PROPOSED DISPOSAL AREA Depth to Bedrock: Parent Material (geologic): Till Weeping from Pit Face: 144" Depth to Groundwater: Standing Water in the Hole: 132" Estimated Seasonal High Ground Water: 132"
FORM 11 - SOIL EVALUATOR FORM Page 6 of 8
Location Address or Lot No. A
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Norwell, Massachusetts
Percolation Test* Date: 5/30 Observation Hole # Depth of Perc Start Pre-soak End Pre-soak Time at 12" Time at 9" Time at 6" Time (9" -6") Rate Min./Inch <2 MPI <2MPI 1 54" 2:35 24 Gall@2:42 Time: PM 2 67" 2:25 24 Gall@2:31
* Minimum of 1 percolation test must be performed in both the primary area AND reserve area. Site Passed: X Site Failed:
Performed By: Scott Schluter, Daylor Consulting Group Witnessed By: Brian Flynn, Norwell Board of Health Comments:
2001 These are sheets from the defininitive subdivision plan I worked on. Grading this hilly site, fitting in room for septic systems, and locating stormwater facilities were difficult with this project that contained many sensitive resource areas.
OTIS HILL ROAD (PUBLIC 50' WIDE)
GROVE STREET
(PUBLIC 45' WIDE)
LOT 1
LOT 12
LOT 11
D ROA
c/o A. B. Kahane Associates, Inc. 107 South Street Hingham, MA 02043
LOT 9
LOT 10
MATCHLINE
LOT 3
MATCHLINE
LOT 3
LOT 8
LOT 4
LOT 5
c/o A. B. Kahane Associates, Inc. 107 South Street Hingham, MA 02043
LOT 7
LOT 6
2002 This is the Stormwater Model for the project. The design included interconnected ponds.
3S
Subcatchment 3 (to northwest)
200P
1P 2R
Southerly Catchment Add hydrographs to unnamed brook to west Detention Pond #1
11S
Subcatchment 2-1 (adj. to Route 213)
21S
WEIR BOX
2P
100P
2000 LF-36" CPP Detention Pond #2 Catchment 1-2
12S 5P
101P
22S
1R 6P 42S
1500 LF-36" CPP
Detention Pond #5 Subcatchment 2-2
Add hydrographs to Hawkes Brook
13S 4P
Detention Pond #4 Subcatchment 4-2 Subcatchment 1-3
Detention Pond #6
23S
Subcatchment 2-3
3P 41S
Subcatchment 4-1
7P 43S
Subcatchment 4-3 Subcatchment 5-1 Detention Pond #7
53S
Subcatchment 5-3
Detention Pond #3
51S
54S
Subcatchment 5-4
52S 6S
Subcatchment 5-2 Subcatchment 6
8P
Detention Pond #8
Subcat
Pond
Reach
Link
Drainage Diagram for 1769-Proposed Conditions Prepared by Town of Falmouth, DPW, Engineering, Printed 7/20/2012
2002 This is the subcatchment plan for the complex stormwater model.
DAYLOR CONSULTING GROUP INC. CLOSED DRAINAGE SYSTEM CALCULATIONS 100 -YEAR FREQUENCY
Archstone Methuen 1.1769 Notes: n= .013 c=0.95 (impervious areas) c=0.2 (for lawn/planting areas)
Project: Proj. #: Date: By: Ckd by:
12-20-02
This is one of four sheets showing the Rational Method calculations for pipe sizing.
Scott Schluter REL
CA Q/Qf
To
Length (ft)
Area (acres)
Runoff C
SUM CA
Time of Concen.
Rainfall I (in./hr.)
Req. Cap. Qd (cfs)
Pipe (in)
Slope (ft/ft)
Flow Full Qf (cfs) Vf (fps)
Design Vel. Vd (fps)
Rim Elev.(ft)
Inv. Elevations Upper Lower
Pipe Cover Time in Pipe
.29 0.08
.55 .95
0.16 0.08
0.08 1.16 0.08
.95 .45 .95
0.08 0.52 0.08
0.08 .11 .97
.95 .95 .45
0.08 0.10 0.44
Line From FES1 CB 1-1 RD 1-1 DMH 1-1 RD 1-2 CB 1-2 RD 1-3 DMH 1-2 RD 1-4 RD 1-5 CB 1-3 DMH 1-3 RD 1-6 CB 1-4 DMH 1-4 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 0.85 0.40 1.25 0.40 2.77 0.40 4.82 0.40 0.55 2.31 8.09 0.55 2.19 10.84 12 12 12 12 12 12 15 12 12 12 15 12 12 15 0.008 0.037 0.035 0.075 0.050 0.015 0.006 0.063 0.021 0.004 0.033 0.032 0.015 0.047 3.08 6.81 6.69 9.78 7.96 4.42 4.96 8.97 5.19 2.35 11.77 6.35 4.36 14.05 3.93 8.67 8.52 12.45 10.14 5.62 4.04 11.43 6.60 2.99 9.59 8.09 5.55 11.45 2.8 4.0 5.5 5.2 7.8 2.9 4.2 4.9 3.6 3.1 9.0 4.2 4.8 11.1 253.60 255.00 254.05 255.00 249.20 250.85 249.85 250.85 248.50 245.70 246.45 246.50 242.64 242.50 250.00 251.75 249.75 248.25 244.50 244.50 243.40 246.60 244.00 242.70 242.00 240.00 238.65 236.00 249.85 249.85 243.50 243.50 243.50 243.50 242.35 242.60 242.60 242.60 238.25 239.30 238.50 232.55
DMH 1-1 DMH 1-1 DMH 1-2 WYE DMH 1-2 DMH 1-2 DMH 1-3 WYE DMH 1-3 DMH 1-3 DMH 1-4 DMH 1-4 DMH 1-4 FES1
20 52 177 63 20 65 178 63 66 23 113 22 10 73
.11 .90
.95 .46
0.10 0.41
0.16 0.08 0.24 0.08 0.52 0.08 0.91 0.08 0.10 0.44 1.53 0.10 0.41 2.05
0.27 0.06 0.19 0.04 0.35 0.09 0.97 0.04 0.11 0.99 0.69 0.09 0.50 0.77
2.60 2.25 3.30 5.75 3.70 5.35 5.20 3.25 3.50 2.00 3.20 5.50 2.99 5.25
0.12 0.22 0.54 0.20 0.04 0.37 0.71 0.22 0.30 0.12 0.21 0.09 0.03 0.11
.19
.7
0.13
.33
.65
0.21
.21 .15
.51 .48
0.11 0.07
.53 .03
.33 .7
0.17 0.02
FES2 CB 2-1 DMH 2-1 CB 2-2 DMH 2-2 DMH 2-3 CB 2-3 CB 2-4 DMH 2-4 CB 2-5 CB 2-6 DMH 2-5 CB 2-7 DMH 2-6 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 0.70 0.70 1.14 1.84 1.84 0.57 0.38 2.79 0.93 0.11 3.83 0.86 4.69 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 15 0.006 0.029 0.010 0.062 0.067 0.014 0.056 0.039 0.018 0.069 0.027 0.004 0.005 2.82 6.06 3.48 8.87 9.24 4.26 8.39 7.07 4.73 9.34 5.88 2.21 4.48 3.58 7.72 4.43 11.29 11.76 5.42 10.69 9.00 6.02 11.89 7.48 2.81 3.65 2.5 4.3 3.4 7.5 7.7 3.2 4.6 7.2 3.9 3.4 6.9 2.2 3.9
DMH 2-1 DMH 2-2 DMH 2-2 DMH 2-3 DMH 2-4 DMH 2-4 DMH 2-4 DMH 2-5 DMH 2-5 DMH 2-5 DMH 2-6 DMH 2-6 FES2
24 138 21 79 55 7 18 123 17 16 191 26 52
.30
.54
0.16
0.13 0.13 0.21 0.35 0.35 0.11 0.07 0.53 0.17 0.02 0.72 0.16 0.88
252.95 253.60 248.90 250.30 244.00 240.35 240.90 240.45 233.10 233.55 232.75 226.55 227.00
249.35 249.10 245.30 245.00 240.00 236.10 237.00 233.50 228.95 229.75 228.75 223.65 223.55
249.20 245.10 245.10 240.10 236.30 236.00 236.00 228.65 228.65 228.65 223.55 223.55 223.30
0.25 0.12 0.33 0.21 0.20 0.13 0.05 0.39 0.20 0.01 0.65 0.39 1.05
2.60 3.50 2.60 4.30 3.00 3.25 2.90 5.95 3.15 2.80 3.00 1.90 2.20
0.16 0.53 0.10 0.18 0.12 0.04 0.07 0.28 0.07 0.08 0.46 0.19 0.22
FES3 RD 3-1 RD 3-2 DMH 3-1 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.3 5.4 5.3 0.65 0.67 0.65 12 12 12 0.005 0.005 0.005
DMH 3-1 DMH 3-1 FES3
232 155 109
.13 .13
.95 .95
0.12 0.12
0.12 0.12 0.12
2.51 2.53 2.53
3.19 3.22 3.22
2.3 2.3 2.3
255.65 244.65 241.20
238.17 237.80 232.55
237.02 237.02 232.00
0.26 0.26 0.26
16.48 5.85 7.65
1.71 1.13 0.80
.27
.87
0.23
0.23
.15
.76
0.11
0.11
FES4 OCS1 CB 4-1 DMH 4-1 CB 4-2 DMH 4-2 CB 4-3 DMH 4-3 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 8.34 1.24 9.58 0.60 10.19 0.89 11.08 15 12 15 12 15 12 18
DMH 4-1 DMH 4-1 DMH 4-2 DMH 4-2 DMH 4-3 DMH 4-3 FES4
76 33 126 27 94 26 40
.38
.44
0.17
0.17
0.028 0.005 0.046 0.005 0.035 0.004 0.019
10.82 2.40 13.80 2.47 12.07 2.21 14.40
8.82 3.06 11.25 3.15 9.84 2.81 8.15
8.6 2.6 10.6 2.2 9.8 2.3 7.9
228.00 222.20 222.80 215.80 216.30 208.50 209.70
220.68 218.20 218.05 211.80 208.03 204.50 204.15
218.55 218.05 212.30 211.67 204.75 204.40 203.40
0.77 0.52 0.69 0.24 0.84 0.40 0.77
6.07 3.00 3.50 3.00 7.02 3.00 4.05
0.15 0.21 0.20 0.21 0.16 0.19 0.08
FES5 RD DMH 5-1 5.00 5.00 5.3 5.3
DMH 5-1 FES5
.22
.95
0.21
95
0.21 0.21
1.11 1.11
12 12
0.105
11.53
14.68
7.8
224.85
217.35
207.39
0.10
6.50
0.20
Page 1
2002 This is a memo I wrote as part of a peer review of a subdivision plan by another engineering firm.
OFFICE MEMO
To: Stephen P. Cyr. From: Scott Schluter Cc: Zoltan Juhasz, File
Date: September 3, 2002 Re: Red Gate Pasture - Peer Review
After a review of the supplied plans, entitled Red Gate Pasture Definitive Subdivision Plan dated November 22, 1996 and last revised February 26, 2001, by New England Engineering Services, Inc., and a set of calculations entitled Drainage Report dated April 4, 1999, by New England Engineering Services, Inc., Daylor offers the following comments: Predevelopment Drainage No drainage maps were provided. The time of concentration (tc) summaries show that sheet flow lengths greater than 50 were modeled. According to the DEPs Basic Hydrologic Calculations for Conservation Commissioners and general engineering practice, it is not common practice to exceed 50. Since much of the travel time is generated by the sheet flow portion of tc calculations, it appears that the total concentration times were over estimated. Due to a shift in the distribution of the stormwater flows that is caused by directing flows to the detention basin, it would have been more accurate to analyze the impacts of stormwater flows into the existing closed drainage system in the street. The logical design point would have been the downstream drain manhole, in front of the east abutting property, in order to determine if the existing downstream drainage structure was capable of handling the shift in stormwater flow. (See Post Development Drainage below for further explanation).

C:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 5 for 2221 Cyr-North Andover.zip\2221 Cyr-North Andover\Reports\2221 memo 09-03-02.doc Job Number: 1.2221.00 Printed 8/7/2012 7:44:00 AM
Post Development Drainage Drainage Calculations No drainage maps were provided. The time of concentration (tc) summaries show that sheet flow lengths greater than 50 were modeled. According to the DEPs Basic Hydrologic Calculations for Conservation Commissioners and general engineering practice, it is not common practice to exceed 50. Since much of the travel time is generated by the sheet flow portion of tc calculations, it appears that the total concentration times were over estimated. In the predevelopment scenario, the stormwater flow is spread out fairly evenly across the property frontage; however, in the post development scenario a large portion of the stormwater flow is concentrated as outflow from the detention basin that is directed toward the catchbasin in the street directly in front of the basin. No analysis was made as to the impacts of concentrating the flow to this one location or the impacts on the existing closed drainage system. It would be more beneficial to model the existing drain manhole in front of the abutting property as the design point and to check that the existing drainage appurtenances downstream of the detention basin outlet were capable of handling the higher concentration of the stormwater flow. Closed Drainage System Calculations A 10-minute time of concentration was used for all of the catchbasins in the Rational Method calculations; however it appears many of the catchbasins should have a 5-minute concentration time which results in an increase in the intensity from 4.35 to 5.4 inches per hour. Therefore, it appears some of the closed drainage structures may be inadequate. Pipes at CB-01 and DMH-01 exceed the 12-foot maximum cover recommended by the Massachusetts Department of Public Works. These pipes should be Class IV or greater. Pipes at CB-06 and CB-07 are less than the 18 minimum cover recommended by the Massachusetts Department of Public Works. These pipes should be Class IV or greater. The pipe calculations indicating a 100-year design storm actually uses the 10-year storm intensity, 6.2 inches per hour should have been utilized. The basin does not appear to be adequately sized. It appears that a larger portion of Woodchuck Hill drains through the property in the predevelopment scenario than is accounted for (only the extents of the property is utilized in the calculations). Under the post development scenario, it appears that any stormwater flows generated uphill of the proposed cul-de-sac is conveyed, via swales, towards CB 1 where stormwater flows enter the closed drainage system and are eventually collected in the detention basin. The flow into the system is grossly underestimated by utilizing the property extents since the true drainage area should extend to the top of Woodchuck Hill, or provisions should be made to ensure that only the areas indicated in the calculations will enter the closed

drainage system and any additional flows are directed, in an appropriate manner, away from the closed drainage system. It is Daylors opinion that this is a serious design flaw that could result in serious flooding issues within the closed drainage system and the abutting properties and the likely failure of the detention basin in the first large storm. No calculations were provided for the sizing of the small depression in the northwest corner of the property. It is possible that the depression should be modeled as a pond in order to analyze for possible flooding of this depression during larger storms. No calculations were provided for the sizing of the swales throughout the site. These swales should be adequately sized to convey stormwater flows as proposed. No calculations were provided for the sizing of the forebay. The forebay should adequately be sized to prevent clogging of the proposed infiltration trench with sediments. The coefficients for the proposed detention basin outlet weir do not appear to be correct. The weir, as shown on the plans and details should be modeled as a sharp crested weir or different coefficients should be used if a broad crested weir is modeled. It does not appear that the area of the detention basin was modeled as impervious, although it is not clear without the benefit of drainage maps. Plans and General Design Features The bottom of the proposed detention basin is approximately 1-foot below the abutting propertys first floor elevation; the top of the basin is approximately 3feet above this first floor elevation. It is not evident that the curtain drain will protect the abutting property, as even the 2-year storm water elevation in the basin is higher than the abutting propertys first floor elevation. Even the highest elevation of the dead storage (depth in the basin that must exit via the infiltration trench) is above the first floor elevation of the abutting property. Further analysis and more detail of this curtain drain or an alternative scenario to protect the abutting property should be performed prior to construction of this basin in this close proximity to the abutting property and house. The detail sheets indicate that the estimated seasonal high ground water table in the basin is at 141.80 yet the soil logs on sheet 2 of 7 indicate a groundwater elevation of 142.3 not 40-feet away and of 142.2 not 80-feet away. The most conservative observed seasonal high ground water elevation estimate of 142.3 should be utilized. Either way, there is inadequate separation distance between groundwater and the proposed infiltration trench at the bottom of the basin. A minimum of 2-feet should be provided between groundwater and the bottom of any infiltration structures in order to protect the quality of the groundwater, this is even more crucial in areas with sands and gravels as is indicated form the soil logs. It appears that the 142.3 ground water elevation may be higher than portions of the curtain drain; further details of the elevations of the curtain drain should be provided.

Additional soil observations and ground water determinations should be provided in the areas of the proposed basements due to the extent of the proposed excavations. Additional soil observations and ground water determinations should be provided in the areas of the rear hill excavation due to the proposed depth of excavation.+ Calculations should be provided showing the estimated time to drain for the detention basin. The time water stands in the basin should be minimized. In order to construct the basements of lots 2 and 3, over 20-feet must be excavated. How is this construction proposed? It is likely that groundwater or perched water will be encountered several feet below existing grade as evidenced by the nearby existing isolated wetlands. The excavation into the hill at the rear of the site is severe and there will likely be some issues with groundwater or perched water. The length of the 2:1 slope along this excavation may warrant the use of some erosion protection, proposed grades at a shallower slope, or the use of a retaining wall. No calculations have been provided for the foundation drains utilized for the proposed houses. The proposed grading plans show a lot of grading that directs stormwater flows towards these houses; assurances should be made to provide dry basements and minimize the risk of flooding and erosion around these homes. What prevents clogging of CB 1, CB (no number provided), and the flared end section located in the depression? These structures are proposed within overland flow areas and beehive grates or other structural methods to prevent clogging should be proposed. The proposed design shows three proposed catch basins connected to one existing catchbasin. Chain basins to this extent are not desirable and a different layout at the proposed entrance should be explored. A tree is erroneously proposed in the middle of the driveway serving Lot 1.
Scott Schluter Staff Engineer Daylor Consulting Group

2002 I designed the septic system for this project. It involved connecting three separate structures to the system.
2002 This is a sheet from the permitting set for a warehouse expansion that I did the work for.
2002 This is one of the shop drawing submittal responses.

TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM
To: Chris Brindamour Project Manager O. Ahlborg & Sons, Inc. 1000 Providence Place Providence, RI 02903 February 21, 2002 Submittal 02000-02 rev. 0 -Site piping/paving From: Scott Schluter Staff Engineer Extension 259 sschluter@daylor.com
Cc: Date: Re:
We are sending you via FedEx the following:

Copies Date 6 2/21/02 5 2/21/02 5 2/21/02 5 2/21/02 5 2/21/02 5 2/21/02 5 2/21/02 6 2/21/02 6 2/21/02 * Returned, Not in Contract ** No Exception Taken Description Shop Drawing: 08 Roof Drain Piping SDR 35 PVC 8* Shop Drawing: 09 Sewer Line SDR 35 PVC 6&8** Shop Drawing: 10 Common Borrow Test Reports** Shop Drawing: 11 Structural Gravel Test Reports* Shop Drawing: 12 Reprocessed Gravel Test Reports** Shop Drawing: 14 Precast Concrete Bumper Curbs** Shop Drawing: 15 Granite Curbing** Shop Drawing: 16 Asphalt Binder Mix** Shop Drawing: 17 Asphalt Surface Mix**

C:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 8 for 1781-jpi-providence.zip\1781 - Jefferson at Providence Place\Construction\1781-shop trans 2-21-02.doc Job Number: 1.1781.01 Printed 7/20/2012 2:37:00 PM
I created this datum conversion sheet as a response to elevation questions by the contractor.
SK-C-001 In response to RFI 11231-00075
This site contained contaminated soils. We had to keep all excavated soils on site. I designed a mount against the parking garage that also acted as a visual buffer to the properties across from the highway ramp.
2002 I had to "thread the needle" with the stormwater pipes going through the courtyards, proposed buildings, and buried foundations from past buildings.
DRAINAGE REVISIONS (OVERLAY OF PIF PLAN)
SK-00076-A
These are the hand calculations I did for the septic system design.
These are some of the hand calculations for the recirculating sand filter that I designed.
During construction we came across an unforeseen issue and I had to choose a new pump set for the RSF.
This is a response to a Request for Information by the selected contractor prior to construction.

10 Forbes Road Braintree, MA 02184 Phone: 781 849 7070 Fax: 781 849 0096
MEMORANDUM
To: William Conroy From: Scott Schluter Cc: Date: July 17, 2012 Re: Bill: Below is a summary of information requested by Fleet Construction and summaries of revisions to date. Fleet Construction Memo Dated 01/08/02: 1. The labeling of the 8,000 gallon tanks is correct as shown on the construction drawings (CDs) 2. The automatic distributing valve chamber invert is 254.0 as shown on the CDs. 3. The electric valve inverts are 253.6 as shown on the CDs. 4. The detail is correct, the vent line is a separate line from the laterals. 5. The pumps are guided by rails; there is a chain attached to pull the pumps up the rails. 6. The emergency storage information is correct as shown on the CDs. 7. The depth dimension of the 8,000 gallon tank is corrected as shown on the CDs. 8. The invert between the tanks is 246.7 as shown on the CDs. 9. The invert elevation out of the pump station is 253.14 as shown on the CDs. 10. Please refer to electrical engineer for alarm panel information. 11. Please refer to electrical engineer for control panel information. 12. The override timer float is set to 80% tank depth as shown on the CDs. 13. The high level alarm float is set to elevation 253.38 as shown on the CDs. 51 Alder Street, Medway RFI and CD revision information

C:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 35 for 1833-alder street medway.zip\1833\Construction\1833-rev memo 1-24-02.doc Job Number: 1.1833.00 Printed 7/17/2012 1:42:00 PM
14. Please refer to Orenco distributor for model numbers, the whole system is their standard 10,000 gpd sand filter. 15. Please refer to electrical engineer for overflow sensor information. 16. Please refer to the architect and electrical engineer for control room layout. 17. Please refer to the electrical engineer for electrical piping layout. Revisions/Information for Construction Drawing Submission not covered in Fleet Memo 1. Hancor pipes are rated for H20 loading with proper compaction and 1 minimum of cover. 2. The 36 pipe out to detention pond 3 is properly sized. 3. Layout of septic system from pumping point upstream was reworked. 4. Utilities coming into the building were realigned. 5. The northern loading dock was shifted to the edge of the septic area. 6. No manholes are required for the infiltration systems. 7. The entrance road profile was adjusted to raise the low point at detention pond 1 one foot. 8. Daylor Consulting Group cannot approve or provide electrical information beyond specifying general operation requirements and pump selection. Please forward all electrical component questions and submittals to the electrical engineer for approval and information. Fleet Construction Memo Dated 01/18/02: 1. The two Orenco pumps (recirculating sand filter) are 3 stage pumps. Please refer to the Orenco distributor or the electrical engineer for electric information. 2. As indicated on the specification sheets, the Myers pumps (pressure dosing fields) are 460 volt, 3 phase, please verify with electrical engineer. 3. This is the control panel for the RSF as supplied by Orenco, please refer to the electrical engineer for control panel information specific to this project. 4. The effluent pump cut sheet is from Orenco and for use in the recirculating sand filter; please see number 1 above. 5. Please refer to electrical engineer for float switch assembly electrical information. 6. The cut sheet showing the control panel is just additional information for the control panel in number 3 above; please refer to the electrical engineer for control panel information specific to this project. 7. Please refer to the electrical engineer for valve actuator electrical information. Revisions to CDs: January 24, 2002 1. Approval to move the leaching area #1 was given by William Fisher (Medway BOH). All revisions for this date result from moving leaching area #1 7-feet in a southerly direction. Individual 11X17 40-scale sketches of affected sheets are supplied with this memo (sheets 1-4). Electronic versions of the construction drawings will be sent if requested.

Control Panel Indication Information The following items should be included in the control panels for the subsurface sewage disposal system if not already included in any standard manufacturer panel: 1. A red valve fault light: to be triggered in the event a valve fails to open. A reset switch should be associated with this light. 2. Counters for each valve indicating the number of times each valve has opened. 3. An amber indicator light for each valve to be lit when the valve is in the open position. 4. A red indicator light for each valve to be lit when the valve is in the closed position. 5. A manual override switch for each valve with the following positions available: auto, open, close, and off. 6. A green indicator light for each pump to be lit when the pump is running (all pumps including rsf and pressure dosing) 7. A red indicator light to be lit for high-level alarm in pressure dosing chamber. 8. A red indicator light to be lit for high-level alarm in rsf dosing chamber. 9. Hour indicators for each pressure dosing pump. 10. Cycle count indicators for each rsf dosing pump. 11. A manual override switch for each pump with the following positions: hand, off and auto. (all pumps including rsf and pressure dosing) 12. A manual alarm test switch to trigger audible alarm, visual alarm, and autodialer. 13. Any additional lights or counters as required by the manufacturer of all components or as indicated by the electrical engineer. 14. All lights, counters, switches, etc are to be clearly marked as to their purpose. Inspection Requirements The following is the inspection schedule that is required by Title V and The Town of Medway regulations during the construction of commercial subsurface sanitary sewage disposal systems. The inspection schedule has to be followed in order to receive a Certificate of Compliance for the system. A Registered Engineer from Daylor Consulting Group will approve the inspections of the system. The Town of Medway requires that the Health Agent be contacted 48-hours prior to the required inspections. An As-Built drawing of the constructed system will also be required in order to acquire the Certificate. Elevations of all inverts, manholes, and structures of the septic system prior to backfilling will have to be obtained by Daylor in order to produce the As-Built drawing. The schedule is as follows:
Title V Inspection Requirements:

1) Inspection of initial excavation of the septic system area prior to any placement of backfill, sub base, or structure. Daylor will perform this inspection with the BOH present. 2) Prior to backfilling of the system a complete inspection of the system is required. Daylor and the BOH will inspect the system to insure that all components

installed match the design drawings. A clear water test will be run, the contract will have filled the pump chamber with ample water to run the system for several minutes. Holes will be drilled in laterals at various locations along the leaching areas to verify even distal head across the fields. The holes will be plugged by the contractor prior to backfilling the system. 3) Prior to backfilling, all tanks will have to be subject to a watertight test. Daylor will observe the tanks 24-hours after being filled with water to verify proper joint seals. 4) Prior to backfilling a detailed survey of all inverts, manholes, and structures of the system will be performed by Daylor. No backfilling will occur without approval by Daylor. 5) A final survey is required after all site work over the septic system has been completed.
Town of Medway Inspection Requirements:

1) Bottom Inspection The Health Agent is required to inspect the bottom excavation of the septic system prior to any backfilling or installation of the system. This inspection has a $50 fee required by the Town. Contractor to contact the Health Agent 48 hours in advance. 2) System Inspection The Health Agent will inspect all components of the septic system prior to any backfilling. This inspection has a $100 fee required by the Town. Contractor to contact the Health Agent 48 hours in advance.
Contact Information:
Town of Medway Board of Health William Fisher, Health Agent Municipal Building 155 Village Street Medway, MA 02053 Phone: (508) 533-3206 Fax: (508) 533-3276
Thank you,
Scott Schluter Staff Engineer Daylor Consulting Group

This is the Table of Contents for the Operations and Maintenance Manual I wrote for the septic system.
Operations and Maintenance Manual
Medway Business Center

51 Alder Street Medway, Massachusetts Owner:
Recirculating Sand Filter and Subsurface Sewage Disposal System
Conroy Development 600 Technology Center Drive Stoughton, MA 02072
Prepared by:
Daylor Consulting Group, Inc. Ten Forbes Road Braintree, MA 02184 (781) 849-7070
Medway Business Center Recirculating Sand Filter and Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Operations and Maintenance Manual
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ...........................................................................................................1-4 1.1 Wastewater Treatment Pant (WWTP) Operation and Maintenance Manual...1-4 1.2 Facility Description ..........................................................................................1-5 2.0 Permits and Standards .........................................................................................2-7 2.1 Permits..............................................................................................................2-7 2.2 Standards ..........................................................................................................2-7 2.3 Technical Data..................................................................................................2-7 3.0 Descriptions, Operation and Control of Wastewater Treatment Plant ...........3-9 3.1 Description of Operation Normal Operations ...............................................3-9 3.1.1 Sewer Manholes .....................................................................................3-11 3.1.2 Septic Tank.............................................................................................3-13 3.1.3 Effluent Filter Tee Assembly .................................................................3-13 3.1.4 Sewer Cleanouts.....................................................................................3-16 3.1.5 Overflow Manhole with Diversion Weir and Alarm Float ....................3-18 3.1.6 10,000 Gallon Recirculating Sand Filter Pump Chamber......................3-20 3.1.7 Recirculating Sand Filter Chamber Pump Vault....................................3-20 3.1.8 Recirculating Sand Filter Distributing Valve.........................................3-24 3.1.9 Recirculating Sand Filter Bed ................................................................3-24 3.1.10 Pressure Dosing Pump Chambers ..........................................................3-27 3.1.11 Valve Pit.................................................................................................3-30 3.1.12 Leaching Areas.......................................................................................3-32 3.1.13 Vent Assemblies.....................................................................................3-32 3.1.14 Control Panels ........................................................................................3-36 3.2 Emergency Operations ...................................................................................3-39 3.2.1 Emergency Contacts...............................................................................3-40 3.2.2 Response Patterns...................................................................................3-42 3.2.3 Emergency Conditions ...........................................................................3-43 4.0 Maintenance...........................................................................................................4-1 4.1 Septic Tank.......................................................................................................4-1 4.2 Recirculating Sand Filter Dosing System ........................................................4-3 4.3 Recirculating Sand Filter Bed ..........................................................................4-5 4.4 Pressure Dosing System ...................................................................................4-7 4.5 Valve Pit...........................................................................................................4-9 4.6 Leaching Areas...............................................................................................4-11 4.7 Control Panel..................................................................................................4-12 4.8 Medway Board of Health Requirements........................................................4-13 5.0 Effluent Quality Sampling....................................................................................5-1 6.0 Record Management .............................................................................................6-2 6.1 Operating Records............................................................................................6-3 6.2 Maintenance Records .......................................................................................6-3 6.3 O&M Cost Records..........................................................................................6-4 7.0 Safety ......................................................................................................................7-1
Daylor Consulting Group Inc.
1-1
7.1 Safety Program.................................................................................................7-1 7.1.1 Training ....................................................................................................7-1 7.1.2 Maintenance of Safe Conditions ..............................................................7-2 7.1.3 Accident Investigation..............................................................................7-2 7.1.4 Safety Bulletin Board ...............................................................................7-3 7.2 Safe Practices ...................................................................................................7-3 7.2.1 Safety Equipment .....................................................................................7-4 7.2.2 Good Housekeeping .................................................................................7-5 7.2.3 Material Lifting ........................................................................................7-5 7.2.4 Ladder Operations ....................................................................................7-6 7.3 Equipment Safety .............................................................................................7-7 7.3.1 Motors and Electrical Panels....................................................................7-7 7.3.2 Mechanical Equipment.............................................................................7-8 7.4 Confined Space Entry.......................................................................................7-9 8.0 Site Utilities ............................................................................................................8-1
LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1: Table 3-2: Table 4-1: Table 4-2: Table 4-3: Table 4-4: Table 4-5: Table 4-6: Table 4-7: Table 4-8: Table 5-1: Recirculating Sand Filter Control Panel Pressure dosing System Control Panel Septic Tank Preventative Maintenance Recirculating Sand Filter Dosing System Preventative Maintenance Recirculating Sand Filter Bed Preventative Maintenance Pressure Dosing System Preventative Maintenance Valve Pit Preventative Maintenance Leaching Area Preventative Maintenance Control Panel Preventative Maintenance Medway Board of Health Requirements Maximum Discharge Limits
1-2
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Facility Site Plan Figure 3-1: Wastewater Treatment Facility Flow Profile Figure 3-2: Sewer Manhole Figure 3-3: 31,000 Gallon Septic Tank Figure 3-4: Effluent Filter Tee Assembly Figure 3-5: Sewer Cleanouts Figure 3-6: Overflow Manhole with Diversion Weir and alarm Figure 3-7: 10,000 Gallon Recirculating Sand filter Pump Chamber Figure 3-8: Biotube Pump Vault Figure 3-9: Recirculating Sand Filter Bed Figure 3-10: 8,000 Gallon Pressure dosing Pump Chambers Figure 3-11: Valve Pit Figure 3-12: Leaching Areas Figure 3-13: Vent Assemblies Figure 3-14: Control Panels LIST OF APPENDICIES APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 2 APPENDIX 3 APPENDIX 4 APPENDIX 5 APPENDIX 6 APPENDIX 7 APPENDIX 8 APPENDIX 9 APPENDIX 10 APPENDIX 11 Septic Tank Recirculating Sand Filter System, Orenco Inc. Pressure dosing System Valve Pit Control Panels Conditions of Approval Recirculating Sand Filter Design Calculations Pressure Dosing System Design Calculations Construction Drawings Record Drawings Construction Photographs
1-3
1.0 Introduction
The Medway Business Center is a multi-service building offering office and warehouse space that was constructed between 2002 and 2003. The site is located at 51 Alder Street in Medway, MA. During the winter of 2002-2003, construction was completed on the subsurface sewage disposal system for this building. The automated subsurface sewage disposal facility was designed to conform to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 310 CMR 15.000 - Title 5 requirements with additional requirements set by the Medway Board of Health in their May 24, 2001 Conditions of Approval for a Disposal Works Construction Permit. The Construction Drawings for the project can be found in Appendix 9. In the hardcopy version of this O&M manual only the sheets pertinent to the subsurface sewage disposal system are included; the attached electronic version of the O&M contains the complete Construction Drawings as well a copy of this entire document. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts requires that this Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) be operated and maintained in accordance with Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control 314 CMR 12.00 Operations and Maintenance and Pretreatment Standards for Wastewater Treatment Works and Indirect Discharges. The operator of the facility must be certified in accordance with Massachusetts Board of Registration of Operators of Wastewater Treatment Facilities 257 CMR 2.00 Certification of Operators of Wastewater Treatment Facilities. 1.1 Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Operation and Maintenance Manual This Operation and Maintenance Manual (O&M Manual) has been prepared for the Medway Business Center Wastewater Treatment Plant in accordance with Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Water Pollution Control, 314 CMR 12.00. This manual provides guidelines and procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of the facility. It is intended that this manual be used in conjunction with the manufacturers O&M Manuals, shop drawings, and product data provided by the equipment suppliers. For specific procedures related to equipment breakdown, parts replacement, and step-by-step maintenance procedures these manuals should be consulted. Some of the shop drawings and manufacturers O&M Manuals are included as appendices to this manual. This Manual is organized in 8 sections. Section 1 provides an introduction and overview of this manual and the facility, Section 2 provides information on permits, standards, and facility design criteria, Section 3 provides guidelines for normal and Daylor Consulting Group Inc. 1-4
emergency operations, Section 4 presents guidelines for preventative maintenance, Section 5 covers sampling and laboratory analysis, Section 6 covers reporting and records keeping, Section 7 covers site safety, and Section 8 describes facility utilities. 1.2 Facility Description The layout of the system is shown on Figure 1-1: Facility Site Plan. A single 6inch sewer line services flow from the building. Wastewater discharged from the facility is directed to a dual-chambered 31,000-gallon septic tank where an effluent tee filter (manufactured by Zabel Environmental Technologies) is fitted to the outlet tee. Flow from the septic tank enters a diversion manhole structure where, under normal operating conditions, the effluent is directed to the recirculating sand filter pump chamber. Under conditions where a blockage occurs in the recirculating sand filter system, effluent is directed over an overflow weir to the pressure dosing pump chambers. The recirculating sand filter pump chamber is a 10,000-gallon tank containing pumps that continuously recirculate the effluent through the sand filter prior to directing the effluent to the pressure dosing pump chambers. The pressure dosing pump chambers consist of two 8,000-gallon tanks in series, the second of which contains two solids handling pumps that dose the fields with effluent four times per day at the maximum daily design flow of 9,800 gallons (2,450 gallons per dose). Individual dosing of the four leaching areas is managed by a valve system contained in the valve pit that is located after the pressure dosing pump chambers. The valve system consists of four solenoid-actuated valves that are operated by the control panel located in the control room. The purpose of this WWTP facility is to comply with the Conditions of Approval for a Disposal Works Construction Permit that was issued by the Medway Board of Health on July 11, 2001.
1-5
Table 4-1: Septic Tank Preventative Maintenance

PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS VENDOR LITERATURE REFERENCE SUGGESTED FREQUENCY RECOMMENDED MATERIALS
Inspect the liquid level of the septic tank. The liquid level should never be lower than the outlet pipe invert. Inspect effluent filter tee assemblies. Inspect sludge and scum thickness Note: Sludge accumulation can be measured using a 2 x 4 stud or wood closet pole; plunge rod into tank and sludge level can be measured from bottom of rod. Scum accumulation can be measured using the same rod; plunge rod through scum layer estimating where the bottom of the layer is and scum level can be measured from the bottom of the rod. Pump accumulated sludge from bottom septic tank. Clean effluent filter tee by housing it off into the septic tank.
Appendix 2
Monthly
---
Appendix 2 Appendix 2
Every 3 Months Inspect every 6 months. Pump when sludge level reaches 28 inches and/or scum level reaches 14 inches within tank Annually Annually
--Plunge rod for measurements of scum and sludge.
Appendix 6 ---
-----
4-2
2002 These are some of the drawings set from a project that I was the project manager for from beginning to end. I did the design, drew the drawings, and oversaw the construction. The project was site design for a proposed 164,000 sf building including the design of a 9,795 gpd septic system including a recirculating sand filter that I designed from scratch.
Underground Infiltration
Recirculating sand filter
Detention Basin
February 1, 2002 Board of Directors Camp Ramah in New England 35 Highland Circle Needham, MA 02494 Good day and Shalom:
2002 This is a letter I ghost wrote for my boss summarizing my recommendations to address an Administrative Consent Order and solve the water and sewer problems for a summer camp.
Attached to this letter is Daylor Consulting Group's Engineering Report for Camp Ramah in Palmer, MA. The report analyzes various options available to Camp Ramah in regards to complying with the current DEP Administrative Consent Order, health issues, and future expansion possibilities of the camp. The main issue facing the camp is to resolve the wastewater issue since the Camp is under an Administrative Consent Order from the Department of Environmental Protection to either connect the Camp to a municipal sewer or to construct an onsite wastewater treatment plant under either the DEPs Ground Water Discharge Permit Program or Surface Water Discharge Permit Program. Daylor has made several site visits to the camp including meetings with Jim and Joel to discuss the project's intent, met with and had several conversations with Palmer and Ware officials, met with Thorndike Water, and have had several phone calls with the DEP located in Springfield, MA. Daylor's recommendation is for the Camp to connect to the Palmer sanitary sewer system located in River Street (about 9,700 feet from the Camp). Daylor also recommends that the Camp connect to the Thorndike Water system in a common trench with the sewer force main. The water line connection would be approximately 8,500 feet long. The water line would connect to the water line already existing in the Camp (with some infrastructure work required) and would have a Master meter for billing purposes. The Camps sewer system would have to be replaced with a small diameter sewer system with several grinder pumps to pump sewage to a new central sewage pump station most likely located in Village A. We are recommending the water and sewer connections because you cannot treat and dispose sewage on the Camp properly without impacting groundwater quality. You must relocate your water supply well to an area of the Camp that will not impact the protective zone of the well as defined by DEP, known as the Zone 1 radius. You could possibly locate a new well in Village D, however there is no guarantee that you'll find good water
C:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 65 for 5-0011-Camp Ramah.zip\5-0011-Camp Ramah\Report\50011-letter.doc Job Number: 5.0011.02 Last printed 7/10/2012 11:48:00 AM
quality and cost-wise, the municipal connection is comparable to onsite water but is much more reliable. Onsite wastewater disposal is not recommended because of the difficulties associated with seasonal use facilities and the tough requirements that DEP requires for effluent quality under a discharge permit. Please review the attached document. I am available for discussion before our scheduled conference call at 781-884-2527 (w), or 781-760-6186 (cell) or at home at 781-341-8546. Sincerely, Daylor Consulting Group, Inc.
Steven L. Bernstein, P.E.
President
C:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 65 for 5-0011-Camp Ramah.zip\5-0011-Camp Ramah\Report\50011-letter.doc Job Number: 5.0011.02 Last printed 7/10/2012 11:48:00 AM
Camp Ramah in New England Water Meter Readings for water meter #3129108
Date 7/16 7/17 7/18 7/19 7/20 7/21 7/22 7/23 7/24 7/25 7/26 7/28 7/29 7/30 7/31 8/1 8/2 8/3 8/4 8/5 8/6 8/7 8/8 8/9 8/10 8/11 8/12 8/13 8/14 8/15 8/16 8/17 8/18 8/19 8/20 8/21 8/22 8/23 8/24 8/25
One of the first things I did was to have a water meter installed. This is a summary analysis of water use for this well. This helped me estimate sewer flows.
Average (Gallons) 51300 40300 60700 46200 50500 62500 27700 57800 75900 65800 27750 51900 50200 48400 52400 54800 34900 79100 66600 54400 74400 55700 33600 46100 80100 55100 41500 69800 59600 68600 65600 83900 21200 41800 38100 22400 27800 31100 33600 Running Average (Gallons) 51300 45800 50767 49625 49800 51917 48457 49625 52544 53870 49517 49700 49736 49647 49819 50112 49267 50837 51625 51757 52786 52913 52108 51868 52954 53033 52621 53214 53427 53916 54281 55179 54179 53826 53389 52551 51900 51367 50923
Reading (Gallons) Gallons Used Running Total Elapsed Days Running Total (Gallons) (Days) 59400 110700 51300 51300 1 1 151000 40300 91600 1 2 211700 60700 152300 1 3 257900 46200 198500 1 4 308400 50500 249000 1 5 370900 62500 311500 1 6 398600 27700 339200 1 7 456400 57800 397000 1 8 532300 75900 472900 1 9 598100 65800 538700 1 10 653600 55500 594200 2 12 705500 51900 646100 1 13 755700 50200 696300 1 14 804100 48400 744700 1 15 856500 52400 797100 1 16 911300 54800 851900 1 17 946200 34900 886800 1 18 1025300 79100 965900 1 19 1091900 66600 1032500 1 20 1146300 54400 1086900 1 21 1220700 74400 1161300 1 22 1276400 55700 1217000 1 23 1310000 33600 1250600 1 24 1356100 46100 1296700 1 25 1436200 80100 1376800 1 26 1491300 55100 1431900 1 27 1532800 41500 1473400 1 28 1602600 69800 1543200 1 29 1662200 59600 1602800 1 30 1730800 68600 1671400 1 31 1796400 65600 1737000 1 32 1880300 83900 1820900 1 33 1901500 21200 1842100 1 34 1943300 41800 1883900 1 35 1981400 38100 1922000 1 36 2003800 22400 1944400 1 37 2031600 27800 1972200 1 38 2062700 31100 2003300 1 39 2096300 33600 2036900 1 40 Median 52400 Mode 33600 Maximum 83900 Average 52228
Average Gallons Used 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000
W-7/17 Th-7/18 F-7/19 Sa-7/20 Su-7/21 M-7/22 Tu-7/23 W-7/24 Th-7/25 F-7/26 Su-7/28 M-7/29 Tu-7/30 W-7/31 Th-8/1 F-8/2 Sa-8/3 Su-8/4 M-8/5 Tu-8/6 W-8/7 Th-8/8 F-8/9 Sa-8/10 Su-8/11 M-8/12 Tu-8/13 W-8/14 Th-8/15 F-8/16 Sa-8/17 Su-8/18 M-8/19 Tu-8/20 W-8/21 Th-8/22 F-8/23 Sa-8/24 Su-8/25
75900 79100 74400
Camp Ramah New England Water Meter Readings Summer 2002
Date of Meter Reading
80100
This is the water meter data in graph form.
83900
Camp Ramah in New England System List

Buildings 1,2,3,4,5 6,7,8,9,10 11,12,13,14 32,15,16 17,18,19,20 21,22,23 24,33 25,26 NO NUMBER 29,31 27 28,30 CARETAKER MAINTENANCE OFFICE, ART/LAUNDRY/WOODSHOP 34 INFIRMARY GYM/CAFETERIA STAFF LOUNGE LIBRARY 72 73 74, PI, 75 SQ-1(79) TRAILER (81),69 VOC ED 82,83 84,85 59,60,61,62 55,56,57,58 53,54 51,52 49,50 45,46,47,48 42,43,44 40,41 38,39 TENT CITY 78 KITCHEN,63,64,65,67 System Designation A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q-DOSED R S T-TIGHT TANK U V W X Y Z AA-TIGHT TANK BB-TIGHT TANK CC DD EE FF GG HH II JJ KK LL MM NN Total Bunks 51 66 37 33 31 39 2 15 3 6 11 10 3 0 0 8 27 0 0 0 40 11 14 2 22 15 17 11 40 34 14 33 29 22 26 27 31 1 24 755 Comments Design Flow Design Flow Rate 35 1785 35 2310 35 1295 35 1155 35 1085 35 1365 35 70 35 525 110 330 35 210 35 385 35 350 110 330 0 0 35 280 200 5400 0 0 0 35 1400 35 385 35,110 715 35 70 35 770 35 525 35 595 35 385 35 1400 35 1190 35 490 35 1155 35 1015 35 770 35 910 35 945 35 1085 35 0 35 35 35,10 8390 39105
This is more like a house Missing 29 info
This is 3-bedroom house
11 plus Pi is more like a house
missing bunk info
This is a facility breakdown with sewer flow estimates. This information helped me to determine the design flow for the Camp's pump station as well as the minor pump stations on site.
50011-water meter.xls
OFFICE MEMO
To: Steven L. Bernstein P.E. From: Scott Schluter Cc: Jim Ferrara This is a memo covering an important meeting for the project. We were coordinating work for the Camp with the various Town bodies.
Date: March 25, 2002 Re: Camp Ramah 3/25/02 Meeting
The following is a list of concerns/issues/etc. that were brought up during the 3/25/02 meeting: CRNE does not own the parcel of land at the River St. and Bennett St. intersection. The Town would like to conduct a survey of who would be interested in connecting to the sewer force main. Daylor needs to determine from what point in River Street this is possible. Daylor needs to go before the Board of Selectmen for the following: o Street Opening- No presentation required o Connection-Plans and presentation may be required Would the sewer force main be considered a public utility? The issue has to do with fees, the example being the recent gas lines that were charged a fee per foot of installation. The DPU may need to be contacted for this. Daylors stance is that camp Ramah would not receive funds for the sewer force main; the Town would in the form of sewer connection fees, etc. The following two permits were specifically mentioned: o NOI o Road Opening Concerns over dewatering issues were raised. Construction details discussed: o Highway Supt. Requested flowable fill be utilized from the bottom of the pavement surface down. What are the minimum design requirements that would satisfy the Highway Dept? Send specifications to the Supt. o Highway Supt. mentioned that Bennett Street needs an overlay. o Highway Supt. requested that the patch to pavement joints be hard sealed.


C:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 48 for 5-0011-Camp Ramah.zip\5-0011-Camp Ramah\Correspondence\Office\5-0011 DCG memo 3-25-02.doc Job Number: 5.0011.01 Printed 7/10/2012 11:40:00 AM

o Highway Supt. mentioned the use of crushed stone aggregate for all pipe bedding. (did not like the HDPE pipe on native soil) o Highway Supt. mentioned 1-foot of gravel under the pipes where unsuitable native soils were encountered. Sewer fees were discussed: o Town fee of $150.00 per entrance (residential). o Town fee of $? Per square foot (commercial). o Daylor to provide examples, proposal of fees. o WWTP and Town Administrator will approve prior to Board of Selectmen final approval. Water connection fees were waived for Camp Ramah. Boring info should include the following: o Thickness of pavement. o Materials encountered (details). o Water table. There is a road opening moratorium in effect Nov. 15 to Apr. 1. Calculations will need to be provided for the final sewer connection pipe. o Can it hold the additional capacity? o How are we going to handle the current freezing issues.
Members in attendance: Stephen L. Bernstein: Daylor Consulting Group Jim Ferrara: Daylor Consulting Group Scott Schluter: Daylor Consulting Group Phillip Sampson: Highway Superintendent Shop: 413-283-2615 Home:413-289-1356 Michael S. Marciniec: Chairman, Planning Board Tel: 413-283-2605 Fax: 413-283-2637 Jean M. Bubon: Town Planner Tel: 413-283-2605 Fax: 413-283-2637 Richard Perssons: Acting Sewer Superintendent (Assistant Sewer Superintendent)
John Griffin: Town Administrator

C:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 48 for 5-0011-Camp Ramah.zip\5-0011-Camp Ramah\Correspondence\Office\5-0011 DCG memo 3-25-02.doc Job Number: 5.0011.01 Printed 7/10/2012 11:40:00 AM
This is a summary of the project as it finally panned out.
Brief Summary of Proposed Sewer Project for Camp Ramah, Palmer, Massachusetts
Camp Ramah New England of Palmer, MA is planning on doing the following construction project involving a new sewer system project planned to begin this summer (2003) The project includes: 1. 2. 3. The abandonment of 40 existing septic systems in various conditions within the Camps property; The construction of a new onsite sewage collection system including gravity sewers and small sewage pump stations; and, The connection to an existing municipal sewer system via a large sewage pump station, in Palmer, Massachusetts.
In January, 2002, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (the DEP) entered into an agreement with the Camp in the form of an Administrative Consent Order for violations of 310 CMR 15.00 and 314 CMR 3.00 and 5.00, which deal with wastewater flows. The DEP has jurisdiction over existing facilities with wastewater flows greater than 15,000 gallons per day, requiring a groundwater discharge permit or connection to a municipal sewer system for such facilities. The Camp chose to connect to an available sewer system in River Street as a solution to the Administrative Consent Order. The DEP issued a Sewer Connection Permit with Pump Station (BRP WP14) this past March 2003. This application is for the work required to fulfill the Sewer Connection Permit. 1.1 Project Site
The Camp encompasses approximately 140 acres of land, streams and ponds at 39 Bennett Street in Palmer, Massachusetts. The main parcel of the camp is an approximately 124 acre parcel bounded to the west by the Ware River, and to the north, south, and east by railroad tracks owned by the State of Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation and Construction (MA/EOTC) with the entrance located off Bennett Street. Encompassed within the main parcel of the camp is 2 acres of private property parcels containing one year round and several seasonal homes with frontage on Pattaquattic Pond. To the north, an approximately 9 acre parcel is separated from the main parcel by the MA/EOTC railroad track; this parcel is bound to the west by the Ware River, to the south and east by MA/EOTC railroad tracks, and to the north by private property. To the southeast, an approximately 4.5 acre parcel is separated from the main parcel by MA/EOTC railroad tracks; this parcel is bound to the north and south by private property, to the west by MA/EOTC railroad tracks, and to the east by Lauren Drive. The main parcel of the camp is divided into two areas consisting of Village A located on the south side of Pattaquattic Pond, and Villages B and C located on the north side of Pattaquattic Pond. The Proposed Project will also extend along portions of Bennett and River Streets.
1.2
Proposed Project
The Proposed Project includes the abandonment, in accordance with 310 CMR 15.00, of 40 existing septic systems in various conditions; the construction of a new onsite sewage collection system including gravity sewers and small sewage pump stations; and the connection to an existing municipal sewer system via a large sewage pump station. The final discharge for the project will be an 8 gravity sewer owned and operated by the Town of Palmer located in River Street approximately 1.7 miles from the southerly tip of the Site. The proposed work will be in accordance with a DEP issued Minor Sewer Connection Permit with Pump Station (BRP WP14). Under the Proposed Project a sewer force main will be constructed from the Camp to the existing municipal sewer in River Street; routed along Bennett Street and River Street. The proposed work also includes maintenance and upgrade repairs to portions of the existing gravity sewer system in River Street to ensure adequate hydraulic capacity in these sewers A large pump station will be constructed within the maintenance yard of the Camp, where access is possible via the main entrance road to the Camp. A new sewage collection system will be constructed throughout the Camp consisting of small diameter gravity sewer line systems and several small sewage pump stations
In two locations, the proposed sewer force main will be constructed via directional or horizontal drilling. Where Bennett Street and Central Mass Railroad intersect, a horizontal drilling operation will be used to construct the sewer force main beneath the railroad tracks. The sewer force main will also pass under a culvert at Forest Lake; a directional drilling operation will be used for this crossing. On the Camp property two sewer force mains will be constructed beneath an existing corrugated metal pipe culvert. A portion of the culvert will be unearthed to determine the condition of the pipe, and either a segment or the whole pipe will be removed for open cut construction of the sewer force mains. Finally, either the pipe will be repaired or entirely replaced dependant on the condition of the pipe. No new water work is included and the existing Camps well will remain in service. The entire project would be bid as one project and the Contractor would proceed to do the work as follows: 1. Sewer construction on River Street, start 2. Sewer construction on Bennett Street, start 3. Sewer construction within the Camp, start 4. Pavement completion, River Street Summer 2003 Fall 2003 Fall 2003, end Spring 2004 Summer 2004
The Total Project Cost estimated at $1,700,000. The estimated first year operation cost for operation of the new sewer system will be approximately $20,000 based on a average flow rate of 54,000 gallons per day for summer use.
This is a portion of the Design Report for the project.
1.0
1.1
INTRODUCTION
Property Description
The National Ramah Commission oversees 7 overnight camps throughout North America, 5 day camps in the United States, and an Israel Program. Camp Ramah in New England (CRNE, the camp) is one of the commissions overnight camps. CRNE encompasses approximately 140 acres of land, streams and ponds at 39 Bennett Street in Palmer, Massachusetts. The main parcel of the camp is an approximately 124 acre parcel bounded to the west by the Ware River, and to the north, south, and east by railroad tracks owned by the State of Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation and Construction (MAEOTC); the entrance is located off Bennett Street. Encompassed within the main parcel of the camp is 2 acres of private property parcels containing one year round and several seasonal homes with frontage on Pattaquattic Pond. To the north, an approximately 9 acre parcel is separated from the main parcel by MAEOTC railroad track; this parcel is bound to the west by the Ware River, to the south and east by MAEOTC railroad tracks, and to the north by private property. To the southeast, an approximately 4.5 acre parcel is separated from the main parcel by MAEOTC railroad tracks; this parcel is bound to the north and south by private property, to the west by MAEOTC railroad tracks, and to the east by Lauren Drive. Further to the southeast an approximately 0.5 acre parcel is owned by CRNE; this parcel is bound to the north by Bennett Street, to the east and south by River Street, and to the west by private property. The main parcel of the camp is divided into two areas consisting of Village A located on the south side of Pattaquattic Pond, and Village B located on the north side of Pattaquattic Pond. The approximate boundaries of CRNE are shown on Figure 1: Project Locus. An aerial photograph showing the approximate boundaries and layout of the camp is shown on Figure 1a: Aerial Photograph (1997). Protected areas in and around the camp are shown on Figure 2: Reserved and Protected Areas; the areas indicated on this map are Priority Sites and Estimated Habitat of Rare Wildlife associated with the Ware River and the surrounding wetlands, brooks, and streams, as well as several potential vernal pools located on or near the camp property as defined by the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (not equivalent to certified vernal pools). Areas mapped as flood zones as part of the Federal Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) program of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are shown on Figure 3: FEMA Flood Zone Boundaries; the majority of the CRNE property is located within the 500year and 100-year flood zones with the majority of the buildings located outside of these flood zones. Public water supplies in and around the camp are shown on Figure 4: Water Supply Protection Areas; the camps three wells are shown with the associated Interim Wellhead Protection Areas (IWPA), which is essentially reserved, the same protection as a Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) approved calculated Zone II. 1.2 Existing Water and Wastewater Systems
Operation of CRNE typically occurs from June through August each year, with a maximum of approximately 275 staff members and 500 attendees at any one time. Under 310 CMR 15.203 (Title V), the estimated peak wastewater design flow for the camp is calculated at 35 gallons per day (gpd) per person multiplied by 775 persons, or 27,125 gpd. Estimated water consumption would fall within this range as well.
Water for the camp is provided via three DEP registered community water supply wells and one private well. Of the three registered wells, the one located near the kitchen in Village B is the only active potable water source for the camp; the well near the infirmary is abandoned, and the well located behind the cabins in Village A is for emergency use only. The private well supplies water to the maintenance workers home and the maintenance building only. Many of CRNEs facilities are located within the Zone I radii of the wells; although existing structures and subsurface sewage disposal systems located within a Zone I radius are grandfathered, no new construction is allowed within the Zone I radius of a community water supply. It is also recommended that any subsurface sewage disposal systems located within a Zone I radius be moved outside the radius as they pose potential health risks to community drinking water supplies. In July of this year, a water meter was installed on Well #1227010-01G, the Camps active water supply well, and water meter readings for most of the 2002 camp year was recorded daily. The daily readings and a graph for the water use can be found in Appendix A of this report. It was revealed that the camp had an average daily demand of 52,228 gpd and a maximum daily demand of 83,900 for the 2002 camp season. These values were utilized for design purposes. Also found in Appendix A are wellhead protection radii based on the metered water use data. Since the well is proposed to be abandoned for potable use upon connection to the Palmer municipal water system, the IWPA and Zone II will no longer be applicable once no longer in use. Daylor Consulting Group performed Title V inspections of the 40 on-site subsurface sewage disposal systems on September 10 through September 12. The disposal systems generally consisted of a septic tank discharging to either a leaching pit or leaching tank, however three systems are permitted tight tanks, and one system is a dosed system. There appeared to be few problems with the existing systems, full results of the inspections can be found under separate cover. 1.3 Department of Environmental Protection Actions
On April 28, 2000, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) issued Zone I and IWPA radii calculations for CRNEs three onsite water supplies. The DEP indicated that the camps water supply system is in the Transient Non-Community category and consists of three wells with registration numbers of 1227010-01G (01G), 1224010-02G (02G), and 1227010-03G (03G). Well 01G is located near the camps kitchen in Village B. Well 02G is located south of the camps infirmary along the western property line. Well 03G is located behind cabins in Village A along the eastern property line. The DEP determined that well 01G has a 332 foot Zone I radius and a 1178 foot IWPA radius, well 02G has a 286 foot Zone I radius and a 789 foot IWPA radius, and well 03G has a 286 foot Zone I radius and a 789 foot IWPA radius. On January 18, 2001 the camps well operator, George Fournier, made a formal request to the DEP to register well 02G as an emergency source and to register 03G as an inactive source. Daylors January 2002 site visit revealed that this letter might have been inaccurate. The camps maintenance personnel indicated that well 02G, near the infirmary, is no longer in use, well 03G, in Village A, is used for emergency fire protection, and well 01G is still used as the camps source for potable water. Further investigations are required to determine the status of each well
and file for corrections with the DEP if necessary. Abandonment of all the camps well for the purposes of potable water supplies will be completed once the camp is connected to the municipal water supply. On October 12, 2001, CRNE notified the DEP of the camps intent to rebuild a library located within the Zone I radius of well 02G, and additional construction plans for four cabins, a guesthouse, and dining commons in various locations on the property. The DEP and CRNE representatives met on November 1, 2001 to determine the proper course of action to continue with construction of the library and other construction activities. At this point the DEP indicated that the camp could proceed with construction of the library provided that it is connected to a DEP permitted tight tank on a temporary basis. On January 9, 2002 an Administrative Consent Order (ACO) was issued to CRNE by the DEP for violations of 310 CMR 15.00 and 314 CMR 3.00 and 5.00, which deal with wastewater flows. A copy of the ACO can be found in Appendix B. The DEP has jurisdiction over existing facilities with wastewater flows of 15,000 gpd or greater, requiring a ground water discharge permit filed under 314 CMR 5.00, the Ground Water Discharge Permit Program or 314 CMR 3.00, the Surface Water Discharge Permit Program. CRNE does not currently operate under a discharge permit and is thus required by the ACO to come into compliance with the regulations by obtaining an approval for a permit filed under the Ground Water Discharge Permit Program (314 CMR 5.00), the Surface Water Discharge Permit Program (314 CMR 3.00), or 314 CMR 7.00 Sewer System Extension & Connection Permit Program. The DEP also indicated that the camp may proceed with the construction of the library provided that the camp submit an Abandonment of Water Source application (BRP WS 36) for well 02G, and submit a Tight Tank application (BRP WP 64a) for a minimum 2,500 gallon tank for the new librarys wastewater collection on a temporary basis. The Tight Tank application was filed (by others), approved, and three tight tanks were constructed and utilized for the 2002 camp season. The ACO required the camp to notify the DEP by January 31, 2002 (an extension of this was granted) of its intent to either connect to the Palmer or Ware municipal sewer system or secure a ground water or surface water discharge permit. The DEP required the camp to submit a sewer connection or extension permit by June 2002, and complete connection or extension by June 2003. The DEP also required that a complete inspection report of all onsite septic systems in accordance with 310 CMR 15.302 be filed by September 30, 2002, with inspections occurring within 3 days of camp closure but no later than September 15, 2002. Daylor completed these inspections, the results can be found under separate cover. The ACO deadline to submit the sewer connection or extension permit was extended originally to October 31, 2002, then requested and approved by DEP to December 15, 2002, and requested by Daylor to January 30, 2003. Camp Ramah and Daylor have been meeting with the Palmer Board of Selectmen since October 2002 to obtain signatures on the sewer connection application. Approvals and signatures were received on January 8, 2003. Please see Appendix I for Extension letters and comment letters from the Town. The Department has approved the concept of a common trench construction for the water line and sewer force main. Details of this approval can be found in Appendix C.
2.0
2.1
AVAILABLE MUNICIPAL SYSTEMS

Town of Palmer
Portions of the Town of Palmer are serviced either by municipal water, municipal sewer, or both. Water for the town is supplied via well fields located in Belchertown approximately 3-tenths of a mile north of the Swift River, and the Upper and Lower reservoirs located in Palmer approximately 6-tenths of a mile south of the Massachusetts Turnpike. Wastewater for the town is treated in a wastewater treatment plant located in Palmer to the north of the convergence of Ware River, Chicopee River, and Quaboag River. 2.1.1 Water The Town of Palmer is divided into four water and fire districts as follows: Bondsville Fire and Water District (Bondsville), Three Rivers Fire District (Three Rivers), Palmer Water District (Palmer), and Thorndike Water (Thorndike). A water commission composed of elected officials serves each of the four districts. The operation and maintenance of all water supply systems is contracted out to East National Water Systems. Information obtained through conversations with the various water commissions and analysis of a water distribution map provided by the Town revealed three water lines in close proximity to CRNE: a 6 asbestos cement (AC) pipe in River Street owned by Thorndike, an 8 AC pipe in State Street owned by Bondsville, and a 6 AC pipe in Summer Street owned by Thorndike. It was determined during a January 11, 2002 reconnaissance that River Street water line was the most favorable connection route. The locations of the utilities in relation to the camp are shown on Figure 5. River Street The route to the 6 AC pipe in River Street is approximately 8,000 linear feet in length and would involves one railroad crossing at Bennett Street, and one crossing under power lines in River Street. The starting elevation at the camp is approximately 374 feet (all elevations are in NGVD obtained from survey data), the ending elevation at the existing waterline is approximately 408 feet, the highest elevation along the route appears to be approximately 414 feet, and the lowest elevation is at the camp at approximately 374 feet. This route can best be described as a rural road with rolling slopes along the base of Kings Mountain located south of the Ware River. Existing Water Line Condition and Capacity In November of 2001 East National Water System Supply Inc. conducted a hydrant flow test on the River Street 6-inch AC water main end hydrant. A hydrant flow test report can be found in Appendix D. The capacity of the water main extension was analyzed; the calculations and results are shown in Appendix D. For the analysis, full build out and connection of the abutting properties along River Street and Bennett Street was assumed with a 3-bedroom per home model.
Fire flow analysis of both the existing River Street end hydrant and the water main extension proposed end hydrant on Bennett Street were analyzed the results are shown in Appendix D. It was determined that a flow rate of approximately 388 gpm with a static pressure of 51.3 psi and a residual pressure of 25.8 psi will be available to Camp Ramah at the entrance of the camp. It is calculated that at 20 psi, a fire flow of 459 gpm with a 37 psi static head and a 25 psi residual head is currently available at the existing end hydrant located in River Street. It is predicted that at 20 psi, a fire flow of 433 gpm with a 51.3 psi static head and 25.8 residual head will be available at the hydrant located at the entrance to Camp Ramah. It should be noted that the three existing wells could be utilized as fire wells in the event of an emergency (no cross connection is allowed). 2.1.2 Sanitary Sewer The Town of Palmer has one sewer district. Information obtained through conversations with the Highway Division and analysis of a sewerage system map provided by the town revealed three sewer mains in close proximity to CRNE: an 8 vitrified clay (VC) pipe in River Street, a 10 VC pipe in State Street, and a pipe in Summer Street. It was determined during a January 11, 2002 reconnaissance that the River Street manhole would be the most practical connection point. The Town is currently in the process of eliminating some of the combined sewers located in the main portions of town. The locations of the utilities in relation to the camp are shown on Figure 6. River Street The route to the 8 VC pipe in River Street is approximately 8,500 linear feet in length and would involve one railroad crossing at Bennett Street, and one crossing under power lines in River Street. Highway Division personnel indicated that there have been problems in the past with this line freezing; and that any allowed connection to this sewer main would involve investigation into these claims and possible corrective actions to this problem. Existing Gravity Sewer Condition and Capacity In August of this year, Pipe Explorers conducted a video inspection and cleaning of the gravity sewer line from the proposed force main connection downstream, approximately 3,400 linear feet of pipe total. A summary report prepared by Pipe Explorers can be found in Appendix E. Proposed repairs and maintenance can be found on the Sewer Connection Permit Plans on the Gravity Sewer Maintenance and Repair Plan. The capacity of the gravity sewer line was also analyzed; the results are shown in Table 1. For the analysis, full build out and connection of the abutting properties was assumed with a 3-bedroom per home model. The existing full build out capacity was analyzed and compared to the proposed design flow in order to study the adequacy of the gravity sewer system. It was determined that approximately 510 linear feet of vitrified clay pipe needs to be replaced with polyvinyl chloride in order to handle the additional flows. Replacement of this pipe is included as part of this project.
3.0
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
On September 25, the Department approved the conceptual design plans for constructing the sewer force main and the water line in a common trench. (See Appendix C) The attached set of plans entitled Sewer Connection Permit Plans Camp Ramah Bennett Street in Palmer, Massachusetts dated October 2002, is the permitting plan set for the proposed project and include the use of the approved common trench construction. 3.1 Water Line
The proposed water line will be constructed of Class 52 (Pressure Class 350) cement lined ductile iron (CLDI) with Tyton Push on Joints. Hydrants are proposed with spacing of approximately every 500 feet and at intersections and other appropriate locations. Gate valves are proposed with spacing of approximately every 1000 feet and typically coincide with hydrant locations were possible. The water line will be installed a minimum of five feet below grade on a bench separated a minimum six feet horizontally and eighteen inches vertically from the sewer force main. The water line will be routed around the proposed sewer force main cleanout and air and vacuum release manholes. The water demand is estimated at approximately 84,000 gpd on the maximum day and 53,000 gpd on the average day. 3.2 Sewer Force Main
The proposed sewer force main will be constructed of DR 17 high-density polyethylene (HDPE) fusion butt-welded pipe. Cleanout assemblies will be constructed in manholes located at the low points of the proposed route. Air and vacuum release valves will be constructed in manholes located at the high points of the proposed route. The sewer force main will be installed a minimum of eighteen inches vertically below the proposed water line and a minimum six feet horizontally from the water line. The design flow for the proposed force main will be 235 gallons per minute. The final connection to the existing gravity sewer will be at a new HDPE custom sewer manhole that will replace the existing sewer manhole at the end of the gravity line. 3.3 Sewage Pumping Station
An eight-foot diameter, seventeen-foot deep HDPE wet well was selected for the proposed project. Wet well sizing calculations can be found in Appendix F. The potential for additional capacity was built in to the sizing of the wet well in addition to allowances for the future collection system design. Two Gorman Rupp T3 pumps with 20 horsepower motors are proposed for the proposed project, for design details see Appendix G. The pumps will be set to operate at 235 gallons per minute, which will provide a force main velocity of 2.9 feet per second. The pumping rate in conjunction with the wet well working volume will result in a cycle time of approximately 17 minutes on the maximum day and approximately 23 minutes on the average day. Odor control will be provided in the pump station and connected to the cycling of the pumps to eliminate odors and reduce potential for odors in the receiving manholes
3.4
Additional Design Considerations 3.4.1 Pipe Jacking The proposed water line and sewer force main route includes crossing an active railroad track owned by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts through the Executive Office of Transportation and Construction (MAEOTC). Since the tracks are active and service cannot be interrupted, it is proposed that the utility lines will be installed in a sleeve that has been jacked under the tracks. In order to do the pipe jacking, a permit for the request of use and occupancy will be submitted to the MAEOTC. Preliminary conversations with MAEOTC have begun; similar operations have been performed on the same railroad tracks in town as part of the sewer separation project that is currently in progress. Design of the pipe jacking operations will meet all applicable standards set by the MAEOTC and have not been included as part of this permit set. The details pertinent to the sewer connection permit are that each utility line will be installed in an individual PVC sleeve that will be grouted in place within the steel jacking sleeve. The benched trench construction will not be followed in the area of the pipe jacking operations; it is assumed that by placing each pipe in its own sleeve, more than adequate protection will be provided. 3.4.2 Directional Drilling The proposed water line and sewer force main route includes crossing an eight foot by eight foot box culvert connecting two sides of Forest Lake along River Street. River Street is only a few feet above the top of this culvert so it is proposed to route the water line and sewer force main under the culvert. It is proposed that the water line material will change over to HDPE pipe for the culvert crossing and that both utilities will be cross under the culvert at the same elevation. The crossing will be performed with a directional drilling rig so that excavation along this narrow portion of River Street will be kept to a minimum. Since both pipes will be constructed of HDPE, which is considered joint less, it is assumed that more than adequate protection will be provided. 3.4.3 Notice of Intent Since this project involves work within buffer areas of wetlands and within Riverfront Areas, a Notice of Intent will be filed with the Palmer Conservation Commission prior to project startup. Since the majority of the work will be performed within an existing street right-of-way and the project will have a positive impact on the environment by abandoning the existing septic systems, it is anticipated that there will be no construction issues beyond good engineering standards with regards to erosion controls. The geographic information systems database also indicates the project route falls within a site listed as Priority/Estimated Habitat PH 806/WH 630. A query to the Division of Fisheries & Wildlife reveals that the species in question are aquatic species and since none of the proposed work falls within areas under water, it is anticipated that the project will have no detrimental affect on these species if proper erosion controls practices are followed.
4.0
4.1
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Soil Borings
During July of this year, soil borings were performed along the proposed water line and sewer force main route and throughout the camp. It was previously indicated by Town officials that there were several locations along the route where ledge may be encountered; however no ledge was encountered during the boring operations. See Appendix H for soil boring data.
June 14, 2002 Mr. Paul J. Nietupski Wastewater Program Coordinator Bureau of Resource Protection Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Department of Environmental Protection Western Regional Office 436 Dwight Street Springfield, MA 011037
I submitted to MassDEP to install the sewerforcemain and the water main in a common trench to save construction costs. In the end, the water main was not constructed due to a lack of funding, however we did get approval to construct in a common trench had we gone that way.
Subject: Administrative Consent Order ACO-WE-029-1001 Camp Ramah, Palmer, MA

Dear Mr. Paul J. Nietupski: On behalf of Camp Ramah in New England, owner and operator of Camp Ramah, in Palmer, MA, we hereby request a design detail approval for the above-mentioned Administrative Consent Order (ACO). During a February 14, 2002 phone conversation with Kurt Boisjolie, it was indicated that construction details of a common trench containing both a water line and a sewer force main would have to be approved by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP, the Department). The purpose of this letter is to obtain this approval. On the following page is an analysis of the proposed common trench construction. It is Daylor Consulting Group, Incs (Daylor) opinion that since the sewer line will be a force main in this instance and will be constructed of a High Densitiy Polyethylene (HDPE) pipe that is butt fusion welded, more than adequate protection to the Cement Lined Ductile Iron (CLDI) water line would be provided with a common trench construction method. The proposed design includes the parallel installation of a 6 HDPE sewer line and an 8 CLDI water line. The water line would be installed on a bench of natural earth a minimum of 18 above the top of the sewer force main. The water line would be Tyton Push on Joints, utilizing Megalug joint restraints and thrust blocks at all bends and valves. Proposed construction details can be found on the attached sample plan entitled Sewer Connection Permit Plans at Camp Ramah in Palmer Massachusetts. Very truly yours, Daylor Consulting Group, Inc.
Why construct the sewer line and the water line in a common trench? 1. Regulations Provide Guidance for this: 2001 Guidelines and Policies for Public Water Systems 9.7 Separation of Water Mains and Sewers 2. states: Parallel Installation water mains shall be laid at least 10 feet horizontally from any existing or proposed sewer. The distance shall be measured edge to edge. IN cases where it is not practical to maintain a 10-foot separation, it is permissible to install a water main closer to a sewer. However, the water main must be laid in a separate trench or on an undisturbed earth shelf located on one side of the sewer at such an elevation that the bottom of the water main is at least 18 inches. Construction Costs are minimized by this: Camp Ramah in New England is a non-profit organization that exists under the educational and religious auspices of the Jewish Theological Seminary (Mission Statement?) A common trench would be approximately 6-foot wide. Two separate trenches would be approximately 7-foot wide total. High groundwater in various locations will require dewatering; less trenching in these areas will cost less. Construction in one trench on one side of the road is logistically easier than constructing two trenches on either side of the road. River Street Physical Limitations warrant this: River Street is narrow with two travel lanes and one emergency lane for most of the length of the road where construction is proposed. Most of the utility poles are located on the east side of River Street. A single trench on the west side of the road avoids conflicts. The power company has asked for 5-foot separation from trenches minimum; ten feet preferably. An emergency lane is located on the west side of River Street. A single trench constructed in this area will have the least impact on traffic flows along this semi busy street. There are several wetland pockets located on the east side of River Street. A single trench constructed on the west side of the street will impact these the least. Approximately 16 driveways are located on the east side of River Street; one driveway is located on the west side. Construction of a single trench along the west side will impact residences the least. Almost all of the drainage structures in River Street are located along the east side with the exception of the Summer Street area where both sides of the street contain drainage structures. A single trench located on the west side of the street will avoid the drainage structures the most. A single trench in the middle of the street near Summer Street will also avoid the drainage structures the most. Erosion control measures will be easier to maintain along a single trench located at the west side of the street and will impact the traffic the least. Protection Provided by this: 24-inch horizontal separation. 18-inch vertical separation, water over sewer. Benched trench configuration. Materials a. 6 High Density Polyethylene sewer force main, butt fusion welded joints, considered jointless. b. 8 Cement Lined Ductile Iron water main, Tyton Push on Joints.
1. 2. 3. 1. 2.
3. 4. 5.
6.
7. 1. 2. 3. 4.
C:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 40 for 5-0011-Camp Ramah.zip\5-0011-Camp Ramah\Correspondence\DEP\DEP-6-14-02 trench.doc Job Number: 5.0011.01 Last printed 7/10/2012 11:38:00 AM
When we were originally including construction of a water line and the sewer line, I got MassDEP to approve construction of the water main and the sewer forcemain in the same trench. This is a detail I created for this purpose.
This is part of a recommendations report I wrote for the Camp Board of Directors to decide how to address the Administrative Consent Order.
5.0
COSTS SUMMARY
Cost estimates for the four options are summarized below in Table 1: Costs Summary; individual cost estimate tables can be found in Appendix B. The least expensive options would be for CAMP RAMAH to connect to the Palmer sanitary sewer system and develop a new water supply well or for CAMP RAMAH to connect to the Thorndike Water system and connect to the Palmer sanitary sewer; connection to both public utilities is the better option of the two due to health reasons and future camp expansion possibilities. Table 1: Costs Summary Option Total Estimated Construction Costs1 Public Water & Onsite Wastewater Treatment Public Sewer & Onsite Water Onsite Wastewater Treatment & Onsite Water Public Sewer & Public Water $1,806,993 $5,000 $7,3002,4 $2,015,2823 $35,0003 $0 $1,769,832 $10,000 $7,3002 $2,231,5913 $30,0003 $04 Annual Estimated Operational Costs Annual Estimated Town Fees
1. Includes onsite water infrastructure improvements and an onsite sewage collection system infrastructure as applicable. 2. Based on a sewer rate of $235 per EDU (flow/73000) gallons, and 75 days of operation. 3. Additional costs that would be associated with operating a wastewater treatment plant on a seasonal basis are not included, further studies would be necessary. 4. Water fees for Thorndike Water were not available at this time.
Camp Ramah New England Page 14 Recommendations for Water and Sewer Upgrades Document1
6.0
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Daylor recommends that the camp connect to the Thorndike Waters water supply system and connect to the Town of Palmers sanitary sewer system, both located in River Street, in order to satisfy the DEPs ACO, allow future expansion of the camp, and address potential health hazards associated with onsite subsurface sewage disposal and onsite water supplies. It is not clear if the DEP will consider the sewer force main a connection or extension, it would likely depend on whether the force main would remain the property of CAMP RAMAH and not involve any other connections along the route or if the force main would become the property of the Town of Palmer and possibly involve connections (current or future) along the route. Should the Town of Palmer seek ownership of the force main and desire to connect residences along the route there could be additional costs associated with the installation of backflow preventers, but there could also be the possibility of some sharing of the costs with the Town. Should CAMP RAMAH maintain ownership of the force main there could be maintenance and repair issues in the future and issues of whether new customers could be connected to this force main. Further meetings with the Town of Palmer and the DEP would reveal answers to these issues. The construction of a water line in a public way would also raise issues of final ownership and possible connections of other users. Thorndike Water would take ownership of the water line after construction and require CAMP RAMAH to rent a water meter from them and it would be likely that in the future new connections could be made to the waterline. Further meetings with Thorndike Water and possibly East National Water Systems would reveal answers to these issues. Daylor also recommends that CAMP RAMAH consider the following additional actions in order to provide safe conditions at the camp: The camp should immediately hire a licensed septage hauler to pump out all onsite septic tanks. The camp should engage a licensed septage hauler to immediately clean out the existing kitchen grease trap. The camp should install a water meter on well 01G (in Village B) and maintain daily readings during the summer 2002 camp sessions so that a more accurate Zone I radius can be calculated and filed with the DEP, and/or more accurate data could be used for any new water supply sources. The camp should hire a surveyor to stake out the existing 332 foot Zone I radius associated with well 01G and install signs in several areas that clearly indicate the presence of a water supply well and the associated protection of that well. The camp should inspect all onsite water fixtures and repair or replace all faulty fixtures and replace all non-water conservation fixtures with water conservation fixtures, including but not limited to toilets and shower heads not meeting low flow requirement of current plumbing codes.
Camp Ramah New England
Page 15
Recommendations for Water and Sewer Upgrades Document1
The camp should keep accurate attendance records for the summer 2002 sessions so that proper population numbers may be used for future designs. In addition, the camp should estimate future population increases or decreases. The camp should not proceed with construction of buildings other than the library without prior approval by the DEP. The camp should determine if well 02G has been properly abandoned through an Abandonment of Water Source application (BRP WS36), and if not, proceed to file for the abandonment. The camp should determine if well 03G has been properly abandoned through an Abandonment of Water Source application (BRP WS36), and if not, proceed to file for the abandonment. Also, any cross connection of this well to the water supply system of the camp should be abandoned. The camp should utilize this well for fire protection purposes only and there should be no connection between this well and the drinking water supply of the camp.

Camp Ramah New England
Page 16
Recommendations for Water and Sewer Upgrades Document1
This is a progress memo that I wrote for the Board of Directors as the design was underway.

MEMORANDUM
To: Joel Stavsky From: Scott Schluter Cc: Steven Bernstein Jim Ferrara Date: April 5, 2002 Re: Camp Ramah New England ACO
Mr Stavsky: I just wanted to drop a line about our progress on your project. Below is a progress list pertaining to the project: Kurt Olson has finished the wetland and riverfront flagging and has provided the information to Sherman and Woods (the surveyors) on the locations. He is also preparing a report that will be used for the Notice of Intent. Survey is continuing work on the road and onsite. Detail for the camp entrance to the River Street and Bennet Street intersection has been provided to Daylor. These plans allow us to proceed with the Rail Road crossing design. Daylor has inspected the manholes in River Street and determined that additional information should be obtained in the form of televising and cleaning the sewer lines from the end to the first 10" pipe located in River Street. Daylor has several companies providing estimates on this work. The televising is necessary for the purposes of providing a record of the condition of the pipes prior to our connection and as an indicator of any rehabilitation work (roots, breaks, infiltration and inflow, etc.) that may be necessary in order to connect to this line. Any reports generated from this work will be sent to you. Estimates for the

C:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 11 for 5-0004 Camp Ramah.zip\5-0004 Camp Ramah\Water & Sewer Project\5-0011 4-5-02 memo.doc Job Number: 5.0011.01 Printed 7/10/2012 11:14:00 AM
televising work should arrive early next week, we will inform you of our selection and schedule for this work. Daylor is coordinating a fire hydrant flow test to be performed at the same time as the sewer cleaning and televising, if possible. The hydrant flow test data is another measure to provide a record of existing conditions prior to the connection; the data obtained will also assist in calculations further in the design of the project. Daylor performed a walk of the proposed utility route; initial observations indicate that possibly a large portion of the trenching can be done outside of the paved area in River Street, this would drastically reduce costs, especially if the Highway Department still requires flowable fill under paved surfaces. The existing conditions plans will provide a better idea of where the utilities can be placed outside of the pavement. There is currently an internal struggle over who the water line would belong to upon completion; Palmer Water District has indicated that the Camp is within their district so they should own the pipe, Bondsville (whom Daylor assumed would be the owner) owns the waterlines we are ultimately connecting to. Bondsville sells water to the Thorndike Water District. Under the advisement of various Town officials, we are providing the Town with a letter of intent asking that the appropriate departments contact us. A copy of the letter will be provided to you (it is basically a statement of your intent to connect to the utilities in River Street). Daylor intent is to stay out of the argument; the end result should have no effect on the Camp unless connection fees were no longer waived. The hope is that the departments will see the project for the greater good for the whole town; set some politics aside and compromise on who owns what. Once it is determined which district/departments the project will be dealing with, Daylor will provide a memorandum of understanding to the Town (to be reviewed by you prior to submission). Daylor has obtained permitting documents for the Railroad Crossing from MAEOTC. Daylor is awaiting a copy of a recent permit filed by another engineering firm for a similar crossing in Palmer (why reinvent the wheel?). The permit package is the same for aerial and subterranean crossings so when the secondary access has been located, a copy of the permit package is here and can be sent to whomever is filing this permit. Preliminary discussions have begun with the power company for the process of providing three-phase power to the camp. The work order required for this project cannot be started until we have located exactly where the three-phase power will be brought into the camp. When the details of Village A are provided, we should be able to site the sewage pump station and appurtenances. Does the camp intend to make use of the three-phase power for any other purposes? The power company will need a load estimate; Daylor can provide information for the pump station, any additional loads will have to be provided to

the power company prior to starting a work order. The work for the pump station and any grinder pumps will likely not need an electrical engineer on board since the plan is to utilize standard control panels, however if the camp wishes to consider utilizing the three-phase power for the library, dining commons or other areas, an electrical engineer should be brought on board. Does the Camp have an electrical engineer it uses? Investigations have begun into the ownership of and the process of crossing the power line easement across River Street. Daylor is in the process of hiring a boring company to provide soil information along the proposed utility route. This information will allow the bidders to provide a more accurate bid instead of adding a higher allowance for unforeseen construction costs associated with ledge, boulders, organic materials, etc. Daylor will inform you of our selection and schedule soon.
Daylor will continue to perform the work that can be done without existing condition plans so that when these plans are completed, full attention can be paid to the design aspects of the project Please don't hesitate to contact me with any questions, comments, or concerns. I can be reached at 781-849-7070 ext259, or sschluter@daylor.com. Thanks, Scott S.


MEMORANDUM
To: Joel Stavsky From: Scott Schluter Cc: Date: April 8, 2005 Re: Joel: I met with the Town of Palmer Water Pollution Control Superintendent, Gerald Skowronek yesterday after our meeting at the Camp. We discussed two items, flow meters and sewer charges. Gerald is satisfied with our Remote Terminal Unit (RTU) with the website interface. He should be provided with the username and password that you provided to Mission (see DCG fax dated January 28, 2005). It would probably be easiest if you provide him a copy of all those forms so he knows exactly who gets calls in the event of an alarm. This will allow Gerald to log on to your pump station website monthly and record the flows. Gerald explained the process for sewer fees. As a commercial property, they will bill you on an Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) basis. The Town defines and EDU as 73,000 gallons and currently charges $300 per EDU. The town currently bills twice a year, in March and in September. Simply put, he will add up all the flow from the September meter reading to the March reading, divide by 73,000 and multiply by 300 to arrive at the bill for March. For example, assuming that all the water used from your well goes into the pumping station, and using the 2002 water meter data, between 7/16/2002 and 8/25/2002, 2,036,900 gallons of water were used. Divide 2,036,900 by 73,000 (1 EDU), then multiply by $300 (cost of 1 EDU) and you arrive at $8,370, the cost of discharging sewage to the Town for that period of time. The Town currently has an estimate of 4,000,000 gallons of use for the camp for an entire year and estimate that the yearly total Sewer Fees I negotiated with the Sewer Department for the sewer fees for the Camp. This is a memo to the Camp Director regarding my meeting with the Sewer Department.

C:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 33 for 5-0011-Camp Ramah.zip\5-0011-Camp Ramah\Construction\5-0011-WWTP memo-4-8-05.doc Job Number: 5.0011 Printed 7/10/2012 11:35:00 AM
would be $16,500 for sewer fees. The camp will only pay what is actually used though so any conservation measures will only help lower sewer fees for the Camp (low flow shower fixtures, low volume toilets, repair leaky fixtures). Gerald is the person you need to speak with to make arrangements for billing. His phone number is 413-283-2671; I think you will find Gerry a very pleasant person to work with. Please let me know if you have further questions, comments or concerns. Scott Schluter Senior Engineer Daylor Consulting Group, Inc.

C:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 33 for 5-0011-Camp Ramah.zip\5-0011-Camp Ramah\Construction\5-0011-WWTP memo-4-8-05.doc Job Number: 5.0011 Printed 7/10/2012 11:35:00 AM
Pump Curve Data Points
Safety Factor= 1.2
NPSH
Q (gpm)
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.00 31.25 30.50 30.00 29.00 26.25 23.75 21.25 17.50 12.50 50.00 48.75 47.70 47.50 46.00 43.75 42.00 40.00 37.00 33.75 31.00 26.25 21.25 70.00 69.00 68.00 67.00 65.00 63.75 62.00 60.00 57.50 55.00 52.50 49.00 46.00 42.50 38.00 33.00 26.25 86.25 85.50 84.00 83.00 82.00 80.00 78.75 76.25 74.00 72.00 68.75 66.00 62.50 58.00 53.75 48.00 41.25
New PVC TDH (ft)

105.00 103.00 102.00 100.00 98.75 96.25 93.75 91.50 89.00 86.00 84.00 80.75 77.50 74.00 69.75 65.00 55.75
(ft)
Myers WGL20 Curve (3-1/8" impeller) (ft)
Myers WGL20 Curve (5" impeller) (ft)
Crane OGVF (3" impeller) (ft)

31.00 31.00 31.00 31.00 30.00 29.50 28.00 26.00 24.00 22.00 20.00 18.00 15.00 13.00 10.00 7.50 5.50
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 25 27.5 30 32.5 35 37.5 40
16.01 16.09 16.29 16.61 17.04 17.57 18.21 18.94 19.78 20.70 21.73 22.84 24.05 25.35 26.74 28.22 29.78
This is a portion of my pump selection calculations for one of the small pump stations in the collection system for the camp. I looked at several pumps and chose the best fit.
Job-System Curve
New PVC TDH (ft) (4-1/2" impeller) (5" impeller) (5-1/2" impeller) Crane 3" NPSH (ft) (3-1/8" impeller) (3-3/4" impeller)
Total Dy ynamic Head (ft)
110.00 105.00 100.00 95.00 90.00 85.00 80.00 75.00 70.00 65.00 60.00 55.00 50.00 45.00 40.00 35.00 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 25 27.5 30 32.5 35 37.5 40 Flow Rate (GPM)
These are the pump curves for my pump selection sheet.
2.5
Sewer Connection Construction Bid Documents
SEWER CONNECTION AT CAMP RAMAH IN PALMER MASSACHUSETTS

39 BENNETT STREET PALMER, MASSACHUSETTS
Submitted to:
Prospective Bidders
I produced the Bid Documents for this project.
Submitted by:
Daylor Consulting Group, Inc. 10 Forbes Road Braintree MA, 02184
Prepared by:
July 18, 2003
Job # 5.0011.01
SECTION 01300 SUBMITTALS
This is one of the Specifications I wrote for this project.
Part 1 - GENERAL 1.1 PROGRESS REPORTS, RECORDS AND DATA A. The CONTRACTOR shall submit to the OWNER such schedules of quantities and costs, progress schedules, payrolls, reports, estimates, records and other data as the OWNER may request concerning work performed or to be performed under this CONTACTOR. 1.2 SHOP DRAWINGS, SAMPLES, PROJECT DATA A. The CONTRACTOR shall submit for review by the ENGINEER six copies of all shop drawings, setting schedules and such other drawings as may be necessary for the prosecution of the work in the shop and in the field as required by the DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS or the ENGINEER's instructions. Deviations from the DRAWINGS and SPECIFICATIONS shall be called to the attention of the ENGINEER at the time of the first submission of shop drawings and other drawings for consideration. The ENGINEER's review of any drawings shall not release the CONTRACTOR from responsibility for such deviations. Shop drawings shall be submitted with such promptness as to cause no delay in his work or the work of any other CONTRACTOR B. When submitted for the ENGINEERs review, all shop drawings shall bear the CONTRACTOR's certification that he has reviewed, checked and approved the shop drawings, that they are in harmony with the requirements of the PROJECT and with the provisions of the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, and that he has verified all field measurements and construction criteria, materials, catalog numbers and similar data. The CONTRACTOR shall also certify that the work represented by the shop drawings is recommended by the CONTRACTOR and the CONTRACTOR's Guaranty will fully apply. C. All samples called for in the SPECIFICATIONS or required by the ENGINEER shall be furnished by the CONTRACTOR and shall be submitted to the ENGINEER for his review. Samples shall be furnished so as not to delay fabrication, and to allow the ENGINEER reasonable time for the consideration of the samples submitted. D. Checking of submittals is only for general conformance with the design concept of the project and general compliance with the information given in the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. Any action shown is subject to the requirements of the plans and SPECIFICATIONS. CONTRACTOR is responsible for: dimensions, which shall be confirmed and correlated at the job site; fabrication processes and techniques of construction; coordination of his work with that of all other trades; and the satisfactory performance of his work. E. The CONTRACTOR may only proceed with fabrication and construction for items on returned submittals marked "No Exception Taken" or "Make Corrections as Noted." Resubmit submittals if marked "Rejected", "Revise and Resubmit" or "Submit Samples or Additional Information."
Camp Ramah In New England, Inc Railroad Crossing Application
01300 SUBMITTALS
C:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 61 for 5-0011-Camp Ramah.zip\5-0011-Camp Ramah\Railroad Crossing\Specifications\01300.doc
F. The CONTRACTOR shall furnish such samples of material as may be required for examination and test. All samples of materials for tests shall be taken according to ASTM SPECIFICATIONS or as provided in the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. G. All samples shall be submitted by the CONTRACTOR with a covering letter indicating that such samples are recommended by the CONTRACTOR for the service intended and that the CONTRACTOR's Guaranty will fully apply. H. All materials, equipment and workmanship shall be in accordance with samples guaranteed by the CONTRACTOR and reviewed by the ENGINEER. 1.3 CONTRACTOR'S ORDER OF CONSTRUCTION A. The CONTRACTOR shall, within 30 days after award of CONTRACT, provide and submit to the ENGINEER for approval, the schedule he plans to maintain in order to successfully construct the work within the time allotted. This schedule shall include a Critical Path network and a computer generated print out. The schedule shall account for all SUBCONTRACTS in addition to the work of the CONTRACTOR. In addition to all reasonably important construction activities, the schedule shall provide for the proper sequence of construction considering the various crafts, purchasing time, shop drawing approval, material delivery, equipment fabrication and similar time-consuming factors. B. The network shall be provided in the form of a time scaled schedule. The computer print out shall include as a minimum, the earliest starting, earliest finish, latest starting, latest finish dates, and the total float for each activity. The CONTRACTOR shall update (monitor) and run the schedule daily and shall submit to the ENGINEER anticipated deviations from the schedule. 1.4 CONTRACTOR'S COST BREAKDOWN A. Within 30 days of the CONTRACT award, the CONTRACTOR shall provide the ENGINEER with a complete breakdown of the cost of the lump sum items in the Proposal in such a manner that the breakdown may be used as a basis for estimating the value of work completed to the end of any month. The extent and basis of the breakdown shall meet the ENGINEER's approval.
** END OF SECTION **
Camp Ramah In New England, Inc Railroad Crossing Application
01300 SUBMITTALS
C:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 61 for 5-0011-Camp Ramah.zip\5-0011-Camp Ramah\Railroad Crossing\Specifications\01300.doc
This is one of my shop drawing approval transmittals.

TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM
To: Andy Smetana Project Manager Ludlow Construction Inc. 19 Carmelinas Circle Ludlow, MA 01056 July 8, 2004 Camp Ramah Shop Drawings 7/8/04 From: Scott Schluter Senior Engineer Extension 259 sschluter@daylor.com
Cc: Date: Re:
We are sending you via FedEx the following: Copies 4 4 Date 7/8/04 7/8/04 Description Barnes SGVF2022L Pump1 Barnes BAFEZ 1.25x2 break away fitting & guide bracket & lifting chain1 Flowmatic ball check valve, 208S1 Simplex Control Panel1
4 7/8/04 4 7/8/04 Remarks: 1 No Exception Taken 2 Rejected 3 Submit Samples or Additional Information 4 Revise and Resubmit 5 Make Corrections as Noted

C:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 35 for 5-0011-Camp Ramah.zip\5-0011-Camp Ramah\Construction\Shop Drawings\5.0011-Shops trns-7-8-04 set 3.doc Job Number: 5.0011.02 Printed 7/10/2012 11:36 AM
August 1, 2005
Andy Smetana Project Manager Ludlow Construction Inc. 19 Carmelinas Circle Ludlow, MA 01056 Subject: Camp Ramah Punchlist
This is a punch list letter to the contractor after my inspection of the project prior to release of the retainage and project closeout.
Dear Andy: Following is a punch list of items that need attention prior to a reduction in retainage to 1% for the Camp Ramah project. This list was compiled from notes by Bob Lemoine and Joel Stavsky. In order to release the retainage from the contract down to 1%, these items must be addressed. 1. The main pump station motor does not appear to be cycling. This motor is supposed to startup once a week. 2. The water to the main pump station needs to be turned on.
3. Camp Ramahs electrician claims that the stockade fenced pump station pumps are not operating at the proper amperage. This needs to be investigated. Can Ludlow provide estimates for a solution to the possible clogging that is occurring due to the accumulation of feminine products in the pump station? (Stainless steel screen? Mixing valve?) 4. As-Built markups are to be submitted to Daylor for electronic production. As part of the as-builts, Ludlow is to make sure to provide ties to all buried cleanouts and to show Jim Dupres in person where they all are.
5. The odor at the stockade fenced pump station is getting worse. This situation must be investigated and a solution provided ASAP. Please call me to discuss the options. (Raise the vent pipe? Adjust the floats to reduce retention time in the wet well? Move the odor control from the main pump station on a trial basis?)
Andy Smetana Ludlow Construction Inc. August 1, 2005 Page 2 of 2
6. SMH #S (outside main pump station) needs to be cleaned out; the cover does not sit properly. 7. Additional cleanup work is necessary along the River Street. 8. Submit the disposal slips for the removed material in the flood zone compensation area. Completed 7/27/05 Items will be checked off the list upon approval of the work by Bob Lemoine or Daylor Consulting Group. Bob Lemoine must be called for construction oversight of any and all work. Retainage will be released upon completion of the above items or a portion will be released based on the value of the completed punch list items (to be determined). Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions, comments or concerns. I can be reached at 781-849-7070 ext. 259.
Very truly yours, Daylor Consulting Group, Inc.
Scott Schluter Senior Engineer
C:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 32 for 5-0011-Camp Ramah.zip\5-0011-Camp Ramah\Construction\5.0011-punchlist 8-1-05.doc Job Number: 5.0011.02 Last printed 7/10/2012 11:35:00 AM
This is the letter I wrote to obtain a Certificate of Compliance and release from the Administrative Consent Order.
June 16, 2005 Kurt Boisjolie, Wastewater Management Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection Western Regional Office 436 Dwight Street Springfield, MA 01103 RE: Administrative Consent Order ACO-WE-029-1001 Camp Ramah, Palmer, MA
Dear Mr. Boisjolie: On behalf of Camp Ramah-New England (the Camp), owner and operator of Camp Ramah, in Palmer, MA, Daylor Consulting Group, Inc. (Daylor) hereby wishes to inform you that the camp is entirely connected to the Town of Palmer municipal sewer collection system and abandonment of all onsite sewage disposal systems is complete. Attached are the Contractors As-Built plans for the onsite collection system as you requested. With the completed connection of the camp to a municipal sewer system, abandonment of all existing onsite subsurface sewage disposal systems, and submission of As-Built plans, in our professional opinion, Camp Ramah has fulfilled the requirements of the Administrative Consent Order within the timeframe provided in the Order. Having completed all the requirements, the Camp seeks confirmation from the Department of Environmental Protection that it has returned to compliance with Title V regulations.
Please call me directly, if you have any questions regarding this request at 781-884-2559. Very truly yours, Daylor Consulting Group, Inc.
Scott Schluter Senior Engineer Daylor Consulting Group, Inc.
Kurt Boisjolie 7/10/2012 Page 2 cc: Paul Bernard- Chairman, Palmer Board of Health Town Administration Building 4417 Main Street, Palmer MA 01069
Gerald Skowronek-Superintendent, Palmer Water Pollution Control 1 Norbell Street, Three Rivers MA 01080 Saul Schapiro - Rosenberg and Schapiro 44 School Street, Boston MA 02108 Joel Stavsky - Camp Ramah 39 Bennett Street Palmer, MA 01069
C:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 43 for 5-0011-Camp Ramah.zip\5-0011-Camp Ramah\Correspondence\DEP\DEP-compliance letter #3-7-5-06.doc Job Number: 5011 Last printed 7/10/2012 11:39:00 AM
This sheet from the Construction Drawings shows the horizontal bore I designed and permitted in order to cross the active railroad tracks with the sewer forcemain.
This sheet shows the design I did for the pump station which was located within a flood plain so I had to elevate it.
This is the sheet for the pumps station that I designed.
This is one of the sheets I used for designing and permitting the bore beneath the railroad tracks.
2003 I was the Project Manager for this project. I was tasked with assessing the suitability of a site for wastewater disposal and potable water supply for a cohousing project.

MEMORANDUM
To: Chris ScottHanson From: Scott Schluter Cc: Date: May 2, 2003 Re: Mosaic Common Cohousing Community
The following is a summary of our preliminary findings relative to potential on-site wastewater disposal and drinking water alternatives for the above referenced project. As part of the analysis, Daylor reviewed the following information pertaining to the site: MassGIS datasets: Figure 1 depicts the locus of the project Figure 2 depicts an aerial view of the project locus Figure 3 shows that the locus falls outside of Reserved and Protected areas mapped by the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program. The nearest indicated Protected Areas appear directly across the street from the project along Stow Road. Figure 4 shows that there is a mapped FEMA Flood Zone B associated with the intermittent stream located in the southeast corner. Analysis of the online FEMA maps show that the Flood Zone has no elevation associated with it (see attached figures from the FEMA website with no numbers). Figure 5 shows that the locus falls outside of any mapped Zone IIs and IWPAs associated with Public Water Supplies. The nearest protective radius is to the north in Boxboro, an IWPA for a well there.

C:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 1 for 2295 Mosaic Commons Cohousing, Harvard.zip\2295 Mosaic Commons Cohousing, Harvard\05-02-03-submittal\2295-mosaic memo 5-1-03.doc Job Number: 1.2295 Printed 8/7/2012 7:10:00 AM
Soil Testing Information by others: Two Septic system plans entitled Sewage Disposal System (both) for lots 1A and lot 2 by David E. Ross Associates, Inc. Plan entitled Existing Conditions Plan by David E. Ross Associates, Inc.

Layout plan by others Plan entitled Site Plan Harvard Site by Kraus-Fitch Architects, Inc. State Regulations (assuming Comprehensive Permit setting aside local rules and regulations in favor of State rules and regulations): 310 CMR 15 (Title V, subsurface sewage disposal regulations) 310 CMR 22 (Drinking water regulations) 2001 Guidelines and Policies for Public Water Systems (Volumes I and II)
Below is a summary of the regulatory constraints and site limitations in regards to drinking water and sewage disposal for the site. More detailed descriptions of the various constraints follow. Regulatory Constraints 84 Bedroom maximum build out based on Title V nitrogen loading constraints (based on 440 gallons per day per 40,000 square feet). Approximately 37,000 square feet (sf) leaching area based on provided soil information (based on assumed percolation rate of 30 minutes per inch, class II soil, 110 gallons per day per bedroom sewage generation). A minimum 245-foot protective Zone I radius (based on 9,240 gallons per day water demand). Stormwater management retention/detention basin with an estimated 11,000 sf footprint (based on 13% of proposed impervious area required for retention/detention basins) Site Limitations Variable soil conditions with four failed percolations in past soil testing. High seasonal groundwater reported in past soil testing. No aquifers are indicated for the locus, however a medium yield aquifer is mapped relatively close. A more detailed hydrogeologic evaluation of the site is needed to determine if a well of the capacity required for this project is feasible. Below is more detailed discussion about the regulatory and site constraints in regards to drinking water and sewage disposal, expanding on the summary above.

Septic Systems Nitrogen Loading The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) limits development of a project to a maximum nitrogen loading rate of 440 gallons per day (gpd) per 40,000 sf when both a well and septic system are proposed for the same facility. The 40,000 sf does not include land under roadway surface or land under water. The total area of the site is approximately 891,000 sf, minus the approximately 42,000 sf of land under roadway and water (based on the April 11, 2003 layout by Kraus-Fitch Architects Inc. and available USGS data) results in the potential of 84 bedrooms being developed on this parcel under Title V nitrogen loading regulations (based on 110 gpd per bedroom, per Title V). The nitrogen loading limitation would not apply to a wastewater treatment system constructed under a DEP groundwater discharge permit where the federal Safe Drinking Water Act standard of 10 parts per million (ppm) is met. A groundwater discharge permit is a lengthy permit involving, among other things, detailed studies and the design of a wastewater treatment plant far more complex than a conventional Title V system. Wells and Onsite Septic Systems When a facility includes both a community well (see Drinking Water section) and an onsite septic system, the site is classified as a Nitrogen Sensitive area, which in conjunction with a sanitary sewage flow rate over 2,000 gpd, requires the use of a DEP approved innovative/alternative septic system. The innovative/alternative septic systems are typically packaged wastewater treatment systems that have received DEP approval as a complete system and are less complex than what is required for a groundwater discharge permit. These systems treat wastewater to a higher level than conventional septic systems. Obtaining a permit to construct and innovative/alternative system involves less detailed studies than a groundwater discharge permit. Wells and Groundwater Discharge Permits When a site includes both a community well (see Drinking Water section) and a groundwater discharge permit, the DEPs Interim Guidelines for Reclaimed Water Use may be applicable resulting in further detailed studies and a more complex wastewater treatment system and possible treatment requirements for the well. Leaching Area Requirements Based on the maximum nitrogen loading rate of 84 bedrooms and available soil data, a leaching area of approximately 37,000 sf would be required. The total area could be divided into several smaller areas sited throughout the site since a pumped system is required by the DEP for flows over 2,000 gpd. The leaching

areas can be located under pavement. Although Drawings 1 and 2 depict potential alternative locations for the disposal areas, a more detailed evaluation and soil testing is necessary to determine the feasibility of any location. Leaching Area Setback Requirements The following table summarizes a few of the setback requirements applicable to this project. Item Property Line Cellar Wall or Pool Slab Foundation Surface Water or BVW (wetlands) Vernal Pool Drinking Water Community Water Systems The DEP defines a water supply as a Public Water System when the system consists of 15 service connections or greater or more than 25 persons are served by the system. The DEP views ownership when defining a system so several wells for the same site still constitutes a single water system. The DEP further defines a water supply as being a Community Water System when the previously mentioned services are for year round use. Development of a well for a Public Water Supply System requires DEP approval, which involves detailed studies and completion of a well testing program. Wellhead Protective Areas Public Water supplies require land use restrictions for areas around the wellhead. The first protective area is called a Zone I and is based on the water use. For an 84-bedroom development a 245-foot Zone I radius would be required. All land within this 245-foot radius has to be owned or controlled through easements by the facility that is served by the well. Very little activity is allowed with the Zone I of a public well, typically restricted recreational uses are allowed but buildings and parking lots would not be allowed. The second protective area is called an Interim Wellhead Protection area or IWPA, which is also based on water use. For an 84-bedroom development, an IWPA of 606 feet would be required. Land within the IWPA is far less restricted than the Zone I and does not need to be controlled or owned by the facility; certain developments cannot be within an IWPA such as landfills and junkyards (among several others). Leaching Area Setback 10 feet 20 feet 10 feet 50 feet 100 feet

An IWPA is interim in nature, eventually the DEP requires a detailed analysis and mapping of the watershed contributing to a wellhead called a Zone II which has the same restrictions as a Zone I but can cover more or less area than the IWPA, dependent on the site. The following is a summary of some of the potential solutions to drinking water and sewage disposal.
Development Alternatives Two site alternatives were chosen for analysis. The first alternative involves developing the well in the southern corner of the site and the sewage disposal areas along the western edge of the site. The second alternative involves developing the well in the western portion of the site and the sewage disposal areas midway along the southern edge of the site. Both alternatives show stormwater management area footprints preliminarily calculated based on the current layout to establish a rough idea of this constraint; the final stormwater management system could be completely different. A 50-foot buffer around the stormwater management area was chosen to allow grading around the detention/retention basin. Alternative 1(See attached Drawing Alternative 1) The drawing, Alternative 1, depicts potential locations for the well and sewage disposal areas. With the well located in the southern corner of the site, the majority of the Zone I protective area associated with the well is located in wetland resource areas. However, it should be noted that there is no information available about the potential to develop a well with adequate capacity for the project. The location of the well as shown takes an aggressive approach to placing the wellhead within the wetlands, which is allowed but could raise concerns with the local Conservation Commission; the well could be sited just outside of the wetlands with minimal changes to this alternative. With the sewage disposal fields along the western edge of the site and the well in the southern corner of the site, the current layout of the site appears to work but additional costs associated with pumping the sewage to this proposed disposal area could be costly since this portion of the site is at a much higher elevation than the development would likely be constructed at. The location of the sewage disposal areas upgradient from the water supply well would likely require a detailed analysis of the hydrogeologic characteristics of the site to ensure there is no potential of contaminating the well with sewage effluent. It should be noted that no soil information was provided about this area so it would still need to be explored for the potential to construct a leaching area here. With the available soil testing data showing variable soil conditions, potential high groundwater, and failed percolation tests, the siting of disposal areas anywhere on the site could prove to be difficult.

An alternative location for the sewage disposal areas is midway along the southern property line. This location is considerably closer the well and could raise some issues about contamination of the water supply well. Construction in this area could also be problematic due to likely high groundwater and the proximity to the wetlands; a relatively high retaining wall would be likely for construction in this area since the slope is so steep. There is no soil data available for this area either so further exploration would be necessary. This location for the disposal areas would also impact the layout of the development as shown on the current plans since no buildings could be built within 20-feet (10-foot if slab construction is used) of the sewage disposal area. A third alternative location for the disposal areas that is not shown would be to split the disposal areas up, and spread the development out enough to place disposal areas amongst the buildings and under parking areas. There would likely be considerable additional construction costs associated with this alternative, and the development would spread out across the site considerably to provide adequate setback distances to the leaching areas (20-feet for cellars, 10-feet for slabs). If the groundwater is found to be high in any of the proposed locations, construction around mounded disposal areas would be an issue. Alternative 2(See attached Drawing Alternative 2) The drawing, Alternative 2, with the well located in the western portion of the site, a large portion of the current layout falls within the Zone I protective area associated with the well, which the DEP would prohibit. The benefit of this scenario is that the well is located where it is likely to be upgradient of the sewage disposal fields. This means that contamination of the well by sewage effluent would not likely be an issue, but a hydrogeologic study may still be necessary. As mentioned previously there is no data available about the potential of developing a well with adequate water capacity, and the higher elevation might require a deeper well to reach any potential water source. The limitations of this sewage disposal area location were discussed previously in alternative 1 and still apply. Reconfiguration of the final disposal area locations may be desired to provide a larger developable area along the northern edge of the property; however location of large disposal areas along the slope of the hill involves less construction issues than construction perpendicular to the slope. As was also discussed in alternative 1, the disposal areas could be broken up and spread among the buildings; however the limited amount of buildable area left by this scenario would likely result in a lower unit count. If you have any questions, comments or concerns, please dont hesitate to contact me; I can be reached at 781-849-7070 ext 259. Scott Schluter Daylor Consulting Group, Inc.

2003 I was the project manager for this project. I was hired to perform a shadow study for the Boston Redevelopment Authority.
March 14, 2003 Scott Peckham Churchill Development 16 Coolidge Road Andover, MA 01810 Subject: 378 West Broadway Condominiums South Boston, Massachuestts
Dear Mr Peckham: Daylor Consulting Group, Inc. (Daylor) is pleased to present to you the results of our shadow study at 378 West Broadway Condominiums. The study was performed utilizing the methods set forth by the Boston Redevelopment Authority, which have become the standard for shadows studies in the Boston Area. The report has been supplied to you in an electronic portable document format (pdf); hard copies will be mailed to you today. Further analysis can be performed for different dates and times at your request as well. We were pleased to assist you with this small task and hope that is will serve you well in your efforts to redevelop this parcel. At Daylor, we take great pride as professionals and as citizens in participating in the re-creation of our great City. On summary, Daylor Consulting Group, Inc. provides quality consulting services in environmental analysis, land planning, landscape architecture, civil engineering, GIS mapping and surveying. Services encompass the complete development process from initial site acquisition study, development feasibility analysis, technical due diligence, survey, financing documentation, land planning, site and infrastructure design, permitting, construction layout and observation to final compliance certification. With an expertise in navigating Bostons permitting approval processes such as the BRAs Article 80, the Public Improvements Commission and the Boston Water and Sewer Commission, Daylors project types include environmental studies, waterfront development, commercial and residential development, coastal protection, utilities, transportation facility planning, and community / open-space planning. Our client roster includes real estate developers, institutions, corporations, government agencies, contractors, consultants, communities and individuals. Years of experience with the environmental regulatory process as well as federal, state, and local agency representatives have earned Daylor an estimable reputation for obtaining real estate and project development permits and approvals. It is this experience that well
Ten Forbes Road Braintree/MA 02184 781 849 7070 FAX 849 0096 www.daylor.com
qualifies Daylor to guide large, complicated projects through the approval process. Daylor professionals have a comprehensive knowledge of the regulatory process, which enables them to serve clients through all permitting phases from permit requirement definition and pre-application conferences to application preparation, follow-up and hearing presentations. In so doing, Daylor staff has also gained extensive experience in working on community outreach with local civic groups to resolve project impact concerns. Securing permit approvals requires more than just knowledge of regulations. Often, substantial supporting documentation must accompany even simple application forms. This documentation may include alternatives analyses, engineering or environmental studies, zoning requirements and other calculations. Consultants must understand public and agency viewpoints in developing permit strategies that can succeed within institutional constraints. Daylor has acquired this expertise through years of experience and professional relationships with regulatory agencies at federal, state, regional, and local levels. To learn more about the firm, our people and the clients we help please check out www.daylor.com, and the enclosed literature. If you have any questions, comments or concerns about the shadow study, please dont hesitate to contact me; I can be reached at 781-849-7070 ext 259. Very truly yours, Daylor Consulting Group, Inc.
Scott Schluter
Scott Schluter Project Engineer
This is one of the many figures I had to come up with for the study.
2003 These are some sheets from a 40B project I worked on as the Assistant Project Manager. It included private potable water wells on each lot and shared septic systems.
LOT #
Total Lot Area
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Total Sewage Number Design Flow of Bedrooms at 110 gpd Within the per Bedroom Lot (gpd) 4 440 4 440 4 440 4 440 4 440 4 440 4 440 3 330 4 440 4 440 4 440 4 440 6 660 4 440 4 440 4 440 6 660 5 550 3 330 4 440 4 440 4 440 5 550 6 660 4 440 3 330 3 330
Area Required for Nitrogen Loading at 660 gpd/acre Loading Rate (sf) 26667 26667 26667 26667 26667 26667 26667 20000 26667 26667 26667 26667 40000 26667 26667 26667 40000 33333 20000 26667 26667 26667 33333 40000 26667 20000 20000
(sf) 38826 29179 29275 28068 29517 28199 28261 21245 33477 28454 29097 30062 50596 30050 29996 30382 45763 37557 20976 27006 27071 27840 36477 51559 34174 22035 24653
Total Area of Pavement and Land Under Water Within the Lot (sf) 0 0 862 1057 1056 1080 1067 765 0 1307 1480 2920 10073 2669 2874 2486 5496 1255 0 0 0 84 3139 7430 1474 0 0
Total Area Available for Nitrogen Loading (sf) 38826 29179 28413 27011 28461 27119 27194 20480 33477 27147 27617 27142 40523 27381 27122 27896 40267 36302 20976 27006 27071 27756 33338 44129 32700 22035 24653
LOT #
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Total Se w age Are a Re quire d Total Total Are a of Tota l Area Num be r Design Flow for Nitroge n Loading Lot Are a Pa ve me nt a nd Ava ila ble for of Be droom s at 110 gpd a t 660 gpd/a cre La nd Under W a ter Nitrogen W ithin the pe r Be droom Loa ding Rate W ithin the Lot Loading Lot (gpd) (sf) (sf) (sf) (sf) 4 440 26667 38826 0 38826 4 440 26667 28394 0 28394 4 440 26667 28231 0 28231 4 440 26667 27011 0 27011 4 440 26667 28461 0 28461 4 440 26667 27119 0 27119 4 440 26667 27194 0 27194 3 330 20000 20451 0 20451 4 440 26667 39211 0 39211 4 440 26667 51271 0 51271 4 440 26667 154040 5426 148614 4 440 26667 47564 6883 40681 6 660 40000 47276 6753 40523 4 440 26667 28287 906 27381 4 440 26667 28792 1671 27121 4 440 26667 28772 876 27896 6 660 40000 44366 4098 40268 5 550 33333 36053 2516 33537 3 330 20000 20477 0 20477 4 440 26667 27006 0 27006 4 440 26667 27071 0 27071 4 440 26667 27036 0 27036 5 550 33333 186459 6862 179597 6 660 40000 44129 0 44129 4 440 26667 39924 0 39924 3 330 20000 29522 0 29522 3 330 20000 24653 0 24653
System Lots Discharging Number of Total System Designation to System Bedrooms Design Flow (gpd) A 1 4 2 4 3 4 26 3 27 3 Total: 18 1980 B 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 Total: 16 1760 C 8 3 9 4 10 4 11 4 Total: 15 1650 D 12 4 13 6 14 4 15 4 Total: 18 1980 E 24 4 25 6 Total: 10 1100 F 16 4 17 6 18 5 19 3 Total: 18 1980 G 20 4 21 4 22 4 23 5 Total: 17 1870
2003 For this project I worked under the owner of Daylor Consulting Group to permit this subdivision. Later, I worked with the developer to layout the lots and regrade them for permitting with the Conservation Commission. One of the lots involved working with the abutter on an Adverse Possession claim.
NO STEP
NO
STEP
2004 For this project, I worked under the Project Manager to design the grading and site layout, as well as the stormwater management system.
2004 For this project I laid out the site, graded the lot, designed the stormwater managment system, and designed the septic system. This is a sheet from the septic plans.
2004 This is a project where two houses were constructed on each lot. The site was a kettle hole so a sewage pump station was required.
I designed the roadway layout and profile as well as the drainage.
This is the layout plan for the subdivision.
This is the utility plan. With so many houses on these small lots, I had to avoid conflicts between a lot of utilities in a small space.
This is the construction phaseing I set up for this project.
2004 I was the design engineer for this Preliminary Subdivision Plan. I did the grading, utilities, layout, and stormwater managment. I had to avoid large sewer lines in easement throughout the parcel.
2004 For this project, working with the Project Manager I designed the road, laid out the lots, graded the site, and designed the stormwater management system.
Nitrogen Loading Aggregation Plan
Submitted Pursuant to BRP WP58a
MILESTONE SUBDIVISION
MILESTONE ROAD NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS
Submitted to:
Table 1. Nitrogen Aggregation Calculations Area Required Number of at 660 gpd/acre Area Available Design Bedrooms Flow Nitrogen Loading for Nitrogen Loading Lot # (Design) (gpd) (sf) (sf) 1 3 330 20,001 5,004 2 3 330 20,001 5,014 3 3 330 20,001 5,000 4 3 330 20,001 5,000 5 3 330 20,001 5,025 6 3 330 20,001 5,459 7 3 330 20,001 5,180 8 3 330 20,001 5,024 9 3 330 20,001 5,428 10 3 330 20,001 5,100 11 3 330 20,001 5,000 12 3 330 20,001 5,000 13 3 330 20,001 5,016 14 3 330 20,001 5,022 Parcel A 0 35,310 OPEN 1 0 14,256 OPEN 2 0 28,960 OPEN 3 18,407 OPEN 4 0 16,728 OPEN 5 0 21,637 OPEN 6 0 69,374 Future 6,541 Total: 42 4,620 280,014 282,485 Notes: 1. Land under water not included in nitrogen loading calculations. 2. Roadway pavement in road right-of-ways not included in nitrogen loading calculations. 3. An acre is defined by DEP as 40,000 sf. 4. Design flows based on 110 gpd per bedroom, assumed 3 bedrooms per lot. 5. Due to increase in allowable nitrogen loading for use of alternative systems, the design flow shall not exceed 660 gpd per acre.
Department of Environmental Protection 20 Riverside Drive Lakeville MA, 02347
Submitted by:
Daylor Consulting Group, Inc. 10 Forbes Road Braintree MA, 02184

Milestone Road Subdivision Nitrogen Loading Aggregation Plan 4 July 2005
Prepared by:
Job #2434
2005 For this project, I designed three septic systems that used SeptiTech 3000 I/A units and Presby Enviro-Septic units for the leaching area. The project involved 14 small lots and open space parcels that required a Nitrogen Loading Aggregation Plan permitted through MassDEP. I performed the deep observation holes, the septic design and permitting, construction layout, construction oversight, and as-built approval for this project.
2434-nitrogen aggregation2.doc
July 2005
OFFICE MEMO
15.216: Aggregate Determination of Flows and Nitrogen Loadings This allows the nitrogen loading limitations to be applied across the entire lot instead of each individual lot provided the project meets the requirements outlined in Guidelines For Title 5 Aggregation of Flows and Nitrogen Loading. The largest part of this permit would be the legal documents establishing ownership rights and responsibilities, maintenance rights and responsibilities, and financial assurance mechanisms for long term maintenance of each system. DEP lawyers will be reviewing the aggregation documents.
To:
W. Sterling Wall
From: Scott Schluter
Cc:
Christopher M. Iannuzzi, PE, CSI, Zoltan Juhasz
Date: January 19, 2005
Re:
Milestone Road
Below is a summary of some of the hurdles regarding subsurface sewage disposal at Lots 55 and 55.1 Milestone Road, Nantucket, MA.
310 CMR 15 (TitleV)
Groundwater: Water found in cracks, fissures and pore spaces in the saturated zone below the ground surface, including but not limited to perched groundwater. Testing on 1/13/05 showed perched water at a depth of 21 and strict application of this definition would require that to be called out as the groundwater. The Nantucket Board of Health has acknowledged that removal of restrictive layers when the groundwater is known to be much, much lower allows the use of the groundwater below the perching soil layer however, this project will be reviewed by the DEP and they will have to be convinced that the bottom of the test pits or the well data across the street indicates the groundwater elevation to use for design. The way the water was pouring into those holes with no rain at the time, it would be tough to convince me that the groundwater can be lower than the perched water. The upper c layer at the tested locations was so heavily mottled that the mottle color was almost dominant. Nantucket Bylaws 139-12.B.(1)(d) Road construction which does not result in earth removal within four feet of historical high water table. Will the bottom of the holes or the perched water table be considered the historical high water table? 139-12.B.(2)(g) and (j) Will the three systems be unique or will the Town see the three systems on one lot as one system that is over 2,000 gpd.
15.010: Division and Aggregation of Facilities 15.011: Facilities Claimed to be in Separate Ownership or Control Since we are going the route of three shared systems, the condominium documents have to tie the lots within a group to each other and maintain separation from the other septic groupings so there will be three separate facilities under 310 CMR 15.
15.202: Use of Recirculating Sand Filters Systems with design flows over 2,000 gpd and located in a nitrogen sensitive area require an innovative/alternative system and do not get credit above 440 gpd/acre.
15.214: Nitrogen Loading Limitations 15.215: Designation of Nitrogen Sensitive Areas 15.217: Systems with Enhanced Nitrogen Removal Limits disposal to 440 gpd/acre for standard Title V systems, under the innovative/alternative program this can be increased to 550 gpd/acre under general use and 660 gpd/acre under the piloting program for systems below 2,000 gpd. The proximity of the public well across the street makes this site a nitrogen sensitive area.

C:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 18 for 2434 Nantucket Milestone.zip\2434 Nantucket Milestone\Soils & Septic\2434-internal memo scs 1-19-05.doc Job Number: 1.2434 Printed 7/3/2012 11:55:00 AM
This is a memo that I wrote regarding subsurface sewage disposal for the Milestone Road Project that was used internally for planning this project.
C:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 18 for 2434 Nantucket Milestone.zip\2434 Nantucket Milestone\Soils & Septic\2434-internal memo scs 1-19-05.doc Job Number: 1.2434 Printed 7/3/2012 11:55:00 AM
2006 This is portions a typical Daylight Analysis I did for our Planning Department as required in plans before the Boston Redevelopment Authority. 4.1 Daylight Analysis 4.1.1 Introduction Daylor Consulting Group performed a daylight study to determine the extent to which the Proposed Project restricts the amount of daylight reaching streets or pedestrian ways in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site. This study evaluates daylight obstruction for the existing (no build) and proposed (build) configurations on the property. Two additional studies were performed. The first study involved 59 Brainerd Road (the Vicomte apartment building), which is directly across Griggs Street from the Project, representing the area context of the building height, in the immediate vicinity of the Project. The second study involved a theoretical building meeting the as-of-right zoning with a maximum height of 35 as allowed under the zoning requirements for the Allston/Brighton Neighborhood District and setbacks to match the surrounding area. 4.1.2 Methodology The daylight study was performed utilizing the Boston Redevelopment Authority Daylight Analysis (BRADA) computer program. Using BRADA, a silhouette view of the building is taken at ground level from the middle of the adjacent city streets or pedestrian ways centered on the building(s) in question. The faade of the building facing the viewpoint, including heights, setbacks, corners, and other features is plotted onto a base map using lateral and elevation angles. The twodimensional base map produced by BRADA represents a figure of the building in the sky dome from the viewpoint chosen. The percent obstruction of daylight from the viewpoint is calculated by BRADA based on the width of the view, the distance between the viewpoint and the building, and the massing and setbacks incorporated into the design of the building. Because the faade along Griggs Street is 258 long, it is beyond the constraints that can be analyzed by BRADA using conventional methods. Analysis of the Griggs Street facade was performed on two halves and the sum was used. 4.1.3 Observation Points This daylight analysis considered two observation points around the Project Site, and one building representing the neighborhood context:

Brainerd Road (Observation Point A): No Build, Build, As-of-Right Griggs Street (Observation Point B): No Build, Build, As-of-Right 59 Brainerd Road, known as The Vicomte (Observation Point C): Context
4.1.4 Results A daylight analysis was conducted to evaluate the daylight obstruction of the Project. Figure 4.3-1 identifies the observation point locations analyzed. Figures 4.3-2 through Figures 4.3-7 graphically illustrate the analysis results. The results of the daylight analysis are summarized in Table 4.3-1 below.
Table 4.3-1: Summary of Daylight Obstruction Observation Point

A B C
Street/Elevation
Existing (No Build) Configuration

17.3% 39.1% 68.1%
Proposed As-of-Right (Build) Configuration Configuration

61.3% 70.6% NA 58.7% 70.7% NA
Brainerd Road Griggs Street Griggs Street (Vicomte)
4.1.5 Analysis of Results Brainerd Road Elevation Observation Point A Observation Point A is located in Brainerd Road, centered halfway along the property line. Figure 4.3-2 shows perspectives of the No Build and Build configurations. Under the existing case, 17.3% of the daylight is obstructed, while the Project has a 61.3% daylight obstruction according to the BRADA analysis. As-of-Right development would create 58.7% daylight obstruction, as shown on Figure 4.3-3. Griggs Street Elevation Observation Point B Observation Point B is located in Griggs Street centered halfway along the property line. The width of the building along this elevation required the model to be split into two segments analyzed separately; the sum of these analyses represents the total daylight obstruction for this elevation. Figure 4.3-4 shows the perspective of the No Build configuration. Figure 4.3-5 shows the two segments of the Build configuration, which were totaled to obtain the overall daylight obstruction value of 70.6%. Under the existing case, 39.1% of the daylight is obstructed, while the Project has a 70.6% daylight obstruction. As-of-Right development would create 70.7% daylight obstruction (see Figure 4.3-6).
4.1.6 Summary Brainerd Road While the Proposed Project increases daylight obstruction significantly over the existing conditions along Brainerd Road, the 61.3% value is only slightly more than the as-of-right value of 58.7% for this property. Griggs Street While the Proposed Project increases daylight obstruction significantly over the existing conditions along Griggs Street, the 70.6% value is virtually the same as the as-of-right value of 70.7% for this property. While the proposed building, at 65, is higher than the As-of-Right height of 35, a setback of 0 was used for the As-of-Right design. The proposed building is set back 5 from the sidewalk, which allows more daylight at the street level.
No-Build 17.3%
Build 61.3% Daylor Consulting Group, Inc.

Ten Forbes Road, Braintree, MA 02184 781-849-7070
9 23 Griggs Street Daylight Study

From Brainerd Road (Observation Point A)
Figure
4.3-2
I informed the contractor we would look at the survey information obtained in the morning and let them know if it was ok to backfill the remainder of the system. There still is the issue of the existing well for Sandys restaurant. The system will not meet Title 5 regulations until this well is abandoned. This was not discussed onsite but remains a Daylor issue and any Certificate of Compliance should not be signed by Daylor until this well is abandoned. I observed saw cutting operations onsite and evidence of recent saw cut operations in Bourne Bridge Approach road. The building is framed and the vapor barrier is on. Electric conduits and manholes are installed from Bourne Bridge Approach to the building. 10-31-06 2:00 PM Pictures follow:
FIELD REPORT
Date: Time: Weather: Windy, 50s
Project #
1.2437.05
Project:
Cape Cod Veterinary Specialists
Location: Bourne
Present:
Scott Schluter, Daylor Consulting Group, Inc.
Jack Sawyer, Bufftree Construction
Heather, Bourne Board of Health
Purpose: Septic System Operation Inspection
System appears to be installed correctly, is level, correct number of trenches, vent pipe present, cleanouts present.
System was partially backfilled. Manifold, force main, and majority of trenches not visible. Two access roads constructed over top of system.
Septic tank has sanitary tee inlet and effluent filter with support installed.
Pump chamber has two pumps, weep holes, and floats installed-no control panel yet. 4 vent pipe with charcoal filter installed on opposite side of system from plans.
We observed 20+ inches squirt height on two drill holes in cleanouts on opposite corners of the system. Only one pump operated and no alarms could be tested.
Board of Health stated they do not need engineered as-builts, contractor plans are ok for them. Board of Health stated they would make sure both pumps operated and the alarm worked when the control panel was installed and we did not need to verify these items for them.
2006 This is a summary memo from a site inspection for a septic system I designed and oversaw the construction of. We performed a pressure dosed system "squirt test" to test the pumps.
Engineers Planners Scientists Surveyors Landscape Architects

Job Number: XXX Document1 Printed 11/1/2006 9:28 AM

Septic tank effluent filter.
Squirt test. (far cleanout squirting out hole in cover)
Duplex pump system with alarm floats.
Electric conduits and manhole.


This is my portion of the report where I provided my Daylor Consulting Group, Inc. opinions on subsurface sewage disposal solutions. storage tank with a new water main from the pump station for the Sconset system so that the provision of water service to development on the subject site could be accommodated by the existing distribution network. Site development will have to connect to the existing 6-inch water main by constructing a new water service line into the property to serve new residential development on the site. Sewer Service- The subject site is located outside of the Sconset Sewer District service area as shown on Figure 7. But, as shown on that figure, the Sewer District service does extend to within 300+-ft of the site within Clifton Street. Daylor has visually located the end of that sewer service within the street. However, while the service is close to the site, the Town has not allowed previous requests to connect to the Sewer District and most probably will not allow any connections to the subject site. A recent review of sewer rates (Sewer Rate Study-2005-06 by the Abrams Group) has determined that there are only 527 sewer users in the Sconset to adequately cover the cost of construction, maintenance and operation of the Sconset Treatment Plant. If separate enterprise fund accounts are established for each of the two island treatment plants, then the small Sconset users group will be required to cover the significant costs of maintenance and operation, either by special assessments or the establishment of significantly higher sewer service charges. In light of this potential for increased costs, it may be worth pursuing a request to extend sewer service to the subject site since any site development would add additional rate payers for minimal capital improvement to the system. Soils- Daylors certified soil scientist and septic system designer has performed two-days of intensive test pit investigations and percolation tests on the property. This investigation, while focused within the area of the Family Land on the subject property, also provided general soils information for the Disposition Land. The hydrogeologic mapping for Nantucket has determined that the regional groundwater elevation is elevation 9 (referenced to the Nantucket Half Tide Level HTL datum); at least 35-feet below the ground surface of the subject site. Our investigation was site specific and determined the type of soil, soil classification, soil profile, percent mottles (if any) soil layers, and percolation rates of the soil for drainage, septic system and reserve areas (see Attachment 2, Soils forms). Our investigation confirmed the presence of Riverhead-Nantucket complex (RfB) predominantly loamy sand soils throughout the site. This soil type is suitable for development. However, the soil profile includes a loamy, brittle subsurface horizon that includes fine sand, silt and clay which limits the soil porosity. This layer is characterized by soil mottles indicating poor aeration and impeded drainage. This layer is ubiquitous throughout the site, found generally at three (3) feet below the ground surface. Daylors test pits and the soil percolation tests were witnessed by a member of the Nantucket Board of Health (BoH) and it is
36 Burnell Street, Nantucket
Page 10
Site Analysis Report
their opinion that the soil mottle layer is an indicator of high groundwater. The BoH determination that groundwater is generally 3-ft below the ground surface is a constraint to any residential site use. All on-site septic systems will have to be designed to provide for six (6) feet of separation above this layer, with additional cover over the leaching area, requiring mounded leaching fields. This is a typical and accepted septic leaching field design solution in areas of high groundwater on Nantucket and has been approved for residential development abutting the site. On-site Septic Systems- Without a connection to the Sconset Public Sewer system, any proposed residential construction at the subject site will require that on-site subsurface sewage disposal systems be constructed. As shown on Figure 6, a minor portion of the subject site is located within the Nantucket Public Wellhead Protection District for the Siasconset Public Water Supply Wells. This 3,830+-sf area in the southwest corner of the site is considered a nitrogen sensitive area. This 3,830+-sf area must be subdivided out of the larger parcel so that future residential development will not be encumbered by the stricter zoning requirements of the Wellhead Protection Overlay District. The stricter requirements that are applicable to property located within a Nitrogen Sensitive Area are defined by DEP regulations at 310 CMR 15.215: Designation of Nitrogen Sensitive Areas. Please note that such a designation limits the discharge of sanitary sewage for an onsite system to 110-gallons per day per 10,000-sf of land. If this limitation is extended to all of the subject property, it would substantially limit the development potential of the total 13.34-acres (581,090-sf). Based on 110-gpd per 10,000-sf, any residential development on the site would be limited by this requirement to a maximum of 58 bedrooms for the entire 13.34-acres. Creation of a separate lot for this 3,830+-sf portion of the site is necessary to avoid an upper limit on the number of bedrooms that could be created for any development that may be planned for the Disposition Land. Stormwater Management- Any site development will have to manage stormwater runoff in conformance with the MA DEP Stormwater Management Guidelines as well as the referenced guidelines contained in the Zoning Bylaw regulations. All roof runoff will need to be directed to drywells. All site runoff should be directed to on-site detention areas or deep infiltration systems. Daylor has recently designed a Low Impact Development for the Sconset Hydrangeas project near to the subject site that has been well received by the Planning Board. Such a design should be considered for this site. Open Space- There is designated open space nearby the site and one parcel of open space area owned by the Sconset Land Trust adjacent to the southwest corner of the site. Open Space areas are shown in Figure 8- Open Space. Any project site design will be required to provide for an efficient use of the land in harmony with the natural open, shrub dominated features at the subject property and on the adjacent parcels.
36 Burnell Street, Nantucket
Page 12
Site Analysis Report
2006 For this project I was tasked with a conceptual plan for septic systems for this subdivision.
February 27, 2006
2006 I was the Project Manager for this project. I was tasked with performing a peer review for a residential development designed by another engineering firm. This is my review memo.
Lyn Small Project Manager Northeast Engineers & Consultants Aquidneck Corporate Park 55 John Clarke Road Middletown, RI 02842 Subject: Forest Commons Dear Lyn: The following is a summary of a peer review performed by Daylor Consulting Group, Inc. (Daylor) for The Residences at Forest Commons project in Middletown, RI (the site). The Engineer, Northeast Engineers and Consultants Inc. (NE&C), provided Daylor with stormwater mitigation calculations and plans for the review. The following items were provided: Plan entitled Existing Watershed Plan with off Side Areas dated January 24, 2006. Plan entitled Proposed Watershed Plan with off Side Areas dated January 24, 2006. HydroCAD printouts for the existing conditions 2,10,25 and 100 year storm calculations HydroCAD printouts for the existing conditions 2,10,25 and 100 year storm calculations In addition to the plans and calculations, Daylor met with NE&C on February 7 2006, both at their office and at the project site. The following items were not provided and therefore a complete review of the stormwater mitigation measures was not possible: Closed drainage system calculations (pipe sizing). Closed drainage system plans (pipe network, rims, inverts). Stormwater mitigation narrative (A note was made that NE&C was still working on the supporting narrative at the time of the review). Detail sheets for the detention ponds and outlet control structures. Detailed information for the proposed swales (and culvert under the road) that will direct the offsite stormwater flows through the proposed project.
Ten Forbes Road Braintree/MA 02184 781 849 7070 FAX 849 0096 www.daylor.com
Following are our questions, comments and concerns raised during our review of the materials listed above.
1.
1.1.1
Existing Conditions
Watershed Plans
The existing watershed is divided into four subcatchments. A small subcatchment at the front of the lot is indicated to discharge into the drainage system in Forest Avenue. The remaining three subcatchments are indicated to eventually discharge to Bailey Brook, which is located offsite in the northwest corner of the project. During the site visit it was noted that the stone wall near the eastern edge of the property is a drainage divide continuing southeasterly to the athletic fields (we did not walk further up towards Forest Avenue). Subcatchment Area 101 is indicated to straddle both sides of the stonewall divide, and the time of concentration path (Tc) is indicated to go through the wall. Is there a break or breaks in the wall to suggest that this is one drainage area that flows to the site and not to the drainage ditch to the north of the athletic field? The stone wall that runs approximately east-west towards the middle of the field isnt a drainage divide either? The contours against this wall suggest swales on either side of the wall, and it appears that the upper portion of the site discharges to the west abutting subdivision if there isnt a break or breaks in this wall, yet the Tc path is drawn across this wall. No existing closed drainage system for the abutting school is indicated on the plans, is this correct? None of this area drains into Forest Avenue? No existing closed drainage system for the lots on Ann Court is indicated on the plans, is this also correct? The Tc path shown for Subcatchment 102A indicates a sharp turn towards the drainage ditch to the rear of the athletic fields; however, the contours shown on the plan do not indicate that stormwater flows in this direction. The drainage ditch may be part of the subcatchment area but the Tc path does not have to flow through it; it is likely that overland flow, perpendicular to the contours down to the break in the stone wall is the more likely path. This should be reviewed and corrected or the plans should indicate why the flow path across the contours was chosen. While the detention basin shown in Subcatchment 102B is likely to control stormwater flows for an assumed closed drainage system, there would also be some flows from this offsite area not routed through the basin (for example downstream of the basin), none of these areas are indicated on the plan. The ASSF, drainage easement, and design points should be labeled.
1.1.2
HydroCAD Calculations
While four subcatchment areas are shown on the watershed plans, only three are modeled. Without a narrative provided, the reason Subcatchment 102B is not modeled is not clear. Since the proposed watershed map shows this subcatchment enlarged, it should be modeled or the proposed watershed map should be revised.
Typically, link nodes are not used in HydroCAD as undefined nodes (hydrograph in-out), reaches are used for this. While the program works ok using links, it isnt standard convention, and links are used to tie to other files or modify hydrographs (splitting flows for example). Without the benefit of a narrative, it was assumed that node ASSF was used in the model because this is a point of interest in the calculations, otherwise this node is not necessary. Again, without the narrative it was assumed that the node Easement was used in the model because this is a point of interest in the calculations, otherwise subcatchment 101 can connect directly to node Brook. Company name should be corrected in the final version. The storms should be indicated on printout (i.e. 2YR, 10 YR, etc.). The Tcs for many of the subcatchments appear to be long. On closer inspection it appears that the majority of these long Tcs can be attributed to long sheet flow segments. It is generally standard engineering practice in New England to use a maximum sheet flow distance of 50-feet. Several of the reported lengths of the Tc segments do not match what can be measured along the flow paths shown on the plans; the segment lengths should be reviewed. Some of the land slopes used along Tc segments do not reflect what is shown on the plan. The Tc paths for Subcatchments 101 and 103 start along the slope and not at the peak of the slope within the Subcatchment; this should be reviewed and revised if necessary. Subcatchment Area 102B should be included in the HydroCAD model since Stormwater flows from this area ultimately impacts Baileys Brook.
2.
2.1.1
Proposed Conditions
Watershed Plans
The proposed watershed area is divided into seven subcatchments. A small subcatchment at the front of the lot is indicated to discharge into the drainage system in Forest Avenue. Another subcatchment at the front of the lot is indicated to discharge to the abutting subdivision on Buck Road. Two subcatchments are indicated to discharge to two separate stormwater basins. The remaining three subcatchments are indicated to eventually discharge to Bailey Brook, which is located offsite in the northwest corner of the project. Subcatchment 205 indicates discharge of stormwater flows where no flows were originally discharged in the existing conditions. Also, this subcatchment was not in the HydroCAD model provided to us. It appears a portion of Subcatchment Area 101 in the Existing Conditions flows to this point but it is not modeled. This area should be modeled in both the existing and proposed conditions for comparison of peak flows. The grading near the shared subcatchment divide between subcatchments 201 and 205 indicates flows into the abutting subdivision unless there is a drainage divide along the property line. More information is needed for both the conditions or the plans should be revised to direct stormwater flows down the property line towards Baileys Brook as the existing conditions indicates.
There appears to be two sets of proposed contours on the plans provided. The extra contours need to be removed. No closed drainage information was provided. Without this information and the conflicting grading, it is not apparent how all the overland flow is making it into the closed drainage systems for the two ponds. It is not clear what the two dots shown in subcatchment 202B are meant to indicate. A continuous line is shown between these dots, and continues across the street and between two sets of units before changing over to a dashed line; it is not clear what these are meant to indicate. The calculations indicate that there may be a swale here but there are no details about the swale if that is what this line is. Also, if this is a swale, portions of the subcatchments that this swale runs through should be delineated to be part of the drainage area to the swale. The Tc path for Subcatchment 204B is shown cutting right across this line which seems improbable if the line is a swale. If this is a swale, all adjoining drainage areas should either be revised or additional grading detail should be provided showing how none of the overland areas are draining into this swale, and a new Tc path should be calculated for subcatchment 204B. If this isnt a swale, and is actually a culvert, the model should be revised to reflect this. Also, the dots should be labeled to indicate what they are. The subcatchment division lines for Subcatchment 204B indicates this area discharges to Pond 2 in the rear however; upon closer observation it appears that portions of what is shown on the plans do not flow to the basin, rather discharge overland to the easement (i.e. the end of the cul-de-sac area.) The new stone wall between the school and the project appears to be a drainage divide. It is not clear how the stormwater gets across this wall and into the closed drainage system as the calculations appear to indicate. The line weights for the subcatchment divides change throughout the drawing, making it difficult to determine where the subcatchment boundaries are; this drawing should be made clearer. Labels should be added to indicate which pond is which. The ASSF should be labeled. The design points should be labeled. The drainage easement should be labeled. Soil test pit information was not provided and no indication of where the seasonal high groundwater is at the locations of the Stormwater ponds. Pond 1 will be a wet pond that we were told would be concrete lined. Since the proposed bottom of this pond is between 6 and 12 feet below existing grade, detail should be provided regarding how potential groundwater will be dealt with. Pond 2 has an outlet at the bottom so it is assumed to be a dry pond after Stormwater events have been dissipated. Since portions of the proposed bottom of this pond are up to 3 feet below existing grade, more detail should be provided regarding the potential for groundwater inflow to the pond.
2.1.2
HydroCAD Calculations
Subcatchment 202B shows an increase in size compared to the existing subcatchment 102B. Neither subcatchments 202B nor 205 are in the model, and yet with this reduction of overall area shown in the plans, there is only 0.10 of an acre difference indicated in the calculations. This does not appear to be correct; the proposed model total area should be
less than the existing model area based on what is shown on the plans. All areas should be accounted for in the model, whether calculations are generated for them or not, so that the existing conditions modeling extents matches the proposed conditions modeling extents. The Tc calculations for subcatchment 204B indicates a 520 shallow concentrated flow (grass, behind wall?) segment, this does not appear on the plans. It also appears that a portion of the Tc path should be through pipes (assuming there are catch basins there) prior to discharge into the stormwater basin however, this is not in the model. The Tc path calculation should be revised for this subcatchment or the plans should be revised to match the calculations. Some of the Tc calculations do not appear to match what is shown on the plan (length, slope of the land); these should be reviewed and revised as necessary. It appears that Subcatchment 203 should utilize the same Tc flow path for existing and proposed as it appears the work in this area wouldnt change the flow path. The closed drainage system should appear on these plans in some form to make Tc paths clearer. The pond outlets should appear on these plans to indicate how the ponds discharge where the calculations indicate they do. The new swale (or culvert) should be labeled on the plans for clarity. No details have been provided for the stormwater basins or the outlet control structures. The calculations indicate a 36 culvert outlet, 133 long between Pond 1 and Pond 2; however, it appears that the distance between these ponds is much greater than 133; more detailed information is needed for a complete review. The control structure should be shown and detailed. The calculations for Pond 2 indicate three 12 long, 127 trapezoidal weirs yet the grading plan does not indicate where these are. The calculations for Pond 2 also indicate that there may be an outlet control structure with an 18 and a 24 orifice prior to a 24 culvert. It is not clear where this control structure is. The outlet pipe is not shown and it is not clear how the discharge is directed to Baileys Brook. A level spreader is not indicated. With the invert of the outlet pipe near the brook, the flood elevations of Baileys Brook should be accounted for in this model. Daylor recommends that outlet culverts be modeled separately, as a reach for a better analysis of this pipe for all storm conditions. Calculations for the sizing of the new swale and the culvert under the road at the new swale should be provided. Also, calculations for the closed drainage system should be provided. Company name should be corrected in the final version. The storms should be indicated on printout (i.e. 2YR, 10 YR, etc.). The time span in Existing and Proposed conditions models should be consistent.
3.
Conclusions
Based on what was provided to Daylor for this review, there is a considerable amount of information missing and/or revisions to be made to the plans and calculations. The plans, calculations, Stormwater narrative, and an operations and maintenance plan should be
included to make a complete stormwater management plan. The plans should agree with the calculations and accurately reflect the existing and proposed watershed conditions. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions, comments or concerns. I can be reached at 781-849-7070 ext 259. Very truly yours, Daylor Consulting Group, Inc.
Scott Schluter Senior Engineer
2006 I was the Project Manager for this proposed subdivision. I did all of the design and calculations as well as the permitting. This is portions of the NOI
Notice of Intent
Submitted Pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 131, Section 40 (MA Wetlands Protection Act) and the Billerica Wetlands Protection By-Law
GATEPOST ESTATES
85 ALLEN ROAD BILLERICA, MASSACHUSETTS
Submitted to:
Billerica Conservation Commission 365 Boston Road Billerica, MA 01821
Submitted by:
Frederic Brown 85 Allen Road Billerica, MA 01821
Prepared by:
November 2, 2006
Job # 1.2625.00
1.0
1.1
PROJECT NARRATIVE
Introduction
Daylor Consulting Group is filing this Notice of Intent (NOI) on behalf of the Applicant, Frederic R. Brown, for approval of subdividing the land under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (M.G.L. Chapter 131, Section 40) and the Town of Billerica Wetlands Protection By-Law (Article XXII). 1.2 Project Site
The site is located on a 6.98-acre parcel located on Allen Road and Porter Street in Billerica, MA (the Site); assessors map 62, lot 10-1. (See Figure 1 Project Locus and Figure 2 Project Aerial). An area of Isolated Land Subject to Flooding (ILSF) is located along the western property boundary. No other Land Subject to Flooding or wetland resource areas occur on or near the site (see Figure 3 and Figure 5). 1.3 Proposed Project
The Applicant is proposing a six (6) lot subdivision with limited alteration to the area of ILSF and its 100-foot Buffer Zone (protected under the Billerica Wetlands Protection By-Law) for the construction of one single-family house lot and roadway access to Porter Street. The access roadway to Porter Street has been designed to comply with Billerica Planning Board requirements (local Rules and Regulations). In order to mitigate impacts to the ILSF, the project will meet regulatory performance standards through the construction of the proposed roadway drainage system. With the construction for one single-family dwelling in Lot 1, the project will comply with the 50-foot No New Construction set back and the 25-foot No Disturb set back from the ILSF, as required under the local by-law. The boundary of the ILSF was approved, September 27, 2006, by the Billerica Conservation Commission in a positive Determination of Applicability (See Appendix C). 1.4 Jurisdictional Determination
Due to the positive Determination of Applicability, issued on September 27, 2006, the Conservation Commission determined that Isolated Land Subject to Flooding occurs on the site. The proposed project falls under the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (310 CMR 10.00) and the Town of Billerica Wetlands Protection By-Law because proposed work will be within the Isolated Land Subject to Flooding resource area, as well as the 100-foot Buffer Zone protected under the local by-law. (A copy of the positive Determination of Applicability can be found in Appendix C.) State and local performance standards will be met for all work under the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and Billerica Wetlands By-Law. 1.4.1 Isolated Land Subject to Flooding (ILSF) The proposed project will alter 784 square feet (323 cubic feet) of Isolated Land Subject to Flooding protected under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and the Billerica
Notice of Intent Page 1 85 Allen Road Billerica, MA
Wetlands Protection By-Law. Of these impacts, 641 square feet will be permanently altered for the proposed roadway and drainage structure construction, and 145 square feet will be temporarily altered for the installation of the drainage structure within the ILSF. General Performance standards for ILSF are designed to be protected by the proposed project in the following ways. 1) The source of water for the ILSF is the inlet culvert that discharges drainage from the off-site roadway. The proposed stormwater management system has been designed to mitigate the effect of the off-site drainage. As a result of the stormwater management system, the proposed project will not lead to flood damage from the proposed filling due to any lateral displacement of water that would otherwise be confined to the ILSF. The loss in flood storage to the ILSF will be mitigated by the drainage design, which meets current DEP Stormwater Policy for mitigating peak flows leaving the site. In addition, the drainage design will reduce the volume of water that will be stored in the ILSF. Local residences in the vicinity of the site are on town water thus, the project will not affect public and private water supply. Impacts to groundwater will be mitigated by recharging clean roof runoff from the proposed subdivision, in compliance with DEP Stormwater Policy. In compliance with DEP Stormwater Policy, groundwater quality will be protected by recharging clean roof runoff. Surface water quality will be protected by the proposed street sweeping program, the use of catch basins with sumps, the proposed stormwater drainage basin, and the proposed Downstream Defender system. The ILSF is not a certified vernal pool. Therefore, the project will not result in an impairment of the ILSF to provide wildlife habitat.
2)
3)
4)
1.4.2 Buffer Zone to ILSF (Billerica Wetlands Protection By-Law) For the proposed residential construction, regulatory performance standards under the Billerica Wetlands Protection By-Law will be met and the proposed Project will comply with the 50-foot No New Construction set back and the 25-foot No Disturb set back from the ILSF. For the proposed roadway access to the site, disturbance to the ILSF and its Buffer Zone have been minimized to the extent practicable, while providing access to the site in a manner acceptable to the Planning Board. The project will incorporate erosion control and stormwater management measures to protect nearby wetlands and water quality in accordance with DEP policy. In addition, since the ILSF is not presumed to be important to wildlife habitat due to the lack of certified vernal pool functions, alteration of its 100-foot Buffer Zone will not result in an impairment of the ILSF to provide wildlife habitat. As a result, the proposed project has been designed to protect the wetland values associated with the ILSF under the By-Law. There are no jurisdictional setbacks bordering ILSF under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, and ILSF is not bordered by a Buffer Zone under the Act.
Notice of Intent Page 2 85 Allen Road Billerica, MA
1.4.3 Prevention of Flooding, Storm Damage and Pollution These interests will be protected by the Stormwater Management System. The Stormwater Management System has been designed to meet performance standards for the ILSF by preventing off-site flooding, as well as meeting the Massachusetts DEP stormwater requirements preventing an increase in peak flows and impacts to water quality. In addition, the Stormwater Management System will restore the hydrology of the site to drain in an easterly direction toward Allen Road. The Stormwater Management System is fully discussed in the Stormwater Management Report. (See Figure 3 FEMA Flood Boundaries). 1.4.4 Protection of Public and Private Water Supplies and Groundwater Residents are serviced by public water supply through the Town of Billerica. 1.4.5 Protection of Wildlife Habitat Protected wildlife habitat will not be affected by the proposed project. (See Figure 4 Reserved and Protected Areas). 1.4.6 Protection of Fisheries and Shellfish Beds No impact to shellfish beds or fisheries will result from the proposed project. 1.4.7 Protection of Rare and Endangered Species Examination of the Natural Heritage Rare and Endangered Species Atlas, 2006, reveals no rare or endangered species habitats or vernal pools at the project site. (See Figure 4 Reserved and Protected Areas). 1.4.8 Protection of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern The project area is not within an Area of Critical Environmental Concern. 1.5 Summary
The proposed project, as discussed in this NOI, will have limited alterations and impact to the Isolated Land Subject to Flooding and its 100-foot Buffer Zone (as protected under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act). All work that is proposed will comply with the local and state regulatory performance standards. The proposed alterations will enhance the Stormwater Management of the site by preventing off-site flooding, increases in peak flows, and impacts to water quality. Therefore, we respectfully request that after review, an Order of Conditions authorizing the project as presented be issued by the Billerica Conservation Commission.
Notice of Intent
Page 3
85 Allen Road Billerica, MA
This is portions of the drainage report.
1.0
1.1
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REPORT

Introduction
Daylor Consulting Group, Inc. (Daylor) has prepared a detailed design of the stormwater management system in conjunction with the proposed construction of a 6 lot subdivision located at 85 Allen Road in Billerica, Massachusetts. Included in this report are the methods that will be employed to prevent any potential adverse hydrologic impacts as well as water quality impacts due to the proposed construction. The objective of this Stormwater Management Program is to direct and collect stormwater runoff through catch basins, drain manholes and underground piping and to distribute the runoff to stormwater management facilities developed in accordance with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Stormwater Management Guidelines. The proposed stormwater quantity mitigation measures include one new detention basin and work within an existing retention basin that has been determined to be Isolated Land Subject To Flooding (ILSF). The proposed stormwater quality mitigation measures include a street sweeping program, deep sump catch basins, and a particle separator (Downstream Defender). The supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations for the proposed project are included as Appendices to this report. 1.2 Method of Calculations
The hydrologic and hydraulic model created to analyze this site was developed by using the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Technical Release No 20 (SCS unit hydrograph procedures) and SCS Technical Release No. 55 (for Times of Concentration and Curve Numbers). The Town of Billerica supplies rainfall data for the hydrologic analysis (24 hour total rainfall for the 2, 5, 10, and 100 year storm event) in the Subdivision Regulations, the Boston Area IDF Curve was used to obtain rainfall intensity for the pipe sizing analysis (Rational Method, 2, 10, 25 year storms). The stormwater detention facilities were modeled using the SCS Storage Indication Method. To assist in the analysis, HydroCAD software (developed by Applied Microcomputer Systems) was utilized. The HydroCAD program calculates the runoff based on rainfall and watershed characteristics, and produces a runoff hydrograph (a runoff rate versus time curve). Then the stage-storage-discharge curves for a specific retention area are used to compute an outflow hydrograph by hydraulically routing an inflow hydrograph through a detention basin. This procedure calculates the relationship of the inflow hydrograph with the characteristics of the detention area to determine the outflow, stage, and storage capacity of the detention area for a given time during the specified storm event. The proposed underground stormwater collection pipes that divert water to the new detention basin have been designed, utilizing the Rational Method, for capacity for the 25 year storm event and a minimum velocity of 2.5 fps for the 2 year storm event. The proposed underground stormwater collection pipes that discharge water from the detention basins have been designed for capacity for the 100 year storm event utilizing the Manning equation and input from the HydroCAD 100 year storm event results.
Definitive Subdivision Gate Post Estates, Billerica MA Page 1 Stormwater Management Report
1.6
Stormwater Mitigating Measures
The stormwater mitigating measures Daylor selected for this project include the following Best Management Practices (BMPs): a street sweeping program, deep sump catch basins, and a Downstream Defender stormwater treatment unit for pretreatment of roadway runoff. These measures will prevent potential increases in the peak rates of runoffs following the construction of the proposed development and will provide water quality treatment in accordance with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Stormwater Management Guidelines. See Appendix E for detailed Water Quality Volume Calculations, Downstream Defender Sizing Calculations, and the Stormwater Management Form. Existing recharge to groundwater will be approximated by the installation of infiltration chambers for the roofs of each of the new houses. See Appendix E for recharge information.
1.6.1
Stormwater Pre-treatment
Lot 2-1 Direct Discharge: Stormwater runoff generated along the northern edge of the site (P3 in HydroCAD) will discharge directly to the abutting property (2-1 in HydroCAD) without treatment since this area will be lawn and an overall decrease in stormwater peak discharge and stormwater volume is expected in the post-construction conditions. Lot 25 Direct Discharge: Stormwater runoff generated along the southern portion of the site (P10 in HydroCAD) will discharge directly to the abutting property (25 in HydroCAD) without treatment since this area will be lawn and an overall decrease in stormwater peak discharge and stormwater volume is expected in the post-construction conditions. Allen Road Detention Basin: Stormwater runoff collected by the roadway drainage system (P9a and P9b in HydroCAD) will discharge to the proposed detention basin (3P in HydroCAD), after passing through a water quality inlet (Downstream Defender unit). An overall decrease in stormwater peak discharge is expected in the post-construction conditions due to mitigation provided by the proposed detention basin. ILSF: Some of the stormwater from the closed drainage system in Porter Street and overland from the abutting properties that is collected in the ILSF will discharge through a new closed drainage system that ties into the Allen Street drainage system. These flows are not the result of development, but an existing condition caused by the improper disposal of stormwater flows onto the project site. In order for the ILSF to work as a formal detention basin, the standing water level will be reduced from approximately elevation 220 to 217 via a proposed outlet control structure.
1.6.2
Stormwater Detention Basin
To attenuate possible increases in the rate of stormwater runoff from the site due to construction of this project, a detention basin has been introduced into the site design. The detention basin has been sized to adequately store projected stormwater runoff up to and including the 100-year storm. See detail sheets on the Definitive Subdivision Plans for basin construction details. Detention Basin Summary (HydroCAD 3P) Storm Event 2 year (3.08 in.) 5 year (3.88 in.) 10 year (4.53 in.) 100 year (6.44 in.) Qin 6.18 cfs 8.85 cfs 11.06 cfs 17.63 cfs Qout 0.33 cfs 6.38 cfs 0.42 cfs 2.68 cfs Volume Stored 12,562 cu. ft. 19,314 cu. ft. 25,241 cu. ft. 33,708 cu. ft. Peak Elevation 172.01 173.00 173.74 174.65
To mitigate downstream flooding from the off-site drainage in Porter Street, the ILSF will be retrofitted with an outlet control structure. The outlet control structure has been sized to adequately store projected off-site stormwater runoff up to and including the 100-year storm. See detail sheets on the Definitive Subdivision Plans for basin construction details. Isolated Land Subject to Flooding (HydroCAD ILSF) Storm Event 2 year (3.08 in.) 5 year (3.88 in.) 10 year (4.53 in.) 100 year (6.44 in.)
1.6.3
Qin 7.14 cfs 10.38 cfs 13.08 cfs 21.19 cfs
Qout 2.07 cfs 3.26 cfs 4.80 cfs 9.39 cfs
Volume Stored 7,479 cu. ft. 11,220 cu. ft. 13,613 cu. ft. 20,311 cu. ft.
Peak Elevation 218.32 218.80 219.08 219.77
Storm Drainage Pipe System
The proposed pipes will generally be Reinforced Concrete Class III (RCP) pipes. The storm drainage pipes were sized for minimum velocity (2.5 fps) by analyzing the 2 year storm event (4.1 inches per hour) and for capacity using the 25 year storm event (6.0 inches per hour). Pipes discharging from the basins were sized for the 100 year storm event using the Mannings equation and discharges reported in the HydroCAD model for the 100 year storm event. See Appendix F for detailed calculations.
1.7
Stormwater Flow Management
Peak runoff flows from the site have been calculated for the pre-construction and postconstruction conditions for the 2, 5, 10, and 100 year storms. A peak runoff rate comparison between pre-construction and post-construction condition is shown below. As a result of the proposed stormwater mitigation measures, the proposed development will reduce peak flow rates at all Design Points for all the storm events. (See Appendix C and D for detailed calculations). Peak Runoff Comparison at Design Point Lot 2-1 Storm Event Pre-construction Discharge Post-Construction Discharge 2 Year 2.00 cfs 1.61 cfs 5 Year 3.39 cfs 2.48 cfs 10 year 4.63 cfs 3.22 cfs 100 Year 17.39 cfs 5.51 cfs
Peak Runoff Comparison at Design Point Lot 25 Storm Event Pre-construction Discharge Post-Construction Discharge 2 Year 0.57 cfs 0.24 cfs 5 Year 0.82 cfs 0.37 cfs 10 year 1.04 cfs 0.48 cfs 100 Year 1.67 cfs 0.82 cfs
Peak Runoff Comparison at Design Point Allen Road Storm Event Pre-construction Discharge Post-Construction Discharge 2 Year 3.75 cfs 3.72 cfs 5 Year 5.93 cfs 5.21 cfs 10 year 7.81 cfs 6.40 cfs 100 Year 13.68 cfs 12.41 cfs
This is a calculation to size a hydrodynamic stormwater unit.

Downstream Defender Sizing Calculations
PROJECT: Gatepost Estates, Billerica MA JOB #: 1.2625.00 CALC BY: SCS DATE: 01/05/2007
g g , Department of Environmental Protection has developed a relation between storm intensity and the depth of runoff (See "Development of a Rational Basis for Designing Recharging Stormwater Control Structures adn Flow And Volume Design Criteria" MADEP 99-06/319). This allows the sizing of the treatment unit based on a flow rate instead of a volume. (See Table Based on the first 0.50 inches of rainfall on the mainland (off Cape-Massachusetts) with a 95% probability, use max. storm intensity of 1.14 in/hr (Table 2). Total Runoff Required to Be Treated P-9A 2.96 acres
Downstream Defender Sizing

Design Flow = 2.96 ac x 1529 gpm= 3.41 cfs 100 year flow = 13.67 cfs 1.14 in/hr x 453 gpm/ac-in/hr =1529 gpm
Use 8 ft. diameter Downstream Defender Unit Design Flow/Capacity Range= 7.0/15.9 cfs
STORM DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS BY MANNING'S EQUATION

CALC BY: SCS DATE: CHECK BY: DATE: DESIGN STORM: 2,25 Year C (-) Tc (min) 11/20/2006 PROJECT: Gatepost Estates, Billerica SUBJECT: Rational Method Drainage JOB #: 1.2625.00
STORM DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS BY MANNING'S EQUATION

CALC BY: SCS DATE: CHECK BY: DATE: DESIGN STORM: 2,25 Year 11/20/2006
PROJECT: Gatepost Estates, Billerica SUBJECT: Rational Method Drainage JOB #: 1.2625.00
LOCATION FROM Ca TO Tc (min)
TO
DRAIN AREA (Acre)
LOCATION FROM
Ca
(-)
TOTAL CxA (Acre)
RAINFALL (in/hr)
Q TOTAL Q=CaCiA (CFS)
DRAIN AREA (Acre)
TOTAL CxA (Acre)
RAINFALL (in/hr)
Q TOTAL Q=CaCiA (CFS)
2-Year Storm Event (Velocity Calculation)

DA-1 0.102 Total DA-2 0.083 Total DA-3 0.099 Total DA-4 0.090 Total DA-5 0.132 DA-6 0.243 DA-7 0.056 5 4.1 1 5 4.1 1 CB6 Total CB7 Total DA-8 0.048 5 4.1 1 CB8 Total DA-9 CB9 Total DA-10 CB10 0.245 5 4.1 1 0.400 5 4.1 1 5 4.1 1 CB5 Total 5 4.1 1 CB4 0.14 0.08 0.05 0.13 0.08 0.17 0.25 0.11 0.41 0.52 0.05 0.03 0.08 0.01 0.11 0.12 0.23 0.55 0.78 0.12 0.39 DA-11 Total existing cb-yard (P5) DA-12 Total existing cb-drive 0.51 0.02 0.49 0.51 0.13 0.16 5 4.1 1 CB3 0.11 0.09 0.05 5 4.1 1 CB2 0.15 0.08 0.03 0.9 0.35 0.083 0.9 0.35 0.099 0.9 0.35 0.090 0.9 0.35 0.132 0.9 0.35 0.243 0.9 0.35 0.056 0.9 0.35 0.048 0.9 0.35 0.400 0.9 0.35 0.245 0.9 0.35 0.190 0.9 0.35 5 4.1 1 CB1 0.09 0.06 0.9 0.35 0.102
DA-1
CB1
0.09 0.06
0.9 0.35
25-Year Storm Event (Capacity Calculation)
Total
0.42 0.34 0.40 0.37 0.54 0.99 0.23 0.19 1.64 1.00 0.78 0.71
DA-2
CB2
0.15 0.08 0.03
0.9 0.35
1.1
0.67
5 6 1.1
Total
DA-3
CB3
0.11 0.09 0.05
0.9 0.35
0.54
5 6 1.1
Total
DA-4
CB4
0.14 0.08 0.05
0.9 0.35
0.65
5 6 1.1
Total
DA-5
CB5
0.13 0.08 0.17
0.9 0.35
0.59
5 6 1.1
Total
DA-6
CB6
0.25 0.11 0.41
0.9 0.35
0.87
5 6 1.1
Total
DA-7
CB7
0.52 0.05 0.03
0.9 0.35
1.60
5 6 1.1
Total
DA-8
CB8
0.08 0.01 0.11
0.9 0.35
0.37
5 6 1.1
Total
DA-9
CB9
0.12 0.23 0.55
0.9 0.35
0.31
5 6 1.1
Total
DA-10
CB10
0.78 0.12 0.39
0.9 0.35
2.64
5 6 1.1
DA-11 0.190 5 4.1 1
Total New cb-yard
0.51 0.02 0.49
0.9 0.35
1.61
5 6 1.1
DA-12 0.173 5 4.1 1
Total existing cb-drive
0.51 0.13 0.16
0.9 0.35
1.25
Total 0.29 0.173 5 6 1.1
Total
0.29
1.14
CB
CB
12P
2-3 to 2-4 2-4 to 2-5 To Lot 2-1
13P
P3
2-1
E1
CB CB CB
Porter Street Drainage
2R
ILSF
Regraded ILSF
CB
10P
2-1 to 2-2 2-2- to 2-3 2-5 to 2-6
11P P6 P5
New Yard Catchbasin
CB
14P
CB
2P 15P
2-6 to 2-7 Driveway Catchbasin
Overflow to ILSF
CB
CB
P2 5P
CB
CB
22P
CB
Overland to ILSF
21P 20P
2-11 to 2-12 2-12 to 2-13
2-13 to Exist. DMH
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
P9a
DD1 to Pond
23P 3P
Detention basin
CB CB CB
4P
3-1 to 3-2 2-7 to 2-8 New CB
7P
16P
6P
Closed drainage to detention basin
6 to DD1
CB
1P P7
Existing 15" Pipe
P9b
3-2 to 3-3 2-8 to 2-9
8P
17P
19P
2-10 to 2-11
Overland to detention basin

CB CB
To Lot 10-2
P10
3-3 to 2-9
25
9P
18P
2-9 to 2-10
P9c
To Lot 211
ROAD
To Lot 25
Allen Road Drainage System
P8
To Lot 212
Subcat
Pond
Reach
Link
Drainage Diagram for 2625-PROPOSED CONDITIONS-outlets plugged Prepared by Town of Falmouth, DPW, Engineering, Printed 7/10/2012
2006 These are sheets from the Subdivision Plan. I did all the work for this project.
2007 This is a sheet from the plan set of one of the many times I designed for this same lot, each time a different developer. I did the grading, utilities, and stormwater management for the Project Manager each time.
Project No.: 2648 Project: 391-401 D STREET Date: September 6, 2007
PRE VS. POST PEAK FLOWS

Existing Peak Flow to Southwest E1 (cfs) 2.14 3.26 4.83 Proposed Peak Flow to Southwest U1 (cfs) 2.14 3.26 4.83 Existing Peak Flow to Southwest E4 (cfs) 3.56 5.77 8.93 Proposed Peak Existing Peak Proposed Peak Flow to Flow to D Flow to D Southwest U4 Street R1 Street 5L (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) 1.59 3.54 11.71 2.48 11.79 17.85 3.73 18.94 26.05
Storm Event 2-year 10-year 100-year
BASIN CHARACTERISTICS
Cultec Chambers Bottom of Stone Elevation (feet) Top of StoneElevation (feet) 2 Year High Water Elevation (feet) 10 Year High Water Elevation (feet) 100 Year High Water Elevation (feet) Peak Flood Volume Stored (cf) 100 Year Peak Outflow (cfs)
12.00
14.04
13.47
13.64
13.93
3,313
5.51
Downstream Defender Sizing Calculations

PROJECT: JOB #: CALC BY: 391-401 D-Street, Boston 1.2648 SCS DATE: 9/6/2007
BWSC requires 1 inch per hour storm intensity for design. P1-Southern Pavement
Subcatchment Surfaces Total Impervious area: Total Roof Area: Total Runoff to Be Treated: 0.57 ac 0.21 ac 0.78 ac
Downstream Defender Sizing Flow = 0.78 x 1.00 in/hr x 453 gpm/ac-in/hr = 353.34 gpm 0.79 cfs 7.05 cfs
100 Year (from HydroCAD) Use 6 ft. diameter Downstream Defender Unit Design Flow/Capacity Range= 3.0/8.0
P2-Central Pavement
P4-Northern Pavement
2007 This is the plan for the septic system I designed for my own house.
2007 This is a portion of the permitting plans for a septic system for a proposed early childhood learning center.
2007 For this project, the Project Manager asked me to solve the drainage issues for this excessively steep slope. I designed a system that would bubble up to help avoid erosion.
2008 These are the design plans for the I/A system I designed for the home I built for myself.

Pe App-Dcg

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pe App-Dcg

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1999 This project involved reconstructing a private entrance road into a Corporate Entrance Drive for a new Corporate

This is one of the profile sheets I worked on for this project.

Very truly yours, Daylor Consulting Group, Inc.

Scott Schluter Staff Engineer

Scott Schluter Staff Engineer

Proposed Special Outlet

Proposed Special Outlet Report

Daylor Consulting Group, Inc.

Existing Special Outlets on Berth 10

2000 This is a detail of the special outlet that I designed.

Daylor Consulting Group, Inc.

Project # Project: Location: Present:

1.1846.01 JPI Ashland Ashland, Massachusetts

12/5/00 12/13/00 Full Days

Purpose: Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal

Engineers Planners Scientists Surveyors

Engineers Planners Scientists Surveyors

Engineers Planners Scientists Surveyors

Engineers Planners Scientists Surveyors

Engineers Planners Scientists Surveyors

Engineers Planners Scientists Surveyors

Ox Pasture Lane Cohasset, MA

Lot 6: Same as Scenario 1.

Scott Schluter Staff Engineer

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

PRE VS. POST PEAK FLOWS

Storm Event 2-year 10-year 100-year

0.13 0.0000 2.53

0.68 0.0028 0.17

WETLANDS "E" SUMMARY

110.4 112.0 110.4 110.4 110.6 110.6 111.1 111.1

WETLANDS "F" SUMMARY

109.0 112.0 109.0 109.2 109.2 110.8 111.1 111.8

GROVE STREET DEPRESSION SUMMARY

123.0 125.0 123.1

123.0 125.0 123.0 123.3 123.2 123.8 123.5

Project: Notes: n= 0.013

April 27, 2001

0.07 0.09 0.17 0.19 0.18 0.65

Westerly portion of site

1748-GROVE ST.-PROPOSED CONDITIONS

Printed 7/20/2012 Page 2

Area Listing (all nodes)

1748-GROVE ST.-PROPOSED CONDITIONS

TYPE III 24-HR Rainfall=6.80"

Summary for Subcatchment 1S: Westerly portion of site

Subcatchment 1S: Westerly portion of site

16.08 cfs @ 12.09 hrs

1748-GROVE ST.-PROPOSED CONDITIONS

TYPE III 24-HR Rainfall=6.80"

Summary for Pond 5P: Depression at Grove Street

Surf.Area (sq-ft) 1,449 3,889 5,848 Invert 123.00'

Inc.Store (cubic-feet) 0 2,669 4,869

Outlet Devices 2.016 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area

Pond 5P: Depression at Grove Street

1.17 cfs @ 12.06 hrs

0.13 cfs @ 13.04 hrs

No. Lot A Commonwealth of Massachusetts Norwell, Massachusetts

Soil Suitability Assessment for On-site Sewage Disposal

DEP APPROVED FORM - 12/07/95

FORM 11 - SOIL EVALUATOR FORM Page 2 of 8

DEEP OBSERVATION HOLE LOG*

Very little Gravel Friable Gravel, Cobbles, Stones Loose