northampton landfill 2006 vol 2 appendices

NORTHAMPTON SANITARY LANDFILL

PHASE5B

BWPSWOl SITE SUITABILITY REPORT

Volume 2: Appendices

Prepared for: Department of Public Works

City of Northampton Massachusetts

Presented to: Department of Environmental Protection

Division of Solid Waste Management 436 Dwight Street

Springfield, MA 01103

Prepared by: Dufresne-Henry

March • 2006

Dufresne-Henry --------------------------------------136 West Street, Suite 203, Northampton, MA 01060

Tel: (413) 584-4776 Fax: (413) 584-3157

Northampton Regional Sanitary Landfill Phase 5B Expansion Site Suitability Report (BWP SW 01)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BWP SW 01 APPLICATION

Table of Contents

SECTION 1 MASSACHUSETTS ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT .......... 1-1

SECTION 2 FACILITY SPECIFIC CRITERIA

2.1 ZONE II FOR THE EASTHAMPTON MALONEY WELL ....................................... 2-l

2.2 WITHIN l 000 FEET OF A POTENTIAL PRIVATE WATER SUPPLY WELL ...... 2-2

2.3 FOUR FEET DEPTH TO GROUND WATER ............................................................ 2-2

2.4 WETLANDS ................................................................................................................. 2-2

2.5 GROUNDWATER PROTECTION SYSTEM ............................................................. 2-3

SECTION 3 GENERAL CRITERIA

3.1 TRAFFIC IMPACTS .................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT .................................................................... 3-1

3.3 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS ........................................................................................... 3-2

3.4 NUISANCE CONDITIONS ......................................................................................... 3-3

3.4.1 Litter .................................................................................................................. 3-3

3.4.2 Dust ................................................................................................................... 3-3

3.4.3 Birds .................................................................................................................. 3-3

3.5 SIZE OFF ACILITY ..................................................................................................... 3-4

3.6 AREAS PREVIOUSLY USED FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL. ........................... 3-5

3.7 REGIONAL PARTICIPATION ................................................................................... 3-6

3.8 OTHER SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION AND POLLUTION ............................ 3-7

03/06 - 1 - Dufresne-Henry

Northampton Regional Sanitary Landfill- Phase 5B Expansion Site Suitability Report (BWP SW 0 I)

Table of Contents

SECTION 4 WAIVER

4.1 CRITERIA REQUIRING THE WAIVER ................................................................... 4-2

4.2 HARDSHIP ................................................................................................................... 4-3

4.3 INTEREST SERVED ................................................................................................... 4-4

4.4 MAINTAIN PROTECTION ........................................................................................ 4-4

4.4.1 Other Potential Contamination Sources ............................................................ 4-6

4.5 ALTERNATIVE SITE ................................................................................................. 4-6

4.5 .1 Site Suitability Criteria ..................................................................................... 4-8

4.5.2 Site Screening Maps ......................................................................................... 4-8

4.5.3 Results of Siting Analyses .............................................................................. 4-12

4.6 PREFERRED MUNICIPALITY ................................................................................ 4-13

4.7 ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT ................................................................................ 4-13

4.8 INTEGRA TED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT .................................................. 4-13

4.9 WAIVER NEEDED FOR PROJECT GOALS ........................................................... 4-13

03/06 -11- Dufresne-Henry

Northampton Regional Sanitary Landfill- Phase 5B Expansion Site Suitability Report (BWP SW 01)

LIST OF FIGURES

SECTION 4 WAIVER

Table of Contents

4-1 GENERIC CONCEPTUAL LANDFILL ..................................................................... 4-9

LIST OF TABLES

SECTION 4 WAIVER

4-1 SITE SUITABILITY CRITERIA ............................................................................... 4-10

03/06 - Ill - Dufresne-Henry

Northampton Regional Sanitary Landfill -Phase 5B Expansion Site Suitability Report (BWP SW 0 I)

Table of Contents

APPENDIX A

APPENDIXB

APPENDIXC

APPENDIXD

APPENDIXE

APPENDIXF

APPENDIXG

APPENDIXH

APPENDIX I

APPENDIXJ

APPENDIXK

APPENDIXL

APPENDIXM

APPENDIXN

APPENDIXO

03/06

LIST OF APPENDICES

MEPA CERTIFICATE AND BOARD OF HEALTH

CORRESPONDENCE

SITE SUIT ABILITY PLANS AND MAPS

FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL WETLAND CORRESPONDENCE

GROUNDWATER PROTECTION SYSTEM

TRAFFIC IMP ACTS

WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT

AIR QUALITY IMPACTS

LITTER

DUST

BIRDS

REGIONAL PARTICIPATION

MALONEY WELL ZONE II DELINEATION

CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT MODEL

EXCERPT FROM SWAP REPORT

SITE SCREENING MAPS

- iv- Dufresne-Henry

)> """'0 """'0 ro :::1 0.... X

APPENDIX A

MEPA CERTIFICATE

AND

BOARD OF HEALTH CORRESPONDENCE

f!ilt& r&~ueattfv of~u;k~~

8xecalita& t!Jf!/icw of 8ru~i/u;Ynnw:nlak ~iv.Y ~00 '7i~&:ftwe/;, /7ail&900

MITT ROMNEY GOVERNOR

KERRY HEALEY LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

STEPHEN R. PRITCHARD SECRETARY

:!11~ J/o!t 02:1~4-2524

January 27, 2006 Tel. (617) 626-1000

Fax. (617) 626-1181 http://www.mass.gov/envir

CERTIFICATE OF THE SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ON THE

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

PROJECT NAME

PROJECT MU~ICIPALITY PROJECT WATERSHED EOEA NUMBER PROJECT PROPONENT

?'· D~TE NOTICED IN MONITOR

Northampton Regional Sanitary Landfill - Phase 5/5B Expansion

Glendale Road - Northampton Con~ecticut River 12351 City of Northampton - Board of Health December 21, 2005

As Secretary of Environmental Affairs, I hereby determine that the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) submitted on the above project adequately and properly complies with the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (G_ L. c. 30, ss. 61-62H) and witK its implementing regulations (301 CMR 11.00).

Project Description

As described in the FEIR, the project cbns~sts,of the Phase 5/SB Expansion of the Northampton Regional SanitaryLandfill. The expansion will create approximately 29.2 acres of lined landfill with 19.7 acres requiring site assignment. Phase 5 is 15.6 acres and Phase 5B is about 4.1 acres on the expansion parcel. The remaining 9.5 acres are a vertical expansion on the existing landfill site. The project includes the construction of a new northern access road for trucks off Glendale Road, a new scale and scale house, and stormwater control facilities. It also includes the construction of a phased landfill capping and a landfill gas management system.

The landfill would accept approximately 325 tons per day (tpd). It would contain about 2.520 million cubic yards of available gross volume, to be filled at a rate of about 50,000 tons per year (tpy) of solid waste. The landfill expansion represents a total area of about 29.2 acr~s, up to a maximum elevation of 365 feet, including the overlap onto the existing capped landfill.

l} Printed on Recycled Stock 20% Post Consumer Waste

EOEJ\ # 12 351 FEIR Certificate January 27, 2006

The landfill expansion would provide capacity for about 21.3 years. It would be developed int8 approximately six cells, each with about a five-year life. The first cell would be constructed in 2007 and the last cell about 2024. The existing landfill has 2n estimated operational life until about the end of 2007.

The project is subject to a mandatory EIR. It will require a Site Assignment by the Northampton Board of Health. The expansion will require a Site Suitability Determin2tion, Authorizations to Construct (phase approvals), Authorizations to Operate (phase approvals), and waivers from the Zone II site suitability criteria (310 CMR 16.40 (3) (a) (2)) from DE.P. In addition, a Sewer Extension/Connection Permit may be required from DEP. The project must comply with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for stormwater discharges. An Order of Conditions will be required from the Northampton Conservation Commission for work within a buffer zone and a local resource area. The Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) have identified tpe project site as potential Priority Habitat. Because the p-roponent is not seeking financial assistance from the Commonw~alth for the project, MEPA jurisdiction is limited to those aspects of the project whose environmental impacts are related to the subject matter of required state permits (wetlands, stormwater, construction, operation, traffic, and was~ewater) that may have significant environmental impacts.

Th~ existing landfill accepts 275 tpd. Construction and demolit{on (C&D) material is allowed as long as the total for the 5~te is le~s than 50,000 tpy. However, the DEP permit limits the amount of C&D material that can be delivered to the site for processing at 20 tpd and 4,000 tpy. These C&P tonnage limits are independent of the landfill operating· tonnage l:i;mi t:s. The proponent is proposing to increase its daily tonnage from 275 to 325 tpd. It accepts solid waste from 39 communities. Most of the member communities participate in DEP's Approved Recycling Program. Most of the member communities have also implemented a npay as you throw" pricing system. Leachate collected at the site is discharged to public sewers for treatment at the Northampton Wastewater Treatment Facility.

On February 25, 2005, a Notice of Project Change (NPC) Certificate was issued for the lined Phase 5 landfill expansion. The Certificate required the preparation of an EIR. The Phase 5 Expansion involved about 29.8 acres instead of the original 16.4 acres. Since the NPC, the expansion has been reduced in area from 30.9 to 29.2 acres to avoid impacts to identified habitat areas for the Eastern Box Turtle.

2

I I I ,.. -

•

-

-

-

EOEA #12351 FEIR Certificate January 27, 2006

The proponent has estimated that the proposed landfill expansion would generate approximately between 180 and 200 vehicle trips per day. Vehicles enter and exit the landfill via the entrance driveway on Glendale Road. The proponent has indicated that the Monday through Saturday hours of operation are between 7:00 AM and 5:00 PM (until 8:00 PM for specific events). The facility will be closed on Sundays. It will continue to serve its 39 member communities.

Review of the FEIR:

The FEIR provided a detailed project description with a summary/history of the project. It included existing and proposed site plans in Appendix B. The FEIR included a site plan that showed the proposed lined and unlined portions of the landfill, the composting area, the physical components of the drainage and leachate collection system, and the wetland resource areas. It described the proponent's monitoring program for its proposed and existing landfill liners.

The FEIR identified hazardous waste screening and collection ./· at the landfill. It also identified the extent of leaf and yard

composting operations.

, The FEIR outlined the proponent's maintenance program for the drainage system. This maintenance program outlined the actual maintenance operations, responsible parties, and back-up systems. In Appendix E, the proponent included the Stormwater Pollution Prevent~Dn Plan (SWPPP) for its NPDES General Permit for the existing landfill.

The FEIR described how litter impacts on surrounding streets are responded to by the proponent. A monitoring and inspection program for litter was discussed in the FEIR:

The FEIR updated its habitat assessment, and the proponent addressed the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP) concerns as stated in their comment letter (MassWildlife) on the DEIR. It summarized the proponent's efforts to work with NHESP.

Mitigation:

The FEIR included a separate chapter on mitigation measures. It included Section 61 Findings for both DEP and NHESP. In the FEIR, the proponent has committed to implement the following mitigation measues:

• Replicate the isolated wetland in an immediately adjacent area to meet the requirements of the local wetlands bylaw.

3


Provide erosion control barriers, control of dewatering discharges, use of seeding and mulch stabilization practices and short- and long-term stormwater controls to protect wetland resource areas.

• Avoid the defined habitat area of the Eastern Box Turtle. • Complete a wildlife capture and relocation program within

the isolated wetland and the existing detention basin prior to the disturbance of those areas.

• Purchase land to the north of the project site and preserving it as conservation land. This land contains important habitat features.

• Use diversion fencing to prevent wildlife from entering the work site.

• Repair groundwater seeps along the north edge of the gravel pit to preserve the hydrology of the vernal pools.

• Better control of the use of illegal all terrain vehicles on the conservation land north of and adjacent to the project site.

• Stabilize eroding slopes near an identified vernal pool. ~ .

•

•

Construct a double composite liner system with a leak detection layer to monitor the upper liner for any leakage

'into the groundwater. Leachate that is generated will be collected in the drainage sand and piping layer and will be pumped to the Northampton Wastewater Treatment Facility for treatment. Install a system of groundwater monitoring wells to ro~~inely check for any changes over time. Expand the existing active gas collection system at the site and provide interim gas management techniques such as passive gas wells equipped with solar ignited flares if warranted.

• In order to control dust emissions, the propon~nt will use water and other dust suppression measures, pave on-site roads to the extent practicable, sweep paved access roads, require trucks accessing the site to be covered, limit vehicle speeds, stabilize disturbed areas with vegetation~ vegetate or cover long-term soils stockpiles if necessary, limit engine idling, use low sulfur fuel, maintain engines on landfill equipment, and install particulate filters on equipment.

• In order to control noise generated by the project, the proponent will use properly designed engine enclosures and intake silencers, provide regular equipment maintenance and lubrication, maintain exhaust systems and replace as needed, new equipment will be subject to new product noise emission standards, avoid early morning use of pyrotechnic gull deterrent operations, on-site roadways are established as far from sensitive receptors as practical, employ natural

4

I I I .. ..

... ..

...

...


and/or manmade barriers where possible, limit the use of back-up alarms by usi~g OSHA-approved alternatives, set up tipping operations to allow greater access while decreasing the need to reverse, require all facility users to properly secure loads against rattling and banging, limit vehicle speeds to 20 mph or less, and implement a method to receive, log, and respond to community complaints.

• Provide a stormwater detention basin on the east and one on the west sides of the site with groundwater recharge.

• Reconstruct the northerly site drive to better accommodate tractor-trailers and include a stop sign and stop line.

• Initiate a publicity campaign to inform landfill users that separate driveways are provided for trucks and other vehicles.

• Upgrade pavement markings and provide directional siguage to the landfill at the intersection of Glendale Road/West Farms Road/Route 66.

• Design and install a containerized landfill gas fired engine driven generating system for the beneficial use of the landfill gas.

These mitigation measures are estimated to cost about $1•. 73 million. Because the proponent has reduced the Phase 5 landfill f~otprint by 1.7 acres to preserve the turtle habitat, this lost landfill volume is about 17,700 cubic yards, which has an estimated value of about $682,500 at today's tipping fee. The proponent has also paid $225,000 for the purchase of 20 acres of propert~to the north of the site for turtle habitat with a conservation restriction placed on it.

January 27, 2006 Date

cc: Craig Givens, DEP/WERO Charles Cline, DEP/WERO Senator Stan Rosenberg Senator Stephen M. Brewer

Comments received:

DEP/WERO, 1/20/06 MassWildlife, 1/20/06

12351feir SRP/WTG/wg

5

I I I • -

•

--

-

-

Commai1.Wea{th o[Massac!Ilm!lts - - I 1~1

M.It.ssWildllffe

Stephen R. Pritchard, Secretary Executive Office ofEnviromnental Affairs Attention; MEPA Office1 William Gage EOEA No. 12351 100 Cambridge St. Boston, Massachusetts 02114

Project Name: Proponent: Location: Documem Reviewed: NHESP Tracking No:

Dear Secretary Ptitchard,

Vildlif Wayne F. MacCallum, Director

Northampton Regional Sanitary Landfill Northampton Department of Pub/ ic Works Glendale Road, Northampton Draft Environmental impact Revl-,w 00-8026

January 20, 2005

The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NBESP) of the MA Division of Fisheries & Wildlife would like to offer the following comments regarding impacts to :>tate-listed rare species for the proposed Phase 5/SB expansion of the Notihampton landfill.

The proposed project is located within Priority Habitat and Estimated Habitat for tvvo state-listed turtle species. The Spotted Turtle (Clemmys guttata) and Eastern Box Turtle (Terrapene carolina) are statelisted as "Special Concern" and protected pursuant to the implementing regulations ofthe MA Endangered Species Act (MESA) (321 CMR 10.00).

Based upon the information that was submitted in the FEIR, the NHESP has determined that the proposed will not result in a "take" of Eastern Box Turtle or Spotted Turtle provided that the proponent complies with the rare species mitigation outlined in section 7.2 "Mitigation Measur,;-.s" of the FEIR, which provide construction and post-construction measures for state-listed turtles and the additional items outlined in this letter. In addition, the NHESP recommends that turtle nesting habitat management (i.e. vegetation removal/pruning) be conducted, as needed, on a rotational cycle (-5 years) in the secondary and primary tu1ile nesting habitats as shown in Appendix F (dated December 2005). Vegetation management sho_uld occur in conjunction with the proposed fall mowing and both should occu< after October 15 of a given year. TI1e nesting habitat management, mowing, and permanent wildlife fencing maintenance shoutd be incorporated into the OQerations and Tyfaintenance Tv1anual, or similar doc-ument, for the property and we request to review a copv of this document.

TI1e NHESP notes the Town's adjacent land acquisition of forested and wetland habitats suitable for the Eastem Box and Spotted Turtles and we recommend that the town place this land under habitat protect measures (e.g. Conservation Restriction (CR)) that pe;ma:t1ently protects these habitats for state-listed rare and general wildlife. The NHESP has CR templates available upon request and we reauest to review a copy of the CR document.

www. masswildl ife. oro

Division of Fisheries and Wildbfe Field Headquarters, One R<!bbit Hill Road, Westborough, MA 01581 (508) 792-7270 Fax (508) 792·7275 An Agency of the Department of Fisheries. Wilditfe & £nvironmmta! Low Enforcement

2EZ-~ 900/ZOO.d t69-l + so:zt gooz-oz-to

NHESP Tracking No. 00-8026, Page 2

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. Please call Dan Nein, Endangered Species Review Biologist, at (508) 792-7270, x 151 with any questions about this letter.

Thomas W. French, Ph.D. Assistant Director

cc: Mr. Ned Huntley, Northampton City Engineer Randall Christensen, Dufresne-Henry Northampton Planning Board Nmthampton Conservation Commission

.. !..'

ZE2-~ 900/EOD.d •ss-1 + n~d JdS ON3 I l!Y3H lVHn!VN 01iM I HS!~-WoJ~ so:zt SOOZ-02-lC

I I I ,. -

-•

-

•

-

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENV1RONMENTALAFFAIRS

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

WESTERN REGIONAL OFFICE 436 Dwight Street e Springfield, Massachusetts 01103 • (413) 784-1100 • FAX (413) 784-1149

MITT ROMNEY Governor

KERRY HEALEY Lieutenant Governor

Date: January 20, 2006

Stephen R. Pritchard, Secretary Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Office William Gage, EOEA No. 12351 . 1 00 Cambridge Street 9th Floor Boston, MA 02114-2524

Re: Northampton Regional Sanitary Landfill Proposed Phase 5 Expansion Northampton, MA

Dear Secretary Pritchard,

STEPHEN R. PRITCHARD Secretary

ROBERT W. COLLEDGE, Jr. Commissioner

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection ("MassDEP"), Western Regional Office (WERO) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) submitted for the proposed Northampton Regional Sanitary Landfill, Proposed Phase 5 Expansion (EOEA #12351) in Northampton. Department staff frofn the Bureau of Waste Prevention Solid Waste Management Program) has participated in this review and comment letter.

I. Project Description

The City of Northampton proposes to hori;z:ontally expand its existing regional sanitary landfill onto a 51.5-acre parcel of property adjacent to the north of the existing site. The City's existing regional landfill operation has an estimated operational life until the end of 2007.

The proposed Phase 5/58 landfill expansion inCludes a total landfilling area of 29.2-acres, with 19.7 -acres on the northern parcel requiring site assignment pursuant to the Site Assignment Regulations for Solid Waste Facilities. The remaining 9.5-acres are a vertical expansion on the existing landfill site.

The Phase 5 area is a horizontal expansion based on a 500-foot setback from the existing homes on Glendale Road and abuts the slope of the existing landfill. For Phase

This information is available in alternate format. Call Donald M. Gomes, ADA Coordinator at 617-556-1057. TDD Service -1-800-298-2207.

MassDEP on the World Wide Web: http://www.mass.gov/dep

0 Printed on Recycled Paper

EOEA No. 12351 2 Northampton Regional Sanitary Landfill Proposed Phase 5 Expansion

!I.

58, a1 000-foot setback is provided to the existing homes on Westhampton Road. The project ends at a vertical elevation of 365, which is maximum approved height of the existing landfill

Required DEP Permits and/or Applicable Regulations

Solid Waste Manaaement 310 CMR 16.00 310 CMR 19.000

IlL Permit Discussion

Bureau of Waste Prevention

Solid Waste Management The FEIR indicates that the landfill expansion footprint will include the current location of composting activities at the site: The FEIR does not indicate whether composting will continue at the facility once landfill operations commence in the expansion footprint, and if so, where that activity will take place. Provided that the composting operations comply

·with the requirements pursuant to 310 CMR 16.05(4), the activity would be·exempt'from solid waste management facility site assignment and permitting. However, if the proponent wishes to conduct such operations on a capped portion of the existing landfill, a post-closure use permit must be obtained pursuant to 310 CMR 19.016 and 310 CMR 19.143~ •

IV. Other Comments/Guidance

If you have any questions regarding this comment letter please do not hesitate to Gall Craig Givens at (413)-755-2217 or Email: [email protected].

Sincerely,

Michael J. Gorski Regional Director

cc: MEPA File

I I I ---•

--

-

BOARD OF HEALTH MEMBERS

ROSEMARIE KARPARIS, R.N., MPH XANTHI SCRIMGEOUR, MHEd, CHES

JAY FLEITMAN, M.D.

. STAFF ErRest c:l. MaY,ieu. R.S., M.S., C.H.O.

Director of Public Health Richard Meczywor, R.S., Sanitary Inspector Patricia Abbott. R.N., Public Health Nurse

Madeline Heon, Clerk

February 8, 2005

Mr. James R. Laurila, P.E. Dufresne-Henry 136 West Street, Suite 203 Northampton, MA 01060

OFFICE OF THE

BOARD OF HEALTH

CITY OF NORTHAMPTON MASSACHUSETTS 01060

RE: Northampton Sanitary Landfill Phase SB Expansion Technical Fee Waiver

Dear Mr. Laurila:

212 MAIN STREET NORTHAMPTON. MA 01060

(413) 587-1214 FAX (413) 587-1221

The Northampton Board of Health has waived the Technical Fee requirement for the Site Assignment permit application to be submitted for the Phase 58 Expansion of the Northampton Sanitary Landfill. The applicant for this project is the Northampton Department of Public Works. Written documentation of the fee waiver is required to be submitted the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection in accordance with 310 CMR 16.08(4).

Please contact this office with questions.

Sincerely,

Ernest J. Mathieu, R.S., M.S, C.H.O. Director of Public Health

cc: Nicole L. Sanford, Environmental Analyst, Dufrense-Henry Ned Huntley, P.E., Northampton DPW

APPENDIXB

SITE SUITABILITY PLANS AND MAPS

K:\9205006 Northampton LF Site Su itability)\Cadd\Civii\Converted site_suitdwg, Layout, 3/8/2006 4:04:08 PM, vprice, MA-NRT-HP1050c(Paper-Fina l).pc3

olen :::r

ffi.l Proj. Manager

0 . (.]1

s: r m

~ 0 c (/)

J.R. LAURILA

J.R. LAURILA

. ...,. .... :-

IZ"'""' CDos:u;:::~.:;;:::::;:::r-h ::rs:uO

""' 033 CD "0 tu

or. --""' 0 -· tu ;:, 0 ;:::!. ;:, 3 -u 0 CD c:: ;:, ;:,0""_ - -· :::,(/) (") -·

~(/) o"2-""' tu ";:, (/) ::E ""Utu -(f) tu ;:,-o ;:, ""' -· 0 ;:, <

(Q -· c.. tu CD ;:, c.. C..crIJJ'< 0-tu :::,-""' CD 0.() 0 -· --<

a

z 0 -CD (/)

@

. . . : . . . . .

""0 .....

~ ~

. - . : : : ;..-.

SITE SUITABILITY REPORT NORTHAMPTON LANDFILL- PHASE 5B EXPANSION

c g :::l

::0 CD (/)

c. CD :::l !::!: Ill

)>

(/) c 0" c ..... 0" Ill :::l

~ (/)

c. CD :::l !::!: Ill

~

::0 c ii3

~ (/)

c: CD :::l !::!: Ill

z CD

c15"

Q Q

:::T 0" 0 3-0 0 c. Ill c u;· :::l CD

~

N 0

~ G)

::0 CD

~ Ill -o· :::l

() 0 :::l (/) CD <! Ill -o· :::l

~ ~ 0: o· :::l

•

() 0 :::l (/) CD <! Ill -o· :::l

() Proj. Designer

~· Drawn By V.B. PRICE WATER RESOURCES AND LAND USE SITE PLAN Q.l Checked

' Scale ~· 1"=600'

J.R. LAURILA I I PARK HII.L Rt1AD - REVISED \/ELL

Date FEBRUARY, 2005 NORTHAMPTON MASSACHUSETTS I Rev. I Description

~ ..... (')" c -c ii3 ""0 Cil (/) CD

~ -o· :::l

~ ~ ..... [ o· :::l

0

~ <: (/)

:i2 ~

~ Ill -CD ..... ""0

~ ~ o· :::l

VBP I 3110/0S

By I Date

N

~ G)

0

~ ~ -<

(/) c 5} hl ~ CD Ul ~

(/) -Cil Ill 3 (/)

Ill :::l c. ""0 0 :::l c. (/) ~

"T1 m s:: )>

"T1 0 0 c. "0 Ill :::l

~ ~ Ill :::l c. (/)

• ""0 0 CD :::l -iii"

<f ..... :::l Ill

""0 0 0

I

() CD ::+ 3i CD c.

<f ..... :::l Ill

""0 0 0

Dufresne-Henry Northampton, Massachusetts

Tel. (413) 584-4776 • Fax (413) 584-3157 www.dufresne-henry.com

'

..... m m ti

APPENDIXC

FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL

WETLAND CORRESPONDENCE

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection- Wetlands

DEP File Number.

WPA Form 48 - Order of Resource Area Delineation -::::-24--:6-:-:--0 -:-:oo'--'-1 __ Provided by OEP

Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L c. 131, §40 and the Northampton Wetlands Protection Ordinance- Chapter 24 A. General Information

Important: Nhen tilling out From: onns on lhe

Ulmputer, use only the tab :eyto move our cursor

oo not use the return key.

Q

~

Northampton Conservation Commission

This Issuance is for (check one):

~ Order of Resource Area Delineation

0 Amended Order of Resource Area Delineation

To: Applicant: Property Owner (if different from applicant):

Northampton DPW Name

125 locust Street Mailing Address

Northampton City/Town

1. Project Location:

Glendale Street Street Address

42 Assessors Map/Plat Number

MA 01060 State Zip Code

Name

Mailing Address

City/Town

Northampton City/Town

79 and 89 Parcel/Lot Number

2. Title and Date (or Revised Date if applicable) of Final Plans and Other Documents:

"Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation, Northampton Landfill Phase 5

State Zip Code

Expansion, Site Plan, Existing Conditions" August 2004

Title

Title

3. Oates:

September 2, 2004 September 23, 2004 October 19, 2004 Date Notice of Intent Filed Date Public Hearing Closed Date of Issuance

>aform4b.doc ·rev. 12115/00 Page 1 of 3

I~ Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands

OEP File Number:

WPA Form 48 - Order of Resource Area Delineation -=-24-6~-D--,-00,---1 __ Provided by DEP

Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 and the Northampton Wetlands Protection Ordinance - Chapter 24 B. Order of Delineation

The Conservation Commission has determined the following (check whichever is applicable):

[8;] Accurate: The boundaries described on the referenced plan(s) above and in the Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation are accurately drawn for the following resource area(s):

[gj Bordering Vegetated Wetland "Area 1"

• The NCC has determined that "Area 1" is a state and locally jurisdictional Bordering Vegetated Wetland.

• Wetland Flags W1 through W31 are confirmed as accurate.

[gj Other Resource Area(s), specifically: Riverfront Area·

• The 200 Riverfront Area as noted on Existing Conditions Site Plan is confirmed as accurate.

• The NCC has determined that this resource area is jurisdictional under the WPA, but not currently jurisdictional under the Northampton Wetland Protection Ordinance.

"Area 2" • The NCC has determined that "Area 2" is an Isolated Vegetated Wetland subject to

jurisdiction under the Northampton Wetland Protection Ordinance. • Wetland Flags W100 through W137 are confirmed as accurate. • "Area 2" is a potential vernal· pool.

"Area 3" • The NCC has determined that "Area 3" does not meet the criteria for Isolated Land

Subject to Flooding; it is, however, an Isolated Vegetated Wetland subject to jurisdiction under the Northampton Wetland Protection Ordinance.

• The boundaries of this resource area have not been flagged or confirmed by the NCC.

0 Modified: The boundaries described on the plan(s) referenced above, as modified by the Conservation Commission from the plans contained in the Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation, are accurately drawn from the following resource area(s):

0 Bordering Vegetated Wetlands

0 Other Resource Area(s), specifically:

0 Inaccurate: The boundaries described on the referenced plan(s) and in the Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation were found to be inaccurate and cannot be confirmed for the following resource area(s):

0 Bordering Vegetated Wetlands

0 Other Resource Area(s), specifically:

The boundaries were determined to be inaccurate because:

rm4b.doc ·rev. 12115/00 Page 2 of 3

:~ Massachusetts Department of Environmentai Protection Bureau of Resource Protection .- Wetlands

DEP File Number:

WPA Form 48 - Order of Resource Area Delineation :::-24--:6--:--co:-:-:-oo---'-1 __ Provided by DEP

Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L c. 131, §40

B. Order of Delineation (cont.)

This Order of Resource Area Delineation determines the boundaries of those resource areas noted above and is binding as to all decisions rendered pursuant to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (M.G.L. c.131, § 40) and its regulations (310 CMR 10.00) regarding such boundaries. This Order does not, however, determine the boundaries of any resource area or Buffer Zone to any resource area not specifically noted above, regardless of whether such boundaries are contained on the plans attached to this Order or to the Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation.

This Order must be signed by a majority oft nservation Commission. The Order must be sent by certified mail (return receipt requested) or nd tlelivered to the applicant. A copy also must be mailed or hand delivered at the s ·me to the a ro iate DEP Regional Office (see Appendix A)

This Order is valid for three years from the date of issuance.

This Order is issued to the applicant and the property owner (if different) as follows:

0 by hand delivery on [8:] by certified mail, return receipt requested on

October 19, 2004 Date Date

C. Appeals

The applicant, the owner, any person aggrieved by this Order, any owner of land abutting the land subject to this Order, or any ten residents of the city or town in which such land is located, are hereby notified of their right to request the appropriate DEP Regional Office (see Appendix A) to issue a Superseding Order of Resource Area Delineation. The request must be made by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department, with the appropriate filing fee and a completed Appendix E: Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form, as provided in 310 CMR 10.03(7) within ten business days from the date of issuance of this Order. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant, if he/she is not the appellant.

The request shall state clearly and concisely the objections to the Order which is being appealed and how the Order does not contribute to the protection of the interests identified in the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, (M.G.L. c. 131, § 40) and is inconsistent with the wetlands regulations (310 CMR 10.00). To the extent that the Order is based on a municipal bylaw or ordinance, and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations, the Department of Environmental Protection has no appellate jurisdiction.

·orm4b.doc ·rev. 12115100 Page 3of3

CERTIFIED MAIL- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NEW ENGLAND DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS

696 VIRGINIA ROAD CONCORD, MASSACHUSETTS 01742-2751

Regulatory Division CENAE-R-PEA File No.: NAE-2004-610

Mr. Ned Huntley, City Engineer City of Northampton Department of Public Works 125 Locust Street Northampton, MA 01060

Dear Mr. Huntley:

August ll , 2004

AUG 1 3 2004

DUFRESNE-HENRY

This letter responds to a request submitted on your behalf by Dufresne-Henry for a determination of jurisdiction for wetlands areas located north of the Northampton Landfill, Glendale Road, Northampton, Massachusetts.

Alan Anacheka-Nasemann, of our Regulatory Division, conducted a field inspection of the site on May 20, 2004. During this inspection, areas labeled on the enclosed plans as, "Isolated Wetland," "Ponded Area 1.52 Acres," "Existing Detention Basin" (including associated inlet and outlet ditches), and "Hannum Brook Wetland" were reviewed for potential jurisdiction. The delineation of waters of the United States, including jurisdictional wetlands, on the drawing you submitted entitled "USACE WETETLAND PLAN: NORTHAMPTON LANDFrLL PHASE 5 EXPANSION" on 7 sheets and dated, "June 2004" is accurate.

The Hannum Brook Wetland meets the definition of a water of the United States pursuant to Federal Regulations at 33 CFR 328.3(a)(7). Hannum Brook and its tributaries are waters of the United States pursuant to 33 CFR 328.3(a)(5). However, the Isolated Wetland (2.33 acres), the 1.52-acre Ponded Area and the Detention Basin and associated ditches should not be considered waters of the United States. Specifically, the Isolated Wetland and the 1.52-acre ponded area are both isolated, intrastate waters with no nexus to interstate or foreign commerce. In addition, the ditches constitute, "non-tidal drainage ... ditches excavated on dry land" while the Detention Basin is an "artificial...pond created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collecte and retain water and which (is] used exclusively ... as [a] ... settling basin" (preamble to 33 CFR 328.3. A Department of the Army permit is not required for the discharge of dredged or fill material into (or any alteration ot) these water bodies. Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, this office regulates only the Hannum Brook Wetlands, as indicated on your plans, as waters of the United States, including non-tidal wetlands.

Our verification of this project's wetland delineation under the January 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual is valid for a period of five years from the date of this letter unless new information warrants revision of the determination before the expiration date. Please note that this determination applies only to wetlands located within the boundary of the

-2-

approximately 105.6-acre landfl~ll site and the adjoining, 3.5-acre City of Northampton parcel to the north.

The Corps of Engineers has implemented an administrative appeals process for permit denials, proffered permits for which you object to the terms and conditions, and jurisdictional determinations. A Notification of Administrative Appeal Options form and flow charts explaining the appeals process and your options are enclosed with this letter. However, in order to retain your right to appeal, you must submit the enclosed NAAO form within 60 days of this letter's date.

For appeals of permit denials, proffered permits and approved jurisdictional determinations, you must complete Section II of the NAAO form ("Request for Appeal") and submit it along with any supporting or clarifYing information to the following address: James W. Haggerty, Regulatory Appeals Review Officer, US Army Engineer Division, North Atlantic, Fort Hamilton Military Conununity, Bldg. 301, General Lee Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11252-6700, Telephone: (7l8) 765-7150, E-mail: [email protected] Questions regarding the Corps appeals process should be directed to Ms. Ruth Ladd, Chief, Policy and Technical Analysis Branch at (978) 318-8818 or at the above address.

Enclosed with this letter is a form explaining the basis for our jurisdictional determination. If you have any questions please contact Alan Anacheka-Nasemann, of my staff, at (978)-318-8214.

Enclosures

Copy furnished:

Sincerely,

e1wJh~L1Jfr Christine A. Godfr<J, Chief, Regulatory Division

Randall P. Christensen, Dufresne-Henry, 136 West Street, Suite 203, Northampton, Massachusetts 0 l 060

------------------------------

)> """'0 """'0 ro ::J 0.... X

APPENDIXD

GROUNDWATER PROTECTION SYSTEM

EXCERPTED SECTIONS 2.2.2.1 OF DEIR AND 2.2.2.2 OF FEIR

Northampton Regional Sanitary Landfill Phase 5/5B Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report

2.2.2 LINER AND LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEMS

2.2.2.1 Liner Systems

Section 2 Project Description

The liner systems for the Phase 5 landfill expansion will be designed and constructed in

accordance with the DEP solid waste management facility regulations (310 CMR 19.000)

and any policies enforce at the time. Currently, liner systems for landfill expansions and new

landfills must meet the requirements of the DEP Policy "Final Interim Guidance on Double

Liner Requirements for all Landfill Authorizations to Construct (ATC) issued after

December 20, 2000" (Policy). The DEP is in the process of revising the regulations which

may result in modifications to the requirements of the Policy.

To comply with the Policy the Phase 5 expansion will be designed with a double liner

system. A double liner system consists of two liners with a leak detection zone between

them. The leak detection zone is a layer of sand or a geonet (manufactured drainage product)

that can be constantly monitored for the presence of leachate that may result from a leak in

the upper liner.

The Phase 5 expansion involves construction of a double composite liner, where the section

of the landfill on the parcel to the north is a virgin area, and also over an area of the capped,

unlined section of the landfill.

The liner components as described in the DEP Policy are as follows and are listed from the

top down:

• Option 1 - Double composite liner

09/05

o Primary liner: flexible membrane liner (FML or geomembrane) I geosynthetic

clay liner (GCL)

o Leak detection/secondary collection: geonet or 12 inches 10-2 em/sec material

(this layer is referred to below as "geonet")

2-3 Dufresne-Henry



o Secondary liner: flexible membrane liner (FML)/ 2 feet compacted clay liner

(CCL)

• Option 2 - Alternative double composite liner

o Primary liner: FML/GCL

o Leak detection/secondary collection: geonet

o Secondary liner: FML/GCL/1' CCL

See Figure 2-1 Liner Detail New Landfill.

Where the Phase 5 Landfill overlaps onto the existing steeper sideslopes ( 4 horizontal to 1

vertical) of the composite lined landfill, the DEP Policy allows the construction of a single

component liner such as low permeability soil (18-inch depth of soil having a permeability

less than 1 x 10-7 em/sec); a flexible membrane liner (FML); or a geosynthetic clay liner

(GCL). This single component liner must be overlain by a high performance drainage layer

consisting of 12-inches of drainage sand having a permeability greater than 1 x 10-3 em/sec

or other approved alternative. See Figure 2-2 Liner Detail- Over Existing Landfill Slopes.

The City may use either option depending on costs and constructability.

2.2.2.2 Leachate Collection Systems

A leachate collection system consisting of 18 inches of sand and piping will be installed over

the double liner to collect any leachate which is generated by rainwater percolating through

the landfilled waste. The liner system is sloped at a minimum of0.5 percent to allow the

leachate to flow by gravity to a series of leachate collection lines. The collection lines are

typically constructed perforated HDPE pipe surrounded by stone and wrapped in a geotextile.

See Figure 2-3, Typical Leachate Collection Detail. The leachate is removed from the

landfill cell by gravity flow or through the use of pumps. Leachate will be removed from the

site by pumping it through a force main that services the existing landfill. Calculations

during the design phase will determine if the existing force main in Glendale Road has

adequate capacity to manage the leachate flow from the landfill expansion.

09/05 2-4 Dufresne-Henry

I I I • -,--•

-

•

2% MIN. SLOPE

24" OF CCL OR 12" OF CCL + GCL

QCL; COMPACTED ClAY LINER; LOW PERMEABILITY SOIL OR ADMIXTURE LAYER; MAXIMUM IN-PLACE SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY OF 1X1Q-7 CM/S.

[ML; FLEXIBLE MEMBRANE LINER.

~ SYNlHETIC DRAINAGE MATERIAL

!&1.; GEOSYNlHETIC CLAY LINER.

SAND: DRAINAGE/PROTECTION MATERIAL; MINIMUM IN-PLACE HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY AS NOTED.


Tel. (413) 584-4776 www.dufresne-henry.com NORTHAMPTON

NORTHAMPTON SANITARY LANDFILL PHASE 5 EXPANSION-DEIR

FIGURE 2-1 LINER DETAIL

NEW LANDFILL AREAS

Project No.

Proj. Mgr.

Scale

Date

MASSACHUSETTS A

9240015

JRL

NONE

9/05

. : .. ' .... ,.

: .. .. .. ··:18~~ ·eeL OR· ...

. . •. . . GeL bR..fML .··.

·-..... ·

~ COMPACTED CLAY UNER; LOW PERt.4EABIUTY SOIL OR AOt.41xnJRE LAYER; t.4AXIt.4Ut.4 IN-PLACE SATURATED HYDRAUUC CONDUCTIVITY OF 1X10 Ct.4/S.

EML; FLEXIBLE t.4Et.4BRANE UNER.

ll.CL; GEOSYNlllETIC ClAY UNER.

SAllil.; DRAINAGE/PROTECTION t.4A TERIAL; t.41Nit.4Ut.4 IN-PLACE H'YDRAUUC CONDUCTIVITY AS NOTED.

. .. . .

NORTHAMPTON SANITARY LANDFILL PHASE 5 EXPANSION-DEIR

FIGURE 2-2 LINER DETAIL

OVER EXISTING LANDFILL SLOPES

Project No.

Proj. Mgr.

Scale

Date Northampton. Massachusetts Tel. (413) 584-4776

www.dufresne-henry.com NORTHAMPTON MASSACHUSETTS A

9240015

JRL

NONE

9/05

-

Northampton Regional Sanitary Landfill Phase 5/5B Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report

SECTION 2

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION (OBJECTIVES AND BENEFITS)

SameasDEIR

2.2 INFRASTRUCTURE DESCRIPTION


There are many different components and systems required for a modem sanitary landfilL

The following sections describe the components of the proposed facility expansion. This

section has been expanded since the DEIR to address new DEP regulations that were

promulgated since the submission of the DEIR. These address leachate collection systems.

2.2.1 SITE ACCESS AND WEIGHING FACILITY

Same as DEIR

2.2.2 LINER AND LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEMS

2.2.2.1 Liner Systems

Same as DEIR

2.2.2.2 Leachate Collection Systems

A leachate collection system consisting of 18 inches of sand and piping will be installed over

the double liner to collect any leachate which is generated by rainwater percolating through

the landfilled waste. The liner system is sloped at a minimum of 2 percent to allow the

leachate to flow by gravity to a series of leachate collection lines. The collection lines are

typically constructed perforated HDPE pipe surrounded by stone and wrapped in a geotextile.

The leachate is removed from the landfill cell by gravity flow or through the use of pumps.

Leachate will be removed from the site by pumping it through a force main that services the

12/05 2-1 Dufresne·Henry



existing landfill. Calculations during the design phase will determine if the existing force

main in Glendale Road has adequate capacity to manage the leachate flow from the landfill

expansiOn.

The force main discharges to a gravity sewer line on Ryan Road. Ultimately, the leachate

flows to the City Wastewater Treatment Facility where it is treated.

On October 7, 2005 the DEP promulgated changes to the Solid Waste Management Facility

Regulations. Among those changes was the addition of section 310 CMR 19.11 0(9) which

details the performance requirements for leak detection and secondary collection systems

between liners. The following excerpts are provided below:

"(9) Leak Detection and Secondary Collection Systems Between Liners.

(a) Performance Standards. Leak detection and secondary leachate collection systems shall provide for detection of leakage of leachate through the primary or uppermost liner and the collection and removal of leachate from the secondary liner.

(b) Design Standards. A leak detection and secondary collection system shall be designed:

1. to collect and remove leachate discharged into a drainage layer between the primary and secondary liners with an efficiency so that a leakage rate of ten gallons per day/per acre, or greater, will be detected within 24 hours of initial saturation;

2. to the extent feasible, identify the genera/location of the leak; 3. to allow the quantity and quality of leachate, or any liquid, in the leak detection

system, to be measured and analyzed separately from the leachate in the primary leachate collection system;

4. with an Action Leakage Rate (ALR) which shall be reasonable and appropriate based upon the design and components of the double liner system;

5. so that the head in the secondary collection system will not, in general, exceed the thickness of the drainage layer between the liners, and

6. with a leak response plan that details the action to be taken to evaluate and, when required, eliminate the cause of the leak.

(c) Action Leakage Rate (ALR)

12/05

1. The maximum action leakage rate shall be 100 gallons per acre/day, based on a 30-day rolling average (any consecutive 30 day period), unless the Department has established another action leakage rate for that facility, phase or operational period.

2. An ALR shall be identified for each stage of the operational life of the liner system;

2-2 Dufresne-Henry

I I I • • ... • -•

-



3. Where leakage into the leak detection system is occurring at a rate greater than on half the ALR, the owner or operator of the facility shall notifY the Department in writing within 72 hours. Such notification needs only to be made once in any 30 day period.

4. Where a single day leakage rate exceeds twice the ALR, the owner or operator of the facility shall notify the Department, in writing, within 48 hours.

5. In the event of leakage through the primary liner the facility shall take appropriate corrective action based on the quality and quantity of leachate collected or detected as determined by the Department. "

In addition the revised solid waste regulations also now include section 310 CMR 19.132(2)

"Monitoring of Secondary Leachate Collection or Leak Detection System" that specifies

monitoring requirements that must be met. This section of the regulations is excerpted below

to provide a better understanding of these requirements:

"(2) Monitoring of Secondary Leachate Collection or Leak Detection System

(a) The operator shall monitor the quantity and quality of leachate collected by the secondary leachate collection system or leak detection system, where such a system has been constructed. Monitoring shall be accomplished as specified in the solid waste management facility permit, the leachate discharge permit or as deemed necessary by the Department.

(b) The operator shall submit, in addition to permit requirements, the results of the leachate monitoring from the secondary leachate collection system or leak detection system to the Department with inspection reports.

(c) Where leachate is determined by the Department to have entered the secondary leachate collection system or leak detection system in excess of design standards, the operator shall undertake the actions specified under 310 CMR 19.15 0; Landfill Assessment Requirements and 310.19.151: Corrective Action Requirements as required by the Department. "

The City ofNorthampton will fully comply with these regulations in the final design of the

landfill.

2.2.3 LANDFILL CAPPING SYSTEMS

SameasDEIR

2.2.4 LANDFILL GAS BACKGROUND

Same as DEIR


APPENDIXE

TRAFFIC IMPACTS

EXCERPTED SECTIONS 4.3, 5.92 AND

APPENDICES LAND M OF DEIR


Section 4 Existing Environment

ANSI Type 1 calibrator that has an accuracy traceable to the National Institute of Standards

and Technology (NIST). During all measurements, the CEL 593 was tripod mounted at

approximately five feet above the ground in open areas away from vertical reflecting

surfaces. All data were downloaded to a computer, following the measurement session for

the purposes of storage and analysis. The sound measurement data sheets and certification of

equipment calibration are provided in the Appendix K.

4.2.4.4 Sound Level Measurement Results

The results of the baseline measurements are summarized in Table 4-5. At the nearest noise-

sensitive locations, the background (L90) sound level ranges from 40 dBA to 46 dBA. The

average, or equivalent sound levels (Leg) at these same locations ranged from 45 dBA to 53

dBA during the daytime. The principal sources of sound are existing landfill operations,

local and distant traffic, light residential construction occurring on Park Hill Road, periodic

aircraft over flights and distant yard maintenance activities. Existing sound levels were

highest at Rl on Glendale Road, which has a direct line of site to the residential drop-off and

commercial hauler scales area. At Rl, R2, and R3, sound levels were principally influenced

by the existing landfill activities, notably the heavy equipment operating on the active land

filling area. At R4, the landfill was only faintly audible.

The existing sound levels at all measurement locations are typical of a suburban area5.

Therefore the operation of the existing landfill, while audible during the day, does not cause

an adverse noise impact on the surrounding community.

4.3 TRAFFIC AND SAFETY

In 2002, the City of Northampton completed a traffic impact study to evaluate existing and

projected traffic conditions near the Northampton Landfill. The April 2002 Traffic Impact

Study (Appendix L) assessed existing traffic conditions by collecting traffic information

5 EPA, "Community Noise," Report NTID 300.3, 1971.


TABLE 4-5: BASELINE SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENT RESULTS

DAYTIME PERIOD (9 a.m. to 3 pm.)

SougdLevel -Rl- -R2- ;;.R3.- - R4-M~asurelllent

Broadband (dBA)

Background(Lgo) 46 44 43 40 Intrusive (LIO) 56 50 47 50 Average (Leq) 53 47 45 46

Frequency Hz Lgo (dBL)

16 47 46 45 45 32 46 48 47 47 63 47 49 45 47 125 45 47 41 42 250 39 37 37 38 500 40 38 36 35 1k 41 37 36 35 2k 39 34 35 32 4k 35 29 33 28 8k 29 30 30 23 l6k 20 19 23 19

Pure Tone? No No No No

09105 Dufresne-Henry

I I I • • .. --•

-


Section4 Existing Environment

during peak hours at two local intersections, by reviewing traffic accident data, and by

performing a traffic geometry inventory of the roadway widths, lane configuration, signage,

speed limits and land use. The study was completed by Bruce Campbell & Associates

(BCA) in conjunction with Dufresne-Henry.

The study area included the intersection of Glendale Road/West Farms Road/Route 66

(Westhampton Road) and the intersection of Glendale Road and the landfill entrance/exit.

Based on traffic counts made in April and November 2001, the number of vehicles entering

the Westhampton and Glendale Road intersection during the AM and PM peak hour was 490

and 473 vehicles, respectively, of which 7 percent and 1.5 percent were trucks. At the

intersection of Glendale Road and the landfill entrance/exit the traffic volume was about half

with 227 and 259 vehicles counted during the AM and PM peak hours, of which 10 percent

and 3.5 percent, respectively, were trucks. Approximately 23 percent of the AM peak and 38

percent of the PM peak vehicle volume at this intersection was related to the landfill.

Based on scale house records, the city has reported that of the commercial vehicles that enter

the landfill site, 30% are pick-up trucks, 60% are single body trucks and 10% are large trucks

delivering cover soils. In a typical day, during any Y2 hour interval, about 4-6 commercial

vehicles delivering waste material can be expected to enter the facility. The majority of

larger trucks (gross vehicle weight of 30,000 pounds or more) entering the site are delivering

daily cover soil for the landfill operation. On most days from 1 to 3 trucks deliver soil to the

site, but, on a limited number of other days, the number of trucks can increase to 20 or more

per day. The main reason for this variation is that much of the cover soil is delivered from

construction projects, where hauling of excavated material occurs intensively over a short

period of time.

A level of service (LOS) analysis was conducted at each intersection using the procedures

outlined in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Level of service is rated from A to F with A

to C being acceptable. For unsignalized intersections such as the two evaluated, LOS is

based solely on delay, which is a function of intersection volume. The results indicated that


Northampton Regional Sanitary Landfill Phase 5/SB Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report


during both the AM and PM peak hours both intersections were operating at LOS A except

for north and southbound at Route 66 which were LOS B.

Sight distances were checked in the field and appeared to be adequate in both directions

along Glendale Road at the two existing facility drives (the northern entry is locked and not

currently in use). Stopping sight distances are critical at a driveway so that if a vehicle enters

the main road, there will be sufficient distance for an oncoming vehicle to stop in advance of

the intersection. Accident data summary for the years 1998-2000 indicated that no accidents

were reported at the intersection of Glendale Road/Landfill Entrance. In addition, at the

unsignalized intersection of Route 66/West Farms Road/Glendale Road the crash rate was

calculated to be 0.52 accidents per million entering vehicles, below the Massachusetts

average of 0.65 for unsignalized intersections.

Future traffic volumes were projected from the collected data with an assumed No Build

growth of3% per year compounded annually, resulting in an expected traffic increase of 16

percent over a seven (sic)[should be five] year horizon (2008). The rate of increase was

based on historical data from the MassHighway traffic volume book, which showed 0-3

percent annual traffic growth at nearby traffic counts. The 3 percent per annum No Build

growth rate results in a marginal degradation of LOS, with an increased delay of several

seconds at the north and southbound approaches to Route 66 and almost no change

otherwise.

In order to compare 2005 traffic volumes to the general findings and projections of the 2002

BC&A study, an additional traffic count was undertaken by Dufresne-Henry personnel on

June 2, 2005 (Appendix M). Using the BC&A proposed rate of3% per year compounded

annually, the projected No Build traffic growth is 12.6% four years after the initial traffic

counts. The results of the 2005 traffic count indicate that this projection was reasonable

when applied to AM peak traffic but overstated for PM peak traffic.

The AM peak hour volume at the intersection of Westhampton and Glendale Roads showed a

15.9 percent increase over the November 2001 volume, while a 10.1 percent increase in the


I I I •

•

...

•

-



AM peak was recorded at the Glendale Road intersection with the landfill entrance/exit.

These increases are consistent with the BC&A study projections. The AM peak hour at these

intersections began at 7:30a.m. in June 2005 compared to 7:00a.m. in November 2001.

The June 2005 PM peak hour volumes counts run contrary to the projected increases. At the

intersection of Westhampton and Glendale Roads there was decrease of 0.9 percent from the

April 2001 PM peak hour volume, while there was an 18.1 percent decrease at the Glendale

Road intersection with the landfill entrance/exit. The PM peak hour at the intersection of

Westhampton and Glendale Roads began at 2:45p.m. in June 2005 compared to 3:30p.m. in

April2001. The PM peak hour at the landfill entrance/exit remained unchanged, beginning

at 3:00p.m.

4.4 BEDROCK AND SURFICIAL GEOLOGY

Based on a hydrogeologic study for Phases 1-3 by Wagner and Associates, the area is

underlain by Triassic New Haven Arkose (Zen, 1983) at an average depth of90-100 feet in

the landfill area. To the north and west ofthe landfill is the western border fault of the

Hartford basin which separates the sedimentary rocks of the basin from the Devonian

crystalline metamorphic rocks of the Connecticut Valley Synclinorium.

Surficial materials overlaying the bedrock consist of various layers of unconsolidated

deposits, primarily sand, with sand and gravel to the west and isolated pockets of sand and

gravel to the north in the landfill expansion site (former Willard Pit) (Stone et al. 1979). In a

1985 investigation of the proposed landfill expansion area, Consulting Geologist Ronald

Reed found that the deposits throughout the greater portion of the gravel pit consisted of

interbedded sands. The gravel and the coarser sands, having the greatest market value, had

been mostly removed. The remaining materials consist of interbedded medium to fine sand,

fine sand and silty fine sand. Two glacio-lacustrine deposits also occur within the Willard Pit

area. These deposits are composed of interbedded, plastic clayey silt, slightly plastic silt and

non-plastic clayey sandy silt in thin laminae 1/16" to 1/2" thick. A large area of silty



Section 5 Assessment of Impacts

counts nearby showed annual traffic growth of between 0-3 percent. Therefore, a general

growth rate of 3% per year for seven years was selected. The only known area development

project that could have an impact on traffic is the Village at Hospital Hill on the former

Northampton State Hospital grounds. Given the distance of this development from the study

area, very little additional traffic is expected to travel through the study area.

In order to compare 2005 traffic volumes to the general findings and projections of the 2002

BCA study, an additional traffic count was undertaken by Dufresne-Henry personnel on June

2, 2005 (Appendix M). Using the BCA proposed rate of 3% per year compounded annually,

the projected No Build traffic growth is 12.6% four years after the initial traffic counts. The

results of the 2005 traffic count indicate that this projection was reasonable when applied to

AM peak traffic but overstated for PM peak traffic.

As part of the 2002 BCA study, a level of service (LOS) analysis was conducted at each

study area intersection using the procedures outlined in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual

for the 2008 No Build analysis. For unsignalized intersections, LOS is based solely on delay,

which is a function of intersection volume. The results indicate that the intersections will

operate at LOS A orB during both the AM and PM peak hours except for the West Farms

Road southbound approach to Route 66, which will operate at LOS C with 15.3 seconds of

delay during the AM Peak Hour. The change to LOS C occurs at delays greater than 15.0

seconds.

5.9.2 PHASE 5 HORIZONTAL EXPANSION

Since the landfill has a DEP permit limiting the annual tonnage it can accept to 50,000

tons/year, expansion of the landfill is not expected to result in new trip generation on an

annual basis. However, to be conservative, the BC&A study included peak hour trip

generation increases for the proposed expansion by reducing the collected landfill trip data to

a per acre basis and applying that to the additional expansion acreage. The result of this

conservative analysis was 15 new trips during the AM peak hour (7 in/8 out) and 22 during

the PM peak (1 0 in/12/out), representing a 33 percent increase over the existing traffic count.


I I I •

--•

-



When these new trips were added to the projected No Build traffic increases, the resulting

LOS analysis showed almost no change. The greatest increased delay is projected to be 0.3

seconds at the north and southbound approaches to Route 66 (Westhampton Road) during the

AM peak hour, degrading from LOS B (10-15 seconds of delay) to LOS C, with 15.3 and

15.6 seconds of delay respectively. Peak hour traffic volumes can be expected to increase by

1.8%- 3.6% at the intersection of Glendale Road/West Farms Road/Route 66 and by 5.6-

7.4% at the intersection oflandfill entrance/exit. With expansion, the northbound and

southbound approaches at the intersection of Glendale Road/West Farms Road/Route 66 will

operate at LOS B/C line during the AM peak hour, while all other movements at both study

area intersections will operate at LOS A or B during both peak hours.

Although the annual tonnage limit of waste accepted at the landfill will not change with the

proposed expansion, the City has recently requested a permit increase for daily tonnage from

the current maximum of275 to 325 tons per day in order to accommodate daily and seasonal

fluctuations in the waste stream. If permitted, this additional 50 ton per day capacity has the

potential to generate from 12 to 18 additional trips on these peak days. It is unlikely that

these additional trips would occur solely during the peak AM and PM hours. However, if it

is conservatively assumed that they do, the number of trips generated would be about half of

the number employed in the 2002 BC&A study. This projected increase in occasional new

trips resulting from a daily permit increase is minor and will not affect the LOS at the

intersections studied.

5.9.3 VERTICAL EXPANSION OVER PHASES 1·4

The impacts for the vertical expansion option are the same as presented above for the Phase 5

expansion. The duration of the impacts would be less since the vertical expansion has a

significantly shorter operational life than the Phase 5 expansion.

5.10 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY

The existing Northampton Sanitary Landfill and the proposed Phase 5/5B landfill expansion

property are located within the Zone II area for the Maloney Well, a public water supply well


APPENDIXL

TRAFFIC STUDY

-

Traffic Impact Study

NORTHAMPTON INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY

CITY OF NORTHAMPTON

~__._...- Bruce Campbell & Associates Transportation Engineers & Planners 38 Chauncy Street, Boston MA 02111 tel: 617 -542-1199; fax: 617-451-9904 e-mail: [email protected]

May 2002

-

TRAFFIC IMP ACT STUDY NORTHAMPTON INTEGRA TED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY

NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS

INTRODUCTION

General/Site Location

Bruce Campbell & Associates (BC&A) has been retained by Dufresne-Henry, Inc. to perform traffic consulting services on the proposed expansion ofthe Northampton Integrated Solid Waste Management Facility project to be located between Route 66 (Westhampton Road) and Glendale Road in Northampton, Massachusetts. The existing landfill is approximately 52 acres and the proposed plan consists of utilizing the adjacent City-owned parcel to develop a solid waste landfill expansion. The existing landfill will have an operational life until the end of2007. The proposed 16.4 acre landfill expansion is needed to meet the long term solid waste management needs of the region. Access to the site is to remain the same, off Glendale Road. A site location map can be seen in Figure 1 and a site plan in Figure 2.

Project History

To proceed through the local and State approval process, an Environmental Notification Form (ENF) was filed with the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEP A) in October 2000. A scope was issued by the Secretary of Executive Office of Environmental Affairs and as a result, this traffic study is being completed to adhere to the Secretary's scope on the Phase 5 landfill expansion.

Study Purpose

The purpose of the study is to assess existing, future No Build and Build traffic conditions, collect traffic information during the peak hours at the local intersections, assess traffic accident data, and perform a traffic geometric inventory of the roadway widths, lane configuration, signing, speed limits and land use. Through using standard traffic engineering estimating procedures and actual data from the facility, vehicle trip estimates were developed to assess project expansion impacts.

Definitions

The following are brief definitions of tenninology used in this report:

AM Peak Hour=

PM Peak Hour=

LOS=

One hour in the morning when traffic is heaviest. This typically coincides with peak cmmnuter times, usually between 7:00-9:00 AM. One hour in the afternoon when traffic is heaviest. This coincides with peak commuter times, usually between 4:00-6:00 PM.

Level of Service is a quantitative measure used to describe the operation of an intersection. Level of Service values range from LOS A to LOS F. LOS A represents very good operation and LOS F represents very poor levels of service.

Ref: P:\ll36\ll36rpt02.ac.wpd 5/02

Bruce Campbell & Associates Pagel

Delay=

Generally, LOS A tlu·ough Dare considered acceptable while LOS E and Fare considered deficient. Details of the criteria are available in the Appendix. Average delay per vehicle in seconds.

2001 EXISTING CONDITIONS

Study Area Intersections

The study area includes the following intersections:

Glendale Road/Landfill Entrance-Exit Glendale Road/West Farms Road/Route 66 (Westhampton Road)

The existing study area intersections are described below.

0 Glendale Road/Landfill Entrance-Exit

This T -shaped unsignalized intersection consists of Glendale Road running in a north/ south direction with the landfill entrance/exit approaching from the east. The southern leg of the intersection is 22 feet wide and the northern leg is 24 feet wide. The landfill entrance/exit is about 20 feet wide.

0 Glendale Road/West Farms Road/Route 66 (Westhampton Road)

This four-wayunsignalized intersection consists ofRoute 66 (Westhampton Road) running in an east/west direction with Glendale Road approaching from the south and West Farms Road approaching from the north. The eastbound approach is 10 feet wide and the westbound approach is 14 feet wide. Directional flow on Route 66 is separated by a double yellow center line (D Y CL ). While the intersection is wide open and geometry is acceptable, there was no evidence of vehicle encroachment at the corners onto grassy areas. However, the City has reported that tractor trailer trucks ride over the curb when entering Glendale Road from Route 66 eastbound. If at some future day MassHighway improves Route 66, this intersection would only benefit from a geometry upgrade.

Existing Traffic Volumes

The existing landfill hours are Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday 7:00AM-4:00PM; Wednesday and Saturday 7:00AM to 12 noon. In order to obtain both the peak hours of the integrated solid waste management facility and the peak hours of the adjacent streets traffic counts were conducted at both intersections from 7:00-10:00 AMon Wednesday,April18,2000and2:00-5:00PMonFriday,April20, 2001. Traffic volumes were recounted on Thursday, November 15, 2001. The AM and PM peak hour traffic counts that revealed larger amount of site traffic was selected to be used for the analysis. To detennine whether the April and November traffic count data required a seasonal adjustment, the 2000 MassHighway weekday seasonal adjustment factors worksheet was reviewed. The MassHighway seasonal factors are based on statewide traffic data collection and are classified by roadway type. Group 6 (urban arterial, collectors and rural arterials) which classifies Glendale Road and West Fanns Road, was

Ref: P:\t l36\ll36rpt02.ac.wpd 5/02

Bruce Campbell & Associates Page 2

I I I -

• • -•

•

•

--

-

used to determine that April and November represents higher than average traffic conditions. Therefore, the traffic counts were not seasonally adjusted. The seasonal factor sheets can be found in the Appendix. The 2001 Existing peak hour traffic networks are presented in Figure 3.

Existing Peak Hour Conditions- Morning at Westhampton Road and Glendale Road

The peak hour traffic conditions in the morning hours at this location were detennined to occur from 7:00 AM to 8:00AM on November 15, 2001, the second day traffic counts were completed.

A total of 490 vehicles entered into the intersection at Westhampton Road and Glendale Road. Of the total number of vehicles the following summarizes the direction of travel. This data is also depicted schematically

in Figure 3.

• 191 vehicles - eastbound on Route 66 73 vehicles - westbound on Route 66 117 vehicles - northbound on Glendale Road

• 109 vehicles- southbound on West Farms Road

Truck activity was recorded at the intersection. For the traffic count, trucks are defmed as buses, single unit trucks, truck combinations, except light delivery trucks (vans). During the intersection AM peak hour of a total of35 trucks entered into the intersection at Westhampton Road and Glendale Road. This represents 7% of the total vehicular volume. Ofthe total number ofheavy vehicles, six were traveling eastbound on Westhampton Road, 11 weretravelingwestboundon Westhampton Road, 12 were traveling northbound on Glendale Road and six were traveling southbound on West Farms Road.

Existing Peak Hour Conditions -Morning at Glendale Road and Landfill Entrance

The peak hour traffic conditions in the morning hours at this location were determined to occur from 7:00 AM to 8:00AM on November 15,2001, the second day traffic counts were completed.

A total of227 vehicles entered the intersection at Glendale Road and the landfill entrance. Of the total number of trips recorded, 20 trips are attributable to trucks that used the landfill (12 in, 8 out). Ofthe total number of vehicles the following summarizes the direction of travel. This data is also depicted schematically in Figure 3.

27 vehicles entered into the landfill (21 from north on Glendale and 6 from south on Glendale 24 vehicles exiting the landfill ( 19 heading north on Glendale and 5 heading south on Glendale) 98 northbound (passing landfill entrance) 78 southbound (passing landfill entrance)

Based on these traffic counts, about 22.5 percent of the total vehicle volume at this intersection during the peak morning hour is related to the landfill. Of the total landfill traffic during the peak morning hour, 3 9 percent was truck traffic.

Ref: P:\1136\1136rpt02.ac.wpd 5102

Bmce Campbell & Associates Page 3

Truck activity was recorded at the intersection. During the intersection AM peak hour of a total of23 trucks entered into the intersection at Glendale Road/Landfill Entrance. This represents 10% of the total vehicular volume. Of the total number ofheavy vehicles, 11 were traveling southbound on Glendale Road ( l 0 into the site, 1 bypassing landfill), four were traveling northbound on Glendale Road (2 into the site, 2 bypassing landfill) and eight were leaving the landfill (1 turning left, 7 turning right).

Included in the number of trucks observed during the peak hour were tractor-trailers. During the AM peak hour, three tractor-trailers were observed traveling southbound on Glendale Road (2 into the site, 1 bypassing landfill), while none were observed on Glendale Road northbound or leaving the landfilL

Existing Peak Hour Conditions- Afternoon at Westhampton Road and Glendale Road

The peak hour traffic conditions in the afternoon hours at this location were determined to occur from 3:30 p.m. to 4:30p.m. on April20, 2001 the first day traffic counts were completed.

A total of 473 vehicles entered into the intersection at Westhampton Road and Glendale Road. Of the total number of vehicles the following summarizes the direction of travel. This data is also depicted schematically in Figure 3.

124 vehicles- eastbound on Route 66 129 vehicles- westbound on Route 66 136 vehicles- northbound on Glendale 84 vehicles- southbound on West Farms Road

Truck activity was recorded at the intersection. During the intersection PM peak hour of a total of seven trucks entered into the intersection at Westhampton Road and Glendale Road. This represents 1.5% of the total vehicular volume. Of the total number of heavy vehicles, one was traveling eastbound on Westhampton Road, two were traveling westbound on Westhampton Road, one was traveling northbound on Glendale Road and three were traveling southbound on West Farms Road.

Existing Peak Hour Conditions -Afternoon at Glendale Road and Landfill Entrance

The peak hour traffic conditions in the afternoon hours at this location were determined to occur from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00p.m. on April20, 2001, the first day traffic counts were completed.

A total of259 vehicles entered the intersection at Glendale Road and the landfill entrance: Of the total number of trips recorded, five trips are attributable to trucks that used the landfill (3 in, 2 out). Ofthe total number of vehicles the following smmnarizes the direction of travel. This data is also depicted schematically in Figure 3.

•

50 vehicles - entered the landfill ( 45 from the north and 5 from the south) 48 vehicles- exited the landfill ( 44 heading north on Glendale and 4 headed south on Glendale) 92 vehicles- northbound (passing landfill entrance) 69 vehicles - southbound (passing landfill entrance)

Ref: P:\1136\ll36rpt02.ac.wpd 5102

Bruce Campbell & Associates Page4

I I I -

• --•

•

-

•

-

-

Based on these traffic counts, about 3 7.8 percent of the total vehicle volume at this intersection during the afternoon morning hour is related to the landfilL Of the total landfill traffic during the peak afternoon hour,

5 percent was truck traffic.

Truck activity was recorded at the intersection. During the intersection PM peak hour of a total of nine

trucks entered into the intersection at Glendale Road/Landfill Entrance. This represents 3.5% of the total vehicular volume. Of the total number ofheavy vehicles, four were traveling southbound on Glendale Road (3 into the site, 1 bypassing landfill), three were traveling northbound on Glendale Road (all bypassing landfill) and two were leaving the landfill (both turning right). No tractor trailers were observed traveling

on Glendale Road during this traffic count.

Landfill Related Activity - Scale House Records

The City ofNorthampton provided detailed scale records that can be used to describe commercial vehicle trips that are attributed mainly to the landfill operation. Since the users of the residential drop-off recycling area do not travel over the scale, they are not included in the following discussion. The City of Northampton requires commercial loads to be weighed on the scale. The vast majority of commercial vehicles that are weighed are pick -up trucks, or other single body trucks, including some packer trucks. There are very few tractor-trailers that access the site, estimated by the City to less than 10 per year. The few tractor-trailers that do enter the site are typically delivering cover soils. No tractor trailers were observed entering/exiting the site during the traffic counts.

A review of scale records for November 2001 revealed that a total of about 1608 commercial vehicles were weighed on the scale. A breakdown of the average trucks per day is summarized below.

Table 1 Average Daily Number of Commercial Vehicles using the Landfill

Day Average Number of Trucks

Monday 84

Tuesday 85

Wednesday 52

Thursday 92

Friday 86

Saturday 35

Source: City ofNorthampton

As depicted in the table, on days the landfill is open the entire day, about 90 commercial vehicles enter and

exit the site. On Wednesday and Saturday when the landfill is open from 7:00 am to noon, about half the

number of commercial vehicles enter the site. In general, the city reports that ofthe commercial vehicles

that enter the site, 30% are pick -up trucks, 60% are singles and 10% are large trucks delivering top soiL

Ref: P:\ll36\1136rpt02.ac.wpd 5/02


A further review of scale house data for November 200 l, was perfonned to detennine the hourly distribution of commercial vehicle traffic using the landfilL The following table summarizes the distribution of conunercial vehicle by 'i2 hour intervals.

Table 2 Time Distribution of Commercial Vehicle Traffic

Hour Average Truck Count

7:00AM 5

7:30 4

8:00 5

8:30 4

9:00 4

9:30 5

10:00 5

10:30 5

11:00 6

11:30 4

12:00 PM 4

12:30 5

1:00 6

1:30 5

2:00 5

2:30 4

3:00 2

3:30 1

Source: City ofNorthampton

In a typical day, during any 'i2 hour interval, about 4-6 commercial vehicles can be expected to enter the

facility to use the landfill.

Daily Cover Deliveries

The majority oflarger trucks, (gross vehicle we1ght of30,000 pounds or more) entering the site are delivering daily cover soil for the landfill operation. The City maintains detailed records of incoming deliveries of cover soil. While the delivery of waste as described above occurs in a fairly consistent manner, the cover soil deliveries are more variable. Scale records from September 200 l to January 2002 were reviewed to detail the variability in the number of trucks to deliver soils. The following table presents infonnation on the number of trucks per month that deliver cover soil.



I I I --• • -•

•

•

•

-

Table3 Daily Cover Soil Deliveries- Larger Truck Usage

Month Total Trucks Daily Range Mean Mode Median

(per day) (per day) (per day)

September 98 1-26 5.4 1 1

October 169 1-25 7.4 1 5

November 94 1-12 4.7 2 4

December 211 1-35 10.6 2 3

January 114 1-24 5.4 1 3

Notes: 1) Mean: The average number of trucks delivering cover soil per day. 2) Mode: The most frequently occurring number of trucks per day delivering soil. 3) Median: The middle number of truck deliveries of soil per day.

·Source· Citv ofNorthamnton

Tills table indicates that approximately 100 to 200 trucks per month deliver cover soil. The daily range of truck varies from alowofonetruckperday, to ahighof35 trucks per day. A statistical reviewofthedata reveals that on most days only a small number of trucks deliver cover soils, as exhibited by the fact that the most frequently occurring number oftruck trips (mode) is one and two. In addition, the median number (middle) oftruck delivering soil through the five-month period varied from one to five trucks per day. In summary these numbers illustrate that on most days very few trucks are delivering soil to the site, but that on a limited number of other days the number of trucks is increased to about 20 or more per day. The main reason for this variation is that much of the cover soil is delivered from various types of construction projects, where excavations are completed in a limited amount of time and thus are delivered in a short amount of time at the landfilL

Sight Distance

Sight distances were checked in the field and appear to be adequate in both directions along Glendale Road

at the two existing site drives. Stopping sight distance is critical at a driveway so that if a vehicle enters the main road, there will be sufficient distance for an oncoming vehicle to stop in advance of the intersection.

Intersection Operations

HCM Methodology A level of service (LOS) analysis was conducted at each study area intersection

using the procedures outlined in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manua/ 1• The methodology forunsignalized

levels of service (A-F) was used and is based solely on delay. The delay is based on capacity which is

based on gap acceptance and intersection volumes. The LOS results utilizing the Highway Capacity Software (HCS) program are noted in Table4 below for the weekday AM and PM peak hours. The LOS

analysis worksheets and criteria for the study area intersections are included in the Appendix.

12000 H1ghway Capacity Manual; Transportation Research Board.

Ref: P:\1136\ll36rpt02.ac.wpd 5/02


Table4 2001 Existing Level of Service Analysis

AM Peak PM Peak Unsignalized Intersection

LOS Delay LOS Delay

Glendale Southbound Left A 8.0 A 7.5 Road/Landfill Entrance/Exit Westbound LefURight A 9.7 A 9.1

Glendale Eastbound Left A 7.5 A 7.4

Road/West Farms Westbound Left A 7.9 A 7.5

Road/Route 66 Northbound Left/Through/Right B 12.9 B 12.6 (Westhampton Road) Southbound Left/Through/Right B 13.2 B 12.4

LOS=Ievel of service, delay in seconds per vehicle

As seen from the results in Table4, the intersections are operating at acceptable levels of service A and

B during both the AM and PM peak hours.

Accident History

An accident data summary for the study area intersections was obtained from the Registry ofMotor Vehicle

files, maintained by MassHighway, for the years 1998, 1999 and 2000. Table 5 below shows the accident reported at the intersection ofRoute 66/W est Farms Road/Glendale Road. No accidents were reported

at the intersection of Glendale Road/Landfill Entrance. In addition, at the unsignalized intersection ofRoute

66/W est Farms Road/Glendale Road the crash rate was calculated to be 0.52 accidents per million entering

vehicles, below the Massachusetts average of 0.65 for unsignalized intersections.

TableS Accident Data Summary *

Total Angle Rear End

Route 66/West Farms Road/Glendale Road

1998 l 1

1999 1 1

2000 l

Total 3 I I

*Source: Massachusetts Highway Department


Head Other/ On Unknown

l

0 1

Property

1

1

Injury Fatality Crash Rate

1 0.52

l

2 0


I I I -• --•

•

•

•

-

2008 No BUILD CONDITIONS

2008 No Build Volumes

To adhere to Executive Office of Environmental Affairs/Executive Office of Transportation and Construction (EO EA/EOTC) guidelines for traffic studies, a future year condition must be analyzed. The guidelines suggest a 5-year horizon period (2006). However, build out of the integrated solid waste management facility will not occur until the year 2008. Therefore, instead of the year 2006, a 2008 future year was analyzed.

Generally, there are two components to the future year No Build condition-normal traffic growth and area background developments. Using historical data obtained from the MassHighway traffic volume book, it was noted that traffic counts nearby showed between 0-3% annual traffic growth. Therefore, a general background growth rate of3% per year for seven years was selected. The only known area project that is likely to increase traffic in the study area is the re-use of the Northampton State Hospital which is locally known as the Village at Hospital Hill on the Northampton State Hospital Campus. However, due to the distance between the projects, very little additional traffic is expected to travel through our study area. However, the background growth rate is assumed to take this additional traffic into account. This growth is anticipated whether or not the landfill expansion is constructed.

The 2008 No Build traffic volumes were developed by factoring up the existing traffic counts by 15.9% (3%/year compounded for seven years). The resulting 2008 No Build volumes are shown in Figure 4.

2008 No Build Level of Service Analysis

Level of service analyses were performed for the 2008 No Build conditions, with the same assumptions as the existing analysis. The LOS results are shown in Table 6.

Table 6 2008 No Build Level of Service Results

Unsignalized Intersection

Glendale Southbound Left Road/Landfill Entrance/Exit Westbound Left/Right

Glendale Eastbound Left

Road/West Farms Westbound Left

Road/Route 66 Nmihbound Left/Tlu·ough/Right (Westhampton Road) Southbound Left/Through/Right

LOS= level of service, delay in seconds per vehicle

Ref: P:\1136\ll36rpt02.ac.wpd 5/02

AM Peak

LOS Delay

A 8.1

A 10.0

A 7.6

A 8.0

B 15.0

c 15.3

PM Peak

LOS Delay

A 7.6

A 9.3

A 7.5

A 7.6

B 14.0

B 13.6

Bmce Campbell & Associates Page 9

Under the 2008 No Build analysis, the West Fanns Road southbound approach at Route 66 will operate at LOS C with 15.3 seconds of delay during the AM Peak Hour. The borderline between LOS Band C is 15.0 seconds of delay.

TRIP GENERATION, DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT

Trip Generation

Two sources of vehicle trip data were reviewed. Data provided by theN orthampton Integrated Solid Waste Management Facility was obtained and truck types and all activity was identified. In addition, the Institute ofTransportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation data was also reviewed. It was detennined that trip generation rates for transfer stations/landfill facilities in this data base are not available. In addition, since BC&A recorded actual activity at the site drive, we assessed the actual trip rates at the site. While with the expansion of the landfill facility, no new additional trips are expected as the facility will be designed to operate more efficiently and better separate commercial use from residential use. However, to show some impacts of a larger site, and to present a conservative assessment of the network under future operating conditions, additional trips were estimated based on the increase in acreage. These results are summarized in Table 7 below.

Table 7 Summary of Trips Generated by Proposed Expansion

Condition AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

In Out Total In Out Total

Existing Traffic Count 22 23 45 32 36 68

Projected New Trip Increase 7 8 15 10 12 22

Trip Distribution and Assignment

The trip distribution for the proposed development was based on an examination of existing traffic patterns and in discussion with the City on regional use ofthe site. The trip assignments are shown graphically in Figure 5.

2008 BUILD CONDITIONS

2008 Build Volumes

To obtain the2008 Build volumes, the new site generated trips for the proposed expansion were added to the 2008 No Build traffic volume networks. The resulting 2008 Build weekday AM and PM peak hour networks are shown in Figure 6.

Ref: P:\1136\ll36rpt02.ac.wpd 5102


I I I ,.. -• ... -•

•

•

2008 Build Level of Service Analyses

Level of service analyses were conducted for the 2008 Build conditions and are shown in Table 8.

Table 8 2008 Build Level of Service Results

AM Peak PM Peak Unsignalized Intersection

LOS Delay LOS Delay

Glendale Southbound Left A 8.1 A 7.6 RoadJLandfill Entrance/Exit Westbound Left/Right B 10.1 A 9.4

Glendale Eastbound Left A 7.6 A 7.5

Road/West Farms Westbound Left A 8.0 A 7.6

Road/Route 66 Northbound Left/Through/Right c 15.3 B 14.3 (Westhampton Road) Southbound Left/Through/Right c 15.6 B 13.8

LOS= level of service, delay in seconds per vehicle

The intersection LOS Build conditions show the Glendale Road northbound approach at the intersection of Glendale Road/West Farms Road/Route 66 (Westhampton Road) to increase the average delay by 0.3 seconds, degrading from LOS :8 with 15.0 seconds of delay to LOS C with 15.3 seconds of delay. The borderline between LOS Band LOS Cis 15.0 seconds.

- TRAFFIC IMP ACTS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The table below summarizes the increase in traffic due to the development. According to Table 8, peak hourtrafficvolumescanbeexpectedtoincreasebyl.8%-3.6%attheintersectionofGlendaleRoad!West Fanns Road/Glendale Road and by 5.6-7.4% at the intersection of Glendale Road/Landfill Entrance-Exit.

Table 9 Intersection Traffic Volume Increases Due to the Proposed Expansion

(Percent Change Between 2008 No Build and Build)

Intersection

Glendale Road/Landfill Entrance-Exit

Glendale Road/West Farms Road/Route 66 (Westhampton Road)

Ref: P:\1136\1136rpt02.ac.wpd 5/02

No Build

AM Peak PM Peak Hour Hour

267 297

595 559

Build %Increase

AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Hour

282

606

Hour Hour Hour

319 5.6% 7.4%

579 1.8% 3.6%


MITIGATION

As a result of the expansion of the integrated solid waste management facility, certain mitigative measures

are recommended to minimize the impacts of truck traffic and protect the residential neighborhood. Presently there are two site drives leading to the site, but only the most southerly is used for access/ egress.

To better accommodate the future expansion, the following is recommended:

• Re-design the site such that the northerly site drive be used for "commercial trucks only" (i.e. tractor trailers, packers, pickups etc.). Due to the existing comer radii, and the fact that the drive has a wider roadway with at its intersection with Glendale Road, it would better serve as the primary access/egress

for trucks, with only slight modifications. The southerly site drive should be designed forresidential drop

off only;

• Re-construct the norther! y site driveway such that the comer radii accommodate a WB-50 (tractor

trailers) and a Stop sign and Stop line be placed on the site driveway. Signing should be placed designating the respective drives for resident and truck use only;

• A publicity campaign should be instituted informing the uses of the facility that separate driveways are identified for respective use. This information, along with the proper signing noted above should be in place prior to full expansion of the facility;

• At the intersection of Glendale Road with West Farms Road/Route 66, upgrade the pavement markings and provide direction signing to the integrated solid waste management facility. With the use of the facility as a regional operation, improve trail-blazing with assist new outside users.

• Although not a part of a traffic mitigation plan, routine street sweeping should be performed along landfill access roads to control dust generated from vehicles accessing the site.

CONCLUSION

The City ofNorthampton is proposing to expand the Northampton Integrated Solid Waste Management

Facility utilizing the adjacent City-owned parcel (52 acres) to develop a solid waste landfill. The existing landfill will have an operational life until the end of2007. The proposed Phase 5landfill expansion will

provide an additional 10 years of disposal capacity. Access to the site is to remain the same, off Glendale

Road. The proposed expansion is expected to generate 15 new trips (7 in/8 out) during the AM Peak

Hour and 22 new trips ( 10 in/12 out) during the PM Peak Hour. With expansion, the northbound and

southbound approaches at the intersection of Glendale Road/West Farms Road/Route 66 (Westhampton

Road) will operate on the LOS B/C line during the AM Peak Hour, while all other movements at both

study area intersections will operate at LOS A orB during both peak hours.

Ref: P:\1136\1136rpt02.ac.wpd 5/02


I I I -• --•

•

-

•

B~C

&fA Not to Scale

TRANSFER FACILITY NORTHAMPTON, MA

Q - STUDY INTERSECTION Figure 1

SITE LOCATION MAP

2:·

~-

~.

r----------------------------------:------7--:-----: I ,

: ' I ' I

j

I I ~TIHG i ,C.lPPED, l..A.NDf1U

l .

/

\ ./,_'--........_=~~"

\

----::::.:::;;;:---~----------------------------------------~--- .... , /' _,---------~--- ... , i

/ l I _./ _..--, I I ..- ..- l I 1

" ..- I I I _.--' I I I

r" I I I

I I I

I I CTJV[ LANOTJU I .: 'FSTlff't.t<F.S >-<I i I I f I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

/ } I ' _.. / I I -~--- _.. / I

---------

-------

:s.-z __ _ /

/

---~-;:"~~~---::::-.-:.-.:?_..1---

I I

t

I

\

1

i I

/

"i ;;: c z j ,.. ~ z < ., z 0 ,.. ._

"' < l-a: 0 z

FIGURE 2

I "

10 w U)

<C: I( Q_·

(

o: w • UJ( o: Q_[

0 cr: Q_

(f)

L IXO << u..o f-IX (f) w 3::

vcnco \___ 16 N<D~ --37

ROUTE 66 Jtl ,20 ROUTE 66

41_) ')t( 140-- 10001 10, 1"-1'1

10~ \___ 19 EXISTING TRIPS 1"-N

tl ,-s IN = 27 LANDFILL

tr ENTRANCE/EXIT OUT = 24 TOTAL= 51

OCl<D en

w ..J

0 < 0 < z 0 w IX ..J

AM PEAK HOUR D

·--

(f)

L IXO << u._ 0 f- 0::: (f)

~

~a \___ 32 I'") <ON --72


6_) ')t( 90-- vnm 28, NOl~

OJ([) \___44 EXISTING TRIPS <Dv

tl ,4 LANDFILL

IN = 50

tr ENTRANCE/EX! T OUT = 48 TOTAL= 98

N([) en

w _J

0 < 0 < z 0 w IX ..J

PM PEAK HOUR D

* © Figure 3

2001 EXISTING AM AND PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES &

TRANSFER FACILITY Not to Scale NORTHAMPTON, MA

I (f)

:::2: ~0 <t:<t: u_o ~--~ I (f) w 3:

000 \_20 t')OON --46

ROUTE 66 )tl ,24 ROUTE 66

I 51_) 'tr 172-- OvtO 12, ~oov

10~ \_19 EXISTING TRIPS OlN

tl ,-s IN = 27 LANDFILL

tr ENTRANCE/EXIT OUT = 24 TOTAL = 51 • N(()

~

w _J

0 <t: 0 <t: z 0 w ~ _J

AM PEAK HOUR c.:>

(f)

~ 0::: 0 <t: <t: u_ 0 I- 0::: -(f) w 3:

ov \_39 t')f'N --as

ROUTE 66 )tl ,29 ROUTE 66

7_) 'tr 110-- I'OlN 31, NON

~

-1010

\_44 EXISTING TRIPS oov

tl ,4 IN = 50 LANDFILL

OUT = 48 tr ENTRANCE/EXIT TOTAL= 98 viO -~

~

w -lo <t:<t: 00 ~a::: _J

PM PEAK HOUR c.:>

* © Figure 4

2008 NO BUILD AM AND PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES &

TRANSFER FACILITY -Not to Scale NORTHAMPTON, MA

11~Rtv ..

(/)

::?: a:o <(<( u..o 1-a: (/) w 3::

\___ 1'1 --


---' 'ltr -- ~..q-~ 1' l{) \__6 NEW TRIPS

'" ,2 lN = 7 LANDFILL

ENTRANCE/EXIT OUT = 8 tr TOTAL= 15

N

w ._l

0 <( 0 <(

z 0 w a: ._l

AM PEAK HOUR 0

(/)

::::!' a:o <(<( u..o 1- a: (/) w 3::

\___ (!J --


---' 'ltr -- NI'N 2' m \___ 11 NEW TRIPS

'" ,1 LANDFILL

IN = 10

tr EN TRANCE/EX! T OUT = 12 TOTAL= 22

~

w ._l

0 <( 0 <(

z 0 w a: ._l

PM PEAK HOUR 0

* © Figure 5

AM AND PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION

& TRANSFER FACILITY

Not to Scale NORTHAMPTON, MA

I (/)

::2 o::o ~~ Lt.. a I f-0:: (/) w 3:

ono \.___ 20 !"lOON --46

ROUTE 66 )1\.... ,25 ROUTE 66

I -

51 __j )t( 172-- ~oor--

13, ~IXJV

-l()(l)

\.___ 25 EXISITNG NEW TOTAL

cnN TRIPS TRIPS TRIPS

1\.... '7 LANDFILL IN = 27 7 34

tr ENTRANCE/EX! T OUT = 24 8 32 TOTAL= 51 15 66

• --;:jiXl ~

w ....J

0 <( 0 <(

z 0 w 0:: ....J L:J

AM PEAK HOUR

(/)

::2 0:: 0 <(<( Lt.. 0 f- 0:: Vl w 3:

c.ov \.___ .39 l"li'--N --88


7__) )t( 110-- mc.ov 33, N:=N

-

l()v \.___55

EXISTING NEW TOTAL IXJl() TRIPS TRIPS TRIPS

tl '5 LANDFILL IN =50 10 60

tr ENTRANCE/EXIT OUT = 48 12 60 TOTAL= 98 22 120

vc.o ~

~

w ....J

0 <( 0 <(

z 0 w 0:: ....J 0

PM PEAK HOUR

* © Figure 6

2008 BUILD AM AND PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES &

TRANSFER FACILITY Not to Scale NORTHAMPTON, MA

Traffic Impact Study

NORTHAMPTON INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY

CITY OF NORTHAMPTON

Appendix

__...~=----- Bruce Campbell & Associates Transportation Engineers & Planners 38 Chauncy Street, Boston MA 02111 &A tel: 617-542-1199; fax: 617-451-9904 e-mail: [email protected]

May 2002

-

TRAFFIC VOLUME DATA

A

MASSACHUSETTS HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT· STATEWIDE TRAFFIC DATA COLLECTION

I 2000 WEEKDAY SEASONAL FACTORS * I • Note: These are weekday factors. The average of the factors for the year will not equal 1, as Weekend data are not considered.

FACTOR GROUP

GROUP 1 -WEST INTERSTATE

GROUP 2 - RURAL MAJOR COLLECTOR (R-5)

GROUP 3A- RECREATIONAL **(1-4) See below

GROUP 38- RECREATIONAL """(5) See below

GROUP 4- 1-495 INTERSTATE

GROUP 5 - EAST INTERSTATE

CROUP 6 - URBAN ARTERIALS, COLLECTORS & RURAL ARTERIALS (R-2, R-3)

GROUP 7- 1-84 PROXIMITY (STA. 17)



RECREATIONAL: (ALL YEARS)

"GROUP 3A:

I. CAP£ COD (ALL TOWNS)

2.PLYMOUTH(SOUTH OF RTUA)

7079,7080,7090,7091,7092,7093,7094,7095,7096,7097,71 OS, 71 7 8

3.MARTHA'S VINEYARD

4.NANTUCKET

**"'GROUP 38:

5.P£RMAN£NTS 2 & 189

I

I 066,1067, I 083,1084,1085,1086,1087,1088,1089,1090,1091,1092,

1093,1094,1095,1096,1097,1098,1099,1100,1101,1102,1103,1104,

1105,1106,1107,1108,1113,1114,1116

I

JAN

1.03

1.20

1 .37

1.36

1.14

1.08

1.07

1.31

1.05

1.21

FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL

0.97 0.96 0.92 0.91 0.89 0.89

1.13 1.12 1.03 0.93 0.90 0.86

1.29 1.23 1.09 0.96 0.87 0.76

1.28 1.28 1.13 0.99 0.91 0.75

1.06 1.02 0.97 0.92 0.87 0.82

1.02 1.00 0.96 0.93 0.90 0.89

1.03 1.00 0.96 0.92 0.90 0.91

1.28 1.16 1.10 0.97 0.87 0.90

1.02 1.00 0.91 0.90 0.89 0.91

1.16 1.06 1.03 _Q.94 -- 0.86 0.80

[ 2000 AXLE CORRECTION FACTORS I

ROAD INVENTORY FUNCTIONAL

CLASSIFICATION R-1 R-2 R-3 R-5 U-1

U-2 ,U-3 ,U-4 U-5 U-6

1-84

AXLE CORRECTION

FACTOR 0.93 0.97 0.97 0.98 0.93 0.97 0.99 0.98

0.70 Apply 1-84 factor to stations: 3290,3921 ,3929

I •

AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ! 0.90 0.91 0.92 0.96 0.96

0.89 0.94 0.95 1.06 1.08

0.77 0.94 0.99 1.10 1.15

0.75 0.99 1.03 1.12 1.1 5

0.81 0.91 0.91 1.01 1.01

0.89 0.93 0.93 0.96 0.98

0.91 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.97

0.89 0.99 1.08 1.11 1.26

0.86 0.90 0.91 0.91 0.88

0.79 0.89 0.93 1.02 1.04

I ROUND OFF - J

0 - 999 ............. 1 0

> 1,000 .......... 100

• - - -

-

TRAFFIC COUNTS USED IN NETWORKS

r

' W. Farms Road L~~-- Southbound

1

: I ! I App Start Lef ! Th I Ri l Pe

Time I t I ru I ght I ds Tot~

Bruce Campbell & Associates 38 Chauncy Street Boston MA 02111

Inc.

File Name : Route 66 am Site Code : 44444444 Start Date : 11/15/2001 Page No :2

Route 66 Westbound

Lef J Th I Ri I Pe t \ ru 1 ght / ds

App

Tota I

Lef t

Glendale I Northbound

I ; App I I Th Ri i Pe I . , Lef , ru ght 1 ds Tota .

1

. t i I ! I I

Route 66 I Eastbound

Th l R. il p 'I App I Int. ]

I I e . 'Tot I

ru ght 1 ds : Tota I ~I' . I , I .

Peak Hour From 07.00 AM to 09:45AM- Peak 1 of 1 lntersec 07:00AM

lion

Volume 16 69 24 6 115 20 37 16 0 73 8 70 39 0 117 41 14 10 0 191 496

0

Percent 13. 60. 20.

5.2 27. 50. 21. 0.0 6.8 59. 33.

00 21. 73. 5.2 0.0

9 0 9 4 7 9 8 3 5 3 07:30 5 22 7 0 34 4 5 6 0 15 3 17 16 0 36 10 48 0 59 144

Volume Peak 0.861

Factor High Int. 07:30AM 07:00AM 07:30AM 07:30AM Volume 5 22 7 0 34 5 16 3 0 24 3 17 16 0 36 10 48 0 59

Peak 0.84 i 0.76 0.81 0.80 Factor 6i 0 3 9

W. Farms Road Out In Total

CJ.m I 115] I 2421 l I

I I : 241 691 161 6j

Right Thru Left Peds

.J I 4 L

I

-~ 1-;:-1 ~ ~ ~ ;un I' .£9W )"Q'",:::__j 0 N 1--j . Q) I

~~1 ~j2 f- I I !-' I -m w.-North "'

• ~ I ~~--> --j •-::r I n ;u

~E-~ ~-i

2 ~ I I 0

111115/01 7:00:00 AM

I _,~ r~,~ 0 . ..-- ..c 11/15101 7:45:00 AM tr 0>-50 ~ty ~ jcars

I ::l>"->

... 0 '0--j 0 oltll 1 Heavy Vehicles -o U No 1"0 '"bj ~w ·"' JG. a_ en-

"'o

•-, i 1-+ l I Left Thru Right Peds

I 8! 701 39j 0: ! I

'· ----gg: ;---rn! I 2161 OUt -In- Total

Glendale i

I I I • -

• -•

-

•

-

Start Time

Factor 07:00AM 07:15AM 07:30AM 07:45AM

Total

08:00AM 4 14 5 08:15AM 1 13 1 08:30AM 7 14 6 08:45AM 2 13 4

Total 14 54 16

09:00AM 4 17 3 09:15AM 3 9 6 09:30AM 3 17 2 09:45AM 3 8 3

Total 13 51 14

Grand 43 174 54 Total

Apprch% 15.5 62.8 19.5 Total% 3.7 14.8 4.6

-


O!

Ol 15 4 1 0 2 17 6 ol 6 11 9 0 0 11 18 0 0 6 8 0 0 10 7 0 4 12 2 0 1 13 8 0 25 33 20 0 3 51 39

gi 4 6 0 0 1 9 2 7 10 3 0 0 18 6 3 7 3 0 1 8 4

0! 6 10 2 0 1 16 6 0/ 20 33 8 0 3 51 18

6 65 103 44 0 14 172 96

2.2 30.7 48.6 20.8 0.0 5.0 61.0 34.0 0.5 5.5 8.8 3.8 0.0 1.2 14.7 8.2

Inc.

File Name Site Code Start Date Page No

0 8 26 0 12 23 0 10 20 0 4 16 Oi 34 85

01 6 24 Or 8 14 O' 1 8 ol 7 14 0/ 22 60

0 97 285

0.0 24.2 71.1 0.0 8.3 24.3

:Route 66 am :44444444 : 11/15/2001 : 1

0 o' 102 1 0 106 3 0 91 1 0 80 5 O! 379

2

~I 78

1 85 0 57 1 oi 77 4 0/ 297

19 0 1172

4.7 0.0 1.6 0.0

I Bruce Campbell & Associates Inc. I

38 Chauncy Street

I Boston MA 02111 File Name :Route 66 am Site Code :44444444 Start Date : 11/15/2001 Page No : 1 • -Route 66

--,

I Ped'

Factor 07:00AM o:

I 07:15AM or • 07:30AM gl 07:45AM -Total Of

• 08:00AM 4 14 3 Oi 14 4 1 Ol 1 16 6 Oi 8 26 0 Oi 97 08:15AM 1 13 1

~I 6 7 8 0! 0 10 18 gj 10 23 0

~I 97

08:30AM 5 11 6 0 6 6 or 0 10 6 8 20 2 80 I

08:45AM 2 11 4 3 11 2 0[ 0 10 7 0[ 4 15 0 69 Total 12 49 14 ol 23 28 17 Of 1 46 37 Of 30 84 2 o: 343

09:00AM 3 12 3 gl 3 4 0 0 0 7 2

~I 6 23 2 o! 65

09:15AM 3 7 5 5 10 3 0 0 13 6 7 13 0 ol 72 09:30AM 1 12 2 oi 3 6 1 0 1 8 3 1 7 0 o' 45 09:45AM 3 6 3 Oi 3 8 2 0 1 13 5 o, 7 12 1 0 64

Total 10 37 13 0/ 14 28 6 0 2 41 16 o! 21 55 3 0/ 246

Grand 37 152 49 6 52 91 35 0 8 152 88 0 90 277 13 0 1050 Total Apprch% 15.2 62.3 20.1 2.5 29.2 51.1 19.7 0.0 3.2 61.3 35.5 0.0 23.7 72.9 3.4 00

Total% 3.5 14.5 4.7 0.6 5.0 8.7 3.3 0.0 0.8 14.5 8.4 0.0 8.6 26.4 1.2 0.0

W. Farms Road Route 66 Southbound Westbound

! App I Pe Pe i . • Lef

ds I Tot~' ds -lntersec 07:00AM

tion

Volume 15 66 22 6 109 15 35 12 0 62 5 65 35 0 105 39 13 8 0 185 461

8

Percent 13. 60. 20.

5.5 24. 56. 19. 0.0 4.8 61. 33. 0.0 21. 74. 4.3 0.0 8 6 2 2 5 4 9 3 1 6

07:30 5 21 7 0 33 4 5 5 0 14 2 16 15 0 33 10 47 0 0 57 137 Volume Peak 0.841

Factor High Int. 07:30AM 07:00AM 07:30AM 07:30AM Volume 5 21 7 0 33 3 15 2 0 20 2 16 15 0 33 10 47 0 0 57

Peak 0.82 0.77 0.79 0.81 Factor 6 5 5 1

-

-I I

Factor 07:00AM 07:15AM 07:30AM 07:45AM

Total

08:00AM 08:15AM 08:30AM 08:45AM

Total

09:00AM 09:15AM 09:30AM 09:45AM

Total

W. Farms Road Southbound Thr 1 Rig

U 1 ht

0 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 3 2

0 0 0 0 2 3 0 2 2 5

1 5 0 2 2 5 0 2 3 14

2 0 0 0 2

0 1 0 0

Grand 6 22 5

Total Apprch% 18.2 66.7 15.2

Total% 4.9 18.0 4.1

W. Farms Road Southbound


Ped Left s

1.0! 1.0

Oi 5

~I O' oi OJ

O!

1 0 0 1 2

1 2 0 3 6

0 4 0 1 5

2 0 1 2 5

0 1 2 0 3

0 0 2 0 2

0 13 12 9

0.0 38.2 35.3 26.5 0.0 10.7 9.8 7.4

Route 66 Westbound

o,

Ol

0

1 0 0 1 2

1 0 0 0

1 1 0 3 5

2 5 0 3

10

6 20

0 0 1 1 2

0 0 1 1 2

8

0.0 17.6 58.8 23.5 0.0 4.9 16.4 6.6

Glendale Northbound

Inc.


:Route 66 am :44444444

11/15/2001

OJ

0

0 2 2 0 4

0 1 0 0

7

: 1

Route 66

0 0 0 1

1 1 1 2 5

8

0 1 1 1 3

0 1 0 0

6

0.0 33.3 38.1 28.6 0.0 5.7 6.6 4.9

Route 66 Eastbound

O!

O' o' 0' ol Oi

O' ol o: 0 0/

0'

0.0; 0.0

8 12

7 8

35

5 9

11 11 36

13 13 12 13 51

122

I i I App I ' ; I ! App i i i I I App ! I

Start Lef Th Ri I Pe . Lef Th 'I Ri I Pe i ·[ Lef I Th ! Ri ! Pe . i Lef ,

1

.

Time 1 t ru ght ds Tot~ I t ru ght ds J Tot~ t J ru I ghl j ds J Tot~ I I,

App Pe Int. ds Tota Tota

I I Peak Hour From 07.00 AM to 09.45 AM -Peak 1 of 1

lntersec 09:00 AM tion

Volume 3 14 0

Percent 167 778 5.6 0.0

09:45 Volume

Peak Factor

0 2

High Int. 09:30AM

0 0

18 6 5 46. 38.

2 5

2 3 2

09:45AM

2 0 1 ~ 0.0

0 0 5 0

10 2 0 76. 15. 0 0

9 4 .

3 0

09:15AM

13 1 5 1 0 14. 71. 14. 00

3 4 3 .

4 0 2 0 0

09:15AM

I I I

7; 51

2 13

0.981

Volume 2 5 0 0 7 3 2 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 5 1 1 0 3 0.58

3 Peak 0.64 0.65 0.65

Factor 3 0 0

07:00AM n

Volume 21 88 0 0 Percent 19.3 80.7 0.0 0.0

07:45 6 23 0 0 Volume

Peak Factor

High lnt 07:30AM Volume 4 26 0 0

Peak Factor

~o ~ u E c t1!-z 0 z

~n Q I I


109 I 5 0 19 0 24 20.8 0.0 79.2 0.0

29 2 0 6 0 8

07:15AM 30 2 0 7 0 9

0.908 0.667

I Glendale Road

I Out In Total

' JMJ i 1091 i 213[ T

I I oj BBI 211 Oi

Ri?ht Thru Left Peds

1_j l L• \ ci

I

T North

1:1115101 7:00:00 AM

I 11115101 7:45:00 AM

I Cars i Heavy Vehides

1l T I-. Left Thru Right Peds

LJi[ B5l 61 oj I I

I

i 93: I '91 i c:J]±] Out In Total

Glendale Road

Inc.

0 0.0

0


85 6 0 93.4 6.6 0.0

33 2 0

: LFENTR-1 : 00000112 : 11/15/2001 :2

91 224

35 72

0.778

07:45AM 0 33 2 0 35

0.650

,~m ~ ::r-" i '0,

:I<D I ~ ~ ~ 1-::r I =

2fo' HJ m

~ _, ::>-

~ i ~ ~ ' ~i u ~i!

t::J

I I I • --• -•

-

-

Bruce Campbell & Associates Inc. 38 Chauncy Street Boston MA 02111 File Name : LFENTR-1

Site Code : 00000112 Start Date 11/15/2001 Page No : 1

Groups Printed- Cars - Heavy Vehicles Landfill Entrance/Exit Glendale Road

Westbound Northbound

Thru I I

Peds! Start Time Left Thru Right I Factor 1.0 1.0 1 0 i 1.0

07:00AM 8 18 11 2 07:15AM 3 21 23 1 07:30AM 4 26 18 1 07:45AM 6 23 33 2

Total 21 88 85 6

08:00AM 2 17 0 Oi 1 0 3 Oi 0 15 1

~I 39

08:15AM 7 18 0

~I 0 0 5 ol 0 22 0 52

08:30AM 4 11 0 0 0 6 gl 0 20 0 41 08:45AM 7 18 0 0 0 3 0 15 3 oi 46

Total 20 64 0 o! 1 0 17 ol 0 72 4 Ol 178

09:00AM 5 13 0 Ql 3 0 4 01 0 14 0 o! 39 09:15AM 4 14 0 g/ 1 0 6 01 0 15 1

~I 41

09:30AM 13 10 0 2 0 3 o, 0 9 0 37 09:45AM 6 11 0 o! 1 0 11 Oj 0 8 1 38

Total 28 48 0 o: 7 0 24 Ol 0 46 2 o' I 155

10:00 AM 5 5 0 0 1 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 23 Grand Total 74 205 0 0 14 0 66 0 0 209 12 0 580

Apprch% 26.5 73.5 0.0 0.0 17.5 0.0 82.5 0.0 0.0 94.6 5.4 0.0 Total% 12.8 35.3 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 11.4 0.0 0.0 36.0 2.1 0.0


38 Chauncy Street Boston MA 02111 File Name : LFENTR-1 I Site Code : 00000112

Start Date 11/15/2001 Page No : 1 --Glendale Road

I Northbound 1- '

Pedsi i Start Time I Right I I . Factor I 1.0 1.0 I I -07:00AM 0 0 36

07:15AM 0 0 48 • 07:30AM 0 Ol 49 07:45AM 0 ol 68 -Total 0 OJ 201

• 08:00AM 2 17 0 01 1 0 1

~I 0 15 1

~I 37

08:15AM 6 17 0 01 0 0 4 0 22 0 49 08:30AM 4 11 0 Oi 0 0 5 0 19 0 0! 39 08:45AM 5 14 0 oi 0 0 2 0 13 3 Oj 37

Total 17 59 0 oj 1 0 12 Oi 0 69 4 Oj 162

09:00AM 4 10 0 ol 3 0 3 01 0 12 0 o· 32 09:15AM 4 13 0 o! 1 0 3 0, 0 14 0 ol 35 I

oJ 09:30AM 9 10 0 Oi 1 0 2 Oi 0 9 0 31 ol

I

09:45AM 5 10 0 1 0 9 O! 0 8 0 0 33 Total 22 43 0 OJ 6 0 17 o) 0 43 0 0/ 131

10:00 AM 3 5 0 ol 1 0 4 0 0 6 0 ol 19 Grand Total 53 194 0 o' 12 0 45 0 0 201 8 o: 513

Apprch% 21.5 78.5 0.0 0.0 I 21.1 0.0 78.9 0.0 0.0 96.2 3.8 0.0 i Total% 10.3 37.8 0.0 oo I 2.3 0.0 8.8 0.0 0.0 39.2 1.6 0.0 i

Glendale Road Southbound

lntersectio -07:30AM n Volume 14 83 0 0 97 4 0 12 0 16 0 87 3 0 90 203 Percent 14.4 85.6 0.0 0.0 25.0 00 75.0 0.0 0.0 96.7 3.3 0.0

07:45 4 23 0 0 27 2 0 5 0 7 0 32 2 0 34 68

Volume Peak 0.746

Factor High Int. 07:30AM 07:45AM 07:45AM Volume 2 26 0 0 28 2 0 5 0 7 0 32 2 0 34

Peak 0.866 0.571 0.662 Factor


Site Code : 00000112 Start Date :11/15/2001 Page No : 1

r--- ' i

Right Peds i Right I Peds Int. i I =:=J Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 I 1.0!

07:00AM 3 0 01 1 gl 6 07:15AM 3 0 0: 0 9 07:30AM 2 0 Ol 1 o: 4 07:45AM 2 0 ol 0 oi 4

Total 10 0 0 0, 2 0 23

08:00AM 0 0 0 Oi 0 0 2 01 0 0 0 o: 2 08:15AM 1 1 0

~I 0 0 1 0 0 0 or 3 0,

oj 08:30AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 Ol 0 1 0 2 08:45AM 2 4 0 0 0 1 ol 0 2 0 0. 9

Total 3 5 0 Q! 0 0 5 01 0 3 0 o: 16

09:00AM 1 3 0 ~I 0 0 1 ~I 0 2 0 Ol 7 09:15AM 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 ol 6

I

09:30AM 4 0 0 0; 1 0 1 Oj 0 0 0 0' 6 09:45AM 1 1 0 oi 0 0 2 o! 0 0 1 0; 5

Total 6 5 0 0/ 1 0 7 0/ 0 3 2 01 24

10:00 AM 2 0 0 0' 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Oi 4 Grand Total 21 11 0 oi 2 0 21 0 0 8 4 o: 67

Apprch% I

o.o I 65.6 34.4 0.0 oo I 8.7 0.0 91.3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 Total% 31.3 16.4 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 31.3 0.0 0.0 11.9 6.0 00

• Glendale Road Northbound

App. Left Th J Righ 1 Ped App.! Int. i

Total ru I t i S! Total! Total

lntersectio 08:45AM

n Volume 7 8 0 0 15 1 0 6 0 7 0 5 1 0 6 28 Percent 46.7 53.3 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 85.7 00 0.0 83.3 16.7 0.0

08:45 2 4 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 9 Volume

Peak 0.778 Factor

High Int. 08:45AM 09:15AM 08:45AM Volume 2 4 0 0 6 0 0 3 0 3 0 2 0 0 2

Peak 0.625 0.583 0.750

Factor

Start left

Time Factor 1.0

02:00PM 5 02:15PM 2 02:30PM 5 02:45PM 7

Total 19

03:00PM 8 03:15PM 6 03:30PM 5 03:45PM 2

Total 21

04:00PM 6 04:15PM 7 04:30PM 8 04:45PM 4

Total 25

Grand 65

Total

Apprch% 27.

1

Total% 5.0

West Farm Road Southbound

Bruce Campbell & Associates 38 Chauncy Street

Boston, Massachusetts CJii~ !Name Phone Number: (617) 54~ode

Start Date Page No

Groups Printed- Unshifted - Bank 1 Route 66 Glendale Road

Westbound Northbound

: BCA 01-03 Noho Landfill 01 : 20200014 : 04/20/2001 : 1

I Route 66

Eastbound I Thr I Rig I Ped / App. Left I Thr I Rig I Ped ! App.

u ht s,Total 1 u ht siTotal left I Thr I Rig I Ped I App. J left I Thr I Rig I Ped I App. ~~

u ht s Total i u ht! s Total! Total 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.0i I 1.01 1.0 1 1.01 1.01 I 1 o I 10 I 1.o I 1.o i I I 11 1 0 17 3 16 4 0 23 6 14 4 0 24! 1 18 8 0

271 91

14 1 0 17 2 20 0 0 22 7 11 6 0 24J 0 17 7 0 24 87 10 0 0 15 6 14 6 0 26 6 18 3 0 271 1 12 9 0 22' 90 14 0 0 21 4 16 7 0 27 7 9 3 0 19 2 26 9 0 37 104

i 70 I 15 941 372 98 1 26 52 16 73 33 0 49 2 66 17 0 0 0 4

10 1 0 19 2 16 6 0 241

6 21 6 0 33 3 20 11 0 341 110 11 0 0 17 2 21 13 0 36 9 19 4 0 32 1 17 5 0 23 I 108 15 2 0 22 6 27 12 0 45 12 14 7 0 33 0 22 11 0 33 133 14 0 0 16 3 15 5 0 231 2 27 4 0 33 1 27 5 0 33 105 50 3 0 74 13 79 36 0 128 29 81 21 0 131 5 86 32 0 123 456

16 1 0 23 6 12 8 0 26 I 3 33 6 0 421 1 19 7 0 27 118 16 0 0 23 10 18 7 0 351 7 19 2 0 28 I 4 22 5 0 31 117 15 1 0 24 3 16 10 0 29 5 36 6 0 47 0 13 4 0 17 117 22 0 0 26 4 17 11 0 32 4 25 5 0 34 0 15 4 0 19 111 69 2 0 96 23 63 36 0 122 19 113 19 0 151 5 69 20 0 941 463

168 7 0 240 51 208 89 0 348 74 246 56 0 376 14 228 85 0 327 1291

70. 2.9 0.0

14. 59. 25. 0.0

19. 65. 14. 0.0 4.3

69. 26. 0.0

0 7 8 6 7 4 9 7 0 13.

0.5 0.0 18.6 4.0 16.

6.9 0.0 27.0 5.7 19.

4.3 0.0 29.1 1.1 17.

6.6 00 25.3 0 1 1 7

I I I --• -•

-

03:30PM on

Volume 20 61 3 0 84

Percent 23. 72.

3.6 0.0 8 6

03:30 5 15 2 0 22

Volume Peak

Factor High lnl 04:00PM Volume 6 16 0 23

Peak 0.91 Factor 3

-,-

ro~ <D

ij_j ~N ...J

'a

~ Fl m~~

1-~ E ~r- r-ro-0 - N.C a: .gr,

80 ' I Ia: ....

LJ~~

Left

25 19.

4

6


Boston, Massachusetts a2i1el Name Phone Number: (617) 542SttW9ode

Start Date Page No

: BCA 01-03 Noho Landfill 01 : 20200014 : 04/20/2001 :2

I I 72 32 0 129 24 93 19 0 136 6 90 28 0 124 i 473 55. 24. 0.0 17. 68. 14. 0.0 4.8

72. 22. 0.0 8 8 6 4 0 6 6

27 12 0 45 12 14 7 0 33 0 22 11 0 33 133

1 o.889 I

03:30PM 04:00PM I 03:30PM I 6 27 12 0 45 3 33 6 0 421 0 22 11 0 331 0.71 0.81 0.93

7 0 91

West Farm Road Out In Total

Cilll ~ I 2151

I l 3j 61j

I 20j oj

Right Thru Left Peds I l L~ ~...J

i t._g ~0 :y w s. -N North <D

-I ~-:Y

~ ~ ~.._,

H· :Js. !4/20/01 3:30:00 PM eN

~/20/01 4:15:00 PM ro

r m , .. m .... ::l>

~ ~-i Unshifted Bank 1 lJ No

(b .....__.__._; <nor 0. 0>-U> 0 ~

~-. i ,-t ' Left Thru Right Peds

I 241 93j 191 Oj !

I I 114! I 13t?J ~

Out In Total Glendale Road

I West Farm Road

Southbound Start j Left ! Thr j Rig I Ped I App. Time I I u j ht s Total

Factor! 1.01 1.0j 1.01 1.0! 02:00PM 5 11 1 0 17! 02:15PM 2 13 1 0 16 02:30PM 4 10 0 0 14 02:45PM 7 12 0 0 19

Total 18 46 2 0 66

03:00PM 8 9 1 0 181 03:15PM 6 11 0 0 171 03:30PM 5 15 1 0 21 03:45PM 2 14 0 0 16

Total 21 49 2 0 72

04:00PM 6 16 1 0 23! 04:15PM 7 15 0 0 22 1

04:30PM 8 14 1 0 23 04:45PM 4 22 0 0 26

Total 25 67 2 0 94

Grand 64 162 6 0 232 Total

Apprch% 27. 69. 2.6 0.0 6 8

Total% 5.1 12. 0.5 0.0 18.4 9


Boston, Massachusetts (Jii'lel Name : BCA 01-03 Noho Landfill 01 Phone Number: (617) 542S1ttffiode : 20200014

Start Date : 04/20/2001 Page No : 1

Groups Printed- Unshifted Route 66 I Glendale Road I Route 66 1

Westbound I Northbound I Eastbound I Left I Thrl Rig I Ped I App. j Left! Thr I Rig I Ped I App., Left I Thr I Rig I Ped I App.

. u ht s Total! I u ht s: Total u ht s I Total Int. I

Total 1.0 l 1.0! 1.0] 1.0! I 1.o I 1.o I 1.01 1.o 1 I 1.o, 1.01 1.01 1.01 I

3 16 4 0 231 6 14 4 0 241 1 18 8 0 27 91 2 19 0 0 21 I 7 10 5 0 22 0 17 7 0 24 83 6 14 5 0 251 6 18 2 0 261 1 11 8 0 20 85 4 15 7 0 26 7 9 2 0 18 2 24 8 0 34 97

15 64 16 0 95 I 26 51 13 0 90 I 4 70 31 0 105 i 356

2 15 6 0 23 6 21 6 0 33 3 19 11 0 33 107 2 20 12 0 34 9 18 4 0 31 1 15 4 0 20 102 6 27 12 0 45 12 13 7 0 32 0 21 11 0 32 130 3 13 5 0 21 2 27 4 0 33 1 27 5 0 33 103

13 75 35 0 123 29 79 21 0 129 5 82 31 0 118 442

6 12 8 0 26 3 33 6 0 42 1 19 7 0 27j 118 10 18 7 0 35 7 19 2 0 28 4 22 5 0 31 I 116 3 16 10 0 29 5 36 6 0 47 0 13 4 0 171 116 4 17 11 0 32 4 25 5 0 34 0 15 4 0 19 111

23 63 36 0 122 19 113 19 0 151 5 69 20 0 94! 461

51 202 87 0 340 74 243 53 0 370 14 221 82 0 317 1259

15. 59. 25. 0.0 20. 65. 14. 0.0 4.4 69. 25. 0.0 0 4 6 0 7 3 7 9

4.1 16. 6.9 0.0 27.0 5.9

19. 4.2 0.0 29.4 1.1 17. 6.5 0.0 25.2 0 3 6

I I I • -• • -•

-

•

-


Boston, Massachusetts ClZi~ !Name : BCA 01-03 Noho Landfill 01 Phone Number: (617) 542SitW9ode : 20200014


Start Left

Time Factor 1.0

02:15PM 0 1 0 0 1 I 0 1 0 0

~ I 0 1 1 0

!I 0 0 0 0 ~I 4

02:30PM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 5 02:45PM 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 3 7

Total 1 3 0 0 4 0 2 1 0 3, 0 1 3 0 4 0 3 2 0 5 16

03:00PM 0 1 0 0 61

0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 03:15PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 3 6

-03:30PM 0 0 1 0 1 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 3 03:45PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Total 0 1 1 0 2 0 4 1 0 5 0 2 0 0 2 0 4 1 0 5 14

04:15PM 0 0 0 1 I 0 0 0 0 ~I 0 0 0 0 ~I 0 0 0 0 Oi

1 I ' 04:30PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oi

Total 0 2 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 ol 0 0 0 0 ol 0 0 0 0 ol 2

Grand 6 0 al 0 6 2 0 8 0 3 3 0 6 0 7 3 0 10 32

Total ' I Apprch% 12. 75. 12. 0.0 0.0 75. 25. 0.0 0.0 50. 50. 0.0 0.0 70. 30. 0.0

5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total% 3.1 18. 3.1 0.0 25.0 0.0 18. 6.3 0.0 25.0 0.0 9.4 9.4 0.0 18.8 0.0 21.

9.4 0.0 31.3 8 8 9

I

I Glendale Road I I Southbound

I Start Time I Left I Thru I Peds J

I I

I Factor I 1.0 I 1.o I 1.o I 02:00PM 10 13 0 02:15PM 11 15 0 02:30PM 10 15 0 02:45PM 9 10 0

Total 40 53 0

03:00PM 13 12 0 03:15PM 12 14 0 03:30PM 12 26 0 03:45PM 8 16 2

Total 45 68 2

04:00PM 0 17 2 04:15PM 0 18 1 04:30PM 0 21 0 04:45PM 0 24 0

Total 0 80 3

Grand Total 85 201 5 Apprch% 29.2 69.1 1.7

Total% 13.2 31.3 0.8


Boston, Massachusetts Cl2i~ !Name Phone Number: (617) 54~ode

Start Date Page No

G P . t d U h"ft d 8 k 1 roups nne - ns 1 e - an Landfill Entrance

Westbound


Glendale Road Northbound i

App. Left J Right I Peds I App.l

Thru I I

Peds I App. Int. Total/ Right I Total I Total! Total

1.0 I 1.0 I 1.0 i 1.0! 1.0 I 1.0 I I I 23 1 10 0 11 17 1 1 19 53 26 0 9 0 9 18 1 2 21 56 25 1 11 0 12 15 2 0 17 54 19 1 11 0 12 21 0 3 24 55 93 3 41 0 44 71 4 6 81 218

25 0 9 0 9 21 2 0 23 57 26 0 13 0 13 16 1 1 18 57 38 0 10 0 10 14 1 4 19 67 26 4 12 0 16: 24 1 0 25 67

115 4 44 0 481 75 5 5 85 248

19 1 10 0 11 14 0 0 14 I 44 19 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 26 45 21 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 20 41 24 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 22 46 83 1 10 0 11 82 0 0 82 176

291 I 8 95 0 103 I 228 9 11 2481 642

45.31 7.8 92.2 0.0

16.0 I 91.9 3.6 4.4

I I

1.2 14.8 0.0 35.5 1.4 1.7 38.61

I I I • -• -•

•

I Start Time Peds 1

Intersection Volume 68 2 Percent 59.1 1.7

03:45 Volume 16 2 Peak Factor

High Int. 03:30PM Volume 12 26 0

Peak Factor

-


Boston, Massachusetts Cl2i1E1!Name Phone Number: (617) 54~ode

Start Date Page No

I 1151

4 44 0 48 75 8.3 91.7 0.0 88.2

26 4 12 0 16 24


5 5 5.9 5.9

1 0

85 248

25 67 0.925

I 03:45PM 03:45PM 38! 4 12 0 16 24 0 25

0.7571 0.750 0.850

Glendale Road Out In Total

CillJ CfiD ~ I I

I 681 451 zl I Thru Left Peds I I 4 I

.... .,.....--;)'

< •. ,..J

i L_

i 2 4~ ~~~ North _..,. ::J

c~~~~o~ ~/20/01 3:00:00 PM r /20/01 3:45:00 PM .... .::.. OJ ....

iU

Unshifted -u - g ~ ~~ro Bank 1 "'0 0 <Om

0>-

i r Thru Right Peds

I I

751 517

I c::m ~ c.IEtJ Out In Total

Glendale Road


Start Time Left j Thru I Peds j

Factor 1 1.o I 1.o I 1.0! 02:00PM 10 13 0 02:15PM 11 15 0 02:30PM 8 14 0 02:45PM 9 10 0

Total 38 52 0

03:00PM 11 12 0 03:15PM 11 14 0 03:30PM 12 25 0 03:45PM 8 16 2

Total 42 67 2

04:00PM 0 16 2 04:15PM 0 18 1 04:30PM 0 21 0 04:45PM 0 24 0

Total 0 79 3


Total% 12.8 31.8 0.8


Boston, Massachusetts Cf2i1€!11Name Phone Number: (617) 542S1Wmode

Start Date Page No

roups nnte - ns 1 e G P. d U h"ft d Landfill Entrance

Westbound


Glendale Road Northbound

!

I App., Total I Left I Right I Peds I App.,

Total I Thru I Right I Peds I App. I I Total I Int. Total,

I 1.0 I 1.0 J 1.o I l 1.0 I 1.0 I 1.0 I i 23 1 10 0 11 17 1 1 19 53 26 0 9 0 9 18 1 2 21 56 22 1 11 0 12 14 2 0 16 50 19 1 8 0 9 20 0 3 23' 51 9o I 3 38 0 41 I 69 4 6 79! 210

23 l 0 9 0 9 21 2 0 23 55 25 0 13 0 13 14 1 1 16 54 37 0 8 0 8 14 1 4 19 64 26 4 12 0 16 23 1 0 24 66

111 4 42 0 46 72 5 5 82 239

18 1 10 0 11 14 0 0 14/ 43 19 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 26 45 21 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 19 40 24 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 22 46 82 1 10 0 11 81 0 0 81 174

2831 8 90 0 981 222 9 11 242 i 623

45.41 8.2 91.8 0.0 I 91.7 3.7 4.5

38.81 1.3 14.4 0.0 15.7! 35.6 1.4 1.8

I I I •

•

•

-

•

•

Thru

Intersection Volume 67 2 Percent 60.4 1.8

03:45 Volume 16 2 Peak Factor

High Int. 03:30PM Volume 12 25 0 - Peak Factor


Boston, Massachusetts <l2i~ Name : BCA 01-03 Noho Landfill 02 Phone Number: (617) 542Sitt99ode : 12345678


Int. Total j

111 4 42 0 461 72 5 5 82 239 8.7 91.3 0.0 I 87.8 6.1 6.1

26 4 12 0 16 23 1 0 24 66 0.905

03:45PM 03:45PM 37 4 12 0 16 23 0 24

0.750 0.719 0.854

Glendale Road Out In Total

Cill.l ~ ~ I I

I 671 421 21 Thru Left Peds

I 4 y

i ~~0 ~ :0 c

North ~-1 -. ::r w ..... i R

I ~ r/20101 3:00:00 PM d~ t.i"~ r/20101 3:45:00 PM

Unshifted ~ I~ g a. -i m (1)0 <D~

w-

i r Thru Right Peds

I 721 51 5 i I

c::m~~ Out In Total

Glendale Road


Start Time Left I Thru I Peds

Factor 1.0 I 1.o I 1.0

02:30PM 2 1 0 02:45PM 0 0 0

Total 2 1 0

03:00PM 2 0 0 03:15PM 1 0 0 03:30PM 0 1 0 03:45PM 0 0 0

Total 3 1 0

04:00PM 0 0

04:30PM 0 0 0

Total 0 0


Total% 26.3 15.8 0.0


Boston, Massachusetts OZi~ !Name : BCA 01-03 Noho Landfill 02 Phone Number: (617) 542S11Mmode : 12345678


Groups Printed- Bank 1

I Landfill Entrance I Glendale Road I

Westbound I Northbound I App.!

Left I Right! Peds J

App. i Thru I Right I I App.! !

Total! I Total! Peds j Total! Int. Total i I 1.o I 1.0 I 1.o I I 1.0 I 1.o I 1.0 I I I

3 0 0 0 ~I 1 0 0 ~ I 4 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 4 3 0 3 0 3, 2 0 0 2 8

~I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 3

1 I 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 Oi 0 0 0 0: 1 0 0 1 1 4! 0 2 0 2/ 3 0 0 3 9

1 I 0 0 0 oj 0 0 0 Oj

Ol 0 0 0 ol 0 0 1 I

1 I 0 0 0 01 0 0 1 I 2

81 0 5 0

26: I

6 0 0

31.: I

19 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0

42.1 1 0.0 26.3 0.0 31.6 0.0 0.0

I I I • -

-•

-

•

-

I

SECTION Ill· TRAFFIC VOLUMES BY CITY/TOWN

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC STA. CITY/TOWN ROUTE/STREET LOCATION 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 I

S006 NORTHAMPTON BATES ST. NORTH OF NORTH ST. 2,900 S006 i S001 NORTHAMPTON BLISS ST. NORTH OF WILLOW ST. OVER. MILL RIVER. 2 900 '

S003 NORTHAMPTON BRIDGE RD. WEST OF NORTH ELM ST. 17 400 S003 2097 NORTHAMPTON BRIDGE ST. EAST OF MARKET ST. 13,066 13 000 12 300 10 800 2097 2093 NORTHAMPTON BRIDGE ST. EAST OF NORTH MAIN ST. 9,417 10 000 9 500 9,300 9 400 2093 S007 NORTHAMPTON BURTS PIT RD. EAST OF FLORENCE RD. 3,200 S003 NORTHAMPTON BURTS PIT RD. WEST OF FLORENCE RD. 2 300

2091 NORTHAMPTON CHAPEL ST. SOUTH OF WEST ST. - ~/0 3 700 3,400 3 400 3,500 2091 2221 NORTHAMPTON CLARK AVE. EAST OF NEW SOUTH ST. 450 410 540 520 530 2221 2095 NORTHAMPTON DAMON RD. EAST OF KING ST. 21,000 20,000 19600 21 200 2095 IS002 NORTHAMPTON DAMON RD. NORTH OF RTE. 9 16 957 17,000 16,500 S002 2089 NORTHAMPTON ELM ST. WEST OF NORTH ELM ST. -.~,,·. 6 200 6400 4 000 7 300 2089 S004 NORTHAMPTON FLORENCE RD. NORTH OF BURTS PIT RD. 5600 S005 NORTHAMPTON FLORENCE RD. SOUTH OF BURTS PIT RD. 6 900 8006 NORTHAMPTON FLORENCE RD. SOUTH OF RYAN RD. 4 300 2087 NORTHAMPTON FLORENCE ST. SOUTH OF SPRING ST. 11 000 8,800 9,100 9,400 9100 2087 2086 NORTHAMPTON FLORENCE ST. WEST OF RTE.9 4619 4 900 3 900 3,900 2 900 2086 S004 NORTHAMPTON HATFIELD ST. EAST OF NORTH ELM ST. 4,300 8004 S002 NORTHAMPTON HATFIELD ST WEST OF NORTH ELM ST. 3,400 S002 2096 NORTHAMPTON MAIN ST. WEST OF CENTER ST. 22 051 18 000 23 000 17,700 17 900 2096 S001 NORTHAMPTON NORTH ELM ST. NORTH OF HATFIELD ST. 1,600 S001 2090 NORTHAMPTON NORTH ELM ST. SOUTH OF BRIDGE RD. n~'l• 1 500 1 300 1,700 1,500 2090 SOD? NORTHAMPTON NORTH ST. EAST OF RTE.5 6,500 SOO? 2220 NORTHAMPTON PROSPECT ST. WEST OF STATE ST. 1 200 1 300 1 200 2220 S012 NORTHAMPTON RTE. 5 AT EASTHAMPTON TL. 9,200 8012 2098 NORTHAMPTON RTE. 5 NORTH OF DYKE RD. 17 000 16,000 18 000 21,600 19,400 2098 S010 NORTHAMPTON RTE. 5 NORTH OF KING ST. 20,000 S010 SODS NORTHAMPTON RTE. 5 NORTH OF RTE.I-91 RAMP 9,300 SODS 2092 NORTHAMPTON RTE. 5 SOUTH OF BARRED ST. 21 000 22 000 22 800 2092 8011 NORTHAMPTON RTE. 5 SOUTH OF NORTH ST. 14 BOO S011 S004 NORTHAMPTON RTE. 5 SOUTH OF RTE.I-91 RAMP 14 000 S004 0011 NORTHAMPTON RTE.5&10 0.8 km SOUTH OF HATFIELD T.L. 10 447 10110 10334 12 027 10,684 11 039 10 852 11 003 11 083 10,765 0011 S001 NORTHAMPTON RTE. 9 EAST OF DAMON RD. 33,674 S001 2211 NORTHAMPTON RTE. 9 SOUTH OF WILLIAMSBURG T.L. 9 719 9 000 11,000 10000 2211 0011 NORTHAMPTON RTE. 10 & 5 0.8 km SOUTH OF HATFIELD T.L. 10447 10 110 10 334 12 027 10 684 11 039 10,852 11 003 11 083 10,765 0011 2088 NORTHAMPTON RTE. 66 WEST OF GROVE ST. .lj.. "1,/, 3 600 3 200 4,300 2088 2425 NORTHAMPTON RTE.I-91 BTWN. RTE.9 & DAMON RD. 20158 20000 19,000 22,000 26 532 27,060 28,488 2425 2436 NORTHAMPTON RTE.I- 91 BTWN. RTES.5 & 9 30 000 33 000 34 000 41 853 44 838 46,437 2436 2405 NORTHAMPTON RTE.I-91 NORTH OF KING ST. INTERCHANGE 22 912 25 000 32 200 33615 33 719 34 926 2405 S002 NORTHAMPTON RYAN RD. WEST OF FLORENCE RD. 5,800 2085 NORTHAMPTON SPRING ST. SOUTH OF ARCH ST. 1 300 1.700 1,500 2085 2219 NORTHAMPTON STATE ST. NORTH OF PROSPECT ST. 6 800 5,000 7 900 9400 8 700 2219 S009 NORTHAMPTON SUMMER ST. (ONE-WAY]_ WEST OF KING ST. 2,200 5009 soo8~ t-JORIJj,A,MPTQI'L ~~- _jAIQQDMON_T_RIL__~ -~~~-~ NORTfiQF]'JQ8TH §L_~---------~ ~ -~· '~ 200 soo8

SECTION Ill PAGE 1 of 1 CITY/TOWN

TRAFFIC COUNTS NOT USED IN NETWORKS

&

I I I • -

-•

-

•

-

City/Town: Northampton, MA

Job No.: 1136 Count Date: 4/18/01 File: 0

I Bruce Campbell & Associates, Inc.

Traffic Volume Summary Route 66/West Farm Road/Glendale Road Total Vehicles (Passenger Car &H.V.)

MAJOR- 1 MINOR- 1 MAJOR- 2 MINOR- 2 ROUTE 66-EB ROUTE 66 WB GLENDALE NB --r.-;W7.:E~s==T~F:-::A~R-=-M~::-:R::-::D==-=ss=-------,------

Time L T R L T R L T R L T R 0 End 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I Total

06: 15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 --- 0 0 0 -- o· 0 0 0 0 0 06:30AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tota14

07:00AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:15AM 4 17 0 2 5 0 0 8 4 2 3 1 0 47 47 07:30AM 8 24 1 5 9 2 0 8 2 2 10 2 0 72 119 07:45AM 15 35 2 2 2 3 1 9 9 4 16 3 0 102 221 08:00AM 6 41 2 9 4 6 1 13 12 3 25 6 0 129 349 08:15AM 4 29 0 4 2 2 0 11 8 3 13 6 0 83 385 08:30AM 4 21 1 4 9 1 0 17 9 2 9 4 0 81 394 1* 08:45AM 4 21 2 5 14 4 0 3 9 4 11 2 0 80 373 09:00 AM 4 26 1 1 1 0 4 0 6 6 1 6 2 0 69 313 09:15 AM 8 45 3 2 17 8 0 12 10 4 15 2 0 125 356 09:30 AM 2 11 2 1 8 1 0 1 0 3 3 13 2 0 56 330 09:45AM 4 17 2 0 9 4 0 10 2 1 12 3 0 64 314 10:00 AM 5 10 0 2 6 3 0 15 4 0 10 0 0 56 301 --l

~Hifffft:r--· r&JQl~1iMfigytf:'<:}~;.:%:±i·J:\;$tJS~;$m:y~~M::::~/:i:::.::Jif~"'l~~R:Jif®1\:R~tiiri\0X~i?I~~

ROUTE 66 EB ROUTE 66 WB GLENDALE NB WEST FARM RD SB

~~1LO_~ R 12 13 Total

36 13 62 20 0 394 --

L T~L T ~L T 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 30 126 5-· 19 17 13__ 2 - 49

ERR '-----

Volume

6:00-7:00 AM 6:15-7:15 AM 6:30-7:30 AM 6:45-7:45 AM 7:00-8:00 AM 7:15-8:15 AM 7:30-8:30 AM 7:45-8:45 AM 8:00-9:00 AM 8:15-9:15 AM 8:30-9:30 AM 8:45-9:45 AM 9:00-10:00 A

GLENOLD.WK4

City/Town:

Job No.: Count Date: File:

Northampton, MA

1136 4/18/01

0

Bruce Campbell & Associates, Inc. Traffic Volume Summary Route 66/West Farm Road/Glendale Road Passenger Cars Only

ROUTE 66 EB ROUTE 66 WB GLENDALE NB WEST FARM RD SB --·-··-Time I L T R L T R L T R L T R

f=- End _____ :!____ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 -~-0- 11 12 13 I Total 06:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06:30AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

T_gtal4

07:00AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 07:15AM 4 17 0 2 5 0 0 4 2 2 1 0 46 46 07:30AM 6 23 1 5 6 2 0 2 2 10 2 0 66 113 07:45AM 15 35 2 2 2 3 1 9 4 16 2 0 101 213 08:00AM 6 41 2 5 4 5 1 12 3 23 4 0 120 333 08:15AM 4 29 0 4 2 2 0 6 3 12 6 0 77 364 08:30AM 4 21 1 3 9 1 0 9 2 9 4 0 80 378 1* 08:45 AM 4 21 2 5 13 4 0 8 4 9 2 0 76 354 09:00 AM 4 26 1 1 10 4 0 6 1 4 2 0 64 298 09:15AM 6 45 3 2 17 8 0 10 4 15 2 0 122 343 09:30 AM 2 1 0 2 1 6 1 0 13 2 0 53 315 09:45AM 4 17 0 9 4 0 10 3 0 62 301 10:00 AM 4 9 1 3 1 289

~M?Bl~~illti!):r8708:Es7:;$0A&t$o!A'NF%·it::c:%;SYi;'s®1¥#$)J'B#~@ffi'@mf.®.ttit:i;ij(!;:T)@i:?/7Jfi"tfgJ£i _____________ --l

ROUTE 66 EB ROUTE 66 WB GLENDALE NB

R L T ~L T 3 4 5 6 7 8

5 15 1 7 12 --- 2 46

L T 1 2

Volume 30 126

WEST FARM RD SB R L T R 9 10 11 12 13

35 13 59 17 0 Total

378


GLENOLD.WK4

I I I I I -I I---

City/Town: Job No.: Count Date: File:

Northampton, MA

1136 4/18/01

0

I J Bruce Campbell & Associates, Inc.

Traffic Volume Summary Route 66/West Farm Road/Glendale Road Heavy Vehicles Only

ROUTE 66 EB ROUTE 66 WB GLENDALE NB WEST FARMRD SB Time I L T R L T R L T R L T R o End 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Total

06: 15 AM 0 -0-- 0 0 0 0 -- 0 0 0 -- 0 0 0 0 0 06:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06:45AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total4

07:00AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:15AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 07:30AM 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 6 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 8 08:00AM 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 9 16 08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 5 20 1* 08:30AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 16 08:45AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 4 19 09:00AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 4 15 09:15AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 13 09:30AM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 15 09:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 13

0 1 0 0 0 3 121

~el~klfi9:4ff0s;B~5~T1$';;AM::J:)!:/I%I\0%~~1lft~ifi~f:llti~$f%08?si::?S\>~;~t1,!~ _____ _ --------·

ROUTE 66 EB ROUTE 66 WB GLENDALE NB WEST FARM RD SB

Volume ~ T R I L T R I L T R I L T R ~

1 -~

1 3

0 4

3 5

2 6

1 7

0 8

4 9

1 - 1 0

0 11

3 12

3 13

0 I Total

20 I


GLENOLD.WK4

City/Town:

Job No.: Count Date: File:

Northampton, MA

1136 4/18/01

0

Bruce Campbell & Associates, Inc. Traffic Volume Summary Glendale Road/Landfill Entrance Total Vehicles (Passenger Car &H.V.)

MAJOR -1 MINOR -1 MAJOR- 2 MINOR- 2 -- ·-----LANDFILL WB GLENDALE NB GLENDALE SB 0

Time L T R L T R L T R left ""' right in left out right ou End 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Total

06:15AM 0 0 0 0 0~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06:30AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06:45AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:00AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:15AM 5 0 0 1 0 17 0 2 26 0 0 0 0 0 46 07:30AM 1 0 0 0 3 1 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 23 07:45AM e-. 0 0 2 0 17 1 2 20 0 0 0 0 0 43 08:00AM 1 0 0 0 20 1 2 24 0 0 0 0 0 48 08:15AM 2 0 2 0 12 1 3 11 0 0 0 0 0 31

I 08:30AM 5 0 8 0 17 0 5 14 0 0 0 0 0 49 08:45AM 2 0 4 0 9 01 1 14 0 0 0 0 0 30 09:00AM 0 0 0 0 10 01 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 18 09:15AM 0 0 3 0 9 0 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 26 09:30AM 1 0 5 0 5 0 4 15 0 0 0 0 0 31 09:45AM 0 0 3 0 6 2 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 19 10:00 AM 0 0 2 0 10 0 2 9 0 0 0 0 0 23

--··-< 0 ·· ...•.• 135 .· .•. 6 .· .. 0 ·· .... ·· 0 > <0 - 0 Q i< .. ·. 387 l= ~ot81 I 1.3 0 31 28 174

--

ll\M Peak Hour: ----'T30-8:30AM ~-·-·--··--- . ' ...

Oyerc:lll Peak HourFactor O.ST

LANDFILL WB GLENDALE NB GLENDALE SB 0

I 10 11 12 13 0l Total

0 0 0 171 ~ T R I

L T ~ 3i L T R

2 3 4 5 7 8 9 Volume --H 0 66 13 69

ERR t

I I I I I

l I Total4 -- .

0 46 69

111 160 145 171 159 129 123 1

105 94 99

*

6:00-7:00 A 6:15-7:15 A 6:30-7:30 A 6:45-7:45 A 7:00-8:00 A 7:15-8:15 A 7:30-8:30 A 7:45-8:45 A 8:00-9:00 A 8:15-9:15 A 8:30-9:30 A 8:45-9:45 A 9:00-10:00

GLEN.WK4

I I---

i Bruce Campbell & Associates, Inc.

City/Town: Northampton, MA Traffic Volume Summary Job No.: 1136 Glendale Road/Landfill Entrance Count Date: 4/18/01 Passenger Cars Only File: 0

LANDFILL WB ---

GLENDALE NB GLENDALE SB 0 Time

I L T R L T R L T R left in right in left out right ou

End 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Total II Total4 06:15AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06:30AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06:45AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:00AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00-7:00 A 07:15AM 0 0 0 0 14 0 2 26 0 0 0 0 0 42 42 6:15-7:15 A 07:30AM 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 20 62 6:30-7:30 A 07:45AM 0 0 1 0 17 0 1 19 0 0 0 0 0 39 101 6:45-7:45 A 08:00AM 1 0 0 0 20 1 1 24 0 0 0 0 0 47 148 7:00-8:00 A 08:15AM 0 0 2 0 12 0 2 11 0 0 0 0 0 27 133 7:15-8:15 A 08:30AM 3 0 3 0 16 0 4 13 0 0 0 0 0 40 152 * 7:30-8:30 A 08:45AM 0 0 3 0 9 0 1 14 0 0 0 0 0 27 140 7:45-8:45 A 09:00AM 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 18 111 8:00-9:00 A 09:15AM 0 0 2 0 9 0 3 10 0 0 0 0 0 24 108 8:15-9:15 A 09:30AM 1 0 4 0 5 0 3 15 0 0 0 0 0 29 98 8:30-9:30 A 09:45AM 0 0 1 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 14 85 8:45-9:45 A 10:00 AM 0 0 0 0 10 0 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 19 86 9:00-10:00

Total .•.•.•...•...• 5

-----

IAt~-·fPeakHour: _ __7:30·8:30AM .overaiJP~akHourfactor ·"--'·· io,&L

LANDFILL WB GLENDALE NB GLENDALE SB 0 L T

~ 61 L T

~ 1j L

rss~~ 1 2 4 5 7 11 12 13 ol Total

Volume I 4 0 0 65 9 0 0 1.52

GLEN.WK4

City/Town: Northampton, MA

JobNo.: 1136 Count Date: 4/18/01 File: 0

·- ---- ~-- --·-LANDFILL WB

Bruce Campbell & Associates, Inc.

GLENDALE NB

Traffic Volume Summary Glendale Road/Landfill Entrance Heavy Vehicles Only

GLENDALE SB 0 Time L T R L T R L T R left in End 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

r==o ~·~AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 b 0 0 0 AM 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 AM 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 AM 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 AM 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 AM 2 0 4 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 AM 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 AM 0 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 AM 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

-. ~- ·-

~ 8 0 14 0 4 5 9< 2 0 0

-----------Overall Peak Hour Factor rt.:tvfreak'Hour: 7:30•8:30 AM

"~~~~-~----

LANDFILL WB GLENDALE NB GLENDALE SB 0

10 ---0

L T R I L T R I L T ·----:=-R----; ~~1- 2 3 . 4 5 6 . 7 8 9

4 0 5 0 1 2 4 2 ·-----!

L_ Volume 0

I I I

right in left out right ou 11 12 13

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 Oj 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ll 0 0 0 ·. 0

11 12 13 0 0 0

I I

Total 0 0 0 0 4 2 4 1 4

10 3 0 2 2 5 3

.·42

-

Total 19

Total4

0 4 6

11 12 12 19 18 17 15 8

10 13

*

6:00-7:00 A 6:15-7:15 A 6:30-7:30 A 6:45-7:45 A 7:00-8:00 A 7:15-8:15 A 7:30-8:30 A 7:45-8:45 A 8:00-9:00 A 8:15-9:15 A 8:30-9:30 A 8:45-9:45 A 9:00-10:00

GLEN.WK4

I---


Site Code : 15200101 Start Date : 11/15/2001 Page No 1

[_--, Glendale Southbound

~tart Time I I Thr 1 Rig Ped Ped i Int. I

Left J ' Left Left Total! u: ht s, u Si

- Factor I 1.o I 1.0 1 1.0 1.0 I 1.0 1.0 1.0! 1.0 ~ 02:00PM 2 20 0 o: 1 0 o: 0 01 33 02:15PM 5 16 0 Oi 0 0

g\ 0

~I 42

02:30PM 4 15 0 oi 2 0 0 48 02:45PM 9 11 0 ol 1 0 0 53

Total 20 62 0 0 4 0 o, 0 .176

03:00PM 4 6 0 ~I 0 0 4 0 0 14 0 Oj 0 0 0 Oi 28 I

03:15PM 4 9 0 1 0 1 0 0 9 0

gj 0 0 0 0! 24

03:30PM 7 21 0 ol 0 0 6 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 o! 55 03:45PM 5 12 0 oi 2 0 8 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 ol 49

Total 20 48 0 0! 3 0 19 0 0 66 0 O! 0 0 0 oj 156

04:00PM 0 25 0 o! 2 0 5 0 0 12 1 Oi 0 0 0 gl 45 04:15PM 0 22 0

gJ 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 ol 0 0 0 47

04:30PM 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 ~I 0 0 0 0' 49 I

04:45PM 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0; 50 Total 0 98 0 ol 2 0 5 0 0 85 1 o! 0 0 0 Oi 191

Grand 40 208 0 oi 9 0 47 0 0 213 6 0 0 0 0 0 523 Total

Apprch% 16.1 83 9 0.0 0.0; 16.1 0.0 83.9 0.0 0.0 97.3 2.7 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total% 7.6 39.8 0.0 0.0! 1.7 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 40.7 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

- I Glendale ; LF Entrance/Exit Glendale i i Southbound i Westbound Northbound i Eastbound '

i I i App I i i App ! I . : App I i I . ! ' App i lnt l Start 1 lef Th · Ri

1

Pe I . Lef Th Ri: Pel Lef Th 1 R1 Pe j . i Lef l Th R1 ! Pe • . I T t . ' Time I t ru : ght ds Tot~ I t ru ght I ds J Tota t

1 ru'ght dsiTotal tj ru[ght ds:Total

0 ~~ i I : : I : I I

Peak Hour From 02:00 PM to 04:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 lntersec 03:30PM I tion Volume 12 80 0 0 92 4 0 19 0 23 1 0 80 0 81 0 0 0 0 0 196

Percent 13. 87. 0.0 00

17. 00

82. 0.0 1 o.o 98.

1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 4 6 8

03:30 '

Volume 7 21 0 0 28 0 0 6 0 6 0 21 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 55

Peak

I 03:45PM

0.891 Factor

High Int. 03:30PM 04:15PM 1:45:00 PM Volume 7 21 0 0 28! 2 0 8 0 10 0 25 0 0 25

Peak 0.82 i 0.57 0.81 Factor 1 i 5 0


38 Chauncy Street Boston MA 02111 File Name : LFENTR-2 I Site Code : 15200101

Start Date : 11/15/2001 Page No 1 -

-·----·· Grou[Js Printed- Heavy Vehicles • LF Entrance/Exit Glendale

Westbound ' Northbound Eastbound I

Ped j Left I Thr; Rig Ped l ' Thr Rig

1

Ped i Left Thr j Rig 1 Ped! Left: u Si U; ht sl I ui ht s I u; ht I

1.0! 1.0 !1.QT 1.0 i 1.0 1.o I 1.0 I 1.0 I ': ':r:l 'g!11t 0 Ol 0 0 2 o! 0 0 4 0

~I 0 0 1 of 0 1 0 o, 0 0 0 0 4 -0 1 0 2 Oj 0 0 0 OJ 0 0 0 0 4

0 0 0 0 Oi 0 1 o o I o o o o 4 0 0\ 1 0 5 Oj 0 2 0 0\ 0 0 0 0\ 16

03:00PM 0 0 0 Ol 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ol 0 0 0 O! 0 • 03:15PM 1 1 0 ol 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 o/ 0 0 0 Oi 6 03:30PM 0 1 0 oi 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 O' 0 0 0 O' 4 03:45PM 0 0 0 oj 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 ol 0 0 0 ol 2

Total 1 2 0 O! 1 0 3 0 0 4 1 0\ 0 0 0 0\ 12

04:00PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Oi 0 0 0 ol 2 ol

I 04:15PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Oi 2 04:30PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o' 0 0 0 oi 0 04:45PM 0 0 0 0· 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 ol 0 0 0 oi 2

Total 0 2 0 O\ 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0\ 0 0 0 0[ 6

Grand 9 4 0 o: 2 0 8 0 0 10 ol 0 0 0 0 34

Total Apprch% 69.2 30.8 0.0 0.0. 20.0 00 80.0 0.0 0.0 90.9 9.1 0.0 i 0.0 00 0.0 0.0

Total% 26.5 11.8 0.0 0.0 l 5.9 0.0 23.5 0.0 0.0 29.4 2.9 0.0 l 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

I I Glendale I

LF Entrance/Exit Glendale ! I Southbound Westbound Northbound I Eastbound

I

App : • I I I App ' i I App' i 1 App Int. Start Lef Th Ri Pe . "'' Th R! I Pe I . Lef Th Ri i Pe . ' I Pe Lef

1

Th 1

Ri Tota Time t ru ght ds Tota j t 1 ru ! ght I ds Tot~ t ru I ght I ds ! Tot~ t ru I ght ds Tota

I I i I

Peak Hour From 02.00 PM to 04.45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 lntersec 02:00PM

tion Volume 8 0 0 0 8 1 0 5 0 6 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 16

Percent 10 0.0 00 0.0 16. 0.0

83. 0.0 0.0 10

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 3 0.0 02:45

3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Volume

Peak 1.000 Factor

High Int. 02:45PM 0230 PM 0215 PM 1:45:00 PM Volume 3 0 0 0 3 1 0 2 0 3 0 1 0 0 1

Peak 0.66 0.50 0.50 -Factor 7 0 0

--


Inc.

; _j Glendale LF Entrance/Exit Glendale ! Southbound i Westbound Northbound r-- 1- i i I i App I i App ! I l

Start II Lef i Th ~ Ri I Pe i Lef Th Ri Pe . Lef

1

Th : Ri I Pe Time

1

t i ru : ght ds J Tot~ t ru I ght ds Tot~ j t ru I ght I ds

Peak Hour From 02:00PM to 04:45PM- Peak 1 of 1 lntersec

tion Volume

Percent

03:30 Volume

Peak Factor

High Int. Volume

Peak Factor

03:30PM

12 83 0 0 95 5 0 12. 87.

0.0 0.0 19.

0.0 6 4 2

7 22 0 0 29 0

03:30PM 03:45PM 7 22 0 0 29 2 0

0.81 9

1~-----·-·----

21 0 26 0 84 80.

0.0 0.0 8

98. 8

7 0 8 0 22

04:15PM 9 0 11 : 0 26

0.59 i 1 !

Glendale Out In Total

1 105j ~ c::1QQ] I

I

' ol 831 121 o! Right Thru Left Peds

~J I i ~~ ...

i North

1

11/15/01 3:30:00 PM ! 11/15/01 4:15:00 PM I Cars I Heavy Vehicles

i -+ ~l ! :

Left Thru Right Peds ol 84! s=m

i 881 : 851 i----:r73l Out In . Total

Glendale

0

1.2 0.0

0 0

0 0

I App


: LFENTR-2 : 15200101 : 11/15/2001 :2

Eastbound i 1

Lef Tota

1 t

I' i

Thi f Ri Pe ru ght ds

App ~~ lnt.l

T t · Tota i

0 ~ lj

85 0 0 0 0 0 206

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

22 0 0 0 0 0 59

0.873

1:45:00 PM 26

0.81 7


38 Chauncy Street

I Boston MA 02111 File Name : LFENTR-2 Site Code : 15200101 Start Date : 11/15/2001 Page No : 1 -

Groups Printed- Cars - Heavy Vehicles • I Glendale I

LF Entrance/Exit Glendale I Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound

Start Time I Left i Thr! R~~ I Pe~ I Left Thr J Rig I Ped Left I Thr I Rig I Ped L ft i Thr! Rig! Ped!~ ui u i ht s u ht -~ ~ul ht s I Total Factor I 1.0 I 1.0 I 1 o I 1.0 I 1.0 1.0; 1.0 I 1.0 1 o I 1.01 1011.0 1-·1.0! 1.01 1.0 i 1.0 i

02:00PM 4 20 0 Of 1 0 7 Qi 0 4 1 0. 0 0 0 01 37 02:15PM 7 16 0 0' 0 0 7 0 0 15 1 0! 0 0 0 o: 46 -02:30PM 5 15 0 o! 3 0 8 O' 0 21 0 o; 0 0 0 Oi 52 02:45PM 12 OJ 1 ol I I

11 0 0 6 0 24 3 Oi 0 0 0 0! 57 Total 28 62 0 Ol 5 0 28 ol 0 64 5 ol 0 0 0 Ol 192

• 03:00PM 4 6 0 o: 0 0 4 Q! 0 14 0 oj 0 0 0 oj 28 I

oJ 03:15PM 5 10 0 0' 1 0 2 0 11 1 Oi 0 0 0 Qi 30 03:30PM 7 22 0 oi 1 0 7 OJ 0 22 0 ol 0 0 0 0 59 I o! 03:45PM 5 12 0 o: 2 0 9 0: 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 51

Total 21 50 0 0! 4 0 22 o: 0 70 1 Oi 0 0 0 0 168

04:00PM 0 26 0 o: 2 0 5

~I 0 13 1 Ol 0 0 0 0 47

04:15PM 0 23 0

~I 0 0 0 0 26 0 ol 0 0 0 0 49

04:30PM 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 oJ 0 0 0 0 49 04:45PM 0 22 0 0 0 0 Oi 0 30 0 0; 0 0 0 0 52

Total 0 100 0 ol 2 0 5 0: 0 89 1 Q! 0 0 0 0 197

Grand 49 212 0 0 11 0 55 0: 0 223 7 0 0 0 0 0 557 Total Apprch% 18.8 81.2 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 83.3 0.0 0.0 97.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total% 8.8 38.1 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 9.9 0.0 0.0 40.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0

-

-

-

I W. Farms Road I Southbound i I

I Start i Lef I Th

I App I

t' ! Time 1 t ru ght ds Tota !

i I I '---


Route 66 Glendale Westbound j Northbound

Inc.


: ROUTE6-2 :00000000 : 11/15/2001 :2

! Route 66 I i Eastbound ;

lef ·I I App [ ! . ! I App I

Th R1 . Pe I . lef j Th l R1 : Pe I . , lef ru , ght I ds Tot~ : t ru I ght I ds Tot~ j t

Th R1 : Pe . ; Tota I : I App I '"' ru ' ght / ds

1

Tot~ I 1 J t

Peak Hour From 02:00 PM to 04:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 lntersec 03:30PM

tion Volume 13 76 39 0 128 23 96

Percent 10. 59. 30.

00 17. 73.

2 4 5 7 8 04:15

3 23 15 0 41 5 32 Volume

Peak Factor

High Int. 04:15PM 04:15PM Volume 3 23 15 0 41 5 32

Peak 0.78 Factor 0

10 130 6 65

7.7 0.8 6.3 67.

7

3 0 40 14

03:30PM 3 0 40 2 17

0.81 3

391 761 131 oj Right Thru Left Peds

~J l 4

i North

11/15/01 3:30:00 PM 11/15/01 4:15:00 PM

Cars :Heal!)' Vehicles

~- i ,-• Left Thru Right Peds

6i 65! 25 1 oj

! \ 106\ '. 96i \ 2@

Out In Total Glendale

25 26.

0

8

7

I ! i

I

0

0.0

0

0

96

23

26 0.92

3

24 79 21. 71.

8 8

7 19

03:45PM 6 28

7 0 110 464

6.4 0.0

0 0 26 130

0.892

4 0 38 0.72

4


38 Chauncy Street

I Boston MA 02111 File Name : ROUTE6-2 Site Code : 00000000 Start Date 11/15/2001 -Page No : 1

Start Time Pe~ I Left I Thr i I U i

Factor 1.0 Toi1.0! 02:00PM 0 4 11 02:15PM 1 7 13 02:30PM 0 9 12 02:45PM 0 7 14 o: 0! -

Total 1 I 27 50 ol Oi

• 03:00PM 5 9 9 ol 2 16 8 0 1 13 4 Oj 6 17 0 0! 90 03:15PM 8 12 8 ol 3 20 3 0 0 9 6 0· 8 13 1 0 91 03:30PM 3 22 7 Ol 10 13 2 0 2 17 7 o! 7 18 1 0 109 03:45PM 3 15 6 ol 4 30 4 1 1 16 7 o: 6 28 4 0 125

Total 19 58 30 Oi 19 79 17 1 4 55 24 Di 27 76 6 ol 415

04:00PM 4 16 11 01 4 21 1 0 2 18 3 0 4 14 2 0 100 04:15PM 3 23 15

~I 5 32 3 0 1 14 8 0 7 19 0 0 130

04:30PM 3 21 10 11 14 2 0 2 14 8 0 4 10 1 0 100 04:45PM 8 23 8 5 25 1 0 1 18 8 0 12 11 1 0 121

Total 18 83 44 ol 25 92 7 0 6 64 27 0 27 54 4 0 451

Grand 54 201 103 71 221 39 17 181 75 0 78 194 15 0 1251

Total Apprch% 15.0 56.0 28.7 0.3 21.4 66.6 11.7 0.3 6.2 66.3 27.5 0.0 27.2 67.6 5.2 0.0

Total% 4.3 16.1 8.2 0.1 5.7 17.7 3.1 0.1 1.4 14.5 6.0 0.0 6.2 15.5 1.2 00

-

-

Bruce Campbell & Associates Inc. 38 Chauncy Street Boston MA 02111 File Name : ROUTE6-2

Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/15/2001 Page No : 1

~I W. Farms Road

Southbound

~Time\ Left i Thr I Rig I Ped i Left I Ped I Int. i

: I u! ht I si I u: sl Total i Factor i 1.0 1.0 I 1.0 I 1.0 I 1.0! 1.0! 1.0

02:00PM 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 7 02:15PM 0 2 1 0 0 0 o, 9 02:30PM 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 6 02:45PM 1 0 1 0 1 0 o: 5

Total 4 4 3 ol 2 0 0/ 27

03:00PM 1 0 0 Oi 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 Oi 0 1 0 ~I 2 03:15PM 0 1 0 Oi 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 oj 1 2 1 9 03:30PM 0 2 1 o! 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 01 1 0 0 01 7 03:45PM 0 0 0 ol 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 ol 0 0 0 0, 2

Total 1 3 1 oj 1 1 0 ol 1 4 2 o; 2 3 1 ol 20

04:00PM 1 1 0

~I 0 0 1 o: 0 0 0 Oi 1 0 0 Oi 4 I

oi o! 04:15PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I o' ol ·04:30PM 0 1 1 0 0 0 o: 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

04:45PM 0 0 0 ol 0 0 0 O: 1 1 0 o! 0 0 0 o! 2 Total 1 2 1 o: 0 0 0 1 1 0 Oj 1 0 0 0: 8

Grand 6 9 5 0 3 5 0 2 9 3 0 4 7 ol 55 Total

Apprch% 30.0 45.0 25.0 0.0 33.3 11.1 55.6 0.0 14.3 64.3 21.4 0.0 33.3 58.3 8.3 0.0 i Total% 10.9 16.4 9.1 0.0 5.5 1.8 9.1 0.0 3.6 16.4 5.5 0.0 7.3 12.7 1.8 0.0;

W. Farms Road Route 66 Glendale Route 66

• i I Southbound L Westbound Northbound Eastbound I I ' I I App i .: i i I App ! I App I I App Int. I

Start I Lef Th I R1 Pe . l Lef Th ' Ri • Pe' Lef Th Lef Th Ri Pe 1 . Tota, ' ds Tota I t ! ru , ght ! ds Tota t g~~ l ~: j Tot~ t ght I ds I Tot~ Ttme t ru , ght ru ru jl I I ' I I i ' I i I I I ,

I I Peak Hour From 02:00 PM to 04:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1

lntersec 02:00PM tion

Volume 4 4 3 0 11 2 0 4 0 6 0 4 1 0 5 1 4 0 0 5 27

Percent 36. 36. 27. 0.0 33.

0.0 66. 0.0 0.0 80. 20.

0.0 20. 80. 0.0 0.0 4 4 3 3 7 0 0 0 0

02:15 0 2 0 3 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 9 Volume Peak 0.750

Factor High Int. 02:30PM 02:00PM I 02:00PM 02:15PM Volume 3 1 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 21 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2

Peak 0.68 o 7~ I 0.62 0.62 Factor 8 5 5

I l ' I I ' i I

~--·

l W. Farms Road

Southbound \ . ' Thr! Rig I I Start Trme I Left

ul ht I 1 Factor: 1.0 1.0 I 1.0 I

02:00PM 3 17 6 02:15PM 3 15 9 02:30PM 4 12 5 02:45PM 3 12 6

Total 13 56 26

03:00PM 4 9 9 03:15PM 8 11 8 03:30PM 3 20 6 03:45PM 3 15 6

Total 18 55 29

04:00PM 3 15 11 04:15PM 3 23 15 04:30PM 3 20 9 04:45PM 8 23 8

Total 17 81 43

Grand Total

48 192 98

Bruce Campbell & Associates Inc. 38 Chauncy Street Boston MA 02111

Grou[>s Printed- Cars Route 66

I Glendale

Westbound Northbound Ped Left J Thr I R~~ ~ Ped j Left I Thr I Rig I Ped

u ht s s U 1 . S,

1.0 1.o 1 1.or 1.0: 1.0! 1.0 1 1.0 I 1.o I 1.o i 0 4 11 3 0 0 8 1 or 1 7 13 1 Oi 2 13 6 0 0 8 12 3

01 3 19 6 0

0 6 14 4 0 2 18 10 0 1 25 50 11 0 7 58 23 0

or 2 16 8 0 1 13 4 o: I I

01 3 19 3 0 0 8 4

~I 01 9 13 2 0 1 16 7 01 4 30 4 1 1 14 7 0! 18 78 17 1 3 51 22 ol

0 4 21 0 0 2 18 3 Q! 0 5 32 3 0 1 14 8 ol 0 11 14 2 0 2 14 8 0 0 5 25 1 0 0 17 8 0 0 !, 25 92 6 0 5 63 27 0

I 68 220 34 15 172 72 0


: ROUTE6-2 : 00000000

11/15/2001 : 1

Route 66 l I

Left I I

1.o I 1 4 6

12 23

6 7 6 6

25

3 7 4

12 26

74

Eastbound

Th~ I 1.0 l

7 16 18 19 60

16 11 18 28 73

14 19 10 11 54

187

Rig JFi8clT ht I s I T

Int. i

otal i . 1.o 1 1.0 I

2 1

~ o 1 63 0 1 91

0 2 5

Q I 96

o 1 108 o 1 358

0 0, 88 0 o• 82 1 0 102 4 oi 123 5 Oi 395

2 or 96 0 oj 130 1 Of 98 1 O! 119 4 0 443

14 o! 1196

Apprch% 14.2 56.6 28.9 0.3 21.1 68.1 10.5 0.3 5.8 66.4 27.8 0.01 26.9 68.0 5.1 oo: Total% 4.0 16.1 8.2 0.1 5.7 18.4 2.8 0.1 1.3 14.4 6.0 0.0 i 6.2 15.6 1.2 0.0.

W. Farms Road Route 66 Glendale Route 66 i Southbound 1 Westbound Northbound Eastbound I ! App ! I App ! App I I

: App I '"'I I

Start i Lef i Th Ri Pe Lefl Th ; Ri Pe Lef Th Ri Pe I . Le~ I Th i Ri Pe · ' · . ·; Tota

Time! t: ru ght: ds Tota ti ru ght ds Tota t ru ght ds I Tot~ ru j ght ds i Tota 1 1 I j i I I i I i

Peak Hour From 02:00PM to 0445 PM- Peak 1 of 1 lntersec

03:30PM lion

Volume 12 73 38 0 123 22 96 9 128 5 62 25 0 92 22 79 7 0 108 451

Percent 9.8 59. 30.

0.0 17. 75.

7.0 0.8 5.4 67. 27.

0.0 20. 73.

6.5 0.0 3 9 2 0 4 2 4 1

04:15 3 23 15 0 41 5 32 3 0 40 14 8 0 23 7 19 0 0 26 130

Volume Peak 0.867

Factor High Int. 04:15PM 04:15PM 03:30PM 03:45PM Volume 3 23 15 0 41 5 32 3 0 40 1 16 7 0 24 6 28 4 0 38

Peak 0.75 i 0.80 0.95 0.71 Factor Oi 0 8 1 '

I I I -• -•

-

-

-

LANDFILL OPERATIONS DATA

.. Date 02/23/02 City of Northampton, MA

Page 1 Time 01:12:32 PM

1:'::-:_":c:/Timc: .7\.n ::1. J_y sis Report ~J= L~a period 0~/01/2001 - 02/23/2002

Sites 02 - 02

-----------------T 0 T A L---------------- ------------------A V E R A G E------------------, ~ . , . r . • . , ::-.:ur '."o:;;LiclE.S Cou;,c_ Volume ;.;,;.i.~ht Minutes on Site Count Volume Wei\ilht

- ..._,._ .__f.; o '- L o o ·- ·- J,

09/06/01 Thursday 86 9 0 333.58 12 0 0 3.88 09/07/01 Friday 104 13 0 361.57 12 0 0 3.48 09/08/01 Saturday 60 8 0 109.30 12 0 0 1. 82 09/10/01 Monday 86 15 0 372. 13 11 0 0 4.33 09/11/01 Tuesday 86 15 0 276.53 13 0 0 3.22 09/12/01 Wednesday 46 3 0 132.82 12 0 0 2.89 09/13/01 Thursday 91 6 0 311.94 13 0 0 3.43 09/14/01 Friday 96 16 0 906.32 10 0 0 9.44 09/15/01 Saturday 33 15 0 68.98 12 0 0 2.09 09/17/01 Monday 122 8 0 1199.41 10 0 0 9.83 09/18/01 Tuesday 89 31 0 241.79 13 0 0 2. 72 09/19/01 Wednesday 46 9 0 150.94 12 0 0 3.28 09/20/01 Thursday 100 5 0 320.64 12 0 0 3.21 09/21/01 Friday 62 6 0 183.19 12 0 0 2.95 09/22/01 Saturday 22 1 0 53.56 15 0 0 2.43 09/24/01 Monday 100 26 0 440.57 12 0 0 4.41 09/25/01 Tuesday 97 16 0 337.23 13 0 0 3.48 09/26/01 Wednesday 44 3 0 172. 91 12 0 0 3.93 09/27/01 Thursday 102 13 0 310.29 14 0 0 3.04 09/28/01 Friday 107 13 0 518.45 12 0 0 4.85 09/29/01 Saturday 29 1 0 34.55 11 0 0 1.19 10/01/01 Monday 103 16 0 637.48 10 0 0 6.19 10/02/01 Tuesday 101 3 0 586.01 12 0 0 5.80 10/03/01 Wednesday 52 4 0 370.04 10 0 0 7.12 10/04/01 Thursday 97 6 0 557.94 11 0 0 5.75 10/05/01 Friday 91 12 0 304.59 11 0 0 3.35 10/06/01 Saturday 34 5 0 103.04 10 0 0 3.03 10/08/01 Monday 49 14 0 298.32 10 0 0 6.09 10/09/01 Tuesday 101 14 0 463.56 10 0 0 4. 59 10/10/01 Wednesday 64 4 0 325.08 11 0 0 5.08 10/11/01 Thursday 88 13 0 566.23 11 0 0 6.43 10/12/01 Friday 88 6 0 508.49 12 0 0 5.78 10/13/01 Saturday 43 3 0 109.78 13 0 0 2.55 10/15/01 Monday 91 16 0 458.16 11 0 0 5.03 10/16/01 Tuesday 89 4 0 391.48 12 0 0 4.40 10/17/01 Wednesday 53 7 0 161.63 12 0 0 3.05 10/18/01 Thursday 86 7 0 283.69 12 0 0 3.30 10/19/01 Friday 86 9 0 212.28 11 0 0 2.47 10/20/01 Saturday 32 3 0 74.65 11 0 0 2.33 10/22/01 Monday 83 10 0 268.59 12 0 0 3.24 10/23/01 Tuesday 82 16 0 294.68 13 0 0 3.59

• I r 1 I • - - -

I I I Date 02/23/02 City of Northampton, MA

Page 2 Time 01:12:32 PM

~~ ~...,..., /m~:rr-·"' :,, - • ',,. • ••• - ,. ' "'A ' ,,. ""..nCtlysi:~ Pcport

:-__.r: Lhe perio<.l 02/01/2001 - 02/23/2002 Sites 02 - 02

-----------------T 0 T A L---------------- ------------------A V E R A G E------------------- : ;,~'. ~ :_._;.. ... '. .: .:.. :.. - Cot.:;.~ 'W...1.. ........ 1-' ~-;\.:.:. ·:. ~

10/24/01 Wednesday 40 4 0 133.29 11 0 0 3.33 10/25/01 Thursday 122 30 0 1066.51 12 0 0 8.74 10/26/01 Friday 101 23 0 952.97 10 0 0 9.44 10/27/01 Saturday 31 3 0 102.78 13 0 0 3.32 10/29/01 Monday 109 11 0 874.03 12 0 0 8.02 10/30/01 Tuesday 84 5 0 454.40 12 0 0 5.41 10/31/01 Wednesday 60 3 0 223.62 12 0 0 3.73 11/01/01 Thursday 92 9 0 658.79 13 0 0 7.16 11/02/01 Friday 98 2 0 553.73 11 0 0 5.65 11/03/01 Saturday 31 4 0 90.64 11 0 0 2.92 11/05/01 Monday 110 13 0 67 4. 61 11 0 0 6.13 11/06/01 Tuesday 95 17 0 396.28 11 0 0 4.17 11/07/01 Wednesday 60 14 40 203.66 14 0 1 3.39 11/08/01 Thursday 108 36 0 372.77 11 0 0 3.45 11/09/01 Friday 78 19 0 279.08 10 0 0 3.58 11/10/01 Saturday 33 8 0 74.97 11 0 0 2.27 11/12/01 Monday 59 12 0 283.25 11 0 0 4.80 11/13/01 Tuesday 94 23 0 281.47 11 0 0 2.99 11/14/01 Wednesday 46 20 0 125.90 12 0 0 2.74 11/15/01 Thursday 82 29 0 273.66 11 0 0 3.34 11/16/01 Friday 88 34 0 290.75 11 0 0 3.30 11/17/01 Saturday 32 4 0 44.00 11 0 0 1. 38 11/19/01 Monday 87 21 0 266.69 13 0 0 3.07 11/20/01 Tuesday 76 18 0 231. 4 7 11 0 0 3.05 11/21/01 Wednesday 53 22 0 151.55 12 0 0 2.86 11/23/01 Friday 77 10 0 228.21 12 0 0 2.96 11/24/01 Saturday 43 6 0 91.97 10 0 0 2.14 11/26/01 Monday 79 27 0 242.70 12 0 0 3.07 11/27/01 Tuesday 74 41 0 239.63 13 1 0 3.24 11/28/01 Wednesday 48 37 0 124.12 11 1 0 2.59 11/29/01 Thursday 85 9 0 492.70 12 0 0 5.80 11/30/01 Friday 88 27 0 359.40 11 0 0 4.08 12/01/01 Saturday 25 6 0 51.81 10 0 0 2.07 12/03/01 Monday 74 26 0 229.59 11 0 0 3.10 12/04/01 Tuesday 63 19 0 263.15 12 0 0 4.18 12/05/01 Wednesday 37 6 0 150.98 10 0 0 4. 08 12/06/01 Thursday 93 22 0 828.34 10 0 0 8.91 12/07/01 Friday 99 24 0 1029.86 8 0 0 10.40 12/08/01 Saturday 33 2 0 40.25 12 0 0 1. 22 12/10/01 Monday 73 6 0 809.29 9 0 0 11.09 12/11/01 Tuesday 54 6 0 184.74 11 0 0 3.42

De1b;:, 02/23/02 City of North~mpton, MA

P8'J9 3 Time 01:12:32 PM

,,..,.... . ...------.1,.-~- n r- .,_ .-.. ...... J ..

I •'"' •. ~. • ' ' .J. ,_ ~- ,._, 4 • ·~·· .L.

"c...:. ~!.-:; per.i.od 02/C<c/2001 - 02/23/2002

I Sites 02 - 02

-----------------~ n T A L---------------- ------------------A V E R A G E------------------

" . 12/12/01 Wednesday 49 4 0 149.32 11 0 0 3.05 12/13/01 Thursday 70 13 0 280.50 12 0 0 4.01 12/14/01 Friday 64 16 0 152.84 12 0 0 2.39 12/15/01 Saturday 18 1 0 22.81 11 0 0 1. 27 12/17/01 Monday 56 9 0 192.65 13 0 0 3.44 12/18/01 Tuesday 52 3 0 215.78 14 0 0 4.15 12/19/01 Wednesday 37 14 0 122.47 14 0 0 3.31 12/20/01 Thursday 103 14 0 899.54 11 0 0 B. 73 12/21/01 Friday 96 12 0 935.19 9 0 0 9.74 12/22/01 Saturday '\ _) 0 'J 24 2 0 35.32 9 0 0 1. 47 12/24/01 Monday~ - 34 6 0 140.80 12 0 0 4.14 12/26/01 Wednes ay 76 11 0 809.69 8 0 0 10.65 12/27/01 Thursday 80 19 0 496.09 10 0 0 6.20 12/28/01 Friday 67 12 0 190.96 12 0 0 2.85 12/29/01 Saturday 28 2 0 46.20 10 0 0 1. 65 12/31/01 Monday_.,..-\'"' 49 4 0 114. 65 11 0 0 2.34 01/02/02 Wednesday 64 18 0 223.90 11 0 0 3.50 01/03/02 Thursday 80 33 0 378.27 13 0 0 4.73 01/04/02 Friday 82 9 0 317.37 10 0 0 3.87 01/05/02 Saturday 30 5 0 63.30 10 0 0 2.11 01/07/02 Monday 41 11 0 17 3. 97 10 0 0 4.24 01/08/02 Tuesday 46 11 0 175.19 12 0 0 3.81 01/09/02 Wednesday 39 4 0 489.20 8 0 0 12.54 01/10/02 Thursday 67 14 0 240.23 10 0 0 3.59 01/11/02 Friday 63 43 0 321.78 9 1 0 5.11 01/12/02 Saturday 17 3 0 23.91 12 0 0 1. 41 01/14/02 Monday 63 17 0 167.56 10 0 0 2.66 01/15/02 Tuesday 46 11 0 95 0 70 11 0 0 2.08 01/16/02 Wednesday 35 10 0 141.71 10 0 0 4.05 01/17/02 Thursday 69 17 5 603.76 9 0 0 8.75 01/18/02 Friday 48 2 0 285.76 9 0 0 5.95 01/19/02 Saturday 26 1 0 53.73 11 0 0 2.07 01/21/02 Monday 36 3 0 147.65 13 0 0 4.10 01/22/02 Tuesday 47 22 0 139.76 11 0 0 2. 97 01/23/02 Wednesday 48 11 0 -99.01 11 0 0 2.06 01/24/02 Thursday 51 16 0 105.04 11 0 0 2.06 01/25/02 Friday 54 12 1 135.49 11 0 0 2.51 01/26/02 Saturday 14 1 0 12.54 10 0 0 0.90 01/28/02 Monday 65 34 0 253.10 12 1 0 3.89 01/29/02 Tuesday 59 9 0 187.09 12 0 0 3.17 01/30/02 Wednesday 42 18 0 114. 90 11 0 0 2.74

• I I I I - - -

I t\!'1\-0 02/23/02 Time 01:12; 32 1'1-1

- 'c ,-, ,. ... \,

01/31/02 Thursday 02/01/02 Friday 02/02/02 Saturday 02/04/02 Monday 02/05/02 Tuesday 02/06/02 Wednesday 02/07/02 Thursday 02/08/02 Friday 02/09/02 Saturday 02/11/02 Monday 02/12/02 Tuesday 02/13/02 Wednesday 02/14/02 Thursday 02/15/02 Friday 02/16/02 Saturday 02/18/02 Monday 02/19/02 Tuesday 02/20/02 Wednesday 02/21/02 Thursday 02/22/02 Friday

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

06:30 07:00 07:30

I

~it-y nf North~mrtnn, MA PC1":'"

1 ... ,,_.,.

~ l . . .... . . ~ .... ~ .1----~---..~. .. . ...........

fur Lhe peric;d 02/01/2001 - 02/23/2002 Sites 02 - 02

-·----------------7 0 T A L-----~----------.. '. ..

·11n 1 •r,. ,, ' \-' ' ''·

39 6 0 137.49 35 4 0 113.57 13 1 0 25.10 52 13 0 125.83 42 1 0 129.60 30 6 0 109.86 48 4 0 194.52 57 13 0 131.62 26 4 0 28.79 51 7 0 183.65 56 13 0 311.89 33 8 0 113.35 73 22 0 660.32 91 13 0 848.47 17 5 0 22.26 33 15 0 130.06 56 8 0 166.82 44 7 0 330.32 67 2 0 572 . .47 61 5 0 312.18

------ ---------- ---------- ----------

"'1 ~~ -1 )'I ---'] "J ... )\ _,. .~.~

:') ·:.::

2 '·I

9094 1696 46 42642.93

A·-c 1705 -n 340 0 8684.74 1589 '7'2 306 0 6064.25 1146 q~ 247 40 5130.27 1979 I"\ 354 5 10945.31 1981 l'l 355 1 10434.12

694 2."\ 94 0 1384.24 ------ ---------- ---------- ----------

9094

2 605 536

1696

0 118 127

46

0 0 0

42642.93

26.08 3349.91 2551.93

------------------A V E R A G E------------------q: ~· ..

10 11 14 11 12 12

9 10 13 10 11 11

9 8

10 12 10

9 10

9 ---

12

11 12 11 11 11 11

---12

7 13 11

""!I .. I •·

0 0 3.53 0 0 3.24 0 0 1. 93 0 0 2.42 0 0 3.09 0 0 3.66 0 0 4. 05 0 0 2.31 0 0 1.11 0 0 3. 60 0 0 5.57 0 0 3.43 0 0 9.05 0 0 9.32 0 0 1. 31 0 0 3.94 0 0 2.98 0 0 7.51 0 0 8.54 0 0 5.12

---------- ---------- ----------0

0 0 0 0 0 0

----------0

0 0 0

0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0

0 0 0

4.69

5.09 3.82 4.48 5.53 5.27 1. 99

4.69

13.04 5.54 4.76

11"1-"' n?/?:<.fn? Tim~ (11:12:22 f::1

[' ... ~ DC~·: of H'"'~'- u-..,r

08:00 08:30 09:00 09:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00

Under 1 min. 1 - 4 min. 5 - 9 min.

10 - 14 min. 15 - 19 min. 20 - 24 min. 25 - 29 min. 30 - 34 min. 35 - 39 min. 40 - 44 min. 45 - 49 min. 50 - 54 min. 55 - 59 min.

l"'il-" ,-,f Hr:>rt-h"~f'l-<':'n, MJ>.

.:... .... ·-. -· --J_ ... -- ~· ... iwr th<? periou 02/01/2001 - 02/23/2002

Sites 02 - UL

'Prlr:n 'i

-----------------T 0 T ;, L--------- ------- ------ -----------A V ~ ~ ~ G £------------------"Tr':lh ~,...., Cour." • . ,... 1 ~ : ; ; ' .. To.:. ,..,h• Jf~ .,ute~ n.-.. ['~ ~r-, ( .... ,~ 11'1'" ! V\'lln'""'r •... ; ?ht

715 183 0 3440.32 11 0 0 4.81 614 81 40 3117.32 11 0 0 5.08 574 157 1 2895.87 11 0 0 5.05 596 101 0 2817.40 11 0 0 4.73 648 123 5 2832.75 12 0 0 4.37 717 137 0 2832.55 11 0 0 3.95

t.:'Z--, { :.· 721 157 0 2955.90 11 0 0 4 .10 485- 126 0 2075.85 11 0 0 4.32 372 75 0 2059.31 11 0 0 5.54 410 58 0 2044.63 10 0 0 4.99

--~-: t -~- '': 484 51 0 2248.59 10 0 0 4.65 4 7 6 62 0 1997.21 11 0 0 4.20 407 48 0 1752.24 11 0 0 4. 31 330 45 0 1635.37 11 0 0 4.96 306 27 0 1454.88 10 0 0 4.75

91 12 0 552.89 7 0 0 6.08 10 8 0 1. 93 1 1 0 0.19

------ ---------- ---------- ---------- --- ---------- ---------- ----------9094 1696 46 42642.93 12 0 0 4.69

1189 323 6 20001.09 0 0 0 16.82 31 7 0 114. 93 3 0 0 3.71

2029 341 0 3853.39 8 0 0 1. 90 3791 585 40 10218.29 12 0 0 2.70 1346 185 0 5230.18 17 0 0 3.89

401 88 0 1791.39 22 0 0 4.47 159 104 0 694.30 27 1 0 4.37

67 29 0 313.21 32 0 0 4.67 40 22 0 223.10 36 1 0 5.58 17 7 0 97.49 42 0 0 5.73 12 1 0 57. 97 47 0 0 4.83

5 1 0 10.75 52 0 0 2.15 7 3 0 36.84 58 0 0 5.26

------ ---------- ---------- ---------- --- ---------- ---------- ----------9094 1696 46 42642.93 13 0 0 4.69

• I I I I - - -

-

-

ACCIDENT ANALYSIS

A

CRASH RATE WORKSHEET

CITYffOWNINorthampton, MA COUNT DATE: o41201o1 I PROJECT DESCRIPTtO~Transfer Station

DISTRICT: ~~ ==~1~ UNSIGNALIZED: t.::lx:.__ _ _.J

JOB NO. 11361

SIGNALIZED :

---·-------·--·---·---------·----·.:: .. l.l'!!.§f3_S.§<_;.!I_9_!:! .. .Qf.ll_'.~.--.... --.. ------·-·-··-·---·----·----·-MAJOR STREET :

MINOR STREET(S) :

INTERSECTION

DIAGRAM

(Label Approaches)

APPROACH:

DIRECTION:

VOLUMES (PM)

Route 66 Westhampton MA

Glendale Road/West Farms Road

t North

124

West Farms Road

64

129

Route 66

Glendale Road

Peak Hour Volumes

2 3 4 5

NB SB EB WB

136 84 124 129

6

K • FACTOR: I 0.091 APPROACH ADT: L'--"'52:::5:;:6-'1 ADT =TOTAL VOU'K" FACT.

TOTAL# OF

ACCIDENT S:

[],~[] AVERAGE#OF ACCIDENTS ( A) :

CRASH RATE CALCULATION: RATE = (A. 1 ,000,000)

(ADT"365)

Comments:

·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·

¢qi\#:*~±4•~#Ah'iliww~WY~M•••o:6s•~P:#9NSi~~g;~~~~#~t.d#9 <r&~:~~~~~p~iE!l;/;hilloN ~~;;;~fiis~~~j . :::>::; :t• • ••••••••·• <Hi•• !m •c• ,.,. -:-:-:-:-::: <<::-· ..

' <• · ····<<••••·•·•·····•··•'•••••••••·•···•··•• .. •••••••• •q.$Q•iri?#·~if:~1Yf~~~~r~~~f!~?Ns,

MHDUSEDNLY

Soun:e#c=J

RIN# c=J RIN# c=J RIN# c=J RIN# c=J RIN# c=J

INTERSECTION

REF# c=J

I I I • • -

-•

-

U'lteraection

iN'oRlHAMPT6N 10-Jal'\-99

'NqR,THA,MPTON, '. _1 B:~il-~~99' !NOR.THAMPTON i 20-Dec:•D9 ;NClR."fHAMPfO·N· i 1·-M·~y~gg"

I

01 PM Property Only

OSA~:Pr~.P'.'h' 9nlY _1,0_f.~ .f.'rnp~m- gn_ly 04Pivi' !~jury Accident

I

' s·· 2l

ow i8~AOON . '"1F.iXci8J o'• OUNKNOWN \.9.Y.r:.8.r.YR~ ow :AN.GLE ...

·i·~~~%~~ OS 'E i'ANGi."E'

:GuARD'RAii. ;Wet EMBANK .:I.C::Y. .... :P.tB:~#:. ... !.!~Y. ....

rc·i~_ar :clear .l~~i~--

\'iiFAAMRb RT S6 . \-VESTHAMPTON RD

... :RJ~.~s... ... . .... .. .Y.:.HA~prq_~_i3P.?~.5 . LB!.§ .. §~ .. Y.Y.E_sr ~.T. , ................................. .

o:

·Dry [Ciear R_TE RTE 66 :WESTHAMPTON RD

I I - - -

I I

~~tfJOWtfi:1@;]jtC:Histi~DBt\ii!R'CfA'Stf&1:'1iileJtlif.~t'f_b!&il~{~iXQtfil±'Veb~9:ltti

:~~~~~~-~J ~~~~~:~~~:: -~~i~~j~J~~li~t~:::~~~-~::~:=~E~~=~~J~~~:::~:=_::~t~:=~:~:i:=_:~::=1~~~-~~~~:::==Jt;.~:-:l¥.~~~~~~~:1l~t-~~

TRIP GENERATION/DISTRIBUTION

I I I

BRUCE CAMPBELL & ASSOCIATES, INC. Transportation Engineers and Planners

38 Chauncy Street Suite 701 BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02111 (617) 542-1199 FAX (617) 451-9904

JOB------------------------------------------------------SHEET NO.---------------------------- OF ____________________ _

CALCULATED BY ________________________ __ DATE

--~:--- -:-- ----~--1----- ~ --~.--;. i-- ---: -----+--- _;__ ---: -----f----#111--+---f-- -+~-i------f----t--+----1--+----+---+--l-----i----+-----+-----

u,) 6: :' /!) /7/9 \: : ; L L! f/ot/J'L! i i ! ! i ;

I I I --•

-

LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS

-

LEVEL OF SERVICE Level of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of control delay,

which is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and increased travel time. The delay experienced by a motorist is made up of a number of factors that

relate to control, geometries, traftic, and incidents. Total delay is the difference between lhe travel time actually experienced and the reference travel time that would result during ha:se conditions: in the absence oftr3ffic control. geometric delay, any incidents~ and any

other vehicles. Specifically, LOS criteria for traffic signals are stated in terms of the overage control delay per vehicle, typically for a 15-min analysis period. Delay is a complex measure and depends on n number of variables, including the quality of progression, the cycle length, the green ratio, and the v/c ratio for the lane group.

The critical vic ratio is an approximate indicator of the overall sufficiency of an intersection. The critical v/c mtio depends on the confliccing critical lane flow rates and the: signal phasing. Till:: compuwtion of the critical v/c ratio is described in detail in

Appendix A and in Chapter !6. The averag~ bock of queue is another performance measure that is used to analyze a

signalized intersection. The back of queue is the number of vehicles that ure queued depending on nrrival po.tterns of vehicles and vehicles th::H do not clear the intersection during J given green phase. The compuw.tion of nvcr.age back of queue is explained in

Appendix G ol' Chapler \6. Levels or service are deftned to represent reasonable ranges in control delay. LOS A describes operations with low control delay, up to 10 s/veh, This LOS occurs

when progression is er.tremely favorable .:1nd most vehicles arrive during the green phase. iviany vehicles do nol stop at :1!\. Short cycle lengths m:.1y tt!nd to contribute to low delay

values. LOS B describes operations with control delay greater 1han I 0 and up to 20 s/veh.

This level generally occurs with good progression, short cycle lengths, or both .. tvfore vehicles slOp thun wilh LOS A, causing higher levels of delay.

LOS C describes operations with control delay greater than 20 nnd up to 35 slveh. These higher delays muy result from only fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. Cycle failure occurs when a given green phase does not serve queued vehicles, and overflows occur. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level. though many still pass through the

intersection without swpping. LOS D describes operations with control delay greater than 35 ond up to 55 s/veh.

At LOS D. the innuence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may rcsu!l from son1c combination of unf:::~vorable progression, long cycle lengths, n.nd high vic ro.tios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines.

Individual cycle failures are noticeable. LOSE desnibes operations witlt control delay greater than 55 and up to 80 s/veh.

These high delay vulues generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high

v/c r~uios. Individu:J.I cycle failures are frequent. LOS F describes operations wilh control delay in excess of SO s/veh. This level,

considered unncceptable to mosl drivers, often occurs with overs::nuration, that is, when arrival now rates exceed the c~pacity of lane groups. It may also occur at high v/c ratios with m::tny individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also

contribute signiflcnntly to high delay levels. Delays in the runge of LOS F (unacceptable) cun occur while the vic ratio is below

\.0. Very high delays can occur at such vic ratios when some combination ofthe following conditions exists: the cycle length is long, the lane group in question is disadvanlaged by Jhe signal timing (has a long red time), and the signal progression for the subject movements is poor. The reverse is also possible (for a limited duration): a saturated lane group (i.e., vic ratio greater than l.O) may have low delays if tbe cycle length is short or the signal progression is favorable, or both.

Thus, the designation LOS F does not au10matically imply that the intersection, approach, or lane group is over capacity, nor does an LOS better thanE automatically imply that unused capacity is available.

I

LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERi4J

SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY

Capadty at intersections is detined for each lane group. The lone group capacity is the maximum hourly rate m which vehicles co.n reasonably be expected to po.ss Lhrough the intersection under prevailing traftic, roadway, and signalization conditions. The llow rate is generally measured or projected for a 15-min period, ond capncity is slated in vehicles per hour (vehih).

Trnnic conditions include volumes on each appronch, the dis1ribution of vehicks by movement (left, through, and right), the vehicle type distribution within each movement, the location and usc or bus srops within the intersection trea, pedestrian crossing nows, and pnrking movemenls on approaches to the intersection. Roadway conditions include the basic geometries of the intersection, including the number and width or lnnes, grndes, and lane use allocntions (including·parking lanes). Signalization condi1ions include a full definition of the signal phasing, timing, and type of control. and an evaluation of signal progression for each lane group. The nnnlysis of capacity at signalized intersections (Chapter 16) focuses on the computation of saturation flow rates, capacities, vic ratios. and level of service for lane groups.

The average control delay per vehicle is estimated for each lone group and aggregated for each approach and for the intersection as a whole. LOS is directly related to the control delay value. The criteria are listed in Exhibit 16-2.

EXHIBIT 16-2. LOS CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

LOS A

8 c

Control Delay per Vehicle (siveh) s 10

, 10-20 , 20-35 , 35-55 , 55-80

, 80

UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

LEVEL-OF-SERVICE CRITERIA

Level or service (LOS) for u T\VSC intersection is determined by 1hc cornptlled or measured control delay and is deuned for each minor movement. LOS is nm defined for the interscclion as n whole. LOS criteria are given in Exhibit 17-2.

EXHIBIT 17-2. LEVEL-Of-SERVICE CRITERIA FOR TWSC INTERSECTIONS

Level of Service rwerage control Delay (s/veh)

0-10 > 10-15 > 15-25 , 25-35 , 35-50 , so

The LOS criteria ror TWSC intersections are somewhat different from the criteria used in Chapter \6 for signalized intersections primarily because different transportation· facilities create different driver perceptions. The expectation is that a signalized intersection is designed to carry higher traffic volumes and experience greater delay than an unslgnn.liz.ed interscclion, Source:

High\l'ay Capacity MantJal Transportation Research Board (TRB)

Washington, D.C., 2000 p.10-15-16, 16-2, 17-J-3

• I r I I - - -

HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.la

_______________________ TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY __________________________ __

Zffialyst: lc \gency/Co.: Northampton, Massachusetts )ate Performed: existing am

Analysis Time Period: 2001 existing am peak hour 1ntersection: Rte 66/W. Farms/Glendale Turisdiction: Jnits: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 1136 'roject ID: ~ast/West Street: Route 66

L:rorth/South Street: W. Farms Rd/Glendale Rd Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25

--~----------------~--Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments ____ ~----~----------------!"'ajor Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound

Movement 1 2 3 L

Volume 41 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.86 [ourly Flow Rate, HFR 47 'ercent Heavy Vehicles 12

Median Type Undivided R.T Channelized? ,anes onfiguration

Upstream Signal?

0

T

140 0.86 162

1 LTR

No

0

inor Street: Approach Movement

Northbound

olume _eak Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR

ercent Heavy Vehicles ercent Grade (%)

.-.edian Storage Flared Approach:

r Channelized? Lanes Configuration

Exists? Storage

7 L

8 0.86 9 38

0

8 T

70 0.86 81 7 0

No

1 0 LTR

R

10 0.86 11

9 R

39 0.86 45 10

Delay, Queue Length, and Level of At;Jproach EB WB Northbound

::>vement 1 4 7 8 9 :me Config LTR LTR LTR

.. (vph) 47 23 135 (m} (vph) 1481 1276 588 /c 0.03 0.02 0.23

95% queue length 0.10 0.06 0.88 -)ntrol Delay 7.5 7.9 12.9

)S A A B ..,.pproach Delay 12.9 Approach LOS B

4 5 6 L T R

20 37 16 0.86 0.86 0.86 23 43 18 25

0 1 0 LTR

No

Southbound 10 11 12 L T R

16 69 24 0.86 0.86 0.86 18 80 27 13 3 17

0

No

0 1 0 LTR

Service ~S-o-u~t~hb~o-u-n~d~---------

10 11 12 LTR

125 566 0.22 0.84 13.2

B 13.2

B


HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1a

_________________________ TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY ____________________________ _

Analyst: lc Agency/Co.: Northampton, Massachusetts Date Performed: existing pm Analysis Time Period: 2001 existing pm peak hour Intersection: Rte 66/W. Farms/Glendale Jurisdiction: Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 1136 Project ID: East/West Street: Route 66 North/South Street: W. Farms Rd/Glendale Rd Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25

Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments --~--------------------- ----~~--~----------------Major Street: Approach Eastbound

Movement 1 2 3 L

Volume 6 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.89 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 6 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal?

0 LTR

T

90 0.89 101

1

No

0

Minor Street: Approach Movement

Northbound

Volume Peak Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%) Median Storage Flared Approach: Exists?

RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration

Storage

7 L

24 0.89 26 0

0

8 T

93 0.89 104 1 0

No

1 0 LTR

R

28 0.89 31

9 R

19 0.89 21 0

Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Approach EB WB Northbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 Lane Config LTR LTR LTR

v (vph) 6 28 151 C(m) (vph) 1487 1466 626 v/c 0.00 0.02 0.24 95% queue length 0.01 0.06 0.94 Control Delay 7.4 7.5 12.6 LOS A A B Approach Delay 12.6 Approach LOS B

Westbound 4 5 6 L T R

25 72 32 0.89 0.89 0.89 28 80 35 0

0 1 0 LTR

No


20 61 3 0.89 0.89 0.89 22 68 3 0 3 33

0

No

0 1 0 LTR

Service ~--~--~---------Southbound

10 11 12 LTR

93 580 0.16 0.57 12.4

B 12.4

B


I I I -

-


________________________ TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY __________________________ __

Analyst: ac Agency/Co.: BC&A Date Performed: 2001 Analysis Time Period: 2001 existing am peak hour Intersection: glendale/landfill ent/exit Jurisdiction: Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2001 Project ID: East/West Street: Landfill entrance/exit North/South Street: Glendale Road Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25

Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments --~--------------------- ----~~----~---------------Major Street: Approach Northbound

Movement 1 2 3

Volume Peak-Hour Factor/ PHF Hourly Flow Rate 1 HFR ~ercent Heavy Vehicles

L T R

98 6 0.78 0.78 125 7

Median Type Undivided ~T Channelized? C.anes ~onfiguration Upstream Signal?

~inor Street: Approach Movement

Jolume ~eak Hour Factor 1 PHF Hourly Flow Rate/ HFR ?ercent Heavy Vehicles )ercent Grade (%) Aedian Storage Flared Approach: Exists?

~T Channelized? .Ganes Configuration

Approach 1ovement ~ane Config

,, (vph) ~ (m) (vph) r/c

'95% queue length '::antral Delay "OS

Approach Delay Approach LOS

Storage

Delay/ NB 1

1 0 TR

No


5 19 0.78 0.78 6 24 20 37

0

No

0 0 LR

Queue Length 1 and Level SB Westbound 4 7 8 LT LR

26 30 1213 793 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.12 8.0 9.7

A A 9.7

A

of

9


21 78 0.78 0.78 26 100 48

0 1 LT

No

Eastbound 10 11 12 L T R

0

Service ____ ~--~~---------Eastbound

10 11 12



________________________ TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY ____________________________ _

Analyst: ac Agency/Co.: bc&a Date Performed: 2001 Analysis Time Period: 2001 existing pm peak hour Intersection: glendale/landfill ent/exit Jurisdiction: Units: U.S. Customary Analysis Year: 1136 Project ID: East/West Street: Landfill entrance/exit North/South Street: Glendale Road Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25

--~--------------------Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments __________________________ __ Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound

Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6

Volume Peak-Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles

L T R

92 0.93 98

5 0.93 5

L T R

45 69 0.93 0.93 48 74 6

Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal?


Volume Peak Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%) Median Storage Flared Approach: Exists?


Approach Movement Lane Config

v (vph) C (m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS

Storage

Delay, NB 1

1

No

0 TR


4 0.93 4 5

0

0

No

LR 0

44 0.93 47 5

0 1 LT

No


0

Queue Length, and Level of Service ----~--~---------

SB 4 LT

48 1464 0.03 0.10 7.5

A

Westbound Eastbound 7 8 9 10 11 12

LR

51 920 0.06 0.18 9.1

A 9.1

A


I I I -----


________________________ TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY __________________________ ___

Analyst: ac Agency /Co.: BC&A Date Performed: Analysis Time Period: 2008 No Build am peak hour Intersection: Rte 66/W. Farms/Glendale Jurisdiction: Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 Project ID: East/West Street: Route 66 North/South Street: W. Farms Rd/Glendale Rd Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25

Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments ---------------------- -------------------------Major Street: Approach Eastbound

Movement 1 2 3

Volume Peak-Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR

L

51 0.86 59

T

172 0.86 199

R

12 0.86 13

Percent Heavy Vehicles 12 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal?


Volume Peak Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%) Median Storage nared Approach:

RT Channelized? l.anes =:onfiguration

Approach '1ovement ~ane Con fig

v (vph) :(m) (vph) '/C

95% queue length :ontrol Delay

Exists? Storage

Delay, EB 1 LTR

59 1462 0.04 0.13 7.6

7 L

10

0 1 LTR

No

0

Northbound 8 T

84

9 R

46 0.86 0.86 0.86 11 97 53 38 7 10

0

No

0 1 0 LTR

Queue Length, and Level WB Northbound 4 7 8 LTR LTR

27 161 1233 520 0.02 0.31 0.07 l. 31 8.0 15.0-


24 46 20 0.86 0.86 0.86 27 53 23 25

0 1 0 LTR

No


20 80 30 0.86 0.86 0.86 23 93 34 13 3 17

0

No

0 1 0 LTR

of Service Southbound

9 10 11 12 LTR

150 4 97 0.30 l. 26 15.3

LOS A A B c Approach Delay 15.0- 15.3 Approach LOS B c


Bruce Campbell BCA BCA 38 Chauncy St. suite 701 Boston, MA 02111 Phone: 617-542-1199 E-Mail: [email protected]

Fax: 617-451-9904

_______________________ TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS ____________________ _

Analyst: ac Agency/Co.: BC&A Date Performed: Analysis Time Period: 2008 No Build am peak hour Intersection: Rte 66/W. Farms/Glendale Jurisdiction: Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 Project ID: East/West Street: Route 66 North/South Street: W. Farms Rd/Glendale Rd Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25

__________________________ Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments ________________________ _ Major Street Movements l 2 3 4 5 6

Volume Peak-Hour Factor, PHF Peak-15 Minute Volume Hourly Flow Rate, HFR

L

51 0. 8 6 15 59

Percent Heavy Vehicles 12 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized?

T

172 0.86 50 199

Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal?

0 1

Minor Street Movements

Volume Peak Hour Factor, PHF Peak-15 Minute Volume Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%) Median Storage Flared Approach:

RT Channelized?

Exists? Storage

7

L

10 0.86 3 11 38

LTR No

8 T

84 0.86 24 97 7

0

No

0

R

12 0.86 3 13

9

R

46 0.86 13 53 10

L

24 0.86 7

27 25

T

46 0.86 13 53

0 1 LTR

10 L

20 0.86 6

23 13

No

11 T

80 0.86 23 93 3 0

No

0

R

20 0.86 6 23

12 R

30 0.86 9 34 17

I I I

-

-


TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY ------------------------- ------------------------------

Analyst: ac Agency/Co.: BC&A Date Performed: 2006 Analysis Time Period: 2008 No Build pm peak hour Intersection: Rte 66/W. Farms/Glendale Jurisdiction: Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 1136 Project ID: East/West Street: Route 66 North/South Street: W. Farms Rd/Glendale Rd Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25

Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments ------------------------ ----------------------------Major Street: Approach Eastbound

Movement l 2 3 L

Volume 7 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.89 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 7 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal?

0 LTR

T

110 0.89 124

1

No

0

R

31 0.94 33

111Minor Street: Approach Movement

Northbound

volume Peak Hour Factor, PHF 1ourly Flow Rate, HFR ?ercent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 1edian Storage clared Approach:

~T Channelized? ,anes

(:onfiguration

Approach lovement .ane Config

TT (vph) (m) (vph)

v/c 95% queue length ontrol Delay

Exists? Storage

Delay, EB 1 LTR

7 1455 0.00 0.01 7.5

7 8 9 L T R

27 109 22 0.89 0.89 0.89 30 122 24 0 1 0

0

No

0 1 0 LTR

Queue Length, and Level WB Northbound 4 7 8 LTR LTR

32 176 1435 574 0.02 0.31 0.07 1. 29 7.6 14.0


29 88 39 0.89 0.89 0.89 32 98 43 0

0 1 0 LTR

No


24 70 3 0.89 0.89 0. 8 9 26 78 3 0 3 33

0

No

0 1 0 LTR

of Service Southbound

9 10 11 12 LTR

107 524 0.20 0.76 13.6

LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS

A A B

14.0 B

B

13.6 B


Bruce Campbell BCA BCA 38 Chauncy St. suite 701 Boston, MA 02111 Phone: 617-542-1199 Fax: 617-451-9904 E-Mail: [email protected]

______________________ TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS ____________________ _

Analyst: Agency /Co.: Date Performed:

ac BC&A 2006

Analysis Time Period: 2008 No Build pm peak hour Intersection: Rte 66/W. Farms/Glendale Jurisdiction: Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 1136 Project ID: East/West Street: Route 66 North/South Street: W. Farms Rd/Glendale Rd Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25

Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments --------------------------- -------------------------Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6

Volume Peak-Hour Factor, PHF Peak-15 Minute Volume

L

7

0.89 2

Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 7 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal?



RT Channelized?

Exists? Storage

7

L

0

27 0.89 8 30 0

T

110 0.89 31 124

1 LTR

No

8 T

109 0.89 31 122 1 0

No

0

R

31 0.94 8 33

9 R

22 0.89 6 24 0

L

29 0.89 8 32 0

10 L

0

24 0.89 7 26 0

LTR

T

88 0.89 25 98

1

No

11 T

70 0.89 20 78 3 0

No

0

R

39 0.89 11 43

12 R

3 0.89 1

3 33

I I I -L

•

-


TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY __________________________ __

Analyst: Agency/Co.: Date Performed:

BC&A 2008

Analysis Time Period: 2008 No Build am peak hour Intersection: glendale/landfill ent/exit Jurisdiction: Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 Project ID: East/West Street: North/South Street:

Landfill entrance/exit Glendale Road

Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25

________________________ Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments __________________________ __ Major Street: Approach Northbound

Movement 1 2 3


L


T

121 0.78 155

1

No

0 TR

• Minor Street: Approach Movement

Westbound

Volume Peak Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Petcent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%) Median Storage Flared Approach:


Exists? Storage

7 L

5 0.78 6 20

0

8 T

0

No

0 LR

R

6 0.78 7

9

R

19 0.78 24 37

Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Approach lljovement Lane Config

v (vph) ::: (m) (vph) il/C

95% queue length :::ontrol Delay

NB 1

SB 4 LT

26 1180 0.02 0.07 8.1

Westbound 7 8 9

LR

30 757 0.04 0.12 10.0-


21 95 0.78 0.78 26 121 48

0 1 LT

No


0

Service Eastbound

10 11 12


A A

10.0-A



Fax: 617-451-9904


Analyst: Agency/Co.: BC&A Date Performed: 2008 Analysis Time Period: 2008 No Build am peak hour Intersection: glendale/landfill ent/exit Jurisdiction: Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 Project ID: East/West Street: North/South Street:


Intersection Orientation: NS Study period

Vehicle Volumes ------------------------ and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5

L T R L T

Volume 6 21 95

(hrs):

6 R

Peak-Hour Factor, PHF Peak-15 Minute Volume Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles

121 0.78 39 155

0.78 0.78 0.78




RT Channelized?

Exists? Storage

1 0 TR

No

7 8 L T

5 0.78 2 6 20

0

No

2 7 30 7 26 121

48

0 l LT

No

9 10 11 12 R L T R

19 0.78 6 24 37

0

0.25

I I I -• ,..

--•

-


________________________ TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY __________________________ __


ac bc&a 2008

Analysis Time Period: 2008 No Build pm peak hour Intersection: glendale/landfill ent/exit Jurisdiction: Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 1136 Project ID: East/West Street: North/South Street:



________________________ Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments __________________________ __

Major Street: Approach Northbound Movement

Volume Peak-Hour Factor/ PHF Hourly Flow Rate 1 HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles

1 L

2 T

114 0.93 122

3 R

5 0.93 5


111Minor Street: Approach Movement

Volume Peak Hour Factor 1 PHF Hourly Flow Rate 1 HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%) V!edian Storage flared Approach:

:<.T Channelized? [,anes Configuration

Approach 1ovement "ane Config

-r (vph) :(m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length :ontrol Delay

Exists? Storage

Delay 1

NB 1

7 L

4

1

No

0 TR

Westbound 8 T

9 R

44 0.93 0.93 4 47 5 5

0

No

0 0 LR

Queue Length 1 and Level SB Westbound 4 7 8 LT LR

48 51 1435 890 0.03 0.06 0.10 0.18 7.6 9.3


45 85 0.93 0.93 48 91 6

0 1 LT

No


0

of Se Eastbound

9 10 11 12


A A

9.3 A


Bruce Campbell BCA BCA 38 Chauncy St. suite 701 Boston, MA 02111 Phone: 617-542-1199 Fax: 617-451-9904 E-Mail: [email protected]


Analyst: ac Agency/Co.: bc&a Date Performed: 2008 Analysis Time Period: 2008 No Build pm peak hour Intersection: glendale/landfill ent/exit Jurisdiction: Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 1136 Project ID: East/West Street: North/South Street:



__________________________ Vehicle Volumes and Adj Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4

Volume Peak-Hour Factor, PHF Peak-15 Minute Volume Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles

1 T

114 0.93 31 122



Volume Peak Hour Factor, PHF Peak-15 Minute Volume Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%) Median Storage Flared Approach: Exists?

Storage RT Channelized?

1 0 TR

No

7 8 L T

4

0.93 1 4

5 0

No

R

5 0.93 1 5

9 R

44 0.93 12 47 5

L

45 0.93 12 48 6

0

10 L

LT

5

T

85 0.93 23 91

1

No

11 T

0

6 R

12 R

I I I • • -• -•

-


TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY -------------------------- ------------------------------

Analyst: Agency/Co.:

ac BC&A

Date Performed: existing am Analysis Time Period: 2008 Build am peak hour Intersection: Rte 66/W. Farms/Glendale Jurisdiction: Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 Project ID: East/West Street: Route 66 North/South Street: W. Farms Rd/Glendale Rd Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25

Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound

Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R

Volume 51 172 13 25 46 20 Peak-Hour Factor 1 PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Hourly Flow Rate 1 HFR 59 199 15 29 53 23 Percent Heavy Vehicles 12 25 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal? No No

_Minor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12

L T R L T R

Volume 11 88 47 20 83 30 Peak Hour Factor 1 PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Hourly Flow Rate 1 HFR 12 102 54 23 96 34 Percent Heavy Vehicles 38 7 10 13 3 17 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 '1edian Storage flared Approach: Exists? No No

Storage RT Channelized? l.anes 0 1 0 0 1 0 2onfiguration LTR LTR

Delay 1 Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound ·1ovement l 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Jane Config LTR LTR LTR LTR

v (vph) 59 29 168 153 :(m) (vph) 1462 1231 515 490 J/c 0.04 0.02 0.33 0.31 95% queue length 0.13 0.07 1. 41 1. 32 :ontrol Delay 7.6 8.0 15.3 15.6


A A c 15.3 c

c 15.6 c



Fax: 617-4 51-9904


Analyst: Agency /Co.:

ac BC&A

Date Performed: existing am Analysis Time Period: 2008 Build am peak hour Intersection: Rte 66/W. Farms/Glendale Jurisdiction: Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 Project ID: East/West Street: Route 66 North/South Street: W. Farms Rd/Glendale Rd Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25

___________________________ Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments ________________________ _ Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6


L

51 0.86 15 59





7

L

0

11

0.86 3 12 38

T

172 0.86 50 199

1

LTR No

8 T

88 0.86 26 102 7

0

No

0

R

13 0.86 4

15

9 R

47 0.86 14 54 10

L

25 0.86 7

29 25

10 L

0

20 0.86 6 23 13

LTR

T

46 0.86 13 53

l

No

11 T

83 0.86 24 96 3 0

No

0

R

20 0.86 6 23

12 R

30 0.86 9 34 17

I I I • •

-•

-


TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY -------------------------- ------------------------------


ac bc&a 2008

Analysis Time Period: 2008 Build pm peak hour Intersection: Rte 66/W. Farms/Glendale Jurisdiction: Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 1136 Project ID: East/West Street: Route 66 North/South Street: W. Farms Rd/Glendale Rd Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25

Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound

Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R

Volume 7 110 33 30 88 39 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.94 0.89 0.89 0.89 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 7 123 35 33 98 43 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal? No No

_Minor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12

L T R L T R

Volume 29 116 24 24 76 3 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 ~ourly Flow Rate, HFR 32 130 26 26 85 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 1 0 0 3 33 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 1edian Storage ~lared Approach: Exists? No No

Storage '\T Channelized? :.,anes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR

Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound 1ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 "ane Config LTR LTR LTR LTR

TT (vph) 7 33 188 114 :(m) (vph) 1455 1434 572 521 v/c 0.00 0.02 0.33 0.22 95% queue length 0.01 0.07 1. 43 0.83 :ontrol Delay 7.5 7.6 14.3 13.8 -


A A B

14.3 B

B

13.8 B

HCS2000: Onsignalized Intersections Release 4.1a


Fax: 617-451-9904


Analyst: Agency /Co. : Date Performed:

ac bc&a 2008

Analysis Time Period: 2008 Build pm peak hour Intersection: Rte 66/W. Farms/Glendale Jurisdiction: Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 1136 Project ID: East/West Street: Route 66 North/South Street: W. Farms Rd/G1endale Rd Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25

Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments ------------------------- -----------------------Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6


L

7

0.89 2 7

T

110 0.89 31 123





0 1 LTR

7

L

29 0.89 8 32 0

No

8 T

116 0.89 33 130 1

0

No

0

R

33 0.94 9

35

9

R

24 0.89 7 26 0

L

30 0.89 8 33 0

T

88 0.89 25 98

0 1 LTR

10 L

24 0.89 7 26 0

No

11 T

76 0.89 21 85 3 0

No

0

R

39 0.89 11 43

12 R

3 0.89 1

3 33

I I

• • -• -•

-

-•


_______________________ TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY __________________________ _


ac BC&A 2008

Analysis Time Period: 2008 Build am peak hour Intersection: glendale/landfill ent/exit Jurisdiction: Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 Project ID: East/West Street: North/South Street:



_________________________ Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments __________________________ __ Major Street: Approach Northbound

Movement l 2 3


L


T

121 0.78 155

1 0 TR

No

R

8 0.78 10


26 95 0.78 0.78 33 121 48

0 1 LT

No

•Minor Street: Approach Movement 7

Westbound 8 9

Eastbound 10 11 12

-

L T R

Volume 7 25 Peak Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%)

0.78 0.78

Median Storage Flared Approach:


Approach Movement Lane Config

v (vph) C (m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay

Exists? Storage

8 20

Delay, Queue NB SB 1 4

LT

33 1177 0.03 0.09 8.1

32 37

0

No

0 0 LR

Length, and Level of Westbound

7 8 9 LR

40 750 0.05 0.17 10.1

L T R

0

Service --------------------Eastbound

10 11 12


A B

10.1 B



Fax: 617-451-9904



ac BC&A 2008

Analysis Time Period: 2008 Build am peak hour Intersection: glendale/landfill ent/exit Jurisdiction: Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 Project ID: East/West Street: North/South Street:


Intersection Orientation: NS Study period

--------------------------Major Street Movements

Volume

Vehicle Volumes 1 L

2 T

and 3 R

8

Adjustments 4 5 L T

26 95

(hrs):

6 R

Peak-Hour Factor, PHF Peak-15 Minute Volume Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles

121 0.78 39 155

0. 78 0.78 0.78




RT Channelized?

Exists? Storage

7

L

7

0.78 2

8

20

1 0 TR

No

8 T

0

No

3 10

9 R

25 0.78 8 32 37

8 33 48

10 L

0 LT

30 121

1

No

11 T

0

12 R

0.25

I I I • • • •

•

-

-

-


_______________________ TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL


ac bc&a 2008

Analysis Time Period: 2008 Build pm peak hour Intersection: glendale/landfill ent/exit Jurisdiction: Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 1136 Project ID: East/West Street: North/South Street:



Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments ---------------------- -------------------------Major Street: Approach Northbound

Movement 1 2 3


L T

114 0.93 122

R

6 0.93 6


_Minor Street: Approach Movement

Volume Peak Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%) Median Storage Flared Approach:


Exists? Storage

1 0 TR

No

Westbound 7 8 9 L

6

0.93 6 5

0

T

0

No

LR 0

R

55 0.93 59 5


54 85 0.93 0.93 58 91 6

0 1 LT

No


0

____________________ Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service ____________________ _ Approach Movement Lane Config

v (vph) C (m) (vph) vic 95% queue length Control Delay

NB SB Westbound Eastbound 1 4 7 8 9 10 11

LT

58 1434 0.04 0.13 7.6

LR

65 881 0.07 0.24 9.4

12


A A

9.4 A



Fax: 617-451-9904


Analyst: ac Agency/Co.: bc&a Date Performed: 2008 Analysis Time Period: 2008 Build pm peak hour Intersection: glendale/landfill ent/exit Jurisdiction: Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 1136 Project ID: East/West Street: North/South Street:



___________________________ Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments ________________________ _ Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6

Volume Peak-Hour Factor, PHF Peak-15 Minute Volume Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles

L




RT Channelized?

Exists? Storage

7

L

6 0.93 2 6

5

T

114 0.93 31 122

1

No

8 T

0

No

0 TR

R

6 0.93 2 6

9 R

55 0.93 15 59 5

L

54 0.93 15 58 6

T

85 0.93 23 91

0 1 LT

10 L

No

11 T

0

R

12 R

I I I • •

•

-

-

APPENDIXM

UPDATED TRAFFIC COUNT STUDY

Traffic Count-June 2, 2005-AM Intersection of Route 66 with Glendale and West Farms Road

Time Total Trucks Total Vehicles 6:45-7:00 5 98 7:00-7:15 3 89 7:15-7:30 9 128 7:30-7:45 6 139 PH 7:45-8:00 3 135 PH 8:00-8:15 10 148 PH 8:15-8:30 9 146 PH 8:30-8:45 9 122

Intersection of Glendale Road and Landfill Entrance Time Total Trucks Total Vehicles

6:45-7:00 6 36 7:00-7:15 4 35 7:15-7:30 6 53 7:30-7:45 5 59 PH 7:45-8:00 3 56 PH 8:00-8:15 6 72 PH 8:15-8:30 7 63 PH 8:30-8:45 4 53

Traffic Count-June 2, 2005-PM Intersection of Route 66 with Glendale and West Farms Road

Time Total Trucks Total Vehicles 2:45-3:00 8, 3 Buses 108 PH - 3:00-3:15 6, 1 Bus 133 PH 3:15-3:30 7, 1 Bus 104 PH 3:30-3:45 7 124 PH 3:45-4:00 3 105 4:00-4:15 5 119 4:15-4:30 1 115 4:30-4:45 3 119

Intersection of Glendale Road and Landfill Entrance Time Total Trucks Total Vehicles

2:45-3:00 3 39 3:00-3:15 5, 2 Buses 61 PH 3:15-3:30 5 47 PH 3:30-3:45 3 52 PH 3:45-4:00 0 52 PH 4:00-4:15 1 48 4:15-4:30 0 39 4:30-4:45 0 38

\ <; 1

4

~9 31

32 3

I I-} 3

E/<..I:STiN&- ~~\PS

IN -:: 3'-t OV! -:: 35 To Tot/ -= &q

---

-

....

- DUFRESNE-HENRY

PREPARED BY----------------- DATE _____ PROJECT NO. Cjc)_ '[CO/ s-CALCULATIONS CHECKED BY DATE SHEET NO. 2 OF d--ASSUMPTIONS I METHODS CHECKED BY DATE ____ _

SUBJECT TF-A Ffl<:_ <::61/\.J-.l\ 6:z;;,/6f"""' NGI..ICTN AM.fl(J]J

5'1 f,(p l1 Lts

J ll ~ 75

2 A·5- 3:45 tl9 Rou .. le {n{p

IZ.ol)C c 12 & 30 _s 1rr bl __,

2 v? 33 1 -:}

9 2 liD

L~ Ltt.n ll

FX ISTI~Cr Tl'<-\ ?s: IN. 1-2 OUT·. 2..(9

ToTo...t·· 4B

APPENDIXF

WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT

FIGURES

Figure 1. Site Locus

Figure 2. Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Map

EXCERPTED SECTIONS 1.3.6, 1.5.2, 4.8, 5.2, 6.2, 7.2

AND APPENDIX F FROM FEIR

AND APPENDICES P AND Q FROM DEIR

NHESP CORRESPONDENCE

•

J.R. LAURILA

Drawn By V.B. PRICE

Scale 1 "=1 000'

NORTHAMPTON lANDFILL PHASE 58 EXPANSION SITE SUITABILITY REPORT

LOCUS MAP

Date FEBRUARY, 2005 NORTHAMPTON MASSACHUSETTS

Northampton, Massachusetts Tel. (413)584-4776

www.dufresne-henry.com

•

Certified Vernal Pools

~ NHESP 2005 Priority Habitats of Rare Species

~ NHESP 2005 Estimated Habitats of Rare Wildlife

NORTHAMPTON LANDFILL PHASE 58 EXPANSION SITE SUITABILITY REPORT

ESTIMATED HABITAT MAP NORTHAMPTON

•


1.3.5 NPDES STORMWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT

Section 1 Summary

EPA published the final notice for Phase I of the Multi-Sector General Storm Water Permit

program in 1995, which included provisions for the development of a Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by each industrial facility discharging storm water, including

landfill facilities. In addition, construction sites greater than one acre are also required to

submit project related SWPPPs addressing erosion control measures or Best Management

Practices (BMPs) to be implemented during construction.

The Northampton landfill facility has completed a facility SWPPP for the existing landfill

site. This SWPPP covers on site existing landfill related activities (see Appendix E ofthis

FEIR). For the Phase 5 expansion, an additional SWPPP for the new construction is required

to be prepared because the construction site area will exceed the 1-acre size threshold. Once

this construction SWPPP is prepared, a briefNotice of Intent (NOI) form can be filed by mail

or electronically with EPA. The NOI must be completed before construction activities can

commence. In addition, the existing facility SWPPP will need to be modified to include the

Phase 5 expansion operations. The SWPPP in Appendix E is for the existing facility only.

1.3.6 MASSACHUSETTS ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT {321 CMR 1 0.00)

The City of Northampton intends to design the Phase 5/5B landfill so as not to impact the

estimated habitat of the spotted turtle and eastern box turtle (species of special concern under

MGL c131.A). The prime habitat limits of these species and the proposed limits of the

landfill have been reviewed with the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered

Species Program (NHESP). As the project is described in this DEIR, it is anticipated that a

filing in accordance with Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA) and its

implementing regulations (321 CMR 10.00) will not be required due to the early coordination

with the NHESP. If it is found that a filing is necessary, the application will be submitted

upon completion of the MEP A process.


-


1.4 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES

Same as DEIR

Section 1 Summary

1.5 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

This EIR for the proposed Phase 5/5B horizontal landfill expansion explores the potential

environmental impacts and mitigation measures necessary in detail. The following provides

a brief synopsis of the EIR analyses.

1.5.1 WETLANDS RESOURCE AREAS

Same asDEIR

1.5.2 RARE SPECIES HABIT AT

Summary of Impact: The limit of the Phase 5 landfill expansion project has been designed to

avoid the identified limits of rare species habitat. However, coordination with the

Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (MNHESP) has resulted in

the identification of potential nesting habitat for spotted turtle and eastern box turtle within

the Phase 5 work limits. A total of 10,900 square feet of primary nesting habitat, and 84,500

square feet of secondary nesting habitat will be impacted by the work as shown on the plan

sheet in Appendix F.

Mitigation: In addition to avoidance of the mature wooded habitat and minimization of

impact to the nesting habitat, several measures will be taken during construction to protect

and enhance habitat areas including:

• The purchase ofland to the north of the project site and its preservation as

conservation land. This land contains important habitat features and has been

purchased by the City of Northampton to prevent residential development.



Section 1 Summary

• Use of temporary construction (designed with the MNHESP) fencing to prevent

wildlife from entering the work site.

• Better control of the use of illegal all terrain vehicles on the conservation land north

of and adjacent to the project site.

• Stabilize eroding slopes near an identified vernal pool.

• Complete a wildlife capture and relocation program within the isolated wetland and

the existing detention basin prior to the disturbance of those areas.

• Create additional primary (38,200 square feet) and secondary (57,600 square feet) to

replace the impacted area.

1.5.3 GROUNDWATER QUALITY IMPACTS

Same as DEIR

1.5.4 AIR TOXICS AND ODOR (LANDFILL GAS MANAGEMENT)

Same as DEIR

1.5.5 DUST

Same as DEIR

1.5.6 NOISE

Same as DEIR

1.5.7 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

Same asDEIR


I I I --• -•

-

-


4.6 WATER QUALITY

Same as DEIR

4.7 WETLANDS

Same as DEIR

4.8 RARE SPECIES HABIT AT


In response to the Notice of Project Change filed for this project, the Natural Heritage and

Endangered Species Program (NHESP) Office issued a letter dated February 15, 2005,

reporting that the landfill expansion site is habitat for the eastern box turtle (Terrapene

carolina), a Massachusetts Species of Special Concern. The box turtle is a woodland species

that is found in both dry and moist woodlands, brushy fields, thickets, marshes, bogs, stream

banks and well-drained bottomland.

Dufresne-Henry, on behalf of the City ofNorthampton, completed a report entitled "Rare

Species Impact Assessment and Summary of Site Review" dated May 2005 which was

submitted to NHESP for review. The study determined the limits ofthe Eastern Box Turtle

habitat area in the vicinity of the proposed project, and also identified an additional special

concern species (spotted turtle Clemmys guttata) and two vernal pools. The report included

recommendations to avoid disturbance of these areas during the final design of the Phase 5

landfill Expansion. The plan in Appendix P of the DEIR depicts the limits of the modified

habitat area for both special concern species, and the limits of the two vernal pools. This EIR

does not include a copy of the final report, but pertinent sections are provided below.

NHESP commented on the findings of the study in a letter dated June 16, 2005,and required

several alterations to the habitat limits as shown on the site plan in Appendix P of the DEIR.

These modifications were made and submitted on July 19, 2005.

The design of the Phase 5 expansion in the DEIR avoided the habitat areas that were

identified with the NHESP. However, the comment letter on the DEIR from the NHESP




dated October 24, 2005 suggested that the project limits remained within the actual habitat of

the protected species. A meeting was conducted with their staff on November 30, 2005 to

discuss their DEIR comment letter and to address the additional mitigation needs. The

following text has been revised from the DEIR to reflect the results of the meeting and to

address the NHESP comment letter on the D EIR.

4.8.1 HABIT AT STUDY AREA CHARACTERISTICS

The focus of this assessment includes the actual footprint of the landfill expansion, and the

adjacent habitat to the north and west on property owned by the City of Northampton. No

assessment of private properties along Route 66 or Glendale Road was completed as a part of

this study. Off-site properties are discussed relative to potential continuity of habitat, but no

assessment is made relative to the presence/absence of protected plants and wildlife on those

properties.

The project site consists of a 51.5-acre parcel adjacent to and north ofthe existing landfill.

The City purchased the property in 1988 for the purposes of developing a solid waste landfill.

Approximately 34 acres of the property consists of a former gravel pit that was excavated to

near the groundwater table over much of the area. The north, east and west perimeter of the

gravel pit contains steep, exposed gravel faces that are relatively unstable. The undisturbed

portion of the site is primarily to the north and east. The northern portion includes a mosaic

of upland and wetland community types, while the eastern area is principally a mixed

deciduous/coniferous forested wetland forming the headwaters of Hannum Brook. Each of

the different habitat areas are discussed below.

4.8.2 GRAVEL PIT

The gravel pit is predominantly exposed sand/gravel surface with scattered piles of wood/leaf

debris from the composting operation (Photograph 1, DEIR Appendix Q). The eastern

quarter of the pit contains a pooling area created by the excavation (DEIR Photograph 2).

Shallow groundwater and a direct stormwater discharge from Route 66/Glendale Road

support the pool area, which has been colonized by various herbs, shrubs and saplings over


I I I --• --

-



the past five years. Prior to 2000, the pooling area lacked any vegetative cover. The sandy

substrate along the edge of the pool has been colonized by grey birch (Betula populifolia),

autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata), sweet fern (Comptonia peregrina), willow (salix sp.),

cottonwood (Populus deltoids) and black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia). The inundated

interior contains a patchy cover of common cattail (Typha latifolia), common reed

(Phragmites australis), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) and some wool-grass (Scirpus

cyperinus); it is anticipated that common reed will dominate the entire site in the near future

since rapid spreading has been observed over the past three years. Steep and rocky fill banks

extend into the pool along the east, north and south edges. The western edge grades slowly

to a dry sandy plateau (DEIR Photograph 4).

The eastern third of the gravel pit is used as a detention area for runoff from the com posting

area and the northern edge of the landfill. An outlet channel extends from the open water of

the basin directly into the forested wetland headwaters of Hannum Brook. This open water

channel connection has functioned as a conduit for wildlife from the Hannum Brook corridor

to populate both the detention basin and pooling area. Snapping turtle (Chelydra s.

serpentina), painted turtle (Chrysemys p. picta), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), green frog

(Rana clamitans melanota), spring peeper (Hyla c. crucifer) and American toad (Bufo a.

americanus) are common in both basins. Nesting depressions of snapping turtle were

identified in the sandy cliff base along the north side ofthe detention basin outlet channel.

Vegetation is sparse around the detention basin; however, some emergent growth occurs

around the fringe dominated by common cattail.

Existing south-facing exposed gravel/sand slopes exist along the detention basin outlet

channel and along the northern edge of the gravel pit as shown on the rare species

impact/mitigation plan (FEIR Appendix F). Such slopes are typically used as primary turtle

nesting habitat due to the ease of excavation, and the increased soil temperatures due to the

lack of vegetation and southern exposure. Some secondary nesting habitat (expanses of

exposed sand/gravel on flat surfaces but subject to considerable direct sunlight) occurs along

the northern portion of this area as well. The middle and southern portions of this eastern

section of the gravel pit are used extensively for wood waste storage and composting




operations, and have been subject to constant disturbance. Exposed natural substrates are

lacking.

The central portion of the pit is utilized for the composting operation and consists ofvarious

piles ofleafand wood debris, with various mounds ofrock!gravel/sand remaining from the

mining operation (DEIR Photograph 3). The northern portion of the pit has avoided this

constant disturbance allowing for some early successional growth to develop prior to the

mature woodland edge (DEIR Photograph 6). This transition community is typical of

droughty, nutrient-poor soil conditions and is dominated by grey birch, black locust,

trembling aspen (Populus tremula) and sweet fern. There is no significant leaf litter

accumulation in this zone, and exposed sand is the norm throughout much this transitional

area. This community is bordered by vertical exposed gravel faces which occur along the

entire northern edge of the site representing some primary turtle nesting habitat as shown on

the site plan in FEIR Appendix F. Mature woodlands occur immediately at the top of these

cliffs (DEIR Photographs 4, 5 and 6). South of this area is the existing landfill operation.

The western third of the pit is dominated by a storm water pooling area (described below) but

with some exposed sand/gravel slopes along the northern boundary. Most of this area is

colonized by dense, low vegetation, however the slopes continue to provide some exposed

substrate. This northern slope is identified as primary turtle nesting habitat on the rare

species plan in FEIR Appendix F.

4.8.3 NORTHERN WOODLANDS

North of the gravel pit limits and south of the residential development along Route 66, there

occurs a mixed coniferous/deciduous forest dominated by a canopy of mature white pine

(Pinus strobus), eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), sugar maple (Acer saccharum), red

maple (Acer rubrum) and oak (Quercus spp.). Average diameter exceeds 20" in most areas.

This dense, mature canopy (DEIR Photograph 7) creates intense shading of the understory,

minimizing the shrub and groundcover layers. Fallen timber litters much of the forest floor

and snags are prevalent. A thick well stratified leaf litter is constant throughout the forest.


I I I --• -•

--

-



The topography is gently rolling interrupted by a few steeper slopes as shown on the site

plan.

This upland forest is interrupted by two depressional areas that contain persistent open water

pools. The pools are fringed by a variable width vegetated wetland of eastern hemlock, red

maple and pin oak (Quercus palustris), with variable shrub and groundcover layers. Pool A

(see Site Plan in DEIR Appendix P) has a maximum inundated area of approximately 6,000

square feet and is located approximately 120 feet north of the gravel pit edge (DEIR

Photograph 9). Seeps in the adjacent gravel face of the gravel pit suggest some localized

impact on the groundwater table from the mining. All-terrain vehicles have impacted the

soils to the east of Pool A, but the pool and adjacent upland and wetland forest are in good

condition. Spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata) and wood frog (Rana sylvatica) tadpoles/egg

masses were observed in Pool A.

Pool B is located over 300 feet to the north ofPool A in the center of the mature forested area

(DEIR Photograph 8). There is a forested ridge separating the two pools with containing

extensive faller timber and dense shading from large hemlocks (DEIR Photograph 7). Pool

B has an average inundated area of about 4,000 square feet, but is (on average) deeper than

Pool A and appears to have a more persistent hydrology. Wood frog adults, tadpoles and egg

masses were observed in this pool, along with spring peeper adults and American toad adults

and egg masses. It is within a different drainage basin than Pool A and lower in the

landscape, and does not appear to have been affected by the gravel pit operation.

4.8.4 EASTERN WOODLANDS

Bordering the east side of the gravel pit is a mixed coniferous/deciduous forested wetland

bordering intermittent channels that merge to the south of the site to form Hannum Brook; a

perennial tributary of the Manhan River. There is a narrow border of forested upland

between the gravel pit and the wetland boundary as shown on the site plan. This headwaters

forested wetland is contiguous with the northern woodlands described above, but is also

contiguous with forested uplands and wetlands to the east and south forming a large tract of




uninterrupted habitat. The wetland is dominated by an eastern hemlock and red maple

canopy, and the shrub and groundcover layers are dense and diverse. Numerous coldwater

seeps emanate from the forest floor creating small, abrupt pockets of vegetative variation

along with a complex microtopography. The groundcover is dense throughout. This

continuity of habitat along a high quality stream provides a high degree of habitat variability

and is especially appealing to species with higher forested habitat acreage demands.

4.8.5 HABITAT CONTINUITY

The site plan reveals an uninterrupted corridor of vegetation extending from the western edge

of the property eastward to the Hannum Brook headwaters. This habitat continues

southward, crossing some minor roadways, all the way to the Manhan River. Eastward, the

habitat intersects sparse residential development but continues to provide some important

forested acreage. Such large habitat tracts with the vegetative and hydrologic diversity

observed in this area provide habitat for those species that are intolerant of fragmentation.

Several of the terrestrial turtle species are in this group, where reproductive success requires

direct access to historic breeding areas, and a minimum population of adults to ensure a

sufficient contact frequency. Thus, while the characteristics provided for each community

type are important from a pure habitat preference viewpoint, their importance can be

overshadowed by fragmentation where travel corridors are constrained by busy roadways,

man-made slopes, fences, etc. The mature wooded area of the subject parcel and the adjacent

areas provide such continuity.

4.8.6 HYDROLOGICAL CONDITIONS RELATED TO HABITAT

The gravel pit operation reduced grades over the disturbed area from 15 to 40 feet

(approximate), exposing the groundwater table and having localized impacts on the water

table under adjacent areas. Photograph 5, DEIR, shows one such seep that is typical of

many along the cut. The pit and adjacent woodlands represent more of a discharge area,

where groundwater seeps and localized storm water runoff form intermittent channels, which

eventually merge, forming a perennial stream. The site plan shows the calculated point of


I I I • -

• -•

-

•



this transition from intermittent drainage to perennial flow. Where the topography confines

flow, temporary pools are formed (as is the case for Pools A and B).

This natural hydrology is supplemented by stormwater runoff from the landfill (via the

detention basin outlet channel) and from the area roadways. A significant discharge pipe

occurs in the mature woods in the northwest comer of the gravel pit. This flow has eroded a

channel down to the gravel pit pooling area where it infiltrates; there is no surface water

discharge from the pooling area. The temporary pools, the gravel pit pooling area, the

detention basin, and the seeps/channel ofthe Hannum Brook headwaters represent the

available surface water resources in the study area. Recent beaver activity along Hannum

Brook has resulted in some flooding of the adjacent forested wetland, but this appears to be a

temporary conditions since food resources are limited behind the dams.

4.8.7 HABITAT ASSESSMENT SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The mature wooded habitat to the north and east of the landfill and the Phase 5 expansion site

provides all of the necessary habitat characteristics to support box turtle. The cool and

constant moisture conditions of the Hannum Brook headwaters provide both the preferred

cover and food resources for the species, and also provide an unfragmented home range area

greater than the minimum requirements reported in the literature. Deep leaf litter and large

downed timber of the upland woods provides the preferred cover and hibemacula

documented by telemetry studies. The large diameter of the downed timber in the woodlands

will provide long term cover habitat and the mature trees will provide constant replacement

of the wood litter. The limit of the mature woodlands is delineated on the site plan based on

sketch level accuracy conducted during the site visit. Obvious features on the aerial

photograph were readily identified in the field, lending to an acceptable accuracy for the

habitat assessment.

The mature wooded uplands and wetlands of the project area represent the primary habitat of

the box turtle. The species has a range of secondary habitats as well that include ecotones

such as the gravel pit transition area along the northern project boundary. Where this




transition area was documented to contain little topsoil and/or leaflitter, it was disregarded as

potential critical habitat. However, where the ecotone was simply a result of vegetation

clearing, but topsoil and leaf litter remained, it was noted as potential secondary habitat.

Leaf litter provides cover opportunities and, when combined with topsoil or decomposed

organic matter, supports the invertebrate populations and groundcover that are one of the

food sources for the species. Where this ecotone condition occurs in the northwest comer of

the site, the more transitional growth was included in the mature woods delineation (and thus

primary box turtle habitat area) due to observed favorable conditions.

The detention basin and the gravel pit pooling area both provide permanent water resources

and some emergent vegetation that can be used by box turtle as habitat. However, these

areas are disconnected from the primary habitat by exposed sand/gravel surfaces that lack a

continuous vegetative cover, and also by steep slopes that include an initial precipitous drop.

While the detention basin and gravel pit pooling area were accessed by both snapping and

painted turtle, these species are a bit more wide ranging and adaptable than box turtle, and

can survive with just the open water habitat and a small adjacent area for breeding (snapping

turtle nests were identified in the detention basin banks during the site visit). The box turtle

habitat requires a bit more variability, especially relative to the presence of adjacent forested

areas, and thus they are not considered prime habitat in this case. It is also pertinent that

these are recently created areas, evolving from a significant period of disturbance.

The potential use of secondary habitat types by box turtle in this case is dependent on the

level of home range fidelity for the species. The disturbed gravel pit limits represents a

relatively recent change in the ecosystem which presumably consisted of mature upland

forest prior to the mining operation. During the peak disturbance period of the site (over

several consecutive years), there would have been significant impacts on individuals and

breeding success if this specific population had a high site fidelity that included the gravel pit

acreage. A lower fidelity may have reduced or eliminated impacts to the population as the

constant disturbance functioned to repel transients. Since the cessation of significant activity

on that site approximately 5 to 10 years ago, there are few attractive habitat features on the

site besides the exposed sand/gravel areas (commonly used for egg deposition by several


I I I --• --

...

-L



turtle species) and the surface water areas; and any habitat features that are readily available

are located outside of the disturbance limits. Even if low site fidelity is assumed, it is

doubtful that the pit environs would be used as habitat by any individuals besides transients.

The potential use of the pit by individuals is not in question since there are numerous

documentations of individuals found in roads, lawns, parking lots, etc. The use of the pit as

overall core habitat is the principal issue.

In addition to identifying the box turtle habitat, this investigation revealed the presence of

two potential vernal pool sites and a sustaining spotted turtle population. While Pool B is

well beyond the limits of any impact associated with the project, Pool A occurs close to the

northern boundary of the project limits. The pool edge was delineated and placed on the base

plan, revealing that the project will maintain a setback of at least 100 feet from the pool edge.

However, some of the mature forest impacts occur near Pool A which could reduce the

amount of available upland woods surrounding the pool. Given that the spotted turtle

population is associated with Pool A, protection of detritus-generating trees and all

contributors to the pool hydrology become important.

The spotted turtle population contains six or more individuals, all observed in Pool A.

However, Pool B is certainly within the reported home range movement of this species and is

likely utilized based on its (apparent) more persistent hydrology and deeper mud/detritus

deposits. The range of age classes was apparent from observations made for this assessment,

and two individuals captured for photographs measured 3.2" and 4.3" (plastron length).

Mating behavior between two larger individuals was observed during the site visit. One

specimen appeared to be smaller than the captured 3.2-inch turtle; however, it was not

obtained for measurement. A rare species observation form were submitted to NHESP.

Photographs are provided in DEIR Appendix Q.

4.8.7.1 Turtle Nesting Habitat

Per discussions with the MNHESP since the submission of the DEIR, the gravel pit was

further analyzed for primary and secondary turtle nesting habitat, resulting in the rare species

impact/mitigation plan in FEIR Appendix F. South facing sand/gravel slopes composed of




less than 25% vegetative cover were identified as primary nesting habitat, while exposed

level non-compacted surfaces that receive little disturbance and are relatively close to the

northern! eastern core habitat were identified as secondary nesting habitat. This further

analysis resulted in the identification of35,115 square feet of primary, and 85,920 square feet

of secondary turtle nesting habitat within or directly adjacent to the Phase 5 expansion area.

The identified areas are identified as Areas 1 through 4 on the plan.

The largest expanse of primary nesting habitat occurs along the northeastern rim of the gravel

pit, identified as Area 4 on the rare species impact/mitigation plan and shown in DEIR

Photograph 5. At the base of this slope, only sparse, low herbaceous cover has colonized the

sand/gravel surface, creating the only wide expanse of identified secondary nesting habitat in

the pit. This section of the pit is not used for com posting or storage, and thus has remained

relatively undisturbed since the original excavation. Woody vegetation is starting to colonize

this secondary habitat, which will slowly degrade its value over time.

The Area 1 steep slope in the northwestern site corner (DEIR Photograph 4), and the south

facing slope of the eastern detention basin outlet channel (Area 4) both provide primary

habitat as well. Both of these areas contain more herbaceous cover than the northeastern

slope area, at about the 25% cover threshold identified for this study. A slope area that

exceeds the cover threshold and thus was not considered as primary habitat is located in Area

2. Here, sapling growth has shaded the bottom of the slope while existing mature woods at

the top and sides minimize the nesting value of this relatively large slope area (DEIR

Photograph 6).

The remaining slopes and level areas of the gravel pit are either well colonized by vegetation

or subject to frequent disturbance. Two areas of the gravel pit floor (Area 3) were found to

provide some limited secondary habitat, although both areas have been disturbed more

frequently than the wide expanse of secondary habitat in Area 4.

The creation of additional primary and secondary habitat as mitigation for impacts to Areas 1

through 4 is discussed in Section 7 of this FEIR.


I I I .. --• --

-

-

-

-


SECTION 5

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS

5.1 WETLANDS RESOURCE AREA IMPACTS

Same as DEIR.

5.2 RARE SPECIES IMPACTS


As described in detail in Section 4, the project site and adjacent areas provided habitat

suitable for the eastern box turtle and spotted turtle, which are protected as species of

"Special Concern". The limits of the habitat have been identified on the Phase 5 expansion

site so that potential impacts due to the Phase 5 landfill expansion could be identified. These

estimated habitat limits of the eastern box turtle and spotted turtle have been identified and

discussed with Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP).

The DEIR limits of habitat areas are depicted on the Wildlife Habitat Assessment Base Plan

with Aerial Photograph Underlay located in DEIR Appendix P. Two vernal pools are also

located to the north of the expansion site.

Primary and secondary turtle nesting habitat limits were added to the overall habitat base

plan based on additional coordination with the NHESP since completing the DEIR. In a

meeting with their staff on November 30, 2005, a rare species impact/mitigation plan was

developed that shows the limits of primary and secondary turtle nesting habitat within or

adjacent to the project limits. This plan is contained in FEIR Appendix F. The nesting areas

are described in Section 4 of this FEIR.

5.2.1 NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE

The no build alternative results in no additional clearing or disturbance of the gravel pit area

resulting in no impact on the defined habitat area.

12/05 5-l Dufresne-Henry




The footprint of the horizontal expansion was modified from the original proposal contained

in the Notice of Project Change due to the close coordination with the NHESP. In response

to the NHESP comments on the Notice of Project Change, the extent of rare species habitat

and vernal pools was investigated and located. The limits were reviewed with NHESP, and a

plan was developed depicting the important habitat areas. The plan was expanded for this

FEIR based on additional coordination, resulting in the plan in FEIR Appendix F. The

horizontal expansion has been designed to avoid the identified limits of rare species habitat

and vernal pool habitat.

Based on the limits of the nesting habitat within the gravel pit, the following impacts have

been calculated based on the horizontal expansion alternative. The plan depicts the primary

nesting habitat in blue, which occurs within Areas 1 and 4. Secondary habitat is depicted in

green, and occurs in Areas 3 and 4. The no action and vertical expansions would have no

impacts on the nesting habitat.

Primary turtle nesting habitat: 11,465.91 square feet

Secondary turtle nesting habitat: 85,920.90 square feet

Mitigation measures to offset these impacts are contained in Section 7 of this FEIR.


The vertical expansion over the existing landfill Phases 1-4 avoids impact to undisturbed

areas of the adjacent expansion parcel. As a result, there would be no impact on the defined

habitat areas.

5.3 GROUNDWATER QUALITY IMPACTS

Same as DEIR.


I I I • -.I..

• -•

-

•

-

-

Northampton Regional Sanitary Landfill Phase 5/5B Expansion Section 6 Final Environmental Impact Report Statutory & Regulatory Standards & Requirements

SECTION 6

STATUTORY AND REGULATORY

STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS

6.1 NORTHAMPTON WETLANDS BYLAW AND THE MASSACHUSETTS

WETLANDS PROTECTION ACT

Same as DEIR.

6.2 MASSACHUSETTS ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

The Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) protects

biological diversity in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts through biological research,

inventory, data management, environmental impact review, restoration and management of

rare species and their habitat, land acquisition, and education. NHESP publishes the

Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas, which contains complete sets of two separate maps for

all areas of the state. One map delineates "Estimated Habitats" of rare wildlife and locations

of certified vernal pools for use with the Wetlands Protection Act Regulations and the other

map coverage delineates "Priority Habitats" of rare plant and animal species for use with the

Massachusetts Endangered Species Act Regulations. According to the most recent

Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas, the project site is within Priority Habitat for the

Eastern box turtle. Additionally, spotted turtle were identified on the site as a part of the

environmental investigation for this project. The Massachusetts Endangered Species Act

(MESA) is implemented through its implementing regulations (321 CMR 10.00).

NHESP issued a letter dated February 15, 2005 in response to the filing ofthe Notice of

Project Change for this project. NHESP recommended that the proponent conduct a detailed

Eastern Box Turtle habitat analyses on the project site. The goal of the habitat analyses is to

determine the extent of rare wildlife habitat on the site and potentially direct the proposed

layout and design to meet the requirements under MESA.


Northampton Regional Sanitary Landfill Phase 5/5B Expansion Section 6 Final Environmental Impact Report Statutory & Regulatory Standards & Requirements

Dufresne-Henry, on behalf of the City of Northampton, completed a report entitled "Rare

Species Impact Assessment and Summary of Site Review" dated May 2005 which was

submitted to NHESP for review. The study determined the limits of the spotted turtle and

Eastern box turtle habitat area in the vicinity of the proposed project and included

recommendations to avoid disturbance of these areas during the final design of the Phase 5

landfill Expansion. NHESP commented on the findings of the study in a letter dated June 16,

2005,and required several alterations to the habitat limits as shown on the site plan. These

modifications were made and submitted on July 19, 2005. The final design of the Phase 5

expansion in the DEIR avoided the habitat areas. Additional nesting habitat areas were

identified through additional coordination with the MNHESP. Impacts to these areas will

result from the preferred development alternative, and mitigation measures have been

developed to replace these areas. NHESP will determine whether a filing under the

Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (321 CMR 10.000) is necessary based on the

modifications made in this FEIR.

6.3 NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM

STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN

In 1972, Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), also known as

the Clean Water Act (CWA), to restore and maintain the quality of the nation's waterways.

The ultimate goal was to make sure that rivers and streams were fishable, swimmable and

drinkable. In 1987, the Water Quality Act (WQA) added provisions to Section 402 of the

CW A that allowed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to govern storm water

discharges from industrial activities; known as the National Pollution Discharge Elimination

System or NPDES program. While some states administer the CW A directly, in other states

including Massachusetts, the CW A is administered by the EPA.

EPA published the final notice for Phase I of the Multi-Sector General Storm Water Permit

program in 1995, which included provisions for the development of a Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by each industrial facility discharging storm water, including


I I I • -• -•

-

-

-

-


SECTION 7

MITIGATION MEASURES

Section 7 Mitigation Measures

The proposed Phase 5 horizontal expansion to the Northampton Sanitary Landfill will be

designed to meet applicable regulatory requirements and will minimize potential adverse

impacts on the surrounding community. Section 5 assessed the potential impacts that may

results from the proposed Phase 5 landfill expansion project.

7.1 WETLAND RESOURCE AREAS

Same as DEIR.

7.2 RARE SPECIES

To avoid impact to the defined habitat area of both the eastern box and spotted turtle the

project limits for the Phase 5 expansion were reduced in size in the DEIR, when compared to

the limits depicted on the Notice of Project Change Proposed Plan. The limits of the habitat

versus the work limits of the preferred alternative are shown on the habitat base plan located

in DEIR Appendix P.

Additional coordination with the MNHESP identified primary and secondary turtle nesting

habitat within the work limits as described in Section 4 of this FEIR. Impacts to the primary

and secondary nesting habitat were identified. Mitigation for impacts to nesting areas have

been included below, while other mitigation measures have been enhanced at the request of

the MNHESP. Of particular importance is the design/placement of the wildlife diversion

fencing during construction. This fence has been added to the rare species impact/mitigation

plan in FEIR Appendix F.

Based on the observations made during the habitat investigation and on the life history

literature for the study species, several additional mitigation measures beyond the project




reduction are made to further reduce impacts to protected species and areas, and allow the

applicant to avoid a taking under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act. These

measures include:

• A void the limit of mature forested area as delineated on the site plan (See Plan

"Wildlife Habitat Assessment Base Plan with Aerial Photograph Underlay" in DEIR

Appendix P). The grading limits should be designed to protect the delineated edge of

mature woods which should preserve the core habitat of the box turtle population.

(The conceptual grading plan shown in this FEIR avoids these areas.) Additionally,

the primary turtle nesting habitat areas shown on the plan in FEIR Appendix F shall

be isolated with the wildlife diversion fencing discussed below. These areas shall

remain undisturbed except for the removal of vegetation to preserve the exposed

sand/gravel as detailed in these mitigation measures.

• Install perimeter fencing in the location shown on the rare species impact/mitigation

plan prior to construction. Portions of this fence are to be installed at the toe of the

existing gravel pit slopes to allow access to nesting sites during landfill construction.

The ends of the fence should be tied into steep slopes and/or curved back into the

wooded area in an attempt to prevent wildlife from entering the work zone. This

fence shall be of high quality, long duration material (solid plastic fence backed by

wire or monofilament mesh) with strong supports (steel t-posts) installed at 25-foot

intervals to last several years. The toe of the fence shall be continuously embedded in

the soil to prevent passage. Planning and installation of the fence will be completed

under the supervision of a qualified wildlife biologist.

• Expand the extent of primary and secondary turtle nesting habitat through the careful

removal of vegetation and root systems in specified areas of the site (and shown on

the rare species impact/mitigation plan in FEIR Appendix F). A total additional area

of38,200 square feet ofprimarynesting area, and 57,600 square feet of secondary

nesting area shall be created with the initial development of this project. See

specifications following this section.

• Control the unauthorized use of all-terrain vehicles on the newly acquired City

conservation property to the north of the proposed Phase 5 landfill expansion site.


I I I • -• • -•

-

-

-

-



Severe rutting and soil disturbance were observed near Pool A and these continuous

deep ruts can pose a challenge to amphibian/reptile movements. Also, these vehicles

are typically run through small ponded areas as part of the experience, which could

do irreparable harm to the spotted turtle population as the pool is quite small, thus

vulnerable to even small physical disturbances.

• Complete a wildlife capture/movement operation in the site detention basin prior to

filling. Several large snapping turtles exist in the detention basin along with smaller

individuals, painted turtle, bull frog, green frog and several snake species. Properly

timed, many of these individuals can be captured/released into the adjacent Hannum

Brook corridor and beyond the confinement fencing. Time this operation to avoid the

re-population of the detention basin prior to filling it.

• Funnel wildlife in the proposed fill area of the gravel pit pooling area to the non

impact side of the pool. Expand the pool limits to make up for the lost open water

area. Control invasive species in this pooling area by completing a vegetation

management plan along with the final landfill design.

• Repair groundwater seeps in the gravel cliff face. The proposed landfill grading

scheme should fill directly against the vertical sand/gravel faces to block the created

seeps where possible. This could restore localized groundwater elevations, especially

in the isolated wetland that supports V emal Pool A. These areas shall be reviewed

by a qualified wildlife biologist prior to staking the limits of work.

• Drainage piping associated with the landfill perimeter should not act as a conduit for

groundwater that supports adjacent wetland areas. Infiltration of stormwater and

collected groundwater should be practiced to protect the Hannum Brook headwaters.

• The prior purchase of the property to the north of the gravel pit by the City has

protected a valuable wildlife resource. The preliminary development plans that had

been prepared for the parcel would have removed most of the mature forested area,

reducing the overall quality ofthe habitat. The property has been deeded as

conservation land for long-term protection.




7.2.1 TURTLE NESTING HABITAT CREATION

The project will result in losses of turtle nesting habitat as outlined in Table 7-1. Mitigation

will include the list of items detailed above, which includes the restoration of primary and

secondary nesting habitat in the manner specified herein.

TABLE 7-1: TURTLE NESTING HABITAT IMPACTS/MITIGATION SUMMARY

Action Primary Nesting Habitat Secondary Nesting Habitat

Project Impacts 10,900 square feet 84,500 square feet

Restoration 38,200 square feet 57,600 square feet

Net +27,300 square feet -26,900 square feet

There were four criteria used in selecting areas for nesting habitat restoration. These include:

• Avoid the clearing of mature woods. Restrict the habitat restoration to formerly

cleared areas where woody vegetation is less than 20 years old.

• Restrict areas to the northern portion of the gravel pit, where access from the core

habitat areas is possible.

• Restrict the restoration of primary nesting habitat to south-facing slopes.

• Avoid areas of probable inundation or high groundwater. This includes the lower

slopes and the bottoms of the detention/retention basins.

Use ofthese criteria allowed for the restoration totals detailed in Table 7-1, resulting in a net

increase in permanently protected nesting habitat adjacent to the newly acquired core habitat

area to the north of the proposed project.

The restoration areas shall be cleared of vegetation resulting in an exposed sand/gravel

surface. The tops of the slopes shall be rounded where feasible to prevent an abrupt drop

when entering the site from the north or east. Slopes shall range from 1:1 to 3:1, steeper

slopes in the restoration areas shall be graded to obtain the specified range. Once cleared and

graded, the diversion fence shall be installed (or re-installed if already present) so that


I I I • -

• -•

-

•

-

-



immediate access is available to the sites. Where seeding is necessary, only a native upland

grass seed mix tolerant of droughty soils shall be utilized. Where mowing is necessary, it

shall be restricted to once per year, conducted during the fall season.

The preservation of the extensive area of core habitat to the north of the project, combined

with the permanent protection and expansion of nesting habitat on the project site should

enhance the long-term existence of both turtle species in the project area.

The City is committed to these mitigation measures, and they are included in the Section 61

findings statement in Section 9 ofthis FEIR.

7.3 GROUNDWATER QUALITY IMPACTS

Same as DEIR.

7.4 LANDFILL GAS CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT

Same as DEIR.

7.5 DUST

Same as DEIR.

7.6 NOISE

Same as DEIR.

7.7 STORMWATER CONTROLS

The proposed conceptual design for the Phase 5 horizontal expansion will comply with the

applicable standards of the Massachusetts DEP Stormwater Management Policy. The Policy

requires the final landfill design to provide facilities for all runoff from new stormwater


-

APPENDIXF

RARE SPECIES IMP ACTS AND MITIGATION PLAN

-

Comrttol1wea[//t o[Massachtm!lts - - - I I 1~1

Ma.ssWildlife

Stephen R. Pritchard, Secretary Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Attention; MEPA Offtce1 William Gage EOEA No. 12351 100 Cambridge St. Boston, Massachusetts 02114

Project Name: Proponent: Location: Document Reviewed: NHESP Tracking No:

Dear Secretruy Ptitchard,

-I I rildlit Wayne F. MacCallum, Director

Northampton Regional Sanitary Landfill Northampton Department of Public Works Glendale Road, Northampton Draft Environmeniallmpact Revi.-ow 00-8026

January 20, 2005

The Nattu-al Hetitage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP) ofthe MA Division of Fisheries & Wildlife would like to offer the following comments regarding impacts to :;tate-listed rare species for the proposed Phase 5/5B expansion of the Notthampton landfill.

The proposed project is located within Priority Habitat and Estimated Habitat for tvvo state-listed turtle species. The Spotted Turtle (Clemmy.s guttata) and Eastern Box Turtle (Terrapelte carolina) are statelisted as "Special Concern" and protected pursuant to the imple1nenting regulations of the MA Endangered Species Act (MESA) (321 CMR 10.00).

Based upon the information that was submitted in the FEIR, the NHESP has determined that the proposed will not result in a "take" of Eastern Box Turtle or Spotted Turtle provid<~d that the proponent complies with the rare species mitigation outlined in section 7.2 "Mitigation Measur-~s" of the FEIR, which provide construction and post-construction measures for state-listed turtles and the additional items outlined in this letter. In addition, the NHESP recommends that turtle nesting habitat manafl:emcnt (i.e. vegetation removallpruning) be conducted, as needed, on a rotational cycle (~5 years) in the secondary and primary tu1tle nesting habitats as shown in Appendix F (dated December 2005). Vegetation management should occur in conjunction with the proposed fall mowing and both should occu;- after October 15 of a given year. The nesting habitat management, mowing, and permanent wildlife fencing maintenance should be incomorated into the 0Qerations and !Yiaintenance Manual, or similar document, for the property and we request to review a copv of this document.

The NHESP notes the Town's adjacent land acquisition of forested and wetland habitats suitable for the Eastern Box and Spotted Turtles and we recommend that the town place this land under habitat protect measures (e.g. Conservation Restriction (CR)) that pe;-manently protects these habitats for state-listed rare and general wildlife. The NHESP has CR templates available upon request and we reauest to review a cony of the CR document.

wu·w. massVI:ildl ife. oro

Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Field Headquarters, One Rabbit Hill Road, Westborough, MA 01581 (508) 792-7270 Fax (508) 792· 7275 All Agency of the Devartmen! of Fisheries, Wildlife & £nv!ronme11ta! Low Enforcement

ZEZ-~ 900/ZOO-d ~69-1 + so:zt eooz-oz-lo

NHESP Tracking No. 00-8026, Page 2

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. Please call Dan Nein, Endangered Species Review Biologist, at (508) 792-7270, x 151 with any questions about this letter.

Thomas W. French, Ph.D. Assistant Director

cc: Mr. Ned Huntley, Northampton City Engineer Randall Christensen, Dufresne-Henry Northampton Planning Board Nmtha:mpton Consetvation Commission

90=Zl 9002-0Z-lC

I I I • -•

•

-

-

-

Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Diwi1ion of fi1he1rie1 & Wildlife

'II ass Wildlife

Ellen Roy Herzfelder, Secretary Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Attention: MEPA Office, William Gage, EOEA No. 12351 100 Cambridge St., Suite 900, Boston, Massachusetts 02114

Wayne F. MacCallum, Director

Feb. IS, 2005 RECEIVED

FEB 1 7 2005

Project Name: Proponent:

Northampton Regional Sanitary Landfill DUFRESNE-HENRY Mr. Ned Huntley, City Engineer, Northampton DPW

Location: Glendale Road, Northampton Document Reviewed: Notice of Project Change NHESP File Number: 00-8026

Dear Secretary Roy Herzfelder,

The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP) ofthe MA Division of Fisheries & Wildlife would like to offer the following comments regarding impacts to state-! is ted rare species for the proposed Phase 5 expansion of the landfill located off of Glendale Road. This project site is located within Priority Habitat and actual habitat for the Eastern Box Turtle (Terrapene carolina). The Eastern Box Turtle is state-listed as a species of"Special Concern" pursuant to the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MGL c_ l31A).

Based upon the information available at this time, the NHESP is concerned that direct mortality from proposed construction activities and proposed alterations of rare wildlife habitat may result in a probable "take" of the Eastern Box Turtle, as defined in the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act regulations (MESA). A "take" of

• an animal is defined in the MESA regulations (321 CMR l 0.02) to include activities that will disrupt the nesting, breeding, feeding or migratory activity of the state-listed species. The NHESP is concerned that this . project, as currently proposed, will require review and permitting under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act and its implementing regulations (321 CMR 10.00).

The NHESP recommends that the proponent hire a wildlife biologist with extensive knowledge of the Eastern Box Turtle to conduct a detailed habitat analysis on the project site. This information will help to determine the extent of rare wildlife habitat on the site and potentially direct the proposed layout and design to meet the requirements under MESA. The proponent should submit the rare wildlife habitat analysis to the NHESP for review, clarify the acreage of proposed impacts to rare wildlife habitat, and assess project design alternatives that will avoid and minimize impacts to the Eastern Box Turtle to the greatest extent practicable.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. Please call Nancy Putnam at ext 306 with any questions about this letter.

fhomas W. French, Ph.D. Assistant Director

Division of Fisheries and Wildlife

wwwmasswildli(e.org

Field Headquarters, One Rabbit Hill Road, Westborough, MA 01581 (508) 792-7270 Fax (508) 792-7275 An Agency ofihe Oepar1me111 of F1shenes. Wdd!tfe & Environmental Law Enjorcemen/

0

• 0

•

•

• •

•

LEGEND - - --!1§Q}- -- MAJOR CONTOUR (DEP APPROVED

FINAL GRADE)

MINOR CONTOUR (EXISTING)

MAJOR CONTOUR (EXISTING)

MINOR CONTOUR (PROPOSED)

!-\ MAJOR CONTOUR (PROPOSED)

---- LINER LIMIT (PROPOSED)

-...!f' Wl3 .:!!! 1112 WETLAND LIMIT, FLAGS

- • • - RIVERFRONT AREA

~TREELINE

- 0 - WILDLIFE DIVERSION FENCE

- EXISTING PRIMARY TURTLE NESTING HABITAT

.. PROPOSED PRIMARY TURTLE NESTING HABITAT

~ EXISTING SECONDARY TURTLE NESTING HABITAT

.. PROPOSED SECONDARY NESTING HABITAT

0

/

--CITY OF NORTHAMPTON BOOK 7271 PAGE' 216

PLAN BOOK 195 PAGE' 98 LOT6&:7

0 D D

..

PROPOSED 100 YR FLOOD ELEV .. =z:JJ.-~1:!

I . PROPOSED

I RETENifiON \ BASIN ·.

• • 0

• •

GRAVEL PIT POOLING AREA

PROPOSED ..,....,.-, SCALE HSE

AND SCALE

. /-\ . / I -

.I / ' ' I \ . I .

---

--

--

C/JYOF~O'IJ BOOK 7;71 PAGE 216

PlAN BOOi{ \ 195 PAGE. 98 LO.T '5

--

VERNAL POOLS -- --

CITY OF NORTHAMPTON BOOK 7271 PAGE 216

PLAN BOOK 195 P& ~ LOT 4

Massachusetts State

Plane coordinates: ------~-=-:--------::::---In Northing: 2936170.2527 --Easting: 328104.4588

•

VERNAL POOL A

--

~ Massachusetts State Plane Coordinates: -Northing: 2935866.2764 Easting: 328012.8176 TJIF Will

. " .. . ~~ . . ' -~

'•

--

~ h ' . l1F WIJt .

l1F WI01

. "W102 I

I

'""' WI04 I

1 / l1F WI05

--

_,,...

EXISTING DETENTION BASIN

-

_..~ PHASE 58

""'W33

""' W32

W30

NOTES:

1. F'OR REFERENC£ TO ENCLOSED PfRIIIETER SEE BOOK 32:51 PAGE 282, PIAN BOOK 155 PAGE 78, LAND COURr CERnFICAT£ /1878 .t: LAND COURr PIAN 115:5of8.

2. HORIZONTAL (HAD 8:5) AND liER7lCAI. (HAD BB) CONTROL WAS ESTABUSHED Br A GL.O&U. POSITIONING ~ (GPS) SURVEY CONDUCTED Br VANASSE HACEN BRIJSTUN, INC., WI7H SUPFOf(T FROll HERJTAGE SURI!E)S. INC., DURJHG APRIL 2004.

:5. WEnAND BOUNDARIES SHOWN HEREON WERE DEUNE:A7ED Br DUFRESNE-HENRY, INC. WEnAND FUC LOCATION PmF0RJ1ED Br HERJTAGE SURI!E)S, INC. ON 5/18/2004.

4. UNDERGROUND unurr LOCATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE 1MSED UPON SURFACE: FE:ATURES AS LOCA7ED Br SURVEY AND AVAII..ABLE RECORD lliiTA. AND ARE APPROXIW.T£ ACruAL LOCATIONS SHOULD BE: VERIFIED WI7H THE: APPROPRJAT£ unurr COI.IPIN'f AND/OR MUNICIPAL DE:PARTIIE:NT PRIOR TO FINAL DESIGN AND/OR CONSTRUCnON.

5. SEE BOOK 5995 PAGE :50:5 F'OR A CELWIAR TOWER LEASE: AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE: CITY OF NORTIWIPTON .t: AMERICAN TOWER, L.P.

6. SEE LAND COURr CEHT./1878 F'OR J.IASSACHUSE:nS E:I.ECTRIC COIIPIN'f EASSIOO:

~ W27 • HANNUM BROOK rW?:B"' HEADWATERS

--· ·'

\

'·

' . '

\~WI9 ~WI8

·« \WF Wl7

·--

\""' Wl6

\-' Wl5

\.:!! W14

~WI3

~WI2

--

4.1 ACRES ON NEW PROPERTY

( J

------~ - --..,,_...!---------

' i

----·- ---

-•

I 0 . I

0/ /

/ ..- / / . /

_;..-'" / .. · / / ---- / / /

I . /I) // / -- --<-7 1 ·- // /

- ----.. -

r _ __ 1 ------------- OVERLAP ACREAGE ON / 1 ·

· ------ ----~------- EXISTING L~NDFI~L = 9.5 f.CR,ES // ·~/~, ------ / / ,6,,, / /

--~--- . - --~\ .,L ___.-" / / / / - --- ----- , L -....,- / / / '/

(' '

. . "--' - -----.:, \\

.__ .__ "\ \\

\ . \

,; \ \ \\ \ '

\ \\ I \\

I I I I I' I I

~ I I I I .

I , I \

\ \ I I \

\ \

·•. \

0 \ • • \

• •

• •

•

1 Sheet 1 of 1

D

APPENDIXP

WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT BASE PLAN

-

APPENDIXQ

HABITAT AREA PHOTOS

-

-

Northampton, Massachusetts Appendix 1 Rare Assessment

Photograph 1: General view of the Phase 5 landfill expansion area taken from the existing landfill facing north. One of the landfill detention basins can be seen in the right background. The cliff faces associated with the

previous gravel mining operation surround the northern edge of the expansion site, separating the mature coniferous/deciduous woodlands from the disturbed pit interior. Leaf/chip composting operation is located to the left of the detention basin, and involves much of the pit interior area.

Photograph 2: General view of the western pooling area of the gravel pit facing north. This area was excavated to below the water table, providing a semi-persistent pooling area. A major stormwater discharge from the Glendale Road I Route 66 intersection discharges directly to this basin, extending the hydroperiod. Common reed, purple loosestrife, common cattail, autumn olive, grey birch and poplar dominate the area. The basin was devoid of vegetation five years ago, but has since established in excess of 50% ground coverage. The basin supports painted turtle, snapping turtle, green frog, bull frog, spring peeper and American toad. The cliff face along the western property boundary can be seen in the left background. The white pine canopy represents the boundary between the disturbed pit area and the mature woodlands to the north.

05105 - 1 - Dufresne-Henry

-


Photograph 3: View of the gravel pit interior facing east at the composting operation. The mature red maple and white pine of the Hannum Brook headwaters can be seen in the background. The large white pine stand to the right is within one of the impact areas associated with a proposed detention basin.

Photograph 4: View of the northwest corner of the gravel pit showing the typical condition of the disturbed edge and the vegetated conditions of the floor. The delineated mature woodland edge extends along the top of the disturbed cliff face. This particular area may be used for stormwater management and/or expansion of the pooling area habitat. Unauthorized trespassing by all-terrain vehicles is common at the site as can be seen in this photo.

05/05 - ii Dufresne-Hen ry

-

Northampton, Massachusetts Appendix I Rare Assessment

Photograph 5: View of the interface between the disturbed gravel pit and the mature woodlands facing northeast. The abrupt cut in the soil is having a local effect on groundwater elevations, as evidenced by the numerous seeps in the cliff face along the entire length of the slope. The hydrology of the wetlands immediately to the north of the cut appears to have been altered by this activity, as evidenced by the presence of shallow rooted trees and gleyed soils in areas where spring groundwater elevations are greater than 1 foot below the soil surface. Restoration of this face may partially restore groundwater conditions

Photograph 6: View of the altered area adjacent to vernal pool A facing west. Growth at the bottom of the slope is approximately 5-8 years in age, consisting of species tolerant of drought and nutrient poor conditions. Topsoil is absent and leaf litter is scarce, resulting in a poor vegetative cover. The grey birch, white pine and poplar cover of the new growth around the gravel pit edge appears to have controlled the spread of many of the invasive plant species common to the pit interior.

05/05 -iii- Dufresne-Henry

-


Photograph 7: General view of the interior woodlands facing north. This condition is representative of the area between vernal pools A and B, as well as the upland area surrounding the Hannum Brook headwaters. Leaf litter depths are greater than 3 inches throughout the upland woodlands, with humus layers providing an additional 2 inches of organic debris on top of the mineral soil surface. Snags and downed timber in excess of 18" dbh are prevalent due to the dense and mature condition of the woodlands. Groundcover is sparse overall due to the dense conifer .,w.uu"t;·

Photograph 8: General view of vernal pool B facing west The western portion of this pool appears to contain persistent open water, while the eastern edge has a shorter hydroperiod as evidenced by the shrub cover at that end. The full pool covers approximately 4,000 square feet 8 wood frog egg masses, an American toad egg mass and spring peeper chorus were noted during the 4/21105 inspection. Upland woods surround the pooL

05/05 lV- Dufresne-Henry

-


Photograph 9: General view of vernal pool A facing north. This pool contains a population of at least 6 spotted turtle ( Clemmys guttata) with a good range of age classes. It has a small persistent open water area, with a full pool size of approximately 6,000 square feet. 32 wood frog egg masses and a very dense tadpole cover were noted during the site inspection. Views of spotted turtle from vernal pool A provided below.

05105 - v- Dufresne-Henry

-

Northampton, Massachusetts Rare Assessment

Top: Wood frog (Rana sylvatica) egg masses suspended from a tree branch in vernal pool A. Middle: Wood frog and American toad (Bufo a. americanus) egg masses in vernal pool B. Bottom: Dense collection of wood frog tadpoles in vernal pool B.

05/05 Vl-

Appendix I

Oufresne-Henry

APPENDIXG

AIR QUALITY IMPACTS

EXCERPTED SECTIONS 4.2, 5.4.2, 5.5.2, 5.6.2, 5.7.2, 7.4, 7.5 AND 7.6

AND APPENDICES J AND K

OFDEIR

-


4.1.7.6 Estimated Operational Life


Capping ofPhase 2 of the Northampton Landfill is scheduled to be complete later in 2005.

Substantial areas ofPhase 3 have been filled in order to maintain a side slope ofless than 3:1

on the western edge ofPhase 2. Capping of Phase 3 is projected to occur sometime in late

2006 or early 2007. At current rates of filling, it is anticipated that the landfill will reach

final capacity during 2008, at which point the capping of Phase 4 will begin.

4.2 AIR QUALITY, ODOR AND NOISE DESCRIPTION

The operation of a landfill may create air quality concerns for people living nearby related to

air quality, whether from odors, from dust, or from the noise of the landfill operation.

Landfill operations at this site are focused on minimizing the occurrence of off-site odors,

dust, and noise. This section discusses the air quality impacts of the existing Northampton

Landfill. Specifically, modeling was conducted to evaluate the landfill's existing potential

for odors, air toxics, dust and noise.

4.2.1 ODORS

As the municipal solid waste in a landfill decomposes, the organic materials degrade and

landfill gases are created as a by-product. These gases are collected in landfill gas collection

systems and then thermally destroyed in a flare. A small fraction of these gases are emitted

from the active area of the landfill before it is closed and a final cap area is placed over the

surface of the landfill. A small amount of gas emissions also come from the flare, where

collected landfill gas is combusted.. Most of the gaseous emissions consist of carbon dioxide

and methane, but the gas also includes a small amount of odor-causing gases, such as

reduced sulfur compounds. Many of these sulfur have low odor detection thresholds.

The odor which may be experienced near a landfill can be a complex mixture of the odors

from different compounds, which explains why individuals will smell odor from the same

source and consider it a different odor. Rather than evaluate a complex mixture of odorous




compounds, odor studies often focus on a surrogate for the total odor, such as hydrogen

sulfide. Hydrogen sulfide is the predominant odor-causing compound generated in landfills,

since it is the simplest reduced sulfur compound. For hydrogen sulfide, the actual odor

threshold ranges from 1 to 130 parts per billion by volume (ppbv), and depends on the odor

sampling method and the background conditions. In an odorous environment, the odor

threshold for individual compounds can be higher, since different smells will be competing

for attention.

4.2.7.4 Odor Assessment

Small amounts of gases, including odorous compounds, are released from the surface of the

landfill, or the flare, and enter the air. At the point of release, gas concentrations are highest,

and decrease downwind from air dilution and dispersion Dispersion occurs due to the

turbulent mixing of the air as the landfill gas is transported away from the source (in this case

the landfill) to other locations (around the landfill) and depends on meteorological

conditions. In case of odorous compounds, ideally these will have been diluted and dispersed

in the air to the point where the concentrations are so low that odors cannot be detected by

the time they reach the neighborhood around the landfill.

To evaluate the potential for odors from the existing Northampton Landfill, offsite hydrogen

sulfide concentrations were predicted using a computer model developed by the United

States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This dispersion model was used with a

long-term record of actual meteorological conditions and specific characteristics of the

Northampton Landfill to predict the hydrogen sulfide concentrations at different off-site

locations. The model was used in this section to predict odor in order to evaluate the

potential frequency of odor events; the model can also be used to predict air pollution

concentrations, as will be discussed later. To evaluate odor from the existing Northampton

Landfill, the model was used to predict a one-hour concentration, which was then converted

to a short-term (15-minute average) hydrogen sulfide level.

To model the existing landfill for odor and air pollutant emissions, the landfill was divided

into sections for the active and capped areas, which were modeled as area sources; the flare


I I I • • L..

• -•

-

-

-

-



emissions were represented as a point source. Hydrogen sulfide emission data were collected

from the flare of the existing landfill in April2003 (see Appendix J). The flow rates for the

different areas of the landfill (active and capped) were obtained from the EPA's Landfill Gas

Emissions Model (Land GEM), in Appendix J. LandGEM is used to conservatively estimate

landfill gas production from U.S. landfills. The LandGEM runs were conducted using

assumptions about landfills from the Clean Air Act (CAA). The LandGEM runs using CAA

assumptions produced higher flow rates than those using the assumptions about landfill from

the EPA's Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42), so the CAA values were

used to be conservative.

From the CAA runs of Land GEM, the maximum predicted flow rates for the existing landfill

were calculated for the different area sources of the landfill, with approximately 35% of the

landfill active and 65% capped. The fugitive flow rate from the capped area was assumed to

be 25% of the predicted flow rate from that area. In other words, even though any gas

generated in the capped section should be captured and sent to the flare, we conservatively

assumed that 25% of the gas escapes as fugitive emissions when predicting odor from the

landfill. A more reasonable estimate would be that less than 5% of the gas would escape

from the capped landfill. The modeled flow rate from the flare was estimated from the

specifications for the operation of the flare's fan and assuming 90% destruction efficiency.

More detail on the general methodology for the refined dispersion modeling is described in

AppendixJ.

4.2.7.5 Odor Modeling Results

The hydrogen sulfide emission data collected from the flare of the landfill were used in the

dispersion model with five years of actual meteorological data (1987-91) from the nearest

representative National Weather Service station to represent the variability in weather

conditions. The model predicted maximum short-term concentrations to represent the worst

case odor impacts. The hydrogen sulfide data from the flare are representative oftoday's

emissions from the landfill.




Several years ago there was a noticeable increase in odor after the landfill began accepting

processed construction and demolition material (commonly called C&D fines) for use on the

surface of the landfill as a cover material. This cover material was not mixed with other

waste material or dirt. The increase in odor from the Northampton Landfill in the winter and

the spring of2003 was related to C&D fines combined with an extremely wet winter. Now

that C&D fines are not being accepted at the landfill, odor has decreased and emissions of

hydrogen sulfide from the landfill have dropped dramatically. Capping of the Phase 1

landfill and the installation of 12 gas collection wells and solar ignited flares in Phases 2 and

3 has also assisted in the control oflandfill gas in uncapped areas of the landfill.

The odor modeling results show that hydrogen sulfide from the existing operation of the

landfill result in concentrations below the odor threshold in the neighborhood surrounding

the landfill for all but extremely short periods of time. This modeling has been generally

confirmed by a reduction in the number of off-site odor complaints since Phase 1 capping

and the installation of the Phases 2 and 3 gas wells.

4.2.2 AIR TOXICS

Over time, the municipal solid waste in the landfill degrades anaerobically releasing gases

that travel through the waste to the surface of the landfill. Most of the landfill gas is carbon

dioxide and methane, but landfill gases also contain small amounts of reduced sulfur

compounds, mercaptans, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Some of the VOCs in the

landfill gas are released directly from the waste as the solid or liquid substances become

vapors. Other VOC components of the gas are generated by reactions between different

compounds in the waste. In this complex process, larger compounds are broken down into

simpler compounds which are then released. This is why a simple compound such as

hydrogen sulfide is such a common constituent of the landfill gas; hydrogen sulfide is

produced as the other sulfur-containing compounds in the landfill decompose over time. The

VOCs or air toxic compounds are emitted from the landfill in very small amounts from the

active area of the landfill before it is closed and capped.


I I I -• • -•

-

-

-

•


4.2.2.1 Air Toxics Assessment


As the carbon dioxide and methane in the landfill gas are generated, they are either captured

by the gas collection system (most of the gas) or travel to the surface of the active area ofthe

landfill (a small portion of the gas); trace amounts of air toxic compounds in the landfill gas

are also swept along these paths. The air toxic compounds that are emitted from the landfill

surface are diluted and dispersed into the air as they travel downwind. The concentrations of

air toxic compounds from the existing landfill were predicted off-site using a dispersion

model.

The dispersion modeling results are a very conservative assessment of the potential air toxics

concentrations off-site, in part because of the assumption that 25% of the gas is emitted as

fugitive emissions from the capped area of the landfill. This is most likely at least fives times

higher than the actual fugitive emissions, which are likely less than 5% of the gas generated.

The assessment is also conservative because the air toxic predictions are compared to

extremely conservative health guidelines. The modeling results were compared to the DEP's

air toxic guideline threshold limits, the 24-hour Threshold Effects Exposure Limits (TELs)

and the annual average Allowable Ambient Limits (AALs). These guidelines establish

concentrations that are designed to protect the public's health and welfare with a large

margin for safety to protect sensitive individuals, such as young children, the elderly, or

those with respiratory conditions.

4.2.2.2 Air Toxics Modeling Results

Ambient air sampling completed during 2003 as part of a site specific air quality study

revealed that the actual concentrations of air toxic compounds in the ambient air in the

vicinity of the landfill were so low that the concentrations could not be detected by field

monitoring equipment or in an air sample analyzed by a laboratory.

As a more conservative means of estimating off-site VOC concentrations, emissions data

collected from a sample taken from the inlet to the landfill's flare were used with dispersion

modeling to predict the concentrations in the abutting properties. The dispersion model was




used to predict the highest 24-hour and annual concentrations of air toxics possible near the

existing landfill. The data from the inlet to the flare represent the typical emissions from the

existing landfill. The concentrations predicted by the model represent the worst-case impacts

that could occur with these concentrations over time. The results of the dispersion modeling

of the existing landfill for air toxics are compared to the Massachusetts health guidelines, the

TELs and AALs, as presented in Table 4-1.

The modeling results show that all off-site air toxic concentrations for the operation of the

existing landfill are safely in compliance with the Massachusetts health guidelines.

Therefore, the operation of the existing landfill does not adversely affect air quality or public

health in the surrounding community.

4.2.3 DUST

Dust is generated from the traffic on the landfill roads, with more dust being generated on the

unpaved roads than on the paved roads. Other sources include dust generated on the active

area of the landfill by the unloading of trash, and the unloading and spreading oflandfill soil

cover material.

While most dust particles generated by a landfill are larger than 10 micrometers, dust

emissions are typically screened to determine the geometric function of two sizes of

particulate matter (PM10 and PM25). PM10 is particulate matter smaller than 10 micrometers

in diameter. PM2_5 is fine particulate that is smaller than 2.5 micrometers in diameter.

Predicted emissions of dust (PM10 and PM2.s) are compared to standards developed by

Massachusetts and the EPA to protect public health.

PM10 and PM2_5 are generally the focus of dust impact analyses since these size ranges are

small enough to be transported to the lungs. Dust that is larger than 10 micrometers can be a

nuisance, but is not a health concern since the larger dust is screened out by the nose and

does not get into the lungs.


I I I ---• -•

-

-•

-

I

TABLE 4·1. EXISTING LANDFILL OFF-SITE CONCENTRATIONS COMPARED TO MASSACHUSETTS HEALTH GUIDELINES NORTHAMPTON LANDFILL· NORTHAMPTON, MA

Flare Inlet Maximum Impact MA DEP Health Guidelines

Rpt. Amount Limit Max 24-hour Max Annual 24-hour TEL Annual AAL

Compound Mol. Wt. (ppbv) (ppbv) (ppbv) (ppbv) (ppbv) (ppbv) Vinyl Chloride 62.50 NO 3.7 5.111 E-04 8.829E-05 1.36 0.15 Chloroethane 64.51 NO 3.7 5.111 E-04 8.829E-05 272.11 136.05 Methylene Chloride 84.93 30.3 3.7 4.185E-03 7.230E-04 2.72 0.07 cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene 96.94 28.5 3.7 3.937E-03 6.801E-04 215.62 107.81 1,1, 1-Trichloroethane 133.40 16.2 3.7 2.238E-03 3.866E-04 190.48 190.48 Benzene 78.11 168 3.7 2.321E-02 4.009E-03 0.54 0.04 Trichloroethene {TCE) 131.39 NO 3.7 5.111E-04 8.829E-05 6.8 0.11 Toluene 92.14 1280 3.7 1. 768E-01 3.054E-02 21.23 5.31 Tetrachloroethene (PERC) 165.83 NO 3.7 5.111E-04 8.829E-05 136.05 0.003 Chlorobenzene 112.56 191 3.7 2.638E-02 4.558E-03 20.41 1.36 Ethyl Benzene 106.17 1710 3.7 2.362E-01 4.081E-02 69.09 69.09 m,p-X)'Iene 120.19 2010 3.7 2.776E-01 4.796E-02 2.72 2.72 a-Xylene 120.19 338 3.7 4.669E-02 8.066E-03 2.72 2.72 Styrene 104.15 20.9 3.7 2.887E-03 4.987E-04 46.96 0.47 1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene 147.00 NO 3.7 5.111E-04 8.829E-05 20.41 0.03 Acetone 58.08 NO 3.7 5.111E-04 8.829E-05 68.03 68.03 2-Butanone (MEK) 72.11 118 3.7 1.630E-02 2.816E-03 67.82 3.39 Tetrahydrofuran 72.11 193 3.7 2.666E-02 4.606E-03 54.42 27.21 Cyclohexane 84.16 305 3.7 4.213E-02 7.278E-03 81.63 81.63 Ethanol 46.07 NO 3.7 5.111E-04 8.829E-05 27.21 27.21 Hydrogen Sulfide 34.08 1468 1468 2.028E-01 3.503E-02 0.65 0.65 1,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 167.85 NO 3.7 5.111E-04 8.829E-05 2.72 0.003 Chloroform 119.39 NO 3.7 5.111 E-04 8.829E-05 27.21 0.01 Carbon Tetrachloride 153.84 NO 3.7 5.111E-04 8.829E-05 13.61 0.01 1 ,2-Dichloroethane 98.96 NO 3.7 5.111E-04 8.829E-05 2.72 0.01 1 ,2-Dichloropropane 112.99 NO 3.7 5.111E-04 8.829E-05 0.19 0.01 Carbonyl Sulfide 60.07 NA NA 6.768E-02 1.169E-02 0.041 0.041 Carbon Disulfide 76.13

. NO

-- .. 7~- 1.014E-01 --

1.752E-02 0.032 0.032 - --

NO- Not Detected If Not Detected than the reporting limit was used.

1967/Report tables- Air toxics.xls/Existing

Complies with Health

Guidelines?

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

9/2/2005 10: 11 AM


4.2.3.1 Dust Assessment


Refined dispersion modeling was performed to evaluate the existing dust levels at the

facility. Particulate matter (dust) was analyzed both as typical respirable particulates (PM10)

and fine respirable particulates (PM2.5). The results were compared to the Massachusetts and

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which have been established to protect

the public's health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety.

Three sources of dust (particulate matter) were included in the modeling: 1) fugitive dust

created by the action of motor vehicles operating over paved and unpaved roadways, 2)

particulates emitted from the exhaust, brake wear, and tire wear of the motor vehicles, and 3)

dust generated by the action of the placing of waste and soil cover on the active areas of the

landfill. The methodology for the refined dispersion modeling is described in more detail in

the Appendix J.

4.2.3.2 Dust Emissions

This section discusses dust emissions from the paved and unpaved roadways and active area.

4.2.3.2.1 Paved Roadways- Dust Emissions

Fugitive dust emissions from motor vehicles operating over paved roads result as the air

motions created by the moving vehicles suspends into the air loose materials from the

roadway surface. Section 13.2.1 ofEPA's AP-42 document1 is the recommended method for

estimating fugitive dust emissions from vehicle operations over paved roads. The EPA

MOBILE6.2 modef particulate matter emission rates for heavy-duty diesel vehicles were

used to estimate the exhaust, tire wear, and brake wear particulate emissions from the trucks

1 US EPA, "Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources", Section 13.2.1 Paved Roads, Revised December 2003. 2 Federal Register, "Official Release of the MOBILE6.2 Motor Vehicle Emission Factor Model and the December 2003 AP-42 Methods for Re-Entrained Road Dust", Vol. 69, No. 97., pp. 28839-28832, May 19, 2004




accessing the landfill. Data on the number of daily vehicle trips was based on existing

conditions at the landfill.

4.2.3.2.2 Unpaved Roadways- Dust Emissions

Fugitive dust emissions created by motor vehicles operating over unpaved roads were

estimated with Section 13.2.2 ofEPA's AP-42 document1, the recommended method for

estimating fugitive dust emissions from vehicle operations over unpaved roads2. As with the

paved roads, the EPA MOBILE6.2 model particulate matter emission rates for heavy-duty

diesel vehicles were used to estimate the exhaust, tire wear, and brake wear particulate

emissions from the trucks accessing the landfill.

4.2.3.2.3 Active Area- Emissions

Fugitive dust created by the unloading of trash, and the unloading and spreading of landfill

soil cover were estimated from Section 13.2.3 of EPA's AP-42 document, assuming an 8-

hourday.

4.2.3.3 Dust Sources

The roadways and active areas were modeled as area sources in the EPA refined dispersion

model (ISCST3). The active areas selected for the modeling were chosen to represent the

potential worst-case air quality impacts, since the active areas assumed were located near to

neighborhoods, in the farthest northwest position of the landfill. Each of the area sources

was based at ground level and was given an initial vertical dimension of 10 feet to represent

the height of the wake generated by moving vehicles.

4.2.3.4 Background Concentrations

The maximum predicted model results are added to conservative estimates of ambient

background concentrations to determine the maximum total air concentrations of dust.

Background concentrations reflect the existence of other (not modeled) sources of air

pollution that affect the project area. Background concentrations for PM10 were obtained

from the Massachusetts DEP air monitoring station in Springfield, which is the station most


I I I -• • -•

-

-

-



representative of the area around Northampton. For PM2.5, the DEP air monitor most

representative of Northampton is located in Chicopee. Data from these monitors for the most

recent, complete, three-year period (2001 - 2003) were used to establish the background

concentrations for these air pollutants as shown in Table 4-2.

4.2.3.5 Dust Results for Existing Landfill

The actual dust generated by the operation of the existing landfill is minimized by the fact

that many access roads are paved, regularly swept, and watered as needed. The dust on

unpaved roads is controlled by applying water to suppress the dust so it doesn't become

airborne. Despite these efforts, some dust is emitted from the landfill and so dispersion

modeling was performed to estimate the dust impacts from the existing landfill for PM10 and

PM2.s respirable particulates.

The locations of the modeled sources for existing landfill dust are shown in Appendix J and

the results of the dispersion modeling are presented in Table 4-3. The results show

maximum predicted concentrations ofPM10 and PM2.5 from landfill operation are safely in

compliance with the NAAQS at all off-site locations. Therefore, the operation of the existing

landfill does not adversely affect air quality or public health in the surrounding community.

4.2.4 NOISE

This section contains the discussion of the existing acoustic environment of the landfill and

the identified sound sources from existing daily landfill operations.

4.2.4.1 Common Measures of Community Noise

The unit of sound pressure is the decibel (dB). The decibel scale is logarithmic to

accommodate the wide range of sound intensities to which the human ear is subjected. A

property of the decibel scale is that the sound pressure levels of two separate sounds are not

directly additive. For example, if a sound of 70 dB is added to another sound of 70 dB, the

total is only a 3-decibel increase (or 73 dB), not a doubling to 140 dB. Thus, every 3 dB

increase represents a doubling of sound energy. For broadband sounds, a 3 dB change is the


Monitor

I

TABLE 4-2

BACKGROUND PARTICULATE CONCENTRATIONS (2001- 2003) WITH CHOSEN BACKGROUND VALUE (J.tg/m3

)

Pollutant Name

Averaging

Period* 2001 2002 2003

PM10

PM2.s

1860 Main Street Springfield

Anderson Road Chicopee

24-hr Annual

24-hr Annual

43 25

33 11.1

43 20

34 10.9

43 21

33 10.3

Selected

Background

43 22

33 10.8

* For averaging periods of 24-hours or less, values are the highest, second-highest value reported for the year, except for PM10 and PM2.s the values are 3-year averages. For annual averages the values are the highest annual average from the three-year period, except for PM10 and PM2.5 the values are 3-year averages.

09/05 Dufresne-Henry

TABLE4-3

SUMMARY OF TOTAL DUST (PARTICULATE MATTER) DISPERSION MODELING

RESULTS FOR THE NORTHAMPTON LANDFILL (Jtg/mJ)

Averaging Existing Pollutant Period Landfill NAAQS

24-hour 71 150 PMIO

Annual 25.5 50

24-hour 45 65 PMz.s

Annual 12.1 15

Notes:

Total PM 10 concentrations include a 24-hour average background concentration of 43 Jlg/m3 and an annual average background concentration of22.0 11g/m3

, from the Massachusetts DEP monitor in Springfield, for the most recent complete 3-year period: 2001-2003.

Total PM2.5 concentrations include a 24-hour average background concentration of 33 Jlg/m3 and an annual average background concentration of 10.8 11g/m3

, from the Massachusetts DEP monitor in Chicopee, for the most recent complete 3-year period: 2001-2003.

09/05 Oufresne-Henry

I I I • Ill

• • -•

-

-

-



minimum change perceptible to the human ear, a 5 dB change is described as noticeable, and

a 10 dB change is perceived as being twice (or half) as loud3.

Environmental sound is typically composed of acoustic energy at different frequencies.

However, the human ear does not interpret the sound level from each frequency as equally

loud. To compensate for the physical response of the human ear, an A-weighting filter is

commonly used for describing environmental sound levels. A-weighting filters the

frequency spectrum of sound levels as the human ear naturally does (attenuating low and

high frequency energy similar to the way people hear sound). Sound levels that are A

weighted to reflect human response are presented as dBA (also as "A" in tables and graphs)

in this report. Sound levels presented as dB (also as "L" in tables and graphs) are "linear"

and not A-weighted. Because "linear" (not A-weighted) levels do not reflect the human

hearing response to sound, they should not be directly compared to environmental noise

guidelines and criteria referencing dBA.

Levels of many sounds change from moment to moment. Some are sharp impulses lasting 1

second or less, while others rise and fall over much longer periods of time. There are various

measures of sound pressure designed for different purposes. To establish the background

ambient sound level in an area, the L90 metric, which is the sound level exceeded 90 percent

of the time, is typically used4. The ~0 can also be thought of as the level representing the

quietest 10 percent of any time period. The background sound level does not include sound

from transient events (such as aircraft over-flights). In comparison, the L10 metric, which is

the sound exceeded 10 percent of the time, is used in the measure of intrusive sound, i.e.,

sound near a busy roadway. The Leq is the energy averaged A-weighted sound level that

includes both steady background sounds and transient short-term sounds. The Leq equals the

level of a steady sound, which when averaged over the sampled time period is equivalent in

energy to the time-varying (fluctuating) sound level which actually occurred during the same

time period. It is commonly referred to as the average sound level. The Leq provides a

3 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers, Inc., 1989 ASHRAE Handbook-Fundamentals (I-P) Edition, Atlanta, GA, 1989. 4 The Massachusetts DEP employs the L90 in the DEP Noise Policy.




uniform method for comparing time varying sound levels. The Lmax, or maximum sound

level, represents the one second peak level experienced during a given time period. The

acoustic environment in a suburban area such as Northampton results from numerous

sources. Typical average sound levels associated with various activities and environments

are presented in Table 4-4.

4.2.4.2 Measurement Instrumentation

Ambient and source sound level measurements were made in the vicinity of the Northampton

Regional Sanitary Facility with a CEL Model 593 environmental sound level analyzer, which

is equipped with a model CEL 250 112" precision condenser microphone and 3" windscreen.

This meter meets or exceeds all requirements set forth in the ANSI S 1.4-1983 Standards for

Type 1 (high precision) quality and accuracy. The sound analyzer was calibrated with an

ANSI Type 1 calibrator which has an accuracy traceable to the National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST). All data were downloaded to a laptop computer

immediately following the measurements for storage and future processing. The data were

later printed and analyzed at the offices of Tech Environmental, Inc. in Waltham,

Massachusetts.

4.2.4.3 Measurement Procedures

The objective of this baseline sound study was to establish the existing sound levels at the

closest noise sensitive areas (NSA). Sound levels were measured during a typical day at the

landfill facility when traffic entering and exiting the site were deemed representative of

normal operations. These measurements can be used to fully describe the existing acoustic

environment.


I I I ...

• • -•

-

-•

-

TABLE 4-4: V ARlO US INDOOR AND OUTDOOR SOUND LEVELS

Sound Sound Pressure Level

Outdoor Sound Levels (uP a) (dBA) Indoor Sound Levels

6,324,555 110 Rock Band at 5 m

Jet Over-Flight at 300 m 105

2,000,000 100 Inside New York Subway

Train

Gas Lawn Mower at I m 95

632,456 90 Food Blender at I m

Diesel Truck at I5 m 85

Noisy Urban Area--Daytime 200,000 80 Garbage Disposal at l m

75 Shouting at I m

Gas Lawn Mower at 30 m 63,246 70 Vacuum Cleaner at 3m

Suburban Commercial Area 65 Normal Speech at I m

20,000 60

Quiet Urban Area -- Daytime 55 Quiet Conversation at I m

6,325 50 Dishwasher Next Room

Quiet Urban Area--Nighttime 45

2,000 40 Empty Theater or Library

Quiet Suburb--Nighttime 35

632 30 Quiet Bedroom at Night

Quiet Rural Area--Nighttime 25 Empty Concert Hall

Rustling Leaves 200 20 Average Whisper

15 Broadcast and Recording

Studios

63 IO

5 Human Breathing

Reference Pressure Level 20 0 Threshold of Hearing

Notes: J.tPa- Micropascals describe sound pressure levels (force/area). dBA - A-weighted decibels describe sound pressure on a logarithmic scale with respect to 20 J.tPa.

09/05 Dufresne-Henry



Baseline sound level monitoring was conducted at four locations deemed to be representative

of the nearest property lines and noise sensitive areas. The sound measurement locations are

shown in Figure 4-6 and are numbered R1 to R4. These locations are described as follows:

Northampton Regional Landfill Measurement Locations:

(R1) Site property line/150 Glendale Road- Nearest sensitive receptor to west (current)

(R2) Site property line/58 Glendale Road- Nearest sensitive receptor to west (expansion)

(R3) Site property line/98 Westhampton Road- Nearest sensitive receptor to north

(R4) Park Hill Road Residences Nearest sensitive receptors to south and east

Daytime measurements were made during on Monday, October 18, 2004 from 9 a.m. to 3

p.m. The weather conditions during the field monitoring were conducive to accurate sound

monitoring. The temperature was 50° F, the skies were mostly cloudy with light variable

winds (3-5 mph). The survey was conducted during this period to best represent a quiet,

existing, daytime ambient sound level period when commuter traffic is typically at a lull. In

addition to ambient sound measurements, sound levels from landfill equipment were

obtained at various reference distances and operating conditions to establish the contribution

of existing landfill equipment to background levels as well as to determine source strength of

the equipment for future impact predictions.

For a minimum duration of twenty minutes at each monitoring location, both broadband and

full octave band sound level measurements were made with a CEL Model 593 environmental

sound level analyzer. The octave band frequency analysis was performed on frequencies 16

to 16,000 Hertz. A time-integrated statistical analysis of the data used to quantify the sound

variation was also performed, including the calculation of the ~0. The CEL 593 model is

equipped with a model CEL 250 112" precision condenser microphone and has an operating

range of 5 dB to 140 dB and an overall frequency range of 3.5 Hz to 20 kHz. This meter

meets or exceeds all requirements set forth in the ANSI S1.4-1983 Standards for Type 1

quality (precision). Prior to any measurements, the sound analyzer was calibrated with an


I I I --1...

• -•

-

-

-

Figure 4-6 Sound Measurement Locations Existing Conditions Northampton Landfill DEIR Ait Quality, Odor Control, and Noise Solutions



ANSI Type 1 calibrator that has an accuracy traceable to the National Institute of Standards

and Technology (NIST). During all measurements, the CEL 593 was tripod mounted at

approximately five feet above the ground in open areas away from vertical reflecting

surfaces. All data were downloaded to a computer, following the measurement session for

the purposes of storage and analysis. The sound measurement data sheets and certification of

equipment calibration are provided in the Appendix K.

4.2.4.4 Sound Level Measurement Results

The results of the baseline measurements are summarized in Table 4-5. At the nearest noise

sensitive locations, the background (L90) sound level ranges from 40 dBA to 46 dBA. The

average, or equivalent sound levels (Leq) at these same locations ranged from 45 dBA to 53

dBA during the daytime. The principal sources of sound are existing landfill operations,

local and distant traffic, light residential construction occurring on Park Hill Road, periodic

aircraft over flights and distant yard maintenance activities. Existing sound levels were

highest at Rl on Glendale Road, which has a direct line of site to the residential drop-off and

commercial hauler scales area. At Rl, R2, and R3, sound levels were principally influenced

by the existing landfill activities, notably the heavy equipment operating on the active land

filling area. At R4, the landfill was only faintly audible.

The existing sound levels at all measurement locations are typical of a suburban area5•

Therefore the operation of the existing landfill, while audible during the day, does not cause

an adverse noise impact on the surrounding community.


In 2002, the City of Northampton completed a traffic impact study to evaluate existing and

projected traffic conditions near the Northampton Landfill. The April2002 Traffic Impact

Study (Appendix L) assessed existing traffic conditions by collecting traffic information

5 EPA, "Community Noise," Report NTID 300.3, 1971.


09/05

TABLE 4-5: BASELINE SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENT RESULTS

DAYTIME PERIOD (9 a.m. to 3 pm.)

Sound Level - Rl- -R2- - R3- - R4-Measurement

Broadband (dBA)

Background(L9o) 46 44 43 40 Intrusive (Lto) 56 50 47 50 Average (Leq) 53 47 45 46

Frequency Hz L9o (dBL)

16 47 46 45 45 32 46 48 47 47 63 47 49 45 47 125 45 47 41 42 250 39 37 37 38 500 40 38 36 35 1k 41 37 36 35 2k 39 34 35 32 4k 35 29 33 28 8k 29 30 30 23 l6k 20 19 23 19

Pure Tone? No No No No

Oufresne-Henry

I I I • • -• -•

-

-



generated in the capped section should be captured and sent to the flare. The flow rate from

the flare was estimated from the operation of the flare's fan; this flow rate was then scaled up

to predict future flow rates, when more gas is being generated in the landfill. The destruction

efficiency of the flare or the future internal combustion engines were conservatively

estimated to be only 90%.

The general methodology for the refined dispersion modeling is described in Appendix J.

When using modeling to predict odor impacts, the highest 1-hour concentration from the

five-year period was predicted by the model and then converted to a 15-minute concentration

to represent the worst-case odor impacts. The odor threshold was set at the low end of the

range, namely 1 ppb for hydrogen sulfide.

In the future, a landfill gas-to-energy plant is proposed for the Northampton landfill. This

plant will be more efficient and cost-effective if one of the two expansion alternatives is

chosen because more gas will be generated from higher volumes of waste.


Future odor effects from the No Build alternative are predicted to be the same as or less than

those from the existing landfill. Odor emissions will likely decrease over time as the gas

generation decreases and the existing landfill is capped; no odors above the 1 ppb hydrogen

sulfide odor threshold were predicted at off-site locations for the future closed landfill. The

No Build alternative does not provide as much fuel to the proposed landfill gas-to-energy

plant, since gas generation rates would not be as high. The operation of the plant would

therefore be less cost-effective than for the expansion alternatives.


Future odor effects from the Phase 5 Horizontal Expansion alternative are predicted to be the

same as or less than those from the existing landfill. In the future, odor emissions should be

less than those from the existing landfill because the active area of the landfill will be smaller

than in the existing landfill. Phase 1-3 were open an uncapped for a period of time about 18




acres of uncapped area. As the landfill expands, sections will be quickly capped as they are

filled, which will decrease the potential for odors from the landfill. The modeling

demonstrated that no odors above the 1 ppb hydrogen sulfide odor threshold were predicted

at off-site locations for the future horizontal expansion of the landfill assuming that no more

than 35% of the landfill area is active and that the waste composition in the future is

consistent with the existing waste stream (i.e., no C&D fines). An advantage of this

alternative over the No-Build alternative is that the future operation of the proposed landfill

gas-to-energy plant will be more economical because more fuel will be produced, captured

and used to create electricity.

5.4.3 VERTICAL EXPANSION OVER PHASES 1-4

Future odor effects from the Vertical Expansion alternative are predicted to be the same as or

less than those from the existing landfill. In the future, odor emissions should be less than

those from the existing landfill because the active areas of the landfill will be smaller in size.

As the landfill expands, sections will be capped as they are filled, which will decrease the

potential for odors from the landfill or landfill gas collection systems may be installed prior

to capping to capture landfill gas for use or simply to control the potential for odors

occurring. The modeling demonstrated that no odors above the 1 ppb hydrogen sulfide odor

threshold were predicted at off-site locations for the future vertical expansion of the landfill,

assuming that no more than 35% of the landfill area is active and that the waste composition

in the future is consistent with the existing waste stream (i.e., no C&D fines). An advantage

of this alternative over the No-Build Alternative is that the future operation of the proposed

landfill gas-to-energy plant will be more economical because more fuel will be produced,

captured and used to create electricity.

5.5 AIR TOXICS

Over time, the municipal solid waste in the landfill generates gases, including small amounts

of air toxic compounds such as reduced sulfur compounds, mercaptans, and volatile organic

compounds (VOCs). These compounds are generated two ways; some are released directly

from the solid waste and some are generated in chemical reactions between different


I I I -• ----•

-




Future air toxics emissions from the No Build alternative will be no greater than those from

the existing landfill. In fact, air toxics emissions will decrease as the landfill is capped. The

maximum concentrations of air toxics are predicted to be well below the AALs and TELs.

Therefore, continued operation of the landfill under the No-Build alternative will not

adversely affect air quality or public health in the community.

The No Build alternative does not provide as much fuel to the proposed landfill gas-to

energy plant, since gas generation rates would not be as high. The operation of the plant

would therefore be less cost-effective than for the expansion alternatives.


Future air toxics emissions from the horizontal expansion of the landfill will be no greater

than those from the existing landfilL In fact, air toxics emissions will decrease because in the

future the active areas of the landfill will be quickly capped as they are filled. For this

analyses, it was assumed that each cell will be capped in four steps as final grades are

reached. The maximum concentrations of air toxics are predicted to be well below the AALs

and TELs. Therefore, horizontal expansion of the landfill will not adversely affect air quality

or public health in the community.

An advantage this alternative is that the future operation of the proposed landfill gas-to

energy plant will be more economical because more fuel will be produced, captured, and

used to create electricity.


Future air toxics emissions from the vertical expansion of the landfill are not predicted to be

any more than from the existing landfill. In fact, air toxics emissions will decrease in the

future since the active areas of the landfill will be quickly capped as they are filled. For this

analyses, it was assumed that each cell will be capped in four steps as final grades are




Section 5 Assessment oflmpacts

The No Build Alternative was not modeled for dust since the closed landfill will not generate

vehicle traffic or have any uncommon dust emissions.

5.6.2 PHASE 5 HORIZONTAL EXPANSION TO WILLARD PIT SITE

For the Phase 5 horizontal expansion alternative, the maximum predicted concentrations of

PM10 and PM2.5 are predicted to be safely in compliance with the NAAQS. The dust

emissions will be higher than in the existing case because of increased vehicular traffic, and

an effort will be made to maximize the paved (versus unpaved) roadways and to minimize

dust generation.

5.6.3 VERTICAL EXPANSION OVER PHASES 1-4

For the vertical expansion alternative the maximum predicted concentrations ofPM10 and

PM2.5, are predicted to be safely in compliance with the NAAQS. The dust emissions will be

less than in the existing case because a greater percentage of the roadways will be paved than

are today at the existing landfill.

5.7 NOISE

As described in the Existing Conditions section of this document, an ambient sound level

survey was conducted to establish the baseline sound levels. A comprehensive acoustic

analysis was then performed to identify and assess the potential changes in environmental

sound levels for each ofthe project design alternatives. The principal sources of sound from

on-site equipment subject to regulation were identified. On-site equipment includes a Volvo

bucket loader, a CAT D-4 LGP dozer, Al-Jon Steel wheel compactor, and haul truck(s). The

compactor, dozer and loader are used periodically throughout the day to support daily landfill

operations including end of the day cover. The large variation in engine loads and equipment

usage imposes complexity in characterizing the cumulative sound source level. To be

conservative, the analysis was done using maximum instantaneous sound levels with all


I I I • •

-,..

•

-



the source of food is promptly covered at the end of each day, no use of pyrotechnic devices

will be required during nighttime hours.


The site under the No Build alternative would generate little to no sound and will therefore

have lower sound levels than the existing case. Therefore, no modeling or analyses were

required for this alternative.


Under the Phase 5 horizontal expansion alternative, sound levels are expected to increase at

receptors R2 and R3 by 3 dBA over existing conditions, a broadband increase that is

considered to be at the threshold of perception for a new outdoor environmental sound

source. At receptors Rl and R4, no noticeable change in sound levels is expected. At all

receptors, both worst-case energy averaged Leq and maximum Lmax sound levels will remain

below the City of Northampton environmental performance standard limits, and all future

alternatives comply with the DEP Noise Policy.


Under the vertical expansion alternative, no noticeable differences in sound levels are

expected at any ofthe receptors compared to the existing condition, with all changes well

below the 3 dBA perception threshold. At all receptors, both worst-case energy averaged Leq

and maximum Lmax sound levels will remain below the City of Northampton environmental

performance standard limits, and all future alternatives comply with the DEP Noise Policy.

5.8 STORMWATER QUALITY I QUANTITY

This section summarizes stormwater management impacts resulting from the Phase 5

expansion. This site receives stormwater runoff from the existing Northampton Landfill. On

the proposed landfill expansion parcel there are two main destinations for runoff from the

existing landfill site. The first is an isolated pond on the westerly side of the abandoned




The primary HDPE liner will be tested using the Soil Covered Geomembrane Test outlined

by ASTM D67 4 7. This test method requires that the geomembrane be covered with soil and

that it have some moisture content. It also requires that there be an electrically conductive

layer beneath it (GCL). The method commonly involves making dipole measurements using

two moving electrodes spaced a constant distance apart. Data is taken on a grid or at regular

points along parallel survey lines. The data is plotted in the field and analyzed to locate areas

that exhibit a leak signal. This technique is capable of detecting leaks as small as 3 mm.

7 .3.3 PHASED LANDFILL CAPPING

The phased capping of the Phase 5 landfill will be completed as each section reaches final

grade. The phasing will serve to minimize the infiltration of water into the landfilled solid

waste, thereby reducing the generation of leachate.

7.3.4 GROUNDWATER MONITORING

A perimeter groundwater monitoring system, consisting of several groundwater monitoring

wells will be established to comply with DEP monitoring requirements. Groundwater

sampling serves as a means of determining if the landfill operation is having an impact on

groundwater quality at the site. The required number, location, and depth of monitoring

wells will be determined during the permit process. The frequency of sampling and analyses

will be completed in accordance with DEP regulatory requirements (310 CMR 19.132).

7.4 LANDFILL GAS CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT

The City will aggressively manage landfill gas as it is generated in the Phase 5 expansion

area by actively extending the existing landfill gas collection network into the Phase 5

landfill. The collected gas will then be transmitted to the soon to be constructed landfill gas

to energy (LFGTE) facility. The City has a financial incentive to collect as much ofthe

landfill gas as possible due to its contractual arrangement with Ameresco, where the landfill

gas is used beneficially for energy production.


I I I • •

• •

•

-



The primary landfill gas compound of concern for odor is hydrogen sulfide. A landfill gas

collection system will be in place to collect landfill gas and direct it to the LFGTE facility for

each landfill cell that has reached its ultimate height. The LFGTE facility or back-up utility

flare is designed to provide significant (greater than 90%) destruction of the odorous landfill

gases.

Before final covers are placed and landfill gas is evacuated to the landfill gas destruction

system, a number of steps will be taken to minimize odors from active areas.

• Daily cover soil or an alternative daily cover (if approved by DEP) will be applied to

the landfill surface at the end of each shift or if no more waste will be provided to a

certain area for the remainder of a day.

• Intermediate cover soils will be placed in accordance with regulatory requirements to

minimize odors.

• If off-site odors become evident and are causing a nuisance condition the City will

consider installing gas collection wells in active areas of the landfill that have yet to

reach final grade. The wells may be connected to the active landfill gas collection

system, or ifthis is not feasible, solar-ignited passive well top flares will be installed

on the wells to combust the landfill gas.

7.5 DUST

Refined dispersion modeling of the existing landfill and the activity during the Phase 5

landfill expansion alternative, without mitigation, demonstrated that dust impacts near the

landfill are now, and will remain safely in compliance with the NAAQS for both coarse

particulate matter (PM10) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5).

Even if respirable dust will be below health standards, it is important to minimize fugitive

dust that could lead to nuisance conditions. If dust were to become a nuisance issue due to

09105 7-9 Dufresne-Henry



unforeseen circumstances, one or more of the following measures would be employed to

reduce fugitive dust impacts from any future landfill activity.

Fugitive sources of dust at the landfill may be controlled with the following measures:

• Apply water or dust suppression solutions to trap dust on unpaved and active landfill

areas,

• Pave travel areas at the facility to the extent practicable,

• Sweep paved roadways on a regular basis to remove dust from roadway surfaces,

• Require covers for trucks hauling cover soils,

• Limit vehicle speeds for travel over unpaved sections of the facility,

• Plant vegetation in disturbed areas as soon as feasible,

• Cover or vegetate any long-term soil piles if dusty conditions develop.

Vehicle emission related dust occurs due to diesel engines from equipment and trucks at the

landfill and may be controlled with the following measures:

7.6

• Limit the idling of engines,

• Use low sulfur diesel fuel in heavy-duty diesel equipment,

• Properly maintain the engines of landfill equipment with regularly scheduled

maintenance.

NOISE

The proposed Northampton Sanitary Landfill Phase 5 expansion will be designed to

minimize the impacts of noise on the surrounding community by optimizing the facility

layout to maximize topographic shielding effects to the extents possible. As part of the

active mitigation measures proposed for the expansion, all future contractor agreements will

include a noise specification that will require that all equipment used specifically for on-site


I I I ----•

-

-

-



landfill operations will be equipped with exhaust noise muffling devices. Currently, all on

site equipment is equipped with appropriate muffling devices.

The results of the analysis have demonstrated full compliance with the DEP Noise Policy and

the City of Northampton Environmental Performance Standards. As part of the noise

abatement analysis, the following general list of noise mitigation measures has been provided

for consideration as part of the proposed landfill expansion project. Wherever feasible, the

mitigation measures outlined below will be considered for inclusion of the Northampton

Landfill management guidelines and/or contractor equipment specifications:

• Use of properly designed engine enclosures and intake silencers;

• Regular equipment maintenance and lubrication;

• Maintenance of all exhaust systems and replacement as needed;

• New equipment will be subject to new product noise emission standards;

• Scheduling of pyrotechnic gull deterrent operations to coincide with periods when

people would least be the least disturbed (i.e. avoid early morning use);

• Require hauler to use on-site roadways which are to be established as far from

sensitive receptors as practical;

• Employ natural or manmade barriers (trees, berms, landfill slope) where possible;

• Limiting the use of back-up alarms by using an OSHA-approved alternative including

ambient sensitive alarms which bases the noise alarm decibel level on existing

background sound levels +5 dBA;

• Where practical and feasible, set up tipping operations to allow greater access while

decreasing the need to reverse;

• Requiring all facility users to properly secure loads against rattling and banging;

• Limit speeds of vehicles accessing the site and utilizing interior roadways to speeds

of 20 mph or less to reduce impact noise of impact noise and ground vibration; and




7.7

• Develop a method to receive, log, and respond to community complaints will be

implemented, thereby providing an avenue of community involvement.

STORMWATER CONTROLS

The proposed conceptual design for the Phase 5 horizontal expansion will comply with the

applicable standards of the Massachusetts DEP Stormwater Management Policy. The Policy

requires the final landfill design to provide facilities for all runoff from new stormwater

conveyances to be treated for total suspended solids before reaching resource areas. The

storm water detention basin is designed so that the pre-construction peak runoff flow to the

wetland area is maintained or reduced. Recharge of the groundwater will be provided, and

although most of the runoff to the detention basin is sheet flow, best management practices

that meet the design standards in the Policy will be designed for all swales collecting runoff

from more remote reaches of the Phase 5 landfill, including those from areas ofhigher

potential pollutant loads.


Although no significant increases in traffic volume are predicted to be associated with the

Phase 5 expansion, Bruce Campbell & Associates recommended several safety related

mitigation measures as excerpted from the BCA study include:

• "Re-design the site such that the northerly site drive be used for "commercial trucks

only" (i.e tractor trailers, packers, pick-ups etc.). Due to the existing comer radii, and

the fact that the drive has a wider roadway with the intersection with Glendale Road,

it would better serve as the primary access/egress for trucks with only slight

modifications. The southerly site drive should be designed for residential drop off

only;

• Re-construct the northerly site driveway such that the comer radii accommodate a

WB-50 (tractor trailers) and a Stop sign and Stop line be placed on the site driveway.

Signing should be placed designating the respective drives for resident and truck use

only;


I I I -... ---•

-

-

APPENDIXJ

AIR QUALITY MODELING INFORMATION

APPENDIXJ

AIR QUALITY

NORTHAMPTON LANDFILL DEIR

Pages 2-3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12-13

14-15 16

17-18 19

20-21 22 23-27 28-32 33-37 38-42

43-47 48-52 53-57 58-62 63-65 66-81

Contents Dispersion Modeling Description Figure I. Modeled Receptors for Northampton Landfill Dispersion Modeling Figure 2. Modeled Source Areas and Close-In Receptors- Existing Dust Case Figure 3. Modeled Source Areas and Close-In Receptors- Alternative 2 (Horizontal Expansion) Dust Case Figure 4. Modeled Source Areas and Close-In Receptors- Alternative 3 (Vertical Expansion) Dust Case Figure 5. Modeled Sources and Close-In Receptors- Existing Case Air Toxics and Odors Figure 6. Modeled Sources and Close-In Receptors- No-Build (Alternative I) Air Toxics and Odors Figure 7. Modeled Sources and Close-In Receptors- Alternative 2 (Horizontal Expansion) Air Toxics and Odors Figure 8. Modeled Sources and Close-In Receptors- Alternative 3 (Vertical Expansion) Air Toxics and Odors MOBILE6.2 (PM10 and PM25) 2005 ISCST3 Output PM 10 Existing Dust Analysis ISCST3 Output PM25 Existing Dust Analysis ISCST3 Output PM10 Alternative 2 (Horizontal Expansion) Dust Analysis ISCST3 Output PM25 Alternative 2 (Horizontal Expansion) Dust Analysis ISCST3 Output PM 10 Alternative 3 (Vertical Expansion) Dust Analysis ISCST3 Output PM25 Alternative 3 (Vertical Expansion) Dust Analysis ISCST3 Output Existing Odor Analysis ISCST3 Output No-Build (Alternative I) Odor Analysis ISCST3 Output Alternative 2 (Horizontal Expansion) Odor Analysis ISCST3 Output Alternative 3 (Vertical Expansion) Odor Analysis ISCST3 Output Existing Air Toxics Analysis ISCST3 Output No-Build (Alternative I) Analysis ISCST3 Output Alternative 2 (Horizontal Expansion) Analysis ISCST3 Output Alternative 3 (Vertical Expansion) Analysis Flare Emissions Data LANDGEM Files Clean Air Act Assumptions

Northampton Landfill DEIR - 1 - Air Quality Appendix

AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYIS PROCEDURES

Refined air quality impact analyses were performed to determine the worst case air quality impacts from the landfill. The predicted air quality impacts were used to: 1) determine the worst-case dust (particulate matter) impacts from the landfill, 2) access the potential for odorous concentrations of H2S from the landfill, and 3) access the health risks from these and other toxic air pollutants. These analyses were performed for four cases: 1) the existing landfill, 3) the no-build alternative (alternative 1 ), 3) the alternative where the landfill is expanded hoziontally northward from the existing landfill (alternative 2), and 4) the alternative where the landfill is expanded vertically within the existing area (alternative 3).

Dispersion Model

The dispersion modeling was performed with the latest version 02035 of the US EPA Industrial Source Complex Short-Term model (ISCST3). The ISCST3 model was run in its regulatory default mode, which selects options that are compatible with the latest US EPA guidance on air quality dispersion modeling. The rural land use option was selected for the modeling.

Meteorological Data

The modeling was performed with five years (1987- 1991) of meteorological data and the largest predicted impacts for any year were used to represent the landfill's air quality impacts. The meteorological data were processed with the US EPA PCRAMMET program. The meteorological data included hourly surface data from Bradley Airport north of Hartford, Connecticut, and daily mixing height data from Albany, New York. These data constitute the most representative meteorological available for dispersion modeling of the landfill.

Receptors

The dispersion modeling predicted air pollutant impacts at 1,624 locations (receptors) surrounding the landfill. Figure 1 shows the location of the modeled receptors. The receptor grid used 50 meter spacing within 500meters of the landfill boundaries, and 100 meters spacing between 500 and 800 meters from the landfill boundaries. The elevation of each receptor was obtained form United States Geological Survey (USGS) terrain maps.

Concentration Units and Averaging Periods

The default concentration units predicted by the ISCST3 model are ug/m3• For odor modeling of

H2S, a factor of 0.719 was included with the ISCST3 model to convert the concentration units to parts per billion (ppb). For the the odor analysis, a factor of 1.64 was also included in the ISCST3 model to convert the 1-hour average impacts to 15-minute averages, which are more representative of the short periods of odor episodes. For the health impacts analyses, the ISCST3 model was set to predict 24-hour and annual averages in units ofug/m3

.

Northampton Landfill DEIR - 2- Air Quality Appendix

I I I • •

• • -•

-

Air Pollutant Sources

Air Toxics and Odor Impact Modeling

The landfill was modeled with area sources to represent the seepage of toxic and odorous air pollutants from the landfill surface. The landfill was divided into area sources to prepresent capped areas and active areas for the different alternatives. Each of the areas was modeled with a height of zero above the landfill surface and with no initial vertical dispersion. The height of the landfill for each modeled option was estimated from plans provided by Dufresne-Henry.

The flare was modeled as a point source. The flare was conservatively assumed to destroy 90% of the air pollutants emitted from the landfill.

Dust Impact Modeling

The landfill was modeled with area sources to represent the activity of mechanical equipment on the surface of the active landfill and the motor vehicles transporting waste and cover soil to the landfill. Each source was modeled with a height of zero above the landfill surface and an initial vertical dispersion of 10 feet to represent the wakes from vehicle movement.

The hourly factor option in the ISCST model was set so that the landfill activity was modeled to occur only between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m. every day. This is conservative, as the landfill has reduced hours of7 a.m. to noon on Wednesdays and Saturdays and does not operate at all on Sundays.

227010ispersion modeling.doc


I I I

-• • -•

0 200 t 400 meers 600

Figure I. Modeled Receptors for Northampton Landfill Dispersion Modeling


-

0 200 meters 400 600

Figure 2. Modeled Source Areas and Close-In Receptors- Existing Dust Case


I I

• • • • • • • I -.... L..

• -•

-0 200 meters 400 600

Figure 3. Modeled Source Areas and Close-In Receptors- Alternative 2 (Horizontal Expansion) Dust Case -

Northampton Landfill DEIR -6- Air Quality Appendix

-

0 200 meters 400 600

Figure 4. Modeled Source Areas and Close-In Receptors- Alternative 3 (Vertical Expansion) Dust Case


Wrrilllll Active Area

- Capped Area

0

* = Flare

200 t 400 meers 600

Figure 5. Modeled Sources and Close-In Receptors- Existing Case Air Toxics and Odors


I I I --• -•

-

-

-•

-

- Capped Area

* = Flare

0 200 meters 400 600

Figure 6. Modeled Sources and Close-In Receptors- No-Build (Alternative 1) Air Toxics and Odors


•

0 200 ,---------------~------~

Active Area * =Flare

I - Capped Area

• • •

400 meters

• • •

600

Figure 7. Modeled Sources and Close-In Receptors- Alternative 2 (Horizontal Expansion) Air Taxies and Odors


I I I --• -•

-

-

N

0 200 t 400 meers 600 W*E s l;~lli'll Active Area

I ;. Capped Area * = Flare

Figure 8. Modeled Sources and Close-In Receptors- Alternative 3 (Vertical Expansion) Air Toxics and Odors


I I

***************************************************************************

* MOBILE6.2.03 {24-Sep-2003)

* Input file: 1967PM.IN (file 1, run 1).

*************************************************************************** I • # # # # # • • # # # t t • # # # # # # • • # # # # -* MA Arterial 20.0 mph - PMlO Northampton Landfill DEIR

* File 1, Run 1, Scenario 1. ...

• # # # • # # • # # # # # • # # # # # i # # # # # #

Gasoline

Diesel

Vehicle Type:

GVWR:

VMT Distr1bution:

Calendar Year:

Month:

Fuel Sulfur Content:


Particle Size Cutoff:

Reformulated Gas:

LDGV

0.4033

LDGT12

<6000

0.3414

2005

Jan.

90.

500.

10.00

Yes

LDGT34

>6000

0.1277

ppm

ppm

Microns

LDGT

{All)

HDGV LDDV

0.0338 0.0006

LOOT HDDV MC All Veh

0.0019 0.0875 0.0038 1.0000

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors {g/mi):

Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

GASPM: 0.0042 0.0043 0.0045 0.0044 0.0620 0.0205 0.0059

ECARBON: 0.1266 0.0442 0.1903 0.0168

OCMBON: 0.0357 0.0636 0.0965 0.0086

S04: 0.0015 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.0027 0.0057 0.0097 0.0311 0.0005 0.0043

Total Exhaust PM: 0.0057 0.0061 0.0063 0.0062 0.0648 0.1680 0.1175 0.3179 0.0210 0.0356

Brake: 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125

Tire: 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0087 0.0080 0.0080 0.0262 0.0040 0.0096

Total PM: 0.0263 0.0267 0.0269 0.0267 0.0861 0.1886 0.1380 0.3567 0.0376 0.0578

S02: 0.0202 0.0261 0.0342 0.0283 0.051.3 0.1097 0.1854 0.4449 0.0098 0.0626

NH3: 0.1015 0.1013 0.1009 0.1012 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0924

Idle Emissions {g/hr)

PM Idle: 1.2575


• -•

-

-

* # • # • # • • # # • # • • # • • # # • • • • • # •

* MA Arteriql 20.0 mph - PM2.5

* File 1, Run 1, Scenario 2.

Northampton Landfill DEIR

* # # # • # • # # # • • • • • # # # # • • # # i • •

Gasoline

Diesel

Vehicle Type:

GVWR:

VMT Distribution:

Calendar Year:

Month:



Particle Size Cutoff:

Reformulated Gas:

LDGV

0.4033

LDGT12

<6000

0. 3414

2005

Jan.

90.

500.

2.50

Yes

LDGT34

>6000

0.1277

ppm

ppm

Microns

LDGT

(All)

BDGV LDDV LDDT BDDV MC All Veh

0.0338 0.0006 0.0019 0.0875 0.0038 1. 0000

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (q/mi):

Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

GASPM: 0.0038 0.0039 0.0041 0.0040 0.0532 0.0142 0.0053

ECARBON: 0.1165 0.0407 0.1751 0.0155

OCARBON: 0.0328 0.0585 0.0888 0.0079

S04: 0.0015 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.0027 0.0057 0.0097 0.0311 0.0005 0.0043

Total Exhaust PM: 0.0054 0.0058 0.0059 0.0058 0.0560 0.1550 0.1089 0.2950 0.0147 0.0330

Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053

Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0022 0.0020 0.0020 0.0066 0.0010 0.0024

Total PM: 0.0127 0.0131 0.0132 0.0131 0.0635 0.1624 0.1162 0.3069 0.0210 0. 0407

S02: 0.0202 0.0261 0.0342 0.0283 0.0513 0.1097 0.1854 0.4449 0.0098 0.0626

NH3: 0.1015 0.1013 0.1009 0.1012 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0924

Idle Emissions (q/hr)

PM Idle: 1.1569

Northampton Landfill DEIR - l3- Air Quality Appendix

*** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** *** Northampton Landfill. Existing Case Dust Analysis - 1997 - 1991

***Model. Executed on 01/27/0S at 13:41:24 **'* Input File - W: \Apps\ISCDATA\1967\Dust\Existing\PMlOALL, DTA

Output File - W: \Apps\ISCDATA\1967\Dust\Existing\PMlOALL. LST

Mat File - W: \Apps\ISCDATA\1967\Dust\Existing\1987_9l.ASC

Number of sources - 3

Number of source groups - 1

Number of receptors - 1624

*** AREAPOLY SOURCE DATA ***

NUMBER EMISSION RATE LOCATION OF AREA BASE RELEASE NUMBER

SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC X y ELEV. HEIGHT OF VERTS.

ID CATS. /METER**2) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

PAVED 0 0 .13000E-05 688204.7 4684593.5 88.4 0.00 19

UNPAVED 0 0. 31000£-05 688642.1 4684628.0 99.1 0. 00

ACTIVE 0 0. 33000£-04 688667. 1 4684634.0 83.8 0.00 4

* * * SOURCE IDs DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS

GROUP ID SOURCE IDs

ALL PAVED 1 UNPAVED , ACTIVE

!NIT. EMISSION RATE

sz SCALAR VARY

(METERS) BY

- - - - - - - ------

3.05 HROFDY

3.05 HROFOY

3.05 HROFOY

*** THE SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM ANNUAL ( 5 YRS) RESULTS ***

** CONC OF PMlO IN MICROGRAMS/M**3

NETWORK

GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID-ID

------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ALL 1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS 3.53766 AT 688616.62' 4684525.001 85.20, 0.00) DC NA

2ND HIGHEST VALUE IS 3.47105 AT 688652.19' 4684531.50, 76.70, 0.00) DC NA

3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS 3.34336 AT 688602.881 4684525.50' 87.50, 0.00) DC NA

4TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 2.83884 AT 688666.621 4684525 • 001 72.70, 0.00) DC NA

5TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 2.63107 AT 688650.00' 4684500.00' 71.90, 0.00) DC NA

6TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 2.56082 AT 688701.501 4694538 • QQ 1 69.60, 0.00) DC NA

7TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 2.31840 AT I 688744.19 1 4684547.00, 68. 70, 0.00) DC NA

8TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 2.30080 AT 688553. 69' 4684519.00, 90.50, 0.00) DC NA

9TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 2.15219 AT 688716.62' 4684525.00, 68.60, 0.00) DC NA

l.OTH HIGHEST VALUE IS 1.98575 AT 688600.00, 4684450-00' 79.80, 0.00) DC NA


I I I • •

-•

*** THE SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM AVERAGE HIGH-4TH-HIGH 24-HR RESULTS OVER 5 YEARS ***

** CONC OF PM10 IN MICROGRAMS/M**3

GROUP "ID AVERAGE CONC RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZFLAG)

ALL 1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS 27.58215 AT 688652.19, 4684531.501 76. 70,

2ND HIGHEST VALUE IS 24.93241 AT 688616.62, 4684525.00. 85.20,

3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS 22.60576 AT 688602.88, 4684525.50. 87.50.

4TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 22.19064 AT 688650.00, 4684500.00, 71.90,

5TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 22.13207 AT 688666.62, 4684525.00, 72. 70,

6TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 18.85068 AT 688701.50, 4684538.00. 69.60,

7TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 16.26645 AT 688716.62. 4684525'.00, 68. 60,

8TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 15.70257 AT 688650.00, 4684450.00. 69. 90,

9TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 15.64090 AT 688553.69. 4684519.00, 90.501

lOTH HIGHEST VALUE IS 15.16283 AT 688700.00, 4684500.00. 68.80,

Northampton Landfill DEIR - 15-

NE'IWORK

OF TYPE GRID-ID

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0. 00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

Air Quality Appendix

*** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *'** *** Northampton Landfill Existinq Case Dust Analysis - 1987 - 1991 PM2. 5 *** ***Model Executed on 01/27/05 at 13:57:35 *** Input File - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\1967\Dust\Existing\PM25ALL.DTA

Output File - W: \Apps\ISCDATA\1967\Dust\Existing\PM25ALL.LST

Met File - W: \Apps\ISCDATA\1967\0ust\Existing\1987_91 ASC

Number of sources -

Number of source groups -




SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/ SEC X y ELEV. HEIGHT OF VERTS.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

PAVED 0. 41000£-06 688204.7 4684593.5 88.4 0.00 19

UNPAVED 0 0. 59000£-06 688642.1 4684628.0 99.1 0.00

ACTIVE 0 0. 12000E-04 688667.1 4684634.0 83.8 0.00

INIT.

sz

(METERS)

3.05

3.05

3.05

*** SOURCE IDs DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS ***

GROUP ID SOURCE IDs

PAVED , UNPAVED , ACTIVE

EMISSION RATE

SCALAR VARY

BY

- - - - ---------

HROFDY

HROFOY

HROFDY

*** THE SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM PERIOD { 43824. HRS) RESULTS ***

CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/H* * 3

GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZFLAG)

NETWORK

OF TYPE GRID-ID

ALL 1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS 1.27191 AT 688616.62, 4684525.00, 85.201 0.00) DC NA

2ND HIGHEST VALUE IS 1.24991 AT 688652.19, 4 684531. SQ 1 76. 70, 0.00) DC NA

3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS 1.20134 AT 688602.88' 4684525.501 87 .so, 0.00) DC NA

4TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 1.02293 AT 688666.62, 4684525.00' 72. 70, 0.00) DC NA

5TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.94743 AT 688650.00, 4684500.00, 71.90' 0.00) DC NA

6TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.92289 AT 688701. so, 4684538.00, 69.60, 0 .00) DC NA

7TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.83643 AT 688744.19, 4694547.001 68. 70, 0.00) DC NA

8TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.82365 AT 698553.69, 4684519 • QO 1 90.50, 0.00) DC NA

9TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0. 71588 AT 688716.62' 4684525.00, 68.60, 0.00) DC NA

lOTH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.67853 AT 688786.81' 4684556.00, 69.30, 0.00) DC NA

* * * THE SUMMARY OF HIGHEST 24-HR RESULTS

** CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M**3

DATE NETWORK

GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC (YYMMDDHH) RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID-ID

ALL HIGH 7TH HIGH VALUE IS 12. 07515c ON 99071724: AT 688652.191 4694531.501 76.70, 0.00) DC NA


I I I -• -•

Al t 2 *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** *** Northampton Landfill Expansion Option Dust Analysis - 1987-91

*** Model Executed on 01/27/05 at 13:45:58 *** Input File - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\1967\Dust\PM10ALL.DTA

OUtput File - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\1967\Dust\PM10ALL.LST

Met File - W: \App.s \ISCDATA \1967\metdata \1987 _ 91 ,ASC

Number of sources -





SOURCE PART4 {GRAMS/SEC X y ELEV. HEIGHT OF VERTS.

ID CATS. /METER**2) (METERS) (METERS) {METERS) (METERS)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ACTIVE 0 0 .28000E-04 688404.3 4684980.0 99.1 o.oo PAVED 0 0. 12000£-05 688194.0 4684821.5 88.4 o.oo UNPAVED 0 0. 32000£-05 688402.8 4684885.0 99.1 o.oo 7

*** SOURCE IDs DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS

GROOP .ID SOURCE IDs

ALL ACTIVE I PAVED , UNPAVED I

INIT. EMISSION RATE

sz SCALAR VARY

{METERS) BY

-------------

3.05 HROFDY

3.05 HROFDY

3.05 HROFDY

••• THE SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM ANNUAL ( 5 YRS) RESULTS ***

** CONC OF PMlO IN MICROGRP.MS/M*•3

GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV 1 ZFLAG)

- - ------- - - - - - - - - ------ - - - - - - - -------

ALL 1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS 8.21625 AT 688447.00, 4685155.00. 81.00,

2ND HIGHEST VALUE IS 6.32203 AT 688466 • 621 4685175.00, 80.00,

3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS 5. 71664 AT 688492.69, 4685166.00. 79.30,


5TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 4. 79877 AT 688450.00, 4 685200.00. 84. 40,


7TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 3. 75620 AT 688500.00, 4685200.00. 79. 90,


9TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 3.04500 AT 688538.38. 4685173.00, 79. 40,

lOTH HIGHEST VALUE IS 3.02890 AT 688450.00, 4 685250.00, 81.30,

Northampton Landfill DEIR - 17-

NETWORK

OF TYPE GRID-ID

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA




NETWORK


------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ALL 1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS 41.79933 AT 688447.00' 4685155.00 ( 81.00' 0.00) DC NA

2ND HIGHEST VALUE IS 38.02302 AT 688401.31' 4685144.00. 84 .20, 0.00) DC NA

3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS 33.08455 AT 688466.62, 4685175.00, 80.00, 0.00) DC NA

4TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 29.91313 AT 688492.69' 4685166.00' 79.30' 0.00) DC NA

5TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 28.50211 AT 688450.00' 4 685200. 00' 84.40, 0.00) DC NA


7TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 21.99041 AT 688516.62, 4685175.00, 79.40' 0.00) DC NA

8TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 21.82914 AT 688359.00, 4685137.00' 81.20, 0.00) DC NA

9TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 21.56437 AT 688500.00' 4685200.00, 79 .90, 0.00) DC NA

lOTH HIGHEST VALUE IS 18.85249 AT 688450.00, 4685250.00, 87 .30, 0.00) DC NA


I I I • • ---•

-

Alternative 2 - Horizontal Expansion *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** *** Northampton Landfill Boriz. Expansion Dust Analysis - 1987-91 PM2.5 *** *** Model Executed on 01/27/05 at 13:56:46 ***

Input File - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\1961\Dust\PM25all.DTA

Output File - W: \Apps\ISCDATA\1967\Dust\PM25all. LST

Met File - W'\Apps\ISCDATA\1967\metdata\1997_91.ASC

Number of sources -




SOURCE

ID

ACTIVE

PAVED

UNPAVED

NUMBER EMISSION RATE LOCATION OF AREA BASE

PART. (GRAMS/SEC X y ELEV.

RELEASE NUMBER

HEIGHT OF VERTS.

CATS. /METER**2) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS)

0.10000E-04 699404.3 4694990.0

0. 40000E-06 699194.0 4694921.5

o. 6ooooE-06 6BB402. a 4684985. o

99.1

89.4

99.1

0.00

0.00

0.00

!NIT.

sz

(METERS)

3.05

3.05

3.05


GROUP ID SOURCE IDs

ALL ACTIVE , PAVED , UNPAVED ,

EMISSION RATE

SCALAR VARY

BY

HROFDY

HROFDY

HROFDY

*** THE SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM PERIOD ( 43824 HRS) RESULTS ***

CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M**3

GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC RECEPTOR (XR, YR 1 ZELEV, ZFLAG)

NETWORK

OF TYPE GRID-ID

ALL 1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS 2.92511 AT 698447.00' 4685155.00' 81.00, 0.00) DC NA

2ND HIGHEST VALUE IS 2.24951 AT 688466.62, 4685175.00, 80.00, 0.00) DC NA

3RO HIGHEST VALUE IS 2.03371 AT 688492.69, 4685166.00, 79.30, 0.00) DC NA

4TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 1.86054 AT 688401.31, 4685144.00' 84.20, 0 .00) DC NA

5TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 1. 70753 AT 688450.00' 4685200. OQ, "84.40, 0.00) DC NA


7TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 1.33567 AT 688500.00, 4685200,001 19.90, 0.00) DC NA



lOTH HIGHEST VALUE IS 1.07735 AT 688450.00' 4685250.00' 87 .30, 0.00) DC NA

*** THE SUMMARY OF HIGHEST 24-HR RESULTS ***


DATE NETWORK

GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC (YYMMDDHH) RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID- ID

ALL HIGH 7TH HIGH VALUE IS 18.04203 ON 87060424' AT 688447.00, 4685155.00, 81.00' 0.00) DC NA


Alternative 3 *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** *** Northampton Landfill Vertical Expansion Case oust Analysis - 1987 -

***Model Executed on 01/27/05 at 14:48:18 *** Input Fila - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\1967\Dust\Vertical\PM10ALL.DTA

OUtput File - W: \Apps\ISCDATA\1967\Dust\ Vertical \PMlOALL. LST

Met Fi.le - W: \.Apps\ISCDATA\1967\metdata \1987 _91.ASC

Number of sources -



*** AREAPOLY SOURCE DATA * * *


SOURCE PART. (GAAMS/SEC X y ELEV. HEIGHT OF VERTS.


------ - - - - - - - - - -

PAVEDl 0. 13000£-05 688221.7 4684606.5 88.4 0.00 18

PAVED2 0.13000£-05 688503.4 4684536.0 91.4 0.00 12

UNPAVED 0. 34000£-05 688527.8 4684713.0 106.7 0.00

ACTIVE 0 0. 26000£-04 688432.7 4684676.5 106.7 0.00

INIT.

sz

(METERS)

3.05

3.05

3.05

3.05


GROUP ID SOURCE IDs

ALL PAVEOl , PAVED2 , UNPAVED , ACTIVE

EMISSION RATE

SCALAR VARY

BY

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

HROFOY

HROFDY

HROFDY

HROFDY


* * CONC OF PMlO m MICROGR.AMS/H**3


ALL 1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS 3.46051 AT 688390.62, 4684578.50, 88.50,

2ND HIGHEST VALUE IS 2.82399 AT 688455.12, 4684506.00' 90.00,

3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS 2. 81951 AT 688398.19, 4684539.00, 89.00,

4TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 2. 65860 AT 688504.38, 4684512.50, 90.30,

5TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 2. 58193 AT 688366.62' 4684575.00' 89. 90,

6TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 2.28127 AT 688405.81' 4684500.00, 90.80,



9TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 1.93833 AT 688350 .oo, 4 684550. 00' 90.70'

lOTH HIGHEST VALUE IS 1. 91599 AT 688602.88, 4684525.50, 87.50,

Northampton Landfill DEIR -20-

NETWORK

OF TYPE GRID-ID

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA


I I I -• ,..

-•

-



GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC RECEPTOR (XR, YR 1 ZELEV 1 ZFLAG)

ALL 1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS 22.92052 AT 698390.621 4684578.50' 88. so, 2ND HIGHEST VALUE IS 19.31363 AT 688398.19' 4684539.00, 89.001

3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS 18.39971 AT 688366.62' 4684575.00, 89.901

4TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 17.93329 AT 688455.12' 4684506.00' 90.00,

5TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 17.10235 AT 688347 .as, 4684593.00' 89.00'

6TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 16.89766 AT 688504.38' 4684512.50' 90.30,


8TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 14.86033 AT 688350.00' 4684550.00, 90. 70,


lOTH HIGHEST VALUE IS 13.13275 AT 688305.31, 4684607.00' 91.10,

Northampton Landfill DEIR - 21 -

NETWORK

OF TYPE GRID-ID

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA


A1ternat.ive 3 - Vertical Expansion *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035

*** Northampton Landfill Vertical Expansion Dust Analysis - 1987 - 1991 *** ***Model Executed on 01/27/05 at 15:0'1:41 *** Input File - W: \Apps\ISCDATA\1967\Dust\Verti.cal \PM25ALL.DTA

OUtput File - W: \Apps\ISCDATA\1967\Dust\Vertical \PM25ALL. LST

Met File - W: \Apps\ISCDATA\1967\metdata\1987_91.ASC

Number of sources -





SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC X y ELEV. HEIGHT OF VERTS.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

PAVEDl 0 0. 41000£-06 688221.7 4684606.5 88.4 0.00 18

PAVE02 0 0. 41000£-06 688503.4 4684536.0 91.4 0.00 12

UNPAVED 0. 65000£-06 688527.8 4684713.0 106.7 0.00

ACTIVE 0 0. 96000£-05 688432.7 4684676.5 106.7 0.00

INIT.

sz

(METERS)

3.05

3.05

3.05

3.05

SOURCE IDs DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS * **

GROUP ID SOURCE IDs

ALL PAVEDl I PAVED2 I UNPAVED I ACTIVE

EMISSION RATE

SCALAR VARY

BY

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

HROFOY

HROFDY

HROFDY

HROFDY

THE SmMARY OF MAXIMUM ANNUAL ( 5 YRS) RESULTS u-•

* * CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M**3


NETWORK

OF TYPE GRID-ID

ALL 1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS 1.26244 AT 688390.62' 4684578.50, 88.50, 0.00) DC NA

2ND HIGHEST VALUE IS 1. 02985 AT 688398.19, 4684539.00, 89.00, 0.00) DC NA

3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS 1.02833 AT 688455.12' 4684506.00, 90.00, 0.00) DC NA

4TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0. 96768 AT 688504.38' 4684512. so' 90.30, 0.00) DC NA


6TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.83379 AT 688405.81, 4684500.00, 90.80, 0.00) DC NA


8TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0. 79265 AT 688553.691 4684519.00, 90.50, 0.00) DC NA

9TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0. 70868 AT 688350.00, 4684550.00, 90. 70, 0.00) DC NA

lOTH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0. 69722 AT 688602.88' 4684525. so' 87.50, 0.00) DC NA

*** THE SUMMARY OF HIGHEST 24-HR RESULTS


DATE NETWORK


ALL HIGH 7TH HIGH VALUE IS 10. 355B8c ON 8711252.(i: AT 688390.62, 4684578.50, 88.50, 0.00) DC NA


I I I

--

*** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** *** Northampton Land£ill. Existing Case Odor - 1987

***Model Executed on 02/04/05 at 1~:06:50 *** Input File - W: \Appa\ISCDATA\1967\odor\Existing\87 .DTA

Output File - W: \Apps\ISCDATA\1967\odor\Existing\87 .LST

Met File - W: \Apps\ISCDATA\1967\metdata\1987 .ASC

Number of sources -



* * * POINT SOURCE DATA * * *

NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE

ELEV.

STACK STACK STACK STACK BUILDING EMISSION RATE

SOURCE

ID

PART. (GRAMS/SEC)

CATS.

X y HEIGHT TEMP. EXIT VEL. DIAMETER EXISTS SCALAR VARY

(METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (DEG.K) (M/SEC) (METERS) BY

FLARE 0.54100E-04 688625.3 4684591.5 84.4 4. 60 1273.00 20.00 0.59 NO


NUMBER EMISSION RATE LOCATION OF AREA BASE RELEASE NUMBER !NIT. EMISSION RATE

SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC X y ELEV. HEIGHT OF VERTS. sz SCALAR VARY

ID CATS. /METER**2) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY

------ - - - - -------- ------- - - ------ - - - -

ACTIVE 0. 43400E-08 688585.7 4684856.5 91.4 0.00 7 0.00

CAPPEDW 0 0. 53600E-09 688585.7 4684856.5 99.1 0.00 9 o.oo CAP PEDE 0. 41600£-08 688786.8 4684890.5 91.4 0.00 6 0.00


GROUP ID SOURCE IDs

ALL ACTIVE # CAPPEDW , CAPPEDE , FLARE

*** TEE SUMMARY OF HIGHEST 1-HR RESULTS ***

CONC OF OTHER IN 5-MIN--PPB

DATE NETWORK

GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC (Yn<MDDHH) RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID-ID

ALL HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 0.41099 ON 87012502: AT 688933.50, 4684929.00, 76.20, 0.00) DC NA


ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 ***

Northampton Landfill Existing Case Odor - 1988

Model Executed on 02/04/05 at 11:24:15 ***

Input File - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\1967\odor\Existinq\88 .DTA

Output File - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\1967\odor\Ex.isting\BB.LST

Met File - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\1967\metdata\1988.ASC

Number of sources -



*** POINT SOURCE DATA ***


ELEV.


SOURCE

ID

Pl\RT. (GRAMS/SEC) X y HEIGHT TEMP. EXIT VEL. DIAMETER EXISTS SCALAR VARY

SOURCE

ID

ACTIVE

CAPPEDW

CAP PEDE

GROUP ID

CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (DEG.K) (H/SEC) (METERS)

0. 54100E-04 699625.3 4694591.5 94.4 4.60 1273.00

*'** AREAPOLY SOURCE DATA ***


Pl\RT. (GRAMS/SEC X y ELEV.

RELEASE NUMBER

HEIGHT OF VERTS.


0.43400E-09 699595.7 4694956.5

0. 53600E-09 699595.1 4694956.5

0. 41600E-09 699796.8 4684990.5

91.4

99.1

91.4

0.00

0.00

0.00

1

6

20.00

INIT.

sz (METERS)

0.00

0.00

0.00


SOURCE IDs

0.59 NO

EMISSION RATE

SCALAR VARY

BY

ALL ACTIVE , CAPPEDW 1 CAPPEDE , FLARE


'** CONC OF OTHER IN 5-MIN--PPB

BY

DATE NETWORK

GROUP IO AVERAGE CONC (YYHHDDHH) RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV 1 ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID-ID

ALL HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 0 .39911 ON 88031904' AT ( 688933.50, 4684929.00, 76.20, 0.00) DC NA


I I I • • -• -•

-

ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** Northampton La.ndfil1 Existing Case Odor - 1989

Model Executed on 02/04/05 at 11:35:40 *** Input File - W: \Appa\ISCDATA\1967\odor\Exi.sti.ng\89.DTA

Output Fi.le - W: \Apps\ISCDA'r.A\1967\odor\Existinq\89 .LST


Number of sources -




NUMBER EMISSION RATE

PART. (GRAMS/SEC)

CATS.

BASE

ELEV.


SOURCE

ID

FLARE

SOURCE

ID

ACTIVE

CAPPEDW

CAP PEDE

GROUP ID

X y HEIGHT TEMP. EXIT VEL. DllaMETER EXISTS SCALAR VARY

(METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (DEG.K) (M/SEC) (METERS)

0.54100E-04 688625.3 4684591.5 84.4 4.60 1273.00




RELEASE NUMBER

HEIGHT OF VERTS.


0 0.43400£-08 688585.7 4684856.5

0.53600£-09 688585.7 4684856.5

0. 41600E-08 688786.8 4684890.5

91.4

99.1

91.4

0.00

0.00

0.00

9

20.00

INIT.

sz (METERS)

0.00

0.00

0.00


SOURCE IDs

0.59 NO

EMISSION RATE

SCALAR VARY

BY

BY

ALL ACTIVE I CAPPEDW , CAPPEDE I FLARE

*** THE SUMMARY 0~ HIGHEST 1-HR RESULTS ***

** CONC OF OTHER IN 5-MIN--PPB

DATE NETWORK

GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC (YYMMDDBH) RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID-ID

ALL HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 0.35738 ON 89102603: AT ( 688987.00, 4684664.50, 73.40, 0.00) DC NA


ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** Northampton Landfill Existing Case Odor - 1990

Model Executed on 02/04/05 at 11:48:25 *** Input File - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\1967\odor\Existing\90.DTA

Output File - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\196?\odor\Existing\90.LST

Met File - W: \Apps\ISCDATA\1967\metdata\1990 .ASC

Number of sources -





ELEV.


SOURCE

ID

PART. (GIUIMS/SEC)

CATS.


(METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (DEG.K) (M/SEC) (METERS) BY

FLARE 0 0. 54100£-04 699625.3 4694591.5 94.4 4.60 1273.00 20.00 0.59 NO

* ** AREAPOLY SOURCE DATA ***

NUMBER EMISSION RATE LOCATION OF AREA BASE RELEASE NUMBER INIT. EMISSION RATE

SOURCE PART. ( GIUIMS /SEC X y ELEV. HEIGHT OF VERTS. sz SCAL.AR VARY

ID CATS. /METER**2) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY

------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------

ACTIVE 0 0. 43400E-09 688595.7 4684856.5 91.4 0.00 o.oo CAPPEDW 0 0. 53600E-09 688595.7 4694856.5 99.1 0.00 o.oo CAP PEDE 0 0. 41600E-08 689786.8 4684890.5 91.4 0.00 0.00


GROUP ID SOURCE IDs

ALL ACTIVE , CAPPEDW , CAPPEDE , FLARE



DATE NETWORK




I I I • • • 1.. -•

-

* * * ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 ** * *** Northampton Landfill Existing Case Odor - 1991

***Model Executed on 02/04/05 at 11:56:45 *** Input File - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\1967\odor\Existi.ng\9l..DTA

Output File - W: \Appa\ISCOATA\1967\odor\Existing\91.LST


Number of sources -





PART. (GRAMS/SEC)

CATS.

BASE

ELEV.


SOURCE

ID

SOURCE

ID

ACTIVE

CAPPEDW

CAP PEDE

GROUP ID



0 0. 54100£-04 688625.3 4684591.5 84.4 4.60 1273.00

* * * AREAPOLY SOURCE DATA * * *


PART. (GRAMS/SEC X y ELEV. HEIGHT OF VERTS.


0 0. 43400£-08 688585.7 4684856.5

0.53600£-09 688585.7 4684856.5

0. 41600£-08 688786.8 4684890.5

91.4

99.1

91.4

0.00

0.00

0.00

9

6

20.00 0.59 NO

INIT. EMISSION RATE

sz

(METERS)

0.00

0.00

0.00

SCALAR VARY

BY

SOURCE IDs DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS ***

SOURCE IDs

BY

ALL ACTIVE , CAPPEDW , CAPPED£ , FLARE



DATE NETWORK

GROUP IO AVERAGE CONC (YYMMDDHH) RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID-ID



Al.ternative 1 - No Build *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035

*** Northampton Landfill No-Build Case - 1981 Odor

*** Model Executed on 02/04/05 at 1.2:20:27 *** Input File - W: \Apps\ISCDATA\1967\odor\No-Build\87 .DTA

OUtput File - W: \Apps\ISCDATA\1967\odor\No-Build\87 .LST

Met File - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\1967\metd.ata\1987 .ASC

Number of sources -





ELEV.


SOURCE

ID

PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X y HEIGHT TEMP. EXIT VEL. DIAMETER EXISTS SCALAR VARY

SOURCE

ID

CAPPED

GROUP ID

CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (DEG.K) (M/SEC) (METERS)

0 0 .11900E-03 688625.3 4684591.5 84.4 4.60 1273.00

*** AREAPOLY SOURCE DATA


PART. (GRliMS/SEC X y ELEV.

RELEASE NUMBER

HEIGHT OF VERTS.


0 0. 67400E-09 688585.7 4684856.5 106.7 0.00 13

20.00

INIT.

sz

(METERS)

0.00


SOURCE IDs

0.59 NO

EMISSION RATE

SCALAR VARY

BY

ALL CAPPED , FLARE

GROUP ID

AlL HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS



* * CONC OF OTHER IN 5-MIN--PPM

AVERAGE CONC

DATE

(YIMMDDHH) RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZFLAG)

0.10091 ON 87090322' AT 688390.62' 4684578.50' 88.50,

- 28-

BY

NETWORK

OF TYPE GRID-IO

0.00) DC NA


I I I -• ---•

-

Alternative 1 - No Build *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035

*** Northampton Landfill No-Build Case - 1988 Odor

"***Model Executed on 02/04/05 at 12:31:17 ***

Input File - W:\Apps\ISCOATA\1967\odor\No-Build\88 .DTA

Output File - W: \Apps\ISCDATA\1967\odor\No-Build\88. LST





* * * PpiNT SOURCE DATA * * *

NtMBER EMISSION RATE BASE STACK STACK STACK STACK BUILDING EMISSION RATE

SOURCE

ID

FLARE

SOURCE

ID

CAPPED

GROUP ID

PART. (GRJ\MS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT TEMP. EXIT VEL. DIAMETER EXISTS SCALAR VARY

CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (DEG.K) (M/SEC) (METERS) BY

0 0 .l1900E-03 688625.3 4684591.5 84.4 4.60 1273.00



PART. (GRAMS/SEC

CATS. /METER**2)

LOCATION OF AREA BASE

X y ELEV.

RELEASE NUMBER

HEIGHT OF VERTS.

(METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS)

0 0. 67400E-09 688585.1 4684856.5 106.1 0.00 13

20.00

INIT.

sz

(METERS)

o.oo


SOURCE IDs

0.59 NO

EMISSION RATE

SCALAR VARY

BY

ALL CAPPED , FLARE


CONC OF OTHER IN 5-MIN--PPM

DATE NETWORK


ALL HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 0.09161 ON 88040103' AT ( 688390.62, 4684578.50, 88.50, 0.00) DC NA


Alt 1 NB *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** *** Northampton Landfill No-Build Case - 1999 Odor

*** Model Executed on 02/04/05 at 12:34:51 *** Input File - W: \Apps\ISCOATA\196'1\odor\No-Build\99.DTA

Output File - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\196'1\odor\No-Build\99.LST


Number of sources -


Number of receptors -

2

1624



ELEV.

STACK STACK

HEIGHT TEMP.

STACK STACK BUILDING EMISSION RATE

SOURCE

ID

PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X y EXIT VEL. DIAMETER EXISTS SCALAR VARY

FLARE

SOURCE

ID

CAPPED

GROUP ID


0 0. 11900£-03 688625.3 4684591.5 84.4 4.60 1273.00




RELEASE NUMBER

HEIGHT OF VERTS.


0. 67400£-09 688585.7 4684856.5 106.7 0.00 13

20.00 0.59 NO

INIT, EMISSION RATE

sz

(METERS)

0.00

SCALAR VARY

BY


SOURCE IDs

ALL CAPPED , FLARE

GROUP ID

ALL HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS



• '* CONC OF OTHER IN 5-MIN--PPM

AVERAGE CONC

DATE

(YYMMODHH) RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZFLAG)

0. 08484 ON 89082702: AT 689390.621 4694579,50 1 99 • 501

- 30-

BY

NETWORK

OF TYPE GRID-ID

0.00) DC NA


I I I -• -•

-

Alt 1 NB *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 ***

*** Northampton Landfil.l No-Bui.ld Case - 1990 Odor

*** Model Executed on 02/04/05 at 12:38:25 *'** Input File - W: \Apps\ISCDATA\1967\odor\No-Build\90.DTA

OUtput File - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\1967\odor\No-Build\90.LST

Met File - W:\Appa\ISCDATA\1967\metdata\1990.ASC



NUmber of receptors - 1624

**'* POINT SOURCE DATA *'**


ELEV.

STACK STACK

HEIGHT TEMP.


SOURCE

ID

FLARE

SOURCE

ID

CAPPED

GROUP ID


CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METE!Ul) (METERS) (OEG.K) (M/SEC) (METERS)

0 0.11900£-03 688625.3 4684591.5 84.4 4.60 1273.00



HEIGHT OF VERTS • PART. (GRAMS/SEC X y ELEV~

CATS. /HETER**2) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS)

0 0. 67400E-09 688585.7 4684856.5 106.7 0.00 13

* * * SOURCE IDs DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS

SOURCE IDs

20.00

INIT.

sz

(METERS}

0.00

0.59 NO

EMISSION RATE

SCALAR VARY

BY

BY

ALL CAPPED , FLARE


** CONC OF OTHER IN 5-MIN--PPM

DATE NETWORK

GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC (YY>IMDDHH} RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID-ID

ALL HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 0.09727 ON 90081004: AT ( 688390. 62, 4684578.50, 88.50, 0.00} DC NA


Alt 1 NB *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** *** Northampton Landfi.ll No-Build Case - 1991 Odor

*** Model. Executed on 02/04/05 at 12:48:42 *** Input File - W: \Apps\ISCDATA\1967\odor\No-Build\9l.DTA

Output File - W: \Apps\ISCDATA \1967\odor\No-Build\91. LST

Met File - W: \Apps\ISCDATA\1967\metdata\199l.ASC

Number of sources -





ELEV.

STACK STACK

HEIGHT TEMP.


SOURCE

ID


FLARE

SOURCE

ID

CAPPED

GROUP ID

CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (DEG.K) (H/SEC) (METERS)

0.11900£-03 688625.3 4684591.5 84.4 4.60 1273.00




RELEASE NUMBER

HEIGHT OF VERTS.


0.67400£-09 688585.1 4684856.5 106.1 0.00 13

20.00 0.59 NO

INIT. EMISSION RATE

sz (METERS)

0.00

SCALAR VARY

BY


SOURCE IDs

ALL CAPPED 1 FLARE

GROUP ID




CONC OF OTHER IN 5-MIN--PPM

AVERAGE CONC

DATE

(YYHHODHH) RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV 1 ZFLAG)

0.10214 ON 91032106: AT 689001.69, 4684701.00, 73.90,

-32-

BY

NETWORK

OF TYPE GRID-ID

0.00) DC NA


I I I -• --•

-

Alternative 2 '*** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** '*** Northampton Landfill Alt. 2 Horizontal Expansion - 1987 Odor

***Model Executed on 02/04/05 at 10:42:09 *** Input File - W: \Apps\ISCDATA\1967\odor\Horizontal \87 .DTA

Output File - W: \Apps\ISCDATA\1967\odor\Horizontal. \87 .LST

M&t File - "' \Apps\ISCDATA\1967\metdata\1987 .ASC

Number of sources -


Number of receptors - 162 4



SOURCE

ID


PART. (GRAMS/SEC)

CATS.

X y

BASE

ELEV. HEIGHT TEMP. EXIT VEL. DIAMETER EXISTS SCALAR VARY

FLARE

SOURCE

ID

ACTIVE

CAPPED

GROUP ID

(METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (DEG.K) (H/SEC) (METERS)

0 0. 94300E-04 688625.3 4684591.5 84.4 4.60 1273.00

*** .AREAPOLY SOURCE DATA ***



RELEASE NUMBER

HEIGHT OF VERTS.


0. 24300E-08 688404.9 4685089.5 91.4

0 0. 64300E-09 688614.6 4685028.5 106.7

0.00

0.00

12

20


SOURCE IDs

20.00

INIT.

sz (METERS)

0.00

0.00

0.59 NO

EMISSION RATE

SCALAR VARY

BY

ALL ACTIVE I CAPPED , FLARE

*** THE SUMMARY OF HIGHEST 1-HR RESULTS '***


BY

DATE NETWORK

GROUP IO AVERAGE CONC (YYHHODHH) RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID- IO

ALL HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 0. 28676 ON 87080905' AT 688744.19, 4684547.00. 68. 70, 0.00) DC NA


A1t 2 '*** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** *** Northampton Landfill A1t. 2 Horizontal Expansion - 1988 Odor

*** Model Executed on 02/04/05 at 10:50:48

Input File - W: \Apps\ISCDATA\1967\odor\Horiz.ontal \88. DTA

OUtput File - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\1967\odor\Horiz:ontal \88. LST

Met File - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\1967\metdata\1988 .ASC

Number of sources -

Number of source 9roups -


* ** POINT SOURCE DATA ***


ELEV.

STACK

HEIGHT

STACK

TEMP.


SOURCE

ID


SOURCE

ID

ACTIVE

CAPPED

GROUP ID

CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (OEG.K) (M/SEC) (METERS)

0 0.94300£-04 688625.3 4684591.5 84.4 4.60 1273.00



PART. (GRAMS/ SEC X y ELEV. HEIGHT OF VERTS.


0 0.24300£-08 688404.9 4685089.5 91.4

0. 64300£-09 688614.6 4685028.5 106.7

0.00

0.00

12

20

20.00 0.59 NO

INIT. EMISSION RATE

sz

(METERS)

0.00

0.00

SCALAR VARY

BY


SOURCE IDs

ALL ACTIVE , CAPPED , FLARE

GROUP ID





AVERAGE CONC

DATE

(YYMMODHH) RECEPTOR (XR, YR 1 ZELEV, ZFLAG)

0.23103 ON 88122117: AT 688800.00' 4684500.00' 69. 50,

-34-

BY

NETWORK

OF TYPE GRID-ID

0.00) DC NA


I I I • • ---•

-

Alt 2 *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 ***

*** Northampton Landfill Alt. 2 Horizontal Expansion - 1989 Odor

*** Model Executed on 02/04/05 at 11:02:45

Input Fi..le - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\1967\odor\Bori.zontal\89.DTA

Output File - W: \Apps\ISCDATA\1967\odor\Horizontal \89. LST


Number of sources -

Number of source qroups -


* ** POINT SOURCE DATA * * *


ELEV.


SOURCE

ID


FLARE

SOURCE

ID

ACTIVE

CAPPED

GROUP ID


0 0. 94300E-04 699625.3 4694591.5 94.4 4.60 1273.00


NUMBER EMISSION RATE LOCATION OF AREA

PART. (GRAMS/SEC X y

BASE

ELEV.

RELEASE NUMBER

HEIGHT OF VERTS.

CATS. /METER**2) (METERS) (METERS} (METERS) (METERS)

0. 24300E-09 698404.9 4685099.5 91.4

0 0.64300E-09 688614.6 4695028.5 106.7

0.00

0.00

12

20

20.00

INIT.

sz (METERS}

0.00

0.00


SOURCE IDs

0.59 NO

EMISSION RATE

SCALAR VARY

BY




BY

DATE NETWORK

GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC (YYMMDDHH) RECEPTOR (XR., YR, ZELEV, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID- ID

ALL HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 0. 22859 ON 99091719' AT 688401.31, 4685144.00, 84 ~20, 0.00) DC NA


Alt 2 *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** *** Northampton Landfill Alt. 2 Horizontal Expansion - 1990 Odor

***Model Executed on 02/04/05 at 11:22:03

Input File - W: \Apps\ISCDATA\1967\odor\Horizontal \90. DTA

Output File - W: \Apps\ISCDATA\1967\odor\Horizontal \90. LST


Number of sources -



3

1624



ELEV.

STACK

HEIGHT

STACK

TEMP.


SOURCE

ID

FLARE

SOURCE

ID

ACTIVE

CAPPED

GROUP ID



0 0. 94300£-04 688625.3 4684591.5 84.4 4.60 1273.00



PART. (GRAMS/ SEC X y ELEV.

RELEASE NUMBER

HEIGHT OF VERTS.


0.24300E-08 688404.9 4685089.5 91.4

0 0. 64300E-09 688614.6 4685028.5 106.7

0.00

0.00

12

20

20.00 0.59 NO

!NIT- EMISSION RATE

sz

(METERS)

0.00

0.00

SCALAR VARY

BY


SOURCE IDs

BY

ALL ACTIVE , CAPPED I FLARE



DATE NETWORK

GROUP ro AVERAGE CONC (YYMMODHH) RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID-ID



I I I • • c •

•

-

Alt 2 *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** *** Northampton Landfill A1t. 2 Horizontal Expansion - 1991 Odor

*** Model Executed on 02/04/05 at 11:47:31 *** Input File - W: \Appa\ISCDATA\1967\odor\Horizonta1\9l.DTA

OUtput File - W:\Apps\ISCOATA\1967\odor\Horizontal \9l.LST

Met File - W: \Apps\ISCDATA\1967\metdata\1991.ASC

Number of sources -




NUMBER EMISSION RATE STACK STACK STACK STACK BUILDING EMISSION RATE

SOURCE

ID

PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X y

BASE


FLARE

SOURCE

ID

ACTIVE

CAPPED

GROUP ID


0. 94300£-04 688625.3 4684591.5 84.4 4.60 1273.00




RELEASE NUMBER

HEIGHT OF VERTS.


0 0. 24300E-08 688404.9 4685089.5 91.4

0 0. 64300£-09 688614.6 4685028.5 106.7

0.00

0.00

12

20

20.00 0.59 NO

INIT. EMISSION RATE

sz

(METERS)

0.00

0.00

SCALAR VARY

BY


SOURCE IDs

ALL ACTIVE 1 CAPPED , FLARE

*** THE SUMMARY OF HIGHEST 1-BR RESULTS ***


BY

DATE NETWORK


ALL HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 0.22770 ON 91050624: AT 688401.31,. 4685144.00, 84.20, 0.00) DC NA


u• 1SCST3 - VERSION 02035 *"** '"'"* North-pton Landfi.ll Alt. 3 Vartie•l Expansion - 1987 Odor

*'** Hodel Executed on 02/04/05 at 10:29_:25 •••

Input Fila - W: \.Apps\ISCDATA\1967\od.or\Vertica!\87 .OTA

Output Fi.le - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\1967\odor\Vertical \87.LST

Met File - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\1967\metdata\1997,ASC

Number of .sources -

NUlllbe.r of source groups -

NU!Ilber of receptors - 1624

* ** POINT SOURCE DA'l'A * * •

NUMBER EMISSION RATE ST.ACK STACK STACK STACK BUILDING EMISSION RATE

SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) y

BASE

ELEV. HEIGHT TEMP. EXIT VEL. DIAMETER EXISTS SCAlAR VARY

IO

SOURCE

ID

ACTIVE

CAPPED

CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) {METERS) (DEG.K) (M/SEC) (METERS}

0.11900£-03 688625. 3 4684591. 5 84.4 4.60 1273.00

* ** .AREAPOLY SOURCE DA'l'A • "* *


PART. (GRAMS/SEC X ELEV.

RELEASE NUHBER

HEIGHT OF VERTS.

CATS. /METER'"'"2) {METERS) (METERS) (METERS} (METERS}

0.97400£-09 688432.7 4684676.5 99.1

0.29700£-08 688649.7 4684837.0 109.7

0.00

0.00

17

11

20.00 0.59 NO

INIT. EMISSION RATE

sz

(METERS)

0.00

0.00

SCJ\LAR VJ\RY

BY

•u SOURCE IDs DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS •u

GROUP ID SOURCE IDs


••• THE ~y OF HIGHEST 1-HR RESULTS •*•

u CONC OF OTHER IN 5-MI.N--PPB

BY

DATE NETWORK

GROUP YO AVERAGE CONC RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID-ID

ALL HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 0.17411 ON 87012502: AT ( 688933.50, 4684929.00, '76.20, 0,00) DC NA


I I I • _j

--•

-

**'* ISCST3 - VEIUHON 02035 '*** u• NorthU~.pton Landfill Alt. 3 Vertical. Expansion - 1988 Odor

••• Hodel Executed on 02/04/05 at 10:38:06 •••

Input File - W: \Apps\ISCOATA\1967\odo~;\Vertical \BB.DTA

Output File - W:\Apps\ISCDA'tA\1967\odor\Vertical\88 .LST

Met Fi.le - W:\Appa\1SCOA'l'A\1967\metdata\1988.ASC

N\UIIber of trourcos -

NWIIber of source groups -

Nu:aber of receptors - 1624

• •• POINT SOURCE DATA •••

STACK STACK STACK STACK BUilDING EMISSION RATE

SOURCE

ID

NUMBER EMISSION RA'l'E

PART. (GRAMS/SEC)

CATS.

X

BASE


SOURC&

ro

ACTIVE

CAPPED

(METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (OEG.K) (M/SEC) (METERS)

0.11900£-03 688625.3 4684591.5 8-4.4 4.60 1273.00

• •• ARE.APOLY SOURCE DATA '* * '*


PART. (GRAMS/SEC X ELEV.

RELEASE NUMBER

HEIGHT OF VERTS.

CATS. /MET£RU2} (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS)

0.97400&-09 688432.7 4684676.5 99.1

0.29700£-08 688649.7 4684837.0 109.7

0.00

0.00

17

11

20.00 0.59 NO

INIT. EMISSION RATE

sz

(METERS)

0.00

o.oo

SCALAR VARY

BY

**• SOURCE IDs DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS •••

~P ID s~ ros


••• THE SUMHARY OF lUGREST 1-BR RESULTS ***

.,.. CONC OF OTHER IN 5-MIN--PPB

BY

DATE NETWORK

GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC (YYMHDOHH) RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID-IO

HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 0.16762 ON 88012002: AT { 688971.19, 4684889.50, 76.00, 0.00} DC NA


Al t 3 ••• I.SCSTJ - VERSION 02035 • .,...

••• North~U~~pton Landfill Alt. 3 V.ert.ical E:q>ansion - 1969 Odor

••• Hodel Executed on 02/04/05 at 10:43:40 ""*-

Input File - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\1967\odor\Ve.rtical\69.DTA

Output File - W: \Apps\ISCDATA \1967\odor\V&rtical \89. LST

Met File - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\1967\IIletd.ata\1989.ASC

NWllb&r of sources -

NWIIber of .ource qroups -

Nwtlb$r of receptors - 1624.

"""""" POINT SOURCE DATA """"""

NUMBER EMISSION RATE STACK STACK STACK STACK BUilDING EMISSION RATE

SOURCE

ID

li'ART. (GRAMS/SEC) X y

BP.SE


SotJRC<

ID

ACTIVE

CAPPED

CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (DEG.K) {H/SEC) (METERS)

0.11900£-03 688625.3 4684591.5 84.4 4.60 1273.00

"'*"" AREAPOLY SOURCE DATA •••



RELEASE NUMBER

HEIGHT OF VERTS.

CATS. /HETERH2) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) {METERS}

0.97400£-09 688432.1 4684676.5 9!Ll

0.29700£-09 688649.7 4684837.0 109.7

o.oo 0.00

17

11

20.00 0.59 NO

INIT. EMISSION RATE

sz

(METERS}

o.oo 0.00

SCALAR VARY

BY

*"""" SOURCE ID• DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS * •""

GROUP ID SOURCE IDs

ALL ACTIVE , CAPPED , FI.A.'RE

.,..,.. THE SUMMARY OF HIGHEST 1-HR RESULTS u-•

u CONC OF OTHER IN 5-HIN--PPB

BY

DATE NETWORK

GROUP ID AVE!IAGE CONC (Y"nHlDHH) RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID- ID

HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 0.16762 ON 89122424: AT ( 688971.19, 4.684889.50, 76.00, 0.00} DC NA


I I I ---•

-


Al t 3 u• ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 .,..

••• Northampton Landfill Alt. 3 Vertical Expansion - 1990 Odor

••• Model Executed on 02/04/05 at 10:51:35 •u

Input File - W: \Appa \ISCOATA \1 967\odor\ Vertical \90. DTA

Output File - W: \Appa\ISCDA'l'A \1967\odor\Vertical \90 .LST

Met File - W: \Apps\ISCDATA\1967\m.etdat:.\1990.ASC

Number of sourcea -

NWIIbe~ of sou~ce groups -

NWIIber of receptors - 1624

••• POINT SOURCE DATA •••


ELEV.


SOURCE

ID

PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X y HEIGHT TEMP. EXIT VEL. DI.AMETER EXISTS SCALAR VARY

SOURCE

ID

J\CTIVE

CAPPED

CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) {DEG.K) (M/SEC) (METERS)

0.11900£-03 688625.3 4684591.5 84.4 4.60 1273.00

* • * AREAPOLY SOURCE DATA • ••


PART. {GRAMS/SEC X y ELEV.

RELEASE NUMBER

HEIGHT OF VERTS.


0.97400£-09 688432.7 4684676.5 99.1 0.00 17

0.29700£-08 688649.7 4684837.0 109.7 0.00 11

20.00 0.59 NO

!NIT. EMISSION AATE

sz

{METERS)

0.00

o.oo

SCALAR VARY

BY


GROUP ID SOURCE IDs


••• THE SUt+IARY OF HIGHEST 1-HR RESULTS ***


BY

GROUP m AVERAGE CONC (~HH) RECEPTOR {XR, YR, Z.ELEV, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID-ID

HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE. IS 0.21109 ON 90100806: AT ( 688600.00, 4685250.00, 83.50, 0.00) DC NA


Alt 3 ••• ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 •u

u• Northampton Wndfill Alt. 3 Vertical Expansion - 1991 Odor

•u Model Executed on 02/04/05 at 10:57:34 **• rnput File - W: \Apps\ISCDATA\1967\odor\Vertical \9l.OTA

Output File - W: \Apps\ISCDATA\1961\odor\Vertical \9l,LST

Met File - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\1967\metdata\199l.ASC

Nu=ber of sourcGe -


NUIII!ber o:f' receptors - 1624

•• • POINT SOORC£ DATA • • •

STACK S'l'ACK STACK STACK BUILDING EMISSION RATE

SOURCE

to


PART. {GRAMS/SEC) X ELEV. HEIGHT TEMP. EXI'r VEL. DIAMETER EXISTS SCALAR VARY

CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (DEG.K) (M/SEC) {METERS)

0 .11900£-03 688625.3 4684591.5 84.4 4.60 1273.00 20.00 0.59 NO

*** AREAPOLY SOURCE DA'l'A ***


HEIGHT OF VERTS.

INIT. EMISSION RATE

SOURCE

ID

ACTIVE

CAPPED

PART. {GRAMS/SEC X y ELEV.

CATS. /HETER.**2) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (HETERS)

0.97400£-09 688432.7 4684676.5 99.1

0. 29700£-08 688649.7 4684837.0 109' 7

0.00

0.00

17

11

sz

(METERS)

0.00

o.-oo

• * * SOURCE IDs DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS * * *

GROUP ID SOURCE IDs

ALL ACTIVE , CAPPED , ~

•u THE StJl.t.O.RY OF HIGHEST 1-RR RESULTS ***

** CONC OF OTHER IN 5-M!N--PPB

SCALAR VARY

BY

BY

DATE NETWORK

GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC (YnK:IDHH) RECEPTOR (XR, YR., ZELEV, Zn.AG} OF TYPE GRID- IO

HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 0.17944 ON 91032106: AT ( 689016.62, 4684725.00, 14.20, 0.00) DC


I I I • • -• -•

-

Existing *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** *** Northampton Landfill Exis-ting Case - 1997

*** Model Executed on 01/31/05 at 13:49:39 *** Input File - W:\Apps,\ISCDATA\1967\Toxica\Exiating-\87 .DTA

Output Fi.l.e - W:\Appa\XSCDATA\1967\Toxics\Existinq\87 .LST

Met Fi.1e - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\1967\metdata\1987 .ASC

Number of sources -





SOURCE

ID

PART. (GRl\MS/SEC) X y

BASE


SOURCE

ID

ACTIVE

CAPPEDW

CAP PEDE

GROUP ID


0 .10000E+01 699519.3 4694591.5 94.4 4.60 1213.00




RELEASE NUMBER

HEIGHT OF VERTS.


0 0.19200£-04 699585.7 4694956.5

0 0 .11100&-04 699595.1 4694956.5

0.91000&-04 688796.8 4694990.5

91.4

99.1

91.4

o.oo 0.00

0.00

1

9

6

20.00 0.59 NO

INIT. EMISSION RATE

sz (METERS)

0.00

o.oo o.oo

SCALAR VARY

BY


SOURCE IDs

ALL ACTIVE , CAPPEDW , CAPPED£ , FLARE

GROUP ID

ALL

THE SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM ANNUAL 1 YRS) RESULTS * * * CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M**3

AVERAGE CONC RECEPTOR (XR I YR, ZELEV I ZFLAG)

- - - - - - - - - ------- - ------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS 126.52697 AT 688933.50, 4694929.00, 76.20,

2ND HIGHEST VALUE IS 121.99979 AT 688914.81, 4694592.50, 73. 70,

3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS 119.57516 AT 688986.50, 4684795.00, 75.501


5TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 111.99226 AT 699991.00, 4694664.50' 73.40,


* * CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS /M* * 3

NETWORK

OF TYPE GRID-ID

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) oc NA

0.00) oc NA

BY

DATE NETWORK

GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC (YYMMODHH) RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZFLAG} OF TYPE GRID-ID

ALL HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 760. 55249c ON 97011424: AT 698933.50, 4684929.00, 16. 20, 0.00) DC NA

Northampton Landfill D EIR -43- Air Quality Appendix

Existi-ng *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** *** Northampton Landfil.l Existing Case - 1988

*** Model Executed on 01/31/05 at 13:54:00 *** Input Fi.le - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\1967\Toxica\Existing\88PDTA

Output File - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\1967\Toxics\Ex.i.sting\88.LST

Met Fila - W:\Appa\ISCDATA\1967\metdata\1988 .ASC

Number of sources -





ELEV.

STACK STACK

HEIGHT TEMP.


SOURCE

ID

FLARE

SOURCE

ID

ACTIVE

CAPPEDW

CAP PEDE

GROUP ID



0 0 .10000E+01 688579.3 4684591.5 84.4 4. 60 1273.00

* * * AREAPOLY SOURCE DATA



RELEASE NUMBER

HEIGHT OF VERTS.


0 0.19200&-04 688585.7 4684856.5

0 0.117001<-04 688585.7 4684856.5

0 0.91000&-04 688786.8 4684890.5

91.4

99.1

91.4

0.00

0.00

0.00

9

20.00 0.59 NO

INIT. EMISSION RATE

sz

(METERS)

0.00

o.oo

0.00

SCALAR VARY

BY


SOURCE IDs

BY

ALL ACTIVE , CAPPEDW , CAPPEDE , FI...ARE

THE SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM ANNUAL ( 1 YRS) RESULTS ***


NETWORK


----------ALL 1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS 128.92001 AT 688994.12, 4684748.00, 74.10, 0.00) DC NA

2ND HIGHEST VALUE IS 128.31097 AT 688986.50, 4684795 • QQ 1 75.50, 0.00) DC NA

3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS 124.36868 AT 688987.00, 4684664. so, 73.40, 0.00) DC NA

4TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 114.92471 AT 688933.50, 4684929 • QO 1 76.20, 0.00) DC NA




DATE NETWORK

GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC (YYMMDDHH) RECEPTOR (XR I YR, ZELEV I ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID- ID

ALL HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 627. 92065c ON 88113024: AT ( 688933 ~50, 4684929.00, 76.20, 0 .00) DC NA


I I I -• --•

-

Existing *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** *** Northampton Landfill Existing Case - 1989

***Model Executed on 01/31/05 at 13:59:13 •••

Input File - W: \Apps\ISCDATA\1967\Toxica\E.xi.sting\B9~DTA

Output File - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\196'7\Toxics\Existing\89~LST


Number of sOurces -



*u POINT SOURCE DATA ***


ELEV.

STACK STACK

HEIGHT TEMP.


SOURCE

ID

FLARE

SOURCE

IO


CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (OEG.K) (M/SEC) (METERS) BY

0.10000£+01 688579.3 4684591.5 84.4 4.60 1273.00 20.00 0.59 NO



PART. (GRAMS/SEC X y ELEV. HEIGHT OF VERTS. sz SCALAR VARY

CATS. /METER**2) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY

- - - - - - - ------ ------ - - - - - - - - - - - - -ACTIVE 0 .19200£-04 688585.7 4684856.5 91.4 0.00 0.00

CAPPEDW 0 .11700E-04 688585.7 4684856.5 99.1 0.00 0.00

CAP PEDE 0. 91000£-04 688786.8 4684890.5 91.4 0.00 0.00

••• SOURCE IDs DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS ***

GROUP .ID SOURCE IDs


••• THE SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM ANNUAL ( 1 YRS) RESULTS ***

CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS /M* * 3

NETWORK

GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GIU:D-ID

------------ALL 1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS 131.44492 AT 688994.12, 4684748.00, 74.10, 0.00) DC NA

2ND HIGHEST VALUE IS 130.46486 AT 688987 .oo' 4684664.50, 73.40, 0.00) DC NA

3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS 129.69984 AT 688986~50, 4684795.00, 75450, 0.00) DC NA





DATE NETWORK

GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC (YYMMDDHB) RECEPTOR (XR 1 YR, ZELEV, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID- ID

ALL HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 597. 90326c ON 89102324: AT 688971.19, 4684889.50, 76.00, 0.00) DC NA


Existing *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** *** Northampton Landfill Existing Case - 1990

*** Model Executed on 01/31/05 at 14:04:41 *** Input File - W: \App.s\ISCDATA\1967\Toxics\Existing\90 .DTA

OUtput File - W: \Apps\ISCDATA\1967\Toxics\Existi.ng\90.LST

Met File - W: \Apps\ISCDATA \1967\metda.ta \1990 .ASC

Number of sources -





ELEV.


SOURCE

ID

FLARE

SOURCE

ID

ACTIVE

CAPPEDW

CAP PEDE

GROUP ID

PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X y HEIGHT TEMP. EXIT VEL. DI~TER EXISTS SCALAR VARY

CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (DEG. K) (M/SEC) (METERS)

0 0 .10000E+01 688579.3 4684591.5 64.4 4.60 1273.00





0 0.19200E-04 688585.7 4684856.5

0 0.11700E-04 688585.7 4684856.5

0 0. 91000E-04 688786.8 4684890.5

91.4

99.1

91.4

0.00

0.00

0.00

** * SOURCE IDs DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS

SOURCE rDs

20.00 0.59 NO

INIT. EMISSION RATE

sz

(METERS)

0.00

o.oo 0.00

SCALAR VARY

BY

BY


GROUP ID

- - - - - - - - - -

ALL 1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS

2ND HIGHEST VALUE IS

3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS

4TH HIGHEST VALUE IS


*** THE SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM ANNUAL ( 1 YRS} RESULTS ***

* * CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M*•3

AVERAGE CONC RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZFLAG)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

120.17219 AT 688986.50, 4 684795. 00' 75.50,

119.32778 AT 688987.00' 4684664.50' 73.40,

118.73422 AT 688994.12, 4684748.00, 74.10,

117.28010 AT 688933.50, 4684929.00, 76.20,

110.53799 AT 688972.19, 4684628.00, 72. 70,



NETWORK

OF TYPE GRID- ID

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

DATE NETWORK


ALL HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 569.61267c ON 90101624: AT ( 688986.50, 4684795.00, 75.50, 0.00) DC NA


I I I -• --•

-

Existing ***" ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** *** Northampton Landfill Existing Case - 1991

*** Model Executed on 01/31/05 at 14:29:33 *** Input File - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\1967\Toxica\Ex.isting\9LDTA

Output File - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\1967\Toxics\Exiating\91.LST

Met File - w,\Appe\ISCDATA\1967\metdate\199l.ASC

Number of sources -


Nwnber of receptors - 1624

POINT' SOURCE DATA ***


ELEV.


SOURCE

IO

SOURCE

ID

ACTIVE

CAPPEDW

CAP PEDE

GROUP ID

PART. (GIU\MS/SEC) X y HEIGHT TEMP. EXIT VEL. DIAMETER EXISTS SCALAR VARY


0 0 .10000E+01 688579.3 4684591.5 84.4 4.60 1273.00 20.00 0.59 NO


PART. (GIUIMS/SEC

CATS. /METER**2)

-------0 0 .19200E-04

0 0 .11700&-04

0 0. 91000&-04


LOCATION OF AREA BASE RELEASE NUMBER

X y ELEV. HEIGHT OF VERTS.


688585.7 4684856.5 91.4 0.00

688585.7 4684856.5 99.1 0.00

688786.8 4684890.5 91.4 0.00

INIT. EMISSION RATE

SZ SCALAR VARY

(METERS) BY

0.00

o.oo o.oo


SOURCE IDs

ALL ACTIVE I CAPPEDW I CAPPEDE , FLARE

GROUP ID






*** THE SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM ANNUAL ( 1 YRS) RESULTS **"*


NETWORK

AVERAGE CONC RECEPTOR (XR, YRr ZELEV, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID-ID

130.98396 AT

128.82880 AT

127.75174 AT

119.89178 AT

119.49020 AT

688987.00. 4684664.50.

688994.12, 4684748.00.

688986.50, 4684795.00,

688914.81, 4684582.50,

688972.19. 4684628.00.

73.40,

74.10,

75.50,

73. 70,

72. 70,



0.00) DC

0.00) DC

0 .00) DC

0.00) DC

0.00) DC

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

DATE NETWORK


ALL HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 624.01288c ON 91020924: AT ( 689001~69, 4684701~00, 73.90, 0.00) DC NA


A1t 1*** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** *** North.a.mpton Landfill No-Build Case - 1987

*** Model Executed on 01/31/05 at 12:52:08 **" Input File - W: \Apps\ISCDATA\1967\Toxics\No-Build\87 .DTA

Output File - W: \.Apps\ISCDATA\1967\Torics\No-Build\87 .LST


Number of sources -





PART. (GRAMS/SEC)

CATS.

BASE

ELEV~

STACK STACK STACK STACK BUILDING EMISSION FATE

SOURCE

ID

FLARE

SOURCE

ID

CAPPED

GROUP .ID



0 .lOOOOE+Ol 688579.3 4684591.5 84.4 4.60 1273.00



HEIGHT OF VERTS. PART. (GRAMS/SEC X y ELEV.

CA'l'S. /METER**2) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS)

0 0. 66SOOE-05 688585. 7 4684856. 5 106. 7 0.00 13

** * SOURCE IDs DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS

SOURCE IDs

20.00 0.59 NO

INIT. EMISSION RATE

sz

(METERS)

0.00

SCALAR VARY

BY

BY

ALL CAPPED , FLARE

GROUP ID







CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M'**3

AVERAGE CONC

46.11775 AT

44.94562 AT

39.10166 AT

38.54321 AT

37.35665 AT

RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZFLAG)

688504.38' 4684512.50'

688553,69, 4684519 • 001

688602.88' 4684525 .so' 688455.12, 4664506.00,

688390.62, 4684578.50,

90.30,

90.50,

87.50,

90.00,

88.50,


CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M'**3

NETWORK

OF TYPE GRID- ID

0.00) DC

0.00) DC

0.00) DC

0 .00) DC

0 .00) DC

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

DATE NETWORK

GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC (YYMMDDHH) RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV 1 ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID-ID

ALL HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 153.57549c ON 87121224: AT ( 688390.62, 4684578.50, 88.50, 0.00) DC NA


I I I • • -I.. -•

-

Alt 1*** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** *** Northampton Landfill. No-Build Case - 1988

*** Model. Executed on 01/31/05 at 12:58:08 *** Input File - W: \Apps\ISCDATA\1967\Toxics\No-Bui.ld\88 .DTA

OUtput File - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\1967\Toxics\No-Build\BB.LST

Met FHe - W'\Apps\ISCDATA\1967\metdata\1988.ASC

Number of sources -



POINT SOURCE DATA ***


PART. (GRAMS/SEC)

CATS.

BASE

ELEV.


SOURCE

ID


FLARE

SOURCE

ID

CAPPED

GROUP ID


0 0 .10000£+01 688579.3 4684591.5 84.4 4.60 1273.00

*** .AREAPOLY SOURCE DATA ***



RELEASE NUMBER

HEIGHT: OF VERTS.


0. 66500E-05 688585.7 4684856.5 106.7 0.00 13

20.00 0.59 NO

INIT. EMISSION RATE

sz

(METERS)

0.00

SCALAR VARY

BY


SOURCE IDs

ALL CAPPED ~ FLARE

*** THE SUMHARY OF MAXIMUM ANNUAL ( 1 YRS) RESULTS ***


NETWORK


-----------ALL 1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS 39.07866 AT 688504.38, 4684512.50, 90.30, 0.00) DC NA

2ND HIGHEST VALUE IS 38.54192 AT 688553.69, 4684519.00' 90.50, 0.00) DC NA

3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS 34.71262 AT 688602.88' 4684525.50' 87.50, 0.00) DC NA


5TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 30.92127 AT 688652.19, 4684531.50' 76. 70, 0.00) DC NA



BY

DATE NETWORK


ALL HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 158. 23399c ON 88010324: AT 688504.38' 4684512.50' 90.30' 0.00) DC NA


Alt 1 *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** *** Northampton Landfill No-Build Case - 1989

***Model Executed on 01/31/05 at 13:01:41 *** Input File - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\1967\Toxi.cs\No-Bui.ld\89.DTA

Output File - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\1967\Toxica\No-Build\89.LST







SOURCE

ID


PART. (GRAMS/SEC)

CATS.

X y

BASE

ELEV.

STACK STACK

HEIGHT TEMP. EXIT VEL. DIAMETER EXISTS SCALAR VARY

FLARE

SOURCE

ID

CAPPED

GROUP ID


0 0 .10000E+01 688579-3 4684591.5 84.4 4.60 1273.00

* * * AREA.POLY SOURCE DATA * * *

NUMBER EMISSION RATE LOCATION OF AJ\EA BASE


RELEASE NUMBER

HEIGHT OF VERTS.


0 0.66500£-05 688585.7 4684856.5 106.7 0.00 13

20.00 0.59 NO

INIT. EMISSION RATE

sz

(METERS)

0.00

SCALAR VARY

BY

*** SOURCE IDe DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS ***

SOURCE IDs

ALL CAPPED r FLARE

*'** THE SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM ANNUAL ( 1 YRS) RESULTS **'*

* * CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M*'*3

NETWORK

GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV 1 ZFLAG} OF TYPE GRID-ID

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ALL 1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS 46.14141 AT 688504.38, 4684512.50' 90.30, 0.00) DC NA


3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS 40.31819 AT 688602-88' 4684525.50, 87.50, 0.00) DC NA

4TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 38.18818 AT 688455.12' 4684506-00' 90.00, 0.00) DC NA

5TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 38.15815 AT 688616.62, 4684525-00' 85.20, 0.00) DC NA

THE SUMMARY OF HIGHEST 24-HR RESULTS

CONC OF OTHER IN M1CROGRAMS/H**3

BY

DATE NETWORK

GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC (YYMMDDHH) RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV 1 ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID-ID

ALL HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 169. 78175c ON 89060124: AT 688390-62' 4684578-50' 88.50, 0.00) DC NA


I I I -• -•

-

Al.t 1 *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** *** Northampton Landfill No-Build Case - 1990

*** Model Executed on 01/31/05 at 13:05:51 *** Input File - W~ \Apps\ISCDATA\1967\Toxi.cs\No-Buil.d\90.DTA

OUtput Fi.le - W: \Apps\ISCDATA\1967\Toxi.cs\No-Build\90 .LST


Nwabar of sources -




NUMBER EMISSION RATE STACK STACK BUILDING EMISSION RAT&

SOURCE

ID


BASE

ELEV.

STACK STACK


SOURCE

ID

CAPPED

GROUP ID

CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (DEG. K) (M/SEC) (METERB)

0 0 .lOOOOE+Ol 688579.3 4684591.5 84.4 4.60 1273.00


NUMBER EMISSION RATE LOCATION OF .AREA BASE RELEASE NUMBER



0 0.66500E-05 688585.7 4684856.5 106.7 0.00 13

20.00 0.59 NO

INIT. EMISSION RATE

sz (METERS)

0.00

SCALAR VARY

BY


SOURCE IDs

ALL CAPPED , FLARE

GROUP ID








NETWORK

AVERAGE CONC RECEPTOR {XR, YR, ZELEV, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID-ID

40.78483 AT

40.39169 AT

35.61653 AT

33.79826 AT

33.41094 AT

688504.38, 4684512.50,

688553.69' 4684519.00'

688602.88' 4684525.50'

688616.62, 4684525.00,

688455.12' 4684506.00'

90.30,

90.50,

87.50,

85.20,

90.00,

**'* THE SUMMARY OF HIGHEST 24-HR RESULTS


0.00) DC

0.00) DC

0.00) DC

0.00) DC

0.00) DC

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

BY

DATE NETWORK

GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC (YYMMODHH) RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID-ID

ALL HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 157.29799 ON 90031224: AT ( 698504.39, 4684512.50, 90.30, 0. 00) DC NA

Northampton Landfill DEIR -51 - Air Quality Appendix

Alt 1 *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *"'* *** Northampton Landfill No-Build Case - 1991

*** Model Executed on 01/31/05 at 13:09:26 *** Input Fi1e - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\1967\Toxics\No-Bui1d\9l.DTA

Output Fil.e - W; \Apps\ISCDATA\l967\Toxics\No-Build\91.LST


Number of sources -


Ntllllber of receptors - 1624

POINT SOURCE DATA * * * NUMBER EMISSION RATE STACK STACK STACK STACK BUILDING EMISSION RATE

SOURCE

ID


BASE

ELEV. HEI.GHT TEMP. EXIT VEL. DIAMETER EXISTS SCALAR VARY

SOURCE

ID

CAPPED

GROUP ID


0.10000E+01 688579.3 4684591.5 84.4 4.60 1273.00




CATS. /METER**2} (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS)

0 0. 66500E-05 688585.7 4684856.5 106.7 0.00 13

20.00

!NIT.

sz

(METERS)

0.00


SOURCE IDs

0.59 NO

EMISSION RATE

SCALAR VARY

BY

ALL CAPPED I FLARE

GROUP ID

- - - - - - - - -

ALL 1ST HIGHEST VALUE

2ND HIGHEST VALUE

3RD HIGHEST VALUE

4TH HIGHEST VALUE

5TH HIGHEST VALUE

'*** THE SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM ANNUAL ( 1 YRS) RESULTS ***


AVERAGE CONC RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZFLAG}

-------- ------ ------ - ------ -

IS 43.73880 AT 699504.39, 4684512.50' 90.30,

IS 43.70824 AT 688553.69, 4684519. 00' 90.50,

IS 38.63553 AT 689602.89, 4684525.50, 87.50,

IS 36.68003 AT 688616.62' 4684525.00' 95.20,

IS 35.49941 AT 688455.12, 4684506.00' 90.00,



NETWORK

OF TYPE GRID-ID

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

BY

DATE NETWORK


ALL HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 160. 4916lc ON 91123124: AT 688455.12, 4684506.00, 90.00, 0.00) DC NA


I I I • • --•

-

Al. t. 2 *** XSCST3 - VERSION 02035 ***

*** Northampton Landfill Alt. 2 Horizontal Analysis - 1981

***Model Executed on 01/31/05 at 14:43:02 ***

Input File - W:\Apps\ISCOATA\1967\Toxies\Horizontal\87.DTA

Output File - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\1967\Toxies\Horizontal\87 .LST

Met File - lf:\Appa\XSCDATA\1967\matdata\1987 .ASC

Number of sources -


3




SOURCE

rD


PART. (GRJIMS/SEC)

CATS.

X y

BASE

ELEV.

STACK STACK

HEIGHT TEMP. EXIT VEL. DIAMETER EXISTS SCAlAR VARY

SOURCE

rD

ACTIVE

CAPPED

GROUP ID


0 0.10000E+01 688579.3 4684591.5 84.4 4. 60 1273.00


NUMBER EMISSION RATE LOCATION OF A.R.e.A BASE

PART. (GRl\MS /SEC X y ELEV.

RELEASE NUMBER

HEIGHT OF VERTS.


0 .14900E-04 688404.9 4685089.5 91.4

0. 80500E-05 688614.6 4685028.5 106.7

0.00

0.00

12

20


SOURCE IDs

20.00

INIT.

sz

(METERS)

0.00

0.00

0.59 NO

EMISSION RATE

SCALAR. VARY

BY


GROUP ID







CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M**l

AVERAGE CONC RECEPTOR (XRr YR, ZELEV, ZFLAG)

48.09156 AT 688744.19, 4684547.00, 68. 70,

47.47745 AT 688786.81, 4684556.00, 69.30,

47.35266 AT 688701.50, 4684538. 00, 69.60,

45.91831 AT 688652.19, 4684531.50' 76.10,

45.42787 AT 688829.50, 4684564.50' 73.40,


CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M*'*3

NETWORK

OF TYPE GRID-ID

0.00) DC

0.00) DC

0.00) DC

0.00) DC

0.00) DC

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

BY

DATE NETWORK

GROUP IO AVERAGE CONC (YYHMDDBH) RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID-IO

ALL HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 215. 43616c ON 87011424: AT ( 688538.38, 4685173.00, 79.40, 0.00) DC NA

Northampton Landfill DEIR -53 - Air Quality Appendix

Alt. 2 *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** *** Northampton Landfill Alt. 2 Hori.zonta:L Analysis - 1988

*** Model Executed on 01/31/05 at 14:59:56 *** Input File - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\1967\Toxics\Horiz.ontal\SS.DTA

OUtput File - W: \Apps\ISCDATA\1967\Toxics\Horizontal\88 .LST

Met File - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\1967\m.etdata\1998 .ASC






PART. (GRAMS/SEC)

CATS.

BASE

ELEV.

STACK STACK

HEIGHT TEMP.


SOURCE

ID

X y EXIT VEL. DIAMETER EXISTS SCALAR VARY

FLARE

SOURCE

ID

ACTIVE

CAPPED

GROUP IO


0 0 .10000E+01 688579.3 4684591.5 84.4 4.60 1273.00




RELEASE NUMBER

HEIGHT OF VERTS.

CATS. /METER**2} (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS)

0 0 .14900E-04 688404.9 4685089.5 91.4

0 0.80500E-05 688614.6 4685028.5 106.7

0.00

0.00

12

20

20.00 0.59 NO

INIT. EMISSION RATE

sz

(METERS)

o.oo o.oo

SCALAR VARY

BY

* * * SOURCE IDs DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS * * *

SOURCE IDs




NETWORK


----------ALL 1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS 51.10155 AT 689447.00, 4695155.00' 81.00, 0.00) DC NA


3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS 45.63684 AT 688466.62' 4685175.00, 80.00, 0.00) DC NA


5TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 43.13055 AT 688538.38, 4685173.00' 79.40' 0.00) DC NA


* * CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS /M* * 3

BY

DATE NETWORK

GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC (YYMMDOHH) RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID-ID

ALL HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 215 .21477e ON 88110424: AT ( 688447.00, 4685155.00, 81.00, 0.00) DC NA


I I I -• c --•

-

Alt. 2 *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 ***

*'** Northampton Landfi.ll Alt. 2 Hori.zontall Analysis - 1999

'*** Model Executed on 01/31/05 at 15:13:10 ***

Input Fi.l.e - w: \Appa\ISCDATA \1967\Toxics \Horizontal \89. DTA

Output File - w: \Apps\ISCDATA\1967\Toxics\Hori.zontal \89 .LST

Met File - W:\llpps\ISCDATA\1967\metdata\l989.ASC

Number of sources -


3


POINT SOURCE DATA '** *


SOURCE

ID


BASE



FLARE

SOURCE

ID

ACTIVE

CAPPED

GROUP ID

0 0.10000E+01 688579.3 4684591.5 84.4 4.60 1273.00

*** AREAPOLY SOURCE DATA



RELEASE NUMBER

HEIGHT OF VERTS.

CATS • /METER** 2) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS)

0 0.14900£-04 688404.9 4685089.5 91.4

0 0.80500£-05 688614.6 4685028.5 106.7

0.00

0.00

12

20


SOURCE IDs


20.00

!NIT.

sz

(METERS)

0.00

0.00

0.59 NO

EMISSION RATE

SCALAR VARY

BY


GROUP ID







AVERAGE CONC RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZFLAG)

49.14942 AT 688144.19, 4684547.00, 68.10,

48.93441 AT 688786.81' 4684556.00' 69.30,

48.10151 AT 698701.50, 4684539.00, 69.60,

47.21007 AT 688829.50, 4684564.50' 73.40,

46.97477 AT 688447.00, 4685155.00, 81.00,



NETWORK

OF TYPE GRID-ID

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

BY

DATE NETWORK


ALL HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 221.36807c ON 89121924: AT 688401.31, 4685144.00, 84.20, 0.00) DC NA


Alt. 2 *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** *** Northampton Landfill Al.t. 2 Horizontal. Analysis - 1990

*** Model. Executed on 01/31/05 at 15:29:51 *** Input File - W:\Appa\ISCDATA\1967\Toxi.ca\Horizontal\90.0TA

OUtput Fil.e - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\1967\Toxics\Horiz:ontal\90.LST


Number of sources -


3


* * * POINT SOURCE DATA * *'*"


ELEV.


SOURCE

ID

FLARE

SOURCE

ID

ACTIVE

CAPPED

GROUP ID



0 .10000E+01 688579.3 4684591.5 84.4 4.60 1273.00




RELEASE NUMBER

HEIGHT OF VERTS.


0 0.14900£-04 688404. 9 4685089.5 91.4

0. 80500E-05 688614.6 4685028.5 106.7

0.00

0.00

12

20


SOURCE IDs

20.00 0.59 NO

INIT. EMISSION RATE

sz

(METERS)

0.00

0.00

SCALAR VARY

BY

BY

ALL ACTIVE , CAPPED I FLARE

* * * THE SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM ANNUAL ( 1 YRS) RESULTS ** *

CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M** 3

NETIIORK


ALL 1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS 48.63891 AT 688447.00' 4685155.00' 81.00' 0 .00) DC NA

2ND HIGHEST VALUE IS 47.35434 AT 688492.69, 4685166.00, 79.30, 0.00) DC NA

3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS 43.70959 AT 688466.62' 4.685175. oo' 80.00, 0.00) DC NA

4TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 43.59021. AT 688516.62, 4685175.00' 79.40, 0.00) DC NA

5TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 43.19991 AT 688744.191 4684547.00, 68. 70, 0.00) DC NA



DATE NETWORK

GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC (YYMMDDHH) RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID-IO



I I I • • -• -•

-

Alt. 2 *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** *** Northampton Landfill Alt. 2 horizontal Analysis - 1991

***Model Executed on 01/31/05 at 15:37:15 *** Input File - W: \Apps\ISCDATA\1967\Toxi.cs\Horizontal \91.DTA

Output File - W~ \Apps\ISCDATA\1967\Tox.ics\Hori.zontal \91. LST

Met Fi.le - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\1967\metdata\199l.ASC

Nu:mber of sources -


3




ELEV.


SOURCE

ID

PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X y HEIGHT TEMP. EXIT VEL. DIJ\METER EXISTS SCALAR VARY

FLARE

SOURCE

ID

ACTIVE

CAPPED

GROUP ID


0 .10000E+01 688579.3 4684591.5 84.4 4.60 1273.00

* * * AREAPOLY SOURCE DATA



RELEASE NUMBER

HEIGB'l' OF VERTS.


0 0 .14900E-04 688404.9 4685089.5 91.4

0 0. 80500E-05 688614.6 4685028.5 106.7

0.00

o.oo 12

20


SOURCE IDs

20.00 0.59 NO

INIT. EMISSION RATE

sz

(METERS)

0.00

0.00

SCALAR VARY

BY


* * * THE SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM ANNUAL ( 1 YRS) RESULTS * * *


NETWORK


----------ALL 1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS 46.69628 AT 688744.19, 468454 7. 00' 68. 70, 0.00) DC NA


3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS 45.40694 AT 688701.50, 4684538.00, 69.60, 0.00) DC NA


5TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 43.66572 AT 688652.19' 4684531. so' 76.70, 0.00) DC NA


CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAHS/M**3

BY

DATE NETWORK

GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC (YYMMDDHH) RECEPTOR {XR, YR, ZELEV 1 ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID-ID

ALL HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 194 .59676c ON 91011524: AT ( 688447.00, 4685155.00, 81.00, 0.00) DC NA


Alt. 3 *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** *** Northampton Landfill Alt. 3 Vertical Analysis - 1997

***Model Executed on 01/31/05 at 14:40:23 *** Input File - W: \Apps\ISCDATA\1967\Toxics\Vertical \87 .DTA

Output File - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\1967\Toxics\Vertical.\87 .LST

Met File - w,\Apps\ISCDATA\1967\metdata\1987 .ASC

Number of sources -



1

1624



ELEV.

STACK STACK

HEIGHT TEMP.

STACK STACK BUIWING EMISSION RATE

SOURCE

ID

FLARE

SOURCE

ID

ACTIVE

CAPPED

GROUP ID

PART. (GRliMS/SEC) X y EXIT VEL. DIAMETER EXISTS SCALAR VARY


0 0 .10000£+01 688579.3 4684591.5 84.4 4.60 1273.00



PART. (GRliMS/SEC X y ELEV.

RELEASE NUMBER

HEIGHT OF VERTS.


0.2UOOE-04 688432.7 4684676.5 99.1

0.29500£-04 688649.7 4684837.0 109.7

0.00

0.00

17

11

20.00

!NIT.

sz

(METERS)

0.00

0.00


SOURCE IDs

0.59 NO

EMISSION RATE

SCALAR VARY

BY

BY


GROUP ID








AVERAGE CONC

77.22256 AT

76.36199 AT

76.00002 AT

75.58637 AT

74.92526 AT

RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZFLAG)

689652.19' 4684531.50'

688602.88, 4684525.50,

688701.50, 4684538.00,

688616.62, 4684525.00,

688553.69, 4684519.00,

76. 70,

87 .50,

69. 60,

85.20,

90.50,

*** THE SUMMARY OF HIGHEST 24-BR RESULTS


NETWORK

OF TYPE GRID-ID

0.00) DC

0.00) DC

0.00) DC

0.00) DC

0.00) DC

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

DATE NETWORK


ALL HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 277, 43S81c ON 87010424: AT 688786.81, 4684556.00, 69.30, 0.00) DC NA


I I I -• ---•

-

Alt. 3 *** ISCST3 -VERSION 02035 *** *** Northampton Landfill Alt. 3 Vertical Analysis - 1988

*** Model Executed on 01/31/05 at 14:47:15 *** Input File - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\1967\Toxi.cs\Vertical\88.DTA

Output File - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\1967\Toxics\Vertica1\88.LST


Number of sources -





SOURCE

ID


PART. (GRAMS/SEC)

CATS.

X y

BASE

ELEV.

STACK STACK


SOURCE

ID

ACTIVE

CAPPED

GROUP ID


0 .10000E+01 688579.3 4684591.5 84.4 4.60 1273.00



HEIGHT OF VERTS. PART. (GRAMS/SEC X y ELEV.


0. 27100E-04 688432.1 4684676.5 99.1

0 0.29500£-04 688649.7 4684837.0 109.7

0.00

0.00

17

11


SOURCE IDs

20.00 0.59 NO

INIT. EMISSION RATE

sz

(METERS)

0.00

o.oo

SCALAR VARY

BY


GROO"P ID

ALL



AVERAGE CONC RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV 1 ZFLAG)

-------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS 66.23575 AT 688652.19, 4684531.50' 76.70,

2ND HIGHEST VALUE IS 65.79692 AT 688701.50, 4684538.00, 69.60,

3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS 65.12408 AT 688744.19, 4684547.00, 68. 70,

4TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 65.01556 AT 688602.88, 4684525.50' 87.50,

5TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 64.50160 AT 688616.62' 4684525.00, 85.20,



NETWORK

OF TYPE GRID-ID

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

BY

DATE NETWORK


ALL HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 296. 66632c ON 88010324' AT ( 688504.38, 4684512.50, 90.30, 0.00) DC NA


Alt. 3 *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** Northampton Landfill Al.t. 3 Vertical Analysis - 1989

***Model Executed on 01/31/05 at 14:53:22 •••

Input File - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\1967\Toxics\Vertical \89 .OTA

OUtput File - W: \Appa\ISCDATA\1967\Toxics\Vertical \89 .LST

Met File - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\l967\metdata\1989.ASC

Number of sources -

Number of source qroups -





SOURCE

ID


BASE

&LEV.

STACK STACK



FLARE 0 .10000&+01 688579.3 4684591.5 84.4 4.60 1273.00 20.00 0.59 NO



SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC X y &LEV. HEIGHT OF VERTS. sz SCALAR VARY

ro CATS. /METER**2) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -ACTIVE 0 0. 27100£-04 688432.1 4684676.5 99.1 0.00 17 0.00

CAPPED 0 0. 29500£-04 688649.7 4684837.0 109.7 0.00 11 0.00


GROUP ID SOURCE IDs




GROUP ro AVERAGE CONC RECEPTOR {XR, YR, ZELEV, ZFLAG)

NETWORK

OF TYPE GRID-ID

ALL 1ST HIGHEST VALUE rs 79.11939 AT 688652.19, 4684531.50' 76.70, 0.00) DC NA

2ND HIGHEST VALUE rs 78.56346 AT 688701.50, 4684538.00, 69.60, 0.00) DC NA

3RO HIGHEST VALUE IS 17.43043 AT 688602.88, 4684525.50' 87 .so, 0.00) DC NA

4TH HIGHEST VALUE rs 77.32145 AT 688744.19, 4684547.00' 68.70, 0.00) DC NA

5TH HIGHEST VALUE rs 76.88484 AT 688616.62, 4684525.00, 85.20, 0.00) DC NA



DATE NETWORK


ALL HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 310.85696c ON 89102324: AT { 688978.81., 4684842.50, 76.50, 0.00) DC NA


I I I • • -• -•

-

Alt. 3 *** I.SCST3 - VERSION 02035 ***

Northampton Landfill Alt. 3 Vertical. Anal.ysis - 1990

Model Executed on 01/31/05 at 14:59:59 ***

Input File - W: \Apps\ISCDATA\1967\Toxics\Vertical \90 .DTA

Output File - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\1967\Toxics\Vertical\90.LST


Number of sources -

Number of s-ource groups -

3




ELEV.

STACK STACK

HEIGHT TEMP.


SOURCE

ID

FLARE

SOURCE

ID

ACTIVE

CAPPED

GROUP ID



0 0 .10000£+01 688579.3 4684591.5 84.4 4.60 1273.00 20.00 0.59 NO



PART. (GRAMS/SEC X y ELEV. HEIGHT OF VERTS. sz SCALAR VARY

CATS. /METER**2) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY

- - - - - - - - - - - - ----------0 0. 27100E-04 688432.7 4684676.5 99.1 0.00 17 0.00

0 0 .29500E-04 688649.7 4684837.0 109.7 0.00 11 0.00


SOURCE IDs

ALL ACTIVE 1 CAPPED , FLARE

GROUP ID



3RO HIGHEST VALUE IS



*** THE SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM ANNUAL { 1 YRS) RESULTS ***

* * CONC OF OTHER

AVERAGE CONC RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZFLAG}

69.58427 AT 688652.19, 4684531.50, 76. 70,

68.80953 AT 688701.50, 4684538 • QO 1 69.60,

68.46549 AT 688602.88, 4684525.50' 87 .so, 67.85861 AT 688616.62, 4684525. QQ 1 85.20,

67.11349 AT 688744.19, 4684547.00' 68. 70,

*** THE StJMHARY OF HIGHEST 24-HR RESULTS


NETWORK

OF TYPE GRID- ID

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

0.00) DC NA

- - -

DATE NETWORK

GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC (YYMMDDHH) RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV 1 ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID- ID

ALL HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 280.20743 ON 90031224: AT 688504.38' 4684512.50' 90.30, 0.00) DC NA


Alt. 3 *** ISCST3 - VERSION 02035 *** *** Northampton Landfill Alt. 3 Vertical Analysis - 1991

***Model Executed on 01/31/05 at 15:12:03 *** Input File - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\l961\Toxics\Vertical\9l.DTA

Output File - W:\Apps\ISCDATA\1967\Toxics\Vertica1\9l.LST


Number of sources -



3

1624



ELEV.

STACK STACK

HEIGHT TEMP.


SOURCE

ID

FLARE

SOURCE

ID

ACTIVE

CAPPED

GROUP ID

PART. (GRJ\MS/SEC) X y EXIT VEL. DIAMETER EXISTS SCALAR VARY


0 0 .10000£+01 666579.3 4684591.5 84.4 4.60 1273.00 20.00 0.59 NO


PART. (GRAMS/SEC

CATS. /METER**2)

------0 0. 27100E-04

0. 29500£-04

*** AREAPOLY SOURCE DATA * * *

LOCATION OF AREA BASE RELEASE NUMBER

X y ELEV. HEIGHT OF VERTS.


666432.7 4664676.5 99.1 0.00 17

666649.7 4684637.0 109.7 0.00 11

INIT. EMISSION RATE

SZ SCALAR VARY

(METERS) BY

0.00

o.oo


SOURCE IDs


-trfrfr THE SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM ANNUAL ( 1 YRS) RESULTS ***


NETWORK

GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID-IO

---------ALL 1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS 74.90936 AT 688652.19, 4684531.50, 76. 70, 0.00) DC NA


3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS 73.49442 AT 688744.19, 4684547.00, 68. 70, 0.00) DC NA

4TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 73.37761 AT 688602.88, 4684525.50, 67 .so, 0.00) DC NA


*** THE SU't-MARY OF HIGHEST 24-HR RESULTS


DATE NETWORK

GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC (YYMMDOHH) RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID- ID



I I I • •

-•

Contest Analytical Laboratory, 4/15/03, Northampton Landfill Sample AMB04 Location: Sample port prior to combustion within the flare

matrix Test units long_des AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv Acetone AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv Benzene AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv Benzyl Chloride AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv Bromodichloromethane AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv Bromomethane AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv 1,3-Butadiene AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv 2-Butanone (MEK) AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv Carbon Disulfide AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv Carbon Tetrachloride AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv Chlorobenzene AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv Chlorodibromomethane AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv Chloroethane AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv Chloroform AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv Chloromethane AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv Cyclohexane AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv 1,2-Dibromoethane AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv 1,2-Dichlorobenzene AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv 1,3-Dichlorobenzene AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv 1 A-Dichlorobenzene AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv Dichlorodifluoromethane AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv 1,1-Dichloroethane AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv 1,2-Dichloroethane AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv 1,1-Dichloroethylene AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv t-1,2-Dichloroethylene AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv 1,2-Dichloropropane AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv cis-1,3-Dichloropropene AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv trans-1,3-Dichloropropene AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv 1,2-Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (114) AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv Ethanol AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv Ethyl Acetate AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv Ethylbenzene AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv 4-Ethyl Toluene AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv n-Heptane AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv Hexachlorobutadiene AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv Hexane AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv 2-Hexanone AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv Isopropanol AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv Methylene Chloride AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv 4-Methyi-2-Pentanone (MIBK) AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv Propene

Northampton Landfill DEIR - 63 -

AMB04 <3.7 168. <3.7 <3.7 <3.7 <3.7 118. <3.7 <3.7 191. <3.7 <3.7 <3.7 <3.7 305. <3.7 <3.7 <3.7 <3.7 <3.7 45.7 <3.7 <3.7 28.5 <3.7 <3.7 <3.7 <3.7 <3.7 <3.7 <3.7 1710. 129. 657. <3.7 657. <3.7 <3.7 33.1 30.3 <3.7 <3.7


I I

AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv Styrene 20.9 AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane <3.7

I AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv Tetrachloroethylene <3.7 AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv T etrahydrofuran 193. AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv Toluene 1280. • AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene <3.7 AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 16.2 AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv 1,1,2-Trichloroethane <3.7 -AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv Trichloroethylene <3.7 AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11) <3.7 AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-Trifluoroethane <3.7 AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 184. -AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv 1,3,5-T rimethylbenzene 105. AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv Vinyl Acetate <3.7 AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv Vinyl Chloride <3.7 • AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv m/p-Xylene 2010. AIR to-15 ppbv PPBv o-Xylene 338. AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 Acetone <8.8 AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 Benzene 535. AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 Benzyl Chloride <19.1 AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 Bromodichloromethane <25.0 AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 Bromomethane <14.2 AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 1,3-Butadiene <8.1 AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 2-Butanone (MEK) 349. AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 Carbon Disulfide <11.7 AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 Carbon Tetrachloride <22.8 AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 Chlorobenzene 881. AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 Chlorodibromomethane <31.6 AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 Chloroethane <9.7 AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 Chloroform <17.8 AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 Chloromethane <7.6 AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 Cyclohexane 1050. AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 1,2-Dibromoethane <28.2 AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 1,2-Dichlorobenzene <22.1 AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene <22.1 AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 1 A-Dichlorobenzene <22.1 AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 Dichlorodifluoromethane <18.1 AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 1,1-Dichloroethane 185. AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 1,2-Dichloroethane <14.8 -AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 1,1-Dichloroethylene <14.5 AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene 113. AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 t-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene <14.7 AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 1,2-Dichloropropane <17.0 AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene <16.7 AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene <16.7 AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 1,2-Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (114) <25.7 AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 Ethanol <6.6 AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 Ethyl Acetate <13.2


AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 Ethylbenzene 7410. AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 4-Ethyl Toluene 633. AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 n-Heptane 2690. AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 Hexachlorobutadiene <39.1 AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 Hexane 2310. AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 2-Hexanone <14.7 AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 Isopropanol <8.8 AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE} 119. AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 Methylene Chloride 105. AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 4-Methyi-2-Pentanone (MIBK} <14.7 AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 Propene <6.6 AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 Styrene 89.0 AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane <25.2 AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 Tetrachloroethylene <24.9 AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 Tetrahydrofuran 569. AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 Toluene 4830. AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene <27.2 AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 1,1 , 1-Trichloroethane 88.5 AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 1,1 ,2-Trichloroethane <20.0 AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 Trichloroethylene <19.7 AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 Trichlorofluoromethane <20.6 AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 1,1 ,2-Trichloro-1 ,2,2-Trifluoroethane <28.1 AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m31,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 904. AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 515. AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 Vinyl Acetate <13.2 AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 Vinyl Chloride <9.4 AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 m/p-Xylene 8740. AIR to-15 ug/m ug/m3 o-Xylene 1470.


EXISTING ACTIVE Source: C:\CLIENTS\NORTHA-I\LANDGEM\PHIT04.PRM

Model Parameters

Lo : 170.00 m"3 I Mg k : 0.0500 1/yr NMOC : 4000.00 ppmv Methane: 50.0000 %volume Carbon Dioxide : 50.0000 % volume

Landfill Parameters

Landfill type :No Co-Disposal Year Opened : 1990 Current Year : 2008 Closure Year: 2009 Capacity : 820000 Mg Average Acceptance Rate Required from

Current Year to Closure Year: 45359.00 Mg/year

Model Results

Methane Emission Rate Year Refuse In Place (Mg) (Mg/yr) (Cubic rn!yr)

1991 4.536E+04 2.572E+02 3.856E+05 1992 9.072E+04 5.019E+02 7.523E+05 1993 1.36IE+05 7.346E+02 1.101E+06 1994 1.814E+05 9.560E+02 1.433E+06 1995 2.268E+05 1.167E+03 1.749E+06 1996 2.722E+05 1.367E+03 2.049E+06 1997 3.175E+05 1.557E+03 2.335E+06 1998 3.629E+05 1.739E+03 2.606E+06 1999 4.082E+05 1.911E+03 2.865E+06 2000 4.536E+05 2.075E+03 3.11IE+06 2001 4.989E+05 2.23IE+03 3.344E+06 2002 5.443E+05 2.380E+03 3.567E+06 2003 5.897E+05 2.521E+03 3.778E+06 2004 6.350E+05 2.655E+03 3.980E+06 2005 6.804E+05 2.783E+03 4.171E+06 2006 7.257E+05 2.904E+03 4.353E+06 2007 7.71IE+05 3.020E+03 4.527E+06 2008 8.165E+05 3.130E+03 4.691E+06 2009 8.200E+05 2.997E+03 4.493E+06 2010 8.200E+05 2.851E+03 4.273E+06 2011 8.200E+05 2.712E+03 4.065E+06 2012 8.200E+05 2.580E+03 3.867E+06 2013 8.200E+05 2.454E+03 3.678E+06 2014 8.200E+05 2.334E+03 3.499E+06 2015 8.200E+05 2.220E+03 3.328E+06 2016 8.200E+05 2.112E+03 3.166E+06 2017 8.200E+05 2.009E+03 3.011E+06 2018 8.200E+05 1.9IIE+03 2.865E+06 2019 8.200E+05 1.818E+03 2.725E+06 2020 8.200E+05 1.729E+03 2.592E+06 2021 8.200E+05 1.645E+03 2.466E+06 2022 8.200E+05 1.565E+03 2.345E+06 2023 8.200E+05 1.488E+03 2.231E+06 2024 8.200E+05 1.416E+03 2.122E+06 2025 8.200E+05 1.347E+03 2.019E+06 2026 8.200E+05 1.281E+03 1.920E+06 2027 8.200E+05 1.219E+03 1.827E+06


I I I • • --•

-

2028 8.200E+05 1.159E+03 1.737E+06 2029 8.200E+05 l.l03E+03 1.653E+06 2030 8.200E+05 1.049E+03 1.572E+06 2031 8.200E+05 9.977E+02 l.495E+06 2032 8.200E+05 9.490E+02 l.423E+06 2033 8.200E+05 9.027E+02 1.353E+06 2034 8.200E+05 8.587E+02 !.287E+06 2035 8.200E+05 8.168E+02 l.224E+06 2036 8.200E+05 7.770E+02 1.165E+06 2037 8.200E+05 7.39IE+02 l.I08E+06 2038 8.200E+05 7.03IE+02 l.054E+06 2039 8.200E+05 6.688E+02 1.002E+06 2040 8.200E+05 6.362E+02 9.535E+05 2041 8.200E+05 6.05!E+02 9.070E+05 2042 8.200E+05 5.756E+02 8.628E+05 2043 8.200E+05 5.475E+02 8.207E+05 2044 8.200E+05 5.208E+02 7.807E+05 2045 8.200E+05 4.954E+02 7.426E+05 2046 8.200E+05 4.713E+02 7.064E+05 2047 8.200E+05 4.483E+02 6.719E+05 2048 8.200E+05 4.264E+02 6.392E+05 2049 8.200E+05 4.056E+02 6.080E+05 2050 8.200E+05 3.858E+02 5.784E+05 2051 8.200E+05 3.670E+02 5.50IE+05 2052 8.200E+05 3.49IE+02 5.233E+05 2053 8.200E+05 3.32IE+02 4.978E+05 2054 8.200E+05 3.159E+02 4.735E+05 2055 8.200E+05 3.005E+02 4.504E+05 2056 8.200E+05 2.858E+02 4.285E+05 2057 8.200E+05 2.719E+02 4.076E+05 2058 8.200E+05 2.586E+02 3.877E+05 2059 8.200E+05 2.460E+02 3.688E+05 2060 8.200E+05 2.340E+02 3.508E+05 2061 8.200E+05 2.226E+02 3.337E+05 2062 8.200E+05 2.ll8E+02 3.174E+05 2063 8.200E+05 2.0l4E+02 3.019E+05 2064 8.200E+05 I.9l6E+02 2.872E+05 2065 8.200E+05 I.823E+02 2.732E+05 2066 8.200E+05 1.734E+02 2.599E+05 2067 8.200E+05 !.649E+02 2.472E+05 2068 8.200E+05 1.569E+02 2.35IE+05 2069 8.200E+05 1.492E+02 2.237E+05 2070 8.200E+05 !.419E+02 2.128E+05 2071 8.200E+05 I.350E+02 2.024E+05 2072 8.200E+05 1.284E+02 l.925E+05 2073 8.200E+05 !.222E+02 !.83IE+05 2074 8.200E+05 I.l62E+02 1.742E+05 2075 8.200E+05 I.105E+02 1.657E+05 2076 8.200E+05 l.052E+02 1.576E+05 2077 8.200E+05 I.OOOE+02 I.499E+05 2078 8.200E+05 9.515E+OI !.426E+05 2079 8.200E+05 9.05lE+OI 1.357E+05 2080 8.200E+05 8.609E+OI 1.290E+05 2081 8.200E+05 8.190E+Ol 1.228E+05 2082 8.200E+05 7.790E+OI I.I68E+05 2083 8.200E+05 7.4IOE+Ol l.lllE+05 2084 8.200E+05 7.049E+OI !.057E+05 2085 8.200E+05 6.705E+OI I.005E+05 2086 8.200E+05 6.378E+OI 9.560E+04 2087 8.200E+05 6.067E+Ol 9.094E+04 2088 8.200E+05 5.77lE+OI 8.650E+04 2089 8.200E+05 5.490E+OI 8.228E+04


I I

2090 8.200E+05 5.222E+OI 7.827E+04 2091 8.200E+05 4.967E+OI 7.445E+04

I 2092 8.200E+05 4.725E+OI 7.082E+04 2093 8.200E+05 4.495E+OI 6.737E+04 2094 8.200E+05 4.275E+OI 6.408E+04 2095 8.200E+05 4.067E+OI 6.096E+04 2096 8.200E+05 3.868E+OI 5.798E+04 -2097 8.200E+05 3.680E+OI 5.516E+04 -2098 8.200E+05 3.500E+OI 5.247E+04 2099 8.200E+05 3.330E+OI 4.991E+04 2100 8.200E+05 3.167E+OI 4.747E+04 2101 8.200E+05 3.013E+01 4.516E+04 2102 8.200E+05 2.866E+OI 4.296E+04 -2103 8.200E+05 2.726E+OI 4.086E+04 2104 8.200E+05 2.593E+OI 3.887E+04 • 2105 8.200E+05 2.467E+OI 3.697E+04 2106 8.200E+05 2.346E+OI 3.517E+04 -2107 8.200E+05 2.232E+OI 3.345E+04 2108 8.200E+05 2.123E+OI 3.182E+04 • 2109 8.200E+05 2.020E+OI 3.027E+04 2110 8.200E+05 1.921E+OI 2.879E+04 2111 8.200E+05 1.827E+01 2.739E+04 2ll2 8.200E+05 1.738E+OI 2.605E+04 2ll3 8.200E+05 1.653E+OI 2.478E+04 2114 8.200E+05 1.573E+OI 2.357E+04 2115 8.200E+05 1.496E+OI 2.243E+04 2116 8.200E+05 1.423E+OI 2.133E+04 2117 8.200E+05 l.354E+OI 2.029E+04 2118 8.200E+05 1.288E+01 1.930E+04 2119 8.200E+05 1.225E+01 1.836E+04 2120 8.200E+05 l.l65E+OI I.746E+04 2121 8.200E+05 l.l08E+OI I.661E+04 2122 8.200E+05 1.054E+01 1.580E+04 2123 8.200E+05 1.003E+OI l.503E+04 2124 8.200E+05 9.540E+OO 1.430E+04 2125 8.200E+05 9.074E+OO 1.360E+04 2126 8.200E+05 8.632E+OO 1.294E+04 2127 8.200E+05 8.211E+OO l.231E+04 2128 8.200E+05 7.810E+OO !.171E+04 2129 8.200E+05 7.429E+OO 1.114E+04 2130 8.200E+05 7.067E+OO l.059E+04 2131 8.200E+05 6.722E+OO 1.008E+04 2132 8.200E+05 6.395E+OO 9.585E+03 2133 8.200E+05 6.083E+OO 9.117E+03 2134 8.200E+05 5.786E+OO 8.673E+03 2135 8.200E+05 5.504E+OO 8.250E+03 2136 8.200E+05 5.235E+OO 7.847E+03 2137 8.200E+05 4.980E+OO 7.465E+03 2138 8.200E+05 4.737E+OO 7.101E+03 2139 8.200E+05 4.506E+OO 6.754E+03 -2140 8.200E+05 4.286E+OO 6.425E+03 2141 8.200E+05 4.077E+OO 6.112E+03 2142 8.200E+05 3.878E+OO 5.814E+03 2143 8.200E+05 3.689E+OO 5.530E+03 • 2144 8.200E+05 3.509E+OO 5.260E+03 2145 8.200E+05 3.338E+OO 5.004E+03 2146 8.200E+05 3.175E+OO 4.760E+03 2147 8.200E+05 3.021E+OO 4.528E+03 2148 8.200E+05 2.873E+OO 4.307E+03 2149 8.200E+05 2.733E+OO 4.097E+03 2150 8.200E+05 2.600E+OO 3.897E+03 2151 8.200E+05 2.473E+OO 3.707E+03


-

2152 8.200E+05 2352E+OO 3.526E+03 2153 8.200E+05 2.238E+OO 3.354E+03 2154 8.200E+05 2.129E+OO 3.191E+03 2155 8.200E+05 2.025E+OO 3.035E+03 2156 8.200E+05 l.926E+OO 2.887E+03 2157 8.200E+05 1.832E+OO 2.746E+03 2158 8.200E+05 1.743E+OO 2.612E+03 2159 8.200E+05 l.658E+OO 2.485E+03 2160 8.200E+05 1.577E+OO 2.364E+03 2161 8.200E+05 1.500E+OO 2.248E+03 2162 8.200E+05 l.427E+OO 2.139E+03 2163 8.200E+05 1.357E+OO 2.034E+03 2164 8.200E+05 l.291E+OO 1.935E+03 2165 8.200E+05 1.228E+OO !.841E+03 2166 8.200E+05 l.l68E+OO 1.751E+03 2167 8.200E+05 l.l11E+OO 1.666E+03 2168 8.200E+05 1.057E+OO 1.584E+03 2169 8.200E+05 l.005E+OO 1.507E+03 2170 8.200E+05 9.564E-OI 1.434E+03 2171 8.200E+05 9.098E-01 1.364E+03 2172 8.200E+05 8.654E-01 1.297E+03 2173 8.200E+05 8.232E-01 1.234E+03 2174 8.200E+05 7.830E-01 l.l74E+03 2175 8.200E+05 7.449E-01 l.l16E+03 2176 8.200E+05 7.085E-01 1.062E+03 2177 8.200E+05 6.740E-01 1.010E+03 2178 8.200E+05 6.411E-01 9.610E+02 2179 8.200E+05 6.098E-01 9.141E+02 2180 8.200E+05 5.801E-01 8.695E+02 2181 8.200E+05 5.518E-01 8.271E+02 2182 8.200E+05 5.249E-01 7.868E+02 2183 8.200E+05 4.993E-01 7.484E+02 2184 8.200E+05 4.749E-01 7.119E+02 2185 8.200E+05 4.518E-01 6.772E+02 2186 8.200E+05 4.297E-OI 6.442E+02 2187 8.200E+05 4.088E-01 6.127E+02 2188 8.200E+05 3.889E-01 5.829E+02 2189 8.200E+05 3.699E-01 5.544E+02 2190 8.200E+05 3.518E-01 5.274E+02 2191 8.200E+05 3.347E-01 5.017E+02 2192 8.200E+05 3.184E-01 4.772E+02 2193 8.200E+05 3.028E-01 4.539E+02 2194 8.200E+05 2.881E-01 4.318E+02 2195 8.200E+05 2.740E-01 4.107E+02 2196 8.200E+05 2.607E-OI 3.907E+02 2197 8.200E+05 2.479E-01 3.716E+02 2198 8.200E+05 2.359E-01 3.535E+02 2199 8.200E+05 2.243E-Ol 3.363E+02 2200 8.200E+05 2.134E-OI 3.199E+02 2201 8.200E+05 2.030E-Ol 3.043E+02 2202 8.200E+05 l.931E-Ol 2.894E+02 2203 8.200E+05 1.837E-OI 2.753E+02 2204 8.200E+05 l.747E-OI 2.619E+02 2205 8.200E+05 1.662E-OI 2.491E+02 2206 8.200E+05 1.581E-01 2.370E+02 2207. 8.200E+05 1.504E-01 2.254E+02 2208 8.200E+05 l.431E-01 2.144E+02


EXISTING- CAPPED Source: C:\CLIENTS\NORTHA-1\LANDGEM\UNLINED.PRM

Model Parameters

Lo : 170.00 m''3 I Mg k: 0.0500 1/yr NMOC : 4000.00 ppmv Methane : 50.0000 % volume Carbon Dioxide : 50.0000% volume

Landfill Parameters

Landfill type : No Co-Disposal Year Opened: 1969 Current Year: 1991 Closure Year: 1992 Capacity : 800000 Mg Average Acceptance Rate Required from

Current Year to Closure Year : 36287.00 Mg/year

Model Results

Methane Emission Rate Year Refuse In Place (Mg) (Mg/yr) (Cubic rnlyr)

1970 3.629E+04 2.058E+02 3.084E+05 1971 7.257E+04 4.015E+02 6.018E+05 1972 1.089E+05 5.877E+02 8.809E+05 1973 1.451E+05 7.648E+02 1.146E+06 1974 1.814E+05 9.333E+02 1.399E+06 1975 2.177E+05 1.094E+03 1.639E+06 1976 2.540E+05 1.246E+03 1.868E+06 1977 2.903E+05 I.391E+03 2.085E+06 1978 3.266E+05 1.529E+03 2.292E+06 1979 3.629E+05 I.660E+03 2.488E+06 1980 3.992E+05 1.785E+03 2.675E+06 1981 4.354E+05 1.904E+03 2.853E+06 1982 4.717E+05 2.017E+03 3.023E+06 1983 5.080E+05 2.124E+03 3.184E+06 1984 5.443E+05 2.226E+03 3.337E+06 1985 5.806E+05 2.323E+03 3.483E+06 1986 6.169E+05 2.416E+03 3.621E+06 1987 6.532E+05 2.504E+03 3.753E+06 1988 6.895E+05 2.587E+03 3.878E+06 1989 7.257E+05 2.667E+03 3.998E+06 1990 7.620E+05 2.743E+03 4.111E+06 1991 7.983E+05 2.815E+03 4.219E+06 1992 8.000E+05 2.687E+03 4.028E+06 1993 8.000E+05 2.556E+03 3.831E+06 1994 8.000E+05 2.431E+03 3.644E+06 1995 8.000E+05 2.313E+03 3.467E+06 1996 8.000E+05 2.200E+03 3.298E+06 1997 8.000E+05 2.093E+03 3.137E+06 1998 8.000E+05 1.991E+03 2.984E+06 1999 8.000E+05 1.894E+03 2.838E+06 2000 8.000E+05 1.801E+03 2.700E+06 2001 8.000E+05 1.713E+03 2.568E+06 2002 8.000E+05 1.630E+03 2.443E+06 2003 8.000E+05 1.550E+03 2.324E+06 2004 8.000E+05 1.475E+03 2.210E+06 2005 8.000E+05 1.403E+03 2.103E+06 2006 8.000E+05 1.334E+03 2.000E+06


I I I • -• -•

-

-•


-

2007 8.000E+05 l.269E+03 1.903E+06 2008 8.000E+05 1.207E+03 1.810E+06 2009 8.000E+05 l.l48E+03 1.721E+06 2010 8.000E+05 1.092E+03 1.638E+06 2011 8.000E+05 1.039E+03 1.558E+06 2012 8.000E+05 9.885E+02 1.482E+06 2013 8.000E+05 9.403E+02 1.409E+06 2014 8.000E+05 8.944E+02 1.341E+06 2015 8.000E+05 8.508E+02 1.275E+06 2016 8.000E+05 8.093E+02 1.213E+06 2017 8.000E+05 7.699E+02 1.154E+06 2018 8.000E+05 7.323E+02 1.098E+06 2019 8.000E+05 6.966E+02 1.044E+06 2020 8.000E+05 6.626E+02 9.932E+05 2021 8.000E+05 6.303E+02 9.448E+05 2022 8.000E+05 5.996E+02 8.987E+05 2023 8.000E+05 5.703E+02 8.549E+05 2024 8.000E+05 5.425E+02 8.132E+05 2025 8.000E+05 5.160E+02 7.735E+05 2026 8.000E+05 4.909E+02 7.358E+05 2027 8.000E+05 4.669E+02 6.999E+05 2028 8.000E+05 4.442E+02 6.658E+05 2029 8.000E+05 4.225E+02 6.333E+05 2030 8.000E+05 4.019E+02 6.024E+05 2031 8.000E+05 3.823E+02 5.730E+05 2032 8.000E+05 3.637E+02 5.451E+05 2033 8.000E+05 3.459E+02 5.185E+05 2034 8.000E+05 3.290E+02 4.932E+05 2035 8.000E+05 3.130E+02 4.692E+05 2036 8.000E+05 2.977E+02 4.463E+05 2037 8.000E+05 2.832E+02 4.245E+05 2038 8.000E+05 2.694E+02 4.038E+05 2039 8.000E+05 2.563E+02 3.841E+05 2040 8.000E+05 2.438E+02 3.654E+05 2041 8.000E+05 2.319E+02 3.476E+05 2042 8.000E+05 2.206E+02 3.306E+05 2043 8.000E+05 2.098E+02 3.145E+05 2044 8.000E+05 1.996E+02 2.992E+05 2045 8.000E+05 1.898E+02 2.846E+05 2046 8.000E+05 1.806E+02 2.707E+05 2047 8.000E+05 1.718E+02 2.575E+05 2048 8.000E+05 1.634E+02 2.449E+05 2049 8.000E+05 1.554E+02 2.330E+05 2050 8.000E+05 1.479E+02 2.216E+05 2051 8.000E+05 1.406E+02 2.108E+05 2052 8.000E+05 1.338E+02 2.005E+05 2053 8.000E+05 1.273E+02 1.907E+05 2054 8.000E+05 1.210E+02 1.814E+05 2055 8.000E+05 1.151E+02 1.726E+05 2056 8.000E+05 1.095E+02 1.642E+05 2057 8.000E+05 1.042E+02 1.562E+05 2058 8.000E+05 9.911E+01 1.486E+05 2059 8.000E+05 9.427E+01 1.413E+05 2060 8.000E+05 8.968E+01 1.344E+05 2061 8.000E+05 8.530E+01 1.279E+05 2062 8.000E+05 8.114E+01 1.216E+05 2063 8.000E+05 7.718E+01 1.157E+05 2064 8.000E+05 7.342E+01 1.101E+05 2065 8.000E+05 6.984E+01 1.047E+05 2066 8.000E+05 6.643E+01 9.958E+04 2067 8.000E+05 6319E+01 9.472E+04 2068 8.000E+05 6.011E+01 9.010E+04


I I

2069 8.000E+05 5.718E+Ol 8.571E+04 2070 8.000E+05 5.439E+Ol 8.153E+04

I 2071 8.000E+05 5.174E+Ol 7.755E+04 2072 8.000E+05 4.922E+Ol 7.377E+04 2073 8.000E+05 4.681E+Ol 7.017E+04 2074 8.000E+05 4.453E+Ol 6.675E+04 • 2075 8.000E+05 4.236E+Ol 6.349E+04 2076 8.000E+05 4.029E+Ol 6.040E+04 -2077 8.000E+05 3.833E+Ol 5.745E+04 2078 8.000E+05 3.646E+Ol 5.465E+04 2079 8.000E+05 3.468E+Ol 5.l98E+04 2080 8.000E+05 3.299E+Ol 4.945E+04 2081 8.000E+05 3.l38E+Ol 4.704E+04 2082 8.000E+05 2.985E+Ol 4.474E+04 2083 8.000E+05 2.839E+Ol 4.256E+04 • 2084 8.000E+05 2.70IE+Ol 4.049E+04 2085 8.000E+05 2.569E+Ol 3.851E+04 -2086 8.000E+05 2.444E+Ol 3.663E+04 2087 8.000E+05 2.325E+Ol 3.485E+04 • 2088 8.000E+05 2.211E+01 3.315E+04 2089 8.000E+05 2.104E+Ol 3.l53E+04 2090 8.000E+05 2.001E+Ol 2.999E+04 2091 8.000E+05 1.903E+Ol 2.853E+04 2092 8.000E+05 1.811E+01 2.714E+04 2093 8.000E+05 1.722E+Ol 2.581E+04 2094 8.000E+05 1.638E+Ol 2.456E+04 2095 8.000E+05 1.558E+Ol 2.336E+04 2096 8.000E+05 l.482E+Ol 2.222E+04 2097 8.000E+05 l.410E+01 2.114E+04 2098 8.000E+05 1.341E+01 2.010E+04 2099 8.000E+05 l.276E+01 l.912E+04 2100 8.000E+05 l.214E+Ol l.819E+04 2101 8.000E+05 l.l54E+Ol 1.730E+04 2102 8.000E+05 l.098E+01 1.646E+04 2103 8.000E+05 1.045E+01 1.566E+04 2104 8.000E+05 9.936E+OO 1.489E+04 2105 8.000E+05 9.452E+OO 1.417E+04 2106 8.000E+05 8.991E+OO 1.348E+04 2107 8.000E+05 8.552E+OO 1.282E+04 2108 8.000E+05 8.l35E+OO 1.219E+04 2109 8.000E+05 7.738E+OO l.l60E+04 -2110 8.000E+05 7.361E+OO l.l03E+04 2111 8.000E+05 7.002E+OO 1.050E+04 2112 8.000E+05 6.661E+OO 9.984E+03 2113 8.000E+05 6.336E+OO 9.497E+03 2114 8.000E+05 6.027E+OO 9.034E+03 2115 8.000E+05 5.733E+OO 8.593E+03 2116 8.000E+05 5.453E+OO 8.174E+03 2117 8.000E+05 5.187E+OO 7.775E+03 2118 8.000E+05 4.934E+OO 7.396E+03 2119 8.000E+05 4.694E+OO 7.035E+03 2120 8.000E+05 4.465E+OO 6.692E+03 2121 8.000E+05 4.247E+OO 6.366E+03 2122 8.000E+05 4.040E+OO 6.055E+03 • 2123 8.000E+05 3.843E+OO 5.760E+03 2124 8.000E+05 3.655E+OO 5.479E+03 2125 8.000E+05 3.477E+OO 5.212E+03 2126 8.000E+05 3.308E+OO 4.958E+03 2127 8.000E+05 3.146E+OO 4.716E+03 2128 8.000E+05 2.993E+OO 4.486E+03 2129 8.000E+05 2.847E+OO 4.267E+03 2130 8.000E+05 2.708E+OO 4.059E+03


-

2131 8.000E+05 2.576E+OO 3.861E+03 2132 8.000E+05 2.450E+OO 3.673E+03 2133 8.000E+05 2.331E+OO 3.494E+03 2134 8.000E+05 2.217E+OO 3.323E+03 2135 8.000E+05 2.109E+OO 3.161E+03 2136 8.000E+05 2.006E+OO 3.007E+03 2137 8.000E+05 1.908E+OO 2.860E+03 2138 8.000E+05 1.815E+OO 2.721E+03 2139 8.000E+05 1.727E+OO 2.588E+03 2140 8.000E+05 1.642E+OO 2.462E+03 2141 8.000E+05 1.562E+OO 2.342E+03 2142 8.000E+05 1.486E+OO 2.228E+03 2143 8.000E+05 1.414E+OO 2.119E+03 2144 8.000E+05 1.345E+OO 2.016E+03 2145 8.000E+05 1.279E+OO 1.917E+03 2146 8.000E+05 1.217E+OO 1.824E+03 2147 8.000E+05 l.l57E+OO 1.735E+03 2148 8.000E+05 1.101E+OO 1.650E+03 2149 8.000E+05 1.047E+OO 1.570E+03 2150 8.000E+05 9.962E-01 1.493E+03 2151 8.000E+05 9.476E-01 1.420E+03 2152 8.000E+05 9.014E-01 1.351E+03 2153 8.000E+05 8.574E-01 1.285E+03 2154 8.000E+05 8.156E-01 1.223E+03 2155 8.000E+05 7.758E-01 1.163E+03 2156 8.000E+05 7.380E-01 1.106E+03 2157 8.000E+05 7.020E-01 1.052E+03 2158 8.000E+05 6.678E-01 1.001E+03 2159 8.000E+05 6.352E-OI 9.521E+02 2160 8.000E+05 6.042E-01 9.057E+02 2161 8.000E+05 5.748E-OI 8.615E+02 2162 S.OOOE+OS 5.467E-01 8.195E+02 2163 8.000E+05 5.201E-OI 7.795E+02 2164 S.OOOE+OS 4.947E-OI 7.415E+02 2165 8.000E+05 4.706E-01 7.054E+02 2166 8.000E+05 4.476E-OI 6.710E+02 2167 8.000E+05 4.258E-01 6.382E+02 2168 8.000E+05 4.050E-01 6.071E+02 2169 8.000E+05 3.853E-01 5.775E+02 2170 8.000E+05 3.665E-01 5.493E+02 2171 8.000E+05 3.486E-OI 5.225E+02 2172 8.000E+05 3.316E-01 4.971E+02 2173 8.000E+05 3.154E-01 4.728E+02 2174 8.000E+05 3.001E-01 4.498E+02 2175 8.000E+05 2.854E-01 4.278E+02 2176 8.000E+05 2.715E-01 4.070E+02 2177 8.000E+05 2.583E-01 3.871E+02 2178 8.000E+05 2.457E-01 3.682E+02 2179 8.000E+05 2.337E-01 3.503E+02 2180 8.000E+05 2.223E-01 3.332E+02 2181 8.000E+05 2.114E-01 3.169E+02 2182 8.000E+05 2.011E-01 3.015E+02 2183 8.000E+05 1.913E-01 2.868E+02 2184 8.000E+05 1.820E-01 2.728E+02 2185 8.000E+05 1.731E-01 2.595E+02 2186 8.000E+05 1.647E-01 2.468E+02 2187 8.000E+05 1.566E-01 2.348E+02 2188 8.000E+05 1.490E-01 2.233E+02 2189 8.000E+05 1.417E-01 2.124E+02 2190 8.000E+05 1.348E-01 2.021E+02 2191 8.000E+05 1.282E-01 1.922E+02


ALT 2 -HORJZ EXPANSION Source: C:\CLIENTS\NORTHA-I\LANDGEM\OPTION2.PRM

Model Parameters

Lo : 170.00 m"3 I Mg k : 0.0500 l/yr NMOC : 4000.00 ppmv Methane : 50.0000 % volume Carbon Dioxide: 50.0000% volume

Landfill Parameters

Landfill type :No Co-Disposal Year Opened : 2008 Current Year : 2029 Closure Year: 2029 Capacity : 915177 Mg Average Acceptance Rate Required from


Model Results

Methane Emission Rate Year Refuse In Place (Mg) (Mg/yr) (Cubic m/yr)

2009 4.536E+04 2.572E+02 3.856E+05 2010 9.072E+04 5.019E+02 7.523E+05 2011 1.361E+05 7.347E+02 l.IOIE+06 2012 1.814E+05 9.561E+02 1.433E+06 2013 2.268E+05 1.167E+03 1.749E+06 2014 2.722E+05 1.367E+03 2.049E+06 2015 3.175E+05 1.558E+03 2.335E+06 2016 3.629E+05 1.739E+03 2.606E+06 2017 4.082E+05 1.911E+03 2.865E+06 2018 4.536E+05 2.075E+03 3.111E+06 2019 4.990E+05 2.231E+03 3.344E+06 2020 5.443E+05 2.380E+03 3.567E+06 2021 5.897E+05 2.521E+03 3.779E+06 2022 6.350E+05 2.655E+03 3.980E+06 2023 6.804E+05 2.783E+03 4.171E+06 2024 7.258E+05 2.904E+03 4.353E+06 2025 7.711E+05 3.020E+03 4.527E+06 2026 8.165E+05 3.130E+03 4.691E+06 2027 8.618E+05 3.234E+03 4.848E+06 2028 9.072E+05 3.334E+03 4.997E+06 2029 9.152E+05 3.217E+03 4.821E+06 2030 9.152E+05 3.060E+03 4.586E+06 2031 9.152E+05 2.910E+03 4.363E+06 2032 9.152E+05 2.769E+03 4.150E+06 2033 9.152E+05 2.634E+03 3.947E+06 2034 9.152E+05 2.505E+03 3.755E+06 2035 9.152E+05 2.383E+03 3.572E+06 2036 9.152E+05 2.267E+03 3.398E+06 2037 9.152E+05 2.156E+03 3.232E+06 2038 9.152E+05 2.051E+03 3.074E+06 2039 9.152E+05 1.951E+03 2.924E+06 2040 9.152E+05 1.856E+03 2.782E+06 2041 9.!52E+05 1.765E+03 2.646E+06 2042 9.152E+05 1.679E+03 2.517E+06 2043 9.152E+05 1.597E+03 2.394E+06 2044 9.!52E+05 1.519E+03 2.277E+06 2045 9.152E+05 1.445E+03 2.166E+06


I I I ---• -•

-

-


-

2046 9.152E+05 1.375E+03 2.061E+06 2047 9.152E+05 1.308E+03 1.960E+06 2048 9.152E+05 1.244E+03 1.865E+06 2049 9.152E+05 1.183E+03 1.774E+06 2050 9.152E+05 1.126E+03 l.687E+06 2051 9.152E+05 l.071E+03 1.605E+06 2052 9.152E+05 1.018E+03 l.527E+06 2053 9.152E+05 9.688E+02 1.452E+06 2054 9.152E+05 9.216E+02 1.381E+06 2055 9.152E+05 8.766E+02 1.314E+06 2056 9.152E+05 8.339E+02 1.250E+06 2057 9.152E+05 7.932E+02 1.189E+06 2058 9.152E+05 7.545E+02 1.131E+06 2059 9.152E+05 7.177E+02 1.076E+06 2060 9.152E+05 6.827E+02 1.023E+06 2061 9.152E+05 6.494E+02 9.734E+05 2062 9.152E+05 6.177E+02 9.259E+05 2063 9.152E+05 5.876E+02 8.808E+05 2064 9.152E+05 5.590E+02 8.378E+05 2065 9.152E+05 5.317E+02 7.970E+05 2066 9.152E+05 5.058E+02 7.581E+05 2067 9.152E+05 4.811E+02 7.211E+05 2068 9.152E+05 4.576E+02 6.860E+05 2069 9.152E+05 4.353E+02 6.525E+05 2070 9.152E+05 4.141E+02 6.207E+05 2071 9.152E+05 3.939E+02 5.904E+05 2072 9.152E+05 3.747E+02 5.616E+05 2073 9.152E+05 3.564E+02 5.342E+05 2074 9.152E+05 3.390E+02 5.082E+05 2075 9.152E+05 3.225E+02 4.834E+05 2076 9.152E+05 3.068E+02 4.598E+05 2077 9.152E+05 2.918E+02 4.374E+05 2078 9.152E+05 2.776E+02 4.161E+05 2079 9.152E+05 2.640E+02 3.958E+05 2080 9.152E+05 2.512E+02 3.765E+05 2081 9.152E+05 2.389E+02 3.581E+05 2082 9.152E+05 2.273E+02 3.406E+05 2083 9.152E+05 2.162E+02 3.240E+05 2084 9.152E+05 2.056E+02 3.082E+05 2085 9.152E+05 1.956E+02 2.932E+05 2086 9.152E+05 1.861E+02 2.789E+05 2087 9.152E+05 1.770E+02 2.653E+05 2088 9.152E+05 1.684E+02 2.523E+05 2089 9.152E+05 1.601E+02 2.400E+05 2090 9.152E+05 1.523E+02 2.283E+05 2091 9.152E+05 1.449E+02 2.172E+05 2092 9.152E+05 1.378E+02 2.066E+05 2093 9.152E+05 1.311E+02 1.965E+05 2094 9.152E+05 1.247E+02 1.869E+05 2095 9.152E+05 1.186E+02 1.778E+05 2096 9.152E+05 1.129E+02 1.692E+05 2097 9.152E+05 1.073E+02 1.609E+05 2098 9.152E+05 1.021E+02 1.531E+05 2099 9.152E+05 9.713E+01 1.456E+05 2100 9.152E+05 9.239E+01 1.385E+05 2101 9.152E+05 8.789E+01 1.317E+05 2102 9.152E+05 8.360E+01 1.253E+05 2103 9.152E+05 7.952E+01 1.192E+05 2104 9.152E+05 7.565E+01 1.134E+05 2105 9.152E+05 7.196E+01 1.079E+05 2106 9.152E+05 6.845E+01 1.026E+05 2107 9.152E+05 6.511E+01 9.759E+04


I I

2108 9.152E+05 6.193E+OI 9.283E+04 2109 9.152E+05 5.891E+OI 8.831E+04

I 2110 9.152E+05 5.604E+OI 8.400E+04 2111 9.152E+05 5.331E+OI 7.990E+04 2112 9.152E+05 5.071E+OI 7.601E+04 2113 9.152E+05 4.823E+OI 7.230E+04 -2114 9.152E+05 4.588E+OI 6.877E+04 2115 9.152E+05 4.364E+OI 6.542E+04 -2116 9.152E+05 4.152E+OI 6.223E+04 2117 9.152E+05 3.949E+OI 5.919E+04 2118 9.152E+05 3.756E+OI 5.631E+04 2119 9.152E+05 3.573E+OI 5.356E+04 -2120 9.152E+05 3.399E+OI 5.095E+04 2121 9.152E+05 3.233E+OI 4.846E+04 • 2122 9.152E+05 3.076E+OI 4.610E+04 2123 9.152E+05 2.926E+OI 4.385E+04 -2124 9.152E+05 2.783E+OI 4.171E+04 2125 9.152E+05 2.647E+OI 3.968E+04 2126 9.152E+05 2.518E+OI 3.774E+04 • 2127 9.152E+05 2.395E+OI 3.590E+04 2128 9.152E+05 2.278E+OI 3.415E+04 2129 9.152E+05 2.167E+OI 3.249E+04 2130 9.152E+05 2.062E+OI 3.090E+04 2131 9.152E+05 l.961E+OI 2.939E+04 2132 9.152E+05 l.865E+01 2.796E+04 2133 9.152E+05 l.774E+OI 2.660E+04 2134 9.152E+05 l.688E+OI 2.530E+04 2135 9.152E+05 l.606E+OI 2.407E+04 2136 9.152E+05 l.527E+01 2.289E+04 2137 9.152E+05 l.453E+OI 2.178E+04 2138 9.152E+05 1.382E+01 2.071E+04 2139 9.152E+05 1.315E+OI l.970E+04 2140 9.152E+05 1.250E+01 1.874E+04 2141 9.152E+05 l.l89E+OI 1.783E+04 2142 9.152E+05 l.l31E+01 l.696E+04 2143 9.152E+05 l.076E+01 l.613E+04 2144 9.152E+05 l.024E+OI 1.535E+04 2145 9.152E+05 9.738E+OO l.460E+04 2146 9.152E+05 9.263E+OO 1.389E+04 2147 9.152E+05 8.812E+OO 1.321E+04 2148 9.152E+05 8.382E+OO 1.256E+04 -2149 9.152E+05 7.973E+OO l.I95E+04 2150 9.152E+05 7.584E+OO 1.137E+04 2151 9.152E+05 7.214E+OO l.081E+04 2152 9.152E+05 6.862E+OO l.029E+04 2153 9.152E+05 6.528E+OO 9.785E+03 2154 9.152E+05 6.209E+OO 9.307E+03 2155 9.152E+05 5.907E+OO 8.854E+03 2156 9.152E+05 5.619E+OO 8.422E+03 2157 9.152E+05 5.345E+OO 8.011E+03 -2158 9.152E+05 5.084E+OO 7.620E+03 2159 9.152E+05 4.836E+OO 7.249E+03 2160 9.152E+05 4.600E+OO 6.895E+03 2161 9.152E+05 4.376E+OO 6.559E+03 2162 9.152E+05 4.162E+OO 6.239E+03 2163 9.152E+05 3.959E+OO 5.935E+03 2164 9.152E+05 3.766E+OO 5.645E+03 2165 9.152E+05 3.583E+OO 5.370E+03 2166 9.152E+05 3.408E+OO 5.108E+03 2167 9.152E+05 3.242E+OO 4.859E+03 2168 9.152E+05 3.084E+OO 4.622E+03 2169 9.152E+05 2.933E+OO 4.397E+03


-

2170 9.152E+05 2.790E+OO 4.182E+03 2171 9.152E+05 2.654E+OO 3.978E+03 2172 9.152E+05 2.525E+OO 3.784E+03 2173 9.152E+05 2.401E+OO 3.600E+03 2174 9.152E+05 2.284E+OO 3.424E+03 2175 9.152E+05 2.173E+OO 3.257E+03 2176 9.152E+05 2.067E+OO 3.098E+03 2177 9.152E+05 l.966E+OO 2.947E+03 2178 9.152E+05 L870E+OO 2.803E+03 2179 9.152E+05 1.779E+OO 2.667E+03 2180 9.152E+05 1.692E+OO 2.537E+03 2181 9.152E+05 1.610E+OO 2.413E+03 2182 9.152E+05 1.531E+OO 2.295E+03 2183 9.152E+05 1.457E+OO 2.183E+03 2184 9.152E+05 1.386E+OO 2.077E+03 2185 9.152E+05 l.318E+OO 1.975E+03 2186 9.152E+05 l.254E+OO 1.879E+03 2187 9.152E+05 l.l93E+OO 1.787E+03 2188 9.152E+05 1.134E+OO 1.700E+03 2189 9.152E+05 1.079E+OO I.617E+03 2190 9.152E+05 l.026E+OO I.539E+03 2191 9.152E+05 9.764E-OI 1.463E+03 2192 9.152E+05 9.287E-01 1.392E+03 2193 9.152E+05 8.834E-01 1.324E+03 2194 9.152E+05 8.404E-01 1.260E+03 2195 9.152E+05 7.994E-OI 1.198E+03 2196 9.152E+05 7.604E-OI 1.140E+03 2197 9.152E+05 7.233E-OI l.084E+03 2198 9.152E+05 6.880E-OI 1.031E+03 2199 9.152E+05 6.545E-OI 9.810E+02 2200 9.152E+05 6.226E-OI 9.332E+02 2201 9.152E+05 5.922E-01 8.876£+02 2202 9.152£+05 5.633E-OI 8.444E+02 2203 9.152E+05 5.358E-OI 8.032E+02 2204 9.152E+05 5.097E-01 7.640E+02 2205 9.152E+05 4.848E-OI 7.267E+02 2206 9.152E+05 4.612E-01 6.913E+02 2207 9.152E+05 4.387E-Ol 6.576E+02 2208 9.152E+05 4.173E-01 6.255E+02 2209 9.152E+05 3.970E-01 5.950E+02 2210 9.152E+05 3.776E-OI 5.660E+02 22ll 9.152E+05 3.592E-01 5.384E+02 2212 9.152E+05 3.417E-Ol 5.121E+02 2213 9.152E+05 3.250E-01 4.871E+02 2214 9.152E+05 3.091E-Ol 4.634E+02 2215 9.152E+05 2.941E-01 4.408E+02 2216 9.152E+05 2.797E-Ol 4.193E+02 2217 9.152E+05 2.661E-01 3.988E+02 2218 9.152E+05 2.531E-OI 3.794E+02 2219 9.152E+05 2.408E-Ol 3.609E+02 2220 9.152E+05 2.290E-OI 3.433E+02 2221 9.152E+05 2.179E-Ol 3.265E+02 2222 9.152E+05 2.072E-01 3.l06E+02 2223 9.152E+05 l.971E-01 2.955E+02 2224 9.152E+05 1.875E-01 2.811E+02 2225 9.152E+05 1.784E-OI 2.674E+02 2226 9.152E+05 l.697E-OI 2.543E+02 2227 9.152E+05 l.614E-OI 2.419E+02 2228 9.152E+05 l.535E-OI 2.301E+02


ALT 3- VERTICAL EXPANSION Source: C:\CLIENTS\NORTHA-1\LANDGEM\OPTIONI.PRM

Model Parameters

Lo: 170.00 m"3 I Mg k : 0.0500 1/yr NMOC : 4000.00 ppmv Methane : 50.0000% volume Carbon Dioxide : 50.0000 %volume

Landfill Parameters

Landfill type : No Co-Disposal Year Opened : 2008 Current Year : 2012 Closure Year: 2012 Capacity: 174576 Mg Average Acceptance Rate Required from


Model Results

Methane Emission Rate Year Refuse In Place (Mg) {Mg/yr) (Cubic m/yr)

2009 4.536E+04 2.572E+02 3.856E+05 2010 9.072E+04 5.019E+02 7.523E+05 20II 1.361E+05 7.347E+02 1.101E+06 2012 1.746E+05 9.171E+02 1.375E+06 2013 l.746E+05 8.724E+02 1.308E+06 2014 1.746E+05 8.298E+02 1.244E+06 2015 1.746E+05 7.894E+02 1.183E+06 2016 1.746E+05 7.509E+02 1.126E+06 2017 l.746E+05 7.143E+02 1.071E+06 2018 1.746E+05 6.794E+02 1.018E+06 2019 l.746E+05 6.463E+02 9.687E+05 2020 1.746E+05 6.148E+02 9.215E+05 2021 1.746E+05 5.848E+02 8.765E+05 2022 l.746E+05 5.563E+02 8.338E+05 2023 1.746E+05 5.291E+02 7.931E+05 2024 l.746E+05 5.033E+02 7.544E+05 2025 1.746E+05 4.788E+02 7.177E+05 2026 1.746E+05 4.554E+02 6.827E+05 2027 1.746E+05 4.332E+02 6.494E+05 2028 1.746E+05 4.121E+02 6.177E+05 2029 1.746E+05 3.920E+02 5.876E+05 2030 1.746E+05 3.729E+02 5.589E+05 2031 1.746E+05 3.547E+02 5.317E+05 2032 1.746E+05 3.374E+02 5.057E+05 2033 1.746E+05 3.209E+02 4.811E+05 2034 l.746E+05 3.053E+02 4.576E+05 2035 l.746E+05 2.904E+02 4.353E+05 2036 l.746E+05 2.762E+02 4.141E+05 2037 l.746E+05 2.628E+02 3.939E+05 2038 1.746E+05 2.499E+02 3.746E+05 2039 l.746E+05 2.378E+02 3.564E+05 2040 1.746E+05 2.262E+02 3.390E+05 2041 l.746E+05 2.151E+02 3.225E+05 2042 l.746E+05 2.046E+02 3.067E+05 2043 1.746E+05 1.947E+02 2.918E+05


I I I ---• -•

-


-

2044 1.746E+05 1.852E+02 2.775E+05 2045 1.746E+05 1.761E+02 2.640E+05 2046 1.746E+05 1.675E+02 2.511E+05 2047 1.746E+05 1.594E+02 2.389E+05 2048 1.746E+05 1.516E+02 2.272E+05 2049 1.746E+05 1.442E+02 2.162E+05 2050 1.746E+05 1.372E+02 2.056E+05 2051 1.746E+05 1.305E+02 1.956E+05 2052 1.746E+05 1.241E+02 l.860E+05 2053 1.746E+05 1.181E+02 1.770E+05 2054 1.746E+05 1.123E+02 1.683E+05 2055 1.746E+05 1.068E+02 1.601E+05 2056 1.746E+05 1.016E+02 l.523E+05 2057 1.746E+05 9.666E+Ol 1.449E+05 2058 1.746E+05 9.195E+OI 1.378E+05 2059 1.746E+05 8.747E+Ol I.311E+05 2060 1.746E+05 8.320E+OI 1247E+05 2061 1.746E+05 7.914E+OI 1.186E+05 2062 1.746E+05 7.528E+OI 1.128E+05 2063 1.746E+05 7.161E+OI 1.073E+05 2064 l.746E+05 6.812E+OI l.021E+05 2065 1.746E+05 6.480E+OI 9.712E+04 2066 1.746E+05 6.164E+Ol 9.239E+04 2067 l.746E+05 5.863E+01 8.788E+04 2068 l.746E+05 5.577E+OI 8.360E+04 2069 1.746E+05 5.305E+OI 7.952E+04 2070 l.746E+05 5.046E+OI 7.564E+04 2071 1.746E+05 4.800E+Ol 7.195E+04 2072 1.746E+05 4.566E+Ol 6.844E+04 2073 1.746E+05 4.343E+OI 6.5IOE+04 2074 1.746E+05 4.132E+OI 6.193E+04 2075 1.746E+05 3.930E+OI 5.891E+04 2076 1.746E+05 3.738E+OI 5.604E+04 2077 1.746E+05 3.556E+Ol 5.330E+04 2078 1.746E+05 3.383E+OI 5.070E+04 2079 1.746E+05 3.218E+Ol 4.823E+04 2080 1.746E+05 3.06IE+Ol 4.588E+04 2081 1.746E+05 2.911E+01 4.364E+04 2082 1.746E+05 2.769E+Ol 4.15IE+04 2083 1.746E+05 2.634E+OI 3.949E+04 2084 1.746E+05 2.506E+Ol 3.756E+04 2085 1.746E+05 2.384E+01 3.573E+04 2086 1.746E+05 2.267E+OI 3.399E+04 2087 1.746E+05 2.157E+OI 3.233E+04 2088 1.746E+05 2.052E+OI 3.075E+04 2089 1.746E+05 1.952E+Ol 2.925E+04 2090 1.746E+05 !.856E+OI 2.783E+04 2091 1.746E+05 1.766E+OI 2.647E+04 2092 1.746E+05 1.680E+OI 2.518E+04 2093 1.746E+05 1.598E+OI 2.395E+04 2094 1.746E+05 1.520E+OI 2.278E+04 2095 1.746E+05 !.446E+OI 2.167E+04 2096 1.746E+05 1.375E+OI 2.061E+04 2097 1.746E+05 1.308E+OI 1.961E+04 2098 1.746E+05 1.244E+OI 1.865E+04 2099 1.746E+05 1.184E+Ol 1.774E+04 2100 1.746E+05 1.126E+OI 1.688E+04 2101 1.746E+05 1.071E+OI 1.605E+04 2102 1.746E+05 1.019E+OI 1.527E+04 2103 1.746E+05 9.691E+OO 1.453E+04 2104 1.746E+05 9.219E+OO 1.382E+04 2105 1.746E+05 8.769E+OO 1.314E+04


I I

2106 1.746E+05 8.342E+OO 1.250E+04 2107 1.746E+05 7.935E+OO 1.189E+04

I 2108 l.746E+05 7.548E+OO 1.131E+04 2109 1.746E+05 7.180E+OO 1.076E+04 2110 1.746E+05 6.829E+OO 1.024E+04 2111 1.746E+05 6.496E+OO 9.738E+03 -2112 1.746E+05 6.180E+OO 9.263E+03 2113 l.746E+05 5.878E+OO 8.811E+03 • 2114 1.746E+05 5.591E+OO 8.381E+03 2115 1.746E+05 5.319E+OO 7.972E+03 2116 1.746E+05 5.059E+OO 7.584E+03 2117 1.746E+05 4.813E+OO 7.214E+03 2118 1.746E+05 4.578E+OO 6.862E+03 2119 1.746E+05 4.355E+OO 6.527E+03 2120 1.746E+05 4.142E+OO 6.209E+03 -2121 1.746E+05 3.940E+OO 5.906E+03 • 2122 1.746E+05 3.748E+OO 5.618E+03 2123 1.746E+05 3.565E+OO 5.344E+03 2124 1.746E+05 3.391E+OO 5.083E+03 -2125 1.746E+05 3.226E+OO 4.836E+03 2126 1.746E+05 3.069E+OO 4.600E+03 2127 1.746E+05 2.919E+OO 4.375E+03 2128 1.746E+05 2.777E+OO 4.162E+03 2129 1.746E+05 2.641E+OO 3.959E+03 2130 1.746E+05 2.512E+OO 3.766E+03 2131 1.746E+05 2.390E+OO 3.582E+03 2132 1.746E+05 2.273E+OO 3.408E+03 2133 1.746E+05 2.162E+OO 3.241E+03 2134 l.746E+05 2.057E+OO 3.083E+03 2135 1.746E+05 1.957E+OO 2.933E+03 2136 1.746E+05 1.861E+OO 2.790E+03 2137 1.746E+05 1.770E+OO 2.654E+03 2138 1.746E+05 1.684E+OO 2.524E+03 2139 1.746E+05 1.602E+OO 2.401E+03 2140 1.746E+05 1.524E+OO 2.284E+03 2141 1.746E+05 1.450E+OO 2.173E+03 2142 1.746E+05 1.379E+OO 2.067E+03 2143 1.746E+05 1.312E+OO 1.966E+03 2144 1.746E+05 1.248E+OO 1.870E+03 2145 1.746E+05 1.187E+OO 1.779E+03 2146 1.746E+05 1.129E+OO 1.692E+03 2147 1.746E+05 1.074E+OO 1.610E+03 -2148 1.746E+05 1.021E+OO 1.531E+03 2149 1.746E+05 9.717E-01 1.456E+03 2150 1.746E+05 9.243E-OI 1.385E+03 2151 1.746E+05 8.792E-OI !.318E+03 2152 1.746E+05 8.363E-01 1.254E+03 2153 1.746E+05 7.955E-OI 1.192E+03 2154 1.746E+05 7.567E-OI 1.134E+03 2155 1.746E+05 7.198E-OI 1.079E+03 2156 1.746E+05 6.847E-01 I.026E+03 2157 1.746E+05 6.513E-OI 9.763E+02 2158 1.746E+05 6.196E-01 9.287E+02 2159 1.746E+05 5.893E-OI 8.834E+02 2160 1.746E+05 5.606E-OI 8.403E+02 2161 1.746E+05 5.333E-OI 7.993E+02 2162 1.746E+05 5.072E-01 7.603E+02 2163 1.746E+05 4.825E-OI 7.232E+02 2164 1.746E+05 4.590E-OI 6.880E+02 2165 1.746E+05 4.366E-01 6.544E+02 2166 1.746E+05 4.153E-01 6.225E+02 2167 1.746E+05 3.950E-01 5.921E+02


2168 1.746E+05 3.758E-01 5.633E+02 2169 1.746E+05 3.575E-OI 5.358E+02 2170 1.746E+05 3.400E-OI 5.097E+02 2171 1.746E+05 3.234E-01 4.848E+02 2172 1.746E+05 3.077E-OI 4.612E+02 2173 1.746E+05 2.927E-01 4.387E+02 2174 1.746E+05 2.784E-01 4.173E+02 2175 1.746E+05 2.648E-OI 3.969E+02 2176 1.746E+05 2.519E-01 3.776E+02 2177 1.746E+05 2.396E-01 3.592E+02 2178 1.746E+05 2.279E-OI 3.416E+02 2179 1.746E+05 2.168E-OI 3.250E+02 2180 1.746E+05 2.062E-OI 3.091E+02 2181 1.746E+05 1.962E-OI 2.940E+02 2182 1.746E+05 1.866E-OI 2.797E+02 2183 1.746E+05 1.775E-01 2.661E+02 2184 1.746E+05 1.688E-01 2.531E+02 2185 1.746E+05 1.606E-OI 2.407E+02 2186 1.746E+05 1.528E-OI 2.290E+02 2187 1.746E+05 1.453E-OI 2.178E+02 2188 1.746E+05 L382E-01 2.072E+02 2189 1.746E+05 1.315E-OI 1.971E+02 2190 1.746E+05 1.251E-OI 1.875E+02 2191 1.746E+05 1.190E-01 1.783E+02 2192 1.746E+05 l.132E-01 1.697E+02 2193 1.746E+05 l.077E-01 1.614E+02 2194 1.746E+05 1.024E-01 1.535E+02 2195 1.746E+05 9.742E-02 1.460E+02 2196 1.746E+05 9.267E-02 l.389E+02 2197 1.746E+05 8.815E-02 l.321E+02 2198 1.746E+05 8.385E-02 1.257E+02 2199 1.746E+05 7.976E-02 1.196E+02 2200 1.746E+05 7.587E-02 1.137E+02 2201 1.746E+05 7.217E-02 1.082E+02 2202 1.746E+05 6.865E-02 1.029E+02 2203 1.746E+05 6.530E-02 9.788E+OI 2204 1.746E+05 6.212E-02 9.311E+OI 2205 1.746E+05 5.909E-02 8.857E+OI 2206 1.746E+05 5.620E-02 8.425E+01 2207 1.746E+05 5.346E-02 8.014E+OI 2208 1.746E+05 5.086E-02 7.623E+OI 2209 1.746E+05 4.838E-02 7.251E+OI 2210 1.746E+05 4.602E-02 6.897E+Ol 2211 1.746E+05 4.377E-02 6.561E+Ol


APPENDIXK

NOISE MODELING INFORMATION

NOISE APPENDIX

a BASELINE SOUND LEVEL DATA REPORTS

a CERTIFICATES OF EQUIPMENT CALIBRATION

a ACOUSTIC MODEL OUTPUT

Northa111pton Regional Sanitary Landfill R4- Park Hill Road Residences

CEL SoundTrack- dB2 3.0 ~5 CEL Instruments Ltd 1998

- Run summary -

Instrument Instrument ID (DPB) Run mode

CEL-593.C1 T Version 7.21 Type 1

Run stan Run end Run duration Last calibration ~casurementrange

~ ic.rophonc response Polarizing voltage Time VoiCighting Frequency weighting Exchange rate (Q) Period time Periods too short lor LNs Profiles recorded Profile sample interval Number ol'rcc.ordo;

112240 Octave band Environmental 10/18/2004 09:29:10 10/18/2004 09:59:10 000 00:30:00.56 10/18/2004 09:23:43 5-80 dB Random Incidence 011' F L,A 3 30min No No 1 s 1

Events enabled No

Overload occurred Y cs Low battery occurr~.o'£1 No Pause v;as used No

-Cumulative period results-

Number or records Run stan 10/18/2004 09:29:10 Run duration 000 00:30:00.56 Overload occurred Yes Overload %time 0.00 Low battery occurred No Pause '"'as used No

Band (liz) Fw Lcq (dB) Broadband L 62.0 Broadband A 46.4 16 L 51.5 "') .)~ L 50.2 63 L 51.9 125 L 53.3 250 L 46.4 500 L 39.8 1k L 38.3 2k L 38.8 4k L 39.6 8k L 36.2 16k L 28.5

SPL~AX F (dB) LN1 0.0% F (dB) LN50.0% F (dB) LN90.0% F (dB) 77.1 66.0 57.0 54.0 59.9 50.0 43.0 40.0 69.7 54.0 48.0 45.0 66.6 52.0 49.0 47.0 67.5 53.0 49.0 47.0 74.1 51.0 44.0 42.0 67.2 45.0 40.0 38.0 54.8 42.0 37.0 35.0 46.7 41.0 37.0 35.0 50.0 43.0 36.0 32.0 52.6 44.0 36.0 28.0 53.3 40.0 31.0 23.0 43.8 32.0 24.0 19.0

J1967

I I I ---• -•

-

-

-

Northampton Regional Sanitary Landfill R3- \Vest Hampton Road Residences

CEL SoundTrack- dB2 3.0 ({;: CEL Instruments Ltd 1998

- Run summary -

ln'ltrumont ln'ltrumont ID (DPB) Run mode Run start Run end Run duration Last c.a I ibra tion Measurement range Microphone n.'Spon'le Polari:.dng voltage Time weighting Frequency weighting Exchange rate (Q) Period time Periods too short for LNs Prolilcs recorded Prolile sample interval Number of record'!

Event::: enabled

Overload occurred Low battery occurred Pause \-vas uHed

CEL-593.C1 T Version 7.21 Type 1 112240 Octave band Environmental 10/18/2004 10:25:35 1 0/18/2004 10:55:40 000 00:30:05.82 1 0/18/2004 1 0: 13 :03 15-90 dB Random Inddence on· F L,A 3 30 min No No 1 s 1

No

No No No

-Cumulative period rcsulL'l-

Number of record'! 1 Run start 10/18/2004 10:25:35 Run duration 000 00:30:05.82 Overload occ-urred No Overload %time 0.00 Low battery occurred No Pause \·vas uHed No

Band (liz) Fv.· Leq (dB) SPLMAX F (dB) LN1 0.()% F (dB) LN50.0'% F (dB) LN90.(Y% F (dB) Broadband L 59.5 Broadband A 45.4 16 L 51.2 "'> .)~ L 52.0 63 L 52.1 125 L 46.0 250 L 4l.2 500 L 39.8 1k L 39.3 2k L 37.8 4k L 38.1 8k L 36.3 16k L 30.4

72.8 62.0 58.0 55.0 58.0 47.0 45.0 43.0 63.1 54.0 49.0 45.0 69.0 54.0 50.0 4 7.0 64.7 55.0 49.0 45.0 57.5 48.0 44.0 41.0 54.7 58.4 53.5 45.8 50.5 50.3 46.6

43.0 42.0 42.0 40.0 41.0 39.0 34.0

39.0 37.0 38.0 36.0 39.0 36.0 37.0 35.0 37.0 33.0 35.0 30.0 28.0 23.0

J1967

Northampton Regional Sanitary Landfill R2 -Glendale Road Residences (North)

CEL SoundTrack- dB2 3.0 ~:;; CEL InstrumcnL'l Ltd 1998

- Run summary -

Instrument Instrument JD (DPB) Run mode

CEL-593.Cl T Version 7.21 Type 1 112240

Run start Run end

Octave band Environmental 10/18/2004 12:45:13 10/18/200413:15:15

Run duration 000 00:30:02.86 Last calibration 10/18/2004 12:33:11 Measurement range 15 - 90 dB Mic-rophone response Random InC-idence Polari:dng voltage on· Time weighting F Frequency '"1eighting L, A Exchange rate (Q) 3 Period time 30 min Periods too short lor LNs No Profiles rec-orded No Profile sample interval l s Number of record.;; 1

EvcnL'l enabled No

Overload occurred No Low bauery occurred No Pause \vas used No

- Cumulative period rcsulL'l -

Number of records 1 Run start 10/18/2004 12:45:13 Run duration 000 00:30:02.86 Overload occurred No Overload %-.time 0.00 Low bauery oeeurred No Pause was u..;;cd No

Band (I Iz) F\"t Lcq (dB) SPLMAX F (dB) LNHHl% F (dB) LN50.<l% F (dB) LN90.0% F (dB) Broadband L 63.6 81.9 66.0 60.0 57.0 Broadband A 47.4 58.3 50.0 46.0 44.0 16 L 52.8 74.5 55.0 49.0 46.0 ..,') ~~ L 54.6 70.6 57.0 52.0 48.0 63 L 55.1 68.8 58.0 53.0 49.0 125 L 52.4 61.3 55.0 52.0 47.0 250 L 48.4 64.3 52.0 43.0 37.0 500 L 44.9 60.0 48.0 41.0 38.0 1k L 41.1 53.7 43.0 40.0 37.0 2k L 38.8 48.9 41.0 38.0 34.0 4k L 35.5 48.8 39.0 32.0 29.0 8k L 34.7 52.9 38.0 32.0 30.0 16k L 26.0 41.7 30.0 21.0 19.0

J1967

I I I --• --

-

Northampton Regional Sanitary Landfill Rl -Glendale Road Residences (South)

CEL SoundTrack- dB2 3.0 :t~ CEL Instruments Ltd 1998

- Run surrnnary -

Imtrumcnt Jnc;trumcnt ID (DPB) Run mode

CEL-593.C1T Version 7.21 Type l

Run start Run end Run duration Last calibration Measurement range Microphone rcspon.'le Polari:ang voltage Time weighting Frequency weighting Exchange rate (Q) Period time Periods too short lor LNs Profiles recorded Profile sample interval Number of records

Events enabled

Overload occurred Low battery occ-urred Pause \'l.'llS u..:;ed

112240 Oc-tave band Environmental 10/18/200413:55:55 10/18/2004 14:25:55 000 00:30:00.36 10/18/200413:15:02 15-90 dB Random Incidence o1r F L,A 3 30min No No 1 s 1

No

No No No

-Cumulative period results -

Number of records 1 Run start 1 0/18/2004 13:55 :55 Run duration 000 00:30:00.36 Overload oc-curred No Overload %time 0.00 Low battery occurred No Pause was used No

Band(lh:) Fw Lcq (dB) Broadband L 66.9 Broadband A 53.2 16 L 56.8 "') .)~ L 54.8 63 L 60.4 125 L 56.7 250 L 49.7 500 L 48.4 lk L 49.6 2k L 45.5 4k L 41.5 8k L 35.8 16k L 25.6

SPLMAX F (dB) LN1 0.0% F (dB) LN50.0% F (dB) LN90.0% F (dB) 81.0 71.0 63.0 58.0 69.3 56.0 50.0 46.0 74.6 60.0 53.0 47.0 78.3 57.0 51.0 46.0 76.1 64.0 54.0 47.0 72.5 60.0 51.0 45.0 69.3 53.0 45.0 39.0 67.6 51.0 45.0 40.0 64.9 53.0 46.0 41.0 61.6 49.0 43.0 39.0 57.5 44.0 40.0 35.0 54.5 38.0 34.0 29.0 45.3 28.0 24.0 20.0

J1967

CASELLA-usA

CERTIFICATE OF CALIBRATION

Equipment Information

Model No.: Serial No.: Manufacturer:

Calibration References

Certificate # 058059

CEL-284/2 4/10023279 CEL INSTRUMENTS

Casella USA hereby certifies that the above listed instrument has been tested according to the manufacturer's specifications and meets the requirements of the relevant American National Standards Institute (ANSn Standatd for Sound Calibrators Sl.40- 1984

Calibration Information

This instrument was calibiated against standards which are either traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NlST) or they have been derived by approved ratio techniques.

Sound Pressure Calibration Results

The data represents the Sound Pressure level of the calibrator corrected for atmospheric conditions at the time of calibration.

Nominal Value Tolerance As Received As Adjusted Frequency (Hz) 1,000 ±5.0 100.2 100.2 Level (dB) 113.8 ±0.3 113.7 113.8 Voltage (m V) 100.0 ±1.0 99.7 100.0

NOTE: To utilize this calibration a small correction factor may be required. Refer to the CEL Handbook.

Atmospheric Conditions

Temperature: 24 oc Relative Humidity: 36 % Static Pressure: 1002 mbar

Caltbrated by:~~ Dale: 10129/03 S ·ce Engineer

Casella USA 17 Old Nashua Road# 15 Amherst, NH 03031

Email [email protected] ca/cert3.doc issue 1.0 08101197 - -

Tel: 800-366-2966 603-672-0031

FAX: 603-672-8053

I I I --• -•

-

-

-

-

CERTIFICATE OF TRACEABILITY

Equipment Information

Model No.: Serial No.: Manufacturer:

Traceability Information

Certificate # 058004

CEL- 593.100 3/0232066 CEL INSTRUMENTS

The acoustic performance of this instnnnenl was verified against standards which are either traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NISn or they have been derived by approved ratio techniques.

Sound Pressure Acoustic Results

The data represents the response of the sound level meter to the reference source corrected for atmospheric conditions at the titne of calibration.

Nominal Value Tolerance Level (dB) 114.0

Atmospheric Conditions

Temperature: Relative Humidity: Static Pressure:

24 45

lOll

±0.7

oc % mbar

Vcrirredby:~ ~ Service Engineer

Date: 08/07/03

Casella CEL 17 Old Nashua Road #I 5 Amherst. NH 03031

Email [email protected] calcert3.doc issue 1.0 08/0J/97

-- -

Results 114.0

Tel: 800-366-2966 603-672-003 t

FAX: 603-672-8053

I Tech Environmental, Inc. I

Sound Level Calculation Summary - NSA 1 IDEI\TII<'ICA TIO~ I Dcscripti on: 1\'orthampton Sanitary Landfill Expansion Date: UZ/17/ZUU5 -Comments: Existing Conditions File: . ./I 967!1'\oisc!dBA _Cales_ final -I~PlT Ttn'AL DISTA~CE

Distance: ~feet Reference Distance: feet

Arl't:-~LAHO~ CALCLLATIO~ --Octa,·e Ba11d Center frequency (Hz) dBA 32 63 ill ~ 51111 lK lli 4K 8K 16K -

Reference Spectrum (I) 113 1 ()3 lUI 97 9() !;!; !;S S6 !;4 !;2 !;0

Atmospheric Attenuation (Z) ().l)3 0.()4 u.z 0.4 n.9 1.6 3.5 ]().5 37.1 74.3

Acoustical Shielding (3) n.o u.n 1).(1 n.o !).() o.n 0.0 n.n u.n o.n

Soft Ground Attenuation (4) -1.0 -I.U -J.U 5.9 Z.9 -1.5 -2.1 -Z.I -Z.1 -2.1

Ref Spec - Attcn 111 1()4 IOZ 9H !;3 H4 SH S4 75 47 H

l'otal Attcn (dB A) ~

CALCLLA'I'IO~ 01<' MHSt:· LEVEL AT ~SA

Hemispherical Divergence zs dB A

Acoustic Max Factor 6 dB A

Calculated Maximum Sound Le,·el L(1nax) 57 dBA -l:sagc Fat.'tor 3 dB A

Calculated Energy-Averaged Sound Level L(eq) 54 dBA

Calculated t:-nergy-Anraged l<'requeiJCY Levels L(eq) Octan Band Ce1Jter l<'requency (Hz)

32 63 125 2511 51111 IK 2K 4K 8K '16K 75 73 69 55 56 59 56 47 IS -21

MEASLRED A~D CALCLLATED SOt;~J) LEVEL A I' ~SA

Measured t:-nergy-Al'eraged Sound Lel'el L(eq) 53 dBA

Estimated Range of Existing Energy-A l'eraged Sound Level L(eq) 53 to 54 dBA

REI<'ERt:~Ct:-S

(1) Bolt, Beranek and 1\·cwman Inc., Power Plant Constmction 1\oisc Guide, 1977 and fi·om Bolt, Beranek and 1\'cwrnan Inc., Electric Power Plant Environmental 1\oisc Guide, 19H4.

(Z) !\.1\SI S J.Z6-I 995 Method for Calculation of the Absorption of Sound by the Atmosphere (3) Z.Mackawa, APPLIED ACOLSTICS, l( 196S), I 57-173. (4) ISO% I 3-2 Acoustics Attenuation of Sound During Propagation Outdoors, 1996.

Tech Environmental, Inc.

l Sound Level Calculation Summar}· - NSA 2 IDE"TII<'ICA"I'IOJ\

I Description: 1\'orthampton Sanitary Landfill Expansion Date: 02/17/2005 Com moots: Existing Conditions File: .. /1967/1\oisc/dBA _Calcs_finaJ

111\'Pt.:T TOTAL DISTAJ\C£.


I IA'ITEJ\t.:ATIOJ\ CALCt.:LA"I'IOI'\

I Octave Band Center l<'requency (Hz)

!1M. 32 63 125 2511 ~ lK 2K 4K 8K 16K

Reference Spectrum ( 1) 93 103 101 97 90 ss ss so S4 S2 so

IAimosphcric Attenuation (2) 0.03 0.()5 0.2 tl.6 1.2 2.() 4.4 13.2 46.9 93.7

Acoustical Shielding (3) 0.() ll.U ll.ll O.tl 0.() ti.O (),() 0.0 li.O ().()

lsoft Ground Attenuation (4) -n.s -0.8 -I. I 5.S 2.8 -1.6 -2.2 -2.2 -2.2 -2.2

Ref Spec - Attcn 91 1()4 lll2 98 83 S4 S7 84 73 37 -12

ITotall\ttcn (dB A) .f

CALCt.:LATIOJ\ 01<'1'\0ISE· LEVEL AT 1'\SA

I Hemispherical Divergence 3() diM.

Acoustic Ma.'\: Factor 6 dB A

I Calculated Maximum Sound Level L(max) 55 dBA

Lsagc Factor 3 dB A

I Calculated Energy-A'\·eraged Sound Level L(eq) 52 dBA

1

Calculated Energy-A '\'eraged l<'requency Le'\·els L(eq) Octa1.·e Band Center l<'requency (Hz)

32 63 125 2511 51111 'IK 2K 4K 8K 16K 73 71 67 53 53 57 53 42 7 -42

I IMEASt.:RED AI'\D CALCt.:LA'I'ED SOt.:I'\D LEVEL AT 1'\SA

1\.leasured Energy-Averaged Sound Level L(eq) 47 dBA

I E-stimated Ra11ge of Existing l:.)tergy-A \'eraged Sound Level L(eq) 47 to 52 d8A

REI<'EREI'\CES

I (I) Bolt, Be~·andc and 1\c\vman Inc., Power Plant Constmction 1\oisc Guide, 1977 and ft·om Holt, Beranek and 1\cwman Inc., Electric PO\vcr Plant Environmental 1\oisc Guide, 1984.

(2) t\ 1\'SI S I .26-1995 Method for Calculation of the Absorption of Sound by the Atmosphere

(3) Z.Mackawa, APPLIED ACOLSTICS, 1(1968), 157-173.

1(4) ISO 9613-2 Acoustics Attenuation of Sound During Propagation Outdoors, I 996.


Sound Level Calculation Summary -NSA 3 IDEI\TIIIICA "I'IOJii I Description: 1\orthampton Sanitary Landfill Expansion Date: 02/17/2005 -Comments: Existing Conditions File: ../1967/1\.oisc/dBt\ - Cal cs_ fi naJ

ll'iPt:·r Ttri'AL DIS.I'AI'iCE

Distance: ~feet Reference Distance: feet -A'IT[.JiiLATIOI'i CALCt:LATIOI'i

• Octave Baud Center Frequency (Hz)

dBA 32 63 125 2511 51111 lli 2K 4K !i!i !!ili -Reference Spectrum ( 1) 93 103 HII 97 I)(} l->N Sl-> l-16 !\4 !\:?. NO

Atmospheric Attenuation (2) 0.04 0.06 ().:?. ().6 1.3 :?..2 4.l-> 14.4 51.1 )():?..3

Acoustical Shielding (3) ().() 0.0 0.0 ().() 0.0 0.0 0.0 ().() ().() 0.0

Soft Ground Attenuation (4) -0.7 -0.7 -1.1 5.7 :?..l-1 -1.6 -:?..3 -2.3 -:?..3 -:?..3

Ref Spec - Attcn fJI 1()3 ]()) I)}; S3 !\4 l->7 !\3 n 33 -:?.0

Total Attcn (dBA) J.

CALCt:LA.I'IOI'i ()It' Jli(HSE LEVEL A'l' l'iSA

Hemispherical Divergence 31 dB!\

Acoustic Max Factor 6 dB!\.

Calculated l\la:ximum Sound Level L(max) 54 dBA

Lsagc Factor 3 dB!\

Calculated Energy-A11eraged Sound Level L(eq) 51 dBA

Calculated [-11ergy-Averaged Frequency Levels L(eq) Octa,·e Band Center l<'requency (Hz)

32 63 125 2511 51111 IK 2K 4K 8K 16K n 70 67 5:?. 53 56 5:?. 41 :?. -51

1\tEASt.:RED Al'iD CALCLLAI'ED SOt:l'iD LEVEL A I' l'iSA

Measured Energy-Anraged Sound Lenl L(eq) 45 dBA

Estimated Range oft::-xisti11g Energy-Averaged Sound Level L(eq) 45 to 51 dBA

REI<'EREl"iCES (I) Bolt, Beranek and 1\cwman Inc., Power Plant Constmction 1\'oisc Guide, 1977

and fi·om Bolt, Bcraoclc and 1\cwmao Inc., Electric Power Plant Environmental 1\ oisc Guide, 19!\4.

(:?.) A 1\'SI S J .26-1995 Method for Calculation of the Absorption of Sound by the Atmosphere

(3) .Z.Maclcawa, APPLIED ACOLSHCS, I ( 196S), 157-173.

(4) ISO 9613-?. Acoustics Attenuation of Sound During Propagation Outdoors, 1996.


l Sound Level Calculation Summary - NSA 4 IDEI'ITII<'ICATIOI'i

I Description: l':orthampton Sanitary Landfill Expansion Date: 02/17/2005 Comments: Existing Conditions File: ..!1967/l':oisc/dBA Cales final

lll'iPLT TOTAL DISTAI'iCE


I IAri'EI'il:ATIOI'i CALCI.:LA"I'IOI'i

I Octan Baud Center l<'requency (Hz)

dBA 32 63 125 2511 Sill lK 2K 4K 8K 16K

Reference Spectrum ( 1) 93 lll3 lUI 97 90 ss ss S6 S4 S2 Sll

!Atmospheric Attenuation (2) 0.04 0.06 0.2 0.6 l.3 2.3 5.0 15.0 53.1 106.3

Acoustical Shielding (3) 0.0 o.o o.o ll.ll ll.ll ll.l) 0.0 ll.ll O.ll O.ll

I soft Ground Attenuation (4) -0.7 -0.7 -1.1 5.7 ::!.S -1.6 -2.3 -2.3 -2.3 -2.3

Ref Spec - Atten 911 103 Ill I 9S S3 S4 S7 S3 7! 31 -24

l·rotal Attcn (dB A) J

CALCI.:LATIOI'i 01<' MHSE LEVEL AI' JliSA

I Hemispherical Divergence 31 dnA

Acoustic Max Factor 6 dnA

'Calculated Maximum Sound Level L(max) 53 dBA

(sage Factor 3 dB A


'Calculated Energy-Averaged Frequency Le-.rels L(eq) Octave Band Center l<'requency (Hz)

32 63 125 2511 511(1 1K 2K 4K 8K 16K 72 70 66 52 52 56 52 40 -I -56

I IMEASI.:RED Al'iD CALCL;LATED SOt:JiiD LEVEL A I' JliSA

Measured Energy-Averaged Sound Le\·el L(eq) 46 dBA

I Estimated Range ~tf 1':-xisting Energy-Averaged S~tund Level L(eq) 46 til 511 dB A

REI<'EREJiiCES

I (I) Bolt, Beranek and 1\ cwman Inc., Power Plant Constmction 1\oisc Guide, J 977

and from Bolt, Beranek and 1\cwman Inc., Electric Power Plant Envimnmcntal 1\oisc Guide, l9S4.

(2) A 1\"SI S 1.26-J 995 Method for Calculation of the Absorption of Sound by the Atmosphere

1(3) Z.Macka1va, APPLIED ACOLSTICS, l(l96S), !57-!73.

(4) ISO 96!3-2 Acoustics Attenuation of Sound During Propagation OutdoOI"s, 1996.


Sound Level Calculation Summary - NSA l IDE !'IT I FICA TIOI\ I Description: 1\orthampton Sanitary Landfill Expansion Date: 02/17/2005 -CommCf'lts: Horizontal Expansion !\ ltcrnativc File: .. /I 'i6 7/1\. oi sc/dB A _Calcs_finaJ -llliPLT TOTAL DIS"I'Al'iCE


A"ITEI\L"ATIOJii CALCL"LATIOJii • -Octave Band Center Frequency (Hz) dB A 32 63 125 2511 51111 lK 2K 4K l!K 16K •

Reference Spcctmm (I) ~ 103 lUI 1,17 ()() i\i\ i\i\ i\6 i\4 i\2 i\0

Atmospheric Attenuation (2) O.o3 0.04 0.1 0.4 O.'i 1.6 3.4 10.2 36.3 72.6 -Acoustical Shielding (3) 0.0 0.0 tl.ll 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ().() 0.0 tl.ll

Soft Ground A ttcnuati on ( 4) -1.0 -1.0 -O.'i 5.9 2.9 -1.4 -2.1 -2.1 -2.1 -2.1

Ref Spec - Attcn 9"1 104 102 'iii i\3 i\4 i\i\ i\4 76 4H 'i

Total Attcn (dBA) ~

CALCL:LATIOJii Ofi Jli()ISE LEVEL A"l' JliSA

Hemispherical Divergence 2i\ dB A


Calculated Maximum Sound Level (Lmax) 58 dBA -Lsagc Factor 3 dB A


Calculated Energy-Averaged Frequency Levels L(eq) Octave Band Center l<'requency (Hz)

32 63 125 2511 51111 lK 2K 4K l!K 16K 76 74 6'i 55 56 60 56 4i\ l'i -I 'i -

MEASL:RED AJiiD CALCL:LATE·D SOL:I\0 L£.\'TLAT JliSA

t:.stimated Range of Exiqting Energy-Averaged Sound Le,·el L(eq) 53 to 54 dBA

1\et Change in Etnironmental Sound Levels 11.2 dBA

t:-stimated Range of Future Energy-Averaged Sound Level L(eq) 53 to 55 dBA

REI<'EREI\Ct:.S (I) Bolt, Beranek and 1\cwman Inc., Power Plant Constmction 1\oisc Guide, I 977

and from Bolt, Beranek and 1\cwman Inc., Electric Power Plant Envimnmcntall\oisc Guide, l'ii\4. (2) A 1\SI S 1.26-1 'i'i5 Method for Calculation of the Absorption of Sound by the Atmosphere (3) Z.Mackawa, APPLIEDACOLSrtCS, 1(196il), 157-173. (4) I SO %1 3-2 Aeousti cs Attenuation of Sound During Propagation Outdoors, IW6.


I Sound Le"el Calculation Summar),. - NSA 2 IDEI'iTII<'ICA ·nol'i

I Dcscripti on: 1\orthampton Sanitary Landfill Expansion Date; 02/1 7/2005 Comments: Horizontal li1i:pansion Alternative File; ./1967/1\oisc/dBA Cales final

lll'iPt:T Ttri'AL DIS.I'AI'iCE


I IAri'EI'it:ATIOI'i CALCt:LA.I'IOI'i

I Octave Baud Ceuter llrequeucy (Hz)

!!!1. 32 63 125 250 51111 "IK 2K 4K l!K 16K

Ref e•·cncc Spcctmm (I) 93 103 )(II 97 90 ss ss S6 S4 S2 so

'Atmospheric Attenuation (2) 0.02 lL04 0.1 0.4 0.9 1.5 3.2 9.6 34.0 6S.O

1\coustical Shielding (3) ().() O.ll 0.0 ll.ll (l.ll ().() ().() 0.0 0.0 ().()

I soft Oround Attenuation (4) -1.1 -1.1 -0.9 5.9 3.0 -1.4 -2.1 -2.1 -2.1 -2.1

Ref Spec - Atten tl 104 102 9S S3 S4 ss S5 76 50 14

lrotal Attcn (dBA) ~

CALCt:LATIOI'i ()I<' J'i()ISE LEVEL AT l'iSA

I HcnJisphcrical Divergence 2S dB!\


I Calculated Maximum Sound Le,·el (Lmax) 51! dB A

Lsagc Factor 3 dB A

I Calculated Energy-Averaged Sound Level L(eq) 55 dBA

!Calculated Energy-Averaged l<'requency Levels L(eq) Octave Baud Center l<'requency (Hz)

32 63 125 250 500 1K 2K 4K l!K "16K

76 74 70 56 56 60 57 49 22 -14

I II\U:ASt:R.ED Al'iD CALCt:LATI::D SOt:l'iD LEVI::L A I' l'iSA

Estimated Ra11ge ef Exi~ting l::tlergy-Averaged Sound Le,·el L(eq) 47 to 52 dB A

ll'iet Cl1auge in l::nl-iro111nental Sound Levels 3.4 dBA

I Estimated R.a11ge Df l<'uture Energy-Averaged Seuud Lel•el L(eq) 511 to 55 dBA

I KEI<'E:·REI'iCES [ 1) Bolt, Beranek and 1\cwman Inc., Power Plant Constmction r-.·oisc Ouidc, 1977

I e)

and from Bolt, Beranek and 1\cv;man Inc., Electric PO\vcr Plant Environmental 1\oisc Guide, 19S4. At-."SI SL26-1995 Method for Calculation of the Absorption of Sound by the Atmosphere

[3) Z.Mackawa, APPLIED ACOLSrtCS, l(I96S), 157-173.

[4) ISO 9613-2 Acoustics Atll:nuation of Sound During Propagation Outdoors, 1996.


Sound Level Calculation Summary - NSA 3 ID~I'd'II<'ICATIO!Ii I Description: l'orthampton Sanitary Landfill Lxpansion Date: ll2/J7/2005 • Comments: Horizontal Expan.~ion Alternative File: .JJ 967/l'oisc/dUA Cales final -l!liPU' Ttn'AL JHSTA!IiC~


AT"I'~Jii(;ATIO!Ii CALCt;LA.I'IO!Ii • -Octa\·e Band Center l<'requmcy (Hz) dBA 32 63 ill 2511 51111 1K 2K 4K IlK !.lli •

Reference Spcct111m ( 1) 93 103 IOJ 97 90 ss 88 86 84 82 80

Atmospheric Attenuation (2) 0.()3 0.04 0.2 0.4 0.9 1.6 3.5 10.5 37.1 74.3 -Acoustical Shidding (3) 0.0 0.0 o.u ().() o.u 0.0 0.0 O.ll ll.ll ll.U

Soft Ground Attenuation (4) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 5.9 2.9 -1.5 -2.1 -2.1 -2.1 -2.1

Ref Spec - Atten 91 Jl)4 102 98 83 84 88 84 75 47 8

Total Attcn (dHA) ~

CALCt;LATIO!Ii OJ<' lliOIS~ L~VI::·L AT !liSA

HcnJisphcrical Divergence 28 dUA

Acoustic Max Factor 6 dUA

Calculated Maximum Sound Level (Lmax) 57 dBA -Lsagc Factor 3 dUA

Calculated ~nergy-Averaged Sound Level L(eq) 54 dBA

Calculated ~nergy-Averaged flrequency Levels L(eq) Octave Band Center Frequency (Hz)

32 63 125 250 suo 1K 2K 4K IlK 16K 75 73 69 55 56 59 56 47 IS -21 -

.1\t~ASt;Rt:.D A!liD CALCt;LATE·D S()(;JiiD L~V~L AT !liSA

[.stimated Range of ~xisting [~1ergy-A veraged Sound Level L(eq) 45 to Sl dBA

IIi et Change in ~•niromne11 tal Sou 11d Le\·els 3.4 dB A

~stimated Range of l<'uture l::·nergy-A \'eraged Sound Le\·el L(eq) 48 to 54 dBA

RE·I<'ERf::.JiiC~S

( l) Holt, Beranek and l'cwman Inc., Power Plant Construction l'oisc Guide, I 977

and from Uolt, Ucranck and 1\·cwman Inc., Electric PO\vcr Plant Envimnmcntal 1\"oisc Guide, 1984.

(2) AI\"SI S 1.26-1995 Method for Calculation of the Absorption of Sound by the Atmosphere

(3) Z.Mackawa, APPLIED ACOLSI"ICS, 1(1968), 157-173.

(4) ISO 9613-2 Acoustics Attenuation of Sound During Propagation Outdoors, 1996. -


I Sound Level Calculation Summary- NSA 4 IDEIIiTI .. 'IC.:ATIOJii

I Description: 1\orthampton Sanitary Landfill Expansion Date: 02/17/2(105 Comments: Horizontal Expansion 1\ ltcmativc File: .JI967/I\oisc/dBA _Cales_ final

IIJiiPL"T TO"I'AL DIS'I'AJiiC.:E

Distance: ~feet ltcfcrcncc Distance: feet

I 11\"JTEJiii.:A.I'IOJii CALCt:LA'I'IOJii

I

Octan Band Center l<'requency (Hz) dBA ll 63 ill 2511 51111 1K 2K 4K I!K 16K

ltcfcrcncc Spectrum ( 1). 93 103 101 97 90 !{!{ !{!{ S6 ll4 HZ Sll

'Atmospheric Attenuation (2) ll.ll5 ll.ll7 0.3 ll.ll 1.7 2.9 6.2 1ll.6 66.0 132.0

\coustical Shielding (3) 0.0 ll.ll O.ll O.ll lUI ().() ll.O O.ll ll.O 0.0

lsoft Ground Attenuation (4) -0.6 -0.6 -1.2 5.6 2.7 -1.7 -2.3 -2.3 -2.3 -2.3

tcf Spec - Attcn 911 103 101 9!{ S3 S3 S7 ll2 68 Ill -50

l-rotal Attcn (dBA) J

:::ALCL:LATIOJii 01<' JliOISE LEVEL AT JliSA

I Hemispherical Divergence 33 dB A

!\coustic Ma." Factor 6 dB A

l':alculated Maximum Sound Le\·el (Lmax) 51 dBA

,.;sage Factor 3 dB A

::alculated E11ergy-Anraged Sou11d Level L(eq) 41! dBA

!.Calculated E11ergy-Anraged l<'requency Le\·els L(eq) Octa\'e Band Center Frequency (Hz)

32 63 125 2511 5Utl IK 2K 4K I!K 16K 70 68 64 50 50 53 49 34 -15 -ll3

I IMEAS&;RED AJiiD CALC&;LA'I'ED SOt:JiiD LEVt:-L AT !liSA

~stimated Range of Exi~ting E11ergy-Averaged Sound Level L(eq) 46 to 50 dBA

ll'iet C.:l~allgeill Emironmental Souud Levels -2.4 dBA

I ~stimated Rauge of l<'uture 1::-nergy-Averaged Sou11d Level L(eq) 44 to 48 dBA

1 ~EI<'EREJiiCt:.S 1) Bolt, Beranek and "·c,vman Inc., Power Plant Construction "·oise Guide, I 977

lcz)

and from Bolt, Beranek and 1\c\vman Inc., Electric Power Plant Environmental 1\oisc Guide, 1984.

i\1\SI S I .26-1995 Method for Calculation of the Absorption of Sound by the Atmosphere

3) Z.Mackawa, APPLIED ACOLSTICS, I ( 1968), 157-173.

"4) ISO 961 3-Z Acoustics Attenuation of Sound During Propagation Outdo01-s, 1996.


Sound Level Calculation Summary- NSA 1 IDEI'ITI .. 'ICATIOI'i I Description: l'o1thampton Sanitary Landfill Expansion Date: 02/1 7i2005 -Comment~: Vertical Expansion Altcmativc File: ../I 967/1\:oiscidBA _Cales_ final -IJiiPt.:·r TO'I'AL DISTAI'I'CE


Ari'EJiit:A"I'IOJii CALClLATIOI'I' • -Octave Band Center .. ·requency (Hz) dBA 32 ~ us ll!! 51111 lK 2K 4K 8K !i!f. •

Reference Spectrum ( 1) 93 ]()3 ltll 97 90 ss liS !16 !14 !12 so

Aunosphcrie Attenuation (2) 0.02 tl.04 0.1 0.4 0.9 1.5 3.2 9.6 34.0 6!1.0 -Acoustical Shielding (3) 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 tl.tl 0.0 tl.O

Soft Ground Attenuation (4) -1.1 -I. I -0.9 5.9 3.0 -I .4 -2.1 -2.1 -2.1 -2.1

Ref Spec - Attcn 91 104 102 9S !13 S4 ss !15 76 50 14

Total Attcn (dB A) ~

CALClLATIOI'I' () .. ' JliOISE LEVEL AT JliSA

Hemispherical Divergence 2S dB A


Calculated Maximum Sound Level (Lmax) 58 dBA -Csagc Factor 3 dB A

Calculated Energy-Av·eraged Sound Lev·el L(eq) 55 dBA

Calculated Energy-Averaged Frequency Levels L(eq) Octav·e Band Center .. ·requency (Hz)

32 63 125 2511 51111 lK 2K 4K 8K 16K 76 74 70 56 56 60 57 49 22 -14 -

J\tEASlRED Al'iD CALClLATED SOll'iD LEVt:-L AT JliSA

Estimated Range of Existing Energy-A v·eraged Sound Level L(eq) 53 to 54 dBA

Jliet Cltange i11 Enviromne11tal Somtd Lev·els 11.9 dBA

Estimated Range of .. ·uture Energy-Averaged Sound Level L(eq) 54 to 55 dBA

RE .. 't:-Rt:.JiiCES (I) Bolt, Beranek and r-:cwman Inc., Power Plant Construction 1\:oisc Guide, I 977

and from Bolt, Beranek and 1\:cwman Inc., Elcca·ic Pmvcr Plant Environmental 1\oisc Guide, 19!14. (2) AI'S I S 1.26-1995 Method for Calculation of the Absorption of Sound by the Atmosphere (3) Z.Mackawa, APPLIEDACOCSfiCS, 1(196!1), 157-173. (4) ISO %13-2 Acoustics Attenuation of Sound During Propagation Outdoor.;, I 996.

-

' Tech Environmental, Inc.

I Sound Level Calculation Summar)'- NSA 2 IDI:]IdU'ICATIOJii

I Dcseri ption; 1\orthampton Sanitary Landfill Expansion Date; 02/17/2005

Comments: Vertical Expansion Altcmative File: Jl967/l\oisc/dBA _Cales _final

111\il't:T TOTAL DISTAJiiCE


I IA'ITEJiil:A'I'IOJii CALCL"LATIOJii

I Octave Band Ce11ter llrequency (Hz)

dBA Jl 63 125 l50 i!m ~ lK 4K liK 16K

Reference Spectrum ( l) 21 103 101 97 90 llll llH l\6 !14 H2 so

I Atmospheric Attenuation (2) ().()3 0.05 0.2 0.6 1.2 2.0 4.3 12.9 45.7 9].4

1\coustieaJ Shielding (3) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ().() 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

I soft Ground Attenuation (4) -0.!! -0.!1 -1.1 5.ll 2.!1 -1.5 -2.2 -2.2 -:!.2 -2.2

Ref Spec - Attcn 91 104 102 9H !13 !14 !17 l\4 73 3ll -9

l·rotal Attcn (dB A) ~

CALCI:LA'I'IOJii 011 JliOISI::· LEVE·L AT !liSA

I Hcn1ispherical Divergence 30 dB A

1\coustie Ma.'!( Factor 6 dB A

'Calculated Maximum Sound Level (Lmax) 55 dB A

lsagc Factor 3 dB!\

lt:alculated E11ergy-Averaged Sound Level L(eq) 5l dBA

'.Calculated Energy-A'\·eraged l<'requency Le'\·els L(eq) Octave Band Center Frequency (Hz)

3l 63 125 l511 51111 lK lK 4K 8K 16K

73 71 6ll 53 54 57 54 43 ll -40

I IMEASI:RED AJiiD CALCt.;LATED SO(;JiiD LEVEL AT JliSA

l:::stimated Range of Exiqting Energy-Averaged Sound Le...-el L(eq) 47 to 5l dBA

I Jliet Cha11ge il1 Ell'\'iromnental Sou11d Levels 11.3 dBA

I J::.stimated Range of l<'uture Energy-Averaged Sound Le,·el L(eq) 47 to 5l dBA

I «£1<'EREJiiCES

I) Bolt, Beranek and 1\cwman Inc., Power Plant Constmction 1\'oisc Guide, I 977

1(2) and fi·om Bolt, Beranek and 1\'cwman Inc., Electric Power Plant Environmental 1\oisc Guide, 19!14. AI\'SI S 1.26-1995 Method for Calculation of the Absorption of Sound by the Atmosphere

3) Z.Mackawa, APPLIED ACOLSI'ICS, 1(196!1), 157-173.

4) I SO 961 3-2 !\cousti cs Attenuation of Sound During Propagation Outdoors, I 996.


Sound Level Calculation Summary- NSA 3 IDEl'iTitiiCATIOl'i I Description: l'orthampton Sanitary Landfill Expansion Date: 02/17/2()05 • Comments: Vertical Expansion Altcmativc File: . ./1 967/l'oisc/dBA - Cales final -11\Pt:.l' HH'AL DISTAI\CE


A"ITEl'it:ATIOl'i CALCt:LATIOI\ • -Octave Band Center l<'requency (Hz)

!!!!1. 32 63 125 ill ill lK lli 4K SK 16K • Reference Spectrum (I) '13 103 101 97 90 l-ll-1 l-ll-1 l-16 l-14 l-12 l-10

Alrnosphcric Attenuation (2) tl.04 U.U6 0.2 U.6 1.3 2.3 5.0 15.0 53.1 ]()6.3 -Acoustical Shielding (3) (1.() 0.0 tl.O tl.O ll.tl 0.0 tl.O 0.0 0.0 0.0

Soft Ground Attenuation (4) -0.7 -0.7 -1.1 5.7 2.l-l -1.6 -2.3 -2.3 -2.3 -2.3

Ref Spec - Attcn 'Jtl 103 101 9l-l l-13 l-14 l-17 l-13 71 31 -24

rotal Attcn (di3A) J

CALCt:LA"I'IOl'i Ol<'l'iOISE LEVEL AI' 1\SA

Hemispherical Divergence 31 dB A


Calculated .Maximum Sound Le,·el (Lmax) 53 dB A -Lsagc Fat:tor 3 dB A

Calculated Energy-Averaged Sound Le,·el L(eq) 511 dBA

Calculated Energy-Averaged l<'requency Levels L(eq) Octave Band Center l<'requency (Hz)

32 63 125 23!1 31111 lK 2K 4K SK 16K 72 70 66 52 52 56 52 4() -I -56 -

MI::ASUU:-D Al'iD CALCt:LATED SOt:I\D LE\'1::-L AT l'iSA

Estimated Range of Existhtg Energy-Averaged Sound Level L(eq) 45 to 51 dBA

l'iet Cltange in Emironmeutal Sound Lenis -11.4 dUA

Esti1nated Ra11ge of l<'uture Energy-Averaged Sound Level L(eq) 45 to 511 dBA

REI<TREl'iCES ( 1) Bolt, Beranek and 1'\cwman Inc., Power Plant Constmction 1\"oisc Guide, 1977

and fi·om Bolt, Beranek and l'cwman Inc., Electric Power Plant Environmental l'oisc Guide, 19l-14.

(2) !\ 1\"SI SJ.26-1 995 Method for Calculation of the Absorption of Sound by the Atmosphere

(3) Z.Mackawa, APPLIED ACOLSTICS, 1( 196l-l), 157-173.

(4) ISO 9613-2 Acoustics Attenuation of Sound During Propagation Outdoon;, 1 996.


Sound Level Calculation Summary - NSA 4 IDEI'i'I'II<'ICATIOI'i

Dcscri pti on: Date: 02/17/2005

Con1mcnt>:

l\o1thampton Sanitary Landfill Expansion Vertical Expansion Alternativ-e File: .JJ 967/1\oisc/dBA_ Calcs_finaJ

ll'iPLT TO'I'AL DIS'I'AI'iCE

Distance: Reference Distance:

Ari'EJ\t:ATIOI'i CALCl:LATIOI'i

~feet ~feet

Octan Band Center l<'requeJlcy (Hz)

!!.M. 32 63 125 250 5011 lK 2K

Reference Spcctmm (I) 93 103 101 97 90 ss ss S6

Atmospheric Attenuation (2) 0.04 0.06 0.2 0.7 1.4 2.4 5.1

Acoustical Shielding (3) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Soft Gmund Attenuation (4) -0.7 -0.7 -1.1 5.7 2.S -1.6 -2.3

Ref Spec - Atten 911 103 Ill I 9S S3 S4 S7 S3

Total J\ttcn (dB!\) :l

tALCt:LATIOI'i ()!<' l'iOISE LEVEL A'l' l'iSA

,Hemispherical Divergence 3?. dB A


'Calculated Maximum Sound Level (Lmax) 53 dBA

Csagc Factor 3 dB!\

'Calculated Energy-Averaged Sound Le1.·el L(eq) 511 dBA

1 Calculated Energy-Averaged Frequency Levels L(eq)

Octan Band Center l<'requency (Hz) 32 63 125 2511 51111 lK 2K 72 70 66 52 52 55 51

I MEASL:RED Al'iD CALCl:LA'I'ED SOt:l'iD LEVEL AT l'iSA

Estimated Range of Existil1g Energy-Awraged Sound Level L(eq) 46 to 511

ll'iet Cl1ange in Etnironmental Sound Le'\'els -11.2 dBA

!Estimated Range of l<'uture Energy-Averaged Sound Level L(eq) 46 to 511

1 REI<'EREI'iCES

(I) Bolt, Beranek and 1\cwman Inc., Power Plant Constmction 1\oisc Guide, 1977

lc2)

and from Bolt, Beranek and 1\'cwman Inc., Electric Power Plant Environmcntall\'oisc Guide, 19H4.

A 1\SI S 1.26-1995 Method for Calculation of the Absorption of Sound by the !\lruosphcrc

(3) Z.Macka>va, APPLIED ACOl.SriCS, I( 196H), 157-173.

(4) ISO 9613-2 Acoustics Attenuation of Sound During Propagation Outdooi'S, 1996.

4K

S4

15.3

0.0

-2.3

71

4K 39

dB A

dBA

8K 16K

S2 so

54.3 IOS.6

0.() 0.0

-2.3 -2.3

30 -27

8K 16K -2 -5S

APPENDIXH

LITTER

SECTION 4.1.7.3 FROM FEIR

AND APPENDIX I FROM DEIR



A valve pit installed adjacent to the pump station is used to select the location to which the

leachate is pumped. The pump station can either pump the leachate directly to the sewer

system or to the onsite leachate pretreatment lagoons. Under normal operating

circumstances, the pump station will pump the leachate directly to the sewer system. There

are 2 pumps installed to provide an installed back-up pump. A second back-up replacement

pump is maintained by the City. If for some reason leachate cannot be pumped to the sewer

system, the on-site lagoons can be used to provide temporary storage.

4.1.4 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Same asDEIR

4.1.5 GAS COLLECTION SYSTEM

Same as DEIR. See FEIR Figure 4-2 which depicts the gas collection systems.

4.1.6 CAPPING SYSTEMS

Same as DEIR. See FEIR Figure 4-2 which depicts the limits of existing capped

areas.

4.1.7 LANDFILL OPERATIONS

4.1.7.1 Operating Permits and Daily Operations

SameasDEIR

4.1.7.2 Bird Control

SameasDEIR

4.1.7.3 Litter Control

Portable litter fencing around the active area of the landfill provides containment of

windblown litter. Permanent litter fencing is also used on the south side of the site to help



Insert Figure 4-2

12/05 4-7


Dufresne-Henry



with litter carried by prevailing wind. Windblown litter that breaches the fencing is actively

retrieved on an as needed basis.

To limit the occurrence of off-site litter during transportation on City streets, the City of

Northampton adopted an ordinance governing the transport of solid waste materials. The

ordinance requires that the transport of all solid waste within the City limits shall be secured

such that none of the transported material can escape the vehicle during transport. Cargo

holds transporting loose solid waste remain closed or secured by tarps until the drivers are

directed by the landfill operator to discharge their load. This ordinance provides litter control

by limiting the locations and extent of potential litter. Repeat violators are subject to

increasing fines and possible suspension of their refuse disposal permit. A copy of the

ordinance is in DEIR Appendix I.

The Northampton Department ofPublic Works (DPW) and the Landfill Operator, Solid

Waste Solutions (SWS) are jointly responsible for litter control within the facility and

surrounding neighborhood. The "Contract for the Operations of the Integrated Solid Waste

Management Facility" requires SWS to control litter on- and off-site on a continuous basis.

Excerpts from the operations contract are provided below. (Note that ISWM stands for

Integrated Solid Waste Management, and means the Northampton Landfill, recycling and

composting operation on Glendale Road):

"Section 4.4: General Duties

The laborer/maintenance person duties should include but are not limited to: white goods

handling and inspection, litter and debris pickup along major roads leading to the Facility

for one-half (112) mile in any direction (including but not limited to Glendale Road, West

Farms Road, and Westhampton Road) and the ISWM Facility perimeter on a daily and

as-needed basis, maintenance of the ISWM Facility entrances, scalehouse and residential

drop-off area, and routine maintenance of the scale and gas management systems.



Section 6.1: General Operations


The Contractor will be responsible for maintaining the entire vicinity in and around the

scalehouse area and the residential drop-off areas, including but not limited to litter and

debris pickup, dust/odor/vector control, periodical cleaning catch basins, mowing,

sweeping, raking, snow removal, sanding, and signage placement/maintenance.

Section 10.3: Litter Control

Blowing litter will be controlled by the placement of an adequate length of fifteen-foot

(15 ') high portable fences, to be placed around the active working face. These screens

must be constructed so that they may be moved as the working face of the landfill

moves."

The entire landfill site as well as all approach/entrance/access roads and abutting properties

must be policed regularly. Unloading must be performed so as to minimize the scattering

and blowing oflitter.

Since the spring of2003, the DPW has paid crews from the Hampshire County Correctional

Facility Work Release Program to perform an extensive roadside cleanup every spring.

MassHighway contributes trash bags, work gloves and litter pickup equipment, and SWS

contributes roadside pickup services. The spring cleanup program is performed as a

community service, since most of the litter collected is not associated with the landfill in any

way. The pickup route covers more than 8.5 miles of roadways, including Glendale Road

(1.6 miles), West Farms Road (.73 miles), Ryan Road (2.0 miles) and Route 66 (4.2 miles).

All loads of materials delivered to the ISWM Facility must be in full compliance with the

City's "covered load" ordinance. The intent of this ordinance is to require sufficient cover or

restraint to prevent the accidental release of any materials en-route to the Facility. Whenever

the DPW receives a complaint about debris on a roadway, it is immediately investigated and

removed by SWS or City employees.


APPENDIX I

NORTHAMPTON CITY ORDINANCE

Public Notice The City of Northampton has adopted new Ordinances governing the transport of solid w materials. Commencing on February l, 1999, any vehicle transporting garbage, refuse, brush & waste, recyclable materials, construction & demolition waste, scrap metal, or any other :su .• ult'''i'~.'

waste, which is improperly secured and not held in place, shaH be subject to refuse secu fees, (ranging from $10.00 to $25.00 for a first offense), in addition to any applicable

Waste". (Refer to the ordinance definitions on the reverse side of this notice.)

1 An example of properly securing a load of loose solid ;.vaste is illustrated beiow:

The load of loose solid waste is completely covered with a t:arp or other durable material.

Nothing sticks out from around the tarp or top of pickup bed.

Tailgate ------ in place.

held in place with tie downs or other approved means (rope, i.e.)

An example of properly securing a load of bulky solid waste is illustrated below:

The load of bulky solid waste items are securely tied down with ropes or cords.

Nothing is capable of falling off the truck bed and on to

Tailgate in place.

Entire load must be held securely in place so that nothing can out or blow out on to the roadway.

waste male rial" shall include but not be limited to stoves, and other large furniture, mattresses, rolls refuse in waste items which must be held in in the vehicle ropes, cords or materials so that the solid waste materials cannot fall. bounce or blow out of the vehicle onto the roadway.

" "Loo~>e Solid Waste": The term "loose solid waste" shall refer to of waste material including but not limited to leaves, paper, roof shingles, materials and other items thrown into the rear of a vehicle and which must be enclosed the sides of the vehicle and a tarp or other covering which

and prevents it from or from the vehicle

" secured load" shall refer to aU solid waste materials either or loose, or DPW Transfer Station which is in dosed vehicles, closed

containers, or sealed plastic hags, and is either covered with a tarp or other covering, which encloses it ru: is tied with ropes or other materials so that it is securely held in All material must be securely tied down or covered so that neither it nor any of its parts can fall out of or blow out of the vehicle onto the or "''-'Ji'"·'~"' nrr"'"'"'''<

"' "SoUd Waste": The term "Solid Waste" shaH refer to all materials being transported to the Landfill or DPW Transfer Station for disposal and/or recycling including, but not limited to u'le following: brush, construction & demolition material, garbage, household refuse, material, scrap metal, tires, used appliances, used and waste ..

12:8 &qwremtnts for Transporting Solid Waste; Fees for Non-compliance

., Waste shall be collected and transported in vehicles in good with water and/or tightly covered AU such shall be kept covered except at such times as the solid waste is being placed therein or removed therefrom.

., All solid waste to the Landfill or the DPW

" secured loads of solid waste Im,,,.. . ..,.,..,..-~vsecured Load Fee for each ofilie first five offenses, in addition to

oilier applicable refuse disposal charges. For each subsequent offense the secured load fee shall be $25.00 ..

" Operators of commercial vehicles transporting secured solid unprc,oenv secured load fees, which shall be in addition to other

Second Offense; $50.00 secur~ !c~d fee Third Offense; S75.00 improperly secured load fee Fourth Offense; The Board of Health shall have the right (after providing an opportunity for a hearing) to ~'-"•l"'nu the commercial refuse disposal for up to one month and to chuge a fee of up to $1,000.00 in costs to reimburse the City for costs ofthe hearing including staff time and also to cover any and aU staff time necessary to clean up tb.e refuse which rnay have fallen ot hlowr1 ouio the roadway or property adjacent to the roadway.

., The Board of Health shall have the authority to withhold Refuse Permits from any Residential or Commercial user who Ius covered load fees due the

.. AJI Permit Holders: The operator of any vehicle transporting improperly secured solid waste who refuses to pay the improperly secured load fee and/or who exits the disposal facility with improperly secured solid waste shall be subject to an additional fine equal to the original fee imposed.

: February 1, 1999

11'1

11'1

.....

APPENDIX I

DUST

EXCERPTED SECTIONS 4.2.3 AND 7.5 OF DEIR

NOTE: See also APPENDIX G for copy ofDEIR Appendix J and for copies ofDEIR Table 4-2 and Table 4-3



used to predict the highest 24-hour and annual concentrations of air toxics possible near the

existing landfill. The data from the inlet to the flare represent the typical emissions from the

existing landfill. The concentrations predicted by the model represent the worst-case impacts

that could occur with these concentrations over time. The results of the dispersion modeling

of the existing landfill for air toxics are compared to the Massachusetts health guidelines, the

TELs and AALs, as presented in Table 4-1.

The modeling results show that all off-site air toxic concentrations for the operation of the

existing landfill are safely in compliance with the Massachusetts health guidelines.

Therefore, the operation ofthe existing landfill does not adversely affect air quality or public

health in the surrounding community.

4.2.3 DUST

Dust is generated from the traffic on the landfill roads, with more dust being generated on the

unpaved roads than on the paved roads. Other sources include dust generated on the active

area of the landfill by the unloading of trash, and the unloading and spreading of landfill soil

cover material.

While most dust particles generated by a landfill are larger than 10 micrometers, dust

emissions are typically screened to determine the geometric function of two sizes of

particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). PM10 is particulate matter smaller than 10 micrometers

in diameter. PM2.5 is fine particulate that is smaller than 2.5 micrometers in diameter.

Predicted emissions of dust (PM to and PM2.5) are compared to standards developed by

Massachusetts and the EPA to protect public health.

PM10 and PM2.5 are generally the focus of dust impact analyses since these size ranges are

small enough to be transported to the lungs. Dust that is larger than 10 micrometers can be a

nuisance, but is not a health concern since the larger dust is screened out by the nose and

does not get into the lungs.



Table 4-1

09/05 4-29


Dufresne-Henry


4.2.3.1 Dust Assessment


Refined dispersion modeling was performed to evaluate the existing dust levels at the

facility. Particulate matter (dust) was analyzed both as typical respirable particulates (PM10)

and fine respirable particulates (PM2.5). The results were compared to the Massachusetts and

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which have been established to protect

the public's health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety.

Three sources of dust (particulate matter) were included in the modeling: 1) fugitive dust

created by the action of motor vehicles operating over paved and unpaved roadways, 2)

particulates emitted from the exhaust, brake wear, and tire wear of the motor vehicles, and 3)

dust generated by the action of the placing of waste and soil cover on the active areas of the

landfill. The methodology for the refined dispersion modeling is described in more detail in

the Appendix J.

4.2.3.2 Dust Emissions

This section discusses dust emissions from the paved and unpaved roadways and active area.

4.2.3.2.1 Paved Roadways- Dust Emissions

Fugitive dust emissions from motor vehicles operating over paved roads result as the air

motions created by the moving vehicles suspends into the air loose materials from the

roadway surface. Section 13.2.1 ofEPA's AP-42 document1 is the recommended method for

estimating fugitive dust emissions from vehicle operations over paved roads. The EPA

MOBILE6.2 modee particulate matter emission rates for heavy-duty diesel vehicles were

used to estimate the exhaust, tire wear, and brake wear particulate emissions from the trucks

1 US EPA, "Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume 1: Stationary Poirlt and Area Sources", Section 13.2.1 Paved Roads, Revised December 2003. 2 Federal Register, "Official Release of the MOBILE6.2 Motor Vehicle Emission Factor Model and the December 2003 AP-42 Methods for Re-Entrained Road Dust", Vol. 69, No. 97., pp. 28839-28832, May 19, 2004




accessing the landfill. Data on the number of daily vehicle trips was based on existing

conditions at the landfill.

4.2.3.2.2 Unpaved Roadways- Dust Emissions

Fugitive dust emissions created by motor vehicles operating over unpaved roads were

estimated with Section 13.2.2 ofEPA's AP-42 document1, the recommended method for

estimating fugitive dust emissions from vehicle operations over unpaved roads2. As with the

paved roads, the EPA MOBILE6.2 model particulate matter emission rates for heavy-duty

diesel vehicles were used to estimate the exhaust, tire wear, and brake wear particulate

emissions from the trucks accessing the landfill.

4.2.3.2.3 Active Area -Emissions

Fugitive dust created by the unloading of trash, and the unloading and spreading of landfill

soil cover were estimated from Section 13.2.3 of EPA's AP-42 document, assuming an 8-

hourday.

4.2.3.3 Dust Sources

The roadways and active areas were modeled as area sources in the EPA refined dispersion

model (ISCST3). The active areas selected for the modeling were chosen to represent the

potential worst-case air quality impacts, since the active areas assumed were located near to

neighborhoods, in the farthest northwest position of the landfill. Each of the area sources

was based at ground level and was given an initial vertical dimension of 10 feet to represent

the height of the wake generated by moving vehicles.

4.2.3.4 Background Concentrations

The maximum predicted model results are added to conservative estimates of ambient

background concentrations to determine the maximum total air concentrations of dust.

Background concentrations reflect the existence of other (not modeled) sources of air

pollution that affect the project area. Background concentrations for PM to were obtained

from the Massachusetts DEP air monitoring station in Springfield, which is the station most


-



representative of the area around Northampton. For PM2.5, the DEP air monitor most

representative of Northampton is located in Chicopee. Data from these monitors for the most

recent, complete, three-year period (2001 - 2003) were used to establish the background

concentrations for these air pollutants as shown in Table 4-2.

4.2.3.5 Dust Results for Existing Landfill

The actual dust generated by the operation of the existing landfill is minimized by the fact

that many access roads are paved, regularly swept, and watered as needed. The dust on

unpaved roads is controlled by applying water to suppress the dust so it doesn't become

airborne. Despite these efforts, some dust is emitted from the landfill and so dispersion

modeling was performed to estimate the dust impacts from the existing landfill for PM10 and

PM2.s respirable particulates.

The locations of the modeled sources for existing landfill dust are shown in Appendix J and

the results of the dispersion modeling are presented in Table 4-3. The results show

maximum predicted concentrations ofPM10 and PM2.s from landfill operation are safely in

compliance with the NAAQS at all off-site locations. Therefore, the operation of the existing

landfill does not adversely affect air quality or public health in the surrounding community.

4.2.4 NOISE

This section contains the discussion of the existing acoustic environment of the landfill and

the identified sound sources from existing daily landfill operations.

4.2.4.1 Common Measures of Community Noise

The unit of sound pressure is the decibel (dB). The decibel scale is logarithmic to

accommodate the wide range of sound intensities to which the human ear is subjected. A

property of the decibel scale is that the sound pressure levels of two separate sounds are not

directly additive. For example, if a sound of 70 dB is added to another sound of 70 dB, the

total is only a 3-decibel increase (or 73 dB), not a doubling to 140 dB. Thus, every 3 dB

increase represents a doubling of sound energy. For broadband sounds, a 3 dB change is the




The primary landfill gas compound of concern for odor is hydrogen sulfide. A landfill gas

collection system will be in place to collect landfill gas and direct it to the LFGTE facility for

each landfill cell that has reached its ultimate height. The LFGTE facility or back-up utility

flare is designed to provide significant (greater than 90%) destruction of the odorous landfill

gases.

Before final covers are placed and landfill gas is evacuated to the landfill gas destruction

system, a number of steps will be taken to minimize odors from active areas.

• Daily cover soil or an alternative daily cover (if approved by DEP) will be applied to

the landfill surface at the end of each shift or if no more waste will be provided to a

certain area for the remainder of a day.

• Intermediate cover soils will be placed in accordance with regulatory requirements to

minimize odors.

• If off-site odors become evident and are causing a nuisance condition the City will

consider installing gas collection wells in active areas of the landfill that have yet to

reach final grade. The wells may be connected to the active landfill gas collection

system, or if this is not feasible, solar-ignited passive well top flares will be installed

on the wells to combust the landfill gas.

7.5 DUST

Refined dispersion modeling of the existing landfill and the activity during the Phase 5

landfill expansion alternative, without mitigation, demonstrated that dust impacts near the

landfill are now, and will remain safely in compliance with the NAAQS for both coarse

particulate matter (PM10) and fine particulate matter (PMz.s).

Even if respirable dust will be below health standards, it is important to minimize fugitive

dust that could lead to nuisance conditions. If dust were to become a nuisance issue due to

·09/05 7-9 Dufresne-Henry



unforeseen circumstances, one or more of the following measures would be employed to

reduce fugitive dust impacts from any future landfill activity.

Fugitive sources of dust at the landfill may be controlled with the following measures:

• Apply water or dust suppression solutions to trap dust on unpaved and active landfill

areas,

• Pave travel areas at the facility to the extent practicable,

• Sweep paved roadways on a regular basis to remove dust from roadway surfaces,

• Require covers for trucks hauling cover soils,

• Limit vehicle speeds for travel over unpaved sections of the facility,

• Plant vegetation in disturbed areas as soon as feasible,

• Cover or vegetate any long-term soil piles if dusty conditions develop.

Vehicle emission related dust occurs due to diesel engines from equipment and trucks at the

landfill and may be controlled with the following measures:

• Limit the idling of engines,

• Use low sulfur diesel fuel in heavy-duty diesel equipment,

• Properly maintain the engines oflandfill equipment with regularly scheduled

maintenance.

7.6 NOISE

The proposed Northampton Sanitary Landfill Phase 5 expansion will be designed to

minimize the impacts of noise on the surrounding community by optimizing the facility

layout to maximize topographic shielding effects to the extents possible. As part of the

active mitigation measures proposed for the expansion, all future contractor agreements will

include a noise specification that will require that all equipment used specifically for on-site


-

APPENDIXJ

BIRDS

EXCERPTED SECTION 4.1.7.2 OF DEIR



leachate pump station daily reports, and the results of landfill gas monitoring for the month.

The Monthly Operations Report is due to the DEP by the 15th of the following month.

The ATO includes directions on the operation of the recycling area, requiring that all

containers and roll-offs be removed within 24 hours of becoming full.

The ATO requires that the City revise the estimated closure and post-closure costs of the

landfill each year and submit the revised estimates to the DEP by June first of every other

year. The City also must notify the DEP if the estimated closure and post-closure costs

exceed the financial assurance mechanism by more than ten percent.

4.1.7.2 Bird Control

In accordance with 310 CMR 19.038 (2)(a)4 and 2(a)(8), DEP has created a policy regarding

gull control at landfills because the Massachusetts Solid Waste Regulations state that the

construction, operation and maintenance of solid waste facilities shall not constitute a threat

to public health, safety or the environment and shall not represent a bird hazard. Landfills

have been identified as a primary food source used by some species of gulls throughout the

year, but primarily during the fall and winter months. DEP, accordingly, regards gulls as a

vector and has established operational requirements to prevent gulls from feeding at landfills

or other solid waste management facilities.

The DEP, in conjunction with the Metropolitan District Commission and the Division of

Fisheries and Wildlife, has determined that landfills should not be a food source for gulls

because gulls create a threat to the public health by contaminating water supplies and

recreational waters; create a threat to the public safety by contributing to or creating a bird

hazard for aircraft; contribute to the taking of certain endangered species of wildlife; and

create nuisance conditions at residences, parks and other recreational facilities. Therefore, in

accordance with its regulatory authority to protect public health, safety and the environment

DEP provides guidance for solid waste management facilities to facilitate compliance with

the requirements for vector, specifically gull, control as required by the regulations.




The policy is applicable to all solid waste management facilities (SWMFs). The primary

focus of this policy is municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills. Other types of SWMFs where

food wastes are available, such as transfer stations, are also required to comply with this

policy. For most facilities this policy is self-implementing as long as the facility complies

with the performance requirements of the policy within 90 days of notice by DEP.

To address potential health and nuisance concerns arising from birds that frequent the

landfill, a bird control program is in place at the Northampton Landfill. A Bird Control Plan

has been prepared and submitted to the DEP. The nuisance birds of primary concern are

several species of gulls, crows and turkey vultures. The Plan uses a variety of active and

passive measures to control birds, such as covering the waste daily, making the area

unattractive for habitat by eliminating short grass and ponded water on site, harassing the

birds with noisemakers such as propane cannons, and other non-lethal measures such as

scare-eye balloons and reflective streamers.

Since the birds have occasionally continued to habituate to these non-lethal methods, a

Migratory Bird Depredation Permit (Permit) from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at the

Department of the Interior has been obtained. The Permit is renewable upon application and

submittal of an annual report. Depredation is used to supplement the effectiveness of the

non-lethal methods discussed above. The Permit allows for the taking of up to 300 Herring,

Ring-billed or Black-backed gulls per year, not to exceed 10 gulls per day. The Permit

indicates that no authorization is required to eliminate up to 300 American Crows per year,

but a request to shoot up to 100 Turkey Vultures per year was denied since, unlike gulls, their

behavior does not transmit human pathogens. The Permit is only employed on an as needed

basis.

4.1.7.3 Litter Control

Portable litter fencing around the active area of the landfill provides containment of

windblown litter. Permanent litter fencing is also used on the south side of the site to help

with litter carried by prevailing wind. Windblown litter that breaches the fencing is actively

retrieved on an as needed basis.


APPENDIXK

REGIONAL PARTICIPATION

EXCERPTED SECTIONS 2.3 AND 2.3.1

AND APPENDICES E AND F

FROMDEIR


2.3 REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT


This section describes the current waste shed of the Northampton Landfill and the efforts of

Northampton and other communities in the region to implement sound integrated solid waste

management that is consistent with the Commonwealth's Solid Waste Master Plan.

The Northampton Regional Sanitary Landfill serves many surrounding communities. The

City of Northampton currently has contractual arrangements with 39 communities (i.e.,

utilizing a "Memoranda ofUnderstanding", hereinafter referred to as a "MOU"). See Figure

2-6. These agreements provide access rights, but do not require member communities to

send their waste to the Northampton Landfill. The MOU guarantees continuous access to the

facility for the disposal ofwaste materials for a period of five years as well as a base price for

disposal, which can be reduced but not exceeded. The MOU also addresses a variety of

facility restrictions and conditions. Member municipalities must agree to establish, maintain

and/or regularly participate in diversion programs that are necessary to ensure that

Unacceptable or Recyclable Materials (as defined in the MOU) are not delivered to the

Northampton landfill for disposal. For example, all member municipalities must have an

established mandatory recycling ordinance, access to at least one Household Hazardous

Waste (HHW) collection each year and localized systems for diverting source-separated

materials (e.g., waste ban materials) to recycling and composting facilities. See Appendix E

for a summary of materials recycling access by community.

Ofthe 39 communities with contractual agreements, 23 (including Northampton) sent all

waste collected on their behalf to the Northampton landfill in 2004. A telephone survey of

11 local haulers recently conducted by the City revealed that residential and commercial

waste is being delivered to the landfill from at least 44 communities in the region (See Table

2-1 Communities in the Northampton Landfill Wasteshed). In addition, 5 educational

institutions (e.g., Smith College, Deerfield Academy, etc.) and 3 municipalities have vehicles

to haul their waste to the landfill.


@

f ~p -~~

c

I

...J

...J u:: ~0:: :sw

0 >-' o::Z <(0 ~--_(/) zZ <(<C (/)a. z>< OUJ f-l.() a.UJ ~(/) <(<( II f-a. 0:: 0 z

(f)

..J ~

..J w - (f) u. :::> c ::r:

u.Z ~ 0

<( (f)

..J ~ :Ez :::::: oo Clza. ~:e o:2

<.C:EINW~ w:EO ~:I:z ;::::)1-W (,!)-(/) u::~;:::)

(1)0 WI-I-(.!) zz ;:::)-::z:c :::!':~ Ol(.)(1) ~ w c z ;::::)

z f2 a. ~ ~ a:: 0 z

t'oo C 'ai E Q) !fl"' 8 :c~:::c:

I til~ II\ "' a:> .<: w::;:"'d> C c§" ~ ens ... -:: Q)~::'-5 ~.~~~· -t :I 0 Qz

Municipality DARP Approved Direct Haul Amherst X 1,969.75 Ashfield X 417.58

Bernardston X

Buckland X 258.47 Charlemont X

Chesterfield X 166.93 Colrain X

Conway X 543.72 Cummington X 312.93

Deerfield X

Easthampton X

Erving X

Gill X 254.03 Goshen X 131.92

Granville X 241.13 Greenfield X

Hadley Pending 399.30 Hatfield X 266.47

Heath X

Holyoke X

Huntington X 517.42 Leverett X

Middlefield X 151.67

Monroe X

Montague X

New Salem X 166.27 Northampton X 3,145.14

Northfield X 728.86 Orange X

Plainfield X 88.41 Rowe X 151.92

Shelburne X

Shutesbury X

South Hadley X

Southampton X 887.20 Sunderland X

Warwick X Wendell X

West Springfield X

Westfield X

Westhampton X 251.66 Whately X 177.52

Williamsburg X 715.93 Worthington X 235.06

MRF Recycling Rate

1,210.58 61%

247.99 59%

151.93 59%

88.51 53%

237.70 44%

106.93 34%

137.85 54%

71.67 54%

115.75 48%

96.32 24%

227.10 85%

170.54 33%

39.22 26%

95.70 58%

2,939.03 93%

308.53 42%

62.72 71%

49.47 33%

556.35 63%

142.81 57%

141.07 79%

279.46 39%

139.10 59%

2·1 Communities in Northampton Landfill Wasteshed

March 2005

Commercial Permits Hauler Routes/Services MOU

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X

X X X

X X X

X X

X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X

X X X

X X X

X X NjA

X X X

X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X

X X X

X X X

X X

X X X

X X X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

PAYT

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Totals 44 muncipalities 12,179.29 7,616.33 Average 63% 37 muncipalities 44 muncipalities 39 muncipalities 28 muncipalities

Waste haulers surveyed: Duseau Trucking, Alternative Recycling Systems, Waste Management, BFI, QuadCom Carting, Martin's Farm

Rolloff companies surveyed: Same as above plus Finn, Allen, B'n'B, Austins, Baldwin

Comments

Individual MOU- Municipal Vehicles

Hilltown Resource Management Cooperative (HRMC)

Franklin County Solid Waste Management District (FCSWMD)

FCSWMD

FCSWMD

HRMC

FCSWMD

FCSWMD

HRMC

FCSWMD

Individual MOU- Duseau is major subsciption hauler

FCSWMD

FCSWMD

HRMC- Municipal Vehicles

MOU- Municipal Vehicles

No MOU- TS waste goes to EcoSpringfield

Individual MOU

HRMC

FCSWMD

No MOU- waste goes to EcoSpringfield

HRMC

FCSWMD

HRMC

FCSWMD

FCSWMD

FCSWMD

RSW & bulky waste from 2 dropoff facilities

FCSWMD

FCSWMD

HRMC

FCSWMD

FCSWMD

FCSWMD; MOU under Town of Amherst

NoMOU

HRMC

FCSWMD

FCSWMD

FCSWMD

NoMOU

NoMOU

HRMC

FCSWMD- Town also signed individual MOU

HRMC

HRMC



In 2004, the landfill accepted a total of 47,631 tons of waste. Of this total tonnage 3,145 tons

(6.6 percent) was municipal waste from Northampton's two public drop-off centers. Waste

generated by Northampton residents who subscribe to curbside collection services is not

tracked separately- it is delivered to the landfill as commercial MSW. The 22 member

communities that direct haul from transfer stations/drop off centers to the landfill delivered

9,034 tons ofwaste to the landfill in 2004. This represents approximately 19 percent of the

total waste accepted in 2004.

The commercial waste tonnage in 2004 was 29,374 tons, or approximately 62 percent of the

total. Waste defined as commercial is generated by residents, businesses, institutions and

industries within the landfill's waste shed. It is categorized as commercial because waste

haulers deliver it to the landfill. The wasteshed for the Northampton landfill is comprised of

at least 44 municipalities that have signed an MOU with the City and/or that are served by

permitted waste haulers who regularly deliver waste from their area to the Northampton

landfill. A considerable percentage of the commercial waste delivered to the landfill is from

residential subscription services in Northampton, Easthampton, Hatfield and other

neighboring municipalities.

Sixteen communities with MOU's currently do not deliver waste directly to the Northampton

landfill. Several ofthese communities do not offer any municipal waste management

services whatsoever, but a majority are using other disposal facilities due to hauling distances

or hauling contracts. In 2005, the City anticipates that 3 or 4 additional municipalities may

start to deliver all waste collected on their behalf when their new hauling contracts go into

effect. The MOU allows the municipality to rely on the Northampton Landfill if it makes

sense economically. The MOU communities retain the ability to pursue the best hauling and

disposal prices available at any time. When and if a community decides to use the

Northampton landfill, the City accommodates them by reducing the tonnage of commercial

waste accepted (to avoid exceeding the tonnage limit of 50,000 tons per year).



2.3. 1 INTEGRA TED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DESCRIPTION


This section describes measures taken by the proponent to comply with the state solid waste

master planning efforts. State solid waste planning efforts are detailed in the Bevond 2000 Solid

Waste Master Plan and more recently in the 3rd Annual Progress Report on the Beyond 2000

Solid Waste Master Plan, by the DEP.

The most effective way of mitigating solid waste impacts is through the implementation of an

Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan which focuses efforts on waste prevention, recycling,

composting, and waste toxicity reduction. The City of Northampton, in cooperation with

regional organizations such as the Hilltown Resource Management Cooperative (HRMC), the

Franklin County Solid Waste Management District (FCSWMD) and the Springfield Materials

Recycling Facility (MRF) Advisory Board have implemented aggressive integrated waste

management programs to reduce the amount and toxicity of wastes being disposed of at the

regional landfilL Since 1989, all of the member communities have benefited from the unique

combination of having access to the Northampton regional landfill, two waste management

districts and the Springfield MRF. The City and the 34 municipalities represented by the waste

management districts have developed an excellent relationship and work in cooperation to meet

the solid waste management needs of the region. As a result of this regional cooperation, the

City and the member municipalities have opened up their individual programs to other

communities. For example, all Household Hazardous Waste collections in the region are now

"reciprocal" events, allowing residents of one community access to collections in other

communities. The City has spearheaded many other initiatives to improve communications and

public outreach in an effort to maximize the effectiveness of regional programs.

The large proportion of "pay-as-you-throw" (P A YT) communities has also contributed to the

success that has been achieved in this region. Based on information compiled by DEP, 28 of the

Northampton landfill's member communities (i.e., the 39 municipalities with current MOU's)

have implemented unit-based pricing systems, consistent with initiatives and policies

established by the DEP and the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. Thus, 72% of the

member communities have established P A YT programs. All of these factors contribute to the




region's high recycling rate- an average of 63% based on waste disposed at the Northampton

landfill and recyclables delivered to the Springfield MRF in CY 2004. See Table 2-1

Communities in the Northampton Landfill Wasteshed. Also, see Appendix F for detailed

information about P A YT in these communities.

The City of Northampton and its neighboring communities have responsibly developed solid

waste management programs which focus on compliance with waste bans, maximizing waste

prevention, diverting recyclable and compostable materials, and minimizing the toxicity of

wastes. Each community that uses the landfill is required to maintain their "DARP" status (DEP

Approved Recycling Program), which establishes standards for participation in and access to

recycling and composting programs, as well as public education and outreach requirements.

Note, the Northampton Landfill's enforcement program includes all incoming waste and DARP

communities have never been exempt from load inspections, load rejections, surcharges, and

other enforcement actions. Until2002, these municipalities also participated in DEP's Municipal

Recycling Incentive Program (MRIP). MRIP provided performance-based grants to

municipalities that met the established eligibility criteria designed to maximize recycling,

minimize waste toxicity, and stimulate the demand for recycled products. These western

Massachusetts communities have been very effective in implementing their integrated waste

management programs.

The following further details these efforts.

• The Northampton Regional Landfill complies with the disposal ban oflead acid batteries,

leaves and other yard waste, tires, white goods, aluminum containers, metal or glass

containers, plastics (#1-#7), recyclable paper and cardboard, and cathode ray tubes in

accordance with the solid waste regulations (310 CMR 19.017). In addition, the disposal of

scrap metal and mattresses are banned by local ordinance. All mattresses and box springs

are diverted to a scrap metal recycling company and a waste-to-energy facility. The landfill

also promotes the separation of clean wood waste through a tip fee differential of$75.00 per

ton (i.e., clean wood waste is accepted for recycling at $25.00 per ton, while mixed C&D

waste is accepted for disposal at $100.00 per ton).




• The City of Northampton established mandatory recycling in 1990 that requires "anyone

who lives or works in Northampton" to recycle all materials banned from disposal by local

and or state regulations. In addition, the ordinance established a systematic means for load

inspections and enforcement for waste loads that contain banned materials in excess of de

minim us quantities. Since the landfill is regional, all of the municipalities utilizing the

Northampton landfill are also required to have mandatory recycling.

• Northampton residents can either bring their recyclables to the recycling center at the

landfill facility, the Northampton recycling center on Locust Street, or arrange for curbside

pick-up through a private hauler. At both recycling centers, there are containers provided

for each material. The residents are responsible for preparing the recyclable materials in an

acceptable manner (e.g., flattening plastic jugs) and depositing them in the correct

containers. Most residents in the region have access to a local drop-off recycling center.

The member communities use the same general system as Northampton, because all

residential recyclables are delivered to the Springfield Materials Recycling Facility (MRF).

• The MRF accepts recyclables collected on behalf of member municipalities, which may

include materials collected from multi-family properties and commercial/industrial

businesses. In Northampton, all residential, commercial, institutional and industrial entities

are required to recycle. Private haulers serve all of these sectors, and are required to provide

recycling services through the Board of Health's permitting process. Northampton's hauler

permit also requires the periodic reporting of data and cooperation with the City's

enforcement efforts. The City of Northampton has prepared and distributes recycling

guidelines for businesses, and offers a special "recycling permit" which allows commercial,

institutional customers access to the landfill's recycling program at no cost. With the

exception of the City of Easthampton, the member communities are primarily residential,

with few businesses. Therefore, almost all of the recyclables generated in the region are sent

to the Springfield MRF. The larger commercial and industrial businesses, which are

primarily located in Northampton and Easthampton, are served by private haulers who use



Section2 Project Description

other markets for mixed paper and OCC. Most of the commercial bottles and cans in the

region are delivered to the Springfield MRF.

• The City ofNorthampton has been sponsoring an annual Household Hazardous Waste

(HHW) collection program since 1984 to safely dispose of unwanted HHW's generated by

residents. These collections also have been promoted to the business community, which are

allowed to participate as Very Small Quantity Generators (VSQG's). The City also has a

paint shed for used paint collections and a Universal Waste shed for mercury-bearing

products. These programs are offered eight times per year, providing the region with many

opportunities to responsibly manage solvents, paints, pesticides, toxic/corrosive chemicals,

fluorescent fixtures, mercury devices, and a variety of other hazardous products. The City

has established an extensive educational campaign to inform the public about the hazards of

household wastes and how to properly dispose of such materials. Sponsoring these types of

educational and collection programs minimizes the disposal of household hazardous wastes

in the landfill. At the Locust Street Recycling Facility, car batteries, used motor oil and

antifreeze are accepted during all operating hours (54 hours per week, 308 days per year).

The DPW has two state-of-the-art furnaces that bum waste oil to heat the DPW building

during the winter months.

• The Northampton landfill facility also separates white goods, scrap metal, mattresses and

tires on-site. The white goods delivered to the site are inspected to ensure that any doors

have been removed, and any Freon-bearing appliances are segregated for service. The

landfill operator is responsible for removing the Freon prior to recycling. White goods,

scrap metal, and tires are collected in roll off containers, which are removed from the site

whenever they are full.

• The landfill facility also maintains an area for composting of leaves and grass clippings.

Brush, Christmas trees and tree limbs (up to 6" in diameter) are placed in a separate pile and

are chipped periodically. These chips are used for erosion control or composting and are not

buried in the landfill. The composted leaves have been used for closure projects at the

landfill. The regional towns have their own individual composting facilities.

09/05 2-25 Dufresne-Hen ry



• The landfill facility has a DEP permit for processing, recycling and reuse of construction

and demolition (C&D) material. Up to 20 tons per day and 4,000 tons per year of C&D can

be accepted at the landfill. Separated materials can be recycled and finer materials (less than

1 inch) can be used as alternative daily cover material. The materials which will be reused

and/or recycled include wood wastes, asphalt, brick and concrete and scrap metal.

• The information provided in this narrative demonstrates that Northampton and its member

communities have implemented aggressive measures to maximize waste diversion, thereby

extending the useful life of the landfill. In addition, these municipalities have sought to

reduce the toxicity of the wastes requiring disposal through convenient collection programs

for household hazardous wastes, paints and paint-related products, automotive wastes, and

Universal Wastes.

• Through the use of a Memoranda of Understanding, the City of Northampton requires all

municipalities to deliver waste that is free ofrecyclables, banned materials and hazardous

wastes. Each municipality must agree to establish, maintain, or regularly participate in leaf

and yard waste diversion or composting, recycling, household hazardous waste collections,

Cathode Ray Tube ("CRT") recycling, mercury bearing waste recycling, and other programs

as needed.

• The Northampton landfill is one of a limited number of facilities in western Massachusetts

that can accept material approved by the DEP for use as alternative daily cover. Many of

these materials must be used at a lined facility and are not acceptable for general reuse.

These materials include petroleum contaminated soils, construction and demolition

processing fines, foundry sand and other materials which have beneficial use determination

permits for use as alternative daily covers.

These efforts have been successful in reducing reliance on disposal facilities. However, the

need for a long-term disposal facility is evident. This landfill is an important part of the

integrated solid waste management plan for the greater Northampton area. This schedule for


APPENDIXE

RECYCLING ACCESS BY COMMUNITY

APPENDIX

Towns With MOU to Use Northampton Sanitary Landfill Available Municipal Recycling Access by Material

Recycling Collection Method and Materials Accepted Municipality

"' c ~ ~

~ .. .s ·~ "' "' "' -o "' "' N "' " .... .... "' "' "' ] "' " '" " "' = 0 ... -o "' '" '" ~ c:: -o "' ::: ... ·;::: 0. -:: "' '" 0.. c "'

c:: ·;::: "' ·; ... 0. u "' 0 ·c; :! "' .... ..c 0 0. "' "' 0.. "' '"' "' "' " "' 0 '"' "' "' '"' '-' 0 ::; :::: ~ -o "' "' 0. ..c

::t ~ "' ~ 0.. c 0 ... ... -o rn 0. ..c a "' p E E ] .s = .. "' '" "' "' -o -o G ~ 2 0. ..c 0 ;;:... ~ Q = 0. c:: ~ .... "' "' w ... = 0 .. 0 "' :; 0.. "' ~ "' "' '"' "' ~

Q "' c " ... :<:: .... ::; = .s ~ ~ ~ z u :§ ~ s ..c ·s "' "' '-' < "' ·;::: ... '-' 0 00 < ::: rn "' = .. u = rn

< ..c rn ~ '"' ~ = 0. '" u 0 "' .... :;;: rn "' ::: '1lo ..... u

Amherst Curb X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Ashfield Drop X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Bernardston Drop X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Buckland Drop X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Charlemont Drop X X X X X X X X X Chesterfield Drop X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Colrain Drop X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Conway Drop X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Cummington Drop X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Deerfield Drop X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Easthampton Sub X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Erving Curb X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Gill Curb X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Goshen Drop X X X X X X X X X X X X X Granville Drop X X X X X X X X X X X X Hadley Drop X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Hatfield Drop X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Heath Drop X X X X X X X X X X X X Huntington Drop X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Leverett Drop X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Middlefield Drop X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Monroe Curb X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Montague Curb X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X New Salem Drop X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Northampton Drop X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Northfield Drop X X X X X X X X X X X X Orange Drop X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Plainfield Drop X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Rowe Drop X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Shelburne Drop X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Shutesbury Curb X X X X X X X X X X X X X Southampton Drop X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Sunderland Curb X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Warwick Drop X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Wendell Drop X X X X X X X X X X X X X X , Westhampton Drop X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Whately Drop X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Williamsburg Drop X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Worthington Drop X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

#of Municipalities 39

*Collection Method: Curb- Curbside Collection; Drop- Drop-off Center; Sub- Private Subscription Service

Table is an excerpt from Appendix D Beyond 2000 Solid Waste Master Plan, dated December 20, 2000 Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.

-; ·;:::

"' " ~ ... ~ ::t ... .... "' ..c

0

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

APPENDIXF

PAY AS YOU THROW PROGRAM

Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Municipalities with Pay-As-You-Throw Programs

Prepared by:

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection

Bureau of Waste Prevention

January 2005

(Note: Edited by Dufresne-Henry, Inc. to depict only Communities that have a Memorandum of Understanding to use the Northampton Regional Sanitary landfilL)

Pro ram Attribute Annual Charge Type

of Container

Rate System

uses to charge residents in combination with the P A YT unit fee.

Kind or method mttrn!~Ipawtv allows for each unit of trash disposed

How municipality structures their solid waste costs for solid waste collection and disposal

T es Flat = uniform annual fee per resident

solid waste costs covered as a property tax.

Both solid waste costs.

of the local

Unit P A YT or unit fee covers complete cost of local solid waste program

= trash distributed by for of trash.

Stickers adhesive labels affixed to each container of trash

Container town allows a range of containers for disposal of trash. Supplied by the resident.

Punch Card resident a set number of "units" that are used at local transfer station where trash is disposed. IT!m!ill!Q!1!!! (*) each container of trash disposed is

(30 gallon trash can costs $1.00 the same as 30-gallon trash bag).

-'-"'~"'"""' (*) = solid waste charges fluctuate for additional units of trash disposed (for example: first unit of trash disposed may cost $1.50, but the second may be lower or $1.00 or $2.00).

proportional system combined with flat fee or property tax.

variable system combined with flat fee or property tax.

(*)In both kinds of rate systems, NO flat fee or property tax is assessed for solid waste disposal by the municipality.

Flat Fee Charge

Price Option #1

Price Option #2

Basic Service

Uniform aunual fee charged to each resident or homeowner for solid waste service.

Unit fee charged for first unit of trash per maximum allowed volume. Unit fee charged for

of trash per maximum allowed volume. A base level of trash collection provided to every household under a P A YT system.

Page 2 of 18

•

-• -

111 MASSACHUSETTS MUNICIPALITIES WITH UNIT -BASED PRICING

January, 2005

(Note: The following edited list identifies the 28 Communities that have Unit-Based Pricing and rely on the Northampton Regional Sanitary Landfill for solid waste disposal.)

AMHERST PAYT Contact: Carolyn Holstein, 413-256-4050, ext

Population: 34,874 #of HH served by MSW: 5,000

Solid Waste Collection: Subscriptio Annual Charge Type: Unit Only

Type of Container: Franchise Flat Fee Charge: $325

Start Date: 9/1/1996

Rate System: Variable Basic None

Price Option #1: $325.00 per 32 gallons Price Option #2: $350.00 per gallons Max Container Weight: 50 pounds

Charges on yearly basis, 3rd container for $377; Town also has an optional PAYT program which serves approx. 350 residences; Flat fee for second PAYT program is $10/yr.

ASHFIELD PAYT Contact:

Population: 1,811 # of HH served by MSW: 750

Solid Waste Collection: Drop-off Annual Charge Type: Both

Price Option #1: $1.00 per 30 gallons

Town has fees for all items disposed

BERNARDSTON

Type of Container: Bags Flat Fee Charge: $25

Price Option #2: NA

PAYT Contact:


Solid Waste Collection: Drop-off Annual Charge Type: Property


BUCKLAND

Type of Container: Bags Flat Fee Charge: None

Price Option #2: NA

PA YT Contact:

Population: 1,967 #of HH served by MSW: 676




Price Option #2: NA

Tom Gray, 413-628-4641

Start Date: NA

Rate System: Two-Tiered Basic None

Max Container Weight: NA

Theresa Cahill, 413-648-5401




Bob Dean, 413-625-6167




CHARLEMONT PA YT Contact: Charles Bellows, 413-339-4335




Type of Container: Bags

Flat Fee Charge: None

Price Option #2: NA

Program also provides a price option for senior citizens: $1.00 per 30 gallons.


Rate System: Two-Tiered

Basic None


CHESTERFIELD PAYT Contact: Barbara Curran, 413-296-4771

Population: 1,048 # of HH served by MSW: 400 Start Date: NA

Solid Waste Collection: Drop-off Annual Charge Type: Flat


COLRAIN

Type of Container: Punch Cards Flat Fee Charge: $20


Rate System: Multi-Tiered Basic None


PAYT Contact: James Sturgeon, 413-624-5500

Population: 1,813

Solid Waste Collection:

#of HH served by MSW: 650 Start Date: 7/1/1990

Drop-off Annual Charge Type: Property






Eaton, 413-665-2036

1/1/1997

Senior citizens 62 years of age or older receive 20 !rash bags.

GILL

Population: 1 ,363

P A YT Contact

#of HH served by MSW: 540

Deb Roussel, 413-863-9347


Solid Waste Collection: Curbside Annual Charge Type: Property


Type of Container: Stickers

Flat Fee Charge: None

Price Option #2: NA

Rate System: Two-Tiered

Basic None

Max Container Weight 60 pounds

GOSHEN PAYT Contact: Chet Lulek, 413-268-8236 x3

Population: 862 #of HH served by MSW: 250 Start Date: NA

Solid Waste Collection: Drop-off Type of Container: Punch Cards Rate System: Two-Tiered

Annual Charge Type: Flat Flat Fee Charge: $20 Basic None

Price Option : $2.00 per 30 gallons Price Option #2: NA Max Container Weight: NA

Permit fee and additional fees charged for other items collected

GRANVILLE PAYT Contact: Kathy Martin, 413-357-8585

1,441

Solid Waste Collection: Drop-off Annual Charge Type: Unit Only


HADLEY PA YT Contact:

#of HH served by MSW: 400 Start Date: 1/1/1992

Type of Container: Punch Cards Flat Fee Charge: None


Susan Moran, 413-586-0221

Rate System: Variable Basic None


Population: 4,117 #of HH served by MSW: 1,000 Start Date: 7/1/2002

Solid Waste Collection: Drop-off Type of Container: Bags Rate System: Multi-Tiered Annual Charge Type: Both Flat Fee Charge: $50 Basic None

Price Option #1: $1.50 per 30 gallons Price Option #2: $0.75 per 15 gallons Max Container Weight: NA

SWS LLC will be operating TS, Additional fees for scrap metals, bulky, C&D, White goods, tires, mattresses, CRT units, flourescents, car batteries

HATFIELD P A YT Contact: Jim Reidy, 413-247-0499

Population: 3,224 #of HH served by MSW: 650 Start Date: NA



HUNTINGTON

Type of Container: Stickers Flat Fee Charge: $25


PAYT Contact: Don Dugas, 413-667-3511



Population: 2,120 # of HH served by MSW: 500 Start Date: 1/111979




Price Option #2: NA

LEVERETT

Population: 2,019


PAYT Contact:

# of HH served by MSW: 570



Max Container Weight NA

Richard Drury, 413-367-9683


Rate System: Basic

Multi-Tiered

None

Price Option #1: $1.50 per 33 pounds Price Option #2: $0.75 per 16 pounds Max Container Weight: 35 pounds

As of 7104 Town will weigh barrels and charge $0.1 0/lb.

-

-

....

MONTAGUE PAYT Contact: Edward J. Mleczko, 413-863-2054

Population: 8,492 #of HH served by MSW: 3,784 Start Date: 1/1/1992

Solid Waste Collection: Curbside Annual Charge Type: Property


NEW SALEM

Type of Container: Stickers Flat Fee Charge: None

Price Option #2: NA

PAYT Contact: Barbara Pine, 978-544-9673


Max Container Weight: 40 pounds

Population: 929 # of HH served by MSW: 446 Start Date: 11/1/1996

Solid Waste Collection: Drop-off

Annual Charge Type: Property


NORTHAMPTON


Price Option #2: NA

P A YT Contact:



Population: 30,842 #of HH served by MSW: 8,000

Karen A. Bouquillon, 413-587-1284








Program also provides an option to residents for 20 ($0.50) and 30 ($0.75) gallon stickers. Currently the City is working towards streamlining the program and coverting to 15 and 33 gallon bags.

ORANGE PAYT Contact: Priscilla Curtis, 978-544-1118

Population: 7,518


#ofHHservedbyMSW: 1,318



Price Option #2: NA

PLAINFIELD PAYT Contact:

Population: 609


Jon Lynes, 413-634-5600

# of HH served by MSW: 235

Type of Container: Punch Cards

Flat Fee Charge: $25

Start Date: NA



Start Date: NA



SHELBURNE PAYT Contact: Terry Purinton, 4131625-0300

Population: 2,058 #of HH served by MSW: 715



Type of Container: Stickers Flat Fee Charge: None

Price Option #2: NA




SHUTESBURY PAYT Contact: David Ames, 413-259-1214

Population: 1 ,650 #of HH served by MSW: 820

Solid Waste Collection: Curbside Annual Charge Type: Unit Only



Price Option #2: NA


Rate System: Proportional Basic 50 Bags per year


SOUTHAMPTON PAYT Contact: Edward Cauley, 413-527-3666

Population: 5,474


# of HH served by MSW: 2,800





PAYT program also covers Southampton schools and all Town buildings.

Donald Matthews, 978-544-3595

15 gallons

Third price option, $2.25 for 50 gallons

33

6/1/1999

Multi-Tiered

WENDELL PAYT Contact: Dan Bacigalupo, 978-544-3395

Population: 986 #of HH served by MSW: 371 Start Date: 1/1/1987

Solid Waste Collection: Drop-off

Annual Charge Type: Property


WESTHAMPTON


Price Option #2: NA

PAYT Contact: Barry Brandow, 413-527-0463






WHATELY



PAYT Contact: Bill Obear, 413-665-2894


Container Weight: NA

Population: 1,573 # of HH served by MSW: 375 Start Date: 7/1/1991

Solid Waste Collection: Drop-off Type of Container: Stickers Rate System: Two-Tiered

Annual Charge Property Flat Fee Charge: None Basic None

Price Option #1: $2.00 per 30 gallons Price Option #2: NA Max Container Weight: NA

WORTHINGTON PAYT Contact: Diane Wells, 413-238-5577




Type of Container: Stickers

Flat Fee Charge: $35




•

-

....

-

APPENDIXL

MALONEY WELL ZONE II DELINEATION

HOM LEGEND • Well

Zone II Boundary

------ Zone Ill Boundary

Topographic contour interval = 10 Feet

Scale: I :60,000

Regional Water Supply Chief: _________ _

Municipality: Easthampton PWS Identification#: 1087000 Name of Water Supply: Maloney Well Water Purveyor: Easthampton Water Department Source Identification#: 07G

Title of Study: SWAP Zone II USGS Quadrangles: Easthampton and Mt. Tom, MA

.Consultant: Tighe & Bond

Date of Study Submittal: June 2001 Latitude/Longitude: 42.28118/ -72.64958

Tighe&Bond FIGURE 2

ZONE II DELINEATION

MALONEY WELL EASTHAMPTON WATER DEPARTMENT

EASTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS

---, ---- _] - ___ ]

•

APPENDIXM

CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT MODEL

Summary Report on Contaminant Transport Model

Northampton Sanitary Landfill Phase 5 Expansion Project

Prepared for: City of Northampton, MA

Department of Public Works

Dufresne-Henry

~ HydroAna/ysis, Inc.

Prepared by: Dufresne-Henry, Inc.

136 West Street, Suite 203 Northampton, MA 01060

In association with: HydroAnalysis, Inc. 481 Great Road, Suite 3

Acton, MA 01720

August • 2005 Revised March • 2006

-

Northampton Department of Public Works Summary Report on Contaminant Transport Model

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1-1

SECTION 2 GROUNDWATER FLOW MODELING

2.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 2-1

2.2 CONCEPTUAL MODEL ............................................................................................. 2-1

2.3 GROUNDWATER MODEL DESCRIPTION ............................................................. 2-3

2.4 GROUNDWATER MODEL DEVELOPMENT .......................................................... 2-5

2.5 CALIBRATION ......................................................................................................... 2-13

2.6 MODEL RESULTS .................................................................................................... 2-21

2.7 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ....................................................................................... 2-24

SECTION 3 CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT MODELING

3.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 3-1

3.2 MODEL DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................... 3-2

3.2.1 Porosity ............................................................................................................. 3-3

3.2.2 Dispersion Coefficient ...................................................................................... 3-3

3.2.3 Retardation ........................................................................................................ 3-5

3.2.4 Degradation ....................................................................................................... 3-6

3.3 LEACHATE PARAMETERS & CONCENTRATIONS ............................................. 3-6

3.3.1 Biological Oxygen Demand .............................................................................. 3-6

3.3.2 Manganese ........................................................................................................ 3-7

3.3.3 Zinc ................................................................................................................... 3-7

3.3.4 Methylene Chloride .......................................................................................... 3-8

3.3.5 Leachate Parameter Concentrations .................................................................. 3-8

Final - l - Dufresne-Henry


Table of Contents

SECTION 3 CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT MODELING (CONT.)

3.4 LEACHATE RELEASE VOLUMES ......................................................................... 3-10

3.4.1 General Assumptions and Methods ................................................................ 3-11

3.4.2 Composite Liner Leakage ............................................................................... 3-11

3.4.3 Unlined Landfill Leakage ............................................................................... 3-13

3.4.4 Fixed Volume Major Release ......................................................................... 3-14

3.4.5 Summary ......................................................................................................... 3-15

3.5 MODEL RESULTS .................................................................................................... 3-16

3.5.1 Scenario 1- Liner Leakage ............................................................................ 3-16

3.5.2 Scenario 2- Fixed Volume Release ............................................................... 3-17

3.5.3 Scenario 3- Combined Liner Leakage and Fixed Volume Release .............. 3-18

3.6 THEORETICAL CONTAMINANT SCENARIO ..................................................... 3-18

3.7 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 3-23

Final - 1l - Dufresne-Henry


LIST OF FIGURES


Table of Contents

2-1 SITE LOCUS ................................................................................................................ 2-2

2-2 MODEL AREA AND HYDROLOGIC FEATURES .................................................. 2-6

2-3 MODEL GRID AND BOUNDARY CONDITIONS ................................................... 2-8

2-4 HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY DISTRIBUTION ................................................. 2-14

2-5 RECHARGE AND LEAKAGE DISTRIBUTION ..................................................... 2-15

2-6 CALIBRATION TARGET LOCATIONS ................................................................. 2-18

2-7 FORWARD TRACKS WITH TIME POSTING ........................................................ 2-23

2-8 CAPTURE ZONE COMPARISON ............................................................................ 2-25


3-1 THEORETICAL CONTAMINANT PLUME- 100 YEARS OF

LINER LEAKAGE ..................................................................................................... 3-20

3-2 THEORETICAL CONTAMINANT PLUME- 50 YEARS AFTER

LEACHATE RELEASE ............................................................................................. 3-21

3-3 THEORETICAL CONTAMINANT PLUME- 50 YEARS AFTER

LEACHATE RELEASE AND 100 YEARS OF LINER LEAKAGE ........................ 3-22

LIST OF PLATES


PLATE 1

PLATE2

PLATE3

Final

BEDROCK SURF ACE ELEVATION ............................................................. 2-9

AQUIFER TOP ELEVATION ....................................................................... 2-11

PREDICTED GROUNDWATER CONTOURS ............................................ 2-22

- l1l- Dufresne-Henry


LIST OF TABLES


Table of Contents

2-1 WELL PUMPING RATES USED IN MODEL ......................................................... 2-12

2-2 CALIBRATION TARGET DATA ............................................................................. 2-16


3-1 NORTHAMPTON LANDFILL CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT

MODELING RESULTS SUMMARY ....................................................................... 3-19

LIST OF CHARTS


CHART 1 STEADY STATE CALIBRATION:

OBSERVED VS PREDICTED HEADS ........................................................ 2-17

CHART 2 TRANSIENT CALIBRATION:

MALONEY WELL PUMPING TEST ........................................................... 2-19

CHART3 TRANSIENT CALIBRATION:

SOUTHAMPTON WELL PUMPING TEST ................................................. 2-20

Final - lV- Dufresne-Henry


LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A REFERENCES

Final -v-

Table of Contents

Dufresne-Henry


SECTION ONE

INTRODUCTION

Section One Introduction

The City ofNorthampton (City) is in the process of permitting the Phase 5 Expansion to the

existing Northampton Landfill, on Glendale Road in Northampton, Massachusetts. After the

City started the permit process for the Phase 5 Landfill Expansion, the Department of

Environmental Protection (DEP) completed a Conceptual Zone II for the Maloney Well, a

public water supply well in Easthampton, Massachusetts, which encompassed the landfill

site. In July 2004, Dufresne-Henry submitted a groundwater model for the Maloney Well for

the purpose of redelineating the Maloney Well Zone II (Transmittal #W044968). The model

submitted at that time indicated that the Phase 5 Landfill Expansion was outside of the

Maloney Well Zone II. In correspondence dated October 5, 2004, DEP raised several

questions about the model and also provided additional technical documents about the

aquifer. In revising the model to address DEP comments, it was found that the Zone II for

the Maloney Well again encompassed the Phase 5 Landfill Expansion site.

The Site Assignment Regulations (31 OCMR16.40) state that a site shall not be deemed

suitable if the waste deposition area would be within a Zone II area of an existing water

supply well. The City of Northampton requests a waiver for this criterion in accordance with

the regulations. The DEP has stated that a contaminant transport model must be completed

as part of a waiver request. In addition, DEP requested that the contaminant transport model

be included in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Phase 5 landfill

expansion.

In a meeting in December 2004, DEP agreed to informally review and provide comments on

the approach for the contaminant transport model. On February 2, 2005, Dufresne-Henry

submitted the document entitled "Northampton Sanitary Landfill Phase 5 Expansion

Contaminant Transport Scope of Work" to DEP for comment. The document presented the

revised Maloney Well groundwater flow model. It also presented the approach for

performing the contaminant transport model.

Final 1-1 Dufresne-Henry


Section One Introduction

In correspondence dated March 16,2005, DEP provided comments on the Maloney Well

(Barnes Aquifer) Model and the Contaminant Transport Model Scope of Work. The DEP

also requested that additional information be submitted describing the "volume and duration

of the catastrophic release." The correspondence also requested the opportunity to review

model input parameters for leachate quality.

Dufresne-Henry submitted information about the catastrophic fixed volume leachate release

scenario on Aprill, 2005. In addition, Dufresne-Henry submitted two memoranda to DEP

on May 13, 2005. One memo described leachate leakage estimates through existing and

proposed liner systems and the second memo described the leachate parameters to be used in

the contaminant transport model. DEP verbally agreed to this information in a discussion on

July 5, 2005.

The DEIR dated September 2005 included the document entitled "Summary Report on

Contaminant Transport Model, Northampton Sanitary Landfill Phase 5 Expansion Project",

dated August 2005.

That report described the groundwater flow model for the Barnes Aquifer as well as the

results of the contaminant transport model prepared to predict the potential impacts from a

theoretical release of leachate from the Northampton Landfill site.

This Report is a revised and updated version of the August 2005 report. The Model and

report text have been revised to address informal comments made by DEP on the DEIR

document.



Section Two Groundwater Flow Modeling

SECTION TWO

GROUNDWATER FLOW MODELING

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Before contaminant transport modeling can be performed, a groundwater flow model must

first be developed for the Barnes Aquifer, the aquifer underlying the Northampton Landfill

and the Easthampton Maloney Well. The groundwater flow model was developed using the

U.S. Geological Survey Modular Finite-Difference Groundwater Flow Model (MODFLOW).

This model was used to simulate groundwater flow under average, long-term conditions.

The relative locations of the Northampton Landfill and the Easthampton Maloney Well are

depicted in Figure 2-1.

2.2 CONCEPTUAL MODEL

The Barnes Aquifer is a valley-fill aquifer created by the deposition of sand and gravel from

glacial meltwater flowing in a pre-existing valley in the bedrock. These permeable stratified

drift deposits extend from the Westfield River to the south, northward to Northampton.

These deposits are bounded by upland areas of bedrock or glacial till. Till is an unsorted

mixture of boulders, gravel, sand, silt and clay which was deposited directly by glacial ice.

The till has much lower hydraulic conductivity than the stratified drift and is not considered

an aquifer deposit. Much of the aquifer is covered to the northeast by a thick deposit of clay

which acts as an effective confining layer in that area. The clay was deposited in glacial

Lake Hitchcock, an ancient lake formed by impoundment of meltwater as the glacier margin

retreated. The aquifer is recharged over the unconfined portion of the aquifer to the west and

south with local precipitation and by precipitation and runoff from the neighboring hillsides.

Surface water courses are generally gaining streams into which groundwater discharges.

Thus groundwater flows from the surrounding hills into tributaries to the Manhan River and

ultimately to the Connecticut River. The aquifer is bounded by local surface water divides


:::

8

u: ~ 0

·~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------,

BASE MAP FROM USGS EASTHAMPTON AND MT. TOM QUADRANGLES


www.dufresne-henry.com NORTHAMPTON

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

SITE LOCUS NORTHAMPTON LANDFILL AND

EASTHAMPTON MALONEY WELL

FIGURE 2-1

Project No. 9205015

Proj. Mgr. J.LAURILA

Scale 1 "=4000'

Date JULY 05

MASSACHUSETTS A



for the surface water basin draining to the Manhan River and its tributaries. In the absence of

pumping withdrawals, the groundwater divide in the unconfined margins of the aquifer

would tend to mirror the overlying surface water divide.

Well logs for observation wells installed in the vicinity of the Maloney Well encounter

bedrock at approximately 200 feet below ground surface. The Maloney Well is screened in

fine to coarse sand and gravel overlain by about 122 feet of clay.

2.3 GROUNDWATER MODEL DESCRIPTION

The groundwater flow model of the Maloney Well aquifer was developed using the U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) MOD FLOW computer program. The model determines the

distribution of hydraulic head and the groundwater flow field over time and space. The

model considers:

• the varying capacities of the geologic materials to transmit groundwater

flow, represented by the aquifer hydraulic conductivity;

• the changes in the quantity of water stored in the geologic materials,

represented by the aquifer storage coefficient; and

• the influence of boundary conditions where water enters or leaves the

groundwater system.

Typical boundary conditions are wells, streams, springs, and impermeable barriers to flow.

The water table is also a boundary through which rainfall or other recharge enters the

groundwater system.

MODFLOW is described by its authors as a modular computer program for three

dimensional groundwater flow modeling (McDonald and Harbaugh, 1988). "Modular" refers

to the structuring of the computer programming code into independent sub-programs or

modules, each performing a distinct, well-defined task. One or more modules together form




the major code capabilities, or "packages." Individual packages address specific aspects of

the groundwater system. The MODFLOW packages used for this project are as follows:

Basic package - establishes basic model structure and computer code bookkeeping and

output instructions. The basic package is required in all MODFLOW applications.

Block-centered flow package - establishes the geometry and hydraulic properties of the

model grid. The block-centered flow package is required in all MODFLOW

applications.

River package - represents a river underlain by a variable permeability bottom. A

riverbed conductance parameter must be specified in using the river package.

Recharge package - specifies the rate of rainfall recharge into the surface of the modeled

area.

Well package- represents withdrawal wells (negative flow in model input), recharge

wells (positive flow), and specified-flow boundary conditions.

Strongly implicit procedure (SIP) package - is one of several available packages used

to solve the groundwater flow equations. The SIP is an accelerated solution technique

that solves most problems more quickly than the other packages.

The MODFLOW code provides several computation options. In representing processes over

time, the model can be operated as a steady-state (not varying in time) or transient (varying

in time) model. In this study, the model was used both in steady-state mode to evaluate long

term average behavior of the groundwater system and in transient mode to simulate Zone II

conditions.

MODFLOW permits the vertical geometry to be represented as fully three-dimensional,

quasi-three-dimensional, or two-dimensional. In the quasi-three-dimensional option,




aquifers are represented as model layers, but separating confining units are modeled through

interlayer leakage coefficients rather than as explicit model layers. In the fully three

dimensional option, both aquifer units and confining units are explicitly represented in the

model layer structure. In the two-dimensional model, a single model layer is specified. A

two-dimensional formulation is used in this study.

2.4 GROUNDWATER MODEL DEVELOPMENT

The development of a groundwater flow model entails preparing the geological information

from the conceptual model in a form usable by the MODFLOW computer program. This

preparation included the following:

• subdividing the model area (horizontal and vertical) into a grid of

computation elements;

• specifying boundary conditions in the model domain; and

• assigning values of physical properties such as hydraulic conductivity

to the resulting array of model cells.

The input data required by the model include

• geographical definition of the model area and model computation grid;

• model boundary conditions (no-flow, specified-flow, river, and

constant head boundaries);

• distribution of the hydraulic parameters: the aquifer hydraulic

conductivity and storage coefficient;

• location and pumping rate of wells; and

• amount of precipitation recharge.

Model Area and Boundaries- The model area is shown in Figure 2-2. Most of the

horizontal boundaries are placed at the natural boundaries of the aquifer where the sand and

gravel deposits meet the glacial till as mapped by the USGS (Stone et al., 1979). Other no

flow boundaries are located at inferred groundwater divides far enough from the pumping


i5

~ ;:

0

of

t

•


Tel. (413)584-4776 www.dufresne-henry.com

NORTHAMPTON LANDFILL

~ BEDROCK OR GLACIAL TILL

RIVER

.....-------- EXTENT OF CLAY CONFINING LAYER

WESTFIELD BASIN BOUNDARY

0 MUNICIPAL WELLS

-.__ ROADS

--- EXTENT OF MODELING AREA

TOWNS


MODEL AREA AND HYDROLOGIC FEATURES BARNES AQUIFER

FIGURE 2-2

Project No. 9205015


Scale 1 INCH=2 MILES

Date JULY 05

NORTHAMPTON MASSACHUSETIS A



wells to ensure no effect on the zone of influence of the pumping wells. The numerical

model grid used by the computer program mustbe a rectangular area; therefore there are

inactive grid cells between these boundaries and the limits of the numerical grid. The limit

of the active grid cells and boundary conditions are shown in Figure 2-3. All model units

are in meters although they are presented with English horizontal units in the figures.

The vertical boundaries of the aquifer are the bedrock surface and either the ground surface

in the case of an unconfined aquifer, or the bottom of the confining layer in the case of a

confined aquifer. Data for the bedrock surface existed for the Mt. Tom and Mount Holyoke

quadrangles (Londquist, 1973, 1975, 1976; Londquist and Larsen, 1976), but not for the

Easthampton quadrangle. Numerous previous studies in the Easthampton area were

synthesized for development of the bedrock surface in this area. These studies included the

following:

• A Site Investigation of the Loudeville Landfill by SEA in 1994

• A Comprehensive Site Assessment of the Oliver Street Landfill by SEA in 1995

• A UMass MS thesis of a hydrogeological investigation of the Easthampton and

Northampton Landfills by Daniel C. Walsh in 1987

• A report on the Southampton Aquifer by Wheran in 1988

• A report on the Easthampton Hendricks wellfield by SEA in 1994

• The Nonotuck pumping test report by SEA in 1994

• The Brook St. pumping test report by SEA in 1994

• Several maps prepared by Smith College geology students in 1981

• A report on the Southampton Wells by Tighe & Bond in 1963

• An investigation at the Northampton Landfill by Dufresne-Henry in 1997

• Two reports of Maloney Well investigations by Tighe & Bond in 1975 and 2001

• An investigation into the existence of a bedrock ridge in the vicinity of Main Street

and Holyoke Streets documented by Tighe & Bond in 2001

The bedrock surface (the bottom of the aquifer) is shown on Plate 1.


•

SOUTHAMPTON WELL

Dufresne-Henry Northampton. Massachusetts


• RIVER • CONSTANT HEAD Ill PUMPING WELL Ill NOFLOW

~ RIVER

~ EXTENT OF CLAY CONFINING LAYER


MODEL GRID AND BOUNDARY CONDITIONS BARNES AQUIFER

MALONEY WELL

NONOTUCK WELL

BROOKS STREET WELL

PINES WELL HENDRICKS WELL

FIGURE 2-3

Project No. 9205015



Date JULY 05

NORTHAMPTON ~ Tel. <413l5844776 MASSACHUSETIS A - www.dufresne-henry.com

sL-------------~------L-----------------------------------------------------------~--L--------------J

Pro'ectNo. 9205015

Proj. Manager J. LAURILA

Proj. Designer O.HARWOOD

PLATE 1 Drawn By O.HARWOOO

Checked By J.LAURILA

Scale 1"•2,000'

Approved

Date JULY 2005

----- EXTENTOFCLAYCONFININGLAYER r~~,......... RIVER

NORTHAMPTON

~ BEDROCK DR GLACIAL nu_ ---- BEDROCKCONTOUR(METERS)


BEDROCK SURFACE ELEVATION BARNES AQUIFER MODEL

MASSACHUSETTS Rev. Description By Date

Dl-l Dufresne-Henry

Northampton, Massachusetts T-'.(413)584-4776 •Fax(413)584-31.57




The upper surface of the aquifer is the ground surface in the unconfined portion to the west.

Under the clay layer, the upper surface of the aquifer was determined by subtracting the clay

thickness, given by Langer (1979), from the ground surface. The ground-surface elevation

was determined from Digital Elevation Model (DEM) data from the USGS. The top surface

of the aquifer is shown on Plate 2.

Internal boundaries are typically surface-water features that interact with the groundwater

system. Streams in the portion of the study area where the aquifer is unconfined are

represented in the model using the MODFLOW river package. Stream and pond elevations

were determined using the U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps. Stream elevations

were specified at points where contours on the topographic map cross the stream. Elevations

in the model were linearly interpolated between the map points.

The MODFLOW river package considers the stream to be underlain by a stream bed of

variable conductance. The stream conductance, C, for each river cell was calculated using

the following equation:

C=KLW/M

where, K hydraulic conductivity of the stream bed material

L length of stream within the cell

W width of stream

M thickness of the stream bed material

For the ponds and the streams, the stream bed hydraulic conductivity was assumed to be 2.0

feet/day, a value consistent with those reported by de Lima (1991) for small sandy bottom

streams in New England.

Only streams in the unconfined portion of the aquifer were simulated with river cells. In the

confined portion of the aquifer, it is assumed that the thick clay layer prevents any interaction

between the aquifer and the surface water. The Connecticut River, which cuts through the


;-'

NORTHAMPTON

~ BEDROCK DR GLAC"'- nLL


AQUIFER TOP ELEVATION BARNES AQUIFER MODEL

TOP OF AQUIFER CONTOUR (METERS)

MASSACHUSETIS

DH Dufresne-Henry

Northampton, Massachusetts Tei. (413)5M-4nll •Fax(413)5&4-3157

www.dufresn&-henry.com



clay layer, was represented in the model with constant head cells. An elevation of 98 feet

MSL (29.9 meters) was assigned to the constant head cells based on the surface-water level

given in EPA BASINS database (U.S. EPA, 2001).

The pumping wells are also represented as boundaries in the model with the well package.

Wells in the model were set to an assumed average rate (75% of maximum rates) in order to

simulate the overall average baseline groundwater flow in the aquifer. The results from the

average conditions simulation were used as the starting conditions for the transient Zone II

simulation with all wells pumping their maximum approved yields. The pumping rates used

for each of the wells in the model are given in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1 Well Pumping Rates Used in Model

Average Rate Max Rate (Approved Yield)

Well Name MGD (m3 /day) MGD (m3 /day)

Maloney 1.125 4,262 1.500 5,682

Nonotuck 0.854 3,235 1.138 4,311

Brook Street 1.091 4,133 1.454 5,508

Pines 0.756 2,864 1.008 3,819

Hendricks 0.896 3,394 1.195 4,527

Southampton 0.594 2,250 0.792 3,000




Hydraulic Parameters- Four zones ofhydraulic conductivity with values of33 feet/day (10

meters/day), 165 feet/day (50 meters/day), 330 feet/day (100 meters/day), and 650 feet/day

(200 meters/day) were used in the model area. These values were based on the various

pumping test reports conducted for the wells noted above. A storage coefficient of0.0065

was assigned to the aquifer under the clay (confined area) and 0.05 in the unconfined area

based on the Maloney Well pumping tests (Tighe & Bond, 2001) and literature values

(Driscoll, 1986). The distribution ofhydraulic conductivity over the model area is given in

Figure 2-4.

Recharge - The recharge rate from precipitation in the unconfined area of the aquifer was 19

inches per year, which is one half the average annual precipitation for this area (Bent, 1999).

In the confined area of the aquifer, under the clay layer, no recharge from precipitation was

assumed.

Leakage - It is assumed that the clay confining layer is leaky in the southern portions of the

aquifer due to the high upward gradient. The recharge package was used to simulate the loss

of water from the aquifer by defining a zone in the southern portion of the aquifer and

specifYing a negative volumetric leakage flux. A "negative" flux indicates leakage from the

confined aquifer to the overlying unconfined aquifer. The volume of leakage per unit area

was estimated at 0.001 meters/day based on model calibration. The distribution of recharge

and leakage rates is shown in Figure 2-5.

2.5 CALl BRA TION

The model was calibrated to field measurements of static groundwater levels. Nine

calibration targets were identified that were distributed across the model area. The target

heads were observed at different times over many years and therefore several different model

simulations would be required to duplicate the conditions of the different targets. However,

a single simulation with all wells pumping at average rates was completed in order to give a

general indication of calibration quality. The observed and model predicted heads at the


u.

"' ~

·~--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~

Northampton, Massachusells Tel. (413)584-4776


,......_.to/" RIVER

....-------.- EXTENT OF CLAY CONFINING LAYER



HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY DISTRIBUTION BARNES AQUIFER MODEL

HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY

METERS/DAY

10

• 50

• 100

• 200

FIGURE 2-4

Project No. 9205015



Date JULY 05

NORTHAMPTON MASSACHUSETTS A

•

u: l< 0


RIVER




RECHARGE & LEAKAGE DISTRIBUTION BARNES AQUIFER MODEL

RECHARGE BY PRECIPITATION

METERS/DAY

• 0.001

• 0.0

CONFINING LAYER LEAKAGE

METERS/DAY

• 0.001

FIGURE 2-5

Project No. 9205015

Proj . Mgr. J .LAURILA


Date JULY 05

NORTHAMPTON 'E Tel. (41 3)584-4776 % www.dutresne-henry.com MASSACHUSETTS A 5 L-------------------------------~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~---~------------------~



targets are given in Table 2-2. A graph of observed and predicted heads is given in Chart 1.

The locations of the targets are shown on Figure 2-6.

Table 2-2

Calibration Target Data

Observed Predicted Difference

Target Name (Meters) (Meters) (Meters)

Maloney Well 39.56 36.33 3.23

Northampton Landfill 75.30 76.23 -0.93

Southampton Well 53.35 51.05 2.30

Nonotuck Well 53.15 44.34 8.81

Loudeville Landfill 62.26 53.10 9.16

Oliver St Landfill 60.30 59.00 1.30

Brook St Well 50.95 45.31 5.64

Southampton test well 27 51.80 50.45 1.35

Southampton test well 14 54.90 58.80 -3.90

Residual Mean 3.00

An additional calibration simulation, or validation simulation, was conducted using

drawdown measurements collected during the Maloney and Southampton Wells pumping

tests. Data from a single observation well near each pumping well were used in a single

transient simulation of 5 days with average pumping rates (not the actual pumping test rates).

Graphs of the measured and predicted drawdowns are given in Charts 2 and 3. Predicted

drawdown is substantially less than what was observed.


CHART 1 STEADY STATE CALIBRATION: OBSERVED vs PREDICTED HEADS

80.00

75.00

70.00

65.00

~ ffi 60.00 1-w :E Q 55.00 w 1-()

Q ~ 50.00 0.

45.00

40.00

35.00

30.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00 55.00 60.00 65.00 70.00 75.00 80.00

OBSERVED (METERS)

•

u: :;: 0


EASTHAMPTON LANDFILL

LOUDVILLE LANDFILL

TEST WELL

SOUTHAMPTON WELL



~ BEDROCK OR GLACIAL TILL

~r RIVER



0 MUNICIPAL WELLS

---..._ ROADS


CALIBRATION TARGET LOCATIONS BARNES AQUIFER MODEL

MALONEY WELL

NONOTUCK WELL

BROOKS ST WELL

FIGURE 2-6

Project No. 9205015



Date JULY 05


CHART2 TRANSIENT CALIBRATION: MALONEY WELL PUMPING TEST

1.40~--------~----~----~~-------r----------,-~~~--~~------~~r-~--~~~--~~-r~--~--~

1'20 I I I · I J .· .. ·· ··· 1.· ···. •··•· l ····· · .· ·. r : < dt I

1.oo+-~------+---~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~77~~~~~~~~~~~

til I t::. ·I .. I. .. . . · ..... ·. "· ·r , ..... , .. · ... /.:. ............ , .. ···l· . . ·-·v ...... . .c::: ·~ - .,.,"./"•'" ;,,~···' .. , . . . .,,·;. ,.,. .... · .. >· ,:.~ !h ::::~~ ·:;;';--:<•'': ~ 0.80 ~ :'·· ... · I ··.: . ; .; , , < . '. ., ' , w ~ z ~ Q

3: 0.60 ~ Q

oAo I I I I 1 ·· · .. · •• 1 · I··· T ·• ~ . I

0.20 lL---~-~--+-~~sh~--:c?DT--rt:~~~

0.00 " 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5

DAYS

1-+-<:)B~§RVED -PREDICTED]

CHART3 TRANSIENT CALIBRATION: SOUTHAMPTON WELL PUMPING TEST

1.40

L_~--~~--4-~--~~~-r~ 1.00

tuo.soQr--ts-~~[J ~ ~ w

g

~ c 3: 0.60

~ c

0.40

0.20 I I / I . · I f '" ...... I < •.

0.00 ,, . ' , ..

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

DAYS

I'""'!'"-OBSERVED -PREDICTED]

3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5



Improved calibration to the aquifer test results was achieved by lowering the model hydraulic

conductivity values to unrealistically low values, but this change worsened the calibration

relative to the steady-state data set (Table 2-2). To use these lower values would give undue

weight to observations in the immediate site vicinity and insufficient weight to the behavior

of the overall aquifer as evaluated during model calibration. Further, for purposes of

evaluating the potential effect of the landfill on the Maloney Well, it is likely to be more

conservative to use higher hydraulic conductivity values and correspondingly higher ground

water travel velocities. For these reasons, we opted to use higher hydraulic conductivity

values even though they do not result in a precise validation in the pumping test simulations.

The hydraulic conductivity values chosen are a compromise in order to achieve a reasonable

fit with the somewhat conflicting steady-state and transient (aquifer test) calibration data

sets. Other calibration tests varied the storage coefficient in an attempt to improve the

calibration to the transient data sets but without achieving appreciably better results.

2.6 MODEL RESULTS

The groundwater contours predicted by the model under steady-state conditions with average

pumping rates are given in Plate 3. An important finding in the results of the model is the

amount of groundwater discharge to the brook downgradient of the landfill. Due to the

confining layer and the restriction in the aquifer through the bedrock gap to the eastern lobe,

some of the groundwater south of the landfill discharges to the brook and flows over the

confining layer. A line of particles across the landfill was tracked to determine if

groundwater from beneath the landfill discharges to the brook and thus leaves the aquifer. It

was found that all particle tracks stay in the aquifer and flow under the confining layer

despite the discharge to the stream. A larger scale plan of this area showing forward particle

tracks is given in Figure 2-7. Arrowheads on the particle tracks are at intervals of 1-year

travel time. It can be seen that the estimated groundwater travel time to the confined portion

of the aquifer is between six and seven years.


---- EXTENTOFCL.AYCONFININGlAYER

- 38- PREOICTEDGROUNOWATERCONTOUR (METERS)

BEDROCK OR GLACIAL nu.

NORTHAMPTON


PREDICTED GROUNDWATER CONTOURS BARNES AQUIFER MODEL

MASSACHUSETIS

DH Dufresne-Henry

Northampton, MassadlUsetls T-'.~13)S&4-4n6 •Fax(-413)584-3157

www.dufresne-hervy.com

•

u: li: 0

r------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------,

Northampton. Massachusetts Tel. (413)584-4776


> FORWARD PARTICLE TRACE WITH TRAVEL TIME POSTING (YEARS)

- EXTENT OF CLAY CONFINING LAYER


FORWARD TRACKS WITH TIME POSTING BARNES AQUIFER MODEL

FIGURE 2-7

Project No. 9205015


Scale 1"=1000'

Date JULY 05




To verify that the steady-state capture zone is conservative for use in the contaminant

transport model, a Zone II simulation was conducted for comparison. The model was

transformed into a Zone II simulation by making the following changes:

• Switching from steady state to transient mode

• Setting the stress period to 180 days (well operating time)

• Setting the starting heads to the results of the steady-state simulation

• Shutting off all recharge (no aquifer recharge through precipitation)

• Changing the pumping rates in all wells to maximum approved yields

The U.S. Geological Survey MODP ATH particle-tracking model was applied to the

predicted potentiometric surface to track groundwater flow to the source of the water

reaching the Maloney Well. Ten particles were tracked distributed around the Maloney

pumping well at a radius of 7 5 meters. The particles around the well are tracked in reverse to

determine where the groundwater that enters the well originates.

A comparison of the steady-state capture zone and the Zone II is given in Figure 2-8. It can

be seen that the Zone II result is only slightly larger than the steady state capture zone. In

addition, the entire recharge area where the landfill is located is captured in both cases. This

demonstrates that the steady-state version is conservative with regard to the Maloney Well

capture zone including the landfill over transient flow conditions.

2. 7 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

A sensitivity analysis was performed to determine if a different assumption for hydraulic

conductivity would significantly change the results. Two steady-state simulations were

performed, one with each hydraulic conductivity zone decreased 50% and another with each

hydraulic conductivity zone increased 100%. Predicted heads or capture zone of the

Maloney Well were not significantly different. The decreased hydraulic conductivity

simulation had a slightly larger capture zone and calibration worsened with the residual mean


:il I

STEADY-STATE AVERAGE RECHARGE, AVERAGE PUMPING RATES

MALONEY WELL CAPTURE ZONE



ZONE II NO RECHARGE, MAXIMUM PUMPING RATES FOR 180 DAYS


CAPTURE ZONE COMPARISON MALONEY WELL

FIGURE 2-8

Project No. 9205015

Proj . Mgr. J. LAURILA

Scale NOT TO SCALE

Date JULY 2005

NORTHAMPTON MASSACHUSETTS 8



of the targets 6.52 meters. The increased hydraulic conductivity simulation resulted in

improved calibration with a residual mean of 2.03 meters. Sensitivity analysis for storativity

was not conducted, as steady-state conditions are not affected by storativity.



Section Three Contaminant Transport Modeling

SECTION THREE

CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT MODELING

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the transport model is to illustrate the fate and transport of contaminants if a

release occurred at the Northampton Landfill and the Phase 5 Landfill Expansion site.

Contaminant transport was predicted using the U.S. EPA groundwater contaminant transport

model Mass Transport in Three Dimensions (MT3D), which works with the groundwater

flow results from the MODFLOW simulation (Zheng, 1990). The MT3D model considers

advection, the process by which contaminants are carried by flowing groundwater;

dispersion, the process by which contaminants spread into and mix with adjacent

groundwater; and retardation, the apparent slowing of contaminants due to the effects of

adsorption onto the aquifer solids. The MT3D contaminant transport code is fully

compatible with the MODFLOW groundwater flow code.

In addition, the Reactive Transport in Three Dimensions (RT3D) model was used to evaluate

the degradation of organic matter in landfill leachate and the impact on the dissolved oxygen

content of the groundwater. The RT3D model was developed by T.B. Clement at the Pacific

Northwest National Laboratory to provide mass transport predictions for chemicals that

interact through biochemical reactions (Clement, 1998). In this instance, the model was used

to evaluate the interaction of organic matter in the leachate (represented as biological oxygen

demand, BOD) with oxygen in the groundwater. The RT3D model follows the structure of

MT3D and is fully compatible with MODFLOW.

The MT3D and RT3D models were utilized to simulate the following hypothetical scenarios

involving contaminant releases from the existing capped, unlined landfill, the existing lined

landfill, and proposed Phase 5 Landfill:




• A theoretical non-reactive, non-adsorptive chemical was assumed to be released at

the landfill site and was traced over time to determine possible affected areas. A non

reactive, non-adsorptive chemical is conservative in the sense that it will travel faster,

farther, and at higher concentrations than a reactive or adsorptive chemical. This

simulation was used to estimate dilution effects in the aquifer.

• Simulations also were conducted using actual, typical compounds found in landfill

leachate such as metals and VOCs. Transport of these compounds is affected by their

individual properties. Compounds in the landfill leachate were defined based on data

from the Northampton Landfill and other western Massachusetts Landfill sites.

Current leachate data from the Northampton Landfill site was determined by

sampling the leachate pump station and analyzing the samples for compounds listed

in the Solid Waste Management Facility Regulations (31 OCMR19 .141 ).

The modeled releases of contaminant from the landfill were simulated under steady-state

average flow conditions with all water supply wells in the model pumping average rates

(75% of permitted maximum).

3.2 MODEL DEVELOPMENT

Additional input information is required for the contaminant transport model including more

hydraulic properties of the aquifer. The additional input data required by the MT3D model

beyond those needed by MODFLOW include:

Final

• the porosity of the aquifer materials;

• the aquifer dispersion coefficient;

• the retardation properties of the chemicals being transported; and

• the location, concentration and volume of contaminants introduced to the

groundwater system.

3-2 Dufresne-Henry



These parameters are not typically measured, and in some cases are extremely difficult and

expensive to measure. Site-specific values are not available for the Barnes Aquifer.

Therefore we have relied upon literature values as described below.

3.2.1 POROSITY

The porosity is a measure ofthe fraction of the porous medium that is pore space, i.e., not

occupied by the aquifer solids. Effective porosity is similar, but considers only the portion of

the porosity in which pores are connected such that groundwater can flow through them.

Aquifer effective porosity was assumed to be 0.25, which is a representative value for

unconsolidated aquifers (Wiedemeier et al., 1998, pg. C3-24). The total porosity was taken

as 0.3.

3.2.2 DISPERSION COEFFICIENT

The propensity of pollutants to move laterally away from the main path of groundwater

travel is known as dispersion. Mathematically, dispersion is measured by the dispersion

coefficient, which is the product of the ground-water velocity and the dispersivity.

Therefore, to define the dispersion coefficient, the groundwater velocity must be described

first.

The groundwater velocity is defined by a modified form of Darcy's Law. Darcy's Law is the

fundamental principal that describes the motion of water in a porous material. The form used

in the MT3D model is:

V= Ki n

where, V = speed of ground-water movement

K = aquifer hydraulic conductivity

i = hydraulic gradient

n = aquifer porosity




A higher groundwater velocity will allow pollutants to travel faster and farther in the aquifer,

and thus lead to a longer predicted plume. A higher hydraulic conductivity increases the

groundwater velocity, as does a higher (steeper) hydraulic gradient. A lower porosity

requires the groundwater to travel through a smaller area within the overall cross section of

the aquifer, and thus also results in a higher velocity. A lower porosity also results in a

reduction of total flow since the total cross-sectional area where flow can occur is also

reduced.

As described above, the dispersion coefficient is given by the product of the groundwater

velocity and the dispersivity:

D =Va X X

D =Va y y

D =Va z z

where, Dx = longitudinal dispersion coefficient

Dy = transverse dispersion coefficient

Dz = vertical dispersion coefficient

<Xx = longitudinal dispersivity

ay = transverse dispersivity

CXz = vertical dispersivity

The dispersivity has the units of length. Typically, there is more dispersion along the

direction of flow (longitudinal) than across it (transverse) or through it (vertical). Thus,

different values of longitudinal, transverse and vertical dispersivity are specified. The higher

the value of the dispersivity, the more a plume spreads out as it moves away from the source

of the pollutants. This lengthens and broadens the plume, but also lowers concentrations.

A discussion of available field data and recommendations for assigning values of the

dispersivity are given by Gelhar et al. (1992). They find that the dispersivity depends upon

the scale of observation, with higher values of dispersivity at longer plumes. However, at

any given observation scale a considerable range of values is possible. The aquifer




dispersivity used was 50, 5 and 0.5 meters/day in the longitudinal, transverse and vertical

components, respectively, as determined using the data presented by Gelhar et al. (1992).

3.2.3 RETARDATION

Chemical retardation defines the degree to which chemicals adsorb onto the solid materials

in the aquifer and stop flowing with the groundwater. Mathematically, this is represented

through the retardation factor, Ri, which is the ratio of the speed of groundwater movement

to that of chemical movement. For example, a chemical with a retardation factor of 2 moves

twice as slowly as the groundwater. Different pollutants have different retardation factors

and the factor also varies as a function of the aquifer material and, for metals, the

groundwater chemistry. For organic compounds, the retardation factor is a function of the

aquifer materials and the partition coefficient (also called a distribution coefficient). The

partition coefficient measures the affinity of the chemical to attach to the solid phase versus

the affinity to remain dissolved in the water phase. The equation for the retardation factor

for an organic compound is:

where, ne = aquifer effective porosity

Ph = aquifer bulk density

kd = partition coefficient

For metals, the partition coefficient is a function of the pH and oxidation state of the

groundwater and is best evaluated on a site-specific basis.

The bulk density is the mass of the oven-dried aquifer solids divided by the total field

volume (i.e., the volume of pore space and solids). Mercer et al. (1982, pg. 47) recommend a

value of 1.6 to 1.7 g/cm3 for sandy soils and 1.0 to 1.2 g/cm3 in clayey soils. There is

relatively little variation in the porosity and bulk density, whereas the partition coefficient

may vary by orders of magnitude. A higher partition coefficient implies greater affinity of

the chemical to the solid phase, and thus slower movement in the groundwater.



3.2.4 DEGRADATION


Another factor affecting contaminant transport is the degradation coefficient. In general,

reactions that remove chemicals from the groundwater tend to cause concentrations to

decrease exponentially over time. The rate of the exponential decline is captured via a first

order degradation coefficient, denoted as A. Higher values of A indicate faster degradation in

the environment, and thus a shorter plume and lower concentrations. A related concept is the

contaminant half-life, t112 , which is the time for one half of the contaminant to be degraded.

The degradation coefficient and half-life are related as:

0.693 tl/2 =--

A

3.3 LEACHATE PARAMETERS & CONCENTRATIONS

The following discussion describes the leachate parameters that were used for modeling a

theoretical landfill leachate release.

3.3.1 BIOLOGICAL OXYGEN DEMAND

Biological oxygen demand (BOD) was modeled in order to understand the effects oflandfill

leachate on concentrations of dissolved oxygen (DO) and thereby on the overall

geochemistry of the groundwater. BOD was modeled using the RT3D (Reactive Transport

in Three Dimensions) model (Clement, 1998). RT3D offers multiple options for modeling

chemical reactions. For this project, the Model 1 option was used with the stoichiometric

ratio parameter set to a value of 1 in order to simulate BOD. (This is instead of the model's

default value which is set to represent degradation of petroleum fuel components.) This

model provided predictions of the concentrations of BOD and dissolved oxygen.



3.3.2 MANGANESE


Landfill leachate is typically high in iron and manganese (Christensen et al., 2001), which

behave geochemically similarly. The Maloney Well has historically shown elevated

concentrations of manganese above the applicable secondary drinking water standard and

therefore groundwater transport of this constituent was simulated. Manganese

concentrations were modeled using the MT3D model (Zheng, 1990) assuming this

constituent is conservative. This assumption applies to the zone within the aquifer (if any) in

which DO has been consumed (reduced in concentration) by biodegradation of organic

constituents (BOD) in the leachate. Under conditions where DO is close to 0 mg/L, the

redox condition of the aquifer will cause manganese to exist in reduced chemical form.

Reduced manganese is dissolved and mobile in the aquifer. However, once the DO

concentration rises to even 0.1 mg/L, manganese is oxidized and precipitates as a solid and

thus is no longer mobile. Accordingly, the model predictions for DO were used to estimate

the bounds of manganese migration. Inside the low-DO zone, manganese was assumed to

migrate as a conservative constituent. Outside the low-DO zone, manganese was presumed

not to migrate.

The secondary drinking water standard for manganese is 0.05 mg/L. Secondary drinking

water standards have been established for aesthetic reasons. Manganese in excess of the

standard may cause staining of plumbing fixtures and add taste to the water. The laboratory

reporting limit for manganese is typically 0.025 mg/1 (25 jlg/L).

3.3.3 ZINC

The concentration of zinc is among the highest of the trace metals in landfill leachate

(Christensen et al., 2001). Zinc was modeled with MT3D and was assumed to be retarded

but not biodegraded. A retardation factor for zinc was computed using a partition coefficient

(.Ki) of 460 Llkg per Christensen, et al. (2000, 2001). Predicted concentrations for zinc are

presented as representative of heavy metals as a class of pollutants.




The secondary drinking water standard for zinc is 5 mg/L. Zinc concentrations in excess of

this concentration may result in drinking water having a chalky appearance and bad taste.

The laboratory reporting limit for zinc is typically 5 Jlg/L.

3.3.4 METHYLENE CHLORIDE

Methylene chloride is found in landfillleachates generally, as well as in the leachate of

landfills in western Massachusetts. It was assessed as an indicator of the behavior of

chlorinated volatile organic chemicals. The Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for

methylene chloride is low, 5 Jlg/L. A retardation factor for methylene chloride was

computed assuming a low organic content in the aquifer (foe= 0.001 per Wiedemeier et al.,

1998, pg. C3-27), typical bulk density (Pb = 1.55 g/cm3) and total porosity (n = 0.3), and the

organic-carbon-weighted partition coefficient (Koc = 8.8 mllg) given in the EPA Superfund

Public Health Evaluation Manual (U.S. EPA, 1986). Methylene chloride was assumed to

undergo abiotic degradation with a half-life of 700 days (Wiedemeier et al., 1998, pg. B4-

67).

The primary drinking water standard for methylene chloride is 5 J.!g/L. Primary drinking

water standards are established to be protective of human health. The laboratory reporting

limit for methylene chloride is typically 5 Jlg/L.

3.3.5 LEACHATE PARAMETER CONCENTRATIONS

The City ofNorthampton provided analytical results from a recent leachate sample from the

Northampton Landfill, as well as historical analytical data for BOD and zinc from leachate

samples analyzed at the Northampton Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). In addition,

DEP files of leachate monitoring at the Granby, South Hadley, and Chicopee landfills were

reviewed in order to provide a basis for establishing model concentrations for the four

specified parameters. The analytical dates reviewed and the ranges recorded for these

parameters at each site are summarized below.



• Northampton Landfill- Data from April 2005:


o BOD: 23 to 199 mg/L (at WWTP July 2003 to August 2004)

o Manganese: 7.84 mg/L

o Zinc: 0.036 mg/L to 0.12 mg/L (at WWTP February 2004 to August 2004)

o Methylene Chloride: 10 J.tg/L

• Granby Landfill- Data bi-monthly from February 1997 to February 1999,

quarterly from February 1999 to October 2004:

o BOD: 71 to 4,650 mg/L

o Manganese: Not measured

o Zinc: 0.0116 to 8.32 mg/L

o Methylene Chloride: 36 to 280 J.tg/L

• Chicopee Landfill - Data from March 2003, October 2003 and March 2004:

o BOD: 3.24 to 1300 mg/L

o Manganese: Not measured

o Zinc: 0.0034 to 1.55 mg/L

o Methylene Chloride: Not detected to 158 J.tg/L

• South Hadley Landfill- Data from January, March, April and May 2004:

o BOD: >700 to 1360 mg/L

o Manganese: 11.4 to 17.2 mg/L

o Zinc: 0.0926 to 0.704 mg/L

o Methylene Chloride: Not detected to 566 11g/L

Based on this review of available regionallandfillleachate data, the following concentrations

were used for modeling the groundwater transport of these four parameters:

• BOD: 5,000 mg/L

• Manganese: 20 mg/L




• Zinc: 10 mg/L

• Methylene chloride: 600 Jlg/L

Note that we have selected the highest value for each parameter based on the leachate data

reviewed for the four different landfill sites. This is a conservative approach to the leachate

characteristics.

In addition to these selected parameters, a theoretical non-reactive, non-adsorptive chemical

was assumed to be released at the landfill site and traced over time to determine distribution

over time. A non-reactive, non-adsorptive chemical is conservative in the sense that it will

travel faster, farther, and at higher concentrations than a reactive or adsorptive chemical. A

concentration of 1,000 mg/1 of this theoretical compound was used in the model. This

parameter was used as a means of evaluating dilution effects in the aquifer.

The selected parameters and concentrations used in the model were submitted to DEP for

review. DEP verbally indicated concurrence with the approach taken relative to these

leachate parameters and concentrations.

3.4 LEACHATE RELEASE VOLUMES

The leakage from the existing landfill liners and the proposed Phase 5 expansion liner were

estimated for use in the contaminant transport model. Three different release cases were

simulated:

Final

• Combined liner leakage from the existing landfill with the proposed Phase 5

Landfill;

• A single major release of a fixed volume representing 2 days ofleachate collection

from the proposed Phase 5 Landfill; and

• Combined effects from liner leakage and a single release as described above.

3-10 Dufresne-Henry


3.4.1 GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODS


Phases 1 through 4 of the existing landfill are lined with a composite liner consisting of a

two-foot thick layer of low permeability clay or geosynthetic clay liner overlaid with a

60-mil HDPE membrane. Although Phase 5 will be constructed with a double liner, we have

conservatively estimated leakage assuming that only a single composite liner will be used.

This assumption will result in a greater leakage rate than would a double liner. A double

liner has a leak detection zone between the upper (primary) and lower (secondary) liner

layers; this allows detection ofleaks in the primary (upper) liner before a leachate release to

the environment can occur.

Estimates of leachate leakage from these phases were based on empirical equations for

composite liners proposed by J.P. Giroud et al. as referenced by X. Qian et al. in

Geotechnical Aspects of Landfill Design and Construction (Qian, 2002). Estimates for the

area of the original landfill that is capped but unlined were based on a Hydrologic Evaluation

of Landfill Performance (HELP) model that was run in conjunction with the 1995

Preliminary Design Report for the closure of this area of the landfill. Estimates for the fixed

volume major release were derived from daily leachate monitoring data for the period from

July 2002 through March 2005 provided by the City of Northampton.

3.4.2 COMPOSITE LINER LEAKAGE

Leakage estimates for the composite lined areas were calculated using the following equation

by Giroud et al.:

where Q = leakage rate through a hole in the geomembrane component, m3 /sec;

C = 0.21 for "good" contact conditions between the soil liner and the

geomembrane;




C = 1.15 for "poor" contact conditions between the soil liner and the

geomembrane;

a= area of a circular hole in the geomembrane, m2;

h = liquid head on top of the geomembrane, m; and

k =hydraulic conductivity of the low permeability soil of the composite liner,

rn!sec

Several assumptions were made to conservatively estimate (overestimate) the liner leakage

rate. These assumptions are described in detail below.

Contact conditions are considered "good" when the soil liner has been well compacted to a

smooth surface, and the geomembrane has been installed with as few waves or wrinkles as

possible; "poor" conditions describe construction quality that does not result in the intimate

contact needed for a composite liner to be most effective. To be conservative in estimating

leakage rates from the liners, "poor" contact conditions were assumed. Given the level of

construction quality assurance provided during the installation of the Northampton Landfill

liners to comply with DEP requirements, the actual contact conditions would be "good" as

defined above.

A USEP A Table of Calculated Flow Rates (U.S. EPA, 1991 ), cited by Qian, provided the

basis for the area of holes per acre for composite liners with poor contact. According to the

table, 30 holes per acre with an area ofO.l cm2 each constitutes a "poor" quality liner, and,

according to Girard et al., probably indicates minimal construction quality control and no

construction quality assurance. One hole per acre with an area of 1.0 cm2 is considered a

"good" quality liner, which presumes good QA/QC. A "poor" quality liner was

conservatively assumed for the leakage calculations. The head on the liner was assumed to

be a uniform 12 inches. Again, this is a conservative assumption since it assumes that the

12-inch drainage sand layer is fully saturated, and it disregards reduced leachate head

conditions on the side slopes and the fact that the leachate head on a liner system is generally

less than 12 inches over the entire liner area. The hydraulic conductivity was assumed to be


-



1x10-7 em/sec, the maximum allowed by DEP for low permeability liners at solid waste

landfills. Based on these conservative assumptions:

Q = 1.15(0.0003 m2)

0\0.3 m)0·9(1x10-9 m/sec)0

·74 = 37.8x10-9 m3/sec/acre or

315 gal/year/acre

Phases 1 through 4 were built with composite liners and have an area of approximately 24.5

acres. The area of Phase 5 is proposed to be 29.8 acres ofwhich 9.7 acres overlaps with the

footprint of Phases 1 through 4, resulting in a net new area of 20.1 acres. Based on the

conservative simplifying assumption that Phase 5 will have a single composite liner we

ignore the overlap acreage since leakage is already accounted for in the Phase 1 through 4

calculation. Based on these areas and the estimated leakage rate determined above,

estimated annual flows are shown in the table below.

Phase Area, Estimated Leakage, Estimated leakage, acres gal/year gal/day

1-4 24.5 7,700 21

5, (not including Phases 1-4 20.1 6,300 17

overlap) Total 1-5, (not including Phase

44.6 14,000 38 1-4 overlap)

3.4.3 UNLINED LANDFILL LEAKAGE

When the cap for the unlined landfill section of the landfill was under design, HELP

Modeling was used to estimate leachate production after capping. The HELP model for the

unlined portion of the landfill was run on a per acre basis for slope conditions of 5%, 25%

and 33% as reflected by the cap grading. Default precipitation data for Plainfield,

Massachusetts with a peak daily value of 4.64 inches was used for the analysis. The cap was

divided into four layers: 12 inches of topsoil, 12 inches of drainage sand, a 40 mil

geomembrane and 6 inches of gas venting sand. It was conservatively assumed that the

placement quality of the geomembrane was "poor" with 2 holes per acre accounting for




pinholes and 1 hole per acre for installation defects. For the 5% slopes, the average annual

head on the geomembrane was determined to be 1.1 inches with a daily peak average of 11.2

inches. For the 25% and 33% slopes, the average annual head was about 0.1 inch and the

daily peak average head was about 3 inches.

The HELP model output indicates an annual leakage rate through the bottom capping layer

of 652 cu ftlacre for the 5% slope, 124 cu ftlacre for the 25% slope and 109 cu ft/acre for the

33% slope.

The overall area of the capped unlined landfill is approximately 21 acres, and the Phase 4

composite liner covers about 7 acres of its eastern slope, leaving a net unlined area of 14

acres. Of this net area, about 1 acre has a 5% slope, 7 acres have a 25% slope and 6 acres

have a 33% slope. The leakage rate results of the HELP model for each slope condition are

summarized in the table below.

Slope, Estimated Leakage, Estimated Approximate Estimated Estimated

percent cubic feet/year/acre Leakage, Area, Leakage Leakage

gaVyear/acre Acres gal/year gal/day 5 652 4880 1 4880 14

25 124 928 7 6500 18

33 109 815 6 4890 14

Based on the HELP model, total leakage through the 14-acre unlined area is estimated to be

16,270 gal/year.

3.4.4 FIXED VOLUME MAJOR RELEASE

As requested by DEP we have added a fixed volume leachate release scenario, which is

based on a system failure other than liner leakage through pinhole leaks. Under this scenario

a fixed volume, major leachate release would result if a force main were to fail and pumping

continued or due to a major liner tear or failure of the liner or leachate collection system.




Daily leachate flow monitoring records were examined for the existing landfill operation to

determine average and peak daily flows for each month on a per acre basis. This unit of

leachate generation in gallons per day per acre was then applied to the entire Phase 5

footprint area to determine the fixed volume release. From July 2002 through March 2005

the average daily flow per month was approximately 47,000 gallons. (Note that there are

peak flows that have been recorded during rain events, due to rainwater entering the leachate

collection system. During these periods of higher flows the leachate is substantially diluted

and constituent concentrations will be less). For the purposes of modeling, we have used an

average leachate generation rate with undiluted leachate quality.

The referenced daily leachate flows for the existing landfill operation, represent an area of

approximately 18 acres. (Note: This does not include some liner area ofPhase 4 which is

not yet connected to the leachate collection system, so it is not included in the unit flow rate

calculation.) When converted to a per-acre basis, the above mentioned flows yield a unit

flow of about 2,600 gal/day/acre average daily flow. Applying these unit rates to the

proposed Phase 5 area provides a basis for estimating average daily peak monthly leachate

generation. The results are summarized in the table below.

Area, Estimated Average

Phase Leachate Flow, acres

gal/day Existing Landfill

(Phase 1-4) 18 47,000

Phase 5 29.8 77,000

Using the above flow rate, the volume of leachate released over a 48-hour period from the

Phase 5 Expansion would be 154,000 gallons.

3.4.5 SUMMARY

The following leachate flow estimates were used in the contaminant transport model:




Scenario 1- Liner Leakage: Liner leakage for Phases 1-4 and Phase 5 is 14,000

gallons/year and leachate from capped, unlined landfill area is 16,500 gallons/year, therefore

site leachate leakage total: 30,500 gallons/year.

Scenario 2- Fixed Volume Release: Fixed volume two-day leachate release: 154,000

gallons.

Scenario 3- Combined Liner Leakage and Fixed Volume Release: Both components as

described above combined.

As with other transport model input parameters, these leachate flow assumptions were

submitted to DEP, who verbally concurred with this approach.

3.5 MODEL RESULTS

The proposed Phase 5 Expansion has an estimated operational life of about 20 years. As

portions of the landfill reach final grade they will be capped. Capping is an effective means

of significantly reducing leachate generation at a landfill site. A typical geomembrane cap

will reduce leachate generation by greater than 95 percent of total precipitation. To add

another level of conservatism in the model, the simulation was run assuming that liner

leakage occurred over a 100-year period, 80 years longer than the estimated Phase 5 landfill

expansion life. In addition, although landfill capping significantly reduces leachate

generation, no reduction in liner leakage has been accounted for in the model.

This section describes the results of the three model scenarios.

3.5.1 SCENARIO 1 - LINER LEAKAGE

Scenario 1, the liner leakage, was simulated in a single model stress period with 22,800

gallons per year of each contaminant recharging the aquifer over the landfill footprint.

Transport was simulated for 100 years, although the life of the landfill is expected to be only




20 years (after which it will be entirely capped). The model predicts that BOD is degraded

(reduced to 0 mg/L) essentially immediately below the landfill and no BOD plume develops.

Below a portion of the footprint of the landfill, a DO concentration of zero is predicted.

However, beyond the landfill perimeter and even below a portion of the landfill footprint as

represented in the model, DO begins to recover (increase in concentration). DO fully

recovers to the initial concentration of 10 mg/L within 350 feet of the landfill and nowhere

beyond the landfill footprint is the predicted DO concentration less than 0.2 mg/L. Without

anoxic conditions, manganese does not migrate and therefore there is also no manganese

plume. With its high retardation rate, zinc does not form a plume greater than 1 J.!g/L. The

laboratory can detect zinc to a concentration of 5 J.!g/L and the drinking water standard is 5

mg/1.

The entire methylene chloride plume is diluted to below 1 x 10-4 mg/L (0.1 J.!g/1) after 100

years of transport. This is below the laboratory detection limit of 5 J.!g/L for methylene

chloride.

3.5.2 SCENARIO 2 - FIXED VOLUME RELEASE

Scenario 2, the leachate release, was simulated in two model stress periods with two days of

154,000 gallons recharging the aquifer over the landfill footprint. The remainder of the

simulation had no leachate release. Again, the model predicts that BOD is degraded

essentially immediately below the landfill and no plume develops. Therefore under this

scenario, there is also no manganese plume. As in Scenario 1, zinc does not form a plume

greater than 1 J.!g/L.

In the leachate release scenario, methylene chloride does not form a plume greater than 1

J.!g/L after 50 years.




3.5.3 SCENARIO 3- COMBINED LINER LEAKAGE AND FIXED VOLUME RELEASE

Scenario 3, the combined effects, was simulated in three model stress periods with 50 years

of leakage, two days of leachate release, and another 50 years of leakage. Despite effectively

combining the results of both previous scenarios, the results are essentially the same. No

plumes of methylene chloride, manganese or zinc develop.

The predicted concentration at the Maloney Well of each modeled contaminant for each

release scenario is given in Table 3-1. In all scenarios none of the modeled contaminants

reaches the Maloney Well at a concentration above laboratory detection limits.

3.6 THEORETICAL CONTAMINANT SCENARIO

The extent of the theoretical contaminant plume for the following scenarios is shown in:

Figure 3-1: Theoretical Contaminant Plume- Liner Leakage

Figure 3-2: Theoretical Contaminant Plume- Fixed Volume Release

Figure 3-3: Theoretical Contaminant Plume- Liner Leakage and Fixed Volume Release

The results of the theoretical contaminant scenario illustrate possible plume behavior with

the unrealistic assumptions of a very strong source concentration with no contaminant

reduction by degradation or retardation effects. Even with these unrealistically conservative

assumptions, the model results indicate substantial dilution and essentially no impact to the

water quality at the Maloney Well. Even at a release concentration of one million

micrograms per liter (1,000,000 J.Lg/L = 1000 mg/L), the resulting concentration at the

Maloney Well after 100 years of liner leakage is only 1.3 J.Lg/L. The concentration 50 years

after the two-day leachate release is only 0.2 J.Lg/L and the combined simulation results in a

concentration of 1.5 J.Lg/L. This result shows a dilution factor of 6. 7 x 105 from the initial

concentration of the theoretical contaminant released at the landfill. To illustrate the dilution

effects of the aquifer, consider the conservative scenario of a 1 00-year release of methylene

chloride with no retardation effects. Based on the theoretical contaminant results, this

Final 3-18 Dufresne·Henry

Scenario

1

2

3

TABLE 3-1 Northampton Landfill Contaminant Transport Modeling Results Summary

Leachate Transport Description Volume Units release duration

duration (years)

liner leakage 22,800 gallons/yr continuous 100

fixed volume release 154,000 gallons/2day 2 days 50

liner leakage 22,800 gallons/yr continuous 100

fixed volume release 154,000 gallons/2day 2 days 50

----------------- ....

MCL=Massachusetts Drinking Water Standards Maximum Contaminant Level NA=Not Applicable *secondary MCL standards for aesthetics **Massachusetts Primary Drinking Water standard

Parameter

BOD Methylene Chloride

Manganese Zinc

theoretical contaminant


Manganese Zinc

theoretical contaminant


Manganese Zinc

theoretical ~()Qtaminarl_t

***Predicted concentration is substantially less than typical laboratory detection limits

Leachate Cone. mg/L

5,000 0.60 20 10

1,000

5,000 0.60 20 10

1,000

5,000 0.60 20 10

__ __ 1 ,OOQ_

Predicted Final Cone

Maloney Well MCL f.ig/L f.lg/L

0*** NA 0.001*** 5**

0*** 50* 0*** 5000* 1.3 NA

0*** NA 0.0002*** 5**

0*** 50* 0*** 5000* 0.2 NA

0*** NA 0.0012*** 5**

0*** 50* 0*** 5000*

L_ --1.5 NA

• r-----------------------------------------------------------------------~

CONCENTRATION IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER 1x1o-1 1x1o-2 1x10-3 1x104

~======~~=======I~~-----0.1

BASE MAP FROM MASS GIS


Tel. (413)584-4776 WNW.dufresne-henry.com

0.01 0.001


THEORETICAL CONTAMINANT PLUME 100 YEARS OF LINER LEAKAGE

0.0001

FIGURE 3-1

Project No. 9205015


Scale 1"=4000'

Date JULY 05


•

~ •o

u: tr 0

CONCENTRATION IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER 1x10-1 1x10-2 1x1o-3 1x1o-4

~========r=========~==~-----0.1




0.01 0.001


THEORETICAL CONTAMINANT PLUME 50 YEARS AFTER LEACHATE RELEASE

0.0001

FIGURE 3-2

Project No. 9205015


Scale 1"=4000'

Date JULY 05


•

CONCENTRATION IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER 1x10-1 1x1o-2 1x1o-3 1x1o-4

~========~========~==~-----0.1




0.01 0.001


THEORETICAL CONTAMINANT PLUME 50 YEARS AFTER LEACHATE RELEASE

AND 100 YEARS OF LINER LEAKAGE

0.0001

FIGURE 3-3

Project No. 9205015

Proj . Mgr. J .LAURILA

Scale 1 "=4000'

Date JULY 05




release would have to be at a concentration of 3,333,300 J.Lg/L in order to reach the Maloney

Well at a concentration equal to the MCL of 5 J.tg!L. As described above, the highest

methylene concentration in the reviewed leachate data was 566 J.Lg/L and 600 J.Lg/L was

agreed upon as an appropriate concentration to use in the model.

As another illustration, the concentration of total nitrogen in the leachate would have to be

on the order of 2,667 mg/1 to potentially exceed the method detection limit of 4 ug/1 for

nitrate or nitrite (310 CMR 22.00).

3.7 SUMMARY

A contaminant transport model has been prepared to estimate the movement of leachate

constituents if a release of leachate to the environment occurred at the Northampton Landfill

Phase 5 expansion site. The purpose of the model was to determine if unacceptable impacts

to water quality would occur at the Maloney Well, a public water supply in Easthampton.

A high degree of conservatism was used throughout the selection of model input parameters

to overestimate potential impacts at the well. These are summarized as follows:

• Overestimation of liner leakage and leachate volume release.

• Selection of highest concentrations of representative contaminants evaluated in

leachate from the Northampton Landfill and other Western Massachusetts landfills.

• Modeling the leakage and leachate release for 30 to 80 years longer than the

estimated life of the proposed Phase 5 Landfill expansion.

The results of the modeling of the three contaminant specific release scenarios indicate that

no contaminant plume leaves the landfill site. In addition, the model for a theoretical

contaminant release reveals that for a non-reactive pollutant the dilution factor is 6.7 xl0-5

(99.99985%), meaning that there is near total dilution in the aquifer between the landfill site

and the well.




Based on the results of the contaminant transport model described above, the proposed Phase

5 Landfill does not present a risk to future water quality at the Maloney Well in

Easthampton.


APPENDIX A

REFERENCES

CITED REFERENCES

ADDITIONAL REFERENCES

-Northampton Department of Public Works Summary Report on Contaminant Transport Model

CITED REFERENCES

References

Bent, G. C., 1999, Streamflow, Base Flow, and Ground-Water Recharge in the Housatonic River Basin, Western Massachusetts and Parts of Eastern New York and Northwestern Connecticut. Water-Resources Investigations Report 98-4232. U.S. Geological Survey, Northborough, Massachusetts.

Christensen, T. H., T. Astrup, J. K. Boddum, B. 0. Hansen, and S. Redemann, 2000. Copper and Zinc Distribution Coefficients for Sandy Aquifer Materials. Water Research. Vol. 34, No.3, Pg. 709-712. February 2000.

Christensen, T. H., P. Kjeldsen, P. L. Bjerg, D. L. Jensen, J. B. Christensen, A. Baun, H.-J. Albrechtsen, and G. Heron, 2001. Biogeochemistry of landfill leachate plumes. Applied Geochemistry. Vol. 16, No. 7-8, Pg. 659-718. June 2001.

Clement, T. P., 1998. RT3D: A Modular Computer Code for Simulating Reactive Multispecies Transport in 3-Dimensional Groundwater Aquifers. Report Number PNNL-SA-11720. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. March 1998.

de Lima, V ., 1991, Stream-Aquifer Relations and Yield of Stratified-Drift Aquifers in the Nashua River Basin, Massachusetts, Water Resources Investigations Report 88-4147. U.S. Geological Survey, Boston, Massachusetts.

Driscoll, F.G., 1986. Groundwater and Wells. Johnson Filtration Systems, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Dufresne-Henry, 1997, Northampton Sanitary Landfill Final Comprehensive Site Assessment. Dufresne-Henry, Greenfield, Massachusetts.

Gelhar, L. W., C. Welty, and K. R. Rehfeldt, 1992. A critical review of data on field-scale dispersion in aquifers. Water Resources Research. Vol. 28, No.7, Pg. 1955. July 1992.

Langer, W. H., 1979. Map showing distribution and thickness of the principal fine-grained deposits, Connecticut valley urban area, central New England. Miscellaneous Investigations I-1074-C. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.

Londquist, C. J., 1973. Contour map ofthe bedrock surface, Mount Tom quadrangle, Massachusetts. Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-504A. U.S. Geological Survey.

Londquist, C. J., 1975. Contour map of the bedrock surface, Mount Holyoke quadrangle, Massachusetts. Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-640A. U.S. Geological Survey.

Londquist, C. J., 1976. Map showing depth to bedrock, Mount Holyoke quadrangle, Massachusetts. Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-640B. U.S. Geological Survey.

Final A- 1 Dufresne-Henry


References

Londquist, C. J., and F. D. Larsen, 1976. Map showing depth to bedrock, Mount Tom quadrangle, Massachusetts. Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-504C. U.S. Geological Survey.

Mazzaferro, D. L., E. H. Handman, and M.P. Thomas, 1979, Water Resources Inventory of Connecticut; Part 8, Quinnipiac River Basin. Water Resources Bulletin No. 27. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Hartford, Connecticut.

McDonald, M.G., and A. W. Harbaugh, 1988. A modular three-dimensional finite-difference ground-water flow model. Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations of the United States Geological Survey, Book 6, Chapter Al. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.

Qian, X., R. M. Koerner, and D. H. Gray, 2002. Geotechnical Aspects of Landfill Design and Construction. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

Stone, J. R., E. H. London, and W. H. Langer, 1979. Map showing textures of unconsolidated materials, Connecticut valley urban area, central New England. Miscellaneous Investigations I-1074-B. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.

Tighe & Bond, 1975. Easthampton 8-inch Test Well Report, Westfield, Massachusetts.

Tighe & Bond, 2001. Easthampton Maloney Well SWAP Zone II Report, Westfield, Massachusetts.

U.S. EPA, 1986. Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual. Report No. EPA/540/1-86/060. OSWER Directive 9288.4-1. Office ofEmergency and Remedial Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. October 1986.

U.S. EPA, 2001. BASINS, Version 3.0, Region 1. Report No. EPA-823-C-01-001 (CDROM). Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

Wiedemeier, T. H., M.A. Swanson, D. E. Moutoux, E. K. Gordon, J. T. Wilson, B. H. Wilson, D. H. Kampbell, J. E. Hansen, P. Haas, and F. H. Chapelle, 1998. Technical Protocol for Evaluating Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents in Water. Report Number EPA/600/R-98/128. Office ofResearch and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. September 1998.

Zheng, C., 1990. MT3D: A Modular Three-Dimensional Transport Model for Simulation of Advection, Dispersion and Chemical Reactions of Contaminants in Groundwater Systems. RobertS. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ada, Oklahoma. October 1990.

Final A-2 Dufresne-Henry


ADDITIONAL REFERENCES

References

Cederstrom, D. J., and A. L. Hodges, 1967. Ground-water favorability ofthe Connecticut River Basin New England States. Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-249. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.

Colton, R. B., and J. H. Hartshorn, 1966. Bedrock geologic map of the West Springfield quadrangle, Massachusetts and Connecticut. Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-537. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.

Colton, R. B., and J. H. Hartshorn, 1970. Surficial geologic map of the West Springfield quadrangle, Massachusetts and Connecticut. Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-892. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.

Frimpter, M. H., 1980. Ground-water availability in the north part of the Connecticut valley urban area, central New England. Miscellaneous Investigations I-1074-I. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.

Hansen, B. P., 1986. Exploration for areas suitable for ground-water development, central Connecticut valley lowlands, Massachusetts. Water-Resources Investigations Report 84-4106. U.S. Geological Survey, Boston, Massachusetts.

Larsen, F. D., 1972. Surficial Geology of the Mount Tom Quadrangle, Massachusetts. OpenFile Report 72-219. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.

Maevsky, A., and D. G. Johnson, 1990. Water Resources of the Westfield and Farmington River Basins, Massachusetts. Hydrologic Investigations Altas HA-716. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.

Moore, R. B., C. D. Johnson, and E. M. Douglas, 1994. Geohydrology and Water Quality of Stratified-Drift Aquifers in the Lower Connecticut River Basin, Southwestern New Hampshire. Water-Resources Investigations Report 92-4138. U.S. Geological Survey, Bow, New Hampshire.

Schnabel, R. W., 1971. Bedrock geologic map of the Southwick quadrangle, Massachusetts and Connecticut. Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-1170. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.

Schnabel, R. W., 1971. Surficial geologic map of the Southwick quadrangle, Massachusetts and Connecticut. Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-891. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.

Final A- 3 Dufresne-Henry

-


References

Schnabel, R. W., 1974. Map showing unconsolidated materials, Southwick quadrangle, Massachusetts-Connecticut. Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-606A. U.S. Geological Survey.

Walker, E. H., and W. W. Caswell, 1977. Map showing availability of ground water in the Connecticut River lowlands, Massachusetts. Hydrologic Investigations Atlas 563. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.

Final A -4 Dufresne-Henry

APPENDIXN

EXCERPT FROM SWAP REPORT

(TIGHE & BOND

SECTION 4- SOURCE PROTECTION)

. .

SECTION 4 SOURCE PROTECTION

A study ("windshield survey") was conducted to identify current land uses and potential contamination sources (PCSs) within the boundaries of the Zone II. The findings of the study are summarized in this section along with a discussion of water quality data. This section also includes recommendations regarding the adoption of groundwater protection controls.

4.1 lAND UsE/SANITARY SURVEY

The Zone II occupies an estimated 18.6 square mile area in a portion of Easthampton, Northampton, Southampton, Holyoke and Westfield. USGS mapping indicates that wetland areas are located within the Zone II. The land within the Zone II is used for residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural purposes. Public sanitary sewer service is not available to properties within a portion of the Zone II area.

To facilitate the field survey, data were collected in advance from numerous sources. Our approach was to obtain existing information about land use activities that are likely to threaten groundwater wells _and use that information in guiding the field surveys. Requests for data were made to several organizations and available data were returned. The data were collected from the following sources: 1) Massachusetts DEP, 2) EPA Region I, 3) Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs MassGIS data files and 4) privately developed business data fi:om Claritas, Inc. A listing of data files obtained from each source is shown in Appendix G. Since the completion of the field survey, the DEP land use risk categories were modified. A copy of the current list obtained from DEP is also provided in Appendix G.

A field survey of the Zone II was conducted between December 5 and 7, 2000. Survey coverage did not include regions within existing Zone II areas that were incorporated into the Maloney Well Zone II, as described in Section 3. Also, the area near "Rock Valley" that was incorporated into the Zone II delineation was not surveyed for PCS locations. Based on data obtained from electronic databases and information gathered during the field visits, a total of 76 PCS locations were identified within the surveyed areas of the Zone II in Easthampton, Northampton and Southampton. In addition, 15 PCS locations were identified just outside the limits of the Zone II. A list of PCSs and the related DEP Risk Categories are provided in Table 4-1 that begins on page 4-2 and the PCS locations are depicted on Figure 1 in Appendix A. The PCSs were ranked in accordance with the updated D EP land use risk category listing.

In addition to the PCSs shown in Figure l and listed in Table 4-1, pastures and croplands are located within the Zone II. These areas are depicted on Figure 3 in Appendix A. According to the DEP risk ranking system, most agricultural-related activities represent a medium level threat to groundwater. Fixtures indicative of heating oil aboveground storage tanks {ASTs) were observed at several residential properties within the Zone II. According to the DEP ranking system, ASTs represent medium level threats to groundwater.

Maloney Well- Easthampton, MA 4-1

I


i Table 4-1

Potential Sources of Contamination

I Easthampton Water Department Maloney WeD

Easthampton, MA

I Name

I I DEPRisk i

Site j Description Number1

! 1 CategorY

I Dr. Kos (optometrist),· Medical facilities (part of office building) M Dr. Pinon (onhodontist)

2 Fedor (Auto Sales) Service stations/automotive repair shops, H MAD9818940I7, listed UST

3 Indyk Chiropractor (and other Medical facilities (part of office building) M general medical practitioners)

4 General medical practitioners (2) Medical facilities (part of office building) M

5 Micky D's Used Auto Service stations/automotive repair shops, H RCRA 1D MAD982194615

6 A & B Auto Sales (and Mike's Service stations/automotive repair shops, H Auto Body) RCRA 1D MAD0792288554

7 Hampton Auto Sales Service stations/automotive repair shops H

8 Boulanger's Plumbing & Heating Listed UST H

9 Easthampton Auto Parts Listed UST H

10 Former Inland Citgo Station Gas stations, oil release with RlN 1-00608, H listed UST

II* Bill Willard, Inc. Sand and gravel mining/washing M

12* Residence Listed UST (under Hidden Beauty Coffers) H

13* Residence Listed UST (under Joseph Misterka Inc.) H

14 Cernak Buick Service stations/automotive repair shops, H RCRA ID MAD982544033, listed UST

Cernak Fuel & Tank Co., Inc. Fuel oil distnbutor, kerosene pump (UST) H

15* Jim's Variety & Package store Gas stations, listed UST H

16 Easthampton Highway Department Road and maintenance depots, ASTs, MAD M 982202004

17 Former Easthampton Landfill at Landfills and dumps, hazardous materials H Oliver Street release with RTN 1-00065, RCRA ID

MAD980522023

18 Former burning dump on Landfills and dumps, hazardous materials H Loudville Road release with RTN 1-00066, RCRA 1D

MAD981 069792

19 Dolat's Repair Repair shops H

20 Kleen-Bore, Inc. Industry H

21 Parkway Machining, Inc. Machine/metal working shops H

22 Zak's Construction Services, Inc. Machine/metal working shops H (including metal PQlishing}_

23 M&R Machine & Tool Co. Machine/metal working shops H

Maloney Well -Easthampton, MA 4-2

•


i

Table 4-1 Potential Sources of Contamination

i Easthampton Water Department Maloney WeD

Easthampton, MA

Site l Name Description l DEPRisk Number1 categorr !

i

24 Chemetal (Metallic Laminate Co.) Machine/metal working shops H

25 Strong Corp. Industry, listed UST H

26 Stik-11 Products Industry H

27 Tubed Products, Inc. (McCormick Industry, RCRA ID MAD000829994 H Packaging Group)

'28 Magnat Industry, RCRA ID MAD001115542 H

29 Rock Valley Tool & Precision Machine/metal working shops H

30 Gazette Printing Co., Inc. Printer and blueprint shops H

31 O'Connell Oil Associates Fuel oil distributor, ASTs M

32** Family Dentistry Medical facilities M

33** Johnson Metal Products Machine/metal working shops H

34 R&L Sheet Metal, Inc. (Sheet Machine/metal working shops H Metal Fabrication)

35 Easthampton Quality Machine Machine/metal working shops H (site a.k.a. Athaway Sheet Metal)

36 Labrie Asphalt Construction Asphalt plants, AST M

37 Easthampton Sewage Disposal Wastewater treatment facility (listed with M facility several NPDES permits)

38 M&R Concrete/M.J. Loomis Oil release with RTN 1-13126 H Paving Excavating

39 F.M. Kuzmeskas, Inc. Service stations/automotive repair shops, AST H

40 Easthampton Machine & Tool, Inc. Machine/metal working shops H

41 Czelusniak Funeral Home Funeral homes L

42 Parsons Street School Schools M

43 Former M&M Service Center (and Oil release with RTN 1-12881, listed UST H former O'Connell Oil Service ' Station)

44** Former Mr. Stripper Hazardous materials release with RTN I- H 00264

45 October Co., Inc. Industry, RCRA ID MAD98219359l H

Former Hampshire Imports (part of Listed UST H October Co. building)

46 Bishop Burner Service Fuel oil distributor M

47 Quick Stop Laundromat Laundromats L




Easthampton Water Department Maloney Well

Easthampton, MA

Site Name I Description I DEP Risk Number1

I categorr

48 Burt Tractor & Equipment, Inc. Repair shop H

49 Beaudoin Trucking (and Sean's Listed UST H Custom Woodworking & Design)

50 M&L Plastics Corp Industry, RCRA 10 MAD985266717 H

51 National Nonwovens/National Felt Industry, RCRA 10 MAD82753535 H

52 RH Sullivan (site fonnerly Kellogg Industry, RCRA 10 MADOOlll5419,listed H Brush Manufacturing Co.) UST

Eastworks (site fonnerly Listed UST, RCRA 10 MADOO 1116854 H StanHome, Inc.)

Yankee Plastics Industry H

Paragon Rubber Corp. Industry, RCRA 10 MAD001120468 H

53 P&S (Collision Repair, Spray Body shops H Booth)

54 E.S.P. Auto Service stations/automotive repair shops H

55 Boucher Funeral Home Funeral homes L

56* Northampton Landfill LandfiUs and dumps, hazardous materials H release with RTN 1-00129

57 Rigali & Walder Orthodontists Medical facilities M

58 Mobil Station Gas stations, service stations/automotive H repair shops, listed UST

59 Matt's Garage & Auto Body Service stations/automotive repair shops H

60 DOS Concrete Concrete plants M

61* Residence (no company name) Repair shops H

62 Stevens Manufacturing Industry H

63 Easthampton Animal Hospital Medical facilities M

64 Twin Cleaners (Full Service Dry cleaners H Cleaners)

65 Unnamed building (Former Hazardous materials release with RTN 1- H Zonolite Plant) 13515

66 Cleary Dentist Medical facilities M

67 National Nonwovens Industry, RCRA 10 MADOOlll9478 H

68 Moriarty & Moriarty Listed UST H

69 Neil A Pepin School Schools M

70 Mitchell Funeral Home Funeral homes L

71 The Philipp Manufacturing Co. Industry H

Maloney Well- Easthampton, MA



• Easthampton Water Department Maloney Well

Easthampton, MA

Site j Name I Description DEPRisk Number1

I categorr I !

72 Pride Gas Station Gas stations, listed UST H

73 Vacant building Listed UST H

74 Former Easthampton Fire Station Listed UST H I 75 7-Eleven Service Station Gas stations, oil release with RTN 1-10889, H

listed UST, RCRA ID MAD985288455

76 Richard's Fuel Fuel oil distributor, listed UST H

77 Wishing Well Laundromat L

78 Easthampton Dye Works Listed UST H

79 Mobil Cottage Street Station Gas station, service stations/automotive repair H shops, listed UST

80 Easthampton Laundromat Laundromats L

81 Red ~ine Motors Service stations/automotive repair shops, H listed UST

82 Struther's Paint & Body Body shops H

• 83 Unnamed printing shop Printer and blueprint shops H

84 Paramount Auto Body Body shops H

I 85 O'Brien Funeral Home Funeral homes L

86 Graham Funeral Home Funeral homes L

87 Ed's Auto Body Body shops, listed UST H I

88 Former Easthampton Area Work Oil and hazardous materials release with RTN H Center 1-00674 and MAD985298090

89 Maple Street School Schools M I

90 Williston Academy School Schools M

91 Cemeteries (5 in Easthampton) Cemeteries M

• I = Location depicted on Figure 2 in Appendix A. 2 = High (H), medium (M) or low (L) threat to groundwater.

AST = Aboveground Storage Tank

I NPDES =National Pollution Discharge Elimination System RCRA =Resource Conservation Recovery Act (IDs for hazardous waste generators)

RTN = Release Tracking Number

• UST = Underground Storage Tank * Site in Northampton ** Site in Southampton

• Maloney Well- Easthampton, MA 4-5

•

r

r

•


Routes 10 and 141 are major roadways within the Zone II. It is recommended that the Town prepare an Emergency Response Plan (ERP) for roadways or obtain a copy of the state highway department's ERP. Railroad tracks also pass through the Zone II. The Town should notify the railroad company of the Zone II area and request the development of an ERP to handle any train derailments and environmental issues within the Zone II area. In addition, the Town should confirm that a Vegetation Management Plan is submitted and that an Integrated Pest Management approach is used for the highway and railroad rights-of-way.



4.2 WATER QUALITY

Groundwater quality data for the Maloney Well haves been reviewed for this study. Available data for Maloney Well included the following:

• Volatile Organic Contaminant Reports for 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 and 2000;

• Inorganic Reports for 1998;

• Secondary Contaminant Reports for 1995 and 1996;

• Synthetic Organic Contaminant Report for 1995;

• Nitrate Reports for 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000; and

• Nitrite Report for 1995, 1996 and 2000.

In addition to the aforementioned laboratory reports for the Maloney Well, a Secondary Organic Contaminant Report dated 1998 was available for a composite water sample collected from the Maloney Well and the No no tuck Road Well (PWS ID 1 087000-08G). Copies of the laboratory reports are included in Appendix H.

During sampling rounds conducted in December 1995 and October 1996, manganese was . detectCd in Maloney Well water samples at concentrations of 0.093 milligrams per liter (mg!L) and 0.102 mg!L, respectively. The Secondary MaX.imum Contaminant Level for manganese is 0.05 mg!L.

A plume of trichloroethylene {TCE) has impacted groundwater within the Barnes Aquifer, including the area of the Hendricks Street Well (PWS ID 1087000-04G) located approximately three miles south-southwest and upgradient from the Maloney Well. Currently, water pumped from the Hendricks Street Well is being treated for the removal of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). TCE is a volatile solvent that is primarily used for parts degreasing in the automotive and metal industries. In addition, TCE is a component to products such as paints, varnishes, lubricants and paint removers. Based on VOC results for the Maloney Well, TCE has not been detected in water samples collected from the welL Additional information concerning the TCE plume is on file with the Easthampton Water Department and DEP.

4.3 WATERSHED BYLAWS

The City of Easthampton currently has zoning bylaws that reference an Aquifer Protection District (APD). Zoning bylaws regarding the APD are included in Appendix I and the boundaries of the district are illustrated on a map entitled "Aquifer Protection District". The map is filed with the City Clerk. A map of the Zone II area should be incorporated into the bylaw. ·

Maloney Well - Easthampton, MA 4-1

l


The APD regulations and restrictions were reviewed with the "Land Use Control Cross Reference Form" in Making Wellhead Protection Work in Massachusetts. Tighe & Bond suggests that the Town review this Reference Form and the specific regulations (310 CMR 22.21) when considering updates to the bylaws. Zoning bylaws address future land use activities but not existing land uses.

Tighe & Bond recommends that inspections of the Zone II area be conducted on a routine basis to identify activities that may potentially threaten the water supplies. In addition, Section P in the current bylaws should be modified to prohibit the removal of soil, loam, sand and gravel within four feet of the historical high groundwater table elevation.

Floor drain controls should be implemented through a health regulation or general bylaw to prohibit existing and new floor drain discharges to the ground in the Zone II without a DEP permit. As indicated in Making Wellhead Protection Work in Massachusetts, floor drains in industrial or commercial process areas or hazardous material and/or hazardous waste storage areas must either be sealed in accordance with the state plumbing code, connected to the municipal sewer system or connected to a holding tank that meets all DEP regulations and policies.

It is also recommended that the Easthampton Water Department contact the nearby communities of Northampton, Southampton, Holyoke and Westfield to establish a working relationship to mutually protect the watershed within the Zone II boundaries. Ideally, protective bylaws should be established by those communities to provide protection for the entire Zone II area.

Maloney Well -Easthampton, MA 4-2

L__ !_._

LEGEND • Well • Potential Contamination Source

Aquifer Boundary

Groundwater Divide forPWS

Topographic contour interval= 10 Feet

. :--. ') ,--· \.

, I

Scale: 1:30,000

--~ - · .• - --"' ~ - _:;

:_ Mr:-tldo ·w ~9 · · - .....

... ; ·-

' , ... :· . .' •

~__:_:.! ~ . i + (' __ ...... ; . . .

Tighe&Bond FIGURE 1

HYDROGEOLOGIC FEATURES

MALONEY WELL EASTHAMPTON WATER DEPARTMENT

EASTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS

--'

•

APPENDIXO

SITE SCREENING MAPS

[

l l

L r,

L

L L l

•

NOTE: 1) Legend items fmay not be shown on subsequent maps. 2)Sites Not Suitable For Landfill layer includes the following land use layers: Cropland, Pasture, Wetland, Spectator Recreation, Water Based Recreation , Commercial , Urban Open Space, All Residential Layers, Transportation, and Water. 3) Only features available from MASSGIS were used in this evaluation.

NORTHAMPTON LANDFILL SITING EVALUATION

Existing Land Use Map

Legend ~ Site Not Suitable for Landfill

D Cropland

• Pasture

D Forest

Wetland

Mining

Open Land

• Participation Recreation

• Spectator Recreation

D Water Based Recreation

Residential - MultiFamily

Residential- Smaller than 1/4 Acre

I :IJ Residential- 1/4-1 /2 Acre

Residential- Larger than 1/2 Acre

Commercial

Industrial

D UrbanOpen

Transportation

D Waste Disposal

Water

Woody Perennial

0 0.25 0.5 1 ••c::=•••• Miles

Dufresne-Henry Greenfield, Massachu setts

Tel. (41 3) 773-3642 www .dul resne-henry .com

[

r

[

r

r

l l

l f

l

l

l t

l

• NORTHAMPTON LANDFILL SITING EVALUATION

Open Space and Environmental Conservation Map

Legend

~ Site Not Suitable for Landfill

CJ Protected and Recreational OpenSpace

Q NHESP Protected Areas

A Certified Vernal Pools

NOTE: 1) NHESP Protected Areas includes NHESP BioMap Core Habitat, NHESP Priority Sites for Rare Species Habitats, and NHESP Estimated Habitats for Rare Wildlife 2) Site Not Suitable for Landfill layer includes: All NHESP Protected areas, and all Protected and Recreational Open Space areas.

0 0.25 0.5

Dulresne·Henry Greenfield , Massachusetts

Tel. (413) 773·3642 www.dulresne·henry .com

I l

l


Physical and Natural Resources Map

Legend

D Town Boundary

C2 airport

[8] Hospitals

G) Prisons

! Schools

Trails

==== Transmission Line

-+----+ Railroads

::'::'/:_!:} ·;·;.:·,; Existing Solid Waste Sites : · .. ·.:· . . '

* Highway Exits

-- Roads

-- 30' Contours

- Major Streams

CJ Water Bodies

~~;::~] Wetlands

~ Sites Not Suitable For Landfill

NOTE: 1) Legend items may not be shown on subsequent maps. 2)Sites Not Suitable For Landfill layer includes: 1 000' buffer around schools, prisons, and healthcare facilities, 400' buffer around watercourses, 1 0,000' buffer around airport, and all slopes greater than 8% 3) Only features available from MASSGIS were used in this evaluation.

Dufresne-Henry Greenfield, Massachusetts

Tel. (413} 773-3642 www.dufresne-henry.com

l l l r I I r l

[

l l l l

l l l 0

l L I L

~~

rr/~··;/ -

-0

NORTHAMPTON LANDFILL -SITING EVALUATION

Water Supply Protection Map

Legend

D Interim Wellhead Protection Area

DEP Approved Zone 2

~ Site not Suitable for Landfill

Public Water Supply Well

NOTES: 1) Only one Area may be shown where overlap occurs. 2) Only information available through Mass GIS was used to compose map 3) Site not Suitable for Landfill layer includes: All Zone 2 areas, and aiiiWPA areas. 4) Northampton contains no Zone A or Zone B surface water protection areas.

0 0.25 0.5 1 ••==-•••111 Miles

Dufresne-Henry Greenfield , Massachusetts

TeL (413} 773-3642 www .dufresne-henry .com

[

[

[

[

l [

L L

L L L


Composite Map

Legend ! Schools

[8] Hospitals

0 Prisons

Trails

* Highway Exits

Transmission Line

-+----+ Railroads

;\f~:ri;~i:-:: Existing Solid Waste Sites ::·.-.... _ .. _.·:: .

D Town Boundary

Roads

- Major Streams

D Water Bodies

30 tt Contours

• Sites Not Suitable For Landfill

= airport

Public Water Supply Well

NOTE: 1) Site not suitable for landfill layer contains a composite of that layer shown on each previous map. 2) Areas not designated as Site Not Suitable for Landfill may not be appropriate locations based on additional, digitally unavailable criteria such as dwelling locations etc.

Dufresne-Henry Greenfield, Massachusetts

Tel. (413) 773·3642 www.dufresne-henry.com

northampton landfill 2006 vol 2 appendices

News & Politics

site suitability criteria

table of contentsbwp

alternative site

ill dufresne

generic conceptual landfill

solid waste disposal

site screening maps

environmental benefit