1998-08-05Don Martin, Chairman
Neiland Douglas, Vice-Chairman
Norwood Pond Commission
Kevin Burke
Tina Cassidy
William Frost
Todd Lampert
David Lang
J. Michael Lawler
Virginia McGlynn
Joyce McMahon
Bruce Nardella
Minutes
August 5, 1998 meeting
Members present:
Chairman Don Martin, Vice-Chairman Neiland Douglas, Bruce Nardella,
Joyce McMahon, Tina Cassidy, David Lang. Also present: City Engineer
Frank Killilea.
Chairman Martin opens the meeting at 7:30 p.m. and asks if any members of the public would
like to address the Board.
Ron Johnsen, Btimbal Avenue, states that the economic impact of an overpass and related
transportation improvements near the Norwood Pond site has not yet been evaluated and may be
negligible. Pursuing funding for such an initiative might expend a lot of the City's political
capital with the State, and questions why the City would construct an access road to Norwood
Pond if that were the case.
Dan DeAngelis, Brimbal Avenue, asks how much money an overpass would cost the City, and
how much land can be developed in this area. Renee Mary, Hale Street, says she saw a small
building recently constructed on the site of the Burger King restaurant on Route 128 and asks
if any members of the Commission know who built it and why it is very near some wetlands on
the former landfill site. Killilea answers that he has also seen the building, and has not yet
discovered who constructed it and whether they received the necessary permission from either
the Building Inspector or the Conservation Commission. He says it looks as though it's a storage
or construction trailer, and he will attempt to get more details on it within the next week.
Martin asks if there are any other public comments at this point in the meeting. Heating none,
hc asks Killilea to update the Board on the issue of the capping of the landfill.
Killilea explains that at the last Commission meeting, members requested that representatives of
the consulting firm hired by the City to design a landfill closure plan be invited to this meeting
to explain their efforts and provide several design altematives for the landfill once it is capped.
Two representatives from Malcom Piruie Associates are here this evening to make a presentation
to the Board on what options the City has to consider for use of the former landfill once it is
capped.
Paul Moore and Dave Hiss from Malcolm Pimie introduce themselves to the Board. They
explain that thc City has entered into a Consent Decree with the Statc's Department of
Norwood Pond Commission
August 5, 1998 meeting minutes
page two
Environmental Protection which outlines the City' s obligations and time frame for cupping the
former landfill. Moore states that while any number of uses might be contemplated, they have
come to this evening's meeting with three categories of the most common post-closure uses for
the commission's consideration. He then distributes a handout (see attached) which lists future
site uses, descriptions, consttuction sequences, and comments for each of the three uses.
Hiss first explains "Category I - closure of landfill with no future uses", which is the design
assumption the firm has been using to date. Douglas asks what the contour interval is on the
map shown. Hiss answers ten feet. Lung asks whether the contour plan has been filed with and
approved by DEP. Hiss states that a preliminary contour plan has been submitted to DEP, and
that a final contour plan must be submitted by October. Lung asks how much fill will be needed
to sculpt the land as presently designed. Hiss states that he does not have a specific figure, but
that not much fill will be needed. Hiss details the end use under this category of design, which
he describes as a fenced mound, with no trails. He adds that the consent decree dictates that
construction will occur during the 1999 construction season and that there will be a distance of
Seventy (70) feet from the toe of slope to the top of the mound.
Next, Hiss explains "Category 2 - closure of land~ll with passive recreation end use". Hiss states
that this option would require approximately 30,000 cubic yards of additional fill beyond what
would be needed for category 1. Under this option, wetlands, ledges, and trails would be created
on top of the cap. Martin asks whether Moore or Hiss can provide the commission with an
example of a former landfill with this kind of end use in the vicinity. Hiss cannot list specific
examples in this area, but states that the company has done a similar habitat enhancement project
in Saugus. Douglas asks whether structures can be built on former landfills without settlement
problems. Hiss says that while it is a possibility, settlement is always a risk and it would be ill-
advised to build on the cap immediately after the cupping had taken place. Martin asks what
timetable would be followed if category 2 were pursued. Hiss explains that the cap would be
graded, swales would be seeded immediately, and the City would wait one to three years before
installing all other plantings and constructing any trails. Douglas asks what the cost of this
upgrade to a passive recreation use would cost the City, and what the estimated costs would be
for maintenance annually. Hiss answers that the additional fill would cost $180,000; the total
additional construction cost would be $500,000. He does not know what the annual maintenance
cost would be. This $500,000 figure would not include the cost associated with the construction
of a parking lot, or interpretive center, etc. The cost of those additional site amenitites would
be in addition to the $500,000 quoted previously. Lung says that, in his opinion, it would be
financially irresponsible to choose a closure option that would cost upwards of $1,000,000, but
is concerned that the cost estimates quoted by the consultant seem very high. Douglas asks if
a fence would still be required for a passive recreation use for a period of time. Hiss answers
yes. Renee Mary, a resident of Hale Street, asks how deep the cap will be. Hiss answers that
the depth will be approximately four (4) feet, and will consist of clay, sand, and topsoil layers.
Norwood Pond Commission
August 5, 1998 meeting minutes
page three
Next, Hiss explains "Category 3 - closure of landfill with active recreation end use". Hiss states
that the DEP would require a gas fire recovery system, and would require that a risk assessment
study be completed for this use. He estimates that the additional costs to the City would be in
the $500,00 to $600,000 range for the gas flare and collection system alone. Martin asks if a
parking lot would be included in the design for this end use as well. Hiss answers yes.
McMahon asks how the cost of additional fill for this end use compares to that for option #2.
Hiss answers that although additional fill would be needed for option #3 versus #2, that
additional cost would be negated by additional savings in the design since less wetlands would
be created with the active recreation use. Compared to option #1, option #3 will cost an
additional $1,000,000. This additional cost would not include the costs associated with
constructing a parking lot, or the ballfields.
Douglas asks for Hiss' professional opinion on the relative hazard of using this site for active
recreation purposes. Hiss states that the purpose of requiring a risk assessment study is to
evaluate any risk that may result from the active recreation use; the three issues of most concern
would be the soil, the leachate, and the gas that would be released. Douglas notes that if there
was a choice, he would prefer to choose a site like the North ~eve~y Elementary School area
to build playing fields, a site which has no risk rather than this site where the potential health
risks are unknown. Hiss explains that runoff will be collected subsurface along the toe of the
slope of the landfill and then sent via gravity to an existing pipe on site which would deliver the
water to the SESD plant for treatment. Renee Mary asks if long-term monitoring will be
required. Hiss answers that DEP will require monitoring for at least thirty years, with reports
to be submitted quarterly. Nardella asks what the time line would be for pursuing option #3.
Killflea says that final grading plans must be submitted to DEP by October 15, 1998. A final
cap design, grading plans, and a risk assessment study would need to be completed by that date.
Hiss adds that if the commission is considering a recommendation that option #2 or #3 be
pursued, the City must make a decision within two weeks at the latest. Lung informs members
that based on his knowledge of landfill cupping procedures and the DEP, he believes it wouldn't
be possible to get DEP approval of a work plan for next year on option #3, let alone meet the
deadline for closure contained in the consent decree. Douglas notes that the extra construction
costs and maintenance costs are only rough estimates at this point
Lung states that he disagrees with the cost estimates quoted by Mr. Hiss; they seem much higher
than what they actually would be. Cassidy says that she is concerned about any decision that
would result in the City incurring financial penalties as outlined in the consent decree. McMahon
notes that while the Norwood Pond Commission has no authority to make a final decision, it is
charged with providing a recommendation to the Mayor as to which option to pursue.
Lang's recommendation would be to develop a more conservative version of option #2, with
trails following grading contours rather than across grade. Douglas asks Killilea to confirm that
the costs associated with a passive or active end use and all improvements would be borne by
the City. Killilea answers yes.
Norwood Pond Commission
August 5, 1998 meeting minutes
page four
Martin asks members ifthere's a consensus as to which option should be pursued. Douglas says
that he is leaning toward siting active recreation uses near the North Beverly Elementary School
site, and using the former landfill for a more passive recreational use. Lang states that if the cost
estimates quoted by the consultants are accurate, the requirement for an active gas collection and
flare system effectively eliminates option #3 for financial reasons. However, he reiterates that,
in his opinion, the cost estimates quoted earlier this evening and some of the unit prices seem
inflated. Nardella states that a reasonable, incremental cost increase to accomplish end use option
#2 would be worthwhile, since it would create approximately thirty acres of usable land which
would otherwise be "decommissioned" for at least thirty years. Douglas concurs that option #2
or some version of it seems most appropriate, and asks Killilea if the version of option #2
discussed this evening can be simplified so that projected costs are minimized. Killilea responds
that such a revision is certainly possible.
McMahon:
Motion that the Norwood Pond Commission recommend to the Mayor that a
simplified, less expensive version of Option #2 (passive recreation) be pursued as
a post-closure plan for the former landfill, seconded by Lang. All members in
favor, motion carries.
Next, Martin asks members if they have reviewed the draft minutes of the June 3, 1998 meeting
and whether there are any suggested amendments or corrections that should be made. There are
none.
Douglas:
motion to approve the minutes of the June 3, 1998 meeting, seconded by
McMahon. All members in favor, motion carries.
Next, Martin asks Killilea if he has any additional information or an update for the Board on the
landfill pump station. Killlien answers that the pump continues to operate effectively, and that
a spare pump is in storage in the City garage if it is ever needed.
Next, Martin asks McMahon if she would like to address the Commission. McMahon informs
members that she came across the Mayor's initial correspondence to the City Council on the
formation of the Norwood Pond Commission, and asked the Chairman's permission to include
it in the meeting packet for this evening's meeting in the hope that it's contents would be
valuable to the members. The correspondence outlined the objectives the commission is expected
to accomplish, including the review of an overpass design. She included it in the hope that it
would assist the commission in focusing its efforts.
Next, Martin asks if any members of the public have additional comments at this time. Ron
Johnsen, Brimhal Avenue, reiterates his concern about the impact an overpass might have on the
environment. Renee Mary, Hale Street, informs members that the public has the right to speak
its opinion. Douglas, in response to a query, suggests that the Commission may be able to make
a full series of final recommendations to the Mayor by the end of this calendar year. Lang states
Norwood Pond Commission
August 5, 1998 meeting minutes
page five
that he believes that an economic analysis should be conducted of the impact an overpass and
attendant transportation improvements would have on the City in general. He strongly believes
that the expenditure of this level of public funds requires an analysis of the benefits that might
accrue from the investment. McMahon suggests that the City's Economic and Community
Development Council has performed similar analyses in the past, and is prepared to begin such
an analysis in September.
Martin reminds members that the next Commission meeting will be held on Wednesday,
September 9, 1998 at 7:30 p.m.
Douglas: motion to adjourn, seconded by McMahon. All members in favor, motion carries.