North Springfield VT Biomass Energy Project - Water Supply/wastewater Disposal

Exh. Pet.
JAN-3
Process Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal Feasibility Assessment
NORTH SPRINGFIELD SUSTAINABLE ENERGY PROJECT

North Springfield, Vermont
Prepared for
Winstanley Enterprises 36 Precision Drive North Springfield, VT 05150
Prepared by
VHB 7056 US Route 7 Post Office Box 120 North Ferrisburgh, VT 05473
December 16, 2011
WINSTANLEY ENTERPRISES: NORTH SPRINGFIELD SUSTAINABLE ENERGY PROJECT PROCESS WATER SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER DISPOSAL FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT
Table of Contents
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1 Project Description ............................................................................................................................... 1 Project Water and Wastewater Demands and Chemistry.............................................................. 3 Summary of VHB Activities ............................................................................................................... 5 Findings: Water Supply ...................................................................................................................... 7 5.1 Rooftop Rainwater .............................................................................................................. 8 5.2 On-Site Groundwater Source ............................................................................................ 8 5.2.1 Gravel Aquifer Exploration .......................................................................................9 5.2.2 Bedrock Wells ............................................................................................................10 5.2.3 Burden to Existing Water Supplies ..........................................................................12 5.2.4 Investigation of Potential Sources of Contamination ...........................................13 5.3 Municipal Water System ................................................................................................... 15 5.4 Black River .......................................................................................................................... 19 5.5 Overall Water Supply ....................................................................................................... 20 Findings: On-Site Subsurface Disposal of Process Water ............................................................ 22 6.1 Hydrogeologic Investigation Results .............................................................................. 23 Summary and Recommendations ................................................................................................... 25
6.0 7.0
References ....................................................................................................................................................... 30
1.0
Executive Summary
This report summarizes the findings and opinions from the investigations performed by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (VHB) regarding process water supply and wastewater disposal options for the proposed North Springfield Sustainable Energy Project (NSSEP) in North Springfield, Vermont.
Based on the analyses completed to date, it is VHBs opinion that sufficient water can be obtained to meet the reasonably foreseeable process water needs of the project. The project water supply will likely involve a combination of sources including some or all of the following: rooftop rainwater collection, on-site bedrock wells, a municipal water connection, potentially including upgrades to the Springfield Water Departments facilities, and the Black River. Further, it is VHBs opinion that these supplies can be developed and utilized without placing an undue burden on the Town of Springfield or any other existing water user.
Process wastewater is proposed to be treated and disposed of via an on-site leachfield. Due to favorable geologic conditions, ample capacity exists on-site, and the proposed leachfield will not affect any existing underground sources of drinking water or any aquifers with the potential for use as drinking water sources. The subsurface infiltration of process water would not involve the injection of toxic or hazardous substances into groundwater or wells.
2.0
Project Description
The NSSEP project consists of a proposed biomass energy facility with a currently planned output of up to 35 MW. The facility would be located east of the existing building, formerly known as the Fellows Gear Shaper building, at 36 Precision Drive in North Springfield
Vermont, and would employ 28 employees. The location map on page 1 of the Appendix shows the project site and the potential water supply and wastewater-related features.
Potable water for employees would be provided from the Springfield Water Departments municipal water supply system.
The biomass facility also will require process water for the boiler, cooling tower, and other non-potable uses associated with the production of steam and generation of electric power. The process water would be piped separately from the potable water supply, and is planned to consist of a mix of rainwater collected from the existing 36 Precision Drive building rooftop, municipal water from the Springfield Water Department and groundwater from proposed on-site bedrock wells, which are planned to be drilled for the project. Additionally, the nearby Black River may also be used as a source of water in the event that a supplemental source is needed.
The proposed on-site bedrock wells would be tested and permitted in accordance with the Groundwater Withdrawal Reporting and Permitting Rules (Chapter 24 of the Vermont Environmental Protection Rules, June 22, 2011), to ensure that the proposed withdrawal of water is sustainable and will not cause adverse effects to existing water sources.
Subject to reaching an agreement with the Town, NSSEP proposes to upgrade the Springfield Water Departments infrastructure to enable the system to pump the approved yields of water from the existing municipal wells. Currently, the pump and piping system are restrictive, thus preventing the Department from producing as much water as its wells are permitted to yield. In combination with the proposed upgrades to the municipal water system, the projects process water needs are planned to be met by rooftop rainwater harvest, on-site groundwater, and if necessary, surface water withdrawn from the Black River.
Process wastewater would be generated primarily from blowdown water from the proposed boiler and cooling tower system, along with minor amounts from equipment washing, filter backwash, and reverse osmosis system wastewater. This wastewater would consist essentially of concentrated groundwater, and would be returned to the groundwater via a proposed on-site leaching field. The proposed leachfield would be permitted in accordance with the Vermont Underground Injection Control Rule (1982), to ensure that Vermont Groundwater Enforcement Standards are met and that the project does not involve the injection of toxic or hazardous substances into groundwater or wells. Subject to refinement by Waldron Engineering, the firm retained to design the proposed NSSEP Project, based on the chemistry of the source water, it is anticipated that the wastewater would contain minimal levels of any contaminants, additives, or regulated substances.
A water balance diagram depicting the planned process water circulation is provided on page 2 of the Appendix.
3.0
Project Water and Wastewater Demands and Chemistry
Process water demands will vary depending on the ambient air temperature and humidity, which dictate rates of evaporation from the cooling tower. Page 3 of the Appendix presents a tabulation of the flow rates in the various processes at different ambient temperatures. The project is being designed with a wet-cooled process that would require an average water supply of approximately 400 gallons per minute (gpm), with a peak of up to approximately 500 gpm in the summer1. These flow rates are based on a conservative analysis and are equal to 576,000 gallons per day (gpd) average, and 716,000 gpd peak for the average and extreme weather conditions expected at the site.
1 PerRayRacineofWaldronEngineering,emailcommunication11/23/2011and11/28/2011.Theyear roundaveragedemandof400gpm,andsummerpeakof500gpmwereinterpolatedfromthewater balanceonpage3oftheAppendixbasedonmeanandpeakdailyaveragetemperatures.
Potable water needs are approximately 500 gpd, and can easily be supplied by the Springfield Water Department, as explained in detail in section 5.3 below.
The project would generate process wastewater at a rate of approximately 126,000 gpd on average, and a peak rate of approximately 159,000 gpd. The wastewater volume equals approximately 23 percent of the process water supply volume, with the balance evaporated as steam and vapor from the boiler and cooling tower. Conservatively, the process water leachfield is being designed for up to 225,000 gpd, based on potential flows in the event that a different cooling process would be used.
The exact amount of process water supply and wastewater flow is dependent on the supply water chemistry; water with higher minerals hardness content will cause the project to require larger quantities of water, because more boiler and blowdown cycles will be needed. This water supply does not need to be of potable quality, but it must contain sufficiently low amounts of dissolved and suspended matter to be usable for steam generation without causing significant solids deposition. As described in detail in Sections 5.0 through 5.5 below, the potential water sources for the project are expected to have suitable water quality for the projects process water needs.
Waldron Engineering has indicated that the key water quality parameter that dictates the quantities of process water needed for the project is hardness, and the approximate flows noted above are based on the expected mineral composition of the planned municipal and on-site supply waters. See page 4 of the Appendix for a profile of the chemistry of the potential water sources that VHB compiled for this evaluation. Levels of hardness in the Springfield Water Departments water are moderate (approximately 75 mg/L based on water quality testing results), and similarly moderate levels are expected in the proposed on-site bedrock wells (50 to 100 mg/L typically in our experience testing wells in the same bedrock formation). Hardness levels tested in the Black River are fairly low, approximately 40 to 45 mg/L, and rainwater contains minimal levels of any minerals or hardness, typically
containing less than 10 mg/L of total dissolved solids (McCutcheon, Martin, and Marnwell, 1993).
4.0
Summary of VHB Activities
The research, studies, tests, sampling, and analyses that have been conducted to-date are summarized in the following section of this report. Sections 5.0 through 6.1 below evaluate the findings and results of this work.
VHB has reviewed analyses performed by Weston Solutions regarding the feasibility of harvesting rainwater and the anticipated quantities of rainwater that would be available for use. Rainwater harvesting findings are presented below in Section 5.1.
VHB performed a hydrogeologic investigation at the project site to characterize the site geology and to explore for a high yielding gravel aquifer as a potential process water source, and also to evaluate the groundwater hydrology in the proposed blowdown/process water leachfield area. The investigation included the following components:
Fourteen (14) exploratory test wells and soil borings (MW-1 through MW-14) were advanced in select locations across the project site, as indicated on the Monitor Well Location Map (see page 5 of the Appendix). The test wells/soil borings were installed for two purposes:
Exploration to evaluate the presence of deposits of coarse sand or gravel at depths beneath the water table, which would comprise the water-bearing gravel aquifer that is necessary to develop high yielding water wells
Investigation of the geology and hydrology at the proposed process wastewater disposal area, to determine the capacity of the site to absorb the water
The test wells were installed to the maximum depth possible (generally, refusal on bedrock), and VHB collected soils samples at various depths in order to characterize the soil types and determine depth to groundwater (see boring logs in pages 6 through12 of the Appendix). Depths to groundwater were also measured in four existing monitor wells (MW-A through MW-D) found on site. Findings of this investigation are discussed in Sections 5.2 and 6.1 below.
Because a gravel aquifer which could support high-yielding wells was not found on the site, VHB studied the site bedrock geology in detail and selected ten potential well drilling locations where the geology is favorable for productive bedrock wells. The bedrock geologic study included geologic mapping; analysis of existing area bedrock well records; measurement of outcrops, strike, and dip; fracture trace analysis; and a site geophysical reconnaissance using geomagnetics and Very-Low Frequency (VLF) radio sensing to identify drilling locations. Section 5.2 below evaluates the results of this work.
To assess the suitability of groundwater quality to supply the project, and to address requirements of the DECs Groundwater Withdrawal permit process regarding potential for spreading plumes of groundwater contamination, VHB located and mapped potential sources of groundwater contamination using information from the Vermont DECs hazardous waste database. A site reconnaissance was also performed to identify any areas of existing recognized or potential environmental concerns that could contribute to groundwater contamination that might affect on-site wells. Section 5.2.4 below discusses the findings from this assessment.
To evaluate the quality and quantity of municipal water available to the project, and the feasibility of increasing the capacity of the municipal system to meet project needs, VHB also conducted a file review of the Springfield, VT municipal water supply system at the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) offices, an on-site inspection of the Springfield Water Departments wells and pumping facilities, review of municipal
documents, and interviews with the Operator and Public Works Director. Findings of the municipal water system investigation are discussed below in section 5.3.
VHB statistically evaluated Black River streamflows to determine the amount of water available for withdrawal, analyzed water quality, and inspected the Black River to assess the feasibility of constructing an intake at accessible locations near the project site. Section 5.4 below presents the findings of the potential Black River intake assessment.
In support of the design of the blowdown/process water leachfield being conducted by Waldron Engineering, VHB conducted a hydrogeologic investigation including measurement of soil infiltration rates, permeability, groundwater levels, and groundwater flow rates and directions. Permeability of the site soils was measured using a Guelph permeameter to accurately perform the well pump-in technique (Bouwer 1978) to characterize the soils above the current water table that would be exposed to the infiltrated process water. Section 6.0 and 6.1 below, present findings of the hydrogeologic investigation for the disposal of process wastewater on-site.
5.0
Findings: Water Supply
As discussed in detail below, based on the analyses completed to-date, it is VHBs opinion that sufficient water can be obtained to meet the reasonably foreseeable process water needs of the project. The projects water supply is expected to involve a combination of water sources including some or all of the following: rooftop rainwater collection, on-site bedrock wells, a municipal water connection, potentially including upgrades to the Springfield Water Departments facilities, and the Black River. Further, it is VHBs opinion that these supplies can be developed and utilized without placing an undue burden on the Town of Springfield or any other existing water user.
5.1
Rooftop Rainwater
Rainwater from the existing building rooftop at 36 Precision Drive adjacent to the project is proposed to be used as a process water source, to reduce the impact of stormwater runoff from the area and to minimize the need to pump water from the municipal system, bedrock wells, or the Black River. The building, which is owned by the project developer, has an 8.7-acre flat membrane roof. Rainfall and snowmelt originating from this existing impervious surface2 is planned to be directed through filters and storage tanks to the project. An average volume of 10,900,000 gallons of water per year would be available from this source, equating to 29,800 gpd, or about 5 percent of the projects average needs.
See page 13 of the Appendix for an analysis of the roof drainage system and the volume of rainwater available.
The rooftop rainwater is not currently used for any purpose and does not recharge an aquifer that is used for a water supply. Therefore, collection of this water would not cause a burden to any existing water supply. Furthermore, the rooftop is not located within the recharge area for the projects proposed bedrock wells, and thus, would not affect their supply of groundwater.
5.2
On-Site Groundwater Source
The initial investigation determined that a sand and gravel aquifer was not present at the site, as is discussed in the following section. Therefore, potential bedrock well drilling locations have been identified from a rigorous geologic study. Ten well drilling sites
The VTDECs on-line Environmental Interest Locator, which identifies all known existing stormwater permits, according to the VTDEC, indicates that no existing stormwater discharge permit is on-file for this building. Building tenants ADI, LLC and Jeld-Wen have filed no-exposure certifications (2007) for exemption from the Multi-Sector General Permit.
have been selected, and wells may be drilled at some or all of these locations depending on the amounts of water encountered in the initially drilled wells.
5.2.1
Gravel Aquifer Exploration
The surficial geology mapping (Vermont Geological Survey, 1970) of the site shows a Delta Gravel deposit along the eastern portion of the property (refer to the Surficial Geology map, page 14 of the Appendix). This is the formation that could support a gravel well if the gravel were below the water table; therefore, the test wells were installed in this area. The rest of the site property to the west is mapped as glacial till, generally consisting of thin layers of dense rocky soils that cannot yield useable quantities of water.
The exploratory drilling investigation determined that soil grain sizes ranged from very fine to coarse sand and gravel, and that the groundwater table ranges from 28 feet to 53 feet Below Ground Surface (BGS). Unfortunately, most of the coarse sand and gravel were found above the water table; the soils beneath the water table consisted mostly of very fine and fine sand, which cannot support a high-yielding well. In MW-9, a thin vein of coarse sand and gravel was encountered from 48.8 feet to 53.0 feet BGS, which is located just below the water table (measured to be 45.71 BGS on 9/1/11). Based on the soil log and observations, the gravel vein is likely too thin, too localized, and too shallow beneath the water table to represent a source for a high yielding well. Table 1 summarizes the exploratory monitoring well construction and water table lithology (detailed boring logs are provided in the Appendix pages 6 through 12).
10
Table 1: Test Drilling Results Well or Soil Boring ID MW-1 Total Boring Depth (BGS), ft 50.0 Depth to Water (BGS), ft 42.56 Total Well Depth, ft 49.0 Screened Interval, ft BGS 44.0-49.0 Water Table Lithology
Medium to fine sand, some coarse sand MW-2 50.0 42.73 50.0 45.0-50.0 Very fine to fine sand MW-3 50.0 43.10 50.0 45.0-50.0 Very fine to fine sand MW-4 45.0 43.47 45.0 40.0-45.0 Very fine to fine sand MW-5 50.0 45.43 50.0 45.0-50.0 Very fine sand MW-6 52.0 44.75 50.0 45.0-50.0 Very fine sand MW-7 50.0 41.73 50.00 40.0-50.0 Very fine sand MW-8 72.0 53.34 66.00 NA Dense very fine sand MW-9 61.0 45.71 51.00 48.0-51.0 Coarse sand and gravel MW-10 50.0 37.39 45.00 35.0-45.0 Medium to coarse sand, some fine gravel MW-11 80.0 41.60 43.50 33.5-43.5 Very fine sand SB-12* 72.0 ~45.00 NA NA Very fine sand MW-13 50.0 29.15 50.00 45.0-50.0 Medium to coarse sand near top of water table (27 BGS), silt and some gravel 45-50 BGS SB-14* 80.0 ~70.00 NA NA Very fine sand * No well installed, depth to groundwater table estimated based on soil logs NA= Not Applicable BTP = Below Top of Pipe BGS = Below Ground Surface Note that the saturated fine sands (heaving sand) were encountered below the water table in several wells. Soil borings were advanced in the locations of MW-12 and MW-14, but they were not completed as monitoring wells because no gravel veins were encountered.
5.2.2
Bedrock Wells
Up to ten bedrock wells are proposed to be drilled on-site at locations that were selected from a geologic analysis as the most likely sites to support productive yields of bedrock groundwater.
11
The bedrock of the site is mapped (Vermont Geological Survey, 1961) as biotite gneiss belonging to the Precambrian-Age Mount Holly complex (refer to the Bedrock Geologic Map, page 15 of the Appendix). This bedrock type can be well-fractured and typically can support moderately productive water wells, although yields of over 100 gpm are not likely from a well drilled at the project site, based on the statistical analysis of bedrock well yields in the vicinity.
A statistical analysis of bedrock wells in the general vicinity of the site indicates yields ranging from 0 to 200 gpm, with three wells having yields of 100 gpm or more. The median yield for area bedrock wells is 5 gpm, and the mean average is 12 gpm (see pages 16 through 23 of the Appendix). Most wells evaluated in this analysis are believed to have been randomly rather than scientifically located, as they were drilled for single family house uses; since such well drilling is generally terminated once a sufficient yield is obtained for the projected use, this analysis under-represents the potential yield of the bedrock aquifer. Based on the presence of a few wells near the project site that can yield 100 or more gpm, and the substantial groundwater recharge area west (uphill) from the site, it is anticipated that productive bedrock wells can be drilled at the geologically selected locations proposed for the project.
The fracture trace analysis, measurements of fracture strike and dip in bedrock outcrops, and surveys with the magnetometer and VLF radio receiver revealed indications of productive water-bearing features on the site property. Based on this data, VHB geologically selected ten bedrock well drilling locations on the project property. These drilling locations are depicted on the Proposed Bedrock Well Drilling Sites map on page 24 of the Appendix along with the fracture trace and geophysical information; a summary of well siting information is provide on page 25, the geophysical data are provided on pages 26 through 38, and page 39 presents recommended drilling and installation specifications.
12
Based on the geologic information used to select the well drilling sites, it is likely that productive bedrock wells could be drilled and that up to 180,000 288,000 gpd of water (equal to 125 to 200 gallons per minute) may be obtained. Most likely it will not be necessary for wells to be drilled at all ten locations, and drilling would likely cease after a portion of the wells have been drilled with productive yields. These wells would be tested and permitted in accordance with the Groundwater Withdrawal Reporting and Permitting Rules (2011) to ensure that the withdrawal of water is sustainable and will not cause adverse effects to existing water sources.
Based on VHBs extensive experience testing the chemistry of bedrock wells throughout Vermont as sources of potable water, it is anticipated that the natural mineral content and quality of the water from the proposed bedrock wells will be suitable for the project. The bedrock type at the project site, gneiss belonging to the Mount Holley formation, typically contains moderate hardness levels between 50 and 100 mg/L, and moderate levels of dissolved solids in the 110 mg/L range, as summarized on page 4 of the Appendix, along with various other key water quality parameters. Section 5.2.4 below discusses an investigation of potential contamination issues that concluded that manmade contamination to the proposed wells is not likely. Water quality in the proposed wells will be tested after they are drilled to confirm its suitability and for use as a basis for the final design of the plants process equipment.
5.2.3 Burden to Existing Water Supplies

The proposed on-site bedrock wells will be developed in a manner so as not to cause an unreasonable burden to any existing water supply, because the proposed wells would be a significant distance from existing wells and would be subject to testing and permitting to ensure existing supplies are not unreasonably burdened. The project is located within the Springfield Water Departments service area and therefore most neighboring properties do not rely on on-site wells.
13
North and west of the project site, some properties along Davidson Hill Road and Northfield Drive have on-site supply wells, but are located at least 400 feet from the closest project well site (site J-100) and therefore would not likely be significantly affected by pumping from the project wells. The proposed on-site bedrock wells would be tested and permitted in accordance with the Groundwater Withdrawal Reporting and Permitting Rules (Chapter 24 of the Vermont Environmental Protection Rules, June 22, 2011), to ensure that the withdrawal of water is sustainable and will not cause adverse effects to existing water sources.
5.2.4 Investigation of Potential Sources of Contamination

The proposed on-site wells are not likely to be adversely affected by pollution or contamination, and the pumping of the wells is not likely to cause existing areas of contamination to be spread. Due to a lack of documented existing groundwater contamination on the project site, and an absence of known potential sources of contamination in the area of the proposed wells, risks associated with groundwater pollution are low.
Mapping of potential sources of groundwater contamination that VHB identified from the review of the Vermont DECs hazardous waste database and files (refer to the Hazardous Waste Sites and UST Sites indicated on the maps on pages 14 and 15 of the Appendix) indicated that the subject property itself, 36 Precision Drive, formerly referred to as the Fellows Corporation, is listed as a closed hazardous waste site (SMS# 20033109) due to subsurface contamination related to the industrial activities at the site. The Fellows Corporation manufactured gear cutting machines, tools, and optical comparators, and also rebuilt tooling machines. The facility was a large quantity Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste generator (VT D001089226) and user of SARA-listed toxic substances. Two 25,000 gallon, No. 6 heating oil underground storage tanks (USTs) were replaced with one 25,000 gallon No. 2 heating oil in 2000. The site has a history of UST related
14
petroleum releases, including a 150 gallon release in 1982, a 5-gallon release from a leaking pump in the Boiler Room (date unknown), and a 250 gallon heating oil overflow in 1986.
In 2002, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was performed on the facility and a Phase II (ESA) was recommended due to the number of Recognized Environmental Concerns (RECs) related to the industrial usage history of the facility and to the above-noted USTs and petroleum releases (Marley, 2002). A series of Phase II Subsurface Investigations identified petroleum-contaminated soils at numerous locations throughout the site. Eleven (11) groundwater monitoring wells were installed below the building, and tested for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds (SOCs), total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), cyanide, and RCRA 8 metals (Marley, 2005). The sampling results indicated that the on-site groundwater was not contaminated.
A Corrective Action Plan (CAP) was developed and implemented to address the residual contamination identified during the previous investigations. The CAP involved excavating any shallow and accessible contaminated soils and executing other activities pursuant to the DEC Site Closure Requirements. Over 453 tons of contaminated soil were removed from the site, and 31 floor drains were sealed, as part of the corrective action (Marley, 2005). After execution of CAP activities, the DEC gave the site a Sites Management Activities Completed (SMAC) designation (August 25, 2005), indicating that the DEC believes that environmental concerns have been remediated or mitigated to the point where the site does not pose a threat to human health or the environment and that the DEC is not requesting any additional work. Based on the information available, it is unlikely that the historic hazardous material usage and storage at this facility will affect the groundwater source(s) that are proposed to be used for this project.
15
The hazardous database search identified several off-site Potential Sources of Contamination (PSOCs), such as removed USTs on neighboring properties. Based on available mapping information, the USTs and other PSOCs appear to be located at such a location and distance that they are not likely to pose a risk of contamination to an on-site well.
VHB performed an area reconnaissance to identify possible neighboring property operations that could result in contamination to the groundwater on-site. The subject property is located in an industrial park and is surrounded by various businesses and industries such as an electrical substation, engineering, tool design, and manufacturing facilities, gravel pits, and quarries. The neighboring facilities are located downgradient of the proposed bedrock wells, such that PSOCs related to their operations are not likely to result in contamination of on-site groundwater sources.
5.3 Municipal Water System

The Springfield Water Departments Public Community Water System (WSID#5333) has a substantial surplus, and is proposed to be used to supply a significant portion of the water needed for the project, including process water and non-process (potable) water. In its present condition, the water system is able to produce about 313,500 gpd in excess of peak water needs, which provides a surplus that could supply nearly half the process water demand of the project. Compared to the 500 gpd potable water demand of the project, the municipal system easily has sufficient capacity to meet the projects reasonably foreseeable non-process water needs.
Furthermore, the project developers are working with the town to upgrade the water system to increase its capacity. Although such upgrades are subject to written approval by the Town of Springfield, NSSEP representatives and VHB have been involved in preliminary discussions with municipal water system officials, which indicate that these
16
upgrades are likely feasible, pending the outcome of engineering studies, design, and other details. Based on the current permitted yields of its wells, the water system could achieve a reserve capacity of up to 942,780 gpd if upgrades to the pumping and piping in its distribution system are engineered and built, because the permitted yield of the Towns wells is greater than the current capacity of the system to pump the water.
The Springfield Water Departments Temporary Permit to Operate (issued March 28, 2008) indicates a total yield of 1,692 gallons per minute from the three well fields that supply it (see Part III.A of permit). This approved yield corresponds to a daily production of 2,400,000 gpd. However, the water system cannot produce the permitted yield of 1,692 gpm due to the limited power of the well pumps and restrictive piping. During an inspection and site meeting with VHB and NSSEP representatives on October 26, 2011, the Water Departments operators noted that when multiple wells are pumped simultaneously, the output of each well decreases compared to its stand-alone pumping rate, due to the pressure caused by the other pumps. The operators also expressed concern about the ability of the water mains and pipes to sustain the pressure associated with pumping all the wells at their approved yields. The operators have indicated that in its current configuration, the water system can produce 1,255 gpm, equal to 1,807,200 gpd. See page 40 of the Appendix for a tabulation of the current and permitted yields of the wells.
To compare the Towns water production capacity to existing needs, VHB compiled recent water usage meter readings from the Town of Springfields Monthly Operations Reports from April 1, 2010 to May 31, 2011, and determined that the peak daily metered water usage is currently 1,493,700 gpd. Graphical and tabulated data are presented on pages 41 and 42 of the Appendix. Based on this usage information and the current pump-limited capacity of the water system, approximately 313,500 gpd (218 gpm) would be left over for the NSSEP project after accounting for the peak water usage of the Towns existing users. This volume is not sufficient by itself to meet the average process water demand of the project of 575,000 gpd (400 gpm).
17
However, if the water system were to be upgraded so that the full permitted yields of all wells could be produced daily, the Springfield Water Department would have more than sufficient reserve capacity to supply the project. The total permitted yield of the wells that supply the system is 2,400,000 gpd (1,692 gpm), which would create a surplus of 943,000 gpd (655 gpm) after accounting for the peak water usage of the Towns existing users. An engineering study of the hydraulic performance of the water system pumps and piping, and an engineering design of the proposed improvements is needed to verify the exact amount of additional water capacity that can be provided.
The physical capacity of the municipal system could be increased, by either installing larger pumps that can produce the currently permitted yield of the wells, or by developing a new water supply well for the town. Additionally, the water system operators reported that the total amount of water that is registered at customers meters is significantly less than the amount of water that they produce as measured by the master meters at the wellfield, indicating an unspecified amount of leakage in the system. Correcting the leakage would create additional capacity within the water system.
A report, prepared by Hoffer Consulting (Hoffer, 2004), which was provided to VHB by the Springfield Water Department concludes that the wellfield could continuously produce 2,000,000 gallons per day, based on a calibrated hydrologic modeling analysis. The report does not present this pumping rate as an upper limit, but rather as the maximum capacity that was evaluated, based on the current pump capabilities. Potentially, the wellfield could sustain higher usage up to the permitted yield of 2,400,000 gpd. At the total wellfield production of 2,000,000 gpd cited in the Hoffer Consulting report, the Springfield Water Department would have a surplus capacity of 352 gpm (506,300 gpd) available, which would meet the projects water needs in combination with the rainwater collection and a modest amount of water (125 gpm, or 180,000 gpd) from on-site wells.
18
Additionally, the development of additional wells on behalf of the Town of Springfield is a possible way to provide additional water beyond the maximum yield of the current wells, because the gravel aquifer on the Springfield Water Departments property is robust, as explained in the Hoffer report.
Based on routine water quality testing conducted by the Springfield Water Department for permit compliance, it was determined that the mineral content and quality of the water from the municipal system meets potable standards, and will be suitable for the project. The municipal water has a typical hardness level of approximately 75 mg/L, and a dissolved solids concentration of approximately 160 mg/L, as summarized on page 4 of the Appendix along with various other key water quality parameters. A memorandum presenting the findings of research into the Springfield Water Departments system is included on pages 43 through 46 of the Appendix. It was determined through VHBs file review and site inspection that prior problems related to low water pressure in the municipal distribution system cited in the Permit have been corrected through a Water Works Improvement project completed in early 2011. The improvement project consisted of constructing a new 1.0 million gallon (Mgal) tank in place of the old 0.75 Mgal Davidson Hill tank, three pressure reducing valve (PRV) vaults, improvements to the pumping facilities in the three well fields, over four miles of new water mains, and a new Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system.
The town continues to own the now-unused 750,000 gallon water tank (the Davidson Hill Tank) that is located on an easement along the western Project property boundary uphill from the biomass facility site. NSSEP representatives have discussed acquiring this tank from the Town, so it could then be utilized to store water for the Project to help meet peak demand events.
19
5.4 Black River

Should additional sources of water be needed in addition to the yield of rainwater collection, on-site bedrock wells, and a connection to the Springfield Water Department, development of an intake on the nearby Black River could be proposed. Two conceptual potential intake locations are shown on the location map on page 1 of the Appendix.
The United States Geologic Survey (USGS) maintains a river flow gauge immediately upstream from the potential intake locations, which has been collecting streamflow measurements since 1929. The project water demand is very small compared to the amount of flow in the River, and therefore a river withdrawal could be eligible for permitting under the Vermont DECs de minimis permitting process. Based on the Agency Procedure for Determining Acceptable Minimum Streamflows (July 14, 1993) (hereinafter Flow Procedure), the de minimis designation means that the Vermont DEC recognizes that certain water withdrawals would be so small in relation to streamflow that the impact on the stream and on existing downstream water supplies would be negligible.
Statistical analysis of USGS flow data was performed to determine the eligibility for de minimis permitting. Pages 47 and 48 of the Appendix present the de minimis calculations. For the Black River at the USGS gauge site, the projected de minimis withdrawal rate would be approximately 407 gpm, equal to 586,000 gpd. At the downstream potential intake site, located along the municipal wellfield, the watershed is slightly larger than at the USGS gauge because Great Brook and other tributaries join the Black River between the gauge and this point. Therefore, the de minimis flow rate would be slightly higher at such a location. Based on the de minimis rate, the Black River could supply the NSSEP projects average water needs; and with supplemental contributions from rainwater collection , as well as on-site wells and/or municipal water, it is expected that the entire demand could be satisfied. As a de minimis withdrawal, the use of Black River water would not be expected to cause an unreasonable burden to any existing water supply.
20
Based on an initial water quality sample collected by VHB, it is anticipated that the quality of the water from the Black River will be suitable for the project. The River was found to contain a relatively low hardness concentration of 43 mg/L, and a moderate level of dissolved solids of 83 mg/L, as summarized on page 4 of the Appendix, along with various other key water quality parameters.
If the development of a Black River intake were to become necessary, final site selection, engineering design, and permitting would be needed. Issues which would require consideration in the design and permitting process would include any other existing withdrawals within this segment of the Black River and associated cumulative effects, if any; the potential impact of the proposed withdrawal to existing downstream hydroelectric generating plants on the Black River; design of an intake structure that will be effective under the full range of water depth, streamflow, and ice cover conditions at the site, and will not entrain fish or aquatic organisms; selection of a route and acquisition of utility easements for a pipeline, and natural resources assessments along such pipeline route. It is anticipated that these issues can be addressed successfully to enable construction and operation of an intake at either of the potential intake sites.
5.5
Overall Water Supply
To summarize the information presented in sections 5.1 through 5.4 above, adequate quantities of water are expected to be available for the project from a combination of collected rooftop rainwater, onsite bedrock wells, the Springfield Water Department, and if necessary, an intake on the Black River. These water sources would be developed, tested, and permitted in a manner that would ensure that they would not cause an unreasonable burden to any existing water supply. Depending on the ability to increase the municipal water systems capacity towards the already approved yield of its wellfields, the amount of water needed from on-site wells will vary, and the establishment of a potential Black River intake may or may not be necessary.
21
Page 49 of the Appendix outlines the planned mix of water quantities from the sources discussed above for three different scenarios:
1) The Springfield Water Departments system is not upgraded, and the Black River intake is needed based on the expected yield of the proposed on-site wells. 2) The Springfield Water Departments system is upgraded to produce 2 Mgal per day as indicated by the Towns consultant as a volume that could be produced continuously, and the Black River intake is not needed, based on the expected yield of the proposed on-site wells. 3) The Springfield Water Departments system is upgraded to produce 2.4 Mgal per day, equal to the permitted yield of the municipal wells, and the Black River intake is not needed, based on the expected yield of the proposed on-site wells.
The following tables present a simplified summary of the expected allocation of water sources for various likely scenarios.
Scenario 1: Current Pump-Limited Production of Springfield Water Department Average Usage Peak Usage gpd gpm % gpd gpm Water Demand: 576,000 400 -716,409 498 Rainwater: 29,800 21 5% 29,800 21 Proposed On288,000 200 50% 288,000 200 Site Bedrock Wells: Municipal: 258,200 179 29% 313,500 218 Black River (de 0 0 0% 85,109 59 minimis): Total Supply: 576,000 400 100% 716,409 498
22
Scenario 2: Upgrade Production of Springfield Water Department to 2 Mgal/day per Hoffer, 2004 Average Usage Peak Usage gpd gpm % gpd gpm Water Demand: 576,000 400 -716,409 498 Rainwater: 29,800 21 5% 29,800 21 Proposed On-Site 180,576 125 31% 180,576 125 Bedrock Wells: Municipal: 365,624 254 33% 506,033 351 Black River (de 0 0 0% 0 0 minimis): Total Supply: 576,000 400 100% 716,409 498 Scenario 3: Upgrade Production of Springfield Water Department to 2.4 Mgal/day Full Permitted Yield Average Usage Peak Usage gpd gpm % gpd gpm Water Demand: 576,000 400 -716,409 498 Rainwater: 29,800 21 5% 29,800 21 Proposed On-Site 233,280 162 41% 233,280 162 Bedrock Wells: Municipal: 312,920 217 100% 453,329 315 Black River (de 0 0 0% 0 0 minimis): Total Supply: 576,000 400 100% 716,409 498
6.0
Findings: On-Site Subsurface Disposal of Process Water
Process wastewater would be disposed of via a proposed on-site leachfield that would be permitted in accordance with the Vermont Underground Injection Control (UIC) Rule. Geologic conditions on the project site are well-suited for this method of managing the process wastewater, which, subject to refinement by Waldron Engineering, would consist essentially of concentrated groundwater that would contain low levels of any contaminants, additives, or regulated substances.
23
As detailed in the following sections of this report, the proposed disposal of process wastewater would comply with the requirements of the UIC Rule (1982), the Vermont Groundwater Protection Rule and Strategy (2005), and will be designed so there will be no injection of toxic or hazardous substances into groundwater or wells. The subsurface infiltration of process water is being designed so that it will not affect any existing underground sources of drinking water or any aquifers with the potential for use as drinking water sources. The proposed leachfield site is outside of the mapped underground source of groundwater that supplies the Springfield Water Departments wells, and is outside of the wellhead protection areas (WHPAs) of all other public water supply wells. Significant thickness of unsaturated, high permeability sand and gravel soils on-site provide ample capacity for absorbing the expected quantities of process water.
6.1 Hydrogeologic Investigation Results
The surficial geology mapping shows that the eastern portion of the project property is located within an extensive delta gravel deposit, and topography shows it to be an elevated plateau, which affords an excellent location for subsurface infiltration of water (refer to the Surficial Geology map, page 14 of the Appendix). The test well drilling and hydrogeologic investigation confirmed that the site geology is well suited for an on-site subsurface disposal system for the planned 159,000 gpd of process wastewater. As described further below, if needed, the site could support over 260,000 gpd of process wastewater.
The drilling investigation determined that the water table in the proposed leachfield area was between 42 feet and 43 feet below ground surface (BGS). Soils above the water table (unsaturated) consisted mostly of medium to coarse sand with traces of fine sand and some gravel. Soils near the top of the water table generally consisted of very fine to fine sand. Monitoring well construction details and depth to water measurements are summarized in Table 1 in Section 5.2 On-Site Groundwater Source, locations
24
of the test wells and leachfield site are shown on the map on page 5 of the Appendix, and boring logs can be found in the Pages 6 through 12 of the Appendix. This soil, surficial geology, and test well information indicates that ample thickness of unsaturated, permeable material exist to allow the process wastewater to be infiltrated to the ground via the proposed leachfield on-site.
On-site testing of the infiltration rate determined that the soils in the leachfield site have a significant capacity to absorb the process wastewater. The measured infiltration rate was used to determine the sizing of the proposed leachfield, which is designed for 70,500 square feet (ft2) of infiltration surface over a total area of 139,500 ft2, resulting in an application rate of 3.2 gallons per day per ft2. This relatively low infiltration rate indicates a conservative design and will disperse the water over a large area to reduce hydraulic loading. See pages 50 and 60 of the Appendix for test results and sizing calculations. The site has the capacity to accept upwards of 260,000 gallons per day within the footprint of the proposed leachfield, and greater capacities could be available by utilizing a larger surface area for disposal.
Site-specific testing of permeability was also performed, and confirmed that the site soils are permeable material that has a substantial capacity to absorb water. The geometric mean permeability of 105 feet/day in the unsaturated soils where the leachfield would be located indicates a high rate of permeability that is within typical ranges for sand and gravel. See page 61 of the Appendix for test results.
The process wastewater will consist of water with naturally occurring minerals and dissolved solids from the proposed on-site bedrock wells and the gravel wells supplying the Springfield Water Department, that will have been concentrated due to the evaporation of about 75 percent of the water through the cooling process. Additionally, low amounts of treatment chemicals may be added for control of bacteria and mineral
25
levels, subject to completion of the process design by Waldron Engineering. Ambient groundwater at the project site has been characterized (see page 62 of the Appendix), and the results indicate a near-neutral pH and low levels of minerals and dissolved substances. Aside from naturally occurring manganese levels in two of the six tested wells that slightly exceed the secondary standard (but not the primary standard), all ambient groundwater chemistry conforms with the Vermont Groundwater Enforcement Standards. As detailed above in Section 5.2.4 Investigation of Potential Sources of
Contamination above, no manmade groundwater contamination has been detected in the groundwater monitoring wells that had been installed for the former Fellows Corporation hazardous site investigation.
The proposed process wastewater disposal system is being designed with the intent that it would not affect existing underground sources of drinking water or aquifers that have the potential to be used for drinking water. The proposed leachfield is being designed at a location where it will not discharge to an underground source of drinking water, and where groundwater from the leachfield would flow through the shallow water table formation towards the unnamed tributaries of the Black River, where it would discharge. The proposed leachfield site is not located within the wellhead protection area for any public water supply well. Groundwater in the shallow water table formation at the leachfield site is not used as a source of drinking water, and flows away from private and public drinking water sources.
7.0
Summary and Recommendations
Based on the observations and findings of the hydrogeologic investigation for process water supply and wastewater disposal completed to-date, VHB has developed the following conclusions and recommendations:
26
The NSSEP project is projected to require process water at a rate of approximately 400 gpm (576,000 gpd) on average, with a peak of up to approximately 500 gpm (716,000 gpd). These flow rates are based on a conservative analysis that accounts for the average and extreme ambient temperatures expected at the site.
An initial exploratory water supply investigation and test drilling results indicate that a gravel aquifer that could support water wells with sufficient yield for the project is not present on the project property.
A moderately productive bedrock aquifer may exist on the project site, including on the wooded area west of the test wells, or beneath the sand and gravel on the eastern portion of the site, based on a thorough geologic analysis. In a best-case scenario, an individual bedrock well is likely to yield up to 100 gpm, and multiple bedrock wells, spaced sufficiently distant from one another on the project site to reduce mutual competition for water, may be able to provide up to 125 to 250 gpm (180,000 to 288,000 gpd). Drilling and testing will be required to demonstrate that such groundwater withdrawals are sustainable and would not cause an unreasonable burden to existing groundwater users.
A review of the DEC hazardous waste database and files indicates that contamination associated with the historic industrial use of the facility has been sufficiently mitigated and the groundwater was uncontaminated. Neighboring facilities are located where they are not likely to pose a threat to the on-site groundwater quality. Therefore the water from on-site wells is likely to be of suitable quality to meet the needs of the project, and use of the wells is unlikely to spread existing areas of groundwater contamination.
Collection, filtering, and storage of rainwater from the 8.7-acre roof of the adjacent 36 Precision Diver building would provide on average 29,800 gpd, or about 5% of the projects process water needs.
27
The Springfield Water Department currently can produce approximately 218 gpm (313,500 gpd) more than it consumes, based on current meter data from the municipal system (including leakage). This existing capacity can easily meet the 500 gpd potable water needs of the NSSEP project, and is proposed to be used to meet a portion of the projects process water needs as well.
The current capacity of the Springfield Water Department is restricted by the existing distribution system piping and pumps. NSSEP plans to work with the Town in upgrading this equipment to allow the wells to be pumped at higher rates up to their approved yields. Subject to engineering design and approval by the Town, such upgrades would most likely be capable of providing surplus capacity of at least 352 gpm (506,000 gpd) based on the Towns consultants analysis, and potentially up to 655 gpm (943,00 gpd) based on the yields permitted by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation.
Depending on the outcome of drilling on-site wells and performing the engineering needed to upgrade the capacity of the Springfield Water Departments system, additional water may be needed to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of the NSSEP project. Should additional quantities of municipal water be needed, more water could likely be obtained from development of additional wells by NSSEP on behalf of the Town of Springfield, as there is a robust gravel aquifer on the Springfield Water Departments property.
The Springfield Water Department recently completed significant upgrades to the distribution system, correcting prior low pressure problems. These improvements would reduce the amount of distribution system upgrades that would be required for this project to be connected.
Development of an intake on the Black River is an additional option if the combination of rainwater collection, on-site wells, and a municipal connection is
28
unable to meet the project demands. A river intake has the benefits of sufficient quantities of water that could be permitted under the Vermont DECs de minimis process, and expected low mineral and hardness levels that would result in less water being needed.
The reasonably foreseeable process water needs for the NSSEP project are expected to be met using a combination of different water sources, including on-site bedrock wells as a primary source, along with rainwater collection and a future connection to the Springfield Water Department, and if needed with a supplemental supply from an intake to be developed on the Black River.
These water sources would be developed, tested, and permitted in a manner that would ensure that they would not cause an unreasonable burden to any existing water supply: rooftop rainwater is not currently used for any purpose and does not recharge an aquifer that is used for a water supply; on-site bedrock wells would be a significant distance from existing wells and would be subject to testing and permitting to ensure existing supplies are not adversely affected; the use of the Springfield Water Department would only use surplus capacity in the municipal water system and is proposed to involve upgrades to the system that would enhance its capacity; and the Black River, which is not used as a potable water supply, would be used at a de minimis rate if at all for the NSSEP project.
The NSSEP project is projected to generate process wastewater at a rate of approximately 126,000 gpd on average, with a peak of up to approximately 159,000 gpd. These flow rates represent approximately 23% of the process water supply needs of the project. A process water leachfield is being designed conservatively based on 225,000 gpd as a potential flow rate if different cooling processes were to be used.
29
The process wastewater will consist of water with naturally occurring minerals and dissolved solids from the proposed on-site bedrock wells and the gravel wells supplying the Springfield Water Department, that will have been concentrated due to the evaporation of about 75 percent of the water. Additionally, low amounts of treatment chemicals may be added for control of bacteria and mineral levels.
Process wastewater will be disposed of via a proposed on-site leachfield that would be permitted in accordance with the Vermont Underground Injection Control (UIC) Rule.
A hydrogeologic investigation of the site identified geologic conditions on the project site that are well suited for this method of managing the process wastewater: over 40 vertical feet of unsaturated highly permeable sand and gravel soils are present, comprising part of an extensive mapped glacial delta deposit.
The site has the capacity to accept upwards of 260,000 gallons per day within the footprint of the proposed leachfield, and greater capacities could be available by utilizing a larger area.
The proposed disposal of process wastewater is being designed to comply with the requirements of the UIC Rule, the Vermont Groundwater Protection Rule and Strategy, and with the intent that it would not involve the injection of toxic or hazardous substances into groundwater or wells. The subsurface infiltration of process water is not expected to affect any existing underground sources of drinking water or any aquifers with the potential for use as drinking water sources. The proposed leachfield site is outside of the wellhead protection area (WHPA) for the Springfield Water Departments wells, and is outside of the WHPAs of all other public water supply wells.
30
References
Bouwer, H., 1978. Groundwater Hydrology. McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Hoffer (2004). Report on Groundwater Modelling [SIC] Springfield Wellfield Aquifer. Hoffer Consulting Inc., February 2004.
Marley (2002). Phase I ESA; Fellows Corporation, 36 Precision Dive, North Springfield, VT . Marley Environmental Inc., May 15, 2002.
Marley (2005). Final Site Report for Fellows Corporation, 36 Precision Drive, North Springfield, VT. Marley Environmental Inc., July 15, 2005
McCutcheon, Martin, and Marnwell (1993). Water Quality. In Handbook of Hydrology, D.R. Maidment, Ed. McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Vermont Geological Survey, 1961. Centennial Geologic Map of Vermont.
Vermont Geological Survey 1970. Surficial Geologic Map of Vermont. Charles Doll, State Geologist.
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources: Department of Environmental Conservation, Water Supply Division (2011), Environmental Protection Rules, Groundwater Withdrawal
Reporting and Permitting Rules, Chapter 24.

Vermont Agency of Natural Resources: Department of Environmental Conservation (2005). Chapter 12 of the Environmental Protection Rules: Groundwater Protection Rule and Strategy. February 2005.
31
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources: Department of Environmental Conservation (1993). Agency Procedure for Determining Acceptable Minimum Streamflows. July 14, 1993.
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources: Department of Environmental Conservation (1982). Environmental Protection Rules, Chapter 11: Underground Injection Control Rule.
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources: Department of Environmental Conservation (2005). Chapter 12 of the Environmental Protection Rules: Groundwater Protection Rule and Strategy. February 2005.
F:\57319.02 NSSEP Env Permitting\reports\water_wastewater\water_Wastewater_Report_12-16-2011.doc
APPENDIX
North Springfield Sustainable Energy Project Process Water Supply Water Quality Analysis Summary Revised: 10/27/2011
Typical Chemistry Constituents Units MCL Black River+ Springfield Water Dept* metals Alkalinity, as CaCO3 Aluminum, Total Arsenic, Total Barium, Total Calcium, Total Hardness, Total as CaCO 3 Iron, Total Magnesium, Total Manganese, Total Potassium, Total Sodium, Total Lead, Total Zinc, Total mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L -0.2 0.01 2 -200 0.3 -0.05 -250 0.015 5 41.0 1.40 NS NS 12.0 43.0 2.20 3.10 NS 1.90 8.30 NS NS 79.0 ND < 0.020 ND < 0.002 0.060 26.0 74.0 0.040 2.30 ND < 0.020 3.00 20.0 0.0055 NS inorganic nonmetals Chlorides, as Cl Fluoride, Total Nitrates, as N Phosphates, as P (Phosphorus, Total Dissolved) Sulfates, as SO4 mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L 250 4 10 -250 13.0 NS 0.200 0.008 5.70 35.0 0.6125 0.751 0.005 6.90 Radionuclides Gross Alpha Activity Radium 226 Radium 228 Uranium, Total pCi/L pCi/L pCi/L ug/L mho/cm SU C mg/L 15 3 2 20 NS NS NS NS ND 0.06 0.192 NS physical parameters Conductivity pH Temperature Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) -6.5 - 8.5 -500 127.5 7.44 16.0 83.0 297.3 8.00 22.7 160 NS 7.15 10 111 4.36 0.43 0.95 2.9 22.4 0.12 0.21 NS 10 NS NS ND < 0.002 0.058 NS 74 0.18 NS 0.030 NS 9.6 < 0.001 NS Bedrock Wells in Mt Holley Formation Gneiss**
Notes: NS = Not Sampled ND < xxxx = Not Detected (laboratory detection limit of xxxx) ND = Not Detected (detection limit not specified) +Black River chemistry from water quality sample 9/22/2011 by VHB * From past ten years of compliance monitoring results reported to the VT DEC, WSD. **Average from various off-site wells in Vermont that are completed in the same geologic formation that is present at the project site.
[F:\57319.02 NSSEP Env Permitting\Data\WQ_results_09-22-2011.xls]final
12/12/2011
NSSEP - Springfield, Vermont Monitor Well Location Map

October 27, 2011
MW-10 ! A ! A MW-13 Legend MW-B !
A A SB-12 !
! A
MW-11
Test Wells
! A MW-A
! A
MW-8
! A ! A
Test Wells
Soil Borings
VHD Streams
MW-C
MW-D ! A SB-14
! A
MW-1
! A
MW-3
! A MW-2
MW-5 ! MW-4 A ! A ! MW-9
! A
MW-7
MW-6
! A
300
150
0 Feet
300
Unn amed B
lack
R. Tr ibuta ry
Sources: Aerial Photography provided by USDA NAIP (2009); Test Wells and Soil Borings GPS located and digitized by VHB (2011); Roads (2008); VHD Streams and Waterbodies from VCGI (2008). Note: MW-9, MW-A, MW-B, MW-C, and MW-D locations are estimated. Prepared by: OWM/LGL
F:\57319.02\GIS\project\preliminary\NSSEP_Monitor_well_locations_updated_102711.mxd
Monitoring Well Logs Springfield, Vermont: NSSEP Logged by OWM August 24 September 1, 2011
Monitoring Sampled Interval Log Well ID MW-1 5.0 6.6: Brown, lightly damp, medium to coarse sand. 10.0 10.9: Brown, dry, coarse sand at 10 10.2. Tan, dry, coarse sand, fine gravel from 10.2 10.9. 15.0 16.6: Tan, lightly damp, fine sand throughout. 20.0 21.6: Tan, lightly damp fine sand throughout. 25 26.5: Tan, lightly damp, medium to coarse sand, minimal gravel. 30 31.5: Tan, lightly damp, medium to coarse sand, minimal gravel. 35 36.5: Tan and grey, lightly damp, fine sand with minimal coarse gravel. 40 41.5: Light brown, moist, very fine sand at 40 41.2. Tan, moist, fine sand at 41.2 41.5. 45 46.8: Saturated, medium to fine sand, with some coarse sand. Well Construction Details: 2 PVC pipe Stick down = -0.32 Well Depth = 49.0 Bentonite seal = 40.5 43.5 Natural backfill = surface 40.5, 43.5 50.0 Water level (BTP) = 42.24 MW-2 5.0 6.6: Brown medium to coarse, dry sand from 5.0 5.6. Tan medium to coarse dry sand from 5.6 6.6. 10.0 11.3: Brown to light brown coarse dry sand with fine gravel from 10.0 10.3. Light brown to light grey coarse dry sand with fine gravel from 10.3 11.3. 15.0 16.6: Light brown, lightly moist, coarse sand with fine gravel from 15.0 16.3. Light brown, lightly moist, very fine sand from 16.3 16.6. 20.0 21.5: Light brown, lightly moist, medium to fine sand, with very minimal coarse gravel. 25.0 26.5: Light brown, lightly moist, coarse to medium sand, with some gravel. 30.0 31.7: Light tan, lightly moist, fine sand throughout. 35.0 36.9: Tan, lightly moist, fine sand throughout. 40.0 41.6: Light brown, lightly moist, fine to very fine sand. 45.0 46.6: Light brown, saturated, fine to very fine sand. Well Construction Details: 2 PVC pipe Stick down = -0.30 Well Depth = 50.0
Monitoring Well ID
Sampled Interval Log Bentonite seal = 40.0 41.0 Natural backfill = surface 40.0, 41.0 50.0 Water level (BTP) = 42.43 5.0 6.35: Light brown, dry, medium to coarse sand, some fine to coarse gravel, broken rock. 10.0 11.2: Light brown lightly damp, medium to coarse sand, with some gravel. 15.0 16.4: Tan, lightly damp, medium to coarse sand, with some fine to coarse gravel. 20.0 21.3: Light brown to tan, lightly damp medium to fine sand throughout. Medium gravel at 20.0 20.3. 25.0 26.6: Tan, some light brown, some small pockets of orange, lightly damp fine to medium sand 30.0 31.7: Light brown, lightly damp, fine sand from 30.0 30.1. Tan, lightly damp, fine sand from 30.1 31.7. 35.0 36.7: Tan, lightly damp, fine sand throughout. 40.0 41.6: Tan, damp, fine sand throughout. 45.0 46.6: Light brown, saturated, very fine to fine sand. Well Construction Details: 2 PVC pipe Stick down = -0.35 Well depth = 50.0 Bentonite seal = 2.0 3.0 Natural backfill = surface 2.0, 3.0 - 50.0 Water level (BTP) = 43.75 5.0 5.4: Light brown, some grey, dry, fine to coarse sand, with some fine gravel. 10.0 11.5: Tan, slightly damp coarse sand. Some fine to coarse gravel. 15.0 16.5: Brown, lightly damp, fine to coarse sand at 15.0 15.6. Light brown/tan, lightly damp fine to coarse sand at 15.6 to 16.5. 20.0 21.7: Light brown/tan slightly damp fine sand. 25.0 26.5: Tan, lightly damp fine sand throughout. 30.0 31.8: Tan, lightly damp fine sand throughout. 35.0 36.9: Tan, damp fine sand throughout. 40.0 41.8: Brown, saturated very fine sand. Well Construction Details: 2 PVC pipe
MW-3
MW-4
Monitoring Well ID
Sampled Interval Log Stick down = -0.45 Well depth = 45.0 Bentonite seal = 1.0 - 2.0 Natural backfill = surface 1.0, 2.0 45.0 Water level (BTP) = 43.02 5.0 6.4: Light brown, lightly damp coarse sand with some gravel from 5.0- 6.0. Tan, lightly damp coarse sand with some gravel from 6.0 6.4. 10.0 11.5: Light brown, lightly damp coarse sand with some gravel. 15.0 16.7: Light brown, lightly damp medium sand with some gravel. 20.0 21.9: Light brown, lightly damp fine to medium sand at 20.0 20.3. Tan, lightly damp fine sand from 20.3 21.9. 25.0 26.7: Tan, lightly damp fine sand throughout. 30.0 31.8: Tan, lightly damp, very fine sand throughout. 35.0 36.8: Tan, lightly damp, very fine sand throughout. 40.0 41.8: Tan, lightly damp, very fine sand throughout. 45.0 46.5: Brown, saturated, very fine sand. Well Construction Details: 2 PVC pipe Stick down = -0.25 Well depth = 50.0 Bentonite seal = 2.0 3.0 Natural backfill = surface 2.0, 3.0 50.0 Water level (BTP) = 45.18 5.0 6.45: Brown, dry coarse sand with some gravel.
MW-5
MW-6
10.0 11.5: Tan, lightly damp medium to coarse sand from 10.0 11.2. Light brown, lightly damp, fine to medium sand from 11.2 11.5. 15.0 16.5: Tan, lightly damp, fine to medium sand. 20.0 21.7: Light brown, lightly damp, fine sand/fine gravel. Tan/Grey, lightly damp medium sand from 20.2 20.7. Tan, lightly damp, fine sand from 20.7 21.7. 25.0 26.7: Tan, lightly damp, very fine sand throughout. 30.0 31.5: Tan, lightly damp, very fine sand throughout. 35.0 36.8: Tan, damp, very fine sand throughout. 40.0 41.7: Tan, very damp, very fine sand throughout.
Monitoring Well ID
Sampled Interval Log 45.0 46.5: Brown, saturated, very fine sand. 50.0 51.4: Grey, saturated, very fine sand from 50.0 50.3. Grey, saturated coarse sand and gravel from 50.3 51.4. Well Construction Details: 2 PVC pipe Stick down = -0.39 Well depth =50.0 Bentonite seal = 1.0 2.0 Natural backfill = surface 1.0, 2.0 50.0 Water level (BTP) = 44.36
MW-7
MW-8
0.0 5.0: Brown, dry, medium to coarse sand and gravel. 5.0 10.0: Brown, dry, medium to coarse sand and gravel. 10.0 15.0: Brown, dry, medium to coarse sand and gravel. 15.0 20.0: Brown, dry, medium sand and gravel. 20.0 25.0: Brown, dry, medium sand and gravel. 25.0 30.0: Brown, dry, medium sand and gravel. 30.0 35.0: Brown, dry, medium sand and gravel. 35.0 37.0: Light brown, slightly damp, fine sand. 45.0 47.0: Grey/Brown, saturated, very fine sand. Well Construction Details: 2 PVC pipe Stick down = -0.41 Well depth = 50.0 Bentonite seal = 1.0 2.0 Natural backfill = surface 1.0, 2.0 50.0 Water level (BTP) = 41.32 30.0 31.7: Brown, dry, fine sand from 30.0 30.5. Tan, lightly damp, fine sand from 30.5 31.7. 40.0 42.0: Tan, slightly damp, very fine sand. 50.0 51.7: Tan, slightly damp, very fine sand. 60.0 62.0: Grey/brown, saturated very fine sand. 70.0 72.0: Grey, saturated, very dense, very fine sand. Well Construction Details: 2 PVC pipe Stick down = -0.25 Well depth = 66.0
10
Monitoring Well ID
Sampled Interval Log Bentonite seal = N/A Natural backfill = surface 66.0 Water level (BTP) = 53.09 0.0 5.0: Brown, dry, coarse sand and gravel. 5.0 10.0: Brown, dry, coarse sand and gravel. 10.0 15.0: Brown, dry, coarse sand and minimal gravel. 15.0 20.0: Light brown, medium sand. 20.0 25.0: Light brown to tan, medium sand. 25.0 30.0: Light brown to tan, fine sand. 30.0 35.0: Light brown to tan, fine sand. 35.0 40.0: Light brown to tan, fine sand. 48.0 50.0: Grey, saturated, very fine sand and silt from 48.0 48.8. Grey coarse sand and gravel from 48.8 50.0. 50.0 52.0: Grey, saturated, coarse sand and gravel. 52.0 54.0: Grey, saturated, coarse sand and gravel from 52.0 53.0. Grey, saturated, fine to medium sand from 53.0 54.0. 55.0 57.0: Tan, saturated, dense fine sand. 57.0 59.0: Grey, saturated, very dense, very fine sand to fine sand. 59.0 61.0: Grey, saturated, very dense, very fine sand to fine sand. Well Construction Details: 2 PVC pipe Stick down = -0.21 Well depth = 51.0 Bentonite seal = N/A Natural backfill = surface 51.0 Water level (BTP) = 45.56 0.0 5.0: Brown, coarse sand, some gravel. 5.0 10.0: Brown, coarse sand. 10.0 15.0: Brown, coarse sand. 15.0 20.0: Brown, coarse sand. 20.0 21.0: Brown, dry, coarse sand and fine gravel. 25.0 30.0: Brown, coarse sand. 30.0 31.4: Light brown, lightly damp, coarse sand and minimal fine gravel. 40.0 41.8: Light brown, saturated, coarse sand. 40.0 45.0: Brown, medium sand. 45.0 50.0: Brown, medium sand.
MW-9
MW-10
11
Monitoring Well ID
Sampled Interval Log Well Construction Details: 2 PVC pipe Stick down = -0.50 Well depth = 45.0 Bentonite seal = N/A Natural backfill = surface 50.0 Water level (BTP) = 36.89 0.0 5.0: Brown, coarse sand and gravel. 5.0 10.0: Brown, coarse sand and gravel. 10.0 15.0: Brown, coarse sand and gravel. 15.0 20.0: Brown, coarse sand, fine gravel at 18.0 20.0. 20.0 25.0: Brown, medium sand. 25.0 30.0: Brown, medium sand. 30.0 35.0: Brown, medium sand. 35.0 40.0: Brown, medium sand. 40.0 41.7: Light brown, damp, medium sand at 40.0 40.5. Light brown, wet, medium sand at 40.5 40.8. Brown, saturated, very fine sand at 40.8 41.7. 41.7 50.0: Light brown, saturated, very fine sand. 50.0 55.0: Light brown, saturated, very fine sand. 55.0 60.0: Light brown, saturated, very fine sand. 60.0 65.0: Light brown, saturated, very fine sand. 65.0 70.0: Light brown, saturated, very fine sand. 70.0 80.0: Light brown, saturated, very fine sand. Well Construction Details: 2 PVC pipe Stick down = -0.40 Well depth = 43.5 Bentonite seal = 1.0 2.0 Natural backfill = surface 1.0, 2.0 43.5 Water level (BTP) = 41.1 0.0 5.0: Coarse sand and cobbles. 5.0 10.0: Brown coarse sand with few cobbles. 10.0 15.0: Brown coarse sand. 15.0 20.0: Brown coarse sand. 20.0 25.0: Brown coarse sand. 25.0 30.0: Brown coarse sand.
MW-11
MW-12
12
Monitoring Well ID
Sampled Interval Log 30.0 35.0: Brown coarse sand. 35.0 37.0: Light brown, tan, damp smooth fine sand. 45.0 47.0: Brown, saturated, fine sand. 70.0 72.0: Brown, saturated, very fine sand. Well Construction Details: No well constructed 0.0 5.0: Brown, dry, coarse sand and gravel. 5.0 10.0: Brown, dry, coarse sand and gravel. 10.0 15.0: Brown, dry, medium sand and gravel. 15.0 16.3: Brown, dry, coarse sand, fine gravel. 20.0 21.4: Brown, slightly damp, coarse sand, fine gravel. 25.0 26.5: Brown, coarse sand, wet at 26.3. 35.0 36.5: Brown, medium sand at 35.0 35.2. Very fine, saturated sand at 35.2 36.5. 45.0 47.0: Grey, saturated, silt. Minimal gravel. 50.0 52.0: Grey, saturated, dense silt, some gravel. Well Construction Details: 2 PVC pipe Stick down = -0.33 Well depth = 50.0 Bentonite seal = 42.0 44.0 Natural backfill = surface 42.0, 44.0 50.0 Water level (BTP) = 28.82 0.0 10.0: Brown, dry, medium to coarse sand. 10.0 15.0: Brown, dry, medium to coarse sand with some gravel. 15.0 20.0: Brown, dry, coarse sand with some gravel. 20.0 21.3: Brown, dry, coarse sand with some gravel. 40.0 41.5: Brown, moist, coarse sand. 65.0 70.0: Brown, moist, medium sand. 70.0 80.0: Wet, very fine sand Well Construction Details: No well constructed.
MW-13
MW-14
F:\57319.02 NSSEP Env Permitting\Data\NSSEP-MW Logs.doc
13
Notes on Water System Option for North Springfield Biomass

Prepared by: Dan Ingold, Weston Solutions - 11.6.11 Reviewed and Edited by: Meddie Perry, VHB, 11/22/2011
Rainwater Harvesting
A rainwater harvesting system should be designed and installed to collect the rainwater from the roof of the 36 Precision Drive building. This flat membrane roof has multiple roof drains that manifold into two drains located on the south side of the building.
Filters can be installed with storage tanks and pumping systems (as well as overflow safety system) to recover this rainwater for use. The building has about 8.7 acres of flat roof area. The average rainfall is approximately 46 per year, according to the National Weather Service, equal to 3.83 feet a year and yielding a possible 10,900,000 gallons of water as follows: 1 acre foot of water =325,853 gallons 8.7 acres x 325,900 gallons/acre foot x 3.83 feet = 10,868,765 gallons
F:\57319.02NSSEPEnvPermitting\docs\notes\Weston_NotesonWaterSystemOption_11222011.doc
600
CO
OL NE Y
580
8 70
570
NT Y
10 ROUTE
590
590
580
550
RD
RD
530
540
54 0
520
0 53
500
IN CT
14
620
680
590
TH
580
NORTHFIELD DR
590
510
MAIN ST, NS
MAR T
490
# $
753
480
NSSEP Springfield, Vermont Surficial Geologic Map

September 16, 2011
FAIRBANKS RD
590
PRECISION DR
54 0
630
680 690
590
590
590
ELM ST
0 58
530
CENTRAL ST
47 0
HILL RD DAVIDSON
620
# 2086 $
57 0
570
CHURCH ST
630
580
560
520
67 0
470
560
570
SCHOO
S L, N
480
I
Legend UST Sites # Pulled $ # Active $ 10 Foot Contour 50 Foot Contour Area of Interest Surficial Geology Alluvium Delta Gravel Delta Sand Swamp, Peat, and/or Muck Till Hazardous Waste Site
570
580
540
670
! A MW-10 Exposed Bedrock

610
PRECISION DR
550
MW-B
! ! A A MW-13 MW-A
580
20033109
! ! AA
# 8868333 $
MW-D
SB-12
! A MW-11
! A MW-8
MW-7
0 56
490
0 48
D
620
780
660
650
PRECISION DR
! A SB-14
0 58
580
SPO ON ER VIL L
! A MW-C
MW-1
MW-5 ! ! A A MW-3 A A ! ! ! ! A A A MW-6 ! MW-2 MW-4 MW-9
670
ER
470
700
Delta Gravel
550
470
Alluvium
! ASoil Boring ! ATest Well
Stream Surface Water Roads (VTrans 2008)
680
630
710
TH 2
700
Unn amed B
700
680
lack
510
R. Tr ibuta ry
640
630
720
830
810
740
730
0 57
790
800
810
760
750
550
Till
690
620
590
560
600
( Closed ! Active (
640
# 8862291 $
530
500
250
500
Feet
660
650
TH 2
610
560
570
580
Swamp, Peat, and/or Muck
Sources: Aerial Photography provided by USDA NAIP (2009); Hazard Data by VT ANR (2011); Parcel and Well Data provided by Town of Springfield (2004); Soils, Roads, Administrative oundaries and Hydrologic Data provided by VCGI (2008); Surficial Geology by VCGI (2009); Contours by VHB Pioneer (2008); Test wells and Soil Borings by VHB (2011); Investigation Area digitized by VHB (2011).
770
820
800
790
740
750
LL RD TARBE
590
610 620
620
610
640
630 650
690
640
W RD FRENCH MEADO
680
700
690
670
710
Prepared by: OWM/LGL/MJP
600
650
640
660
720
730
F:\57319.02\GIS\project\surficial_geologic_ water supply exploration.mxd
! > ! >
10486
ROUTE 10
! >
650
497 ! > 110 ! >
303 30015 429
11097
TH
8 70
! >
DR
! >
!! >>
OL NE YR D
600
! >
34364 ! >
600
550
CO U
550
BE RR Y
RD
Y NT
RD
31302
! >
NSSEP Springfield, Vermont Bedrock Geologic Map

46397
15
! > 9713
FAIRBANKS RD
222 ! >
! >
! > 66
MAIN ST, NS
30740
36742
November 22, 2011
NORTHFIELD
! >
! >
! 487 >
418
24816 ! >
! >
489 ! > 550 3584 ! >
365
18669 17144 ! > 15243

LOCKE R D
! >
! >
DAVIDS ON HILL RD
.
! Legend > !! >> Private Wells Yield (gpm) ! 0-5 >
2086 593 ! >

PRECIS ION DR
! >
! 40877 >
800
397 ! >
( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( !
550
( ! ( !
376
700
! >
( !
9 ! >
! >
5 - 20
LOCK
ER
700
1000
! 287 >
411 ! >
PRECISION DR
550
! >
! 50 - 100 >
Site Property Medium Weak 100 +
20 - 50
8868333
900
20155 950 ! > 900 471
20033109
PRECISION DR
Fracture Traces Strong
600
! >
850
376 ! > ! > 401
( ! Bedrock Outcrops
Surface Water Stream VSWI Wetland
pC = Biotite Gneiss (Mt Holley Form)
! >
550
750
TH 2
559
700
! >
850
850
TH 2
Unn amed B
8862291
! >
Hazardous Waste Site
750
Roads (VTrans 2008) Closed Active
750
0 75
lack
R. Tr ibuta ry
UST Sites
( ! (
! 346 >
340 ! >
GRAHAM RD
550
# Pulled $ # Active $
10 Foot Contour 50 Foot Contour ! >

600 300 0 600
! 418 >
ER VIL LE R
! > 491
201
950
750
20169
SPO ON
! ! 258 >>
270 ! ! > > 349
477 ! >
ELL RD RB TA
600
Feet
! >
! 448 >
145
1000
MA T TS
800
850
! >
0 80
650
39178
! >
Sources: Aerial Photography provided by USDA NAIP (2009); Roads & Hydrologic Data provided by VCGI (2008); Contours by VHB Pioneer (2008); Fracture Trace by VHB (2011); Private Wells USTs, and Hazsites from VT ANR (2011); siteplan from Waldron Engineering (9-21-2011); Approx. Municipal Water Supply Boundary estimated from Dufrense&Henry Water Sytem Base Map (1987). Bedrock Outcrops GPS-located by VHB (2011).
900
ON RD
12094
! 279 >
700 60 26266 ! > 426
! >
Prepared by: OWM/LGL/MJP
37
! >
! >
! >
! >
F:\57319.02\GIS\project\bedrock_geologic_ water_supply_exploration_updated_11-22-11.mxd
950
0 60
16
North Springfield Sustainable Energy Project Springfield, Vermont

Water Supply Assessment
Bedrock Well Yield Analysis: All known wells within project vicinity Well Report # (see map) 457 40 505 365 405 97 433 321 8005 20169 44195 390 145 37 4 26210 418 483 5 559 4661 18669 22693 426 44154 26184 343 25725 392 428 478 355 15242 73 499 9713 44107 439 9017 7614 23456 9844 353 494 36715 26250 14243 448 4808 Town Springfield Baltimore Chester Chester Chester Weathersfield Chester Chester Springfield Chester Chester Springfield Springfield Springfield Baltimore Chester Springfield Springfield Baltimore Chester Chester Chester Springfield Springfield Weathersfield Chester Weathersfield Chester Chester Chester Chester Chester Chester Springfield Weathersfield Springfield Chester Chester Chester Weathersfield Chester Chester Chester Chester Chester Springfield Weathersfield Chester Chester Well Type Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Depth to Bedrock (Feet) 6 63 88 30 2 40 19 4 40 8 54 74 7 15 4 39 3 39 4 120 8 137 17 4 64 45 46 6 137 78 30 6 5 4 15 103 47 22 27 138 155 0 15 8 8 1 60 70 80 Total Depth (Feet) 360 370 220 350 260 193 340 300 465 450 245 210 183 152 143 300 280 555 471 405 405 360 360 300 285 240 200 180 175 160 150 145 140 121 100 305 265 240 220 200 405 365 340 325 325 320 305 280 265 Yield (gpm) 200 100 100 75 75 75 60 60 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 45 35 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 25 25 25 25 25 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Yield Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Exceedance Probability 0% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 5% 5% 5% 6% 6% 7% 7% 7% 8% 8% 8% 9% 9% 9% 10% 10% 11% 11% 11% 12% 12% 12% 13% 13% 13% 14% 14% 15% 15% 15% 16% 16% 16% 17% 17% 17% 18%
F:\57319.02 NSSEP Env Permitting\Data\onsite well\wellyield_probability.xls, Exceedance_Probability_bdrk, 11/22/2011
17

Bedrock Well Yield Analysis: All known wells within project vicinity Well Report # (see map) 36742 19549 23548 27681 14774 6524 29 20 501 462 501 303 26174 23442 46397 258 590 512 31302 14813 26248 429 46316 273 345 480 459 87 506 24535 26115 466 471 554 27824 60 26249 451 11097 481 373 10486 518 12 22677 9714 456 478 6312 Town Springfield Springfield Springfield Chester Springfield Chester Chester Chester Springfield Chester Chester Springfield Weathersfield Chester Springfield Chester Springfield Chester Springfield Chester Chester Springfield Chester Chester Springfield Weathersfield Chester Springfield Chester Chester Chester Chester Chester Chester Springfield Springfield Chester Chester Springfield Chester Chester Chester Weathersfield Baltimore Springfield Springfield Chester Springfield Chester Well Type Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Depth to Bedrock (Feet) 16 25 90 20 26 30 5 53 6 10 18 75 7 5 42 7 105 57 70 30 10 12 39 13 4 25 60 18 76 4 10 7 1 140 106 42 110 30 38 22 41 22 4 18 45 15 60 20 6 Total Depth (Feet) 265 240 225 200 200 160 96 121 100 518 425 400 380 285 285 250 245 220 200 145 140 140 325 275 225 220 130 100 76 480 420 320 305 305 305 271 240 225 200 185 140 125 120 110 260 545 400 360 325 Yield (gpm) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 17 17 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 8 8 8 8 Yield Rank 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 Exceedance Probability 18% 19% 19% 19% 20% 20% 20% 21% 21% 21% 22% 22% 23% 23% 23% 24% 24% 24% 25% 25% 25% 26% 26% 27% 27% 27% 28% 28% 28% 29% 29% 29% 30% 30% 31% 31% 31% 32% 32% 32% 33% 33% 33% 34% 34% 35% 35% 35% 36%
18

Bedrock Well Yield Analysis: All known wells within project vicinity Well Report # (see map) 46826 46835 420 27 4708 245 12067 415 507 264 207 480 317 332 30786 499 23577 1722 171 5301 15243 12094 477 376 20126 487 340 313 122 189 292 332 18644 12098 17289 25040 23511 493 30015 380 1 452 485 355 130 474 363 399 266 Town Springfield Springfield Chester Baltimore Chester Chester Chester Chester Chester Chester Chester Springfield Weathersfield Chester Chester Springfield Chester Chester Chester Chester Chester Springfield Springfield Springfield Chester Springfield Chester Springfield Springfield Chester Springfield Springfield Springfield Springfield Chester Springfield Springfield Weathersfield Springfield Chester Baltimore Chester Chester Springfield Weathersfield Chester Chester Chester Chester Well Type Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Depth to Bedrock (Feet) 7 8 25 10 42 10 4 25 118 30 90 2 20 4 28 1 7 60 86 15 0 55 3 10 30 32 109 22 51 21 30 84 33 72 55 67 85 19 40 50 23 15 55 33 25 3 7 4 31 Total Depth (Feet) 325 325 305 300 265 260 205 160 143 140 122 100 95 300 265 240 225 205 156 625 500 365 245 225 185 183 175 160 120 103 525 500 440 425 365 325 320 305 245 225 215 200 200 170 162 142 140 125 120 Yield (gpm) 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Yield Rank 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 Exceedance Probability 36% 36% 37% 37% 37% 38% 38% 39% 39% 39% 40% 40% 40% 41% 41% 41% 42% 42% 43% 43% 43% 44% 44% 44% 45% 45% 45% 46% 46% 47% 47% 47% 48% 48% 48% 49% 49% 49% 50% 50% 51% 51% 51% 52% 52% 52% 53% 53% 53%
19

Bedrock Well Yield Analysis: All known wells within project vicinity Well Report # (see map) 3 4 305 201 420 55 3200 24816 349 528 3584 53 279 23512 16 370 376 298 333 1 212 79 26240 34364 8003 98 317 44311 29320 423 26265 18700 365 3347 26222 3356 323 66 166 491 92 274 146 8677 11456 349 23568 489 362 Town Chester Chester Chester Chester Springfield Weathersfield Chester Springfield Chester Springfield Springfield Weathersfield Springfield Springfield Baltimore Chester Chester Chester Chester Chester Springfield Weathersfield Springfield Springfield Springfield Chester Chester Springfield Baltimore Chester Springfield Chester Weathersfield Springfield Springfield Weathersfield Weathersfield Springfield Weathersfield Chester Weathersfield Weathersfield Chester Springfield Springfield Springfield Springfield Springfield Weathersfield Well Type Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Depth to Bedrock (Feet) 18 8 28 20 10 40 62 40 67 60 128 45 1 67 2 79 20 21 10 39 40 23 1 20 3 10 38 40 8 51 58 26 4 3 17 19 3 65 70 27 15 72 3 20 17 22 85 122 85 Total Depth (Feet) 100 100 94 55 445 400 340 320 300 275 260 225 210 205 180 180 180 175 175 140 98 71 420 465 425 415 410 405 385 360 360 320 305 300 260 260 250 245 230 200 196 185 170 505 300 450 425 405 405 Yield (gpm) 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 Yield Rank 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 Exceedance Probability 54% 54% 55% 55% 55% 56% 56% 56% 57% 57% 57% 58% 58% 59% 59% 59% 60% 60% 60% 61% 61% 61% 62% 62% 63% 63% 63% 64% 64% 64% 65% 65% 65% 66% 66% 67% 67% 67% 68% 68% 68% 69% 69% 69% 70% 70% 71% 71% 71%
20

Bedrock Well Yield Analysis: All known wells within project vicinity Well Report # (see map) 553 593 17144 497 502 167 32 458 5061 31 407 424 391 162 435 520 110 187 93 91 90 8006 20154 26266 389 371 20155 20113 401 397 222 155 291 371 287 318 409 37 404 382 411 118 293 9 261 321 2 75 437 Town Springfield Springfield Chester Chester Springfield Weathersfield Weathersfield Chester Chester Springfield Springfield Springfield Chester Springfield Chester Weathersfield Chester Chester Springfield Weathersfield Weathersfield Springfield Chester Springfield Springfield Springfield Chester Baltimore Chester Chester Springfield Weathersfield Chester Chester Chester Springfield Weathersfield Baltimore Weathersfield Chester Chester Springfield Weathersfield Baltimore Chester Weathersfield Baltimore Chester Chester Well Type Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Depth to Bedrock (Feet) 7 2 10 73 57 70 9 5 35 30 36 10 45 70 49 65 120 54 50 22 32 50 4 2 50 4 105 8 2 44 80 35 91 6 80 7 60 17 58 68 13 120 48 50 58 26 12 100 8 Total Depth (Feet) 400 400 363 360 360 350 335 300 300 300 300 265 260 230 220 220 175 172 171 146 90 625 465 400 710 500 465 405 400 350 350 350 347 340 330 325 325 320 305 300 300 300 300 296 275 275 272 271 270 Yield (gpm) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Yield Rank 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 Exceedance Probability 72% 72% 72% 73% 73% 73% 74% 74% 75% 75% 75% 76% 76% 76% 77% 77% 77% 78% 78% 79% 79% 79% 80% 80% 80% 81% 81% 81% 82% 82% 83% 83% 83% 84% 84% 84% 85% 85% 85% 86% 86% 87% 87% 87% 88% 88% 88% 89% 89%
21

Bedrock Well Yield Analysis: All known wells within project vicinity Well Report # (see map) 318 347 176 253 152 21301 46823 15521 14995 325 433 20196 270 308 418 410 367 331 346 387 1 253 183 26120 225 220 78 297 403 n Mean Median Minimum Maximum Town Chester Springfield Chester Weathersfield Springfield Baltimore Chester Weathersfield Chester Chester Weathersfield Chester Chester Chester Chester Springfield Weathersfield Chester Chester Chester Weathersfield Chester Springfield Chester Chester Weathersfield Weathersfield Chester Weathersfield Well Type Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Depth to Bedrock (Feet) 6 25 5 20 3 1 2 2 28 5 25 28 11 3 148 80 6 24 89 0 30 100 72 13 2 15 52 139 35 274 37 26 0 155 Total Depth (Feet) 265 250 240 200 170 600 505 505 600 605 605 465 450 450 420 420 405 400 400 400 400 383 350 340 323 323 321 250 175 274 288 280 55 710 Yield (gpm) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 274 12 5 0 200 Yield Rank 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 274 Exceedance Probability 89% 90% 90% 91% 91% 91% 92% 92% 92% 93% 93% 93% 94% 94% 95% 95% 95% 96% 96% 96% 97% 97% 97% 98% 98% 99% 99% 99% 100%
22
NSSEP Water Supply Assessment

Area Bedrock Well Logs: Yield Statistics
100%
75%
Exc ceedance Probability
50%
25%
0% 0 20 40 60 80 100 Well Yield (gpm) 120 140 160 180 200
F:\57319.02 NSSEP Env Permitting\Data\onsite well\wellyield_probability.xls, Probability_Graph_bdrk, 11/22/2011
23
NSSEP Water Supply Assessment

Area Bedrock Well Logs: Depth vs. Yield
250
200
150 Yield (gpm) 100 50
0 0 100 200 300 400 Depth (Feet)

All Bedrock Wells
500
600
700
800
F:\57319.02 NSSEP Env Permitting\Data\onsite well\wellyield_probability.xls| depth_vs_yield11/22/2011
SON HILL RD DAVID
PRECISION DR
@ A
J-100
H
700
FAIRBANKS RD
NSSEP Springfield, Vermont Bedrock Well Exploration Map: Proposed Bedrock Well Drilling Sites
November 3, 2011
550
500
24
.
Legend
550
A-2050
@ ?
@ A A-1800A-1600
@ ?
550
A/B-1250 A @
A-300 A @
550
B
A
600
Transects
PRECISION DR
Initial Exploration Areas
@ ? F-400
Fracture Traces Strong Medium Weak
Site Property
0 50
Well Sites (as-staked)
@ A Primary
PRECISION DR
700
750
800
800
650
@ ?
G
500
C-1050
D-500
Surface Water Stream VSWI Wetland
Secondary
@ ?
@ A
C
C 1950
TH 2
550
@ ?
Roads (VTrans 2008) 10 Foot Contour 50 Foot Contour
700
550
Unn amed B
TH 2
lack
R. Tr ibuta ry
V ER LE IL RD
550
N OO SP
400
200
400
Feet
E TARB
LL RD
600
Sources: Aerial Photography provided by USDA NAIP (2009); Roads & Hydrologic Data provided by VCGI (2008); Contours by VHB Pioneer (2008); Fracture Trace by VHB (2011); GPS locations digitized by VHB (2011).
600
Prepared by: OWM/LGL/MJP F:\57319.02\GIS\project\bedrock_exploration_preliminary_ sites_updated 11-1-11.mxd
25
NorthSpringfieldSustainableEnergyProject Springfield,Vermont
OnSiteWaterSupplyExploration
PreliminaryBedrockWellSitesNovember3,2011
RecommendedOnSiteBedrockWellDrillingLocations Overall Rank# 1 PrimarySites 2 3 4 5 6 SecondarySites SiteID J100 A1800 A1250/ B1250 C1050 A300 A2050 Location NearTownwater Tank eastofwetareain woods woods500westof FairbanksRd woods400swof FairbanksRd fieldeastof FairbanksRd nearWestproperty line,westofwet area woods800westof FairbanksRd woods1000swof FairbanksRd fieldnearproposed biomassplant oldfieldsouthof FairbanksRd Indicators Accessible,fracture trace,magnetometer Fracturetrace, magnetometer, bedrockoutcrops Fracturetrace, magnetometer,VLF Fracturetrace, magnetometer,VLF Accessible, magnetometer Fracturetrace, magnetometer, bedrockoutcrops Fracturetrace,VLF Fracturetrace, magnetometer Accessible, magnetometer Accessible, magnetometer Accessibility Rank 1 7 5 9 2 8 Likelihood ofHigh YieldRank 7 1 2 3 8 4
7 8 9 10*
A1600 D500 F400 C1950
6 10 3 4
5 6 9 10
*notstakedonsite
F:\57319.02 NSSEP Env Permitting\docs\memos\well_installation_recommendations.doc
26
North Springfield Sustainable Energy Project

Well Site Exploration - Geophysical Surveys
VHB
October 24-November 1, 2011 Station 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 0 50 100 Q Inphase Magnetometer (Gammas) 2 Selected Average Transect A - Northwest (283) Notes
-16 -18 -24 -29 -36 -30 -35 -25 10 18 18 12 0 -11 -3 -9 -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 -10 -8 -6 -8 -8 -6 -8 -10 -10 -10 -9 -10 -10 -16 -11 -14 16 -16 -17 -14 -14 -27 -20 -15 -11 -14 -8 -9 -14 -14 -17 -15 -14 -13 -8 -6 -8 -9 -8 -9 -7 -7 -7 -8 -9 -10 -5 -7 -7 -6 -8 -9 2 0 0
6 4 6 10 14 12 12 10 -20 -22 -24 -24 -27 -2 -14 -10 -12 -12 -14 -14 -13 -9 -11 -12 -12 -11 -7 -7 -5 -4 -2 -1 0 0 3 2 3 3 0 -1 -20 -40 -43 -38 -30 -38 -34 -29 -27 -19 -14 -9 -8 -8 -8 -9 -8 -7 -6 -4 -8 -10 -12 -12 -13 -15 -17 -19 -16 -13 -11 -8 -21 -18 -17
52579 52614 53246 52690 52682 52842 52705 53227 52676 53237 52603 52718 52510 52774 52571 52715 52671 52672 52739 52668 52804 52446 52748 52502 52886 52524 52603 52631 52787 52679 52686 52579 52444 52365 52440 52651 52256 52401 53147 52342 52278 52274 52505 52548 52349 52459 52900 52713 52644 52346 52471 52428 52602 52282 52716 52808 52199 52559 52328 52475 52592 52746 52213 52787 53264 52325 52479 52457 52424 52459 52515 53026 52679 52474 52373
52585 52719 53140 52754 52545 52734 52841 53089 52461 53218 52774 52703 52709 52527 52458 52691 52509 52590 52784 52431 52494 52479 52488 52569 53186 52579 52514 52850 52796 52821 52630 52633 52397 52573 52441 52370 52537 52295 53077 52467 52314 52277 52210 52687 52565 52228 53092 52804 52517 52321 52480 52473 52451 52240 52573 52647 52327 52616 52564 52574 52571 52812 52419 52809 53199 52516 52630 52466 52427 52446 52568 53253 52564 52313 52516
52582 52667 53193 52722 52614 52788 52773 53158 52569 53228 52689 52711 52610 52651 52515 52703 52590 52631
4' west of metal fence
20' from old metal sign: underground telephone cables in vicinity 20' east of barn skipped this station-in barn west of barn, east side of road 25' from stream
50' south of pond skipped this station-no GPS signal 52762 streambed-intermittent at this location 52550 52649 52463 52618 52536 53036 52552 52559 52741 52792 52750 52658 52606 52421 52469 east edge of swamp, 5' west of stone wall 52441 swamp 52511 swamp 52397 52348 next to small spring 53112 Transect B - Southeast (135) 52405 2' south of steel hatch, 25' north of Davidson Hill Water Tank 52296 5' east of Davidson Hill Water Tank 52276 30' southeast of Davidson Hill Water Tank 52358 52618 next to stream 52457 next to stream 52344 next to stream 52996 52759 52581 52334 52476 52451 base of ridge 52527 side of ridge 52261 52645 52728 52263 52588 skipped this flag in numbering sequence 52446 52525 52582 52779 52316 52798 53232 former dump site-metal refuse including paint cans 52421 52555 52462 52426 52453 52542 53140 Transect C - Southeast (283) 52622 52394 52445
F:\57319.02 NSSEP Env Permitting\Data\onsite well\Geophysical_Survey_wVLF data.xlsx| NSSEP
11/22/2011
27

VHB
October 24-November 1, 2011 Station 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Q -1 -1 -2 -2 -2 -3 -4 -4 -2 -2 -4 -6 -5 -6 -6 -6 -6 -7 -7 -8 -13 -12 -13 -14 -12 -9 -5 -6 -4 -1 -2 -1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 10 -10 -12 -8 -9 -9 -6 -4 -1 -1 -2 -3 -2 -3 0 -3 -1 -1 1 0 3 Inphase -16 -15 -17 -16 -15 -14 -12 -11 -11 -9 -8 -7 -4 -3 -1 1 3 8 14 16 23 32 35 38 40 35 28 18 9 7 4 1 0 -1 1 1 0 -1 -3 -5 17 13 7 5 3 -3 -3 -4 -6 -6 -8 -13 -11 -9 -10 -13 -14 -14 -16 -20 Magnetometer (Gammas) Notes 1 2 Selected Average 52738 52536 52637 52306 52413 52360 next to stone wall 52542 52554 52548 52779 52615 52697 52424 52467 52446 52627 52791 52709 52525 52488 52507 52285 52380 52333 52533 52445 52489 52473 52442 52458 52265 52220 52220 52392 52293 52343 52657 52479 52568 52212 52066 52139 top of ridge 52547 52435 52491 52518 52475 52497 52531 52567 52549 52322 52392 52357 52111 52177 52144 valley, boulder field 52164 52281 52223 valley, boulder field 52480 52370 52425 valley, boulder field 52338 52408 52373 streambank, barbed wire fence 52247 52395 52321 52404 52304 52354 52479 52429 52454 next to stone wall 52648 52657 52653 52323 52284 52304 52586 52553 52570 edge of field 52727 52562 52645 field 52488 52449 52469 field 52761 52754 52754 field 52265 52434 52350 field 52116 52286 52201 field 52692 52754 52723 field 52106 52244 52175 field 52574 52525 52550 field 52196 52192 52194 field 52425 52388 52407 field 52334 52428 52381 field 52629 52632 52631 field Transect D - Northwest (285) 52169 52193 52181 southern streambank 52450 52513 52482 52536 52463 52500 52717 52570 52644 52274 52271 52273 52442 52407 52425 52476 52478 52477 52584 52537 52561 52204 52206 52205 52303 52336 52320 52050 52151 52101 52624 52499 52562 52375 52372 52374 52493 52415 52454 52352 52245 52299 52376 52372 52374 52512 52506 52509 52718 52537 52628 52203 52301 52252 52308 52295 52302 east of wood pile, west of rock wall 52391 52307 52349 Transect E - North (3) 52510 52613 52562 runs south to north parallel to parking lot and road 52540 52515 52528 52208 52377 52293 52749 52639 52694 52660 52629 52645 50' west of metal pole/flood light 53113 53002 53058 52595 52408 52502 52561 52521 52541 52569 52571 52570 52337 52253 52295 Transect F - Southeast (102) 52407 52460 52434 10' north of road, 30' south of metal fence 53150 53185 53168 52376 52439 52408 52380 52582 52481 53104 53106 53105 53032 52980 53006 10' west of fence 52553 52569 52561 40' east of fence 53312 53171 53242 10' west of MW-11 52228 52379 52304
11/22/2011
28

VHB
October 24-November 1, 2011 Station 450 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 -20 -13 -13 -17 -11 -11 -9 -11 -25 -25 -24 -32 -27 -32 -38 -35 -13 -14 -14 -10 -9 -11 -10 -7 -9 -8 -14 -17 -40 -29 -25 -26 -27 -27 -28 -29 -30 -31 -32 -34 -38 -27 -32 -40 Q Inphase Magnetometer (Gammas) Notes 1 2 Selected Average runs west to east parallel to fencing along north of property line 52572 52604 52588 Transect G - Northeast (48) 52935 53086 53011 transect is in close proximity to fencing, trucks, poles, wiring 53005 52975 52990 20' from fencing, 40' from telephone pole 52182 52071 52127 10' from telephone pole, 20' from road and fencing. Immediately beneath telephone wires 52153 52364 52259 grass lawn 52586 52581 52584 former graveled area 52363 52333 52348 former graveled area, 20' south of metal pole 52636 52584 52610 former graveled area, 30' east of metal pole 52231 52207 52219 40' southwest of telephone pole immediately adjacent to metal fence, 10' from telephone pole 52107 52116 52112 Transect H - Northeast (60) 52457 52792 52625 52690 52758 52724 52827 52692 52760 53135 53084 53110 53019 53113 53066 streambank 52730 53088 52909 streambank 53145 52949 53047 streambank 53081 53118 53100 streambank 52556 52497 52527 adjacent to wetland 53074 53251 53163 adjacent to wetland 52587 52295 52441 adjacent to wetland 52305 52603 52454 wetland 52720 52751 52736 wetland edge of road 52807 52532 52670 Transect I - Southwest (226) 52241 52249 52245 52500 52432 52466 next to seep 52433 52467 52450 52385 52517 52451 52619 52712 52666 52518 52345 52432 52296 52371 52334 52513 52483 52498 53310 53012 53161
52268 52570 52381 52250 52467 52471 52597 53040 52858 52495 52528 52510 52543 52365 52653 52120 52123 51838 52065 52166 52355 52298 52108
52260 52579 52358 52185 52408 52554 52542 53224 52626 52496 52492 52534 52590 52496 52543 52157 52209 51962 51851 52400 52401 52388 52308
52264 52575 52370 52218 wetland/stream 52438 52513 52570 53132 52742 52496 along line of stone wall 52510 52522 52567 52431 52598 Transect J - East (90) 52139 52166 51900 51958 52283 52378 52343 52208
11/22/2011
29
North Springfield Sustainable Energy Project Process Water Geophysical Survey Transect A
54000
Primary Well Site
50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 VLF
53800 53600 53400 53200 53000 52800 52600 52400 52200 52000
Secondary Well Site
Magnetometer (Gammas)
Well Site A-300
Well Site A/B-1250
Well Site A-1600
Well Site A-1800
Well Site A-2050
Station (feet) Northwest (283) Magnetometer Inphase Quadrature
F:\57319.02 NSSEP Env Permitting\Data\onsite well\Geophysical_Survey_wVLF data, Transect A, 11/3/2011
30
North Springfield Sustainable Energy Project Process Water Geophysical Survey Transect B
54000
Primary Well Site
50
53800
Secondary Well Site
40
53600
30
53400
20
53200
10 VLF
53000
52800
-10
52600
-20
52400
-30
52200
Well Site A/B-1250
-40
52000
-50
Station (feet) Southeast (135) Magnetometer Inphase Quardature
F:\57319.02 NSSEP Env Permitting\Data\onsite well\Geophysical_Survey_wVLF data, Transect B, 11/3/2011
31
North Springfield Sustainable Energy Project Process Water Geophysical Survey Transect C
54000
Primary Well Site
50
53800
Secondary Well Site
40
53600
30
53400
20
53200
10 VLF
53000
52800
Well Site C-1050
-10
52600
-20
52400
-30
52200
Well Site C-1950
-40
52000 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 Station (feet) Southeast (283) Magnetometer (Gammas) Inphase Quadrature
F:\57319.02 NSSEP Env Permitting\Data\onsite well\Geophysical_Survey_wVLF data, Transect C, 11/3/2011
-50
32
North Springfield Sustainable Energy Project Process Water Geophysical Survey Transect D
54000
Primary Well Site
50
Secondary Well Site
53800 53600 53400 53200 53000 52800 52600 52400 52200 52000 0
40 30 20 10 0 -10
Well Site D-500
-20 -30 -40 -50
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950 1000
Station (feet) Northwest (285) Magnetometer (Gammas) Inphase Quardature
F:\57319.02 NSSEP Env Permitting\Data\onsite well\Geophysical_Survey_wVLF data, Transect D, 11/3/2011
VLF
33
North Springfield Sustainable Energy Project Process Water Geophysical Survey Transect E
54000
Primary Well Site
50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 Station (feet) North (3) Magnetometer (Gammas) Inphase Quadrature 300 350 400 450 VLF
53800 53600 53400 53200 53000 52800 52600 52400 52200 52000
Secondary Well Site
F:\57319.02 NSSEP Env Permitting\Data\onsite well\Geophysical_Survey_wVLF data, Transect E, 11/3/2011
34
North Springfield Sustainable Energy Project Process Water Geophysical Survey Transect F
54000
Primary Well Site
50
53800
Secondary Well Site
40
53600
30
53400
20
53200
10 VLF
53000
52800
-10
52600
-20
52400
-30
52200
Well Site F-400
-40
52000 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
-50
Station (feet) Southeast (102) Magnetometer (Gammas) Inphase Quardrature
F:\57319.02 NSSEP Env Permitting\Data\onsite well\Geophysical_Survey_wVLF data, Transect F, 11/3/2011
35
North Springfield Sustainable Energy Project Process Water Geophysical Survey Transect G
54000
Primary Well Site
50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 0 50 100 150 200 Station (feet) Northeast (48) Magnetometer (Gammas) Inphase Quardrature 250 300 350 400 VLF
53800 53600 53400 53200 53000 52800 52600 52400 52200 52000
Secondary Well Site
F:\57319.02 NSSEP Env Permitting\Data\onsite well\Geophysical_Survey_wVLF data, Transect G, 11/3/2011
36
North Springfield Sustainable Energy Project Process Water Geophysical Survey Transect H
54000
Primary Well Site
50
53800
Secondary Well Site
40
53600
30
53400
20
53200
10 VLF
53000
52800
-10
52600
-20
52400
-30
52200
-40
52000 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650
-50
Station (feet) Northeast (60) Magnetometer (Gammas) Inphase Quadrature
F:\57319.02 NSSEP Env Permitting\Data\onsite well\Geophysical_Survey_wVLF data, Transect H, 11/3/2011
37
North Springfield Sustainable Energy Project Process Water Geophysical Survey Transect I
54000
Primary Well Site
50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 VLF
53800 53600 53400 53200 53000 52800 52600 52400 52200 52000
Secondary Well Site
Station (feet) Southwest (226) Magnetometer (Gammas) Inphase Quadrature
F:\57319.02 NSSEP Env Permitting\Data\onsite well\Geophysical_Survey_wVLF data, Transect I, 11/3/2011
38
North Springfield Sustainable Energy Project Process Water Geophysical Survey Transect J
50 53900
Primary Well Site
40 30 20
53700
Secondary Well Site
53500 Magnetometer (Gammas) 53300 10 53100 52900 52700 52500 52300 52100 51900 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Well Site J-100
0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50
Station (feet) Southwest (226) Magnetometer (Gammas) Inphase Quadrature
F:\57319.02 NSSEP Env Permitting\Data\onsite well\Geophysical_Survey_wVLF data, Transect J, 11/3/2011
VLF
39
Bedrock Well Drilling Specifications for Wells Permitted Under Large Groundwater Withdrawal Rule
NSSEP, Springfield Vermont 11/3/2011
General o 8-inch diameter bedrock well and casing o Total depth of well: 600 feet, depending on yield and where water was encountered. Do not stop drilling before reaching 600 feet, regardless of yield, before consulting with VHB. If at 600 feet and yield is less than 40 gpm, consult with VHB to determine if drilling deeper is worthwhile. o Need detailed notes on rock type and depth of all water-bearing zones. Casing and Grout o 29 pound-per-foot casing o Casing must penetrate at least 10 feet into unweathered, competent (solid) bedrock o Casing to be sealed with drive shoe o Hole for casing should be the same diameter as the casing so as to create no annular space, OR If annular space is created, the annual space shall be grouted for the full length of the unscreened portion of the casing If grout is used: bentonite grout to be applied from bottom of casing up to 7 feet below finished grade. Apply grout with grout pump/tremie pipe from bottom up. Allow grout to set before continuing to drill. o Finished casing to be a minimum of 18 inches above grade. Erosion control: water and sediment from drilling/blow test must not discharge to streams or wetlands. Ensure that pits are adequate to collect all discharge and allow it to seep into ground.
F:\57319.02 NSSEP Env Permitting\docs\memos\well_installation_recommendations.doc
40
Water Production Summary Springfield, VT PCWS (WSID #5333)

December 12, 2011
Town of Springfield Well Details, Current Pump-Limited Output, and Permittable Yield Well Construction Component Wells Well Type Total 1 Depth (feet) 28 +/70 40 43 53 45 Diameter1 (inches) 2.5 24 12 8 8 8 Screen Length1 (feet) NA 10 4.5 5 4 4 Screen Slot Size1 (inches) NA 0.15 --0.1 0.1 Current Output (PumpLimited) Pump Rate4 (gpm) 230 350 100 230 125 220 1,255 628 627 400 Pump Rate3,4 (gpd) 331,200 504,000 144,000 331,200 180,000 316,800 1,807,200 904,899 902,301 576,000 Potential/Permitted Yield Permitted Yield2 (gpm) 300 700 117 230 125 220 1,692 * 628 1,064 * 400 Permitted Yield3 (gpd) 432,000 1,008,000 168,480 331,200 180,000 316,800 2,436,480 * 904,899 1,531,581 * 576,000 1,493,700 942,780 * 716,409
Well Field
Chapman No. 30 individual Driven, 1 wells vacuum Chapman No. Gravel 2 No. 2 packed Gravel No. 1 packed Gravel No. 2 packed Gilchrist Gravel No. 3 packed Gravel No. 4 packed
Total Production Rate: Current Usage (Ave Day): Resulting Surplus Production (Average Day): Approximate Average NSSEP Project Water Needs:
1,037 1,037 Current Usage (Max Day): 1,493,700 218 313,500 655 * Resulting Surplus Production (Peak Day): 498 498 Approximate Peak NSSEP Project Water Needs: 716,409 *Indicates production rate if well pumps were upgraded to permitted yield. 1 Aldrich & Elliott (2011). Springfield, VT Water System Operation & Maintenance Manual. Aldrich and Elliot, Essex Junction, VT. 2 VT DEC (2008). Temporary Permit to Operate, WSID #5333, PIN #NS99-0021. 3 Based on Actual 24-Hour per Day Operation (typical per Alex Greer, 10/26/2011) 4 Maximum Output of Pump, with all Other Well Pumps in Operation (per Alex Greer, 10/26/2011) NA Not Applicable -- Unknown
F:\57319.02NSSEPEnvPermitting\Data\Springfield_Water_Dept\Springfield_metered_demand_3daypeak.xlsx|Current_Capacity
12/13/2011
41
DailyWaterProduction MasterMeterReadings Springfield,VTPCWS(WSID#5333)

1,600,000
1,400,000
Max DayDemand 1,493,700gpd (1,037gpm)
1,200,000
GallonsPerDay
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
Ave DayDemand 904,899gpd (1,070gpm)
400,000
200,000 4/1/2010 7/1/2010 9/30/2010 DailyMeteredFlows 12/30/2010 3DayPeakMeteredFlows 4/1/2011
F:\57319.02NSSEPEnvPermitting\Data\Springfield_metered_demand_3daypeak.xlsx|graph
11/22/2011
42
DailyWaterProduction Springfield,VTPCWS(WSID#5333)
MasterMeterReadingsfromMonthlyOperationsReportsonFileatVermontWaterSupplyDivision Revised:October26,2011
Gallons
Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 AVG. MIN. MAX. Apr10 1,188,298 917,000 956,000 936,000 939,400 929,700 994,500 926,400 952,500 919,200 947,000 936,800 1,284,000 1,039,800 1,027,200 928,700 925,100 940,100 936,400 948,800 1,280,300 919,900 938,200 958,700 1,286,900 919,000 921,800 942,800 1,304,700 918,800 998,800 917,000 1,304,700 May10 932,700 965,100 1,338,700 914,700 1,493,700 1,226,300 982,700 1,372,700 977,400 914,100 1,022,500 891,400 1,045,500 778,300 1,105,200 834,200 997,000 952,800 945,500 935,900 1,038,300 924,700 1,027,200 958,800 1,159,300 994,100 1,233,400 1,037,200 1,000,900 1,035,200 852,200 1,028,635 778,300 1,493,700 Jun10 1,167,600 1,075,000 939,200 1,108,300 995,100 963,600 923,800 1,130,400 1,043,100 1,213,600 1,125,100 1,055,500 967,700 1,068,700 1,038,400 1,133,600 1,066,700 1,079,100 1,127,100 1,106,700 1,116,900 1,055,700 910,800 1,091,025 1,114,500 1,075,900 1,177,900 1,113,400 1,085,252 1,200,400 1,075,669 910,800 1,213,600 Jul10 884,500 904,500 1,118,500 1,067,900 1,179,800 1,084,400 1,355,500 1,145,900 1,304,100 1,322,800 941,300 1,237,800 1,098,000 1,253,600 1,369,800 693,400 1,063,000 1,191,200 997,400 1,029,200 972,200 875,800 1,034,900 980,100 1,002,000 955,100 878,900 1,155,600 1,054,300 1,006,700 863,800 1,065,226 693,400 1,369,800 Aug10 1,061,000 1,141,600 707,200 952,800 1,005,100 956,400 961,600 952,000 759,300 1,204,300 1,081,300 986,500 973,200 996,046 797,912 904,695 892,979 1,154,059 846,507 870,546 949,365 819,935 837,443 650,949 786,940 933,771 722,397 684,476 831,266 779,609 816,890 903,809 650,949 1,204,300 Sep10 812,040 829,023 960,747 825,600 632,947 839,483 788,573 781,645 790,603 805,547 849,045 636,755 593,616 725,451 716,274 581,694 813,343 663,892 749,193 612,422 813,139 521,228 973,300 432,128 1,103,892 833,400 740,150 1,169,480 1,153,450 696,695 781,492 432,128 1,169,480 Oct10 1,202,425 1,202,660 738,738 626,531 708,469 838,173 719,227 1,001,667 641,463 974,302 437,128 1,178,801 719,390 861,674 589,134 652,821 796,193 816,896 1,073,417 795,632 728,077 727,746 713,476 725,649 746,289 1,042,463 1,062,824 391,432 752,471 865,459 775,603 809,878 391,432 1,202,660 Nov10 768,179 786,285 702,226 714,452 699,142 705,873 930,755 708,480 830,107 661,428 671,477 848,841 728,932 654,572 684,116 882,346 807,959 689,574 707,536 694,204 700,668 710,192 824,323 672,948 907,974 844,912 636,100 672,400 836,926 838,375 750,710 636,100 930,755 Dec10 683,685 690,681 987,155 728,740 621,957 709,636 720,290 1,192,777 895,076 1,285,406 897,836 688,680 846,566 1,007,528 808,076 577,240 755,544 1,031,390 808,700 1,378,740 912,654 798,953 758,432 703,235 1,154,153 668,778 746,472 704,160 804,787 1,141,985 728,488 852,832 577,240 1,378,740 Jan11 748,296 740,007 1,003,662 1,056,355 693,043 789,634 758,446 1,075,532 638,610 746,530 735,070 880,360 1,021,204 740,935 727,873 1,058,023 810,147 937,313 818,033 845,130 755,232 751,976 1,152,434 721,820 833,188 1,458,488 701,492 1,132,850 836,804 1,070,386 814,268 872,682 638,610 1,458,488 Feb11 1,091,080 752,128 1,021,728 695,368 1,021,302 688,272 767,322 1,036,056 884,800 998,738 956,534 775,936 1,097,848 935,466 781,736 1,068,792 855,130 819,212 1,134,782 958,568 973,380 1,055,321 936,657 1,032,166 782,440 1,058,870 768,012 1,133,378 Mar11 1,087,248 726,378 1,027,812 754,918 953,154 838,982 780,160 1,025,132 768,000 880,728 1,022,860 764,100 747,500 1,073,696 768,648 811,238 1,007,046 757,814 849,992 995,997 766,191 863,864 1,134,330 799,820 1,151,324 721,852 781,312 801,766 1,051,410 847,756 805,280 882,784 721,852 1,151,324 Apr11 819,400 1,092,218 795,540 869,474 964,599 1,043,457 884,245 752,423 767,400 768,880 1,003,600 990,626 811,944 752,188 769,812 985,200 754,744 723,749 739,226 1,037,128 736,632 759,564 1,021,568 745,000 782,268 775,724 993,690 773,672 787,216 956,924 855,270 723,749 1,092,218 May11 858,084 767,756 965,356 663,043 1,059,577 800,071 900,742 841,730 917,253 874,895 866,066 762,198 973,068 796,129 920,284 728,071 924,786 768,605 943,009 713,180 933,252 733,130 974,478 746,434 964,463 776,073 928,498 848,816 885,835 840,130 981,477 859,887 663,043 1,059,577
931,465 688,272 1,134,782
OverallDailyMeanFlow: OverallDailyMedianFlow: MaximumSingleDailyFlow: Maximum3DayPeakFlow: 99thPercentile7DayPeakFlow:
Summary:April1,2010toMay31,2011 Gal/Day Gal/Min Gpd/Connection Gpd/Person 904,899 1070 362 129 asAverageDayDemand(14.1hrs/daypumping) 902,621 1067 361 129 asAverageDayDemand(14.1hrs/daypumping) 1,493,700 1037 597 152 asMaximumDayDemand(24hrs/daypumping) 1,268,500 881 507 129 asMaximumDayDemand(24hrs/daypumping) 1,229,020 853 492 125 asMaximumDayDemand(24hrs/daypumping)
Yield MeteredDemand ReserveCapacity Gal/Day Gal/Day Gpd/Connection Gpd/Person Gal/Day Gal/Min 597 152 2,436,480 1,493,700 942,780 655 PeakFactor= 1.7 Yieldisestimatedsourceyields(sumof1692gal/minfor12hours/dayproduction)listedintheTemporaryPermittoOperate(3/28/2008) GPD/connectionbasedon2500connections,perTemporaryPermittoOperate(3/28/2008) AverageDayDemandGPD/personbasedon7000population,perTemporaryPermittoOperate(3/28/2008) MaximumDayDemandGPD/personbasedon9800population,perTemporaryPermittoOperate(3/28/2008) ReserveCapacityGal/Minisbasedon24hour/dayusageforNSSEPfacility
F:\57319.02NSSEPEnvPermitting\Data\Springfield_metered_demand_3daypeak.xlsx|monthly
11/22/2011
Transportation Land Development Environmental

S e r v i c e s
43
7056 US Route 7 Post Office Box 120 North Ferrisburgh, VT 05473 Telephone 802.425.7788 Fax 802.425.7799 www.vhb.com
Memorandum
To: North Springfield Sustainable Energy Project: Environmental Permitting Project File
Date: October 27, 2011 Project No.: 57319.02
From: Meredith J. Simard Environmental Scientist
Re: Springfield Water Department File Review Summary
This memorandum has been prepared to summarize the research conducted on the Town of Springfield municipal water distribution system, WSID #5333 on July 26, 2011 at the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation Water Supply Division. The water system serves a year-round residential population of approximately 7,000 people through 2,300 service connections, and an additional transient population of approximately 2,800 people.
Potable Water Sources Springfields potable water is supplied by three well fields known as Chapman No. 1, Chapman No. 2, and Gilchrist that are located along the Black River off of Fairground Road. Chapman No. 1 is a vacuum well field that consists of 30 two and one half inch diameter driven wells constructed in 2000. The original wells, constructed in 1942, were abandoned in 2010 when the new wells were connected to the system. The Chapman No. 2 well was constructed in 1979 and is the most recent groundwater source constructed for the Springfield water system. The Gilchrist Well Field is composed of four gravel packed wells, two of which were constructed in 1954 and two of which were constructed in 1963. Water is chlorinated and fluoridated at all three well field sites before entering the distribution system.1 Table 1 presents a summary of well details provided by the Operations & Maintenance Manual, the 2008 Temporary Permit to Operate, and discussions with the operators.
1
Aldrich & Elliott (2011). Springfield, VT Water System Operation & Maintenance Manual. Aldrich and Elliot, Essex Junction, VT.
Springfield Water Department File Review Summary October 27, 2011 Page 2 of 4
44
Table 1: Well Details

Well Field Component Wells Well Type Total Depth2 (feet) Diameter1 (inches) Screen Length1 (feet) Screen Slot Size1 (inches) Capacity2 (gpm) Permit Actual
Chapman No. 1 Chapman No. 2
30 individual wells No. 2 No. 1 No. 2
Driven, vacuum
28 +/-
2.5 24 12 8 8 8
NA 10 4.5 5 4 4
NA 0.150 --0.100 0.100
300 700 117 230 125 220 1,692
230 350 100 230 125 220 1,255
Gilchrist No. 3 No. 4 NA: Not Applicable --: Unknown
Gravel 70 packed Gravel 40 packed Gravel 43 packed Gravel 53 packed Gravel 45 packed Total Capacity:
Source Protection Plan and Aquifer The original Source Protection Plan (SPP) was prepared by Dufresne-Henry Consulting Engineers3 in February 1999. The Source Protection Area (SPA) was delineated as an Aquifer Protection Area (APA) by the State of Vermont in January 1983. No changes were made to the SPA in the most recent April 2005 SPP Update.4
A report prepared by Hoffer & Associates Consulting Hydrogeologists5 in January 1999 for Dufresne-Henry presents a review and synthesis of existing information related to the wellfields, aquifer, and SPA. The Springfield production wells are constructed in a shallow, long, and narrow stratified sand and gravel aquifer in the Black River valley at an elevation of
VT DEC (2008). Temporary Permit to Operate, WSID #5333, PIN #NS99-0021.
Dufresne-Henry, Inc. (1999). Source Protection Plan and Contingency Plan, Town of Springfield, Vermont. Dufresne-Henry, Inc, South Burlington, VT. Dufresne & Associates, PC (2005). Source Protection Plan Update. Dufresne & Associates, PC, South Burlington, VT. & Associates Consulting Hydrogeologists (1999). Report on Springfield Wellfield North Springfield, VT. Hoffer & Associates Consulting Hydrogeologists, Montpelier, VT.
5Hoffer
F:\57319.02 NSSEP Env Permitting\docs\memos\Springfield Water Department_File Review Summary_10-27-2011.doc
45
approximately 450 feet above sea level (asl). Based on information available from well logs, Hoffer &Associates estimates that the depth to bedrock is variable throughout the wellfield, becoming progressively thicker from north to south. At the northern end of the site near the Gilchrist Well Field, the depth to bedrock is approximately 46 feet below ground surface (bgs). Refusal was encountered at 68 feet bgs in the central portion of the aquifer near Chapman No. 2. At the southern end of the aquifer near the north end of Chapman No. 1, the depth to bedrock is at least 69 feet bgs and as much as 84 feet bgs. The aquifer thins, however, at the most southern end of Chapman No. 1where refusal was encountered at only 40 feet bgs.
Hoffer & Associates provides a brief discussion of pumping tests performed at locations within the aquifer that serves the three wellfields. A summary of the test details are provided in Table 2. Documentation of these pumping tests, reportedly performed by Layne New England, was not located in the town file.
Date 1969 1974 1979
Location Chapman No. 1: north end of system Chapman No. 2: 8-inch test well Chapman No. 2 production well
Table 2: Pumping Test Details Duration Pumping Transmissivity (hours) Rate (gpm) (gpd/ft) 8 144 72 60 406 869 39,000 53,600 43,500
Storativity 0.078 0.055 0.130
Water System The most recent Sanitary Survey is dated October 18, 2010. The significant deficiency of interest that was identified in the system was Inadequate Water Pressure. Minor notable deficiencies included the completion of the Operation and Maintenance Manual and completion of a Source Protection Plan Update. In 2011, the Town of Springfield completed a Water Works Improvement project to correct low pressure problems in the water distribution system. Prior to the improvement project, growth in the system resulted in low pressure zones that were not adequately served by the existing storage tanks. The project modified the existing one pressure zone water system to a two pressure zone system by constructing a new 1.0 million gallon (Mgal) tank, three pressure reducing valve (PRV) vaults, improvements to the three well fields, over four miles of new water mains, and a new SCADA system. The Operation and
46
Maintenance Manual, received by the VT WSD on May 25, 2011, provides a detailed narrative of the water systems construction and operation.
The two new pressures zones are designated Valley (low pressure) and Hill (high pressure). The Valley Zone consists of the downtown district and I-91 Exit 7 area and is served by the East and West Side tanks. The Hill Zone includes the hill portion of the water system, the areas north of the Route 106/11 intersection, and North Springfield, and is served by the new Union School tank that was constructed in 2010. Water is pumped from the three well fields to the distribution system or the Union School storage tank. The East and West Side tanks are filled through flow from the Hill Zone via the PRV vaults, which are utilized to connect the Hill Zone with the Valley Zone and provide a reduction in pressure of approximately 35 psi, or 80 feet.
The water distribution system consists primarily of eight inch diameter cast iron pipe constructed in the early to mid 1900s. The piping ranges in size, however, from one inch in some residential areas to 16 inch diameter transmission lines. Pipes are constructed of cast iron, ductile iron, polyethylene, and asbestos cement.
47

Black River 7Q10 Analysis Based on USGS Station #01153000 (BLACK RIVER AT NORTH SPRINGFIELD, VT) Prepared 12/24/2008 USGS Flow Data from Black R. at No. Springfield, VT Gauge Water Annual Low Recurrance 7-Day Q Rank Interval Year (ending in Sept) (cfs) (years) 1965 13.14 1 61.0 1964 13.29 2 30.5 1958 14.71 3 20.3 1949 15.29 4 15.3 1962 16.06 5 12.2 1963 17.29 6 10.2 1953 19.43 7 8.7 1941 20.29 8 7.6 1942 20.29 9 6.8 1948 20.57 10 6.1 1966 21.14 11 5.5 1954 21.86 12 5.1 1982 22.00 13 4.7 1983 22.14 14 4.4 1959 22.29 15 4.1 1939 22.43 16 3.8 1970 22.57 17 3.6 1950 22.86 18 3.4 1936 23.00 19 3.2 1955 23.00 20 3.1 1957 23.29 21 2.9 1944 23.86 22 2.8 1971 24.00 23 2.7 1951 24.29 24 2.5 1967 24.29 25 2.4 1947 24.57 26 2.3 1938 25.57 27 2.3 1940 25.57 28 2.2 1956 26.29 29 2.1 1946 27.00 30 2.0 1961 27.00 31 2.0 1931 27.29 32 1.9 1985 28.14 33 1.8 1984 28.29 34 1.8 1934 29.14 35 1.7 1988 29.57 36 1.7 1977 30.14 37 1.6 1933 30.86 38 1.6 1968 31.00 39 1.6 1974 31.57 40 1.5 1932 32.57 41 1.5 1989 32.57 42 1.5 1980 32.86 43 1.4 1952 34.00 44 1.4 1937 35.29 45 1.4 1979 35.57 46 1.3 1960 36.00 47 1.3 1973 36.00 48 1.3 1930 36.86 49 1.2 1972 37.71 50 1.2 1981 38.43 51 1.2 1978 38.57 52 1.2 1969 41.14 53 1.2 1935 45.43 54 1.1 1975 49.86 55 1.1 1986 50.71 56 1.1 1945 53.86 57 1.1 1987 57.86 58 1.1 1943 63.14 59 1.0 1976 127.86 60 1.0 7Q10 18.14 cfs, at Black R. at No. Springfield gauge (watershed area = 158 square miles)
NOTE: "7Q10" is the drought flow equal to the lowest average flow for 7 consecutive days with a 10% chance of occurring in any year (that is, with a ten-year return period). It is the flow rate at which Vermont Water Quality Standards are applied. De minimus flow calculations: Unitized 7Q10 : 7Q10 at project site: de minimus flow at project site: or, de minimus equals: or, de minimus equals: 0.11 18.14 0.91 407 586,326 csm (cfs per square mile of watershed) cfs cfs ( = 5% of 7Q10 at project site) gpm gpd
F:\57319.02 NSSEP Env Permitting\Data\Black River\Black_R_7Q10.xlsx | Black R. 7Q10
11/29/2011
48
7Q10 Analysis: USGS Black River at North Springfield, VT Gauge

100
Annual Low 7-Day Q, cfs
10
1 1.0 10.0 Recurrance Interval, Years Annual 7-Day Low Flow Values
F:\57319.02 NSSEP Env Permitting\Data\Black River\Black_R_7Q10.xlsx | plot
100.0
7Q10
11/29/2011
49
North Springfield Sustainable Energy Project Process Water Supply Supply and Demand Analysis Revised: 12/13/2011 Scenario 1: Current Pump-Limited Production of Springfield Water Department Total Potentially Available Average Usage Peak Usage % gpd gpm gpd gpm gpd gpm Municipal Total Yield: 1,807,200 1,255 1,807,200 1,255 -1,807,200 1,255 Municipal Usage: Municipal Surplus Potentially Available to NSSEP Water Demand: Rooftop Rainwater Collection: Proposed On-Site Bedrock Wells (Target Yield): Municipal Supply Required: Black River (de minimis ): Total Water Availability: 1,493,700 313,500 -29,800 288,000 313,500 586,000 1,217,300 1,037 218 -21 200 218 407 845 904,899 902,301 576,000 29,800 288,000 258,200 0 576,000 628 627 400 21 200 179 0 400 ---5% 50% 29% 0% 100% 1,493,700 313,500 716,409 29,800 288,000 313,500 85,109 716,409 1,037 218 498 21 200 218 59 498
Scenario 2: Upgrade Production of Springfield Water Department to 2 Mgal/day per Hoffer, 2004 Total Potentially Available Average Usage Peak Usage % gpd gpm gpd gpm gpd gpm Municipal Total Yield: 2,000,000 1,389 2,000,000 1,389 -2,000,000 1,389 Municipal Usage: Municipal Surplus Potentially Available to NSSEP Water Demand: Rooftop Rainwater Collection: Proposed On-Site Bedrock Wells (Target Yield): Municipal Supply Required: Black River (de minimis ): Total Water Availability: 1,493,700 506,300 -29,800 180,576 506,300 586,000 1,302,676 1,037 352 -21 125 352 407 905 904,899 1,095,101 576,000 29,800 180,576 365,624 0 576,000 628 760 400 21 125 254 0 400 ---5% 31% 33% 0% 100% 1,493,700 506,300 716,409 29,800 180,576 506,033 0 716,409 1,037 352 498 21 125 351 0 498
Scenario 3: Upgrade Production of Springfield Water Department to 2.4 Mgal/day - Full Permitted Yield
Municipal Total Yield: Municipal Usage: Municipal Surplus Potentially Available to NSSEP Water Demand: Rooftop Rainwater Collection: Proposed On-Site Bedrock Wells (Target Yield): Municipal Supply Required: Black River (de minimis ): Total Water Availability:
Total Potentially Available gpd gpm 2,436,480 1,692 1,493,700 942,780 -29,800 233,280 942,780 586,000 1,791,860 1,037 655 -21 162 655 407 1,244
Average Usage % gpd gpm 1,218,240 1,692 -904,899 313,341 576,000 29,800 233,280 312,920 0 576,000 628 218 400 21 162 217 0 400 ---5% 41% 100% 0% 100%
Peak Usage gpd gpm 2,436,480 1,692 1,493,700 942,780 716,409 29,800 233,280 453,329 0 716,409 1,037 655 498 21 162 315 0 498
F:\57319.02 NSSEP Env Permitting\Data\Process Flows\flow_rates.xls| 11-23-2011
12/13/2011
50
North Springfield Sustainable Energy Project Underground Injection System Site Investigation
Infiltration Trench Sizing
November 7, 2011 Geometric mean infiltration rate: 122 in/hr design infiltration rate: 30.7 in/hr (second slowest test, for conservative design) required loading rate: LR = 3 / ( t^0.5) required trench area: A = Q / LR where, Q (discharge rate) = 156 gpm total Q (discharge rate) = 225,000 gpd total 3 Q (discharge rate) = 30,080 ft per day in/hr (2nd slowest) I (infiltration rate) = 30.7 t= 2.0 min/inch d (trench depth) = 4 feet w (trench width) = 4 feet LR = LR = Area Reduction = A= Atotal = L= W= 2.1 0.29 gallons/ft2/day ft3/ft2/day
66% for 48" trenches w/ 24" stone below pipe

2 69,185 ft trench bottom area - minimum required based on infiltration 2 138,185 ft total design area
375 365
feet long (north-south) feet required width (including space between trenches) 47 number of 48-inch wide trenches
Afinal = Atotal = W= Loading Rate = or Application Rate = or
70,500
ft2 trench bottom area - minimum required based on infiltration
2 139,500 ft total design area
372 0.43 3.2 0.22 1.6
feet wide (including space between trenches) ft3/ ft2 trench bottom area /day gallons /ft2 trench bottom area /day ft3/ ft2 total area /day gallons /ft2 total area /day
F:\57319.02 NSSEP Env Permitting\Data\Infiltration tests\infiltration_testing_10-2011.xls| SIZING
11/29/2011
51

Infiltration Test Results
October 20 - 26, 2011
Infiltration Test Number IT-1 IT-2 IT-3 IT-4 IT-5 IT-6 IT-7 IT-8 IT-9 n max min mean geometric mean second-slowest standard deviation
Final Stabilized Rate (in/hr) 30.7 80.0 238 20.0 144 105 778 165 261 9 778 20.0 202 122 30.7 231
F:\57319.02 NSSEP Env Permitting\Data\Infiltration tests\infiltration_testing_10-2011.xls, Summary, 11/26/2011
52
Infiltration Test 1 October 21, 2011 Pre-Soaked: October 20, 2011 Soil Log: 0' - 5.00' - Coarse, brown sand, gravel, lightly damp Run 1 2 3 4 Start Time End Time 12:29:50 13:16:00 14:07:00 15:04:16 13:14:00 14:05:00 14:58:00 15:51:09 Time 0:44:10 0:49:00 0:51:00 0:46:53 Elapsed Time (hrs) 0.74 1.55 2.40 3.18 Starting Water Level (ft) 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Ending Water Level (ft) Water Level Drop (inches) Infiltration Rate (in/hr) 32.6 29.4 28.2 30.7 30.7 Notes dry dry dry dry
5.00 24.0 5.00 24.0 5.00 24.0 5.00 24.0 Final Stabilized Rate
NSSEP UIC Infiltration Testing

35.0 Infiltration Rate (in/hr) n/hr) 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 Elapsed Time (hrs)
F:\57319.02 NSSEP Env Permitting\Data\Infiltration tests\infiltration_testing_10-2011.xls, IT-1, 11/26/2011
53
Infiltration Test 2 October 21, 2011 Pre-Soaked: October 20, 2011 Soil Log: 0' - 5.00' - Coarse, brown sand, cobble, gravel, lightly damp Run 1 2 3 4 Start Time End Time 12:46:00 13:03:26 13:19:00 13:38:00 13:00:00 13:18:00 13:35:00 13:56:00 Time 0:14:00 0:14:34 0:16:00 0:18:00 Elapsed Time (hrs) 0.23 0.48 0.74 1.04 Starting Water Level (ft) 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Ending Water Level (ft) Water Level Drop (inches) Infiltration Rate (in/hr) 102.9 98.9 90.0 80.0 80.0 Notes dry dry dry dry

120.0 Infiltration Rate (in/hr) n/hr) 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 Elapsed Time (hrs)
54
Infiltration Test 3 October 25, 2011 Pre-Soaked: October 24, 2011 Soil Log: 0' - 5.00' - Coarse, brown sand, gravel, lightly damp, medium sand from 4.00' - 5.00' Run 1 2 3 4 Start Time End Time 12:04:37 12:09:35 12:17:07 12:23:52 12:08:33 12:14:47 12:22:28 12:29:55 Time 0:03:56 0:05:12 0:05:21 0:06:03 Elapsed Time (hrs) 0.07 0.15 0.24 0.34 Starting Water Level (ft) 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Ending Water Level (ft) Water Level Drop (inches) Infiltration Rate (in/hr) 366.1 276.9 269.2 238.0 238.0 Notes dry dry dry dry

400.0 Infiltration Rate (in/hr) n/hr) 350.0 300.0 250.0 200.0 150.0 100.0 50.0 0.0 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 Elapsed Time (hrs)
55
Infiltration Test 4 October 25, 2011 Pre-Soaked: October 24, 2011 Soil Log: 0' - 4.00' - Coarse, brown sand, gravel, cobble, lightly damp Run 1 2 3 4 Start Time End Time 13:46:35 14:03:50 14:26:23 15:38:25 14:00:54 14:24:33 15:18:30 16:38:25 Time 0:14:19 0:20:43 0:52:07 1:00:00 Elapsed Time (hrs) 0.24 0.58 1.45 2.45 Starting Water Level (ft) 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Ending Water Level (ft) Water Level Drop (inches) Infiltration Rate (in/hr) 100.6 69.5 27.6 20.0 20.0 Notes dry dry dry

56
Infiltration Test 5 October 25, 2011 Pre-Soaked: October 24, 2011 Soil Log: 0' - 4.50' - Coarse, brown sand, gravel, cobble, lightly damp Run 1 2 3 4 Start Time End Time 14:39:40 15:43:42 16:16:55 16:45:16 14:46:20 15:56:41 16:26:58 16:55:15 Time 0:06:40 0:12:59 0:10:03 0:09:59 Elapsed Time (hrs) 0.11 0.33 0.50 0.66 Starting Water Level (ft) 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 Ending Water Level (ft) Water Level Drop (inches) Infiltration Rate (in/hr) 216.0 110.9 143.3 144.2 144.2 Notes dry dry dry dry

250.0 Infiltration Rate (in/hr) n/hr) 200.0 200 0 150.0 100.0 50.0 0.0 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 Elapsed Time (hrs)
57

58
Infiltration Test 7 October 26, 2011 Pre-Soaked: October 24, 2011 Soil Log: 0' - 5.00' - Coarse, brown sand, lightly damp Run 1 2 3 4 Start Time End Time 8:21:16 8:25:19 8:42:54 8:45:47 8:23:05 8:27:01 8:44:40 8:47:38 Time 0:01:49 0:01:42 0:01:46 0:01:51 Elapsed Time (hrs) 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 Starting Water Level (ft) 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Ending Water Level (ft) Water Level Drop (inches) Infiltration Rate (in/hr) 792.7 847.1 815.1 778.4 778.4 Notes dry dry dry dry

900.0 800.0 700 0 700.0 600.0 500.0 400.0 300.0 200.0 100.0 0.0 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 Elapsed Time (hrs) Infiltration Rate (in/hr) n/hr)
59

60

61
Point Hydraulic Conductivity Testing
October 21, 2011 Test K-MW-4 Hole Depth = Lw = rw = permeameter K = Q= K= = Test Data Time 0:00:00 0:00:15 0:00:30 0:00:45 0:01:00 0:01:15 0:01:30 0:01:45 0:02:00 0:02:15 0:02:30 0:02:45 0:03:00 0:03:15 0:03:30 0:03:45 0:04:00 0:04:15 0:04:30 h (cm) 0.00 14.4 29.0 34.9 38.3 41.1 44.5 47.2 49.6 51.8 54.9 57.0 59.6 61.6 64.0 66.6 69.2 71.8 73.9 change (cm) 0.00 14.4 14.6 5.90 3.40 2.80 3.40 2.70 2.40 2.20 3.10 2.10 2.60 2.00 2.40 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.10 0.95 ft 10.0 cm 4.5 cm 35.51 cm2 14.58 cm3/s 3.71E-02 cm/s 105.04 ft/day Test K-MW-5 Hole Depth = Lw = rw = permeameter K = Q= K= = Test Data Time 0:00:00 0:00:15 0:00:30 0:00:45 0:01:00 0:01:15 0:01:30 0:01:45 0:02:00 0:02:15 0:02:30 0:02:45 0:03:00 0:03:15 0:03:30 0:03:45 0:04:00 0:04:15 0:04:30 0:04:15 0:05:00 0:05:15 0:05:30 0:05:45 0:06:00 0:06:15 0:06:30 h (cm) 0.00 18.9 29.6 31.6 33.8 36.1 37.8 39.3 41.3 42.9 44.4 45.6 47.8 49.1 50.9 52.4 54.3 56.0 57.3 59.1 60.6 62.4 63.7 64.9 66.8 68.2 70.1 change (cm) 0.00 18.9 10.7 2.00 2.20 2.30 1.70 1.50 2.00 1.60 1.50 1.20 2.20 1.30 1.80 1.50 1.90 1.70 1.30 1.80 1.50 1.80 1.30 1.20 1.90 1.40 1.90 0.9 ft 10.0 cm 4.5 cm 35.51 cm2 9.57 cm3/s 2.43E-02 cm/s 68.98 ft/day Test K-MW-6 Hole Depth = Lw = rw = permeameter K = Q= K= = Test Data Time 0:00:00 0:00:15 0:00:30 0:00:45 0:01:00 0:01:15 0:01:30 0:01:45 0:02:00 0:02:15 0:02:30 0:02:45 0:03:00 0:03:15 0:03:30 0:03:45 0:04:00 0:04:15 0:04:30 0:04:45 0:05:00 0:05:15 0:05:30 0:05:45 0:06:00 0:06:15 0:06:30 0:06:45 0:07:00 0:07:15 0:07:30 Geometric Mean of K values: Average: 105 ft/day 158 ft/day 0:07:45 0:08:00 0:08:15 0:08:30 0:08:45 0:09:00 0:09:15 0:09:30 0:09:45 0:10:00 0:10:15 0:10:30 0:10:45 0:11:00 0:11:15 0:11:30 0:11:45 0:12:00 h (cm) 0.00 17.5 28.4 29.9 30.5 31.9 31.9 32.6 33.3 34.6 34.8 35.8 36.3 36.6 37.5 37.9 38.8 39.2 39.9 40.5 41.0 41.5 42.2 42.2 43.3 43.8 44.0 44.2 45.6 45.9 46.7 47.2 47.4 47.9 48.5 49.2 49.7 49.8 50.6 51.3 51.8 52.3 52.4 53.0 53.9 53.9 54.8 55.3 55.9 change (cm) 0.00 17.5 10.9 1.50 0.600 1.40 0.00 0.700 0.700 1.30 0.200 1.00 0.500 0.300 0.900 0.400 0.900 0.400 0.700 0.600 0.500 0.500 0.700 0.00 1.10 0.500 0.200 0.200 1.40 0.300 0.800 0.500 0.200 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.500 0.100 0.800 0.700 0.500 0.500 0.100 0.600 0.900 0.00 0.900 0.500 0.600 0.850 ft 10.0 cm 4.5 cm 35.51 cm2 4.14 cm3/s 1.05E-02 cm/s 29.80 ft/day Test K-MW-7 Hole Depth = Lw = rw = permeameter K = Q= K= = Test Data Time 0:00:00 0:00:15 0:00:30 0:00:45 0:01:00 0:01:15 0:01:30 0:01:45 0:02:00 0:02:15 0:02:30 0:02:45 0:03:00 0:03:15 0:03:30 0:03:45 0:04:00 0:04:15 0:04:30 0:04:45 0:05:00 0:05:15 0:05:30 0:05:45 0:06:00 0:06:15 0:06:30 0:06:45 0:07:00 0:07:15 0:07:30 0:07:45 h (cm) 0.00 17.5 33.4 45.8 54.5 63.7 74.7 92.6 100.5 107.7 113.1 120.1 127.4 133.5 146.5 163.9 172.0 178.9 184.6 190.6 196.7 202.7 208.1 224.7 240.5 248.5 254.2 259.9 266.0 271.8 276.9 283.1 change (cm) 0.00 17.5 15.9 12.4 8.70 9.20 11.0 17.9 7.90 7.20 5.40 7.00 7.30 6.10 13.0 17.4 8.10 6.90 5.70 6.00 6.10 6.00 5.40 16.6 15.8 8.00 5.70 5.70 6.10 5.80 5.10 6.20 1.65 ft 10.0 cm 4.5 cm 35.51 cm2 32.43 cm3/s 8.24E-02 cm/s 233.65 ft/day Test K-MW-8 Hole Depth = Lw = rw = permeameter K = Q= K= = Test Data Time 0:00:00 0:00:15 0:00:30 0:00:45 0:01:15 0:01:30 0:01:45 0:02:00 0:02:15 0:02:30 0:02:45 0:03:00 0:03:15 0:03:30 0:03:45 0:04:00 h (cm) 0.00 20.5 41.9 61.5 79.3 92.9 116.1 137.0 155.4 176.3 193.6 205.0 214.0 231.8 250.5 266.8 change (cm) 0.00 20.5 21.4 19.6 17.8 13.6 23.2 20.9 18.4 20.9 17.3 11.4 9.0 17.8 18.7 16.3 1.30 ft 10.0 cm 4.5 cm 35.51 cm2 63.16 cm3/s 1.61E-01 cm/s 455.06 ft/day Test K-MW-9 Hole Depth = Lw = rw = permeameter K = Q= K= = Test Data Time 0:00:00 0:00:15 0:00:30 0:00:45 0:01:00 0:01:15 0:01:30 0:01:45 0:02:00 0:02:15 0:02:30 0:02:45 0:03:00 0:03:15 0:03:30 0:03:45 0:04:00 0:04:15 0:04:30 0:04:15 0:05:00 0:05:15 0:05:30 0:05:45 0:06:00 0:06:15 0:06:30 0:06:45 0:07:00 0:07:15 0:07:30 0:07:45 0:08:00 h (cm) 0.00 18.5 26.7 28.7 30.1 32.4 34.0 35.1 37.3 38.7 39.7 41.3 43.2 44.4 45.9 46.8 49.1 50.1 51.4 53.1 54.5 56.1 57.1 58.7 60.0 61.1 63.0 64.1 65.7 66.9 68.3 69.5 71.2 change (cm) 0.00 18.5 8.20 2.00 1.40 2.30 1.60 1.10 2.20 1.40 1.00 1.60 1.90 1.20 1.50 0.900 2.30 1.00 1.30 1.70 1.40 1.60 1.00 1.60 1.30 1.10 1.90 1.10 1.60 1.20 1.40 1.20 1.70 0.9 ft 10.0 cm 4.5 cm 35.51 cm2 7.90 cm3/s 2.01E-02 cm/s 56.93 ft/day
F:\57319.02 NSSEP Env Permitting\Data\K-tests\k-tests.xls| NSSEP_K-Testing
11/26/2011
62

Groundwater Monitoring Wells Monitoring Well Water Quality Data Sample Date: Parameter: units: Primary VGES: Secondary VGES: Monitoring Well MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 Mean n St Dev. t 95% C.L. September 22, 2011 Hardness, Dissolved Total Dissolved Aluminum, Calcium, Iron, Alkalinity Chloride Nitrate Sulfate as CaCO3 Solids Dissolved Dissolved Dissolved mg/L MAC - 100 MAC - 100 mg/L -250 mg/L MAC - 100 -mg/L 10 -mg/L -500 mg/L -250 mg/L -0.200 mg/L --mg/L 0.300 -Magnesium, Dissolved mg/L --Manganese, Potassium, Sodium, Dissolved Dissolved Dissolved mg/L 0.840 0.050 mg/L --mg/L 250 250 pH S.U. -MAC - 1 pH unit Specific Conductance s MAC - 100 micromhos/cm -Temperature C MAC - 3 STDEV --
< 20.0 < 20.0 64.0 22.0 50.0 89.0 44.2 6 28.6 2.02 67.7
< 2.50 < 2.50 < 2.50 < 2.50 < 2.50 10.0 3.75 6 3.06 2.02 6.27
23.0 15.0 61.0 25.0 36.0 81.0 40.2 6 25.6 2.02 61.2
1.20 0.400 0.500 1.30 0.600 0.200 0.70 6 0.447 2.02 1.07
60.0 57.0 120 77.0 140 160 102 6 43.7 2.02 138
3.90 4.60 9.90 3.70 6.90 10.0 6.50 6 2.90 2.02 8.89
< 0.020 < 0.020 < 0.020 < 0.020 0.032 < 0.020 0.022 6 0.005 2.02 0.026
6.10 4.00 16.0 7.20 9.20 21.0 10.6 6 6.55 2.02 16.0
0.020 < 0.020 0.040 < 0.020 0.050 < 0.020 0.028 6 0.013 2.02 0.039
1.80 1.20 5.00 1.60 3.10 6.90 3.27 6 2.26 2.02 5.12
0.061 0.051 < 0.020 < 0.020 < 0.020 0.045 0.036 6 0.018 2.02 0.051
2.50 2.30 2.80 2.80 2.60 6.40 3.23 6 1.56 2.02 4.52
2.80 1.40 3.50 1.30 3.50 9.30 3.63 6 2.94 2.02 6.05
7.50 7.40 7.80 7.40 8.40 8.00 7.63 6 0.89 2.02 7.44
61.9 36.4 161.8 33.5 47.5 249 98.3 6 87.9 2.02 171
13.3 10.4 9.80 10.8 10.6 10.2 10.9 6 1.2 2.02 11.9
VGES = VT Groundwater Enforcement Standard MAC = Maximum Acceptable Change - VT Groundwater Protection Rule and Strategy - 2005 pH Statistics are based on Hydrogen ion concentration
F:\57319.02 NSSEP Env Permitting\Data\onsite well\Monitor_Well_WQ.xls| WaterQuality_snapshot
11/26/2011

North Springfield VT Biomass Energy Project - Water Supply/wastewater Disposal

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

North Springfield VT Biomass Energy Project - Water Supply/wastewater Disposal

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Exh. Pet.

Process Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal Feasibility Assessment

NORTH SPRINGFIELD SUSTAINABLE ENERGY PROJECT

Winstanley Enterprises 36 Precision Drive North Springfield, VT 05150

December 16, 2011

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Project Water and Wastewater Demands and Chemistry

1 PerRayRacineofWaldronEngineering,emailcommunication11/23/2011and11/28/2011.Theyear roundaveragedemandof400gpm,andsummerpeakof500gpmwereinterpolatedfromthewater balanceonpage3oftheAppendixbasedonmeanandpeakdailyaveragetemperatures.

Summary of VHB Activities

Findings: Water Supply

On-Site Groundwater Source

Gravel Aquifer Exploration

5.2.3 Burden to Existing Water Supplies

5.2.4 Investigation of Potential Sources of Contamination

5.3 Municipal Water System

5.4 Black River

Overall Water Supply

Findings: On-Site Subsurface Disposal of Process Water

6.1 Hydrogeologic Investigation Results

Summary and Recommendations

Bouwer, H., 1978. Groundwater Hydrology. McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Vermont Geological Survey, 1961. Centennial Geologic Map of Vermont.

Reporting and Permitting Rules, Chapter 24.

F:\57319.02 NSSEP Env Permitting\reports\water_wastewater\water_Wastewater_Report_12-16-2011.doc

[F:\57319.02 NSSEP Env Permitting\Data\WQ_results_09-22-2011.xls]final

NSSEP - Springfield, Vermont Monitor Well Location Map

MW-10 ! A ! A MW-13 Legend MW-B !

MW-5 ! MW-4 A ! A ! MW-9

F:\57319.02 NSSEP Env Permitting\Data\NSSEP-MW Logs.doc

Notes on Water System Option for North Springfield Biomass

NSSEP Springfield, Vermont Surficial Geologic Map

! A MW-10 Exposed Bedrock

MW-5 ! ! A A MW-3 A A ! ! ! ! A A A MW-6 ! MW-2 MW-4 MW-9

! ASoil Boring ! ATest Well

Stream Surface Water Roads (VTrans 2008)

Swamp, Peat, and/or Muck

F:\57319.02\GIS\project\surficial_geologic_ water supply exploration.mxd

303 30015 429

NSSEP Springfield, Vermont Bedrock Geologic Map

November 22, 2011

489 ! > 550 3584 ! >

18669 17144 ! > 15243

2086 593 ! >

Fracture Traces Strong

376 ! > ! > 401

pC = Biotite Gneiss (Mt Holley Form)

Hazardous Waste Site

Roads (VTrans 2008) Closed Active

10 Foot Contour 50 Foot Contour ! >

270 ! ! > > 349

North Springfield Sustainable Energy Project Springfield, Vermont

F:\57319.02 NSSEP Env Permitting\Data\onsite well\wellyield_probability.xls, Exceedance_Probability_bdrk, 11/22/2011

North Springfield Sustainable Energy Project Springfield, Vermont

F:\57319.02 NSSEP Env Permitting\Data\onsite well\wellyield_probability.xls, Exceedance_Probability_bdrk, 11/22/2011

North Springfield Sustainable Energy Project Springfield, Vermont

F:\57319.02 NSSEP Env Permitting\Data\onsite well\wellyield_probability.xls, Exceedance_Probability_bdrk, 11/22/2011

North Springfield Sustainable Energy Project Springfield, Vermont

F:\57319.02 NSSEP Env Permitting\Data\onsite well\wellyield_probability.xls, Exceedance_Probability_bdrk, 11/22/2011

North Springfield Sustainable Energy Project Springfield, Vermont

F:\57319.02 NSSEP Env Permitting\Data\onsite well\wellyield_probability.xls, Exceedance_Probability_bdrk, 11/22/2011

North Springfield Sustainable Energy Project Springfield, Vermont

F:\57319.02 NSSEP Env Permitting\Data\onsite well\wellyield_probability.xls, Exceedance_Probability_bdrk, 11/22/2011

NSSEP Water Supply Assessment