2022-12-08: School Building Committee

Click timestamps in the text to watch that part of the meeting recording.

Swampscott School Building Committee Forum Analysis (12/08/22)

This document provides an analysis of the Swampscott School Building Committee (SBC) Community Forum held regarding the new elementary school construction project, focusing on site preparation, particularly blasting.

1. Agenda

Based on the transcript, the meeting generally followed this agenda:

  1. Introductions & Project Update 0:00:01
    • Introduction of School Building Committee Chair (Suzanne Wright)
    • Introduction of Owner’s Project Manager (OPM - Hill International) team members
    • Introduction of Construction Manager (CTA Construction) team members
    • Introduction of Site Work/Blasting Subcontractors (Menino Construction, Falvey Associates, Explosive Technology)
    • Brief project status update (Stanley demolition complete, CTA awarded main contract) 0:01:47
  2. Contractor Credentials & Experience 0:03:32
    • Presentation by Menino Construction (Nick Menino) highlighting relevant past projects and team experience.
  3. Pre-Blast Survey Process 0:06:32
    • Explanation by Falvey Associates (Dave Falvey) on the purpose, procedure, and data security of pre-blast surveys.
    • Discussion on scheduling and sign-up process for surveys, including radius distances (300’, 500’, 500’-1000’) based on ERAC permit 0:20:24, 0:21:39.
  4. Site Logistics & Truck Route 0:08:34
    • Presentation by CTA Construction (Jared Smith, Doug Morrow) on site mobilization, work sequencing (earthwork, blasting, foundations), truck routes, site access, parking, and rock crushing/recycling 0:11:16.
  5. Blasting Procedure 0:14:46
    • Explanation by Explosive Technology (Pete McNamara) on permitting, drilling, loading, matting, seismograph monitoring (4 units required), warning signals (horns), fire department oversight, and adherence to state/project limits.
  6. Pest Management 0:24:32
    • Overview by CTA Construction of the pest management plan and monitoring.
  7. Erosion Control 0:25:11
    • Discussion by Menino Construction on maintaining existing controls and monitoring procedures, noting site characteristics.
  8. Dust Control 0:27:10
    • Overview by CTA Construction of dust mitigation strategies (water truck, street cleaning, tracking pads).
  9. Hours of Operation 0:28:36
    • Presentation by Hill International (Trevor) outlining standard work hours (Mon-Sat, 7 AM-4 PM), blasting hours (Mon-Fri, 9 AM-3:30 PM), crushing hours (Mon-Fri, 8 AM-4 PM), and limitations on weekend/holiday work per the ERAC permit. Clarification provided on scope (site work phase) 0:30:10.
  10. OPM Contact Information 0:30:31
    • Introduction of the full-time OPM site representative (Fred Rebelli) and assurance of availability.
  11. Questions and Answers 0:31:23
    • Open forum for resident questions covering topics such as underground pipe damage, insurance processes, dust accumulation, pre-existing conditions, sound mitigation, blasting duration, contractor roles, noise regulation beyond blasting, survey video access, policy limits, and street repaving.
  12. Next Meeting Announcement 0:56:51
    • Information on the upcoming ERAC meeting (Dec 15th, 3 PM on-site).
  13. Closing Remarks 0:57:30
    • Encouragement from the SBC Chair to submit survey forms promptly.

2. Speaking Attendees

Based on introductions and context within the transcript:

  • Suzanne Wright (School Building Committee Chair): [Speaker 8]
  • Andy (Hill International - OPM): [Speaker 2] (Likely Andy Pineda based on typical Hill team roles)
  • Nick Menino (Menino Construction - Site/Blasting Subcontractor Lead, Swampscott Resident): [Speaker 3]
  • Dave Falvey (Falvey Associates - Pre-Blast Survey Contractor): [Speaker 5]
  • Jared Smith (CTA Construction - Project Manager): [Speaker 4]
  • Doug Morrow (CTA Construction - Site Superintendent): [Speaker 6]
  • Pete McNamara (Explosive Technology - Blasting Subcontractor): [Speaker 1]
  • Trevor (Hill International - OPM Site Representative): [Speaker 9] (Likely Trevor Lee based on typical Hill team roles)
  • Hill/OPM Representative: [Speaker 10] (Unidentified by name, provides clarification on hours, manages Zoom Q&A)
  • Fred Rebelli (Hill International - OPM Full-Time Site Representative): [Speaker 16]
  • Resident/Public Commenter 1 (asked about video recording during survey): [Speaker 15] (Also asked about form deadline and contractor roles)
  • Resident/Public Commenter 2 (asked about pipes): [Speaker 13]
  • Resident/Public Commenter 3 (abutting resident, asked about dust/pre-existing cracks): [Speaker 11]
  • John Piccarillo (ERAC Representative/Monitor - inferred): [Speaker 17] (Referenced by N. Menino, speaks knowledgeably about past site dust monitoring)
  • Resident/Public Commenter 4 (addressed N. Menino): [Speaker 18]
  • Resident Joe (asked about insurance/recourse, survey map): [Speaker 12] (Implied past involvement/knowledge)
  • Resident/Public Commenter 5 (asked about sound dampening, duration): [Speaker 14]
  • Resident/Public Commenter 6 (asked detailed questions on noise, survey video, insurance limits, roads): [Speaker 7]

3. Meeting Minutes

Opening & Introductions: Suzanne Wright, Chair of the School Building Committee (SBC), opened the forum, acknowledging neighborhood stress regarding construction unknowns 0:00:01. She introduced the project team: Owner’s Project Manager (OPM) Hill International (including Trevor, Fred Rebelli, Paul Callas, Andy), Construction Manager CTA Construction (Jared Smith, Doug Morrow), and the site/blasting team led by Menino Construction (Nick Menino) with subcontractors Falvey Associates (Dave Falvey for pre-blast surveys) and Explosive Technology (Pete McNamara for blasting). She noted forms for pre-blast surveys were available and Q&A would follow presentations.

Project Update & Contractor Credentials: Andy (Hill OPM) provided a brief update: the Stanley School demolition/abatement was completed in October, and CTA Construction was awarded the main building contract 0:01:47. He outlined the evening’s agenda, emphasizing the focus on blasting procedures and pre-blast surveys due to resident concerns. Nick Menino (Menino Construction) introduced his team, noting his Swampscott residency and past involvement on the High School building committee 0:03:32. He highlighted extensive local experience with similar, often larger-scale, blasting projects (Hanover Apartments, Vinnin Square Assisted Living, White Court, Trader’s Way in Salem), emphasizing the long-standing collaboration and success of his team (including Falvey and McNamara).

Pre-Blast Surveys: Dave Falvey (Falvey Associates) explained the pre-blast survey process 0:06:32. He described it as a video documentation (interior/exterior as requested by homeowner) of pre-existing conditions (cracks, damage) using a camera and light. He stressed data security (no cloud storage, kept on personal hard drives) and his extensive experience (27.5 years, Waltham High School project). He advised residents that surveys provide a baseline record, helpful if concerns arise later 0:18:41. Andy (Hill OPM) detailed the sign-up process 0:20:24: Notices sent based on distance (300ft, 300-500ft per ERAC permit; 500-1000ft reviewed by town case-by-case). Deadlines for sign-up (Dec 28th) and contact info for Mr. Falvey were provided 0:22:46. Pete McNamara clarified the state law requirement is 250ft, indicating the project’s requirements exceed the minimum 0:21:25.

Site Logistics, Truck Routes, and Sequencing: Jared Smith (CTA PM) discussed site mobilization and the upcoming sequence: pre-blast surveys, earthwork/blasting, foundations, structural steel 0:08:34. He emphasized the importance of this phase for the schedule. Doug Morrow (CTA Superintendent) detailed the site layout plan, including trailer/crushing areas and the planned blasting sequence (A, B, C building sections) 0:11:16. He noted rock would be crushed and reused on site. Plans include noise buffering for the crusher and keeping workers/parking within the site fence to minimize neighborhood impact. Truck routes were displayed and noted as part of subcontractor contracts and weekly meetings 0:10:32.

Blasting Procedures: Pete McNamara (Explosive Technology) detailed the blasting process 0:14:46. Key points included: obtaining Fire Department permits, drilling boreholes, loading explosives by qualified personnel, covering blasts with heavy rubber mats to control fly rock, deploying four seismographs (exceeding the minimum requirement of one) to monitor ground vibration and air blast (noise) at nearby structures, Fire Department presence during loading/blasting, use of warning horns (3 long=5 min prior, 2 short=1 min prior, 1 long=all clear), post-blast checks of seismograph readings to ensure compliance with state and stricter project limits (129 decibels vs state 133) 0:44:20. He stated drilling might commence before all surveys are complete, but no blasting would occur until afterwards.

Site Management Plans:

  • Pest Management: CTA will implement a plan with perimeter devices checked regularly, reports submitted to the town 0:24:32.
  • Erosion Control: Menino Construction will maintain existing controls, inspect regularly (especially after rain), and reinforce as needed. Nick Menino noted the site’s relatively flat topography aids control compared to past challenging sites 0:25:47.
  • Dust Control: CTA committed to minimizing airborne dust via water truck spraying, street cleaning, and site entrance tracking pads 0:27:26. Nick Menino added that modern crushing equipment has improved dust suppression (fine mist nozzles) 0:38:32. John Piccarillo (inferred ERAC) corroborated active dust monitoring on past Menino projects 0:39:41.

Hours of Operation: Trevor (Hill OPM) outlined work hours per the ERAC permit 0:28:59: General site work: Mon-Sat, 7 AM-4 PM. Blasting: Mon-Fri, 9 AM-3:30 PM. Crushing: Mon-Fri, 8 AM-4 PM. Saturday work requires justification; Sunday/Holiday work requires specific town authorization. A Hill/OPM Representative clarified these hours specifically apply to the earth removal/site work phase 0:30:10.

OPM Contact & Availability: Andy (Hill OPM) introduced Fred Rebelli as the full-time OPM site representative 0:30:31. Mr. Rebelli assured residents he would be on-site daily and available by phone 24/7 for issues 0:30:45.

Question & Answer Session: A significant Q&A period followed 0:31:23. Key topics raised by residents and responses included:

  • Underground Pipes: A resident [Speaker 13] expressed concern about damage potential (gas, sewer, water), especially to older pipes 0:32:11. P. McNamara stated pipes are less sensitive than foundations and damage is unlikely below regulated vibration limits 0:32:27. N. Menino added that state limits are strict, monitoring is robust (4 seismographs), and his firm has never had a pipe damage claim despite extensive experience near utilities 0:34:45. The process for filing a damage claim via the Fire Department was outlined 0:33:45.
  • Dust/Debris: An abutting resident [Speaker 11] asked about dust accumulation on homes 0:36:48. CTA and N. Menino described dust control measures (watering, modern equipment) 0:38:32. J. Piccarillo confirmed effective monitoring 0:39:41. Trevor (Hill OPM) assured residents concerns would be addressed and provided contact info 0:40:09.
  • Pre-Existing Damage & Insurance: The same resident [Speaker 11] asked how exacerbation of pre-existing cracks (common in older homes) is handled 0:37:23. P. McNamara explained insurance companies assess claims based on the pre-blast survey video, seismograph readings, and historical data on vibration effects 0:37:48. Resident Joe [Speaker 12] questioned potential claim denial if blasts are within limits but damage occurs, and asked about recourse 0:41:03. P. McNamara acknowledged insurance processes can be challenging but affirmed resident recourse exists, while reiterating confidence in damage prevention through adherence to limits 0:41:53.
  • Blasting Sound & Duration: A resident [Speaker 14] asked about sound mitigation and project duration 0:44:04. P. McNamara described techniques (matting, controlling hole proximity to faces/seams) and noted the project’s air blast limit (129 dB) is stricter than the state’s (133 dB) 0:44:20. He estimated the blasting duration at roughly two months, likely involving 1-2 shots per day 0:46:31, 0:47:05.
  • Contractor Roles: A resident [Speaker 15] asked for clarification on the different companies involved 0:47:57. Andy (Hill OPM) explained the roles: Hill (OPM, owner’s representative), CTA (General Contractor), Menino (Site/Excavation Subcontractor), Explosive Technology (Blasting Sub to Menino), Falvey (Survey Sub to Menino) 0:48:13.
  • Noise Regulation (Beyond Blasting): A resident [Speaker 7] asked if noise from drilling, hammering, and crushing is regulated similarly to blasting 0:50:19. P. McNamara shared anecdotal experience where hammering produced significantly less vibration/noise than blasting, often below seismograph trigger levels 0:52:15. CTA stated crusher noise is mitigated by equipment design and stockpile placement, but committed to verifying specific regulations 0:51:21.
  • Survey Logistics & Insurance Limits: The same resident [Speaker 7] confirmed survey video access for homeowners 0:53:58 and asked about the blasting contractor’s insurance policy limits. P. McNamara stated $7 million coverage 0:54:57.
  • Street Repaving: The resident [Speaker 7] also inquired about post-project street repaving 0:55:17. A Hill/OPM Representative confirmed that improvements, including paving, are planned for immediate vicinity roadways as part of the school project 0:55:52.
  • Map/Info Availability: Residents requested the survey radius map and presentation materials be made available online, which the Hill/OPM Representative confirmed would happen via the SBC website 0:56:11.

Closing: Andy (Hill OPM) announced the next ERAC meeting (Dec 15th, 3 PM on-site) 0:56:51. SBC Chair Suzanne Wright thanked attendees and the project team, urging prompt submission of survey forms to facilitate the process 0:57:30.

4. Executive Summary

The Swampscott School Building Committee (SBC) held a community forum on December 8th, 2022, primarily to address resident concerns about upcoming construction activities for the new elementary school, with a strong focus on site excavation and blasting. SBC Chair Suzanne Wright facilitated the meeting, featuring presentations from the Owner’s Project Manager (Hill International), the Construction Manager (CTA Construction), and key subcontractors responsible for site work and blasting (Menino Construction, Falvey Associates, Explosive Technology).

Key Information & Outcomes:

  • Experienced Team Assembled: The project team emphasized their collective experience, particularly Nick Menino (Menino Construction), a Swampscott resident with extensive local blasting project history 0:03:32, and Pete McNamara (Explosive Technology) 0:14:46. They highlighted successful completion of larger, more complex projects nearby.
  • Pre-Blast Surveys Offered & Encouraged: Detailed information was provided on pre-blast surveys conducted by Dave Falvey 0:06:32. These surveys document existing property conditions via video. Residents within 300 feet are prioritized, with surveys offered up to 500 feet (exceeding state minimums) and considered case-by-case up to 1,000 feet 0:21:39. Homeowners were strongly encouraged to sign up by December 28th 0:22:46, as the survey provides a crucial baseline if damage claims arise. Survey videos are kept secure but accessible to homeowners 0:54:18.
  • Blasting Safety & Monitoring: Extensive safety protocols for blasting were outlined 0:14:46. These include state/local permitting, Fire Department oversight, use of heavy mats to prevent fly rock, warning signals 0:17:00, and robust monitoring using four seismographs (more than legally required) measuring ground vibration and air blast (noise). The project adheres to strict vibration limits and an air blast limit (129 dB) tighter than the state standard 0:44:20. Blasting is estimated to last approximately two months 0:46:52.
  • Site Management Plans: The team detailed plans to mitigate neighborhood impacts:
    • Traffic: Defined truck routes will be enforced 0:10:32.
    • Noise: Efforts will be made to buffer rock crusher noise 0:11:16, 0:51:21. Blasting noise is regulated; regulation of other construction noise (hammering, crushing) was questioned, though contractors suggested blasting is typically the loudest source 0:50:19.
    • Dust: Water trucks, street cleaning, and modern equipment with dust suppression will be used 0:27:26, 0:38:32.
    • Pest/Erosion: Control plans are in place and will be maintained and monitored 0:24:32, 0:25:47.
  • Hours of Operation: Work hours are generally 7 AM-4 PM Mon-Sat, with blasting restricted to 9 AM-3:30 PM Mon-Fri, and crushing 8 AM-4 PM Mon-Fri, per the ERAC permit 0:28:59.
  • Resident Concerns Addressed: Residents raised concerns about potential damage to older homes and underground pipes 0:32:11, insurance claim processes 0:41:03, dust 0:36:48, and overall noise 0:50:19. Contractors provided reassurances based on regulations, monitoring, past experience, and mitigation measures. The process for filing damage claims via the Fire Department was explained 0:33:45.
  • Communication & Contact: Hill International serves as the primary point of contact for residents. Fred Rebelli, the full-time OPM site representative, will be available 24/7 0:30:45. Presentation materials and maps were promised to be available online 0:56:34. A follow-up ERAC meeting was scheduled for Dec 15th 0:56:51.

Significance for Swampscott: This forum represents a critical communication step by the SBC and its project team to proactively address inevitable neighborhood concerns surrounding major construction, particularly the disruptive blasting phase. The emphasis on experienced local contractors, exceeding minimum safety/survey requirements, and outlining clear mitigation plans aims to build trust. The effectiveness of these measures and the responsiveness of the OPM will be key as work commences. The commitment to reusing crushed rock on-site 0:12:24 is also a relevant sustainability aspect.

5. Analysis

This School Building Committee forum served as a necessary, albeit standard, exercise in managing community relations ahead of disruptive construction phases. The analysis, based solely on the transcript, reveals several key dynamics:

  • Emphasis on Experience and Regulation: The project team heavily leaned on the combined experience of its members, particularly Menino Construction and Explosive Technology, citing numerous large, local projects as evidence of competence and successful neighborhood navigation 0:03:32. This appeal to track record, coupled with frequent references to state regulations (CMR 13-0) and the specific, often stricter, requirements of the town’s ERAC permit (e.g., 4 seismographs 0:16:27, extended survey radius 0:21:39, lower decibel limit 0:44:20), formed the core of their argument for why residents should feel reassured. This strategy aims to portray the process as both expertly managed and rigorously controlled.
  • Contractor Credibility: Nick Menino’s positioning as a Swampscott resident and former building committee member 0:03:32 was likely intended to build rapport and trust. His and Pete McNamara’s detailed explanations of their processes appeared technically proficient and aimed at transparency. Their confidence in avoiding issues like pipe damage 0:34:45 or excessive dust 0:38:32, while intended to be reassuring, implicitly places the onus on their execution adhering to the described standards.
  • Resident Concerns Focused on Impact and Recourse: Resident questions revealed predictable anxieties about tangible impacts: damage to property (especially older homes with potential pre-existing issues 0:37:23 and underground infrastructure 0:32:11), dust 0:36:48, and noise (both blasting and other construction activities 0:50:19). Crucially, residents probed the recourse available if damage occurs, particularly questioning the potential for insurance claim denial if blasting remains within regulatory limits 0:41:03. This reflects a common skepticism about relying solely on contractor insurance and regulatory compliance for protection. The contractors’ answers, while outlining the process, didn’t fully alleviate concerns about potential disputes between resident perception and insurer assessment 0:41:53.
  • Communication Strategy - Proactive but Defensive: Holding the forum was a proactive step. However, the format (presentations followed by Q&A) and the nature of the responses often felt like a defense of the plan rather than a collaborative exploration of concerns. While contact information was provided 0:40:27, 0:30:45, the primary message was confidence in the existing plan and regulatory framework. The effectiveness of specific mitigation measures (e.g., crusher noise buffering 0:11:16) remains to be seen in practice.
  • Role Clarity and OPM as Intermediary: The clarification of roles 0:48:13 was necessary, establishing Hill International (OPM) as the central point of contact 0:48:13 and buffer between residents and the various contractors. Fred Rebelli’s role as the 24/7 on-site contact 0:30:45 is critical for timely issue resolution, but its effectiveness will depend on responsiveness and authority.
  • Unanswered Questions/Ambiguities: The question regarding specific noise regulations for non-blasting activities (crushing, hammering) was not definitively answered during the meeting 0:52:10, highlighting a potential gap in the presented information or regulatory oversight. While street repaving was confirmed for the immediate vicinity 0:55:52, the full extent relative to truck routes might remain a longer-term concern.

Overall, the meeting appears to have successfully communicated the technical plans and safety protocols. However, resident concerns about recourse and the practical effectiveness of mitigation measures persisted, underscoring the need for diligent execution by the contractors and proactive communication and problem-solving by the OPM throughout the construction process. The forum laid the groundwork, but ongoing engagement and demonstrated performance will be crucial for maintaining community trust.