-------
-------
SUMMARY
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement
on
Siting of Wastewater Treatment Facilities in Boston Harbor
Prepared For
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I
Summary By
Thibault/Bubly Associates
SDEIS/EIR By
CE Maguire, Inc.
And Submitted By
Metropolitan District Commission
To
Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
As a
Draft Environmentai Impact Report
~* MICHAEL R. DELANO
Regional Administrator,
U.S. EPA
For Further Information:
Mr. Robert E. Mendoza
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA
3FK. Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
617-223-08*1
MES S.' H0Y7E
Secretary, Executive Office
of Environmental Affairs
Mr. 3ohn S. Hamm III
Principal Civil Engineer
Metropolitan District Commission
20 Somerset Street
Boston, MA 02108
617-727-8882
Date
This Summary Supplemental Draft environmental Impact Statement/hnvironrnental
Impact Report (SUEIS/EIK) is part of a process to identify and evaluate the environmental
impacts of various site options for wastewater treatment facilities lor treating Greater
Boston's wastewater in compliance with federal and state pollution control laws. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Commonwealth ot Massachusetts will use
the information developed in this process to select a site for treatment facilities that will
be financed, in part, with federal and state construction gram funds. This Summary also
appears in the detailed SDL.1S/E1K.
-------
GREAT BREWSTER ISLAND
The Setting
By any yardstick, Boston Harbor is one of New
England's most valuable economic and recreational
resources. Geologically, it is a partially submerged
glacial landscape composed of the tops of a series of
drumlins (steep oval hills) that rise out of the sea in a
complex pattern of islands and channels, over an area
of approximately 50 square miles. The drumlins
themselves take a variety of shapes. Some are nearly
entire, retaining their smooth oval forms, while others
have been partially eroded, their shore lines cut back
to create great earthen bluffs that tower abruptly
upward from their shoreline beaches. Still others have
been almost totally washed away, leaving behind only
a core of hard, angular, granitic rocks.
Part of this landscape has survived through the years,
essentially intact, unbuilt upon, still covered with wild
vegetation, but most of it has been altered in one way
or another by the hand of man. In some places, the
drumlins are simply covere'd with a mosaic of streets
and houses; while in others they have been signi-
ficantly reshaped as the sites of great civil engineer-
ing projects, sometimes into interesting and beautiful
forms, as in the many 19th century military fortifi-
cations, and sometimes into featureless plains, as at
Logan Airport. Throughout, the harbor shows the
influence of human activity, from the high-rise towers
of downtown Boston to the thousands of one, two and
three family houses that line the miles of shoreline,
from the heavy industry of the Fore River to the small
docks of its many fishermen and lobstermen, from the
solitary landscapes of World's End to the crowded
promenades of City Point and Castle Island.
Present uses of the harbor include the full range of
urban activities, from manufacturing and shipping to
housing and recreation. Its waters are used daily by a
steady procession of tankers and container ships, an
occasional cruise liner or warship, and, in season,
thousands of lesser craft from sailboats to motor
yachts and fishing boats of every size, purpose, and
description. In the air above it there is a" mixture of
aircraft, coming and going, into and out of the airport,
while below the surface, there is a profusion of sea
life, in one area or another, that includes clams,
lobsters, bluefish, striped bass, cod, haddock, mac-
kerel, eels, and what is reputed to be the densest and
most easily caught school of winter flounder in the
world, all pursued by legions of fishermen, both
commercial and recreational. And finally there is the
weather, on clear days creating a multi-colored
landscape of blue skies and waters, punctuated by
ochre bluffs and green hills, and, in storms creating a
black and white scene of dark grey skies and even
darker grey waters, sometimes almost black, dotted
with the foamy whiteness of the wind torn waves.
Overall, this mix of islands and sea, of buildings and
vegetation, of commerce and recreation, of sky and
water creates a landscape that is never without new
interest, that is never without great beauty, and that
is never without a variety of recreational opportu-
nities for the literally millions of people who live
within a few miles of its shores. Boston Harbor, both
its islands and its waters, is an economic and esthetic
resource whose present value and future potential to
the surrounding region cannot be overestimated.
Page 1
-------
The Potential
Over the years, recognition of the extraordinary
resources of Boston Harbor has caused much to
happen. In the past, the individual cities and towns
that front on the harbor, the Metropolitan District
Commission, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
all have undertaken a variety of planning and devel-
opment programs to utilize the harbor's resources
more effectively. Parts of the waterfront were
transformed economically, with more efficient
transportation systems, high-rise residential devel-
opments, office complexes, restaurants, the aquarium,
and other marine facilities. Other areas have seen a
steady growth of recreation, starting with the older
parks (Carson and Wollaston Beaches, City Point,
Castle Island, etc.) and adding a growing list of new
sites (Fort Warren, Lovells, Gallops and Peddocks
Islands, the old Boston Navy Yard, etc.).
For the future, the prospects are for more economic
growth and more recreational use of the water. Both
kinds of use are called for in the plans of the sur-
rounding municipalities and the State. The economic
plans include continued expansion of transportation
facilities as well as continued improvements to other
waterfront developments. The recreation plans
include continued development of the Harbor Islands
State Park, more public access to the shoreline, and
expansion of public boat services, including commuter
boats, shuttles to the island parks, and sightseeing
craft.
The Problem
Unfortunately, despite the manifestly great economic
and esthetic value of the harbor to the future of
Metropolitan Boston, the harbor's water quality leaves
much to be desired. The waters are murky, streaked
here and there with floating wastes, and contaminated
with both domestic and industrial pollutants, all in
violation of both state and federal law.
The harbor is affected by overflowing sewage
collection systems, by runoff from urban storm drains,
and by treatment plants that are aged, worn and
inadequately maintained. The enjoyment of
swimming, fishing and boating are all appreciably
lessened by the quality of the water, its appearance,
odor and feel, and by public health concerns.
To overcome these problems, much can and must be
done. The existing deficiencies in the sewer systems
that allow overflows into in-shore waters can and must
be eliminated and the sewage treatment plants can
and must be upgraded to comply with applicable state
and federal law.
It is the goal of both EPA and the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts to move forward with these improve-
ments as soon as possible. Correction of some of the
in-shore collection system overflows, along with
immediate improvement of the wastewater treatment
facilities, is already in process, but for the long term,
two fundamental decisions must still be made, i.e.
selection of the level of treatment to be provided and
the location of the treatment facilities.
The first of these decisions, the level of treatment,
will be determined this spring through technical and
scientific evaluation of the effects of primary effluent
discharge on water quality. This decision will be made
by EPA in consultation with the Commonwealth's
environmental agencies through a separate decision
making process called a "301(h) waiver application"
(after section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act). These
alternatives for Boston harbor are "primary treat-
ment" (a physical process which removes about half of
the suspended and organic materials from the
wastewater), coupled with a nine mile, deepwater
outfall, and "secondary treatment" (a biochemi-
cal/physical process which removes 85% to 90% of the
suspended and organic materials), with a shorter
outfall located to the east of Deer Island Light.
DEER ISLAND TREATMENT PLANT
-------
The second of these decisions, the location of the
treatment facilities, is the subject of this document.
This decision will be made jointly by both the EPA and
the Commonwealth and will be based on evaluation of
the impacts of the alternatives on the environment, on
the surrounding communities and on the future
optimum use of Boston Harbor as a whole. These
impacts are the subject of this Supplemental Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) and the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Facilities
Siting on Boston Harbor.
Studies so far have narrowed that iocational choice
from 22 alternative sets to 7, 3 in the event that
primary treatment is selected and 4 if secondary is
selected. Each of these alternatives, the seven under
active consideration, is described briefly in this
Summary. Chapters 2 and 4 of the Supplemental
Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental
Impact Report describe them in greater detail and
include an eighth alternative, All Primary Long Island,
as well. The screening processes that reduced the
number of alternatives from 22 to 7 are described in
Chapter 2.
None of the descriptions in this Summary, or in
chapters 2 and 4, include the impacts of the proces-
sing, storage or disposal of sludges and other solid
wastes that are expected to be generated by the
wastewater treatment processes. These impacts could
be significant by themselves, but the decision on siting
of the wastewater treatment facilities is not being
driven by a choice of sludge options, since none of the
wastewater treatment facility options would foreclose
any sludge management solution. The impacts of
sludge disposal will be defined in a separate study and
described in a separate Environmental Impact
Statement in the near future, not in this document.
Mitigation Measures
Each alternative will include a significant and costly
set of mitigating actions to preclude or minimize the
adverse environmental impacts of the construction and
operation of the treatment facilities.
These mitigating actions are firm commitments by the
Commonwealth and EPA to the affected communities
and will be made a condition of federal and state
grants to the project. They are included because the
Commonwealth and EPA concluded that all of the
alternatives would otherwise have a severe environ-
mental impact, particularly with regard to traffic and
noise. Their average cost has been estimated to be on
the order of $45 million, over and above the cost
estimates given in the descriptions of the individual
alternatives. The mitigation measures include:
1. Use of buses and barges to the maximum feasible
extent for the transportation of construction
workers, heavy construction materials and
equipment to and from the site of the wastewater
treatment facilities to minimize traffic on nearby
residential streets.
2. Use of ail practical noise and odor suppression
equipment and practices to minimize noise and
odor generation both during construction and
afterwards.
-------
Scope of This Summary
Each alternative, and its major, distinguishing
environmental impacts, are described on the following
pages. It is important to note that the text of this
summary does not attempt to describe all the
anticipated impacts, but, rather, it describes only
those impacts which are relevant to the choice of a
wastewater treatment plant site.
Tables 1 and 2 at the end of this summary do display
both these major distinguishing impacts and other
anticipated impacts of each alternative.
And, finally, note that all three of the primary
alternatives and three of the four secondary alter-
natives will require the location of a substantial
wastewater treatment plant on Deer Island. While
extensive mitigation will be required and the long
term effects on neighbors of plant operation will be
less severe than the effects of the current Deer Island
facility, there remains concern about locating a major
regional facility adjacent to a community that is now
subject to the effects of the Deer Island House of
Correction and major flight paths to Logan Airport.
This issue, often described as one of fairness, is
difficult to quantify, but must be considered none-
theless. This concern may be particularly relevant to
the All Primary Deer Island and the All Secondary
Deer Island alternatives.
Alternatives
In all, seven alternative sets of locations are under
active consideration. Three are intended to meet
primary treatment standards and four are intended to
meet secondary treatment standards.
In general, treatment facilities designed to meet
primary standards are smaller in area (up to 62 acres
for a new consolidated plant), while those designed to
meet secondary standards are larger in area (up to 115
acres for a consolidated plant) and are more complex
to operate.
PRIMARY TREATMENT
ALTERNATIVES
The three alternatives that are under
active consideration to meet primary
effluent standards, should such discharge
be allowed, include:
I. All Primary Deer Island: Consoli-
dation of all treatment facilities at
Deer Island.
2. Split Primary Deer Island and Nut
Island: Retaining and expanding the
existing facilities at both Deer
Island and Nut Island.
3. Split Primary Deer Island and Long
Island: Retaining and expanding the
existing facility at Deer Island but
relocating the Nut Island facility to
Long Island.
Page
-------
PRIMARY TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
ALL PRIMARY DEER ISLAND (62 Acres)
This alternative would:
I. Expand the existing wastewater treatment
facility at Deer Island.
2. Reduce the existing primary treatment facilities
at Nut Island to a small "headworks" for screen-
ing, chlorination and, possibly, pumping of the
wastewater.
3. Construct two major pipelines or tunnels, one
from Nut Island to Deer Island to allow the
consolidation of the two facilities, and the other
from Deer Island 9 miles to the northeast to
discharge treated effluent to the sea well outside
the harbor.
AREA: The existing wastewater treatment facility on
Deer Island would be increased from 26 acres to about
62 acres while that on Nut Island would be reduced
from I 2 acres to about 2 acres.
COST: The overall construction cost of this alter-
native would be about $752 million (1984 dollars) and
its annual cost of operation and maintenance would be
about $21 million.
IMPACT: Based on the extensive and detailed
evaluations of all the impacts, as described in detail in
the SDEIS/EIR, none of the environmental impacts of
this alternative, with the required set of mitigating
actions, are expected to be severe or significant. At
Point Shirley, the nearest neighborhood in Winthrop,
nearly one half mile away from the plant, it is
expected that traffic and traffic noise will increase
somewhat during the 5 to 6 years of construction, but
that the increase will have slight impact. Construc-
tion traffic is not expected to exceed 20 trucks and
buses each day.
Storye fte
With respect to Deer Island, this alternative is not
expected to have any severe environmental effects
since the plant will not alter the appearance of the
island, the island is ample in size, and most of the land
to be used is otherwise unused or committed. The
expansion is not expected to preclude the use of
substantial portions of Deer Island for other purposes
including, possibly, recreation.
This alternative will have no significant adverse
impact on Nut Island. It will preserve Long Island for
major recreational use, a priority for the Harbor
Islands State Park.
Page 5
-------
PRIMARY TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
SPLIT PRIMARY DEER ISLAND (52 Acres) AND NUT
ISLAND (18 Acres)
This alternative would:
I. Expand the existing wastewater treatment
facilities at both Deer Island and Nut Island.
2. Construct new outfall pipelines or tunnels from
Nut Island to Deer Island and from Deer Island 9
miles to the northeast to discharge the treated
effluent to the sea well outside the harbor.
AREA: The existing wastewater treatment facilities
on Deer Island, now about 26 acres in extent, would be
increased to about 52 acres while those on Nut Island,
now about 12 acres in extent, would be increased to
about I 8 acres.
COST: The overall construction cost of this alter-
native would be about $810 million and its annual cost
of operation and maintenance would be about $22
million.
IMPACT: On Deer Island, the effects of this alter-
native would be virtually identical to those of the
preceding alternative, the All Primary Deer Island.
Proposed Parg
On Nut Island, however, since the site is closely
limited by both adjoining houses and the sea, this
alternative would generate severe environmental
effects. The expansion of the plant would expose the
immediately adjacent neighborhood on Quincy Great
Hill, during the construction period, to five years of
noise and mess, and, thereafter, to the sight and
infrequent smells of an even larger sewage treatment
plant than now exists. In any event, to maintain a
buffer zone, it will be necessary either:
a. to fill up to 3 acres of Hingham Bay, or
b. to relocate the small number of families
immediately adjoining the site.
This alternative will have no impacts on Long Island
and will preserve it for future recreational use.
Page 6
-------
PRIMARY TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
SPLIT PRIMARY DEER ISLAND (52 Acres) AND
LONG ISLAND (18 Acres)
This alternative would:
I. Expand the existing wastewater treatment
facility at Deer Island.
2.
3.
Reduce the existing primary treatment facilities
at Nut Island to a small headworks.
Construct a new treatment plant on Long Island
to replace the Nut Island facility.
4. Construct a series of major new pipelines or
tunnels, one to connect the Nut Island headworks
to Long Island, a second to combine the effluent
discharges of the proposed Long Island facility to
Deer Island, and a third from Deer Island 9 miles
to the northeast to discharge treated effluent to
the sea, well outside the harbor.
AREA: The existing facility on Deer Island would be
increased from 26 acres to about 52 acres; the new
facility on Long Island would require about IS acres,
and the Nut Island facility would be reduced from I 2
acres to about 2 acres.
COST: The overall construction cost of this alter-
native would be about $816 and its annual cost of
operation and maintenance would be about $24 million.
IMPACT: On Deer Island, the effects of this alter-
native would be virtually identical to those of the All
Primary Deer bland alternative.
Page 7
-------
On Long Island, this alternative would utilize a former
Nike missile site and an additional 6 acres of adjacent
open land. In addition, it:
a. Would generate noise which would have
occasional, moderate impacts on patients at
the City of Boston's Chronic Disease
Hospital, about 1300 feet away, during
construction and expose the hospital, and its
patients, to infrequent odors thereafter.
b. Would generate moderate impacts to
recreational development plans for the
island, because it would preclude use of a
small part of the area proposed for passive
uses.
c. Might have an adverse impact on the
appearance of the island from proposed
recreation areas and from off-island vantage
points.
d. Might have an adverse impact on cultural
resources on the island.
And, finally, this alternative would require land
transfer from the City of Boston, approval of land
transfer and construction by the Department of
Environmental Management and, perhaps, approval of
land transfer by the legislature. It might also require
review by the United States Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation and the Massachusetts Historical
Commission. These procedures constitute hurdles to
the implementation of this alternative.
This alternative would have no significant adverse
impact on Nut Island.
SECONDARY TREATMENT
ALTERNATIVES
The four alternatives that are under
active consideration to meet secondary
treatment standards include:
I. All Secondary Deer
Island:
Consolidation of all
facilities at Deer Island.
treatment
Split Secondary Deer Island and Nut
Island: Consolidation of all
treatment facilities at Deer Island
except for primary treatment to be
retained and expanded at Nut Island.
3. All Secondary
Long
Island:
Relocation of all
facilities to Long Island.
treatment
4. Split Secondary Deer Island and
Long Island: Relocation of all
treatment facilities to Long Island
except for retention of primary
treatment at Deer Island.
Page 8
-------
SECONDARY TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
ALL SECONDARY DEER ISLAND (I 15 Acres)
This alternative would:
I. Expand the existing primary wastewater treat-
ment facility at Deer Island to a secondary
treatment plant.
2. Reduce the existing primary treatment facilities
at Nut Island to a small headworks.
3. Construct a major new pipeline or tunnel from
Nut Island to Deer Island to allow the consoli-
dation of the two facilities.
4. Construct a new local outfall to the east of Deer
Island Light.
AREA: The existing wastewater treatment facility on
Deer Island would be increased from 26 acres to about
IIS acres while that on Nut Island would be reduced
from I 2 acres to about 2 acres.
COST: The overall construction cost of this alter-
native would be about $595 million and its annual cost
of operation and maintenance would be about $44
million.
IMPACT: This alternative would commit almost all
the land on the island south of the prison to waste-
water treatment and level almost all the topographic
features of the island.
At Point Shirley, it will increase traffic and traffic
noise during the 7 years of construction by about 21
trucks and buses each day. This would have slight
impact. However, at the peak periods, 6 months to a
year, it would increase by up to 34 trucks and buses
each day, a moderate but manageable impact.
On the island itself, this alternative will cause:
I. Permanent preclusion of public access to a
number of potential recreational resources
including Signal Hill (the Deer bland drumlin),
with its panoramic views of the whole range of
the harbor islands, and the southern end of the
island, with its potential access to the water for
shoreline fishing. It should be noted that
recreational use of this land, though suggested in
prior plans, is not a current priority for the
Commonwealth, so that this would only be a
moderate impact.
2. Destruction of Signal Hill, the visual landmark
that defines the northeastern limit of the harbor,
and that is an important component of the views
of the harbor from significant vantage points. It
is judged to be a severe impact.
This alternative will have no significant adverse
impact on Nut Island. It will preserve Long Island for
major recreational use, a priority for the Harbor
Islands State Park.
Page 9
-------
SECONDARY TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
SPLIT SECONDARY DEER ISLAND (115 Acres) AND
NUT ISLAND (18 Acres)
This alternative would:
I. Expand the Deer Island treatment facility to
provide secondary treatment for all flows.
2. Expand the Nut Island treatment facility to
provide primary treatment.
3. Construct a new pipeline or tunnel from Nut
Island to Deer Island to allow pumping of Nut
Island primary effluent to Deer Island for
secondary treatment.
4. Construct a new local outfall to the east of Deer
Island Light.
AREA: The existing facility on Deer Island would be
increased from 26 acres to about I 15 acres while those
on Nut Island, now about 12 acres in extent, would be
increased to about I 8 acres.
COST: The overall construction cost of this alter-
native would be about $650 million and its annual cost
of operation and maintenance would be about $45
million.
IMPACT: Cn Deer Island its significant impacts would
be virtually identical to those of the preceding
alternative, namely slight to moderate traffic impacts
at Point Shirley and moderate loss of recreational
potential and severe loss of visual quality at Deer
Island.
On Nut Island, however, since the site is closely
limited by both adjoining houses and the sea, this
alternative would generate severe environmental
effects. The expansion of the plant would expose the
immediately adjacent neighborhood on Quincy Great
Hill, during the construction period, to five years of
noise and mess, and, thereafter, to the sight and
infrequent smells of an even larger sewage treatment
plant than now exists. In any event, to maintain a
buffer zone, it will be necessary either:
a. to fill up to 3 acres of Hingham Bay, or
b. to relocate the small number of families
immediately adjoining the site.
This alternative will have no impacts on Long Island
and will preserve it for future recreational use.
Page 10
-------
SECONDARY TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
ALL SECONDARY LONG ISLAND (96 Acres)
This alternative would:
I. Construct a wholly new, consolidated secondary
treatment facility on Long Island.
2. Reduce the existing primary treatment facilities
at Deer Island and Nut Island to smaller head-
works.
3. Construct major new pipelines or tunnels from
both Nut and Deer Islands to Long Island to allow
the consolidation of the facilities.
4. Construct a new local outfall to the east of Deer
Island Light.
AREA: The new Long Island treatment facility would
require about 96 acres of land, while the Deer Island
and Nut Island facilities would be reduced from 26 and
12 acres respectively to 5 and 2 acres.
COST: The overall construction cost of this alter-
native would be about $705 million and its annual cost
of operation and maintenance would be about $45
million.
IMPACT: The sheer size of this alternative would
require the removal and relocation of the City of
Boston's Chronic Disease Hospital from the island. It
would have a severe impact on the proposed recre-
ational development plans of the City and Department
of Environmental Management for the island. It would
occupy all of the central upland, precluding the
island's development as a large, diversified recreation
area.
It would preempt the use of almost all the field and
shrub covered uplands in an area on the southern half
of the island. This half of the island, which also
includes wetlands, dunes, beaches, bluffs and mature
pine groves, is proposed to be developed as a moder-
ately-intensive-use hiking and nature study area.
In addition, it would change the appearance of the
island from both on-island and off-island vantage
points and would have a severe impact on archeo-
logical and, possibly, other cultural resources on the
island.
In addition, it should be noted that this alternative
would require land transfer from the City of Boston,
approval of land transfer and construction by the
Department of Environmental Management, and
approval of land transfer by the legislature. It would
also require review by the United States Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation and the Massa-
chusetts Historical Commission. These procedures
could significantly delay, or even impair, the imple-
mentation of this alternative.
This alternative will have no significant adverse
impact on Nut Island. It is expected to release almost
all of Deer Island for other purposes including,
possibly, recreation.
The facility would also be immediately adjacent to,
and upwind of, the parade ground and Long Island
Head, areas proposed to be intensive use recreation
areas.
~Treeitmeni- faun
Proposed Bayt Pier'
Page I I
-------
SECONDARY TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
SPLIT SECONDARY DEER ISLAND (52 Acres) AND
LONG ISLAND (82 Acres)
This alternative would:
I. Expand the existing Deer Island treatment facility
for primary treatment only.
2. Construct a new treatment facility to provide
secondary treatment for all flows on Long Island.
3. Reduce the existing primary treatment facility at
Nut Island to a small headworks.
4. Construct new pipelines or tunnels from both
Deer and Nut Islands to Long Island to allow the
consolidation of the facilities.
5. Construct a new local outfall to the east of Deer
Island Light.
AREA: The new Long Island treatment facility would
require about 82 acres of land; the Deer Island facility
would be increased from 26 acres to about 52 acres,
and the Nut Island facility would be reduced from 12
acres to about 2 acres.
COST: The overall construction cost of this alter-
native would be about $738 million and its annual cost
of operation and maintenance would be about $53
million.
IMPACT: At Long Island, the effects of this alter-
native are virtually identical to those of the preceding
alternative. It would occupy the central uplands,
require relocation of the Chronic Disease Hospital,
preclude development of the proposed hiking and
nature study area to the south, severely impact on
proposed intensive use areas at Long Island Head, and
suffer from severe institutional constraints to
i mplem entation.
Elsewhere, based on the extensive and detailed
evaluations of all the impacts, as described in detail in
the SDE1S/EIK, none of the environmental impacts of
this alternative, with the required set of mitigating
actions, are expected to be severe or significant. At
Point Shirley, the nearest neighborhood in Winthrop,
nearly one half mile away from the plant, it is
expected that traffic and traffic noise will increase
somewhat during construction, but that the increase
will have slight impact. Construction traffic is not
expected to exceed 15 trucks and buses each day.
With respect to Deer Island, this alternative is not
expected to have any severe environmental effects
since the plant will not alter the appearance of the
island, the island is ample in size, and most of the land
to be used is otherwise unused or committed. The
expansion will leave substantial portions of Deer Island
for other purposes including, possibly, recreation.
This alternative will have no significant adverse
impact on Nut Island.
Long Island tfgfld'
Page 12
-------
Public Consultation on Selection of the Final Plan
Selection of the location(s) of the treatment facilities
will be made in the very near future. It will be a joint
decision of EPA and the Commonwealth of Massa-
chusetts. Six decision criteria have been identified.
Each alternative will be evaluated to determine the
extent to which it:
1. is consistent with and, if possible, promotes the
fulfillment of the promise of Boston Harbor.
2. can be implemented in a timely and predictable
manner.
3. minimizes the adverse impacts of the facility on
neighbors, taking into consideration existing
conditions, facility siting impacts and mitigation
measures.
-------
TABLE 1. IMPACTS OF PRIMARY TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
IMPACT CATEGORIES
"Years Constr.
,_ 'Dolly Construction Traffic
z "Avg. Trucks (w/barglng)
g " Avg ./Peak* Buses
"Avg ./Peak* Constr. Workers
•(6-12 no. duration)
•Cohstr. Not ^ Levels dBA
(mitigated)
•Property Values
•Infrequent Odor Problems
(operations)
"Visual Impacts (operations)
•Total Ops. Staff/Max. Dolly
Shift
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE
AREAS
"Capital (million ()
"Annual
"0 I M (million S)
"Annual Ized (million S)
"Household User (()
LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL
OBSTACLES TO IMPLEMENTATION
CULTURAL RESOURCES
RECREATION
1. ALL DE
(4«
D.I.
I62A)
5-6 year s
7 - s 1 1 ght
12/13 - slight
590/655
Homes Prison
46-56 66-78
s 1 Ight ffioder.
Decline 1
rebound
Homes Pr 1 son
•Oder . Moder .
Moderate
136/60
None exist
7
1
Moderote: pos-
sible leglsl e-
tlve approve!
None Impacted
No current
plons; pos-
uses/sl Ight
Impact
ER ISLAND
.2)
N.I.
(2A)
3-4 year s
B - slight
2/2 - slight
55/70
72-64
•Oder ate
Decl Ine &
rebound
Moderate
Slight
20/B
None exist
52
21
01
74
None
None exist
No plans; pos-
s 1 b 1 e sme 1 1
uses/s 1 Ight
benefit
2. SPLIT
AND NU
(4
D.I.
(52A)
5-6 year s
6 - slight
6/10 - slight
305/465
Homes Pr 1 son
46-5B 66-78
slight Koder.
Dae 1 1 ne I
rebound
Homes Pr 1 son
moder . noder .
Moderote
1 IB/53
None exist
Moderote: pos-
sible legisla-
tive approval
None Impacted
No current
plons; pos-
sible future
uses/si 1 ght
Impact
DEtK ISLAND
T ISLAND
b.2)
N 1
( 1 6A)
5 years
4 - slight
2/3 - slight
95/125
72-64
moderate
Decl 1 ne, may
not rebound
fully
Moder ate
Severe
B3/37
None exist on
site; bay f 1 1-
1 Ing Impacts
310
22
06
78
Severe If leg-
islative ap-
proval for
filling or.
a 1 ter nat 1 vely.
demol It Ion of
nearby homes
to create buf-
fer 1st 1 ml ted
obstacl e
None exist
No p 1 ans; s Ite
precluded from
future uses/
moderate
D.I.
(5A)
5-6 year s
6 - si Ight
6/9 - slight
285/430
Homes Pr Ison
46-58 66-78
si 1 ght noder.
Dec 1 1 ne &
rebound
Homes ft 1 son
noder. noder.
Ho derate
1 18/53
None exist
Moderate: pos-
sible leglsla-
tl ve approve 1
None Impacted
No current
p lans; pos-
uses/sl Ight
Impact
.SPLIT DEEK ISLAND
AND LONG ISLAND
(5a,2)
N.I.
(2A)
3-4 years
8 - slight
2/2 - slight
65/75
72-84
•i oder ate
Decline &
rebound
Moderate
SI Iflht
20/8
None exist
816
24
III
81
None
None exl st
No plans; pos-
s Ible future
uses/benef It
t-. 1 .
( 1 6A)
6 years
4 - si Ight
4/5 - si Ight
190/245
Park Hospital
42-54 46-60
slight moder.
Decl Ine &
rebound
Park Hospital
slight moder.
Moderate
63/28
Adjacent wet-
lands & bar -
r ler beech; no
Moderate: DEW
approval, pos-
sible leglsla-
1 1 ve approve 1
or "Section
106" review,
City of Boston
owner shl p
Moderate: pos-
sible slgnlf 1-
cent archaeo-
logical & h 1 s~
tor leal re-
sources adj a-
cerit to site
State park
plans; con-
f 1 1 ct with
some (passl ve)
uses /moder ate
Source: CE Magulre, Inc.
-------
TABLE 2. IMPACTS OF SECONDARY TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
IMPACT CATEGORIES
•rears Constr.
•Dally Construction Traffic
= *Avg. Trucks (M/barglng)
X *Avg./Peak* Buses
•Avg./Peak* Constr. Workers
•16-12 mo. duration)
•Constr. Noise Levels dBA
(mitigated)
•Property Values
•Infrequent Odor Problems
(operations)
•Visual Impacts (operations)
•Total Ops. Staff/Max. Dally
Shift
ENV IROMCNTALLY SENSITIVE
AREAS
PROJECT COST!
•Capital (million S)
•Annual
•0 t M (million S)
•Annuallied (million J)
•Household User (()
LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL
OBSTACLES TO IMPLEMENTATION
t
CULTURAL RESOURCES
RECREATION
1. ALL DEER ISLAND
( 1 a
D.I.
'(II5A)
7 years
8 - slight
l3/26-slt./mod.
630/1310
Hones Prison
46-58 66-78
s 1 1 ght moder .
Decl Ine, may
not rebound
fully
Homes Prison
moder. moder.
Severe
227/93
None exist
2)
N.I.
' (2A>
3-4 years
8 - slight
1/2 - slight
55/70
72-B4
moderate
Decline 1
rebound
Moderate
Slight
207 8
None exist
595
44
107
91
Moderate: mul-
tiple ownei —
ship & pos-
sible legisla-
tive approval
None Impacted
No current
plans; site
precluded from
future uses/
moderate Impact
None
None exist
No p lans; pos-
sible future
smal 1 scale
uses aval 1-
able/beneflt
2. SPLIT DEER ISLAND
AND NUT ISLAND
(lb.2)
D.I.
(1 ISA)
7 years
8 - slight
1 1/25
560/1250
Homes Pr Ison
46-58 66-78
slight moder.
Decl Ine, may
not rebound
fully
Homes Pr I son
moder. moder.
Severe
215/86
None exist
N. 1 .
(ISA)
5 years
4 - slight
2/3 - slight
95/125
72-84
moderate
Decl Ine, may
not rebound
fully
Moderate
Severe
83/37
None exist on
site: bay fl 1-
1 Ing Impacts
650
45
114
96
Moderate: mul-
tiple owner-
ship a pos-
sible legisla-
tive approval
None Impacted
No current
plans; site
precluded from
future uses/
moderate Impact
Severe to fill
If legislative
approval or
state t fad.
permits re-
quired; alter-
natively, dem-
olition of
nearby homes
to create buf-
None exist
No current
plans; site
precluded from
future uses/
moderate Impact
3. ALL LONG ISLAND
(2b.l)
D.I.
(5A)
5 years
8 - slight
2/2 - slight
85/100
Hones Prison
46-58 66-78
slight moder.
Decline 4
rebound
Homes Prison
slight slight
Slight
34/14
None exist
N.I.
(2A>
3-4 years
8 - slight
2/2 - slight
65/75
72-S4
moderate
Decline 1
rebound
Moderate
SI Ight
20/8
None exist
L.I.
(96A)
8-9 years
8 - slight
l4/2B-ilt./mod.
720/1405
Park
46-60
slight
Decline i
rebound
Park
moderate
Severe
219/90
Adjacent wet-
lands & bat —
Her beach; no
direct effects
705
45
120
None
None exist
No current
plans; site
possible for
future uses/
benefit
99
None
wone exist
No plans; site
possible for
future smal 1
scale uses/
benefit
Severe: DEM
approval, leg-
islative ap-
proval, "Sec-
tion 106" re-
view. City of
Boston owner-
ship, reloca-
tion of Long
Island Hospital
f leant archae-
ological A
historical re-
sources on
site; hospital
may be histor-
ical ly el 1-
glble; roadway
relocation
State park
plans; major
conflict with
recreatlona 1
uses/severe
Impact
4. SPLIT DEER ISLAND
AND LONG ISLAND
D.I.
(52A)
5-6 years
6 - slight
6/9 - s 1 1 ght
285/430
Homes Pr 1 son
46-58 66-78
slight moder.
Decline i
rebound
Homes Prison
moder. moder.
Moderate
118/53
None exist
.J)
N.I.
(2A)
3-4 years
8 - slight
2/2 - slight
65/75
72-84
moderate
Decline 4
rebound
Moderate
Slight
20/6
None exist
L.I.
(82A)
7-8 years
8 - slight
l4/27-slt./mod.
690/1345
Park
48-60
slight
Decline 4
rebound
Park
moderate
Severe
209/86
Adjacent wet-
lands A bai —
r 1 er beach ; no
738
53
131
III
Moderate: pos-
sible legisla-
tive approval
None Impacted
No current
plans; site
possible for
future uses/
slight Impact
None
None exist
No plans; site
possible for
future smal 1
scale uses/
benefit
Severe: DEM
approval, leg-
islative ap-
prova 1 , "Sec-
tlon 106" re-
view. City of
Boston owner-
ship, reloca-
tion of Long
Island rbspltal
Severe: Signi-
ficant archae-
ological A
historical re-
sources on
site; hospital
may be histor-
ically eli-
gible; road
relocation
State park
plans; con-
flict Kith
proposed rec-
reational
uses/severe
'These costs do not Include estimates for barging, busing or noise
mitigation which are estimated to be $45 million (average cost).
Source: CE Magulre, Inc.
-------
R B 0
-------
------- |