-------
'^/T' :,,!'::, i : >!..:.''. , : niHiiH'Ji n liJiii 1,111 ..,.' tt
-------
'
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION I
J. F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02203
To: All Interested Agencies, Public Groups, and Citizens
Enclosed is a copy of the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) on the Siting of: Wastewater Treatment Facilities for Boston
Harbor.
In accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, there will be a thirty (30) day comment period
which will end on January 21, 1986. Any comments or inquiries
concerning the FEIS should be submitted to the above address. The
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) has prepared a
separate Final Environmental impact Report on the Siting of Wastewater
Treatment Facilities for Boston Harbor. Any questions on the MWRA
document should be addressed to Elisa Speranza, Public Affairs
Coordinator, One Central Plaza, Boston, MA 02108 (742-7600).
EPA and the MWRA will sponsor a public information meeting on
January 8, 1986 at the Department of Transportation Building at
Kendall Square in Cambridge at 7:30 p.m. EPA and the MWRA will
sponsor three public hearings on the FEIS and FEIR on January 13,
14/ and 15, 1986. The location and time for each public hearing is
listed below:
January 13, 1986 - 7:30 p.m.
North Quincy High School Auditorium
316 Hancock Street
Quincy, MA.
January 14, 1986 - 7:00 p.m.
Faneuil Hall
Faneuil Hall Market Place
Boston, MA.
January 15, 1986 - 7:30 p.m.
Winthrop jr. High School Auditorium
45 Pauline Street
Winthrop, MA.
We encourage your participation. EPA will receive comments on
the FEIS until January 21, 1986. All comments should be addressed
to Michael R. Deland, Regional Administrator, EPA Room 2100B.
Sincerely yours,
Michael R. Deland
Regional Administrator
-------
VOLUME I
COMPREHENSIVE SUMMARY
Final Environmental Impact Statement
SITING
of
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FACILITIES
for
BOSTON HARBOR
Prepared by
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION I
Technical Assistance by;
THIBAULT/ BUBLY ASSOCIATES
PROVIDENCE. RHODE ISLAND
MICHAEL R. DELAND Date
Regions] Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region I
This Final Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with
assistance from the General Services Administration as a
Cooperating Agency under the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act. The FEIS identifies and evaluates
the environmental impacts of various site options for waste-
water treatment facilities for treating Greater Boston's
wastewater in compliance with federal and state water
pollution control laws.
-------
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PROPOSED ACTION:
SITING OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES IN
BOSTON HARBOR
LOCATION:
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
DATE:
DECEMBER 1985
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
This FEIS considers the environmental accepta-
bility of alternative locations for the construc-
tion of new wastewater treatment facilities for
Boston Harbor. The FEIS recommends the construc-
tion of a secondary wastewater treatment facility
at Deer Island.
VOLUMES:
I. COMPREHENSIVE SUMMARY
II. TECHNICAL EVALUATIONS
III. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
IV. PUBLIC AND INTERAGENCY COMMENTS
LEAD AGENCY:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION I
JFK Federal Building, Boston, Massachusetts 02203
COOPERATING AGENCY:
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
TECHNICAL CONSULTANT:
THIBAULT/BUBLY ASSOCIATES
Providence, Rhode Island
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:
Mr. Ronald Manfredonia
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region I
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
617-223-5610
FINAL DATE BY WHICH
COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED:
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Volume 1
Introduction
I. The Existing Problem and the "No Action" Alternative
A. Description
B. Environmental Impacts of the "No Action" Alternative
II. Secondary Treatment Alternatives
A. Description of Secondary Treatment
B. Generic Environmental Impacts of Secondary Treatment
III. Results of Further Analysis of Impacts of Siting Alternatives
A. All Secondary Deer Island
a. Construction Traffic
b. Operation and Maintenance Traffic
c. Noise
d. Odor
e. Volatile Organic Compounds
f. Pathogenic Aerosols
g. Risk of Chlorine Spills
h. Archaeological and Historical Resources
i. The Benefits of Moving the Prison
B. Split Secondary Deer Island and Nut Island
C. All Secondary Long Island
a. Value of Long Island and Deer Island as a Park Resource
b. Impacts of Construction on the Appearance, Recreational Use and
Archaeological Resources of the Islands
-------
c. Cost Estimates
d. Legal and Institutional Analysis
e. Over the Road Access to Long Island
f. Barge Terminal Feasibility
g. Relocation of Impacts
D. Split Secondary Deer Island and Long Island
IV. Decision Process
A. Decision Criteria
B. After close of Public Comment Period
C. Mandatory Mitigation Measures
D. Final Analysis
V. Major Site Relevant Criteria
A. "Effects on Neighbors"
B. "Harbor Vision"
C. "Implementability"
VI. The Decision
VII. Completion of EIS Process
VIII. Appendices
Appendix A Headworks
Appendix B Primary Treatment Alternatives
Appendix C Principal Relevant Impacts for Each Decision
Criterion
Appendix D Additional Environmental Review Relating
Boston Harbor Clean-up.
Impact Matrices
-------
Volume 1
BOSTON HARBOR
FEIS - COMPREHENSIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
This document, Comprehensive Summary — Final
Environmental Impact Statement on the Siting of
Wastewater Treatment Facilities for Boston Harbor,
is one of four volumes prepared in response to
comments raised on the Supplemental Draft
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact
Report (SDEIS) published jointly by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) on December
31, 1984 to replace an earlier Draft EIS published
in 1978. The treatment facilities will be
constructed by the applicant, the Massachusetts
Water Resources Authority (MWRA), a successor agency
to the MDC.
The MWRA has the responsibility of selecting the
site for the wastewater treatment facilities. The
EPA has the responsibility of conducting an
independent evaluation of the site's environmental
acceptability, providing federal financial
assistance if available, and ensuring rapid
compliance with the federal Clean Water Act.
The General Services Administration (GSA) has
participated with EPA in the preparation of this
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) as a
cooperating agency and has performed an independent
analysis of the environmental impacts of the
disposal of federally owned parcels on Deer Island.
This Comprehensive Summary includes a recapitulation
of the need for the project, the principal siting
alternatives, their impacts and the possible actions
that might be taken to mitigate those impacts. It
outlines the key location-affecting issues that have
developed during the planning process; it summarizes
the United States Environmental Protection Agency's
evaluation of the alternatives; it identifies the
Agency's preferred alternative; and it lists
mandatory mitigation activities.
-------
In summary, this FEIS recommends All Secondary Deer
Island as the EPA's preferred alternative. EPA has
also determined that All Secondary Long and Split
Secondary Deer/Long are environmentally acceptable.
Split Secondary Deer/Nut is unacceptable.
Volume II of this series, Technical Evaluations,
includes the environmental impact analysis prepared
by GSA, and a number of technical reports and
memoranda prepared by EPA in response to comments on
the SDEIS. This SDEIS consisted of several
volumes: an Executive Summary; the SDEIS itself; a
volume of appendices on water quality impacts, land
use and demographics, traffic, recreational
resources and visual quality, costs, financial
impacts, noise, odor, geology, historical and
archeological resources, and legal and institutional
constraints; a volume entitled Evaluation of
Satellite Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facilities;
a volume entitled Boston Harbor Water Quality
Baseline; and a volume entitled Boston Harbor SDEIS
Report of Final Screening Results.
Volume III of this FEIS, Public Participation and
Response to Comments, describes the interagency and
public participation review processes, summarizes
comments received on the SDEIS, and gives the
Agency's responses to those comments.
Volume IV of this FEIS, Public and Interagency
Comments, includes the comments received on the
SDEIS.
This FEIS was prepared consequent to a location
study for the proposed facility, the Nut Island
Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Planning
Project Phase I, Site Options Study (published by
the MDC). In accordance with an agreement between
EPA and the MDC dated April 18, 1978 on the phasing
of facilities planning for the Metropolitan Sewer
District, this FEIS addresses the question of the
location and construction of the proposed facility
and appropriate mitigation actions. Detailed
facilities planning will be included in the next
planning phase.
In evaluating the effects of the facility at the
various alternative locations considered in this
FEIS, the need for mitigating actions to avoid or
reduce adverse impacts were identified and
described. These mitigating actions, where
-------
considered essential by EPA, will be required of the
MWRA as a condition of any federal grant to the
applicant for construction of the proposed
facilities.
Finally the MWRA has prepared and published a
concurrent but separate Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR), as required by state law. Copies of
the FEIR are available at the offices of the
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, One Center
Plaza, Boston, Massachusetts 02108.
During the preparation of the FEIS and FEIR, EPA and
MWRA collaborated and shared technical information
so that their decisions would be based upon a common
data base.
-------
I. THE EXISTING PROBLEM AND THE "NO ACTION*
ALTERNATIVE
Boston Harbor, one of New England's most valuable
economic and recreational resources, is being
seriously polluted in violation of federal law. Its
waters are murky, streaked with floating wastes, and
contaminated with domestic and industrial
pollutants. A major source of this pollution is the
discharge into the harbor of inadequately treated
wastewater from 43 cities and towns lying both along
the shores of the harbor and up to 30 miles inland,
including communities well outside of the natural
watershed of the harbor.
The flow of wastewater from the Deer and Nut Island
treatment plants exceeds in volume the average flow
of the Harbor's three principal rivers, the Charles,
the Mystic, and the Neponset. Serious violations of
the Clean Water Act are caused by the continued
discharge of this inadequately treated waste
generated by residents, visitors and commuters
representing almost half of the state's population.
MWRA SEWER DISTRICT
-------
As Judge A. David Mazzone of the United States
District Court, District of Massachusetts observed
in his September 5, 1985 decision which found these
discharges to be illegal:
"Boston Harbor is a powerful ecological system
which is capable of reconstituting itself as
long as the system is not overloaded ... The
system is being continuously overloaded and, as
a result, each day the Harbor becomes more
polluted [as a result of] ... chronic, flagrant
violations of the federal law. That law secures
to the people the right to a clean harbor. No
argument ... disputes the fact that massive
quantities of pollutants are discharged every
day into the Harbor."
A. Description
Consideration of "No Action" is mandated to EPA by
federal regulations adopted pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and, in some
cases, it is the most appropriate alternative. In
this case, "No Action" would consist of continuation
of the operation of the existing undersized primary
treatment plants at Deer and Nut Islands, in the
form to which they are being upgraded by an ongoing
improvement program known as "Immediate Upgrade" or
"Fast Track." Although these improvements are
necessary to prevent further deterioration of the
existing plants and their adjacent environments,
they will not bring the plants or their effluent
into conformance with state or federal law.
At Deer Island, the improvement program consists of
repairs, replacement and upgrading of the main
treatment plant's power distribution system, pump
station, power supply, non-potable water system,
disinfection system, and primary sedimentation
system. While construction of new scum and
skimmings disposal facilities has been recommended,
planning of these facilities is still being
conducted. Construction of the rest of the proposed
work is scheduled for 1986-1989. These improvements
are intended to enhance the safety of plant
operators and neighbors, reduce odors, reduce
operation and maintenance costs and improve the
level of treatment at the plant until long-term
plans can be implemented.
-------
At Nut Island, the program underway includes
improvements to the power and air production system,
electrical system, treatment processes, odor control
system, preaeration and sedimentation tanks, and
outfalls. The goal of this work is to alleviate
bypasses and overflows, odor emissions, worker
safety concerns, and the general unreliability of
the plant.
Figure 1-2 shows the location of the existing
principal wastewater disposal facilities in Boston
Harbor.
The treatment process, as designed a generation ago,
provides only for sedimentation, which removes only
a small portion of the total suspended solids, and
for disinfection of the clarified effluent. The
plants discharge three-quarters of this effluent to
President Roads, off Deer Island, and one-quarter to
Nantasket Roads, off Nut Island. The wastes which
are removed by this sedimentation process (known as
sludge) are then decomposed or "digested," both to
recover methane for use within the plant and to
reduce the mass of the solids. This sludge is also
MWRA WASTEWATER DISPOSAL FACILITIES
-------
discharged on the ebb tide to President Roads, via
the effluent outfalls from Deer Island and via a
special sludge pipeline from Nut Island.
In addition, raw sewage discharges which are caused
by breakdowns at the main pumping station at Deer
Island are made by way of a 19th century sewage
pumping station and outfall system to Moon Island,
while other raw overflows occur at Deer and Nut
Islands.
Figure 1-3 shows the setting at Deer Island
including the existing treatment plant, the
immediately adjoining prison (Suffolk County House
of Correction), the Point Shirley neighborhood to
the north in Winthrop, the existing outfall system,
and the center lines and noise contours of Logan
Airport. The treatment plant uses only about 26
acr es.
-------
Most of the land on the island is underutilized
except for the prison and the treatment plant. Fort
Dawes at the southern end, no longer in use, is in
the process of being disposed of by the federal
government in the near future. Access to the island
is controlled closely by the prison and no
recreational use is permitted. Figure 1-4 shows the
present pattern of land ownership.
• her* Lin*
SCALE IN FEET
SOURCE: MCD Deer Island
Fast-Track Facilities
Plan, Havens & Emerson/
Parsons Brinkerhoff/
August, 1984.
OWNERSHIP OF LAND
ON DEER ISLAND-
PROPERTV LINES
EASEMENTS
MEAN LOW WATER
PARCELS B&C,MDC LEASED FROM NAVY
MDC
CITY OF BOSTON
QSA (U.S. NAVY) I
-------
Figure 1-5 shows the setting at Nut Island including
the existing treatment plant, adjoining residential
areas, and the existing outfall system. The
treatment plant owns 17 acres of available land with
minimal buffer space between the plant and the
adjoining residential area. No recreational access
to the water is permitted.
-------
B. Environmental Impacts of the "No Action*
Alternative
Even upon completion of the "Fast Track-
improvements previously discussed, major problems
would continue. These represent the environmental
impacts of the "No Action" alternative and include:
a. Continued reliance on undersized, overloaded
treatment plants that discharge or bypass a
daily average flow of 450 million gallons of
turbid wastewater,- contaminated with bacteria
and putrescible materials far in excess of the
limits established by law.
b. Continued daily discharge to Boston Harbor of 70
dry tons (or 600,000 gallons) of digested
sludge, in violation of federal law.
c. Continued discharge in the wastewater of plastic
tampon inserters and condoms. These products
are found throughout the harbor, have become as
much a part of the shoreside environment as
seashells, and are often picked up as playthings
by small children.
d. Continued emissions of odors. Full odor control
is not part of the "Fast Track" upgrading
program.
e. Continued exposure of residents in the
neighborhoods around, and on the access routes
to, Deer and Nut Islands to the risk of
accidental spills of liquid chlorine.
f. Continued barring of public access to the harbor
at two potentially recreationally valuable
locations, i.e. Deer Island and Nut Island.
Both the existing wastewater treatment facility
sites offer good vantage points for viewing the
panoramas of Boston Harbor, for watching the
varied and intensive boating traffic into and
out of Boston Harbor, and for shoreline fishing.
EPA has concluded that the "no action" alternative,
even with the upgrade, was an unacceptable long-term
solution.
10
-------
II. SECONDARY TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Abatement of this pollution will require a complex
set of actions, including, at its heart, the
construction of secondary wastewater treatment
facilities as required by federal law. Evaluating
the environmental acceptability of a site for these
facilities is the subject of this Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).
There are four remaining alternatives for the siting
of secondary wastewater treatment facilities for
Boston Harbor that are described in this FEIS, and a
variation of one of those four. These are the
following:
1. All Secondary Deer Island — Consolidation of
all major facilities on Deer Island.
2. Split Secondary Deer Island and Nut Island —
major facilities split between Deer and Nut
Islands.
3. All Secondary Long Island — Consolidation of
all major facilities on Long Island.
4. Split Secondary Deer Island and Long Island —
major facilities split between Deer and Long
Islands.
An important variation is similar in many respects
to All Secondary Deer Island, but includes the
mitigating action of removing the prison from Deer
Island.
Other alternatives, included in studies that have
led to this FEIS and that have been eliminated from
consideration, and the reasons for their
elimination, are described in the SDEIS.
(It is also possible that a primary treatment plant
requiring less than half as much land might be built
instead of the anticipated secondary treatment
plant, if EPA's finding that primary treatment is
inadequate, is successfully challenged. The
alternative locations for primary treatment are
included in Appendix B of this volume.)
All the sites in the final set of alternatives were
selected after consideration of a large number of
factors as stipulated in the SDEIS (social,
11
-------
technical, environmental, economic, political, legal
and institutional), including the location of the
existing major wastewater conveyances and of waters
that are adequate in volume to receive the very
large flows of treated effluent without violation of
water quality standards. Figure II-l shows the
location of the major wastewater conveyances and the
deeper waters off Boston.
The identification of a suitable site for the
treatment facilities is controversial because of the
large land area that an adequate treatment plant
requires, a scarcity of underdeveloped land near the
harbor, intense competition for open land, and high
population densities relatively close to all of the
large underdeveloped land areas in the region. As
the plant will be sized to process a peak flow of
about 1.2 billion gallons, or 5 million tons, per
day, location very remote from the existing
trunklines is not practical.
MWRA WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM
12
-------
A. Description of Secondary Treatment
Any secondary treatment facility that might be
constructed for Boston Harbor will have to be
designed to remove wastes from wastewater to the
standards set by law. For a treatment plant of this
size, there are a limited number of processes that
could be used for this purpose.
The process assumed in this EIS on facilities
location is "activated sludge," the most widely used
process for large treatment plants and the one
assumed in the MDC's Nut Island Wastewater Treatment
Plant Facilities Planning Project, Phase I, Site
Options Study and in the MWRA's PEIR. It relies
upon simple sedimentation to remove solids both near
the beginning, and near the end, of the process with
an aeration step, the "activated sludge" process,
between them. The "activated sludge" process
biologically oxidizes part of the dissolved and
suspended organic compounds in the wastewater to
carbon dioxide and water and absorbs most of the
rest into the sludge biomass for subsequent removal
by sedimentation.
SECONDARY ACTIVATED SLUDGE TREATMENT PROCESS
disinfection
•
tt-Z
13
-------
Although some other process or design modification
might ultimately be selected, it is the construction
and operational effects of "Activated Sludge"
facilities that were used as the basis for
assessment of the impacts of secondary treatment at
the various alternative sites in this FEIS.
In this case this is a reasonable and conservative
assumption. For all principal impacts in this case,
the severity of any impact is a function of the size
of the treatment facility, which in turn determines
not only its proximity to its neighbors but its
conflicts with other land uses. Of all the
treatment technologies that could be reasonably
applied to a plant of this size, activated sludge is
the most land intensive and thus will be closest to
its neighbors and have the greatest potential
conflict with other land uses.
The solids removed from the wastewater must be
disposed of in some manner, with or without several
possible intermediate processes. These solids may
be as high as 415 dry tons per day (2000 tons per
day of sludge cake at 20% solids). This amount, in
contrast to the quantity of effluent, is so much
smaller, that it is reasonable to consider its
removal from the wastewater treatment plant site by,
for example, small diameter pipeline or vessel for
disposal anywhere within a broad region.
Digestion is one intermediate process commonly
employed to recover energy resources in the sludge
and to reduce its polluting potential. For the
reasons discussed above concerning plant size, and
because digestion is a land-intensive intermediate
process, the land area requirements, cost and other
impacts in this FEIS are based on the assumption
that sludge would be digested and dewatered on the
site. Whether sludge digestion will in fact be part
of the final pollution control strategy will depend
on the choice of an ultimate sludge disposal method
or methods.
The MWRA has made no decision as to how secondary
sludge will be disposed of except that on July 10,
1985 the MWRA voted that it preferred that sludge
disposal not occur at the wastewater treatment plant
island. The ultimate sludge disposal alternatives
that appear possible in this case are landfilling,
composting/land application, and incineration.
14
-------
This document does not analyze the impacts of
ultimate sludge disposal because this siting
decision does not influence any future decision on
whether or where to landfill, to compost and apply
to land, or to incinerate. Landfilling and compost
disposal can and must be done offsite, because
neither Deer Island nor Long Island is large enough
for a landfill or compost disposal area sufficient
to handle the quantities of sludge which are
expected to be generated by the plant. Compost
processing also can and must be done offsite,
because the size of the plant and volume of material
to be composted eliminate both Deer Island and Long
island as locations for composting, except that
partial composting would be possible at either
site. An incinerator large enough to handle the
MRWA wastes could be constructed offsite, or at
either Deer Island or Long Island, without violating
national ambient air quality standards or Federal
Aviation Administration regulations on Logan flight
paths. Thus, selection of a treatment plant site
does not foreclose any of the available sludge
disposal alternatives. Neither does it make the
selection of any alternative more likely because of
the similar constraints on all three options which
would be present at either island.
Conversely, even if the choice of landfilling,
composting/land application or incineration as the
sludge disposal method were made simultaneously with
the plant siting decision, any sludge decision would
neither foreclose nor encourage any treatment plant
site. Landfilling and compost application is
impossible at both islands; composting is impossible
at both except as a partial solution, and
incineration is possible at either. Any sludge
option is possible off-site. Thus any sludge choice
made would not influence the site of the treatment
plant. Because of high acreage requirements,
construction complexity, and enormously greater
flows, treatment plant siting takes precedence.
It is important to note that the construction of a
secondary treatment plant is mandated by the Clean
Water Act as a distinct phase of a process which
includes production of secondary sludge. It is
appropriate to make a siting decision for the
treatment plant separately from a sludge disposal
decision because delaying this siting decision until
after study and selection of a sludge disposal
option would unreasonably delay the planning and
15
-------
construction of a secondary treatment facility,
resulting in additional environmental harm.
MWRA has begun a study which will lead to the
selection of a sludge disposal method and to an
EIR. EPA intends to prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement. The specific impacts of sludge
management alternatives typically include
construction and operational traffic, odor, noise
and air or water emissions; the cumulative impacts
of a 500 mgd treatment plant will be considered.
B. Generic Environmental Impacts of a Secondary
Treatment Plant
The facilities necessary for the activated sludge
wastewater treatment process generate some
environmental impact, both during construction of
the plant and during its operation.
During operation, all the alternatives would
discharge their treated effluents through a common
outfall diffuser to be constructed further out in
the harbor at a site to be determined during the
facilities plan. Consequently, all would have
identical effects on water quality and marine biota.
The process requires the construction of large
concrete structures for aeration and sedimentation
tanks; some aerosols and volatile compounds are
emitted from the surfaces of the tanks and flow
channels.
The large size of a 500 million gallon per day
"activated sludge* treatment facility would require
a large land area (about 115-140 acres), a
construction period of about eight years, the
employment of 650 (average) to 1300 (one year peak)
workers and the movement of large volumes of
construction materials and construction wastes (over
one million tons) onto, around, or off the site.
The environmental effects of such extensive
construction would include the commitment of a large
area of waterfront land to wastewater treatment,
theoretically denying its use for future recreation;
and, without mitigating actions, the emission of
noise and dust from construction equipment and from
many hundreds of trips per day of trucks and
construction workers' autos.
16
-------
In addition, during operation the plant would
require a large staff and a steady supply of
materials and it would require periodic heavy
maintenance. Without mitigating actions, the plant
has the potential to emit significant odors.
With a treatment facility the size of that proposed
for Boston Harbor, these effects could become
significant problems.
To reduce these impacts, a set of mitigating actions
was proposed in the SDEIS. These mitigating actions
included barging of bulk materials to and from the
site(s) to reduce the amount of trucking, busing of
construction workers to reduce commuter traffic, and
control of noise and odor. Continuing review of the
potential impacts of secondary treatment of the
specific sites under consideration has demonstrated
that more stringent mitigating actions will be
required by EPA of the applicant as a condition of
federal financial assistance to the project.
III. RESULTS OF FURTHER ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS OF
SITING ALTERNATIVES.
The specific final secondary alternatives that were
described in the SDEIS, their impacts as further
defined since publication of the SDEIS, and the
mitigating actions that have been considered are
described in the sections of this FEIS immediately
below. These mitigated impacts have been summarized
in a matrix appended to this volume and are
discussed in detail in Volume II of this FEIS. The
process used in the selection of recommended
alternatives is described in the final chapter of
this volume.
For the reader's convenience EPA has reproduced for
each alternative its description as contained in the
SDEIS.
17
-------
SDEIS SECONDARY TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
A. All Secondary Deer Island
"This alternative would:
1. Expand the existing primary wastewater
treatment 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
consolidation 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 115-140* acres while that on
Nut Island would be reduced from 12 acres to
about 2 acres.
"COST: The overall construction cost of this
alternative would be about $1135* million and
its annual cost of operation, maintenance and
replacement would be about $50* million.
"IMPACT: This alternative would commit almost
all the land on the island south of the prison
to wastewater treatment and level almost all the
topographic features of the island.
•At Point Shirley, it will increase traffic and
traffic noise during the 7 years of construction
by about 21 trucks and buses each day. However,
at the peak periods, 6 months to a year, it
would increase by up to 34 trucks and buses each
day.
"On the island itself, this alternative will
cause:
1. Permanent preclusion of public access to a
number of potential recreational resources
including Signal Hill (the Deer Island
drumlin), with its panoramic views of the
whole range of the harbor islands, and the
southern end of the island, with its
potential access to the water for shoreline
fishing. Recreational use of this land,
though suggested in prior plans, is not a
current priority for the Commonwealth/ so
that this would only be a moderate impact.
2. Destruction of Signal Hill, the visual
landmark that defines the northeastern limit
of the harbor, and that is an important
component of the views of the harbor from
significant vantage points. It is judged to
be a severe impact.
'This alternative will have no significant
adverse impact on Nut Island. It will preserve
Long Island for major recreational use, a
priority for the Harbor Islands state Park."
Ftof>o$e
*Updated, See Vol II.
18
-------
Salient comments on the SDEIS raised questions on
the sensitivity of the adjoining areas to traffic
and noise that would be generated by this
alternative; the feasibility of their mitigation
including over-water transportation of all workers,
materials, and equipment; the emissions of odors,
volatile organic compounds, and pathogenic aerosols;
the risks of accidental spills of chlorine in and
near residential areas; the potential of
archaeological, historical and recreational
resources on Deer Island; and the benefits of moving
the Deer Island Prison.
Each of these issues was subsequently reviewed and
re-evaluated. The key findings of these reviews are
described in the sections below; the discussion of
the recreational potential of Deer Island is
included in the section on All Secondary Long.
a. Construction Traffic
Existing road conditions in Winthrop and East
Boston, with or without the construction of a large
wastewater treatment plant on Deer Island, give rise
to the following specific concerns:
1. Emergency access to Deer Island and the
neighborhood adjacent to the treatment plant
site, Point Shirley, is possible by only one
narrow, winding roadway through Winthrop.
Furthermore, the roadways closest to Deer
Island, at Point Shirley, are very narrow and do
pose a potential for accidents as a result of
the mixture of through traffic and residential
use. In particular,- the portion of Shirley
Street from Washington Avenue to Cottage Hill,
with public transit buses, two way traffic,
parking on both sides, an offset alignment and a
fairly sharp curve, does not provide completely
safe and convenient public traffic service.
2. The Town of Winthrop is accessible from the
surrounding metropolitan area by only two
roadways, each with only two travel lanes. The
intersections on Saratoga Street near Bennington
Street in East Boston, with their public transit
station bus ways and parking lots, constrained
roadway width, and adjoining business uses, are
congested, creating a long, stop-and-go queue,
up to one mile, on Saratoga Street in the
mornings.
The Saratoga Street Bridge over Belle Isle Inlet
is in deteriorating condition, and may need
replacement in the near future.
19
-------
one. UACJ
d?Hg6frtVM
9#r
In addition, in order for Winthrop and East
Boston residents to travel anywhere except to
the north, they must traverse both the Sumner
Tunnel and downtown Boston on ramps and roadways
that are severely congested, almost all day
long, by traffic from Logan Airport, the
northeastern metropolitan area, and beyond.
20
-------
Without mitigation, this multi-year construction
project would generate major new traffic (up to 500
trucks a day) and would make a difficult situation
worse. The SDEIS proposed to limit the traffic
increase to about 8 heavy trucks (round trips) and
to an average of 13 buses (26 peak) per day by
requiring barging of all bulk materials and the
busing of all construction workers. This increase
in traffic will not be significant, especially since
most of it will run counter to the predominant flow
of commuting traffic, using lanes that are not
otherwise heavily traveled at that time of day.
Comments on the SDEIS raised the question of whether
such mitigation was in fact possible, and whether
still more could be done. Review of the mitigating
actions proposed in the SDEIS indicates that they
are feasible. Historically a great deal of major
public works construction has occurred on Deer
Island prior to its connection to the mainland. The
waters off Deer Island are sufficiently deep for
barges and the underlying soils, while not ideal,
are suitable for pier foundations. For the
commodities proposed in the SDEIS for barging, no
special facilities would be needed for off-island
loading and unloading. Gravel and steel could be
loaded into the barges from any general purpose pier
and surplus earth excavation to be removed from the
island would likely be dumped off shore anyway since
there is no longer a ready market for common fill.
In arriving at its conclusion that the number of
heavy truck trips could be limited to eight per day,
the SDEIS assumed that the lack of roll-on/roll-off
(RO/RO) loading facilities precluded the barge
movement of material and equipment other than bulk
materials. However, further study demonstrated that
it is feasible to reduce construction traffic even
further by providing RO/RO facilities at Deer Island
and at a point on the mainland (such as along the
Mystic, Chelsea, or Fore or Back Rivers, or Lynn
Harbor). RO/RO facilities, for low volumes of cargo
(8 to 20 trucks per day) would require a simple ramp
supported by a gantry or a float and some mooring
dolphins at each end of the barge line, a single
barge and less than one acre of land. EPA regards a
RO/RO facility as a desirable construction practice
which will virtually eliminate heavy construction
trucking and reduce operation traffic. Accordingly,
21
-------
EPA includes RO/RO as a mandatory mitigation
measure. It is estimated that construction related
trucking would be reduced to an average of eight
lighter trucks per day.
The SDEIS, in estimating 13 buses (26 one year peak)
per day, assumed that all workers would be bused to
the site. This number could be reduced by providing
a ferry service for workers coming from the south
and west. Further analysis has confirmed that this
is not only practical, but that intra-harbor worker
ferry service could be a highly satisfactory mass
transit alternative for workers living to the south
and west of the harbor. An investigation of the
factors influencing the feasibility of ferrying
(e.g. cost, harbor regulations, terminal sites)
showed that it would be feasible to provide this
service and to reduce predicted bus traffic. A
prohibition on individual construction worker
vehicles and a requirement of a combination of
busing and ferrying will be mandatory mitigation
measures.
In summary, review of construction traffic impacts
indicated that the impacts of the proposed project,
as they will be required to be mitigated, will be
acceptable.
b. Operation and Maintenance Traffic
The operation of the wastewater treatment
facilities, with a permanent operating staff
estimated at 227 in the SDEIS, could be expected to
generate the average traffic equivalent of a 50
house residential neighborhood or a small industrial
facility. The traffic generated, about 250 round
trips per day, would be spread over three shifts,
lessening peak load.
is so 150 1,500 15,000
-H 1 1 1 1
150 250 1,500 15,000 150,000 7Rlp6
22
-------
This level of traffic is well within the roadway's
capacity and will not be distinguishable from the
present level of treatment plant and prison
operations traffic.
c. Noise
Salient questions on noise centered on construction
traffic and on the effects of multiple pieces of
equipment in simultaneous use at the construction
site on nearby receptors.
Traffic noise from the few trucks and buses that
would use the streets of Winthrop, with waterborne
transportation of construction materials, would be
of brief duration, only a few minutes per day, and
hence is an acceptable impact of the proposed
project.
Recalculation of construction noise, on the other
hand, indicates that the SDEIS underestimated both
the number of pieces of heavy construction equipment
likely to be on the site on average and the noise
likely to be generated by individual pieces of
equipment. The net effect of these changed
assumptions would be to generate the noise levels at
the prison and Point Shirley, during daytime
construction operation, to those shown on the
accompanying table.
TABLE III-l
EXPECTED CONSTRUCTION NOISE
DEER ISLAND AND VICINITY
Ambient Noise
Measured Total Noise Boston N.C. Reg.
L „ dBA (1 hr.) dBA (L ) L dBA
Location Zoning 10 iP.— i°
Tafts Street
(Pt. Shirley) Residential 60 59-63 75
Prison Residential/ Q2 69_?5 „
Prison Institutional
Without aircraft noise.
Estimated.
23
-------
These levels at the nearest portions of Point
Shirley are well below (15 decibels) City of Boston
noise regulations applicable to construction
projects and are equivalent to current ambient L^g
noise levels at Point Shirley without aircraft
overflights. During aircraft overflights,
construction noise would be completely masked at
Point Shirley- However, at the prison, even though
the noise regulations are not exceeded, EPA believes
mandatory mitigation will further reduce the
levels: EPA will require that the drumlin be
excavated from its south side so that the remnant
acts as a shield; furthermore, a sound barrier must
be erected to reduce noise levels at ground level at
the prison.
Considering the duration of the proposed
construction project, however, consideration should
be given to further reasonable mitigation. To some
degree, additional mitigation appears possible in
the scheduling of construction activities, and in
limiting the number of noise emitters operating
simultaneously near the prison. Further mitigation
may be possible by the construction of an earthen
mound, across the neck between Deer Island and Point
Shirley, using excavated earth that would otherwise
have to be removed from the site. The specific
extent of the mound, and its resulting
effectiveness, will depend in large part on the
availability of land. Figure III-3 shows one
possible layout for a mound system.
.
3 100 ft hiah
Deer "
Res / -;
POSSIBLE NOISE MITIGATION BUFFER
POINT SHIRLEY / DEER ISLAND
24
• •
Fort Dawes
"
-------
In summary, review of noise likely to be generated
by construction of the facility indicated that no
violation of the applicable noise control
regulations will occur either at Point Shirley or
the prison.
d. Odo r
Questions on odors centered on the level, frequency,
and severity of odor emissions to areas surrounding
the facility. In summary, further analysis has
demonstrated that due to the characteristics of the
incoming wastewater, the uncontrolled odor impact of
the plant could be significant, but it is not a site
determining factor; existing and available
technologies can be used to reduce odors to an
acceptable level at all receptor sites, and odors
might be reduced even further as the result of
aggressive design. However, it is not possible to
rule out some rare occurrences of odor due to
process upset or equipment malfunction.
The odor impact of a treatment plant is not a
controlling one in the site selection process
because a treatment plant at either Deer Island or
Long Island would have approximately the same odor
impact on a wide selection of receptor sites around
the Harbor.
l.If no odor controls are applied, odors would be
perceptible about the same percent of the time at
many receptor sites, as shown by the following table
(hours per year, percentages rounded):
Table III-2
Odors Without Odor Control:
Percent of Year Perceived
Plant at Deer I. Plant at Long I.
Prison 9.8 6.0
Point Shirley 6.3 4.0
Cottage Park 5.4 3.3
Squantum 3.5 4.5
Hull 7.9 14.9
Beachmont 3.4 3.2
Hough's Neck 5.1 6.0
Thompson Island 3.8 4.7
Winthrop Beach 4.1 4.3
South Boston 4.6 4.6
Peddock's Island 5.4 9.0
Source: Vol. II, Section II-2, Tables 3 and 4
25
-------
Note that the neighborhood with the greatest
frequency of perceived uncontrolled odors would be
Hull from a Long Island plant, but Hull would also
be the most frequently impacted community from a
Deer Island plant. In general, communities on the
west and south of the harbor would be more
frequently impacted by a Long Island plant. Certain
neighborhoods in Winthrop such as Winthrop Beach are
also potentially as frequently affected by a Long
Island plant as by a Deer Island plant.
Furthermore, a month by month analysis indicates
that, due to prevailing winds, during certain months
such as January, June, October and December impacts
on all receptors in Winthrop are either the same
from either plant or worse from a Long Island
facility.
2. Without controls, the frequency at these
receptor sites of odors likely to generate strong
complaints is even lower, but still approximately
the same whether the plant is sited on Deer Island
or Long Island, except at the prison (hours per
year, percentages rounded):
Table III-3
Percent of Year Uncontrolled Odors
Would Generate Strong Complaint
Plant at Deer I. Plant at Long I.
Prison 8.1 1.2
Point Shirley 1.5 0.7
Cottage Park 0.5 0.3
Squantum 0 1.2
Hull 1.3 2.2
Beachmont 1.3 0.5
Hough's Neck 0.6 2.3
Thompson Island 0.3 1.6
Winthrop Beach 1.0 1.0
South Boston 0.4 0
Peddock's Island 0.5 1.7
Source: Vol. II, Section II-2, Table 5.
3.0 Even without controls, odors strong enough to
severely interfere with normal activities could be
expected almost never at any receptor sites except
the prison. However, location of the plant at Long
Island does result in a slightly greater impact on
Winthrop (percent of hours per year):
26
-------
Table III-4
Percent of Year Uncontrolled Odors
Would Severely Interfere with Normal Activities
Plant at Deer I. Plant at Long I.
Prison 4.3%
Point Shirley — 0.2%
Winthrop Beach — 0.2%
Cottage Park
Beachmont 0.3%
Squantum
Hough's Neck
Peddock's Island
Hull
Thompson Island — 1%
Source: Vol. II, Section II-2, Table 5.
Note that the Prison is clearly the most heavily
impacted receptor. The figures indicate that when
uncontrolled odors would be perceived at the prison,
they would be strongly perceived. Uncontrolled
levels at the prison could on occasion approach
those at which headaches and nausea result.
Though properly designed and operated sewage works
employing good housekeeping practices should not
pose an odor problem, the incoming metropolitan
Boston wastewater carries with it the potential for
serious odor problems independent of such factors
and demands that a thorough investigation of
specific mitigation actions be made.
Effective mitigation of odor from a Boston Harbor
treatment facility will be contingent upon the
implementation of the following mandatory mitigation
measures:
1. A further, complete monitoring of the odor
characteristics of the influent to the current
treatment works.
2. A commitment to the maximum feasible degree of
mitigation.
3. A thorough investigation of state-of-the-art
odor control technologies to be applied not only
at the treatment plant but at points in the
conveyance system. This study will be
undertaken as part of the facilities planning
process.
27
-------
By making every effort to apply reasonably available
technology designed to achieve a high degree of
efficiency, EPA believes that a reasonable and
effective mitigation of odors can be achieved, so
that except at the prison odors would be perceived
very rarely at all receptors and never at the level
which would generate strong complaint. Due to the
proximity of the Deer Island House of Correction,
however, it is possible that odor could reach levels
at the prison at which complaints could arise, but,
should the above reasonably available technologies
be applied, it is expected that these occurrences
would be rare and levels would never reach those
which cause severe interference with normal
activities.
Furthermore applying the above mandatory mitigation
measures, EPA expects that detailed odor control
strategies can be developed during detailed
facilities planning and design which will eliminate
"strong complaint" odors at the prison and further
reduce perceptible odors at other receptors.
It should be noted that even a well-operated
facility emits a low level of musty odor to which
some people object if they can smell it at all but
this is unlikely off-site. Also, it is impossible
to guarantee that a process upset or equipment
malfunction will not reduce the efficiency of the
odor control system so that odor will increase to
perceptible levels; because it is expected that odor
control technologies will be applied at multiple
locations in the delivery and treatment system,
temporary failure of a piece of equipment or a
process will not result in severe odor at a
receptor. The likelihood that such a temporary
event, if it occurred, could be perceived in a
neighborhood is roughly expressed by the Table III-3
of percentages.
In summary, EPA concludes that acceptable levels of
odor control can be achieved through reasonably
available technology and that the mandatory
mitigation measures can result in a treatment plant
which is rarely perceived as offensive.
e. Volatile Organic Compounds
The metropolitan sewer system is used by many people
for the disposal of such volatile organic compounds
(VOC) as cleaning fluids and solvents. These
28
-------
compounds can be expected to volatilize continuously
throughout the sewer system, including the treatment
plant, and be dispersed into the atmosphere where
ever they volatilize.
These compounds have two quite different adverse
environmental effects, i.e. they may be directly
damaging to health in their original forms, and they
may be indirectly hazardous by contributing to the
formation of atmospheric smog. The effects of each
of these potential impacts were separately evaluated.
To examine the impacts associated with compounds
that may be directly damaging to health, their
concentrations in the vicinity of the treatment
plant were calculated. It was estimated that, (1)
at the present time, with primary treatment, 1/3 of
these compounds that reach the plant go off into the
air and (2) with secondary treatment with no
controls, about 85% could do so.
EPA calculated the concentrations of the various
compounds in the air even without emission controls;
EPA found no levels that can be construed to be a
significant health threat, either at the prison or
in any neighborhood, according to criteria developed
by EPA's Carcinogen Assessment Group and the U.S.
Public Health Service's Centers for Disease Control.
As discussed above, the atmospheric smog problem is
quite different in character from the toxic VOC
problem. Smog is formed in the air by complex
interactions of oxides of nitrogen (emitted by
engines and boilers), volatile organic compounds,
oxygen, and sunlight. The combination, which takes
hours to form, results in new compounds that are
irritating to the eye and damaging to lung tissue
and vegetation.
These new compounds are not a site specific problem,
but occur over large areas where the total emissions
of oxides of nitrogen and volatile organics can form
mixtures in the atmosphere that are stable long
enough to interact. The most effective method of
control is reduction over large areas of the
emission of oxides of nitrogen and volatile organic
compounds.
The proposed secondary treatment facility, wherever
it is located, is expected to generate more volatile
organic compound emissions than the existing primary
-------
facilities. Wherever the plant is located, an
identical level of control of these emissions will
be required under the Clean Air Act. Specific
controls could include:
1. control of emissions at the treatment plant by a
volatile organic compound capture system.
2. control of the discharge of volatile organic
compounds to the sewer system by user
pretreatment or recycling.
3. more stringent control of volatile organic
compound emissions from other sources throughout
the metropolitan area to compensate for the
emissions from the wastewater treatment plant.
In summary, review of volatile emissions indicates
that they will pose no hazards to public health and
are not significant in siting the facility.
f. Pathogenic Aerosols
Commentors noted that the "activated sludge" process
for secondary treatment generates aerosols, less
than one percent of which can contain viable
microorganisms that can, theoretically, have adverse
effects on public health.
EPA reviewed relevant literature to determine what
is known about the impact of pathogenic aerosols on
populations working or living near wastewater
treatment plants. No epidemiological evidence was
found of public health hazards from such plants on
nearby residential neighborhoods.
For further discussion on this and other technical
issues, see Volume II.
g. Risk of Chlorine Spills
Public comment on the SDEIS raised questions as to
whether the continued storage and use of liquid
chlorine (i.e., liquified gaseous chlorine) at Deer
Island poses a threat to public health and safety,
and whether the storage and use of liquid chlorine
would be safer if the treatment plant were built at
Long Island instead of Deer Island.
30
-------
Chlorine gas is toxic, and it, can move rapidly with
the wind in a gaseous state. It is usually shipped
and stored as a pressurized liquid, but if spilled
it readily vaporizes at normal atmospheric pressures
and temperatures. An accidental liquid chlorine
spill during transport, storage, handling, or use at
a sewage treatment plant should be considered a
potential threat to the health and safety of
treatment plant staff and local residents. Such
accidents, while rare, have occurred as a result of
the widespread use of liquid chlorine by industry
and by other municipal sewage treatment facilities.
Further study of the implications of the use of
liquid chlorine for the MWRA secondary treatment
plant showed that liquid chlorine use does not
affect the site selection process. Even though a
plant at Long Island would be farther from
residential areas than a plant at Deer Island
(causing greater dilution of any chlorine gas cloud
which might reach populated areas), the winds would
be approximately three times as likely to blow such
a cloud from Long Island toward a residential area
such as Hull. Thus, the proximity of inhabitants
near Deer Island to its proposed plant site, weighed
against the increased risk of a release being blown
toward residential areas in the case of a Long
Island site, reduces chlorine use as a
site-determinating factor.
However, certain special features of the Deer Island
site call for unusual precautions for the long-term
use of chlorine. The treatment plant would be
immediately adjacent to the Deer Island House of
Correction, unless the prison were removed. The
prison inmates and staff would be at increased risk
in the event of a chlorine spill from this larger
facility because of their proximity to the plant and
lack of mobility. Compounding the problem, Deer
Island and neighboring Point Shirley could be
difficult to evacuate because they are served by
only one narrow roadway. The roadway itself leads
directly away from the plant (i.e., downwind if the
wind is wrong) without intersecting alternative
routes for two miles. In light of these special
characteristics of the Deer Island site, EPA has
determined that, as a mandatory mitigation measure,
if Deer Island is to be the site of the new
treatment plant, liquid chlorine shall not be used
at a new Deer Island treatment plant unless the MWRA
can demonstrate to EPA during facilities planning
31
-------
that there is a clear and convincing need for the
use of liquid chlorine and that it can be
transported, handled, stored, and used in an
environmentally acceptable manner.
The transportation of liquid chlorine through
Winthrop by truck presents a separate but related
issue. The Massachusetts Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs has stated that the frequent
transport of liquid chlorine for a Deer Island
treatment plant through residential streets as
narrow as those in Point Shirley is undesirable and
should be eliminated from planning for the long-term
facility under study in this FEIS. EPA agrees and
believes reasonable alternatives exist.
Accordingly, as part of its effort to minimize
impacts on neighbors, as a mandatory mitigation
measure EPA will require that the trucking of liquid
chlorine through Winthrop cease upon completion of
the pier and associated on-shore transportation
facilities called for in this FEIS.
h. Archaeological and Historical Resources
An archaeological reconnaissance survey of Deer
Island prepared by a consultant for MHRA has
identified the abandoned sewage pump station complex
(including a farmhouse) and the House of Corrections
complex as potentially eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places and for the
special consideration afforded by that listing.
Moreover, an archaeological survey has verified the
existence of unmarked graves on the prison grounds.
MWRA is continuing investigation of the House of
Corrections complex and the graveyard. No
prehistoric archaeological sites have been located
on Deer Island.
With respect to the prison and pump station
complexes, all steps necessary to comply with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act will be completed as soon as possible. This
will include determination of whether the project
will have an effect or an adverse effect on these
structures and preparation of a "preliminary case
report" and "memorandum of agreement" between the
EPA, the Massachusetts Historic Preservation
Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, taking into account the effects of the
project on eligible historic properties. During
facilities planning, preservation and reuse of
eligible structures will be rigorously evaluated.
32
-------
With respect to the graveyard, legislative action
might be necessary to relocate the graves. Instead,
depending upon the extent of the graves, the
cemetery might not be affected. The additional
study under way will provide the information
necessary to make this decision.
It should be noted that neither the presence of
graves nor of historic structures (which may be
present at each island) precludes construction of a
treatment plant.
i. The Benefits of Moving the Prison
There is a variation of the All Secondary Deer
Island which assumes that the prison would be
removed, as a mitigating action, and that its site
would be made available for the wastewater treatment
plant. This variation would use most of the island
but land would be available for buffering,
contouring, and recreational use.
The removal of the prison would reduce the impacts
of the treatment plant in several ways, including
the following:
1. It would remove the receptor population (the
prison workers and inmates) most affected by the
plant's impacts, including noise and odor.
2. It would eliminate prison-related traffic, thus
offsetting construction-related and operations
traffic for the treatment plant.
3. It would improve the appearance of Deer Island
by removing the prison buildings.
4. It would permit opportunities for sculpting the
landscape to a more natural appearance and for
screening the facility from both the harbor and
Point Shirley and Cottage Hill in Winthrop.
5. It would increase the opportunity for buffering
noise at Point Shirley by earthen barriers on
prison property.
6. It would permit the retention of at least a
portion of the island's shoreline for recreation,
7. It would remove prison-related anxieties from
Winthrop.
33
-------
8. It would make more land available to the
wastewater treatment facility, possibly making
construction and maintenance easier.
This variation does not reduce the need for any of
the mitigating actions proposed for the All
Secondary Deer Island alternative with the prison to
remain, except for those intended to reduce impacts
at the prison itself, e.g., a noise barrier.
However, the process required to release the Deer
Island prison site for treatment plant use may be so
lengthy as to delay or frustrate the construction of
this variation of the All Secondary Deer Island
alternative.
EPA has long advocated removal of the prison if Deer
Island is to be the treatment plant site, but EPA
will not require removal of the prison as a grant
condition because implementation of secondary
treatment as required by the Clean Water Act cannot
be made dependent upon removal of the prison if the
site is otherwise acceptable. This FEIS concludes
that in EPA's judgment the All Secondary Deer Island
alternative can be implemented without unacceptable
environmental impacts even if the prison remains.
34
-------
SDEIS SECONDARY TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
B. Split Secondary Deer Island and Nut Island
The SDEIS summary said of this alternative:
"This alternative would:
1. 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 seconda ry 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
115-140* acres while those on Nut Island, now
about 12 acres in extent, would be increased to
about 18 acres.
"COST: The overall construction cost of this
alternative would be about $1285* million and
its annual cost of operation, ma intenance and
replacement would be about 350* million.
"IMPACT: On 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.
Proposed gxtrje Pier
"On Nut Island, however, since the site is
closely limited by both adjoining houses and the
sea, th is 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. 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.'
'Updated, See Vol II,
35
-------
Comments on this alternative, made in response to
the SDEIS, were similar to those made on the All
Secondary Deer Island alternative, but with stronger
expressions of concern about the closer proximity of
the Nut Island facility to a residential area.
Subsequent reviews indicate that at Nut Island, the
impacts would be even more severe than those
described in the SDEIS. It is likely that L^Q
(10% peak) construction noise would be about 10
decibels worse than previously estimated, resulting
in 82 dBA in the adjoining residential neighborhood
for various lengthy periods during five years. This
severe noise level would be probably impossible to
mitigate because of the topography, the small size
of the site and the closely adjoining residences.
Some mitigation could occur by careful scheduling of
construction activities.
36
-------
SDHS SECONDARY TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
C, All Secondary Long Island
The SDEIS summary said of this alternative:
•This alternative would:
1. 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 headworks.
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 115-140* 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
alternative would be about $1180* million and
its annual cost of operation, maintenance and
replacement would be about $50* 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 recreational 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.
•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.
"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
archeological 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 Massachusetts Historical
Commission. These procedures could
significantly delay, or even impair, the
implementation 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."
'/fm.
•Updated. See Vol. II.
37
-------
Comments on the SDEIS raised questions about the
possibility that the SDEIS exaggerated:
1. The intrinsic value of Long Island as a park
resource, as compared with Deer Island.
2. The adverse impacts of a treatment plant on Long
Island on the appearance, recreational use
potential, and archaeological resources of the
island.
3. The legal difficulties of acquiring the site for
a treatment plant, including the difficulties of
removing the civil war cemetery.
4. The difficulties of over-the-road access to Long
Island.
Commenters also questioned the feasibility of
establishing a barge terminal on Long Island,
whether shifting the facility from Deer Island to
Long Island would not eliminate any adverse
environmental neighborhood impact but simply shift
it from one neighborhood to others, and whether the
higher costs of building on Long Island would fall
disproportionately on local taxpayers.
Review of these issues indicates:
a. Value of Long Island and Deer Island as a Park
Resource
Direct comparison of the on-site natural
resources of the two islands indicates that Long
Island does offer a greater variety of close-up
quality natural landscapes, including.a small
waterfowl pond, marshes, beaches, bluffs, etc.
Similar comparison of the seascapes that
surround the two islands indicates that Deer
Island offers a greater variety of broad views
of the sea, the rocky shoreline of Massachusetts
Bay, the harbor and the islands, and the Blue
Hills.
Systematic evaluation of Long Island and Deer
Island for the range of recreational activities
that appear appropriate (viewing the scenery,
walking, fishing, picnicking, etc.) indicates
that the two islands appear to be approximately
equal in potential long-term value as
recreational resources, as places around which
to walk in a variety of landscapes and from
which to view a variety of waterfront scenery.
38
-------
However a Deer Island park faces severe short
and intermediate term difficulties due to
problems of prison security access, delays
inherent in treatment plant demolition and the
necessity of extensive island rehabilitation.
Finally, evaluation of both islands as elements
of the harbor landscape, as viewed from off the
islands, indicates that the two islands are
quite similar, though Long Island occupies a
more central location. They are nearly equal in
area and in their range of topographic
variability; they both present large areas of
vegetation; and they both are the sites of large
and highly visible institutional building
complexes.
b. Impacts of Construction on the Appearance,
Recreational Use and Archaeological Resources of
the Islands
The amount of land required for this alternative
will be more than the 96 acres estimated in the
SDEIS. With secondary treatment and sludge
digestion all on Long Island, the plant would
39
-------
extend from the edge of the uplands just to the
south of the Nike missle base site to a line
just below the "Head" to the northeast, an area
of between 115-140 acres.
Though preliminary design studies for the siting
of treatment facilities on Long Island indicate
that a plant could be built on Long Island
somewhat following the terrain and keeping
somewhat back from the edges of the bluffs, it
is likely that a plant of this scale would cause
harm to the appearance of the island as seen
from the adjoining waters and shorelines.
However, the facility could be built with no
disturbance to the wetlands, barrier beaches and
documented archaeological resources on the
southwestern portion of the island, and with no
direct disturbance to Long Island Head and its
old fortifications. These undisturbed areas,
including most of the scenic and ecologically
valuable areas of the island, could be preserved.
Any similar plant built on Deer Island would
require levelling the drumlin and occupying all
of the island south of the prison, unless the
prison were to be removed. With removal of the
prison, however, an attractive, alternative
landscape having recreational potential could be
created in the land remaining around the
treatment facility. There are no wetlands,
barrier beaches or documented archaeological
resources on Deer Island.
c. Cost Estimates
Review of the cost estimates of the various
secondary treatment alternatives indicate:
1. That all the alternatives are likely to be
significantly more costly than previously
estimated.
2. That there are no significant differences in
the costs of the various alternatives, i.e.
the differences between alternatives are
less than the inherent errors of engineering
cost estimation.
With little or no difference in cost between
alternatives, there would be no disproportionate tax
impact if the Long Island site were to be chosen.
40
-------
TABLE III-2
COMPARATIVE CONSTRUCTION COSTS OF OPTIONS (1985)
(Millions)
All Deer All Long Split Deer-Nut Split Deer-Long
Primary 1,065 - 1,090 1,180 - 1,285 1,210 - 1,230 1,345 - 1,365
Secondary 1,11s1- 1,1352 1,1803- 1,2854 1,275 - 1,295 1,355 - 1,375
Estimated Annual Operation, Maintenance and Replacement Costs
Primary Facilities Only $16,500,000 - $33,500,000
Secondary Facilities Only $28,000,000 - $50,000,000
•'•Prison removed.
Prison to remain.
Hospital removed.
Hospital to remain.
Source: FEIS Vol. II, Section II-8.
FEIR on Siting of Wastewater Treatment Facilities for Boston Harbor,
Vol. I, C.D.M., Dec. 1985.
d. Legal and Institutional Analysis
Since preparation of the SDEIS, the Massachusetts
legislature created the MWRA to operate and improve
sewage collection, disposal and treatment systems
which were formerly under the control of the MDC.
The act creating the MWRA provides new powers to and
limitations on the MWRA which were not applicable to
the MDC, including new provisions exempting the MWRA
from certain state laws, and subjecting it to new
legislative controls. Accordingly EPA conducted a
legal analysis of the power of the MWRA to acquire
necessary land and construct wastewater treatment
facilities on both Long Island and Deer Island. Its
legal analysis is part of Volume II of this FEIS.
The legal analysis concluded that, for several
reasons, legislative and gubernatorial approval
would certainly be required to authorize
construction of a secondary treatment facility on
Long Island, but that the need for such an approval
is less clear in the case of Deer Island. The
recent discovery of graves on Deer Island increases
the likelihood of the need for legislative
approval. In any event, legal counsel for the MWRA
41
-------
has determined that the Authority should seek
legislative and gubernatorial approval of a Deer
Island site as a precautionary matter. Thus, it is
probable that whichever site were selected, the
approval of the legislature and governor would be
sought. Although the need for legislative approval
is not a site-distinguishing factor, the probability
of obtaining support for the selected site is
important. In the judgment of EPA, for reasons
explained below and in the Decision Process section,
the legislature is more likely to approve of Deer
Island than Long Island. This conclusion follows
from the policies regarding plant siting on the part
of the governmental entities which own or control
the use of property on both islands and the
implications of these policies for legislative and
gubernatorial approval.
Long Island, with the exception of the lighthouse,
is owned by the City of Boston under the care,
custody, and control of the Boston Department of
Public Health and Hospitals. It lies within the
corporate limits of the City of Boston, which has
expressed its desire to continue the hospital use
and supports use of Long Island for recreation.
Abandonment of hospital use could additionally
require the approval of the Massachusetts Department
of Public Health which must evaluate whether needed
facilities are available elsewhere. Furthermore,
the siting of the treatment plant on Long Island is
strongly opposed by the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Management (DEM). DEM has the
umbrella authority under the Harbor Islands Act to
veto public land transfers, construction and other
activities which it deems inconsistent with the
purposes of that act. The DEM Commissioner,
commenting on the SDEIS/EIR, cited the "great
significance and consequence to the Commonwealth" of
Long Island as a park and noted that in OEM's view
three million five hundred thousand people annually
would be deprived of what he describes as a sorely
needed recreational experience if Long Island were
to become a major treatment plant site. He
described that loss as "severe" and stated that no
other island offered equivalent opportunities. In
addition, the City of Quincy, through which the
major access route passes, is opposed to the use of
Long Island for siting of the treatment plant.
42
-------
By contrast, the MWRA already owns or controls most
of the Deer Island site which is its tentative
preferred alternative by its vote of July 10, 1985.
The City of Boston has expressed a willingness to
transfer to the MWRA the Deer Island land it owns
(including the land currently occupied by the House
of Correction as well as other lands which would be
needed even if the prison remains.) The General
Services Administration (GSA), in this document, has
tentatively identified the wastewater treatment
facilities as its preferred alternative use for the
federally owned parcels there, which are in the
process of disposal. The DEM did not include Deer
Island in its 1984 draft recreation plan for the
harbor islands.
The array of opposition from its owner and other
governmental authorities to Long Island as a
treatment plant site, contrasted with the support of
the entities which control Deer Island, suggests
that approval of the Deer Island site would be more
likely than approval of the Long Island site. For a
further legal analysis, the reader is referred to
the memorandum of law which is contained in Volume
II.
Over the Road Access to Long Island
Review of roadways to Long Island confirms that
they are inadequate for the unmitigated impact
of many hundreds of daily construction
vehicles. However, with barging and busing and
with the portion of Quincy Shore Drive between
Hancock and East Sguantum Street opened to
trucks and buses, they would be significantly
better for the greatly reduced traffic than
those to Deer Island. In general, access would
be possible entirely on main through roads that
are heavily traveled or that do not pass through
residential areas. However, if Quincy Shore
Drive cannot be opened to trucks and buses,
drivers would be required to use East Squantum
Street between the Shore Drive and Hancock
Street, a roadway as narrow and winding as any
on the route through Winthrop to Deer Island.
With mitigation, traffic to Long Island is
acceptable.
43
-------
f. Barge Terminal Feasibility
In response to comments, review of topographic
conditions both on shore and off shore at Long
Island show a pier is feasible. The pier
facilities would be more appropriate along the
northwestern shore of the Parade Ground rather
than further to the southwest as shown in the
SDEIS. A parade ground location, somewhere
between the two rotting, existing piers, would
avoid the bluffs that could be a problem with
the more southwestern location; it would offer
access to deeper water without dredging, and it
would facilitate the use of the parade ground as
a "laydown" area during construction.
44
-------
Relocation of Impacts
On the issue of whether "relocating" the
wastewater treatment facility from Deer Island
to Long Island would actually reduce human
exposure to adverse environmental effects or
simply relocate them from one neighborhood to
another:
1. From the limited perspective of traffic
congestion, if Quincy Shore Drive were
available to trucks and buses, Long Island
would be a better site. It would be
accessible over roads that are wider,
straighter, and more separated from
residential areas. If the Drive is not
opened, access is equal at both islands.
However, with barging and RO/RO and ferrying
and busing of construction workers, traffic
is expected to have an insignificant impact
at both sites.
2. From the limited perspective of construction
noise, Long Island would be a better site
since there would not be any nearby
residential receptors. Construction noise
levels at Deer Island prison are expected to
be loud but within standards. Construction
noise levels at Point Shirley are well under
Boston noise levels as the neighborhood is a
half mile away from construction activity.
3. From the perspective of odors, since EPA
will require that the wastewater treatment
facilities incorporate effective control
systems, the facility is normally expected
not to emit perceived odors and hence the
two sites are equal, except at the prison
where though the odor would occasionally be
perceived from a Deer Island plant the
impacts are expected to be acceptable.
To the extent that some level of perceived odors
do rarely occur even with mitigation as the
result of process upset, moving the plant to
Long Island does not significantly benefit
Winthrop overall and does increase impacts on
other harbor neighborhoods, such as Hull.
However, moving the plant to Long Island would
45
-------
reduce the close exposure of the prison workers
and inmates; Hull would be more frequently but
less intensely impacted than the prison, but in
either event, odor incidents are expected to be
very rare and at worst, temporarily moderate.
If the prison were to be removed, plants on
either island would result in approximately the
same overall neighborhood exposure to what very
infrequent slight odor events may occur.
As to other relevant impacts, it was concluded
that any variation in impact was insignificant.
46
-------
SDHS SECONDARY TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
D. Split Secondary Deer Island and Long Island
The SDEIS summary said of this alternative:
•This alternative would:
1. 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 facility would
require about 82-96 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
alternative would be about $1365* million and
its annual cost of operation, maintenance, and
replacement would be about $50* million.
•IMPACT: At Long Island, the effects of this
alternative 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
implementation.
Long bland Mead'
Proposed &arr]e fter
•Elsewhere, 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 construction, but that
the increase will have slight impacts.
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."
•Updated. See Volume II.
47
-------
Salient comments on this alternative were limited to
the question of why the adverse environmental
impacts of a sewage treatment plant, its odors,
emissions and changes in land use and appearance
should be spread to more than one site.
Specific impacts of the split option on each island
would be perceived to be very similar to building
the entire plant on that one island alone. For
impacts such as traffic, construction noise, and the
potential for odor, the effects on neighbors in
Winthrop and the prison would be about the same as
those of the All Secondary Deer Island alternative,
while the conflicts with the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, and the City of Boston's proposals
for hospital and recreational use of Long Island
would remain.
The sole benefit of splitting the treatment plant
between the two islands is the reduction of the size
of the plant on each island. The division of the
treatment plant to two sites, by reducing the land
area required on each site, would increase the
fraction of land available for other uses of both
islands, including recreation. This would make
smaller waterfront parks feasible on both islands
and preserve the Deer Island drumlin.
The division of the treatment plant, however, would
not obviate the need for the mitigating actions
described for the other single-island alternatives.
48
-------
IV. DECISION PROCESS
The SDEIS summary said of the process which EPA
proposed to use to select a site for secondary
facilities:
"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. ["Harbor Vision"]
2. can be implemented in a timely and
predictable manner. ["Implementability"]
3. minimizes the adverse impacts of the
facility on neighbors, taking into
consideration existing conditions, facility
siting impacts and mitigation measures.
["Effects on Neighbors']
4. minimizes the impacts of the facilities on
natural and cultural resources. ["Impact on
Cultural and Natural Resources"]
5. can be built and operated at a reasonable
cost. ["Cost"]
6. maximizes the reliability of the entire
treatment system. ["Reliability"]
Public comment is sought on the adequacy and
accuracy of all the material contained in this
SDEIS including the decision making process.
Are the decision criteria adequate? How should
the alternatives be rated against the decision
criteria? Which decision criteria are the most
important?
In addition, it should be noted that any of the
seven options will have some impacts on some
neighbors. Some options locate most impacts on
one site to the benefit of other sites. Other
options spread impacts among various sites. We
seek public comment on how the EPA and the
Commonwealth should judge the combined
consequences of each option."
49
-------
A. Decision Criteria
EPA had made explicit the decision criteria as a way
to impose order on a mass of detail, and to focus on
those impacts which are relevant to the choice of a
site. Public comment generally agreed that these
six criteria captured the premier issues that should
drive a siting decision, though there was strong
disagreement on the relative importance to be
accorded to each decision criterion.
B. After the Close of the Public Comment Period
In light of the high degree of public acceptance,
EPA decided to retain its original six decision
criteria. EPA also reviewed all the public comments
submitted to identify both those criteria-relevant
issues which needed further analysis prior to a
selection of a preferred alternative and those other
issues which related to the overall project, or were
otherwise not criteria-relevant, but which were
appropriate for inclusion in the FEIS or the MWRA's
FEIR. EPA performed additional analyses on all
potentially site-relevant topics, such as noise,
odor, volatile organic compounds, feasibility of
barging and busing, feasibility of ferrying workers,
comparative recreation potential, preliminary site
layout, etc.
EPA and the MWRA agreed that it was appropriate for
each to pursue an independent decision making
process under their respective statutory mandates
but to do so in parallel and with a high degree of
coordination. Accordingly, to ensure that both
agencies shared a common data base, as either agency
identified data needs or developed information, it
was shared with the other by exchange of technical
memoranda and through technical presentations at
meetings with EPA's Technical Advisory Group or with
the MWRA's Board of Directors or staff.
As additional data were received, EPA systematically
reviewed its entire data base using the decision
criteria suggested in the SDEIS and an evaluation
process described below. This process evaluated
each piece of the mass of data in terms of one or
more of the appropriate decision criteria (was the
information relevant to the criterion and, if so,
how important?) ensuring that the decision would be
based on current information and would be
objective. EPA felt that each decision criterion
50
-------
was legitimate and was confident that sufficient
objective data existed to permit a reasoned judgment
as to the acceptability of the alternative sites.
To start this process, EPA scrutinized each decision
criterion carefully, in light of the technical
information then available, and identified the
specific impacts which were relevant to that
criterion. For example, for the "Effect on
Neighbors* decision criterion, the principal
relevant impacts became the following:
a. Years of Construction g. Pathogenic
b. Daily Construction Traffic Aerosols
c. Operations Traffic h. Chlorine
d. Construction Noise Transportation
e. Odor and Use
f. Visual i. Volatile Organic
Compounds
(For a list of the principal impacts relevant to the
other decision criteria, which EPA considered see
Appendix C.)
Then mandatory mitigation assumptions relevant to
that decision criterion were made an explicit part
of the impact analysis. For example, EPA considered
to what extent barging and busing would reduce the
impact of construction traffic on "Effects on
Neighbors."
For each decision criterion, EPA performed the
following analysis:
1. EPA evaluated how severe each relevant
impact would be if a particular site were
chosen, e.g. how severe would construction
traffic be in Winthrop if Deer Island were
chosen?
2. EPA then evaluated the relative importance
of each of the relevant impacts to the
appropriate decision criterion. For
example, in a particular fact situation,
what is the relative importance to "Effects
on Neighbors" of construction noise impacts
in Winthrop of a Deer Island plant, as
compared with construction traffic impacts
on Quincy of a Long Island plant.
51
-------
EPA reviewed its evaluations to identify areas of
possible technical misunderstanding or
miscommunication. An effort was made to give
prominence to severe site-distinguishing impacts of
importance to a decision criterion, in order to call
attention to critical issues. During this time,
additional pieces of technical information were
being received; these were continuously made part of
the evaluation and none caused a change in the
results of the evaluations already accomplished.
C. Mandatory Mitigation Measures
Upon the completion of the review of each decision
criterion, the assumed level of mandatory mitigation
as set forth in the SDEIS/EIR was either confirmed
or, if appropriate, modified as the result of
further technical information. EPA found that the
most critical need for mitigation was to reduce
impact on neighbors.
EPA adopted the following specific mitigating
actions to be required of the applicant. These will
be required whichever site is selected (except as
noted below):
1. Transportation of all bulk materials by
barge. Bulk materials, including earth,
gravel, and reinforcing steel, shall be
transported to and from the site by barge.
This action will require construction of a
bulk materials loading pier at the site, and
associated terminal on-shore.
2. Use of roll-on/roll-off transport for heavy
trucking. In order to accommodate heavy
trucking, a roll-on/roll-off barge loading
facility shall be constructed at the site
and at an onshore transfer station.
3. Busing and ferrying of workers to the
construction site. Prior to the
commencement of construction, the MWRA shall
establish or cause to be established a bus
and ferry service to provide transportation
to and from the construction site. The
applicant shall ensure that all construction
workers travel to and from the construction
site only on said buses or ferries, except
in cases of medical or other emergency.
52
-------
4. Control of odors. To ensure adequate odor
control, the applicant shall:
a. Conduct a baseline survey of the
synchronous concentrations of malodorous
compounds into the influent at Deer and
Nut Islands, and in the air downwind of
the existing wastewater treatment
facilities.
b. Rigorously explore the technologies
necessary to maintain concentrations of
malodorous compounds in the air below
the threshold of perception for the
various compounds.
c. Design and construct appropriate
facilities and/or equipment to control
odor.
5. Control of volatile organic compound
emissions. To ensure control of volatile
organic compound emissions, the applicant
shall:
a. Conduct a baseline survey of the
synchronous concentrations of volatile
organic compounds in the influent at
Deer and Nut Islands, and in the air
downwind of the existing wastewater
treatment facilities.
b. Rigorously explore the technologies
necessary to control the emission of
volatile organic compounds.
c. Should the sampling program indicate, or
if required by Clean Air Act, design and
construct appropriate facilities and/or
equipment to control volatile organic
compound emissions.
6. Liquid Chlorine.
Liquid chlorine (i.e., liquified gaseous
chlorine) shall not be used at Deer Island
unless the MWRA can demonstrate to EPA that
there is clear and convincing need for the
use of liquid chlorine and that this
substance can be transported, handled,
stored, and used in a manner which will not
53
-------
cause unacceptable risk to the environment
or to public health. The MWRA shall provide
EPA, during further facilities planning,
with information on alternatives, risk
assessments, and methods of control
sufficient for EPA to complete its
environmental review of this issue of
chlorine use.
7. Prohibition of the trucking of liquid
chlorine through Winthrop.
Through-neighborhood trucking of liquid
chlorine to Deer Island is prohibited upon
completion of the pier and associated
staging called for in this FEIS.
8. Exploration of alternative techniques for
liquid chlorine use. Giving due regard to
the hazards of liquid chlorine, the
applicant shall explore alternatives to its
use at the treatment plant as a headworks.
9. Exploration of alternative treatment
processes. The applicant shall identify any
alternative treatment processes that might
be less space demanding, less costly, or
more reliable under varying influent
characteristics. Such exploration is
required under EPA's regulations for
facilities planning.
10. Exploration of recreational joint use
development of the wastewater treatment
facility site. The applicant shall examine
the feasibility of recreational development
in conjunction with the development of the
new wastewater treatment facility site.
This exploration is required under EPA's
regulations for facilities planning.
11. Control of dust, erosion, and
sedimentation. The applicant shall
implement the provisions ordinarily required
by the City of Boston and the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts for the control of dust,
erosion, and sedimentation.
12. Implementation of noise control measures.
While noise levels during construction are
expected to be within acceptable limits, due
to the long duration of this project, all
54
-------
practical noise reduction practices should
be used. These must include the excavation
of the drumlin from the south. These must
also include the construction of a sound
barrier to ensure compliance with noise
standards at ground level outside the
prison. Because under the Nut Island
headworks options, short-term noise levels
could be high at Nut Island during the
relatively brief period of demolition of
existing facilities nearest homes, MWRA must
develop a noise mitigation plan including a
scheduling of noise emitting equipment to
reduce simultaneous impact on nearby homes.
Each of these mitigating efforts will be the subject
of detailed study by the MWRA as further facilities
planning explores these ways of achieving acceptable
levels of impact. EPA welcomes this investigation
and the development of alternative, more innovative
and effective approaches which would achieve
equivalent impact reduction; EPA after appropriate
environmental review is prepared to modify these
mitigation measures so that equal protection can be
achieved by better methods.
D. Final Analysis
During the final analysis, it became clear that
three of the decision criteria, though theoretically
important, no longer played site-distinguishing
roles.
1) On "Cost," a more detailed analysis revealed
that the costs of the four alternatives were
essentially equal. The spread of estimated
costs among them was less than had been
realized and was less than the inherent
error factor of cost-estimating techniques
of this nature. Because of this, though the
rank order remained the same and All
Secondary Deer Island remained the least
expensive, EPA decided to regard this
decision criterion as having neutral effect.
2) On "Reliability," though the reliability of
the new plant or plants was of great
importance, further review could not
identify any differences among the sites
that could not be readily overcome by
thoughtful design, segregation of system
flows, etc. Each of the sites permitted
treatment plants of equal reliability.
55
-------
3) On "Impact on Cultural and Natural
Resources," though this decision criterion
included federally protected resources
(wetlands, barrier beaches, recognized
historical and archeological sites, etc.),
the impact of plants on either Deer or Long
Islands would be essentially equal.
Preliminary site designs by both EPAs and
the MWRA's consultants demonstrated that a
treatment plant could be sited on either
Deer Island or Long Island in such a way
that either island's recognized or
documented natural or archeological
resources would be adequately protected
though graves and possible historic
structures on either island would be
adversely affected in similar ways. Thus
the site-distinguishing significance of this
decision criterion on the Deer-Long choice
is eliminated. On Nut Island, however, the
Split Secondary Deer-Nut Alternative would
involve the serious impacts of filling of
tidal areas (unless homes were taken) and
this was taken into account in the final
decision.
"Effects on Neighbors," "Harbor Vision," and
"Implementability" remained as the principal
decision criteria for EPA. EPA felt each of these
three criteria represented protection of important
public values of substantial weight.
56
-------
V. Major Site-Relevant Criteria
A. With respect to the 'Effects on Neighbors'
decision criterion, the populations of principal
concern are residential populations in proximity to
the three islands and their access routes.
Potential impacts on persons using the harbor for
recreation are principally evaluated under the
•Harbor Vision" Decision Criterion. In the case of
Deer Island, potentially impacted residential
populations include, in particular, the staff and
inmates of the House of Correction, and the
residents of Point Shirley, Cottage Hill, and more
generally, the wider communities of Winthrop,
Revere, and East Boston. Long Island, with its
central harbor location, has as its closest
"neighbors" many widely scattered but approximately
equidistant receptors including Hull, Hough's Neck,
Squantum, Thompson Island Education Center, South
Boston, the Deer Island House of Correction, and
Point Shirley in Winthrop. (The Long Island
Hospital is not included in this analysis for, as
stated in the SDEIS/EIR, both Long Island secondary
alternatives assume that the hospital must be
relocated off-island.) In the case of Nut Island,
principal attention is focused on Hough's Neck in
Quincy.
Should the "no prison" variation of the All
Secondary Deer Island alternative be implemented,
EPA concludes that a treatment plant at either Deer
Island or Long Island would have acceptable and
essentially equal impacts on its neighbors, with the
mandatory mitigation measures in place.
a. As noted earlier, removing the prison not only
eliminates a current source of adverse impact,
but also permits the MWRA to implement the
further mitigation it has proposed: to contour
the Island reducing even further construction
noise levels and screening the facility from
Winthrop's view.
b. As to traffic, if Quincy Shore Drive were to be
closed to construction-related traffic, access
was judged to be equal in difficulty; if the
Drive were to be opened, access to Long Island
would be better though this is somewhat balanced
by Long Island's longer construction period. In
either event, EPA concluded that the highly
protective mandatory mitigation measures of
57
-------
barging/busing/ferrying reduced traffic impacts
so that they were acceptable and essentially
equal.
c. For such rare odors as might occur, though Long
Island is slightly more distant from its
receptors than the Deer Island site is from
Point Shirley, Long Island is ringed by many
equidistant potential receptors. Odor impacts
are-roughly equal, but Hull is the most
frequently impacted community (from a Long
Island plant) and Winthrop is impacted nearly as
much from a Long Island plant as from a Deer
Island plant.
d. All other neighborhood impacts were, as
discussed, found not to be significant or site
relevant.
However, if the prison were to remain on Deer
Island, EPA concludes that a plant site on Deer
Island would have a greater effect on its neighbors
than a site on Long Island. The prison adjoins the
Deer Island treatment plant site and, even with
mitigation, would be subjected to greater noise and
odors than would Long Island's more distant closest
neighbors but these impacts were found to be
moderate and acceptable. The Point Shirley area
would also be subject to somewhat greater traffic
and noise than Long Island's neighbors; Winthrop as
a whole would be subjected to slightly greater
traffic impacts than those in Quincy, but as
discussed above, these and other neighborhood
related impacts were found not to be significant.
EPA did consider the issue of "fairness" earnestly
advocated by the people of Winthrop. Enough is
enough, they said, having experienced the
uncertainty of the prison; the noise and risk of
Logan's aircraft; the objectionable nature of the
current wastewater plant which causes water
pollution, odors, diesel exhaust fumes, and stack
fires, and which has experienced at least one
potentially serious chlorine leak.
In addressing the issue EPA placed its principal
emphasis on an objective analysis of "Effect on
Neighbors" and considered issues of "fairness" in
that context, including the mitigating effect of
moving the prison. EPA believes that an upgraded
treatment plant with EPA's mandatory mitigation will
58
-------
remove the adverse impacts associated with the
current facility and will improve water quality in
the Winthrop area.
EPA also considered the argument that the decision
maker must allocate within a metropolitan area the
inevitable burdens of regional responsibility
perhaps somehow offsetting them against the benefits
given a community by its location or by human design
so that the "pluses" and the "minuses" even out over
the entire area. EPA concluded that in this case
the application of extraordinary mitigation that it
was requiring reduced the impact of the upgraded
facility so substantially that it could be
constructed despite the presence of the airport and
the prison. EPA felt that removal of the prison was
desirable but not mandatory.
To summarize the issue of "fairness": EPA has
engaged in a decision process which gathered
technical information, exposed it to extensive
public scrutiny, developed very stringent mitigation
measures, and evaluated the alternatives in terms of
disclosed decision criteria. EPA believes this open
process has arrived at a fair and reasonable
conclusion that the upgraded treatment plant,
considered singly or in combination with other
conditions, will be constructed and operated with
acceptable environmental results.
The Split Secondary Deer-Long alternative would
involve major construction activity of approximately
the same perceived effect on the neighbors of each
Island as if the entire plant were being constructed
there. Though those effects were found to be
acceptable, it was felt to be unwise to impact two
sets of neighbors unless there would be some benefit
to another decision criterion.
Split Secondary Deer-Nut imposed severe burdens on
its immediate neighbors on Hough's Neck without any
corresponding benefit to Deer Island and Point
Shirley. It was found to be environmentally
unacceptable.
B. Considering only the "Harbor Vision" decision
criterion, EPA concludes that though all four
alternatives were acceptable, the All Secondary
Deer alternative was preferred under "Harbor
Vision."
59
-------
EPA's principal conclusion as the result of site
investigations, reports and alternative site
layouts is that the treatment plant could be
built on Long Island without seriously damaging
the long-term prospects for public use of the
Harbor because Deer Island could serve as a
substitute for Long Island as the Harbor's major
island park resource. However, EPA participants
did conclude that Long Island did have greater
current potential as a major island park. It is
currently in much better shape, has more diverse
cultural features and natural habitats, has
better access for visitors and a central harbor
location. It also has city and state support.
A treatment plant at either island risks causing
severe visual damage from off-island
viewpoints. Though this damage could be
partially mitigated by contouring and screening
in the case of a Long Island site and a
"no-prison" Deer Island site, any visual damage
that did occur at Long Island would be more
visible due to Long Island's central harbor
location.
Though EPA believes that Deer Island's size,
topography, and setting give it acceptable
long-term potential for rehabilitation as a park
resource, EPA does conclude that while both All
Secondary Deer and All Secondary Long satisfied
the Harbor Vision decision criteria, All
Secondary Deer satisfied it better.
Less acceptable were the other two
alternatives. Though Split Secondary Deer-Long
preserved significant potential recreation space
at each island, EPA agreed with the Commonwealth
that an entire island as park was preferable.
Split Secondary Deer-Nut committed Nut Island to
wastewater treatment without any corresponding
benefit at Deer Island; though Nut Island has
not been a major part of a harbor park plan, it
could provide locally important open space.
C. Considering only the "Implementability" decision
criterion, the following issues were of
principal importance to EPA:
a. Permits and Licenses. EPA considers the
difficulties of obtaining the required
permits and licenses to use either Deer or
60
-------
Long Island to be approximately equal. In
both cases it will be complex but can be
done. In the case of Nut Island, severe
problems are anticipated in either the
taking of homes or obtaining permits to fill
since any of the other three alternatives
avoids these impacts at Nut Island without
increasing the impacts at either of the
other islands.
b. Boston. The opposition of the City of
Boston to the All Secondary Long Island and
Split Deer/Long options and its lack of
opposition to All Secondary Deer seriously
affects "Implementability" of any Long
Island plant site. Both Deer Island and
Long Island are within the corporate limits
of the City and the City owns all of the
Long Island site and necessary parcels on
Deer Island, independent of whether the
prison remains. Boston states that it wants
the Long Island Hospital to continue as its
home for the chronically ill and as a refuge
for the homeless. EPA continues to believe,
as expressed in the SDEIS that the hospital
site must be used as part of the All
Secondary Long Island and Split Deer/Long
sites, if either is to be the choice, in
order to avoid serious impacts to
"Neighbors," "Harbor Vision" and "Cultural
and Natural Resources." Furthermore, Boston
has declared its strong support that the
remainder of Long Island should be an active
part of the Boston Harbor Islands State
Park. Boston is opposed to Long Island's
use as a treatment plant site. Moreover,
Boston has indicated to EPA its lack of
opposition in principle to the transfer of
lands needed for All Secondary Deer with or
without the prison.
c. Attitude of Agencies of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
No agency of the Commonwealth supports a
treatment plant on Long Island and some
oppose it. The MDC, in its Nut Island Site
Options Study, the first phase facilities
plan on which this FEIS based, proposes a
large plant on Deer, and a small plant on
Nut. The Department of Environmental
61
-------
Quality Engineering expresses no
preference. The Massachusetts Historical
Commission is concerned about potential
historic resources at both islands and
archaeological resources on Long Island.
The Department of Environmental Management,
which has authority to veto land transfers
and construction of structures at either
island, strongly favors Long Island's use as
a major park. The Governor, in a letter to
the MWRA, does not express a preference but
pledges his support to efforts to relocate
either the county prison or the city
hospital, depending on which alternative the
MWRA chooses.
Legislative Approval. The SDEIS/EIR
concluded that legislative approval would be
needed for All Secondary Long, but might not
be required for All Secondary Deer. Counsel
for the MWRA has determined that it would be
prudent to seek legislative approval
whichever site is selected. EPA
acknowledges that the adamant opposition of
Boston and Quincy to All Secondary Long and
the absence of any governmental support
whatsoever for Split Secondary Deer-Nut or
Split Secondary Deer-Long casts doubt on the
implementability of these alternatives.
Although it is impossible at this time to
predict the result of independent
legislative consideration of. the merits of
the sites, it is the best judgment of EPA
that the remaining alternative, All
Secondary Deer Island, is most likely to win
legislative approval. Though EPA believes
federal law must be complied with despite
siting disputes, it also believes the
current violations of federal law would be
corrected more quickly if a site were chosen
which would be supported by legislative
approval.
Summary of Implementability. Thus even
prior to the July 10, 1985, vote of the MWRA
selecting All Secondary Deer Island as its
tentative preferred alternative, EPA had
concluded that under the "Implementability"
decision criterion the result clearly
pointed to All Secondary Deer with or
without the prison. The July 10, 1985, vote
62
-------
of the MWRA, the proposing agency, which has
the statutory authority to build the
treatment plant and which controls almost
all of the land needed at Deer Island for
All Secondary Deer, confirmed EPA's already
firm conclusion that the All Secondary Deer
alternative was clearly more implementable
with or without the prison.
In summary, with mandatory mitigation,
1. EPA found Split Deer-Nut to be
environmentally _unacceptable because of its
severe impact on its "Neighbors" at Nut
Island and on 'natural resources," and
strong barriers to "Implementation."
2. EPA found Split Deer-Long to be
environmentally acceptable; but EPA also
found it to be undesirable because it
spreads impacts on "Neighbors" and "Harbor
Vision" to two islands without any benefit
deemed valuable to a decision criterion. It
also was unlikely to be "Implemented."
3. EPA found both All Secondary Long and All
Secondary Deer to have an acceptable impact
on "Neighbors" and "Harbor Vision."
a. "Neighbors.' With mitigation, the
impact of a Deer Island plant on its
"Neighbors" is either equal to (without
the prison) or slightly worse than (with
the prison) a Long Island plant.
b. Harbor Vision. The impact of a Deer
Island plant on the public benefits from
and uses of Boston Harbor causes less
harm than a Long Island plant.
Between these two acceptable and closely balanced
alternatives, EPA acknowledges that building a
treatment plant on Deer Island (with or without the
prison) was clearly more implementable than building
a Long Island plant.
63
-------
VI. DECISION
With required mitigation as a condition of federal
funding, EPA's recommended FEIS decision based on
the foregoing analysis is that its preferred
alternative is All Secondary Deer. All Secondary
Long is also environmentally acceptable and is
preferred over the two other alternatives, Split
Secondary Deer-Long and Split Secondary Deer-Nut.
The only alternative which EPA finds is unacceptable
is Split Secondary Deer-Nut.
VII. COMPLETION OF BIS PROCESS
The issuance of this FEIS starts another phase of
environmental review.
After a public hearing process and public comment
period, EPA will issue its final record of decision
on the siting of wastewater treatment works for
Boston Harbor.
64
-------
appendices
-------
APPENDIX A
HEADWORKS
Several of the alternatives described in this EIS
call for the reconstruction of an existing primary
treatment facility to a "headworks." At Nut Island,
this change would include demolition of most of the
existing plant except for the chlorination facility
now under construction and connection of the site to
the new wastewater treatment plant, probably by
tunnel.
At Deer Island, this change would be similar but it
would include retention of the existing pumping
station and, probably, a new disinfection facility
at the influent end of the tunnel to Long Island.
Neither of these prospective changes has raised, nor
is expected to raise, any significant controversy,
in large part because they represent reductions in
the overall size of wastewater treatment facilities
at their respective locations.
It should be noted, however, that neither is without
adverse effect during construction or without the
potential for adverse effect afterward.
During construction, demolition of existing
facilities would generate significant levels of
noise, generally, about 10 decibels higher than
those estimated in the SDEIS, while the demolition
and the digging of the tunnels would generate spoils
that may require disposal off-site.
The high noise levels of demolition are likely to be
of fairly short duration and hence are not
unacceptable. However, because they are expected to
be briefly high, a mandatory mitigation measure
requires the scheduling of construction activities
to reduce the number of high intensity activities
operating simultaneously near the affected homes.
The construction and tunnel wastes, if removed over
the road, over a 4-year period would generate an
average of 10 truckloads per day, a slight to
moderate impact.
Following construction, the only significant effects
of this much smaller facility are possible odor and
the possible hazard of liquid chlorine. These
issues, as they affect the relatively smaller
headworks are not site-relevant to the siting of the
major treatment works, and will be the subject of
further studies by the MWRA.
65
-------
APPENDIX B
PRIMARY TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
The Clean Water Act requires that wastewater
treatment plants be constructed which will provide
"secondary" treatment unless EPA, under strict
statutory guidance, grants a 301(h) waiver
permitting a lesser "primary" degree of treatment
with a deep ocean discharge. EPA has twice denied
the MCD's request for such a waiver but because
final rights of appeal have not expired EPA has
decided in this FEIS to resolve, under NEPA the
siting of a primary treatment plant as well as the
siting of a secondary treatment plant. The
following discussion will examine the impacts of a
primary treatment facility.
The treatment facilities in all primary alternatives
would be limited to simple sedimentation, the
process now in use at Deer and Nut Islands, but
would differ from the existing facilities in two
important characteristics, i.e., the sedimentation
tanks would be enlarged, increasing the settling
time and, as a result, the percentage of solids
removal, and the settled sludge would not be
discharged to the harbor, or to any other nearby
waterbody under any circumstances.
Though a modern primary treatment plant for Boston
Harbor would be half the size of a new secondary
plant, it would still be twice the size of the
existing Deer and Nut Island facilities, and would
total approximately sixty acres of treatment works.
This would be a major public works project requiring
the same scale of mandatory mitigating measures as
have been adopted for a secondary plant. It would,
as a result, not substantially differ in impact from
a secondary plant. Principal differences would
occur in a somewhat shorter construction period,
somewhat fewer construction worker buses, reduced
air emissions of volatile organic compounds, and
less land used, potentially reducing conflict with
other plans such as recreation. Other impacts such
as construction noise and odor are essentially
equivalent to a secondary plant. The matrix
attached displays the details of the impacts.
Though the reduced acreage may appear to give some
opportunities for mitigation by permitting location
of the smaller plant away from its neighbors, it
must be remembered that any 301(h) waiver under the
66
-------
Clean Water Act permitting primary treatment is
temporary and conditional; therefore a primary plant
must be conceptually considered as the -first phase
of an eventual secondary plant. Thus, the impact
conclusions used in analyzing a secondary plant
remain relevant here.
EPA did evaluate, following its secondary treatment
analysis, and using a similar process, four primary
treatment options:
All Primary Deer
All Primary Long
Split Primary Deer-Nut
Split Primary Deer-Long
1. EPA concluded that Split Primary Deer-Nut
was environmentally unacceptable for the
same reason Split Secondary Deer-Nut was
unacceptable — it caused severe impact to
"Neighbors," "Harbor Vision," and
"Implementability" at Nut Island without
reducing impact elsewhere or benefiting
another decision criterion.
2. EPA concluded that Split Primary Deer-Long
(with the hospital remaining) was
environmentally acceptable under "Neighbors"
and "Harbor Vision" but unlikely to be
implemented. Again, impacts were spread to
a second island without any appreciable
reduction of impact at Deer Island or
benefit to another decision criterion. This
option also had no support.
3. EPA concluded that All Primary Long (with
the hospital remaining) was environmentally
unacceptable and unlikely to occur. A sixty
acre treatment works immediately bordering a
chronic disease hospital and in direct
conflict with plans of all governments was
in severe conflict with the "Neighbors,"
"Harbor Vision," and "Implementability"
decision criteria. Any site analysis which
assumes the hospital would be removed faces
essentially the same severe difficulties of
implementability as the All Secondary Long
alternative, though it is environmentally
acceptable under the "Neighbors" and "Harbor
Vision" and other decision criteria.
67
-------
4. For reasons of "Implementability," EPA
concluded that, unless there were some
compelling other reason, its approval of a
primary treatment plant site should be
consistent with its approval of a secondary
treatment plant site at Deer Island.
Because a 301(h) waiver grants only
temporary relief from the Clear Water Act's
requirement of secondary treatment, it is
prudent to site a 301(h) primary plant at a
location which will permit eventual
expansion to secondary treatment, if
required, without causing unconsidered harm
to decision criteria. Furthermore, EPA felt
there was a short-range "Implementability"
advantage to having a common island site
selected for primary and secondary treatment
plants, for it permitted facilities planning
and design to proceed without distraction.
For reasons similar to its decision for All
Secondary Deer, EPA found All Primary Deer
to be acceptable under "Harbor Vision,"
"Neighbors" and "Implementability."
5. Thus, EPA concluded that All Primary Deer
Island was its preferred primary treatment
alternative. All Primary Long (without
hospital) and Split Primary Deer-Long are
environmentally acceptable. Split Primary
Deer-Nut is environmentally unacceptable.
68
-------
APPENDIX C
PRINCIPAL RELEVANT IMPACTS FOR EACH DECISION
CRITERION
1. Implementability
a. Attitude of public owner(s) of needed
property.
b. Liklihood of legislative approval.
c. CZM/DEM consistency.
d. Corps/DEQE wetlands permits
e. Mass Historic Commission et. al. re:
archaeology/cultural/graves
f. Conflict with or need to relocate hospital
and/or prison.
g. (In case of primary plant) compatibility of
site with site chosen for secondary
treatment.
2. Effects on Neighbors
a. Years of construction
b. Daily construction traffic
c. Operations traffic
d. Construction noise
e. Odo r
f. Visual
g. Pathogenic aerosols
h. Chlorine transportation and use
i. Volatile organic compounds
3. Harbor Vision
a. Preserves a significant opportunity on an
island NOT the site of a treatment plant.
b. Permits significant opportunities for
multiple use on the treatment plant
is land(s).
c. Harbor-wide visual impacts.
4. Cost
a. Capital
b. Operation, maintenance, and replacement.
5. Reliability — no difference in impact.
69
-------
6. Effect on Natural and Cultural Resources
a. Wetlands
b. Barrier beaches
c. Historic sites
d. Archaeological sites
e. Graves
70
-------
APPENDIX D
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RELATING TO BOSTON
HARBOR CLEANUP
EPA'anticipates that further environmental review
relating to the cleanup of Boston Harbor will
consist of study of the following items:
1. Sludge disposal
2. The construction of piers and staging areas at
the treatment plant site to allow for barging of
bulk construction materials, equipment, and work
crews during construction. In the event that an
existing pier cannot be located on the mainland,
an additional pier or piers and staging area or
areas would need to be constructed there.
3. The construction of an under-harbor tunnel or
pipeline to transport wastewater, sludge or
effluent from one island to another, depending
upon the location of the secondary treatment
plant site and associated headworks.
4. The construction of an outfall pipe or pipes
through which effluent will be discharged.
5. The possible disposal of earthen or dredge
materials which might need to be removed from
the site of the secondary treatment plant prior
to construction.
6. The possible transport, handling, storage, and
use of chlorine at the secondary treatment
plant, depending upon the outcome of studies by
MWRA regarding the environmental acceptability
of its transport, handling, storage and use.
7- Combined sewer overflow projects.
71
-------
SUMMARY OP MITIGATED IMPACTS OF SECONDARY TREATMENT
UASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT ACREAGE
YEARS OP CONSTRUCTION
WORK FORCE
1. Construction (avg/peak)
2. Operations (total/peak shift)
TRAFFIC, Construction
1. Trucks (avg/day) with barging
2. Buses (avg/peak day)
3. Impact Assessment (avg/peak)
NOISE, Construction (long term)
1. Nearest Residence dBa (LlO)
Impact Assessment
2. Prison
Impact Assessment
ODOR (with mitigation)
1. Nearest Residence
2. Prison
VISUAL IMPACTS
RECREATION
1. Existing Facilities
2. Planned Facilities
3. Open Space/Recreational
Potential
CULTURAL
1. Historical Resources
Impact Assessment
2. Documented Archaeological
Resources Affected
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
COSTS
1. Construction (million dollars)
2. Operation, Maintenance and
Replacement (million dollars)
All Deer Island Split
Deer Nut
115-140 2
7 3-4
650/1300 50/75
200/100 20/10
8 8
13/26 1/2
Slight/ Slight
moderate
59-63
Slight •
69-75
Moderate
Slight Slight
Moderate
Severe Slight
None None
No active No plans
plans
Loss of Potential
long-term local open
park space
potential benefit
Pump None
house;
poten-
tially
prison
Possible
adverse
impact
None None
No effect No effect
1135
50
Deer Island/Nut Island
Deer Nut
115-140 18
7 5
650/1300 100/125
200/100 100/50
8 4
13/26 2/3
Slight/ Slight
moderate
59-63
Slight •
69-75
Moderate
Slight Moderate
Moderate
Severe Severe
None None
No active No plans
plans
Loss of Loss of
long-term local open
park space
potential potential
Pump None
house;
poten-
tially
pr ison
Possible
adverse
Impact
None None
No effect Requires
filling bay
1285
50
All Long Island
Deer
5
5
Nut
2
3-4
Long
115-140
8-9
Split Deer Island/Long Island
75/100
40/20
8
2/2
Slight
50/75
20/10
8
1/2
Slight
59-63
Slight *
69-75
Moderate
No effect Slight
Slight
650/1300
200/100
8
13/26
Slight/
moderate
No effect
No effect
Slight
Slight
Slight
None
Severe
conf1ict
w/draft
plans
Potential Potential Total loss of
None None
No active No plans
plans
recrea-
tion
benefit
local
open
space
benefit
None
None
immediate
park
potential
Grave sites
It Civil War
cemetery;
potentially
hospi ta 1
Possible
adverse
impact
None
No effect No effect No effect
1180
50
Deer
52
5-6
300/400
100/50
6
6/9
Slight
59-63
Slight
69-75
Moderate
Hut
2
3-4
50/75
20/10
a
1/2
Slight
650/1300
200/100
8
13/26
Slight/
moderate
No effect
No effect
Slight Slight
Moderate Slight Severe
Slight
Moderate
None
No active
plans
Partial
loss of
park
potential
Poten-
tially
pr ison
Possible
adverse
impact
None
No effect
•Unmitigated noise during the brief period of demolition during construction of the Nut Island headworks could approach 82 dba
homes. MWRA is required to develop a mitigation plan which will include the scheduling of noisy activities to reduce impact.
None None
No plans Severe
conf1ict
w/draft
plans
Potential Total loss
open of immedi-
space ate park
benefit potential
None Grave sites
t Civil War
cemetery;
potentially
hospital
Possible
adverse
impact
None None
No effect No effect
1365
50
at the nearest
-------
SUMMARY OF MITIGATED IMPACTS OP PRIMARY TREATMENT
HASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT ACREAGE 62
YEARS OP CONSTRUCTION
WORK FORCE
1. Construction (avg/peak)
2. Operations (total/peak shift)
TRAFFIC, Construction
1. Trucks (avg/day) with barging
2. Buses (avg/peak day)
3. Impact Assessment (avg/peak)
NOISE, Construction (long term)
1. Nearest Residence dBa (L10)
Impact Assessment
2. Prison
Impact Assessment
ODOR (with mitigation)
1. Nearest Residence
2. Prison
VISUAL IMPACTS
RECREATION
1. Existing Facilities
2. Planned Facilities
3. Open Space/Recreational
Potential
CULTURAL
1. Historical Resources
Impact Assessment
2. Documented Archaeological
Resources Affected
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
COSTS
1. Construction (million dollars)
2. Operation, Maintenance and
Replacement (million dollars)
All Deer Island Split Deer Island/Nut Island
Deer
62
5-6
590/655
136/66
7
12/13
Slight/
slight
59-63
Slight
69-75
Moderate
Slight
Moderate
Nut
2
3-4
55/70
20/8
8
2/2
Slight/
slight
*
Slight
Deer
52
5-6
305/465
118/53
6
6/10
Slight/
slight
59-63
Slight
69-75
Moderate
Slight
Moderate
Nut
18
5
95/125
83/37
4
2/3
Slight/
slight
•
Moderate
All
Deer
52
6
305/430
118/53
6
6/10
Slight/
slight
59-63
Slight
Moderate
Long Island
Nut
2
3-4
65/75
20/8
8
2/2
Slight/
slight
*
Slight
Long
18
6
190/245
63/28
4
4/5
Slight/
slight
No effect
Slight
Split Deer Island/Long Island
Deer
5
5
85/100
34/14
8
2/2
Slight/
slight
59-63
Slight
69-75
Moderate
No effect
Slight
Nut
2
3-4
65/75
20/8
a
2/2
Slight/
slight
*
Slight
Long
52
7
675/750
102/46
6
14/15
Slight/
slight
No effect
No effect
Slight
Moderate w/
hospital
Moderate
Slight
Moderate Severe
Moderate Slight Moderate
Slight
Slight
None
No active
plans
Some loss
of park
potential
Pump
house;
poten-
tially
prison
Possible
adverse
impact
None
No plans
Potential
open
space
benefit
None
None
No active
plans
Some loss
of park
potential
Pump
house;
poten-
tially
prison
Possible
adverse
impact
None
No plans
Loss of
open
space
potential
None
None
No active
plans
Some loss
of park
poten-
tial
Pump
house;
poten-
tially
prison
Possible
adverse
impa ct
None
No plans
Potential
open
space
benefit
None
None
Slight
conflict
w/draft
plans
Minor loss
of park
resource
potential
None affected
None
No active
plans
Potential
recre-
ation
benefit
None
None
No plans
Potential
open
space
benefit
None
None
Moderate
conflict
w/draft
plans
Small loss
of park
resources
Grave sites
t Civil War
cemetery;
potentially
hospital
Possible
adverse
impact
None None
No effect No effect
1090
34
No effect Requires
filling bay
1230
34
None None None affected
No effect No effect No effect
1365
34
None None None
No effect No effect No effect
1285
34
•Unmitigated noise during the brief period of demolition during construction of the Nut Island headworks could approach 82 dba (L10) at the nearest
hones. MHRA is required to develop a mitigation plan which will include the scheduling of noisy activities to reduce impact.
-------
list of prcparcrs and reviewers
-------
LIST OF PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Region I: Preparation of Final
Environmental Impact Statement prior to authorization of expenditure of
federal funds.
Ron Manfredonia, Chief, Environmental Evaluation Section, Project Officer
Robert Mendoza, Boston Harbor Coordinator, Water Management Division
Kathleen Castagna, Project Monitor, Environmental Evaluation Section
Steve Ells, Policy Review and Guidance, Office of Governmental Liaison and
Environmental Review
Donald Porteous, Chief, Water Quality Branch
Richard Kotelly, Deputy Director, Water Management Division
David Fierra, Director, Water Management Division
Cynthia Greene, Air Management Division
Dorothy Allen, Environmental Evaluation Section
Paul Marschessault, Southern N.E. Grants Section
Jeffrey Fowley, Attorney, Office of Regional Counsel
David Gravallese, Attorney, Office of Regional Counsel
Steven Koorse, Attorney, Office of Regional Counsel
U.S. General Services Administration, Region I: Cooperating Agency
Massachusetts Water Resource Authority (HWRA), Boston MA: Project proponent
and facilities operator; sponsor of State EIR.
Thibault/Bubly Associates, Providence, RI: Environmental consultants to EPA,
Region I.
Daniel Bubly, P.E., A.I.C.P., L.A., Project Manager
James Thibault, P.E., M.S.C.E., Project Management
Richard Hittinger, M.S., Project Director
Randel Stong, M.S., Air Quality Specialist
Janet Hutchins, B.S., ASLA, Technical Writer/Editor, Graphics, Contract
Administration
Michael Hester, B.A., Technical Writer
Gloria Bubly, B.S., Graphics
Dale Raczynski, B.S., Engineer
Andrew Konnerth, B.S.M.E., Environmental Engineer
Victoria Hittinger, M.S., Toxicologist
Robert Ferrari, P.E., Environmental/Sanitary Engineer
Richard Beach, M.S., Water Quality Specialist
Peter Bates, M.S., Computer Modelling
Glenn Almquist, B.S., Water Quality Specialist
Brenda Enos, B.S., Water Quality Chemist
Ralph Penney, M.S., Engineer
Mary Louise Keefe, Technical Assistant
David Martin, Technical Assistant
-------
LIST OP PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS (cont'd)
Subconsultants to Thibault/Bubly Associates
Barry Lawson Associates, Concord, HA: Public Participation Program; Preparers
of Vol. Ill and Vol. IV
Barry Lawson, Ph.D., President
Ann Jacobson, Public Participation Coordinator
Edward lonata, Public Participation Coordinator
Robert Weygand & Associates, Rumford, RI: Visual Quality Analysis
Robert Weygand, AS LA, APA, Principal
Lee Pare & Associates, Inc., Pawtucket, RI: Pier Facility Feasibility Study
Robert L. Pare, P.E., President
Ernest Rabideau, P.E., Engineer
Richard Casella, P.E., Engineer
Crossman Engineering, Inc., Pawtucket, RI: Traffic Assessment
E. Raymond Crossman, P.E., President
C.E. Haguire, Inc., Providence, RI: Supplemental Draft EIS
Abt Associates. Inc., Cambridge, MA; Social and Economic Analyses
Peter Wolff, PhD., Project Director
David Berry, PhD., Technical Director
Richard Wells, Manager of Environmental Research
A. Stoeckle, Analyst
M. Heissberg, Analyst
John Reinhardt, Analyst
R. Roethlisberger, Analyst
New England Environmental Mediation Center, Boston, MA
William Humm, Executive Director
Warner & Stackpole, Boston, MA: Legal and Institutional Analysis
Michael Leon, Attorney
Verbatim Word Processing Services, Providence, RI: Word Processing
Joshua Bell
Lynne Bell
Other Subconsultants
David Stong, Ph.D., Toxicologist: Air Toxics
Dr. K. Keshavan, P.E.; Alternative Treatment Technologies
Dr. F. L. Hart, P.E.: Alternative Treatment Technologies
Camp, Dresser, and HcKee, Inc., Boston, MA: Consultants to the MWRA
Subconsultants to Camp, Dresser, and McKee
Boston Affiliates, Inc.
Cavanaugh Tocci Associates, Inc.
The Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc.
-------
-------
/INTERNATIONAL
mr&m
k^-;*-- ..-/-^i
>S-A ^-g^v^L-a^
.Y>?4!Kt'.- -2US ,•
------- |