United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region I
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
for the City of New Bedford, MA
Final Environmental Impact Statement
July 1991
-------
Final Environmental
Impact Statement
July 1991
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
for the City of New Bedford, MA
Prepared By:
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Region I
JFK Federal Building
Boston, Mass. 02203
Technical Assistance By:
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
ie Belaga Date
Regional Administrator
U.S. EPA Region I
-------
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PROPOSED ACTION:
LOCATION:
DATE:
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
LEAD AGENCY:
COOPERATING AGENCIES:
TECHNICAL CONSULTANT:
FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION:
FINAL DATE BY WHICH
COMMENTS MUST BE
RECEIVED:
Siting and Evaluation of Secondary Wastewater
Treatment Facilities
New Bedford, Massachusetts
June 25, 1991
The Final EIS considers the environmental acceptability
of alternative locations and technologies for secondary
wastewater treatment facilities for New Bedford.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1
JFK Federal Building, WQE
Boston, MA 02203
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
National Marine Fisheries Service
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Ann Rodney
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region I
JFK Federal Building, WQE
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565-4424
August 12, 1991
-------
NOTICE TO READERS
This Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) responds to comments on EPA's Draft EIS,
and evaluates new information developed subsequent to the issuance of the Draft EIS. EPA's
expanded technical evaluation of data collected as part of a Summer 1990 New Bedford
Harbor monitoring program is presented in Chapter Two. Modeling methods and assumptions
applied in the analysis are described in Appendix A. Public and agency comments submitted
to EPA by mail or during the public hearing are grouped into comment issue categories in
Chapter Three. Comment letters and public hearing transcripts are reproduced in Appendix
B. Responses to comments on the Draft EIS are provided in Chapter Four. Acceptable
management options and necessary mitigation for the primary components of the facilities
plan are discussed in Chapter Five. Corrections to the Draft EIS are listed in Chapter Six.
This Final EIS utilizes data and information developed as pan of the Facilities
Plan/Environmental Impact Report (FP/EIR) prepared by the City of New Bedford. While
this Final EIS utilizes scientific and technological data generated during the FP/EIR process,
it reflects EPA's independent evaluation of the potential environmental impacts related to the
different components of the project. Due to the piggyback nature of this Final EIS, much of
the supporting information developed by the City is referenced throughout this document to
avoid unnecessary duplication.
-------
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF NEW BEDFORD
WASTEWATER TEATMENT PLANT, SOLIDS DISPOSAL, AND
EFFLUENT OUTFALL
June 1991
Prepared By
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Cambridge, MA
for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I
Boston, MA
-------
Table of Contents
Page
CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project History and Background 1-1
1.2 Chronology of Events 1-2
1.3 Organization of Final EIS 1-2
CHAPTER TWO - EVALUATION OF EFFLUENT OUTFALL MANAGEMENT
ALTERNATIVES
2.1 Review of Data 2-1
2.1.1 General 2-2
2.1.2 Analysis of Field Data 2-5
2.12.1 Comparison of moored vs. cruise data 2-5
2.7.2.2 Spatial correlation of DO data 2-5
2.7.2.3 Correlation of DO with forcing functions 2-9
2.1.2.4 Spatial variability of water-quality
and biological indicators 2-13
2.2 Evaluation of Alternative Scenarios 2-17
2.2.1 General 2-17
2.2.2 Basic Issues 2-22
2.2.2.7 Nitrogen saturation at existing site 2-22
2.22.2 Other sources 2-22
2.22.3 Double accounting 2-25
2.2.3 Water column DO depression due to alternative scenarios 2-25
2.2.4 Phytoplankton-derlved SOD due to alternative scenarios 2-27
2.2.5 Sensitivity analysis 2-28
2.2.6 Expaned analysis of extended outfall Impact on marine life 2-32
2.3 Limitations and Conclusions 2-34
2.3.1 Limitations of the analysis 2-34
2.3.2 Major conclusions 2-34
CHAPTER THREE - PUBLIC AND AGENCY COMMENTS 3-1
-------
Table of Contents (continued)
Page
CHAPTER FOUR - RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 4-1
4.1 Air Quality, Odors, and Noise 4-1
4.2 Cultural Resources 4-5
4.3 Ecology 4-6
4.4 Land Use Conflicts 4-9
4.5 Policy and Regulations 4-14
4.6 Public Health 4-15
4.7 Socloeconomlc 4-16
4.8 Technology/Design ' 4-17
4.9 Transportation/Traffic 4-18
4.10 Water Quality/Resources 4-20
4.11 Other 4-29
CHAPTER FIVE - ACCEPTABLE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS AND
MITIGATION 5-1
5.1 Review of EPA Draft EIS Recommendations 5-1
5.1.1 Summary of the Draft EIS Recommended Plan 5-1
5.1.1.1 Secondary wastewater treatment plant 5-1
5.1.1.2 Sludge disposal 5-4
5.1.1.3 Secondary effluent outfall 5-5
5.1.2 Implementation considerations 5-5
5.U.I Site acquisition 5-5
5.13.2 Relocations 5-7
5.12.3 Permitting 5-7
5.1.3 Cost estimates 5-7
5.2 Review of New Issues, Information and Modifications
to the City's Plan 5-7
5.2.1 Secondary wastewater treatment plant 5-7
5.2.2 Sludge disposal 5-10
5.2.3 Secondary effluent outfall 5-12
5.2.4 Collection system modifications 5-12
5.2.5 Implementation considerations 5-12
5.3 EPA Recommendations for Management Options and
Mitigation Measures 5-15
5.3.1 Secondary wastewater treatment plant 5-15
5.3.1.1 Land use and zoning 5-19
5.3.1.2 Noise 5-19
5.3.7.3 Odors and air toxics 5-19
-------
Table of Contents (continued)
Page
5.3.1.4 Wetlands 5-22
5.3.1.5 Storm protection 5-22
5.3.1.6 Visual aesthetics 5-23
5.3.1.7 Historic and archaeological features 5-23
5.3.2 Sludge disposal 5-25
5.3.3 Secondary effluent outfall 5-26
CHAPTER SIX - ERRATA
6.1 Text 6-1
6.2 Tables 6-4
6.3 Figures 6-4
III
-------
List of Tables
Page
Table 1.1 Chronology of Events Following Issuance of the Draft EIS 1-3
Table 2.1 Total Nitrogen Concentration (jiM) In Inner Harbor (IH)
and Northernmost Stations of Outer Harbor
(Stations 4,7-see Figures 2.10,2.11, and 2.12) 2-24
Table 2.2 Computed Dissolved Oxygen Depressions (mg/L)
under Average Conditions 2-26
Table 2.3 Computed Dissolved Oxygen Depressions (mg/L)
under Extreme Conditions 2-29
Table 2.4 Computer Dissolved Oxygen Depressions (mg/L)
under Average Conditions as a Function of Varying
Upstream Sources 2-30
Table 2.5 Computed Dissolved Oxygen Depressions (mg/L)
under Extreme Conditions as a Function of Varying
Upstream Source
Table 3.1 Public and Agency Comments Received on Draft EIS 3-3
Table 4.1 Summary of EPA Water Quality Criteria Exceedances 4-27
Table 5.1 Draft EIS Environmentally Acceptable Management Options 5-2
Table 5.2 Description of the Draft FP/EIR Recommended
Plan Major Project Components 5-3
Table 5.3 Recommended Plan Implementation Consent Decree Schedule 5-6
Table 5.4 City of New Bedford Draft FP/EIR Recommended Plan Capital
Cost ($ Millions) 5-8
Table 5.5 City of New Bedford Draft FP/EIR Recommended Plan Annual
Operation and Maintenance Cost ($ Thousands) 5-9
Table 5.6 City of New Bedford Supplemental FP/EIR Estimated 1990
Capital Cost of Recommended Plan 5-13
Table 5.7 City of New Bedford Supplemental FP/EIR Potential
Cost Saving Measures 5-14
Iv
-------
List of Tables (continued)
Page
Table 5.8 Acceptable Management Options 5-16
Table 5.9 Recommendations for Collection System Facilities
In the Supplemental FP/EIR 5-20
-------
List of Figures
Page
Figure 2.1 New Bedford Harbor Sampling Locations,
Summer 1990 2-3
Figure 2.2 Histogram of Station M3 Lower DO
Concentrations (mg/L) 2-4
Figure 2.3 a. Cruise vs. Moored DO Concentrations (mg/L)
(Near-Bottom) Station 12; Mooring 3 2-6
Figure 2.3 b. Cruise vs. Moored DO Concentrations (mg/L)
(Near-Bottom) Stations 5A, 5B, and 11; Mooring 2 2-7
Figure 2.3 c. Cruise vs. Moored DO Concentrations (mg/L)
(Near-Bottom) Station 2; Mooring 1B 2-8
Figure 2.4 Time-Series of Dissolved Oxygen
Moored Stations: M1A, M1B, M2, and M3
(Lower Sensor, 1990) 2-10
Figure 2.5 Near-Bottom Dissolved Oxygen vs. Thermal Stratification
Moored Stations: M1A and M1B (1990) 2-11
Figure 2.6 Near-Bottom Dissolved Oxygen vs. Thermal Stratification
Moored Stations: M2 and M3 (1990) 2-12
Figure 2.7 Near-Bottom Dissolved Oxygen vs. Forcing Functions:
Wave Height, Wind Speed, Current Speed for Moored
Station 3 (1990) 2-14
Figure 2.8 Parameter Plotted: Dissolved Oxygen (Near-Bottom)
in mg/L Cruise No. 1 Cruise Date: 7/6/90 2-15
Figure 2.9 Parameter Plotted: Chlorophyll - (Column Average)
in mg/m3 Cruise No. 1 Cruise Date: 7/6/90 2-16
Figure 2.10 Parameter Plotted: Nitrogen (Total Column Average) in p.M
Cruise No. 12 Cruise Date: 6/6/88 2-18
Figure 2.11 Parameter Plotted: Nitrogen (Total Column Average) in (iM
Cruise No. 13 Cruise Date: 7/18/88 2-19
Figure 2.12 Parameter Plotted: Nitrogen (Total Column Average) in ^M
Cruise No. 14 Cruise Date: 8/15/88 2-20
VI
-------
List of Figures
Figure 2.13 Pollutant Concentration Distribution Resulting from
Outfalls at 1 and 2 (solid lines), an Upstream Source
(dots) and a Reduced Source at 1 (dashes) 2-21
Figure 2.14 Idealized Relationship between Primary Productivity
and Nitrogen Loading 2-23
Figure 5.1 Master Plan for Site 1A, Wastewater Treatment Plant
and Taber Park (Source: Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.) 5-17
vii
-------
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
This Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) represents a reexamination of the analyses,
conclusions, and recommendations presented in EPA's November 1989 Draft EIS for
wastewater treatment facilities for the City of New Bedford, Massachusetts. The Draft EIS,
which remains as a stand-alone document, focused on selection of suitable locations and
appropriate technologies for the construction and operation of secondary wastewater treatment
facilities, presenting the environmental impact information needed to evaluate potential
alternatives for the facilities. The Final EIS responds to comments received on the Draft EIS,
documents the chronology of events and expanded technical evaluations that have occurred
since the Draft EIS was issued, and based on that new information, revisits the conclusions
and recommendations presented in the Draft EIS. Although both the Draft and Final EISs
utilized scientific and technological data generated as part of the Draft and Final Facilities
Plan/Environmental Impact Reports (FP/EIR) developed by the City of New Bedford (in a
"piggyback" approach), they provide independent evaluations of the potential impacts from
the project.
1.1 Project History and Background
The New Bedford wastewater collection system was originally constructed in the 1800s. The
existing primary wastewater treatment facility was built and began operation in the early
1970s. By 1977, after amendments to the Clean Water Act (CWA) established requirements
for secondary wastewater treatment, the City's existing primary treatment system was no
longer in compliance with the federal treatment standards. However, Section 301(h) of the
CWA allows for a waiver of these secondary treatment standards, provided that less than
secondary treatment would not adversely affect water quality or the local environment. In
1979, the City applied for a waiver of secondary treatment requirements under Section 301 (h).
After the 301 (h) waiver request was denied by the EPA Administrator in 1982, the City
revised its application in 1983 in an effort to correct the deficiencies. The revised waiver
application was also denied.
In 1987, the United States, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the Conservation Law
Foundation sued the City of New Bedford for violations of federal and state water pollution
laws. In the settlement of the suit, the City signed a consent decree that contains, among
other provisions, a federal-court-enforceable schedule for the City to make interim
improvements to its existing primary treatment facility, and to construct secondary treatment
facilities to bring the City into compliance with applicable state and federal wastewater
treatment requirements.
1-1
-------
1.2 Chronology of Events
The Draft EIS was completed by EPA in November 1989. Since then, a series of significant
events and evaluations have been completed that influence the direction and schedule of the
recommended plan. Table 1.1 provides a chronology of these events and a summary of their
impact to the recommended plan, where applicable.
1.3 Organization of Final EIS
The original contents of the Draft EIS (US EPA, 1989) are not reproduced here. The draft
stands as a document of record and this Final EIS contains modifications of or additions to
the contents of the Draft EIS as necessary. The focus of this Final EIS is the reexamination
of the analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in the Draft. The reexamination
is based on the City's modifications to its recommended plan, on new information presented
in the Final FP/EIR, Supplemental Final FP/EIR, and on public and agency comments
received on the Draft EIS.
Expanded technical evaluations, pertaining primarily to the location of the proposed outfall,
are discussed in Chapter Two. The technical evaluations are based on an assessment of new
information, which has become available for review since the completion of the Draft EIS. A
large portion of the document is devoted to presenting and responding to comments received
on the Draft EIS. Public and agency comments on the Draft EIS, received during the
comment period which closed February 26, 1990 are organized in a matrix format in Chapter
Three. Individual comments are grouped and identified with respect to the issue(s) raised in
the comment. EPA's responses to comments are provided in Chapter Four. Responses are
provided for specific issues. Thus, responses may be applicable to several comments. Chapter
Five presents EPA's recommendations for management options and mitigation measures,
based on the reexamination of the recommendations in the Draft in light of comments or new
information received. Chapter Six contains errata, or changes and corrections to specific
sections of the Draft EIS.
This Final EIS also includes three appendices. Appendix A contains supplemental
information and supporting data for the water quality modeling methods applied by EPA in
the expanded technical evaluations presented in Chapter Two. Appendix B contains copies of
comment letters and transcripts of the public hearing on the Draft EIS. Appendix C contains
correspondence concerning issues related to historic preservation and archaeological studies.
The release of this Final EIS will be followed by a public comment period similar to that
which followed publication of the Draft EIS. A Record of Decision (ROD) will be issued by
EPA within the next few months stating EPA's final recommendation and official position on
the preferred plan.
1-2
-------
Table 1.1 Chronology of Events Following Issuance of the Draft EIS
January 1990 The Gty's Final Wastewater Facilities Plan/Environmental Impact Report (FP/EIR)
was submitted to the State of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Environmental
Affairs for review.
February 1990
The Final Institutional Wastewater Plan report was submitted to the Gty by
Maximus, Inc. of Falls Church, Virginia. The plan calls for the formation of an
independent water and sewer commission that would also have responsibility for
storm drains. The plan also recommends an immediate increase in sewer user fees
to adequately fund current water and wastewater system operations and to achieve
rate stabilization in fiscal year 1992 for the subsequent 10 years.
The State DEP notified the City that they are eligible for a loan under the State
Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) program for both design and construction of the new
wastewater treatment facility. To apply for a loan, the City must submit final
design plans by the May 1, 1991 consent decree deadline.
March 1990
A MEPA Certificate was issued by the Massachusetts Secretary of Environmental
Affairs, stating that the City's Final FP/EIR did not adequately address all
comments on the draft. As the result of an informal "value engineering" analysis,
several significant revisions to the recommended plan were introduced in the FEIR
that were not adequately supported by analysis. The certificate requested the
preparation of a supplemental report to analysis. The certificate requested the
preparation of a supplemental report to address all unresolved concerns on the
wastewater treatment plant, sludge disposal, wastewater collection system, and
outfall siting.
May 1990
The New Bedford City Council voted and approved the selection of Fort Rodman as
the wastewater treatment plant site.
June 1990
The New Bedford City Council voted to increase sewer rates to approximately $100
per household and to borrow $14 million to cover the cost of designing the
wastewater treatment facility.
September 1990
A wetlands delineation for Site 47 was completed by the City to replace outdated
data and to aid in the development of a sludge management plan..
October 1990 The Supplemental FEIR for WWTP and sludge facilities was submitted by the City
as requested by the Secretary of Environmental Affairs.
March 1991
The Supplemental FEIR addressing outfall issues was completed to present and
evaluate the newly generated effluent outfall data.
1-3
-------
CHAPTER TWO
EVALUATION OF EFFLUENT OUTFALL MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
The objective of the expanded technical evaluation presented in this chapter is to assess the
impact of potential management options regarding effluent discharge from the New Bedford
Wastewater Treatment Plant, such as advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) or relocation of
the outfall out into Buzzards Bay (301 (h) site) on dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in outer New
Bedford Harbor. This chapter reviews and discusses data presented and recommendations
.made in the Phase 2 Facilities Plan (COM, Volume IV, 1990; CDM, Volume VID, 1991)
concerning the selection of a preferred effluent outfall and treatment option. In the following
sections we reanalyze some of the Facilities Plan data and present the results of a reanalysis
of the effects of different effluent management options on DO depression at different
locations in New Bedford outer harbor and Buzzards Bay. Conclusions and recommendations
are offered as to the advantages and disadvantages of different management options. EPA's
preferred management options are then presented in Chapter Five of this Final EIS.
Statistical analysis and interpretation of historical data from moored (time series) and cruise
(vertical profile) measurements are used as the basis for analysis of the DO regime under a
range of management options. Simple mass balance analysis is used to demonstrate the
relative importance of the existing and proposed outfalls vis-a-vis other oxygen-demanding
sources for New Bedford's outer harbor. Based on previous analysis conducted as pan of the
Phase 2 Facilities Plan (CDM, Volume IV, 1990; CDM, Volume VIII, 1991), DO depressions
are predicted for two locations in the Outer Harbor, resulting from water-column DO demand
,and phytoplankton-derived sediment oxygen demand (SOD). Predictions are made for five
scenarios, or management options, including AWT and relocation of the outfall.
2.1 Review of Data
The basis for most of the analysis in Section 2.2 and the conclusions drawn from it come
from an interpretation of historical data from moored and cruise measurements (CDM,
Volume VIII, 1991). This data review relies heavily on the Summer 1990 field program
results (dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll-a, water column temperature, oceanographic, and
meteorological data), but 1988 nitrogen data (CDM, Volume IV, 1990) are examined, as well.
The approaches used in the data analysis are as follows:
Visual comparison of moored vs. cruise data;
Spatial cross-correlation of moored rime-series data;
Correlation of time series DO measurements with forcing functions;
Horizontal plots of water quality and biological parameters; and
2-1
-------
2.1.1 General. Data collected before Summer 1990 (i.e., from cruises conducted from 1987
to 1989, and from a few continuous recording meters in the Outer Harbor) indicated a
potential DO problem in the waters around New Bedford. Oxygen measurements below 6
mg/L at near bottom in the water column were not uncommon. Summer 1990 data from four
continuous meter recording stations (MIA, M1B, M2, M3; see Figure 2.1) show frequent and
extended DO depressions. Cruise profile and continuous meter data indicate that station M3
is in a region within the Outer Harbor where the DO depressions are most frequent and of
longest duration. Data collected from the lower probe (30 cm above the sea floor) of moored
station M3 show extended periods of time when DO falls below 6 mg/L (State DO standard
for these waters), or even 5 mg/L. For the period from July 6 through September 19, 1990
(1799 hourly measurements), the following statistics were computed:
Mean DO: 5.7 mg/1
Median DO: 5.7 mg/1
Lower quartile DO: 5.1 mg/1
Upper quartile DO: 6.3 mg/1
Minimum DO: 3.3 mg/1
Hence, 25 percent of all hourly measurements were found below 5.1 mg/1, and 75 percent
were below 6.3 mg/L. The histogram for the moored station M3 data is presented in Figure
2.2.
Moored station M2 data for the near-bottom are available only for four out of the 12 weeks
during Summer 1990 due to instrument malfunctions. Measurements during the periods
critical for DO (late July, August and September) were not available. During non-critical
periods, some 25 percent of values are below 6 mg/L. Near-bottom DO levels near the
301 (h) site (moored stations MIA, M1B) occasionally dip below the 6-mg/L mark, but never
very far, nor for extended periods of time.
The 1990 cruise data for DO at near-bottom probe locations throughout the Outer Harbor
differ somewhat from the 1987 through 1989 data. They provide better spatial coverage of
New Bedford Harbor and Buzzards Bay, and the lower-probe measurements were taken closer
to the sea floor than any of the previous measurements. The more important new DO data
come from the continuous recording
meters at moored stations M2 and M3 in the inner region of the Outer Harbor. The following
analysis is motivated by the implications of the 1990 moored DO data.
2-2
-------
Figure 2.1 New Bedford Harbor Sampling Locations, Summer 1990
2-3
-------
3
CD
"0 1°
(D >
ZC
1 S
m 6
z
cni
55
(Op
i
o
o
Midpoint
3.300
3.400
3.500
3.600
3.700
3.800
3.900
4.000
4.100
4.200
4.300
4.400
4.500
4.600
4.700
4.800
4.900
5.000
5.100
5.200
5.300
5.400
5.500
5.600
5.700
5.800
5.900
6.000
6.100
6.200
6.300
6.400
6.500
6.600
6.700
6.800
6.900
7.000
7.100
7.200
7.300
Count
1
3
10
2
6
2
7
12
12
19
26
29
35
33
50
46
39
56
73
78
69
51
82
80
81
93
60
74
70
80
77
84
71
57
63
44
48
38
18
14
6
*
**
*****
*
***
*
****
******
******
**********
*************
***************
******************
*****************
*************************
***********************
********************
****************************
*************************************
***************************************
***********************************
**************************
*****************************************
****************************************
*****************************************
***********************************************
******************************
*************************************
***********************************
****************************************
***************************************
******************************************
************************************
*****************************
********************************
**********************
************************
*******************
*********
*******
***
Figure 2.2 Histogram of Station M3 Lower DO Concentrations (mg/L)
2-4
-------
2.1.2 Analysis of field data
2.1.2.1 Comparison of moored vs. cruise data. Figures 2.3A, 2.3B, and 2.3C are plots of
moored time-series data superimposed with cruise data from the closest cruise stations. For
example, Figure 2.3A shows the DO time series for moored station M3, lower probe, with
cruise data plotted for cruise station 12.
At station M3 (Figure 2.3A), there is reasonable agreement between mooring and cruise data,
but none of the cruises coincided with the low DO periods (i.e., DO less than 5 mg/L), which
is why the cruise data alone would tend to suggest that the DO problem at that location is
dess pronounced than that revealed by the continuous meter's DO record. Cruise data from
nhat area (stations M3 and 12) are found below 6 mg/L in 5 out of 24 cases, with no
measurement below 5 mg/L. In contrast, the continuous record of station M3 indicates that
25 percent of readings are below 5.1 mg/L.
At station M2 (Figure 2.3B), some of the cruise measurements appear to be somewhat higher
than the moored data. Some 25 percent of the plotted cruise data points fall below 6 mg/L,
with two data points below the 5-mg/L concentration. This agrees with the earlier-mentioned
25 percent of the continuous meter measurements that fall below 6 mg/L. It is noted,
however, that the record for Station M2 near the existing outfall only spans a fraction of the
entire study period due to instrument malfunction. Figure 2.3C suggests that at station M1B,
there is reasonable agreement between moored and cruise data.
By and large, therefore, the cruise data are consistent with the moored data even though, at
moored station M3, the cruises failed to detect the low DO periods revealed by the continuous
.recording meter. Because of scheduling reasons, they missed virtually all of the near-bottom
.low DO events. In general, we note that the cruise data tend to plot above, rarely below, the
continuous meter data. The best agreement is between moored data and cruise measurements
.from the moored stations. Two explanations are conceivable: (1) there is a lateral DO
gradient toward the moored stations; or (2) there is a steep vertical DO gradient near bottom,
and the cruise measurements away from the moored stations were taken at depths further
distant from the sediments than the cruise data taken at the moored stations. The moored
data were taken at a 30-cm distance from the sea floor, while the cruise measurements were
taken at distances between 50 and 100 cm off the bottom.
2.1.2.2 Spatial correlation of DO data. This analysis is performed to examine whether DO
measurements at different spatial locations throughout the harbor respond together. Strong,
positive correlation between far-apan stations would suggest that critical DO processes are
occurring over a wide scale, either because the inputs are widespread or the processes (e.g.,
algal growth and decay) take place over a long-enough time scale that local inputs become
dispersed. In other words, strong, positive correlation over a large spatial scale would
indicate that there is no near-field problem in the Outer Harbor, i.e., (I) a diffuser at the
existing site would not improve DO; and (2) far-field concentrations would have to be
averaged over a considerable area before application to a box model (see Section 2.2).
2-5
-------
ro
01
23
! 21
C
I 19
C
17
33
""VMS
/V
32
31
P
P
I 38
29
ID
-V
v^^r-
Leg
TTT
1
end: STATION
MOORIN
T
I
12
G 3 ._
]
-
rnr
'1
w^
^\f>f^r^~
-X-J,
118
188
A
T
u
R gn
A
T 7B
I
0 68
N
50
90
6
Jul 98
13
28
27
17
24
31
7
p M
14
21
Figure 2.3
a. Cruise vs. Moored DO Concentrations (mg/L) (Near-Bottom)
Station 12; Mooring 3
-------
T
E I
M N '
P
E D ->«
R E
A C
U C
R
/\j
s ,,
A I 32
L N
1 ,,
N P
I P
38
V
,
V^T
o
I
S 1 ,
OK -1
Km
Le
gend: 9 STATIC
STATIC
A STATIC
<[> MOORIf
A,
i/-^ - j -
"X
M SR
^J 5A
^J 1 1
^JG 2
V
\v^>" ^-V
"V-~-^,^
p
U
, '
S 1
v/
' ±1
N
S1BF
A11
P T _-
E U
R R ...
C A
E T 7n
N
I
T
U, i
IV;
^
k '
4
8
4
>
I
V
i
t
1 W
' S
t
I
235S '
V
V
|
1
^ ocC
i
' ' I ;3r
f
1
/\
uwV
T
6' '
jul 99
i L « .
\i *Vj|
T 1
V
1 '
v /Mf^
'13' 28' '27" '3' '! '17' ' 2« ' '31' ' 7' ' 1<
»ug 58 t*p 96
Figure 2.3 b. Cruise vs. Moored DO Concentrations (mg/L) (Near-Bottom)
M
j22
' 21 ' ' 2S '
Stations 5A, 5B, and 11; Mooring 2
-------
00
2S
T
E 1
M N '
P
r " 21
R E
A C
1 19
U C
R
""i/v
f* 1 ' *1 lift nA «
E 17 ~
s ,.
A I 32
L N
I 11
N P
I P
30
V
yv,
j~<
^^-VS^-^"-' '" -*-
* ,
S I ,
S N J
6
0 M
V C e
V /
L
E
k- _fc/*^\^-. "* ^
i <
1 A
'
**-"'
X
; i
.
-Y\^p-V;
N
S1BB -
A11
P T 9H
E U ' .
R R .
C A
E T 70
N I
N
WvX^*1
r
Legend:
*^MJ
'\£
35
.
* ^
^VvA^
i
W
STATION 2
^ MOORING 1B
^V-v
^v-v
_
c
'VV^A^~,
w
_r-v_^^_
^/^i
^^H^LMw
^J
t
i
1
I
k
J
"^ ^»^
I
JNvv^ '
^
t
ttJKt
f\
6 13 28 27 ' 3 ' ' IB '
jul 98 >ug 98
Figure 2.3 c. Cruise vs. Moored DC
Vj
rAA
"^
rN^
yfYvT1
»AN^ /\x^*v
\
'17' '24' '31' ' 7' '14' '21' '2t'
**p 96
> Concentrations (mg/L) (Near-Bottom)
Station 2; Moorlr- 1B
-------
Figure 2.4 is a plot of the DO time-series data from all four moored stations, lower DO
probe. Unfortunately, only station M3 has a continuous record throughout the summer of
1990. Correlations between the time-series data thus have to be examined for several shorter
periods where measurement records overlap between different stations. Correlation analysis
suggests (see Appendix A, Section A. 1.1) that, at times, but not continuously, DO levels
throughout the Outer Harbor respond together on a large-scale. At other times, the DO
dynamics seem to be governed by local phenomena. In no instance can more than 30 to 40
percent of DO variability at any one station be explained by DO levels at another moored
station (except for neighboring stations MIA and M1B). In fact, there are periods (e.g., mid
July to early August, 1990) where there is virtually no correlation between DO levels at, say,
station M3 and the 301 (h) site area (stations MIA, MlB).
However, the area around station M3 occasionally exhibits a distinctly local DO pattern. This
could be caused perhaps by shoreline inputs of DO demand or, possibly, by a counter-
clockwise circulation in the Outer Harbor, bringing the outfall discharge nearer to station M3
where elevated primary productivity then causes increased SOD. In addition, gravity currents
may occasionally stir up high SOD bottom sediments in the vicinity of M3, which may
historically have developed there due to increased phytoplankton activity stimulated by the
primary outfall to the northeast (CDM, Volume VIII, 1991).
In summary, the data suggest that there are strong local DO dynamics in the Outer Harbor
(see also CDM, Volume VIII, 1991). However, it appears also that these local effects are
superimposed onto large-scale regional effects which at times may be the single largest factor
(up to 40 percent of DO variability) governing near-bottom DO levels. Further evidence that
DO variability is not merely a near-field effect is found in the absence of strong spatial
gradients near the existing outfall, as discussed below.
2.1.2.3 Correlation of DO with forcing functions. Correlation of moored data with
potential forcing functions (wind, waves, currents, ambient temperature-induced stratification)
can help in understanding the role of re-suspension and other physical processes in causing
DO violations.
Figures 2.5 and 2.6 show four pairs of time-series plots, each pair consisting of the near-
bottom DO level readings and the water-temperature difference between top and bottom
sensor for a given moored station. Some correlation can be seen by mere visual inspection of
these plots.
Except for the early pan of the summer, out near the 301(h) site, thermal stratification seems
to be partially responsible for low near-bottom DO levels throughout the Outer Harbor.
Between 15 and 50 percent (see Appendix A, Section A.1.2) of the variability in near-bottom
DO can be statistically explained by the temperature difference, AT. It is noted that
correlation between percent oxygen saturation and AT is somewhat stronger than between DO
and AT because percent oxygen saturation already embodies near-bottom temperature effects.
2-9
-------
fO
k
o
L
L.
WC. HO. «49«1-OC«
MOORING STATION 3
01/1 « o7/ii vtftt fi/Tt n/u
«/n 01/11 m/u ot/a m^ii ot^rr n/i i
M/n M/TI
MOOBIMG STATION 2
n/ii DT/M r/n n/m
n/v BAIT myor 01/11 oi/n ai/n /!?
UOOAINO STATION 18
oi/ii ovu «/» o*/n ot^r M/II OI/IT ai/n M/n
UOOUNG STATION IA
Figure 2.4 Time-Series of Disso'-^d Oxygen
Moored Stations: M 11B, M2, and M3 (Lower Sensor, 1990)
-------
UOOBING STATION IB
L
tint ff?/n n/t>
49 N/FI MAT
mm MI n/v n/rr
MOORING STATION
r/r« n/n n/n
UOOKINO STATION 1A
W***~^*j(~jH*Jto^^
OJ/T7 »T/)1
flt.1I H/ll
«/«i otm
UOORING STATION 1A
flt/IT H/ll
DWG. HO. 64941-007
Figure 2.5 Near-Bottom Dissolved Oxygen vs. Thermal Stratification
Moored Stations: M1A and M1B (1990)
-------
07/0* O'/'1 A'/1* *VX
07/H fT/11
MOORING STATION 3
ow» M/n oB/ii oi/u
MOORING STATION 3
OIAT7 MAI7 Oi/U Ol/l» 00/17 01/17 io/W
WOOPING STATION 2
Ol/D* BI/BI 07/14 OT/11 OT/7* 07/7t
M/W M/U n/ii ot/D
MOOIWNO ST»T10N 2
at/n a/07
M/IT «/n at/77
01/17 ovn «/TJ M^t
0»C. HO. »4<41-008
Figure 2.6 Near-Bottom Dissolved Oxygen vs. Thermal Stratification
Moored Station: 12 and M3 (1990)
-------
Figure 2.7 shows a series of plots of wind speed, wave height, current speed, and DO levels
(lower sensor) for moored station M3. Correlation analysis (Appendix A, Section A. 1.2)
suggests that there is no clear causal relationship between bottom DO at station M3 and either
wind speed, current speed, or wave height. These data do suggest a correlation between wind
speed and wave height, which, while not unexpected, indicates that the data are consistent.
Collected data (CDM, Volume VIII, 1991) seem to indicate that there is a direct relationship
between precipitation and gravity currents in the Outer Harbor and Buzzards Bay. These
currents are believed to result from displacement of waters in Buzzards Bay due to
stormwater runoff in the Acushnet River. These currents, in turn, tend to stratify the harbor
; water.
2.1.2.4 Spatial variability of water-quality and biological Indicators. Horizontal plots of
near-bottom DO, water column (average total) nitrogen, and water column (average)
chlorophyll-a help visually in understanding the relative importance of the existing outfall vs.
upstream or boundary sources. Figure 2.8 is a horizontal plot of bottom DO data for the first
Summer 1990 cruise. Plots of all 12 cruise data sets are shown in Appendix A (Section
A. 1.3). Each of these plots shows some seemingly random spatial variability. But the
following general patterns can be discerned:
There is a persistent gradient of DO with lowest values in the Inner Harbor and
highest values near the 301 (h) site. This pattern suggests that the Acushnet
River is a major contributor of DO demanding material to the Outer Harbor;
There are, at times, local gradients in the Outer Harbor. For instance, the area
around stations 12, M3, 13, and RR4 often (e.g., cruises 2, 12) exhibit a
marked DO depression; and
There is no consistent noticeable near-field DO depression around the existing
outfall (stations 5A, 5B, 11, M2).
Figure 2.9 is a plot of water-column average chlorophyll-a data for the first Summer 1990
cruise (see Appendix A for the other cruises). The same general observations are made as for
the DO plots: (1) a strong gradient from the Inner Harbor to the Outer Harbor; (2) local
gradients with occasional high productivity levels in the area around stations 12, 13, M3, and
local gradients around station 10; and (3) no near-field productivity high at or around the
existing outfall. The depth-integrated chlorophyll-a contour mass and concentration plots
produced by CDM (Volume VIII, 1991) exhibit these same features. The increased
productivity southwest of the outfall may be due to growth stimulation from the existing
outfall, caused by the transport of outfall nutrients in a southwesterly direction (CDM,
Volume VIII, 1991).
2-13
-------
UOORINO STATION 3
r
UOORING STATION 3
L.
yOORING STATION 3
»T/W tr/Bi 0>/M ffV'l O'/T* 01/71
M/iJ c*/n
[MC. NO. KHI-OM
M/il oi/ii ova oi/n
Figure 2.7 Near-Bottom Dlss d Oxygen vs. Forcing Functions: Wave
Height, Wind Speeo, Current Speed for Moored Station 3 (1990)
-------
Figure 2.8
10000 FT
Parameter Plotted: Dissolved Oxygen (Near-Bottom) in mg/L
Cruise No. 1 Cruise Date: 7/6/90
2-15
-------
Figure 2.9 Parameter Plotted: Chlorophyll - (Column Average) In mg/m3
Cruise No. 1 Cruise Date: 7/6/90
2-16
-------
Figures 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12 are plots of water-column average nitrogen (total) data for three
cruises during the Summer of 1988 (Appendix D, COM, Volume IV, 1990). Again, there is a
clear gradient with total nitrogen decreasing from the Inner Harbor towards Buzzards Bay,
with no significant high around the existing outfall site.
Hence, these spatial plots strongly suggest that the Inner Harbor is an important source of
DO-depleting substances. There is some evidence that along the shoreline (cruise stations 10,
RR1), there may be additional sources, as well.
2.2 Evaluation of Alternative Scenarios
2.2.1 General
As a first step in evaluating the dissolved oxygen impact from alternative scenarios, it is
helpful to keep in mind that not only are there different discharge locations being considered,
but that the impact from any given discharge will be felt throughout the harbor/bay system.
This notion is sketched, schematically, in Figure 2.13 which depicts the concentration of a
pollutant as a function of distance (south) from the Acushnet River. The two solid lines
represent sources of equal magnitude originating at the existing site and at the 301 (h) site.
The dotted line represents an "outside source" of assumed equal magnitude originating in the
Inner Harbor (see following discussion). The dashed line represents a source of reduced
magnitude at the existing site (e.g., reduced nitrogen loading due to AWT).
Note that concentrations generally decrease in the offshore direction, due to hydrodynamic
flushing and biological, chemical, or physical transformations, if any. Superimposed on the
general decline is a local maximum near the sources whose magnitude depends on initial
mixing, and the exact distance from the source. For example, consider the first solid curve in
Figure 2.13 representing a discharge at Location 1. Near the mixing zone, concentrations
would be high compared with those of an upstream source of equal magnitude (dotted curve).
However, averaged laterally (east-west) the concentration would be similar.
The general shape of these hypothetical curves allows us to draw several general conclusions
that are applicable to the specific situation at hand. First, moving an outfall further offshore
will result in generally lower local concentration of a pollutant due to increased flushing and
better initial mixing due to deeper water and the use of a diffuser. Second, decreased loading
(dashed line; e.g., due to AWT) will result in generally lower concentration of a pollutant
throughout the region. Finally, an upstream source will have a greater effect on near-shore
locations than on offshore sites.
In the following discussion, various alternatives are analyzed using procedures which are
generally similar to those previously used (CDM, Volume IV, 1990). These involve a
2-17
-------
Figure 2.10 Parameter Plotted: Nitrogen (Total Column Average) in p.M
Cruise No. 12 Cruise Date: 6/6/88
2-18
-------
L
Figure 2.11 Parameter Plotted: Nitrogen (Total Column Average) In
Cruise No. 13 Cruise Date: 7/18/88
2-19
-------
Figure 2.12 Parameter Plotted: Nitrogen (Total Column Average) In
Cruise No. 14 Cruise Data: 8/15/88
2-20
-------
C11
C22
C21
C12
X
PREPARED FOR:
EPA - REGION
DATE:
FEB. 1991
SCALE:
NONE
DWG. NO.:
64941-002
Figure 2.13 Pollutant Concentration Distribution Resulting from Outfalls at
1 and 2 (solid lines), an Upstream Source (dots) and a
Reduced Source at 1 (dashes)
2-21
-------
combination of control volume calculations supplemented by field observations and model
(PACE) simulations. This general level of modeling is felt to be reasonable for the purpose
of comparing alternatives, given that there are many uncertainties in both data sets and the
modeling assumptions. The limitations of this analysis and its results are discussed in Section
2.3. The modeling methodology underlying the results discussed here is presented in
Appendix A (Section A.2).
The main contributors to DO depression are thought to be phytoplankton-derived sediment
oxygen demand (SOD) and water column biological oxygen demand (BOD) (both
carbonaceous and nitrogenous) in that order (CDM, Volume IV, 1990); SOD from primary
solid deposition is a distant third. Therefore, the following evaluation of alternative scenarios
concentrates on only the two main contributors. There are three basic issues that need to be
examined: 1) whether the existing site is nitrogen-saturated, 2) the role of other sources to the
existing DO problem, and 3) the possible double accounting of the new and old outfalls.
2.2.2 Basic Issues
2.2.2.1 Nitrogen saturation at existing site. The City's conclusion that the existing site is
nitrogen-saturated, and thus phytoplankton growth is not nitrogen-limited, is based on data
from the nutrient spike experiments reported in Appendix G of the Draft FP/EIR (CDM,
Volume IV, 1990). In general, one would expect to see primary productivity increase with
nitrogen loading (concentration) gradually reaching a plateau as suggested in Figure 2.14.
Unfortunately, there is significant variability, especially for the experiments performed at the
existing site, with some experiments suggesting increased growth, some suggesting no change,
and some suggesting decreased growth as nutrients are added. However, it is safe to say that
the average slope of the curve is fairly flat at the concentrations found near the existing site.
Sensitivity tests were applied to this assumption the results of which showed that conclusions
are less sensitive to the assumption of nitrogen saturation as long as there are significant
additional sources of nitrogen that will not be affected by the level of treatment or outfall
location.
2.2.2.2 Other sources. There is strong evidence that other sources besides the outfall
contribute substantial amounts of BOD and nitrogen to the Outer Harbor. The following
calculation is based on 1988 nitrogen data (CDM, Volume IV, 1990). However, the spatial
distribution of chlorophyll-a data and dissolved oxygen, discussed above, also support the
existence of other sources.
Appendix D (CDM, Volume IV, 1990) contains data on water column-averaged nitrogen for
three cruises during the summer of 1988. For the calculation here, data from the Inner
Harbor (just north of the hurricane barrier) and stations 7 and 4 (northernmost stations below
the hurricane barrier-see Figures 2.10 to 2.12) are most relevant. Table 2.1 summarizes
average concentrations for total nitrogen in units of |iM.
2-22
-------
pp
[N]
PREPARED FOR:
EPA - REGION 1
DATE-
FEB. 1991
SCALE:
NONE
DWG. NO.:
64941-003
Figure 2.14 Idealized Relationship between Primary Productivity and
Nitrogen Loading
2-23
-------
Table 2.1 Total Nitrogen Concentration (uM) In Inner Harbor (IH) and Northernmost
Stations of Outer Harbor (Stations 4, 7-see Figures 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12)
Station Concentration
Cruise Date IH 7 4 Ave74 IH-Average
T2 June 6, 88 34?7 2O 25X) 26~973
13 July 18, 88 39.7 - 18.9 18.9 20.8
14 Aug. 15, 88 27.4 20.8 16.3 18.6 8,8
12.5
2-24
-------
The tidal prism upstream of the hurricane barrier is approximately 4.4 x 106m3 (ASA, 1986).
The mean difference in concentration between inside and outside the barrier is 12.5 u.M=175
mg/m3 (see Table 2.1). Assuming that the measurements in the Inner Harbor and at stations 7
and 4 represent well-mixed water that is exchanged during ebb and flood tides respectively,
then the net flux of nitrogen through the barrier over a 12.4-hour tidal period is 1500 kg/d, or
about 75 percent of the loading from the existing primary treatment plant (1940 kg/d as total
kjeldahl nitrogen, (TKN)) or 65 percent of the estimated future loading under secondary
treatment (2270 kg/d as TKN). Estimated effluent loadings are based on COM, Volume IV,
1990. Given that this calculation omits known shoreline sources (e.g., CSOs, runoff) outside
of the hurricane barrier, it is certainly possible that "other sources" represent a nitrogen
loading that is comparable to the existing outfall. It is recognized that these calculations are
rhased on water column nitrogen concentrations (which reflect the fact that some nitrogen has
already been incorporated into biomass) rather than direct loading. It is beyond the scope of
this project to be able to quantify all point and non-point sources. The units of measure are
also different (total nitrogen vs. TKN) but the difference (NO3 + NO2) is very small. The
use of either total nitrogen or TKN rather than the more available dissolved inorganic
nitrogen is justified because nitrogen cycles among its various forms and much of the
dissolved inorganic nitrogen is already taken up by phytoplankton.
The City has proposed the idea that Buzzards Bay may represent a significant nitrogen source
to New Bedford Harbor. In general, the issue of other nitrogen sources is probably the most
important uncertainty in the analysis presented here and EPA acknowledges that further effort
could be devoted to quantifying Inner Harbor and shoreline sources. In order to illustrate the
-importance of this uncertainty, and to assess the sensitivity of DO modeling results associated
with this uncertainty, the following analysis is performed for a range of Inner Harbor
nitrogen loadings.
2.2.2.3 Double accounting. In analyzing a potential outfall at the 301(h) site in particular,
The City's analysis considered that a new input is added to an existing situation (CDM,
Volume IV, 1990). However, the existing situation already involves the existing primary
treatment plant outfall, which will be removed. Hence there is double accounting. But,
because computed concentrations at the 3()l(h) site are relatively small, this should not be a
serious problem.
2.2.3 Water column DO depression due to alternative scenarios
In order to evaluate the discharge-management alternatives described previously in this
.chapter, basic equations for DO modeling were derived (See Appendix A, Section A.2.1) that
accounted for the possibility of multiple sources with mixed (primary and secondary)
characteristics.
Table 2.2 presents estimates for "average" (in terms of BOD loading and hydrodynamics)
water column DO depressions in the two harbor regions based on five discharge scenarios.
Assuming that the loading from the other nitrogen sources (Acushnet River, shoreline sources,
2-25
-------
Table 2.2 Computed Dissolved Oxygen Depressions (mg/L) under Average Conditions
Existing Site 301 (h)
(Outer Harbor) (Buzzards Bay)
Water Near Water Near
Scenario Description Column Bottom Total Column Bottom Total
Present conditions 0.70 0.46 1.16 0.14 0.10 0.24
(1°; existing outfall)
No outfall 0.35 0.34 0.69 0.07 0.08 0.15
Recommended 0.52 0.58 1.10 0.10 0.13 0.23
(2°; existing outfall)
Additional treatment 0.46 0.39 0.85 0.09 0.09 0.18
(AWT; existing outfall)
Extended outfall 0.37 0.37 0.74 0.13 0.20 0.33
(2°; 301 (h) outfall)
2-26
-------
etc.) to the Outer Harbor are about as large as the primary effluent total nitrogen loading, the
water column DO modeling results suggest the following:
A secondary discharge at the existing outfall (Scenario 3, Table 2.2), would
result in a 25-percent reduction of predicted water column DO depression at
the existing outfall site, and in a 29-percent reduction of predicted water
column DO depression at the 301(h) site.
AWT (Scenario 4, Table 2.2) with discharge at the existing outfall site would
reduce predicted water column DO depression at both sites by about 35
percent.
A secondary discharge at the 301 (h) site (Scenario 5, Table 2.2) would lower
the predicted water column DO depression by nearly 50 percent at the existing
outfall site (close to the no-outfall scenario conditions) and slightly increase
predicted DO depression values at the 301 (h) site.
2.2.4 Phytoplankton-derived SOD due to alternative scenarios
Analysis of DO depression due to phytoplankton-derived SOD was conducted using the
methodology described in Appendix A (Section A.2.2). Results of this analysis are presented
in Table 2.2 for "average conditions," for the five discharge scenarios described earlier.
Assuming, as before, that other nitrogen sources are of the same magnitude as the primary
effluent loading, the modeling results suggest the following:
A secondary discharge at the existing site would increase predicted near-bottom
DO depression by 26 percent at the existing site, and by 30 percent at the
301 (h) site. This is due entirely to the larger availability of ammonia
compared to the current primary discharge;
AWT would reduce the predicted near-bottom DO depression by 15 percent at
the existing site, and by 10 percent at the 301 (h) site; and
A secondary discharge at the 301 (h) site would result in a 20-percent reduction
in the predicted DO depression at the existing site, and a 100-percent increase
in the predicted depression at the 301(h) site.
Hence, combining water column and near-bottom effects, the following results are obtained
(Table 2.2) for average conditions:
A secondary discharge at the existing site would slightly reduce (5 percent)
predicted total DO depression at the existing site, and leave virtually unchanged
the conditions at the 301 (h) site;
2-27
-------
AWT would reduce the predicted DO depression at the existing site by 27
percent, and by a similar amount at the 301 (h) site; in addition, this option
would reduce harbor-wide DO depression due to substantially reduced nitrogen
discharge.
A secondary discharge at the 301 (h) site would improve conditions at the
existing site by 36 percent (and to a somewhat lesser extent throughout most of
the Inner Harbor), and increase the predicted DO depression at the 301 (h) site
by the same amount (37 percent), with considerably less of
an increase elsewhere in the Bay due to greater initial and far-field dilution.
The above results are for "average" conditions, which means average BOD loading (affecting
water column concentrations) and average hydrodynamic conditions (affecting near-bottom
concentrations). Results for worst-case conditions are shown in Table 2.3 (for comparison,
see CDM, Volume IV, 1990). Worst-case conditions can be simply derived from the City's
analysis. That is, in comparison with Table 2.2 for average conditions, all water column
depressions are multiplied by 1.4, accounting for outside nitrogen sources, while near-bottom
depressions are multiplied by 3.9 for the Outer Harbor and 2.9 for Buzzards Bay. It is
emphasized that all of these calculations are very approximate, but they should provide a
reasonable basis for comparing alternatives.
2.2.5 Sensitivity analysis
A sensitivity analysis is performed to examine the changes in DO depression levels for the
five discharge scenarios as they would result from different assumptions regarding the
magnitude of "other" nitrogen sources. For average and worst-case scenarios, Tables 2.2 and
2.3 respectively, show the change in DO values, assuming the "other" sources are as large in
magnitude (100 percent) as the primary discharge loading. Tables 2.4 and 2.5 show the
change in DO values for a range of "other" sources estimates: 0 (no other sources), 50 (other
sources are half the magnitude as the treatment plant), 100, 200 percent (other sources twice
the magnitude of the treatment plant).
The implications of this sensitivity analysis are as follows:
The City's recommended discharge alternative (CDM, Volume IV, 1990),
assuming no other nitrogen sources, as was the assumption in the FP/EIR,
would lead to a ADO improvement of 12 percent (1.02 mg/L versus 1.16 mg/L)
at the existing site, and 8 percent at the 301 (h) site. The improvement at both
locations is highest if there are no other nitrogen sources.
2-28
-------
Table 2.3 Computed Dissolved Oxygen Depressions (mg/L) under Extreme Conditions
Scenario Description
Existing Site 301(h)
(Outer Harbor) (Buzzards Bay)
Water Near Water Near
Column Bottom Total Column Bottom Total
Present conditions 1.0
(1°; existing outfall)
No outfall
0.5
Recommended 0.7
(2°; existing outfall)
Additional treatment 0.6
(AWT; existing outfall)
Extended outfall 0.5
(2°; 301 (h) outfall)
1.8 2.8 0.2 0.3 0.5
1.3 1.8 0.1 0.2 0.3
2.3 3.0 0.1 0.4 0.5
1.5 2.2 0.1 0.3 0.4
1.4 2.0 0.2 0.6 0.8
2-29
-------
Table 2.4 Computed Dissolved Oxygen Depressions (mg/L) Under Average Conditions as
a Function of Varying Upstream Sources
Upstream Source Existing
(% of existing outfall) WC Bottom
1. Present Conditions
2 No outfall
3 Recommended
4 AWT
5 Extended outfall
200
100
50
0
200
100
50
0
200
100
50
0
200
100
50
0
200
100
50
0
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.47
0.35
0.23
0.00
0.58
0.52
0.46
0.33
0.54
0.46
0.39
0.22
0.48
0.37
0.26
0.03
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.38
0.34
0.31
0.23
0.54
0.58
0.61
0.69
0.41
0.39
0.37
0.32
0.40
0.37
0.34
0.28
Site
Total
1.16
1.16
1.16
1.16
0.85
0.69
0.54
0.23
1.12
1.10
1.07
1.02
0.95
0.85
0.76
0.54
0.88
0.74
0.60
0.31
301(h)
WC Bottom
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.09
0.07
0.05
0.00
0.12
0.10
0.09
0.07
0.11
0.09
0.08
0.04
0.13
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.05
0.12
0.13
0.13
0.15
0.09
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
Total
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.17
0.15
0.12
0.05
0.24
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.20
0.18
0.16
0.11
0.33
0.33
0.32
0.31
2-30
-------
Table 2.5 Computed Dissolved Oxygen Depressions (mg/L) Under Extreme Conditions
as a Function of Varying Upstream Source
Upstream Source
(% of existing outfall) WC
1 Present Conditions
2 No outfall
3 Recommended
4 AWT
5 Extended outfall
200
100
50
0
200
100
50
0
200
100
50
0
200
100
50
0
200
100
50
0
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.3
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.1
Existing
Bottom
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.5
1.3
1.2
0.9
2.1
2.3
2.4
2.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.2
1.6
1.4
1.3
1.1
Site
Total
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.1
2.1
1.8
1.6
0.9
2.8
3.0
3.1
3.3
2.3
2.2
2.0
1.6
2.2
2.0
1.7
1.4
WC
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
301(h)
Bottom Total
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
2-31
-------
Both AWT and outfall extension would improve the ADO conditions at both
locations most if there were no other nitrogen sources to the Outer Harbor.
The larger the other sources of nitrogen are, the smaller the improvement of
DO resulting from improving the level of treatment at the treatment plant.
2.2.6 Expanded analysis of extended outfall Impact on marine life
The Supplemental Final FP/EIR (CDM, Volume VIII, 1991) discusses potential secondary
effluent discharge impacts on marine life and harbor users. The report first discusses the
existing site, concluding that a secondary discharge at that site would result in a slight
increase in primary productivity in the Outer Harbor, with no impact on macrophytes, and a
resulting increase in the diversity of benthic species in the direct vicinity of the outfall. DO
levels in the Outer Harbor are not expected to change. As to the option of moving the outfall
to the 301 (h) site, the report concludes that, based on a more detailed 1991 analysis, a
secondary discharge there might result in a significant increase in the relative abundance of
Mediamastus ambiseta, a reported indicator species for moderate marine biological stress. The
City thus revised their 1990 impact rating for the extended outfall option from "negligible" to
that of "potential adverse impact."
It is not certain that a local increase in primary productivity (due to conversion from a
primary to a secondary discharge at the existing site) would result in an increase in benthic
diversity in the immediate vicinity of the outfall. Switching from primary to secondary
treatment should result in a substantial reduction in the total organic load of the effluent and
an increase in the concentration of primary (inorganic) nutrients. This might, depending on
the magnitude of the change, result in an increase in primary production in the water column
and a decrease in total production in the sediments. The Nucula-Mediomastus benthic
community at the site is a fairly diverse, deposit feeder-dominated, soft-bottom community,
and its diversity could either increase or decrease following a decrease in organic loading in
sediments (Pearson and Rosenberg, 1978).
The data presented in the FP/EIR (CDM, Volume IV, 1990; CDM, Volume VIII, 1991)
indicate that at Station M3, the DO concentration did fall below 4 mg/L on a few occasions.
At a salinity of about 31 ppt and a temperature of 23°C, a DO of 4 mg/L is equivalent to 52
percent saturation (saturated concentration, 7.60 mg/L). As stated in CDM, Volume VIII,
1991, most estuarine and near-coastal benthic invertebrates and demersal fish can easily
tolerate DO at least as low as 50 percent saturation. The brief drops of DO below 50 to 60
percent saturation probably are not unduly stressful to the resident benthic fauna. However,
the apparent difference in the tolerance between the Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus)
and the American lobster (Homarus americanus) to low DO should be explored further. As
the authors state, the difference could be due to experimental design and not to actual
differences in tolerance. As a general rule, early life stages of lobsters are more sensitive to
2-32
-------
environmental stresses than juveniles and adults. Thus, juveniles and adults may not be
stressed by local DO conditions. Certainly, lobsters are abundant in the vicinity of the sewage
wastewater/sludge outfall in Boston Harbor (presumably low in DO).
The benthic community at the existing site is dominated by the polychaete Mediomastus
ambiseta which is characteristic of moderately stressed, muddy nearshore marine/estuarine
sediments in southern New England (Sanders, 1958; Hyland, et al., 1985). Sanders (1958)
identified the Nucula proxima community as one of two dominant benthic communities
described for Buzzards Bay. Mediomastus was not described by Sanders (1958) as pan of this
community in Buzzards Bay in 1955. Apparently this species replaced Nephthys incisa as the
dominant polychaete in the community throughout the Long Island Sound area some years
-later. This community, dominated by the polychaete Mediomastus and the bivalve Nucula is
now common in muddy sediments at moderate water depths throughout the region. It
probably can be considered a "balanced indigenous population". Rhoads et al. (1978) defined
the similar Nucula-Nephthvs community as an equilibrium community. Grassle and Grassle
(1974) described Mediomnstus ambiseta as one of the less opportunistic polychaete species
inhabiting offshore fine sediments near an oil spill site in Buzzards Bay off West Falmouth.
Hyland et al. (1985) reported that M.. ambiseta was one of the more sensitive species to
experimental oiling of fine-grained sediments in Narragansett Bay. Therefore, Meiomastus
ambiseta is not an indicator of a severely stressed habitat.
The other major benthic community identified by Sanders (1958) in Buzzards Bay is a sandy
bottom community dominated by three species of amphipods. A third community, dominated
by the polychaete Streblospio benedicti, was identified by Hyland et al. (1985) in
Narragansett Bay and is characteristic of more severely stressed muddy bottoms. According to
Sanders (1958), the distributions of the Nucula and amphipod communities in Buzzards Bay
was determined primarily by sediment grain size. The Nucula community was restricted
primarily to sediment with a high proportion of silt and clay, whereas the amphipod
community preferred sandy sediments. Therefore, the Mediomastus-Nucula community
probably occurs in sediments at the existing site because sediments there are fine textured,
and not because of effects of the effluent and related stress.
The low abundance of Mediomastus at the 3()l(h) site probably is due primarily to sediment
texture at that site. Locating a secondary effluent outfall there probably would not
substantially change the sediment texture at the site and, therefore, may not result in an
increase in the abundance of Mediomastus in sediments near the outfall. Thus, siting of the
outfall at this site probably would result in only small local changes in benthic community
structure. Siting the secondary effluent outfall at the existing site also probably would not
result in a significant change in the already existing moderately stressed community at the
existing site. From an ecosystem perspective, the possible changes at the 301 (h) site would be
relatively inconsequential.
2-33
-------
2.3 Limitations and Conclusions
2.3.1 Limitations of the analysis
1. The discussion of alternatives to the recommended option is driven primarily by
observations of violation of DO standards from moored meters located 30 cm off the
bottom. DO gradients are steep near the bottom, and it may not be appropriate to
characterize such a regime by a single-point measurement. It would be preferable to
accompany a recommendation by a biological assessment showing whether or not
there is currently an environmental impact. Based on the evaluation presented herein,
EPA does not see cause for a "potential adverse impact".
2. As stated earlier, available data on the spatial distribution of nitrogen, chlorophyll-a,
and DO suggest that other sources (primarily the Inner Harbor) represent a substantial
contribution (perhaps as much as 50 percent) of the respective budgets. Our
conclusions are very sensitive to the relative magnitude of these sources. Although we
have confidence that the modeling approach discussed in Section 2.2 is appropriate
and adequate for generating the DO-depression estimates listed in Tables 2.2 and 2.3
as functions of the different management options discussed, the most critical
assumption is the estimate of the relative magnitude of sources other than the effluent
to the nitrogen loading in the Outer Harbor. The analysis is also sensitive to the
degree to which primary productivity increases in response to additional nitrogen
loading (see discussion in Section 2.2.2 and Figure 2.13). There was considerable
variability in the results of the nutrient spike experiments (CDM, Volume IV, 1990).
However, as it turns out, conclusions regarding predicted DO depressions are less
sensitive to the assumption of nitrogen saturation as long as there are significant
additional sources of nitrogen (e.g., Inner Harbor, CSOs) that will not be affected by
the level of treatment or outfall location.
2.3.2 Major conclusions
1. The City's preferred alternative (secondary treatment with effluent discharged at the
existing outfall) will result in dissolved oxygen conditions which are similar to those
currently experienced. The larger the nitrogen loading from other sources, the smaller
any DO improvements realized.
2. EPA's concurs with the general methodology used by the City (CDM, Volume IV, 1990)
for evaluating DO, and agrees with the general conclusion that the primary factors
governing DO depression are phytoplankton-derived SOD and water column BOD (in
that order), and that SOD from primary solids is comparatively small. However,
examination of available data on the spatial distribution of nitrogen, chlorophyll-a, and
2-34
-------
DO suggests that other sources (primarily the Inner Harbor) represent a substantial
contribution (perhaps as much as 50 percent) of these BOD and SOD sources.
3. Moving the outfall to the 301 (h) site or going to AWT with the existing outfall will lead
to generally improved dissolved oxygen conditions. However, because of other sources
of BOD and nitrogen to the Outer Harbor, the magnitude of improvement will be less
than one would conclude from the analysis contained in the FP/EIR, which essentially
concluded that the only inputs of BOD and nitrogen were from the existing treatment
plant. It is important to point out that some violations of the DO standard will probably
still occur with either option, although they would be less in frequency and duration than
under existing conditions or under the City's recommended outfall plan.
4. Moving the outfall to the 301 (h) site will reduce the nitrogen concentrations in the Outer
Harbor. Even if depressions go up slightly, near the relocated site, this option seems
more responsive to the DO standard than the option of going to AWT with the existing
outfall. On the other hand, AWT will reduce the total nitrogen entering the system,
suggesting less algal stimulation throughout. It is just that this improvement will be felt
more or less uniformly, rather than in the area which is currently in greatest violation.
Thus the extent of current violations will be reduced more by moving the outfall than by
AWT.
5. In its Supplemental FP/EIR, the City suggests that the period of time required for
conditions to respond to a positive change (such as moving the outfall further offshore)
would be several years. We find no reason to disagree with this assessment and note that
similar periods of time are felt to govern the recovery of Chesapeake Bay with respect to
its annual problem of near-bottom anoxia.
2-35
-------
CHAPTER THREE
PUBLIC AND AGENCY COMMENTS
This section incorporates both the oral and written public/agency comments received
regarding EPA's Draft EIS for wastewater treatment facilities for the City of New Bedford.
The Draft EIS was made available to the public December 15, 1989. The document was
distributed to the City's Citizens Advisory Committee, a technical advisory group, state and
federal agencies, and public libraries, where it was available to all interested parties. In
addition, numerous copies were distributed to private citizens at their request.
f
In order to facilitate public comment, EPA held a public hearing, at which oral comments
were presented and recorded, at the Whaling Museum in New Bedford January 24, 1990. In
addition to oral comments, EPA accepted written comments on the Draft EIS during the 60-
day comment period following the issuance of the draft document. In this manner, oral and
written comments were received from elected officials, government agencies, citizens groups,
organizations, and individuals. The following is a discussion of the approach taken by EPA
in addressing the comments.
EPA has reviewed all comments received and generated a complete list of all pertinent issues
raised. All comments (transcript or letter), which are included as Appendix B to this Final
EIS, were assigned an identification number. A matrix (Table 3.1) containing names and
affiliations of commentors and comment issues was developed to provide a summary of the
issues raised in each comment. It should be noted that each separate letter or oral comment
has been assigned a comment ID number; however, many commentors commented on
multiple issues as indicated in Table 3.1.
With few exceptions, comment issues fit into the general categories of issues and concerns
identified at the scoping meeting (Draft EIS Section 8.4) held by EPA March 23, 1988, in
New Bedford at the Buttonwood Library. The general issue categories addressed in the
comments and listed in the matrix include the following:
Air Quality, Odors, and Noise. Includes the quality of air in the vicinity of
the new wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) during construction; odors and
transmission of airborne pathogens and nonconventional pollutants associated
with operation of the WWTP and solids disposal facilities; noise resulting from
construction activities (e.g., blasting, rock crushing, operation of heavy
machinery) and increased traffic associated with solids transportation during
WWTP operation.
Cultural Resources. Includes significant historic or archaeological resources
on the candidate sites that could potentially be disturbed or destroyed by
implementation of the recommended plan.
3-1
-------
Ecology. Includes issues pertaining to wetlands delineation and impacts,
wildlife, benthic communities, marine fauna, shellfish beds, and other
noncommercial fish resources.
Land Use Conflicts. Includes concerns that the sites considered for the
WWTP were also proposed for other public and private use; location of Site
1A outside the hurricane barrier and within the 100-year floodplain; zoning and
land acquisition issues.
Policy and Regulations. Includes the public notification/hearing process;
EPA's use of the FP/EIR for data and technical information in "piggyback"
fashion; federal and state regulations; permitting issues; final siting decisions.
Public Health. Includes public health concerns regarding toxicity associated
with leachate from sludge landfilling, air emissions, and secondary effluent.
Socioeconomic. Includes the construction and operation costs of the facilities;
change in the local tax burden; property values; sewer/water user fees; lost
opportunity costs associated with WWTP and sludge landfill siting.
Technology/Design. Includes WWTP design; landfill design; chemical
fixation/ stabilization of sludge; backup power for WWTP.
Transportation/Traffic. Includes projected traffic increases during
construction and operation of the new treatment facilities and their impact on
existing road conditions.
Water Quality/Resources. Includes potential impacts to water quality from
effluent discharges or releases from WWTP malfunctions; impact to sediment
quality from the outfall; impacts to groundwater from landfill leaching.
Other. Includes miscellaneous comments that are not directly related to any of
the above issue categories. Also includes comments reflecting the thought or
opinion of the commentor, but that do not necessarily address a specific issue.
In a few cases of the latter type, responses are not provided.
Categorizing comment issues in this manner permits clear presentation and discussion of each
general issue, and discussion of specifics relating to a general issue, where appropriate.
Sections of Chapter Four-Responses to Comments correspond to the issue categories
presented in the matrix in Table 3.1.
3-2
-------
Comment Issue*
Table 3.1 Public and Agency Comments Received on Draft EIS
<
ID*
0001
0002
0003
0004
0006
0008
0007
OO08
0009
0010
0011
0012
0013
0014
0016
0016
0017
0018
0019
0020
0021
0022
0023
0024
0026
0026
0027
0028
0029
0030
0031
0032
Nam* Affiliation or Residence
George Rogers Office of City Council, New Bedford
Kim Maree Johannessen Wright & Moehrko, Boston
Allen Johnson Mass Historical Commission, Boston
George Rogers Office of City Council, New Bedford
Denis Lawrence State Representative of 14th Bristol District
Ralph Soulnier City Councilor, New Bedford
Maureen Sylvia Resident, New Bedford
Eugenia Florio Resident. New Bedford
William Bancroft Resident, New Bedford
Joyce Bancroft Resident, New Bedford
Natalie Amett Resident. New Bedford
Mary Hoeglund Resident, New Bedford
Nelson Macedo Councilor Ward 6, New Bedford
Cariton J. Smith Resident. New Bedford
William Famham Imtra, New Bedford
Thomas Kelleher Resident. New Bedford
Mr. and Mrs. Deaantos Resident. New Bedford
Deborah Gonzaga Resident, New Bedford
Beth Kilanowich Resident, New Bedford
James E. Brownhill Resident. New Bedford
Robert D. Madeiras Resident, New Bedford
Dana Bemier Resident. New Bedford
Jeanne M. Chadwick Resident, New Bedford
Wayne Kilanowich Resident. New Bedford
Michael J. Glinski Office of Mayor, New Bedford
Richard Cahaly Polaroid Corporation, Cambridge
Natalie Amen Save Fort Rodman Committee, New Bedford
Jeffrey R. Bench - Mass Coastal Zone Management, Boston
Paul A. Taurasi Department of Environmental Quality Engineering, Boston
Myron L Gildeagame Department of Environmental Management Boston
Mrs. Walter Mason Resident New Bedford
William F. Lawless Department of Army Corps of Engineers, Watlham
Air Quality, Odor, and Noise
e
e
e
e
e
Cultural Resources ,
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
i"
|
a
e
e
e
e
e
Und Use Conflict.
e
e
Policy and Regulations
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
Public Haahh
e
e
Socioeconomic
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
Technology/Design - 1
e
j
1
1
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
Water Quality/Resources
e
e
e
e
I
e
e
e
e
e
e
U)
CJ
OHS4M11A2»107213
-------
CHAPTER FOUR
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
The following sections address issues and concerns raised in the oral and written comments
received on the Draft EIS. The sections correspond to the issues included in the matrix
presented as Table 3.1. Each section begins with a synopsis of the comments, followed by
EPA's response, where appropriate. Because the City of New Bedford has made some
.modifications to its recommended plan since the issuance of the Draft EIS, some concerns are
^10 longer applicable. Nonetheless, EPA addressed all comments received on its Draft EIS in
4his Final EIS; all comments received have been reviewed, included in the matrix presented in
Chapter Three, addressed in this chapter, and reproduced in Appendix B.
WWTP siting is included in most of the issue categories. In EPA's Draft EIS, siting at either
the Fort Rodman site (Site 1A) or Standard Times Field (Site 4A) was deemed
environmentally acceptable. The WWTP siting was brought to a vote before the New
Bedford City Council in May 1990 with the resulting selection of Site 1A for location of the
WWTP. In this Final EIS, EPA addresses specific comments as they relate to siting the
WWTP at Site 1A.
4.1 Air Quality, Odors, and Noise
Cotnmentors were concerned that the air quality Impact would be greater at the Fort
Rodman site (Site 1A) than at the Standard Times Field site(Site 4A). Commentors
questioned why Site 1A was not given a significant Impact as voted by CAC.
Commentors were also concerned whether any consideration was given to the
prevailing southwest winds in the vicinity of Fort Rodman that could have an effect on
air quality and odor in the residential area abutting Site 1A.
Based on criteria described on page 6-31 of the Draft EIS, it is projected that there will be
moderate air quality impacts produced by locating the WWTP at either Site 1A or Site 4A.
Although both "moderate" and "significant" ratings indicate pollutant levels above air quality
standards, if the exceedance can be mitigated using best available control technology, then the
impact is considered moderate. Since both sites are in areas currently designated as "not in
attainment" with National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone, both sites will require
the same volatile organic compounds (VOCs) control technology. Potential emissions of all
substances other than VOCs are expected to produce ambient concentrations which will be
below state or federal standards at both sites. Overall, EPA considers both candidate sites
equal with respect to compliance with air toxicity and odor criteria, and as a result, the air
quality impact is not expected to be greater at the Fort Rodman site than at the Standard-
Times Field site.
4-v
-------
Although any air quality impacts at Site 4A would affect a larger population (there are more
residences within one-half mile of Site 4A than there are at Site 1A), these differences are not
significant compared to other assumptions made in air quality analyses. The impact is not
defined as "significant," despite the vote of the CAC, because predicted pollutant
concentrations can be mitigated at Site 1A using the best available control technologies.
EPA has taken into consideration the prevailing wind directions in assessing odor impacts
from siting the WWTP at Fort Rodman. Based on data from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (Table 5.3-3 of Draft EIS), the prevailing wind
direction is generally southwesterly, meaning the wind blows from the southwest to the
northeast. The winds blow from the east-southeast only 10 to 20 percent of the time, across
the site toward the residences that are nearest Site 1A.
In Massachusetts, odors are regulated in general terms, rather than through numerical limits,
by local boards of health and by the division of Air Quality Control and Water Pollution
Control of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. In previous studies,
the Massachusetts Secretary of Environmental Affairs required that there be no detectable
odor when one pan of ambient air from the project is diluted with one part of odor-free air.
This standard is met at both candidate sites. Predicted odor impacts from the proposed
WWTP at Sites 1A and 4A are less than the odor threshold concentrations for VOCs,
hydrogen sulfide and ammonia (as shown in Tables 6.3-3 and 6.3-4 of the Draft EIS).
Although these measurable compounds are generally considered to be good odor indicators,
that does not guarantee that there will be no odor-causing compounds emitted during plant
operation. If an odor is detected during operation, the compound(s) responsible can be
isolated and specific mitigation measures can be developed.
Because of the proximity of Site 40 to Polaroid's facility, and to the possible future
expansion area for Polaroid, the company was concerned that air pollutants from
sludge disposal at Site 40 could affect the company's photographic film production
processes and products. Polaroid was concerned that air pollution requirements and
abatement technologies might not be adequate to protect the company's production
activities. Polaroid was also concerned that sludge disposal at Site 40 will generate
odors detectable at their existing facility.
Section 6.3 in the Draft EIS provides data on expected air concentrations of volatile organic
compounds, odor-causing organic compounds, and odor-causing inorganic compounds (Tables
6.3-1 through 6.3-5). The volatile organic compounds listed are those that are typically found
in municipal wastes. Volatile compounds are the most likely to impact air quality because
they are the most likely to get into the air. Semivolatile and even nonvolatile compounds can
also get into the air (e.g., evaporation, or sorption onto panicles that may become airborne),
but to a much lesser extent. The fixation of the sludge, which will occur at the WWTP prior
to disposal, will reduce the volatility of the sludge to an extent that the emission of volatile
compounds will be negligible. Chemicals used in the fixation process would be stored and
applied at the WWTP, and thus should not present any potential impact to air quality in the
4-2
-------
vicinity of the sludge disposal site. Also, because the physical characteristics of sludge are
such that little dust is produced, and the landfilled sludge material would be covered with soil
daily (Draft EIS, Section 6.3.3), no significant impact on air quality or Polaroid's operations
is expected. EPA recognizes that there have been isolated instances of odor problems
associated with one of the patented chemical fixation processes (ChemFix), but it is
expected that these problems can be avoided through appropriate mitigation and by selecting a
proven chemical fixation process.
Section 3.1 of the Draft EIS addressed sludge characterization. Several sources were used to
estimate the projected quality of the combined primary and secondary sludge. These sources
included an Industrial Pretreatment Program study, sludge sample analyses, Phase I primary
Sludge and wastewater sample analyses, Phase II primary sludge samples and PCB pilot plant
analyses, and typical WWTP removal efficiencies for metals and other chemicals (CDM,
Volume IE, 1989). A detailed discussion of these results was provided in the Draft EIS. In
general, copper, chromium, nickel, and molybdenum were predicted to be present in high
concentrations in sludge (i.e., exceeding Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) Type II criteria), as were PCBs. Mercury compounds, sulfur compounds
(with the exception of hydrogen sulfide), aldehydes, iron compounds, lead compounds, and tin
compounds are not addressed specifically. The Draft EIS (Section 6.3.3) addressed the
potential generation of gases, which could contain hydrogen sulfide, in the landfill due to
anaerobic decay of the sludge over long periods of time (5 to 10 years), but this potential
impact can be mitigated by maintaining the integrity of the landfill surface or installing a
passive gas collection system.
EPA acknowledges the sensitivity of Polaroid's film products to specific types of compounds
that may be associated with municipal sludge. However, because the recommended plan in
the Supplemental Final FP/EIR and this Final EIS does not include sludge disposal at Site 40,
EPA is not recommending further analyses of sludge for compounds that could potentially be
threatening to Polaroid's film products.
Several commentors were concerned that the impact of noise resulting from blasting
during the construction phase of the project would be greater should the WWTP be
sited at Fort Rodman (Site 1A).
At Site 1A, rock removal, which requires drilling and blasting, would be the noisiest
construction activity. Rock drills could generate up to 98 dBA (approximately equivalent to
the sound of a jet plane) at 50 feet away, and the on-site rock crusher would generate about
90 DBA (the sound of thunder) at 50 feet. Rock drills would be used intermittently, and the
rock crusher would be in use almost continuously during the construction day. Blasting
would also be necessary during construction and would occur 4 to 5 times daily, as isolated
blasts lasting for perhaps several seconds, for approximately 6 months.
4-3
-------
Construction noise dissipates at least 6 dBA with every doubling of the distance from the
source. Therefore, typical sustained construction noise levels at the northern property
boundary (outdoor) due to rock drilling could range from 53 (the sound of a typewriter) to 75
(the sound of normal traffic) dBA. Intermittent peak noise levels (blasting) at the northern
property boundary due to rock drilling could range from 73 to 83 dBA (the sound of a
subway).
During a typical sustained construction work day, construction noise would be audible over
background noise levels within 1000 ft of the site. At the residences closest to the site (on
the north side of Rodney French Boulevard), outdoor daytime noise levels would be increased
by about 9 dBA to about 64 dBA (a noisy office). People in residences closest to the site
would be subjected to noise levels of approximately 49 dBA (a typewriter) to 54 dBA (loud
conversation), which is similar to currently existing noise levels (CDM, Volume V, 1989).
At Site 4A, the most significant source of noise would be the operation of heavy equipment.
If all equipment were used simultaneously, which would be rare, noise levels could reach 100
dBA (jet plane) at 50 feet away. At Site 4A, there would be no rock removal or blasting
activity during construction.
EPA agrees that the impact of noise from blasting during the construction phase of the project
would be greater if the WWTP were built at Site 1A, but does not feel that the additional
impact is sufficient to make Site 1A unacceptable for siting.
Because of the proximity of Site 40 to Polaroid's facility, and to the possible future
expansion area for Polaroid, the company is concerned with the possible negative
effect of noise from sludge disposal operations exceeding state criteria.
In response to Polaroid's comment (although it should be noted that Site 40 is not pan of the
City's recommended plan), noise levels during the operational phase of the plan would
increase by as much as 21.5 to 25 dBA (normal conversation) at Site 40 boundaries, which
exceeds the state criteria and EPA guidelines. However, operations at the site would not be
constant, and there would be no significant increase in noise levels (less than 1 dBA increase)
at the nearest sensitive receptors, which are houses in the Pine Hill Acres development
approximately 4000 ft away. Although Polaroid has four buildings closer to the eastern site
boundary than the Pine Hill Acres development, the proposed access route enters the site on
the northern side. Further, because of the sensitivity of Polaroid's chemical coating
processes, their facilities typically require central air handling systems that control
temperature and humidity. Without open windows, operational noises would be expected to
have little impact on Polaroid's present facility.
4-4
-------
4.2 Cultural Resources
Many commentors were concerned that construction of the WWTP at Fort Rodman (Site
1A) would destroy the historical and archaeological value of the area.
Location of a WWTP at Site 1A could have a significant impact on historic and
archaeological resources because the site contains the Fort Taber Historical District and
several other historic structures and artifacts potentially eligible for inclusion in the District or
the National Register of Historic Places. As Site 1A has been chosen for the WWTP in the
City's Supplemental Final FP/EIR (CDM, Volume VII, 1990), a more detailed evaluation to
.determine National Register eligibility was required in order to comply with the National
Historic Preservation Act. The Boston University Office of Public Archaeology conducted
the Phase II investigation at Fort Rodman on behalf of the City of New Bedford. The
investigation concluded that the Allen/Howland Farmstead lacks sufficient integrity to warrant
its inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (Boston University Office of Public
Archaeology, 199 la).
It should also be noted that selection of Site 1A for location of the WWTP requires that
mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts to the district be included as stipulations in
-the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that has been drafted. Such an MOA is dictated by
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and is being prepared in consultation
with the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC), EPA, the Massachusetts Department
of Environmental Protection (DEP), and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
These mitigation measures are described in Chapter Five of this Final EIS.
The City's Draft FP/EIR recommended plan included provisions for beautification and
improvement to the Fort Rodman/Fort Taber area. The Final FP/EIR included cost-saving
measures for the WWTP as a result of a value engineering analysis. These cost-saving
measures eliminated much of the cultural benefit derived from mitigation measures at Site
1A, as proposed in the Draft FP/EIR. However, in its Supplemental Final FP/EIR, the City
rescinded most of the recommendations prompted by the value engineering analysis. In light
of the restoration of mitigation measures associated with WWTP siting at Site 1A, EPA
concludes that the construction of the WWTP at Fort Rodman will not destroy the historical
and archaeological value of that area. Rather, the planned mitigation, which includes
stabilization of the existing Fort Taber structure, safety and accessibility improvements, and
paving of the area in front of the fort, will have a positive impact on the cultural resources at
Site 1A.
Commentors were concerned about the archaeological artifacts found In subsurface
soils during site studies by Boston University's Office of Public Archaeology (OPA) at
Sites 47 and 40.
4-5
-------
The results of initial archaeological investigations at the two alternative landfill sites revealed
that each site contains a potentially significant prehistoric archaeological site. Based upon
these findings, the MHC recommended that a Phase II archaeological site examination be
conducted at Site 47 (the preferred site) in order to determine if the archaeological site, which
could be disturbed by construction of the landfill, is eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places.
After reviewing the conclusions of the Phase II survey, EPA does not expect that Site 47's
archaeological resources will be eligible for the National Register, or that mitigation will be
required. However, if MHC's review concludes otherwise (MHC has requested additional
information from OPA regarding the results of the site examination archaeological survey
before completing its review), mitigation measures for any anticipated impacts at the proposed
landfill site will be incorporated into the MOA that is being prepared in accordance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
4.3 Ecology
Commentors were concerned with the different wetlands delineations at the Airport
sludge-only landfill site (Site 47). Concern was also voiced about the significant filling
at Site 47 and the impact to the Acushnet Cedar Swamp at Site 40.
Wetlands delineation at Site 47. In order to obtain a definitive wetlands delineation at the
airport sludge-only landfill site (Site 47), the services of Normandeau Associates, Inc. of
Bedford, New Hampshire were retained by the City of New Bedford through its contractor,
Camp Dresser and McKee, to perform a more precise wetlands delineation in July, 1990. The
Normandeau Associates wetlands delineation report identified three upland areas within Site
47 (Normandeau Associates, 1990). The three areas are as follows:
A 17.5-acre parcel, bounded by the railroad tracks on the south, and extending
north from the tracks along both sides of the existing 42-in water main.
A 15-acre parcel, beginning about 600 feet west of the water main and 300 feet
north of the railroad tracks. This upland area is completely surrounded by
wetlands.
A 1-acre parcel along the railroad tracks, about 1,500 feet west of the water
main/railroad track intersection.
These areas are approximately the same as the three uplands areas identified by EPA's
consulting engineers on the Draft E1S, C-E Environmental, Inc., in August, 1989. Both of
these studies identified the wetlands areas according to the procedure and criteria prescribed
4-6
-------
in the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. 1989. The
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has verified the Federal wetland boundary at Site 47.
The landfill capacity analysis determined that the 1-acre upland parcel along the railroad
tracks would be too small to be developed into a landfill (Normandeau Associates, 1990).
The 15-acre upland area had some potential, but development without wetlands impacts would
have been limited by its irregular shape. The 17.5-acre upland area was most suitable, but
the water main would have had to have been relocated. By relocating the water main in the
buffer zone, it would have been possible to develop a 5-year backup landfill without any
.wetlands impacts.
iThe Normandeau report also included a preliminary wetlands reconnaissance along the golf
course and the proposed landfill access road. This field investigation indicated some potential
problem areas. The southern edge of the golf course, along the interstate highway right-of-
way, is nearly all upland with one wetland pocket that was formed by a manmade depression.
It appeared that this depression could have been avoided without adversely impacting the golf
course. The western edge of the golf course is just beyond the fairway, close to an area of
poorly drained soil covered with wetlands vegetation. This vegetation approaches within 50
to 100 feet of the cleared golf course area.
Based on this information, and given the current regulatory policy of no net loss of wetlands,
the proposed plan for accessing Site 47 is to construct a pile-supported road parallel to the
railroad tracks. By elevating the road, minimal impacts to the wetlands (approximately 360
ft2) will occur from positioning the pilings, with some additional impact from shading. To
compensate for the loss, approximately 1,000 ft2 of wetland area could be replicated on the
upland island northwest of the proposed landfill location (Normandeau Associates, 1990).
Significance of filling at Site 47. Construction of the final-phase 20-year sludge landfill at
Site 47 would require filling more than one acre of federally protected wetlands and more
than 5,000 ft2 of bordering vegetated wetlands. Therefore, due to wetlands constraints,
construction of a full 20-year landfill at Site 47 would be environmentally unacceptable.
There is, however, sufficient capacity for a 5-year sludge-only landfill for chemically-fixed
sludge without net loss of wetlands. Site 47 is proposed only as a short-term backup to the
proposed Crapo Hill Landfill.
The City's proposed landfill design (COM, Volume V, 1990) incorporates a leachate
^collection system and surface water sediment control features that should protect adjacent
wetlands from long-term hydrologic impacts. A leachate pumping station, consisting of a
separate,, prefabricated wet well and dry well, will be constructed. The dry well will contain
two non-clog sewage pumps with appropriate controls. Leachate will be pumped to a gravity
sewer that connects to a sewer along Shawmut Avenue. In order to control transport of
eroded soils and solids, sedimentation basins will be constructed in exposed areas of the
4-7
-------
landfill. All site runoff will pass through a sedimentation basin prior to discharge to adjacent
wetlands.
Potential for Impact to the Acushnet Cedar Swamp at Site 40. Site 40 contains an
extensive area of freshwater bordering vegetated wetlands, estimated to include approximately
114 acres of the 384-acre site. These wetlands are part of the Acushnet Cedar Swamp. The
sludge disposal facility at Site 40 could be built entirely in upland areas and would not result
in filling of wetlands in the Acushnet Cedar Swamp. Erosion of surface soils during
construction and subsequent sedimentation in the swamp could, however, occur. Mitigation
measures designed to minimize potential impacts to the adjacent Acushnet Cedar Swamp
would be coordinated with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps has not verified
the Federal wetland boundary at Site 40 because Site 40 is not pan of the City's
recommended plan contained in the Supplemental Final FP/EIR. Should the City revisit the
use of Site 40 as part of its current supplemental sludge management facilities planning, EPA
will assess any new information provided prior to making a determination of acceptability.
Concern was raised about EPA's recommended outfall siting at the 301 (h) site.
Commentors suggested that this would disrupt additional marine environments,
resulting In the closure of additional shellfish and fishing areas and the cessation of
commercial and recreational fishing. It was questioned whether the predicted benefit of
outfall siting at 301(h) Justified the substantial additional cost.
As stated in the Draft EIS, recreational fishing occurs in New Bedford Harbor. The major
species sought include bluefish, scup, striped bass, and Atlantic mackerel. Commercial net
fishing is not allowed in the harbor. Many of the shellfish beds in the harbor are currently
closed to harvesting due to high levels of coliform bacteria. Mollusc species (whelks and
scallops) are not affected by this closure. High levels of PCBs have led to the restriction of
all lobster and finfish fishing activities to areas north of the hurricane barrier; the ban on
lobster fishing extends to a line just north of the 301 (h) site (Figure 4.3-2 of Draft EIS). A
discharge at the 301 (h) site from a properly functioning secondary treatment plant will not
increase the area of the PCB closure or the coliform closure. Additional shellfish areas may
be closed because of the FDA's administrative shellfish closure policy. However, these
additional areas have been surveyed and determined to be insignificant shellfish resource
areas (CDM, Volume IV, 1989). The relocation of the discharge may also result in an
enhanced ability to open to shellfishing the previously closed Clarks Cove area.
Construction impacts at the 301 (h) site would be limited to bottom disturbances at the outfall
terminus, because the outfall pipe would be constructed by tunnelling rather than dredging.
Approximately 1,200 m2 of bottom habitat would be lost as a result of construction of the
outfall diffuser. The primary residents of this area are small polychaete worms and molluscs.
A loss of this small area of habitat will not significantly affect recreational or commercial
fishing. A reanalysis of outfall siting issues is presented in Chapter Two of this Final EIS.
4-8
-------
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers commented that Section 3.4 of the Draft EIS
Indicates that both Sites 40 and 47 can accommodate the disposal of chemically fixed
sludge for the full planning period, I.e., 20 years. In addition, the Corps commented
that the acreages In Section 3.3.4 do not agree with data from Draft EIS Table B-13.
Also, the Draft EIS maintained (Table B-15) that Site 40 has the capacity to be used for
chemically fixed sludge or lime-stabilized high-solid sludge without Impacts to wetlands
or groundwater (high and medium yield) areas; the Corps commented that this claim
would need to be confirmed Independently by the Corps as part of the permit process.
The discussion in Section 3.4 of the Draft EIS stated that Sites 40 and 47 would be
"evaluated for development of a landfill that could accommodate disposal of chemically fixed
^sludge for the full planning period..." EPA acknowledges that subsequent evaluations have
"determined that Site 47 does not contain the capacity for a 20-year sludge-only landfill. No
further evaluation of landfill capacity at Site 40 was performed because it is not currently part
of the City's recommended plan and was therefore not considered in this Final EIS.
Table B-13 in the Draft EIS was prepared during the preliminary site screening. In August,
1989, C-E Environmental, EPA's consulting engineers for the Draft EIS, performed a more
detailed wetlands delineation at Site 47, which formed the basis of the discussion in Section
3.3.4 of the Draft EIS. More recently, Normandeau Associates performed a wetlands
delineation for Site 47, which was verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for the
City. The plan for a 5-year sludge only backup landfill with an access road constructed on
timber pilings is based on this recent wetlands delineation and the goal of no net loss of
wetlands. EPA does feel that is necessary to revise Table B-13 because it was only used for
the initial screening process; subsequent updated information does not change the conclusions
of that screening process.
To date, the Corps has not verified the wetlands delineations for Site 40 as this site has been
dropped from the City's plan.
4.4 Land Use Conflicts
Many commentors raised serious concerns over land use conflicts associated with
siting the WWTP at Site 1A. One concern related to deed restrictions on adjacent
educational land and on land given or leased to the City for "public park or public
recreation In perpetuity."
In May 1990, the New Bedford City Council voted and approved the selection of Fort
Rodman as the site for construction of the WWTP. The City is now focusing its resources on
the complex site acquisition and relocation issues associated with the site. John Bullard,
Mayor of New Bedford, cited the following reasons for supporting selection of Site 1A for
WWTP siting at the public hearing of September 20, 1990:
4-9
-------
Fort Rodman (Site 1A) is publicly owned land, Standard Times (Site 4A) is
privately owned. The city should not take private property by eminent domain
when a suitable publicly-owned site exists. There are restrictions on deeds at
Fort Rodman, but the Mayor supports the City Council in developing solutions
to those problems.
Standard-Times Field (Site 4A) has potential for other tax revenue-producing
development. Fort Rodman is publicly owned and does not have such
potential, and because of the existing deed restrictions at Fort Rodman, it could
never support tax revenue-producing development.
Development of the WWTP at Fort Rodman is linked to improvements of the
proposed Taber Park. Development of Taber Park would not be possible if the
Standard Times Field site was chosen.
Therefore, siting of a WWTP at Site 1A is consistent with the City's stated land use plans.
Commentors also raised concerns over zoning restrictions (Fort Rodman Is zoned
"Residential A," the strictest zoning In New Bedford) associated with WWTP siting at
Site 1A.
Site 1A is zoned Residential A, requiring a 15-foot setback, and permitting a maximum
building height of 50 feet with 50 percent lot coverage. According to an opinion issued by
the New Bedford City Solicitor on November 30, 1988, "the siting of the secondary treatment
plant is not subject to existing zoning." The opinion goes on to state that "nowhere in the
City Code is there a specific provision for or against the siting of such a facility." However,
in a Residential "A" zone, the most restrictive zoning, there is a reference to the location of
various municipal facilities, including "public service building." The term "public service
building" is not defined in the code, but the solicitor interprets the term to apply to a
secondary treatment facility. Presently, the Army and Navy uses of the site, although exempt
from zoning, do not conform with the intent of the zoning. The existing deed restrictions
relating to Site 1A require that the site be used for public purposes. Based on the zoning, the
site could also be used for recreational, educational, or municipal uses.
Commentors raised concerns regarding the relocation of the Head Start Program, Early
Learning Program, Sea Lab Program, Camp Kennedy, Handicapped Adult Program, U.S.
Army Reserve facility, and the soccer field currently located at Site 1A.
At present, Site 1A is occupied by a variety of land uses including: Army Reserve, Navy
Reserve, educational, recreational, municipal, and historical resources. Construction of the
WWTP would require the displacement of several of these in order to accommodate the
facility components. A detailed discussion of the relocation plans for these programs,
4-10
-------
facilities, and resources is presented in Chapter Five of this EIS. Of the facilities and
programs located at Fort Rodman, the Navy Reserve and the New Bedford Vocational
Technical High School Marine Industries Program will not be displaced. The City has
proposed to construct a new soccer field on site as part of Taber Park.
Commentors also expressed concern over location of the WWTP (Site 1A) outside the
hurricane barrier, within the 100-year floodplaln, 300 ft from residential dwellings, and
abutting the Greater New Bedford Regional Vocational Technical High School, Marine
School.
"Site 1A is approximately 79.4 acres, of which 54 acres (68 percent) are located within the
100-year floodplain. The A-Zone (area of 100 year flood) comprises 33.9 acres (43 percent
of the total site), and the V-Zone (area of coastal floodplain subject to wave action) comprises
20.1 acres (25 percent). Land that is in the V-zone designation is considered to have a
significant impact on facility siting but is considered unusable. The net developable area,
which excludes the V-Zone, is 59 acres (74 percent). The footprint of the optimal WWTP
configuration fits within the developable area (59 acres) of the site without encroaching on
the V-Zone. Approximately 15.1 acres of the facility, would be located within the A-Zone.
Based on the site evaluation and the site selection criterion, location partially within the A-
Zone is considered to be a moderate constraint to the siting of the WWTP at this site.
EPA has determined that the construction of the WWTP at Site 1A would not constitute a
"critical action" requiring protection from a storm of 500-year magnitude. A critical action,
as defined in Executive Order 11988 is one that, if flooded, would create an added dimension
to the flood disaster. Nevertheless, EPA and the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) recommended that a WWTP built at Site 1A be designed to withstand greater than
the 100-year flood. The proposed plan is geared to protect against the 500-year stillwater
level. Design features which would provide protection at the 500-year stillwater level (no
wave action), include the following:
Constructing all facilities outside of the V-Zone or coastal high-hazard zone
Raising site grading to above elevation 11.5 ft (100-yr flood level with wave
action).
Constructing all first floors of buildings above elevation 13.5 ft (500-yr flood
level).
For buildings with basements, ensuring that water cannot reach basements until
the flood level exceeds 13.5 ft
Providing stoplogs, or equivalent, for all garage entrances to buildings to keep
water out up to elevation 13.5 ft
4-11
-------
Mounting drives above elevation 13.5 on all process tankage
Providing structural strength to withstand flood levels up to 13.5 ft for all
facilities
The fact that part of Site 1A is located within the 100-year floodplain would be a moderate
constraint on development at that site. Although the WWTP would be located outside of the
coastal high-energy hazard zone (V-Zone), without special floodproofing measures, the
treatment plant would be vulnerable to a flood of 100-year magnitude. Floodplain impacts
are not a significant concern at Site 4A because only two acres of that site are in the 100-year
floodplain and the site is protected by a hurricane barrier. Overall, however, given the
proposed level of flood protection for Site 1A, EPA considers the two sites comparable with
respect to potential flood hazards.
Commentors expressed concern over occupation of one of the last pieces of coastal
land In the City which should be developed for the enjoyment of all people.
Site 1A is a 79.4 acre site at the southern end of New Bedford, surrounded by water on three
sides. The site currently comprises a wastewater treatment facility, Fort Taber (a granite
block Civil War fort) and a number of buildings housing social services, educational facilities,
and military office facilities. Discussions with local officials indicated that because of the
site's scenic waterfront location, and to mitigate the WWTP, the City is committed to
developing a portion of the site for Taber Park, which will be for public use. These plans
include provisions for picnic areas, hiking paths, and boating facilities. Although there would
be some displacement of existing recreational resources if the proposed WWTP were located
at Site 1A, these impacts would be mitigated by improved public access to the waterfront and
the new recreational facilities that are proposed as part of the Taber Park mitigation plans.
Polaroid Corporation was concerned about the conflicting land use and site acquisition
constraints at Site 40.
Site 40 is owned entirely by the Polaroid Corporation of Cambridge, Massachusetts. The site
was acquired in the early stages of the industrial park's development by Polaroid for future
development. The parcel of interest for the landfill is in the northwestern portion of the site
(90 acres approximately). Polaroid was negotiating the sale of this parcel to Eastern Energy
for development as a power plant site.
Polaroid's comments on conflicting land uses and site acquisition constraints were recognized
in the City's Supplemental Final FP/EIR. Site 40 is still considered to have obstacles to
acquisition. The Eastern Energy proposal for a power generation facility is still pending on
this site. Also, because the site is within the industrial park, the Industrial Park Foundation
has to approve any transfer of property ownership. The parcel could be obtained by eminent
domain, but it is not likely to be a willing transfer. EPA concedes that there are potential
4-12
-------
land-use conflicts associated with Site 40 that diminish its potential utility as a sludge-
disposal site. These factors contributed to the City's selection of Site 47 over Site 40 for use
as the backup landfill.
A commentor was concerned that visual aesthetics criteria should be further defined In
the report. The number and sensitivities of typical observers should be considered and
added to the definition of critical views.
In the Site Evaluation Report, sites were analyzed for visual aesthetics in terms of the
following:
i~
Visual compatibility of the proposed facility within the context of the
surrounding area.
Critical viewpointscultural value, proximity, extent of, view and quantity for a
given site.
Extent of the viewshed affected by the proposed facility.
Ability to buffer the surrounding area from the proposed facility.
The sites were rated using the following definitions of constraint:
Significant constraint. The site has considerable scenic value and visibility
that would be substantially changed from its existing state. Extensive
mitigation would be required to screen views of the proposed facility.
Moderate constraint. The site has scenic value and is visible from several
viewpoints. Less mitigation would be required to screen views of the proposed
facility.
Insignificant constraint. The plant would have a minor impact on the site's
scenic value and visibility.
EPA feels that these criteria and definitions are adequate for evaluating the visual aesthetics
of candidate sites. The number of viewers is inherently included in the scenic value of a site
(the prettier the view, the more people want to see it). Individual value judgement as to view
cannot be accounted for objectively. EPA stands by its original assessments regarding visual
aesthetics impacts.
4-13
-------
4.5 Policy and Regulations
Several public hearing commentors were dissatisfied with the notification process for
the public hearings.
The EIS process provides the public an opportunity for involvement in assessing projects
subject to environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Public hearings are held to notify a broader representation of the community of the work in
process. Inputs and opinions from the public are encouraged, and key issues and impacts
related to facilities siting and alternatives are discussed. EPA feels its method for notifying
the public of the hearing on the Draft EIS was appropriate. Notices of the availability of the
Draft EIS and the public hearing on January 24, 1990 were sent to all the persons on EPA's
mailing list. This joint EPA/MEPA mailing list contains more than 700 persons. In addition,
press releases were sent to local newspapers. Commentors were given the opportunity to
comment by mail for 60 days.
A number of commentors were concerned about EPA's "piggybacking" approach In
preparing a Draft EIS based on data/information generated by the City's contractor.
EPA acknowledges that the Draft EIS relies heavily on the Draft FP/EIR prepared by the City
and its contractor Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. However, EPA worked closely with the
City's engineers and DEP to develop the scope of work for the FP/EIR and to review data as
it was collected. All information and conclusions made in the FP/EIR were reviewed by EPA
for accuracy before being used in the Draft EIS. All supporting information developed by the
City in support of the FP/EIR and used by EPA is appropriately referenced in the Draft EIS.
EPA's approach in utilizing information in the Draft EIS presented by the City in its FP/EIR
is consistent with regulations for implementing procedural provisions of the National
Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) (40 CFR §1500.4). These regulations state that
agencies shall reduce excessive paperwork by, amongst other measures, "eliminating
duplication with State and local procedures, by providing for joint preparation (§1506.2), and
with other Federal procedures, by providing that an agency may adopt appropriate
environmental documents prepared by another agency (§1506.3)."
A commentor was concerned that the proposed Crapo Hill landfill suffers from
substantial permitting defects, and that the project has undergone significant changes
since the filing of the Final EIR in July of 1982. The commentor also commented that
the Secretary should require the Greater New Bedford Regional Refuse Management
District to submit a new Environmental Notification Form rather than merely require a
Supplemental EIR.
The Crapo Hill landfill is being constructed by the City as a refuse landfill, not as a sludge
landfill. Its relevance to operation of the new wastewater treatment plant is related only to
the use of chemically fixed sludge as daily cover. The Refuse Management District has
4-14
-------
scaled down the proposed Crapo Hill landfill design to avoid impacting wetlands, and in
doing so has eliminated previous permitting conflicts. The implications of this scaling down
are that Crapo Hill may not have the need for as large a quantity of chemically fixed sludge
for cover material. If this is the case, the City will have to negotiate a payment plan with the
Crapo Hill landfill for disposing of the balance of the sludge.
The main obstacle that could prevent construction of the proposed Crapo Hill landfill is the
failure of the Proposition 2-1/2 override required from both the City of New Bedford and
Town of Dartmouth to pass. If this happens, the City will use the 5-year landfill at Site 47
for sludge disposal until an alternative plan is developed. The City has initiated supplemental
sludge disposal management facilities planning in order to provide the City with an alternative
^20-year plan in the event that implementation of the Orapo Hill landfill proves infeasible.
Regarding the Environmental Notification Form, a Supplemental EIR would be the City's
document, and therefore the burden of notification would be on New Bedford. EPA issued a
public notification upon completion of the Draft EIS, and will do the same following
completion of the Final EIS. EPA's notification officially opens a public comment period,
during which the public can comment on the recommendations made in the Final EIS.
4.6 Public Health
Several commentors were concerned that no sensible suggestion was made as to how
to handle or dispose of the toxic sludge and Its potential Impact on public health.
The sludge treatment technology proposed by the City in its FP/EIR, and considered
-acceptable to EPA, is chemical fixation with backup lime stabilization. Chemical fixation, for
which there are several patented processes, involves mixing dewatered sludge with chemicals
to produce a mixture that behaves more like a solid. In addition, the sludge is stabilized so
that it will not decompose. The proposed sludge treatment technology will make the sludge
less likely to leach into water supplies when used as landfill cover or as sludge-only landfill.
Because leaching into groundwater or surface water would be minimized through design of
the landfill with a double liner and a leachate collection system, no negative impact on public
health as a result of surface or groundwater contamination is expected.
In Section 3.1.2 of the Draft EIS, there is reference to toxicity testing performed during Phase
.II primary sludge sampling to determine whether the sludge was a hazardous waste. During
this test, sludge was prepared in the laboratory and kept in an acidic environment (pH 5),
mimicking typical landfill conditions. Concentrations of various metals which leach out of
the prepared sludge solution were then measured to determine the toxicity of the sludge. EP
toxicity tests revealed that the primary sludge is not a hazardous waste (CDM, Volume III,
1989). Nutrient testing has shown that the nutrient content of primary sludge is within the
qualification range of a low-grade fertilizer. Although sludge characteristics may change,
EPA is satisfied that the recommended pretreatment is both adequate and appropriate to
safeguard against public health concerns as a result of leaching in a landfill.
4-15
-------
4.7 Socloeconomic
Several commentors expressed serious concern regarding the City's ability to absorb
the cost of the proposed plan for secondary wastewater treatment facilities. City
Councilor George Rogers stated that the City could not afford construction costs nor
operation costs. Concerns over Increased tax burdens or water/sewer use fees were
expressed by several commentors. Many commentors expressed concern regarding
potential decreases In residential property values In the Fort Rodman area If the WWTP
Is sited at Fort Rodman (Site 1A).
State funding for the WWTP planning and design phase was approved in March 1990. The
state received a total of $50 million for new projects, of which New Bedford received the
maximum allowable percentage ($12.5 million). Construction costs are estimated at $187
million, and under the State's Tier I program, $300 million is available in loans for new
projects. Of this, the City of New Bedford is expected to receive $160 million, which would
be repaid over a 20-year period (A. Slater, Massachusetts DEP, personal communication). If
New Bedford qualifies as a maximum-hardship recipient, then the Water Pollution Abatement
Trust will subsidize a percentage of the loan, considerably reducing the financial burden on
the City. When new Tier I funds become available next year, the City can reapply for a loan
to cover the remainder of construction costs.
An increase in user fees is inevitable to cover loans and operational costs. While it is
impossible to predict future rates with certainty, EPA expects rates for New Bedford to be
comparable to those for similar communities in the state.
Regarding potential decreases in residential property values in the Fort Rodman area as a
result of constructing the WWTP at Site 1 A, EPA acknowledges the concern of area
residents. However, EPA does not feel that these concerns provide a basis for rejecting Site
1A as a site for the WWTP. Many essential public facilities such as airports, landfills, and
power plants may generate external effects including noise, odors, pollution, traffic, potential
public health risks, visual intrusions, and other negative factors. It is possible that any one of
these factors can affect residential property values and be reflected in the sales prices or rents
of such properties. However, these environmental factors usually account for only a small
proportion of housing price differentials. The major determinants of the differences between
the prices of different properties at a particular point in time are house quality and size, lot
size and characteristics of the municipality (e.g., tax rate), and the quality of services (e.g.,
schools) (Abelson, 1979). Major determinants of the difference in the price of a single
property over time are demand, interest rates, and the regional economy. Nevertheless,
environmental factors do generally have some affect on residential property values. It should
be noted, however, that with the exception of airport and highway noise, most studies do not
attempt to attribute the effect on property values to specific external factors (e.g., noise, visual
intrusion).
4-16
-------
Residential property values are subject to potentially dramatic fluctuations in the regional as
well as local real estate market. New Bedford experienced a boom in property values during
the 1980's, related in pan to the Commonwealth's economic boom and in part to the City's
own revitalization. Within the past two years, real estate values have decreased in New
Bedford and surrounding communities. It is reasonable to presume that these real estate
market fluctuations have extended to residential property in the vicinity of Fort Rodman in
New Bedford's South End. It is important to note that during the period of time over which
these real estate market fluctuations have occurred, there has been and continues to be a
primary wastewater treatment plant at Fort Rodman. It is highly unlikely that construction of
a new WWTP, with the associated amenities in the form of the proposed Taber Park and
other public recreational facilities, will lower residential property values in the neighboring
community. Any negative factors related to noise would only apply during the construction
phase of the project, and are not expected to impact residential property values. Any decrease
in real estate property values associated with increases in water/sewer fees would apply to the
service area as a whole, and no particular neighborhoods. This Final EIS does not attempt to
quantify any impacts to residential property values associated with the proposed facilities
plan.
4.8 Technology/Design
Several commentors were concerned with the recommended solids disposal
technology, I.e., chemical fixation with backup lime stabilization.
EPA is satisfied that the recommended sludge treatment technology, which consists of
chemical fixation with backup lime stabilization, is an acceptable approach for preparing the
solids collected during secondary treatment for subsequent disposal. The treatment
technology is designed to make the physical properties of the sludge more like those of a
solid, similar to soil. In a solid form, the sludge will be easier to handle, easier to transport,
more suitable for use as daily landfill cover, and less likely to leach into surface or
groundwater sources. EPA acknowledges that odor and consistency problems with one of the
patented processes (ChemFix) for chemical fixation of sludge have been encountered in
isolated instances. However, as other patented processes are available, EPA believes these
problems can be avoided entirely or addressed adequately through proper mitigation and
contingency measures. Thus, the disposal of the chemically fixed sludge, with any necessary
mitigation, as landfill cover or as landfill material is deemed acceptable by EPA. Should it
be determined that mitigation is not possible or not adequate to ensure the goal of no
detectable odors, the City will have to address this issue in its Supplemental Sludge
Management FP/EIR. Any new sludge treatment alternative would then be evaluated by EPA
under NEPA and EPA would determine whether or not a Supplemental Final EIS was
required under 40 CFR 1502.9(c)(l) or (2).
4-17
-------
Concern was also expressed over potential damage from salt water/air to electronic and
computer equipment for a WWTP sited at Fort Rodman.
The effects of salt water/air on electronic components is a concern to any marine coastal
facility utilizing computerized and other electronic equipment. It is the responsibility of the
construction engineers to incorporate adequate protection from salt water/air for vulnerable
equipment at the WWTP. However, the alternate location considered for WWTP siting, i.e.,
the Standard Times Field site (Site 4A), is also a marine coastal site, requiring the same
attention concerning potential impacts from salt water/air. Thus, this concern does not
represent a potential discriminator between the two candidate locations for siting the WWTP.
From the perspective of a technology/design concern, EPA recognizes that the appropriate
preventive and corrective maintenance for electronic equipment is typically specified by the
manufacturer and may indeed be a condition of any applicable warranties or service
agreements. It is presumed that the manufacturers recommendations for all such equipment
will be adhered to by the WWTP operators. Thus, EPA feels that no additional provisions
are required as a topic of an FP/EIR or an EIS.
There was also concern over proposed cost-saving measures that would Impact the
design of the WWTP (e.g., eliminating the emergency generator and building,
eliminating covering some of the new tanks, changing the type of air pollution
equipment).
EPA shares this concern over cost-saving measures proposed in the Final FP/EIR as the result
of a "value engineering" analysis conducted subsequent to the issue of the Draft FP/EIR. It
should be further noted that a meeting held March 8, 1990 with the City of New Bedford and
its engineers, EPA and DEP advised the City that the majority of the recommendations
following the value engineering analysis were unacceptable. The unacceptable measures have
been eliminated from the City's final proposed plan as stated in the Supplemental FP/EIR and
reviewed in this Final EIS.
4.9 Transportation/Traffic
Many commentors expressed concern with the increased traffic along the only three
access routes (E. Rodney French Blvd., W. Rodney French Blvd., and Brock Ave.) to
Site 1A from transportation activities associated with both WWTP construction and
operation (sludge removal). Concerns particularly focused on summertime traffic from
people using the local beaches and parks. One commentor expressed concern with
traffic through the Industrial Park complex associated with sludge disposal at Site 40,
and suggested that a separate service road be constructed.
4-18
-------
Site 1A
The primary access route for Site 1A would start at the southern end of JFK Boulevard,
proceed along Cove Street for about 1,600 feet to East Rodney French Boulevard, then along
East Rodney French Boulevard for 8,300 feet to the main entrance at Fort Rodman. Traffic
on the primary access route is moderate on average. At Fort Rodman, average daily traffic
(ADT) is about 3,500 vehicles.
Traffic to Site 1A can use one of two alternative routes from JFK Boulevard, a limited-access
major artery. JFK Boulevard connects to Interstate 195 which connects to Route 140. These
limited-access highways provide easy access to the solids disposal sites in the north of the
iCity. East Rodney French Boulevard by Cove Street from JFK Boulevard is a primary route
and serves local industries. The secondary or alternative route is via West Rodney French
Boulevard along Clarks Cove. This secondary route passes through the congested intersection
of Brock Avenue, West Rodney French Boulevard, and Cove Road. The National Highway
Standards ranks level of service (LOS) from A to E, with "A" being a low-capacity
intersection with the least delay and "E" being a high-capacity intersection with a longer
delay. East Rodney French Boulevard along the entrance to New Bedford Harbor is the
preferred route because it avoids the Brock Avenue/West Rodney French Boulevard/Cove
Road intersection, which operates at LOS "E" during the afternoon peak hour. Average
vehicle delays at the Brock Avenue/West Rodney French Boulevard/Cove Road intersection
are 48 seconds, with the highest calculated delay being 84 seconds in the eastbound direction.
The intersection of JFK Boulevard and Cove Street, one block north of the Cove Road/Brock
Avenue/East Rodney French Boulevard intersection, has an overall LOS of B, with 17
seconds (LOS C) as the highest calculated delay for PM peak hour northbound traffic.
Another reason the Cove Street/East Rodney French Boulevard route is preferred is that it
provides an alternate way to avoid the JFK Boulevard traffic light by using Morton Court and
Front Street to get to Potomska Street to enter or leave JFK Boulevard (CDM, Volume V,
1990). The roadways of Morton Court and Front Street are designed to carry trucks because
they are in an industrial area and have been recently rebuilt.
The Clarks Point neighborhood is primarily residential with some businesses and industries
located in the northern end along both routes. Residential densities are moderate, ranging up
to more than ten dwelling units per acre adjacent to Fort Rodman. The overall neighborhood
average is five dwelling units per acre. Sensitive traffic receptors are a high-rise housing
project for the elderly on East Rodney French Boulevard (primary route) and a handicapped
person service center on West Rodney French Boulevard (secondary route).
Results of the traffic analysis show that if the WWTP is built at Site 1A only 14 more
automobile trips and one less truck trip than currently occurs would be made each weekday to
and from Site 1A. In view of the traffic volumes recorded at the intersection of JFK
Boulevard and Cove Street (1997 PM peak hour) and East Rodney French Boulevard (2486
PM peak hour), these 13 net additional trips would not change the LOS, even if all were
made at the PM peak hours (3:30 to 4.30). Existing average intersection LOS is B for JFK
4-19
-------
Boulevard/Cove Street intersection (primary route) and E for the West Rodney French
Boulevard/Cove Road/Brock Avenue intersection (secondary route). These levels are
associated with average calculated delays of 17 and 48 seconds, respectively. Adding 13
more vehicles to either intersection will not change these levels. Truck travel is likely to be
spread out over the day, while automobile travel associated with employees is likely to occur
during peak hours. Thus, EPA is not requiring such mitigation as the net additional 13 trips
along the access route do not effect the LOS.
Site 40
The primary access route to Site 40 includes a very short segment of Braley Road where it
intersects Route 140. The route continues along the Industrial Park. Roadways in the
Industrial Park are designed to carry trucks. The length of the route is 6,700 feet. The
secondary access route to Site 40 follows Phillips Roads from its intersection with Route 140,
to the extension of Samuel Barnet Boulevard, which is a secondary entrance into the north
end Industrial Park from Phillips Road. It then follows the primary access route. This route
is 11,300 feet long.
On the primary access route to Site 40, trucks will always have the right-of-way into the
Industrial Parkthere are "Stop" signs on Phillips Road for northbound traffic and on Braley
Road for southbound traffic allowing trucks exiting Route 140 onto Braley Road to drive
directly into the Industrial Park. On the secondary route, no major intersections are
encountered, and the left turn off Phillips Road into the Industrial Park is on a relatively
lightly travelled section of Phillips Road, with the exception of shift changes for Industrial
Park employees. Regardless of traffic volume on Phillips Road, northbound vehicles can pass
left-turning trucks easily, resulting in delays of only a few seconds.
No significant impact on the primary route is expected. Impact on the secondary route would
be moderate. The most appropriate way to avoid impacts on the secondary route would be to
use the primary route. With 14 truck trips spread out over the course of a day, EPA does not
consider there to be a need for any mitigation, such as constructing a separate service road.
4.10 Water Quality/Resources
Polaroid Corporation was concerned that the Draft EIS does not take Into account the
presence of potentially high-yield groundwater resources at Site 40. It was stated that
the plan should Indicate clearly whether Site 40 is within the Zone II boundary of any
existing or potential water supply well. Polaroid also expressed concern regarding the
lack of reference to the existence of groundwater wells on Polaroid property.
4-20
-------
These issues are addressed in Section 5.2.3.4 of the Draft EIS. Approximately 5 to 7 acres of
Site 40 are identified as a high-yield groundwater source in the State Water Supply Protection
Atlas. An additional 146.2 acres are classified as a medium-yield source. In the January
1990 Final FP/EIR, further analyses were conducted to determine the extent of the Zone n
area for the Polaroid wells. The conclusions of the preliminary Zone II analysis are as
follows (CDM, Volume V, 1990):
The yield for the Polaroid well was estimated by Metcalf & Eddy in a 1971
report to be about 1.5 to 2 mgd. A second well, the Decor well, showed that a
second well of similar capacity might be operated in the same general area. A
total yield from the groundwater resources beneath the New Bedford and
* Freetown swamps in this area might be as much as 4 to 5 mgd if additional
sites permitting the installation of similar capacity wells could be located.
However, in drought conditions, such yields might lower water levels in the
swamps by an estimated 10 feet.
Permeable deposits of sand and gravel underlie Acushnet Cedar Swamp to the
south and Bolton Cedar Swamp to the north. The zone of contribution to any
well installed in these deposits is primarily from these permeable deposits, and
can extend for over a mile north and south of the well site, irrespective of
surface drainage boundaries.
The net developable area proposed for use as a backup landfill on Site 40 is in
an area of glacial till. Such areas of glacial till that border the swamps
probably would contribute some water to the Zone II of any well in the
permeable deposits. In the case of Site 40, the net developable area could
contribute to the Zone II of the existing Polaroid well, and to any new well in
the permeable deposits along the southern boundary of Site 40. However, such
contribution would most likely be absent during drought years, and would be
minimal during normal years of precipitation. Taking into account the geology
of the area, the City suggests that a Zone III classification may be more
appropriate.
Based on the borings taken in the portion of Site 40 that would have been used for a landfill,
the underlying soils are glacial tills and would not support moderate or high yield
groundwater wells. The more permeable deposits are in the wetland portions of Site 40,
which are all part of a continuous layer of permeable deposits that underlie Acushnet Cedar
Swamp to the south and Bolton Cedar Swamp to the north. Their protection is of concern to
all the reviewing agencies; these agencies would not permit a sludge landfill without further
evaluation of potential impacts.
More extensive investigations would have to be conducted at Site 40 to determine accurate
boundaries for the Zone II area of the potential water supply. It is the current policy of the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection that landfills not be constructed within
4-21
-------
the Zone II area of any existing or potential public drinking water supply. The boundaries of
such an area at Site 40 would dictate the size and layout of any potential landfill there. This
site is not part of either the City's or EPA's recommended plan, thus there are no plans for
more extensive investigations at this time.
Regarding the comment of lack of reference to the existence of groundwater wells on
Polaroid property, EPA's Draft EIS states that there are two existing wells near Site 40. The
two wells pump approximately 1 mgd. These wells, owned by Polaroid and Decor, are
approximately 3,200 and 4,000 feet upgradient from Site 40 and are used for industrial
purposes. There are no known plans to use these wells for public or private drinking water.
The additional wells on Polaroid property noted in the above comment were not referred to in
the FP/EIR, or in Massachusetts DEP or City of New Bedford files. All these sources were
checked for existing well locations in the Industrial Park. If the additional wells are private
wells, Polaroid will have to identify their locations and capacities in order to include them in
the Facilities Plan. If additional wells are confirmed as being present at Site 40, their effect
on the Zone II area would need to be determined and the determination of acceptability
reexamined.
Polaroid expressed concern that siting the proposed sludge facilities at Site 40 could
result In materials that may be harmful to the company's operations leaching Into the
surface and groundwater supply.
The major impact associated with operation of a sludge disposal landfill at Site 40 would be
potential contamination of groundwater. Mitigation measures would be required at the site
for it to be suitable for a landfill. Neither DEP nor EPA considered potential impacts to
groundwater resources sufficient reason to eliminate Site 40 from further analysis in the
facilities planning process. Neither agency had any further comment on the additional
groundwater resources information presented in the January 1990 Final FP/EIR. DEP,
however, would have required a thorough Zone II groundwater analysis had Site 40 become
the preferred site for the landfill to ensure that all possible sources of future water supply for
the City are protected. Site 40 is not included in the recommended plan in the Supplemental
FP/EIR nor in this Final EIS.
The proposed design of the landfill is accepted by regulatory agencies as sufficient to prevent
soil and water contamination. The information presented in the FP/EIR has been considered
sufficient to demonstrate that the proposed landfill would not have any significant impact on
existing groundwater, soil, and surface water. If Site 40 were used, as pan of the permitting
process, DEP would have to confirm that Site 40 has the capacity to be used with chemically-
fixed sludge or lime-stabilized high-solid sludge without impacting groundwater areas.
Consequently, no significant surface water impact would result from the development of Site
40 for solids disposal. Construction and operation procedures would include measures to
prevent impact to surface water bodies in the area. Erosion control measures would be used
4-22
-------
during construction, and the double-lined landfill would include containment dikes to capture
runoff during operation.
Regarding possible impacts to drinking water supplies, there are no surface water bodies used
for public drinking water supply within a one-mile radius of Site 40. It is apparent that the
City of New Bedford needs to increase its surplus safe water yield in the mid-1990's, and
development of groundwater supplies for potable use in the Industrial Park north or south of
Site 40 cannot be ruled out. Previous groundwater development investigations leading to the
installation of the two existing industrial use wells indicated these general locations had the
best groundwater development potential. As noted earlier, the nearest well (Polaroid) is about
:3,200 feet from the northeast corner of the proposed landfill. The second well (Decor) is
ijabout 4,000 feet away. Both these wells are at an elevation similar to that of the net
developable area on Site 40. With regards to water supply potential, the Turner's pond area
south of the site is not given serious consideration at this time. Although groundwater
resources near Site 40 are not currently being used or planned to be used for potable water
supply, the potential high and medium yield area on Site 40 could be within the Zone II of an
existing or future well in Acushnet Cedar or Hobomock swamps.
Site 40 was considered to have a moderate potential for groundwater impacts. Although no
drinking water wells are located in the vicinity of the site, Polaroid maintains a high-yield
water supply well 3,000 feet northeast of the site for industrial purposes. Because of the
yields available from the well (up to 1 mgd) and the high quality of the water, DEP considers
this area surrounding the well a potential public water supply. If this site were selected for
the landfill, this designation would require further investigation to determine if the landfill
would be in the Zone II aquifer protection area for this well. For these reasons, Site 40
received a moderate rating for potential groundwater impact and Site 47 is preferred with
respect to groundwater impacts.
Independent of the location of the solids disposal facility, no groundwater impacts are
expected if the landfill is properly designed and operated (i.e., is equipped with a double
liner, includes a leachate collection system, provides leak detection). The City's proposed
landfill design (COM, Volume V, 1990) incorporates a leachate collection system and surface
water sediment control features that should protect surface and groundwater at the site. A
leachate pumping station, consisting of a separate, prefabricated wet well and dry well, will
be constructed. The dry well will contain two non-clog sewage pumps with appropriate
controls. Leachate will be pumped to a gravity sewer that connects to a sewer along
.Shawmut Avenue. In order to control transport of eroded soils and solids, sedimentation
basins will be constructed in exposed areas of the landfill. All site runoff will pass through a
sedimentation basin prior to discharge. In addition, chemical fixation, with the appropriate
mitigation and contingency measures, minimizes leaching and renders the sludge
nonhazardous.
4-23
-------
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management (MCZM) was concerned that the overall net
environmental benefit of moving the outfall to the 301 (h) site was not evaluated In
terms of water and sediment conditions In the outer harbor at the 301 (h) site, and that
the benefit may not justify the additional cost of locating the outfall at that outer site.
In the preparation of the Draft EIS, EPA evaluated the outfall alternatives from the
perspective of what is most protective of the environment. This approach is consistent with
NEPA guidelines and EPA's mission. EPA did not conduct a cost:benefit analysis in
preparing the Draft EIS. However, EPA acknowledges that costs associated with certain
alternatives may interfere with the timely completion of a project of this magnitude. EPA has
factored cost considerations in conjunction with its expanded technical evaluation of water
and sediment quality in the outer harbor (see Chapter Two) to support the recommendations
in Section 5.3 of this Final EIS.
MCZM commented that the Draft EIS does not reflect a clear understanding or
evaluation of the regulations relevant to fisheries management issues, Including the
Impact of fecal conform contamination from such an outfall and the associated
mandatory closures.
EPA is cognizant of the regulations pertaining to fisheries management issues, especially the
administrative shellfish closure policies. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
requires that shellfish closure zones exist around all wastewater treatment plant discharges.
The actual delineation of these closure zones is derived by the state Division of Marine
Fisheries (DMF). The purpose of the closure zones is to protect public health by preventing
the consumption of contaminated shellfish. The closure zone is delineated very
conservatively. Plant reliability is examined to determine what quality effluent could be
expected to be discharged during a treatment plant upset. Using that information and worst-
case flow rates and current speeds, an area is delineated as a closure zone.
Many variables may be important in the derivation of this closure zone. Past plant
performance, flow, level of treatment, redundancy of equipment, reliability of equipment,
current speed, travel time, and notification time are some of the more important factors to be
assessed. Many of these cannot be adequately assessed until the plant is actually operating,
thus the final delineation will not occur until after the plant is operational.
A shellfish closure will occur at either candidate outfall location. The area around the current
discharge is already closed due to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) contamination. The area
around the 301 (h) site was determined to contain extremely low quantities of shellfish (COM,
Volume IV, 1989). A discharge at either site will not likely result in the loss of any
recreational or commercial shellfishing areas.
The City is actively pursuing the opening of Clarks Cove to shellfishing. It is estimated that
several million dollars of shellfish resources exist in this area (CDM, Volume IV, 1989). The
eventual opening of Clarks Cove may be influenced by the siting of the outfall for the
4-24
-------
WWTP. As mentioned earlier, travel time is one consideration in deriving the shellfish
closure zone. The travel time of a discharge from the 301(h) site to Clarks Cove is
dramatically greater than the travel time of the same discharge from the existing site. Having
greater travel time to work with may allow DMF greater flexibility in opening areas of Clarks
Cove to shellfishing.
MCZM feels that with respect to toxic chemicals, moving the outfall to the 301 (h) site
would Introduce contaminants to a clean, unlmpacted area at great expense. The
commentor suggested that there may be a greater benefit from Investing those funds In
the development of a toxlcity reduction evaluation (TRE) program to improve the quality
ipf effluent being discharged.
EPA chose its preferred outfall location, i.e., the 301 (h) site, on the basis of many
environmental and regulatory concerns. The 301 (h) site is the outfall alternative that best
addresses the greatest number of those concerns. Some small increase of chemical
concentrations may occur in the sediments at the 301 (h) site, but this modest increase is more
than offset by the recovery at the existing site. EPA's Superfund program has indicated a
potential interest in remediating areas south of the hurricane barrier. EPA will coordinate any
potential connections between this project and the Superfund Program in an effort to most
effectively address the issue of contaminated sediments.
EPA agrees that effort directed at reducing the toxics problem is worthwhile. The City,
initially through a series of toxicity tests, tried to locate "hotspots" of toxicity within the
sewer system. The City then conducted the initial stage of a Toxicity Reduction Evaluation
(TRE). This first stage is called a Toxicity Identification and Evaluation (TEE) and involves
separating the effluent into chemical classes and to identify potential toxic agents. The results
of these efforts demonstrated that toxicity is widespread throughout the entire City (residential
and commercial), and several classes of pollutants may potentially be responsible for the
observed toxicity. These results suggest that there is no easy way for the City to dramatically
reduce the toxicity of its effluent. EPA fully supports New Bedford's TRE effort, which is
consistent with EPA's pollution prevention policy. However, EPA feels that it cannot rely on
the City's current program to greatly lower toxicity levels in the effluent at this time. The
301 (h) site provides dilution that will potentially reduce pollutants to concentrations below
toxicity threshold levels.
'MCZM commented that exceedances of water quality criteria are expected at both sites,
but that the significance of these exceedances has not been adequately evaluated,
either In terms of impacts to existing marine fauna, or in absolute toxicity terms.
EPA utilizes two approaches to assess potential impacts resulting from toxic materials. One
approach is a chemical-by-chemical approach. A reasonable worst-case load of contaminants
that are suspected to be present in the effluent are used as input data for a hydrologic model
to predict ambient concentrations of specific chemicals in the water column. By using a
4-25
-------
reasonable worst-case loading of pollutants in conjunction with the reasonable worst-case
hydrological condition, EPA can assess chemical-by-chemical compliance with EPA water
quality criteria. Water quality criteria are protective of both marine life and human health.
Marine life criteria represent water column concentrations of chemicals that should not be
exceeded on a short-term (4 hours) or long-term (4 days) basis. The human health criteria
represent a water column concentration that presents a 106 cancer risk to people who
consume fish or shellfish living in that waterbody.
The second approach is whole effluent toxicity testing. Effluent from the existing plant is put
through a bench-scale treatment process that approximates secondary treatment. Marine
organisms of varying sensitivities are then exposed to this "mock" secondary effluent to
determine both acute and chronic toxicity.
In relation to water quality criteria, the City's modeling efforts have revealed that a discharge
at the existing site without a diffuser will result in 12 predicted exceedances of EPA water
quality criteria (Table 4.1). A discharge at the existing site with a diffuser will result in 7
predicted exceedances, whereas a discharge at the 301 (h) site is predicted to result in 3
exceedances (Table 4.1).
Exceedances from a discharge at the 301 (h) site are predicted for 4,4'-DDT (marine life
chronic criterion, human health criterion) and arsenic (human health criterion). 4,4'-DDT has
never been detected in the effluent and has only been detected in one sludge sample. It was
included in the modeling effort in order to be conservative. Ambient arsenic concentrations
in Buzzards Bay exceed EPA human health criteria. Therefore, even though the predicted
concentration of arsenic in the discharge is less than the concentration of arsenic in the
receiving waters, it still appears as a water quality criterion exceedance.
For a discharge at the existing site with a diffuser, exceedances are predicted for copper
(marine life acute toxicity criterion, marine life chronic toxicity criterion), cyanide (marine
life chronic criterion), 4,4'-DDT (marine life chronic criterion, human health criterion),
arsenic (human health criterion), and beryllium (human health criterion).
For a discharge at the existing site without a diffuser, predicted exceedances include copper
(marine life acute criterion, marine life chronic criterion), cyanide (marine life acute
criterion), bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (marine life chronic criterion), lead (marine life chronic
criterion), mercury (marine life chronic criterion), nickel (marine life chronic criterion),
cyanide (marine life chronic criterion), 4,4'-DDT (marine life chronic criterion, human health
criterion), arsenic (human health criterion), and beryllium (human health criterion).
At all sites, the 4,4'-DDT and arsenic exceedances may not present meaningful measures of
future water quality as discussed earlier. Taking into account the explanations for the 4,4'-
DDT and arsenic criteria exceedances, the number of predicted criteria exceedances for the
three options are none for a discharge at the 301 (h) site, four for a discharge at the existing
site with a diffuser, and nine for a discharge at the existing site without a diffuser.
4-26
-------
Table 4.1 Summary of EPA Water Quality Criteria Exceedances
Constituent
Criteria Type
Criteria (ng/L)
301(h) Site
.- 4,4' -DDT
*
Arsenic
chronic
human health
human health
1.0
0.024
18.0
Existing Site with Diffuser
Copper
Cyanide
4,4' -DDT
Arsenic
Beryllium
acute
chronic
chronic
chronic
human health
human health
human health
2900
2900
1000
1.0
0.024
18.0
117.0
Existing Site without Diffuser
Copper
Cyanide
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
4,4' -DDT
Arsenic
Beryllium
acute
chronic
acute
chronic
chronic
chronic
chronic
chronic
chronic
human health
human health
human health
2900
2900
1000
1000
3400
5600
25.0
8300
1.0
0.024
18.0
117.0
4-27
-------
An important consideration is also the magnitude of the predicted exceedances. For a
discharge at the existing site with a diffuser, the four predicted exceedances are extremely
small in magnitude (three are less than 1.3 time the criteria values, one is 2 times the
criterion value). The nine predicted exceedances resulting from a discharge at the existing
site without a diffuser are approximately twice the magnitude of the predicted exceedances
from a discharge at the same site with a diffuser. The magnitude of exceedances are
important to consider when assessing the potential for water quality improvements resulting
from pretreatment programs and TRE.
Toxicity testing was also conducted to determine potential impacts to marine life from a
discharge from any of the three options. It was determined that acute toxicity will not result
from a discharge from any of the three options. Dilution sufficient to mitigate chronic
toxicity exists for a discharge at the 301(h) site more than 95 percent of the time. Sufficient
dilution to mitigate chronic toxicity for a discharge at the existing site with a diffuser existed
just under 40 percent of the time. Sufficient dilution to mitigate chronic toxicity was
determined to never exist for a discharge at the existing site without a diffuser.
MCZM commented that there were unresolved issues concerning comparative Impacts
from nutrient loading and primary production at the 301 (h) site and the existing outfall.
MCZM recommended leaving the outfall at its present location and Implementing a
monitoring program.
EPA has evaluated historical data and recent data from the Summer 1990 monitoring
program. The assessment of this data are provided in Chapter Two.
MCZM commented that total contaminant loadings to sediments in Buzzards Bay will
not vary among the different siting options. Therefore, because the sediments at the
existing site are already contaminated and will remain so for years to come, MCZM
believes relocating the loadings to a relatively clean site would be more detrimental
than leaving It at its present location. They also prefer the existing site because the
contaminants will be more contained than at the 301 (h) site, which is In a more
dispersive environment.
EPA is aware of the contaminant problem in the sediments at the existing site. The current
levels of contaminants in the sediments at the existing site are the result of years of discharge
from a poorly operated and overloaded primary treatment plant. The new discharge will be
from a secondary treatment plant, which will remove a much greater percentage of
contaminants than the current plant. Additionally, all of the major sources of PCBs in the
effluent have been identified and eliminated. Continued reductions in toxic loadings resulting
from the Pretreatment program and the large amount of dilution and dispersion at the 301 (h)
site, should result in only a modest increase in sediment chemical concentrations outside of
the mixing zone at the 301 (h) site. No significant biological impacts are anticipated to result
from this small increase of contaminants in the sediments at the 301(h) site.
4-28
-------
MCZM commented that the City of New Bedford will have to apply for a variance under
the Ocean Sanctuaries Act, a process that requires a full examination of alternative
outfall sites, and a clear explanation and justification for contaminating a relatively
clean area.
As of the preparation of this Final EIS, the City of New Bedford has applied for the variance
that is required for either alternative outfall location under the Ocean Sanctuaries Act.
:4.11 Other
Several commentors expressed opposition to the City's argument that Standard-Times
Field (Site 4A) would be better utilized as a condominium development.
Although the real estate market has shifted since the condominium development was
proposed, the Standard-Times Field property is developable by zoning standards. Although
condominiums may not be constructed there as originally planned, the potential for revenue-
raising development at this site remains valid. It should be noted that EPA is not
recommending that the property be developed, but is merely acknowledging that Site 4A is
developable property.
One commentor expressed concern about building the plant outside the hurricane
barrier and not addressing the potential CSO problem that might result from potential
"downtime" associated with a major storm event. Another commentor was concerned
that there were hazards associated with "interrupted operation" at Site 1A.
Flood prevention design features have been incorporated into the WWTP design such that
siting outside the hurricane barrier will not pose any greater threat to plant operation than
siting within the hurricane barrier. Therefore, changes in CSO activity are not related in any
way to the WWTP siting. The two are related only in terms of plant capacity, which will not
change based on siting. A Final CSO Facilities Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report
have been prepared by the City (CDM, 1991).
The Draft EIS explains that even if seawater rises to the 500-year flood level, saltwater
intrusion would not damage the tanks; the impact would be temporary interruption of
operations, which would resume once the floodwaters had receded. Because of the flooding
protection contained in the design of the WWTP, the only foreseeable cause of interruption of
operations would be loss of power to the plant. The DEP Bureau of Municipal Facilities has
reviewed the City's WWTP design and concludes that it complies with Class I reliability
standards (Letter from Paul Taurasi to John Bullard, February 8, 1991). The WWTP system
requirements for Class I reliability standards include screening, grit removal, cleaning of
4-29
-------
components, controlled diversion by CSO treatment facilities, unit bypassing, and component
backup. With respect to power, the power company will provide two separate feeders that
individually will be able to supply the power needs for the entire WWTP. In addition, there
will be on-site generators that will be able to power the headworks consisting of the coarse
and fine screens, the influent pumps, the aerated grit tanks, the primary tanks collector
mechanisms and sludge pumps, the disinfection facilities, and the effluent pumps during peak
flow conditions in the event that the power company is unable to supply sufficient power
(Memorandum from L.F. Requena, J.W. Small, J. Kerrigan to File: 309-154-DN-PROC,
November 30, 1990)
One commentor felt that the Draft EIS was biased toward siting the WWTP at Fort
Rodman, and that the siting decision represents the Mayor's (John Bullard) position
and not that of the City's residents. The commentor pointed out that the Mayor
selected the contractor, Camp Dresser and McKee, and that the contractor biased their
presentation of the facts.
The Draft EIS expresses EPA's conclusion that either site is acceptable for development of
the proposed WWTP based on environmental considerations. Although EPA's EIS utilizes
data obtained and generated by the City's contractor, EPA uses its own environmental
consultants, with no potential conflict of interest, assisting in the preparation of the Draft and
Final EIS. In this manner, EPA conducts an independent evaluation of the available data and
information to generate its own set of recommendations. Regarding any perceived bias for
Site 1A, it should be noted that New Bedford's City Councilors voted 6 to 5 in favor of siting
at 1A; EPA did not "select" Site 1A over Site 4A.
One commentor asked why the wildlife species present in the wetlands at Site 1A had
not been identified in the Draft EIS.
A list of plant species observed at Site 1A, birds expected at Site 1A, mammals expected at
Site 1A, and reptiles and amphibians expected at Site 1A is listed in Appendix C of the Draft
EIS. This listing includes all wetlands species. A separate list of wildlife species in the
wetlands is not required.
One commentor questioned whether a Notice of Intent (NOI) or determination of
applicability had been submitted to the City's Conservation Commission, as required by
the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act.
The Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and regulations require that an NOI or
Determination of Applicability (to determine if a NOI is required) be submitted to the local
conservation commission, for projects that may potentially alter specified resource areas.
Upon determination of applicability and submittal of an NOI, the conservation commission
issues an order of conditions that must be followed during project construction and operation.
4-30
-------
The City the NOI for the project May 14, 1991. Public hearings were held May 29 and June
4 at which the conservation commission voted to approve the project with conditions.
One com mentor expressed concern that a relocation plan has not been Identified for
the soccer field at Site 1A.
A key component of the proposed WWTP at Site 1A is the development of Taber Park,
which will be a public park around the perimeter of the facility. Included in this public park
are two areas, one east and one southeast of the WWTP, designated as "multi-purpose
playfields." These fields are intended for athletics, picnicking, and sunbathing. In addition
to these playfields, a separate soccer field has been included in the design of Taber Park to
replace the existing field.
One commentor expressed concern for the health of shellfish beds that are located off
of Site 1A. The same commentor would like to know what agency Is responsible for
testing the shellfish for contamination, and whether shellfish can purge themselves of
polychlorlnated biphenyls (PCBs).
This summer (June through August, 1991) a sanitary survey is being conducted in Clarks
Cove. This is a cooperative pollution abatement project co-sponsored by the City of New
Bedford and the Town of Dartmouth (Dartmouth has 8 storm drains, and high fecal coliform
levels). This sanitary survey plan is based on a conditional classification system, i.e., the
classification depends on certain meteorological situations such as amount of rain, the time
period required to flush sewage-derived bacteria out of Clarks Cove, and the time period
required for shellfish depuration. After this survey, more will be known about the health of
the shellfish beds that are located off of Site 1 A.
The Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Marine Fisheries, in Sandwich,
Massachusetts, is responsible for testing shellfish for contamination. Shellfish, in general,
bioaccumulate PCBs to levels no higher than the surrounding sediments. Thus, shellfish
taken from areas relatively free of PCBs, such as Clarks Cove, would likely have extremely
low or undetectable levels of PCBs in their tissue. Shellfish taken from behind the hurricane
barrier in the Acushnet River have tissue levels that exceed the FDA Action level of 2.0 ppm
(based on wet weight).
The ability to depurate or purge PCBs by shellfish has been a controversial point in the
scientific literature. PCB's are extremely hydrophobic, which means they tend to accumulate
in fat or lipid material. In shellfish, this lipid material is utilized in the production of
gametes, thus when a shellfish spawns, the quantity of lipid material is reduced and
theoretically, the quantity of PCBs associated with that lipid material would be reduced.
Some studies done by the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) in 1980
indicated that removing contaminated shellfish to clean areas will result in some reduction of
PCB concentrations.
4-31
-------
Many scientists feel that the reduction in PCB concentration is not due to depuration but due
to dilution. By moving shellfish to a clean area, additional sources of PCBs are eliminated,
so the quantity in the tissue will not increase. As the shellfish grows, the animals body mass
increases, but the quantity of PCBs would remain constant, thus the concentration or ratio of
PCB quantity to shellfish tissue mass would decrease. The important point is that placing a
contaminated shellfish in a clean area for 10 days, 20 days, or 60 days may not be enough to
assure it is safe to consume. DMF does transplant some shellfish stock, however, the
shellfish are tested prior to harvesting to assure that they are safe for consumption.
One commentor noted that the cost of mitigating construction noise and operational
traffic at Site 1A has not been factored Into the total project cost for that site.
The cost of mitigating construction noise and operation traffic is factored in the estimated cost
for the WWTP and outfall. When requesting general contractor bids for construction of the
WWTP, the City will require that the contractor include in the bid, and implement during
construction the following:
Construction of an acoustic barrier
A plan to minimize construction noise levels. The plan should include
contingency measures, should the acoustic barrier alone not be sufficient to
maintain acceptable noise levels.
Hiring of an independent noise consultant or a City employee to conduct
compliance monitoring.
A commitment to restrict construction hours to between the hours of 7 AM and
6 PM, unless a variance is requested by the contractor for a specific task and
granted by the Health Department, which would require notification of the
adjacent property owners.
The proposed mitigation measures include hiring a police officer to be present at the JFK
Boulevard/Cove Street intersection during the construction phase.
One commentor asked who would be assessing the potential impact of WWTP
development at Site 1A on Fort Taber, as required by the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA).
Both NEPA and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) require that federal agencies
evaluate the potential impact to historic properties that could result from federal actions. This
evaluation is more formally structured under Section 106 of the NHPA regulations. Section
106 mandates review of the effects of all federally funded or licensed projects on resources
that are eligible for the National Register. An Advisory Council on Historic Preservation was
4-32
-------
established at the federal level to facilitate implementation of Section 106. At the state level,
the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) has been established under Chapter 9 of the
Massachusetts General Law to administer the federal historical preservation program. The
MHC would take the lead role in evaluating the impacts of projects within the same state, but
would coordinate their efforts with the Advisory Council and EPA. In addition, the City of
New Bedford has submitted reports to EPA summarizing Results of a Phase II Site
Examination of the Allen/Howland Farmstead at the Fort Rodman Military Reservation (Site
1A), and an Archaeological Site Examination of the Clayton site (19-BR-339). These reports
indicate that the WWTP project will not physically impact any of the structures in the Fort
Taber Historic District.
One commentor expressed doubt that prevailing wind direction had been factored Into
noise Impact assessments for Site 1A.
Noise is propagated through sound waves. The speed with which sound travels is affected
primarily by temperature and humidity. Wind affects the frequency of sound waves to some
extent, but not the intensity. This is the Doppler effect, an example of which is the change in
pitch when an approaching train passes by. Therefore, the prevailing wind direction may
impact the pitch of the noise from a particular source, but not the volume of noise.
4-33
-------
CHAPTER FIVE
ACCEPTABLE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS AND MITIGATION
This chapter presents a review of EPA recommendations stated in the Draft EIS. The new
information, analyses, and major modifications made to the City's recommended plan in the
Final Supplemental FP/EIR, (CDM, Volume VII, 1990; CDM, Volume VIII, 1991) are also
reviewed. This chapter then presents a discussion of EPA's final recommendations for
acceptable management options and a complete set of corresponding mitigation measures.
5.1 Review of EPA Draft EIS Recommendations
Table 5.1 summarizes the acceptable sites and technologies for wastewater treatment and
related activities for New Bedford as provided in EPA's Draft EIS. The acceptability of each
option was determined based on information available at the time the Draft EIS was prepared.
In its Draft FP/EIR, the City of New Bedford had chosen as its recommended plan a
combination of secondary wastewater treatment at Site 1A, the site of the existing primary
treatment plant, sludge dewatering and chemical fixation at the WWTP site with use of the
treated sludge as daily cover material at the proposed Crapo Hill landfill (with a backup
initial-phase sludge-only landfill at Site 47), and effluent discharge through the existing
outfall pipe (after rehabilitation). In the Draft EIS, each of these components was determined
to be acceptable to EPA, assuming the recommended mitigation measures are taken, with the
exception of the outfall site. EPA believed, based on the information in the Draft EIS, that
potential environmental impacts resulting from a secondary effluent discharge at the existing
outfall site without a diffuser would be unacceptable. Of the alternatives evaluated in the
City's Draft FP/EIR and EPA's Draft EIS, only a new outfall with a diffuser at the 301(h)
site was considered environmentally acceptable.
5.1.1 Summary of the Draft EIS recommended plan
The following sections briefly summarize the major components of the recommended plan in
.EPA's Draft EIS (Table 5.2).
5.1.1.1 Secondary wastewater treatment plant. The Draft EIS determined that Sites 1A
and 4A were both environmentally acceptable for WWTP siting. The WWTP was to be
designed for an average daily flow of 30 mgd and a peak dry-weather flow of up to 75 mgd.
The plant layout provided space for a future primary treatment plant to treat CSO flows.
Selection of Site 1A for WWTP siting required specific mitigation measures as summarized
herein.
5-1
-------
Table 5.1 Draft EIS Environmentally Acceptable Management Options
Secondary WWTP Solids Disposal Effluent Outfall
Site 1A Crapo Hill" 301(h) site
Site 4A Site 47 (Initial Phase)
Site 40
Only chemically fixed sludge to Crapo Hill Landfill, with backup landfill capacity at
Sites 40 or 47 for disposal of either chemically fixed or lime-stabilized sludge.
5-2
-------
Table 5.2 Description of the Draft FP/EIR Recommended Plan Major Project
Components
New wastewater treatment plant and effluent pumping station at Site 1A (Ft. Rodman).
Average daily dry weather flow 30 mgd
Peak dry weather flow 75 mgd
Demolition of the existing primary plant.
Neighborhood improvements:
Fort Taber Park
Community recreation facilities
Relocation of existing functions:
U.S. Army
Head Stan
Day care
Camp Kennedy
Sea Lab
Rehabilitation of the existing 60-inch outfall for up to peak dry weather flow.
Reserving the existing 72-inch outfall for primary-treated CSOs.
'Phase 1 of the sludge-only landfill at Site 47. Site access around the western edge of
the municipal golf course.
Continued pursuit of the disposal of chemically-fixed sludge at Crapo Hill or other
local or regional landfills.
Repairs to regulators 4E, 20A, 22A, 30A, 31 A.
Main interceptor grit removal.
Septage receiving facilities at existing Howard Avenue Pumping Station.
(Source: Table 10-1, CDM, Volume V, 1989)
'Site access on the western edge of the municipal golf course was proposed in the Draft
FP/EIR, but was modified in the Supplemental FP/EIR.
5-3
-------
For Site 1A, once the new WWTP were built (May 1, 1995) and fully operational (November
1, 1995), the existing primary plant could be demolished. All existing structures would be
demolished and removed except for the two existing outfall pipes and their junction
manholes. Once the existing plant site was cleared, the area would be incorporated into the
new Fort Taber Park complex.
Neighborhood Improvements
A key component of the proposed WWTP at Site 1A was the development of a public park
(Taber Park) around the perimeter of the facility. This was to ensure that the valuable
waterfront at Fort Rodman was preserved for public use. The proposed Taber Park would
provide public access to over a mile of multi-faceted waterfront recreational land, and would
also provide a buffer between the existing residential and waterfront land uses and the
proposed WWTP. Using a network of paths, wooded areas, and open areas, the new park
would integrate the development of picnic areas, educational centers, swimming, biking,
boating, and jogging facilities with the rehabilitation of some of the City's significant historic
resources and ocean overlooks. The park would link recreational waterfront areas on the east
and west side of Clarks Point.
Relocations
The PACE Head Start program, Early Learning Child Care program, Camp Kennedy, and the
Handicap Center were all to be relocated to the old City Hospital area known as the "Poor
Farm." The existing buildings were to be extensively renovated and additional new buildings
were to be added. The surrounding lawn areas would be developed into playgrounds for each
program. The existing vocational technical school would be expanded to house the Sea Lab
and other marine educational programs. The City would provide a site for the new Army
facilities.
5.1.1.2 Sludge disposal. The recommended plan was to construct a Phase 1 sludge-only
landfill at Site 47. The Phase 1 landfill would provide capacity for about 5 years of expected
sludge volume and would not impact wetlands. If the Crapo Hill landfill became operational
by the mid-1990s and used the City's chemically fixed sludge for cover material, or should
the chemically fixed sludge be used as cover material at any other refuse landfill, the Phase 1
landfill would suffice as a 20-year backup landfill eliminating the need for further landfill
construction. Continued coordination with the Greater New Bedford Regional Refuse
Management District and/or other area landfills (e.g., the BF1 landfill in Fall River) was
stated as part of the recommended plan. The Greater New Bedford Regional Refuse
Management District and the Dartmouth Board of Health have both voted to accept
chemically fixed sludge from New Bedford at the Crapo Hill Landfill, provided certain
prerequisites could be satisfied.
5-4
-------
5.7.7.3 Secondary effluent outfall. The City's recommended outfall alternative in its Draft
FP/EIR was to continue using its existing 60-in cast iron outfall after rehabilitation by
cleaning out all debris and installing a high density polyethylene liner in the cleaned pipe. In
its Draft EIS, EPA concluded that a discharge without a diffuser at the existing site was not
environmentally acceptable, based on both regulatory and environmental concerns. EPA
instead concluded that only an outfall at the 301 (h) site would be environmentally acceptable.
In terms of regulatory issues, effluent discharges at the existing site would State violate water
quality standards and Federal water quality criteria under average conditions. Additionally,
chronic toxicity would be predicted to occur to sensitive organisms near the existing
discharge. At the 301(h) site, some violations would occur, but the violations would be
fewer, less severe, and would occur primarily under worst-case conditions. A discharge at the
301 (h) site would have enough dilution available to avert chronic toxicity to sensitive species
over 95% of the time. This recommendation from the Draft EIS is revisited in Section 5.3.3,
based on the new analyses presented in Chapter Two of this Final EIS.
5.1.2 Implementation considerations
The City's Draft FP/EIR addressed factors that could impact implementation of the
recommended plan. This section summarizes the implementation considerations included in
the Draft EIS. Table 5.3 lists the consent decree schedule for the WWTP, sludge landfill, and
outfall that needed to be met as pan of the recommended plan. Maintaining the consent
decree schedule required successful completion of the following steps:
Site acquisition procedure for Site I A.
Relocation of U.S. Army and municipal, educational, and social programs for
Site 1A.
Acquisition of the privately-owned parcels on Site 47
Permitting--including coordination with the Massachusetts Historical
Commission regarding historical structures on Site 1A.
5.1.2.1 Site acquisition. Site 1A--AH of the land now owned and occupied by the Army
.Reserve command would be required. The City of New Bedford owns all of the other land
required, but there are deed restrictions which would have to be removed to enable a new
WWTP to be built.
Site 47-The City would need to acquire the four privately owned parcels on Site 47.
5-5
-------
Table 5.3 Recommended Plan Implementation Consent Decree Schedule*
Submit draft Phase 2 Facilities Plan to EPA and DEP
Submit draft EIR on WWTP and sludge disposal
facilities to EOEA
Submit final Facilities Plan to DEP, EPA, and
Conservation Law Foundation
Submit final EIR and final plant site selection
to EOEA
Commence preparation of plans and specifications
for secondary treatment and sludge disposal facilities
Submit final plans and specifications for WWTP and
sludge disposal facilities to EPA and DEP
Advertise for bids for facilities
Award construction contract
Commence construction of WWTP and sludge disposal
facilities
Complete construction of WWTP and sludge disposal
facilities
Achieve full operation of WWTP and sludge disposal
facilities in full compliance with all applicable
permits and regulations
August 16, 1989
August 16, 1989
October 1990
January 17, 1990
March 1, 1990
May 1, 1991
October 1, 1991
February 15, 1992
March 15, 1992
May 1, 1995
November 1, 1995
(Source: Table 10-2, COM, Volume V, 1989)
'June 1989 proposed modifications to the consent decree dates. All dates listed are tentative
and subject to revision
5-6
-------
5.1.2.2 Relocations. Relocations of the U.S. Army and municipal services from Site 1A
would be critical to the successful implementation of the Draft EIS recommended plan. The
construction of the WWTP would not begin until all these groups were moved to their new
facilities. The key milestones associated with the Site 1A relocations were to be established
as negotiations with the various groups continued.
5.1.2.3 Permitting. It was anticipated that all permitting can be completed by the critical
finish date (February 15, 1992) assuming that the necessary activities would begin as soon as
the final facilities plan were completed. Some activities could begin in advance of that date,
in particular, seeking Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) approval for plans on both
-Sites 1A and 47, tracking the Ocean Sanctuaries Act amendments, and wetlands mapping on
Site 47 using federally accepted methodology.
5.1.3 Cost estimates
Table 5.4 shows the City's estimated capital costs for its recommended plan, and Table 5.5
shows the City's estimated annual operation and maintenance costs based on 1989 dollars.
The capital cost included a 30 percent allowance for engineering and contingencies. Because
EPA's recommendations in the Draft EIS were in line with the City's recommended plan in
the Draft FP/E1R, with the very notable exception of the outfall alternative, the costs
presented in Tables 5.4 and 5.5 reflect estimates for EPA's Draft EIS recommendations. The
City's estimated capital costs for constructing a rock tunnel to the 301 (h) with a seabed
diffuser totaled $70 million, which was considerably higher than the costs associated with the
City's recommended alternative.
5.2 Review of New Issues, Information, and Modifications to the City's Plan
The following discussion summarizes all modifications to the City's original recommended
plan and new information that has become available since the release of the Draft EIS. The
modifications summarized herein are from the City's Supplemental Final FP/EIR (CDM,
Volume VII, 1990), which revised some recommendations from the Final FP/EIR (CDM,
Volume V, 1990) that were deemed unacceptable by EPA and other reviewing agencies.
5.2.1 Secondary wastewater treatment plant
Under the City's revised recommended plan, there will be more space available for the
treatment plant at Site 1A because the space previously allocated for a CSO treatment facility
is no longer required. The City's Draft CSO Facilities Plan (completed on October 1, 1989)
did not recommend a separate CSO treatment facility at Fort Rodman. It recommended
storing combined sewerage during storm events, and pumping the stored flow back to the
plant as soon as the wet weather flows subside. The Final CSO Facilities Plan (CDM, 1991)
recommends that only the CSOs in Clarks Cove (Group 1 and 2) be stored during storm
;
5-7
-------
Table 5.4 City of New Bedford Draft FP/EIR Recommended Plan Capital Cost
($ Millions)
Plan 1A/47
New WWTP $ 129.6
WWTP - Site Specific Cost 36.4
Off-site Conveyance Facilities 0.8
Effluent Pumping Station 8.7
Effluent Pumping Station - Connections and Force Mail 0.8
Existing 60-inch Outfall Rehabilitation 5.01
Sludge Landfill 10.0"
Landfill - Site Specific Cost 8.3"
Grit Removal 10.0
Collection System Modifications
New Facilities
East Clarks Point Sewer 5.7
Pumping Station & Force Main
Cove Road Sewer Pumping Station & Force Main 5.3
North End Sewer Pumping Station & Force Main 9.0
Area 1, 2, 3 Extensions 12.5
Sewer Rehabilitation 4.8
Pumping Station Modifications 1.8
TOTAL CAPITAL COST $ 248.7
(Source: Table 10-3. COM, Volume V, 1989)
'Capital Cost of a rock tunnel with seabed diffuser at 301 (h) site, recommended in DEIS, estimated at
$70 million by the City's engineers (pg. 1-19, COM, Volume IV, 1989).
bCost listed is for a 20-year landfill. The cost to build Phase 1 of a phased landfill would be $3.1
million with an additional $5.3 million in site-specific costs. This would reduce the initial capital cost
requirement by $9.9 million.
5-8
-------
Table 5.5 City of New Bedford Draft FP/EIR Recommended Plan
Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost ($ Thousands)
Plan 1A/47
Administrative Expenses
Wastewater Treatment Facility
Labor
Chemicals
Power
Fuel/Gas
Chemical Fixation
Maintenance
Miscellaneous
Subtotal
Landfill'
Labor
Daily Cover
Final Cover
Power
Fuel/Gas
Maintenance
Miscellaneous
Pumping Stations
Labor
Power
Fuel/Gas
Maintenance
Miscellaneous
Sewers
Labor
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
$500
$ 1,657
.980
1,130
14
1,380
178
60
5,399
121
47
64
4
11
28
11
286
263
130
13
20
3Q
456
294
100
394
$ 7,035
(Source: Table 10-4, COM, Volume V, 1989)
a The annual operation and maintenance cost could be reduced to about $131,000 if the
sludge product is reused as cover material.
5-9
-------
events and pumped back to the plant as soon as the wet weather flows subside; the remainder
of the CSOs (group 3 to 6) will be separated.
A series of cost-saving measures resulting from a value engineering analysis were
recommended by the City in the Final FP/EIR, submitted after EPA's Draft EIS. Most of
those measures were rejected by EPA and other reviewing agencies. As a result, the City
restored the original mitigation measures included in the recommended plan as summarized in
Section 5.1, with the exception that educational and child care programs, which were
originally to have been relocated to new facilities at the former "Poor Farm", have will
instead be moved to other suitable locations in the City (see details in Section 5.3.1) in efforts
to reduce the financial impact of relocating those programs.
5.2.2 Sludge disposal
The City's recommended plan in the Supplemental Final FP/EIR (COM, Volume VII, 1990)
was to reuse chemically fixed sludge as a daily cover material at the proposed Crapo Hill
landfill with a 5-year backup sludge-only landfill at Site 47.
The wetlands delineations performed for the^City by Normandeau Associates at Site 47 in
July, 1990, and confirmed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, indicated some potential
wetlands areas along the proposed golf course access road. The western edge of the golf
course, just beyond the fairways, is close to extensive areas of wetlands vegetation supported
by poorly drained soil. Therefore, the preferred alternative access route is to construct a pile-
supponed access road between Shawmut Avenue and the site. This alternative route will also
parallel the railroad. The portion of the road located within wetland areas (approximately 67
percent) will be constructed on timber pilings in order to minimize wetlands impacts. To
minimize construction impacts in the wetlands, the bridge will be constructed in stages, with
the construction equipment for each stage located on the previously constructed bridge
segment.
The construction of the Crapo Hill landfill will require a Proposition 2-V2 override vote in
both New Bedford and Dartmouth; that vote is scheduled to occur in late 1991. In response
to concerns that the Proposition 2-'/2 override might not pass, and to other issues concerning
the sludge treatment and disposal plan, the City has initiated supplemental sludge
management facilities planning. The purpose of the Supplemental Sludge Management
FP/EIR is to develop an alternative long-term (20-year) sludge management plan in the event
that the recommended plan proves infeasible. The supplemental sludge facilities planning
will be conducted in two phases. Phase 1 will include an identification and preliminary
screening evaluation of all reasonable alternatives; Phase 2 will include a more detailed
evaluation of only the most promising options (CDM, Memorandum to Alan Slater, DEP, and
Susan Coin, EPA Region I, February 20, 1991). The following are included among the
objectives of the Phase 1 preliminary evaluation:
5-10
-------
Update the status of the Phase 2 Final Wastewater Facilities Plan
recommendation to reuse chemically fixed sludge as daily cover
material at the proposed Crapo Hill landfill
Summarize projected sludge quality and quantity
Summarize the status of the proposed Site 47 sludge-only landfill design and
the estimated landfill capacity
Define the additional disposal capacity required to provide the City with a 20-
year sludge management plan
Develop a list of alternatives, including the following:
Request proposals for private-sector residuals treatment and disposal for
both short-term and long-term options
Volume-reduction technologies such as sludge incineration and sludge
drying at a new facility (possibly at the site of the existing Shawmut
Avenue landfill incinerator)
Additional sludge-only landfill construction at Site 40, at the proposed
Crapo Hill site, and at the existing Shawmut Avenue landfill site to
occur as the proposed Site 47 landfill reaches its useful life
Disposal and/or sludge reuse options at existing or proposed facilities at
locations outside City limits but within the New England states and
upstate New York
It has come to EPA's attention since the Draft EIS was issued that odor problems with
chemically fixed sludge have been encountered in isolated instances using one of the patented
processes (ChemFix), and that these problems have been associated with conditions under
which the sludge has been treated. At this time, it is expected that these problems can be
readily addressed by standard mitigation measures. However, EPA's continued approval of
this form of treatment is contingent upon implementation of any necessary mitigation to
preclude detectable odors from the treated sludge. Should it be determined that mitigation is
not possible, or not adequate to ensure the goal of no detectable odors, the City will have to
address this issue in its Supplemental Sludge Management FP/E1R.
5-11
-------
5.2.3 Secondary effluent outfall
EPA and the Massachusetts DEP requested that the City conduct additional water quality
monitoring in Buzzards Bay during the summer of 1990 (July through September) to better
predict the relative impacts of a secondary effluent being discharged at the two proposed
outfall locations. The analysis primarily examined the impact on dissolved oxygen
concentrations and nutrient levels in waters around New Bedford. EPA's assessment of the
results of the 1990 monitoring is presented in Chapter Two of this Final EIS. The technical
evaluation in Chapter Two supports EPA's final recommendations described later in this
Chapter.
5.2.4 Collection system modifications
Recommendations made in the Draft FP/EIR for the collection system were modified in the
Final FP/EIR (COM, Volume V, 1990). The modifications to the existing wastewater
conveyance system can be divided into three categories:
Site-specific modifications required to deliver wastewater and convey
treated effluent to Site 1A
Necessary upgrades and replacements associated with the existing
conveyance system
Extension to the existing conveyance system to serve unsewered areas
of New Bedford.
All three categories were discussed in the Final FP/EIR (COM, Volume V, 1990). The
Supplemental Final FP/EIR included a discussion of relocation and permitting considerations
within the context of implementation of the City's recommended plan (COM, Volume VII,
1990).
5.2.5 Implementation considerations
There remain several factors that impact implementation of the Facilities Plan. The primary
considerations are related to relocation and permitting. Table 5.6 shows the revised total
estimated capital costs for the recommended plan. The capital costs include a 30 percent
allowance for engineering and contingencies. The estimated annual operation and
maintenance costs, based on 1989 dollars, were the same as those shown in Table 5.5 less the
$131,000 savings associated with using the fixed sludge as cover material (see footnote in
Table 5.5). Table 5.7 lists potential cost-saving measures that if adopted could reduce the
plan's cost by up to $35.6 million. The City will need to perform a detailed preliminary
design evaluation to determine whether or not these cost-saving measures are viable. These
5-12
-------
Table 5.6 City of New Bedford Supplemental FP/EIR Estimated 1990 Capital Cost of
Recommended Plan
Total Estimated Cost*
Item ($ Millions)
New Secondary Plant
Land acquisition 0.0
Relocations 12.0
Army 4.6
National Park Service 0.1
Head Start/Day Care 6.1
SeaLab/Alternative High School 1.1
Camp Kennedy 0.1
Plant and Outfall 161.2
Offsite Piping, etc. 0.8
Park and Neighborhood Improvements 7.3
Taber Park 6.0
Refurbish Fort Taber 1.0
Offices/Visitors Center 0.3
Total - New Secondary Plant 181.3
Site 47 Sludge Landfill 8.4
Interceptor Grit Removal 10.0
Reduction In System Infiltration/Inflow 4.8
Improvements To Existing Pumping Stations 1.8
Collection System Improvements
New East Clarks Point Pumping Station 5.7
New Cove Road Pumpting Station 5.3
Phase 2 North End Relief Project 9.0
Collection System Extensions 12.5
Total - Collection System Improvements 32.5
Total 238.8
(Source: Table 9-4, COM, Volume VII, 1990)
' Includes 30% allowance for engineering and contingencies. Capital cost of a rock tunnel
with a seabed diffuser estimated at $70 million; capital cost for rehabilitation of existing
outfall, adding a liner and diffuser estimated at $7.5-$9.5 million (CDM, Volume V, 1989).
5-13
-------
Table 5.7 City of New Bedford Supplemental FP/EIR Potential Cost Saving Measures
Estimated Savings
Item ($ Millions)
1. Pursue federal legislation to fund
the relocation of the Army from Fort Rodman. $ 4.6
2. Pursue alternative locations and facilities
within the city to reduce the cost of relocating
the Head Stan and Day Care program; 2.0
3. Upgrade Apponagansett Street pumping station
instead of building a new pumping station to
serve the east side of Clarks Point. 3.0
4. Postpone wastewater collection system extensions
in the northern areas of the city. 12.5
5. Pursue the following wastewater treatment plant
modifications during the plant conceptual design
phase:
a. Evaluate the Elimination of the emrgency
generator and generator building, and relay
on two separate incoming power lines to
provide electrical reliability. 2.5
b. Evaluate additional air pollution control
equipment alterntives. 1.0
c. Evalute the use of an existing Army building
as a plant maintenance facility. 3.0
d. Evaluate the elimination of coarse screening. 3.0
6. Pursue eliminating the existing outfall liner
during the plant conceptual design phase. 4.0
TOTAL $35.6
(Source: Table 9-6, COM, Volume VII, 1990)
5-14
-------
measures will be considered by the City during design- phase value engineering workshops,
which will be attended by EPA and other regulatory agencies.
5.3 EPA Recommendations for Management Options and Mitigation Measures
Table 5.8 summarizes EPA's acceptable management options for the three primary
components of the facilities plan: 1) secondary wastewater treatment plant siting, construction,
and operation, 2) sludge treatment and disposal, and 3) effluent discharge and outfall siting.
All of the options listed in Table 5.8 have been determined to be environmentally acceptable
ito EPA. Also, those components that make up EPA's preferred alternatives are indicated.
vThroughout the planning process EPA's role has been to evaluate the City's proposed
program and alternatives to it in accordance with NEPA to ensure that the sites and
technologies chosen are environmentally acceptable and will result in long term compliance
with the Clean Water Act. Thus, EPA believes that the City's selected plan should be
adopted if it is found to be acceptable. This is the case with all components of that plan
except for the outfall, which is discussed in detail below.
5.3.1 Secondary wastewater treatment plant
The preferred management option for WWTP siting is the Fort Rodman site, Site 1A. In the
Draft E1S, EPA had deemed both Sites IA and 4A (Standard-Times Field) as environmentally
acceptable. Although EPA still considers Site 4A environmentally acceptable for WWTP
siting, the New Bedford City Qouncil voted (May 1990) to select Site 1A for locating the
proposed WWTP. Because the City's preferred site, Site I A, is environmentally acceptable to
EPA with the proposed mitigation, EPA's final recommendations and mitigation plans are
presented for Site IA only.
EPA has reviewed and concurs with the City's plan for WWTP construction at Site 1A
(Figure 5.1) as described in the Supplemental Final FP/EIR (COM, Volume VII, 1990). The
major WWTP components of the facilities plan are as follows:
New secondary WWTP and effluent pumping station at Site 1A with the
following flow capacities: .
Average daily dry weather flow of 30 mgd
Peak flow of 75 mgd
Demolition of the existing primary treatment plant
Neighborhood improvements
5-15
-------
Table 5.8 Acceptable Management Options
Secondary VVVVTP Solid Disposal Effluent Outfall
Site 1A* Crapo Hill* 301(h) Site with Diffuser*
Site 4A Site 47 (Initial Phase)* Existing Site with Diffuser
Site 40
* Indicates EPA's preferred alternative. For solids disposal, the preferred alternative is
chemically fixed sludge to Crapo Hill Landfill, with backup landfill capacity at Site 47 for
disposal of either chemically fixed or lime-stabilized sludge.
5-16
-------
REDESIGN AND AOO LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS
TO EXISTING BEACH PARKING AREAS
»M * \ *"Vjv'
if
.v-x-^vM1;-/-^.^
k\
Sifc
NEW
7
1
B!
DFORD
f
24 FT. WIDE ACCESS ROAD
PICNIC AREA OVERLOOK
ADD NATURALIZED LANDSCAPING NEAR BEACH AREAS
RELOCATED BUILDING FOR CAMP KENNEDY
CHILD PENS PLAY GROUND
RETAIN EXISTING BUILDING FOR STORAGE
DROP OFF AREA ANO CAB TOP BOAT LAUNCH AREA
OPEN LAWN AREA
Building Rftefei
HARBOR
1. Administration Buikftng
2. Maintenance Building
3. Air handling Bwlding
4. Headwortts
5. Aerated Gnft Tanks
6. Prknaiy Settling Tanks
7. Aeration Basins
8. Final Settling Tanks
9. Chlorine Contact Tanks
tO. Effluent Pump Station
11. Residuals Processing Building
12. Gravity Thickener Pump Station
PTC NIC AREA OVERLOOK
REFURBISH EXISTING WOOD STRUCTURE TO CREATE
VISITOR'S AND ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER
AND SITE MUSEUM
- PICNIC AREA OVERLOOK
REFURBISH EXISTING WOOD BUILDING AND ADO NEW
BUILDING FOB SEA LAB WITH PARKING AREA
ADD LANDSCAPED 8ERMS. BUFFER AND SIDEWALK ALONG
RODNEY FRENCH BOULEVARD
RETAIN EXISTING MILITARY BATTERIES - CLEAN UPV
AREA ANO ADO INTERPRETIVE SIGNS
12 FT. WIDE PAVED PATH FOR
MAINTENANCE / JOGGING / BICYCLING
RETAIN EXISTING MILITARY BATTERIES - CLEAN UP
STRUCTURE ANO AOO INTERPRETIVE SIGNS
13 FT. WIDE PAVED PATH FOR
MAINTENANCE/ JOGGING /BICYCLING
OPEN LAWN AREA FOR PARADE GROUND
5-17
Figure 5.1 Master Plan For Site 1A, Wastewater Treatment Plant and Taber Park
(Source: Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.)
-------
Taber Park
Community recreational facilities
Relocation of existing major functions
U.S. Army Reserve--the City has been negotiating with the Army for
possible relocation sites, several of which are still being discussed;
however, the base may be closed by the Army prior to construction of
the WWTP, which would eliminate the need for relocation.
PACE Head Startthe City's plan is to relocate the private nonprofit
federally funded preschool program for low-income families to the
Greene School; the renovation design is completed, construction is
scheduled for completion by March 1992.
Early Learning Child Care, Inc.--the City's plan is to relocate the
private nonprofit day care program, currently under contract with the
Department of Social Services, to Building #6 at Hillman Street; the
renovation design is complete, construction is scheduled for completion
by March 1992.
Camp Kennedy-the City's plan for this City-sponsored summer
recreation program is to renovate four on-site buildings, scheduled for
completion by 1996.
Sea Lab Program-the City's plan for this summer educational program
is to renovate two on-site buildings and construct a new building on
site, scheduled for completion by 1996.
Alternative High School-the City's plan for this federally funded
program for special-needs students is to relocate it to Building #5 at
Hillman Street; the renovation design is complete, construction is
scheduled for completion by March 1992.
Special Needs Program-the City's plan is to relocate this program,
which provides recreational and educational programs for handicapped
adults, to Building #9 at Hillman Street; the renovation design is
complete, construction is scheduled for completion by March 1992.
Fort Rodman Marine Program-the City's plan for this private nonprofit
program, which provides safe-boating instruction, is to renovate three
on-site buildings, scheduled for completion by 1996.
5-18
-------
EPA also concurs with the City's recommendations for new collection system facilities,
existing pumping station demolitions, existing pumping station upgrades, and collection
system upgrades. These facilities recommendations are listed in Table 5.9 (which is modified
from Table 9-1 from CDM, Volume VII, 1990).
The following sections discuss required mitigation associated with the WWTP component of
the Facilities Plan. Implementation of these mitigation measures is an integral part of the
environmental acceptability of this plan.
5.3.1.1 Land use and zoning. Siting the WWTP at Site 1A will result in land-use impacts
both to the existing programs at Fort Rodman and, to a lesser degree, to the adjacent
residential areas. The impacts of the WWTP and its operations will be reduced by using
screening and buffer areas around the facility, as well as minimizing the noise and odors
associated with the plant by covering all process tanks. Those land-use impacts associated
with the plant will be mitigated by the creation of Taber Park (Figure 5.1), which will
enhance the unique waterfront and historic portions of the site. The impacts associated with
the displacement of the existing programs at Site 1A will be mitigated by moving those
programs to newly renovated facilities elsewhere in town (for details see Section 5.3.1). The
benefits of Taber Park and the new education center will substantially reduce the land-use
impacts of siting the plant at Site 1A.
5.3.1.2 Noise. Noise impacts resulting from operation of the WWTP at Site 1A are expected
to be minimal due to acoustical muffling. Plant operational noise will be barely perceptible at
residences along South Rodney French Boulevard. Noise impacts associated with
construction of the plant will be significant during certain construction phases. However,
these phases will be of limited duration and the construction noise impacts will only occur
during daytime hours. Concerns related to noise were addressed in greater detail as responses
to comments in Chapter Four of this Final EIS.
5.3.1.3 Odors and air toxics. Odor impacts from operation of a WWTP at Site 1A should
not be noticeable at nearby residences along South Rodney French Boulevard. The use of
covered tanks and wet scrubbers on vented gases will reduce odorous emissions from the
plant significantly so that perceptible odor thresholds will not be exceeded at any point
around the plant perimeter.
To ensure that air toxic criteria will not be exceeded at perimeter locations around the
proposed WWTP, covered tanks and carbon absorption units will control emissions of the
organic compounds typically associated with wastewater treatment. The impacts from the
majority of these compounds will be less than one-tenth of the current air quality criteria for
these compounds. Sludge produced by the plant will be chemically fixed, thus minimizing
odor, and will be removed in covered trucks, specially designed for this type of application.
5-19
-------
Table 5.9 Recommendations for Collection System Facilities In the Supplemental
FP/EIR
New Collection System Facilities
East Clarks Point Pumping Station (P.S.)
(Replaces existing Apponagansett Street P.S.)
East Clarks Point Pumping Station Force Main
East Clarks Point Sewer
Cove Road Pumping Station
(Replaces existing Cover Road Pumping Station)
Cove Road Pumping Station Force Main
Cove Road Relief Sewer
North End Pumping Station
(Replaces Joyce Street, Welby Road, Phillips
Road, Area IV and Duchaine Blvd. Pumping Station)
Design Criteria
5 mgd
2,800 Ft., 18-inch ductile iron
3,800 ft, 24-in reinforced concrete
14.3 mgd
1,000 ft, 30-inch ductile iron
2,700 ft, 42-inch reinforced concrete
5.5 mgd
North End Pumping Station Force Main (1)
North End Sewers
Hathaway Road Pumping Station
Area 1,2,3, Sewer System Extension(2)
Existing Pumping Station Demolition
Apponagansett Street Pumping Station (P.S.)
Cove Road P.S.
Joyce Street P.S.
Welby Road P.S.
Phillips Road P.S.
Area IV P.S.
Duchaine Boulevard P.S.
Hathaway Road P.S.
6,500 ft, 18-inch ductile iron
20,000 ft, 12-30-inch
1 mgd
5-20
-------
Table 5.9 (Continued)
,0)
Existing Pumping Station Upgrades1
Howland Street P.S.
Front Street P.S.
Wamsutta Street P.S.
Coggeshall Street P.S.
Coffin Street P.S.
Jones Street P.S.
Shawmut Avenue P.S.
Pequot Street P.S.
Pecham Road P.S.
Sassasquin Avenue P.S.
Collection System Upgrade
Sewer Rehabilitiation as a result of Sewer Sytstem Evaluation Survey work
(Source: Table 9-1, CDM, Volume VII, Supplemental FP/EIR, October, 1990)
(1) See Appendix B of CDM, Volume IV, 1989 for description
(2) See Appendix C of CDM, Volume IV, 1989 for description
(3) See Appendix A of CDM, Volume IV, 1989 for individual station modification
5-21
-------
5.3.1.4 Wetlands. No wetlands impact will result from development of a WWTP at Site 1A.
Construction activities will be concentrated toward the center of the site, away from the
coastal bank and beach areas. To further ensure that there are no wetlands impacts, buffer
zones will be maintained between construction areas and sensitive wetland areas. Proposed
improvements to waterfront areas (e.g., regrading and landscaping done as part of the Taber
Park development) will not impact coastal waterfront areas.
5.3.1.5 Storm protection. The design of the WWTP at Site 1A will include protecting the
plant against flooding and storm damage that could otherwise result from majors storms.
EPA has determined that the construction of the WWTP at Site 1A would not constitute a
"critical action" requiring protection from a storm of 500-year magnitude. A critical action,
as defined in Executive Order 11988 is one that, if flooded, would create an added dimension
to the flood disaster. Nevertheless, EPA and the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) recommended that a WWTP built at Site 1A be designed to withstand greater than a
100-year flood. The plant design is geared to protect against the 500-year stillwater level.
The following actions, which would provide protection at the 500-year stillwater level (no
wave action), are recommended:
Construction of all facilities outside of the V-Zone or coastal high-hazard zone.
Raising site grading to above elevation 11.5 ft (100-year flood level with wave
action).
Constructing all first floors of buildings above elevation 13.5 ft (500-year
stillwater flood level).
For buildings with basements, ensuring that water cannot reach basements until
flood level exceeds 13.5 ft.
Providing stoplogs or equivalent for all garage entrances to buildings in order
to keep water up to elevation 13.5 ft out.
Mounting drives above elevation 13.5 ft on all process tankage.
Providing structural strength to withstand flood levels up to 13.5 ft for all
> facilities.
These and other measures will ensure that equipment and buildings are protected from flood
damage from storms greater than the 100-year flood. Construction of the plant on Site 1A
will include a variety of erosion-control measures to prevent damage to coastal wetlands areas
by siltation and erosion. These measures include the use of hay bales and siltation fences.
5-22
-------
5.3.1.6 Visual aesthetics. The aesthetic impact of siting the WWTP at Site 1A has received
careful attention, and every effort is being made to mitigate this impact. EPA concurs with
the City's recommendations for mitigating aesthetic impacts. The creation of Taber Park and
the enhancement of the Historic District and waterfront areas will create a major beneficial
aesthetic impact on the area around Fort Taber. The proposed mitigation should offset any
negative aesthetic impact associated with the presence of a large secondary treatment facility.
In addition, the plant is designed to screen the facility from the surrounding area, including
keeping the plant profile low and using plantings and trees to screen views of the facility.
These measures will substantially mitigate the aesthetic impact of the plant at Site 1A.
5.3.1.7 Historic and archaeological features. Site 1A contains a number of historic
structures. The existing Fort Taber Historic District, which includes Fort Taber and several
batteries, is excluded from the plant construction area. Forty-two other structures on the site
(including the officers' quarters, World War II structures, and Battery Milliken) contribute to
the historic district and are eligible for inclusion in the district. The proposed treatment plant
layout will impact a large number of these structures. Therefore, efforts to preserve (through
layout modification), relocate, or record data from these historic structures are being made.
Because the site provides little opportunity for major changes to the plant layout, it is
anticipated that the focus of the mitigation efforts will be on data recovery before the
structures are removed.
The proposed site improvements, creation of Taber Park, and the proposed enhancement of
the existing Historic District, will be a significant improvement over current site conditions.
The existing treatment plant, which is directly adjacent to Fort Taber, will be demolished and
the Taber Park design will incorporate historic uses to the fullest extent possible. Specific
mitigation measures will be developed as part of the consultation process under Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act. Discussions regarding mitigation have been
initiated between MHC, the City, EPA, and other regulatory agencies, and will result in the
preparation of a Memorandum of Agreement for the project.
Currently, historic structures from the Endicott-Taft period and the World War II period are
to be removed, relocated on site, or preserved as follows (MHC Information Summary, March
27, 1991):
Endicott-Taft Period structures to be removed:
Radio Shack
Endicott-Taft Period Structures to be relocated on site:
NCO Quarters
Fire Apparatus Building
5-23
-------
Quartermaster and Commissary Store House
Post Exchange
Endicott-Taft Period structures to be preserved:
Officers Quarters
Engineer Storehouse
Bakehouse
Batteries Barton-Walcott 1 and 2
Battery Gaston
Battery Craig
Battery Cross
World War II Period structures to be removed:
Recreation Building
Ten Enlisted Men's Barracks
Four Mess Halls
Company Administration Building
Maintenance Storage Building
Four Company Day Rooms
Ward Building
Post Exchange
Officers' Quarters and Mess Hall
P.E. Lumber Storage Building
Maintenance Garage
World War II Period structures to be preserved:
Gas Chamber
Storage
Battery Milliken
The existing Army Maintenance Building, constructed in the 1960's, is also proposed to be
removed. It should be noted that the structures within the Fort Taber Historic District will
not be physically impacted (MHC Information Summary, March 27, 1991).
5-24
-------
5.3.2 Sludge disposal
The preferred management option for sludge disposal is to reuse chemically fixed sludge as
daily cover material at the proposed Crapo Hill landfill with a 5-year backup sludge-only
landfill at Site 47. In the Draft EIS, EPA had deemed chemical fixation an acceptable sludge
treatment technology and both Sites 47 and 40 environmentally acceptable sites for a 5-year
backup landfill. Although EPA still considers Site 40 environmentally acceptable for landfill
siting (contingent upon overcoming site acquisition obstacles and the landfill layout avoiding
the potential public water supply Zone II boundary), because the City's preferred site, Site 47,
is environmentally acceptable to EPA, EPA's final recommendations and mitigation plans are
presented for Site 47 only.
The City has proposed to construct a backup sludge-only landfill and access road at Site 47
with a goal of no wetlands impact. In order to avoid wetlands, the landfill option
recommended for Site 47 is a 5-year, rather than a 20-year landfill. The 5-year capacity will
provide an environmentally acceptable alternative for temporary use should the Crapo Hill
landfill not obtain the Proposition 2-V2 override required for its construction.
The recommendation of Site 47 for a backup sludge-only landfill with a 5-year capacity
includes design features to minimize wetlands impacts. The more precise wetlands
delineations performed for the City by Normandeau Associates in July, 1990, which was
confirmed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, indicated some potential wetlands areas
along the proposed golf course access road. The western edge of the golf course just beyond
the fairways is close to extensive areas of wetlands vegetation supported by poorly drained
soil. In response, the City has recently proposed to construct an access bridge that would
avoid impacts to existing wetlands. Although it adds to the cost of the facilities plan, EPA
recommends this design, as it is protective of existing wetlands at Site 47.
Construction of a landfill at Site 47 will avoid any areas within the 100-year floodplain. The
delineation of this line was reconfirmed through further analyses of potential flooding within
the local drainage basin. Runoff of surface water from the operating areas of the landfill will
be captured and routed to a leachate collection system. A leachate pumping station,
consisting of a separate, pre-fabricated wet well and dry well, will be constructed. The dry
well will contain two non-clog sewage pumps with appropriate controls. Leachate will be
pumped to a gravity sewer that connects to a sewer along Shawmut Avenue. In order to
control transport of eroded soils and solids, sedimentation basins will be constructed in
exposed areas of the landfill. All site runoff will pass through a sedimentation basin prior to
discharge to surrounding wetlands.
Potential groundwater contamination from the solids disposal landfill was also considered.
Site 47 was selected in pan because of lack of potential groundwater sources in the area, and
hence, the low potential for impact of aquifer water supplies. The design of the landfill,
including double liners, the leachate collection system described above, and groundwater
5-25
-------
monitoring programs should ensure that the landfill will not release contaminants to the
groundwater.
Site 47 contains one small area of archaeological sensitivity and a Phase II detailed
investigation was conducted to better define the significance of this area. The report
concluded that Site 47 contains no archaeological resources eligible for National Register
listing and that no mitigation will be required. The Massachusetts Historical Commission
(MHC) has requested additional information from the preparer of the report, Boston
University's Office of Public Archaeology (OPA), before completing its review. If MHC's
conclusions are different from the findings of the report, specific mitigation measures for any
; anticipated impacts at the proposed landfill site will be developed as part of the consultation
process under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
In summary, given the remaining uncertainties regarding the implementability of the City's
recommended plan, EPA concurs with the City's sludge management strategy, which includes
initiation of supplemental sludge management facilities planning (outlined in Section 5.2.2).
Should alternative management options for sludge disposal become necessary, EPA will
review and assess the alternatives presented in the Supplemental Sludge Management FP/EIR
as appropriate under NEPA. If necessary under 40 CFR §1502.9(c), a Supplemental Final
EIS addressing alternative sludge management options would be prepared.
5.3.3 Secondary effluent outfall
The City's recommended management option for outfall siting is rehabilitation of the existing
outfall at the existing site with no diffuser added. EPA's Draft EIS concluded, however, that
the potential environmental impacts resulting from secondary effluent discharge at the existing
site would be unacceptable and that only a new outfall and diffuser at the 301(h) site would
be environmentally acceptable.
After an extensive technical analysis of supplemental water quality monitoring data collected
in Buzzards Bay during the summer of 1990 (presented in Chapter Two of this Final EIS),
EPA still believes that the 301 (h) site is the environmentally preferable outfall location,
because of its greater dilution capabilities, its greater compliance with water quality criteria,
and the potential improvement that would result in dissolved oxygen concentrations near the
existing discharge.
EPA acknowledges, however, that a discharge at the existing site with a diffuser would also
be acceptable; but only if the City can satisfy the regulatory requirements that remain:
Development of a Use Attainability Study for the purpose of downgrading
some defined area of the waterbody from Class SA to Class SB. This would
be done to more accurately reflect the uses associated with this waterbody. SA
waterbodies have as uses open shellfishing and excellent habitat for marine
5-26
-------
biota. Neither of these uses will be met in the vicinity of the existing outfall,
even with a diffuser.
Development of an enforceable site-specific DO criterion for some area of
water contiguous to the outfall. The current DO standard for SA waters is 6
mg/L; the current standard for SB waters is 5 mg/L. It is predicted that a
secondary discharge at the existing site with a diffuser will violate the SA DO
standard and the SB DO standard in the bottom waters under critical summer
conditions. Under the new Massachusetts water quality standards, a site-
specific DO criterion may be developed for bottom waters, provided that the
criterion is protective of designated uses.
Demonstrate a reduction in effluent toxicity such that toxicity will not be
predicted to occur outside the mixing zone.
If the City chooses to pursue the alternative consisting of the existing site with a diffuser,
EPA would require the City to satisfy the above requirements, to continue their Toxicity
Reduction Evaluation (TRE) and Pretreatmem Programs, and to implement a comprehensive
monitoring program as a condition of the permit.
In order to determine whether there are any resources (shipwrecks) potentially eligible for the
National and State Register of Historic Places that could be affected by outfall renovations
(i.e., construction at the 301 (h) site or addition of a diffuser to the existing site), an
underwater archaeological documentation survey was conducted in the Spring of 1989. The
study did not include information on the identity, age, location, integrity, and potential
significance of all of the shipwrecks in the area. Only three of the known wrecks in the study
area were discussed in that report. Without complete data, MHC has been unable to
determine whether or not these resources are potentially eligible for the National and State
Register of Historic Places, and whether or not the outfall will affect these resources. If the
outfall is moved to the 301(h) site, these resources could be impacted during construction of
the new outfall pipe. It is less likely that use of the existing outfall with a diffuser would
disturb any archaeological resources because diffuser construction would take place in a
previously disturbed area. If the City opts to add a diffuser to the existing outfall rather than
moving it to the 301(h) site, it is possible that no mitigation will be required. However, if
MHC determines otherwise upon review of the requested supplemental information, mitigation
measures will be taken to avoid or minimize any predicted impacts. Any additional action
required of the City will be specified in the MOA.
As stated previously herein, EPA believes that the City of New Bedford, as the entity that
will have to build and operate these treatment facilities, should have the primary voice in
determining which combination of sites and processes will most optimally serve its needs.
This choice, however, is constrained by the results of this environmental impact assessment
conducted under NEPA. Throughout the planning process EPA's role has been to evaluate
the City's proposed program and alternatives to it in accordance with NEPA to ensure that the
5-27
-------
sites and technologies chosen are environmentally acceptable and will result in long term
compliance with the Clean Water Act. While EPA continues to support the 301 (h) site as the
.environmentally preferable management option, we find that a secondary discharge at the
existing site with a diffuser would also be environmentally acceptable contingent on the
City's ability to satisfy the requirements outlined herein.
Although EPA continues to recommend that the outfall be extended to the 301(h) site, we
recognize that other wastewater projects will draw heavily upon the City's financial resources.
The schedule for construction of the extended outfall (or for the addition of a diffuser to the
existing outfall) will be negotiated by EPA, the State, and the City in the context of the
ifederal/state enforcement action. During those negotiations, EPA will consider the City's
^ability to finance the outfall work in the context of the City's other obligations. Also relevant
to the issue of scheduling is the possibility for coordination with Superfund cleanup activities
in New Bedford Harbor. EPA's Superfund program has indicated a potential interest in
remediating areas south of the hurricane barrier. The timing of any potential remediation
plans that could affect outfall construction will be factored into EPA's future scheduling
negotiations with the City.
5-28
-------
CHAPTER SIX
ERRATA
In the course of review of the Draft EIS, and EPA's review of public and agency comments
on the Draft EIS, the need for some technical and editorial corrections was noted. In those
instances for which expansion or clarification of a statement in the Draft EIS was cited in a
comment, the expansion or clarification was provided in a response to the comment in
Chapter Four of this Final EIS. In instances for which new data or information, obtained .
subsequent to issuance of the Draft EIS, required review and assessment, the new data or
.information are discussed in Chapter Two of this Final EIS.
The errata presented in this chapter are corrections or modifications to specific text, tables,
and figures in the Draft EIS. The original text, tables, or figures are only reproduced herein
to the extent necessary. Any technical errata that impact recommended management options
and mitigation are addressed in Chapters Two (if the correction is the result of new data),
Four (if the correction is in response to a comment on the Draft EIS), or Five (if the
correction pertains to modification of a recommendation in the Draft EIS). Errata are
grouped according to text, tables, and figures.
6.1 Text
Page 2-49
Last paragraph, fourth sentence changed from "some of the site is City-owned recreational
land" to read "some of the site is City-owned recreational and educational land." This is to
provide recognition of the buildings used by the Head Stan program, the Early Learning
program, Camp Kennedy, the U.S. Navy Reserve, and Greater New Bedford Regional
Vocational Technical High School, which also occupy facilities on Site 1A.
Page 3-17
Last paragraph, last sentence, the reference for sludge disposal costs changed from "(CDM,
Volume in, 1989)" to read "...(Table 5-38, CDM, Volume HI, 1989)." This expansion of the
reference to the Draft Phase 2 Facilities Plan responds to a comment that noted that the
estimated transportation costs were not stated in the Draft EIS. The estimated transportation
costs associated with the different sludge disposal alternatives are provided in Table 5-38.
6-1
-------
Page 5-4
Second paragraph, third sentence reads "If the intent of zoning is assessed, a treatment plant
is generally compatible with Industrial B zoning." The following sentence is added to the
paragraph: "Site 1A is zoned Residential A, which according to the City of New Bedford
Solicitor, Armand Fernandes, permits a WWTP as a 'public-service' building."
Page 5-5
Second paragraph, second sentence changed from "...however, they are exempt from zoning."
to read "...however, according to Armand Fernandes, the Solicitor for the City of New
Bedford, Residential A zoning permits a WWTP as a 'public-service' building."
Page 5-7
Second paragraph, third sentence, "...(approximately 450 dwellings)..." is changed to read
"...(approximately 450 dwellings containing approximately 750 households)..." This revision
reflects the total number of households, as well as houses, and is based on an inventory of the
area bordered by Rodney French Blvd., East Rodney French Blvd., West Rodney French
Blvd., Apponagansett St., and Capitol St. This inventory was conducted by the Save Fort
Rodman Committee and communicated to EPA in a comment letter.
Page 5-7
Third paragraph changed from "...Clegg Field, which has three baseball diamonds and a
lighted soccer field." to read "...Clegg Field, which has three baseball diamonds and a soccer
field."
Page 5-10
Second paragraph. Delete the following sentence: "Presently the Greater Boston Community
Development, Inc. is in the process of building 75 units of housing and a recreational park
area for the elderly on vacant land adjacent to Site 4A." The proposed development was
turned down by the City of New Bedford Zoning Board of Appeals.
Page 5-15
First paragraph, fifth sentence changed from "The only sensitive receptor along the access
route is a high-rise housing project for the elderly on East Rodney French Boulevard." to read
"The potential sensitive receptors along the access route are the Church of the First Born, at
6-2
-------
82 Cove Street, a high-rise housing project for the elderly on East Rodney French Boulevard,
and the beach along East Rodney French Boulevard, which is heavily occupied during
daylight hours during the peak summer months."
Page 5-44
Second paragraph, fourth sentence changed from "...the prevailing wind direction is generally
to the southwest." to read "...the prevailing wind direction is generally from the southwest."
; Page 5-78
Third paragraph, fifth sentence, add a citation to read "The Advisory Council's 'Protection of
Historic Properties' (36 CFR 800)..."
Page 5-89
Fourth paragraph, second sentence changed from "Resources associated with the site include
recreational facilities, swimming beaches, and non-commercial fishing." to read "Resources
associated with the site include recreational facilities, swimming beaches, and recreational
fishing and boating."
Page 6-5
Third Paragraph, "...or with the proposal for elderly housing near Site 4A" is deleted from the
third sentence because the proposed project for elderly housing near Site 4A was turned down
by the City of New Bedford Zoning Board of Appeals.
Page 8-2
Second paragraph, second sentence changed from "CAC meetings were held between June
1988 and August 1989..." to read "CAC meetings were held between April 1987 and August
1989..."
6-3
-------
6.2 Tables
Page 2-46, Table 2.3-5
"Surrounded on 3 sides by water" deleted from the list of Major Advantages.
Page 5-16, Table 5.1-1
For Site 1A, East Rodney French Boulevard, change parking is "Prohibited in summer" to
read "Prohibited May 15 to September 15, 9 AM to 6PM."
Page 6-36, Table 6.3-3
The Maximum 1-hour organic odor concentrations from the New Bedford WWTP for Site
4A, Beyond Site, (% of OTC), should be 1.8% for total xylenes, not 0.1%.
6.3 Figures
Page 2-53, Figure 2.3-4
The new footprint and a storage area for sludge is indicated in Figure 5.1.
6-4
-------
REFERENCES
Abelson, P.W. 1979. Property prices and the value of amenities. Journal of Environmental
Economics and Management. 6:11-28.
ASA. 1986 Circulation and pollutant transport model of New Bedford Harbor. Report
ASA 86-18 prepared by Applied Science Associates, Inc.
COM, Volume III, 1989. City of New Bedford, Massachusetts. Phase 2 Draft Facilities
Plan, Volume III: Design Criteria Development and Process Evaluations. Prepared by
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. Boston, Massachusetts.
COM, Volume IV, 1989. City of New Bedford, Massachusetts. Phase 2 Draft Facilities
Plan, Volume IV: Effluent Outfall. Prepared by Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc.
Boston, Massachusetts.
CDM, Volume V, 1989. City of New Bedford, Massachusetts. Phase 2 Draft Facilities
Plan, Volume V: Development of the Recommended Plan. Prepared by Camp
Dresser and McKee, Inc. Boston, Massachusetts.
CDM, Volume IV, 1990. City of New Bedford, Massachusetts. Phase 2 Final Facilities
Plan, Volume IV: Effluent Outfall. Prepared by Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc.
Boston, Massachusetts.
CDM, Volume V, 1990. City of New Bedford, Massachusetts. Phase 2 Final Facilities
Plan, Volume V: Development of the Recommended Plan. Prepared by Camp
Dresser and McKee, Inc. Boston, Massachusetts.
CDM, Volume VII, 1990. City of New Bedford, Massachusetts. Phase 2 Supplemental
Final Facilities Plan, Volume VII: Supplemental Environmental Impact Report.
Prepared by Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. Boston, Massachusetts.
CDM, Volume VIII, 1991. City of New Bedford, Massachusetts. Phase 2 Final Facilities
Plan, Volume VIII: Supplemental Environmental Impact Report: Effluent Outfall.
Prepared by Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. Boston, Massachusetts.
CDM, 1991. City of New Bedford, Massachusetts. Phase 3 CSO Facilities Plan, Volume
I: CSO Facilities Plan. Prepared by Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. Boston,
Massachusetts.
Grassle, J.F. and J.P. Grassle. 1974. Opportunistic life histories and genetic systems in
marine benthic polychaetes. J. Mar. Res. 32: 253-284.
R-1
-------
Hyland, J.L., E.J. Hoffman, and D.K. Phleps. 1985. Differential responses of two
nearshore infaunal assemblages to experimental petroleum additions. J. Mar. Res. 43:
365-394.
Pearson, T.H. and R. Rosenberg. 1978. Macrobenthos succession in relation to organic
enrichment and pollution of the marine environment. Oceanog. Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev.
16: 229-311.
Rhoads, D.C., P.L. McCall, and J.Y. Yingst. 1978. Disturbance and production on the
estuarine seafloor. Amer. Sci. 66: 577-586.
Sanders. H.L. 1958. Benthic studies in Buzzards Bay. I. Animal-sediment relationships.
Limnol. Oceanog. 3: 245-258.
R-2
-------
APPENDIX A
METHODS AND SUPPORTING DATA
FOR DISSOLVED OXYGEN MODELING AND EVALUATION
-------
APPENDIX A
A.1 Data Analysis
A.1.1 Analysis of Spatial Correlation of Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Demand
Figure 2.4 of Chapter Two is a plot of the dissolved oxygen (DO) time series data from all
four moored stations, lower DO probe. Table A-l contains the correlation matrix for different
time periods. The square of the correlation factor, multiplied by 100, by definition is a
measure of the percent variability in one variable that can be explained by changes in the
correlated variable.
A.1.2 Analysis of Correlation of DO with Forcing Functions
Figures 2.5 and 2.6 of Chapter Two show four pairs of time series plots, each pair consisting
of the near-bottom DO level readings and the water temperature difference between top and
bottom probe for a given moored station. Table A-2 summarizes the correlation factors for
different time periods. A negative correlation would suggest, as one would expect, that near-
bottom DO levels decrease as thermal stratification increases.
Figure 2.7 of Chapter Two shows a series of plots of wind speed, wave height, current speed,
and DO levels (lower probe) for moored station M3. The respective correlation factors for
DO and the three forcing functions are summarized in Table A-3 for two different time
periods.
A.1.3 Analysis of Spatial Variability of Chlorophyll-a and Near-Bottom DO
Horizontal plots of water column average chlorophyll-a and near-bottom DO provide a visual
understanding of the spatial variability of phytoplankton activity and resulting near-bottom
oxygen demand throughout the Outer Harbor and the adjoining part of Buzzards Bay. In
addition, theses plots indicate the relative importance of the existing outfall versus upstream
or boundary sources in controlling the DO regime.
Figures Al through A12 are plots of near-bottom DO measurements for the 12 Summer 1990
cruises. Figures A13 through A24 are plots of depth-integrated chlorophyll-a concentrations.
Each of these plots shows some seemingly random spatial variability. But a general pattern
can be discerned:
There is a lateral gradient of near-bottom DO and productivity data with lowest
DO (highest productivity) values in the.Inner Harbor, and highest DO (lowest
chlorophyll-a) values out in the Bay near the 301(h) site. This pattern suggests
that the Acushnet River and other shoreline sources (e.g., CSOs) are a major
contributor to DO demand in the Outer Harbor.
A-1
-------
There are, at times, local gradients in the Outer Harbor. The area southwest
and northeast of the existing outfall occasionally exhibits DO depressions and
chlorophyll-a highs.
There is no noticeable near-field DO depression around the existing outfall.
A.2 Methodology for Analysis of DO Depression
Modeling of DO depression (ADO) at different spatial locations in the Outer Harbor and
Buzzards Bay, resulting from alternative effluent discharge scenarios enhances one's
understanding of the likely water quality impacts associated with these alternative actions. In
the following, methodologies are provided (basically those used by COM, Volume IV, 1990)
that can be employed to approximate water column DO depression and phytoplankton-derived
SOD, resulting at different locations in the Outer Harbor and Bay from the following actions:
Existing conditions (primary treatment, existing outfall);
No outfall (but other sources of nitrogen);
City's recommended plan (according to CDM, Volume IV, 1990) (secondary
treatment; existing outfall);
Additional waste water treatment (AWT; existing outfall); and
Extended outfall (secondary treatment; 301 (h) site).
The locations for which ADO values are of primary interest are the existing site and the
301(h) site.
A.2.1 Water Column DO Depression
In order to analyze the different discharge alternatives, the basic model equations used by
CDM (Volume IV, 1990), but including the possibility of multiple sources with mixed
(primary and secondary) characteristics are derived below. These equations apply to water
column depressions near the existing outfall, due to discharge at the existing outfall.
A-2
-------
Step 1
Compute the mass of CBOD and NBOD associated with primary and secondary effluent. For
carbonaceous BOD
effluent flowrate x BOD5x 1.46 x FNS (la)
MCBOD =
KCBOD + D
where the factor of 1.46 converts measured 5-day BOD concentration to ultimate BOD
concentration, FNS is the fraction not settling (0.50 for primary and 0.67 for secondary),
KCBOD is the rate of oxygen consumption (.23 d'1) and D is a flushing rate (0.15 d"1) for the
Outer Harbor.
Using the above numbers
MNBOD = 1.92 x QCBOD, + 2.57 QCBOD2 (Ib)
where QCBOD is the BOD5 loading and subscripts 1 and 2 refer to primary and secondary
treatment respectively.
For nitrogenous BOD,
effluent flowrate x TKN x 4.57 (2a)
MNBOD =
KNBOD + D + FTU
where 4.57 is a factor converting TKN to NBOD concentration, KNBOD is the rate of
oxygen consumption by NBOD (0.1 d'1), and FTU is the fraction of nitrogen taken up
(assumed to be 0.25 for primary and 0.50 for secondary). Using the above numbers,
MNBOD = 9.14 xQTKN, + 6.10 x QTKN2 (2b)
Step 2
Convert mass to concentration by dividing by a volume.
CBOD = MCBOD/V (3)
NBOD = NMBOD/V (4)
A-3
-------
The volume is the calibration constant. By assuming that the observed depression of 0.70
mg/L was due entirely to the treatment plant, CDM (Volume IV, 1990) computed V=50 x
106m3. If we assume that other sources contribute CBOD and NBOD at a rate equal to the
treatment plant, then V = 1.02 x 108m3.
Step 3
Compute water column oxygen deficit.
KCBOD x CBOD + KNBOD x NBOD (5)
ADO =
R
where R is the re-aeration rate (assumed 0.2"'). Note that R enters into the calibration of V
so the calculations are insensitive to the exact value of R.
To analyze the impact in Buzzards Bay of discharge at the existing site, or to analyze the
impact in either the Outer Harbor or Buzzards Bay due to a discharge at the 301 (h) site, some
relative dilutions need to be computed. Referring to Figure 2.7 of Chapter Two, define c^ as
the concentration at location i due to a discharge at location j, where i or j = 1 refers to the
existing site in the Outer Harbor and i or j = 2 refers to the 301(h) site in Buzzards Bay.
Furthermore, the following dilutions are defined:
C,,
S2,=
(6a)
C2I
is the additional dilution at location 2 due to discharge at location 1,
C,,
S22 =
(6b)
A-4
-------
is the additional local dilution at location 2 as compared with location 1, and
(6a)
C12
is the relative dilution at location 1 due to discharge at location 2 versus location 1.
In principle, one could determine all three values of dilution from the PACE model
simulations (CDM, Volume IV, 1990). However, the contours indicated in the model results
of Appendix B of the CDM (Volume IV, 1990) report only allow determination of S22. Using
the reported background build-up (BB) concentration, averaged over the various simulations
(based on input from different current meters), S22 is approximately 3. It is noted that the BB
was defined to provide a background concentration for input to a total dilution calculation and
in practice it was measured about 500 m from the source. Because BOD exertion (and algal
dynamics responsible for SOD discussed in the following section) takes place over a time
scale of days, values of c^ used in the dilution calculation should be defined at much larger
distances from the source. However, because the same definition is used for each source, the
use of BB seems acceptable when computing ratios.
In the absence of other information values of S21 = 5 and S,2 = 10 are assumed. Fortunately,
calculations are not too sensitive to these estimates.
For "average "BOD loading and hydrodynamic conditions, the following DO depressions can
be computed from the above equations.
Existing conditions (primary treatment, existing outfall) Assuming an effluent flow rate of
1.32 mVs, CBOD = 100 mg/L and TKN = 20 mg/L (CDM, Volume IV, 1990: page 8-17),
and that upstream sources contribute an equivalent load of total nitrogen, the equations yield
ADO = 0.70 mg/L at the existing site. This, of course, is as it should be since the assumed
depression of 0.70 mg/L was used in parameter calibration. Assuming S21 = 5, the depression
at 301 (h) = 0.14 mg/L.
No outfall. This leaves only the upstream sources which represent half of the total loading
assumed above. Thus, depressions at the existing site and at 301(h) are 0.35 mg/L and 0.07
mg/L respectively.
Recommended plan (secondary treatment; existing outfall). In this case the upstream
source is the same, but the CBOD goes down (due to greater removal efficiency in treatment
(30 mg/L vs. 100 mg/L), but compensated somewhat by lesser settling, leaving more BOD in
the water column) as does NBOD (due to greater nitrogen uptake by phytoplankton). The
A-5
-------
computed depressions at the two sites are 0.52 mg/L and 0.10 mg/L.
Additional treatment (AWT; existing outfall). Compared with the recommended plan, the
CBOD is assumed to remain the same, but the NBOD from the treatment plant is reduced by
80 percent (TKN = 4 mg/L vs. 20 mg/L), thus decreasing the total NBOD loading by 40
percent. The computed depressions are thus 0.46 mg/L and 0.09 mg/L.
Extended outfall (secondary treatment; 301(h) outfall). For this case, the upstream source
and the outfall must be treated separately. The upstream source is the same as previous
calculations, but the outfall is governed by a different value of dilution. For the 301(h) site,
with a value of 822 = 3, ADO = 0.13 mg/L while for the existing site, with a value of S,2 =
10, ADO = 0.37 mg/L.
A.2.2 Phytoplankton-derived SOD
This re-analysis is a generalization of that presented in the Facilities Plan (CDM, Volume IV,
1990) and is summarized in Figure A25.
Step 1
Compute nitrogen concentration (before uptake) using the PACE model and known or
assumed loading. CDM (Volume IV, 1990) scaled the nitrogen concentrations from the
background build-up concentrations which, as stated previously, are probably too localized.
However, they do provide a relative number.
Step 2
The spike experiments were used to compute the increase in primary productivity due to the
increase in nitrogen concentration. In analyzing the experiments, CDM (Volume IV, 1990)
assumed that the response curve in Figure 2.14 of Chapter Two was flat for conditions at the
existing site (high nitrogen levels), so no increase in primary production was computed. For
the 301(h) site, the experiment indicated that primary production doubled for a tenfold
increase in nitrogen concentration. This estimate is conservative because: (1) the primary
productivity measurement is based on existing conditions with an outfall; hence, there is
double accounting when nitrogen from the new outfall is added; and (2) as discussed earlier,
by using the predicted background buildup concentration, the study overestimates the
concentration of nitrogen over the regional scale of interest.
Step 3
Twenty-five percent of the primary production is assumed to respire on the bottom.
Step 4
These constants (Figure A25) convert annual deposition to daily consumption of oxygen.
A-6
-------
SfepS
A control volume analysis is used to convert the flux of SOD into an equilibrium oxygen
depression where U is the current speed, X is a distance over which the fluxes occur, and H
is an effective height. The major differences between average and worst-case conditions are
due to the differences, in U and H which reflect differences in stratification. Calculated DO
depressions are quite sensitive to the parameters in this analysis and the parameters, in
general, are rather difficult to estimate.
For "average" conditions, the following DO depressions are computed:
Existing conditions (primary treatment; existing outfall). This analysis is based on a
measured primary productivity rate of 832 g-C/m2-yr at the existing site leading to an SOD of
1.5 g-Oj/rr^-d. Using average values reported (CDM, Volume IV, 1990) in Chapter Eight of
Volume IV (X = 5800 m, U = .05 m/s, and a top-to-bottom density difference of 0.3 sigma-t
units), we compute H = 4.4 m giving ADO = 0.46 mg/L. At the 30l(h) site, measured
productivity was 354 g/C/m2-yr leading to an SOD = 0.6 g-O2/m2-d. CDM (Volume IV,
1990) selects average values of U = 0.11 m/s and a top-to-bottom density difference of 0.3
sigma-t units. They discuss X for a discharge at the 301(h) site but not for a discharge at the
existing site. It could be argued that the value of X should be at least as big as the
corresponding value for the Outer Harbor, since one of the reasons that primary productivity
is smaller in Buzzards Bay is due to dilution. However, if we pick the same value of X
(5800 m) we compute h = 3.7 m and hence ADO = 0.10 mg/L.
No outfall. In this case the nitrogen loading is reduced by 50 percent. The effect of this
reduction depends on the slope of the response curve (Figure 2.8 of Chapter Two). If it were
flat, then there would be no response to decreased nitrogen loading. As an upper bound, we
will assume a sensitivity of 50 percent implying a 25-percent change in primary productivity
for a 50-percent reduction in nutrient loading. This assumption leads to values of ADO =
0.34 mg/L (in the Outer Harbor) and 0.08 mg/L (in upper Buzzards Bay). The relatively
small change between existing conditions and the no-outfall condition is due to the outside
sources.
City's recommended plan (secondary treatment; existing outfall). Assume that the
loading of available nitrogen from the secondary plant is twice that of the existing primary
plant, due to the predominance of ammonia nitrogen. This assumption is consistent with the
assumption on nitrogen uptake made in the water column analysis, but errs on the side of
overestimating the impact of secondary treatment versus primary treatment, because it ignores
recycling among nitrogen pools. Including the outside sources, available nitrogen is thus
increased by 50 percent, leading to a 25-percent increase in primary production, SOD, and
dissolved oxygen depression. Thus, ADO = 0.58 mg/L in the Outer Harbor and 0.13 mg/L in
Buzzards Bay.
A-7
-------
Additional treatment (AWT; existing outfall). Assuming the plant discharges available
nitrogen at a rate of 20 percent compared with secondary treatment, or 40 percent compared
with primary treatment, results in a 30-percent reduction in available nitrogen compared with
existing conditions. The corresponding depressions are thus ADO = 0.39 mg/L (Outer
Harbor) and 0.9 mg/L (Buzzards Bay).
Extended outfall (secondary treatment; 301(h) outfall). Using CDM's (Volume IV, 1990)
assumptions, primary productivity in Buzzards Bay would double, resulting in an oxygen
depression near the 301(h) site of 0.2 mg/L. To estimate the impact in the Outer Harbor, we
again assume SI2 = 10, suggesting that, in comparison with the no-outfall scenario, available
nitrogen would increase by 20 percent or, in comparison with existing conditions, decrease by
40 percent. This would result in a 20-percent decrease in primary productivity and dissolved
oxygen depletion compared with existing conditions, or ADO = 0.37 mg/L.
A-8
-------
Table A-1 Spatial Correlation of Near-Bottom DO
Dates
07/06 - 07/14
09/05 - 09/20
07/19 - 08/15
07/27 - 08/07
08/15 - 09/19
Correlation Matrix -
3
2
1A
IB*
3
2
1A
IB
3
IB
3
1A
IB
3
1A
3
1
.557
.363
.195
3
1
.595
.488
.603
3
1
.171
3
1
-.013
-.100
3
1
.569
2 1A
1
.521 1
.022 -.227
2 1A
1
.530 1
.512 .888
IB
1
1A IB
1
0.841 1
1A
1
Moored Station
IB
1
IB
1
*Suspect data
A-9
-------
Table A-2 Correlation of Near-Bottom DO with Temperature Stratification
Moored Station Date Correlation Factor
1A 07/27 - 08/07 0.253
1A 08/24 - 09/22 -0.249
IB 07/06 - 07/12 0.643
IB 07/20 - 08/15 0.073
IB 09/05 - 09/27 -0.694
2 07/07 - 07/14 -0.616
2 09/06 - 09/28 -0.590
3 07/07 - 09/20 -0.363
A-10
-------
Table A-3 Correlation of Near-Bottom DO with Forcing Functions for Moored Station M3
Dates
Correlation Matrix
07/27 - 08/15
DO Wave Wind Current
Height Speed Speed
DO
1
Wave -0.1531
Height
Wind 0.119
Speed
Current 0.110
Speed
0.572
0.048
0.189
07/24 - 08/27
DO
Wave
Height
Wind
Speed
Current
Speed
DO
1
Wave 0.093
Height
Wind 0.275
Speed
Current
Speed
0.527
A-11
-------
--AS\
1
Figure A1
Parameter Plotted: Dissolved Oxygen
(near bottom) in mg/l
Cruise No.: 1
Cruise Date: 7/6/90
5.94
1 1
RR2
NT
5.71
12
7.74
6.46
48
NT
U
5.97
6.71
RR5
14
6.06
NT
M1A
NT
0
RR6
NT
A-12
7.58
M1B
6.82
2
10000 FT
-------
Figure A2
Parameter Plotted: Dissolved Oxygen
(near bottom) in mg/l
Cruise No.: 2
Cruise Date: 7/13/90
-------
Figure A3
Parameter Plotted: Dissolved Oxygen
(near bottom) in mg/l
Cruise No.: 3
Cruise Date: 7/19/90
RR2
NT
5.88
12
6.34
5.67
M3
NT
48
6.9
5.81
3
7.13
14
RR5
NT
, MIA
7.61
0
RR6
NT«
A-14
M1B
7.13
2
6.84
10000 FT
-------
Figure A4
Parameter Plotted: Dissolved Oxygen
(near bottom) in mg/l
Cruise No.: 4
Cruise Date: 7/27/90
5.57 ;
i, M;
^1 6.0£
5.77
585
5A
RR
NT
10
5.19
.44
RR2
NT
12
6.87
M3
6.81
4B
6.94
6.21
5.78
14
5.65
RR5
NT
0
RR6
NT*
A-15
M1B
6.79
m M1A
6.46
2
6.92
10000 FT
-------
Figure A5
Parameter Plotted: Dissolved Oxygen
(near bottom) in mg/l
Cruise No.: 5
Cruise Date: 8/7/90
-------
Figure A6
Parometer Plotted: Dissolved Oxygen
(near bottom) in mg/l
Cruise No.: 6
Cruise Date: 8/15/90
1 1
9 5B 6.87
6.790 5A
M2
6A
RR2
NT
6.6
12
6.21
M3
5.1 1
4B
5.88
13
6.27
6.05
14
6.35
RR5
NT
p M1A
6.22
RR6
A-17
M1B
6.28
2
6.51
10000 FT
-------
Figure A7
Parameter Plotted: Dissolved Oxygen
(near bottom) in mg/l
Cruise No.: 7
Cruise Date: 8/24/90
10000 FT
A-18
-------
Figure A8
Parameter Plotted: Dissolved Oxygen
(near bottom) in mg/l
e 9 Cruise No.: 8
4 u Cruise Date: 8/31/90
RR5
5.55
M1A
6.16
RR6
5.89*
A-19
M1B
5.85
2
6.07
10000 FT
-------
Figure A9
Parameter Plotted: Dissolved Oxygen
(near bottom) in mg/l
Cruise No.: 9
Cruise Date: 9/5/90
10
7.05
6-91^58
5A 7.27
4B
)
7.00
> 3
7.34
2
7.33
10000 FT
A-20
-------
Figure A10
Parameter Plotted: Dissolved Oxygen
(near bottom) in mg/l
Cruise No.: 10
F Cruise Date: 9/14/90
V
10000 FT
A-21
-------
Figure A1 1
Parameter Plotted: Dissolved Oxygen
(near bottom) in mg/l
Cruise No.: 1 1
Cruise Date: 9/21/90
RR2
NT
6.92
12
7.1 1
' M3
7.42
4B
7.31
13
7.34
7.61
14
7.26
RR5
NT
> M1A
7.10
0
RR6
NT «
A-22
M1B
6.76
1 2
7.89
10000 FT
-------
13
5.55
Figure A1 2
Parameter Plotted: Dissolved Oxygen
(near bottom) in mg/l
,Q f= Cruise No.: 12
7'39 Cruise Date: 9/27/90
12
5.74
6.56
4B
7.69
7.87
14
6.87
RR5
NT
^ M1A
7.17
0
RR6
NT«
A-23
M1B
6.9
2
7.79
10000
-------
Figure A1 3
Parameter Plotted: Chlorophyll-o
(column average)
Cruise No.: 1 in ma/m-3
Cruise Date: 7/6/90
RR
11
7«. 5A */)
M2
RR2
12
48
U
3.5"
14
RR5
₯./
^ MIA
0
RR6
A-24
M1B
2
10000 FT
-------
Figure A1 4
Parameter Plotted: Chlorophyll-o
(column average)
Cruise No.: 2 in mg/m
Cruise Date: 7/13/90
A-25
-------
Figure A1 5
Parameter Plotted: Chlorophyll-a
(column average)
Cruise No.: 3 in mg/m
Cruise Date: 7/19/90
-------
Figure A1 6
Parameter Plotted: Chlorophyll-a
(column overage)
Cruise No.: 4 in mg/m
Cruise Date: 7/27/90
-------
Figure A17
Parameter Plotted: Chlorophyll-a
(column average)
Cruise No.: 5 ' in mg/m
Cruise Date: 8/7/90
-------
Figure A18
Parameter Plotted: Chlorophyll-a
(column overage)
Cruise No.: 6 in mg/m
Cruise Date: 8/15/90
A-29
-------
Figure A19
Parameter Plotted: Chlorophyll-a
(column overage)
Cruise No.: 7 in mg/m
Cruise Date: 8/24/90
-------
Figure A20
Parameter Plotted: Chlorophyll-a
(column average)
Cruise No.: 8 in mg/m
Cruise Date: 8/31/90
-------
Figure A21
Parameter Plotted: Chlorophyll-a
(column average)
Cruise No.: 9 in mg/m
Cruise Date: 9/5/90
-------
Figure A22
Parameter Plotted: Chlorophyll a
(column average)
Cruise No.: 10 in mg/m
Cruise Date: 9/14/90
-------
Figure A23
Parameter Plotted: Chlorophyll-a
(column average)
Cruise No.: 1 1 in mg/m
Cruise Date: 9/21/90
A-34
-------
Figure A24
Parameter Plotted: Chlorophyl1-a
(column average)
Cruise No.: 12 in ma/m
Cruise Date: 9/27/90
A-35
-------
w
O)
N
PACE
SPIKE
EXP
* 0.25
t 2.67
365
* X
86400 UH
A DO
[N]
PP
AD
SOD
EPA - REGION 1
FEB. 1991
NONE
64141-004
J: Figure A-25: Calculotion Procedure (or Near
Bottom Oxygen Depression
-------
APPENDIX B
PUBLIC AND AGENCY COMMENT LETTERS
AND PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT
-------
Comment 0001
OFFICE OF CITY COUNCIL
133 William Street . New Bedford, Massachusetts 02740 (508) 999-2931
George Rogers
Councillor a large
CHAIRMAN
GonmrittEr on Ordinance
Tourism tnd Hatorical Otjeds
Ann Rodney
U.S. EPA REG. 1
WQE-1900 C
JFK FEDERAL BLDG.
BOSTON,MASS. 02203
Dear Ms. Rodney:
I am writing within the comment period set by EPA on the issue of
the approval of the siting of a proposed secondary sewerage treatment
plant to be built in New Bedford pursuant to a consent decree signed
by Mayor John K. Builard.
As was already pointed out by Ward 6 Councillor Ralph Saulnier (where
the plant is proposed by Mayor Bullard ), this is not a "city decisior
This is a Mayor Bullard decision. I have not endorsed it, Councillor
Saulnier has not endorsed it, one Councillor who did not openly oppose
it when the recent re-election campaign was taking place was defeated
and the person who defeated her openly opposed the site. Of the eleven
city councillors there is no consensus that the plant should be locate
at Fort Rodman. In fact, I believe there is a consensus in the Council
that it should NOT be located at this location.
If the EPA is under the impression there is v;ide-spread support for
this site, or that it makes any kind of economic or environmental sens
they have not taken the time to come to New Bedford, to review the im-
pact of the construction, to ascertain what would happen to the histor
ic Fort Taber (a state historic monument), the educational facilities
at this location, the recreation that is provided by this land and a
whole range of other extremely important items of concern to those of
us who represent the City of New Bedford.
For my part, I received 14,997 votes in the recent re-election cam-
paign, topping the At-Large field, 58% of the vote and one of the main
items in my re-election agenda was my opposition to this site. By con-
trast, the Mayor was re-elected by the barest of margins, receiving
only 49% of the vote. His opponent about 48.5% and 2.5% did not vote!
I would hardly call that a ringina endorsement of the selection.And
make no mistake about it. The major issue in the campaign was the ques
tion of .a. seconary plant and its location in the city.
In summary, I want to register my strong opposition to this site and
Residence and Office: 23 Robeson Street New Bedford. MA 02740 Tel. (508) 996-2716
B-1
-------
OFFICE OF CITY COUNCIL
133 William Street New Bedford Massachusetts 02740 (508)999-2931
George Rogers
CninalioretLtrge
CH/URM/IW
~~ O
ConmittiroiiOrriutBicB
CoHnrattDPon Rtcnttwi
Tourism Old Historical Objects
also want to suggest to you in the strongest possible terms, too,
that the pebble of New Bedford, who are going to have "fc.6. : bear
the burden of the costs involved, since there are no federal or
state funds at present to construct the plant, clo not favor this
location.
For whom do we work, in the final analysis,if not for the people
of the constituency we serve? Are their opinions and feelings on
this matter to be relegated to the irrelevant column?
It is fine for EPA and a judge and some self-appointed watchdog
agency to tell us what we have to do, since they are not paying
the cost. But the adage of "who pays the piper calls the tune"
should still have some validity and it is the citizenry of NET/>
BEDFORD that is paying the piper. I want to help call the tur
and so do they. We are opposed to the site.
Geoi7ge_ Ro~ge r s
Councilor at Larqe
Residence and Office. 23 Robeson Street New Bedford, MA 02740 Tel. (508) 996-2716
B-2
-------
Comment 0002
WRIGHT & MOEHRKE
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
COUNSELLORS AT LAW
si83 DARTMOUTH STREET
IIOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS O:i 1 1
MH7I s»OO-57OO
December 27, 1989
Ann Rodney
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I
W.Q.E.-1900C
J.F.K. Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Re: Proposed Wastewater Treatment Facility for the City
of New Bedford
Dear Ann :
As you know, the Crapo Hill landfill proposed by the Greater
New Bedford Regional Refuse Management District is being considered
as a sludge disposal facility in conjunction with the proposed
secondary wastewater treatment plant for New Bedford Harbor.
Although this office will review and comment on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement prior to the February 12, 1990
deadline, I have enclosed for your review a copy of the comments
which 1 submitted to the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
concerning the Crapo Hill project.
Very truly yours,
Kim Maree Johannessen
KMJ:em
Enclosure
Certified Mail ttP 449 622 351
B-3
-------
WRIGHT & MOEHRKE
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
COUNSELLORS AT LAW
^sa DARTMOUTH STREET
ItllSTON. MASSACHUSETTS Oil Hi
Mi 171 :iti«>-."OO
TKI.K«i»l'lKW HI 171 it>(i-r>i:j7
December 14, 1989
Richard N. Foster, Assistant Environmentalist
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
MEPA Unit
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02202
Re: Greater Mev; Bedford Regional Refuse Management District
(EOEA NO. 4060)
i
Dear Dick:
I have been asked to submit comments on behalf of our client,
Dartmouth Resource Recovery, Inc., on the notice of project change
published in the Environmental Monitor on November 10, 1989. B'
letters dated June 15, 1989, July 6, 1989, and July 31, 1989, thi.
office submitted comments in response to a request filed by various
concerned citizens of the Town of Dartmouth for further MEPA review
of the so-called Crapo Hill landfill proposed by the Greater New
Bedford Regional Refuse Management District ("District"). In
addition to commenting on that request, I provided you with
additional information which appeared to indicate that the District
had voted to effectuate a number of changes to the project. That
information apparently formed the basis of the notice of project
change.
I. REQUEST FOR FURTHER MEPA REVIEW
It is our understanding that the petition for further MEPA
review was filed in July, 1989. The request was made pursuant to
the periodic review provisions of 301 CMR 11.17(1) inasmuch as more
than five years has elapsed since the District filed the Final
Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the project. The periodic
review provisions of the MEPA regulations provide in pertinent part:
(1) If a proposed project changes, ... if more than
five years has elapsed between filing of a Final EIR and
substantial commencement of the project, the proponent
shall, and others may, so notify the Secretary. The
B-4
-------
Secretary shall consult the proponent, agencies, and
persons who previously participated in project review, as
appropriate; may. publish notice of the change in 'the
Environmental Monitor; and shall determine whether the
change or the lapse of time significantly increases the
environmental consequences of the project and warrants
resubmission of an ENF, rescoping, supplementary
documentation, or a further EIR.
(3) In determining whether a project or the lapse of time
might significantly increase environmental consequences,
the following factors shall be considered:
(a) increase in project size or frequency of
activity;
(b) generation of further impacts;
(c) increase in emission of pollutants during
or after completion;
(d) change in expected commencement or
completion date of project or schedule of
work on project;
(e) change of project site;
(f) the need for a new permit or new request
for financial assistance;
(g) for projects whose net effect would have
been to improve environmental quality, any
change that prevents attainment of such
improvement in environmental quality;
(h) changes in the ambient environment, when
more than three years has elapsed between
the filing of an ENF and filing of a Final
EIR; and
(i) changes in the ambient environment, when
more than five years has elapsed between
the filing of a Final EIR and substantial
commencement of the project.
As you know, the Final EIR for Crapo Hill was filed in July,
1982 and approved by the Secretary of Environmental Affairs
("Secretary") on August 27, 1982. Over seven years have elapsed
since the Final EIR was filed and construction has not even begun.
Of greater significance, however, are the numerous defects in the
B-5
-------
licensing obtained for the Crapo Hill project, which defects wii?
necessitate a host of new or modified permits. In addition, tlu
project, as originally proposed in the Final EIR, has undergone
substantial changes since that time, all of which warrant further
environmental review.
II. LICENSING AND PERMITTING DEFECTS
Based on the licensing documents provided us and the site plans
prepared by an independent engineering firm, we believe that Crapo
Hill has serious problems wi.th regard to its current licensing which
will preclude its operating for a number of years. There is a very
strong likelihood that operations as presently proposed will be
impossible and that the project will have to undergo significant
modification because of the more restrictive current licensing
requirements.
Our review has been made more-'difficult because of a number, of
errors and oversights in the applications and licenses on the part
of Camp, Dresser f> McKee ("CDM") , various town agencies, and even
the Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP").i/ For example,
the wetlands and zoning maps vary dramatically between what has been
plotted by the town itself and what is shown by CDM. In addition,
and perhaps most important, the Final Order of Conditions issued by
DEP for the project expired on September 12, 1989. These items will
be addressed in more detail below.
A. Site Assignment
On May 24, 1981, the District applied for a site assignment
for a regional sanitary landfill ("Crapo Hill") from the Dartmouth
Board of Health ("Board") under G.L. c. Ill, 5150A. On June 16,
1981, the Board voted without stating its rationale to deny the
request. Shortly thereafter, on June 22, 1981, the District applied
again for a site assignment which was granted on August 26, 1981.
The assignment imposed six conditions, including the
requirement that all conditions imposed by the Board of Appeals,
Planning Board, and Conservation Commission be strictly adhered to.
Subsequently, the Town of Freetown appealed the grant of the site
assignment to DEP which, by letter dated June 2, 1983, upheld the
decision and added a seventh .condition requiring that the District
operate the landfill in accordance with the Regulations for the
Disposal of Solid Waste by Sanitary Landfill, 310 CMR 19.00.
1/ Formerly the Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering ("DEQE"). Where the context indicates, references
herein to DEP shall mean the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering.
B-6
-------
On July 14, 1986, Crapo Hill requested the Board to amend Item
5 of the site assignment to provide that the transfer station be
open on Saturdays for a minimum of eight hours for use by residents.
The Board voted unanimously to amend the site assignment on
September 15, 1986. Given that the District has since voted to
eliminate the transfer station, it will be required to seek a
modified site assignment.
B. Wetlands Compliance
1. State Wetlands Peculation
The Wetlands Protection Act, G.L. c. 131, §40 ("the Act")
requires an Order of Conditions from a local Conservation Commission
or a Superseding Order of Conditions on appeal .from DEP for
activities which alter (1) what are called bordering vegetative
wetlands ("BVWs"), (2) land within the 100-foot buffer zone outward
from BVWs and (3) land which is subject to flooding, generally
defined as the 100-year storm level. See 310 CMR 10.02.-2-/
A Notice of Intent ("NOI") dated June 1, 1981 .was filed by the
District with the Conservation Commission under the Act. The NOI
purports to describe alteration of all BVWs within the parcel.-^/
The proposal calls for alteration of some 15 acres of wetlands
including the complete destruction of six acres of wetlands in the
northeast section of the parcel.
The Conservation Commission issued an Order of Conditions under
the Act on August 25, 1981. It contained some 51 limiting terms and
conditions which were subsequently appealed by the District to DEP.
DEP issued a Superseding Order of Conditions ("SOC") on March 12.
1984. Because the District was aggrieved by the conditions in the
SOC, it requested an adjudicatory hearing. On September 11, 1984,
DEP conducted a pre-hearing conference in Boston. Following a
period of considerable delay, DEP purported to issue a Draft Final
Order of Conditions on April 12, 1986 with 17 restrictions, but it
was not even sent out until over a year later on April 22, 1987.
2/ References here are to the Wetlands Protection Act
Regulations as amended effective November 1, 1987. One of the
issues raised by the status of the wetlands permits is whether these
regulations or an earlier, and far less restrictive, version of the
wetlands regulations apply. See generally 310 CMR 10.10.
3/ It is noteworthy that although the NOI purports to identify
the BVWs which are subject-to jurisdiction, there is no reference to
the location of any land subject to flooding. The limits of land
subject to flooding can in many instances be more extensive than the
boundary of bordering vegetative wetlands. The absence of any
indication of land subject to flooding should be reviewed further.
B-7
-------
Even then there were still clerical errors in the Ord-
including the wrong date in one spot, no date in another, and
heading that indicated that the SOC was still in draft form. The
District subsequently sought correction of the Order before it was
final and by letter dated September 12, 1983 DEP issued what it
said was the Final Order of Conditions.
Condition 4 of the Final Order required that
[t]he work authorized hereunder shall be completed within
one (1) year from the date of this order . . .. The
order may be extended by the issuing authority for one or
more additional one-year periods upon application to the
said issuing authority at least thirty (30) days prior to
the expiration date of the order or of its extensions.
Despite the express wording of this condition, the cover letter from
DEP to the District stated that the Final Order was valid for three
years and could be subsequently extended. However, the terms and
conditions of the Final Order itself, not the letter, are
controlling. Moreover, since the :MOI was filed prior to April 1,
1983, it would have been governed by the old wetlands regulations
which allow orders of conditions to be issued for one-year periods
only. Therefore, the expiration date is the one-year period in
Condition 4.
The Final Order is dated April 22, 1987. Because it
actually sent out by DEP on September 12, 1988, it is this date
mailing, as evidenced by the postmark or the date that the letter j._
hand-delivered, that is controlling. See 310 CMR 10.04 ("date of
issuance" defined). Because the District failed to file a request
for an extension, the Final Order expired on September 12, 1989.
The District must therefore file a new NOI which would be
governed by the wetlands regulations currently in effect. The
regulations which controlled at the time the original NOI was filed
were amended in 1983 and 1987 to make it virtually impossible for
DEP to approve the filling of anything close to the six acres of
wetlands as now proposed by the District. See 310 CMR 10.10. The
current regulations require a variance for the filling of more than
5,000 square feet of wetlands. See 310 CMR 10.55(4). Variances are
"intended to be employed only in rare and unusual cases" and only
"on the basis of overriding public benefit." See 310 CMR 10.58.
Moreover, as set forth more fully below, the Town of Dartmouth has a
local wetlands protection by-law with which the District must also
comply.
2. Local Wetlands Regulation
»
The Supreme Judicial Court ruled in Loveauist v. Conservation
Commission of the Town of Dennis. 379 Mass. 7 (1979), that
municipalities may enact local wetlands protection by-laws. A
B-8
-------
wetlands by-law was promulgated by Dartmouth on April 29, 1980 and
later amended on November 13, 1986 and June 26, 1987.
The NOI filed by the District and the Order of Conditions
issued by the Dartmouth Conservation Commission ("Commission") both
make reference only to the Wetlands Protection Act, G.L. c. 131,
§40. Normally in instances where communities have local wetlands
by-laws, the NOI, or at least the Order of Conditions, bears a
heading indicating clearly whether it is issued pursuant to the Act
or the local by-law, or both. In this case, the Commission is
empowered by the by-law to accept' the same application and plans for
consideration under the by-law as those filed under the Act. See
Section IV. Nonetheless, the Order should have made reference to
the by-law.
If the Commission intended, as commissions sometimes do, that
its August 25, 1981 Order of Conditions under the Act be issued
concurrently under the local by-law, the time for taking an appeal
has long since expired and the District is bound by the original 51
limiting terms and conditions. Under the provisions of G.L. c. 249,
§4 then in effect, an action would have to have been commenced
within two years or by August 25, 1983.^/ Moreover, the Order
expired on August 25, 1982 without any extension having been
requested. See Condition 4.
Although it is virtually certain that the commission did not
intend to satisfy its local by-law by issuing the August 25, 1981
Order of Conditions, there are no indications that the District ever
made a filing under the local by-law. The District consequently
will have to make an entirely new filing. See Wetlands By-Law,
Section 13. Several important aspects of the by-law bear mention
because they make local wetlands compliance more difficult.
One, the so-called interests of the by-law are far broader than
what the seven interests of the Act were at the time the NOI was
filed. In addition to the seven primary interests then in the Act,
the by-law authorizes the Commission to regulate activities which it
deems likely to have a significant or cumulative effect upon
wildlife, erosion and sedimentation control, wildlife habitat,
recreation, aesthetics, agriculture and aquaculture values. None
of these terms are defined in the by-law. See Section g.-5-/
Two, the term "alter" is also far more broadly defined in the
local by-law than in the wetlands regulations. It includes
(a) removal, excavation or dredging of soil, sand, gravel
4/ The appeal period was subsequently shortened to 60 days.
5/ Wildlife was subsequently added to the Act and is now
defined in the regulations. See 310 CMR 10.04.
B-9
-------
or aggregate materials of any kind; . . . (c) drainage or
other disturbance of water level or water table; (d)
dumping, discharging or filling with any material which
may degrade water quality; (e) placing of fill, or removal
of material, which could alter elevations; (f) driving of
piles, erection or repair of buildings, or structures of
any kind; (g) placing obstructions or objects in water;
(h) destruction of plant life'including cutting of trees;
. . . (j) any activities, changes or work which may cause
or tend to contribute to pollution of any body of water or
groundwater.
See Section 9.
Tliree, land subject to regulation under the by-law is more
extens-ive than land subject to regulation under the Act. In
addition to the areas identified in the discussion of compliance
with the state regulations, the by-law adds all land "within 100
feet of any land subject to flooding or inundation by groundwater
[or surface water] . . .." As previously indicated, the NOI fails
to reference the location of land subject to flooding anywhere on
the locus. Despite this omission, it seems highly likely that there
is indeed such land subject to flooding on the property. The
Conservation Commission would have jurisdiction under the by-law
over all areas 100 feet outward from these areas.
3. Federal Wetlands Regulation
There is also no indication that Crapo Hill has complied witu.
the wetlands regulatory program administered by the United States
Army Corps of Engineers ("Corps") under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1344. Section 404 requires a Corps permit for
the discharge of dredged or fill material into navigable waters.
Navigable waters are defined broadly as waters of the United
States, not merely what are viewed as traditional navigable areas.
33 C.F.R. §323.2(a). These areas are deemed to include wetlands
which are defined as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by
surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and that under normal circumstances do support, .a
prevalence of vegetation typically adopted for life in saturated
soil conditions." 33 C.F.R. §323.2(c).
In many instances, the Corps will issue a Section 404 permit
routinely for small projects/ if the applicant has first filed a
site specific water quality certification with the Division of Water
Pollution Control ("DWPC") of DEP and shows evidence of having
received a final order., of conditions from DEP. The District
Engineer for the Corps located in Waltham exercises a large amount
Small projects are ten acres or less.
7
B-10
-------
of discretion as to the required level of review and the amount of
public participation in the hearing process. See 33 c.F.R. §325.1-
325.11. As a general matter of practice, the Corps, will not
authorize any work to proceed until all other local and state
approvals have been received.
The Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") has a very
significant veto power over permits issued by the Corps. Section
401(c) of the Clean Water Act empowers the EPA to override any Corps
permit that would have an unacceptable adverse effect upon municipal
water supplies, wildlife or recreational areas. Although this veto
power is generally exercised sparingly, it was most recently used in
the so-called Attleboro Mall case involving Sweeden's Swamp in
Attleboro.^/
It is our understanding that on November 7, 1989, CDM filed a
Section 404 permit application on behalf of the District with the
Corps. On December 7, 1989, a pre-application meeting was held with
representatives from CDM, the Corps, the DWPC, and MEPA. When a
project calls for filling in excess of ten acres, as is the case
with Crapo Hill, the Corps is required to evaluate the purpose of
the project and determine whether the site, when chosen, was a
suitable choice in light of all other available alternatives.
Following public notice of receipt of the application, there will be
a 30-day review and comment period. Since the Final Order of
Conditions expired on September 12, 1989, the Corps will not issue a
Section 404 permit until a valid state permit is in place.
C. Solid Waste Plan Approval
DEP granted solid waste plan approval to the District by letter
dated August 12, 1986. The approval is limited to a five-year
period or until August 12, 1991 unless landfilling starts before
then, in which case landfilling is limited to Phase I only. Given
the other identified problem areas, it seems highly unlikely that
landfilling could commence before 1991 and hence it is highly
probable that the District will have to reapply for plan approval.
Of greater interest is the fact that DEP is promulgating new
landfill regulations. This process has been underway since early
7/ Attleboro Mall proposed to construct a shopping center
requiring the filling of 50 acres of wetlands. The applicant
proposed to replace this area by artificially created wetlands of
over 26 acres. The order of DEP approving the work was upheld by
the Supreme Judicial Court in Citizens for Responsible Environmental
Management v. Attleboro Mall. Inc.. 400 Mass. 658 "(1987).
Nonetheless, the EPA determined that the wetlands replication was
not adequate and overturned the Corps' approval of the Section 404
permit.
B-11
-------
1988 as a result of the passage of Chapter 584 of the Acts a^
Resolves of 1987 on December 16, 1987. The most recent dra
regulations were released to the public in September, 1989. If the
regulations are finalized in anything close to their current form,
they win impose significant new procedural and. substantive
problems for Crapo Hill. See generally. Section III, infra.
D. Zoning Compliance
The site is located primarily in a general industrial district.
Under Section 5D, General Industrial Districts., of the zoning by-
laws, "sanitary landfills and resource recovery facilities operated
as Dartmouth municipal uses or operated by a regional Refuse
district, of which Dartmouth is a member" are allowed as of right.
The site plans prepared on our behalf indicate that significant
portions of the site fall within two Superimposed Districts under
Section 6 of the zoning by-laws. These are the Inland Wetlands and
Watershed Protection District, Section 6{B), and the Aquifer
Protection District, Section 6(E). Any activity in these two
districts requires a special permit from the Board of Appeals.
There appears to be an important discrepancy between where
these areas were plotted on the locus map by CDM and where these
overlay districts are actually located according to town zoning
maps. As a result, large portions of the site which actually fall
within these superimposed districts were not covered by the Special
Permit which was granted on August 11, 1981 and which lapsed c
August 11, 1982.
Even assuming that the Special Permit is still in effect, it is
deficient in several major respects: (1) the Special Permit appears
to authorize certain work in the Aquifer Protection District, but
does not address work which would necessarily take place within the
Inland Wetlands and Watershed District; (2) a use variance, rather
than a special permit, is the only vehicle for authorizing work in
the Aquifer Protection Areas; and (3) the Special Permit does not
authorize work in a 23-acre section of the site which is designated
as falling within the Aquifer Protection District by the town, but
which was not shown as such by CDM. Each of these deficiencies are
discussed in detail below.
1. Lapse of the Special Permit
Neither the Special Permit itself, the zoning by-laws as they
pertain to special permits nor G.L.' c. 40A, §9 allow special permits
to be extended. The zoning by-laws specify that special permits
shall lapse if the rights granted thereunder are not exercised
within one year, except for good cause. Thus the permit, which was
granted on August 11, 1981, lapsed on August 11, 1982.
B-12
-------
Nonetheless, the District applied for an exten:
1984 even though more than a year and a half had
lapsed and even though no extension is authorized
Appeals commenced the hearing on October 16, 1984,
on some 20 separate occasions, at the the Distri ._
allow time for a water agreement to be finalized with the" Town of
Dartmouth. It was not until November 20, 1986 that the Board
finally purported to grant a one-year extension.8-/ The decision
allowing the extension incorporated language contained in G.L. c.
40A, §10 concerning variances, requiring subsequent extension
applications to be filed prior to the expiration of the one-year
period.
On .November 25, 1987, the District requested a second
extension, which was never acted on by the Board of Appeals. This
is particularly significant given that the decision granting the
first purported extension specifically provided that:
If the permit granting authority does not grant such
extension within 30 days of the date of application
therefor, and upon the expiration of the original one-year
period, such rights- may be reestablished onl^- - "'
and a new hearing .... ' (^.^
- A
Thus, by virtue of the Board's failure to act ALAX^^ ^
second request, the permit expired according to :
has come to our attention that the District
another extension, which again has not been acted
Appeals. The hearing on the request has been co;
occasions to supposedly allow the District time to
water agreement which has been pending for at Icooi. cue past six
years.
2. Aouifer Protection District
The use regulations pertaining to Aquifer Protection Districts
are contained in Section 6(E)(V) of the zoning by-laws. . The
disposal of solid waste, other than brush and stumps, is expressly
prohibited in Areas 2A and 2B of the Aquifer Protection District.
In order to conduct a prohibited use in a zoning district, one must
obtain a use variance since permission for these activities cannot
be granted by Section 6(E)(V)(B). Consequently, the Board simply
did not have the power to grant the District permission to landfill
in these areas.
It is possible that the District could advance two arguments in
8/ Although the zoning by-laws provide for a good cause
exception to the lapse provision, a court would likely frown upon a
good cause hearing being held and an extension granted over five
years after the special permit expired.
10
B-13
-------
support of the validity of the Special Permit. First, it could
attempt to apply Section 6(E)(V)(C) which provides that commercial
and industrial activities which are permitted in the underlying
zoning district win be permitted in Areas 2A and 2B by special
permit. There are, however, several flaws with this approach. One
flaw is that the section also specifically provides that it is
subject to the prohibition of uses contained in Section 6(E)(V)(B).
Thus, even if a commercial or industrial use is permitted in the
underlying district, if that use falls within the prohibited uses
listed in the Aquifer Protection District, it is still prohibited.
Another flaw is that even if no landfilling actually occurs in
Areas 2A and 2B of the Aquifer Protection District, a site plan
review for the construction of the scale house and storage
maintenance building in the southern portion of the site would be
required. Although the zoning by-law does not contain a specific
provision pertaining to site plan review, it does not appear that
one was ever conducted. Moreover, filling, excavating, grading or
tree removal which may be necessary for construction of those
buildings would also be prohibited, thus requiring a use variance,
not a special permit.
Second, the District might also base its claim that the Special
Permit was validly granted on the grounds that the regional sanitary
landfill was a "necessary public facility" which is expressly
permitted in Area 1, and that all uses permitted in Area 1 are also
allowed as of right in Areas 2A and 2B. See Section 6(E)(V)(A). if
that is indeed the case, a special permit would not have been
required in the first instance and thus this argument is seriously
flawed.
The difficulty with either argument is that the Special Permit
strongly suggests that the authorized work is not limited to the
activities suggested in a letter from CDM dated June 17, 1981. That
letter indicated that only clean-up, removal of swamp deposits, and
some filling^/ is proposed in Area 2 and that, in any event, no
refuse deposition is proposed for these areas. The Special Permit
application, however, indicates that the proposed use is a sanitary
landfill and that the extent of the proposed alterations is to
"conduct a sanitary landfill operation within Area 2 of the Aquifer
Protection District." Moreover, the application acknowledges that a
sanitary landfill operation is a prohibited use in Area 2, but
erroneously states that it may be allowed by Special Permit.
The Special Permit granted by the Board of Appeals reiterates
the language in the application by stating that " [permission is
requested to conduct a sanitary =landfill within Area 2 of the
9/ As indicated previously, filling activities and other
"alteration of any natural site features" are expressly prohibited
in Areas 2A and 2B, subject to certain conditions.
11
B-14
-------
Aquifer Protection District." The Board's decision grants the
requested special permit "in order to conduct a sanitary landfill
operation within Area 2 of the Aquifer Protection District." There
is, however, internal inconsistency in the permit because conditions
(1) and (2) later state that landfilling win not take place in
what COM represented to be the only portions of the site falling
within the Aquifer Protection District.
Another significant problem is revealed by the site plans
prepared on our behalf. Those plans plot the Aquifer Protection
District as it was delineated by CDM and as it actually exists
according to town maps. The plans show that 23 more acres are
located within the Aquifer Protection District than. CDM indicated.
Of those 23 acres, approximately 12 acres fall within the landfill
limits shown'by CDM. Since the Aquifer Protection Map has not been
revised or amended since it was first prepared for the town by IEP,
Inc. in 1980, CDM made a gross error in delineating the boundaries
of the Aquifer Protection District on the plans given to the Board
of Appeals.
Consequently, the District will be required either to (1)
obtain a use variance to landfill within those areas not covered by
the permit; (2) obtain a new special permit or a special permit
modification to undertake work other than landfilling in that area;
or (3) assuming the Special Permit has not lapsed, conform its
operations in that area under the permit to the requirements of the
by-law.
3. Inland Wetlands and Watershed Protection District
Section 6(B) of the zoning by-laws also establishes an overlay
district known as the Inland Wetlands and Watershed Protection
District ("Watershed District"). All lands which have been
identified as either fresh marsh ("FM"), deep marsh ("DM"), shrub
swamp ("SS"), wooded swamp ("MS"), cranberry bog ("CB"), and ponds
("P") are included in the Watershed District. These areas are
delineated on the Natural Resources Map of the Town of Dartmouth
dated 1972. Town records indicated that the Natural Resources Map
has not been amended since 1972.
The Assistant Town Planner has indicated, however, that the
town intends to revise the map within the next year to incorporate
certain wetlands designations made by the Conservation Commission
since 1972. These designations are contained in aerial photographs
taken by the Commission on December 8, 1987. Crapo Hill will be
subject to any amendments to the zoning by-laws or maps adopted
after issuance of the Special Permit. This is because the zoning
by-laws specifically provide:
Construction or operations under a Building or Special
Permit shall conform to any subsequent amendment of the
zoning by-law unless the use or construction is commenced
12
B-15
-------
within a six month period after the issuance of the permit
and construction is continued as expeditiously as is
reasonable.
Section 12. Since neither use nor construction has commenced within
six months after issuance of the Special Permit, and since Section
12 makes no provision for good cause delays, Crapo Hill will be
subject to any amendments to the zoning by-laws and maps.
The site plans prepared on our behalf indicate that a three to
five acre portion of the site is delineated as Deep Marsh ("DM") by
both COM and the town. Although the boundaries of the DM differ
between CDM's delineation and the town's delineation, the
difference may not be significant. The area of DM delineated by the
town, however, encroaches further into the site than CDM's
delineation. It would therefore block landfilling in more parts of
the site.
The Special Permit does not address landfilling or any other
activities anywhere in the Watershed District. Although the zoning
application makes reference to the. Watershed District, it asks for
operational approval only in the Aquifer Protection District. The
provisions of the by-law pertaining to the Watershed District
authorizes municipal uses and those uses otherwise permitted in the
underlying district. It also provides, however, that:
dumping, filling, excavating or transferring of any earth
material within the District is prohibited unless a
special permit from the Board is issued.
Section 6(B)(4)(b).
At the continuation of the hearing on the Special Permit held
on June 17, 1981, Robert Hauser of COM acknowledged that a special
permit would be required for all activity in the Watershed District.
See Minutes of Continuation of Special Permit Hearing, dated June
17, 1981, p. 58. Moreover, in a letter to the Board, Hauser
reiterated that "[t]he work in this area includes clearing, removal
of some swamp deposits and filling". Thus, even though a regional
sanitary landfill is a permitted use in the underlying district and
could also be construed as a municipal use, a special permit would
still be required for any filling or.landfilling activities in those
areas designated as DM or P on the site plans.
4. Use Variance vs. Special Permit
Even though the Board of Appeals required and the District
agreed that no refuse disposal will take place on those portions of
the site in Areas 2A and 2B of the Aquifer Protection District, the
activities proposed for those areas could still be construed as
prohibited uses, thus requiring a use variance under the zoning by-
law. Section 6(E)(V)(B) of the zoning by-law provides that the
13
B-16
-------
following uses are prohibited in Areas 2A and 2B:
the alteration of any natural site features or topography
including but not limited to the cutting or removal of
trees or other natural vegetation, or the dumping,
filling, excavating, grading, transferring or removing of
any gravel, sand, loam or other soft material, rock or
ledge prior to obtaining all permits and approvals for
final development plans required under this by-law; except
that . . . where such alteration is incidental to a
permitted use and performed in the normal course of
maintenance or operation of such permitted use, this
paragraph shall not apply.
Although this provision sets forth an exception for alterations
incidental to permitted uses, landfilling is not a permitted use in
Aquifer Protection Districts, and the exclusion would not apply.
The section, however, also provides that those activities are
prohibited "prior to obtaining all permits and approvals for final
development plans required under. this by-law." This provision is
vague, but given that several permits may still have to be obtained
by the District, the lack of any one permit may trigger the
prohibition contained in Section 6(E)(V)(B).
The zoning by-law does not allow the grant of a special permit
for prohibited uses in the Aquifer Protection Districts. In order
to landfill there Crapo Hill would have to obtain a use variance.
The standard for the granting of use variances is especially strict,
requiring the applicant to show substantial hardship. The Board
would have to make specific findings in support of any determination
of substantial hardship and mere recitation of the bare statutory
standard contained in G.L. c. 40A, §10 would not be sufficient.
Warren v. Board of Appeals of Amherst. 383 Mass. 1 (1981).
Bear in mind that as is the case with so much of the licensing
for Crapo Hill, the procedural record is muddled. For example, the
District never applied for a variance, only a special permit.
Several individuals who commented on the application referred to the
permit sought as a variance and not a special permit. In addition,
by letter dated June 1, 1989, the Planning Board indicated that a
use variance would be required to operate a sanitary landfill on any
portion.of the site falling within the Aquifer Protection District.
Although the permit contains language suggesting that the Board
sought to grant a variance as well as a special permit, such a
variance would be invalid because there was no evidence presented at
the hearing regarding substantial hardship and the Board's decision
merely recites the standard contained in G.L. c. 40A, §10. Thus to
the extent that the decision might be read to grant a variance, it
did not set forth the necessary findings as to substantial hardship
and, as stated above, it lapsed according to its own terms.
14
B-17
-------
E. Miscellaneous Local Permits
In addition to the regulatory requirements set forth above,
the District will also have to obtain a building permit and
occupancy permit for the use of the site as a landfill and for the
construction of the scale house and storage maintenance building.
Section 16 of the zoning by-laws, which pertains to the issuance of
occupancy permits, provides that such a permit "shall not be issued
until the building, structure or premises and its uses comply in all
respects with these By-Laws". In addition, Section 15 provides:
In Limited Industrial Districts and General Industrial
Districts entrances and exits to each lot from a public or
private way and the servicing of the uses in each lot with
municipal utilities shall be approved by the town engineer
prior to the issuance of a building permit and an
occupancy permit.
In Limited Industrial Districts and in General Industrial
Districts, the type of industry to occupy and buildings
constructed upon the said premises and the architecture
and type of construction of all buildings to be erected
upon said land shall meet with the approval of the Board
of Selectmen or their duly authorized representatives.
The documents and town records do not indicate whether such
approvals were obtained by the District from the town engineer and
the Board of Selectmen.
Finally, the Soil Conservation By-Laws of the Town of Dartmouth
require the District to obtain an earth removal permit from the Soil
Conservation Board for any filling, excavating, dumping or
transferring of earth material, which may be necessary to prepare
the site for landfilling or the construction of the buildings
thereon. The Board prohibits the granting of such permits prior to
(1) the granting of a variance or.- special permit by the Board of
Appeals authorizing the work; and (2) a finding and statement from
the Building Commissioner that the work will not be in violation of
the zoning by-laws.
III. IMPACT OF THE DRAFT SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS
AND THE SOLID WASTE MASTER PLAN ON THE PROPOSED PROJECT _
In deciding whether to require further environmental review,
the Secretary is required to consider the need for new permits. See
301 CMR 11.17(3)(f). The issue of whether the District has
obtained, or is reasonably likely to obtain, all necessary federal,
state and local permits will bear directly on its ability to comply
with the new Solid Waste Management Regulations being promulgated by
DEP. Its noncompliance with local zoning, for example, will
preclude the District from receiving an authorization from DEP to
15
B-18
-------
operate the Crapo Hill landfill.
As noted in Section II.C. above, DEP has been developing new
Solid Waste Management Regulations over the past two years, which
regulations are expected to become effective in January or February
of 1990. The most recent draft establishes several new permitting
requirements for solid waste landfills. The most onerous of these
requirements fall upon "new facilities" which are defined as
facilities "which began operation or for which construction
commenced after the effective date". See Draft Solid Waste
Management Regulations dated 10/4/89 ("Draft Regulations"),
Definitions . Section 19.007.
Since it is virtually assured that Crapo Hill will not be in
operation, and construction will not commence within the next two
months, it will be considered a new facility and the District will
be required to obtain additional permits under the new regulations.
Notwithstanding receipt of the site assignment from the Board of
Health and plan approval from DEP, the District win have to obtain
a Solid Waste Management Facility Permit ("Facility Permit"), an
authorization to construct the facility, and an authorization to
operate the facility from DEP.
In applying for a Facility Permit, the District will have to
submit proof that it has received all the required approvals for
work in wetlands resource areas or buffer zones in accordance with
G.L. c. 131, §40. See Draft Regulations, Section 19 ..030 (2) (g) .
Facility Permits are subject to public review and comment. Before
a permit may be issued, the District must demonstrate that it meets
all the criteria and conditions of the Draft Regulations (see
Section 19.036(6)), including but not limited to, certain minimum
setback requirements, local zoning requirements, etc. Moreover,
persons aggrieved by the issuance of a Facility Permit may bring a
civil action in superior court to challenge the permit.
r
Furthermore, the District must demonstrate that the design and
operation of the Crapo Hill landfill are consistent with the goals
and objectives of the Commonwealth's Solid Waste Master Plan, which
the DEP expects to issue in final form in conjunction with the Draft
Regulations. These goals and objectives include the requirement
that Crapo Hill's design and operating plans incorporate the means
by which to recycle or compost a minimum of 25% by weight of the
average yearly amount of solid"waste it is approved to accept. See
Draft Regulations, Section 19.036(6)(a)(5) and Section 19.036(6)(c).
In addition to a Facility Permit, the District will also have
to obtain an authorization to construct and an authorization to
operate. The DEP will not issue an authorization to construct "until
it has received proof that the District has obtained the following
approvals, if applicable:
16
B-19
-------
1. Massachusetts Surface Water Discharge Permit for
point source discharges to surface waters
pursuant to G.L. c. 21, §43;
2. Groundwater discharge permit for the discharge
of treated leachate into the ground through
percolation lagoons, leaching fields, or filter
beds pursuant to G.L. c. 21, §43;
3. Sewer connection permit for the discharge of
collected and/or pre-treated leachate into a
municipal sewer system pursuant to 314 CMR 7.00;
4. Section 404 dredge and fill permit; and
5. Other state and federal permits, approvals or
authorizations that are required for the
construction of the facility.
In addition to the foregoing permits, the District will have to
provide proof of receipt of all other applicable state, local and
federal permits that are required for the operation of Crapo Hill
prior to obtaining an authorization to operate from DEP. Clearly,
then, the defects in the licensing and permitting obtained by Crapo
Hill will bear directly on the District's ability to obtain the
necessary, additional permits from the DEP pursuant to the Draft
Regulations. It appears, however, that the current permits are so
flawed that the District will not be able to obtain the additional
permits which will be required and Crapo Hill will, with any
opposition, never be a reality.
IV. PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CRAPO HILL LANDFILL PROJECT
It has recently come to our attention that numerous changes are
being proposed by the District to the Crapo Hill landfill project,
all of which warrant further environmental review. Since the notice
of project change was not filed by the project proponent or its
consulting engineer, we learned of these proposed changes only after
reviewing the minutes of meetings of the District Committee.
Therefore, the following summary of the project changes currently
being proposed by the District may not be all-inclusive, and CDM
and the District should be required-to identify all project changes
being considered for the Crapo Hill landfill since approval of the
Final EIR in August of 1982. More importantly, the District should
be required to identify and assess all potential environmental
impacts which may result from these changes.
The Special Permit originally issued by the Board of Appeals on
August.11, 1981 contained a condition requiring the District and the
City of New Bedford to enter into a water agreement with the Town of
Dartmouth. Now, eight years later, it appears that said water
agreement still has not been finalized. The Board has stated
17
B-20
-------
publicly that it will not vote to extend the Special Permit until
such time as a water agreement is finalized and signed by the
parties. As we noted previously, we do not believe that the Board
is authorized to extend the Special Permit because it has lapsed.
Even assuming that the Special Permit can be extended, if a water
agreement cannot be negotiated to the satisfaction of the Town of
Dartmouth, the District will be in violation of its zoning permit.
In addition, the District has proposed to modify the design of
the Crapo Hill landfill to incorporate a treatment facility for
leachate, which will then be discharged into the City of New Bedford
sewer system. Not only will this require a sewer connection permit
from DEP pursuant to 314 CHR 7.00, it may require a new wetlands
filing as well.
Furthermore, on July 26, 1989, the District voted to accept
chemically-treated sewage sludge and sewage sludge products from its
member communities at the Crapo Hill landfill. To do so, the
District must obtain the approval from the Dartmouth Board .of Health
and the DEP to use the sludge or sludge products as daily cover
material at the landfill. This decision to accept sludge at the
landfill constitutes a significant change to the project, the
environmental impacts of which should be subject to further MEPA
review.
Finally, on August 30, 1989, the District voted to recommend
that the District agreement be amended to eliminate the transfer
station, which the District previously proposed to construct at the
Shawmut Avenue landfill. Although the District Committee also voted
to pursue additional access to the Crapo Hill landfill, it voted not
to include development of that access as part of the landfill time
schedule. The increase in truck traffic through the Industrial
Park, presently the only access to the Crapo Hill landfill, in and
of itself warrants further MEPA review. Moreover, the District and
CDM should be required to identify other alternative access routes
to the landfill and the potential impacts associated with each such
alternative.
V. CONCLUSION
Based on all of the foregoing, it is clear that the Crapo Hill
landfill not only suffers from substantial permitting defects, but
also has undergone significant changes since filing of the Final EIR
in July, 1982. Therefore, we request that the Secretary, rather
than merely requiring a supplemental EIR, require the District to
submit a new Environmental Notification Form in order to allow the
communities and citizens affected by the proposed project to
18
B-21
-------
participate fully in the MEPA process and in the sroni n* =
Environmental Impact Report. scoping of a new
Very^ truly yours,
l^J^J
Kim Maree Johannessen
KMJrem
19
B-22
-------
Comment 0003
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSF I I
Office of the Secretary of Slate
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISv
Allen F. Johnson
Preservation Planner
(617)727-8470
80 Boylston Street
Boston. Massachusetts 02.
September 18. 1989
Jane Wheeler
Camp, Dresser and
One Center Plaza
Boston. MA 02108
McKee, Inc.
RE: Alternative sludge disposal sites 40 and 47, proposed New Bedford
Wastewater Treatment Facilities Project, New Bedford
Dear Ms. Wheeler:
Staff of the MHC have reviewed the report entitled "Results of Intensive
Archaeological Surveys of Sites 40 and 47, Alternative Proposed Sites for
Solids Disposal Facilities, in New Bedford, Massachusetts," which was prepared
by the Office of Public Archaeology, Boston University.
The results of the archaeological investigations revealed that each
alternative disposal site contains a potentially significant prehistoric
archaeological site;--"-1-- .--"._--- z- -.:.
Subsurface testing in the northeasternmost portion of Site 40 identified a low
density scatter of prehistoric chipping debris from the manufacture of stone
tools in tne plow-zone and in undisturoed deposits which unaerly tne
plowzone. A Neville-Variant projectile point recovered in this area suggests
that this site was occupied during the Middle Archaic Period (8,000 to 6,000
years ago). Subsurface testing at Site 47 identified & localized
concentration of chipping debris in the southern-central portion of the
alternative disposal site. A stone tool fragment recovered from this area
suggests that this site may daze to the Late Archaic or Early Woodland Period
(4,300 to 2,000 years ago).
Archaeological sites from the Middle Archaic through the Early Woodland Period
in Southeastern Massachusetts are underrepresented and poorly understood in
relation to sites dating to later prehistoric periods when people moved to
larger settlements along the coast. Given tne existence of prenistoric
material in soils below the level of any historical diturbance and the limited
distribution of the stone tool chipping debris, it is probable tnat these
prehistoric sites represent short-term campsites which may conzein heartns,
storage pits, or refuse pits which could provide the Commonweal! th of
Massachusetts Historical Commission, Valerie A. ;aimage. Executive Director, Siau Historic Preservation Officer
80 Boylston Street. Boston. Massachusetts 02116 (617) 727-8-i'O
Office of the Secretary of State. Michael J. Connolly. Sccrcicr-j
B-23
-------
Massachusetts with a unique opportunity to investigate settlement and
subsistence strategies of prehistoric Indians in southeastern Massachusetts.
If either of these alternative disposal sites are selected for further
evaluation, MHC requests that an archaeological site examination (950 CMR 70)
be conducted in order to determine if the archaeological site which may be
impacted by the proposed project is eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places. The goal of the survey should be to clearly
identify the boundaries of the site, determine its integrity, and internal
configuration. These comments are provided in compliance with M.G.L.,: Chapter
9, Sections 26C-27C as amended by Chapter 152 of the Acts of 1982, Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act and Advisory Council Procedures (36
CFR 800).
MHC would be happy to assist in developing an appropriate scope for the .:
survey. If you have any questions concerning this review, or require further
assistance, please contact Peter Mills at this office.
Sincerely
fjnjy^ Jcw^-sW
Brona Simon
State Archaeologist
Director, Technical Services Division
Massachusetts Historical Commission
xc: Ricardo Elia.-OPA .*..-__
Kathleen Kirkpatrick Hull, EPA
Ron Lyberger, DEP/BMF
B-24
-------
September 19, 1989
James Small
Camp. Dresser & McKee, Inc.
1 Center Plaza
Boston, MA 02108
RE: New Bedford Wastewater Treatment Plant, Phase 2 Wastewater Facilities
Planning Study Draft Report, Volume IV, Appendix K, Marine Archaeology
Dear Mr. Small:
Staff of the Massachusetts Historical Commission reviewed the above-referenced
report prepared by Robert Cembrola. The report has been revised since MHC has
had the opportunity to review an earlier draft. In reviewing tne report, we
were concerned that there are two comments still outstanding that were noted
in our letter of May 17, 1989 (copy enclosed).
On page N-6, the number of known wrecks are given within the study area, but
only tne Margaret Kehoe, Yankee, and Neptune are discussed in tne text.
Information on tne loentity, age, location, integrity, and potential
significance of these resources is necessary. Tnese data will oe important
for interpreting the results of tne remote sensing survey conducted within the
study area. Without these data, it is not possible to determine whetner or
not these resources are potentially eligible for the National and State
Register of Historic Places and wnetner or not the proposed outfall project
will affect tnese resources.
Archaeological site forms referenced in the revised report have not been
forwarded to tne MHC. We look forward to receiving tnese forms so that the
information may be incorporated into tne Inventory of Historic and
Archaeological Assets of tne Commonwealth.
Massachusetts Historical Commission. Valeric A. Talmaee, Executive Direcior. State Historic frescruciion Officer
80 Boviston Strees.. Boston. Massachusetts 02116 (617) 727-8470
Office of the Secretary of State. Michael J. Connolly. Sccrcic-n/
B-25
-------
The citations referenced in the text should be checked against the sources
listed in the bibliography; full bibliographical references should be provided
for all citations.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact Ed Bell of my staff.
Sincerely,
Brona Simon
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
State Arcnaeologist
Director, Technical Services Division
Massachusetts Historical Commission
BS/EB/jd
Enclosure
xc: Robert Cembrola
Victor T. Mastone, MBUAR
Ron Lyberger, DEP/DWPC
Kathleen Hull, EPA
B-26
-------
September 21, 1989
Kathleen K. Hull
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 1
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203-2211
RE: Fort Rodman, New Bedford, MA
New Bedford Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Dear Ms. Hull:
This letter is a follow-up to an August 3, 1989 meeting in which we discussed
the potential eligibility of the Fort Rodman Military Reservation for listing
in the National Register of Historic Places as an extension of the existing
Fort Taber National Register Historic District. As we discussed, following
the evaluation of the historic resources inventory completed by the Office of
Public Archaeology, Massachusetts Historical Commission staff have determined
that the Fort Rodman Military Reservation is potentially eligible for National
Register listing. The military reservation appears to meet Criteria A and C
of the National Register at the local and state level as an extension of the
existing Fort Taber District, which is significant in illustrating the
evolution of U.S. coastal defense from the Revolutionary War period to the
mid-20th century. The military reservation would contribute to that enlarged
district.
As we also discussed, several properties in the Fort Rodman complex may be
individually eligible for National Register listing. The inventory report
suggests that seven Endicott-Taft period (1896- c.1912) structures (P-2, P-7,
P-9, P-17, P-21, P-26, and P-28) appear to be individually significant as
well-preserved and rare woodframe examples of standardized military building
types more commonly constructed in brick.
Battery Milliken (1921 and 1942) also appears to be individually eligible for
National Register listing. The gun battery is one of only nine such casemated
batterys in New England and one of only three that had 12-inch guns. It meets
criteria A and C of the National Register and contributes to the existing Fort
Taber National Register District.
The 32 temporary World War II structures, constructed between 1941-1945, do
not appear to be individually eligible for National Register listing because
of their recent construction date and their lack of individual physical
Massachusetts Historical Commission. Valerie A. Talmage, Executive Director, State Historic Preservation Officer
80 Boylston Street. Boston, Massachusetts 02116 (617) 727-8470
Office of the Secretary of State, Michael J. Connolly. Secretary
B-27
-------
integrity. However, they are good examples of modest frame buildings con-
structed according to the Army's 700 Series of standardized plans and as a
collection they contribute to the existing Fort Taber National Register
District.
These comments are offered to assist in compliance withh Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (36 CFR 800). The MHC
looks forward to further consultation with your office concerning the proposed
wastewater treatment facilities in New Bedford.
I hope this information clarifies our earlier discussion. Please contact
Allen Johnson at this office if you have additional questions.
Sincerely,
Wv
Valerie A. Talmage
State Historic Preservation Officer
Massachusetts Historical Commission
AJ/jd
cc: Colin Baker, Camp, Dresser & McKee
Antone 6. Souza, Jr., City of New Bedford
R. M. Lyberger, DEP/DWPC
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
B-28
-------
September 26, 1989
Jane Wheeler
Camp, Dresser & McKee
1 Center Plaza
Boston, MA 02108
RE: Intensive Archaeological Survey Report, Fort Rodman, New Bedford
Dear Ms. Wheeler:
Staff of the Massachusetts Historical Commission have reviewed the
report entitled "Interim Report, Intensive Archaeological Survey of
Site 1A, The Fort Rodman Military Reservation, New Bedford,
Massachusetts," prepared by the Office of Public Archaeology, Bosotn
University. This report meets the standards outlined in 950 CMR
;70.14 for an intensive (locational) archaeological survey.
MHC concurs with OPA's recommendations that an archaeological site
examination (950 CMR 70) is required for the Allen Farmstead and
Barn to evaluate the nature of the archaeological deposits
encountered during the intensive survey, and to gather sufficient
data to determine whether the site meets the criteria of eligibility
for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The
research problem to evaluate the significance of the site in terms
of 19th-century farmsteads in the New Bedford area and the
transition to military utilization is interesting. In the research
design for the site examination, these research contexts should be
explicitly linked to archaeological methodology that will most
efficiently address the research issues. Archaeological literature
on similar investigations (farmsteads and 19th-century military
sites) should be researched with the goal toward elucidating what
the archaeological deposits at the Allen Farmstead can contribute to
our understanding of this and similar sites.
Massachusetts Historical Commission, Valerie A. Talmape. Executive Director, State Historic Preservation Officer
80 Boylston Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02116 (617) 727-8470
Office of the Secretary of State, Michael ]. Connolly. Secretary
B-29
-------
These comments are offered in compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966-as-amended and M.G.I/.
Ch.9 ss.26-27c as amended by Ch. 254 of the Acts of 1988
(950 CMR 71) . Should you have any questions concerning this review,
please contact Ed Bell of my staff.
Sincerely,
Brona Simon
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
State Archaeologist
Director, Technical Services Division
Massachusetts Historical Commission
BS/EB/kp
cc: Ricardo J. Elia, OPA
B-30
-------
Comment 0004
OFFICE OF CITY COUNCIL
133 William Street New Bedford. Massachusetts 02740 (508) 999-2931
George Rogers
CHAIRMAN
Committa oa Ordinances
Commtiaon Recreation
Tourum lad Historical Objects
Mr. John DeVillars,Secretary
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
100 Cambridge St.
Boston,MA 02202
10-21-89
Dear Mr. DeVillars:
Please accept the following as my comments, though not necessarily
represented as being an exhaustive commentary,on the recent hearing
that was held at the New Bedford Whaling Mu&eum on the proposed secon-
dary sewerage treatment facility being proposed by the engineering
firm of Camp,Dreser and McKeee.
I want to first make it known that the hearing was not conducted in
an impartial manner, nor was the locale for the hearing appropriate.
Many of our citizens could not get into the facility. I was personally
refused entrance by a local police officer (copy of my letter to the
local Police Chief enclosed....no answer has been received as.of this
writing.)because the auditorium was "full". Councillor Macedo was able
to get in as described in the letter, while at least two pther council-
lors were not allowed entrance. Many residents who willbe affected by
the construction and operation were not allowed in. It seems that the
place was "stacked" with proponents of the plant,, mostly people involved
in the construction trade industry and people loyal to the city adminis-
* tration.
Secondly, the manner of the hearing's conduct left much to be desired:
All proponents were allowed to speak and when it appeared there were
no more proponents, the Mayor (who was conducting the hearing...and I
find that in itself extremely unusual; it should have been an impartial
person) sought out additional spokespersons from the audience. The hear-
ing would have been fairer had he allowed a proponent and then an oppon-
ent, so that each side could have had a chance to speak. As it was,
after the proponents all spoke/most of them left. Then it was up to
the opponents to speak with no audience to speak of from among those whc
were in favor, to hear the other side. Very unfair!
I did speak as the lead-off public official against the plant' s:.propos?t£
ed'.. location at Fort Rodman. My comments, I assume are already a mat-
ter of record, but I wanted to add these comments to those already in
the record.
Residence and Office: 23 Robeson Street New Bedford, MA 02740 - Tel. (508) 996-2716
B-31
-------
OFFICE OF CITY COUNCIL
133 William Street . New Bedford, Massachusetts 02740 (508) 999-2931
George Rogers
GatmrilltvtlLtTgc
CHAIRMAN
Cammitta on Onlirwncn
Touritm fnd HiOanctl Objects 1-
As to my specific comments on the plant envisioned by COM:
(1) It is too big. We do not need a plant capable of handling 75 MGD
of sewerage; a 30 MGD plant seems to handle the needs of the Southern
Essex district with a population of 150,000. New Bedford has 100,000, so
why such a big plant?
(2) The location could not be worse. It wil Ibe built in a location
where a major hurricane would completely'/wipe it out. Records of hurri-
canes that have hit our area will show that this area was wiped out, in
fact, in at least two previous major hurricanes. We are in the position
to be hit,and since the plant is outside the "hurricane barrier" , there
is no protection.
(3) COM assumes an increase in toxic chemicals- yet makes no sensible
suggestion as to how to handle the'toxic sludge.
(4) The plan is impractical. At a time when alternative technologies are
being developed and at a time when Congress has just approved $246,000
for a study by the National Academy of Sciences of the efficacy and prac-
ticality of secondary treatment, it is foolhardy for us -to move forward
on a plant that we may not need and certainly cannot afford.
(5) The city cannot afford to build this plant.There is no federal funds
for it; there are no state funds for it. My understanding is that $70
million fed. funds will be provi'de'd to the if the state comes up with
- $14 million to start funding of the so-called "Ha^es Bill". Even'.if the
City were to get the full $70million, there is simply no way we can build
this plant without bankrupting the homeowners and industry. If the fed.
and state government GAVE us the plant, we could not afford to operate it
at the projected cost(conservative)of $5-7 million a year. Our Prop.2^
cap would not permit it. If we are to increase sewer use fees to cover th
cost of the plant and operation, no one willbe able to afford the incres-
ed fees.
I could go on, but you get the general idea. The location is ridiculous,
the cosy impossible, the timing could not be worse.
Councilor at Large
NEW BEDFORD CITY COUNCIL
Residence and Office: 23 Robeson Street New Bedford, MA 02740 Tel. (508) 996-2716
B-32
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
I
1-29
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION ONE
In the Matter oft
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FQH
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES FOR
THE CITY OF NEW BEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS
9 '
10
11 Wednesday
January 24, 19SO
12
Auditorium
13 Whaling Mu«eum
Bethel Street
14 New Bedford, Massachusetts
The above-entitled (natter came on for hearing,
16
pursuant to Notice, at 7:O7 o'clock p.m.
17
18 BEFOREt RON MANFREDONIA
Chief
19 Water Management Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
20
SUbAN COIN
21 Marine and Esterine Program
U.S. Environmental fretection Aaency
22 "
23
24
25
APEX REPORTING
Registered Professional Reporters
(617)426-3077
B-33
-------
INDEX
2 PAGE
3 Ron Manfredonia 3
Dennis Lawrence 6
5 Ralph Solnier 8 OOO&
6 Maureen Sylvia 16QOO I
7 Eugenia Florio 2O 0OO?
8 William Bancroft 22
9 Joyce Bancroft 22 OOlO
10 Natalie Arnett
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
APEX REPORTING
Registered Professional Reporters
(617)426-3077
B-34
-------
2 7:07 P.M.
i
3 MR. MANFREDONIAi Good evening. My name is Ron
Manfredonia. I'm the chief of the Water Quality Branch, EPA
5 Region 1 in Boston.
6 I have been designated by the regional administrator,
7 Me. Julie Bellaga, to serve as the hearing officer for
8 tonight's public hearing on EPA's draft environmental impact
9 statement, on wastewater treatment facilities for the City
10 of New Bedford, Maes.
11 Other representatives of EPA with me are Susan Coin, of
12 the Marine and Esterine Program at EPA.
13 The draft environmental impact statement considers the
14 selection of suitable locations and appropriate technologies
15 for the construction and operation of secondary wastewater
16 treatment, and association facilities, for the City of New
17 Bedford, Mass.
18 The selection process is based upon environmental,
19 technical, institutional, economic considerations for each
20 alternative.
21 This draft EIB builds upon the environmental impact
22 report prepared by the City of New Bedford, which was issued
23 in August of this year. Although much of the information
24 presented in the city's EIR was used for the EIS analysis,
25 the draft EIS has been developed as an independent document,
APEX REPORTING
Registered Professional Reporters
(617)426-3077
B-35
-------
4
1 and EPA has modified or supplemented the EIR analysis, when
2 necessary.
3 Our draft EIS finds site 1A, the Fort Rodman site, and
4 mite 4A, the Standard Times site, environmentally acceptable
5 sites for location of the new secondary wastewater
6 treatment. Acceptable technologies for sludge disposal are
1 stabilization by chemical fixation, at the wastewater
8 treatment plant, for use as a daily cover material at the
9 proposed Crapo Hill solid waste landfill, with a backup
10 sludge landfill at site 41, the airport site. Site 47, I'm
11 sorry.
12 The acceptable ocean outfall site for treated
13 wastewater discharge is 22,2OO feet south of Clark's Point
14 at a depth of 45 feet, which has been commonly referred to
15 «s the 3O1H site.
16 The site locations are in the handout that you picked
17 up as you entered the hall. The EPA draft environmental
18 impact statement was made available to the public on
19 December 15, 1989.
20 During the sixty day period we will welcome and
21 encourage any and all written comments you may have on our
22 document. Written comments may be addressed to Ann Rodney,
23 EPA Region One, WOE 19OOC, JFK Federal Building, Boston,
24 Mass. 02203.
25 After the sixty day comment period, EPA will review and
APEX REPORTING
Reqistered Professional Reporters
(617)426-3077
B-36
-------
1 evaluate the comments given tonight, along with written
2 comments we receive on or before February 12, 1990. Please
3 note that the date of February 12, 1990, and not the 1989
4 date indicated in the document.
5 EPA is scheduled to publish the final environmental
6 impact statement, which will.contain a summary of the oral
7 and written comments received during the sixty day comment
8 period, and EPA's response to those comments.
9 After the publication of- the final environmental impact
10 statement in the summer of 199O, another comment period will
11 take place, to allow for public reaction to EPA's final
12 recommendations.
13 Soon after the close of the final comment period, EPA
14 will issue a record of decision, formalizing the agency's
15 decision. This public hearing is being recorded for the
16 public hearing. This is an informational, non-adversary
17 hearing, under the National Environmental Policy Act and
18 Clean Water Act, and as such, we will not permit cross
19 examination the EPA representatives or the commenters.
20 No questions will be permitted except for the purposes
21 of clarification.
22 As you walked in there was a sign up sheet for people
23 who would like to speak this evening. If you would like to
24 speak, but have not signed up, please feel free to do so
25 outside the auditorium.
APEX REPORTING
Registered Professional Reporters
(617)426-3077
B-37
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
I will follow normal EPA protocol for this public
hearing, which is to call upon federally elected officials
or their representatives first, state elected officials,
local elected officials. And then I will call upon citizens
who have signed up to speak, in the order that they have
signed up, and then ask any others if they wish to comment.
Please state your name and affiliation before you
speak, so that the transcriber hears it correctly for the
record.
I will start by calling upon federally elected
officials or their representatives. Are there any? Hearing
none, state elected officials, or their representatives.
Yes, sir?
Comment 0005
MR-
Thank you very much. I didn't know I
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
was going to be first, because there are a lot of people in
the audience, who have spent many, many hours, and arduous
hours of work, relative to the siting of the sewerage
treatment/wastewater treatment plant at Fort Rodman.
For the record, my name is Dennis Lawrence. I am the
state representative of the Fourteenth Bristol District, and
I reside at 206 Allen Street in the City of New Bedford.
I am here this evening, joining with many people of the
City of New Bedford, to speak in opposition, and urge the
EPA to really evaluate the situation carefully, and listen
to the comments that you will be hearing later on this
APEX REPORTING
Registered Professional Reporters
(617)426-3077
B-38
-------
7
1 evening. A lot of us are here in opposition to the location
2 at Fort Rodman for the wastewater treatment plant, for many,
3 many reasons.
4 Putting aside the zoning problems, putting aside the
5 historical value of the area, with the association of Fort
6 Taber, located in the vicinity of the proposed site, and
7 putting aside the zoning regulations, where it's basically
8 single family residential A type area, I think the greatest
9 problem that EPA should look at -- I know they've come out
10 with a decision that both sites are more or less
11 environmentally sound -- is that the location at Fort Rodman
12 is outside the hurricane barrier. And it could pose a
13 tremendous, tremendous problem, should the plant be
14 successful in being located there, and in the event of an
15 extreme flooding condition, a large storm, we could disrupt
16 the whole surge system in the City of New Bedford. And Lord
17 knows, we have enough problems the way it is already.
18 There are many, many other financial problems and
19 economic problems in located the sewerage treatment plant,
20 whether it be at that site or at the Standard Times Field
21 right now.
22 As you realize, the State of Massachusetts is going
23 through some tremendous physical difficulty, and the city
24 alone cannot burden the responsibility of paying for the
25 construction and/or maintenance of a water sewerage
APEX REPORTING
Registered Professional Reporters
(617)426-3077
B-39
-------
8
1 treatment facility at this time.
2 I would hope that the City of New Bedford, through its
3 local elected officials, would meek some other form of
4 remedy in Washington, in trying to delay this until the
5 financial situation straightens out.
6 But the main thing that I think the EPA should do is
7 really listen to the comments, and make the part of this
8 report, and take them to heart. Because there are some
9 people here, like I have mentioned, who have spent many,
10 many hours, and have worked very, very hard, and have facts,
11 and have figures, and I don't want to upstage the right now.
12 Because I do know that they are here prepared to speak this
13 evening.
14 But I do want to lend my support to them, and to
15 express to EPA that as a state representative from that
16 area, and also as the other area, because both sites are
17 proposed in my legislative district, that I am unalterably
18 opposed to the location for environmental reasons, as I see
19 them, being a resident of the City of New Bedford. And in
20 particular, it's located outside of the hurricane barrier,
21 for the location at Fort Rodman.
22 Thank you.
23 MR. MANFREDONIA: Thank you. Are there other state
24 elected officials, who wish to make a comment?
25 With that I'll move onto locally elected officials.
APEX REPORTING
Registered Professional Reporters
(617)426-3077
B-40
-------
1
2
3
Ralph Solnier, city councilor.
I want to apologize in advance for mispronouncing
names.
Comment 0006 -MR. SOLNIER: That's quite all right. I've been called
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
worse than that, Ron!
For the record, my name is Ralph Solnier. Irm a city
councilor, and I represent the ward where the secondary
treatment plant has been suggested by the Mayor of the city.
When I came in tonight Ann Rodney saw me and she saidi
"You're a city official. You should sign this blue sheet",
which I did. And the reason I'm mentioning the fact that
she said I was a city official, is because I noticed in the
executive summary, and if you'd permit me to read from your
executive summary on pagp 3, it indicates that this draft
EIS is prepared in a piggyback style, in that it draws
heavily on the technical and scientific studies conducted
for the draft facilities plan/environmental impact statement
prepared by the City of New Bedford, pursuant to the
Massachusetts environmental policy act.
Well, I'm a little concerned that EPA is piggybacking
onto something prepared by the city, because the city
actually engaged an engineering firm, but it was the mayor
who selected this engineering firm.
And the reason I point this out, and they're a very
qualified firm, Camp, Dresser and McKee. They did an
APEX REPORTING
Registered Professional Reporters
(617)426-3077
B-41
-------
10
1 outstanding Job. But I want it clearly shown on the record
2 that they work for the mayor, not the city. Although the
3 city was on record ae hiring them, it was the mayor who
4 selected them.
5 And the reason I'm making such a point about this is
6 that in addition to being a city councilor, I was also a
7 member of the citizen's advisory committee that dedicated
8 two and a half years of ny life sitting with the mayor's
9 selected engineering firm, who guided us every single inch
10 of the way. And when it finally got to the point where the
11 mayor had decided where he wanted the plant, I felt now, in
12 looking back, that the engineering firm helped us to the
13 point where the citizen's advisory committee was supposed to
14 go along and make the decision that the mayor wanted, which
15 was the Fort Rodman site.
16 But at that point, the citizen's advisory committee,
17 who had been guided and led down the road for two and a half
18 years, all of a sudden parted company. They could not go
19 along with the engineering firm that was actually speaking
20 for the mayor.
21 The citizen's advisory committee, when faced with three
22 sites, the three final sites: Fort Rodman, Standard Ties
23 Field and the so-called airport site, the citizen's advisory
24 committee, by a fourteen to one vote, selected as the least
25 logical location for the plant Ford Rodman. So they
APEX REPORTING
Registered Professional Reporters
(617)426-3077
B-42
-------
11
1 eliminated it.
2 It was then suggested, and it Just barely squeaked by,
3 by an eight to six vote, that the Standard Times Field be
4 eliminated as the next least logical site, which then left
5 the airport site as the remaining site.
6 Well, this did not happen. The mayor was not about to
7 have the plant located at the airport, and he pointed out
8 that the cost (and, of course, we're only guided by figures
9 that were given to us by his engineering firm). The city
10 council felt that then we should eliminate the airport site.
11 And thinking that the citizen's advisory committee, who
12 dedicated two years of their lives to reviewing sites, they
13 would probably, because they suggested that Fort Rodman be
14 the least logical, they would be heeded, their advice would
15 have been heeded. And the city council perhaps would then
16 say: "Let's put the plant at the second location", which
17 would have been the Standard Times Field.
»
18 Well, the city council has never actually taken a vote.
19 The city council has never taken a vote. And the reason I
20 mention, when I came in, I was identified as a city
21 official. I believe that I am. There are two parts to
22 local government. There's the executive, the mayor, and the
23 legislative, the city council. The mayor is the only member
24 of government, local government, who has said the plant
25 should go at Fort Rodman. The city council has not yet been
APEX REPORTING
Reaistered Professional Reporters
(617)426-3077
B-43
-------
12
1 asked to take a vote on that. And maybe the mayor i« afraic
2 to ask us.
3 But the point I'm trying to make ie that EPA and DEQE
4 certainly should not be misled into thinking that it's the
5 city who has selected Fort Rodman. And while I am speaking
6 of that, going through, and you are going to hear speakers,
7 I'm sure, comment. And since it was noted in the executive
8 summary that you've kind of piggybacked on the city's
9 report. Well, the city's report was put together by the
10 mayor's engineering firm. It wasn't really the city's, it
11 was one man's decision.
12 And throughout the entire report I think you will find
13 that the report is accurate, except you are not getting the
14 | actual picture.
15 And let me Just give you something outside of the
16 report. We have been consistently told, and I say we, the
17 public. We have been told by the engineering firm, by the
18 mayor, and this is the manner in which we are told, or this
19 statement is made: "The cost to put the sewerage treatment
20 plant a either site is the same, at Fort Rodman or the
21 Standard Times Field. The cost is the same. However, if
22 you build the plant at the Standard Times Field you have to
23 relocate a lot of underground piping." Now that gives
24 anyone listening the impression that the cost is not the
25 same, although they told you it was. Because you now have
APEX REPORTING
Registered Professional Reporters
(617)426-3077
B-44
-------
13
1 to think that it's going to cost more to put the piping
2 underground.
3 Now if they said the same thing, "The cost to put the
4 plant at either site is the same, however, at Fort Rodman
5 you have to relocate 75O children who are going to pre-
6 school and early learning", doesn'-t that give you the
7 impression that it means it's going to cost more? Even
8 though we Just said the cost was the same.
9 Throughout this entire report, Camp Dresser has done a
10 brilliant Job of comparing the two sites in that same
11 manner.
12 On page 17, I'll Just use this as one example, but I
13 want this on the record, because when you're reviewing this
14 report that EPA put out, in piggyback fashion, using the
15 city's report, I think it's important to note that the
16 author, I think once the mayor made his site selection
17 known, the author then purposely did not tell the truth
18 exactly the way it should be, fairly and squarely.
19 One paragraph on page 17t "At site 4A existing visual
20 quality would be moderately impact." I'm sorry, this was
21 not the one I wanted.
22 "Locating a wastewater treatment plant at either
23 candidate site would have a significant impact on
24 recreational uses on site. At site 1A tennis courts (this
25 is Fort Rodman now). At site 1A tennis courts and playing
APEX REPORTING
Registered Professional Reporters
(617)426-3077
B-45
-------
14
1 fields would be displaced by construction the wastewater
2 treatment plant." A fast, quick statement. This is Fort
3 Rodman.
4 Now at site 4A, the Standard Times Fieldi "There are
5 many recreational uses, including baseball, softballr
6 basketball, soccer, and bicycle racing."
7 You might think that this was the site of the Olympics.
8 "These resources will all be displaced by the use of the
9 site for a wastewater treatment plant."
10 Throughout this report this is the type of reporting
11 you are going to be reading, and it has to be called to your
12 attention.
13 And I appreciate the fact that we are given the
14 opportunity to come to these many years, and that I spent
15 two and a half years of my life going to the citizen's
16 advisory committee meetings.
17 And I Just want to point out, in this audience you have
18 housewives, you have carpenters, you have clerks, you have
19 plumbers, you have people who have regular jobs. I'm part
20 time. I'm a city councilor. The mayor is full time. He
21 has at his disposal a huge engineering firm.
22 The people who are here tonight have their own jobs to
23 do, yet they have had to come out here. They have had to
24 read seven and eight volumes of scientific data, to try to
25 familiarize themselves with what might happen. And I don't
APEX REPORTING
Registered Professional Reporters
(617)426-3077
B-46
-------
15
1 think it's fair. I Just don't think these people should
2 have had to have gone through this. But I want you to know
3 that we appreciate the opportunity we have tonight.
4 But I just think, when you listen to the testimony
5 you're going to hear from these people, you will realize
6 that we are not professionals, we're amateurs. But we're
7 fighting for our very lives, for our very existence. Our
8 life savings are in our property. And that is why we're
9 here tonight.
10 So I would close by saying I would appreciate you
11 listening closely to the remarks, and I would hope that the
12 example I used to show you how the engineering firm,
13 although they told the truth about the two sites, it's
14 apparent where the mayor wanted them to select the site.
15 So, ladies and gentlemen, I appreciate the opportunity,
16 and I would hope that you listen carefully to the testimony
17 you will be hearing later on this evening.
18 Thank you very much.
19 MR. MANFREDONIA: Thank you. I now call upon Dennis
20 Lawrence. I'm sorry. Are there other locally elected
21 officials?
22 Are there any representative of any federal agencies?
23 other federal agencies? State agencies?
24 With that I'll move onto citizens who have signed up.
25 I'll begin by calling upon Maureen Sylvia.
APEX REPORTING
Registered Professional Reporters
(617)426-3077
B-47
-------
16
Comment 0007 M0 cviyjA.. Hi. I'm Maureen Sylvia. I live at 24
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Bellevue Street, New Bedford, and I'm a member of the Save
Fort Rodman Committee, one of the over three hundred members
of the Save Fort Rodman Committee.
The statements that you're 90!ng to hear tonight are
from people who are getting tired of fighting. .We've been
doing this for over a year. We've attended meetings. We
pass out 2000 flyers a month, we make hundreds of phone
calls a week, and we're all beginning to get tired. Yet we
know that in a few more months this decision could come down
in our favor. We're all very optimistic.
EPA has said that both sites are environmentally
acceptable. If you lived here you wouldn't agree. We have
our lives, we have our homes, our businesses. The site
issue does affect the environment, the economy and the lives
of the people of New Bedford. And many of the state and
federal regulatory agencies, and state senators and state
representatives, have said they don't want to get involved,
the site issue is a local issue.
But we're talking about if there is, the big question,
if there is any funding from the federal government or the
state government. We're talking about people who not pay
$6O a year in sewer and water fees, who may go up to *2,OOO
a year. We're talking about businesses who have suggested
that if the plant is located at Fort Rodman, and their
APEX REPORTING
Registered Professional Reporters
-------
17
1 astronomical costs associated with it, that they will
2 relocate, thereby decreasing the tax revenue to the city.
3 We need, we urge you, we implore you, to become
4 involved in the site issue. there is only one person who
5 has made the suggestion that it be located at Fort Rodman,
6 and that is Mayor Builard, who is out of town tonight.
7 I have read the first volume of Camp, Dresser and
8 McKee's report, the five volumes. I read the second draft
9 eight volumes, and now I'm beginning the seventeen volumes,
10 in addition to my life and my job.
11 I never spoke publicly before. And I have just
12 recently read your report, and it is very true what Ralph
13 Solnier says, that it is piggybacked to Camp Dresser's
14 report, because the exact same errors that appear in Camp
15 Dresser's report appear in your report. And I'd like to
16 point some of them out for you.
17 Number one, there is no mention in your report of the
18 strict zoning regulations at Fort Rodman. Once Fort Rodman
19 when, and if, it is ever declared surplus and given to GSA,
20 if it automatically goes back to becoming residential A
21 zoning, this ordinance was created after the construction of
22 the primary treatment plant, so that this would never happen
23 again to that land.
24 It's against the law to construct a sewage treatment
25 plant in residential A land. If any of us want to add an
APEX REPORTING
Reqistered Professional Reporters
(617)426-3077
B-49
-------
18
1 addition onto our homes, want to have a business out of our
2 homes, we would have to get a variance, we would have to go
3 to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and it would be very
4 difficult for us to do this. * Yet the city thinks: "Well,
5 the laws are made, but laws are broken." It's against the
6 law.
7 And I'm sure you are quite well aware that the Save
8 Fort Rodman Committee has retained an attorney, and we have
9 every indication that we will go to court. We are
10 financially prepared, and emotionally prepared.
11 Mayor Builard was notified of this well before his
12 decision, so it will be his fault.
13 And the next error in the report was with regards to
14 existing land use. You stated there's a parking lot at
15 Standard Times Field, which would have to be relocated.
16 However, the parking lot is adjacent to a mill, which has
17 recently closed down. The parking lot is no longer in use,
18 it is vacant and abandoned. Therefore, that is one thing
19 you need to cross off your list of pluses or relocation for
20 the Standard Times Field.
21 There is also no mention of Fort Rodman's being a
22 national emergency property. In the event of a war or
23 political or federal action Fort Rodman can be retained as a
24 national emergency property. Until this issue is resolved,
25 I think it is poor planning to select Fort Rodman.
APEX REPORTING
Registered Professional Reporters
(617)426-3077
B-50
-------
19
1 The next issue is that New Bedford depends on sixty
2 percent of its income from the state and federal government,
3 and we know that the Commonwealth is in very cad state of
4 repairs, and New Bedford is the fourth largest city in the
5 Commonwealth. Therefore, I don't believe that we will
6 receive any federal funding, and that the residents, the
7 people who make up this city, the people who live here and
8 work here, are going to be paying for this.
9 And the cost to relocate the plant at Standard Times
10 Field will quite possibly be cheaper.
11 Another serious, very serious, issue that you have in
12 your report, is that you only make mention of one sensitive
13 receptor, and that is the health clinic at the Poor Farm.
14 You neglect, as do Camp Dresser, as did Mayor Builard, to
15 mention the handicapped center, the senior citizens center,
16 Tripp Towers, which is an elderly housing facility, as well
17 as all of the educational programs, consisting of over 75O
18 children, who are at Fort Rodman now, who will be relocated
19 just up the street, into your report. These children will
20 be affected by the trucking, the noise, the air quality, the
21 aesthetic value of the construction and operation of the
22 plant. And, again, this will not happen if the plant is
23 built at the Standard Times Field.
24 In closing, I urge you to listen to us. We recently
25 brought Susan and Ann and Philip down on a tour of both
APEX REPORTING
Registered Professional Reporters
<617>426-3O77
B-51
-------
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
sites. We told them things that aren't in reports. We tolt
them things we've been able to find out by calling all over
the country, by meeting with people. And some of the things
are Just from our hearts, and sometimes those work just as
well as any facts or figures or documentation. We urge you
to get involved in this issue.
I'd like to see EPA have egg on their face, if the
plant is destroyed, in the event of a hurricane, or if the
long term effects of the Clean Water Act are not carried out
by building the plant at Fort Rodman.
We all want what's best for the city, we all want to
comply with the Clean Water Act. We all want clean water,
and a clean bay and a clean ocean. And the only way you
will be able to do that is by building the plant at Standarc
Times Field.
Thank you.
MR. MANFREDONIA: Thank you. I now call upon Eugenia
Florio.
Comment 0008 J»1S. FLORIDA. My name is Eugenia Florio. I live at 538
20
21
22
23
24
25
Rodney French Boulevard in New Bedford. I am a member of
the Save Fort Rodman Committee.
In your report it appears that there will be blasting,
both at Fort Rodman and the Standard Times Field. The
blasting at Fort Rodman will be 3OO feet from the nearest
homes, and will last six months to a year, according to the
APEX REPORTING
Registered Professional Reporters
(617)426-3077
B-52
-------
21
1 report.
2 There is no comparison between the two sites, and in
addition there is no mention of the noise created from the
demolition of educational buildings, which have to be
trucked across the city to the north end.
6 Finally, you state that noise barriers will be placed
7 around the construction site. I don't believe this will
8 lessen the noise for six months.
9 There is also another error in the report regarding air
10 quality. There will be more people affected in the south
11 end than at the Standard Times Field, due to the small
12 distance from the plant to the homes of the residents. And
13 there are many more homes located near Fort Rodman than
14 there are homes in the Standard Times Field, where the
15 plants are projected.
16 In addition to this, I feel it's a shame that Fort
17 Rodman, which is such a beautiful area, it's prime location,
18 it's a gorgeous waterfront view of Buzzard's Bay, and to put
19 a sewerage treatment plant in a place like that, staggers my
20 imagination, when there is another site available.
21 . Those are my thoughts. I don't think we should let
22 Fort Rodman go. It's a shame.
23 Thank you.
24 MR. MANFREDONIA: Thank you. I now call upon William
25 Bancroft.
APEX REPORTING
Registered Professional Reporters
(617)426-3077
B-53
-------
22
Comment 0009 MR. BANC
My name is William C. Bancroft. I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
reside at 22 Lucas Street, New Bedford. I have also resided
in New Bedford, where I was born, for all of my life, except
for a few years when I served in the United States Navy.
I feel there is a serious issue of time involved in the
construction and eventual operation of the plant. There are
serious problems involving delays only if the plant is
located at Fort Rodman. These include the complicated
problems of relocation, deeds and zoning. This will not
happen if the plant is located at the Standard Times Field.
Also there is no mention in your report about the
additional cost to the taxpayers for the demolition of the
current buildings used for educational purposes, and the
relocation of these programs to the Poor Farm.
The residents of New Bedford are expected to pay for
the construction and operation of the new plant, as well as
the demolition and relocation of the successful programs
that are now taking place at Fort Rodman. These costs would
be eliminated if the plant were located at the Standard
Times Field.
I thank you.
MR. MANFREDONIA: Thank you. I now call upon Joyce
Bancroft.
Comment 0010 .MS. BANCROFT: My name is Joyce Bancroft. 1 live at 22
25
Lucas Street, and I feel that there are many educational
APEX REPORTING
Registered Professional Reporters
(617)426-3077
B-5A
-------
23
1 programs that are successfully being working at Fort Rodman.
2 And I know that my grandson goes, in the summertime, to a
3 marine studies. They got to the beach there and they study
4 fish, and they study astronomy, and things like'that.
5 There's also a Camp Kennedy that's there in the
6 summertime. That's for the underprivileged children who
7 can't afford to go to a camp. These children are our
8 future, and they will be making many decisions that affect
9 us. And we're talking about environment, and we're trying
10 to teach them about keeping the bay clean, and the
11 environment.
12 And then we're going to have sludge trucks that are
13 going to be travelling through a residential area, where
14 there are schools, three schools. There's a park. If they
15 go down along the waterfront they'll be going by bathing
16 beaches in the summertime, and there are many, many sludge
17 trucks that will be going right through the residential
18 area.
19 If the sewer treatment plant were located at the
20 Standard Times Field there's a direct access to the highway,
21 without affecting any residential areas. And in this area
22 there's fish plants, and a lot of marine businesses there,
23 and some mills. There are some homes there, but not near as
24 many as there would be in the south end, that are right
25 next to the sewer treatment plant, if it was there.
APEX REPORTING
Registered Professional Reporters
(617)426-3077
B-55
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
They also mention the flood zone, and they said it was
going to be above the flood zone. I don't know when this
flood zone was decided upon, but I am sure it was before the
hurricane barrier was erected.
I don't think we have any idea what would happen if we
got a hurricane. It's going to hit that hurricane barrier,
and the water will back up, and to me, it would make it rise
higher than it has done in the past, because we have a
barrier there. So when the water hits it it should be
higher. At least that's what I was thinking. And I don't
think the flood zone that's in the past will be followed now
that there's a hurricane barrier.
As I said, I own my home down in the south end, and I
know that some of the property values are already lesser
because they say: "Well, this sewer treatment plant is
going to be down there, and I don't want to buy a home
there."
So I'm thinking of the value of my own home. And the
only thing that we own, that we've been paying for to now
for our retirement, and our house is going to be worth less.
Thank you very much.
MR. MANFREDONIA: Thank you. I now call upon Natalie
Arnett.
Comment 0011 MS. ARNETT; My name is Natalie Arnett. I live at 406
25
West Rodney French Boulevard, and I'm the co-person of the
APEX REPORTING
Registered Professional Reporters
(617)426-3077
B-56
-------
25
1 Save Fort Rodman Committee.
2 I don't mean to sound like a broken record. I sort of
3 had things prepared, and other people have zeroed in on
4 them. However, I want to refer to one of your tables,
5 namely 2.3-5, at site 1A. This is in your draft EIS, not
6 your executive summary.
7 Mention is made of one of the major advantages. The
8 report states that 1A -- a major advantage, in other words,
9 at 1A would "include the existing wastewater treatment
10 plant." Well, this leads one to believe that the present
11 wastewater treatment plant is going to remain there where,
12 in fact, it's going to be demolished and removed from there.
13 I believe it is. I don't know.
14 In December they came out with this cost saving
15 business now, and they're talking about using it for
16 maintenance building. However, as you know, that's on
17 filled land, and it's in the V zone.
18 Another advantage they say is surrounded by water on
19 three sides. Now that, to me, is absolutely ridiculous. If
20 anything, I think it would be a very distinct disadvantage,
21 in view of the fact that it is surrounded by water on three
22 sides. It's outside the hurricane barrier, it's subject to
23 wave wash. Most of the buildings are either totally or
24 partially in the one hundred year flood plain.
25 And they talk about putting up rip wrap all around it.
APEX REPORTING
Registered Professional Reporters
(617)426-3077
B-57
-------
26
1 Well, there are certain architects and engineers in the
2 country that don't think too much of rip wrap since
3 Hurricane Hugo down in the Carolinas.
4 Another thing that I think would be detrimental, I'm
5 assuming that we're going to have "state of the art"
6 computer equipment, etc. in there. I live on the salt
7 water. And I can't imagine, you know, being able to retain
8 that equipment.
9 My goodness, all the years I've been living down there
10 I've heard about the present sewage treatment plant, and the
11 corrosion and erosion in there. Whenever anything breaks
12 down it's always blamed on the salt water. The air I
13 imagine. The salt air I should have said.
14 Now another thing, some major disadvantages: this is
15 all at site 1A. I have not mentioned anything about the
16 other site. It states: "Deed restrictions on adjacent
17 education land." There's absolutely no mention about the
18 recreation land there. And the deeds, I read them over, and
19 I will quote from them: "They restrict the land use for
20 'public park or public recreation uses in perpetuity.'" I
21 even looked up perpetuity today in Webster's Dictionary,
22 just to be sure about it. And the first definition was
23 eternity. I think we all know what that means.
24 And I'm just mentioning this because I want this to go
25 into the EPA records.
APEX REPORTING
Reqistered Professional Reporters
(617)426-3077
B-58
-------
27
1 Other things, I think, should be mentioned, or we
2 think, as a committee, under major disadvantages. And other
3 people have mentioned it tonight. Outside the hurricane
4 barrier. There is no mention of that.
5 Another thing is it abuts the marine school of the
6 Greater New Bedford Regional Vocational High School. There
7 is nowhere that I have seen that phraseology in any EPA
8 report, or any Camp Dresser plan at all.
9 There has been a lot of mention about the relocation of
10 Head Start and early learning programs. Nowhere in Camp
11 Dresser McKee's plan is it mentioned that these children
12 will be moved only a few blocks away from the Fort Rodman
13 site. This definitely, I would say, would be a sensitive
14 sector, and it is not mentioned at all. The only thing they
15 mention is the clinic, which is the building where these
16 children supposedly are going to end up if the plant goes at
17 Fort Rodman. Hopefully it won't.
18 And I think that all these relocations should be
19 mentioned, and they are not on the table at all. And that
20 would include the U.S. Army Reserve Sea Lab Program, Camp
21 Kennedy, and the adult handicapped program.
22 I think another disadvantage is that this is the last
23 piece of coastal land in the City of New Bedford, and it
24 should be, and I say must be, used entirely for the
25 citizenry of the country. And I think that could be very
APEX REPORTING
Reqistered Professional Reporters
<.617.>426-3O77
B-59
-------
28
1 feasible.
2 I think that's all. I covered all that I had here.
3 And I'm sure that if I analyzed it further I could pick out
4 a few more things, but I won't keep everybody bored all
5 night long. And I thank you very much.
6 MR. MANFREDONIA: Thank you. I have no additional
7 signatures indicated for people who wish to speak. Is there
8 anyone else who would like to offer comments?
9 Okayf hearing none, I would like to take this
10 opportunity to thank all of you for attending this public
11 hearing.
12 As indicated earlier, EPA intends to keep the comment
13 period open until February 12th of this year. We anticipate
14 publishing a final environmental impact statement this
15 summer, to be followed by a comment period, and ultimately a
16 record of decision later this year.
17 Again i want to thank everyone for attending the public
18 hearing, particularly those who offered comments this
19 evening.
20 And, with that, have a good evening. Thank you.
21 (Whereupon, the hearing in the above captioned matter
22 ended at 7:52 P.M.)
23
24
25
APEX REPORTING
Registered Professional Reporters
(617)426-3077
B-60
-------
in the Matter of:
5
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
29
CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER AND TRANSCRIBER
This is to certify that the attached proceedings
before: RON MANFREDONIA. Chairman
FOR
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES FOR
THE CITY OF NEW BEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS
Placet New Bedford, Massachusetts-.-».-
Datei January 24, 199O
were held as herein appears, and that this is the true,
accurate and complete transcript prepared from the notes
and/or recordings taken of the above entitled proceeding.
Martin T. Farley 1/29/9O
Reporter Date
Pam Sullivan 1/29/9O
Transcriber Dat«
APEX REPORTING
Registered Professional Reporters
(617)426-3077
B-61
-------
^
Comment 0012
3
X ^,/f^.
B-62
-------
jfa^t-<±£^i, K^J v
J^ 7^
x^c,
k-A-fLt.
w^f,
/
^
V
c- ,
/
B-63
-------
FEB 0 £ 1990
NELSON M. MACEDO
Councillor Ward 5
31 Cottage Street
New Bedford, Mass. 02740
Tel. 996-2957
Comment 0013
CITY OF NEW BEDFORD
MASSACHUSETTS
January 31, 1990
Ann Rodney
U.S. EPA
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02202
Dear Ms. Rodney:
Unfort.unat.e1y, I was unable to attend your public hearing in Me1.-.'
Bedford last week. I am writing to express my feelings on the issue before
you.
^ am o1"* '"'O s e d to the s i t i n Q of the Secondar^ Sewage Treatment P1 a *"' ^"
at Fort Rodman and I would like to relate some of my concerns regarding this
location. It seems to me durin*"1 this '"rocess that on1w the ^ositive
aspects of locating the plant at Fort Rodman have been brought out ;
nothinn has been said about the nenative a s n e c t s . I would like to list & "!»,./
that I feel are important for you to note when considerinn a site for this
Treatment Plant.
1 Fort Rodman is outside the Hurricane Carrier and an . o v e r ^ "^ r~-'-*:
would disturb the environmental balance.
2. This plant is too close to a residential area. It i s
a01"1 r ox i ma te 1v 300 feet from the road. The r"i!~oi~'ertw values of the homes i'-
the area of such a facility would be adverse!v affected.
^ W £ v/.' O' ' 1 ^ H a \ / £ "t-O
75*0 children who a^^en*^ school a ^ F<
*3 I also feel stron^l'-' about the da":1v/ trips that would have tc
~\ fi r ^ 1" t~. r-.-~. i i r*. ^. *!-. -! c fcciric.n't-isl sar~os K\/ rr. s i-i \/ -t-^tir"Uc r-?.-v ** *. ' j ' ' ' z> **>*-^-ij*-»
I zs^. that '' o u consider these facts I have b r o un h t forward v e '' '
apH "l....!.- -F !~. r- \.; Ji r' H ^ ~. ^ i- ^. c n. ."\ r~. C Z2 -f »-/-.rr \'/-.:i
RECEIVED-ERA
/-
I.IK'.!.' .' -: k .-
WWP - WQB
B-64
-------
Comment 0014
354 Teresa Street
9 V?W New Bedford, MA
* January 31,1990
Lear Ms. Rodney,
This letter is in reference to public comments regarding
the secondary sewage treatment proposed for the City of New
Bedford. Attached is a partial list of savings that Camp,
Dresser and McKee proposed that I wish to address.
^ The first item is to eliminate some covers on tanks, it
is my understanding that your group toured the sites proposed
and if you paid attention to the location of homes in the
Fort Rodman area, you would note that the plant is to be with-
in a one quater mile of a residential A area, if the Fort
Rodman site were used. This proposal would add to enviromental
concerns in the neighborhood.
The second item is to use portions of the existing plant,
the plant itself is below the one hundred year flood plain
and is in such poor condition that the 7.8 million dollar
proposed savings is debatable. As you toured the area you
would have noted the disrepair of the Fort Taber area,
and moriies would have to be spent to repair and upgrade the
present facility. This expense, along with relocating the
educational facilities, army and navy training centers has
never been calculated in the final expenses.
The elimination of the course screens at the plant would
mean that-maintenance at the plant would have to be upgraded
as the im'ustric 1 plents in the city ere net required tc trect
ihier effluent to the city sewer systems. This could mean
downtime in plant operations if preventive maintenance was
not preformed.
B-65
-------
The final two items is the proposed cut back of the
Fort Taber park and improvements to Fort Taber itself.
Camp, Dresser and McKee, in my opinion, has no authority to
discuss items that will no t be included in final E.P.A.
decisions, as sweetners to the plan are of no value to envi-
romental decisions.
The plant also, if built outside the hurricane barrier
in New Bedford, would be at the mercy of the elements. While
in industry, in the New Bedford area, I became involved in
design and implementation of the facilities in the Commonwealth
FJnergy Systems. One item in the proposed cost savings is the
elimination of the emergency generator system.. Facilities
designed by Commonwealth Energy Systems, while having two
means of getting electricity into the plants always had to
have back-up generator and they are the local utility company,
with all it's main plants inside the huricane barrier.
Criteria for design in the area included earthquake factors
for the zone, but the main point I wish to make is that design
criteria always referred to 150 mph winds that could enter
into a "what-if" situation.
This letter could go or., forever, me- you :.r< rll probab-
ility have more consents than needed. V.'hiDe addressing this
letter from an engineering view point, take note that if the
plant were to be damaged in any way, Camp, Ire.sser and KcFee
alorc vith the c.ity c-f I-Tev; Bedford }r.F in no way addressed the
'v.hrt if possibility cf downtime, which means all final efflu-
ent would go untreaeted into Buzzards Bay. In your job relat-
ed experiences, you must be aware of that fact that coastal
uujnit" es have a record, of stilT pe.iri^ :'r. violation of
B-66
-------
E.P.A. standards, while having a secondary plant, ss they have
not addressed the combined sewer overflows, as is the case
in New Bedford.
In conclusion, to place the plant outside the hurricane
barrier and not address the combined sewer outflow problem
makes no sense at all. The enviroment will still be damaged
if the city of Kew Bedford is allowed to go ahead with it's
plans at Fort Rodman.
Respectfully,,
Carl ton :J. Smith
B-67
-------
Comment 0011
imtra
Marine Importer A Distributor
February 2, 1990
Ann Rodney
US EPA Region 1
WQE-1900C
JFK Building
Boston, MA 02203
FEB 0 6 199
Ref: Waste Water Treatment
Facilities for City of
New Bedford, MA
Dear Ms. Rodney,
I would like to adversely comment on the so called site 40
area for disposing of treated sludge.
It is my understanding the plan calls for transporting
sludge through the road network of the New Bedford Industrial
Park.
The New Bedford Industrial Park is a beautiful area that
forms the quiet environment for a work place that is key to New
Bedford's economic base. The roads are used daily by the staffs
of the companies for walking, jogging and bicycle riding. The
thought of having a sludge and landfill trucks using the roads
would put an immediate end to this type of activity and would
turn the park into an undesirable unsafe area that would most
likely severely restrict future investment in the park.
I find it inconceivable that a plan of this type would not
call for an access road built specifically for the purpose of
handling truck activity away from the populated Industrial Park
that represents a high quality work environment for so many
companies and their staff.
I am the President of Imtra Corporation, an employer of
fifty people, and I'm committed to opposing a plan that does not
have a seperate access road.
Sincerely,
William H.
President
Farnham
MAIN OFFICE
30Barnet Boulevard
New Bedford. MA 02745
Telephone (508)990-2700
FAX: (508) 994.4919
Telex 294138
SOUTHERN OFFICE
4740 126th Avenue Norm
Ciearwaier.FL 34622
Telephone (813)573-2484
FAX. (813) 572-0258
GOVERNMENT OFFICE
222 Severn Ave . Box 4339
Annapolis. MD 21403-6339
Telephone (301)263-4553
FAX. (301) 263-34 59
CANADIAN OFFICE
Imtra Atlantis Marketing
i4iOSpeersRoad.Umt i
Oakville. Ontario L6L 5M1
Telephone (416)847-7265
FAX (416)847-6947
REGIONAL OFFIC
Kingston. Pennsylvi.
Palm City. Florida
Shalimar. Florida
St. Clair Shores. Michigan
B-68
-------
Comment 0016
£«f ^^WW^ ***&
J
-------
RECEIVED-ERA
1FEE5 9 1^90
WWP-WQB
B-70
-------
Comment 0017
February 7, 1990
Dear Ms. Rodney:
I would like to voice my opinion concerning the
proposed site of the sewerage treatment plant for
the City of New Bedford.
I do believe there is a better alternative site
with nothing on the land that would be a much better
location for the plant, right off the highway, surrounded
by factories and no residents in the immediate area.
Although I do not live in that area of the city,
I have been a lifelong resident and have on numerous
occasions taken my children to Fort Rodman to watch
the ships, explore the fort, etc. Two of my children
attended a summer camp and a pre-school program lo-
cated there. My other child attends a scholarship
program during the summer called SeaLab, the whole
meaning of this program would be lost if it were to
be re-located because the idea of this program is
marine orientated. Would they have a program in theory
only? I don't think it would work. No longer would
any program located there now be available, since
it is the ideal environment for learning. All this
area needs is a little more attention to its natural
beauty. This area should be fixed up so all residents
and visitors can enjoy it not destroyed by a sewerage
treatment plant. No longer would anyone want to drive
by that area, have a picnic and do all the other
things we enjoy doing now.
I do hope you will give us your utmost consideration
when deciding this matter, in hopes that New Bedford
truly can remain our "All-America City."
Thank You,
Judith & Tony DeSantos
193 Liberty St. .
New Bedford, MA
02740
B-71
-------
Comment 0018
February 4, 1990
Dear Madam:
I am writting this letter to request that you give
consideration to building the Sewage Treatment Plant at
the Standard Times field.
This site seems to be a much better location.
I believe the Fort Rodman area has much more potential
then to have a Sewage Treatment Plant built on it. I feel
that the land down there has deteriorated, but I believe
that to build a Sewage Treatment Plant on that land is not
the answer we are looking for.
Please consider the Standard Times field as a site for
the Sewage Treatment Plant in New Bedford, MA.
Thank you
I/ /
U/yfUfA-
Deborah Gonzaga
22 Sagamore St.
New Bedford, MA 02740
B-72
-------
Comment 0019
February 6, 1990
Dear Ms. Rodney:
I am writing to voice my opinion on the location
of the proposed sewage treatment plant in New Bedford.
I am very much opposed to the plant being built at the
Fort Rodman site.
I have been a lifelong resident of this area and
I do not understand why this area would even be considered
when there is a much more feasible alternative site.
This land located at Fort Rodman has so much potential
to become one of the best areas in our city, considering
the view of the ocean and the beaches that are located
on each side of the site.
I beleive that we would be doing a great injustice
to the people of New Bedford by building a sewage treat-
ment plant instead of letting this land reach it's full
potential. The land that is located at Fort Rodman has
so much of New Bedford's history and to destroy that
would be destroying part of our heritage. We have recently
received the award for being the "All American City" and
I firmly beleive that if the sewage treatment plant is
located at Fort Rodman we would be destroying one of the
most beautiful areas of this city.
Please take this letter into consideration on any
decisions that you make on the choosing of the site of
the sewage treatment plant. Thank you.
S incerely yours,
Beth B. Kifa\pwich
30 Valentine St.
New Bedford, Ma. 02744
B-73
-------
FEB I 2 1990 Comment 0020
Ann Rodney Pebruarv Q 1QQO
U.S. EPA, Region I February 9. 1990
WQE-1900C
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
Dear Ms. Ann Rodney,
In regard to your request for comments on the draft EIS for
Wastewater Treatment Facilities for the City of New Bedford, I
submit the following:
1. Just a visit to each of the two sites selected as
acceptable causes one to wonder why anyone in their right mind
would select a beautiful spot with the potential of Fort Rodman
for a sewer facility, when a spot like the Standard-Times field
is available.
2. The Standard Times field is protected by the hurricane
barrier - Fort Rodman is not.
3. Fort Rodman is zoned for residential and in fact is close
to many houses.
4. The Standard Times field is zoned for commercial and is
bordered on the south by an abandoned mill, on the north by
fish fillet plants, on the east by water and the west by Rte. 18.
5. Several buildings would have to relocate at Fort Rodman,
among them several Army Reserve buildings, the Head Start,
Alternative Learning and the Handicapped School Buildings, etc. No
buildings will have to be relocated at the Standard Times Field.
6. As far as I know, there has been no professional appraisal
of the cost of relocating these buildings at Fort Rodman although
I think this is certainly of the utmost importance in selecting the
final site. I have heard unofficial estimates of six million dollars
just to tear down the Army Buildings, find a new site and rebuild
them. A professional estimate should be made.
7. I understand that large trucks will be making twenty two
round trips a day to carry the sludge from the sewer facility,< There
are three roads leading from Fort Rodman; east and west Rodney French
Blvd. plus Brock Ave. which runs down the center of the peninsula.
All three have residential homes throughout their length. Brock Ave.
also has two elementery schools and a Junior High School. East and
'.Vest Rodney French Blvd often have large trucks blocking off all but
one car space as they unload their merchandise at the businesses on
those tv/o boulevards. Twenty two more trucks making round trips
could really tie up traffic.
On the other hand the Standard Times field has direct access
to Route 18 which is a divided feeder highway leading directly to
Interstate 195. Residential homes would not be affected.
8. The major public beaches and a public recreational park are
located on this peninsula, both east and'west sides, and during the
warmer months hundreds of families use these facilities crossing the
boulevards to get to the beaches.
For the above reasons I urge you to reject the Fort Rodman site
B-74
-------
- 2 -
and determine that the Standard Times Field is the best site for the
Wastewater Treatment Facility.
Sincerely,
^
E. Brovmhill
38*4- Rodney French Blvd.
New Bedford, MA
B-75
-------
Comment 0021
1 2
Ann Rodney
i am writing this letter to express my deep concerns on the
proposed site ot the new Sewaqe Treatment Plant in the South End (Fort Rodman)
01 New Beatord. While it seems that every time a new facility is planned
ana neeued, everyone "oays i.ot in my neighborhood". This may seem like one of
the majority (not in my neighDorhood) complaints but 1 would like to list
my objections.
(i) Where the proposed site (Fort Hodman) is located there are
only J access roads to the plant. Two of the roads go by the
beach areas in the city. The other road goes by three schools
elderly housing projects, and Haziewood Park.
i /.) There does not seem to be many areas in the city that allow
all the residents to enjoy the waterfront, and beauty that
this area provides.
(6) The historical value that Kort Hodman and Fort Taber have
would be destroyed. This whole area could be improved to
make this one ot the top tourist attractions in New Bedford.
(4) l Deleave that the new Sewage Treatment Plant should be located
at the New Bedtord Airport area. This allows easy access to
nioiiwavs and a better trattic pattern. We have been told that
this site is to costiv even though it appears to be the best
site.
(b) The other site that has been discussed is the Standard
Times Field area. This site is protected by the hurricane
barrier and with the potential increase in trattic should
be the second choice.
( b i Bv uuttinq the Sewaqe Treatment Plant in the Fort Rodman area
where it is unprotected by the hurricane barrier seems to
be V.±LV iooliS/i and a waste ot taxpayers money.
Robert D. Medeiros
<-'<
B-76
-------
FEB 1 2 1980 Comment 0022
36 Norman Street
New Bedford, MA 02744
February 7, 1990
Dear Ms. Rodney,
I am writing in reference to the public comment period allow-
ed by the Environmental Protection Agerrcy pertaining to the siting
of the proposed secondary sewerage treatment plant in the city of
New Bedford, MA. It is my understanding that the EPA does not in-
volve itself in the selection of siting but only refers to the
criteria set by it's own administration and renders a decision
«* upon whether a particular site meets the criteria. It is also my
understanding that the EPA. Region I has not been very successful
in directing it's cities and towns to come into compliance with
the clean water act. I believe that what would suit both the EPA
and the city of New Bedford would be to move towards a quick re-
solution of New Bedford's responsibility to comply with the clean
water act. It is well known throughout the city that a majority
of the local government along with approximately three thousand
signatures are opposed to Mayor John K. Bullard's site selection
of Fort Rodman. I would like to divide my comments into four
categories: aesthetics, noise, traffic and zoning.
AESTHETICS
Fort Rodman is probably the most beautiful parcel of land in
the city of New Bedford. Sixty eight acres of land are located
at the tip of a pennisula overlooking Buzzard's Bay. The scenery
on a bright sunny day appeals to it's beholder as something out of
a picture postcard. Colorful sailboats departing and returning
to port into Padanaram Harbor is to the left of Fort Rodman. As
one looks just south of Padanaram, many beautiful waterfront homes
can be viewed including Colonel Green's mansion where Hetty Green,
the "Witch of Wall Street" once resided and,it is said , where
the atp,m was first split. Looking due south and southeast we can
gaze upon the stretch of Elizabethan Islands much of which are un-
inhabited and declared National Wildlife sanctions. As we look
further east we can see the opening of the Cape Cod Canal where
majestic ships and enormous tankers pass in front of us. On a
clear day you can even view the Sagamore Bridge and Martha's
Vineyard Island.
The land is rich with history. Fort Taber, which is the
sister fort of Fort Sumnter, makes home on this parcel of land.
These two forts date back to the Civil War and are the last two
remaining Civil War forts in the United States. Along with the
fort are four of it's remaining gun batteries. In addition, Fort
Rodman has located on it two battery milikens which were install-
ed as underground weaponry installations during World War II.
B-77
-------
Fort Rodman could easily be transformed into a tourist park
where the public could enjoy all forms of outdoor recreation in-
cluding sailing on the bay and swimming at it's nearby beaches.
The Martha's Vineyard ferry boat is docked only a half mile from
the entrance to Fort Rodman. This form of tourist attraction
coupled with New Bedford's historic district could be an answer
to some of the financial problems that t-his city is presently
facing. You may wish to refer to one such supporting article
published in the local Standard Times newspaper written by Mr.
Richard Charon (please see enclosures).
Let's take a look at what the competing Standard Times field
has to offer the city of New Bedford. The field is located inside
the hurricane barrier which would protect the sewerage plant from
any severe storms or hurricanes. This field abuts highway Route 18
to it's west which would allow easy and quick access to construction
vechicles and daily sludge removal trucks and not be disruptive to
a residential neighborhood. To the north of the field the abutters
are a host of fish processing plants, the Southeastern Regional
Transit Authority storage facility and other industrial businesses
which are, for the most part, suppliers of equiptment to the area
fishing industry. To the south of the field is the Berkshire
Hathaway mill which is approximately one mile in length and would
totally conceal the sewerage plant from the residential community
south of the mill. To the east is the inner harbor of New Bedford.
The area encompassing approximately two to three miles to the west
of the field on the opposite side of Route 18 and to the south of
Berkshire Hathaway is an area that has been plagued with crime and
drug problems for the past several years.
The possibility of building condominiums as proposed by Mayor
Bullard in an area as described above is illogical and surely
doomed for failure. This projection lends some support from the
Standard Times newspaper article regarding the New Bedford Insti-
tution for Savings condominium project (please see enclosures).
The plans to put a marina at the field is one that I am sure the
EPA would not endorse as your administration has already deemed
New Bedford inner harbor as overcrowded. There already exist
three marinas north of trie Fairhaven Bridge in the inner harbor
and two south of the bridge with another soon to be opening at the
Skipper Motor Lodge in the summer of 1990. Will New Bedford, one
of the world's largest fishing ports and a significant provider to
New Bedford's economy, fall to the developers of condos as has
happened in so many fishing ports? I hope not.
The Standard Times field has always been zoned industrial
but htas never been developed. I feel that the secondary sewerage
treatment plant that has been proposed could live in harmony with
that industry that already exists on the inner harbor and would
not impede expansion of our fishing fleet.
NOISE
Mayor Bullard has illogically chosen Fort Rodman to be the
B-78
-------
site of the secondary sewerage treatment plant. In my opinion and
that of more than three thousand citizens who have signed the
petition in opposition to the mayor's selection, Mayor.Bullard did
not weigh the adverse effects on the residents of the Fort Rodman
area as fairly as he should have. The negative effect on the
quality of life to the residential neighborhood of Clark's Point
as a result of noise and the additional havoc of over twenty two
trucks per day transporting sludge will be inevitable. The noise
factor that can be expected to generate from the construction of
the sewerage plant at Fort Rodman will far surpass that of the
Standard Times field. Demolition by use of explosives will be
needed to destroy the rock ledge that lies below ground level and
is literally the size of the proposed plant's entire foundation.
Detination of these explosives will occur three times per day for
approximately a one year period. In addition to this, the demoli-
tion of numerous buildings or" varying sizes will also create mucn
excess noise as compared to the vacant lot at the Standard Times
field. A stone crushing building will need to be erected to crush
the rock retrieved from the demolished ledge. . This crushed stone
will then be used to build a barrier to protect the proposed
sewerage plant from severe weather or a hurricane. The Standard
Times field is situated behind a stone hurricane barrier con-
structed by the Army Corp of Engineers during the early 1960's.
The sewerage plant, if located at the Standard Times field, would
be well protected from these elements.
Heavy construction equipment will need to travel through two
miles of residential neighborhood. Included in this neighborhood
are many sensitive recep tors: one junior high school, two elemen-
tary schools, an alternative junior and senior high school, Head
Start, Camp Kennedy, Sea Lab, two churches, Greater New Bedford
Regional Vocational High School, and two elderly housing com-
plexes. The Standard Times field has direct access to highway
Route 18.
There seems to have been a serious lack of consideration
given to the inconvience and interruption of the quality of life
to the residents of Clark's Point. The residents will be affected
by this reduction in the quality of life during a proposed five
year construction phase.
There are also a number of unanswered question*:
1. What is the additional cost for one year of demolition?
2. What is the cost of the construction of trie stone crush-
ing building?
3. What is the cost of construction of the protective
barrier?
TRAFFIC
Fort Rodman is located at the tip of a pennisula, Clark's
Point. There exists only three acce-ss roads leading to it, East
and West Rodney French Boulevard and Brock Avenue all of which
bottleneck into one intersection. Both East and West Rodney French
B-79
-------
Boulevard can and will be shut in the event of a severe storm or
hurricane. When annual maintanence and repair becomes necessary
the gates are closed. This occurs approximately three times
annually. During this occurence only one access road is available,
that being Brock Avenue.
There are several industries and numerous businesses located
on the point. Manufacturers of metal "products, clothing and elec-
tronic cables are just to name a few. Obviously, all business
and industry require shipping and receiving trucks, many of which
are eighteen wheel tractor trailers. During the early morning and
in the late afternoon hours East Rodney French Boulevard near the
intersection with Brock Avenue and West Rodney French Boulevard
becomes congested to the point of complete stalemate. Employees
going to and returning from work and the tractor trailers contri-
bute mostly to the congestion.
During the warm weather months we can expect a substantial
increase in traffic. The Martha's Vineyard ferry boat located
near the point adds a tremendous amount of traffic from bo-th local
and out of town tourists. An increase can also be expected from
the beach goers and scenic observers. The point attracts the
public who just would like to take a break from the innerports of
the city and drive along the waterfront. SChool buses continue
to add to the traffic throughout the summer months transporting
students to Camp Kennedy and Sea Lab and the early shildhood
programs houseiwithin Fort Rodman.
The Standard Times field is located in an industrial zoned
area. Neighbors to the north include various types of industry
and to the south a hurricane barrier and Berkshire Hathaway mill.
The field abuts highway Route 18 to the east.
ZONING
Fort Rodman is zoned Residential A , the highest priority to
land given. The Standard Times field is zoned industrial. Fort
Rodman was deeded to the city of New Bedford inperpetuity by
various federal agencies to be used solely for the purpose desig-
nated by each agency. The various agencies include the United
States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, the United
States Department of the Interior, the United States Army, the
United States Navy, and the United States Historical Society. In
1973, Fort Rodman was declared a park by the United States Depart-
ment of Interior. The process in which the city need to reclaim
]the deeds in order to permit the construction of the sewerage
plant is one that is extensive and complicated. In addition, the
mayor would need the support of eight city counsel members to
vote to rezone Fort Rodman from Residential A. If in fact this
does occur, the city is expecting a legal confrontation from the
Save Fort Rodman Committee in regards to the issue of rezoning
residential A land while an acceptable alternate site is available.
I have addressed some of the serious concerns regarding siting
B-80
-------
the proposed secondary sewerage treatment plant at Fort.Rodman.
Never has an issue affected any one area of the city of New
Bedford as Mayor Bullard's proposed siting affects the residents
of Clarks Point. The Save Fort Rodman Committee has fought
feverishly for over one and a half years. Our: support continues
to grow and our influences expand. IC-t is hobed that your
attention to these concerns will assist-'our endeavor and allow
the return of Fort Rodman to all the citizens of New Bedford for
their enjoyment and recreation.
Dana Bernier
B-81
-------
Plant threatens best
real estate in the city
Having moved away from New Bedford '"'iT odors can be Wntroliea cii«v«».,.
seven years ago. there will be those who will as the designers of thrtrtw treatment plant,
tell me to mind my own business. But the suggest, then It should be;able to «£"»{:
Issues surrounding the choice of a treatment with the Industrial and eommerclal ««tnai«
plant site tor the city concern everyone who already occupy the *«Wnront UttWe theJhur-.
views New Bedford as the heart of Southeast- rfcane dlkft. And tine* U*W« "vesteo,
ern Massachusetts. millions Into the dike years ago %hy should.
On a visit to the current plant at the south- ^they now be asked to place a WOO million;
ernmost tip of the city last week. I was Investment In public property outside of the
struck by two Impressions. First of all was dike? "' . _ ,'
the odor of the settling tanks, which My hope U that OiedUtensof New Bed^
despoiled the air on the leeward side of the ford wake up to U* potential loss of the best
plant. But the windward side made me real estate In the wy-_f -^
quickly forget this unpleasantness as I was , ., .RIWIAKU J.
able to view the magnificent panorama of
Ricketson's Point and Colonel Green's shore- .
line fading away to the south and the Eliza- *^~ "
beth Islands off to the east. What a treasure
lies here for the residents of New Bedford!
Think of what could be done to the Fort
Rodman site to make It a focal point of the '
city's recreational and tourism needs. Then
ask yourself how any progress could be made :
with the majority of the site used up for the '
proposed treatment olant. Despite Improve-
ments In odor control promised by a new
B-82
-------
I .Tuesday, January 23.1990 '
\ The Standard-Times. New Bedford, MA
earnings fall to 4-year low
-if, * -*.;'»'. :'*,*:-: - ^sr .»' ,», .'.. ', . ' '-' . m . .
tf^^»»]7ft:.*V--,f?^.y^'>'^.\>4fii'jMv'^S:v't*1^-!';r-- 3: :>.'. ".-.''''' ' -...->»/.;.'. ..'.,.-
poor fourth quarier on condo project
JFORD Hie staggering real estate
1 New Bedford Institution lor Sav-
$e fourth quarter, ""knocking down net
the-banklo; pare 1847.000 off
i project ;;
they still amount to slightly less that 1 percent of
the bank's total loans. .',.'. . ;
"A number of the loans being reserved against
are current and performing, and management
expects they will continue to be so." Mr. McCarter.
said. .. . >.-'...-... i .' .. .
' He said the total loan-loss provision for 1989 of
$4:4 million, as compared to $530,000 in 1988,
"represents a prudent approach to any problem'
''resulting from weakness in the Massachusetts real .
^^^^'a^martet"^^1^:^-;^'!1.:^-!>. '^'.' .
;r4\'-?fcj»''«».:'.vj,»!'-'.iMev:ii 'K'£A>».;!';.: *-. ..' .-''.'
NBB Bancorp Chairman Robert
McCarter said the low earnings
resulted from the writedown on the.
Pope Walk condo project the bank "
acquired when It bought Taunton '
s^j^M^^^^s,
»«3!^!MSfiH.awii..»- -^ - - -
Wt^fV^^Hit v. 'Paplte the poor quarter, the bank still declared,
|H|oJl(.oUllonf.:^ dividend cf « c«nts per^bare,'payable Feb. 9.^
:AI of the stockholders will care abouC' said Leonard
- ~ifi^.tj^&&$$p^^
*4heaoapert(rrnu^4aaair- fUnilUoqor pffice in Fin River: *-W .W.N' . -. -; _,
qnidcdtialtnortgages, u^raa that has P He .saidI the bank's Jarge ireserve for possible
plagued banks around the state:^;, >v- . - ^ loan-loss "more reflects what la going on in the
In the-most extreme case, ^ank., of, Mew economy" than loan troubles within the bank. ^
England reported Friday it cxpeets.to post a $1 . .WBBTeported year-end earnings of $11.7 mfl-
bilhoploMftiaraultof moxe/thwi |2 billion in bon, or $1.24 a share, down from 1988 year^nd
bad real estate;loana,rralaing qnestlons about . eaminga of $14.7 million, or $1.60 per share. . ;
^j^-lhe'baA^Mftj^^vaitiV.t^ii'^i'';'-./;.? Stocknolden'equityamounto^lto$214.1 million.
' ~' ' "" ' "" "' '$2169
«»,^ocrtt^utrt«r onotn |hai;
-------
.. eeds clog sewage plant
But planners say Fort Rodman restrictions can be overcome
ByBinitwII* . : to move from..the land and find fnll nlanl on schei'
By Bin Itwll*
Standard-Times staff writer
NEW BEDFORD A group that
wants to stop the city from building
Its new sewage treatment plant at
Fort Rodman hopes to use deed res-
trictions on the land to block con-
struction.
But the federal agencies that hold
the deed restrictions Indicate they
are willing to work with the city to
clear the path for the $200 million
facility.
Even with cooperation, however,
lifting the deed restrictions will be a
cumbersome and time consuming
task.
Three separate federal agencies
hold deed restrictions on the pro-
perty, the Army Reserve most agree
to move from., the land and find
another location In the city,'the state
historic commission most agree that
the sewage-plant will not tdversely
affect historic monument! on the
.land, and the city most find a new
home for a-host, of social service
agencies with offices In the complex.
As If that were not enough, the city
must persuade yet. another-federal
agency to giv« the lend awaj as part
of a federal-program for public
health facilities.
The procesi Is ad complex that the
city's consulting firm. Gamp Dresser
&. McKee,.labeled H a "significant"
obstacle. to^Jtneetlng-.construction
deadlines imposed by I ffOfnt court.
The city could face heavy fines If It
falls to complete the plant on ache**
ale.
But those same consultants say
they expect to ran the project
through this bureaucratic gauntlet
with time to spare.
"We are very confident that all the
necessary deeds and permits can be
obtained," said Stephen Hlckox, pro-
ject manager for the consulting firm.
"We feel we can posh through the
bureaucratic mate of deeds at Fort
Rodman very quickly."
The Issue was raised last month
when the Save Fort Rodman Com-
mittee received a letter from Con-
gressman Gerry Slodds, -D-Mass.
.(See DEEDS, Pa*e AS)
B-84
-------
ieds
i .jntinued from Page 1) :
| ^ulllnlng the restrictions placed on the land.
According to Information supplied by the fed-
eral General Services Administration (GSA), ;
the Fort Rodman complex Includes 68 acres
of land, most of which was deeded to the city
in 1973 at no cost. The deeds carried restric-
tions that spelled out how the land must be '
used.
The GSA gave the city 11 waterfront acres
around the perimeter of peninsula land
that contains Fort Taber and the several
World War II batteries 'under the condition
that the land be used "forever" as a historic
monument. The Department of the Interior
gave the city 21 acres under the condition
that It be used "forever" as public park.
The Department of Health, Education and ,
Welfare gave the city 22 Acres In the center '
of the complex under the condition that It be
used for "30 years" for educational purposes.
The remaining land Is owned by the Army
(12 acres) and Navy (2 acres) and used for
military reserve units. :
Though opponents of the sewage plant
hope to use the restrictions to block the
plant, city consultants have already charted
the path for lifting the restrictions. The city
must give the land back to the federal gov-
ernment and the federal government must
turn around and give It back to the city with
a new set of restrictions.
It sounds simple but It Isn't.
"It Is not an Impossible process but It is
fraught with difficulty," said Al Auslello, a
realty officer with the GSA In Boston. "We
can't give any guarantees.'^
The process goes like this:
Step 1: The City Council must vote to
return the land to the agencies that deeded It
to the city 16 years ago.
Step 2. All three federal agencies must
declare the land surplus and turn the parcels
over to the GSA. This requires cooperation
from several state and federal agencies. But
It appears possible.
"1 don't view It'as an obstacle at all," said
Peter Wleczorek, a spokesman for the U.S.
Department of Education. "We are willing to
cooperate and assist the city In anything they
want to do with the land. If I had a request
for a change in the deed restriction, I could
return the property to the GSA In 30 days."
But before this can happen, the city will
have to find new locations for a host of pub-'
lie agencies that currently occupy the land.
According to project manager Mr. Hlckox,
the city has plans to restore the old Poor
Farm building on Brock Avenue. This w'ould
house the Head Start early learning program
and the alternative high school. An addition
will be built to house Camp Kennedy. The sea
lab program will remain In a section of the
Fort Rodman complex that Mayor John K.
Bullard Intends to turn Into a marine
environmental center.
To obtain the education land, the city must
also reimburse the federal government for a
parking lot and fence built on the land. This
will be an Insignificant expense when COm-'
pared with the cost of the entire project^
according 19 Mr. Hlckox. . .. , ,
Mr. Hlckox said there also appears to be
no problem with the XI acres deeded to the
city by the Interior Department.
'Tha-bUgW'qiiestlon mark In this part of
UJ»>pr8BlBElntolVe»" 11 acres deeded to the
city for historic preservation, though the
sewage plant would be built in the center of
the penln3ula,'*away" from the historic fort,
the stnrHUtorlc Commission could still
obJectto^the*plantT>n the grounds that Its
proximity*to-the-historic monuments
adversely af ttcts them.
''. - - -'. i ' '
The state has not completed Its review of
the potential Impact on the Civil War era fort
and is not yet prepared to comment on
whether this could become an obstacle to the
construction of the plant.
Mayor Bullard has aald that construction
of the plant at Fort Rodman would provide
money to restore the heavily vandalized fort.
Step 8: At the same time federal agencies
are turning their land back over to the GSA,
the army must do the same with Its 12 acres.
This requires approval from the Joint Con-
gressional Armed Services Committee. The
city Is counting on this being a routine vote.
(The navy Intends to remain on Its two acres
and the sewage treatment plant has been
designed to avoid that land).
To do this, the army reserves must first
find otherMand In the city for their base and
construct new/bulldlngs to house their opera-
tion ^According Ho Col> John Prowse of the
94th Arniy Reserve, this process is well
under way.
. "There will be no problem with the army,"
he said. "We are constantly relocating our
troops. The talks have been very cordial and
we are In the process of choslng a site for a
new facility in New Bedford "
Col. Prowse said the city will have to pay
part of the cost of the move.
The army Is. looking at two pieces of land,
one In the industrial park and the other near
the akrport.'according to Mr. Hlckox
Step 4: Once the GSA has the land, the city
must apply to the federal Department of
Health and Human Services for approval to
obtain the property at no cost under a "pub-
lic health" program. The definition of a
"public tyealth benefit" Includes sewage dis-
posal, landfills, resevoirs. hospitals and nurs-
ing homes.
"They will allow this because the project is
for the health of the community," said Marcy
Wetlierbee, an environmental planner for the
city. "It will help the whole region because it
will help clean up Buzzard's Bay. They want
assurances that we will continue the educa-
tional programs that are located there and
pay attention to the historic monument
and we are doing both."
If this were denied, the city would have to
buy the land at market value.
" Step 6: If the plant qualifies under the
''public health" provision, then the GSA can'
give the land to the city at no cost with a
deed restriction saying it must be used for a
plant. .....:
I
B-85
-------
Ca id'dates offer sewer p ant opt'ons
By Bin (b«n«
Standard-Times staff writer1
NEW BEDFORD Councilor-it- '
large candidate Brian K. Gomes said
Monday he Is exploring the possibi-
lity of building the city's new sewage
treatment plant ori the soccer field
at Clarks Cove. . . .
"This is an alternative for the peo-
ple who want to save Fort Rodman
and an alternative for the people
who want to save the Standard-.
Times field," he said during a meet-
ing of the Save Fort Rodman Com-
mittee. "My team Is working on the
proposal right now and I will have
more to say on It before the elec-
tion " . ' . ., . V
Engineers have said the plant will
need a minimum of 25 acrfs.' Mr.
Gomes did not Indicate th* acreage
of the soccer field site. .'. jfc, .
All of the other Cttjf CdurwITcandl-
dates who spoke at the meeting
either doubted the heed for th« plant
or said it should be built at the for-
mer Standard-Times field, a plot of
land just inside the hurricane dike.
The candidates were responding to.
Mayor John K. Bullard's plan to
build the $200 million plant at Fort1
Rodman. The city Is under; a .court;
order to build the plant.
indldates opposed the Fort Rod-
rrtan site for qttmber of reasons:
It Is oatside,the mtrrlcahe barrier
and therefore* more likely to be
damaged In a heavy storm. The Stan-
dard-Times field Is inside.
to The St*ndar*Tlmes ..field has
direct access) to Route II and there-
fore wottld ndt necessitate trucking
sludge through neighborhoods.
The mayor Is Incorrect In claims
the city .would gain tat dollars by
keeping:;the Standard-times field
free for. a proposed. condominium
development. They say the condos
will neVer be built because there Is
no demand for that type of bousing.
H(« plant'will never be built
because the" residents cannot afford
the Increase In sewer fees. Councilor
George; Rogers predicted construc-
tion would force sewer fees for the
average homeowner, of $2,000 a year.
"The mayor can recommend an
ordinance to Increase the sewer fees
but the City Council won't have a
hearing on It," he said. "I'm chair-
man of the Ordinance Comm
and we won't hear It. It's Insane.
A drastic Increase In sewer fees
would also drive business away.
The Fort Rodman area Is an Irre-
placable recreational resource.
Speaking at the meeting were:
Incumbent councilors-at-large Ste-
ven Sharek, George Rogers, John
Saunders and challengers Thomas
Kennedy, Brian Gomes. Jeanne
Chadwick, Herbert Atkinson Jr. and
David Alves.
Ward 6 challenger Steven Oliver
and councilor Ralph Saulnler took
turns at the microphone. Also speak-
ing were Ward 1 challenger Roger
Goyette Sr., Ward 3 challenger Vir-
ginia Morrison and Ward S Councilor
Nelson Macedo.
B-86
-------
fora hopef us debate p ant
I: Bullard should change feds',mirlds
/filer
RD - Mayoral candidate
-d vowed Monday night that
i office would Include an
re federal money to trans-
an inlo a Heritage Park.
TS of I he Save Fort Rodman
s first face-to-face confron-
or John K. Bullard that the
bandnn his plan to build a
;e tro.ilinent plant there.
said the mayor should turn
ard convincing federal agen-
; cannnt afford the $200 mil-
«d fnrilily. lie predicted the
e the average homeowner to
.r sewer fees.
r going to have a secondary
because we can't afford It,"
lo build It. It's going to have
bit; plant because under this
;hc whole city Is going down
ou iinngine what these sewer
'.o the industry we are trying
icily?"
s played to a chorus of loud
ml I on people gathered at the
i Community Center.
ford, (lie Ward 6 appearance
tho ft-cne of his largest vlc-
Inary election while, for
COUNCIL CANDIDATE says he has an f
alternative South End alte for the planned,
sewage treatment plant / Page P2 '
Mayor Bullard, It was a return to the scene
of his largest defeat.
The mayor lost the ward to Mr. Wllllford, >
42 to 26 percent, after defeating Mr. WUll-
ford easily two years ago In the same ward
with 55 percent of the vote. His decision to
build the city's hew secondary treatment
plant at the southern tip of^the ward caused
the turn-around, he said. ""*'
Though he won the preliminary election 4$
to 33 percent, Mayor Bullard was beaten by
Mr. Wllllford In three of the city's six wards.
After rousing applause greeted a parade of
City Council candidates.denouncing the
mayor's plan, a hush fell over the crowd
when Mayor Bullard walked In late.
The mayor took his allotted five minutes
to rebut Mr. Wllllford's contention that he
should halt plans to build the sewage plant.
"Some say all I need to do Is talk to the
federal government and say we can't afford
this plant and the federal government will
say that's fine," he said. "But 1 have talked to
many of the folks the City Council would like
me to talk to and I can assure you they have
little sympathy for a city that has violated
federal law tor the last 17 years."
The Clean Water Act of 1972 requires that
every city build a secondary treatment plant.
;'' lii response to questions from the audi-
ence. Mayor Bullard said It would cost about
|7 million M operate the plant each year.
(With the expected 75 percent state fund-
ing, (ewer rates would Increase to 1400 a
, year by 19BO. But If the funding does not
; materialize, the average resident might have
T'-tb pay'as much as $2,000 a year for the
; plant If that were the case, the mayor said
the project would have to be abandoned.
After the meeting, the two mayoral candi-
dates continued their debate outside.
"When do yon reach the point where you
say we can't go any further because we don't
have the money?" asked Mr. Wllllford.
' "When do you stop paying money tor engi-
neering that will never be completed?"
' Mayo* Bullard said he asks himself that
question'every day, but with a twist.
: "I aak myself If It Is possible we can afford
i It ahdM far the answer has been yes," he
?1MM.'%1The day 1 say we can't afford It we go
.back to court and.* Judge takes control of the
city.''
V: Mayor Bullard said the state Just passed a
il.S blfllon bond to help cities build new
"lewag* plants1 and that New Bedford Is high
. on the priority list.
"We don't want to spend a dollar going
down a road that's a dead end," he said. "But.
I don't know It's a dead end yet."
\
B-87
-------
Consultants urge unify on sewer
Cuts could pare price tag by $60 million
ir^^y.'-- ''-,,
JVEW BEDFORD-
1 uns announced a Knei of
day that could reduce the cost of the new
sewage treatment plant toy a quarter and
more than halve the price tag for *olving
the (toy"* sewer overflow problem.
Mr. Meetiojtebaadrf a team of!4 con-
sultants cad city officials oooveaed *y
Major John JL Bollard to find ways to cm
thtOTtt oftht proposed ttftff tntnti» pi
l*e tern Jdeodfiad man than
*$».» million by building a five-year
. instead of 20-year backup landfill for the
r.~«ludge. Oncethe dty% aewlandfm to com-
pleted at Crapo HID, *ucb i large backup
DO longer will be needed.
jf *> i £.3 nuiiiuu uj viinuDeUiiif jiisiiW to
extend the sewer system into the North
End. . -.;.;-
12 nifllion'hy jeducing renovationt to
the Poor Farm building for Head Start
til million by covering only those tanks
that are likely to emit odors.
ItUaillion-by
/ like a proposal to cut S3mmion
from the *7J miUioi) earmarked to
Fort JTabor and create a put OB
ola.OU
^ '
'
d* plan to cot
ri.-.'
1 B« -^'"-» ^m^mi e««B]avw«BwaiW WMBHSVW*
federal cooperation, aocfa as a plan tbsiwa
.ar-- ^ T._ vP0*u0w jpVHw"
Jems tromtls^ minion to $WnuTlloiLV>v
Federal 4aw require* the city to fli a
~nr«ystam that dumps nw aewafe Into
-.« ""^ i »»»^^y WMMOT****, - ,*^^WilHs₯li'.asBswllNV. >*MtW \*4*isV » xX/VC
ipL ^t*^»u^ral»l>»arny.lheclry3>a» flve
?5ort«odman,>^1»>; ?£/.£.&&. d^f^:^' overflows twoinCUrtt Cove, one into
Another: WJ; million in savings ;iwffl,' theooterbarbor and two into the inner har-
tequn cooperation from area industry.' ^ »or. 7o atop JtbeVovarfknn, the dry has to
>i» aMMnitapff /jmipf tft Tut Hit 'TT gf thf' "JMiiid a ftfiffjfi tutAtfgfiftnrt ?t\cj\ KM*^
dant by SO peresc* f*"* If ^'"
- about the jame on ^edther atte. The mayor
ireatment plants and there ar*
fi«h H^if clnxil now ;*;
" "Tbere hat got to be virtual unity, particu-
.larly with regard to sewer rates,"^said Larry
SUverman, a member of the consulting
1* said. rNew Bedford could be one
the first cities to reverse that tread by
««
rilfioh hMic
'If you know how to do that, then we should
listen to yon. The mayor has taken a stand
and I think it is time for the council to do the
Russ Meekins, bead of the consulting **"""
said raising sewer fees quickly is important
for two reasons: It will keep the rates lower
and may make it possible to clean up the
faster.
The annual sewer fee for the average
homeowner in New Bedford it currently $75,
'An added advantage to solving the over-
flow problem first is that the city will nave
some real environmental fains if the money
runs out before both projects are completed.
But the order of the projects cannot be
reversed without EPA approval, and given
the city's long history of thumbing its nose at
federal regulators, they are going to need
strong evidence something hat changed.
According to Mr Meekins, raising sewer fees
could be that evidence. g
"The biggest issue in Massachusetts Bight
now is raising taxes," be said. "If NeiOed-
f ord raised its rstesjtBathtf£ju8at£ Iha^bould
really make a dtffWBee:1t would HaDy be
staying something to EPA."
B-88
-------
EPaATs'
^ytaMHSfi-^
_ ^Slt
:;^;.£i'H--'-.!'£-" '-^'--^
&\»?
'- * : »«
_. , ,.- v«»v T,
government ma/ ha ve'.Lut
rekindled debate over the «««
, ForO Rodmaq j as the' site .fof;
/clty'f new'sewage treatment']'
I &VH^X&.*7'«''-!'rii"Vv*C
> "' In I report released today, i
eral v,,EnvironmenUl V^ Prt...
Agency concludes that-bothfton
Rodman and U>« forme/ Standard^
Times field;: meet environmentall
standards for buildiM; the '
P*b*^ Wld the plant at Fort
TfA'.'Ward I City Councilor
i*Saulnier argues the report'
^^_- S*,iuPP0rt that plan over Us
ownpropoMl . , ,
EPA's conclusion that the CUT n
build a four-mile outfall pipe tote
f!deri,t'K'Ti*uty uEdarttS
plan will corf 170 million eodbai
to tha city's || million trfaTtoT
V'*2»J?W*outfall pipe.;
: Though federal rfndaltT
^fcmfcitat
, however, aald that
.is one more step
lard "5%; goal of building the
i»ag«'treatment plant at the soutb-
* VUpoftherlty. r;.,?.
'uporUat newt from EPA It
[ ha ve any objection to Fort
J-ibaUald "That doesn't
it Ralph Saulnler'a arfv
-*-'- ".".< ' "
acting regional
"creen out
e. environmental
P«e SEWAGE, Page A>)
Sewage :
itinued from Page 1)
idards, not select the final site.
since both sites meet those stan-
Js, he said the agency "fully sup-
is the mayor and his decision that
t Rodman is the best place for
treatment plant."
e said the EPA can only consider
ironmental factors while the city
also factor In economic factbrs
n as potential development and
revenues.
The city has selected this site
we agree it is a suitable site," be
1.
ut Mr. Saulnier says the mayor,
the city, chose the Fort Rodman
John Bullard has selected Fort
(man, and only John Bullard," he
r He can't find any public official
he city who agrees with him."
v Sayjnier pointed out that the
?ncil. as the legislative
j of city government, has not
orscd the Fort Rodman site. He
aid Mr. Keough'l ndorsftment U;,
bated on the false assumption that V-lht'sl
*
tracks carry-
eiroin the Fort Rod.ntan
.
the city government as a whole madd * purft wftuld maie daily trips through
the selection. ., ikc.'ij-Vvi -,:'jli'^ >? thefnelfhborhood. whereas they
i "Keougb hat been milled, he '<' would have. a direct entrance to the
been duped, V he sal4^V.'v^v,.tnh|ghwaysfrpni' the other tlte. The
,
The maypr and the councilor ha v« ; standard-Times field Is also more
fought bitterly over the sewage plant 'protected, from storm damage
since Mayor Bullard announced his j becaus* if is inside the hurricane
He selection last winter. Because* >«b«rrier^ be tald.'>>^-~ > -
the cost and environmental bnpactf ^V^C&Hlnfc U Mayor Bullard, the
of the two sltei were essentially,^ £p A cohsldered all the«e argue
equal, , the mayof)bas*d htftlecWort i hienU In IU environmental review.
on twd fadort i-f^tentla^jobl'ihd^-^VEPA hai looked at the Issues
tai revenues from development of }' Ralph' Saulnier raised and EPA does
the Standard-Times field and a phlll'.rnot agree," he said "EPA aald the
sophlc objeclloh to taking private r: 8U« is acceptable "
land by eminent domain If othef$1| Mayor Bullard also objected to the
options exist. .-- ?v-.»- - ; ^ . *- j^VfipA's Insistance thkt the city build a
Mr. Saulnier has argued that the., hew $70 million butfall pipe tour
Standard-Times field is a better tlte&htlles into Buzzards Bay.
because It has direct highway access, :-%^ "EPA Is tilll guilty of thinking
It -toned property ftnd doe* cot .-'money grows on trees," aald the
directly abut a large residential 19 mayor.. "Putting in a four-mile out-
area. Fort Rodman, in contrast It ' fall wlir'glve 'us slightly higher water
zoned for tingle family hornet, has . quality. But spending $70 mill lion for
de^l restrictions rea«rvlng U»* land'; marginal Improvements in water
for1 eductatlonal and ttcreatlooal use .quality la not a wise move."
and UTjftlt^MrHar^^lflHldleiClkai '^Though MrKeough tald a final
decision will not be made
spring, he was not optimistic th
city's plan would be acceptable
"From an environmental pe;
tlve, the only acceptable site I.
miles out," he said. "We reallz
Is a very expensive propositi
we also have water quality star
we have to meet."
The EPA approved the city
to harden aludge from the plan'
chemicals and use it to cap the <
Hill landfill. A aite adjacent t
airport was approved as a L
alte for sludge disposal
The EPA will accept written
ments on their report for the m
days and will hold a public in
at 7 p.m. Jan. 24 at the Wt.
Museum. The report will be ,
able at libraries in New Bee
South Dartmouth, Fairhaver
Acushnet.
Comments should be sent t
Rodney, U.S. EPA, Regl
WQE-1900C, JFK Federal Bui
Boston MA 02203
EPA will issue its final repot
spring.
-------
« B2 / The Standard-Times, N«w
mm fBSBBBBJBJJk T- >*^ ***,!»>-TV~ T-CTI | Jr' I JHW* *'*-l"JaBT ~- ~" T*3* "* ' '
:PA hears objections
Kl,,.f- aaj,, ,
lllW>l|r *
TQ91Q-TlfT)98 COfT03pOOO6
JEW BEDFORD - Residents and public
clah opposed selection of a Fort Hodman
for a new sewage treatment plant at A
He hearing Wednesday night. ': ,/.'
Elected officials and members of the
nip Save Fort Rodman unanimously idvo-
ced using the so-called Standard-Time! '
Id at the hearing conducted by the U.S.;,
vi ron mental Protection Agency. .' 'f ''
loth parcels meet environmental stan-
r'l<;, according to a recent EPA report,
iking either location suitable for the 1150
I lion plant, but Mayor John K. Bollard
>se the Fort Rodman site. The bearing
* held to air comments concerning
'A'a report that screened and
>
cations ana technologies IOT.UW pum. '>.
"1 think the greatest problem the EPA
M loot at... U the location of Fort Rod-
," said Denis Lawrence, state repreaen-
'« fot the ISth Bristol Blstflet. "Fort
Rodman is outside the hurricane barrier"
and an overflow would disrupt the environ-
mental balance, be said. ' £;£ £.'';; -.-, .'.
^Natalie Arnett, chairwoman of Save Fort
Rodmin, agreed. She alri objects to placing
Jh« secondary treatment plant to Close to
?6earby homes. The proposed plant would
lijr b* 100 feet from the Mad, she laid.
? Joyce M. Bancroft o/1! Local St. said she
fears th»t living n*af i »ei»sg# treatment
fitant will lower her property valoi ' " ' U
"* feel It'l a shame" U ptrt a sewage treat'.
plant III "such a beltAlful ares ... It
*aa«*w,>
fstnggers my Imagtnatton," said BagtttU t
I Floilo of 538 Rodney French Blvd. ', -,' government who.Mkl _
Maureen Sylvia of 24 Bellevu« St. to «!»<* * Fort Rodman,^ M sail
concerned about placing the plant at Foft* report* by thft ihginfeH
e said it U Mayor BfllUf d ''tecenl Itt
" about
d gont.
MsUnW'c
hired by>
Inatt the negative
.'the tort f >'. ^
' ' iytiuu thills.^
'
Concernru wv«> ,.
Rodman, but tor legal reasons. She i
against the law to construct a sewage treat*.
mcnt plant In a residential area. The SUn- >
dard-Tlmes field on the waterfront does not
abut a large residential area and is |
zoned, she said. -
Concern about relocating the 750 child
who attend school at Fort Rodman t .
another common theme, along with objec'.;,'}'Mayor BtUUrawanoi^aueau UN »-....». ^ ,
tions to dally trips by trucks carrying slodge , ; ^Written public tomrftelijlJ»rP* wb«WJ-' '
through the neighborhood. The Standard-, ted Until Feb. IS to: AhhRMMtfU.8.,EPV
Tinws field has direct access to Rout*.!*,} Region 1.WQfriW^^lt^^Biding,
said Mrs. Bancroft. ,, - Boston. Ma«s. 01103. A fttal a-Mttar? 6! tM '
Ward « City Councilor Ralph Saulnler > puollc'i writteh and bjgt'el
vehemently opposed to using Fort Rodmsn - published In the late" Tprag'j
^ m^mmm__mmf^^^^m^^mmmmmt
hJ5AU,«U
B-90
-------
36 Norman Street
New Bedford, MA 02744
March 7, 1989
Editor
The Standard
555 Pleasant
New Bedford,
Dear Editor,
Times
Street
MA 02740
I have reached the conclusion that a deciding factor in Mayor
Bullard's selection of Fort Rodman as the site for the secondary
wastewater treatment plant seems to have been his expectations of
future revenue from the Standard Times field. In a time when
industry is in exodus from Massachusetts due to the governor's
increased industrial tax rates, my skepticism runs high. New
Bedford has not been as attractive to industry as other cities
and towns in Eastern Massachusetts. When specifics on future
development have been asked of Mayor Bullard, his answers have
been sketchy at best.
The construction of condominiums seems unrealistic. The
unattractive scenery in almost every direction not to mention an
area plagued by crime and drug dealings would not appeal to the
condominium market.
If more public housing is the answer, consider that almost
every available lot in this city has been gobbled up by every
contractor from here to Timbuktu. Only a small percentage of
land has been reserved for recreation. So then, what is wrong
with "Saving Fort Rodman", a parcel of land rich in history
overlooking Buzzard's Bay which could be used for recreation and
enjoyed by all.
I question Mayor Bullard's judgment of yet some additional
pertinent issues. Was the caravan of well over thirty city and
privately owned trucks delivering and receiving waste and sludge
and traveling through miles of residential neighborhoods given
due consideration? The highway accessibility of the Standard
Times field seems the logical choice. This traffic, compounded
with that of present industry, beach goers and ferryboat patrons
could prove disastrous. Furthermore, the displacement of well
over seven hundred children participating in numerous public
programs will be devastating, not to mention costly.
While I agree with statements commending the mayor for
render'.ng a decision, I disagree with the suggestions that we
now begin to work together to complete this project smoothly and
rapidly. Until the majority of concerns have been adequately
resolved, this important decision should be re-evaluated.
Dana Berni e r
Chery] Berniei
997- 1901
B-91
-------
36 Norman Street
New Bedford, MA 02744
August 23, 1989
Editor
The Standard Times
555 Pleasant Street
New Bedford, MA 02740
Dear Editor,
The more I continue to read "Our View" and other staff
articles written pertaining to policies enacted on by Mayor
John Bullard the more I recall the late William Saltzman's
reference to this newspaper as the "Sub-Standard Times".
Since Mayor Bullard has taken office I have noticed a grow-
ing infatuation displayed by the Standard Times towards his
policies. In my opinion I have watched you downplay the
negative and accentuate the positive. As a result, I have
grown skeptical of the credibility of this newspaper.
I question why the executives and editors of this news-
paper , many of whom reside out of town, are in such agree-
ment with the mayor's selection for the site of the secondary
sewage treatment plant. Reference can also be made to two
members of the Chamber of Commerce who reside out of town
and who have expressed their support of the mayor's choice
of Fort Rodman. The citizen's of New Bedford need to consider
the relationships the above mentioned have with the local and
not so local business community.
Rather than insisting that the citizens concerned with
preserving Fort Rodman do as they are told as if they did
not comprehend the issues, they would be better served with
cost factual information. I implore you , in cooperation
with the citizen's advisory committee, to print cost factors
of the two competing sites.
I ask the citizens of this city to beware of so much
outside interest in these all too important internal issues.
Let us weigh the similiar cost factors against the potential
loss of the most picturesque parcel of land this city has been
blessed with. Lets not sell our future generations short for
that all mighty dollar that all too few will prosper from.
Sfnterely,
Dana Bernier
997-1901
B-92
-------
36 Norman Street
New Bedford, MA 02744
November 28, 1989
Congressman Gerry Studds
247 PO Building
New Bedford, MA 02740
Dear Congressman Studds,
I am writing in regards to the limited interest displayed by you and your
staff concerning your communication with the Save Fort Rodman Committee, Clarks
Point, New Bedford. As a member of the steering committee it is my opinion and
generally speaking, the opinion of our members, that your support in providing
information pertaining to correct cost data for the relocation of the Army
Reserve from the Department of Defense, has been less than evident.
Mayor John K. Bullard has illogically chosen Fort Rodman to be the site of
the secondary sewerage treatment plant. This siting will be detrimental to the
numerous educational and recreational programs which house over 750 children on
land that was deeded to the city in perpetuity by the federal government. The
negative effect on the quality of life to the residential neighborhoods of
Clarks Point as a result of noise and the additional havic of over twenty two
trucks per day transporting sludge will be inevitable.
The Save Fort Rodman Committee has raised serious questions relative to
the engineering proposals themselves and the proposed site location. These
concerns can be found in our public response to Camp Dresser and McKee's
phase II facility plan. The controversy raised by our committee has con-
tributed to the challenge of Mayor Bullard's credibility by the voters of
New Bedford as evidenced during his recent near defeat re-election.
I have been a registered independent and democrat but have voted
exclusively as a democrat for the past fifteen years since reaching eligi-
bility age.. Recently, I have begun to question some of the decisions enter-
tained by the democratic party relating to matters of the state. Consequently,
I have been considering declaring my party as republican. Contributing to
my consideration to change parties is a need to acquire elected officials,
both democratic and republican, who are willing to assist the Save Fort
*
Rodman Committee in it's endeavors. Some of our membership have discussed
changing party lines to become delegates and attend the republican convention
this March in search of sgpport.
I urge you to assist the Save Fort Rodman Committee in obtaining the
B-93
-------
necessary federal data that will aid us in our endeavor to save New Bedford
from this tragic mistake. I will be attentive to your participation in our
efforts.
.. Sincerely,
Dana M. Bernier
B-94
-------
36 Norman Street
New Bedford, MA 02744
February 5, 1990
Editor
The Standard Times
555 Pleasant Street
New Bedford, MA 02740
Dear Editor,
Citizens of New Bedford beware! The interests of Mayor John
K. Bullard and Counselor Jim Sullivan could end up costing the
taxpayers of New Bedford millions in extra dollars.
The shoreline of the Standard Times field is designated by
the State as part of the port of New Bedford. Therefore, a pri-
vately owned marina is not acceptable unless that shoreline is
de-designated by the State. In October 1989, Governor Dukakis
amended a bill put forth by Senator MacLean to redefine the harbor
lines at the Standard Times field. This would ultimately "raise
the assessed value of that land. The amendment- states that no
redefinition shall be allowed while the land is in contention as
a site for the proposed secondary sewerage treatment plant.
What the Governor has deemed protection for the public, the
Mayor and Counselor Sullivan interpret as unfair to the property
owner. If Vincent Grasso purchased the land with the knowledge
of the siting issue then we, the City of New Bedford, owe him
no more than fair market value. If the site had not yet been
selected, ttien it is his job to achieve the redefinition of the
harbor lines and the rezoning of land. It is the responsibility
of our elected officials to protect the taxpayer from paying
any more than is needed if eminent domain becomes necessary.
Could it be that Mayor Bullard and Counselor Sullivan's
plan is to assist in the de-designation process so as to raise
the Standard Times field's assessed value thereby making the
competing site values favor Fort Rodman as being less expensive?
The possibility of this entire scheme could backfire for
any number of reasons: (1) More than 3,000 signatures opposed to
Mayor Bullard's site selection (2) The organization of the Save
Fort Rodman Committee (3) The possibility of the deeds to Fort
Rodman not being turned over to the Federal Government for re-
definition (4) The probability that one of trie many agencies
involved will not redefine any one deed
the city will face a legal court-battle
zoning Residential A land.
It is not unusualfor some members of our local government
to put the cart before the horse but this one will cost the
taxpayers more than just a bale of hay.
(5) Trie assurity that
over the issue of re-
-icerely
Dana Bernier
997- 1901
B-95
-------
Comment 0023
it* 1 2 1990
PAGE 1
JEANNE M. CHADWICK
17 Swift Street-17
New Bedford, Massachusetts 02740
508-993-6759
February 6, 1990
Ms. Ann Rodney, U.S.E.P.A.
Region 1 - WQE-1900C
J.F.K. Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Re: Site for Secondary Sewerage Treatment Plant-New Bedford
Dear Ms. Rodney:
The citizens and the taxpayers of the City of New Bedford are
opposed to Mayor John K. Bullard's proposal to site the secondary
sewerage treatment plant at Fort Rodman.
Fort Rodman is a national landmark and a valuable treasure to the
people of the City, who are fighting to retain this valuable site so
that future generations will have access to the most important public
land left in our City. The federal government deeded this property to
the people of New Bedford for recreational and educational use. The
people and many of our City Councillors will fight to stop any
re-zoning efforts, which would change the zoning use of this land. In
addition, this land is located in a residential/recreational area; out
of the protection of the hurricane dike (which by the way, has yet to
be tested), and the present plant is located in a flood plain area,
built lower than it should have been.
Mayor John K. Bullard, insists that this area will be the site
for the secondary plant, despite these serious concerns and citizen
opposition to his proposal and despite the fact that by all counts,
the land known as the Standard-Times field is a much more appropriate
location as a site for the plant.
Currenty the land is owned by a privately developer who is
attempting to build a large complex, consisting of commercial
property, as well as over 1,000 rental units. Initially, the
residential units were geared for homeownership, but that has since
changed. In addition, the developer is seeking permission to change
the harbor lines in this area, so that it will be useable as a marina.
Thus, the purpose for the so-called public hearing which was held
B-96
-------
Ann Rodney PAGE 2
at the New Bedford City Hall on February 1, 1990 at 3:00 p.m.
Certainly not a convenient time for people to attend, unless you are
connected to City Hall or the developer, and secondly, I find it
astounding that our City Council was not notified, nor did any public
notice of the meeting appear in the local newspaper. Mayor John
Bullard felt it important to notify Fairhaven Selectmen, but not at
all important to include our elected officials, so that all would have
a fair opportunity to attend this meeting. Despite the obstacles,
some citizens were able to attend.
If the harbor lines are changed, and the Mayor and developers are
given the go-ahead, this will only increase the land value, therefore,
.-costing the taxpayers additional monies if the land must be taken by
eminent domain for the site of the secondary plant. Mayor Bullard may
appear adamant with his choice for the site of the plant, but it is
not carved in stone, and the people of this City, w?.ll fight tooth and
nail to preserve the history and beauty of Fort Rodman. In addition,
the taxpayers will be footing the bill for the plant and should
therefore, have a definite say in where the plant should be located,
etc. A community group was organized to present suggestions to Mayor
Bullard as to where the plant should be located and after all their
time and effort - a year's plus time, when they made their
recommendations, the Mayor ignored them.
The people of this City know we need to have a new plant. But
one of our most serious problems is the CSO's - and yet this problem,
as addressed by Camp Dresser and McKee, will be addressed AFTER the
plant is constructed - putting the cart before the horse once again,
and once again, it will be the people of this City who will have to
foot the bill or live with the outcome.
Therefore, I am requesting that you don't put the cart before the
horse again. Before you grant the developer and the Mayor their
requests, wait until the site has been definitely chosen. The history
of Fort Rodman, the beauty of this last public land - which belongs to
all of us - is far more valuable than a piece of land that has
remained empty for years (but in-between those years, people have make
a hefty profit in the land game), and which the developer promises -
promises will bring so much into our City. Condo developments in New
Bedford are not popular. New Bedford currently has many vacant condo
units - either facing foreclosures, or begging for tenants or buyers.
One thousand market rate rental units isn't going to help the New
Bedford housing market.
Yours truly,
9
Jeanne M. Chadwick
B-97
-------
Comment 0024
February 7, 1990
Dear Ms. Rodney:
Concerning the location of the sewage plant being
located on the Fort Rodman site, I would like to state
my opposing views on that site. First of all, I do
not feel that a multi-million dollar plant should be
located outside of the hurricane barrier. If we have
a hurricane again the damage that could occur to this
plant could be astronomical, at the taxpayer's expense.
The Fort Rodman site is located in a residential area,
the alternative site called The Standard Times Field
is located in an industrial area adjacent to a highway.
At the Fort Rodman site these "sludge" trucks would be
traveling through a highly populated residential area
where there are three schools, two beaches, and one park.
Hopefully there will never be an accident but with
accessibility to the highway from the Standard Times
Field this one problem would not even have to be considered.
All the programs that are now located at Fort Rodman would
have to be re-located. I do not know where the children from
the Sea Lab program would now go without the access to the
ocean if they are re-located.
Thi.s is only one man's opinion of where he feels the plant
should be located without listening to the views of the
citizens of New Bedford, or several of our City Councillors.
A "Citizen ' s- Advi sory Commitee" was formed to study and
report where they felt the plant should be located, this
committee voted 11-1 that the least likely place to build
this plant would be at Fort Rodman. I beleive they're
opinion was never even taken into consideration otherwise
why would this site even be considered?
Please consider the Standard Times Field when making any
decisions on the location of the sewage treatment plant
Wayng J. Ki lanowi ch
30 Valentine St.
New Bedford, Ma. 02744
B-98
-------
Comment 0025
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
John K. Bullard. Mayer
February 12, 1990
_j BY HAND
Ann Rodney
U.S. EPA, Region 1
WQE-1900C
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
Re: Comments on Draft EIS - City of New Bedford
Dear Ms. Rodney:
I am writing on behalf of the City of New Bedford to
comment upon EPA's Draft Environmental Impact Statement
("DEIS") for wastewater treatment facilities in New Bedford
which was issued on December 15, 1989. As you well know, it
is in the interest of both EPA and the City of New Bedford
that compliance be achieved under the National Environmental
Policy Act and the Clean Water Act. By taking an objective
role in this pro.ject the City has tried to consider every
environmental impact and aspect so as to facilitate the most
appropriate and comprehensive approach.
While the DEIS has many components which are consistent
with the City's Final Environment Impact Report ("EIR") which
was submitted on January 17, 1990, the DEIS and EPA's current
schedule for final issuance of a Record of Decision ("ROD")
raise several issues which are problematic. A detailed
listing of technical items which address the significance of
the additional data collected since the draft EIR was
submitted to EPA is attached. What follows is a general
discussion of the City's concerns.
First, the City is disturbed that EPA recommends the
outfall site be located at what is known as the 301(h) site.
From the City's perspective, the problems posed by this site
do not outweigh the benefits which might be realized.
Environmentally, siting the outfall.at Site 301(h) would
disrupt yet another marine environment including the closing
of additional shellfish beds and requires the cessation of
1??.\Yilli.im Stret-t New Bedford, M<)?sachu?clif 027-lC '.50S>
B-99
NKUBimOKP
\l ! --\\ll Ulv \ I'lM
'INI'
-------
commercial and recreational fishing. In addition, the DEIS
is premised upon data submitted to EPA in the draft EIR in
August 1989. More recent data substantiates the City's
position that rehabilitation of the existing outfall provides
an envrionmentally sound solution to the discharge questions
(see comments, attached). For example, the DEIS noted, based
on 1979 data, that blue-green algae"is a dominant species
found in New Bedford Harbor waters. A recent study done by
J. Turner for MADEP concludes the opposite: in fact no
blue-green algae was found. Turner's use of modern
techniques such as epifluorescence are much more reliable
than data collected ten years ago.
Second, the DEIS states that it took costs into
consideration, but this does not appear to be an accurate
statement when the costs are compared. There were three
options that the City presented:
1. Rehabilitation
The rehabilitation of the existing site would
require the cleaning of the existing 60 inch, cast-iron
outfall pipe and lining it with a high density polyethylene
(HDPH) pipe which would have a maximum capacity of 75 mgd of
effluent discharge. The total cost is $4-5 million dollars.
2. Existing Site Reconstruction and Diffuser
This plan would involve the construction of a new
1/2 inch effluent outfall pipe to 3,300 ft. from the
shoreline built parallel to the existing pipe which would be
taken out of service. The total discharge capacity of the
new pipe would also be 75 mgd. The total cost is estimated
at $35,000,000 dollars.
3. 301(h) Site
This plan, advocated by the EPA, calls for a new 84
inch-concrete lined effluent outfall tunnel to be constructed
extending to 22,000 ft. from the shoreline -- almost seven
times its present length. This outfall would terminate with
a multi-part diffuser and would carry, like the existing
rehabilitated outfall, 75 mgd of effluent. The total cost is
$70,000,000 dollars.
It is clear that the 301(h) site is the most expensive
of the three options. It is also quite apparent to the City
that this option is not affordable or justifiable,
particularly in light of the City and state fiscal crisis,
the state or federal funding, and the other enormous
financial obligations for other wastewater treatment
projects. This project falls under the umbrella of a group
of projects which make up a combined budget of $500,000,000
dollars. In this context, the impact of the 301(h) site
B-100
-------
could severely damage the City's ability to fund construction
of the insignificant environmental benefits estimated to be
advised at the 301(h) site simply do not justify the cost.
The EIS states, "Operation of the outfall plays a major
role in the outfall quality of the harbor and Buzzards Bay;
it would be shortsighted to allow cost to overrule other
long-term environmental issues which might undermine the
planning and expenditures involved in the programs listed
above."
We strongly disagree with this statement. The number of
ongoing harbor projects highlights the fact that there are
several different sources of the harbor's problems. To claim
that keeping the outfall at its existing location with a
vastly improved effluent will undermine the other cleanup
efforts is at best misleading. For example, any cleanup of
PCB contaminated sediment in the inner harbor will not be
adversely affected by the outfall at either location.
The City is committed to complying with the Clean Water
Act and has undertaken several water quality projects at
great expense. However, in order to make these improvements
happen, the City and the EPA must maintain some sense of
overall perspective. We feel the existing outfall is
environmentally acceptable as supported by the data in the
final EIR, and that with the larger perspective, the limited
advantages of the 301(h) site do not outweigh its
disadvantages.
Third, the City is concerned about the adequacy of the
EPA's notification system for the EIS process. As far as we
can determine, for the January 24, 1990 public hearing there
was a lack of notification to the Department of Environmental
Protection, the City of New Bedford and the contractors
involved with the various issues of the WTP, and other
interested and active bodies within the community. We
strongly urge that these notification procedures be improved.
Finally, the schedule for issuance of the final EIS and
the Record of Decision ("ROD") is at odds with the City's
obligation to comply with the design schedule in the consent
decree with EPA and the Department of Environmental
Protection. The City is trying to commence a 14 month design
process on March 1, 1990. Under EPA's current schedule, the
ROD will not be issued until 6 or 7 months into this
schedule. Because of the delay in the ROD issue since the
City's submittal of the draft EIR on August 15, 1989, the
City cannot begin design and related work for the plant
before the ROD is issued. The City requests, therefore, that
the schedule for issuance of the ROD be expedited as much as
possible.
B-101
-------
In closing, the City of New Bedford feels the
construction of the secondary treatment plant is a very
significant improvement to the coastal waters of New Bedford
and Buzzards bay as a whole. The effluent discharge through
the outfall will be improved, and water quality improvements
in our waters as well as surrounding, waters will result.
MJG/lma
Attachment
cc: Steve Hickox
Douglas A. Johns
Russell Meekins
Larry Warden
Hon. John Bullard
Armand Fernandes
Michael J. Glinski
Asst. Environmental Planner
City of New Bedford
B-102
-------
The following are CDM'B comments on EPA's draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) Wastewater Treatment Facilities for the City of New
Bedford, MA dated November 1969.Our concents focus on the wastewater
treatment plant outfall.
General Comments
EPA's EIS is a "piggy-back" document to the Facilities
Plan/Environmental Impact Report (FP/EIR) that COM developed for the
City of New Bedford. Since the release of the draft EIS, additional
data has been received by COM that resulted in revised analyses in the
FP/EIR. The new data are found in the report on sediment field
program conducted in 1988-89 (see Appendix E to Volume IV). The major
revisions were to the dissolved oxygen and toxic substances analyses
of the outfall siting task. These revised analyses are included in
Volume IV of the final FP/EIR submitted to the regulatory agencies in
mid-January 1990, and noticed in the Environmental Monitor on January
26, 1990. In developing the final EIS, EPA should be aware of these
changes in the final FP/EIR. In the specific comments that follow, we
have attempted to point out the areas affected by the revised
analyses.
Specific Comments
Page 5-31 - The Massachusetts pH standard allows for not more than
0.2 units beyond the naturally occurring range, not the 2 units cited
in the text.
Page 5-31 - The ambient ocean sample was collected just north of
Nashawena Island in Buzzards Bay (see Section 4.4.3 of Volume IV of
the FP/EIR), not in New Bedford Harbor as stated in the text.
Page 5-36 - Appendix E to Volume IV of the FP/EIR contains additional
information on nutrient cycling and sediment oxygen demand. These
additional data should be incorporated.
Page 5-69 - We would point out that not all nannoplankton are plants,
as implied in the text.
Page 5-69 - This comment concerns the mention of blue-green algae as a
daminant~species found in New Bedford Harbor waters. The two most
recent studies of phytoplankton composition near the existing outfall
one by Smayda for the FP/EIR, and one by J. Turner for the MA DEP
did not find any blue-green algae. J. Turner was recently
contacted (12/15/89) specifically to confirm that no blue-green algae
were identified in his samples. Since these studies extended over a
two-year period with samples collected monthly, COM does not consider
the report of blue-green algae in the 1979 survey to be significant.
Detection of blue-green algae in preserved samples, as was done in
1979, is difficult. Modern techniques using epifluorescence (as used
by J. Turner) are more reliable for identifying this group of plants.
Blue-green algae are rare in marine plankton communities.
Page 5-70 - The text states that "Preliminary results from 1989 show
B-103
-------
higher overall productivity and a well-defined winter-spring bloom."
In his study. Dr. Turner measured biomass, not productivity.
Page 6-18 - Again, we point out that the final FP/EIR includes a
revised dissolved oxygen analysis. We disagree with the statement
that the "oxygen depletions predicted at the Existing Site nay
represent minimum values." The analysis that was used to predict
oxygen depletions used reasonable conservative assumptions, which
would tend, if anything, to lead to overestimated depletions. As
regards the statement that "increased nitrogen loading may slightly
increase productivity," we offer the following comments: The
predictions of future primary productivity levels in the Outer Harbor
has been discussed at several meetings with the regulatory agencies
and at a BOEA TAG meeting since the issuance of the draft FP/EIR. The
estimates of future primary productivity levels made in the FP/EIR are
judged to be sound. The reasons for this judgement are given in a
memorandum dated November 6, 1989, which is attached to this letter.
Page 6-18 - We disagree with the implications of the statement: "The
large DO deficit associated with this level of productivity will also
increase to encompass the same area." As was stated in Section 4.4.2
of Volume IV of the EIR, there appears to be no gradient in DO
concentrations with distance from the present discharge, which
suggests that any oxygen-depleting effects of the outfall are quickly
dispersed throughout the Outer Harbor and do not center on the
outfall. In fact, the lowest measured DO concentrations in New
Bedford Harbor were taken in the vicinity of Butler Flats, which is
over one mile from the present discharge.
Page 6-20 - The EIS attributes the following statement to the draft
FP/EIR: "Since summer ambient concentrations are currently below 6.0
mg/1 a significant part of the time and fall as low as 3.5 mg/1 under
extreme conditions " The FP/EIR only states the actual values
measured during field programs, and does not make judgments such as "a
significant part of the time" or "under extreme conditions." Given
that relatively few data points on DO exist, we believe judgements of
this sort to be tenuous. If such judgements are to be included in the
EIS, their source should be clear.
Page 6-21 - The section of fecal coliform bacteria incorrectly
references the size of the coliform bacteria violations given in the
draft FP/EIR. The areal extent of violation for the diffuser
alternative at the Existing Site would be greater (not less than as
stated in the text) than that for the rehabilitation alternative (see
Table 7-7 of Volume IV). We would note, however, that this analysis
was revised in the final FP/EIR. As both alternatives for the
Existing Site will discharge secondary effluent, the areal extent of
violation for these alternatives is the same.
Page 6-21 - Please note that dechlorination of the effluent is
included as part of the recommended plan in the final FP/EIR.
Page 6-24 - The predicted concentration for arsenic at the 10~
carcinogencity risk level (second listing in Table 6.2-2) should be
B-104
-------
0.31 ng/1, not the 8.31 ng/1 given in table. Also, the predicted
concentration for arsenic's 10-5 carcinogenic!ty risk for the
rehabilitation alternative should be 160 ng/1, not the 1160 ng/1 given
in the table.
Please note that in the final FP/EIR no predicted concentrations for
the aquatic life criteria for the rehabilitation alternative are given
because the insensitivity of the initial dilution analysis does not
support the assignment of values.
Page 6-27 - Please note that the estimates of sediment deposition
rates have been revised in the final FP/EIR because of the elimination
of "blended effluent" from the outfall options.
Page 6-27 - We find the following statements to be misleading:
"Under the rehabilitation alternative, additional high concentration
of contaminants will be added to the sediments surrounding the outfall
due to the disposal of the accumulated grit within the outfall pipe."
First, there is no mention that this operation only occurs during
pipe cleaning, which is a construction and not an operation activity.
Second, as was stated in Section 4.2.1 of the FP/EIR, for the most
part the concentration of metals in the grit of the outfall pipe is
similar in concentration to those found in the sediments surrounding
the outfall. The existing sediments are not clean. The notable
exceptions are cadmium, nickel and lead. While cadmium and nickel
have higher concentrations in the grit than in the sediments, lead
concentrations are higher in the surrounding sediments than in the
outfall grit.
Page 6-27 - The statement "...toxics in the effluent would increase
overall sediment concentrations by a total of 0.4 percent at the
existing site and 14 percent at the 301(h) site" misuses the data
given in Table 8-1 of the FP/EIR. The concentrations taken from Table
8-1 are not "additional" to those that currently exist. Rather they
represent the future condition that is expected to evolve as the
present sediments are buried. In fact, one of the main benefits of
secondary treatment is the reduction in toxic substance concentrations
in the effluent. As is shown in Table 6.2-4, future concentrations of
toxic substances in the sediment will be below those that currently
exist.
Page 6-29 and 6-30 - The footnotes on the second page of the table
appear to be misplaced. For the reasons given in the previous
comment, the label of the column "additional concentration resulting
from effluent" is confusing. Also, please note that Table 8-1 of the
final FP/EIR was revised.
Page 6-50 Again we would note that no "substantial changes" to the
contaminant level of the sediments near the existing outfall are
expected to occur as a result of the cleaning operation. See the
previous comment for page 6-27. Also the permanently lost bottom
habitat for the diffuser alternative at the Existing Site should be
1200 m , not the 1500 m given in the text.
B-105
-------
Page 6-52 - As was pointed out in the previous comment concerning
outfall grit (page 6-27), concentrations in the sediments around the
existing outfall are not expected to increase due to the discharge of
grit during the pipe cleaning process.
Page 6-54 - While PCBs were not detected in the sample taken at
station S8 in 1979, we would point out that later sampling conducted
by Battelle in 1984-86 detected PCBs in the sediments throughout lower
Buzzards Bay. Given that analytical techniques have improved since
1979, it is probably unreasonable to conclude that no PCBs exist in
the sediments at the 301 (h) Site.
Page 6-54 and 6-55 - The statement "Despite current conditions, no
evidence of adverse effects from the consumption of seafood has been
reported" appears to be misattributed to the FP/EIR.
Page 6-55 Again, we point out that dechlorination has been included
as part of the recommended plan in the final FP/EIR.
Page 6-55 - For the reasons given in the November 6, 1989 memorandum
(attached) we do not expect that primary productivity will increase at
the Existing Site.
Page 6-57 - We believe that the first sentence in the dissolved oxygen
section was meant to refer to- the Outer Harbor and not the Inner
Harbor. We would further point out that under average conditions for
both predicted oxygen levels and those measured in the field,
summertime DO levels in the Outer Harbor will be above 6.0 rog/1. As
to the recorded values below 5.0 mg/1 in the Outer Harbor, only 5
measurements all measured over a decade ago have ever been
recorded. As such they probably do not reflect current conditions in
the area of the existing outfall. Of the more extensive DO
measurements made during the 1987-88 sampling program, the lowest
recorded value is 5.3 mg/1, which was recorded in the bottom waters
(below 7.5 m depth) near the existing outfall on July 18, 1988. This
value matches the lowest predicted worst-case DO concentration for the
Existing Site.
Page 6-57 - See the comment concerning the areal extent of the
bacteria violations on page 6-21.
Section 7 - Many of the comments given above are also applicable to
the discussion in Section 7. Specifically, some of these concerns are
the areal extent of lost bottom habitat for the diffuser alternative
at the Existing Site, the potential for increased sediment
concentrations resulting from the cleaning of the outfall, whether
sediment concentrations increase or decrease as a result of outfall
operation at either candidate site, whether primary productivity
levels will increase at the Existing Site, what the future extent of
DO depressions will be, and the addition of dechlorination to the
recommended plan. These comments should also be addressed in Section
7.
Page 7-27 - We strongly disagree with the statement: "...effluent
B-106
-------
discharges at the Existing Site would violate state water quality
standards and federal human health and aquatic toxicity criteria under
average conditions." First, the analyses in the FP/EIR do not show
any violations of state water quality criteria under average
conditions. Further, as federal aquatic life criteria are evaluated
at frequencies of no more than 0.36% of the time (4 days in 3 years),
it is quite misleading to try to compare this to an "average
condition."
B-107
-------
CAMP ORESSER & McKEE INC.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Slater (3 copies)
Larry Gil
Kathleen K. Hull (2 copies)
C.E. Environmental
J. Smith
G. Block
J. Costa
FROM: Jim Small'
RE: New Bedford, MA
Phase 2 Facilities Plan
Discussion Document for November 9th meeting
DATE: November 6, 1989
Please find the attached memorandum that will serve as a discussion
document for the November 9th meeting on primary productivity. In
this document, we have provided responses and additional information
on the primary productivitv related cotrments vre received on the draft
FP/EIR.
As a reminder, the November 9th meeting will begin at 12 noon, and
will be held in the Camp conference room (5th floor) at COM. Please
try to be prompt as many attendees have tight schedules that day.
B-108
-------
MEMORANDUM
TO: New Bedford Outfall File
FROM: T.
DATE: November 6, 1989
SUBJECT: Additional information and analyses relevant to comments
on the New Bedford Draft Facilities Plan regarding the
outfall location.
DEP and EPA have raised several questions regarding CDM's estimates of
primary productivity and nutrient dynamics in New Bedford Outer Harbor.
The following discussion attempts to address these questions.
QUESTION: Is the area around the existing discharge nutrient limited?
It is the conclusion of COM and its scientific consultants (Drs. Brian
Howes of WHOI and T. Smayda of URI) that nutrients are not limiting in the
vicinity of the existing outfall. This conclusion is based on the
following data.
The addition of nutrients to samples collected at the Existing Site
did not significantly increase productivity. A statistical analysis
of the spike experiments shows that the productivity in the controls
was not significantly different from the productivity measured in
any samples spiked with nutrients or diluted effluent. A similar
analysis done on the data from the samples collected at the 301(h)
Site indicates the productivity there was significantly increased by
the addition of nutrients.
The statistical procedures used were the non-parametric Friedman
Two-way Analysis of Variance and the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test. The
hypotheses tested were:
- The monthly productivity measurements in the control ovet the
year = the monthly productivity measurement:; in each of the
different nutrient spiked samples (i.e., the statistical
distribution of control measurements « the statistical
distribution measurements in each nutrient treatment).
- The distributions of monthly productivity measurements during
the year were equal in the different nutrient and effluent
additions. The probability that a hypothesis is true was
greater than 0.1 in all cases. On this basis it is concluded
that there is no significant difference between the nutrient
treatments and between the control and the nutrient
treatments. By convention a hypothesis is proved false if
the probability is less than 0.05 (or less than 0.1 in some
biological systems that may have high variability).
B-109
-------
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
The statistical analyses indicate that the productivity "increases"
or "decreases" measured in any one month between the controls and
the treatments, for samples collected at the Existing Site, are
within the limits of random variations that may be expected. The
random variations may be a result of both variations in the samples
and/or variations in the experimental method.
The nitrogen loadings from the existing primary discharge are high
enough to maintain productivity at non-nutrient limited levels,
based on a comparison with experimental results from the
Narragansett Bay mesocosm studies. .
The ammonia input (the nutrient immediately usable by phytoplankton)
from the existing primary discharge averages 8.2 mg/1, or 279,000
kg-*Vyr for a flow of 26.4 mgd. Assuming this is spread over an
area of 10 square kilometers (i.e. most of the Outer Harbor) the
annual input of ammonia is 27,900 mg/ta /yr or 1640
mmol-nitrogen/m2/yr. Experiments done with nutrient additions to
the Narragansett Bay mesoccsms have shown that nutrients are no
longer limiting when the nitrogen input exceeds 800-900
iranol-n i t rogen/m2 /y r .
The chlorophyll and nutrient data collected during the field studies
indicate that the existing ammonium discharge is assimilated before
it is mixed throughout the entire Outer Harbor. This suggests that
the annual ammonium input should be averaged over a smaller area.
If the ammonium discharged in the effluent is averaged over 5 squaie
kilometers, the annual input becomes 3300 mmol-N/m /yr. which is far
above the levels where nutrients were limiting in the mesocosm
experiments.
The comparison of the mesocosm experiments with the conditions near
the Existing Site also brings out a very close similarity between
the two. When nitrogen was added to the mesocosm experiments at a
rate of 3500 mmol-N/m2 /yr (the highest nutrient loading at 32 times
that of background levels), the annual productivity measured was
between 800-900 g-carbon/m /yr. This is similar to the current
annual, productivity of 832 g-carbon/m' /yr estimated for the Existing
Site where the probable nitrogen input is around 3300
'Hie ratio of inorganic nitrogen to inorganic phosphorus measured in
1987 and 1988 at the Existing Site was consistently higher than at
other locations. These data, and their relation to nutrient
limitation, are discussed in detail in the draft Facilities Plan.
Additional data collected by J. Turner also indicate high nitrogen
to phosphorus ratios (between 4 and 13) at the Existing Site.
QUESTION: What is the potential that primary productivity in the area
around the existing discharge will increase over present levels?
It is the conclusion of COM and its scientific consultants that primary
productivity should not exceed the present levels, which are estimated to
be approximately 832 g-carbon/mJ/year. This conclusion is based on the
following data and analyses.
B-110
-------
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
The addition of nutrients and effluent to water samples collected at.
the Existing Site did not statistically increase the annual
productivity, as measured monthly (see previous question).
The estimated production at the Existing Site is among the highest
of all values measured in any coastal or oceanic environments. It
is similar to productivity measured in the highly eutrophic New York
Bight (see Table 1). On a world-vide basis, only the productivity
measured in the upwelling of the southern Benguela Current (off the
coast of South Africa) is higher, and this by only 25 percent.
These comparisons suggest that the estimated productivity at the
existing discharge is near the maximum possible for any marine
coastal system. An increase in nutrients is not expected to
increase productivity further because other factors such as the
cellular rate of photosynthesis, and the rate of cell division
become limiting as the maximum rate is approached. Furthermore, the
annual productivity estimated at the existing discharge site is
similar to the maximum productivity measured in experimental systems
such as the Narragansett Bay mesocosms (800-SOO g-carbon/ta /yr) when
excess nutrients were added.
The decrease in turbidity resulting from a secondary treatment
effluent, rather than a primary treatment discliarge is not expected
to significantly change the annual productivity measurements at the
Existing Site. This conclusion is bases on three separate results
obtained during the field studies.
1) Turbidity measurements made along transects in the Outer
Harbor do not show any gradients of increased turbidity that
can be correlated to the existing outfall. The dominant
influences on turbidity within the Outer Harbor seems to be
the estuarine circulations and bottom resuspension.
2) Areal photographs of the area near Clarks Point indicate
that the turbidity in the primary discharge plume can affect
an area approximately 0.2 km2. The contributions of the
primary discharge to turbidity in the several square
kilometers of highly productive, non-nutrient limited
. waters is, therefore, negligible.
3) The measurements of productivity
-------
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
was measured during the CDM field studies. A telephone conversation
with J. Turner on October 30, 1989 confirmed that no productivity
measurements were made during his surveys in the Outer Harbor in
1988 and 1989. Turner did measure higher chlorophyll levels at the
existing discharge than were measured in 1987. Chlorophyll levels,
however, only measure biomass, and not productivity. Productivity,
not biomass, is the more important factor in estimating the sediment
oxygen demand and subsequent water column oxygen depletion.
Productivity is the rate at which new organic matter is produced by
the phytoplankton, and the sediment oxygen demand is a function of
how much new material reaches the bottom on an annual basis.
Productivity is measured as the amount of organic matter (i.e.
carbon) produced per unit of time. Phytoplankton biomass, on the
other hand, is measured as the amount of organic matter per volume
(chlorophyll is used as substitute for carbon because it is easier
to measure). Biomass is not a rate function, and thus cannot be
directly compared to sediment oxygen demand which is a rate.
There is no simple relationship between phytoplankton biomass and
primary productivity. The presence of a high biomass does not
necessarily imply a high primary productivity. For example, on
December 8, 1987 the phytoplankton population at the existing
discharge had a chlorophyll concentration of 2.5 mg chl-a/m and a
production rate of 600 mg-carbon/mj/day; while on July 18, 1988 the
productivity was only 220 mg-carbon/ta /day for a higher chlorophyll
concentration of 3.1 rog chl-?.,*r.J . In Massachusetts J^y and nu?7.ards
Bay the ratio of primary production (as grams of carbon
produced/hour) to phytoplankton biomass (as measured by
chlorophyll-a) can vary by a factor of 7. This ratio is known as
the assimilation rate and representative values measured in
Massachusetts Bay and Buzzards Bay are given in Table 2.
Zooplankton grazing can be important in limiting phytoplankton
biomass, but its relationship to primary productivity is less well
defined. High productivity can be maintained in the presence of
grazing, especially in nutrient limited environments, because the
zooplankton release ammonium and other nutrients directly to the
water column. This results in rapid nutrient recycling and high
productivity even though the biomass may be kept at lower levels.
QUESTION: Arc the nannophy topi an>. ton dynamics in New Bedford llarbor
anomalous?
The nannophytoplankton contribution to primary productivity in New Bedford
and Buzzards Bay is relatively insignificant «20 percent) compared to its
contribution in other areas such as Massachusetts Bay. This aspect can be
considered anomalous relative to conditions in the Northeast, but it is not
inconsistent with what is known about phytoplankton dynamics in nutrient
rich marine ecosystems.
The absolute rate of nannophytoplankton productivity in New Bedford and at
the 301(h) Site is not low when compared to other locations in the
Northeast. They are low only in comparison to the overall rate which was
much higher in Buzzards Bay than elsewhere. As an example, Table 2 shows
B-112
-------
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
the absolute productivity rate for nannophytoplankton measured during the
summer of 1987 at the existing discharge, the 301(h) Site and two stations
in Massachusetts Bay monitored for the HHRA outfall siting studies.
Productivity rates at the Existing Site are similar to those at station Pi
(near outfall Site 2) in Broad Sound. Bates at the 301(h) site are similar
to those measured at station P2 (near outfall sites 4 and 5).
The addition of non-limiting levels of nutrients to marine phytoplankton
communities tends to stimulate diatoms more than other components of the
phytoplankton community. In the Narragansett Bay mesocosm experiments, for
example, the diatom populations increased significantly relative to the
nannophytoplankton in the tanks with the highest nutrients additions. In
reviewing the literature on primary production in other areas of the world
there seems to be a general trend that areas with the highest productivity
(see Table 1) are generally dominated by diatoms, especially the highly
productive upwelling areas such as the Peru and Benguela currents. In this
respect the relatively low nannophytoplankton productivity rates measured
in New Bedford do no seem to be anomalous. The high nutrient levels near
the existing discharge have preferentially stimulated die larger sized
phytoplankton which consist mostly of diatoms.
Nuisance blooms of nannophytoplankton are not expected to occur. As
discussed previously the area near -the existing discharge is not nutrient
limited, and the addition of higher ammonia levels is not expected to shift
the roost of the productivity from the larger diatoms to the smaller
nanncphytopiarskton. It should also be menticned that ni;ir.nnco blooms of
the nannophytoplankton are not a direct result of additional nitrogen
additions. Adequate nutrients are of course, necessary for blooms to
occur, but, other factors seem to be controlling the onset of blooms.
Recent work in the brown tide in Peconic Bay (Long Island) suggest organic
phosphates may be such a factor. Overall, however, the environmental
factors that cause blooms of nannophytoplankton are not known.
QUESTION: What changes will occur in phytoplankton productivity if the
discharge is moved to the 301(h) Site?
The statistical analysis of the productivity measurements and spike
experiments in samples from the 301(h) Site indicated that nutrient
additions significantly increase the productivity. The annual increase,
based on the monthly samples, is predicted to be 354 g-carbon/m'/yi. c: o
doubling of the existing rate. This value is not as high as that measured
and predicted for the existing outfall, but it is high relative to other
coastal areas (see Table 1).
B-113
-------
TABLE 1
Estimates of annual particulate primary production
in various estuarine and upvelling ecosystems.
The production (if any) of dissolved organic carbon
is not included.
g C . y
Estuarine Systems1
Bedford Basin, Nova Scotia 220
St. Margaret's Bay, Nova Scotia 790
Narragansett Bat, Rhode Island 310
Peconic Bay, Long Island, Nev York 190
Lover Hudson Estuary, New York 690-925
Mid-Chesapeake Bay, Maryland 335-780
Pamlico River Estuary,
North Carolina 200-500
Inshore Sounds, North Carolina 3A5
North Inlet, South Carolina 260
Inshore Sounds, Georgia 300
Apalacliicola Bay, Florida 360
Barataria Bay, LA 360
Puget Sound, Washington 465
Kaneoho Bay, Hav-.ii 165
Upvelling Areas2
California 60 (40-65)
Peru 235 (125-400)
Chile 83 (55-95)
Costa Rica Dome 113
Gulf of Thailand 275
Somalia 180
Benguela 435 (85-545)
Southern Benguela (most inten-
sive production area)1 1020
From various sources summarized by Nixon (in press). Includes
iy t cs .
Gushing (1971), area-weighted mean and range for most and least productive
zones.
JSliannon and Field (1985).
B-114
-------
TABLE 2
PRODUCTION IN
TOP 3-^ METERS
(iUgC/m'/hr)
Total
<10 u
ASSIMILATION RATE
IN TOP 3-4 METERS
(mg C/rrg chl-a/hr)
Total
-------
FEB 12JI90 Comment 0026
POLAROID CORPORATION
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02139
February 12, 1990
BY HAND
Ann Rodney
Prograrr. Assistant
U.S. EPA, Region I
Water Quality Branch, WQE - 1900C
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
Re: Environmental Irr.cact Statement for City cf New Bedford
>?astawater Facilities Plan
Dear Ms. Rodney:
Polaroid has reviewed the Draft Environmental Irr.pact
Statement ("DEIS1) cared Noveri-e^ 1989 for -he V?astewater
Treatment Facilities for the City cf New Bedford and portions
of the Wastewater Facilites Plan -'the "Plc.r.:'} submitted oy the
City of New Bedford to the MZPA "Jr.it of the Massachusetts
Executive Office cf Environment a 1 Affairs, end has cor-.er.ts en
both documents . According to EPA' s public notice concerning
the DEI3, the United States Environmental Pro-eerier. Agency
relied upon the Plan in drafting the DEIS, and the ccrr.rr.~nt5 set
forth herein refer primarily to the ?]ar.. Polaroid's concerns
focus on one of the alternative sludge disposal sites adcrer-sed
in th«L DEIS and the Plan, Site 40,^ whic^ is ovned by Polaroid.
Polaroid CV.T.S tvo parcels of land ir. Nev Bedford'a
127-acre parcel vhich is the site of the Company's unicrue fil.-r.
manufacturir.g operation, and a 3SC-acre ur.devsloped parcel
which ir.cludes Site 40. ar.d which is prcpcsec =3 the r.it9 fsr a
coger.er at i rn facility to be built cy Eastern Energy Ccrporaticr.
("EEC'). In crr.necticn with EEC = plar.r.ed development,
Polaroid has studied its undevelcpeo prr.perty. As a result of
this studv, Polarcic has ccnclucec that cr.e-third of the land
B-116
-------
Ann Rodney
February 12, 1990
Page 2
compatible with Polaroid's current and future operations.
Accordingly, Polaroid is concerned about the potential impacts
of a sludge disposal site on its current operations, as well as
on future use of Polaroid's undeveloped land by the Company and
for possible industrial development by others.
Polaroid's New Bedford film manufacturing plant employs 450
people and produces coatings which are very sensitive to
environmental agents. This facility is the manufacturer of 99%
of the company's light-sensitive silver halide-based coatings
which are used by other Polaroid plants throughout the world.
An important factor in choosing New Bedford as the location for
this facility was the City's clean air and water, both cf whicn
are necessary in the manufacture of the Company's
photosensitive materials. Another factor was the availability
of the City water supply and groundwater to accommodate future
plant expansion. In short, the New Bedford facility is the
heart of Polaroid's world-wide operation and, therefore, any
potential negative impacts of the sludge disposal operation are
of tremendous concern to the Company.
As described in detail below, Polaroid believes that it is
essential that the Wastewater Facilities Plan and the DEIS
fully address, both in scope and in depth of technical
analysis, the proposed sludge site's potentially serious
impacts on Polaroid's ability to continue its operations in New
Bedford, as well as on plans for future use of Polaroid's
undeveloped property. In particular, Polaroid is concerned
that analyses and conclusions in the Plan and the DEIS are
based on a predicted composition of the sludge derived from
literature rather than from experience in New Bedford. As a
result, it is difficult for Polaroid to know whether its very
sensitive coating process will be disrupted, or its products
harmed, by air pollutants from the sludge itself, from
chemicals used to attempt to render the sludge inert or to
control air emissions, or from construction and operation of
any sludge disposal facility on the site. In addition, the
Plan does not appear to take adequately into account the
presence of potentially high yield ground water resources on
the site, and no reference is made to the existence of
groundwater wells on Polaroid's property. Furthermore, the
Plan may not accurately reflect the location of wetlands that -
could be affected by the'sludge disposal site, and there are
concerns about general environmental and health impacts that
would affect any neighbor of such a facility. Finally, the
Plan does not appear to adequately address conflicts between
the proposed sludge disposal" operation and alternative
potential uses of Polaroid's undeveloped land or the
B-117
-------
Ann Rodney
February 12, 1990
Page 3
impediments to acquisition and use of such land for sludge
disposal.
Polaroid's specific comments on the Plan and the DEIS are
as follows:
1. Air Pollution. Of primary importance to Polaroid are
the potential impacts of the proposed sludge site on Polaroid's
processes and products. The DEIS incorrectly states that there
are no sensitive receptors in the immediate area of Site 40.
On the contrary, Polaroid believes that even small amounts of
air pollutants have the potential to affect the Company's very
sensitive photographic film production processes and products,
and that existing air pollution requirements and abatement
technology that might apply to the sludge disposal may not be
sufficiently stringent or sufficiently effective to protect
these processes and products.
The analyses and conclusions set forth in the Plan had to
be based on a predicted sludge composition derived from
relevant literature because of problems with the existing New
Bedford wastewater treatment facility. In addition to lack of
information regarding the constituents of the sludge itself,
there may also be uncertainty about the ability of the planned
chemical fixation process to render the sludge inert and about
possible emissions due to the fixation process. Thus, there
may be emissions of unknown, perhaps toxic, constituents as a
result of the operations of the sludge disposal site (including
the transportation of sludge through the Industrial Park) on
property adjacent to the Company's existing facility, and
Polaroid is very concerned that these air emissions could be
harmful to Polaroid operations and products.
In addition to chemicals which could have negative impacts
as indicated above, certain chemicals are known to adversely
affect Polaroid's operations, even if present in only small
concentrations. Among these chemicals are the following:
mercury compounds, nitro-substituted compounds, phenazines,
thiazines, sulfur compounds, aldehydes, iron compounds, lead
compounds, tin compounds, bacteria, and all strong reducing
agents. It does not appear that any determination has been
made as to whether these che.-icais could be expected to be
present due to operation of the sludge disposal site or whether
the amount present would affect Polaroid's products and
operations.
Based on the foregoing, Polaroid believes that the Plan and
the DEIS should identify the sludge composition with sufficient
B-118
-------
Ann Rodney
February 12, 1990
Page 4
precision to identify potential air emissions and that
sufficient field contamination tests should be performed on
Polaroid's film products to determine the impacts of these
emissions-. What may not be harmful to the environment or the
public health may still have a detrimental effect upon
Polaroid. In this regard, we note that EEC has already
participated in tests on Polaroid film products in connection
with the proposed cogeneration facility, in order to assure
Polaroid that EEC's emissions would not shut down Polaroid's
negative manufacturing plant and possibly the entire Company's
film business.
2. Groundwater Contamination. The Plan refers to a well
located near Black Pond, which is in fact a well from which
Polaroid has the right to withdraw water. However, the Plan
does not refer to other groundwater wells located on Polaroid's
property between the existing Polaroid facility and the
proposed sludge disposal site. This omission should be
corrected, and the potential impacts of the sludge disposal
operations on these wells should be addressed and explained.
According to the Plan, both high yield and moderate yield
groundwater resources may be present on the Polaroid site. DEP
regulations applicable to sludge disposal and guidelines for
siting of water supply wells impose restrictions and
requirements relating to the proximity of such disposal
operations to existing and potential groundwater supplies. The
Plan should indicate clearly whether Site 40 is within the
Zone 2 boundary of any existing or potential water supply well
and should demonstrate whether the use of Site 40 for sludge
disposal would comply with applicable regulations governing the
location of such facilities.
Polaroid believes that the location of the sludge disposal
operation in such close proximity to a water supply would
constitute a "significant" rather than a "moderate ' constraint
on the use of this site as a sludge disposal facility. In
addition, it should be noted that the Plan states that Polaroid
is presently authorized to withdraw 100,000 gallons per day,
but it does not indicate that Polaroid could obtain
authorization to withdraw a greater volume of water and does
not address the significance cf the presence jf the sludge
disposal site on potential use of grcundwater in the vicinity.
Polaroid is extremely concerned that siting of the proposed
sludge disposal operation on Site 40 could result in materials
harmful to the Company's operations leaching into the
groundwater supply. Although the site would have a double
B-119
-------
Ann Rodney
February 12, 1990
Page 5
liner and leachate collection and monitoring system, no
mechanical or manmade system can be totally reliable. In
addition, Polaroid believes the Plan must address the expected
life of the liner, the possibility of premature liner failure,
and measures to be taken if leaks occur and the effectiveness
of such measures. Polaroid is also concerned that the Plan
indicates that leachate may be pumped to an existing sewerage
pumping system which has in the past proved to be unreliable,
thus posing the threat of a release of leachate at a location
even closer to the existing groundwater wells.
Moreover, Polaroid believes that the Plan and the DEIS
should address the potential impacts of the sludge disposal
facility on future water supplies. It is Polaroid's .
understanding that the City of New Bedford is approaching the
safe yield that it draws daily from existing surface water
supplies, and that there are only two realistic alternative
water supplies for Polaroid and the City, the Acushnet
Reservoir and groundwater. It is also Polaroid's understanding
that the quality of the water from the Acushnet Reservoir may
not be as good as the existing City supply or sufficient for
Polaroid's sensitive photographic production processes.
Accordingly, Polaroid is likely to require groundwater from the
site or the vicinity in the future and is very concerned about
any operation which could jeopardize the quality of that
groundwater.
3. Soil and Surface Water Contamination. Runoff from the
proposed facility could contaminate the soil and surface water
on and off the site. Moreover, sludge spilled in the materials
handling process could contaminate the soil and surface water.
Polaroid's property and the environmentally sensitive Acushnet
Cedar Swamp State Reservation are both at a lower elevation
than the proposed site, and thus it is essential that the Plan
demonstrate that sufficient measures will be implemented to
prevent soil and surface water contamination.
4. Wetlands. .Polaroid believes that the precise extent
and contours of wetlands on and adjacent to Site 40 may be
difficult to determine and is concerned that the wetlands
delineation forming the basis for wetlands analyses in the Plan
may not be accurate. Polaroid believes that some studies may
indicate that wetlands are located on a portion of the land
designated in the Plan for sludge disposal and that the
capacity of the site for sludge disposal may have been
overestimated. This issue should be resolved, because it
affects the estimates of the capacity of Site 40 for sludge
disposal as well as the governmental requirements and
B-120
-------
Ann Rodney
February 12, 1990
Page 6
restrictions which may be applicable to the utilization of
Site 40.
5. General Environmental and Health Considerations.
Because of the proximity of Site 4-0 to Polaroid's facility and
to possible future expansion area'for Polaroid, the Company is
particularly concerned with the possible negative effects of
the sludge disposal site in the areas of public health,
aesthetics, noise, and odor. The generation of dust,.dirt, or
fumes harmful to the health and well-being of Polaroid
employees and others is of paramount concern. As with any
proposal for the construction of a large municipal facility,
aesthetics (including the configurat.ion, design and location of
the sludge container, fencing, buffer zones, and traffic) is
also a matter of concern. In addition, Polaroid is concerned
about the possibility that the sludge disposal operation will
^exceed state noise criteria and that the operation will
generate significant odors detectable at Polaroid's existing
facility and/or the land which could be used by the Company for
future expansion. Polaroid believes, therefore, that it is
important that the Plan demonstrate that operational and
maintenance procedures and practices will be sufficient to
prevent negative impacts of the types described above on
Polaroid's existing facility and on the surrounding industrial
and residential areas, as well as to prevent negative impacts
of the types described in other portions of this letter.
6. Conflicting Land Uses and Site Acquisition
Constraints. As indicated above, Polaroid's undeveloped land,
including Site 40, has a high potential to be used for
industrial development compatible with Polaroid's current
operations. Indeed, because of alternative planned uses, the
DEIS is incorrect in stating that no significant land use
impacts are predicted for Site 40. Accordingly, it is
essential that the Plan and the DEIS give due consideration to
.the economic opportunities and benefits to the City of New
Bedford and the surrounding region which could be lost if Site
40 is used for sludge disposal, as well as to the impediments
to, and costs associated with, acquisition and utilization of
Site 40 which may arise because of the existence of alternative
plans for the property by Polaroid or ethers.
As noted above, one plan for the property is for EEC's
cogeneration plant. The plant would: (a) make Polaroid more
competitive by lowering energy costs; (b) provide about 80
full-time jobs; (c) provide additional tax revenues to the
City; (d) supply Southeastern Massachusetts with much needed
electrical energy for schools, homes, and businesses; (e)
B-121
-------
Ann Rodney
February 12, 1990
Page 7
recycle Polaroid's wastewater, thereby diminishing demands on
the City's water supply and sewer system; and (f) provide about
600 jobs during construction.
Polaroid appreciates the opportunity to comment on the DEIS
and .the Wastewater Facilities Plan, and we hope that the
foregoing comments will assist in your review'of the proposed
sludge disposal sites. If you require clarification of the
comments provided herein, please do not hesitate to call
Michael J. Conway, Principal Engineer at Polaroid's New Bedford
facility, at 508-998-5819 or me at 617-577-4106.
Sincerely yours,
Polaroid Corooration
Richard F. Cahaly
Environmental Programs Manager
ZP-1635/P
B-122
-------
Comment 0027
SAVE FORT RODMAN COMMITTEE
406 W. RODNEY FRENCH BLVD.
NEW BEDFORD, MA. 02744
TEL. (508) 992-9659
FEBRUARY 12, 1990
MS. ANN RODNEY
U.S.E.P.A., REGION I
J. F. KENNEDY FED. BLDG., RM. 2203
BOSTON, MA. 02203-2211
DEAR ANN:
ENCLOSED PLEASE FIND OUR COMMENTS ON YOUR DRAFT EIS FOR
THE SECONDARY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IN NEW BEDFORD.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO
CALL ME.
YOURS VERY TRULY,
NATALIE B. ARNETT
NBA: A
ENC.
RtCElVED-EPA
<* \990
FORT RODMAN - EDUCATION AND RECREATION FOR ALL
B-123
-------
SAVE FORT RODMAN COMMITTEE
406 W. RODNEY FRENCH BLVD
NEW BEDFORD, MA. 02744
TEL. (508) 992-9659
FEBRUARY 9, 1990
COMMENTS TO U. S. E.P.A. WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (NOV. 1989) FOR THE
CITY OF NEW BEDFORD, MA. # EOEA 6425
PG. 2-9 - TABLE 2.1-2 - REFLECTS 14.0 MGD OF INFILTRATION, WHICH ACCORDING
TO THE FIRST PARAGRAPH ON PG. 2-8, WILL BE REDUCED BY 207. THROUGH SEWER
REHABILITATION PROJECTS. WHY ONLY 20£ - CAN THIS BE DECREASED BY FURTHER
REPAIRS TO SEWER?
PG. 2-46 - TABLE 2.3-5
MAJOR ADVANTAGES - SITE LA - THE TABLE STATES THAT LA INCLUDES THE EXISTING
WWTP - THIS LEADS ONE TO BELIEVE THAT THE EXISTING PLANT WILL REMAIN,WHEN
IN FACT, IT WILL BE RAZED WHEN THE NEW PLANT IS IN OPERATION, NO MATTER
WHERE THE NEW PLANT WILL BE SITUATED. THE EXISTING PLANT IS ON FILLED-IN
LAND IN THE V-ZONE AND NOT ACTUALLY ON THE FORT RODMAN COMPLEX.
SURROUNDED BY WATER ON 3 SIDES - WE BELIEVE THIS SHOULD BE A DISTINCT
DISADVANTAGE ' IN VIEW OF ITS LOCATION OUTSIDE THE HURRICANE BARRIER AND THE
FACT THAT ALL STRUCTURES OF THE NEW WWTP WILL BE PARTIALLY OR TOTALLY WITHIN
THE 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN. WE ALSO FEEL THAT THE EROSION PROBLEM IS ALSO A
DISADVANTAGE; SUCH AS, EROSION TO EQUIPMENT AND STATE OF THE ART COMPUTER
EQUIPMENT FROM SALT AIR, FOG AND THREAT OF HURRICANE.
POTENTIAL FOR USING ADDITIONAL PORTIONS 6F FORT RODMAN AREA FOR BUFFERING.
FORT RODMAN PROPOSED PLANT WILL BE ONLY 300' FROM NEIGHBORING RESIDENCES
WHICH WE FEEL SHOULD BE MENTIONED AS A DISADVANTAGE. IN ADDITION THE
. . . FOR I HODMAN - EDUCATION AND RECREATION FOR ALL . . .
B-124
-------
PROPOSED PLANT WILL ACT AS A BUFFER TO AESTHETIC VIEWS TO BUZZARDS BAY,FROM
RESIDENCES, VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC.
MAJOR DISADVANTAGES - SITE LA DEED RESTRICTIONS ON ADJACENT EDUCATION LAND -
DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE ALSO ON OWNED OR LEASED LAND TO THE CITY FOR RECREA-
TIONAL LAND. THESE DEEDS RESTRICT THE LAND USE FOR: "PUBLIC PARK OR PUBLIC
RECREATION IN-PERPETUITY". ZONING AT FORT RODMAN IS RESIDENTIAL "A", OUR
STRICTEST ZONING CODE IN THE CITY OF NEW BEDFORD.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL AREAS; WHY IS IT NOT MENTIONED
THAT THE PLANT WILL BE ONLY 300' FROM RESIDENTIAL HOMES?
WE FEEL THAT THE FOLLOWING SHOULD BE LISTED AS DISADVANTAGES ON SITE LA:
OUTSIDE THE HURRICANE BARRIER.
ABUTS GREATER NEW BEDFORD REGIONAL VOCATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL, MARINE SCHOOL
RE-LOCATION OF SOCCER FIELD.
RE-LOCATION OF HEAD START PROGRAM, EARLY LEARNING PROGRAM, US ARMY
RESERVE, SEA LAB PROGRAM, CAMP KENNEDY & ADULT HANDICAPPED PROGRAM.
LAST PIECE OF COASTAL LAND IN THE CITY OF NEW BEDFORD WHICH SHOULD BE
DEVELOPED FOR THE ENJOYMENT OF ALL PEOPLE.
WILL BE 1/4 MILE FROM THE RE-LOCATED CHILDREN OF HEAD START & EARLY
LEARNING.
WITHIN THE 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN.
LIMITED ACCESS TO MAJOR HIGHWAY, THEREFORE, TRUCKING WILL BE THROUGH
2 MILES OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, PUBLIC BEACHES AND PUBLIC PARK.
TIME CONSTRAINTS - SUCH AS, TRANSFER OF DEEDS, ZONING, RE-LOCATION AND
POSSIBLE COURT ACTION.
MAJOR DISADVANTAGES AT SITE 4A - LISTS RADIO TOWER ON SITE. THE ENGINEERS
HAVE CONFIRMED THAT THE TOWER WILL PRESENT NO PROBLEM IF WWTP IS BUILT ON
SITE 4A, IN OTHER WORDS, THEY CAN CO-EXIST.
PAGE 2-49 - 2.3.4.1 - SITE LA - STATES "SOME OF TH£ SITE IS CITY-OWNED
RECREATIONAL LAND". WHY IS THERE NO MENTION OF THE EDUCATIONAL LAND?
CONTINUING ON TO PAGE 2-52, WHY IS THEIR NO MENTION OF BUILDINGS USED BY
HEAD START, EARLY LEARNING, CAMP KENNEDY, U. S. NAVY RESERVE AND GREATER N.B.
REGIONAL VOCATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL.
PAGE 2-51 - FIGURE 2.3-3 - SEE MAP ATTACHED INCLUDING ALL SENSITIVE RECEPTORS.
B-125
-------
\v
UOC
1. Gr.N.B. Vocational
2. Naval Reserve
3. Relocated Students
A. Outdoor Skating Rink
& Soccer Field
5. Clegg Field
6. Hazelwood Park
7. Senicr Center
8. Taylor School
9. Roosevelt Jr. H. S.
10. So. Baptist Church
11. Handicapped Center
12. Hannigan School
13. Tripp Towers (Elderly)
14. St. Anne's Church
15. Church of the Firstborn
2-51
B-126
-------
-3-
PAGE 2-53 - FIGURE 2.3-4 - WHY IS THE NEW FOOTPRINT NOT INCLUDED IN YOUR
STATEMENT? WHERE WILL SLUDGE BE STORED?
PAGE 3-17 - LAST PARAGRAPH. BASED ON AVERAGE SLUDGE QUANTITIES, FIVE DAYS OF
SLUDGE STORAGE IS ALSO ASSUMED. THIS STORAGE ACCOUNTS FOR PEAK FLOWS IN THE
SYSTEM AND ENSURES THAT WEEKEND DISPOSAL IS NOT REQUIRED. WHERE DOES
DISPOSAL STAY ON WEEKENDS?
PAGE 3-19 - SLUDGE DISPOSAL TRANSPORTATION COSTS ASSUME AN AVERAGE 21 MILE
ROUND TRIP. WHAT IS THE ESTIMATED COST?
PAGE 3-29 - TABLE 3.2r5 - MENTIONS 6 SLUDGE STORAGE TANKS. AGAIN, WHERE WILL
THESE BE LOCATED?
PAGE 3-29 & 30 - QUOTES" GAS GENERATOR WILL BE AVAILABLE IF THE UTILITY
COMPANY IS UNABLE TO SUPPLY THE NECESSARY POWER". PER ATTACHED COPY OF
OUR MAYOR'S "POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS" CALLS FOR THE ELIMINATION OF THE
EMERGENCY GENERATOR. (SEE PAGE 4.).
PAGE 5-2 - CHAPTER 5 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT.
IT WILL BE NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH SEVERAL STATE & FEDERAL REGULATIONS PRIOR
TO LOCATING WWTP AT LA. THESE INCLUDE: EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 11988 -
WE FEEL THAT A WWTP WILL NOT BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN.
THE CITY OF NEW BEDFORD IS SELF-INSURED AND, THEREFORE, NOT REQUIRED TO INSURI
MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS; HOWEVER, MOST RESIDENTS ON CLARK'S POINT ARE REQUIRED
TO MAINTAIN COSTLY FLOOD INSURANCE ON THEIR HOMES.
AS QU6TED BY CAMP, DRESSER, McKEE ON PAGE 5-39 IN THEIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY,
DATED 1-19-90, "FINAL PLAN", "A SEAWALL OR DIKE WILL BE BUILT TO PREVENT
INUNDATION BY WAVES ASSOCIATED WITH A 100 YEAR STORM". WHAT WILL THE
ADDITIONAL COST TO TAXPAYERS FOR THIS SEAWALL?
5.1.2.5 - MASS. ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT .(MEPA)
SECTION 61 DEFINES DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT INCLUDING PARKS, SEASHORES, OPEN
B-127
-------
Draft Wastewater Treatment Facilities Plan
REVISED ESTIMATED 1989 CAPITAL COST OF RECOMMENDED PLAN
ITEM
Draft Plan (Smill) Revised Plan (SmUl)
A. NEW SECONDARY PLANT
1. Land acquisition
2. Relocations
a. Army
b. National Park Service
c. Head Stan/Day Care
d. Sea Lab/Alternative High School
c. Camp Kennedy
3. Plant and Outfall
4. Offsite Piping.etc.
5. Park and Neighborhood Improvements
a. Taber Park
b. Refurbish Ft. Taber
c. Offices/Visitors Center
Total - New Secondary Plant
B. AIRPORT SITE SLUDGE LANDFILL
C. INTERCEPTOR CRJT REMOVAL
D. REDUCTION IN SYSTEM INFILTRATION/INFLOW
E. IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING PUMPING STATIONS
F. COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
1. New East Clarks Point Pumping Station
2. New Cove Road Pumping Station
3. Phase 2 North End Relief Project
4. Collection System Extensions
Total - Collection System Improvements
ESTIMATED TOTAL 1989 CAPITAL COST
$4.6
$0.1
$6.1
$1.1
$0.1
$6.0
$1.0
$0.3
S5.7
S5.3
S9.0
12.5
$0.0
$12.0
$161.2
$0.8
$7.3
$181.3
$18.3
S10.0
$4.8
$1.8
S32.5
S248.7
$0.0
$0.1
$4.1
$1.1
$0.1
$3.3
$0.7
$0.3
S2.7
S5.3
S9.0
SO.O
$0.0
$5.4
$134.9
$0.8
$4.3
S145.4
$8.4
S10.0
S4.8
S1.8
S17.0
$187.4
B-128
-------
A. NEW SECONDARY PLANT
RELOCATIONS
Army - Have federal legislation filed to fund relocation or have unit $4.60
transferred to another facility.
Head Start and Day Care - Reduce extent of renovatons to the
Poor Farm building and evaluate other possible under-utilized city buildings. $2.00
PLANT AND OUTFALL
Covers - Eliminate covering some of the new tanks (e.g. secondary)- S2.10
Emergency Generator - Eliminate the emergency generator and building
and depend upon two separate power lines to supply the site. S2.50
Use Existing Plant - Use portions of .the existing plant, including the
administration building, tankage, pumping station and the outfall
diversion structure. S7.80
Air Pollution Equipment - Change the type of air pollution equipment used. SI .00
^
Eliminate Coarse Screens - Use manual cleaning screens and eliminate the
coarse screens and building. S3.00
Army Facility - Use one of the existing Army buildings for the maintenance
facility. S3.00
Reduce Plant's Flow - Reduce the average daily capacity of the plant from
30.0 med to 26.2 mgd. This flow reduction assumes: S6.90
Current industrial flows will be reduced by 25%
- InfiltranoiT/nflow v-'Lli bt reduced by 257c
- Only 750 acres of available 1,500 acres of industrial land will be developed
B-129
-------
-4b-
PARK IMPROVEMENTS
Taber Park - Reduce the magnitude of ihc new park. $2.70
Refurbish Ft. Tabor - Reduce the extent of improvements to Ft. Tabor. $0.30
Secondary Plant Potential Savings $35.90
B. AIRPORT SLUDGE LANDFILL
Build 5 year Landfill - Construct a 5 year backup landfill instead of the
planned 20 year facility. S9.90
F. COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
Upgrade Apponagansett Pump Station - Instead of buildjng a new pumping
station to serve the east side of Clarks Point, upgrade the Apponagansett station. S3.00
/
Eliminate System Extensions - Delay indefinitely collection system extensions in
the northern areas of the ciiv. SI2.50
S15.50
SUMMARY - TOTAL COST SAVINGS $61.30
B-130
-------
SPACES OR HISTORIC DISTRICTS OR SITES. THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A
WWTP WILL DO JUST THAT ONLY IF IT IS LOCATED AT FORT RODMAN.
PAGE 5-3 - 5.1.2.8 - ZONING - MASS LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY
THE CITY SOLICITOR, ARMAND FERNANDES, RENDERED A WEAK OPINION IN STATING A
WWTP IS NOT SUBJECT TO ZONING. MR. FERNANDES FOUND IT NECESSARY TO STATE
THIS OPINION BECAUSE IF HE HAD RENDERED A STRONGER STATEMENT, HE THEREFORE
WOULD NOT BE IN A POSITION TO REPRESENT THE CITY OF NEW BEDFORD IF IT IS
NECESSARY TO GO TO COURT OVER THE ZONING ISSUE.
PAGE 5-5 - 2ND PARAGRAPH - WE QUOTE "THE EXISTING WWTP AND INSTITUTIONAL
FACILITIES DO NOT CONFORM TO THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS, HOWEVER, THEY ARE
.'}.-;«
EXEMPT FROM ZONING". WE DISAGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT, AS THIS IS MERELY AN
OPINION, AS STATED ABOVE, AND WE INTEND TO CHALLENGE THIS OPINION IN COURT.
OUR ZONING CODE STATES THAT ANY LAND ANNEXED BY THE CITY OF NEW BEDFORD
AUTOMATICALLY BECOMES ZONE "A" (OUR STRICTEST RESIDENTIAL CODE). WE MIGHT
ALSO ADD THAT THIS WAS CREATED AFTER THE PRESENT WWTP WAS CONSTRUCTED AT
FORT RODMAN.
PROPOSED ON-SITE LAND USE - PLEASE NOTE THAT MANY OF THESE PROPOSALS HAVE
BEEN ELIMINATED BY THE MAYOR THROUGH HIS COST SAVINGS PLAN OF DEC. 20, 1989,
A COPY OF WHICH IS ATTACHED (SEE PAGE 4). IN ADDITION TO THE PROGRAMS
LISTED, SOUTHEASTERN MASS. UNIVERSITY AND THE LLOYD CENTER FOR THE ENVIRON-
MENT RECENTLY HAVE SHOWN INTEREST IN LOCATING THEIR MARINE BIOLOGY PROGRAMS
AT FORT RODMAN, HOWEVER, ONLY IF A WWTP IS NOT LOCATED AT SITE LA. THE
POTENTIAL FOR TOURISM AT FORT TABER HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED. WHY?
PAGE 5-7 - 2ND PARA. - WITHIN A ONE-HALF MILE RADIUS OF FORT RODMAN THERE
ARE 750 DWELLINGS. WHY DOES YOUR EIS STATE 450?THIS IS AN ACTUAL COUNT.
3RD PARA. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE 250 CAR PARKING LOT IS ACROSS THE
STREET FROM THE BEACH, THEREFORE, CREATING MUCH PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC DURING
B-131
-------
BEACH SEASON. SAME PARAGRAPH - THERE IS NO "LIGHTED SOCCER FIELD AT CLEGG
FIELD" AND THE PRESENT SOCCER FIELD AT FORT RODMAN WILL BE ELIMINATED AT
SITE LA.
PAGE 5-7 - 4TH PARA.- PROPOSED ADJACENT LAND USE - IF OUR MAYOR IS CUTTING
COSTS ON-SITE (PER PAGE 4), THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THERE WILL BE IMPROVEMENTS
TO ANY LAND OR BUILDING ADJACENT TO SITE LA, EVEN IF E.P.A. DEMANDS SAME.
PAGE 5-9 - PARA. 2 -REGARDING THE DESIGNATED PORT AREA, THE DEVELOPERS HAVE
APPLIED TO DEDESIGNATE THIS PROPERTY THROUGH MEPA. A CONSULTATION SESSION
WAS HELD IN N. B. CITY HALL ON FEB. 1, 1990, WITH NO PUBLIC NOTIFICATION IN
OUR LOCAL NEWSPAPER. HAS A DRAFT EIR BEEN SUBMITTED ON THIS? IF SO, COPIES
OF THE EIR ARE NOT ON FILE IN OUR LOCAL LIBRARIES OR NEW BEDFORD CITY HALL.
EIGHT OUT OF NINE OF OUR CITY COUNCILLORS WHEN CALLED BY OUR COMMITTEE, SAID
THEY HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE MEETING, WHICH WE FEEL IS IN VIOLATION OF MEPA
RULINGS. OLD N. B. WATERFRONT CORPORATION HAS MODIFIED THEIR PLAN. THEY
NOW PROPOSE TO CONSTRUCT 1,000 RENTAL UNITS AND NOT CONDOMINIUMS BECAUSE ^
THE SIGNIFICANT DROP IN THE LOCAL HOUSING MARKET. IF CONSTRUCTED, THIS
DEVELOPMENT WILL EVENTUALLY BECOME SIMILAR TO POINT GLORIA IN FALL RIVER,
MASS. WHERE A DEVELOPER PROPOSED RENTAL UNITS ON THE WORKING WATERFRONT AND
ENDED UP WITH" SECTION 8 AND LOW INCOME HOUSING.
PARA. 3 - WHY WAS THE STANDARD-TIMES FIELD INCLUDED IN THE 1987 OPEN SPACE
AND RECREATION PLAN (OSRP) FOR NEW BEDFORD, WHEN IT WAS A CANDIDATE FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECONDARY WWTP? QN PAGE 5-7, 1ST PARAGRAPH, IT STATES
THAT FORT RODMAN WAS EXCLUDED IN THE 1987 OSRP'
PAGE 5-10 - PROPOSED ADJACENT LAND USE - THIS DEVELOPMENT WAS TURNED DOWN
BY THE CITY OF NEW BEDFORD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.
B-132
-------
PAGE 5-14 - WHY WAS THE TRAFFIC COUNT NOT CONDUCTED DURING THE SUMMER MONTHS
TO REFLECT "PEAK" TRAFFIC? WE FEEL THAT THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE THAT
HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED PROPERLY.
PAGE 5-15 - WHY WERE THE BEACHES, PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC, THE CHURCH AT 82 COVE
ST. AND THE FACT THAT EAST RODNEY FR. BLVD. IS A SCHOOL BUS ROUTE, NOT
INCLUDED WITH YOUR SENSITIVE RECEPTORS?
WHY IS VEHICULAR TRAFFIC RATED AS MODERATE WHEN THE CITIZENS ADVISORY
COMMITTEE (CAC) VOTED TO CHANGE SITE LA TO "SIGNIFICANT"? WE DISAGREE WITH
THE WORDING "ALLOWS FOR FREE FLOW" OF TRAFFIC ON EAST RODNEY FRENCH BLVD.
EVERY DAY THERE ARE TRAFFIC TIE UPS DUE TO 18 WHEEL TRAILERS MAKING
DELIVERIES AT MILLS AND PLANTS ALONG THE ROUTE. ONE SECTION OF E. RODNEY
FR. BLVD. HAS A CUT ON THE E/S OF STYEET TO ALLOW 18 WHEEL VEHICLES TO
MANEUVER PERPENDICULARLY TO THIS ROAD. IN ADDITION, THERE IS NO MENTION
OF SCHOOL BUS TRAFFIC OR ADDITIONAL SUMMER TRAFFIC ON THESE ROADS.
ON WEST RODNEY FR. BLVD. WHY IS THERE NO MENTION OF HAZELWOOD PARK AND THE
BEACHES AS SENSITIVE RECEPTORS? THERE IS MORE THAN SOME BEACH TRAFFIC
DURING THE SUMMER MONTHS. RESIDENTS OF THE ENTIRE CIT/,MANY FROM SURROUNDING
TOWS ALSO USE THE BEACHES IN THE SOUTH END. ALSO, YOU DID NOT CONSIDER THE
INCREASED TRAFFIC ASSOCIATED WITH THE M/V "SCHAMONCHI, A 650 PASSENGER
CRUISE SHIP SAILING OUT FROM EAST RODNEY FRENCH BLVD. TO MARTHA'S VINEYARD,
DURING THE MONTHS OF MAY THROUGH OCTOBER.
WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO NOTE THE INCREASED SUMMER TRAFFIC FROM EAST BEACH
AT SITE 4A? THE INCREASED TRAFFIC ORIGINATES AT EAST BEACH NEAR SITE LA.
PAGE 5-16 - TABLE 5.1-1 - PHYSICAL ACCESS ROADWAY CONDITIONS
PARKING IS NOT PROHIBITED IN THE SUMMER ALONG EAST RODNEY FRENCH BLVD.
EVERY DAY BEACH GOERS, PATRONS OF DAVY'S LOCKER RESTAURANT, BILLY WOODS
WHARF AND FERRY PASSENGER VEHICLES LINE THE BOULEVARD.
B-133
-------
-8-
PAGE 5-22 - 5.2.2 - REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
WE SEE NO MENTION OF "COASTAL WATERS IN JEOPARDY: REVERSING THE DECLINE
AND PROTECTING AMERICA'S COASTAL RESOURSES" - "OVERSIGHT REPORT OF THE
COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE & FISHERIES" DATED DEC. 1988. WE, HEREWITH,
QUOTE FROM THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THIS PUBLICATION, "DEVELOPMENT OF SEA-
SIDE CONDOMINIMUMS AND MARINAS MEANS WETLANDS THAT ONCE ABSORBED AND
PURIFIED STORMWATER NOW CONTRIBUTE OIL, TOXIC METALS, AND OTHER POLLUTANTS
TO NEARBY WATERS". WE FEEL THAT THIS SITUATION WOULD CERTAINLY APPLY TO
SITE AA IF THE DEVELOPERS ARE ALLOWED TO GO FORWARD WITH THEIR PROPOSED PLANS.
WE QUOTE FURTHER "MORE THAN 120 MILLION PEOPLE WILL LIVE WITHIN 50 MILES OF
THE SHORE BY 1990. AN EVEN GREATER POPULATION WILL RELY ON THE COASTAL ZONE
FOR FOOD, DRINKING WATER, JOBS, AND RECREATION BY THE BEGINNING OF THE 21ST
CENTURY". ON SITE LA, WE HAVE 79 ACRES ON A PENINSULA THAT IS SURROUNDED
BY WATER ON THREE SIDES AND FEEL THIS IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE SITE FOR A WWTP.
PAGE 5-44 2ND PARAGRAPH - MENTIONS THAT PREVAILING WIND DIRECTION IS
GENERALLY TO THE SOUTHWEST - OUR PREVAILING WINDS ARE FROM THE SOUTHWEST,
THEREFORE, THE WINDS BLOW FROM THE SOUTHWEST MOST OF THE TIME, ACROSS THE
SITE TOWARD THE RESIDENCES THAT ARE NEAREST SITE LA. THE EXISTING PLANT ON
THE S/E TIP OF THE PENINSULA IS APPROXIMATELY 1900' FROM THE ROAD, AND MOST
OF THE TIME, THE ODOR DISSIPATES OVER THE ENTRANCE TO THE HARBOR. THE NEW
PROPOSED PLAN. HAS THE PLANT SITUATED 300' FROM THE ROAD TOWARDS THE NORTH-
WESTERN PORTION OF LAND, THEREFORE, THE WINDS WILL DISSIPATE OVER LAND,
ONTO A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
PAGE 5-44 - 5.3.4.2. - AMBIENT CONDITIONS FOR SITE 4A. THE WIND BLOWS ACROSS
THE SITE TOWARD THE NEARBY RESIDENCES (NORTH-NORTH-EAST), ETC. WHY NOT
EQUATE THIS IN THE SAME MANNER AS SITE LA, AND REPORT THAT WITH THE PRE-
VAILING SOUTHWEST WIND, THE ODOR DISSIPATES OVER THE HARBOR WATER MOST Of
B-134
-------
-9-
THE TIME? SITES LA AND 4A ARE APPROXIMATELY 2 MILES AWAY FROM EACH OTHER
WITH THE SAME WIND CONDITIONS.
PAGE '5-50 - NOISE - THE PRIMARY NOISE SOURCE FOR RESIDENTIAL LOCATION WAS
FROM THE DOWNTOWN AREA - WHY IT IT NOT NOTED THE DISTANCE TO THE DOWNTOWN
AREA, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 4 MILES? WE FIND IT IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE THAT
NOISE LEVELS RANGED UP TO 59 DBA AT SITE LA AND ONLY UP TO 51 DBA AT SITE 4A.
SITE 4A IS .ADJACENT TO A FOUR LANE DIVIDED HIGHWAY AND CLOSER TO THE
"DOWNTOWN AREA".
PAGE 5-60 - HAS A NOTICE OF INTENT (NOI) OR DETERMINATION OF APPLICABILITY
BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE CITY'S CONSERVATION COMMISSION AND IF NOT, WHEN WILL
IT BE, REGARDING SITE LA, WHICH IS REQUIRED BY THE MASS. WETLANDS PROTECTION
ACT?
5-63 - WHY WERE THE SPECIES OF WILDLIFE PRESENT IN WETLANDS AT SITE LA NOT
IDENTIFIED?
5-78 WHEN WILL THE IMPACTS AFFECTING FT. TABER, REQUIRED BY THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT BE CONDUCTED AND WHO WILL BE ASSESSING THE IMPACTS?
PAGE 5-79 - HISTORIC - THE B. U. SURVEY REPEATEDLY MENTIONS FURTHER STUDY
SHOULD TAKE PLACE AT SITE LA. WHEN WILL THIS BE ACCOMPLISHED?
PAGE 5-81 - ON YOUR MAP WE WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE CHILDREN TO BE
RE-LOCATED WILL EVENTUALLY BE HOUSED AT THE HOSPITAL ON THE MAP AND WILL,
THEREFORE, BECOME SENSITIVE RECEPTORS AT LA.
PAGE 5-89 - 5.6.3.1. - IN YOUR DEFINITION OF HARBOR RESOURCES, AT SITE LA,
WHY DID YOU NOT INCLUDE RECREATIONAL BOATING AND TOURISM (i.e. M/V"SCHAMONCHI
ALSO IN DESCRIBING WATERFRONT PROPERTY WHY DOES IT NOT DESCRIBE SITE LA AS
"OCEAN FRONT PROPERTY" AS THE SITE IS SURROUNDED BY WATER ON 3 SIDES?
PAGE 5-90 - AS YOU HAVE STATED, THE AVERAGE PER CAPITA INCOME IN NEW BEDFORD
IS $10,677. AND THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IS 7.27.. IF THE RESIDENTS AND TAX- -
B-135
-------
PAYERS OF NEW BEDFORD MUST BUILD A SECONDARY WWTP, SHOULD NOT THE CITY
INSURE THAT THE TAXPAYER'S MONEY IS PROTECTED? THIS MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE
IF THE PLANT IS BUILT AT FORT RODMAN OUTSIDE THE PROTECTION OF THE HURRI i£
BARRIER.
PAGE 5-91 - THE HOUSING MARKET IN NEW BEDFORD IS NOT STRONG AND THERE IS NOT
A SHORTAGE OF HOUSING. IN 1989, THE HOUSING MARKET DROPPED 247. IN GREATER
NEW BEDFORD AND THERE WAS AN OVERABUNDANCE OF HOUSES .FOR SALE.
PAGE 5-92 - WHY WERE THE LIGHTED SOCCER FIELD, BASKETBALL, TENNIS COURTS,
WATERSKIING, BOATING, ETC. NOT INCLUDED WITH RECREATIONAL RESOURCES FOR LA?
PAGE 6-2 - 6.1.1.1 - NO AMOUNT OF MITIGATION MEASURES COULD MINIMIZE THE
NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF A WWTP TO FT. TABER, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING MAYOR
BULLARD'S COST CUTTING MEASURES. SEE PAGE 4.
PAGE 6-3 - THE SOCCER FIELD AT SITE LA - THE ISSUE OF RE-LOCATION HAS NEVER
BEEN ADDRESSED BY CAMP, DRESSER & McKEE NOR THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NEW
BEDFORD. WHERE WILL SAID FIELD BE RE-LOCATED?
PAGE 6-3 - 4TH PARAGRAPH - AS STATED IN YOUR REPORT THIS IS ONLY AN ^OPINION
OF OUR CITY SOLICITOR ON AN APPROPRIATE ZONING FOR THE TREATMENT PLANT.
BEFORE THE SITE WAS CHOSEN, THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NEW BEDFORD WAS
INFORMED ON THREE DIFFERENT OCCASIONS THAT IF HE CHOSE SITE LA, HE WOULD BE
/
CHALLENGED IN COURT. THE 19870PEN SPACE AND RECREATION PLAN DID NOT SPECIFY
RECREATIONS PLANS FOR SITE LA BECAUSE SAID SITE WAS IDENTIFIED AS A POTEN-
TIAL SITE FOR THE NEW WWTP. WHY DO WE HAVE A SITUATION AT SITE 4A, WHEREBY
THE STATE SENATE WAS ALLOWED TO PUSH FORWARD WITH SENATE BILL 1131, TO
CHANGE THE HARBOR LINES THERE? ALSO WHY HAS THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
ACCEPTED AN APPLICATION TO DEDESICNATE THE DESIGNATED PORT AREA AT SITE 4A?
WHY IS A LOCAL CITY COUNCILLOR ALLOWED BY THE CITY OF NEW BEDFORD TO FILE A
MOTION TO CHANGE THE ZONING AT 4A?
B-136
-------
-11-
PAGE 6-3 - PARA. 5 - WHY IS YOUR RATING OF "ON-SITE LAND USE AND ZONING"
RATED AS MODERATE WHEN THE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTED TO CHANGE THE
RATING TO SIGNIFICANT?
6.1.1.2 - SITE LA ADJACENT LAND USE AND ZONING - YOUR COMMENT STATES THAT
THE PROPOSED WWTP WOULD BE MODERATELY INCOMPATIBLE, ETC. WHY DOESN'T YOUR
RATING REFLECT THE CAC'S VOTE TO CHANGE THIS TO SIGNIFICANT?
LAST PARAGRAPH - WE FEEL THAT THERE WILL BE RECREATIONAL USES ADJACENT TO
SITE LA THAT WILL BE IMPACTED. WHAT ABOUT THE TRUCKING ASSOCIATED WITH
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PLANT? HOW WILL THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND
WELFARE OF RESIDENTS AND BEACH-GOERS BE PROTECTED?
6.1.1.4 - PAGE 6-5 - 3RD PARA. AS MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY THE PROPOSAL FOR
ELDERLY HOUSING NEAR SITE 4A WAS TURNED DOWN BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.
PAGE 6-10 - 3RD PARA. WHY WERE THE BEACHES, PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC AND THE
CHURCH ON 82 COVE ST. NOT INCLUDED AS SENSITIVE RECEPTORS FOR LA?
5TH PARA. - AT SITE LA THE CAC VOTED TO CHANGE TRAFFIC IMPACTS FROM
MODERATE TO SIGNIFICANT. WHY IS THIS NOT REFLECTED? ANOTHER POINT TO
MENTION ABOUT TRUCK TRAFFIC IS THAT AT PRESENT THE 200 TO 300 TRUCKS USING
EAST RODNEY FR. BLVD./COVE STREET DO NOT TRAVEL TO THE TIP OF THE PENINSULA,
WHICH WILL OCCUR DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THE PLANT. WHY IS IT NOT MENTIONED
THAT THE SLUDGE GENERATED BY THE NEW PLANT WILL BE THREE TIMES AS MUCH AS
CURRENTLY - THEREFORE, THE TRUCKS WILL NO DOUBT BE THREE TIMES LARGER THAN
THE VEHICLES PRESENTLY BEING USED?
PAGE 6-15 - 6.2.1.1 - WHAT WILL THE AFFECT BE TO THE HOMES IN THE AREA
RELATIVE TO FLOODING? WILL THEY BE SUBJECT TO AN INCREASE IN WAVEWASH?
B-137
-------
-12-
PAGE 6-32 - 6.3.1 = LAST PARAGRAPH - THE AIR QUALITY IMPACTS AT SITE 1A
WERE PREDICTED FOR THE AREA IN AND+AROUND FORT TABER. FORT TABER IS ALMOST
2000' FROM THE ROAD - THE PROPOSED PLANT WILL BE 300' FROM THE ROAD. WHY
WAS THIS DONE ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PENINSULA WHEN THE PLANT WILL
BE BUILT ON THE NORTHWEST SECTION OF THE LAND? WAS THEIE ANY CONSIDERATION
GIVEN TO THE FACT THAT WE HAVE A PREVAILING SOUTH WEST WIND, WHICH WILL
CERTAINLY INCREASE IN A NEGATIVE MANNER THE AIR QUALITY AND ODOR IMPACTS?
PAGE 6-33 - SITE 1A WAS GIVEN A MODERATE IMPACT. WHY HAS THIS NOT BEEN
CHANGED TO SIGNIFICANT AS VOTED BY THE CAC?
PAGE 6-41 - 6.4.1 - ARE THE NOISE LEVELS ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION AT 1A
WITHIN STATE AND FEDERAL GUIDELINES? AGAIN, HAS THE PREVAILING SOUTHWEST
WIND BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN MEASURING THESE LEVELS? ALSO, HOW
CAN THE INDOOR NOISE LEVELS NOT SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE IF CONSTRUCTION RUNS
THROUGH SPRING AND SUMMER WHEN HOMEOWNERS HAVE THEIR DOORS AND WINDOWS OPEN?
PAGE 6-46 - 6.5.1.1 - SITE LA - THE MNHP HAS NOT INDICATED THAT SITE LA
IS KNOWN TO CONTAIN OR PROVIDE HABITAT FOR RARE OR ENDANGERED SPECIES. IS
THIS DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE PRESENT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IS SITUATED
AT SITE LA?
PAGE 6-57 - THERE ARE SHELLFISH BEDS IN THE TRIANGLE OFF OF SITE LA THAT
ARE OPEN TO SHELLFISHING. WHAT AGENCIES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR CHECKING FOR
CONTAMINATION? WILL SHELLFISH PURGE THEMSELVES OF PCB'S?
PAGE 6-53 - 6.6.1.1 - SITE LA - WHERE WILLTHE MONEY COME FROM TO MITIGATE
THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO FT. TABER. MAYOR BULLARD HAS RECOMMENDED COST
CUTTING MEASURES AT FORT TABER. IN 1976, THE CITY RECEIVED $500,000. TO
RESTORE FORT TABER AND INSTITUTE TOURISM. DUE TO THE NEGLECT ON THE PART
OF THE CITY OF NEW BEDFORD, FORT TABER HAS BEEN DAMAGED AND VANDALIZED.
WILL THE CITY PROTECT FT. TABER AFTER COSTLY MITIGATION MEASURES?
B-138
-------
PAGES 6-63 6. 64 - THE CAPITAL COST OF BUILDING A WWTP AT EITHER SITE LA OR
4A HAVE BEEN CHANGED. ON PAGE 4 "POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS" WHY WAS SITE 1A
THE ONLY SITE ADDRESSED?
PAGE 64 - 2ND PARAGRAPH - MENTION IS MADE OF THE NEGATIVE IMPACT OF HAVING
A WWTP IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO HISTORIC FORT TABER. WHAT ABOUT THE LOST
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES AND COSTS TO ALL THE FAMILIES WHO HAVE THEIR LIFE
SAVINGS INVESTED IN THEIR HOMES? WHO WILL REIMBURSE THE PEOPLE OR MORTGAGE
HOLDERS FOR THEIR LOSSES IF THEY ARE FORCED TO SELL THEIR HOMES? WILL THE
CITY OF NEW BEDFORD REDUCE THE TAX BASE FOR PROPERTY IN THE AREA? IF SO,
WHAT WOULD BE THE POTENTIAL LOSS IN REVENUES TO THE CITY OF NEW BEDFORD?
THIS HAS NEVER BEEN ADDRESSED BY CAMP, DRESSER & McKEE OR THE MAYOR OF THE
CITY, AND IT IS THE MAIN CONCERN OF RESIDENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
A GREAT DEAL OF ATTENTION HAS BEEN GIVEN TO SITE 4A, AND THERE IS NOTHING
ON THIS LAND OTHER THAN A RADIO TOWER. IN ADDITION, THE RESIDENCES ARE
APPROSIMATELY 1,000' FZET FROM THE SITE.
PAGE 7-4 - 7.3.1.1 - FUGITIVE DUST WOULD BE GENERATED AT BOTH SITES FROM
DEMOLITION, ETC. THIS IS NOT A FACT. DEMOLITION, STONE CRUSHING AND BLASTING
ARE APPLICABLE TO SITE LA ONLY - WHY IS THIS NOT POINTED OUT? WE HAVE THESE
SAME COMMENTS -AND QUESTIONS AT SITE LA IN RELATION TO NOISE LEVELS.
PAGE 7-5 - TABLE 7.3-1 AGAIN WE ASK, WHY HAVE YOU NOT CHANGED SITE LA
RATINGS AS FOLLOWS:
SITE LA
CONFLICT WITH OK-SITE LAND USE & ZONING SIGNIFICANT
CONFLICT WITH ADJACENT LAND USE & ZONING SIGNIFICANT
TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANT
AIR QUALITY AND ODORS SIGNIFICANT
PAGE 7-6 - PARAGRAPH 4 - WHY ARE "BOTH SITES COMPARABLE WITH RESPECT TO
POTENTIAL FLOOD ilAZARDS"? A PLANT AT SITE LA WOULD HAVE TO BE CONSTRUCTED
WITHIN THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLA1N AND WOULD BE LOCATED OiJTISDE THE PROTECTION
B-139
-------
eF THE HURRICANE BARRIER. WHY WAS THE HURRICANE BARRIER BUILT?
WHAT WOULD THE OVER-ALL EFFECT BE ON UPLAND RESIDENTIAL AREA IN THE EVENT
OF FLOODING?
PAGE 7-7 - LAST PARAGRAPH - HOW CAN ONE RATE THE HISTORICAL IMPACTS AT
SITE 4A AS MODERATE WHEN THERE HAS BEEN NO DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBLE
RESOURCES. WE FEEL AN OPINION SUCH AS THIS SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN AT THIS
TIME.
PAGE 7-8 - 3RD PARAGRAPH - MENTION IS MADE OF NOISE, ODOR AND WATER QUALITY
IMPACTS AT BOTH SITES FOR SWIMMING. THERE WILL BE NO NEGATIVE PERCEPTIONS
FOR SWIMMING AT SITE 4A. THE WATER NEAR 4A IS NOT AND HAS NOT BEEN SUITABLE
FOR SWIMMING.
IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH YOU STATE THAT "DEED RESTRICTIONS ON PORTIONS OF THE
SITE (LA) MAKE IT UNCERTAIN AS TO WHETHER SUCH PLANS COULD BE IMPLEMENTED".
WHY DO YOU USE THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AT FORT RODMAN AS A DETRIMENT TO TAX
REVENUES WHEN YOU SIMPLY IGNORE THEM CONCERNING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PI T
THERE?
IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH MENTION IS MADE OF NEW BEDFORD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION'S GOAL OF INCREASED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT.ETC. WHY WOULD THE
CITY ALLOW THE DEVELOPERS TO CHANGE THE ZONING TO "MIXED USE" AT SITE 4A?
/
PAGE 7-9 - LAST PARAGRAPH - CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACTS AT SITE LA SHOULD
BE MINIMIZED BY PLACING A NOISEBARRIER SUCH AS AN ACOUSTIC WALL OR BERMS
ALONG THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE SITE. WHAT WOULD BE THE COST FOR THIS
PROJECT? WE FEEL PROHIBITIVE AND ONE THE CITY COULD NOT AFFORD. CONTINU1NG
ON TO PAGE 7-10, FURTHER MITIGATION MEASURES SUCH AS TEMPORARY BARRIERS OR
ENCLOSURES MAY ALSO BE NEEDED TO CONTROL PEAK NOISE LEVELS DUE TO BLASTING
AND ROCK DRILLING. WHAT WOULD .THIS COST BE? WHY HAVE THEY NOT BEEN
ADDRESSED BY C,D,M IN THE COST AT SITE LA? IS IT DUE TO THE FACT THAT "" -
B-140
-------
-o-
OVER-ALL COST AT SITE LA WOULD BE CONSIDERABLY HIGHER?
PAGE 7-10 - 7.3.2.2. AGAIN, MAYOR BULLARD HAS SUGGESTED THE ONLY WAY THE
CITY OF NEW BEDFORD CAN AFFORD THE SECONDARY WWTP IS IF WE SUBSTANTIALLY
CUT COSTS, INCLUDING TABER PARK. WHY MUST WE BE FOOLED INTO BELIEVING
THAT A WWTP AT FORT RODMAN IS THE ONLY WAY TO IMPROVE PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE
WATERFRONT AND FORT TABER?
SAME PAGE - PARA. A - WHAT ARE THE ADDITIONAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
PROPOSAL TO LESSEN TRAFFIC IMPACTSDUE TO PLANT OPERATION AT LA? AGAIN,
ARE THESE FIGURES OMITTED DUE TO THE INCREASED COST OF THE PLANT AT FORT
RODMAN?
PAGE 7-11 WHAT ARE THEHAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH "INTERRUPTED OPERATION" IF
THE PLANT IS LOCATED AT 1A? WILL RESIDENTS BE ALLOWED TO FLUSH THEIR
TOILETS?
PAGE 7-12 - AGAIN WE REFER TO PAGE 4 ON COST CUTTING SCHEDULE. MITIGATION
MEASURES HAVE ALREADY BEEN CUT, AND WE QUESTION HOW MANY MORE WILL BE
ELIMINATED.
PAGE 8-2 - 2ND PARAGRAPH ^ THE CAC HAS BEEN MEETING SINCE APRIL 1987, NOT
JUNE 1988.
IN CLOSING WE WISH TO ADD:
/
TO LOCATE A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AT FORT RODMAN (SITE LA) WOULD BE THi
GREATEST DISSERVICE TO THE RESIDENTS OF NEW BEDFORD, AS WELL AS THE ENTIRE
UMTtD STATES. THE HISTORY AT FORT RODMAN WILL 3E DESTROYED FOREVER, ONCE
THE BUILDINGS ARE RAZED TO MAKE WAY FOR THE PLANT,
THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECT OF THE WHOLE PROJECT WILL HAVE MORE DAMAGING AND
LASTING AFFECTS AT SITE LA. BEING OUTSIDE THE HURRICANE BARRIER COULD HAVEA
DEVASTING IMPACT ON THE ENTIRE PENINSULA AND THE CITY OF NEW BEDFORD.
B-141
-------
IT IS UNCONSCIONABLE THAT A MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NEW BEDFORD WOULD CHOOSE
FORT RODMAN AS A PREFERRED SITE FOR A PLANT. WE CAN ONLY QUOTE THE
PROVERBIAL "THE PUBLIC BE DAMNED". IN OUR "SPARE" TIME WE HAVE COLLECTEr
OVER 3,000 SIGNATURES ON OUR PETITION OPPOSING THE SITING OF THE PLANT AT
FORT RODMAN.
TO RUIN THIS MAGNIFICENT PIECE OF PROPERTY, OUR LAST COASTAL LAND IN THE
CITY OF NEW BEDFORD, WILL FOREVER HAVE A DEVASTING AFFECT ON THE WHOLE CITY.
OUR "CITY FATHERS" ON ONE HAND WANT TO ENCOURAGE NEW BUSINESS, THEN ON THE
OTHER HAND WANT TO DESTROY THIS PANORAMIC PARCEL. IF WE ENCOURAGE MORE
PEOPLE TO WORK AND RESIDE IN NEW BEDFORD, IT WOULD SEEM WISER AND MORE
SENSIBLE TO HAVE FORETHOUGHT RELATIVE TO RECREATIONAL AREAS FOR THEM. THERE
SEEMS TO BE NO LOGIC OR COMMON SENSE TO THIS DECISION.
THERE IS NO OTHER PIECE OF LAND ON THE EASTERN SEA COAST THAT CAN RIVAL
FORT RODMAN. WE HAVE BEEN TOLD BY OUR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER IN THE CITY,
THAT THIS WILL BE THE LARGEST SEWER KREATMENT PLANT ON THE EASTERN SEA
COAST. WILL THIS BE OUR "CLAIM TO FAME"?
WE HEAR PEOPLE FROM THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, LAWYERS, CONSULTANTS, ADVISORS,
ETC. APPLAUD THE MAYOR FOR HIS "COURAGEOUS" DECISION. DO THE STATE AND
FEDERAL AGENCIES REALIZE THAT THESE PEOPLE RESIDE IN TOWNS OUTSIDE THE
t
BOUNDS OF THE CITY OF NEW BEDFORD.
WE COULD GO ON AD INFINITUM, HOWEVER, WILL CLOSE IN STATING THAT IT IS
UNFORTUNATE THAT A WWTP HAS BECOME ENMESHED IN POLITICAL GAME PITYING.
WHEN A GROUP OF CITIZENS IS UNABLE TO RECEIVE ASSISTANCE rROM SOME STAT£
AND FEDERAL ELECTED OFFICIALS, "SOMETHING IS WRONG IN D'ENV.VilK".
THE CITY OF NEW BEDFORD AND CDM HAVE PRESENTED A GLOWING LOPSIDED VIEW IN
THEIR COMPARISON OF SITES LA AND 4A , AND WE TRUST THAT STATE AND FEDERAL
AGENCIES WILL ASSESS THE PLAN WITH MOR£ COMMON SENSE AND HAVE THE CITIZ^'S
AT HEART.
B-142
-------
Comment 0028
^V
-------
discharge location, the overall net environmental benefit was not
evaluated in terms of water and sediment quality conditions in the
Outer Harbor. The question which should be addressed is whether
the increased cost of the longer outfall and the fact that a
relatively pristine area will be exposed to contaminants if the
discharge is relocated to the 301(h) site exceed the impacts from
a continued discharge at the existing site. Although the number
of water quality violations of various state and federal standards
and criteria are predicted, based on modelling efforts, to be fewer
at the more distant site, violations will occur. Neither location,
therefore, can be claimed to meet water quality standards in the
strictest definition.
The Draft EIS does not acknowledge that existing contaminants
in the sediments and the ongoing migration of contaminants from
upstream sources will severely degrade the Outer Harbor for
decades. There are permanent fisheries closures for lobsters,
finfish, and shellfish due to contamination by toxics, and
relocating the effluent discharge site is not likely to alter these
closures. In addition, according to marine fisheries regulations,
there must be a mandatory precautionary closure around all
treatment plant discharges. Consequently, a potentially large,
additional new area will have to be closed if the 301(h) site is
chosen as the discharge location. The Draft EIS does not appear
to reflect a clear understanding or evaluation of the regulations
related to fisheries management issues in terms of the impacts from
fecal coliform contamination or to weigh these factors as part of
the overall evaluation of outfall siting.
MCZM recognizes that a concern for impacts from toxic
contaminants is valid. It is important to recognize that the same
net loading of pollutants will be discharged regardless of the
outfall location, and more dilution as an answer to the problem
may not necessarily be the best long term solution. We fully agree
with the need and usefulness of a Toxicity Reduction and Evaluation
program but recognize that the likelihood exists that full
implementation will not occur in the near future. Without a
significant effort to establish a functioning toxics reduction
program, the discharge of contaminants will merely be. transported
from a presently degraded site to a clean one. Even with
pretreatment controls, the net result in terms of the outfall
discharges is that, if the discharge is moved to the 301(h) site,
there will still be ongoing toxics loadings to a relatively clean
area. The existing site is already heavily contaminated from the
history of past discharges as evidenced in the sediments, but,
while more toxics will accumulate from a continued discharge at
this site, the relative impact to the environment will be less than
at the 301(h) site. A larger overall benefit to the environment
might result from investing some of the funds saved from not
relocating the discharge to developing an effective toxics
reduction program.
The issue of impacts related to dissolved oxygen deficits is
very complex, both in terms of science and in available data.
B-144
-------
Information which was prepared for the Facilities Plan and which
became available subsequent to the preparation of this document
indicates that the sediment oxygen demand is not as great as
previously estimated which suggests that impacts at the existing
discharge site may not be as severe as originally predicted. A
review of the data suggests that values very seldom fall below 6
mg/1 and the condition of the benthic community does not show
evidence of oxygen stress. Further, draft EIS analysis does not
reflect recent proposed changes in the Massachusetts Water Quality
Standards regarding dissolved oxygen standards, developed after the
document was prepared. The proposed changes appear to allow for
a change in water classification at the existing discharge site
which would reflect actual conditions and to reduce the dissolved
oxygen standard to a minimum of 5 mg/1. In light of the new
information and in view of proposed changes in the standards, the
EIS should reevaluate issues related to dissolved oxygen. MCZM has
seen no evidence that reductions in dissolved oxygen levels are
likely to be significantly different at either site in terms of
effects on the marine ecosystem.
There appears to be no scientific concensus or data which can
resolve issues related to the comparative impacts from nutrient
loading and primary production at the two sites. These
uncertainties would appear to argue to favor of leaving the
discharge at the existing location until additional information can
resolve some of the questions, rather than imposing the higher
costs associated with moving the outfall location further out with
uncertain benefit. The Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Technical Advisory Group (EOEA TAG) which evaluated the data
recommended a reasonable and appropriate monitoring program which
MCZM endorses.
In response to the specific concerns in the evaluation for the
outfall location in the Draft EIS (pages 20 through 27 of the
executive summary), MCZM agrees that there will be short-term,
reversible impacts from the construction activities, but these were
not evaluated for their significance in relationship to the
relative levels of existing sediment contaminants at the two sites,
as dicussed above. Irreversible impacts, including loss of benthic
habitat, are likewise not evaluated.
Exceedances of criteria and standards will occur at all
locations, but the significance of these exceedances is not
adequately evaluated, either in terms of the impacts to the
existing marine fauna or in absolute toxicity terms. For example,
the role of increased levels of arsenic in the marine environment
is not well understood. The dissolved oxygen information has been
refined with the recent release of the report on sediment oxygen
demand. With the proposed changes in the Massachusetts Water
Quality Standards, violations of the DO standard may no longer be
a problem. The statements on the fecal coliform impacts do not
reflect actual regulatory practices by the Division of Marine
Fisheries.
B-145
-------
There appears to be no recognition that total loadings of
sediments to Buzzards Bay will not differ among the various outfall
siting options. While the sedimentation rate is lower at the
301(h) site, toxics in the effluent will have to accumulate
somewhere. Sediments are already contaminated at the existing site
and will remain so for a very long time, as is mentioned, but it
is not clear why it is more detrimental to add to this .loading than
to contaminate a relatively clean unimpacted location. The EIS
should include predictions on the far-field effects of particulates
from the waste stream. At the very least, because there is greater
deposition at the existing site, toxics will be more contained in
the long term and perhaps the problem can be addressed at a later
time with additional advances in technology. While organic carbon
levels will follow the same pattern, it is not clear that they will
cause detrimental impacts to marine fauna.
The Draft EIS acknowledges that impacts to the marine
biological system are difficult to predict, but, given this
uncertainty, it seems most appropriate to have more data before a
decision is made oh the outfall location. The whole effluent
toxicity tests yielded confusing results with the dechlorinated
effluent demonstrating a higher toxicity than other effluent
samples in some instances, so that conclusions from this data
should be interpreted cautiously.
Although there is additional dilution from locating the
discharge at the 301(h) site, it is not clear that this outweighs
the issue of greater construction costs and the issue of
contaminating a relatively clean area and of closing a potentially
large additional area to shellfishing.
An additional regulatory problem, unidentified in the
document, relates to the requirements of the Ocean Sanctuaries Act.
Recently passed legislation establishes provisions for a variance
from the existing provisions against increased or relocated
discharges. It seems evident that New Bedford will need to apply
for a variance based on its current facility planning efforts.
Provisions of the variance process are defined in the recent
legislation. They require a full examination of alternatives, as
well as a clear explanation and justification for why a relatively
clean area roust be contaminated. Since the Draft EIS has
identified the 301(h) site as the only acceptable alternative, it
is reasonable to request that the Final EIS consider this issue.
If you have additional questions, please contact either Jan
Smith or Judy Pederson of my staff.
Sincerel
j Je^fr*ey R. Benoit
Director
JRB/jps
B-146
-------
Comment 0029
Thomas c. McMahon One? Winter-
-------
-2-
The EIS implies that Site 40 has preliminarily been identified as
being within the Zone II recharge area -of an existing or potential
aquifer. Please note that no definitive decision has been reached by
DEP. Since use of all of Site 47 as a sludge landfill is unlikely to
be approvable, additional analyses of other landfill sites and other
alternatives may be necessary if the Crapo Hill solid-waste landfill
alternative is not feasible. If Site 40 is then further analyzed as a
landfill site, then a detailed Zone II analysis will be required to
delineate the recharge area.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the EIS. If you should
have any questions, please contact either Alan Slater at 292-5749 or Ron
Lyberger at 292-5738.
Very truly yours,
Paul A. Taurasi, P.E.
Chief Engineer
PAT/ADS/ns
B-148
-------
Comment 0030
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Department of Environmental Management
100 Cambridge Street
Boston
Massachusetts
02202
Division of
Water Resources
February 13, 1990
Ann Rodney
U.S. EPA, Region I
WQE-1900C
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
Dear Ms. Rodney,
RE: DEIS, New Bedford Wastewater
Treatment Plant
The Department of Environmental Management has
reviewed the DEIS for the New Bedford Wastewater
Treatment Plant. Our role as trustee of the ocean
sanctuaries is to ensure that the sanctuaries are
protected from any activity that would seriously alter
or otherwise endanger the ecology or the appearance of
the ocean, the seabed, or subsoil thereof.
An outfall extension would be subject to M.G.L. c. 91
permitting and would be allowable under the Ocean
Sanctuaries Act if it received c. 91 and other
applicable federal, state and local authorization and
was deemed to be of public necessity and convenience
(M.G.L. c. 132A s. 16).
As you may be aware, the Ocean Sanctuaries Act has
just been amended to allow a variance to the
prohibition against increased volumes of discharge to
an Ocean Sanctuary. Without a variance, New Bedford
cannot exceed its average daily discharge of 30 mgd
calculated on an annual basis, which was the existing
discharge as of December 8, 1971, when the Cape and
Islands Ocean Sanctuary was established. Under the
provisions of the amended Act a strict set of
prerequisites must be met in order to apply for a
variance and rigorous criteria met to receive it. I
have enclosed a copy of the amendments for your
reference.
Primed on recycled paper
B-149
-------
We are in the process of writing the regulations and
administrative procedures for the variance process.
Mention of the variance process is for your
information and does not imply an opinion on the
potential waiver application or outfall location for
New Bedford.
:y truly yours,
Myron L. Gildesgame
Ocean Sanctuaries Coordinator
enclosure
MGL/DLG
B-150
-------
Comment 0032
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
NEW ENGLAND DIVISION. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
424 TRAPELO ROAD
WALTHAM. MASSACHUSETTS 02254-9149
R|»l» TO
ATTENTION 0(
February 20, 1990
CENED-OD-R
Ann Rodney, Program Assistant
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region l
John F. Kennedy Building, WQE-1900C
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
near Ms. Rodney:
We have reviewed the Draft EIS for Wastewater Treatment
Facilities for the City of New Bedford, Massachusetts and
provide the following comments. We believe the document
complies with the intent and procedural requirements of NEPA.
However, we are concerned with the potential wetland impacts of
discharges at sites 40 and 47 and recommend further coordination
with Corps Regulatory Branch staff to insure that wetland
impacts are minimized.
NEPA Comments
Section 3.4 indicates that both sites 40 and 47 can
accommodate the disposal of chemically fixed sludge for the full
planning period. As noted in the DEIS (Section 6.5.2.3) the
construction of a 20-year solids disposal landfill at Site 47
would result in significant wetland filling. The suggestion
that Site 47 has the capacity to accept 20 years of chemically
fixed high solids sludge without impacts to wetlands or
groundwater areas (Table B-15) appears to be in error.
One of the recommended alternatives calls for use of
Chem-fixed sludge as daily cover at the proposed Crapo Hill
Landfill using Site 47 as a backup for disposal. Although we
agree that an initial phase landfill (5-year) can be constructed
at Site 47 without wetlands impacts, we note that there are 404
(b) 1 issues confronting plans for the proposed Crapo Hill
landfill which add uncertainty to the feasibility of the site
for disposal of chemically fixed sludge. Since the other three
landfill sites surviving phase I (BFI landfill, Rockland
Municipal landfill, and Marshfield Municipal landfill) have the
potential to accept Chem-fixed sludge we recommend that these be
pursued as backups in further analyses.
B-151
-------
Corps Permit Comments
There is uncertainty as to the amount of wetland acreage at
sites 40 and 47. The acreages described in section 3.3.4 do not
agree with data from Table B-13. We recommend that the wetland
delineations be verified by the Corps prior to the release of
the FEIS.
The DEIS maintains that site 40 has the capacity to be used
with chemically fixed sludge or lime stabilized high solid
sludge without impacts to wetlands or groundwater areas (B-15).
This will need to be confirmed independently by the Corps as
part of the permit process. With regard to potential 404 (b) 1
impacts listed in the DEIS, we request a more detailed
discussion on the impacts of a sludge landfill at Site 40 on
future public drinking water supply. Details of mitigation
measures designed to minimize potential impacts to the adjacent
Acushnet Cedar Swamp should be coordinated with the Corps.
We recommend the following steps to insure that the FEIS be
suitable for the Corps permitting process. The amount of
wetland fill for each alternative should be determined. The
404(b) 1 guidelines require that the least environmentally
damaging, practicable alternative be chosen, not only for the
landfill site but for the outfall and treatment plant portions
of the project as well. We are concerned that lack of adequate
landfill sites could result in wetland losses at Site 47 if
Crapo Hill is not available. Therefore, we believe the
alternatives analysis should include an evaluation of the
feasibility of disposing Chem-fixed sludge at the other 3
landfill sites surviving phase 1.
The functions and values of the wetlands to be affected by
the proposed project should be evaluated. The permit process
will sequentially seek avoidance, minimization, and in kind
compensation for functions and values of wetlands unavoidably
impacted. All these steps, as detailed in the Corps / EPA
mitigation MOA of 7 Feb. 1990, should be assessed in the FEIS.
Historic and Archaeological Resources Comments
General comment. Overall, it appears that proper
consideration has been given to the potential effect of the
proposed undertaking on potentially significant historic and
archaeological resources. The document outlines the potential
resources, summarizes the background and on-site studies to
date, and predicts the potential need for future work to satisfy
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,
B-152
-------
as amended (NHPA) . Correspondence with the Massachusetts
Historic Commission should be included in the FEIS as evidence
of the current state of coordination with the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) .
We request that you provide us copies of the supporting
archaeological studies for land and marine resources. We would
like both the ones prepared for this DEIS and all subsequent
studies. Before we make a permit decision, we will need to see
the supplemental data determining site significance, and
determination of effects of the project on significant resources.
You may wish to include the Corps as a consulting party on any
resulting Memorandum of Agreement (MO A) needed to mitigate the
impact to significant resources.
For marine archaeological resources, the FEIS should
distinguish between short term impacts and potential long term
impacts. Short term impacts would be associated with
construction of the outfall and diffuser. Long term impacts
would be the result of sediment, chemical or temperature changes
within a certain radius from the diffuser location that could
affect the integrity of the resources or restrict accessibility
by divers.
Other Comments
Page 5-78, Section 5.6.1: We recommend that you add
citations for the various laws and regulations cited in this
section, especially for 36 CFR 800 (Protection of Historic
Properties) .
If you have any questions or comments please call Peter Kube
at (617) 647-8493.
Sincerely,
F. Lawless P.E.
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Operations Directorate
Copy furnished:
John K. Bullard, Mayor
New Bedford City Hall
133 William Street
New Bedford, MA 02740
James Small
Camp, Dresser & Mckee
One Center Plaza
Boston, MA 02108
B-153
-------
02. 23. 30 O 1 : 3 -7
C EN E O OP R COM F> L> I AN C
O 1
US Army Corps
of Engineers
New England -Division,
ZC35I2?. #: (617) 647-8655
i?) 647-8361/3*3
FACSIMILE HEADER JHSST
-------
O 2. 23. 30 01 : 3 -7 F M ~CE1MED O D R COMPLIAISIC F> O 2
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
NEW ENGLAND DIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
424 TRAPELO ROAD
WAITHAM. MASSACHUSETTS 02254-9149
February 20, 1990
CENED-OD-R
Ann Rodney, Program Assistant
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region l
John F. Kennedy Building, WQE-1900C
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Dear Ms. Rodney:
We have reviewed the Draft ZIS for Wastewater Treatment
Facilities for the City of New Bedford, Massachusetts and
provide the following comments. We believe the document
complies with the intent and procedural requirements of NEPA.
However, we are concerned with the potential wetland impacts of
discharges at sites 40 and 47 and recommend further coordination
with Corps Regulatory Branch staff to insure that wetland
impacts are minimized.
Section 3.4 indicates that both sites 40 and 47 can
accommodate the disposal of chemically fixed sludge for the full
planning period. As noted in the DEIS (Section 6.5.2.3) the
construction of a 20-year solids disposal landfill at Site 47
would result in significant wetland filling. The suggestion
that Site 47 has the capacity to accept 20 years of chemically
fixed high solids sludge without impacts to wetlands or
groundwater areas (Table B-15) appears to be in error.
One of the recommended alternatives calls for use of
Chem- fixed sludge as daily cover at the proposed Crapo Rill
Landfill using site 47 as a backup for disposal. Although we
agree that an initial phase landfill (5-year) can be constructed
at Site 47 without wetlands impacts, we note that there are 404
(b) i issues confronting plans for the proposed Crapo Hill
landfill which add uncertainty to the feasibility of the site
for disposal of chemically. fixed sludge. Since the other three
landfill sites surviving phase I (BFI landfill, Rockland
Municipal landfill, and Marshfield Municipal landfill) have the
potential to accept Chem-fixed sludge we recommend that these be
pursued as backups in further analyses.
B-155
-------
02. 23. 90 O 1 : 3 -7 P M ^CENED-OD-R-COMPLIAIMC H O 3
Corps Permt
There is uncertainty as to the amount of wetland acreage at
sites 40 and 47. The acreages described in section 3.3.4 do not
agree with data from Table B-13. We recommend that the wetland
delineations be verified by the Corps prior to the release of
the FEIS.
The DEIS maintains that site 40 has the capacity to be used
with chemically fixed sludge or lime stabilized high solid
sludge without impacts to wetlands or groundwater areas (B-15) .
This will need to be confirmed independently by the Corps as
part of the permit process. With regard to potential 404 (b) l
impacts listed in the DEIS, we request a more detailed
discussion on the impacts of a sludge landfill at Site 40 on
future public drinking water supply. Details of mitigation
measures designed to minimize potential impacts to the adjacent
Acushnet Cedar Swamp should be coordinated with the Corps.
We recommend the following steps to insure that the FEIS be
suitable for the Corps permitting process. The amount of
wetland fill for each alternative should be determined. The
404 (b) 1 guidelines require that the least environmentally
damaging, practicable alternative be chosen, not only for the
landfill site but for the outfall and treatment plant portions
of the project as well. We are concerned that lack of adequate
landfill sites could result in wetland losses at Site 47 if
Crapo Hill is not available. Therefore, we believe the
alternatives analysis should include an evaluation of the
feasibility of disposing Chem-fixed sludge at the other 3
landfill sites surviving phase 1.
The functions and values of the wetlands to be affected by
the proposed project should be evaluated. The permit process
will sequentially seek avoidance, minimization, and in kind
compensation for functions and values of wetlands unavoidably
impacted. All these steps, as detailed in the Corps / EPA
mitigation MOA of 7 Feb. 1990, should be assessed in the FEIS.
Historic and Archaeological Resources Comments
General comment. Overall, it appears that proper
consideration has been given to the potential effect of the
proposed undertaking on potentially significant historic and
archaeological resources. The document outlines the potential
resources, summarizes the background and on-site studies to
date, and predicts the potential need for future work to satisfy
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,
B-156
-------
2. 2 3.
O 1
3 "7 F M ~CENED OD R COMPLIAtMC
P O
as amended (NHPA). Correspondence with the Massachusetts
Historic Commission should be included in the FEI8 as evidence
of the current state of coordination with the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO).
We request that you provide us copies of the supporting
archaeological studies for land and marine resources. We would
like both the ones prepared for this DEIS and all subsequent
studies. Before we make a permit decision, we will need to see
the supplemental data determining site significance, and
determination of effects of the project on significant resources.
You may wish to include the Corps as a consulting party on any
resulting Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) needed to mitigate the
impact to significant resources.
For marine archaeological resources, the FEIS should
distinguish between short term impacts and potential long term
impacts. Short term impacts would be associated with
construction of the outfall and diffuser. Long term impacts
would be the result of sediment, chemical or temperature changes
within a certain radius from the diffuser location that could
affect the integrity of the resources or restrict accessibility'
by divers.
Other Comments
Page 5-78, Section 5.6.1: We recommend that you add
citations for the various laws and regulations cited in this
section, especially for 36 CFR 800 (Protection of Historic
Properties).
If you have any questions or comments please call Peter Kube
at (617) 647-8493.
Sincerely,
F. Lawless P.E.
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Operations Directorate
Copy furnished:
John K. Builard, Mayor
New Bedford City Hall
133 William Street
New Bedford, MA 02740
James Small
Camp, Dresser & Mckee
One Center Plaza
Boston, MA 02108
B-157
-------
APPENDIX C
CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING ARCHAEOLOGICAL
AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION ISSUES
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION I
J-F- KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING. BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02203-2211
June 10, 1991
Mr. Don Klima, Director
Eastern Office of Project Review
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
The Old Post Office Building
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, #809
Washington, D.C. 20004
Dear Mr. Klima:
I am writing this letter to formally initiate the Section 106
review process and notify your office that EPA Region I has
entered into consultation with the Massachusetts State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) and other parties regarding adverse
effects to significant historic resources resulting from the
construction of secondary wastewater treatment facilities in New
Bedford, Massachusetts.
The Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) has concluded, and
EPA concurs, that the proposed project constitutes an adverse
effect through the physical destruction and moving of National
Register-eligible properties, and through the alteration of the
character and setting of the Fort Taber Historic District. A
copy of the SHPO's determination of effect is enclosed
(Attachment A).
I would also like to take this opportunity to give you some
background on the undertaking of concern, inform you of the
parties that will be participating in this consultation, and give
you the opportunity to review and comment on a Preliminary Draft
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) prepared by the City of New_
Bedford.
The following material is presented below:
1. Project background
2. Identification of historic and archaeological resources in
the project area
3. Potential effects of the project on those resources and
proposed mitigation measures
4. Additional information regarding consultation and scheduling,
5. Preliminary Draft Memorandum of Agreement (Attachment B)
i
C-1
-------
Project Background
The City of New Bedford (City) is currently in the final planning
stages for the construction of municipal secondary wastewater
treatment facilities. Construction of a secondary wastewater
treatment plant and a sludge landfill, together with relocation
of or modifications to the City's existing effluent outfall, are
intended to bring New Bedford into compliance with the
requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act.
EPA's major reason for conducting an environmental review for
this project is that in 1987, EPA Region I, the MA Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP), and the Conservation Law
Foundation filed suit against the City of New Bedford in federal
court for violation of the Clean Water Act. At that point in
time, EPA was also to be providing financial assistance to the
City through its construction grants program. In conjunction
with the construction grants program, the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) dictated that EPA, as the lead federal agency
involved, prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for
this major federal action and conduct a Section 106 review for
potential effects on cultural resources resulting from the
project.
Due to major project delays, the City is no longer eligible for
federal assistance under the construction grants program;
instead, the City will be receiving loans through the state
revolving fund program. Despite the change in the underlying
situation which triggered the NEPA review, to help ensure that
there are no further delays in the enforcement case, EPA is
completing its environmental review process/EIS and as such is
conducting a Section 106 review.
It is my intent that this letter serve as notification for the
enclosed Draft MOA prepared by the City of New Bedford. This MOA
addresses mitigation for effects of construction of the
wastewater treatment plant.
Identification of Historic and Archaeological Resources
The site which has been selected by the City as the location for
its new secondary wastewater treatment plant (Site 1A -- the
current location of the City's existing primary treatment plant)
is within the Fort Rodman Military Reservation, adjacent to the
Fort Taber Historic District, and contains a number of historic
structures (see Attachment C). The existing Historic District,
which includes Fort Taber and several batteries, is excluded from
the plant construction area. Other structures on the site,
including Army officers quarters, World War II structures, and
Battery Milliken, contribute to the Historic District and are
eligible for inclusion in the District.
C-2
-------
Because of TCs~~location, structures in the Fort Taber Historic
District were important in defending the City, dating as far back
as the American Revolutionary War. Earthwork fortifications were
erected on this site during the Revolution and at the start of
the Civil War. Fort Taber, which presently occupies the site, is
a 2-story granite structure built in 1861 during the Civil War.
The battery buildings next to Fort Taber were built during the
Spanish-American War. In the northwest section of the proposed
project site is a large casement battery (Battery Milliken) built
in 1940, just prior to World War II. The northeast section of
the site contains a colonial revival house built around 1901 as
officers quarters. Past historical uses of the site also include
a lighthouse and keeper's residence. These structures were
located just outside the site boundaries and to the south of the
Fort from 1799 until the 20th century when the beacon from the
lighthouse was moved to the top of the Fort and the rest was
demolished. Although not currently part of the Fort Taber
Historic District, these and other resources on-site are
considered eligible for the National Register.
Due to its location, researchers believed that the southern
portion of the project site might contain historic or prehistoric
remains. Further research indicated that there are additional
deposits associated with a farmstead built in 1798. Although the
disturbance to the ground by both military and non-military uses
was expected to have limited the^ area that contained intact
archaeological resources, upon*MHC's recommendation, a Phase II
site examination was performed.
To determine whether there are any resources (shipwrecks)
potentially eligible for the National and State Register of
Historic Places that could be affected by outfall renovations, an
underwater archaeological documentation survey was conducted.
A preliminary archaeological survey of the proposed sludge
landfill site, conducted in the Summer of 1989, identified a
localized concentration of chipping debris in the southern-
central portion of the site and recovered a stone tool fragment
suggesting that the site may date to the Late Archaic or Early
Woodland Period. Based on these findings, MHC requested that an
archaeological site examination be conducted in order to
determine if the archaeological site which may be impacted by the
proposed project is eligible for listing in the National
Register.
Potential Effects of Site Development on Historic and
Archaeological Resources, and Proposed Mitigation
Based on the findings of the Phase II site examination of the
1798 Allen/Howland Farmstead (March, 1991), MHC does not consider
the Farmstead to be eligible for listing in the State and
National Register of Historic Places and is not recommending any
further archaeological survey of the site.
C-3
-------
Nonetheless, the proposed treatment plant layout will impact a
large number of the historic structures on the project site.
Therefore, efforts to preserve (through layout modifications),
relocate, or record data from these historic structures will have
to be made. Site 1A provides little opportunity for major
changes to plant layout. Therefore, it is anticipated that the
focus of the mitigation efforts will be on data recovery before
the structures are removed.
The site improvements planned, creation of Taber Park (a new
perimeter park on the site) and enhancement of the existing
Historic District, will be a significant improvement over current
conditions (Attachment D). The existing treatment plant, which
is directly adjacent to Fort Taber, will be demolished and the
Taber Park design will incorporate historic uses to the fullest
extent possible. The specific mitigation measures the City is
proposing are outlined in the Draft MOA.
The marine archaeology study conducted in the Spring of 1989 did
not include information on the identity, age, location,
integrity, and potential significance of all of the shipwrecks in
the area. Only three of the known wrecks in the study area were
discussed in that report. Without complete data, MHC has been
unable to determine whether or not these resources are
potentially eligible for the National and State Register of
Historic Places and whether or not the treatment plant outfall
will affect these resources.
If the outfall is moved to the outer 301 (H) site, EPA' s
preferred alternative, these resources could be impacted during
construction of the new outfall pipe. It is less likely that use
of the existing pipe with a diffuser added (MA DEP's preferred
alternative; also acceptable to EPA), would disturb any
archaeological resources present in New Bedford Harbor because
construction of the diffuser would occur in a previously
disturbed area. If the City opts to add a diffuser to the
existing outfall rather than moving it to the outer site, _it is
possible that no mitigation will be required. However, if MHC
determines otherwise upon review of the requested supplemental
information, mitigation measures will be taken to avoid or
minimize any anticipated impacts. In any event, a statement will
need to be added to the enclosed Draft MOA indicating what
follow-up action are required of the City.
As for the proposed sludge landfill site (Site 47), MHC has
requested additional information from the Boston University
Office of Public Archaeology (OPA) regarding the site examination
archaeology survey they performed at that site and will offer
comments when that information is received. The report concluded
that Site 47 contains no archaeological resources potentially
eligible for National Register listing and that no mitigation
will be required. If MHC's review of OPA information suggests
otherwise, mitigation measures for any anticipated impacts at the
proposed landfill site will be incorporated tinto the MOA. Again,
C-4
-------
in any event, a statement will need to be added to the Draft MOA
indicating what follow-up actions are required of the City.
Additional Information
Consulting parties for this MOA will be EPA Region I, the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, The Massachusetts
Historical Commission SHPO, the City of New Bedford, and the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. A
Preliminary Draft MOA is enclosed for your review. As I mentioned
above, additional sections pertaining to Site 47 and underwater
archaeology issues will be incorporated into the MOA in the near
future, as appropriate. Following review by the State Historic
Preservation Officer and consultation among the parties involved,
a revised MOA will be submitted to ACHP. Upon signature, the MOA
will finalize the disposition of the historic resources as well
as commitments for preservation and mitigation of impacts.
This information is provided in compliance with Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act. If you have any
questions regarding the Section 106 review for this project or
require any additional information, feel free to contract me at
FTS 835-4435 or (617) 565-4435.
Sincerely,
"
Susan S. Coin
Historic Preservation Officer
Enclosures
cc (w/o Attachment D) :
Greg Jones, City of New Bedford
Allen Johnson, MHC
Ed Bell, MHC
Ron Lyberger, MA DEP
Liz Beardsley, COM
Marie Bourassa, ACOE
Joan Drake, ACOE
C-5
-------
Attachment C
250 500
1000 fee!
£.-- *
Legend
Area of Archaeological Investigation
Historic District
Shoreline and Beach
Adapted from COM, 1989
i FIGURE 5.6-2
EXISTING HISTORICAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL
AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES FOR
ALTERNATIVE SITE 1A
5-81
C-6
-------
CITY OF NEW BEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS
OFFICE OF HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT
May 29,1991
National Park Service
Custom House
Second and Chestnut Streets
Philadelphia, Penna. 19106
Attn: Tina LeCoff
Re: Request for Level of Documentation
Fort Rodman Military Reservation-New Bedford, MA
Dear Tina,
Per our telephone conversation of last week, I am requesting a Level of Documentation
determination from your office for the proposed work related to the construction of New Bedford's
new wastewater treatment facility at the Fort Rodman Military Reservation. The construction of
the new treatment facility requires demolition or relocation of the majority of the structures that
make up the Reservation.
The Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) has determined that Fort Rodman is eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places as an extension of the adjacent Fort Taber
National Register Historic District. I have enclosed a copy of MHC's recent letter determining that
the proposed construction constitutes an adverse effect on the properties within Fort Rodman as
well as on the adjoining Fort Taber Historic District. The letter goes onto state MHC's acceptance
of the adverse effect based on several mitigating factors including "the recording of buildings to be
demolished or moved according to Historic American Building Survey standards-TV.". I have
enclosed copies of the form A's which have been prepared on all of the buildings affected which
should assist you in determining the level of documentation that must be performed. Included with
these form A's is a matrix listing all of the buildings concerned and their relative construction
periods, Endicott-Taft, World War 11, and post World War II. I hope this makes your task of
sorting through all of the buildings a little easier. If you have not previously done so, please
forward a copy of HABS guidelines on historic building moving.
As you will see after reviewing the submitted materials, we intend to retain and/or renovate those
buildings which appear to be individually eligible for listing on the National Register. The buildings
slated for demolition are predominantly WWII, "temporary" wood frame buildings, that lack
sufficient individual integrity to merit individual listings. Also slated for demolition are the primary
wastewater treatment plant, constructed in the 1970's, and a 1960's Army Maintenance Building.
WILLIAM STREET NF.W HEnFOnn. MASSACHUSETTS 02740 TELEPHONE979-1500
C-7
-------
As you are aware, the process of siting the wastewater treatment plant has been a long, tedious one
taking upwards of two years. It appears now, however, that the Fort Rodman site is the final
location for the plant, and all involved are anxious to proceed with its design and construction.
With this in mind, I stand ready to assist you in any way that I can. Please contact me should you
require additional information to make your review complete. Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Gregory Jones
Preservation Planner-O.H.A.N.D.
cc: Richard Bohn - City Planner
Elizabeth Beardsley - Camp, Dresser & McKee Inc.
enc: Form A Package
MHC Letter - 5/6/91
C-8
-------
May 28,1991
Fort Rodman Military Reservation
Fort Rodman - New Bedford, Massachusetts
Wastewater Treatment Plant
PROPOSED RESERVATION BUILDING DEMOLITION/RELOCATION
MATRIX
ACTION
PROPOSED
Retain and
or renovate
13 Buildings
Relocate
5 Buildings
Remove 33
Buildings
FORT TABER
HISTORIC DISTRICT
All Structures
Fort Taber and
Batteries
Not Applicable
. Not Applicable
END1COTT-TAFT
PERIOD BUILDINGS
P-13 (Engfr. Storehouse)
P-17 (Bakehouse)
P-2 (Of fleer's E.Q,).
P-7 (NCO Quarters)
P-21 (Quartermaster)
P-26 (NCO Quarters)
P-28 (Post Exchange)
P-9 (Fire Apparatus Building)
P-61 (Radio Shack)
WORLD WAR 11
PERIOD BUILDINGS
T-75 (Gas Chamber)
T-77 (Storage)
Battery Milliken
Not Applicable
POST WWII
PERIOD BLDX3S
Navy Building
N.B.V.T.H.S.
on So. Rodney
French Blvd.
Not Appli cable
T-l (Recreation Building)
T-44 (Administration Building)
T-2,3,6-12,16 (Barracks)
T-30,31,33,34 (Mess Halls)
T-40-42,45 (Co. Administration)
T-43 (Maintenance Storage)
T-50-53 (Company Dayroom)
T-60 (Ward Room)
T-61 (Post Exchange)
T-62 (Officer's QrtrVMess) Primary WWTP
P-67 (PE lumber Storage) Army Maint.
T-76 (Maintenance Garage) Building
C-9
-------
May 6, 1991
Greg Jones
Office of Housing and
Neighborhood Development
City of New Bedford
133 Williams Street
New Bedford, MA 02740
RE: Wastewater Treatment Facilities, New Bedford, MA; EOEA No. 6425
Dear Mr. Jones:
Staff of the Massachusetts Historical Commission have reviewed the report,
"Results of a Phase II Site Examination of the All en/Howl and Farmstead at the
Fort Rodman Military Reservation in New Bedford, Massacnusetts", prepared by
the Office of Public Archaeology at Boston University in regard to the
proposed construction of the above-referenced facility at Fort Rodman. This
report meets the standards outlined in 950 CMR 70.14 for an archaeological
site examination.
The results of the archaeological site examination indicate that, although
aspects of the Allen/Howland Farmstead are intact (e.g., the foundation of the
"Main House"), as a whole the site lacks archaeological visibility, focus, and
integrity. The lack of integrity of the site precludes the ability to address
significant research questions related to the use of the property as a
19th-century farmstead and its transition to military use. MHC does not
consider the Allen/Howland Farmstead to be eligible for listing in the State
and National Registers of Historic Places. No further archaeological survey
of the Fort Rodman site (Site 1A) is necessary.
MHC staff has requested additional information from the OPA regarding the site
examination archaeological survey at the Proposed Solids Disposal Facilities
at Site 47 in New Bedford. MHC staff will offer comments on Site 47 when this
information is received.
MHC staff understand that the Fort Rodman site (Site 1A) is the preferred
location for the wastewater treament facility out of four alternate sites.
Site 1A is within the Fort Rodman Military Reservation which is eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places as an extension of the
present Fort Taber National Register Historic District, which is adjacent to
the proposed site. The military reservation is eligible under Criteria A and
C and contributes to the significance of the existing historic district which
illustrates the evolution of U.S. coastal defense from the Revolutionary War
to the mid-20th century.
Massachusetts Historical Commission, Judith B. McDonough, Executive Director, State Historic Preservation Officer
80 Boylston Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02116 (617) 727-8470
Office of the Secretary of State, Michael J. Connolly, Secretary
C-10
-------
In addition, several buildings in the Fort Rodman Military Reservation are
individually eligible for listing in the National Register. Seven
Endicott-Taft period (1896-C.1912) buildings (P-2, P-7, P-9, P-17, P-21, P-26,
and P-28) are significant as well-preserved and rare woodframe examples of
standardized military building types more often constructed in brick.
MHC staff understand that the proposed project involves the following
actions: demolition of all structures within the National Register-eligible
historic district extension except Battery Milliken, buildings P-2, P-13,
P-17, T-75, and T-77, and all properties within the existing Fort Taber
Historic District; removal of the existing wastewater treatment plartt which is
immediately adjacent to Fort Taber; and construction of a new wastewater
treatment facility on the site of the military reservation.
After review of this information, I have determined that the proposed project
constitutes an adverse effect through the physical destruction and moving of
National Register-eligible properties, and through the alteration of the
character and setting of the Fort Taber Historic District and extension (36
CFR 800.9(b)(l)(2).
The MHC is willing to accept the adverse effect of the destruction of the
National Register-eligible properties because of the following mitigating
factors: the important public benefit of the project which will upgrade
inadequate wastewater treatment facilities which are in violation of the Clean
Water Act; removal of the existing wastewater treatment plant adjacent to Fort
Taber; creation of a new public park; the siting and landscaping of the new
treatment facility to minimize its visual impact on Fort Taber; the recording
of buildings to be demolished or moved according to Historic American Building
Survey (HABS) standards and the preservation and reuse of buildings P-2, P-7,
P-17, P-21, and P-26 which are individually eligible for National Register
listing. These mitigating factors should be included in a Memorandum of
Agreement between the MHC, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the project proponent.
MHC staff also request the opportunity to review more detailed information on
the moving and rehabilitation of the buildings proposed for preservation and
reuse, and on the restoration of Fort Taber.
These comments are provided to assist in compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended {36 CFR 800) and
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 9, Sec. 26-27c, as amended by Chapter 254
of the Acts of 1988 (950 CMR 71.00).
O11
-------
If you have additional questions, please contact Allen Johnson or Edward Bell
of this office. Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
[uoyith B. McDonough
§cutive Director
State Historic Preservation Officer
Massachusetts Historical Commission
cc: New Bedford Historical Commission
Ron Lyberger, DEP, Division of Water Pollution Control
Susan Coin, EPA
ACHP
Camp, Dresser, A McKee
Ricardo J. Eli a, Office of Public Archaeology
Susan F. Tierney, EOEA, MEPA Unit
C-12
-------
CITY OF NEW BEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS
OFFICE OF HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT
27 March 1991
Ms. Brona Simon
SiateArchaeologist/DeputySiate
Historic Preservation Officer
Massachusetts Historical Commission
80 Boylston Street
Boston. MA 02116
RE: Archaeological Investigations
City of New Bedford
WWTPunH Sludge I.amtf-,11
Dear Ms. Simon,
The City of New Bedford herewith submits the following reports:
o Completion Report .Results of a Phase II Site Examination of the
All en/Homiand Farm stead at theFort Rodman Military Reservation
(Site 1 A), Parts I and II, March 1991
o ArchaeologicalSiteEiaminationoftheaaytonSite(19-BR-339),March 1991
Both reports were prepared by the Boston University Office of Public Archaeology on behalf of the
City.
ThePhase Hinvestigati on at Fort Rodman concluded that theAUen/Howland Farmstead lacks
sufficient integrity to warrant its inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The
archaeological investigati on of the "Clayton Site" on Site47found that there are no archaeological
resources potentially eligible for National Register listing. No farther archaeological work was
recommended for either site.
On November 18.1990, the City forwarded a conceptual site plan and information summary to
MHC. Sincethatletter.thesiteplanhaschangedslightly, and arevised information summary is
enclosed. As previously indicated, the projea will not physically impact any of the structures in the
FortTaberHistoric District.
These reports, along with previ ously submitted materials, complete the historical and archaeological
investigations at Fort Rodman and Site 47, the locations of proposed wastewater treatment plant and
sludge landfill, respectively. Assuch,werequestaLetterofEffeatoinitiatetheSecuonl06
consultationprocess.
133 WILLIAM STREET
NEW BEDFORD. MASSACHUSETTS 02740
TELEPHONE 979-1500
C-13
-------
Ms. Simon
27 March 1991
Page Two
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need further information. Thank you for your
consideration.
Sincerely,
PreservationPlanner
cc: JohnK. Bollard, Mayor
Richard Bonn, City Planner
Mike Glinski, Environmental Planner
RonLyberger.DEP
Susan Coin. EPA
Steve Hickox.CDM
C-14
-------
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT/TABER PARK
FORT RODMAN, NEW BEDFORD, MA
Information Summary
This document describes the existing historic structures that are proposed
to be removed in order to construct the New Bedford Secondary Treatment
Plant. The treatment plant will be located in the southwestern portion of
Site LA, the Fort Rodman Military Reservation.
As discussed previously, the first direct impact will be the removal of
several structures on the site. The orientation of the plant will occupy
an area now occupied by many structures, and the construction requirements
of a project of this scale will require large areas to operate machinery
and stockpile materials.
Structures from two (2) historical periods are to be removed: the
Endicott-Taft period and the World War II period. For ease of review, the
structures to be removed have been broken down by historical period.
Please note that the structures within the existing Fort Taber National
Register Historic District will not be physically impacted.
Endicott-Taft Period
Structures from this period to be removed are:
P-61: Radio Shack
Structures from this period to be relocated on site are:
P-7, P-26: NCO Quarters
P-9: Fire Apparatus Building
P-21: Quartermaster and Commissary Store House
P-28: Post Exchange
Structures from this period which will be preserved are:
P-2: Officers Quarters
P-13: Engineer Storehouse
P-17: Bakehouse
Batteries Barton-Walcott 1 & 2
Battery Gaston
Battery Craig
Battery Cross
MHC Information Summary Revised 3/27/91
C-15
-------
World War II Period
Structures from this period to be removed are:
T-l: Recreation Building
T-2, T-3, T-6, T-7, T-8, T-9,
T-10, T-ll, 1-12, & T-16: Enlisted Men's Barracks
T-30, T-31, T-33, T-34: Mess Halls
T-40, T-41, T-42, T-44, T-45: Company Administration Building
T-43: Maintenance Storage
T-50, T-51, T-52, T-53: Company Day Rooms
T-60: Ward Building
T-61: Post Exchange
T-62: Officers' Quarters and Mess Hall
T-67: P.E. Lumber Storage
T-76: Maintenance Garage
Structures from this period which will be preserved are:
T-75: Gas Chamber
T-77: Storage
Battery Milliken
Later Buildings
Several other buildings are located at Fort Rodman, two of which will be
removed; these include the existing Army Maintenance Building, constructed
in the I960's, and the Primary Sewage Treatment Plant. Other buildings on
the site are located on Rodney French Boulevard and will not be removed.
They are the Navy Building and the New Bedford Vocational Technical High
School.
Mitigation
The City of New Bedford has committed to providing 7.3 million dollars in
mitigation funds for this project. In order to prepare preliminary
mitigation plans, the New Bedford Planning Department held a series of
public meetings and accepted independent public suggestions for ways, in
which mitigation funds should be spent. In accordance with public
suggestion, the City has developed plans for a large public park at the
Fort Rodman site. The park includes relocation and renovation of several
Endicott-Taft period buildings to support public recreational uses.
MHC Information SummaryRevised 3/27/91
C-16
-------
Vd3
November 6, 1990
Arnold N. Robinson
Office of Housing and Neighborhood
Development
City of New Bedford
133 William Street
New Bedford, MA 02740
RE: Wastewater Treatment Plant, New Bedford, MA
Dear Mr. Robinson:
Staff of the Massachusetts Historical Commission have reviewed the Conceptual
Site Plan you submitted, received October 10, 1990, for the construction of a
wastewater treatment plant at Fort Rodman. The Fort Rodman site (Site 1A) was
selected as the preferred location for the facility after extensive review of
four alternative sites. The proposed site is within the Fort Rodman Military
Reservation which is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places as an extension of the present Fort Taber National Register Historic
District, which is adjacent to the proposed site. The military reservation is
eligible under Criteria A and C and contributes to the significance of the
existing historic district which illustrates the evolution of U.S. coastal
defense from the Revolutionary War to the mid-20th century.
In addition, several buildings in the Fort Rodman Military Reservation are
individually eligible for listing on the National Register under Criteria-A
and C. Seven Endicott-Taft period (1896-C.1912) structures (P-2, P-7, P-9,
P-17, P-21, P-26, and P-28) are individually significant as well-preserved and
rare woodframe examples of standardized military building types more often
constructed in brick. MHC staff are unable to determine the National Register
eligibility of archaeological sites within the project area pending receipt
and review of the results of the site examination archaeological survey for
the Allen Farmstead and Barn, previously requested by the MHC.
MHC staff understand that the proposed project involves the following
actions: demolition of all structures within the potential historic district
extension except for Battery Milliken, buildings P-2, P-13, P-17, T-75, and
T-77, and properties within the existing Fort Taber Historic District; removal
of the existing wastewater treatment plant which is immediately adjacent to
Fort Taber; and construction of a new wastewater treatment facility plant on
the site of the military reservation.
Massachusetts Historical Commission, Valerie A. Talmage, Executive Director, State Historic Preservation Officer
80 Boylston Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02116 (617) 727-8470
Office of the Secretary of State, MichaelJ. Connolly, Secretary
C-17
-------
MHC staff request the opportunity to review more detailed information on the
moving and rehabilitation of the structures proposed for preservation and
reuse, and on the restoration of Fort Taber. This information will enable MHC
staff to determine what effect the proposed project may have on historic
resources and offer recommendations to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to
significant cultural resources.
These comments are provided to assist in compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (36 CFR 800).
Please contact Allen Johnson or Edward Bell of this office if you have
additional questions.
Sincerely,
Brona Simon
State Archaeologist
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Massachusetts Historical Commission
cc: New Bedford Historical Commission
Ron Lyberger, DEP/DWPC
Kathleen Kirkpatrick Hull, EPA
AC HP
Colin Baker, Camp, Dresser, & McKee
Ricardo Elia, Office of Public Archaeology
C-18
-------
CITY OF NEW BEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS
OFFICE OF HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT
October 5, 1990
Mr. Alan Johnson
Architectural Review Section
Massachusetts Historical Commission
80 Boylston Street
Boston, MA 02116
RE: Fort Rodman - Wastewater Treatment Plant
Dear Mr. Johnson:
As you may know, the City of New Bedford is actively planning for
the construction of a new Wastewater Treatment Plant. The site
selected for the plant is Fort Rodman, at the southern end of the
City. After several months of public meetings, local government
decision-making, and design work with our consultant Camp, Dresser,
& McKee, Inc. (COM), the City has selected a conceptual plan for
the facility.
Enclosed please find a copy of the "Conceptual Site Plan" plan for
the Wastewater Treatment Plant to be located at Fort Rodman. This
plan is submitted under the Section 106 Review process, for which
the City is acting as the Project Proponent. This "Conceptual Site
Plan" is submitted for your initial review of the impact of this
facility on the historic resources of the Fort Rodman area.
Throughout the course of this project, the City of New Bedford,
COM, Inc. and Boston University's Office of Public Archaeology have
submitted materials1'documenting the historic resources of the site
to the Massachusetts Historical Commission. These materials
include the documents entitled Final Report of an Archaeological
and Architectural Reconnaissance Survey of Six Proposed Sites for
a Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant and Solids Waste Disposal
Facility in New Bedford. Massachusetts (December 1988), Documentary
Evidence for Cultural Resources at Site 1A. The Fort Rodman
Military Reservation, in New Bedford. Massachusetts (May 1989),
Architectural Inventory of the Fort Rodman Military Reservation in
New Bedford. Massachusetts (July 1989) and Intensive Archaeology
Survey of Site 1A. The Fort Rodman Military Reservation. New
Bedford. Massachusetts (September, 1989). The "Conceptual Site
Plan" should be reviewed in conjunction with the previously
submitted materials.
i.in WII.I.IAM sTrtrirr NF.wnrnroun.MASsArimsF.TTS02710
C-1.9
-------
If you require any further information or wish to make any comments
in regards to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at
this office. Thank you for your careful consideration and
cooperation.
Very truly yours,
Arnold N. Robinson
Preservation Planner
Enclosure
cc: John K. Bullard, Mayor
Richard Bohn, City Planner
Mike Glinski, Environmental Planner
Ron Lyberger, Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection Agency
~Susan' Coin, United States Environmental. Protection Agency '
Jane Wheeler, Camp, Dresser, & McKee, Inc.
Don Jones, Boston University, Office of Public Archaeology
C-20
-------
Conceptual Site Plan
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Fort Rodman, New Bedford/ MA
Information Summary
This document describes the existing historic structures that are
proposed to be removed in order to construct the new New Bedford
Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant. The treatment plant will be
located in the southwestern portion of Site 1A, The Fort Rodman
Military Reservation.
Please note that the plant footprint as shown in the attached
"Conceptual Site Plan" differs from the footprint outlined in the
Phase II Facilities Plan, completed in August of 1989. These
changes are a result of public meetings with City and South End
residents as well as detailed engineering and site studies.
As discussed previously, the first direct impact will be the
removal of several structures on the site for construction. The
actual footprint of the plant will cover an area now occupied by
many structures, and the construction requirements of a project of
this scale will require large areas to operate machinery and
stockpile materials.
Structures from two (2) historical periods are to be removed:'the
Endicott-Taft period and the World War II period. For ease of
review, the structures to be removed have been categorically broken
down by historical period of construction. Please note that the
structures within the existing Fort Taber National Register
Historic District will not be physically impacted.
Endicott-Taft Period
Structures from this period to be removed are:
P-7, P-26: NCO Quarters .
P-9: Fire Apparatus Building
P-21: Quartermastei: and Commissary Store House
P-28: Post Exchange
P-61: Radio Shack
Structures from this period which will NOT be removed are:
P-2: Officers Quarters
P-13: Engineer Storehouse
P-17: Bakehouse
Batteries Barton-Walcott 1 & 2
Battery Gaston
Battery Craig
Battery Cross
C-21
-------
World War II Period
Structures from this period to be removed are:
T-l: Recreation Building
T-2, T-3, T-6, T-7, T-8, T-9,
T-10, T-ll, T-12 & T-16: Enlisted Men's Barracks
T-30, T-31, T-33, T-34: Mess Halls
T-40, T-41, T-42, T-44, T-45: Company Administration Buildings
T-43: Maintenance Storage
T-50, T-51, T-52, T-53: Company Day Rooms
T-60: Ward Building
T-61: Post Exchange
T-62: Officer's Quarters and Mess Hall
P-67: P.E. Lumber Storage
T-76: Maintenance Garage
Structures from this period which will not be removed are:
T-75: Gas Chamber
T-77: Storage
Battery Milliken
Later Buildings
Several other buildings are located at Fort Rodman, two of which
will be removed: these include the existing Army Maintenance
Building (constructed in the 1960s), and the Primary Sewage
Treatment Plant (constructed in the early 1970s). Other buildings
on the site are located on Rodney French Boulevard and will not be
removed. They are the Navy Building and the New Bedford Vocational
Technical High School. _
Preliminary Mitigation
The City of New Bedford has committed to providing 7.3 million
dollars in mitigation funds for this project. In order to prepare
preliminary mitigation plans, the New Bedford Planning Department
held a series of several public meetings and accepted independent
public suggestion for ways in which mitigation funds should be
spent. In accordance with the majority of the public input, the
City has begun planning fpr a large public park at the Fort Rodman
site. In addition, the City is committed to opening an on-site
museum to document the history of the Fort Rodman site.
October 4, 1990
C-22
-------
September 21, 1989
Kathleen K. Hull
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 1
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203-2211
RE: Fort Rodman, New Bedford, MA
New Bedford Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Dear Ms. Hull:
This letter is a follow-up to an August 3, 1989 meeting in which we discussed
the potential eligibility of the Fort Rodman Military Reservation for listing
in the National Register of Historic Places as an extension of the existing
Fort Taber National Register Historic District. As we discussed, following
the evaluation of the historic resources inventory completed by the Office of
Public Archaeology, Massachusetts Historical Commission staff have determined
that the Fort Rodman Military Reservation is potentially eligible for National
Register listing. The military reservation appears to meet Criteria A and C
of the National Register at the local and state level as an extension of the
existing Fort Taber District, which is significant in illustrating the
evolution of U.S. coastal defense from the Revolutionary War period to the
mid-20th century. The military reservation would contribute to that enlarged
district.
As we also discussed, several properties in the Fort Rodman complex may be
individually eligible for National Register listing. The inventory report
suggests that seven Endicott-Taft period (1896- c.1912) structures (P-2, P-7,
P-9, P-17, P-21, P-26, and P-28) appear to be individually significant as
well-preserved and rare woodframe examples of standardized military building
types more commonly constructed in brick.
Battery Mil liken (1921 and 1942) also appears to be individually eligible for
National Register listing. The gun battery is one of only nine such casemated
batterys in New England and one of only three that had 12-inch guns. It meets
criteria A and C of the National Register and contributes to the existing Fort
Taber National Register District.
The 32 temporary World War II structures, constructed between 1941-1945, do
not appear to be individually eligible for National Register listing because
of their recent construction date and their lack of individual physical
Massachusetts Historical Commission, Valerie A. Talmage. Executive Director, State Historic Presemation Officer
80 Boylston Street, Boston. Massachusetts 02116 (617) 727-8470
Office of the Secretary of State. MichaelJ. Connolly. Secretary
C-23
-------
September 19, 1989
James Small
Camp, Dresser A McKee, Inc.
1 Center Plaza
Boston, MA 02108
RE: New Bedford Wastewater Treatment Plant, Phase 2 Wastewater Facilities
Planning Study Draft Report, Volume IV, Appendix N, Marine Archaeology
Dear Mr. Small:
Staff of the Massachusetts Historical Commission reviewed the above-referenced
report prepared by Robert Cembrola. The report has been revised since MHC has
had the opportunity to review an earlier draft. In reviewing the report, we
were concerned that there are two comments still outstanding that were noted
in our letter of May 17, 1989 (copy enclosed).
On page N-6, the number of known wrecks are given within the study area, but
only the Margaret Kehoe, Yankee, and Neptune are discussed in the text.
Information on the identity, age, location, integrity,' and potential
significance of these resources is necessary. These data will be important
for interpreting the results of the remote sensing survey conducted within the
study area. Without these data, it is not possible to determine whether or
not these resources are potentially eligible for the National and State
Register of Historic Places and whether or not the proposed outfall project
will affect these resources.
Archaeological site forms referenced in the revised report have not been
forwarded to the MHC. We look forward to receiving these forms so that the
information may be incorporated into the Inventory of Historic and
Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth.
Massachusetts Historical Commission, Valerie A. Talmage. Executive Director, Slate Historic Preservation Officer
80 Bovlston Street, Boston. Massachusetts 02116 (617) 727-8470
Office of the Secretary of State. Michael j. Connolly. Secretary
C-24
-------
The citations referenced in the text should be checked against the sources
listed in the bibliography; full bibliographical references should be provided
for all citations.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact Ed Bell of my staff.
Sincerely,
Brona Simon
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
State Archaeologist
Director, Technical Services Division
Massachusetts Historical Commission
BS/EB/jd
Enclosure
xc: Robert Cembrola
Victor T. Mastone, MBUAR
Ron Lyberger, DEP/DWPC
Kathleen Hull, EPA
C-25
-------
September 18, 1989
Jane Wheeler
Camp, Dresser and McKee, Inc.
One Center Plaza
Boston, MA 02108
RE: Alternative sludge disposal sites 40 and 47, proposed New Bedford
Wastewater Treatment Facilities Project, New Bedford
Dear Ms. Wheeler:
Staff of the MHC have reviewed the report entitled "Results of Intensive
Archaeological Surveys of Sites 40 and 47, Alternative Proposed Sites for
Solids Disposal Facilities, in New Bedford, Massachusetts," which was prepared
by the Office of Public Archaeology, Boston University.
The results of the archaeological investigations revealed that each
alternative disposal site contains a potentially significant prehistoric
archaeological site.
Subsurface testing in the northeasternmost portion of Site 40 identified a low
density scatter of prehistoric chipping debris from the manufacture of stone
tools in the plow-zone and in undisturbed deposits which underly the
plowzone. A Neville-Variant projectile point recovered in this area suggests
that this site was occupied during the Middle Archaic Period (8,000 to 6,000
years ago). Subsurface testing at Site 47 identified a localized _
concentration of chipping debris in the southern-central portion of the
alternative disposal site. A stone tool fragment recovered from this area
suggests that this site may date to the Late Archaic or Early Woodland Period
(4,300 to 2,000 years ago).
Archaeological sites from the Middle Archaic through the Early Woodland Period
in Southeastern Massachusetts are underrepresented and poorly understood in
relation to sites dating to later prehistoric periods when people moved to
larger settlements along the coast. Given the existence of prehistoric
material in soils below the level of any historical diturbance and the limited
distribution of the stone tool chipping debris, it is probable that these
prehistoric sites represent short-term campsites which may contain hearths,
storage pits, or refuse pits which could provide the Commonweatlth of
Massachusetts Historical Commission, Valerie A. Talmage, Executive Director, Stale Historic Preservation Officer
80 Boylston Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02116 (617) 727-8470
Office of the Secretary of State Michael J. Connollv. Secretary
C-26
-------
Massachusetts with a unique opportunity to investigate settlement and
subsistence strategies of prehistoric Indians in southeastern Massachusetts.
If either of these alternative disposal sites are selected for further
evaluation, MHC requests that an archaeological site examination (950 CMR 70)
be conducted in order to determine if the archaeological site which may be
Impacted by the proposed project is eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places. The goal of the survey should be to clearly
identify the boundaries of the site, determine its integrity, and internal
configuration. These comments are provided in compliance with M.G.L., Chapter
9, Sections 26C-27C as amended by Chapter 152 of the Acts of 1982, Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act and Advisory Council Procedures (36
CFR 800).
MHC would be happy to assist in developing an appropriate scope for the
survey. If you have any questions concerning this review, or require further
assistance, please contact Peter Mills at this office.
Sincerely
Brona Simon
State Archaeologist
Director, Technical Services Division
Massachusetts Historical Commission
xc: Ricardo Elia, OPA . --.
Kathleen Kirkpatrick Hull, EPA
Ron Lyberger, DEP/BMF
C-27
-------
May 17, 1989
Bernadette H. Kolb
Outfall Task Manager
Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc.
1 Center Plaza
Boston, MA 02108
ATTN: Jim Small
RE: WWTP, Outfall Siting, New Bedford
Dear Ms. Kolb:
Staff of the Massachusetts Historical Commission have reviewed the
draft marine archaeology report prepared as part of the outfall
siting task of the Phase II New Bedford Facilities Plan. The MHC
believes that the report needs to include more information for this
office to determine whether or not any further archaeological work
is warranted.
1) Please elaborate on the likelihood or unlikelihood that intact
prehistoric archaeological resources may be present in the project
impact area; reference to the literature on submerged prehistoric
archaeological sites is pertinent as well as an assessment of the
integrity of bottomlands. Please include this information in your
conclusions and recommendations.
*
2) Please provide additional information on the known wrecks in the
project vicinity including age, integrity, location in relation to
the project impact area, and potential historical significance,
3) The justification for further archaeological work (remote
sensing) should be explicitly discussed in relation to the
significance of the known and expected archaeological resources and
the physical condition of the bottomlands.
4) Please submit archaeological site forms for all identified sites
(copies enclosed).
These comments are provided in compliance with section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended (36 CFR 800)
and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines For
Massachusetts Historical Commission, Valerie A. Talmage. Executive Director, State Historic Preservation Office!
80 Bovlsion Sireei. Boston. Massachuseus 02116 (617) 727-8470
Office of the Secretary of State. MichaelJ. Connolly. Secretary
C-28
-------
Bernadette Kolb
May 17, 1989
page 2 of 2
Archaeological and Historic Preservation (48 FR 44716) . If you have
any questions, please feel free to contact Ed Bell of my staff.
Sincerely,
^
Brona Simon
State Archaeologist
Director, Technical Services Division
Massachusetts Historical Commission
xc: Victor Mastone, MBUAR
Ron Lyberger, MDWPC
Kathleen Hull, EPA
Enclosures [HA forms]
BS/EB/tb
C-29
-------
o* vT */
^° <£x ^
0 .... o
14 April 1989
Bernadette H. Kolb
Outfall Task Manager
Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc.
1 Center Plaza
Boston, MA 02108
RE: WWTP. Outfall Siting, New Bedford
Dear Ms. Kolb:
Thank you for submitting the materials on the underwater
archaeological documentary survey. Staff of the MHC have reviewed
the information you submitted and believe that the scope of work and
the project archaeologist's qualifications are adequate to carry out
the requirements of the research design to identify known
underwater archaeological resources that may be impacted by the
proposed project referenced above, and to assess the project area's
potential for containing historical shipwrecks. We look forward to
receiving a copy of Mr. Cembrola's report of his findings and
recommendations.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Ed Bell of my
staff.
Sincerely,
S
Brona Simon
State Archaeologist
Director, Technical Services Divisior
Massachusetts Historical Commission
xc: Ron Lyberger, MDWPC
Kathleen Hull, EPA
BS/EB/tb
Massachusetts Historical Commission: Valerie A. Talmage. Exccvtwe Director, State Historic Preservation Officer
80 Bovlston Street. Boston, Massachusetts 02116 (617) 727-8470
Office of the Secretary of State. Michael J. Connolly. Secretary
C-30
-------
COM
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
environmental engineers, scientists. O'* C«n»f Plaza
planners. A management consultants Boson. Massachusetts 02108
617 742-5151
March 13, 1989
Ms. Brona Simon
Massachusetts Historical Commission
80 Boylston Street
Boston, MA 02116
Dear Ms. Simon:
The City of New Bedford is in the process of selecting suitable sites for a
new wastewater treatment plant and sludge disposal facilities to comply
with a federal consent order stipulating that the city improve its
wastewater collection and treatment systems. During site selection
evaluations conducted in 1987 and 1988, Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (CDM) on
behalf of the city, requested input from MHC on the potential
archaeological/historical sensitivity of alternative.sites. We met with
Jordan Kerber of MHC last October to discuss concerns on a few of the sites
and subsequently retained the Boston University Office of Public
Archaeology to conduct a reconnaissance survey of the final six sites under
consideration. The results of those surveys and recommendations for
further work are contained in the attached report.
Two of the six sites (Sites 7/8 and 20) discussed in the Boston University
report are no longer under consideration. The remaining four sites will be
studied further in the next several months. We would greatly appreciate
your review of the material on those four sites and your comments on the
proposed level of effort for additional investigations. We understand that
a permit must be obtained from MHC for Phase I intensive archaeological
field work.
We would also appreciate your review of the enclosed scope to conduct
archival research on the site referred to as "Site LA" (Fort Rodman).
According the Boston University, additional documentary research is
necessary to aid in the determination of the precise locations of
structures such as farmsteads and military-related buildings and features
on this site. This work must be completed prior to development of a more
detailed scope for field work on this site. Therefore, we are particularly
anxious to begin this element of the project as soon as possible.
We are planning to select sites (one for wastewater treatment facilities
and one for sludge disposal) by early summer 1989 in order to comply with
the consent decree. We would like to begin the field investigations within
the next month so that archaeological/historical concerns can be factored
into the decision-making process and into design of the facilities. As a
result, we would be very appreciative if you could review this material and
provide us with comments by March 24.
C-31
-------
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
Ms. Brona Simon
March 13, 1989
Page 2
Thank you for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to call me if you
have any questions or require additional information.
Very truly yours,
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
Jane W. Wheeler
Environmental Scientist
cc: J. Small, COM
D. Jones, Boston Univ.
C-32
------- |