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 viewpoints—cultural 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 Park—there  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 Start—the 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

-------