&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region I
J.F. Kennedy Federal
Boston, MA 02203
Environmental
Impact Statement
MDC Proposed Sludge
Management Plan,
Metropolitan District
Commission,
Boston, MA.
Part B Volume II
Final
-------
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
MDC Proposed Sludge Management Plan,
Metropolitan District Commission, Boston, Massachusetts
Lead Agency:
Cooperating Federal Agencies:
Responsible Official:
For Additional Information
Contact:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region I
JFK Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
None
William R. Adams, Jr.
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
JFK Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Wallace E. Stickney, Director
Environmental and Economic Impact
Office
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
Phone: 617-223-4635
Abstract:
This Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) evaluates a sludge
management plan proposed by the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC)
and examines other alternative systems; in an attempt to ensure the most
environmentally sound and cost effective sludge management plan for the
handling and disposal of primary sludge for the MDC system. Although the
proposed project would involve 75% federal funding; the ultimate
responsibility for implementing the selected sludge management plan lies
with the MDC. The various alternatives analyzed and their environmental
impacts are discussed in the EIS, and the selected alternative(s)
identified.
No Administrative Action will be taken on this project until 30
days after notice of this publication appears in the Federal Register.
-------
VOLUME II - APPENDICES
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
MDC PROPOSED SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PLAN,
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COMMISSION, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
Prepared For
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region I
Boston, Massachusetts
By
EcolSciences, Inc.
Rockaway, New Jersey
Approved By:
L
?illiam R. Adams,
Regional Administrator
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME 2
Page
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B-l
APPENDIX B-2
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
APPENDIX F
APPENDIX G
APPENDIX H
APPENDIX I
APPENDIX J
APPENDIX K
APPENDIX L
APPENDIX M
APPENDIX N
APPENDIX O
Impact Assessment Methodology
Massachusetts Salt Water Standards
Massachusetts Fresh Water Standards
Recommended Project Plan (1995)
Havens & Emerson, 1973
1
8
12
17
Rock Types of Continental Massachusetts 25
Seasonal Variations in Surface 27
Circulations in the Gulf of Maine
Provisional Listing of Floral Species, 32
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Provisional Listing of Faunal Species, 38
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Endangered Species, Commonwealth of 49
Massachusetts
Species Listings, Boston Harbor 52
Species Listings, Northeastern Con- 56
tinental Shelf Including the Gulf of
Maine
Distribution of Commercially Important 72
Fish Off the New England Coast
Description of Historic Sites 79
Detailed Description of Boston Harbor 84
Area Highways and Highway Planning
Quality and Quantity of Liquid and 88
Solid Emissions
Review of Legal Measures and Policies 110
Relevant to Ocean Disposal of Sludge
-------
Pa^e
APPENDIX P
APPENDIX Q
APPENDIX R
APPENDIX S
APPENDIX T
APPENDIX U
APPENDIX V
APPENDIX W
APPENDIX X
APPENDIX Y
APPENDIX Z
APPENDIX AA
APPENDIX BB
APPENDIX CC
APPENDIX DD
APPENDIX EE
Land Application of Sludge - State
of the Art
Conclusions and Recommendations From
"Market Survey and Feasibility of
Sludge Fertilizers"
Chemical Models for Sludge Application
Evaluation of Existing Multiple Hearth
Sewage Sludge Incinerators
Process and Transportation Inputs of
Labor, Material, Energy and Monetary
Costs
Analysis of Existing Sludge Dumping
Activities and the Known Environmental
Effects
Air Quality Impact Analysis
Models for Air Quality Predictions
Noise Impact Analysis
Traffic Impact Analysis
Correspondence
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Final Regulations for the Preparation
of Environmental Impact Statements
(40 CFR Part 6)
Informational Handouts Distributed
at the Two Public Workshops Held To
Discuss the EIS for the Boston Sludge
Management Plan
References
National Register of Historic Places
Development of Alternatives
115
135
148
157
171
179
185
233
240
253
256
260
276
300
319
328
11
-------
APPENDIX A
IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
A. General Approach
As indicated in Section I, there are three major areas of
investigation in this impact statement: incineration, land
disposal and ocean disposal of primary treatment plant sludges.
The methods of disposal governed the areas of potential environ-
mental impact. Therefore, it became necessary to define the
geographical limits of these potentially impacted areas.
Recalling from Section I that sludge can be disposed of on
land by either of two basic methods (direct or indirect), land
disposal had the widest possible area of impact, since theoreti-
cally any plot of undeveloped land has the potential for accept-
ing sludge. Therefore, digested and prepared sludge could be
disposed of any place that is technically, environmentally and
economically feasible. In the case of sludges generated in
Boston, the entire New England area could be considered for the
direct and indirect application of sludge. If sludge were to be
applied by the indirect method (i.e. as a dried fertilizer/soil
supplement), there is no feasible method of controlling or moni-
toring the specific sites of application because of the varied
users. Therefore, environmental impacts had to be judged or
estimated on the basis of the known qualities of the sludge,
and not upon the specific receptor sites.
Should it be feasible to dispose of sludge by direct land
application to dedicated areas, it becomes necessary (and possible)
to identify, monitor, and control these specific sites. Under
such circumstance, transportation of these residues in bulk form
could also occur throughout New England. However, such a solution
carries the implicit need to cross state lines. This, in turn,
creates many institutional problems which greatly outweigh the
environmental concerns associated with this type of approach.
Specifically, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (in the form of
MDC) would not be able to control the final disposal process,
since it would be subject to the control of the recipient state.
Therefore, in evaluating the technical aspects of direct land
application, only the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was considered
as a viable disposal area.
In developing the environmental inventory to describe the
existing environmental settings, choices must be made as to the
depth that each major inventory item will be described. Even
though the major geographical limits of the project area have
been restricted to the Commonwealth, it would obviously be
-------
impossible to describe in minute detail the environmental setting
of each community within the State. On the other hand, those
areas which had the largest impact from any one alternative
were described in detail.
When evaluating the potential impacts resulting from sludge
incinerators, it was necessary to describe on a microscale basis
the ambient air quality and meteorological conditions for the
Boston Metropolitan Area.
Finally, in order that the No-Action alternative could be
correctly assessed, the inventory carried a detailed description
of the existing conditions in Boston Harbor (water quality, mar-
ine ecology, bottom sediments, etc.).
Subsequent to alternative screening and detailed development,
the effect of Federal legislation during the period 1975-1978 has
been incorporated, eliminating those alternatives not acceptable,
as shown in greater detail below.
B. Specific Approach
While the preceding discussion was based on the general ap-
proach to be used in evaluating the various alternatives, this
section will indicate how each of the environmental areas are to
be assessed depending upon the various disposal alternatives.
1. Air Quality
Because of the relative importance of the incineration alter-
native developed by Havens and Emerson for the MDS, air pollutant
emissions, their concentrations in the atmosphere, and their poten-
tial impacts on public health are a major area of interest in this
Impact Statement. Modeling techniques developed by EPA Region I
were used to assess air pollutant loadings and air quality impacts
from the proposed sludge incinerator. ( Paul Cheremisinoff was the
subcontractor for this project responsible for the air quality
analyses).
In addition, the examination of impacts on air quality from
incineration required our determination of the heat balances as
well as an evaluation of these values, prepared by Havens and
Emerson, to determine if auxiliary fossil fuel is required.
2. Aquatic and Marine Water Quality
In this area, principal potential water quality impacts
arose from ocean disposal or land disposal. While some impacts
might arise from atmospheric scrubbing of air pollutants generated
by incineration, this is not expected to be a significant area for
investigation.
-------
3. Terrestrial, Aquatic and Marine Ecology
Heavy metal and nutrient effects upon the biosphere were
addressed for both land and ocean disposal. Specifically,
sludge impacts on sediment quality and the potential concentra-
tion of metals by trophic level were assessed, as well as the
effects of bioconcentration in the terrestrial environment.
In preparing the Final EIS, the determination of land area
required for application of sludge was expanded to include pro-
posed Federal legislation. This legislation, part of the Re-
source Conservation and Recovery Act (P.L. 94-580) had the
effect of increasing land area required by a factor of 2.5,
from 4,000 to 11,500 acres.
4. Soils and Crops
Impacts on soil and crops would arise from land application
of sludge, principally from heavy metals, sodium and nitrogen.
The impact of sodium and metal inputs will be long-term, while
the nutrient input will be short-term. These considerations
were incorporated in the model.
5. Land Use
Impacts of the various alternatives on land use were eval-
uated, the depth of study depending upon the specific area. For
example, the effects of facility construction and operation were
evaluated for Quincy, Winthrop and the Harbor Islands. For the
land disposal alternative, the impacts on the use of adjacent
lands, as well as cropland or other agricultural land uses were
evaluated.
6. Energy Sources and Supply
Energy requirements for the alternatives, energy recovery
and secondary impacts are a major area of impact. In quantify-
ing these impacts, energy inputs from all sources analyzed were
developed for each major alternate. In preparing the Final EIS,
the use of energy recovery from incineration, as proposed by the
Applicant, was analyzed in detail.
7. Transportation and Noise
Effects on transportation facilities and the resultant
noise impacts result from any scheme involving transportation
of either sludge or ash, and these impacts were evaluated.
8. Public Health,
Public Health impacts stem from several areas of primary
impact, such as air quality, rivers, crop uptake of metals,
groundwater, surface water, and marine water contamination, etc.
-------
9. Social and Economic Impacts
Impacts in these areas will result from costs of construc-
tion and operation of alternative facilities. The two areas of
economic impact are: (1) capital and operating costs for each
of the various alternatives, and (2) the individual economic
benefits (or losses) expected to accrue to any individual seg-
ment of society.
10. Aesthetics
The two alternatives expected to have the greatest impact
on the aesthetic portion of the environment were land disposal
and incineration. This particular quality of the environment
is very hard to quantify, but the locale of greatest impact will
be the Boston Metropolitan Area. Since aesthetics are a people-
related quality of the environment, and because any given adverse
aesthetic impact is directly proportional to the number of affec-
ted people, the area of highest population density will experience
the most significant aesthetic impacts. In preparing the Final
EIS, aesthetic impacts of ash disposal were a major factor in
selection.
C. Period of Impact
In order to quantify many of the impacts under consideration
(air quality, sludge loadings and analyses, land uses, etc.), it
is necessary to establish the future year and the worst case for
which these effects will be estimated.
As indicated in Section I, this environmental statement
assesses the impacts associated with disposal of only primary
sewage sludge. The EPA and Massachusetts Division of Water
Pollution Control have required the MDC to start construction
of primary sludge disposal facilities by June, 1976. Also, the
proposed MDC sludge management plan has indicated that the maxi-
mum loading for primary-only sludge would occur at about 1985
(Havens and Emerson, 1973).
From an environmental assessment point of view, it is best
to pick a "worst case" situation in order that the maximum stress
that will be exerted on the environment from any particular alter-
native will be the basis of comparison between the various alter-
natives. In other words, choosing the most distant design year
practicable for a facility will ensure that the long-term impacts
are more proportionately considered. Therefore, for the purposes
of this environmental statement, 1985 will be chosen as the year
for assessing the maximum, long-term impacts generated by each
alternative.
-------
D. Development of Process and Disposal Alternatives
The steps used in developing alternative process sequences
and disposal techniques were:
1. Development of Possible Process Sequences
• Definition of available processes for conditioning,
dewatering, stabilization and reduction of waste
sludge, and available disposal routes.
• Elimination of processes which are not applicable
to the MDC situation.
• Selection of the best alternative processes for
conditioning, dewatering and reduction (or stabil-
ization) of the MDC primary sludge.
• Combining the chosen processes into flowsheets
leading to landfill, ocean disposal or land appli-
cation.
• Elimination of unfeasible flowsheets.
2. Selection of Process Trains for Further Development
• Comparison of available flowsheets leading to land-
fill on the basis of environmental, energetic and
cost-effectiveness criteria.
• Comparison of available flowsheets leading to ocean
disposal on the basis of environmental, energetic
and cost-effectiveness criteria.
• Comparison of flowsheets leading to land application
based on environmental, energetic and cost-effective-
ness criteria (this includes a summary of the evalua-
tion of drying sludge for sale as fertilizer).
• Comparison of land application sites based on environ-
mental, energetic, cost-effectiveness and implementa-
bility criteria.
After selection of the most feasible process sequences
(including disposal), the following questions were addressed in
order to develop in detail the alternatives:
• Location of Processing Facilities
• Location of Land Application and/or Disposal Sites
-------
• Feasibility of Thermal Energy Recovery from
Incinerator Off Gas
• Autogenous Operation of Incinerators
• Transportation Routes to Disposal and Application
Sites
• Co-incineration
• Disposal of Grit and Screenings
With these descriptions of the alternate systems, it then
becomes possible to generate the quality and quantity of liquid
and solid effluents, the inputs of labor, energy and materials,
and the monetary costs of each option. Before detailed assess-
ment of resource inputs and impacts of feasible alternatives,
the eleven alternatives developed in the EIS process were
screened for compliance with existing and proposed Federal
legislation. As a result of this legislation, those alterna-
tives involving ocean disposal of sludge or ash (Alternatives
3, 4 and 7) and those with land application of sludge (5 and 6)
were found to be infeasible.
The quality and quantity of solid and liquid effluent
streams will be investigated based on data from several sources.
The quantity of these streams under 1985 conditions (previously
developed by Havens and Emerson from Federal Water Quality
Administration population projections) will be reviewed, as
follows. The assumptions used by Havens and Emerson will be
examined, the quantities of "minor waste streams" (such as grit
and screenings) will be evaluated, and quantities of liquid and
solid waste streams projected.
Quality of waste streams were developed from previous work
by Havens and Emerson and the Metropolitan District Commission.
In addition, there was a split sample analysis of sludge in
order to confirm the accuracy of the historical data generated
by the MDC laboratories. From these data, quality of the various
waste streams were projected. In the process of preparing the
Final EIS, sludge and ash from the Deer and Nut Island plants
was analyzed in accordance with procedures established by the
RCRA. This analysis showed both sludge and ash to be hazardous
materials (D. Moon, 1978).
The potential impact of industrial pretreatment for heavy
metals removal was also evaluated based on a literature review
and experience in other metropolitan areas.
-------
The quality of leachate streams from the disposal of sludge
and ash were investigated based on data from Havens and Emerson
and from the U. S. EPA.
With process alternatives and quantity and quality of waste
streams in hand, the next step was development of the inputs of
labor and materials for construction, of labor, materials and
energy for operation, and of costs of construction and operation.
-------
APPENDIX B-l
MASSACHUSETTS SALT WATER STANDARDS
[Source:MWRC, 1974]
oo
Class SA - These are waters of the highest quality and are suitable for any high water use including bathing
and other water contact activities. These waters are suitable for approved shellfish areas and
the taking of shellfish without depuration, have the highest aesthetic value and are an excellent
fish and wildlife habitat.
Standards of Quality
Water Quality Criteria
Not less than 6.5 mg/1 at any time.
Item
1. Dissolved Oxygen
2. Sludge deposits, solid
refuse, floating solids,
oil, grease, and scum
3. Color and turbidity
4. Total Coliform bacteria
per 100 ml
5. Taste and odor
6. pH
7. Allowable temperature
increase
8. Chemical constituents
None other than of natural origin or those amounts which may result from the
discharge from waste treatment facilities providing appropriate treatment.
For oil and grease of petroleum origin the maximum allowable concentration is
15 mg/1.
None in such concentrations that will impair any uses specifically assigned
to this class.
Not to exceed a median value of 70 and not more than 10 percent of the samples
shall ordinarily exceed 230 during any monthly sampling period.
None allowable,
6.8 - 8.5.
None except where the increase will not exceed the recommended limits on the
most sensitive water use.
None in concentrations or combinations which would be harmful to human,
animal or aquatic life or which would make the waters unsafe or unsuitable for
fish or shellfish or their propagation, ojnpair the palatability of same, or
impair the waters for any other uses.
-------
APPENDIX B-l
MASSACHUSETTS SALT WATER STANDARDS (Contd.)
vo
9. Radioactivity None in concentrations or combinations in excess of the limits specified
by the United States Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards.
Class SB - These waters are suitable for bathing and recreational purposes including water contact sports and
industrial cooling, have good aesthetic value, are an excellent fish habitat and are suitable for
certain shell fisheries with depuration (Restricted Shellfish Areas).
1 . Dissolved Oxygen
2. Sludge deposits, solid
refuse, floating solids,
oil, grease and scum
3. Color and turbidity
4. Total Coliform bacteria
per 100 ml.
5. Taste and odor
6. pH
7. Allowable temperature
increase
8. Chemical constituents
Not less than 5.0 mg/1 at any time.
None other than of natural origin or those amounts which may result from the
discharge from waste treatment facilities providing adequate treatment. For
oil and grease of petroleum origin the maximum allowable concentration is
15 mg/1.
None in such concentrations that would impair any uses specifically assigned
to this class.
Not to exceed an average value of 700 and not more than 1000 in more than
20% of the samples.
None in such concentrations that would impair any uses specifically assigned
to this class and none that would cause taste and odor in edible fish or
shellfish,
6,8 - 8.5.
None except where the increase will not exceed the recommended limits on the
most sensitive water use.
None in concentrations or combinations which would be harmful to human, animal
or aquatic life or which would make the waters unsafe or unsuitable for fish
or shellfish or their propagation, impair the palatability of same, or impair
the water for any other use.
-------
APPENDIX B-l
MASSACHUSETTS SALT WATER STANDARDS (Contd.)
9. Radioactivity
None in such concentrations or combinations in excess of the limits
specified by the United States Public Health Service Drinking Water
Standards.
Class SC - These waters are suitable for aesthetic enjoyments, for recreational boating, as a habitat for wildlife
and common food and game fishes indigenous to the region, and are suitable for certian industrial uses.
1. Dissolved oxygen
2. Sludge deposits, solid
refuse, floating solids,
oil, grease, and scum
3. Color and turbidity
Not less than 5 mg/1 during at least 16 hours of any 24 hour period nor less
than 3 mg/1 at any time.
None other than of natural origin or those amounts which may result from the
discharge from waste treatment facilities providing appropriate treatment.
For oil and grease of petroleum origin the maximum allowable concentration
is 15 mg/1.
None in such concentrations that would impair any uses specifically assigned
to this class.
4. Total coliform bacteria
None in such concentrations that would impair any uses specifically assigned
to this class. See Note 2.
5. Taste and odor
None in such concentrations that would impair any uses specifically assigned
to this class and none that would cause taste and odor in edible fish or
shellfish.
6. pH
7. Allowable temperature
increase
8. Chemical constituents
6.5 - 8.5,
None except where the increase will not exceed the recommended limits on
the most sensitive water use.
None in concentrations or combinations which would be harmful to human,
animal or aquatic life or which would make the waters unsafe or unsuitable
for fish or shellfish or their propagation, impair the palatability of same,
or impair the water for any other use.
-------
APPENDIX B-l
MASSACHUSETTS SALT WATER STANDARDS (Cpntd.)
9. Radioactivity None in such concentrations or combinations in excess of the limits specified
by the United States Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards.
Note 2 - no bacteria limit has been placed on Class "SC" waters because of the urban runoff and
combined sewer problems which have not yet been solved. In waters of this class not subject to
urban runoff or combined sewer discharges the bacterial quality of the water should be less than
an average of 5,000 coliform bacteria/100 ml during any monthly sampling period, It is the ob-
jective of the Division to eliminate all point and non-point sources of pollution and to impose
bacterial limits on all waters.
-------
APPENDIX B-2
[Source:
MASSACHUSETTS FRESH WATER STANDARDS
Massachusetts Water Resources Commission, 1974J
Class A - Waters designated for use as public water supplies- character uniformly excellent.
Item
1. Dissolved Oxygen
2. Sludge deposits, solid
refuse, floating solids,
oil, grease, and scum
3. Color and turbidity
4. Coliform bacteria per 100 ml
5. Taste and odor
6. pH
7. Allowable temperature
increase
8. Chemical constituents
Water Quality Criteria
Not less than 75% of saturation during at least 16 hours of any 24-hour
period and not less than 5 mg/1 at any time.
None allowable.
None other than of natural origin.
Not to exceed an average value of 50 during any monthly sampling period.
None other than of natural origin.
As naturally occurs.
None other than of natural origin.
None in concentrations or combinations which would be harmful or offensive
to humans, or harmful to animal or aquatic life.
9. Radioactivity
None other than that occurring from natural phenomena.
-------
APPENDIX B-2
MASSACHUSETTS FRESH WATER STANDARDS (GOntd.)
Class B - Suitable for bathing and recreational purposes including water contact sports. Acceptable for
public water supply with appropriate treatment. Suitable for agricultural and certain industrial
cooling and process uses; excellent fish and wildlife habitat; excellent aesthetic value.
Item
1. Dissolved oxygen
2. Sludge deposits, solid
refuse, floating solids,
oils, grease, and scum
3. Color and turbidity
4. Coliform bacteria per 100 ml
5. Taste and odor
6. pH
7. Allowable temperature
increase
8. Chemical Constituents
Water Quality Criteria
Not less than 75% of saturation during at least 16 hours of any 24-hour
period and not less than 5 rog/1 at any time.
None allowable.
None in such concentrations that would impair any usages specifically
to this class.
Not to exceed an average value of 1000 during any monthly sampling period nor
2400 in more than 20% of samples examined during such period.
None in such concentrations that would impair any usages specifically assigned
to this class and none that would cause taste and odor in edible fish.
6.5 - 8,0.
None except where the increase will not exceed the recommended limit on the
most sensitive receiving water use and in no case exceed 83°F in warm water
fisheries, and 68°F in cold water fisheries, or in any case raise the normal
temperature of the receiving water more than 4°F,
None in concentrations or combinations which would be harmful or offensive to
human, animal, or aquatic life or any water use specifically assigned to this
class.
-------
APPENDIX B-2
MASSACHUSETTS FRESH WATER STANDARDS (Cpntd.)
9. Radioactivity None in concentrations or combinations which would be harmful to human,
animal, or aquatic life for the appropriate water use.. None in such
concentrations which would result in radio-nuclide concentrations in
aquatic life "which would exceed the recommended limits for consumption
by humans,
10. Total phosphate Not to exceed an average of 0,05 mg/1 as P during any monthly sampling period.
11. Ammonia Not to exceed an average of 0.05 mg/1 as N during any monthly sampling period.
12. Phenols Shall not exceed 0.001 mg/1 at any time.
Class C - Suitable for recreational boating; habitat for wildlife and common food and game fishes indigenous to
the region; certain industrial cooling and process uses; under some conditions acceptable for public
water supply with appropriate treatment. Suitable for irrigation of crops used for consumption after
cooking. Good aesthetic value.
1. Dissolved Oxygen Not less than 5 mg/1 during at least 16 hours of any 24-hour period nor less
than 3 mg/1 at any time. For seasonal cold water fisheries at least 5 mg/1
must be maintained.
2. Sludge deposits, solid None allowable except those amounts that may result from the discharge from
refuse, floating solids, waste treatment facilities providing appropriate treatment.
oils, grease, and scum
3. Color and turbidity None allowable in such concentrations that would impair any usages speci-
fically assigned to this class,
4. Coliform bacteria None in such concentrations that would impair any usage specifically
assigned to this class.
-------
APPENDIX B-2
MASSACHUSETTS FRESH WATER STANDARDS (Contd.)
5. Taste and odor
6. pH
7. Allowable temperature
increase
8. Chemical constituents
9. Radioactivity
10. Total phosphate
11. Ammonia
12. Phenols
None in such concentrations that would impair any usage specifically
assigned to this class, and none that would cause taste and odor to
edible fish.
6,0 - 8,5.
None except where the increase will not exceed the recommended limits on
the most sensitive receiving water use and in no case exceed 83°F in warm
water fisheries, and 68PF in cold water fisheries, or in any case raise
the normal temperature of the receiving water more than 4°F.
None in concentrations or combinations which would be harmful or offensive
to human or aquatic life or any water use specifically assigned to this class.
None in concentrations or combinations which would be harmful to human,
animal, or aquatic life for the appropriate water use. None in such
concentrations which would result in radio-nuclide concentrations in
aquatic life which exceed the recommended limits for consumption by humans.
Not to exceed an average of 0.05 mg/1 as P during any monthly sampling period.
Not to exceed an average of 1,0 mg/1 as N during any monthly sampling period.
Not to exceed an average of 0.002 mg/1 at any time.
Class D - Suitable for aesthetic enjoyment, power, navigation and certain industrial cooling and process uses.
Class D waters will be assigned only where a higher water use class cannot be attained after all
appropriate waste treatment methods are utilized.
1. Dissolved oxygen
2. Sludge, deposits, solid
refuse, floating solids,
oils, grease, and scum
Not less than 2 mg/1 at any time.
None allowable except those amounts that may result from the discharge from
waste treatment facilities.
-------
APPENDIX B-2
MASSACHUSETTS FRESH WATER STANDARDS (Contd.)
a\
3. Color and turbidity
4. Coliform bacteria
5. Taste and odor
6. pH
7. Allowable temperature
increase
8. Chemical constituents
9. Radioactivity
None in such concentrations that would impair any usages specifically assigned
to this class.
None in such concentrations that would impair any usages specifically assigned
to this class.
None in such concentrations that would impair any usages specifically assigned
to this class,
6,0 - 9.0,
None except where the increase will not exceed the recommended limits on the
most sensitive receiving water use and in no case 90°F.
None in concentrations or combinations which would be harmful to human,
animal, or aquatic life for the designated water use.
None in such concentrations or combinations which would be harmful to human,
animal, or aquatic life for the designated water use. None in such concen-
trations which will result in radio-nuclide concentration in aquatic life
which exceed the recommended limits for consumption by humans.
-------
APPENDIX C
RECOMMENDED PROJECT PLAN (1995)
HAVENS & EMERSON, 1973
RECOMMENDED PROJECT PLAN (1995)
The Recommended Project Plan for sludge management provides
the Nut Island and Deer Island plants with facilities to meet the
estimated year 1995 secondary treatment loadings. As stated in
Chapter I, the average daily wastewater flows estimated for 1995
are 210 mgd for Nut Island and 390 mgd for Deer Island. The
sludge facilities are designed to handle raw primary sludge
and waste activated sludge for the combined flow of 600 mgd.
The Recommended Project Plan is shown schematically on
Figure VII-1.
Nut Island Plant: Raw primary sludge will go direct to
sludge storage tanks. Waste activated sludge will be thickened
by dissolved air flotation with the thickened sludge being pumped
to the sludge storage tanks. The existing anaerobic digestion tanks
will be converted to sludge storage tanks; provisions will be made to mix
17
-------
00
I
" 8
D
PRIMARY
SLUDGE
SECONDARY
SLUDGE
BYPASS I—
GRAVITY
THICKENING
FLOTATION
THICKENING
CHEMICAL
CONDITIONING
VACUUM
FILTRATION
DEWATERING
MULTIPLE
HEARTH
INCINERATION
PIPELINE
TRANSPORT
I
NL
TA
1 N
D
PRIMARY
SLUDGE
SECONDARY
SLUDGE
FLOTATION
— » THICKENING +*
FIGURE "Ztt- I
WASTE SLUDGE MANAGEMENT SCHEMATIC:
RECOMMENDED PROJECT PLAN (1995)
O
c
30
m
-------
the contents of the storage tanks to provide a homogeneous sludge
to pump to Deer Island. An enlarged pumping facility will be
provided to pump the mixed sludge to the Deer Island plant.
The existing sludge disposal pipeline will be extended to the
Deer Island site, and a new parallel sludge force main will be
constructed from Nut Island to Deer Island. This parallel
facility is required to provide standby capability in case of
pipeline outage for repair or cleaning.
Primary effluent will be used as a source of air-charged water
for dissolved air flotation, and the liquid effluent from this
process will be returned to the head of the plant. The contents of
the sludge storage tanks will be mixed and no recycle from these
tanks is planned.
Outside electric power will be required when the Nut Island
plant is expanded to secondary treatment, and when anaerobic
digestion and the recovery of digester gas is abandoned.
Deer Island Plant: Deer Island facilities represent a complete
wastewater treatment plant assuming primary and secondary treatment,
and sludge disposal. The existing gravity thickeners will provide
for thickening of about one-half of the raw primary sludge in the
design year. It is recommended that these units be continued
in service at optimum loading, but that no new gravity thickeners
be constructed. Consequently, about one-half of the primary sludge
will go to the sludge storage tanks without thickening. Waste
activated sludge will be thickened by dissolved air flotation
19
-------
(similar to the Nut Island), with the thickened sludge going to the
sludge storage tanks for mixing with the primary sludges. The
combined sludges from both plants will be mixed and be sent to
the sludge disposal facilities as a single sludge flow.
The Sludge Disposal Building at Deer Island is the heart of
the sludge management system. Sludge will be chemically conditioned with
ferric chloride and lime or polymers and delivered to vacuum filters for
dewatering. The dewatered cake will be discharged by conveyor
into multiple hearth furnaces for incineration. Grit and screenings
from the remote sites will be trucked to the Deer Island Sludge
Disposal Building for incineration and disposal along with sludge
cake. Ash from the incineration process will be pumped in slurry
form to on-site ash lagoons for storage and dewatering.
Periodically (approximately every two years) ash will be hauled from
the site for ultimate disposal of this inert material by sanitary
landfill.
Waste heat from the incineration process will be recovered for
production of electrical energy. Steam will be produced in waste
heat boilers by recovering heat from the incinerator exhaust gases.
This steam will be used in turbine generators and is capable of
producing approximately one-half of the 1986 power demand for the
Deer Island plant. Outside electric power supply should be
provided for the remaining load and for standby. (Estimated Deer
Island 1995 connected load for primary and secondary treatment
with complete sludge processing is about 37 megawatts; average
day load with no credit for waste heat recovery is approximately 20 megawatts)
20
-------
Recycle flows such as filtrate, thickener overflow and ash
lagoon supernatant at Deer Island will be returned to the head of
plant for treatment.
BASIC DESIGN CRITERIA - RECOMMENDED PLAN
The preliminary basic design criteria for the Recommended
Project Plan is listed below. Loadings are for average day conditions
in 1995 unless otherwise noted.
Nut Island
1. Flotation Thickeners
No. and Size (length x width) 8 @ 90' x 20'
Solids loading 9.8 Ibs/sf/d
2. Sludge Storage (Existing Anaerobic Digesters)
No. and Size 4 § 110' diam. x 30' SWD
Detention 10 days
3. Sludge Pumping to Deer Island
No. and Size 2 @ 1000 gpm
Average Daily Flow 860,000 gpd (600 gpm)
Deer Island
4. Gravity Thickeners (Existing)
No. and Size 4 @ 55' diam.
Solids Loading 27.6 Ibs/sf/d
5. Flotation Thickeners
No. and Size 16 @ 90' x 20'
Solids Loading 8.1 Ibs/sf/d
6. Sludge Storage (Existing Anaerobic Digesters)
No. and Size 4 @ 108' diam. x 30' SWD
Detention (Deer Island Flow Only) 6 days
(Deer § Nut Island Flows) 3 days
7. Vacuum Filters
No. and Size 14 @ 750 sf
Filter yield, avg. day (10 filters) 4.5 Ibs/sf/hr
max. day (12 filters) 4.9 Ibs/sf/hr
21
-------
8. Incinerators
No. and Size 7 § 25' dianu x 9 hearth
Rated capacity, each 410 wet tons/d
Sludge loading, avg. day (5 units) 8,5 Ibs/sf/hr
max. day (6 units) 9.9 Ibs/sf/hr
9. Turbine Generators
No. and Size 4 @ 3400 KW
In order to establish incinerator operating conditions, determine
the amount of recoverable heat available, and to establish the
operating cost of auxiliary fuel, detailed heat balance computations
were prepared. These computations were computerized, and for
information of the reader, a typical heat balance computation is
presented in Appendix F.
The heat balance shows that under 1995 average day conditions,
no auxiliary fuel is required, and that the exit flue gas temperature
leaving the furnaces will be about 1136°F. Gas temperature leaving
the heat recovery boilers is about 250°F. , and at exit from the
scrubbers is approximately 105°F.
ESTIMATES OF COST - RECOMMENDED PLAN (1995)
Table VII-2 presents capital costs for the Recommended Project
Plan at Deer Island and Nut Island. The costs presented here are
based on current price levels. The electrification of raw sewage pumps
at Deer Island has been included in this tabulation; earlier in this study
it was shown that the operation of raw sewage pump engines was
uneconomical, therefore, electrification of these pumps is included.
Table VII-3 presents total annual costs for the recommended
plan.
22
-------
TABLE VI1-2
CAPITAL COSTS
RECOMMENDED PROJECT PLAN (1995)
NUT ISLAND
Flotation Thickeners $ 1,812,400
Sludge Pump Station and Pipelines to
Deer Island . , 4,852,800
Miscellaneous Facilities^ ' 442,000
Total for Nut Island $ 7,107,200
DEER ISLAND
Electrification of Raw Sewage Pumps^ ' $ 1,920,000
Flotation Thickeners 3,584,700
Vacuum Filters and Incinerators 24,502,800
Power Generation Station,,, 5,576,400
Miscellaneous Facilities1- J 1,869,000
Ash Lagoons and Landfill 1,642,400
Total for Deer Island $39,095,300
TOTAL PROJECT COST (Rounded) $46,202,000
^ 'Includes service water, tunnels and yardwork.
^ After allowance for $180,000 salvage value for 9 engines.
^Includes Service Water Facilities, gravity thickener and storage
tank odor control, tunnels, and yardwork.
23
-------
TABLE VII-3
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
RECOMMENDED PROJECT PLAN
(Median year 1986)
Total Capital Cost $46,202,000
Amortized Capital Cost $ 3,106,500
Annual Operation and
Maintenance Costs:
Fuel and Power $ 631,700
Chemical Costs 575,000
Maintenance 375,700
Manpower 1,570,500
Total - Oper. § Maint. $ 3,152,900
Credit for recovered energy -795,000
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (Rounded) $ 5,464,000
24
-------
APPENDIX D
ROCK TYPES OF CONTINENTAL MASSACHUSETTS
Sedimentary Rocks
Conglomerates (Bellingham, Pondville, Roxbury, Dighton and
Purgatory, Mount Toby, Howard)
Schists (Brimfield, Oxford, Paxton Quartz, Chiastolite,
Boylston, Amherst, Erving Horneblend, Conway, Goshen,
Hawley, Savoy, Greylock, Berkshire, Rowe, Hoosac)
Slates (Braintree, Cambridge)
Gneiss (Washington, Hinsdale, Northbridge Granite)
Limestones (Bellowspipe, Stockbridge, Coles Brook)
Quartzites (Oakdale, Westboro, Merrimack, Quabin, Cheshire)
Formations (Marlboro, Nashoba, Wamsutta, Weymouth, Rhode Island,
Bernardston, Dalton)
Argillites (Leyden, Braintree)
Worcester Phyllite
Chicopee Shale
»
Longmeadow Sandstone
Sugarloaf Arkose
Chester Amphibolite
Igneous Rocks
Granites (Middlefield, Pelham, Coys Hill, Fitzwilliam, Hardwick,
Hubbardston, Fitchburg, Ayer, Andover, Squam, Quincy,
Milford, Westwood)
Granodiorites (Williamsburg, Monson, Dedham)
Diorites (Dana, Dracut, Straw Hollow, Prescott, Newburyport,
Quartz, Ironstone Quartz, Lee Quartz)
Granite Gneiss (Northbridge, Becket, Stamford, Sterling)
Syenites (Nephelite, Quartz, Beverly, Sharon)
25
-------
Tonalites (Belchertown, Wolfpen)
Aplites (New Salem, Titanite-diopside Piorite)
Volcanic Complexes (Lynn, Mettapan, Newbury)
Northfieldite
Pegmatite
Hornblendite
Pyroxenite
Vein Quartz
Blue Hill Granite Porphyry
Salem Gabbro-diorite
Gabbro at Nahant
Soxonite and Peridotite
26
-------
APPENDIX E
SEASONAL VARIATIONS IN SURFACE CIRCULATIONS
IN THE GULF OF MAINE
[Source: Bumpus, 1973]
27
-------
\
FIGURE E-l
TYPICAL SURFACE CIRCULATION PATTERNS
IN THE GULF OF MAINE DURING THE SPRING
-------
\
FIGURE E-2
TYPICAL SURFACE CIRCULATION PATTERNS^
IN THE GULF OF MAINE DURING THE SUMMER"
-------
\
\
FIGURE E-3 . TYPICAL SURFACE CIRCULATION PATTERNS x
IN THE GULF OF MAINE DURING THE AUTUMN x
-------
\
.--'
/
I
^
•xl
t
l
. »
-_***
-- " *r
'^x •••'
>' -; V"- •
K
. * . - .',- -+*"*
:^;>'a:.
- ; v , . ..
' - ' • . Vv , ' "" '."-.
N , *
k , - s
\ * -*
. ' '.'ll '-'• / - -•: '"%'.-
,'-,<- • 1 > - A' - * • " •' " V
.- '~W - j ~ ?
' - -XJ x • • • "-
1 i " ' ~ " ~ '
' . -'^ '"-'j^ - ?- - ; -
"'?:$•'••-.", :
*'- ^j^S^s^ --'
•_-•'• --.-',;•; -V*
,-,":- _^ ; ".;'" - _- 4
~ ~ J ~ *
.";••-"•'-"*;"-'"'/'
~- •-"•*. ' " ".".''
FIGURE E-4
SURFACE CIRCULATION PATTERNS IN THE
GULF OF MAINE DURING THE WINTER
-------
APPENDIX F
PROVISIONAL LISTING OF FLORAL SPECIES,
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
OAK-CHESTNUT FOREST VEGETATION
New Jersey tea
(Ceonothus americanus)
Black huckleberry
(Gaylussacia baccata)
Chokecherry
(Prunus virginiana)
Sumacs
(Rhus copallina,
R. glabra,
R. typhina)
Sweet blueberries
(Vaccinium augustifolium,
V. Vacillans)
Scrub oak
(Quercus ilicifolia)
Chinquapin oak
(Quercus prinoides)
Post oak
(Quercus stellata)
Black oak
(Quercus prinus)
White oak
Quercus alba)
Red oak
Quercus borealis var. maxima)
Pignut hickory
(Carya glabra)
Mockernut hickory
(Carya tomentosa)
Shagbark hickory
(Carya ouata)
Red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana)
Tuliptree
(Liriodendron tulipifera)
Red maple
(Acer rubrum)
Sugar maple
(Acer saccharum)
Beech
(Fagus grandifolia)
White ash
(Fraxinus americana)
Black cherry
(Prunus serotina)
Basswood
(Tilia americana)
Hemlock
(Tsuga canadensis)
Flowering dogwood
(Cornus florida)
Sassafras
(Sassafras albidum)
Hornbeam
(Carpinus caroliniana)
Hop Hornbeam
(Ostrya virginiana)
White pine
(Pinus strobus)
Mountain laurel
(Kalmia latifolia)
Witch hazel
(Hamamelis virginiana)
Maple-leaved viburnum
(Viburnum acerifolium)
Butternut
(Juglans cinerea)
32
-------
HEMLOCK-NORTHERN HARDWOOD VEGETATION
Sugar maple
(Acer saccharum)
American beech
(Fagus grand!folia)
Hemlock
(Tsuga canadensis)
Yellow birch
(Betula alleghaniensis)
Paper birch
(Betula papyrifera)
Northern red oak
(Quercus rubra)
White ash
(Fraxinus americana)
Basswood
(Tilia americana)
Red maple
(Acer rubrum)
Striped maple
(Acer pensylvanicum)
Mountain maple
(Acer spicatum)
Alternate-leaved dogwood
(Cornus alternifolia)
Mountain laurel
(Kalmia latifolia)
Hazelnut
(Corylus americana)
Witch hazel
(Hamamelis virginiana)
Maple-leaved viburnum
(Viburnum acerifolium)
Hobblebush
(Viburnum alnifolium)
Bush honeysuckle
(Diervilla lonicera)
Fly honeysuckle
(Lonicera canadensis)
33
-------
NORTHERN BOG VEGETATION
Yellow pond lily
(Nuphar variegatum)
Sphagnum moss
(Sphagnum species)
Sedges
(Carex species)
Buckbean
(Menyanthes trifoliata)
Cottongrass
(Eriophorum species)
Cranberry
(Vaccinium macrocarpon,
v. oxycoccus)
Leatherleaf
(Chamaedaphne calyculata)
Sheep laurel
(Kalmia angustifolia)
Bog laurel
(Kalmia polifolia)
Bog rosemary
(Andromeda glaucophylla)
Labrador tea
(Ledum groenlandicum)
Sundews
(Drosera species)
Mountain holly
(Nemopanthus mucronata)
Highbush blueberry
(Vaccinium corymbosum)
Red maple
(Acer rubrum)
Balsam fir
(Abies balsamea)
Black ash
(Fraxinus nigra)
Black spruce
(Picea mariana)
Northern white cedar
(Thuja occidentalism
Tamarack
(Larix laricina)
Red spruce
(Picea rubens)
Dwarf dogwood
(Cornus canadensis)
Speckled alder
(Alnus rugosa)
Pitcher plant
(Sarracenia purpurea)
COAST WHITE CEDAR BOGS
Coastal white cedar
(Chamaecyparis thyoides)
Great laurel
(Rhododendron maximum)
Tamarack
(Larix laricina)
Black spruce
(Picea mariana)
Swamp honeysuckle
(Rhododendron viscosum)
Red maple
(Acer rubrum)
Black gum
(Nyssa sylvatica)
American elm
(Ulmus americana)
Pin oak
(Quercus palustris)
Swamp white oak
(Quercus bicolor)
White ash
(Fraxinus americana)
Sphagnum moss
(Sphagnum species)
Pitcher plant
(Sarracenia purpurea)
Marsh marigold
(Calthus palustris)
34
-------
SHRUB SWAMP VEGETATION
Speckled alder
(Alnus rugosa)
Mountain holly
(Nemopanthus rmcronata)
Swamp holly
(Ilex verticillata)
Maleberry
(Lyonia ligustrina)
Steeplebush
(Spiraea tomentosa)
Meadowsweet
(Spiraea latifolia)
Highbush blueberry
(Vaccinium corymbosum)
Arrowwood
(Viburnum dentatum)
Withered
(Viburnum cassinoides)
Poison sumac
(Rhus typhina)
Black chokecherry
(Pyrus melanocarpa)
Red maple
(Acer rubrum)
Black ash
(Fraxinus nigra)
American elm
(Ulmus americana)
Balsam poplar
(Populus balsamifera)
PINE BARRENS
Pitch pine
(Pinus rigida)
Black oak
(Quercus velutina)
Bear oak
(Quercus ilicifolia)
Quaking aspen
(Populus tremuloides)
Big-toothed aspen
(Populus grandidentata)
Pin cherry
(Prunus pensylvanica)
White pine
(Pinus strobus)
35
-------
SALT MARSHES
Marsh elder
(Iva frutescens)
Sea myrtle
(Baccharis halamifolia)
Salt-water cord grass
(Spartina alterniflora)
Salt-meadow grass
(Spartina patens)
Spike-grass
(Distichlis spicata)
Black grass
(Juncus gerardi)
Orach
(Atriplex patula)
Glasswort
(Salicornia europea,
S. bigelovii)
Sea blite
Sueda maritima)
Sea lavendar
(Limonium carolinianum)
Salt-marsh gerardia
(Gerardia maritima)
Seaside plantain
(Plantago oliganthos)
Seaside goldenrod
(Solidago sempervirens)
Salt-marsh asters
(Aster subulatus and
A. tenuifolius)
36
-------
FLOODPLAIN FOREST
Red oak
(Quercus borealis var maxima)
Chestnut
(Castanea dentata)
Bitternut hickory
(Carya cordiformis)
White ash
(Fraxinus americana)
Butternut
(Juglans cinerea)
Swamp white oak
(Quercus bicolor)
Pin oak
(Quercus palustris)
American elm
(Ulmis americana)
Red maple
(Acer rubrum)
Hornbeam
(Carpinus caroliniana)
Sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis)
Black gum
(Nyssa sylvatica)
Sweet birch
(Betula lenta)
Hackberry
(Celtis species)
Black willow
(Salix nigra)
Swamp cottonwood
(Populus heterophylla)
Slippery elm
(Ulmus rubra)
Silver maple
(Acer saccharinum)
Basswood
(Tilia americana)
Green ash
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
Red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana)
Pasture juniper
(Juniperus communis)
Grey birch
(Betula populifolia)
Blueberries
(Vaccinium species)
Sumacs
(Rhus species)
Poison ivy
(Rhus toxicodendron)
Frost grape
(Vitis vulpina)
Woodbine
(Parthenocissus guniguefolia)
Bur-cueumber
(Sicyos angulatus)
Prickly cucumber
(Echinocystis lobata)
Climbing false buckwheat
(Polygonum scandens)
Hogpeanut
(Amphicarpa bracteata)
Morning glory
(Convovulus sepium)
Nightshade
(Solanum dulcamara)
Virgin's bower
(Clemantis virginiana)
37
-------
APPENDIX G
PROVISIONAL LISTING OF FAUNAL SPECIES, COMMONWEALTH OF MASS,
BIRDS
Common loon
(Gavia imer)
Red-throated loon
(Gavia stellata)
Red-necked grebe
(Podiceps grisegena)
Horned grebe
(Podiceps auritus)
Pied-billed grebe
(Podilymbus podiceps)
Fork-tailed petrel
(Oceanedroma furcata)
Gannet
(Morus bassanus)
Great cormorant
(Phalacrocorax carbo)
Double-crested cormorant
(Phalacrocorax auritus)
Whistling swan
(Olor columbianus)
Canada goose
(Branta canadensis)
Brant
(B. bernicla)
Snow goose
(C. hyperborea)
Mallard
(Anas platyrhynchos)
Black duck
(Anas rubripes)
Pintail
(A. acuta)
Gadwall
(A. strepera)
American widgeon
(Mareca americana)
European widgeon
(Mareca penelope)
Shoveler
(Spatula clypeata)
Blue-winged teal
(Anas discors)
Green-winged teal
(A. carolinensis)
Wood duck
(Aix sponsa)
Redhead
(Aythya americana)
Canvasback
(Aythya valisineria)
Ring-necked duck
(A. collaris)
Greater scaup
(A. marila)
Lesser scaup
(A. affinis)
Common goldeneye
(Bucephala clangula)
Barrow's goldeneye
(Bucephala islandica)
Bufflehead
(B. albeola)
Harlequin duck
(Histrionicus histrionicus)
Common eider
(Somateria mollissima)
King eider
(Somateria spectabilis)
Oldscjuaw
(Clangula hyemalis)
Common scoter
(Oidemia nigra)
White-winged scoter
(Melanitta deglandi)
Surf scoter
(Melanitta perspicillata)
Ruddy duck
(Oxyura jamaicensis)
Common merganser
(Mergus merganser
Red-breasted merganser
(M. serrator)
Hooded merganser
(Lophodytes cucullatus)
Turkey vulture
(Cathartes aura)
Goshawk
(Accipiter gentilis)
Cooper's hawk
(A. cooperii)
Sharpshinned hawk
(A. striatus)
Marsh hawk
(Circus cyaneus)
Rough-legged hawk
(Buteo lagopus)
Red-tailed hawk
(B. jamaicensis)
Red-shouldered hawk
(B. lineatus)
38
-------
BIRDS (Continued)
Broad-winged hawk
(B. platypterus)
Golden eagle
(Aquila chrysaetos)
Bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Osprey
(Pandion haliaetus)
Peregrine falcon
(Falco perigrinus)
Pigeon hawk
(F. columbarius)
Sparrow hawk
(F. sparverius)
Turkey
(Meleagris gallopavo)
Ruffed grouse
(Bonasa umbellus)
Bobwhite
(Colinus virginianus)
Ring-necked pheasant
(Phasianus colchicus)
Common egret
(Casmerodius albus)
Cattle egret
(Bulbulcus ibis)
Great blue heron
(Ardea herodias)
Little blue heron
(Florida caerulea)
Louisiana heron
(Hydranassa tricolor)
Green heron
(Butorides virescens)
Black-crowned night heron
(Nycticorax nycticorax)
Yellow-crowned night heron
(Nyctanassa violacea)
American bittern
(Botaurus lentiginosus)
Least bittern
(Ixobrychus exilis)
Glossy ibis
(Plegadis falcinellus)
Virginia rail
(Rallus limicola)
Sora
(Porzana Carolina)
Yellow rail
(Coturnicops noveboracnesis)
Black rail
(Laterallus jamaicensis)
King rail
(Rallus elegans)
Common gallinule
(Gallinula chloropus)
American coot
(Fulica americana)
American oystercatcher
(Haematopus palliatus)
Black-bellied plover
(Squatarola squatarola)
American golden plover
(Pluvialis dominica)
Piping plover
(Charadrius melodus)
Semipalmated plover
(Charadrius semipalmatus)
Killdeer
(Charadrius vociferus)
Whimbrel
(Numenius phaeopus)
Marbled godwit
(Limosa fedoa)
Upland plover
(Bartrania longicauda)
Solitary sandpiper
(Tringa solitaria)
Spotted sandpiper
(Actitis macularia)
Willet
(Catoptrophorus semipalmatus)
Greater yellowlegs
(Totanus melanoleucus)
Lesser yellowlegs
(T. flavipes)
Stilt sandpiper
(Micropalama himantopus)
Northern phalarope
(Lobipes lobatus)
American woodcock
(Philohela minor)
Common snipe
(Capella gallinago)
Glaucous gull
(Larus hyperboreus)
Great black-backed gull
(Larus marinus)
Herring gull
(Larus argentatus)
39
-------
BIRDS (Continued)
Dunlin
(Erolia alpina)
Sanderling
(Crocethia alba)
White-rumped sandpiper
(Erolia fuscicollis)
Baird's sandpiper
(Erolia bairdii)
Least Sandpiper
(Erolia minutilla)
Semipalmated sandpiper
(Ereunetes pusillus)
Western Sandpiper
(Ereunetes mauri)
Red phalarope
(Phalaropus fulicarius)
Iceland gull
(Larus glaucoides)
Ring-billed gull
(L. delewarensis)
Black-legged kittiwake
(Rissa tridactyla)
Laughing gull
(Larus artricilla)
Bonaparte's gull
(Larus Philadelphia)
Least tern
(Sterna albifrons)
Common tern
(Sterna hirundo)
Forster's tern
(Sterna hirundo)
Caspian tern
(Hydroprogne caspia)
Black tern
(Chlidonia niger)
Rock dove
(Columbia livia)
Mourning dove
(Zenaidura macroura)
Yellow-billed cuckoo
(Coccyzus americanus)
Black-billed cuckoo
(Coccyzus erythropthalmus)
Barn owl
(Tyto alba)
Snowy owl
(Nyctea scandiaca)
Barred owl
(Strix varia)
Screech owl
(Otus asio)
Great horned owl
(Bubo virginianus)
Long-eared owl
(Asio otus)
Short-eared owl
(A. fl ammeus)
Saw-whet owl
(Aegolius acadicus)
Whip-poor-will
(Caprimulgus vociferus)
Common nighthawk
(Chordeiles minor)
Chimney swift
(Chaetura pelagica)
Ruby-throated hummingbird
(Archilochus colubris)
Belted kingfisher
(Megaceryle alycon)
Yellow-shafted flicker
(Colaptes auratus)
Pileated woodpecker
(Dryocopus pileatus)
Red-headed woodpecker
(Melanerpes formicivorus)
Yellow bellied sapsucker
(Sphyrapicus varius)
Hairy woodpecker
(Dendrocopos villosus)
Downy woodpecker
(D. pubescens)
Eastern kingbird
(Tyrannus tyrannus)
Great-crested flycatcher
(Myriarchus crinitus)
Eastern phoebe
(Sayornis phoebe)
40
-------
BIRDS (Continued)
Solitary vireo
(V. solitarius)
Black & white warbler
(Mniotita varia)
Prothonotary warbler
(Protonotaria citrea)
Worm-eating warbler
(Helmitheros vermivorus)
Blue-winged warbler
(Vermivora pinus)
Golden-winged warbler
(V. chrysoptera)
Nashville warbler
(V. ruficapilla)
Parula warbler
(Parula americana)
Yellow warbler
(Dendroica petechia)
Magnolia warbler
(D. magnolia)
Cape May warbler
(D. tigrina)
Black-throated blue warbler
(D. caerulescens)
Black-throated green warbler
(D. virens)
Myrtle warbler
(D. coronata)
Cerulean warbler
(Dendroica cerulea)
Blackburnian warbler
(D. fusca)
Chestnut-sided warbler
(D. pennsylvanica)
Bay-breasted warbler
(D. castanea)
Blackpoll warbler
(D. striata)
Pine warbler
(D. pinus)
Prairie warbler
(Dendroica discolor)
Palm warbler
(D. palmarum)
Overbird
(Seiurus aurocapillus)
Northern waterthrush
(S. noveboracensis)
Louisiana waterthrush
(S. motacilla)
Yellowthroat
(Geothlypis trichas)
Yellow-breasted chat
(Icteris virens)
Mourning warbler
(Oporornis Philadelphia)
Connecticut warbler
(Oporonis agilis)
Hooded warbler
(Wilsonia citrina)
Wilson's warbler
(Wilsonia pusilla)
Canada warbler
(W. canadensis)
American redstart
(Setophaga ruticilla)
House sparrow
(Passer domesticus)
Bobolink
(Dolichonyx oryzivorus)
Eastern meadowlark
(Sturnella ntagna)
Redwinged blackbird
(Agelaius phoeniceus)
Rusty blackbird
(Euphagus carolinus)
Common grackle
(Quiscalus-guiscala)
Brown-headed cowbird
(Molothrus ater)
Orchard oriole
(Icterus spurius)
Baltimore oriole
(I. galbula)
Scarlet tanager
(Piranga olivacea)
Cardinal
(Richmondena cardinalis)
Rose-breasted grosbeak
(Pheuticus ludovicianus)
Evening grosbeak
(Hesperiphona verpertina)
Indigo bunting
(Passerina cyanea)
Purple finch
(Carpodacus purpureus)
Pine grosbeak
(Pinicola enucleator)
Redpoll
(Acanthis flammea)
41
-------
BIRDS (Continued)
Yellow-bellied flycatcher
(Empidonax flaviventris)
Traill's flycatcher
(E. traillii)
Least flycatcher
(E. minimus)
Eastern wood pewee
(Contopus virens)
Olive-sided flycatcher
(Nuttallornis borealis)
Horned lark
(Eremophila alpestris)
Barn swallow
(Hirundo rustica)
Cliff swallow
(Petrochelidon pyrrhonota)
Tree swallow
(Iridoprocne bicolor)
Bank swallow
(Riparia riparia)
Rough-winged swallow
(Stelgidopteryx ruficollis)
Purple martin
(Progne subis)
Blue jay
(Cyanocitta cristata)
Gray jay
(Perisoreus canadensis)
Common raven
(Corvus corax)
Common crow
(Corvus brachyrhynchos)
Fish crow
(Corvus ossifragus)
Black-capped chickadee
(Parus atricapillus)
Carolina chickadee
(Parus carolinensis)
Tufted titmouse
(Parus bicolor)
White-breasted nuthatch
(Sitta carolinensis)
Red-breasted nuthatch
(S. canadensis)
Brown creeper
(Certhia familiaris)
House wren
(Troglodytes aedon)
Winter wren
(T. troglodytes)
Carolina wren
(Thryothorus ludovicianus)
Long-billed marsh wren
(Telmatodytes palustris)
Short-billed marsh wren
(Cistothorus platensis)
Mockingbird
(Mimus polyglottos)
Catbird
(Dumetella carolinensis)
Brown thrasher
(Toxostoma rufum)
Robin
(Turdus migratorius)
Wood thrush
(Hylocichla mustelina)
Hermit thrush
(H. guttata)
Swainson's thrush
(H. ustulata)
Veery
(H. fuscescens)
Gray-cheeked thrush
(H. minima)
Eastern bluebird
(Sialia sialis)
Golden-crowned kinglet
(Regulus satrapa)
Ruby-crowned kinglet
(Regulus calendula)
Water pipit
(Anthus cpinoletta)
Cedar waxwing
(Bombycilla cedorum)
Northern shrike
(Lanius ex cubitor)
Loggerhead shrike
(L. ludovicianus)
Starling
(Sturnus vulgaris)
White-eyed vireo
(Vireo griseus)
Yellow-throated vireo
(V. flavifrons)
Red-eyed vireo
(V'. olivaceus)
Philadelphia vireo
(V. philadelphicus)
Warbling vireo
(V. gilvus)
42
-------
BIRDS (Continued)
Pine siskin
(Spinus pinus)
American goldfinch
(Spinus tristis
Red crossbill
(Loxia curvirostra)
White-winged crossbill
(Loxia leucoptera)
Rufous-sided towhee
(Pipilo erythrophthalmus)
Savannah sparrow
(Passerculus sandwichensis)
Ipswich sparrow
(Passerculus princeps)
Grasshopper sparrow
(Ammodramus savannarum)
Henslow's sparrow
(Passerherbulus henslowii)
Sharp-tailed sparrow
(Ammospiza caudacuta)
Vesper sparrow
(Pooecetes grammeus)
Slate colored junco
(Junco hyemalis)
Tree sparrow
(Spizella arborea)
Chipping sparrow
(S. passerina)
Field sparrow
(S. pusilla)
White-crowned sparrow
(Zonotrichia leucophrys)
White-throated sparrow
(Z. albicollis)
Fox sparrow
(Passerella iliaca)
Lincoln's sparrow
(Melospiza lincolnii)
Song sparrow
(M. melodia)
Swamp sparrow
(M. georgiana)
Snow bunting
(Plectrophenax nivalis)
Lapland longspur
(Calcarius lapponicus)
Short-billed dowitcher
(Limnodromus griseus)
Long-billed dowitcher
(Limnodromus scolopaceus)
Ruddy turnstone
(Arenaria interpres)
Purple sandpiper
(Erolia maritima)
Pectoral sandpiper
(Erolia melanotos)
Knot
(Calidris canutus)
43
-------
MAMMALS
Little brown bat
(Myotis lucifugus)
Silverhaired bat
(Lasionycteris noctivagans)
Eastern Pipistrel
(Pipistrellus subflauus)
Big brown bat
(Eptesicus fuscus)
Red bat
(Lasiurus borealis)
Hoary bat
(Lasiurus cinereus)
Indiana bat
(Myotis sodal-is)
Masked shrew
(Sorex cinereus)
Smokey shrew
(Sorex fumeus)
Longtail shrew
(Sorex dispar)
Northern water shrew
(Sorex palustris)
Least shrew
(Cryptotis parva)
Shorttail shrew
(Blarina brevicauda)
Starnose mole
(Condylura cristata)
Eastern mole
(Scalopus aguaticus)
Hairytail mole
(Parascalopus breweri)
Woodchuck
(Marmota monax)
Eastern chipmunk
(Tamias striatus)
Eastern gray squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis)
Red squirrel
(Tamiasciurus hudsonicus)
Northern flying squirrel
(Glaucomys sabrinus)
Southern flying squirrel
(Glaucomys volans)
Deer mouse
(Peromyscus maniculatus)
Whitefooted mouse
(Peromyscus leucopus)
Eastern wood rat
(Neotoma floridana)
Redback vole
(Clethrionomys gapperi)
Beach meadow vole
(Microtus breweri)
Meadow vole
(Microtus pennsylvanicus)
Yellownose vole
(Microtus chrotorrhinus)
Pine vole
(Pitymys pinetorum)
Southernbog lemming
(Synaptomys cooperi)
Muskrat
(Ondata zibethica)
Norwary rat
(Rattus norvegicus)
House mouse
(Mus musculus)
Meadow jumping mouse
(Zapus hudsonicus)
Woodland jumping mouse
(Napaeozapus insignis)
Snowshoe hare
(Lepus americanus)
Eastern cottontail
(Sylvilagus flordanus)
New England cottontail
(Sylvilgus transitionalis)
Beaver
(Castor canadensis)
Porcupine
(Erethizon dorsatum)
Whitetail deer
(Odocoileus virginianus)
Oppossum
(Didelphis marsupialis)
Raccoon
(Procyon lotor)
Marten
(Martes americana)
Fisher
(Martes pennanti)
44
-------
MAMMALS (Contd.)
Shorttail weasel
(Mustela erminea)
Longtail weasel
(Mustela frenata)
Mink
(Mustela vison)
River otter
(Lutra canaderisis)
Striped skunk
(Mephitis mephitis)
Bobcat
(Lynx rufus)
Coyote
(Canis latrans)
Red fox
(Vulpes fulva)
Gray fox
(Urocyon cinereoargenteus)
Eastern cougar
(Pelis concolor)
Black bear
(Ursus americanus)
45
-------
GAME FISH
Brook trout
(Salvelinus fontinalis)
Brown trout
(Salmo trutta)
Rainbow trout
(Salmo gairdnerii)
Largemouth bass
(Micropherus salamoides)
Smallmouth bass
(Micropherus dolomieui)
Chain pickeral
(Esox niger)
White perch
(Morone americana)
Yellow perch
(Perca flavescens)
Calico bass
(Pomoxis nigromaculatus)
Brown bullheads
(Ictalurus nebulosus)
Bluegill sunfish
(Lepomis auritus)
Pumpkinseed sunfish
(Lepomis gibbosus)
Lake trout
(Salvelinus namaycush)
Shad
(Alosa sapidissima)
Carp
(Cyprinus carpio)
White sucker
(Catostomus cammersoni)
Northern pike
(Esox lucius)
Walleye
(Stizostedion vitreum vitreum)
Channel catfish
(Ictalurus punctatus)
46
-------
REPTILES
Green turtle
(Chelonia mydas)
Ridley turtle
(Lepidochelys kempi)
Loggerhead turtle
(Caretta caretta)
Leatherback turtle
(Dermochelvy coriacea)
Hawksbill turtle
(Eretmochelys imbricata)
Plymouth turtle
(Pseudemys rubriventris bangs!)
Bog turtle
(Clemmys muhlenbergi)
Snapping turtle
(Chelydra serpentina)
Stinkpot
(Sternotherus odoratus)
Mud turtle
(Kinosternon subrubrum)
Spotted turtle
(Clemmys guttata)
Wood turtle
(Clemmys insulpata)
Muhlenberg's turtle
(Clammy muhlenbergi)
Blanding's turtle
(Emys blandingi)
Box turtle
(Terrapene cardina)
Map turtle
(Graptemys geographicus)
Eastern painted turtle
(Chrysemys picta picka)
Midland painted turtle
(Chrysemys picta marginata)
Red-bellied turtle
(Pseudemys rubrisentris)
Fence lizard
(Sceloporus undulatus)
Five-lined skink
(Eumeces fasciatus)
Worm snake
(Carphophis amoenus)
Black rat snake
(Elaphne obsoleta obsoleta)
Black racer
(Coluber constrictor)
Ring-necked snake
(Diadophis punctatus)
Pilot black snake
(Elaphne obsoleta)
Earth snake
(Haldea valeriae)
Hog-nosed snake
(Heterodon platyrhinos)
Milk snake
(Lampropeltis doliata triangulum)
Common water snake
(Natrix sipedon)
Smooth green snake
(Opheodrys vernalis)
DeKay's snake
(Storeria dekayi)
Red-bellied snake
(Storeria occipitomaculata)
Ribbon snake
(Thamnophis sauritus)
Common garter snake
(Thamnophis sirtalis)
Copperhead
(Ancistrodon contortrix mokeson)
Timber Rattlesnake
(Crotalus horridus)
47
-------
AMPHIBIANS
Spadefoot toad
(Scaphiopus holbrooki)
American toad
(Bufo americanus)
Fowler's toad
(Bufo woodhousei fowleri)
Cricket frog
(Acris gryllus)
Upland chorus frog
(Pseudacris nigrita)
Spring peeper
(Hyla crucifer)
Gray treefrog
(Hyla versi color)
Bullfrog
(Rana castebiana)
Green frog
(Rana clami tans)
Pickeral frog
(Rana palustris)
Northern leopard frog
(Rana pipiens pipiens)
Wood frog
(Rana sylvatica)
Jefferson salamander
(Ambystoma jeffersonianum)
Blue-spotted salamander
(Ambystoma laterale)
Spotted salamander
(Ambystoma maculatum)
Spring salamander
(Gyrinophilus porphyriticus)
Marbled salamander
(Ambystoma opacum)
Tiger salamander
(Ambystoma tirginum tigrinum)
Red spotted newt
(Diemictylus viridescens)
Dusky salamander
(Desmognathus fuscus)
Allegheny mountain salamander
(Desmognathus ochrophaeus)
Red-backed salamander
(Plethodov cinereus)
Slimy salamander
(P. glutinosus)
Four-toed salamander
(Hemidactylium scutatum)
Purple salamander
(Gyrinophilus porphyriticus)
Red salamander
(Pseudotriton ruber)
Two-lined salamander
(Eurycea bislineata)
Long-tailed salamander
(Eurycea longicauda)
48
-------
APPENDIX H
ENDANGERED SPECIES, COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Source: B. Isgur, Massachusetts State Conservationist; and
Massachusetts Audubon Society newsletter, October 1973]
Endangered Birds
Eastern bluebird
(Sialia sialis sialis)
Southern bald eagle*
(Kaliaeetus leucocephalus
leucocephalus)
American peregrine falcon*
(Falco peregrinus anatum)
Marsh hawk
(Circus cyaneus hudsonius)
Black crowned night heron
(Nycticorax nycticorax hoactli)
Purple martin
(Progne subis)
Osprey
(Pandion haliaetus carolinensis)
Ipswich sparrow
(Passerculus princeps)
Turkey
(Meleagris gallopavo)
Endangered Mammals
Indiana bat*
(Myotis sodalis)
Eastern cougar*
(Fells concolor cougar)
Northeastern coyote
(Canis latrans thamnos)
Fisher
(Martes pennanti)
Southern bog lemming
(Synaptomys cooperi)
River otter
(Lutra canadensis)
Grey longtail shrew
(Sorex dispar)
Beach meadow vole
(Microtus breweri)
Yellownose vole
(Microtus chrotorrhinus)
Northeastern woodrat
(Neotoma floridana)
Endangered Fish
Black bullhead
(Ictalurus melas)
Burbot
(Lota
Channel
lota)
catfish
(Ictalurus punctatus)
White catfish
(Ictalurus catus)
Lake chub
(Hybopsis plumbea)
White crappie
(Pomoxis annularis)
Northern redbelly dace
(Chrosontus eos)
Swamp darter
(Etheostoma fusiforme)
American brook lamprey
(Lampetra lamottei)
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas)
Northern pike
(Esox lucius)
Atlantic salmon
(Salmo salar)
Sockeye salmon
(Onocorhynchus nerka)
Emerald shiner
(Notropis atherinoides)
* On U.S. Dept. of Interior's List of Endangered Fauna, 1974
49
-------
APPENDIX H
ENDANGERED SPECIES (Contd.)
Endangered Fish (Contd.)
Mimic shiner
(Notropis volucellus)
Brook stickleback
(Eucalia inconstans)
Fourspine stickleback
(Apeltes guadracus)
Ninespine stickleback
(Pungitius pungitius)
Threespine stickleback
(Gasterosteus aculeatus)
Atlantic sturgeon
(Acipenser oxyrhynchus)
Shortnose sturgeon*
(Ac ipenser
Longnose sucker
(Catostomus catostomus)
Longear sunfish
(Lepomis megalotis)
Redbreast sunfish
(Lepomis auritus)
Lake trout
(Salvelinus namaycush)
Trout-perch
(Percopsis omiscomaycus)
Walleye
(Stizostedion vitreum vitreum)
Endangered Amphibians
Blue-spotted salamander
(Ambystoma laterals)
Four-toed salamander
(Hemidactylium scutatum)
Jefferson salamander
(Ambystoma jeffersonianum)
Spring salamander
(Gyrinophilus porphyriticus)
Endangered Reptiles
Copperhead Plymouth turtle
(Agkistrodon contortrix mokeson) (Pseudemys rubriventris bangsi)
Timber rattlesnake
(Crotalus horridus horridus)
Five-lined skink
(Eumeces faciatus)
Black rat snake
(Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta)
Eastern worm snake
(Carphophis amoenus amoenus)
Blandings turtle
(Emydoidea blandingi)
Bog turtle
(Clemmys muhlenbergi)
Red bellied turtle
(Pseudemys rubriventris)
Hawksbill turtle*
(Eretmochelys imbricata)
Leatherback turtle*
(Dermochelys coriacea)
Loggerhead turtle
(Caretta caretta)
Ridley turtle*
(Lepidochelys kempi)
Green turtle
(Chelonia mydas)
On U. S. Dept. of Interior's List of Endangered Fauna, 1974
50
-------
APPENDIX H
ENDANGERED SPECIES (Contd.)
Endangered Plants
Arethusa
(Arethusa bulbosa)
Bee-balm
(Monarda didyma)
Horned bladderwort
(Utricularia cornuta)
Calopogon
(Calopogon pulchellus)
Three-toothed cinquefoil
(Potentilla tridentata)
Golden club
(Orontium aquaticum)
Broom crowberry
(Corema conradii)
Green dragon
(Arisaema dracontium)
Walking fern
(Camptosorus rhizophyllus)
Stiff gentian
(Gentiana guinquefolia)
Ginseng
(Panax quinquefolia)
Cotton grass
(Eriophorum species)
Harebell
(Campanula rotundifolia)
Trumpet honeysuckle
(Lonicera sempervirens)
Ram's head lady1s-slipper**
(Cypripedium arietinum)
Showy lady's-slipper
(Cypripedium reginae)
Yellow lady's-slipper
(Cypripedium calceolus)
Bog laurel
(Kalmia polifolia)
Great lobelia
(Lobelia siphilitica)
American lotus
(Nelumbo lutea)
Marsh-pink
(Sabatia stellaris)
Plymouth gentian marsh-pink
(Sabatia kennedyana)
Blunt-leaf orchis
(Habenaria obtusata)
Green woodland orchis
(Habenaria clavellata)
Large-leaved orchis
(Habeneria macrophylla)
Leafy white orchis
(Habenaria dilatata)
Showy orchis
(Orchis spectabilis)
White fringed orchis
(Habenaria blephariglottis)
Yellow fringed orchis
(Habenaria ciliaris)
Bell-shaped pink
(Sabatia campanulata)
Nodding pogonia
(Triphora trianthophora)
Rose pogonia
(Pogonia ophioglossoides)
Small whorled pogonia**
(Isotria medeoloides)
Whorled pogonia
(isotria verticillata)
Hill's pondweed
(Potomageton hillii)
Puttyroot
(Aplectrum hyemale)
Great rhododendron
(Rhododendron maximum)
Rhodora
(Rhododendron canadense)
Rose-pink
(Sabatia angularis)
Labrador tea
(Ledum groenlandicum)
Lilia-leaved twayblade
(Liparis lilifolia)
** Federal Register, "Threatened or Endangered Fauna or Flora",
July 1, 1975
51
-------
APPENDIX I
SPECIES LISTINGS, BOSTON HARBOR
DOMINANT PHYTOPLANKTON SPECIES OF THE
BOSTON HARBOR-MASSACHUSETTS BAY AREA
[Source: Chesmore et al 1971, USDI-FWPCA and MWRC, 1969,
and NEA, unpublished]
Scientific Name
Common Name
DIATOMS
Asterionella sp.
Biddulphia aurita
Chaetoceros decipiens
Chaetoceros debilis
Coscinodiscus centralis
Cylindrotheca closterium
Detonula confervacea
Fragilaria sp.
Gyrosigma sp.
Melosira sp.
Nitzschia seriata
Pediastrum sp.
Pleurosigma sp.
Porosira glacialis
Scenedesmus sp.
Skeletonema costatum
Thalassionema nitzschioides
Thalassiosira decipiens
Thalassiosira gravida
Thalassiosira nordenskioldii
YELLOW-BROWN ALGAE
(XANTHOPHYCEAE)
Vaucheria
sp,
GREEN ALGAE
(CHLOROPHYCEAE)
Chaetomorpha
Enter onto rpha
Enteromorpha
Enteromorpha
Enteromorpha
linum
erects
intestinalis
1 inza
prolifera
Monostroma oxyspernum
Rhizoclonium tortuosum
Ulothrix flacca
Ulva lactuca
Urospora sp.
Green Confetti
Green String Lettuce
Silk Confetti
Sea Lettuce
52
-------
Scientific Name Common Name
BROWN ALGAE
(PHAEOPHYCEAE)
Agarum cribrosum Holed Kelp
Ascophyllum nodosum Rock Weed
Fucus edentatus Rock Weed
Fucus evanescens Rock Weed
Fucus spiralis Rock Weed
Fucus vesiculosus Rock Weed
Laminaria agardhii Kelp
Laminaria saccharina Kelp
Ralfsia fungiformis
Scytosiphon lomentaria
RED ALGAE
(RHODOPHYCEAE)
Chondria baileyana
Chondrus crispus Irish Moss
Cystoclonium purpureum
Dumontia incrassata
Hildenbrandia prototypus
Lithothamnium lenormandi
Petrocelis middendorfii
Porphyra umbilicalis Red Jabot Laver
Rhodfymenia palmata Red Kale
53
-------
CHECK LIST OF FINFISH SPECIES
RECORDED IN DORCHESTER, HINGHAM AND QUINCY BAYS
[Source: NEA, unpublished, Chesmore et al,1971, and Jerome
et al, 1966]
Atlantic Silverside
Menidia menidia
Fourspine Stickleback
Apeltes quadraous
Mununichog
Fundulus heteroolitus
Striped Killfish
Fundulus majalis
Threespine Stickleback
Gasterosteus aouleatus
Ninespine Stickleback
Pungitius pungitius
Alewife
Alosa pseudoharengus
American Eel
Anguilla rostrata
Rainbow Smelt
Osmerus mordax
Striped Bass
Mopone saxatilis
White Perch
Mopone amerieanus
Winter Flounder
Pseudopleuponeetes americanus
Blueback Herring
Alosa aestivalis
Silverhake
Merlueoius bilinearis
Atlantic Tomcod
Miorogadus tomood
Northern Pipefish
Syngnathus fusaus
Lumpfish
Cyclopterus lumpus
American Sand Lance
Ammodytes amerieanus
Spiny Dogfish
Sgualus aconthias
Redfin Pickerel
Esox americanus americanus
Atlantic Cod
Gadus morhua
Pollock
Pollaahius virens
Red Hake
Urophyois dhuss
Grubby
Myoxooephalus aeneus
Ocean Pout
Maerozoarces amerioanus
Atlantic Mackerel
Scomber saombrus
Windowpane
Scophthalmus aquosus
Smooth Flounder
Liopsetta putncmi,
Yellow Flounder
Limanda fevTuginea
54
-------
BENTHIC ORGANISMS IDENTIFIED DURING 1968
BOSTON HARBOR SURVEY
[Source: USDI-FWPCA and MWRC, 1969]
MARINE WORMS (POLYCHAETES)
Polydora ligni
Stauronereis rudolphi
Nephtys incisca
Nephtys ingens
Nephtys caeca
Pectinaria gouldii
Capitella capitata
Phyllodoce fragilis
Phyllodoce groenlandica
Phylldoce mucosa
Eumida sanguinea
Eteone lactea
Paranaitis speciosa
Tharyx acutus
Cirratulus grandis
Aricidea jeffreysii
Paraonis sp.
Pherusa plumosa
Nereis virens
Nereis pelagica
Lycastopsis pontica
Harmothoe imbricata
Lepidonotus squamatus
Arabella iricolor
Spirorbis spirillum
Orbinia sp.
SCUDS (AMPHIPODA)
Ampelisca macrocephala
Ampelisea spinipes
Corophium volutator
Letocherius pinguis
Gammarus locusta
Gammarus annulatus
Melita netidia
Melita dentata
Lysianopsis alba
Ampithoe rubricata
Pontogeneia inermis
SOWBUGS (ISOPODA)
Edotea triloba
Edotea montosa
Idotea phopherea
BIVALVES (MOLLUSCA)
Ensis directis
Tellina agilis
Macoma balthica
Mytilus edulis
Lyonsia hyalina
Pandora goulliana
SNAILS (GASTROPODA)
Nassarius sp.
Polinices sp.
Pyramidella fusca
Crepidula formicata
STARFISH (ASTEROIDEA)
Asterias foreesi
Diastylis polita
SHRIMP (DECAPODA)
Spirontocaris pusiola
Caprella linearis
BRITTLE STARS (OPHIOROIDEA)
Ophiopholis aculeata
SEA URCHINS (ENCHINOIDEA)
Strongylocendrotus droeachiensis\
CHITONS (AMPHINEURA)
Chaetopleura apriculata
Copepod
Nemaioda
55
-------
APPENDIX J
SPECIES LISTINGS, NORTHEASTERN CONTINENTAL SHELF
INCLUDING THE GULF OF MAINE
MAJOR SPECIES OF PHYTOPLANKTON,
NEW ENGLAND TO CAPE HATTERAS
[Source: Watling, Pembroke and Lind, 1975; Bigelow, 192?]
Dinoflagellates
Ceratiiffn tripos
Exuviaella lima
Peridinium trochoidewn
Prorocentrwn micans
Diatoms
Asterionella japonioa
Biddulphia spp.
Chaetoceros compressus
Chaetoceros debilis
Chaetoceros decipiens
Chaetoceros sooialis
Corethon hystrix
Coseinodisaus eentralis
Cosainodi-scus excentr-Lous
Cosainosira sp.
Evoampia sp.
Guinardia flaecida
Lavderia sp.
Leptocylindrus danicus
Leptocylindrus minimus
Melosira sulcata
Nitzschia alosterium
Nitzsehia seriata
Rhizosolenia alata
Rhizosolenia fragilissima
Rhizosolenia hebetata
Rhizosolenia setigera
Skeletonema costatwn
Thalassionema nitzschioides
Thalassiosira deoipiens
Thalassiosira gravida
Thalassiosira nordenskioeldii
Thalassiothrix sp.
56
-------
COPEPOD SPECIES OCCURRING IN THE REGION
MAINE TO CAPE HATTERAS
[Source: Watling, Pembroke and Lind, 1957; Bigelow, 1927]
I. Calanoid
Acartia clausii
Acartia longiremis
Acartia tonsa
Aetidius armatus
Anomalocera ornata
Anomalocera patersonii
Asterocheres boecki
Calanus finmarchicus
Calanus gracilis
Calanus hyperboreus
Calanus minor
Candacia armata
Candacia paohydaotyla
Centropages bradyi
Centropages furcatus
Centropages hamatus
Centropages typious
Daotylopusia thisboides
Duightia graailis
Ectinosoma neglectium
Eucalanus attenautus
Eucalanus orassus
Eucalanus elongatus
Eucalanus monarchus
Eucalanus pileatus-subcrassus
Euchaeta marina
Eucnaeta media
Euchaeta norregica
Euchaeta spinosa
Eucheirella rostrata
Eurytemora affinis
Eurytemora americand
Eurytemora hirundoides
Gaidius tenuispinis
Heterorhabdus spinifrons
Labidocera acutifrons
Labidocera aestiva
Labidocera wollastroni
Lucicutia grandis
Mecynocera clausi
Metridia longa
Metridia lucens
Nannocalanus minor
Paracalanus crassirostris
Paracalanus parvus
Phyllopus bidentatus
Pontella meadii
Pontella pennata
Pseudocalanus elongatus
Pseudocalanus minutus
Pseudodiaptomus coronatus
Rhincalanus cornutus
Rhincalanus nasutus
Scolecithrix danae
Scolecithricella minor
Temora discaudata
Temora longioornis
Temora stylifera
Temora turbinata
Tortanus discaudatus
Undinula vulgaris
Undevchaeta major
Undevchaeta minor
II. Cyclopoid
Bomolochus eminens
Clytermestra rostrata
Corycaeus americanus
Corycaeus elongatus
Corycaeus ovalis
Corycaeus speciosus
Corycaeus venustus
Corycella labracis
Cyclops gracilis
Cyclops viridis
Hemicyclops americanus
Olthona brevicornis
Olthona similis
Olthona spinirostris
Oncaea minuta
Cncaea venusta
Sapphirina auronitens
Thalestris gibba
57
-------
IV. Harpacticoid
Halithalestvis aroni
Harpaotious littoralis
Harpaaticus uniremis
Idya fupcata
Metis ignea
Zaus dbbreviatus
Zaus spinatus
V. Monstrilloid
Monstr-Llla anglioa
Monstrilla serrieornis
58
-------
ZOOPLANKTON SPECIES, OTHER THAN COPEPODS,
KNOWN TO OCCUR IN THE GULF OF MAINE
[Source: Bigelow, 19271
Mollusca
Pteropods
Limaeina retroversa
L. helicina
Clione limaci-na
Arthropoda
Crustacea
Euphausiids
Thysanoessa inermis
T. longicaudata
T. gregaria
T. paschii
Nematosoelis sp.
Euphausia krohnii
Meganyctiphanes norregica
Thysanopoda aoutifrons
Amphipods
Euthemists sp.
Hyperia sp.
Hyperoche sp.
Parathemisto oblivia
Chaetognatha
Sagitta elegans
S. serratodentata
S. maxima
S. lyra
S. hexaptera
Eukrohnia hamata
Annelida
Tomopterids
Tomoptevis eatharina
Tomopteris septentrionatis
Coelenterata
Melicevtim campanula
Staurophopa mertensii
Ptychogena lactea
Mitrocoma eruciata
Phialidium languidum
Aglantha digitate
Cyanea oapillata
Auvelia aurita
Stephanomia cara
Diphyes arotioa
Ctenophores
Pleu?obr>achia pileus
Mertens-ia ovwn
Bolinopsis infundibulum
Beroe cucwnis
59
-------
A PARTIAL LIST OF BENTHIC INVERTEBRATES KNOWN TO OCCUR
FROM MAINE TO CAPE HATTERAS , WHICH COULD BE EXPECTED
TO OCCUR IN THE GULF OF MAINE
[Source: Watling, Pembroke and Line, 1975, and Rowe, Polloni and
Haedrich, in press]
FORAMINIFERA
Elphidium olavatwn
Elphidiwn subavctiown
Elphidium ineertwn
Buacella frigida
Ammonia beccavii.
QuinqueloGulina seminula
SPONGES
Cl-iona celata
Miaroeiona prolifera
Polymastia
Myrilla
COELENTERATES
Paranthus rapiformis
Astrangia danae
Cerianthus
Gersemia
Paragorgia
Turbularia cvocea
Eudendrium
Sertularia
Bouganvillia
NEMERTINEA
Amphiporus sp.
OLIGOCHAETA
Peloscolex intermedius
Peloscolex benedeni
Pelosoolex apectinatus
Adelodvilus anisosetosus
Phallodrilus coeloprostatus
Phallodrilus obsourus
Lirnnodriloides mediopovus
Tubifex longipenis
POLYCHAETA
Lumbrineris latreilli*
Lumbrineris impatiens*
tenuis
acuta
Dorvilla aaeoa*
* Species positively identified by Rowe, et. al. (in press)
60
-------
Nephtys piota
Magelona papillioomis
Maoroelymene zonalis
Exogone dispar
Ophelia dentioulata
Ophelia sp.
Pherusa affinis
Serpula sp.
Goniadella
Goniadella graailis
Saalibregma inflation*
Nephtys sp.
Nephtys squamosa
Nephtys inoisa
Earmothoe sp.
Onuphis opalina*
Onuphis nebulosa
Lumbrinereis cruzensis
Chaetozone setosa
Notomastus laterioeus
Otienia fusiformis
Soolelepis squamata
Exosphaerorus dimunutum
Spirorbis sp.
Sternaspis sp.
Amphitrite sp.
Leanira tetragona*
Euohone sp. *
Euohone inaolor
Capitella capitata
Spio limioolor
Ninoe nigipes
Asabellides oculata
Tharyx sp. *
Tharys marioni
Polydora ligni
Phloe minuta*
Sooloplos armiger
Pavaonis lura*
Paraonis gvacilis*
Apistobranchus tullbergi*
Avioidea jeffveysii
Avicidea suecia
Prionospio steenstrupi
Glyoera eapitata*
Clymenella sp.
Cossura logochirrata*
Exogone sp.
Exogone verugera
Ariaidea quadrilobata
Aricidea aerruti
Parapionosyllis longicirrata
Spiophanes bombyx
Spiophanes kroyeri*
Palaenotus hetevoseta
Pseudeurythoe ambigua
Goniadides n. sp.
Magelona papillicomis
Polydora sp.
Ceratoeephale loveni*
Ampharete arctioa*
Diplocirrus hirsutus*
Sphaevosy1 Us brevifrons*
Ppoto dorvillea minuta*
Eusyllis blomstrandi*
Nereimyra punotata*
Amage tumida*
Antinoella angusta*
Maldanopsis elongata*
Terebellides stroemi*
Paranaitis kosterienisis*
Antinoella angusta*
Troohoohaeta (Disoma) watsoni*
Driloneris longa*
Sigalion sp. *
Otienia fusiformis
SyHides verrilli
Miorophthalmus sp.*
Miorophthalmus aberrans
Mediomastus ambiseta
Nereis suceinea
Nereis aaudata
Streblospio benediati
Eteone heteropoda
Sooloplos fragilis
Pygospio elegans
Heteromastus filiformis*
Paramphinome jeffreysii*
Ancistrosyllis groenlandiaa*
Ophelina abranchiata*
GASTROPODA
Polinioes dupliaatus
Lunatia heros
Alvania carinata*
Coins pygmaoeus
Cylichna sp. *
Cyliahna gouldi
61
-------
Cylichna orzyga
Mitrella zondlis
Nassarius trivittatus
Turbonilla interrupta
Crepidula fornicata
Retusa caniculata
Crepidula piano.
Olivella adelae
Crepidula plana
Cithna tennella
Adeorbis umbilioatus
Neptunea sp.
Scaphander sp.
Lacuna vincta
Hydrobia minuta
Bittium alternatwn
Oliva mutica
Epitonium dallianum
NUDIBRANCHES
Doris sp.
Dendronotus sp.
Dendronotus frondosus
Acanthodoris pilosa
Aeolidia papillosa
Ancula gibbosa
Coryphella verrucosa
Cuthona concinna
Doto coronata
Eubranchus olivaceus
Faoelina bostoniensis
Onehidoris fusaa
Onohidoris murioata
Polycera dubia
Tergipes tergipes
BIVALVIA
Spisula solidissima
Astarte aastanea
Ensis direotus
Tellina agilis
Spisula ravenelli
Arctica islandiea
Cardita borealis
Astarte sp.
Astarte subequilatera
Astarte undata
Pi tar morrhuana
loldia sapotilla
Thrasira trisinuata
Plaeopecten magellanicus
Mulinia lateralis
Nucula proxima
Nucula delphinodonta*
Nuculana aouta
Cerastoderma pinnulatum
Nucula delphinodonta
Mytilus edulis
Donax variabilis
Anadara transversa
Callocardia morrhuana
Nucula tennis
Periploma papyracea
Thyasira ovata
Thyasira equalis*
Venericardie borealis
Gemma gemma
loldia (loldiella) limatula
loldia (yoldiella) iris*
Solemya velum
Macoma tenta
Nuculana pernula*
Bathyarca (Area) pectunculoides*
Cuspidaria glacialis*
Chlamys islandia
SCAPHOPODA
Siphonodentalium sp.*
Dentalium occidentale*
OSTRACODA
Ostracoda spp.
Actinocythereis dawsoni vineyardensis
Bensonacythere arenicola
Bythocythere sp. A
Cushmanidea seminuda
Cushmanidea ulrichi
Cytheridea sp. A
Cytheropteron pyramidale
Cytherura wardensis
Cytherura pseudostriata
Cytheretta edwardsi
Cytheretta sahnii
Finmarchinella finmarchica
Leptocythere angusta
Loxoconcha impressa sperata
Muellerina oanadensis
Neolooophocythere sp. A
62
-------
Puriana rugipunotata
Euaythere deolivis
Murrayina oanadensis
Sahnia fasoiata
Tringinglymus arenioola
Tringinglymus denticulata
Propontooypris howei
Pontocythere ashermani
Pontocythere turbida
Pontocy'there argioola
Miorocytherura ohootawhatoheensis
Aurila oonradi
Loxooonoha granulata
MYSIDACEA
Neomysis amerioana
Mysis mixta
My sis stenolepis
Erythrope erythrophthalma
Promysis atlantica
Bowmaniella portoricensis
Meterythrops robusta
Pseudonma affine
Amblyops dbbreviata
Mysidopsis bigelowi
Prannus felxosus
Heteromysis formosa
CUMACEANS
Eudorella trunoatula
Diastylis quadrisp-Lnosa
Diastylis sp.
Eudorella emarginata
Leptoeuma sp.
Oxyurostylis smithi
Leuoon ameri.aa.nus
ISOPODA
Chiridotea caeoa
Cirolana borealis*
Edotea sp.
Munnopsis typiea
Idotea phosphorea
Idotea balthioa
Janira alta
Idotea metalliaa
Sphaeroma quadridentatum
Paracerceis oaudata
Idotea tuloba
Ptilanthura tenuis
Chiridotea tuftsi
AMPHIPODA
Unieiola irrorata
Aegini-a longicornis
Anomyx lilljeborgi
Anomyx sarsi
Phoxocephalus holbolli
Ampelisea sp. *
Ampelisoa maorooephala
Ampelisaa vadorum
Ampelisoa oompressa
Ampelisoa abdita
Ampelisea verrilli
Ampelisoa aequioornis
Ampelisoa agassizi
Ampelisoa esohriohti
Corophium orassicorne
Casoo bigelowi*
Stenopleustes inermis
Caprellid sp.
Caprella linearis
Caprella unioa
Caprella penantis
Caprella equilibra
Platyisohnopus sp.
Maera sp.
Paraphoxus sp.
Siphonoeoetes
Neohaustoris schmitzi
Aoanthohaustorius millsi
Haustorius sp.
Ganmarus annulatus
Crangonyx riohmondensis
Calliopius laeviusoulus
Pontogeneia inermis
Eemiaegina minuta
Luoonaoia incerta
Mayerella limnioola
Platyischnopus
Siphonoeoetes maoulicomis
Byblis serrata
Byblis gaimardi
Raploops tubioola
Paraoaprella tenuis
Earpinia propinua*
Eriohthonius rubricornis*
Leptooheirus pinguis*
Argissa hamatipes*
Eippomedon sp.
63
-------
OTHER CRUSTACEA
Crangon septemspinosus
Cancer irroratus
Pagurus longicarpus
Dissodactylus mellitae
Emerita talpoida
Dichelopandalus
Calocaris templemani*
Caeocaris
Geryon
Pandalus
Neopanope texana sayi
Eomarus arericanus
SIPUNCULIDA
Golfingia
Phasaolion strombi
TARDIGARDA
Stygarctus bradypus
Halechiniscus remanei
Batillipes pennaki
BRYOZOA
Membranipora tenuis
Electro, manostachys
Callopora crat-icula
Amphi-blestriun flemLngii,
Cribrilina punctata
Hippopovina porosa
Hippoporina americana
Hippoporina verrilli
Porella. reduplicata
Aetea anguina
Bugula turrita
Bicellariella ciHata
Cellepora avicularis
Discoporella wribretlala depressa
Cupuladria diporosa
Bugula fulva
Bugula stolonifera
Chorizopora brongnianti
Cleidochasma reticulum
Conopeum reticulum
Eleotra hastingsae
Microporella ciliata
Parasmitti-na ni-tida
Schizoporella cornuta
Schizoporella unicornis
Tessaradoma gracile
64
Turbicellepora diohotama
Aeverrillia armata
Aeverrillia setigera
Alcyonidiwn parasi-ticwn
Alcyonidium poly own
Amathia vidowici
Anguinella palmata
Bowerbarikia gracilis
Barentsia timida
Barentsia laxa
Pedicellina cernue
Cupuladria doma
Amphi-blestrwH septentrionalis
Callopora dumerilli
Cellaria fistulosa
Celleporella hyal-ina
Cryptosula pallasiana
Electra hastingsae
Eleotra pilosa
Eaplota clavata
Scruparia ambigua
Tegella unicornis
Alcyonidium verrilli
Arachnidium fibrosum
Tritiaella elongata
Crisia eburnea
ECHINODERMATA
Echinarachnius parma
Strongylocentros drobachiensis
Aricidea lyriformis
Asterias forbesi
Mellita quinquiesperforata
Arbacia puntulata
Solaster sp.
Ophiopholis sp.
Ophiacantha sp.
Briaster fragiles*
Ophiura sp. *
Ophiura sarsi
Ophiura robusta
Amphiura otteri
Ctenodiscus crispodus
Amphioplus sp.
Amphilimna sp.
Thyone scabra
ASCIDIANS
Amaroucium
Molgula arenata
Heterostigma
Boltenia
Ascidia
Polycarpa fibrosa
-------
FISHES REPORTED FROM THE GULF OF MAINE
[Source: Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953]
Hagfish
Myxine glutinosa
Sea Lamprey
Petvomyson marinus
Sand Shark
Cavohavias taurus
Mackerel Shark
Lcarna nasus
Sharp-nosed Mackerel Shark
Isurus oscyvinchus
Maneater, White Shark
Cardhaicodon aax>ahai?ias
Basking Shark
Cetorhinus maximus
Thresher
Alopias vulpinus
Chain Dogfish
Scyliorhinus retifer
Smooth Dogfish
Mustelus can-is
Tiger Shark
Galeooerdo cuvier
Blue Shark
Prionace glauoa
Sharp-nosed Shark
Sooliodon terrae-novae
Dusky Shark
Capoharhinus obsowcus
Brown Shark
Carcharhinus milberti
Bonnet Shark, Shovelhead
Sphyrna tiburo
Hammerhead
Sphyrna zygaena
Spiney Dogfish
Squalus acanth-ias
Black Dogfish
CentroscyIlium fabricii
Portuguese Shark
Centroscyrmus ooelolepis
Greenland Shark
Sornn-iosus miorooepndlus
Dalatias liaha
Bramble Shark
Eehinorhinus brucus
Barn-door Skate
Raja laevis
Big Skate
Raja ooellata
Brier Skate
Raja eglantevia
Leopard Skate
Raga garmani
Little Skate
Raja erinacea
Smooth-tailed Skate
Raja senta
Thorny Skate
Raga radiata
Sting Ray
Dasyati-s centvouva
Cow-nosed Ray
Rhinoptera bonasus
Devil Ray
Manta birostris
Chimaera
Hydrolagus affinis
Sea Sturgeon
Aaipenser sturio
Short-nosed Sturgeon
Acipenser Bvevirostrim
Ten-pounder
ElopS SOUTHS
Tarpon
Tarpon atlantious
Round Herring
Etrumeus sadina
Herring
Clupea harengus
Hickory Shad
Pomolobus mediocris
Alewife
Pomolobus pseudoharengus
Blueback
Pomolobus aestivalis
Shad
Alosa sapidissima
65
-------
Thread Herring
Opisthonema oglinwn
Menhaden
Brevoortia tyrannus
Anchovy
Anchoa mLtohilli
Striped Anchovy
Anohoa hepsetus
Brook Trout
Salvelinus fontinatis
Salmon
Salmo salar
Humpback Salmon
Onoorhyndhus gorbuscha
Silver Salmon
Oncorhynahus kisutoh
Capelin
Matlotus villosus
Smelt
Osmerus mordax
Argentine
Argentina situs
Headlight-fish
Diaphus effulgens
Lanternfish
Myctophiffn affine
Pearlsides
Mauroticus pennanti
Viperfish
Chauliodus sloani
Cyclothone
Cyclothone signata
Stomias stomias
Stomioides nicholsi
Trigonolampa miriceps
Silver Hatchet Fish
Apgyropelecus aouleatus
Eel
Anguilla rostrata
American conger
Conger ooeanioa
Slime Eel
Simenchelys parasitious
Long-nosed Eel
Synaphobranchus pinnatus
Snake Eel
Omoahelys cruentifer
Snipe Eel
Nemiehthys seolopaceus
Lancetfish
Alepisaurus ferox
Common Mummichog
Fundulus heteroclitus
Striped Mummichog
Fundulus majalis
Sheepshead Minnow
Cyprinodon vaviegatus
Silver Gar
Tyloswus marinus
Garfish
Ablennes hians
Halfbeak
Hyporhamphus unifasciatus
Needlefish
Scomberesox saurus
Flying Fish
Cypseluvus heterurus
Silver Hake
Merluccius bilinearis
Cod
Gadus callarias
Tomcod
Microgadus tomaod
Haddock
Melanogrammus aeglefinus
American Pollock
Pollach'ius vi-rens
White Hake
Urophycis tenuis
Squirrel Hake
Urophyois chuss
Spotted Hake
Urophycis regius
Long-finned Hake
Urophyois ahesteri
Blue Hake
Antimora rostrata
Hakeling
Physiculus fulvus
66
-------
Four-bearded Rockling
Enohelyopus cimbrius
Cusk
Brosme brosme
Common Grenadier
Macvourus baivdii
Rough-headed Grenadier
Maorourus berglax
Long-nosed Grenadier
Coelorhynchus oarminatus
Opah
Lanrpris regius
Halibut
Hippoglossus hippoglossus
Greenland Halibut
Reirihardtius hippoglossoides
American Dab
Hippoglossoides platessoides
Summer Flounder
Paraliehthys dentatus
Four-spotted Flounder
Paralichthys oblongus
Yellow-tail
Limanda ferruginea
Winter Flounder
Pseudopleuronectes americanus
Smooth Flounder
Liopsetts putncam,
Witch Flounder
Glyptocephalus cynoglossus
Sand Flounder
Lophopsetta maculata
Gulf Stream Flounder
Citharichthys arctifrons
Hogchoker
Aehirus fasciatus
American John Dory
Zenopsis ooeVlata
Grammicolepid
Xenolepidiahthys americanus
Snipe Fish
Maerorhcanphosus saolopax
Silverside
Menidia menidia
Waxen Silverside
Menidia beryllina
Mullet
Mugil cephalus
Northern Barracuda
Sphyraena borealis
Nine-spined Stickleback
Picngitius pungitius
Three-spined Stickleback
Gasterosteus aculeatus
Two-spined Stickleback
Gasteroste-us wheatlandi
Four-spined Stickleback
Apeltes quadracus
Pipefish
Syngnathus fusous
Pelagic Pipefish
Syngnathus pelagicus
Sea Horse
Hippocampus hudsonius
Trumpetfish
Fistularia tabaoaria
Mackerel
Scomber soorribvus
Chub Mackerel
Pneumatophorus aolias
Striped Bonito
Euthynnus pelamis
False Albacore
Euthynnus alleteratus
Common Bonito
Sarda sarda
Tuna
Thunnus thynnus
Spanish Mackerel
Seomberomorus maoulatus
King Mackerel
Soomberomorus regalis
Cavalla
Sconibepomorus aava.Ha
Escolar
Ruvettus pretiosus
Cutlassfish
Tfichiurus lepturus
Swordfish
Xiphias gladius
Blue Marlin
Mdkaira ampla
67
-------
White Marlin
Makaira albida
Dolphin
Coryphaena hippurus
Johnson's Sea Bream
Taractes princeps
Butterfish
Poronotus triaaanthus
Harvestfish
Peprilus alepidotus
Barrelfish
Palinuriohthys perciformis
Black Ruff
Centvolophus niger
Pilotfish
Naucrates ductor
Rudderfish
Seriola sonata
Mackerel Scad
Decapterus maaarellus
Crevalle
Cavanx hippos
Hardtail
Ccacanx cvysos
Saurel
Trachurus traohurus
Goggle-eyed Scad
Trachurops cnmenopthalrms
Moonfish
Vomer setapinnis
Lookdown
Selene vomer
Leatherj acket
Oligoplites saurus
Threadfin
Aleetis erinitus
Bluefish
Pomatomus saltatrix
Striped Bass
Roocus saxatilis
White Perch
Mofone amevicana
Sea Bass
Centropristes striatus
Wreckfish
Polyprion ameri-oanus
Short Big-eye
Pseudopriaoanthus altus
Scup
Stenotomus versiooTov
Sheepshead
Atohosargus probatoeephalus
Weakfish
Cynoscion vegalis
Spot
Leiostomus xanthurus
Kingfish
Mentieirrhus saxatilis
Black Drum
Pogonias cvomis
Tilefish
Lopholatilus ehamae'Leonticeps
Rosefish
Sebastes marinus
Black-bellied Rosefish
Heliaolenus daatylopterus
Boarfish
Antigonia aapros
Hook-eared Sculpin
Artediellus unoinatus
Mailed Sculpin
Triglops ommatistius
Grubby
Myoxooephalus aeneus
Shorthorn Sculpin
Myoxocephalus soorpius
Longhorn Sculpin
Myoxooephalus octodecemspinosus
Staghorn Sculpin
Gymnocanthus tricuspis
Arctic Sculpin
Cottufioolus miarops
Sea Raven
Hemitripteims amerieanus
Alligatorfish
Aspidophovoides monopterygius
Lumpfish
Cyolopterus lumpus
Spiny Lumpfish
Etonicrotremus spinosus
Sea Snail
Neoliparis atlantious
Striped Sea Snail
Liparis liparis
Common Sea Robin
Prionotus oarolinus
68
-------
Striped Sea Robin
Prionotus evolans
Armored Sea Robin
Peristedion miniattm
Flying Gurnard
Dactylopterus volitans
Gunner
Tautogolabrus adspersus
Tautog
Tautoga onitis
Shark Sucker
Echeneis naucrates
Swordfish Sucker
Eemora brachyptera
Remora
Remora remora
Sand Launce
Ammodytes americanus
Rock Eel
Pholis gunnellus
Snake Blenny
Lumpenus lumpretaeformis
Shanny
Leptoclinus maculatus
Arctic Shanny
St-iehaeus punatatus
Radiated Shanny
Ulvaria subbifurcata
Wrymouth
Cryptaeanthodes maculatus
Wolffish
Anarhichas lupus
Spotted Wolffish
Anarhichas minor
Ocean Pout
Maovozoarces amevicanus
Wolf Eel
Lyoenchelys vevrillii
Arctic Eelpout
Lyoodes reti-aulatus
Cusk Eel
Lepophidiwn eervinwn
Toadfish
Opsanus tau
Triggerfish
Batistes oarol'lnensis
Filefish
Monaaanthus hispidus
Filefish
Monacanfhus ciliatus
Orange Filefish
Alutera schoepfii
Unicornfish
Alutera scripta
Puffer
Sphaeroides maculatus
Burrfish
Chilomycterus schoepfii
Sunfish
Mo la mola
Sharp-tailed Sunfish
Masturus lanceolatus
American Goosefish
Lophius americanus
Sargassum Fish
His trio pictus
Deep Sea Angler
Ceratias holbolli
69
-------
A LIST OF OCEAN BIRDS LIKELY TO OCCUR
IN THE OPEN WATERS OF THE GULF OF MAINE
[Source: New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, undated]
SHEARWATERS
Cory's Shearwater
Puffinus diomedea borealis
Greater Shearwater
Puffinus gravis
Sooty Shearwater
Puffinus grisevs
STORM PETRELS
Leach's Petrel
Oceanodroma leucorhoa leucorhoa
Wilson's Petrel
Oceanites oceanicus oceanicus
PHALAROPES
Red Phalarope
Phalaropus fulicarius
Northern Phalarope
Lobipes lobatus
JAEGERS
Pomarine Jaeger
Stercorarius pomarinus
Parasitic Jaeger
Stercorarius parasiticus
Gulls & Terns
Black-legger Kittiwake
Rissa tridactyla tridactyla
AUKS, MURRES, PUFFINS
Razorbill
Alca torda torda
Common Murre
Uria aalgae aalgae
Thick-billed Murre
Uria lomvia
Dovekie
Plautus alle alle
Black Guillemot
Cepphus grylle grylle
Common Puffin
Fratercula arctica arctica
70
-------
MARINE MAMMALS WHICH HAVE OCCURRED
OR MAY OCCUR BETWEEN CAPE COD AND CAPE HATTERAS
[Source: Pilson and Goldstein, 1973]
Walrus
Odobenus rosmarus
Common Seal
Phooa vitulina
Gray Seal
Halichoerus grypus
Harp Seal
Pagophilus groenlandiaus
Hooded Seal
Cystophora cristata
Manatee
Trieheehus manatus
Right Whale
Balaena glacial-is
Gray Whale
Eschrichtius gibbosus
Minke Whale
Balaenoptera acutorostrata
Sei Whale
Balaenoptera bor
-------
APPENDIX K
DISTRIBUTION OF COMMERCIALLY IMPORTANT
FISH OFF THE NEW ENGLAND COAST
U. S. FISH LANDINGS FOR ALL SPECIES FROM SELECTED AREAS OFF THE NEW ENGLAND COAST
Data is in metric tons, live weight and are totals over the 10 years from 1965
to 1974. Numbers at the top of the columns correspond to fisheries statistical
areas located on Figure K-l.
[Source: NMFS, Northeast Fisheries Center, 1975A, B]
513
Alewife
Goosefish
Bluefish
Butterfish
Cod
Cusk
Eels
Winter Flounder
Fluke
Grey Sole
Yellowtail Flounder
American Dab
Haddock
Red Hake
White Hake
Halibut
Herring
Mackerel
Memhaden
Redfish
Pollock
Atlantic Salmon
Scup
Shad
Shark/Dogfish
Skates
Atlantic Smelt
Striped Bass
Sturgeon
Swordfish
Tilefish
Bluefin Tuna
White Perch
Whiting
Wolffish
Billfish
Bonito
Sand Dab
Eel Pout
Sea Bass
Sea Trout
Tautog
Silver Hake
514
515
521
522
4,106
69
45
8
26,136
1,559
11
691
<1
3,674
638
3,312
6,147
387
5,739
79
49,356
1,424
6,945
10,826
8,291
<1
<1
2
513
138
137
2
6
3
19
469
<1
94,991
178
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8,780
971
171
103
28,177
2,288
2
8,448
29
3,965
9,423
4,182
12,424
1,900
2,302
167
71,843
12,184
46,080
2,434
9,270
0
13
232
23
362
<1
532
5
2
1
2,738
1
39,120
736
2
<1
<1
333
2
2
32
0
0
<1
0
0
1,894
709
0
10
<1
270
23
177
1,300
7
793
35
582
17
0
58,401
2,336
0
0
0
<1
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
176
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
*
*
*
*
5,893
*
*
*
*
*
626
*
5,308
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
4,097
*
*
*
*
2,433
*
*
*
*
*
1,492
*
5,908
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
1,198
72
-------
513
514
515
521
522
Other
Green Crab
Rock Crab
Lobster
Shrimp
Hard Clam
Soft Clam
Sea Mussels
Oysters
Periwinkles
Sea Scallop
Squid
Sea Urchins
Sea Moss
Blood Worms
Sand Worms
7,541
11
1,738
28,513
56,940
126
25,605
1,691
65
281
521
92
380
4,707
3,234
637
28,098
0
0
4
7,040
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<1
0
117
0
0
1
39
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,639
*
*
*
*Note: In areas 521 and 522 data for many species is combined.
information is summarized below.
"Other" flounder1
"Other" Pelagic2
"Other" Ground3
"Other" Shellfish4
2,202
299
4,689
47
21
2,219
This
2,140
3
1,693
0
Other flounders
Winter flounder
Summer flounder
Witch flounder
American Plaice
Windowpane flounder
Halibut
Other fish (pelagic)
Bluefin tuna
Skipjack tuna
Tuna unclassified
Tarpon
Swordfish
American Shad
Menhaden
Atlanttic mackerel
Argentine
2 (Contd)
Sea herring
Bonito
Bluefish
Bilifish unclassified
Anchovies
Alewife
Butterfish
Crevalle
3 Other fish (groundfish)
Monkfish
Cusk
Drums
Eels
Grenadiers
Red Hake
White hake
(Contd)
King mackerel
Redfish
Ocean pout
Pollock
Sculpins
Scup
Sea basses
Sea robins
Sea trout
Sharks
Dogfishes
Skates
Smelt
Sturgeon
Tautog
Tilefish
Wolffish
73
-------
Other Shellfish
Green crab
Red crab
Rock crab
Jonah crab
Shrimps
Hard clams
Soft clams
Clams unclassified
Conchs
Sea mussels
Oysters
Periwinkles
Squid (Loligo, Illex)
Sea urchins
74
-------
FIGURE K-l . LOCATION OF FISHERIES STATISTICAL AREAS
75
-------
SCHEDULE OF THE TWENTY SPECIES OF GROUNDFISH COMMON IN THE GULF OF MAINE
The letters in parentheses correspond to Figure K-2 which indicates the locations and the maximum
population densities of these groundfish.
[Source: Fitz, 1965]
Species
Spiny Dogfish (S)
Squalus acanthias
Occurrence
Depth (M)
Bottom Temperature (°C)
Throughout the area - Nova Scotia to Cape May, New Jersey. Abundant north of
Cape Cod, off Nova Scotia, and southern New England
30-300 3.9-16.7
Thorny Skate
Raja radiata
Sea herring (H)
Culpea harengus
Argentine (A)
Argentina silus
Silver Hake (SH)
Merluccius bilinearis
North of 41°00' Latitude. Light concentration on Georges Bank.
50-410 3.9-16.7
North of 41°00' Latitude. Abundant on western side of Georges Bank, north of
Cape Cod, south of Nova Scotia, and east of Nantucket.
30-370 4.4-15.0
In the Gulf of Maine and Between Georges Bank and Browns Bank.
50-410 5.6-13.9
Throughout the area - Nova Scotia to New Jersey. Abundant off Cape Cod, western
side of Georges Bank, southeastern part of Georges Bank, and south of Cape Cod.
30-410 3.9-19.4
Cod (C)
Gadus marhua
North of 41°00' Latitude. Abundant off Nantucket, north of Cape Cod, and
southeast of Nova Scotia.
30-310 4.4-15.6
Haddock (Ha)
North of 41°00' Latitude. Abundant on the Northern Edge of Georges Bank and on
Melanograromus aeglefinus Browns Bank.
30-410
3.9-15.6
American Pollock
Pollachius virens
North of 41°00' Latitude. Heavy concentrations Near Nova Scotia. Moderate con-
centrations in the Gulf of Maine and on the western side of Nova Scotia.
30-370 4.4-12.2
-------
Occurrence
Species
White Hake (W)
Urophycis tenuis
Squirrel Hake
Urophycis chuss
Longfin Hake (L)
Urophycis chesteri
American Dab (D)
Hippoglossoides
platessoides
Fourspot Flounder
Paralichthys oblongus
Yellowtail Flounder (F)
Limanda ferruginea
Witch Flounder (WF)
Glyptocephalus
cynoglossus
Butterfish
Poronotus triacanthus
Scup
Stenotomus versicolor
Redfish (R)
Sebastes marinus
Longhorn Sculpin
Myoxocephalus
octodecimspinosus
American Goosefish
Lophius americanus
Depth (M)
Bottom Temperature (°C)
North of 41°00' Latitude. Abundant along the northern edge of Georges Bank
and in the Gulf of Maine.
30-410 4.4-15.0
Throughout the area - Nova Scotia to Cape May, New Jersey. Abundant south of
Cape Cod.
30-370 4.4-17.8
In the deep waters of the Gulf of Maine off the Northern edge of Georges Bank.
150-410 4.4-10.6
North of 41°00" Latitude. Abundant along the inshore waters north of Cape Cod
and southeast of Nova Scotia.
30-330 3.9-16.7
South of 42°00' Latitude. Abundant from the eastern side of Georges Bank
southward to Hudson Canyon.
30-130 6.7-19.4
Along the eastern side of Georges Bank southward to Hudson Canyon and north of
Cape Cod. Abundant on Georges Bank, north of Cape Cod, and off southern New England.
30-190 5.6-16.7
North of 41°00' Latitude. Abundant off the coast of Massachusetts and Maine and
southeast of Nova Scotia.
70-410 3.9-16.1
South of 41°00" Latitude. Abundant south of Cape Cod to Hudson Canyon.
30-270 4.4-20.6
South of 41°00' Latitude. Abundant south of Cape Cod.
30-170 8.9-20.6
North of 41°00' Latitude. Abundant in the deep waters of the Gulf of Maine and
southeast of Nova Scotia.
50-410 4.4-15.6
South of 42°00' Latitude. Abundant on Georges Bank and southeast of Cape Cod.
30-370 4.4-15.6
Throughout the area - Nova Scotia to Hudson Canyon. Abundant along the northern
edge of Georges Bank.
30-310 3.9-15.6
-------
SPECIFS
00
DO
DO
DO
DO
DO
DO
DO
DO
DO
S Spiny
H Sea herring
A Argenl i ne
SH Silver hake
C Cod
Ha Haddock
P American pollock
w White Hake
L Longfinned hake
D American dab
F Yellowtail flounder
WF Witch flounder
R Redfish
POPULATION DENSITY
501 or more/181 square
201
201
101
11
101
101
51
301
51
13
10
301
THE GULF OF MAINE SHOWING THE LOCATIONS OF MAXIMUM
POPULATION DENSITIES OF SELECTED GROUNDFISH SPECIES.
RADIUS is POSSIBLE RANGE FOR OCEAN DISPOSAL, eo NM
-------
APPENDIX L
DESCRIPTION OF HISTORIC SITES
The following descriptions are keyed to Figure 11-12,
which locate these historical areas.
(1) Fort Warren, Boston
George's Island; 1834-1863; public. Military engineer
Sylvanus Thayer was responsible for the plan and construction
of Fort Warren. Built mainly of Quincy granite, the defense
work was a bastioned star fort with other walls eight feet
thick and six hundred feet long. The Fort was twice modernized
after the Civil War (when it was a prison for Confederate leaders).
Inside the Fort's wall is a brick magazine and outside is a 2-
story late 19th c. hospital. The entire island is forty acres
and located in the middle of Boston Harbor.
(2) Fort Independence, Boston
Castle Island; 1634/1705/1741/1809/1851; public. Except
for a somewhat earlier defense set up on Fort Hill in the southern
end of Boston, Castle Island is the oldest fortified site in the
original Massachusetts Bay Colony. Its 328 year history came to
an end in 1962, when the Federal government ceded the area of
Fort Independence back to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for
use as an historic monument.
(3) Slade Spice Mill, Revere
770 Revere Beach Parkway; 18th-20th c.; private. The Slade
Spice Mill is one of the two remaining mills in Massachusetts
which were tide powered. It used one of the earliest of the
horizontal (turbine) wheels, powered by the release of dammed
water dependent on tidal action to turn the mill-stones each
day. Some of the original machinery remains and the mill is
still used for grinding and mixing spices. The present 3-story
frame mill is the fourth on the site, replacing three earlier
structures which were destroyed by fire.
(4) Fort Revere, Telegraph Hill
c. 18th; public/private. Fort Revere, named for Paul Revere,
is the enlarged and modernized fort which was originally called
Fort Independence. It has not been used as a coastal battery
since the end of W.W. II when it was sold for development of homes
and a school. The French fleet anchored in Nantasket Roads in
the fall of 1778 and stationed a detachment of marines at Fort
Independence. The view from here of the entire Boston Harbor
79
-------
area quickly reveals the strategic importance of the spot. The
presence at the fort of such notables as Heath, du Portail,
de Bougainville, de Maresquelle, and others, underscores the
significance of Fort Independence. Of the original 77 acre fort,
only a 10 acre section comprising the center of the fort remains.
(5) Telegraph Hill
c. 1900; public. As part of the Fort Revere complex, the
Water Tower served a three-fold purpose. It was used as an
observation tower as well as a water tower by the soldiers
stationed there through W.W. II. From the top of this 120'
structure, the entire Boston Harbor area can be readily seen.
Additionally, the tower has been, and still is, an important
navigational landmark enabling both seagoing and airborne pilots
to quickly orientate themselves in the Harbor area. It marks the
area of the 19th c. telegraph tower and station and the site of
the original well at Fort Independence, Fort Revere1s predecessor.
(6) Moswetuset Hummock, Quincy
Squantum Street; 17th c.; public. In the early 1600's this
hill was the seat of the sachem Chicatabot of the Massachusetts
Indians. Shaped like an arrowhead (which in the Indian dialect
is mos or mons), the hummock (or wetuset), as slightly altered
in pronunciation by the white man, gave rise to the name
Massachusetts. Today the hill is still bounded by the sea where
the Indians fished, by the marshes that served as a defense, and
by the original planting grounds of the tribe.
(7) Adams National Historic Site, Quincy
135 Adams Street; 1730-1731; public. Adams National Historic
Site commemorates four generations of the distinguished Adams
family, who occupied the house from 1788 to 1927. Here lived
John Adams, first Vice President and second President of the
United States (1797-1801). His son, John Quincy Adams, was
Senator, Congressman, Secretary of State, and President of the
United States (1825-1829). His son, Charles Francis Adams, was
minister to the Court of St. James (1861-1868). His son, Henry
Adams, historian and man of letters, is best known for his auto-
biography, The Education of Henry Adams. A younger son, Brooks
Adams, was the last of the family to occupy the "Old House".
A stone library, stable and extensive gardens are other notable
features. Included in the Historic American Buildings Survey.
(8) Hull Village Area
Bounded: Nantasket Avenue, Spring and Main Streets; 1682-
1882; 8 inventoried properties. Hull Village is the oldest part
of Hull where the first settlers came from Plymouth in 1622.
80
-------
The buildings here represent the oldest buildings in town, some
dating back as late as the 17th c. Town meetings were held in
this portion of Hull Village from about 1675 to about 1825 when
the present Municipal Building was built. It is the oldest part
of Hull and still retains the atmosphere and the structures which
we revere in American history, because it gives visual reality to
the writings of our illustrious historians.
(9) House, Winthrop
97 Washington Avenue; late 19th c.; private. Residence of
Joseph P. Kennedy, father of the late President John F. Kennedy.
(10) Deane Winthrop House, Winthrop
40 Shirley Street; 17th c.; private. One of the few surviving
good examples of 17th c. architecture. Deane Winthrop, the son
of Governor Winthrop, lived here until 1703.
The following locations are part of the Boston National
Historical Park. These areas are also keyed to Figure 11-12 for
location purposes.
A. Faneuil Hall
Boston merchant Peter Faneuil gave this hall to the town of
Boston in 1742. It burned in 1761 and was rebuilt 2 years later.
The present building is the result of architect Charles Bulfinch's
enlargement of the structure in 1806.
Market stalls occupied the first floor, while the hall above
was used for Boston town meetings and the discussions that led
James Otis to call it the "Cradle of Liberty".
The oldest military company in North America, the Ancient and
Honorable Artillery Company, has its armory and museum on the third
floor.
B. Paul Revere's House
Built about 1677 after one of the great fires of Boston, this
is the oldest frame dwelling left in the city. It was constructed
on the original site of Rev. Increase Mather's house and was the
home of Paul Revere from 1770 to 1800. Paul Revere, on the night
of April 18, 1775, began his famous ride to Lexington from this
house.
C. Old North Church
The Old North Church, built in 1723 as a place of worship
for non-Puritan Anglicans, was styled after Sir Christopher Wren's
churches in 17th-century London.
81
-------
On the night of April 18, 1775, sexton Robert Newman hung
two lanterns in the steeple to signal that the British were
leaving Boston by sea. This prearranged signal was intended
to give the Charlestown militia warning of the British march
toward Lexington and Concord, even if Paul Revere should be
captured. This is the oldest church building still standing
in Boston.
D. Old State House
The Province of Massachusetts Bay was governed from this
building. Here colonial courts met, James Otis argued against
Writs of Assistance, and John Hancock and Samuel Adams denounced
the tax laws of Parliament. The world's first gallery where the
public could watch government in action was established in this
building as a result of a motion by James Otis in the Massachusetts
House in 1766.
The square in front of the State House was the scene of the
famous Boston Massacre on March 5, 1770. In 1776 the Declaration
of Independence was read for the first time in Boston from the
eastern balcony.
E. Bunker Hill
The Battle of Bunker Hill, June 17, 1775, (actually fought
on and around Breed's Hill) was the first significant battle of
the Revolutionary War. As Boston was besieged by the Americans,
British general Thomas Gage planned to fortify Dorchester Heights
to protect the city. On hearing of Gage's plan, the colonial
forces decided to occupy Charlestown peninsula and fortify Breed's
Hill. Although the British won the ensuing battle, they suffered
heavy losses. The Battle of Bunker Hill rallied the colonies and
prodded the Continental Congress into organizing an American army.
F. Old South Meeting House
Erected in 1729 as a Congressional meeting house, "Old South"
served as the site for Boston's town meetings whenever they became
too large for Faneuil Hall.
In this building on the night after the Boston Massacre in March
1770, Bostonians waited until Governor Thomas Hutchinson promised
to remove British regiments from Boston. On December 16, 1773,
participants in another town meeting dispersed to Griffin's Wharf
to carry out the famous Boston Tea Party.
82
-------
G. Charlestown Navy Yard (Boston Naval Shipyard)
One of the country's first naval shipyards was established
in 1800 on "Moulton's Point" in Charlestown. Here in 1833 one
of the first two dry docks in the country began operation. The
first ship to enter the dock was the U. S. frigate Constitution/
which now lies at the Navy Yard. This frigate helped drive French
privateers from the American coast and the West Indies in the
1790s and became famous for her actions in the War of 1812.
"Old Ironsides" is the oldest commissioned ship in the United
States Navy.
83
-------
APPENDIX M
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF BOSTON HARBOR
AREA HIGHWAYS AND HIGHWAY PLANNING
A. Winthrop Regional System
Winthrop is serviced primarily by two regional highway
facilities, U.S. Route 1. A regional state highway running
in a north-south direction, provides access to the south and
Boston proper by means of the Sumner-Callahan Tunnels, as
well as access to the northern communities of Saugus, Lynn-
field, etc. by means of a varying four-lane/six-lane access
highway. Route 1 is also the major highway servicing Logan
Airport. Revere Beach Parkway (Route 16)/North Shore Road
(Route 1A) is a major arterial running predominantly east-
west through Revere, Everett and Medford and traveling north-
south through the eastern portion of Revere and continuing
through Lynn and Swampscott.
Three major expressway facilities originate in Boston
proper and service communities north of Boston. Route 1 is
the easterlymost facility, with Interstate 95 and Interstate
93 being the other facilities.
A TOPICS plan was prepared for the Town of Winthrop in
September of 1972 by Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton (TAMS)
Both mechanical recorder counts and manual counts were
taken during February 1971. The following table, taken from
the TAMS report indicates the daily traffic flow on the prin-
cipal streets within the Town.
Street APT
1. Main Street 25,000 - 3,000
2. Revere Street 16,000 - 10,000
3. Winthrop Parkway 12,000
4. Pleasant Street 9,000 - 5,000
5. Pauline Street 8,000 - 3,000
6. Washington Street 7,000 - 5,000
84
-------
Winthrop Regional System (Cont'd)
Street ADT
7. Winthrop Street 7,000 - less than 2,000
8. Crest Avenue 6,000
9. Shirley Street 6,000 - less than 2,000
10. Walden Street 4,000 - 3,000
11. Veterans Road 3,000
The most heavily congested route through the Town is
Main Street/Revere Street. Pleasant Street, which is part
of the designated truck route, is a narrow two-lane facility
with parked vehicles encountered throughout its length.
Land use along its entire length is primarily residential.
B. North Shore Regional Plans
The Boston Transportation Planning Review (BTPR) in
August 1972 published a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
on a variety of possible program options in the north shore
area of Revere and Winthrop. That report documented the
current transportation deficiencies and addressed a series
of program options that might be developed. Of these options,
the only one under serious consideration today is the Revere
Beach Connector.
Another project directly relating to Winthrop was the
Winthrop Connector, which would have provided a third access
road servicing Winthrop. However, this project has been
terminated.
C. Quincy Regional System
Quincy is serviced by primarily one regional facility,
that being the Southeast Expressway (State Route 3). The
Southeast Expressway carries approximately 120,000 to
130,000 vehicles per day. It is a six-lane limited access
freeway. It is the only major access facility connecting
Boston and communities to the south. It operates at
85
-------
Quincy Regional System (Cont'd)
capacity level during both the morning and afternoon peak
periods. The roadway is under constant maintenance and is
the most accident-prone roadway in the Boston Metropolitan
Area. There are a number of interchanges with the Southeast
Expressway located within Quincy, including Neponset Circle,
Granite Avenue, Adams Street and Furnace Brook Parkway.
Route 3A is the other primary State number route.
State Route 3A traverses the Neponset Bridge, Hancock Street
to the Southern Artery. It continues through Quincy, con-
necting Weymouth, Hingham and other communities to the South.
The Hancock Street section of Route 3A functions as a two-
lane bi-directional roadway with parking permitted along
both sides. Traffic along this route is interrupted with a
non-interconnected system of outdated traffic signals. Con-
siderable amounts of bus and truck traffic were observed
along Route 3A further disrupting traffic flow through the
section. Route 3A continues as the Southern Artery until
Washington Street where it follows Washington Street through
Quincy. Between Hancock Street and Sea Street, the Southern
Artery is designated as a four-lane facility, while between
Sea Street and Washington Street it becomes a six-lane road-
way.
Land use along the entire section varies. Along
Hancock Street, the use is mixed manufacturing, retail and
residential. The section of the Southern Artery between Sea
Street and Hancock Street is mostly park land, with the
remaining section consisting of varies retail use, including
drive-in restaurants, gas stations, etc.
A TOPICS plan was prepared for the City in March 1972
by Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton (TAMS). TAMS conducted
a series of traffic counts throughout the City which were
presented in their report as follows:
Washington Street, The Southern Artery,
Sea Street & Quincy Shore Drive 18,000 - 30,000
Quincy Avenue & Hancock Street 10,000 - 30,000
Independence Avenue & Franklin Street 7,000 - 18,000
Willard Street 7,000 - 17,000
86
-------
Quincy Regional System (Cont'd)
Revere Road & McGrath Highway 10,000 - 16,000
Quarry Street, School Street &
Elm Street 10,000 - 14,000
Adams Street 12,000
Newport Avenue & Upland Road 11,000
Coddington Street 10,000
Water Street & Copeland Street 7,000 - 10,000
Furnace Brook Parkway 10,000
The Neponset River Bridge, where Hancock Street and
Quincy Shore Drive converge, has an ADT of 60,000.
Contained in the TOPICS report was also a listing of
high accident locations throughout the City. The most
critical intersection in terms of safety was the Sea Street/
Southern Artery intersection, with 42 accidents reported for
the two years studied.
Much of the street network throughout Quincy is in dire
need of improvement, as discussed in the TAMS priority pack-
age program. The recently completed Upland Street/Newport
Avenue widening and the traffic control improvements imple-
mented thereon are witness to the types of improvements that
might be realized.
D. South Shore Regional Plans
There are no major regional plans in terms of new road-
way in the Quincy vicinity. Various studies are being made
concerning ways of improving operations along the Southeast
Expressway. Reversible lanes and provision of an additional
lane in each direction have been previously discussed. No
immediate plans are expected.
87
-------
APPENDIX N
QUALITY AND QUANTITY OF LIQUID AND SOLID EMISSIONS
In arriving at expected quantities and quality of effluent
streams, the following work has been considered: Havens and
Emerson (1973), the Metropolitan District Commission (Deer and
Nut Island Plant Records 1973-75), in-house analyses of sludge
and ash metals concentrations, plus the analyses done during
the course of this study by JBF Scientific, Inc. In addition
to these sources of data, comparisons have been made with gen-
eral sludge quality data from other sources. In each of the
following sections, the future quantity and quality of treat-
ment plant emissions will be developed. The emissions of solid
wastes and liquid effluents will be addressed together because
of the interrelationship of these two areas.
A. Quantity of Solid and Liquid Emissions
Development of quality and quantity of sludges and liquid
emissions for each of the alternatives will begin with the ex-
pected characteristics of sludges entering the process stream.
This will be followed by the balance of liquid and solid frac-
tions involved in the dewatering process, with the quantities
and concentrations of solid and liquid process streams for
each alternative developed as the last point.
The 1985 process stream quantities developed by Havens and
Emerson (1973) were the starting point for the development of
quality and quantity of process streams. Acceptability of
these projections depends on the following considerations:
• Negligible difference in projections of the 1985
population between 1973 and the present. The basis
of the projections used by Havens and Emerson was
an FWQA study completed in 1970, modified for 1970
Census data. Review of their conclusions in Section
II (Environmental Setting) showed a minor difference
between the Havens and Emerson and subsequent OBERS
projections, with the growth rate used by Havens and
Emerson being greater than the more recent estimates.-
• Negligible difference in per capita loading assump-
tions by Havens and Emerson and present expectations.
The assumption was made by Havens and Emerson that
per capita loadings of solids would increase to the
national average over the 20-year period of design
(by approximately 20%), with much of this increase
occurring in the years 1985-1995. In the absence
of concrete information this assumption is conserva-
tive.
88
-------
• Negligible difference in upstream processes, including
anaerobic digestion. The Havens and Emerson report in-
cluded an increase in primary solids recovery at Deer
Island with the installation of additional primary
settling facilities. This would be necessitated by
the increase of plant flows to reach design capacity
by 1980. The same increase in efficiency can occur
because of elimination of inflow of seawater from
existing tide gates. The MDC is pursuing an active
program of reconstruction and inspection of these
tide gates, so the assumption of increased solids
capture is reasonable (although not necessarily for
the reasons stated by Havens and Emerson). Addition-
ally, a 10% bypass around existing anaerobic digestion
units was assumed. In Section I.II.B, this assumption
is investigated. The conclusion is that bypassing may
be unnecessary, but full-scale operational testing is
required to confirm this. Accordingly, the 10% bypass
assumption must be retained.
• The volume of grit and screenings anticipated to reach
the incinerator has not actually been included. This
would lead to a lower projection of future sludge
quantities.
• At present, inorganic polymers are used in the sludge
conditioning process. In the future, organic polymers
may be considered. High weight inorganic polymers
represent approximately 10% of total solids to incin-
eration. Use of low weight organic polymers would
lead to a reduction in projected future sludge quanti-
ties.
For these reasons, the projections of sludge quantities for
1985, as developed by Havens and Emerson, are conservative for
planning and design.
An area not considered explicitly by the MDC in development
of the Phase I project is the question of grit, screenings and
skimmings quantities to be processed. Table N-l includes a
summary of data on grit, screenings and skimmings collected
during recent years from the Deer Island collection headworks
and the Deer and Nut Island treatment plants. The grit quanti-
ties from the headworks and from Deer Island are lower in recent
periods than formerly, possibly indicating that more care is
being taken with sewer system maintenance. It is assumed that
the quantities of grit and skimmings are directly proportional
to population and population growth. Therefore, increases in
population should result in increases in grit and skimmings.
89
-------
TABLE N-l
QUANTITY OF GRIT, SCREENINGS AND SKIMMINGS
vo
o
Source
Headworks
Grit, cf/day
Screenings, cf/day
Deer Island
Grit, cf/day
Skimmings*, Ib/day
Nut Island
Grit, cf/day
Screenings, cf/day
Skimmings*, Ib/day
(DAILY
July-Dec .
1973
203
254
189
12,200
76
50
15,600
AVERAGE)
Jan . -June
1974
128
235
128
11,500
101
27
16,700
July-Dec .
1974
104
213
101
13,500
92
44
4,000
Jan . -June
1975
88
256
88
16 , 300
95
34
2,800
* Withdrawn from digesters
-------
In projecting future sludge quantities, the estimates by
Havens and Emerson are shown previously to be conservative for
these reasons:
• Actual population growth rates may be lower than
estimates by Havens and Emerson.
• Per capita loadings may remain the same.
• Process expansions may not be done.
While these factors tend to cause an overestimation of the
1985 quantities of primary sludge, the differences in estimated
waste loadings can be compensated for by including the minor
waste streams (grit, screenings and skimmings), which eventu-
ally bring the total quantity of wastes up to the levels pro-
jected by Havens and Emerson. One exception to this is the
quantity of grit screenings, which cannot be disposed of with-
out incineration. There is an existing multiple hearth incin-
erator at Nut Island (36 tons per day design capacity), which
could be used to burn grit and screenings for either the ocean
disposal or land application alternatives. Disposal of ash
generated in this manner would be via the mechanism chosen for
the major sludge disposal alternative. With this addition, the
quantities of sludge and ash to be disposed or applied in 1985
should be similar to the quantities estimated by Havens and
Emerson, as shown in Table N-2.
B. • Quality of Liquid and Solids Waste Streams
Quality of solids and liquid effluent streams is the second
question to be addressed in the area of solid and liquid emis-
sions. The basis for stream quality is the Havens and Emerson
analyses done in 1973, shown in Table N-3. Table N-4 compares
the Havens and Emerson quality data to those developed by the
MDC (Deer and Nut Island Plant Records 1973-1975), and by JBF
Scientific analyses which were done as a portion of this study.
Because sludge quality data are not available for the "minor
waste streams" (grit, screenings and skimmings), the solids
and liquid quality as developed will be assumed to include
these minor streams.
Comparing the sludge quality data developed by Havens and
Emerson, the MDC, and JBF Scientific, certain conclusions can
be drawn:
• Analyses of solids and nutrients demonstrate similarity,
as can be expected from their high concentrations
(which are not so sensitive to differences in technique
and from the fact that such analyses are frequently per-
formed by the analyst).
91
-------
TABLE N-2
PROCESS STREAM CHARACTERIZATION
PHASE I PROJECT
MAINTAINING ANAEROBIC DIGESTION AT DEER $ NUT ISLAND PLANTS
WITH PRIMARY TREATMENT EXPANSION
[Source: Havens and Emerson, 1973]
Item
Primary Solids
Deer Island
Nut Island
Thickened Solids
Deer Island
Nut Island
Bypassed Solids
Deer Island
Nut Island
Solids to Digester
Deer Island
Nut Island
Solids after Digestion
Deer Island
Nut Island
Solids to Filters
Deer Island - Total
Raw
Digested
Nut Island - Total
Raw
Digested
Comb. Plants - Total
Raw
Digested
Filter Cake
Total
Ash
AVERAGE DAY
DSS
Ib/dy
x 103
2S7
189
250
25
19
225
170
137
80
148
25
123
91
19
72
239
44
195
255
VSS
Ib/dy
x 103
179
145
174
17
15
157
130
69
40
79
17
62
51
15
36
130
32
98
129
%Vol
70
77
70
None
68
79
70
76
50
50
53
68
50
56
79
50
54
73
50
50
%Sol
5.0
5.4
7.0
7.0
5.4
7.0
5.4
4.2
2.5
6.6
7.0
6.3
4.0
5.4
3.8
5.3
6.6
5.1
30*
mgd
0.62
0.42
0.43
0.04
0.04
0.39
0.38
0.39
0.38
0.27
0.04
0.23
0.27
0.04
0.23
0.54
0.08
0.46
0.10*
126
MAXIMUM DAY
DSS
Ib/dy
x 103
450
312
437
43
32
394
280
240
132
178
43
135
111
32
79
289
75
214
312
VSS
Ib/dy
x 103
313
239
305
30
25
275
214
121
66
98
30
68
65
25
40
163
55
103
162
%Vol
70
77
70
None
70
78
70
76
50
50
55
70
50
59
78
50
56
73
50
52
%Sol
4.5
5.0
6.5
6.5
5.0
6.5
5.0
4.2
2.5
6.1
6.5
6.3
4.0
5.0
3.8
5.2
5.7
5.0
30*
mgd
1.20
0.75
0.81
0.08
0.08
0.73
0.67
0.73
0.67
0.34
0.08
0.26
0.33
0.08
0.25
0.67
0.16
0.51
0.13*
150
* Modified to be in accordance with projected heat balances
92
-------
TABLE N-3
RAW AND DIGESTED SLUDGE CHARACTERISTICS
[Source: Havens and Emerson, 1973)
DEER ISLAND
NUT ISLAND
us
Parameter
Total Solids, mg/1
Total Volatile Solids, mg/1
Total Phosphorus, mg/1
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, mg/1
Ammonia Nitrogen, mg/1
Potassium, mg/1
Oil & Grease, mg/1
COD
BOD 5
Chloride
Sulfate, 804
Sulfide, S=
Sodium, mg/1
Boron, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Copper, mg/1
Chromium, mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Mercury, mg/1
Nickel, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
Raw Sludge
Total
52,000
36,000
380
1,450
370
110
14,000
67,500
22,500
2,450
870
24.
8
1.55
34.5
17.3
4.0
1.8
7.7
45.5
Soluble
9,350
3,450
120
710
370*
160*
13,500
9,500
2,450
144
c
8*
<.04
<.16
<.16
<.001
.35
<0.13
Digested
Total
35,000
19,500
275
1,250
960
128*
4,150
29,000
3,790
3,250
750
30
1,725
1
0.98
27
18
5.7
0.16
3.9
49.5
Soluble
6,800
1,250
15
910
535
158*
3,035
2,230
2,935
51
1-*
<.04
<.04
<.16
<.01
<.26
<.04
Raw Sludge
Total
53,050
37,500
390
1,400
240
79
8,150
51,500
19,000
405
400
7.5
4
0.2
19.8
38.5
7.3
.09
1.24
46.5
Soluble
3,800
2,050
125
340
165
98
9,700
4,150
325
68
4*
<.04
<.06
<.16
.10
.26
.28
Digested
Total
22,000
12,450
290
1,090
650
84
1,150
17,600
3,400
455
171
17
262.5
4
0.19
17
4
6.5
0.15
1.2
37
Soluble
1,350
370
25
685
540
102
3,285
1,050
325
38.5
4*
<.04
<.06
<.16
<.001
<.001
<.06
0.06
* Adjusted for Mass Balance Considerations
-------
TABLE N-4
COMPARISON OF
Constituent
Total Solids, %
Volatile Solids, %
TKN , ppm
Ammonia N, ppm
Organic N, ppm
Total Phosphorus, ppm
Polychlorinated
Biphenyl, ppm
Arsenic, ppm **
Silver, ppm
Cadmium , ppm
Chromium, ppm
Copper, ppm
Mercury , ppm
Nickel, ppm
Lead, ppm
Zinc, ppm
Beryllium, ppm
Boron , ppm ,
Havens &
Emerson
1973
Deer
3.5
56.0
1250
960
290
275
-
-
-
28.0
514
771
4.6
111
163
1414
-
1.0
Nut
2.2
56.6
1090
650
440
290
-
-
-
8.6
182
772
6.8
55
295
1682
-
4.0
DEER AND NUT ISLAND SLUDGE ANALYSES
Comparative Analysis
September 1975
JBF * MDC
Deer
6.46
52.8
2120
302
1817
535
<0.1
1.4
85.1
81.2
1470
1705
3.1
248
759
5260
<0.5
0.8
Nut
2.45
51.9
1380
580
800
302
<0.1
4.1
9.39
24
265
1060
7.3
106
510
4290
<1.2
<0.2
Deer
6.38
50.8
2170
308
1860
604
-
-
30
49
1787
1923
4.2
219
110
3041
-
-
Nut
2.58
56.0
1300
550
750
333
-
-
31
23. 3
232
880
4.5
310
174
1736
-
-
Jan-June
1973
Deer
2.77
47.2
848
-
-
112
-
6.6
45
115
624
1809
' 17.7
258
630
2210
-
-
Nut
1.81
51.6
1074
473
601
217
-
7.8
31
66-. 7
179
740
8.6
172
400
1580
-
-
Half Year Averages of Monthly Data From MDC
July-Dec Jan-June July-Dec Jan-June
1973 1974 1974 1975
Deer
4.5
49.9
1055
-
-
1005
-
5.1
53
85
1040
1640
8.0
219
530
3760
—
-
Nut Deer
4.8 2.9
57.3 51.1
1570
-
-
358
— —
5.3 9.1
31 51
48.6 69.2
91 883
630 977
6.2 4.8
226 400
390 500
2000 2280
— —
- -
Nut Deer
1.98 4.1
60.3 51.0
2150
-
-
580
~
16.0 5.6
56 57
102 91.2
285 1576
567 1895
6.2 4.9
483 294
600 340
1260 3480
— —
— —
Nut
2.2
58.2
1265
533
730
316
10.3
70
52.8
324
862
11.4
228
490
1600
—
—
Deer
2.35
50.5
1020
—
-
213
6.5
31
50.7
610
1690
8.4
475
260
2360
—
—
Nut
1.74
56.3
1232
623
608
304
11.9
18.4
35.2
213
765
9.4
483
290
1170
"
~*
* Some JBF data are averages of two replicates
** All metals given as ppm dry weight
-------
Metals analyses show major variations not only between
the three sources, but also with time. The analyses
by the MDC, which include a thirty-month period, have
variations as great as those between the MDC and JBF
or Havens and Emerson. Using an average of 62% of
the sludge from Deer Island and 38% from Nut Island,
the long-term average metals concentrations would be
similar to those shown in Table N-5. The long-term
averages shown should be only used as an approximate
measure of quality, because of the changes in metals
input that may have occurred between 1973 and the
present. There are two major areas of difference
between JBF and MDC data. The lead concentrations
found by JBF are considerably greater than those of
the MDC, which is explained by the difference in anal-
ytical methods. (Deer Island analytical procedures
may be inadvertently precipitating lead by digesting
with sulfuric acid). The second major difference is
in the zinc concentrations, with JBF data once again
in excess of the long-term MDC average. No explanation
can be given for this difference. The importance of
metals is in the impacts of certain metals on air
quality (mercury and lead) and in the impact on ac-
ceptability of sludge for land application (zinc, copper,
nickel and cadmium.) A comparison of the major metals
concentrations that have been determined by the various
analysts are presented in Table N-6. These major metals
relationships are: (1) mercury and lead emissions;
(2) zinc equivalent (see Appendix R on "Chemical Models
for Land Application"); and (3) cadmium: zinc ratio.
As shown, the differences in the values desired from
the metals concentrations are less than the differences
in the concentrations themselves.
Using fiscal year 1976 (July 1975 - June 1976) data,
sludge and ash metals concentrations were computed
(Table N-13). These figures can be compared to
Tables N-7 and N-9 which show metals concentrations
in the ash and sludge, respectively, and are based on
data in the 1973 Havens and Emerson report, and JBF
Scientific analysis. In general, the 1976 concentra-
tions are much larger than 1985 projections, using
1973 data, excepting mercury (near equal) and lead
(approximately 40% less). Actual 1985 sludge, and
consequently ash, metal concentrations will be depen-
dent upon many factors, one of which being industrial
pre-treatment effectiveness.
95
-------
TABLE N-5
LONG-TERM AVERAGE METALS CONCENTRATIONS
Metal
Arsenic
Silver
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
[Source:
Deer Island
(mg/kg)
6.6
47.4
82.2
947
1600
8.8
329
452
2818
MDC Analyses ,
Nut Island
(mg/kg)
10.3
41.2
61.2
218
711
8.4
318
434
1522
1973-1975]
Mass Weighted
Average *
(mg/kg)
8.0
45.0
74
670
1265
8.6
325
445
2325
* Deer Island = 62% of total sludge mass; Nut Island = 38% of total
sludge mass.
96
-------
Component
TABLE N-6
COMPARISON OF MAJOR METALS ANALYSES FOR DIFFERENTIAL IMPACT
Havens &
Emerson
1973
Comparative
Analysis, 1975
JBF MDC
Jan-June
1973
Half Yearly Averages, MDC Data
July-Dec
1973
Jan- June
1974
July -Dec
1974
Jan-June
1975
Lead, mg/kg 213
Mercury, mg/kg 5.4
Zinc Equivalent,
mg/kg 2790
Cadmium:Zinc 1. 36
Allowable Total
Sludge Land
Application,
(State Average
CEC =14.7 meg/lOOg)
tons per acre 196
667 134
6.7 4.3
9160 7550
1.22 1.54
543
14.2
6380
4.9
475
7.3
7175
2.3
540
5.3
6790
4.3
400
7.4
7720
2.77
270
8.8
8210
2.35
59.7
72.3
85.7
76.2
80.5
70.8
66.6
* Based on 62% sludge contribution from Deer Island, 38% sludge contribution from Nut Island
-------
• With the exception of lead and zinc, the differences
among metals concentrations are relatively minor. For
the purposes of planning the system requirements, the
metals analyses developed by Havens and Emerson will
be used with the following exceptions:
• For air quality analyses, the lead concentration
developed by JBF and the mercury concentration
developed by MDC will be used, assuming that all the
metals remain with the solid fraction of the sludge.
• For analysis of long-term acceptability of sludge,
worst-case conditions are assumed for cadmium-to-
zinc ratios, and the associated application quantity
(50%) will be used. The JBF data indicates that
approximately six years of sludge application (at
the rate of 10 dry tons per year) will still be
within allowable limits as set in the EPA Draft
Technical Bulletin (EPA, 1975A).
Quantities and concentrations expected in liquid and solids
effluent streams are shown in Table N-7 for the incineration
alternatives (Alternatives 1, 2 and 3); in Table N-8 for
Alternative 4, ocean disposal of dewatered sludge; in Table N-9
for the two land application alternatives (Alternatives 5 and
6); and in Table N-10 for Alternative 7, No Action. These
computations have been based on Havens and Emerson data except
as noted, and the concentrations are assumed to apply to the
total final mass for disposal or application.
Assumptions made to develop in-plant process stream char-
acteristics include:
• Phosphorus and metals are insoluble upon conditioning,
and metals are only sparingly soluble upon digestion.
• Potassium, sodium, chloride and boron are completely
soluble.
• Ammonia nitrogen is almost completely soluble.
C. Potential Impact of Pretreatment on Metals Content of Sludge
Because of the importance of heavy metals in both land
application and ocean disposal, the levels shown in Tables N-7
through N-10 require some discussion. EPA draft criteria for
land application require that cadmium concentration be 1% or
less of the zinc concentration, while that shown in Table N-9
is 1.6% of the zinc. The expectation in most situations in
98
-------
TABLE N-7
EFFLUENT PROCESS STREAMS
ALTERNATIVES 1, 2 &
Constituent
Total Mass
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Total Phosphorus
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Potassium
Oil & Grease
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chloride
Sulfate
Sulfide
Sodium
Boron
Cadmium
Copper
Chromium
Lead *
Mercury *
Nickel
Zinc
* Based on analyses by JBF
3; INCINERATION,
1985 CONDITIONS
Increase in Plant Effluent
Loading , Ib/day
Nut Island Deer Island
1,251,000
8,000
5,140
134
1,008
713
127
446
9,628
2,215
404
99
7
326
5
0.07
6.6
1.5
2.5
0.06
0.5
14.3
Scientific
99
4,839,400
14,000
13,106
148
4,005
2,611
660
2,060
32,420
12,130
9,340
602
15
5,690
12.1
0.5
13.4
8.9
2.8
0.1
1.9
24.5
Solid Waste
Effluent Stream
Ib/day rag/kg*
126,000
126,000
-0-
193 1,530
-0-
-0-
123 980
-0-
-0-
-o- —
1,507 11,960
5,175 41,070
-o- —
940 7,460
3 23
7.5 60
258 2,050
149 1,180
168 1,335
1.5 12.2
29.3 233
491 3,895
-------
TABLE N-8
EFFLUENT PROCESS
ALTERNATIVE 4,
Constituent
Total Mass
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Total Phosphorus
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Potassium
Oil and Grease
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chloride
Sulfate
Sulfide
Sodium
Boron
Cadmium
Copper
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
OCEAN DISPOSAL
STREAMS
, 1985 CONDITIONS
Increase in Plant Effluent
Loading, Ib/day
Nut Island Deer Island
1,251,000
8,000
5,140
134
1,008
713
127
446
9,628
2,215
404
99
7
326
5
0.07
6.6
1.5
2.5
0.06
0.5
14.3
4,839,400
14,000
13,106
148
4,005
2,611
660
2,060
32,420
12,130
9,340
602
15
5,690
12.1
0.5
13.4
8.9
2.8
0.1
1.9
24.5
Solid Waste
Effluent Stream
Ib/day Concentration
1,020,000
255,000
130,000 51.0%
2,465 9670 mg/kg
4,310 1.69%
2,275 8920 mg/kg
98 385 mg/kg
33,460 13.1%
214,310 84%
30,173 11.8%
1,196 4960 mg/kg
4,107 1.6%
208 815 mg/kg
746 2920 mg/kg
2.3 9 mg/kg
6.0 24 mg/kg
205 804 mg/kg
118 463 mg/kg
133.5 667 mg/kg
1.2 6.7 mg/kg
23.3 91.4 mg/kg
389.5 1530 mg/kg
100
-------
TABLE N-9
EFFLUENT PROCESS STREAMS
ALTERNATIVES 5 S 6, LAND APPLICATION, 1985 CONDITIONS
Constituent
Total Mass
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Total Phosphorus
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Potassium
Oil and Grease
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chloride
Sulfate
Sulfide
Sodium
Boron
Cadmium
Copper
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Increase in Plant Effluent
Loading, Ib/day
Nut Island Deer Island
1,251,000 4,839,400
8,000 14,000
5,140 13,106
134 148
1,008 4,005
713 2,611
127 660
446 2,060
9,628 32,420
2,215 12,130
404 9,340
99 602
7 15
326 5,690
5 12.1
0.07 0.5
6.6 13.4
1.5 8.9
2.5 2.8
0.06 0.1
0.5 1-9
14.3 24.5
Solid Waste
Effluent Stream
Ib/day Concentration
1,020,000
255,000
130,000 51.0%
2,465 9670 mg/kg
4,310 1.69%
2,275 8920 mg/kg
98 385 mg/kg
33,460 13.1%
214,310 84%
30,173 11.8%
1,196 4690 mg/kg
4,107 1.6%
208 815 mg/kg
746 2920 mg/kg
2.3 9 mg/kg
6.0 24 mg/kg
205 804 mg/kg
118 463 mg/kg
133.5 667 mg/kg
1.2 6.7 mg/kg
23.3 91.4 mg/kg
389.5 1530 mg/kg
101
-------
TABLE N-10
EFFLUENT PROCESS STREAMS
ALTERNATIVE
Constituent
Total Mass
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Total Phosphorus
Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Potassium
Oil and Grease
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chloride
Sulfate
Sulfide
Sodium
Boron
Cadmium
Copper
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
7, NO ACTION, 1985 CONDITIONS
Increase in Plant Effluent
Nut Island
3,528,000
99,000
62,315
1,250
3,071
2,180
348
4,770
85,025
19,540
1,114
735
69
900
13.8
0.9
73.5
30.3
27.9
0.6
5.2
161.2
Loading , Ib/day
Deer Island
3,560,000
162,000
112,660
1,947
5,116
3,419
537
28,366
171,280
25,020
9,820
4,025
160
5,860
5.6
5.7
151.4
97.5
30.1
1.8
20.5
267.1
102
-------
which heavy metals are excessive is that reductions in con-
centration will occur with industrial pretreatment. For three
cities (New York, Pittsburgh and Muncie), the residential
cadmium contribution ranged from 2.9% to 7.6% of the residen-
tial zinc contribution (Davis and Jacknow, 1975). Table N-ll
compares the influent metals loadings developed by Davis and
Jacknow to the total influent metals loadings in the MDC system,
based on the effluent metals and the expected removal with
settling. The assumed 20% removal rate for cadmium is conser-
vative, because higher assumed rates of removal would yield
even lower cadmium loadings. The results indicate that of
the metals listed chromium and zinc loadings might be reduced
by pretreatment. The principal question with respect to metals
is the cadmium concentration, which cannot be expected to be
reduced by pretreatment. Cadmium is used in several applications
which make it ubiquitous. Pretreatment for zinc removal would
be counterproductive, because the removal of zinc would drive
the cadmium:zinc ratio further from the desirable 1% level.
Industrial pretreatment can achieve a high percent removal
of heavy metals. Pretreatment is employed at the point source
(the industry) and with specific pretreatment methods for the
heavy metal(s) of concern. Elson T. Killam Associates (1977)
shows that when pretreatment was employed for significant
metals contributors reductions in the range of 86-100% were
achieved. These reductions were of cadmium, chromium, copper,
nickel and zinc concentrations; the percent reduction depends
on the metal involved and the method of pretreatment employed.
Industrial pretreatment will not remove all metals in the
influent. A large portion of metals may be from residential
contributions which, due to their nonpoint source nature, is
difficult to pretreat. Metal concentrations in the influent
may remain high even with industrial pretreatment if nonindustrial
contributions of metals are in significant quantities. If, for
example, the major portion of cadmium is a result of residential
contributions, then industrial pretreatment cannot be expected
to effect a significant reduction of cadmium levels in the
influent
D. Entry of Metals into Environment
In addition to the absolute quantity of heavy metals and
their concentrations in the sludge, a second major consideration
is the availability of these substances to enter the food chain,
either through higher plants or through bacterial modification
(as in the conversion of metallic mercury to methyl mercury
in bottom deposits). Havens and Emerson, during their work in
1973, conducted citrate extraction and distilled water extrac
tion tests on both treated sludge and ash. For comparison,
103
-------
TABLE N-ll
Metal
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
* Source :
** Source:
COMPARISON
VS
OF RESIDENTIAL METALS LOADINGS IN OTHER CITIES,
. EXPECTED MDC SLUDGE METALS LOADINGS
Metals Loading
Residential Metals in Sludge, MDC Expected Removal
Loadings (lb/day/1000 Pop)* (lb/day/1000) in Primary Treatment
0.006-0.016
0.007-0.080
0.100-0.180
0.062-0.100
0.012-0.080
0.17 -0.21
Davis & Jacknow, 1975
EPA, Fate and Effects
0.0024 (20% assumed)
0.047 33%
0.032 62%
0.021 52%
0.009 19%
0.156 , 41%
of Trace Elements in Sewage Sludge,
Calculated Metals
Influent in MDC
System (lb/day/1000)
0.012
0.142
0.132
0.040
0.047
0.380
EPA - 670/2-74-005, January 1974
-------
literature research by the EPA (Page 1974} nnn^
of acid extraction data (0.5N acetS'acW) > forsevelal "
water sludges from Wales and England. These data are presented
and compared in Table N-12. Generally speaking, these data
indicate the reduced availability of heavy metals in the ash
Recent research on release of metals in sea water (Rohatgi '
and Chen, 1975) indicates that, for digested sludge, releases
of heavy metals at equilibrium are: Cd, 93-96%- Cu 5-9>.
Ni, 46-64%; Pb, 35%; and Zn, 18-39%.
While these data are of interest in tracking heavy metals
and their effects on biota, the great bulk of research on soils
and crops with respect to heavy metals have focused generally
on total amounts of metals in the plow layer.
E. Entry of PCB's into Environment
The analysis of MDC sludge from Deer and Nut Islands by JBF
Scientific yielded PCB concentrations of less than 0.1 mg/1
on a wet weight basis. While this is not the generally accepted
lower limit of detectability, the presence of concentrations
of oil and grease interferred with PCB detectability below 0.1
mg/1. Vacuum filtration of digested sludge would yield a
maximum PCB concentration of 2 mg/1 in the filter cake on a
dry weight basis, assuming complete capture in the dewatering
process.
F. Potential Toxicity of MDC Sludge and Ash
Solid wastes, including ash and sludge from municipal
wastewater treatment plants, may be defined as hazardous wastes
under the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) .
Some parameters used in this definition include testing the
material's flammability, corrosiveness and toxicity. Due to
the heavy metals content of the MDC sludge and ash, the sludge
and ash may be toxic and be defined as hazardous.
One of the tests to determine a waste's toxicity involves
obtaining a representative sample or an elutriate from a
"toxicant extraction procedure." If either shows a concentra-
tion of a substance, for which an EPA primary drinking water
standard exists, greater than or equal to ten times that standard,
the waste is considered toxic. (At present, this test is only
one of the proposed methods for determining toxicity. Many
aspects of RCRA are not yet final and are in the preliminary
stages.)
105
-------
TABLE N-12
AVAILABILITY OF HEAVY METALS
Constituent
Phosphorus
Cadmium
Copper
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
HAVENS AND
Digested Sludge*
Distilled
Water Citrate
Soluble Soluble
6% 77%
<0.02% <0.02%
<0.01% 2%
<0.3% 71%
<2% <2%
<1.8% 61%
<1.2% <1.2%
<0.01% 9%
Percent Extracted from
EMERSON
Ash From
Digested Sludge*
Distilled
Water Citrate
Soluble Soluble
0.006% 12%
<0.02% 28%
<0.01% 28%
10% 54%
<2% <2%
<1.8% 30%
<1.2% 10%
<0.01% 5%
Original Mass
EPA REVIEW
Digested
Citric Acid
Soluble
Minimum
0.5%
<0.7%
0.5%
15%
15%
Sludge
Citric Acid
Soluble
Maximum
— — — —
31%
8.5%
10%
93%
— , —
97%
* Conditioned with lime and ferric chloride
-------
TABLE N-13
METALS ANALYSIS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1976
COMBINED WEIGHTED AVERAGE
[Source: MDC, 1976]
Chromium
Copper
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Mercury
Sludge (mg/kg)
1612
1713
55.42
399
293
3075
5.86
Ash (mg/kg)
2742
3671
119.5
859
622
6561
12.65
107
-------
108
-------
109
-------
APPENDIX O
REVIEW OF LEGAL MEASURES AND POLICIES
RELEVANT TO OCEAN DISPOSAL OF SLUDGE~
In 1970 the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in a
report entitled "Ocean Dumping A National Policy" concluded
that there was a critical need for a national policy on ocean
dumping. The report pointed out the international character
of ocean dumping and the lack of legislative authority existing
at that time. Regulatory activities were fragmented and
authority was largely confined to the territorial sea or to
specific classes of pollutants. CEQ recommended a national
policy to ban unregulated ocean dumping of all materials and to
strictly limit ocean dumping of any materials harmful to the
marine environment.
Ocean disposal of sewage sludge may take place through
either direct discharge of sludge from barges or ships, or
through pipelines which discharge directly to the ocean. The
disposal of municipal sewage sludge by barge dumping is
prevalent on the east coast on the mid-Atlantic Bight (NAS,
1975). Municipal sludges and effluents are discharged through
outfalls on the southern California Bight.
In 1972, Congress passed additional legislation for federal
control of water pollution with specific references to ocean
disposal of wastes. Sections 102(c) of the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (PL 92-532) and 403(c) of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
(PL 92-500) both require that applications for permits for
the dumping or other discharge of any materials into the
marine environment be evaluated on the basis of impact of the
materials on the marine environment and marine ecosystems, on
the present and potential uses of the ocean and on the economic
and social factors involved. Permits for outfall discharge of
sludge are issued by EPA under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) of PL 92-500. Barging for disposal
which is also permitted by EPA, falls under the provisions of
PL 92-532.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
(PL 92-500) prohibit the discharges of pollutants into navigable
waters, which include the territorial sea and the contiguous
zone of 12 miles. The contiguous zone is defined in inter-
national law as a zone of limited jurisdiction beyond the
territorial sea, measured from the coastal baseline (Ketchum,
1972). Section 402 of PL 92-500 establishes the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for issuance
of permits for discharges including ocean outfalls. The permit
110
-------
?££?* 1S Administered fay the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) or by individual states if authorized and approved by
EPA. Section 403 of the Act contains provisions for promulga-
ti0* °f 9uldelines f°r determining the degradation of the waters
of the territorial seas, the contiguous zone and the oceans due
to the effects of pollutants. Section 405 specifically requires
a permit issued by the Administrator of EPA for the disposal of
sewage sludge in navigable waters.
The Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
requires permits for dumping wastes anywhere in ocean waters.
The purpose of the Act is to regulate the transportation of
material from the United States for dumping into ocean waters,
and the dumping of material, transported from outside the United
States, if the dumping occurs in ocean waters over which the
United States has jurisdiction or control under accepted princi-
ples of international law. Title I of the Act delineates pro-
hibited acts, permit requirements and criteria for evaluating
permit applications. The Administrator of EPA is given the
authority to issue permits. EPA has delegated responsibility
for permit review and approval to its ten regional offices.
Title II of the Act contains provisions for the initiation of
a comprehensive, continuing program of monitoring and research
regarding the effects of dumping of materials into the ocean
waters, coastal waters where tidal flow takes place, or the
Great Lakes and their connecting waters.
Since MDC is not now presently considered an ocean dumper,
the type of permits that might be allowed are either of the
"special" or "emergency" type. Emergency permits are only
available where a situation of urgency exists and cannot be
considered as a feasible long-term solution to the sludge
disposal problem. Special permits are available (with expira-
tion dates specified as no later than three years after issu-
ance) if the dumped material meets certain criteria with regard
to trace contaminants and environmental impact. The allowable
levels of these materials may not exceed the following (40 CFR,
Subchapter H):
Mercury and its compounds
Solid phase - not greater than 0.75 mg/kg
Liquid phase - not greater than 1.5 mg/kg
Cadmium and its compounds
Solid phase - not greater than 0.6 mg/kg
Liquid phase - not greater than 3.0 mg/kg
111
-------
Organohalogens:
Not to exceed 0.01 of a concentration shown to be toxic
to appropriate sensitive marine organisms in a bioassay carried
out in accordance with approved EPA procedures after reasonable
allowance for initial mixing in the mixing zone or; 0.01 of a
concentration of a waste material or chemical constituent other-
wise shown to be detrimental to the marine environment.
Oils and greases;
Not to produce a visible surface sheen in an undisturbed
water sample when added at a rate of one part of waste material
to 100 parts of water.
If these materials are harmless or are rapidly rendered
harmless by physical, chemical or biological processes at sea,
will not, if dumped, make edible marine organisms unpalatable
or will not, if dumped, endanger human health or that of domestic
animals, fish, shellfish and wildlife the above limitations do
not apply. Wastes containing one or more of the following
materials shall be treated as requiring special care:
1. The elements, ions, and compounds of:
Arsenic Vanadium
Lead Beryllium
Copper Chromium
Zinc Nickel
Selenium
2. Organosilicon compounds and compounds which may form
such substances in the marine environment.
3. Inorganic processing wastes, including cyanides,
fluorides, titanium dioxide wastes, and chlorine.
4. Petrochemicals, organic chemicals, and organic processing
wastes, including, but not limited to:
Aliphatic solvents Amines
Phenols Polycyclic aromatics
Plastic intermediates Phthalate esters
and byproducts Detergents
Plastics
5. Biocides not prohibited elsewhere, including, but not
limited to:
Organophosphorus Herbicides
compounds Insecticides
Carbamate
Carbamate compounds
112
-------
6. Oxygen-consuming and/or biodegradable organic matter.
7. Radioactive wastes not otherwise prohibited. As a
general policy, the containment of radioactive mater-
ials is indicated rather than their direct dispersion
and dilution in ocean waters.
8. Materials on any list of toxic pollutants published
under section 307(a) of PL 92-500, and materials
designated as hazardous substances under section
311(b)(2)(A) of PL 92-500, unless more strictly
regulated under §227.2.
9. Materials that are immiscible with seawater, such as
gasoline, carbon disulfide, toluene.
These materials may be dumped if the applicant can demon-
strate that the sludge proposed for disposal meets the limiting
permissible concentrations of total pollutants described for
organohalogens considering both the concentration of pollutants
in the waste material itself and the total mixing zone available
for initial dilution and dispersion.
Amendments to the existing legislation (both PL 92-500 and
PL 92-532) and finalization of rules and regulations regarding
criteria and permit procedures for ocean dumping of sewage
sludge have clarified the positions of both Congress and EPA
on the ocean dumping question.
• In January 1977, EPA published final revisions of
regulations and criteria for ocean dumping (FR 42 #7,
part VI).
• In November 1977, Congress passed amendments to the
Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of
1972 (PL 95-153).
• In December 1977, Congress passed amendments to the
Clean Water Act (PL 95-12).
These actions serve to further specify the conditions
under which sewage sludge (among other materials) may be dumped
into the ocean.
The most important statements of policy are contained in
the 1977 amendments to the Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972 as follows:
Sec. 4(a). The Administrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency shall end the dumping of sewage sludge into
ocean waters, , as soon as possible , but in no case may
the Administrator issue any permit , which authorizes any
such dumping after December 31, 1981.
113
-------
Sec. 4 (b) the term "sewage sludge" means any solid,
semisolid, or liquid waste generated by a municipal wastewater
treatment plant the ocean dumping of which may unreasonably
degrade or endanger human health, welfare, amenities, or the
marine environment, ecological systems or economic potentiali-
ties.
The United States is also bound by international law to
control ocean dumping of potential pollutants. An international
conference entitled, "Convention on the Prevention of Marine
Pollution by the Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter", was held
in London during October and November 1972. The London Conven-
tion prohibits the dumping of some materials (except as trace
materials), requires special care for the dumping of other iden-
tified substances, and provides for a general permit for others
(NAS, 1975). The Convention was ratified by the United States
on August 3, 1973. On October 15, 1973, ocean dumping regula-
tions pursuant to PL 92-532 were adopted and subsequently amended
(PL 92-254) in March 1974 to incorporate provisions of the London
Convention, which were not included in the original legislation.
The London Convention recently became international law following
ratification by fifteen consulting nations.
Summary
The basis for determining the level of degradation outlined
in paragraph (b) above remains those criteria governing the is-
suance of permits (CFR 40, Subchapter H) or bioassay procedures
which have yet to be approved. On these bases, the MDC sludge
would not be approvable for ocean dumping in the foreseeable
future, since the level of trace contaminants far exceed those
in the criteria.
The nature of the sludge, at present, the remote likeli-
hood of improvement in the near future, the possibility of
other alternatives, and the stated policies of the federal
government regarding ocean dumping, makes this alternative
infeasible.
114
-------
APPENDIX P
LAND APPLICATION OF SLUDGE - STATE OF THE ART
The primary treatment of wastewater produces approximately
0.1 pounds per capita per day of sludge, the solids which settle
out during primary sedimentation. Dick (1973) and Reed (1973)
have given descriptions of sludge disposal, which will be
summarized here along with data from other sources.
Presently there are two different forms of land applica-
tion for sanitary waters: WWTP effluents, and treatment plant
sludges. Raw sewage is not generally applied to land in the
United States, principally for reasons of public health. In
this discussion, methods for disposal of dried and liquid
sludge will be addressed.
A. Forms of Applied Sludge
Sludge is presently applied to land in one of three con-
centrations: as liquid sludge, as a dewatered cake, or as a
dry fertilizer.
1. Dewatered Sludge
When sludge is dewatered it commonly has 60-75% moisture
remaining (Singh, et. el. 1975; C.E.Q. 1974). The resulting
cake is generally transported using trucks for ultimate disposal
at landfills or as a soil conditioner and/or fertilizer. Costs
for dewatering the sludge are about $25 per ton of dry solids
(Dick, 1973) plus the cost of transporting the dry sludge to the
disposal site, while drying sludge costs about $100 per ton
(Alter, 1975).
When dewatered sludge is used for a nutrient source and
soil conditioner, the cake is spread on the ground by manure
spreaders, bulldozers or tractors, then the field is plowed to
mix the sludge into the active soil layer. As the sludge becomes
assimilated by the soil, it changes the pore size of clay soils
resulting in better aeration. As a result of sludge incorporation,
sandy soils have improved soil aggregation (tilth), increased
chenical reaction sites for nutrient exchanges, and increased
binding capacity (Kirkham, 1974).
Application of 30 tons per acre of sludge at 18% moisture
has been shown to double the yields of corn per acre compared
to plots that have not been fertilized (Singh, et. al. 1975).
While zinc concentrations increase to almost double the amount
115
-------
found in the vegetative portions of plants grown on soils not
fertilized with sludge, the amounts were shown to remain below
toxic levels (Singh, et. al. 1975).
Dried sludge (5% moisture) has the advantage of being
transported in dump trucks without special precautions to
avoid leakage. But dried sludge is harder to incorporate into
the soil than other forms of sludge. Odors and pathogens are
not a problem with this material, since the drying process is
unfavorable for pathogens and reduces the volatile materials
which cause odors.
2. Liquid Sludge
Liquid sludge has been applied to the soil in the past,
but without special consideration for its nutrient value. With
costs of chemical fertilizers rising, use of sludge as a
fertilizer and soil conditioner is being more closely studied
for its advantages and disadvantages (Kirkham, 1974; Walter,
1975; Singh, et. al. 1975). Liquid sludge acts as a soil
conditioner in much the same manner as dried sludge. Sludge
contains 1-7% nitrogen (Walter, 1975), and based on samples
from two plants, about 3% phosphorus and 1% potassium
(kirkham, 1974). The sludge is applied as a slurry, containing
generally 3-5% solids (Dalton and Murphy, 1973; Hinesly and
Sosewitz, 1969). In the United States, this method of disposal
is presently used for Chicago, Illinois, Martinsville, Virginia,
and Denver, Colorado (Hinesly and Sosewitz, 1969; Dalton and
Murphy, 1973; Hatcher, 1974; Wolf, 1975). In the United Kingdom,
reports describe the use of land application in West Hertsford-
shire (Wood and Ferris, 1972), Slough (Claydon et. al 1973),
Blackburn (Rawcliffe and Saul, 1974), Letchworth (Taylor, 1974),
Peterborough (Spotswood and Raymer, 1973), East Calder and
Newbridge (Brownlie and Akers, 1973).
The amount of sludge applied to the soils depends on the
type of soil and its use. Between 10 and 30 tons of dry solids
per acre per year have been applied to agricultural land with
no apparent problems (Singh, et. al. 1975; Allen, 1973; Dean,
1973). When used to condition a sand landfill, 100 tons of dry
solids per acre per year has been used successfully, while 1
ton dry solids per acre per year has been used to fertilize
publicly owned grasslands (Hinesly and Sosewitz, 1969).
Although the infiltration rate of the soil determine how
much liquid sludge can be applied at one time, the total amount
that may be applied is generally determined by the cation
exchange capacity of the soil and the concentrations of zinc,
copper and nickel in the sludge (Walker, 1975). As a guideline
116
-------
until research shows differently, the Environmental
Protection Agency has proposed a formula for determining
the total tons of sludge that can be applied to the soil
(Walker, 1975). The EPA also recommends that sludge not be
applied to cropland if the cadmium level is greater than 1%
of the zinc content, since cadmium is toxic at a much lower
concentration than zinc (Walker, 1975).
Spreading of liquid sludge is generally less complex
than is spreading of dried sludge. Three methods are commonly
used: Spray irrigation, ridge and furrow infiltration, and
spreading from tank trucks. Spray irrigation utilizes large-
nozzled sprayers to distribute the liquid evenly over the soil
surface. Ridge and furrow infiltration depends on basins or
canals to allow infiltration of the liquid into the soil.
Infiltration may be capable of handling a larger volume than
the other methods, although spray irrigation is more efficient
for nutrient removal (Hinesly and Sosewitz, 1969).
Considering only domestic sludge, spray irrigation in a
forest has been used from June until December, and handled 0.2
inches per day per acre of liquid at a nutrient removal
efficiency of 80%. The ridge and furrow method has been used
for 230 days, handling an average of 1.52 inches of sludge per
day per acre, with a 65% nutrient removal efficiency (Reed,
1973). Similar data is not available for tank truck spreading
procedures.
Two of the difficulties associated with these methods are
their dependence on climatic and soil conditions for proper
operation. During periods of rain or snow these techniques are
not effective, thus requiring storage facilities for the sludge.
Care must be taken that organic and nitrogen contamination of
groundwater does not occur.
Odors from the sludge may be disagreeable to neighboring
populations (Reed, 1975). In order to contain odor problems in
Denver, it was found necessary to work the sludge into the
ground soon after application (Wolf, 1975).
Although the transport and distribution of liquid sludge
is a more complex process than that of dry sludge, data show
that based on a population of one million people, the cost for
treating and then transporting sludge 140 miles, is about $25
per ton of dry solids. This is about the cost of dewatering
the sludge alone (Riddel and McCormack, 1968).
3. Fertilizer from Sludge
By air-drying sludge, a granular fertilizer can be pro-
duced, which can either be processed further or distributed
in that form. The Metropolitan Sanitary District (MSD) or
Chicago has three methods of disposing of sludge: liquid
117
-------
sludge applied to strip mines; heat-dried sludge which is
sold to a contractor who then sells it to citrus growers;
and an air-dried sludge which is distributed free of charge.
A major difference between these methods is their cost. For
heat drying the sludge, the cost is about $100 per dry ton,
while processing and transporting liquid sludge results in
a cost of between $50-150 per dry ton. Using the Imhoff
method, the cost of granular air-dried sludge is about $8 per
ton dry solids. Approximately 2% to 6% of MSD's sludge is
handled in this matter, or 12 tons of dry solids per day
from the MSD;s 1.4 billion gallons of sewage per day.
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, also air-dries its sludge
to produce a granular fertilizer containing 10% moisture, 3%
nitrogen, 3% phosphoric acid and less than 0.2% potash, at a
cost of about $10-12 per dry ton. When distribution of the
sludge became a problem, a fertilizer producer was contacted
and an arrangement made where the contractor supplements the
nutrient content and then markets the sludge (Styers, 1973).
Winston-Salem disposes of approximately 10 tons of dry solids
per day in this manner.
B. Transportation of Sludge Prior to Land Application
Transportation sludge from a waste treatment plant to the
final disposal site may be accomplished by utilizing any one or
any combination of several modes of transportation, including
tank truck, barge, railroad and pipeline. In developing a
system of transporting sludge for ultimate disposal at a
utilization site or landfill, three factors should be con-
sidered:
• the mode of transportation and its corresponding
energy intensiveness,
• sludge characteristics such as volume, density,
and applicability, and
• land availability and distance to the disposal site.
The transported sludge may be in the form of a liquid,
thickend sludge, dewatered cake, compost product or dried
powder. The various forms of sludge or sludge products which
remain after dewatering or drying exhibit different physical
characteristics. These characteristics will impose some
limitations in selecting modes of transportation which are
capable of handling the type of sludge being considered for
transport.
118
-------
Sludge may be transported by truck, rail, barge or
pipeline. However, there is considerable variation in
energy intensiveness (which is defined as BTU per ton-mile
of transported material).
1. Truck Transportation Energy Costs
Using work by Ashtakla (1975), the energy costs of truck
transportation of sludge can be calculated. A diesel powered
truck with a 20-ton (18.1 mt) payload and a 29-ton (26.3 mt)
gross vehicle weight has an average fuel cost of 1,770 BTU
per ton-mile one way. This assumes that the truck returns
empty. As an example, if the transport distance one way is
20 miles, the fuel energy required is 20 x 1,770 or 35,400 BTU
per ton. A second approach is to use the BTU per ton-mile
versus gross vehicle weight curve presented by Ashtakala with
an average payload both ways of 10 tons (9.05 mt) resulting
in a fuel energy use of 1,940 BTU per ton-mile. As a con-
servative figure, allowing for waiting time at loading and
unloading facilities, 2,000 BTU per ton-mile may be used.
For transportation of sludge or compost, the BTU per
ton-mile measure must generally be converted to BTU per dry
ton-mile. For sludge dewatered to 25% dry solids, the trans-
port energy cost would be 8,000 BTU per dry ton-mile.
2. Rail, Barge and Pipeline Transport Energy Costs,
Using data presented by Hirst (1973) for energy costs of
rail transport, barge and pipeline, sludge transport energy
costs have been developed. For transport of sewage sludge or
compost, two modifications are necessary. The moisture content
of the sludge and the energy cost of returning the empty vehicle
must be considered. Modifying the energy cost by considering
the vehicle weight equal to one-third of the gross weight, the
following energy costs can be calculated:
TABLE P-l
Net Weight
Basic Total Energy Cost
Mode of Energy Cost Modified for
Transport (Hirst, 1973) One-Way Haul
Rail 670 BTU/T-M 1340 BTU/T-M
Barge 680 BTU/T-M 1660 BTU/T-M
Pipeline 450 BTU/T-M 450 BTU/T-M
119
-------
With respect to the relative solids concentrations, these
three methods will require a solids concentration of 8% or
less. Using 8% solids, the net weight energy costs per dry
ton-mile.
As noted, a correlation between the present solids of the
sludge and the energy required to transport a ton of dry solids
can be derived. From the data presented in Table P-l, and the
truck transport energy cost of 2,000 BTU/T-M, datum points for
each mode of transportation were derived by computing the total
amount of sludge (in tons) at various solids concentration,
which had an equivalent dry weight of 1 ton. The energy
intensiveness required to transport these quantities were then
calculated for each mode of transportation. Figure P-l is a
graphical presentation of this correlation. For simplicity,
percent solids was used to depict the total weight of the sludge.
For example, a sludge with a solids concentration of 10% requires
10 tons of sludge to produce 1 ton of dry solids.
It is apparent from the graph in Figure P-l that truck
transport is significantly more energy intensive than barge,
rail or pipeline transport.
However, trucks offer flexibility in the selection of a
disposal site and for this reason have been widely used to haul
and apply sludge. Small to medium size tank trucks with
capacities of 1,500-2,000 gallons can serve the needs of small
communities where space and accessibility are sufficient to
accommodate truck traffic with minimal adverse impacts on
traffic. Large tank trucks which are capable of transporting
approximately 3,000 gallons of sludge are usually too cumbersome
for applying sludge directly to disposal sites and result in more
adverse impacts on traffic in urban areas.
Railroad transport is less energy intensive than truck
transportation of sludge or sludge products, but requires a rail
head of switching yard near the plant for efficient operation of
this transport system. Pumping is required from the treatment
plant to the rail head which in turn may impose limitations in
cases where rail service is not readily accessible.
Barge or waterway transportation of sludge is practical in
cases where water access is readily available. Loading of barges
is accomplished by pumping directly from the digesters at the
treatment plant.
120
-------
10.
9_
8_
7_
6-
: : : :
300,0003-
200,000 2-
100,000 1-
I
FIGURE P-l
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR
VARIOUS MODES OF TRANSPORTATION
tttt
iiu;
a : :
m
10,000 1-
~
-=^
—4~—I-
-±
-A,
'.' ' trjuck
x ,Water
Rajil
I-!
n
T-
._LL
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent Solids 121
-------
Pipeline transport can be utilized only when solids
concentrations are approximately 7 percent or less. This
mode of transportation offers the least flexibility. In
order for a pipeline transport system to be effective for the
Boston situation, the ultimate land disposal site would have
to have sufficient land availability to insure an efficient
useful life of approximately 40 years.
C. Crop Production
Liquid sludge has been used for fertilizing corn, wheat,
soybean and grain sorghum crops as well as pasture land and
public grassland (Hatcher, 1974; Singh, et. al. 1975; Hinesly
and Sosewitz, 1969; Walker, 1975; and Wold, 1975). Corn
grown on a prison farm has been fertilized by sludge from
Martinsville, Virginia, and has shown better color and growth
than corn grown on unfertilized plots (Hatcher, 1974). Denver
has been applying sludge to 2,000 acres of Federal land which
is rented to a private concern for use as pasture. Applications
of 450 dry tons per acre have shown no detrimental effects on
the wheat or Sudan grass that is grown, and cattle pastured on
the land are healthy and heavier than cattle raised on
unfertilized pastures (Wolf, 1975).
Research by Singh, Keefer and Horvath (1975) on two types
of soil shows different results. On a loamy soil the yield of
corn per acre more than doubled compared to unfertilized plots.
However, in a sandy soil the plants were stunted compared to
the crop grown on unfertilized plots. They theorize that the
excessive drainage of the soil resulted in leaching of nutrients,
as well as a possible plant toxicity from heavy metals.
Since primary digested sludge is generally used as agricul-
tural land, contamination of foodstuffs and spreading of pathogens
is of concern. An additional problem associated with sludge
fertilization is heavy metal uptake by crops, resulting in
toxicity of the plants or concentration of heavy metals in
consumers. While application of 30 tons of dry solids per acre
has resulted in an increase in zinc concentration in foliage
from 48 ppm to 88 ppm, this level is well below the accepted
toxicity concentration of 200 ppm (Singh, et. al. 1975).
Monitoring of a yield utilizing 137 dry tons/acre over a span
of five years showed no toxicity from heavy metals, outbreaks
of pathogen related diseases of groundwater contimination
(Kirkham, 1974), In addition publicly owned grassland
fertilized with sludge has resulted in the grass growth rate
improving 100%. No health problems or toxicity problems were
reported (Hinesly and Sosewitz, 1969) and the crops grown on
sludge fertilized land have generally been healthy and produce
large yields.
122
-------
D. Problems With Land Application of Sludge
1. Public Acceptability
So far the greatest problem in land disposal of sludge
has been public acceptability. The idea of using sludge to
fertilize crops and recreational areas is repugnant to many
people. As with marketing sludge fertilizers, marketing of
agricultural products grown in sludge fertilized fields has
been difficult at times. Fears of disease and odors are the
common complaint, and can be reduced by the distribution of
information on the techniques used and how any problems will
be contained (Alter, 1975; Kirkham, 1974). But an additional
complicating factor are various local laws restricting the
transport of sludge or the sale of municipal "property;" such
restrictions have at times caused more problems than the
actual marketing (Styers, 1973).
The type of sludge being applied and the method of applica-
tion also influence the pathogens and odors present. Dry
sludge in the fertilizer form has little problem with pathogens
or odors due to the method of preparation. Liquid and dewatered
sludges need care in handling to control possible odors and
pathogen populations.
2. Heavy Metals
Excessive heavy metal concentrations are a problem in all
forms of sludge that are land applied. Certain elements found
in sewage sludge, although often necessary for plants and animals
in low concentrations, can cause toxic reactions in high concen-
trations. Included in this group of elements are: zinc (Zn) ,
copper (Cu), chromium (Cr), cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb), nickel (Ni) ,
mercury (Hg), and molybdenum (Mo). Table P-2 indicates back-
ground soil metal concentrations and concentrations found in ^
different sludge samples. Although higher concentrations of
these elements are found in industrial wastes, concentrations
in municipal wastes alone can be high enough to present toxicity
problems when applied to agricultural land (Page, 1974).
The solubility and availability to plants of heavy metals
is affected by the form of metal added (i. e. sulfide, hydroxide,
carbonate, phosphate, etc.), the soil cation exchange capacity,
clay sorption other than by the CEC, the organic content of the
soil and pH. Elements considered for plant toxicity include
cadmium, copper, lead, zinc, chromium, mercury and nickel. These
metals have been found to increase most drastically with sludge
application. Phytotoxicity, in decreasing order*- occurs most
frequently with: copper, nickel, zinc, cadmium, lead, mercury,
and chromium (Ryan, 1977).
123
-------
TABLE P-2
to
SELECTED
METALS CONCENTRATIONS
[Source: Ryan, 1977]
Metal
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Mercury
Zinc
Range in Soils
(mg/kg)
2-100
.01-7
5-3,000
2-100
2-200
100-4,000
.2-5
10-1,000
Not determined
10-300
Concentration in Sludge (mg/kg)
Median
36
16
1,350
1,000
540
280
30
85
5
1,890
Mean
97
106
2,070
1,420
1,640
400
29
400
1,100
3,380
Range
12-760
3- 3,400
24-28,800
85-10,100
58-19,730
58- 7,100
24-30
2- 3,520
.5-10,600
108-27,800
Potential Toxicity
Plant
Not determined
Moderate
Low
High
Low
Not determined
Low
High
Low
Moderate
Animal
Not determined
High
Low
Slight to moderate
Low to high
Not determined
Moderate to high
Low to moderate
Low to high
Low
-------
Organic matter can chelate toxic materials and make them
less available for plant uptake. This is a common occurrence
for copper and nickel, while phosphate has been shown to reduce
zinc insoluble salts of lead and mercury in the soil, thus
restricting their movement. Zinc, cadmium, copper and nickel
are held either as salts or by the cation exchange capacity of
the soil, although some is available for plant uptake. Iron,
manganese, calcium, magnesium and potassium are abundant in
most soils, indicating that amounts added by sludge should not
affect plant balances (Lindsay, 1973). Extractable concen-
trations of cadmium and zinc have been shown to decrease with
the depth of soil (Kirkham, 1975) . This indicates that once
plant roots extend past the surface layer of soil less metals
come in contact with the plant roots, resulting in less uptake.
Field studies involving plant toxicity generally raised
the soil pH to 6.5. This condition has been shown to limit
metals solubility and plant uptake. Chaney, et al (1977)
reported investigations on the effect of a pH decrease. During
normal farming operations farmers often do not lime to the
extent recommended by agricultural extension agents, resulting
in a lower than desirable soil pH. Chaney found no toxicity
responses at a pH of 6.5, but at 5.5 snapbeans and soybeans
showed a severe toxic reaction (Chaney, et al, 1977). Other
crops also suffered severe yield reductions, yet no single
foliage metal content was at a level that would be considered
toxic. Still other crops show no toxic responses. This
indicates that crop tolerances vary considerably and soil pH
is important. Ordinary foliar metals diagnois was difficult
due to the complex conditions presented by the sludge (Chaney,
et al, 1977).
Of concern with sludge application is that the major source
for cadmium in the public's diet is from food. Unlike most
other metals, cadmium uptake is not as restricted in plants.
This is particularly important where the soil pH drops below
6.5. In one field experiment, where the soil pH was initially
near 6.5, liming was necessary after sludge application to
raise the pH to acceptable levels. Later in the season liming
was again required. Apparently, mineralization and oxidation
of sludge nitrogen and sulfide resulted in acidification of
the soil. This indicates that, even with proper conditions
at the beginning of the growing season, unless constant moni-
toring occurs conditions that allow increased cadmium uptake
may occur later in the season (Chaney, et al, 1977).
In addition to different crops having different responses
to metal concentrations, it was found that different cultivars
react differently. Using various corn cultivars, the cadmium
125
-------
concentration in the foliage was found to vary from 2.5 to
62.9 ppm, with the same sludge rate applied (Chaney, et al,
1977). This necessitates selection of crops to be grown on
sludge-amended soils down to the cultivar level. As the
information is not currently available, this indicates that
extensive study is necessary in order to limit the potential
impacts on people from heavy metals.
Most studies looked at sludge application over several
years to determine their impacts on plants. Chaney, et al
(1977) also studied a one-time application of different rates
of sludge, all equivalent to rates used in other studies. Four
years after this single application, significant cadmium was
still found to be extractable from the soil.
In addition to plant studies, the effects of ingesting
metals contained in plants by animals has been studied. Using
laboratory animals and swiss chard for feed, it was found that
at sludge application rates of 25, 50 and 100 tons per acre
that the metals concentrations increased significantly in
various tissues of their bodies. It was found that liver and
kidney tissues had the greatest increase in metals concentra-
tions (Lisk, 1978). Selenium in excess of 4-5 ug/g (Allaway,
1968), molybdenus in excess of 5 yg/g if copper concentrations
are low (Allaway, 1968), and cadmium when the zinc-cadmium
ratio exceeds 299 (Chaney, 1973) may cause toxic reactions in
animals from ingestion of plant materials. Lead has shown
toxicity when ingested directly. However, plants do not take
up significant amounts of lead, and toxicity to animals would
primarily occur from surface contamination by the sludge
(Page, 1974).
Pathogen content of sludge is considered a potential health
hazard at land application sites. Although no disease outbreaks
have been traced to irrigation with secondary effluent, pathogens
have been shown to survive for a considerable period of time on
plants or in the soil and surface waters. Pathogenic bacteria
have been found to survive from a few days to a few weeks on
fruits or vegetables, although they are seldom detected unless
sludge particles are present. Fecal coliforms applied to grass
crops have been shown to require 20-50 hours of bright sunshine
to be eliminated. Bacteria pathogens have been found to survive
in the soil from a few days to a few months, and viruses that
were absorbed to clay particles were still infectious. Human
enteroviruses survived in pond water from 84 to 91 days. This
indicates that although land application has not been shown to
be a health hazard at this time the potential exists (Lance,
1978).
126
-------
LAND APPLICATION OF COMPOST
A. Regulations
Land application of sewage sludge is regulated by the
U. S. EPA with stabilization recommended in all cases (U. S.
EPA, 1977, 1978). This is necessary to reduce public health
problems and nuisance odors. This is most readily accomplished
by complete composting although pastuerization, high pH treat-
ment, long term storage of liquid sludge at 20°C for 60 days,
and radiation treatment are possible (U. S. EPA, 1977).
The amount of stabilization that is required depends on
the application method to be used and the use of the disposal
site. Crops that can only accept sludge as a surface dressing
would need the most stable substance. For pastures or hay,
additional stabilization is necessary to reduce pathogen levels
in order to prevent health problems to foragers. Where the
sludge can be plowed into the soil after application, a less
stabilized sludge can be applied. Crops used directly for
human consumption, such as vegetables, are not recommended
for growth on soils that have received sludge within the
previous three years (Jelinek & Braude, 1977). This would
apply with even the most highly stabilized sludge, as a residual
pathogen population is often present.
In addition to stabilization requirements, site restrictions
and restrictions on crop practices are given in Tables P-3 and P-4
B. Stabilization Methods
Stabilization of sludge can occur by several means: aerobic
or anaerobic digestion; high lime treatment; and composting.
The digestion methods and high lime treatment occur in the
process train of a treatment plant, while composting occurs
after the plant processes. Although composting is not a new
concept, a great amount of research with sewage sludge has been
ongoing in recent years.
Composting has been used as both a single and an additional
stabilization step. The research done by the USDA at the Belts-
ville, Maryland, Agricultural Research Center provides the most
extensive study available on the effectiveness of composting
in pathogen reduction and the bulking materials that can be used
(Willson, Epstein & Parr, 1977). Beltsville uses an aerated
pile method, with a bulking agent required to allow proper air
circulation. The ratio of bulking to sludge and types of agents
used vary, with woodchips at a 2:1 volume ratio being the most
common. When used as a single step stabilization process,
127
-------
TABLE P-3
SITE RESTRICTIONS
Soil
Drainage
Bedrock
Slope
Groundwater
Public Access
Restriction
Medium texture
Tested for CEC
High pH
Testing for background
heavy metals
Depth of > 3 ft.
High infiltration
Moderate permeability
Closed or modified-
closed
> 3-4 ft. below surface
< 4%
Monitor if rate >
10 T/A/yr. sludge
Restricted by remote-
ness or by fencing
Reference
Hall, Wilding &
Erickson, 1976
US EPA, 1976
US EPA, 1976
H, W&E, 1976
US EPA, 1976
H, W&E, 1976
H, W&E, 1976
H, W&E, 1976
H, W&E, 1976
H, W&E, 1976
H, W&E, 1976
US EPA, 1976
US EPA, 1976
128
-------
Sludge quality
TABLE >P-4
RESTRICTIONS ON CROP PRACTICES
Restriction
< 1,000 mg/kg Pb
< 20 mg/kg Cd
< 10 mg/kg PCG
Total metals applied (with
CEC of 5-15 meq/100 g soils)
Crops eaten raw
Growing crops
Timing
0.005 T/A 0.011
Mt/hectare) Cd
0.5 T/A (1.12 Mt/
hectare) Pb
< 3 years since last
sludge application
Not applied
Not applied during
rainfall
2-3 weeks prior to
planting
Cadmium application when
applied to land used for
the production of food
chain crops*
A. Maximum annual application
1. Present to 12/31/81
2. 1/1/82 to 12/31/85
3. Beginning 1/1/86
Reference
Jelenik & Braude,
1977
Jelenik & Braude,
1977
Jelenik & Braude,
1977
Jelenik & Braude
Miller, 1976
Miller, 1976
US EPA, 1978
2.0 kg/ha
1.25 kg/ha
0.5 kg/ha
B. Maximum cumulative additions
1. Soil CEC <5 5 kg/ha
2. Soil CEC of 5-15 10 kg/ha
3. Soil CEC >15 20 kg/ha
C. Sludge quality < 25 mg/kg Cd
D. pH of sludge/soil mixture > 6.5
*This is one method proposed by the US EPA. Another method proposed includes
a comparison of crops and meats grown on the sludge amended land to crops
and meats produced on local non-sludge amended land, with respect to cadmium
concentrations, to determine acceptable levels.
129
-------
dewatered raw sludge is combined with the bulking agent, piled
in windrows over an air circulation system and covered by a
layer of screened compost. The screened compost cover helps
restrict odor problems, although they may still occur if raw
sludge is used. Dewatered digested sludge, composted in the
same manner, exhibits less odor and fewer problems. In either
case, the high sustained temperatures necessary for pathogen
reduction are attained by the composting process. Screening
after composting returns most of the woodchips for reuse,
after which the compost is cured for 30 days. The resulting
material is relatively odor and pathogen free, with a moisture
content of 40-45 percent (Willson, Epstein and Parr, 1977).
When determining the bulking agents to be used, availabil-
ity, volume required, amount recyclable, costs and the quality
and quantity of resulting compost must be taken into considera-
tion. Materials tested at Beltsville include (Willson, Epstein
and Parr, 1977) :
woodchips
paper cubes
auto salvage
licorice root
leaves
leaves combined with woodchips
Woodchips are the most frequently used bulking material.
The size is about 1 cubic inch and they are used in a volume
ratio of 2-2.5 parts woodchips to 1 part sludge. During
screening about 80 percent of the woodchips may be recovered.
Cost depends on source and seasonal demand (Willson, Epstein
and Parr, 1977).
Paper cubes are formed by putting waste paper through a
die-cutting machine. Used at a volume of 3:1, there is no
recovery of the bulking material. Although a recycling pro-
gram may be able to supply the needs of a composting facility
at a negligible cost, there is no guarantee that the entire
supply would be met. Specialized machinery to make the cubes
would be necessary (Willson, Epstein and Parr, 1977).
Materials used from auto salvage are fabrics, foam and
plastics. Glass and metal would be sorted out. A volume
ratio of 1:12 has been used successfully. This was possible
as the material absorbed a large quantity of liquid from the
sludge. However, recovery of all the bulking material was
difficult and some plastics, foam and fabric were left in the
finished compost. This affects its desirability for land ap-
plication. The costs of the salvage material would partially
depend on the amount of sorting that is necessary and the haul
distance (Willson, Epstein and Parr, 1977).
130
-------
Licorice root is a fibrous residue from extraction pro-
cesses and was used at a volume ratio of 2.5:1. No recycling
of the bulking material was possible, but other fibrous resi-
dues, such as peanut shells, may be used. A problem with using
this type of material is the identification of a supply source
(Willson, Epstein and Parr, 1977).
Leaves have been used both as a sole source of bulking
and in combination with woodchips. Using 100 percent leaves,
a volume ratio of 2:1 is successful. A mixture of 60 percent
leaves and 40 percent woodchips can use a 2.5:1 volume ratio.
With the latter, 32 percent recycle is possible, reducing the
amount of material to be obtained for each process. Problems
with this system include the increased volume to be disposed
of and the supply of an adequate amount of leaves throughout
the composting process. A benefit is a disposal mechanism
for leaves and reduced costs for bulking materials (Willson,
Epstein and Parr, 1977).
At present, research as to the feasibility of disinfect-
ing municipal sludge is being conducted at the MDC Deer Island
treatment plant. The results so far indicate that adequate
bacterial and viral disinfection is possible. There is evi-
dence that other useful effects, such as improved dewatering
characteristics, breakdown of toxic chemicals and de-infesta-
tion of pathogenic parasites, are also produced (Trump, 1977).
C. Application Sites and Management
Application can be done on two general area types: non-
food and food crops. Crop lands are preferred for land ap-
plication as they are disturbed areas and can return a cost
benefit from the fertilizer value of the sludge. Although
many forests are nutrient deficient, application of compost
is difficult unless the area has been logged, at which point
it is a disturbed area.
Application to non-food crops depends on the management
techniques used at each site. Sod farmers may prefer to apply
compost after removing the sod and prior to seeding. Tree
farmers may prefer to use a top dressing of compost on young
trees, or to add it to the land after trees are removed for
sale. Orchards would primarily require a top-dressing. Sur-
face application of sludge or compost has a greater potential
for being carried by surface runoff than if it had been incor-
porated into the soil. Also, better nutrient utilization is
possible with incorporation. Disturbed areas, such as strip
mines or quarries, can use sludge or compost, either incorpor-
ated or as a top-dressing. These areas are nutrient and organic
material deficient and would readily respond to sludge or com-
post application. Problems associated with application to non-
131
-------
food crops include: scheduling of application; production
of treatment plant versus limited need of crops; possibility
of surface water impacts from surface runoff of top-dressed
compost; and a low fertilizer credit. Advantages of applica-
tion to non-food crops over food crops include: less possi-
bility of heavy metals entering the human food chain; less
monitoring of crop quality required; and a source of material
to rehabilitate disturbed areas (such as strip mines).
Food crops considered for application include: grains
(corn, wheat, oats and barley); hay feed to domestic animals;
and pastures utilized by grazing animals. As previously dis-
cussed, vegetable crops should not be grown on land applica-
tion sites. The nature of grain crops makes application during
the growing season difficult. To obtain the most benefit from
the sludge, application should occur prior to planting and
after harvesting. Climate and timing of farm operations will
affect the efficiency of application. Early planting and late
harvesting of a crop restricts the possible periods of applica-
tion and, should the possible times occur during winter when
the soil is frozen or covered with snow, application is also
restricted.
Application to pasture and hay crops is recommended:
prior to spring growth; after plant domancy; and immediately
after cutting but before significant new growth has occurred
(Miller, 1976). Although 2 to 3 weeks are recommended before
animals are allowed on the field, it has been found that a
significant amount of sludge remains on the grass even after
numerous rainfalls. The sludge is then ingested by the fora-
gers and the heavy metals would concentrate in their kidneys
and liver (Kienholz, et al, 1977). Dairy cows are of less
concern than those used for meat, as the metals do not occur
in the milk. Concerns with application of sludge or compost
to food crops include: bio-concentration of heavy metals;
phytotoxicity if the soil pH drops; and pathogen transfer
potential. Advantages include: nutrient source; trace ele-
ment source; fertilizer cost benefit to farmers; improvement
of soil condition from organic material addition; and increase
of soil pH during application.
As described, application to crop lands depends on when
the soil is available for machinery movement. Table P-5 pre-
sents a general guideline for southern New York. The table
identifies the months that dewatered sludge or compost may be
applied, as compared to planting and harvesting schedules.
These are general times and will vary yearly and by region.
Under corn, compost application during October and November
will occur if harvesting occurred earlier. December and Jan-
uary are not used for application, as the ground is generally
frozen and the potential for runoff increased. Application in
February is possible after the ground has thawed.
132
-------
TABLE P-5
GENERAL APPLICATION PERIODS
Month Corn Hay Barley Soybeans Oats
January - -
February Compost Compost - Compost Compost
March Sludge Compost - Sludge
April - Compost - - Plant
May Plant - - Plant
June Plant Harvest Harvest Plant
July - Harvest Harvest - Harvest
August - Harvest Sludge - Compost
September Harvest Compost - - Compost
October Harvest Compost Plant - Compost
(compost)
November Harvest Compost - Harvest Compost
(compost)
December
133
-------
Distribution of the sludge or compost from the treatment
plant site to the application area may be accomplished in many
ways. A system where the user picks up the sludge or compost
at the plant is used in some areas. This is feasible for small
quantities, but is not reliable for most large treatment plants,
Distribution to large scale users, such as farmers or nursery-
men, would require a management system operated by a municipal
agency. Although many combinations and systems are possible,
two basic alternatives exist: storage on municipal property
with distribution to users according to their schedules and
needs, with application by the agency to ensure that all re-
quirements are met; or distribution to the user with short-term
storage on the user's property, with a legal agreement that the
user will apply according to regulations. The latter system
allows for distribution planning by the agency, while giving
the user flexibility of application times. However, where the
user is responsible for application, careful management is
necessary to ensure that sludge or compost is only placed on
suitable areas at acceptable rates.
134
-------
APPENDIX Q
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM
"MARKET SURVEY AND FEASIBILITY OF SLUDGE FERTILIZERS"
[Source: Development Planning and
Research Associates, Inc. 1975]
135
-------
VI. ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The alternative strategies for producing and marketing dried
sludge fertilizer at Deer Island presented in this chapter meet the produc-
tion characteristics presented by Havens and Emerson in the "Environmental
Assessment Statement" dated October, 1974 I/. These conditions are as
follows:
. The processing of dried sludge from primary treatment [[with aj
. 2-2-0 analysis (N-P205-K20) [at a]
. Cost of $94.50 per ton of dried sludge (5% moisture), delivered
to a storage facility at Deer Island [and with]
. 45,000 to 50,000 tons (dry basis) of annual production.
Our review of other sludge fertilizer programs indicates that the
established operations with successful marketing programs are those which
dry activated sludge from secondary treatment processes. These operations
market their products with 5 to 6 percent (or more) nitrogen, an analysis
which gives the products greater marketability. While it is-not the purpose
of this study to evaluate the MDC sewage treatment plan, it must be recognized
that the secondary treatment necessary to produce an activated sludge is an
alternative which might be considered in any plant to produce fertilizer at
Deer Island. (The limitations of the present study precluded any attempt
to examine the financial aspects of such secondary treatment.)
Few operations have successfully marketed significant amounts of
dried primary sludge. On the other hand, the MDC might have an option of
II "Environmental Assessment Statement for A Plan for Sludge Management,"
Commonwealth of Massachusetts and Metropolital District Commission,
Boston, October 1974.
136
-------
giving away a dried sludge (analyzing 2-2-0). However, no study has been
made to determine the feasibility of a give-away program. How much could
be disposed of in such a manner and at what cost to the MDC are questions
which would require a separate feasibility study. As a minimum, the MDC
would have to pay the $94.50 per ton drying cost, plus transportation
and promotion costs of $20 to $25 per ton. It is possible that alternative
drying techniques, such as the potential process owned by Organic Re-
cycling, Inc., might result in lower drying costs; specific data are not
available on this process.
Therefore, this chapter's evaluation of strategies must be
based on the system presented by the MDC to EPA. The alternatives which
follow are compatible with the conditions cited at the beginning of this
section.
A. Framework for Evaluating Alternative Strategies
The following framework has been utilized to identify and evaluate
alternative strategies for producing and marketing a dried primary sludge
fertilizer at Deer Island.
•Alternatives
A B
1. Treatment process Primary Secondary
2. End-product Fortified Unfortified
3. End-uses Lawn and garden/golf Farm
courses
4. Fortified analys.is 6-2-4 Other grades
5. Form Unsized Compacted, Pelletized or Ex-
truded
137
-------
Alternatives (Con'd)
A B
6. Packaging Bulk Bagged
7. Shipping mode Rail Truck
8. Marketing organi- Outside organize- In-house
zation tiori
9. Distribution Lawn and garden Direct
channel retailers
10. Price Competitive Premium
11. Geographic Local/regional National
market
The best alternative is stated in the headings and its selection is dis-
cussed in the text.
1. Treatment process: PRIMARY
Although there are advantages in utilizing a secondary treatment,
the conditions specified in the project preclude this alternative. Primary
treatment has been specified and becomes a key determinant in selecting
other alternatives.
2. End-product: FORTIFIED
The 45,000 to 50,000 tons of dried primary sludge to be- produced
annually at the proposed Deer Island site is a low analysis material, averaging
2-2-0 (N-P2Or-K20). Such a product has value primarily as a soil conditioner
and, if sold, would compete with peat moss, dried manure, bark mulch and
composts. Unfortified dried primary sludge would have a relatively low unit
value and, if sold, would have a relatively restricted geographic market
because of its transportation costs.
These facts lead first, to the conclusion that fortification would
be a more desirable alternative. In order to market any sizeable volume of
138
-------
material, the product must be made more attractive to potential users. Some
degree of fortification should be achieved through mixing with inorganic
chemical fertilizers. A second and less desirable alternative would be to
produce 2-2-0 for low-priced bulk disposal.
3. End-uses: LAWNS AND GOLF COURSES
Fundamental to the question of fortification is the intended use
of the final product. The survey of the market for dried sludge fertilizers
clearly shows that the home lawn and golf course markets are most promising.
There could be a limited farm market in Massachusetts and nearby states, but
economic considerations argue that it is not promising.
Farmers purchase fertilizers for specific and varying crop and
land needs. Although a single grade fertilizer could suffice for many crop
applications, it would not conform to the best agronomic and farming practice.
Fertilizers, also, are generally priced on a nutrient content basis with
the chemical fertilizers determining the price at which sludge fertilizers
can be sold. The costs of transporting and spreading a low-analysis, bulky
product mitigate against any widespread use of dried sludge in conventional
farming operations. Furthermore, there are serious questions about the heavy
metals in sludge which must be resolved before MDC should attempt to sell
to' the farm market.
On the other hand, an organic fertilizer such as Milorganite
(5-2-0.5) has gained wide acceptance as a turf fertilizer. It is actually
preferred by many turf specialists and is highly recommended for lawns and
golf greens. Its slow release of nutrients and non-burning qualities make
It superior to many chemical fertilizers. The number of homes and golf
139
-------
courses provide a much larger market than do the relatively small number
of farms which might be reached. The heavy metals problem is not present
in lawn use, but dried sludge is not acceptable for vegetable gardens.
Therefore, the home 1.wn and golf course market is the most desirable end
use alternative.
4.
An endless variety of fertilizer grades are currently used on
lawns, gardens and golf greens. Very high analysis products such as 23-7-7
are marketed in the Boston area. As noted earlier, Milorganite (6-2-0.5)
is popular among turf growers. Corenco sells a 5-5-0 dried activated sludge
product. A common lawn grade is 10-6-4 with varying percentages of the total N
expressed as organic (natural or chemical).
An excellent grade of New England turf fertilizer would contain
about 6 percent nitrogen and 4 percent potash (K20). The P205 content is
not as critical and could be as low as 2 percent.
Given the analysis of MDC sludge (2-2-0), the addition of appro-
priate amounts of urea, di ammonium phosphate and sulfate of potash would con-
viently produce a 6-2-4 grade.
5. Form: UNSIZED
The proposed MDC plant will produce a dried sludge with irregular
sized particles, ranging from dust to 14-mesh size.' The product might be up-
graded through compacting, pell eti zing or extruding to make it more like
Milorganite which is evenly sized; however, given the nature of the MDC
material, conventional equipment cannot be adapted to producing a uniformly
140
-------
sized product. The Organic Recycling patented process might be utilized,
but as a proprietary process, it is not possible to assess its viability in
this project. With these limitations, an unsized material is the only
viable alternative.
£. Packaging: BULK AND BAGGED
The end-product, 6-2-4, can be distributed in bulk or in bags. If
the product is sold to fertilizer manufacturers for bagging and/or re-formula-
tion, it could move in bulk form from the Deer Island plant. If the product
is marketed through distributors (jobbers and/or wholeslaers), it would have
to be bagged at the treatment plant.
There is no clearly preferable alternative strategy discernible
between bulk and bagged distribution. From a cost viewpoint, it is pre-
ferable to distribute the bulk product to eliminate bagging and handling
costs. If the entire production could be sold to manufacturers, no bagging
facility would be required at Deer Island.
On the other hand, it appears that sales through distributors to
retailers are necessary for some part of the -output. Provision should
be made for packaging some or all of the product in 50-pound bags. Storage
facilities for bulk or bagged products do not vary significantly.
The most desirable alternative is to. provide for both bulk and
bagged distribution.
7. Shipping Mode: TRUCK
The product can move either by truck or rail. Rail rates are some-
what lower than truck rates and would be especially advantageous for longer
distances (over 100 miles). However, motor carriers have two inherent advan-
tages: route flexibility, even for longer hauls, and loading/unloading
141
-------
convenience. Truck hauling can be arranged through a common carrier at
posted ICC rates, through a carrier at negotiated private rates, or through
an MDC-owned or leased fleet. Either of the latter alternatives appears to
be the most feasible and worthy of future study. Because a number of dis-
tributors and/or wholesalers would prefer to pick up the product at Deer
Island, the need for truck loading facilities should be emphasized.
Another important consideration is the availability of shipping
facilities at Deer Island. Since there is no rail spur to the treatment
plant site, the product would have to be transported by truck or barge to a
rail siding and reloaded onto rail cars; the cost of rehandling the product
would partially or entirely offset the advantages of lower rail rates. Of
course, the alternative of constructing a rail siding to the Deer Island
plant is one which should be considered. No feasibility study has been con-
ducted on such a project. Barging is a possibility if the market is to be
in coastal states; however, this was not considered a viable alternative at
present and established barge shipping rates, therefore, were not calculated.
On oalance, truck transportation appears to be more desirable in
the absence of rail handling facilities. Certainly, MDC should give serious
consideration to the alternative of building a rail siding to Deer Island
and to the method of operating trucks.
8. Marketing Organization: OUTSIDE ORGANIZATION
MDC has an option of establishing its own marketing organization
or of contracting the marketing to an outside organization. Milwaukee has
its own intensive marketing and advertising program for Milorganite, while
Houston and Chicago operate through brokers who have extensive programs.
Either method could be used.
142
-------
The complexities and expense of establishing a marketing organiza-
tion make that alternative less attractive especially fcr marketing a bulk
product. Houston's arrangement -- the city contracts with one firm to take
its entire output -- appears more economical for selling bulk material over
a wide area. Houston pays a 6 percent commission on its f.o.b. plant price
and incurs no other marketing expense; the marketing cost per ton is about
$1.50. Our estimates for a marketing program, operated by MDC, are many
times that amount. An in-house sales and marketing staff might develop more
effective sales programs, especially when aimed at local markets. The in-
house marketing personnel could also serve as public relations specialists.
However, it takes much time and effort to develop an effective marketing
organization.
In view of the uncertainty of extensive markets, an outside organiza-
tion with an established reputation as a distributor is a more desirable
alternative.
9. Distribution Channels: WHOLESALE/RETAIL
The MDC product could be sold directly to end-users, especially
to golf courses or to farmers, or MDC could rely primarily on lawn and garden
retail outlets, the final choice will depend largely upon the decision made
in' the marketing system discussed' under section 8 above. If MDC were to
market through its own organization, it could conceivably sell some product
directly to users. If MDC uses an outside organization, the choice of dis-
tribution channels would be left to the outside firm.
In view of the number and type of established retail outlets in the
Northeastern U.S., it would appear most cost effective to use that channel for
the distribution of a bagged product. This would be true whether or not MDC
143
-------
uses an outside firm for marketing. Lawn and garden retailers have the
clientele and the expertise in selling the product to the final user, making
their use advantageous.
Selling to golf courses could best be achieved through a dis-
tributor (jobber or wholesaler) or through one of the established fertilizer
manufacturers/formulators. Again, these firms have the experience and tech-
nical knowledge to deal with greens superintendents and course managers.
10. Price: $65.00 PER TON F.O.B.
In arriving at a sale price, MDC could consider the alternatives
of competitive or premium pricing. Premium pricing could be advantageous
if MDC's product is recognizably differentiated from other lawn fertilizers
and if it is successfully marketed as a superior turf fertilizer. These
requirements are reasonable; therefore, MDC's product can be priced slightly
higher than other turf fertilizers.
11. Geographic Market: 150-MILE RADIUS
The marketing area in which MDC sludge as 6-2-4 fertilizer may be
sold is largeiy a function of the existing and potential'number of final
users, existing and potential competitive products and transportation costs.
Markets may be categorized as follows:
Local — 50-mile radius
. New England — 150-mile radius (through zone 6)
. Boston - Pittsburgh - Washington triangle — 500-mile radius
. National
A critical factor in evaluating these alternative markets is the
annual volume of product to be sold. If MDC has no alternative disposal
144
-------
methods for its sewage sludge, then its market must extend far enough to sell
approximately 49,000 tons of 6-2-4 annually (equivalent to 40,000 tons of
2-2-0). Based on the analysis of existing markets for sludge fertilizers,
the 6-2-4 product would have to be offered nationally to move 49,000 tons in
today's market. There are, of course, potential users who do not now use
sludge-type products and who might be "educated" to their use. The expected
population growth by 1980 doubtless may increase the use of the product.
These potential users are not likely to become customers without a massive
promotion campaign or some user-incentive program,
Competitive sources must also be considered. Milwaukee and Chicago
have marketed their products for over 40 years and will not be easily re-
placed as suppliers in the Northeast. Other producers have more recently
entered the market, with mounting evidence that.a great many more communities
and private firms will be entering the market in the near future. As this
occurs, the geographic market for a Boston-based product will shrink and will
be ultimately limited to the Boston area.
The most desirable alternative under existing conditions is the 150-
mile New England market, simply because that large a territory is necessary
to market, ultimately, 16,200 tons of 6-2-4 (equivalent to 13,235 tons of
2-2-0). Should lesser amounts be marketed, economic considerations would make
it advantageous to market over smaller areas, with the local territory around
Boston offering the best alternative for 9,250 tons annually.
As distribution extends from Boston outward toward the 150-mile
radius, transportation costs increase but plant net-back also increases;
beyond 150 miles, the net cost of distributing a larger volume of product
145
-------
increases on a unit basis as the distance increases. Since the product must
be sold at a loss in all markets, the least cost alternative (rather than the
highest net gain) becomes the most desirable.
On this basis, the 150-mile radius offers the most attractive
alternative. Unfortunately, this territory at present does not offer a large
enough market for MDC's total output of sludge as 6-2-4. As new producers
enter the competitive picture, the potential for 1980 may be even less.
It becomes obvious, then, that it appears to be impossible to sell
6-2-4 nationwide and that, if the entire output of MDC sludge were to be
dried, some of it (about 34,000 TPY) would have to be disposed of as 2-2-0.
The reasons why this would be difficult on a sales basis have been stated.
The only alternative would be to distribute it at zero or nominal cost to the
homeowner. Such a program would result in the' spreading of 2-2-0 on one lawn
in ten in Massachusetts every year.
B. Recommendations
From a purely financial point of view, MDC should not attempt to
produce and sell a fertilizer product. Only a small amount of a 2-2-0 product
can be sold (about 5,000 tons per year), making the investment in drying facil-
ities uneconomic. A fortified product (6-2-4) can be sold in larger quantities
(up to 16,400 tons of sludge per year), but the additional costs of fortifica-
tion would not quite be recovered and the financial returns would contribute
nothing toward the cost of drying. Two-thirds of the sludge output would
still have to be disposed of as a 2-2-0 soil conditioner. Given the concern
over heavy metals there is small likelihood that the 2-2-0 product could be
sold at more than a nominal price.
146
-------
On the other hand, if there is no disposal alternative (such as
incineration or ocean disposal) or if MDC and EPA select the fertilizer al-
ternative for sludge disposal, then the alternatives examined above can be
stated as a set of recommendations as follows:
1. Produce 16,200 tons per year of a fortified, 6-2-4 unsized
fertilizer material, equivalent to 13,235 tons of dried primary
sludge.
2. Market through an outside organization, primarily to lawn and
garden retail outlets for home lawn and golf course use.
3. Distribute in 50-pound bags or in bulk form where possible.
4. Ship by truck but investigate the construction of a rail siding
to Deer Island.
5. Offer this competitively priced product within a 150-mile
radius of Boston.
6. Attempt to distribute the remainder of the dried 2-2-0 sludge
locally at little or no cost to homeowners.
147
-------
APPENDIX R
CHEMICAL MODELS FOR SLUDGE APPLICATION
Introduction
The two constituents of sewage sludge which most often
limit its application to croplands are nitrogen and heavy
metals. Excessive quantities of nitrogen can cause nitrate
contamination of groundwater, while high concentrations of
heavy metals in the soil can result in their entering the
food chain. However, if these two constituents are properly
controlled, land application can be a safe, environmentally
sound method of sludge disposal.
Sodium (from salt water infiltration into the Deer Island
system) could also be a factor influencing the rate and
duration of application. This is discussed at the end of the
Appendix, as it appears that the sodium concentration in the
sludge will be low and subsequently will not hinder the appli-
cation program.
This Appendix presents a simple model which can be used
to calculate the minimum amount of land which is required for
conducting a sludge application program. This will allow
preliminary determinations to be made of the feasibility and
cost-effectiveness of land application alternatives for sludge
disposal.
Nitrogen
Nitrogen is present in sewage sludge in both the organic
and inorganic forms. Typical digested sewage sludge contains
from 1 to 5 percent organic nitrogen by dry weight and from
1 to 3 percent inorganic nitrogen (Sommers et al., 1976).
Nitrogen is a nonconservative substance in soils and is
constantly changing form. Biological activity will break down
organic nitrogen into the inorganic form where it will oxidize
to nitrate, which is utilized by vegetation as a nutrient.
Numerous other reactions, such as nitrogen fixation, also occur,
and some nitrogen is contained in rainfall.
Soil contains 400 to 10,000 kg/ha of nitrogen (Haith,
1973), mostly in the organic form. From 2 to 10 percent of the
soil organic nitrogen will mineralize each year.
When sludge is applied to land, the inorganic nitrogen
fraction is readily available for uptake by crops. Sommers
et al. (1976) estimates that 15 percent of the sludge's
organic nitrogen will become available the first year, with
148
-------
3 percent of the remainder becoming available for at least
three succeeding years. Other researchers (King, 1975)
have used slightly different assumptions, such as 10 percent
the first year and 5 percent each succeeding year.
Uptake by crops is a major mechanism for nitrogen removal
from soil. Sommers et al. (1976) presented estimates of the
nitrogen requirements of typical crops. Removal of nitrogen
by crop uptake assumes that the crop is removed from the site
by harvesting.
Leaching is soluble nitrate nitrogen to groundwater is
another removal mechanism. Any inorganic nitrogen in excess
of that needed for crop uptake can potentially leach into the
groundwater. The USEPA drinking water standards fro nitrate
nitrogen is 10 mg/1.
Taking sources and sinks into account, an annual nitrogen
mass balance can be expressed as:
Soil nitrogen which is mineralized
+ Sludge organic nitrogen which is mineralized
+ Sludge inorganic nitrogen
+ Other nitrogen additions, such as rainfall
- Nitrogen uptake of crops
- Nitrogen lost in leachate
= 0
This mass balance can be expressed mathematically by assuming
that a fraction of the sludge organic nitrogen mineralizes
the first year and that the remainder becomes part of the
soil organic nitrogen; the soil organic nitrogen also minera-
lizes, but not necessarily at the same rate as the sludge
organic nitrogen.
b N0 (n) + a F A (n) + FI A (n) + R - U - G = 0 Equation 1
s o
where
Ns (n) = Soil organic nitrogen, kg/ha, at the start of year n
A )n) = Amount of sludge applied, kg/ha, in year n
a = Fraction of the sludge organic nitrogen which is minerali-
zed in the first year the sludge is applied, year"1
b = Fraction of the soil organic nitrogen which is mineralized
each year, year~l
F0 = Fraction of organic nitrogen in the sludge
F£ = Fraction or inorganic nitrogen in the sludge
R = Additions of nitrogen from rainfall or commercial fertilizer
applications, kg/ha/yr
U = Uptake of inorganic nitrogen by crops, kg/ha/yr
G = Inorganic nitrogen lost in leachate, kg/ha/yr
149
-------
Rearranging equation 1 gives the maximum amount of sludge
that can be applied in any year, based on nitrogen limitations
Amax (n) = Gmax + U - R - b NS (n)
a F0 + FI
where
Amax(n)= Maximum amount of sludge, kg/ha, which can be applied in
year n
Gmax = Maximum allowable loss of nitrogen through leaching,
based on water quality standards for g-roundwater
The soil organic nitrogen will be augmented by the part of
the sludge organic nitrogen which is not mineralized in the
first year:
Ns (n + 1) = [1-b] Ns (n) + [1-a] FQ An Equation 3
By using equations 2 and 3, it is possible to calculate the
maximum sludge application rate for each successive year of
land application. This technique will be demonstrated after
limitations on heavy metals are discussed.
Heavy Metals
Unlike nitrogen, heavy metals behave as conservative sub-
stances. That is, once placed in the soil, they will tend to
remain in place and accumulate. Concentrations must not be
allowed to become excessive and the soil pH must remain suf-
ficiently high to avoid solubilization of heavy metals. Thus,
while nitrogen limits annual sludge application rates, heavy
mentals limit the total amount of sludge which can be applied
to a given plot of land.
Table 1 shows the concentrations of heavy metals in sludge
from Deer and Nut Island Treatment Plants compared to ranges
of concentrations found in other sludges. Table 2 shows the
total amounts of sludge metals allowed on agricultural lands;
other limits may be appropriate for non-agricultural lands or
if supported by a monitoring program for heavy metals.
150
-------
TABLE 1
TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SEWAGE SLUDGE
[Source: "Ohio Guide for Land Application of
Sewage Sludge," Ohio Agricultural Research and
Development Center, Ohio Cooperative Extension
Service, July, 1975]
Element
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Nickel
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Lead
Zinc
Range (ppm*, dry wt.) Median**
6-1000
1-1500
20-40,600
2-260
52-11,700
10-5300
60-3900
0.1-56
2-1000
15-26,000
72-49,000
50
10
200
10
500
50
500
5
5
500
2000
Boston***
9
24
463
804
91.4
6.7
667
1530
* Parts per million
** The mediam is that value for which 50 percent of the observations,
when arranged in the order of magnitude, lie on each side.
*** Raw dewatered sludge
TABLE 2
MAXIMUM AMOUNTS OF SLUDGE METALS ALLOWED ON AGRICULTURAL
LAND
[Source: Sommers et al., 1976]
Metal
Soil Cation Exchange Capacity (meg/100 g)*
0-5 5-15 > 15
Pb
Zn
Cu
Ni
Cd
Maximum Amount of Metal (Ib./Acre)
500
250
125
50
5
1000
500
250
100
10
2000
1000
500
200
20
* Determined by the ph 7 ammonium acetate procedure
151
-------
The maximum total of sludge which can be applied is:
2.27 x 109/Fpb
1.12 x 109/FZm
A = Min 5.60 x 10 /FCu Equation 4
H
2.24 x 108/FNi
2.24 x 107/Fc/d
where
A = Maximum amount of sludge, kg/ha, which can be applied,
based on heavy metals limitations
FPb, FZiru Fcu' FNi' FCd = Fractions (dry weight) of lead, zinc,
copper, nickel and cadmium, respectively, in the sludge,
ppm
Note: Equation 4 assumes a soil with a cation exchange capacity
greater than 15 meg/100 g. For soils with a CEC of 5 to 15
meg/100 g, the rates shown should be halved; for CEC less
than 5 meg/100 g, the allowable rates are one quarter those
shown.
One further heavy metals limitation which must be considered
is the need to limit cadmium according to a new EPA schedule
of maximum allowable yearly soil application rates (40 CFR 257).
By this schedule the standards for cadmium will become
increasingly stringent until the ultimate maximum allowable
application rate of 0.5 kg/ha.y is acheived in 1986. Thus, the
following limitation results.
Amax £ 2.0 x 10 /Fed until December 31, 1981
1.25 x 106/Fcd until December 31, 1985 Equation 5
0.5 x 106/Fcd after January 1, 1986
Maximum Sludge Application Rates
The maximum amount of sludge which can be applied to a
parcel of land can be calculated by alternately solving
equations 2 and 3 (or 5 and 3, if Cadmium limits), as the
flow diagram in Figure 1 shows. Sludge applications must cease
when AH is reached.
152
-------
Maximum application rates for sludge from the Deer and
Nut Island Plants were calculated, using the assumptions
shown in Table 3.
Land Requirements
The minimum amount of land required for a sludge appli-
cation program can be calculated by assuming that each parcel
of land will be used to the greatest extent possible before
acquiring any new land. As shown previously, the capacity
of land to accept sludge decreases each year as orginic
nitrogen is added to the soil, and applications must eventually
cease when the heavy metals limit is attained. Thus, even if
the quantity of sludge produced were to remain constant,
additional land would be needed each year to allow for this
decreasing capacity to accept sludge.
In the first year of application, the maximum amount of
sludge which can be applied to a parcel of land of a given
size is described by Equation by 6a. In the second year of
application, this first parcel of land has a smaller ability
to accept sludge, so more land is needed as shown in Equation
6b. This process continues for each year:
S (1) = L (1) A (1) [Equation 6a]
S (2) = L (1) A (2) + L (2) A (1) [Equation 6b]
S (3) = L (1) A (3) + L (2) + L (3) A (1) [Equation 6c]
S (n) = L (1) A (n) + L (2) (n-1) ... L (n) A (1) [Equation 6b]
where
S (n) = Amount of sludge, kg, applied in year n
L (n) = Amount of land, ha, for which sludge applications start
in year n
A (n) = Sludge application rate kg/ha.yr, after n years of
applications, defined in previous sections
Equation 6a through 6d can be solved successively to find the
amount of land needed to be added each year.
153
-------
TABLE 3
EXAMPLE OF CALCULATING MAXIMUM RATES OF APPLICATION
Data and Assumptions
Type of Sludge:
Characteristics:
Organic Nitrogen
Inorganic Nitrogen
Copper
Nickel
Zinc
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury
Initial Soil Organic Nitrogen, N (1)
O
Crop Nitrogen Uptake, U
Rainfall Nitrogen Input, R
Nitrogen Leaching, G
Mineralization, first year, a
Mineralization, succeeding years, b
= 0.99%
= 0.14%
=804 ppm
= 91.4 ppm
= 1530 ppm
= 24 ppm
= 667 ppm
= 6.7 ppm
=3400 kg/ha
= 220 kg/ha.y
7 kg/ha.y
2 kg/ha.y
0.15
0.03
Calculations:
Maximum Total Application, A
Maximum Yearly Application, based on
cadmium
= 326,900 kg/ha (based on copper)
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
= 11,166 kg/ha.y
Rate of Application
kg/ha
11,166
11,243
11,316
11,386
11,453
11,516
9,025
9,025
9,025
9,025
9,025
Limitation
Nitrogen
Nitrogen
Nitrogen
Nitrogen
Nitrogen
Nitrogen
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
154
-------
L (1) = S (1)/A (1)
L (2) = [S (2) - L (1) A (2) ]/A (1)
L (3) = [S (3) - L (1) A (3) - L (2) A (2)]/A (1)
[Equation 7a]
[Equation 6b]
L (n) = S
Jg
L (n-i) A (i+1) /A (1)
[Equation 7d]
For the application of dewatered sludge from the MDC plants,
the total area required would be 4671 hectares (11540 ac) .
Sodium Balance
The amount of sodium that may safely enter the soil can be
found by using the Sodium Absorption Ratio (Froth and Turk,
1972) :
SAR =
Na
Ca+Mg
where: Na
Mg
Ca
/ 2
ppm sodium entering the soil;
ppm magnesium entering of already in the soil;
ppm calcium entering the soil or already there,
In determining the sodium balance of sludge at 25% solids,
is was assumed that Deer Island received most of the saltwater
intrusion, and the sodium ion concentrations at Nut Island would
be about normal for sludge without saltwater intrusion. Using
the concentrations presently found at the treatment plants, the
levels of sodium were 674 ppm from Deer Island and 300 ppm from
Nut Island. The average sodium concentration of combined Deer
and Nut Island sludges would be 532 ppm. This value is derived
as follows: (62% total sludge mas) (674 ppm) + (38% total sludge
mas) (300 ppm) = 532 ppm.
It is assumed that the sodium ions are found only in the
liquid fraction of the sludge (because of its high solubility),
the concentration of sodium found in the dewatered sludge (75%
liquid) is calculated as follows: 532 ppm mg/1 x .75 = 399
mg/1 in total mass.
Most of the background calcium and magnesium that is in
the sludge is also assumed to come from saltwater intrusion,
resulting in approximately 46 ppm Mg and 15 ppm Ca at the Deer
Island plant, with a negligible amount of each from the Nut
Island plant. However, the amount of lime added in the treat-
ment process would result in about 15,000 ppm calcium in the
sludge.
155
-------
Putting these amounts in the equation, the result is:
SAR — - 4°° = 4.61
oAK nc -IQ
/ 15,015 +~46 86'78
2
Since the maximum SAR value that is acceptable for soil
application is 9 (Foth and Turk, 1972), the amount of salt-
water that is lime that is added in the process. A general
guidelines for applying sludge that contains saltwater is that
the total sludge volume should contain no more than 1%
(Satterwhite, 1975). This is based on estimated soil con-
ditions and does not take into account the calcium added in
sludge conditioning. Using 300 mg/1 as the normal sodium
concentration in wastewater, the Nut Island sludge has little
or no seawater content. Based on a normal seawater sodium
concentration of 30,400 gm/1 (Reid, 1961), the Deer Island
sludge, containing 627 mg/1 of sodium, is composed of 1.23%
seawater (627-300/30,400). Although the saltwater in the
sludge is presently at 1.23% of the total sludge volume at
Deer Island, lime added during conditioning and further
anticipated reductions in seawater intrusion in the
collection system served by Deer Island will compensate for
the difference. In the event of substitution of polymers for
lime in the conditioning process, the SAR would be above 72,
limiting application of sludge unless sludge is wasted
(elutriated) with low sodium water.
Conclusions
The ability of land to accept sludge without adverse
environmental impacts will vary from year to year, depending
upon previous applications of sludge. This variation will
affect the size of a sludge application program, equipment
requirements and annual costs. Because allowable annual sludge
loadings will vary, a strong management system is recommended
for any land application program in order to avoid adverse
impacts. Because of provisions of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, the application of a sludge deemed hazardous,
as are the sludges from both Deer and Nut Island, would require
under draining and leachate recovery. For the 4,671 hectares
required over 20 years, and with 25.4 cm per year of leachate,
and average treatment capacity of 32,500 m3/day (8.6 mgd)
would be required, effectively eliminating land application.
156
-------
APPENDIX S
EVALUATION OF EXISTING MULTIPLE HEARTH SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATORS
A. Introduction
Incineration of dewatered sludge using a multiple hearth
incinerator is part of the system for disposal of sludge pro-
posed by the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) . An im-
portant question regarding incinerators is the question of
autogenous burning. Autogenous operation means that the
thermal energy required in incineration is supplied entirely
by the heat value of the sludge. A review of several existing
multiple hearth incinerators throughout the United States
showed that an average of 50 gallons of fuel oil (or its
equivalent) was required for auxiliary heat to incinerate
one ton of sludge (Olexsey, 1975) . Therefore, the question
of operation without this auxiliary energy input must be
answered before proceeding with comparison of system costs,
energy requirements and environmental effects.
Theoretical calculations indicate that the MDC sludge, like
many other sludges, can burn autogenously without the aid of
auxiliary fuel. Experience, however, has shown that the day-
to-day operations of a treatment plant do not always perform
as planned.
This appendix was prepared to answer the following questions
• Can the proposed incineration system for MDC sludge
operate autogenously (without auxiliary fuel)?
• If the proposed system is capable of operating auto-
genously, what measures must be taken to insure full-
time autogenous operation?
Incineration can be thought of as a process in which the
heat of burning sludge (and other fuel) is used to evaporate
the water portion of the sludge. Therefore, by examining
existing incinerator facilities, these questions can be
answered :
What are the prevailing operating constraints and
conditions at these plants, compared with that pro-
posed for the MDC facility?
Based on heat balance computations from incinerator
records, what are the efficiencies of existing
incinerators?
157
-------
B. Operation of Existing Incinerator Installations
1. Installations Evaluated
To answer our questions on operation of existing incinerators,
it was necessary to collect and analyze long term records for
installations similar to those proposed by the MDC. Figure S-l
is a diagram of a typical multiple hearth incinerator, similar
in design concept to the equipment proposed by the MDC. The
installations visited were selected based on the following cri-
teria:
• Comparable in size to the MDC facility.
• Incinerating primary sludge.
• Of either recent design and construction or recently
renovated.
• Originally designed for autogenous operation.
• Well-kept operational records for quantities of sludge
incinerated and fuel used.
The plants selected all had primary treatment only, without
digestion. The method used in heat balance calculations was
based on the actual concentration of volatile solids, so that
the results would be applicable to facilities either with or
without anaerobic digestion of sludge. (Digestion reduces the
volatile solids content of sludges.)
Field trips were made to observe incinerators in operation
and to talk with the operators. Topics of discussion included
control procedures, fuel economy, maintenance problems and var-
iations from the engineers' original designs. The facilities
visited were:
a. Bissell Point Treatment Plant, St. Louis, Missouri;
This is a large primary treatment plant. The facility has five
11-hearth multiple hearth incinerators, which are 23'3" in
diameter, and each of which has a capacity of 250 tons per day
of wet sludge. Sludge from the primary settling tanks is con-
ditioned with lime, dewatered on vacuum filters and incinerated.
The sludge solids content after conditioning and dewatering
averages about 30 percent. Since sludge storage facilities
have only about four days capacity, the dewatered sludge is
sent immediately to the incinerators.
158
-------
COOLING AIR DISCHARGE
FLOATING DAMPER
SLUDGE INLET
FLUE GASES OUT
DRYING ZONE
ASH DISCHARGE- • 1
RABBLE ARM
AT EACH HEARTH
COMBUSTION
AIR RETURN
COMBUSTION ZONE
RABBLE ARM
DRIVE
COOLING AIR FAN
FIGURE S-l
CROSS SECTION OF A TYPICAL MULTIPLE HEARTH INCINERATOR
159
-------
Additional data was also obtained for the Lemay
Treatment Plant, St. Louis, Missouri, which is very similar to
the Bissell Point Plant, except it has only three incinerators
and conditions the sludge with a polyelectrolyte.
b. City of Detroit Wastewater Treatment Plant, Detroit,
Michigan; This huge 1.4 billion gallons per day (bgd) treatment
plant is being upgraded to secondary treatment. Approximately
one-third of its total capacity is now operating as an activated
sludge facility. Raw sludge is treated with polymers and vacuum
filtered to 30 percent solids content, however there is no
sludge storage. The Detroit incinerators are grouped in two
complexes. "Complex 2" contains the newer units, six 12-hearth,
25"9" diameter multiple hearth incinerators, each with a capacity
of 437 wet tons per day. (Two additional units had been installed
but were not in operation at the time of the plant visit.)
"Complex 1" has the older units, some of which date back to
1939. However, these old units have been maintained and updated
and presently process the bulk of the plant's sludge.
c. Jersey City Sewage Authority, Jersey City, New
Jersey; This primary treatment plant has a single 10-hearth
multiple hearth incinerator, which is 22'3" in diameter, and
has a capacity of 246 wet tons per day. Sludge from the primary
settling tanks is conditioned with polyelectrolyte and ferrous
chloride, then vacuum filtered. Solids content of the dewatered
sludge averages about 30 percent. Incinerator operation is
intermittent, usually during the day shift only.
2. Present Operating Practice
The day-to-day operation of large incinerators requires the
skills of both a mechanic and an engineer. Not only must complex
machinery be kept running, but operations must be optimized to
keep costs, including auxiliary fuel costs, under control. The
objectives, control methods and problems of sludge incineration,
as seen by the operators, were examined.
a- Objectives of Operation; In discussions with the
operators, the following objectives were identified:
• Fuel economy - The rising cost of auxiliary fuel
has made this one of the most important concerns.
• Good mechanical operation - Breakdowns can be
expensive and disruptive. All operators took
considerable care to see that machinery was run
properly.
160
-------
• Air pollution control - All installations were
under some pressure to control emission as
best they could, and this was reflected in
their operating procedures.
ticn co.^1
r
or all hJ^C°ntr01 ?anels displayed the temperatures of most
or all hearths, as well as cooling air and flue gas temperatures
indicators displayed the status of fans, burners? etc lurnSg
n?»i?, observed through peepholes in the hearth doors. sSme9
plants used closed circuit television to observe the stack
gases from the control room.
Hearth temperatures were controlled by adding either
combustion air or auxiliary fuel, as necessary, in some plants,
control was automatic, but others preferred manual control.
Operators did not have control (other than on and off)
over the induced draft fan or the rabble arm speed. Thus, there
was essentially no control over the total amount of combustion
air supplied or the residence time of the sludge in the incin-
erator. In addition, the minimal amounts of available sludge
storage capacity allowed little control over the loading rate.
c- Energy Efficiency of Existing Incinerators
1. Definition
The sludge incineration process is highly sensitive to
both the water content and the volatile solids content of the
sludge. Thus, auxiliary fuel consumption may depend more on
the dewatering processes than on the incinerator design itself.
In order to establish a common basis for evaluating incinerator
performance (apart from the preparatory dewatering steps) , it
is necessary to consider a simple definition of efficiency as
"useful" work divided by the work input.
Sludge incineration is essentially a drying process, so
the "useful" work performed by a sludge incinerator is to convert
the liquid water content of the sludge to a gas. This is theo-
retically equal to heat of vaporization, 1059.9 BTU per pound
161
-------
of water at 60°F. If lime has been used to remove phosphates
or to condition the sludge, the heat required for recalcining
should also be considered "useful" work according to the overall
reaction:
CaC03 + CaO + CO2 AH = 1367 BTU/lb CaO (Eq.l)
The work input includes both the heat value of the volatile
solids in the sludge plus the heat value of any auxiliary fuel
used. The difference between work input and useful work repre-
sents heat losses in the stack gas, unburned fuel, cooling air,
heat radiation and other losses. An efficient incinerator will
minimize these losses. Incinerator manufacturers' acceptance
tests for performance guarantees employ a similar concept of
efficiency. The incinerator manufacturer usually guarantees
to achieve a specified fuel consumption rate for a sludge of
assumed characteristics. The actual sludge characteristics
are measured during the test, and the heat balance is recalcu-
lated to account for any differences.
In summary then, the efficiency of a sludge incinerator
can be defined as:
Thermal Efficiency = 1059.9 x Ib.water + 1367 x Ib.lime recalcined (Eq.2)
BTU volatile solids + BTU fuel
2. Data for Incinerators Evaluated
Using the definition of efficiency in Equation 2, the
operating records of existing incinerators were reviewed. Monthly
average efficiencies for four installations are shown in Table s-1.
These represent gross monthly totals and include effects of any
operational events such as startups or malfunctions. The average
monthly thermal efficiency for all four installations was 35.5%,
with a range of 33.6% to 37.4%.
TABLE S-1
MONTHLY AVERAGE EFFICIENCIES
Efficiency
Plant Period of Record Average Range
Bissell Point 6 months 35.5 31-37
LemaY 6 months 35.3 32-38
Detroit (Complex 2) 4 months 33.6 27-40
Jersey City 7 months 37.4 35-39
162
-------
To study the more-or-less routine operation of an inciner-
ator installation, the daily records of the Bissell PoinJ ?lant
in St. Louis were examined. (Bissell Point was selected because
its records provided information on the sludge fled rate to 2ach
incinerator.) Days with incinerator startup! or Sutdowns? or
any other unusual occurrences were eliminated from considera?ion
3> Analysis of Data for Existing Incinerators
^ „. .?• Capacity vs. Actual Loading; The incinerators of
the Bissell Point Plant are designed to incinerate 250 tons per
day each of wet sludge, along with some grease and scum. Sludge
storage is limited, however, and the incinerators must operate
at loading rates ranging from 40 to 100 percent of their capacity.
For each day of routine operation, the loading rate (expressed
as percentage of full capacity, depending on the number of incin-
erators in operation) was plotted against the efficiency; this
correlation is shown in Figure S-2.
There is a clear trend towards lower thermal efficiency
at lower loadings. According to a best-fit straight line, the
efficiency drops from 41.5% at full capacity to 29.5% at half
capacity. Thus, on the average, an incinerator at half capacity
is only 71% as efficient as one at full capacity. This lower
thermal efficiency represents the need for an additional 1040 BTU
of heat input for each pound of water that must be evaporated.
The reason for the direct correlation between lower
loading rates and reduced thermal efficiency can be found by
further examination of this data. There are two common features
for each one of those facilities that were investigated. First,
the induced draft mechanism provided a constant volume of com-
bustion air under all sludge load conditions. Second, the rabble
arms which move the sludge downward through the incinerator rotate
at a constant speed under all conditions.
The losses of thermal energy in heating up the excess
combustion air and its associated moisture content were not
included in the calculations of efficiency discussed above. The
heat requirement of the excess combustion air, at 0.01 Ib. water
vapor per Ib. of air, is about 300 BTU per pound. Using a value
of 50% excess air over that required for combustion, about 70% of
the loss of efficiency can be explained by the extra heat necessary
to heat the excess air to the sludge's burning point. If the
* Weighted for amount of sludge processed each day
163
-------
FIGURE 1
EFFICIENCY VERSUS LOADING BISSELL POINT PLANT
EFFICIENCY VERSUS LOADING
BISSELL POINT PLANT
-------
excess air inputs were near zero, the efficiency would increase
by more than 10%. While a reduction to zero excess air is not
feasible, this exercise illustrates the importance of combustion
air control.
In the installations examined, the fixed combustion air
input had a major impact on efficiency at less than full capacity
operation. For example, when an incinerator with 50% excess
combustion air feed is operated at half capacity, the actual
excess air becomes 200% of that required.
b. Starting and Stopping; Three of the four plants
examined operate incinerators continuously. The Jersey City
incinerator, however, operates only about 7 hours per day, 5 days
per week. Intermittent operation might be expected to be less
efficient than continuous operation, but Table S-l does not
support this conclusion: Jersey City actually operated slightly
more efficiently than the others. Although it must use auxiliary
fuel for starting, Jersey City prossibly makes up for the loss
by running at a higher capacity, thereby gaining thermal efficiency.
At the Bissell Point plant, incinerator startups occurred about
every 11 to 12 days during the first six months of 1975.
D. Proposed Installation at Deer Island
1. Description
The proposed incinerators, to be located at Deer Island,
would burn anaerobically digested and raw primary sludge. There
will be three multiple hearth incinerators, each with a capacity
of 410 tons per day wet sludge. Air pollution control devices
will include a venturi scrubber and four impingement trays and
afterburners which can be used if needed.
Sludge would be dewatered by vacuum filters or by filter
presses. The quantity and characteristics of the sludge have
been estimated and are shown in Table S-2.
TABLE S-2
SLUDGE QUANTITY AND CHARACTERISTICS *
_. 1980 1985
Average Peak Average Peak
Dry solids, Ib/day x 103 3 228 280 255 312
Dry volatile solids, Ib/day x 10 110 138 129 162
Ash, Ib/day x 1Q3 118 142 126 150
Percent volatile solids 48 51 50 52
Moisture percent 70 70 70 70
Heat value of volatile
solids, BTU/lb. 11,030 11,065 11,080 11,120
* From calculations by Havens & Emerson, Ltd., Consulting Engineers
165
-------
2. Heat Balance
Using the values in Table S-2, heat balances were computed
for the proposed incinerators. These indicated that, as designed,
the incinerators will burn sludge autogenously under steady state
conditions, i. e. without using auxiliary fuel. The heat balances
under equilibrium conditions (as determined by computer) are
summarized in Table S-3 (Havens & Emerson, 1973) .
The next step was to compute the efficiency of incineration,
as defined in Equation 2: this is shown in Table S-4.
TABLE S-4
PROPOSED INCINERATORS, EFFICIENCY VS. LOADING
1980 1985
Average Peak Average Peak
Loading, percent of
full capacity 94 58 53 65
Efficiency, percent 46.8 45.7 45.1 45.1
BTU required to evaporate
1 Ib. water 2260 2320 2350 2350
It is apparent that the proposed incinerator is assumed to
achieve an efficiency only slightly higher than that achieved by
installations now operating. Furthermore, there is very little
decrease in efficiency at lower loadings. The reasons for this
improved performance will be examined in the next section.
3. Engineering Improvements
a. Control of Combustion Air; The proposed incinera-
tors will offer improved process air control by the following
means:
• A variable speed induced draft fan to allow
control of the total amount of combustion air.
• Adjustment of the combustion air according to
the oxygen content of the stack gasses.
166
-------
TABLE S-3
HEAT BALANCE AT EQUILIBRIUM CONDITIONS (SUMMARY^*
1980
1985
Wet feed,lb/hr (each unit)
Number of incinerators in
operation
Moisture content of feed, %
Base temperature of feed, °F
Base temperature of air, °F
Moisture in air, Ib/lb.
Temperature of flue gas at
exit, °F
Temperature of ash at exit, QF
Excess air, % of theoretical air
Total air required for
combustion, Ib/hr.
Cooling air lost to
atmosphere, %
Radiation loss, BTU/ft2/hr.
Total heat in flue gases above
60 °F, BTU/hr. (includes vapor)
Fuel oil required
(143,000 BTU/gal), gal/hr.
50
130
Peak
31,600 19,400
54,567 34,195
50
130
48,574 30,047
Average Peak
17,700 21,700
1
70
60
60
0.01
911
600
50
2
70
60
60
0.01
912
600
50
2
70
60
60
0.01
938
600
50
2
70
60
60
0.01
995
600
50
32,022 40,426
50
130
50
130
28,048 35,802
* From calculations by Havens and Emerson, Ltd., Consulting Engineers (1973)
167
-------
The effects of these improvements can be seen by
looking at the heat balance. At 53% loading, (1985 - Avg.) the
incinerator would, without control of the total combustion air,
have 185% excess air instead of 50%, or about 29,000 pounds per
hour more than necessary. To heat this air would require auxiliary
fuel which would waste about 9.1 x 106 BTU per hour (about 740 BTU
per pound of water evaporated), and would cause the thermal efficiency
to drop to about 34%. Thus, without this improvement, the proposed
incinerator would have an efficiency similar to existing installations.
The 50% excess air condition would occur only under steady-
state conditions. Under transient conditions of underloading, the
excess air quantity could rise to 75%. Accordingly, the fuel re-
quirement to heat 75% excess air was compared with the fuel
requirement under 50% excess air conditions. This requirement is
based on 0.29 additional pounds of air (at 0.01 Ib moisture per
Ib air), per wet pound of sludge and 316 BTU required to heat one
pound of air. This calculation yields an auxiliary fuel requirement
of 4.4 gallons of oil per dry ton of sludge if no excess heat is
available from the burning sludge. However, this volume of auxiliary
fuel would be reduced because of two other considerations.
First, the thermal efficiency required operating with
75% air and autogenous conditions would be only about 50%; this
compares favorably with the 45% to 46% thermal efficiency predicted
in the steady state heat balances done by Havens and Emerson. Second,
the auxiliary fuel requirement, if any, would not be necessary under
steady state conditions (50% excess air). Independent calculations
(Olexsey, 1975) have indicated that incineration may be autogenous
even with 75% excess air, indicating that the higher efficiency
may be achieved.
b. Control of Residence Time in Incinerator; In addition
to control of excess air, the residence time of sludge in the
incinerator can be controlled by varying rabble arm rotational
speed and by introducing sludge at several different points in
the incinerator. With these modifications to standard design,
the sludge residence time can be varied to obtain optimum contact in
each hearth. During underloading conditions with fixed arm speed
and single feed, the drying and burning occur only in upper hearths,
distilling volatile components out, thus generating odors. With
variable arm speed and multiple feed points, the use of afterburners
can be reduced if not eliminated.
c. Heat Recovery; The proposed incinerator will have a
heat recovery unit to convert heat contained in the stack gases to
electrical energy. It is estimated by Havens & Emerson that as much
as 38% of the flue gas heat can be recovered. Although heat recovery
has not been included in the previous efficiency calculations, it
could represent a very substantial energy savings, even at lower
recovery rates, and raise overall efficiency to as high as 60% to
75%. Three facts should be noted, however:
168
-------
• Although heat recovery from flue gases is common
in the chemical processing industry, heat recovery
from sludge incinerators remains to be proven in
long-term operation.
• It will definitely not be energy-efficient to
burn and recover heat from excess auxiliary fuel,
i.e. to operate the incinerator as a power
boiler. In this mode, the sludge incinerator
would have a net efficiency of only 23 percent
compared to 38 percent for commercial power
boilers.
• Another study (ISC, 1975) has recommended that
gases exit the power boiler at 500°F to prevent
deposition on the boiler tubes. This would halve
the available thermal energy and would double the
cost of such power.
Because of these reasons, the question of thermal energy
recovery has been separated from the incineration alternatives.
d. Sludge Storage; The anaerobic digesters give Deer
Island a large amount of sludge storage. They also serve to in-
sulate the incinerators from day-to-day variations in settled sludge
characteristics. With control of the feed rate, and with
near-constant sludge quality, the operators will be able to adjust
the incinerators for efficient burning and maintain this condition
for long periods of time. Thus, the large daily variations in
efficiency noted at Bissell Point can be avoided in Boston.
E. Conclusions
After comparing the proposed incineration to existing
installations, the following is concluded:
1. Boston incinerators would be able to operate significantly
more efficiently in burning sludge than the existing in-
stallations studied for this evaluation. This is prin-
cipally due to (a) improved control of the total combustion
air; (b) the variable speed of the rabble arms (both of
which result in better efficiencies at partial loadings);
and (c) the large amount of sludge storage, which allows
for more constant operating conditions.
2. Given the improved efficiency described above, it is likely
that sludge from the Deer Island and Nut Island plants will
burn autogenously.
3 If practical, heat recovery from flue gases offers poten-
tially substantial energy savings, but there are significant
questions as to whether or not it is feasible. However,
whether or not it is feasible will not have a substantial
169
-------
impact on the selection of incineration as a total
concept over the other possible courses of action.
The issue of heat recovery for electrical generation
is a final design question that needs to be addressed
in detail by MDC only if incineration as a total pro-
gram is chosen. However, should energy recovery be
feasible, the incinerators should not be used to burn
excess auxiliary fuel for power production.
4. Based on the Bissell Point startup interval of 11-12
days, the proposed MDC facility would experience a
startup approximately every 10 days. Because each
startup requires 4,000 gallons of fuel, the daily
average startup fuel requirement would be 400 gallons
per day.
F. Measures to be Taken to Insure Autogenous Operation
While the conclusion has been drawn that the incinerators
contemplated by the MDC could operate autogenously under variable
load conditions, there is still some question as to whether or not
this would be the case during actual operation. Should incineration
be chosen as the best method for MDC sludge handling and disposal,
the following conditions could be included in the contract
documents:
• Incinerator acceptance testing should be done at several
levels of loading to the incinerator. Commonly, specifi-
cations only require autogenous operation at 100% loading.
Because the system is arranged to operate without
auxiliary fuel over a wider loading range, this should
be so specified.
• The incinerator supplier should be required to perform
not only startup but also operator training and prepara-
tion of operating guidance.
• Using the proposed oxygen sensor in the offgas system
the supplier should determine the best combinations of
combustion air feed rate and rabble arm speed for
several conditions of dry solids loading, volatile solids
loading, and sludge moisture content. With these
relationships, the operator would not be dependent upon
continuous operation of the oxygen sensor to maintain
autogeny.
With these specifications and using the improvements developed
by Havens and Emerson, the proposed sludge incineration system can
operate autogenously a large percentage of the time.
170
-------
APPENDIX T
PROCESS AND TRANSPORTATION INPUTS OF
LABOR, MATERIAL, ENERGY AND MONETARY COSTS
Inputs of materials and energy are a major question in
focusing on the best alternative for sludge management. In
addition to their dollar costs, these inputs can have major
impacts in their own right. For example, the construction
and operation labor for a given alternative will have some
impact on employment, on government operating budgets, and
on regional balances between export and local employment.
Accordingly, sources of data for the various process inputs
are developed below, followed by a tabulation of inputs of
labor, materials, energy and cost for each of the alterna-
tives .
A. Sources and Methodology Used to Compute Input Quantities
Within each of the major categories of input (labor, energy,
materials, dollars), some information sources were used to a
greater extent than were others. Energy inputs for transpor-
tation (Hirst, 1973; Ashtakala, 1975 are used throughout the
report and have considerable impact on the energy intensive-
ness of a given alternative. The sources and methodologies
used in this analysis were as shown in succeeding paragraphs.
1. On-Site Processes
On-site process inputs were developed from the original
Havens and Emerson work for the MDC (Havens and Emerson, 1973
and 1974) and from general process data developed by the U. S.
EPA (Smith, 1973 and CEQ, 1974). The electrical energy inputs
for dewatering and incineration were developed from EPA Re-
search Reports (Smith, 1973, and CEQ, 1974) and were converted
to diesel fuel equivalents expressed in gallons of #2 diesel
fuel per day. The basis for this calculation was the size of
the process facilities as developed by Havens and Emerson.
Electrical energy inputs were converted to equivalent fuel
inputs assuming 32.5% efficiency of power production. The
fuel value used for #2 diesel fuel was 143,000 BTU per gallon.
Fuel requirements for incineration are based on Havens
and Emerson calculations (H&E, 1973) for pilot fuel and start-
up fuel requirements, assuming one start every ten days
(Appendix S).
171
-------
Chemical inputs for sludge conditioning consist of 7%
lime (CaO) and 2.5% ferric chloride (FeCl3) as a fraction
of the dry solids for the conditioning of sludge prior to
dewatering. Daily requirements for lime and ferric chloride
were based on projected quantities of sludge for the year
1985. Manpower requirements for the operation and mainten-
ance of each on-site process were based on data presented
in existing EPA manuals (CEQ, 1974) or reasonable man-hour
estimates.
Operation and maintenance costs for on-site processes
are calculated from the inputs based on these same reference
sources. The value of electrical energy used in computing
annual credit for thermal energy recovery was $0.045 per kwh,
which was also used in analyzing the cost effectiveness of
energy recovery. Operating and maintenance labor costs were,
in turn, based on manhour requirements assuming an hourly
wage rate of $5.70 (Havens & Emerson, 1973) + 20% fringe
benefits for a wage rate of $6.84/hour. These costs were
compared to present hourly rates and found to be within 1%
(MDC, 1978). Maintenance supply costs are assumed to be
approximately 2 to 4% of the equipment cost for each year
of operation. Current costs for chemicals are approximately
$40 per ton for lime and approximately $120 per ton for fer-
ric chloride (ENR, 1978) .
Capital inputs and costs of on-site process facilities
were developed based on the Havens & Emerson Phase I (1985)
costs (H&E, 1974) with only sludge process-related costs
used. Items included were dewatering and incineration facil-
ities and the sludge pump station and force main. Calcula-
tions for the alternatives not incorporating incineration
(alternatives 4, 5 and 6) were done by subtracting inciner-
ator costs (developed from EPA cost curves) from the costs
of dewatering and incineration facilities. Annual capital
costs were developed using 6.625% interest for 20 years,
assuming no salvage value. The July 1973 EPA Construction
Index for the Boston area was 188.63. The April 1975 Index
for the Boston area is 240.30. The costs developed by Havens
& Emerson were scaled up by a factor of 1.27 for current con-
ditions. In going from Draft to Final EIS, an additional
increment of 1.14 times the 1975 costs is required by the
increase of the new EPA LSAT Index for Boston from 135 to
154 in the intervening period.
The manpower for construction was developed from the
Sewer and Sewage Treatment Plant Construction Cost Index
documentation (FWPCA, 1964). The hypothetical "1 mgd
trickling filter plant in Kansas City" used 33,970 manhours
and $368,834 for construction. Based on manhours per capital
dollar scaled back to 1962 conditions (EPA index base year),
172
-------
this yields 0.0921 manhours per base year capital dollar or
0.0383 manhours per capital dollar at the present Boston
area index of 154 (1973 National Average = 100). This was
converted to 16.1 manyears per million dollars of capital
cost.
Capital inputs of concrete and steel are estimated from
the CEQ-EPA document, Municipal Sewage Treatment, A Compari-
son of Alternatives (CEQ, 1974), using a range of process
costs and inputs to develop a log-linear relationship.
2. Transportation, Storage and Application Facilities
From the on-site processes, the product is to be trans-
ported to landfill, either on or off Deer Island. Because
of the impacts on Winthrop residents from sludge or ash
transport through Winthrop, barging to a dedicated terminal
was made the initial linkage in Alternative 1. Barge capa-
cities for 1 and 9 were based on sizing to smooth the oper-
ation of further transport linkages, with small (300 DWT)
barges being used.
Transport to storage or fill would be done with 40,000-
pound capacity trailers. The estimated number of tractors
and trailers for each alternative is based on amount trans-
ported and turnaround time.
Operation and maintenance costs for the transport,
storage and disposal of ash are based on the $6.84 hourly
wage rate previously identified. The cost of transport
fuel for landfill is based on $2.70 per million BTU of
energy ($0.38 per gallon of diesel fuel). Mileage costs
of $0.10 per mile of truck transport reflect the costs of
maintenance and other minor costs associated with vehicle
operation. Barge transport mileage costs are $0.003 per
ton mile (Hirst, 1973) and are assumed to include the two
costs. The costs of landfilling of ash range from $8.00
to $10.00 per ton, so $10.00 per ton was used (St. Hilaire,
1978). Estimated cost for transfer of trailers at the bar-
ging facility is $50.00 per trailer (total both directions),
assuming roll-on-roll-off facilities.
Capital costs of transport and application equipment
and facilities include costs of container-trailers <*eyrick,
1975), and tractors (Havens & Emerson, 1973, checked by r,col
Sciences, 1975). Barge costs were based on actual iy/b
prices for ferry-type barges (surplus LST). For vehicles
other then barges/replacement at 10 years was assumed, with
no salvage J/alue after 10 years.
173
-------
To determine cost effectiveness of thermal energy con-
versions to electrical energy, thermal energy recoverable
by a 500°F temperature drop (1000°F to 500°F) was calculated.
The electrical energy needs of the dewatering and incinera-
tion units were then subtracted, and the remaining available
electrical energy of about 9.9 x 106 kwh per year was multi-
plied by $0.045 per kwh to yield an annual credit of $444,000
per year for a 20-year present value of $4,844,000. Incorpor-
ating this credit, the present worth energy cost without
thermal energy recovery of $2,695,300 is greater than the
net cost of $2,540,000 with energy recovery.
B. Calculation of Alternative Inputs
In Table T-l, the calculations and inputs of capital,
labor, energy and chemicals are presented for dewatering,
incineration and energy recovery, based on the data from
Section A above and from Appendix N, "Quantity and Quality
of Solid and Liquid Emissions."
In Table T-2, the calculations of transport and disposal
inputs and costs are presented showing differential inputs of
the feasible alternatives.
It should be noted that the credit shown for electrical
energy recovery is actually money that will be saved on other
energy use within the MDE Deer Island Plant. For example,
conversions of existing diesel pumps to electrical operation
will require 100,000 to 200,000 kwh per day. Incorporation
of the energy cost of lime and ferric chloride was done by
using 5.5 x 106 BTU/ton of lime and 21,000 BTU/pound of
chlorine (Argo & Wesner, 1976). The total energy cost of
chemicals then becomes about 50 x 10^ BTU per year, and the
net energy production with thermal energy recovery becomes
52-54 x 109 BTU per year.
174
-------
TABLE T-l
RESOURCES AND COSTS
ON-SITE PROCESSES
Capital Costs ( 1978 ) and Inputs
Inputs: Labor
Concrete
Steel
480 manyears
2,000 CY
1,500 Tons
Costs: Dewatering & Incineration
Thermal Energy Recovery
Total Cost
Annual Capital Cost
Operating Resource Costs and Inputs
Inputs:
Labor
Electrical Energy
Fuel, Pilot & Auxiliary
Chemicals: CaO
Fed,
113,900 manhr/year
5.49 x 106 kwh/year
147,800 gallons/year
3,250 tons/year
1,170 tons/year
Costs:
Labor
Electrical Energy
Fuel
Chemicals: CaO
FeCl3
Maintenance: 2.5% of Dewatering & Incineration
10% of Energy Recovery Equipment
Annual O & M Costs
Total Annual Costs
Annual Credit for Electricity
Net Annual Cost
Net Annual On-Site Energy Production
$ 25,652,500
4,213,600
$ 29,866,100
$ 2,737,500
779,100/year
247,000/year
56,160/year
130,000/year
140,400/year
641,300/year
148,500/year
$ 2,142,460
$ 4,879,960
$ 441,000
$ 4,438,960
54 x 109 BTU/year
175
-------
TABLE T-2
Operating Resources
Barge Link, Miles
Ton Mi/Year
BTU/Year
Annual Fuel Use, Gallons
Annual Labor, Hours
Truck Link, Miles
Ton Mi/Year
BTU/Year
Annual Fuel Use, Gallons
Annual Labor, Hours
Disposal Operation
Tons/Year
Cubic Yards/Year
Area Reqd., 15' Depth, Acres
30" Depth, Acres
Labor
Capital Resources
Barge Link
Roll-on Facilities
Barge-Ferry
Truck Link
Tractors
Trailers
RESOURCES
TRANSPORTATION AND
1 2
6.3
1.45 x 106
1.63 x 108
1,160
6,240
30 0.4
689,800 9,200
1.39 x 109 1.84 x 10?
9,650 130
10,400 6,240
23,000 23,000
34,100 34,100
1.41
0.70
2,080
2 @ $100,000
1 @ $300,000
9 @ $ 35,000 2 @ $35,000
9 @ $ 22,000 3 @ $22,000
AND COSTS
ULTIMATE DISPOSAL
A L T E R N A
8
_
-
-
-
1.0
23,000
4.6 x 107
320
6,240
23,000
34,100
1.41
-
2,080
~
2 @ $35,000
3 @ $22,000
T I V E
9
5.5
1.27 x 105
1.42 x 108
1,000
6,240
0.2
4,600
9.2 x 106
65
6,240
23,000
34,100
1.41
-
2,080
1 @ $100,000
1 @ $300,000
4 @ $ 35,000
6 @ $ 22,000
10 11
_ -
-
-
- -
0.2 1.0
4,600 23,000
9.2 x 106 4.6 x 107
65 320
6,240 6,240
23,000 23,000
34,100 34,100
1.41
0.70
2,080 2,080
— —
2 @ $ 35,000 2 @ $ 35,000
3 @ $ 22,000 3 @ $ 22,000
-------
TABLE T-2 (Cont'd.)
RESOURCES AND COSTS
Capital Resources (Cont'd.)
Disposal Site Prep.
Cofferdam
Lining and Recycle
Leachate Treatment
Monitoring Wells
Total Annual Operating Resources
Fuel, Gallons/Year
Labor, Hours/Year
Land, Acre/Year
Equivalent Energy, BTU/Year
Total Annual Costs
Capital Costs
Barge
Roll-on Facilities
Tractors & Trailers *
Disposal Site Prep.
Annual Capital Costs, 6-5/8%
Annual Operating Costs
Fuel @ $0.38/gallon
Labor @ $6.84/hour
Transfer Fees, $/Year
Landfill Fees, $/Year
Maintenance
Total Operating Costs
Total Annual Costs, without Grant
with Grant
TRANSPORTATION AND ULTIMATE DISPOSAL
ALTERNATIVE
1
-
-
10,720
16,640
1.41
1.53 x 109
$300,000
$200,000
$733,000
$148,400
$ 4,075
$113,820
$ 60,000
$230,000
$103,300
$511,195
$659,595
$574,825
2
7ac @ $685,700
-
130
8,320
0.70
1.53 x 109
$136,000
$4,800,000
$459,000
$ 50
$ 56,910
$ 13,600
$ 70,560
$529,560
$187,115
8
15 @ $39,000
2 @ $ 2,000
320
8,320
1.41
4.58 x 10?
$136,000
$589,000
$ 73,000
$ 120
$ 56,910
$ 13,600
$ 70,630
$143,630
$ 90,690
9
15 @ $39,000
-
1,065
8,320
1.41
1.52 x 108
$300,000
$100,000
$272,000
$595,000
$ 90,770
$ 405
$ 56,910
$ 57,200
$114,515
$209,865
$149,970
10
7 @ $685,700
$22,000
-
65
8,320
0.70
9.3 x 106
$ 136,000
$4,822,000
$ 461,000
$ 25
$ 56,910
$ 13,600
$ 70,535
$531,535
$187,620
11
15 @ $39,000
2 @ $ 2,000
320
8,320
1.41
4.58 x 107
$136,000
$589,000
$ 73,000
$ 120
$ 56,910
$ 13,600
$ 70,630
$143,630
$ 90,690
*Using 10-year equipment life for trucks and trailers.
-------
TABLE T-2 (Cont'd.)
RESOURCES AND COSTS
TRANSPORTATION AND ULTIMATE DISPOSAL
ALTERNATIVE
CO
Totals Including Dewatering,
Incineration/ and Energy
Recovery
Total Annual Costs
Including Incinerator,
without Grant
with Grant
Total Annual Net Energy
Production, BTU x 109
$5,089,555
2,960,660
52
$4,959,320
2,572,950
54
$4,573,420
2,476,525
54
$4,635,245
2,535,805
54
10
$4,961,495
2,573,455
54
11
$4,573,420
2,476,525
54
-------
APPENDIX U
ANALYSIS OF EXISTING SLUDGE DUMPING ACTIVITIES
AND THE KNOWN ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Introduction
This appendix contains a discussion of the environmental
effects on the ocean resulting from sludge disposal operations
of the New York Metropolitan Area, and (to a lesser extent) the
City of Philadelphia. Both operations have been studied in de-
tail and provide a preliminary basis for predicting the potential
effects of sludge disposal in the ocean. The discussion centers
on both the particular experiences at these sludge disposal sites
and general information about ocean processes which affect, or
are impacted by, sludge disposal. The discussion is broken
into subject topics such as biota or trace metals so that dis-
cussions of New York's or Philadelphia's dumping are accompanied
(where possible) by an explanation of the processes responsible
for the observed effect.
B. Current Dumping Activities
Sewage sludge is dumped into the ocean by both the New York
Metropolitan Area and the City of Philadelphia. New York dumps
4.1 million wet tons of sludge per year into the New York Bight,
into water approximately 90 feet deep. The City of Philadelphia
dumps 0.6 million wet tons of sewage sludge per year into the
Chesapeake Bight at a dumpsite about 40 miles east of Ocean City,
Maryland (USDC, 1975B). New York dumps sludge containing five
percent solids while Philadelphia dumps sludge containing 14
percent solids (NAS, 1975).
C. Physical and Chemical Effects of Sludge Dumping
1. Composition of Sludge
Sewage sludge contains large amounts of organic matter and
traces of other substances including heavy metals, organohalogens,
pathogens, floatables, oils, greases and plant nutrients. Sewage
sludge is composed primarily of fine particulate matter (NAS, 1975).
The solids portion of sewage sludge consists of two distinct frac-
tions. These fractions are: (1) the heavier solids which sink
rapidly to the bottom; and (2) dissolved solids, suspended solids
and floatable materials. Organic portions include mostly amorphous
aggregates which may have some identifiable material such as seeds,
hair and cellulose (USDC, 1975B). When sludge is discharged into
the ocean it undergoes physical fractionation and chemical and
biological changes. Microbial species composition changes, bio-
logical degradation begins, and differential settling takes place.
179
-------
2. Physical Dispersion of Solids
The dispersion of sludge particles on the bottom and in the
water column is dependent upon the density, shape and size of
the particles and the current activity in the vicinity of the
discharge. Fine-grained and/or low density particles will stay
in suspension for a longer time than coarser, denser particles.
A portion of sewage sludge solids are likely to remain in sus-
pension after being dumped. The suspended materials are likely
to be transported out of the dump area by any existing currents.
The average sedimentation rate of the New York Bight sludge
dumpsite was 4 mm/year over an area of 36 km2 between 1964 and
1968 (NAS, 1975). According to Pararas-Caryannis (NAS, 1975),
the apparent absence of thick coastal deposits at the New York
Bight sludge dumpsite indicates either that the organic matter
is rapidly degraded or that a transport mechanism is removing
both organic and inorganic sediments. Although sludge dumping
in the New York Bight does not appear to have altered bathymetry,
fine particles have had an effect on the grain size distribution
of bottom sediments in an area north of the sludge dumpsite
(USDC, 1975A).
Concentrations of suspended solids in the bottom one third
of the water column overlying and immediately surrounding the
New York sludge dumpsite are 30 to 50 percent greater than at
locations in the same area not used for dumping (USDC, 1974).
Turbidity currents appear to play an important role in the re-
moval of waste sediment from the New York Bight (Pararas -
Caryannis, 1973). Slicks of organic matter on the surface have
also been observed at the New York Bight sludge dumpsite (NAS,
1975). In the Philadelphia sludge dumpsite, turbidity clouds
have been observed to dissipate from 104 ppm to 10 ppm within
two hours time (NAS, 1975).
3. Turbidity
Turbidity may produce significant environmental effects
upon biota. Potential indirect effects of turbidity and silta-
tion upon marine organisms include clogged gills and impaired
respiratory exchange in fish and poor survival of larval stages
of fish and shellfish (NAS, 1975). Other potential indirect
effects include (NAS, 1975):
a. Reduction in light penetration and reduced photo-
synthesis.
b. Reduction of visibility to some feeding organisms.
c. Destruction of spawning areas.
d. Reduction of food supplies.
180
-------
e. Reduction of vegetational cover.
f. Trapping of organic matter, resulting in anaerobic
bottom conditioning.
g. Flocculation of planktonic algae.
h. Absorpution or adsorption of organic matter or
inorganic ions.
i. Adsorption of oil.
Crabs taken down current from the New York Bight are reported
to have their gills fouled with granular materials. The fouling
may have resulted from the pollution load rather than from the
sediment itself (NAS, 1975).
4. Dissolved Oxygen
The bulk of sewage wastes consist of biodegradable matter of
natural origin. After the sludge is dumped, degradation of organic
matter consumes oxygen. In the New York Bight dumpsite the rate
of oxygen consumption is between 16 and 330 g/kg at the surface
of the waste deposits (NAS, 1975). The oxygen content of the bot-
tom water is, on the average, two to three mg/1 lower than that
at the same depth in areas outside of the dump (NAS, 1975). The
most severe bottom water oxygen depletion occurs between July and
October when the thermocline limits natural mixing. Oxygen levels
of 2 mg/1, which are too low to support many marine forms may be
reached during the summer (NAS, 1975). However, oxygen deficient
waters are restored to near saturation values during seasons of
vertical mixing.
5. Bacteria and Pathogens
Bacterial contamination has also occurred as a result of
ocean disposal of sludge on the New York Bight. Shellfish near the
dumpsites contain high concentrations of coliform bacteria (USDC,
1975B). Coliform counts exceeding FDA's standards have been
found in surf clams collected 8 kilometers from the center of the
dumpsite (NAS, 1975). As a result, FDA has closed the area with
10 miles of the center of the site to fisheries.
Coliform contamination may be used as an indicator of the
potential presence of pathogenic bacteria and viruses. However,
the survival of pathogenic species in ocean water may not be the
same as that of the coliform group. In fact, sea water is bac-
tericidial to coliform bacteria (Ketchum, 1951). The die-off
rate of coliform in ocean water is very rapid making the use of
coliforms as indicators of bacterial contamination effective only
in the vicinity of the discharge. The National Academy of
Sciences (1975) was unable to find a study on the New York Bight
which isolated and identified pathogenic bacteria from sewage
sludge but referenced studies which indicate that Salmonella,
181
-------
which is often present in sewage sludge, is concentrated by
clams in other areas.
6. Heavy Metals
Sludge typically contains concentrations of heavy metals
much greater than those naturally occurring in marine sediments.
Very little is known about the physical and chemical state of
metals in sewage sludge. In anoxic environments, heavy metals
react with sulfide ions to form highly insoluble sulfides (NAS,
1975). Heavy metals are present in oxygen rich waters in soluble
forms. In seasonally stratified waters with anoxic zones near the
bottom, oxidized metals are generally present in the surface layers.
During the winter when storms mix and aerate the water, they will
occur in deeper waters (NAS, 1975),
Concentrations of copper, chromium, lead, and nickel in super-
ficial sediments in the New York Bight are ten to a hundred times
greater near waste disposal areas than in uncontaminated sediments
(Carmody, et. al., 1973). Table U-l compares the concentrations
of heavy metals found in both contaminated and uncontaminated
sediments in the New York Bight.
TABLE U-l
TRACE METALS IN NEW YORK BIGHT SEDIMENTS
[Source: Carmody, et. al., 1973]
Trace Metal Average Concentration (ppm dry sediment)
uncontaminated center of sewage sludge
sediments dump area
Chromium 6 105
Copper 3-5 141
Lead 12-14 170
Nickel 3-8 24
Zinc 18-20 254
The metals concentrations decrease with distance from the central
area of the disposal site. Broad tongues of contaminated sediment
stretching from the disposal site may indicate that some dispersal
by water currents is taking place (Carmody, et. al., 1973). Accumu-
lation of metals has been noted in Artico islandico (mahogany clam)
and Placopectan magellancus (scallop) on the Chesapeake Bight near
the Philadelphia dumpsite (USDC, A). Ketchum (NAS, 1975) has sug-
gested that microbial processes may be inhibited by heavy metals
in the sediments. Reduced microbial activity would decrease the
rate of waste degradation if it contained significant concentra-
tions of heavy metals. Central areas of high metal concentration in
the New York Bight correlate well with areas which show greatly
lowered populations of benthic fauna (Carmody, et.al., 1973).
182
-------
7. Toxic Materials
Marine ecosystems may be stressed by the introduction of
certain synthetic hydrocarbons. Many synthetic hydrocarbons
resist chemical and biological degradation and persist in ?he
marine environment. Chief toxicants in this category includS
her Cdes.and industrial compounds. ^Sas says
th . . as says
the polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBS) are concentrated
toeSvi™XSmV° ieV6lS exceedin9 10°'000 times ?he SmSunt
in their environment. Many organisms exposed to PCBS then become
litlons Y ?*n81tiVV° di?eaSe and Chan^s in environmental con-
*^1°*?; Concentration of PCBS equal to greater than 100 parts
19750? may al t0 Certain shrimP and fishes (USDC,
D. Impacts on Marine Life Forms
1. Benthos
Benthic organisms are usually in contact with polluted
sediments and overlying water for long periods of time, and
therefore are good indicators of chronic pollution. Benthic
organisms form an important link in the marine food chain.
They are important food sources for many sport and food fishes.
They also accumulate contaminants such as trace metals, petro-
chemicals and organic pollutants (NAS, 1975). In areas of the
New York Bight which are covered with sewage sludge, the macro-
benthos appear to be inhibited by the intermittent organic over-
load and the low oxygen stress (Rowe, 1971) . Microfauna occur
in even the most polluted areas (NAS, 1975). Species diversity
and total number of individuals is reduced for both macrofauna
and microfauna (NAS, 1975). Benthic communities are less
severely impacted immediately outside of the dump area (NAS, 1975).
2. Plankton
Studies of phytoplankton nutrients and productivity indicate
that the effects of dumping on planktonic composition in the
New York Bight are localized and almost imperceptible (USDC,
1975A) . The annual production of the Inner Bight which is com-
parable to that of very productive upwelling systems (USDC, 1975B)
is caused by the influx of nutrient rich water from the estuaries
which flow into the Bight.
Amoeba and ciliated protozoa are important components of the
plankton and benthos. A predominance of ciliates which feed upon
bacteria in the water above the sewage dump site has been noted
in the New York Bight (USDC, 1975B) . The ciliates Uronema nigrocans,
and Cyclidium poly schizonuclea turn have been found in close associa-
tion with the sewage dump site either in the sediments or in the
water overlying the dumpsite (USDC, 1975B) .
183
-------
3. Finfish
Stomach content analysis of fish collected from the vicinity
of the sludge dumps indicate that the fish mainly eat benthic or-
ganisms, but also ingest debris associated with the sludge (WAS,
1975). This poses the question of whether or not the fish are
also ingesting pathogenic organisms and other contaminants such
as heavy metals. A higher than normal incidence of fin rot dis-
ease is found in the New York Bight (USDC, 1975A). Twenty-two
species have fin rot, with the winter flounder being the most
susceptible (USDA, 1975A). However, researchers from the USDC
Stony Brook Lab have been unable to conclusively demonstrate any
relationship between fin rot and dumping practices.
E. Update on EPA Activity Related to Ocean Dumping in the New
York Bight
The most recent conclusions of EPA regarding the dumping
activities in the New York Bight are contained in a Draft Envir-
onmental Impact Statement (U.S.EPA 1976). While the proposed
action called for the designation of another dump site farther
out in the Bight, EPA decided, based on the most recent studies,
not to go ahead with that plan. Rather, it was decided that the
best course of action would be to continue use of the existing
site and continue to explore land-based alternatives. The rea-
soning behind this decision involved the facts that the existing
site was already degraded, and further dumping would aggravate
the situation there only slightly, while the proposed action
would significantly degrade the immediate area of any new dump
site, and adversely affect marine resources located there.
184
-------
APPENDIX V
AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS
A. Introduction
The air quality impact analysis for this study consists of
two parts. The first part is the emission burden analysis. For
each alternative, the principal pollutant sources are identified,
the emission factors for each pollutant of concern are estimated,
and the total amount of emissions are calculated. This emission .
burden analysis is intended to serve as a basis for comparing air
pollutant emissions among the action alternatives. The analysis
results can also be used as a basis for evaluating the effects
of the proposed alternatives on regional air pollutant emissions.
The methodology and assumptions used for this analysis and the
analysis results are discussed in section B of this Appendix.
The second part of the analysis is the detailed microscale air
quality analysis for the alternatives of concern. The project-
generated air pollutant concentrations will be calculated and compared
with the standards set in the regulation for Prevention of
Significant Deterioration of AirQuality as established in the
Clean Air Act Amendments of August 7, 1977. Then, the total
ambient air quality will be estimated by superimposing the project-
generated concentrations on the projected background air quality
concentration. The total ambient air quality concentrations will
be assessed in terms of meeting the Federal and Massachusetts
ambient air quality standards. The microscale air quality analysis
is discussed in Section C of this appendix.
*
B. Emission Burden Analysis
1. The Incineration Alternatives
Potential pollutant sources resulting from this alternative
and the various ash disposal options are: (a) incinerator;
(b) trucks to transport; (c) barge operation; and (d) pilot
fuel use.
a. The Incinerator: The major pollutants which may
be emitted from the proposed incinerators are particulate matter,
sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides. The U.S. EPA's promulated
New Source Performance Standards for municipal sludge incinerators
limit the discharge of particulate matter to a maximum of 1.30
Ibs. per ton of dry sludge input (U.S. EPA, 1971A) . Since the
proposed incincerators will be required to meet this standard,
the 1.30 Ibs. per ton of dry sludge per stack was used as the
particulate emission rate for the proposed incinerator.
185
-------
There is no effluent standard for sulfur dioxide discharge
from sewage sludge incinerators. The average emission factor for
sulfur dioxide is estimated to be approximately 2 Ibs. per ton of
dry sludge per stack. Based on the dry sludge loading of 2.655
tons per hours per unit, the daily emissions for particulates and
sulfur dioxide are calculated to be 75.2 and 115.8 kgs per day,
respectively. Average SC>2 emission from pilot and startup fuel is
5.5 kg/day.
The other pollutants which may be emitted from the in-
cinerators include nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide,
and heavy metals (such as mercury, lead, beryllium and vanadium).
The emission factors for nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons, obtained
from "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors" (U.S. EPA,
1975C), are 5, and 1 Ibs. per ton of dry sludge per unit,
respectively.
There is a hazardous pollutant standard limiting
the atmospheric discharge of mercury from incineration to a maximum
of 3,200 grams per day (40 CFR 61). For the period January-
June 1973, the Deer Island WWTP and the Nut Island WWTP sludges
contained an average mercury concentration of 14.2 mg per kg on a
mass weighted basis. The removal rate of mercury through scrubbers
installed on the incinerator at Livermore, California, was found
90.2 percent (Sebastian, 1975). Using a more conservative 60%
removal in the scrubber, the average amount of mercury discharge
from the proposed facility would be 657 grams per day in 1985.
The maximum mercury emission may reach 800 grams per day during peak
sludge burning conditions. It can be seen that the proposed mercury
emission standard will not be exceeded under 1985 conditions.
Analyses performed on Deer and Nut Island sludges during
this study indicate that the average lead concentration in the total
sludge mass is approximately 655 mg per kg of sludge. Based on the
lead removal efficiency of 99.15 percent found at the Livermore
incinerator (Sebastian, 1975), expected average lead emission rate
for the proposed project would be 653 grams per day, with a
maximum of 797 grams per day.
There is also a regulation limiting the maximum
beryllium emission to 10 grams over a 24 hour period (40 CFR 61).
The maximum beryllium concentration in the sludge is assumed
to be 0.77 mg per kg of dry sludge. Kaakinen (1975) has shown
that most of the beryllium in coal fired power plants remains in
the ash. Assuming that beryllium in sludges will act in a
similar manner, the average beryllium emission is estimated to
be 0.12 grams per day, which is well below the proposed
beryllium emission standard. And finally, the maximum vanadium
emission rate is estimated to be approximately 2.4 grams per
day, based on the sludge analyses performed for this study.
186
-------
There is also the potential for discharge of stable organic
compounds because of the content of pesticides and other persistent
organic compounds in the municipal sludge. In a randon selection
of sludges, EPA reported the following levels of organic compounds
present in raw sludges (U.S. EPA, 1975D):
Compound Range (parts per million)
Aldrin 16 (in one sludge only)
Dieldrin 0.08 to 2.0
Chlordane 3.0 to 32
DDD Not detected to 0.5
DDT Not detected to 1.1
PCB's Not detected to 105
Among these persistent organics, PCB's (polychlorinated-biphenyls)
are the most thermally stable component. It has been reported
that complete destruction of pure PCB's occurs at 2400°F in 2.5
seconds, with 99% destruction at 1600-1800°F in 2.0 seconds. In
combined incineration with municipal sludge, total destruction
was obtained at an exit temperature of 1100°F, with 95% destruction
at 700°F. The proposed incinerator system will have an average top
hearth temperature of around 960°F and a maximum temperature of
1400-1700°F. Thus, it can be assumed that most organic compounds
will be destroyed by incineration or remain as ash or vapors in the
water-scrubbed gas stream. The emission of the stable organics will
be minimal. Based on the above discussion, the daily pollutant
emissions from the incinerators under 1985 conditions are summarized
in Table V-l.
The other potential air pollutant sources associated with the
incineration alternative include truck transportation of ash,
barge transportation of ash, and the burning of prlot fuel.
b. Truck Transportation; It is assumed that 1980 model
diesel powered trucks with gross vehicle weights of 60,000 Ibs.
could be used for transporting incinerator ash. The EPA s
emission factors for 1980 model heavy duty diesel trucks in
1985 calendar year are listed below (U.S. EPA, 1975C).
1985 Calendar Year Emission Factors
Pollutant Emission Factor (g/mi)
Carbon monoxide 28.7
Hydrocarbons 4.6
Nitrogen oxides 18•1
Particulates 1-3
Sulfur dioxide 2-°
187
-------
Based on these emission factors and the estimated daily
travel miles, the truck emissions are calcualted as shown
in Table 1.
c. Barge Travel: The average fuel consumption
rate of diesel-powered barges was estimated at 8.73 gallons
per mile. Based on emission factors for diesel fuel (U.S.
EPA, 1975C), the daily emissions from barge travel were
calculated, and are also shown in Table 1.
d. Burning of Pilot and Startup Fuel; The incin-
erator will burn approximately 405 gallons of no. 2 diesel
pilot and startup fuel. This will produce small amounts of
pollutants, as shown in Table V-l.
2. Comparison of the Total Emissions from the Basic
Alternatives
Table V-l shows the partial emissions from each pollutant
source, and the total emissions from all sources for each
alternative. The majority of pollutant emissions for the
incineration alternative will be from the incinerators. The
estimated daily emission will be highest nitrogen dioxide,
followed by sulfur dioxide, and then particulates and hydro-
carbons. The mercury and lead emissions will be 0.657 and
0.797 kilograms per day, respectively.
C. Microscale Air Quality Analysis
1. Analysis of the Incinerator Emissions of 1985
As discussed in the previous section, the major pollutant
sources for the incinceration alternative include the incin-
erators, truck transportation, barge travel, and the burning
of pilot fuel. The incinerators account for more than 95% of
the total emissions for each pollutant of concern. Thus, the
air quality analysis for the incineration alternative will
concentrate on the impacts resulting from the incinerator
emissions, as shown in Table V-2.
The principal pollutants emitted from the incinerators
include particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, hydrocarbons,
nitrogen oxides, and heavy metals. Since the estimated total
heavy metal emissions will not exceed the proposed hazardous
pollutant effluent standards for mercury and beryllium, and
because there is no established air quality standard for
other heavy metals, the ambient heavy metal concentrations
188
-------
TABLE V-l
AIR POLLUTION EMISSIONS, 1985 CONDITIONS (kqs/dy)
oo
vo
Alternative 1
2 incinerators
Truck transportation
(189 miles/day)
Barge Travel
(6.3 miles/day)
Total
TSP
75.2
0.25
Pilot and startup fuel, 2.03
405 gal/day
3.03
SO2
115.8
0.50
5.5 0.58 0.29 8.11 N/A N/A N/A
2.27
1-82 1.36 2.12 N/A N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
80.51 124.07 7.82 60.33 302.63 0.122 0.797 0.00012 0.0026
CO HC NOx Hg_ Pb Be va Organics
neg. 57.8 289.0 0.122 0.797 0.00012 0.0026 neg.
5.42 0.88 3.4 neg neg. N/A N/A neg.
N/A
N/A
neg.
-------
TABLE V-l (Cont'd.)
vo
o
Alternative 2
2 incinerators
Truck transportation
(2.5 miles/day)
Pilot and startup fuel,
405 gal/day
Barge Travel
(0 miles/day)
TSP SC>2 CO
75.2 115.8 neg.
6.00 0.01 0.07
2.03
5.5
0.58
0.29
HC NOX Hg Pb Be Va Organic s
57.8 289.0 0.122 0.797 0.00012 0.0026 neg.
0.01 0.05 neg. neg N/A N/A neg.
8.11 N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Total
77.23 121.4
0.65
59.10 297.16 0.122 0.797 0.00012 0.0026
neg,
-------
TABLE V-l (Cont'd.)
Alternative 8
2 incinerators
Truck transportation
(6.3 miles/day)
Pilot and startup fuel,
405 gal/day
Barge Travel
(0.0 miles/day)
TSP
75.2
0.01
2.03
S02 CO HC
115.8 neg. 57.8
0.01 0.18 0.03
5.5 0.58 0.29
NOX Hg_ Pb Be_ Va Organics
289.0 0.122 0.797 0.00012 0.0026 neg
0.11 neg. neg. N/A N/A N/A
8.11 N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
Total
77.24 121.4 0.76 58.12 297.22 0.122 0.797 0.00012 0.0026 neg
-------
TABLE V-l (Cont'd.)
vo
Alternative 9
2 incinerators
Truck transportation
(1.3 miles/day)
Pilot and startup fuel,
405 gal/day
Barge Travel
(5.5 miles/day)
Total
75.2
0.00
2.03
2.65
79.88
Hcj.^^^ Organics
115.8 neg. 57.8 289.0 0.122 0.797 0.00012 0.0026 neg.
0.00 0.04 0.01 0.02 neg neg N/A N/A neg
5.5 0.58 0.29 8.11 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
1.98 1.59 1.19 1.87 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
123.28 2.21 59.29 299.0 0.122 0.797 0.00012 0.0026 neg.
-------
TABLE V-l (Cont'd.)
vo
Alternative 10
2 incinerators
Truck transportation
(1.3 miles/day)
Pilot and startup fuel,
405 gal/day
Barge travel
(0 miles/day)
Total
TSP SO2 CO
75.2 115.8 neg.
0.00 0.00 0.04
2.03
5.5
77.23 121.30
0.58
0.62
HC NOX H£ Pb Be Va Organics
57.8 289.0 0.122 0.797 0.00012 0.0026 neg.
0.01 0.02 neg neg N/A N/A neg
0.29
8.11
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
58.10 297.13 0.122 0.797 0.00012 0.0026 neg
-------
TABLE V-l (Cont'd.)
vo
Alternative 11
2 incinerators
Truck transportation
(6.3 miles/day)
Pilot and startup fuel.
405 gal/day
Barge Travel
(0.0 miles/day)
TSP
75.2
0.01
2.03
S02_ CO HC NOX Hg Pb Be_ Va Organics
115.8 neg. 57.8 289.0 0.122 0.797 0.00012 0.0026 neg.
0.01 0.18 0.03 0.11 neg neg N/A N/A neg.
5.5 0.58
0.29
8.11
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Total
77.24 121.31 0.76 58.12 297.22 0.122 0.797 0.00012 0.0026
neg.
-------
TABLE V-2
INCINERATOR FACILITY EMISSIONS
Proposed Incinerator Facilities on Deer Island
Number of units in operation
Number of stacks
Dry sludge loading
Total suspended particle (TSP) emissions:
Sludge emission factor
**Average emission rate
*Peak emission rate (at peak
sludge burning condition)
Sulfur dioxide emissions:
Sludge emission factor
**Average emission rate (excluding auxiliary
fuel emissions)
Peak emission rate (at peak sludge burning
condition)
Emission factor with afterburner (sludge
and fuel emission)
Emission rate with afterburner
Avg. fuel emission rate
**Avg. total emission rate (sludge and
auxiliary fuel emission)
Emission factor at startup condition (sludge
and fuel emission
*Emission rate at startup condition
Location of stacks
Height of stacks
Stack gas exit temperature
Ambient air temperature
Stack gas exit velocity
Stack effluent gas flow
/ or
Stack inside diameter
- 2
1 per unit
- 2.655 tons/hr/unit
- 1.3 Ib/ton dry sludge
- 0.434 gm/sec/unit
- 0.532 gm/sec/unit
- 2 Ib/ton dry sludge
- 0.67 gm/sec/unit
0.82 gm/sec/unit
- 3.6 Ib/ton dry sludge
1.205 gm/sec/unit
0.031 gm/sec/unit
- 0.701 gm/sec/unit
- 3.98 Ib/ton dry sludge
- 1.333 gm/sec/unit
- 40 feet center-to-center
- 110 feet above grade, 140 feet
above mean sea level
- 120°F
- 60°F
- 10 meters/sec
- 32,118 cubic feet per minute
per unit at 938°F
- 6.29 cubic meters per sec/unit
at 120°F
- 0.8949 meter
* These peak emission rates are used for analyzing short-term
(3 hour and 24 hour) air quality impacts.
"These average emission rates are used for analyzing annual air
quality concentrations.
195
-------
and their distribution will not be analyzed in the same
detail as for S02 and participates. In addition, the state
of the art is not currently advanced enough to estimate
impact on the long-term concentration of nitrogen dioxide
and hydrocarbons from a single source (i.e photochemical
oxidants). Thus, the emphasis of the air quality analysis
will be placed on particulate, sulfur dioxide, and
nitrogen oxides analysis.
For the ambient air quality analysis, the concentrations
resulting from the proposed projects are estimated and com-
pared with the allowable incremental concentrations estab-
lished in the August 7, 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments' section
Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality. Then
these project-generated concentrations are added to the pro-
jected background concentrations in order to get the total
ambient air quality concentrations. Thus, the estimated total
air pollutant concentrations can be compared with the natural
and state ambient air quality standards. The following sections
discuss the input data, methodology, and assumptions used in
the analysis of the incinerator-generated concentrations for
the study year, 1985.
a. Incinerator Parameters; The inputs of the
incinerators characteristics used for the air pollution
calculation are listed below.
It should be noted that consideration has been given
in determining these incinerators parameters in order to
minimize the possibility of aerodynamic downwash of pollutants
emitting from the stack. In general, a stack height of 2.5
times the highest building adjacent to the stack will overcome
the influence of aerodynamic turbulence around the building.
In addition, an effluent gas velocity of 1.5 times the pre-
vailing wind speed will prevent the downwash in the wake of
the stack. For the proposed incinerator, the highest adjacnet
building height is approximately 50 feet. The proposed stack
height of 110 feet plus the plume rise resulting from the high
exit gas velocity will minimize the effect of building obstruc-
tion. The effluent gas velocity of 10 meters per second
(22.37 miles per hour) will prevent downwash in the wake of the
stack during normal meteorological conditions.
196
-------
Worst Case Analysis: The national and Massachusetts
hd Duality standards are defined such that they may not
be exceeded more than once a year (except for annual average
concentrations). Therefore, to compare the possible future
ambient air quality to the standards, the worst case must be
considered.
In general, the ground level concentrations resulting
from stacks are a function of meteorological conditions such as
stability of the atmosphere, wind speed and direction, atmosphere
mixing height and ambient air temperature, stack parameters such
as height and inside diameter, exit gas speed and temperature,
and other factors. Based on the peak emission rates and other
stack parameters defined in the previous paragraph, the PTMAX
model, developed by the U. S. EPA, was used to determine the
worst meteorological conditions at which the maximum ground
level concentrations will occur. A detailed description of this
model is given in this report.
The analysis results of the maximum hourly concentrations
of particulates and sulfur dioxide resulting from a single stack
are presented in Tables V-3 and V-4. The corresponding wind
speed and downwind distance of maximum concentration for each
condition of stability are also in those tables.
However, these analysis results represent the concentrations
resulting from a single stack only. There are two proposed stacks
located approximately 40 feet apart on Deer Island. The total
maximum ground level concentrations from both stacks must be
determined. The following sections discuss the analysis for the
concentrations resulting from two incinerators.
c. Calculation of the Maximum Short-Term
Concentrations Resulting from Two Stacks; The
U.S. EPA's computer model PTMTP was used to calculate the
maximum hourly concentrations resulting from both stacks.
This model is capable of calculating the partial concentration
from each stack and the total concentration from multiple stacks
at a given meteorological condition.
As shown in Tables V-3, V-4 and V-5, the maximum
ground concentration is different for each condition of stability,
and so is the corresponding wind speed. Stability 1 will have
the highest maximum ground concentration, followed by stability
2, and then stabilities 3, 4, 5, and 6. According to the
historical meteorological data collected at Logan Airport, the
frequency of occurrence for stabilities 1, 2 or 3 is much less
than that of stability 4. Thus stability 4, with a wind speed
197
-------
TABLE V-3
ANALYSIS OF CONCENTRATION AS A FUNCTION OF STABILITY AND
WIND SPEED: PARTICULATES
*Maximum Predicted
Stability
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
Ground Level
Wind Speed
(m/sec)
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
2.0
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
7.0
10.0
12.0
15.0
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
7.0
10.0
12.0
15.0
20.0
2.0
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
Concentration At
Max. Cone.
(g/cu m)
2.8588 E-05 *
2.8411 E-05
2.7615 E-05
2.5312 E-05
2.2846 E-05
2.0748 E-05
1.-978 E-05
2.3295 E-05
2.4936 E-05 *
2.4914 E-05
2.3591 E-05
2.1698 E-05
1.9914 E-05
1.8322 E-05
15.6704 E-06
13.6264 E-06
2.1842 E-05 *
2.0209 E-05
1.8673 E-05
1.6061 E-05
14.0158 E-06
11.1110 E-06
8.4413 E-06
7.2688 E-06
6.0120 E-06
11.8494 E-06
15.1679 E-06
1.6275 E-05
1.7158 E-05 *
1.6801 E-05
1.5851 E-05
14.7545 E-06
12.8169 E-06
11.2553 E-06
8.9900 E-06
6.8704 E-06
5.9302 E-06
4.9167 E-06
3.8239 E-06
8.2978 E-06 *
7.2182 E-06
6.4246 E-06
5.3212 E-06
4.5798 E-06
198
Designated Stability
Dist. of Max.
(km)
0.445
0.362
0.331
0.281
0.255
0.239
0.228
0.740
0.565
0.505
0.416
0.372
0.345
0.328
0.306
0.292
0.569
0.525
0.496
0.460
0.439
0.415
0.397
0.390
0.383
3.243
2.037
1.684
1.253
1.055
0.961
0.908
0.843
0.805
0.760
0.727
0.715
0.702
0.689
2.543
2.415
2.319
2.181
2.085
(1 Hour)
Plume Height
Cm)
105.9
78.8
69.7
57.7
51.6
48.0
45.6
105.9
78.8
69.7
57.7
51.6
48.0
45.6
42.6
40.8
51.6
48.0
45.6
42.6
40.8
38.7
37.1
36.5
35.9
105.9
78.8
69.7
57.7
51.6
48.0
45.6
42.6
40.8
38.7
37.1
36.5
35.9
35.3
60.9
58.9
57.4
55.3
53.7
-------
TABLE V-3 CONT'D
Stability
6
6
6
6
6
Wind Speed
(m/sec)
2.0
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
Max. Cone.
(g/cu m)
6.9735 E-06 *
6.0814 E-06
5.4226 E-06
4.5016 E-06
3.8800 E-06
Dist. of Max.
(km)
4.498
4.239
4.046
3.773
3.584
Plume Height
(m)
56.2
54.6
53.4
51.6
50.3
•Maximum Ground Level Concentration
Note: E-05 = 10"5
199
-------
TABLE V-4
ANALYSIS OF CONCENTRATION AS A FUNCTION OF STABILITY AND WIND SPEED: SULFUR OXIDES
*Maximum
Stability
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
Predicted Ground Level
Wind Speed
(m/sec)
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
2.0
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
7.0
10.0
12.0
15.0
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
7.0
10.0
12.0
15.0
20.0
2.0
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
Concentration (1 Hour)
Max Cone.
(g/cu m)
8.4440 E-05 *
8.3918 E-05
8.1571 E-05
7.4766 E-05
6.7481 E-05
6.1284 E-05
5.6057 E-05
6.8808 E-05
7.3653 E-05 *
7.3588 E-05
6.9679 E-05
6.4092 E-05
5.8820 E-05
5.4116 E-05
4.6287 E-05
4.0248 E-05
6.4515 E-05 *
5.9694 E-05
5.5155 E-05
4.7439 E-05
4.1399 E-05
3.2820 E-05
2.4939 E-05
2.1470 E-05
17.7580 E-06
3.5001 E-05
4.4801 E-05
4.8069 E-05
5.0682 E-05 *
4.9627 E-05
4.6818 E-05
4.3582 E-05
3.7857 E-05
3.3245 E-05
2.6554 E-05
2.0294 E-05
17.5160 E-06
14.5224 E-06
11.2947 E-06
2.4509 E-05 *
2.1321 E-05
1.8976 E-05
15.7174 E-06
13.5277 E-06
Dist. of Max.
(km)
0.445
0.362
0.331
0.281
0.255
0.239
0.228
0.740
0.565
0.505
0.416
0.372
0.345
0.328
0.306
0.292
0.569
0.525
0.496
0.460
0.439
0.415
0.397
0.390
0.383
3.243
2.037
1.684
1.253
1.055
0.961
0.908
0.843
0.805
0.760
0.727
0.715
0.702
0.689
2.543
2.415
2.319
2.181
2.085
Plume Height
(m)
105.9
78.8
69.7
57.7
51.6
48.0
45.6
105.9
78.8
69.7
57.7
51.6
48.0
45.6
42.6
40.8
51.6
48.0
45.6
42.6
40.8
38.7
37.1
36.5
35.9
105.9
78.8
69.7
57.7
51.6
48.0
45.6
42.6
40.8
38.7
37.1
36.5
35.9
35.3
60.9
. 58.9
57.4
55.3
53.7
200
-------
TABLE V-4 CONT*D
Stability
6
6
6
6
6
Wind Speed
(m/sec)
2.0
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
Max. Cone.
(g/cu m)
2.0598 E-05
17.9630 E-06 *
16.0164 E-06
13.2965 E-06
11.4605 E-06
Dist. of Max.
(km)
4.498
4.239
4.046
3.773
3.584
Plume Height
(ml
56.2
54.6
53.4
51.6
50.3
*Maximum Ground Level Concentration
Note: E-05 = 10"
201
-------
TABLE V-5
ANALYSIS OF CONCENTRATION AS A FUNCTION OF STABILITY AND WIND SPEED: NITROGEN OXIDES
(1 HOUR)
* Maximum Predicted
Stability
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
Ground Level
Wind Speed
(m/sec)
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0.5
0,8
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
2.0
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
7.0
10.0
12.0
15.0
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
7.0
10.0
12.0
15.0
20.0
2.0
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
Concentration
Max. Cone.
(g/cu m)
13.5919 E-05 *
13.5079 E-05
13.1301 E-05
12.0348 E-05
10.8621 E-05
9.8647 E-05
9.0233 E-05
11.0758 E-05
11.8557 E-05 *
11.8452 E-05
11.2159 E-05
10.3166 E-05
9.4680 E-05
8.7109 E-05
7.4506 E-05
6.4786 E-05
10.3847 E-05 *
9.6087 E-05
8.8780 E-05
7.6360 E-05
6.6638 E-05
5.2828 E-05
4.0135 E-05
3.4560 E-05
28.5884 E-06
5.6339 E-05
7.2114 E-05
7.7374 E~05
8.1581 E-05 *
7.9883 E-05
7.5361 E-05
7.0152 E-05
6.0936 E-05
5.3512 E-05
4.2743 E-05
3.2666 E-05
28.1947 E-06
23.3761 E-06
18.1806 E-06
3.9451 E-05 *
3.4320 E-05
3.0545 E-05
25.2996 E-06
21.7749 E-06
Dist. of Max.
(km)
0.445
0.362
0.331
0.281
0.255
0.239
0.228
0.740
0.565
0.505
0.416
0.372
0.345
0.328
0.306
0.292
0.569
0.525
0.496
0.460
0.439
0.415
0.397
0.390
0.383
3.243
2.037
1.684
1.253
1.055
0.961
0.908
0.843
0.805
0.760
0.727
0.715
0.702
0.689
2.543
2.415
2.319
2.181
2.085
Plume Height
(m)
105.9
78.8
69.7
57.7
51.6
48.0
45.6
105.9
78.8
69.7
57.7
51.6
48.0
45.6
42.6
40.8
51.6
48.0
45.6
42.6
40.8
38.7
37.1
36.5
35.9
105.9
78.8
69.7
57.7
51.6
48.0
45.6
42.6
40.8
38.7
37.1
36.5
35.9
35.3
60.9
58.9
57.4
55.3
53.7
202
-------
TABLE V-5 CONT'D
Stability
6
6
6
6
6
Wind Speed
(m/sec)
2.0
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
Max. Cone.
(g/cu m)
3.3155 E-05
28.9143 E-06 *
25.7809 E-06
21.4029 E-06
18.4474 E-06
Dist. of Max.
(km)
4.498
4.239
4.046
3.773
3.584
Plume Height
(m)
56.2
54.6
53.4
51-6
50.3
*Maximura Ground Level Concentration
Note: E-05 = 10
E-06 = 10
-6
203
-------
of 1.5 meters per second, was used as the worst meteor-
ological condition for the analysis of the air quality
impacts.
This selected worst meteorological condition and
the parameters of the two proposed stacks were input into
the PTMTP model to calculate the maximum hourly ground level
condition. The partial concentrations from each stack and
the total concentration from both stacks were calculated at
27 selected receptor sites. The results are shown in Tables
V-6, V-7, and V-8. The receptor sites were selected so that
they correspond to the locations of maximum concentration
determined by the PTMAX. It can be seen that the maximum
hourly ground level concentration resulting from both stacks
will be 34, 102, and 164 micrograms per cubic meter for
particulates, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides, respectively.
The corresponding distance of this maximum concentration is
approximately 1.25 kilometer downwind from the stacks.
As indicated in the air quality summary, there are
24-hour and annual average air quality standards for particu-
lates; there are 3-hour, 24-hour, and annual average standards
for sulfur dioxide, and there is an annual average stand for
nitrogen oxides. In addition, the hourly standard of the
World Health Organization for nitrogen oxides is considered in
this report. In order to calculate the maximum ground level
concentration for time periods longer than 1 hour, meteor-
logical variations must considered. The maximum concentrations
for 3-hour and 24-hour time periods were obtained by multi-
plying the hourly concentration by the applicable meteor-
logical persistance factors listed below.
Meteorological
Sampling Time Persistance Factor
1 hour 1
3 hours 0.84 *
24 hours 0.25 **
* Suggested in Turner's Workbook, U.S. EPA publication AP-26.
** Suggested by Warren Peters, Region I EPA.
Thus, the maximum ground level concentrations resulting from
the proposed incinerator units are calculated as shown below:
204
-------
TABLE V-6
MULTIPLE SOURCE MODEL; PARTICULATES
Model CBT51
*** SOURCE'S
NO 0 HP
(G/SEC) (M)
* * *
TS
(OEG K)
VS
(M/SEC)
D
(f)
VF R S
(M**3/SEC) (KM) (KM)
1 0.84 33*5 322»0 6.3 0. C C.O
2 0.84 33.5 322.0 6.3 0.012 0.0
**,*RECEPTORSj***
NO RREC SREC * Z
(KM) (KM) (M)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
***METECROLOGY***
NO ThETA U KST HL T
IOEG) (f/SEC) (M) (CEG K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
U
15
16
17
18
19
-------
TABLE V-6 CONT'D
AVERAGE PARTICULATE CONCENTRATIONS FOR 1 HOUR
RECEPTOR NUMBER - PARTIAL CONCENTRATIONS
Stacks
1
2
Total
S
1
2
Total
S
1
2
Total
S
1
1
0
0
Concentration
0
1.
1.
7
7152
7136
E-05
E-05
Concentration
3.4229 E-05
1.
1.
13.
6298
6346
E-05
E-05
Concentration
3,2628 E-05
2.
19
2211
E-06
1.
1.
3.
1.
1.
3.
1.
1.
3.
12.
2
8812
6030
4842
8
7184
7184
4383
14
5840
5903
1743
20
7399
E-06
E-06
E-06
it
E-05
E-05
E-05
E-05
E-05
E-05
E-07
3
8.4922 E-06
8.0559 E-06
1.6581 E-05
9
1.7184 E-05
1.7184 E-05
3.4368 E-05
15
14.3618 E-06
14.4219 E-06
2.8787 E-05
4
14.4250 E-06
14.1484 E-06
2.8581 E-05
10
1.7168 E-05
1.7184 E-05
3.4336 E-05
16
11.9874 E-06
12.0412 E-06
2.4029 E-05
5
1.6251 E-05
1.6061 E-05
3.2312 E-05
11
1.6994 E-05
1.7026 E-05
3.4004 E-05
17
7.2955 E-06
7.3224 E-06
14.6179 E-06
6
1.6883
1.6820
3.3703
12
1.6678
1.6725
3.3419
18
4.4168
4.4279
8.8431
E-05
E-05
E-05
E-05
E-05
E-05
E-06
E-06
E-06
2.2258 E-06 12.7541 E-07
Total Concentration
4.4469 E-06 2.5499 E-06
*Maximum Ground Level Concentration
Note: E-05 = 10"5
206
-------
TABLE V-7
MULTIPLE SOURCE MODEL: SULFUR OXIDES
***
HC
0 U K. C E S *
Qt
'SEC)
2.48
2:48.3
HP
IM)
33o5
33.5
* *
TS
(OiG K)
322.0
322.0
VS
irt/seci
D VF
IM) (M**3/SEC)
6.3
6.3
R
(KM)
0.0
0.012
(KM)
o.o
^ /^
0.0
10
1
2
3
A
5
6
7
8
S
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
ARtC
(KM)
O.OC6
0.500
0.7CC
o.soc
l.OJO
1.100
L.2JC
1.25J
lo2.HO
1.3CC
L.nOC
1»500
i » ovl C
1.700
2. COG
2. 5CC
40JJO
6.COC
10.000
15.0JO
SREC
(KM)
0. 0
000
0.0
0.0
0»0
OoO
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.J
0. 0
OoO
0.0
J.O
OaO
0. 0
0.0
J.O
z
(M)
0.0
OaO
0.0
O.J
OoO
OaO
0.0
0.0
OoO
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.J
OoO
0.0
0. 0
JoO
0.0
0.0
0.0
207
-------
TABLE V-7 CONT'D
AVERAGE SULFUR DIOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS FOR 1 HOUR
RECEPTOR NUMBER - PARTIAL CONCENTRATION
Stacks 1
1 0.
2 0.
Total Concentration
0.0
5.5610 E-06
4.7370 E-06
10.2960 E-06
2.5092 E-05
2.3806 E-05
4.8898 E-05
4.2616 E-05
4.1814 E-05
4.8022 E-05
4.7481 E-05
4.9886E-0
4.9719E-0
8.4430 E-05 9.5485 E-05 9.9605E-0
1 5.0688 E-05
2 5.0632 E-05
Total Concentration
8 *
5.0800 E-05
5.0781 E-05
5.0763 E-05
5.0781 E-05
10
5.0725 E-05
5.0763 E-05
11
5.0203 E-05
5.0297 E-05
12
4.9290E-0
4.9420E-0
10.1339 E-05 10.1581 E-05 10.1544 E-05 10.1469 E-05 10-0500 E-05 9.8729E-0
S 13
1 4.8134 E-05
2 4.8283 E-05
Total Concentration
9.6436 E-05
14
4.6810 E-05
4.6978 E-05
9.3789 E-05
15
4.2430 E-05
4.2616 E-05
8.5046 E-05
16
3.5420 E-05
3.5588 E-05
17
18
2.1588 E-05 13.0495E-0
2.1644 E-05 13.0831E-0;
7.1008 E-05 4.3194 E-05 2.6136E-01
S 19
1 6.5639 E-06
2 6.5751 E-06
Total Concentration
20
3.7639 E-06
3.7694 E-06
13,1371 E-06 7.5333 E-06
*Maximum Ground Level Concentration
Note: E-05 = 10
-5
208
-------
TABLE V-8
MULTIPLE SOURCE MODEL: NITROGEN OXIDES
1
&
* * *
NO
1
2
3
A
5
^
7
g
V
s
10
1 i
^ i
12
13
15
16
17
Id
19
20
4.00
4.00
R 6 C E
AR£C
(KMI
G.OCo
0.500
C. 7CC
O.SoU
1.000
1.100
1.20C
1»2HO
1.3CC
1 . 40C
1»500
i . 6 C C
1.70C
2, COG
2.3CC
HoJJO
6. COG
10.000
15.000
33o5
33.5
P T 0 R
SR6C
{KM )
0- 0
0»0
0.0
0.0
OoO
000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0. 0
0.0
0 . J
0. 0
OoO
0.0
o.o
OoO
U. 0
o.o
o.o
322.0
^22.0
s * * *
z
( M )
0.0
OoO
0.0
0.0
OoO
000
0.0
0.0
OoO
0.0
Of\
. 0
0.0
o.o
OaO
o.o
\
U. 0
JoO
0.0
0. 0
o.o
o . J
6.3
o.o
0.012
c.o
C.O
209
-------
TABLE V-8 CONT'D
AVERAGE NITROGEN OXIDE CONCENTRATION FOR 1 HOUR
RECEPTOR NUMBER - PARTIAL CONCENTRATION
Stacks
1
1 0
2 0
Total Concentration
0
8.9512 E-06
7.6249 E-06
4.0390 E-05
3.8320 E-05
6.8597 E-05
6.7307 E-05
7.7299 E-05
7.6429 E-05
8.0300 E-05
8.0030 E-05
16.5731 E-06 7.8710 E-05 13.5904 E-05 15.3698 E-05 16.6330 E-05
8
10
11
12
1 8.1590 E-05
2 8.1500 E-05
Total Concentration
8.1770 E-05
8.1740 E-05
8.1710 E-05
8.1740 E-05
8.1650 E-05
8.1710 E-05
8.0810 E-05
8.0960 E-05
7.9340 E-05
7.9550 E-05
16.3121 E-05 16.3511 E-05 16.3451 E-05 16.3331 E-05 16.1770 E-05 15.8920 E-05
13
14
15
16
17
18
1 7.7479 E-05
2 7.7719 E-05
Total Concentration
7.5349 E-05
7.5619 E-05
6.8297 E-05
6.8597 E-05
5.7014 E-05
5.7284 E-05
3.4749 E-05 21.0053 E-06
5.4-39 E-05 21.0593 E-06
15.5229 E-05 15.0968 E-05 13.6894 E-05 11.4299 E-05 6.9527 E-05 4.2071 E-05
19
20
1 10.5656 E-06 6.0585 E-06
2 10.5836 E-06 6.0675 E-06
Total Concentration
21.1463 E-06 12.1260 E-06
*Maximum Ground Level Concentration
Note: E-05 = 10
-5
210
-------
TABLE V-9 REVISED
MAXIMUM PREDICTED GROUND LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS (GLC) FOR INCINCERATOR^
POLLUTANTS
Pollutant
Particulate
Time Period
1
24
GLQnax
yg/m3
34.4
8.6
Distance of
Max. Concentration (M)
1253
1253
Sulfur
dioxide 1 101.6 1253
3 85.3 1253
25.4 1253
Nitrogen oxides 1 163.5 1253
It should be pointed out that the ground level concentra
tions resulting from the incinerators at any other locations will
be less than these maximum concentrations. The graphical presen-
tation of the ground level concentration as a function of downwind
distance from the incinerators is shown in Figure "¥-1.
d. Calculation of the Annual Average Concentrations; It
is inappropriate to extrapolate the one-hour concentrations to time
periods longer than 24 hours. Therefore, the U.S. EPA's Clima-
tological Dispersion Model was used to calculate the annual average
concentrations resulting from the proposed incinerators. The input
data required by this model include incinerator parameters and the
joint frequency distribution of wind direction, wind speed, and
the stability for the period of consideration. The detailed
descriotion of this model may be found in Appendix W. Table V-10
presents the calculated annual concentration for particulates,
sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides at the selected receptor sites.
The location of the receptors are shown in Figure V-2. It should
be noted that the receptor sites 1, 2, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24,
26 and 27 are located near the places where the short-term maximum
concentrations would occur (approximately 1.253 kilometer down-
wind from the incinerator). The maximum annual concentration
was found to occur at Receptor Site 21 on Deer Island. The
corresponding maximum annual concentrations of particulates ,
211
-------
TADLE V-10
BOSTON SLUDGE ANNUAL CONCENTRATION CDM PROGRAM
(Micrograms Per Cubic Meter)
Coordinates
7.33
6.50
6.66
6.33
4.50
3.17
4.00
3.17
4.66
6.17
9.00
11.50
10.00
8.00
8.66
9.50
9.66
8.00
6.50
5.50
7.66
7.50
7.50
7.00
9.00
7.50
7.66
10.
10.
11.
13.
10.
9.
7.
6.
4.
2.
1.
5.
3.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
7.
6.
9.
9.
10.
11.
7.
6.
6.
50
33
84
50
84
17
84
84
50
33
66
84
33
00
66
50
84
17
17
50
16
50
00
50
32
50
84
Receptor Site
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Particulates
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
354
357
140
752
193
164
116
807
758
534
110
214
102
149
241
199
483
845
265
147
365
138
586
174
536
234
667
E-01
E-01
E-01
E-02
E-01
E-01
E-01
E-02
E-02
E-02
E-01
E-01
E-01
E-01
E-01
E-01
E-01
E-01
E-01
E-01
E-00
E-00
E-01
E-01
E-01
E-01
E-01
Sulfur
0.546
0.549
0.215
0.116
0.297
0.252
0.179
0.124
0.117
0.822
0.170
0.329
0.156
0.230
0.371
0.307
0.744
0.130
0.408
0.226
0.562
0.212
0.902
0.268
0.826
0.360
0.103
Dioxides
E-01
E-01
E-01
E-01
E-01
E-01
E-01
E-01
E-01
E-02
E-01
E-01
E-01
E-01
E-01
E-01
E-01
E-00
E-01
E-01
E-00
E-00
E-01
E-01
E-01
E-01
E-00
Nitrogen Oxides
1.3274
1.3347
.5227
.2820
.7221
.6127
.4352
.3015
.2845
1.9985
.4133
.7999
.3793
.5592
.9020
.7464
1.8088
.3161
.9919
.5495
1.3663
.5154
2.1930
.6516
2.0082
.8752
.2504
E-01
E-01
E-01
E-01
E-01
E-01
E-01
E-01
E-01
E-02
E-01
E-01
E-01
E-01
E-01
E-01
E-01
E-00
E-01
E-01
E-00
E-00
E-01
E-01
E-01
E-01
E-00
212
-------
27
26
OJ 25 -
-p
O *^ A
S 24
o 23 -
u 22 "
m 21 •
Qj
20
19
to
tn
2
u
18
17
-5 16
°15
2 14
to -H 13
V S 12
> g
" 11 -
0)
H 10 *
3
Q
M-l
M
O
& -
7 -
6 -
5
\U
% 4 I-
rH
3
O
•H
+J
nt
PJ
Maximum Ground Level Concentration of
s 25.4 Micrograms per Cubic Meter
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
•*• Maximum Ground Level Concentration of
8.6 Micrograms per Cubic Meter
Meteorological Condition:
Stability of Atmosphere 4
Wind Speed: 1.5 Meters per second
Legend:
- - - 24-hour Sulfur Dioxide Concentration
24-hour Particulate Concentration
FIGURE V-l "^
Ground Level Concen-
trations as a Function
of Downwind Distance
from the Incinerators
_L
_L
_L
_L
JL
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8
Downwind Distance in Kilometers
3.0
3.2
3.4 3.6 3.8
4.0
-------
FIGURE V-2
LOCATIONS OF RECEPTOR SITES
213
-------
sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides were found to be 0.37,
0.56, and 1.36 yg/rr\3, respectively. The contours of annual
particulate, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides concentra-
tions are shown in Figures V-3, V-4 and V-5. As can be
seen, the groundlevel concentrations decrease rapidly as the
distance from the incinerators increase.
2. Projection of Background Concentrations in 1985
A proportional method was used to estimate 1985 background
concentration of particulates and sulfur dioxide based on the
1974-1975 air quality monitoring data. The equation used in
the calculation is:
Cil985 = Cil975 x (1 + D-jEi)
where: ^il985 = 1985 maximum background concentration
Cil975 = 1975 maximum monitoring air quality concentration
D- = Growth rate of emissions between 1975 and 1985
for source category i
Ej_ = Emission reduction factor for source category
i due to the emission control regulations
a. Existing Air Quality Monitoring Data: The following
describes the inputs and assumptions used in the proportional
method analysis. In the metropolitan Boston region, there are
a number of air quality monitoring stations, none of which are
located within the three-mile radium of the proposed incinerators.
The closest monitoring station to Deer Island is located at
Garfield Junior High School, Revere. The monitoring data is
available for the period of January through December 1977. The
number of observations for particulates and sulfur dioxide 24
hour concentrations at this site are 44 and 33 respectively.
Although only 2 observations of 24 hour concentrations for
nitrogen oxides were made at this site during 1977, the data has
been considered. However, conclusions are made with reservations
of the statistical meaning. The summary of the monitoring data
is shown below.
214
-------
3.7
+
6.11
+
13.1
-f
7.S
•
tf
11.0
+
18.3
IB.tl
+
a.i
MB.3
21,
7.6
-f
1.3
+
2.8
•+
5.3
10,8
Note: Calcomp Program GPCP-1 was
used to create these contours
FIGURE V-3
CONTOURS OF ANNUAL PARTICULATE CONCENTRATIONS
-------
S.B
+
8.9
W.7
zs. z
lU.t
+
17.8
20.2
+
11.8
fit
32.9
17.1
+
e.e
r
23,0
+
is.e
-f
8.2
•f
U.M
I Mile
J7.0 Notes:!) Calcomp Program
GPCP-1 used to create con
tours;2) Concentrations
shown are based on sludge
emissions oft-ly. Increase
4.6% to include
emissions.
FIGURE V-4
CONTOURS OF ANNUAL SULFUR DIOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS
(X10~3 MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER)
216
-------
FIGURE V-5
CONTOURS OF ANNUAL NITROGEN OXIDE
CONCENTRATION (XIO"3 PER CUBIC METER)
217
-------
SUMMARY OF MONITORING AIR QUALITY CONCENTRATIONS AT GARFIELD JR. HIGH
SCHOOL, REVERE
24 Hour Concentration (Micrograms Per Cubic Meter
Particulates
Number of observations
Minimum
Maximum
2nd Maximum
Arithmetic mean
Arithmetic standard deviation
Geometric Mean
Geometric standard deviation
Number of observations 180
44
23
107
101
51
22
47
1.51
0
Sulfur Dioxide Nitrogen Oxides
33
1
35
27
10
9
6
2.93
105 0
2
15
18
15
17
2
16
1.14
greater than
260
150
0
0
140
100
0
0
Based on these noncontinuous sampling data the Larsen
Mathematical Model (Larsen, 1971) was used to determine the
maximum and second highest concentration for continuous sampling
data.
The estimated maximum 24-hour concentration for TSP would
be 157.9 yg/m3 and the second highest would be 139 pg/m3. The
estimated maximum 24-hour concentration for sulfur dioxide
would be 141.5 yg/m3 and the second highest would be 102 yg/m3.
By similar analysis the estimated maximum 24-hour concentration
for nitrogen oxides would be 23.5 ug/m3 and the second highest
would be 22.5 yg/m3.
The accuracy of Larsen's model analysis is dependent on
the number and the adequacy of samples collected. The results
obtained with noncontinuous sampling (in this case 44, 33, and
2 for TSP, SC>2/ and NOX respectively) will not be as accurate
as that obtained with continuous sampling.
b- Growth Rate of Emissions Between 1975 and 1985:
According to the "Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning
and Analysis" (U.S. EPA, 1974F), the growth rate of emissions for
each source category can be estimated based on the parameters
shown below:
218
-------
Category Projection Parameter
Fuel Combustion (excluding
power plant) Total earnings
Industrial processes Manufacturing earnings
Solid waste Population
Transportation Population
Miscellaneous Total earnings
Based on the information provided by the State Bureau
of Air Quality Control (Parks, 1975), and the composite growth
factors in the City of Boston between 1975 and 1985 are shown
below:
Population growth 0.93
Total employment growth 1.19
Manufacturing employment growth 1.15
Non-manufacturing employment growth 1.19
It should be noted that the gorwth factors in the Boston suburd
areas may be different from those of Boston City.
c. Emission Reduction Factor; For industrial process,
a reduction factor of 0.4 would generally be used to account
for control between 1975 and 1985 due to forthcoming new source
performance standards.
d. Overall Emission Growth from 1975 to 1985; Follow-
ing the "Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance and Analysis"
(U.S. EPA, 1974), the composite growth factors particulate matter
and sulfur dioxide are calculated to be 1.092 and 1.159
respectively. The detailed calculation is shown in Table V-ll.
e. 1985 Maximum Background Concentrations; Based on
the measured baseline air quality concentrations, Larsen's Model
of the estimated growth factor, and the emission adjustment
factor, the maximum 24-hour background particulate, sulfur
dioxide, and nitrogen oxides concentrations in 1985 are estimated
as follows:
219
-------
TABLE V-ll
CALCULATION OF EMISSION GROWTH FROM 1975 TO 1985
(in Boston Area)
Fraction of Weighted Emission
Growth Factor Reduction Factor Due Adjusted Total Emission** Growth Factor+
Source
Category
Fuel Com-
bustion
Indus-
trial Pro-
cesses
Solid
Waste
Transpor-
tation
Miscel-
laneous
NJ
to
o
Projection of the to Emission Control Growth Sulfur
Parameter Parameter* (D) Regulations (E) Factor A Particulate Dioxide Particulate
Total
Earnings 0.19 1 1.19 0.30 0.77 0.357
Manufac-
turing
Earnings 0.15 0.4 1.06 0.56 0.20 0.594
Population -0.07 1 0.93 0.03 0 0.028
Population -0.07 1 0.93 0.07 0.02 0.065
Total
Earnings 0.19 1 1.19 0.04 0.01 0.048
Composite Growth Factor 1.092
* These are the growth factors projected for the City of Boston, provided by the
Sulfur
Dioxide
0.916
0.212
0
0.019
0.012
1.159
State Air Pollution Control Commission.
** Based on 1974 nationwide emissions data, obtained from U.S. EPA, National Air Data Branch,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
+ Weighted growth factor = adjusted growth factor x fraction of total emission for each source.
A Adjusted Growth Factor = 1 + Growth Factor, D x Reduction Factor (E).
-------
24-hr, particulate
concentration (yg/m )
24-hr, sulfur dioxide
concentration (yg/m3)
Maximum Background Second Highest
Concentration Background Concentration
1977 1985 1977 1985
157.9
141.5
172.4
164
139
102
151.8
118.2
24-hr nitrogen oxides
concentration (yg/m3)
23.5
27.2
22.5
26.1
Again using the Larsen Model, the maximum second highest con-
centration for other averaging times are estimated based on these
24-hour concentrations. These results are given below:
Pollutant
(ug/m3)
Particulates
Sulfur dioxide
Nitrogen oxides
Averaging
Time
24 hour
annual
24 hour
3 hours
annual
1-hour
annual
1985 Maximum Back- 1985 Second Highest
ground Concentration Background Concentration
172.4
52.5
164.0
418.4
11.6
32.6
19.7
151.8
52.5
118.2
301.6
11.6
31.2
19.7
3. Assessment of the Air Quality Impact of Incineration
Alternatives
The air quality impact can be assessed in terms of whether
or not the proposed project will comply with the Clean Air Act
Amendment's of August 17, 1977 section Prevention of Significant
Deterioration of Air Quality., as well as meet the Federal and
Massachusetts Air Quality Standards. The following section dis-
cusses the air quality impact of the proposed incineration
alternatives.
221
-------
a. Complying with the Regulations for the Prevention
of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality;
Requirements in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 provide
for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) of ambient
air quality. Under these provisions ambient concentrations for
the five pollutants for which National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) were set under the Clean Air Act of 1970 are
compared to the NAAQS. Based on these results air quality
designations are assigned.
1. Attainment Area - Ambient air concentrations of
the specific pollutant for a given region are less that the
established NAAQS for the pollutant.
2. Non-Attainment Area- Ambient air concentrations
of the specified pollutant for a given region exceed the NAAQS
for that pollutant.
The PSD program has also established regional air quality
classes and air quality standards for the degradation of air
quality.
Class I - Areas in which practically any incremental
change in air quality would not be allowed.
Class II - Areas in which deterioration normally
accompanying moderate well-controlled growth would be allowed.
Class III- Areas in which larger incremental deter-
ioration of air quality would be allowed.
Incremental increase in pollutant levels should not exceed
NAAQS. Further, those areas designated as non-attainment would
be required to reduce a pollutant's emission equal to or greater
than proposed emissions before a major expansion or new major
source would be allowed.
Presently, PSD class standard (incremental allowances) exist
for sulfur dioxide and particulates. Within two years of August
7, 1977, class standards will be promulgated for nitrogen oxides,
carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons.
The study area has been designated as an attainment area and
also a Class II area. Table V-12 gives the maximum allowable
incremental increases in pollutant concentrations over baseline
air quality concentration for each area designation. Table V-13
compares impact with the standard.
222
-------
TABLE V-12
PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION OF AIR QUALITY CLASS
INCREMENTS
Pollutant
Sulfur Dioxide
Annual Arithmetic Mean
24-hour maximum
3-hour maximum
Maximum Allowable Increase (yg/m )
Class I Class II Class III
Particulate Matter
Annual Geometric Mean
24-hour maximum
5
10
19
37
37
75
2
5
25
20
91
512
40
182
700
TABLE V-13
PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION OF AIR QUALITY. COM-
PARISON OF MAXIMUM PROJECT-GENERATED CONCENTRATIONS WITH THE ALLOWABLE
INCREMENTAL CONCENTRATION
Pollutant
Allowable Class II
Deterioration
Maximum Incremental Concentration
Resulting from the Incinerators
Particulate Matter
Annual Geometric Mean
24-hour maximum
Sulfur Dioxide
Annual Arithmetic Mean
24-hour maximum
3-hour maximum
19
37
20
91
512
0.36
8.4
0.56
25.4
85.3
b. Meeting the Federal and Massachusetts Ambient
Air Quality Standards; Except for the annual
average concentrations, the Federal and Massachusetts Air
Quality Standards are defined such that they may not be exceeded
more than once a year. Thus, in the case of 1, 3, and 24-hour con-
centration, an analysis was made to determine whether the second
highest ambient concentrations (project-generated plus back-
ground) will exceed the standards. The second highest ambient
concentrations are obtained by superimposing the maximum project-
generated concentrations on top of the projected second highest
1985 background concentrations. The calculated results are shown
and compared with the air quality standards in Table V-l4.
223
-------
TABLE V-14
COMPARISON OF THE PROJECTED 1985 GROUND LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS WITH AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDATDS AT A
DISTANCE OF 1.25KILOMETERS DOWNWIND FROM THE INCINERATOR
Maximum
Incinerator -
Second
Highest 1985
Second
Highest
Federal Standards
Massachusetts
Standards^
Pollutant
Particulates
yg/m3)
Sulfur
Dioxide
to yg/m^ )
NJ
Nitrogen
Oxides (yg/m3)
Averaging
Time
24-hr
annual
3-hr
24-hr
annual
1-hr
annual
Generated
Concentration
8.42
0.362
85.32
25.42
0.563
163.5
1.37
Background
Concentration
151.8
52.5
301.6
118.2
11.6
31.2
19.7
Total
Concentration
160.2
52.86
386.9
143.6
12.16
194.7
21.07
Primary
260
75
365
80
200
100
Secondary
150
60
1,300
100
Primary S<
260
75
365
80
100
econdar;
150
60
1,300
100
Bother than annual average may not be exceeded more than once a year.
2The locations of maximum ground level concentration are a a distance of 1.253 kilometer downwind from the
incinerators. These may include Winthrop, Shirley Point, and the northern part of Long Island. Because
no monitoring data are available at these locations, the etimated concentration based on air quality sampling
data at the Revere site were used. The actual background concentration at these locations may be less than
at Revere because of the lower level of land use activity at these locations.
3The locations of maximum concentration are at receptor 21 on Deer Island (see Figure 2). Maximum annual
average ground level concentration includes S02 from pilot and startup fuel.
4World Health Organization Standard-not a federal or state standard.
-------
Since the annual average standards are never to be
exceeded, the maximum annual concentrations resulting from
the project were calculated. The results are compared with
the standards in Table V-14.
As shown in Table V-14, none of the promulgated Federal
of Massachusetts Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulates,
nitrogen oxides, or sulfur dioxide will be exceeded in the study
year except for the 24-hour particulate secondary standard. It
should be noted that the background concentration is responsible
for violation of the secondary 24-hour particulate standard at
these locations, 1.25 km downwind of the incinerators. The
incinerator-generated concentration accounts for 8.4 ug/m3
compared to the 151.8 yg/m3 background level. The nitrogen
oxides 1-hour World Health Organization standard was not
exceeded. As noted previously, these locations 1.25 km downwind
may include the northern par of Long Island, Winthrop and
Point Shirley. As no measured air quality data were available
at these locations, the estimated background concentrations based
on monitoring data at Revere were used. The actual background
at these locations may be expected to be less than at Revere
because the level of polluting land use activities is less than
at Revere. Another assumption used in projecting the 1985
background concentration is the assumption of no reduction of
existing source emissions in the 1977-1985 period. This is a
conservative assumption because the existing stationary source
emissions are expected to be reduced through the State
Implementation Plan requirement for emission limitations on
existing sources and the State Attainment Plan for secondary
standards. These are presently being revised as per the 1977
Clean Air Act Amendment.
As the proposed incinerators will comply with the New
Source Performance Standards for particulates and the violation
of the 24-hour particulate secondary standard will not be the
direct result of the incinerators, the potential mitigating
measures should emphasize the control of background concentration
through the Air Quality Attainment and Maintenance Plan. As the
State Attainment Plan for secondary standards is presently under
way, it is suggested that the proposed incinerators be considered
in that plan.
c- Air Quality Analysis for the Areas where Violations
of the 24-hour TSP Standard Occur; In addition to
impacts of incineration on the air quality at Revere, the
existing sampling site with greatest impact, there will be some
impact on those sites presently exceeding ambient air quality
standards in 1974-75. Based on the Regional Administrator's
Annual Report "Environmental Quality in New England" (U.S. EPA,
1975E), those sites which exceed the 24-hour standards for TSP
are:
225
-------
Boston, Kenmore Square
Cambridge, Science Park
Medford, Fire Headquarters
Medford, Wellington Circle
Qunicy, Fore River
The 1977 24-hour sampling data collected at the five
sites under consideration are given in Tables V-15, V-16,
and V-17. Based on these noncontinuous sampling data, the
maximum and second highest concentrations were estimated for
continuous sampling data using Larsen's Model. The 1985
maximum and second highest concentrations for TSP were pro-
jected by using the proportional model; the TSP composite
emission growth factor of 1.092 was used in the calculation.
The results are given in Table V-18.
The incremental TSP concentrations resulting at the five
monitoring sites under consideration from the proposed incin-
erators were estimated, based on the outputs of previous PTMTP
and CDM analyses. The results are presented in Table V-19.
These incremental TSP concentrations resulting from the
incinerators are compared to Table V-20 with the maximum
allowable incremental concentrations set forth in the Class II
increments were considered in this analysis because this area
has been designated Class II. Based on the assumptions made,
none of the incremental concentrations will exceed the standards,
The second highest ambient TSP concentrations are obtained
by superimposing the maximum project-generated concentrations
on the projected second highest 1985 background concentrations.
The results are shown in Table V-21. It can be seen that the
24-hour and annual primary secondary standards will be exceeded
at Kenmore Square. The 24-hour annual secondary standards will
be exceeded at all five locations. Also, the primary 24-hour
standard at Science Park and Wellington Circle will be exceeded.
None of the violations of standards at these locations are the
direct result of the incremental concentrations, but are due to
high background concentrations.
226
-------
TABLE V-15
[Source: EPA, Region I]
Monitoring Site
Number of Observations
Minimum reading (ug/m3)
Maximum reading (yg/m )
2nd maximum (yg/m )
10
to ,
•^ Arithmetic Mean (ug/m )
Arithmetic Standard Deviation (yg/m )
3
Geometric Mean (yg/m )
Geometric Mean Deviation (yg/m )
1974 24-HOUR TSP DATA FOR
Kenmore Square
( Boston )
39
31
305
270
97
/m3) 64
82
1.72
FIVE SELECTED SITES
Science Park
( Cambridge )
48
1
116
115
68
23
61
1.97
Fire Station
( Medf ord )
47
22
145
131
60
27
55
1.51
Wellington Circle
( Medf ord )
36
1
161
111
62
26
54
2.13
Fore River
( Quincy )
44
26
119
114
65
26
59
1.53
-------
TABLE V-16
1977 24-HOUR
Kenmore Square
(Boston)
31
1
45
33
13
ion
10
10
S02 DATA FOR
Science Park
(Cambridge)
38
1
45
26
11
9
8
FIVE SELECTED
SITES
Fire Station Wellington Circle
(Medford) (Medford)
29
1
24
22
8
7
5
34
1
23
19
8
6
6
Fore River
(Quincy)
36
1
49
9
10
5
Monitoring Sites
Number of Observations
Minimum Reading ( g/m )
Maximum Reading ( g/m^)
2nd Maximum ( g/m3)
to
oo Arithmetic Mean ( g/m3)
\
Arithmetic Standard Deviation
( g/m3)
Geometric Mean ( g/m^)
Geometric Standard Deviation
( g/m3) 2.44 2.45 2.98 2.31 2.99
-------
TABLE V-17
Monitoring Site
Number of Observations
Minimum Reading (yg/m3)
Maximum Reading (yg/m3)
2nd Maximum (yg/m3)
Arithmetic Mean (yg/m3)
Arithmetic Standard Deviation
(yg/m3)
Geometric Mean (yg/m^)
Geometric Standard Deviation
(yg/m3)
'7 24-HOUR NOX DATA FOR FIVE SELECTED SITES
Kenmore Square
(Boston
42
21
62
61
44
9
42
1.26
Science Park
(Cambridge)
44
14
61
53
33
10
31
1.37
Fire Station
(Medford)
1
15
15
-
15
0
15
1.0
Wellington Circle
(Medford)
43
1
77
50
32
14
26
2.53
Fore River
(Quincy)
44
1
69
46
25
11
22
1.89
-------
TABLE V-18
to
u>
o
PROJECTED PARTICULATE MATTER TSP CONCENTRATIONS (yg/m3)
(Background Data)
Monitoring Site
Kenmore Square(Boston)
Science Park (Cambridge)
Fire Station (Medford)
Wellington Circle (Medford)
Fore River (Quincy)
Maximum Concentration 2nd Highest Cone. Geometric Mean
1977 1985 1977 1985 1977 1985
Annual Mean
(Arithmetric)
1977 1985
403.
447.
184
498
206.
9
8
0
441.
489.
200.
543.
225.
1
0
9
8
0
343
365
163
397
181.3
374.
398.
178.
433.
198.
6
6
0
5
0
82
61
55
54
59
90
67
60
60
64
97
68
60
62
65
106
74
66
68
71
-------
TABLE V-19
INCREMENTAL TSP CONCENTRATIONS
Maximum
Distance Incremental Concentrations**
Monitoring Site from the Incinerators* 24-Hour Annual
Kenmore Square (Boston) 11.7 km .92 yg/m3 0.005 yg/m3
Science Park (Cambridge) 9.7 km 1.14 'yg/m3 0.005 yg/m3
Medford
(Fire Station)
Medford
(Wellington Circle)
Medford 14.7 km .65 yg/m3 0.003 yg/m3
Medford 15.0 km .62 yg/m3 0.003 yg/m3
Quincy 11.0 km .95 yg/m3 0.005 yg/m3
(Fore River)
* Approximate distances obtained from map, scale 1" = 1.6 mi.
** Based on model data shown in Table V-4
TABLE V-20
INCREMENTAL CONCENTRATIONS COMPARED
TO NON-DEGRADATION LIMITS
24-Hour TSP (yg/m3) Annual TSP (yg/m3)
Maximum Allowable Maximum Allowable
Incremental Concentration Incremental Concentration
Monitoring Site Limit = 30 ** Limit = 10 **
Kenmore Square (Boston)
Science Park (Cambridge)
Fire Station
(Medford)
Wellington Circle
(Medford)
Fore River
(Quincy)
* Source: Table V-15
** Source: 40 CFR 52
231
on) .92
dge) 1.14
.65
.62
.95
0.005
0.008
0.003
0.003
0.007
-------
TABLE V-21
AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS FOR THE AREAS WHERE VIOLATIONS OF THE 24-HOUR STANDARD OCCUR
Maximum
Second Highest
Monitoring
Site
Kenmore Square
(Boston)
Science Park
(Cambridge)
NJ
u>
w Fire Station
(Medford)
Wellington
Circle
(Medford)
Fore River
(Quincy)
Averaging
Time
24-hour
Annual
2 4 -hour
Annual
24-hour
Annual
24-hour
Annual
2 4 -hour
Annual
Incinerator
Generated Cone.
.91
.005
1.14
.008
.65
.003
.62
.003
.95
.007
1985 Background
Concentration
374.6
106
398.6
74
178.0
68
433.5
68
198.0
71
Total
Concentration
375.52
106.005
399.74
74.008
178.65
66.003
434.12
68.003
198.95
71.007
Federal
Primary
260
75
260
75
260
75
260
75
260
75
Standard
Secondary
150
60
150
60
150
60
150
60
150
60
Ma s s . S t andard
Primary
260
75
260
75
260
75
260
75
260
75
Secondary
150
60
150
60
150
60
150
60
150
60
Units = yg/m3
-------
APPENDIX W
MODELS FOR AIR QUALITY PREDICTIONS
The three; air quality models used in this study are pre-
sented in detail below. These models are PTMAX, PTMTP, and the
Climatological Dispersion Model (COM).
A. PTMAX Model
The following discussion of the PTMAX model, written by D. B.
Turner, is excerpted from the author's draft User's Guides
(Turner and Busse, 1973).
The PTMAX model calculates the maximum hourly ground level con-
centration resulting from a single stack as the function of
wind speed and stability class. The input data required for the
computer program includes stack parameters, such as stack height,
inside diameter, effluent gas velocity and temperature, and
emission rate; ambient air temperature; and atmospheric pressure.
The printed output includes effective height of emissions, max-
imum ground level concentration, and distance of maximum con-
centration for each condition of stability and wind speed. The
input data used for each particular calculation are also printed.
This model is based primarily on the steady-state Gaussian plume
model; that is, the concentration of pollutants within the plume
generated by the stack are distributed normally in both the
cross-wind and vertical directions. The method suggested by
Briggs (1971) is used to determine the rise of the plume above the
stack. The Briggs plume rise formula is:
Ah = 1.6F1/3U~1p2/3 p£3.5X*
and
Ah = 1.6F1/3U~1(3.5X*)2/3 p>3.5X*
x* = 14F5/8 if F <55
X* = 34F2/5 if F >55
where Ah = plume rise, meters
F = gVsRs2 [(Ts - Ta)/Ts]
f\
g = acceleration due to gravity, m/secz
Vs = average exit velocity of gases of plume, m/sec
R = inner radius of stack, meters
Ts = average temperature of gases in plume, °K
Ta = ambient air temperature, °K
U = wind speed at stack height, m/sec
p = distance from source to receptor, meters
As suggested by Briggs, p/X* was not allowed to exceed the limiting
value of 3.5.
233
-------
The effective height, i.e., the sum of the physical stack
height and the rise of the plume, is used to determine the max-
imum ground level concentration. If the effective heights of
emissions were the same under all stability classes, the maximum
ground level concentration from a given stack would occur with
the lightest winds. However, as shown in Briggs' equation, the
plume rise is an inverse function of wind speed. The maximum
ground level concentration generally occurs at some intermediate
wind speed, at which a balance is reached between dilution due
to wind speed and the effect of emission height. The procedures
to determine the maximum ground level concentration, the distance
to the maximum concentration, and the corresponding wind speed
are the same as those discussed in the report entitled "Workbook
of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates." The principal assumptions
or limitations of this model are listed below:
* Does not account for aerodynamic effects of buildings
or other topographic obstructions on the diffusion of
the plume emitted from the stack.
• The emission rate and wind speed are assumed to be
constant for the time period considered, i.e., one hour.
• This model is capable of predicting the maximum concen-
trations from a single point source only. In the case
of multiple stacks, this model can be applied to each
individual stack; however, it cannot give the maximum
combined concentrations of the stacks.
B. PTMTP Model
This model is also written by D. B. Turner. The User's
Guide to PTMTP, prepared by D. B. Turner and A. D. Busse, is
excerpted below.
Users' Guide to PTMTP (The Interactive Version of DBT 51)
Program Abstract
PTMTP produces hourly concentrations at up to 30 receptors
whose locations are specified from up to 25 point sources. A
Gaussian plume model is used. Inputs to the program consist of
the number of sources to be considered, and for each source the
emission rate, physical height, stack gas temperature, volume
flow, or stack gas velocity and diameter, the location, in
coordinates. The number of receptors, the coordinates of each
and the height above ground of each receptor are also required
Concentrations for a number of hours up to 24 can be estimated,
and an average concentration over this time period is calculated.
For each hour the meteorological information required is: wind
direction, wind speed, stability class, mixing height, and ambient
air temperature.
234
-------
The assumptions that are made in this model follow:
Meteorological conditions are steady-state for each hour and a
Gaussian plume model is applicable to determine ground level
concentrations. Computations can be performed according to the
"Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates." The dispersion
parameter values used for the horizontal dispersion coefficient,
sigma y, and the vertical dispersion coefficient, sigma z, are those
given in Figures 3-2 and 3-3 of the Workbook. The sources and
receptors exist in either flat or gently rolling terrain, and the
stacks are tall enough to be free from building turbulence so that
no aerodynamic downwash occurs. The wind speed and wind direction
apply from the shortest to the tallest plume height. No wind
direction shear or wind speed shear occurs. The given stability
exists from ground-level to well above the top of the plume.
Calculations for each hour are made by considering each source-
receptor pair. Plume rise is calculated according to Briggs1 plume
rise estimates. For each source-receptor pair, the downwind and
crosswind distances are determined. If the downwind distance is
closer than the distance to final rise, the plume rise for this
distance is calculated. The concentration from this source upon
this receptor is determined using these distances by the Gaussian
model.
The use of the interactive version of the program is relatively
straightforward. First, an alphanumeric title to identify the out-
put is entered. Next, the number of sources to be considered is
given. The source strength, physical height, stack gas temperature,
and volume flow is entered for each stack. If the volume flow is
not known the stack gas velocity and diameter are required. The
coordinates based on a coordinate system having units of one kilo-
meter are required for each source. Next, the number of receptors
to be processed, the coordinates of each and the height above
ground for each are entered. The meteorological information in-
cludes the number of hours to be .averaged up to 24, the wind
direction, wind speed, stability class, mixing height, and ambient
air temperature are entered for each hour. An option exists to
print the partial concentrations, that is, the concentration from
each source at each receptor. Also, an option exists to print
the hourly concentrations.
The output is quite simple, consisting of title followed by
input information on the sources, receptors, and meteorology.
This is followed by hour by hour partial concentrations if desired
and total concentrations. If partial concentrations are printed
the final plume height for that hour for each source is also
printed. Then average concentrations for the time period are
printed including partial concentrations if desired. When the
output is complete, the user is offered the option of ending the
run or entering at 3 different points. He may go back to enter
new sources or he may keep the same sources and enter new
receptors or he may keep both the same sources and receptors
and enter only different meteorological conditions.
235
-------
C. The Climatological Dispersion Model
The Climatological Dispersion Model (COM), developed by the
U.S. EPA (Busse and Zimmerman) calculates long-term quasi-stable
pollutant concentrations at any ground level receptor using average
emission rates from point and area sources and a joint frequency
distribution of wind direction, wind speed, and stability for the
same period.
This model uses primarily the Gaussian dispersion model to
calculate the ground level concentrations from point and area
sources. For the elevated point sources, Briggs1 plume rise
formula and an assumed power law increase in wind speed with height
are used to calculate the effective height of the elevated sources.
Figure W-l defines the concentration formulas for the CDM model.
The detailed description of the model and its assumptions and
application may be found in the U.S. EPA publication entitled
User's Guide for the Climatological Dispersion Model.
For this study, the stack emission rates as given in the text,
and the frequency distribution of wind data for Logan Airport as
shown in Table W-l, were input to the model to estimate annual
average concentrations of TSP and SO2- The receptor sites for
calculation of concentrations are discussed in the text. The points
were selected to be representative of the sludge incinerator impact
area. The calculated annual concentrations of TSP and S02 are
also shown in the text. It should be pointed out that the model
was not calibrated because no appropriate observation data were
available. Thus, in the text the total concentrations are the
same as the calibrated concentrations.
236
-------
FIGURE w-1
COM Concentration Formulas
The average concentration C . due to area sources at a particular receptor is given
i
.«u1.pin) dp (i
J
where k = index identifying wind direction sector
q.(p) = / Q(p,0) dflfor the k sector
Q(p.0) = emission rate of the area source per unit area and unit
time
P = distance from the receptor to an infinitesimal area source
6 - angle relative to polar coordinates sintered on the receptor
1 - index identifying the wind speed class
m - index identifying the class of the Pasquill stability category
^(k. t ,m) = joint frequency function
S(p.z;U£,Pm) = dispersion function defined in Equations 3 and 4
z = height of receptor above ground level
U £ = representative wind speed
Pm = Pasquill stability category
For ppint sources, the average concentration C due to n point sources is given by
-16 " * * *(kn.*.m)GnS(pn.z;Uz.Pm)
C - ~~ 2 2 2. • - (2\
*=1 m=l Pn ^J
where kn - wind sector appropriate to the n point source
Gn = emission rate of the n"1 point source
pn = distance from the receptor to the n*" point source
If the receptor is presumed to be at ground level, that is, z = 0, then the functional
form of S (p, z; U£,P ) will be
< 0.8 Land
C4)
> 0.8 L. New terms in Equations 3 arid 4 are defined as follows:
a (p) = vertical dispersion function, i.e., the standard deviation
2 of the pollution concentration in the vertical plane
h = effective stack height of source distribution, i.e., the
average height of area source emissions in the k11* wind
direction sector at radial distance p from the receptor
L = the afternoon mixing height
T, = assumed half ILi'.'. of pollutant, hours
The possibility of pollutant removal by physical or chemical processes is included in
the program by the decay expression exp (-0.692p/UiT,).
The total concentration for the averaging period is the sum of concentrations of the
point and. area sources for that averaging period.
237
-------
TABLE W-
to
CO
00
1
3
S
C
7
9
ID
11
» ;>
13
15
16
n
1!
12
1 •*
'.6
c •-; ;.-...;•
0.3
0.0
0.0
C.O
C.' !COOCC.'T-r,4
C.lOCCOOF-e*
0. 1COOOCF-0<-
0.100000F-Q4
0.0
0.'OOOOCF-04
C. iOOOOCF-04
0.0
o.c.
0.0
0.370000F-03
0. iCSOiOF-OJ.
o.-r.ecoo^-ot
C. 100330F-C-3
0.1^0COC-'03
o!'.-."C J?'-03
0. 1C'J JO'il-"<•
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.7COOOOE-C4
0.70COOOF-04
0.7QOOOCE-Q'*
C.700000F.-04
C.700000E-04
0.0
0.700000F-C4
0.700000F-04
0.0
0.0
0.0
THE JOINT FSE
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.lnOOOOF-03
C.O
0.0
0.21COCOF.-03
0.'-10000tC-03
0.''10QOOC-03
0.1030CO£-02
0.14COOOF.-03
oiilOCOOF-03
0.750000^-03
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.c
0.0
FUNCTION rO=< STABILITY CLASS 1
// - /(- /••/i.i-C'. /I - '
C.O 0-0
C.O 0 . 'J
0.0 0.0
o.o c.o
c.o o.o
c.o o-o
0.0 3-C
c.c o.o
o.o o.o
c.o o.o
o.o o.o
o.o o • c
o.o o.o
o.o o.o
o.o o.o
o.o o.o
THE JOINT FRL'UUENCY FUNCTION
STABILITY CLASS Z
0.210000E-03
0.1AOOOOE-03
0.0
0.430000E-03
0.9(-.0000c-03
C.'.'2COOOF-03
0. 171000F-02
0.210000F-03
0.620000f-03
0.0
0.'»100COF-03
0.13
O.^lOOOOF-03
0.340000F-O.T
o.l-onooF-03
C.O
0.0
0.0
C.O
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0-0
0.0
O.C
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.c
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.u
o.o
0.0
o.c
o.o
o.o
o.o
0.0
o.o
o.o
o.o
o.o
0.0
o.o
o.o
o.o
o.o
o.o
0.0
o.o
o.o
0.0
0.0
o.o
o.o
o.o
o.o
c.o
0.0
0.0
THE JOINT FPEOUF.NCY FUNCTION FCO STABILITY CLASS 3
1
2
3
7)
7
g
10
1
u
ia
/OCO^-02
c.-oicro---o<.
C. I'VJVO-•--•>"!
O.o
0 . 7 •"* 0 S 0 0 - - '•''
0. IM'.0?*'-04
0. loosen--'1*
n.-T o ••. T ,-'•-!•-
c.r.
0. 1COSOO'-'><'
0. lO'J'OOr-/4'.
C.-10SOOr-o;i
n. <• i1 o o o o f - a 3
f..«')B003c-03
O.»20000fc-03
O.^bi'OOOF-02
0.5S20C.C.K-OP
0.103COOF-0?
D. lA'.OOOf.'-O?
0.h20000F-03
O.MtiCOO£-C2
o.
O.Jir,o&OF-03
C'.O
O.C.
y.4r;ooOOE-03
n.?70000r-03
n.'.looooi -n t
C.friOOCOfc-03
0.233COO!:-02
0. 1 100COE-02
ft. 103000E-02
n.27nocofc'-o3
0.0
0. 0
0.0
0. UOOOOE-03
0.0
0.0
0. /OOOGOf.-0'»
O.i70"-00f.-'j3
0."tiOOOOE-03
0. /OOOCOE-0'.
O.l^.OOOOE-03
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.700000E-06
o.o
c.o
o.o
0.0
o.o
0. /00000£-0
-------
TABLE w—1 (continued)
NJ
LO
)
* -
<.
s
*
7
l!
IS
\]
12
1 T
14
IS
16
1
2
3
-
5
(•>
7
3
O
1C
11
12
1 j
l-'i
IS
16
1
2
3
!,
f,
*>
7
«
9
10
: i
12
13
14
15
16
n.^joo"'-"'
»».? Wif. ,i- -i-1
0 . '* s o o r, ^. < - .1 'i
0 . ? i b • i c •"* l - ^ *
•'p . ! ••'<•'.'< ;i' -•' i
•'5 . v-ijr ;.•••!• -,'• t
0. I I'-O.oO- -r 1
0 . " H Ij i": ij rs r - 1 «•
^..l S.3 •" .'. P r - f- ."»
P . I'- o .' '.' 0 > - 1 1
0 . " 'i d v 0 '•-••<•
O. jSiCuV" -'"• 3
o.rtiG'if.v-.w.
P.^O'ir^-m
!:..» i'-oe --01
0. 1 3ViC. - -c3
O.liSf.;: r-c,.1
P . '• r> : J v u < - 0 3
t* . ? i S 0 0 ;-' - <- 1
9 . " (. - - .1 "i
a. i-''--:o •••-•j.i
0 . '; 3 0 •": ; S • - :1 3
5.1! SD'.'J -01
C . ~ c- D -Ti C 1 f - 0 <•
0 . 1 lj 3 ? C 0 r - f> 1
e,.is:-,co--c3
c.""3T:'Oc-?'.
0. iS^,.jO---',3
0.«SO'*O'V-14
e.oiccofi'-sa
0. •>'-• OCO'.i-~-03
0 . i f; '-' ' 0 0 -" - o 2
'c.fiioono'-'i')
o.^-ooc-i'-ca
G . 'i s ; •,* o i ' - " i
0 . 1 ' J 0 0 ; r - ' f
0 . •'• i ? 0 0 " '" - 0 3
C . 1 ~i-':;>X$f-n?.
C . 5 C '•" ? - C 3
C . '• "•' '- C ' v ? - ft .1
C .^".Ci',00-'-03
0. "iSGOOOF-G'3
0,4''OCOf>r'-^3
(1.H10CCO--03
,!
t!
J
()
;;
t'-,
u
0
(1
0
•)
ll
0
i*
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
j
i;
0
0
0
0
./H/SOO'--
• 1-*'!™:'~
. J.'OOOO'-
. l^'-OOuF-
.''.'! JGOOf -
iu^o;^--
, ^.>i>sf, .1F-
. 't'OriGG1 '-
. 7-';!050' -
.731005^-
.'iSOOOOK-
. *> 1 b il 0 0 f -
. v£bc OT1'-
.'J'SOOTK-
.^n/^noi--
. 16nni".0f-
. 123301^-
. 1 i G G 0 0 c -
. ISO 000:'-
.23 .' 0 G G p -
. ISOiOTF-
. 1 1 t-.'.iO ";?-
. Z'lCOOC"
. 7 2 0 0 0 0 F -
. V S< 0 0 0 0 ? -
.7S5900'>
r..K
n,'
o^
Or-
0^-
0?
oV
o?
o.'t
03
0.1
01
03
(13
01
THE
0^
02
0?
02
C£
G?
0?
02
02
03
03
03
ri.ssoeoof-oj
c
0
c
0
S
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
J5
0
.*! ) 510TL'~
. r' 2 ; j i' 0 0 ? -
.^^5GOOE-
. '•-,: 3'. eo OF-
. ?*.70"» C -"-
03
03
0.1
THE
02
0?
. 11^000^-02
. i fc'iOr. OF.-
.^voOC'r.f.'-
.^d"OCO£-
. 1WCOOF--
..lO'lOOOF.-
.7050001-
.4^2600"-
,40«.OODK-
. 4 6 6 0 0 C r -
. ?£6030;"-
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
.34COGOE-02
. .'H v>0 0 0 >•" -
.322000!;-
02
02
JOINT ^
0
0
n
u
0
.-(
U
0
n
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
Kt.'JUK. NCY HINCIIUN
.«,.'iocot-o;>
. 14,^0'.) f;-o;-
.'. !i: -0**
. 7')'iSCfii'-0<>
,l>C2'jO J!.-G2
. '« 1 M 1[} U l' — (' '
! 1 lnir.iOr-01
•JubU'sCOli -02
. 5 2 0 :> G 0 f - 0 ?
. 7'54^00F -~?
. W.f. OOF-0.-?
.S*3uVsOOF-02
.5^2^00^-02
. "\0 7000F-0^*
.JOINT FHF.UUENCY FUNCTION
0
0
C
n
0
C
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
.V21COOF-0?
. j'«^bOOI"-02
.4S2000K-02
.4 J'oCOt"-02
. 7^'. SOOt-02
.602SOOr-0?
.••> 1-t'j UOF-C'2
. 37hSOGr-02
• lib » S 0 f" - 0 1
.hSO'-.OOF-C?
.5205COE-02
.7 9^^00^-02
. i3--0 C C-c - 0 2
. S'-.r.bOOr"-,';?
.5c/2'jflOE-0'"!
.SO'OOOE-02
JOINT FREQUENCY FUNCTION'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
G
0
0
.S22000C-02
. 17.-.OOOC-02
. 137000;-02
.103000E-02
. I'VPGCOE-O?
.20»000:i-02
.171000E-02
. 192000:t-02
.5000CCr:-Q2
.4:eocot'-o2
.41 1005C-02
. H100CE-01
.fr(>'»OOOi:-32
.10210CE-01
.1 J9200E-01
.740000E-02
Flii'
n.
fi.
0 •
0.
0.
0.
•
.1.
o .
0.
o.
c.
0.
0;
0.
0.
FOK
0.
0.
0.
0.
0 .
0.
0.
0 .
0.
0.
c.
0.
0.
0 .
0.
0.
FOR
n.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0 •
0.
0 -
0.
0.
0.
0.
S I Anil. I I Y CLASS
n. ''.cool -01
4si'ooor-o?
."!.,/ so £ fin 2
io''?'.i!H -01
H'iObOOt-02
^00>H-0?
•i7r'SGOt-'-'i?
1 JcVI',^1; -0 1
13ri7CGF-01
^OCVGIr.-Gl
?S- lOdr-01
fi4 JlSOF-Q i
2
iOSCOCF-02
£0 VOuOF-02
V72SOOF.-02
1 3^2Gi;f -C 1
13h7CO£-01
2C0700F.-C1
25-lOCf-Ol
? ^ 3 1 '"it"- F - o 1
2GOOCOO01
H^SCOE-Ol
STABILITY CLASS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
'4
c.
0.
u .
0.
0.
•
u.
0.
0.
0.
G.
0.
0.
0.
«.•
S
0 .
n ,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0 .
0.
c.
0.
0.
0.
r; .
0.
0.
0.
6
0.
0.
c .
0.
0.
0.
0.
o.
0.
0 .
0 .
0.
0 •
c.
0.
0.
<.'77';OOE>02
Ij7000h-02
1 fi 1 S 0 0 r — 0 ?
i 7ViCOE-02
HIS.-,OOf:-0?
lf,HOOOt'-02
i -i-.o'm-GO
UC'.COK-OZ
j 'i'/soO£ -t/2
.;l'4SOO£-U2
J73SCDE-02
>i'i')SuOE-02
'i •< 7 0 0 0 !;' - 0 ?
'3^CiCGE-G2
^.lT.OOt-02
277SOOE-02
I37r,ooe>02
lolbOOF-02
17--.r:OOt.-C2
155000E-G2
:t60 JOE-02
170000:-G3
1350COE-03
l'tOSOOt-02
33r;SCOE-02
294500E-C2
J 7 3 5 "i (j c - 0 2
:-Sr'5COc-C2
rt;i?OOOE-02
i'-/6000E-02
215000E-02
0
0
0
0
0
,-t
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O.V25f,OOF.-03
O.fesSOOCE-0.1
0*'^ooC0^03
o!"VOCOC'i-03
0.-!--:,flCO£-03
01 s -*1 A •**. r. ? — o A
• «)^'s1JU"£. U**
0.0
0.(-4ScC,0£-33
0 , bbCOOO£-C3
C. 72COOGE-03
0.7VOOOCE-03
0.34C-30E-02
0 . J 1 S i 3 v E-02
G.I20COOE-02
0.205000C-03
0.'>2SOOOF.-03
0.6^~DOOc.-Q3
C . 1 J (• S 0 0 E - C 2
C.Sn003f.£-C3
0 ,r.-/0.'/-',;':i-03
0 . J •• 0 C 0 0 £ - 0 3
0. JiOOOCt-04
0.0
0.4«5030E-C3
O.S=COCOE-03
0.720000E-C.';
C.7-/CCOOE-07
O.J^-'iOOE-OS
0.31SOOCE-02
0. 120000E-02
O.H0500G£-03
0.0
0.0
G.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
G.O
0.0
C.O
0.0
o.a
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
.o.u
-------
APPENDIX X
NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
A. Introduction
Noise pollution, commonly defined as unwanted sound, has
a receptor-oriented/site specific impact. Characteristics of
sites that are generally susceptible to noise impacts include:
• Sites on which churches, hospitals, housing for
the elderly, schools, or residences are located.
• Sites requiring serenity, e.g., parks.
• Densely populated sites.
• Sites on which wood frame structures or structures
with little or no insulation are located.
Implementation of a sludge management plant requires that two
possible categories of noise-generating activities take place,
activities which, if in close proximity to susceptible receptor
sites (and without the benefit of mitigative techniques), will
generate impacts. Specifically, these activities can be iden-
tified as: (1) actions associated with the construction of a
sludge treatment facility and (2) the truck hauling of ash from
operational facilities. It should be noted that construction
activities include the use of construction equipment on the
site, the transportation of construction equipment and materials
to the site, and the transportation of workers to the site.
B. Identification of Potential Impact Areas
The following criteria were developed to identify potential
noise-impacted areas:
• Areas within a 1,000 foot radius of sludge treatment
facility construction site.
• Areas within a 4,000 foot radius of Deer Island
(Alternatives 2 and 10).
• Residential areas adjacent to nongrade separated
arterial and local roadways designated to be used
to transport construction equipment, supplies and
materials, and workers to and from the construction
site.
240
-------
• Residential areas adjacent to nongrade separated
arterial and local roadways designated to be used
as a route by trucks hauling ash and returning to
the treatment facility.
The results of the application of these criteria are illustrated
in Table X-l. During the construction phase, areas located
within 200 feet of the plant sites on Deer Island and Nut
Island are potential noise impact areas. Neighborhoods in
Winthrop, East Boston, and Quincy, identified as potential
noise impact areas, are residential areas through which routes
for the transport of construction equipment, supplies, materials,
and personnel have been designated. (See Figures X-l and X-2
and Tables X-2 and X-3.)
Areas potentially impacted by noise during the operation
phase are those through which truck-haul routes have been
designated. These areas include neighborhoods in Charlestown
and residences in Plainville, Randolph or Amesbury. (See
Figures X-3 and X-4.) For Alternatives 2 and 10 potential
impact areas lie within 4,000 feet and 2,000 feet respectively.
C. Impacts During the Construction Phase
Projected facility requirements indicate that the extent
and nature of construction activity will vary with each alter-
native. Specifically, the alternatives will require the con-
struction of three stacks and related facilities on Deer Island
Alternatives 2 and 10 also include construction of a cofferdam
at Deer Island. In addition, there will be some construction
based at Nut Island, relative to the sludge transfer pipeline.
With respect to the generation of noise, it is anticipated
that for all alternatives cranes, bulldozers and other earth-
moving equipment, as well as cement mixers, will be required.
It is also projected that the heavy pieces of equipment will be
transported to the construction site by barges. Thus, noise
impacts will result from the operation of heavy equipment at
the site and the movement of cement mixers to and from the
site. Table X-4 illustrates the range of noise levels generated
by construction equipment at a distance of 50 feet.
Cofferdam construction will require the use of a pile
driver. Resultant noise peaks will be 105 dB at 15 m (50 feet)
(Magrab, 1975). For Alternatives 2 and 10, the distance to
homes in Point Shirley is 1,220 m (4,000 feet) and 760 m (2,500
feet) respectively. Under adverse meteorological conditions,
impulse noise levels at Point Shirley would be 80 dB for Alter-
native 2 and 90 dB for Alternative 10. This assumes a sound
dissipation of 20 dB/km and does not include the effect of other
construction equipment.
241
-------
TABLE X-l
POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACT AREAS
Alternative
Potential Noa se Impact Areas
Construction Phase
Operation Phase
Land fill of incinerator
ash Deer Island plant
NJ
*>
to
• Deer Island site
• Point Shirley
• Winthrop (specific neighbor-
hoods)
• East Boston (specific neigh-
borhoods
Charlestown (specific neighborhoods)
Plainyille, Randolph or Amesbury
vicinity
Land fill of incinerator
ash Deer and Nut Island
plants
Deer Island
Nut Island
Winthrop (specific
neighborhoods)
East Boston (specific
neighborhoods)
Quincy (specific
neighborhoods)
• Charlestown (specific neighborhoods)
• Quincy (specific neighborhoods)
• Plainville, Randolph or Amesbury
vicinity
-------
'VEAST
36STON
WINTHROP
IVJ1K9
WINTHROP
02152
POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACT AREASS
EAST BOSTON AND WINTHROP
POTENTIAL IMPACT AREAS
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT SUPPLIES,
MATERIALS, AND PERSONNEL TRANSPORT
^^^
LOGAN
AIRPORT
-------
JOINS MAP 37
JOINS MAP 38
052
to
>»
.fe.
052
053
054
055
056
057
058
059
JOINS MAP 51
JOINS MAP 52
FIGURE X-2 POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACT AREAS: QUINCY
POTENTIAL IMPACT AREA
DESIGNATED TRUCK ROUTE
-------
TABLE X-2
SUSCEPTIBLE RECEPTOR INDICATORS
[Source: 1970 U. S. Census Boston SMSA]
Place
Charlestown
East Boston
Quincy
Winthrop
Affected
Census Tracts
0401
0402
0509
0510
0511
4176
4177
4178
1801
1802
1805
Percent Housing Units
Over 30 Years Old
99
73
99
74
70
80
70
58
68
73
84
Percent Multi-
Family Units
76
89
92
81
85
51
64
33
73
64
70
Percent Elderly
(Over 65)
12
9
11
11
14
15
20
8
12
12
14
245
-------
TABLE X-3
INVENTORY OF SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Charlestown
East Boston
Quincy
Winthrop
Vine Street residences
Hunter Street residences
School on Hunter Street
Lowney Street residences
Chelsea Street residences
• Orient Heights Beach
• Church and school on
Moore Street near
Bennington Street
• Saratoga Street
residences
• Sea Street residences
• Atherton Hough School
• Merrymount Park
• Hancock Street residences
• Playground at Young
Street and Hancock Street
• Yierel Beach I
• Taft Street residence !
• Shirely Street residence
• School at Irwin and Shirely
• Synagogues on Shirely Street
• Crest Avenue residences
• Revere Street residences
• Main Street residences
-------
el sea
laval Hospital
WM%KU-«:-i^
K cMSS
uisi^,itmssmmsmia^
FIGURE X -3
POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACT AREAS:
CHARLESTOWN
247
POTENTIAL IMPACT AREAS
DESIGNATED TRUCK ROUTE
-------
\"7 'J*r K"'^ A' *7/XT
Vcsrre /\* 7®|«.-^»£
P5^.>-^*lBL'^4-^-':'LAw|gN«2fels./'
il4 «^/, V,/ ,( /.. rrf»^/^j U rJ \ J^f^ - fl/L5" - ^ \ Ti^-C
-,_K
-^ Ax li'<""* jT^'"'?/'B3®i/BlEWjCON)ofz/iKr^7
'' "" ^- ~"
^o,<,aiMlrEfI^?*y'!W/aW
4 iJ^shlafldr,,,^ s ^•''''•-""j"-"" , L-' o
' f-^>~^i (SH.L- tSJSefborry*L, rM Dover/
fi^n«fnfnn °V J^)'? Z
Randolph Site
Plainville Site
Amesbury Site
Designated Haul Rte.
Scale
1" = 10 mi.
FIGURE X-4 POTENTIAL LANDFILL SITES
248
-------
TABLE X-4
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE RANGES
NOISE LEVEL (cibA! AT 50 IT
60 70 BO 90 K. f; I'O
to
u
EQUIPMENT POWERED BY INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENG
H
(.)
<
O.
5
0
o
s
X
t-
c:
-------
Table X-5 summarizes the probable noise impacts associated
with the construction phase for each alternative. It is pro-
jected for each alternative that the use of construction
equipment will significantly impact areas within 50 feet of
the source, and in most cases this would expose construction
workers and employees at the existing treatment plant.
With respect to the transport of construction materials to
the site, particularly the movement of cement mixers, it is
estimated that the frequency of trips (no more than 3 per day
over a six month period) will generate negligible increases
in the overall noise levels in surrounding neighborhoods;
however, the 75 dB - 85 dB range generated by these trucks can
possibly be intrusive to residences with shallow setbacks on a
periodic basis.
D. Impacts During the Operational Phase
The sole source of neighborhood noise impact during the
operation for each of the alternatives will be noise levels
generated in local neighborhoods by 20 ton diesel trucks laden
with approximately 20 tons of ash. Table X-6 indicates that the
projected noise level increment in urban neighborhoods in
Charlestown will be negligible for each alternative. However,
these minor increments are applied to Charlestown's background
levels which already exceed EPA guidelines.
TABLE X-6
PROJECTED TRUCK-INDUCED NOISE IMPACTS
DURING OPERATIONAL PHASE
Noise Projected Noise Projected
Alternative Impact Area Level Increment* Noise Level,Leg
Landfill of incinerator Charlestown 0.14 dBA 74.14 dBA
ash/Deer Island incinerator Plainville 3.14 dBA 63.14 dBA
(3 stacks) Randolph 3.14 dBA 63.14 dBA
Amesbury 3.14 dBA 63.14 dBA
* It was assumed in making calculations that:
• Receptor was 50 feet from truck, and
• Time duration of truck noise was 30 minutes.
250
-------
TABLE X-5
PROJECTED NOISE IMPACTS DURING CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Alternative
Noise Impact Area
Construction Equipment Use
Construction Related Transport
Deer Island
incineration
Deer Island Site
Impact construction workers and
employees of existing treatment
plant
ui
Point Shirley
Winthrop
Impulse noise peaks at Point
Shirley
None
Overall noise level increment
will be negligible, periodic
cement mixer trips will be
intrusive
East Boston
None
Overall noise level increment
will be negligible, periodic
cement mixer trips will be
intrusive
-------
The most significant noise impacts take place at sites
where the ash landfill may be located. While projected noise
levels in all of these areas do not exceed EPA guidelines,
increments in the 3 to 7 dBA range indicate substantial changes
which could be clearly perceivable by local residents in the
vicinity of the designated truck haul routes.
It should also be noted that while trucks carrying ash
may not produce noise emission levels that can be considered
harmful to most people in quantified terms, they may be perceived
as a disturbance or nuisance. One aspect of this is that the
cargo carried by the trucks will be known to be a product of
wastewater treatment and may cause the trucks to be considered
undesirable, even though there is no serious quantifiable impact.
The local noise impacts from on-site operation of dewatering
equipment and incinerators should be negligible because of the
separation from sensitive receptors.
252
-------
APPENDIX Y
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
A. Introduction
The incineration alternative with inland fill at an
existing fill will require the use of some truck transport
within the region. The assumptions used in preparing the
traffic impact analysis are as follows:
1. Routing - Alternative 1
a. Landfill of incinerator ash from Deer Island:
• Barge from Deer Island to terminal.
(1) Amesbury Site:
- Route 92 North to Route 495 West.
- To a site South of Route 495 on
Hunt Road in Amesbury.
(2) Randolph Site:
- South on the Southeast Expressway
(Route 95) to Route 128 to Route 24
South.
- To a site approximately one mile
Southeast of the Route 128 and
Route 24 intersection on the
Randolph border.
(3) Plainville Site:
- South on the Southeast Expressway
(Route 95) to Route 128 to 1-95.
- West on Route 495 to a site in the
Northeast quadrangle of the inter-
section of Route 295 and U. S.
Route 1, near Plainville.
b. Landfill of incinerator ash from Nut Island:
• Truck from Nut Island through the Town of
Quincy on Hancock and Sea Streets, to 1-95.
• Continued as for trucks from terminal to
ultimate disposal site for Deer Island.
253
-------
2. Truck Characteristics
a. Truck size - gross vehicle weight = 60,000 Ibs.
(40,000 Ibs. net weight).
b. Diesel fuel.
c. •1980 vehicle standards for noise and air pollu-
tant emissions (vehicles purchased in 1980 as-
sumed to be operational in 1985).
3. Frequency and Timing of Transportation
a. Landfilling of incinerator ash:
• Five (5) truck vehicle loads per day outbound
from Terminal (Deer Island).
(1) Amesbury Site:
- Vehicle miles - 500 miles/day (250 in
empty, 250 out loaded) of truck travel
plus 6.5 miles/day of barge travel.
(2) Randolph Site:
- Vehicle miles - 150 miles/day (75 in
empty, 75 out loaded) of truck travel
plus 6.5 miles/day of barge travel.
(3) Plainville Site:
- Vehicle miles - 400 miles/day (220 in
empty, 220 out loaded) of truck travel
plus 6.5 miles/day of barge travel.
b. Truck speed is thirty miles per hour.
B. Transportation Impact
1 • Operation Impacts
Alternative 1 is the only alternative that includes trans-
port over public streets during operation. With use of a ter-
minal in the Inner or Outer harbor, not owned by MASSPORT, a
total of ten trips per day will not create a detectable impact
in the area. Once the ash trucks reach a major highway, such
as the Southeast Expressway, no impact on traffic will occur.
All other incineration alternatives with land disposal
involve no use of public streets and therefore no operational
impact on traffic.
254
-------
• 2. Construction Impacts
Alternatives 1, 2, 8, 9, 10 and 11 all have similar
construction inputs for onsite processes and hence similar
impacts. For each of these, the daily traffic increase
during construction will include 240 automobile trips per
day and less than one truck trip per day for materials.
The impact of automobile traffic will be minor, and the
impact of truck traffic will be negligible.
For the alternatives with cofferdam construction (2
and 10), an additional increase in automobile and truck
traffic will occur. While these impacts will be negligible,
they will be greater than construction impacts for 1,8, 9
and 11.
255
-------
APPENDIX Z
CORRESPONDENCE
256
-------
Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
600
foeet
COMMISSIONER
26 November 1975
Mr. James E. Shirk, P.E.
EcolSciences, Inc.
Environmental Consulting Services
20 Union Street
Rockaway, New Jersey 07866
Dear Srr:
RE: PLAINVILLE - Solid Wastes -
Clean Communities Landfill
The Department of Environmental Quality Engineering hereby acknowledges receipt
of your letter of 13 November 1975 relative to the possible disposal of sewage res-
idues at the above referenced facility.
Please be advised that this facility has been approved by the Department for
the disposal of 750 tons per day as stated in the approval letter of 30 April 1975-
The Department would consider the disposal of dewatered sewage residue at the
site provided that the amount does not exceed fifteen percent of the solid wastes
by volume. Further, any residue would have to be mixed in with the refuse and could
not be utilized as cover material.
Prior to the disposal of any sewage residues at the site, the Department must be
notified as to what kind of residue is to be disposed of. This is necessary in order
to ascertain if any pertinent hazardous waste regulations would be applicable.
If you have any further questions in this matter, please refer all correspondence
to Mr. Vartkes K. Karaian, Associate Sanitary Engineer, Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering, Division of General Environmental Control, 600 Washington Street,
Room 320, Boston, Ma. 02111, Telephone (6l7) 727-2655.
Very truly yours,
For the Commissioner
PTA/sc
cc: Board of Health
Plainville, Ma. 02676
Clean Communities Corp.
1 Newbury Street
Peabody, Ma. 01960
Bureau of Solid Waste Disposal
Leverett Saltonstall Building
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, Ma. 02202
cc
cc
Paul T. Anderson, P.E.
Director
Division of General Environmental Control
cc: Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc.
One Center Plaza
Boston, Ma. 02108
257
-------
CITY OF BOSTON CONSERVATION COMMISSION / ROOM 911 / CFTY HALL / BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS / 02201
November 10, 1975
Mr. Peter Spinney
Ecolsciences, Inc.
20 Union Street
Rockaway, New Jersey
RE: Incinerator Ash Landfill for MDC Sludge Facility
Dear Mr. Spinney:
As we discussed by telephone last week, the Boston Conservation Commission
is strongly opposed to any alternative for the handling of sludge at
the MDC's Deer Island treatment plant which proposes landfilling of
incinerator ash residue in the harbor.
As you know, the Conservation Commission, under the authority of the
Wetlands Protection Act (Ch. 131, s. UO of the General Laws), would
review such a proposal. As a matter of policy, it is quite unlikely
that the Commission would approve the necessary permit for any filling
of any portion of Boston Harbor for the purpose of waste disposal.
As a matter of principle, it seems absurd to attempt to solve a harbor
pollution problem by destroying a portion of the harbor itself.
The potential leachate from the ash landfill, which is sure to be
highly contaminated, represents in effect a concentrating and
localizing of the environmental costs and impacts of the treatment
plant wastes. The feasibility of using an impermeable membrane
to contain leachates is dubious, and, it seems to us, presents an
unacceptable risk.
The proposed site of the landfill, on the western side of Deer Island,
is adjacent to or near extensive areas of intertidal flats which
support important shellfish populations, and is at the doorway of a
vital part of the harbor, containing salt marsh, beaches, and boating
facilities. The risk of leaching and the reduction of from 8 to 20
acres of water area may well have severe impacts on the already marginal
water quality and viability of marine life and vegetation in this
area of the harbor. Furthermore, filling in this area may result in
undesirable changes in tidal currents and flows.
258
-------
Page 2
November 10, 1975
Mr. Peter Spinney
Incinerator Ash Landfill
I have not discussed other sludge handling alternatives, which
would not require harbor landfill. It is hoped that the envir-
onmental impact statement process, with which you are presently
engaged, will emphasize and focus on those alternatives.
Very truly yours,
Eugenie Beal
Environmental Affairs Coordinator
EB/dd
259
-------
APPENDIX AA
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FINAL REGULATIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS
(40 CFR Part 6)
260
-------
MONDAY, APRIL 14, 1975
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Volume 40 • Number 72
PART III
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
Preparation of Environmental
Impact Statements
Final Regulations
-------
IGt-M
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Title 40—Protection of Environment
CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL 327-5]
PART 6—PREPARATION OF ENVIRON-
MENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS
Final Regulation
The National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA), implemented by
Executive Order 11514 of March 5. 1970,
and the Council on Environmental
Quality's (CEQ's) Guidelines of Au-
gust 1, 1973, requires that all agencies of
the Federal Government prepare de-
tailed environmental impact statements
on proposals for legislation and other
major Federal actions significantly af-
fecting the quality of the human en-
vironment. NEPA requires that agencies
include in their decision-making process
an appropriate and careful consideration
of all environmental aspects of proposed
actions, an explanation of potential en-
vironmental effects of proposed actions
and their alternatives for. public under-
standing. a discussion of ways to avoid
or minimize adverse effects of proposed
actions and a discussion of how to re-
store or enhance environmental quality
as much as possible.
On January 17, 1973, the Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) pub-
lished a new Part'6 in interim form in
the FEDERAL REGISTER (38 FR 1696), es-
tablishing EPA policy and procedures for
the identification and analysis of envi-
ronmental impacts and the preparation
of environmental impact statements
(EIS's) when significant impacts on the
environment are anticipated.
On July 17, 1974, EPA published a no-
tice of proposed rulemaking the FED-
ERAL REGISTER (39 FR 26254). The rule-
making provided detailed procedures for
applying NEPA to EPA's nonregulatory
programs only. A separate notice of ad-
ministrative procedure published in the
October 21. 1974, FEDERAL REGISTER (39
FR 37419) gave EPA's procedures for
voluntarily preparing EIS's on certain
regulatory activities. EIS procedures for
another regulatory activity, issuing Na-
tional Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) discharge permits to
new sources, will appear in 40 CFR 6.
Associated amendments to the NPDES
operating regulations, covering permits
to new sources, will appear in 40 CFR
125.
The proposed regulation on the prep-
aration of EIS's for nonregulatory pro-
grams was published for public review
and comment. EPA received comments
on this proposed regulation from envi-
ronmental groups; Federal, State and
local governmental agencies; industry'
and private Individuals. As a result of
the comments received, the following
changes have been made:
(1) Coastal zones, wild and scenic
rivers, prime agricultural land and wild-
life habitat were included In the criteria
to be considered during the environmen-
tal review.
The Coastal Zone Management Act
and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act are
Intended to protect these environmen-
tally sensitive areas; therefore, EPA
should consider the effects of its projects
on these areas. Protection of prime agri-
cultural lands and wildlife habitat has
become an important concern as a re-
sult of the need to further increase food
production from domestic sources as well
as commercial harvesting of fish and
other wildlife resources and from the
continuing need to preserve the diversity
of natural resources for future genera-
tions.
(2) Consideration of the use of flood-
plains as required by Executive Order
11296 was added to the environmental
review process.
Executive Order 11296 requires agen-
cies to consider project alternatives
which will preclude the uneconomic,
hazardous or unnecessary use of flood-
plains to minimize the exposure of fa-
cilities to potential flood damage, lessen
the need for future Federal expenditures
for flood protection and flood disaster
relief and preserve the unique and sig-
nificant public value of the floodplain
as an environmental resource.
(3) Statutory definitions of coastal
zones and wild and scenic rivers were
added to § 6.214(b).
These statutes define sensitive areas
and require'states to designate areas
which must be protected.
(4) The review and. comment period
for negative declarations was extended
from 15 days to 15 working days.
Requests for negative declarations and
comments on negative declarations are
not acted on during weekends and on
holidays. In addition, mail requests often
take two or three days to reach the ap-
propriate office and several more days for
action and delivery of response. There-
fore, the new time frame for review and
response to a negative declaration is.
more realistic without adding too much
delay to a project.
(5) Requirements for more data in the
negative declaration to clarify the pro-
posed action were added in § 6.212(b).
Requiring a summary of the impacts
of a project and other data to support
the negative declaration in this docu-
ment improves its usefulness as a tool to
review the decision not to prepare a full
EIS on a project,
(6) The definitions of primary and
secondary impacts in § 6.304 were clari-
fied.
The definitions were made more spe-
cific, especially in the issue areas of in-
duced growth and growth rates, to reduce
subjectivity in deciding whether an im-
pact is primary or secondary.
(7) Procedures for EPA public hear-
ings in Subpart D were clarified.
Language was added to this subpart
to distinguish EPA public hearings from
applicant hearings required by statute or
regulation, such as the facilities plan
hearings.
(8) The discussion of retroactive ap-
' and
The new language retains flexibility in
decision making for the Regional Admin-
istrator while- eliminating the ambiguity
of the langauge In the interim regulation.
(9) The criteria for writing an EIS if
wetlands may be affected were modified
in! 6.510 (b).
The new language still requires an EIS
on a project which will be located on
wetlands but limits the requirements for
an EIS on secondary wetland effects to
those which are significant and adverse.
(10) A more detailed explanation of
the data required in environmental as-
sessments (f 6.512) was added.'
Requiring more specific data In several
areas, including energy production and
consumption as well as land use trends
and population projections, from the ap-
plicant wiU provide'a more eomplete.data
base for the environmental review. Doc-
umentation of the applicant's data will
allow EPA to evaluate the validity of this
data.
(11) Subpart F, Guidelines for Com-
pliance with NEPA in Research and De-
velopment Programs and Activities, was
revised. .
. ORD simplified this subpart by re-
moving the internal procedures and as-
signments of responsibility for circula-
tion in internal memoranda. Only the
general application of this regulation to
ORD programs was retained.
(12) The discussions of responsibilities
and document distribution procedures
were moved to appendices attached to the
regulations.
These sections were removed from the
regulatory language to improve'the read-
ability of the regulation and because
these discussions are more explanatory
and do not need to have the legal force
of regulatory language.
(13) Consideration of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 was incorporated in-
to the regulation.
EPA recognizes its responsibility to as-
sist with implementing legislation which
will help preserve or improve our natural
resources.
The major issues raised on this regula-
tion were on new and proposed criteria
for determining when to prepare an EIS
and the retroactive application of the
criteria to projects started before July 1,
1975. In addition to the new criteria
which were added, CEQ requested the ad-
dition of several quantitative criteria for
which parameters have not been set.
These new criteria are being discussed
with CEQ and^nay be added to the regu-
lation at a future date. Changes in the
discussion of retroactive application of
the criteria are described In item 8 above.
EPA believes that Agency compliance
with the regulations of Part 6 will en-
hance the present quality of human life
without endangering the quality of the
natural environment for future genera-
tions.
Effective date: This regulation will be-
come effective April 14, 1975.
Dated: April 3, 1975.
RUSSELL E. TRAIH,
Administrator.
FEDERAL REG.STER, VOl. 40. NO. 72-MONDAY, APR.l 14f 1975
262
-------
Subpart A— General
Sec.
6.1CX) Purpose and policy.
6.102 Definitions.
6.104 Summary of procedures for imple-.
meriting NEPA.
6.106 Applicability.
6.108 Completion of NEPA procedures be-
fore start of administrative action.
C.I 10 Responsibilities.
Subpart B — Procedures
G 200 Criteria for determining when to pre-
pare an environmental Impact state-
ment.
6.202 Environmental assessment.
6.204 Environmental review.
6.206 Notice of Intent.
6.208 Draft environmental Impact state-
ments.
6.210 Final environmental Impact state-
ments,
6.212 Negative declarations and environ-
mental Impact appraisals.
6.214 _ Additional procedures.
6.218 " Availability of documents.
Subpart C — Content of Environmental Impact
Statement*
6.300 Cover sheet.
6.3? 2 Summary sheet.
6.3(4 Body of statement.
6.306 Documentation.
Subpart 0 — EPA Public Hearings on Impact
Statements
6.400 General.
6.402 Public hearing process.
Subpart C — Guidelines for Compliance With
NEPA In the Title II Wa&tewater Treatment
Works Construction Grants Program and the
Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plan-
ning Program
6.500 Purpose.
6.502 Definitions.
6.504 Applicability.
6.506 Completion of NEPA procedures be-
fore start of administrative actions.
6.510 Criteria for preparation of environ-
mental Impact statements.
6.512 Procedures for Implementing "NEPA.
6.514 Content of environmental Impact
statements.
Subpart F — Guidelines for Compliance With NEPA
in Research and Development Programs and
Activities
6.600 Purpose.
6.602 Definitions.
6.604 Applicability.
6.608 Criteria for determining when to pre-
pare environmental Impact state-
ments. '
6.610 Procedures for compliance with NEPA.
Subpart G — G-. Mcllnes far Compliance With NEPA
in Solid Waste Management Activities
6.700 Purpose.
6.702. Criteria for the preparation of envi-
ronmental assessments and EIS's.
6.704 Procedures for compliance with NEPA.
Subpart H— Guidelines for Compliance With
NE.PA In Construction of Special Purpose Fa-
cilities and Facility Renovations
6.800 Purpose.
6.802 Definitions.
4.804 Applicability
6.808 Criteria for the preparation of envi-
ronmental assessments and EIS's.
6.810 Procedures for compliance with NEPA.
1. (Page I.) Notice of Intent Transmrfctal
Memorandum Suggested Format.
(Page 2.) Notice of- Intent Suggested
Format.
1 Public Notice and News Release Suggested
Format
*. Negative Declaration Suggested Format.
RULES AND REGULATIONS
4. Environmental Impact Appraisal Sug-
gested Format.
5. Cover Sheet Format for Environmental
Impact Statements.
6. Summary Sheet Format for Environments!
Impact Statements.
7. Flowchart for Solid Waste Management
Program Operations.
Appendix A—Checklist for Environmental
Reviews.
Appendix B—Responsibilities.
Appendix C—Availability and Distribution
of Documents.
Authority: Sees. 102, 103 of 83 Stat 854
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
Subpart A—General
§ 6.100, Purpose and policy.
(a) The National Environmental Pol-
Icy Act (NEPA) of 1969, Implemented by
Executive Order 11514 and the Council
on Environmental Quality's (CEQ's)
Guidelines of August 1. 1973 (38 FE
20550). requires that sll agencies of the
Federal Government prepare detailed en-
vironmental Impact statements on pro-
posals for legislation and other major
Federal actions significantly affefcting
the quality of the human environment.
NEPA requires that agencies include In
the decision-making process appropriate
and careful consideration of all environ-
mental effects of proposed actions, ex-
plain potential environmental effects of
proposed actions and their aternatlves
for public understanding, avoid or mini-
mize adverse effects of proposed actions
and restore or enhance environmental
quality as much as possible.
(b) This part establishes Environmen-
tal Protection Agency (EPA) policy and
procedures for the identification and
analysis of the environmental Impacts of
EPA nonregulatory actions and the prep-
aration and processing of environmental
impact statements (EIS's) when signifi-
cant impacts on the environment are
anticipated.
§ 6.102 Definitions.
(a) "Environmental assessment" Is a
written analysis-submitted to EPA by Its
grantees or contractors describing the
environmental Impacts of proposed ac-
tions undertaken with the'financial sup-
port of EPA. For facilities or section 208
plans as defined In S 6.102 (J) and (k),
the assessment must be &n Integral,
though identifiable, part of the plan sub-
mitted to EPA for review.
(b) "Environmental review" Is a for=-
mal evaluation undertaken by EPA to
determine whether a proposed EPA ac-
tion may have a significant Impact on
the environment. The environmental as-
sessment Is one of the major sources of
information used In this review.
(c> "Notice of Intent" Is a memoran-
dum, prepared after the environmental
review, announcing to Federal, regional.
State, and local agencies, and to Inter-
ested persons, that a draft EIS will be
prepared.
(d) "Environmental Impact state-
ment" Is a report, prepared by EPA,
which Identifies and analyzes In detail
the environmental impacts of a proposed
EPA action and feasible alternatives.
16$ 15
(e) "Negative declaration" Is a written
announcement, prepared after the en-
vironmental review, which states that
EPA has decided not to prepare an EIS
and summarizes the environmental im-
pact appraisal.
(f) "Environmental Impact appraisal"
Is based on an environmental review and
supports a negative declaration. It de-
scribes a proposed EPA action, its ex-
pected environmental impact, and the
basis for the conclusion that no signifi-
cant impact is anticipated.
-------
16S16
Subpart D. The process shall include a
review of any environmental assessment
received to determine whether any sig-
nificant impacts are anticipated, whether
any changes can be made In the proposed
action to eliminate significant adverse
impacts, and whether an EIS Is required.
EPA has overall responsibility for this
review, although Its grantees and con-
tractors will contribute to the review
through their' environmental assess-
ed) Notice of intent and EIS's. When
an environmental review indicates that
a significant environmental impact may
occur and the significant adverse impacts
cannot be eliminated by making changes
in the project, a notice of intent shall be
published, and a draft EIS shall be pre-
pared and distributed. After external co-
ordination and evaluation of the com-
ments received, a final EIS shall be pre-
pared and distributed. EIS's should be
prepared first on those proposed actions
with the most adverse effects which are
scheduled for earliest implementation
and on other proposed actions according
to priorities assigned by the responsible
official.
(e) Negative declaration and environ-
mental impact appraisal. When the en-
vironmental review indicates no signi-
ficant impacts are anticipated or when
the project is changed to eliminate the
significant adverse impacts, a* negative
declaration shall be issued. For the cases
In Subparts E, P. G. and H of this part,
an environmental impact appraisal shall
be prepared which summaries the im-
pacts, alternatives and reasons an EIS
was not prepared. It shall remain on file
and be available for public inspection.
§ 6.106 Applicability.
(a) Administrative actions covered.
This part applies to the administrative
actions listed below. The subpart refer-
enced wjth each action lists the detailed
NEPA procedures associated with the ac-
tion. Administrative actions are:
(1) Development of EPA legislative
proposals;
(2) Development of favorable reports
on legislation initiated elsewhere and not
accompanied by an EIS, when they relate
to or affect matters within EPA's pri-
mary p-eas or responsibility;'
(3) For the programs under Title H of
FWPCA. as amended, those administra-
tive actions in § 6.504;
(4) For the Office of Research and De-
velopment, those administrative actions
in § 6.604;
(5) For the Office of Solid Waste Man-
agement Programs, those administrative
actions in § 6.702;
(6) For construction of special pur-
pose facilities and facility renovations,
those administrative actions in f 6.804;
and
(7) Development of an EPA project In
conjunction with or located near a proj-
ect or complex of projects started by one
or more Federal agencies when the
cumulative effects of all the projects will
be major allocations of resources or fore-
closures of future land use options.
RULES AND REGULATIONS
(b) Administrative actions excluded.
The requirements of this part dp not ap-
ply to environmentally protective regu-
latory activities undertaken by EPA, nor
to projects exempted in § 6.504, § 6.604,
and § 6.702.
(c) Application to ongoing actions.
This regulation shall apply to uncom-
pleted and continuing EPA actions ini-
tiated before the promulgation of these
procedures when modifications of or al-
ternatives to the EPA action are still
available, except for .the Title n con-
struction grants program. Specific appli-
cation for the construction grants pro-
gram is in § 6.504(c). An EIS shall be
prepared for each project found to have
significant environmental effects as de-
scribed in § 6.200.
(d) Application to legislative propos-
als. (1) As noted in paragraphs (a) <1)
and (2) of this section, EIS's or negative
declarations shall be prepared for legis-
lative proposals or favorable reports re-
lating to legislation which may signifi-
cantly affect the environment. Because
of the nature of the legislative process,
EIS's for legislation must be prepared
and reviewed according to the proce-
dures followed in the development and
review of the legislative matter. These
procedures are described in Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Circu-
lar No. A-19.
(2) A working draft EIS shall be pre-
pared by the EPA office responsible for
preparing the legislative proposal or re-
port on legislation. It shall be prepared
concurrently with the development of
the legislative proposal or report and
shall contain the information required
in § 6.304. The EIS shall be circulated for
internal EPA review with the legislative
proposal or report and other supporting
documentation. The working draft EIS
shall be modified to correspond with
changes made in the proposal or report
during the internal review. All major al-
ternatives developed during the formu-
lation and review of the proposal or re-
port should be retained in the working
draft EIS.
(i) The working draft EIS shall ac-
company the legislative proposal or re-
port to OMB. EPA shall revise the work-
ing draft EIS to respond to comments
from OMB and other Federal agencies.
(ii) Upon transmitted of the legisla-
tive proposal or report to Congress, the
working draft EIS will be forwarded to
CEQ and the Congress as a formal leg-
islative EIS. Copies will be distributed
according to procedures described in Ap-
pendix C.
(iii) Comments received by EPA on
the legislative EIS shall be forwarded to
the appropriate Congressional Commit-
tees. EPA also may respond to specific
comments and forward its responses with
the comments. Because legislation under-
goes continuous changes in Congress be-
yond the control of EPA, no final EIS
need be prepared by EPA.
§ 6.108 Completion of NEPA procedure*
before starting administrative action.
(a) No administrative action shall be
taken until the environmental review
process, resulting in an EIS or a nega-
tive declaration with environmental ap-
praisal, has been completed.
(b) When an EIS will be prepared.
Except when requested by the respon-
sible official in writing and approved by
CEQ no administrative action shall be
taken sooner than ninety (90) calendar
days after a draft EIS has been distrib-
uted or sooner than thirty (30) calendar
days after the final EIS has been made
public If the final text of an EIS is filed
within ninety (90) days after a draft EIS
has been circulated for comment, fur-
nished to CEQ and made public, the
minimum thirty (30) day period and the
ninety (90) day period may run con-
currently if they overlap. The minimum
periods for review and advance avail-
ability of EIS's shall begin on the date
CEQ publishes the notice of receipt of
the EIS in the FEDERAL REGISTER. In ad-
dition, the proposed action should be
modified to" conform with any changes
EPA considers necessary before the final
EIS is published.
(c) When an EIS will not be prepared.
If EPA decides not to prepare an EIS
on any action listed In this part for
which a negative declaration with en-
vironmental appraisal has been prepared,
no administrative action shall be taken
for at least fifteen (15) working days
after the negative declaration is issued to
allow public review of the decision. If
significant environmental issues are
raised during the review period, the deci-
sion may be changed and a new environ-
mental appraisal or an EIS may be pre-
pared.
§ 6.110 Responsibilities.
See Appendix B for responsibilities of
this part.
Subpart B—Procedures
§ 6.200 Criteria for determining when
to prepare an EIS.
The following general criteria shall be
used when reviewing a proposed EPA
action to determine if it will have a
significant impact on the environment
and therefore require an EIS:
(a) Significant environmental effects.
(1) An action with both beneficial and
detrimental effects should be classified
as having significant effects on the en-
vironment, even If EPA believes that
the net effect will be beneficial. However,
preference should be given to preparing
EIS's on proposed actions which, on bal-
ance, have adverse effects.
(2) When determining Jthe signifi-
cance of a proposed action's impacts,
the responsible official shall consider
both its short term and long term effects
as well as its primary and secondary
effects as defined in I 6.304(c). Particu-
lar attention should be given to changes
in land use patterns; changes in energy
supply and demand; increased develop-
ment in floodplains; significant changes
in ambient air and water quality or noise
levels; potential violations of air quality,
water quality and noise level standards;
significant changes in surface or ground-
water quality or quantity; and encroach-
FEDERAt REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 72—MONDAY, APRIL 14, 1975
264
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
16S11
ments on wetlands, coatstal zones, or fish
and •wildlife habitat, especially when
threatened or endangered species may be
affected.
(3) Minor actions -which may set a
precedent for future major actions with
significant adverse Impacts or a/number
of actions with Individually Insignificant
but cumulatively significant adverse Im-
pacts shall be classified as having sig-
nificant environmental Impacts. If EPA
is taking a number of minor, environ-
mentally Insignificant actions that are
similar In execution and purpose, during
a limited time span and In the same
general geographic area, the cumulative
environmental Impact of all of these
actions shall be evaluated.
(4) In determining the significance of
a p'roposed action's Impact, the unique
characteristics of the project area should
be carefully considered. For example,
proximity to historic sites, parklands or
wild and scenic rivers may make the
impact significant. A project discharging
into a drinking water aquifier may make
the impact significant.
(5) A proposed EPA action which will
have direct and significant adverse ef-
fects on a property listed In or eligible
for Ustlng in the National Register of
Historic Places or will cause Irreparable
loss or destruction of significant scien-
tific, prehistoric, historic or archaeolog-
ical data shall be classified as having
significant environmental impacts.
(b) Controversial actions. An EIS
shall be prepared when the environ-
mental impact of a proposed EPA action
is likely to be highly controversial."
(c) Additional criteria for specific
program*. Additional criteria for vari-
ous EPA programs are In Subpart E
(Title n Wastewater Treatment Works
Construction Grants Program), Subpart
F (Research and Development Pro-
grams), Subpart G (Solid Waste Man-
age: aent Programs) and Subpart H
(Construction of Special Facilities and
Facility Renovations),.
§ 6.202 Environmental assessment.
Environmental assessments must be
submitted to EPA by its grantees and
contractors as required in Subparts E,
F, G, and H of this part. The assessment
is to ensure that the applicant considers
the environmental impacts of the pro-
posed action at the earliest possible point
in his planning process. The assessment
and other relevant information are used
by EPA to decide if an EIS Is required.
While EPA is responsible for ensuring
that EIS's are factual and comprehen-
sive, it expects assessments and other
data submitted by grantees and contrac-
tors to be accurate and complete. The
responsible official may request addi-
tional data and analyses from grantees
or other sources any time he determines
they are needed to comply adequately
withNEPA.
§ 6.204 Environmental review.
Proposed EPA actions, as well as on-
going EPA actions, listed In S 6.106(c),
shall be subjected to an environmental
review. This review shall be a-continu-
ing one, starting at the earliest possible
point hi the development of the project.
It shall consist of a study of the pro-
posed action. Including a review of any
environmental assessments received, to
Identify and evaluate the environmental
Impacts of the proposed action and feas-
ible alternatives. The review will deter-
mine whether significant Impacts are
anticipated from the proposed action,
whether any feasible alternatives can
be adopted or changes can be made hi
project design to eliminate significant
adverse impacts, and whether an
EIS or a negative declaration is re-
quired. The responsible official shall de-
termine the proper scope of the environ-
mental review. The responsible official
may delay approval of related projects
until the proposals can be reviewed to-
gether to allow EPA to properly evaluate
their cumulative Impacts
§ 6.206 Notice of intent.
(a) General, (1) When an environ-
mental review indicates a significant Im-
pact may occur and significant adverse
impacts cannot be eliminated by making
changes in the project, a notice of intent,
announcing the preparation of a draft
EIS, shall be issued by the responsible
official. The notice shall briefly describe
the EPA action, Its location, and the Is-
sues involved (Exhibit 1).
(2) The purpose of a notice of intent
is to involve other government agencies
and interested persons as early as possi-
ble in the planning and evaluation of
EPA actions which may have significant
environmental impacts. This notice
should encourage agency and public to-
put to a draft EIS and assure that en-
vironmental values will be identified and
weighed from the outset rather than
accommodated by adjustments at the
end of the decision-making process.
(b) Specific actions. The specific ac-
tions to be taken by the responsible offi-
cial on notices of Intent are:
(1) When the review process Indicates
a significant impact may occur and sig-
nificant adverse impacts cannot be elim-
inated by making changes In the project,
prepare a notice of intent Immediately
after the environmental review.
(2) Distribute copies of the notice of
Intent as required in Appendix C.
(3) Publish in a local newspaper, with
adequate circulation to cover the area
affected by the project, a brief public
notice stating that an EIS will be pre-
pared on a particular project, and the
public may participate in preparing the
EIS (Exhibit 2). News releases also may
be submitted to other media.
(c) Regional office assistance to pro-
gram offices. Regional offices will provide
assistance to program offices hi taking
these specific actions when the EIS orig-
inates in a program office.
§6.208, Draft EIS's.
(a) General. (1) The responsible offi-
cial shall assure that a draft EIS is pre-
pared as soon as possible after the release
of the notice of intent. Before releasing
the draft EIS to CEQ, a preliminary ver-
sion may be circulated for review to other
offices within EPA with Interest In or
technical expertise related to the action.
Then the draft EIS shall be sent to CEQ
and circulated to Federal, State, regional
and local agencies with special expertise
or jurisdiction by law. and to interested
persons. If the responsible official deter-
mines, that a publid hearing on the pro-
posed action Is warranted, the hearing
will be held after the draft EIS Is pre-
pared, according to the requirements of
§ 6.402.
(2) Draft EIS's should be prepared at
the earliest possible point in the project
development. If the project involves a
grant applicant or potential contractor.
he must submit any data EPA requests
for preparing the EIS. Where a plan or
program has been developed by EPA or
submitted to~EPA for approval, the re-
lationship between the plan and the
later projects encompassed by Its shall
be evaluated to determine the best time
to prepare an EIS, Whenever possible,
an EIS will be drafted for the total pro-
gram at the initial planning stage. Then
later component projects included In the
plan will not require individual EIS's un-
less they differ substantially from the
plan, or unless the overall plan did not
provide enough detail to fully assess
significant impacts of individual projects.
Plans shall be reevaluated by the re-
sponsible official to monitor the cumula-
tive impact of the component projects
and to preclude the plans' obsolescence.
(b) Specific actions. The specific ac-
tions to be taken by the responsible of-
ficial on draft EIS's are;.
(1) Distribute the draft EIS accord-
tog to the procedures in Appendix C,
(2) Inform the agencies to reply
directly to the originating EPA office.
Commenting agencies shall have at least
forty-five (45) calendar days to reply.
starting from the date of publication In
the FEDERAL REGISTER of lists of state-
ments received by CEQ.- If no comments
are received during the reply period and
no time extension has been requested, it
shall be presumed that the agency has
no comment to make. EPA may grant
extensions of fifteen (15) or more calen-
dar days. The time limits for review and
extensions for State and local agencies;
State, regional, and metropolitan clear-
inghouses; and Interested persons shall
be the same as those available to Federal -
agencies.
(3) Publish a notice in. local news-
papers stating that the draft EIS is
available for comment and listing where
copies may be obtained (Exhibit 2), and
submit news releases to other media.
(4) Include to the draft EIS a notice
stating that only those Federal, State,
regional, and local agencies and Inter-
ested persons who make substantive com-
ments on the draft EIS or request a copy
of the final EIS will be sent a copy.
(c) Regional office assistance to pro-
gram office. If requested,- regional offices
will provide assistance to program offices
In taking these specific actions when the
EIS originates hi a program office.
FEDERAL REGISTER. VOU 40, NO. 72—MONDAY, APRtt. 14, 197S-
265
-------
16818
§6.210 Final EISV
(a) Final EIS's shall respond to an
substantive comments raised through
the review of the draft EIS. Special care
should be taken to respond fully to com-
ments disagreeing with EPA's position.
(See also §6.304(g).)
(b) Distribution and other specific
actions are described In Appendix C. If
there is an applicant, he shall be sent a
copy. When the number of comments on
the draft EIS Is so large that distribution
of the final EIS to all commenting en-
tities appears impractical, the program
or regional office preparing the EIS
shall consult with OFA, which will con-
sult with CEQ about alternative arrange-
ments for distribution of the EIS.
§ 6.212 Negative declaration and envi-
ronmental impact appraisals.
(a) General. When an environmental
review Indicates there will be no signifi-
cant impact or significant adverse im-
pacts have been eliminated by making
changes In the project, the responsible
official shall prepare a negative declara-
tion to allow public review of his decision
before It becomes final. The negative
declaration and news release must state
that interested persons disagreeing with
the decision may submit comments for
consideration by EPA. EPA shall not
take administrative action on the proj-
ect for at least fifteen (15) working days
after release of the negative declaration
and may allow more time for response.
The responsible official shall have an
environmental impact appraisal sup-
porting the negative declaration avail-
able for public review when the negative
declaration Is released for those cases
given in Subparts E, F, Q, and H.
(b) Specific actions. The responsible
official ."hall take the following specific
actions on those projects for which both
a negative declaration and an impact
appraisal will be prepared:
U) Negative declaration, (i) Prepare
a negative declaration immediately after
the environmental review. This docu-
ment shall briefly summarize the purpose
of the project, its location, the nature
and extent of the land use changes re-
lated to the project, and the major pri-
mary .ind secondary Impacts of the
project. It shall describe how the more
detailed environmental impact appraisal
may be obtained at cost. (See Exhibit 3.)
(ii) Distribute the negative declaration
according to procedures in Appendix C.-
In addition, submit to local newspapers
and other appropriate media a brief news
release with a negative declaration at-
tached. Informing the public that a de-
cision not to prepare an EIS has been
made and a negative declaration and en-
vironmental Impact appraisal are avail-
able for public review and comment (Ex-
hibit 2).
(2) Environmental impact appraisal.
(1) Prepare an environmental impact
appraisal concurrently with the negative
declaration. This document shall briefly
describe the proposed action and feasible
alternatives, environmental impacts of
RULES AND REGULATIONS
the proposed action, unavoidable adverse
impacts of the proposed action, the re-
lationship between short term uses of
man's environment and the maintenance
and enhancement of long term produc-
tivity, steps to minimize harm to the en-
vironment, irreversible and irretrievable
commitments of resources to implement
the action, comments and consultations
on the project, and reasons for conclud-
ing there will be no significant impacts.
,(See Exhibit 4.)
(ii) Distribute the environmental im-
pact appraisal according \ to procedures
in Appendix C.
§ 6.214 Additional procedures.
(a) Historical and archaeological sites.
EPA is subject to the requirements of sec-
tion 106 of the National Historic Preser-
vation Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.,
Executive Order 11593, the Archaeologi-
cal and Historic Preservation Act of 1974,
16 U.S.C. 469 et seq., and the regulations
promulgated under this legislation. These
statutes and regulations establish en-
vironmental^eview procedures which are
independent of NEPA requirements.
(1) If an EPA action may affect prop-
erties with historic, architectural,
archaeological or cultural value which
are listed in the National Register of His-
toric Places (published in the ^EDERAL
REGISTER each February with supple-
ments on the first Tuesday of each
month)", the responsible official shall
comply with the procedures of the Ad-
visory Council on Historic Preservation
(36 CFR 800), including determining the
need for a Memorandum of Agreement
among EPA, the State Historic Preserva-
tion Officer and the Advisory Council. If
a Memordandum of Agreement Is exe-
cuted, it shall be included in an EIS
whenever one is prepared on a proposed
action. See I 6.512(c) of this part for
additional procedures for the construc-
tion grants program under Title U of the
FWPCA, as amended.
(2) 'If an EPA action may cause ir-
reparable loss or destruction of signifi-
cant scientific, prehistoric, historic or
archaeological data, the responsible offi-
cial shall consult with the State Historic
Preservation Officer in compliance with
the Archaeological and Historic Preser-
vation Act (P.L. 93-291).
(b) Wetlands, floodplains, coastal
zones, wild and scenic rivers, flsh and
wildlife. The following procedures shall
be applied to all EPA administrative ac-
tions covered by this part that may af-
fect 'these environmentally sensitive
resources.
(1) If an EPA action may affect wet-
lands, the responsible official shall con-
sult with the appropriate offices of the
Department of the Interior, Department
of Commerce, and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers during the environmental
review to determine the probable impact
of the action on the pertinent fish and
wildlife resources and land use of these
areas.
<2) If an EPA action may directly
cause or induce the construction of build-
Ings or other facilities In a floodplain the
responsible official shall evaluate flood
hazards in connection with these facili-
ties as required by Executive Order 11296
and shall, as far as practicable, consider
alternatives to preclude the uneconomic,
hazardous or unnecessary use of flood-
plains to minimize the exposure of facili-
ties to potential flood damage, lessen the
need for future Federal expenditures for
flood protection and flood disaster relief
and preserve the unique and significant
public value of the floodplain as an en-
vironmental resource.
(3) If an EPA action may affect coastal
zones or coastal waters as defined in Title
III of the Costal Zone Management Act
of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-5S3), the responsible
official shall consult with the appropriate
State offices and with the appropriate
office of the Department of Commerce
during the environmental review to de-
termine the probable impact of the
action on coastal zone or coastal water
resources.
•(4) If an EPA action may affect por-
tions of rivers designated wild and scenic
or being considered for this designation
under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
(Pub. L. 90-542), the responsible official
shall consult with appropriate- State
offices and with the Secretary of the
Interior or, where national forest lands
are involved, with the Secretary of Agri-
culture during the environmental re-
view to determine the status of an
affected river and the probable impact
of the action on eligible rivers.
(5) If an EPA action will result In the
control or structural modification of any
stream or other body of water for any
purpose, including navigation and drain-
age, the responsible official shall consult
with the United States Fish and Wild-
life Service (Department of the Inte-
rior), the National Marine Fisheries
Service of the National Oceanic"1 and
Atmospheric Administration (Depart-
ment of Commerce), the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and the head of the
agency administering the wildlife re-
sources of the particular State in which
the action will take place with a view to
the conservation of wildlife resources.
This consultation shall follow the pro-
cedures in the Fish and Wildlife Coordi-
nation Act (Pub. L. 85-624) and shall
occur during the environmental review
of an action.
(6) If an EPA action may affect
threatened or endangered species defined
under section 4 of the Endangered Spe-
cies Act of 1973 (Pub. L. 93-205), the
responsible official shall consult with the
Secretary of the Interior or the Secre-
tary of -Commerce, according to the
procedures in section 7 of that act.
(7") Requests for consultation and the
results of consultation shall be docu-
mented in writing. In all cases' where
consultation has occurred, the agencies
consulted should receive copies of either
the notice of intent and EIS or the nega-
tive declaration and environmental ap-
praisal prepared on the proposed action.
If a decision has already been made to
prepare an EIS onx a project and wet-
lands, floodplains," coastal zones, wild
FEDERAL REGISTER. VOL 40, NO. 72—MONDAY, APRIl 14, 1975
266
-------
^nd scenic rivers, fish or wildlife may
be affected, the required consultation
may be deferred until the preparation of
thedraftEIS.
§ 6.216 Availability of documents.
(a) EPA will print copies of draft and
final EIS's for agency and public dis-
tribution. A nominal fee may be charged
for copies requested by the public.
(b> When EPA ho longer has copies
of an EIS to distribute, copies shall be
made available for public inspection at
regional and headquarters Offices of
Public Affairs. Interested persons also
should be advised of the availability (at
cost) of the EIS from the Environmental
Law Institute, 1356 Connecticut Avenue
NW., Washington, D.C. 20036.
(c) Lists of EIS's prepared or under-
preparation and lists of negative decla-
rations prepared will be available at both
the regional and headquarters Offices
of Public Affairs.
Subpart C—Content of Environmental
Impact Statements
§ 6.300 Cover sheet.
The cover sheet shall indicate the
type of EIS (draft or final), the official
project name and number, the respon-
sible EPA office, the date, and the sig-
nature of the responsible official. The
format is shown in Exhibit 5.
§ 6!302 Summary short
The summary sheet shall conform to
the format in Exhibit 6, based on Ap-
pendix I of the August-1, 1973, CEQ
Guidelines, or the latest revision of the
CEQ Guidelines.
§6.304 Body of EIS.
The body of the EIS shall identify, de-
velop, and analyze the pertinent issues
discussed in the seven sections below;
each section need not be a separate
chapter. This analysis should include,
but not be limited to, consideration of
the impacts of the proposed project on
the environmental areas listed In Ap-
pendix A which are relevant to the proj-
ect. The EIS shall serve as a means for
the responsible official and the public to
assess the environmental impacts of a
proposed EPA action, rather than as a
justification for decisions already made.
It shall be prepared using a systematic,
interdisciplinary approach and shall in-
corporate all relevant analytical dis-
ciplines to provide meaningful and fac-
tual data, information, and analyses.
The presentation of data should be clear
and concise, yet Include all facts nec-
essary to permit independent evaluation
and appraisal of the beneficial and ad-
verse environmental effects of alterna-
tive actions. The amount of detail pro-
vided should be commensurate with the
extent and expected impact of the ac-
tion and the amount 'of Information re-
quired at the particular level of decision
making. To the extent possible, an EIS
shall not be drafted in a style which re-
quires extensive scientific or technical
expertise to comprehend and evaluate
the environmental Impact of a proposed
EPA action.
RULES AND REGULATIONS
(a) Background and description of the
proposed action. The EIS shall describe
the recommended or proposed action, its
purpose, where It is located and its time
setting. When a decision has been made
not to favor an alternative until public
comments on a proposed action have
been received, the draft EIS may treat
all feasible alternatives at similar levels
of detail; the final EIS should focus on
the alternative the draft EIS and pub-
lic comments indicate is the best. The
relationship of the proposed action to
other projects and proposals directly af-
fected by or stemming from it shall be
discussed, including not only other EPA
activities, but also those of other govern-
mental and private organizations. Land
use patterns and population trends in
the project area and the assumptions on
which they are based also shall be in-
cluded. Available maps, photos, and art-
ists' sketches should be incorporated
when they help depict the environmen-
tal setting.
(b) Alternatives to the proposed ac-
tion. The EIS shall develop, describe,
and objectively "weigh feasible alterna-
tives to any proposed action, including
the options of taking no action or post-
poning action. The analysis should be
detailed enough to show EPA's compara-
tive evaluation of the environmental im-
pacts, commitments of resources, costs,
and risks of the proposed action and
each feasible alternative. For projects
involving construction, alternative sites
must be analyzed in enough de'tail for
reviewers independently to judge the rel-
ative desirability of each site. For alter-
natives involving regionalization, the
effects of varying degrees of regionaliza-
tion should be addressed. If a cost-bene-
fit analysis is prepared, it should be ap-
pended to the EIS and referenced In the
body of the EIS. In addition, the reasons
why the proposed action is believed by
EPA to be the best course of action shall
be explained.
(c) Environmental impacts of the pro-
posed action. (1) The positive and nega-
tive effects of the proposed action as it
affects botti the national and interna-
tional environment should be assessed.
The attention given to different environ-
mental factors will vary according to
the nature, scale, and location of pro-
posed actions. Primary attention should
be given to those factors most evidently
affected by the proposed action. The fac-
tors shall include, where appropriate, the
proposed action's effects on the resource
base, including land, water quality and
quantity, air quality, public services and
energy supply. The EIS shall describe
primary and secondary environmental
impacts, both beneficial and adverse, an-
ticipated from the action. The descrip-
tion shall include short term and long
term- impacts on both the natural and
human environments.
(2) Primary impacts are those that
can be attributed directly to the pro-
posed -action. If the action is a field ex-
periment, materials introduced into the
environment which might damage cer-
tain plant communities or wildlife species
would be a primary Impact. If the action
16S19
involves construction of a facility, such
as a sewage treatment works, an office
building or a laboratory, the primary im-
pacts of the action would include the
environmental Impacts related to con-
struction and operation of the facility
and land use changes at the facility site.
(3) Secondary impacts are indirect or
induced changes. If the action involves
construction of a facility, the secondary
impacts would include the environmental
impacts related to:
(i) induced changes in the pattern
of land use, population density and re-
lated effects on air and water quality
or other natural resources;
(ii) increased growth at a faster rate
than planned for or above the total level
planned by the existing community.
(4) A discussion of how socioeconomie
activities and land use changes related
to the proposed action conform or con-
flict with the goals and objectives of ap-
proved or proposed Federal, regional.
State and local land use plans, policies
and controls for the project area should
be included in the EIS. If a conflict ap-
pears to be unresolved in the EIS, EPA
should explain why it has decided to
proceed without full reconciliation.
(d) Adverse impacts which cannot be
avoided should the proposal be imple-
mented and steps to minimize harm to
the environment. The EIS shall describe
the kinds and magnitudes of adverse
impacts which cannot be reduced in se-
verity or which can be reduced to an ac-
ceptable level but not eliminated. These
may include water or air pollution, un-
desirable land use patterns, damage to
fish and wildlife habitats, urban con-
gestion, threats to human health or other
consequences adverse to the environ-
mental goals in section 101 (b) of NEPA.
Protective and mitigative measures to
be taken as part of the proposed action
shall be identified. These measures to
reduce or compensate for any environ-
mentally detrimental aspect of the pro-
posed action may include those of EPA.
its contractors and grantees and others
involved in the action.
(e) Relationship betwen local short
term uses of man's environment and the
maintenance and enhancement at long
term productivity. The EIS shall de-
scribe the extent to' which the proposed
action involves tradeoffs between short
term environmental gains at the expense
of long term gains or vice-versa and the
extent to which the proposed action fore-
closes future options. Special attention.
shall be given to'effects which narrow
the range of future uses of land and
water resources or pose long term risks
to health or safety. Consideration should
be given to windfall gains or significant
decreases in current property values
from implementing the proposed action.
In addition, the reasons the proposed
action is believed by EPA to be justified
now, rather than reserving a long term
option for other alternatives, including
no action, shall be explained.
(f) Irreversible and irretrievable com-
mitments of resources to the proposed
action should it be implemented. The
EIS shall describe the extent to which
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 72—MONDAY, APRIL 14. 1975
267
-------
1GS20
RULES AND REGULATIONS
the proposed action requires commit-
ment of construction materials, person-
hours and funds to design and Imple-
ment the project, as well as curtails the
range of future uses of land and water
resources. For example. Induced growth
In undeveloped areas may curtail alter-
native uses of that land. Also, Irreversi-
ble environmental damage can result
from equipment malfunctions or Indus-
trial accidents at the project site. There-
fore, the need for any irretrievable and
significant commitments of resources
shall be explained fully.
(g) Problems and objections raised by
other Federal, State and local agencies
and by interested persons in the review
process. Final EIS's (and draft EIS's If
appropriate) shall summarize the com-
ments and suggestions made by review-
Ing organizations and shall describe the
disposition of Issues raised, e.g., revisions
to the proposed action to mitigate an-
ticipated Impacts or objections. In par-
ticular, the EIS shall address the major
Issues raised when the EPA position dif-
fers from most recommendations and
explain the factors of overriding Impor-
tance overruling the adoption of sugges-
tions. Reviewer's statements should be
set forth In a "comment" and discussed
in a "response." In addition, the source
of all comments should be clearly iden-
tified, and copies of the comments
should be attached to the final EIS.
Summaries of comments should be at-
tached when a response has been excep-
tionally long or the same comments were
received from many reviewers.
§ 6.306 Documentation.
All books, research reports, field study
reports, correspondence and other docu-
ments which provided the data base for
evaluating the proposed action and al-
ternatives discussed in the EIS shall be
used as references In the body of the
EIS and shall be Included In a bibli-
ography attached to the EIS.
Subpart D—EPA Public Hearings on EIS's
g 6.400 General.
While EPA is not required by statute
to hold public hearings on EIS's, the re-
sponsible official should hold a public
hearing 01 a draft EIS whenever a hear-
ing may facilitate the resolution of con-
flicts or significant public controversy.--
This hearing may be In addition to public
hearings held on facilities plans or sec-
tion 209 plans. The responsible official
may take special measures to involve in-
terested, persons through personal con-
tact
§ 6.402 Public hearing process.
(a) When public hearings are to be
held, EPA shall Inform the public of the
hearing, for example, with a notice In the
draft EIS. The notice should follow the
summary sheet at the beginning of the
EIS. The draft EIS shall be available for
public review at least thirty (30) days
before the public hearing. Public notice
shall be given at least fifteen (15) work-
ing days before the public hearing and
shall Include: - ~
(1) Publication of a public notice In a
newspaper which covers the project area.
Identifying the project, announcing the
date, time and place of the hearing and
announcing the availability of detailed
Information on "the proposed action for
public inspection at one or more locations
In the area'ln which the project win be
located. "Detailed Information" shall In-
clude a copy of the project application
and the draft EIS.
(2) Notification of appropriate State
and local agencies and appropriate State,
regional and metropolitan clearing-
houses.
(3) Notification of Interested persons.
(b) A written record of the hearing
shall be made. A stenographer may be
used to record the hearing. As a mini-
mum, the record shall contain a list of
witnesses with the text of each presenta-
tion. A summary of the record, including
the Issues raised, conflicts resolved and
unresolved, and any other significant
portions of the record, shall be appended
to the final EIS."
(c) When a public hearing has been
held by another Federal, State, or local
agency on an EPA action, additional
hearings are not necessary. The respon-
sible official shall decide If additional
hearings are needed.
(d) Whenji program office Is the origi-
nating office,- the appropriate regional
office will provide assistance to the origi-
nating office In holding any public hear-
ing if assistance is requested,
Subpart E—Guidelines for Compliance
With NEPA in the Title II Wastewater
Treatment Works Construction Grants
Program and the Areawide Waste Treat-
ment Management Planning Program
§ 6.500 Purpose.
This subpart amplifies the general EPA
policies and procedures described In Sub-
parts A through D with detailed proce-
dures for compliance with NEPA to the
wastewater treatment works construction
grants program and the'areawide waste
treatment management planning pro-
gram.
§ 6.502 Definitions.
(a) "Step 1 grant." A grant for prepa-
ration of a facilities plan as described In
40 CFR 35.930-1.
(b) "Step 2 grant." A grant for prepa-
ration of construction drawings and
specifications as described In 40 CFR
35.930-1.
(c) "Step 3 grant." A grant for fabri-
cation and building of a publicly owned
treatment works as described In 40 CFR
35.930—1
§6.504 Applicability.
(a) Administrative actions covered
This subpart applies to the administra-
tive actions listed below:
<1) Approval of all section 208 plans
acconUng to procedures In 40 CFR
(2) Approval of all facilities plans ex-
paragraph
(3) Award of step 2 and step 3 grants,
If an approved faculties plan was not re-
quired;
(4) Award of a step 2 or step 3 grant
•when either the project or its impact has
changed significantly from that described
In the approved facilities plan, except
when the situation In paragraph (a) (5)
of this section exists;
(5) Consultation during the NEPA re-
view process. When there are overriding
considerations of cost or Impaired pro-
gram effectiveness, the Regional Admin-
istrator may award a step 2 or a step 3
grant for a discrete segment of the proj-
ect plans or construction before the
NEPA review is completed If this project
segment is noncontroverslal. The remain-
ing portion of the project shall be evalu-
ated to determine if an EIS Is required. In
applying the criteria for this determina-
tion, the entire project shall be con-
sidered, including those parts permitted
to proceed. In no case may these types of
step 2 or step 3 grants be awarded unless
both the Office of Pederal Activities and
CEQ have been consulted, a negative
declaration has been Issued on the seg-
ments permitted to proceed, and the
grant award contains a specific agree-
ment prohibiting action on the segment
of planning or construction for which the-
NEPA review Is not complete. Examples
of consultation during the NEPA review
process are: award of, a step 2 grant for
preparation of plans and specifications
for a large treatment plant, when the
only unresolved NEPA Issue is where to
locate the sludge disposal site; or award
of a step 3 grant for site clearance for a
large treatment plant, when the unre-
solved NEPA Issue is whether sludge from
the plant should be Incinerated at the
site or disposed of elsewhere by other
means.
(b) Administrative actions excluded.
The actions listed below are not subject
to the requirements of this part:
<1) Approval of State priority lists;
(2) Award of a step 1 grant:
(3) Award of a section 208 planning
grant!
(4) Award of a step 2 or step 3 grant
when no significant changes In the facil-
ities plan have occurred;
(5) Approval of Issuing an Invitation
for bid or awarding a construction con-
tract;
(6) Actual physical commencement of"
building or fabrication;
(7) Award of a section 206 grant for re-
imbursement;
(8) Award of grant increases when-
ever $6.504 (a) (4) does not apply;
- - (9) Awards of training assistance un-
der FWPCA, as amended, section 109(b).
(c) Retroactive application. The new
criteria to 5 6.510 of this subpart do not
apply to step 2 or step 3 grants awarded
before July l, 1975. However, the Region-
al Administrator may apply the new cri-
teria of this subpart when he considers It
appropriate. Any negative declarations
Issued before the effective date" of Oils
regulation shall remain to effect
FEDERAL REC.STER. VOL 40, NO. 72-MONDAY, APRIL 14. .975
268
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
16S21
§ 6.506 Completion of NEPA procedures
before start of administrative actions.
See 5 6.108 and § 6.504.
§ 6.510 Criteria for preparation of en-
vironmental impact statements.
In addition to considering the criteria
In S 6.200, the Regional Administrator
shall assure that an EIS will be prepared
on a treatment works facilities plan, 208
plan or other appropriate water quality
management plan when:
(a) The treatment works or plan will
Induce significant changes (either abso-
lute changes 6r increases In the rate of
change) in industrial, commercial, agri-
cultural, or residential land use concen-
trations or distributions. Factors that
should be considered in determining if
these changes are significant include but
are not limited to: the vacant land sub-
ject to Increased development pressure
as a result of the treatment works; the
increases in population 'which may be
induced; the faster rate of change of
population; changes in population den-
sity; the potential for overloading sew-
age treatment works; the extent to which
landowners may benefit from the areas
subject to increased development; the
nature of land use regulations in the af-
fected area and their potential effects
on development; and deleterious changes
in the availability or demand for energy.
(b) Any major part of the treatment
works will be located on productive wet-
lands or will have significant adverse
effects on wetlands, including secondary
effects.
(c) Any major part of the treatment
works will be located on or significantly
affect the habitat of wildlife on the De-
partment of Interior's threatened and
endangered species lists.
(d) Implementation of the treatment
works or plan may directly cause or in-
duce changes that significantly :
(1) Displace population;
(2) Deface an existing residential
area; or
(3) Adversely affect significant
amounts of prime agricultural land or
agricultural operations on this land.
(e) The treatment works or plan will
have significant adverse effects on park-
lands, other public lands or areas of rec-
ognized scenic, recreational, archaeo-
logical or historic value.
(f ) The works or plan may directly or
through induced development have a.
significant ddverse effect upon local am-
bient air quality, local ambient noise
levels, surface or groundwater quantity
or quality, fish, wildlife, and their natu-
ral habitats.
(g) The treated effluent is being dis-
charged into a body of water where the
present classification is too lenient or is
being challenged as too low to protect
present or recent uses, and the effluent
will not be of sufficient quality to meet
the requirements of these uses.
§ 6.512 Procedures for implementing
™
fa) Environmental, assessment. An
adequate environmental assessment must
be an integral, though Identifiable, part
of any facilities or section 208 plan sub-
mitted to EPA. (See § 6.202 for a general
description.) The information in the fa-
cilities plan, particularly the environ-
mental assessment, will provide the sub-
stance of an EIS and shall be submitted
by the applicant. The analyses that con-
stitute an adequate environmental as-
sessment shall include:
(1) Description of the existing envi-
ronment vrithout the project. This shall
include for the delineated planning area
a description of the present environmen-
tal conditions relevant to the analysis of
alternatives or determinations of the
environmental impacts of the proposed
action. The description shall include, but
not be limited to, discussions of which-
ever areas are applicable to a particular
study: surface 'and groundwater qual-
ity; water supply and use; general hy-
drology; air quality; noise levels, energy
production and consumption; land use
trends; population projections, wetlands,
flpodplains, coastal zones and other en-
vironmentally sensitive areas; historic
and archaeological sites; other related
Federal or State projects in the area; and
plant and animal communities which
may be affected, especially those contain-
ing threatened or endangered species.
(2) Description of the future environ-
ment without the project. The future
environmental conditions with the no
project alternative shall be forecast, cov-
ering the same areas listed in § 6.512
(a)(l).
(3) Documentation. Sources of infor-
mation used to describe the existing en-
vironment and to assess future environ-
mental impacts should be documented.
These sources should include regional,
State and Federal agencies with respon-
sibility or interest in the types of impacts
listed in § 6.512(a) (1). In particular, the
following agencies should be consulted:
(i) Local and regional land use plan-
ning agencies for assessments of land
use trends and population projections,
especially those affecting size, timing,
and location of facilities, and planning
activities funded under section 701 of
the Housing and Community Develop-
ment Act Of 1974 '(Pub. L. 93-383);
(ii) The HUD Regional Office if a proj-
ect involves a flood risk area identified
under the Flood Disaster Protection Act
Of 1973 (Pub. L. 93-234);
(iii) The State coastal zone manage-
ment agency, if a coastal zone is affected;
(iv) The Secretary of the Interior or
Secretary of Agriculture, if a wild and
scenic river is affected;
(v) The Secretary of the Interior or
Secretary of Commerce, if a threatened
or endangered species is affected;
-------
1G>22
nonstructural measures, If any. In the
facilities plan to mitigate or eliminate
significant adverse effects on the human
and natural environments. Structural
provisions Include changes In facility de-
sign, size, and location; .nonstructural
provisions Include staging facilities as
well as developing and enforcing land
use regulations and environmentally
protective regulations,
(b) Public hearing. The applicant shall
hold at least one public hearing before a
facilities plan is adopted, unless waived
by the Regional Administrator before
completion of the facilities plan accord-
ing to § 35.917-5 of the Title n construc-
tion grants regulations. Hearings should
be held on section 208 plans. A copy of
the environmental assessment should be
available for public review before the
hearing and at the hearing, since these
hearings provide an opportunity to ac-
cept public Input on the environmental
Issues associated with the facilities plan
or the 208 water quality management
strategy. In addition, a Regional Admin-
istrator may elect to hold an EPA hear-
ing If environmental Issues remain un-
resolved. EPA hearings shall be held
according to procedures in I 6.402.
(c) Environmental review. An envi-
ronmental review of a facilities plan or
section 208 plan shall be conducted
according to the procedures in § 6.204
and applying the criteria of i 6.510. If
deficiencies exist In the environmental
assessment, they shall be identified In
writing by the Regional Administrator
and must be corrected before the plan
can be approved.
(d) Additional procedures. (1) His-
toricjmd archaeological sites. If a facil-
ities or section 208 plan may affect prop-
erties with historic, architectural,
archaeological oj cultural value which
are listed in or eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places or
may cause Irreparable loss or destruction
of significant scientific, prehistoric, his-
toric or archaeological data, the appli-
cant shall follow the procedures In
i 6.214(a).
(2) If the facilities or section 208 plan
may affect wetlands, floodplains/coastal
zones, wild and. scenic rivers, fish or
wildlife, the Regional Administrator
shall follow the appropriate-procedures
described In §6.214tb).
(e) Notice of intent. The notice of In-
tent on a facilities plan or section 208
plan shall be Issued according to I 6.206.(
(f) Scope of EIS. It Is the Regional
Administrator's responsibility to deter-
mine the scope of the EIS. He should
determine If an ELS should be prepared
on a facilities plan(s) or section 208 plan
and which environmental areas should
be discussed In greatest detail in the EIS.
Once an EIS has been prepared for the
designated section 208 area, another
need not be prepared unless the signifi-
cant Impacts of Individual facilities or
other plan elements were not adequately
treated In' the EIS. The Regional Ad-
ministrator should document his decision
not to prepare an EIS on Individual
facilities.
RULES AND REGULATIONS
fg) Negative declaration. A negative
declaration on a facilities plan or sec-
tion 208 plan shall be prepared according
to J 6.212. Once a negative declaration
and environmental appraisal have been
prepared for the facilities plan for a cer-
tain area, grant awards may proceed
without preparation of additional nega-
tive declarations, unless the project has
changed significantly from that de-
scribed in the facilities plan.
§ 6.514 Content of cnviroiimeiilal im-
pact statements.
EIS's for treatment works or plans
shall be prepared according to I 6.304.
Subpart F—Guidelines for Complfance
With NEPA in Research and Develop-
ment Programs and Activities
§ 6.600 Purpose.
This subpart amplifies the general
EPA policies and procedures described
in Subparts A through D by providing
procedures for compliance with NEPA
on actions undertaken by the Office of
Research and Development (ORD).
§ 6.602 Definitions.
(a) "Work plan." A document which
defines and schedules all projects re-
quired to fulfill the objectives of the
program plan,
(h) "Program plan." An overall plan-
ning document for a major research area
which describes one or more research
objectives, including outputs and target
completion dates, as well as person-year
and dollar resources.
(c) "Appropriate program official."
The official at each decision level within
ORD to whom the Assistant Administra-
tor delegates responsibility for NEPA
compliance.
(d> "Exemption certification." A cer-
tified statement delineating those ac-
tions specifically exempted from NEPA
compliance by existing legislation.
§ 6.604 Applicability.
The requirements of this subpart are
applicable to administrative actions
undertaken to approve program plans,
work plans,'and projects, except those
plans and projects excluded by existing
legislation. However, no administrative
actions are excluded from the additonal
procedures In § 6.214 of tills part con-
cerning historic sites, wetlands, coastal
zones, wild and scenic rivers, floodplains
or fish and wildlife.
§ 6.608 Criteria for determining when
to prepare EIS's.
(a) An EIS shall be prepared by ORD
when any of the criteria In 5 6.200 apply
or when:
(1) The action will have significant
adverse Impacts on public parks,-wet-
lands, floodplains, coastal zones, wildlife
habitats, or areas of recognized scenic
or recreational value.
(2) The action will significantly deface
an existing residential area.
(3) The action may directly or through
Induced development have a significant
adverse effect upon local ambient air
quality, local ambient noise levels, sur-
face or groundwater quality; and fish,
wildlife or their natural habitats.
(4) The treated effluent Is being dis-
charged into a body of water where the
present classification Is being challenged
as too low to protect present or recent
uses, and the effluent will not be of
sufficient quality to meet the require-
ments of these uses.
(5) The project consists of field tests
involving the introduction of significant
quantities of: toxic or polluting agricul-
tural chemicals, animal wastes, pesti-
cides, radioactive materials, or other
hazardous substances into the environ-
ment by ORD, its grantees or its con-
tractors.
(6) The action may involve the intro-
duction of species or subspecies not
indigenous to an area.
(7) There Is a high probability of an
action ultimately being implemented on
a large scale, and this Implementation
may result in significant environmental
Impacts.
. (8) The project Involves commitment
to a new technology which is significant
and may restrict future viable alterna-
tives.
An EIS will not usually be needed
when:
<1) The project is conducted com-
pletely within a laboratory or other fa-
cility, and external environmental effects
have been minimized by methods for
disposal of laboratory wastes and safe-
guards to prevent hazardous materials
entering the environment accidentally;
or
(2) The project Is a relatively small
experiment or Investigation that Is part
of a non-Federally funded' activity of
the private sector, and it makes no sig-
nificant new or additional contribution
to existing pollution.
§ 6.610 Procedures for compliance with
NEPA.
EIS related activities for compliance
with NEPA will be integrated into the
decision levels of ORD's research plan-
ning system to assure managerial con-
trol. This control Includes those adminis-
trative actions which do not come under
the applicability of this subpart by as-
suring that they are made the subject
of an exemption certification and filed
with the Office of Public Affairs (OPA).
ORD's internal procedures provide de-
tails for NEPA compliance.
(a) Environmental assessment. (1)
Environmental assessments shall be sub-
mitted with all grant applications and
all unsolicited contract proposals. The
assessment shall contain the same In-
formation required for EIS's In I 6.304.
Copies of § 6.304 (or more detailed guid-
ance when available) and a notice of the
requirement for assessment shall be in-
cluded in all grant application kits and-
attached to letters concerning the sub-
mission of unsolicited proposals.
<2) In the case of competitive con-
tracts, assessments need not be sub-
mitted by potential contractors since the
NEPA procedures must be completed be-
fore a request for proposal (RFP) Is Is-
sued. If there Is a question concerning
FEDERAl REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 71—MONDAY^ APRIL 14, 1975
270
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
16823
the need for an assessment, the poten-
tial contractor should contact the official
responsible for the contract.
(b) Environmental review. (1) At the
start of the planning year, an environ-
mental review will be performed for each
program plan witti its supporting sub-
structures (work plans and projects) be-
fore incorporating them into the ORD
program planning system, unless they
are excluded from review by existing leg-
islation. This review is an evaluation of
the potentially adverse environmental ef-
fects of the efforts required by the pro-
gram plan. The criteria in § 6.608 shall be
used in conducting this review. Each pro-
gram plan with its supporting substruc-
tures which does not have significant ad-
verse impacts may be dismissed from fur-
ther current year environmental consid-
erations with a single negative declara-
tion. Any supporting substructures of a
program plan which cannot be dismissed
with the parent plan shall be reviewed
at the appropriate subordinate levels of
the planning system for NEPA compli-
ance.
(i) All continuing program plans and
supporting substructures, including those
previously dismissed from consideration,
will be reevaluted annually for NEPA
compliance. An environmental review
will coincide with the annual planning
cycle and whenever a major redirection
of a parent plan is undertaken. All
NEPA-associated documents will be up-
dated as appropriate.
fli) All approved program plans and
supporting substructures, less budgetary
data, will be filed in the OPA with a no-
tice of intent or negative declaration and
environmental appraisal.
(iii) Later plans and/or projects,
added to fulfill the mission objectives
but not identified at the time the pro-
gram plans were approved, will be sub-
jected to the same NEPA requirements
for ^environmental assessments and/or
reviews.
Uv) Those projects subjected to en-
vironmental assessments as outlined in
paragraph (a) of this section and not
exempt under existing legislation also
shall undergo an environmental review
before work begins.
(c) Notice of intent and EIS.
(1) If the reviews conducted accord-
ing to paragraph (b) of this section re-
veal a potentially significant adverse
effect on the environment and the ad-
verse impact cannot be eliminated by re-
planning, the appropriate program offi-
cial shall, after making sure the project
is to be funded, issue a notice of intent
according to § 6.206, and through proper
organizational channels, shall request the
Regional Administrator to assist him in
the preparation and distribution of the
EIS.
(2) As soon as possible after release of
the notice of intent, the appropriate pro-
gram official shall prepare a draft EIS us-
ing the criteria in Subpart B, § 6.208 and
Subpart C. Through proper organiza-
tional channels, he shall request the Re-
gional Administrator to assist him in the
preparation and distribution of the draft
EIS.
(3) The appropriate program official
shall prepare final EIS's according to
criteria in Subpart B, § 6.210 and Sub-
part C.
(4) All draft an3 final EIS's shall be
sent through the proper organizational
channels to the Assistant Administrator
for ORD for approval. The approved
statements then will be distributed ac-
cording to the procedures in Appendix C.
(d) Negative declaration and environ-
mental impact appraisal. If an environ-
mental review conducted according to
paragraph (b) of this section reveals that
proposed actions will not have significant
adverse environmental impacts, the ap-
propriate program official shall prepare a
negative declaration and environmental
impact appraisal according to Subpart B,
I 6.212. Upon assurance that the program
will be funded, the appropriate program
official shall distribute the negative dec-
laration as described in § 6.212 and
make copies of the negative declaration
and appraisal available hi the OPA.
(e) Project start. As required by § 6.
108, a contract or grant shall not be
awarded for an extramural project, nor
for continuation of what was previously
an intramural project, until at least
fifteen (15) working days after a nega-,
tive declaration has been issued or thirty
(30) days after forwarding the final EIS
to the Council on Environmental Quality.
Subpart G—Guidelines for Compliance
With NEPA in Solid Waste Management
Activities
§ 6.700 Purpose.
This subpart amplifies the general pol-
icies and procedures described in Sub-
parts A through D by providing addi-
tional procedures for compliance with
NEPA on actions undertaken by the Of-
fice of Solid Waste Management' Pro-
grams (OSWMP).
§ 6.702 Criteria for the preparation of
environmental assessments and EIS's.
(a) Assessment preparation criteria.
An environmental assessment need not
be submitted with all grant applications
and contract proposals. Studies and in-
vestigations do not require assessments.
The following sections describe when an
assessment is or is not required for other
actions:
(1) Grants. Demonstration proj-
ects. Environmental assessments must
be submitted with all applications for
demonstration grants that will involve
construction, land use (temporary or
permanent), transport, sea disposal, any
discharges into the air or water, or any
other activity having any direct or in-
direct effects on the environment ex-
ternal to the facility in which the work
will be conducted. Preapplication pro-
posals for these grants will not require
environmental assessments.
-------
1(5S24
of intent and a draft EIS are prepared.
The responsible official may request the
appropriate Regional Administrator to
assist him in the distribution of the
NEPA-associated documents. Distribu-
tion procedures are listed in Appendix C.
Other (specify) " $
Total .- $
B. Period covered by project:
S'-art date:
(Original date. If project covers
more than one year)
Dates of different project phases:
Approximate end date:
6. Estimated application Sling date:
EXHIBIT 2
PUBLIC NOTICE AND MEWS RELEASE SUGGESTED
FORMAT
PUBLIC NOTICE
The Environmental Protection Agency
(originating office) (will •prepare, win not
prepare, has prepared) a (draft, final) en-
vironmental Impact statement on the follow-
ing project: '
(Official Project Name and Number)
(Purpose of Project)
(Project Location, City, County, State).
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 72—MONDAY, APRIl 14. 1975
272
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
---- ---- -;-- .............................. B- Summarize Assessment.
(Where EIS or negative declaration and en- 1. Brief description of protect-
vlronmental impact appraisal can be ___________
obtained) 2. FtobablV''
This notice Is "to Implement EPA's policy envlr°°ment: ____
of encouraging public participation In the ------------------------------------------
decision-making process on proposed EPA ------------------------------------------
actions. Comments on this document may "I". -------------------------------------
be submitted to (full address of originating 3' Any probable adverse environmental
office). effects which cannot be avoided: ________ ___
EXHIBIT 3 --------------------------------
NEGATIVE DECLARATION SUGGESTED FORMAT
......... ("Date)" ..... "" ----------- ..... -—
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY " £ "itelatfo'nship" "between local "short-term
________________________ uses of man's environment and malnte-
(Approprlate Office)""" nance and enhancement of long-term pro-
ductivity: __ ^ _____ - __________________ ^ ____ _
(Address, City, State, Zip 6. Steps to mlnlmize'harm'to tne'envlroa-
Code) ment: __________ ................ _ ....... _
To All Interested Government Agencies and — z -------------------------------- ; -------
Public Groups: "• Any Irreversible and Irretrievable com-
mitment of resources: ______________
As required by guidelines for the prep- ___________
aration of environmental Impact statements 8. Public objections to"project""if"any""and
(EIS's), an environmental review has been their resolution:
•performed on the proposed EPA action ' ___________________ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII"""
below: 9. Agencies consulted about the project: .1
(Official Project Name and
Number) State representative's name: __________ .
Local representative's name:.. _.
------------ ...... . ..... Other: ......... ___________ ^ ____ • ______
(Potential Agency c. Reasons for concluding there will be no
Financial Share) significant impacts.
(Project liocationVcity," (Signature of
County, State) appropriate official)
(Date)
(OtherFunds ; Included)" EXHIBIT 5
COVER SHEET FORMAT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT DESCRIPTION, ORIGINATOR, AND IMPACT STATEMENTS
PURPOSE (Draft. Final)
(Include a map of the project area and a ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
brief narrative summarizing the growth the
project will serve, the percent of vacant land """"" I II
the project will serve major primary and """"(5e"scrlbe«tlV« project "plan" ana'give"""
secondary impacts of the project, and the identifying number)
purpose of the project.) Prepared by.-
The review process did not indicate sig- - * ("Responsible A~ge"ncy OfflcVf
niflcant environmental impacts would re- Approved by .
suit from the proposed action or significant «• *• '''
adverse impacts have been eliminated by
making changes In the project. Conse- (Date)
quently, a preliminary decision not to pre-
pare an EIS has been made. EXHIBIT a
This action Is taken on the basis of a SUMMARY SHEET FORMAT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
careful review of the engineering report, IMPACT STATEMENTS
environmental impact assessment, and
other supporting data, which are on file In ( . . £e'«
the above office with the environmental im- } {- 5,rar;
pact appraisal and are available for public * ' Final
scrutiny upon request. Copies of the environ- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
mental impact appraisal will be sent at cost ... _
"
16S23
or disagreeing with
this decision may be submitted for consider-
atlon by EPA. After evaluating the com-
ments received, the Agency will make a final
decision; however, no administrative action
win be taken on the project for at least
fifteen (16) working days after release of
the negative declaration.
^.
omcereiyf
(Appropriate EPA Official)
EXHIBIT 4
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL
SUGGESTED FORMAT
Identify Project.
Nam* of Applicant:
Address: ____________________________
Project Number: ____ ... ______ .'
*• Name of a<=tlon- (Check one)
< > Administrative action,
<) Legislative action.
2- Brief descript on of action indicating what
states l*"* counties) are particularly
affected. *,,_*.•
3- Summary of environmental Impact and
adverse environmental effects.
4 Llst alternatlves considered.
g_ fc ,for d^t statements) List all Federal
*state> and local agencle8 and other
comments have been requested.
b. (for final statements) List all Federal
ctato, and local age'ncies and other
sources from which written com-
ments have been received.
8. Dates draft statement and final state-
' ment made available to Council on En-
vlronmental Quality and public.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40. NO. 72— MONDAY, APRIl 14, 1975
.273
-------
16526
RULES AND REGULATIONS
EXHIBIT 7
FOR OSWMP
JOT ntpnT^rMJttKai j
I»«KSE PSO.'KTS ~"'"1
/PRIOR TO FROJECT CCfW&CEKEltDl
— . »
.
E:E:PT OF FR3POSAU
I COrtm Il« "]
[IFRIOII TO RtmsE or nijfl
• COHSTBVCTl'
•l&ND USE
.T5*!CPORT
•SEA KEPO1 _
.DISCHARGE IVTO
Jllfi OR HTE3 '
APPENDIX A
CHECKLIST FOE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS
Areas to be considered, when appropriate,
during an environmental review include, but
are not limited to, the items on this check-
list, based on Appendix II of the CEQ guide-
lines for the preparation of environmental
impact statements 'which appeared in the
FEDERAL REGISTER August 1, 1973. The classi-
fication of items is not mandatory.
I. Natural environment. Consider the im-
pacts of a proposed action on air quality
water supply and quality, soil conservation
and hydrology, fish, and wildlife populations,
fish and wildlife habitats, solid waste dis-
posal, noise levels, radiation, and hazardous
substances use and disposal.
•. II. Land use planning and management.
Consider the Impacts of a proposed action on
energy supply and natural resources-develop-
ment; protection of environmentally critical
areas, such as floodplalns, wetlands, beaches
and dunes, unstable sons, steep slopes" and
aquifer recharge areas, coastal area land use;
and redevelopment and construction in
built-up areas. *
III. Socioeconomic environment. Consider
the Impacts of a proposed action on popula-
;ion density changes, congestion mitigation,
neighborhood character and cohesion, low
income populations, outdoor recreation, in-
dustrial/commercial/residential development
and tax ratables, and historic, architectural
and archaeological preservation.
APPENDIX B
RESPONSIBILITIES
I. General responsibilities, (a) Responsible
official. (1) "Requires contractors and grantees
to submit environmental assessments and re-
lated documents needed to comply with
NEPA, and assures environmental reviews are
conducted on proposed EPA projects at the
earliest possible point In EPA's decision-
making process.
<2) When required, assures that draft EIS's
are prepared and distributed at the earliest
possible point in EPA's decision-making
process, their internal and external review is
coordinated, and final EIS's are prepared and
distributed.
(3) When an EIS is not prepared, assures
that negative declarations and environmental
appraisals are prepared and distributed for
those actions requiring them.
(*) Consults with appropriate officials
Identified In ! 6.214 of this part.
(5) Consults with the.Office of Federal
Activities on actions involving unresolved
conflicts with other Federal agencies.
(b) Office oj Federal Activities. (1) Pro-
Tides EPA with policy guidance and assures
that EPA offices establish and maintain ade-
quate administrative procedures to comply
with this part.
(2) Monitors the overall timeliness and
quality of the EPA effort to comply with this
part.
(3) Provides assistance to responsible offi-
cials as required.
(4) Coordinates the,training of personnel
involved in the review and preparation of
EIS's and other NEPA-assoclated documents.
(5) Acts as EPA liaison with the Council
on Environmental Quality and other Federal
and State entities on matters of EPA policy
and administrative mechanisms to facilitate
external review of EIS's, to determine lead
agency and to improve the uniformity of the
NEPA procedures of Federal agencies.
(6) Advises the Administrator and Deputy
Administrator on projects which involve mora
than oae EPA office, are controversial, are na-
tionally significant, or "pioneer" EPA policy,
when these projects have had or should hive
an EIS prepared on them.
(c) Office of Public Inquiries. Assists the
Office of Federal Activities and responsible
officials by answering the public's queries on
the EIS process and on specific EIS's and by
directing requests for copies of specific docu-
ments to the appropriate regional office or
program.
(d) Office of Public Affairs. Analyzes the
present procedures for public participation,
and develops and recommends to the Offlce
of Federal Activities a program to improve
those procedures and increase public partic-
ipation.
(e) Regional Office Division of Public
Affairs. (1) Assists the responsible official or
his designee on matters pertaining to nega-
tive declarations, notices of intent, press
releases, and other public notification pro-
cedures.
(2) Assists the responsible official or his
designee by answering the public's queries
on the EIS process and on specific EIS's, and
by filling requests for copies of specific docu-
ments.
(f) Offices of the Assistant Administrators
and Regional Administrators. (1) 'Provides
specific policy guidance to fheir respective
offices and assures that those offices estab-
lish and maintain adequate administrative
procedures to comply with this part.
•(2) Monitors the overall timeliness-.and
quality of their respective office s efforts to
comply with this part.
(3) Acts as liaison between Iheir offices and
the Office of Federal Activities and between
their offices and other Assistant Administra-
tors or Regional Administrators on matters
of agencywide policy and procedures.
(4) Advises the Administrator and Deputy
Administrator through the Office of Federal
Activities on projects or activities within
their respective areas of responsibilities which
involve more than one EPA office, are con-
troversial, are nationally significant, or
"pioneer" EPA policy, when these projects
have had or should have an EIS prepared on
them.
(g) The Office of Legislation. (1) Provides
the necessary liaison, with Congress.
(2) Coordinates the preparation of EIS's
required on reports on legislation originating
outside EPA. (See S 6.106(d)).
(h) The Office of Planning and Evaluation.
Coordinates the preparation of EIS's required
on EPA legislative proposals. (See $ 6.106
(d)).
II. Responsibilities for Title II Construc-
tion Grants Program (Subpart E). (a) Re-
sponsible official. The responsible official for
EPA actions covered by this subpart is the
Regional Administrator. The responsibilities
FEDERAL REGISTER. VOL 40, NO. 72—MONDAY, APRIL 14, 1975
274
-------
of the Regional Administrator in addition to
those In Appendix BX are to:
(I) Assist the Office of Federal Activities
In coordinating the training of personnel In-
volved in the review and preparation of
NEPA-assoclated documents.
(2) Require grant applicants and those who
have submitted plans for approval to pro-
vide the information the regional office re-
quires to comply with these guidelines.
(3) Consult with the Office of Federal
Activities concerning works or plans* which
significantly affect more than one regional
office, are controversial, are of national sig-
nificance or "pioneer" EPA policy, when
these works have had or should have
had an EIS prepared on them.
(b) Assistant Administrator. The respon-
sibilities of the Office of the Assistant Admin-
istrator, as described in Appendix BJ, shall
be assumed by the Assistant Administrator
for Water and Hazardous Materials for EPA
actions covered by this subpart.
(c) Oil and Special Materials Control Divi-
sion, Office of Water Program" Operations,
coordinates all activities and responsibilities
of the Office of Water Program Operations
concerned with preparation and review of
EIS's. This Includes providing technical as-
sistance to the Regional Administrators on
EIS's and assisting the Office of Federal Ac-
tivities In coordinating the training of per-
sonnel Involved in the review and preparation
of NEPA-associated documents.
(d) Public Affairs Division, Regional
Offices. The responsibilities of the regions'
Public Affairs Divisions, in addition to those
in Appendix B.I, are to:
(1) Assist the Regional Administrator in
the preparation and dissemination of NEPA-
associated documents.
(2) Collaborate with the Headquarters
Office of Public Affairs to analyze procedures
m the regions for public participation and
to develop and recommend to the Office of
Federal Activities a program to Improve those
procedures.
III. Responsibilities for Research and De-
velopment' Programs (Subpart F). The
Assistant Administrator for Research and
Development, in addition to those responsi-
bilities outlined in Appendix B.I(a), will
also assume the responsibilities described In
Appendix B.I(f).
IV. Responsibilities for Solid Waste Man-
agement Programs (Subpart Or). (a) Respon-
sible Official. The responsible official for EPA
actions covered by this subpart is the Deputy
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste
Management Programs. The responsibilities
of this official, in addition to those in Appen-
dix B.I(a), are to:
(1) Assist the Office of Federal Activities
In coordinating the training of personnel
Involved in the review and preparation of
all NEPA-associated documents.
(2) Advise the Assistant Administrator
for Air and Waste Management concerning
projects which significantly affect more than
one regional office, are controversial, are na-
tionally significant, or "pioneer" EPA policy.
V. Responsibilities for Special Purpose
Facilities and Facility Renovation Programs
(Subpart H).
(a) Responsible official. The responsible
official for new construction and modification
of special purpose facilities Is as follows:
T»,(I),.'I£? Chlef> Fatties Management
fiT i?Cr a and SuPP°rt Systems Division,
snail be the responsible official oh all new
RULES AND REGULATIONS
construction of special purpose facilities and
on an Improvement and modiflpatlon proj-
ects for which the Facilities Management
Branch has received a funding allowance.
(2) The Regional Administrator shall be
the responsible official" on all Improvement
and modification projects for which the
regional office has received ,the funding
allowance.
(3) The Center Directors shall be the re-
sponsible officials on all improvement and
modification projects for which the National
Environmental Research Centers have re-
ceived the funding allowance.
(b) The responsibilities of the responsible
officials, in addition to those in Appendix
B.I, are to:
(1) Ensure that environmental assessments
are submitted when requested, that envi-
ronmental reviews are conducted on all proj-
ects, and EIS's are prepared and circulated
when there will be significant impacts.
(2) Assist the Office of Federal Activities
In coordinating the training of personnel
involved in the review and preparation of
NEPA-associated documents.
APPENDIX C
DISTRIBUTION AND AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS
I. Negative Declaration, (a) The respon-
sible official shall distribute two copies of
each negative declaration to:
(1) The appropriate Federal, State and
local agencies and to the appropriate State
and areawide clearinghouses.
(2) The Office of Legislation, the Office of
Public Affairs and the Office of Federal
Activities.
(3) The headquarters EIS coordinator for
the program office originating the document.
When the originating office is a regional
office and the action is related to water qual-
ity management, one copy should be for-
warded to the Oil and Special Materials Con-
trol Division, Office of Water Program Oper-
ations.
(b) The responsible official shall distribute
one copy of each negative declaration to:
(1) Local ne-*-st>apers and other local mass
media.
(2) Interested persons on request. If it Is
not practical to send copies to all Interested
persons, make the document available
through local libraries or post offices, and
notify Individuals t*-at this action has been
taken.
(c) The responsible official shall have a
copy of the negative declaration and any doc-
uments supporting the negative declaration
available for public review at the originating
office.
II. Environmental impact Appraisal, (a)
The responsible official shall have-the envi-
ronmental impact appraisal available when
the negative declaration is distributed and
shall forward one copy to the headquarters
EIS coordinator for the program office origi-
nating the document and to any other Fed-
eral or State agency which requests a copy.
(b) The responsible official shall have a
copy of the environmental impact appraisal
available for public review-at the originating
office and shall provide copies at cost to per-
sons who request them,
in. Notice of Intent, (a) The responsible
official shall forward one copy of the notice
of Intent to:
(1) The appropriate Federal, State and
local agencies and to the appropriate State.
regional and metropolitan clearing houses.
16827
(2) Potentially Interested persona.
(3) The Offices of Federal Activities, Pub-
lic Affairs and Legislation.
(4) The headquarters Grants Administra-
tion Division, Grants Information Branch,
(5) The headquarters EIS coordinator for
the program office originating the notice.
When the originating office Is a regional office
and the action is related to water quality
management, one copy should be forwarded
to the OU and Special Materials Control Di-
vision, Office of Water Program Operations.
IV. Draft ElS's. (a) The responsible official
shall send two copies of the draft EIS to:
(1) The Office of Federal Activities.
(2) The headquarters tlS coordinator for
the program office originating the document.
When the originating office Is a regional of-
fice and the project is related to water qual-
ity management, send two copies to the Oil
and Special Materials Control Division, Of-
fice of Water Program Operations.
(b) If none of the above offices requests
any changes within ten (10) working days
after notification, the responsible official
shall:
(1) Send five copies of the draft EIS to
CEQ.
(2) Send two copies of the draft EIS to
the Office of Public Affairs and to the Office
of Legislation.
(3) Send two copies of the draft EIS to
the appropriate offices of reviewing Federal
agencies that "have special expertise or Juris-
diction by law with respect to any Impacts
Involved. CEQ's guidelines (40 CFB 1500.9
and Appendices n and in) list those agencies
to which draft EIS's will be sent for official
review and comment.
(4) Send two copies of the draft EIS to the
appropriate Federal, State, regional and
metropolitan clearinghouses.
(5) Send one copy of the draft EIS to
public libraries in the project area and In-
terested persons. Post offices, city halls or
courthouses may be used' as distribution,
points If public library facilities are not
available.
(c) The responsible official shall make a
copy of the draft EIS available for public
review at the originating office and at the
Office of Public Affairs.
V. Final EIS. (a) The responsible official
shall distribute the final EIS to the follow-
ing offices, agencies and Interested persons:
(1) Five copies to CEQ.
(2) Two copies to the Office of Public
Affairs, Legislation and Federal Activities.
(3) Two copies to the headquarters' EIS
coordinator for the program office originating
the document.
(4) One copy to Federal, State and local
agencies and interested persons who made
substantive comments on the draft EIS or
requested a copy of the final EIS.
(6) One copy to a grant applicant.
(b) The responsible official 'shall make a
copy of the final EIS available for public
review at the originating office and >>t the
Office of Public Affairs.
VI. Legislative EIS. Copies of the legisla-
tive EIS shall be distributed by the responsi-
ble official according to the procedures In
section IV(b) of this appendix. In addition,
the responsible official shall send two copies
of the KIS to the Office of Federal Activities
and the EIS coordinator of the originating
office.
[FB Doc.75-9553 Filed 4-Il-75;8:45 am)
fEDERAI, REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 72—MONDAY, APRIL 14, 1975'
275
-------
APPENDIX BB
INFORMATIONAL HANDOUTS DISTRIBUTED
AT THE TWO PUBLIC WORKSHOPS
HELD TO DISCUSS THE EIS FOR THE
BOSTON SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PLAN
276
-------
FIRST PUBLIC WORKSHOP
relating to the
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
for the
PROPOSED BOSTON HARBOR
SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Sponsored by:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I
J. F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts
September 4, 1975
277
-------
In order that the present proceedings may be put into the
perspective of sludge management planning for Boston Harbor,
a brief history and chronology of related activities will be
presented first. This history is outlined schematically in
the accompanying figure.
The planning for the disposal of sewage sludge generated in
the Metropolitan Boston area had its genesis in May, 1968.
At that time, the Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion convened an enforcement conference to discuss with the
State of Massachusetts the adverse economic and public health
impacts that wastewater was having on the shellfishing areas
of Boston Harbor. In addition, the conference addressed the
total impacts on the water quality of Boston Harbor.
Approximately one year later, in April, 1969, the enforcement
proceeding was reconvened, and is referred to as the Second
Enforcement Conference. This conference was called to discuss
the progress made on the recommendations that were put forth
in the First Conference. But most importantly, it made the
following recommendations:
a) that a "consulting firm be retained" to evaluate the tidal
and current patterns and the dispersion characteristics of
Boston Harbor, particularly as it effects the Deer Island and
Nut Island treatment plants. Evaluation would include....the
determination of mixing zones and recommendations for sludge
disposal and chlorination practices.
b) "Provide an evaluation and recommendation as to the most
practical and economical solution to the.... effects of trib-
utary streams and combined sewer overflows."
In implementing the first recommendation, the Massachusetts
Division of Water Pollution Control (DWPC) retained the firm
of Hydro Science, Inc., to describe the hydrographic conditions
of Boston Harbor. That hydrographic model reached the following
conclusion: "that the present practice of discharging sludge for
the first three hours of ebbing tide results in the deposition
of approximately 15 to 20 percent of the sewage sludge solids in
the portion of the harbor west of Deer Island."
The results of the Hydro Science model prompted the DWPC and the
Metropolitan District Commission (MDC), operator of the Deer and
Nut Island facilities, to sign a Memorandum of Agreement on
October 1, 1971. This memorandum, supported by the EPA, stated
that the MDC would:
1) "Study alternative methods for the disposal of sludge from the
Nut Island and Deer Island Treatment Plants and file a report
on alternative methods with the Secretary of Environmental
Affairs and the Division on or before April 1, 1972;
278
-------
2) "Prepare a preliminary engineering report indicated by the
results of the above study for submission to the Secretary
of Environmental Affairs and the Division by April 1, 1973 —"
The Memorandum of Agreement was signed one week prior to the
Third Enforcement Conference, which convened on October 7, 1971.
At that third conference, representatives of the DWPC stated
"that the sludge disposal practices at these facilities (Deer
and Nut Islands) are not suitable to meet water quality stand-
ards", those standards being class "SB". And that "alternate
methods of sludge disposal by the MDC are required to increase
the overall efficiency of the treatment plants..." The DWPC
presented to the conferees a list of proposed recommendations
which were essentially incorporated as the recommendations of
the Third Conference. Those that dealt with the sludge manage-
ment problems stated that:
The MDC should complete a study of the alternative methods for the
disposal of sludge from its Nut Island and Deer Island treatment
plants by April 1, 1972; and a specific solution chosen and con-
struction implementation schedule to be prepared by July 1, 1972.
As a result of both the Memorandum of Agreement and the Third
Enforcement Conference, the MDC established a Boston Harbor
Pollution Task Force. In April, 1972, the Task Force presented
its recommendations; their original mandate was to screen on a
preliminary basis all possible sludge management schemes; and
to come up with those alternatives which it considered feasible
for detailed engineering and environmental analysis. The Task
Force recommended that three major sludge handling and disposal
methodologies be evaluated in detail:
1) wet air oxidation,
2) land application, and
3) incineration.
Just prior to the completion of the Task Force report, the MDC,
DWPC, and the EPA were preparing a tripartite agreement which
essentially set up a detailed implementation schedule for waste-
water management in the Eastern Massachusetts Metropolitan Area.
Two major courses of action were set in motion as the result of
this Three Party Agreement (finally signed in July, 1972):
First, the EMMA Study for the long-range management of wastewater
in Eastern Massachusetts was initiated; and second, the final
steps in the early planning for the sludge management problem
were completed.
In August, 1973, MDC's consultant, Havens & Emerson, Inc. of
Cleveland, Ohio, completed the Proposed Sludge Management Plan
for the MDC. The completion of this plan satisfied the require-
ments of the Three Party Agreement, and was the logical follow-
on to the Task Force recommendations. Havens & Emerson was man-
dated by MDC to investigate the three alternative sludge handling
and disposal techniques recommended by the Task Force.
279
-------
In its most essential form, the sludge management plan proposed
by MDC consisted of the following:
Digested sludge from Nut Island would be pumped across
the Harbor to Deer Island. There it would be combined
with the digested sludge at Deer Island, and burned in
several multiple hearth incinerators.
Since MDC was intending to apply for Federal funding on this
project, it was required to prepare an environmental assessment
stating the anticipated environmental impacts that would result
from the proposed project. The environmental assessment state-
ment was completed in April, 1975, and the required public hear-
ing was held in May, 1975.
Partly as a result of that hearing, and partly because of prior
knowledge of the public controversy that was rising around the
proposed plan, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a
"notice of intent" whereby it gave public notice that a formal
environmental impact statement would be prepared in accordance
with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and 40CFR
Part 6 (April 14, 1975 Federal Register).
In June, 1975, EPA, Region I contracted with the environmental
consulting firm of EcolSciences to assist the Region in prepar-
ing the Environmental Impact Statement. Their responsibility
is to investigate in detail the following four major alterna-
tives for the handling and disposal of primary sludge, and to
determine the most environmentally acceptable and cost effective
method of treating the sludge:
1) Sludge incineration
2) Land application
3) Ocean disposal
4) No action
Since the EMMA Study is presently underway, and an implementation
schedule for secondary treatment at the MDC facilities has not
yet been finalized, it was felt that the disposal of primary
sludge (through the near future) represented the most concrete set
of operating conditions which could be projected, and still ad-
dress the main issue.
Within the three "action" categories, there are numerous sub-
alternatives which are being developed as well. Specifically,
they are:
1. Sludge Incineration
a. Incineration of digested sludge
b. Incineration of raw sludge
c. Ash disposal
• Landfilling
• Lagooning on wetlands (proposed plan)
• Deep ocean disposal
280
-------
2. Land Application
a. Direct land application
• Dedicated single sites, land spreading
• Farmlands application, multisites
• Landfilling
b- Indirect land application
• Conversion of the sludge to a soil conditioner
and/or fertilizer
3. Ocean Disposal
a. Extended outfall to the vicinity of the Graves
b. Deep ocean dumping by barge
The entire gamut of environmental costs, monetary costs, engin-
eering feasibility and institutional ramifications are being
taken into account in these evaluations.
At the present time, the environmental inventory necessary to
assess the impacts from the alternatives has been completed.
And the evaluations of the various alternatives and their sub-
alternatives has commenced. The general approach that is being
taken in this evaluation process is the following:
Separate teams have been set up to screen the various sub-alter-
natives in each major category. This will produce the best dis-
posal technique for each of the three basic alternatives. These
"best" systems for land disposal, incineration, and ocean dis-
posal will then be compared against each other, as well as com-
pared with the no-action alternative. Of these four, the most
desirable sludge disposal solution will be chosen on the basis
of environmental, economic, engineering, and institutional con-
siderations.
In the most desirable of circumstances, all of the above factors
(environmental, costs, etc.)' are in mutual agreement, and the
choice of alternate becomes relatively simple. However, on a
project this size, one or more of those considerations may be
at odds with the remainder. In such an instance, it will become
necessary to consider the trade-offs required to produce the sol-
ution with the least combined adverse impact. For example, envir-
onmental costs, engineering feasibility, and monetary costs may
be in essential agreement, yet the prospects for institutional
acceptance are remote. Therefore, tradeoffs between environment,
cost, or engineering reliability will have to be made to produce
a plan with institutional acceptability.
281
-------
PARTICIPANTS, FIRST PUBLIC WORKSHOP
September 4, 1975
Name
Unknown
W. Colby
Representative
of M. King
D. Grice
A. Ferullo
M. Weiss
F. Gross
A. Weinbrook
E. Beal
E. Burge
0. Brooks
R. Satterwhite
C. Ripaldi
T. Flaherty
G. Potamis
I. Leighton
M. Shaughnessy
B. Sacks
P. Spinney
J. Shirk
J. Ochs
Massachusetts Division of Environmental
Quality Engineering
Massachusetts Department of Agriculture
Massachusetts State Senate
Massachusetts Wetlands Div. of DEQE and
Governor's Solid Waste Committee
Metropolitan District Commission
Metropolitan District Commission
Metropolitan Area Planning Council
Boston Conservation Commission
Boston Conservation Commission
Sierra Club
Boston Harbor Associates
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Planning Environment International
Process Research Engineering, Inc.
U.S. EPA - Municipal Grants
U.S. EPA - Solid Wastes
U.S. EPA - Environmental Impacts Branch
U.S. EPA - Permits
EcolSciences, inc.
EcolSciences, inc.
EcolSciences, inc.
282
-------
Second Public Workshop
relating to the
Environmental Impact Statement
for the
Proposed Boston Harbor
Sludge Management Plan
Sponsored by:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I
J. F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts
November 10, 1975
283
-------
A. Introduction
On September 4, 1975, the first of two public workshops were
held to present and discuss the plan of study relating to this
environmental impact statement (EIS). While there was some dis-
cussion on the issues of the proposed plan, the audience could not
put forth concrete criticisms or counter-proposals, since no
detailed, definitive plans were available at that time. However,
the intent of this workshop is to present for public consideration
a series of detailed proposals that can be discussed with a view
towards getting significant input for the decision-making process.
We will present in this handout a review of the First Public
Workshop, as well as a brief summary of each of the five feasible
alternatives that have received detailed analyses. In addition to
the mechanical description of the alternates, several significant
impacts for each one will be presented. These impact areas will
cover: (1) environment; (2) monetary costs; and (3) energy costs.
Each of these areas have been developed in greater detail during
the preparation of this EIS.
The five feasible alternatives that have resulted from the
preliminary and detailed analyses are as follows:
Alternate 1-A: Incineration with onshore landfilling of ash
Alternate 1-B: Incineration with deep ocean disposal of ash
Alternate 2: Land application of the entire sludge load
Alternate 3: Deep ocean disposal of the sludge
Alternate 4: Land application and landfilling of sludge.
The analyses which have been performed have separated the above
alternates into two broad categories:
Environmentally Unacceptable - Alternates 1-B and 3; those having
ocean disposal as an integral component;
Environmentally Acceptable - Alternates 1-A, 2, and 4; incinera-
tion, land application, and the hybrid land disposal system.
At the present time, we have judged the "Acceptable" plans to be
approximately equal in their overall environmental impact, although
there are significant differences in some of the other areas of
evaluation. However, neither the EPA nor its consultants, EcolSciences,
inc., have made a selection of the most preferable plan. It is the
intent of this workshop to put forth to the public the major advantages
and disadvantages of these potential solutions. This public input
will, in large measure, give the clearest picture of the implementa-
bility of each of these alternatives, because in the end, it is
society and its representatives which must make the tradeoffs and
judge the relative importance of conflicting issues.
284
-------
B. Review
In its most essential form, the sludge management plan proposed by
the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) consists of the following:
Digested sludge from Nut Island would be pumped across the Harbor to
Deer Island. There it would be combined with the digested sludge at
Deer Island, and burned in several multiple hearth incinerators.
In June, 1975, EPA, Region I contracted with the environmental
consulting firm of EcolSciences to assist the Region in preparing the
Environmental Impact Statement. Their responsibility was to investigate
in detail the following four major alternatives for the handling and
disposal of primary sludge, and to determine the most environmentally
acceptable and cost effective method of treating the sludge:
1) Sludge incineration
2) Land application
3} Ocean disposal
4) No action
The above list was used as the departure point from which various de-
tailed disposal systems were generated. In evaluating the four basic
alternates, the most attention was given to the "action" solutions.
From the three action alternatives came the five feasible systems
which were described earlier.
Since the EMMA Study is presently underway, and an implementation
schedule for secondary treatment at the MDC facilities has not yet been
finalized, it was felt that the management of primary sludge (through
the near future) represented the most concrete set of operating con-
ditions which could be projected, and still address the main issue.
C. Description and Evaluation of Feasible Sludge Management Systems
The attached figure indicates the relationship of the common sludge
handling processes and the five alternative disposal systems. In all
cases, the sludge will be digested in anaerobic digesters. At the
present time, the MDC proposal states that by 1985, the digester
capacity at both Deer and Nut Islands will be exceeded by 10%, thus
resulting in a mixture of raw (20%) and digested (80%) sludge being
passed on for further disposal steps. This is predicated on continuing
present digester operation techniques. However, there are indications
that with modifications in digester operation, the entire sludge load
generated in 1985 could be handled in the existing facilities.
In all cases, sludge would be transferred from Nut Island to Deer
Island via force main under Boston Harbor. The sludge would then be
285
-------
Influent
Deer
Island
Plant
Effluent
oo
CTv
Influent
Nut
Island
Plant
Recycle
Digester
10% Bypass
Recycle
Digester
10% Bypass
Effluent
Conditioning
Chemicals
Recycle
1
Vacuum
Filter
Force Main to
Deer Island
Effluent to Air
Incineration
i
Pasteurization
Alternative 3
Ocean Disposal
Alternative 1A
Ash to Landfill
Alternative IB
Ash to Ocean Disposal
Alternative 2
Land Application
Alternative 4
Hybrid Land
Application -
Landfill
FIGURE V-l PROCESS FLOWSHEET - ALL ALTERNATIVES
-------
conditioned with ferric chloride and lime at Deer Island, then de-
watered to 25% solids using vacuum filtration. Once the sludge has
been dewatered, then it would pass onto one of the five disposal
routes.
As can be seen from the figure, incineration has been considered
as an additional process step and not a disposal alternative per se.
While some mass is lost to the atmosphere through incineration (and
thus becomes a "disposal" area), there is still a residue which must
ultimately be disposed. Therefore, the fate of the incinerator ash is
considered the ultimate disposal route.
1. Alternative 1-A; Incineration with Onshore Landfilling
a. System Description; In this alternative, the process steps
after digestion are conditioning, vacuum filtration and multiple hearth
incineration. The incineration step is followed by scrubbing of the gas
stream to prevent escape of excess air'pollutants. The ash from the
incineration step, combined with the fly ash from the scrubber system,
is to be trucked to a landfill site, approximately 30 miles from Deer
Island, and probably located in Plainville, Massachusetts. To avoid
adverse impacts of truck travel in Winthrop, which does not have a street
system adequate to handle large numbers of trucks, ash will be trans-
ported in detached trailers by barge to the Mystic terminal, and from
there by truck to the final disposal point. Upon arrival at the land-
fill site, disposal of ash would be in layers, as in a standard landfill.
With the exception of the ash disposal system, this alternative is similar
to the Phase I system developed by Havens and Emerson in their 1973 and
1974 work.
b. Environmental Impacts; The most significant portion of the
environment affected by either incineration impact is air quality. Based
upon sludge characteristics, fuel oil requirements, emissions control
facilities, and meterological conditions, the maximum 24-hour groundlevel
concentration of sulfur dioxide would be 10.34 yg/m3 (3 hour maximum of
35 yg/m3); and the maximum 24-hour groundlevel concentration of total
suspended particulates would be 6.72 yg/m . These maximum concentrations
would occur at approximately 1 kilometer downwind of the stacks located on
Deer Island. The next figure gives a graphic representation of these values.
The Federal and Commonwealth 1985 secondary standards for par-
ticulates, for the Boston Air Quality Control Region, is 150 yg/m for 24
hours. The secondary standard for SO2 is 1,300 yg/m3 for 3 hours.
Estimations of the 1985 ambient air quality for Boston without the
incinerator indicate that the levels for particulates and S02 will be
on the order of 139 yg/m3 and 426 yg/m3, respectively.
287
-------
oo
oo
FIGURE 1
THE GROUND LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS AS A FUNCTION OF DOWNWIND DISTANCE FROM THE INCINERATORS
Wind Direction
•H
X
o
Q
3
3
O
4J
CJ
•U
«S
D<
ro
f.
3.
11
10
9
8-
7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1-
Wind Speed =1.5 Meters/Second
Atmosphere Stability - 4
•Maximum Ground Level Concentration 10.34 pg/nf
-Maximum Ground Level
Concentration 6.72
/
2 Stacks on /
Deer Island //
LEGEND:
—- 24 Hr. Particulate Concentration
---24 Hr. Sulfur Dioxide Concentration
.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4
Downwind Distance In Kilometers
-------
If the emissions burden described earlier were added to this
1985 ambient air quality, the resulting values would be 146 yg/m3 for
particulates and 461 yg/m3 for SO2. In comparing the projected air
quality against the secondary standards, it can be seen that while the
particulate concentrations would approach the limits, it would not exceed
them. And SC>2 concentrations would be well under the limits.
The area most affected by the emissions from these incinerators
would be the northern tip of Long Island. Long Island is the site of
the Long Island Chronic Disease Hospital, with 900 beds and a staff of
400.
The other pollutants which may be emitted from the incinerators
include nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and heavy metals
such as mercury and lead. There is a proposed hazardous pollutant stan-
dard limiting the atmospheric discharge of mercury from incineration to
a maximum of 3,200 grams per day. Assuming a worst case situation, i.e.
that all mercury in the combined sludge would be vaporized, the mercury
emission would be approximately 2,294 grams per day in 1985. Assuming
a similar situation for lead, the total lead emissions would be approx-
imately 23,800 grams (23.8 kilograms) per day.
With landfilling of the ash at an approved shorebased sanitary
landfill, the balance of the environmental impacts should be minimal.
In addition to impacts on air quality, the transportation and
landfilling of 126,000 pounds of ash per day would have some impacts.
Transportation traffic and noise impacts would be negligible, with an
average of five (5) truckloads per day being transported to a State-
approved landfill site which has been identified.
c. Monetary Costs; The monetary costs associated with this
alternative are summarized below. This alternative has the second
lowest annual cost.
Total Annual Costs
(20 years @ 6-1/8% interest) $3,810,800
Total Annual Costs,
MDC Share
d. Energy Costs; Tne energetics of this alternative are
shown below, in terms of the total energy requirements expressed as
millions of BTU per day. Also, all possible energy recoveries,
including byproducts, are listed.
289
-------
Energy Required 98 x 106 BTU/day
Possible Gross Recovery 255 x 106 BTU/day
Possible Net Recovery 157 x 106 BTU/day
2. Alternative 1-B; Incineration with Deep Ocean Disposal of
the Ash
a. System Description; This alternative is similar to Alterna-
tive 1-A in regards to on-site processes. The difference lies in the
transporting of the ash to deep ocean disposal. The barge system to be
used is a large (1,500 ton capacity) vessel to be unloaded in deep
(depth in excess of 100 meters) water. The haul distance under this
alternative is approximately 70 miles from the Deer Island plant site,
to' be dumped in the Murray-Wilkinson Basin, in the Gulf of Maine. The
next figure indicates the possible area for such a dump site. (The
development of the possible location of this dump site was done in con-
junction with the deep ocean disposal of sludge alternative. However,
the mechanical aspects of either alternative would be identical.)
b. Environmental Impacts: All of the adverse air quality im-
pacts associated with Alternative 1-A would be identical to this system.
The major additional area of impact would be associated with effects on
the marine environment. (A more detailed development of those impacts
will be given in relation to the ocean disposal alternative.)
Since ash would not have the organic and pathogen contamination
problems associated with the ocean disposal of sludge, many of these
adverse impacts would be significantly reduced. However, the heavy
metal oxides which would still be in the residue (except mercury and
lead) might be more accessible to the marine environment than would the
highly insoluble metal sulfides associated with anoxic sludge deposits.
In addition, the general lack of knowledge about the impact of pollutants
on the marine environment poses significant problems in determining the
magnitude of any long term effects.
It is general EPA and Federal policy to restrict and/or eliminate
ocean disposal of wastes, unless no other feasible alternative can be
found.
c- Monetary Costs; Because of the inexpensiveness of the sludge
hauling (barge transport), this alternative has a lower annual cost than
landfilling of the ash.
Total Annual Costs
(20 years @ 6-1/8% interest) $3,718,500
Total Annual Costs,
MDC Share $1,799,600
290
-------
72"
200 Meters in Depth
100 Meters in Depth
=27*
FIGURE
THAT PORTION OF THE MURRAY-WILKINSON
BASIN (SHADED AREA) WITHIN 60 NM OF
BOSTON. c
-------
a. Energy Costs; The alternative has the best energetics of
all the feasible alternates.
Total Energy Requirement 93 x 106 BTU/day
Possible Gross Recovery 255 x 106 BTU/day
Possible Net Recovery 163 x 106 BTU/day
The large energy recovery from incineration, coupled with the low BTU/ton
mile for ash transport, give this a favorable energetic balance.
3. Alternative 2; Land Application of Dewatered, Pasteurized Sludge
a. System Description; This system begins with lime and ferric
chloride conditioning and vacuum filtration, as in the two previous al-
ternatives, followed by pasteurization to 170°F for 30 minutes on site.
Transportation to storage would be by 20-ton self-dumping trailers (barged
to Mystic Terminal as in Alternative 1-A), with further transport to one
of approximately five storage sites in the Bridgewater area, the Westport
area, and the Connecticut River valley. Storage at these sites would be
for six months. To prevent either degradation of runoff quality or in-
creasing sludge moisture content, the windrows of limed pasteurized
sludge would be covered with a plastic moisture barrier. During March
and October, the sludge would be removed by frontend loader, trucked to
the final farm application site, and spread by modified manure spreader.
Following this application by dedicated equipment, the individual farm
operator would be responsible for incorporation into the soil. The site
selection for land application was based on tilled land identified in
the 1971 Massachusetts Land Use Survey by the University of Massachusetts
at Amherst. The purchase of cropland for this project is not contemplated,
but rather, a marketing effort is planned to encourage use by private and
institutional farm operators. For planning purposes, land requirements
are based on nitrogen and metals concentrations developed on a Statewide
basis, but the actual analysis of sludge and the soil nitrogen and cation
exchange capacity of the site will dictate the actual sludge loading in
dry tons per acre. The general conditions for applying sludge to tilled
land would be the following: Ten (10) dry-weight tons per acre per year,
for 6-1/2 years. After this period of time the cation exchange capacity
of the soil would reach the upper safe limits for heavy metals concentra-
tion. Then other areas would be used.
The tilled farmland areas which have been tentatively identified
as being adequate for land application purposes are shown on the next
figure.
The proposed land application system must include monitoring
of sludge, soil and water for nutrients and trace metals. This monitoring
cost is included in the system costs.
292
-------
vo
CO
FIGURE
. SUITABLE SITES FOR LAND APPLICATIONS
OF SLUDGE.
[See Table for Site Identification]
-------
b. Environmental Impacts; In assessing the relative environ-
mental impacts of the feasible solutions, it has been determined that
the land application alternatives impact on a great many more portions
of the environment than the incinerator/landfill option. While the
incinerator/landfill alternative does have a significant, concentrated
impact on air quality when compared to land application, this is its
major area of impact. Incineration, of course, also has other adverse
impacts, but the area and scope of impact is limited to one major component
of the environment. The impacts on the biotic community are generally
limited in scope to the area immediately adjacent to the incinerator site.
The land application systems have many more beneficial environ-
mental impacts as compared to the incineration alternatives. For example,
the fertilizer and lime value of the sludge and the resultant economic
benefits directly experienced by farmers; reduction in food costs; direct
encouragement of Massachusetts agriculture; etc. While the number of
beneficial impacts are greater, the land application alternatives also
have a much broader range of adverse environmental impacts. Two major
areas have considerably more range of adverse impact: biotic communities,
and public health. Since heavy metals have been identified as being the
component of the sludge which has the most adverse impact, the spreading
of this material on open land opens up several avenues for plant, animal,
and human contamination. But the magnitude of impact in any one area
would not be as great as the single impact which the Boston air quality
would receive.
This system has one significant constraint. Because of the
extremely high levels of heavy metals in the Deer Island treatment plant
sludges, this solution could be implemented only if pretreatment, or
some other program were instituted to reduce the metals concentrations
to the point where the sludge could safely be applied.
c. Monetary Costs; The annual costs associated with the
operation of a land application system makes it the most costly of the
five alternates. However, in addition to its large out-of-pocket
expenses, there is an offsetting monetary credit to the Commonwealth's
economy that is realized in the agricultural value of the sludge which
is applied to the land. While applying this credit to expenses of
this system tends to make it more cost-competitive with the other
alternates, it does not reflect a net decrease in MDC's expenses, un-
less the Commonwealth would be willing to give the MDC directly, a
cash credit for the agricultural value of the sludge.
Total Annual Costs
(20 yeara @ 6-1/8% interest) $6,318,300
Total Annual Costs,
MDC Share $4,508,800
294
-------
Annual Value to Agriculture $1,355,000
Net Resources Cost,
Expressed as $ $4,963,300
d. Energy Costs; The land application system (applying 100%
of the sludge)would also be the most costly in terms of energetics, even
though credit is taken for the nitrogen and phosphorous as fertilizers.
Total Energy Required 459 x 106 BTU/day
Possible Gross Recovery 395 x 106 BTU/day
Possible Net Recovery (64) x 106 BTU/day
4. Alternative 3; Ocean Disposal of Dewatered Pasteurized Sludge
a. System Description: The sludge preparation is similar to
the land application alternative, including conditioning, vacuum fil-
tration and pasteurization as on-site processes, with deep ocean (>100
meters depth) disposal of the sludge. The potential site selected for
dumping is in the Murray-Wilkinson Basin, approximately 70 miles east
of Deer Island in the Gulf of Maine. The dumping site would be demar-
cated with navigational aids to prevent fishing activity.
In order to insure that mixing of the sludge into the water
column is held to a minimum, it should not be discharged into the wake
of the barge, as is now generally done, but released all at once through
bottom doors in the barge. In addition, the sludge should be as con-
centrated as possible, but still moist, to insure rapid settling and
minimal mixing. Sludge should not be dumped across any appreciable
vertical current patterns. It should not be dumped in upwelling areas,
or in areas where turbulent bottom water turnover is known to occur
frequently. The dump site would have to be well marked by a permanent
buoy, and barges should remain within a specified distance during dumping.
The limits of the dump site should be as small as possible. Continuous
monitoring of toxic metals, toxic organic compounds, organic matter,
nutrient salts, floatables, and bacterial and viral levels, and oxygen
levels in the sediments and in the water column would be mandatory. In
addition, benthic and pelagic biota would have to be monitored for any
indication of detrimental effects. These measurements must include
sampling outside of the spoil area.
b. Environmental Impacts; The following effects will be noticed
as the result of deep ocean disposal of digested sludge. Reduced dis-
solved oxygen levels will occur in the water overlying the sludge dump-
site. Nutrient levels will increase in the water column. The effect
of this cannot be accurately judged since increase in phytbplankton
activity may be beneficial as well as adverse. Heavy metals will
295
-------
increase in concentration, and will be bioconcentrated in fish. Turbidity
might increase in the dumpsite since it is apparently an area of considerable
hydrographic activity. Increases in bottom sediment heavy metals and
toxic organics, with resultant bioconcentration in bottom feeders, and
further contamination up the food chain may occur. Sediments will become
anoxic, thus changing biological communities. Species diversity and
composition will decrease. Filter-feeding organisms may be adversely
affected by fine-grained particles.
c. Monetary Costs; Because ocean disposal uses the most
efficient method of hauling and does not have large investments in
capital equipment, this alternate has the lowest monetary costs of the
feasible solutions.
Total Annual Costs $2,947,700
(20 years @ 6-1/8% interest)
Total Annual Costs,
MDC Share $1,598,800
d. Energy Costs: Even though this system utilizes the most
efficient method of sludge transport, it is still fairly costly in
energy since the sludge would still have to be pasteurized prior to
dumping.
Total Energy 212 x 106 BTU/day
Possible Gross Recovery 255 x 106 BTU/day
Possible Net Recovery 325 x 106 BTU/day
5. Alternative 4; Partial Land Application of Dewatered
Pasteurized Sludge (Hybrid System)
a. System Description: This system is similar to the complete
land application alternative (Alternative 2), including conditioning,
vacuum filtration, and pasteurization of the portion to be land applied
(estimated as 50% in 1985) and conditioning, vacuum filtration and
landfill of that sludge which cannot be land applied because of heavy
metals or other quality constraints. Landfilling of dewatered sludge
would be in accordance with the criteria of the Massachusetts Department
of Environmental Quality Engineering.
After a considerable amount of development work had been done
on the land application alternate, it was found that the entire system
could not be put into operation unless the heavy metals concentration
were significantly reduced in the Deer Island sludges. There is
evidence that some heavy metals, e.g. cadmium, have become a pervasive
part of the environment and that these constituents might not be
removed sufficiently even with a pretreatment campaign. Therefore, in
296
-------
order to have a land application system that could be implemented
under existing sludge conditions, the hybrid solution was developed.
The hybrid system was specifically set up to accommodate this problem
by: (a) land applying that portion of the sludge which is acceptable
(Nut Island's, plus approximately 10% of Deer Island's); and (b) by
landfilling (burying) the remaining highly contaminated portion.
b. Environmental Impacts; Since the hybrid system uses a
major component of the land application system, the types of impacts
are similar; but since only about half the land area would be affected
by this system, the adverse impacts (as well as the beneficial) are
concomittantly reduced. The landfilling operation would require
considerably more land than for disposal of ash (130 acres vs. 300 acres,
over a 10 year period), and the leachate characteristics would be worse.
However, the sanitary landfill in Plainville (recently approved by the
Commonwealth) has provisions for leachate collection and treatment.
Therefore, in the overall assessment of environmental impact,
the hybrid system ranks better than the pure land application alternative,
and only slightly more adverse than the incineration option.
c. Monetary Costs; As with the land application alternate,
there is a non-cash, monetary credit that is realized because of the
fertilizer benefits of the sludge. Since such a large portion of the
sludge is landfilled, operating costs are reduced significantly.
Total Annual Costs $4,918,900
(20 years @ 6-1/8% interest)
Total Annual Costs, $3,258,200
MDC Share
Annual Value to Agriculture $ 678,000
Net Resources Cost, $4,240,900
Expressed as $
d. Energy Costs; Because of the necessity for pasteurization
and large transport energetics, the hybrid system is highly unfavorable
in this category.
Total Energy Required 301 x 106 BTU/day
Possible Gross Recovery 325 x 106 BTU/day
Possible Net Recovery 25 x 106 BTU/day
297
-------
NAME
John Griffith
Michael Perrault
Joseph M. McGinn
WORKSHOP - MDC SLUDGE HANDLING FACILITY
MCNDAY NOVEMBER 10, 1975
AGENCY/FIRM/ADDRESS
Mass. Bureau of Solid Waste
85 Eindia Row, Boston 02110
Claire Plaud
Alfred F. Ferullo
C. P. Rapaldi
Linda Bourque
Dave Cochrane
Ray Ghelardi
Warren Howard
Bill Butler
Steve Marcus, Writer
James Larnbie
Elaine Shanshat
Oliver Brooks
Robert T. Donaldson
Paul T. Anderson
George Siirpson
Martin Weiss
Charles B. Clark, Eng'r
MAPC - Water Quality Project - 208
11 Beacon St., Boston 02108
46A Dana St., Canibridge 02138
MDC
PEI/RMV, 210 South St., Boston
BRA
MAPC - Water Quality Project
11 Beacon St., Boston 02108
Mass. Exec. Office of Env. Affairs
EPA
EPA
11 Everett St., Cambridge 02138
EPA
BAPCC
The Boston Harbor Assoc.
Mass. DEQE - Div. Air Quality Control
Mass. DEQE - Div. Gen. Env. Control
Havens & Emerson - Cleveland
MDC
17 Milton Road, Reading 01867
298
-------
NAME
Michael Fenlon
Warren K. Colby
Bernard Sacks
Dan O'Brien
Madeline Kolfc
Janes A. O'Rourke
Samuel Fogel
Paul Taurasi
Libby Blank
Fred Winthrop
AGEMCT/FIIflV'ADDRESS
Lt. Gcv., O'Neill's Office
Mass. Dept. Food & Agric., 100 Court St., Boston
EPA
EPA
Sierra Club, 12 Whittier St., Cambridge
City of Boston, Public Works Dept.
Process Research Inc., 56 Rogers St.
Cambridge 02159
DEQE - DWPC
MDC
Commissioner, Department of Agriculture,
Massachusetts
299
-------
APPENDIX CC
REFERENCES
300
-------
APPENDIX rr
REFERENCES
Allaway, W. H. 1968. "Agronomic Controls Over Environmental
Cycling of Trace Elements." Advan. Agron. 20: 2??-2?4
Allen, J. 1973. "Sewage Farming. - Environment. 15(3): 36-41,
"SSS: 22: . - Solid
Baker, J. H. 1975. Personal communication. Cooperative
Extension Service. Ambers t, Mass.
Bigelow, H. B. 1926A. Physical Oceanography of the Gulf of
Maine. U. S. Bur. Fish. Bull. 40 (2): - 511-1027. -
Bigelow, H. B. 1926B. Plankton of the Offshore Waters of
the Gulf of Maine. Bull. U. S. Bur. Fish. - 40 (2) : - 509" pp.
Bigelow, H. B. , L. Lillick and M. Sears. 1940. Phytoplankton
and Planktonic Protozoa of the Offshore Waters of the Gulf —
of Maine; Part I, Numerical Distribution '. Trans. Amer -
Phil. Soc. Ill 149-191. ~~ -
Bigelow, H. B. and W. C. Schroeder. 1953. Fishes of the Gulf
of Maine. Fish. Bull., U. S. 53 (74): 577 pp. -
Bingham, F. J. , A. L. Page, R. J. Mahler, and T. J. Ganje.
1975. "Growth and Cadmium Accumulation of Plants Grown on
a Soil Treated with a Cadmium-Enriched Sewage Sludge."
J. Environ. Quality. 4 (2) : 207-211.
Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc. 1970. NEF Contours for 1967,
1970, and 1975 Operations at Selected Airports. Federal
Aviation Administration. Dept. of Transportation.
_ • 1974. Boston Edison Company Annual Report. Boston
Edison, Mass. (Rates obtained 1975) .
Boston Harbor Pollution Task Force (BHPTF) . 1972. A Study of
Alternative Methods of Sludge Disposal for the Deer Island
and Nut Island Sewage Treatment Plants. Metropolitan District
Commission, Boston, Mass.
301
-------
Boswell, F. C. 1975. "Municipal Sewage Sludge and Selected
Element Application to Soil: Effect on Soil and Fescue."
J. Environ. Qual. 4 (2): 267-273.
Brackley, R. A., W. B. Fleck and W. R. Meyer. 1973. Hydrology
and Water Resources of the Neponset and Weymouth River
Basins, Massachusetts. U. S. Geological Survey, Wash., B.C.
Bradford, G. R., A. L. Page, L. J. Lund and W. Olmstead. 1975.
"Trace Element Concentrations of Sewage Treatment Plant
Effluents and Sludges: Their Interactions with Soils and
Uptake by Plants." J. Environ. Qual. 4(1): 123-127.
Briggs, G. A. 1971. "Some Recent Analyses of Plume Rise
Observation." Proceedings of the Second International Clean
Air Congress, Academic Press, New York.
Brockman, C. Frank. 1968. Trees of North America. Golden
Press, New York.
Brownlie, T. A. and J. Akers. 1973. "Sewage Treatment Works
at East Calder and Newbridge." Water Poll. Control (G. B.).
72: 333.
Bumpus, D. F. 1974. Review of the Physical Oceanography of
Massachusetts Bay. WHOI Tech. Rept. 74-8 NMFS Contract 03-
3-043-40. Unpublished Manuscript.
Bumpus, D. F. 1965. "Residual Drift Along the Bottom of the
Continental Shelf in the Middle Atlantic Bight Region."
Limnol. Ocean. 10: R50-R53.
Bumpus, D. F. and L. M. Lauzier. 1964. "Surface Circulation
on the Continental Shelf Off Eastern North America Between
Newfoundland and Florida." Amer. Geog. Soc., Serial Atlas
Mar. Environ., Folio 7.
Busse, A. D. and J. R. Zimmerman. 1975. National Environmental
Research Center, Office of Research and Development, U.S. EPA,
Research Triange Park, North Carolina.
Carmody, D. J., J. B. Pearce and W. E. Yasso. 1973. Marine
Pollution Bulletin. 41(9): 132-135.
Chaney, R. L. 1973. Crop and Food Chain Effects of Toxic
Elements in Sludges and Effluents. U.S. EPA, U.S.D.A.,
Universities Workshop, Champaign, Urbana, Illinois.
Chesmore, A. P., S. A. Testaverde and F. P. Richards. 1971.
A Study of the Marine Resources of Dorchester Bay. Monograph
Series Number 10. Mass. Division of Marine Fisheries, Boston,
Mass.
302
-------
Claydon, M B. et al. 1973. "Disposal of Municipal Sludges
to Agriculture." Proc. Symp. on Disposal of Municipal and
Industrial Sludges and Solid Toxic Wastes.Inst. Water Poll
Control, London. Vol. 74. ~~ ~~
Ceilings, M. R., D. R. Wiesnet and W. B. Fleck. 1969. Water
Resources of Millers River Basin, North-Central Massachusetss
and Southwestern New Hampshire.USGS, Wash., D. C.
Corner, E. D. S. and A. G. Davies, 1971. "Plankton as a Factor
in the Nitrogen and Phosphorus Cycles in the Sea." Adv Mar
Biol. 9: 101-204. *
• 1974. Municipal Sewage Treatment, A Comparison of
Alternatives. Council on Environmental Quality, U. S.
Environ. Protection Agency.
• 1970. Ocean Dumping; A National Policy. Report to
the President. Council on Environmental Quality. U. S.
Gov. Printing Office, Wash., D. C.
Dalton, F. E. and R. R. Murphy. 1973. "Land Disposal IV:
Reclamation and Recycle." Jour. Water Poll. Control Fed.
45: 1489-1507. "
Davis, J. A. and J. Jacknow. 1975. "Heavy Metals in Waste-
water in Three Urban Areas." JWPFA, 47: 2292-2297.
Dean, R. B. 1973. "Disposal and Reuse of Sludge and Sewage:
What Are the Options?" In Proc. of Conf. on Land Disposal
of Municipal Effluents and Sludges. EPA-90219-73-001.
Dean, R. B. 1971. "Quantity of Mercury Produced by Sludge
Incineration." EPA memo to R. Schaffer. U. S. EPA.
Washington, D. C.
Dick, R. I. 1973. "Sludge Handling and Disposal: State of
the Art." In Ultimate Disposal of Wastewaters and Their
Residuals. F. E. McJunkins and P. A. Vesiland [eds]. North
Carolina State University, Raleigh, N. C. pp. 127-142.
Dincauze, Dena F. 1974. "An Introduction to Archeology in
the Greater Boston Area." Archeology of Eastern North
America. 2(1): 39.
Dowdy, R. H. and W. E. Larson. 1975A. "Metal Uptake by
Barley Seedlings Grown on Soils Amended with Sewage Sludge."
J. Environ. Qual. 4(2): 229-233.
Dowdy, R. H. and W. E. Larson. 1975B. "The Availability of
Sludge-Borne Metals to Various Vegetable Crops." J. Environ.
4(2): 278-282.
303
-------
Emerson, B. K. 1916. Preliminary Geologic Map of Massachusetts.
U. S. Geological Survey Bulletin 597, Plate X.
Emery, K. 0. 1966. Atlantic Continental Shelf and Slope of
the United States. Geologic Background, U. S. Geol. Surv.
Prof. Paper 529-A. 23 pp.
1975. Eastern Massachusetts Metropolitan Area Waste-
water Management Study (EMMA). U. S. Army Engineer Division.
. 1968. Water Quality Criteria. Fed. Water Poll. Control
Admin., Wash., D. C.
. 1964. Sewer and Sewage Treatment Plant Cost Index.
Fed. Water Poll. Control Admin., Wash., D. C.
Fish, C. J. 1936A. "The Biology of Oithong similis in the
Gulf of Maine and Bay of Fundy." Biol. Bull. 71: 168-187.
Fish, C. J. 1936B. "The Biology of Pseudocalanus minutus in
the Gulf of Maine and Bay of Fundy."Biol. Bull. 70: 193-216.
Fish, C. J. 1936C. "The Biology of Calanus finmarchicus in
the Gulf of Maine and Bay of Fundy.T' Biol. Bull. 70 : 118-41.
Fish, C. J. and M. W. Johnson. 1937. "The Biology of the
Zooplankton Population in the Bay of Fundy and Gulf of Maine
with Special Reference to Production and Distribution."
J. Biol. Bd. Canada. 3: 189-322.
Fitz, R. L. 1965. Autumn Distribution of Groundfish Species
in the Gulf of Maine and Adjacent Waters, 1955-1961. Serial
Atlas of the Marine Environment. Folio 10. Amer. Geographical
Society, New York.
Folger, D. W. 1972. Characteristics of Estuarine Sediments
of the United States. Geological Survey Professional Paper
742. Wash., D. C.
Foth, H. D. and L. M. Turk. 1972. Fundamentals of Soil Science.
New York. 454 pp.
Frimpter, M. K. 1973. Groundwater Management; Ten Mile River
Basin, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. SENE, Section 3.03,
USGS.
Carney, H. D. 1975. Letter Communication. Project Manager,
Boston National Historic Park, U. S. Dept. of Interior.
Gay, F. B, L. G. Toler and B. P. Hansen. 1974. Hydrology and
Water Resources of the Deerfield River Basin, Massachusetts.
USGS, Washington, D. C~. ~~~~ "
304
-------
GCA Corporation. 1972. Transportation Controls to Reduce
Motor Vehicle Emissions in Boston, Mass. U.S. EPA, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Giordano, P. M. , J. J. Montvedt, and D. A. Mays. 1975. "Effect
of Municipal Wastes on Crop Yields and Uptake of Heavy Metals . "
J. Environ. Qual. , 4(3): 394-399.
Gleason, H. A. and A. Conquist. 1963. Manual of Vascular Plants
of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. New York.
Graham, J. J. 1970. Coastal Currents of the Western Gulf of
Maine. I.C.NA.A. Res. Bull. 7: 19-31.
Gross, M. J. , J. A. Black, R. J. Kalin, J. R. Schiemel and R. N.
Smith. 1971. Survey of Marine Waste Deposits, New York
Metropolital Region. Technical Report No. 8, Marine Sciences
Research Center, SUNY.
Haith, D. A. 1973. "Optimal Control of Nitrogen Losses from
Land Disposal Areas." Jour. Environ. Engineering Division.
EEb, pp. 923-937.
Hansen, B. P., L. G. Toler and F. B. Gay. 1973. Hydrology and
Water Resources of the Hoosic River Basin, Mass. USGS, Wash.,
D. C. — —
Harvey, H. W. 1966. The Chemistry and Fertility of Sea Waters.
Cambridge University Press. New York. 240 pp.
Hatcher, C. L. 1974. "A Virginia City Uses Liquid Sludge to
Grow Crops." Compost Science. 15(1): 18-19.
Havens and Emerson Engineers, Ltd. 1974. Environmental
Assessment for a Plan for Sludge Management. Metropolitan
District Commission, Boston, Mass.
Havens and Emerson Engineers, Ltd. 1973. A Plan for Sludge
Management. Metropolitan District Commission, Boston, Mass.
Haynes, E. B. and R. L. Wigley. 1969. "Biology of the Northern
Shrimp Pandalus borealis in the Gulf of Maine." Trans. Amer.
Fish Soc. 98: 60-76.
Higgins, A. 1975. Personal communication. Rutgers University,
Dept. of Environ. Engineering, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Hinesley, T. D. andB. Sosewitz. 1969. "Digested .
on Crop Land." J. Water Poll. Control Fed. 41(5): 822-830.
Hirst, E. 1973. "Transportation Energy Use and Conservation
Potential." Science and Public Affairs.
305
-------
Hoke, C. 1975. Personal Communication. Communicable Disease
Center, Atlanta, Georgia.
Hovey, Marcia J. "Complying With OSHA Noise Standards," Safety
Standards, July-August 1972.
Hunt, C. B. 1967. Physiography of the United States. W. H.
Freeman and Co., San Francisco.
Hydrosciences, Inc. 1973. Development of Hydrodynamic and Time
Variable Water Quality Models of Boston Harbor. Mass. Water
Resources Commission, Boston.
Isgur, D. 1973. Rare and Endangered Plants and Vertebrate
Animals of Massachusetts. Soil Conservation Service, U. S.
Dept. of Agriculture.
Jannasch, H. W., K. Eimhjellen and C. 0. Wirsen. 1971. "Microbial
Degradation of Organic Matter in the Deep Sea." Science. 171:
672-675.
Jerome, W. C. , A. P. Chesmore and C. O. Anderson, Jr. 1966.
A Study of the Marine Resources of Quincy Bay. Monograph Series
Number 2. Mass. Division of Marine Fisheries, Boston, Mass.
1975. "Report of the Working Group on the Scientific Basis
for Disposal of Waste Into the Sea." Joint Group of Experts on
the Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollution. Second Session,
United Nations Environment Program. Copenhagen, Oct. 5-11, 1974.
Johnston, Frank. 1975. Personal Communication. MASSPORT, Boston,
Massachusetts.
Kaakinen, J. W., et. al. 1975 "Trace Element Behavior in Coal
Fired Power Plant." Environmental Science and Technology.
September, 1975.
Kastarlak, B. J. 1970. Report I: Tourism and Its Development
Potential in Massachusetts. Bureau of Area Planning, Mass.
Kennedy, John. 1975, 1976. Personal Communication. Clean Communities,
Inc., Plainville, Massachusetts.
Ketchum, B. H. [ed]. 1972. The Water's Edge; Critical Problems
of the Coastal Zone. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Ketchum, B. H. 1951. The Dispersion and Fate of Pollution
Discharged Into Tidal Waters and the Viability of Enteric
Bacteria in the Sea. W. H. 0. I. Ref. No. 51-11. 16 pp.
King, L. D. and H. D. Morris. 1972A. "Land Disposal of Liquid
S*TrG Si£dge! ni1'- The Effect on Soil PH, Manganese, Zinc,
and Growth and Chemical Composition of Rye (Secale cereale L.)."
J. Environ. Qual. 1(4): 425-429.
306
-------
King, L. D. and H. D. Morris. 1972B. "Land Disposal of Liquid
Sewage Sludge: III. The Effect on Soil Nitrate." J. Environ.
Quality, 1(4): 442-446.
Kirkham, M. B. 1975. "Uptake of Cadmium and Zinc from Sludge, by
Barley Grown Under Four Different Sludge Irrigation Regimes."
J. Environ. Qual. 4(3): 423-527.
Kirkham, M. B. 1974. "Disposal of Sludge on Land: Effect on Soils,
Plants and Ground Water." Compost Science. 15(2): 6-10.
Larsen, R. I. . A Mathematical Model for Relating Air Quality
Measurements to Air Quality Standards. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency Publication AP-89.
Lear, D. W. 1975. Effects of Ocean Disposal Activities on the
Mid-Atlantic Shelf Off Delaware and Maryland. U. S. EPA, Region III,
Lillick, L. C. 1940. Phytoplankton and Planktonic Protozoa of the
Offshore Waters of the Gulf of Maine. Part II. Trans. Amer.
Phil. Soc. 31: 193-237.
Lindgren, D. T., R. B. Simpson and W. Goldstein. 1973. Land Use
Change Detection in the Boston and New Haven Areas, 1970-1972.
Remote Sensing Project, Dartmouth College.
Lindsay, W. L. 1973. "Inorganic Reactions of Sewage Wastes with
Soils." In Recycling Municipal Sludges and Effluent on Land.
National Assoc. of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges.
Long Island Chronic Disease Hospital Director. Personal Communi-
cation, 1976.
Lu, P. Y. , et. al. 1975. "Model Ecosystem Studies of Lead and
Cadmium and Urban Sewage Sludges Containing These Elements."
Journal of Environmental Quality. 4(4): 505.
MacConnell, W. P. 1975. Remote Sensing; 20 Years of Change.
University of Massachusetts.
MacConnell, W. P. [director]. 1971. Massachusetts Map Down;
Land Use and Vegetative Cover Mapping. University of
Massachusetts.
. 1970. Tourism and Its Development Potential in
Massachusetts. Massachusetts Department of Commerce and
Development.
. 1975. Personal Communication. Gurney, of the Massachu-
setts Historical Commission.
. 1973. Vehicles to be Constructed or Loaded so as to Prevent
Dropping of Contents on Ways. Section 36, Chapter 85 of General
Laws, Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles.
. 1974. 15th MASSPORT Annual Report. MASSPORT, Boston, Mass.
307
-------
1973. Master Plan Study Boston-Rogan International
Airport. MASSPORT, Boston, Mass
. 1974. Rules and Regulations for the Establishment of
Minimum Water Quality Standards and for the Protection of
the Quality and Value of Water Resources. Mass. Water
Resources Commission, Div. of Water Pollution Control.
. 1973. Boston Harbor Pollution Survey - 1972. Massachu-
setts Water Resources Commission, Div. of Water Pollution
Control.
. .1969. Joint Report on Pollution of the Navigate Waters
of Boston Harbor. Massachusetts Water Resources Commission
and U. S. Department of the Interior Federal Water Pollution
Control Admin.
McClane, A. J. 1965. McClane's Standard Fishing Encyclopedia.
New York. 1057 pp.
1972. Boston Harbor Islands Comprehensive Plan.
Metropolitan Area Planning Council
• 1976, 1975, 1974, 1973. Operating Data, Deer and Nut Island
Treatment Plants. Metropolitan District Commission.
Meyrick, Wm. 1975. Personal Communication. Strick Mfg.
(Dedicated Trailers), Morrisville, Pennsylvania.
Moore, H. B. 1958. Marine Ecology. John Wiley and Sons,
Inc. New York. 493 pp.
• 1975. Assessing Potential Ocean Pollutants. National
Academy of Sciences, Washington, D. C.
• 1975A. "New England Fishery Interviews, 1965-1974
Vol. II." National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast
Fisheries Center Statistics and Market News.Unpublished
Manuscript, National Marine Fisheries Service, U. S. Dept.
of Commerce, Woods Hole, Mass.
. 1975B. U. S. Fish Landing for Areas 513, 514 and 515.
Unpublished Data. National Marine Fisheries Service, U. S.
Dept. of Commerce, Woods Hole, Mass.
—_—• 197°- "Appendix O: A Report of History and Environment."
II? Comprehensive Water and Related Land Resources; Connecticut
S^Yfr-Bfs?;?- National Park Service, Dept. of Interior,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
—TT—' -1?75; Literature Survey of Boston Harbor. Unpublished.
New England Aquarium, Boston, Mass.
T197MA* ^ater Quality Measurements of Boston Harbor,
Ij New England Aquarium, Dept. ot Water Pollution Control,
Boston, Mass.
308
-------
1973B. Experimental Analysis of Boston Harbor Water
Quality with the Model Bio-Dyn III. New England Aquarium,
Division of Water Pollution Control, Boston, Mass.
. 1972. Trace Metal Analysis of Boston Harbor Waters and
Sediments, Vol. II. New England Aquarium. Dept. of Water
Pollution Control, Boston, Mass.
1974. Annual Report. New England Electrical System.
1964. A Checklist of Birds in New Hampshire. New England
Fish and Game Dept. and the Audobon Society of New Hampshire. 9 p.
Nickerson, Wm. Commissioner of Penal Facilities, City of Boston.
Personal Communication, 1976.
Norvitch, R. E., D. F. Farrel, F. H. Pauszek and R. G. Peterson.
1968. Hydrology and Water Resources of the Housatonic River
Basin, Mass. U. S. Geological Survey, Washington, D. C.
. 1974. "Occupational Safety and Health Standards."
Federal Register. 39(125): 23543. Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, Dept. of Labor, Washington, D. C.
Odum, H. J. 1972. Environment, Power and Society. McGraw Hill,
New York.
Olexsey, R. A. National Environmental Research Center, EPA,
Cincinnati, Ohio. Memorandum to Ira Leighton, EPA Region I,
December, 1975.
Page, A. L. 1974. Fate and Effects of Trace Elements in Sewage
Sludge When Applied to Agricultural Land.EPA-670/2-72-005,
Washington, D. C.
Peters, W. D. 1975. Personal Communication. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region I, Boston, Massachusetts.
Pickard, G. L. 1963. Descriptive Physical Oceanography.
Pergamon Press. Oxford, England.
Pilson, M. E. Q. and E. Goldstein. 1973. "Marine Mammals."
In S. B. Saila, Coastal and Offshore Environmental Inventory,
Cape Hatteras to Nantucket Shoals. Marine Publication Series
No. 2. University of Rhode Island, Kingston.
Pollack, S. J., D. F. Farrell and W. W. Caswell. 1969. Water
Resources of the Assabet River Basin, Central Mass. U. S.
Geological Survey, Washington, D. C.
Pratt, S. D., S. B. Saila, A. G. Gaines, Jr. and J. E. Krout.
1973. Biological Effects of Ocean Disposal of Solid Waste.
Marine Tehcnical Report Series Number 9. University of
Rhode Island, Kingston.
309
-------
Rakestraw, N. W. 1936. "The Occurrence and Significance of
Nitrate in the Sea." Biol. Bull. 71: 133-167.
Rakestraw, N. W. 1933. "Studies on the Biology and Chemistry
of the Gulf of Maine: I. Chemistry of the Waters of the
Gulf of Maine in August, 1932." Biol. Bull. 64: 149-158.
Rakestraw, N. W. 1932. "Phosphorous and Nitrogen in the
Neritic Waters in the Gulf of Maine." Int. Rev. Hydrobiol.
and Hydrogr. 27: 151-160.
Rawcliffe, E. and G. W. Saul. 1974. "The Agricultural Use
of Blackburn Sewage Sludge." Water Poll. Control (G.B.).
73(2): 168.
Raymont, J. E. G. 1963. Plankton and Productivity in the Oceans.
Pergamon Press, New York. 660 p.
Redfield, A. C. 1941. "The Effect of the Circulation of Water
on the Distribution of the Calanoid Community in the Gulf of
Maine." Biol. Bull. 80: 86-110.
Redfield, A. C. and A. Keys. 1938. "The Distribution of
Ammonia in the Waters of the Gulf of Maine." Biol. Bull.
74: 83-92.
Redfield, A. C., H. P. Smith and B. H. Ketchum. 1937. "The
Cycle of Organic Phosphorus in the Gulf of Maine." Biol. Bull.
73: 421-443.
Reed, C. H. 1974. "Equipment for Incorporating Sewage Sludges
into the Soil." Compost Science. 15(4): 31-32.
Reed, S. C. 1973. "Land Disposal: State of the Art." In
Ultimate Disposal of Wastewaters and Their Residuals. F. E.
McJunkin and P. A. Vesiland [eds.]. North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, N. C. pp. 229-261.
Reid, G- K. 1961. Ecology of Inland Waters and Estuaries^
New York.
Riddell, M. D. R. and J. W. McCormack. 1968. "Selection of
Disposal Methods for Wastewater Treatment Plants." In
Proceedings, 10th Sanitary Engineering Conference. University
of Illinois Bulletin, 65: 115, 131-140.
Riley, G. A. and D. F. Bumpus. 1946. "Phytoplankton-Zooplankton
Relationships on Georges Bank." J. Mar. Res. 6:33-47.
Robbins, C. Sr B. Bruun, and H. S. Zim. 1966. Birds of North
America. New York.
Rohatgi, N. and K. Y. Chen. 1975. "Transport of Trace Metals
by Suspended Particulates in Seawater." JWPCF, 47: 2298-2316.
310
-------
' 19I. "The Effects of Pollution on the Dynamics of
*** YOrk Bight'" Thalassia juaosiavica.
Rowe, G. T., P. T. Polloni and R. L. Haedrich. 1975. "Quantitative
Biological Assessment of the Benthic Fauna in Deep Basins of the
Gulf of Maine." J. Fish. Res.. Bd. Canada.
Rowe, G. T., P. T. Polloni and J. I. Rowe. 1972. "Benthic
Community Parameters in the Lower Mystic River." Int. Revue
ges. Hydrobiol. 57(4) : 573-584. -
Ryan, J. A., D. R. Keeney and L. M. Walsh. 1973. "Nitrogen
Transformation and Availability of an Anaerobically Digested
Sewage Sludge in Soil." J. Environ. Qual. 2(4): 489-492.
Ryther. 1969. In Ocean Dumping in the New York Bight. Marine
Ecosystems Analysis Program. 1975. U. S. Dept. of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Wash., D. C.
Sabey, B. R. and W. E. Hart. 1975. "Land Application of Sewage
Sludge: I. Effect on Growth and Chemical Composition of Plants."
J. Environ. Quality. 4(2) : 252-256.
Satterwhite, R. 1975. Personal communication. N. E. Corps
of Engineers. Boston, Mass.
Schweitzer, G. D. 1975. Hearings on PCB's. EPA Statement.
Madison, Wisconsin.
Sebastian, F. P. 1975. Fate of EPA Designated Toxic Substances
in Multiple Hearth Furnace Sludge Incinerator. Work performed
for EPA Incinerator Task Force by Envirotech.
_ . 1975. How to Guide Growth in Southeastern New England.
Southeastern New England Water Related Land Resources Study
(SENE) , New England River Basins Commission.
_ . 1974. "Preliminary Single-Purpose Plan Report: : Coastal
Resources." Study Element No. 3.11 of the South Easucrn New
England Study. SENE, Boston, Mass.
Shaughnessy, _ . 1975. Personal communication. Lemuel
Shattuck Hospital, Boston, Mass.
Shepard, F. P. 1963. Submarine Geology. Harper and Row, New
York. 557 p.
Sherman, K. 1968. Seasonal and Areal Distribution of Zooplankton
in Coastal Waters of the Gulf of Maine, 1965 and 1966. U. S.
Fish and Wild. Serv. Spec. Sci. Rept. No. 562. 11 p.
311
-------
Sherman, K. 1966. Seasonal and Areal Distribution of Zooplankton
in Coastal Waters of the Gulf of Maine, 1964. U. S. Fish Wild.
Serv. Spec. Sci. Rep. Fish. 530.11 p.
Sherman, K. 1963. Seasonal and Areal Distribution of Maine
Zooplankton, 1963. Int. Comm. Northwest Atl., Fish., Spec.
Publ. 6: 611-624.
Simonson, Kenneth. Personal Communication. Nichols Research and
Engineering, Belle Meade, N. J. January, 1976.
Simpson, G. S. , et. al. 1973. A Plan for Sludge Management.
Havens and Emerson, Cleveland.
Singh, R. N. , R. F. Keefer and D. J. Horvath. 1975. "Can Soils
be Used for Sewage Sludge Disposal?" Compost Science.
16(2): 22-25.
Smith, R. 1973. Electrical Power Consumption for Municipal
Wastewater Treatment. EPA-R-2-73-281.
Spencer, D. W. and P. L. Sachs. 1970. Some Aspects of the
Distribution, Chemistry and Mineralogy of Suspended Matter in
the Gulf of Maine. Marine Geol. 9: 117-136.
Spotswood, A. and M. Raymer. 1973. "Some Aspects of Sludge
Disposal on Agricultural Land." Water Poll. Control (G-B.),
72(1): 71.
Stone, Ralph. "Landfill Disposal of Liquid Sewage Sludge,"
Journal BED, ASCE, Vol. 101, No. EEI, February 1975.
Styers, F. C. 1973. "Sludge Recycling: The Winston-Salem
Experience." In Ultimate Disposal of Wastewaters and Their
Residuals. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N. C.
pp. 143-152.
Taylor, E. 1974. "Letchworth Water Pollution Control Work."
Publ. Health Engr. 7: 21.
Turner, D. B. and A. D. Busse, 1973. User's Guides to the
Interactive Versions of Three Point Source Dispersion Programs;
PTMAX, PTDIS, and PTMTP. National Environmental Research Center,
Office of Research and Monitoring, U. S. EPA.
• 1970. The Economic Impact of Tourism on the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts. Dept. of Hotel, Restaurant and Travel Admin.,
University of Massachusetts.
• 1975A. "Massachusetts Crop Summary." New England Crop
and Livestock Reporting Service. U. S. Dept. of Agric.
• 1975B. Commercial Fertilizers; Consumption in the U. S.
Statistical Reporting Service, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture.
312
-------
. • 1969. Soil Survey, Plymouth County, Massachusetts.
Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Dept.of Agric.
. 1967. Soil Survey, Franklin County, Massachusetts.
Soil Conservation Service, U. S. Dept. of Agric.
• 1975A. Report to the Congress on Ocean Dumping Research
January through December 1974. Public Law 92-532, Title II,
Section 201. U. S. Dept. of Commerce.
. 1975B. Ocean Dumping in the New York Bight. Marine
Ecosystems Analysis Program. U~. sT Department of Commerce.
. 1975C. Report to the Congress on Ocean Pollution, Over-
fishing, and Offshore Development July 1973 through June 1974.
Public Law 92-532, Title II, Section 202(c), U. S. Dept. of
Commerce.
. 1974. Report to the Congress on Ocean Dumping and Other
Man-Induced Changes to Ocean Ecosystems. U. S. Dept. of Commerce.
. 1972. 1969 Census of Agriculture, Volume I Area Reports,
Parts 4 Massachusetts. Bureau of the Census, U. S. Dept. of
Commerce.
. 1969. The Practice of Water Pollution Biology. Fed.
Water Pollution Control Admin., U. S. Dept. of the Interior.
. 1969. Dust and Odors. Regulation 9, Section 142(d),
Chapter 11 of General Laws, Chapter 836 of Acts of 1969,
Bureau of Air Quality Control, U. S. Dept. of Public Health.
. 1975A. Municipal Sludge Management Environmental
Factors. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
. 1975B. Ocean Disposal in the New York Bight. Technical
Briefing Report No. 2, U. S. Environ. Protection Agency.
. 1975C. "Supplement No. 5" for Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors, 2nd Edition. Research Triangle
Park, U. S. Environ. Protection Agency.
. 1975D. Air Pollution Aspects of Sludge Incineration.
Technical Transfer Notebooks, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
. 1975E. Environmental Quality in New England. Regional
"Administrator's Annual Report. Region I. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
. 1975F. "Implementation Plans, Transportation Control
Plan for Boston, Mass." Federal Register, Vol. 40, No. 114.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
• 1975G. "National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations,"
Federal Register, Vol. 40, No. 248, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
313
-------
_ . 1974A. Ocean Dumping in the New York Bight Since 1973.
Region II Survey and Analysis Division Briefing Report. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
1974B. Ocean Disposal in the New York Bight. Technical
Briefing Report No. 1, Region II Survey and Analysis Division,
Environmental Protection Agency.
1974C. Process Design Manual for Sludge Treatment and
Disposal. Technical Transfer Notebooks. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
_ . 1974D. Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors,
Supplement 3. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
_ . 1974E. "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants. " Federal Register. 39: 38064, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
_ . 1974F. Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning
and Analysis, Vol. I. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
_ . 1974G. Manual for Preparation of Environmental Impact
Statements for Wastewater Treatment Works, Facility Plans and
208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plans. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
_ . 1974H. Evaluation of Municipal Sewage Treatment Alternatives.
Council of Environmental Quality, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
_ . 19741. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise
Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate
Margin of Safety. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
_ . 1972A. Report to the President and Congress on Noise,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
_ . 1971A. "National Source Performance Standards, Municipal
Incineration." Federal Register 36: 24876, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
1971B. Blackstone River Study, 1970. Div. of Water
Pollution Control, Mass. Water Resources Commission and Water
Quality Office, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Boston, Mass.
. 1975. Water Resources Data for Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, Vermont, 1973. U. S. Geological Survey, Washington,
D. C.
• 1973.Water Resources Data for Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, Vermont, 1971. U. S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
• 1972. Water Resources Investigations in Massachusetts.
U. S. Geological Survey, Washington, D. C.
Vaccaro, R.F. 1963. "Available Nitrogen and Phosphorus and the Bio-
chemical Cycle in the Atlantic Off New England." J.Mar.Res. 21: 284-301.
314
-------
Van Dean, R. 1975. Personal communication. MASSPORT, Boston
Massachusetts.
Walker, J. M. 1975. "Sewage Sludges - Management Aspects for
Land Application." Compost Science 16(2): 12-21.
Watling, L., A. Pembroke and H. Lind. 1975- An Evaluation of
Multi-Purpose Offshore Industrial/Port Islands for the Atlantic
and Gulf Coasts. Environmental Assessment. College of Marine
Studies, University of Delaware. NSD Contract No. GI-4311. 147 p.
White, R. J. 1972. The Distribution and Concentration of Selected
Metals in Boston Harbor Sediments"! Master's Thesis, Northeastern
University.
White, W. C. 1975. Personal communication. Fertilizer Institute,
Washington, D. C.
Wigley, R. L. 1960. "Note on the Distribution of Pandalidae
(Crustacea, Decapoda) in New England Waters." Ecology.
41: 564-570.
Williams, J. R. and G. D. Tasker. 1974A. Water Resources of the
Coastal Drainage Basins of Southeastern Massachusetts, Plymouth
to Wewantic River, Wareham. U. S. Geologic Survey, Wash., D. C.
Williams, J. R. and G- D. Tasker. 1974B. Water Resources of the
Coastal Drainage Basins of Southeastern Massachusetts, Weir
River, Hingham to Jones River, Kingston. U. S. Geologic Survey,
Wash., D. C.
Williams, J. R. , D. F. Farrell and R. E. Willey. 1973. Water
Resources of the Taunton River Basin, Southeastern Massachusetts.
U. S. Geologic Survey, Wash., D. C~.
Williams, J. R. 1968. Availability of Ground Water in the
Northern Part Tenmile and Taunton River Basins, Southeastern
Massachusetts« U. S. Geologic Survey, Wash., D. C.
Wolf, R. 1975. "Sludge in the Mile-High City." Compost Science.
16(1): 20-21.
Woo, W. 1976. Personal Communication. Air Quality Branch, U. S.
EPA, Region I. Boston, Massachusetts.
Wood, R. and S. B. Ferris. 1972. "Disposal of Digested Sludge."
Water Res. (G.B.). 6: 551.
Yanshey, G. R., E. H. Markee, Jr., and A. P. Richter. 1966.
Climatography of the National Reactor Testing Station. IDO-12048,
National Technical Information Service, Springfield.
315
-------
SUPPLEMENTAL REFERENCES
Ashtakla, B. Energy-Intensive Analysis of Truck Transportation.
Transportation Engineering Journal. May, 1975.
Chaney, R. L.; P. T. Hundemann, W. T. Palmer, R. J. 1978.
Small, M. C. White and A. M. Decker. Plant Accumulation
of Heavy Metals and Phytotoxicity Resulting from Utili-
zation of Sewage Sludge and Sludge Composts on Cropland.
Elson T. Killam Associates, 1977. Land Based Sludge Manage-
ment Plan, Joint Meeting of Essex and Union Counties.
Draft Report. December, 1977.
Energy Research and Development Administration 1977. Sludge
Management: Disposal and Utilization. Proceeding of the
Third National Conference on Sludge Management Disposal
and Utilization, December 14-16, 1976. USEPA, National
Science Foundation, Information Transfer Inc. 210 pp.
Library of Congress No. 77-81964.
Eralp, Atal, 1978. EPA NERC. Personal Communication.
Fassell, W. M. 1974. Sludge Disposal at a Profit. Municipal
Sludge Management-Proceedings of the National Conference
on Municipal Sludge Management. Information Transfer,
Inc. Washington, D.C. pp. 195-204.
Interstate Sanitation Commission. 1975. Sludge Management
Alternatives for the New York, New Jersey Metropolitan
Area.
Jelinik, C. F. and G. L. Braude, 1977. Management of Sludge
Use on Land, FDA Considerations. In: Energy Research
and Development Administration, 1977.
Kienholz, E., G- M. Ward, D. E. Johnson, and J.C. Baxter. 1977.
Health Consideration Relating to Ingestion of Sludge
by Farm Animals. In: Energy Research and Development
Administration, 1977.
Knezek, B. and R. Miller, 1976. Application of Sludges and
Wastewaters on Agricultural Land: A Planning and
Educational Guide. Ohio Agric. Research and Development
Center Research Bulletin 1090 Wooster, Ohio.
316
-------
Lance, J. C. 1978. Fate of Pathogens in Saturated and
Unsaturated Soils.
Leighton, I. 1978. EPA Region I. Personal Communication.
Lisk, D. J. 1978. Impact of Heavy Metals on Animals, In:
USDA, 1977.
Magrab, E.B. 1975. Environmental Noise Control, John Wiley
and Sons, New York, New York. 299 p.
Medeiros, J. 1978. Boston Edison. Personal Communication.
Miller, R. H. 1976. Crop and System Management for Sludge
Application to Agricultural Land. In: Knezek and
Miller, 1976.
Moon, D. K. 1978. USEPA Solid Waste Program, Region I.
Personal Communication.
Neptune and Nichols. 1976. Pyrolysis of Sewage Sludge. Nichols
Engineering and Research Corporation, Belle Mead, New
Jersey. September, 1976.
Russ, Jerome. 1978. Massachusetts DEQE - Southeast Region.
Personal Communication.
Ryan, J.A. 1977. Factors Affecting Plant Uptake of Heavy
Metals from Land Application of Residents. Proceedings
of National Conference on Disposal of Residues on Land.
Information Transfer, Inc. Rockville, Maryland 216 pp.
St. Hilaire, William. 1978. Massachusetts DEQE - Northeast
Region. Personal Communication.
Stone and Webster, Inc. 1976. Report on Coincineration of
Sewage Sludge and Refuse.
Trump, J. G. 1977. Disinfection of Municipal Sludge by High
Energy Electrons. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
USDA, 1978. 1977 National Conference on Composting of Municipal
Residues and Sludges. Sponsored by: Information Transfer,
Inc., and Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute.
317
-------
USEPA, 1976. Pollutant Potential of Raw and Chemically
Fixed Hazardous Industrial Wastes and Flue Gas
Desulfurization Sludges. EPA 6001/2-76-182.
Cincinnati, Ohio.
USEPA, 1977. Municipal Sludge Management Environmental
Factors: Technical Bulletin. Fed. Reg. 42(211):
57420-57427.
USEPA, 1978A. Environmental Impact Statement for Columbus,
Ohio Wastewater Management Facilities.
USEPA, 1978B. State Hazardous Waste Programs: Proposed
Guidelines. Fed. Reg. 43(22): 4366-4373.
Weiss, M. 1978. USEPA Region I. Personal Communication.
Weslowki, P. 1978. Massachusetts Historical Commission.
Personal Communication.
Willson, G. B., E. Epstein and J. R. Parr. 1977. Recent
Advances in Compost Technology. In: Energy Research
and Development Administration, 1977.
318
-------
APPENDIX DD
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
319
-------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1978
PART II
DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR
Heritage Conservation
And Recreation Service
NATIONAL REGISTER OF
HISTORIC PLACES
Annual Listing of Historic
Properties
320
-------
5226 MASSACHUSETTS
NOTICES
si. marys county
Bcauvuc vicinity. MULBERRY FIELDS,
About 4.5 mi. SE of Bcauvuc off MD 244,
(3-l4-73)HABS.
Bushwood vicinity. OCEAN HALL, Bushwood
Rd. off MD 239 at Bushwood Wharf, (10-
25-73)
Chaptico. BACHELOR'S HOPE, Off MD 238,
(11-7-72)
Chaptico vicinity. DEEP FALLS', 1 mi. SE of
Chaptico on N side of MD 234, (5-12-75)
Colton vicinity. 57". CLEMENTS ISLAND
HISTORIC DISTRICT, S of Colton Point on
the Potomac River, (4-10-72)
Compton. 57". FRANCIS XAVIER CHURCH
AND NEWTOWN MANOR HOUSE, S of
Compton on MD 243, (I I -9-72)
Draydcn. PORTO BELLO, MD 244 E of
Draydcn, (4-26-72)
Draydcn vicinity. WEST ST. MARY'S
MANOR, About 1 mi. E of Draydcn on the
St. Mary's River, (4-15-70) NHL; IIADS.
Hollywood vicinity. RESURRECTION
MANOR, 4 mi. E of Hollywood, (4-15-70)
NHL; HABS.
Hollywood vicinity. SOTTERLEY (BOWLES
SEPARATION), E of jet. of MD 245 and
Vista Rd., (11-9-72)
Hughesville vicinity. CHARLOTTE HALL
HISTORIC DISTRICT, S of Hughesville at
jet. of MD 5 and 6, (5-2-75)
Uonardtown. TUDOR HALL (AMERICA
FELIX SECUNDUS), Tudor Hall Rd., (4-
26-73)
Leonardtown vicinity. 57". ANDREWS
CHURCH, 5 mi. E of Leonardtown on St.
Andrew's Church Rd., (3-14-73)
Oakley vicinity. THE RIVER VIEW, SE of
Oakley on Burch Rd., (5-4-76)
Piney Point vicinity. PINEY POINT COAST
GUARD LIGHT STATION, W of Piney
Point on MD498, (6-16-76)
Ridge vicinity. BARD'S FIELD. 1.2 mi. W of
Ridge off Curleys Rd., (11-7-76)
St. Inigoes vicinity. ST. IGNATIUS ROMAN
CATHOLIC CHURCH, W of St. Inigoes on
Villa Rd., (11-3-75)
St. Marys City. ST. MARYS CITY HISTORIC
DISTRICT. (8-4-69) NHL; HABS.
St. Marys City vicinity. MARY If. SOMERS
(Chesapeake Bay skipjack), SE of St. Marys
City at St. Inigoes Creek, (10-8-76)
Valley Lee vicinity. ST. GEORGE'S
PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH
(POPLAR HILL), W of Valley Lee, off MD
249 on MD 244, (10-3-73)
talbol county
Easton. MYRTLE GROVE, Goldsborough
Neck Rd.,(8-13-74)
Easton vicinity. ANCHORAGE, THE, NW of
Easton off MD 370, (7-30-74)
Easton vicinity. DONCASTER TOWN SITE,
NW of Easton, (9-5-75)
Easton vicinity. ST. JOHN'S CHAPEL OF ST.
MICHAEL'S PARISH, 3 mi. W of Easton on
MD 370, (3-30-73)
Easton vicinity. TROTH'S FORTUNE. 3.25
mi. E of Easton on MD 331, (4-24-75)
HABS.
Easton vicinity. WYE HOUSE, 7 mi. NW of
Easton on Miles Neck River, (4-15-70) NHL.
St. Michaels. CROOKED INTENTION, W of
MD 33, (7-24-74)
St.Michaels vicinity. SHERWOOD MANOR,
4 mi. N of St. Michaels on MD 451, (4-5-
St. Michaels vicinity. VICTORIAN CORN
CRIBS. 6.8 mi. E of St. Michaels off MD,
(1-11-76)
Tilghmun. /f^A/^.VC^(CHESAPEAKE BAY
SKIPJACK), Knapps Narrows off MD 33
(7-30-76)
Trappc vicinity. COMPTON, W of Trappc on
Howcll Point Rd .< 7-25-74)
Trappc vicinity. WILDERNESS, THE. SW of
Trappc on Island Neck Rd., (7-25-74)
Washington cmtnty
CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL NA-
TIONAL HISTORICAL ' PARK,
Reference—fee Allegany County
HARPERS FERRY NATIONAL HISTORI-
CAL PARK, Reference—see Jefferson Coun-
ty, WV
OLD NATIONAL PIKE MILESTONES,
Reference—see Allegany County
Antietam and vicinity. ANTIETAM IRON
FURNACE SITE AND ANTIETAM VIL-
LAttE, Confluence of Antietam Creek and
Potomac River, (6-26-75)
Big Pool vicinity. FORT FREDERICK STATE
PARK, SE of Big Pool near jet. of MD 56
and 44, (11-7-73) NHL.
Boonsboro. BOWMAN HOUSE, 323 N. Main
St., (4-29-77)
Boonsboro vicinity. KEEDY HOUSE, NW of
Boonsboro off U.S. 40A on Bamcs Rd (7-
25-74)
Boonsboro vicinity. WASHINGTON MONU-
MENT, Washington Monument Slate Park,
(11-3-72)
Cavetown vicinity. WILLOWS. THE, SW of
Cavetown on MD 66, (2-23-73)
Hagcrstown. ELLIOT-BESTER HOUSE,
205-207 S. Potomac St., (5-2-75)
Hagerstown. HAGER HOUSE, 19 Key St.,
(11-5-74) HABS.
Hagerstown. HOUSES AT 16-22 EAST LEE
STREET, 16-22 E. Lee St., (11-25-77)
Hagerstown. MARYl^AND THEATRE, 21-23
S. Potomac St., (11-13-76)
Hagcrstown. PRICE-MILLER HOUSE,
131-135 W.Washington St., (5-24-76)
Hagerstown. WASHINGTON COUNTY
COURTHOUSE, W. Washington St. and
Summit Ave., (12-24-74)
Hagerstown. WESTERN MARYLAND RAIL-
WAY STATION, Burhans Blvd., (4-22-76)
Hagerstown vicinity. BRIGHTWOOD, N of
Hagerstown off MD 60, (7-30-74)
Hagerstown vicinity. DITTO KNOLLS, E of
Hagerstown on Landis Rd., (7-12-76)
Hagcrstown vicinity. MCCAULEY, HENRY,
FARM, E of Hagerstown on Ml. Eatna Rd.,
(6-29-76)
Hagerstown vicinity. TROVINGER MILL, 3
mi. E of Hagerstown on Trovinger Mill Rd.
and Antietam Creek, (4-21-75)
Hagerstown vicinity. VALENTIA, S of
Hagcrstown on Poffenbcrgcr Rd. off MD 65,
(6-27-74)
Kecdysville vicinity. B & O BRIDGE, NW of
Kcedysville over Antietam Creek, (11-23-
77)
Keedysville vicinity. GEETING FARM. S of
Kecdysville at Gccting and Dog Rds., (11-
25-77)
Knoxvillc vicinity. MAGNOLIA PLANTA-
TION (BOTELI.R-HOLDER FARM). NW
of Knoxville off Sandy Hook Rd.. (6-18-75)
Samples Manor. JOHN BROWN'S
HEADQUARTERS (KENNEDY FARM),
Chestnut Grove Rd., (11-7-73) NHL; HABS;
c.
Sharpsburg. ANTIETAM NATIONAL BAT-
TLEFIELD SITE, N of Sharpsburg off MD
45, (10-15-66) HABS.
Sharpsburg. CHAPLINE, WILLIAM, HOUSE,
109 W. Main St.. (10-8-76)
Smithsburg vicinity. MAPLES. THE, 2 mi. SW
of Smithsburg on MD 66, (2-24-75)
Williamsport. SPRINGFIELD FARM, S of
U.S. 11, (7-30-74)
Williamsport vicinity. ROSE HILL, 05 mi. S
of Williamsport on MD63, (4-11-73)
wicomico county
Allen vicinity. BENNETTS ADVENTURE
(BRYAN'S MANOR), 3 mi. W of Allen on
Clifford Cooper Rd., (11-20-75)
Hebron vicinity. SPRING HILL CHURCH
(ST. PAUL'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH). 1 mi.
NE of Hebron at jet. of U.S. 50 and MD
347, (10-22-76)
Quantico. 57-. BARTHOLOMEW'S
EPISCOPAL CHURCH, Green Hill Church
Rd., (6-5-75)
Salisbury. GILLIS-GRIER HOUSE, 401 N.
Division St., (10-31-72) c.
Salisbury. JACKSON, SEN. WILLIAM P.,
HOUSE, 5 14 Camdcn Avc., (9-28-76)
Salisbury. PEMBERTON HALL, Pcmbcrton
Rd., (2-18-71)0.
Salisbury. PERRY-COOPER HOUSE, 200 E.
William St., (11-17-77)
Salisbury. POPLAR HILL MANSION. 117
Elizabeth St., (10-7-7l)o.
Wctipquin vicinity. LONG HILL, Wetipquin
Ferry Rd; 1 mi. SE of Wetipquin, (12-31-
74)
Worcester county
Berlin. BURLEY MANOR, 3 S. Main St., (7-7-
74)
Berlin vicinity. BUCKINGHAM
ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE, 4 mi. S of Berlin,
(2-24-75)
Berlin vicinity. CALEB'S DISCOVERY, 2 mi.
W of Berlin on U.S. 50, (5-27-75)
Berlin vicinity. GENESAR, SE of Berlin on
MD 611 off U.S. 50, (9-17-71) HABS; G.
Ocean City vicinity. SANDY POINT SITE, SW
of Ocean City, (4-28-75)
Pocomoke. COSTEN HOUSE, 206 Market St.,
(12-6-75)
Pocomoke City vicinity. BEVERLY, 4.5 mi.
SW of Pocomoke City off Ccdarhall Rd.,
(10-29-75)
Showell vicinity. ST. MARTINS CHURCH, I
mi. S of Showell at jet. of U.S. 113 and MD
589, (4-13-77)
Snow Hill vicinity. NASSA WANGO IRON
FURNACE SITE, NW of Snow Hill off MD
12 on Old Furnace Rd., (10-31-75)
MASSACHUSETTS
harnstable county
Bamstable. OLD JAIL, Main St. and Old Jail
Lane, (7-2-71)0.
Barnslable. U.S. CUSTOMSHOUSE, Cobbs
Hill, MA 6A.( 11-12-75)
Brewster OLD HIGGINS FARM WIND-
MILL, Off Lower Rd., (6-10-75)
Brcwster vicinity. DILLINGHAM HOUSE, W
of Brcwster on MA 6A, (4-30-76)
Chatham BRANDEIS, LOUIS, HOUSE, Neck
Lane, off Cedar St., 8 mi. SW of Stage Har-
bor Rd. intersection, (11-28-72)
SCG Station, MA NHL.
Chatham vicinity. OLD HARBOR U.S. LIFE
SAVING STATION (USCG STATION), NE
of Chatham on Nausct Beach, (8-18-75)
Dennis DENNIS. JOSIAH, HOUSE, Nobscus-
set Rd. at Whig St., (2-15-74)
Dennis. WEST SCHOOLHOUSE. Nobscussct
Rd. at Whig St., (4-24-75)
East Sandwich. WING FORT HOUSE. Spring
Hill Road. (6-3-76)
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 26—TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7,1978
321
-------
NOTICES
MASSACHUSETTS 5227
Eastham vicinily. I'FNNIMAN. EDWARD.
HOUSE AND DARN, S of Eastham at Fort
Hill and Governor Prence Rds., (5-28-76)
HABS.
Harwich HARWICH HISTORIC DISTRICT,
Irregular pattern on both sides of Main St.,
W to Forest St. and E to jet. of Rte. 39 and
Chatham Rd.. (2-24-75)
Hyannis Port. KENNEDY COMPOUND, Irv-
ing and Marchant Aves.. (11-28-72) NHL.
North Eastham vicinity. FRENCH CABLE
HUT, E of North Eastham at jet. of Cable
Rd. and Ocean View Dr.. (4-22-76)
Orleans. FRENCH CABLE STATION, SE
corner of Cove Rd. and MA 28, (4-11-72)
Provincetown. CENTER METHODIST
CHURCH, 356 Commercial St., (10-31-75)
o.
Provincetown. FIRST UN1VERSALIST
CHURCH, 236 Commercial St., (2-23-72)
G.
Provincetown. PROVINCETOWN PUBLIC
LIBRARY. 330 Commercial St., (4-21-75)
Sandwich. TOWN HALL SQUARE HISTORIC
DISTRICT, Irregular pattern centered
around town square includes both sides of
Main, Grove, and Water Sts., and Tupper
Rd. from Beale Ave. to MA 6a., (10-31-75)
South Wellfleet. MARCONI WIRELESS STA-
TION SITE, 1 mi. NE of Cape Cod National
Seashore, (5-2-75)
Truro. HIGHLAND HOUSE, Off U.S. 6 on
Cape Cod National Seashore, (6-5-75)
Wcllfleet vicinity. ATWOOD, THOMAS,
HOUSE, NW of Wellfleet on Bourtdbrook
Island, (7-30-76)
Wellficet vicinity. SMITH, SAMUEL,
TAVERN SITE. SW of Wellfleet on Great
Island, (11-11-77)
berkshire county
Adams. QUAKER MEETINGHOUSE, Maple
St. Cemetery, (8-17-76) HABS.
Ashley Falls vicinity. ASHLEY, COL. JOHN,
HOUSE, W of Ashley Falls on Cooper Hill
Rd..( 2-10-75)0.
Florida and Savoy vicinity. MOHAWK TRAIL,
Along the bank of the Cold River, (4-3-73)
(also in Franklin County)
Great Barrington. DU BOIS, WILLIAM E. B.,
BOYHOOD HOMESITES, MA 23. (5-11-
76) NHL.
Great Barrington. DWIGHT-HENDERSON
HOUSE, Main St., (3-26-76) HABS.
Great Barrington vicinity. RISING PAPER
MILL, N of Great Barrington on MA 183 at
Risingdale, (8-11-75)
Hancock. HANCOCK TOWN HALL, MA 43,
(9-26-75)0.
Interlaken. CITIZENS HALL, Off U.S. 90, (6-
19-72)0.
Lanesborough. ST. LUKE'S EPISCOPAL
CHURCH, U.S. 7, (2-23-72) o.
Lee. HYDE HOUSE, 144 W. Park St., (11-21-
76)
Lee. LEE LOWER MAIN STREET HISTORIC
DISTRICT, Main and Park Sts., (3-26-76)
Lenox. LENOX LIBRARY. 18 Main St., (4-3-
73)
Lenox vicinity. MOUNT, THE (EDITH
WHARTON ESTATE), S of Lenox on U.S.
7, (ll-ll-71)NHL;G.
North Adams. BEAVER MILL, Beaver St., (5-
II-73)HAER.
North Adams. FREIGHT YARD HISTORIC
UTSTRICT, W of the Hadley Overpass and
SWof the Hoosac River, (6-13-72)
North Adams. HOOSAC TUNNEL, From
North Adams on the W to the Dcerficld
River on the E. (11-2-73) IIAER.
North Adams. MONUMENT
SQUARE-EAGLE STREET HISTORIC
DISTRICT, Monument Square and environs,
at E end of Main St., (6-19-72)
North Adams. WINDSOR PRINT WORKS,
121 Union St., (5-17-73)
PitLsfield. MELVILLE, HERMAN, HOUSE
(ARROWHEAD), Holmes Rd., (10-15-66)
NHL; HABS; G.
Pittsfield. OLD CENTRAL FIRE STATION,
66 Allen St., (11-2-77)
Pittsfield. OLD TOWN HALL, 32 East St.,
corner of Allen St., (4-26-72)
PitLsficld. PARK SQUARE HISTORIC DIS-
TRICT, At jet. of North, South, East, and
West Sts., (7-24-75)
Pittsfield vicinity. HANCOCK SHAKER VIL-
LAGE, 5 mi. S of Pittsfield on U.S. 20, Han-
cock Tpke., (11-24-68) NHL; HABS; G.
PitLsfield vicinity. SOUTH MOUNTAIN CON-
CERT HALL, New South Mountain Rd., (8-
14-73)
South Lee. MERRELL TAVERN, MA 102, (2-
23-72) HABS.
Stockbridge. MISSION HOUSE, Main St.,
(11-24-68) NHL.
Stockbridge. NAUMKEAG (JOSEPH
HODGES CHOATE HOUSE), Prospect St.,
(11-3-75)
Stockbridge. STOCKBRIDGE CASINO
(BERKSHIRE PLAYHOUSE), E. Main St.
at Yale Hill Rd., (8-27-76)
Stockbridge vicinity. CHESTERWOOD
(DANIEL CHESTER FRENCH HOUSE
AND STUDIO), 2 mi. W of Stockbridge.
(10-15-66) NHL; o.
Stockbridge vicinity. OLD CURTISV1LLE
HISTORIC DISTRICT*** of Stockbridge on
MA 183, (10-29-76)
brislol county
Dighton vicinity. DIGHTON ROCK, Across
the Taunton River from Dighton in Dighton
Rock State Park, (7-1-70)
Easton. BAY ROAD, 416-535 Bay Rd.
(Foundry St. to the Norton town line), (5-5-
72)
Easton. NORTH EASTON HISTORIC DIS-
TRICT, Section of town N of and including
both sides of Main/Lincoln St., (11-3-72) o.
Fairhaven. FORT PHOENIX, S of U.S. 6 in
Fort Phoenix Park, (11-9-72)
Fall River. ACADEMY BUILDING, S. Main
St., (7-2-73)
Fall River. U.S.S. JOSEPH P. KENNEDYJR,
Battleship Cove, (9-30-76)
Fall River. U.S.S. LIONFISH, Battleship
Cove, (9-30-76)
Fall River. U.S.S. MASSACHUSETTS, Battle-
ship Cove, (9-30-76) o.
New Bedford. CARNEY, SGT. WILLIAM H.,
HOUSE, 128 Mill St., (4-21-75)
New Bedford. COUNTY STREET HISTORIC
DISTRICT, Roughly bounded by Acushnet.
Page, Middle, and Bedford Sts. (includes
both sides), (8-11-76)
New Bedford. FIRE STATION NO. 4, 79 S.
6th St., (7-24-75)
New Bedford. FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH, 149
William St.. (4-21-75)0.
New Bedford. FORT TABER DISTRICT
(FORT AT CLARK'S POINT), Wharf Rd.
within Fort Rodrgan Military Reservation,
(2-8-73)0.
New Bedford. MERhll L'S WHARF HISTOR-
IC DISTRICT, Mac Arthur Dr., (11 -11 -77)
New Bedford. NEW BEDFORD HISTORIC
DISTRICT. Bounded by Front St. on E, Elm
St. on N, Acushnet Ave. on W, and Com-
mercial St. on S, (11-13-66) NHL; HABS.
New Bedford. OLD THIRD DISTRICT
COURTHOUSE, 2nd and William Sts., (9-
28-71) HABS.
New Bedford. U.S. CUSTOMHOUSE, SW
corner of 2nd and Williams Sts., (12-30-70)
NHL; HABS.
North Attleborough vicinity. ANGLE TREE
STONE, W of North Attleborough off High
St.. (1-1-76) (also in Norfolk County)
North Easton. NORTH EASTON RAILROAD
STATION, Off Oliver St. on railroad right-
of-way, (4-11-72) HABS; G.
Norton. CLARKE, PITT, HOUSE, 42 Man-
sfield Ave., (7-13-76) HABS.
Norton. NORTON CENTER HISTORIC DIS-
TRICT, MA 123, (12-23-77)
Norton. OLD BA Y ROAD, From Easton Town
Line to Taunton Town Line, (11 -8-74)
Seekonk. MARTIN HOUSE, 940 Court St.,
(5-2-74) HABS.
Taunton. CHURCH GREEN, U.S. 44 and MA
140, (12-16-77)
Westport. CUFFE, PAUL, FARM, 1504 Drift
Rd.. (5-30-74) NHL.
dukes county
Vineyard Haven. RITTER HOUSE (JIREH
LUCE HOUSE), Beach St., (12-6-77)
essex county
Amesbury. ROCKY HILL MEETINGHOUSE
AND PARSONAGE, Portsmouth Rd. and
Elm St., (4-11-72) HABS; o.
Amesbury. WHITTIER, JOHN GREENLEAF,
HOUSE, 86 Friend St., (10-15-66) NHL.
Andover. ABBOT, BENJAMIN, HOUSE, 9
Andover St., (2-24-75) o.
Beverly. BALCH, JOHN, HOUSE, 448 Cabot
St., (2-23-73)
Beverly. CABOT, CAPT. JOHN, HOUSE, 117
Cabot St., (4-16-75)0.
Beverly. FISH FLAKE HILL (FRONT
STREET) HISTORIC DISTRICT, N and S
sides of Front St. from Cabot to Bartlett
Sts., (10-26-71)0.
Beverly. HALE, REVEREND JOHN, HOUSE,
39 Hale St., (10-9-74)
Beverly. HOLMES, OLIVER WENDELL,
HOUSE, 868 Hale St. (Beverly Farms), (11-
28-72) NHL.
Boxford. BOXFORD VILLAGE HISTORIC
DISTRICT, Middleton and Topsfield Rds.
and Main and Elm Sts., (4-11-73)
Boxford. HOLYOKE-FRENCH HOUSE, Elm
St. and Topsfield Rd., (4-26-72) G.
Boxford. SPOFFORD-BARNES HOUSE, Kel-
sey Rd., (9-6-74)
Boxford vicinity. HOWE VILLAGE HISTOR-
IC DISTRICT, NE of Boxford on MA 97.
(4-3-73)
Danvers. DERBY SUMMERHOUSE, Glen
Magna Estate". Ingersoll St., (11-24-68) NHL;
HABS.
Danvers. PUTNAM, GEN. ISRAEL, HOUSE,
431 Maple St.. (4-30-76) HABS.
Danvers. SALEM VILLAGE HISTORIC DIS-
TRICT, Irregular pattern along Centre,
Hobart, Ingersoll, and Collins Sts., as far N
as Brentwood Circle, and S to Mello Pkwy.,
(1-31-75) G.
Danversport. FOWLER HOUSE. 166 High St.,
(9-17-74)
Gloucester. FRONT STREET BLOCK (WEST
END BUILDINGS), West End, .55-71 Main
St., (5-8-74)
Gloucester. GLOUCESTER CITY HALL, DAe
Ave.. (5-8-73)0.
Gloucester. HAMMOND CASTLE. 80
Hesperus Ave., (5-8-73)
Gloucester. LANE, FtTZ HUGH, HOUSE,
Harbor side of Rogers St., (7-1-70)
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 26—TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7,1978
322
-------
5228 MASSACHUSETTS
Nonces
Gloucester. OAK GROVE CEMETERY,
Bounded by Derby, Washington, and Grove
Sts., and Maplcwood Avc., (4-3-75)
Gloucester. PURITAN HOUSE, 3 Washington
St. and.2 Main St., (5-28-76)
Gloucester vicinity. BEAUFORT, Eastern
Point Blvd., < 4-26-76 )o.
Hamilton. HAMILTON HISTORIC DIS-
TRICT, 540-700 and 563-641 Bay Rd.. (4-
13-73)
Haverhill. BRADFORD COMMON HISTOR-
IC DISTRICT. S. Main St., (9-14-77)
Haverhill. WASHINGTON STREET SHOE
DISTRICT, Washington, Wingate, Emerson
Sts., Railroad, and Washington squares, (10-
14-76)
Haverhill vicinity. ROCKS VILLAGE
HISTORIC DISTRICT, NE of Haverhill at
Merrimack River, (12-12-76)
Haverhill vicinity. WHITTIER, JOHN
CREENLEAF, HOMESTEAD. 4 mi. E of
Haverhill at 105 Whittier Rd., (7-30-75) o.
Ipswich. CHOATE BRIDGE, MA 133/1A over
the Ipswich River (S. Main St.), (8-21-72)
Ipswich. WHIPPLE, JOHN, HOUSE, 53 S.
Main St., (10-15-66) NHL; HABS; o.
Ipswich vicinity. CASTLE HILL, E of Ipswich
onArgillaRd.,(l2-2-77)
Lawrence. ESSEX COUNTY MACHINE
SHOP, Union St., (11-9-72) HABS.
Lawrence. GRACE EPISCOPAL CHURCH,
Common and Jackson Sts., (11-7-76)
Lawrence. GREAT STONE DAM, Merrimack
River and MA 28, (4-13-77)
Lawrence. MECHANICS BLOCK HISTORIC
DISTRICT, 107-139 Garden St., 6-38
Orchard St., (4-3-73)0.
Lawrence. NORTH CANAL, Parallel to Canal
St., (7-29-75)
Lynnfield. MEETINGHOUSE COMMON
DISTRICT, Summer, S. Common, and Main
Sis.. (11-21-76)
Manchester vicinity. THE NEW HAMPSHIRE,
SE of Manchester off Graves Island, ( 10-29-
76)
Marble Road. HOOPER, ROBERT "KING,"
MANSION, 8 Hooper St., (5-12-76) HABS.
Marblehcad. ABBOT HALL, Washington Sq.,
(9-6-74)
Marblehead. FORT SEWALL, Fort Sewall
promontory, (4-14-75)
Marblehead. GERRY, ELBRIDGE, HOUSE,
44 Washington St., (7-2-73)
Marblehead. CLOSER. GEN. JOHN, HOUSE,
11 Glover St., (11 -28-72) NHL.
Marblehead. LEE, JEREMIAH, HOUSE,
Washington St., (10-15-66) NHL; HABS; o.
Marblehead. OLD TOWN HOUSE, Town
House Sq., (8-13-76) HABS.
Marblehead. ST. MICHAEL'S CHURCH, 26
Pleasant St., (6-18-73) Q,
Nahant. LODGE, HENRY CABOT, HOUSE, 5
Cliff St., (12-8-76) NHL.
Newbury. NEWBURY HISTORIC DISTRICT,
Irregular pattern along High Rd., Green and
Hanover Sts., (5-24-76) HABS.
Newbury. SPENCER-PIERCE-LITTLE
HOUSE, At the end of tittle's Lane on the
E side of U.S. 1 A, (11 -24-68) NHL; o.
Newburyport. BROWN SQUARE HOUSE, 11
Brown Sq., (3-7-75)
Newburyport. CUSHING, CALEB, HOUSE,
98ttigh St., (11-7-73) NHL; HABS.
Newburyport. FIRST RELIGIOUS SOCIETY
CHURCH AND PARISH HALL, 26 Pleasant
St., {4-2-76) HABS.
Newburyport. MARKET SQUARE HISTORIC
DISTRICT, Market Sq. and properties front-
ing on State, Merrimac, Liberty, and Water
Sts., (2-25-7 l)o.
Newburyport. SUPERIOR COURTHOUSE
AND BARTLETr MALL, Bounded by High,
Pond, Auburn, and Grccnleaf Sts., (4-30-
76)
Newburyport. US. CUSTOMHOUSE. 25
Water St.,(2-25-71)
North Andover. HAKNARD, PARSON,
HOUSE, 179 Osgood St., (9-6-74) c.
North Andover. KITTREDGE MANSION 56
Academy Rd., (12-12-76)
North Andover. OSGOOD, SAMUEL,
HOUSE. 440 Osgood St., ( 12-30-74)
North Andover vicinity. KUNHARDT,
GEORGE, ESTATE (CHAMPION HALL),
1518 Great Pond Rd.. (4-22-76)
Peabody. FOSTER, GEN. GIDEON, HOUSE,
35 Washington St., (6-23-76)
Peabody. PEABODY CITY HALL, 24 Lowell
St., (6-2,7-72)0.
Peabody. PEABODY INSTITUTE LIBRARY,
Main St., (6-4-73)
Rockport. ROCKPORT DOWNTOWN MAIN
STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT. Portions of
Main, Cleaves, Jewett, and School Sts., (5-
28-76)
Salem. BOWDITCH, NATHANIEL, HOUSE,
North St., (10-15-66) NHL.
Salem. CHARTER STREET HISTORIC DIS-
TRICT, Bounded by Liberty, Derby, Cen-
tral, and Charter Sts., (3-10-75)
Salem. CHESTNUT STREET DISTRICT,
Bounded roughly by Broad, Flint, Federal,
and Summer Sts., (8-28-73)
Salem. CITY HALL, 93 Washington St.. (4-3-
73)
Salem. DERBY WATERFRONT DISTRICT,
Derby St. from Herbert St. to Block House
Sq., waterfront Sts. between Kosciusko and
Blaney Sts., (5-17-76) HABS.
Salem. ESSEX COUNTY COURT
BUILDINGS, 32 Federal St., (5-17-76)
Salem. ESSEX INSTITUTE HISTORIC DIS-
TRICT, (6-22-72) HABS, G.
Salem. FORT PICKERING {FORT WIL-
LIAM, FORT ANNE), Winter Island, (2-8-
73)
Salem. GARDNER-PINGREE HOUSE, 128
Essex St., (12-30-70) NHL; HABS.
Salem. GEDNEY AND COX HOUSES, 19 and
21 High St., (IO-t-74)
Salem. HAMILTON HALL, 9 Cambridge St.,
(12-30-70) NHL; HABS.
Salem. HOUSE OF SEVEN GABLES
HISTORIC DISTRICT, Turner, Derby, and
Hardy Sts., (5-8-73)
Salem. OLD TOWN HALL HISTORIC DIS-
TRICT, Derby Sq. and 215-231 Essex,
121-145 Washington, and 6-34 Front Sts..
(12-4-72)
Salem. PEABODY MUSEUM OF SALEM,
161 Essex St.. (10-15-66) NHL; HABS.
Salem. PEIRCE-NICHOLS HOUSE, 80
Federal St., (11-24-68) NHL.
Salem. SALEM COMMON HISTORIC DIS-
TRICT, Bounded roughly by St. Peter's,
Bridge, and Derby Sts. and Collins Cove, (5-
12-76) HABS.
Salem. SALEM MARITIME NATIONAL
HISTORIC SITE, Derby St., (10-15-66)
HABS.
Salem. STORY, JOSEPH, HOUSE, 26 Winter
St., (11-7-73) NHL.
Salem. WARD, JOHN. HOUSE, 132 Essex St.,
{ 11 -24-68) NHL.
Salem. WOODBRIDGE, THOMAS MARCH,
HOUSE, 48 Bridge St., (3-31-75) G.
Salem vicinity. BAKERS ISLAND LIGHT
STATION, E of Salem on Bakers Island,
(11-21-76)
Saugus. BOARDMAN HOUSE, Howard St.,
(10-15-66) NHL.
Saugus. SAUGUS IRONWORKS NATIONAL
HISTORIC SITE, Off U.S. I. (10-15-66)
Swampscott. THOMSON. ELIHU, HOUSE,
33 Elmwood Ave..-( 1-7-76) NHL.
Thachcr's Island. TWIN LIGHTS HISTORIC
DISTRICT. 1 mi. off the coast, E of
Rockport, (10-7-71)
Topsficld. CAPEN. PARSON. HOUSE,
Hewlett St., (10-15-66) NHL.
Topsfield. TOPSFIELD TOWN COMMON
DISTRICT. High and Main Sts.. (6-7-76)
HABS.
Wenham. CLAFLIN-RICHARDS HOUSE,
132 Main St., (4-3-73)
Wenham. WENHAM HISTORIC DISTRICT,
Both sides of Main St. between Beverly and
Hamilton city lines, (4-13-73)
franklin county
MOHAWK TRAIL, Reference—see Berkshire
County
Buckland. GRISWOLD, MAJ. JOSEPH,
HOUSE, Upper St., (2-23-72) o.
Deerfield. OLD DEERFIELD VILLAGE
HISTORIC DISTRICT, (10-15-66) NHL;
HABS; c.
Greenfield vicinity. RIVERSIDE
ARCHEOLOGICAL DISTRICT, NE of
Greenfield on MA 2, (7-9-75)
New Salem. WHITAKER-CLARY HOUSE.
Elm St., (6-18-75)
hampden county
Agawam. LEONARD, CAPT. CHARLES,
HOUSE, 663 Main St., (3-10-75)
Chicopee. CITY HALL, Market Sq., (7-30-74)
Chicopee. DWIGHT MANUFACTURING
COMPANY HOUSING DISTRICT. Front,
Depot, Dwight, Exchange, Chestnut Sts., (6-
3-77)
Chicopee Falls. BELLAMY, EDWARD,
HOUSE, 91-93 Church St., (11-11-71) NHL;
o.
East Longmeadow. BURT, ELIJAH, HOUSE,
201 Chestnut St., (4-26-76)
Holyoke. HADLEY FALLS COMPANY
HOUSING DISTRICT, Center, N. Canal,
Grover, and Lyman Sts., (11-9-72) o.
Holyoke. HOLYOKE CITY HALL, 536
Dwight St., (12-6-75)
Holyoke. W1STARIAHURST, 238 Cabot St..
(4-23-73)
Sprinfield. MAPLE-UNION CORNERS, 77,
83, 76-78, 80-84 Maple St., (4-26-76)
Springfield. AMES HILL/CRESCENT HILL
DISTRICT, Bounded by section of Central,
Maple, Mill, and Pine Sts., Crescent Hill,
Ames Hill, and Maple Ct., (5-1-74)
Springfield. COURT SQUARE HISTORIC
DISTRICT, Bounded by Main, State, Broad-
way, Pynchon Sts. and City Hall PI.. (5-2-
74) HABS; o.
Springfield. FIRST CHURCH OF CHRIST,
CONGREGATIONAL, 50 Elm St., (2-1-72)
Springfield. HAMPDEN COUNTY
COURTHOUSE, Elm St., (2-1-72)
Springfield. MCKNIGHT DISTRICT, Roughly
bounded by Penn Central, Slate St.. the Ar-
mory, and includes both sides of Campus
PI., and Dartmouth St., (4-26-76)
Springfield. MEMORIAL SQUARE DIS-
TRICT, Main and Plainfield Sts.. (8-29-77)
Springfield. MILLS-STEBBINS VILLA. 3
Crescent Hill, (10-15-73) HABS.
Springfield. QUADRANGLE-MATTOON
STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT, Bounded
by Chestnut St. to the W, State St. to the S.
and includes properties on Mattoon, Salem,
Edwards, and Elliot Sts., (5-8-74) o.
Springfield. SOUTH CONGREGATIONAL
CHURCH, 45 Maple St., (4-30-76)
FEDERAL REGISTER. VOL 43, NO. 26-TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7,1978
323
-------
NOTICES
MASSACHUSETTS 5229
Springfield SPRINGFIELD ARMORY NA-
TIONAL HISTORIC S/TE, Armory Sq.,
(10-26-741
Springfield STATE ARMORY. 29 Howard St..
(5-3-76)
Springfield. /7rt7 MILESTONES, Between
Boston and Springfield along Old Post Rd.,
(4-7-71) (also in Middlesex, Norfolk, Suf-
folk, and Worcester counties)
West Springfield. DAY. JOSIAH, HOUSE, 70
Park St., (4-16-75)0.
Hampshire county
Amhcrst. DICKINSON, EMILY, HOUSE. 280
Mam St., (10-15-66) NHL.
Amhcrst DICKINSON HISTORIC DISTRICT,
Kellogg Ave , Main, Gray, and Lessey Sts.,
(8-16-77)
Cummington vicinity. BRYANT. WILLIAM
CULLEN, HOMESTEAD, 2 mi. from Cum-
mington on side rd., (10-15-66) NHL.
Hadley. HADLEY CENTER HISTORIC DIS-
TRICT, Middle and Russell Sts., (12-2-77)
Hadley. PORTER-PHELPS-HUNTINGTON
HOUSE, 130 River Dr., (3-26-73)
Haydcnville. HA YDENVILLE HISTORIC
DISTRICT, Main and High Sts., and King-
sley Ave., (3-26-76)
Northampton. COOLIDGE, CAl.VIN,
HOUSE. 19-21 Massasoit St., (12-12-76)
Northampton. NORTHAMPTON
DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT,
Roughly bounded by Hampton, Pearl,
Strong, Bedford, Elm, MA 66, and railroad
tracks, (5-17-76)
Northampton. SMITH ALUMNAE GYMNASI-
UM, Smith College campus. Green St., (4-
30-76)
Northampton. THE MANSE, 54 Prospect St.,
(10-14-76)
Pelham. PELHAM TOWN HALL HISTORIC
DISTRICT, Amherst Rd. at the corner of
Daniel Shays Hwy., (11-23-71) o.
middlesex county
ISAAC DAVIS TRAIL (ACTON'S TRAIL),
Running E-W between towns of Acton and
Concord, (4-1 1-72)
MIDDLESEX CANAL, Running SE between
towns of Lowell and Wobum, (8-21-72) G.
7767 MILESTONES, Reference—see Hamp-
den County
Acton. FAULKNER HOMESTEAD, High St.,
(12-16-71) IIABS;G.
Arlington. ARLINGTON TOWN CENTER
DISTRICT, Bounded by Massachusetts Ave.
and Academy, Pleasant, and Maple Sts., (7-
18-74)
Arlington. FOWLE-REED-WYMAN HOUSE,
64 Old Mystic St., (4-14-75) G.
Arlington. OLD SCHWAMB MILL, 17 Mill
Lane and 29 Lowell St., (10-7-71) c.
Arlington RUSSELL, JASON, HOUSE, 7
Jason St., (10-9-74)
Bedford. BEDFORD CENTER HISTORIC
DISTRICT, Irregular pattern along Great
Rd. from Bacon to Concord and North Rds
(11-17-77)
Bedford. LANE, JOB, HOUSE, 295 North St.,
(5-v8-73) G.
Bedford vicinity.
BACON-GLEASON-BLODGETr
HOMESTEAD. 118 Wilson Rd., (4-14-77)
Bclmont. RED TOP (WILLIAM DEAN
HOWELLS HOUSE), 90 Somerset St., (11-
11-71) NHL.
Billcrica. BILLERICA TOWN COMMON DIS-
TRICT, Bounded by Cummings St., Concord
Rd.,and Boston Rd., (8-14-73)
Billcrica. SABBATH DAY HOUSE, 20 An-
dovcrRd., (8-14-73)
Burlington WYMAN, FRANCIS. HOUSE,
Francis Wyman St., (3-13-75) IIABS;G.
Cambridge. AUSTIN HALL, Harvard Univer-
sity campus, (4-19-72) .
Cambridge. ItALDWIN, MARIA. HOUSE, 196
Prospect St., (5-1 1 -76) NHI:.
Cambridge. I1IRKHOFF, GEORGE D.,
HOUSE, 22 Craigie, (5-15-75) NHL.
Cambridge. BRAJTLE. WILLIAM, HOUSE,
42 Brattle St.. (5-8-73) HABS.
Cambridge. BRIDGMAN, PERCY, HOUSE,
10 Buckingham PI.. (5-15-75) NHL.
Cambridge. CAMBRIDGE COMMON
HISTORIC DISTRICT, Garden, Water-
house, Cambridge, and Peabody Sts., and
Massachusetts Ave., (4-13-73) HABS; G.
Cambridge. CHRIST CHURCH, Garden St.,
(10-15-66) NHL; HABS.
Cambridge. COOPER-FROST-AUSTIN
HOUSE, 21 Linnaean St., (9-22-72)
Cambridge. DALY, REGINALD A., HOUSE,
23 Hawthorn St., (1-7-76) NHL.
Cambridge. DAVIS. WILLIAM MORRIS,'
HOUSE, 17 Francis St., (1-7-76) NHL.
Cambridge. ELMWOOD (JAMES RUSSELL
LOWELL HOUSE), 33 Elmwood Ave.. (10-
15-66) NHL.
Cambridge. FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH,
Magazine and River Sts., (4-14-75) HAUS; o.
Cambridge. FORT WASHINGTON, 95
Wavcrly St., (4-3-73) HABS, G.
Cambridge. FULLER. MARGARET, HOUSE,
71 Cherry St., (7-2-71) NHL.
Cambridge. GRAY, ASA, HOUSE, 88 Garden
St., (10-15-66) NHL.
Cambridge. HASTINGS, OLIVER, HOUSE,
101 Brattle St., (12-30-70) NHL.
Cambridge. LITTLE, ARTHUR D., INC.
BUILDING, Memorial Dr., (12-8-76) NHL.
Cambridge. LONGFELLOW NATIONAL
HISTORIC SITE, 105 Brattle St., (10-15-
66) HABS.
Cambridge. MASSACHUSETTS HALL, HAR-
VARD UNIVERSITY, Harvard University
Yard, (10-15-66) NIIL.
Cambridge. MEMORIAL HALL, HARVARD
UNIVERSITY, Cambridge and Quincy Sts.,
Harvard University campus, (12-30-70)
NHL.
Cambridge. MOUNT AUBURN CEMETERY,
580 Mount Aubum St., (4-21-75) G.
Cambridge. OLD HARVARD YARD, Mas-
sachusetts Ave. and Cambridge St., (2-6-73)
Cambridge. PRATT, DEXTER, HOUSE, 54
Brattle St., (5-8-73)
Cambridge. RICHARDS, THEODORE W.,
HOUSE. 15 Pollen St., (1-7-76) NHL.
Cambridge. SANDS, HIRAM, HOUSE, 22
Putnam Ave.. (4-30-76)
Cambridge. SEVER HALL, HARVARD
UNIVERSITY. Harvard Yard, (12-30-70)
NHL.
Cambridge. UNIVERSITY HALL, HARVARD
UNIVERSITY, Harvard Yard, (12-30-70)
NHL.
Chelmsford. OLD CHELMSFORD GAR-
RISON HOUSE COMPLEX, 105 Garrison
Rd., (5-8-73)0.
Chelmsford Center. FISKE HOUSE, I Billcr-
ica Rd., ( 12-9-77) •
Concord. ALCOTT, LOUISA MAY, HOUSE
(ORCHARD, HOUSE), Lexington Rd., (10-
15-66) NHL; HABS.
Concord. ItARRETr. COL. JAMES, FARM,
448 Barrett's Nlill Rd., (11-15-73)
Concord. CONCORD MONUMENT
SQUARE-LEXINGTON ROAD HISTORIC
DISTRICT. MA2A, (9-13-77)
Concord. EMERSON, RALPH WALDO,
HOUSE, Lexington Rd. and Cambridge
Tpke., (10-15-66) NHL.
Concord. OLD MANSE, Monument St., (10-
15-66) NHL; HABS.
Concord. I'EST HOUSE, 153 Fairhaven Rd.,
(4-18-77)
Concord. THOREAU-ALCOTT HOUSE, 255
Main St., (7-12-76)
Concord WRIGHTS TAVERN. Lexington Rd.
opposite the Burying Ground, (10-15-66)
NHL; HAUS; o.
Concord-Lexington vicinity. MINUTE MAN
NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK. From
Concord to Lexington on MA 2A, (10-15-
66) HABS.
Concord vicinity. BROOKS, DANIEL,
HOUSE, Brooks Rd. E., (10-25-73) HABS.
Concord vicinity. CUMING, DR. JOHN,
HOUSE, W of Concord at Barretts Mill Rd.
and Reformatory Circle, (I I-1 1-77)
Concord vicinity. WALDEN POND, 1.5 mi. S
of Concord, (10-15-66) NHL.
Framingham. FRAMINGHAM RAILROAD
S7V1/7OA/, 417 Wavcrly St., (1-17-75)
Groton. GROTONINN, Main St., (8-3-76)
Hudson. GOODALE HOMESTEAD, 100
Chestnut St., (1-21-75)
Lexington. BUCKMAN TAVERN, Hancock
St., on the E side of Lexington Green, (10-
15-66) NHL; HABS.
Lexington. CHANDLER, GEN. SAMUEL,
HOUSE, 8 Goodwin Rd.. (4-13-77)
Lexington. FOLLEN COMMUNITY
CHURCH, 755 Massachusetts Ave., (4-30-
76) HABS.
Lexington. HANCOCK-CLARKE HOUSE, 35
Hancock St., (7-17-71) NHL; HABS; G.
Lexington. HANCOCK SCHOOL, 33 Forest
St., (8-22-75)
Lexington. LEXINGTON GREEN, Mas-
sachusetts and Hancock Sts., (10-15-66)
NIIL.
Lexington. LEXINGTON GREEN HISTORIC
DISTRICT, Bounded by Massachusetts
Ave., Bedford St., and Harrington Rd., (4-
30-76) HABS.
Lexington. SANDERSON HOUSE AND
MUNROE TAVERN, 1314 and 1332 Mas-
sachusetts Ave., (4-26-76) HABS.
Lexington. SHERBURNE, WARREN £.,'
HOUSE, 1 1 Percy Rd., (12-2-77)
Lexington. S1MONDS TAVERN, 331 Bedford
St., (10-14-76)
Lexington. STONE BUILDING, 735 Mas-
sachusetts Ave., (4-30-76) HABS.
Lincoln. GRANGE, THE, Codman Rd., (4-18-
74)o.
Lincoln. HOAR TAVERN, NE of Lincoln on
MA 2, (7-23-73)
Lowell. BOWERS, JONATHAN, HOUSE
(ROUND HOUSE), 58 Wannalancit St., (6-
18-76)
Lowell. CHELMSFORD GLASS WORKS'
LONG HOUSE, 139-141 Baldwin St., (1-
25-73) HABS.
Lowell. CITY HALL HISTORIC DISTRICT,
Roughly area between Broadway and
French Sts., Colbum St. and both sides of
Kirk St., (4-21-75)
Lowell. HOLY TRINITY GREEK
ORTHODOX CHURCH, Lewis St., (4-13-
77)
Lowell. LOWELL LOCKS AND CANALS
HISTORIC DISTRICT, Between Middlesex
St. and the Mcrrimack River, (8-13-7.6)
HACK.
Maiden. OLD CITY HALL, Main St., (10-8-
76)
Medford. ALBREE-HALL-LAWRENCE
HOUSE, 353 Lawrence Rd., (4-30-76)
HABS.
Medford. ANGIER, JOHN B., HOUSE, 129
High St., (4-23,75)
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 2«—TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7,1978
324
-------
5230 MASSACHUSETTS
Mcdford filGELOW BLOCK. NE corner of
Forest and Salem Sts., (2-24-75)
Medford. BROOKS, CHARLES. HOUSE, 309
High St., (6-18-75)0.
Medford BROOKS, JONATHAN, HOUSE. 2
Wobum St.. (6-26-75) HABS.
Medford BROOKS, SHEPHERD. ESTATE,
275 Grove St., (4-21-75)
Medford. CURTIS, PAUL. HOUSE. 114 South
St (5-6-75)
Medford FERNALD. GEORGE P., HOUSE.
12 Rock Hill St., (4-30-76)
Medford FLETCHER, JONATHAN, HOUSE.
283 High St.. (6-23-75)
Medford GRACE EPISCOPAL CHURCH,
160High St.. (11-3-72)0.
Medford. H/^L, ISAAC. HOUSE, 43 High St.,
(4-16-75) HABS.
Medford. HILLSIDE AVENUE HISTORIC
DISTRICT Property on both sides of Hill-
ride and Grand View Aves., (4-21-75)
Medford LAWRENCE LIGHT GUARD AR-
MORY. 90 High St., (3-10-75)
Medford. OLD SHIP STREET HISTORIC
DISTRICT Both sides of Pleasant St. from
Riverside Ave. to Park St.. (4-14-75)
Medford. PARK STREET RAILROAD STA-
TION 20 Magoun Ave., (4-21-75)
Medford. ROYALL, ISAAC, HOUSE. 15
Georee St., (10-15-66) NHL; HABS.
Medford. TUF-rS, PETER, HOUSE. 350
Riverside Ave., (11-24-68) NHL.
Medford UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST
CHURCH AND PARSONAGE, 141 and 147
HiehSt (4-21-75) HABS.
Medford. WADE. JOHN. HOUSE. 253 High
St (6-18-75)
Medford. WADE, JONATHAN. HOUSE. 13
BradleaRd., (4-21-75)
Natick. NATICK CENTER HISTORIC DIS-
TRICT, North Ave., Main, Central, and
Wti^PARSONAGE, THE (HORATIO
AUGER HOUSE), 16 Pleasant St., (11-11-
71) NHL.
Newton. BIGELOW, Dr. HENRY JACOB.
, HOUSE, 742 Dedham St., (1-1-76)
Newton. DURANT, CAPT. EDWARD,
HOUSE, 286 Waverly Ave., (5-13-76) HABS.
Newton. FESSENDEN, REGINALD A.,
HOUSE, 45 Waban Hill Rd., (1-7-76) NHL.
Newton. JACKSON HOMESTEAD, 527
Washington St., (6-4-73)
Newton WOODLAND, NEWTON
HIGHLANDS, AND NEWTON CENTRE
RAILROAD STATIONS, BAGGAGE AND
EXPRESS BUILDING, 1897 Washington
Sts., 18 Station Ave., 80 and 50 Union St.,
(6-3-76)
Reading. PARKER TAVERN, 103 Washington
St., (8-19-75)
Shirley vicinity. SHIRLEY SHAKER VIL-
LAGE, S of Shirley on Harvard Rd., (5-24-
76) (also in Worchester County)
Somerville. BOW STREET HISTORIC DIS-
raCT, Boy St.. (3-26-76)
Somerville. POWDER HOUSE PARK. Powder
House Circle, (4-21-75)
Sudbury. SUDBURY CENTER HISTORIC
DISTRICT, Concord and Old Sudbury Rds.,
(7-14-76)
Sudbury. WAYSIDE INN HISTORIC DIS-
TRICT, Old Boston Post Rd., (4-23-73)
HABS.
Tyngsboro vicinity. TYNG, COL. JONATHAN.
HOt/SE,80TyngRd., (8-19-77) HABS.
Waltham. CORE PLACE, 52 Gore St., (12-30-
JO) NHL; HABS; o.
fc' PAINE< ROBERT TREAT JR..
"OVSE, 577 Beaver St., (10-7-75)
NOTICES
rvTATr'ST" '"" ("'WHORE LYMAN
ESI ATE), Lyman and Beaver Sts. (12-30-
70) NHL; HABS; o.
Watertown. COMMANDING OFFICER'S
%£A?TER?'c WATKK'r<>WN ARSENAL
443 Arsenal St.. (1-30-76)
Watertown. FOWLE, EDMUND HOUSE
26-28 Marshall St., (11-11-77)
Wayland. WAYLAND CENTER HISTORIC
DISTRICT. Irregular pattern along both
sides of U.S. 20 and MA 27, (9-6-74) o
Wayland vicinity. OLD TOWN BRIDGE N of
Wayland on MA 27, (5-2-75)
Weston. GOLDEN BALL TAVERN 662
Boston Post Rd.. (9-28-72) o.
Weston. HARRIN(;TON HOUSE, 555 Wel-
lesley St., (6-22-76)
Weston. WOODWARD, REV. SAMUEL
Milton. HOLHROOK. Dh. AMOS. HOUSE,
203 Adams St..(4-18-74)0.
Milton. HUTCH1NSON. GOV. THOMAS, HA-
HA, 100, I 12 Randolph Ave.. (2-I3-7S)
Milton. PAUL'S BRIDGE. Ncponsct Valley
Pkwy.. over the.Ncponsct River. (12-1 1-72)
(also in Suffolk County)
Milton. SUFFOLK RESOLVES HOUSE
(DANIEL VOSi RESIDENCE), 1370 Can-
ton Ave., (7-23-73) HABS.
Norfolk vicinity. WARELANDS, N of Norfolk
at 103 Boardman St., (11 -10-77)
North Attlcborough vicinity. ANGLE TREE
STONE, Reference—see Bristol Count v
Norwood. DAY. FRED HOLLAND HOUSE
93 Day St., (4-18-77)
Quincy. ADAMS ACADEMY. 8 Adams St (9-
6-74)
:, 133
Wilmington. HARNDEN TAVERN, 430 Salem
St., (4-8-75)
Woburn. BALDWIN. LOAMMI, MANSION 2
Alfred St., ( 10-7-71) HABS; o.
Woburn. COUNT RUMFORD BIRTHPLACE
90 Elm St., (5-15-75) NHL.
Woburn. WOBURN PUBLIC LIBRARY
Pleasant St., (11-13-76)
Woburn. 1790 HOUSE, 827 Main St., (10-9-
74)
nantucket county
Nantucket. COFFIN, JETHRO, HOUSE, Sun-
set Hill, (11-24-68) NHI.;G.
Nantucket. NANTUCKET HISTORIC DIS-
TRICT, Nantucket Island, (11-13-66) NHL;
HABS.
norfolk county
1767 MILESTONES, Reference—see Hamp-
den County
Braintree. THAYER, GEN. SYLVANUS,
HOUSE, 786 Washington St., (12-3-74)
Brookline. JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY
NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, 83 Beals St.,
(5-26-67) HABS.
Brookline. MINOT, GEORGE R., HOUSE, 71
Sears Rd., (1-7-76) NHL.
Brookline. OLMSTED, FREDERICK LAW,
HOUSE, 99 Warren St., (10-15-66) NHL.
Brookline. OLMSTED PARK SYSTEM. En-
compassing the Back Bay Fens, Muddy
River, Olmsted (Leverett Park), Jamaica
Park, Arborway, and Franklin Park, (12-8-
7l)o. (also in Suffolk County)
Brookline. PILL HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT,
Roughly bounded by Boylston St., Pond
Ave., Acron, Oakland and Highland Rds.,
(12-16-77)
Brookline. ST. MARK'S METHODIST
CHURCH, 90 Park St., (12-17-76)
Cohasset. LOTHROP, CALEB HOUSE. 14
Summer St., (5-3-76)
Dedham. FAIRBANKS HOUSE. Eastern Ave.
and East St., ( 10-15-66) NHL; HABS; o.
Dedham. NORFOLK COUNTY
COURTHOUSE, 650 High St., (11-28-72)
NHL.
Franklin. DEAN JUNIOR COLLEGE
\ HISTORIC DISTRICT, Dean Junior College
campus, (4-23-75)
Franklin. RED BRICK SCHOOL, 2 Lincoln
St., (1-1-76)
Mcdficld. FIRST PARISH UNITARIAN
CHURCH. North St.. (4-18-74)
Medficld. PEAK HOUSE, 347 Main St., (9-5-
Millis. PARTRIDGE, JOHN, HOUSE. 315
Exchange St., (10-15-74)
Milton. FORBES. CAPT. ROBERT B.,
HOUSE, 215 Adams St., (11-13-66) NHL.
Qumcy. ADAMS, JOHN QUINCY
BIRTHPLACE, 141 Franklin St., (10-15-66)
NHI.; HABS; o. '
Quincy. ADAMS NATIONAL HISTORIC
SITE, 135 Adams St., (10-15-66)
Quincy. MOSWETUSET HUMMOCK. Squan-
tum St., near jet. with Morrissey Rd., (7-1-
70)
Quincy. QUINCY GRANITE RAILWAY.
Bunker Hill Lane, (10-15-73)
Quincy. QUINCY GRANITE RAILWAY
INCLINE. Mullin Ave.. (6-19-73)
Quincy. QUINCY HOMESTEAD. 34 Butler
St., (7-1-70)0.
Quincy. QUINCY, JOSIAH, HOUSE. 20 Muir-
head St., (5-28-76) HABS; o.
Quincy. THOMAS CRANE PUBLIC LIBRA-
RY, 40 Washington St., (10-18-72)
Quincy. UNITED FIRST PARISH CHURCH
(UNITARIAN) OF QUINCY, 1266 Han-
cock St.. (12-30-70) NHL; HABS.
Quincy. WINTHROP.JOHN.JR., I RON FUR-
NACE SITE, Crescent St., (9-20-77)
Randolph. BELCHER. JONATHAN, HOUSE,
360 N. Main St., (4-30-76)
Sharon. COBB'S TAVERN, 41 Bay Rd., (8-7-
74)
Sharon. SHARON HISTORIC DISTRICT.
Both sides of N. Main St. from Post Office
Sq. to School St., (8-22-75)
Stoughton. STOUGHrON RAILROAD STA-
TION, 53 Wyman St., (1-21-74)
Walpole. LEWIS, DEACON WILLARD,
HOUSE. 33 West St., (10-29-75)
Wcllesley. EATON-MOULTON MILL, 37
Walnut St., (5-13-76)
Wellesley. WELLESLEY TOWN HALL, 525
Washington St., (4-30-76)
Plymouth county
Brockton. BROCKTON CITY HALL, 45
School St., (3-26-76)
Brockton. CENTRAL FIRE STATION, 40
Pleasant St.. (7-25-77)
Brockton. KINGMAN, GARDNER J.,
HOUSE. 309 Main St., (7-25-77)
Brockton. SNOW FOUNTAIN AND CLOCK.
N. Main and E. Main Sts., (7-25-77)
Cohasset vicinity. CUSHING HOMESTEAD,
W of Cohasset on MA 128. (6-4-73)
Duxbury vicinity. PLYMOUTH LIGHT"STA-
TION, SE of Duxbury at Gurnet Point, (3-8-
77)
Hingham. LINCOLN. GEN. BENJAMIN.
HOUSE, 181 North St.. (11-28-72) NHL;
HABS.
Hingham. OLD SHIP MEETINGHOUSE,
Main St., (10-15-66) NHL; HABS; o.
Hull. TELEGRAPH HILL, (7-12-76)
Lakcville. TOWN HALL, Bedford St., (10-22-
76)
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 26-TUESOAY, FEBRUARY 7.1978
325
-------
NOTICES
MASSACHUSETTS 5231
Mnrshficld HEIISTER, DANIEL, LAW OF-
HCE AND LIHRARY. Carcswcll and
Webster Sts., (5-30-74) NHL.
Matupoiictt. THIRD MEETINGHOUSE, I
Fairhavcn Rd., (1-2-76)
Middlcboro. I'EIRCE. PEIER, STORE. N.
Mam and Jackson Sts., (4-30-76)
Middlchoro vicinity. WAMl'ANOAG ROYAL
CEMETERY, S of Middlcboro off MA 105,
(11-11-75)
Middlehoro vicinity. WAPANUCKET SITE,
SWof Middleboroof MA 25, (6-4-73)
North Ahington. NORTH ABINGTON
DEPOT. Railroad St., (5-13-76)
Norwell. BRYANT-CUSHING HOUSE. 768
Main St., (3-26-76)
Plymouth. BARTLETT-RUSSELL-HEDGE
HOUSE. 32 Court St., (4-30-76)
Plymouth. COLE'S HILL, Carver St., (10-15-
66) MIL.
Plymouth. HARLOW OLD FORT HOUSE,
119 Sandwich St., (12-27-74)
Plymouth. HILLSIDE. 230 Summer St., (9-18-
75)
Plymouth HOWLAND, JABEZ, HOUSE, 33
Sandwich St., (10-9-74) o.
Plymouth. NATIONAL MONUMENT TO
THE FOREFATHERS. Allerton St., (8-30-
74)
Plymouth. OLD COUNTY COURTHOUSE,
Lcydcn and Market Sts., (2-23-72)
Plymouth. PILGRIM HALL, 75 Court St., (4-
11-72)0.
Plymouth. PLYMOUTH ANTIQUARIAN
HOUSE, 126 Water St., (12-27-74)
Plymouth. PLYMOUTH ROCK, Water St., (7-
1-70)
Plymouth. SPARROW, RICHARD, HOUSE.
42 Summer St., (10-9-74) c.
Scituate Center. LAWSON TOWER, Off First
Parish Rd., (9-28-76)
Warcham. TREMONT NAIL FACTORY DIS-
TRICT,2\ Elm St., (10-22-76)
Suffolk county
OLMSTED PARK SYSTEM. Reference—see
Norfolk County
PAUL'S BRIDGE, Reference—see Norfolk
County
1767 MILESTONES, Reference—see Hamp-
den County
Boston. AFRICAN MEETINGHOUSE, 8
Smith St., (10-7-71) NHL; HABS; G.
Boston. AMES BUILDING, 1 Court St., (4-
26-74)
Boston. ARLINGTON STREET CHURCH,
Arlington and Boylston Sts., (5-4-73) HABS;
c.
Boston. ARMORY OF THE FIRST CORPS
OF CADETS, 97-105 Arlington St. and 130
Columbus Ave., (5-22-73)
Boston. ARNOLD ARBORETUM, 22 Divinity
Ave., (10-15-66) NHL.
Boston. BACK BAY HISTORIC DISTRICT
(8-14-73) G.
Boston. BEACON HILL HISTORIC DIS-
TRICT, Bounded roughly by Beacon St. on
the S, the Charles River embankment on the
W, Pinckney and Revere Sts. on the N, and
Hancock St. on the E, (10-15-66) NIIL;
HABS; c.
Boston. BLACKSTONE BLOCK HISTORIC
DISTRICT, Area bound by Union, Hanover,
Blackstone, and North Sts., (5-26-73) HABS.
Boston. BOSTON ATHENAEUM, 10 1/2
Beacon St., (10-15-66) NHL; G.
Boston. BOSTON COMMON AND PUBLIC
GARDEN, Beacon, Park, Tremont, Boyl-
ston, and Arlington Sts., (7-12-72)
Boston. BOSTON LIGHT, Little Brewster
Island, Boston Harbor, (10-15-66) NHL.
Boston. BOSTON NATIONAL HISTORICAL
PARK, Inner harbor at mouth of Charles
River, (10-26-74)
Boston. DOS'/ON NAVAL SHIPYARD. E of
Chelsea Si..CharlcsU>wn, (1 1-15-66) NHL.
Boston. BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY, Copley
Sq., (5-6-73)
Boston. BUNKER HILL MONUMENT,
Breed's Hill, (10-15-66) NHL.
Boston. COI'f'S HILL BURIAL GROUND,
Charter, Snowhill, and Hull Sts., (4-18-74)
Boston. CROWNINSH1ELD HOUSE, 164
Marlborough St., (2-23-72)
Boston. CUSTOMHOUSE DISTRICT,
Between J.F.K. Expwy. and Kirby St. and S.
Market and High Sts., (5-1 1-73) HABS.
Boston. CYCLORAMA BUILDING, 543-547
Tremont St., (4-13-73)
Boston. DORCHESTER HEIGHTS NA-
TIONAL HISTORIC SITE, South Boston,
(10-15-66)
Boston. ELIOT BURYING GROUND, Eustis
and Washington Sts., (6-25-74) o.
Boston. ETHER DOME, MASSACHUSETTS
GENERAL HOSPITAL, Fruit St., "(10-15-
66) NHL.
Boston. FANEUIL HALL. Dock Sq., (10-15-
66) NHL.
Boston. FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH, Common-
wealth Ave. and Clarendon St., (2-23-72)
Boston. FU.LTON-COMMERC1AL STREETS
DISTRICT, Fulton, Commercial, Mercan-
tile, Lewis, and Richmond Sts., (3-21-73)
Boston. HARDING, CHESTER, HOUSE, 16
Beacon St., (10-15-66) NHL.
Boston. HEADQUARTERS HOUSE, 55
Beacon St., (10-15-66) NHL.
Boston. HOWE. SAMUEL GRIDLEY AND
JULIA WARD, HOUSE, 13 Chestnut St., (9-
13-74) NHL.
Boston. KING'S CHAPEL, Tremont and
School Sts., (5-2-74) NHL.
Boston. KING'S CHAPEL BURYING
GROUND, Tremont St., (5-2-74)
Boston. LONG WHARF AND CUSTOM-
HOUSE BLOCK, Foot of State St., (11-13-
66) NHL.
Boston. MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL
HOSPITAL, Fruit St., (12-30-70) NHL;
HABS.
Boston. MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL
SOCIETY BUILDING, 1154 Boylston St.,
(10-15-66) NHL.
Boston. MASSACHUSETTS STATEHOUSE,
Beacon Hill, (10-15-66) NHL; HABS.
Boston. NELL, WILLIAM C., HOUSE, 3
Smith Court, (5-11-76) NHL.
Boston. OLD CITY HALL, School and
Providence Sts., (12-30-70) HABS; NHL.
Boston. OLD CORNER BOOKSTORE. NW
comer of Washington and School Sts (4-
Ii-73)
Boston. OLD NORTH CHURCH, (CHRIST
CHURCH EPISCOPAL), 193 Salem St.,
(10-15-66) NHL; HABS; o.
Boston. OLD SOUTH CHURCH IN BOSTON,
645 Boylston St., (12-30-70) NHL.
Boston. OLD SOUTH MEETINGHOUSE.
Milk and Washington Sts., (10-15-66) NHL;
HABS; G.
Boston. OLD STATEHOUSE, Washington and
State Sts., (10-15-66) NHL.
Boston. OLD WEST CHURCH, 131 Cam-
bridge St., (12-30-70) NHL; HABS.
Boston. 0775, (FIRST) HARRISON GRAY
HOUSE, 141 Cambridge St., (12-30-70)
NHL; HABS.
Boston. OTIS, (SECOND) HARRISON
GRAY, HOUSE, 85 Mt. Vemon St (7-27-
73) HABS.
Boston. PARK STREET DISTRICT. Tremont,
Park, and Beacon Sts , (5-1-74)
Boston. I'ARKMAN. FRANCIS, HOUSE, 50
Chestnut St., (10-15-66) NIIL.
Boston. 1'IERCE-HICHHORN HOUSE, 29
North Sq., (11-24-68) NHL; IIABS.
Boston. OU1NCY MARKET, S. Market St.,
( 11-1 3-66 > NHL.
Boston. REVERE. PAUL, HOUSE, 19 North
Sq., (10-15-66) NIIL.
Boston. SEARS. DAVID, HOUSE. 42 Beacon
St., (12-30-70) NHL.
Boston. SOUTH END DISTRICT, South Bay
area between Huntington and Harrison
Avcs., (5-8-73)0.
Boston. SOUTH STATION HEADHOUSE, At-
lantic Ave. and Summer St., (2-13-75)
Boston. 5r. PAUL'S CHURCH, 136 Tremont
St.. (12-30-70) NIIL.
Boston. ST. STEPHEN'S CHURCH, Hanover
St. between Clark and Harris Sts., (4-14-75)
Boston. SUFFOLK COUNTY
COURTHOUSE, Pemberton Sq., (5-8-74)
Boston. SUMNER, CHARLES, HOUSE, 20
Hancock St., (11-7-73) NHL.
Boston. SYMPHONY AND HORTICUL-
TURAL HALLS, Massachusetts and
Huntington Aves., (5-30-75) o.
Boston. TREMONT STREET SUBWAY,
Beneath Tremont, Boylston, and Washing-
ton Sts., (10-15-66) NHL.
Boston. TRINITY CHURCH, Copley Sq., (7-1-
74) NHL.
Boston. TRINITY RECTORY, Clarendon and
Newbury Sts., (2-23-72)
Boston. U.S.S. CONSTITUTION (OLD IRON-
SIDES\ Boston Naval Shipyard, (10-15-66)
NHL.
Boston. WINTHROP BUILDING, 7 Water St.,
(4-18-74)
Boston. YOUTH'S COMPANION BUILDING
(SAWYER BUILDING), 209 Columbus
Ave., (5-2-74)
Boston Harbor. FORT WARREN, Georges
Island, (8-29-70) NIIL.
Boston (Ro.xbury). HALE, EDWARD
EVERETT, HOUSE, 12 Morley St., (5-8-73)
HABS.
Boston vicinity. FORT INDEPENDENCE
(FORT WILLIAM), Castle Island, (10-15-
70)c.
Charlcstown. PHIPPS STREET BURYING
GROUND, Phipps St., (5-15-74)
Charlestown. TOWN HILL DISTRICT,
Bounded roughly by Rutherford Ave. and
Main and Warren SLS., (5-11-73) HABS.
Chelsea. BELLINGHAM-CARY HOUSE, 34
Parker St., (9-6-74)
Chelsea. NAVAL HOSPITAL BOSTON
HISTORIC DISTRICT, 1 Broadway, (8-14-
73)
Dorchester. BLAKE, JAMES, HOUSE, 735
Columbia Rd., (10-15-66) HABS.
Dorchester. CLAPP HOUSES. 199 and 195
Boston St., (5-2-74) HABS; o.
Dorchester. DORCHESTER NORTH BURY-
ING GROUND, Stoughton St. and Colum-
bia Rd., (4-18-74)
Dorchester. PIERCE HOUSE, 24 Oakton
Ave., (4-26-74) HABS.
Dorchester. TROTTER, WILLIAM MONROE,
HOUSE, 97 Sawyer Ave., (5-11-76) NIIL.
Jamaica Plain. LORING-GREENOUGH
HOUSE, 1 2 South St., (4-26-72) G.
Revere. SLADE SPICE MILL, 770 Revere
Beach Pkwy., (6-30-72)
Roxbury. GARRISON, WILLIAM LLOYD,
HOUSE, 125 Highland St., (10-15-66) NHL.
Roxbury. JOHN ELIOT SQUARE DISTRICT,
John Eliot Sq., (4-23-73) HABS.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 26-TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7.1978
326
-------
5232 MICHIGAN
NOTICES
Roxbucy. KITTREDGE, ALVAH, HOUSE, 12
Linwood St.. (5-8-73)
Roxbury. ROXBURY HIGH FORT
(HIGHMND PARK), Beech Glen Si. at
Fort Ave.. (4-23-73)
Roxbury. SHIRLEY-EUSTIS HOUSE, 31-37
Shirley St., (10-15-66) NHI.; HABS.
West Roxbury. BROOK FARM, 670 Baker St.,
(10-15-66) NHL.
Worcester county
SHIRLEY SHAKER VILLAGE,
Reference—see Middlesex County
1767 MILESTONES, Reference—see Hamp-
den County
Auburn vicinity. GODDARD ROCKET
LAUNCHING SITE, Ninth fairway,
Pakachoag Golf Course, Pakachoag Rd.,
(11-13-66) NHL.
Barre. BARRE COMMON DISTRICT,
Bounded roughly by South, Exchange,
Main, Pleasant, Broad, School, and Grove
Sts., (5-4-76)
Boylston. COUGH, JOHN B., HOUSE, 215
Main St., (3-19-74) NHL.
Charlton. NORTHSIDE VILLAGE HISTORIC
DISTRICT, Stafford St., Northside and
Cemetery Rds., (10-5-77)
Charlton. SPURR, JOHN, HOUSE, Main St.,
(4-26-76)
Charlton vicinity. RIDER TAVERN, NE of
Charlton on Stafford St., off U.S. 90, (5-19-
76)0.
Harvard. FRUITLANDS, Prospect Hill, (3-19-
74) NHL.
Holden. HOLDEN CENTER HISTORIC DIS-
TRICT, Main, Maple, Highland, and Reser-
voir Sts., (12-22-77)
Lancaster. CENTER VILLAGE DISTRICT. Ir-
regular pattern along Main St., (9-15-77)
Lancaster. FIRST CHURCH OF CHRIST,
LANCASTER. Facing the Common, (12-30-
70) NHL; HABS; o.
Lancaster. NORTH VILLAGE HISTORIC
DISTRICT, (11-23-77)
Lancaster. THAYER, NATHANIEL, ESTATE,
438 S. Main St., (7-6-76)
Lancaster vicinity. LANCASTER INDUSTRI-
AL SCHOOL FOR GIRLS. SE of Lancaster
on Old Common Rd., (10-8-76)
Lancaster vicinity. LANE, ANTHONY,
HOUSE, NE of Lancaster on Seven Bridge
Rd., (11-7-76)
Milford. MILFORD TOWN HALL, 52 Main
St., (9-22-77)
North Brookfield vicinity. MATTHEWS
FULLING MILL SITE, NW of North
Brookfield off Murphy Rd., ( 11-12-75)
North Oxbridge. ROGERSON"S VILLAGE
HISTORIC DISTRICT. N and S sides of
Hartford Ave., (11-23-71) o.
Northborough. NORTHBOROUGH TOWN
HALL, NE corner of W. Main and Blake St.,
(2-23-72)
Northbridge and vicinity. BLACKSTONE
CANAL, E of MA 122 between Northbridge
and Uxbridge, (2-6-73)
Oxford. BARTON, CLARA, HOMESTEAD, 3
mi. W of Oxford on Clara Barton Rd., (9-
22-77)
Petersham vicinity. GAY FARM (NEGUS
HILL), S of Petersham off Nichewaug Rd.,
(9-22-77)
Royalston.- ROYALSTON COMMON
HISTORIC DISTRICT. Main St., Frye Hill
Rd., and Athul Rd., (12-12-76)
Rutland.'PUTNAM, GEN. RUFUS, HOUSE,
344 Main St., (11-28-72) NHL; HABS.
Shrewsbury. SHREWSBURY HISTORIC DIS-
TRICT, Church Rd., Main, Prospect, Boyl-
ston, and Grafton Sts., ( 10-8-76)
Shrewsbury. WARD, GENERAL ARTEMAS,
HOMESTEAD, Main St., opposite Dean
Park. (5-4-76)
South Lancaster. SOUTH LANCASTER EN-
GINE HOUSE. 283 S. Main St., (10-22-76)
Sturbridgc. STURHRIDGE COMMON
HISTORIC DISTRICT. Main St. between
Mall Rd. and 1-86, (11-9-77)
Uxbridge vicinity. FRIENDS
MEETINGHOUSE, S of Uxbridge on MA
146. (1-24-74)
West Boylston. OLD STONE CHURCH, Off
MA 140. (4-13-73)
West Brookfield vicinity. WHITE
HOMESTEAD. NW of West Brookfield on
Ware Rd. (MA 9), (4-14-75)
Worcester. AMERICAN ANTIQUARIAN
SOCIETY, 185 Salisbury St., (11-24-68)
NHt..
Worcester. ELM PARK. (7-1-70)
Worcester. G.A.R. HALL. 55 Pearl St., (3-13-
75)o.
Worcester. GREENDALE VILLAGE IM-
PROVEMENT SOCIETY BUILDING, 480
W. Boylston St., (11-7-76)
Worcester. LIBERTY FARM, 116 Mower St.,
(9-13-74) NHL.
Worcester. MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE
HISTORIC DISTRICT, Between Salisbury
St. and Drury Lane, (12-16-71)
Worcester. MECHANICS HALL, 321 Main
St., (11-9-72) G.
Worcester. OXFORD-CROWN HISTORIC
DISTRICT, Roughly bounded by Chatham,
Congress, Crown, Pleasant, Oxford Sts. and
Oxford PI.. (5-6-76)
Worcester. PAINE. TIMOTHY, HOUSE, 140
Lincoln St., (4-30-76)
Worcester. SALISBURY HOUSE, 61 Harvard
St., (6-10-75)
Worcester. SALISBURY MANSION AND
STORE, 30, 40 Highland St., (5-30-75) c.
Worcester. WH1TCOMB HOUSE, 51 Harvard
St.. (11-9-77)
MICHIGAN
alger county
AuTrain vicinity. PAULSON HOUSE. S of
AuTrain on USFS Rd. 2278 in Hiawatha
National Forest, ( 11 -9-72)
Christmas vicinity. BAY FURNACE, NW of
Christmas off MI 28 in Hiawatha National
Forest, (9-31-71)
Munising. LOBB HOUSE, 203 W. Onota St.,
(10-8-76)
Munising vicinity. SCHOOLCRAFT FUR-
NACE SITE, NE of Munising off Ml 94,
(12-28-77)
allegan county
HACKLANDER SITE, NW Allegan County,
(7-27-73)
antrim county
HOLTZ SITE, Central Antrim County, (6-19-
73)
Elk Rapids. ELK RAPIDS TOWNSHIP HALL,
River St., (9-22-77)
Elk Rapids. HUGHES HOUSE, 19 Elm St., (5-
6-76)
baraga county
SAND POINT SITE, Northern Baraga Coun-
ty, (6-19-73)
Assinins. ASSININS, U.S. 41, (5-19-72)
harry county
Hastings. STRIKER, DANIEL, HOUSE, 321 S.
Jefferson St., (1-13-72)
hay county
FLETCHER SITE. Late Archaic, Early and
Lute Woodland, Hopewell. and Middle
Historic, (4-16-71)
Bay City. CITY HALL, 301 Washington St.,
(7-IK-75)
Bay City TROMBLE HOUSE, 114, 116, 118
Webster St., (1-25-73)
benzie county
Benzonia. MILLS COMMUNITY HOUSE
(MILLS COTTAGE), 891 Michigan Ave..
(8-21-72)
berrien county
SANDBURG HOUSE. (4-14-72)
Benton Harbor. SHILOH HOUSE, Britain Rd.,
(9-29-72)
Berrien Springs. BERRIEN SPRINGS
COURTHOUSE. Comer of Union and Cass
Sts., (2-16-70)0.
Buchanan vicinity. MOCCASIN BLUFF SITE,
(4-13-77)
Niles. FORT ST. JOSEPH SITE, Off S. Bond
St.,(5-24-73)
Niles. LARDNER, RING, HOUSE, 519 Bond
St., (5-16-72)
Niles. PAINE BANK, 1008 Oak St., (5-8-73)
HABS.
Three Oaks. UNION MEAT MARKET, 14 S.
Elm St., (9-22-72)
branch county
Coldwater. EAST CHICAGO STREET
HISTORIC DISTRICT. Chicago St. from
Wright St. to Division St. including parks,
(5-12-75)
Coldwater. WING HOUSE. 27 S. Jefferson St.,
(2-24-75)
calhoun county
Albion. GARDNER HOUSE, 509 S. Superior
St., (5-6-71)
Athens vicinity. PINE CREEK POTAWATOMI
RESERVATION (NOTTAWAStPPE
RESERVATION), 1 mi. W of Athens, (3-30-
73)
Battle Creek. BATTLE CREEK POST OF-
FICE. 67 E. Michigan St., (8-21-72)
Battle Creek. FEDERAL CENTER (BATTLE
CREEK SANITARIUM). 74 N. Washington
St., (7-30-74)
Battle Creek. PENN CENTRAL RAILWAY
STATION (NEW YORK CENTRAL AND
MICHIGAN CENTRAL RAILWAY STA-
TION). W. Van Buren, (4-16-71) HABS.
Marshall. BROOKS. HAROLD C., HOUSE
(JABEZ S. FITCH HOUSE), 310 N.
Kalamazoo Ave., (7-8-70) HABS.
Marshall. CAPITOL HILL SCHOOL. 603
Washington St., (3-16-72) o.
Marshall. GOVERNOR'S MANSION, 621 S.
Marshall Ave., (1-8-75)
Marshall. HONOLULU HOUSE (ABNER
PRATT HOUSE), 107 N. Kalamazoo St., (7-
8-70) HABS; o.
Marshall. JOY HOUSE, 224 N. Kalamazoo
Ave., (4-19-72)
Marshall. OAKHILL, 410 N, Eagle St.. (12-
31-74)
Marshall. STONEHALL (ANDREW L. HAYES
HOUSE), 303 N. Kalamazoo St., (6-28-72)
Marshall. WAGNER'S BLOCK, 143 W.
Michigan Ave., (10-7-71) o.
Marshall. WRIGHT-BROOKS HOUSE
(DANIEL PRATT HOUSE), 122 N. High
St., (3-16-72) HABS.
cliarlevoix county
O'NEILL SITE, (5-27-71) o.
.~fEWANGOING QUARRY, Western Char-
levoix County, (6-20-72)
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 26-TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7,1978
327
-------
APPENDIX EE
DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES
Developing alternatives requires that an integrated sequence
of processes be organized. This is necessary because several
different methods can be used for each of the following steps
encountered in the handling and disposal of sludge:
• Stabilization
• Conditioning and Dewatering
• Volume Reduction
• Disposal
Each one of the first three major steps may not be necessary
in every possible sequence of processing steps. For example,
in an agricultural area where land application of sludge can be
practiced, sludge dewatering may be unnecessary.
Development of feasible alternative handling and disposal
systems will be done as follows:
• Description of available processes
• Elimination of infeasible process steps
• Organization of feasible process steps into process trains
• Elimination of infeasible process trains
The rationale behind this sequence is that certain individual
processes are inappropriate, given the particular circumstances of
an alternative. Their elimination will reduce confusion in gener-
ating "process trains." Process trains, or process flowsheets,
are the sequences of processes which start with the removal of
sludge from the wastewater and follow through to the final dis-
posal of the sludge.
!• Description of Process Steps and Disposal Methods
The processing and disposal steps listed above can be further
described as follows:
• Stabilization (Optional Step)
• Anaerobic digestion is the use of anaerobic bacteria
(living in the absence of free oxygen) to break down
biodegradeable solids, thus producing methane gas and
more bacteria. The sludge to be digested is normally
70% volatile (biodegradeable). During digestion, half
of the volatile solids are broken down, resulting in
a final mixture which contains 65% of the initial
mass, of which about 50% is volatile solids.
328
-------
• Aerobic digestion is a process using oxygen (or air
addition) to biologically oxidize a portion of the
solids before processing further. The percentage
of volatile solids reduction can range from 40% to
45%. This process operates best with digestion of
waste secondary or combined sludges.
• The Purifax process uses high doses of chlorine
(<2000 mg/1) to chemically oxidize part of the
volatile fraction of solids.
Conditioning and Dewatering
• Conditioning
• Chemical conditioning is a process using a multivalent
metal ion such as aluminum or iron to enable the sludge
particles to coalesce or flocculate. In addition
to the multivalent metal ions, lime is usually added
to assist in vacuum filtration (or dewatering).
Organic polymers have been developed which perform
the same function. The polymers are used in lower
concentration.
• Thermal conditioning is the heating of sludge, which
has been pressurized to prevent boiling. This heat-
ing destroys a portion of the solids and releases
the bound water in the solid mass.
• Dewatering
• Vacuum filtration uses the self-filtering ability
of the sludge to remove moisture. The sludge
cake is formed by vacuum on a moving cloth or
wire medium, followed by washing and vacuum
dewatering.
• Filter pressing involves mechanical compression
of conditioned sludge inside flexible, porous cloth
bags to press out the free water. Typically, large
doses of coagulants or of fly ash are necessary for
proper operation. Bulking material is often necessary.
• Centrifugation uses a cylinder, rotating at high
speed, to separate the solid fraction at high
gravities. The centrifuge usually requires use
of organic polymers for conditioning, and typically
returns more solids to the plant than do vacuum
filters or filter presses.
329
-------
• Belt filter presses dewater sludge through sedi-
mentation and compression under a pressure equal
to and subsequently greater than gravity. A belt
and roller system is employed; and when pressure
is applied, the filtrate is squeezed from the
sludge solids. Chemical conditioning, usually
polymers, are used for high filtrate quality.
• Volume Reduction (Optional Step)
• Incineration is the volume reduction process most
commonly used, in which dewatered sludge is burned
using the heat content of the volatile solids to
drive off the moisture. Typical maximum temperatures
are 1400-1700°F in the furnace. If the heat content
of the sludge is sufficient and the incinerators
properly designed and operated, the burning process
can become self-sustaining or "autogenous."
• Pyrolysis is a process using heat and controlled
feeding of oxygen to break down complex volatile
organic components to gases and oils (which in turn
can be used as fuels) along with a solid "char" which
contains some heat value. Once the process is
initiated using an outside heat source, it may be
maintained with recycle of a portion of the product
oils or by varying the oyxgen feed rate. In pyro-
lyzing sewage sludge, the fuel value is totally
used in combustion.
• Wet air oxidation is similar to pyrolysis in that
it is done under pressure, but excess air (oxygen)
is added to allow nearly complete oxidation.
After wet air oxidation, the remaining solids are
separated out and the liquid portion is returned
to treatment.
• Heat drying can also be regarded as a volume reduc-
tion step because of the removal of moisture. In
this process, fuel is used to heat the sludge up to
700-1000°F, driving off most of the moisture.
• Disposal
• Landfill is the burial of the final product (dewatered
sludge, char, incinerator ash) in a designated disposa
site. In this process, the product is placed in one
to two foot layers, covered with earth daily, and upon
completion of the fill, is sealed with more earth
and planted with suitable cover crops. Use of land-
fill is controlled by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-580).
330
-------
• Land Application is the application of liquid
sludge, sludge cake or dried sludge to land.
This can either be principally a disposal
method at high ( > 44 metric tons per hectare)
loading or a nutrient recovery process at lower
loadings. The land can be either publicly or
privately owned, and food or non-food crops
grown. Use of land application is controlled
by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
of 1976 (P.L. 94-580).
2. Elimination of Infeasible Processes
Of the processes described above, those discussed below
are not considered feasible, either intrinsically or in com-
parison to the three major alternatives under consideration
for the proposed project:
• Stabilization (Optional Step)
• Aerobic digestion can be eliminated because of
its high energy demand for aeration and because
the sludge which is to be stabilized at the MDC
facilities does not include waste secondary
sludge. Also, anaerobic digestion capacity is
presently available.
• The Purifax process can be eliminated because
of the large amounts of chlorine required, be-
cause of questions concerning the generation of
chlorinated hydrocarbons, and because of the
existing anaerobic digestion capacity at the
MDC plants.
• Conditioning and Dewatering
• Thermal conditioning can be eliminated because of
the absence of secondary treatment. The thermal
conditioning process produces a high strength
liquid residue which requires biological (second-
ary) treatment.
• Centrifuging can be eliminated because of the re-
latively poor solids capture in the process. In
comparing this method and the two filtration op-
tions, centrifuging may return as much as ten
times the solids to the treatment process. These
solids, when returned to a secondary plant, may
be captured in biological treatment, but will not
be captured in a primary facility.
331
-------
Volume Reduction (Optional Step)
• Pyrolysis as a volume reduction step can be eliminated
for several reasons. As with thermal conditioning,
pyrolysis is subject to similar problems with the
quality of liquid sidestreams resulting from distillate
separation. For an experimental acid-pyrolysis system
in California (Fassell, 1974) a total of approximately
420 pounds/ton of water-soluble short-chain organic
compounds (principally acetic and propionic acids)
were produced as a system byproduct. Byproduct use
of this carbon source for denitrification was suggested,
but in the Phase I system which will lack biological
treatment this 420 pounds/ton of organics would be
released in the effluent. Aerobic biological treat-
ment of this quantity of organic material would
require approximately 1.8 x 106 BTU of energy for
aeration. For the experimental system considered
by Fassell, this is twice the energy value of
recovered "fuel." If anaerobic digestion is used for
treatment of the water soluble acids generated by
pyrolysis, more energy recovery might be possible,
but the comparatively low concentrations of soluble
organics militate against this system. A bench-scale
pyrolysis system in California was used to evaluate
the total energetics of pyrolysis (Folks, 1975).
The results indicated that no net energy would be
available at less than 43% solids, not including any
energy necessary for biological treatment of any
residual organics.
Pyrolysis of sewage sludge with the starved air incin-
eration process uses a normal multiple hearth furnace
which has been sealed to prevent extraneous air
entry to heat the feed in an oxygen starved atmosphere.
Under these conditions the organic material is driven
from the solids in the form of combustible pyrolysis
gas of about 60 BTU per cubic foot. Heat is provided
by combustion of a portion of this pyrolysis gas within
the furnace, and the remainder is burned in an external
combustion chamber. Assuming a sufficiently dry
feed, and a normal municipal biological sludge, a
pyrolysis furnace will require fuel only for warm-up.
The feed is reduced to an inert, sterile ash (Neptune &
Nichols, 1976).
332
-------
The fuel usage of a pyrolysis furnace is related
to the fuel value of the sludge. The process is
not such that it is self-generating or totally self-
perpetuating. An energy input is required. In this
process all of the energy is used in thermal reduc-
tion and afterburning. While the energy input for
startup and for maintenance of furnace temperatures
may be less than a nonstarved air multiple hearth
furnace, any furnace processing sewage sludge will
not generate an amount of fuel over the amount of
fuel that is put in.
• High temperature wet air oxidation can be eliminated
for the same reasons as thermal conditioning, i.e.,
the liquid residue would contain high concentrations
of oxygen demanding organics.
A certain extent of metals recovery, utilizing a
wet air oxidation process in mild acid conditions,
may be possible. The process of wet oxidation alone
does not completely solubilize all metals, but with
economically practical levels of sulfuric acid
additions, copper, zinc and cadmium are solubilized
while lead and silver remain in the insoluble residue
or ash (Fassell, 1974).
The soluble metals can be removed as precipitated
sulfides which can be shipped to the smelter. The
lead, silver and perhaps gold in the ash may be
amenable to chlorinated brine leaching. This
precipitate would then also go to the smelter
(Fassell, 1974).
It may be possible, using this process, to render
the ash nonhazardous and recover some costs by the
sale of the removed metals. The technology, however,
remains unproven. The removal of metals may never
be enough to render the ash nonhazardous, and it
remains doubtful that a profit, or even a significant
return of costs, could be realized through sale
of the recovered metals.
3. Development of Feasible Process Trains
By eliminating the infeasible processes from consideration,
the remaining processes can be organized into process trains
leading from primary sedimentation to final disposal.
Before developing these process trains, two process choices
should be discussed for their applicability to all flowsheets.
Anaerobic digestion is currently practiced at both Deer and Nut
Island facilities, and is a stabilization process of choice in
this EIS for several reasons including:
333
-------
• Stabilization and reduction of sludge volume,
• Reduction of pathogen content, and
• Recovery of energy as gas.
In addition to these advantages, there are certain disadvan-
tages, including the rather high capital and operating costs and
the relatively high land area requirement. Also, compared with
raw sludge, digested sludge has a reduced organic nitrogen con-
tent. This, in turn, may reduce the total system efficiency in
terms of dollars and energy required to deliver a given quantity
of nitrogen to soil for a land application system. The reduction
of volatile solids through digestion also can reduce the possibility
of autogenous incineration (not requiring additions of fossil
fuels). The Phase I system developed by Havens and Emerson
includes bypassing of a portion of the raw primary solids (10%
of both Deer Island and Nut Island) under 1985 conditions.
Inclusion of these bypassed quantities into digestion results in
volatile solids loadings (0.15 pounds VSS/cf/day at Deer Island
and 0.12 pounds/cf/day at Nut Island) which are below the loadings
specified for high-rate digestion of 0.15-0.40 pounds VSS/cf/day
(EPA, 1974C). Therefore, upgrading of existing digester capacity
to 1985 conditions may be possible. For the purpose of this study,
the 1985 sludge quantities and qualities developed by Havens and
Emerson (1973) will be used. Appendix N develops in detail the
rationale behind this decision. In the final process flowsheets
for both land application and ocean disposal, there are sufficient
methods for pathogen control, such that construction of additional
digester capacity is not required. For these reasons, anaerobic
digestion will continue in use on all flowsheets (process trains).
The three remaining dewatering alternatives, vacuum filters,
filter presses, and horizontal belt filters (HBF), have been
examined with respect to differential impacts. The principal
difference is that filter pressing will require more conditioning
chemicals and HBF requires organic polymer additions to produce
a sludge of less moisture content. In terms of cost, energy use,
and solids content, all processes are comparable. Horizontal
belt filters offer an advantage over plate and frame presses in
that they have fewer operational difficulties. Actual comparative
evaluation and process selection between vacuum filter and HBF
will be done during Step II design (Weiss, 1978).
A basic premise that has been put forward in the proposed
plan is that the incineration process will be autogenous. And
since the production of an autogenous sludge depends upon several
considerations, detailed analysis will be necessary before select-
ing a final system for dewatering. Because of the similarity of
process inputs except for conditioning chemicals, horizontal belt
filtration can be substituted for vacuum filtration (depending
upon pilot testing) at the time of final design.
334
-------
With these questions resolved, the following process alter-
natives remain:
• 'Stabilization - anaerobic digestion
• Conditioning and dewatering (optional); chemical
conditioning and vacuum filtration or horizontal belt
filtration
• Volume reduction (optional)
• Incineration
• Heat Dyring
• Disposal
• Landfill
• Ocean disposal (eliminated by P.L. 92-500 and
P.L. 92-532)
• Pathogen reduction and land application for
resource recovery
Using these options and because dewatering must precede
volume reduction, twelve possible rocess trains can be developed,
as summarized in Table EE-1. Of these twelve systems for
processing and disposal, four can be eliminated as infeasible
on a preliminary basis. This infeasibility results from the
basic incompatibility of the final disposal method and the prior
handling steps. An example of this basic infeasibility would be
the large amounts of unrecoverable energy required for heat
drying, followed by ocean disposal (process E). The feasible
processing and disposal systems which remain after this preliminary
screen are:
Process Train A: Dewatering - Incineration - Landfill
Process Train B: Dewatering - Incineration - Ocean Disposal
Process Train F: Dewatering - Heat Drying - Land Application
Process Train G: Dewatering - Landfill
Process Train H: Dewatering - Ocean Disposal
Process Train I: Dewatering - Land Application
Process Train K: Direct Ocean Disposal
Process Train L: Direct Land Application
At this point, these flowsheets are feasible because they are com-
posed of feasible process components, because they are internally
consistent, and because the final disposal method is consistent
with the processes used.
335
-------
TABLE EE-1
Process Trains Developed From Feasible Processes
Process Trains
A
B
C
D
E
u>
U)
CTi
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
Stabilization Conditioning- Volume Reduc- Disposal 1
Process Dewatering Process tion Process
Digestion Chemical-Vacuum Incineration Landfill
Filter
" " " Ocean
Disposal
" " " Land
Application
11 " Heat Drying Landfill
" " " Ocean
Disposal
Land
Application
" " None Landfill
" " " Ocean
Disposal
Land
Application
" None " Landfill
" " " Ocean
Disposal
" " Land
feasible System
(Yes or No)
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Application
-------
3. Selection of Process Trains for Further Development
Because of the effort necessary to develop and analyze in
detail any of these alternatives, it is desirable to further
reduce the number of feasible systems for consideration. This
reduction involves removing complete systems at this point, much
as the four infeasible systems were removed in the previous step.
The objectives of this further elimination are:
• To elicit the best system for each mode of ultimate
disposal, i. e. landfill, ocean disposal, and land
application.
• To retain those systems which (while not the best at
first investigation) still have some promise.
For the final selection, the process flowsheets can be reorganized
according to their final disposal options:
• Landfill Options
• Process Train A: Dewatering - Incineration - Landfill
• Process Train G: Dewatering - Landfill
• Ocean Disposal Options
• Process Train B: Dewatering - Incineration - Ocean
Disposal
• Process Train H: Dewatering - Ocean Disposal
• Process Train K: Direct Ocean Disposal
• Land Application Options
• Process Train F: Dewatering - Heat Drying - Land
Application
• Process Train I: Dewatering - Land Application
• Process Train L: Direct Land Application
The selection of the systems for further analysis will be done
according to these major disposal areas. There are several process
related questions which will be considered in the last section.
• Selection of Landfill Alternatives
o
tion. The choice between the two can be made on the following
major criteria:
• Impact of air emissions resulting from incineration
• Relative capital and operation costs, including
landfilling costs
337
-------
• Impact of transportation to landfill and of leaching
from landfill
• Availability of land for landfill use
Of the criteria listed above, availability of land for
filling, cost of filling of sludge, and impacts of leachate are
the three major concerns which tend to eliminate landfilling of
the total dewatered mass as a long term option. The landfilling
of ash is also subject to consideration under provisions of the
Resource Conservation Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA). Under the
act, ash must be determined to be either a hazardous or nonhazar-
dous solid waste. The management of ash will vary depending upon
this determination. The activities of generation, transportation
and disposal of hazardous wastes are subject to more stringent
regulations than nonhazardous wastes.
Certain RCRA provisions concerning hazardous wastes are not
yet final. The determination criterion for hazardous waste is
one such provision. Therefore, ash landfilling, both as a
hazardous waste or nonhazardous waste, had to be evaluated and
alternatives provided.
These alternatives (Numbers 1 and 2 and 8 through 11, added
in preparing the FEIS) include consideration of various landfill
sites for ultimate disposal. Nonhazardous ash landfill sites
considered are: Plainville, Randolph and Amesbury sanitary
landfills (Alternative 1); a harbor fill at Deer Island (Alterna-
tive 2); a Deer Island landfill (Alternative 8); and a Spectacle
Island landfill (Alternative 9). At present, no hazardous wastes
landfill exists in Massachusetts. Two possible locations for
hazardous waste landfills were proposed and include the Deer
Island harbor fill (Alternative 10) and a Deer Island inland
location (Alternative 11).
Ultimately, four landfill alternatives have been proposed
for ash as a nonhazardous waste:
• Alternative 1: Digestion - Dewatering - Incineration -
Landfill at Plainville, Randolph or Amesbury
• Alternative 2: Digestion - Dewatering - Incineration -
Deer Island Harbor Fill
• Alternative 8: Digestion - Dewatering - Incineration -
Deer Island Inland Fill
• Alternative 9: Digestion - Dewatering - Incineration -
Spectable Island Landfill
Two landfill alternatives have been proposed for ash as
a hazardous waste:
338
-------
• Alternative 10: Digestion - Dewatering - Incineration -
Deer Island Harbor Fill
• Alternative 11: Digestion - Dewatering - Incineration -
Deer Island Inland Fill
There remains an additional factor to be considered regard-
ing ash toxicity. The ash when tested may be deemed hazardous
due to heavy metals concentrations. If these metals can be fixed
or immobilized in the ash, the ash could be rendered nontoxic and
become a nonhazardous solid waste. The final decision on the
landfill site chosen will remain until after procedures and methods
for treating the ash (if it is hazardous) are evaluated in regard
to their effectiveness and costs. Evaluation of chemical fixation
is presently being done by the EPA Environmental Research Laboratory-
Cincinnati (Eralp, 1978) . Once detailed data are available, the
use of fixation and normal waste handling can be compared to use
of hazardous waste handling based on economic and environmental
costs.
• Selection of Ocean Disposal Alternatives
Ocean disposal can be done with digested sludge via barge or
pipeline, with dewatered sludge via barge, or with ash from
incineration of sludge. There are two choices here, the first
between incinerator ash disposal and dewatered sludge disposal,
and the second in the degree of dewatering of sludge to be done.
The elements of the first choice are:
• Air quality impacts of incineration
• Impacts of sludge or sludge ash on marine biota
• Relative capital and operating costs
Without more detailed study, none of these elements of choice
can be resolved. If the adverse impacts of oxygen-demanding
elements are an order of magnitude greater than heavy metals
impacts, the choice might be incineration or, if the impact of
incineration on air quality is unacceptable, the sludge might be
more properly carried to disposal in the dewatered form. At this
level, neither alternative can be rejected.
In order to determine the answer to the second question,
disposal area distance and depth criteria will be necessary. If
the disposal site selected is close inshore, direct transport of
sludge via pipeline may be best. If a site further offshore is
selected, dewatering prior to transportation may be desirable.
This is subject to the provision that no major differential impacts
will result from dewatered versus liquid sludge, a safe assumption
in that the solids captured in dewatering would be about 99%.
339
-------
Ocean disposal through outfalls has several disadvantages.
First, a substantial capital investment is required to construct
the outfall. Required depth or length may add significantly
to the cost of construction. Second, flexibility is lost. Con-
struction of an outfall at any particular site implies a long-
term commitment to dump at that site. If monitoring subsequent
to disposal reveals significant detrimental effects upon the
marine environment that dictate that the outfall must be abandoned,
a significant capital investment is lost. In addition, it
concentrates wastes in shallow, inshore areas where the greatest
possibility for contact with the sludge exists. For these reasons,
outfall disposal is not considered to be a viable alternative for
Boston's sludge.
Barge disposal requires a smaller initial capital cost
and eliminates the commitment to a single site or group of
sites. If shallow water spreading is desired, the sludge can
be discharged at, or very close to, the surface through shorter
hoses while the barge traverses a large area. Ideally, direct
deep water disposal would be attained through the use of a long
discharge hose through which sludge is pumped for disposal.
Although this method of disposal appears to be technically
feasible, it is in the research and development stage and is
not presented as an implementable alternative. At this time,
it is proposed that disposal into deep water would be attained
by relying on the rapid settling characteristics of most consti-
tuents of the sludge. The sludge would be discharged at a
single point dump by release through the bottom hopper of a barge.
To choose between deep water containment and shallow
water spreading, available information on current dumping
activities and the work of an international study group were
consulted. The two disposal methods represent substantially
different philosophies of waste disposal. The objective of
deep water disposal is to minimize dispersion of the sludge by
placing it in an area where both current activity and biologi-
cal activity are low. Shallow water disposal by spreading
accomplishes dispersion of the sludge throughout the water
column because of differential settling and current activity.
The choice between the two disposal methods involves careful
consideration of the ultimate fate of the sludge in the marine
environment. Unfortunately, at this time the decision is based
on incomplete knowledge of many of the processes which will
affect its fate.
The working group on the scientific basis for disposal
of waste into the sea of the Joint Group of Experts on the
Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollution (GESAMP) held a conference
in Copenhagen during October 1974. The work resulting from that
session is entitled, "Scientific Criteria for the Selection of
Sites for Dumping of Wastes Into the Sea." The purpose of the
340
-------
report is to consider how the effects of waste disposal can be
assessed and reduced to a minimum and what scientific principles
are involved in the selection of sites for dumping. According
to GESAMP (1975) , "Ideally, the only ultimate method of elimi-
nating waste disposal is recovery and reutilization of the materials
presently considered to be wastes; other disposal operations
merely remove material from one part of our environment to
another." The report generally states that maximum physical
dispersion should be a primary objective of waste disposal in
the marine environment to minimize the environmental impacts of
the wastes. It also states that only materials that should be
dumped are those that meet the criteria of the London Convention.
Appendix 0 explains the London Convention, as well as other ocean
dumping policies.
The alternative of spreading the MDC sludge over a large
area of open ocean to maximize dispersion was also considered.
It was rejected at this time for a number of reasons, although
ultimately, dispersion of sludge over a large area of ocean
might prove to be an acceptable alternative. For example,
such a system would require that contaminants such as heavy
metals or pathogens be removed, destroyed or rendered inactive,
or that allowable maximum concentrations be quantitatively
determined in terms of effects upon the marine environment and
that these levels would not be exceeded.
There are two main reasons for rejecting ocean spreading.
Analysis of the MDC sludge indicates the criteria for allowable
metals concentrations are exceeded. Therefore, unless industrial
pretreatment could effectively eliminate these metals by the
time that ocean disposal is eliminated, MDC's sludge would be
dumped under an interim permit. Spreading would disperse the
contaminants over a large area. A detailed monitoring program
would have to be set up over a large area. Spreading might
degrade the water quality or contaminate fisheries over an area
in the tens of square miles. Analysis for compliance with
other ocean dumping criteria (40 CFR 220-227) such as oil and
greases and organohalogens has not been performed to date. A
comparison of the mercury and cadmium content of the MDC sludge
with allowable concentrations is presented below:
Concentration (mg/kg, dry wt. basis)
Allowable* MDC Sludge
Mercury 0.75 5-9
Cadmium 0.6 20-30
* 40 CFR 227
341
-------
A second reason for rejecting ocean spreading is that
there is very little quantitative information about the toxicity
to, or accumulation of, contaminants by biota. There is even
less information relating concentrations of contaminants in the
water column to concentrations observed in biota. Virtually
all of the ocean area within practicable barging distance from
Boston supports important fisheries, as shown in the Environmental
Setting (Section I). Potential contamination of a large area
of ocean could ultimately have significant health and socio-
economic impacts. Constituents of the sludge might be toxic to,
or be accumulated by, marine organisms which are part of the
food chain of commercially valuable species. Subtle modifica-
tions of habitat might alter natural species composition over
a large area and disrupt food chain relationships.
Based on existing knowledge of the fate of sludge in the
ocean, disposal by barge to a deep-water area where minimal
dispersion is expected is the most feasible ocean disposal
alternative. Total containment of the sludge is technically
very difficult to achieve. However, by limiting the dispersion
of the sludge as much as possible, the effects of dumping upon
the marine environment can be minimized. Actual site selection
should be made to minimize the influence of sludge dumping on
present and potential uses of the sea.
Although containment provides the best short-term ocean
disposal option, it does have several disadvantages. Anoxic
conditions are likely to be produced by continuous dumping of
any particular deep-water site. Anoxic conditions will be
accompanied by production of hydrogen sulfide which is toxic
to many marine organisms, but trace metals combine with hydro-
gen sulfide under anoxic conditions to form insoluble metal
sulfides. This, in turn, will limit the extent of trace metal
contamination.
Microbial activity is reduced in deep-water (Jannasch,
1971) and the sludge may be degraded more slowly than it would be
in shallow water. Accumulation of sludges may bury benthic
communities, but they are likely to be recolonized rapidly by
pollution tolerant species. Deep-water benthic communities
have evolved in a relatively stable environment as compared to
shallow water communities and may be extrememly sensitive to
environmental stresses. Although restricting fisheries in
a small area of dumping would not produce severe socioeconomic
impacts, migratory species might feed at the sites and become
contaminated.
In summary, although sludge disposal by barge to deep
ocean sites has a number of disadvantages, it offers the
best ocean disposal method for Boston based on current know-
ledge. And of the possible ocean disposal system, it also
offers the most easily implemented and controlled monitoring
342
-------
program. A system of sampling points can be set up in and
around the periphery of the dump site at various depths in
the water column and in the sediments. If the amount of
materials which are being dumped are known, changes in con-
centration of materials in the marine environment in the
vicinity of the dump can be studied in relation to the
amounts dumped.
The conclusions reached in the preceding discussion
generally apply also to ash disposal. Although the con-
stituents of ash and expected environmental impacts are
significantly different from those in sludge, the same
method of ocean disposal, i.e., barge to deep-water, max-
imum containment, is chosen for ash.
With the most environmentally desirable form of ocean
disposal being deep-water dumping, the best form of sludge
for disposal can be resolved. To achieve the desirable
depth (greater than 100 meters), a haul distance of approx-
imately 60-70 NM is required. At this distance, pipeline
transport is not practical, leaving barging as the method
of transportation. In deciding between liquid and dewatered
sludge, the energy cost to transport the liquid by barge is
1.8 times greater than the energy necessary to vacuum filter
and transport the dewatered sludge over the same distance.
The disposal distance beyond which dewatering is practical
in terms of energy varies between 20 NM (dewatering to 35%
solids) and 22.5 NM (dewatering to 25% solids).
The final alternatives selected for ocean disposal are:
• Alternative 3: Dewatering - Incineration - Ocean
Disposal of Ash
• Alternative 4: Dewatering - Ocean Disposal of
Sludge
As outlined in Appendix 0, a permit to allow the ocean
dumping of sludge and ash would be necessary. The MDC sludge
and ash would not be approvable for ocean dumping in the fore-
seeable future, since the level of trace contaminants far ex-
ceed those in the criteria governing the issuance of permits.
The nature of the sludge, at present, the remote likelihood
of improvement in the near future, the possibility of other
alternatives, and the stated policies of the federal govern-
ment regarding ocean dumping, makes Alternatives 3 and 4
infeasible.
343
-------
• Selection of Land Application Alternative
Recall that the feasible land application alternatives are:
• Process Train F: Dewatering - Heat Drying - Land
Application
• Process Train I: Dewatering - Land Application
• Process Train L: Direct Land Application of Liquid
Sludge
Selection of the best alternative from among these systems
can be done on several criteria, including:
• Least amount of pathogen and heavy metals contamina-
tion
• Greatest nutrient value recovery
• Greatest positive agricultural economic impact
• Least net energy cost
• Least capital and operating cost
Because these systems have significant differences in terms
of processing, transportation and storage requirements, environ-
mental impacts, and suitable types of application sites, it is
necessary to summarize system characteristics for each process
train. These summarizations are presented in Tables EE-2,
EE-3, and EE-4. Further discussion of land application tech-
niques is given in Appendix P, "Land Application of Sludge -
State of the Art."
The first process comparison to follow is: (a) between
dried sludge (Process Train F) and dewatered sludge (Process
Train I); and the second comparison will be (b) between de-
watered sludge (Process Train I) and direct application of
liquid sludge (Process Train L).
a. Evaluation of Dried vs. Dewatered Sludge
The experiences of Milwaukee and Houston regarding the
sale of heat-dried sludge and the interest expressed in the po-
tential for selling MDC sludge as fertilizer led to a Region I
sponsored sludge fertilizer marketing survey (Development Plan-
ning and Research Associates, 1975). Appendix Q is a reproduc-
tion of the recommendations and conclusions of that market study.
The purpose of the survey was to determine the potential for the
sale of heat-dried sludge as fertilizer and/or soil conditioner.
344
-------
TABLE EE-2
CHARACTERISTICS OF LAND APPLICATION PROCESS TRAIN F
DEWATERING - HEAT DRYING - LAND APPLICATION
(95% SOLIDS)
Processing: Capital and operating costs high
Energy costs high (12.3 to 17.9 million BTU/ton)
Transportation: Capital costs low
Operating costs low
Energy costs low (approx. 2100 BTU/ton mile)
Storage: Capital costs low
Operating costs low
Application: Low cost, low energy, through normal distribution
channels
Suitable Application Sales: Farmland, open fields, home gardens
landscaped areas
Advantages: Lack of odor
Sterility (drying at 70QO-1100OF)
Ease of handling
May be economically self-supporting
Disadvantages: High dollar and energy costs
Loss of nitrogen in drying
Lack of flexibility
Air pollution effects of fuel use
345
-------
TABLE EE-3
CHARACTERISTICS OF LAND APPLICATION PROCESS TRAIN I
DEWATERING - LAND APPLICATION
(25% SOLIDS)
Processing: Capital and operating costs - moderate
Energy costs - moderate (414,000 BTU/ton)
Transportation: Capital and operating costs - moderate
Energy costs - moderate ( 8000 BTU/ton mile)
Storage: Capital and operating costs moderate
Land requirements moderate
.Application: Capital and operating costs high
Separate system required
Suitable Application Sites: Farmland
Advantages: Moderate total energy costs
Flexibility of transportation
Flexibility of application areas
Reduced sodium to soil
Flexibility of disposal method
Disadvantages: Potential odor problems from storage
Loss of ammonia nitrogen in storage
High costs of transportation and application
Little possibility of recovery of dollar value
Potential groundwater impacts
Potential conflict with adjacent land uses
346
-------
TABLE EE-4
CHARACTERISTICS OF LAND APPLICATION PROCESS TRAIN L
DIRECT LAND APPLICATION
(5% SOLIDS)
Processing:
Transportation:
Pipeline
Truck or
Rail
Storage:
Suitable
Application
Sites:
Advantages:
Disadvantages:
Capital and operating costs - negligible
Energy costs - negligible
Capital costs - high
Operating costs - moderate
Energy costs - moderate (13400 BTU/ton mile)
Capital costs - high
Operating costs - high
Energy costs - high (4000 BTU/ton mile - truck)
(20,400 BTU/ton mile - rail)
Capital and operating costs - high
Land requirements - high
Application: Capital and operating costs - high
Forests, farmlands (dedicated areas required
with pipeline transport)
Greatest delivery of nitrogen to soil
High capital costs for either truck or pipeline
delivery.
High capital costs for application.
Large storage volume required.
Inflexibility of application site.
May require dedicated area.
Odors from storage and application.
Long-term commitment.
Potential for groundwater contamination.
Potential conflict with adjacent land use.
347
-------
Questions that were answered by the survey were:
• Present and historical sales of inorganic fertili-
zer in Massachusetts and the other New England
states
• Present and historic use of organic fertilizers
and soil conditioners in Massachusetts and the
other New England states
• Market prices of inorganic and organic fertilizers
in the region
• Sales potential of a fortified or unfortified agri-
cultural product made from dried sewage sludge
• Dollar return (or dollar cost) to the MDC from
sale of such products, and the quantity which
could be sold
Two possible products were analyzed: (1) a dried sludge
(2-2-0) containing 2% nitrogen and 2% phosphorus (as P2°5) '> anc^
(2) a fortified dried sludge (6-2-4) containing 6% nitrogen, 2%
P205 and 4% potassium oxide. These two products were analyzed
for marketability to farm operators, fertilizer formulators, and
to home owners and golf courses.
The market researchers concluded that there was effec-
tively no market for an unfortified dried sewage sludge (2-2-0),
either to homeowners, to farm operators or to fertilizer formu-
lators. This lack of market occurs because the 2-2-0 product
would compete with sludges of higher nutrient concentration that
are produced from activiated sludge. The fortification of MDC
sludge to 6-2-4 would increase its value by more than the cost
of bulk-fortifying chemicals. Taking liberal estimates of
overall market growth and MDC's capture of that market, the
potential sales of bagged fortified sludge could be as much as
16,400 tons of sludge (20,000 total product tons) per year to
the home and garden market. The profit to MDC would be $3.29,
sold at home and garden prices. The maximum home and garden
sale of 16,400 tons of sludge per year leaves 29,600 tons per
year to be sold through the farming market. For sale to the
farm market, the MDC would lose $16.68 per ton of sludge sold
because of the lower value to farm operators. Therefore, the
added cost to MDC of sludge disposal as dried sludge for fertil-
izer would be the average, or a cost to MDC of $9.56 per ton of
sludge. In their 1974 assessment statement, Havens and Emerson
estimated a production cost of $94.50 per ton of dried sludge,
thus yielding a total cost of $104.06 per ton of sludge which
348
-------
is dried, fortified and sold for land application. For com-
parison, the estimated cost of incineration per ton of sludge
discounting the recovery of thermal energy, was $65.06 per ton
(including ash disposal) at the 1974 cost index.
Beyond the question of cost-effectiveness, the ques-
tions of environmental impacts and energy requirements must
also be examined to determine if important benefits might be
lost with rejection of the heat drying option. The environ-
mental characteristics that differentiate heat drying versus
application of dewatered sludge are:
• Decreased odor problems at the site of application
• Decreased pathogens
• Decreased potential groundwater quality problems
• Increased dried sludge loading for a given nitro-
gen requirement, leading to increased metals
impacts
• Lack of control over sales, uses and environmental
impacts of use
• Air pollution impacts from fuel use in drying.
The balance between these beneficial and adverse impacts
is close enough that no significant environmental benefits would
be gained by sludge drying.
Energetically, the costs of drying sludge are high com-
pared to the energy costs of processing and transporting dewatered
sludge. The haul distance at which total energy requirements
become equal for dewatered and dried sludge is about 1,500 miles.
For a 100 mile haul, the heat drying and transport would require
ten times as much energy per ton compared to dewatering and
transportation energy requirements. An additional comparison of
energy requirements can be made between dried sludge and inorganic
fertilizer. With the 2% nitrogen and 2% P2C>5 nutrients content
of dried sludge, drying alone would require about ten times as
much energy as producing an equivalent amount of inorganic
fertilizer.
• Evaluation of Dewatered Sludge Vs. Liquid Sludge
The second comparison to be made is between the applica-
tion of dewatered sludge and the direct application of liquid
sludge The greatest single difference between the two is the
type of land area which is most suitable for each type of sludge.
In addition, the transportation mode that is most effective will
have a major impact on the final design of the application system.
The application system characteristics suitable for each type of
sludge are:
349
-------
• Dewatered sludge
• Truck or rail transport
• Decentralized storage
• Application by modified manure spreader
• Application on either privately owned farms
or purchased farms or fields
• Application to either small farms or large
farms
• Liquid sludge - direct application
• Rail or pipeline transport
• Centralized storage
• Application by tank truck or by sprayer
• Application on purchased or private farms,
fields or forests
• Application on large areas
With these differences, we will first determine the best type
of application site; then, second, determine which option (de-
watered vs. liquid) is better for that site.
Land Site Characteristics; An important question is
whether or not a government operated farm should compete with
private farmers, and whether dedicated tracts of land should
be used at all. Recently, Chicago, Philadelphia and several
cities in Ohio have had difficulty in purchasing or otherwise
obtaining dedicated tracts of land for land application of
sludge. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has among its
goals the expansion of agriculture in Massachusetts, and the
growing for sale of crops by a subsidized farm might tend to
drive small private farmers out of business. If presently
operating farms were purchased, this would also be in conflict
with state goals.
Purchase of land outside the MDC service area for
sludge application could be seen as being principally a "dis-
posal" tactic, and based on Philadelphia's experience, it would
be resisted vigorously by the local population. Purchase of
land would also commit that area to long-term use for land
350
-------
application. This, in turn, would result in heavy metals
problems. However, should private farmland be used, long-
term commitments for use of that land would not be necessary.
Thus, for the following reasons, application of sludge to
large dedicated tracts is not feasible:
• Potential problems with obtaining sufficient land
• Adverse effects of competition with private farm
owners
• Potential adverse heavy metals effects from long
term disposal (eliminated by use of limiting metal
concept to control total application)
If the concept of using dedicated lands is abandoned,
the next question is the type of lands to be used for applica-
tion. The choices are farmlands, pasturelands, or forests.
The problems associated with each type of application area are:
• Farmlands
• Potential metals uptake by crops
• Potential pathogen contacts
• Potential loss of nitrogen in seepage and
runoff
• Pasturelands
Direct pathogen contact with animals
Greater metals uptake by grasses
Odor problems caused by non-incorporation of
sludge into soil
Loss of nitrogen to air
Less recovery of nutrients
Forests
Direct pathogen contact with animals
Greater loss of nitrogen to runoff and leaching
Potential aesthetic impacts
Odor problems
Little recovery of nutrients
Adverse impact of new access roads required for
sludge distribution
Of the above possible types of application sites, crop farmlands
offer the fewest negative impacts and the greatest recovery of
nutrients. Because of this recovery of nutrients, application
351
-------
to privately owned farmlands will be more acceptable to farm
owners and will yield an economic advantage to the owners and
to the Commonwealth. Therefore, the most desirable method of
land application is to distribute the sludge to private farm-
lands which are used for crop production. It should be recognized
that the Guidelines for Municipal Sludge Management (EPA, 1975)
favor use of dedicated lands, but the above considerations
outweigh the control difficulties.
With this choice made, the dewatered sludge option is
the better of the two systems because the private farmlands of
Massachusetts are small and dispersed (although principally
found in the Connecticut Valley and in the Bridgewater-Westport
area). An important benefit of using dewatered chemically con-
ditioned sludge is the lime content which mitigates adverse
impacts of metals and also improves soil fertility.
Transportation Modes: The energy cost comparison be-
tween applying liquid and dewatered sludge shows that rail
transportation for the liquid sludge requires 20,000 BTU/ton-
mile (Hirst, 1973), and truck transportation requires 8,000
BTU/ton-mile for the dewatered sludge and 40,000 BTU/ton-mile
for liquid sludge (Ashtakala, 1975). However, the energy cost
for dewatering is approximately 414,000 BTU/ton. Using these
values, a loss of soluble nitrogen with dewatering of 1 percent,
and assuming 10-mile truck load required for liquid sludge, the
distance at which transport of dewatered sludge becomes more
practical than liquid sludge is approximately 50 miles.
Selection and Development of Land Application Systems:
For the above reasons, the application of dewatered sludge to
privately owned farmland (Process Train I) is the preferred
land application option. This becomes a land application
alternative:
• Alternative 5: Dewatering and Land Application
of Sludge
This alternative as originally proposed used the cad-
mium to zinc ratio as a factor to determine the amounts of sludge
applied. The latest EPA guidelines use sludge cadmium concen-
trations to determine the amounts of sludge to be land applied,
both annual and total. These guidelines (see Appendix R) would
allow application of the total amount of MDC sludge, although
at a much lower rate than previously assumed, using the cadmium
to zinc ratio. The guidelines are presented as maximum annual
and maximum cumulative amounts of cadmium applied.
Industrial pretreatment may reduce the cadmium and
other heavy metals amounts to reach the treatment plants. It
352
-------
is possible that the application rate may be increased; or,
alternatively, the total land area needed for application
could be reduced.
• Alternative 6: Dewatering - Land Application
and Landfill
This is a hybrid alternative developed for the Draft
EIS when it was determined that only 50 percent of the blended
sludge of Deer and Nut Islands could be land applied. This
amount was obtained using the cadmium to zinc ratio which no
longer represents the state of the art in regard to the ability
of the soil to accept heavy metals.
The use of two ultimate disposal schemes as originally
proposed would lead to higher energy costs and monetary cost.
Also, there is a loss of potential resource recovery with
respect to the land applied sludge. These facts, coupled with
the current situation regarding soil cadmium additions, lead
to the conclusion that this alternative may not be practical,
and it may be removed from further consideration.
• Detailed Development of Alternatives
Since the basic alternative systems have been established,
it now becomes possible to complete the detailed development of
those alternatives in order to be able to assess their impacts.
In preparing detailed descriptions of the alternatives, several
broad questions must be asked of each alternative. In addition,
there are other specific issues which are unique to particular
alternates. These issues of general and unique interest are
summarized below and will be discussed in detail in the remainder
of this section.
• Location of processing facilities
• Location of disposal/application sites
• Feasibility of recovering thermal energy
• Autogenous incineration (operation without auxiliary fuel)
• Transportation routes to disposal/application sites
• Coincineration
• Grit and screenings
• Pasteurization of sludges to be land applied
*
• Long-term availability of landfill capacity
353
-------
The development of answers to these questions will permit the
complete definition of the alternatives.
• Location of Process Facilities
Since dewatering has been included as a major step in all
of the alternatives chosen, processing should not be planned
at sites other than present treatment plant sites, because
liquid recycle streams will require treatment. Thus the question
becomes whether to centralize processing at Deer Island or to
construct facilities at both plants. Considerations include
the following advantages and disadvantages for single-site
facilities at Deer Island:
• Advantages
• Reduced total land area required
• Availability of land at Deer Island
• Decreased capital costs because of economy of scale
• Decreased requirements for standby equipment
• Reduced impact of air pollution (incineration
alternatives) on sensitive receptors because of the
population of Hull being in the downwind path of
the prevailing wind over Nut Island
• Disadvantages
• Possibility of rupture of sludge transfer line
• Possibility of one sludge being incompatible with
disposal route chosen (e.g., heavy metals concen-
trations too high for land application)
• Construction impacts of sludge force main across
Boston Harbor
Of the disadvantages shown above, the one most subject to
quantification is the impact of rupture of the force main.
Assuming 12 inch diameter for each of two lines and 30,000 feet
length, rupture of one line would result in loss of 58,800 pounds
of sludge, provided the system is equipped with some means of
detecting breakage. The second disadvantage is mitigated in the
hybrid system, Alternative 6, and in fact, Alternative 6 requires
a centralized system in order to mix the two sludges in proper
proportions. The third disadvantage involves underwater con-
struction of approximately 18,000 feet of pipeline, of which
354
-------
10,000 feet would be laid on the mud flats of Long Island. This
construction would parallel previously disturbed areas. Pro-
viding satisfactory pipeline construction methods and providing
that air quality criteria are satisfied, the single plant
scheme is the preferable alternative.
• Location of Disposal and Application Sites
The location of disposal and land application sites has
been developed for landfill, ocean disposal, and land application
alternatives. With passage of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 and promulgation of draft guidelines for
landfilling of residues, the differences between landfills for
hazardous and nonhazardous wastes can be tabulated as shown in
Table EE-5.
a. Landfill Sites
• Alternatives 2 and 10
The ash would be disposed of by filling in a man-made
lagoon on the east side (ocean) for nonhazardous ash and on the
western edge (harbor side) of Deer Island for hazardous ash.
The lagoon would be created by walling off an eight acre portion
of the harbor with a cofferdam. Then ash would be pumped into
the lagoon, gradually displacing the water inside.
If the ash is determined to be hazardous, additional
measures to insure that no environmental damage occurs must be
undertaken. These measures are provided by the Resource Conser-
vation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA).
• Alternative 9
Spectacle Island has been used as a dump for approxi-
mately fifty years. In 1960, after the dump was abandoned, fire,
probably from spontaneous combustion, broke out and continues
to the present (MAPC, 1962). The island is 97 acres in size
and could accommodate the expected nonhazardous ash volumes.
While use of harbor islands for landfilling is specifically
forbidden by state law, nonhazardous ash may be used for re-
grading to restore aesthetic quality.
• Alternatives 8 and 11
Ash would be disposed of at an inland site on Deer
Island. A sanitary landfill or hazardous wastes landfill would
be constructed near the plant site. The regulations for opera-
tion and maintenance of the landfill, as provided by RCRA, would
be complied with.
355
-------
TABLE BE-5
COMPARISON OF LANDFILLS FOR
HAZARDOUS AND NONHAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Character1stic
Leachate control
Hazardous Fill Site
Recover and treat
Nonhazardous Fill Site
No criteria except
groundwater protection
Liner•
Natural material
(7 ft. of material
with permeability of
10~5 cm/sec)
Either natural or plastic
material membrane
Controlling agency
USEPA
State -Solid Wastes Agency
or subagency
Monitoring wells
Quality data sent
to USEPA
Quality data to state
agency
356
-------
For nonhazardous ash, the ultimate disposal may include
beneficial reuse for site regrading. For hazardous ash, a fill
site has been assigned at the lower end of Deer Island as shown
in Figure EE-1. This site has been provided as part of the
planning for secondary facilities at the Deer Island wastewater
treatment plant (EPA, 1978 ). The total area available is 7.3 ha
(18.0 ac) . Allowing for select fill for berm and liner, a fill
depth of 12.2 m (40 ft) will yield a fill service life of 20 years
with a bulk ash density of 800 kg/m3 (50 Ib/ft3).
• Alternative 1
Ash would be disposed of at one of three possible sites.
This alternative deals with ash as a nonhazardous material. The
sites are sanitary landfills, approved for nonhazardous waste
disposal.
• Plainville Site - The site is located near the
Interstate Route 495 and U. S. Route 1 intersection. The area
of the site approved for operation is 107 acres. An approved
leachate control and recovery system exists on site (Kennedy,
1975). At present, no special wastes (as defined by the state)
are accepted (Russ, 1978). Recent information shows this site
is now closed (Leighton, 1978).
• Amesbury Site - The site is located on Hunt Road
approximately 5 miles west of Route 95. The site area approved
at present is 24 acres. At the moment they are encountering
difficulties with their plans for expansion (St. Hilaire, 1978).
• Randolph Site - Located off Canton Street, near
the Route 24 and Route 128 intersection. This site is the closest
to the treatment plants. The landfill is currently unapproved
for it is under order to correct an existing leachate problem
and is experiencing difficulties with proposed expansion plans
(St. Hilaire, 1978) .
• Ocean Disposal Sites: Based on the discussion,
barging sludge to deep water is the most feasible and environ-
mentally sound ocean disposal alternative for both ash >and
dewatered sludge. Three potential dump sites were discussed by
Pratt, Saila, Gaines and Grout (1973). They were: Stellwagen
Basin, 25 miles from Boston; Jeffreys Basin, 15 miles from-
Portsmouth, New Hampshire; and the Murray Wilkinson Basin, about
60 miles from Boston. They felt the latter was of particular
interest because of its great depth. It is closed below 200
meters and has extensive area" below 260 meters. Two of these,
Stellwagen Basin and Jeffreys Basin, appear unsuitable. Both
are shallow in comparison to the open basin of the Gulf, and both
are relatively close to shore. All three are located in important
fishery areas. Fisheries data indicates that the deepest areas
357
-------
300
300 600
FINAL
SETTLING
TANKS
PRIMARY,
SETTLING
TANKS
SLUDGE
MANAGEMENT
BUILDING
PRIMARY
SETTLING
TANKS
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
CHLORINE CONTACT TANKS
EFFLUENT
PUMPING
STATION
DRUMLIN
OUTLINE
LEGEND
II
LI
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
OTHER EXISTING STRUCTURES
NEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
REQUIRED-YEAR 2OOO
FUTURE EXPANSION - YEAR 2050
_ AREA FOR PRIMARY
SLUDGE ASH
DISPOSAL
INFLUENT
PUMPING
STATION
FIGURE II-l
DISPOSAL SITE FOR HAZARDOUS ASH, ALTERNATIVE 11
[SOURCE: EPA, 1-978 ]
358
-------
of the Gulf of Maine provide lower fisheries yields than do
intermediate depths or the banks along the seaward edge. Of
the three, the Murray-Wilkinson Basin is the deepest, is the
furthest removed from shore, and is likely to support the most
restricted biota. Figure shows the area of the Murray-
Wilkinson Basin within 60 NM of Boston. Depths greater than
100 and 200 M are contoured. It is recommended that any dumping
be restricted to a portion of this area, preferably at a site
where the depth exceeds 200 meters. However, site specific
surveys would have to be completed prior to any selection.
Such a survey should stress hydrographic conditions, particularly
water movements and sediment conditions, and an extensive
biological survey of the area. Dumping must be confined to a
well marked area where continuous monitoring of the sludge can
be reasonably conducted.
c. Land Application Sites; Land requirements for land
application alternatives include sites for storage of sludge
and farmland for the actual application. The site locations for
possible storage area are presently the object of discussion within
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and have not yet been identified.
Conditions most favorable for land application of sludge are
generally also those most suited for farming. Soils should have
a moderately rapid permeability, with the optimum rate between
0.63 and 6.3 inches per hour. A rapid permeability of greater
than 6.3 inches per hour may result in leaching, and a slow per-
meability of less than 0.2 inches per hour does not allow exten-
sive plant growth. The texture of the soil should be between
fine sandy loams to silt loams, although other soil types may be
used if the quantity of sludge is monitored to keep the soil from
remaining saturated. Application of sludge should not result
in the rising of the water table, and the root zone should remain
unsaturated to permit acceptable growing conditions for plants.
Initial examination of land use data from the Massachu-
setts May Down (1971) revealed sufficient tilled land for application
of sludge on a long-term basis. The criteria used in this selection
were:
• that the land is presently (1971) used for row crops;
• that the slopes of the land are less than 10 percent;
• that tract sizes of less than 40 acres were not
considered.
359
-------
U)
en
o
100 Meters in Depth
200 Meters in Depth
. THAT PORTION OF THE MURRAY-WILKINSON
BASIN (SHADED AREA) WITHIN 60 NM OF
BOSTON. <
-------
Site selection based on these criteria results in a key assump-
tion: that the land presently under cultivation for crops has
the proper characteristics for land application. This is important
because there is a lack of published data on the soil characteristics
of Massachusetts counties. Therefore, the use of active farming
areas as a predictive tool to locate land of proper quality for
land application is a reasonable substitution for the lack of
adequate soil data because land that is only marginal for farming
would be the first land allowed to revert to "old field" status.
Also, lands subject to development pressure and concomitant high
taxation would revert to nonfarm uses more rapidly, and any
remaining tracts would be small.
Figure indicates the location of possible suitable
land application sites. Table describes the amount of land
available and the distance the site is from the Deer Island
treatment plant. The weighted average distance from Boston is
69.9 miles. Adding 25 miles for handling and storage yields
an average of 95 miles of transportation.
Application rates of the sludge are limited by the crop
to be grown. Appendix R indicates the methodology used to
determine the amount of sludge that may be applied to a field
if the field is to be used for a corn crop.
• Energy Recovery from Incinerator Off-Gas
In their work on the MDC project, Havens and Emerson, Ltd.,
have included energy recovery from the hot off-gasses of incin-
eration. In the system envisioned by Havens and Eirerson, the
efficiency was predicted at 38%, based on the fact that the
loss of efficiency (about 15%) in fuel burning normally used
in power boiler computations need not be included. The best
efficiency of a complete system in the power industry is approx-
imately 38% which, with the 85% fuel efficiency, yields a boiler
efficiency of 45% in comparison to the 38% from Havens and Emer-
son.
In a similar study for the New York-New Jersey Metropolitan
Area (ISC, 1975) the feasibility of heat recovery was investiga-
ted, with the conclusion that it was infeasible, except when
after-burners were operating. The reason for this feasibility
was that a boiler exit temperature of 500°F was recommended in
order to prevent fouling of the boiler tubes.
In a similar study by EPA Region V for Columbus, Ohio, the
question of feasibility of energy recovery was also addressed
(U.S. EPA, 1978A), using a boiler exit temperature of about
500°F. Under these conditions and with a daily incinerator
loading comparable to 1985 conditions at Deer Island (90-100
tons per day vs. 127.5 tons per day), the estimated cost of
electricity produced was $0.03/KWH. Comparing this to the
$0.045/KWH cost of commercial electrical power (Boston Edison,
1978) shows that energy recovery is economically feasible. This
is evaluated in more detail in Appendix T.
361
-------
Vermont
New H
hi
L- -
M
59
<*>
- i--1
i .ti
Connecticut I I
ffTMt-oM
42* Xsprjngfieid
FIGURE
. SUITABLE SITES FOR LAND APPLICATIONS
OF SLUDGE.
[See Table IV-2 for Site Identification]
-------
TABLE
SUITABLE SITES FOR LAND APPLICATION
Site Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Topographic Sheets
Westport
Westport
Westport
Westport
Assonet
Assonet
Assonet
Assonet
Assawompset Pond
Assawompset Pond
Bridgewater
Bridgewater
Bridgewater
Bridgewater
Whitman
Wrentham
Wrentham
Med field
Medfield
Holliston
Milford
Milford
Holliston
363
Acres
125
218
1,839
845
288
45
148
48
400
60
380
778
250
290
690
106
333
150
247
180
136
276
45
Miles
From
Boston
56
54
52
50
36
35
33
32
33
34
29
26
26
23
21
29
25
18
23
27
34
34
26
-------
TABLE III-10(Contd.)
SUITABLE SITES
Site Number
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
FOR LAND APPLICATION
Topographic Sheets
Medfield
Natick
Holliston
Framingham
Milford
Framingham
Natick
South Groveland
Barre
Ware
North Brookfield
North Brookfield
Warren
Warren
Warren
Warren
Southwick
West Springfield
Southwick
Mount Tom
Mount Tom
Mount Tom
Mount Holyoke
Belchertown
364
Acres
296
109
45
125
45
342
26
530
883
1,389
781
1,498
378
160
422
90
518
3,658
826
634
160
774
1,062
883
Miles
From
Boston
17
19
31
22
32
25
24
25
53
59
54
51
59
62
60
65
91
86
91
87
83
85
79
71
-------
TABLE III-10(Contd.)
SUITABLE SITES
Site Number
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
FOR LAND APPLICATION
Topographic Sheets
Belchertown
Belchertown
Mt. Holyoke
Easthampton
Williamsburg
Mount Toby
Williamsburg
Greenfield
Greenfield
Bernards ton
Northf ield
Bernardston
Bernardston
TOTAL
Acres
397
154
6,938
2,304
339
10,585
1,587
2,022
1,702
1,978
2,784
198
499
54,998 ac.
22,257 ha.
Miles
From
Boston
73
73
79
83
83
77
82
83
78
81
77
83
81
365
-------
• Autogenous Operation (Operation without Auxiliary Fuel)
Appendix S on the state of the art of multiple hearth incin-
eration addresses the question of operation of the incinerators
without fossil fuel inputs. In the incineration system as pro-
posed by the MDC, autogenous operation is theotetically possible.
The principal reason that additional fossil fuels are required
for incinceratos (based on analysis of records from existing
plants) the combustion air feed is fixed, usually at 150% of
the volume required. As Appendix S points out, the effect of
this fixed quantity of air is that when the incincerator is
running at 50% of capacity, the air supply is 300% of that
required or 200% esxess air. Because the thermal energy required
to heat the incoming air is about 300 BTU/pound of air, this
exerts a powerful impact on fuel requirements.
For every 1% reduction in thermal efficiency below that
calculated for autogeny in 1985, the daily fuel requirement
would be approximately 100 gallons per day (@ 143,000 BTU per
gallon). Because the question of energy input is so important
the MDC's consultant has developed an incineration system in
which the combustion air input is variable, depending on the
oxygen requirement and the percentage of incinerator capacity
used. Appendix S recommends several additional measures that
could be taken by the MDC to further insure autogenous opera-
tion. In addition to auxiliary fuel use, start-up fuel will
be required. Each start-up will require 4000 gallons of fuel
(H&E, 1973) , and based on existing plant data (Appendix S),
the start-up frequency will be one start every ten days. On
this basis, the average daily auxiliary fuel requirement will
be 400 gallons.
• Transportation Modes and Routes for Final Disposal
or Application
For the ash and sludge disposal and land application al-
ternatives, there are only a few choices of transportation
modes or routes. Basically, the transportation modes are
dictated by access to the Deer Island plant and the available
intrastate system for Massachusetts.
The Deer Island site in Winthrop has only limited access
roadway alternatives. In this community, truck travel is ex-
cluded along Shore Road fronting the beach area.
The Deer Island site would appear to have three optional
routes, all of which traverse narrow roads fronting on resi-
dential areas.
• Option 1 - Tafts Avenue - Shirley Street - Washington
Street - Pleasant Street - Main Street -
Saratoga Street - Bennington Street - Route 1
366
-------
• Option 2 - Tafts Avenue - Shirley Street - Revere Street -
Main Street - Saratoga Street - Bennington
Street - Route 1
• Option 3 - Tafts Avenue - Shirley Street - Crest Avenue -
Revere Street.- Main Street - Saratoga Street -
Bennington Street - Route 1
The primary problem with each of these options is not related to
capacity, but that the street system within Winthrop was not de-
signed to accommodate heavy truck travel.
Those alternatives which require daily transport of ash or
sludge (Alternatives 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 11) have the option of
passage through Winthrop or transport by barge (in container
trailers) to a dedicated terminal with roll-on, roll-off facil-
ities which would permit subsequent transfer of trailers to the
highway system. Advantages and disadvantages of each of these
options are:
• Advantages of transport through Winthrop
• Fewer transfers of trailers
• Reduced capital and operating costs
• No channel dredging impact (required for barging
scheme)
• Advantages of transport via barge
• No impact on Winthrop streets or on residents
• Reduced energy costs
• Increased storage capacity
Although the relatively low volume of ash transported under
Alternative 1 would reduce the impacts on the Winthrop residents,
the lower cost disadvantage for cross-harbor barging would not
outweigh the benefits to the community. Therefore, the barge
transfer link between Deer Island and the terminal will be in-
cluded in all land oriented disposal or application alternatives.
The second topic under transportation is the choice between
rail and truck transportation of sludge for land application.
(Use of rail for daily ash transportation to disposal was not
considered because of the small quantity involved). Rail trans-
port would be ideal for several reasons including reduced energy
demand and reduced highway traffic impacts. A method was devel-
oped for transporting either sludge or ash in trailers which could
be "piggy-backed" on to flatcars. Then the costs of flatcar trans-
port was investigated in discussions with Boston and Maine Railroad
(Hanrahan, 1975). The rail transport costs between the terminal
and the East Cambridge yards, and between East Cambridge and
367
-------
Fitchburg would be about $2 million per year to accommodate 1985
sludge volume conditions. In addition, truck tractors for trans-
port from the railhead to the storage site would still be required.
For these reasons rail transport as an option was abandoned. The
system of truck transportation adopted does not preclude periodic
review of transport cost and energy effectiveness should the
Conrail reorganization radically change rail rates in the
northeast.
Given the above development, the transportation scheme for
each alternative can be summarized in Table III-ll.
• Coincineration
This section considers the possibility of incineration
sewage sludge from Deer and Nut Islands, along with municipal
solid refuse in a steam generating facility. Proposed systems
include coincineration with the solid waste from Boston in a new
facility, at the RESCO facility in Saugus, or at the West Suburban
Project facility in Stoughton.
In November of 1976, the Metropolitan District Commission
released this feasibility study for an integrated waste manage-
ment system for the Boston, Massachusetts area, prepared by
Stone & Webster. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the
technical, environmental, and financial feasibility of cotreatment
of solid waste and municipal sewage sludge in the Boston Metropolitan
Area. Final disposal of the ash would be the same as for separate
incineration, except that the two ashes would be mixed. From an
air pollution standpoint, total emissions would be the same for
either case, but coincineration would result in higher peak
concentrations because of the single large point source.
The City of Boston's Public Works Department (PWD) is
responsible for collection and disposal of solid waste from
domestic sources. The PWD has the option of collection and
disposal of commercial and industrial refuse for a fee, but
so far has not exercised this option. Because the city-owned
incinerator at South Bay has been shut down by court order due
to air pollution problems, the PWD has been forced to contract
private disposal companies to replace the disposal capacity
of the incinerator. The city plans to have a new incineration
facility constructed and operated for a period of 20-plus years
by a private corporation. Therefore, the two monotreatment plans
(sludge and solid waste) and a cotreatment plan were examined
in the feasibility study.
368
-------
TABLE
TRANSPORTATION SCHEMES FOR THE TEN ACTION ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternatives 3 & 4
Alternative 5
Alternative 6
Alternative 8
Alternative 9
Alternative 10
Alternative 11
Barge transport of ash in containerized
trailers to a dedicated on-shore terminal;
then truck transport to chosen landfill
site
On-site disposal; no transport
Barge transport to Murray-Wilkinson Basin
Barge transport to an on-shore terminal;
truck transport to dispersed storage sites
Barge transport to a terminal; truck trans-
port to dispersed storage sites (50%) or
to the chosen landfill site (50%)
Truck transport to Deer Island site
Barge transport to Spectacle Island
On-site disposal; no transport
Truck transport to Deer Island site
369
-------
The approach which was used to evaluate the feasibility of
cotreatment was to first examine several alternative cotreatment
processes, select the optimum plan, and then compare that plan
to the separate treatment plans developed by MDC and PWD. The
alternatives selected for consideration were composting, pyroly-
sis, and incineration. Solid waste and sludge pretreatment pro-
cesses necessary for pyrolysis or incineration as well as several
types of incineration were examined. Each cotreatment alterna-
tive was evaluated on the basis of waste pretreatment needs,
the treatment process itself, environmental impacts and markets
for services and by-products. Additionaly, the possibility of
providing an initial incineration process which would eventually
be convertible to a pyrolytic operation was considered through-
out the various evaluations.
Composting was rejected as a feasible alternative because
(1) the land area required is not available, (2) the adequacy
of the market for the compost product and the acceptability of
the product in terms of heavy metal toxicity are questionable,
and (3) the cost of the process was relatively high. Pyrolysis
was considered infeasible as an initial alternative because
(1) it is a relatively new technology and (2) the cost estimates
indicate both high capital and annual operating costs. Several
types of incineration (water wall, dry wall, multiple hearth,
and fluid bed) were examined with the main objective being that
of finding a low risk system capable of cotreating Boston's
solid waste and the MDC sludge. Each process type has its
advantages and disadvantages with respect to process adaptabil-
ity, successful operating history, and by-product generation.
The selected system consists of a water wall boiler with separ-
ate dry sludge and solid waste entrance points, dry quenching
of ash and magnetic ferrous material separation from the resi-
due. The capital and operating costs for this basic system
installed at either of two possible locations, South Bay and
Deer Island, were analyzed to determine the optimum site/system
alternative. Facilities at the South Bay site would consist of
two boilers, each having a capacity of 850 TPD, sludge drying
equipment, electrostatic precipitators, ferrous recovery and
residue conveyors, and an underground steam connection. The
Deer Island site would incorporate the same basic systems ex-
cept that steam would be piped to two 20,000 KW turbogenerators
for power production instead of being piped into the existing
Boston Edison district heating system. The South Bay facility
would require delivery of solid waste to the site via packer
truck and transportation of dewatered sludge via truck and
barge from the sewage treatment plants. The Deer Island site
would necessitate truck-barging of solid waste and sludge from
370
-------
for the ?wo si?e L Siand' A C™V*^™ of the capital costs
below The cos? J? » °™ Wlth and witho^ grants is given
is also irSiSS Si Privately-owned facility at South Bay
is also included below (Stone & Webster, 1976).
Capital Cost
South Bay Deer Island
Without Grants $45,781,000 $60,419,000
With Grants 39,428,000 52,561,000
Privately Owned 51,327,000
By-product markets and revenues for each facility site
were estimated on the basis of a 1,500 TPD facility. The cost
of operation and estimated revenues from the sale of by-products
were used to establish an estimated net cost of operation for
each facility with and without grants. The resulting operating
costs are shown below.
Annual Operating Cost
South Bay Deer Island
Without Grants $ 8,836,000 $10,475,000
With Grants 8,294,000 9,805,000
Private Operations
With Private
Financing 10,127,000
With Tax Exempt
Financing 9,309,000
On the basis of capital and operating cost estimates the
South Bay site with grants would be selected as the most econ-
omical. Additionally, an analysis of the regional costs gen-
erated by a cotreatment system was conducted and the results
are given below.
Regional Costs
South Bay Deer Island
Without Grants $5,053,000 $6,618,000
With Grants 4,177,000 5,622,000
Again it would appear that the South Bay with grants option
would be the optimum plan. However, a serious problem with
this plan is that the annual cost to the MDC would be approxi-
mately $1,000,000 more if the South Bay site were selected.
371
-------
The higher cost is largely due to sludge hauling costs. The
resulting dilemma is that although the region would benefit
by cotreating at South Bay, that benefit would be at the ex-
pense of a state agency, the MDC.
In assessing the environmental impacts of a cotreatment
system located at the South Bay or Deer Island site, air
quality, noise, socioeconomic, terrestrial ecology, water
quality and energy consumption were all taken into account.
The most adverse environmental effects of cotreatment were
found to be in connection with air quality. However, due to
the present air quality conditions, neither site could be con-
sidered preferable. The following table gives the environmen-
tal analysis results showing the preferred site marked by an
(X).
Neither South Bay Deer Island
Air Quality X
Noise X
Socioeconomic X
Water Quality X
Terrestrial Ecology X
Energy Consumption X
From the above table, it can be seen that the South Bay
site would also be preferable on an overall environmental
basis. Therefore, in consideration of capital, operating and
regional costs, and environmental impacts, the South Bay Co-
treatment Facility Plan is considered the optimum plan to be
compared with the two monotreatment plans.
In comparing the optimum cotreatment plan with the two
monotreatment plans, a multi-case comparison of capital and
operating cost was conducted with the following results:
Capital Costs (Public Ownership)
Without Grants With Grants
Coincineration (Optimum Case)
South Bay $45,781,000 $39,428,000
Sludge Dewatering 7,600,000 760,000
Total $53,381,000 $40,188,000
Monotreatment (Separate Plants)
South Bay $39,555,000 $39,555,000
Deer Island 32,230,000 3,223,000
Total $71,785,000 $42,778,000
372
-------
Operating Costs (Public Ownership)
Without Grants With Grants
South Bay Coincineration
Sludge Dewatering at Deer Island
Sludge Hauling to South Bay
Total
$ 8,836,000
1,628,000
1,551,000
$12,015,000
$ 8,294,000
1,080,000
1,551,000
$10,924,000
Monotreatment at South Bay
Monotreatment at Deer Island
Total
$ 7,910,000
4,209,000
$12,119,000
$ 7,910,000
1,883,000
$ 9,793,000
Fron the preceding cost information, it can be seen that on
a capital cost basis, each monotreatment plan is less costly
than the optimum cotreatment plan. However, the total cost of
monotreatment to the Boston community as a whole would be greater
than cotreatment at South Bay. On an annual operating cost basis
the monotreatment plans with grants would be the least costly.
Several conclusions have been drawn from this coincineration
feasibility study as evaluated by Stone & Webster Management Con-
sultants, Inc. :
(1) Cotreatment (coincineration) is technically and environ-
mentally feasible.
(2) Cotreatment is not economically feasible when compared
with the separate monotreatment plans of the MDC and
Boston PWD. The cost of transportation of sludge to
the South Bay site and the current federal and state
grant systems are the major contributors to the economic
infeasibility of cotreatment.
(3) The most economical sludge disposal method for MDC is
monotreatment at Deer Island will full federal and
state grants.
(4) If cotreatment were to be instituted, Deer Island
would be the most economical site for MDC while South
Bay would be the most economical site for the City of
Boston.
373
-------
(5) The conditions necessary to cause cotreatment to be
economically feasible are: (a) having solid waste
and sewage treatment facilities on the same or ad-
jacent sites, (b) having one agency responsible for
both solid waste and sewage disposal, (c) having a
market for steam in close proximity to the facility,
and (d) having federal money available for solid
waste disposal through a grant system similar to
that provided for water pollution control facilities.
Subsequent to the review of the Stone & Webster report by
several agencies, the possibility was raised of co-incinerating
MDC's sludge with the municipal refuse currently being burned at
the RESCO incinerator in Saugus. (approximately 30 miles from
downtown Boston). The RESCO facility is owned by Mr. Dominic
DeMatteo and operated by Wheelabrator/Frye. Because the facility
is currently operating below capacity two issues need to be
explored:
1. Could the facility burn sludge with its solid waste
with little or no design modifications?
2. How would the MDC sludge be transported to Deer Island?
It appears, based on a brief review of the design of the
RESCO incinerator, that it could burn a dewatered sludge and
refuse and still generate steam for the General Electric plant.
The efficiency of the facility would depend on the percent
solids in the sludge cake. Incinerators with a design similar
to the RESCO facility currently burn solid waste and sludge in
Europe.
Transporting the MDC's primary sludge to Saugus appears
to present a slightly more complex problem. Several options
could be considered:
1. Sludge could be dewatered at Deer Island using convent-
ional belt filters. The Nut Island sludge would be transported
to Deer Island via a pipeline under Boston Harbor. Following
the dewatering process the sludge could be transported either
by barge or truck to Saugus.
2. Liquid sludge could be pumped via pipeline to dewatering
facilities at or near the RESCO facility.
The potential advantages of a RESCO/MDC facility are:
1. No new air pollutants would be generated at Deer Island.
374
-------
2. No additional land would be required on Deer Island
for primary sludge management.
3. The MDC ash would be disposed of with the ash currently
generated by the RESCO facility.
4. The RESCO facility currently has excess capacity.
5. Energy would be recovered.
Initial review of the RESCO facility for sludge incineration
also pointed out a number of potential disadvantages.
1. The transportation of sludge to the Saugus Facility
could pose a number of problems. If the dewatered sludge were
carried by truck, approximately 85 trips per day would be requir-
ed through Wintrop.
2. Barging the sludge to Saugus would result in high oper-
ation and maintenance costs which would be borne by the MDC
member communities.
3. Pipelining the sludge to Saugus also presents several
problems:
a. Environmental impacts and social disruption depend-
ing on the location of the pipeline.
b. In order for any portion of the sludge handing
including dewatering equipment to be eligible for federal
financial assistance they must be owned by the MDC. MDC owner-
ship of facilities at the privately owned RESCO facility may
pose problems.
4. Combining the sludge with refuse would result in a
greater amount of air emissions. For the purposes of regulation,
the RESCO facility must comply with the standards of performance
for refuse incinerators. These standards are less stringent
than those set for sewage sludge incinerators.
Based on our review of the RESCO alternative it is EPA's
opinion that this alternative presents very marginal if any
benefits over the alternative to construct a sludge only
facility at Deer Island. It also seems to make more sense to
use the "excess" capacity at RESCO for sludge generated by
communities on the north shore, many of whom now us the RESCO
facility to dispose of their solid waste.
Consideration of the West Suburban Project (WSP) in
Stoughton as a site for coincineration of MDC sludge is subject
375
-------
to the same process of review and eliminations as the RESCO
facility. In addition the possibility of codisposal at WSP
has been eliminated by action of the WSP policy committee.
• Grit and Screenings
Management of grit and screening requires a review at
this point because of the relatively large quantities of grit
and screenings generated at the headworks discharging to the
Deer and Nut Island Plants. The expected quantities are dis-
cussed in Appendix N.
Because of the quality of such substances, the alternatives
using land application are not suited for disposal of grit and
screenings. At the Nut Island plant, grit and screenings are
incinerated in a small (36 ton/day) multiple hearth incinerator.-
Continued use of this incinerator for grit and screenings
appears most desirable for those alternatives not using incin-
eration for sludge processing. Therefore, all incineration
alternatives would include incineration of grit and screenings
with primary sludge. Alternatives 4, 5, and 6 would include
the incineration of grit and screenings from the headworks and
Deer Island at the Nut Island incinerator with ash disposal via
the major disposal route. Because the skimmings are typically
low in metals, this sould have little effect on quality of
material.
• Pasteurization
The Draft Technical Bulletin Guidelines include four alter-
native pathogen control techniques; the four alternative methods
are (EPA, 1975A); pasteurization for 30 minutes at 70°C, high
pH treatment, typically with line, at a pH greater than 12 for
3 hours, long term storage of liquid sludge, 60 days at 20°C or
120 days at 4°C or complete composting, temperatures above 55°C,
due to bacterial oxidation for 30 days. It sould be noted that
the Bulletin does not require pathogen control beyond stabil-
ization on all projects.
At the beginning of this project, a tenative determination
was made by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering (DEQE) that pasteurization would be required for
sludges applied to land (Anderson, 1975). However, that recom-
mendation was not a firm policy statement, nor a specific depart-
mental requirement. At the present time, DEQE is actively
determining what the departmental policy should be on that
matter. But since the initial response was to require pasteuri-
zation, it was included in Alternatives 5 and 6 which propose
that sludge be applied to farmland.
376
-------
• Long Term Availability of Landfill Capacity
For all of the land-oriented alternatives except Alternative
5, some landfill capacity is required for ultimate disposal
Alternatives 1, 2, 8, 9, 10 and 11 all require 689,000 cubic
yards of capacity for 20 years of operation and Alternative 6
would require 2,210,000 cubic yards of capacity for 20 years.
For Alternative 1, capacities would have to be available
at inland landfill sites operated by either private owners or
by other agencies. The landfills at either Amesbury or
Randolph may have this much capacity but this is unlikely.
The Clean Communities landfill at Plainville is nearly filled
and expansion appears unlikely (I. Leighton, 1978).
For Alternatives 2 and 10, using cofferdammed fill sites
either on the east ocean or on the harbor side of Deer Island,
the size of the cofferdammed areas is based on the amount of
ash for disposal, and would be sized for 20 years operation.
For Alternative 8, fill of non-hazardous ash can be used
for site regrading at Deer Island, and thus the site capacity
would be adequate.
For Alternative 9, fill of non-hazardous ash on Spectacle
Island for use as grading material, the fill depth required
(using about 16.2 ha or 40 acres for regrading) would be about
0.16m (0.53 ft) per year of use. Therefore, for 20 years use,
the fill depth would be 3.2m (10.6 ft). According to recent
information received (Ackerman, 1978), the Spectacle Island site
is to be available as a recreation site within one to five years.
Considering that two years minimum will be necessary for instal-
lation of equipment only 0.48 m (1.59 ft) of ash could be
applied.
For Alternative 11, the 18 acre fill site at the lower
end of Deer Island will be adequate for 20 years operation.
377
#U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979-A-1093/293
------- |