vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region I
J.F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
Environmental
Impact Statement
MDC Proposed Sludge
Management Plan,
Metropolitan District
Commission,
Boston, MA.
Part B Volume I
Final
-------
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
MDC Proposed Sludge Management Plan,
Metropolitan District Commission, Boston, Massachusetts
Lead Agency:
Cooperating Federal Agencies:
Responsible Official:
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
For Additional Information
Contact:
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
federal Register.
-------
VOLUME I
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:
William R. Adams, Jr.
Regional Administrator
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME I
Page
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................... vi
LIST OF TABLES ........................................... viii
INTRODUCTION ............................................. xi
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED ACTION
A. Background ...................................... I-l
1. Location and Identification of the
Study Area ............................... I-1
2. Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities.... 1-5
B. Purpose of the Proposed Project ................. 1-14
1. Chronology of Administrative and
Planning Activities ...................... 1-14
2. Goals and Objectives ........................ 1-19
C. Applicant's Proposed Project .................... 1-22
1. General Description ......................... 1-22
2. Basic Design Criteria - Phase I ............. 1-25
3. Estimates of Cost - Phase 1 ................. 1-26
II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
A. Topography ........................... • • ......... II-l
B. Geology ......................................... II-l
1 . Continental ................................. II-l
2 . Massachusetts Bay ........................... II-3
C. Soils and Sediment .............................. II-4
1. Soils... .................................... JI-4
2 . Boston Harbor Bottom Sediments .............. 11-10
D. Hydrology ....................................... 11-10
1. Freshwater .................................. 11-11
2 . Marine Waters - Boston Harbor ............... 11-21
3. Marine Waters - Massachusetts Bay ........... 11-28
-------
Page
II. E. Ecology 11-33
1. Terrestrial and Wetlands Ecology 11-33
2. Deer Island Beaches 11-35
3. Boston Harbor Biota 11-36
4. Massachusetts Bay Biota 11-37
F. Crops "-J0
G. Environmentally Sensitive Areas 11-41
1. Surface Waters 11-41
2. Marshland, Wetlands and Estuaries 11-41
3. Floodplains or Flood-Retention Areas 11-44
4. Groundwater Recharge Areas 11-44
5. Steeply Sloping Lands 11-44
6. Forests and Woodlands 11-44
7. Prime Agricultural Lands 11-44
8. Habitats of Rare and Endangered Species—. 11-45
9. Public Outdoor Recreation Areas 11-45
10. Sensitive Geologic Areas 11-45
11. Archaeological and Historic Sites 11-45
H. Existing Ambient Air Quality 11-45
1. Total Suspended Particulates 11-47
2. Sulfur Oxides (Sulfur Dioxide) 11-47
3. Carbon Monoxide 11-50
4. Nitrogen Dioxide 11-50
5. Photochemical Oxidants 11-50
I. Existing Ambient Noise 11-51
J. Public Health 11-54
K. Historic Places 11-56
L. Archaeology 11-59
M. Transportation 11-60
1. Highway System 11-60
2. Rail Services 11-61
3. Shipping IT~6l
4. Air Travel 11-63
N. Energy Resources 11-63
0. Aesthetics • 11-64
P. Population and Socioeconomic Character 11-67
1. Population 11-68
2. Social and Economic Data 11-71
3. Economic Characteristics of Farm Operators. 11-71
-------
Page
Q. Land Use and Planning 11-71
1. Massachusetts: Existing Land Use 11-71
2. Massachusetts' Planning Objectives 11-73
3. Boston Area - Existing Land Use 11-80
4. Boston Area Planning Objectives 11-83
III. DEVELOPMENT OF SLUDGE PROCESS AND DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
A. Development of the Selection Process and Disposal
Options III-l
B. Description of Alternatives to be Analyzed
for Acceptability III-l
C. Screening Alternatives for Compliance with
Federal Legislation III-4
D. Hazardous and Non-Hazardous Wastes III-7
E. Process Streams and Inputs for Construction
and Operation 111-14
1. Quality and Quantity of Liquid and
Solid Emissions 111-14
2. Process and Transportation Inputs of
Labor, Materials and Energy, and
Costs 111-16
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES
A. Description of Analysis System IV-1
B. Environmental Analyses of Differential
Impacts.
IV-13
1. Soils IV-13
2. Marine Sediments and Water Quality.... IV-15
3. Surface and Groundwater Quality and
Quantity IV-15
4. Air Quality IV-16
5. Biotic Communities IV-17
6. Public Health and Noise IV-20
7. Economic Impacts IV-22
8. Energy Impacts IV-2 3
9. Land Use Impacts IV-24
10. Transportation IV-25
11. Historical and Archaeological Sites IV-25
12. Aesthetic Impacts IV-25
111
-------
V. SELECTION OF RECOMMENDED PROJECT Page
A. Summary Comparison and Selection of Best
Action Alternatives ........................... V-l
B. Selection of the Best Action Alternative ...... V-7
C. Detailed Description of Recommended Project
Alternatives .................................. v~8
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION OF THE RECOMMENDED
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
A. Summary of Environmental Impacts and
Mitigating Measures ........................... Vi-1
B. Adverse Impacts that Cannot be Avoided ........ VI-1
C. Relationship Between Local Short Term Use of
the Environment and Maintenance and Enhance-
ment of Long Term Productivity ............... Vi-10
D. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of
Resources to the Recommended Project, Should
it be Implemented ............................. VI-11
VII. COMMENTS TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT AND RESPONSES
A. Introduction and Summary ...................... VII-1
B. Comments and Responses ....................... VII-1
1. Land Application ........... .............. VII-1
2. Landfill .......... ' ....................... VII-7
3. Fertilizer Production ..................... VII-10
4 . Ocean Disposal ........................... VII-10
5. Impacts on Harbor ........................ VII-12
6. Incinerator Processes .................... VII-13
7 . Coincineration ........................... VII- 16
8 . Air Quality ............................. VII-17
9. Pasteurization ............... ............ VII-20
10. Pretreatment ............................. VII-21
11. Transportation of Sludge or Ash ........... VII-22
12 . Continued Studies ........................ VII-23
13 . Resource Recovery .................... .... VII-25
IV
-------
Page
14. Energetics VII-26
15. Historical and Archaeological VII-27
16. Matrix VII-28
17. Corrections VII-30
18. Other Questions VII-32
19. Questions Raised by Members of the
Massachusetts Assembly VII-35
v
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Title Page
Section I
1-1 New England and the Northeast: General 1-2
Location Map
1-2 Commonwealth of Massachusetts, General 1-3
Location Map
1-3 Boston Harbor Detailed Location Map 1-4
1-4 Metropolitan District Commission: Member 1-6
Communities & Sewerage Service Area
1-5 Existing MDC Sewerage Facilities 1-7
1-6 Schematic of Unit Processes, Deer Island 1-8
Treatment Plant
1-7 Schematic of Unit Processes, Nut Island 1-12
Treatment Plant
1-8 Chronology of the Planning for Sludge 1-17
Management in Boston Harbor
1-9 Waste Sludge Management Schematic: 1-24
Recommended Phase I Project Plan (1985)
Section II
II-l Areas of Interest in the Gulf of Maine II-5
II-2 Sediments off the Atlantic Coast of the II-6
United States
II-3 Sediments off the Atlantic Coast of the II-7
United States Classified by Contributing
Agent & Age
II-4 Boston Harbor Water Quality Classifications 11-13
II-5 Mean Annual Precipitation, in Inches 11-18
II-6 Average Annual Runoff, in Inches 11-19
II-7 River Basins & Selected Water Quality 11-20
Sampling Sites
II-8 Current Directions - Maximum Flood 11-22
II-9 Current Directions - Maximum Ebb 11-23
11-10 Outdoor Day-Night Sound Level in dB (re 20 11-52
Micropascals) at Various Locations
11-11 Location of Historic Sites in Vicinity of 11-57
Boston Harbor
11-12 Major Railroad Routes in the Commonwealth of 11-62
Massachusetts
11-13 Massachusetts Planning Regions 11-77
11-14 Eastern Massachusetts Planning Areas 11-79
11-15 Dartmouth College Remote Sensing Study Area 11-81
VI
-------
Number Title Page
Section III
III-l Location of Alternative Fill Sites 111-15
Section V
V-l Approximate Locations of Construction V-6
Areas for Recommended Project
VI1
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number Title
Section I
1-1 Summary of Deer Island Treatment Plant 1-10
Operations
1-2 Summary of Nut Island Treatment Plant 1-13
Operations
1-3 Capital Costs - Phase I 1-27
1-4 Total Annual Costs - Phase I (1985) 1-28
Section II
II-l Geologic Time Scale II-2
II-2 Characteristics of Representative Soil II-9
Series
II-3 Metal Concentrations in the Soils of 11-10
Massachusetts Farms
II-4 Summary of Water Quality, State of 11-12
Massachusetts
II-5 Water Budget for Massachusetts 11-15
II-6 Nutrient Concentration for Selected Sampling 11-16
Sites
II-7 Water Analysis from Selected Stream Basins 11-17
II-8 Metal Concentrations 11-14
II-9 New England Aquarium Data Set 1970-1972 11-26
11-10 Average Trace Metal Concentrations Measured 11-29
in Boston Harbor Waters During 1972 -
Soluble and Particulate Phases (ppb)
11-11 1974 Mass Crop Summary 11-42
11-12 Farm Summary of Selected Counties for 1969 11-43
11-13 Massachusetts and Federal Ambient Air 11-46
Quality Standards
11-14 Violations of National Ambient Air Quality 11-48
Standards, Boston Air Quality Control
Region 1974
11-15 Maximum Concentrations of the Monitored 11-49
1974 Ambient Air Quality Data in
Boston Air Quality Control Region
11-16 Ambient Noise Levels 11-53
11-17 Respiratory Ailments in the Boston Harbor 11-55
Vicinity
11-18 Boston Edison Service Rate, G-3 11-65
11-19 Massachusetts Electric Company Service Rates 11-66
Vlll
-------
Number Title Page
11-20 Projected Populations - MDC Service Area 11-69
11-21 Population Projections From Sene Report 11-69
(MDC Sewered Municipalities)
11-22 Compound Annual Growth Rates From Sene 11-70
Report
11-23 Population Projections for Quincy and 11-70
Winthrop 11-70
11-24 Farm Operations - Part Time and Full Time 11-72
11-25 1971 Land Use, Commonwealth of Mass. (Acres) 11-74
11-26 Percent of Land Use, Coounty Totals 11-75
11-27 Increase/(Decrease) in Land Use by County 11-76
(Early 50's Versus Early 70"s (Acres)
11-28 Land Use in Boston and Vicinity (1972) 11-82
Section III
III-l Description of Eleven Basin Sludge Handling III-3
and Disposal Alternatives
III-2 Proposed Federal Requirements - Incineration III-9
Criteria for Hazardous and Non-Hazardous
Wastes
III-4 Process Stream Characterization Phase I 111-10
Project, Maintaining Anaerobic Digestion
at Deer & Nut Island Plants with Primary
Treatment Expansion
III-5 Resources and Costs-Onsite Processes 111-18
III-6 Resources and Costs-Transportation and 111-19
Ultimate Disposal
Section IV
IV-1 Impacts Common to all Alternatives IV-2
IV-2 Differentiating Impacts of Alternatives 1 IV-5
IV-3 Differentiating Impacts of Alternatives IV-7
2 and 10
IV-4 Differentiating Impacts of Alternatives IV-9
8 and 11
IV-5 Differentiating Impacts of Alternatives 9 IV-11
Section V
V-l Input Resource Use and Production V-3
Cost of Alternatives V-4
IX
-------
Number Title Page
Section VI
VI-1 Alternative 9 - Summary of Impacts VI-2
VI-2 Alternative 11 - Summary of Impacts VI-5
Section VII
VII-1 Summary of Comments Received VII-2
-------
INTRODUCTION
As a result of the dialogue, enforcement conferences/ and
agreements that took place between 1968 and 1972, there developed
a mutual acknowledgement between MDC, EPA (FWPCA), and the
Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control that there was
a significant water quality problem in Boston Harbor resulting
from the current sludge disposal practices. In compliance with
those agreements, MDC retained Havens and Emerson Ltd. of
Cleveland, Ohio, to prepare a detailed engineering analysis of
three alternative sludge handling and disposal techniques. In
August, 1973, Havens and Emerson presented to the MDC the
"Proposed Sludge Management Plan" for Boston Harbor.
Construction of the incinerators and attendant systems
proposed in the Sludge Management Plan are eligible for Federal
funding. Therefore, MDC was required to prepare an environmental
assessment statement stating the anticipated environmental impacts
.that would result from the proposed project. At that hearing
several statements were submitted by Massachusetts state legis-
lators which actively opposed the concepts put forward by the
proposed plan.
Region I issued a Notice of Intent in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and Executive Order
11514 of March 5, 1970, entitled "Protection and Enhancement of
Environmental Quality." All Federal agencies are required to
prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in connection
with their proposals for major Federal actions having a signifi-
cant impact on the quality of the human environment. EPA, Region
I, Boston, Massachusetts, is the "Responsible Federal Agency"
required by NEPA to prepare the EIS for the proposed sludge
management plan. This EIS has been prepared pursuant to NEPA and
Executive Order 11514 and in accordance with the guidance and
regulations set forth in both the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) guidelines of August 1, 1973, and the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) Final Regulations for Preparation of Environ-
mental Impact Statements (40 FR 72, April 14, 1975). (Appendix AA
contains a reproduction of the April 14 regulations.)
This EIS has been prepared on the Proposed Sludge Management
Plan, as submitted to EPA by the Metropolitan District Commission,
and is based on currently available data and information. The
purpose of the EIS is to evaluate not only the system proposed
by the MDC, but also to expand the scope of the investigation
of feasible alternatives.
XI
-------
During preparation of the Final EIS, significant changes
in the framework of regulations for air quality, water quality
and solid waste classification and disposal occurred. Because
of these changes, several additional alternatives for ultimate
ash disposal were developed, and several earlier alternatives,
focusing on land application or ocean disposal, were eliminated.
This Final EIS follows the format of the Draft EIS. To
assist the reader in identifying new or changed information we
have provided the following aids:
- New information added since the Draft EIS was printed
is identified by a black line in the right margin.
- Information which as changed because of changes in
Federal Legislation, policy, regulations or guidelines is screened
and appears as lighter type. This information should be read
in conjunction with the Executive Summary to fully understand
the effect of these changes.
xxi
-------
SECTION I
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED ACTION
The following section of the environmental impact statement con-
tains information concerning existing sewage treatment facilities,
as well as a description of the proposed sludge disposal plan for
the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC). The discussion locates
the study area, and defines the goals and objectives of the proposed
project. This section includes a description of the existing Deer
Island and Nut Island wastewater treatment plants, as well as their
current operating characteristics. The following discussion also
presents a history of the planning which has preceded and given
rise to this impact statement. And, finally, the plan for sludge
disposal as proposed by the applicant, MDC, is presented in detail.
Information developed in this section will be incorporated into a
detailed analysis (environment, energy, monetary costs) of not
only the proposed action, but also an evaluation of feasible
alternatives to the applicant's proposed project.
-------
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED ACTION
A. Background
1. Location and Identification of the Study Area
The area limits discussed below have been selected in order
to properly locate not only the area of the proposed project, but
those areas immediately or potentially affected by alternatives
to the project. For this EIS, the area limits of interest are
as follows:
a. New England Region; Figure 1-1 locates the Boston
metropolitan area in relation to the major rivers of New England
and the Northeast. The proposed project would be located on Deer
Island in Boston Harbor. The Boston Harbor area is situated in
the Massachusetts Coastal Drainage Area, and this drainage area
is under the jurisdiction of the New England River Basin Commission
(NERBC). New England is also defined as the area of responsibility
for Region I of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, preparer
of this EIS.
b. Commonwealth of Massachusetts: Figure 1-2 is a
general location map for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, its
counties and principal cities. The site of the proposed action
is also located on this map.
While the proposed project would potentially affect only
the Boston metropolitan area, one of the major alternatives to that
action would encompass the State. Therefore, for some aspects of
this EIS, the State as a whole may be considered as being the study
area. However, due to the size of the Commonwealth, the portions
of the study which are concerned with the entire State will by
necessity be limited to general discussions, as compared to the
detailed development associated with more restricted geographical
areas.
c. Boston Harbor; Figure 1-3 indicates the specific
location of the proposed action in relation to the Boston Harbor
area. Under the proposed project, it is the Harbor area which would
be most significantly affected. The water and bottom sediment qual-
ity of Boston Harbor, as well as the future air quality of the
Boston Air Quality Control Region, are the primary reasons why this
EIS has been generated. Portions of the EIS which deal with this
specific locale will receive detailed site-specific evaluations,
since here we will be dealing with a reasonably confined geographical
area.
The Boston Metropolitan Planning Council (MAPC) and the
NERBC are the principal regional agencies having jurisdiction over
the project area.
1-1
-------
PROPOSED
PROJECT
SITE
FIGURE 1-1
NEW ENGLAND & THE NORTHEAST;
GENERAL LOCATION MAP
1-2
-------
I
PROJECT SITE
',
1
• '
\
'
'
Connecticut
-, . i 4
i_r
i
i
^Rhode
i
i
Island
,-' V--1
V
*/
Lr *> V
.'•
•'
FIGURE 1-2. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS,
GENERAL LOCATION MAP.
-------
BOSTON HARBOR
Site of Proposed Action
INNER
IARKOR
WINTHROP
II ARBOR
PRESIDENT ROADS '
Q i I.\CY
BAY
UING 11 AM
BAY
FIGURE 1-3. BOSTON HARBOR DETAILED LOCATION MAP
1-4
-------
2. Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities
a. Metropolitan District Commission Sewerage Service Area;
The Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) has a service area of
409 square miles, and is made up of 43 member communities. Forty-
two of the MDC communities presently receive sewerage services.
Figure 1-4 identifies the MDC member communities and the sewerage
service area.
The Sewerage Division of the MDC owns and operates two
major wastewater treatment plants (WWTP), the Deer Island and Nut
Island facilities. In fiscal year 1977, these two plants received
a combined average daily wastewater flow of approximately 440 mgd
(million gallons per day).
Both of these treatment facilities provide primary treat-
ment, sludge digestion, and disinfection of the treated effluent.
The effluent is discharged through submerged outfalls to Boston
Harbor, and the digested sludge is discharged to the Harbor at
the President Roads channel during ebb tide (see Figure 1-5).
The digested sludge is carried to the discharge points as a
slurry, using the chlorinated primary effluent as the carrier.
The outflowing ebb tide is then used to carry 80% of the sludge
to sea.
b. Deer Island Operations; The island of Deer Island
has approximately 210 acres, and contains a Suffolk County House
of Correction, the Deer Island Wastewater Treatment Plant, and
an inactive military installation at its tip (Ft. Edwards) (see
Figure 1-5). Deer Island is within the corporate boundaries of
the City of Boston. The Deer Island treatment facility has been
in operation since June, 1968, and it serves 26 communities, in-
cluding northern and western portions of Boston proper. The total
area served by this plant is 168 square miles, and in 1976 the
contributing population was 1,339,940.
Seven MDC pumping stations are located throughout the
service area, three of them being the headworks at Columbus Park
(So. Boston), Ward Street (Roxbury) and Chelsea Creek (Chelsea).
These three major pumping stations are connected to the Deer
Island WWTP by two deep rock tunnels, 300 feet below Boston Harbor.
The tunnels are a significant engineering achievement, since the
tunnel to the Chelsea Creek headworks is 4 miles long, while the
one to the Columbus Park and Ward Street facilities is 7 miles
long (see Figure 1-5). Preliminary screening and grit removal is
performed at the headworks.
Figure 1-6 indicates the overall transport and treatment
system for Deer Island. The Deer Island WWTP is a complex primary
treatment plant, relying very heavily on sophisticated control
mechanisms to control the rate of pumping from the deep rock
tunnels. The design flow of the facility is 343 mgd.
1-5
-------
Bed ford '
/ Burl mgt o n
\
FIGURE I-1*. METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COMMISSION:
MEMBER COMMUNITIES & SEWERAGE SERVICE AREA
1-6
-------
South Boston
Headworks
eysiouth
Pump Station
- Hingharo Pump
Station
FIGURE 1-5- EXISTING MDC SEWERAGE FACILITIES
1-7
-------
Telecommunications for
Main Pumping Station
Control
SCNt
INIIM
AM
•Mm
TTNM
*A»0 IT. MAMTOMS
(NOXM«Y>
H
00
RAW
SEDIMENTATION
AND
SCUM REMOVAL
ELECTRICAL
GENERATORS
COUWMM NMK NtAOWOmi
(M •OtTOM)
FIGURE 1-6.
SCHEMATIC OF UNIT PROCESSES, DEER ISLAND TREATMENT PLANT
(Source: Annual Report, Metropolitan District Commission, Sewerage Division)
-------
After the solids have settled in the sedimentation
basins they are first thickened, and then digested in three
fixed cover anaerobic digesters. Lime is added in the thicken-
ing tanks to aid in this process, as well as to aid digestion.
A fourth digester serves as a storage tank to allow controlled
discharges of digested solids. The gas which is generated in
the digesters is used to generate all of the WWTP's electrical
energy through combustion in five 998 hp. diesel generators.
While the nine radial diesel engines which are used to lift
sewage into the plant were designed to operate either on fuel
oil or digester gas, operational experience has shown that these
engines can only run well on diesel fuel. Therefore, the maximum
energy recovery that could be realized by the existing system is
not possible because of equipment limitations.
The digested solids are disposed of by discharging to the
sea. In present practice, the digested sludge is mixed with chlor-
inated primary effluent, and discharged for four hours at the
beginning of each ebb tide. Of the total solids load discharged,
approximately 20% is returned to the harbor area with the next
flood tide (Hydroscience, ]97]).
Table 1-1 presents some of the major operating data for
the Deer Island WWTP for five consecutive fiscal years (1973-1977).
In the past, the raw wastewater was significantly diluted by sub-
stantial quantities of seawater intrusion. MDC personnel attribute
its source to defective tide gates; the tide gates are an integral
part of the combined sewer network which feeds Deer Island. During
the past five years, the MDC has had an active program of tide
gate repair.
Initially (through FY 1975) that repair program had a
significant effect upon plant capacity and performance. However,
during FY 1976 and FY 1977, sea water infiltration has apparently
increased such that influent chloride levels have again risen,
influent BOD and suspended solids have dipped, and primary treat-
ment efficiency as a whole has dropped. Although digester
performance has not dipped as significantly in the recent two
years, it is still below the high performance year of 1975.
In the past there has been some difference of opinion as
to the relative impact of the high chlorides on digester performance
MDC has maintained that the chlorides have been the predominant
factor in causing the historically low rates for gas production
(7-9 ft.3 lb. volatile solids destroyed). But Havens and Emerson
(MDC's consultant) have suggested that the digester efficiency has
not been significantly affected by high chlorides, but is more
closely correlated to digester temperature and mixing (Havens and
Emerson, 1973). While we will not attempt to conclusively prove
either hypothesis, it should be noted on Table 1-1 that the year
that influent choloride levels showed their greatest drop (1974-1975)
was the year that gas production had its most significant increase.
1-9
-------
I
H
O
TABLE 1-1
SUMMARY OF DEER ISLAND TREATMENT PLANT OPERATIONS
[Sources: MDC Sewerage Division Annual Reports]
July 1972-
June 1973
343 mgd
343 mgd
100%
Operational Parameters
Design Capacity (Average Daily Flow)
Actual Average Daily 'Flow
Operating Capacity
Primary Treatment
BOD5, Influent
BOD5, Effluent
BODs, Removal Efficiency
Suspended Solids, Influent
Suspended Solids, Effluent
Suspended Solids, Removal Efficiency
Chloride, Influent
Sludge Digestion
Lbs.Total Solids to Digesters (Dry Wt)
Lbs.Total Solids Discharged (Dry Wt)
Total Solids Reduction
Lbs.Volatile Solids to Digesters (Dry Wt) 48.6 x
Lbs.Volatile Solids Discharged (Dry Wt)
Volatile Solids Reduction
Digester Gas Production
Total Gas Production, Cu. Ft.
Cu.Ft. Gas/Lb. Solids Destroyed
July 1973-
June 1974
343 mgd
299 mgd
87%
July 1974-
june 1975
343 mgd
292 mgd
85%
July 1975-
June 1976
343 mgd
329 mgd
96%
July 1976-
June 1977
343 mgd
312 mgd
91%
135 ppm
95 ppm
30%
131 ppm
69 ppm
47%
2800 ppm
69.0 x 106
39.3 x 106*
43%
) 48.6 x 106
18.5 x 10&*
62%
219 x 106
7.9
132 ppm
88 ppm
33%
129 ppm
56 ppm
56%
2600 ppm
69.9 x 106
39.1 x 106*
44%
49.9 x 106
19.0 x 106*
62%
219 x 106
7.9
162 ppm
107 ppm
34%
165 ppm
68 ppm
59%
1600 ppm
63.0 x 106
34.1 x 106*
46%
46.4 x 106
17.0 x 106*
63%
324 x 106
11.1
136 ppm
95 ppm
30%
135 ppm
74 ppm
45%
1822 ppm
62.5 x 106
36.3 x 106
42%
44.2 x 106
17.2 x 10^
61%
250 x 106
9.6
148 ppm
102 ppm
31%
154 ppm
77 ppm
50%
1803 ppm
56.9 x 106
^
33.0 x 106
42%
40.9 x 106
16.0 x 106
61%
229 x 106
9.7
* Derived value based on reported loadings and percent reductions
-------
c. Nut Island Operations; Nut Island is a 17 acre
appendage at the tip of Houghs Neck (see Figure 1-5), and is
within the corporate jurisdiction of Quincy. The Nut Island
facility has been in operation since 3952, and it serves 21 com-
munities, including portions of southern and western Boston. The
design capacity of this treatment plant is 112 mgd. The total
area served by this plant is 238 square miles, and in 1977 the
contributing population was 658,600. The Nut Island treatment
plant is served by seven pumping stations, but none of them are
of the magnitude of the headworks for Deer Island. Also, the
pipeline routes to Nut Island are all via land corridors.
This plant is similar to Deer Island in that it is a
primary treatment plant. While Nut Island is significantly older
than Deer Island, it has been periodically upgraded in its equip-
ment and operations. Figure 1-7 is a schematic representation
of the unit processes for the Nut Island WWTP.
In addition to the prechlorination and grit removal (which
are also used at Deer Island) the raw sewage is pre-aerated for
approximately 20 minutes. Then the wastewater passes through
sedimentation tanks where the solids are settled out. The primary
effluent is chlorinated before discharge.
The primary solids are not thickened at Nut Island prior
to their anaerobic digestion. However, in a manner similar to
Deer Island, the digested sludge is disposed of by discharging
with chlorinated effluent during the four hour period beginning
with each ebb tide. Since the greatest amount of dispersion can
be realized by discharge in the area of President Roads, the Nut
Island sludge is pumped across Boston Harbor approximately 4.2 miles
to the northern tip of Long Island. Here the sludge enters President
Roads just a few yards south of the discharge point from the Deer
Island WWTP.
Even though the primary solids are not thickened prior to
digestion, digester performance at Nut Island is significantly
better than Deer Island. While Nut Island processes approximately
1/3 of the entire wastewater flow for the MDC service area, it
generates nearly 1/2 of the entire digester gas for the two MDC
treatment plants. Apparently because of (a) longer detention
time (24 days Nut Island vs. 15 days for Deer Island), and (b)
because of significantly lower chloride concentrations, Nut Island
is able to produce 3-4 times more recoverable energy per million
gallons of influent wastewater (Havens and Emerson, 1973) in the
form of gas than Deer Island. Table 1-2 presents this and other
pertinent operating data for fiscal years 1973-1977.
This abundance of digester gas allows Nut Island to be
totally energy independent. Since the pumps at the facility are
electrical, there are no fuel compatibility problems. And the
digester gases also power the Rootes-type blowers for the pre-
aeration tanks. In addition, there is sufficient gas to operate
1-11
-------
High Level Sewer to Plant
H
M
NJ
o
UJ
t£.
a.
Overflow)
By-Passi
I
Incl
GrftV
nerator/'
Generators
Blowers
nturi
-§Y—
BAR SCREENS (_
^
- _By_~£aiS— _
i
GRIT CHANNELS
^
r
Effluent
Outfall
Sewers
;h1orInators
to Sea
Effluent Service
^/T\ Pumps
Effluent 6
Digested Sludge
COMMINUTORS
By-Pass
* T
MIXED FLOW PUMPS
Effluent
O v>
— (/>
uu (0
L. O.
>»
O CO
Sludge
GAS HOLDING SPHERE
FIGURE 1-7.
SCHEMATIC OF UNIT PROCESSES, NUT ISLAND TREATMENT PLANT,
[Source: Metropolitan District Commission, Sewerage Division]
-------
I
H
U)
Operational Parameters
Design Capacity (Average Daily Flow)
Actual Average Daily Flow
Operating Capacity
Primary Treatment
BODs, Influent
8005, Effluent
8005, Removal Efficiency
Suspended Solids, Influent
Suspended Solids, Effluent
Suspended Solids, Removal Efficiency
Sludge Digestion
Lbs.Total Solids to Digesters (Dry Wt)
Lbs.Total Solids Discharged (Dry Wt)
Total Solids Reduction
Lbs.Volatile Solids Discharged (Dry Wt)
Volatile Solids Reduction
Digester Gas Production
Total Gas Production, Cu. Ft.
Cu.Ft. Gas/Lb. Solids Destroyed
TABLE 1-2
SUMMARY OF NUT ISLAND TREATMENT PLANT OPERATIONS
[Sources: MDC Sewerage Division Annual Reports]
July 1972- July 1973-
June 1973 June 1974
Flow) 112 mgd
144 mgd
129%
126 ppm
95 ppm
25%
218 ppm
121 ppm
siency 45%
(Dry Wt) 46.3 x 106
ry Wt) 24.1 x 106*
48%
rs (Dry Wt) 36.2 x 10*?
(Dry Wt) 14.4 x 106*
61%
319 x 106
yed 14 . 5
112 mgd
139 mgd
124%
124 ppm
88 ppm
29%
250 ppm
114 ppm
59%
45.5 x 106
24.1 x 106*
47%
35.5 x lof
14.2 x 106*
60%
285 x 106
13.4
July 1974-
June 1975
112 mgd
138 mgd
123%
151 ppm
119 ppm
21%
200 ppm
103 ppm
49%
43.3 x 106
21.7 x 106*
50%
34.2 x 10*?
12.7 x 106*
63%
299 x 106
13.7
July 1975-
June 1976
112 mgd
123 mgd
110%
147 ppm
122 ppm
17%
209 ppm
113 ppm
46%
33.1 x 106
16.5 x 106
50%
26.2 x 10*?
9.7 x 106
63%
225 x 106
13.6
July 1976-
June 1977
112 mgd
128 mgd
114%
150 ppm
120 ppm
20%
199 ppm
109 ppm
45%
36.7 x 106
19.1 x 106
48%
28.9 x 10*?
11.3 x 106
61%
233 x 106
13.2
* Derived value based on reported loadings and percent reductions
-------
the Nichols three-hearth multiple hearth incinerator which is
used to burn screenings and grit. Ash from the incinerator is
presently discharged to President Roads along with the digested
sludge.
Nut Island has recently put into operation a Water-grate
(brand) of grease incinerator. The large amounts of grease that
accumulate at the Nut Island plant are a particularly bothersome
operational problem.
As can be seen from Table 1-2, the Nut Island facility has
consistenly been hydraulically overloaded in recent years. Al-
though the degree of overloading has been slowly dropping, the
removal efficiencies for BOD and suspended solids has been some-
what variable, and have not shown a consistent improvement.
B. Purpose of the Proposed Project
1. Chronology of Administrative and Planning Activities
In order that this EIS 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 Figure 1-8.
The current 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
Administration convened an enforcement conference to discuss
with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts the adverse economic
and public health impacts that wastewater was having on the
shellfishing areas of Boston Harbor. .In addition, the confer-
ence addressed the total impacts on the water quality of Boston
Harbor.
Approximately one year later, in April, 1969, the enforce-
ment 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."
1-14
-------
In implementing the first recommendation, the Massachusetts
Division of Water Pollution Control (DWPC) retained the firm of
Hydroscience, 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 depo-
sition 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 Hydroscience 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;
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
standards," 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 recom-
mendations which were essentially incorporated as the
recommendations of the Third Conference. Those that dealt
with the sludge management 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:
*Class SB requires salt water capable of fishing and contact
recreation, such as swimming.
1-15
-------
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
wastewater 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 Eastern Massachusetts Metropolitan Area (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 the fall of 1976, EPA contracted with Greeley and Hansen
Engineers to prepare for the Region an environmental impact state-
ment that assesses the technical environmental and institutional
feasibility of the EMMA recommendations for secondary treatment.
The completion of the MDC Secondary EIS is now scheduled for
the summer of 1978. This EIS will make recommendations for
the location and type of wastewater treatment and sludge disposal
facilities necessary to meet the minimum secondary treatment re-
quirements of PL92-500.
In August, 1973, MDC's consultant, Havens and Emerson, Inc.
of Cleveland, Ohio, completed the Proposed Sludge Management
Plan for the MDC. The completion of this plan satisfied the
requirements of the Three Party Agreement, and was the logical
follow-on to the Task Force recommendations. Havens and Emerson
was mandated by MDC to investigate the three alternative sludge
handling and disposal techniques recommended by the Task Force.
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
hearing 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 40 CFR
Part 6 (April 14, 1975 Federal Register).
1-16
-------
FIRST ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
MAY 20, 1968
T
SECOND ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
APRIL 30, 1969
HYDROSCIENCE MODEL
MASS. DWPC, BOSTON
HARBOR STUDIES o>
T
* THIRD ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
OCTOBER ?. 1971
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
OCTOBER i, 1971
BOSTON HARBOR POLLUTION TASK FORCE
APRIL, 1972
THREE PARTY AGREEMENT
JULY, 1972
EMMA, FOR
SECONDARY TREATMENT
MDC SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PLAN
AUGUST, 1973
T
EAS FOR SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PLAN
APRIL. 1975
NPDES DISCHARGE PERMITS
1976 i
DEIS FOR SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PLAN
MARCH. 1975
EIS FOR SECONDARY
TREATMENT 1978
SLUDGE/SOLID WASTE'
COINCINERATION STUDY
NOVEMBER, 1976
FEIS FOR SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PLAN
JUNE. 1978
NSF FACILITY PLANNING
EVALUATION, Mio-i978_
SELECTION OF PLAN
FIGURE 1-8.
CHRONOLOGY OF THE PLANNING FOR SLUDGE
MANAGEMENT IN BOSTON HARBOR
1-17
-------
In June, 1975, EPA Region I contracted with EcolSciences, inc.
to assist the Region in preparing the Environmental Impact State-
ment. 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 sludge by one
of the following four methods:
1) sludge incineration,
2) land application,
3) ocean disposal
4) no action.
The formal Draft EIS was published in March, 1976.
Subsequent to the publication of the Draft EIS, EPA Region I
and MDC cosponsored a study (conducted by Stone and Webster, Inc.)
which investigated the feasibility of incinerating MDC wastewater
sludges with solid waste from the City of Boston. The conclusions
of that analysis were:
coincineration of sludge and waste was technically
and environmentally feasible,
coincineration was not economically feasible when
compared to separate treatment because of treatment
costs,
the conditions necessary for economically feasible
coincineration were:
having solid waste and sewage treatment at
the same locale,
having one agency responsible for solid waste
and wastewater management,
having a proximate market for steam generated
by the coincinerating; and
having federal grants available for solid waste
disposal similar to the water pollution control
grant program.
In addition to the studies previously listed that have been
directed towards the resolution of the sludge management problems
per se, the National Science Foundation initiated a special study
in mid-1976 to review and assess the EPA facility planning process
in the Boston metropolitan area. Boston was selected as an example
situation, and is the east coast equivalent of a similar study con-
ducted by NSF for Sacramento, California. The results of that
1-18
-------
investigation will not be complete until mid- or late-1978. While
this review may have some impact on EPA's facilities planning pro-
gram at the national level, it is not expected to materially affect
the Boston Sludge Management Plan per se.
Since the Draft MDC Secondary EIS is presently underway, and
the implementation schedule for secondary treatment at the MDC
facilities may yet be modified, 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 address the main issue.
2. Goals and Objectives
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve the quality
of the tidal waters in Boston Harbor, and to satisfy the goals and
objectives of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972 (PL 92-500) . Provisions of PL 92-500 (Section 101) require
the elimination of pollutant discharges into navigable waters by
1985 and the development and implementation of waste treatment
management process by each state. National interim water quality
goals (to be attained by 1983) propose the attainment of water
quality which provides for "the protection and propagation of
fish, shellfish and wildlife and provide for recreation in and
on the water..."
PL 92-500 does specify minimum treatment technology. The
Amendments have two target dates for providing this technology.
By June, 1977, all municipal sewage treatment plants must provide
a minimum of secondary treatment or its equivalent. "Secondary
treatment is generally considered to encompass the various
biological processes used to treat organic wastes still present
after primary treatment." For implementation purposes it is also
defined in terms of a minimum level of effluent quality attainable
by these processes as reflected by 6005, suspended solids, fecal
coliform bacteria, and pH. The maximum values for these consti-
tuents in secondary treated effluent are (40 CFR, Part 133,
Subpart D):
BODc: arithmetic mean for a period of 30 consecutive days
not to exceed 30 mg/1
arithmetic mean for a period of 7 consecutive days
not to exceed 45 mg/1
Suspended arithmetic mean for a period of 30 consecutive days
Solids: not to exceed 30 mg/1
arithmetic mean for a period of 7 consecutive days
not to exceed 45 mg/1
1-19
-------
Fecal geometic mean for a period of 30 consecutive days
Coliform not to exceed 200 per 100 ml
Bacteria:
July 1, 1983 is the second target date given in PL 92-500.
By that time municipal waste treatment plants will be required
to provide "best practicable waste treatment technology" (BPWTT).
For receiving waters which will not be degraded below the classi-
fication set for them, i. e., Classes A, B, C, SAf SB and SC by
secondary treatment and discharge, BPWTT requirements will
usually be met by secondary treatment processes. Such receiving
waters are termed "effluent-limited." Treatment beyond secondary
treatment may be required for sewage treatment plants on effluent-
limited areas where the effluent will contribute nutrients or toxic
materials in concentrations high enough to interfere with proposed
uses of the water. For waters which will not be adequately pro-
tected by secondary treatment, additional treatment process or
alternative disposal techniques will be required under BPWTT.
Such waters are termed "water-quality-limited." In October, 1975
EPA proposed a series of criteria to identify what constitutes BPWTT
(Office of Water Program Operations, 1975). The proposed criteria
address the three waste management techniques mentioned in PL 92-500,
e.g., land application, treatment and discharge to surface waters,
and reuse.
State water quality standards vary according to the category
of use for the surface waters involved. Class A waters are
suitable for drinking water use without further treatment except
simple disinfection. Class B waters are fit for swimming and
fishing, and Class C waters can be used for fishing, but not
swimming. By these definitions, only Class A or Class B waters
would meet the 1983 national goals. The saltwater counterparts
for the above classifications (SA, SB, SC) have similar levels
of usage, except SA quality waters allow shellfishing to occur.
(See Appendix B for definitions of water quality classes.)
In the case of Boston Harbor, the Massachusetts Division of
Water Pollution Control, the Metropolitan District Commission,
and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency are jointly involved
in translating the national goals into the local objective of
significantly increasing the quality of Boston Harbor to meet
its existing classification especially in the area of providing
safe shellfishing areas. This latter objective was the initial
stated reason for convening the enforcement conferences which
have led to the present level of planning.
The Clean Water Act of 1977 (PS 95-217) contains several
provisions which are germane to MDC's and EPA's wastewater and
sludge management planning. Specific provisions have been made
to allow upwards of $15 million to be spent for the construction
of a new Sulfolk County correctional facility, since the present
1-20
-------
prison occupies a portion of Deer Island that might be used for
a secondary treatment plant.
Section 301 of the Clean Water Act provides for communities
that can show that existing deep marine discharges require less
than secondary treatment, a case-by-case waiver procedure that
must be requested by September 24, 1978. MDC made the requisite
filing on September 18, 1978.
Section 301 also provides for extensions of the July 1, 1977
municipal secondary treatment deadline on a case-by-case basis
provided that the municipality applies for that extension within
180 days from December 27, 1977. The maximum extension of that
deadline would be up to July 1, 1983.
As of the time that this Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) is being prepared, the MDC has not applied either for an
extension of the secondary treatment guideline nor the waiver for
secondary treatment itself.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (PL 94-580,
RCRA) among other provision, classifies sludge from waste treatment
plants as a solid waste. Regulations published in the Federal
Register on February 6, 1978 set forth guidelines for the disposal
of sludges (or their ashes) in sanitary or hazardous waste^landfills,
or for land application. This law and its regulations have had
significant impacts on the ultimate disposal options available for
the MDC generated sludges. The ramifications of RCRA sludge dis-
posal planning will be examined and utilized in greater detail in
Section III.
On December 27, 1976, EPA published in the Federal Register
a series of regulations which are referred to as the "Interpretive
Ruling." Specifically, the Interpretive Ruling governs the analysis
of new sources of air pollutants, and whether or not such new sources
need to be compensated for by concomittant reductions within the
same air shed. In addition, Ammendments to the Clean Air Act were
passed (as PL 95-95) in August, 1977.
Among other provisions, the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments
pertains to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) in
air quality maintenance areas, and that determinations of best
available control technology be performed on a case-by-case basis.
In addition, PL 95-95 increased the number of air pollutants
covered by the Clean Air Act and redefined a major source as either
one of the designated 28-sources having the potential to emit 100
tons per year, or any other source having the potential to emit
250 tons per year, of any one of the pollutants regulated under
the act. Therefore, since the publication of the Boston Sludge
Draft EIS oxides of nitrogen and hydrocarbon have been added to the
1-21
-------
list of regulated air pollutants that are to be addressed in the
Final EIS. The results of this revised analysis are presented in
Section IV.
The Commonwealth and the MDC have fully acknowledged that the
sludge which is presently discharged to the Harbor must be disposed
of in a more environmentally sound manner. In MDC's view, since
sludge will be generated by both primary and secondary treatment
processes, any sludge disposal program should be capable of handling
both types, and that the decisions on how to handle that sludge is
an integral part of the treatment requirements.
Our present objective is to determine what is the most cost
effective and environmentally sound manner for disposing of the
primary sludges which are generated at the existing MDC waste-
water treatment facilities, both now and into the immediate
future (1985). Such a course of action will remove approximately
80% of the sludge BOD load and an even larger portion of the
sediment load now imposed on Boston Harbor by the digested
sludge, while at the same time allowing discussions and planning
to proceed. This planning will eventually satisfy the local
objectives and the national goals as stated in PL 92-500 in a
manner that satisfies all pertinent federal environmental regula-
tions .
C. Applicant's Proposed Project
1. General Description
In fulfillment of the objectives for removing sludge
from Boston Harbor, the Metropolitan District Commission retained
the firm of Havens and Emerson (Cleveland, Ohio) to investigate
three sludge handling and disposal alternatives (wet air oxida-
tion, land application, and incineration). The results of that
investigation were presented to the MDC in 1973 as a two phase
plan. Phase I would incinerate the sludge generated at the
existing primary facilities through the year 1985, at which time
secondary treatment facilities would be completed. With the
advent of secondary treatment and its resultant sludge, the
project would move into Phase II, Which would accommodate
primary and secondary sludge volumes through the year 1995.
The Phase I plan is presented below, and the total project
plan is presented in Appendix C. The following sections are
verbatim extractions from the Havens and Emerson "A Plan for
Sludge Management," 1973.
The recommended Phase I project plan is presented as the
initial phase of plant expansion to provide sludge management
facilities for the immediate needs in meeting the 1976 EPA require-
ments, and as a transition phase between current conditions and
the recommended 1995 plans. The Phase I Plan is based upon
primary treatment only at both plants, but with expansion of
primary facilities at both plants to handle flows expected
through the year 1985. The recommended plan (Phase II) includes
1-22
-------
converting anaerobic digestion tanks to sludge storage tanks
because the expansion of anaerobic digestion facilities did not
prove economical. During Phase I, however, it is beneficial
to continue use of the anaerobic digestion facilities and to
extend this use period to approximate the "useful life" of the
major portion of mechanical equipment associated with this
process. The Phase I Project Plan is shown schematically on
Figure 1-9.
Nut Island; Phase I at Nut Island involves continuation
of the use of anaerobic digestion. Approximately 90 percent
of all raw sludge will go to digestion with the remainder by-
passing digestion for direct transfer to Deer Island. Under
these conditions the Nut Island digestion tanks will provide
approximately 24 days detention at average 1985 conditions.
Favorable gas production should continue at Nut Island and the
generation of electric power from digester gas should continue.
It is estimated that sufficient electrical energy will be provided
to continue to supply the total Nut Island power requirements for
primary treatment to the period 1980-1985.
A new sludge pumping facility will be provided to transfer
sludge to Deer Island. These pumps will be high head, centrifugal,
non-clog pumps. Two pumps will be provided with one serving as
stand-by. The existing sludge disposal line will be extended to
Deer Island and a new parallel sludge force main will be provided.
All sludge will go through a grinder before pumping to Deer Island
to reduce force main maintenance problems. Daily pumping will
average about six hours at 1985 conditions. Following pumping
of sludge, sewage or supernatant would be pumped to purge the
sludge line to prevent sludge sedimentation and to keep the pipe
walls clean. Alternate use of the parallel force mains is
suggested to keep facilities at peak efficiency.
Deer Island; Phase I incorporates use of the existing
sludge facilities, and addition of a new sludge disposal building.
Although the recommended ultimate plan does not include thickening
of raw primary sludge, it is recommended that the existing gravity
thickeners at Deer Island continue in service to handle raw sludge
during the Phase I program.
Anaerobic digestion will be continued until secondary treat-
ment is added, but no additions would be made to the digestion
system. Approximately 90 percent of the thickened primary solids
will go to anaerobic digestion. Digester gas will be captured
and utilized for generation of electrical energy using existing
generation equipment.
The total sludge output from Deer Island and Nut Island
will be blended and taken to the sludge disposal building. The
sludge will be chemically conditioned, vacuum filtered, and incin-
erated in multiple hearth incinerators. The total incineration
load will include filter cake, grit and screenings, and skimmings.
1-23
-------
PRIMARY
SLUDGE
GRAVITY
THICKENING
r-H BYPASSl 1
I JAN AEROBIC I ip-
^^ DIGESTION r^
H
I
to
CHEMICAL
CONDITIONING
VACUUM
FILTRATION
DEWATERING
MULTIPLE
HEARTH
INCINERATION
PIPELINE
TRANSPORT
N
U
I
N
D
PRIMARY
SLUDGE
r-HBYPASS I—I
I JANAEROBIC Li_
"" DIGESTION
TRUCK
TRANSPORT
I
ASH
LAND
FILL
FIGURE 1-9.
WASTE SLUDGE MANAGEMENT SCHEMATIC«
RECOMMENDED PHASE I PROJECT PLAN (1985)
(Source: Havens & Emerson 1973)
-------
Grit and screenings from the remote sites (MDC beaches)
will be trucked to the sludge disposal building at Deer Island
for disposal by incineration. A receiving station will house
grinding equipment and storage hoppers. The material will be
elevated and discharged into the incinerators. Grinding of the
screenings will facilitate the conveying and feeding to the
incinerator. This plan is based upon grinding all screenings
at the sludge disposal building; however, should there be a
problem of keeping grit and screenings separated during transit
to Deer Island, grinding facilities could be located at the
source. Deer Island skimmings will be transferred to the
sludge disposal building, concentrated and introduced into the
incinerators for disposal. Grit, screenings, and skimmings at
the Nut Island plant will be incinerated as currently practiced.
An enlarged Nut Island grit, screenings and skimmings disposal
capability is proposed with the expansion of primary and secondary
treatment processes.
The Phase I Plan at Deer Island will include waste heat
recovery from the incinerator exhaust gases, and the generation
of electric power from this energy source. The existing dual fuel
engine generators will continue operation utilizing digester gas.
Outside electric power supply should be provided to supplement
on-site generated power, and for stand-by service for the turbo-
generator set.
The construction of ash lagoons will be deferred until
a later date. During Phase I, incinerator ash would be pumped
to the western edge of the plant site. The ash will provide
about 30,000 cubic yards of fill per year.
2. Basic Design Criteria - Phase I
The basic design criteria for the Phase I program is
listed below. Loadings are for average conditions unless other-
wise noted.
NUT ISLAND
1. Anaerobic Digestion (Existing)
No. and Size 4 @ 110' diam. x 30' SWD
Detention 24 days
2. Sludge Pumping to Deer Island
No. and Size 2 @ 1000 gpm
Average Daily Flow 270,000 gpd (190 gpm)
1-25
-------
DEER ISLAND
3.
4.
5.
Gravity Thickeners (Existing)
NO. and Size
Solids Loading
Anaerobic Digestion (Existing)
NO. and Size
Detention
Vacuum Filters
No. and Size
Filter Yield,
Avg.Day
Max. Day
(3 units)
(4 units)
6.
7.
Incinerators
No. and Size
Rated Capacity, each
Loading Rate, Avg.Day (2 units)
Max.Day (2 units)
Turbine Generators
No. and Size
4 @ 55' diam.
27 Ibs./sf/d
4 @ 108' diam. x 30' SWD
24 days
6 <§ 750 sf
4.4 Ibs./sf/hr
4.0 Ibs./sf/hr
3 @ 25'-9" diam. x 9 hearths
410 wet tons/day
7.2 Ibs./sf/hr
10.2 Ibs./sf/hr
3400 KW
3. Estimates of Cost - Phase I
Table 1-3 summarizes capital costs for Phase I. These
costs are based on current (1973) price levels. The electrifi-
cation of the raw sewage pumps have been included in Phase I and
this cost includes an estimated salvage value of $180,000 for the
nine dual fuel engines.
Table 1-4 presents the total annual cost for Phase I. The
credit for recovered energy accounts for electric power generated
from digester gas and waste heat recovery.
1-26
-------
TABLE 1-3
CAPITAL COSTS
PHASE I
[Source: Havens and Emerson, 1973]
NUT ISLAND
Sludge Pump Station and Pipelines
to Deer Island $ 4,852,800
DEER ISLAND
Electrification of Raw Sewage Pumps (1) $ 1,920,000
Vacuum Filters and Incinerators 12,009,600
Power Generation Station 2,435,000
Miscellaneous Facilities (2) 798,500
Total for Deer Island $17,253,100
TOTAL PROJECT COST (Rounded) $22,016,000
(1) After allowance for $180,000 salvage value
for 9 engines.
(2) Includes service water facilities, gravity
thickener odor control, tunnels, and yardwork.
1-27
-------
TABLE 1-4
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
PHASE I
(1985)
[Source: Havens and Emerson, 1973]
Total Capital Cost $22,016,000
Amortized Capital Cost^1* 1,446,500
Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs:
Fuel and Power $ 329,000
Chemical Costs 273,200
Maintenance 146,000
Manpower 1,120,000
Total Operation and Maintenance $ 1,868,200
TOTAL $ 3,414,700
Credit for Recovered Energy $ - 318,000
TOTAL ANNUAL COST $ 2,996,700
(Dpower generation facilities - 5% at 25 years, other facilities
5% at 30 years.
1-28
-------
SECTION II
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This section describes the present environmental setting of the *
two major study areas; i.e., the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
and the Boston Metropolitan Area. In those sections where the
entire State of Massachusetts is discussed, general characteristics
are described whenever possible; and when the Boston Metropolitan
Area is of concern, the level of description becomes much more
detailed. The environmental setting is described in the following
subsections:
Topography
Geology
Soils
Hydrology
Ecology
Crops
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
Air Quality
Noise
Public Health
Historical and Archeological Sites
Energy Resources
Transportation
Aesthetics
Population and Socioeconomic Character
Land Use and Planning
Information developed in this Section will be incorporated into
the analysis of the proposed project's environmental impact, and
into the analysis of the feasible alternatives to the proposed
plan.
-------
II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
A. Topography
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts contains a varied land-
scape due in part to the glacial ice sheets which have altered
the original character of the land. These glaciers moved in
from the north, carrying rocks and soil which modified the
mountains and rivers. During this retreat, they left a cover
of debris which has resulted in the rugged character of the
land.
The State can be divided into several physiographic regions.
The coastal lowlands extend from Narragansett Bay on the south,
to New Hampshire near the Merrimack River on the north. The area
encompasses the eastern portion of Massachusetts. The entire
coastline appears to have been submerged early in the geologic
age of Massachusetts and later uplifted to develop the rocky
coast. The northeastern section of the coast has many out-
croppings of rock because the bedrock is close to the surface.
The southeastern section is much smoother, having long beaches
and fewer outcroppings. The Cape Cod peninsula reflects this
feature, having long stretches of grassland and sand dunes.
The interior of the Commonwealth contains two large valleys.
The Berkshire Valley is enclosed by the Berkshire plateau and
the Taconic Mountains, and the Connecticut River Valley is enclosed
by the Berkshire plateau and the uplands of Worcester County.
The uplands on both sides of the Connecticut River join to the
north of the Valley to form the central uplands of northern New
England.
The Taconic Range on the State's western border is an exten-
sion of the Green Mountains of Vermont. The highest point in
Massachusetts, Mt. Greylock at 3,491 feet, is located in this
range. The elevations in the southern part of the range are
considerably lower.
The entire State is located within the New England Physio-
graphic Province. Elevations along the coast range from sea level
to 100 feet. In the uplands of Worcester County they reach as
high as 1,000 feet and in the Berkshires, the elevations reach
2,000 feet (Mass. Dept. Comm. and Devel., 1970).
The State has several major and minor river basins which
are illustrated in Figure II-7.
B. Geology
1. Continental
Since the geology of an area is best described in terms of
its historical development, Table II-l summarizes the geologic
time periods which are discussed below. The eastern section is
II-l
-------
TABLE II-l
GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE
[Source: National Park Service, 1970; Hunt, 1967
Era
Cenozoic
Period
Geomorphie Occurrences
Quartenary Recent Soil and Alluvium Glaciation
Pleistocene and Drift Deposits
Tertiary
Uplift and Erosion Cycles
Approx. No.
of Million Years
0-1
1-60
Cretaceous
Mesozoic Jurassic
Triassic
Peneplain formation, burying
previous peneplain
Erosion cycles; peneplain
formation
Diabase intrusians, extensive
faulting; volcanic activity
60-130
130-155
155-185
Paleozoic
Permian
Carboniferous
Pennsylvanian
Mississippian
Devonian
Silurian
Ordovician
Precambrian
Appalachian Revolution
Coal-forming forests formed
Coal-forming forests
Coal-forming forests
Shickshock disturbance, upland
formed
Inland sea
Inland sea; volcanic activity
Assorted Gneiss, Granites,
Gabbro, Schists
185-210
210-265
265-320
320-360
440-520
520—
II-2
-------
composed of metamorphosed and non-metamorphosed rocks believed to
be of the Paleozoic Age. The metamorphic rocks along much of
the coast contain granitic intrusions and intrusions of other
rock types. These areas rise above the sedimentary rock regions
which form basins such as the partially submerged basin of Boston
Harbor.
Further west, the State is composed of metamorphosed rocks
which form the uplands of Worcester County, extending to the
Connecticut River Valley. The Valley is composed of sedimentary
rocks with Triassic formations that are faulted to the east.
Rising to the west of the Connecticut River Valley are the
Precambrian formations of the Berkshire plateau and Hoosac Mountains.
These decline to the west where the Berkshire Valley is situated,
composed of metamorphosed rock. Enclosing this valley on the
western border of the State are the Taconic Mountains which are
Cambrian formations.
The Coastal Plain formations surrounding Massachusetts and
all of the New England Province are mostly submerged. The out-
stretched peninsula of Cape Cod and the islands of Nantucket and
Martha's Vineyard are the only portions of the Coastal Plain in
Massachusetts which are above sea level.
The New England Physiographic Province was greatly modified
by Pleistocene glaciation. The structural geology of the area
is consequently hidden by the resultant glacial deposits. In
the Boston Harbor area, the glacier was responsible for the forma-
tion of drumlins or glacial hills, the most famous of which is
Bunker Hill. The most recent glacier is also responsible for the
formation of the abundant lakes in the New England region. These
were formed by the damming of preglacial valleys or by the pitting
of the terrain resulting in kettle holes.
The deposition of till in the valleys, which has resulted
from glacial movement, made the valleys shallower in many areas.
In some cases, the valleys contain fill as thick as 200 feet.
These glacial effects have changed the appearance of the
Massachusetts landscape, masking the true geology (Hunt, 1967).
The bedrock types found in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
are given in Appendix D (Emerson, 1916).
2. Massachusetts Bay
If it is assumed that the 100 meter depth contour divides
the peripheral and central portions of the Gulf of Maine, then
the Gulf consists of a bottle-necked basin connected to the open
sea by two narrow channels, the most southern channel being shallower
than 100 m (see Figure II-l). The Eastern Channel passes between
Georges and Browns Banks and the Northern Channel passes between
Browns Bank and the Coast Bank. North of the basin rim, the deepest
water (>200 m) takes the form of a "Y", with the two arms extending
II-3
-------
westward and northeastward. More than 10,000 square miles of the
Gulf of Maine are deeper than 200 meters, which has numerous,
isolated deep holes (Bigelow, 1926A). The southwestern portion
of the Gulf is known as Massachusetts Bay. It is bounded on the
north by Cape Ann, on the west by the eastern coast of Massachusetts
(centered on Boston) and on the south by Cape Cod Bay and Cape Cod
(Bumpus, 1974).
The western portion of the Gulf of Maine, adjacent to
Massachusetts Bay, includes the Wilkinson and Murray Basins,
which have maximum depths of nearly 300 m, and several smaller
basins (Rowe, Polloni, and Haedrich, 1975). Both fluvial and
glacial erosion have shaped these basins (Rowe, Polloni, and
Haedrich, 1975), and if sea levels were again lowered considerably,
many rocky ridges and hills would rise above the floor of the
basins (Shepard, 1963).
Recent sediments transported into the Gulf by rivers are
gradually burying this glacial topography. Both the Wilkinson
and Murray Basins are now nearly flat-bottomed, with fine silt-
clay sediments 20-25 m thick (Rowe, Polloni, and Haedrich, 1975;
Emery, 1966). The large basins also contain gravel and stone
(Shepard, 1963). The general distribution and origins of these
sediment types for the entire Gulf are shown in Figures II-2 and
II~3- In general, the deep basins are characterized by silt-clay
sediments, the marginal banks are primarily sand, and the north-
eastern Gulf has extensive gravel areas.
Massachusetts Bay's chief topographic feature is a submarine
ridge which rises to within 20 meters of the sea surface on the
east side of the bay between Cape Ann and Cape Cod (Stellwagen
Bank). This ridge blocks free exchange of water at depth with
the Gulf of Maine. The basin is deepest to the west of the Bank,
80 m or more, and gradually rises toward the coast. East of
Boston and Plymouth the bottom is hummocky and rough. It is
generally smooth in Stellwagen Basin, Cape Cod Bay, and on
Stellwagen Bank (Bumpus, 1974). In the Boston area, a gravel
bottom occurs along the coast and is succeeded seaward by silt-
clay sediments in deeper areas, while Stellwagen Bank is primarily
sand (Shepard, 1963).
C. Soils and Sediment
1. Soils
Soils in Massachusetts are primarily derived from glacial
material. They can be grouped into two general texture categories:
coarse-grained and fine-grained (Eastern Mass. Metro. Area Studv.
1975). y
II-4
-------
FIGURE H-l . AREAS OF INTEREST IN THE GULF OF MAI
-------
44°
I 1
Rock and/or Gravel
Gravel, sandy gravel, &
gravelly sand
Sand
SiIty sand, sandy silt,
si It & clayey silt
Depth in meters
BOSTON'
42"
t^_ FIGURE 11-2 SEDYMEMs''OFF''THE ATLANTIC lOASTOF
THE UNITED STATES. (Source: Dumpus, 1973).
*~^s- •:•••:••.:••.; •/.:J
-------
AGENT
Fl uvi atile
Glacial
Authigenic-Biogenic
FIGURE H-3
SEDIMENTS OFF THE ATLANTIC COAST OF THE
UNITED STATES CALSSIFIED BY CONTRIBUTING
AGENT & AGE. (Source: Emery, 1966.)
II-7
-------
The EMMA report based its soil data on U. S. Geological
Survey Bulletins; U. S. Geological Survey Quadrangle Reports;
U. S. Department of Agriculture soil survey publications; The
Geography and Geology of the Region Including Cape Cod/ the
Elizabeth Islands, Nantucket, Martha's Vineyard, No Man's Land
and Block Island by J. B. Woodworth and E. Wigglesworth (1934);
and the report on the Preliminary Surficial Geology of the Natick
Quadrangle by A. E. Nelson (1972).
Coarse-grained soils are subdivided according to the deriva-
tion of the parent material. Stratified sediments consisting of
mostly sand and gravel were formed from ice contact features,
while marine beaches and windblown dunes resulted in sandy
soils with very little gravel or clay content. Silty and sandy
soils containing minor proportions of clay and gravel were formed
from alluvium and river terraces. Soils derived from glacial
till are generally clayey or silty sands and gravels (EMMA, 1975).
Fine-grained and/or organic soils are subdivided into:
silty and clayey sands from glacial lake bottoms; fine-grained
marine deposits; and salt- and freshwater organic soils (EMMA, 1975).
The permeabilities of these soils range from less than 0.2
inches/hour to greater than 6.3 inches/hour, with the median value
ranging from 2.0 to 6.3 inches/hour. This is probably due to the
large proportion of sandy soils and the low proportion of the clay
fraction found in each soil. The clay fraction ranges between 0
and 41.5% in representative soils, with 7% being a median value
(U.S.D.A., 1969; Baker, 1975).
This low clay fraction affects the cation exchange capacity
(CEC) of the soils. The clay that is available has a high CEC
value, resulting in a range of 4.9 to 29.7 meq/100 grams of soil.
This is based on the inorganic portion and may be increased slightly
by the organic matter in the soil. The CEC in the top layer of
soil, from 0 to about 10 inches deep, has a much higher CEC than
the lower layers. Table II-2 indicates the soil fractions and the
CEC value.
The soil pH ranges from acidic (3.8) to neutral (7.0). The
range for different soil series is commonly pH 4.5 to pH 5.5. In
order to make these soils suitable from crop production liming
is often necessary.
The soils most favorable for crops in Massachusetts are
generally loams; primarily fine sandy and silt loams. They are
characterized by a high permeability rate, low rock content, little
erosion potential and being nearly level. Most of the soils have
a low natural fertility, requiring fertilization in order to produce
a satisfactory crop (USDA, 1969). Soil series well suited for corn
and hay production include: Agawan, Bernardston, Enfield, Essex,
Hadley, Merrimac, Shelburne, and Warwick (USDA, 1967, 1969).
II-8
-------
TABLE II-2
Series
Agawan
Blandford
Charlton
Coloma
Dover
Dover
Gloucester
Gloucester
Gloucester
Gloucester
Hadley
Hinckley
Hinckley
Hollis
Lenox
Marlow
Merrimac
Orono
Orono
Pittsfield
Stockbridge
Stockbridge
Sudbury
Westminster
Woodbridge
Worthington
Percent
Sand
36.7
44.2
39.4
49
68
57
62
52
71.1
,3
65.
55.7
61.3
57.4
36.1
42.0
49.8
64.6
2.8
1.5
61.2
26.
28.
,3
,1
75.5
50.1
57.0
50.7
J OF REPRESENTATIVE !
USDA, 1967]
Percent
Silt
59.8
49.9
49.4
45.5
28.6
40.4
36.2
40.2
24.0
20.0
40.4
34.7
39.5
53.2
48.9
38.1
31.8
59.0
57.0
31.6
58.3
53.6
20.5
38.0
36.4
44.8
Percent
Clay
3.5
5.9
11.2
5.2
3.2
2.3
1.3
7.5
4.9
14.7
3.9
4.0
3.1
10.7
9.1
12.1
3.6
38.2
41.5
7.2
15.4
18.3
4.0
11.9
6.6
4.5
Percent
Organic
Matter
11.2
7.9
5.5
12.0
5.0
11.3
5.5
10.2
1.5
2.6
2.5
7.2
4.7
5.0
4.9
5.6
5.6
5.2
5.0
7.9
5.8
,5
.7
,1
CEC
meq/lOOg
17.0
12.0
12.5
18.8
16.9
17.
8.
14.
11.7
20.0
4.9
5.7
7.6
13.0
6.8
26.9
8.0
17.0
21.8
6.8
8.1
10.3
7.7
29.7
11.3
10.9
II-9
-------
Table II-3 indicates metal concentrations typically found
in Massachusetts farm soils.
TABLE II-3
METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN THE SOILS OF MASSACHUSETTS FARMS
[Source: J. H. Baker, 1975; samples from 25 dairy farms throughout Mass.]
Metal
(Uig/gram soil)
Iron Manganese Zinc Copper
Average concentration 18.3 6.6 2.9 3.4
Range of concentration 13-28 0.8-16 1-6 2-7
These metals are micronutrients and are necessary for proper
growth in plants. Copper (Cu) and zinc (Zn) are components of
enzymes in plants, as are manganese (Mn) and iron (Fe). Manganese
and iron are involved in chlorophyll synthesis, and zinc and
copper are apparently necessary for production of growth promoting
substances. Although necessary for plant growth in minute quanti-
ties, toxicity can occur when excess metals are present.
2. Boston Harbor Bottom Sediments
The bottom of Boston Harbor is covered by a layer of highly
organic sediments which are deposited by the continuous settling
of suspended materials. The high organic input to the bottom
sediments has resulted in anaerobic conditions over much of the
harbor bottom (New England Aquarium, 1972). In sheltered bays
and around islands in the harbor, the bottom sediments consist of
gray-to-black muck over light brown-to-gray clay. The Inner Harbor
has a black oozy bottom with high concentrations of petrochemicals
and trace metals (NBA, 1975).
In the Outer Harbor, trace metal levels are generally lower
than those found in the sediments in the Inner Harbor (NEA, 1972).
Localized areas of relatively high trace metals are found in the
sediments of the President Roads areas which is the most likely
deposition area for suspended solids from the Inner Harbor and
sewage sludge effluent from the Deer Island sewage treatment
plant (NEA, 1972). In the Outer Harbor, the highest trace metal
concentrations are generally found at the surface of the sediments
and decrease with depth.
D. Hydrology
According to the Regional Administrator's 1975 Annual Report
on Environmental Quality in New England, nearly 50% of the total
miles assessed in the Massachusetts Coastal Basin were not in
compliance with Class B water quality standards (U.S. EPA, 1975E).
11-10
-------
Class B waters are fit for swimming and fishing, and meet the
maximum criteria for compliance with the 1983 national goal of
"...water quality which provides for the protection and propo-
gation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and provides for recrea-
tion in and on the water."
The condition in the Connecticut River Basin is much more
severe, where of 1,057 miles assessed in the basin, 73% do not
meet the Class B surface water standards. The Annual Report
summarizes the condition of the Merrimack and Connecticut Rivers
in Massachusetts by saying that they "...still receive untreated
wastes from large urban municipalities."
Other New England river drainage basins that are within the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts (in whole or in part), and their
degree of non-compliance with the Class B standards are as follows:
River Basin Percent of Assessed Miles in Non-Compliance
Merrimack 61
Housatonic 55
Upper Hudson (Hoosic) 72
Mystic River (below lake) 100
Table I1-4 summarizes the water quality of the surface waters
of Massachusetts in 1974, as represented by the major water areas
in the Commonwealth.
Within the Boston Metropolitan Area, EPA recognizes three
major water areas: Boston Harbor, the Charles River, and the
Neponset River. The Charles River is sufficiently degraded such
that the 1983 goal of Class B waters will not be met. The majority
of the Charles' problems stem from combined sewer overflows, re-
sulting in oxygen depletion, health hazards, and adverse aesthetic
impacts. The Neponset River will probably meet the 1983 goal
because its quality problems are related to nonpoint source pollu-
tion.
While the two major rivers discharging to Boston Harbor have
moderate to severe problems, the significant water quality problems
of the Harbor itself are aesthetic in nature. Figure II-4 presents
the existing water quality classifications for Boston Harbor. And
it is estimated that the Harbor will meet the 1983 goals for Class
SB waters. The Regional Administrator's Annual Report states
that "The urban harbors of Massachusetts, including Boston Harbor,
are significantly affected by numerous sources of pollution, resulting
in complex water quality problems."
1. Freshwater
a. Water Budget; Assuming a steady-state condition,
the water budget for an area can be described as follows:
Precipitation - Runoff = Evapotranspiration
11-11
-------
TABLE II-4
SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY
STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Source: Regional Administrator's Annual Report, 1975]
H
I
H
N)
Major Water Areas
Assabet River
Blackstone River
Charles River
Chicopee River
Concord River
Connecticut River
Deerfield River
Farmington River
Housatonic River
Merrimack River
Millers River
Nashua River
Neponset River
Taunton River
Westfield River
Boston Harbor
Water Quality Problems
2,3,6
1,3,5
3,4,5
2,3
2,3,4
2,4,5
4, temperature
N/A
2,4
1,2,3,4
3,5
2,3,4,5,6
4
2,3,4,5
3,4
5
Source of Problems
M, NFS
M, CS
cs
Flow regulation, M
M, Little elev. change
Low velocity
M, CS, flow regulation
M, thermal dischu
N/A
M
CS, M & I
M, I (paper)
CS, M & I regulation
NPS
M & I
I
CS
Will Area
Meet 1983 Goals?
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
Water Quality Problems:
1. Toxics 2. Eutrophication Potential 3. Oxygen Depletion 4. Health Hazard 5. Aesthetics 6. Low Stream Flow
N/A = Not Applicable M = Municipal discharge I = Industrial discharge D = Domestic
CS = Combined Sewers NPS = Non-point Source
-------
ROSTQN
INNER
IIARKOR
DOHCHt:STl-R (SB
HAY
Change of Class!f{'cation
BOSTON HARBOR
WINTHROP
II A RKO R
FIGURE II-4
BOSTON HARBOR WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATIONS
n-13
-------
Runoff includes both surface runoff into streams and
other water bodies, and water infiltration into groundwater aquifers.
Evapotranspiration includes evaporation from surface areas and
transpiration from plants and animals.
Figure II-5 shows the mean annual precipitation for the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and Figure II-6 indicates the
average annual runoff. With average annual precipitation ranging
from 42 to 50 inches, and the runoff ranging from 20 to 30 inches
a year, the evapotranspiration ranges from 20 to 30 inches annually,
with the median value being approximately 22 inches per year.
Table II-5 shows the water balance for ten major river basins in
Massachusetts. Included in these runoff values is that portion
which seeps into the groundwater aquifers.
b. Water Quality; Surface water quality in Massachusetts
ranges from basically uncontaminated to severely polluted (Frimpter,
1973). Figure II-7 shows representative surface water quality
sampling sites for the Commonwealth, and nitrogen and phosphorus
concentrations for these sites are given in Table II-6. Since
nitrate concentration in rainwater is about 0.2 ppm, ammonia
concentration is 0.5 ppm and phosphorus concentration in lakes
averages 0.011 ppm (Reid, 1961), the values in Table II-6 indicate
that the surface waters in general have a fairly normal nutrient
content. Table II-7 indicates analysis of three rivers, showing
a tendency toward hard water, with pH's ranging from slightly
acidic to very alkaline.
Table II-8 gives metal concentration at two sampling
sites for two different time intervals. The site locations for
this table are shown on Figure II-7.
TABLE II-8
METAL CONCENTRATIONS
[Source: Water Resources Data, USGS, 1973 and 1975; FWPCA, 1968; USEPA, 1975G]
Site f and
Stream Name Cd(ug/l) Cr(y.g/l) Cuftig/D Fe (y.g/1) Pbfrig/1) Ni Zn
11 A <42 72
(Sippican)
B 2 190
19 A <20 <10
(Mill Brook)
B <5
Public: 0.01 0.05
Health
Limits
12
<3
16
15
100
11-14
120
76
30
10
30
14
0.05
4 <180
5
2
20
56
2 53
1500
-------
TABLE II-5
WATER BUDGET FOR MASSACHUSETTS
[Source: USGS Water Resource Atlases]
Basin
Millers River
Housatonic River
Deerfield River
Weweantic River
Weir to Jones River
Neponset River
Weymouth River
Hoosic River
Assabet River
Taunton River
Avg. Annual
Precipitation
(Inches)
43
48
44.8
46
43
43.7
45.2
43.6
44
44
Avg. Annual
Runoff
(Inches)
22
24
21.4
24
22
22.0
26.0
22.0
20.7
24
Avg. Annual
Evapotranspiration
(Inches)
20
24
23.8
22
21
21.7
19.2
21.6
23.3
20
11-15
-------
TABLE II-6
NUTRIENT CONCENTRATION FOR SELECTED
[Source: Water Resources
Site No. & Dissolved
Stream Name Nitrate (mg/1)
1 (Merrimack) 2.6
(Shawsheet)
^ * J.-7
3 A (Merrimack) .1
B 2.7
C 2.2
D .3
4 (Shawsheen) -89
5 A (Charles R)
1.0
6 (Neponset) 2.5
7 A (Furnace Brk) .6
B .3
8 (North R) .04
9 (Neponset) 1.1
10 A (Jones R) .2
B 0.0
11 (Sippican) .16
12 A (Slocums) 1.6
B .18
13 (Palmer) . 2
(Branch of
14Te«mile R) -4
15 (Blackstone)
16 (Browns Brk) 0
17 (Quinsigamond) -
18 (N. Nashua) .5
19 A (Mill Brk) .5
B .1
20 A (Conn. R.) .26
B « .30
21 A (Conn. R. ) .03
B(Westfield R) .15
22 Housatonic -
23 A (Green R) o.O
B (Boosic R) 2.3
SAMPLING SITES
Data, USGS, 1973 and 1975.]
Dissolved
Ammonia (mg/1)
.17
.15
.00
• 03
.16
.12
-
.16
.19
.16
.67
1.3
.11
.13
.05
.14
.12
.12
17.0
.02
9.0
.39
.11
.07
.01
.04
.10
.05
4.0
.04
.02
Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen (mg/1)
1.4
1.4
.77
_
.013
_
-
-
_
.35
.48
.16
_
-
-
-
-
.9
.48
.37
.22
-
-
.80
1.1
Total
Phosphorus
.26
0.02
.18
.1
.18
.07
0.06
.39
-
_
-
-
—
.06
.06
.02
_
22.0
0.0
20
.27
.12
.03
.02
.02
.06
.05
30.0
.27
.42
11-16
-------
TABLE I1-7
WATER ANALYSIS FROM SELECTED STREAM BASINS
[Source: Norvitch, et. al. 1968;
Hansen, et. al. 1973]
Hoosic River
Nitrate (mg/1)
Nitrite (mg/1)
Total N (mg/1)
P (mg/1)
SO. (mg/1)
Cl (mg/1)
Fe (mg/1)
CaCo3 (mg/1)
Mn (mg/1)
Ca (mg/1)
Na (mg/1)
Mg (mg/1)
K (mg/1)
D.O. (mg/1)
Fecal Coliforms
(thousand/ml)
Total Coliforms
( thousand/ml )
Dissolved Solids
(mg/1)
PH
Min.
1
.1
1.3
.8
12
7
.1
30
.1
12
5
3
2
1
3
6
60
6.6
Max.
10
1.2
3.2
3.5
25
16
1.1
125
.3
35
24
11
4
10
30
100
220
9
Williams, et. al. 1973;
Housatonic
Taunton River River
Min.
5.3
4
0
13
0
4
4.2
1
.2
— — —
39
5.6
Max.
61
130
.7
116
2.2
29
42
14
4.8
_•»_
— — —
268
8.6
Min. Max
0 20
0 29
.8 28
0 1.
20 302
0
6.4 85
.7 9.
.9 36
.1 4.
«.*»_ »__
»__ ___
29 308
6.6 9
.
2
46
5
4
11-17
-------
I
H
on
Connecticut
AMIDE*
\Spnngi ,
Lowekl
.44-
'ramingham
[Rhode island
' O>
o,
I
FIGURE 11-5. MEAN ANNUAL PRECIPITATION, IN INCHES.
(Source: National Weather Service-NOAA)
(Fall
'River
TA8L
V
/
9 5 10 15 20
••BBBa im ml —LJ
Miles
-------
24
•
!
•
Connecticut
LoweU
Frammgham
[Rhode island
F O
Brockton
FIGURE II-6 . AVERAGE ANNUAL RUNOFF, IN INCHES
(Source: National Weather Service - NOAA)
-------
H
NJ
O
River Basin Boundaries
County Lines
Water Quality Sampling Sites
FIGURE 11-7
RIVER BASINS & SELECTED WATER QUALITY
SAMPLING SITES.
[SEE TABLE II-5 FOR KEY TO SITE NUMBER IDENTIFICATION]
1 5 10 15
Miles
-------
Compared with the Public Health Limits, cadmium, chromium,
iron and lead are found in higher concentrations than are
acceptable for human consumption. Nickel does not presently
have a limiting value established (USEPA, 1975G).
Groundwater supplies generally have water of an acceptable
quality. Although bedrock aquifers presently produce water of
sufficient quantity and quality, aquifers of sand and gravel are
the predominant water source. The water taken from the sand
aquifers often is acidic and corrosive to metal pipes. Iron,
manganese and high color levels are often present, especially
from aquifers situated near swamps (Frimpter, 1973).
2. Marine Waters - Boston Harbor
a. Hydrodynamics; Boston Harbor is a shallow well-
flushed embayment generally without stratified flow (Hydroscience,
1973). Average, depth ranges from 10-50 feet at mean low tide and
much of the Harbor is less than 15 feet deep (USDI, 1969). River
flow into the Harbor is relatively weak and tidal currents are
the dominant force in water movement (NEA, unpublished). The
larger sources of freshwater inflow into the Harbor include the
Mystic, Charles, Neponset and Weymouth-Fore Rivers and wastewater
discharges from the Nut Island and Deer Island sewage treatment
plants. Average freshwater inflow ranges from 50 cubic feet per
second (cfs) in the late summer to around 1300 cfs in March, while
average tidal flow is one million cfs (NEA, unpublished).
Figures II-8 and II-9 depict the major currents .which flow
in Boston Harbor during maximum ebb and maximum flow. Current
velocities are generally less than 50 cm/sec (Folger, 1972). Tidal
currents indicate major routes along which nutrients, trace elements,
pollution and organisms are distributed.
Two major circulation cells dominate water movement in
the Harbor. In the northern portion of the Harbor, Dorchester Bay,
Boston Inner Harbor and Winthrop Harbor make up one cell. This
cell is fed by major tidal flow through the President Roads and
by the Charles, Neponset and Mystic Rivers. The second cell, in
the southern portion of the Harbor, is made up of Quincy Bay and
Hingham Bay. Tidal flow through Nantasket Roads and minor river
flow from the Weir, Weymouth-Fore and Weymouth-Back Rivers are
the primary sources of flow. Quincy Bay is shallow and lacks
deep water passage, which results in poor tidal flushing (NEA,
unpublished). A small amount of exchange takes place between
these cells between Moon Island and Long Island.
b. Water Quality; A number of studies have been under-
taken to monitor the water quality of Boston Harbor. In addition,
many studies have attempted to determine the source of pollutants
in the Harbor and to determine the relationships of these sources
to observed water quality. Two major modeling efforts have been
undertaken to describe the relationships between the hydrodynamics
11-21
-------
BOSTON HARBOR
\ 'in1
anl\ '
-------
BOSTON HARBOR
FIGURE II-9. CURRENT DIRECTIONS-MAXIMUM EBB
(Source: Hydroscience, 1973)
11-23
-------
and pollution inputs for Boston Harbor. The Biodyne model was
prepared by the New England Aquarium in 1970, and Hydroscience
began its modeling efforts in 1969.
In July, 1971, Hydroscience, Inc. presented to the
Massachusetts Water Resources Commission its final report on the
"Development of Water Quality Model of Boston Harbor" (Hydroscience,
1971). The purpose of the study was to develop a mathematical
model for the water quality of Boston Harbor, and to develop a
methodology to evaluate the effects of various control procedures
on water quality.
The variables which were considered in that analysis and
were also used to verify the model were: the concentration of
coliform organisms, biochemical oxygen demand, dissolved oxygen,
digested sludge solids nutrients, and phytoplankton. The model
subsequently considered the dispersive effects of the tidal velocity,
the mixing associated with the freshwater and wastewater flows, the
direct sources from treatment plant effluents, and the kinetics
associated with the various physical, chemical, and biological reac-
tions .
Actual bacterial counts were used to verify the projected
areas of highest coliform counts. The highest concentrations of
coliform bacteria in Boston Harbor occur in the area of President
Roads, mid-way between the sludge discharge points for Deer and
Nut Island WWTP's. Coliform counts in the first cell of the
Outer Harbor consistently exceeded SB coliform standards, and the
area seaward of Deer Island exceeds the SA coliform standards.
The major sources of oxygen demanding material are
carbonaceous and nitrogenous components of wastewater effluents
and digested sludge from the treatment facilities, the oxidation
of benthic organic material, and the organic matter associated with
the discharges to the Inner Harbor, including overflows from the
combined sewer system. The maximum dissolved oxygen deficits for
the varrous BOD inputs were determined as follows:
• Digested sewage sludge (0.2) mg/1 D.O.
• Effluent from treatment
plants (1.0) mg/1 D.O.
• Inner Harbor source (0.7) mg/1 D.O.
• Benthal demand (0.8) mg/1 D.O.
11-24
-------
The model analysis indicated that the sewage treatment plants cause
the same order of D.O. deficit as the assumed benthal demands and
sources from the Inner Harbor, but that the estimated combined
effect does not violate the standards on a steady state basis.
The computed summer dissolved oxygen concentrations
exceed 6-5 mg/1 everywhere in the Outer Harbor, with an average
exceeding 7.0 mg/1; and the D.O. levels exceed 5.0 mg/1 in the
Inner Harbor, all calculated on a steady-state basis. Therefore,
concentrations of D.O. in the Outer Harbor are in conformance with
water quality standards. However, while the D.O. in the Inner
Harbor conforms to the time averaged standard of 5 mg/1, oxygen
levels in that area violate the minimum value specified in the
water quality standards, of 3 mg/1.
The most significant finding of the Hydroscience work
revolved around the distribution of digested sludge solids. The
proportion of discharged solids that eventually settle in Boston
Harbor, west of Deer Island, was estimated to be 15%-20% of the
total mass of settleable solids discharged. The bulk of the re-
maining 80% is probably deposited in an area 8-12 miles eastward
of Deer Island.
In 1970, the New England Aquarium Corporation entered
into an agreement with the Massachusetts Department of Natural
Resources to undertake a comprehensive inventory of water quality
in Boston Harbor, to develop a data bank and data storage retrieval
system for handling water quality data in the Harbor and to accom-
plish preliminary development of an environmental/biological
model of the Harbor which would predict the effects of environ-
mental fluctuation on the Harbor biota (NBA, 1973B). The results
of the three-part NEA study include analyses which are helpful in
describing the water quality of Boston Harbor. The information
contained in these reports is extensively used in the following
description of water quality in Boston Harbor. Earlier reports and
studies done by other individuals and organizations are also used.
Boston Harbor has received legal discharges of wastewater
since 1880 (White, 1972). In addition to the sludge and treated
wastewater from the MDC sewerage system, other sources of pollu-
tion include: industrial wastes, combined sewer overflows and
sewage outfalls, tributary streams, wastes from Federal installa-
tions, watercraft wastes, oil pollution and debris and refuse
from barging activities, garbage and refuse disposal and shore
activities (MWRC and USDI, 1969)
Boston Inner Harbor is more polluted than Boston Outer
Harbor (Table II-9). The concentration of pollutants in the
Harbor generally exhibits a spatial gradient. Highest pollutant
concentrations are measured in the Inner Harbor and pollutant
concentrations gradually decrease with increasing distance from
the Inner Harbor. Significant localized discharges may produce
areas of high pollutant concentration.
11-25
-------
TABLE I1-9
NEW ENGLAND AQUARIUM DATA SET 1970-1972
[Source: NBA, 1973]
MINIMUM-MAXIMUM VALUES
Physical Parameters
T° C.
Salinity, ppt
Inner Harbor
0-21
4-32
Outer Harbor
0-22
21-34
Chemical
D.O., ppm
Nitrogen mg/1
Ammonia - N
Nitrate - N
Organic - N
Phosphorus mg/1
Total ,
Ortho
2.41-11.49
0.01-1.10
.002-1.24
0.05-1.02
.007-.924
6.02-14.0
0.01-1.02
.001-.570
.024-1.33
.010-1.17
Biological
Bacterial MPN/100 ml
(coliform)
0-96,000
0-10,000
11-26
-------
Boston Harbor is a moderately productive embayment as
indicated by organic carbon productivity calculated by energy
simulation (NEA, 1973A). Minimum average productivity is esti-
mated at 20 K cal/m^/day while a highly eutrophied embayment
would be 7 to 10 times more productive (NEA, 1973A). The Harbor
is nitrogen limited during most of the year. During the spring
it may also be partially phosphate limited. According to NEA
(1973A) inorganic nitrogen loadings to Boston Harbor from
combined overflows during storms may be equal to or greater than
that contributed by average daily sewage flows. Although turn-
over rates for nitrogen and algae have been estimated, the
paucity of information about food-chain relationships in Boston
Harbor precludes description of nutrient recycling processes
in the Harbor (NEA, 1973A). Boston Inner Harbor is more highly
eutrophied than Boston Outer Harbor (NEA, 1973A). The high
nutrient levels are attributed to the untreated sewage load
being carried by the Charles, Mystic and Chelsea Rivers
(NEA, 1973B).
Coliform counts vary widely throughout the Harbor. The
highest counts recorded by the NEA survey were encountered at
the Charles River Dam Station where they exceeded 96,000 organisms
per 100 ml (1973B). The median values for the Inner Harbor
range from 46-200 per 100 ml while the median values for the
Inner Harbor and tidal river mouths ranged from 360 to 2404 per
100 ml.
Data collected during the Boston Harbor Survey in 1972
(MWRC-DWPC, 1973) also indicate that coliform counts are signifi-
cantly higher in the Inner Harbor as compared to the Outer Harbor.
Most of the samples for the Inner Harbor (approximately 75 were
taken) were significantly greater than 1000 organisms per 100 ml.
This level of coliform contamination precludes swimming and
bathing in these waters according to Massachusetts salt water
standards (Appendix B-l). More than half of the coliform counts
measured during the Boston Harbor survey exceeded 230 per 100/ml,
and almost half exceeded 1000 per 100 ml.
Lowest dissolved oxygen levels are generally encountered
at the river mouths which is probably due to their high chemical
and biological oxygen demand (NEA, 1973B). The Outer Harbor is
generally well-mixed with respect to dissolved oxygen and
dissolved oxygen levels are relatively high (NEA, 1973B). Dis-
solved oxygen levels measured by NEA ranged from 2.41 to 11.49
ppm in the river mouth - Inner Harbor Complex, and from 6.02 -
14.0 ppm in the Outer Harbor.
H-27
-------
Salinity in Boston Harbor is generally lowest along the
shore and increases towards the Outer Harbor. The exception is
Quincy Bay where slightly higher salinities are observed compared
to what would be expected given the salinities of other bay
areas in the Harbor (MWRC and FWPCA, 1969). Salinities range from
4-32 parts per thousand (ppt) in the Inner Harbor-river mouth
complex and from 21-34 ppt in the Outer Harbor (NBA, 1973B). The
entire Harbor generally has a wide range of salinity turning to
uniform salinity at the Harbor mouth (NBA, 1973B). Freshwater
flows into the Harbor are relatively small and dams on some of
the rivers bar salt water intrusion, further reducing the area of
variable salinity zones (NBA, 1973B).
Trace metal concentrations were monitored during the 1972
NEA study. Data for Boston Harbor waters are contained in Table
11-10. The high values found for trace metals in the Harbor are
thought to reflect the influence of industrial discharges (NEA,
1972). The high values for the Inner Harbor reflect river inputs,
commercial activity and combined sewer outfalls. The highest average
concentrations of zinc, copper and lead were measured in the Inner
Harbor. Concentrations of nickel and cadmium were highest in the
President Roads area of the Outer Harbor, while highest average
concentrations for chromium were measured in Dorchester Bay. The
residence time for trace metals in the Harbor waters is short.
Trace metals are absorbed on the surfaces of the abundant suspended
solids, taken up by micro-organisms, or coprecipitated (NEA, 1972).
Trace metals were also monitored during diurnal studies. The ob-
served periodicity of trace metal concentrations provides evidence
that sludge which contains trace metals is returned by the tides
landward from the point of discharge (NEA, 1972).
3. Marine Waters - Massachusetts Bay
The portion of the Atlantic Ocean which might be significantly
affected by a project alternate (ocean dumping), is the Gulf of
Maine and the associated nearshore areas of the open ocean. The
Gulf of Maine is defined by the coast of Nova Scotia and the Bay
of Fundy to the north and east, the New England Coast to the north
and west, and Cape Cod to the southwest. There is a wide connection
with the open Atlantic Ocean to the southeast.
As a natural province, it is delineated much more clearly
below the sea surface than the shallow recession of its shoreline
would suggest. The southern boundary is marked by a sill pene-
trated only by three narrow passages. This sill is identified by
the locations of Georges Bank, Browns Bank, and Seal Island Bank
(Bigelow, 1927A). The discussion which follows provides background
information for the entire area. A general map showing the principle
locations discussed in the text was Figure II-l.
11-28
-------
TABLE 11-10
AVERAGE TRACE METAL CONCENTRATIONS
MEASURED IN BOSTON HARBOR WATERS
DURING 1972 - SOLUBLE AND PARTICULATE PHASES (ppb)
[Source: NBA, 1972]
Sample Locations
Inner Harbor
Soluble
Particulate
Average
President Roads
Soluble
Particulate
Average
Dorchester Bay
Soluble
Particulate
Average
Thompson-Long
Island Area
Soluble
Particulate
Average
Average for Ocean Water*
Source: Turekian in NEA, 1972.
Number of
Samples
8
5
7
Zn
40.2
3.7
22.0
11.6
7.5
9.6
11.2
1.7
6.5
Cu
5.0
1.8
3.4
5.2
1.6
3.4
2.6
0.8
1.7
Pb
5.4
6.4
5.9
2.0
3.5
2.8
2.0
2.4
2.2
Ni
7.8
1.6
4.7
8.2
1.9
5.1
4.7
1.8
3.3
Cr
1.0
1.8
1.4
0.5
3.2
1.85
0.3
4.5
2.4
Cd
0.42
ND
0.46
ND
0.24
ND
9.0
1.8
5.4
5.0
2.2
1.5
1.9
0.9
1.9
1.7
1.8
0.03
6.8
1.3
4.1
6.6
0.5
1.3
0.9
0.2
0.20
ND
0.11
ND = Not determined.
* = coastal waters generally higher
11-29
-------
a. Hydrodynamics; According to Graham (1970) there
were 23 previous publications concerned with circulation features
in the Gulf of Maine. The largest contribution to our knowledge
of the physical oceanography of the Gulf is the study by Bigelow
(1926A), who provided the first definitive analysis of current
patterns in the area. Bumpus and Lauzier(1964) have compiled an
atlas of surface currents on the east coast of the United States,
based on drift bottle returns. Bottom currents have been poorly
investigated, although general patterns from the Middle Atlantic
Bight {Bumpus, 1965) and Massachusetts Bay (Bumpus, 1974) are
suggestive of conditions in the Gulf of Maine. Graham (1970)
does provide some seabed drifter data for the Western Gulf.
The land area tributary to the Gulf includes slightly
more than 61,000 square miles in Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
Maine, New Brunswick, Quebec and Nova Scotia. There are nine
principal rivers which enter the Gulf, draining nearly 90 percent
of the watershed, but no large rivers empty into the Gulf south
of Cape Ann. The principal river is the St. John, with a drainage
basin of 26,000 square miles.
The Gulf is a region of extiemely strong tidal currents,
which are the most obvious hydrodynamic feature, especially in
near-shore areas (Bigelow, 1926B). There is also a definite
surface ciruclation pattern for the Gulf.
The following summary of seasonal surface circulation
patterns for the Gulf is taken from Bumpus and Lauzier (1964)
and Bigelow (1926A). (Appendix E gives graphical representation
of the current patterns discussed here.)
In the winter, surface circulation in the Gulf is charac-
terized by inflow around Cape Sable into the Bay of Fundy, a
southerly flow along the western side which continues past Cape
Cod, with irregular eddies located between the two. A divergence
area exists north of Georges Bank by February.
In the spring the Gulf of Maine eddy develops rapidly,
stimulated by spring river discharge. By the end of May one large
cyclonic gyre encompasses the whole Gulf of Maine. There are inputs
to this gyre across the Scotian Shelf and Browns Bank. Drift may
or may not enter the Bay of Fundy and Cape Cod Bay. The eddy begins
to slow down in June, gradually dissipating over the summer. Autumn
and winter circulation is characterized by a breakdown of the
southern side of the gyre, which becomes a drift across Georges Bank.
There is limited direct information on bottom currents in
the Gulf of Maine. Rowe, Polloni and Haedrich (in press) cite a
lack of strong tidal mixing in the area. Graham (1970) reported
on some seabed drifter data for the western Gulf. He found that
there was a shoreward movement, including drifts into bays and
estuaries, as well as movement along the coast. Bottom movement
generally resembled surface patterns. Movements along the coast
11-30
-------
were usually from east to west, and in the west, drifters moved
offshore and southward past Cape Ann. The movement of bottom
water onto shore was in compensation for the removal of less
saline water at the surface. This type of coastal upwelling
has been noted in other areas of the east coast (Bumpus, 1965).
The residual drift averaged 0.09 to 0.54 km per day.
Current patterns in Massachusetts Bay are summarized by
Bumpus (1964). Tidal currents flood westward into Massachusetts
Bay, and ebb northeastward to eastward. The maximum velocity over
Stellwagen Bank increases from about 0.2 nautical miles per hour
(kts) at the northern end to over 1 kt at the southern end. Tidal
currents in the deep basin west of Stellwagen Bank (0.5-0.5 kt)
are lower than those over the bank (0.6-0.9 kt) or inshore off
Marblehead (0.8 kts). Residual drift patterns, both surface and
bottom, have been estimated by drift bottle and seabed drifter
data. Massachusetts Bay lies on the western side of the cyclonic
Gulf of Maine eddy. This provides a southward flow across the mouth
of Massachusetts Bay, with maximum rates occurring in April and May.
This results in surface drifts east of Stellwagen Bank towards the
south at 1-5 nautical miles per day (nmpd). To the west of Stell-
wagen Bank the drift follows the coastline, flowing southward past
Boston Harbor, around Cape Cod Bay and northeastward past Race
Point. These flows are also in the range of 1-5 nmpd. Bottom
drifts are an order of magnitude lower. Generally these drifts
have a shoreward component.
b. Water Quality;
Nutrients; As is the case with most coastal areas of the
United States, the literature on water quality in the Gulf of
Maine is scattered. Several early researchers, Rakestraw (1932,
1933, 1936), Redfield, Smith and Ketchum (1937), and Redfield
and Keyes (1938) did pioneering studies on oceanic nitrogen and
phosphorus cycles in the Gulf of Maine. Recent work is less
abundant, although Vaccaro (1963) has provided data on nutrient
levels.
Open water areas of the Gulf of Maine appear typical of
coastal oceanic regions. Inorganic phosphorus levels and nitrate
levels are highest in the winter, followed by a rapid depletion
during spring phytoplankton blooms. Ammonia values are highest
during the summer months. Seasonality of both nitrogen and phos-
phorus is a well documented phenomenon in the ocean (Harvey, 1966;
and Davies, 1971).
The seasonal nitrate cycle for the Gulf of Maine has been
summarized by Raymont (1963), on the basis of the early data.
Nitrate-nitrogen values ranging from 0.100 to 0.200 mg/1 were
reported for the winter maximum, but after the spring phytoplankton
blooms values were decreased to less than 0.005 mg/1 at the surface.
IT-31
-------
In deep water (below 100m) there were relatively large amounts
of nitrate throughout the year, exceeding 0.140 mg/1, as nitrate.
Below 150 ra even higher amounts (>0.200 mg N/l) were present.
Data on ammonia in the Gulf is provided by Vaccaro (1963)
for August and January, 1962. During August only trace amounts
of nitrate occurred in the photic zone, while ammonia was the
major source of available nitrogen. Redfield and Keyes (1938)
have reported ammonia values as high as 0.050 mg N/l.
Phosphate data from Bigelow, Lillick & Sears (1940)
indicated a winter maximum concentration of 0.030 to 0.035 mg
P04-P/1, while even during summer nearly 0.010 mg/1 remained in
surface layers over most the Gulf, although local depletion was
noted. Redfield, Smith and Ketchum (1937) also found high phos-
phate values in the Gulf. Their data for the upper 60 m gives an
average surface concentration of 0.018 mg PO4-P/1 (May), while deep
water values remain from 0.038 to 0.050 mg/1.
Data for other phosphorus fractions is also available. The
following summary of the early data is taken from Raymont (1963).
Most dissolved ogranic phosphorus occurs in summer and autumn (up
to .016 mg P/l in the summer). Mineralization results in a great
reduction during the winter (90% of total phosphorus is inorganic
during the winter). Particulate phosphorus values are also highest
during the summer, reflecting the synthesis of organic material.
Dissolved Oxygen: No evidence of low oxygen values in
any region of the Gulf of Maine has been found. There appears to
be data available on oxygen levels throughout the Gulf, but it is
in widely scattered documents. There is no indication that there
has ever been an attempt to compile and compare the available in-
formation. In general, the area can be expected to show oxygen
levels at or near saturation during most of the year since the
basin is not thermally stratified except during the summer, and no
stagnant basins are known to exist.
Temperature and Salinity: A great deal of information on
temperature and salinity distributions in the Gulf of Maine is
available. A detailed discussion of this data is not relevant,
but the salient features are summarized below, based on summaries
in Bigelow (1927), Bumpus (1974) and Sherman (1966B). Both
parameters vary seasonally and in response to water circulation
patterns.
Temperature shows significant seasonal variation. Cold-
est temperatures occur in February (0° to 3°C). By March vernal
warming has begun. It proceeds most rapidly in the southwest
portions of the Gulf, since it is opposed by the Nova Scotian
current flowing past Cape Sable into the Gulf. By May or June
thermal stratification becomes significant. The deep basins of the
Gulf maintain their low temperatures throughout the summer. Max-
imum surface temperatures in the summer occur offshore in the
western portion of the Gulf (10-20°C) and inshore in the eastern
11-32
-------
portion (10-15°C). Autumnal cooling commences in September, and
by November fall overturn is in progress.
Salinity in the open waters of Gulf of Maine is highest
in offshore areas, with the maximum values occurring in bottom
waters. There is generally a distinct vertical salinity gradient
throughout the Gulf. Summer salinities throughout the Gulf gen-
erally range from 27 to 35 parts per thousand. Inshore waters
in the vicinity of river discharges vary considerably, according to
discharge, but the effect is generally quite localized. Lowest
values in the Gulf occur in the spring, during maximum runoff.
Overall, the Gulf exhibits slightly lower salinities than the
adjacent ocean, particularly the Gulf Stream.
E. Ecology
1. Terrestrial and Wetlands Ecology
Massachusetts lies in the eastern deciduous forest biome, and
it contains several major subdivisions. The oak-chestnut associa-
tion and the hemlock-northern hardwood association are the two
major subdivisions, with boreal forest found in the higher eleva-
tions in the State. Perhaps more prevalent than the major associa-
tions is the so-called transitional forest, which is an ecotone,
or gradation, between the oak-chestnut and hickory-northern hardwood
associations (National Park Service, 1970). These forest types
are characteristic of areas of abundant moisture, and moderate to
cool temperatures.
The oak-chestnut association was originally characterized by
various oak species and the American chestnut. American chestnut
is no longer a dominant species since the Chestnut Blight has
decimated its population. Root sprouts may still be found in the
forest, but the fungus invades before the tree gains significant
size. Presently the association is dominated by white oak, black
oak, red oak, pin oak, shagbark hickory, mockernut hickory and
butternut hickory (NPS, 1970).
The hemlock-northem hardwood association is found on cooler
sites than the oak-chestnut association. In Massachusetts this
association is found in the western section, in a slightly higher
elevation than the oak-chestnut, but lower than the boreal. The
hemlock-northern hardwood association is characterized by sugar
maple, beech, hemlock, yellow birch and paper birch species
(NPS, 1970).
The boreal forest is a remnant of forests found in this area
during glaciation. Primarily found above 2300 feet at this
latitude, balsam fir, black, red and white spruces are the
dominant species, with paper and yellow birches, mountain maple
and mountain ash also present (NPS, 1970). A provisional list of
species for each association is given in Appendix F. These lists
11-33
-------
include those species that are characteristic of the association.
They are not complete inventories and may include species that
are not found throughout any given association in Massachusetts.
Since plant associations do not form definite borders,
but grade into each other, a transitional forest is formed. This
gradation, or ecotone, forms a large part of the Massachusetts
forests. In the transitional forest, species of the major associa-
tions will be found, with the concentration of typical species of
the northern hardwood trees being greater near that association,
with a few oak-chestnut association trees scattered among them.
Approximately halfway between the associations the concentration
of characteristic species should be equal between the associations.
This gradation also exists between the boreal forest and the next
association.
There are several wetland types found in Massachusetts, with
vegetation that differs significantly from the upland types and
from each other. (Appendix F also contains provisional floral
listings for wetland vegetation.) The northern bog, the most
diverse type, occupies sites that are wet, strongly acid and cold.
Typically the bog forms outward from the edge of a body of water.
Progressing from open water to the peat mat that eventually forms
along the shore, the vegetation is characterized by tolerance of
acid conditions. The northern bog is regarded by ecologists as a
remnant of the boreal forest that has become uniquely adapted to
these conditions.
Other wetlands found in Massachusetts include the shrub swamp,
floodplain forests, coast white cedar bogs, pine barrens and salt
marshes (NFS, 1970; SENE, 1974). Floodplain forests generally are
composed of species from the major associations that are the most
moisture tolerant. Scrub swamps contain a vegetational type that
remains in a dwarf condition due to the adverse moisture and
nutrient conditions. Coast white cedar bogs and pine barrens are
common along the Atlantic coast, although the species vary depending
on the major vegetational type and the local climate. Both types
are common on the sandy substrate found in association with the
ocean.
Salt marshes can be separated into salt meadows, containing
primarily grasses and herbs, and salt marshes, which also contain
woody vegetation. Although the dominant vegetation differs, the
same species may be found in both types and they are characterized
by a high tolerance of salt (SENE, 1974).
The vegetation found along the coast is quite different from
the inland forests. Dunes of sand are first stabilized by perennial
grasses or herbs that have long filamentous roots and often propo-
gate by runners. Included in the group are dunegrass (Ammophila
breviligulata), sea rocket (Cakile eduntula) and wormwood (Artemisia
sp.). As the dunes stop moving, and the organic matter increases,
11-34
-------
beach heather (Hudsonia tomentosa), Virginia creeper (Paxthenocissus
guinguefolia), seaside goldenrod (Solidago sempervirens) and other
plants become established, further stabilizing the sand and pro-
viding habitats for more animals. Species that become adapted to
beach habitats are salt-tolerant and need a minimum amount of water.
The wide range of habitats in Massachusetts has resulted in
a large number of wildlife species residing in the State or being
transients. Appendix G contains provisional lists of mammals,
birds, reptiles, amphibians and freshwater and anadromous fish
that have a range that includes Massachusetts.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has designated species of
plants and animals to be endangered in the State. This list includes
those species recognized by the Federal government as being endan-
gered. Lists of plants, birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians
and fishes on the endangered list are given in Appendix H (Isgur,
1973). These include those species that are endangered, rare, or
are of unknown status.
2. Deer Island Beaches
Since a portion of the proposed project would directly affect
a portion of the tidal area of Deer Island and the Outer Harbor
(on the western side of the island), a field survey of the poten-
tially affected site was undertaken. The intertidal zone of Deer
Island in the vicinity of the MDC wastewater treatment plant is
characterized by a mixture of coarse sand, cobble, large boulders
used for rip rap, and stone bulkheads. The ocean side represents
a high energy environment while the bay side is relatively pro-
tected. Intertidal slopes appear gradual, except in areas where
bulkheading has been installed, and on the tip of the island
where cliffs and bulkheads are prevalent. The bay side of the
island, from the shore opposite the WWTP Administration Building
to the vicinity of the Water Process Building, is characterized
by a stone beach with or without stone bulkheading. Stones of
very large size (2-3' in diameter) were often observed. In those
areas where a bulkhead is present a stone beach occurs in front.
There is no evidence of marsh vegetation, nor do fine silts
or sands occur intertidally. The ocean beaches in the vicinity
of the WWTP are characterized by coarse grey sand (not extensive) ,
cobble, and stone bulkheads fronted by large boulder rip rap leadinc
to a stone beach. However, no marsh areas or marsh vegetation was
observed. These areas are best classified as rocky beaches (high
energy on the seaward side)
The flora and fauna of the area will reflect the substrate
range and should consist of a mixture of organisms found on rocky
shores, on loose stone beaches, and on sand beaches. Rocky
shores (e.g., cliffs or bulkheads) are characterized by a mixture
11-35
-------
of attached algae and animals which are adapted to periodic
exposure to air and to extreme fluctuations in temperature,
salinity and insolation. The most obvious members of this
community are barnacles, mussels and various attached algae.
Periodically exposed pools in such areas support a distinctly
different community of greater diversity. Loose rocks provide
another type of habitat and grade into sandy types of shore.
Since sand is generally also present there tends to be a lower
zone on rocks (which are too large to be shifted by wave action)
where attached organisms are absent because of wave/sand abrasion.
On smaller rocks suitability for attachment of organisms depends
on the frequency at which they are moved by wave action. Rocks
that have a circulation of water under them cend to develop
a special fauna on their undersides, but generally do not receive
sufficient light to support algal growth. In this type of environ-
ment wave action is of prime importance (Moore, 1958). In sandy
areas few organisms permanently inhabit the surface, but a variety
of animals and plants exist within the sand. These range in size
from microscopic interstitial organisms to burrowing crabs. Sand
grain size and wave action are determining factors in such an area,
3. Boston Harbor Biota
The biota inhabiting Boston Harbor are generally stenohaline
marine organisms rather than estuarine types (MWRC, 1969). (Steno-
haline indicates that the species are only tolerant of a narrow
salinity range.)
The phytoplankton population of Boston Harbor is dominated
by diatom species (NEA, 1975). Although the Harbor is on the
average only moderately productive, bloom conditions occur in
some areas during the spring and fall. Excessive phytoplankton
populations appear to be correlated with high ammonia nitrogen
and phosphate concentrations (NEA, 1975) . During the winter the
algal pool turns over at seven-day intervals, while during the
summer a peak turnover of 1.5 days is reached (NEA, 1975). During
a 1967 study, phytoplankton populations were found to exceed 1,000
organisms per one milliliter in more than half of the Harbor.
This level is indicative of bloom conditions. In the same study,
excess growths of attached algae, particularly viva (Sea lettuce)
were noted in the vicinity of Winthrop Harbor (NEA, 1975).
Appendix I lists the dominant phytoplankton species found in
the Boston Harbor-Massachusetts Bay area, chaetoceros sp. and
Nitzschia sp. were the dominant species observed during the 1968
survey of the Harbor (MWRC, 1969), along with Ceratium sp.,
Peridinium sp., Dinophysis sp., Gonyaulax sp., and Tintinnopsis sp.
The generally sandy or muddy bottom of Boston Harbor precludes
attachment of macroscopic algae. They are found in rocky
intertidal areas and other areas with firm substratum throughout
the bay. Appendix I also contains a checklist of algae identified
in Dorchester Bay.
11-36
-------
Anaerobic conditions in the bottom sediments over most of the
Harbor have resulted in a reduced number of benthic species com-
pared to what would be expected (NBA, 1975) . Some pollution tolerant
species exhibit increased densities. The pollution tolerant poly-
chaete worm (Poly dor a ligni) predominates throughout the Harbor
sediments, except in the inner reaches of Winthrop Bay where the
polychaete (Capitella capitata) is dominant (NBA, 1975). Polychaete
worm populations occur at a density greater than 200 per square
foot, a level indicative of excessive enrichment (USDI, 1969).
These organisms are absent only in places where currents and/or
shallow depths prevent deposition of sludge (NEA, 1975). In areas
of the Outer Harbor where bottom material is scoured by tidal action
leaving mostly rocky sand and gravel, the free swimming polychaete
(Phyllodoce groenlandica) and the fringed worm (Cirratulus grandis)
are dominant benthic organisms. In the sandy shallow bottom adja-
cent to Long Island, softshell clams (Mya arenaria) are found at
a density of 80 bushels per acre (Bridges, 1976). Appendix I
contains a list of benthic organisms identified during the 1968
survey of Boston Harbor (USDI-MWRC, 1969).
The most abundant finfish species include winter flounder,
Atlantic tomcod, American eel, fourspine stickleback, mimmichog
and rainbow smelt. A composite checklist of fish species identi-
fied by the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries during surveys
of Quincy, Hingham and Dorchester Bays is contained in Appendix I.
Good sportfishing opportunities are found within the Harbor. Major
commerical fisheries for finfish and the American lobster (Homarus
americanus) operate outside the limits of Boston Harbor.
Rowe, Polloni and Rowe (1972) have surveyed the benthic fauna
of the lower Mystic River, which may be considered typical of the
rivers entering Boston Harbor. They found low dissolved oxygen,
high inorganic nutrient levels, and high coliform bacteria counts.
An oily residue on the water and sediments and the smell of hydrogen
sulfide in the sediments were further evidence of pollutional loading
in the river. Salinities were high (29.5 to 32 parts per thousand).
Rowe, et. al. (1972) identified a total of 33 benthic species
from 60 grab samples. The most abundant species was Capitella
capitata. Diversity increased in a downstream direction, indicat-
ing an upstream source for the pollutional loading. In addition,
the numerical abundance of c. capitata decreased downstream.
4. Massachusetts Bay Biota
In general, coastal areas are highly productive environments,
much more so than the open ocean. This is related in part to the
shallow depth in such areas, and in part to the influence of the
adjacent coast. The range of seasonal variation for many habitat
factors is greater in shallow water than in deep ocean areas. For
example, increased turbulence due to wave action on the bottom
11-37
-------
may occur, and thus benthic organisms will play a large role in
the community. Proximity to land results in lower salinity,
increased sediment loads, nutrient enrichment, and a greater
ratio of larvae to adults in the zooplankton. This is due to the
large fraction of benthic organisms which have transitory plank-
tonic stages (Moore, 1958). An example of the economic importance
of coastal areas is the fact that most of the world's commercial
fishes (finfish, shellfish and crustaceans) occur in shallow
coastal seas.
In coastal seas, most primary production is due to microscopic
planktonic algae, rather than benthic plants, because benthic
plants are restricted to depths of approximately 60 meters or
less (in those regions which have a suitable substrate). Phyto-
plankton populations in temperate coastal areas are typically
dominated by diatoms with the second most abundant group being
dinoflagellates. Cyanophyceae (blue-green algae) and chlorophyceae
(green algae) are generally minor components of the temperature
plankton, but may assume local significance. Whatever group is
involved, their real importance is that they represent the first
link in the food chain, since they are capable of converting in-
organic substrates to organic substances. Appendix J summarizes
the more important phytoplankton genera found in the Gulf of Maine.
Phytoplankton species in the area exhibit spatial and seasonal
fluctuations in abundance (Lillick, 1940; Raymont, 1963). Winter
populations are generally small, and are a mixture of a small num-
ber of diatoms and dinoflagellates. The spring diatom bloom is
due mainly to Thalassiosira followed by Chaetoceros. Summer
populations^ are generally considerably lower and consist of a
mixture of species dominated by dinoflagellates and coccolithophores,
A late summer bloom of diatoms frequently occurs (esp. Rhizosolenia).
Different areas of the Gulf show considerable variation in species
composition.
While a wide variety of organisms occur in the zooplankton,
the dominant groups are crustaceans, meroplanktonic (temporary)
larvae of benthic organisms, chaetognaths, protozoans and
coelenterates. Of these, crustaceans are by far the most signi-
ficant. Crustaceans are, in turn, dominated by one group, the
copepods. Copepods are abundant in all the oceans, both in coastal
and open-ocean areas and constitute a very significant link in
the marine food chain. Appendix J lists the planktonic copepod
genera which do or could occur in the Gulf of Maine. Other
significant zooplanktoners are also listed in Appendix J.
Zooplankton populations in the Gulf of Maine have been
intensively studied by a variety of authors, notably Sherman
(1965, 1966, 1968), Riley and Bumpus (1946), Redfield (1941),
Fish and Johnson (1937), Fish (1936A, B, C) and Bigelow (1926A).
The open waters of the Gulf are inhabited by an oceanic copepod
assemblage'dominated by the calanoid calanus finnarchicus
Bigelow, 1926A). Several other genera are associated with it,
and occur mainly during spring and early summer. Redfield (1941)
II-3R
-------
nas shown that the general anticlockwise eddy, which completes
one circulation of the Gulf in approximately three months, is
largely responsible for changes in distribution and abundance
of calanoids.
The Gulf of Maine supports a rich zooplankton population.
The total zooplankton is minimal in February to March, but by April
the spring bloom, dominated by c. finnarchicus, is underway. In
the summer there is a general decrease in abundance but much
greater diversity. The late spring and summer are periods of
maximum abundance of meroplanktonic (temporary) larvae of benthic
animals. There is a second, smaller zooplankton bloom in the fall,
followed by a rapid decline to winter levels (Raymont, 1963).
The Gulf Stream, which interacts with the Gulf of Maine at its
southern end, transports warmer water species into the Gulf of
Maine periodically, and limits the distribution of the cold-water
Calanus community (Raymont, 1963).
The benthic invertebrate populations of the Gulf of Maine are
highly variable. Local conditions, food, substrate types, and
physical conditions, cause population densities to vary greatly.
The benthic fauna of the "Western" basin (Murray/Wilkinson) has
been evaluated by Rowe, et. al., (in press). This study involved
41 quantitative infaunal samples and 19 visual transacts from the
Deep Submergence Research Vessel (DSRV) ALVIN. The bottom sediments
were a silt/clay mixture.
Infaunal abundances averaged 4000 individuals/m2, which was
felt to be relatively low for a continental margin area. Eighty-
seven benthic species were collected, with four polychaetes,
Paramphinome jeffreysii, Heteromastus filiformis, Ancistrosyllis
groenlandica, and Ophelina abranchiata, making up more than 50%
of the individuals in all but one infaunal sample. Approximately
90% of all specimens belonged to 16 species,including 14 poly-
chaetes. Mollusks, arthropods, echinoderms, some ascidians,
coelenterates and ectoprocts represented less than 10% of the
individuals. The infaunal data was supplemented by direct
observations of benthic species using the DSRV ALVIN. The most
consistently abundant species were the commercially important
shrimp, Pandalus sp. , the ophiuroids (brittle stars) Ophiura sarsi
and O. robusta, the anemone, Bolocera tuediae and a hake, Phycis
sp. Less frequent observations were made of another hake,
Vrophycis sp., wolf eels, Lycenchelys verrilli, and two flounder
species. This data is not as quantitative as the infaunal samples.
Haynes and Wigley (1969) and Wigley (1960) have reported on
the abundance of four species of pandalid shrimp in the Gulf of
Maine. Three species are abundant in the Central Gulf. PandaJus
borealis is the most extensively studied (Haynes and Wigley, 1969).
It is most abundant in moderate depths, and less abundant in the
very deep areas of the Gulf. It occurs on fine grained, high
organic sediments.
11-39
-------
Other studies of benthic invertebrates not directly related
to this project, are summarized by Rowe, et. al. (1975).
Appendix J contains a list of those species which might be
expected to occur in the Gulf of Maine. The species identified
by Rowe, et. al. (1975) are marked by an asterisk.
The higher trophic levels of the Gulf are dominated by fishes,
squid, marine mammals and sea birds. The fish species found in
the Gulf of Maine are listed in Appendix J. The Gulf supports an
extremely rich fish fauna and many are commercially valuable (see
below) . Sea birds are not of commercial value but are important
ecologically. The species expected to be common in the Gulf are
listed in Appendix J. Many marine food chains terminate with sea
birds, particularly gulls, terns and skimmers. Marine mammals
in the area are poorly studied, but a list of those species which
might be present is given in Appendix J.
Extensive commercial fisheries are present in the Gulf of
Maine region. There are important commercial species of ground fish,
pelagic fish, and crustaceans in the area. Fitz (1965) has sum-
marized the data on abundance and distribution for ground fish
common in the area. Appendix K is a list of these species, with
a summary statement as to their occurrence. Data on all commercial
fisheries in the area is available from the Northeast Fisheries
Center, Woods Hole (NMFS, 1975A, B). Appendix K also contains a
summary of the U.S. fishlandings of all species from five areas
of the Gulf likely to be affected by an ocean disposal alternative
to the proposed project. All of the areas east of Boston Harbor
are important commercial fishery areas. The coastal areas north
of Cape Ann plus Massachusetts Bay produce the largest tonnages
and are particularly important fishery areas for Cod, Winter
Flounder, Grey Sole, Yellowtail Flounder, American Dab, Haddock,
White Hake, Herring, Mackerel, Menhaden, Whiting, Rock Crab,
Lobster, Shrimp and Soft Clams. The fishery area which overlies
the Murray-Wilkinson Basin supports a significant fishery for
Redfish. Cod, Yellowtail Flounder, Haddock, Silver Hake, and
Sea Scallop are important species commercially in the area
immediately east of Cape Cod, plus the Georges Bank area (which
is further east).
F. Crops
Tables 11-11 and 11-12 summarize the crops produced in
Massachusetts, the number of farms in selected counties and the
number of acres in each crop category.
As is shown in Table 11-11, the number of acres in cropland
increased by almost 1% between 1973 and 1974. Both silage corn
and sweet corn acreage increased by about 2.5% between 1973 and
1974 (USDA, 1975A). Silage corn, hay and cranberries are the
major crops, occupying 89% of the harvested acreage and having
11-40
-------
48% of the production value. Apples and tobacco, with a minor
harvested acreage, have 31% of the crop value.
Table 11-12 shows that the average acreage of farms in
Massachusetts is generally less than 150 acres, with only 0.7%
of the farms in the industrial counties having areas greater
than 1000 acres (USDC, 1975)
Fertilizer consumption in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
increased by 1% between 1973 and 1974, i.e. in direct proportion
to the increase in farmland. Consumption of mixed fertilizer,
which contains two or more primary plant nutrients, was 61,540
tons in 1974. Fifteen thousand, eight hundred tons of primary
nutrients (containing nitrogen, ^2Q5> and K2°) were applied by
direct application, while an additional 23 tons of secondary
nutrients were directly applied (CRB, 1975). The average nutrient
concentration of mixed fertilizers consumed in Massachusetts is:
11.92% Nitrogen, 10.17% available ?2°5 and 9.92% potash. The
most common grade of N-P fertilizer used is 13-39 (13% N, 39% P) ,
with 552 tons being applied. The second most common grade of N-P
fertilizer was 18-46, with 358 tons being applied (USDA, 1975B).
G. Environmentally Sensitive Areas
The Environmental Protection Agency has designated certain
areas or situations as being environmentally sensitive to develop-
mental pressures or disturbances (U.S. EPA, 1974G). Definitions
of these areas and their relationships to Massachusetts are given
below.
1. Surface Waters
Surface waters include lakes, ponds, streams, coastal waters,
and other open bodies of water. These areas react rapidly to
changing conditions and, once damaged, are slow to recover, there-
fore they require special attention (Kastarlak, 1970). Five
percent of the surface area of the Commonwealth is composed of
lakes, reservoirs and ponds which are 40 acres or more in size
and an additional 1,102 square miles of streams, estuaries and
coastal waters.
2. Marshland, Wetlands and Estuaries
Because swamps, bogs, freshwater and saltwater marshes are
included in this category, it is very important for commercial
benefits as well as wildlife habitat. Many commercial fish and
shellfish species depend on estuaries or marshes for at least
part of their lifespan. Managed bogs also provide habitats for
cranberry bushes, which are farmed in the coastal plain of
Massachusetts. Water and nutrient balances are readily upset
by developmental or population activity in areas surrounding
wetlands.
11-41
-------
TABLE H-11
1974 MASS CROP SUMMARY
[Source: U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1975A]
10
Crops
Corn
(Silage)
Hay
Potatoes
Tobacco
Maple Syrup
Apples
Peaches
Cranberries
Asparagus
Cabbage
Carrots
Lettuce
Peppers
Snap Beans
Strawberries
Sweet Corn
Tomatoes
Totals
Harvested
Acres
35,000
112,000
4,000
1,460
10,900
470
930
260
370
540
700
280
8,200
700
175,810
Acres
Change from
1973 Acres
Production
Yield/Acre (Thousands)
+1,000
0
+ 300
50
....
_- —
0
30
+ 150
+ 10
+ 20
+ 10
20
+ 30
+ 200
30
+1,590
Acres
15.
2.
200
1,649
-__
85.
19
274
230
135
70
33
51
62
175
5 Tons
15 Tons
CWT
Ib.
-
-
-
8 Bbl.
CWT
CWT
CWT
CWT
CWT
CWT
CWT
CWT
CWT
543
241
800
2,408
25
2,167
63
935
9
255
60
50
38
23
14
508
123
Value of
Production
9,747
12,773
2,800
11,719
280
11,011
540
12,716
349
1,286
450
540
581
478
647
4,521
2,030
72,468
(Thousand dollars)
-------
TABLE 11-12
I
£k
U)
Number of Farms
Average Size (Acres)
Pasture Acres
Field Corn Acres
Hay Acres
Other Cropland Acres (Total)
Woodland Acres
All Other Lands
Percent County in Farms
Farms of (#)
220-259 Acres
260-499 Acres
500-999 Acres
1000-1999 Acres
2000 Acres and Over
FARM SUMMARY OF SELECTED
[Source :
Franklin
404
180
6,771
5,310
13,238
4,601
34,166
8,823
16.1
28
65
24
-
_
U. S. Department
COUNTIES
FOR 1974
of Commerce, 1975]
Hampshire Middlesex
495
131
8,269
5,872
11,736
7,785
23,586
7,643
19.2
24
57
13
2
mm
504
85
2,668
1,775
10,106
7,771
14,404
6,250
8.1
12
19
11
2
_
Norfolk
172
70
875
297
2,326
1,215
5,214
2,038
4.7
3
7
2
1
_
Plymouth
532
145
3,081
3,097
4,615
10,858
34,305
21,448
18.5
16
25
17
4
4
Worcester
816
160
13,492
7,802
29,234
2,001
51,471
22,837
13.5
48
104
26
4
2
-------
3. Floodplains or Flood-Retention Areas
Floodplains act as energy relief systems during floods.
After leaving the river channel, floodwaters spread over the land
surface, and are subsequently slowed by obstacles such as trees
and other plants. In addition, water standing or running over
a floodplain percolates into the ground more readily than it would
through the channel bottom. Floodplains also provide habitats
for a great diversity of wildlife. Development of chese areas
may result in increased flood damage, a decreased animal diversity
and a decreased surface water quality. Special considerations
are necessary to maintain this environment.
4. Groundwater Recharge Areas
Development on groundwater recharge areas results in less
water reaching che aquifer layers, and possible contamination of
the watertable. This in turn affects surface water quantity
and quality. Certain portions of Massachusetts, such as heavily
developed Cape Cod, are almost entirely groundwater recharge
area.
5. Steeply Sloping Lands
Steeply sloping lands are generally defined as lands with
a slope greater than 15%. These areas are easily eroded when
their ground cover is removed, which results in increased
sediment loads in nearby streams, which in turn affects the streams'
ecology. Slope erosion also leads to a general degradation of the
wildlife habitat in that area. Steep slopes are scattered through-
out the State, although the mountainous western section of
Massachusetts has a greater predominance.
6. Forests and Woodlands
Besides containing the habitats of numerous animal species,
forests and woodlands are important in climate modification.
They divert and reduce the force of winds, they reflect sunlight
which results in cooler areas, and they reduce the rate of
radiational cooling at night by reflecting heat back to the
earth. They may be used for recreational purposes, they are
aesthetically pleasing, and are a significant economic resource.
7. Prime Agricultural Lands
Prime agricultural lands are generally considered to be
areas where soil is found that has characteristics best suited
for crop production. Some of these characteristics are also
well-suited for development. Massachusetts has been experiencing
a decrease in farms, partially due to population pressures which
have caused increased housing development.
11-44
-------
8. Habitats of Rare and Endangered Species
Lists of rare and endangered species of plants and animals
are given in Appendix A. Their habitats include oceans, beaches,
estuaries, bogs, marshes, meadows and forests. Based on the
Massachusetts list of endangered plants and animals (Isgur, 1973),
species on the Federal endangered lists are noted.
9. Public Outdoor Recreation Areas
Ranging from wilderness parks to golf courses, this category
includes any area set aside for public recreational activity.
10. Sensitive Geologic Areas
Primarily designed to safeguard areas of fossil concentrations;
unusual geologic formations such as caves are also included.
11. Archeological and Historic Sites
The protection of possible archeological and historic sites
is provided for (as well as presently accepted or recognized
sites) by Federal law under the Historic Preservation Act, the
Archaeological Preservation Act, and several State statutes.
H. Existing Amfcient Air Quality
There are six principal air pollutants identified by the
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency for which ambient air quality
standards have been established under the 1970 Clean Air Act.
These principal pollutants are: particulates, sulfur oxides
(SOX, measured as sulfur dioxide, SO2), hydrocarbons (HC),
nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), and photochemical
oxidants (Ov). The National and Massachusetts primary ambient
air quality standards (relating to the protection of public health)
and secondary ambient air quality standards (relating to protection
of general welfare) for these pollutants are summarized in Table
11-13. For carbon monoxide, photochemical oxidants, and nitrogen
dioxide, primary and secondary standards are the same, while for
sulfur oxides and particulate matter, the secondary standards are
somewhat more stringent than the primary standard. As shown, the
National and Massachusetts standards are identical for all pollu-
tants of concern. These standards may not be exceeded more than
once a year (except for those which are defined as an Annual^
Average). The hydrocarbon figure is considered a guideline
rather than a specific standard, since the health effects of
non-methane hydrocarbons are indirect. Specifically, the health
impacts of non-methane hydrocarbons result from combining HC and
N02 in the presence of sunlight to form irritating photochemical
oxidants.
The baseline ambient air quality used in this study is
derived from an analysis of the 1974 calendar year monitor ing data
for the Boston Metropolitan area (U.S. EPA, 1975E). Since the
11-45
-------
11-13
Massachusetts and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards
CONTAMINANT
Sulfur Oxides
(S02)
Total
Suspended
Particulates
(TSP)
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
Photochemical
Oxidants (03)
Hydrocarbons
(Non-Methane)
Nitrogen Dioxide
(N02)
AVERAGING TIME
Year
Day
3 Hour
Year
Day
8 Hours
1 Hour
1 Hour
3 Hours
Year
TYPE OF AVERAGE
Arithmetic Mean
Maximum a
Maximum a
Geometric Mean
Maximum a
Maximum a
Maximum a
Maximum a
Maximum a, b
Between 6 & 9 A.M.
Arithmetic Mean
AVERAGE CONCENTRATION
PRIMARY STANDARD SECONDARY STANDARD
yg/MJ
80
365
None
75
260
10(mg/M3)
40(mg/M3)
160
160
100
ppm
0.03
0.14
None
__ .
—
9
35
0.08
0.24
0.05
yg/MJ
1,300
60b
' 150
10(mg/M3)
40(mg/M3)
160
160
100
ppm
0.5
—
--
9
35
0.08
0.24
0.05
a) Federal standards other than annual average may be exceeded once per year.
b) A guide to be used in assessing implementation plans to achieve the 24-hour standard.
yg/M3 = Micrograms per cubic meter.
ppm = Parts per million.
mg/M = Milligrams per cubic meter.
-------
ambient air quality can best be defined in terms of how closely
the monitored data meets the ambient air quality standards, the
most significant fact is the number of times the standards were
exceeded. There are a number of air quality monitoring stations
located throughout the Boston Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region (AQCR). Table 11-14 lists the monitoring stations at
which the air quality standards were exceeded and the number of
violations which occurred at each location during the period
January-December, 1974. The maximum air pollutant concentrations
measured at each site are given in Table 11-15.
The following sections describe the baseline concentration
for all pollutants except hydrocarbons. (Hydrocarbons are not
monitored in the Boston region because the photochemical oxidant
concentration can generally be used as the guideline for ambient
hydrocarbons concentration.)
1. Total Suspended Particulates
A comparison of the 1974 total suspended particulate concen-
trations with the standards indicates that the primary standard
of 260 micrograms per cubic meter was never exceeded in the
Boston region during the year. The secondary 24-hour standard
of 150 micrograms per cubic meter was exceeded only once at one
single location, i.e., Kenmore Square in Boston. At this same
location, the annual average particulate concentration was re-
ported at 84 micrograms per cubic meter, which is 9 micrograms
per cubic meter higher than the standard (75 micrograms per
cubic meter).
Suspended particulates are generated from a number of sources
such as power plants, industrial processes, home heating, etc.
The ambient levels vary with the location situations and meteoro-
logical conditions.
2. Sulfur Oxides (Sulfur Dioxide)
Annual 24-hour primary and secondary, and 3-hour secondary
standards have been established for sulfur oxides. The 1974
monitored data shows that none of these standards were exceeded
in the Boston AQCR. Among the sampling sites in the metropolitan
area, the maximum 24-hour sulfur dioxide concentrations ranged
from 233 micrograms per cubic meter, measured at Cambridge, to
107 micrograms per cubic meter at Quincy and Waltham. The
high at Cambridge is approximately 64 percent of the 24-hour
standard of 365 micrograms per cubic meter. In general, the
sulfur dioxide concentrations were well below the standards for
the Boston AQCR in 1974.
11-47
-------
TABLE 11-14
Violations of National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Boston Air Quality Control Region 1974
POLLUTANT
Total Suspended
Particulates
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
(sulfur dioxide)
Nitrogen Dioxide
Photochemical Oxidant
STANDARD
24-Hour Primary
260 yg/M3
24-Hour Secondary
150 yg/M3
Annual Average
Primary 75 yg/M3
Secondary 60 ug/M3
1-Hour Primary and
Secondary 40 mg/M
8-Hour Primary and
Secondary 10 mg/M
24-Hour Primary
365 yg/M3
Annual Primary
80 yg/M3
3-Hour Secondary
1,300 yg/M3
Annual Primary and
Secondary 100
1-Hour Primary and
Secondary 160 yg/M3
MEASUBEMENT
LOCATION
Joston-Kenmore
Kedf ord-We 1 1 ington
Joston-Kenmore
:ambridge-Sci . Pk .
teltham-Main St.
East Boston
East Boston
Boston-Kenmore
Medford
Waltham
Kenmore
Boston
Boston-Kenmore
Cambridge-Sci . Pk.
Quincy
Waltham
NO. OF
VIOLATIONS
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
39
114
28
13
0
0
0
1
24
60
221
77
The analysis of 1974 Hydrocarbon monitoring data is not available.
11-48
-------
TABLE IJ-15
Maximum Concentrations of the Monitored 1974 Ambient Air Quality
Data In Boston Air Quality Control Region
POLLUTANT
ss
o
M
t-l
<
o
o
*3
Averaging Time
Standards
Boston (JFK Bldg.)
Boston (Kenmore)
Boston (Fire station)
East Boston (central sq)
Boston
(Callahan Tunn«l)
Brookline (High School)
Cambridge (Harvard Herb)
Caribridge (Science Pk)
Lynn (City Hall)
Marblehead (Jr. U.S.)
Modford (Fire headqrtrs)
Medford (Wellinqton Cir)
Quincy (JFK Health Ctr)
Quincy (Fore River)
Revere (Garfield Jr.HS)
Walt ham (U. of Mass)
Waltham (Moody & Main)
Woburn
Particulates ijg/m3
24-Hour
P260
S150
108
200
119
112
-
840
111
257
107
109
198
212
147
157
116
86
185
103
Annual
P75
S60
47
84
59
-
-
38
-
62
41
36
43
55
-
56
46
32
70
39
Carbon Monoxide mg/m3
1-Hour
40
-
27.4
-
-
63.8
-
-
31.9
-
-
-
29.6
-
18.2
-
-
30.8
-
8-Hour
10
-
18.2
. -
-
18.2
-
-
16.4
-
- .
-
24
-
15.6
-
-
9.2
-
Sulfur Dioxide ug/m3
(Continuous)
24-Hour
365
-
189
-
-
-
-
-
233
-
-
-
160
-
107
-
-
107
-
Annual
80
-
47
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
35
-
22
-
-
31
-
Sulfur Dioxide ug/m3
(Bubbler)
2 4 -Hour
365
136
150
84
66
-
105
86
126
100
121
94
144
144
136
144
68
97
152
Annual
80
26
34
10
-
-
16
16
21
13
13
18 -
• 37
-
29
24
-
18
16
Nitrogen
Dioxide ug/m3
Annual
100
79
128
71
-
-
55
68
83
55
41
73
100
-
73
68
-
71
55
Photochemical
Oxidants yg/m3
1-Hour
160
-
267
-
-
-
-
-
255
-
-
-
392
-
367
-
-
314
-
H
I
pg/M3 » Micrograms per cubic meter.
« Milligrams per cubic meter.
: Data are not available
-------
3. Carbon Monoxide
A comparison of the 1974 carbon monoxide concentrations with
the standards showns that the 1-hour carbon monoxide standard of
40 milligrams per cubic meter (35 ppm) was exceeded only once in
the region, which is permissible. However, the 8-hour standard
of 10 milligrams per cubic meter (9 ppm) was exceeded on several
occasions (see Table 11-14). Exhaust from motor vehicles is the
principal source of carbon monoxide, and high concentrations
generally occur in localized areas.
In order to alleviate this problem in the Boston AQCR, several
measures are being implemented. The Federal Motor Vehicle Control
Program, designed to eliminate exhaust emissions at the source,
will be important to controlling all motor vehicle pollutants;
however, the dates for meeting the exhaust control requirements
are presently being reviewed by the Congress.
In addition, under the Clean Air Act requirements, a
Transportation Control Plan (GCA, 1972) to reduce motor vehicle
pollutants has been promulgated and is presently being implemented
in the Boston Intrastate AQCR. It is expected that the region
will not attain the CO standard by the target year 1977, and a
series of strategies including carpooling plans and control of
tunnels and other high density traffic centers is being implemented.
4. Nitrogen Dioxide
Two methods are used to measure nitrogen dioxide concentrations
in the region: continuous monitoring and gas bubblers. For most
sampling sites, the data indicates that nitrogen dioxide was below
the ambient air quality standard in 1974. Only one sampling site,
Kenmore Square Station, showed in annual nitrogen dioxide concen-
tration higher than the standard of 100 micrograms per cubic meter.
The measured concentration at Wellington Circle at Medford was
right at the standard.
5. Photochemical Oxidants
As shown in Tables 11-14 and 11-15, the 1-hour photochemical
oxidant primary standard of 160 micrograms per cubic meter (0.08
ppm) was repeatedly exceeded at many sampling stations in the
Boston Intrastate Region; the total number of violations was 382
in 1974. Although photochemical oxidant is a regional problem,
the characteristics of the violations vary by location. For
example, the greatest frequency of violations occurred at the
sampling station in Quincy, where the standard was exceeded 221
times duirng 1974. In addition, the maximum 1-hour photochemical
oxidant reading was 392 micrograms per cubic meter (0.183 ppm)
measured at Wellington Circle in Medford.
11-50
-------
Photochemical oxidants are formed in the atmosphere by the
reaction of intense sunlight on nitrogen dioxide in the presence
of non-methane hydrocarbons. The alleviation of the photochemical
oxidant problem will depend on the reduction of the regional
emissions of hydrocarbons and nitrogen dioxide. Since the primary
source of these pollutants is motor vehicles, the Transportation
Control Plan is designed to accomplish a reduction of 60 percent
in hydrocarbons and will be required to reach the standard by
1977.
I. Existing Ambient Noise
The objective of this section is twofold. First, quantitative
measures of existing noise levels are presented to serve as a basis
for comparison between existing conditions and established noise
level guidelines, as well as to serve as a benchmark by which
induced increments in potential noise levels can be evaluated.
Second, detailed descriptions of the socio-physical characteristics
of potential impact areas will be presented in order to identify
particularly sensitive receptor sites/areas.
The ambient noise levels presented below have been extracted
from existing data sources, and as such are subject to a number
of limitations, particularly the choice of monitoring sites, as
well as the currency of the data. Additionally, in some cases
no ambient data was available. In these instances ambient figures
were developed from noise levels associated with typical land uses.
In this context, ambient levels presented should not be interpreted
as exact, but rather as approximate values. Figure 11-10 is a
graphical representation of relative noise levels for different
types of urban-suburban-rural environments.
Table 11-16 illustrates the equivalent 24 hour sound level
(Leg{24)) for sites within the vicinity of the five potential im-
pact areas (Charlestown, Plainville, East Boston, Quincy and
Winthrop) and for the generalized rural sites. (As will be
indicated later, in Section III, Plainville has been chosen as
a potential landfill site.) The urban areas have ambient levels
in the 69 dB to 74 dB range, while the rural areas and Plainville
were estimated to have sound levels about 10 decibels lower. It
should be noted as a point of comparison that the Federal Environ-
mental Protection Agency has established guidelines including
limits of equivalent 24 hour sound levels. Specifically, Leg(24)
sound levels greater than 70 dBA are interpreted to degrade
public health. This guideline is exceeded in the section of
Charlestown considered, and possibly exceeded in Winthrop and
East Boston. Background noise levels in these areas are greatly
influenced by the proximity of Logan Airport. In addition, a
day-night noise level (Ldn) of 55 dBA(Ldn) has been indicated
as a minimum standard for protection of public health from the
standpoint of sleep interference, even though approximately 50%
of the national population presently experiences higher levels
(USEPA, 19741).
11-51
-------
QUALITATIVE
DESCRIPTIONS
DAY-NIGHT
SOUND LEVEL
DECIBELS OUTDOOR LOCATIONS
~ 9°~ LOS ANGELES- 3rd FLOOR APARTMENT NEXT TO
._ — -• FnccWAY
LOS ANGELES-3/4 MILE FROM TOUCH DOWN AT
— MAJOR AIRPORT
.SO-
OTY NOISE +^_
(DOWNTOWN MAJOR - v
METROPOLIS) 1 '-^
j/ERY NOISY _7p- BOSTON-ROW HOUSING ON MAJOR AVENUE
LOS ANGELES- DOWNTOWN WITH SOME CON-
— STRUCTION ACTIVITY
HARLEM- 2nd FLOOR APARTMENT
WATTS- 8 MILES FROM TOUCH DOWN
AT MAJOR AIRPORT
- - \ NEWPORT- 3.5 MILES FROM TAKEOFF AT
_60- — SMALL AIRPORT
LOS ANGELES- OLD RESIDENTIAL AREA
SS"*LLOU?ETI ft
-SUBURBAN
FILLMOHE-SMALL TOWN CUL- de-SAC
SAN DIEGO- WOODED RESIDENTIAL
•4- CALIFORNIA -TOMATO FIELD ON FARM
• 40—
FIGURE II-io* OUTDOOR DAY-NIGHT SOUND LEVEL IN dB
(RE 20 MICROPASCALS) AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS
[SOURCE: U. S. EPA, 1974G]
11-52
-------
TABLE H-16
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
Location Equivalent 24 hour Sound Level Le(2_4j
Charlestown:
Henley Street between ,
Main Street and Warren 74 dB
East Boston: Bennington
Street between Putnam
Street and Prescott
Street2 69 dB
Plainville* 60 dB
Quincy: Bayview Street
between Edison Street and
Thompson Street2 69 dB
Rural Sites* 60 dB
Winthrop* 70 dB
* Levels developed from typical land uses.
Source: City of Boston Air and Noise Pollution Control
Commission, Boston Noise Survey, 1975. Site Number 28-42.
2
Source: Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc., Community Noise
Measurements in Los Angeles, Detroit and Boston, June 1971,
Site numbers 11 and 23.Leq(24)level developed from
and L5Q levels and adjusted to 1975.
11-53
-------
J. Public Health
The potential for water borne disease occurrence in the
Boston Harbor vicinity is related to three major sources of
contamination:
• combined sewer overflows,
• primary effluent discharges from Deer and Nut Islands,
• sludge discharges from Deer and Nut Islands.
Of these three, the combined sewer overflow problem is
regarded as the major area of concern (Metro. Area Planning
Council, 1972 and EPA, 1971B). These combined sewer overflows
originate from sections of Boston, Cambridge, Chelsea, Somerville
and Brookline which are served by combined sewer systems. During
normal conditions, sewage is conveyed via these sewers to the
respective treatment facilities. However, during storm events,
combined sewers overflow and discharge untreated sewage into the
Harbor and its tributaries at approximately 125 outlets, 75 of
which are from the City of Boston sewer system. Many of these
combined sewers discharge wastes into the Harbor during low tide
in dry weather because of defective tide gates at the outlets.
Unlike the treatment plant effluents, these discharges are not
chlorinated.
Associated with these conditions, studies by the EPA (EPA,
1971B) and the Nut Island treatment plant chemist have identified
a correlation between coliform counts at the MDC bathing beaches
in the Harbor and rainfall or tides. Tenean Beach was found to
have particularly high coliform counts following rainfall, and
all of the beaches were found to have higher coliform counts
during low tides.
The MDC has adopted a tidegate repair program for correction
of these problems. This program is now approximately 90% complete
(EMMA, 1975), and the maintenance for the rehabilitated tide gates
will be a responsibility ot the City. On June 30, 1977, the NPDES
permit conditions allowing the discharge of combined sewer over-
flows during rainfall will expire, at which point the MDC must
regulate these discharges. Since the program for repair was
adopted, some improvement in the coliform counts at the beaches
has been found (U.S. EPA, 1971B). For example, since 1968, there
have been only three cases of gastroenteritis in the Boston area
which were suspected to have resulted from water pollution
(Hoke, 1975).
Air pollution resulting from industrial and municipal stack
discharges and automotive emissions is also of concern in urban
areas. Although there are no studies directly correlating air
quality with respiratory disease in Boston, air quality standards
11-54
-------
TABLE 11-17
)urce: Hoke, 1975]
RESPIRATORY AILMENTS IN
Bronchitis , Emphysema ,
Asthma
Hull
Quincy
Boston
Cambridge
Somerville
Chelsea
Everett
Winthrop
Revere
Nahant
Total
Flu arid Pneumonia
Hull
Quincy
Boston
Cambridge
Somerville
Chelsea
Everett
Winthrop
Revere
Nahant
Total
THE
1971
1
10
98
18
18
8
6
1
7
0
167
4
45
464
50
56
18
16
7
24
0
684
BOSTON HARBOR
Number of
1972
3
14
79
15
14
5
7
* 1
3
0
141
5
36
540
71
52
21
11
* 8
19
2
765
VICINITY
Cases
1973
1
13
100
21
14
4
10
0
3
0
166
3
40
467
64
53
13
13
9
11
3
676
Avg.
2
12
92
18
15
6
8
1
4
0
158
4
40
490
62
54
17
13
8
18
2
708
* Data not given, assumed average
11-55
-------
are based on public health criteria. Table 11-17 lists the
number of cases of respiratory ailments in the Boston Harbor
vicinity in the years 1971-1973. These types of conditions in
turn may be adversely affected by poor air quality.
In addition to the general population, two special popula-
tions can be considered sensitive receptors: the Long Island
Chronic Disease Hospital and the Deer Island Confinement
Facility.
The Long Island Chronic Disease Hospital, located on Long
Island (southwest of Deer Island), has an average population
of 445, of which 345 are hospitalized and 100 are residents. The
average age of these inmates is 64 years of age or older. The
Administrator has stated that statistics of age are more indica-
tive of respiratory sensitivity than are data on specific
respiratory diseases (LICDH, 1976).
The Deer Island Confinement Facility, operated by Suffolk
County, is to be relocated. This relocation will be funded by
a special grant incorporated in the Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1977.
K. Historic Places
Metropolitan Boston and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
are intimately entwined in the colonial heritage and early history
of the United States. The Massachusetts Bay was the location
of one of the first colonies in America, and the City of Boston
was the cultural and commercial center of the northern colonies.
The Boston Harbor has long been a major international shipping
port; as early as 1660 it was the center of merchant shipping
between the colonies and England. In addition, the Harbor has
been a strategic military stronghold and the center of the New
England fishing industry (MAPC, 1972).
The Commonwealth contains a large number of historic places
recognized by the National Register and Massachusetts Historical
Commission. Most historic sites are located in the eastern por-
tion of Massachusetts as landmarks in urban areas of Boston or
in the cities and towns in the vicinity. However, a large number
are located in relatively rural areas in the western and middle
sections of the state.
In all alternatives for sludge disposal, these sites must
be considered. Any potential disturbance or other detrimental
effect of an alternative on an historic place must be avoided
to prevent the loss of irreplaceable segments of the American
heritage.
11-56
-------
Boston National Historic Park
Other Historic Si tes
BOSTON HARBOR
KOSTOS
INNER
IARKOR
WIN THRO I'
II A RKOR
PRESIDENT ROAD!
FIGURE II-U LOCATION OF HISTORIC SITES IN VICINITY OF BOSTON HARBOR
[Refer to Text for Description]
11-57
-------
Figure 11-12 indicates the location of historic places in the
Boston Harbor vicinity that may be affected by various alternate
sludge disposal methods (Massachusetts Historical Commission, 1975) .
They are described further in Appendix L. The numbers and letters
given below are keyed to Figure 11-11.
1. Fort Warren, Boston
2. Fort Independence, Boston
3. Slade Spice Mill, Revere
4. Fort Revere, Telegraph Hill
5. Telegraph Hill
6. Moswetuset Hummock, Quincy
7. Adams. National.Historic-Site, Quincy
8. Hull Village, Hull
9. House, Winthrop
10. Deane Winthrop House, Winthrop
Sites that are to be included in the Boston National Historical
Park are also indicated on Figure 11-12, and are denoted by tri-
anqles.
A. Fanueil Hall, Dock Square, Boston
B. Paul Revere House, 9 North Square, Boston
C. Old North Church, 193 Salem Street, Boston
D. Old State House, Washington and State Streets, Boston
E. Bunker Hill Monument, Breeds Hill, Boston
F. Old South Meeting House, Mild and Washington Streets,
Boston
G. Charlestown Navy Yard
In addition to the above, the following sites may be included
an the National Historical Park at a later day (Gurney, 1975?:
A. Boston Common, Boston
B. Dillaway Thomas House, Roxbury
°* 55"S!!hS;?a£ H°!?Se (°ld Corner Book Store>' Washington
and School Streets, Boston
D. Dorchester Heights, South Boston
E. The following burial grounds:
1. King's Chapel, Boston
2. Granary, Boston
3. Copp'-s Hill, Boston
11-58
-------
L. Archeology
There are two statutes relating to the preservation of sig-
nificant archeological and historical resources: the National
Archeological Preservation Act of 1974, and the Commonwealth
Historical and Archeological Resources Preservation Act of
1973. Executive Order 11593 and the National Environmental
Policy Act also encourage the identification and protection
of cultural resources. The State's Act provided a system for
preserving historical resources during the ongoing development
of the Commonwealth. The Act established the Massachusetts
Historical Commission which is responsible for the regulation
of historical and archeological matters within the State. The
Chairman of this Commission was charged with the responsibility
to appoint a State Archeologist who will advise the State Secre-
tary on archeological matters.
The State Archeologist will also be responsible for maintain-
ing an inventory of historical and archeological sites and spec-
imens, publishing information obtained during surveys and field
studies, recommending sites for historical or archeological pro-
tection, and issuing permits for archeological investigations.
The Commission is responsible for recommending reservation of
public lands from sale on which archeological or historical
sites or specimens are located or suspected to exist.
Under the Act, the Commission may request the State Archeol-
ogist to examine specific sites for recommendations on their
archeological significance. Sites which are believed to be of
archeological significance may be designated by the Commission
as archeological landmarks, and the Commission may establish
standards for the management of these sites. Field investiga-
tions on such sites must be authorized by the issuance of a
permit from the State Archeologist.
During construction or excavation on any lands of the Common-
wealth, if any historical or archeological specimen is encountered
the Act requires that the State Archeologist be notified, and that
steps be taken to preserve the specimen. Field inspections on
State-owned lands must be performed under the authority of a per-
mit from the State Archeologist. For the purpose of the Act, a
"site" is accepted to be any location which is one hundred and
fifty years old or more and may have archological significance,
and "specimens" are objects of the same nature.
At present, there is no map identifying the location of ar-
cheological sites, the number of which has been tentatively anti-
cipated by the State Historical Commission to be in the thousands.
The Commission recommended that during the investigation of alter-
native sludge disposal sites that they be contacted to determine
the archeological value of these sites in accordance with the
Act.
11-59
-------
The archeology of Boston has been described in "An Intro-
duction to Archeology in the Greater Boston Area" (Dincauze,
1974) . Despite extensive urbanization, the area has retained
significant potential for research. In an area within a 30-mile
radius of Harvard University, it was estimated that only half
of all existing prehistoric sites have been recorded, totaling
199. Of these, 151 sites were sufficiently studied to allow
mapping, and 42 of these were determined to have remaining
potential for research. Dincauze has estimated that 80%-90%
of all partially existing sites in the area have been mapped.
The survey generally determined that the Boston area has been
continuously occupied for approximately 9000 years.
M. Transportation
1. Highway System
a. Commonwealth; The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
in 1966 contained 27,401 miles of municipal and rural roads.
Of the 18,888 miles of rural roads in Massachusetts, the State
controls 10,921 miles, local governments control 7,804, and the
Federal government controls 163 miles (Mass. DCD, 1970). The
State also contains significant segments of the interstate high-
way system, including 1-95, 1-93, 1-495, 1-91, and the Massachu-
setts Turnpike (1-90).
In the eastern part of the State, the major highways
either radiate from Boston or are concentric around the city.
The major arteries radiating outward from the city are 1-95,
1-93, U. S. 3, Rte. 2, 1-90, Rte. 24, and Rte. 3 (counter clock-
wise from north to south). Two major concentric rings are formed
by Rte. 128, approximately 10 miles from center city, and 1-495,
approximately 35 miles from center city.
In the central and western parts of the State, two major
east-west corridors exist. Rte. 2 passes from Boston through
Leominster and Greenfield to North Adams along the northern por-
tion of the State. The Massachusetts Turnpike passes from Boston
through Worcester and Springfield to Albany, N. Y., along the
southern part of the State. Interconnecting these highways be-
tween Springfield and Greenfield is 1-91 which is a major north-
south artery from Connecticut to Vermont/New Hampshire. In addi-
tion to these major highways are many local highways throughout
the State providing access to smaller towns.
b. Winthrop - Deer Island; Winthrop is an older densely
populated residential community, which has a population of 20,181
(1970 census) in an area of 1.56 square miles. Winthrop is
bordered by Boston and Revere to the north and the Massachusetts
Bay on all other sides. It is a peninsula, connected by two access
routes leading into Revere and Boston. Saratoga Street-Main Street
is the sole access facility from Boston Proper while Winthrop
Parkway-Revere Street provides the only access into Revere. Both
access facilities are designated as State Route 145.
11-60
-------
A designated truck route through the town to Deer
Island follows Saratoga Street into Winthrop Proper via Main
Street. It then proceeds along Pleasant Street (Route 145)/
Washington Avenue to Shirley Street, which eventually forms
Shirley Avenue and Tafts Avenue. Tafts Avenue then provides
the sole access onto Deer Island.
c. Quincy - Nut Island: Quincy is one of the largest
cities within the Boston Metropolitan Area. It is located south-
east of Boston, with the primary connecting roadway facility
being the Southeast Expressway. The population of Quincy is
approximately 90,000.
Land use within the City is widely mixed. The Central
Business District serves a major regional shopping area and com-
mercial district for many of the surrounding communities. Many
scattered areas have been developed with manufacturing and other
industrial uses. The General Dynamics Fore River Shipyard is one
of the biggest employers within the City.
The Red Line Rapid Transit System was recently completed
to Quincy Center. The Quincy Center terminal has developed to
be a major focal point in the area with the constructed garage
serving both commuter needs and Quincy business needs.
The Neponset Bridge, recently reconstructed, is one of
the principal roadways servicing Quincy. It provides the only
connection between the City of Quincy and the City of Boston.
State Route designation 3A is given to the Neponset Bridge and
Hancock Street through Quincy.
2. Rail Services
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is served primarily by
two railroad companies. The Penn Central Railroad predominantly
serves the southern half of both the Commonwealth and the Boston
area, and the Boston & Maine Railroad serves the northern half.
Some overlapping of service occurs in the Springfield and Lowell
areas. In addition to these major lines, several smaller compan-
ies maintain short segments within the Commonwealth. These are:
• Providence & Worcester Railroad
• Grafton & Upton Railroad
• Central Vermont Railroad
• Fore River Railroad
Figure 11-12 illustrates the rail network in the Commonwealth,
Because Boston is the major center of industry and commerce in the
New England area, a considerable network of rail lines radiates
from the city in all directions on either of the two major ser-
vices. The network has relatively dense coverage within approx-
imately 40 miles of the city. Beyond this radius, the network
begins to thin out, serving only the cities and larger towns in
the central and western portions of the State.
11-61
-------
""^ Penn Central Railroad
«••»•• Boston & Maine Railroad
FIGURE 11-12 . MAJOR RAILROAD ROUTES IN THE
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
-------
Because of this extensive network, it is possible to consi-
der rail transportation as an alternative method for transporting
sludge, provided that the site of land application is within ac-
cess of a rail service. Other factors must be considered in this
alternative, however, such as interchanges, monetary costs, avail-
ability of adequate land for disposal, and availability of service
on the lines, among others. These factors will be incorporated
into the land disposal alternative and weighed against the other
transportation alternatives.
3. Shipping
The Port of Boston has historically provided a means of
access by sea for the New England area. Boston has a well pro-
tected deep water harbor which is eight miles from the open sea,
and one day closer to Europe than other eastern ports.
The Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) is the agency
responsible for revitalization of the port beginning in 1956,
after an overall post-World War II decline. Massport is the
major authority of the harbor, maintaining the only full service
container port in New England, at Mystic Terminal, on the Mystic
River.
In 1974, the tonnage of container cargo exported from Mass-
port locations amounted to 275,000 short tons (Massport, 1974).
Access to the port from Boston and the harbor area is pro-
vided by both rail and truck traffic.
4. Air Travel
Access to Boston by air is provided at the Boston-Logan
International Airport. The airport provides service for cargo
transport as well as passenger and mail services. In 1974, the
airport handled 347,321,000 pounds of cargo of which 266,159,000
pounds were domestic in nature (Massport, 1974) .
The airport is in close proximity to center city and the
harbor vicinity by rapid rail mass transit and highway.
N. Energy Resources
Electrical power in the Boston area is supplied by two com-
panies. The Boston Edison service area includes the City of
Boston and the western and northern regions around the harbor,
while Massachusetts Electric serves the southern part of the
harbor including Quincy.
The Deer Island treatment plant is located within the Boston
Edison service area. At present it does not purchase energy from
the company, because the methane generated by sludge digestion is
used to produce the needed electricity. However, in the event
that it becomes necessary for the plant to purchase additional
electrical energy, it will most likely obtain it from Boston
Edison.
11-63
-------
Boston Edison maintains four oil, one gas and one nuclear
generating plant, and purchases additional electricity to pro-
vide a p ,ak capability (1974) of 2,954,000 KW and a net system
output of 11,170,085,000 kilowatt hours. Of this 10,297,761,000
kilowatt, hours were sold to customers in 1974 (Boston Edison,
1974) .
*
If the Deer Island treatment plant were to purchase primary
power from Boston Edison, it would be billed under rate G-3, the
general service rate for industrial use at a single location.
Table 11-18 details the charges for the G-3 rate. The range
for fuel adjustment is $.01586 to $.025399 per KWH for 1977 and
1978.
The Nut Island treatment plant is located within the Mass-
achusetts Electric Company- service area. At present, it, too,
does not purchase electrical energy because its digesters pro-
duce sufficient gas to make the facility totally energy indepen-
dent. However, in the case that it were to require outside power,
the plant would purchase electricity from Massachusetts Electric.
Massachusetts Electric is a member of the New England Electric
System which operates (jointly or solely) five fossil fuel, four
diesel or gas, thirteen hydroelectric, and eight nuclear plants
in the States of Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Ver-
mont, New Hampshire, and Maine (NE Electric, 1974).
The Nut Island treatment plant would be billed either under
general rates G-22 or C-22, or under the optional large-power
rate H. These rates are given in Table 11-19.
0. Aesthetics
The Boston area and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are
important areas of tourism and local attraction. In the eastern
section of the State are the sites of early colonies, revolution-
ary museums, battlefields and historic buildings and forts.
Recreational areas include the seashore of Cape Cod, Nantucket
and Martha's Vineyard, and the rugged coastline north of Boston.
Boston, as the largest city in New England, is also an important
art and cultural center.
The central and western portions of the Commonwealth offer
recreational opportunities for year-round tourism including
hiking, fishing, swimming, canoeing, and skiing, as well as
other outdoor activities. The many rivers and streams in these
regions associated with the highlands of the Taconic Mountains
and the Berkshire Valley add to the picturesque quality of the
State. Massachusetts presents a wide variety of landscapes in
a relatively small land mass.
11-64
-------
TABLE 11-18
BOSTON EDISON SERVICE RATE, G-3
(Source: Boston Edison, 1978)
Demand charge (per month):
July-October November-June
$530.00 $530.00 0-150 Kilowatts (KW) ;
3.65 2.80 per KW for next 650 KW;
3.50 2.65 per KW for next 2200 KW;
3.35 2.50 per KW for the excess.
Energy charge (per Kilowatt hour per month):
$.019 for first 50 hours use of demand;
.015 for next 100 hours use;
.0095 for next 150 hours use;
.0080 for excess over 300 hours;
plus .0040 surcharge, July through October.
11-65
-------
TABLE 11-19
MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC COMPATOf SERVICE RATES
[Source; New England Electrical System, 1974]
Rates G-22
Demand Charge:
$20.00 first 0-5 kilowatts (RW)
2.15 per XW next 5 XW
1.80 per KW next 15 KW
1.65 per KW next 75 KW
1.50 per KW excess of 100 KW
Rate: C-22
Monthly Charge as Adjusted (per month);
$1,92 0-20 kilowatt hours (KWH)
.06287 per KWH next 80 KWH
.05687 per KWH next 200 KWH
.04577 per KWH next 1700 KWH
.03387 per KWH excess of 2000 KWH
Energy Charge (per Kilowatt hour per month): Rate: Optional Large-Power Rate H
Cfi
en
.03517
.02757
.02477
.02217
.02117
.01917
.01787
.01687
,01587
.01287
first 500 kilowatt hours (KWH)
next 500 KWH
next 4,000 KWH
next 5,000 KWH
next 40,000 KWH
next 50,000 KWH
excess of 100,000 KWH
excess of 200 H.U. per KW of
demand per month
excess of 300 H.U. per KW of
demand per month
excess of 400 H.U, per KW of
demand per month
Demand Charge:
$700.00 first 500 kilowatts (KW) or less
1.30 per KW excess of 500 KW of demand.
Energy Charge (per kilowatt hour per month):
$.02317
.02017
.01707
.01597
.01137
.01037
.00987
first 50,000 KWH
next 50,000 KWH
excess of 100,000 KWH
excess of 200 H.U. per KW of demand per month
excess of 300 H.U, per KW of demand per month
excess of 400 H.U. per KW of demand per month
excess of 500 H.U, per KW of demand per month
-------
The State has become increasingly aware of these attrac-
tions, as well as the need for expanded recreational facilities
in the urban areas. As a result, the Office of Environmental
Affairs has been purchasing large acreages of land for Common-
wealth forests, parks and other reserves. Much of Cape Cod is
already a part of the National Seashore reserved by the Federal
government, and most of the historic sites are protected by the
National Historic Preservation Act. The Metropolitan Area
Planning Council has recommended a program for the reclamation
and maintenance of the Harbor Islands as areas of recreation
and environmental preservation within easy access of the Boston
community.
Tourism is a valuable part of the Massachusetts economy.
In 1966, 106,000 persons were employed full time in the recrea-
tional and tourism sector, constituting 5% of the total work
force. Overnight travel expenditures amounted to over $900
million for the State, resulting in approximately 1.5% of the
total employee compensation. Ultimately, however, the tourist
income from outside visitors results in a lower amount of money
than that removed from the State by Massachusetts residents
who recreate in other States (Mass BCD, 1970).
The region which includes the counties of Middlesex, Nor-
folk, and Suffolk (Boston area) has the highest ranking for
tourism both on the basis of event and site attractions. This
region also has the highest ranking based on seasonal activity
attractions, and the largest number of sites of national signi-
ficance in the State. In addition, the second largest category
of tourist activity in the region (after historical interests)
is fishing (Mass DCD, 1970).
Boston is by far the single most significant tourist area
in the region, and in the State. It is rated as having 316 site
attractions out of 3,854 in the State (8%), and 200 event attrac-
tions out of 798 in the State (25%). In the region, Quincy is
also highly rated as a tourist attraction area (Mass DCD, 1970).
p. Population and Socioeconomic Character
Population and socioeconomic character, as considered in
this study, are developed at two levels. First, the MDC commun-
ities will be discussed because of the impact of their growth on
treatment plant loading. Second, similar data for the Common-
wealth of Massachusetts will be developed because of the interest
in land application and its impact on agriculture and forestry.
11-67
-------
1. Population
a. Service Areas; Population data were developed by
Havens and Emerson (1973) for the Metropolitan District Commission
service area in order to project the total waste loading expected
at the Deer and Nut Island facilities. These projected populations
are shown in Table 11-20. For purposes of comparison, the total
service area populations can be compared with OBERS data presented
in the Southeast New England Study (SENE, 1975). These popula-
tion totals are presented in Table 11-21.
Although the 1990 OBERS (Office of Business Economics)
projection used by SENE for total population is slightly lower
than the rough projection developed by Havens and Emerson, the
OBERS estimate is only 5.7% less than the estimate used in design.
The compound annual growth rate indicated by Havens and Emerson
data is 0.78% per year in the period 1970 to 1990, while the
OBERS compound growth rate is 0.54% per year. The growth rates
for the Boston Metropolitan Region (not the MDC Region), and
for this region plus the Ipswich North Shore and South Shore
regions are shown in Table 11-22.
With this variation between,(1) the regional planning
agencies, (2) SENE, and (3) the MDC, perhaps the only common
denominator is a low rate of growth, with actual population loss
expected in the core cities, with slow growth in the inner suburbs,
and somewhat more rapid growth in the outer suburbs. None of the
rates of growth presented are radically high, although the growth
rate used in the Havens and Emerson study is the highest of the
group. Therefore, the sizing of the proposed (or alternate)
facilities for 1985 allows a certain cushion for either over-
projection (which allows for expansions) or under-projections
(which means earlier expansions).
Since the goal of the project is to improve sludge
processing,\an over-estimation of capacity would only extend the
useful lifetime of the equipment, and would not induce secondary
growth. (5§iis concept will be more fully explored in Section IV).
Therefore, we conclude that the waste loadings (and needed capacity)
projected by MDC's consultant are reasonable, although conservative.
b. Operational Areas; For the municipalities which will
be more affected by constructxon and/or operation of any facilities,
Winthrop and Quincy, population projections are shown in Table 11-23
along with "environmental holding capacities." These environmental
holding capacities are developed based on the present zoning and
environmentally sensitive areas such as steep slopes and wetlands.
The 1990 projections in both cases are in excess of the holding
capacity, but 2020 estimate for Quincy converges toward this
capacity, while the Winthrop population continues to exceed its
capacity.
11-68
-------
TABLE 11-20
PROJECTED POPULATIONS - MDC SERVICE AREA
[Source: Havens and Emerson, 1973]
1970
Total Population
Deer Island 1,420/000
Nut Island 790,000
Total 2,210,000
Serviced Population
Deer Island 1,330,000
Nut Island 620,000
Total 1,950,000
1980
1,510,000
920,000
1,430,000
770,000
1985
1,530,000
960,000
1,460,000
820,000
1990
1,580,000
1,000,000
2,430,000 2,490,000 2,580,000
1,520,000
890,000
2,200,000 2,280,000 2,410,000
TABLE H-21
POPULATION PROJECTIONS FROM SENE REPORT
(MDC Sewered Municipalities)
[Source: SENE, 1975 (OBERS projections)]
County
Middlesex
Norfolk
Plymouth
Suffolk
Total
1970
960,243
469,395
18,845
735,190
2,191,828
1990
1,070,771
614,561
27,132
727,131
2,439,595
2020
1,159,430
690,355
38,346
710,816
2,560,600
Source: SENE Report Basic Data (OBERS projections)
11-69
-------
TABLE 11-22
COMPOUND ANNUAL GROWTH RATES FROM SENE REPORT
[Source: SENE Study Summary, 1975]
Boston Metropolitan
Region
BMR plus Ipswich
and South Shore
Regions
Regional Planning
Agencies
0.48
0.86
Office of
State Planning PEERS
0.29 0.43
0.59 0.82
TABLE 11-23
POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR QUINCY AND WINTHROP
[Source: OBERS Projections and land use analysis, SENE,
1970 1990 2020
Quincy
Winthrop
87,966
20,335
93,677
21,376
91,760
22,042
iolaing
Capacity
91,806
20,432
11-70
-------
The projections by OBERS show a statewide growth rate
from 1970 through 1990 of 0.94 percent per year compounded over
that period, with a 1970 population of 5,699,000 and a 1990 pop-
ulation projection of 6,875,500. This growth would tend to put
developmental pressure on certain areas which are currently
agricultural, and which may be included in a scheme for land
application.
2. Social and Economic Data
The principal areas of interest in terms of social and economic
data for this study are the population currently farming, which
would interact with any land application alternative, and employ-
ment in the metals finishing, electronics and other industries which
would be affected by more stringent controls on wastewater pre-
treatment for heavy metals removal. Based on OBERS data, the per-
sonal income from agricultural activity within the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts is expected to rise marginally in the period 1970-
1990 (from $103.4 x 106 to $112.8 x 106). The rate of growth of
manufacture of electrical machinery and supplies, on the other
hand, is expected to be very high, from $759.4 x 106 to $1,119 x 10b
in 1990, a compound annual growth rate of 1.96 percent, much in
excess of population growth. Focusing on the statewide farm popula-
tion from the 1969 Census of Agriculture, the average age of farm
operators was 52.9 years, and the average farm size was 124.5
acres, indicating that small farms predominate. In fact, only
26 farms of more than 1,000 total acres were reported in the 1969
Census of Agriculture.
3. Economic Characteristics of Farm Operators
In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, many farm operators
supplement their farming income with off-farm labor. These
operators are separately identified in the Agricultural Census
of 1969 as both "farms with part-time operation" and "farm
operators reporting days of work off farm." These characteristics
are shown in Table 11-24 for the major agricultural counties in
the Commonwealth. As the table shows, over half of all farm
operators work off the farm at least one day per year. Assuming
that those operators having greater than 200 days per year of
off-farm employment are actually employed full-time in another
job, 929 operators or 16.7% of all farm operators are deriving
a significant portion of their income from part-time work (less
than 199 days per year).
Q. Land Use and Planning
1. Massachusetts; Existing Land Use
The existing land use in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
was compared between the early 50's and early 70's by the University
of Massachusetts Remote Sensing Project. The study measured land
use by acreage for each county in the State, with the objective
11-71
-------
TABLE 11-24
H
tO
FARM OPERATIONS
[Source: USDA,
County
Berkshire
Bristol
Dukes*
Essex
Franklin
Hampden
Hampshire
Middlesex
Norfolk
Plymouth
Suffolk*
Worcester
TOTAL
Percentacre
Number
of Farms
380
625
20
407
550
367
664
617
233
721
10
986
5,550
- PART
TIME AND FULL
TIME
Census of Agriculture, 1969]
Characterized as
"Part Time"
Number Percentage
95
112
6
82
136
73
135
102
56
177
233
1,201
25.0%
17.9%
30.0%
20.1%
24.7%
19.9%
20.3%
16.5%
24.0%
24.5%
23.6%
21.6%
1-49
Days
23
22
—
35
42
26
59
31
9
31
—
50
328
5.9%
Farm Operators Reporting
Off-Farm Work
50-99 100-199
Days Days
13
19
1
12
18
11
36
8
2
41
—
18
178
3.2%
20
47
6
25
55
23
56
39
14
55
—
89
423
7.6%
200+
Days
127
173
3
137
185
110
213
184
84
315
333
1,861
33.5%
Total
183
261
10
209
300
170
364
262
109
442
5
490
2,790
50.3%
Percentage of
Total Operators
48.2%
41.8%
50.0%
51.4%
54.5%
46.3%
54.8%
42.5%
46.8%
61.3%
50.0%
49.7%
50.3%
* Not included in totals.
-------
of identifying land use changes over the 20-year period. The
project was intended to aid in the prediction of future changes
in land use by the analysis of past trends. While the study
encompassed all of the counties in the State, information has been
compiled (at present) for 11 counties of the 14 counties. The
remaining reports {Hampden, Hampshire and Berkshire) have not been
completed for public use as yet.
Table 11-25 lists the acreages by county for six categories
of land use: Forest Land, Agriculture or Open Land, Wet Land,
Mining or Waste Disposal Land, Urban Land, and Outdoor Recreation.
Table 11-26 lists the percentage for each category in each county.
In general, the Commonwealth contains large areas of forest,
approximately 2,317,883 acres or 60% of the 11 county total. The
State total would be considerably higher if the remaining 3 counties
were added, and the State percentage would undoubtedly be greater
because of the rural nature of most of these three counties.
Urban usage is dependent upon the location of the county.
The largest urban percentage is in the East, Suffolk County
(Boston area) and the surrounding counties of Norfolk, Essex,
and Middlesex.
Agricultural usage in 9 of the counties is relatively uniform
(between 8% and 15%), the exceptions being Suffolk (3%) and
Nantucket (40%). Wet Lands throughout the 11 counties ranged
between 4% and 17%, and the lowest usage categories were
Recreation (generally 2%) and Mining and Waste Disposal (1%).
During the 20-year period, changes in land usage in the 11
counties resulted in a net increase in Urban Land of 300,349 acres
with an accompanying loss of 90,667 acres of Forest Land and 278,226
acres of Agricultural and Open Land (see Table 11-27). Agricultural
Land was prevalent throughout 10 of the 11 counties, while gain
in Urban Land occurred in all. Forest Land decreased in acreage
in most eastern counties, but increased in the central ones.
2. Massachusetts' Planning Objectives
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts contains a number of
planning agencies representing planning regions throughout the
State. The approximate areas of responsibility covered by these
regional agencies is illustrated in Figure 11-13.
In general, the objectives of these planning agencies are
to provide for adequate economic development, while maintaining
sufficient open lands for recreation and conservation.
Planning agencies in the western part of the State are con-
cerned with the conservation of open spaces which are presently
used as farm lands and forest areas. Growth in these regions is
anticipated along existing major and minor access roads radiating
from and interconnecting the cities and towns. Urban development
11-73
-------
TABLE II-25
1971 LAND USE, COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS (acres)
t Source : University
County Forest
Nantucket
Dukes
Barnstable
Plymouth
Bristol
Norfolk
Suffolk
Essex
Middlesex
Worcester
Franklin
Hampshire*
Hampden*
Berkshire*
Overall 2
Percent
12,190
48,745
153,742
266,515
210,287
135,744
2,443
155,863
280,275
693,209
358,870
,317,883
60
of Massachusetts, Remote Sensing, 1975]
Agriculture Mining or
or Open Wet Land Disposal Urban Recreation
12,730
9,991
22,754
49,910
56,134
25,053
1,263
41,174
58,821
134,998
68,598
481,426
12
2,417
7,670
47,234
42,213
28,011
14,313
3,056
46,944
32,781
62,365
19,040
306,044
8
160
140
1,659
3,570
4,098
3,550
335
3,027
5,116
5,951
1,055
28,651
1
2,361
3,550
48,692
72,663
64,556
77,775
28,685
81,926
155,371
106,133
16,832
658,544
17
1,631
1,359
6,226
5,369
5,312
4,624
2,376
7,089
8,200
6,494
1,060
49,740
2
Total
31,489
71,445
280,307
440,240
368,398
261,059
38,158
336,023
540 , 564
1,009,150
465,455
3,842,188
100
* Results were not available.
11-74
-------
TABLE 11-26
PERCENT OF LAND USE, COUNTY TOTALS
[Source: University of Massachusetts Remote Sensing, 1975]
County I
Nantucket
Dukes
Barnstable
Pylmouth
Bristol
Norfolk
Suffolk
Essex
Middlesex
Worcester
Franklin
Hampshire
Hampden
Berkshire
forest Agriculture
39
68
55
60
57
52
7
47
52
69
77
—
—
__
40
14
8
12
15
10
3
12
11
13
15
—
—
__
Wet Land
8
11
17
10
8
5
8
14
6
6
4
—
—
—
Mining
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
—
—
—
Urban
8
5
17
16
18
30
75
24
29
10
4
—
—
—
Recreation Total
5
2
2
1
1
2
6
2
1
1
0
—
—
—
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
—
—
—
Average 53 14 9 1 21 2 100
*Results were not available.
11-75
-------
TABLE 11-27
INCREASE/ (DECREASE) IN LAND USE BY COUNTY
EARLY 50 'S VERSUS EARLY 70 'S (acres)
[Source:
County
Nantucket
Dukes
Barns table
Plymouth
Bristol
Norfolk
Suffolk
Essex
Middlesex
Worcester
Franklin
Hampshire*
Hampden*
Berkshire*
Net Change
University
Forest
(7,915)
219
(20,153)
(31,636)
(16,098)
(18,250)
(179)
(10,665)
(16,723)
20,711
10,022
of Massachusetts Remote
Agriculture
4,628
(4,901)
(19,503)
(22,241)
(17,567)
(13,743)
(340)
(33,190)
(62,225)
(85,366)
(23,778)
(90,667) (278,226)
Wet Land
283
1,348
2,169
2,578
2,001
(4,035)
(144)
(120)
(4,624)
(5,841)
634
(5,751)
Sensing ,
Mining**
160
130
1,659
3,570
4,098
3,550
335
3,027
5,116
5,951
1,055
28,651
1975]
Urban
1,213
1,845
29,602
42,360
22,254
27,854
2,048
33,859
70,256
58,051
11,007
300,349
Recreation**
1,631
1,359
6,226
5,369
5,312
4,624
2,376
7,089
8,200
6,494
1,060
49,740
* Results were not available.
** These categories were not included in the 1950's study, therefore the
increase is not due to a strict change in usage.
11-76
-------
Vermont
R A N K L/i
New Hamp s h i r e
Lowe kL,
ittsfieldu
11
Lynn
Holyp
HAM
-DE f(
\Spr_ingf ield
Connecticut \__-T
E R
loston
Worceste r V
c I
i
8
islana
i
'
1. Cape Cod Planning & Ecomonic Development Commission
2. Southeastern Regional Planning & Economic Development Commission
3. Old Colony Planning Council
*». Metropolitan Area Planning Council
5. Central Merrimack Valley Regional Planning District
6. Northern Middlesex Area Commission
7. Montachusett Regional Planning Commission
8. Central Massachusetts Regional Planning District
9. Lower Pioneer Valley Regional Planning Commission
10. Franklin County Department of Planning
11. Berkshire County Regional Planning Commission
t
I
FIGURE II-13. MASSACHUSETTS PLANNING REGIONS
-------
will continue to occur around the major cities and towns in the
central and western regions such as Worcester, Springfield and
Pittsfield. In all of these regions, plans provide for the
improvement of essential services (transportation, water supply,
sewer systems) during growth, and the attraction of industries
to provide employment as necessary for the well-being of the
population.
In the northeast, planning agencies are concerned with these
same considerations, as well as certain unique problems. In
particular, the regions are concerned with their proximity to the
Boston Metropolitan Area, and the maintenance of local identities
in the face of Boston's outward expansion. Planning in these
areas must address the relationship of these regions to the
Boston Metropolis, and provide for a balanced development, while
maintaining local identities.
The eastern and southeastern regions, including the City of
Boston, and the corridor of population between Boston and Pro-
vidence, are those which must critically address the problems
of metropolitan expansion and inner city decline. In 1968, the
New England River Basins Commission recognized the Southeastern
New England (SENE) Water and Related Land Resources Study region
as one of the highest priority areas for Commonwealth and Federal
resource planning. Included in the area are all of Rhode Island
and parts of Connecticut and Massachusetts, an area encompassing
approximately 50% of the total New England population.
The SENE study area in Massachusetts is composed of the
Blackstone, Charles, Mystic, Ipswich, and Parker River Basins,
plus all drainage basins east of these (see Figure 11-14). This
region is a transition zone between the dense urban areas of
Boston and Providence, and the small towns and rural areas of much
of New England. The pressures of growth, as in most metropolitan
areas, are considerable. The goal 6f the SENE study was to pro-
vide for directing growth to areas with a net result in economically
and environmentally acceptable consequences.
Suggestions included in the draft SENE study include the
following:
• Guiding growth to protect critical environmental areas
while providing for economic development.
• Developing adequate water supply to meet future water
needs of a growing populous.
• Improving water quality to achieve fishable and swiramable
waters by 1983 where possible.
11-78
-------
' '-
I •:
I
,
EMMA Study Region
^ SENE Study Region
FIGURE H-14 . EASTERN MASSACHUSETTS PLANNING AREAS,
-------
• Expanding outdoor recreation to provide adequate
facilities and natural areas for the growing population.
• Marine management to develop and maintain marine resources.
• Controlling flooding and erosion to reduce dangers to
the population and resources.
• Providing for the location of unwelcome facilities
(power plants, solid waste disposal, sewage treatment
plants) in the most environmentally and economically
acceptable areas.
Generally, these major objectives have been embraced by the
planning agencies located within the SENE region.
A related study, the Boston Harbor-Eastern Massachusetts
Metropolitan Area Wastewater Management Study (EMMA) was initiated
as a joint effort by the Metropolitan District Commission, the
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Commonwealth, Federal and
regional agencies. The objective of the study is the develop-
ment of a comprehensive wastewater management plan for the
Eastern Massachusetts area. The direct goal of EMMA is to
determine the ultimate size of the Boston Metropolitan Sewer
District, and to provide guidelines and recommendations for the
best method to implement the BPWTT goals of PL 92-500. The EMMA
study region is also illustrated in Figure 11-15. The geographical
relationship of the SENE and EMMA planning areas can be compared
in Figure 11-15. The EMMA planning area contains 109 communities
and a total population of greater than 3 million people, all within
a 30 mile radius of Boston that encompasses 1760 square miles.
3. Boston Area - Existing Land Use
In 1972, the Dartmouth College Project in Remote Sensing
studied the existing land use in the Boston area through the
use of high altitude photographs of the region. The study area
included 3250 square kilometers (approximately 1275 square miles)
extending from Hamilton to Groton in the North, Groton to Hope-
dale in the West, and Hopedale to Hanover in the South (refer to
Figure 11-15). This aiea included the City of Boston and its
entire metropolitan area.
The Dartmouth project identified and listed parcels of land
as small as 10 acres according to 13 classifications of usage.
Table 11-28 illustrates the breakdown of land usage in the Dartmouth
study area by total square kilometers, approximately 42% is forest
land, 30% is residential, and 10% is "unimproved" land (that which
has been scarred or stripped by man), with the remaining 18% con-
sisting of the other classifications. Less than 1% of this is
agricultural land.
11-80
-------
! '
; :
I
' <
FIGURE II-15. DARTMOUTH COLLEGE REMOTE SENSING
STUDY AREA.
-------
TABLE 11-28
LAND USE IN
[Source: Dartmouth
Land Use
Forest
Water
Unimproved
Residential
Multifamily
Commercial
Industrial
Extractive
Transport
Institutional
Agriculture
Orchards
Urban/Open
BOSTON AND VICINITY
(1972)
College Project in Remote Sensing, 1972]
Square Kilometers
1365.4
82.8
315.4
958.3
136.4
62.3
72.4
26.7
44.0
95.2
28.5
4.5
58.8
Percent
42.0
2.6
9.7
29.5
4.2
1.9
2.2
0.8
1.4
2.9
0.9
0.1
1.8
Total 3250.7 100.0
11-82
-------
In the two years between 1970 and 1972, the project identified
a change in usage of approximately 16 square kilometers. The
single major portion of this change (4 square kilometers or 25%)
resulted from the conversion of forest land to residential usage.
In general, the largest combined changes resulted from a loss of
forest land to other uses (9 square kilometers), while the remaining
changes were distributed among the other categories. And during
this period, the growth rate in the area was less than 1% per year,
reflecting the slow economic condition in the Country at the time.
4. Boston AEea Planning Objectives
The Boston Metropolitan Planning Area is an integral part of
the Southeastern New England (SENE) Water and Related Land Resources
Study. The objectives of the study are to make recommendations
for action on the part of all governmental levels and private in-
terests to provide a balanced use and conservation of the region's
resources. In the Boston Metropolitan area, the study has iden-
tified four items of a critical nature: Growth, Water Quality,
Water Supply, and Outdoor Recreation.
In the first category, the draft study recommends that growth
be guided to protect critical environmental areas such as salt
marshes, wetlands, and historical sites. These areas are to be
conserved by various means such as existing or enacted legislation,
zoning regulations, or purchase by the public. Other critical
areas (floodplains, prime agricultural land, and proposed reservoir
site) are to be protected and restricted in use through the use
of public purchases, ordinances, tax incentives, etc. Growth in
areas limited in septic disposal capacity or on steep slopes (greater
than 15%) is to be discouraged or carefully managed by the
municipalities concerned. And finally, growth is to be encouraged
(but restricted where necessary) in areas where essential public
services (water, sewer, transportation) are already in existence.
In general, growth is to be carefully managed and restricted by
all possible means to locations which will benefit the planning
area both economically and environmentally.
The water quality problems in the Boston area are significant
in the three river basins and the harbor. The Mystic River suffers
from combined (storm/sanitary) sewers which overflow during rain-
fall, from urban runoff and petroleum tank farm spillage. The
river is Class D below Mystic Lakes. The.Charles River is Class C
and D below Milford, suffering from untreated or inadequately
treated municipal and industrial discharges in the upper reaches,
leachate from poorly located municipal dumps, and urban runoff.
The Neponset River is Class C for most of its urban reach. Problems
result from inadequate treatment of domestic wastes, urban runoff,
and combined sewer overflows. And finally, the Boston Harbor,
which is Class SC for most of its extent, suffers from combined
sewers, oil pollution, debris and refuse, vessel pollution, and
primary treated effluent and sludge discharges from the Deer Island
and Nut Island wastewater treatment plants. These classifications
are indicative of existing conditions.
11-83
-------
The plans for improving water quality include those measures
already adopted by the Massachusetts Office of Environmental
Affairs, as well as controlling urban runoff, treating storm
water drainage, studying alternative waste management techniques
in surrounding communities, examining landfill leachate conditions,
and providing water craft waste pump-out facilities.
The MDC, as the major water supplier in the area, is pre-
sently experiencing demands from member communities for increased
water supply. To provide for future water reserves and to meet
growing requirements, the MDC is in the process of developing
two additional water supply projects. The Northeastern United
States Water Supply Study (NEWS) by the Army Corps of Engineers
also recommended that the MDC divert water from the Connecticut
River at Northfield Mountain and Millers River Basin. The SENE
study also recommends that these projects be completed, viz.
that the Northfield project be done immediately, and the Millers
River plan implemented by the late 1980's. Furthermore, SENE
concurs in the MDC recommendation for further measures on the
part of both the MDC and the local municipalities to promote
water conservation, protect groundwater sources, and develop
alternative water districts where possible.
The SENE study recommends that improved recreational facilities
be provided in the Boston Harbor area. Beach management and improve-
ment of access to recreational areas are key recommendations of
the study. In a similar vein, the Metropolitan Area Planning
Council (MAPC) prepared the Boston Harbor Islands Comprehensive
Plan in 1972. The MAPC plan recommended that the Harbor Islands
be properly developed as areas of environmental conservation and
public recreation within ready access of the Boston Metropolitan
Area. The plan encompassed all of the islands with the objective
of recognizing the unique character of each and emphasizing the
attributes of each, whether it be environmental, historical, or
recreational.
The MAPC Harbor Islands Plan recommended that a ferry system
be provided for frequent and inexpensive access to the islands.
It also recommended that the future uses of the islands be limited
to facilities which enhance the location of the islands, and that
recreational areas and utilities be removed from important natural
areas to avoid adverse impacts. The plan recognized the need for
various water-related recreational activities, as well as historical
and natural preservation, and provided for a wide range of
facilities for these requirements. Emphasis on water-borne
transportation would be made to minimize local traffic impacts
on shoreline areas.
MAPC has taken the position that SENE will form the backbone
of its inventory of existing and future land uses. MAPC is just
beginning to develop an overall future land-use plan, and they
have indicated that SENE recommendations will be implemented
wherever possible (SENE, 1975).
11-84
-------
The draft SENE study has also made recommendations for
additional recreational facilities for the Boston area, including
improvement and expansion of inner-city recreational areas.
Access to public recreation for the inner-city populous was
identified as a necessity for improved relations in these
communities.
Other recommendations of the SENE study provide for improved
port development and waterfront planning to develop a regionwide
harbor strategy. Included in these recommendations were the
improvement of fishery management, restricting offshore mining
and excavation, and a general rehabilitation of waterfront
structures. SENE also proposed a floodplain management program
for the Neponset watershed, as well as improved floodplain
management in all communities subject to potential flooding.
The critical thrust behind all of these recommendations is
the recognition of existing problems and deficiencies in resource
conservation and to provide for a careful, sensible program for
improving these conditions while maintaining a balanced growth.
In accordance with these recommendations is the need for an
improved water quality in the harbor area and better recreational
and environmental management.
11-85
-------
SECTION III
DEVELOPMENT OF SLUDGE PROCESS
AND DISPOSAL OPTIONS
This section of the statement presents the alternatives to
be further analyzed in Section IV, and presents the de-
tailed process development for these final alternatives.
The sequence of presentation is:
• Development of Alternatives
• Description of Feasible Alternatives
• Screening for Compliance with Federal
Legislation
• Hazardous and Non-hazardous Wastes
• Process Streams and Inputs for Construction and
Operation
This section, in conjunction with Section II, will then be
used as a basis for analyzing impacts of each alternative.
-------
III. DEVELOPMENT OF SLUDGE PROCESS AND DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
In developing this impact statement, the starting point
was the work of Havens and Emerson, Ltd., consulting engineers
for the Metropolitan District Commission, viz., A Plan for
Sludge Management (1973) and Environmental Assessment Statement
for a Plan for Sludge Management (1974). The general conclusion
of these two documents was that incineration with on-site ash
disposal was the best system for disposal of MDC sludge. It
is the task of this Environmental Impact Statement to not only
review this finding, but also to analyze three alternatives
previously rejected, viz., land application, ocean disposal,
and no-action. This section will develop the possible techni-
cal approaches for each of the three major action alternatives:
(a) incineration; (b) land application; and (c) ocean disposal.
After the processes are selected for feasible alternatives in
each category, the demands of each alternative for energy, labor,
land and money will be calculated.
A. Development of the Alternatives
Detailed alternatives for sludge management were developed
as follows:
• Unit processes were screened for applicability;
• Suitable unit processes were grouped into treatment
trains;
• The best groupings of unit processes were selected;
• Conceptual design was then done for each alternative.
These steps are presented in detail in Appendix EE (Volume II).
The total range of alternatives developed are shown in Table
III-l.
After development, all alternatives were screened for
compliance with federal legislation and guidelines. Those
alternatives satisfying federal requirements were then analyzed
for capital and operating costs, and resource and energy use.
B. Description of Feasible Alternatives
Appendix EE presents the development of the feasible
alternatives which are to be analyzed in greater detail. In this
Appendix the feasible process trains are described, the best
process trains for each disposal route are determined, and the
locations of processing and disposal sites and transportation
schemes are developed. Also, certain elements of the proposed
MDC system are discussed in the Appendix, including the questions
of autogenous operation and energy recovery from incineration.
III-l
-------
The operational schemes for each of the alternatives are
detailed below and in Table III-l. Anaerobic digestion is the
first process step for each alternative.
• Alternative 1
Dewatering of chemically conditioned sludge at Deer Island,
followed by incineration. Ash handling is to be dry, with ash
transport to a terminal by barge, thence to an inland commercial
landfill site by highway. Transport of sludge from Nut to Deer
Island would be via 28,000 feet of parallel force mains, with
10,000 feet constructed across the harbor and 18,000 feet in the
tidal flats along Long Island. This alternative is evaluated in
detail in Section IV.
• Alternative 2
Dewatering and incineration with ash disposal on site in an
enclosed, sealed fill area on the east (ocean) side of Deer
Island. This alternative is the scheme proposed by the Metro-
politan District Commission in 1973. While this alternative may
not be viable based on Executive Orders 11988 and 11990 (discussed
below), this alternative is evaluated in detail in Section IV.
• Alternative 8
Dewatering and incineration, with ash disposal via truck
to a landfill on Deer Island. Alternative 8 is analyzed in detail
in Section IV.
• Alternative 9
Dewatering and incineration, with transport of non-hazardous
ash via barge to Spectacle Island for disposal as fill. Trucks
or front-end loaders will carry the ash from the barges to the
actual site.
• Alternative 10
Alternative 10 has the same operational scheme as Alternative
2. It differs in that this alternative deals with ash as a
hazardous waste and with the cofferdam on the west (harbor) side
of Deer Island. While this alternative may not be viable because
of Executive Orders 11988 and 11990, but is analyzed in detail
in Section IV.
III-2
-------
TABLE III-l
DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEVEN BASIC SLUDGE
HANDLING AND DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Dewatering, Incineration, and Off-site Ash Disposal
Alternative 2: Dewatering, Incineration, and On-site Ash Disposal
Alternative 3: Dewatering, Incineration, and Deep Ocean Disposal of Ash
Alternative 4: Dewatering and Deep Ocean Disposal of Dewatered Sludge
Alternative 5: Dewatering and Land Application on Private Farmlands
Alternative 6: Dewatering with 50% for Land Application on Private
Farmlands and 50% Disposal in a Landfill
Alternative 7: No Action
Alternative 8: Dewatering, Incineration, Landfill at Deer Island
Alternative 9: Dewatering, Incineration, Landfill at Spectacle Island
* Alternative 10: Dewatering, Incineration, Landfill at Deer Island Harbor Fill
* Alternative 11: Dewatering, Incineration, Landfill at Deer Island
* Disposal of ash as a hazardous waste
III-3
-------
• Alternative 11
Alternative 11 has the same operational scheme as Alter-
native 8. It differs in that this alternative deals with ash
as a hazardous waste, requiring additional management con-
siderations as outlined below.
C. Screening Alternatives for Compliance with Federal
Legislation
All of the alternatives were reviewed with respect to
recent federal legislation, resulting in the elimination of
several alternatives. The recent federal legislation and
regulations which affected the screening process include:
• The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
(PL 94-580), including proposed Sections T008 and
4004 published in the Federal Register on February 6,
1978, and unpublished drafts of other sections.
• Sections 405 d. and e. of the Clean Water Act (PL 95-217)
requiring EPA to promulgate sludge management regulations
and making them binding on federally funded projects.
• The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (PL 93-523) requir-
ing protection of groundwater supply.
• The Marine Sanctuaries Act (PL 92-532) affecting ocean
disposal and the No-Action Alternative.
• Executive Orders 11988 and 11990, regarding floodplain
and wetlands protection. These have been expanded to
include surface waters. They require that, for feder-
ally funded or assisted projects, wetlands and floodplains
be minimally impacted. Construction in these areas shall
be avoided unless there is no practicable alternative
and all practicable measures to avoid harm used.
In addition to reducing the range of alternatives, other
federal regulations will directly affect the facilities and
operations proposed under each of the remaining alternatives.
Principal areas affected are:
• It is not recommended that putrescible wastes such as
sludge, grit, screening or skimmings not be landfilled
within a 3048 meter (10,000 foot) radius of Logan Airport
III-4
-------
because of bird hazard criteria in FAA Order 5200.00.
Therefore, all such materials should be incinerated
before using fills suggested under Alternatives 2, 8,
10 and 11.
• Leachate or disposal liquid must be recovered and
treated for Alternatives 8 and 11 (hazardous wastes)
because of the limitations imposed by PL 94-580 and
PL 93-523. Unless the groundwater which would be
affected by the disposal site, is classified as
"unusable", this liquid must be returned to the plant
for treatment. In addition, monitoring wells must be
maintained and results of analyses reported to the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
• Because Executive Orders 11988 and 11990 have recently
been interpreted to include surface waters, Alternatives
2 and 10 may be untenable in the future. However, since
since these alternatives constitute the applicant's
proposed plan, they will be retained for further evalu-
ation.
In summary, the results of various laws and federal regula-
tions have been to reduce the possible range of alternatives,
eliminating those with ocean disposal or with land application
for final disposal. Feasible alternatives originally developed
but not acceptable because of this legislation are:
• Alternative 3
Dewatering and incineration, with ash disposal via barge
transport to the Murray-Wilkinson Basin, 70 NM east of Deer
Island. Not viable because of the Marine Sanctuaries Act pro-
hibiting ocean disposal of sewage sludge as discussed in Appendix
O.
• Alternative 4
Dewatering of sludge with barging to the Murray-Wilkinson
Basin. Not viable because of the Marine Sanctuaries Act
prohibiting ocean disposal of sewage sludge as discussed in
Appendix O.
• Alternative 5
Dewatering at Deer Island, followed by barge transport of
sludge (in trailers) to a dedicated terminal, with truck trans-
port to dispersed storage sites in the Connecticut River Valley
and Bridgewater-Westport areas. During two months of the
year, sludge would be applied to privately owned, cropped farm-
land with application site soil analysis for nitrogen species
and heavy metals on an annual basis. Application would occur two
III-5
-------
months per year (60 days) at two dry tons per acre per appli-
cation. Storage would be dedicated sites, with piles being
covered to prevent contamination of runoff. The alternative
of land application, which was analyzed in detail in the Draft
EIS, was originally conceived to include application of sludge
to food or food-chain crops. This does not agree with the con-
cept given in Guidelines for Municipal Sludge Management (EPA,
1977) which directs application to non-food chain crops on
publicly owned land. The use of food chain crops or privately
owned land in the conceptual design was chosen for the following
reasons:
• Resource recovery (recovery of nutrients);
• Agreement with the goals of the Massachusetts
Department of Agriculture;
• Relative ease of implementation without exacerbating
urban-rural tension.
The land application alternative was eliminated from con-
sideration because of the uncertainty about sludge quality (see
Hazardous Wastes , III-D), the amount of land necessary (over
11,000 acres), costs and energy use.
• Alternative 6
Dewatering at Deer Island, followed by barge transport of
sludge (in trailers) to a dedicated terminal. Half of the sludge
{high cadmium:zinc ratio) would be transported to the Plainville
landfill site. The sludge acceptable for land application (50%)
would be handled as in Alternative 5 above. This alternative was
originally developed when cadmium to zinc ratio was a determinant
in sludge acceptability. Not a viable alternative, as discussed
above.
• Alternative 7
No Action, with continued digestion and discharge of
digested sludge in the main effluent outfalls from the Deer
Island and Nut Island wastewater treatment plants. Not viable
as discussed in Appendix O.
III-6
-------
D. Hazardous and Non-hazardous Wastes
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976
(PL 94-580) required formulation of regulations defining hazardous
wastes and the management and disposal criteria for such wastes.
Draft regulations have been published detailing ultimate disposal
of hazardous wastes and the environmental constraints on disposal
facility siting. The regulations defining hazardous and non-
hazardous wastes are in preparation. Wastes may be defined as
hazardous based on the following criteria:
• Flammability
• Reactivity
• Corrosiveness
• Toxicity
• Mutagenic or Teratogenic Potential
• Bioaccumulation
• Infectiousness
• Radioactivity
Digested sludge and ash from the Nut Island and Deer Island
plants were analyzed for metals content. Results of these
analyses were suspect because of laboratory error. Based on
.comparison with sludge from other urbanized areas similar to the
Greater Boston area, the sludge or ash from the proposed MDC
facilities may or may not be hazardous, depending upon possible
changes in criteria, changes in incoming waste with pretreatment,
or changes in analytical methods. This uncertainty regarding the
basic nature of the sludge or ash necessitates the consideration
of alternatives under both situations.
If the material is hazardous as defined in RCRA regulations,
the processing, transportation and disposal of such material
will be controlled by federal regulation. If non-hazardous,
management will be controlled by state regulations of the Common-
wealth of Massachusetts. Under Section 404e of the Clean Water Act
Amendments of 1977 (PL 95-217), disposal practices must be con-
sistent with Sections 4004 and 1008 of RCRA.
III-7
-------
If the sludge is hazardous, an incineration facility may
have to meet the performance criteria for hazardous waste
facilities. The requirements may place the burden of proof
for acceptable emissions on the MDC. Table III-2 compares the
potential differences in federal construction and operation
criteria for incinerating hazardous and non-hazardous sewage
sludge.
After incineration or other processing, the residues must
undergo additional testing to determine whether they shall be
considered hazardous or non-hazardous.
If the residue is disposed of as a hazardous waste, the
previously described EPA regulations control land disposal.
Table III-3 compares federal land disposal criteria for hazardous
and non-hazardous wastes.
Given the uncertainty of classification of the MDC sludge
and of ash resulting from incineration, the alternatives must
address either potential situation. This can be done by creating
an alternative capable of being adapted to either hazardous or
non-hazardous waste or by creating alternatives for each potential
category of waste. The second approach was chosen because of the
fundamental differences in handling hazardous and non-hazardous
wastes. The feasible alternatives and the type of wastes suitable
for each potential situation are:
• Alternative 1: Incineration with inland fill of dry
ash, for non-hazardous ash;
• Alternative 2: Incineration with dry ash disposal in a
cofferdam type lagoon on the ocean side of Deer Island,
for non-hazardous ash;
• Alternative 8: Incineration with dry ash disposal by
landfill on Deer Island, for non-hazardous ash;
• Alternative 9: Incineration with transport of dry ash
to Spectacle Island by barge for disposal as fill, for
non-hazardous ash;
• Alternative 10: Same as Alternative 2 except that the
cofferdam is located on west (or harbor) side of the
island to facilitate recycling of leachate for treat-
ment for hazardous ash;
III-8
-------
TABLE III-2
PROPOSED FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS
INCINERATION CRITERIA FOR HAZARDOUS AND
NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE
Characteristic Hazardous
Feed
Operation; Temperature 1,000°C
& Residence Time and 2 sec.
Automatic Feed
Cutoff Controlled
by Temperature Yes
Emissions Control:
Emission of TSP <_ 1.3 Ib Yes
ton
Opacity £ 20% Yes
Removal of HC1 99%
Retention of
Scrubber Water Yes
Sampling and Analysis:
Startup; Trial Burn Required Yes
Provision of Stack Sampling Point Yes
Continuous Recording of Yes
CO, CO2, 02, Temperature
Non-hazardous
Feed
667°C
No
Yes
Yes
No Standard
No
No
No
No
III-9
-------
TABLE III-3
COMPARISON OF PROPOSED FEDERAL HAZARDOUS AND NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT CRITERIA
H
H
H
I
Characteristics
Environmentally
Sensitive Areas:
Wetlands,
Floodplains,
Critical Habitats
Surface Waters:
Air:
Controlling Agency:
Other Criteria:
Disposal of Hazardous Wastes
(Working Draft-RCRA Section 3004)
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
No NPDES Permits to be issued
for disposal in wetlands, flood-
plains, or critical habitats
Requirements the same, plus
diversion structures must be
placed to divert the 24 hour 25
year storm away from active area
See Table III-l
U.S. EPA or
State Agency if authorized by EPA
Partial and Final Closure
Sampling and Analysis
Site Selection, Construction,
Operation
Disposal of Non-hazardous Wastes
(Proposed Draft RCRA Section 4004)
FR February 6, 1978
1,
2.
1.
2.
1,
1.
1.
2.
NPDES Permit Required
If containment structure used, 404 Permit
(PL 92-500) required
No adverse impact
NPDES Permit for point sources (e.g
leachate treatment)
Control to prevent or minimize non-
point sources
See Table III-l
State Solid Waste Agency (if NPDES
required EPA or authorized State Water
Agency)
Disease Vectors
Safety
• Explosive or Toxic Gases
• Fires
• Bird Hazards to Aircraft
• Access
-------
TABLE III-3 CONT'D
COMPARISON OF PROPOSED FEDERAL HAZARDOUS AND NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT CRITERIA
Characteristics
Other Criteria
H
H
H
I
Land Application or
Spreading:
Disposal of Hazardous Wastes
(Working Draft-RCRA Section 3004)
4. Financial Responsibility
5. Security
6. Emergency Procedures and
Contingency
7. Training
8 Records and Reporting Plans
1. Wastes not made non-hazardous by
Land Application
2. Incompatible Wastes
3. Site Selection including Soils
Requirements
4. Site Preparation
5. Waste application and
Incorporation
6. Monitoring
7. Growth of food chain crops
8. Closure
Disposal of Non-hazardous Wastes
(Proposed Draft RCRA Section 4004)
FR February 6, 1978
1. Sludge must be stablized before appli-
cation
2. Facilities spreading solid wastes on
land used for food chain crops must
comply with all other criteria plus
criteria on:
a. Cadmium
• Annual addition
• Total addition
• Crops allowed
• Maintenance of pH
-------
TABLE III-3 CONT'D
COMPARISON OF PROPOSED FEDERAL HAZARDOUS AND NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT CRITERIA
Characteristics
H
I
H
NJ
Groundwater
Disposal of Hazardous Wastes
(Working Draft-RCRA Section 3004)
Aquifer Use Designation by Regional
Administrator
Disposal of Non-hazardous Wastes
(Proposed Draft RCRA Section 4004)
FR February 6, 1978
b. Pathogens
c. Pesticides and Persistent
Organics
d. Direct ingestion
e. Other metals
Note: Use of test plots and control
plots may be substituted for a. and
c.above.
1. No discharge to groundwater
2. Strict monitoring requirements for
zones of aeration and saturation
3. Landfill lines must be clay with
permeability of 10 cm/sec on bottom
• 10' thick if onsite soils used
• 5' thich if offsite soils used
• Liner compatible with wastes
4. Strict closure and long term care
required
Aquifer Use Designated by state
1. Leachate collected with artificial
liner, removed, recirculated or treated,
or;
2. Leachate migration controlled by
natural hydrogeology, soil attenuation
mechanisms or recovery and treatment
3. Infiltration prevented or minimized
4. Prediction and monitoring of leachate
migration
-------
TABLE III-3 CONT'D
COMPARISON OF PROPOSED FEDERAL HAZARDOUS AND MOM-HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT CRITERIA
Disposal of Non-hazardous Wastes
Disposal of Hazardous Wastes (Proposed Draft RCRA Section 4004)
Characteristics (Working Draft-RCRA Section 3004) FR February 6, 1978
5. Bonding required 5. Acceptable and current contingency
H plan for corrective action if
j~| monitoring indicates contamination
H
Unusable Aquifer Groundwater regulations do not apply Groundwater beyond facility must meet
to unusable aquifer quality specified by state.
u>
-------
• Alternative 11: Same as Alternative 8, except that
this alternative deals with ash as a hazardous waste,
requiring determination of usability of aquifers or
lining of fill site.
Figure III-l shows the approximate location of disposal
facilities for each of these alternatives.
E. Process Streams and Inputs for Construction and Operation
In development of impacts, quantities and concentrations
of waste streams and amounts of capital inputs, labor, energy
and chemicals are necessary for quantitative development. The
following sections summarize the material developed in detail
in Appendix N. "Quality and Quantity Liquid and Solid Emissions'
and Appendix T. "Process and Transportation Impacts of Labor,
Materials, Energy, and Monetary Costs."
1. Quality and Quantity of Liquid and Solid Emissions
Data used in preparing the quantity and concentration
of waste streams were developed by Havens and Emerson (1973),
the Metropolitan District Commission (1973, 1974, 1975) and
a sludge analysis that was done as part of this study. The
quantities developed by Havens and Emerson for 1985 were re-
viewed. These quantities are somewhat conservative (over-
estimated) because:
• Population growth in the MDC service area is even
lower than the low rates developed in 1970 and used
by Havens and Emeifson in 1973
• Per capita loading rates for solids, which were
expected to increase between 1973 and 1995, may not
occur because of the reduced economic prospects for
the future.
• Upstream processes, primary settling and anaerobic
digestion may not change as predicted. Efficiency of
111-14
-------
Light
~rr
Alternative 10
Dredging for
Barge Channel for j!
Alternatives 1 and 9
a
Alternatives 8 and 11
BOSTON
£>^*
Deer Island
Light
HARBOR
P R E
/
'
Long Island
"Alternative 9
Fort Strong
Sculpin
Ledge
-
-
-
FIGURE in-1 : LOCATION OF ALTERNATIVE FILL SITES
111-15
-------
primary solids removal is expected to rise with expan-
sion of primary settling facilities, which may not occur,
and the anaerobic digesters may not be overloaded (which
was expected to require bypassing of 10 percent of the
primary solids at 1985 conditions).
While these considerations indicate conservative future
projections, the inclusion of grit, screening and skimmings
(which were not considered in Havens and Emerson's 1973 work)
will increase the per capita loading. Accordingly, the quan-
tities developed by Havens and Emerson (1973) will be used in
further analysis of the six action alternatives. These quan-
tities are shown in Table III-4.
Quality data from the major sources shown above (Havens
and Emerson, MDC, study analysis) were compared. While analy-
tical variations were found, especially in concentrations of
heavy metals, the environmental impacts stemming from these
metals show less variation than the long-term variations in the
analyses. The question of pretreatment of industrial wastes was
reviewed and compared with residential area metals loadings that
have been found in other cities, and there appears little likeli-
hood of significant improvement as the result of pretreatment.
Quality and quantity of waste streams for the various alternatives
are shown in Appendix N. These data were also developed from Havens
and Emerson data, with modifications as necessary based on the
analyses performed during this study.
2. Process and Transportation Inputs of Labor, Materials
and Energy, and Cost
Inputs of labor, materials and energy for the six final
action alternatives are developed in Appendix T. For analysis
of project impact, these inputs must be known, including not only
the process energy and dollar requirement, but also the number of
employees and the number of vehicle miles and trips per day for
transportation to disposal.
Once these are developed, the costs can be developed as
shown in Tables III-5 and III-6. Process, transportation and
disposal costs and inputs have been revised to 1978 conditions
as shown in Appendix T.
111-16
-------
TABLE III-4
PROCESS STREAM CHARACTERIZATION
PHASE I PROJECT
MAINTAINING ANAEROBIC DIGESTION AT DEER § NUT ISLAND PLANTS
WITH PRII1ARY 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 1(P
2S7
189
250
25
19
225
170
137
80
148
25
123
91
19
72
239
44
195
255
V.SS
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
150
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
:>!)
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
(>.3
1.0
:,. o
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. 57)
0.08
0.25
0.67
0. 16
0.51
0. 13*
111-17
* Modified to be in accordance with projected heat balances
-------
TABLE III-5
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 L06 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 S 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
111-18
-------
TABLE III-6
H
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 107
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
1
1
2 @ $35,000 4
3 @ $22,000 6
T I V E
9 10 11
5.5
1.27 x 105
1.42 x 108
1,000
6,240
0.2 0.2 1.0
4,600 4,600 23,000
9.2 x 106 9.2 x 106 4.6 x 107
65 65 320
6,240 6,240 6,240
23,000 23,000 23,000
34,100 34,100 34,100
1.41 - 1.41
0.70
2,080 2,080 2,080
@ $100,000
@ $300,000
@ $ 35,000 2 @ $ 35,000 2 @ $ 35,000
@ $ 22,000 3 @ $ 22,000 3 @ $ 22,000
-------
TABLE III-6 CONT'D
RESOURCES AND COSTS
TRANSPORTATION AND ULTIMATE DISPOSAL
ALTERNATIVE
Capital Resources (Cont'd.)
Disposal Site Prep.
Cofferdam
Lining and Recycle
Monitoring Wells
Total Annual Operating Resources
Fuel, Gallons/Year
H Labor, Hours/Year
H Land, Acre/Year
to 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
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 ir»7
-
-
$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
$205,285
$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
~"
mm
$ 13,600
$ 70,535
$531,535
$187,620
11
—
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
*Using 10-year equipment life for trucks and trailers.
-------
TABLE III-6 CONT'D
RESOURCES AND COSTS
TRANSPORTATION AND ULTIMATE DISPOSAL
ALTERNATIVE
10
11
Totals Including Dewatering,
H
H
H
1
NJ
H
Incineration, and Energy
Recovery
Total Annual Costs
Including Incinerator,
without Grant
with Grant
$5,089,555 $4,959,320 $4,573,420 $4,035,245 $4,961,495 $4,573,420
2,960,660 2,572,950 2,476,525 2,535,805 2,573,455 2,476,525
Total Annual Net Energy
Production, BTU x 10'
52
54
54
54
54
54
-------
SECTION IV
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES
Section IV presents a summary matrix to indicate the environ-
mental impacts associated with each alternative. A detailed
analysis of the effects of each alternative will be made on
the basis of sensitive receptors. Included in this section
are the following subsections:
• Description of Analysis System
• Matrix of Environmental Impacts
• Description of Impacts according to Receptor:
Soils
Marine Water Quality
Groundwater Quality
Air Quality
Biotic Communities
Public Health and Noise
Economics
Energy
Land Use
Transportation
Historical and Archeological Sites
Aesthetics
With the evaluation of the environmental, monetary, and energetic
impacts, it will then be possible (in Section V) to assess the
magnitude of any trade-offs necessary to obtain an environmentally
sound and cost effective solution to the sludge management
question.
Upon completion of the receptor impact analysis, there will be
presented a summarization of the major impacts for each alter-
native. Specifically, the significant environmental impacts
will be highlighted, and brief statements on monetary and energy
costs will be made.
-------
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES
In the following section, the impacts of feasible
alternatives developed for Final EIS will be evaluated on
a comparative basis. In addition, portions of the analysis
done for the Draft EIS concerning land application have been
incorporated, with revisions, to reflect the interest expressed
by public comment on the draft document. Please observe that
while there is some discussion of land application of sludge
or compost, these alternatives are infeasible at this time
because of the requirements of Public Law 94-580, the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act.
A. Description of Analysis System
In preparing the impacts from the feasible alternatives,
the descriptive matrix used for the Draft EIS was found to be
inappropriate. Accordingly, a tabulation of common and
differentiating impacts was prepared, with the following
descriptive categories being used:
• Action: Short description of the action causing
impact
• Type of Impact: Short term construction impacts or
long term operational impacts
• Impact: Adverse, potentially adverse or beneficial
• Areal Extent: Either localized within a few kilo-
meters of the site, regional pertaining to the
surrounding counties, or national. While all impacts
theoretically have universal implications, the
detectability of impact is the basis of areal extent.
Table IV-1 describes impacts common to all feasible
alternatives, and Tables IV-2 through IV-5 describe the
differentiating impacts of the alternatives.
IV-1
-------
TABLE IV-1
IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES
Area of Impact
Soils
Action
Construction of incinerator
and storage facilities
Particulate fallout resulting
from incinerator operation
Type of Impact
Short term
Long term
Assessment
of Impact
Adverse
Adverse
Areal Extent
Localized in areas of
construction
Localized, near
incinerator
<
N>
Marine sediments
and water quality
Construction of force mains
for sludge transport on
the harbor bottom
Operation of sludge force
mains (malfunction)
Elimination of sludge
discharge
Short term
Potential
short term
Long term
Adverse
Potentially
adverse
Localized in areas near
the proposed pipelines
Localized to sediments
and dispersed in water
column near the point
of rupture
Beneficial Regional
Economic
Increased annual cost due
to implementation of the
project
Generation of construction
jobs through project
implementation
Operating labor increase
through project implemen-
tation
Long term
Short term
Long term
Adverse
Regional
Beneficial Regional
a) Beneficial a) Individual level
b) Adverse b) Regional level
-------
TABLE IV-1 (Cont'd.)
Area of Impact
Energy
Action
Recovery of thermal energy
(equivalent to 370,000
gallons diesel fuel)
Type of Impact
Long term
Assessment
of Impact
Areal Extent
Beneficial Regional
Land use
Expansion of Deer Island
facilities causing displace-
ment of other land uses
Long term
Adverse
Local
H
<
I
u>
Surface and
groundwater
quality & quantity
Ultimate disposal scheme
(malfunction)
Potential
short term
or long term
Potentially Localized in area of
adverse final disposal site
Air quality
Incinerator operation
Construction of inciner-
ator and storage facilities
Long term
Short term
Adverse Localized near incinerator
Adverse Localized in areas of
construction
Biotic communities
Construction of force mains
for sludge transport on the
harbor bottom
Operation of force mains
(malfunction)
Elimination of sludge
discharge
Short term
Potential
short term
Long term
Adverse Localized in areas near
the proposed pipeline
Potentially Localized in area near
adverse the point of rupture
Beneficial Regional marine biota
-------
TABLE IV-1 (Cont'd.)
Area of Impact
Action
Type of Impact
Assessment
of Impact
Areal Extent
Public health
and noise
H
<
Construction of incinerator
and storage facilities caus-
ing a noise level increase
and a decrease in air quality
Incinerator emissions
Elimination of sludge
discharge
Primary
short term
Primary
long term
Primary
long term
Adverse Localized in areas of
construction
Adverse Localized near incinerator
Beneficial Boston Harbor area
-------
TABLE IV-2
DIFFERENTIATING IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1
(Inland Fill)
Area of Impact
Soils
Action
Increase in heavy metals
concentration of landfill
cover soil
Type of Impact
Potential
long term
Assessment
of Impact
Areal Extent
Potentially Landfill site
Adverse
I
Ul
Marine sediments
and water quality
Landfill operation, resulting Potential
in erosion and soil structure long term
destruction
Dredging and construction for Short term
bargind
Potentially Landfill site
Adverse
Potentially
Adverse
Localized, near channel
Surface and Ground-
water quality and
quantity
Malfunction of leachate con-
trol at landfill
Potential
short term
Potentially
Adverse
Local, near fill site
Air quality
Emissions due to as trans-
portation (fuel usage =
10,690 gal/yr)
Long term
Adverse Localized, along truck
routes
-------
TABLE IV-2 (Cont'd)
Area of Impact
Biotic Communities
Action
Heavy metal uptake-by vegetation
growing upon final landfill cover
Loss of vegetation at landfill
site
Type of Impact
Potential
Long term
Short term
Assessment
of Impact
Potentially
Adverse
Adverse
Areal Extent
Landfill site
Landfill site
Public Health and
Noise
Energy
Land Use
Transportation
Historical and
Archaeological
Noise and Emission from ash
transportation.
Malfunction of leachate con-
trol and contamination of
useable aquifer or surface
waters.
Use of Fossil Fuels
(158,520 gal/yr)
Use of additional landfill
area causing displacement of the
other uses
Truck transport (10 trips/day)
much of which is through resi-
dential neighborhood)
Use of landfill sites (No known
historical and archaeological
resources nearby)
Long term
Potential
Long term or
Short term
Long term
Long term
Long term
Potentially
Adverse
Adverse
Sensitive reception near
truck routes
Potentially Localized near landfill
Adverse site
Adverse
Adverse
Adverse
Potentially
Adverse
Regional
Local
Along truck routes
Regional
-------
TABLE IV-3
DIFFERENTIATING IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES 2 AND 10
(Cofferdam Fill)
<
Area of Impact
Marine sediments
and water quality
Surface and ground-
water quality and
quantity
Air Quality
Action
Construction of cofferdam re-
sulting in a habitat loss of
2.8 ha (7 ac)
*Rupture of cofferdam (prin-
cipanny for hazardous waste)
Emissions due to ash trans-
portation
Type of Impact
Long term
Potential short
term; long term
for hazardous
waste
Long term
Assessment
of Impact
Adverse
Potentially
Adverse for
hazardous
waste
Potentially
Adverse
Areal Extent
Localized, near Deer
Island
Localized, near Deer
Island
Localized, near Deer
Island
Biotic Communities Construction of cofferdam
causing habitat loss.
Rupture of cofferdam
Long term
Potential long
term or short
term
Adverse
Potentially
Adverse
Localized, near Deer
Island
Localized, near Deer
Island
Public Health
Noise
*Rupture of cofferdam
Potential long
term or short
term
Potentially
Adverse
Localized, near Deer
Island
-------
TABLE IV-3 (Cont'd)
Area of Impact
00
Energy
Land Use
Action
Noise generation during
cofferdam construction (pile
driver)
Noise emissions from ash
transport
Use of fossil fuels
(147,900 gal/yr)
Cofferdam site usage causing
displacement of other uses.
Type of Impact of Impact
Short term
Areal Extent
Long term
Potentially Localized, near Deer
Adverse Island
Potentially Deer Island
Adverse
Primary long Adverse
term
Primary long Adverse
term
Regional
Local
Aesthetic
Cofferdam construction
Short term,
Long term
Adverse
Localized, near Deer
Island
*More significant impact when the alternative dealing with hazardous wastes is involved.
-------
TABLE IV-4
DIFFERENTIATING IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES 8 AND 11
(Fill on Deer Island)
H
<
Area of Impact
Soils
Surface and ground-
water quality and
quantity
Action
Increase in heavy metals
concentration of landfill
cover soil
Landfill operation resulting
in erosion and soil structure
destruction
Malfunction of leachate con-
trol at landfill
Type of Impact of Impact
Potential
Long term
Potential
Long term
Potential
short term or
long term
Potentially
Adverse
Potentially
Adverse
Potentially
Adverse
Areal Extent
Landfill site
Landfill site
Local near fill site
Air Quality
Emission due to ash trans-
portation (Fuel usage 320 gal/yr)
Long term
Potentially
Adverse
Localized, near Deer
Island
Biotic Communities
Heavy metal uptake by vegetation Potential
growing upon final landfill cover Long term
Loss of vegetation at landfill Short term
site
Potentially
Adverse
Potentially
Adverse
Landfill site
Landfill site
-------
TABLE IV-4 (Cont'd)
H
<
Area of Impact
Public Health and
Noise
Energy
Action
Noise and emission from ash
transportation
*Malfunction of leachate
control at landfill
Use of fossil fuels
(Fuel usage * 147,900 gal/yr)
Type of Impact
Long term
Potential
short term or
long term
Long term
Assessment
of Impact
Potentially
Adverse
Potentially
Adverse
Adverse
Areal Extent
Deer Island
Localized, near Deer
Island
Regional
Land Use
Use of landfill area causing
displacement of landuse (Pro-
bable fill site is within Fort
Dawes
Long term
Adverse
Local
Historical and
Archeological
Use of Fort Dawses area as land- Potential
fill site (possible historical Adverse
resources)
Potentially
Adverse
Regional
Aesthetic
Use of Fort Dawes as a land-
fill
Long term
Adverse
Local
-------
TABLE IV-5
Area of Impact
Marine sediments
and water quality
DIFFERENTIATING IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 9
(Fill on Spectacle Island)
Assessment
Action Type of Impact of Impact
Dredging and construction
for barging
Short term
Adverse
Areal Extent
Localized, near channel
Surface and ground- Malfunction of leachate
water quality and control at landfill
quantity
Potential short Potentially
term or long Adverse
term
Localized, near Spectacle
Island
Air Quality
Emissions due to ash
transportation (Fuel
usage = 1,065 gal/yr)
Long term
Potentially Localized, near Spectacle
Adverse Island
Biotic Communities
Heavy metal uptake by
vegetation growing upon
final landfill cover
Potential
long term
Potentially Spectacle Island
Adverse
Loss of vegetation at
fill site
Short term
Potentially
Adverse
Spectacle Island
Public Health and
Noise
Noise and emissions from ash
transporation
Malfunction of leachate con-
trol at landfill
Long term
Potential
long term or
short term
Potentially
Adverse
Potentially
Adverse
Localized, near Spectacle
Island
Localized, near Spectacle
Island
-------
TABLE IV-5 (Cont'd)
Area of Impact
Energy
Action
Use of fossil fuels
Fuel usage = 148,865 gal/yr
Assessment
Type of Impact of Impact
Long term
Adverse
Areal Extent
Regional
Land Use
Landfill site usage causing
displacement of other land uses
Long term
Adverse
Local
M
to
Historical and
Archeological
Sites
Use of landfill site (Pre-
historic sites are known to
exist on Spectacle Island
Potential
Long term
Potentially Regional
Adverse
-------
B. Environmental Analysis of Differential Impacts
1. Soils
a. Adverse Impacts; Construction and operation of
facilities and storage sites for the alternatives incorporating
on-land fill of ash will have some adverse impacts, including:
• erosion from construction sites,
• soil structure destruction,
• erosion from site during operation, and
• particulate addition of heavy metals to soil.
Construction of storage sites and facilities for
incinerator alternatives may result in a slight degree of
erosion. This will be a short-term impact and can be mitigated
by erosion control procedures (e.g., mulching at 2 tons/ac) and
careful site selection.
The cover soil of the landfill for incinerator alter-
natives could show an increase in the heavy metal concentration,
although this would be expected to be a negligible impact.
Some soil structure destruction may occur from the mechanical
removal and replacing of the soil layers. Erosion during
operation of the landfill might have a moderate adverse impact
on the soil, and could be reduced by using acceptable erosion
controls.
Alternatives 2, 9 and 10 will have no soil impacts
for the ultimate disposal section, being either an existing
fill (Alternative 9) or in an artificial lagoon (Alternatives
2 and 10).
Incineration, common to all feasible alternatives, can
create problems with decreasing pH of rainfall and, hence, soil
leaching. The equivalent acid produced, neglecting photochemical
conversion, is 177 kg sulfuric acid per day and 396 kg of nitric
acid per day.
Incineration can also result in particulate fallout
adding a small amount of heavy metals to the soil, resulting in
a negligible adverse impact. However, particulate fallout would
also increase the soil pH slightly, partially offsetting the
pH reduction.
If land application were feasible, the potential
adverse impacts include:
• increase in heavy metal concentrations,
• increase in sodium and chloride ions, and
• increased plant uptake of metals upon cessation
of lime application.
IV-13
-------
The heavy metals, especially copper, zinc, nickel
and cadmium, would increase in concentration in the soil.
This is a potentially severe, long-term impact that would be
controlled by the EPA guidelines limiting the amounts of
sludge that may be applied (see Appendix R). Application of
lime (used as a conditioning chemical in dewatering) to keep
the soil pH near neutral results in less availability of the
metals to leaching and plant uptake.
Sodium and chloride ions would also increase in the
soil during land application. Sodium ions destroy the soil
structure, resulting in reduced permeability. The amount of
sodium that may be applied to the soil depends on the amount
of calcium and magnesium that is available to inactivate the
sodium effects. The chemical models for soil (Appendix R)
discusses the sodium balance for the soils. However, chloride
would not be expected to be a significant problem.
One major adverse effect would occur after sludge
application ends. A high pH results in less heavy metals
being available for crop uptake. If liming of the soil ends
with the sludge application, a natural lowering of the soil
pH may result in an increased availability of heavy metals.
This could lead to metal toxicity of plants growing on these
sites.
b. Beneficial Impacts; Operation of land application
alternatives could result In some beneficial impacts on soils,
such as:
• lime application to raise native pH,
• increased organic content, and
• increased organic nitrogen levels.
The amount of lime applied with the sludge would be
similar to the amount applied on farms. Lime application with
the sludge will result in about 0.5 tons per acre of calcium
oxide, which is equivalent to 0.9 tons per acre of calcium
carbonate. Present agricultural practices put 1.6 tons per
acre of calcium carbonate on the land (U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1972).
The organic content of the soil should increase from
land application of sludge, benefically affecting the soil
structure, the cation exchange capacity, and the water-holding
capacity of the soil. This may be a major impact, and since
organic breakdown is relatively slow, would be expected to have
a long-term effect on the soil. The organic nitrogen level
would also increase and subsequently be released during organic
breakdown.
IV-14
-------
The combination of potential beneficial and adverse
impacts on soil of the (infeasible) land application alternative
would be, on balance, weighted toward the adverse. The benefits
of lime organic material and nitrogen addition can be obtained
without the accompanying heavy metals contribution of the sludge.
2. Marine Sediments and Water Quality
a. Adverse Impacts: Two of the alternatives (2 and 10)
have potential adverse effects on the marine environment. While
the cofferdam structures are intended to prevent release of ash
to either the ocean or the harbor, extreme weather conditions
could result in rupture of the cofferdam system. Release of
ash is potentially an adverse long term impact.
The major adverse impact of Alternatives 2 and 10 is
the loss of 2.8 ha (7 ac) marine bottom habitat. The habitat on
the harbor side (Alternative 10) is a mud-flat environment, and
the bottom sediments on the ocean side are a combination of rocky
bottom and mudflats.
For Alternatives 1 and 9, dredging and construction for
barging would be an adverse impact. The impact would be long
term because of the need for channel maintenance.
b. Beneficial Impacts: Alternatives 1, 8, 9 and 11
will have beneficial impacts on marine sediments and water quality
because no loss of area is connected with any of these disposal
methods. Provided leachate treatment is practiced, no adverse
effects will result from any in terms of ocean or harbor water
quality.
3. Surface and Groundwater Quality and Quantity
a. Adverse Impacts; The preparation of landfill facili-
ties in accordance with P.L. 94-580 (RCRA) will prevent adverse
impacts of runoff and leachate on surface and groundwater quality
by returning these flows to the treatment plant. If the ash is
defined as a hazardous material based on metal extraction data,
this recycling is required by RCRA. If the ash is nonhazardous,
the recycle is optional but should be done to prevent potential
adverse impact. Therefore, Alternatives 1 and 9 are less desir-
able, having less defined measures for leachate and runoff
control. The daily volume of leachate and seawater displaced
(2 and 10) for treatment will be about 10,000 gpd for Alternatives
1, 8, 9 and 11 and about 15,000 gpd for Alternatives 2 and 10.
Implementation of the (infeasible) land application
alternatives would have potentially severe impacts on ground-
water and surface water quality. In accordance with RCRA, land
application would require underdraining and leachate treatment
for the 4,671 ha (11,550 ac) used. With an annual infiltration
of 234 mm (10") this would result in loss of 32,500 m3/day
IV-15
-------
(8.6 mgd) from groundwater. Without leachate recovery, the
quality impacts would be adverse because of possible excessive
nitrogen loss to groundwater.
Comparing the feasible, incineration based alternatives,
the greatest potential adverse impacts are from Alternatives
1 and 9 in terms of leachate control and from 2 and 10 in terms
of potential cofferdam rupture.
b. Beneficial Impacts: All feasible alternatives will
exert a beneficial impact on surface water quality by removing
BOD, solids and metals from the water column. As shown in the
Hydroscience Report (1971) 20% of the sludge discharged during
ebb tide returns to Boston Harbor. Alternatives 1, 2, 8, 9, 10
and 11 will remove this load to the harbor.
4. Air Quality
a. Adverse Impacts; Impacts of the feasible alterna-
tives are essentially identical (Appendix V) because they all
include incineration. Based on the emission burden analysis,
Alternative 1, having the greatest transport fuel use, will have
a greater adverse impact on air quality by 4% for TSP and 2%
for sulfur oxides. The carbon monoxide emissions are much
greater (7.8 kg/day vs. less than 1 kg/day) but are still
negligible in absolute terms. Because of additional controls
required for hazardous waste incineration, Alternatives 8 and
10 should have reduced adverse impacts on air quality.
Air quality impact sources during construction include
fugitive dust and fuel used in construction, and are similar
for all feasible alternatives. Mitigating measures include:
• Watering of the dirt roads during construction
• Covering stockpiled soils
• Cleaning vehicles before they leave the site
• Cleaning dust or dirt off paved access roads
• Limiting truck speeds on unpaved surfaces
• Covering open-bodied trucks when they are
in motion
• Timely scheduling to minimize the time and
area exposure of denuded areas
IV-16
-------
• Appropriate maintenance of contruction
vehicle and equipment
• Scheduling truck movements to minimize
potential interference with local traffic
b. Beneficial Impacts: Comparing the incineration
alternatives to the land application alternative, the CO
emissions for land application transport are about ten times
that of the incineration alternatives.
5. Biotic Communities
a. Adverse Impacts; Freshwater, marine, and terrestrial
organisms (both animal and plant) may be adversely affected by
the different alternatives. Impacts that may be involved- include:
• heavy metal uptake by terrestrial and aquatic
plants,
• primary consumer toxicity from feeding on con-
taminated plants,
particulate fallout on plant species,
effects of SC>2 on vegetation,
vegetation effects from low pH rains,
alteration of species diversity,
habitat disruption during operation,
smothering of benthic organisms, and
benthic and pelagic disruption of Boston Harbor
from pipeline construction and operation.
An adverse, long-term impact that could vary from
minimal-to-severe is the heavy metal uptake by vegetation
growing on the landfill upon conclusion of filling operations.
This impact is dependent on plant type, depth of cover soil
and the type of cover soil.
The incinerator alternatives may affect plant life by
emissions. Sulfur dioxide, released from the incinerator in
gaseous form, combines with moisture to form a dilute sulfuric
acid which is^harmful to plant life. This would result in a
moderate adverse impact. Particulate fallout on plants may
also have a moderate adverse impact. The dust could cause
screening of sunlight, resulting in a slightly lower photo-
synthetic rate.
During operation of the landfill sites (Alternatives
1, 8, 11) additional vegetation would be cleared, possibly
resulting in an increased erosion rate. The animal life would
also be displaced during landfill operations. However, this
would be expected to be a minimal adverse impact since the amount
of surface area necessary would not be large, and the criteria
for landfill site selection minimizes the possible impacts.
Construction of incinerators would also have a minimal adverse
impact on terrestrial ecology since its location would be at a
IV-17
-------
presently disturbed site, and would require less than 0.5 hn
(1 ac) of land.
With the on-site landfill of incinerator ash at Deer
Island, a portion of the harbor would be filled. It is
currently planned that the fill area will be located either on
the harbor side of Deer Island (Alternative 10), near the
Administration Building or the same area on the ocean side
(Alternative 2), and will initially consist of 600 x 600 feet
rectangle. This area would be sufficient for a period of
5-10 years. Intertidal communities lost by the fill will be
replaced by similar ones on the face of the bulkhead within one
season. This action does not represent a significant impact.
However,in other areas of the nation uncontrolled fill opera-
tions have gradually eliminated large portions of valuable
estuaries, and as discussed in Section III, the Executive
Orders controlling wetlands and flood plains use have been
construed to include surface waters, and therefore, permits
would be required for such operations. Practically speaking,
current EPA policy is to not grant such permits unless no
alternatives exist (I. Leighton, 1978).
Construction and operation of a sludge pipeline leading
from Nut Island to Deer Island, and extension of the current
Nut Island discharge line to Deer Island will have several
adverse impacts on Boston Harbor. Water quality will decrease
in Boston Harbor during construction activity. Several para-
meters will be affected; however, all the impacts will be
limited in extent and will exist only during the active con-
struction phase. All are related to the resuspension of bottom
sediments in the water column. Fine particulate material such
as is common in Boston Harbor sediments will be easily resus-
pended by dredging activities. This material will decrease
the transparency of the water column and change the quality of
light reaching any given depth.
The sediments of Boston Harbor are known to contain
large amounts of organic materials (PCB's) as well as heavy metals,
Resuspension of such materials will result in increased levels
of inorganic nutrients, toxic materials (including heavy
metals), organic substances, bioaccumulatory substances such
as pesticides, and suspended solids in the water column. At
the same time, decomposition of the dissolved and suspended
organic materials will cause a reduction in dissolved oxygen
levels.
Dredging activities for pipeline construction will have
a variety of effects on the flora and fauna of the Harbor. The
presence of fine suspended solids in the water column will cause
flocculation and deposition of phytoplankton. In addition, all
primary production will be reduced due to decreased light levels.
It is unlikely that nutrient levels are normally limiting in
much of the bay, so a counteracting simulation due to increased
IV-18
-------
nutrient levels is not expected. The fine particles will
adversely affect organisms with fills by mechanical clogging.
Motile creatures, such as fish, may avoid the plume, but organisms
which are sessile or weak swimmers may be suffocated. Organisms
which are filter feeders may also be adversely affected by
mechanical clogging of their feeding apparatus. Larval organisms,
both invertebrate and vertebrate, are particularly sensitive
to these problems, and to minimize the effect dredging should
be avoided the spring and summer months. The benthic community
in the immediate path of the dredge will be largely eliminated,
and additional organisms will be buried when the dredge spoil
is returned to the Harbor. Spoil from the pipeline construction
would be returned to the pipeline trench.
The area of the Harbor where the effects of dredging
will be noticed is dependent upon the extent of the sediment
plume resulting from dredge operation. For example: if the
water depth equals 15 feet, the sediment is coarse silt (31 y
diameter), and the current speed is 1 ft/sec., a plume of
between 0.5 and 1.0 miles would result. The density of the
plume and the severity of the impact decreases with increasing
distance from the operation dredge, but considerable areas of
the bay may be affected, depending on conditions. Particle
size is critical, since the settling velocities change exponen-
tially with particle radius. In any case the problem ends
almost immediately with cessation of dredge operation. While
some localized damage could be significant, recovery should be
completed within a two month period, which would mean that
dredging in the spring and summer could be avoided. Given
these circumstances the impacts of the pipeline construction
are not considered to be significant.
Normal operation of the pipeline should not affect the
Harbor, but malfunctions could produce adverse impacts. A leak
in the pipe would contribute sludge to the sediments around the
pipe, with the possibility of exchange with the water column. This
is unlikely since the pipe is to be 8 feet under the bottom of
the Harbor. More likely would be the slow buildup of contaminants
contained in the sludge in the sediments near the pipe. This
appears to be of minimal significance but should be monitored by
some appropriate method of leak detection. A catastrophic rupture
would release 40 tons of sludge into the sediment, assuming shut-
down was immediate. It is essential that rapid switching between
the two pipes be available to allow for rapid shutdown. Holding
capacity on Nut Island would provide additional flexibility in
case both pipes were involved. If shutdown could not be accom-
plished, there would be, in effect, a subsurface sludge discharge
similar in scope to the existing Nut Island discharge. The
probability of such an event occurring during the life of the
project is considered to be minimal.
IV-19
-------
b. Beneficial Impacts; Several beneficial impacts to
biotic communities may result from the various alternatives.
There are:
• increased habitation for buffer zone species,
• alteration of species diversity,
• improved shellfishing conditions in the Harbor.
Terrestrial biota may experience a minimal beneficial
impact from the increased amount of uncultivated or buffer zone
land surrounding the landfill sites. This is expected to be
minimal since presently there are buffer zones in many areas.
Species diversity is often greater in a buffer-zone area since
the vegetation is a gradation between two environments. There-
fore, where buffer zones are created species diversity is
expected to increase.
Improved water quality in Boston Harbor due to cessation
of the present disposal method would result in improved conditions
for shellfish. This would enable shellfishing in areas that
are presently closed for this activity due to high pollution
levels.
6. Public Health and Noise
a. Adverse Impacts: The adverse public health impacts
that may be associated with the alternatives are:
contamination of water supplies,
occupational noise impacts,
occupational accident impacts,
occupational pathogen impacts,
respiratory interference from lowered air
quality
residential pathogen impacts via aerosals, and
introduction of toxic materials into food chains.
Noise; Noise-generating activities are inherent in the
implementation of three alternatives associated with any sludge
management plan. These noise-generating activities can be
generally categorized as those stemming from the use and transport
of construction equipment and those noises generated by the
hauling of ash in 20-ton trucks moving through residential
areas in Alternative 1. In all cases, the determination of
nuisance, or harmful noise levels is dependent on the location
of the receptor site in relation to the noise source.
Potential receptor site areas were identified through
the use of a. procedure based on specific criteria to identify
potential receptor site areas. Appendix X presents in detail the
methodology and results of this noise impact analysis. Those
receptor sites are residential areas directly adjacent to trans-
port routes which were designated either for the movement of
construction equipment and personnel, or the movement of sludge
IV-20
-------
laden trucks. Following such a procedure, potential receptor
site areas were identified on Deer and Nut Island, and in
neighborhoods in Winthrop, East Boston, Quincy, Charlestown,
and Plainville.
Recall from Section I (Environmental Setting) that the
24-hour sound equivalent level [Lecf (24)], for sites within the
vicinity of potential receptor site areas ranged from 69 db to
74 db in urban sections, (Charlestown, East Boston, Quincy and
Winthrop) and about 10 to 15 db lower in rural and semi-rural
areas like Plainville.
It was noted that the ambient noise levels in the
urbanized areas of Boston either exceeded, or were barely
below EPA recommended guidelines. The proximity of a major
airport figured significantly in this condition. Further
examination of sociophysical information for potential receptor
areas indicated that Charlestown and Boston would be particularly
sensitive and susceptible to noise impacts of the project.
The final determination of impact was designated by
construction and operation phases. In this context, it was
found that in the construction phase impacts for alternatives
other than 2 and 10 would be limited to those on construction
workers and treatment plant employees, while local residential
areas would likely only be affected by the frequent disturbance
generated by the coming and going of cement mixers, or other
heavy trucks. Construction noise impacts are a function of
total employment, vehicles, and types of equipment used. For
Alternatives 2 and 10, placement of cofferdams by piledriver
will result in noise peaks of 105 dB at 15 m (50 ft), as shown
by Magrab (1975). For Alternatives 2 and 10, the distance to
homes in Point Shirley is 1220 m (4000 ft) and 760 m (2500 ft)
respectively. Under adverse conditions (high humidity and low
temperature), sound dissipation of 20 dB/km may be expected.
This in turn would mean impulse noise levels at Point Shirley
of 80 dB for Alternative 2 and 90 dB for Alternative 10, not
including the effect of other construction equipment.
It was found that operational impacts of transportation
noise varied between urban and rural areas, as summarized in
Table X-6. The impact of all alternatives was found to be
negligible in urban areas. In rural areas, the relative noise
impact is greater, but two considerations apply. The alternatives
were established such that only day-time transportation was
required, and applicable noise standards vary in rural areas.
In residential areas, a day-night noise standard (Ldn) of 55 dBA
(protecting general health and welfare) applies, and the noise
equivalent standard (Leg) of 70 dBA (preventing hearing damage)
applies in non-residential areas. An equivalent noise level
(Leq) of greater than 60 dBA would also violate the Ldn standard
IV-21
-------
of 55 dBA. Because the rural areas have relatively scattered
residences, there will not be noise impacts in excess of standards
in most areas.
In comparing the feasible incineration alternatives to
the land application alternative, the impact of construction
will be greater for incineration (more materials, equipment and
workers) than for land application. Because of the much greater
number of vehicles for transport, however, the noise impacts
of operation would be much higher for land application.
Regarding operational noise exposure, the exposure of
workers is limited by the Walsh-Healy Act which gives a combined
noise-exposure standard. The occupational noise level with
greatest impact is that of incineration, which may range from
82 to 97 dBA at 25 feet (USEPA, 1972), which would limit workers
to three hours per day of direct exposure (Hovey, 1972).
Reduced air quality will result from implementing
incineration alternatives. This reduction will leave air quality
essentially unchanged from present levels in the Boston area.
The present air quality being less than that required by
Massachusetts and federal law may result in some adverse health
effects. On the smaller scale, the proposed incineration
facility is located in a "Clean Zone", and incineration will
not result* in contravention of standards for prevention of
significant deterioration.
b. Beneficial Impacts; Discontinuation of harbor
disposal of sludge may result in some improved beach conditions.
This is beneficial for public health, as well as for recreational
purposes. However, this impact should be negligible to minimal
since it has been shown that the greatest amounts of beach
bacterial contamination is a result of combined sewer overflows.
7. Economic Impacts
a. Adverse Impacts; The adverse economic impact of
the feasible alternatives is the increased annual cost to
residents of the MDC service area. Based on 1975 Fiscal Year
MDC operating and capital budget costs of $17,637,000 and the
estimated 1985 service area population of 2,280,000 (3.2 persons
per household), the increased costs are, based on annual costs
after grants:
Incremented
Incremented Annual Cost pei
Alternative Cost to MDC Household
1 16.8% $4.16
2 14.6% $3.61
8 14.0% $3.48
9 14.4% $3.56
10 14.6% $3.61
11 14.0% $3.48
IV-2 2
-------
Based on the OBERs projections of $5900 per capita
income in 1985, the differential and absolute impacts on each
household are negligible.
For contrast, the original land application alternative,
developed in detail in the Draft EIS with 1975 costs, would have
increased the costs to MDC by 23.4% per year and would have had
a cost per household of $5.79 per year.
b. Beneficial Impacts: The beneficial economic
impact of all action alternatives is the generation of
construction jobs with federal grant funds. The 480 man years
of effort translates into about 120 jobs over a three year
period. Operating labor increase for all alternatives is about
95 employees (98 for Alternative 1) assuming 1500 hours per
employee per year. While this is beneficial on an individual
level, it is adverse on a regional basis because these employees
do not produce export goods.
8. Energy Impacts
a. Adverse Impacts; All of the feasible alternatives
(1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11) will require energy use for operation
which must be drawn from existing fossil fuel sources. This
fuel use is for startup and auxiliary fuel and for transport of
ash to ultimate disposal. To offset this fossil fuel use, the
inclusion of energy recovery will produce more total energy than
will be consumed by the sludge management operation. Alternative
1 with inland ash disposal required about 2 x 109 BTU more per
year than do the other alternatives. The imbalance in direct
fossil fuel use is greater, with Alternative 1 requiring*
158,520 gallons per year while the next Alternative (9) requires
148,865 gallons per year, or 6% less, and the remaining alterna-
tives all require about 147,900 gallons per year, about 6.7%
less than 1.
In contrast, the original land application alternative
from the Draft EIS required direct energy inputs of 162 x 10y
BTU per year, mostly in fossil fuels, and an indirect (chemical)
energy input of 50 x 109 BTU per year. This energy use would
have been partially offset by a maximum nutrient energy recovery
of 51.1 x 109 BTU per year for a total net use of 161 x 10y BTU
per year.
b. Beneficial Impacts: The most obvious beneficial
impact of the feasible alternatives is the recovery of thermal
energy in excess of that required for start operations. The
total net recovery of 52-54 x 109 BTU per year is equivalent
to 370,000 gallons of diesel fuel that will be saved annually
by converting radial diesel pump engines to electric motors.
IV-2 3
-------
9. Land Use Impacts
a. Adverse Impacts; In most wastewater treatment
plant projects, the issue of secondary impacts which are induced
by the project (and are most significantly reflected in pressures
on land use and land use planning)are not present with this project.
There are some minor secondary land use impacts associated with
some of the alternatives (to be discussed later in this section),
but the very nature of the problem precludes significant, secondary
impacts. Specifically, what has been proposed by MDC is not the
creation of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities, but
a change in the method of processing the sludge generated at
existing treatment plants. A simple test which can be applied
to test the validity of this conclusion is to ask the question,
"Will people move into the MDC sewage service area because their
sludge can receive better treatment?" The answer is "No."
Therefore, the bulk of the following evaluation centers around
the primary impacts of the several alternatives on land uses.
Adverse land use impacts may result from:
• decreases in land values adjacent to ash
disposal sites, and
• decreases in productive land area.
The expansion of facilities at the existing Deer Island
treatment plant site will result in minimal adverse effects.
Except for the "No-Action" alternative, the enlargement of
facilities on Deer Island is part of all of the alternatives
under examination. Although the facilities may eventually
displace other existing uses on the island, location of these
facilities at any other site would not be feasible.
b. Beneficial Impacts; No beneficial impacts differ-
entiate the feasible alternatives. In comparison to land
application, which would require use of 40 acres of storage
land and 11,500 acres of application land, the total impact is
beneficial. Although positive impacts on agriculture would
result from land application designed and operated in accordance
with the provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, the loss of this area from agriculture in the event of
problems would constitute a severe negative impact.
IV-2 4
-------
10. Transportation Impacts
a. Adverse Impacts; All feasible alternatives
(1, 2, 8, 9, 10 and 11) will have adverse impact on traffic
as discussed in Appendix Y. This impact, however, will be
negligible. For purposes of differentiation, the impacts
of 10 truck trips per day of Alternative 1 will be worse than
the other feasible alternatives.
b. Beneficial Impacts; There are no differentiating
beneficial.impacts on traffic or transportation.
11. Historic and Archeological Impacts
a. Adverse Impacts; Alternatives 1, 8, 9 and 11 have
potential adverse archeological impacts as follows:
Alternative 1: The fill sites proposed (Randolph,
Amesbury and Plainville) have not been surveyed, but filling
in existing sites should have no further adverse effect.
Alternatives 8, 11: Filling in the Ft. Dawes area
of Deer Island may disrupt existing archeological resources.
Before final fill location, an archeological survey should
be conducted.
Alternative 9: Prehistoric sites are known to exist
on Spectacle Island (Weslowski, 1978), as well as historic sites,
and therefore, a detailed survey would be necessary before
locating the fill.
Operation of the incineration alternatives may result
in damage to historic sites from SO2. This impact will be
negligible, however, considering the amount of SC>2 that would
be produced, the predominant wind direction and the location
of sites within the effective flume distance.
b. Beneficial Impacts: No differentiating beneficial
impacts will result from any of the feasible alternatives.
12. Aesthetic Impacts
Adverse aesthetic impacts may result from the alternatives,
These include:
• visual impact from on-site facilities (Deer Island),
although fill placement for Alternative 11 may screen
the main facility from visual impact on other Boston
Harbor islands;
• visual impact from off-site facilities;
• odor impacts from on-site facilities; and
• odor impacts from off-site facilities.
IV-2 5
-------
The impacts of construction and operation of the
expanded facilities would be negligible or minimal concerning
noise, appearance, and odor, and will be essentially identical
to the other alternatives. The existing plant already produces
odor, noise, and visual impacts, and while it is isolated from
the main residential areas of Winthrop, there will be increases
in the existing adverse effects upon the inmates of the Suffolk
County prison. The addition of increased noise and odor will
probably be in the range of minimal to moderate.
Alternatives 2 and 10 would have adverse aesthetic
impacts on the harbor or ocean because of cofferdam construction,
Alternatives 8 and 11 would have adverse impacts on use of
Ft. Dawes as a recreational site, but because of the existence
of the Deer Island plant, the present aesthetic quality may
be limited.
IV-2 6
-------
SECTION V
SELECTION OF RECOMMENDED PROJECT
In this section, the alternatives developed in Section III
are evaluated on the basis of the following criteria:
• Inputs of labor and energy
• Costs, gross and net
• Environmental impacts
• Implementation feasibility
After this evaluation the best action alternatives are selected
and are then discussed in more detail in order to select the
most desirable action plans. Descriptions of the Recommended
Projects close this section.
-------
V. SELECTION OF RECOMMENDED PROJECT
A. Summary Comparison and Selection of Best Action Alternates
In this section the action alternatives are compared in
order to select the best method for processing and disposing
of digested sludge from the Metropolitan District Commission
service area. The selection process begins with a summarization
of:
• Elimination of infeasible alternatives
(from Section III)
• Process and disposal inputs of land, labor,
energy and materials,
• Capital and annual costs with and without grants,
• Significant environmental impacts,
• Implementation and control problems.
After this summary of information pertinent to the selection
process, the subsequent steps are:
• Step lr elimination of the least desirable
alternatives. The first selection step is to
eliminate those action alternatives that are
clearly inferior.
• Step 2, selection of the best action alternative,
based on a further development of the criteria.
To reiterate, the six alternatives developed and evaluated
require incineration of Deer and Nut Island sludges at Deer
Island. The ultimate disposal alternatives for ash are:
• Alternative 1: Transport to an inland landfill
site (non-hazardous wastes only)
• Alternative 2: Lagoon fill on the ocean side of
Deer Island (non-hazardous waste only)
• Alternative 8: Inland landfill at Deer Island
(non-hazardous waste)
» Alternative 9: Inland landfill at Spectacle
Island (non-hazardous waste).
V-l
-------
• Alternative 10: Lagoon fill on the harbor
side of Deer Island (hazardous wastes)
• Alternative 11: Inland fill at Deer Island
(hazardous wastes).
a. Elimination of Infeasible Alternatives; In
Section III alternatives using land application or ocean
disposal as the ultimate disposal method were eliminated
for the following reasons:
• Ocean Disposal Alternatives (3, 4 and 7)
were eliminated because of recent federal
legislation forbidding ocean dumping of
sewage sludge after December 31, 1981.
See Appendix 0 and Section III E. for more
detail.
• Land Application Alternatives (5 and 6)
were eliminated for several reasons;
present and futurp sludge quality, land
area reguired, and the requirement for
leachate control for hazardous waste
disposal sites. In addition, as discussed
in Section IV, certain impacts on trans-
portation and cost would have been excessive.
b. Process and Disposal Inputs; Monetary Costs: In-
puts of labor, energy, materials, land, and monetary costs for
construction and operation of these alternatives are given in
Appendix T, Section III and Section IV. Summaries of the re-
quired inputs are shown in Tables V-l and V-2. In addition
to labor, energy inputs, materials and land, Table V-l also
includes the energy recovered from digester gas (which applies
to all alternatives).
*
c. Environmental Impacts; Environmental impacts of
the action alternatives are covered in detail in Section IV, and
will not be reiterated in such detail. A summary of impacts by
category is possible as shown in Table IV-1-5. It should be noted]
that none of the impacts are of such severity as to eliminate
the alternative from further consideration. The elimination
process shown originally in the Draft EIS has been largely
superseded by federal law as described above and in Section III.
With this increased influence of law, the possible range of
alternatives has been correspondingly reduced, particularly
since both sludge and ash are deemed hazardous because of
potential heavy metal leaching.
d. Feasibility of Implementation; With respect to
implementation, each alternative remaining has barriers to
implementation (as might be expected in an urbanized area with
many competing uses for resources such as land and water).
V-2
-------
TABLE V-l
INPUT RESOURCE USE AND PRODUCTION *
ALTERNATIVE
<
ON-SITE ANNUAL ENERGY USE
Electrical
Fuel
Chemical
Total
ON-SITE ANNUAL ENERGY PRODUCTION
Electrical
Fuel
Total
NET ON-SITE ENERGY PRODUCTION
NET ON-SITE ELECTRICAL
ENERGY PRODUCTION
TRANSPORT & DISPOSAL ENERGY USE
NET ENERGY PRODUCTION
Total
Equivalent Fuel Production
(Gallons of #2 Diesel Fuel/Yr.
10
11
57.6 x 109 57.6 x 109 57.6 x 109 57.6 x 109 57.6 x 109 57.6 x 109
21.1 x 109 21.1 x 109 21.1 x 109 21.1 x 109 21.1 x 109 21.1 x 109
50 x 109 50 x 109 50 x 109 50 x 109 50 x 109 50 x 109
128.7 x 109 128.7 x 109 128.7 x 109 128.7 x 109 128.7 x 109 128.7 x 109
161 x 10-
650 x 10
9
161 x 10-
650 x 10-
161 x 109 161 x 10-
650 x
650 x I0
161 x 10-
650 x 10-
161 x 10
650 x 10
9
811 x 109 811 x 109 811 x 109 811 x 109 811 x 109 811 x 109
682 x 109 682 x 109 682 x 109 682 x 109 682 x 109 682 x 109
103 x 109 103 x 109 103 x 109 103 x 109 103 x 109 103 x 109
1.53 x 109 9.3 x 106 4.58 x 107 1.52 x 108 9.3 x 10& 4.58 x 107
680 x 109 682 x 109 682 x 109 682 x 109 682 x 109 682 x 109
4.76 x 106 4.77 x 106 4.77 x 106 4.77 x 106 4.77 x 105 4.77 x 106
* All units in BTU/year except where noted
-------
TABLE V-2
Capital Costs
Without Grant
With Grant
Annual Capital Costs
Without Grant
With Grant
Annual Operating Costs
Credit for Electrical Energy
Total Annual Costs
Without Grant
With Grant
COSTS OF ALTERNATIVES
(1978 DOLLARS)
ALTERNATIVE
1
$31,099,100
7,774,775
2,885,900
748,005
2,653,655
441,000
5,098,555
2,960,660
2
$34,802,100
8,700,525
3,196,500
800,930
2,213,020
441,000
4,968,520
2,572,950
8
$30,591,100
7,647,775
2,810,500
704,435
2,213,090
441,000
4,582,590
2,476,525
9
$31,163,100
7,790,775
2,832,850
720,975
2,256,975
441,000
4,648,825
2,536,950
10
$34,824,100
8,706,025
3,198,500
801,460
2,212,995
441,000
4,970,495
2,573,455
11
$30,591,100
7,647,775
2,810,500
704,435
2,213,090
441,000
4,582,590
2,476,525
-------
The major barriers to implementation of each
alternative are:
• Alternative 1: Although this is based on an
existing fill site (e.g. Plainville), the
possibility that the ash will remain hazardous
cannot be ignored. The Plainville fill site is
not approved for hazardous wastes. Also, to be
cost effective, Alternative 1 requires access
to roll-on-roll-off facilities not owned by
MASSPORT. As an additional barrier, water-
borne transport of hazardous materials will
require a Coast Guard permit, so even if a
hazardous waste fill is developed in eastern
Massachusetts, this requirement will still
exist.
• Alternatives 2 and 10: The principal implemen-
tation barrier to Alternative 2 is the use of
coastal area for fill. The City of Boston
Environmental Commission has authority over
shoreline changes. The Corps of Engineers is on
record as disapproving the ocean fill for ash
disopsal.
Alternatives 8 and 11: Use of the Fort Dawes
area for fill of ash, either hazardous or non-
hazardous, is complicated by the Boston Harbor
Islands Master Plan, which includes use of
Fort Dawes as a recreational site. This recre-
ational use will be seriously compromised if
Deer Island is used for a secondary treatment plant
site, which will consume the greater part o^f the
island, but the Master Plan still exists and
approval for change would be necessary.
Alternative 9: As with Alternative 1, Coast
Guard approval would be required for transport
of ash by barge to Spectacle Island. In addition,
for hazardous ash, the leachate from the ash fill
must be treated for metals removal (in Appendix T,
treatment cost was included for this) and an NPDES
permit would be necessary for discharge. The
Spectacle Island site is presently a fill area
for municipal refuse, and installation of leach-
ate control would be difficult. Because of limi-
tations on use of the harbor islands, the only
landfill possible would be use of nonhazardous
ash for surface contour regrading. The present
plan for Spectacle Island requires use within five
years for passive recreation. Therefore, use for
fill would last for three years or less.
V-5
-------
BOSTON HARBOR
Incinerators
0« *
Transfer Pipeline
8
BOSTON
INNER
IAKI10K
FIGURE V-i APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF CONSTRUCTION AREAS FOR
RECOMMENDED PROJECT
v-6
-------
• Alternatives 10 and 11: Preparation of a fill
for hazardous wastes will require obtaining a
permit in accordance with draft provisions of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(P.L. 94-580), and monitoring of groundwater
observation wells and collection and treatment
of leachate must be done. Because the permit
will require public hearing (I. Leighton, 1978),
some delays may be experienced.
In summary, all feasible alternatives are subject to im-
plementation difficulties but of these six alternatives, 8 and
11 will probably have the fewest implementation problems.
Alternatives 2 and 10 have implementation difficulties which
may be insurmountable, particularly in combination with the
increased cost for cofferdam construction. Alternative 9 can-
not be implemented unless the ash is considered nonhazardous.
In addition to the institutional considerations, there
are three technical areas which enter into the evaluation of
a system's implementability: simplicity of operation, system
flexibility, and speed with which the system can be made oper-
ational. In considering the area of operational simplicity,
the most complex alternative (Alternative 1) would have the
greatest problems in terms of maintaining a smoothly running
series of steps. In considering system flexibility, all
feasible alternatives are similar. With respect to the time
required for systems to become operational, all alternatives
are the same because the limiting factor will be incinerator
construction.
B. Selection of the Best Action Alternative
The selection process, at this point, must be principally
based on implementation and relative impact. Alternatives 2
and 10, which include fillincr of ash in cofferdammed areas
on either the ocean or harbor side of Deer Island, (which
are elements of the Applicant's Proposed Action) can be
eliminated for the following reasons:
• The Boston Environmental Commission, which has review
authority over this action, would not accept this
(Beal, 1975) if there were alternatives to this action.
• The Corps of Engineers would require a permit applica-
tion and would not grant such a permit if there are
alternatives to this action.
• The cofferdam construction makes these alternatives
less cost effective than Alternatives 8, 9 and 11,
with or without federal grants.
V-7
-------
• The impact of harbor area loss makes Alternative 10
unacceptable, and the potential impact of cofferdam
rupture makes both Alternatives 2 and 10 unacceptable.
The rationale behind this discussion is that there are
other more cost effective alternatives to the use of cofferdam
fill sites, and that if there are other satisfactory alterna-
tives, the proposed plan should not be one with delays built in
because of implementation problems.
Alternative 1, using inland fill at an existing fill site,
can be eliminated for the following reasons:
• The ash analysis indicates that the ash is a hazardous
material as defined by RCRA, and therefore the absence
of landfills in eastern Massachusetts licensed for
hazardous wastes precludes use of this alternative.
• Alternative 1 is the least cost effective alternative,
with or without federal grants.
• The resource costs and transportation impacts are such
that if other more cost effective alternatives are
available this alternative should be eliminated.
Alternative 8, using an inland fill on Deer Island for non-
hazardous wastes, can also be eliminated because of the known
hazardous nature of the ash. The sole difference between Alter-
natives 8 and 11 is the recycle of leachate for treatment. This
means that if the sludge ash should be nonhazardous (probably
by a change in definition rather than by a change in sludge)
there will be no reason not to proceed with Alternative 11.
Therefore, the Recommended Project Alternatives are the
remaining two, Alternatives 9 and 11. These have about the
same levels of implementation problems and of adverse impacts.
While Alternative 11 is the most cost effective, its implemen-
tation could be blocked by legislative action and thus an
alternative must be carried forward for this eventuality.
C. Detailed Description of Recommended Project Alternatives
The Recommended Project Alternatives are described as
follows:
a. On-Site Processes Common to Both Alternatives: The
on-site processes are:dewatering and incineration with recovery
of heat for electricity generation. The dewatering process may
V-8
-------
be vacuum filtration or horizontal belt filtration depending
on detailed studies in Step II. The incinerator will be a
multiple hearth incinerator with a variable speed fan for
intake air. The energy recovery facilities will include the
boiler and a 4000 kw generator. The temperature difference
through the boiler will be about 500°F. Quenching and ash
removal from the incinerator will be either wet or dry, with
dry quenching recommended to minimize the amount of leachate
to be recycled. Air pollution control will be by a Venturi-
type scrubber with a 42" H2O pressure drop through the scrubber,
b. Transportation and Disposal: The transportation and
ultimate disposal of ash will be by one of the following:
• Alternative 9: The nonhazardous ash will be trans-
ported in trailers to a barge-ferry for transport
to Spectacle Island for disposal. At Spectacle
Island, truck tractors will be employed to unload
the trailers off the barge. The ash will be
placed as necessary for reshaping contours.
Alternative 11: The ash will be transported to the
lower end of Deer Island (the Fort Dawes area)
where it will be placed in a sealed fill. The
leachate from the fill will be recycled to the
plant for treatment. If the ash becomes nonhazardous
then fill can also be placed as necessary for grad-
ing. In terms of long-term impact, but not costs,
Alternative 11 then resembles Alternative 8.
V-9
-------
SECTION VI
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION OF THE RECOMMENDED PROJECT
ALTERNATIVES
This section summarizes the beneficial and adverse impacts of
the Recommended Project Alternatives, and the mitigating
measures that can be taken to lessen the severity of unavoid-
able impacts. Section VI specifically addresses the following
questions:
• What are the adverse impacts that cannot be avoided?
• What is the relationship between local short term use
of the environment and maintenance and enhancement of
long term productivity?
• What irreversible and irretrievable commitment of
resources accompany the Recommended Project?
-------
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
ALTERNATIVES
In this section, the impacts of the Recommended Project
Alternatives are summarized, along with suitable mitigating
measures (if applicable), and the answers to the questions
mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 are
given. The NEPA questions are:
• Adverse impacts that cannot be avoided.
• Relationship between local short term use of the
environment and maintenance and enhancement of long
term productivity.
• Irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources
to the recommended project.
A. Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigating Measures
The impacts of the recommended project and relevant
mitigating measures are summarized in Tables VI-1 and VI-2. These
tables are essentially checklists of impacts, with amplification
in the following section on unavoidable adverse impacts. Additional
information, i.e. type, assessment and areal extent of impact, can
be found in Tables IV-1 to IV-5.
Regarding mitigating measures, it should be noted that
the recommended plan was developed in such a way as to minimize
adverse impacts detected in the early stages of evaluation.
In going from the Draft EIS to the Final EIS, the principal
level of evaluation involved plan selection to minimize adverse
impacts of ultimate disposal.
B. Adverse Impacts That Cannot be Avoided
The principal adverse impacts that cannot be avoided are
related to air quality. With the scrubber system to be used,
little further mitigation can be expected. As discussed pre-
viously, because the proposed project alternatives do not include
expansion of the service area, little secondary impact, either
beneficial or adverse, is expected. The adverse impacts are
identified in Table IV-1-5, and are summarized below.
• Soil quality and structure: Loss of soil through
erosion during construction of facilities at Deer and
Nut Island. Mulching can reduce this by approximately
90%.
VI-1
-------
Area of Impact
Soils and
topography
TABLE VI-1
ALTERNATIVE 9 - SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Action
Construction of incinerator and storage
facilities
Particulate fallout resulting from
incinerator operation
Beneficial impact of regrading soil
cover
Mitigating Measure
Use of mulching at 2 tons
per acre on cleared areas
i
to
Marine sediments
and water quality
Construction of force mains for sludge
transport on the harbor bottom
Operation of sludge force mains
(malfunction)
Elimination of sludge discharge
Dredging and construction for barging
Rapid recovery of pipeline
cut
Pressure sensor to detect
rupture
Beneficial impact
Rapid recovery of dredged
area
-------
TABLE VI-1 (Cont'd.)
Area of Impact
Land use
Action
Expansion of Deer Island facilities
causing displacement of other land uses
Mitigating Measure
Provision in PL 95-217 for
$15 million to build new
correctional facility
Air quality
H
I
OJ
Incinerator operation
Construction of incinerator and storage
facilities
Emissions due to ash transportation
(fuel usage = 1,065 gallons/year)
Maintenance of scrubber;
use of lime for conditioning
Daily watering, mulching
of cleared areas
National vehicle emission
control program
Biotic communities
Heavy metal uptake by vegetation growing
upon final landfill cover
Loss of vegetation at fill site
Construction of force mains for sludge
transport on the harbor bottom
Operation of force mains (malfunction)
Rapid revegetation
Dredging during winter season
Pressure sensor to detect
rupture
Elimination of sludge discharge
Beneficial impact
-------
TABLE VI-1 (Cont'd.
Area of Impact
Action
Mitigating Measure
H
I
Public health and
noise
Economic
Noise and emissions from ash transportation
Construction of incinerator and storage
facilities causing a noise level increase
and a decrease in air quality
Incinerator emissions
Elimination of sludge discharge
Increased annual cost due to implemen-
tation of the project
Generation of construction jobs through
project implementation
Operating labor increase through
project implementation
Daily watering, mulching
of cleaned areas
Scrubber maintenance
Beneficial impact
Energy
Historical and
archeaological sites
Recovery of thermal energy (equivalent
to 370,000 gallons diesel fuel)
Use of fossil fuels (fuel usage =
148,865 gallons/year)
Use of landfill site (prehistoric sites
are known to exist on Spectacle Island)
Beneficial impact
Archaeological survey
-------
TABLE VI-2
ALTERNATIVE 11 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
H
I
Ul
Area of Impact
Soils
Action
Construction of incinerator
and storage facilities
Particulate fallout resulting
from incinerator operation
Increase in heavy metals con-
centration of landfill cover
soil
Landfill operation resulting
in erosion and soil structure
destruction
Mitigating Measures
Use of mulching at 2 tons/acre
on cleared areas
Rapid revegetation
Marine sediments
and water quality
Construction of force mains for
sludge transport on the harbor
bottom
Operation of sludge force mains
(malfunction)
Rapid recovery of pipeline cut
Pressure sensor to detect
rupture
Elimination of sludge discharge
-------
TABLE VI-2 (Cont'd)
Area of Impact
Surface and groundwater
quality and quantity
Action
Malfunction of leachate con-
control at landfill
Mitigating Measures
Contingency Plan
<
H
I
Land Use
Expansion of Deer Island
facilities causing displacement
of other land uses
Use of landfill area causing dis-
placement of landuse (Probably
fill site is within Fort Dawes
Air Quality
Biotic Communities
Incinerator operation (may be
different for hazardous waste)
Construction of inciner-
ator and storage facilities
Emission due to ash trans-
portation (Fuel usage 320
gal/yr)
Heavy metal uptake by vege-
tation growing upon final
landfill cover
Loss of vegetation at land-
fill site
Maintenance for scrubber
Use of lime for conditioning
Daily watering, mulching of
cleared areas
National vehicle emission control
program
Rapid revegetation
-------
TABLE VI-2 (Cont'd)
Area of Impact
<
H
I
Action
Construction of force mains
for sludge transport on the
harbor bottom
Operation of force mains
(malfunction)
Elimination of sludge
discharge
Mitigating Measures
Dredging during winter season
Pressure sensor to detect rupture
Beneficial impact
Public Health and Noise
Noise and emission from ash
transportation
*Malfunction of leachate
control at landfill
Construction of incinerator
and storage facilities causing
a noise level increase and a
decrease in air quality
Incinerator emissions
Elimination of sludge
discharge
Contingency plan
Daily watering, mulching
of cleared areas
Scrubber maintenance
Beneficial impact
-------
TABLE VI-2 (Cont'd)
H
00
Area of Impact
Economic
Action
Increased annual cost due to
implementation of the pro-
ject
Generation of construction jobs
through project implementation
Operating labor increase through
proj ect implementation
Mitigating Measures
Energy
Historical and
Archeological
Recovery of thermal energy
(equivalent of 370,000 gallons
diesel fuel)
Use of Fort Dawes area as land-
fill site (possible historical
resources)
Beneficial impact
Archeological Survey
Aesthetic
Use of Fort Dawes as a landfill
-------
• Ocean and Harbor sediments: Dredging for the pipe-
line and for the barge channel for the alternative of
filling on Spectacle Island will -cause unavoidable
loss of habitat. This is a short term impact, and
mitigation can be accomplished by proper timing of
the dredging.
• Groundwater quality: Recycle of leachate from the
fill site will reduce flow to groundwater by about
15,000 m3/yr (4,000,000 gallons per year).
• Air quality impacts from incineration: The Deer
Island treatment plant and proposed incinerator
facilities are located in a Clean Zone, for which
Class II requirements for prevention of significant
deterioration exist. Based on air quality modeling
as shown in Appendix V, none of the PSD criteria
will be violated. The only violation shown will be
the annual second highest daily total suspended
particulate (TSP) concentration at a point 1.25 km
from the stacks. This violation will probably not
occur, because it is based on background TSP con-
centration data from Revere. The monitoring site
location is more that 5 km from the incinerator site.
• Use of fossil fuels: The use of some fuel energy is
unavoidable. In addition to transport use, some
auxiliary fuel will be required for incinerator start-
up and for auxiliary heat during its operation. The
use of fossil fuels for startup pilot and auxiliary
fuel can be mitigated by partial use of digester gas.
The total energy use will be mitigated by energy
recovery from the incincerator off gas.
• Increase in costs to MDC and MDC system users: The
annual cost of the recommended project alternatives
will increase the cost of operations to the MDC and
will increase the cost of wastewater treatment to area
residents. This increase in costs of about 14% over
present levels will not seriously affect area
residents (annual costs per household will rise by
$3.48 to $3.56). This impact is mitigated by the 75%
federal grant for construction.
VI-9
-------
• Aesthetic impacts of filling on Deer Island: If
the alternative of filling on Deer Island is
implemented, there will be a adverse impact on use
of Fort Dawes as a recreational area. With the
construction of secondary treatment facilities, how-
ever, the aesthetic value of Fort Dawes would be
reduced in any case.
The adverse impacts are predicted based on 1985 conditions,
but the variation in expected quantity of primary sludge between
1975 and 1995 is small, and none of the impacts should change
in the project period. Similarly, the implementation of
secondary treatment will necessitate additional investigation
because capacity will possibly not exist for additional air
emissions of the magnitude expected with incineration of
secondary solids.
C. Relationship Between Local Short Term Use of the Environment
and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long Term Productivity
The Recommended Project Alternatives involve a tradeoff
between air quality and quality of the marine environment. By
using incineration, with concomitant air quality reduction, the
sludge quantity is reduced sufficiently to allow economical
landfilling of the residue, thus destroying toxic organic
materials and isolating heavy metals from the environment.
The loss of land through landfilling is not permanent, with
reconstruction of the soil and biota being possible. In contrast
with this, the loss of productive ocean habitat is not reversible
under continued sludge dumping.
We recognize now that the Recommended Project Alternatives
are not the only viable methods for sludge disposal that can be
practiced now, or in the future. With the advent of secondary
treatment, the quantities of sludge to be handled and disposed
of become significantly larger than those amounts to be en-
countered by the recommended plan. Since the incinerators
represent a reasonably inflexible solution for the project
period, the temptation will be to allow that inflexibility to
become institutionalized, thus automatically closing out future
options. We also recognize that MDC's sludge handling and
disposal methods may eventually consist of a variety of pro-
cedures and not just one approach. The investigation into the
feasibility of land application has demonstrated that it is
viable alternative for sludge disposal.
VI-10
-------
D. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources to
the Recommended Project, Should it be Implemented
With the Recommended Project there are certain unavoidable
commitments of labor, materials, energy and land, along with the
commitment of air quality resources. The input resources for
the project are given in Appendix T and are summarized in Section
III. The use of air quality resources is unavoidable, irrever-
sible and irretrievable, but not excessive in light of the
expected future background conditions. In terms of energy,
implementation of the project will result in a net production of
electrical energy, and if digester gas can be used for auxiliary
and startup fuel, the only fossil fuel use will be in trans-
portation to ultimate disposal.
Ainajor commitment will be continued use of Deer Island
for primary treatment because of increased investment. However,
the present and continued use of Deer Island as a waste treat-
ment site is more properly the consequence of earlier and more
fundamental decisions.
VI-11
-------
SECTION VII
COMMENTS TO THE DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
AND RESPONSES
-------
VII. COMMENTS TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT AND RESPONSES
A. Introduction and Summary
The Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, held a public
hearing on the Proposed Metropolitan District Commission Sludge
Management Plan on April 6, 1976, Room 2003 of the John F. Kennedy
Federal Building, Boston, Massachusetts. The hearing was attended
by approximately three dozen people, of which twelve presented
testimony for the record. The transcript of that hearing is
available for review at the EPA offices. Subsequent to that
hearing, the record was held open for approximately seven (7)
weeks during which written comments were submitted to the Agency.
In order to minimize volume in the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS), the comments and questions which have been raised
are summarized here in Volume I, and are also available for review
at the EPA offices. Since many of the comments from different
sources were similar in nature, these equivalent questions have
been categorized and singular responses have been prepared.
Table VII-1 summarizes the written comments which were re-
ceived during the review period, as well as the comments made at
the public hearing. The categories of questions listed at the
top of the table are the same ones (and in the same order) which
will be discussed in this section. The comments made during the
public hearing are also answered within the same categories. The
comments (which are summarized here) are identified by author.
B. Comments and Responses
1. Land Application
Comments: "I believe the model used...is inadequate and
underestimates the amount of sludge which could be applied to the
land...the model assumes negligible immobilization of inorganic
nitrogen, which the (draft) report (p. 134, Vol. II) states occurs
only when the C/N ratio exceeds 20 to 25...the ratio for the MDC
sludge will probably exceed this ...allowing more sludge to be
applied.
N2-fixation is assumed to be constant whether sludge is
present or not, whereas the sludge will depress ^-fixation again
allowing more sludge to be applied. Further, loss of ammonia to the
air by volatilization is likely." (Howarth)
VII-1
-------
TABLE VII-1 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED
1976
Date
Rec'd
3/16
3/25
< 3/25
H! 3/26
3/29
3/30
3/31
4/ 1
4/ 5
4/ 5
4/ 6
4/ 6
4/ 8
4/ 9
4/14
Comments
Received
From
J.D. McDermott
P.T. Anderson
T.C. McMahon
W. Folger
A.J. Screpetis
E.R. Amadon
R.T. Donaldson
J.R. Elwood
W.M. Bulger
T.P. Callaghan
R.W. Howarth
D. Standley
A. Weinburg
M.B. Ullman
M. Weiss
Land
Application
Sites
/
/
/
/
/
Landfill |
Sites 1
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Fertilizer
Production
/
/
/
/
Ocean
Disposal
/
/
/
/
Impacts on I
Harbor |
/
/
Incineration 1
Process |
/
/
/
/
/
Coincineration
/
/
/
/
/
/
Air Quality
/
/
Pasteurization
/
/
/
Pr etr eatment
of Sewage
/
/
Transportation
of Sludge /Ash
*
/
/
/
/
Continued I
Studies [
Resource 1
Recovery j
/
/
Energetics
/
/
Historical/ I
Archaeological |
/
/
Matrix
/
/
Mistakes/
Missing Info.
/
/
/
/
/
/
Additional
Topics
Noise levels
Secondary treatment
Chemical modeling for sludge
application.
Pyrolysis
Pipeline from Nut to Deer Island.
-------
TABLE VII-1 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED
1976
Date
Rec'd
4/10
4/23
< 4/23
i!o 4/30
5/ 3
5/ 4
5/ 5
5/ 7
5/18 ^
6/ 2
PuWic
Hearing
4/ 6
Comments
Received
From
M.H. King
K.E. Bigland
R.S. Babb
Boston Harbor
Committee
G.K. Briggs, Jr.
W.H. Holcombe
E.F. Murphy
M. Kolb
J.L. Ignazio
R.M. Doherty
J . Thorton
P. Harrington
D . Duxbury
J . E . Murphy
D. Fawcett
Land
Application
Sites
i-L
/
/
/
/
Landfill
Sites
/
/
•
/
Fertilizer
Production
. —
rH
«
W
c 6
(0 &
-------
Response: Based on the carbon and nitrogen content of
the volatile solids shown in test samples, the C/N ratio of the
Deer and Nut Islands sludges is 5 to 1, well under the level that
would result in immobilization of inorganic nitrogen. It is
undesirable to have a high C/N ratio, as the organic material
would compete with the crop for the nitrogen.
Nitrogen fixation would only be repressed when there is
abundant free soil nitrogen, i.e. shortly after sludge application.
The model is based on gradual release of organic nitrogen. Fixation
will occur (especially by nonsymbiotic organisms) with the organic
levels that would be present. Volatilization would be significant
if the sludge were left exposed to the air for an extended period
to time. The land application systems require rapid incorporation
of the sludge into the soil by plowing. This would result in
negligible loss by volatilization. Volatilization loss is undesir-
able in those situations which consider the economic or energy
benefits of nitrogen recovery.
Comments; [The draft document relies]"...on the filtering
effect of soil to protect groundwater from toxic concentrations
of the heavy metals...in this analysis of filtering effects in order
to permit objective evaluation of the resultant impacts." (Babb)
"...the addition of organic sludge should greatly increase
the cation exchange capacity (CEC) of the soil, so the model used
again underestimates the amount of sludge which could be applied."
(Howarth)
Response: The filtering ability of the soil varies tremend-
ously depending upon the soil properties. In order to discuss this
in any greater detail a detailed soil analysis of the sites is
necessary.
Although the CEC would be raised by the organic matter
(about 200 mg/100 gm), this increase is temporary. Upon discon-
tinuance of sludge application, this organic material will breakdown,
possibly releasing the metals. If soil liming ends with the sludge
application, soil pH will drop and may lead to increased availability
of metals to crops.
Comments; "...the model is inadequate...considerably more
than 10 tons dry weight [sludge] could be added to each acre per
year. 30 tons dry sludge/year have been added to agricultural lands
with no problems." (Howarth)
VI I-4
-------
Response; The amount of sludge that can be applied is
dependent upon the nitrogen content as well as other factors.
If the land is used for cultivating food chain crops, recent EPA
restrictions (43 FR 25: 4942-4955) also apply. Appendix P des-
cribes systems that used 30 dry tons of sludge or more. Reports
of these applications generally did not give metal concentrations
in the sludge, nor did they monitor movement of metals in the soil.
Comment: "How much acreage is required for land appli-
cation and buffer zones. What are acreage, size and locational
requirements of storage facilities?" (Weiss)
Response; For Alternative 5 about 40 acres would be
required for storage of dewatered sludge (Appendix T), and about
20 acres would be required for Alternative 6. Buffer areas required
would be about 28 acres for a 40 acre site and 52 acres for 160
acres. Because the minimum site area would be 40 acres for appli-
cation, buffer area would be a major component, but use of more
isolated agricultural land could decrease buffer required.
Comment: "What would they do with the sludge during 7
months of November through May?" (Anderson)
Response; The sludge would be stored at dedicated sites
for all but two months of the year. These sites would be situated
near ultimate disposal areas.
Comment: "[Sludge Application Sites]... in Bridgewater
are...generally wet and unsuitable, Lakeville locations [are] too
close to public water supply." (Anderson)
Response; No specific site was chosen. Instead, areas
that are presently used for agricultural purposes were identified.
They may fit criteria for sludge disposal. On-site inspections
would be necessary before arrangements could be made for application.
The list and mapping in Section III were to show that there is
sufficient farmland available within a reasonable distance of the
treatment plants.
Comment; "What assurance is there that private farmers
would take the sludge over an extended period of time? (Weiss)
"[Will]...a reliable market exist for land application of
sludge [if the trend of removal of land from cultivation continues]?"
(Weiss)
VII-5
-------
"Problems associated with private ownership [of land
application sites (i.e. to assure continued and uninterrupted
use)] should be addressed." (Weiss)
"...in view of the results of the sludge marketing survey,
it is doubtful that sufficient private owners could be found to
accept sludge application." (Weiss)
Response: Presently there is a large amount of farmland
in Massachusetts. Current patterns and planning should allow
maintenance of at least sufficient amounts of land for the next
20 years. Long term contracts or agreements would provide a reason-
able assurance that the necessary land would be available, while
distribution and application of the sludge by MDC employees would
provide the necessary control. This cost was included in the land
application estimates. The market survey indicated that the
sludge could not be sold competitively, but it did not rule out
free distribution. While private ownership of land for sludge
application and use of food chain crops for nutrient removal are
discouraged by the EPA guidelines for municipal sludge management,
the discussion in Section III indicates why these courses of action
were assumed. The use of private farmland is because of Massa-
chusetts policy on encouraging private agriculture.
Comment: "[Incineration represents a relatively inflex-
ible solution for the project period.] To choose an admittedly
inflexible method is unwise.... In terms of the other criteria of
feasibility/ incineration is perceived as the favored alternative
by the writers.... This ... seems to derive from a general tendency
to regard structural solutions are easier to implement than non-
structural modes." (Kolb)
Response: In light of RCRA and the possible hazardous
waste determination regarding MDC sludge and ash, incineration to
reduce the volume and increase the manageability of this waste is
warranted. Land application of the sludge may require leachate
recycle, vast amounts of dedicated lands, and in addition the
hazardous nature of the sludge eliminates application to food chain
crops and subsequent nutrient recovery.
Comment; "...disagree with statement that the environmental
impact of the land application alternative is greater than that for
the incinerator alternatives." (Howarth)
VII-6
-------
Response: In light of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 (published since the draft EIS), the
land application alternatives were eliminated because of the
need for leachate recycle, the large land area required, the
need to use dedicated sites for disposal, and the elimination
of nutrient recovery through food chain crops.
Response; "On page IV-20 of the Draft Statement, it is
stated that aquatic biota are more sensitive to heavy metal con-
centrations than are terrestrial biota, but no reference is given
in support of this statement...." (Howarth)
Response: "Concentrations of trace elements in water
considered to be toxic to aquatic organisms are, in many cases,
less than those considered to be toxic to animals, man and higher
plants." A. L. Page, 1974, Fate and Effects of Trace Elements in
Sewage Sludge When Applied to Agricultural Lands. Prepared for
the Office of Research and Development, U.S. EPA. Cincinnati,
Ohio. EPA-670/2-74-005. P. 82.
Comment; "Recommendations of this nature [expanded
analysis and pilot scale land application] are totally inappro-
priate in an EIS. They have no bearing on MDC's proposed project
and presume to advocate land application as the future MDC plan."
(Weiss)
Response: We disagree, this is why EIS's are prepared.
Comment: "...if we were to use the sludge for agricul-
tural application, we could probably choose our crop species
carefully so as to minimize the uptake for heavy metals." (Howarth)
Response: In light of RCRA, and the possible hazardous
sludge, agricultural application of sludge has been eliminated.
This comment is no longer applicable.
2. Landfill
Comments; "Landfill Sites - Inadequate description of site
at Plainville." (Anderson)
"The draft statement should include at least a brief
description of the Plainville facility and a comment on the reason-
ing behind the assertion of no impact." (Babb)
VII-7
-------
Response; Descriptions of the sites are found in Section
III of the FEIS, and discussions of impact are found in Section IV
and VI. Because the Plainville site is no longer available, and
because landfill of sludge is not a part of any feasible alter-
natives, these comments may no longer apply.
Comments; "...whether the leaching collection system
that has been built...was taken into account and whether there
were any provisions in the plan for the acceptance of sludge..."
(D. Duxbury, Hearing Transcript)
"The recommended plan could only result in improvement of
water quality in Boston Harbor but could adversely affect water
quality elsewhere in proper leachate control is not practiced."
(Elwood)
"...groundwater quality may be affected by leaching of
heavy metals and increases in chloride and sodium ion concentrat-
ions... on the other hand, the matrix...seems to imply no increase
in concentrations...as a result of Alternatives 1 and 2..." (Babb)
"...measures to control drainage resulting from excessive
storm-water runoff (at the landfill site) should be included."
(Babb)
Response: RCRA defines acceptable leachate control systems
and operations to prevent adverse impact of runoff and leachate
on surface and groundwater quality. Impermeable liners (natural
or artificial) must be employed to contain runoff and leachate;
further, these flows must be returned to the treatment plant.
Comment: "Identified landfill site may not have the
capacity necessary for length of project." (Anderson)
Response; Based on the projected quantity of ash and the
existing use, the proposed sites will have the capacity for the
ash produced by the primary system. The disposal of the wastes
after construction of secondary facilities will be discussed in
another study. It should be noted that landfill life was a major
factor in ultimate plan selection.
Comment; "The report does not discuss the feasibility
and long term risks of containing ash by means of polyethylene
barrier (for on-site landfill)." (Weinburg)
For those alternatives requiring filling of hazardous
ash, use of a natural impervious barrier would be required, and
use of such barriers is incorporated in the FEIS in Section III
and Appendix T.
VII-8
-------
Comment: "Sufficient information is not provided to
substantiate the recommendation for ash disposal at the Plainville
landfill rather than by filling adjacent to Deer Island." (Weiss)
Response: This is no longer the case. Ash disposal in
a landfill on Deer or Spectacle Island is presently recommended,
for reasons discussed in pp. V-7-9.
Comment: "...problems associated with on-site landfilling
are downplayed in the discussion on pages IV-15 and IV-18 of Vol.
I (DEIS). It is stated that the input of heavy metals to the
harbor could be similar to what it is at present because of the
scrubber-water recycle to the plant." (Howarth)
Response; The sections referenced state that significant
impact to the harbor would occur if the landfill site is breached
during a storm. Under design conditions little impact would occur.
The statement about the scrubber water was to indicate that almost
all the metals would be located in the ash; a small amount would be
discharged to the harbor with the effluent under design conditions.
Comment; "A complete comparison of [inland and on-site]
landfills should be given..." (Weiss)
Response: The detail necessary for comparison of alter-
natives is given (refer to Vol. I, section V).
Comment: "Also, lagooning of sludge at Deer Island and
its removal every couple of years and disposal in landfill has not
been evaluated)." (Weiss)
Response; Regardless of the intermediate step (i.e.
temporary lagooning on-site) the ultimate point of disposal would
have to be evaluated, whether transport was done on a regular or
intermittent basis. On page III-ll, the reasons are stated for
elimination of landfilling of dewatered sludge.
...The lagooning of ash before final disposal implies use
of a wet ash handling system. Because of the premium placed on
availability of fill sites, and because of the potential need for
leachate management, a dry ash ("dry quenching") handling system is
assumed.
VII-9
-------
3. Fertilizer Production
Comment; "...Urban applications (of sludge) require
more evaluation...such as land reclamation, beautification
projects, park development, golf courses, regrading cemeteries,
airport areas and highway mediam strips." (Standley)
Response; Urban applications of sludge were
investigated by the separate market survey (Appendix Q). It
was determined that demand at this time is not sufficient to dis-
pose of more than half the total amount of sludge fertilizer.
With the passage of RCRA, and the potentially hazardous nature of
the sludge and ash, such application has been eliminated.
Comment: "...the DEIS...has assumed that the total
[nutrient] value [for land application] can be viewed as a credit
..." (Weiss)
Response: As stated, the alternatives give nutrient
cost and energy credit to that portion of the sludge which is
used for fertilizer. In order to grow crops of sufficient quality
and quantity to make a profit, farmers use some form of fertilizer.
The efficiency of the sludge is not expected to be greater than
commercial fertilizers. The basis of comparison is between
fertilizer and no fertilizer. Again, land application is eliminated
from further consideration.
Comment; "It is not clear...whether the market survey...
took into consideration the possibility of using heat dried sludge
as fertilizer or soil conditioner on MDC and other public lands..."
(Weinburg)
Response: The market survey investigated this possibility
and found it infeasible; (The complete marketing survey is available
for review in the Region I, EPA offices; for further clarification
please refer to Appendix Q in the DEIS.)
4. Ocean Disposal
Commentst "There did not appear to be an assessment of
the biological impact of extension of a combined sludge outfall to
vicinity of the Graves (an alternative originally proposed by MDC
and evaluated hydrodynamically by Hydroscience, Inc.)." (Elwood)
"...construct a pipeline to consolidate the outfall from
that Nut Island, ...and Deer Island and bring them out to the
deep water and start to get clean water in the harbor."
(J. Murphy, in Hearing Transcript)
VII-10
-------
Response: Conditions that make the sludge unacceptable
for harbor or near shore disposal also make it unacceptable for
deep ocean disposal. These conditions include: heavy mentals,
fisheries, toxic organics and noncompliance with EPA guidelines.
Comment: "...use of sewage effluent to increase the
productivity of the caostal fisheries...." (Holcombe)
Response: The metal content and toxic organics that
make the sludge unacceptable for harbor species also make it
unacceptable for open ocean species.
Comment: "[Regarding ocean dumping]...heavy metals can
form chelated complexes with organic compounds [which] are soluble
in water and are fairly likely to be taken up by organisms."
(Howarth)
Response: Ocean dumping of sludge for this reason,
numerous other reasons and EPA mandate has been eliminated as a
feasible alternative as discussed in Section III and Appendix 0
of the FEIS.
Comment: "...the Draft Statement indicates that sludge
would probably settle fairly rapidly when released from a barge
(pp. III-ll and 111-13). It is not clear to me that this true.
Further, it is possible that water and accompanying sludge could
upwell (come to the surface) during storms, etc." (Howarth)
Response: The density of the dewatered sludge would
cause it to settle fairly rapidly, although there would be some
fractionation. The inert solids would settle first, the lighter
solids would take longer.
Due to the currents found in the Gulf of Maine, it is
possible that the sludge could upwell. A physical survey
investigating prospective dumping sites could determine the
potential of upwelling.
Comment: "Is discussion of phytoplankton and zooplankton
in Gulf of Maine relevant to conditions in Boston Harbor and Mass
Bay?" (Weiss)
Response; Massachusetts Bay is considered to be a part
of the Gulf of Maine and contains some of the same species. A
description of the phytoplankton and zooplankton was given as a
background for the ocean dumping alternatives, as ocean dumping
could have effects on the fisheries resource in both areas.
VII-11
-------
Comment: "Location should be given for metal contents
for ocean waters (Table, Vol. I, p. 11-29 DEIS)." (Weiss)
Response; These concentrations are averages from
different samples in the four general locations. Exact locations
were not given by the author, Turekian from NEPA, for each sample
5. Impacts on Harbor
Comment; "Alternatives 1 and 2 should be further
evaluated...to determine more specific reasons for deciding on
the recommended alternatives." (McMahon)
Response: Alternative 1 was selected over Alternative
2 (harbor fill) because no major environmental or economic benefits
would have resulted from filling in of the Boston Harbor, a finite
resource. Also, the potential adverse impacts from a rupture of
the cofferdam are significant. An inland landfill does not pose
the same hazard to biota and public health if a storm should remove
part of the soil cover.
Comment; "[Regarding the environmental impact of the
No Action Alternative] It has not been established that the dis-
charge of digested sludge with chlorinated effluent on outgoing
tides is responsible for either the banning of shellfishing or
impairing any other recreational use of the Harbor. The source of
this allegation is requested and concurrence from regulatory
agencies." (Weiss)
Response; Shellfishing has been halted by the Massachu-
setts Board of Health due to the high levels of pollution in the
harbor. The heavy metals are important in this ban, as well as
coliforms levels. The discharge of effluent is a contributory
factor. The original enforcement hearings (1968, 1969, 1970)
called by the Commonwealth and the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration were held on the basis of protecting the shell-
fishing in Boston Harbor.
Comment: "...What is implied by 'bloom condition1 (in
Boston Harbor)?" (Weiss)
Response; A bloom condition is defined as being equal
to or greater than 500 organisms per ml. The text showed a
typographical error. The average during the 1967 survey was
1,000 organisms per one ml for the harbor. In the 1968 survey
the harbor showed 750 organisms per ml, still indicating bloom
conditions. [Source: Tom Gilbert, NEA, personal communication,
1976 (May)]
VII-12
-------
Comment: "The environmental impact of the no-action
alternative were not equally assessed...." (Weiss)
Response; Conditions and impacts on the harbor resulting
from existing operational conditions were assessed. A description
of the present harbor species in relation to existing conditions
was discussed in DEIS Vol. I, pp, 11-36, 11-37 (refer to Vol. I).
sludge impacts on the biota, water column, and sediments would be
similar or greater than for the ocean, as the harbor is very
high production section of the ocean.
Comment: "The Final Environmental Impact Statement
should present information showing the need for obtaining proper
regulatory permits under Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act of 1972 and under Section 10 of the 1899 River
and Harbor Act." (Ignazio)
Response: This has been incorporated in Section III
and IV of the Final EIS along with the scheduling to be expected
for the application procedure.
Comment: "Site specific information should be presented
for areas to be disturbed and significantly impacted...Information
should include a description of the resources and impacts as con-
cerns barging and piping sludge...along Long Island, [and] the
areas of harbor bottom...." (Ignazio)
Response: The habitat to be traversed by the pipeline
includes: beach habitat at Nut Island; soft bottom, with principal
biota being polychaete worms, between Nut and Long Islands; shallow
sandy bottom along Long Island, with a shoftshell clam population
of approximately 80 bushels per acre (Bridges, 1976); soft bottom
in the President Roads crossing, again with polychaete population;
and beach habitat at Deer Island. The softshell clam population
along Long Island cannot be harvested because of the harbor con-
centrations of bacteria (Bridges, 1976). The impact of dredging
and pipeline construction would be to remove about 560 bushels of
clams (with a 30 foot dredge width), and if the substrate is
properly replaced, the clam population should replace itself in
three to four years (Bridges, 1976).
6. Incinerator Processes
Comment; "In view of the 35.5% efficiency of the four
installations surveyed...further information is necessary to
support the claim that the proposed sludge incinerator would
operate autogenously." (Murphy)
VII-13
-------
Response: In Appendix S, Table S-3 presents a tabula-
tion of the incinerator heat balance. This balance indicates
that autogenous operations under steady-state conditions will be
achieved. In an independent calculation, R. A. Olexsey of the
National Environmental Research Center, Cincinnati, determined
that autogeny may be attained under steady-state operation (FEIS
Vol. II, p. 168).
The efficiency value discussed in Appendix S is developed
by dividing the fuel value of the sludge (and any auxiliary fuel)
into the heat required to convert the sludge moisture content to
steam at the design exit temperature. If the heat loss through
the incinerator walls and to input air were included, a total
heat balance would be the result rather than efficiency calculation.
Comment: "... the assumed exit gas temperature in the
EIS...were lower than those of the H & E design criteria which
reduce the exit gas volume for a given mas discharge." (Weiss)
Response: As described in FEIS Vol. II, pp. 22 and 195,
the exit temperature was actually higher than design criteria, when
operated under worst case conditions.
Comment; "...start-up cycle of once in 10 days is
unrealistically frequent..." (Weiss)
Response: This is based on plant data from similarly
sized plants that are presently operating (refer to Vol. II,
pp. 157-170).
Comment; "...assumptions made in regard to the costs
of operation of sludge incinerators generously assume'perfeet
functioning of an unproved technology." (Kolb)
Response: Analysis of the proposed system and investi-
gations of other systems indicate that the proposed modifications
would result in autogeny. One hundred percent efficiency was
not assumed (refer to Vol. II, p. 151). The FEIS has taken into
account the possibility of day to day operational failure.
Comment; "...the ultimate fate of those materials
collected in the scrubber water is not discussed." (Donaldson)
Response; The water is to be returned to the plant
(refer to DEIS Vol. I, p. IV-18), where it will re-enter the process
stream.
Comment; "...grit and screenings from beaches will be
disposed of in the incinerators. Does this include driftwood,
litter and refuse?" (Donaldson)
VII-14
-------
Response: According to Havens and Emerson's project
design, beach debris would be incinerated.
Comment: "...heavy metals to the harbor could be similar
to...present because of the scrubber-water recycle to the plant "
(Howarth)
Response: The amount of heavy metals being returned to
the harbor will be those that are in a soluble form and are carried
in the effluent. The scrubber water is treated with the sewage,
removing the insoluble portions with the sludge. At the pH expected
at the treatment plant, soluble metals concentrations are signi-
ficantly less than total metals.
Comment: "This incinerator is assumed to be completely
autogenous, whereas the average incinerator in the U.S. requires
50 gallons of fuel/wet ton." (Howarth)
Response: Post start-up autogeny is provided for by a
series of design modifications to the incinerator. The controls
are more complete than previous designs. However, since heat
cannot effectively be saved, overall operational autogeny is not
assumed because of auxiliary fuel requirements during start-up.
Although it is possible that the incinerators may not operate
autogenously, the design modifications are expected to result
in a higher efficiency (refer to FEIS Vol II, p. 169).
Comment: "The NSPS [New Source Performance Standard]
for sludge incinerators has been in effect since June of 1973.
No mention is made of emissions from similar source that are
subject to NSPS and their actual experience as far as compliance
with the standard." (Donaldson)
Response: Data used in developing the NSPS (U.S. EPA,
1975C, Supplement No. 5, for Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions
Factors, 2nd Edition show an average emission of 0.6 Ibs/ton for
an incinerator having less than one-half the scrubber pressure
drop than that determined for the proposed system (18" H20 vs.
42" H20). The pressure drop in the scrubber is one determinent
of scrubber efficiency. A large pressure drop can be expected to
give greater efficiency.
Comment; "The history of the preparation of a plan for
sludge management...instills a measure or doubt as to the open-
ness of the process... We are frankly disturbed at the reiteration
of support for the construction of a system which Havens and
Emerson are evidently uniquely equipped to build...." (Kolb)
VII-15
-------
Response: The decision to support incineration
came only after a rigorous and open study of alternatives
was completed. The study process included two public
workshops, an independent sludge marketing study, and an
independent co-incineration study. Should the State decide
to support, both on a policy and a financial basis, a
composting and compost distribution system, some of the
need for incineration may be alleviated; however, some
incineration capability will be required for at least the
useful life of the proposed project.
Many consultants and contractors have the
capability of designing and or building sludge incineration
systems.
7. Coinc ineration
Comments: "...whether or not it is feasible to burn
solid waste and the sludge together ...." (Duxbury, Hearing
Transcript)
"Although the Sierra Club has serious reservations
about the construction and operation of incinerators as part
of a sludge management plan, nonetheless, we would be interested
in an analysis of the various costs and benefits associated with
the co-incineration of sewage sludge and municipal refuse."
(Kolb)
"The opportunity to assist in solving the problem of
refuse disposal and resource recovery through a facility burning
a combination of sludge and resource merits serious evaluation.
A combined incinerator might also be more energy efficient if the
hoped for ability of a sludge-only incinerator to operate
autogenously cannot be realized. Both the Department of Environ-
mental Quality Engineering and the Bureau of Solid Waste Disposal
should be consulted in evaluating this alternative." (Murphy)
"Conincineration - should be pursued." (Anderson)
"Under Alternative 1, the concept of co-incineration of
primary sludge along with solid waste should be given...."
(Boston Harbor Committee)
"As mentioned, opportunities for resource recovery should
be more fully explored. Also, a detailed analysis of a system of
co-incineration with the City of Boston should be undertaken. Only
briefly mentioned in the draft EIS, co-incineration can provide a
unified, cost-effective solution to two pressing problems - solid
waste and sewage sludge." (Standley)
VII-16
-------
Response: Based on information prepared by Stone
and Webster (1976) and other sources as shown in Appendix EE,
coincineration was evaluated for a new facility in the City of
Boston, for the existing RESCO system and for the West Suburban
Project. Although coincineration may be more cost effective for
the MDC, it was eliminated because of the costs and impacts of
transport and because of implementation problems.
8. Air Quality
Comment; "...the EIS states that the maximum ground
level concentration of emissions is predicted to occur at...1.25
kilometers...and that about 10 receptor sites are located within
this area...[but] all receptor sites except one are actually
located 2 to 3 kilometers from the plant, which indicates that
the air pollution impact given...may be overstated..." (Weiss)
Response: The numbers for the air quality impacts are
not overstated. The maximum concentration will not occur at a
receptor site, but about 1.15 km downwind from the stacks. Due
to improper editing the impression was mistakenly given that the
maximum concentrations would occur at the indicated receptors
sites (refer to Vol. II, Appendix V).
Comment: "Data collected at Point Shirley... shows
substantially better ambient air quality than at Revere and is
more realistic." (Weiss)
Response: Point Shirley does show better ambient air
quality; however, there was only three months of sampling^done
in this area. This is not enough background data to use in
modelling air impacts.
Comment: "The basis of mercury emission calculations
is not clear, and seem to be higher than reasonable." (Weiss)
Response: The mercury emissions are based on sludge
sample analysis and mercury removal efficiency for the scrubber
description is given in Vol. II, p. 186.
Comment; "[This writer] criticizes the non-identification
of the receptor points which were studied in the modelling.
(Donaldson)
VII-17
-------
Response; The receptors are identified in FEIS Vol. II,
Appendix V.
Comment: I fail to see that these impacts [particu-
late fallout adding negligible amounts of heavy metals and
alkali material to soil] balance and consider the heavy metals
a very serious problem." (Howarth)
Response: The areal concentrations of each that will
be added to the soil of fallout from incineration are small
compared to the areal concentration contributed by land appli-
cation of sludge. The basis for this is discussed in more
detail in DFEIS Vol. II, page 186.
Comment "TSP problems associated with the proposed
incinerator may have been overstated for the following reasons...
[the reasons stated deal with facets of the State Air Quality
Maintenance Plan]." (Standley)
Response: This has been revised in the FEIS, as shown
in Appendix V and Section IV and VI.
Comment; "The air pollution analyses apparently are
computed on the assumption for the "worst case" that auxiliary
fuel, plus afterburner fuel, plus the full rated tonrtage of
sludge are all being burned at startup." (Weiss)
Response; Air pollution analyses done for the FEIS
include operation of two incinerators at full rated tonnage plus
startup fuel for the worst case, as shown in Appendix V.
Comment: "It seems obvious that the maximum ambient
air concentrations at [Point Shirley and Winthrop] must occur
when...winds cannot bring the stack emissions toward these
receptors...the two "worst conditions" cannot physically occur
simultaneously". (Weiss)
VII-18
-------
Response: The 'worst case1 as shown is qualified
by two factors:
• The Larsen's Method used for determining the
second maximum daily concentration is nondirectional,
i.e. not dependent upon the direction of the wind;
and
• during a three hour or 24 hour period of interest,
the wind direction can change the area subject to
impact.
Comment: "Although recognizing that incineration may
exacerbate an already serious environmental condition, the
writers of the draft document rationalize that, 'In comparing
the projected air quality against the secondary standard it can
be seen that while the particulate limits are exceeded, the
emissions from this project did not cause the violation'. This
seems a dubious defense of a project with potentially deleterious
effects on public health." (Kolb)
Response: The MDC incinerators will be incorporated
in the Air Quality Maintenance Plan for Boston. This will insure
that the incinerator is considered in maintaining acceptable air
quality. Other sources of particulates may be corrected before
1979 which would have a more immediate beneficial effect on air
quality. These sampling sites which now show existing and pro-
jected particulates violation of secondary standards are relatively
distant from the proposed incinerators.
Comment; "A further problem arises from the finding by
the Massachusetts DPH of a perceptible increase in... particulate
material from mid-1974 to the present. The projection, then, of
the appropriate background level, appears... uncertain..." (Kolb)
Response; The data used in the projections in the DEIS
was collected from April 1974 through March 1975, and appears to
coincide well with the findings of the DPH. The FEIS incorporates
1977 data in the projection of appropriate background concentrations,
Comment; "In the event incineration is selected, the
application of best available control technology should be seriously
considered." (Murphy)
VII-19
-------
The decision to apply Best Available Control Technology
is required because the proposed facility will be a major source
as defined by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977.
Comment; "Are we correct in interpreting the SC-2
emission calculations that zero removal of SC>2 in the scrubber
system. This same rate of removal was assumed for the fossil fuel
used in start up and in afterburning if required.
Comment; "In at least one case a sludge-buring inciner-
ator has been shut down because of fear that atmospheric lead
from the plant was creating a public health hazard..." (Howarth)
Response: The incinerator alluded to, located at the
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission Piscataway treatment plant
(Prince Georges County, Maryland) was closed. Stack sampling was
then done, and stack emissions were found to be insufficient to
create this background condition. The principal source of back-
ground lead concentrations was thought to be automotive in nature
(M. Johnson, 1976). Personal Communication. Washington Suburban
Sanitary Commission, Hyattsville.). Stack sampling data from the
similar WSSC Parkway plant showed an emission rate of 0.33 grams
Pb per ton dry solids (Battelle, 1976). If this rate occurred at
the proposed MDC incinerator, the expected lead emission would be
41.8 grains per day.
9. Pasteurization
Comments; "The requirement for Pasteurization imposes
a substantial energy cost on Alternatives 5 and 6. To weigh...
with this...constraint is to bias the evaluation." (Kolb)
"Pasteurization - obviously all sludge applied on ground
should be pasteurized due to public health (vector) problems."
(Anderson)
Response; Land application alternatives have been deter-
mined infeasible in the FEIS, thus these comments are no longer
applicable. The MDC, however, had been allowing operation of a
pilot system to disinfect liquid sludge with high energy ionizing
radiation. Should land application be feasible for other
installations the use of this technology is favored over thermal
disinfection because of the reduced energy costs.
VII-20
-------
10. Pretreatment
Comments: "In the long run, if land application is to
work, some of the heavy metals will have to be removed - prefer-
ably through enforcement of sewer-use ordinances." (Howarth)
"The suitability of sludge for land application should be
further explored in light of two future circumstances: (1) indus-
trial pretreatment pursuant to PL 92-500, which could result in
significant reduction in heavy metals concentrations...."
(Murphy)
"Would better enforcement of sewer ordinances now reduce
the metallic load enough to warrant re-evaluation of the hybrid
study and Alternative 1?" (Boston Harbor Committee, League of
Women Voters)
"Since the ash was found to be unacceptable for ocean
disposal chiefly because of heavy metal concentrations, the EIS
should consider the viability of removing the metals at the sources."
(McMahon)
"The writers of the draft EIS seem to suggest that we
design treatment trains according to the specifications of particular
industrial wastes, such as heavy metals, rather than requiring the
wastes to conform to the capabilities of the total treatment and
disposal method as the- law compels.
Admittedly, the presence of heavy metals constitutes a
problem. However, the MDC is currently conducting an industrial
survey which could serve as a first step in implementing the pre-
treatment mandate of PL 92-500. Whatever sludge disposal scheme
is ultimately selected, the cessation of discharge of these toxic
chemicals into the Metropolitan Sewerage System will be environ-
mentally beneficial. For in each alternative, the heavy metals
(whether settling in the sludge or remaining in the effluent) are
released to some part of the environment." (Kolb)
Response: Pretreatment, as a means to reduce heavy metals,
is effective only as much as these metals oriainate with point
sources. This is discussed on page 103 (Appendix N,Vol. II. EPA is
in total agreement with the goal of reducing and/or eliminating the
point source introduction of toxic substances into the MDC sewerage
system. However, the identification of these sources by MDC has
just begun, and the program for their elimination will be a long
term project. In the meantime, EPA feels that the timely elimination
of a larger pollutant source (digested primary sludge) from Boston
Harbor carries a higher priority. As indicated in the Draft EIS,
EPA potentially sees incineration as only a portion of the total
sludge management system for metropolitan Boston. In addition, EPA
has recommended the improvement of data collection to establish the
viability of land disposal at a future time, when the heavy metals
content of the sludges will have been reduced.
VII-21
-------
11. Transportation of Sludge or Ash
Comments; "Under Alternative 1 the route from Mystic
Terminal to Plainville is not identified, the availability and
ownership of the barges is not clear. Are there terminal
facilities on the southern Harbor coastline that would be closer
to Plainville or could they be created?" (Weiss)
"...impact on air quality, traffic and noise generated
by the trucks...in Charlestown." (Fawcett, Hearing Transcript)
"...MDC explored the possibility of barging to another
spot rather than to Mystic Terminal?" (Fawcett, Hearing Transcript)
"We recommend investigation of sites other than Mystic
Terminal to receive the ash..."
"The negative impact on Charlestown created by the
selection of Mystic Terminal appears to have been given little
importance in comparison with the assessment of the impact on
Winthrop." (Boston Harbor Committee)
"...even one truck coming through Charlestown is bad news
so I suggest that you leave Charlestown out of your plans."
(Harrington, Hearing Transcript)
"...people are concerned that already air pollution
standards have been exceeded in a bad way with the trucks coming
from MASSPORT and probably will exceed with the MASSPORT expansion."
(Fawcett, Hearing Transcript)
Response; The FEIS discusses proposed siting of roll-on/
roll-off facilities at an unspecified site in the greater Boston
Harbor area. It will not be owned by MASSPORT or located at Mystic
Terminal. Alternative 1 is the only Alternative (FEIS) that includes
transport over public streets during operation. Tea truck trips
per day will not create a detectable impact in the area.
Comment; "Additional assessment should be made of the
reliability, continuity and economy of transporting sludge by truck
to 100 to 200 separate applications sites...." (Weiss)
Response; In the EIS, the number of vehicles for storage
and transport was increased by 10% over those necessitated by volume
for transport in order to account for such problems. Also, because
application of sludge to land was eliminated because of other
reasons, the impact of transport need not be evaluated.
VII-22
-------
Comments: "Was pipe transport of sludge considered?
(Weiss)
"... farms...are in the Connecticut Valley and the
Bridgewater-Westport area, a pipeline could be built to carry
liquid sludge to either or both locations." (Howarth)
Response; Descriptions of pipeline transportation are
given in Section III. If a pipeline were used, tank trucks would
still be required to transport the liquid sludge from the pipeline
to the farms. About four times the number of trucks would be
necessary for the final distribution of liquid sludge as would be
required for dewatered sludge transport. The construction of the
pipeline would reduce system flexibility which is necessary when
dealing with the metal concentrations in the slduge and with pri-
vate farm owners. Storage facilities would also have to be greater
for the liquid sludge than for the dewatered sludge. Given the
distances to storage and application, and the system of application
to private lands, pipeline transport would be more costly in terms
ot both energy and dollar costs.
Comment: "...rail transport to the site of application
...was not actively pursued...." (Kolb)
Response; This alternative was fully explored and was
eliminated based on cost and feasibility information supplied by
the major railroads serving the Boston metropolitan area and the
Commonwealth (refer to Vol. I, Section III).
12. Continued Studies
Comment; "...the variations [in sludge constituents]
in DEIS Vol. II, p. 94, suggest that adequate sampling [program]
is important because there may be both day/night and seasonal
fluctuations in heavy metals." (Murphy)
Response: The table presents both temporal variations
in analysis by the Metropolitan District Commission and a com-
parative analysis between the MDC and JBF Laboratories. The JBF
sampling effort was intended only to confirm MDC's prior sampling
effort. Because of the 20 day residence time in digestion of
sludge, day/night variations in quality would become non-existant.
While seasonal fluctuations are shown, use of average quality data
are sufficient for analysis at this level.
VII-23
-------
Comment: "Further, more complete knowledge of potential
fluctuations in volatile solids would assist in determining
variations in the heat value of the sludge." (Murphy)
Response; As Table N-4 indicates, the range of values
for volatile solids is:
Deer Island 47.2% to 56.6%
Nut Island 51.6% to 60.3%
Within these ranges, variations can occur as a result of changes
in loading, digester residence time, temperature and operation
mode.
Comment: "How can land application be considered for
the future...if, in fact, it cannot be recommended for existing
volumes?" (Weiss)
Response: Because of air quality problems that may
result from the increased volumes from secondary sludge, land
application may be necessary. Also, the higher nutrient content
of the secondary sludge may make land application more viable
energetically; and the implementation of pretreatment require-
ments should reduce the existing high levels of heavy metals.
Strickly speaking, volume is not the question. Rather, nutrient
content and metals content are the key to the future viability
of land application. RCRA guidelines must also be addressed and
complied with.
Comment: "...the suggestion that EPA and the state
further combine efforts to further evaluate land application as
a means of sewage sludge disposal....[especially for Nut Island
sludge]" (Standley)
Response: Perhaps the most significant questions
remaining unanswered are the amount of heavy metals removable by
industrial pretreatment, the impacts of heavy metals in the food
chain, and the acceptability of farm operations of sludge as a
substitute for inorganic fertilizer. The reason that Nut Island
sludge with a portion of the sludge from Deer Island, approximately
18% more sludge can be made acceptable for land application based
on the cadmium-to-zinc ratio. In the FEIS, data are presented
which indicate that sludge from either plant cannot be applied to
food chain crops.
Comments; "...[for land application] further studies,
involving considerable time and expense, would be necessary."
(Babb)
VII-24
-------
"The Boston Harbor Associates recognizes the need for
on-going studies and tests....for solving the future sludge
disposal problems of MDC."
Response: Pilot studies for land application were
suggested in the DEIS and further monitoring of sludge is recom-
mended (refer to Vol. I, pages V-12, VI-6, IV-56). Support
for these recommendations is appreciated. The FEIS eliminates
land application, however, due to the hazardous nature of the
sludge and ash. Pilot studies for land application may be
warranted if and when these residues can be rendered non-
hazardous.
Comment: "...release of metals to the environment
should be monitored, and the effects of these metals on natural
systems and on human public health should be carefully watched."
Response: Monitoring was proposed in the DEIS. In the
FEIS, monitoring for disposal sites is required as described in
RCRA.
Comment: "They state that 'heavy metals are removed
in the primary sludges.' One of EPA's arguments for secondary
treatment at the MDC plants has been substantially greater metal
removal." (Elwood)
Response: Table N-ll on page 104 of the DFEIS shows
the source for estimates of heavy metal removal in primary treat-
ment. Heavy metals are preferentially removed in any process
which removes solids. In secondary treatment, heavy metals
suspended in the fluid are also removed.
13. Resource Recovery
Comment: "The waste heat recovery system and its asso-
ciated costs and benefits has not been eliminated by MDC."
(Weiss)
Response: In the FEIS, the question of energy recovery
was reevaluated based on 1978 costs of purchased power. With
the costs brought forward to 1978 conditions, recovery of thermal
energy for generation of electrical is sufficiently feasible to
warrant incorporation into Step II planning.
VII-25
-------
Comment: "begin a compaign of public education to look
upon sewage waste as a resource instead of an undesirable by-
product of man." (Boston Harbor Committee)
Response: The Resource Recovery Act of 1976 and EPA
policy promotes investigation of recycling of resources. However,
sewage wastes are only a resource to the extent that recovery
and reuse are less costly in terms of energy or dollars or ultimate
environmental impact than is use of virgin materials.
Comment: "For the 400 Ib. of volatile [solid] destroyed
to be correct, the volatile destruction in digestion would be
approximately 28%. From experience, the four year average at Deer
Island was 57.8% volatile reduction." (Weiss)
Response; The MDC is correct is this. The proper amount
of volatile solids destroyed is 178,000 Ib/day. With the 10,000
BTU produced per pound of volatile solids destroyed, the average
energy available would be 1,780 x 106 BTU/day. Because of the
total energy design of the two plants, all of this energy would be
available for power generation. The Final EIS has been changed
to reflect this. It should be pointed out that this change affects
all alternatives equally, and does not change the relative energy
costs.
14. Energetics
Comment; "...in caluclating the energy expense of
dewatering, 272 tons of 25% solids sludge per day is assumed...
[this] greatly changes the energetic attractiveness of the land
application alternatives." (Howarth)
Response; Because of awkward writing in the DEIS, the
272 tons was obtained using assumptions not included in the DEIS.
In the FEIS energy costs are computed for dewatering 127.5 dry
tons of sludge per day. The change in energy cost is caused by
inclusion of indirect energy costs to produce chemicals such as
lime and ferric chloride.
Comment; "To move liquid sludge by pipeline would
require less energy than to move dewatered sludge.... These
numbers come from page 115 of Vol. II and contradict the numbers
shown on page 111-22 of Vol. I." (Howarth)
Response: It is true that there is a contradiction.
The figure for energy cost of truck transport on page 115 of
Vol. II was increased by 50% to account for return of the con-
tainer when empty.
VII-26
-------
Comment; "I see no reason why liquid sludge could
not be transported to Bridgewater and then distributed to small
farms in the area by truck." (Howarth)
Response: This distribution by truck would require
about 50,000 BTU per mile per dry ton at 4% solids. Using
11,250 BTU per dry ton per mile for pipeline transport (4% solids),
414,000 BTU per dry ton for dewatering and 8,000 BTU per dry
ton per mile for trucking 25% solids sludge, the local distri-
bution distance at which the commentor's proposed system would
become less energy efficient that the proposed system is 6.0 to
7.5 miles. This does not include the energy cost of constructing
the pipeline itself, or storing the sludge, or of pasteurization.
Comment; "Page 1-11 states that digester performance
at Nut Island is better than that at Deer Island...could Deer
Island detain longer and become more energy independent?"
(Biglane)
Response; As stated, digester performance is better
at Nut Island. Changes in the Deer Island collection system and
treatment plant operating program could potentially increase
digester capacity and performance as discussed in Section III.
EPA recommends testing be performed on the Deer Island Treatment
Plant, however, such as investigation is beyond the scope of this
study.
15. Historical and Archaeological
Comment: "Please furnish additional data indicating:
Compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (89 Stat. 915);
Compliance with Executive Order 11593 of May 13,
1971 (16 U.S.C. 470)."
"...the Advisory Council recommends that the environ-
mental statement contain evidence of contact with the appropriate
State Historic Preservation Officer. A copy of her comments
concerning the effects of the recommended project upon these
resources should be included in the environmental statement."
(McDermott)
VII-27
-------
Response: Appended is a copy of the latest National
Register of Historic Places listing. The monthly supplements
were also consulted and there were no registered historic sites
within the construction area. Included in the comments section
is a letter from Ms. Amadon, the Massachusetts State Historic
Preservation Officer.
Comment: "If archaeological areas do underlie the
farm, in what way will the use of dewatered sludge disrupt such
potential areas?" (Kolb)
Response; The use of dewatered sludge would not disrupt
archaeological sites if normal agricultural operations are used.
The potential however, is great for disruption since a large area
is involved and construction of buildings, drainage ditches, etc.
at the farms may occur. As an archaeological survey is not
required for this kind of construction, the potential exists for
disruption of sites.
Comment; "There are other properties near Boston Harbor
which have not been listed in the National Register, but which are
historically significant...examples include the Boston Harbor
Islands." (Amadon)
Response: Located in Appendix FF is a copy of the latest
National Register of Historic Places listing for the Boston area.
Comment: "...written commentaries be secured from the
State Historic Preservation Officer and such a qualified archeolo-
gist " (Babb)
16. Matrix
While the matrix was intended to reflect the subjective
assessment though process, it was interpreted as being the mechanism,
or governor, of the selection process. Therefore, because of
numerous misunderstandings of the semi-quantitative nature of the
matrix, in the Final EIS the numerical rating system has been
replaced with a non-numerical system. The reason for multiplication
rather than addition is to prevent "negligible" impacts (rated at
zero) from having a significance other than zero (e.g. (-) (1) (2)
(0) = 0, whereas (-) (1+2+0) = -2, which is larger in magnitude
than "0"). The comments to follow apply to the matrix utilized in
the DEIS, which was not included in the FEIS.
VII-28
-------
Comment: "The text states in evaluation of impacts of
land-oriented options that groundwater quality may be affected
by leaching of heavy metals and increases in chloride and sodium
ion concentrations (Vol. I, p. IV-21). On the other hand, the
matrix on effects of sludge management (Vol. I, p. IV-4) seems
to imply no increase in concentrations of these ions in ground-
water as a result of Alternatives 1 and 2, both of which include
landfill operations... Some explanation of the meaning is
needed." (Babb)
Response; The land application system which was proposed
should not result in significant leaching to groundwater levels;
the chemical models for heavy metals, nitrogen and sodium were
used to insure negligible impact. However, since the potential
for some adverse impact still exists, it was described.
Comment: "Are secondary impacts really always twice as
deleterious (or positive) in effect as are primary impacts?
Further, what is the basis for rating long-term effects 2_ whereas
short-term impacts are rated one? ...not at all clear why the
impacts in terms of degree (primary or secondary), duration (long
or short term) and severity are multiplied rather than simply
being added " (Kolb)
Response; The matrix is simply a tool that was used
to obtain an idea of how alternatives compare with each other
environmentally. The numbers were not meant to be read as
secondary impacts being twice as deleterious as primary. It is
a rating system and is meant to give a degree of relative impact.
The numbers were multiplied to avoid magnifying impacts with
negative numbers.
Comment: Inconsistencies in alternative analysis:
"...the reduced commercial fertilizer sales associated with the
land application alternatives is called a negative impact, while
...the displacement of energy used in organic fertilizer produc-
tion is assumed to be negligible." (Howarth)
Response: The decrease in fertilizer sales would affect
local salesmen, while the decrease in production of fertilizer
would be on a nationwide scale. The EIS is focused on regional
impacts.
Comment: Inconsistency in alternative analysis:
"...the land application of sludge is assumed to have a very
adverse (-4) impact on archaeological areas,...but on page IV-54,
such impact is said to be negligible...." (Howarth)
Response: This is identified as a potential impact due
to the amount of land involved. The likelihood that an impact
would occur is negligible, because an archaeological survey would
be required prior to any construction. This should have been made
clear in the Draft.
VII-29
-------
17. Corrections (Applicable to DEIS)
Comment; "Mystic River excluded in middle paragraph
(Metropolitan Rivers)." (Weiss)
Response: Correction made.
Comment: "The data on metal concentrations (Table II-8)
appear to be incorrectly reported as mg/1 instead of yg/1."
(Elwood)
Response: The standards and analytical results are for
milligrams per liter.
Comment: "...groundwater component included in runoff
values (Vol. I, p. 11-14, par. 2), additional references should
be cited." (Babb)
Response: The number of factors involved with ground-
water seepage make predictions on a uniform statewide basis
extremely difficult. The runoff data presented by NOAA is
based primarily on precipitation and slope characteristics. In
order to be more accurate the depth to bedrock, type of bedrock,
soil type, slope of land, amount and intensity of each rainfall,
groundcover, temperature and moisture content of the soil would
have to be known. This information is difficult to obtain for
a small area.
Comments; "P. 11-14, third paragraph: Table II-5
should be II-6." (Weiss)
"P. 72 in Vol. II: Should 513 be 514?" (Weiss)
"...discrepancy in terms of projected background levels
of particulates...." in reference to Vol. I, p. xiii and p. VI-6.
(Kolb)
"P. II-l in Vol. I: Both the figure number and figure
showing major and minor river basins are not included."
"P. IV-26 (Vol. I) and P. 170 (Vol. II): 122 g Hg/day
vs. 657 g Hg/day." (Howarth)
"P. 11-59: The state law. Chapter 1155, is part of the
Acts of 1973." (Amadon)
Response: Corrections made.
VII-30
-------
Comment: "Paragraph 2. The first sentence is fatuous
at best. The MDC had embarked on the Northfield Project and
Millers River studies prior to the Corps involvement. Further,
both the MDC and the Corps were interested in water conservation
before SENE's recommendation." (Weiss)
Response: EPA apologizes for the wording of the subject
statement and acknowledges the leadership role played by MDC in
the Northfield and Millers River areas. We also acknowledge
that the MDC was involved in water conservation studies prior
to the SENE recommendation. Page 11-83 of the EIS has been
corrected to eliminate this suggestion.
Comments; "Volume II does not contain the latest
Massachusetts Water Quality Standards." (McMahon)
In reference to p. 11-82, last paragraph. "This para-
graph mixes up existing conditions and classifications." (Weiss)
"Fresh water standards are not the ones in effect now.
Salt water standards appear to be the revised ones." (Weiss)
Response: The latest Water Quality Standards have been
inserted in Volume II. Rephrasing has corrected the sense of
page 11-82.
Comment; "MAPC and NERBC are two very different types
of regional agencies and it is misleading to lump them together
without further explanation. What sort of jurisdiction do they
have?" (Weiss)
Response: MAPC and NERBC were mentioned together to
indicate that there is more than one planning agency involved in
the MDC area of responsibility. The New England River Basin
Commission (NERBC) has under its jurisdiction all of New England
and the bordering parts of New York State. It is responsible for
the coordination of federal, state, interstate, local and non-
government plans for the development of water and related land
resources in its area. The Metropolitan Area Planning Council
(MAPC) contains the Weymouth, Neponset, Charles, Ipswich and
Suasco River basins, as well as most of the north and south
coastal drainage areas of Eastern Massachusetts.
VII-31
-------
18. Other Questions
Comment; "How was 80% [of the sludge BOD load]
calculated? Should this figure be 100% of the primary sludge
now discharged...?" (Weiss)
Response; The 80% value for BOD takes into account
the effect of recycle streams being returned to the main plant.
Comment: (Table 111-10) "Operation and Maintenance
Costs - If the figure given is the first year O & M, it should
be so stated." (Weiss)
Response; The operation and maintenance costs shown
are those for 1985 conditions.
Comment; "The differential between 'with grant1 and
'without grant1 seems wrong given that MDC pays 10% under the
former and 100% under the latter." (Weiss)
Response: The costs with the 75% federal grant were
computed excluding vehicle replacement (average life of 10 years)
and land costs from grant eligibility. Because grants are not
to be considered in determining cost effectiveness, the 'with
grant1 line has been removed from the table.
Comment: "If heat recovery is to be omitted...capital
and operation costs of the heat recovery system should be omitted."
(Weiss)
Response: The capital and operation costs of the heat
recovery system were omitted in the original calculations. Costs
rose between the 1973 Havens and Emerson estimate and 1975 because
of the increase in treatment plant construction costs in general,
using the treatment plant cost index for the Boston area. For the
FEIS, capital and operating costs of the heat recovery system were
incorporated.
Comment: "We would like to see further investigation
and study of Alternative 6...(because) according to some experts,
figures given in support of this alternative...are inconsistent or
in error." (Boston Harbor Committee)
Response: While certain errors brought to our attention
by the commentors have been corrected, none of these corrections
affect the overall comparison and selection of alternatives. In
addition, consideration of RCRA eliminates any potential feasibility.
Comment; "We question why the EIS did not consider the
alternative...of each plant treating their own sludge separately.
(Biglane)
VII-32
-------
Response: This was not addressed on a detailed alternative
basis because the transfer of Nut Island sludge to Deer Island
would permit an 18% increase in sludge suitable (in the DEIS)
for land application; and the limited land area available at Nut
Island would necessitate filling in the harbor in order to
accommodate enlarged sludge handling facilities.
Comment: "How much clean water can we expect will get
into the harbor compared with what it is today?" (J. E. Murphy,
Hearing Transcript)
Response: The average freshwater flow into Boston
Harbor is 700 cfs (Hydroscience, 1971). The effluent from the
treatment plants at design capacity (1985) will be an additional
830 cfs. With improved sludge management as well as industrial
pretreatment, it is hoped Boston's future water quality will
enable shellfishing and recreation to exist unharmed.
Comments: "...secondary treatment, which would generate
secondary sludge which would be largely free of heavy metals.
If secondary sludge were combined with primary sludge (particularly
after industrial pretreatment), the resulting mixture would be
low in heavy metals and hence more suitable for land application.
Further consideration should also be given to alternative types
of land application, e.g. state forests and other public lands."
(Murphy)
"...sludge should be taken out by each city and town;
that is, that each city and town should be required to maintain
its own plant, its own facilities for taking the solids out."
(Thorton, Hearing Transcript)
Response: Analysis of secondary treatment and of local
treatment plants is beyond the scope of this study. They will
be included in a report of the Eastern Massachusetts Metropolitan
Area which is a joint MDC/U. S. Army Corps of Engineers project.
In addition, Region I EPA is preparing a separate EIS which will
address the issues inherent in the planning (or need for planning)
for secondary treatment.
Comment: "Relationship of gastroenteritis cases to
pollution is poor." (Weiss)
Response: This statement was from C. Hoke of the
Communicable Disease Center in Atlanta, Georgia. It was based
on their research.
Comment: In reference to p. 11-83: "There are as yet
no plans to control pollution from stormwater." (Weiss)
Response: The intent of the paragraph is to describe
the planning objectives as well as those plans that are already
in progress. Management of the pollutants contained in urban
runoff is a planning objective.
VII-33
-------
Comment: "The final report should consider reuse of
incinerator residue for commercial purposes, e.g. as an aggre-
gate." (Murphy)
Response: In considering the use of ash for other
purposes, certain objectives should be kept in mind. These
objectives for reuse are:
• The use should isolate the ash from the biosphere.
For this, the aggregate suggestion would be ideal.
• The use should not require a great amount of
handling to prevent fugitive dust problems.
With these criteria, reuse as aggregate might be practiced,
provided the mechanical quality of the ash is acceptable in
accordance with ASTM Standard C330, Weight and Strength of
Aggregate. For the ash to be acceptable, lime conditioning of
the sludge prior to incineration would have to be replaced with
polymer conditioning. The United States annual per capita Portland
Cement use, 600 pounds per year (Klieger, 1976) , is equivalent to
about 1 cubic yard of concrete per year per capita. Because each
cubic yard requires about 1,450 pounds of aggregate, sufficient
concrete production in the Boston Metropolitan Area would exist
to consume the entire MDC ash production (3.19 x 109 pounds
aggregate required compared to 4.65 x 10? pounds of ash produced).
Comment: " — land application will create many more
jobs than the other alternatives...." (Howarth)
Response: Yes, the number of long-term jobs that would
be created by a land application system is greater than would be
created by other alternatives. However, the actual number of
jobs is not that significant and most are of a part-time nature.
In addition, the jobs created in government are not generally
productive of regional export revenue and thus increase the
regional tax burden more than they assist the individual. The
creation of government jobs in fact increases the costs to the
regional economy for Alternatives 5 and 6, because the increased
cost of recovery over other alternatives is greater than the
savings of equivalent inorganic, imported fertilizer.
VII-34
-------
19. Questions Raised by Members of the
Massachusetts Assembly
a. Representative King:
Comments: "...the very brief discussion of the
impacts of the incinerator on the air quality of the surrounding
area is inadequate for such an important consideration."
"...the increase in heavy metals in the air is
given limited discussion."
Response: The impacts from the five criteria air
pollutants as well as metals were studied and modelled. The
analysis was compared to the Air Quality Attainment and Mainten-
ance Plan, the air quality standards, as well as all other
regulations (see FEIS Vol. II, pp. 185-230). It is anticipated that
the incinerator emissions will meet the New Source Performance
Standards as well as the metal emission criteria. Although the
TSP standard would be violated for the Boston area, the cause
of this violation would be from sources other than the incinerator.
Comment; "...there is no information about the
possible comparable problems of heavy metals in the ash that
would still have to be disposed of after incineration."
Response: The possible problems from metals in ash
that are landfilled are similar to the problems of metals in
sludge that are land applied. (This was discussed in FEIS Vol. II,
pp. 123-126.) Alternatives 8, 9, 10 and 11 have been ddded because
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act constraints on
metals control.
Comment: "The potential of using forest lands, where
the toxicity and uptake of metals (assuming they were not removed)
would be of less concern than crop or pasture land, was ruled out
without adequate explanation."
Response: Although the metals would be less likely
to affect the human food change, the native fauna would be
affected, including those that have been identified as being
endangered or threatened (refer to Appendix H). This impact
could be as significant as if the sludge were applied to crop
land.
In order to receive full credit for the nutrient
value of the sludge, it must replace existing or future
fertilizer use. As forests are not presently fertilized, this
credit cannot be taken. This reduces its beneficial impact
when compared to other land application systems.
VII-35
-------
Comment; "The discussion of the state's planning
objectives takes no note of the recent policy statements on
food and the Commonwealth's avowed goal of becoming more energy
and food self-sufficient."
Response: Mention of the state's goal was given in
DEIS Vol. I, p. Iv-45.
Comment; "...the table on page IV-50 in Vol. I
shows that no action would provide the greatest net recovery
of energy."
Response; This is true. No additional treatment
or transport is necessary, therefore no further energy is used.
Comment: "...it seems unlikely that the increase
of land dedicated to this use (disposal of sludge) would 'force1
small farmers out of production. In fact, it could help them."
Response; The dedicated land (i.e. owned and
operated by MDC) would be purchased from farmers. This active
soliciting of farmland would encourage farmers to sell their
properties. As 4,300 acres would be needed every 10 years,
this could be significant. However, we agree with Representative
King that the act of applying sludge to a farmer's property would
not force a small farmer out of production but assist him, and
this is why the decision was made that MDC should not own and
operate the sludge application sites.
b. Senator Bulger;
Comment; "I see no effort to undertake a study of
the on-site conversion of the sludge to a usable fertilizer or
other product and to dry ship it to the ultimate consumer site."
Response; This possibility was investigated in
the market survey which is a separate report and is summarized
in the EIS in Vol. II, Appendix Q. (It is also mentioned in DEIS
Vol. I on pages V-29 and VI-11.) This marketing study is located
in the Region I office and will be made available for review
by Senator Bulger upon his request.
VII-36
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979 -A-1093/292
------- |