DRAFT
ENV1RONMBMTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ON THE UPGRADING OF THE
BOSTON METROPOLITAN AREA
SEWERAGE SYSTEM
VOLUME • ONE
K
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY • REGION I
JOHA F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING • GOVERNMENT CENTER
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02203
W •
-
-------
SUMMARY OF THE RECOI4MENDED PLAN
The wastewaters from the member communities of the MDC’S
Metropolitan Sewerage District will be treated at a secondary
wastewater treatment plant at Deer Island. The existing primary
treatment plant at Deer Island will be expanded and upgraded to
provide secondary treatment for an average daily wastewater flow of
2,220,000 cubic meters per day (586 mgd), which is estimated will
require treatment in the design year of 20C0. The existing inter—
ceptor system and related pumping stations will be expanded and mod—
if ied as required to handle peak flows. The wastewater from
the southern interceptor system will receive preliminary treatment
at a headworks at Nut Island and be transported to Deer Island
through a pipeline—tunnel system under Boston Harbor. The secondary
sludge produced at the Deer Island Treatment Plant will be dewatered
and disposed of by a combination of incineration, composting, and
direct landfilling. The ash disposal and composting operations
will take place at Squantum Point.
At present, excessive infiltration/inflow conditions exist in both
the local sewer systems and in the MDC’s interceptor sewers. A
thorough analysis of this condition is necessary to determine
how much of this excess flow can be removed cost effectively.
A recently completed tide gate rehabilitation program should
result in a reduction in the amount of seawater that enters
the interceptor system. The effects of that program should be
evaluated to determine the extent of its success.
Water conservation is another source of flow reduction
that should be employed. Through a conscientious area wide
water conservation program significant wastewater flow reduction
is possible. While it is recognized that such a program will
take several years to gain momentum, it could have a substantial
effect in reducing the impact of projected future flow increases.
During facilities planning consideration should be given to the
effects of flow and waste reduction measures. If these measures are
successful in reducing the quantity of wastewater generated, the
capacities of the required facilities shculd be reduced.
The interceptor system presently serving the MSD is over-
loaded in some sections and in need of relief.
1
-------
About 51.5 kilometers (32 miles) of interceptor relief are
required in the northern service area. The southern service area
requires about 90.5 kilometers (56 miles) of interceptor relief.
Space constraints in the Houghs Neck area necessitate that the sewer
required to relieve the High Level Sewer be placed under Quincy Bay.
This relief sewer required a pumping station at its termination
at Nut Island to lift its flow to the same level as the waste-
water reaching Nut Island through the High Level Sewer.
The wastewater from the southern service area will be
transported from Nut Island to Deer Island via a submarine
pipeline and tunnel system across Boston Harbor. Before enter-
ing this pipeline—tunnel system, the wastewater will receive
preliminary treatment, to remove large objects and grit, in a
he works provided at Nut Island.
The Boston Harbor crossing consists of two 2.74 meter (9.5 foot)
diameter pipes installed under the bottom of the harbor between Nut
Island and the northern tip of Long Island, and 3.81 meter (12.5 foot)
diameter deep rock tunnel under the President Roads Channel between
Long Island and Deer Island.
In order to meet NPDES permit requirements for wasewater
treatment plant discharges, secondary treatment is required.
This level of treatment will provide monthly average concen-
trations of BOD and suspended solids which are no more than 30
mg/i. This level of effluent discharge requires removal of
approximately 85 percent of incoming wastewater pollutants. The
air activated sludge process was selected to achieve this level
of effluent quality. The method of sludge disposal selected
requires that the wastewater streams from the northern and southern
service areas be kept separate.
Preliminary treatment of the northern service area wastewaters
will continue to be provided by the Ward Street, Columbus Park and
Chelsea Creek Headworks and the Winthrop Terminal Facility on
Deer Island. Wastewater from the southern service area will re-
ceive preliminary treatment at a new headworks at Nut Island. This
new headworks will include the existing Nut Island plant’s screening
and grit removal facilities, which will be renovated and modernized,
with additional facilities added to accommodate the increased flows
expected.
A pumping station located near the southern end of Deer Island
will lift the wastewater from the southern service area into pri-
mary treatment facilities. The existing primary treatment facilit-
ies on Deer Island will be expanded with the addition of eight pri-
mary settling tanks for the northern flow, and eight primary sett-
ling tanks will be provided for the southern flow. Provision is
made for additional primary treatment facilities which will be re-
quired for future flows.
ii
-------
Secondary treatment will be accomplished through the use
of twenty aeration tanks for the northern wastewater flow and
eleven aeration tanks for the southern wastewater flow.
Although the flows will be kept separate, a common air supply
will be used for both facilities. Provision is also made for
future expansion for this phase of treatment.
Final sedimentation tanks provide the other half of sec-
ondary treatment at Deer Island. Thirty-two tanks will be
provided for the northern wastewater flow, and fifteen tanks
will be provided for the southern wastewater flow, with
provision made for the addition of facilities for future flows.
Sludge collected from the northern flow final sedimentation
tanks will be either returned to the northern flow aeration tanks
for process control or wasted to the sludge management facility
for dewatering and incineration. Sludge collected from the
southern flow final sedimentation tanks will be either returned to
the southern flow aeration tanks for process control or wasted to
the sludge management facility for conditioning and dewatering
prior to composting or landfilling operations.
Disinfection will be accomplished through the use of chlorine
and a chlorine contact basin. Provision will be made for a 15
minute detention time at periods of peak flow. This is the first
place in the treatment process where the wastewaters from the north-
ern and southern service areas are combined. Effluent discharge
is accomplished with an effluent pumping station and a modified
outfall structure.
Secondary sludge disposal will be accomplished using three
methods; incineration, lándf ill and composting. The selection of
the methods used was based on the characteristics of the sludge and
the desire to provide an acceptable alternative to incineration
of all the sludge.
The sludge that is wasted to the sludge management facility
will be thickened using air flotation thickeners, with separate
thickeners used for the northern and southern sludges. After thick-
ening, the southern sludge to be composted is conditioned with ferric
chloride and lime and is then dewatered in a filter press. The
resulting sludge cake is then loaded into containers for shipment
to Squantum Point by barge. The portion of the southern sludge to
be composted is approximately 23 percent of the total secondary sludge
produced, or about 50 percent of the southern secondary sludge. The
remaining southern sludge will be taken to anaerobic digestors after
thickening, where, in the absence of oxygen, microbial activity
produces a stable end product. The fuel value of the gas produced
in this process will be utilized to maintain an adequate digestion
temperature. After digestion, this sludge will be chemically con-
ditioned with ferric chloride and lime, dewatered using pressure
filtration, and barged in containers to Squantum Point. From
Squantum Point this sludge will be trucked to an MDC operated sludge
landfill.
11].
-------
The secondary sludge produced in the treatment of the northern
service area wastewaters will be chemically conditioned with lime
and ferric chloride following air flotation thickeninq. The re-
sulting material will then be dewatered in pressure filters. The
resulting sludge cake will be burned in multiple hearth incinerators.
The ash, and particulate matter from the air pollution control
equipment, will then be loaded into containers for barge shipment
to the Squantum Point ash landfill. Storage space for ash and
sludge will be provided at Deer Island for inclement weather
periods when daily barge shipments may not be possible.
Composting and ash landfill operations at Squanturn will occur
within the confines of a landscaped earth embankment. The area
will be lined with an impermeable liner to prevent leachate from
mixing with local groundwater. A leachate collection system will
be constructed to collect all rainfall in the landfill area and
discharge it to the MDC interceptor in Squantum for return to the
treatment plant. Sufficient area will be provided at S uantum Point
for twenty years of ash storage. After several years of operation
it may be necessary to compost sludge on top of completed ash land-
fill areas. When the landfill reaches its design height, it will
be covered with topsoil and may be converted to a recreational area.
Approximately 91 cubic meters (125 cubic yards) of ash material will
be landfiiied at Squantum Point each day. Compost production will vary
from 52 to 74 cubic meters (70 to 98 cubic yards). per day depend-
ing on the type of bulking agent used. The sludge volume which will
be directly landfilled will be approximately 170 cubic meters (227
cubic yards) per day.
iv
-------
COST OF RECOMMENDED PLAN’
astewater Treatment 404,290,900
Facilities 2
econdary S1U(lge Management 58,784,500
rnterceptor System 3 307,620,000
Total Capital Costs 770,695,400
\mortized Capital Costs 4 59,782,800
operation and Maintenance Costs 24,765,200
Total Annual Costs 84,548,000
Applicant’s share of Cap.
Cost (10%) 77,062,500
Applicant’s Share of
Amortized Cap. Cost 5,978,300
Applicant’s Share of
O & M Costs 24,765,200
Applicant’s Share of
Total Annual Cost 30,743,500
(1) Engineering News Record Construction Index = 2654
(2) Includes work at Nut Island and Outfall
(3) Includes submerged pipelines, tunnel and related pumping stations
(4) Assume average life of facilities = 30 years; Interest rate =
6-5/8 percent
V
-------
RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
COSTS OF THE RECOMMENDED PLAN
Resource Wastewater Treatment Sludge Manage—
Requirements Plant inent Facilj y
Manpower 298 86
Chlorine -Tons/Year 7,135
Fuel Oil-Gallons/Year 706,000 224,214
Electric Power-Xwhr/Year 196,571,000 27,482,675
Lime -Tons/Year 14,600
Ferric Chloride-Tons/Year 3,504
Polymer-Tons/Year 113
Annual Operation & Maintenance
Costs ($ Million) $17.14 $6.31
Interceptor System & Related
Pumping Stations
Annual Operation & Maintenance
Costs ($ Million) $1.31
Total Annual Operation & Maintenance
Costs ($ Million) $24.76
Note: If it is necessary to purchase wood chips to
serve as a bulking agent for the composting
operation, approximately 9,000 cubic meters
(12,000 cubic yards) of wood chips would be
required per year. At a cost of $6.00 per
cubic yard for wood chips, the resulting in-
crease in the annual operation and maintenance
costs for the sludge management facility
would be about $72,000 per year.
vi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
VOLUME I
Summary of Recommended Plan I
List of Tables Xi
List of Figures xix
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 History of the Grant Application 1-1
1.2 Water Quality and Quantity Objectives
and Problems 1-8
1.3 Applicant’s Proposed Action 1-15
2. ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY
2.1 climatology 21
2.2 Geology 2—2
2.3 Topography 2-4
2.4 Soils 2—5
2.5 Water Resources 2-6
2.6 Aquatic Biota 2—89
2.7 Terrestrial Biota 2—96
2.8 Air Quality 2—102
2.9 Noise 2—110
2.10 Demography and Land Use 2-114
2.11 Population Projections 2—118
2.12 Energy Production and Consumption 2-120
2.13 Recreational and Scenic Areas 2—121
2.14 Sites of Special Significance 2—123
2.15 Significant Environmentally Sensitive
Areas 2—125
3. ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
3.1 Introduction
3.1.1 Method of Analysis and Approach 3-1
3.1.2 Constraints and Assumptions
Affection Possible Alterna-
tives 33
3.1.3 Flow and Waste Reduction Measures 3-11
vii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
VOLUME I
3. ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER M. NAGEMENT SYSTEMS
(Continued)
3.2 Preliminary Screening of Subsystem
Alternatives 3-19
3.2.1 Interceptor Sewer System, Pumping
Stations and Headworks 3-19
3.2.2 Coastal Area Wastewater Treatment
Plants 3-32
3.2.3 Inland Satellite Wastewater
Treatment Plants 3-73
3.2.4 Land Application of Wastewater
Treatment Plant ffluent 3-97
3.2.5 Sludge Treatment and Disposal 3-112
3.3 Intermediate Screening of Subsystem
Alternatives 3-127
3.3.1 Coastal Area Wastewater Treat-
ment Plants 3-127
3.3.2 Elimination of Coastal Area
Treatment Plant Subsystem
Alternatives 3-138
3.3.3 Inland Satellite Wastewater
Treatment Plants 3-142
3.3.4 Sludge Disposal for Coastal
Area Wastewater Treatment
Plants 3—156
3.3.5 Sludge Disposal for Inland
Satellite Wastewater Treat-
ment Plants 3-171
3.3.6 Discussion of the Remaining
Sludge Management Systems 3-184
3.4 Final Screening of System Alternatives 3—205
3.4.1 Non-Satellite Systems 3—205
3.4.2 Satellite Systems 3—231
3.4.3 EMMA Plan 3—232
3.4.4 No Action Alternative 3—234
3.4.5 Modified No Action Alternative 3—235
viii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
VOLUME I
3. ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
(Continued)
3.5 Comparison of System Alternatives 3-237
3.5.1 Water Quantity 3-237
3.5.2 Water Quality 3-259
3.5.3 Biota 3—261
3.5.4 Air Quality 3—271
3.5.5 Socio-Economic Effects 3-274
3.5.6 Construction Related Transpor-
tation Impacts 3-276
3.5.7 Aesthetics 3—280
3.5.8 Costs 3—280
3.5.9 Conclusion 3—281
4. THE RECOMMENDED PLAN
4.1 Description 4-1
4.1.1 General Description 4-1
4.1.2 Flow and Waste Reduction Measures 4—2
4.1.3 Interceptor Sewer System 4-6
4.1.4 Wastewater Treatment Plants 4-10
4.1.5 Sludge Disposal 4—18
4.1.6 Costs of Recommended Facilities 4—23
5. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE RECOMMENDED
PLAN
5.1 Introduction 5-1
5.2 Water Quality Impacts 5-8
5.3 Water Quantity Impacts 5-15
5.4 Air Quality 5-17
5.5 Noise 5—34
5.6 Biota 5—39
5.7 Socio—Economic Effects 5-42
5.8 Cultural Resources 5-44
5.9 Recreational and Scenic Sites 5-46
5.10 Sites of Special Significance 5—45
5.11 Significant Environmental Sensitive
Areas 5-47
6. MEASURES TO MITIGATE ADVERSE IMPACTS 6-1
7. ADVERSE EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED 7-1
8. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS
OF RESOURCES 8—i
ix
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
VOLUME I
Bibliography
Appendices Volume II
x
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1.1-1 Expanded Metropolitan Sewerage
District 1-4
1.3—i Applicant’s Proposed Action Costs
And Completion Dates For Major
Projects 1-17
2.5—1 Nut Island Effluent Characteristics 2—14
2.5—2 Deer Island Effluent Characteristics 2—15
2.5—3 MDC Treatment Plants Sludge
Characteristics 2-16
2.5-4 Boston Harbor Major Discharges 2-18
2.5-5 MDC Treatment Plants Toxic 1etals 2-20
2.5-6 Metals In Boston Harbor Waters 2-21
2.5-7 Metals In Boston Harbor Sediments 2-22
2.5-8 Frequency of Overflows Per Year From
Each Combined System 2-24
2.5-9 General Quality Comparison Of
Wastewaters 2—26
2.5-10 Water Supply Needs Mystic River
Watershed 2—36
2.5-11 Mystic River Watershed Discharges 2-38
2.5-12 Water Supply Needs Charles River
Drainage Basin 250
2.5-13 Charles River Watershed Discharges 2-54
2.5—14 Combined Sewer Overflow Points
Charles Basin 2-58
2.5—15 Water Supply Needs Neponset River
Watershed 2-63
2.5—16 Neponset River Watershed Discharges 2-69
xi
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
2.5-17 Water Supply Needs Weymouth River
Watershed 2-78
2.5—18 1975 Water Quality Survey Results 2-80
2.5-19 Weymouth River Watershed Discharges 2-82
2.6-1 Characteristics Of A Typical
“Clean Stream” 2-90
2.6-2 Characteristics Of A Typical
“Polluted Stream” Environment 2-91
2.8-1 Massachusetts And Federal Ambient
Air Quality Standards 2-103
2.8-2 Class II Ambient Air Increments 2-107
2.9-1 Common Environmental Noise Levels 2-113
3.2-1 Interceptor Sewer Modifications For
Northern MSD Service Area 3-22
3.2-2 Interceptor Sewer Modifications For
Southern NSD service Area With
Satellites 3—24
3.2-3 Interceptor Sewer Modifications For
Southern MSD Service Area Without
Satellites 3—25
3.2—4 MDC Pumping Stations 3-31
3.2-5 Comparison Of Primary And Secondary
Effluents MDC Wastewater Treatment
Plants 3—46
3.2-6 Nut Island Toxic Metals Concentrations 3-47
3.2—7 Deer Island Toxic Metals Concentrations 3-48
3.2-8 MDC Treatment Facilities - Toxic
Metals Removals 3-49
xii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
3.2-9 Summary Of Toxic Metals Removal 3-50
3.2-10 Design Year Assumed Toxic Metals
Percent Removal — Coastal Area
Treatment Facilities 3-51
3.2—il Residential Metals Contributions 3—54
3.2-12 Dilution Requirements - Southern MDC
Service Area Treatment Facility
Discharge 3—55
3.2-13 Dilution Requirements - Northern MDC
Service Area Treatment Facility
Discharge 3—56
3.2-14 Water Quality Criteria - Toxic
Metals 3—57
3.2-15 Average Flood Current Speeds And Net
Current Speed And Direction - Boston
Harbor 3-62
3.2-16 Preliminary Design Specifications -
MDC Treatment Plant Outfails 3-64
3.2-17 Comparison Of Diffuser Performance 3—65
3.2-18 Charles River Satellite Treatment
Plant Influent — Effluent
Characteristics 3—87
3.2-19 Typical Virus Removal Efficiency -
Selected Wastewater Treatment
Processes 393
3.2-20 Estimated Costs For The Satellite
Treatment Plants
3.2—21 Spray Irrigation Sites Within The
MSD Service Area 3—102
xiii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
3.2-22 Spray Irrigation Sites Within The
EMMA Study Area And Outside The
MSD Service Area 3-103
3.2—23 Rapid Infiltration Sites Within The
MSD Service Area 3-104
3.2-24 Rapid Infiltration Sites Within The
EMMA Study Area And Outside The
MSD Service Area 3-104
3.2-25 Subdivision Of Land Application Areas
By Geographic Location For Study
Purposes 3-105
3.2—26 Estimated Sludge Characteristics 3-113
3.2-27 Alternative Sludge Processes 3-114
3.2—28 Remaining Sludge Process Alternatives
For Coastal Plants 3-123
3.2-29 Remaining Sludge Process Alternatives
For Satellite Plants 3-126
3.3-1 Comparison Of Coinposting Methods 3-168
3.3—2 Costs For Non—Satellite Sludge
Management Systems 3-188
3.3-3 Energy And Resources Consumed By
Non-Satellite Sludge Management
Systems 3—189
3.3-4 Estimated Market Potential For
Sludge Products 3-195
33-5 Metal To Fixed Solids Ratio For Sludge
And Ash For Incinerator Test Sites 3-200
3.3—6 Concentration Of Metals In Particulates 3-202
xiv
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
3.3-7 Fluidized Bed Incinerator - Heavy
Metal Mass Balance 3-203
3.3-8 Heavy Metals In Sludge Ash 3-203
3.4-1 Comparison Of Costs 3-228
3.5—i Effects Of Proposed Satellite Plant
Discharge On Charles River Flow 3-239
3.5-2 Effects Of Proposed Satellite Plant
Discharge On Neponset River Flow 3-240
3.5-3 Year 2000 Waste Flows Charles
River Satellite Plant 3-242
3.5-4 Summary Of Year 2000 Sources
Contributing To Charles River
Satellite Plant 3-243
3.5-5 Year 2000 Water Balance - Charles
River Watershed 3-244
3.5-6 Definition Of Terms - Charles
River Watershed Water Balance
Computations 3-245
3.5—7 Summary Of Year 2000 Flows —
Neponset River Satellite Plant 3-248
3.5-8 Summary Of Year 2000 Sources —
Neponset River Satellite Plant 3-249
3.5-9 Year 2000 Water Balance - Neponset
River Watershed 3—250
3.5—10 Footnotes Table 3.5—9 3—251
3.5—11 Historical Flows — Charles River
At Charles River village 3—254
3.5-12 Comparison Of Costs 3—279
xv
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
4.1-1 Interceptor Sewer Modifications
For Northern MSD Service Area 4-25
4.1-2 Interceptor Sewer Modifications
For Southern MSD Service Area 4-27
4.1-3 MDC Pumping Station Construction
Costs 4—29
4.1-4 Tabulation Of Costs For The Recommended
Plan Wastewater Treatment Facility 4-30
4.1-5 Resource Requirements And Operation And
Maintenance Costs Of The Recommended
Plan 4-31
4.1—6 Cost Of Recommended Plan 4-32
5.2-1 Comparison Of Pollutant Discharge
Into President Roads 5-9
5.2-2 Dilution Requirements — Year 2000
Deer Island Secondary Plant 5-10
5.3-1 Water Export To Boston Harbor -
Year 2000 5—16
5.4-1 Impact Of Recommended Plan On Air
Quality 5-18
5.4-2 A Comparison Of Maximum Allowable
Emissions And Potential Emissions
For The Recommended Plan And The
100% sludge Incineration Alternative 5-20
5,4-3 Percentage Of Prevention Of Significant
Deterioration Standards Used By The
Recommended Plan 5-21
5.4-4 Minimum Ambient Concentrations
Considered To Be Significant Levels 5-28
‘ cvi
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
5.4-5 Standards And Regulations Influencing
Sludge Incineration 5-30
5.4-6 Transportation Related Air Pollution
Emissions 5—31
5.5-1 Boston Noise Control Regulations 5-35
5.5-2 Typical Construction Site Equipment
Sound Levels 5-37
xvii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1.1-1 Study Area Location 1—5
2.5-1 Watersheds Within the Expanded Metro-
politan Sewer District 2—7
2.5-2 Boston Harbor 2-8
2.5—3 Boston Harbor Currents Maximum Flood
Tide 2-10
2.5-4 Boston Harbor Currents Maximum Ebb
Tide 2—11
2.5-5 Existing and Designated Water Quality
Classifications Boston Harbor 2-12
2.5—6 Boston Harbor Discharges 2—17
2.5-7 Mystic River Watershed 2-31
2.5-8 Groundwater Favorability Mystic River
Watershed 2-33
2.5-9 Water Quality Classifications Mystic
River Watershed 2—35
2.5-10 Mystic River Watershed Pollutant
Discharge Locations 2-37
2.5-li Charles River Watershed 2—45
2.5—12 Charles Basin Watershed 2-47
2.5-13 Groundwater Favorability Upper Charles
River WaterShed 2-49
2.5-14 Groundwater Favorability Lower Charles
River Watershed 2-50
2.5-15 Water Quality Classifications Charles
River Watershed 2-54
2.5-16 Charles River Watershed Pollutant
Discharge Locations 2-55
2.5-17 Combined Sewer Overflows Charles River
Basin 2—59
xix
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Page
2.5-18 Neponset River Watershed 2—63
2.5—19 Groundwater Favorability Neponset
River Watershed 2—67
2.5—20 Neponset River Watershed Water Quality
Classification 2—69
2.5—2]. Pollutant Discharge Locations Neponset
River Watershed 2-70
2.5-22 Weymouth River Watershed 2-76
2.5—23 Groundwater Favorability Weymouth
River Watershed 2-78
2.5—24 Water Quality Calssificatic hs
Weymouth River Watershed 2-79
2.5—25 Pollutant Discharge Locations Weymouth
River Watershed 2-83
2.5-26 Sudbury River Watershed 2-86
2.5—27 Water Quality Classifications
Sudbury River Watershed 2-88
2.5-28 Groundwater Favorability Suasco
River Watershed 2—89
3.2—1 Interceptor Relief, Extension Sewer,
And Pumping Station Work Required
For Alternatives Which Include
Satellite Treatment Plants 3-27
3.2-2 Interceptor Relief, Extension Sewer,
And Pumping Station Work Required For
Alternatives Which i5o Not Include
Satellite Treatment Plants 3—29
3.2-3 Coastal Treatment Plant Sites Considered 3-33
3.2-4 Historic Filling Trends In Boston Harbor 3-43
3.2-5 Potential Discharge Locations - Coastal
Area Treatment Facilities 3—59
xx
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Page
3.2-6 Boston Harbor Current Meters 3—61
3.2-7 Discharge Point “A” Dilution Ratios 3-67
3.2-S Discharge Point “A” Dilution Ratios 3-68
3.2-9 Satellite Sites In The Mid-Charles Basin 3—76
3.2-10 Satellite Sites In The Upper Neponset
Basin 3—77
3.2-li Potential Discharge Points — Neponset
River AWT Facility 3-89
3.2—12 Potential Land Applications Sites
Within The EMMA Study Area 3-101
3.3-1 Additional Sites Evaluated By Mid-Charles
Site Evaluation Committee 3-147
3.3-2 Alternative Discharge Locations - Charles
River Satellite Plant 3-152
3.3-3 Landfill Alternatives 3—157
3.3-4 Incineration Or Pyrolysis Alternatives 3-158
3.3-5 Give Away Or Market Alternatives 3-160
3.3-6 Land Application Alternatives 3-161
3.3—7 Coincineration Alternatives 3—162
3.3—8 Landfill Alternatives 3—172
3.3-9 Alternatives For Incineration Or
Pyrolysis At Both Inland Plants 3-173
3.3-10 Alternatives For Incineration Or
Pyrolysis At One Inland Plant 3-174
xxi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Page
3.3—11 Give Away Or Market Alternatives 3-176
3.3—12 Resource Recovery Center Alternatives 3-177
3.3-13 Disposal At Coastal Area Plant
Alternatives 3-178
3.3—14 Land Application Alternatives 3-179
3.3—15 Remaining Sludge Disposal Alternatives 3-185
3.3-16 Alternative Plant Capacities For
Sludge Treatment And Disposal 3-186
3.4-1 Deer Island Wastewater Treatment Plant
For North MSD Service Area 3-209
3.4—2 Broad Meadows Wastewater Treatment
Plant 3-211
3.4-3 Coastal Area Facilities Required For
Deer Island - Broad Meadows
Alternative 3-213
3.4-4 Nut Island Facilities Required With A
Broad Meadows Or Squantuin Plant 3-215
3.4-5 Squantuin Wastewater Treatment Plant 3-217
3.4-6 Coastal Area Facilities Required For
Deer Island - Squantum Alternative 3-219
3.4—7 Deer Island Wastewater Treatment Plant
For Total MSD Service Area 3-221
3.4—8 Coastal Area Facilities Required For
The All Deer Island Alternative 3-22 3
3.4—9 Nut Island Facilities Required With
Treatment For Entire MSD Service
Area At Deer Island 3-225
3.5—1 Water Sources - Charles River Satellite
Plant — Year 2000 3-246
3.5—2 Water Sources — Neponset River
Satellite Plant - Year 2000 3-252
xxii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Page
3.5-3 Flow Duration Curves - USGS Gaging
Station At Waltham, Mass. 3-256
4.1-1 Recommended Plan Facilities Location
Map 4-7
4.1-2 Nut Island Facilities Required For
Recommended Plan 4-15
4.1-3 Recommended Plan Deer Island Facilities 4-17
4.1-4 Sludge Management Flow Diagram And
Solids Balance 4-19
4.1-5 Squantum Point Ash Landfill And
Sludge Composting Area 4-21
5.4-1 Annual Estimated Sulfur Dioxide Levels In
1980 5—23
5.4-2 Annual Estimated Sulfur Dioxide Levels In
1985 5—24
5.4-3 Annual Estimated Total Suspended
Particulate Levels in 1980 5-25
5.4-4 Annual Estimated Total Suspended
Particulate Levels In 1985 5-26
xxiii
-------
CHAPTER 1
BACKGROUND
1.1 HISTORY OF THE GRANT APPLICATION
The Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts is responsible for the
operation of the Metropolitan Sewerage District (MSD),
Metropolitan Parks District and the Metropolitan Water
District. The MSD currently consists of 43 member commun-
ities with a population of more than two million people
and a service area of more than 1000 square kilometers (400
square miles). As the governing agency controlling the
essential services of wastewater transport, treatment and
disposal, water supply, and parks systems for a large
metropolitan area, the MDC requires long—range planning to
maintain adequate levels of service in all of its areas of
jurisdiction.
The direct operation of the current wastewater manage-
ment facilities is the responsibility of the Metropolitan
Sewerage District (MSD). This agency has a long history
of providing wastewater management services for its member
communities. Originally created in 1889 by legislative
action based on recommendations of the State Board of Health,
the MSD was charged with the responsibility of providing
the common action required to reduce the discharge of raw
sewage into the Mystic, Charles and Neponset Rivers. Until
that time, local sewer systems which expanded with the growth
of towns and the City of Boston had been discharging their
untreated wastes directly into the three major rivers
tributary to Boston Harbor. The initial MSD consisted of
18 cities and towns, including portions of Boston not served
by the City’s Boston Main Drainage System.
The system at that time consisted of intercepting
sewers, pumping facilities, tunnels and storage tanks at
Moon Island. The treatment process at that time was to
discharge accumulated wastes into Boston Harbor on outgoing
tides.
The MSD had expanded its service area by 1895 to include
the communities along the Charles River of Waltham, Water-
town, the Brighton section of Boston, and parts of Newton
and Brookline. These areas were added to the Boston Main
Drainage System. Additional facilities (interceptor sewers,
pumping stations and outfalls off Deer Island) were constructed
to serve the northern towns of Arlington, Belmont, Cambridge,
Chelsea, Everett, Maiden, Meirose, Somerville, Stoneham,
1—1
-------
Winchester, Winthrop, Woburn, and the Charlestown and East
Boston sections of Boston. By 1898, Dedham, Hyde Park,
Milton, and additional parts of Newton and Brookline were
also included in the MSD service area.
A third system of outfalls was constructed off Nut
Island in 1904, with its associated interceptors and pumping
stations. The overloaded Boston Main Drainage System was
relieved by diverting flows from Brookline, Dedham, Hyde
Park, Milton, Newton, Quincy, Waltham and Watertown to the
Nut Island outfalls.
Over the years, system changes were made, changing the
service provided from interception, transport and disposal
to interception, transport, treatment and disposal. The
introduction of the treatment phase resulted in the de—
commissioning of the Moon Island facility and the construction
of the Nut and Deer Island Primary Treatment Facilities.
The MSD now operates the Nut and Deer Island Primary
Treatment Plants, the Somerville Marginal Conduit Treatment
Facility, the Cottage Farm Storm Water Detention Facility,
12 pumping stations, 4 headworks, about 8000 kilometers
(5000 miles) of local sewers, approximately 360 kilometers
(225 miles) of interceptor sewers and numerous major
combined sewer overflows. The Moon Island facility is
operated on a standby basis by the City of Boston to
provide relief during wet weather emergency periods.
The passage of PL92-500, the Water Pollution Control
Act of 1972, makes discharge of any pollutant illegal unless
it is in compliance with Effluent Limitations of the Act
set forth in Section 301. Discharge of treatment plant
effluent meeting this criteria is regulated by Section 402,
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
Under this system the discharges of all wastewaters are
regulated to provide centralized coordination and restriction
of discharges to improve the quality of water resources both
in and around the nation. This is the primary goal of the
Act.
The NPDES Permit sets the limits of permissable discharges.
The current permit issued to the MDC, NPDES Permit No.
MA0102351 (State No. M—180), requires primary treatment at
both facilities with secondary treatment to be provided by
July 1, 1977. Prior to this July, 1977 deadline, both
the EPA and the MDC negotiated an extension of time for
compliance with the secondary treatment implementation
requirement. An extension was granted in an EPA Enforcement
Compliance Schedule Letter which contains a listing of
requirements and a timetable for their accomplishment. The
requirements include; completion of Infiltration/Inflow
Analyses of the entire MDC interceptor system, facilities
for primary sludge disposal, upgrading and expanding the
Nut and Deer Island treatment plants to secondary treatment,
1—2
-------
secondary sludge disposal facilities, combined sewer overflow
abatement and interceptor sewer system extension and relief.
To provide the necessary level of treatment for the
current and future volumes of wastewater production and to
determine the practical and economic limits of regional
wastewater treatment, the MDC contracted an engineering
consultant, Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., to perform a study
to determine: a) the ultimate service area for the MDC;
b) the locations and sizes of the various facilities
necessary to provide treatment for the sewage produced
in the service area; c) the estimated costs of these
facilities; and d) organization and scheduling recommend-
ations for the implementation of regional treatment. As
a result of resolutions passed by the committees on public
works of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives
in 1972, the Corps of Engineers became a co—participant
with MDC in the study.
The Study, Wastewater Engineering and Management Plan
for Boston Harbor - Eastern Massachusetts Metropolitan Area ,
usually referred to as the EMMA Study, visualized an
enlarged MSD service area with the addition of eight
communities to the 43 existing member communities. (See
Figure 1.1-1). A list of the communities which make up
this enlarged service area is shown in Table 1.1—1. This
plan includes construction of two advanced wastewater
treatment facilities on the Charles and Neponset Rivers,
and expanding and upgrading the existing Deer Island and
Nut Island primary treatment plants to provide secondary
treatment to the wastewater flows anticipated to be
generated in the year 2000. The estimated cost of this
plan at the time of completion of the EMMA Study was
$855,000,000, based on January, 1975 prices. A significant
portion of this cost is eligible for Federal funding
through grants pursuant to Title II of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended. These grants
will be administered through Region I of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
All Federal agencies are required to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in connection with
their proposals for major Federal actions having a significant
impact on the quality of the human environment. The anti-
cipated Federal participation associated with implementation
of the Recommended Plan, as presented by the MDC, constitutes
such a major Federal action.
In September, 1976, EPA Region I contracted with the
firms of Greeley and Hansen and the Environmental Assessment
Council, Inc. to assist in the preparation of an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS). The objective of the EIS is to
determine the most environmentally acceptable, cost effective
method of upgrading the MDC’S wastewater management system.
1—3
-------
TABLE 1.1-1
EXPANDED METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT SERVICE AREA
Arlington Natick
Ashland Needham
Bedford Newton
Belmont Norwood
Boston* Quincy
Braintree Randolph
Brookline Reading
Burlington Revere
Cambridge Sharon**
Canton Sherborn**
Chelsea Somerville
Dedham Southborough**
Dover** Stoneham
Everett Stoughton
Framingham Wakefield
Hingham Walpole
Holbrook Waltham
Hopkinton ** Watertown
Lexington Wellesley
Lincoln** WestOfl***
Lynnfield ** Westwood
Maiden Weymouth
Medford Wilmington
Meirose Winchester
Milton Winthrop
Woburn
*Boston
Boston Proper
Brighton
Charlestowfl
Dorchester
East Boston
Fenway—JamaiCa
Hyde Park
Mattapan
Roslindale
Roxbury
South Boston
West Roxbury
** Not presently an MSD member community.
Weston has voted not to join the MSD.
3--- 4
-------
\ ./
/
- (/
CA*?S4(
MA S SAC HUS( ITS
SAY
EXISTING MSD
SERVICE AREA
NOTE:
WESTON HAS VOTED NOT
TO JOIN THE MSD
/ NThA
/ -.
/
POTENTIAL ENLARGED
MSD SERVICE AREA
LEGEND
COMMUNITIES WHICH WILL POSSIBLY BE
ADDED TO THE MSD SERVICE AREA
A PORTION OF HINGHAM IS PRESENTLY
SERVED BY THE MSD
FIGURE Il-I STUDY AREA LOCATION
i ..—_-‘_c
-------
Various wastewater management alternatives, in addition to
the MDC’S Recommended Plan, are to be considered. The
principal factors to be considered in the development of
alternatives are:
1) The feasibility of satellite treatment plants
as compared with continued centralized treatment
in the vicinity of Boston Harbor.
2) The possibility of locating treatment facilities
at locations in the vicinity of Boston Harbor
other than at Nut Island and Deer Island.
3) The upgrading of wastewater treatment facilities
to a level of secondary treatment will require the
disposal of considerably more sludge than is
required for the existing primary treatment
facilities. Therefore, alternative techniques
for the disposal of secondary sludge are to be
evaluated.
Several other studies will also have an affect on the
wastewater management system of the study area. These
include the Infiltration/Inflow (I/I) and the Combined
Sewer Overflow Regulation (CSO) studies being performed
by the MDC and the 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management
Plan prepared by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council
(MAPC).
The CSO study will examine a range of alternatives
of both a structural and non—structural nature to control
combined sewer overflow discharges. The study will consider
the costs, environmental impacts, implementation factors,
and benefit/cost ratios of the alternatives under a range
of design storms. Alternatives to be evaluated include:
improved system maintenance; sewer flushing; sewer cleaning;
in-line storage; sewer separation; off—line storage; and
detention/chlorination. The elimination of untreated
combined sewer overflows should have a major positive
impact on the quality of waters adjacent to the metropolitan
area.
An I/I analysis of the MDC interceptor system tributary
to Deer Island was prepared by Camp, Dresser and McKee, Inc.
For the MDC interceptor system tributary to Nut Island,
an I/I analysis is being prepared by Fay, Spof ford and
Thorndike , Inc. The analysis for the Deer Island service area
was finalized in March of 1978, and the analysis for the
Nut Island service area is expected to be finalized
during the Fall of 1978. It is anticipated the
Evaluation Survey (the next step in the I/I study) will
be conducted during the Spring of 1979 for both service
areas.
1—6
-------
Under the proposed MDC sewer use ordinance, the MDC
will have the power to direct member cc’mmunities to correct
their I/I problems, if they find the problems to be excessive
or unacceptable. The MDC is currently develcping criteria
for identifying member communities which have such problems,
as well as a procedure to implement their enforcement powers.
The correction of I/I problems in sewer segments where
I/I is found to be excessive could reduce the capacity
requirements of both sewers and treatment plants. The results
of the I/I studies should be examined upon their completion and
capacity requirements adjusted accordingly.
The 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plan did not
focus on the E study area. Although it did include some wcrk
in fringe areas of the EMMA study area, the information gatbered
in the 208 Study and the EMMA Study were basically intended to
complement each other, and to avoid duplication of effcrt.
In addition, the MDC is currently in the process of preparing
a Scope of Work for the Facilities Planning process. This process
will be done in phases, and it is anticipated that the entire effort
will take approximately two years to complete. There will be
opportunities for public participation during Facilities Planning.
Throughout this EIS, various items have been recommended for
inclusion in the Facilities Planning process. Some of the major
items for which investigations during Facilities Planning are
recommended are:
Quantities of wastewater flow
Wastewater treatment methods
Sludge treatment and disposal methods
Outfall location and design
Interceptor design and routing
1—7
-------
1.2 WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY OBJECTIVES AND PROBLEMS
1.2.1. Water Quality and Quantity Objectives
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Water
Pollution Control is the State agency responsible for the
administration of the goals and objectives of the Massa-
chusetts Clean Waters Act of 1967 (MCWA), which has been
partly repealed and amended to take into account the sub-
sequent publication of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (FWPCA) amendments of 1972 (PL92-500).
In order to achieve the objectives of the NCWA &
FWPCA the Division has divided the waters of Massachusetts
into 8 classifications, 5 for fresh water bodies and 3 for
salt water bodies, depending on whether their physical,
biological and chemical constituents meet pre—set criteria.
For example, “Class A or SA” is fit for public water supply
or fishing and contact activities while “Class C or SC”
is the least desirable classification. Along with these
published “Water Quality Standards”, a set of regulations
that is designed to prevent further degradation of classified
waters is also in effect. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
is currently considering revisions to the standards.
Under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 131 Section 40A
and Chapter 130 Section 105, the development of wetlands
(inland and/or coastal) is regulated. Several towns within
the Charles River drainage basin (Dedham, Dover, Needhain,
Newton, Walpole, Waltham, Wellesley and Westwood) have
mapped and recorded areas in which they are enforcing the
provisions of Chapter 131, Sec. 40A (Inland Wetlands
Restriction Act) restricting development of certain inland
wetlands. Furthermore, Congress has authorized the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to proceed with wetlarxls acquisition for
the “Natural Valley Storage” concept for the Charles River
watershed. The objectives are not only to provide flood
control but also to assure the protection of recharge areas
important for groundwater supplies and to provide open
spaces.
The development of the Boston Harbor Islands as major
conservation and water—oriented recreation resources is
recommended in the Boston Harbor Islands Comprehensive Plan
of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (1972) as an
important objective for the study area. This plan has been
agreed upon in principal by all affected agencies as the
basis of harbor facilities planning. The Massachusetts
Coastal Zone Management Program also presents environmental
objectives to maintain the Massachusetts Coastal Zone as an
asset to the State, by providing guidelines affecting develop-
ment of coastal area on a state—wide basis.
1—8
-------
1.2.2. Water Quality and Quantity Problems
The MSD’s service area coincides with a major portion of
Boston Harbor’s natural drainage area, while also including
portions of the Sudbury River, Ipswich River and North
Coastal drainage basins. The principal drainage basins within
the Boston Harbor drainage area are those of the Mystic,
Charles, Neponset and Weymouth Rivers. The major water
quality and water quantity problems in the study area are
briefly discussed below. A more detailed discussion is
given in Chapter 2 — Environmental Inventory.
A. Boston Harbor . The major sources of water pollution in
Boston Harbor are: 1) combined sewer overflows; 2) treated
wastewater and sludge discharges; 3) raw wastes and industrial
outfalls; 4) tributary streams; 5) urban runoff; and 6) debris,
refuse and oil. The Inner Harbor area is classified “SC”
by the Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control.
A classification of “SC” designates waters which are suitable
for recreational boating, fishing and industrial process
uses, but unsuitable for swimming and shell fishing. The Outer
Harbor is classified “SB” which designates waters which are
suitable for water contact sports as well as boating and shell
fishing with depuration.
Combined sewer overflows present the greatest threat to
public health and aesthetics of the Harbor and its tributaries
due to the high fecal coliform content, floating debris,
and solids present in the discharge. Combined sewers are
sewers which collect and transport both sanitary wastewater
and storm water. Overflows are the result of the hydraulic
overloading of one of the oldest combined sewer systems in
the nation. A densely populated area of approximately 50
sq.km. (19.2 sq.mi.) that includes Boston, Brookline,
Cambridge, Chelsea and Somerville is served by this combined
sewer system. The elimination of these presently untreated
combined sewer overflows would be a significant step toward
the development of the recreation and economic potential
of the Harbor and its tributaries. An evaluation of the impacts
of combined sewer overflows and possible solutions is not part
of this EIS. The primary objective of this EIS is to determine
the most environmentally acceptable, cost-effective wastewater
management system for the municipal wastewaters generated in
the MDC service area.
In addition, there have been many malfunctioning tide gates
and regulators which have allowed sewers to discharge to the Harbor
at low tide and during dry weather (New England Division,
Corps of Engineers, 1975). These faulty appurtenances have also
allowed seawater intrusion into the sewer system at high tides,
thereby increasing flows at the wastewater treatment facilities
and decreasing treatment facility efficiencies. It has been
reported that a tidegate rehabilitation program has recently been
1—9
-------
completed, and it is expected that these improvements will
contribute favorably to the water quality of the Harbor.
The current characteristics of the effluents discharged
through the treatment plant outfalls at Nut Island and Deer
Island indicate that both treatment facilities are overloaded
due to storm water runoff and infiltration and inflow into the
sewerage system. As a result, these flows receive less than
efficient primary treatment. In addition, the digested sludge
from both facilities is discharged near the President Roads
Channel during periods of ebb tides. The digested sludge
is a major source of coliform bacteria and trace metals.
The proposed expansion and upgrading to secondary treatment
of the treatment facilities serving the MSD service area
will provide a comprehensive wastewater treatment and sludge
management system that will have a positive impact on the
water quality of the Harbor. However, the infiltration/inflow
problem must be adequately defined if the proposed solutions
are to be truly efficient and cost-effective.
A 1976 study by the Massachusetts Division of Water
Pollution Control showed that several industries discharge
into the Harbor. These discharges consist mostly of cooling
water and storm water. Surveys made by the USEPA in 1975
indicated that street drain discharges are contributing to
bacterial contamination of Wollaston Beach. Oil from oil
terminals, particularly along the Chelsea River, is a major
pollutant in Boston Harbor. Debris and refuse in the Harbor
cause severe deterioration of the aesthetic quality of the
Harbor and hazards to navigation.
Although in some instances the degradations caused by
these various pollution sources are localized or even minimal
if viewed individually, they are nevertheless the components
of a much broader problem which must be solved by a compre-
hensive approach.
B. Mystic River Drainage Basin . The Mystic River drainage
basin consists of approximately 179 sq. km. (60 sq.mi.)
immediately north of the City of Boston. This basin consists
of three distinct sections; the Aberjona River, the Mystic
Lakes and the Mystic River. The Upper and Lower Mystic
Lakes separate the Aberjona and Mystic River systems.
Discharge from the Lower Mystic Lake forms the Mystic River
which flows 12 km. (7.4 ml) in a southeastern direction to
Boston Harbor. Estimates of flow for this river have been
made and yield an average flow of 2.38 to 2.61 m 3 /s (84 to 92
cf s) at its mouth. Corresponding maxynum and minimum flows
were estimated to be 75.05 to 82.30 m /s (2650 to 2906 cf s)
and 0.020 to 0.024 m 3 /s (0.72 to 0.84 cfs) respectively
(Beauregard, 1975).
Major sources of pollutant input to the Mystic River
1—10
-------
basin are urban runoff, combined sewer overflows and non-
point sources such as solid waste landfill leaching. The
point sources that exist are diverted out of the basin and
treated at the Deer Island Treatment Plant. These discharges
out of the basin, via the MDC sewer system, result in abnormally
low stream flow. The Upper and Lower Mystic Lakes have exper-
ienced a continued degradation of water quality in recent years.
Euthrophic conditions exist in parts of the lakes. At the
Upper Mystic Lake, the nutrient rich Aberjona River is the
primary contributor of pollutants. Saltwater trapped in the
Lower Mystic Lake due to the construction of the A. Earhart
Dam in 1966 continues to be a major disruption of the ecological
balance of the water body (Beauregard, 1975).
The alternatives being considered in this EIS will not
have any effect on the Mystic River drainage basin. The
elimination of untreated combined sewer overflows should have
a positive effect on the river section adjacent to the metro-
politan area.
C. Charles River Drainage Basin . The Charles River drainage
basin occupies the central portion of the Boston Harbor
drainage area covering an area of 789 sq.km. (305 sq.mi.).
This area coincides with all or part of 32 municipalities,
including a large portion of the City of Boston. The Charles
River has a total length of 129 km. (80 mi.) due to extensive
meandering. Flow measurements taken just downstream of the
Cochrane Dam by the United States Geological Survey in
Charles River village yielded an average flow of 8.4 3 m 3 /s
(296 cfs); with maximum and minimum flows of 91.2 m Is (3220
cfs) and 0.014 m 3 /s (0.5 cfs) respectively.
Due to high bacterial counts, only a few lakes within
the Charles River drainage basin are presently used for
swimming. Presently, the majority of the Charles River’s
length provides only non—contact, passive recreation opportunities
because of its degraded water quality (New England Division
Corps of Engineers, 1975). Major pollutant sources in the
upper basin include municipal wastewater discharges, solid
waste disposal site runoff, septic tank and cesspool discharges,
industrial discharges and urban runoff. In the lower basin
(the Charles Basin) major sources of pollution are combined
sewer overflows, urban runoff and salt water intrusion. Ground-
water reservoirs in the Charles River drainage basin are
hydraulically interconnected to the river or its tributaries
and well withdrawals from these aquifers may result in stream
f low infiltration into the groundwater system. Approximately
49,150 m 3 /d (13 mgd) of water is withdrawn from groundwater
resources and is discharged out of the basin by the sewer
system. The depletion of groundwater supplies and subsequent
recharge from surface sources compounds the problem of low
flows in the Charles River during the summer months.
Low flow augmentation of the Charles River can be
1—11
-------
accomplished by treating the wastewater generated within the
drainage basin at an inland satellite treatment plant and
discharging the effluent to the Charles River. The discharges
of a Charles River satellite plant could potentially have the
dual advantages of providing low flow augmentation to the
Charles River and relieving the hydraulic loading on the
sewage collection system and coastal wastewater treatment
facilities. However, consideration must be given to the
possible adverse effects the effluent from a satellite plant
may have on the water quality of the Charles River.
D. Neponset River Drainage Basin . The Neponset River
originates 46.7 km. (29 miles) southwest of Boston at the outlet
of the Neponset Reservoir in Foxborough, Massachusetts. The
river flows generally in a northeastern direction for 47.5
km. (29.5 miles) before discharging into Dorchester Bay. The
entire drainage basin lies within the expanded I4SD except for
a portion of Foxborough at the basin’s headwaters. The drainage
area consists of 318.6 sq.krn. (123 sq.mi.).
The Neponset River is one of the most critically polluted
rivers in the Metropolitan Boston area. Only the headwaters,
which flow rapidly, are of relatively good quality. Starting
at the Town of Walpole, the river is characterized by a
reduction in dissolved oxygen concentration. Industrial
discharges, domestic wastes, oil discharges and solids
contribute to the degradation of the river throughout its
length. A survey made in the summer of 1973 by the. Massachusetts
Division of Water Pollution Control indicated that the Neponset
Reservoir in Foxborough was eutrophic. The effluent of
Foxborough State Hospital is thought to provide nutrients for
the extensive algal and aquatic vascular plant growth present
in the Neponset Reservoir. Below this point, Foxborough
Raceway is suspected of being a source of fecal contamination
of the river. Industrial discharges near Walpole in combination
with urban runoff is responsible for increasing BODt and
coliform bacteria in the area. Urban runoff and non—
point sources from the areas of Milton and Mother
Brook also contribute to the increase of BOD 5 , coliform
bacteria and nutrient loading of the Neponset River. Frequent
overflows occur from the Neponset River Valley Sewer and the
Dorchester Interceptor into the lower reaches of the Neponset
River, threatening water quality of the lower river and estuaries
(New England Division, Corps of Engineers 1975).
In a 1973 survey, Frimpter found that groundwater in the
Neponset drainage basin to be of a chemical quality suitable for
drinking and most industrial uses. However, it is apparent
from available data that chloride concentration in public supply
wells may be on the increase. Speculation has been made that
the sources of chloride contamination are stockpiles of salt for
snow removal and runoff from paved areas (New England Division,
Corps of Engineers 1973). Although low flow conditions exist
1—12
-------
in the Neponset River during summer months, the precise extent
of this problem is difficult to determine because flow in the
river is subject to active regulation for industrial water
supply. Groundwater withdrawals from wells in close proximity
to the river have been found to cause low flow problems in
the basin (Metcalf and Eddy 1969).
One alternative to the low flow problem is the construction
of an inland satellite wastewater treatment plant discharging
to the Neponset River. Objectives of such a facility would
be to contribute to low flow augmentation by discharging
its effluent to the river and to reduce the hydraulic loading
on the sewerage system and the coastal treatment facilities.
As mentioned in the discussion of the Charles River drainage
basin, consideration must also be given to the possible adverse
effects that satellite treatment plant effluent may have on
the water quality of the Neponset River.
E. Sudbury River Drainage Basin . This drainage basin has a
drainage area of 438 sq.km. (169 sq.mi.) of land which dis-
charges in the 66 km. (41 mile) length of the Sudbury River.
Towns within the drainage basin that are being considered for
inclusion in the MSD are Southborough, Hopkinton, and additional
parts of Ashland, and Framingham. A survey of the Sudbury
River, conducted by the Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution
Control in 1973, indicated high coliforni bacteria levels along
the entire length of the segment of the river that is within
the study area. Overloaded septic tank systems in the upper
portions of the segment and urban runoff, septic leachate,
and storm and sanitary sewers in the heavily populated areas
of Ashland and Framingham are thought to be sources of fecal
contamination. Dissolved oxygen levels were found to be below
5 milligrams per liter (mg/i). Excessive concentrations of
nutrients were not present. No point sources of pollution are
contributed to the Sudbury River by the four towns of the Upper
Basin which lie within the study area. Implementation of the
wastewater management plan for the MSD service area will
provide for collection of sanitary sewage, thereby removing
a portion of the pollutant load from the Sudbury River through
the elimination of the use of septic systems in these areas.
F. Weymouth River Drainage Basin . The Weyrnouth River drainage
basin consists of approximately 230 sq.km. (89 sq.mi.) in the
towns of Randolph, Braintree, Hingham, Holbrook, Weymouth and
a portion of the City of Quincy that is drained by the Weymouth
Fore River, Weymouth Back River and Weir River. The waters
in this region are classified as “B” and “SB”. The lower
reaches of both the Weymouth Fore River and Back River do not
meet their classifications. Surveys of dissolved oxygen
indicate that portions of the river fall below the minimum
required dissolved oxygen level of 6 mg/i, but most of the
river is well oxygenated with dissolved oxygen in excess of the
minimum. Sampling has also indicated that fecal coliform levels
are in excess of what is permissable, indicating considerable
bacterial contamination. A survey of wastewater discharges
1—13
-------
in the drainage basin has indicated that both point and non-
point sources are contributing pollutants to the Weymouth
River drainage basin. The major contributors appear to be
septic tank drainage and storm water runoff.
At the present time, no water quantity problems are
present in the basin, with adequate recharge of groundwater
resources possible through the riverbeds. Future changes
in water use and discharge in the basin should be considered
to preserve this balance.
For the most part, the waters of the Weymouth River
drainage basin will not be affected by the implementation of
any of the proposed facilities.
The objective of this EIS is to determine the most
environmentally acceptable and cost effective areawide
wastewater management plan for the MDC service area. The
formulation and implementation of such a plan will improve
water quality by providing a higher level of treatment for
much of the waste ater generated in the Boston Harbor
drainage area• •The higher level of treatment will reduce
the daily contribution of pollutants in the drainage area.
1—14
-------
1.3 APPLICANT’S PROPOSED ACTION
The Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) has presented
a comprehensive plan for wastewater management in its report,
Wastewater Engineering and Management Plan for Boston Harbor -
Eastern Massachusetts Metropolitan Area (EMMA Study). The
principal recommendations of this report to achieve clean
water goals established for Boston Harbor and its tributary
rivers are:
1) Upgrading the Deer Island and Nut Island treatment
plants from primary to secondary treatment.
2) Sludge disposal by means of incineration as recommended
in a 1973 report prepared for the MDC by Havens and
Emerson, Consulting Engineers, entitled A Plan for
Sludge Management .
3) Alleviating combined stormwater—sewage overflows.
4) Construction of two advanced waste treatment plants
on the Charles and Neponset Rivers.
5) Extension and improvement of the MDC’S interceptor
system.
This section will briefly describe the MDC’s proposed
wastewater management plant (Proposed Action)
The Proposed Action visualizes increasing the service
area of the MSD through the addition of the Towns of Lincoln,
Lynnfield, and Weston to the Deer Island service area and
the addition of Dover, Hopkinton, Sharon, Sherborn and
Southborough to the Nut Island service area. The treatment
plant at Deer Island would be expanded and upgraded to provide
secondary treatment for the increased flows from its
service area. Two inland satellite wastewater treatment
plants would be constructed in the Nut Island service area
to reduce the extent of the expansion required at Nut Island,
and to retain the wastewaters in their basins of origin,
providing low—flow augmentation for the Charles and Neponset
Rivers. The satellite plant that would discharge to the
Charles River would serve Ashland, Framingham, Hopkinton,
Natick, Sherborn and Southborough as well as parts of Dover
and Wellesley. The other satellite plant would discharge
to the Neponset River and serve Sharon, Stoughton and Walpole,
as well as parts of Norwood and Canton. The remainder of the
wastewater from the Nut Island service area would receive
secondary treatment at an expanded and upgraded treatment
plant at Nut Island.
1—15
-------
Advanced waste treatment facilities are recommended at
both satellite plant sites in an effort to provide effluent
of sufficient water quality to prevent further degradation
of the two rivers. In addition to providing supplementary
flow to both rivers and reducing the amount of expansion
required at Nut Island, the satellite plants would also
reduce the load on the interceptor system downstream of their
respective locations by diverting about 117,200 m 3 /day (31 rngd)
to the Middle Charles River plant and about 94,500 m 3 /day
(25 mgd) to the Upper Neponset River plant in the year 2000,
thereby reducing the amount of interceptor sewer relief
work required.
The expansion and upgrading of the Nut Island and Deer
Island primary treatment facilities to provide secondary
treatment for 491,500 m 3 /day (130 mgd) and 1,512,000 m 3 /day
(400 rngd) of wastewater respectively in the year 2000 would
require substantial increases in plant facilities. Nut Island
is almost completely occupied by the present treatment facility,
leaving little space available for expansion. The expansion
and upgrading to secondary treatment of the Nut Island plant
would require some filling of Quincy Bay. Some of the
facilities required for an expanded and upgraded secondary
treatment plant on Deer Island would be constructed on an
adjacent area of fill in Boston Harbor. Sludge generated
at the Nut Island and Deer Island plants would undergo
incineration at Deer Island. (The sludge from the Nut Island
plant would be piped to Deer Island).
Another phase of the Proposed Action to upgrade the
waters in the Boston Harbor area is the abatement of uncontrolled
combined sewer overflows to the Harbor and its tributaries.
Three alternative combined sewer overflow treatment and di posa1
schemes in the immediate Boston Harbor area are presented to
address this problem. Each of these alternatives provides
for collection, treatment and disposal facilities to replace
the numerous combined sewer overflows into the Harbor.
Modifications to the interceptor system have been provided
to relieve existing overloaded conditions and to provide
adequate capacity for future flows. The extent of this work
is distributed throughout the service area, in urban as well
as suburban areas. Under the MDC’S Proposed Action, extension
of interceptors would be required to serve new member
communities. In addition, renovation or replacement of each
of ten MDC pumping stations along the interceptor sewer system
has been recommended in order to provide efficient and adequate
pumping capacity for future flows.
The scheduled completion dates and estimated costs for
each of the major phases of the MDC’S Proposed Action are
shown in Table 1.3—i.
In the EMMA Study, it is estimated that the total
1—16
-------
TABLE 1.3-1
APPLICANT’S PROPOSED ACTION
COSTS AND COMPLETION DATES FOR MAJOR PROJECTS
Completion
Project Date
Cost,
of
$
millions
(1)
1. Elimination of sludge discharges
into the Harbor from the Deer
Island and Nut Island treatment
plants 1980 $ 26
2. Combined sewer overflow abate-
ment in Dorchester Bay 1981 77
3. Nut Island primary expansion
and addition of secondary
treatment 1984 137
4. Deer Island primary expansion
and addition of secondary
treatment 1984 192
5. Additional facilities for
secondary sludge management 1984 28
6. Satellite treatment plants
discharging to the Middle
Charles and Upper Neponset
Rivers 1984 91
7. Combined sewer overflow
abatement in the Charles
River (Back Bay Fens and
Muddy River) 1983 84
8. Combined sewer overflow
abatement in the Neponset River 1983 23
9. Combined sewer overflow
abatement in the Inner Harbor 1986 86
10. Others: Interceptors and Pumping 1975-2000 111
TOTAL $855
(1) Costs shown in millions of dollars based on
January, 1975 prices (ENR 2200) and include
engineering and contingencies. Updated costs appear
later in this report.
Source: “Wastewater Engineering and Management Plan for
Boston Harbor,” By M. Weiss and J.P. Vittands, 1976
1—17
-------
construction cost for all of the related work would be
approximately $855 million. It is also estimated that
annual operation and maintenance costs would increase from
the present $8.34 million to $29.5 million when all the
proposed facilities are in operation by the year 2000.
These costs are based on January 1975 prices. Further
discussion of the MDC’s Proposed Action can be found in
Section 3.4.3 and throughout Section 3.5.
1—18
-------
ENV I RONMENTAL INVENTORY
2.1 CLIMATOLOGY
Eastern Massachusetts is a humid region that lies in
the path of the prevailing westerly winds. Precipitation
is plentiful and temperatures are moderate. Storms cross
the state from either the west or southwest. In addition,
northeasters are common in the late autumn and winter.
The mean annual temperature in the area varies from
slightly above 10°C (50 0 F) along the coast to just below
10°C in the higher elevations of the interior. A summary
of temperature data from the National Weather Service sta-
tions at Boston (Logan Airport) and Framingham, Massachu-
setts is presented in Appendix 2.1—1.
Precipitation is uniformly distributed throughout the
year (Appendix 2.1-2). The mean annual precipitation at
Boston is 105.4 cm (41.5 inches) while at Framingham the
mean is 111.3 cm (43.8 inches). During the winter months,
precipitation over the area can occur as rain or snow with
the annual snowfall ranging from an average of 106.7 cm (42
inches) in Boston to over 129.5 cm (51 inches) in Framing—
ham. The snow begins to melt in March or early April.
Winds generally come out of the west with the predomi-
nant direction being from the northwest in the winter switch-
ing to the southwest in the summer. Wind velocities are
generally under 40.2 km/hr (24 mph). Winds in excess of
51.5 kin/hr (32 mph) can be expected at least one day in every
month of the year, but these strong winds are more common and
more severe in the winter.
2—1
-------
2.2 GEOLOGY
2.2.1 Surficial Geology
The surficial geology of the study area is made up pre-
dominantly of glacial drift although some deposits of recent
alluvium are found. These glacial deposits are remnants of
the last ice advance, the Wisconsin ice age, which ended some
10,000 years ago. The unconsolidated deposits left by these
ice sheets can be stratified or unstratified and are of var-
ious thicknesses.
Glacial till is found throughout the area and is the
most abundant and widespread of glacial deposits. It is
composed of unsorted clayey or silty sands and gravels. The
sediments are derived primarily from subglacial ground mor-
aine, terminal moraines and lateral inoraines. These deposits
are unstratified, usually contain portions of silt and clay
and frequently contain rocks and cobbles, some of which are
as large as small houses (Metcalf & Eddy 197Sf). These de-
posits range in thickness from several inches to several
hundred feet.
Drumlins, a geomorphic phenomenon consisting of un-
stratified till, are common and notable in the Boston area.
Of the more than 100 drumlins in the Boston area, Bunker
and Breeds Hill on the mainland and the Boston Harbor Islands
(Deer, Long, Rainsford [ in part], Moon, Thompson, Spectacle,
Castle, Great Brewster, Gallop, Lovell’s, George’s, Peddocks,
Bumpkin and Grape [ in part]) are some of the more notable
ones.
Stratified drift is common and is found principally in
the lower-lying flatter areas and is thickest along present
and buried pre-glacial stream valleys. Thick deposits of
well-sorted, medium to coarse-grained stratified drift make
up the most productive aquifers in the region.
2.2.2 Geomorphic Districts
The MDC service area falls within the Seaboard Lowland
subprovince of the New England Physiographic Province. Sev-
eral geomorphic districts are contained wholly or partially
within the area. These areas are the Boston Lowland, the
Fells Upland, the Needham Upland, and to a smaller extent
the Sudbury Valley and the Sharon Upland.
The Boston Lowland lies generally at elevations of less
than 15.2 in (50 feet) (msl). Contained within it are exten-
sive areas of marshes and alluvial plains, many of which
today have been reclaimed or altered. Druinlins (smooth lens-
shaped hills of glacial origin) are the most distinctive topo-
graphic features in the Lowland. The higher portions of the
Low1and are covered to a large extent with glacial drift.
2—2
-------
The Fell.s Up1 nd 1ie to the north we5t of the
BO$tQn Low1 nd. On the the st of the Upland ie bold
escarpment which ranges in height fror 30.5 m (100 ft) to
91.5 in (300 ft). The ‘e1ls Upland c n be divi4ed into three
sections. The eastern and middle sections are generally at
less than 76.2 m (250 ft) (msl), and they contain large
areas of exposed bedrock, while the western section is gener-
ally higher than 76.2 m (250 ft) (msl) and is partly smooth
and partly covered by drift (Skehan, 1975).
The Needham Upland lies southwest of the Boston Lowland
and is lower than the Fells Upland and is not as well defined.
Large areas in this Upland are occupied by plains of alluvium
and glacial outwash. A large portion of the relief in this
area is due to the numerous drumlins, some of which have
summits that reach over 91.5 m (300 ft) (msl) in elevation.
2.2.3 Lithology
In and around the Boston area, the bedrock consists of
igneous sedimentary and metasedimentary, and metamorphic
rocks mantled discontinuously by unconsolidated depoists
usually of glacial origin. The ages of the bedrock range
from Precambrian to late Paleozoic with some minor volcanics
of Triassic age also being mapped. The predominant igneous
rocks found within the study area are seynites, volcanics
and grandiorites. Outcrops of sedimentary and metasedimen-
tary rocks are confined chiefly to the eastern and south-
eastern parts of the area. Slates and conglomerates make
up the major component of the sedimentary and metasedimentary
rocks. Metamorphic rocks are abundant and outcrop in all parts
of the study area. Principal formations include the Dedham
Grandiorites, Cambridge Slate, Quincy Granite, Newbury-Matta-
pan-Lynn Volcanics, Blue Hills Granite Prophyry, Westwood
Granite and Roxbury Conglomerate.
2—3
-------
2.3 TOPOGRAPHY
The terrain in the MDC study area is integrally tied
to its geological history, its bedrock composition, and
deformational and erosional processes that have been active
in the area in the past. The most significant of the
processes that has altered the terrain of the study area
was the quarternary advance of the glaciers.
In the process of differential erosion, different types
of rock material erode at varying rates, depending on their
relative hardness. This process can be seen in the study
area and is illustrated by the relatively low relief of the
entire Boston Lowland (composted generally of soft sedimen-
tary materials) versus the raised areas of the outlying Fells,
Needham and Sharon Uplands and the Blue Hills (composed of
more resistant igneous and metamorphic rocks). Rock types
of various hardness have also produced variations in relief
within each of the two separate areas. In addition, faulting
of the bedrock material in some areas has accentuated the
physical relationship of two rock types and the resultant
terrain.
The advance of ice sheets during the quarternary period
of geologic history significantly altered the preglacial
terrain. In the advancing stage, bedrock outcrops were
sculptured and highly eroded, and valleys were widened and
carved out. Later, when the glaciers began to melt, depo-
sitional land forms were introduced, including ground mor-
ames, kames, eskers, and drumlins. Thus, in some areas,
the terrain was softened by valleys being filled with ground
moraine or by glacial lakes being filled with sediment, while
in others, it was accentuated via resistive rock outcrops
rising from ground moraines or from the introduction of such
features as druinlins.
2—4
-------
2.4 SOILS
Detailed soils information compiled by the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) is not available for the study
area except for the town of Ashland and a small portion of
the town of Natick. General soils information, however, was
prepared by the SCS office in amherst, Massachusetts for the
SENE study of the New England River Basins Commission. Analy-
sis of general soil areas is useful for broad land use plan-
ning. General soil areas were grouped from segments of the
landscape in which soil series occur in distrinctive propor-
tions and patterns. Mapping was accomplished by reconnais-
sance of the area supplemented by on-site determinations and
interpretations of current topographic and surficial geology
maps prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey. A general soil
area normally consists of an association of two or more major
soil series and at least one minor soil phase.
There were 24 general soil areas ide;tified in the SENE
study area and 5 sub-groupings under these general areas.
Though the soil series in a general soil area are usually
derived from similar parent materials, certain characteris-
tics of each series may differ widely. Commonly, however,
the properties of the major soils within a general soil area
have about the same degree of limitation for a particular
use. While the general soil areas do not indicate the kind
of soil series at any specific site, they do indicate the
physical nature, composition and slopes in these areas.
The major soils in each general soil area determine the
overall suitability of the general soil area for many uses.
A general soil map is useful to people who want an overall
idea of the soils in a county, or who want to compare dif-
ferent parts of a county, or determine the location of large
areas which are suitable for a certain kind of land use.
The soils are primarily derived from glacial material,
brought to the area during the last ice age. Soils derived
from glacial till are generally mixtures of clayey or silty
sands and gravels. Marine beaches and windblown dunes resulted
in sandy soils with very little gravely or clay content.
Silty and sandy soils containing minor proportions of clay
and gravel were formed from alluvium and river terrace depos-
its. Fine grained and/or organic soils consist of silty and
clayey sands from glacial lake bottoms, fine grained marine
deposits and salt and freshwater organic soils. The soil
map (Figure A2.4-l) and key to this map are presented in
Appendix 2.4. Interpretive data for the various soil areas
can also be found in Appendix 2.4.
2—5
-------
2.5 WATER RESOURCES
The Metropolitan Sewerage District (MSD), which is oper-
ated and maintained by the Sewerage Division of the Metropoli-
tan District Commission (MDC), serves an area which coincides
with the natural drainage area of Boston Harbor. Included in
the MDC service area are the Mystic, Neponset, and Weymouth
watersheds, and a portion of the Charles River watershed. In
addition, segments of the Sudbury, Concord and Shawsheen
watersheds, which drain to the Merrimack River, are included
within the MSD. Expansion proposed by the EMMA Study would
significantly increase the area within the Sudbury basin tied
into the MDC sewerage system. Figure 2.5—1 presents an over-
view of the watersheds found in the MSD.
Extensive groundwater resources underlie the major rivers
of this region. The most productive aquifers, in terms of
both water quantity and quality, are buried valleys of glacial
drift.
This section presents information on the water resources
within the MSD including physical chracteristics, existing
water quality, water supply and use, the relationship between
water quantity and quality, and proposed or existing water
quality management plans.
2.5.1 Boston Harbor
Boston Harbor (Figure 2.5-2) is traditionally defined as
the area subject to the rise and fall of the tide lying inside
the line drawn from Point Allerton in Hull northwest to
the Boston Harbor Light and then to the southeastern point
of Deer Island. It encompasses an area of approximately 130
sq km (50 sq mi), has 290 km (180 mi) of tidal shoreline, and
contains 30 islands covering 485 ha (1200 acres).
Boston Harbor may be divided into the Inner Harbor,
which receives flows from the Charles and Mystic rivers; the
Outer Harbor including Dorchester Bay, which receives flows
from the Neponset River; Quincy Bay; and Bingham Bay, into
which the Weymouth Fore, Back and Weir rivers drain. The
total fresh wate inflow from these tributary streams ranges
from 0.6 to 85 m’/sec 20 to 3000 cfs), with an average sum-
mer flow of 10 to 14 nr’/sec (350 to 500 cfs). Wastewater
discharges from the Nut Island and Deer Island sewage treat-
ment plants are an additional major source of freshwater
inflow to th Harbor. Total discharge from both plants aver-
aged 1.75x10° m 3 /D (462 xngd) for the period 1971—1975.
2—6
-------
MASSACHUSETTS BAY
5 0 5
KILOMETERS
3 0 3
MILES
LEGEND
WATERSHED BOUNDARY
MSD BOUNDARY
8
ç,c
FIGURE 2.5-1 WATERSHEDS WITHIN THE EXPANDED
METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
-------
0 ’
/Horbor Limit
-j
Low.ll
islorid
1,
M—4o St
q Hon
Ligh
/ 7
,Hinghom
.‘ , Oy
!I
Grap. isiond
6
0
Boy
Bumkin
Island
C
Wsir ..-
Riv•r
1 0
K 110 METE iS
0.5 0 0.5
BOSTON HARBOR
Ds.r
Fluts
D.sr Island
,
/
/
/
_7—
PRESIDENT ROADS —,
— Gallops
Is
0
FILURE 2 5-2
-------
Water depths in the Harbor generally range from 3 to 15
in (10 to 50 ft) mean low water depth (MLWD); however, exten-
sive Harbor areas have depths less than 4.5 in (14.8 ft) NLWD.
An average depth fluctuation of 2.9 in (9. ft) , resulting
from a tidal interchange averaging 9062 in /sec (320,000 of 5),
occurs over the tidal cycle. As a result of this exchange,
tidal flow controls the hydraulic and salinity characteristics
of Boston Harbor (Process Research, 1976).
Theoretical flushing time for the Harbor is approximately
two tidal cycles, or just under 24 hours. However, the Harbor
does not respond in this manner due to the intricate network
of islands and inlets creatingpoor circulation patterns. Fig-
ures 2.5—3 and 2.5—4 present a generalized picture of tidal
flow within the Harbor. The reader is referred to the Boston
Harbor Tidal Charts (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adiiini-
stration, 1974) for detailed current velocity patterns. A
discussion of Harbor flushing is presented in Section 3.2.2.B.
A. Water Use . Boston Harbor is the largest seaport in New
England. Two major shipping channels, President Roads and
Natasket Roads, provide access, respectively, to port facili-
ties in the Inner Harbor and the Weymouth Fore River. Port
facilities in Boston Harbor consist of 156 piers, wharves
and docks, 29 of which are designed for petroleum products
handling. One of the largest shipbuilding yards on the
Atlantic coast is located on the Weymouth Fore River in
Quincy (New England River Basins Commission, 1975).
Recreation is the additional major use of the Boston
Harbor’s waters. There are about 42 beaches totalling approxi-
mately 30.9 km (19.2 mi) along the Harbor’s irregular shore-
line. Numerous anchorages for recreational boating exist
throughout the Harbor. In addition, the proposed Boston Har-
bor Islands Comprehensive Plan (Metropolitan Area Planning
Council, 1972) calls for the development of many Harbor islands
as recreational areas. However, the continued and future use
of Boston Harbor as a recreational resource, as well as its
potential as a fishing and sheilfishing resource, is dependent
upon the quality of its waters.
Polluted water precludes shellfish harvesting in many
areas and the effective development of the Harbor as a recre-
ational resource. Furthermore, the Harbor suffers a concom-
mitant loss of scenic and aesthetic qualities from its degraded
water quality.
B. Water Quality . The State of Massachusetts has established
water quality classifications for Boston Harbor as part of the
classification of all State waters and prescribed rules and
regulations for maintaining these classifications (Commonwealth
of Massachusetts, 1974: see Appendix 2.5-1). Figure 2.5-5 pre-
sents designated and existing water quality classifications for
the various Harbor sections.
2—9
-------
Boy
Deer stand
/
/
/
/
,----
Um t
- .-.__
41 Harbor
Light
George $
Island
__1—_
— —- -s-—
0
K ILOMETERS
0.5 0 0.5
Ir
MILES
FIGURE 2.5-3
BOSTON HARBOR CURRENTS
MAXIMUM FLOOD TIDE
-------
Deer Island
Gollop
lsIond
/
6’
— I’
PRESIDENT ROADS /
-
Sp is6 ci e
Quincy Bay
‘I
,----
/
,, 1 Harbor Limit
-S —
\ Lowell
island
-S. —
Georges
i lgnd
‘C,—
Point
KILOMETERS
0.5 0 0.5
MILES
FIGURE 2.5-4 BOSTON HARBOR CURRENTS
MAXIMUM EBB TIDE
-------
LEG END
WATER USE CI ASSIFICATION
1976 CONDITION
CLOSED
TO SHELLFISHING
/ #‘ -.-
—,,
————--—---——
— Gallops
Is I a nd
Harbo ’ Limit
Lowell
Os tori
— Harbor
Light
0
0.5 0 0.5
-I
FIGURE 2.5-5 EXISTING
Island
6
AND DESIGNATED
HARBOR
0
Deer
Island
‘I
/
‘I
/
PRESIDENT ROADS
,-
WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATIONS BOSTON
-------
The majority of the Harbor is meeting its present water
quality classification, with the exception of sections of
Quincy Bay, Hingham Harbor and Boston Harbor north of Logan
Airport. Meeting a water quality classification is not, how-
ever, indicative of “good” water quality. Class SC waters
are unsuitable for contact recreation and sheilfishing.
Swimming is permitted in SB waters, but shellfish taken from
these waters are required to undergo depuration. The State
is presently reviewing water quality standards and revisions
may be forthcoming.
Water quality is presently a major problem in Boston
Harbor with the prime influencing factors being municipal
wastewater and sludge discharges and combined sewer overflows.
Additional Harbor degradation results from raw waste discharges
industrial discharges, urban runoff, and degraded quality of
tributary mt low and the accumulation of debris, refuse, and
oil discharges (Process Research, 1976).
Boston Harbor receives discharges of effluent and sludge
from the MDC regional wastewater treatment facilities located
on Deer Island and Nut Island. Both facilities receive a
mixture of domestic and industrial wastes and provide primary
treatment consisting of screening, grit removal, prechiorina—
tion, pre—aeration, primary sedimentation, and post chlorina-
tion prior to discharge. In addition, sludge is anaerobically
digested prior to disposal in the Harbor (MDC Sewerage Division,
1976). Effluent discharge characteristics summaries are pre-
sented in Table 2.5-1 and 2.5-2. Sludge characteristics are
given in Table 2.5—3. Figure 2.5-6 shows outfall locations.
In operation since 1952, the Nut Island Sewage Treatment
Plant serves 59 percent of the total MSD service area and 36
percent of its population. Plant effluent is discharged
through two main outfalls extending approximately 1829 in
(6000 ft) from the Island’s north shore. Two additional out-
falls - running 427 m (1400 ft) northwest and 143 in (468 ft)
east from the plant - discharge during high flow periods.
Following anaerobic digestion sludge is disposed of through
a pipeline extending 6.8 km (4.2 mi) from the treatment plant
into deep tidal water on the south side of President Roads
(MDC Sewerage Division, 1976).
The Deer Island Sewage Treatment facility commenced
operations in 1968 and serves, respectively, 64 and 41 per-
cent of the population and area within the MSD. Two main
outf ails discharge a mixture of chlorinated effluent and
digested sludge into President Roads. Three emergency out-
falls successively discharg when influent flow rates exceed
1.51, 1.89 and 2.27 x iø6 m”/day (400, 500 and 600 mgd) (MDC
Sewerage Division, 1976).
2—13
-------
TABLE 2.5—i
NUT ISLAND EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 AVG
Average Daily Flow, 5 5 5
in 3 /d 4.84x10 5 5.45x10 5.26x10 5.22x10 5 4.66z10 5.09
(ingd) (128.0) (143.9) (138.9) (137.8) (123.0) (l34.
Maximum Daily Flow,
m 3 /d 7.l2x] 0 5 8.0x10 5 7.9x10 5 6.62x10 5 5.48x10 5 7.18x
(mgd) (188.2) (211.2) (208.8) (174.8) (144.7) (189.t
Suspended Solids, mg/i 106 121 114 103 113 111.4
Z Removal 46.7 44.5 54 48.5 45.9 47.9
Grease’ mg/i 22.0 22.1 24.4 22.0 22.5 22.6
Z Removal 35.7 32.8 45.5 38.9 30.8 36.7
Settleabie Solids, mg/i 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.6 1.2 0.7
% Removal 98.9 90.3 94.9 92.5 87.0 91.7
BOD 5 , mg/i 108 95 88 119 122 106.4
% Removal 23.9 24.6 29 21.2 17.0 23.1
1—Petroleum ether solubles
Source; MDC Sewerage Division, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976
2—14
-------
TABLE 2.5—2
DEER ISLAND EFFLUENT CEARACTERISTICS
1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 AVG .
Aver ge Daily Flow, 6 6 6
m /d l.25x10” l.30x10 l.l3xlO l.iixiO i.25xl0’ i.21x10 6
(nigd) (330.0) (343.2) (298.3) (293.0) (330.0) (319.4)
Maximum Daily Flow, 6 6 6
m 3 /d 2.31x10 2.20x10 l.79x10” l.75x10 6 l.88x10 6 l.99x10
(ingd) (609.8) (580.8) (472.6) (462.0) (496.3) (525.4)
Suspended Solids, mg/i 76 69 56 68 74 68.6
Z Removal 43.2 47.3 56 59 45 501
Grease 1 mg/i 15.5 10.9 11.3 11.7 15.7 13.0
Z Removal 46.1 45.7 48 54 44 47.6
Settleable Solids, mg/i 1.15 1.28 0.86 0.88 0.9 1.01
% Removal 73.5 66.5 78 82 82 76.4
BOD 5 ,mg/l 118.5 94.5 88 107 95 100.6
% Removal 26.9 30.0 33 34 30 30.8
1—Petroleum either solubles
Source: )fl C Sewerage Division, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976
2—15
-------
TABLE 2.5—3
MDC TREATMENT PLANTS
SLUDGE CHARACTERISTICS
Deer Island Nut Island
Raw Digested Raw Digested
Heavy Metals Mm. Max. Mm. Max. Mm. Max. Mm. Max .
Arsenic 0.9 1.4 0.3 3 1 1.5 0.4 5
Cadmium 20 42 18 36 2.4 4.6 6 11
Copper 430 940 580 920 180 490 720 830
Total Chromium 170 520 390 620 66 77 140 220
Lead 30 130 170 180 120 160 220 380
Mercury 1.4 62 3 6 1.1 2.4 7 8
Nickel 11 100 74 141 16 28 48 67
Silver 34 52 68 72 1.1 1.7 3 3
Zinc 210 1600 680 2000 560 1100 1400 1600
Soluble Components
Chlorides 2500 3400 2100 2800 280 370 320 330
Hardness 900 1200 2200 2600 180 200 1000 1000
Sulfate 860 8800 600 900 270 500 300
Potassium 96 180 120 200 77 110 80 120
Sodium ——— ——— 1650 1800 ——— ——— 225 300
Boron 1 1 2 10 4 4 3 5
Specific Conductance 12000 17000 11000 13000 2300 5600 3100 5900
Volatile Solids
COD 1.41 1.59 1.62 2.10 1.26 1.60 1.23 1.61
BOD 0.22 0.39 0.62 0.74 0.40 0.72 0.12 0.43
Reat Value 2.8 x 1O 2.9 x IO 2.4 lO 2.6 x io 2.3 x 2.7 x io6 2.2 x iO 2.95 x lO
TKN 0.06 0.07 0.032 0.050 0.036 0.40 0.075 0.100
P 0.015 0.016 0.010 0.011 0.009 0.013 0.023 0.024
SOURCE: Havens and Emerson, 1973
UNITS: Heavy Metals: mg/kg dry solids Volatile Solids: kg/kg volatile total solids
Soluble Components: mg/l Heat Value: BTU/kg volatile total solids
Specific Conductance: micromhos/cm @ 25°C (77°F)
-------
LEGEND
AREAS WITH COMBINED SEWER
OVERFLOW
AREAS WITH STORM SEWER OUTLETS
POINT SOURCE: S E TABLE 2.5-4
Rairisferd
Island
—
—
0
X ILOMETERS
0.5 0 0.5
MILE
Quincy Bay
Hingham
/ løy
I I Grap. Island
6
SOURCE LORDet al., 97O; Water Quality Section,
FIGURE 2.5-6
DISCHARGES
BOSTON HARBOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT COUNCIL. INC.
-------
TABLE 2.5-4
BOSTON HARBOR MAJOR DISCHARGES
Figure 2.5—6
Reference
No. Discharger Descri:ption
1 *MDC Deer Island STP Primary effluent
I A *MDC Deer Island STP Emergency Screened and Chlorinated
Outfall sewage
2 *}fDC Deer Island STP Digested primary sludge
3 *MDC Nut Island STP Primary effluent
3A *MDC Nut Island STP Emergency Chlorinated sewage
Outfall
4 *WDC Nut Island STP Digested primary sludge
5 *Cjty of Boston Moon Island Intermittant combined
Holding Tanks sewer overflows on
outgoing tide
6 *Gjllette Co. Cooling waters
7 *MAssachusetts Bay Transportation Cooling waters, boiler
Authority blowdown
8 *Boston Edison Cooling water, boiler
blowdown
9 *Pier 6 — Fish Pier Fishing wastes
10 *Great Atlantic and Pacific Cooling water
Tea Company
11 *Beth lehem Steel Shipyard cooling water
and storm drains
12 *New England Aquarium Recirculation water from
specimen tanks
13 *Cities Service Oil Terminal Oil storage and distributcA
14 *General Dynamics Corp. Shipbuilding
15 *Boston Edison Co., Edgar Station Cooling water
16 *Proctor and Gamble Co. Detergent manufacture
17 *White Fuel Terminal Oil storage and distributol
18 *Logan Airport Stormwater runoff
SOURCE: Process Research, 1976; Water Quality Section, 1976
*NPDES Permit Issued
2—18
-------
Both treatment facilities have problems handling exces-
sive flows due to storm water runoff and infiltration and
inf low into the sewer system. The Nut I land Treatment Plant
was designed for an av rage flow 4.24x10 m 3 /d (112 mgd) and
a peak flow of l.14x10° m’ 1 /d (300 mgd). As Table 2.5-1 shows,
the average daily design flow is already exceeded, thereby
causing a reduction in treatment efficiency. In addition,
when influent rates exceeds 9.46x10 5 m 3 /d (250 mgd) low quality
effluent, receiving only pre-chlorination, is discharged through
the emergency outfall to Quincy Bay.
Deer Island’s de igi and peak flows are l.30x10 6 m 3 /d
(343 mgd) and 3.21x10° xn-’/d (848 mgd) respectively. While
average daily design flow has not been exceeded in the past
five years, design capacity can easily be exceeded during
severe storms. In addition, it has been estimated (Hydro-
science, 1971) that 25 percentof total influent flow is due
to salt water intrusion. This inflow has created operation
and maintenance problems, particularly in sludge digesters
(Havens and Emerson, 1973).
The MDC treatment facilities discharge significant quanti-
ties of toxic metals* into Boston Harbor in their effluents.
Table 2.5—5 summarizes this metals discharge. In addition,
large quantities of metals are present in the sludge discharge.
Sampling activities by the New England Aquarium (Gilbert,
et al., 1972) found particularly high water column concentra-
tions of toxic metals in the Inner Harbor and in President
Roads. Likewise, sediment concentrations of metals in the
Inner Harbor, along the nearshore area of Dorchester Bay, in
Deer Island Flats, and in Quincy Bay near the Moon and Nut
islands overflows were found to be excessive. (See Table
2.5-6 . In general, areas in the vicinity of treatment plant
•óutfalls and combined sewer outlets exhibited metals enrich-
ment. While the nearshore enrichment is due to combined
sewer overflows, the report concluded that the primary treat-
ment plant discharges are a major source of metals contamina-
tion in the Outer Harbor Area. Tables 2.5—6 and 2.5-7 summar-
ize metals found in Harbor waters and sediments.
The combined sewer area within the MSD encompasses a
densely population urban area within Metropolitan Boston.
All or parts of five communities (Boston, Brookline, Cambridge,
*pursuant to Section 307(a) (1) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 a list
of toxic pollutants was published in the Federal Register on
January 31, 1978. The following metals, and compounds containing
them, are listed as toxic pollutants: antimony, arsenic, beryl-
lium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium,
silver, thallium, and zinc.
2—19
-------
Influent and Effluent cottcefltratiOfl8 are average of monthly values for
reported by MDC and NPDES Compliance Monitoring Reports
Nut Island Flow — 5.18x10 5 m 3 /d (136.9 mgd)
Deer Island Flow — 12.1x10 6 m 3 /d (319.4 mgd)
period 12—75 through 9—77
TABLE 2.5—5
MDC TREATMENT PLANTS
TOXIC METALS
NUT ISLAND
DEER ISLAND
Metal
Influent
mg/i
Effluent
mg/i
Removal
Percent
Mass
KG/Day
Discharge
(lb/day)
Enfluent
mg/i
Effluent
m i/i
Removal
Percent
Mass
KG/Day
Discharge
(lb/day)
Cadmium
0.0176
0.0119
32.0
6.2
(13.7)
0.021
0.019
9.5
23.0
(50.7)
Chromium
0.051
0.041
24.4
21.2
(46.7)
0.147
0.108
26.5
130.7
(288.2)
Copper
0.618
0.324
47.6
167.6
(369.6)
0.246
0.357
—45.1
432.2
(953.0)
Lead
0.104
0.074
28.8
38.3
(84.4)
0.157
0.131
16.6
158.6
(349.7)
‘
Mercury
Nickel
0.00198
0.889
0.00124
0.291
37.4
562
064
150.6
(1.4)
(332.1)
0.0124
0.115
0.011
0.131
11.3
—13.1
1.33
158.6
(2.9)
(349.7)
Zinc
0.431
0.376
87.2
194.6
(429.1)
0.777
0.488
37.2
590.7
(1302.5)
-------
TABLE 2.5—6
METALS IN BOSTON HARBOR WATERS
Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Nickel Zinc
Inner Harbor 0.42 1.90 5.0 5.4 7.8 40.2
ND 2.12 1.8 6.4 1.6 3.7
President Roads 0.46 0.5 5.2 2.0 8.2 11.6
ND 3.2 1.6 3.5 1.9 7.5
Dorchester Bay 0.24 0.3 2.6 2.0 4.7 11.2
ND 4.5 0.8 2.4 1.8 1.7
Thompson—Long 0.20 0.5 2.2 1.9 6.8 9.0
Island Area ND 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.3 1.8
SOURCE: Gilbert, T., et al., 1972
All values pg/1
First value soluble phase
Second value particulate phase (solids greater than 1 t)
ND = Not Determined
2—21
-------
SOURCE: Gilbert,T., et al., 1972
All values are averages in mg/i for surface sediment layer.
METALS IN
TABLE 2.5-7
BOSTON I3JtRBOR SEDIMENTS
Deer Flats
Dorchester Bay
Thompson—Long
Island Area
Quincy
Ringham Bay
Area east of
Long Island
Cadmium
Chromium
c2pper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
6.7
213.8
120.5
97.0
37.8
221.2
5.3
132.9
85.1
106.0
31.4
199.4
4.3
126.0
93.6
122.3
25.3
296.0
4.0
212.0
143.0
129.0
35.4
223.4
2.2
81.6
67.0
108.3
24.5
128.0
3.7
109.3
88.6
87.8
27.6
145.6
2—22
-------
Chelsea, and Somerville), covering approximatelY 50 sq km
(19.2 sq mi) are served by one of the oldest combined sewer
systems in this country. During periods of runoff (rainfall
and/or snowmelt) these combined sewers may become hydrauli-
cally overloaded, resulting in overflows which are discharged
to both the Harbor and its tributaries.
Approximately 125 combined sewer outlets discharge to
Boston Harbor and its tributaries. Seventy-f lye overflows
are from the City of Boston sewer system, while 18 overflow
points are associated with the MDC interceptor system (New
England Division, Corps of Engineers, l975c).
The extent of overflow is primarily a function of storm-
water flows, which are, in turn, dependent upon the rainfall
intensity and duration, antecedent conditions in the tribu-
tary area, and the hydraulic capacity of the sewer system.
Frequency of overflows has been calculated (U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, Region I, 1971) and these are presented
in Table 2.5—8. These calculations indicate overflows to be
a common occurrence from many combined sewers.
A quality comparison of combined sewer overflows, sur-
face runoff and effluents discharged from the MDC treatment
facilities is presented in Table 2.5-9. It is easily deduced
from these data that combined sewer overflows have major
impacts on the quality of its receiving water. The problem
is not, however, the overall volume of pollution discharged.
This is relatively small compared to the total volume of
receiving water in the Harbor. Rather the intermittent dis-
charge of undisinfected fecal wastes, floating debris and
solids presents a threat to the health and aesthetics of the
Harbor. Both the Inner Harbor and Dorchester Bay are seri-
ously affected by these loadings.
Sampling activities (Water Quality Section, 1973) within
the Inner Harbor suggest a strong correlation between rainfall
hence overflows, and coliform counts. A typical Inner Harbor
station recorded coliforin counts ranging from 240-930x10 3 MPN/
100 ml on three separate days when 1.27 cm (0.5 inches) of
rain or more had occurred within the previous 36 hours. Total
coliform counts ranged from 24-90x10 3 MPN/l00 ml at the same
station on three other days when rainfall totals were less
than .25 cm (0.1 inches) in the previous 36 hours. The im-
plication from these data is an increase in total coliform
county by a factor of 100 when increased rainfall resulted in
increased combined sewer overflows (Metcalf and , 1975g).
High coliform counts are the primary cause of the Inner
Harbor water quality classification of SC. This classifica-
tion is, however, sufficient for its present predominant use
2—23
-------
TABLE 2.5-8
FREQUENCY OF OVERFLOWS PER YEAR C 4 EACH
COMBINED SYS 4 (1)
Number of Overflow Occurrences
Per Year
Na of Interceptor 1970 1995 2020
Alewife Brook Sewer, Cambridge 8 8 8
Alewife Brook Sewer, Somerville 1 1 4
Cambridge Branch Sewer, Cambridge—
Charles River, R.M . 6.0 to 1.7 2 10 11 Li
Cambridge Branch Sewer, Cambridge—
Charles River, R.M. 1.7 to 1.2 35 35 35
South Charles System, Boston 0 0 0
B.U. Chlorination and Detention Chamber 3 56 61 64
Boston Marginal Conduit Charles River,
RN. 2.8 to 1.2 11 11 11
Boston Marginal Conduit Charles River,
R,M. 2.8 32 35 38
Boston Marginal Conduit Charles River-
Tidewater 50 65 88
Somerville—Medford Branch Sever, Somerville 72 79 80
Cambridge Branch Sewer, Somerville 46 49 50
N. Metropolitan Sewer, Chelsea 7 18 27
Chelsea Branch Sewer, Chelsea 63 66 71
Charlestown Branch Sewer, Charlestown 45 47 50
E. Boston Branch Sewer, B. Boston 26 27 27
East Boston Low Level Sewer and Moore St.
interceptor 24 26 27
East Side Interceptor, Boston 69 90
2—24
-------
TABLE 2.5—8 (Continued)
1970 1995 2020
Roxbury Canal Sewer, Rcxbury 2 3 3
Dorchester Brook Sewer, Dorchester 44 47 51
S. Boston Interceptor, S. Boston 46 46 46
Neponset River Valley Sewer and 5 5
Dorchester Interceptor, Dorchester 93 0 0
1
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, 1971.
2 Assumes completion of the North Charles Relief Sewer which is presently
under construction
3 mese are the rainfall intensities and the number of times overflows to
the detention chamber occur. In many cases, overflows to the river will
not occur.
4 Continuous overflow of 4 cfs dry weather flow in 2020.
5 continuous overflow of 4 cfs dry weather flow in 1995 and 15 cfs dry weather
flow in 2020.
2— 25
-------
TABLE 2.5—9
GENERAL QUALITY CC* PARISON OF WASTEWATERS
Suspended
30D 5 Solids Total Coliforms
ix g/l mg/i MPN/100 ml
Combined Sewage
Average 1 115 410 x io 6
First Flush 1 170—182 330—848 1.5 to 310 x io6
Extended Flush 1 26—53 113—174 1.5 to 310 x io6
Surface Runoff’ 30 630 4 x 10
Deer Island Plant
Effluent 2 100 69 (3)
Nut Island Plant
Effluent 2 106 111 (3)
1. Metcalf and Eddy, 1974
2. See Tables 2.5—1 and 2.52
3. Negligible due to disinfection.
2—26
-------
as a major commercial waterway. Nevertheless, a water qual-
ity of the Inner Harbor is degraded and these waters represent
a continuing source of bacterial contamination to the entire
Harbor.
The relationship between rainfall and coliform counts
found to exist in the Inner Harbor was also found valid for
Dorchester Bay. In addition, a modelling effort (Process
ResearcI 1974) to determine the major sources of Dorchester
Bay bacteria contamination concluded discharges from Deer
and Nut islands were not contributing to the Dorchester Bay
beach problems. The primary cause of Dorchester Bay’s pol-
lution was isolated as combined sewer overflows.
High coliform counts following significant rainfall
efents seriously effect the Bay’s use as a recreational and
shelifishing resource. Recommendations have been made (Mass.
Dept. of Public Health, 1970) to restrict bathing in Dorches-
ter Bay during periods of low tides and after rainfalls of
certain minimum intensities. Roughly 87 percent of the pro-
ductive softshell clam habitat, 3.9 sq km (1.5 sq ml), are
grossly contaminated and closed to all sheilfishing activi-
ties. Shellfish taken from the remaining areas are required
to undergo depuration prior to consumption (Testaverde and
Richards, 1971).
Two major raw waste discharges exist in Boston Harbor
in addition to combined sewer overflows, the Moon Island
flolding Facility and sewage from the Town of Hull.
The City of Boston operates the Calf Pasture Pumping
Station and the Moon Island detention facility. During per-
iods of high runoff the pump station is activated and diverts
a maximum of about 5.9x10 5 m 3 /d (155 mgd) to Moon Island’s
holding tanks to prevent overflows in the immediate shoreline
area. Detained overflows are held until 1 hour after high
tide and then discharged on the outgoing tide for a maximum
period of 3 hours. This discharge is chlorinated during the
months of May through September. These discharge procedures
are outlined in the City of Boston’s NPDES discharge permit
for the Moon Island facility (New England Division, Corps
of Engineers, 1975c).
Raw discharge occurs about 25 times per year from Moon
Island (Kennedy Engineers, 1976) and this has been implicated
in pollution incidents in Quincy Bay. Indeed, the Quincy
Health Department closes Quincy Bay beaches following these
discharges (New England Division, Corps of Engineers, 1975).
2—27
-------
The Town of Hull presently discharges untreated combined
sewage and urban runoff through a total of 13 outfalls into
Hinghaiu and Massachusetts bays (Silva, 1977). A new second-
ary treatment facility is presently under construction in the
town. The l.2x10 4 m 3 /d (3.2 mgd) plant will discharge efflu-
ent through a single outfall into Massachusetts Bay while
incinerating sludge. In addition, storm and sanitary sewer
flows are being separated. This plant was expected to begin
servicing the Town in April, 1978; however, the partially com-
pleted facility was damaged by a severe winter storm early in
1978 and it is not known when the plant will commence opera-
tion (Mc Donald, 1978).
In 1975, the Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution
Control surveyed direct discharges to Boston Harbor. In
addition to the discharges from Deer and Nut islands, this
study (Water Quality Section, 1976) found seven other indus-
tries discharging into the Harbor, and these consisted mostly
of cooling waters and storm drain water. Table 2.5-4 presents
discharge locations and a description of the industrial source,
while Figure 2.5-6 gives the spatial distribution of these
sources.
A Harbor shoreline survey (Lord, et al., 1970) identified
130 street drains (32 percent of the total discharge points
found) discharging into Boston Harbor. This discharge, and
urban runoff in general, has traditionally been considered as
non—polluting to receiving waters. However, recent studies
(Enviro Control, Inc. 1974; USEPA, 1971) have shown that such
flows may contribute a major portion of any water body’s
pollutional load. As Table 2.5-9 indicates, these flows may
contain loads of lower quality than secondary effluent repre-
senting significant slug loadings to the nearshore receiving
waters.
The impact of urban runoff upon the Harbor’s water quali-
ty is difficult, if not impossible, to determine due to the
influence of combined overflows. Quincy Bay, however, receives
no combined overflows (Metcalf and Eddy, 1975g) and a recent
survey by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1975)
indicates Street drain discharge is contributing to bacterial
contamination of Wollaston Beach. Urban runoff may be con-
cluded, therefore, as having a negative impact (of undefined
magnitude) on Harbor water quality in certain areas.
Numerous sources of debris and refuse exist in Boston
Harbor including dilapidated shorefront structures, derelict
wrecked vessels, dumping from ships and pleasure craft, shore-
line dumping, and abandoned shorefront dumps (Spectacle Island).
These have two major adverse effects upon the Harbor: 1)
severe deterioration of Harbor aesthetic qualities, and 2)
hazards to navigation (New England Division Corps of Engineers,
l975c).
2—28
-------
Oil is a major pollutant in Boston Harbor in those waters
proximate to oil terminals, especially along the Chelsea River.
Discharge to sewers is an additional source of Harbor oil pol-
lution. Oil enters sewers from accidental tank or pipeline
leakages, industrial discharges, and deliberate or accidental
dumping into storm sewers. MDC treatment facilities are esti-
mated to be discharging 6.1-6.8 in 3 (1600-1800 gallons) of oil
per day, while the discharge from combined overflow and storm
sewers is unknown (New England Division, Corps of Engineers,
1975c).
C. Water Quality Management Planning for Boston Harbor . The
Federal Water Pollution Control Act I inendments of 1972, Section
303(e), require each state to establish water quality management
plans to cover distinct hydrologic basins within the state.
The purpose of each plan is to prescribe pollution abatement
requirements which will result in water quality appropriate
to the anticipated or desired future uses of the basin’s water.
Both point and non-point sources of pollution should be ad-
dressed in these plans. The Eastern Massachusetts Metropolitan
Area Study (EMMA) has been approved by the Regional Adininistra-
tor for Region I of the EPA as the water quality management
plan for Boston Harbor. (Approval granted in letter dated
September 13, 1976 from John A.S. McGlennon, Regional Admini-
strator, to Thomas C. McMahon, Director Massachusetts Division
of Water Pollution Control (see Appendix 2.5-2).
The recommended EMMA Plan (Metcalf and Eddy, 1975k) envi-
sioned the expansion of the MSD from the current 43 to a total
of 51 member communities. In addition, the plan calls for the
expansion and upgrading to secondary treatment of existing
sewage treatment facilities at Deer and Nut islands, construc-
tion of two satellite treatment plants to service certain out-
lying portions of the expanded MSD, and institution of measures
to alleviate the combined sewer overflow and storm water runoff
problems. Necessary additions and improvements to the inter-
ceptor system, as well as construction staging and costs are
also presented.
In addition to the proposed treatment plan upgrading,
sludge discharge to the Harbor will be terminated. The MDC
is camnitted to the incineration of primary sludge, as outlined
in the report A Plan for Sludge Management by Havens and Emerson,
Consulting Engineers (1973).
2.5.2 Mystic River Watershed
The Mystic River watershed occupies an area of approxi-
mately 179 sq km (69 sq mi) immediately north of the City of
Boston. Elevation within the basin ranges from sea level to
114 meters (374 feet) above sea level and the basin has been
described as being composed of gentle hills (Beauregard, 1975).
2—29
-------
The Mystic River watershed (Figure 2.5-7) ma y be con-
sidered as consisting of three distinct sections: the Aber—
jona River, the Mystic Lakes, and the Mystic River. The
Aberjona River originates on a marshy area in the northern
part of Reading Township and flows in a southerly direction
for 14.8km (8.7 mi) before discharging into the Upper Mystic
Lake. Along its course of travel the Aberjona flows through
numerous wetland areas and receives the flow of three major
tributary streams: Hall’s Brook, Sweetwater Brook, and Horn
Pond Brook. In addition, three river sections are cuiverted
to allow passage under two industrial parks and a high school
athletic field.
Flow measurements of the Aberjona are recorded at the
U.S.G.S. gaging station located just downstream of the conflu-
ence of the Aberjona River and Horn Pond Brook in Winchester.
Average daily flow at this station for the period 1939-1975
was 0.77 m 3 /s (27.3 cfs). Discharge extremes range from a
maximum dischar9e of 24.2 zn 3 /s (855 Cf s) to a one day low
flow of 0.007 in / (0.25 cf s) (U.S.G.S., 1976). In addition,
the Aberjona has a 7 day low flow with a 10 year recurrence
interval of 001 m 3 /s (0.42 cfs) (New England Division, Corps
of Engineers, ].975c). Approximately 34 percent of the total
Mystic River watershed area contributes to these flows.
The Upper and Lower Mystic Lakes separate the Aberjona
and Mystic River systems. Upper Mystic Lake occupies 0.67
sq km (0.26 sq mi) within three communities. Two small bays
are located in series near the lake’s inlet and are separated
from the main body by a narrow neck. Bottom contours of the
main body approximate a bowl with steep gradients descending
to a maximum depth of 25 in (82 feet). Flows from the Upper
Lake discharge over a spiliway and drop approximately 18 in
(6 feet) to the Lower Lake.
Lower Mystic Lake covers an area of 0.36 sq km (0.14
sq mi). Two deep holes, with maximum depths of 21.3 m (70
feet) and 13.8 in (45 feet) dominate this lake’s bottom con-
figuration. A single tributary, Mill Brook, flows into Lower
Mystic Lake at its southwest shore.
Discharge from the Lower Mystic Lake forms the Mystic
River which flows 12 km (7.4 mi) in a southeastern direction
to Boston Harbor. Alewife Brook is tributary to the river
entering about 1.6 km (1 mi) downstream of Lower Mystic Lake
while Maiden River joins the Mystic above the Amelia Earhart
Darn. The dam, located 3.2 kin (2 mi) upstream of the River’s
mouth, separates fresh and tidal waters in the River. There
is little elevation change along the Mystic’s course and if
not for the meiia Earhart Darn, the entire River would be
subject to tidal elevation changes (Beauregard, 1975).
2—30
-------
WATERSHED LOCATION
L1
I
SOURCI:
Boston Inn.r Harbor
FIGURE 2.5-7 MYSTIC RIVER WATERSHED
-------
There areno flow ga ges on the Mystic; however estimates
of flow for this river have been made based upon flows recorded
at the Aberjona River gage. These estimates (Beauregard, 1975),
which range from 3.1 to 34 times the Aberjona gage reading,
yield an average Mystic River flow of 2.38 to 2.61 xn 3 /s (84 to
92 ft 3 /s) at its mouth. Corresponding maximum and minimum
f lows were estimated to be 75.0 to 82.3 m 3 /sec (2650 to 2907
cfs) and 0.022—0.024 m 3 /s (0.78—0.85 cfs) respectively. The
7 day, 10 year low flow resulting from these estimates is
0.037 to 0.040 1n 3 /s (1.3 to 1.4 cfs).
Extreme flood flows have caused problems within the basin.
Major flood damage has occurred throughout the Mystic River
watershed on four different occasions: March, 1936; August,
1955; October, 1962; and March, 1968. Problem areas along
the tributaries are due to local conditions and backwater ef-
fects. Significant problem areas include (New England River
Basins Commission, 1975):
1) the floodplain along Horn Pond Brook from the
Woburn—Winchester line to its confluence with
the Aberjona River;
2) the lower portion of Mill Brook in Arlington;
3) the area along Alewife Brook from the Mystic
River to Little Pond; and
4) areas along the mainstem of the Mystic River.
Within the Mystic River basin lies a preglacial valley
known as the Merrimack—Mystic Valley which extends from Lowell
through Woburn and Winchester and is contiguous with the Aber-
jona River in many reaches (see Figure 2.5-8). Large sand and
gravel deposits are contained within this valley, and these
provide ground water supplies to many users in the upper water-
shed. (Beauregard, 1975). Additionally, a ground water reser-
voir exists in the lower Mystic basin town of Everett. This
is the only aquifer, however, with development potential in
the lower part of the basin.
A. Water Use . Drinking water is supplied to most basin com-
munities and industries by the MDC. Two conununities, however,
utilize ground water sources for drinking water supplies. The
wn of Woburn regulates the water level in Horn Pond to maintain
recharge to its gravel packed wells located around the pond
perimeter. Winchester relies both on ground water supplies
and its three surface water reservoirs. Approximately 5.5 x
IO m 3 (l4.5x10 6 gals) of ground water is withdrawn daily in
the upper Mystic watershed for industrial, commercial and
municipal use. No water is drawn directly from the Aberjona
2—32
-------
- - -. \
I
N •
LEGEND
NJ
f. CDS!I?$
i wC r
g° i;.’:
, •tU’—
: T! & _ 1L
. “ ‘: :‘‘ “ ‘
P IL!C giti -
SOURCE:MAPC Wat.r Ouatity Pro •ct Mop
FIGURE 2.5.-8
GROUNDWATER FAVORABILITY
MYSTIC RIVER WATERSHED
(
MILES
1.51.50 1
I I I
21012
KM
-------
River, Mystic Lake, or the freshwater portion of the Mystic
River for municipal or industrial use due to the predominantly
low flow conditions found in the watershed.
Table 2.5—10 presents water supply needs in the Mystic
River watershed. Projected 1990 water demand (New England
River Basins Commission, 1975) indicates all eleven towns
within the watershed will be supplied by the MDC if present
use patterns continue. An earlier water supply study (New
England Division, Corps of Engineers, 1973) presented similar
results, indicating that those towns within the Mystic water-
shed not presently on MDC water had no alternative to meeting
1990 demand other than supply by the MDC.
The Mystic River is heavily used for non-contact recrea-
tion; however, swimming is prohibited due to high coliform
counts. Both the Aberjona River and the Mystic Lakes are
open to swimming, but their use for this type of recreation
is limited. Only the lower body of the Upper Mystic Lake is
of sufficient quality to afford swimming.
As recently as 1970 the Massachusetts Division of Fish-
eries and Game stocked the Upper Mystic Lake with trout.
Stocking was discontinued, however, due to the continuing
decline in water quality creating an unsuitable habitat. In
general, the waters of the Mystic River watershed support
general aquatic animal life and present limited recreational
opportunities due to poor water quality (Beauregard, 1975).
B. Water Quality . Water quality classifications for the
Mystic River watershed are presented in Figure 2.5-9 along
with existing stream classifications. With the exception
of the headwaters of the Aberjona River, most stream segments
do not meet their designated water quality classification.
Major sources of pollutant input to the Mystic River
Basin are urban runoff, combined sewer overflows, and non-
point sources. A number of point source discharges exist;
however, the entire basin lies within the present MSD and,
consequently, most point source discharges are diverted out
of the basin for treatment at Deer Island. Figure 2.5-10 and
Table 2.5-11 present the location and description of known
pollutant sources within the basin.
Urban runoff is a problem throughout the basin. Communi-
ties within the Mystic River watershed are predominantly
urban and suburban in character, with large tracts of imper-
vious area. As a result, storxnwater runoff easily washes
any accumulation of street pollutants into nearby waterways.
2—34
-------
WATERSHED LOCATION
Winchester
L.k.s
LEGEND
o WATER USE CLASSIFICATION
O 1976 CONDITION
CHANGE IN CLASSIFICATION
1 0 1
1
KILOMETEIS
0.5 0 03
MILlS
SOURCE; Wat.r Q &IIy Section.1976d
lostori Innr Harbor
FIGURE 2.5-9 WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATIONS
MYSTIC RIVER WATERSHED
-------
TABLE 2.5—10
WATER SUPPLY NEEDS MYSTIC RIVER WATERSHED’
Township
Existing System, 1970
Safe Yie1d 2 ’
Source m 3 /d (MCD )
Averag,e Demand 1 1990
m /d (MCD)
Design Demand, 1990
m /d (MCD)
Proposed
Additional
Su iv Source
LNew England River Basins Commission, 1975
2 Safe Yield for MDC are estimates of water
approximated its safe yield.
3 Groundwater yield reported as system pumping capacity.
t )
0
Arlington
MDC
25738
(6.80)
31264
(8.26)
31264
(8.26)
MDC
Belmont
MDC
9841
(2.60)
11695
(3.09)
11695
(3.09)
MDC
Chelsea
MDC
13626
(3.60)
13361
(3.53)
13361
(3.53)
MDC
Everett
MDC
30280
(8.00)
35124
(9.28)
35124
(9.28)
MDC
Maiden
MDC
26116
(6.90)
28728
(7.59)
28728
(7.59)
MDC
Medford
MDC
30658
(8.10)
34897
(9.22)
34897
(9.22)
MDC
Meirose
MDC
11355
(3.00)
13209
(3.49)
13209
(349)
MDC
Somerville
MDC
40499
(10.70)
42808
(11.31)
42808
(11.31)
MDC
Stoneham
MDC
12869
3.40)
19947
(5.27)
19947
(5.27)
MDC
Winchester
MDC
Wells
5299
2649
(1.40)
(o.io)
10333
(2.73)
10333
(2.73)
MDC
Woburn
Wells
Horn Pond
31037
(9084)
(8.20)
(2.39)
30204
(7.98)
51968
(13.73)
MDC
volume supplied in 1970 when the total demand on the MDC System
4 Einergency supplies.
-------
WATERSHED LOCATION
FIGURE 2.5-10
POLLUTANT
MYSTIC RIVER WATERSHED
DISCHARGE LOCATIONS
LEGEND
POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
LOCATION
SEE TABLE 2.5—11
Winck.st.r
srvoir
Lok.s
1 0 1
— 1
KILOMETERS
SOURCE I.aursgard 1975
03 0 0.5
MILES
Boston Inner Harbor
-------
TABLE 2.5—11
MYSTIC RIVER WATERSHED DISCHARGES*
Discharger
Discharge
* Exxon Corp.
* Allied Concrete
* Boston Naval Hospital
*Sc aft s Candy Co.
* nstar Corp. Boston Cane
Sugar Refinery
*Re re Sugar Refinery
* U.S. Gypsi m Co.
*Wobu Sanitary Landfill
National Polychemical Co.
Dump
*To of Stoneham
SOuRCE: Water Quality SectIon, 1976
Beauregard, 1975
*! DES Permits Issued
Circuit board plating wastes
Compressor cooling water
Heating/air conditioning
system water
Heating/air conditioning
system water
Turbine cooling water
Cooling water
Cooling water, roof drainage
Cooling water, occasional
sludge from sulfuric acid
tanks
Cooling tower blowdown, boiler
blowdown, equipment wash
water
Yard drainage
Concrete truck rinse water
Boiler blowdown
Cooling water
Cooling water, yard drainage
Cooling water, spent soda
solution from gas scrubber
Sanitary wastes
Leachate from municipal refuse
and accumulated chemical
wastes
Combined overflows from muni-
cipal sewer system
Combined overflows
1 * Systems Printed Circuit Co.
2 * Raytheon Spencer Lab
3 *J}3 Winn
4 * Parkview Apartments
5 Grace & Company,
Dewey & Almy Chemical Division
6 *Spir_it, Inc.
7 *Avco Everett Research Lab
8 * Monsanto, Co.
9 * Boston Edison
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 * City of Cambridge
2—38
-------
In the upper portions of the Aberjona, a 1971 survey
found in excess of 53 street and parking lot drains discharg-
ing to the river (Defeo, 1971 as cited by New England Division,
Corps of Engineers, 1975c). In the lower watershed, portions
of the Mystic River and Alewife Brook run near major parkways
and receive their storinwater runoff. In many areas road salt
is stored near the Mystic and its tributaries and occasional
salt pollution cannot be avoided. In addition, the towns of
Woburn, Winchester and Arlington often dump snow removed from
highways into the Mystic and its tributaries and large amounts
of oil, sand and salt are released to the water when this
snow melts (New England Division, Corps of Engineers, 1975c).
A measure of urban runoff’s impact may be obtained by
comparing sampling data from two comprehensive water quality
surveys, 1967 and 1973 (Beauregard, 1975). Rainfall occurred
during the 1973 sampling, while the 1967 survey was dry.
Increased concentrations of BOD 5 , coliform bacteria, ammonia-
nitrogen and total phosphorus were observed in the Aberjona
in 1973 and attributed to stormwater runoff.
Two areas within the watershed have combined sewer over-
flow problems: Sweetwater Brook, and the Mystic River, in-
cluding Alewife Brook. The town of Stonehain has two combined
sewer overflows into Sweetwater Brook from its municipal
sewage collection system. The magnitude and frequency of
discharge from these outlets is unknown.
Alewife Brook is subject to direct discharge of sewage
from combined overflows which grossly pollute the stream
along its entire length. During the 1973 survey, high coli-
form, ammonia—nitrogen, and total phosphorus levels were found
in all reaches sampled. The decline in water quality in the
Mystic River below its confluence with Alewife Brook has been
attributed to the influx of pollutants from Alewife Brook
(Beauregard, 1975).
Overflows fran the Somerville-Medford Branch Sewer dis-
charge into the Mystic River. The influence of these upon
river water quality can be seen by again comparing 1967 to
1973 survey data. Ammonia-nitrogen, nitrate-nitrogen, and
coliform counts were much higher in 1973 than 1967. Increases
in 1973 are concluded to be the result of precipitation induced
combined overflows (Beauregard, 1975).
Major non-point pollution sources exist near Hall’s Brook
in the upper watershed. National Polychemicals Company manu-
factures organic chemicals used in the plastic industry. Prior
to its tie into MDC sewer system, it discharged its waste to
a swampy area adjacent to its plant. This accumulation of
extremely acidic wastes is a continuous source of discharge
containing high ammonia nitrogen, sulfides, and chlorides to
Hall’s Brook (Beauregard, 1975).
2—39
-------
Industries actively discharging to streams in the basin
discharge predominantly cooling waters. These are not seen
as a major source of pollution.
Ground water quality may be determined from the most
recently published summary of drinking water quality sampling
in Massachusetts (State of Massachusetts, 1975). Eight water
supply wells in Woburn were sampled and had good overall water
quality. Water was shown to be weakly acidic (pH 6.3-6.9) with
moderate (300 iimhos/cm) specific conductance values. Two wells,
however, yielded higher readings (BOO i.irnhos/cm), indicating
infiltration into the aquifer of water with higher than nor-
mal dissolved solids content. In addition, chloride concen-
tration increases paralleled specific conductance increases.
It appears as though low quality water is beginning to infil-
trate into Woburn’s wells. The quality of groundwater with-
drawn for industrial use in the basin is unknown.
The upper Mystic Lake has experienced a continued degra-
dation of water quality in recent years. Eutrophic conditions
exist in part the lake and the nutrient rich Aberjona River
is primarily responsible. Aquatic plants and algae prevail
in the relatively shallow reaches in the summer (Beauregard,
1975).
A 1975 comprehensive survey of the Upper Lake (Chese-
borough and Screpetus, 1975) concluded:
1) The Upper Mystic Lake develops a serious oxygen
deficit below 4.6 m (15 feet) in the summer.
2) The Lake is characterized by high nitrogen con-
centrations, with the Aberjona River as a major
source.
3) Urban runoff and non—point sources affect the
Lake. Particularly striking is the large increase
in chloride concentrations attributed to road
salt runoff during winter months.
4) Transparency of the Lake water is low, and
appears to be caused by suspended solids
entering from the Aberjona River.
5) The Lake’s main basin does not suffer from
massive algal blooms or heavy aquatic plant
growth. However, the shallow northern basins
do experience relatively heavy macrophyte
growth.
2—40
-------
The Lower Mystic Lake suffers severe water quality prob-
lems unique to any lake in Massachusetts (Beauregard, 1975).
Construction of the Amelia Earhart Dam in 1966 has in effect
trapped a saltwater layer in the Lower Mystic Lake, which
has become anaerobic. Below 9 in (29.5 ft) dissolved oxygen
concentrations are zero. Algae and aquatic plants prolifer-
ate during the summer months, and the lake is considered
highly eutrophic.
C. Water Quantity—Quality Problems . Ground water and sur-
face water systems within the upper Mystic River basin are
hydraulically linked. Heavy ground water withdrawals by
industries adjacent to the Aberjona River result in abnormally
low stream flow because of discharge out of the basin via
the MDC sewer system. Low stream flows present water quality
problems due to reduced stream aeration and increased pollu-
tant concentrations. These effects are most pronounced in
the lower portions of the watershed.
Low stream flows, and their associated low stream velo-
cities, from the Aberjona River result in extremely long
detention times for the Mystic Lakes. This presents ideal
conditions for the algae blooms and excessive macrophyte
growths which occur in these lakes during the summer months.
During summer months when little flow is released from the
upstream portions of the basin, the Mystic River is essen-
tially a large lake. Little recreational use occurs and,
because of the high nutrient concentrations, algae and aquatic
plants flourish.
Industrial demand for ground water is expected to remain
relatively constant, and only Woburn’s water supply withdrawals
are expected to increase (Frimpter, 1973a). As a result, low
Uow conditions within the basin are not expected to change
in the near future.
D. Water Quality Management . Ongoing planning activities
that could potentialI y affect the waters of the Mystic River
basin are the 208 area-wide wastewater management planning
and the 303(e) Basin Plan.
The 208 plan deals with institutional arrangements and
non—structural measures to prevent over-development in sensi-
tive environmental areas and to minimize the impact of non-
point sources of pollution. Being conducted by the Metro-
politan Area Planning Council (MAPC) this plan is presently
in its initial phase. As a large portion of this basin’s
problems stein from non-point pollution, it is anticipated
that this activity will help basin water quality.
2—41
-------
The EMMA Study, which included the Mystic River water-
shed, has been accepted as the 303(e) basin plan for this
watershed. Initial EMMA recommendations called for construc-
ting a 7570 m 3 /d (2 mgd) advanced wastewater treatment facili-
ty on the Aberjona River to retain water within the basin
and augment streamf lows. However, the plant was found to be
an uneconomical means of flow augmentation and the proposal
was not carried into the final EMMA recommendations.
2.5.3 Charles River Watershed
The Charles River watershed occupies the central portion
of the Boston Harbor drainage area, covering an area of 788
sq k in (304 sq ml). This area coincides with all or part of
32 municipalities, including a large portion of the City of
Boston. Nine of these towns in the upper watershed - Mu-
ford, Bellingham, Franklin, Medway, Holliston, Millis, Nor-
folk, Wrenthain, and Medfield - are not part of the existing
or proposed expanded MSD.
The watershed (Figure 2.5-11) has a southwest-northeast
orientation with a total length of 50 kin (31 ml) along this
axis while the river has a total length of approximately 129
kin (80 ml) due to its extensive meandering. Total elevation
change from its headwaters to Boston Harbor is approximately
107 in (350 ft). The Charles River Watershed is generally
divided into the Charles River Basin and the Charles Basin.
The former covers 686 sq km (265 sq ml) and extends from the
River’s headwaters to the Watertown dam while the latter is
that portion of the watershed downstream of the Watertown dam
and covers 102 sq km (39 sq mi).
The Charles River originates 40 km (25 ml) southwest of
Boston in the Town of Hopkinton. The river meanders for
approximately 515 km (32 mi) through the nine upper water-
shed towns before entering the MSD. Along this course the
River passes over 5 dams and drops 30.5 in (100 ft). In ad-
dition, five major tributaries - Hopping Brook, Mine Brook,
Mill River, Stop River and Bogastow Brook - join the River
in this reach.
At approximately river kilometer 77 (river mile 48) the
Charles River flows into the MSD. This section of the River
has little natural elevation change, and lies in the back-
water of the South Natick Dam. Below the South Natick Dam,
the River meanders for 9.7 km (6 ml), and turns to the east
as it flows to the Cochrane Dam.
Flow measurements are taken just downstream of the Cochrane
Dam by the U.S.G.S. at the Charles River Village gage. Aver-
age flow, unadjusted for diversions, over 38 years of record
2—42
-------
WATERSHED LOCATION
LII
LINCOLN
WAYLAND
2 0 2
K•LOMETEIS
2 0 2
MILES
ASHLAND
HOPKINTON
SOURCE: Erdmann. Bilger. and Travis 1977
Jamaica Pond
BOSTON
Mother Brook Diversioii
WALPOLE GEND
* U.S.G.S. GAGING STATION
Box Pond,
BELLINGHA
M
FIGURE 2.5- I I CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED
-------
at this location is 8.3 zn 3 /s (295 cfs). Maximum and minimum
flows recorded are 91.2 m 3 /s (3220 cfs) and 0.014 m 3 /s (0.5
of s) respectively (U.S.G.S., 1976), while the 7 day low
flow with a 10 year recurrence interval for this station is
0.33 xn 3 /s (11 cfs) (Walker, Wandle and Caswell, 1976).
The Charles flows east from Charles River Village for
roughly 8 km (5 mi) before coming to Mother Brook. Accord-
ing to Massachusetts law up to one—third of the Charles River
flow can be diverted through Mother Brook to the Neponset
River. Historical records indicate the actual diversion aver-
ages 26 percent. The original purpose of the diversion was
for industrial water use. However, the use of this water in
industrial plants on Mother Brook has ceased and its present
primary purpose is to moderate flood flows in the lower
Charles River watershed. In addition, the diversion has a
major effect on low flow conditions in river reaches of both
rivers below the diversion (New England Division, Corps of
Engineers, 1971).
From this diversion to River flows northwest towards
the Town of Weston before turning east towards Boston Harbor.
Two important tributaries join the River along this reach:
Waban Brook and Stony Brook. Waban Brook originates in
Weston and flows through Nonesuch Pond, Morses Pond and Lake
Waban before entering the Charles in Wellesley. Stony Brook
has its source at Sandy Pond in Lincoln Township and flows
southeast to join the Charles in Waltham The City of Cam-
bridge impounds a large portion of this tributary’s flow in
the Stony Brook Reservoir for water supply (New England Divi-
sion, Corps of Engineers, 1971). The Charles then flows
approximately 8 km (5 mi) from its confluence with Stony Brook
to the Watertown Dam, the Charles River Basin boundary. Along
this stretch of River, flow passes the Moody Street, Bleachery,
and Rolling Stone Dams.
A gaging station is maintained just downstream of the
Moody Street Dam in Waltham. Flow over the 44 years of
record at this site have averaged 8. m 3 /s (290 cfs), while
maximum and minimum flows are 75.6 m Is (2670 cfs) and 0.003
rn 3 /s (0.1 cfs) respectively. All of these flows are less
than those recorded upstream at Charles River Village, re-
flecting the effects of the Mother Brook diversion (U.S.G.S.,
1976).
The Charles Basin (Figure 2.5-12) is a 13.8 km (8.6 mi)
long impoundment of the Charles River located in Metropoli-
tan Boston. The basin extends from the Watertown Dam, at
river kilometer 15.7 (river mile 9.8), to the Charles River
Dam at kilometer 1.9 (mile 1.2). Including major parts of
Boston, Cambridge, Brookline, Newton and Watertown, the basin
is highly urbanized.
2—44
-------
WATERSHED LOCATION
LI
Watertown Dam
Boston Harbor
BOSTON
BROOKLINE
I— Stony
,/‘ Brook Conduit
/
/
/
Turtle Pond
KILOMETERS
0.5 0 03
MILES
SOURCE: Water Quality Section, 1976b
FIGURE 2.5-12 CHARLES BASIN WATERSHED
-------
The Basin more closely resembles a lake than a river.
The upper three-quarters of the Basin is about 3.1 in (10 ft)
deep, with widths varying from 45.7 to 121.9 in (150-400 ft).
Depths in the lower portion average 6.1 in (20 ft), with a
maximum depth of 11.6 in (38 ft), and a maximum width of
670.6 in (2200 ft) (Water Quality Section, 1976). Outflow
from the basin is via sluice gates at the Charles River Dam
discharging to tidewater. Basin elevation is normally main-
tained at 0.73 m (2.38 ft) above mean sea level (MSL), while
tidal stage variation is from 1.4 in (4.6 ft) below MSL to
1.49 in (4.9 ft) above MSL. As the result of this situation
outflow is possible only when the tide is favorable (Water
Quality Section, 1976).
Two major tributaries to the Charles Basin are Stony
Brook, whose source is Turtle Pond in the Stony Brook Reser-
vation in Boston, and Muddy River which flows from Jamaica
Pond along the Boston-Brookline boundary. The Back Bay
Fens is a 2.4 km (1.6 mi) long backwater of the basin at
Charles Gate and is the remains of the 3.03 sq km (1.17 sq
mi) Back Bay which was filled during the mid-nineteenth cen-
tury (Water Quality Section, 1975).
Floods may occur in the Charles River watershed any
season of the year. Early spring rains and snowmelt caused
the floods of March 1936 and March 1968, while heavy summer
rains generated the floods of July 1938 and August 1955. The
river has extensive marshlands throughout its upper reaches
which have a moderating effect upon flood flows, making rain-
fall volume, not intensity, the critical factor determining
flood magnitude (New England Division, Corps of Engineers,
1971b).
The Charles Basin, however, has serious flood problems
due to its impervious nature. High intensity, short dura-
tion storms often cause flood problems. It has been esti-
mated that ninety-percent of peak flood flows in the Charles
Basin originate within the Charles Basin’s watershed (New
England Division, Corps of Engineers, 197lb).
The principal water bearing formations in the Charles
River basin are sand and gravel deposits of glacial origin
and the bedrock underlying the basin. Only the sand and
gravel aquifers are capable of sustaining goodyieldsto
wells. These deposits are scattered throughout the basin
(see Figures 2.5-13 and 2.5—14), but are primarily found
in low flat areas adjacent to the Charles, its tributaries,
and some lakes. The aquifers are a major factor in sustain-
ing streaxnf low during periods of little precipitation
(Frimpter, l973b).
2—46
-------
LEGEND
y1, c m c?a .s c — r-c
LtC T 1 S PUv
SOURCE:MAPC Wat.r Quality Pro jsct Map
FIGURE 2.5-13 GROUNDWATER FAVORABILITY
UPPER CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED
MILES
1.51.50
L J i I
F —
210
KM
‘C s VtC •EUC
SOURCE: MAPC Water Quality Project Map
-------
F - - - ‘ . *_-
,. .4
—
4.
-- , : -- “
- -. r :- - -
‘ — - ‘ - -
• ‘ —.• • - - / -= ‘ -
I — —. —
( - - . - - . • - - ‘-
- -.
f: _ 4 . : -
- -
7/ , - . •-. — - — - -- - -
/ A p LEGEND
- —
• . -: _______
L • ‘• -• —
MILES ; T
1.5 1 .5 0 1
2 1 C 1 2
KM
ic p • - f...
SOURCE:MAPC Wa ’. , Quality ProI.c? Map
FIGURE 2.5-14 GROUNDWATER FAVORABILITY
LOWER CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED
SOURCE: MAPC Water Quality Project Map
/—
-------
Saturated aquifer thickness ranges from 6.1 to 24.4 in
(20 to 80 ft) at locations of town water supply wells. Wells
in sand and gravel aquifers within the Charles iver basin
have good specific yields which average 0.003 in /s per meter
(40 gpm per foot) of drawdown (Walker, Wandle and Caswell,
1976). These wells are designed for large pumping capaci-
ties, which range from 0.006 to 0.09 xn 3 /s (100 to 1500 gpm).
Withdrawals from these wells average 0.03 in 3 /s (500 gpm)
(Walker, Wandle and Caswell, 1976).
Groundwater recharge is by surface water infiltration
from the areas adjacent to the aquifers. In addition, ground-
water reservoirs in the basin are hydraulically connected
to the river or its tributaries and well withdrawals from
these aquifers may result in induced streamfiow infiltration
(Frimpter, l973b).
The groundwater formation found throughout the Boston
area shows an exceedingly wide permeability range resulting
from the myriad of materials used to fill the area in the
1800’s. Recharge to this area results mainly from sewer
line and water main leaks as the area is predominantly covered
with impervious surfaces. Groundwater discharge, particularly
in landfilled areas, is to sewers, storm drains, or adjacent
water bodies. The only well withdrawals in the area are those
associated with dewatering for construction activities (Cotton
and Delaney, 1975).
A. Water Use . The water demand of seven communities (Boston,
Brookline, Lexington, Newton, Waltham, Watertown and Weston)
with the Charles River watershed are fully supplied by the
MDC. These are all located in the highly urbanized lower
portion of the watershed. In addition, two communities (Cam-
bridge and Needham) supplement their existing sources with
MDC water (New England River Basins Commission, 1975). Aver-
age daily water usage in the Charles River watershed (see
Table 2.5—12) totalled 1 .51x10 5 m 3 /d (40 mgd) in 1970, with
the MDC and local sources supplying 67 and 33 percent respect-
ively (Walker, Wandle and Caswell, 1976).
Increased water demand anticipated in 1990 for all nine
towns presently served by the MDC is expected to be supplied
by the MDC. In addition, it appears that Weflesley and Natick
will have to turn to the MDC as increased use of local ground-
water sources does not appear viable. The Dedham Water Company
also appears to have insufficient supplies to meet estimated
1990 maximum daily demands and may have to go to the MDC for
water (New England River Basins Commission, 1975).
In the upper portion of the watershed, Bellingham, Dover,
Holliston, Medfield, Millis, Norfolk and Sherborn all appear
to have sufficient groundwater potential to meet 1990 demands.
2—49
-------
TABLE 2,5—12
WATER SUPPLY NEEDS 1
CHARLES RIVER DRAINAGE BASIN
Town.hii Source
‘New England River Basins Co imiisslon, 1975
2 Safe yield for MDC are estimatet of water volume supplied in
1970 when the total demand of the MDC system approximated its
safe yield.
Proposed
Additional Suvolv Source
cafe Yie1d 2 3
(M CD)
Average
Demand—1990
Design
D nand-1990
m /d
(MCD)
m fd
(MCD)
01
0
Be llingh.a
Boston
Brookline
Wall.
MDC
MDC
8,321.0
536,344.5
28,009.0
(2.20)
(141.60)
(7.39)
7,570.0
577,591.0
33,535.1
(2.00)
(152.48)
(8.85)
15,329.3
577,591.0
33,535.1
(4.05)
(152 .48)
(8.85)
Ground water
MDC
! WC
Cambridge
Hobbs Brook
Fresh Pond
51,854.5
(13.69)
92,543.3
(24.43)
92,543.3
(24.43)
MDC
Dedham 4
Dover
Stony Brook
MDC
W.11 .
Well.
33,686.5
29,144.5
757.0
(8.89)
(7.69)
(0.20)
12,263.4
1,362.6
(3.24)
(0,36)
23,429.2
3,255.1
(3.28)
(0.86)
Ground water
Ground vatir
Ground water
and
tDC
Franklin
Holliaton
Lexington
Lincoln
Well.
Well.
MDC
Wells
Sandy Pond
9,084.0
7,191.5
11,032.5
2,649.5
1,514.0
(2,40)
(1.90)
(4.50)
(o.io)
(0.40)
12,641.9
7,532.2
24,299.7
4,050.0
(3.34)
(1.99)
(6.42)
(1.07)
24,034.8
15,253.6
24,299.7
4,050.0
(6.35)
(4.03)
(6.42)
(1.07)
Ground water
Ground water
MDC
None
and
Milford Water
Co.
Medfie ld
Medvay
Milford
Wells
Wells
Well.
Charles River
4,163.5
6,813.0
1,514.0
3,785.0
(1.10)
(1.80)
(0.40)
(1.00)
6,548.1
6,056.0
12,074.2
(1.73)
(1.60)
(3.19)
13,740.0
12,490.5
12,074.2
( 3.63)
(3.30)
(3.19)
Ground water
Ground water
Milford Water
and
Co.
Milford Water
(Louisa Lake)
Co.
Millie
Natick
Needham
Newton
Wells
Well.
Wells
MDC
MDC
3,785.0
34,822.0
12,869.0
3,785,0
43,906.0
(1.00)
(9.19)
(3.40)
(1.00)
(11.59)
6,321.0
38,812.0
19,644.2
48,750.8
(1.67)
(10.26)
(5.19)
(12.87)
12,944.7
64,117,9
19,644.2
48,750.8
(3.42)
(16.93)
(5.19)
(12.87)
Ground water
MDC
MDC
MDC
Norfolk
Wrentha5 State
School
Norfolk Cor—
Un iown
1,476.2
rectional
Institution
Sherborn
Waltham
Watertown
WeU.esley
Weston 5
Wrentham
Private Supplies
MDC
MDC
Wells
Wells
MDC
Wells
———
40,878.0
18,168.0
29,144.5
7,948.5
1,514.0
7,570,0
(to.ig)
(4.80)
0.69)
(2.10)
13.40)
(2.00)
1,022.0
48,372.3
20,522.6
18,243.7
12,528.4
7,267,2
(1.92)
14,723,1
(0.66)
0.2.77)
(5.42)
( 8.81)
( 3.31)
(3.89)
Ground water
and
Milford Water
Co.
.39)
).23)
(12.77)
.42)
(4.82)
(3.31)
(0,92) Ground water
3,482.2
2,498.1
48,372.3
20,522.6
33,383,7
12,528.4
Ground water
MDC
MDC
MDC
MDC
4 Dedham Water Company services both Dedham and Westwood
5 Wegton now entirely served by the MDC.
3 Groundwater yield reported as system pumping capacity.
-------
Franklin, Medway and Wrentham, however, may not be able to
meet demands by means of local groundwater sources and may
have to turn to the MDC or form a regional water supply
agency with the Town of Milford. Milford presently uses
Echo Lake as the primary source of its water supply and is
expected to meet future demands by increased development of
the Lake (New England River Basin Commission, 1975).
Only a few lakes within the watershed are presently
used for swimming. The Charles River was once lined with
many heavily used swimming beaches; however, the last public
beach (in Natick) was closed 20 years ago due to high bac-
terial counts. Today, the majority of the river’s length
provides only non—contact passive recreation opportunities
because of its degraded water quality. In addition, the
waters of the Charles Basin are so severely degraded that
non-contact recreation is unpleasant in many areas (New
England Division, Corps of Engineers, 1975c).
B. Water Quality . The Charles River has been given water
quality classifications (Figure 2.5-15) ranging from A to C,
with most of the segments classified B. However, the general
condition of the majority of the River may be described as
poor. Except for a short reach at the River’s headwaters, no
section of the River meets its water quality classification
(Water Quality Section, 1976c).
Sources of pollution are different in the Charles River
basin and the Charles Basin due to the differences in the
character of the contributing watershed. Major pollutant
sources in the upper watershed include municipal sewage, solid
waSte disposal sites, subsurface disposal, industrial dis-
charges and urban runoff. In the Charles Basin major sources
are combined sewer overflows, urban runoff and salt water
intrusion. Locations and descriptions of known pollutant
discharges are present in Figure 2.5-16 and Table 2.5-13.
The headwaters of the Charles River are of high quality
and meet their A classification. Below this segment, signi-
ficant problems arise.
From its headwaters, the Charles flows into Cedar Swamp
Pond in Milford. This is a shallow, eutrophic impoundment
choked with weeds and exhibiting high algal counts. Dissolved
oxygen is low, while nutrient concentrations are high. Over-
flows and bypasses from the Milford sewer system create these
conditions (Water Qualtiy Section, 1976c).
Below this point, the River receives the discharge from
the Milford sewage treatmen p1ant. This secondary treatment
facility discharges 10598 in /d (2.8 mgd) into the River.
Treatment efficiency is poor, resulting in a discharge which
2—51
-------
FIGURE 2.5-15 WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATIONS
CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED
WATERSHED LOCATION
LII
2 0 2
IlIOMI 1(1%
2 0 2
MILL S
Jamaica Pond
Mother Brook D’vers
Box
LEGEND
* U.S.G.S. GAGING STATION
o WATER USE CLASSIFICATION
o 1976 CONDITION
— CHANGE IN CLASSIFICATION
Parl
I uw t w.t.r .it S.ctei
-J
-------
WATERSHED LOCATION
2 0 2
K H.OM ITt IS
2 0 2
A I
I —
MILES
Jamaica Pond
Box Pond,
SOURCE: Water Quality Section. 1976c
P.sr l
Mother Brook Diversion
j GEND
* U.S.G.S. GAGING STATION
® POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
LOCATIONS
SEE: TABLE 2.5-13
FIGURE 2.5-16
POLLUTANT
CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED
DISCHARGE LOCATIONS
-------
TABLE 2.5—13
CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED DISCHARGES
Map
No .
Discharger
Discharge
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
* Milford Municipal Sewage Treatment
Plant
* Medfield Municipal STP
* Medfield State Hospital STP
* Barry Division, Barry—Wright Corp.
* Quincy Market Cold Storage
* Haartz-Mason, Inc.
* Cambridge Electric—Blackstone
Station
* Massachusetts Institute of Techno-
logy - Magnetics Laboratory
* Cambridqe Electric - 1(endall Station
* Franklin Municipal STP
* Garelick Farms
* Wrentharn State School STP
* Norfolk-Walpole MCI
* Cott Corporation
* Millis Municipal STP
* Ty-Car Manufacturing
* Community Service Stations, Inc.
* St. Regis Paper Company
* Massachusetts Broken Stone
* Belmont Springs Water Company
Secondary effluent
Tertiary effluent
Domestic sewage effluent
Cooling water
Cooling water
Cooling water
Chlorinated cooling water
Cooling water
Chlorinated cooling water
Secondary effluent
Dairy plant wastes
Secondary effluent
Domestic sewage effluent
Carbonated soft drink wastes
Secondary effluent
Metal finishing effluent
Runoff containing petroleum
products
Cooling water
Paving mixture effluent
Water supply facility
SOURCE: Water Quality Section, 1976
*NPDES Permits Issued
2—54
-------
is high in organic matter, nitrogen, phosphorus, and metals.
Low oxygen levels, algal blooms and an abundance of sludge
worms on the River bottom are a result of the discharge (New
England Division, Corps of Engineers, 1975c).
Below Milford, the Charles receives pollutants from
subsurface disposal systems in North Bellingham, and the
Franklin sewage treatment plant. Removal efficiency at
this plant is poor as its average flow exceeds its design
flow. Dissolved oxygen levels are depressed, nutrient levels
high and algal blooms occur in this reach of the Charles
(Water Quality Section, 1976c).
The Stop River has a somewhat naturally degraded quality
due to the drainage from the wetland areas in its head. It
also receives waste discharges from the Norfolk and Walpole
Massachusetts Correctional Institution and enters the Charles
River with depressed dissolved oxygen levels and high nutrient
content.
Below the Stop River pollution enters the Charles via
flows from Sugar Brook. The Medfield secondary treatment
plant, the Medfield State Hospital, the National Can Company,
and the Cott Corporation all discharge to this tributary.
In addition, the Millis sanitary landfill is located in this
area. Anaerobic conditions, toxic ammonia levels, low pH,
sludge deposits, and odors occur in Sugar Brook, which has
been used for years solely to convey wastes. It is one of
the most severely polluted segments in the Charles River
watershed.
Downstream of Sugar Brook to the Cochrane Dam there are
no major industrial or municipal discharges. Water quality
generally improves through this reach and is primarily influ-
encedbyleachate from a solid waste disposal area in Natick
and runoff from adjacent roadways.
Between the Cochrane and Watertown Dams the River has
high algal productivity, bacterial contamination, widespread
litter and debris and is severely degraded. Landfills in
Newton and Waltham are proximate to the River along this
reach. Industrial discharges in this segment originate on
South Meadow Brook, Stony Brook and from a number of sources
just above the Watertown Dam. In addition, there are sewer
overflow and bypasses in Waltham and urban runoff from the
towns of Wellesley and Weston discharging to the River (Water
Quality Section, 1976c).
The Charles Basin has severely degraded water quality.
Urban areas adjacent to this water body are served by combined
sewer systems which overflow frequently. These include the
MDC Charles River Valley Sewer, the MDC North and South Charles
2—55
-------
Relief Sewers, the Brookline Sewer, the MDC Boston Marginal
Conduit, the Stony Brook Sewer and the MDC Cambridge Branch
Sewer. Figure 2.5-17 identifies overflow points to the
basin. These discharge heavy concentrations of coliforra
bacteria, oxygen demanding wastes, and nutrients into the
Charles Basin (New England Division, Corps of Engineers, 1975c).
A salt water layer exists in the entire length of the
basin. Trapped by the Charles River Dam, this layer causes
the Charles Basin to stratify. The bottom layer is anaero-
bic, with high sulfide and nutrient concentrations and no
aquatic life. Bottom muds have been described as black ooze
and any disturbance of this layer causes the release of hydro-
gen sulfide gas (New England Division, Corps of Engineers,
1975c; Camp, Dresser and McKee, Inc., 1976).
Groundwater in undeveloped areas contains only slightly
more dissolved solids than proximate surface waters. The
groundwater tends to have a low pH, averaging 6.2 in water
from town supply wells tapping sand and gravel aquifers,
and in places may require treatment to reduce corrosive ten-
dencies. At some localities the groundwater contains
slightly more iron and manganese than is recommended by the
U.S. Public Health Service for public water supplies (Wandle,
Walker and Caswell, 1976).
At many places the quality of groundwater has changed
over the years. The chloride concentration of water from
town supply wells has increased generally. The increase is
smallest in the less developed southern part of the basin
and greatest in the more urbanized northern part. Part of
the water pumped from town supply wells has been induced
from nearby streams that receive sodium chloride from high-
way de—icing operations. The Town of Weston was forced to
abandon a major water supply well in the vicinity of the
Massachusetts Turnpike and Route 128 due to its contamina—
tion by chlorides from road de-icing salts (New England River
Basins Conunission, 1975).
At various places in the basin groundwater has been
locally contaminated by seepage from landfills and discharge
from septic tanks (Walker, Wandle and Caswell, 1976).
Groundwater found within the Charles Basin is not suit-
able for any use due to its low quality and limited avail-
ability.
C. Water Quantity - Quality Problems . As has been described
in the preceding sections, water quality degradation exists
throughout the Charles River watershed, except for a small
reach at the River’s headwaters. This conditions will affect
the feasibility of locating additional point sources in the
basin without detrimental effects. The EMMA study reconinended
a mid-Charles River treatment facility with the capacity of
2—56
-------
25
River Valley Sewer
:4 CAMBRIDGE
Somerville. Charlestown
North Charles
Relief Sewer
Cambridge
MDC Storm
MSR.
Branch Sewer
Binney St. Sewer
1 .
oposed
Station
13
Rutherford Ave. Ovorflow .
Chlorinatiop’
Boston Marginal
Conduit
0.5 0 05
Ii
KILOMETERS
05 0 05
MILES
- - Foul Flow Channels
Boston
1 And
Gate Houses
2
LEGEND
SEWER OVERFLOWS
RIVER BASIN
SEE: TABLE 2.5T4
BOSTON
SOURCE: Camp Dresi.r and McKse. Inc. 1976
I OVERFLOW
POINT
FIGURE 2.5-17 COMBINED
CHARLES
-------
TABLE 2.5—14
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW POINTS
CHARLES BASIN
1. Lowell St. Overflow
2. Boston Marginal Conduit
Discharge
3. Fruit St. Overflow
4. Pinckney St. Overflow
5. Berkley St. Overflow
6. Dartmouth St. Overflow
7. Hereford St. Overflow
8. Charlesgate & Fens Pond
Overflows
9. Deerfield St. Overflow
10. St. Mary’s Street Overflow
11. Faneuil Brook Overflow
12. Parson’s St. Overflow
13. Miller’s River Overflow
14. Cambridge Marginal Conduit
Discharge
15. Binney St. Overflow
16. Massachusetts Avenue Overflow
17. Talbot Street Overflow
18. B.U. Detention Facility Discb*
19. Pearl St. Overflow
20. Pleasant Avenue Overflow
21. Western Avenue Overflow
22. Plympton Street Overflow
23. Elliot Square Overflow
24. Bath-Hawthorne St. Oserfiow
25. Gibson Street Overflow
26. Lowell Street Overflow
SOURCE: Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc., 1976
2—58
-------
l.17x10 5 m 3 /d (31 mgd) while acknowledging that it might
not meet water quality criteria under 7 day 10 year low flow
conditions. Flow augmentation benefits associated with the
plant were viewed as outweighing potential water quality prob-
lems.
Continuing the present practice for transporting waste-
water out of the watershed to Boston Harbor will result in
the increasing export of groundwater out of the Basin which
will qualitatively reduce the River’s basef low. This effect
is very difficult to quantify and is the key to the flow
augmentation issue. Simply stated - “Will the additional
export of water from the basin have a significant effect on
the Charles River’s low flow? Is flow augmentation necessary
to assure river flow and water supply in the future?” This
question is examined in a later section of this report and
is linked to existing and future water quality in the Charles
River.
D. Water Quality Management Planning . The Massachusetts
Division of Water Pollution Control has prepared a 303 (e)
plan for the Charles River watershed (Water Quality Section,
l.76c). It developed waste load allocations for publically
owned treatment facilities in the watershed and concluded
that treatment levels beyond secondary would be required to
meet water quality standards. In addition, it proposes to
reclassify C waters as Bi to make the water quality goal
throughout the watershed “fishable/swimmable waters.
The Basin Plan endorses the EMMA recommended Middle
Charles Satellite Plant as it would provide wastewater treat-
ment and disposal where needed, reduce flows to the Nut Island
plant, and help to alleviate low flow problems in the lower
reaches of the River. Further recommendations include a study
of a possibility of eliminating or curtailing the Mother Brook
diversion. The basin plan is presently under review and may
be amended as a result of the Impact Statement process.
A recent study (Camp, Dresser and McKee, 1976) of pos-
sible ways to eliminate the anaerobic salt water layer in
the Charles Basin has recommended the installation of seven
mechanical aerators at strategic points in the basin. The
investigators felt that this would keep the entire basin
aerobic and help to reduce the problems associated with a
stratified anaerobic condition.
2.5.4 Nèponset River Watershed
The Neponset River originates 46.7 km (29 mi) northwest
of Boston at the outlet of the Neponset Reservoir in Foxborough,
Massachusetts. The Ikiver flows in a generally northeastern
2—59
-------
direction for 475 km (29.5 mi) before discharging into Dor-
chester Bay. The Neponset River watershed (Figure 2.5—18)
includes all or part of eleven municipalities, including the
southwest section of the City of Boston, and has a drainage
area of 318.6 sq km (123 sq mi). The entire watershed lies
within the expanded MSD, except for a portion of Foxborough
at the basin’s headwaters.
The Neponset Reservoir in Foxborough is the headwaters
of the Neponset River. It is both spring and tributary fed,
has an average depth of 1.8 in (6 ft) and covers 1.09 sq km
(0.42 sq mi). Discharge from the reservoir flows directly
into Crack Rock Pond, and then north from this impoundment
through culverts under the Bay State Raceway and into Clark
Pond. From Clark Pond the River meanders 4.3 km (2.7 mi)
through Cedar Meadow Swamp and enters Upper Blackburn Pond.
Inf lows from two tributaries, School Meadow Brook and an
unnamed stream, join the River in this stretch. Union Pond,
the water supply for the Kendall Company in Walpole, is
located a short distance downstream of the Blackburn Pond
dam. The River is joined by the flows from Turner Pond and
Diamond Brook below the Kendall Company.
The River then flows through what was Stetson Pond
(the dam was washed out by recent floods) and changes direc-
tion to the northeast. Cobbs Pond, Plimpton Pond, and Bird
Pond are all tributary to the River along this reach. Below
Bird Pond the River flows into the Hollingsworth and Vose
Coxnpanh impoundment in East Walpole. Hawes Brook enters the
River below this point.
The U.S.G.S. gaging station in Norwood is located approxi-
mately 0.8 kin (0.5 mi) downstream of Hawes Brook. Average
flow at the station, based on 36 years of record is 1.49 in 3 /s
(52.6 cfs) (U. S .G. S., 1976). Flow extremes include a maximum
flow of 42.2 m 3 /s (1490 erg) during the 1955 flood and a daily
minimum of 0.04 m 3 /s (1.4 cfs) in 1963. The 7 day low flow
with a 10 year recurrence interval at this station is 0.14
m 3 /s (4.9 cfs) (Brackley, Fleck, and Meyer, 1976).
Below Norwood, the Neponset begins a 14.2 km (8.8 mi)
meandering course through the Fowl Meadow Marsh. The marsh
extends along the River’s main stem from 1.6 km (1 mi) down-
stream of the Norwood gage to Paul’s Bridge in the Hyde Park
section of Boston and covers an area of 15.5 sq km (6 sq mi)
(Anderson-Nichols & Co., 1971). The Neponset receives inflows
from four tributary streams in this reach: Union Brook, Pur-
gatory Brook, Pecunit Brook, and Ponkapog Brook.
2—60
-------
Dorchester Bay
LJI
WATERSHED LOCATION
DOVER
2
2 9 2
KILOMETERS
9
2
BOSTON
-J
LU
U.
0
LU
/
Reservoir
SOURCE: Water Quality Section, 976f
Inkapog Pond
LEGEND
* U.S.G.S. GAGING STATION
FIGURE 2.5-18
NEPONSET RIVER WATERSHED
-------
The River’s East Branch also joins the River as it flows
through Fowl Meadow. The East Branch drains an area of approxi-
mately 77.7 sq km (30 sq mi). Average discharge recorded in
Canton for this section of the River is 1.45 mi/sec (51.1 cf s),
based on 23 years of data (U.S.G.S., 1976). Maximum and
minimum recorded flows are 50.7 m 3 /sec (1790 cf s) and 0.017
m 3 /s (0.60 cfs), respectively. The 7 day low flow with a 10
year recurrence interval at this location is 0.10 m 3 /s (3.4
cf s) (Brackley, Fleck, and Meyer, 1976).
1 pproximate1y 2.4 kin (1.5 mi) downstream of Paul’s Bridge
Mother Brook joins the Neponset River. This tributary carries
diverted Charles River flows to the Neponset River. The
average discharge through Mother B ook, measured just below
the diversion in Dedhant, is 2.25 in is (79.3 cfs) over the last
44 years (U.S.G.S., 1976).
Downstream of Mother Brook is the MDC dam at the Tileston
and Hollingsworth Company, which regulates flows for flood
control in the downstream area and for water supply for Tile-
ston and Hollingsworth Co. The final impoundment on the river,
Boston City Pond, is formed by the Walter Baker Dam. This darn
also serves to separate the fresh water river and saline estu-
ary. Pine Tree Brook is tributary to the River above this darn,
while Uniquity Brook enters the estuary below the dam.
Recharge to the aquifers is estimated at 15,140 m 3 /day
(44mgd). This infiltration occurs naturally through both the
surface deposits and along certain reaches of the River and
its tributaries (Brackley, Fleck and Meyer, 1976). In addi-
tion, virtually all the public supply wells in the basin cause
some infiltration of surface water into the contiguous aquifers
(Frimpter, 1973c).
A. Water Use . Domestic water supply within the basin is pro-
vided by both the MDC and local sources. Milton and Quincy
receive full MDC supply, while 99 percent of Norwood’s water
comes from the MDC. Canton supplies 75 percent of its needs
from local wells, with the remainder supplied by the MDC.
Sharon, Stoughton, Walpole and Westwood are all presently sup-
plied from local groundwater sourcqs. Average groundwater with-
drawal for water supplyis 79,485 &/d (21 ingd) (New England
River Basins Commission, 1975). No water is drawn directly
from the Neponset for drinking water supply. Table 2.5-15
summarizes present projected water supply needs within the
basin. For the most part existing supplies are adequate to
meet demands; however, Stoughton will have to tie into the
MDC water supply system to meet its 1990 requirements while
Westwood and Sharon will need partial MDC supply to meet
their projected demands (New England River Basins Commission,
1975).
2—62
-------
TABLE 2.5—15
1 New England River Basins Commission, 1975
WATER SUPPLY NEEDS NEPONSET RIVER WATERSHED 1
2 Safe yields for MDC are estimates of water volume supplied in 1970 when the total demand on the MDC system
approximated its safe yield.
3 Groundwater yields reported as system pumping capacity.
4 Emergency supplies
Existing System
Safe Yield 2 ’ 3 Average Demand, 1990
mi/d (MGD) mi/d (MCD )
Township
Boston
Canton
Milton
Norwood
Quincy
Sharon
Stoughton
Walpole
Westwood and
Dedham 5
Source
MDC
Wells
MDC
MDC
Wells
MDC
MDC
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Design Demand, 1990
m3/d (MGDL
577591 (152.60)
18773 (4.96)
Proposed
Additional
Supply Source
536334
11355
3785
9463
11355
11355
38607
14004
11733
13247
29144
577591 (152.60)
18773 (4.96)
(141.70)
(3. 00)
(1.00)
(2.50)
(3.00)
(3.00)
(10.20)
(3.70)
(3.10)
(3.50)
(7.70)
13779
21915
47085
9386
14572
22520
12263
9121
(3.64)
(5.79)
(12.44)
(2.48)
(3.85)
(5.95)
(3.24)
(2.41)
13777
21915
47085
18546
27327
40083
23429
18016
(3.64)
(5. 79)
(12.44)
(4.90)
(7.23)
(10.59)
(6.19)
(4.76)
MDC
Groundwater
and MDC
MDC
MDC
MDC
Groundwater
MDC
Gro tndwater
and Willet
Pond
Groundwater
and MDC
5 Towns form single service area served by Dedham Water Company.
-------
The total elevation drop along the River’s course approxj.
mates 83.8 m (275 feet). The majority of this change, 68.6 m
(225 feet), occurs in the first 16.1 km (10 mi) between the
Neponset Reservoir and the Norwood gaging station. A drop
of 3.1 m (10 feet) is experienced between the gage and the
beginning of Fowl Meadow Marsh. As the River flows through
Fowl Meadow there is virtually no elevation change. A fairly
rapid elevation change takesplace downstream from the Tileston
and Hollingsworth dam.
The groundwater reservoir (see Figure 2.5-19) underlying
the Neponset River Basin includes bedrock, glacial till and
stratified drift. Wells developed in bedrock and till gener-
ally have yields of only a few cubic meters per second (gallons
per minute) and are subject to seasonal variations in water
level. Wells developed in the stratified drift, however,
have excellent water bearing properties (Brackley, Fleck,
and Meyer, 1976).
Accumulations of stratified drift to 45.7 m (150 feet)
underlie major sections of the River in the Town of Walpole
below Cedar Meadow Swamp and the entire Fowl Meadow Marsh.
These deposits have a transmissivity estimated to be greater
than 372.6 m 3 -d/m (30,000 gpd/ft) and yields from wells
developed in them are commonly in excess of 0.02 m 3 /s (300
gpm). Storage within these formations is estimated to be
4.9x10 7 m 3 (l3xl0 gal) (Brackley, Fleck, and Meyer, 1976).
Most industries within the basin rely upon the MDC for
water supply; however, six major industries within the basin
use surface impoundments of the River for water supply. These
industries are: (Metcalf and Eddy, 1969; Water Quality Sec-
tion 1976f).
1) Bird Machine Company, South Wa].pole
2) Kendall Company, Walpole
3) Bird and Sons, Inc., East Walpole
4) Hollingsworth and Vose Company, East Walpole
5) Plymouth Rubber Company, Canton
6) Tileston and Hollingsworth Company, Hyde Park.
Water usage by these companies is approximately 44,000 m 3 /d
(11.7 mgd) (Water Quality Section, 1976
2—64
-------
L i i i i.E J, (25
Ji *EC..uU O Eiii ii?E’
‘C
SOURCE MAPC W t.r Quality Pro ject Map
MILES
1.51.50 1
1 _ I I I _I
j
I I I I
21012
KM
FIGURE 2.5-19 GROUNDWATER FAVORABILITY
NEPONSET RIVER WATERSHED
,t.
Ci C i U -
LEGEND
IIRI DUU(2ilII1I
16-li I 1. S-3 CCi (
C ICI ¶0 WESCCOCO CiS0CiD(I
&IC 1 125 1 1P LY
-------
Certain sections of the River are suitable for recrea-
tion, such as the Fowl Meadow Marsh area which can be used
for boating recreation. In addition, recreational facilities
are found on several ponds in the basin and several of the
brooks within the basin are presently stocked by the Division
of Fisheries and Wildlife with trout. However, the majority
of water based activities within the basin have ceased due
to degraded water quality.
B. Water Quality . The Neponset River has significant water
quality problems. Present point and non-point sources, past
discharge practices, and the natural sluggish nature of the
river are the causative agents. The River has a Class B
desgination along most of its length and only the rapidly
flowing headwaters meet applicable water quality criteria.
Figure 2.5—20 presents water quality classifications for the
Neponset River.
The Neponset basin contains a highly urbanized region
with the cities of Quincy, Milton, and the Dorchester, Rox-
bury, and Hyde Park sections of Boston, having a significant
influence on water quality in the basin. Runoff from streets,
parking lots, multiple family dwellings, and junkyards located
within these communities has been hypothesized to contribute
to deteriorating conditions within the River (New England
Division, Corps of Engineers, l975c). In addition, nutrients
introduced by residential and agricultural use of fertilizers
and land stripping, in the form of industrial, residential
and highway construction have been identified as having an
adverse impact upon the River and its tributaries (Water
Quality Section, 1973).
Principal industrial discharges (Figure 2.5 —2land Table
2.5-16) to the Neponset River begin at its headwaters at the
Neponset Reservoir in Foxborough. The effluent from chemical
treatment of plating wastes from the Foxborough Company enter
the Neponset Reservoir and are diluted through mixing. Midway
along the length of the River dcgnestic waste, oil discharges,
and solids are contributed respectively by the Bird Machine
Company, Kendall Company, and Hot-Top Pavements, Inc. (Water
Quality Section, 1973). Private discharges of domestic waste
enter the Neponset from the advanced waste-water treatment
plant of Foxborough State Hospital and the Foxborough Raceway.
Although overt discharges by the Foxborough Raceway have been
eliminated, continued poor water quality in the area indicates
some form of waste input to the river remains (Water Quality
Section, 1973).
In addition to the above point sources, a variety of
factories and paper mills formerly discharged wastes contain-
ing organic materials andmetals directly into the river.
2—66
-------
LOCATION
WATER SHED
2
2 0 2
L __ J
KILOMETERS
9
MILES
Dorchester Bay
apog Pond
SOURCE: Water Quality Section. 1976a
*
0
0
LEGEND
US.G.S. GAGING STATION
WATER USE CLASSIFICATION
1976 CONDITION
CHANGE IN CLASSIFICATION
FIGURE 2.5 -20
WATER
NEPONSET RIVER WATERSHED
QUALITY CLASSIFICATION
-------
Dorchester Bay
WATERSHED LOCATION
9 2
--
KILOMETERS
2 2
MILES
pay Pond
(J 3
Reservoir
SOUP’E Waist Quality Section. 19761
LEGEND
* USGS. GAGING STATION
POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
LOCATIONS
SEE: TABLE 2.5-16
FIGURE 2.5.-21 POLLUTANT DISCHARGE LOCATIONS
NEPONSET RIVER WATERSHED
-------
TABLE 2.5—16
NEPONSET RIVER WATERSHED DISCHARGES
Map Location Discharger Discharge
1 *Foxboro Co. Plating wastewater following
chemical neutralization and
settling
2 *Fox yJro State Hospital Domestic wastewater following
extended aeration and sand bed
filtration
3 * Bird Machine Co. Domestic wastewater following
extended aeration and lagooning
4 * Kendall Co. Cooling water
5 *Hollingsworth & Vose Co. Filter bed backwash, no treat-
ment
6 * Bird and Sons, Inc. Cooling water
7 * Bird and Sons, Inc.-Asphalt Cooling water
plant
8 * erjcan Biltrite, Inc. Cooling water
9 * Bird & Son, Inc. — Norwood Untreated wash water
Granular Div.
1D * Plymouth Ru bber Co. Cooling water
11 * Magnesium Casting Cooling water
Source: Water Quality Section, 1976
*NPDES Permit Issued
2—69
-------
Although many of these now discharge to the MDC sewerage sys-
tem, sludge blankets on the river bottom from these practices
still exist, exerting a negative effect on water quality (New
England Division, Corps of Engineers, 1975c). Frequent over—
f lows occur from the Neponset River Valley Sewer and the Dor-
chester Interceptor into the lower reaches of the Neponset
River. This contamination is a serious threat for the water
quality of the lower River and estuary (New England Division,
Corps of Engineers, 1975c).
The suimner, 1973 Neponset River Basin Study conducted
by the Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control pro-
vides the data for an analysis of the Neponset River water
quality. That survey indicated the Neponset Reservoir to
contain significant blue—green algal blooms during summer
months, which are responsible for super saturation of the
waters — an average of 8.9 mg/i dissolved oxygen was found
in the month of July. Average BOD 5 was 6.15 mg/i while
nutrient concentrations varied from 0-0.27 mg/i NH 3 -N and
0.7-1.0 mg/i total phosphorus as P. A geometric mean of
300 coliform organisms per 100 ml was within the Class B
designation of these waters. Evaluation of the data led to
the eutrophic designation given to the Neponset Reservoir by
the Divison. This eutrophic state continued downstream to
the outlet of Crackrock Pond. The effluent of Foxborough State
Hospital is thought to have provided nutrients for the exten-
sive algal and aquatic vascular plant growth present. The
marsh within Crackrock Pond provided for stabilization of
the nutrients as shown by the predominance of N0 3 -N (0.35
mg/i) over NH 3 —N (0.015 mg/i).
Below this point, Foxborough Raceway is suspected of
being a source of fecal contamination to the River. A mean
of greater than 20,000 coliform organisms per 100 ml was
encountered in the area of the facility. Decreasing dis-
solved oxygen levels downstream of the raceway recovered
prior to entering the area of influence of the Kendall Com-
pany. Turbulent mixing was responsible for this.
The Kendall Company is located in the center of urban-
ized Waipole. This industry, in combination with urban run-
off from the city, is responsible for increasing BOD 5 concen-
trations. In addition, oil films have been traced to the Kendall
Company. A strong indication of non-point source contamination
of the River is deduced from the increase in coiiform bacteria
in the area. Below this point, until the River enters the
Fowl Meadow marsh area, dissolved oxygen levels fluctuated.
The marsh appearea as an area which moderates the effects
of waste inputs to the River. While dissolved oxygen values
generally declined and SOD 5 values generally increased, their
change was minimized such that average D.O. values never fell
2—70
-------
below 5.0 mg/i. irimonia nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen trends
were variable, as they exhibited a slight increase in the
month of July and a slight decrease in August.
Below the Fowl Meadow marsh area the state of the River
deteriorated. Combined sewer overflows, urban runoff, and
non—point sources from the area of Milton and Mother Brook
contributed to increasing BOD 5 , NH 3 -N, N0 3 -N and coliform
loads upon the River. Dissolved oxygen levels recovered only
after the water had passed over the MDC Dam at the Tileston
and Hollingsworth Company and physical reaeration had occurred.
Below this point, benthic oxygen demand in the impoundment
behind the Walker Baker Dam resulted in a slight D.O. drop in
the final fresh water portion of the Rivers
In the 1973 survey (Frimpter, 1973c), groundwater quality
in the Neponset basin was found to be. suitable for drinking
and most industrial uses. The water was generally identified
as being soft and slightly acidic. Levels of sodium chloride
(10 to 15 mg/i) were found to be elevated above those considered
natural concentrations, but well within the 250 mg/i limit
required by the U.S. Public Health Service for drinking water.
Local occurrences of undesirable concentrations of iron, manga-
nese, and color had been reported in Westwood and Walpole
(Frirnpter, 1973c).
Incidents of groundwater contamination have appeared
within the basin on a local scale. At least one public sup-
ply well was closed due to fecal coliforin contamination. The
Massachusetts Department of Public Health has generated data
which indicate 50 percent of public supply wells contained
more than 12 mg/i chloride in 1962. In 1968, 50 percent of
public supply wells containedmore than 26 mg/i chloride (Frimp-
ter, l973c).
Speculation has been made that the sources of chloride
contamination are stockpiles of road salt and runoff from
paved areas (New England Division, Corps of Engineers, 1975c).
Specific sites identified are located in Westwood, where a
salt stockpile is situated in the Purgatory Brook drainage
basin, and in Dedham and Milton where both salt stockpiles
and runoff from Routes 128 and 95 threaten groundwater sup-
plies in the Fowl Meadow Marsh. Evidence already exists
which indicates that every well pumping from the Fowl Meadow
aquifer is experiencing an increase in salt content (New
England Division, Corps of Engineers, l975c).
C. Water Quantity—Quality Problems . Low flow conditions
exist on the Neponset River during summer months; however,
the precise extent of this problem is difficult to determine
2—71
-------
because the flow in the River is subject to active regulation
for industrial water supply. The Neponset Reservoir Company
and the Neponset Reservoir Corporation own and control the
Neponset Reservoir, Crackrock Pond, and Norfolk Street wells
and Willett Pond. The three impoundments are operated to
impound winter and spring runoff and release it during dry-
weather periods when streainflow is insufficient for industrial
consumption. In addition, if there is insufficient storage
in the Neponset Reservoir for the required release, the Nor-
folk Street wells are activated to discharge 1135-1892 m 3 /d
(0. 3-0.5 mgd) into the reservoir (Metcalf and Eddy, 1969).
River flow regulation generally occurs from July through
October and averages 106 days per year. Regulation is per-
formed by the companies’ operating committee and is based
mainly upon the committee’s experience. When flow appears
insufficient for industrial consumption, water is released
from thç Neponset Reservoir at a rate somewhat less than
13247 m-’/d (3.5 mgd). In addition, Willett Pond is discharged
at an unknown rate to meet the demand of the Tileston and
Hollingsworth Company in Hyde Park (Metcalf and Eddy, 1969).
Flow measurements of the Neponset at the Norwood gage
are highly affected by upstream reservoir regulations. An
investigation (Metcalf and Eddy, 1969) of flows at the Nor-
wood gage concluded that flows there are the result of up-
stream regulation. In addition, it was concluded that the
minimum daily flow and minimum seven day flow are poor indi-
cators of expected future low flow conditions. Average
daily flow occurring during the minimum flow month or mini-
mum flow three month period were indicated to be a better
measure of drought conditions (Metcalf and Eddy, 1969).
Groundwater withdrawals from wells in close proximity
to the River have been found to cause low flow problems in
the basin. A case in point is the Mine Brook valley which
runs from Medfield to Walpole, and within which wells have
been pumped at rates sufficient to dry Mine Brook in Walpole
during periods of low flow.
D. Water Quality Management Planning . The EMMA Study is the
accepted 303(e) basin plan for the Neponset River. This plan
calls for construction of an advanced wastewater treatment
facility, located in the Canton Norwood area of the basin.
Serving five towns within the watershed, the plant would pro-
cess an estimated 94625 rn 3 /d (25 mgd) and retain water within
the basin augmenting stream flows (Metcalf and Eddy, 1975k).
The 208 areawide wastewater management planning is pre-
sently in its initial stages in this basin. It is, however,
expected to help identify non-point pollution problems within
the Neponset River watershed when completed.
2—72
-------
2.5.5 Weymouth River Watershed
The Weymouth River watershed (Figure 2.5—22), as defined
within this section, is the land area drained by the Weymouth
Fore River, Weymouth Back River and the WeIr River. Located
in the southeast section of the Boston Harbor drainage area,
the Weymouth River watershed occupies approximately 207 sq km
(80 sq mi) in the towns of Randolph, Braintree, Hingham, Hol-
brook, Weyniouth and a portion of the City of Quincy. The
watershed’s terrain is rolling and hilly, with a maximum ele-
vation of 79.3 in (260 ft).
The Weymouth Fore River originates at Lake Holbrook,
approximately 5.6 kin (3.5 mu) upstreamof the River’s estuary.
The river flows north to form the Cochato River and then the
Monatiquot River, which is regarded as the main stem of the
Weymouth Fore River. In Braintree, the River discharges into
its estuary. Total elevation drop from its headwaters to the
sea level estuary is roughly 38.1 m (215 ft). In addition,
the river is joined by a number of tributaries, including the
Farm River, Lee Brook, Govers Brook, Tumbling Brook and
Cranberry Brook (Water Quality Section, 1976f).
Directly east lies the Weymouth Back River, which origi-
nates at the outlet of Whitman’s Pond in Weymouth. This river
flows directly north for 0.6 km (0.4 mi) prior to discharging
into its estuary. Whitman’s Pond is fed by the Mill River,
which flows for 2.4 km (1.5 mi) from its origin at Great Pond
in Weyxnouth. The River’s total elevation change over its
course is somewhat less than 22.9 in (75 ft).
The Weir River has its origins in the upper portion of
Weymouth Township. It flows in a general northeastern direc-
tion through the Town of Hingham as the Old Swamp and Plymouth
Rivers before turning north to discharge into Hingham Bay.
Fulling Mill Brook is the Weir River’s major tributary along
its 6.4 km (4 mi) course.
A major sub-watershed is the Town River basin. Origi-
nating at the outlet of the Old Quincy Reservoir in Braintree,
Town River Brook flows northeast through Quincy to Town River
Bay.
Within this watershed, flow gaging stations are maintained
at two locations: Town Brook in Quincy and on the Old Swamp
River near South Weymouth. Maximum discharges of record are
13.6 m 3 /s (481 ft 3 /s) at Town Brook and 16.0 m 3 /s (566 ft 3 /s)
on the Qid Swamp River, while minimi 3 m flows recorded equal
0.005 mi/s (0.19 ft 3 /s) and 0.003 in /s (0.11 ft 3 /s) respect-
ively at these two locations (U.S.G.S., 1976). Insufficient
data exist to develop flow-duration curves for these rivers.
2—73
-------
P ILOME’EPS
1 0
‘ Ut
F—I DAM
fOunCE *D*• u&’v end R.p.o ch Sec’ion. 1976k
FIGURE 2.5.-22 WEYMOUTH RIVER WATERSHED
0
WATERSHED LOCATION
Quincy
Bay
• Iingham Bay
él’
Meadow Br.
1 0 1
LEGEND
* USES. GAGING STATION
-------
Flooding is a problem along portions of Town Brook, Fur-
nace Brook, and Hayward Brook in Quincy, with major flooding
occurring in both 1955 and 1968. A flooding problem also
exists on portions of theMonatiquot River in Braintree. These
problems are a result of urbanization increasing flood peaks
and runoff volumes beyond the existing channel capacity (New
England River Basins Commission, 1975).
Extensive groundwater resources (Figure 2.5—23) exist in
the watershed with the best aquifers being composed of glacial
till and stratified drift deposits. These formations, with
up to 15.1 m (50 ft) of saturated thickness, underlie the
Cochato, Monatiquot, and Swamp Rivers and the area adjacent
to Great Pond in Weymouth. Additionally, the aquifer charac-
teristics and well yields are identical to those of the neigh-
boring Neponset River watershed: transmissivity greater than
372.6 m 3 /m..d (30,000 gpd/ft) and yield of 0.02 m 3 /s (300 gpm)
or better (Brackely, Fleck and Meyer, 1976).
A. Water Use . Municipalities within the Weymouth River water-
shed presently receive water supplies from a combination of
surface and groundwater sources. Present water use along with
projected demands are presented in Table 2.5-17. The Hingham
Water Company serves both the towns of Hingham and Hull and
should be able to meet projected demandswithexisting sources.
Braintree, Holbrook and Randolph presently use the Great Pond
Reservoir and can meet projected demands by increasing diver-
sions from the Richardi Reservoir. Increased demand in Weymouth
could be met using existing standby wells if these sources
were treated to remove high iron concentrations. The option
for Weymouth is more economical than connection to MDC supplies
(New England River Basins Commission, 1975).
Recreational use of the Weymouth watershed’s water include
boating and passive activities. Boating activity make heavy
use of anchorages and channels in the Town River Bay, Weymouth
Back River and the Weir River. The excess of 3000 craft have
been reported in the existing recreational fleet (New England
River Basins Commission, 1975).
The entire shoreline and salt estuary of the Weymouth
Back River in Hinghain is a designated recreational area. In
addition, directly across this River in Weymouth is Great
Esker Park. Together these parks form one of the most scenic
recreational areas in Boston Harbor. This area is enjoyed by
a large number of people for passive recreation (Metropolitan
Area Planning Council, 1976.
B. Water Quality . Waters within the Weymouth River watershed
are classified B and SB (Figure 2.5-24). However, the lower
portions of the Fore and Back Rivers are not meeting their
classification. Present upstream classifications are unknown.
2—75
-------
c2c
SOURCE:MAPC Water Quality Proj.ct Map
LEGEND
uj ic
0I
L I I
U1IT LF. Ji L25 !&
1 -i --t r WLL JLL 11L
2 1 0 1 2
KM
MLIC W*Tfl tY I.L
FIGURE 2.5-23 GROUNDWATER FAVORABILITY
WEYMOUTH RIVER WATERSHED
MILES
1.5 1 .5 0
L__ i I i
-------
WATERSHED LOCATION
Quincy Bay V
I4ngham Bay
? River Bay.
1 0
,_J
MILES
I ’
DAM
WATER USE CLASSIFICATION
976 CONDITION
SOURCE:Wo,.r Quality Section. 1976o
FIGURE 2.5-24 WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATIONS
WEYMOUTH RIVER WATERSHED
Upper Reservoir
Meadow Br.
101
K ILOMETE I
Holbrook
LEGEND
* USGS. GAGING
STATION
-------
TABLE 2.5—17
WATER SUPPLY NEEDS WEYMOUTh RIVER WATERSHED 1
Existing System Proposed
Safe Yield 1 Avera e Demands 1990 Desi. Demand 1990 Additional
Township Source m 3 /d (MCD) m d (MCD) MGD ) Supply Source
Braintree Great Pond Rea. 23,921.2 (6.32) 23,921.2 (6.32) Further develop
& Diversion8 10,498,0 (2.77) Richardi
Richardi Rea 11,355.0 (3.00) Reservoir
Tubular Well 1,514.0 (0.40)
Eingham Fulling Mill 12,452.7 (3.29) 12,452.7 (3.29) None
Dug Well 8,327
Gravel—Packed Wella 14,761.5 (2.20)
Holbrook See Randolph 6,056.0 (1.60) 6,056.0 (1.60) See Randolph
‘ Hull See Hingham 9,500.4 (2.51) 9,500.4 (2.51) See Hingham
Randolph Great Pond Res. 16,540.5 (4.37) 16,540.5 (4.37) Further develop
& Diversions 4,920.5 (1.30) Richardi
Gravel—Packed Wells 9,462.5 (2.50) Reservoir
Weymouth Great Pond Res. 23,050.7 (6.09) 23,050.7 (6.09) Treated
& Diversions 17,032.5 (4.50) groundwater
Gravel—packed Wells 14,004.5 (3.70)
‘Mew England River Basins CommIssion, 1975.
2 Croundwater yield reported as system pumping capacity.
3 Einergency supplies.
-------
During June of 1975, the Massachusetts Division of Water
pollution Control conducted its first intensive water quality
survey within this watershed, sampling the Weymouth Fore and
Weymouth Back rivers and their tributaries. Chemical and
bacteriological analyses were performed on the sampled. Table
2.5-18 summarizeS the results of this survey. In addition,
a survey of wastewater discharges into watershed streams was
performed in December, 1975 (Water Quality Section, l976f).
Discharge locations and descriptions are presented in Figure
2.5-25 and Table 2.5—19 respectively.
Parameters of particular importance in determining the
River’s present conditions are dissolved oxygen and coliform
bacteria. Dissolved oxygen levels ranged below the Class B
water criteria of 5.0 mg/i in the Fore River, while remaining
well above it in the Back River. However, only 4 of 15 Fore
River samples were below 5.0 mg/i indicating good D.O. levels
being maintained in this river. Coliform and fecal coliform
levels exceeded the Class B standard of not more than 1000
MPN/100 ml in both rivers. In addition, only 4 of all loca-
tions sampled (20) had coliform counts meeting Class B stand-
ards. These rivers appear therefore, to be meeting dissolved
oxygen standards while exhibiting considerable bacterial con-
tamination and violating that standard.
The wastewater discharge survey located nine sources of
discharge into the Weymouth Fore River with the majority of
these located adjacent to the River’s estuary and Town River
Bay. Upstream discharges are cooling water and not indicated
as degrading the stream. However, discharges into the lower
portion of the River are probably contributing to its present
water quality condition being below its designated classifi-
cation.
In addition to wastewater discharges, numerous other
points for pollution input to the waters of the lower water-
shed exist. During the 1968 Boston Harbor Pollution Survey
(Lord, et al., 1968), points of storm drainage, septic tank
and cesspool discharges, sewer overflows and small commercial
establishment discharges were located in the lower reaches
of the Weir, Fore and Back rivers, and in Town River Bay.
The total number of discharge points into these four water
bodies were, respectively, 19, 12, 42, and 11. Significant
pollutant loads undoubtedly come from these sources.
Overall water quality in this watershed appears good
from a dissolved oxygen standpoint. However, other parameters
(fecal coliforms, ammonia, phosphorus) indicate questionable
quality. Fecal coliforms exceed standards along most of
both the Fore and Back rivers. The lowest ammonia level
reported, 0.02 mg/i, is the recommended (Committee on Water
Quality Criteria, 1972) maximum allowable concentration to
2—79
-------
TABLE 2.5-18
1975 WATER QUALITY SURVEY RESULTS 1
Dissolved Oxygen, tug/i
BOD 5 , tug/i
Temperatures, °C F)
Total Solids, mg/i
Total Suspended Solids, mg/i
Nitrate—Nitrogen, mg/i
Ammonia—Nitrogen, mg/i
pH. units
Total Phosphorus as P, mg/i
Total Alkalinity, mg/i
Chlorides, mg/i
Fecal Coliforms, MPN/100 ml
Total Coliforms, NPN/l00 m1 4
Weymouth Fore River
4.2—8.3
1.6—3.6
15 • 9 2i .7
144—6800
0.5—7.5
0.1—1.0
0.02—0.24
6.9—7.8
0. 02—0. 10
26.0—56.0
24—2930
60—20000
450—36050
Weymouth Back River 3
7.2—8.3
1.4—2.5
16 ,8 —22.1 (62,2—71.8 )
108—1900
1.5—5.5
0.4—1.1
0.02—0.06
7.0—7.5
0.01—0.04
20. 0—46 .5
32—975
50—5000
450—4900
4 Range of geometric means
(60,6 -71 ,1)
1 Water
2 Range
3 Range
Quality Section, 1976f
of averages of 15 samples
of average of 5 samples
2—80
-------
LOCATION
Quincy Bay
I4ngham Bay
Town River Bay.
1 0
MILES
1—I DAM
POLLUTANT DISCHARGE LOCATIONS
SEE: TABLE 2.5—19
SOUPCF: Wot•r Ouality S.ctieni, 1976k
FIGURE 2.5-25 POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
WEYMOUTH RIVER WATERSHED
LOCATIONS
WATERSHED
R.
Upper Reservoir
Meadow Br.
101
KILOMETEIS
Holbrook
LEGEND
* USC S. GAGING STATION
-------
TABLE 2.5-19
WEYMOUTH RIVER WATERSHED DISCHARGES
Map No Discharger Discharge
1 *Chase & Sons, Inc. cooling water
2 *Armstrong Cork Co. cooling water and
autoclave condensate
3 * achigan Abrasive Products cooling water
4 *BrajI tree Electric Light Co. electric power plant
cooling water
5 *Qujncy Oil Co. oil terminal drainage
5 *Boston Edison Co., electric power plant
Edgar Station cooling water
7 *proctor & Gamble Co. detergent manufacture
wastes
B *Clties Service Oil Terminal oil terminal drainage
9 *G nera1 Dynamics Corp. cooling water, boiler
blowdown, shipyard
drainage
Source; Water Quality Section, 1976-f
* DES Permit Issued
2—82
-------
prevent fish toxicity. Phosphorus levels exceed that which is
recognized (0.01 mg/i) as the critical level above which exces-
sive plant growth can occur. The implication is that insidious
non-point sources, such as septic tank drainage and storm water
runoff, are starting to create water quality problems in the
Weymouth River watershed.
C. Water Quantity-Quality Problems . No water quantity-quality
problems are presently documented as existing in the Weymouth
River watershed. However, the water supply for all towns in
this watershed originates within the waters, with a portion
of it being discharged outside the basin via the MDC sewer sys—
tern. An increased discharge to the sewer system has the poten-
tial to decrease stream flow due to the loss of septic tank
recharge. The effect of any proposed sewering upon this water—
shed’s hydrologic budget should be carefully considered prior
to the initiation of the future action.
D. Water Quality Management P1annin . The EMMA Report is the
official 303(e) basin plan for the rivers of this watershed.
In its present recommended form, however, it will not have any
effect upon water quality within the Weymouth River watershed.
The ongoing 208 planning should be helpful in defining,
and developing controls for, the non-point sources within this
watershed.
2.5.6 Sudbury River Watershed
The Sudbury River has its source in the Town of Westborough,
from which it flows east through Cedar Swamp to Framingham. In
Framinghani the River turns sharply north and sequentially travels
within the borders of Sudbury, Wayland, Lincoln and the Town of
Concord where it joins with the Assabet River to form the Concord
River. A drainage basin (Figure 2.5—26) of 438 sq km (169 sq mi)
contributes to the 66 km (41 mi) long Sudbury River. Towns with-
in the basin proposed for inclusion in the MSD are Southborough
Hopkinton and Ashland, while Framingham presently discharges to
Nut Island.
The Sudbury River can be divided into distinct physical sec-
tions. The first is upstream of Framingham where the river is
narrow and flows rapidly. Several small impoundments restrict
free flow through this section. The second section is character-
ized by two major impoundments (Sudbury Reservoirs Nos. 1 and 2)
in Frazningham, while the third section of the river flows through
the National Wildlife Refuge Meadowlands in the towns of Sudbury,
Wayland, Lincoln and Concord. River movement is sluggish through
the Meadowlands as river elevation changes only 0.31 m (1 ft)
Over a distance of 19.3 km (12 mi).
2—83
-------
LI
WATERSHED LOCATION
WE STFO RD
I
/
LINCOLN
‘bury
B ILL ERICA
‘4 .’
Concord River
EDFORD
River
Cochituate
SHE RBOR N
HOLLISTON
3
3 0 3
-
KILOMETERS
0
MILES
SOURCE: Wat., Quality S.ction. 1976g
Merrimack
Assabet
GRAFTON
UPTON
3
FIGURE 2.5-26 SUDBURY RIVER WATERSHED
-------
The towns included in this discussion are located within
the first and second sections of the river. These sections
of the Sudbury are covered by the anti—degradation clause of
the 1974 Massachusetts Water Quality Standards. The clause
prohibits any new wastewater discharge upstreamof the most
upstream municipal discharge (Water Quality Section, l976f).
A. Water Quality . A survey (Water Quality Section, 1976)
of the Sudbury River was conducted by the Massachusetts
Division of Water Pollution Control in the summer of 1973.
The first river segment is contained within the expanded MSD.
This segment extends from the source of the Sudbury to
the outlet of Saxonville Pond. High coliform bacteria levels
were encountered along the entire length of the segment,
indicating fecal contamination to be occurring. The possible
sources of contamination were identified as subsurface dis-
posal problems in the upper portions of the segment and urban
runoff, septic leachate, storm sewers, and wastewater sewers
in the heavily populated areas of Ashland and Framingharn.
The entire length of this segment has been designated as
Class B waters. (Water quality classifications for the Sud-
bury are presented in Figure 2.5—27). However, dissolved
oxygen levels were found to be below the Class B criteria.
Excessive concentrations of nutrients were not present.
The remainder of the Sudbury River lies outside of the
designated study area. However, alterations imposed upon
the upstream region will undoubtedly affect the downstream
environment. Problems associated with these reaches include
high levels of coliform bacteria, moderate nutrient concentra-
tions, heavy doses of pesticides, and dissolved oxygen deficien-
cies aggravated by the introduction of organic matter from
the surrounding marshlands.
Sections of the upper Sudbury River are part of the Metro-
politan District Commission’s water supply system. Impound-
DEnts in the towns of Ashland and Framingham are presently
maintained as an emergency water supply and have not actively
been used as a potable water ,source since before 1930. A
minimum discharge of 0.066 ma/s (2.32 cfs) must be released
at the outlet to this reservoir system. However, rarely has
such a minimum been reached as the 97 year average release is
3.24 1n 3 /s (114.5 cfs). During the 1973 survey, flow was moni-
tored from July 5 to August 31 at Reservoir o. 1 at Framing-
ham. Discharge ranged from 0.176 to 4.446 m /s (6.2 to 157
cfs) with a mean of 1.413 m 3 /s (49.9 cfs).
Two additonal impoundments are present on the Upper Sud-
bury River, namely the Sudbury Reservoir in the towns of
Southborough and Marlborough, and the Framingham Reservoir
2—85
-------
LII
WATERSHED LOCATION
Merrimack River
WATER USE CLASSIFICATION
1976 CONDITION
CHANGE IN CLASSIFICATION
Assabet River
Sudbury River
Lake Cochituate
SOURCE: Water Quality Section: 1976a
3
3 0 3
KILOMETERS
9
MILES
FIGURE 2.5-27 WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATIONS
River
3
SUDBURY RIVER WATERSHED
-------
-. S _ I S \ 1
\ . / T <—’\
: ( ( x
‘-S S
5 , .5 S
C! -
—-I —-
- =1 F - •j - . !
— r
-- -
-- ç—’ . . -.-
- S J : — -
—
V. -
T : - _____ LE:EI LD
: - J -
: : Ti ; _
- ‘r — - - - --‘ -— -. - .‘I•__S _”
—• .77 • - - .,- . : -; - -
‘ _— - - - - -.
- A -i
c 7 I -
- - .—. - -‘ i —1. - .çi 5 • K STti Y i
-. .- J ‘ - - & ‘ -‘ T - -.
-
-‘ -. -.
\ p— .. - . - ‘ & -. • ‘ ‘
:- - - S
-. S
: CT L 1
MILES
/, 1o 1i
- 2 1 0 1 2
• -!
I = . . ‘i.. . ,. .L KM
JS . - -
.0’ - -.
SOURCE: MAPC Wotr Quality Proj.ct Map
FIGURE 2.5-28 GROUNDWATER FAVORABILITY
SUASCO RIVER WATERSHED
-------
No. 3. The combined capacity of the systems is 3. 18xl0 7 in 3
(8.4 billion gallons) which are utilized to supplement water
supplies during summer high demand periods in the MDC system.
Of the four communities contained within the study area,
Ashland and Hopkinton are dependent upon groundwater as their
potable water source while Framinghazn and Southborough are
tied into the MDC system. Because of their dependence on sub-
surf ace water the two former communities must be particularly
protective of their groundwater resources.
No point sources of pollution are contributed to the
Sudbury River by the four towns of the upper basin which lie
within the study area. From Westborough to Franiinghaxn no
specific sites of waste discharges have been identified.
Two point source waste discharges, however, do exist
along the lower length of the Sudbury River. The first dis-
charge is the Marlborough East Advanced Wastewater Treatment
Plant which releases its effluent to Hop Brook. Hop Brook
flows for 12.9 km (8 mi) before entering the Sudbury. The
second discharge is the Raytheon Corporation which releases
a secondary treated effluent of approximately 151.4 in 3 /d
(40,000 gal/d) to the River. The discharge has little effect
upon the water quality of the River because of the small
amount of effluent flow and the fact that the discharge flows
through a swamp before reaching the Sudbury River.
B. Water Quality Management Planning . The Water Quality
Management Plan (303e) for the Sudbury basin (Water Quality
Section, 1976) is in basic agreement with the recommendations
of the EMMA Plan. Framingham and Ashland are presently
experiencing water quality related problems because the
capacity of the existing MSD trunk line is insufficient. The
Sudbury Basin Plan recommends expansion of the MDC intercep-
tor to alleviate these problems. Hopkinton and Southborough
do not have pressing needs and the 303(e) plan recommends
inclusion of these towns in the MSD when, and if, central
sewerage systems are required.
The EMMA study proposed mid-Charles satellite plant
would supply low flow augmentation for the Charles River.
However, two towns in the proposed satellite plant tributary
area lie within the Sudbury basin. Ashland and Hopkinton
have local groundwater supplies (Figure 2.5-28 presents
groundwater resources within the area). The proposed system
would transfer wastewaters from their basin of origin to
the adjacent Charles River basin. Prior to implementations,
thought must be given to the negative impacts this inter-basin
transfer may have on ground and surface water resources within
the Sudbury River watershed.
2—88
-------
2.6 AQUATIC AND MARINE BIOTA
Water quality is often described in physical-chemical
terms while others describe water quality by the biota it
supports. Both are workable and usually concurrent criteria.
In general, the fresh water quality of lakes and rivers in
the MDC service area is somewhat degraded. This implies that
additives, from various point and non-point sources, have
altered the physical and chemical environments of the MDC’S
waters such that the biotic assemblages have changed. Organ-
isms that cannot tolerate “less than pristine” conditions
are usually not found in such waters.
Most biota need oxygen and food. The aquatic microflora
and microfauna rely on oxygen that is dissolved in the water
(Dissolved Oxygen or DO) and inorganic and organic food in
the form of detritus and dissolved nutrients. When there is
an overabundance of food, oxygen is often depleted via bio-
logical processes.
Clean waters are typified by ample DO and low nutrient
levels. In such waters the total biomass is less than in
more polluted environment. In this situation, the ecosystem
functions very efficiently. That is, gases and nutrients
are cycled such that, under most conditions, neither is lack-
ing. Clean water environments are also characterized by
specific biotic communities.
The addition of pollutants to clean waters often imposes
a stress on the native biota. Factors such as sludge deposits
on the stream bottom and low DO levels can substantially affect
the ecosystem and completely alter the composition of the
biota. This effect may be manifested by algal blooms, over-
abundance of “trash” fish (carp and suckers), high bacterial
levels, and if conditions become particularly stressed, fish
kills can occur and/or the water can become toxic. Tables
2.6-1 and 2.6-2 illustrate the relationships between physical,
chemical, and biological factors in a stream environment.
The two cases illustrated represent typical “clean” and “pol-
luted” stream environments. In reality, these cases represent
two extremes which cover an infinite range of real world cir-
cumstances.
In the MDC study area, an adequate characterization of
aquatic organisms is lacking in many cases. Due to the cause—
and-effect relationship between water quality and biota, at
least a general idea as to the nature of the biotic communi-
ties may be had by evaluating the available water quality
data.
2—89
-------
Table 2.6—i
CI ARACTERISTICS OF A TYPICAL
“CLEAN STREAM” ENVIRONMENT
General Features:
* “Clean” bottom, no sludge deposits
* Water relatively clear
Chemical Features:
* Dissolved oxygen is high, water smells “fresh”,
no foul “rotten egg” smell
* Organic content low
* Nutrient levels low
* No toxic materials present
Biological Features:
* Bacterial count low
* Number of species high
* Number of organisms per species low
* Characteristic “clean stream” organisms found
— Invertebrates:
— Caddis fly, mayfly, stonefly and damseifly
larvae, beetles, clams
- Fish:
— Darters, minnows, sunfishes, bass,
yellow perch
2—90
-------
Table 2.6—2
CHARACTERISTICS OF A TYPICAL
“POLLUTED STRLN” ENVIRONMENT
General Features:
* Bottom covered with thick black organic
sediment layer
* Water turbid
Chemical Features:
* Dissolved oxygen low, foul “rotten egg” smell
sometimes present
* Organic content high
* Nutrient levels high
Biological Features:
* Bacterial count high
* Number of species low
* Number of organisms per species high
* Characteristic “pollution tolerant” organisms
found
- Invertebrates:
- Midge and mosquito larvae, sludge worms,
air-breathing snails, rat-tailed maggots
- Fish:
- None in severe cases; carp, suckers, catfish
in less extreme situations
2—91
-------
Much of the water in the MDC study area is “unclean”.
In some areas, as a result of point source discharges, the
water is polluted. The effects are evident upon examining
representative chemical and biological data. However, severe
pollution is most serious in localized areas. For example,
in a river, water quality gradually improves downstream from
a point source. Thus, chemical and biological data are sub-
ject to rapid change.
Based on limited data, and inferred from water quality
parameters, a compilation of aquatic organisms which are
likely to be found in the river basins of the MSD area was
developed. Certain groups or associations of species may
be characteristic of a certain ‘peof environment. It does
not mean, however, the individual species are reliable indi-
cators of environmental conditions in a particular area.
The Charles River was examined thoroughly from 1973
through 1976 (Erdxnann, 1977). The findings concur with
textbook descriptions of polluted waters (Ruttner, 1974 and
Reid, 1961). The DO levels were depressed at point source
discharge locations of organic waste. In addition, algal
growth stimulated by point and non-point discharges caused
large daily variations in DO along the length of the River.
The organic content and nutrient levels of the Charles River
are increased by the polluting point source organic waste
discharges of the upper watershed. Downstream, biological
processes (e.g., algal growth) and non-point sources further
increase organic and nutrient levels.
The bacterial quality is poor along the length of the
Charles River. Total coliform levels were consistently
violated at all the sampling stations. Because of inade-
quate disinfection of some sewage effluents, a public health
risk exists in some parts of the River.
The Neponset River may be generally classified as a
recovering river. Upstream portions of the River have rela-
tively high dissolved oxygen levels to the Town of Walpole.
Below this point, DO levels decrease. Organisms which occur
below the Neponset Reservoir Dam include subxnergent plants
such as milfoil ( Myrio hyllum sp.) and flatworms, caddisflies
and isopods. As the River travels downstream, floating and
and emergent aquatic vegetation becomes abundant. There is
an accumulation of oil on the river bottom and along the
shore as one continues downstream. Beetle larvae, tubificids
and snails are evident.
The Neponset basin, as an urbanized area, contributes
to the degradation of the downstream water quality. In the
lower reaches of the River, species diversity decreases and
the individiuals in each species increase. For example, few
mayf lies are present, there is an increase in snails and larvae,
2—92
-------
and the variety of fish may be expected to decrease. Imme-
diately below the confluence of Mother Brook, combined sewer
overflows, urban runoff, and non—point sources provide the
primary degradation of water quality. Therefore, the aquatic
biota will reflect a degraded environment. There is an in-
crease in co].iform bacteria and BOD in the area. Organisms
which may be expected to occur include sludge worms, midge
larvae, carp and suckers.
At the headwaters of the Mystic River Basin, the ? ber-
jona River flows from marshes in Reading and the Halls Brook
tributary. Numerous sources of pollutants enter these waters.
The upper reaches of the Aberjona above Reading may be con-
sidered a clean water area and, therefore, organisms such as
minnows, sunfish, caddisfly, inayf lies and other fresh water
organisms may be expected. Below the area and along Hall’s
Brook pollution levels increase. Pollution levels are rela-
tively high including coliform counts, BOD and nitrogen
levels. However, the Aberjona can be said to show some signs
of recovery. Organisms associated with “recovery” zones in
a river include: snails, midges, catfish and beetles. Numbers
of planktonic organisms increase with distance downstream,
particularly after the confluence with Horn Pond Brook.
When the Aberjona River enters the Mystic Lakes, high
nutrient levels are probably responsible for excessive aquatic
growth. Seasonal variations of phytoplankton in the Mystic
Lakes occur due to physical, chemical and biotic factors.
Highest phytoplankton levels occur in spring with a seondary
peak in late summer. The diatoms, Asterionella and Fragilaria ,
predominate in the spring. During summer an assemblage of
green and blue green algae take over lasting through autumn.
In winter diatoms again prevail. The number of zooplankton
present depends upon the food supply (Phytoplankton), envi-
ronmental conditions and predation. Zooplankton constitute
one of the chief trophic links between algae and fish. Most
noticeable were Bosmina sp., Ceriodaphoria sp., and Daphnia
sp. Various macrophytes are also found including pondweed
( Potamogeton richardsonii) , pickereiweed ( Potamogeton crispus )
and yellow water lily ( Nuphar sp.). The water quality is
improved as water enters Lower Mystic Lake due to the long
detention time in Upper Mystic Lake. However, coliform levels
rise, in addition to increases in both BOD and suspended
solids in the lower lake due to surrounding land uses.
Below the lakes Alewife Brook, which is highly polluted,
enters the Mystic River. The River experiences large algal
populations which are caused by increased pollution levels.
Coliform levels are high. The high pollution levels do not
provide suitable environment for clean water organisms, there-
fore, green and blue green algae, snails, “trash” fish (carp,
suckers) and various larvae may be found. Below the Amelia
Earhart Dam tidal conditions exist. Therefore, there will be
marine aquatic organisms.
2—93
-------
For the Weymouth River Basin there is extremely little
data from which an analysis of the aquatic community can be
made. Both the WeylTtouth Fore and Weymouth Back Rivers are
tidal in nature below the first dam up river from Boston Har-
bor, indicating that estuarine and marine organisms will be
found in the tidal area. Above the saline region, fresh water
organisms will predominate. It appears that this river system
may be classified as a recovering environment, which is influ-
enced by heavy commercial industry along its banks. Due to
the lack of information on the basin, no conclusive statements
as to the organisms which will occur can be made.
The marine environment is affected by pollutants similarly
to fresh waters. The major difference, of course, is that
marine waters are open to the “oceanic mixing bowl” which is
influenced by currents, wind, and the like.
The open water of Boston Harbor is polluted. This is
especially significant when compared to the water of Massa—
chusetts Bay which lies to the east. This fact indicates
that the “mixing bowl” effect is not that significant in the
Boston Harbor area. In fact, the shellfish in many areas
near point sources of pollution are contaminated. Virtually
all of the shellfish beds in the Boston Harbor region have
been declared contaminated by the Massachusetts Department
of Public Health (Appendix 2.6-9).
Bacterial analyses of Boston Harbor show the greatest
contamination exists in the western parts of the Harbor. For
example, Dorchester Bay was considered “grossly contaminated”
by the US. Public Health Service while Hingham Bay is mostly
“clean”. The standards for coliform counts are:
0-70 Coliform bacteria per 100 ml of water...clean
71-700 Coliform bacteria per 100 ml of water. . .moderately
contaminated
Over-700 Coliform bacteria per 100 ml of water. . .grossly
contaminated
Dissolved oxygen concentrations are mostly good through-
out Boston Harbor (9-10 ppm). This is because there is usu-
ally adequate and sufficient growth of algae to prevent DO
depression. However, depressed DO levels should be expected
in the vicinity of point sources of pollution. Low DO levels
will affect the make-up of the benthic biota by favoring the
pollution tolerant organisms such as sludge worms and other
polychaete worms.
2—94
-------
A tremendous variety of organisms exists in the fresh
water and marine environments in the MDC study area. However,
development and carelessness has upset the natural balance
of various ecosystems in favor of organisms that are toler-
ant of pollution. In addition, many organisms have ingested
toxins, and are now concentrated sources of these toxins.
It is for this reason that many shelifisheries have closed.
Lists of aquatic and marine organisms are compiled in
Appendix 2.6. Each group of organisms has representatives
that are both tolerant and intolerant of pollution. This
indicates that the waters in the MDC study area range from
clean to polluted. No inferences can be drawn as to the
relative cleanliness of a particular body of water without
further study.
2—95
-------
2.7 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE
2.7.1. Major Ecosystems
The MDC study area contains six major ecosystems that
support different types of plants and animals. Though each
supports biotic assemblages that differ, all are relatively
important. The six ecosystems to be examined are: urban
and residential environments, old fields, deciduous forests,
coniferous forests (or plantations), freshwater wetlands,
and salt marshes. Most of the plants are common to more
than one ecosystem, thus an entire assemblage of plants cate-
gorizes a major ecosystem rather than a few plants. The
local salt marshes are the only exception to this. Species
lists of the common plants and animals in the MDC study area
are presented in Appendices 2.7-1 through 2.7-3.
A. Urban-Residential Ecosystem . The cities are typified by
plantings of various pollution resistant trees such as tree-
of-heaven, London plane, ginkgo and honeylocust. In addition,
oaks will often be found lining the streets. Various orna-
mental plantings are found in the parks. The roadsides are
lined with ruderal plants such as goldenrods, grasses,
evening primrose, wormwood and the like.
Despite their outward appearance, cities often harbor
an array of wildlife. The Norway rat, house mouse, gray
squirrel, racoons and opossums are likely inhabitants. Pigeons,
sparrows, seagulls and starlings abound as well. The parks,
however, often provide suitable habitat for many migrating
birds. Local bird societies often keep lists of unusual
Sitings.
Residential areas are often typified by landscaped
lawns, open fields, wood lots or large open areas adjacent
to the towns. Hence, a more diversified flora can be ex-
pected. All of the city plantings can be found in addition
to hearty plants that have remained or reinvaded from other
undeveloped areas. Wild cherries, birches, maples, beech
and cottonwood trees are usually common. Again, the urban
fauna is present in these areas. In addition, depending
on the proximity to undeveloped areas, wildlife species
such as deer, cottontail rabbits, pheasants, woodpeckers,
meadowlarks, and various snakes and amphibians will be
found.
B. Old Fields . Old fields are second growth, herb dominated
habitats that form, for example, because an abandoned farm
has been left fallow and is overgrown with wild plants or a
forest has been cleared and herbaceous plants invade.
2—96
-------
Old fields are comprised of annual grasses and herbs
during the first year of abandonment. By the second year,
perennial plants have begun to invade. Within ten years
perennial grasses and herbs, shrubs and young trees are
typically found. This mixture of growth forms provides
unusually good wildlife habitat which contains ample food
for both resident and visiting animals. If water is present,
the wildlife potential is excellent. Cover is usually abun-
dant because it is a function of the growth habits of the
invading plants. Rugosa rose and honeysuckle, which are
conmion old field plants, are especially good cover for birds
and small mammals such as rabbits and woodchucks.
As old field habitats mature, the amount of herbaceous
growth decreases while the woody growth increase. This pro-
cess, called succession, may give rise to a mature forest.
This sucessional process is discussed in Appendix 2.7-4.
C. Deciduous Forests . After 50-75 years, old fields usually
harbor a majority of woody plants. As the deciduous trees
in the field mature, the old field can now be categorized
as a deciduous forest. Some of the major canopy species
likely to be found are red, white, black and chestnut oaks,
sugar and red maples, hickories, gray and sweet birch and
white ash.
Many different trees and shrubs will fill the under-
story of the forest. Plants such as maple-leaf viburnum,
witch hazel, dogwood, spicebush, blueberries, huckleberries
and hophornbeam are frequently encountered. In addition,
many of the trees thatoriginally invaded the old field are
still present. These trees are vestigial because they cannot
reproduce successfully due to the competition in the form of
shade from other trees. The gray birch, hawthorns, apples
and cherry are some of the species that are vestigial rem-
nants of an old field.
Deciduous forests support a unique assemblage of animals.
Deer are probably the most important animal from an aesthetic
and recreational viewpoint. Raccoons, opossums, red and grey
squirrels, chipmunks, shrews, various bats, river otters,
weasels, mink, red and gray foxes and voles are often abun—
dant.
Though the NDC study area is extensively developed.
there still remain many woodland parcels. Appendix 2.7-5
tabulates the acreage of forest, both deciduous and conifer-
ous, found in each town. This is one type of approximation
of the degree of urbanization, suburbanization or rural
nature of a community.
2—97
-------
D. Coniferous Forests . The study area lies south of the
region which is conducive to the growth of the true boreal
forest. However, large stands of white pine and various
other conifers do exist. These areas support different bird
populations and fewer large mammals. This is due to lack
of food (herbage and woody growth) in the understory of these
forests. The stands of conifers in the study area are not
so large as to prevent the animal residents from making
feeding forays to ad:jacent ecosystems. Thus, the animal
populations in these areas should not differ greatly from
those in the deciduous forests.
E. Freshwater Wetlands . Whenever the water table rises
above the soil’s surface for at least a short period of time
during the year, the character of the vegetation is altered.
These habitats support distinct aggregations of plants that
are, in part, considered hydrophytes. If the habitat in
question is dominated by trees and shrubs it is called a
swamp. Here red maple, sourguin, blueberries and sweetpepper
bush would be common. When the area is herb dominated, it is
called a marsh. Many species of sedges, grasses and herba-
ceous flowering plants are found in marshes. Finally, when
there is an abundance of Sphagnum moss, a bog situation
exists. When the bog is near the coast, Atlantic white cedar
will be found. Inland bogs will contain black spruce and
eastern larch. Appendix 2.7—6 contains a complete appraisal
and evaluation system for ascertaining the kind and value of
wetlands commonly found in the area.
Freshwater wetlands usually support high proportions of
rare and endangered plants and animals when compared to the
other types of ecosystems. These wetland habitats, when
undisturbed, also support very diverse floras and faunas.
However, there are fewer acres of wetlands than dry uplands.
(Appendix 2.7—7 tabulates the amount of fresh and salt
marsh habitats in each town). Hence, this habitat type is
not too common and is thus valuable.
The diversity and variety of these habitats make the
generation of their species lists ponderous. If wetlands
prove to be important in the final site selection, a thor-
ough on-site analysis can be conducted at that time.
E. Salt Marsh . Coastal wetlands are extremely valuable
habitats. The majority of all salt marshes provide recrea-
tional and aesthetic value beyond calculation. Their impor-
tance to the perpetuation of both sport and commercial marine
fisheries is undisputed. Smith (1974) notes that temperate
salt marshes are among the most productive ecosystems in the
world. In addition, their production is readily assimilable
2—98
-------
to the primary consumers. These wetlands provide vital habi-
tat and food for a variety of wildlife, including mammals,
waterfowl and shorebirds, invertebrates and small fish. The
coastal marshes’ buffering ability during storm tides is
indispensible for stabilizing the highly erodable shorelines.
Twenty—seven species of vascular plants have been iden-
tified in and adjacent to the salt marshes of Massachusetts
Bay. A mix of spike grass, sea lavender, glasswort, cord-
grass and salt hay is corrunonly found. (National Commission
on Water Quality, 1975). The salt marshes and the rooted
plants within them serve as important sources of food and
habitat to waterfowl and detritus feeders (Kladec and Wentz,
1974).
Before any construction is begun, the presence and state
of any coastal wetlands should be ascertained. Coastal
marshes are intrinsically valuable without having the burden
of the many variables that alter the character of a fresh-
water marsh. Nonetheless, Massachusetts is now aware of the
value of all wetlands by virtue of the State’s general laws,
Chapter 131, Section 40A and Chapter 130, Section 105, regu-
lating the development of any wetland (inland or coastal).
Several towns within the study area have mapped and recorded
areas in which they are enforcing the provisions of Chapter
131, Section 40A (Inland Wetlands Restriction Act), by
restricting development on certain inland wetlands. These
towns are: Dedham, Dover, Needham, Newton, Walpole, Waltham,
Wellesley and Westwood.
2.7.2. Rare and Endangered Species
The following animal species are considered rare or
endangered by the Massachusetts Division of Fish and Game.
An asterisk denotes inclusion on the Federal list of Endan-
gered and Threatened Species.
Rare
Beach Meadow Vole M1 C2’QtU8 br9 erV
Birds — None
Reptiles — None
Amphibians — None
2—99
-------
Endangered
Eastern Cougar* Fe lie concolor
Indiana Bat* Myotia aockzlia
Birds
Southern Bald Eagle* ffaliaeetus 1. leUCOCephalUB
Northern Bald Eagle &4iaeetue 1. was1n.ngtoni enst s
American Peregrine Falcon* Falco peregrvnus
Eskimo Curlew* Nwneniua borealis
Ipswlch Sparrow Pae8erculus princepe
Reptiles
Plymouth Red—Bellied Turtle Pseudemys rubriventrie bangei
Bog Turtle Clenriye rnuhienbergi
Leatherback Turtle Dex noche lye coriacea
Atlantic Ridley* Lepidocheiy8 kempi
Atlantic Loggerhead Cca’etta caretta
Green Turtle Chei nia mydas
Timber Rattlesnake Crotalue horridue
Northern Copperhead Agkistrodon contortrix
Amphibians — None
Massachusetts has no official list of rare and endangered
plants. The New England Botanical Club is preparing a pre-
liminary list for circulation to interested groups and indi-
viduals (Shaw 1978). The proposed Federal List of Threatened
and Endangered Species cites two species which may occur in
Massachusetts: Juncus pervetus (bog rush) and Isotria
medeoloides (small whorled pogonia). Isotria , however, “is
a dubious native” of the state (Shaw,1978).
An unofficial list of endangered organisms was compiled
by Benjamin Isgur, a Massachusetts State Conservationist, and
published by the Massachusetts Audubon Society (Newsletter,
October 1973). This list appears in Appendix 2.7-8.
All possible precautions should be taken to avoid dis-
turbance of the preferred habitats of the rare and/or endan-
gered species which may inhabit the study area. Their habi-
tats include mature forest vegetation, especially along
water (Southern and Northern Bald Eagle, American Peregrine),
caves (Indiana Bat), and fresh water wetlands (Plymouth Red-
Bellied Turtle and Bog Turtle). Salt marsh vegetation is
2—100
-------
vital as a base of the estuarine food web and loss of this
highly productive community could negatively affect the
endangered leatherback turtle, atlantic ridley, atlantic
loggerhead and green turtle. Ecological site analysis should
address each habitats’ potential to support these rare or
endangered species.
2—101
-------
2.8 AIR QUALITY
2.8.1 Standards and Pollutants Being Controlled
Ambient air quality is currently defined in terms of
measured concentrations of air contaminants in a given local
area. The six principal air pollutants involved are: total
suspended particulates (TSP), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur
dioxide (SO 2 ), photochemical oxidants (Ox), nitrogen dioxide
(NO 2 ) and non-methane hydrocarbons (HC). Acceptable levels
of these pollutants are defined by established ambient air
quality standards.
Primary and secondary ambient air quality standards
define permissible short—term and annual average concentra-
tions of the criteria pollutants. Primary ambient air quality
standards are designed to protect the public health, and they
are based on air quality criteria which allow an adequate
margin of safety. Secondary standards define air quality at
levels which are designed to protect the public welfare
including property and vegetation.
By law, state air quality standards must be at least
as stringent as the federal standards. The State of Massa-
chusetts adopted the federal standards, which are presented
in Table 2.8—1. Except for annual averages, these standards
may not be exceeded more than once per year.
The EMMA study area lies within the Boston Air Quality
Control Region (AQCR) for the most part, and the MDC system
lies entirely within this region. A number of air quality
monitoring stations are scattered throughout the MDC study
area. The maximum air pollutant concentrations measured for
the period of January-December 1976 and the number of air
quality violations at the monitoring sites are given in
Appendix, Tables A2.8-2 and A2-8-3. No hydrocarbon data is
available for this period. Each major pollutant will be
examined in the following sections. Air quality data has
been extracted from the yearly report series “Annual Report
on Air Quality in New England” (EPA, 1973-1976).
Total Suspended Particulates
Particulate matter may be observed in a solid or liquid
state. Suspended particulates remain in the air for longer
periods of time in contrast to settleable particulates which
readily settle out. These particulates may originate from
a number of sources, with the primary two being stationary
sources of fossil fuel combustion and motor vehicles.
Z— 102
-------
TABLE 2.8—1
MASSACHUSETTS AND FEDERAL AZ 1BIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Average Concentration
Averaging Type of Primary Standard Secondary Standard
Contaminant Time Average ug/m 3 ppm ug/nvS
Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) Year Arithmetic Mean 80 0.03 ——
Day Maximum (a) 365 0.14 -- --
3-Hour Maximum (a) None None 1,300 0.5
Total Suspended Particulates Year Geometric Mean 75 60 (b)
(TSP) Day Maximum (a) 260 150
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8 Hours Maximum (a) 10 (mg/rn 3 ) 9 10 (mg/rn 3 ) 9
1 Hour Maximum (a) 40(mg/m 3 ) 35 40 (mg/rn 3 ) 35
Photochemical Oxidants (03) 1 Hour Maximum (a) 160 0.08 160 0.08
Hydrocarbons (Non—Methane) 3 Hours Maximum (a,b) 160 0.24 160 0.24
Between 6&9 a.m.
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO 2 ) Year Arithmetic Mean 100 0.05 100 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.
-------
In the study area, violation of the particulate levels
allowed in the standards has occurred on many occasions dur-
ing the years 1973-1975. During 1976, six monitoring sites
in the study area violated the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for the 24 hour secondary standard of 150
pg/rn 3 . The highest levels registered during the January-
December 1976 period were 283 and 265 pg/rn 3 . EPA has noted
that the Kenmore Square data may be biased due to site loca-
tion, but a final evaluatign is yet to be made. The 24 hour
primary standard (260 pg/ma) was never exceeded more than
once at any monitoring station during the January-December
1976 study period, therefore, it net the NAAQS primary stan-
dards. The highest one day reading of 283 pg/nr’ was regis-
tered at the Medford (Fellsway and Route 16) monitoring sta-
tion. The annual geometric mean of 75 pg/rn was exceeded at
the Kenmore Square and both Medford monitoring sites.
Sulfur Dioxide
Sulfur dioxide originates predominantly from human activi-
ties including combustion of fuels and smelting of metals.
When these activities occur in concentrated metropolitan areas,
the sulfur dioxide levels will experience a definite rise over
the .2 ppb (parts per billion) background levels, to levels
in the range of .1 ppm (parts per million) in urban areas.
The sulfur oxides are very reactive in the atmosphere, espe-
cially in the presence of water. They may react synergistically
in the presence of various catalysts to form substances which
are corrosive, and harmful to one’s health.
No violations of the SO standards, primary or secondary,
were found during 1973—1976 in the study area. The levels
found in 1976 ranged from a 24 hour high of 288 pg/rn 3 in Med-
ford to a low of 29 pg/rn 3 at the Woburn site.
Carbon Monoxide
The background concentration of carbon monoxide (CO), a
colorless, odorless gas, is approximately .1 ppm. At levels
of several hundred ppm it can effect the human system via
dizziness, loss of mental acuity and eventually death. The
primary source of CO is incomplete fuel combustion by the
internal combustion engine. Therefore, the highest concentra-
tions are found in areas where the greatest density of operating
automobiles exists.
The one hour primary standard for CO has been exceeded
only once in the January 1975-December 1976 sampling period.
This occurred at Waltham, in 1975, where a maximum level of
42.2 pg/rn 3 was recorded once. This is not in viola ion of
the NAAQS. The secondary standards for Co (10 mg/rn for 8
hr) have been exceeded at five monitoring sites a total of
97 times in 1975 and 132 times for 1976. The highest levels
for secondary standards in 1975 were recorded at the Waltham
2—104
-------
monitoring site (22.9 hg/rn 3 ), while in 1976, the Kenmore Sta-
tion and Visconti Street sites within Boston showed the highest
levels, 19.1 and 18.6 pg/rn 3 respectively. The automobile is
the major source of carbon monoxide, and hence, it tends to
be highly localized. Levels may fluctuate significantly with
time of day and with site location.
Nitrogen Dioxide
The primary sources of NO 2 are combustion processes
involving coal and petroleum in which high temperatures are
involved. Inert nitrogen combines with oxygen at high tem-
peratures and tends to remain in that form if cooled quickly.
The nitrogen compounds are important factors in the produc-
tion of photochernical smog.
In 1975 one violation of the annual standard was recorded.
This was recorded at Kenmore Square where a level of 102 pg/rn 3
was found. For the period January-December 1976 no violations
took place. The highest annual average for the 1976 time span
was 86 pg/rn 3 at the Kenmore Square St tion, while the lowest
level occurred at Framingham, 35 pg/m- . The 1975 NOx readings
have been said to be high by EPA, thus the validity of the
1975 data are in doubt.
Hydrocarbons
Man made hydrocarbons (HC) constitute a relatively small
proportion of the total amount of HC emitted to the atmosphere,
however, their localized concentrations may be significant.
The importance of these compounds is their reaction with other
atn spheric pollutants in the presence of sunlight to form
oxidants. The largest source of hydrocarbons have not demon-
strated direct adverse effects on human health. No hydrocar-
bon levels were reported in EPA’S annual air quality reports.
Photochernical Oxidants
Photochemical oxidants are a secondary pollutant formed
by the reaction of primary pollutants (nitrogen dioxide and
hydrocarbons) in sunlight. These constituents cause a problem
of a regional nature. Ozone is a major constituent of oxidants
(at times up to 99 percent) and, therefore, it may not be
indicative of oxidant levels.
Monitoring sites in the region have shown repeated viola-
tions of the one hour 160 pg/rn 3 ozone standard. The highest
1975 levels were found at Framingham and Quincy, which had
maximum levels of 408 and 325 pg/rn 3 respectively. Po1l tant
levels in these areas continued to exceed the (160 pg/rn ) limit
in 1976. The highest levels for 1976 were Waltham (466 pg/rn 3 )
2—105
-------
and Ashland (427 ig/m 3 ). The total number of stations vio—
].ating the standard decreased front seven in 1975 to five in
1976.
Study of the emissions inventory for the study area,
(Appendix 2.8-4) indicates that transportation accounts for
approximately 97 percent of the Co emissions and 27.7 percent
of the particulate emissions. Of the particulate load, approx-
imately 42 percent is accounted for by residential, commercial,
and industrial fuel consumption while 13.5 percent is accounted
for by solid waste disposal of all types.
By definition, if any one of the monitoring stations
within an AQCR records data that indicates a contravention of
established standards, that AQCR is said to be in “non-attain-
ment.,” As several stations within the Boston AQCR have recorded
such values for particulates, carbon monoxide and photocheniical
oxidants, the Boston AQCR has been given a non-attainment
status for these pollutants.
2.8.2 Air Regulations
Under the 1970 version of the Clean Air Act and the up-
dated 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments, EPA was required to attain
or maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. As
part of EPA’s regulatory program an Emission Offset Interpre-
tive Ruling and Prevention of Significant Air Quality Deterior-
ation Regulations (PSD) have been published. The emission of f—
set policy (EOP) deals with air quality in non-attainment
areas, while PSD regulations apply to attainment and non-attain-
ment areas.
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
To carry out the Congressional mandate, the PSD regula-
tions were initially promulgated on December 5, 1974. Subse-
quently, on August 7, 1977 the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1977 became law. The 1977 amendments change the 1970 Act and
EPA ’s regulations in many respects, particularly with regard
to PSD. Therefore, on June 19, 1978 new PSD guidelines were
published to incorporate all the new requirements.
EPA’s regulatory program designates areas of the Nation
into three classes. The regulations specifically apply to
particulates and sulfur dioxide pollution. Specific numerical
increments of each air pollutant were permitted under each
class up to a level considered to be significant for that area.
Class I increments permitted only minor air quality deteriora-
tion; Class II increments where moderate growth and air deter-
ioration is allowed; Class III increments, deterioration up to
the secondary NAAQS. EPA initially designated all clean areas
of the Nation as Class II . Boston retains a Class II designa-
tion. Table 2.8-2 below presents the maximum allowable Class
II increments. These increments are to be treated in basically
2—106
-------
the same regulatory manner as the NAAQS (F.R. Vol. 43, No.
118, June 19, 1978 p. 26—380).
TABLE 2.8-2
CLASS II AMBIENT AIR INCREMENTS
Particulate Matter: Maximum Allowable
Increase (ug/m 3 )
Annual Geometric Mean 19
24-h maximum 37
Sulfur Dioxide: Maximum A11owa 1e
Increase ( ig/m )
Annual Arithmetic Mean 20
24-h maximum 91
3-h maximum 512
It should be noted that each NAAQS acts as an overriding
ceiling of maximum concentrations for any allowable increment.
Sources are subject tc a PSD analysis on the basis of
their armual potential emissions. A major source is defined
as a source having the potential to emit (emissions without
air pollution controls) 90,720 kg (100 tons) per year or more
or any air pollutant regulated under the Act for any of 28
specified stationary sources. The term major source also
includes any other source with the potential to emit 226,800
kg (250 tons) per year of any air pollutant. No major sta-
tionary source may be constructed unless the minimum PSD
requirements (where applicable) have been met.
States may exempt those sources with minimal emissions
from air quality review if the sources would not effect ambient
air quality. Only those major sources which would have allow-
able emissions equal to or greater than 45,360 kg (50 tons)
per year, 453.5 kg (1,000 pounds) per day, or 45.3 kg (100
Pounds) per hour, or an area where the increment is known to
be violated must receive an ambient review. Only these sources
must undergo review for Best Available Control Technology
(BACT) and then only for those pollutants for which the source
Would be major (F.R. Vol. 43 No. 118, June 19, 1978 p. 26—381).
S milar1y a PSD review provides a detailed analysis of air
quality related impacts including monitoring requirements,
ambient increments and new source information.
2—107
-------
Each source, prior to approval, must meet all applicable
emission limitations under the state implementation plan and
all applicable emissions standards and standards of performance.
In addition, allowable emissions must not cause or contribute
to air pollution violations of the NAAQS or PSD increment
regulations.
Emission Offset Ruling
If a source locates in a non—attainment area, in addition
to PSD requirements regarding long-range impact on an increment
and BACT, the source may be subject to the emission offset
interpretive ruling. The offset ruling controls the construc-
tion of sources which cause or contribute to air quality con-
centrations in excess of any NAAQS. The ruling applies to
major new sources locating in non—attainment areas. While all
sources are subject to SIP review for emission limitations,
the major sources must also meet stringent requirements for
lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) and more than equiva-
lent emission reductions. A major source is defined under
the 1976 offset ruling as having allowable emission rate of
90,720 kg (100 tons) per year (907,200 kg (1000 tons] for
carbon monoxide).
t(1C flU5 4 Should a source locate outside of the non-attainment
do tl nD area, or in a “clean” zone, quantification of the added pol-
lution incr nents that may occur some distance away in a non-
attainment area must be determined. A “clean zone” is a
portion of a non—attainment area designated as meeting the
NAAQS. A new source would not be considered to cause or con-
tribute to a violation of a NAAQS if the air quality impact
is less than the specified significance levels in the regula-
tions (generally based on class I PSD increment levels).
Should the significance levels be exceeded, the offset policy
would be triggered into effect. If the source does not
affect an area presently exceeding standards or cause a new
NAAQS violation, the sources may be approved after meeting
all applicable regulations.
The concept behind emission offsets if to provide a net
improvement in air quality when a source locates in a non-
attainment area. Emission offset credit is to be allowed
only foremission reductions which would not otherwise be
accomplished as a result of the Clean Air Act. The ruling
states emission offsets must be exceeded the new sources’
emissions and the offsets must be on an intrapo].lutant basis
(e.g. TSP increases may not be offset against SO 2 reductions).
For sources that would contribute to concentrations that
exceed a NAAQS, several conditions are required before a source
2—108
-------
may be approved. A major new source must make reasonable pro-
gress towards attainment and meet the following conditions:
1. The new source must meet the lowest achievable
emission rate for that type of source.
2. All existing sources owned or operated by the
source owner must be in compliance with SIP
requirements.
3. Emission offset reductions from existing sources
in the area around the proposed new source must
be obtained to compensate for the additional
pollutant load from the new source (Existing
sources are not required to provide offsets).
4. These offsets must provide a net benefit to the
air quality
It should be noted that the December 1976 emission of f-
set policy interpretive ruling will be updated by EPA. The
proposed changes will modify portions of the 1976 interpreta-
tions; however, the 1976 ruling continues to apply until a
final statement is published.
2—109
-------
2.9 NOISE
The study area consists of a wide range of noise environ-
ments including a major airport, heavily traveled urban regions
suburban areas and semi—rural countryside. Noise, defined as
unwanted sound, will tend to be localized and non-persistent.
This is because noise essentially decays instantaneously leaving
no residue; however, in many situations the noise may be of
a continuous nature (traffic) and therefore seem persistent.
In order to help determine possible future impacts, the
present noise levels in the study area should be known. Appen-
dix 2.9-1 gives existing noise levels. The data were generated
during a 1977 noise survey of Boston sponsored by the City of
Boston Conservation Commission.
The decibel is the unit of measurement used to depict
sound pressure levels. The “A—weighted” (dBA) decibel scale
assigns higher values to noise frequencies which the human
ear perceives as most annoying. This unit may also be used
to give a statistical description of noise levels by using
or L 50 levels. Appendix 2.9-1 presents L and L 50 levels
for peak noise hours (rush hour) and for nighttime hours.
The L].o and L5 0 noise levels statistically define the noise
level that is exceeded 10 percent and 50 percent of the time
respectively, for the time period under consideration. Both
the magnitude and frequency of occurrence of the loudest
noise events are indicated by Lic (dBA) levels, while L5Ø
(dBA) levels indicate average noise levels.
Boston, as is typical for major urban areas, has several
major sources of noise. Transportation related noise is the
major source of unwanted sound in the study area. Industrial
and commercial noise is another large contributor to noise
levels. Logan Airport and vehicle traffic are the two predom-
inant constituents of transportation noise. Noise levels will
vary with the time of day measurements are taken (diurnally)
due to the large daily variations in traffic flow. These var-
iatons may also occur on a daily and seasonal basis. Daytime
noise levels are higher than nighttime noise levels, and
winter readings have been found to be lower than other seasonal
readings.
The 1977 Boston Noise Survey shows a wide range of noise
levels in the Boston Area. Rush hour L 10 levels were seen to
vary greatly with location. In the Brighton-Aliston area a
low of 50 dBA (Lie) was found, in contrast to a high of 82
dEAL 10 ) in several other Boston Areas (South End, Charlestown).
2—110
-------
Nighttime L 1 noise levels range from a low of 43 dBA (L 10 )
in the Brig1 on—Allston area to a high of 77 dBA (L 1 ) in
the Back Bay. The L 50 levels are also presented in Appendix
2.9-1. These levels are lower than L 10 levels since they
indicate average noise levels. Rush hour noise ranges from
50 cIBA (L 50 ) to 78 dBA (L 50 ) and nighttime levels range from
40 cIBA (L 50 ) to 68 dBA (L 50 ) in the study area.
Major highways interlace the study area, and urban traf-
fic is prevalent through a large portion of the region. Thus,
relatively high noise levels may be expected in and adjacent
to the major noise sources. Noise studies have indicated there
is a noise signature that corresponds to the type and spatial
arrangement of industrial activities, transportation corridors,
and land use patterns within a community. Therefore, noise
levels for the entire area will vary from community to com-
munity depending on the number of noise sources within the
community and one’s proximity to the noise. Generally, for
residential areas noise levels may range from 55-70 dBA; with
55 dBA indicative of suburban area, while 70 dBA may be con-
sidered a noisy urban area.
Noise levels attributable to aircraft takeoffs and land-
ings will vary depending on several factors including the make
of the plane, receptor location, and plane glidepath. Takeoff
noise levels are generally higher than approachnoise levels.
On takeoff, depending on jet plane type, noise levels may range
between 90-105 dBA, while on approach, levels are lower, rang-
ing from 84—100 dBA.
Rail traffic may generate from 73—96 cIBA at 100 feet from
the track depending on the speed of the train. Rail traffic,
as well as air traffic, will vary with season, the day of
the week, time of day and with weather conditions.
The noise problem has real significance. High sound
levels have been shown to have physiological and psycho-
logical effects on people. In most cases the effect is ob-
served only during and shortly after an exposure to noise.
Noise levels have been shown to interfere with hearing and
sleep. Sleep deprivation is, in fact, one of the major
noise related problems. A lack of sleep, or a lack of one
of the several stages of sleep, may eventually have detrimental
effects on an individual’s health.
High noise levels have also been proven to cause hearing
loss. At present, for example, continued exposure tonoise
levels over 90 dBA is prohibited indoors by the Waish-Healey
Act. A proposal is presently being considered by OSHA to
lower this level to 85 cIBA. A temporary threshold shift in
2—111
-------
hearing may occur upon exposure to loud noises. This causes
a temporary loss of hearing in certain frequency bands. The
amount of time necessary to return to normal hearing will
depend upon the length and intensity of exposure to a noise
by an individual. Continued exposure to high noise levels
may cause permanent hearing loss. Common levels of noise
found in the envirorunent are provided in Table 2.9-1.
Less direct or tangible effects of noise are physio-
logical stress, annoyance, and task interference. These
effects are more difficult to define because they are not
exclusively produced by noise, nor are they simple functions
of the noise level. An individual may react differently to
different noise levels and specific noise conditions. Thus,
noise levels may adversely affect an individual to different
degrees depending on the person’s own psychological response
to the noise. Nevertheless, it is clear that art increasingly
noise-filled environment interferes with human well—being.
2—112
-------
Table 2.9—1
COMMON ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE LEVELS
Sound Pressure
Level dBA Environmental Condition
o Threshold of hearing
Rustle of leaves
20 Broadcasting studio
30 Bedroom at night
40 Library
50 Quiet office
60 Conversational speech (at 1 m)
70 Average radio
74 Light traffic noise
80 Typical factory
90 Subway
100 Symphony orchestra
110 Rock band
120 Aircraft takeoff
140 Threshold of pain
SOURCE: White, 1975
2—113
-------
2 • 10 DEMOGRAPHY AND LAND USE
This section swnrnarjzes current demographic and land
use trends in the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC)
service area. Reference is made throughout this discussion
to the more extensive narrative and related tabular materials
which appear in Appendix 2.10.
A.. Regional Overview . Currently 43 communities including
the City of Boston are served by the waste treatment facilities
of the MDC on Deer and Nut islands. An additional eight com-
munities are now programmed to enter the service region, in-
creasing the total population served by approximately 3 percent.
The service region (51 communities) had a population of
2,273,000 in 1975. During 1950—60 the region gained 4 percent
additional population; during 1960—70, 2.7 percent; and during
1970-75, 0.3 percent. The gradual reduction in growth rates
over this span of time occurred in the context of diminishing
rates of increase in the remaining inner and outer suburbs
(See Appendix 2.10, Table A2.lO-l).
In 1975, approximately 90 percent of all households living
in the 43 community service area were served by the MSD system.
Any future change in the total volume of wastewater processed
by the system will be due to three factors: incorporation of
more generators of wastes (households, businesses, etc.) within
existing communities, addition of new communities, and changes
in rates of usage by individual user categories. While there
is appreciable undeveloped land, particularly in the outer sub-
urbs, and significant opportunities for redevelopment at higher
intensities in the more central communities including the City
of Boston, it is unlikely that merely increasing sewage treat-
nient capacity will stimulate appreciable new development.
Since 1950 the Boston Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Area (SMSA), which includes all but three of the 51 communities,
has experienced steadily declining rates of growth (1950-60,
7.5 percent; 1960-70, 6.1 percent) while the State of Massachu-
setts peaked during 1960—70 (1950—60, 9.8 percent; 1960—70,
10.5 percent; 1970-75, 2.4 percent). National growth rates
have steadily declined since 1950 (1950—60, 19.5 percent;
1960—70, 12.5 percent; 1970—75, 4.7 percent). Clearly, the
SMSA has failed to maintain its proportionate share of state
growth and the state has failed to maintain its share of national
growth. Both central city and suburbs are at least momentarily
converging to zero rates of population growth. (See Appendix
2.10, Table A2.10—1).
2—114
-------
B. Current Population Characteristics . This section con-
side ithe major dimensions of demographic variation among
the 51 communities of the expanded MDC Service Area.
During 1950—60, more communities experienced population
growth rates in excess of 30 percent than in 1960-70, or
for the extrapolated period 1970-80. Negative growth cornmuni-
ties exhibited surprising persistence once the trend of decline
had begun. Communities with the lowest ratios of undeveloped
to developed land tended to have the greatest population
stability as measured by percentage change in population dur-
ing 1950—75.
among the MDC member communities there exists moderate
variation in population age distribution. Within the SMSA as
a whole, this distribution contains: age 0—18, 31.9 percent;
age 16-65, 56.9 percent; age 65+, 11.3 percent (1970). The
average age of SMSA residents is gradually increasing.
Central city (Boston) age distribution is skewed to the older
age groups (See Appendix 2.10, Table A2.10-2).
The racial mix varies widely among MDC member communities.
The following communities had non-white population proportions
in excess of 4.0 percent in 1970; Boston (1960, 9.8 percent;
1970, 18.2 percent), Cambridge (1960, 6.3 percent; 1970, 8.9
percent), and Lincoln (1960, 2.6 percent; 1970, 4.3 percent).
In the SMSA as a whole, there has occurred a small increase
in the proportion of the non—white population in recent years
(1960, 3.4 percent; 1970, 5.5 percent). This increase has
been disproportionately shared among MDC communities though
growth of non-white populations in outlying communities dur-
ing 1960-70 is apparent. (See Appendix 2.10, Table A2.10-2.
For income correlates see Appendix 2.10, Table A2.lO—3).
C. Economic Analysis . This section summarizes key findings
regarding the structure of the Boston regional economy, its
recent performance and its outlook.
In recent years, New England has led the downturn in
the Northeastern economy. Now, however, the Middle Atlantic
States (New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey) are in rela-
tive decline while those of New England appear, at least
niomentarily, to have stabilized. The region overall, however,
1.8 currently less competitive in comparison to the South and
West.
Three counties contain the bulk of the expanded MDC ser-
vice area (Middlesex, Norfolk and Suffolk). As a whole, this
three-county economy derives its impetus from the following
Sectors: manufacturing (23.3 percent of all employees),
services (21.6 percent), retail trade (16.0 percent), government
2—115
-------
(15.3 percent) and finance, insurance and real estate (7.8
percent). These percentages are not wholly representative of
the national economy.
Over the period 1959-75, overall employment in the three—
county area has increased by 31 percent (i.e. 1959-65, 10.9
percent; 1965—70, 17.9 percent; and 1970-75, 4.9 percent),
having experienced a peak rate in 1965-70. Service-producing
activities have shown considerable vitality while goods-pro-
ducing activities have been far less active during the last
three decades. (See Appendix 2.10, Tables A2.l0-4 and A2.lO—5).
Similar trends prevailed in Massachusetts as a whole. (See
Appendix 2.10, Table A2.10-6).
D. Land Use: Patterns and Plans . In this section, land use
has been tabulated in three major categories (residential,
non-residential and vacant land) for each of the 51 communi-
ties and grouped into geographic sub-areas identical to those
utilized in the analysis of transportation corridors in the
EMMA Study (See Appendix 2.10, Table A2.l0-7). The land use
composition of individual communities varies considerably.
The dominant determinants of regional land use structure
include: access to the central city, radial and circumferen’-
tiál transportation development, environmental constraints,
historical patterns of peripheral development and business
development in core and peripheral nodes of activity.
The total supply of transitional open space and forest
lands is quite large within all sub-areas of the Boston region
(Appendix 2.10, Table A2l0—7). Additional crop and pasture
lands provide still more opportunity for new development, yet
current development pressures are moderate or less.
A survey of the major planning goals among the 51 com-
munities found the more central, older areas to be stressing
economic revitalization, physical redevelopment and neighbor-
hood stabilization. More peripheral communities are apparently
more concerned about strengthening their tax bases while
enhancing their residential amenities. (See Appendix 2.10
for a full discussion).
E. Transportation . This section describes the present con-
figuration of the regional transportation network and suinmar-
izes future transportation plans. The importance of transpor-
tation for the development of peripheral lands is, of course,
substantial.
The existing major highway system includes three inter-
state routes (Route 1—95, Topsfield to Sharon; Route 1-93,
North Reading to Boston; and the Massachusetts Turnpike,
2—116
-------
Ashland to Boston). The first two run north—south, the third,
east-west. All feed circumferential Route 128. Additional
arterials (U.S. Route 1, Mass Routes 1A, 2, 3, and 24) provide
access to and from the study area. Alternative modes of
travel include several radial branches of the commuter rail
line, rapid transit lines in the dense Boston core and rapid
transit lines in key peripheral locations. There are also
four publicly owned airports in the EMMA region, four major
seaports and various other transportation facilities (See
pendix 2.10).
Major expressway expansion through the year 2000 will
not occur within the circumference of Route 128, by guberna-
torial decision (1972). Nor is expansion of the commuter
rail system currently under consideration within the Boston
region. Expansion of the rapid transit system, however, is
now envisioned (Blue, Orange and Red lines of the system).
In overview, the transport system of the EMMA region
provides unusually efficient connections within the urban
core and between core and periphery. Circular movements are
more restricted. On the whole, recent improvements have
tended to produce a far more dispersed development pattern
within the region, not easily served by public services or
facilities. (See Appendix 2.10, Tables A2.lO—9).
2—117
-------
2.11 POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR THE MSL) COMMUNITIES
This summary outlines and evaluates the current alter-
native population projections for the expanded MDC service
area, by community. Three major population projection series
exist: EMMA, SENE and MAPC (See Appendix 2.11 for methodology).
A. Metro olitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) Projections .
These projections to the year 2000, by individual community,
utilize a 1975 base. The projection procedure entailed these
steps: trend extrapolation (contrained) by community to
2000, then correlation with independent sectoral employment
projections (EMPIRIC) to insure consistency.
B. Southeastern New England Study (SENE) Pro ections . These
Office of Business and Economic Research Statistics (OBERS)
were produced under provisions of the Federal Water Resources
Planning Act of 1965. for a study area including the Black-
stone, Charles, Mystic, Ipswich and Parker River Basins, plus
areas to the east of these rivers. The OBERS Projection pro-
cedure involves these three steps: projection of national
economic growth, allocation to sub-national economic areas
and then converting these regional economic forecasts into
population forecasts.
C. The EMMA Study Projections . These projections were pre-
pared by Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., and released in October,
1975. A two-step method was pursued. The first step is to
project aggregate regional population using both “regional
share” and “cohort-component” methods. The second step is
to disaggregate one or the other of these, by community,
utilizing the EMPIRIC Model based on the technique of simul-
taneous regressions as described in Appendix 2.11.
D. The Alternate Projections . Only the EMMA and MAPC pro-
jections are disaggregated by individual community. Still
one can compare the aggregate regional forecasts of all three.
They are not, however, entirely comparable in the aggregate
since the SENE projections cover a four-county region. The
results are listed below:
Population Percent
(in Thousands) change
1970 1990 1970—1990 Area
Source:
A. EMMA
B. MAPC
C. SENE
*Thjs refers
the MDC
**This four-county region includes Middlesex, Norfolk, Plymouth
and Suffolk.
2,266 2,444 + 7.9
2,266 2,408 + 6.3
2,192 2,440 +11.3
to the 51 communities proposed
MSD Area*
MSD Area*
Four County Area**
to be served by
2—118
-------
The SENE projections were rejected for reasons discussed
in the Appendix. And while EMMA and MAPC projections are
quite similar in the aggregate, the MAPC results are more
sensitive due to their spatial allocation procedure. For
the study area as a whole both projections can be considered
equivalent. Wastewater projections were developed in the
EMMA study from EMMA projections. Due to the similarity
between the EMMA and MAPC projections, this study utilizes
both EMMA population and wastewater projections. (Both EMMA
and MAPC projections are summarized in Appendix 2.11, Table
A2.ll—l).
2—119
-------
212 ENERGY PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION
The predominant energy form in the New England area is
electrical power, for which the area has no naturally occur-
ring fuel supplies for its generation. New England is thus
especially susceptible to national shortages of oil and natural
gas, since it is totally dependent upon imports, either domes-
tic or foreign. Natural gas has been in increasingly short
supply with many companies switching to liquid gas. The gas
supplies are also dependent upon imports.
Two suppliers provide the majority of the electricity
to the study area: the Boston Edison Company and the New
England Power Company. Several retail companies provide for
local distribution, with Massachusetts Electric and Boston-
Edison providing this service to the majority of the resi-
dents in the area. Electrical energy is produced through a
combination of fossil fuel, hydroelectric, internal combus-
tion and nuclear sources. Virtually all of the power com-
panies are linked together through a system in which one
company can draw on the reserves of another to meet peak
demands and supplement their own production. This cooper-
ative agreement is called the New England Power Pool and
services the States of Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachu-
setts, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine.
Both supplies and the distribution network appear to be
adequate to meet current demands. At the present time the
new England Power Pool has an installed reserve peak capacity
of an estimated 40 percent. The actual operating reserve
capacity is about 25-30 percent (Department of Energy, 1978).
The primary reason for this excess is accounted for by the
fact that load increases have not occurred at rates originally
anticipated.
Based on population estimates and the present generating
capacity, electrical power does not appear to be a limiting
factor affecting growth in the study area.
2—120
-------
2.13 RECREATIONAL/SCENIC AREAS
There are many recreational attractions within the study
area which provide both passive and active recreational oppor-
tunities to the public. These attractions include such things
as local playgrounds, several large tracts of developed and
undeveloped park land, numerous historic sites, and the harbor
and ocean coastline with its associated fishing, swimming and
boating. Additionally, there are numerous freshwater ponds,
lakes and freshwater streams which are utilized extensively.
Several planning documents have been prepared which
address the open space and recreational needs of the corrimuni-
ties within the project area. The MAPC, in 1969, published
a four volume study entitled Qpen pace and Recreation Plan and
Program for Metropolitan Boston on the specific needs of
the area. Volume I of this study was updated and published
in July of 1976. This report (MAPQ, 1976) concentrated on
the aspects of the original plan that can realistically be
used for open space and recreation today. Other such docu-
ments include the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation
Plan (SCORP) published by the State of Massachusetts, Decem-
ber, 1976, the Southeast New England Study (SENE) published
by the New England River Basin Commissions, 1973, and the
Boston Harbor Islands Comprehensive Plan of the MAPC, 1972.
All of the recreation planning documents are in agree-
ment that present recreational facilities are inadequate and
that future development and acquisition will be required.
In the MAPC study area, present population levels require
sane 31,363 ha (77,500 acres) of open space and existing
acreage falls 3,849 ha (9,500 acres) short of this value.
SCORP reports that the availability of recreation facilities
on a per capita basis is worse in the Eastern Massachusetts
region than for the state as a whole. While uniform standards
for recreational requirements do not exist (the National
Recreational Association and the Urban Land Institute both
recommend 4 ha [ 10 acres]/l000 population while the city
of Boston uses a 2 ha /1000 standard), it is evident that
the amount of space dedicated to recreation in these areas
is insufficient. This situation is typical of the normal
availability of recreation resources in urban areas.
In spite of these noted deficiencies, the acquisition
of land for development into passive and/or active recrea—
tional facilities has been an ongoing process for many years.
Today, in the greater Boston metropolitan area, there exist
some 27,519 ha (68,000 acres) of land designated as open
2—121
-------
space (MAPC, 1976). Many communities have utilized the
Commonwealth’s Self Help Program, or funds from the U.S.
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation to purchase such land.
Within the study area, there are several large tracts
of land operated by the MDC, such as the Blue Hills Reserva-
tion, Middlesex Fells Reservation, and the Stony Brook Reser-
vation. These serve much of the outdoor recreational needs
of the area. State, federal and private organizations such
as the Trustees of Reservations, Massachusetts Audubon, and
local town commissions, have also managed to protect a sig—
nificant amount of conservation and recreation land. In
total, the holdings of these combined organizations and
agencies within the study area amount to in excess of 9,307
ha (23,000 acres). A listing of the major properties either
partially or wholly within the study area that are owned or
operated by these groups is found in Appendix 2.13.
Tourism is a valuable part of the area’s economy and
many people are employed on both a full and part-time basis
in the recreational and tourism sector. On the basis of both
event and site attractions, the region has the highest ranking
in the State for tourism. The region also has the highest
ranking based on seasonal activity attractions, and the largest
numer of sites of national significance in the State. Boston
proper has a rating of 316 site attractions ( 8 percent of
state total) and 200 event attractions 25 percent of state
total). Quincy is also a highly rated tourist attraction
(Massachusetts DCD, 1970).
2—122
-------
2.14 SITES OF SPECIAL SIGNIFICANCE
A. Historic Preservation Ar as . The State of Massachusetts
is a treasury of historic place, all of which supply cultural
benefits to the State. The eastern portion of the State is
especially rich with historic sites. There are three main
bodies of information containing documented and recorded his-
toric sites: 1) the National Register of Historic Places;
2) the National Historic Landmarks, and; 3) the Massachusetts
Historical Conunission Files.
The National Register of Historic Places was established
by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Sites
listed on this register are protected from adverse effects
caused by federally funded or licensed projects, and are
eligible for historic preservation grants-in—aid. A list of
these sites present within the study area is presented in
Appendix 2.14—1. The date of nomination of each site is
given in parenthesis after each entry. Only those cornmuni-
ties which contain recorded placed within their municipal
boundaries are listed. Thirty-six of the forty-three towns
(84 percent) presently served by the MDC have sites in the
National Register.
A number of sites on the National Register are given
additional recognition by also being labelled as National
Historic Landmarks. These sites are special because it is
felt they contain cultural sigr ificance consistent with major
themes in American history and are recognized as such through-
out the entire nation, not just regionally. Therefore, while
private groups, local, state or federal officials may nomi-
nate a site to the National Register, only the National Park
Service may nominate a site as a National Historic Landmark.
National Register sites in Appendix 2.14-1 marked with an
asterisk are also on the list of National Historic Landmarks.
The files of the Massachusetts Historic CommisSiOn con-
tain literally thousands of sites and districts which have
been deemed by municipal historical commissions and societies
throughout the state as being of local significance. Because
of the sheer volume of these entries, it was not felt appli-
cable to list them all here. However, as final sewer align-
ments and facility sites are delineated, these local sources
will be fully examined and recorded on an area-sepcific basis.
B. Prehistoric Aboriginal Sites . A large number of Indian
Sites within the state have been recorded by professional
archaeologists and placed on record with the Massachusetts
Historic Commission and the office of the State Archaeologist.
2—123
-------
Chapter 9, Section 27c of the Massachusetts General Laws
stipulate that this information is to be regarded as conf i-
dential, and therefore cannot be presented in inventory form
here. As in the case with the local historic sites discussed
above, however, these sources will be examined and discussed
on an area—specific basis, as the proposed facility locations
are determined.
C. Natural Areas . While much of the project area is devel-
oped, there remains a number of areas which deserve protec-
tion from future degradation due to their inherent natural
floral, faunal or physical significance. These areas would
include such phenomena as waterfalls, bogs, swamps, rock
outcrops or formations, islands, gorges, etc. Information
concerning documented and recorded natural areas are avail-
able from two sources.
The National Registry of Natural Landmarks, of the
National Park Service contains areas which are nationally
significant and are especially valuable for illustrating or
interpreting the natural heritage of the nation. All sites
must be essentially undisturbed, reflecting relatively pris-
tine aspects of nature. There is one locale within the MDC
project area pending nomination to the National Registry.
(There are only five other areas registered in the entire
state, with one other area pending nomination). This area
is the Lynnfield Marsh, located between Wakefield and South
Lynnfield. The area is approximately 121 ha (300 acres)
and is partly owned by the Massachusetts Audubon Society.
In 1974, the Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources
(now Department of Environmental Management) in association
with the Massachusetts Audubon Society, the Trustees of Reser-
vations and the Harvard Audubon Society, the Trustees of
Reservations and the Harvard Graduate School of Design, Depart-
ment of Landscape Architecture issued a report entitled “Massa-
chusetts Landscape and Natural Areas Survey”. This study,
although incomplete, surveyed and compiled an inventory of
outstanding natural areas within the state, a number of which
are located within the MDC Study Area. Appendix 2.14-2 con-
táins a list of these areas by municipality, omitting those
communities not surveyed or without “significant natural
areas” as assessed in the inventory criteria (Wineman and
LeBlanc, 1977).
2—124
-------
2.15 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
One of the functions of an environmental inventory is
to identify significant components of the environment which
are sensitive to impact by the proposed action. In addition
to significance and sensitivity, these features should be
of some value to the area, contributing to the overall charac-
ter of the region. Once identified, these features will be
given priority in terms of selecting and evaluating project
alternatives. A discussion of significant environmentally
sensitive features in the study area follows.
A. Geology . The greater Boston area contains over one hun-
dred drumlins which are distinctive glacially-derived geologic
features. Many of the islands in Boston Harbor are drumlins.
The value of drurnlins is aesthetic and educational. They
offer topographic relief in areas which are otherwise flat,
and in certain locations, offer a place from which scenic
views may be enjoyed. In addition, they offer the aspiring
geologist an opportunity to observe the study these unique
geologic features.
B. Surface Waters . Surface waters within the study area
include Boston Harbor, lakes and ponds, numerous streams, and
six major river systems. These surface waters are highly
valued as sources of water supply, aquatic habitat, wastewater
disposal, recreation and transportation. The suitability of
water resources for water supply, recreational use, and
aquatic habitat is directly related to water quality. Water
quantity is an important consideration from a water supply,
transportation and aquatic habitat viewpoint.
Water Quality in many portions of the study area is
highly degraded due to existing point and non-point sources
of pollution in and upstream of the study area. Flow in the
rivers has been adversely affected by dams, surface with-
drawals for industrial use, and groundwater withdrawal for
domestic and industrial consumption. Both water quality and
quantity, as well as their interrelationship, are significant
environmentally-sensitive parameters and will be addressed.
C. Recharge Areas . Recharge areas, or areas through which
Surface runoff enters groundwater aquifers, are important
for the maintenance of groundwater resources. These areas
are sensitive to land development since increases in ixnper—
Vious surfaces decrease the rate of recharge and may degrade
its quality.
D. Wetlands . Wetlands are universally recognized as an
important part of the biological ecosystem. They are a
2—125
-------
significant component of the base of the marine and estuarine
food chain. In addition to their biological importance, wet-
lands are significant in moderating the hydrological varia-
tions in river systems. Their capacity to retain, store, and
siowiy release surface waters has been recognized by the Corps
of Engineers, who have designated inland wetlands as Natural
Valley Storage Areas. The Corps is attempting to acquire many
of these areas to protect them from development. The state
has also set up legislation to allow municipalities to desig-
nate and protect their wetland resources. Floodplains, to a
lesser extent, can be hydrologically valuable for the same
reasons as wetlands. Both wetlands and floodplains are con-
sidered significant, environmentally-sensitive areas.
E. Steeply Sloped Areas . Areas with slopes exceeding 15 per-
cent are generally considered to be critical for development
purposes. Development in these areas often results in excessive
erosion and runoff which affects the streams which receives
the sediment load as well as degrading the area which has been
eroded. Loss of suitable topsoil and stabilizing vegetation
tends to result in long-term instability of the slope. The
increased runoff rate will tend to increase variability in
stream flow, increasing flows during peak flow periods and
decreasing dry weather flows.
F. Forest and Woodlands . These are a valuable resource which
provide wildlife habitat, contribute to the aesthetic character
of an area, and help to moderate climatic influences. They
provide recreation and much needed open space. Development
of these areas should be considered judiciously.
G. Air Quality . The Boston Air Quality Control Region has
been designated as a non-attainment area with respect to
carbon monoxide, total suspended particulates, and photochemi—
cal oxidants. This indicates that the region as a whole is
exceeding allowable limits for these contaminants. Due to
existing degraded quality, air resources must be considered
as a significant sensitive parameter.
H. Habitat of Rare or Endangered Species . A list of rare
and endangered species for the study area has been presented.
Due to the status of these species, their habitat preferences
(also described) should be considered to be significant and
sensitive.
It is worthy to note here the value of the Boston Harbor
Islands as wildlife habitat. These islands constitute a unique
and rare habitat form which is due, in large part, to the
inaccessibility of the Harbor Islands to people, and their
proximity to Harbor feeding areas and flightways. These
2—126
-------
islands are used by several bird species for nesting sites.
Productive Harbor Island habitat in uncommon because of the
direct competition between human activity, which prizes
these locations for summer homes, etc., and the native fauna.
Such areas should be preserved.
. Public Use/Cultural Resources Sites . These areas include
all lands available for use (active or passive) by the general
public as well as historic/archaeological sites which document
and exemplify the region’s heritage. Due to the use and sig-
nificance of these sites, they warrant classification as sig—
nificant sensitive areas. Recreational areas are considered
to be inadequate in terms of site availability in the study
area. This places greater significance upon existing sites
and sites proposed by the Boston Harbor Islands Plan and the
MAPC Regional Open Space Plan.
2—127
-------
CHAPTER 3
ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.1.1. Method of Analysis and Approach
The objective of this Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) is to determine the most environmentally acceptable,
cost effective method of upgrading the MDC’s wastewater
management system, including sewer interceptors, wastewater
treatment facilities, and secondary sludge disposal facilities.
The feasibility of utilizing inland satellite wastewater
treatment plants as compared with continued centralized
treatment at coastal facilities is to be investigated.
A wastewater management system can be divided into
several subsystems, such as those previously mentioned
(sewer interceptors, wastewater treatment facilities and
sludge disposal facilities). Numerous possible alternatives
exist for each subsystem. Subsystem alternatives can differ
from one another in several ways, including the number,
locations, and types of facilities. Analyzing every possible
wastewater management system which can be obtained by
c nbining all of the subsystem alternatives would be a
formidable task. In order to reduce the number of possible
alternative systems to a manageable number, the formulation
of alternative systems in this report will follow a systems
analysis approach. This approach can be summarized as
follows:
1. Divide the overall system into several major
subsystems, such as wastewater treatment facilities,
sludge disposal facilities, etc.
2. Divide each subsystem into major components, such
as locations of facilities, treatment processes,
etc.
3. List the alternatives available for each subsystem
component.
4. Perform a preliminary screening whereby component
alternatives which are obviously infeasible
because of severe environmental implications,
engineering difficulties or prohibitive costs
will be eliminated from further consideration.
5. Combine the remaining component alternatives into
subsystem alternatives.
3—1
-------
6. Perform an intermediate screening of subsystem
alternatives and eliminate the less feasible
alternatives from further consideration.
7. Combine the remaining subsystem alternatives
into system alternatives.
8. Perform a final screening of system alternatives
and select the best system(s) based on environmental,
feasibility, implementation, and economic factors.
In this EIS, two separate systems will be developed;
one which includes both inland satellite plants and
coastal area plants (satellite system) and one which includes
only coastal area plants (non—satellite system). These
systems can be divided into the following subsystems and
subsystem components:
1. Interceptor Sewers
2. Coastal Area Wastewater Treatment Plants
a) Sites
b) Effluent Discharge Locations
c) Treatment Processes
3. Inland Satellite Wastewater Treatment Plants
a) Sites
b) Effluent Discharge Locations
C) Treatment Processes
4. Sludge Disposal for Coastal Area Treatment Plants
a) Treatment Processes
b) Methods of Disposal
5. sludge Disposal for Satellite Treatment Plants
a) Treatment Processes
b) Methods of Disposal
In the subsequent sections of Chapter 3, the various
subsystem components and subsystem alternatives will undergo
preliminary and intermediate screening, and the resulting
feasible system alternatives will undergo final screening
in order to determine the best wastewater management system(s)
for the MSD service area.
3—2
-------
3.1.2 Constraints and As sumptioris Affectthg Possible
Alternatives
A. Water Quality Objectives . The objectives of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments 1972 (Pub. L. 92-500)
is “...to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” Major goals
set forth by the Act include:
1) elimination of pollutant discharge into navi-
gable waters by 1985;
2) attaining water quality which protects fish,
shellfish, and wildlife, provides for their
propogation, and allows for recreation in and
on the water by 1983 (i.e. attain fishable -
swimmable waters); and
3) prohibiting the discharge of toxic pollutants in
toxic concentrations.
All point source discharges are required by the Act to
obtain a discharge permit which specifies the amount and
nature of pollutants which can be discharged. These permits
are based on a level of treatment to be achieved prior to
discharge. Publically Owned Treatment Works (POTW) are
required to provide secondary treatment of wastes. Secondary
treatment was defined by the U.S. EPA in the Federal Regis-
ter of July 26, 1976 as follows:
The following paragraphs describe the minimum level
of effluent quality attainable by secondary treatment in
terms of the parameters biochemical oxygen demand, sus-
pended solids and pH. All requirements for each parameter
shall be achieved except as provided for in §133.103.
(a) Biochemical Oxygen Demand (five day) (1) The
arithmetic mean of the values of effluent samples collected
in a period of 30 consecutive days shall not exceed 30
milligrams per liter.
(2) The arithmetic mean of the values of effluent
samples collected in a period of 7 consecutive days shall
not exceed 45 milligrams per liter.
(3) The arithmetic mean of the values of effluent
samples collected in a period of 30 consecutive days shall
not exceed 15 percent of the arithmetic mean of the values
for influent samples collected at approximately the same
times during the same period (85 percent removal).
3—3
-------
(b) SUspended SoU4s ( The arithmetic mean of the
values for effluent samples collected in a period of 30
consecutive days shall not exceed 30 milligrams per liter
(2) The arithmetic mean of the values for effluent
samples collected in a period of 7 consecutive days shall
not exceed 45 milligrams per liter.
(3) The arithmetic mean of the values for effluent
samples collected in a period of 30 consecutive days shall
not exceed 15 percent of the arithmetic mean of the values
for lnfluent samples collected at approximately the same
times during the same period (85 percent removal).
(c) pH. The effluent values for pH shall be main-
tained within the limits of 6.0 to 9.0 unless the publicly
owned treatment works demonstrates that:
(1) Inorganic chemicals are not added to the waste
stream as part of the treatment process; and
(2) Contributions from industrial sources do not
cause the pH of the effluent to be less than 6.0 or greater
than 9.0.
The proposed upgrading of the MDC treatmen facilities
is required, at the present time, to provide secondary treat-
ment. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, however, was
amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 99-217) to
permit a waiver of the secondary treatment requirements for
POTWs which discharge into marine waters. To obtain a waiver,
the POTW must satisfy the eight, specific statutory require-
ments outlined in Section 301(h) of the Act. Waivers apply
only to the removal requirements for BOD 5 , suspended solids
and pH. Toxic pollutant control is still required, and the
POTW would, at a minimum, be required to remove these pollu-
tants to levels equivalent to the toxic removal achieved by
secondary treatment. All applicable Federal and State Water
Quality Standards must also be met. In addition, it has been
mandated by the Congress that applications for a waiver must be
submitted to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency by September 24, 1978. While recognizing the possibility
of a waiver, it is not the purpose of this EIS to analyze the
merits of such a waiver as it pertains to the MDC wastewater
management activities. Until such time as a waiver is granted,
the requirement for secondary treatment is applicable to the
MDC. Consequently, alternatives to the recommended EMMA plan
considered by thie EIS provide, at a minimum, secondary treat-
ment of wastewaters.
These facilities must also satisfy the Act’s provisions
related to toxic pollutants. Under the Act, a specified mecha-
nism for achieving this, is pretreatment of industrial wastes
3—4
-------
containing toxic substances which are discharged to the pub-
licly owned system. However, it must be recognized that indus-
try is not the only source of toxic pollutants, particularly
metals. Domestic wastewaters have been shown to contain sig-
nificant quantities of toxic metals (Klein, et al. 1974,
Davis and Jackson, 1975) and a well implemented and monitored
pretreatment program may not result in the reduction of these
pollutants to acceptable levels. Toxic pollutants may limit
the options for discharge locations or require a more sophis-
ticated level of treatment at MDC facilities.
Water quality standards of the Commonwealth of Massachu-
setts classify the State’s waters according to their use (i.e.
public water supply, fish and wildlife propagation, recreation)
and establish criteria to support each designated use. These
standards are designed to achieve the objectives of the Massa-
chusetts Clean Waters Act and the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act. Effluents from the proposed MDC facilities must not
violate the water quality criteria applicable to the waters
into which they are discharged.
In summary, the objective of this study is to develop
the alternatives which provide the Metropolitan Boston Area
with effective wastewater management while conforming with
all applicable Federal and Commonwealth water pollution con-
trol regulations.
B. MDC Facilities Which Are Not Addressed in This EIS. The
Wastewater Engineering and Management Plan for Boston Harbor-
Eastern Massachusetts Metro olitan Area (EMMA Study) has pro—
posed a comprehensive areawide wastewater management plan.
The EMMA Study has considered all aspects of wastewater manage-
sent planning to provide recommendations for the construction
and/or rehabilitation of facilities needed for effective waste-
water management. The findings and conclusions of that study
have been formulated into the MDC’s Recommended Plan. This
EIS is focused on those aspects of the MDC’s R commended Plan
that deal with the transportation, treatment and ultimate dis-
posal of municipal wastewaters. The factors considered are:
1) Interceptor system modifications required due to
increases in wastewater flow volume and alterna-
tive treatment plant sites.
2) Environmental and engineering feasibility of con-
structing satellite treatment plants discharging
to inland waterways.
3) Alternative treatment plant sites and treatment
facility configurations for the major wastewater
treatment plants in the vicinity of Boston Harbor.
3—5
-------
4) Alternative techniques for the treatment and
disposal of secondary sludge.
5) Wastewater treatment plant effluent discharge
locations.
This EIS does not address the following items whiøh are
included in the EMMA Study: Infiltration/Inflow analysis;
combined sewer overflow regulation; and primary sludge dis-
posal.
Infiltration/Inf low (I/I) analysis is required under
Section 201 of the Water Pollution Control Act xnendments
(Pub. L. 92-500) to determine the grant eligibility of waste-
water treatment works. Facilities which are subject to ex-
cessive I/I are not grant eligible. It is the respOnEibility
of the grant applicant (the MDC) to demonstrate to the EPA
that their interceptor system is not subject to excessive
I/I, or to specify what remedial actions will be taken to
eliminate sources of excessive I/I. These I/I studies are
currently in progress, and are not included in this study.
The Combined Sewer Overflow Regulation Plan has been
removed from the MDC’s overall wastewater management plan by
the U.S. EPA and is being treated as a separate water quality
problem. The current plan for implementation of this program
is to proceed directly to facilities planning and to perform
an Environmental Assessment for each Combined Sewer Overflow
Regulation project.
A separate EIS related to primary sludge treatment and
disposal is currently being prepared by the EPA. Therefore,
the issue of primary sludge disposal is not being addressed
in this EIS.
C. Boston Harbor Islands Comprehensive Plan . In October of
1972 the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) prepared
for the Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources (now
the Department of Environmental Management) the Boston Har-
bor Islands Comprehensive Plan. This plan called for the
aquisition of the more than thirty islands in Boston Harbor
and their development into a recreational complex. Specific
uses are delineated for the islands. In this development plan
the islands are to offer both passive and active recreational
opportunities to the public. Sixteen islands are currently
part of the park system, being owned by either the DEN or
the Dc. Since this plan was officially adopted by the state
legislature, the Harbor Islands are now officially dedicated
to conservation and recreation.
3—6
-------
n. Air Quality Objectives . The intent of the Clean Air Act
is to protect the health and welfare of the citizens of the
United States by preserving clean air where it exists, and
by improving air quality in areas where air quality is degraded.
A complex set of regulations exists to accomplish this goal.
The law provides a range of means to accomplish the goals,
including regulation of existing point sources, mobile sources,
new source standards, and establishment of air quality control
regions. The combination of these air quality constraints
and objectives affect the sludge disposal aspects of waste—
water management alternatives which can be considered for the
greater Metropolitan Boston Area.
The Boston Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) is in a
status of non—attainment. Non-attainment means that one or
more of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
are being violated in the Boston AQCRas dstermined by moni-
toring data. A 1976 Interpretive Ruling by EPA established
the requirements for new sources in non—attainment areas.
The following conditions must be met before a major new source
may be approved. They are:
1) The new source must have an emission limitation
which specifies the lowest achievable rate for
that type of source.
2) All existing sources owned or controlled by the
new source owner must be in compliance with all
applicable State Implementation Plan (SIP) re-
quirements.
3) Emission Offsets (reductions) are required from
existing sources in the AQCR such that total
emissions from the proposed source and existing
sources are less than the present pollution load.
4) Emission offsets must provide a positive net
air quality benefit in the region.
5) If SIP revisions are judged necessary by EPA
to meet the NAAQS, no construction can be ini-
tiated until such revisions have been approved
by EPA (Federal Register, Vol. 41, No. 246
December 21, 1976).
These provisions represent a stricter emissions limitation
than the current regulations which affect new sources in
uattaj entn areas. Under the same Interpretive Ruling,
EPA designates a “major source” as any structure with allow-
able emissions equal to or greater than 90,720 kg (100 tons)
3—7
-------
per year for particulates, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides,
non-methane hydrocarbons and 907,720 kg (1,000 tons) per year
for carbon monoxide (250 tons per year potential emissions
for PSD). This designation establishes a two level system
of review for major sources and smaller sources. The major
sources would be subject to stricter emission limitations
than the smaller sources, although the State may have the
option to apply more stringent limitations to the smaller
sources (Federal Register, Vol 41, No. 245, December 21,
1976). Under the same ruling it is suggested thatemissionoff-
sets may be extended to smaller sources in certain areas,
depending on the magnitude of the air quality problem. (See
Section 2.8 for greater detail on the EOP nd PSD regula-
tions).
For “stable” air pollutants (i.e. SO 2 , particulate mat-
ter, and CO), a case by case determination is to be made to
determine if a new source will cause or exacerbate a NAAQS
violation, based upon the best information and analytical
techniques available. This determination should be indepen-
dent of any general determination of non-attainment or judge-
ment that the SIP is substantially inadequate to attain or
maintain the NAAQS. This is because a violation in an AQCR
may occur in only one limited section of the AQCR, thereby
putting the entire region in violation of the standard. If
a source seeks to locate in a “clean” portion of the AQCR
and would not affect the area presently exceeding standards,
or cause a new violation of the NAAQS, such a source may be
approved (Federal Register, Vol. 41, No. 246, December 22,
1976). On the other hand, if a new source will degrade air
quality in a “non—attainment” region, the five conditions
set out above must be met.
For an area not exceeding ambient air standards on a
pollutant-specific basis for particulates and sulfur dioxide,
limited increments of pollutant levels are permitted. Class
II areas (Boston) are limited to the following increases in
pollutant concentrations occurring over the baseline concen-
trations (Federal Register, Vol 42, No.212, November 3, 1977):
Table 3.1-1
Maximum Allowable
Increase ( g/m 3 )
Particulate Matter:
Annual Geometric Mean 19
24-hr. maximum 37
Sulfur dioxide:
Annual Arithmetic mean 20
24-hr. maximum 91
3-hr. maximum 512
3—8
-------
Major new sources and major modifications must provide
best avialable control technology for each pollutant subject
toPSD regulation under the Clean Air Act. Theownerand oper-
ator must demonstrate that emissions from such source will
not cause, or contribute to, air pollution in excess of any
ambient air quality standard in any air quality áontrol pro-
gram.
If emission offsets are required for a new source, EPA
has determined that more than “one for one” emission offsets
must be provided. Emission offset reductions must exceed
the new source emissions so as to represent reasonable pro-
gress toward attainment of the NAAQS.
Rules and regulations for attainment and non-attainment
regions limit certain alternatives which are being evaluated
by this study. The incineration of sludge is especially
affected by these regulations. The possibility of emission
offsets, PSD review, the effect of the facility on the NAAQS,
and the need to attain “the lowest achievable emission rate”
may affect the feasibility of an incineration alternative.
B. Limitations on Land Application of Sludge Products . Under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976,(RCRA )
municipal wastewater sludge has been included within the defi-
nition of solid waste. On February 6, 1978, EPA published
classification criteria for solid waste disposal and utiliza-
tion. Under these criteria, specific provisions address cad-
mium, pathogens, pesticides, persistant organic chemicals, and
potential for direct ingestion for sludge or solid waste
applied to land used for the production of food crops. With
regards to cadmium, two alternate approaches for controlling
cadmium uptake by crops are proposed. Under the first approach
four criteria are proposed:
1) The annual application rate for cadmium will be
decreased from 2 kg/ha to 0.5 kg/ha by January
of 1978
2) The maximum cummulative cadmium application shall
not exceed the following:
cuiumulative soil cation
cadmium loading ion exchange
kg/ha capacity
5 <5
10 5—15
20 >15
3—9
-------
3) solid waste or sludge with a cadmium concentra-
tion in excess of 25 mg/kg may not be applied to
tobacco, leafy vegetables or root crops grown
for direct human consumption
4) the pH of the soil must be maintained at 6.5 or
greater
Under the second approach, the cadmium levels in the crops
or meats marketed for human consumption must be analyzed to
demonstrate that cadmium is not accumulating to levels greater
than that found in similar products grown locally on soils
not receiving the sludge or solid wastes. A contingency plan
must also be provided under this option, should the cadmium
levels be found to be higher in foodstuffs from the sludge or
solid waste augmented agricultural lands.
In addition, the proposed criteria would require stabili-
zation of sludge or solid waste applied to croplands and pro-
hibit the application to lands where the material could be
ingested by animals.
In addition to the February 6, 1978 criteria, EPA is in
the process of designating criteria for the identification of
“hazardous” wastes under RCRA. Hazardous waste will be sub-
ject to an elaborate “cradle—to-grave” regulatory procedure
to ensure its safe disposal. Itis possible that some muni-
cipal sludges may fall under the “infectious” or “toxic”
criteria for a hazardous waste. If such is the case, the
sludge can only be placed in a landfill designated to receive
hazardous wastes. If the sludge, compost or ash from the
MDC wastewater treatment plants fall under the forthcoming
criteria for hazardous wastes, a new sludge management plan
in conformance with the “cradle-to-grave” concept would be
required -
3—10
-------
3.1.3. Flow and Waste Reduction Measures
The wastewaters generated in the MSD service area are
currently collected and transported to wastewater treatment
plants on Deer and Nut Islands for treatment prior to
disposal into Boston Harbor. The EMMA Study estimated that
wastewater treatment facilities would be required to treat
an average quantity of about 2,218,000 m 3 /day (586 mgd) of
wastewater by the year 2,000, and an average quantity of
about 2,502,000 m 3 /day (661 mgd) of wastewater by the year
2050. When considering wastewater management alternatives
for a system of this magnitude, it is prudent to consider
the possibility of utilizing flow and waste reduction
measures as a means of cost effective wastewater management.
Two possible methods of flow and wastewater reduction
are the elimination of infiltration/inflow and the use of
water conservation measures.
A. Infiltration/Inf low . Significant reductions in waste-
water volu me could be realized through the elimination of
extraneous flows entering the sewer system due to excessive
infiltration and inflow. Infiltration is the seepage of
groundwater into the sewer system through faulty pipe
joints, broken pipes, or cracks in manholes. The rate of
infiltration is governed by the depth of groundwater,
groundwater level fluctuations due to precipitation, and
the structural condition of sewerage facilities. Inf low
constitutes the direct entry of storm runoff into a sanitary
collection system through roof drains, foundation drains,
sump pumps, manhole covers and other sources. The volume
of these extraneous flows can be considerable.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act as Amended
(Public Law 92—500), dated October 18, 1972, requires
Construction grant appiicants to investigate the condition
of their sewer systems. Title II, Section 201 (g) (3) of
the Act states, “The Administrator shall not approve any
grant after July 1, 1973, for treatment works under this
section unless the applicant shows to the satisfaction of
the Administrator that each sewer collection system
discharging into such treatment works is not subject to
excessive infiltration”.
The final Construction Grant Regulations pertaining
to the aforementioned were published in the Federal
Register dated February 11, 1974. Sections 35.927,
35.927-1 and 35.927-2 of the Construction Grant Regulations
include the following:
“All applicants for grant assistance awarded after
July 1, 1973, must demonstrate to the satisfaction
of the Regional Administrator that each sewer system
discharging into the treatment works project for
3—11
-------
which grant application is made is not or will not
be subject ot excessive infiltration/inflow....
“The determination whether or not excessive infiltration/
inflow exists will generally be accomplished through
a sewer system evaluation consisting of (1) certification
by the State agency, as appropriate; and, when necessary,
(2) an infiltration/inflow analysis; and, if appropriate
(3) a sewer system evaluation survey followed by
rehabilitation of the sewer system to eliminate an
excessive infiltration/inflow defined in the sewer
system evaluation.
“The infiltration/inflow analysis shall demonstrate
the nonexistence or possible existence of excessive
infiltration/inflow in each sewer system tributary
to the treatment works. The analysis should identify
the presence, flow rate, and type of infiltration!
inflow conditions, which exist in the sewer systems....
“For determination of the possible existence of
excessive infiltration/inflow, the analysis shall
include an estimate of the cost of eliminating the
infiltration/inflow conditions. These costs• shall
be compared with estimated total costs for trans-
portation and treatment of the infiltration/inflow....
“If the infiltration/inflow analysis demonstrates
the existence or possible existence of excessive
infiltration/inflow, a detailed plan for a sewer
system evaluation survey shall be included in the
analysis....
“The sewer system evaluation survey shall consist
of a systematic examination of the sewer systems
to determine the specific location, estimated flow
rate, method of rehabilitation and cost of rehabil-
itation versus cost of transportation and treatment
for each defined source of infiltration/inflow.
“The results of the sewer system evaluation survey
shall be summarized in a report. In addition, the
report shall include:
(1) A justification for each sewer section cleaned
and internally inspected.
(2) A proposed rehabilitation program for the
sewer systems to eliminate all defined excessive
infiltration/inflow.”
In order to comply with the Construction Grant
Regulations, a thorough study of the quantities and
3—12
-------
characteristics of infiltration and inflow is needed. The
study should determine whether or not the cost of eliminating
all or some of these flows by means of rehabilitating the
sewer system is economically justifiable as compared to
the cost of transporting these flows to, and treating them
in, a wastewater treatment plant. Infiltration/Inflow
studies are presently being undertaken by both the MDC
and individual towns in the MSD service area in order to
determine the most cost—effective means of handling these
extraneous flows.
In September, 1976, the MDC awarded a contract for the
performance of an infiltration/inflow study of the MDC
interceptor system tributary to the Deer Island Treatment
Plant. A separate contract for the infiltration/inflow
study of the MDC interceptor system tributary to the Nut
Island Treatment Plant was also awarded by the MDC in
September, 1976. The award of these two contracts by MDC
was made in compliance with conditions in the EPA Region I
permit issued to the Metropolitan District Commission in
August, 1976. Draft reports of the infiltration/inflow
studies for the Deer Island and Nut Island interceptor
systems have been submitted to the EPA for their review and
comment. The result of these two studies will be the
determination of which portions of the MDC’s interceptor
system are experiencing large amounts of infiltration/inflow.
These areas will be investigated, and detailed recommendations
regarding remedial actions and schedules of completion to
remove that portion of the infiltration/inflow which is
found to be cost effective to remove will be made.
Another source of extraneous flow entering the MDC
sewer system is seawater, which enters the combined sewer
system tributary to the Deer Island Treatment Plant. Most
of the seawater enters the sewers through faulty tide gates
on sewer overflows, with an additional amount entering by
infiltrating into sewers near the coastline. The MDC has
recently completed a tide gate rehabilitation program; however,
it is too early to evaluate the effects of this program at this
time.
It is estimated that infiltration/inflow and seawater
entering the MDC sewer system presently account for more
than half of the average flow reaching the treatment plants
at Nut Island and Deer Island. Therefore, it is possible
to significantly reduce the quantity of flow entering
the MDC interceptors and reaching the MDC wastewater
treatment facilities by rehabilitating the sewer
System and the tide gates, thereby reducing the amounts
of infiltration/inflow and seawater entering the sewerage
System. However, the reduction of infiltration/inflow
is dependent upon individual infiltration/inflow studies
Concluding that sewer rehabilitation is a cost effective
3—13
-------
procedure, and a reduction in the quantity of seawater which
enters the system is dependent upon the success of the tide
gate maintenance and rehabilitation program.
The infiltration/inflow studies arid the tide gate rehabil-
itation and maintenance program have not yet progressed to the
point where the amounts of flow quantity reduction can be
estimated with any degree of certainty. It is recommended
that the results of the infiltration/inflow studies and
tide gate repair program be investigated at the time of
facilities planning and, if at that time flows entering the
MDC sewerage system have, in fact, been reduced or can
be expected to be reduced by these efforts, the required
capacities of interceptors, pumping stations, and wastewater
treatment plants should be reduced accordingly.
B. Water Conservation . The need for water conservation
measures is increasing throughout the nation as sources of
potable water become limited, the population increases and,
with a rising standard of living, people tend to increase
their consumption of water. It is possible to reduce water
consumption while maintaining a high standard of living.
The introduction of water conserving shower heads, toilets,
kitchen sinks, more intelligent use of dishwashers and
washing machines, and sensible practices of lawn watering
and car washing can significantly reduce water consumption.
Much of the water used in the home is discharged to
the sewers and, therefore, any reductions in domestic water
consumption would produce corresponding reductions in waste—
water flow. As this study is focusing on wastewater treat-
ment and disposal, further discussion of water conservation
techniques will be restricted to those which have a direct
effect on wastewater production.
The quantity of domestic wastewater production could
be reduced considerably with the use of several relatively
simple and inexpensive flow reduction devices which are
readily available. These devices Include aerators.or flow
regulators which can be attached to water faucets, reduced
flow shower heads, and either low flush type toilets or flow
regulators which convert conventional toilets to low flush types.
Aerators normally consist of a fine mesh screen which
breaks up the water into fine droplets, thus entraining air.
Wettability is increased and splash is decreased and, as a
result, less water is required to produce the same degree
of wetness and cleansing action.
Flow regulators are devices which, when added to the
water line, increase the frictional drag between the water
and the pipe, thereby decreasing the flow. This type of
3—14
-------
regulator can be installed on the faucet as an aerator is
installed, or can be inserted into the water pipe that
supplies the faucet or shower fixture.
Low flush or shallow trap toilets, which use approx—
imately 13.2 liters (3.5 gallons) per flush, are available
from most manufacturers. This represents a significant
reduction over the conventional toilet which utilizes
between 19 and 30 liters (5 and 8 gallons) per flush.
The reduction in water used is possible through redesign
of the siphon which permits more efficient flushing action
while using smaller volumes of water. These units can
be installed in new developments and in all newly renovated
buildings for the same cost as conventional toilets. This
can be accomplished through revisions in the local plumbing
codes to require that these low flush type toilets be used
in all new installations. Revisions of this type are
becoming corni on as legislators are becoming aware of the
importance of conserving water.
Existing conventional toilets can be converted to
use less water by installing either flow regulators which
close the toilet flush valve faster, or dams which retain
as much as 30 percent of the water volume in the tanks of
tank type toilets. Both of these methods provide
sufficient force for effective flushing action while
reducing the volume of water used. Conversion, by either
of these methods, requires only a nominal expenditure by
the homeowner.
Another simple method of reducing the flow of conventional
tank type toilets is through the use of displacement devices.
These devices displace a volume of water in the tank, thereby
reducing the water volume used in flushing. One method that
has been used is to place a brick or two in the tank. This
method, although it reduces the flow volume, is not recommended
as the bricks may start to crumble and foul the toilet
mechanism. A better water displacement method is to fill
a plastic bottle with water and place it in the toilet tank.
The plastic bottle will displace its own volume of water,
thereby reducing the amount of water in the tank. The
plastic bottle will not decompose or foul the toilet
mechanism. Individuals can determine the maximum amount
of water which can be displaced while still providing
effective flushing action.
Other savings in water use are possible through sensible
use of water consuming household appliances such as
dishwashers and washing machines. By saving dishes to be
washed until a dishwasher is fully loaded, it is possible
to reduce the number of times the unit is used. This
results in savings in water, fuel and electricity to heat
the water and run the unit and detergent. Similar conservation
3—15
-------
techniques employed with washing machines can produce
significant savings in water, energy and detergent. It
is not always possible to save soiled laundry to completely
fill the washing machine. For such cases, many machine
manufacturers have incorporated a water level selection
switch which permits the user to match the water used
with the size of the clothing load to be washed.
The use of washing machines and dishwashers designed
to optimize water use is an effective means of conserving
water. While it is not possible Lor individuals to
redesign their appliances, they have the option of
purchasing low water use appliances. If manufacturers
realize that those appliances which conserve water and
energy are preferred by the public, they will manufacture
a greater variety of these appliances. Widespread action
of this type by consumer groups can exert significant
market pressure on the manufacturers to produce water and
power conserving equipment.
It is estimated that, through the use of the relatively
simple domestic water conservation measures discussed above,
domestic water use and wastewater production can be reduced
by at least 76 liters (20 gallons) per capita per day. The
related cost savings from reduced water supply, sewage
management and heating charges would probably equal the
initial cost of installing water conservation devices
within the first year of use. After the first year, the
average household should be able to save at least $60.00
per year in these charges. Implementation of water conser-
vation by the methods previously discussed could meet with
widespread public acceptance, since there is a minimum
amount of inconvenience and a monetary savings to the
individual water user. Appendix 3.1.3 contains a sample
analysis of the water and cost savings associated with
these conservation practices.
Industrial pretreatment before discharge to the MSD
system is currently required of certain industries to
comply with their discharge permits. The MDC is currently
engaged in an inventory of all industrial sources to
determine the extent of their compliance with discharge
requirements. Pretreatment can be modified or instituted
to provide benefits to both the industrial organization and
the MDC. This can be accomplished through wastewater reuse
and recovery.
Wastewater reuse and recovery is currently being
utilized in many industries across the cou itry to meet
wastewater discharge requirements and to reduce raw water
intake requirements. Reuse of cooling water as process
water, process water reclamation, monitoring of process
water additions, and cooling water recirculation are all
3—16
-------
viable methods of industrial wastewater reuse. Through
various combinations of physical, chemical and biological
treatment processes, it is possible to recycle much of the
industrial wastewater produced, thereby reducing both the
volume and strength of the discharge. These reductions
in wastewater reduce the transport and treatment require-
ments, and costs, for the MDC, while they reduce industrial
water charges, and often reduce the cost of the industrial
process. Various by—products of industrial pretreatment
are marketable items, such as paper products, recovered
chemicals and animal feed, while the by—products of other
treatment processes can be recycled in the manufacturing
process itself.
The success of a water conservation program will
depend, to a great extent, on extensive public education
programs to impress upon the general public the need for,
and the benefits of, conserving water. This public education
program can be accomplished through a joint effort of the
MDC, local water supply agencies and conservation groups.
Including brochures or newsletters which explain the
economic and environmental benefits of water conservation
with periodic water bills is one method of informing the
public. Programs directed at school children can produce
good results since children are easily impressed, they
will most likely take the information home to their parents,
and they can have a positive influence on their family and
friends.
In addition to the water conservation education program,
a water conservation program will benefit from the adjustment
of water rate schedules so that conservation efforts in the
home will produce a savings in water bills. At present,
many local water district rate structures encourage waste,
as there is a minimum monthly charge for water use. The
primary problem with this type of rate structure is that
the quantity of water used which would result in the minimum
charge would not be affected by a reduction in water consump-
tion. Another form of water rate schedule which encourages
Waste is the declining commodity rate. Under this system,
the price per unit consumed decreases as consumption increases;
i.e., the more you use, the less you pay. This type of rate
Structure discourages conservation because the large volume
user can get water for relatively low prices.
Implementation of a uniform rate schedule for all water
users based on actual consumption would provide reasonable
economic stimulation for water conservation. With a uniform
rate schedule,all water users, both domestic and industrial,
can realize economic benefits from conservation efforts.
A complete study of the social and economic effects of
changes in water rate schedules is necessary before a
decision can be made on whether or not to modify the
current rate schedules.
3—17
-------
It is recommended that a water conservation effort be
started immediately. If a concerted effort is made by the
MDC, local water supply agencies, conservation groups,
industry and the general public, a successful water con-
servation program can be realized. The results of such a
program should be investigated during facilities planning.
If this investigation shows a reduction in the quantity of
wastewater generated, the required capacities of interceptors,
pumping stations, and wastewater treatment plants should
be reduced accordingly. While it is possible that, because
of the time required to produce results from a water conser-
vation program, a significant reduction in wastewater
quantities may not be realized at the time of facilities
planning, a water conservation program may result in
eliminating the need for expansion of facilities in the
future.
3—18
-------
3.2 PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF SUBSYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
3.2.1. Interceptor Sewer System, Pumping Stations and
Headworks
The purpose of an interceptor sewer system is to receive
the wastewater from various local sewer systems and transport
it to a treatment or disposal facility. Interceptor sewers
are designed so that the wastewaters reach velocities which
will prevent solid material from being deposited in the
sewers and which will minimize the amount of decomposition
which the wastewaters will undergo while in the interceptor
system. If the wastewater is permitted to flow to the
discharge point sluggishly, it will begin to decompose in
the sewer system. Hydrogen sulfide gas is generated by
wastewaters decomposing in the absence of air. In addition
to producing foul odors, hydrogen sulfide is corrosive to
the pipelines. Over a period of time, corrosion can cause
serious deterioration in concrete pipe. Insufficient
interceptor sewer capacity also prevents the local sewer
systems from draining freely and causes the local sewers to
back—up and store the wastewater until the interceptor sewer
can accept the flow. Odor and corrosion would then be
caused due to the decomposition of the wastewater in the
local sewer system. For these reasons, it is important
to maintain a properly operating interceptor sewer system,
with adequate capacity to handle the wastewater generated,
as an integral part of any wastewater management system.
The existing MDC interceptor sewer system receives the
wastewaters from 43 towns and cities, including the City of
Boston, and transports it to the Nut Island and Deer Island
wastewater treatment plants. The original interceptor system
has been expanded over the years as required to keep pace
with an ever expanding service area and an increasing
population. The present system is currently overloaded in
some areas and, as increased flows are to be expected from
the existing service area and additional towns may be added
to the MSD, the interceptor system will again require
modifications and additions to provide adequate and safe
service.
The MDC interceptor sewer system can be considered
as two separate systems. One system receives wastewater
from the northern MSD service area and transports this
wastewater to the Deer Island Treatment Plant. The other
system receives wastewater from the southern MSD service
area and transports it to the Nut Island Treatment Plant.
3—19
-------
Several wastewater management alternatives are being
investigated for the treatment and disposal of the wastewater
from an expanded MSD service area. These alternatives
include expanding and upgrading the existing treatment plants,
and constructing new treatment plants of various capacities
at various locations. As would be expected, the locations
and capacities of treatment plants have a direct effect on
the interceptor modifications which will be required. Since
all of the alternative wastewater management systems consider
treating the wastewater from the northern MSD service area
at a treatment plant in the vicinity of Boston Harbor, the
modifications required for the northern interceptor system
at locations not adjacent to the harbor will be identified
for all alternatives. These requirements are listed in
Table 3.2-1. Any additional modifications required which
are dependent upon specific treatment facility locations
will be discussed with the specific alternative systems
later in this report.
The variations of wastewater management system alter-
natives has a larger effect on the southern interceptor
system. Some alternatives consider transporting all of
the wastewater generated in the southern MSD service area
to a treatment plant in the vicinity of Boston Harbor, while
other alternatives consider treating some of the wastewater
at inland satellite treatment plants and the remainder at
a treatment plant near the harbor. The southern interceptor
system modifications which would be required for all alter-
natives which include inland satellite plants are listed in
Table 3.2-2. The modifications to the southern interceptor
system which would be required for all alternatives which
do not include inland satellite plants are listed in Table
3.2-3. Any additional modifications required which depend
upon the specific locations of treatment facilities will
be discussed with the specific alternative systems later
in this report. A comparison of Tables 3.2-2 and 3.2-3 shows
that a syste with satellite treatment plants would require
less modifications to the southern interceptor system than
would a system without satellite plants. This is because
the satellite plants remove wastewater from the interceptor
system at upstream locations, thereby reducing the flow, and
capacity requirements, in the downstream sections.
The interceptor relief and extensions which would be
required for all alternative systems which include satellite
treatment plants are shown in Figure 3.2—i. For alternative
systems which do not include satellite treatment plants,
the interceptor relief and extension requirements common
to all such alternatives are shown in Figure 3.2—2.
Pumping stations are a necessary part of this wastewater
management system as they are needed to lift the wastewater
flow from low—lying local sewer systems into the MDC
3—20
-------
interceptor sewers. The MDC operates ten pumping stations
along the interceptor system. For this study, the existing
capacity, future design capacity and the need to replace
or rehabilitate each of the stations, as shown in Table
3.2-4, is as reported in the EMMA Study.
The MDC operates four headworks; Ward Street, Columbus
Park, Chelsea Creek, and the Winthrop Terminal Facility,
which provide pretreatment for the wastewaters which will
be treated at Deer Island. Pretreatment consists of coarse
and fine screening and grit removal. The existing headworks
have adequate capacity to handle the anticipated flows to
the Deer Island plant, and therefore, no expansion is
necessary The rehabilitation or repair work at these
facilities is not included in the EMMA Study nor in this
EIS, as these facilities are relatively new and any required
repairs can be expected to be included in the existing
maintenance budget.
3—21
-------
TABLE 3.2-1
INTERCEPTOR SEWER MODIFICATIONS
FOR NORTHERN MSD SERVICE AREA
Ref.
No . ( - )
Interceptor
Sewer
Diameter
cm. (in.)
Length
in. (ft.)
1
Milibrook Valley Sewer
91
(36)
3883
(12,740)
2
Wilmington Extension Sewer
76
(30)
2905
(9,530)
3
Reading Extension Sewer
.
61
76
107
(24)
(30)
(42)
411
1664
414
(1,350)
(5,460)
(1,360)
4
Lynnfield Extension Sewer
30—53
(12—21)
1829
(6,000)
5
Stoneham Extension Sewer
30
(12)
1259
(4,130)
6
Wakefield Branch Sewer
38
107
(15)
(42)
942
1664
(3,090)
(5,460)
7
Stoneham Trunk Sewer
46
(18)
930
(3,050)
8
Wakefield Trunk Sewer
107
122
(42)
(48)
2723
927
(8,935)
(3,040)
9
North Metropolitan Sewer
137
(54)
610
(2,000)
10
North Metropolitan Sewer
152
(60)
792
(2,600)
11
CununingsviIle Branch Sewer
91
(36)
1515
(4,970)
12
Chelsea Branch Sewer
53
(21)
347
(1,140)
13
Revere Extension Sewer
30
76
(12)
(30)
314
969
(1,030)
(3,180)
14
Sommervi1J e—Medford
Branch Sewer
61
107
(24)
(42)
2277
280
(7,470)
(920)
15
Weston—Lincoln Ext. Sewer
76—107
(30421
10180
(33,400)
16
South Charles Relief Sewer
91
107
122
(36)
(42)
(48)
2487
6062
1609
(8,160)
(19,890)
(5,280)
17
North Charles Metropolitan
Sewer
61
91
(24)
(36)
826
945
(2,710)
(3,100)
3—22
-------
TABLE 3.2-1 (Cont’d.)
INTERCEPTOR SEWER MODIFICATIONS
FOR NORTHERN MSD SERVICE AREA
1. Reference Number - See Figures 3.2-1 and 3.2—2.
Source: Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. , 1975i
18
f.
No 1
Interceptor
Sewer
Diameter
cm (in.)
Length
in. (ft.)
South
Charles
River Sewer
91
(36)
213
(700)
Charles River Crossing &
Cross Connection
137
168
(54)
(66)
884
1679
(2,900)
(5,510)
3—23
-------
TABLE 3.2-2
INTERCEPTOR SEWER MODIFICATIONS FOR
SOUTHE1 N MSD SERVICE AREA WITH SATELLITES
Ref
No.
.
(i-)
Interceptor
Sewer
Diameter
cm. (in.)
Length
m. (ft.)
19 Southborough Ext. Sewer 61—91 (24—36) 81 9 (26,800)
20 Ashland—Hopkinton Ext. Sewer 53—122 (21—48) 11186 (36,700)
21 Framinghain Extension Sewer 152 (60) 3101 (10,175)
168 (66) 6581 (21,590)
22 Upper Neponset Valley Sewer 61 (24) 3344 (10,970)
91 (36) 3152 (10,340)
23 Westwood Extension Sewer 76 (30) 3752 (12,310)
24 Walpole Extension Sewer 122 (48) 1503 (4,930)
152 (60) 3335 (10,940)
25 Sharon Extension Sewer 91 (36) 2256 (7,400)
26 New Neponset Valley and 61 (24) 472 (1,550)
Stoughton Extension Sewers 76 (30) 692 (2,270)
91 (36) 1524 (5,000)
137 (54) 1501 (4,925)
198 (78) 152 (500)
27 Lower Braintree Connecting 61 (24) 227 (744)
Sewer 152 (60) 877 (2,878)
28 Hingham Force Main 61 (24) 2316 (7,600)
29 Braintree-Weyiuouth Ext. Sewer 152 (60) 3123. (10,238)
1. Reference Number — See Figure 3.2—1.
Source: Metcalf & Eddy Inc. ,1975i
3—24
-------
TABLE 3.2-3
INTERCEPTOR SEWER MODIFICATIONS FOR
SOUTHERN MSD SERVICE AREA WITHOUT SATELLITES
(26 ,800)
(36 ,700)
(10,175)
(21,590)
(10,970)
(10,340)
(12 ,310)
(4,930)
(10,940)
(7,400)
(1,550)
(2,270)
(5,000)
(4,925)
(500)
(744)
(2,878)
(7,600)
(10 ,238)
(22,100)
(17 ,100)
(15,100)
2926 (9,600)
213 (84) 5029 (16,500)
Ref.
No. (1)
19
20
21
Interceptor
Length
Sewer
(ft.)
22 Upper Neponset Valley Sewer
23 Westwood Extension Sewer
24 Walpole Extension Sewer
25 Sharon Extension Sewer
26 New Neponset Valley and
Stoughton Extension Sewers
Diameter
_________________________________ cm. (in.)
Southborough Ext. Sewer 61-91 (24-36)
Ashland-Hopkinton Ext. Sewer 53-122 (21—48)
Framingham Extension Sewer 152 (60)
168 (66)
61 (24)
91 (36)
76 (30)
122 (48)
152 (60)
91 (36)
61 (24)
76 (30)
91 (36)
137 (54)
198 (78)
61 (24)
152 (60)
61 (24)
152 (60)
183 (72)
198 (78)
183 (72)
198 (78)
8169
11186
3101
6581
3344
3152
3752
1503
3335
2256
472
692
1524
1501
152
227
877
2316
3121
6736
5212
4602
27 Lower Braintree Connecting
Sewer
28 Hingham Force Main
29 Braintree-Weymouth Ext.
30 Wellesley Extension Sewer
31 New Neponset Valley Sewer
3—25
-------
TABLE 3.2-3 (Cont’d.)
INTERCEPTOR SEWER MODIFICATIONS FOR
SOUTHERN MSD SERVICE AREA WITHOUT SATELLITES
Ref
No.
.
(1)
Interceptor
Sewer
Diameter
cm. (in.)
Length
in. (ft.)
32 High Level Sewer 244 (96) 1189 (3,900)
259 (102) 4968 (16,300)
274 (108) 2530 (8,300)
1. Reference Number — See Figure 3.2-2.
Source: Items 19 through 29: Metcalf & Eddy Inc., 1975i
3—26
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
TABLE 3.2—4
MDC PUMPING STATIONS
Year 2000 Peak
Existing Firm Dry Weather
apacity 3 Re 9 uirements EMMA Study
Itein / Pump Station m 3 xlO /day (mgd) m xlO”/day (mgd) Recommendations
a Reading .015 (4) .053 (14.0) Replace
b Alewife Brook .244 (64.4) .117 (30.9) Rehabilitate
c Charlestown .340 (90) .277 (73.3) Replace
d East Boston Electric .189 (50) (Standby) Rehabilitate
e East Boston Steam .397 (105) .076 (20.0) Replace
Squantum .015 (4) .017 (4.4) Replace
g Quincy .121 (32) .099 (26.2) Replace
h Braintree-Weymouth .151 (40) .222 (58.7) Replace
i Houghs Neck .005 (1.4) .008 (2.2) Replace
j Hingham .010 (2.8) .031 (8.3) Rehabilitate
1. See Figures 3.2-1 and 3.2—2.
Source: Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. , 1976
-------
3.2.2. Coastal Area Wastewater Treatment Plants
The determination of the most environmentally accept-
able, cost effective method of upgrading the MDC’s waste-
water treatment system requires the review and evaluation
of various alternative systems of wastewater treatment
plants. Whether satellite treatment plants are included
or not, large treatment plants will be required in the
vicinity of Boston Harbor. Therefore, it is necessary that
consideration be given to alternative treatment plant sites,
effluent discharge locations and treatment processes for
these coastal area treatment plants.
A. Sites . This analysis begins with a preliminary screening
of sites in the vicinity of Boston Harbor which could
—L possibly be used as the location of a major wastewater
treatment facility. The sites which survive this preliminary
screening process will then be combined into alternative
“coastal area wastewater treatment plant” subsystems for
further evaluation during the intermediate screening process.
The list of sites which were evaluated in this stage include:
Broad Meadows; Deer Island; Broad Cove, Kings Cove, and Lower
Neck in the Hinghaxn-Weymouth area; Long Island; Moon Island;
Nut Island; Peddocks Island; Spectacle Island; and Squantum
Point. The locations of these sites are shown in Figure
3 . 2—3.
A review of existing wastewater treatment plant designs
providing secondary treatment indicates that providing
an area of 0.267 x l0 hectares per m 3 /day (.25 acres per
mgd) of wastewater treated (average daily flow) would be
sufficient for preliminary screening purposes. Design flows
for the year 2050 were used to determine ultimate plant area
requirements so that adequate area would be provided for
the possible future expansion of treatment facilities. The
average daily design flows for the year 2050, as estimated
in the EMMA Study, and the land area required for the necessary
treatment facilities are:
Est. Avg. Daily Approx. Area
Flow, Yr. 2050 Req’d.
m 3 /day (mgd) hectares (acres)
Southern MSD service area,
with satellites 568,000 (150) 15.2 (37.5)
Southern MSD service area,
without satellites 874,000 (231) 23.3 (57.8)
Northern MSD service area 1,628,000 (430) 43.5 (107.5)
Total MSD service area 2,502,000 (661) 66.8 (165.3)
Broad Meadows . The Broad Meadows site is loc4ted at
the head of the Town River Bay in Quincy. The site is
primarily a filled tidal marsh which was used as a disposal
area for material dredged from the Town River in 1939 and
3—32
-------
BOSTON
BROAD
MEADOWS
SPECTACLE
ISLAND
MOON
ISLAND
ISLAND
•7/
QUINCY
BRAINTREE
LEGEND
A TREATMENT PLANT SITE CONSIDERED
DEER
ISLAND
MILTON
FIGURE 3.2-3 COASTAL TREATMENT PLANT SITES CONSIDERED
-------
again in 1953. Some unspoiled tidal marsh land exists
along the perimeter of the site adjacent to the bay.
The ground surface is relatively level and covered primarily
with Phragmites . Broad Meadows is bordered by residential
and commercial structures on three sides and by the Town
River Bay on the fourth, and is zoned for light industrial
development.
Currently, the Broad Meadows site is being considered
as a site for the South Shore Community College. The
proposed college would consist of a multiple building
complex, roads, parking areas and recreational fields
adequate for an enrollment of approximately 3000 commuting
students. It is possible that the plans to construct
the college at this site may be abandoned, and therefore,
the site may become available for the construction of a
wastewater treatment plant.
Although there are residential areas in the vicinity
of Broad Meadows, the site with a land area of about
44.5 hectares (110 acres), is large enough to accommodate
a wastewater treatment plant which would serve the southern
MSD service area, whether satellite plants were constructed
or not, and maintain a buffer zone of at least 152 meters
(500 feet) to the nearest structure. With effective
architectural treatment of the structures and landscaping
of the plant grounds and buffer zone, any objectionable
appearance of a wastewater treatment facility can be
minimized.
The Broad Meadows site is adjacent to the existing
High Level Sewer, which presently transports the
wastewater flow from the southern MSD service area to
the Nut Island Treatment Plant. The proximity of a
new plant at Broad Meadows to the interceptor system would
minimize the construction work (and cost) required to
transport wastewater from the interceptor to a treatment
plant on this site. Also, it would be possible to discharge
the effluent from a treatment plant at Broad Meadows back
into the High Level Sewer, which would carry the effluent
tø Nut Island, thereby making it possible to utilize the
existing outfall system which presently discharges into
Boston Harbor in the vicinity of the Nantasket Roads
Channel. Constructing treatment facilities on the Broad
Meadows site would probably require pile foundations due
to the unfavorable soil conditions associated with a filled
marshland.
The construction of a plant to treat the wastewater
flow from the southern MSD service area at Broad Meadows
would permit most of the treatment facilities presently on
Nut Island to be abandoned and demolished, thereby making
Nut Island available for other uses, such as recreational
development.
3—34
-------
Deer Island . Deer Island is located north of the
President Roads Channel of Boston Harbor, and is connected
to the Town of Winthrop by a land bridge and roadway.
The predominant feature of the island is an approximately
30 meter (100 foot) high drumlin located near the center
of the island. South of the drumlin are the remains of
Fort Dawes, which was abandoned in the mid 1940’s.
Located north of the drumlin are the existing Deer Island
Treatment Plant and a minimum security prison. The
Boston Harbor Islands Comprehensive Plan (MAPC, 1972)
calls for the development of the southern end of Deer Island
as a recreational area. However, it should be noted that
the MAPC, in preparing this plan, provided sufficient space
on Deer Island for the treatment plant expansion recommended
by the EMMA Plan. Had the EMMA Plan recommended a greater
degree of expansion on Deer Island (as this study does),
the MAPC recommendation may have been different.
The undeveloped portions of the island are mostly
occupied by early successional field, with some isolated
growths of secondary woodland. Some areas of the island,
particularly Fort Dawes, are devoid of any ground cover.
The total land area of Deer Island, about 85 hectares
(210 acres), is adequate to accommodate a wastewater
treatment plant capable of treating all of the wastewater
generated in the entire MSD service area. However, a
treatment plant of this size would require utilization of
the entire island for the plant site, including the
drumlin area, the existing prison site, and the south end,
in order to avoid any filling in of the harbor. A treat-
ment plant large enough to accommodate only the wastewater
from the northern MSD service area would require utilizing
the area presently occupied by either the drumlin or the
prison, in addition to the existing treatment plant site.
The expansion of the plant into the prison area would
require demolition of all prison facilities on Deer
Island. Utilizing the area occupied by the drumlin would
require the removal of the drumlin.
Due to the relatively recent construction of the
present Deer Island Treatment Plant (1968) and the fact
that most of this plant’s facilities are in good condition,
these facilities should be maintained and expanded as
necessary to provide primary treatment to the wastewater
generated in the northern MSD service area.
Hingham-Weymouth . Consideration was given to the
Construction of a secondary wastewater treatment plant
to serve Braintree, Hingham, Holbrook, Randolph and
Weymouth. Three locations in the Hingham-WeymOUth area
which were considered as possible treatment plant sites
are: Broad Cove in Hingham, Kings Cove in North Weymouth,
and Lower Neck in North Weymouth. The design flow used
for the determination of treatment plant area requirements
3—35
-------
was 105,980 m 3 /day (28 mgd), which approximates the
wastewater flow which would be tributary to this plant in
the year 2050. A treatment plant of this capacity would
require about 2.8 hectares (7 acres) of land. Two of the
locations, Broad Cove and Lower Neck, were not large
enough to accommodate a treatment plant of this size.
The third site, at Kings Cove, is large enough to accomm-
odate such a plant and is near the existing Braintree-
Weymouth interceptor. However, a treatment plant at
Kings Cove would require an extremely long outfall to
reach a suitable discharge location. In addition, the
site is presently occupied by a low profile steel storage
tank.
A 105,980 m 3 /day (28 mgd) treatment plant in the
Hingham—Weymouth area would reduce the area required at
another site for a treatment plant to treat the remaining
southern MSD service area wastewater by about 2.8 hectares
(7 acres). The additional capital cost for having two
plants treat the wastewater from the southern MSD service
area as compared to one plant would be about $15,000,000.
The additional operation and maintenance cost would be
about $750,000 per year.
Long Island . Long Island, with a land area of about 86
hectares (213 acres), is the largest of the islands
located in Boston Harbor, and is connected to the main-
land by a two lane causeway to Moon Island. The principal
features of the island are the drumlin on its northern
tip and Long Island Hospital. The hospital occupies the
middle section of the island and consists of several
buildings. South of the hospital is a cemetery of unmarked
graves, a monument and cemetery for 79 Civil War dead,
and an abandoned Army installation which is currently used
as a storage facility by the Boston Library. The Boston
Harbor Islands Comprehensive Plan calls for the development
of Long Island as a major recreation facility in the Harbor
due to its easy access by car, bus and ferry, and its size.
The area south of the hospital is large enough, with
about 49 hectares (120 acres) of land, to accommodate a
treatment plant with sufficient capacity to provide primary
treatment for the southern MSD service area and secondary
treatment for both the northern and southern MSD service
areas, whether satellite plants are constructed or not.
If satellites are not constructed, the treatment plant
would require about 49 hectares (120 acres) of land.
This area is characterized as a mid-successional field
with a fresh water marsh being found along a portion of the
western shore of the island. This habitat supports a
diverse population of wildlife species.
The construction of a treatment plant on Long Island
capable of giving primary treatment to the wastewater from
3—36
-------
the southern MSD service area and secondary treatment to
the wastewater from the northern and southern MSD service
areas would permit most of the existing Nut Island Treatment
Plant to be abandoned and demolished, making Nut Island
available for other purposes, such as recreational
development. A small amount of expansion of the primary
treatment facilities on Deer Island would be required .
The use of the drumlin area, south end, or prison area
of Deer Island would not be required. However, construction
of such a plant on Long Island would require large submarine
pipelines across Boston Harbor to carry wastewater from
Deer Island and Nut Island to Long Island, would require
relocation of the cemeteries on Long Island, and would
result in the loss of a potential recreational area on
Long Island. In addition, it is possible that a narrow
strip of fill would be required along the shoreline of
the island to provide area for an access road to the
hospital.
Moon Island . Moon Island is located between Quincy
Bay and Dorchester Bay. The eastern half of the island
contains a 30 meter (100 foot) high drumlin, and the
western half is the site of the first major sewage disposal
facility for the City of Boston. The tanks of this
facility are still intact and are currently used to provide
emergency relief for the combined sewer system of Boston
during severe storms. This facility has no treatment
capability, but does serve as a storage tank with a
capacity of about 189,250 m 3 (50 million gallons) . The
stormwater is discharged from the tanks to the harbor
during outgoing tides. The drumlin is the current site of
the Boston Police Department Firing Range and Boston Fire
Department training facilities. The Harbor Island Compre-
hensive Plan recommended conversion of the existing Moon
Island tanks to a fish hatchery or a holding tank for the
Boston Aquarium. The Plan recommends that the remainder of
the island be developed as a recreation area.
Moon Island with a land area of about 18 hectares
44.6 acres), is large enough to accommodate a wastewater
treatment plant to serve the southern MSD service area
without requiring any filling of Dorchester Bay or QuinCy
Bay, if satellite plants are constructed along the
Charles and Neponset Rivers. The treatment plant would
Occupy almost the entire island. If satellite plants are
not constructed, some fill would be required. Due to the
shape of the island, and the necessity of maintaining a
corridor for the roadway to Long Island, the plant layout
Would be cramped and would not offer as much flexibility
in operation as would be desired. The size and locations
of the existing tanks are such that they could not be
Utilized in a new plant. Extensive modifications to the
3—37
-------
present interceptor and pumping station network, or the
construction of a pipeline across Quincy Bay which would
transport wastewater to Moon Island from the existing
interceptor system which terminates at Nut Island, would
be required. A long outfall would also be required to
reach an acceptable effluent discharge location. It is
possible that, if Moon Island is not used as the site of
a wastewater treatment plant, the existing tanks on the
island could be incorporated into a combined sewer overflow
regulation system for the City of Boston.
Nut Island . Nut Island is located in the southern
harbor area and is the present site of the Nut Island
Treatment Plant. The Nut Island site was created by
filling in the area between the original Nut Island and
Houghs Neck peninsula. This site has a low, flat profile
and a very stark appearance. The existing primary treat-
ment facilities occupy most of Nut Island and, while the
required primary expansion would result in only about 1.2
hectares (3 acres) of fill into Quincy Bay, the construction
of secondary treatment facilities would require about 8.1
hectares (20 acres) of fill if satellite plants were
constructed along the Charles and Neponset Rivers, and
about 11.7 hectares (29 acres) of fill if satellite plants
were not constructed..*
The existing Nut Island Treatment Plant is in need of
extensive renovation and modernization to provide efficient
primary treatment. Nearly every portion of the treatment
process requires some form of upgrading, renovation or
replacement. Due to the extremely poor condition of the
existing plant, it would cost about as much to revamp
and expand the primary treatment facilities on Nut Island
as it would be to construct new primary treatment facilities
elsewhere.
As discussed previously, it would be possible to reduce
the amount of fill required for a secondary treatment plant
on Nut Island by constructing an additional plant in the
Hingham—Weymouth area. However, reducing the flow to a
plant on Nut Island by the amount of flow which would be
tributary to a plant in the Hingharn—Weymouth area would
reduce the fill requirements at Nut Island by only about
2.8 hectares (7 acres), and at least 5.3 hectares (13 acres)
of fill into Quincy Bay.
Peddocks Island . Peddocks Island, located between
Hull Bay and Quincy Bay, consists of five drumlins connected
by low sand bars. The West Head of Peddocks Island, with
about 20 hectares (50 acres) of land, has adequate space to
accommodate a treatment plant which serve the southern MSD
service area, if satellite plants are constructed. If
* The acres of fill required are somewhat less than those
presented in the EMMA Study due to utilization of rectangular
rather than circular final settling tanks.
3—38
-------
satellites are not constructed, some fill would be required.
According to the Boston Harbor Islands Comprehensive
Plan, the West Head of the island is mostly undeveloped
and is a valuable wildlife habitat. This area
contains a Black—Crowned Night Heron rookery and a Snowy
Egret rookery. (A “rookery” is a breeding area for a
bird colony). The Boston Harbor area is one of three
locations within Massachusetss known to contain Black-
Crowned Night Heron rookeries. Neither species is, however,
endangered. Because of the valuable habitat present on the
West Head of Peddocks Island and the use of that habitat
by bird populations, the Boston Harbor Island Comprehensive
Plan has recommended that the West Head be preserved as
a wildlife sanctuary with the remainder of the island to
be developed for recreation.
A treatment plant located on Peddocks Island could be
connected to the existing interceptor system with a
relatively short pipeline across the West Gut between
Nut and Peddocks Islands. The site is relatively close
to the existing Nut Island Treatment Plant outfall
discharge location in the vicinity of Nantasket Roads.
Locating a plant on Peddocks Island would require that
a bridge or causeway be constructed between the island and
the mainland in order to provide access to the plant.
It would also result in the loss of the island as a
wildlife refuge.
Spectacle Island . Spectacle Island is one of the
northern islands in Boston Harbor and consists of drumlins
on the northern and southern ends connected by a low sandbar,
giving it the appearance of a pair of spectacles. The
island’s appearance has been significantly altered through
its past use as a garbage dump. The natural low lying
midsection of the island and its northern end are buried
by garbage estimated to be as much as 30 meters (100 feet)
deep. The southern portion of the island contains smaller
piles of garbage and the ruins of small buildings. Although
the island is no longer used as a garbage dump, fires are
still reported to be smoldering deep within the garbage.
The Boston Harbor Islands Comprehensive Plan recommends
the reclamation of Spectacle Island as a recreational
resource. This is to be done by extinguishing the fires,
compacting the rubbish and developing a vegetative cover.
According to the Plan, facilities to be developed on the
island include bathing, beaches, nature trails and docking
slips.
The island is currently used by a variety of shore
birds including Black-Backed Gulls, Herring u1ls, Black
Crowned Night Herons, and serves as a breeding area for
Glossy Ibis. Asuitable offshore habitat is essential for
these species, hence loss of this island through the development
3—39
-------
of wastewater treatment facilities would result in a
significant environmental impact.
Spectacle Island, with a land area of about 39 hectares
(97 acres) is large enough to accommodate a treatment plant
which would treat the wastewater from the southern MSD
service area, whether satellite plants are constructed or
not. A treatment plant to serve the northern MSD service area
would require some fill. However, if the wastewater from
the northern service area received primary treatment at
Deer Island, secondary treatment facilities could be placed
on Spectacle Island without requiring any fill.
Locating a sewage treatment plant on this site would
require the construction of a bridge or causeway which would
provide access to the island from the mainland. Also, it
would be extremely difficult to construct a plant on 30
meters (100 feet) of garbage and, therefore, the garbage
would probably have to be removed and disposed of. Locating
a disposal site in the area for the huge amount of garbage
presently on Spectacle Island would present a problem.
In addition, extensive pipelines would be required in order
to connect the existing interceptor system to a plant at
this location.
Squantum Point . The area called Squantum Point is
located in northwest Quincy and is the site of an abandoned
Naval air station. It is bordered by the Neponset River
on the west and Dorchester Bay on the north. The site is
about 28 hectares (70 acres) in size, relatively flat,
covered with grasses and various shrubs, and has no special
environmental significance. Most of the land being
considered for a treatment plant site is owned by Boston
Edisøn-iCo., and a portion is owned by Jordan—Marsh. Boston
Edison currently has no plans for their land at Squantum
Point, and has indicated a willingness to sell the
property. The property owned by Boston Edison is large
enough to accommodate a plant which would give primary
and seáondary treatment to the wastewater generated in the
southern MSD -service area if satellite plants were to be
constructed on the Charles and Neponset Rivers. If
satellite plants were not constructed, some of the property
onwed by Jordan-Marsh would be required.
Locating a treatment plant on this site would require
the construction of a long pipeline to transport wastewater
from the existing interceptor system to the plant. In
addition, either a long outfall or another long pipeline
connecting the plant with the existing Nut Island Treatment
Plant outfall system would be required in order to discharge
plant effluent to a satisfactory location in Boston Harbor.
While the Squantum Point site is remote from existing
residential areas, the area adjacent to the site is zoned for
3—40
-------
“planned Unit Development”, and a development of this
type has been proposed on t1 e adjacent parcel.
Elimination of Sites . ?rir c J ( S —
Based on the information presented above, the following
sites have been eliminated from further consideration for
the reasons stated:
Hingham-Weymouth . Three locations, Broad Cove,
Kings Cove, and Lower Neck, were considered as potential
sites in this area. Only one of these,Kings Cove, was
large enough for a treatment plant of the capacity required.
This alternative was eliminated because it would require
an additional site and outfall, additional capital costs
(about $15,000,000), additional operation and maintenance
costs ($750,000 annually), and would result in only a
minimal reduction in plant size that would be required at
the principal plant serving the southern MSD service area.
Moon Island . This alternative was eliminated due to
the presence of three active land uses on the island which
would be displaced by a wastewater treatment plant, and the
potential use of Moon Island in a combined sewer overflow
regulation program.
Nut Island . Although Nut Island is the site of an
existing MDC primary treatment plant, and this existing
plant is recommended for secondary expansion by the EMMA
Study, it has been eliminated as an alternative site for
secondary expansion in this preliminary screening stage.
This decision.is based on the adverse environmental effects
which would result from the need to fill in Quincy Bay in
order to create sufficient space on the site. The rationale
behind this decision is discussed below.
Historically, wetland areas and open water areas have
been filled in and destroyed in order to create developable
land for non-developable or “marginal” areas. This
objective is very short sighted in the sense that a short
term convenience is realized at the expense of a non—renew-
able resource (proper land use planning could achieve alter-
nate solutions). Furthermore, this action is, practically,
irreversible. In the metropolitan area surrounding Boston
Harbor, the motivation for harbor filling is clearly
evident. Most of the land is developed and has high value.
The pressure of urban expansion has created a need for
developable land where little exists. The alternatives
include displacement and re—development and, along water-
front areas, conversion of open water areas into developable
land by filling. In many cases, land creation is far
cheaper and more feasible than re—development. Over the
long term, these activities have serious effects. All fill
projects are additive in their long term impact. While a
3—41
-------
single proposal may not, by itself, cause drastic environ-
mental changes, the cumulative effects are often dramatic.
In Boston Harbor, for example, fill projects have reduced
the size of the inner Harbor by a significant increment
(See Figure 3.2-4). For the construction of Logan Airport
alone, over 800 hectares (2000 acres) of the harbor were
filled. Considering the ecological, social, aesthetic and
commercial value of our coastal areas, this trend (which is
a result of individual fill projects, large and small), has
had enormous impact and will continue to do so if left
unchecked.
Therefore, the alternative of filling from 8.1
hectares (20 acres) to 11.7 hectares (29 acres) of Quincy
Bay to accommodate an expanded treatment facility cannot
be recommended. To do so would represent an endorsement
of a practice which has had severe impacts on the environment.
The EPA, has published interim final guidelines for
regulating the discharge of dredged or fill materials into
navigable waters (Federal Register, Vol. 40, No. 173,
Sept. 5, 1975). These guidelines state:
“In evaluating whether to permit a proposed
discharge of dredged or fill material into
navigable waters, consideration shall be given
to the need for the proposed activity, the
availability of alternate sites and methods of
disposal that are less damaging to the environ-
In this case, the need for the expanded facility is
clear. However, the proposed facility does not require
direct water access, and other alternatives are available.
Among the objectives to be considered in making a
permit determination are:
“(1) Avoid discharge activities that significantly
disrupt the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the aquatic ecosystem...
(2) Avoid discharge activities that significantly
disrupt the food chain...
(3) Avoid discharge activities that inhibit the
movement of fauna, especially their movement into
and out of feeding, spawning, breeding, and nursery
areas:
(7) Minimize discharge activities that will degrade
aesthetic, recreational, and economic values.”
Another consideration outlined by the Regulations is:
“Significant disruption of fish spawning and nursery
areas should be avoided.”
3—42
-------
LAND CREATION IN BOSTON HARBOR 1800/1960
SOURCE: MAPC 1976
SOURCE: MAPC 1972
FIGURE 3.2-4 HISTORIC FILLING TRENDS
IN BOSTON HARBOR
-------
Filling a large area of Quincy Bay would eertainly
disrupt the integrity of the aquatic ecosystem by the
complete elimination of the ecosystem within the area in
question.
It has been reported (Chessmore, 1971) that Quincy
Bay is used by the winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes
americanus) and several species of forage fish for
spawning. Limited spawning of cod (Gadus inorhua) has also
been reported. Winter flounder is an important game species
in Massachusetts, providing recreation at a time of the year
when few species are otherwise available. Forage species
are an extremely important link in the estuarine food chain,
supporting the larger game species. Filling in Quincy Bay
could therefore contribute incrementally to a significant
impact on the aquatic food chain, as well as on feeding,
spawning, and nursery areas for the indigenous fauna.
Filling will also degrade aesthetic and recreational values
within the Bay. However, this must be compared to possible
trade—off S at alternate locations.
The previously cited regulations also state that
“disposal sites for dredged or fill materials shall not
be designated in areas of concentrated shellfish production.”
The area of proposed filling is located in an area which
is closed to shelifishing due to gross contamination. This
contamination is caused by frequent overflows of raw sewage
from the immediately adjacent Nut Island treatment plant.
A study of the marine resources in Quincy Bay (Jerome,
et al, 1966) indicates that Quincy Bay in general possesses
very active and productive shellfish flats. The contaminated
flats in which filling is proposed are not productive by
comparison. 1.4 clams were found per cubic foot of substrate
in the proposed fill area compared to 7.8 clams per cubic
foot for the Bay as a whole. It is possible that existing
contamination may have affected the productivity of the
shellfish beds adjacent to the treatment plant. Expected
water quality improvements could therefore improve shellfish
productivity as well as open the area to harvest.
Overall, the value of this and other parts of the Harbor
to the aquatic ecosystem and to present and future generations
is considered to outweigh the advantages of locating the
facilities for secondary expansion at the Nut Island site.
The preservation of Boston Harbor for future generations
is dependent on present attempts to minimize filling activities.
— Expansion of the existing Nut Island plant to a
primary treatment plant capable of providing primary
j, 4reatment oI the increased quantity of wastewater anticipated
1Y tI1 flhin the year 2050 would require only about 1.2 hectares
(3 acres) of fill. While the magnitude of this amount of
fill is far less than that necessary for secondary expansion,
3—44
-------
adverse environmental effects will still occur. However,
for preliminary screening purposes, this alternative was not
eliminated.
Peddocks Island . This island was eliminated from con-
sideration due to the wildlife value of the West Head, the
intent to preserve the area as a wildlife refuge, and the
need to construct an access bridge or causeway.
Spectacle Island . This alternative was eliminated in
this preliminary screening due to the difficulty and adverse
environmental impacts associated with the removal of exist-
ing refuse, the wildlife value of the island, and the need
for an access bridge or causeway.
To summarize, the following sites are still under con-
sideration and will be evaluated in further detail in the
intermediate screening stage of this study:
Broad Meadows
Deer Island
Long Island
Nut Island (expansion of primary
treatment facilities only)
Squantum Point
B. Effluent Discharge Evaluation . The proposed expansion
and upgrading of the MDC coastal area treatment facilities
will alter the characteristics of the effluents currently
discharged into Boston Harbor. Accordingly, the associated
water quality impacts will change. This section projects
effluent characteristics for the year 2000 facilities and
evaluates their potential water quality effects.
Secondary treatment facilities are required to effect
an 85 percent reduction of BOD 5 and suspended solids, as
required by Pub. L. 92-500 and this analysis assumes that
the MDC facilities will achieve these removal rates. Present
influent data and the EMMA Study Design Year wastewater char-
acteristics were utilized as a baseline to project the char-
acteristics of primary and secondary effuents. Table 3.2—5
presents a comparison of the present primary effluent and
the projected secondary effluent for these parameters.
Secondary treatment will significantly decrease the mass
of BOD 5 and suspended solids discharged into Harbor waters,
and as such is a positive impact upon Harbor water quality.
Disinfection at the MDC primary plants, via chlorination,
presently achieves a 99.9 percent reduction in coliform bac-
teria. It is anticipated that chlorination of the secondary
effluent will also result in a 99.9 percent coliforxn kill.
However, chlorination of the secondary effluent should be
more effective against human pathogens because of decreased
3—45
-------
suspended solids concentrations (viruses adsorbed on suspended
solids during disinfection are more resistant to inactivation
than those in free solution). Comparing present and future
99.9 percent coliform kills, the real value of the latter is
greater. In this respect, secondary effluent will have a
positive public health related impact upon Harbor water qual-
i ty.
Toxic pollutants (as defined by 43 FR 4108, January 31,
1970), in particular metals, are found in the influent and
effluent of the MDC treatment facilities. Tables 3.2-6 and
3.2—7 present influent and effluent metals concentrations
for the Nut Island and Deer Island plants. The data covers
a 22 month period and is summarized from compliance monitor-
ing reports submitted to EPA Region I by the MDC.
A statistical analysis was performed on the data because
of its great variability. For the influent concentration of
each metal, the arithmetic mean and standard deviation were
calculated, and a 95 percent confidence interval (±2 standard
deviations) established. The data set was then examined for
values falling outside the established range. Those that did
were considered abnormal and discarded. The mean and stan-
dard deviation were recomputed from the new data set, a new
confidence interval established, and the data reexamined.
When all values used to compute a mean fell into the corres-
ponding confidence interval, that mean was considered repre-
sentative of the expected influent metal concentration. These
influent characteristics were used in the computation of their
corresponding average influent concentrations. Table 3.2-8
summarizes these means, along with corresponding percent in-
tervals.
Removal efficiencies vary between facilities and among
metals at each facility. A comparison of reported MDC metal
removals and those reported for treatment plants across the
country (Table 3.2-9) shows the MDC facilities to be typical.
All treatmentp ants exhibit marked variations in metal rernov-
als. Nevertheless, considerable amounts of toxic metals are
being discharged from the MDC treatment plants. These data
support the conclusion of the New England Aquarium (Gilbert,
et al., 1972) that these facilities are a major source of
metals to the Outer Harbor.
Projections of metals content in the secondary effluent
were made as follows. Primary removals were assumed to re-
main constant, unless they were negative. In this event, the
average mean primary removals reported in Table 3.2—9 were
applied. Average reported secondary removals (Table 3.2-9)
were added to the appropriate primary removals to obtain an
estimated metals removal rate for secondary treatment. Asswfled
toxic metal removals are summarized in Table 3.2-10.
3—46
-------
TABLE 3.2-s
a
COI ARISON OF PRIMARY
NDC WASTEWATER
AND SECONDARY EFFLUENTS
TREATMENT PLANTS
TOTAL
-J
47.9 111.4 5.7x10 4
(1. 29x10 6 )
50.1 68.6 8.74xl0 4
(1. 93x10 5 )
1.45xl0 5
(3. 20xl0 5 )
85 38.9 l.92x10
(4.23x10 )
85 23 3.49x10 4
(7. 70xl0 4 )
5.41x10 4
(1.19x10 5 )
23.1 106.4 5.48x10 4
(1. 21x10 5 )
30.8 100.6 1.28x10 5
(2.82x10 5 )
85 27.8 1.37x10 4
(3.02xl0 4 )
85 24.9 3.77x10 4
(8. 3 1x10 4
(—)4 . 37x 10 4
(9. 64 l04)
75.0%
(—) 9. 03x1O
(1. 99x10 5 )
70.5%
(—)l . 34x10 5
(2.95x1 0 5 )
72.0%
1. See Tables 2.5—1 and 2.5—2
2. Design Conditions Year 2000 Metcalf 6 Eddy, 1975, j,k
Primary’
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Southern Service
Area Facility
Northern Service
Area Facility
Primary 1
Removal Conc. Mass
Percent mR/l KG/D
( lbs/d)
Removal Conc. Mass
Percent mg/l KG/D
( lbs/d)
Change
KC/D
j1bs/d)
Removal Conc. Mass
Percent mg/i KC/D
(lbsld)
Removal Conc. Mass
Percent mg/i KG/D
( lbs/d)
Change
KC/D
(lbs/d)
SOD 5
Secondary 2
(—)3.82x10 4
(8.42xl0 4 )
66.6%
(—)5.25x10 4
(1. 16xl0 5 )
60.0%
(—) 9. 07x1fl 4
(2.0x 10 5 )
62.6%
1.82xl0 5
(4. 01x10 5 )
5.14x10 4
(l.13xl0 5 )
-------
TABLE 3.2-6
NUT ISLAND
TOXIC METALS CONCENTRATIONS
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
L)
Zinc
12—75
1—76
2—76
3—76
4—76 5—76
6—76
7—76
8—76
9-76
10—76
11—7
12—76 1—77
2—77
3—77 4—77
5—77 6—77
7—77 8—7?
9-7?
Avg.
.005
.005
.0098
.0098
.016
.013
.01
.005
.10*
.005
.01
.01
.01
.005
.06
.04
.18*
.12
.005
.004
.02
.01
.036
.032
.01
.01
.008
.008
.01
.01
.008
.002
.004
.004
.032
.008
.014
.014
.052
.022
.020
.014
.012
.012
.0176
.0119
.03
.01
.018 .05
.0099 .045
.04
.04
.047 .08
.065 .06
——
——
.06
.04
.14*
.10
.15*
.05
.10
.09
.13*
.10
.08
.05
.024
.012
.048
.024
.032 .044
.032 .040
.008 .048
.008 .048
.064 .050
.056 .035
.08
.08
.051
.041
.4
.07
.37
.08
.79
.07
.79
.16
.43
.23
.92
.16
.74
.08
.1O
.10
..OO
.16
2.0*
.7
.76
.56
.51
.46
.36
.50
.62
.82
.42
.50
.22
.27
.62
.34
.108 .59
.07( .10
.55
.11
.93
.88
.75
.40
.618
.292
.08
.08
.06
.04
.01
.01
.125
.10
.127 .20
.152 .15
.20
.10
.10
.05
.11
.10
.53*
.15
.08
.04
.04
.03
.07
.01
.04
.02
.06
.04
.03
.02
.20
.16
.08
.04
.20
.16
.62* .16
.40 .12
.10
.06
.104
.074
.0002
.0001
.0001
.0005
.0003
.0006
.001
.0003
.001
.001
.000
.002
.ooi:
.OO0
.000’
.000:
.0001
.0001
.0005
.0001
.0001
.0002
.002
.001
.0004
.009
.0007
.0001
.003
.0006
.002
.001
.0174
.0028
.00
.00
.002
.0002
.006
.002
.0072
.0030
.0054
.0028
.00199
.00120
.76
.04
.88
.04
.85
.098
.64
.04
.86
.04
.44
.09
.23
.01
..05
.42
.15
.58
1.25
.07
.96
.80
.90* 1.50
.93 1.14
.86
.72
.26
.12
.32
.15
.020 2.58 1.08
.0135 2.58 .04
.54
.04
.04
.68
.90
.55
.889
.291.
.20
.73
.26
.44
.027* .54
.025 .29
.37( .76
.23k .92
.50
.48
.46
.37
.30
.29
.27
.13
.34
.18
.50
.32
.32
.20
.50
.42
.35
.22
.43
.29
.38
.30
.51
.46
.50
.46
.44
.42
.44
.28
.68
.46
.431
.376
All values mgfl
Chromium values are total Chromium
Top Entry: Plant Influent
Bottom Entry: Plant Effluent
Values from analysis of sample cooiposited daily over month. Daily portion taken from daily 24 hour composite then added to monthly
composite.
Avg — Arithmetic Avg. of Monthly Values
*Data pair not used in calculation of average.
See Text Discussion
-------
1.2—75
1—76
2—76
3—76
4—76
5—76
6—76
7—76
8—76
9—76
10—76
11—76
12—76
1—77
2—77
3—77
4—77
5—77
6—77
7—77
8—77
9—77
Avg.
.020
.020
.02
.02
.02
.02
.002
.002
.006
.004
.16*
.08
.04
.02
.008
.008
.02
.02
.06
.06
.024
.020
.02
.02
.03
.03
.02
.02
.012
.012
.02
.02
.02
.02
.10*
.10
.016
.010
.018
.018
.025
.021
.021
.019
.08
.03
.14
.10
.10
.08
.01*
.04
.08
.10
.12
.08
.10
.06
.14
.10
.25
.25
.12
.06
.20
.16
.10
.08
.13
.13
.10
.04
.16
.24
.15
.15
.15
.10
.15
.12
.17
.02
.20
.11
.30
.15
.147
.108
.30
.24
.10
.09
.21
.14
.04
.04
.30
.24
.04
.04
.21
.20
.08
.06
.23
.16
.06
.06
•44*
.38
.40*
.14
.50*
.45
.25
.16
.20
.40
.20
.20
.28
.20
.14
.10
.20
.36
.70*
1.0
.28
.55
.12
.14
.06*
.50
.25
.16
•
.25
.44
.17
.17
.25
.44
.23
.23
.18
.39
.14
.14
.25
.44
.20
.23
.27
.36
.15
.0011
.0010
.30
.42
.11
.10
.20
.36
.31
.15
.24
.59
.10
.07
.28
.50
.3
.2
.246
.357
.157
.131
.0014
.0013
.ooi:
.00l
.001
.0009
.0013
.0013
.014*
.0013
.0010
.0001
.0020*
.0013
.0020*
.0020*
.001:
.ooj.
.001
.001
.0013
.0012
.0013
.0011
.0012
.0010
.0013
.0011
.0012
.0011
.0012
.0010
.13
.22
.0013
.0010
.0014
.0011
.0013
.0012
.0012
.0010
.00124
.0011
.08
.04
.06
.02
.08
.06
.04
.05
.05
.05
.10
.10
.16
.16
.12
.16
.06
.04
.20
.20
.12
.14
.16
.16
.20
.20
.08
.16
.14
.10
.10
.10
.92
.60
.10
.08
.08
.06
.15
.15
.213
.5
.115
.131
1.20
.44
.76
.34
.0
.54
.47
.37
.68
.43
.58
.40
.84
.61
.85
.73
.88
.52
1.16
.66
1.17
.45
.94
.72
.79
.47
.55
.38
.56
.61
.46
.31
.31
.20
.68
.38
.62
.66
.9
.42
.777
.488
Values from analysis of sample coniposited daily over month. Daily portion taken from daily 24 hour composite then added to monthly composite.
All values mg/l Avg — Arithmetic Avg. of Monthly Values
Chromium values are total Chromium
Top Entry: Plant Influent *Data pair not used in calculation of average.
Bottom Entry: Plant Effluent See Text Discussion
TABLE 3.2-7
DEER ISLAND
TOXIC METALS CONCENTRATIONS
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
-------
Future influent metals concentrations are a function of
a number of variables, including the industrial pretreatment
program and non-industrial sources to the MDC system. The
pretreatment program requried by Pub. L. 92—500 will limit
the input of substances which are not susceptible to treat-
ment in the MDC facilities. In addition, limitations will
be placed on pollutants which will, potentially, interfere
with treatment. Current and future metals input to the MDC
system from industrial sources is unknown and, therefore, any
change due to industrial pretreatment cannot be quantified.
In addition, significant quantities of metals are known to
come from non—industrial sources. Table 3.2—11 summarizes
recent studies which have quantified residential metals con-
tributions.
To evaluate the unknown inf].uent characteristics, five
metals removal scenarios were developed. Scenarios A, B, C,
D, and E assume, respectively, 0, 10, 25, 50 and 75 percent
decrease in the present influent metals concentrations due
to an industrial pretreatment program. Assumed removal rates
were then applied to the metal levels in the influent. Tables
3.2-12 and 3.2-13 summarize these computations. In addition,
dilution requirements for each projected effluent concentra-
tion were calculated.
Dilution requirements are based upon the recommended
water quality criteria presented in Table 3.2-14. Specif i—
cally, the minimum risk criteria was utilized to compute the
required effluent dilutions. Minimum risk criteria are
defined as the concentrations which present minimal risk of
deleterious effects upon the marine environment (Committee
on Water Quality Criteria, 1972). The intent in applying
these criteria is
“...to protect essential and significant life in
water, as well as direct users of water...to pro-
tect life that is dependent on life in water for
its existence, or that may consume intentionally
or unintentionally any edible portion of such
life.” (Quality Criteria for Water, 1976).
Given the inherent variability of influent characteristics
and metals removal in treatment facilities, achievement of
a minimum dilution ratio provides a necessary margin of safety
for the harbor environment.
The actual percent reduction in influent concentrations
will probably fall between scenarios C and D (a 25 to 50 per-
cent reduction). Based upon this analysis, effluent dilution
in the 50:1 to 100:1 range, through utilization of an effec-
tively designed diffuser(s), is viewed as providing a reason
able margin of safety for the worst case metal concentration
3—50
-------
TABLE 3.2—8
MDC TREATMENT FACILITIES
TOXIC METALS REMOVALS*
NUT ISLAND DEER ISLAND
Influent Effluent Removal Influent Effluent Removal
Metal (mg/i) (mg/i) (Percent) (mg/l) (mg/i) (Percent)
Cadmium 0.0176 0.0119 32.4 0.021 0.019 9.5
thromium 0.051 0.041 19.6 0.147 0.108 26.5
Copper 0.618 0.292 52.8 0.246 0.357 —45.1
Lead 0.104 0.074 28.8 0.157 0.131 16.6
Mercury 0.00199 0.00120 39.7 0.00124 0.0011 11.3
NIckel 0.889 0.291 67.3 0.115 0.131 43.9
Zi 0.431 0.376 12.8 0.777 0.488 37.2
*Influent and Effluent values derived from MDC
Compliance Monitoring Reports to EPA Region I
for period 12/75 through 9/77. See Text for
discussion.
3—51
-------
TABLE 3.2—9
1
SUMMARY OF TOXIC METALS REMOVAL (percent)
PRIMARY PLANTS 2 ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANTS 3
Metal Mean STD. Dev. Max/Mm No. of Plants Mean STD Dev. Max/Mm No. of Plants
Cadmium 8 17 76/0 31 17 27 88/0 44
Chromium 26 26 80/0 36 46 34 98/0 54
Copper 26 24 77/0 44 57 24 95/0 63
Lead 24 26 88/0 34 39 32 95/0 49
Mercury 27 29 75/0 21 39 32 99/0 34
Nickel 6 18 92/0 28 20 21 80/0 44
Zinc 31 22 88/0 38 58 25 99/0 58
1 Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977
2 Conventional primary treatment and primary treatment with pre—aeration
3 Primary sedimentation and activated sludge, including extended, step, high rate and Krauss
modificat ions
-------
TABLE 3.2—10
DESIGN YEAR
ASSUMED TOXIC METALS PERCENT REMOVAL
COASTAL AREA TREATMENT FACILITIES
NUT ISLAND DEER ISLAND
Metal Prinzary 1 Secondary 2 Total Primary’ Secondary 2 Total
Cadmium 32.4 9 41.4 9.5 9 18.5
Chr nium 19.6 20 39.6 26.5 20 46.5
Copper 52.8 31 83.8 26.0 31 57.0
Lead 28.8 15 43.8 16.0 15 31.6
Mercury 39.7 12 51.7 11.3 12 23.3
Nickel 67.3 14 81.3 6 14 20.0
Zinc 12.8 27 39.8 37.2 27 64.2
1 Calculated values, see Table 3.2—8, unless percent
removal negative. When removal negative, literature
value assumed see Table 3.2-9.
2 Secondary removal assumed to be difference between
activated sludge and primary values reported in Table
3.2—9.
3—53
-------
TABLE 3.2—il
RESIDENTIAL METALS CONTRIBUTIONS
New York City ,N.Y. Pittsburgh, 2 Pa. Muncie, I11
Metal
Cadmium 49 63
Chromium 28 23 2.7
Copper 47 96 36
Lead 63 10
Mercury
Nickel 25 19 13.3
Zinc 42 32 17
1)Klein, L.A. et al., 1974
New York entries represent percentage of total influent mass at NYC
treatment plants during period January 1972 to September
1973.
2)Davis, J.A. III, and J. Jacknow, 1975
Pittsburgh entries are percentage of total influent mass to
Allegheny County Sanitary Authority treatment facility
for period January to June 1973.
Muncie entries are percentage of total Influent mass to
Muncie treatment facility for 1973,
3—54
-------
TABLE 3.2—12
DILUTION REQUIREMENTS
SOUTHERN MDC SERVICE AREA TREATMENT FACILITY DISCHARGE
INFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS, mg/i EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS, mg/i DILUTION REQUIRED 2
F ___________________________
METAL A B C D E A B C D E A B C 0 E
Cadmium 0.018 0.016 0.013 0.0088 0.0044 0.011 0.0094 0.0076 0.0052 0.0026 52.7 46.8 38.1 25.8 12.9
Chromium 0.051 0.046 0.038 0.026 0.013 0.031 0.028 0.023 0.016 0.0078 0.62 0.56 0.46 0.31 0.16
Copper 0.618 0.556 0.464 0.309 0.155 0.100 0.091 0.075 0.050 0,025 10.0 9.0 7.5 5.0 2.5
Lead 0.104 0.094 0.078 0.052 0.026 0.058 0.053 0.044 0.029 0.015 5.8 5.2 4.3 2.9 1.5
Mercury 0.00198 0.00178 0.00149 0.00099 0.0005 0.00095 0.00086 0.00072 0.00048 0.00024 19.1 17.2 14.4 9.6 4.8
Nickel 0.889 0.800 0.667 0.445 0.272 0.166 0.150 0.125 0.083 0.042 83.1 74.8 62.4 41.6 21.0
Zinc 0.431 0.388 0.323 0.216 0.108 0.259 0.234 0.194 0.130 0.065 13.0 11.7 9.7 6.5 3.3
1. Scenario A: no change due to pretreatment 2. Ratio: Harbor Water : Wastewater
B: 10% decrease in metals concentration
C: 25% decrease in metals concentration
D: 50% decrease in metals concentration
E: 75% decrease in metals concentration
-------
TABLE 3.2—13
DILUTION REQUIREMENTS
NORTHERN MDC SERVICE AREA TREATMENT FACILITY DISCHARGE
INFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS mg/i EFFLUENT CCE CENTRATIONS, mg/i DILUTION REQUIRED 2
METAL A 1 B C D E A B C D E A B C D E
Cadmium 0.02. 0.019 0.016 0.011 0.005 0.0171 0.0155 0.0130 0.0089 0.0041 85.6 77.4 65.2 44.8 20.4
Chromium 0.147 0.132 0.110 0.074 0.037 0.079 0.071 0.059 0.040 0.020 1.57 1.41 1.18 0.8 0.4
Copper 0.246 0.221 0.185 0.123 0.062 0.106 0.095 0.080 0.053 0.027 10.6 9.5 8.0 5.3 2.7
Lead 0.157 0.141 0.118 0.079 0.039 0.107 0.096 0.081 0.054 0.027 10.7 9.6 8.1 5.4 2.7
Mercury 0.00124 0.00112 0.0009 0.0006 0.0003 0.00095 0.00092 0.00069 0.00046 0.00023 19.0 18.4 13.8 9.2 4.6
Nickel 0.115 0.104 0.086 0.058 0.029 0.092 0.083 0.059 0.046 0.023 46.0 42.0 34.4 23.2 11.6
Zinc 0.777 0.699 0.583 0.389 0.194 0.278 0.250 0.209 0.139 0.069 13.9 12.5 10.4 7.0 3.5
1. Scenario A: no change due to pretreatment 2. Ratio: Harbor Water : Wastewater
B: 10% decrease in metals concentration
C: 25% decrease in metals concentration
D: 50% decrease in metals concentration
E: 75% decrease in metals concentration
-------
TABLE 3.2—14
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA*
TOXIC 1ETALS
Metal Minimal Risk Hazard
Concentration, mg/i Concentration, mg/i
Cadmium 0.0002 0.001
Chromium 0.050 0.10
Copper 0.010 0.050
Lead 0.010 0.050
Mercury 0.00005 0.00001
Nickel 0.002 0.010
Zinc 0.02 0.10
*SOjJRCES: Committeeon Water Quality Criteria, 1972
Quality Criteria for Water, 1976
3—57
-------
in scenario C. However, it must be recognized that, because
removals are assumed, significant error may be present in
this analysis. Actual percent removal for these toxic pollu-
tants should be determined through a pilot plant study prior
to facilities planning and incorporated into the diffuser
design. The above summarized analysis quantifies dilution
ratios necessary to safeguard the Harbor environment, given
the existing data base and assumed reductions in metal con-
centrations due to industrial pretreatment.
In sununary, implementation of secondary treatment at the
MDC coastal area treatment facilities will effect significant
reductions in BOD5 and suspended mass discharge to the Harbor.
In addition, disinfection should be more effective against
human pathogens. To minimize the effects of toxic metals in
the effluent, dilutions in the range of 50:1 to 100:1 are
required.
Wastewater Discharge Locations
Since analysis of projected secondary effluent quality
indicates a 50:]. to 100:1 dilution is required to minimize
potential toxic metals impacts upon Harbor water quality, an
assessment of potential discharge locations was performed to
determine the range of dilutions achievable.
The previous site evaluation process reduced the poten-
tial locations for the southern service area facility to
three: Nut Island, Broad Meadows and Squantum. Deer Island
and Long Island were the remaining locations for the northern
service area plant. In addition, treatment of all flows at
Deer Island is a viable option. Based upon these remaining
eites,four locations were chosen as potential discharge
points. Discharge locations investigated were:
A. President Roads off Castle Island for discharge
from Squantum Point facility - approximate water
depth 10.7 m (35 ft);
B. Nantasket Roads between Rainsford and Peddocks
Islands for discharge from a Nut Island, Squan-
turn Point, or Broad Meadows facility - approxi-
mate water depth 13.7 m (45 ft);
C. President Roads off Deer Island for discharge
from a facility on Deer Island or Long Island -
approximate water depth 18.3-21.3 in (60-70 ft);
D. Massachusetts Bay northeast off Deer Island
for discharge from a facility on Deer Island
or Long Island - approximate water depth 18.8-
21.3 in (60—70 ft).
Figure 3.2-5 indicates these locations.
3—58
-------
LEGEND
POTENTIAL DISCHARGE ‘OINT
CURRET METER LOCATIONS
D.er Islanâ
•—NOAA 139
Low.II
island
Limit
S c
S.-
otter ’
Harbor
Light
G. orges
island
I Crop. Island
- —4
KILOMETERS
0 0.5
FIGURE 3.2-5
COASTAL
POTENTIAL DISCHARGE LOCATIONS
AREA TREATMENT FACILITIES
.
Ouincy Bay
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTCOUNC IL.INC.
-------
Prior to discharge analysis an investigation of the
renewal rates for Boston Harbor was undertaken. It is gen-
erally accepted that renewal time for the Harbor is two tidal
cycles. However, this is based on an average volume trans-
port of 9062 m 3 /s (3.2xlOS cfs) into the Harbor during each
flood tide and the assumption that inf lowing water contains
no water which flowed out of the Harbor during the previous
ebb tide. Water replacement is better computed utilizing
net inflow. Accordingly, by volume continuity the net out-
flow, Qout , must equal the sum of land drainage into the Har-
bor, R, and the net sea water inflow, Qjn. Net circulation
may be used as a measure of the effective Harbor renewal.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) current charts (1974) were used to determine the aver-
age flood current speeds and the net current speed and direc-
tion (net implies averaged over one tidal cycle). NOA.A sta-
tions 100, 101, 102, 103, 104— 105, and 106, shown in Figure
3.2-6, were used in this analysis. Average flood current
speeds and net speeds are presented in Table 3.2-15.
The net currents presented in Table 3.2-15 indicate the
primary locations fornet inflow are through the southern half
of the entrance to Presidents Roads and through the lower
half of the entrance to Nantasket Roads. The net inflowing
current speeds at these locations are approximately 15 per-
cent of that for the flood currents and the net flows are esti-
mated tQ be 7.5 percent of the average flood tide inflow or
679.7 mi/s (24,000 cfs). With a fresh water inflow on the
order of 28.32 m 3 /s (1000 cfs) the time required to renew the
Harbor water would be approximately 7 days. Although specula-
tive, this estimate is more reasonable than the often cited
one day renewal time. Effective dilution, therefore, takes
on enhanced importance due to the long Harbor residence time.
Calculation of the effluent dilution as the rising buoy-
ant plume from each outfall diffuser port entrains the receiv-
ing water was determined using the mathematical model devel-
oped by Fan and Brooks (1967). The minimum dilution ratio
along the centerline of the plume, the width of the plume,
its trajectory, and the effect of vertical stratifications in
the receiving waters are predicted.
Minimum dilutions occur during slack water when current
speeds approach zero. During this period the buoyant plume
from each diffuser port will accumulate in a thickening sur-
face layer. Sewage being discharged entrains older, previously
discharged effluent rather than clean sea water, and high con-
centrations of sewage will be found. Achievement of a minimum
dilution in the required range specified a discharge location
as being environmentally acceptable.
3—60
-------
LEGEND
• CURRENT METER LOCATIONS
Island
Deer
Flats
Deer Island
/
/
,
,-
——————————— ,___ ‘ Harbor Limit
PRESIDENT ROADS • NO A’ ioó
\____——-- NOAA 101
NOAA 102 • Gallops Lowefl -
Is bn ,nd
Island NOAA 103S. Island
OA Georges
NOAA 104”
Rainsford ’ 105 -:::
Island • / ‘Point
NOAA 106 /”
Moon
Quincy Bay
Island
Grape Island
6
1 0 1
1 =-I
K 110 METER S
0.5 0 0.5
-I
FIGURE 3.2-6 BOSTON HARBOR CURRENT METERS
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT COUNCIL. INC.
-------
TABLE 3.2—15
AVERAGE FLOOD CURRENT SPEEDS AND
NET* CURRENT SPEED AND DIRECTION
BOSTON HARBOR
(Note: a negative current is into the
currant is out)
*Net implies average over one tidal cycle.
SOURCE: NOAA, 1974
harbor; a positive
Station
Meter
Depth
Flood
Current
Net
Current
rn/sec
(knots)
in
(ft)
rn/sec
(knots)
100
3.05
10.0
—.47
—0.91
0.04
0.08
100
10.67
35.0
—.47
—0.91
0.00
0.00
101
3.05
10.0
—.52
—1.00
—0.06
—0.12
101
10.67
35.0
—.56
—1.08
—0.12
—0.23
102
3.05
10.0
—.58
—1.13
—0.07
—0.14
102
10.67
35.0
—.50
—0.97
—0.08
—0.16
5
3.05
10.0
—.33
—0.64
—0.05
—0.10
103
3.05
10.0
—.43
—0.83
0.02
0.04
103
10.67
35.0
—.48
—0.93
—0.01
—0.02
104
3.05
10.0
—.47
—0.91
—0.01
—0.02
105
3.05
10.0
—.48
—0.93
0.04
0.08
105
10.67
35.0
—.39
—0.76
—0.05
—0.10
106
3.05
10.0
—.52
—1.00
0.01
0.02
106
10.67
35.0
—.47
—0.91
—0.05
—0.10
3—62
-------
The minimum dilution along the centerline of the plume
may be shown to depend on the ratio of water depth to port
diameter and on the densimetric Froude number F.
Up
[ (As/s) gD]
where:
= port exit velocity, rn/s
g = acceleration of gravity, rn/s 2
As/s = receiving water specific gravity—
effluent specific gravity
receiving water specific gravity
D = diffuser port diameter, m
Although the mathematical model assumes that the effluent is
discharged into water of infinite depth, Fan and Brooks (1966)
have shown that the predicted dilutions do not differ signi-
ficantly from experimental results obtained at the water
surface.
Preliminary diffuser design specifications for the MDC
treatment plants were developed and are summarized in Table
3.2-16. Two values of As/s were chosen: 0.014 and 0.022.
The former value is lower than would be expected for the dis-
charge of sewage effluent with a specific gravity of 1.0 into
sea water having a 28-30 percent salinity, but was chosen to
account for the effects of salt water intrusion into the
sewer system.
It is assumed that port exit velocity remains constant
and outfall sizes are varied to accomodate flow changes asso-
ciated with the various site options.
Table 3.2—17 summarizes predicted dilutions for each dif-
fuser. It is interesting to compare the possible trade-off
of increased water depth against increased length of diffuser.
The 304.8 in (1000 ft) diffuser would have a minimum center-
line dilution of 22:1 in 9.1 in (30 ft) of water for average
flow. If the water depth were 12.1 m (40 ft) this dilution
would then be increased to 32:1, which is exactly what could
be achieved by the 609.6 in (2000 ft) diffuser in 9.1 in (30 ft)
of water. There is only a slight difference in the calculated
dilutions due to a 50 percent variation in As/s. Therefore,
for the case of no stratification in the receiving waters,
the performance of the diffuser is only slightly influenced
by the density parameter, As/s.
3—63
-------
TABLE 3.2—16
PRELIMINARY DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
MDC TREAI}4ENT PLANT OUTFALLS
Angle between velocity vector of effluent at discharge
port and the horizontal, 4 = 00
AS/S 4.014 or 0.022
Diffuser I Diffuser II
Length 304.8 m (1000 ft) 609.6 in (2000 ft)
Number of Ports 100 200
Port Diameter 30.48 cm (1 ft) 21.55 cm (0.707 ft)
Jet Velocity, Avg. Flow 78 cm/sec (2.56 ft/sec) 78 cm/sec (2.56 ft/sec)
Peak Flow 186.2 cm/sec (6.11 ft/sec) 186.2 cm/sec (6.11 ft/sec)
3—64
-------
TABLE 3.2—17
COMPARISON OF DIFFUSER PERFORMANCE
NOTE: E s/s 0.022
Dilution
E (Peak)
DIFFUSER I
Water Depth Dilution for
Dilution
for
Dilution
QE
(avg.)
QE(Peak)
Q (avg.)
DIFFUSER II
in
(ft)
6.1
(20)
13:1
12:1
19:1
16:1
9.1
(30)
22:1
17:1.
32:1
25:1
12.2
(40)
32:1
24:1
49:1
35:1
15.2
(50)
44:1
31:1
65:1
46:1
18.3
(60)
57:1
39:1
87:1
58:1
QE = effluent flow
-------
There is some evidence, however, that significant verti-
cal stratification can occur in the region of an outfall at
Point A*. The New England Aquarium (1973) made observations
of salinity and temperature at the surface and at the bottom
over a tidal cycle at the station labeled NEA 22 on Figure
3.2-5 The results of their observations show a salinity
difference of 2 percent and a temperature difference of 3°C
(5.4°F) can exist in this region of Boston Harbor. This
stratification in salinity and temperature was modelled by
assuming the density of the receiving waters decreased lin-
early with height above the bottom from the value appropriate
to sea water with salinity of 30 percent and temperature of
15°c (59°F) to the value for sea water with salinity 28 per-
cent and temperature of 18°C (64.4°F). The effect of this
stratification on the diffuser performance are shown in Fig-
ures 3.2—7 and 3.2-8 and show that with either the 304.8 or
609.6 m (1000 or 2000 ft) diffuser and As/s = 0.014 the plume
will not reach the surface. (It should be emphasized that
the assumed linear density variation over the 9.]. in (30 ft)
water depth would not be as effective in trapping the plume
below the surface as other distributions may be. For example,
a three layer model with uniformly high density water in the
near bottom layer, a thin transition zone, and uniformly low
density in the surface layer could be more effective in limit-
ing the height of rise of the plumes. The result that a
linear density variation over the entire water depth would
trap effluent below the surface becomes very significant and
indicates surveys to determine the potential for density
stratification in the outfall area should be made before
final design of the diffuser is established. Also apparent
from Figures 3.2-7 and 3.2—B is that the density ratio as/s
is a more important parameter when the receiving waters are
stratified than in the case of no stratification. With As/s
0.022 the discharge from both 3048 and 609.6 in (1000 and
2000 ft) diffusers will reach the surface).
The disadvantages of having the sewage effluent trapped
below the surface due to the stratification in the receiving
waters include a reduction in the effective height of rise of
the effluent which decreases the sewage dilution, and a net
upstream movement into the Inner Harbor as a result of the
estuarine—type circulation which most likely exists in Boston
Harbor, particularly in the vicinity of the mouth of the
Inner Harbor. (In most estuaries a two layer net circulation,
with a flow of high salinity water into the estuary in the
lower layer and an outflow of lower salinity water in the
upper layer is expected). Assuming that this is the case for
*See Figure 3.2-4 for locations of alternative discharge
points.
3—66
-------
8
30
STRATIFIED AMBIENT
304.B M (1000 FT) DIFFUSER
6
SI S =.0 14
I I ’
0
I I.
0
I-
0
U I
UI
UI
II .
0
I
0
UI
I
4
8 12
DILUTION RATIO
1S
4
2
0
8
6
4
2
0
I-
U i
U I
I’
I-
I I
U I
U.
20
10
0
30
20
10
0
$
DILUTION RATIO
FIGURE 3.2-7 DISCHARGE POINT A DILUTION RATIOS
-------
8
STRATIFIED AMBIENT
609.8 N (2000 FT) DIFFUSER
e
4
AVG.
2
L sis= 0.014
FLOW
0
20
10
0
4 8 12 16 20 24
DILUTION RATIO
I-
‘U
‘U
U.
‘U
I I.
/
/
/
I
/
I
/
/
I
/
8
6
4
2
0
I
/
I
/
I
/
AVG.
30
20
10
0
c sis= 0.022
4 8 12 20 24
DILUTION RATIO
DISCHARGE POINT A DILUTION RATIOS
FIGURE 3.2-8
-------
the Inner Harbor implies that a subsurface sewage field,
trapped by density stratifications, would have a net move-
ment into the Inner Harbor.
Current information (NOAA, 1974) was used to estimate
the distance which a sewage field initially over a Point A
outfall diffuser at high water slack would travel during the
following ebb cycle of the tide. It is estimated that the
total distance traveled would be about 5.6 kin (3.5 mi) and
the leading edge would extend only 2.4 km (1.5 ml) into
Massachusetts Bay past Deer Island. On the following flood
tide it is likely that a significant portion of the field
would flow back into President Roads.
The degree of vertical density stratification appears
to be less for Nantasket Roads (Point B) than for the Inner
Harborendof President Roads. Observations of salinity and
temperature made during the summer of 1967 throughout Boston
Harbor by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
of the U.S. Department of the Interior (1968) tend to confirm
the lack of vertical stratification in Nantasket Roads. At
station H-15, shown in Figure 3.2-5 salinity and temperature
were observed at 1.5 m (5 ft) and at 16.5 in (55 ft) depths
on 11 separate occasions. The average salinity at the 1.5 in
(5 ft) depth was 28.33 percent while the average at 16.8 in
(55 ft) depth was 28.50 percent. The average top to bottom
decrease in temperature was 2°C (3.6 0 F). It is unlikely
that the vertical stratification conditions in Nantasket
Roads would be sufficient to trap the effluent below the sur-
face.
The tidal currents in the vicinity of the outfall at
Nantasket Roads are stronger than those found at the Inner
Harbor end of President Roads. This is especially true on
the ebb tide when the peak current at the outfall site in
President Roads (NOAA station 212) is only 0.31 rn/s (0.6
knots) while at NOAA station 105 in Nantasket Roads the peak
ebb current is 0.67 in/s (1.3 knots). This higher range of
currents in the vicinity of a Nantasket Roads outfall not
only increases the maximum possible dilution in the near
field about the outfall, but also insures that the effluent
will be carried much farther out into Massachusetts Bay on an
ebb tide. Starting with the sewage field over the outfall
as the ebb begins, its movement is through the entrance to
Nantasket Roads and then due east for 5.4 km (3.3 mi) into
Massachusetts Bay.
The degree of vertical density stratification at Presi-
dent Roads off Deer Island appears to be comparable to that
in Nantasket Roads and it is therefore, unlikely that the
effluent will be prevented from reaching the surface.
3—69
-------
The tidal current speeds in President Roads near Deer
Island, NOAA station 101, are approximately the same magni—
tude as in Nantasket Roads, with a peak ebb speed being 0.62
rn/s (1.2 knots). It is not possible to use the current charts
to trace the extent of the sewage field from the Deer Island
outfall, into Massachusetts Bay since current observations do
not extend far enough out into the Bay. One set of observa-
tions of a near surface drogue released at the site of the
present outfall off Deer Island is reported by the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration (1969). The drogue
traveled only 4.0 km (2.5 mi) in a complete ebb tide. There
was, however, a 12.9 rn/s (25 knot) northwesterly wind during
these observations, which undoubtedly had an effect on the
drogue’s trajectory. From the current charts is would be
expected that with light winds, the effluent would travel in
the north channel for a distance of at least 7.4 km (4.6 mi).
The possibility of the occurrence of sufficiently large
vertical stratification at Point D in Massachusetts Bay to
trap the discharge from the diffuser below the surface is
indicated by the data of Briggs and Madsen (no date), who
took temperature profiles in the Bay a few miles offshore
from Boston Harbor. A distinct thermocline existed at a
depth of 6.1 m (20 ft). The average specific gravity in the
bottom layer of water below the thermocline was 1.02558 while
the average specific gravity of the upper (warmer) layer was
1.02250. Modelling the above values with a 609.6 in (2000
ft) diffuser, total water depth of 21.3 m (70 ft) and s/s=
0.022, the discharge will be trapped within the thermocline.
However, the initial dilutionn for peak flo exceed 40:1
even though the discharge does not reach the surface.
Comparison of Locations
Discharge at Point A for a plant at Squantum Point has
a number of disadvantages. The sewage field from this out-
fall would overflow the effluent from a Deer Island outfall
to President Roads at Point C during the ebb tide and, con-
versely, the sewage field from a Deer Island plant discharging
at Point C would overflow a Squantuin Point outfall at Point
A during the flood. Therefore, President Roads can be viewed
as a mixing zone within Boston Harbor for these two outfalls.
In addition, during a significant portion of the flood tide
the receiving waters over the Squantum Point outfall will in-
clude effluent from a Deer Island plant and, consequently,
the dilution of the Squantum Point effluent will not be
with clean sea water but rather with diluted effluent from
a Deer Island treatment plant. On the ebb tide the receiving
waters over the outfall will be from the Inner Harbor and
again the effective dilution of the effluent will be reduced
due to the poor water quality of the receiving waters.
3—70
-------
The performance of an outfall discharging to the Inner
Harbor end of President Roads (Point A) in terms of initial
dilution is poor due to limited water depth, the poor quality
of the receiving waters, and the relatively low tidal current
speeds.
There are two disadvantages of locating an outfall at
Point B in Nantasket Roads. The first is that on flood tides
there is a distinct possibility that the effluent will invade
Hingham Bay and Hull Bay through the passage between Nut
Island and Peddocks Island. The second disadvantage of locat-
ing an outfall in Nantasket Roads and one off Deer Island in
President Roads is the creation of two, rather than one, mixing
zones within which water quality would be degraded. By separ-
ating the two outfalls greater initial dilutions are achieved
at each site, but at the same time contaminants are introduced
into two distinct regions of the Harbor. It may prove preferable
to have no discharge into the southern portion of the Harbor
and use only the northern half, i.e. President Roads, as a mix-
ing zone for the sewage effluent.
Discharge at Point C would assure flushing of the efflu-
ent out of the Harbor on the ebb tide; however, flow would
travel into the Inner Harbor during flood tide. Satisfactory
dilutions can be achieved at this point.
Although the effluent will be trapped below the thermo-
dine, discharge at Point D would eliminate a discharge to
Boston Harbor while providing the necessary effluent dilution.
In summary, Location A was found environmentally urisuit-
able and was not considered further. Locations B, C, and D,
were all found capable of providing the dilutions required to
minimize water quality impacts upon Boston Harbor. Because
the three locations have approximately equivalent environmental
impacts, the selection of a discharge point(s) becomes a func-
tion of the feasibility of reaching that point from a particu-
lar site and the cost to do so.
C. Treatment Processes . In accordance with the requirements
established by the federal government under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act P nendments of 1972, (Pub. L. 92—500),
the effluent from the coastal area wastewater treatment plants
must meet the following criteria:
The monthly average of 5-day biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD) and suspended solids (SS) shall not
exceed 30 mg/i or 15 percent of the inf].uent val-
ues, whichever is less.
The weekly average of BOD and SS shall not exceed
45 mg/l.
The pH shall remain within the limits of 6.0 and 9.0.
3—71
-------
There are several treatment processes which can meet or
exceed the above requirements, including; air activated sludge,
pure oxygen activated sludge, rotating biological contactors,
and various combinations of physical and chemical processes.
Each method of treatment has its advantages and disadvantages.
A proper selection can be made only after detailed wastewater
treatability pilot tests and cost analyses have been made.
The air activated sludge process has been selected as
the treatment process for development of alternative systems
in this study. This selection is only for the purposes of
estimating costs and land requirements for comparison of
alternative systems. One reason that the air activated sludge
process has been selected is that it has been the most fre-
quently used process for providing secondary treatment. In
addition, air activated sludge was the process considered in
the EMMA Study, and therefore, it is necessary to consider
the same process in this study so that the treatment systems
developed herein will be comparable to the systems developed
in the EMMA Study. The various alternative treatment proces-
ses should be investigated for applicability at each treatment
facility during facilities planning.
3—72
-------
3.2.3 Inland’ Satellite’ Wastewater Treatment Plants
The wastewater management plan recommended by the EMMA
Study includes the construction of two advanced wastewater
treatment facilities in the southern MSD, in addition to a
secondary treatment facility proposed at Nut Island. These
two additional plants would treat wastewater to a high degree,
using treatment processes beyond conventional secondary
treatment. They would be located (one each) on the Charles
and Neponset Rivers and would discharge their treated efflu-
ent into their respective rivers. The EMMA St dy proposed
an average daily design flow of about 117000 m /d (31 mgd)
for the Charles River “satellite” plant and about 94600 m 3 /d
(25 mgd) for the Neponset River facility. The use of these
two plants would result in a reduction in the quantity of
wastewater flowing to the proposed Nut Island plant in the
year 2000 from 704000 m 3 /d (186 mgd) to 492000 m 3 /d (130 mgd).
One advantage of a satellite system is related to treat-
ment plant size.
Expansion of Nut Island to accoinmodatea secondary treat-
ment facility can only be accomplished by the placement of
fill in Quincy Bay or the Harbor waters surrounding Nut Island.
In the EMMA Study it was estimated that an upgraded primary
and secondary treatment facility at Nut Island would require
approximately 11.3 ha (28 ac) of fill if satellite facilities
are constructed. Without satellite facilities, a total of
17 hectares (42 acres) of fill would be needed. The issue
of filling Quincy Bay in order to accommodate an enlarged
Nut Island treatment plant has proved to be a very controver-
sial point, with citizens from the Quincy area expressing
extremely vocal opposition to this plan. In this light, the
satellite facilities offer a positive advantage by reducing
the potential filling by 5.7 ha (14 ac).
In the studies associated with this EIS, it was deter-
mined that the area of fill required could be reduced by
modifying the plant’s design. This modification would result
in an approximately 2.4 ha (6 ac) differential in fill require-
ments at Nut Island when comparing satellite versus non-satel-
lite systems.
More recently, the Massachusetts State Legislature
enacted legislation which prohibits the expansion of Nut
Island by filling the Bay. In this same time period, the
studies associated with this EIS led to the conclusion that
Nut Island should be eliminated from consideration because
of the negative environmental effects associated with filling
the bay (see Section 3.2.2).
3—73
-------
With Nut Island eliminated from consideration, the bene-
fit of satellite plants reducing the size of a Harbor plant
is not as significant.
A second advantage of the “satellite” plan is that it
would, in principle, help to maintain flow in the Charles
and Neponset Rivers. Increasing water demands in the service
area have been met and will be met, in part, by increased
withdrawals of groundwater. Over a period of time, this
action can reduce flow in the rivers draining the area. By
discharging treated effluent to the river instead of to the
Harbor, this effect can be mitigated.
The third advantage associated with satellite facilities
is a reduction in the need for interceptor relief. Many of
the interceptor sewers now serving the MDC service area are
old and in need of rehabilitation and/or replacement. In
addition, certain sections of the interceptor system are cur-
rently overloaded or are approaching their design limits. If
satellite facilities are installed, the demands placed upon
the sewers downstream of the facilities will be reduced, thus
requiring a lesser amount of rehabilitation and relief sewers
as compared to an alternative in which no satellite facility
is installed. The significance of this is that interceptor
relief is expensive and can result in significant environmental
impacts through the installation of pipelines. It has been
estimated that for the southern service area, about 58 km (36
ml) of interceptor relief sewers would be necessary if the
satellite facilities are constructed and about 90 km (56 mi)
would be required if satellite facilities are not constructed
(see Section 3.2.1).
A decentralized satellite system offers more flexibility
in terms of future wastewater recycling, land application of
effluent, and innovative small-scale sludge processing methods.
This is a “potential” benefit which may or may not be realized.
In this section of the EIS, the concept of satellite
plants will be screened and evaluated (preliminary). The
presentation of this evaluation process will be arranged in
the order in which it occurred, beginning with the simultan-
eous consideration of treatment plant sites, effluent discharge
locations and treatment processes.
A. Sites . While the EMMA Study endorsed the satellite con-
cept in its proposed wastewater management plan, it did not
make a specific recommendation for the locations of the satel—
lite facilities.
As a follow-up to the EMMA Study, the MDC organized two
site selection committees to evaluate and suggest possible
sites for the location of the satellite facilities. The mem—
bers of the site selection committees were made up of repre-
sentatives from those towns which would be directly affected
3—74
-------
by the proposed facilities. The general locus of the proposed
facilities were derived from the EMMA Study. For the Charles
River, just below the Cochrane Darn was selected as the dis-
charge point based on prior water quality work done by the
Division of Water Pollution Control, Commonwealth of Massa-
chusetts. Hence, it was envisioned that the site should be
located within a reasonable distance of the Darn.
For the Neponset River facility, the Norwood-Canton
area was chosen based on serving the area upstream and main-
taining the discharge as far upstream as possible in order
to maximize the flow augmentation benefits from the effluent
discharge. No specific discharge point within this general
area was specified.
In October, 1976 the Site Selection Reports of the Middle
Charles Site Selection Committee and the Upper Neponset Site
Selection Conimittee were released.
For the Charles River plant, some 19 sites were evalu-
ated, all within a threemile radius of the Cochrane Darn. For
the Neponset River plants, 10 sites were evaluated in the
towns of Canton and Norwood. These sites are listed
below and are illustrated in Figures 3.2-9 and 3.2-10 Fig-
ure 3.2—9 does not show sites 11, 15, 16 and 18.
Sites Evaluated in the Vicinity of the Cochrane Darn,
Figure 3.2—9
Site 1 Stigmatine Fathers Property, Dover
Site 2 Stigmatine Fathers Property, Dover
Site 3 Clay Brook Road, Dover
Site 4 Dedharn Street, near Carryl Park, Dover
Site 5 WHDH Towers, Needham
Site 6 Town Landfill, Needham
Site 7 Powissett Farm, Powissett Street, Dover
Site 9 Of f Eliot Street, near Broadmoor
Sanctuary, Natick
Site 10 Trustees of Reservations, Fisher Street,
Needham
Site 11 1 rnerican Can Plant, Needham Industrial
Park (not shown)
Site 12 Glen Street, opposite Site 9, Natick
Site 13 Adjacent to Glenwood Cemetery, Natick
Site 14 Pond Road, Wellesley
Site 15 Kennedy Farm, Cutler Park, Needham
(not shown)
Site 16 Gravel Pits, Routes 128 and 20, Weston
(not shown)
Site 17 Wellesley Incinerator
Site 18 Wellesley Office Park (not shown)
Site 19 Wellesley County Club
3—75
-------
* J
L41 ‘ ?
! \ * 1
/ &
,
r b J
f’
I - — $
c ? / —J I s r’ ) c: 5°
c 9 I/I ••- :•- . - -_/ /
‘ ‘
- / (‘ i [
/
05 0 03
I • ‘ -:
KILOMETERS T -
FIGURE 3.2”9 SATELLITE SITES
IN THE MID-CHARLES BASIN
I
— /,‘
/ /
1 -
L
/ .
c -. r -
‘ I
Lake’
\‘
-------
05 9 o 5
O 5
FIGURE 3.2-10 SATELLITE SITES
IN THE UPPER NEPONSET BASIN
05
K I LOME T ER S
9
MILES
-------
Sites Evaluated ir the Norwood/Canton Area, Figure 3.2-10
Site 1 Corner of Route 1 and Union Street,
Canton
Site 2 Old Airport, Neponset Street, Canton
Site 3 Norwood Drag Strip, Route 1, Norwood
Site 4 Norwood Airport
Site 5 Star Market Distribution Center, Univer-
sity Avenue, Norwood
Site 6 Industrial Area, Route 95 and Dedham
Street, Canton
Site 7 Industrial Area, Route 95 and Dedham
Street, Canton
Site 8 Southern portion of the Norwood Drag
Strip, Route 1, Norwood
Site 9 Knoll across river fromNorwood Airport,
Canton
Site 10 MDC Neponset River Reservation, Canton
The Site Selection Committee reports contain rating
sheets in which each site is ranked against a number of para-
meters, such as land use considerations and transportation
factors. (The full list of site selection criteria is con-
tained in the committee reports). Furthermore, the ranking
procedure used a qualitative scoring system (Excellent, Good,
Average, Fair, Poor, Not Possible). Accompanying these rat-
ing sheets was a general report and a series of minority
reports.
The Middle Charles River Site Selection Committee con-
cluded that none of the sites evaluated met al1 of the cri-
teria for the location of a treatment facility. The Commit-
tee further expressed a reluctance to endorce the use of a
riverbank site for treatment plant use.
The Upper Neponset Site Selection Committee went some-
what further and ranked the sites in four categories, as
follows:
Least Acceptable Sites 1, 5, 6 and 7
Less Acceptable Site 4
Less Objectionable Sites 3 and 8
Least Objectionable Sites 2, 9 and 10
These reports form the basis from which further site
evaluation studies were conducted within the framework of
this EIS.
The first task in the site evaluation process consisted
of the preliminary screening of sites which had been suggested
by the Site Selection Committees. This screening procedure
was based on the development of preliminary data for each site,
3—78
-------
including field visits. This preliminary information was
then used to reject those sites which were unacceptable for
one or more reasons. A reduced list of sites surviving this
step will then be evaluated in greater detail in the inter-
mediate screening stage. Factors which were used for a basis
of rejection included:
1) Preservation of open space
2) Avoiding treatment plant construction in
designated Natural Valley Storage Areas
(Charles River Basin only)
3) Presence of ecologically valuable wetlands
4) Incompatibility with existing land uses
5) Extraordinary site development circumstances or
use constraints
6) High wildlife value, scenic value or cultural
value
In addition to preliminary environmental data, some engineer-
ing feasibility estimates were also made at this point.
Two public workshops were held relative to the entire
satellite treatment plant issue. Each workshop consisted of
two sessions, one held in Wellesley (with emphasis on Charles
River issues), the other in Canton (emphasis on Neponset River
issues). The purpose of the initial two sessions, held
February 1 and 3, 1977, was to inform the public of the exis-
tence of the EIS study and to identify critical environmental
issues that affected the preliminary screening of alternatives.
The format of the workshops involved the organization of per-
Sons attending into discussion groups which were then asked
to discuss and respond to a series of questions.
At the latter two workshop sessions, held in the same
towns approximately eight weeks later, the tentative results
of the preliminary screening were presented. Comments and
suggestions were again invited. Following these sessions,
adjustments were made in the site elimination choices.
The following is a presentation of the results of the
preliminary screening work, divided by river basin:
Neponset River
For the Neponset River satellite plant, a total of eleven
sites were screened. This included the ten sites evaluated by
3—79
-------
the Upper Neponset Site Selection Committee plus one site,
labelled “A”, which was suggested at the first workshop
session in Canton. The preliminary screening process elimi-
nated five of these eleven sites. These five sites are
listed below along with reasons for their rejection.
Site 1 - Corner of Route 1 and Union Street, Norwood .
This site is located adjacent to Traphole Brook and is vege-
tated with a mixture of various grasses (including Phragmites )
and mixed hardwood saplings. The site is more distant from
the river than other sites and would require interceptor
construction through a residential area. It is also bordered
on two sides by Route 1. and Union Street. The wildlife value
of the site is considered intermediate. Construction at this
location may result in siltation of Traphole Brook. For this
reason and the availability of clearly better sites, this
site was eliminated from further consideration.
Site 2 - Old Airport, Neponset Street, Canton . This
site is an abandoned airport, is flat and at an elevation of
15.24m (50 ft). No significant active land uses are located
immediately adjacent to the site. Several abandoned build-
ings in a deteriorated condition occupy this location and it
is zoned industrial by the Town of Canton. The aesthetic
value of the site is low. During the flood of record, the
area was inundated. On—site vegetation consists of mixed
grass and sedges. To the immediate north and east is a large
freshwater marsh area, with high wildlife value.
Advantages of this site include compatability with exist-
ing and proposed land uses, good access, minimal interceptor
and outfall requirements, and minimal impacts on the natural
environment provided that the marsh area is avoided and not
disturbed.
Disadvantages include the low-lying character of this
site and its resultant potential for frequent and severe
flooding. To overcome this problem, large scale filling
would be required. it is estimated that about 290,000 m 3
(379,000 cu yd) of fill would be necessary. By elevating
the floodplain in this area, flood magnitudes and durations
in adjacent and upstream areas would be adversely affected.
For these reasons, this site was eliminated from further con-
sideration.
Site 4 - Norwood Airport . This site is located between
the Norwood Memorial Airport and the Neponset River. It is
flat, is located at an elevation of 15.24 m (50 ft) and con-
tains some heavy poplar, birch and maple growth. The site
also involves some wetland species and is subject to flooding.
Development of this location may conflict with the use of the
airport. This site was eliminated due to the presence of
other, more favorable locations.
3—80
-------
Site 10 — Area at the North End of 1—95 Interchange,
Canton. This site slopes from east to west, with the eleva-
ion changing from 45.72 in (150 ft) to 15.25 m (50 ft) and
lies between the Neponset River Reservation and the Blue
Hills Reservation. The western partof the site is occupied
by a mature stand of mixed oaks, pine, sassafras and gray
birch, while bordering an old field with mixed grasses, wild
rose and hardwood seedlings/saplings. The site has inter-
mediate wildlife value, access is good, and its aesthetic
value is medium to high. The lower elevations of the site
may be subject to flooding during severe storms.
Advantages of this location include isolation from other
land uses and good access.
Disadvantages include significant impacts of the natural
environment, aesthetic impacts and possible floodplain ele-
vation. For these reasons, this site was eliminated from
further consideration.
Site “A’s - Off Pecunit Street, near Interchange 12 of
Route 12:8, Canton . This site was suggested at the workshop
session held in Canton on February 3, 1977. It was subse-
quently evaluated and was found to be a lowland woodland with
sections of inland wetlands located within the site. Exten-
sive fill would be necessary prior to plant construction.
Due to these conditions, this site was not considered further.
To summarize, the preliminary screening process for
potential Neponset Basin sites began with eleven sites and
eliminated five of these. Sites 4 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 were
still considered viable and were subject to a more detailed
intermediate screening.
Charles River
For the proposed middle Charles River satellite treatment
plant, the original nineteen sites evaluated by the Site Selec-
tion Committee were used as the starting point for the pre-
liminary screening work. The sites which were rejected in
this phase are discussed below.
Sites 1 and 2 — Stigmatine Fathers Property, Dover . These
sites, located adjacent to the Charles River, are exceptional
examples of a mature mixed pine-oak community. Many of the
trees present are large, well-developed examples of their
species. Excellent examples of hemlock and white pine are
noteworthy on these sites. Additional tree species present
include sugar maple, red maple and paper birch. Blueberry
and lily-of-the-valley were also noted. Because of the mix-
ture of connifers and hardwoods present on these sites, they
provide excellent habitat for birds and a variety of other
wildlife species.
3—81
-------
The Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), in their
1976 Regional Open Space Plan, recognized the scenic value
of these sites. In their report, the MAPC states that the
sites are “...one of the most scenic areas along the Charles
River. It is a prime example of what the natural riverfront
of the Charles River was 1ike. ’ (MAPC, 1976). The report
goes on to recommend that the State acquire the land adjacent
to the river to a depth of at least 152.4 meters (500 feet),
if the entire sites is not purchased by the Commonwealth.
In view of their scenic and wildlife value, as well as
their potential recreational value, these sites were elimi-
nated from further consideration.
Site 3 - Clay Brook Road, Dover . This site is presently
vacant and lies adjacent to a residential neighborhood. A
small stream flows through the site, and it is heavily wooded
with red maples and white pines. Since this site is a regis-
tered wetland and has been designated as a Natural Valley
Storage Area, it was not considered feasible for treatment
plant development.
Site 4 — Dedham Street, Dover . This site consists of
an open field surrounded by heavy woods on its perimeter. It
lies south of the riding stables near Carryl Park.
This site has been willed to the Trustees of Reservations
and so, for the purposes of this study, is considered to be
dedicated open space (The Trustees of Reservations is an
organization which, for many years, has been active in aquir—
ing and preserving open space in Massachusetts). This fact,
coupled with incompatible land use and rugged topography,
eliminated this site from further consideration.
Site 5 - WHDH Towers, Central Avenue, Needham . This
site is an inland marsh ( Typha sp. and Phragmites sp.) which
is located adjacent to the Needham Sanitary Lnadf ill. It is
a designated wetland and Natural Valley Storage Area and,
therefore, was eliminated from further consideration.
Site 7 — Powissett Farm, Powissett Street, Dover . This
site is presently occupied by an active farm, and consists of
flat pasture land with numerous farm buildings. The site is
to come under the control of the Trustees of Reservations via
a conservation restriction and is, therefore, considered per-
manent open space. Another negative factor associated with
this location is its distance from the discharge point (Coch—
rane Dam). Approximately 7.7 km (4.8 mi) of influent and
effluent sewers would be required to pump wastewater to the
site and effluent to the discharge point. This pumping would
require a significant energy input since the site is approxi-
mately 61 m (200. ft) higher than the existing interceptor
sewer. These factors resulted in the elimination of this
site from the evaluation.
3—82
-------
Site 8 Tow i of Dover , owissett Street, D ver .
This site is an active landfill used by the Town of Dover. It
is well screened from surrounding areas by rugged, forested
land on its perimeter. However, this site is rather small
and is even further from the discharge point than Site #7,
above. Approximately 9.8 km (6.1 mi) of influent and efflu-
ent sewers would be required. The site elevation, approxi-
mately 83.8 in (275 ft), is about 55 in (180 ft) above the
existing interceptor sewer. Further difficulties would
result from the displacement of the landfill, thereby leav-
ing Dover with a solid waste disposal problem. This site
was, therefore, eliminated from further consideration.
Site 9 - Elliot Street Farm, South Natick . This site
consists of an open field, gently sloping down to the Charles
River which lies adjacent to it. The Audubon Broadxnoor
Sanctuary borders the site. The primary difficulties with
this location are its extreme distance from the discharge
point and its relatively small size. Approximately 16 kin
(9.9 mi) of influent and effluent pipeline would be required.
Since a reasonable setback from the Charles River would be
recommended in order to preserve a natural “corridor” in
this scenic section of the river, it would be necessary to
expand the site in order to accommodate the needed facilities.
Since an aquisition from the Broadinoor Sanctuary would be
neither possible nor desirable, this site was eliminated from
the evaluation.
Site 10 — Fisher Street, Needhaxn . This site consists of
a pasture with scattered clumps of hedgerows and trees, Red
cedar, black oak, hickory and white pine were noted. The
site is close to the discharge point and is surrounded on
three sides by the Charles River. However, it is presently
owned by the Trustees of Reservations and is, therefore, dedi-
cated open space. The site is not considered feasible because
of this fact.
Site 11 — 7 merican Can Plant, Needham . This site is
located in an industrial park and is presently occuped by an
abandoned canning plant. The site has been purchased by a
firm which is renovating and reactivating the facilities.
This site was eliminated in consideration of this fact and
because, due tO its distance to the discharge point, 13 km
(8.1 ml) of sewers would be required.
Site 14 — Pond Road, Wellesley . This site is vacant and
is located between Pond Road and Paintshop Pond. It is
heavily wooded, located in a park-like setting, and has very
high aesthetic value. The site is also located approximately
3—83
-------
5.64 km (3.5 mi) from the discharge point. It was eliminated
from further consideration for these reasons.
Site 15 - Kennedy Farm, Cutter Park, Needhain . This site
was eliminated from further consideration because it is a
Natural Valley Storage Area, is flood prone and is distant,
5.79 km (3.6 mi) from the discharge point.
Site 16 — Gravel Pits, Route #128 and #20, Weston . This
site was eliminated because of its extreme distance, 12.9 km
(8 mi) from the discharge point.
Site 17 — Wellesley Incinerator, Wellesley . This site
is located at Interchange 55, Route 28. It is low and wet
with adjacent higher ground. Red maples, silky dogwood,
pepperbush, gray birch, blueberry and mixed oaks were noted.
The wetlands which were found on this site and the availability
of comparatively better locations resulted in its elimination
from further consideration.
Site 18 — Wellesley Office Park Wellesley . Utilization
of this site would require the demolitiionof a newly constructed
of f ice building and, therefore, it was eliminated from further
consideration.
Site 19 - Wellesley Country Club, Wellesley Avenue,
Weiles].ey . This site is an active golf course. It was
eliminated from consideration in order to avoid displacing
an active recreational facility.
To summarize, the preliminary screening process for
treatment facility sites for the Middle Charles River faöil—
ity began with nineteen sites, and eliminated sixteen of
these. Sites 6, 12 and 13 were still considered viable and
were subject to a more detailed intermediate screening.
B. Effluent Discharge Evaluation
Charles River
The EMMA Study recommended an advanced wastewater treat-
ment (AWT) facility discharge to the middle reaches of the
Charles River and stated that the Cochrane Oain near Charles
River Village was an advantageous discharge point. enits.*k
ascribed to this ty were a reduction of flow’with —
ghly treated effluen Addition of_ w to the Charles
was e as being e1p i wafer quality in dry seasons.
However, at the same time the report acknowledged the selected
treatment process would not satisfy the dissolved oxygen (DO)
criteria for the Charles River and additional removals of
oxygen demand would be needed. (The Charles River is Class B
3—84
-------
water from Bridge St. in Dover to the Watertown Darn, the area
of potential discharge. Class B waters are specified as
“...suitable for bathing and recreational purposes, water
contact activities, acceptable for public water supply with
treatment and disinfection, are an excellent fish and wild-
life habitat...” (Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1974). A
minimum allowable dissolved oxygen concentration of 5 mg/i
has been established to maintain water of sufficient quality
to allows for these uses. In addition, the D.O. standard
must be met when the river is experiencing the 7 day, 10
year low flow (7Q10). This is the average daily flow for a
7 day period which has a 10 percent probability of occurring
in any year. (Refer to Appendix 2.5.1). However, the magni—
tude of the violation and an estimate of additional removals
required were not presented by the EMMA Study. In order to
quantify the impacts of the proposed Charles River Facility
and determine if additional removals of oxygen demand would
allow the discharge to meet Water Quality Criteria, water
quality modelling of the Charles River was undertaken.
The Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control
(MDWPC) has a generalized water quality computer model
(STREAM) developed for it by the consulting firm of Quirk,
Lawler and Matusky Engineers in 1971. Subsequently, this
model was calibrated and verified for simulation in the
Charles River by the MDWPC (Erdmann, Bilger and Travis, 1977).
The STREAM model was utilized to evaluate the effects of the
proposed discharge upon the dissolved oxygen resources of
the Charles River.
Detail discussion of the model and modelling activities
undertaken are contained in the report “Dissolved Oxygen
Modeling Charles River Massachusetts” and its Addenda by
Allen J. Ikalainen of the Systems Analysis Branch, Region
I U.S. EPA*, which is found in Appendix 3.2.2. This section
swmuarizes the results of modelling the proposed Cochrane
Dam discharge. The reader is urged to review Sections III
of the above report, which presents year 2000 river conditions
utilized in the modelling.
*Mr. Ikalainen is responsible for developing the low flow
version of the STREAM model as well as all computer runs. In
addition, he provided valuable insights into the complexities
of the Charles River system. The work summarized by his
report represents but a small portion of the total work per-
formed. For the effort put forth in the preparation of this
EIS he is gratefully acknowledged.
3—85
-------
Prior to analyzing the effects of the proposed discharge,
baseline river conditions were modelled. Initially, the river
was simulated without a MDC discharge. Profile Bi, Figure 12
(all figures referenced by this discussion are found in Appen—
dix 3.2.2) indicates large D.O. deficits below the 5 mg/i
standard upstream of the Cochrane Dam, with continued viola-
tions of a smaller magnitude downstream to approximately river
kilometer 32 (mile 20). It appears as though major problems
in the River could occur in the future.
Because the River entered the MSD - river kilometer 756
(mile 47) - in violation of standards, upstream river condi-
tions were modified to constrain the River to meet standards.
In order to accomplish this, discharges at the Charles River
Pollution Control District (CRPCD) and the Medfield and Millis
treatment plants were set a 1.0 mg/i SOD 5 , no NH 3 -N. In
addition, all sediment oxygen demand between the CRPCD dis-
charge and South Natick Dam was set equal to zero (the equiva—
lent of dredging the river bottom). Profile Cl, Figure 12
presents the D.O. profile for this situation. All Case C
simulations assume these river conditions (Table 10, Appendix
3.2.2., present the various cases modelled).
The treatment train proposed by the EMMA Study for the
Charles River satellite plant consists of conventional secon-
dary treatment followed by biological nitrification for
removal of nitrogenous oxygen demand, (The microbial trans-
formation of ammonia nitrogen (NH 3 -N) to nitrate nitrogen
(N0 3 -N) is termed nitrification. Approximately 4.5 mg of
oxygen are required to oxidize 1 mg of NH3-N to N03-N. For
a given wastewater, the total amount of oxygen required to
transform all NH3-N to N03-N is termed nitrogeneous oxygen
demand) and multi—media filtration. Table 3.2-18 presents
EMMA projected influent BOD5 and NH 3 -N concentrations, typi-
cal secondary effluent concentrations for these parameters,
and the projected AWT effluent levels. In addition to model-
ling effluent from this facility, an “advanced” sate1lite
effluent was evaluated. The advanced satellite envisions
the addition of breakpoint chlorination to the treatment pro-
cess for removal of the NH 3 -N remaining after biological
ni trif ication.
The proposed EMMA discharge was modelled with the Charles
River not meeting (Case Bi) and meeting (Case Cl) dissolved
oxygen criteria upstream. Profile Bil, Figure 12 shows the
discharge to cause further violations downstream of the Coch-
rane Dam, while profile C].]. reveals the discharge would cause
a violation by itself. In addition to the above cases, 18
additional variations of the Cochrane Dam discharge were
modelled. These included both the EMMA and advanced satellite
discharge, variations in reaction rate coefficients, in the
area]. coverage of benthic demand in reaches downstream of
3—86
-------
TABLE 3.2—18
CHARLES RIVER SATELLITE TREATMENT PLANT
INFLUENT - EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
B aD 5 NH3—N
Influent 1 , mg/i 222 21
Typical Secondary, mg/i 30 15
Effluent
Removal 86 29
Projected EMMA AWT, mg/i 5 1
Effluent
X Removal 98 95
Advanced AWT Effluent, mg/i 5 0
Z Removal 98 100
1 lnfluent concentrations and percent removals based on flows and loads
presented in Table 6—9, “Basic Design Criteria — Middle Charles River
Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant” of the EMMA Study Main Report
(Metcalf and Eddy, 1975a).
3—87
-------
the discharge point, and placing the discharge both above
and below the Cochrane Dam. The D.O. concentrations down-
stream of the Cochrane Dam were below the Class B criteria
in all cases. In addition, minimum dissolved oxygen concen-
trations with a satellite discharge were always 1-2 mg/i
less than the no satellite conditions. A satellite plant
discharge at the Cochrane Dam was concluded to exacerbate
a potentially serious future dissolved oxygen problem in the
Charles River.
These results led to the conclusion that a discharge to
the Charles River at this location was environmentally unac-
ceptable. Therefore, alternative discharge locations were
evaluated. These included discharge at the S. Natick Dam
and near the Medfield State Hospital which are, respectively
10.8 river kilometers (6.7 river miles) and 21.1 river kilo-
meters (13.2 river miles) upstream of the Cochrane Dam. Dis-
cussion of these discharge locations is presented in Section
3.3, Intermediate Screening.
Neponset River
The EMMA recommendations for a Neponset River advanced
wastewater treatment facility was not accompanied by a speci-
fied discharge location. The report simply stated that the
flow should be discharged as far upstream in the watershed as
possible to maximize flow augmentation benefits. It was fur-
ther stated that the “...highly treated effluent should help
the Neponset River by increasing flows in dry summer months.”
(Metcalf and Eddy, 1975a). A quantitative analysis of the
water quality impacts of this discharge was not included in
the EMMA report and, therefore, an analysis was undertaken
to define the potential water quality impact of the recom-
mended facility.
Preliminary screening indicated sites 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and
9 remained viable. Discharge points for each site were de-
fined and shown in Figure 3.2-11. Point A corresponds to
sites 3 and 8, which were combined into one site; point B
corresponds to sites 6, 7 and 9; and point C designates the
site 5 discharge location.
The Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control
has a water quality model for the Neponset River. Unfortu-
nately, the data necessary to utilize the model has not been
fully developed and it could not be used for analysis of the
proposed discharge. Therefore, the Streeter and Phelps
equation was utilized to model the impact of the proposed
discharge on the oxygen resources of the Neponset River.
3—88
-------
Dorch.ster lay
WATEISHED LOCATION
O9 Pond
LEGEND
* USGS. GAGING STATION
FIGURE 3.2-11 POTENTIAL DISCHARGE PONITS
NEPONSET RIVER AWT FACILITY
2 0 2
KILOMETERS
Q
MILES
-------
The discharge volume was set equal to 1.10 m 3 /s (25 mgd)
as presented by the EMMA report. In addition, two variations
in effluent quality were modelled. Case 1 corresponds to the
recommended EMMA level of treatment in which the discharge
contained 5 mg/i of BOD 5 and 1 mg/i NH 3 -N. As in the Charles
River modelling,an advanced discharge containing 5 mg/i BOD 5
and no NH 3 -N was also modelled and designated as Case 2.
This analysis is found in Appendix 3.2.2, along with the
resultant dissolved oxygen profiles for each discharge loca-
tion.
Case 1 discharge resulted in dissolved oxygen concentra-
tions dropping to less than 1 mg/i for all locations, while
the lowest Case 2 level was approximately 3 mg/i for locations
B and C and 3.3 mg/I for A. For all discharge locations,
Case 2 discharge results in a significantly higher dissolved
oxygen concentrations in the river reaches modelled. In
addition, discharge point A had slightly better dissolved
oxygen profiles than the other points. Nevertheless, both
cases violate water quality standards for these reaches of
the Neponset River.
The main branch of the Neponset River from the Town of
Walpole downstream to its tidal secton is a Class C water-
way. Class c waters have a dissolved oxygen criteria of “...
never less than 3 mg/i” (Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1974).
Case 1 discharge violates the 3 mg/i criteria, while Case 2
results in the minimum allowable D.O. concentration. This
analysis, however, does not account for the effects of ben—
thic deposits, which may exert a major influence upon river
dissolved oxygen àoncentrations.
Specific data to quantity the effects of this parameter
does not exist for this area of the Neponset River. However,
during the MDWPC’s 1973 water quality survey a sampling station
was established just below the confluence with the East Branch
as well as at the Truman Highway Bridge in Milton. These
stations bracket the majority of the Fowl Meadow Marsh, the
area of interest to this analysis. Data from these statioDs
from the 1973 survey indicate the average dissolved oxygen
concentration of the river decreased by 0.6 mg/i as it tra-
versed the marsh. Survey flows were approximately equal to
the modelled low flow plus the treatment plant discharge.
This implies benthic demand has a negative effect upon D.O.
in the Neponset. Superposition of this effect, which is
not anticipated to change in the future, upon the dissolved
oxygen profiles resulting form Case 1 discharge would cause
concentrations to approach 0 mg/i. Case 2 discharge would
then violate the 3 mg/i Class C standard.
3—90
-------
The Neponset River in this area seems to be in a much
better condition than its C classification implies. As was
pointed out in Section 2.5, the marsh appeared to moderate
upstream waste inputs. Although D.O. values declined and
BOD 5 values generally increased, as would be expected in a
river traversing a marsh, the average D.O. values never fell
below 5 mg/i.
During the 1964 survey by the Massachusetts Department
of Public Health, Division of Sanitary Engineering the Nepon-
set River in the Fowl Meadow Marsh area was found to be
grossly polluted. Dissolved oxygen approached 0 mg/i while
BODç exceeded 30 mg/i at many places (Water Quality Section,
1973). Comparison of 1964 data with that obtained during
the 1973 survey by the MDWPC indicates:
“...the water quality improved markedly between
1965 and 1973. This was accomplished by the
cessation or diversion of many industrial dis-
charges. Higher dissolved oxygen and lower BOD 5
have been the parameters most affected.
The biggest improvement has been downstream
from mile point 20 (beginning of Fowl Meadow
Marsh).” (Water Quality Section, 1976).
Any discharge to the Neponset in the area proposed by the
EMMA report would result in a significant detrimental ixnpa t
on the Neponset River’s dissolved oxygen resources and over-
all water quality. In addition, all the discharge points
analyzed are upstream of a major group ofwater supply wells
(See Figure 2.5—18). It is very likely that these wells draw
from the Neponset during low flows, given their proximity to
the River and the nature of the aquifer. The potential for
significant adverse health effects is created by utilizing
any of these discharge point. In order to mitigate these
impacts it would be necessary to move the discharge point
downstream of point C. Such action reduces potential flow
augmentation benefits considerably.
In light of the great potential negative impact upon
water quality, implementation of a Neponset River Satellite
Plant is not recommended.
C. Treatment Processes . The EMMA Study included a recommen-
dation for the construction of two satellite treatment plants
for the purposes of augmenting low flows in the Neponset and
Charles rivers and for reducing the wastewater flow to the
existing Nut Island Treatment Plant. It was proposed that
both satellite treatment plants be designed to meet the fol-
lowing monthly average effluent criteria:
ROD 5 5 mg/l phosphorus 1 mg/l
suspended solids 5 mg/i ammonia nitrogen 1 mg/i
3—91
-------
The average daily design flows for these plants as presented
in the EMMA Study were:
Upper Neponset Middle Charles
TrEatment Plant Treatment Plant
Year 2000 average daily flow 95382 m 3 /d 117335 m 3 /d
(2.52 rngd) (31 mgd)
Year 2050 average daily flow 133232 m 3 /d 172596 in 3 /d
(35.2 mgd) (45.6 mgd)
The unit processes proposed for this plant included pre—
liminary treatment, primary settling, two stage activated
sludge for BOD removal and nitrification, alum addition for
phosphorus removal, multi-media filtration for effluent polish-
ing, and chlorination for disinfection. Mechanical aerators
were proposed to furnish the oxygen required for the first
and second stage activated sludge aeration tanks. Flow equali-
zation basins were proposed ahead of the multi-media filters
to provide a uniform loading rate to the filters.
As part of this Environmental Impact Statement, a brief
review of alternatives to the processes recommended in the
EMMA Study was conducted. Alternative treatment processes
which were evaluated for the satellite treatment plants in-
cluded oxygen activated sludge, activated sludge with powdered
activated carbon addition, single step activated sludge nitri—
fication, a ,bio1ogical system for phosphorus removal, rotat-
ing biological contactors, a carousel oxidation ditch and
land application. None of the alternative treatment systems
considered provided significant advantages over that of the
system proposed in the EMMA Study. It is believed that a
more detailed review of the alternative treatment concepts
would more appropriately be included in the detailed facility
planning process.
During the public workshops which were held to discuss
the concept of satellite treatment plants, some concerns were
expressed with regard to the degree of virus kill that one
might expect from the treatment system recommended in the
EMMA Study. A comprehensive literature search was performed
to determine the relative efficiency of the various units
with regard to virus removal or destruction. It was found
that the viral removal data reported in the literature varied
widely with the type of virus and the method of virus analy-
sis. Table 3.2-19 presents the typical range of virus removal
rates reported for various unit processes. The lower value
of removal efficiency for chlorination represents that attained
at low chlorine dosage rates, while the high values represent
breakpoint chlorination. Breakpoint chlorination can attain
levels of viral kill equivalent to ozonation.
In order to estimate the viral removal efficiency for
the level of treatment recommended in the EMMA Study at the
satellite treatment plants the following removal rates were
assumed for each process:
3—92
-------
TABLE 3.2— 19
TYPICAL VIRUS REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
SELECTED WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESSES
Process
Primary Sedimentation
Activated Sludge
Activated Sludge with Alum
Coagulation for Phosphorous
Removal (Influent phosphorous
level 4.5 ppm)
Alum Coagulation
Lime Coagulation
Ferric Chloride Coagulation
Rapid Sand Filtration
(following coagulation)
Rapid Sand Filtration
(without coagulation)
Chlorination
Ozonation
Nitrification
DenitrificatiOn
Reported Percent Removal
0—3
88—99.99
90—99
96—99.9
99—99.9
92-99.1
99
0—48
50—99. 999
99—99.999
4 8—79
9 5—99
3—93
-------
Unit Process Percent Removal
of Virus
primary sedimentation 0
activated sludge with phosphorous
removal 96
activated sludge with nitrification 70
mixed media filtration without coagulants 20
disinfection
normal chlorination 90
• breakpoint chlorination 99.99
ozonation 99.99
The re lting accumulative removal efficiencies were
calculated to be 99.9 for the level of treatment recommended
in the EMMA Study using normal chlorination at a dosage level
of 8 mg/i and 99.9999 using breakpoint chlorination at a
dosage rate of 12 mg/i or ozonation. By employing breakpoint
chlorination or ozonation, the resulting virus concentration
in the effluent would be only .0007 plaque forming units per
liter (PFU/l) based on an initial concentration of 7000 PFU/1.
As a result of the water quality modeling work performed
for this EIS, it appeared that in some cases it might be
necessary to reduce the BOD and ammonia concentrations even
lower than assumed in the EMMA Study to satisfy required
water quality dissolved oxygen levels. As a result, break-
point chlorination was considered for ammonia removal as well
as improved virus kill. Carbon columns were also investi-
gated for BOD removal.
For a basis of comparing the cost of the satellite sys-
tem as proposed in the EMMA Study to the systems developed
in this EIS, a detailed cost estimate was prepared for both
the Middle Charles and Upper Neponset Treatment Plants.
These costs, as presented in Table 3.2—20, reflect the unit
processes recommended in the EMMA Study, exclusive of site
preparation and sewer relocation. The costs for sludge dis-
posal costs for the satellite plants are developed separately
in a later section.
The costs for the aeration tanks were based on a fine
bubble diffused air system, instead of mechanical aerators,
since a preliminary cost analysis showed that the diffused
air system was more cost effective. Although the capital
cost of the diffused air system is higher, this is more than
offset by the reduced operating and maintenance costs of the
diffused air system. An alum dosage rate of approximately
164 mg/i was assumed for phosphorous removal.
3—94
-------
TABLE 3.2-20
ESTIMATED COSTS FOR THE
SATELLITE TREATMENT PLANTS
Capital Cost O&M Cost Total Annual Cost
($1000) ($1000/yr) ($l000/yr) 1 -
Upper Neponset
EMMA System 38,400 2,080 5,059
EMMA System
with breakpoint
chlorination 38,400 2,115 5,094
EMMA Study
with breakpoint
chlorination
and dechlorination 38,750 2,144 5,150
Middle Charles
EMMA System 44,146 2,444 5,868
EMMA System
with breakpoint
chlorination 44,146 2,488 5,912
EMMA System
with breakpoint
chlorination
and dechlorination 44,542 2,523 5,978
1) Sum of amortized capital cost and annual operation and
maintenance cost. Capital cost is amortized assuming average
life of 30 years and interest rate of 6 —.5/8 percent.
3—95
-------
Separate cost estimates were prepared for normal chlori-
nation, breakpoint chlorination and breakpoint chlorination
followed by dechlorination. The normal chlorination system
was based on a chlorine dosage of 8 mg/i while the dosage for
breakpoint chlorination of the filter effluent was estimated
at 12 mg/i. The dechlorination costs were based on sulfur
dioxide addition at a dosage rage of 2.5 mg/i followed by post
aeration.
3—96
-------
3.2.4. Land Application of Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent
Land application of treated municipal and industrial
wastewater has been used to provide economic and environ-
mental benefits from wastewater treatment and disposal.
The benefits are obtained in the following ways:
1) An alternate wastewater disposal scheme
becomes available.
2) A source of relatively reliable, low cost,
pre—fertilized irrigation water is provided.
3) Water is conserved through wastewater recovery
by groundwater recharge.
In addition to these benefits, under certain conditions
the application of wastewater to the lard provides an
additional level of wastewater treatment by utilizing
the physical and chemical characteristics of the soil to
remove pollutants. The feasibility of land application of
municipal wastewater depends upon the biological and
chemical characteristics of the treated wastewater and the
availability of sufficient land with desired chemical
and physical properties to eliminate any adverse or
unacceptable effects of the wastewater on groundwater
and surface water quality.
The most commonly used methods of land application
are irrigation and infiltration techniques which have been
adapted to wastewater application from agricultural use.
Irrigation techniques include several types of sprinkling
arrangements and surface loading measures such as the use
of ditches or furrows. The attractiveness of this process
lies in its potential for maximizing crop production by
providing needed nutrients, and simultaneously filtering
the applied effluent as it flows through the soil matrix.
The applied wastewater is absorbed by the vegetation,
evaporates into the atmosphere or percolates through the
soil to the ground water. It is necessary for the treated
wastewaters to be of sufficient quality to protect the
ground water against contamination. If local restrictions
require that the wastewaters be discharged to a surface
water source, they can be collected underground by a sub-
surface tile drainage field and pumped to the desired
discharge location. If permitted to follow natural drainage
patterns the wastewater would eventually reach some surface
water source. Rates of wastewater application using
irrigation methods vary from about 1.3 to 10.2 Cm/wk (0.5
to 4 ifl/wk), depending upon the characteristics of the
wastewater, soil, vegetation and receiving waters.
When using the rapid infiltration method of land
application, the wastewater is generally applied to the soil
3—97
-------
through the use of shallow lagoons. The wastewater percolates
through the soil and is either allowed to reach the ground-
water or is collected by underdrains and discharged to surface
waters. The objective is not to grow vegetation, but to
renovate the wastewater as it passes through the soil, and
to dispose of it. Rapid infiltration applic tion rates
vary from about 10.2 to 305 Clfl/Wk (4 to 120 lfl/Wk),
depending upon wastewater and soil characteristics.
The feasibility of land application of secondary
treatment plant effluent was evaluated by the Corps of
Engineers in the Wastewater Engineering and Management Plan
for the Boston Harbor-Eastern Massachusetts Metropolitan
Area (EMMA Study), Technical Data Volume 5 “Land Oriented
Wastewater Utilization Concept”. The result of this
feasibility study was presented in the EMMA Study Main
Report as Wastewater Management Concept 5. This plan
required the construction of five inland satellite treat-
ment plants which would discharge to land application
sites approximately 40 kilometers (25 miles) outside the
EMMA study area. The transportation of this wastewater
to the sites of land application would require the construct-
ion of a pumping station and force mains of sufficient capacity
to transport the combined flow from the five satellites.
Under this concept, the five satellite plants would
treat a combined average flow of 681,000 m 3 /day (180 mgd.)
The Deer and Nut Island treatment plants would be upgraded
and expanded to treat the remainder of the wastewater from
the MSD service area, and would continue to discharge their
effluents to Boston Harbor.
The comparison and evaluation of this plan with the
four other wastewater management concepts considered in
the EMMA Study resulted in the elimination of Concept 5
from further consideration due to high capital and operating
costs and environmental considerations related to the
construction of the necessary facilities and the operation
of the land application sites. Additional problems associated
with jurisdictional responsibilities of the MDC, as the
land application sites are outside the MDC’S limits of
activity, and the unprecedented use of land application
of wastewaters on such a large scale made this alternative
concept even more unfavorable.
The systems under consideration in this EIS for
implementation represent different configurations of treat-
ment plants than did Concept 5 of the EMMA Study, but
provide about the same volume of wastewater for land
application. The MDC sewer system effectively divides the
service area into a northern system a d a southern system.
It would not be possible to include the wastewater from the
northern system in any land application scheme due to its
3—98
-------
high degree of salinity. This high salinity is probably
due to seawater intrusion into the northern interceptor
system through faulty tide gates and the infiltration of
seawater into the sewers in low-lying coastal areas.
The southern system has two treatment plant options
presently under consideration. One option includes the
construction of two satellite treatment plants, one along
the Charles River and one along the Neponset River, to
supplement a coastal treatment plant that would discharge
to Boston Harbor. The other option is to provide all
treatment for the wastewater from the southern system
at a coastal plant. The quantity of wastewater from the
entire southern MDC service area is about the same as
the quantity from the inland satellite plants of Concept
5 of the EMMA Study and, therefore, the results of that
study are also valid for the wastewater management alter-
natives currently under consideration. The excessive cost
and adverse environmental effects associated with the
discharge of about 681,000 m 3 /day (180 mgd) of wastewater
from the MDC service area to land application sites in
southeastern Massachusetts, as discussed previously, make
t iis concept undesirable.
As an alternative to the discharge of 681,000 m 3 /day
(180 mgd) of wastewater outside the EMMA study area,
discharge locations within the EMMA study area were evaluated
for their wastewater load assimilative capability.
For spray irrigation, it was assumed that wastewater
would be applied at a rate of 5.1 cm/wk (2 ]-fl/wk) and that
facilities would be operated for 26 weeks with storaqe
capacity for 30 weeks of flow. For rapid infiltration, it
was assumed that wastewater would be applied at a rate of
71 cm/wk (28 ‘ /wk) and that facilities would operate on a
cycle of 14 days flooding and 7 days recovery, with storage
capacity for 14 days of flow. These criteria were used by
the Corps of Engineers in Technical Data Volume 5 of the
EMMA Study. Including allowances for buffer zones, adminis-
trative areas, pumping stations, roads and any other factors
that reduce the land area at a particular site on which waste-
water can be applied, the EMMA Study determined that the land
requirements for the application of 3785 m 3 /day (1 mgd) of
wastewater would be about 123 hectares (305 acres) using
the spray irrigation method and about 7.4 hectares (18.4
acres) using the rapid infiltration method. These application
rates will be used for the additional feasibility studies.
The EMMA Study identified land areas available for
spray irrigation and rapid infiltration within the study
area. The location of these possible land application sites,
both within and beyond the boundaries of the proposed
extended MSD service area, are shown on Figure 3.2—12.
3—99
-------
Tables 3.2-21 through 3.2-25 list areas available and
potential wastewater application rates for land application
of wastewater in communities within the EMMA study area.
The available land areas are those which meet the criteria
for topography, soils, groundwater and land use necessary
for land application of wastewater.
As can be seen in Tables 3.2—21 through 3.2-25 and on
Figure 3.2-l2most of the land application sites are suitable
only for small flows and are spread over 30 municipalities
within the EMMA study area, both inside and outside the MSD
service area. Their combined total wastewater assimilative
o vcuic bJcr ’ capacity is approximately 288,000 m 3 /day (76.1 mgd). This
/ represents approximately 40 percent of the average daily
wastewater flow from the southern MSD service area. The
remainder of the flow from the southern MSD service area
must be discharged to surface and coastal waters depending
on the treatment plant system selected. Only 45,000 m 3 /day
(11.9 mgd) can be applied within the limits of the MSD
service area. This represents approximately 6.5 percent of
the wastewaters collected from the southern MSD service area.
Using the data presented in Figure 3.2—12 and Tables
3.2—21 through 3.2-25, a conceptual design and estimate
of pumping station, force main and land application
facilities costs was made to determine costs for land
application systems. Primary pumping and force main
costs were based on straight line routes from the
vicinity of Nut Island to four locations, each of which
is surrounded by numerous land application sites. At
the end of each of the, four primary force mains, a second-
ary pumping station and network of smaller force mains is
required to distribute the wastewater flow to each of
the land application sites. Secondary pumping and force
main costs were based on straight line routes from the
termination of the major force main to each application
site. These straight line distances represent an over-
simplification of the transmission problems associated with
the distribution of the treated wastewater to the land
application areas. These costs provide a lower limit for
transmission costs. The actual costs would be higher,
depending upon the actual route selected for a particular
force main.
The capital costs for land application facilities
include an allowance of $2,000 per acre for land acquisition.
Operation and maintenance costs for the land application
facilities include all costs associated with the application
of wastewater once it has reached an application site. The
power costs include the cost of all power associated with the
primary and secondary pumping facilities. The following
is a tabulation of the results of this analysis:
3—100
-------
SOURCE: NEW ENSLANO DIVISION U.S. ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS, 1775.
N
/ \
J RST
\ ,—..—
1(1111! v
‘\. NAV hI L ‘I I T
•
—, uuulJ ) / ‘S
U(TNWfI / >
S /‘ 3’
— — — — —.‘ f NITN
I , 4, OIACUT
P PP LL D*ST*E NUICI A*VtI IP$IICN
•“9 - & •a
•-— L,.-” \,. 0 — --
AIOOVEP ‘ P9II1D -‘
LOWIL
I o “ - 1 fSSfx
/ T(51$$tJI’r A , 1
\ CN(1I5FOIO / — — .. NCFST!I
\ / ‘ lMCN(5T(I’
— / ‘S -S.. •iw f*OIIG ) D*IV!IS I(V(ILY ‘ ‘ “
SM (Y) ITO
•I1L(IIC* C I.CTM
‘S
—
\ /
/
/
LITTIFTO I “- ‘ _—( CAI1ISL ..P.L\\_.. I(AOI5C yW,(1\ *KOy /
_-‘
L TIEID ‘ $*ii MmfI Ao
I IIIIIN ‘- . .
c L
iacasVII 4, /
/
I
—- / COICOII ,4 L(IICTOI 7
*TN , SRS Mes ch sgtts
• -.. PROPOSED CHARLES
RIVER SATELLITE
TREATMENT PLANT ( % / / , DEER ISLAND
“K’LOCATION ISILAIDI D(STN ‘f • Boy
I
OS N
4 NUT ISLAND
1K ‘ ‘y UNI LIMIT OF
‘ ‘- ,‘-,-- -à “\ ‘
EXPANDED MSD
• ‘ 01 0 “r- ’ I , 55 RNU
P 1 , 1 1 110 1 ‘t ’1! SIENNI, DI V IP(5TM . < II [ TIU’ cow ssLr SERVICE AREA
\ (— (
‘ ç C’I*MUTlfl !W STw •o 0
r
PILLIS (‘ “ AuDI \ ——
Upyol
ANOL!W’ / • O
NILON \ \4 ’\ ‘\ ,g _9,p I IoIvni 9 ,
\ A. co .-‘ 0 - •\0
*T’*IICt ‘ 0 \ ucicmi ( D tAVOI -
0\5T
SPAIN I P0 SWI(I.D
‘- A
c.IoA ‘°__o 0 A 00 0 I .j (p j
LI ..—
/ PROPOSED NEPONSET à’
OI°
o “o RIVER SATELLITE
UDISIOCI 1.11-
DUXIURT
MLL T* P O fUSION TREATMENT PLANT..
0
Rhode Island LOCATION —m
‘ MltFAX
•‘k:
•IOCf 1*1( 1
LIMIT OF EMMA
SCALE I” 10 MILES
STUDY AREA
LEGEND
SPlAY IIIIIATI II IAPII IIFILTIATIII
o 2141 ACHS • 2141 ACIIS
A 5111 ACIIS £ 51.11 AC 1ES
o 111.211 AC 1ES • 1IS-211 ACIES
o 311+ ACIES • 3ll ACIES
LIMIT OF EMMA STUDY AREA
— — LIMIT OF EXPANDED MSD SERVICE AREA FIGURE 3.2— 12
POTENTIAL LAND APPLICATION SITES
WITHIN THE EMMA STUDY AREA
-------
TABLE L2-21
SPRAY IRRIGATION SITES WITHIN THE MSD SERVICE AREA
Town ’
Ashland
Dover
Hingham
Holbrook
Hopkinton
Sharon
She rborn
S toughton
Walpole
Total
Available
Area(i)
hectares (acres )
5.3 (13)
33.2 (82)
185.0 (457)
20.2 (50)
69.2 (171)
573.0 (1416)
28.3 (70)
128.7 (318)
142.0 (351)
1184.9 (2928)
Average Daily
Application Rate
(ga ls.x10 3 )
(42.6)
(268.8)
(1,500.0)
(164.0)
(561.0)
(4,643.0)
(229.5)
(1,042 .6)
(1,150.8)
(9,602.3)
(1)
New England Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1975 a
161.2
1017.4
5677.5
620.7
2123.4
17573.7
868.6
3946.2
4355.8
36344.5
3—102
-------
(1)
86968.2
New England Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1975 a
TABLE 3.2-22
SPRZ Y IRRIGATION SITES WITHIN THE EMMA STUDY AREA
AND OUTSIDE THE MSD SERVICE AREA
Available Average Daily
Town( 1 ) Area Cl) Application Rate
hectares (acres) m (gals.x10 3 )
Bellingham 95.1 (235) 2916.3 (770.5)
Boxford 81.7 (202) 2506.8 (662.3)
Danvers 16.2 (40) 496.2 (131.1)
Duxbury 79.7 (197) 2444.7 (645.9)
Franklin 602.2 (1488) 18465.9 (4878.7)
Hamilton 27.9 (69) 856.2 (226.2)
Holliston 281.7 (696) 8637.4 (2282.0)
Ipswich 102.8 (254) 3152.1 (832.8)
Marshfield 258.2 (638) 7917.5 (2091.8)
Medfie ld 86.2 (213) 2643.4 (698.4)
Medway 106.0 (262) 3251.3 (859.0)
Middleton 32.0 (79) 980.3 (259.0)
Millis 14.6 (36) 446.6 (118.0)
Norfolk 158.6 (392) 4864.5 (1285.2)
North Reading 91.8 (227) 2817.2 (744.3)
Norwell 264.7 (654) 8116.2 (2144.3)
Pembroke 82.2 (203) 2519.3 (665.6)
Scituate 112.5 (278) 3450.0 (911.5)
Topsfie ld 63.5 (157) 1948.5 (514.8)
Wrentham 278.4 (688) 8537.8 (2255.7)
Total 2836.0 (7008) (22977.1)
3—103
-------
TABLE 3.2- 23
RAPID INFILTRATION SITES WITHIN THE 1 1SD SERVICE AREA
Available Average Daily
Town(’) Area(l) Application Rate
hectares (acres) ( 1s.xl0 3 )
Hingham 17.4 (43) 8845.4 (2336.9)
TABLE 3.2—24
RAPID INFILTRATION SITES WITHIN THE ENMA STUDY AREA
ND OUTSIDE THE MSD SERVICE AREA
Available Average Daily
Town ( 1 -) Area( 1 ) A p1icatiOfl Rate
hectares (acres) i t t - ’ (ga ls.x10 3 )
Boxford 44.5 (110) 22661.9 (5987.3)
Duxbury 44.9 (111) 22833.4 (6032.6)
Hanover 37.6 (93) 19130.5 (5054.3)
Ipswich 41.7 (103) 211877 (5597.8)
Marshfie ld 41.7 (103) 21187.7 (5597.8)
Norwell 52.2 (129) 26536.3 (7010.9)
Pembroke 45.3 (112) 23038.9 (6086.9)
Total 307.9 (761) 156576.4 (41367.6)
(1)
New England Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1975 a
3—104
-------
TABLE 3.2-25
SUBDIVISION OF LAND APPLICATION AREAS BY GEOGRAPHIC
LOCATION FOR STUDY PURPOSES
Northeast EMMA Sites MSD Sites
Boxford Ashland
Danvers Dover
Hamilton Hingham
Ipswich Holbrook
Middleton HOpkintOn
North Reading Sharon
Topsfield Sherborn
Stoughton
Walpole
Southeast EMMA Sites Southwest EMMA Sites
Duxbury Bellingham
Hanover Franklin
Marshfield Holliston
Norwell Medfield
Pembroke Medway
Scituate Millis
Norfolk
Wrentham
3—105
-------
Northeast EMMA Sites (outside MSD Limits) :
Wastewater Application Rate. 56,526 m 3 /day (14.95 mgd)
Average Distance from Nut Island 38.6 km (24 miles)
Capital Costs:
Primary Force Main $25,300,000
Primary Pumping Station 450,000
Secondary Force Mains 6,830,000
Secondary Pumping Stations 390,000
Land Application Facilities 7,500,000
Total Capital Costs $40,470,000
Annual Costs (Operation and Maintenance)
Land Application Facilities $ 50,000
Power Cost 1,090,000
Total Annual (0 and N Costs) $ 1,140,000
Southwest EMMA Sites (outside MSD limits) :
Wastewater Application Rate 49,800 m 3 /day (13.15 mgd)
Average Distance from Nut Island 48.3 km. (30 miles)
Capital Costs:
Primary Force Main $26,500,000
Primary Pumping Station 445,000
Secondary Force Mains 11,900,000
Secondary Pumping Stations 375,000
Land Application Facilities 18,800,000
Total Capital Costs $58,020,000
Annual Costs (Operation and Maintenance)
Land Application Facilities $ 107,000
Power Cost 970,000
Total Annual (0 and M) Costs $ 1,077,000
Southeast EMMA Sites (outside the MSD limits):
Wastewater Application Rate 137,000 m 3 /day (36.2 mgd)
Average Distance from Nut Island 28.9 km (18 miles)
3—106
-------
Southeast EMMA Sites (Continued )
Capital Costs:
Primary Force Main
Primary Pumping Station
Secondary Force Mains
Secondary Pumping Station
Land Application Facilities
$21,160,000
1,210,000
B, 250, 000
1,150,000
15,210,000
Total Capital Costs
$46,980,000
Annual Costs (Operation and Maintenance)
Land Application Facilities
Power Cost
Total Annual (0 and M) Costs
$ 130,000
2,380,000
$ 2,510,000
MSD Sites :
Wastewater Application Rates
Average Distance from Nut Island
45,000 m 3 /day
32.2 km
(11.94 mgd)
(20 miles)
Capital Costs:
Primary Force Main
Primary Pumping Station
Secondary Force Mains
Secondary Pumping Station
Land Application Facilities
$18,800,000
400,000
9,260,000
340,000
14, 270,000
Total Capital Costs
$43,070,000
Annual Costs (Operation and Maintenance)
Land Application Facilities
Power Cost
$ 84,000
660,000
Total Annual (0 and M) Costs
$ 744,000
Utilization of all the available land application sites
within the EMMA study area would undoubtedly incur juris-
dictional problems for the MDC, as the bulk of the land
application sites are beyond the MSD’s service area. The
sites are located in 30 separate municipalities, 21 of which
are outside the limits of the MSD service area. The towns
which are outside the MSD service area have either already
implemented their own municipal treatment systems or are
part of smaller regional systems. Since these communities
are not receiving any of the benefits of MSD wastewater
treatment facilities, they would most likely not want to
become depositories of MSD wastewaters. In view of these
conditions, it is very likely that institutional problems
would be a major obstacle to implementation of large scale
3—107
-------
wastewater disposal by means of land application. The
disposal of about 288,000 m 3 /day (76.1 mgd) of wastewater
by land application methods in the 30 separate municipalities
would add more than $190,000,000 in construction costs and
more than $5,000,000 per year in operation and maintenance
costs to the wastewater management plan for the MSD service
area. The additional amortized construction cost of the
land application facilities in the entire EMMA study area
over a 30 year period would be about $14,740,000 per year.
Combining the additional amortized construction cost and
annual operation and maintenance costs results in a total
additional cost for land application of nearly $20,000,000.
About 45,000 m 3 /day (11.9 mgd) of wastewater can be
disposed of on land application sites within the MSD service
area, at an additional construction cost of more than
$43,000,000 and an additional operation and maintenance
cost of more than $700,000 per year. The additional costs
related to land application do not produce any savings in
treatment costs, since secondary treatment of wastewater is
required prior to land application. The additional
amortized construction cost of the land application facilities
within the MSD service area over a 30 year period would
be about $3,335,000 per year. Combining the additional
amortized construction cost and annual operation and main-
tenance costs for the application of wastewater to land
within the MSD service area results in a total additional
annual cost for land application of about $4,000,000 per year.
Land application of effluent from the satellite treat-
ment plants on the Charles and Neponset Rivers was also
investigated to determine its feasibility. Since the
combined discharges of the two satellite plants would be
less than the total wastewater application rate for the
four major land application zones considered, it was
decided to exclude the Northeastern EMMA area sites as
a possible discharge location due to the high costs associated
with transmission of wastewater from the satellite plants
to that disposal area. In addition, about 40 percent of the
sites in the Southwest EMMA area, which contains many
sites of small capacity, need not be utilized in this analysis.
The remaining areas (Southeast EMMA, MSD and 60 percent of
Southwest EMMA) have sufficient wastewater assimilative
capacity to accommodate the satellite plant discharge.
A conceptual design of a land application system for the
two satellite plants was prepared and estimates of construct-
ion and operation costs were made. The system selected
for economic evaluation provided for the transportation of
the effluent from the Middle Charles River satellite plant
to a distribution center at the Neponset River satellite
plant. Force main and pumping station requirements to
transport the wastewater to the three zones of application
were determined. The estimated capital and annual operation
and maintenance costs associated with these three main areas
3—108
o t1 o c1 d f
-------
are presented below.
Pipeline connection between the Middle Charles
River and Upper Neponset River plants $12,000,000
Southwest EMMA Sites (outside MSD limits) :
Wastewater Application Rate 30,300 m 3 /day (8 mgd)
Average Distance from Upper
Neponset River Plant 24.15 km (15 miles)
Capital Costs
Primary Force Main $11,900,000
Primary Pumping Station 270,000
Secondary Force Mains 5,440,000
Secondary Pumping Station 260,000
Land Application Facilities 11,800,000
Total Capital Costs $29,670,000
Annual Costs (Operation and Maintenance)
Land Application Facilities $ 70,000
Power Cost 220,000
Total Annual (0 and M) Costs $ 290,000
MSD Sites :
Wastewater Application Rate 45,000 m 3 /day (11.94 mgd)
Average Distance from Upper
Neponset River Plant 12.9 km (8 miles)
Capital Costs
Primary Force Main --
Primary Pumping Station --
Secondary Force Main $ 9,260,000
Secondary Pumping Station 340,000
Land Application Facilities 14,270,000
Total Capital Costs $23,870,000
Annual Costs (Operation and Maintenance)
Land Application Facilities $ 84,000
Power Cost 110,000
Total Annual (0 and M) Costs $ 194,000
3—109
-------
Southeast EMMA Sites (outside MSD limits) :
Wastewater Application Rate 137,000 m 3 /day (36.2 mgd)
Average Distance from Upper
Neponset River Plant 40.3 1cm (25 miles)
Capital Costs
Primary Force Main $30,000,000
Primary Pumping Station 1,210,000
Secondary Force Mains 8,250,000
Secondary Pumping Station 1,150,000
Land Application Facilities 15,210,000
Total Capital Costs $55,820,000
Annual Costs (Operation and Maintenance)
Land Application Facilities $ 130,000
Power Cost 690,000
Total Annual (0 and M) Costs $ 820,000
Application of the effluent from the satellite treatment
plants on land will eliminate the need for advanced waste
treatment facilities, as secondary effluent is usually of
sufficient quality for land application. The reduction
in the level of treatment at the satellite plant sites
from advanced wastewater treatment to secondary treatment
results in a reduction in capital costs for satellite plant
construction of about $32,000,000. However, land application
of the satellite treatment plant effluent would require
capital expenditures in excess of $121,000,000. Therefore,
disposing of the effluent from the satellite plants by
means of land application would result in a capital cost
of over $89,000,000 more than the cost of disposal to
the rivers. The reduction in the level of treatment at
the satellite plants reduces the annual operation and
maintenance costs of the two plants by nearly $2,800,000
per year. When this savings is compared with the operation
and maintenance costs associated with land application of
satellite plant flows of $1,304 per year, a net reduction
in annual operation and maintenance costs of about $1,500,000
is acheived through land application of treatment plant
effluent. The additional amortized construction cost for
land application of satellite plant effluent within the
EMMA Study area over a 30 year period would be about $6,900,000
per year. Combining the additional amortized construction
cost and the net decrease in annual operation and maintenance
costs results in a total additional annual cost for land
application facilities of about $5,400,000 per year. This
cost reflects the increased cost of land application of
effluent from secondary treatment satellite plants above
3—110
-------
that of river discharge of effluent from advanced waste
treatment satellite plants.
Land application of satellite treatment plant effluent
within the EMMA study area would present similar jurisdictional
problems for the MDC that land application of coastal treat—
inent plant effluent would present. Only about 20 percent of
the satellite wastewater flow can be applied to land within
the MSD service area. The remaining 80 percent must be
discharged in towns outside the MSD service area.
Application of that portion of satellite flow which
could be assimilated by the sites within the MSD service
area will reduce the cost of satellite treatment plant
construction by nearly $10,000,000 by eliminating the need
for advanced treatment for nearly 45,070 m 3 /day (11.9 mgd).
The additional capital costs associated with land application
are nearly $24,000,000. The reduction in plant cost partially
offsets the high cost of land application facilities in the
MSD service area. The reduced treatment required for that
portion of the flow which will be applied to the land also
reduces annual satellite plant operating costs by $630,000
per year, while the operation and maintenance costs for
the land application facilities would be about $194,000 per
year. The amortized additional capital cost of land application
facilities over a 30 year period is nearly $1,100,000.
Combining the amortized capital costs with the savings in
annual operating and maintenance costs ($436,000 per year),
land application of satellite plant effluent within the MSD
service area increases annual southern MSD wastewater manage-
ment costs by about $660,000 per year.
Due to the significantly higher costs and the institutional
problems associated with the land application systems, and
the adverse environmental impacts which can be expected from
the construction of the numerous pipelines and application
sites required, land application has been eliminated from
further consideration at this time.
3 111
-------
3.2.5. Sludge Treatment and Disposal
A systems approach was applied to identify the most
attractive sludge management options. The inland satellite
treatment plants and coastal area treatment plants were
treated separately because of differences in the type and
chemical characteristics of the sludge. Sludge from the
inland plants will consist of a mixture of primary sludge,
chemical sludge resulting from the phosphorous removal
step, and biological sludge from the two-step nitrification
process. Since a separate Environmental Impact Statement
is addressing the disposal of primary sludge from the
coastal area treatment plants, only secondary sludge from
the coastal area plants was considered within the scope of this
Environmental Impact Statement. The quantites and character-
istics of the sludge were estimated for the four tributary
service areas designated in the MDC’s recommended plan.
The resulting sludge characteristics are presented in Table
3.2—26.
The first step in the preliminary screening process
was to identify all the available unit processes and
operations applicable for sludge treatment, and to
eliminate those which were deemed inappropriate for the
coastal or inland treatment plant sludge. For convenience,
the various unit processes and operations were classified
into one of the following functional categories:
A. Thickening
B. Stabilization
C. Dewatering
D. Conversion
E. Ultimate Disposal
Although some unit processes and operations possess
some characteristics which fall into several of these
functional categories, for simplicity they were assigned
to a single category. Table 3.2-27 lists the various
processes and operations considered for sludge treatment
in each of the functional categories.
A. Thickening . “Thickening” refers to those processes
which produce an increase in the solids content of sludge
through a partial removal of the liquid fraction. The
sludge output from the thickening process is still of a
liquid consistency. The purpose of this step is to reduce
the total volume of sludge for further processing and to
improve the efficiency of subsequent treatment processes.
1. Gravit y . In gravity thickening, the sludge
solids setUe to the bottom of a tank and form
a concentrated sludge blanket. The sludge
blanket is removed from the tank in a controlled
3—112
-------
TABLE 3.2-26
ESTIMATED SLUDGE CHARACTERISTICS
Coastal Plants
(Secondary Sludge Only) Inland Plants
Deer Island Nut Island Middle Charles pper Neponset
Sludge Quantity
Metric tons/day (dry) 93.5 54.5 33.8 26.6
Short tons/day (dry) 103 60 37.3 29.3
Percent Volatile 67 72 60.7 60.3
Nitrogen Content (%) 6 6 4.6 4.6
Heavy Metals
(mg/kg dry weight)
Copper 1500 1340 631 654
Zinc 2482 316 1942 2011
Nickel 497 202 364 377
Cadmium 44 16 34 35
Lead 194 95 312 323
Mercury 6 3 6 6
Chromium 984 180 277 287
Note: All heavy metal concentrations are based on dry weight
of sewage solids. The addition of chemicals to enhance
dewatering will reduce heavy metal concentrations in
proportion to the amount of solids added by the chemicals.
-------
TABLE 3.2-27
ALTERNATIVE SLUDGE PROCESSES
Thickening Stabilization Dewatering Conversion Ultimate Disposal
Gravity Aerobic digestion Drying beds Incineration Landfill
Air flotation Anaerobic digestion Vacuum filtration Pyrolysis Give away or
market product
Storage Pasteurization Horizontal belt Composting
filtration Ocean disposal
Wet oxidation Co-incineration
Pressure filtration Land disposal
Chemical oxidation Exotic processes
(Purif ax process) Centrifugation
Residue fusion
H Heat treatment Heat drying
(Porteous process) Chemf ix
Chemical con— Puretec
ditioning
OrganiForm
Irradiation
Carver-Greenfie ld
Solvent extraction
(B.E.S.T.)
-------
manner so as to obtain a high degree of solids
concentration. Chemicals are sometimes added
to enhance agglomeration.
2. Air Flotation . In air flotation, fine air
bubbles are passed through the sludge. The
bubbles adhere to the solid particles or are
trapped in the particle structure, thereby
increasing its buoyancy. The solids rise to
the surface with the air bubbles, where they are
skimmed of f. Chemicals are added to aid
agglomeration.
3. Storage . Subsidence and concentration of solids
naturally occurs when sludge is stored for long
periods of time in lagoons or storage vessels.
B. Stabilization . “Stabilization” describes those
processes which reduce the offensive properties of sludge,
such as odor, putrescence, and pathogenicity. Stabilization
is usually accompanied by a reduction in the volatile
content and an improvement in the dewaterability of the
sludge. Most stabilization processes dissolve some of the
solid constituents, resulting in an increase in strength
of the liquid portion with regard to BOD, COD, etc. In this
study, stabilization is used only to categorize those
processes which can be applied to the sludge without
previous extensive dewatering.
1. Aerobic Digestion . Aerobic digestion involves
the biological oxida€ion of the volatile organic
fraction of the solids in the presence of oxygen.
This process is essentially an extension of the
activated sludge process to the point where the
microorganisms enter the “endogenous” phase and
must utilize the sludge itself as a source of
carbon.
2. Anaerobic Digestion . Anaerobic digestion involves
the biological oxidation of the volatiles in the
absence of oxygen. This process is normally conducted
at about 35°C (95°F). A gas having a fuel value
of about 22,000 kJ/m 3 (600 BTU’s/ft. 3 ) results from
the conversion of the organic carbon to methane and
carbon dioxide by the microorganisms which utilize
the chemical bound oxygen as part of their
metabolism.
3. Pasteurization . “Pasteurization” describes the
prociss of heatin sludge to a prescribed temperature,
and maintaining that temperature for a sufficient time
to destroy pathogenic organisms. A typical past-
eurization process might involve heating the sludge
to 70°C (160°F), for a period of 30 minutes. Only
a limited degree of volatile solids destruction and
3—115
-------
dissolving of solids is achieved by pasteurization.
4. Wet Oxidation . “Wet Oxidation” describes the
oxidation of volatiles in the presence of oxygen and
water at elevated temperature and pressure. In this
process, compressed air or oxygen is mixed with the
sludge to achieve “wet oxidation”. Since many of
the sludge organics are dissolved in wet oxidation,
a high strength liquid fraction results from this
process. Wet oxidation also generally improves the
dewaterability of the remaining solids. Wet oxidation
is normally classified as low temperature and pressure,
150—205°C (300—400°F) and 2100—3400kN/m 2 (300—500 psi)
or high temperature and pressure, 370°C (700°F) and 11,000
kN/m 2 (1650 psi).
5. Heat Treatment . Heat treatment, the conditioning
of sludge at elevated temperature and pressure, is
similar to wet oxidation, except that air or oxygen
is not mixed with the sludge. The objective of heat
treatment is to improve sludge dewaterability by
dissolving and hydrolyzing the hydrated sludge fines.
The “Porteous” process typically operates at temperatures
of 1 5—204°C (350—400°F), and pressures of 1100—2100
kN/m (150-3 00 psi). As in the case of wet oxidation,
a relatively high strength liquid fraction is generated.
6. Chemical Oxidation . “Chemical oxidation” describes
the use of chemicals rather than oxygen to oxidize the
volatiles. The most common chemical oxidation process
is the “Purifax” process, which employs high dosages
of chlorine to oxidize the organics. The reaction
takes place in a closed reactor at a pressure of about
310 kN/m 2 (45 psi). This process generates a variety
of non, or slowly, biodegradable organics.
7. Chemical Conditioning . Chemicals which reduce some
offensive qualities and increase the dewaterability of
sludge are usually added prior to the dewatering process.
Ferric chloride functions primarily as a coagulant.
Hydrated lime, which is almost always added with ferric
chloride, destroys pathogens and controls odors.
8. Irradiation . Irradiation is a relatively new
technology whiOh employs penetrating, ionizing
radiation from either radioactive nuclear sources
or electron accelerators to disinfect sludge. Presently,
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is conducting
research on the use of an electron accelerator to
disinfect sludge at the Deer Island Treatment Plant.
Similar research is being conducted elsewhere utilizing
beta and gamma emissions of radio—isotopes. In both
cases of electron accelerators and radio—active
material, disinfection properties appear to be enhanced
3—116
-------
by oxygenation prior to and during irradiation.
C. Dewatering . “Dewatering” is used to describe those
processes which remove a sufficient quantity of water from
the sludge to change it physically from a liquid to a
semi-solid. Sludge which has been subjected to a dewatering
process will not flow and, therefore, can be handled
basically as a solid material. Most dewatering processes
incorporate the addition of chemicals such as ferric
chloride, lime, alum or polyelectrolytes to improve
the sludge dewaterability.
1. Drying Beds . Drying beds rely on natural
evaporation and drainage to dewater the sludge.
The most common type of drying bed consists of a
sand or gravel bed equipped with a system of
underdrains. Paved drying beds with limited
drainage systems have also been used successfully
at some treatment plants.
2. Vacuum Filters . Vacuum filters remove the
moisture from sludge by applying suction to the
underside of a filter media. The most common
type is the rotary filter which has a filter
belt attached to a rotating drum. The drum is
partially immersed in the liquid sludge so that,
as it rotates, a solid cake is formed on the filter
belt. The vacuum is released at a specific point
in the drum’s rotation, and the cake is scraped
off before the filter belt is reimrnersed in the
liquid sludge.
3. Horizontal Belt Filters . Horizontal belt filters
are similar to vacuum filters, except that pressure
is used to force the water from the sludge. The most
common types employ two belts with the sludge sand-
wiched between them. A system of rollers is used to
apply pressure to the layer of sludge trapped between
the belts, thereby dewatering the sludge as the liquid
is forced through the filter media.
4. Filter Presses . Filter presses operate on the
same principal as horizontal belt filters, except at
much higher pressures. The filter press normally
consists of several vertical plates mounted on a
rigid frame. Liquid sludge is fed between the plates
and the plates are mechanically pressed together,
forcing liquid through drainage ports. When the
cycle is completed, the plates are separated so
that the solid cake will drop to a collection system
located below the unit. Filter presses tend to
yield a very dry sludge cake.
3 -117
-------
5. Centrifuges . Centrifuges use centrifugal force
to achieve a high rate of separation between the
liquid and solid fractions of the sludge. Continuous
rotating bowl centrifuges are the most common type
used for sludge dewatering. Sludge is introduced
at one end of the rotating bowl. As the centrifuge
spins, the solids are collected along the periphery
of the machine where they are continuously conveyed
to the outlet.
6. Heat Drying . Heat drying employs elevated temp-
eratures to increase the rate of evaporation of water
from the sludge. An outside heat source must be
provided to elevate the temperature of the sludge to
a typical operating range of 370—540°C (700-1000°F).
Most processes employ hot gases as the heat source,
which can be placed in direct contact with the sludge
or separated from the sludge through an intermediate
heat exchanger.
D. Conversion . “Conversion” is used to represent those
processes which can impart a major change to the basic
chemical and physical properties of the sludge itself.
The product resulting from a conversion process does not
resemble the material which is commonly associated with
the word “sludge”. Most conversion processes produce
some degree of stabilization, volume reduction, and
further dewatering of the solids as part of the process.
1. Incineration . “Incineration” refers to the
thermal oxidation of sludge to a sterile ash residue.
Normally, the sludge is dewatered to an autothermic
solid concentration, so that the burning process is
self-sustaining and requires little, if any, supple-
mental fuel. Sufficient air is provided to sustain
complete combustion, with operating temperatures
normally maintained between 7 60—925°C (1400—1700°F).
The most common types of incinerator employed for
sludge incineration are multiple hearth and fluidized
bed reactors. Control devices to minimize emissions
to the air can be added.
2. Pyrolysis . “Pyrolysis” refers to the destructive
thermal distillation of sludge in an oxygen-deficient
atmosphere. The volatile fraction of the sludge is
either gasified and/or liquified during the process,
leaving the remaining solids in the form of a residual
char and/or slag. In some instances, the gas and
liquid by—products of the process have a sufficient
heat value for use as a supplemental fuel. Pyrolysis
systems have been operated in the range of 480-1650°C
(900-3000°F). While many pilot studies and demon-
strations of pyrolysis units are currently underway,
no large scale units have achieved satisfactory operation.
3—118
-------
3. Composting . Composting is a process which achieves
high levels of stabilization and volatile destruction
through natural biological aerobic decomposition. The
sludge is biochemically converted to a sterile humus
material, which may be suitable as a soil conditioner.
The microbial activity generates heat with temperatures
reaching about 60—70°C (140-160°F), which is sufficient
to destroy most pathogens. The most successful
operation to date has been at Beltsville, Maryland,
where composting is achieved by mixing raw sludge with
a 20 percent moisture content with wood chips and
piling the mixture in windrows, or continuous piles.
Air is continuously passed through the piles via a
system of pipes located at the base of the piles.
The mixture is aerated for about 21-24 days, after
which time the wood chips are removed. The remaining
material is then aged for an additional 30 days prior
to land application.
4. Co-incineration . “Co—incineration” refers to the
incineration of a mixture of dewatered sludge and
solid wastes. Co-incineration is normally carried
out in conventional incinerators, such as the
multiple hearth type. The mixing of sludge with
solid wastes has the advantage of using some of the
heat value of the solid waste to remove the residual
moisture in the sludge. The product of the co—inciner-
ation process is a sterile ash similar to that obtained
by sludge incineration. In the context of this report,
all the co—incineration processes considered also
incorporate the generation of power and the recovery
of inert materials such as glass, ferrous metals,and
aluminum from the solid wastes.
5. Exotic Processes . Several processes which are
applicable to sludge conversion have been proposed
and patented by various companies. A brief summary
of some of these processes follows:
a. Franklin Institute Laboratory Residue Fusion
Process . This is a thermal process which treats
mixtures of shredded incinerator residue and
dewatered sludge with a thermal process to yield
a high quality aggregate. The process consists of
a rotary kiln where complete burn—out is achieved
followed by a high temperature 1200°C (2200°F),
fusion furnace. The process is presently in the
early stages of development.
b. Chemf ix Process . This chemical fixation
process involves solidifying the sludge with
proprietary chemicals and is typical of many
chemical fixation processes being marketed. The
process produces a gelated solid material.
3—119
-------
c. Puretec (Barber—Coleman) . This process heat
treats liquid sludge with id under pressure
prior to dewatering. It is somewhat similar to
wet oxidation but provides for heavy metal
recovery from the liquid fraction.
d. OrganiForm (Organics Inc.) . This process
combines wet sludge with urea and formaldehyde
to form a dry cake. The end product is dry,
sterile, and high in nitrogen content.
e. Carver-Greenfield Process . This process
involves the use of multi—effect evaporation
for sludge dehydration. The sludge is initially
mixed with oil prior to entering, an evaporator,
where the water is boiled off, leaving the solids
suspended in the oil. The solids are then
separated from the oil in a centrifuge and
incinerated to produce steam.
f. Solvent Extraction and DeJ ydration (Resources
Conservation Co., BE.S.T. Process) . This process
mixes wet sludge with an aliphatic amine to improve
solids separation. The solids are recovered in ‘a
centrifuge and the sludge cake is dried to obtain
a sterile, low moisture product.
E. Ultimate Disposal . “Ultimate Disposal” is used to
describe the final destination of the sludge or sludge end
product. The number of alternatives available for ultimate
disposal is limited. In the final analysis, either the
ocean or the land itself must serve as the final destination.
1. Landfill . “Landfill” refers to the controlled
application or burial of large quantities of solid
residue as a fill material at a designated site. The
material is normally covered with earth on a daily
basis to prevent the creation of nuisance conditions
or health hazards. The material must be sufficiently
dewatered to minimize leaching of dissolved materials
to the groundwater. Leachate collection and monitoring
systems are employed as a precautionary measure to
prevent groundwater contamination.
2. Land Application . Land application is the
controlled application of liquid or solid sludge
or sludge products to the land, thereby returning
nutrients to the soil. In the case of liquid sludge
application, the soil serves to filter the solids
from the liquid sludge before it reaches the ground-
water. In the case of dry cake or compost application,
the solids are mixed with the soil, increasing its
friability and humus content.
3—120
-------
Land application has been practiced on areas such as
agriculture croplands, grazing lands, golf courses
forests, and strip mine reclamation projects. The
applicability of this method of ultimate disposal is
closely dependent upon public acceptance, the proximity
of potential land application sites to the treatment
plant, and sludge and soil conditioners.
3. Give Away or Market Product . Marketing and “Give
Away” programs are possible, if the sludge has been
treated by one of the conversion processes to produce
a publicly acceptable end product. “Give Away”
programs such as the Chicago Nu-Earth or Philadelphia’s
Philorganic Program provide the sludge product free of
charge to the general public for use as a soil conditioner.
A marketing program, such as the Kellogg program in
Los Angeles, or the Milwaukee Milorganite program,
process the sludge into a high value soil conditioner
or fertilizer, and sell it to the general public
through a retail distribution system.
4. Ocean Disposal . “Ocean Disposal” refers to the
dumping of the sludge or sludge products in the ocean.
This can be accomplished via an ocean outfall or by
a system of ocean-going barges. Presently, the EPA
is attempting to phase out all ocean disposal of
sludge by 1981.
Elimination of Unit Processes for Coastal Area Treatment
Plants
A. Thickening . Since the sludge management program for the
harbor plants is limited to secondary sludge only, gravity
thickening and storage have been eliminated from further
consideration. Both of these processes are of limited
effectiveness when applied to secondary sludge due to the
characteristics of such a sludge. Previous experience
has shown air flotation to be the method of choice for
the thickening of secondary sludge.
B. Stabilization . Chemical oxidation by the Purifax
process has been eliminated from consideration because
of the high chlorine dosage required and the potential
for generation of chlorinated hydrocarbons. The heat
treatment and wet oxidation processes have not been
effective for waste activated sludge. Therefore, no
further consideration is given to these processes.
Irradiation has been eliminated since it is still in
research and development stages.
C. Dewatering . The dewatering of waste activated (secondary)
sludge by itself is seldom done. There is only limited
operational data available on any dewatering process employ-
ing 100 percent waste activated (secondary)sludge.
3—121
-------
Centrifuges, horizontal belt filters and vacuum filters
were considered as equivalent processes for the purpose of
this analysis. Each of these unit operations is capable
of attaining similar solids concentration and solids capture.
Differences in unit cost for these three alternatives are
small and the choice of the preferred method should be
determined during facilities planning. In this study,
vacuum filtration was used for cost comparisons.
The heat drying process was not considered economical
for dewatering a sludge slurry of 3—4 percent solids
concentration, due to the excessive amount of energy
required. However, heat drying was considered as a conver-
sion process to further reduce the moisture content following
a mechanical dewatering process when considering the Give
Away or Market Product option for ultimate disposal.
D. Conversion . All of the unconventional or exotic processes
have been eliminated because of the lack of extensive
operation experience to demonstrate their practicability and
cost—effectiveness.
E. Ultimate Disposal . Ocean disposal has been eliminated
because of EPA and public opposition to the use of the ocean
for sludge disposal.
The remaining unit processes which were considered for
developing alternative sludge management systems for the
coastal area treatment plants are shown in Table 3.2—28.
Elimination of Unit Processes for Inland Satellite Treatment
Plants
A. Thickening . Sludge generated at the satellite plants
consists of both primary sludge and secondary sludge. The
secondary sludge includes biological sludge irom the first
and second stage aeration processes, in addition to alum
sludge precipitated in the first stage aeration clarifiers.
Experience has shown that better solids concentrations and
operation can be attained by segregating the primary sludge
from the secondary sludge prior to the sludge thickening
process.
Air flotation has been selected as the method of
choice for thickening of the secondary sludge, since this
type of sludge is normally more amenable to air flotation
thickening than other thickening processes. Gravity
thickening and storage are of limited effectiveness when
applied to waste activated (secondary) sludge. Gravity
thickening has been selected as the method of choice for
thickening of the primary sludge. Gravity thickening is
more economical than air flotation and does not require
the addition of polymers. Storage has been eliminated as
a thickening process because of space constraints at the
satellite plants.
3—122
-------
( J
TABLE 3.2-28
REMAINING SLUDGE PROCESS ALTERNATIVES
FOR COASTAL PLANTS
Thickening Stabilization Dewatering Conversion Ultimate Disposal
Air flotation Aerobic digestion Drying beds Incineration Landfill
Anaerobic digestion Vacuum filtration Pyrolysis Give away or
market product
Pasteurization Pressure filtration Composting
Land application
Chemical äondit- Heat drying Co-incineration
ioning
-------
B. Stabilization . At the satellite plants, it has been
assumed that the thickened primary and secondary sludges
will be blended prior to further processing. This will
result in a more economical sizing of subsequent unit
processes.
Chemical oxidation by the Purifax process has been
eliminated from consideration because of the high chlorine
dosage required and the potential for generation of
chlorinated hydrocarbons. High temperature, high pressure
wet oxidation has been eliminated because of the numerous
operating problems and high maintenance costs experienced
with this process at other treatment plants. In addition,
irradiation has been eliminated because it is only in
the research and development stage.
Low pressure wet oxidation and heat treatment employ
similar equipment and incur comparable capital and operating
and maintenance costs. The main difference between the
two processes is that air is introduced to the reactor during
wet oxidation. For simplicity of analysis, the term heat
treatment has been used to describe a process which will
operate at a temperature of about 195°C (380°F), and at a
pressure of about l400kN/m 2 (200 psi). Low pressure wet
oxidation can be substituted for heat treatment in any of
the alternatives including this unit process.
Pasteurization differs from heat treatment only to the
extent that the process operates at lower temperatures and
pressures. Heat treatment, however, provides the added
benefit of eliminating the need for additional chemicals
in subsequent dewatering steps, while providing pathogen
destruction. Therefore, heat treatment was used in lieu
of pasteurization for those alternatives involving a heat
disinfection step.
For combined sludges, experience has shown that
anaerobic digestion is more cost—effective than aerobic
digestion. While the capital cost of anaerobic digestion
is higher than aerobic digestion, this is more than offset
by the energy value of the gas produced during anaerobic
digestion. Aerobic digestion has been applied mainly to
secondary sludges or at small treatment plants. In
addition, a higher degree of volatile solids reduction
can be achieved by anaerobic digestion. Therefore
aerobic digestion was eliminated in favor of anaerobic
digestion for the satellite plant alternatives incorporating
a digestion process.
C. Dewatering . Centrifuges, horizontal belt filters and
vacuum filters were considered as equivalent processes
for the purpose of this analysis. Each of these unit
operations is capable of attaining similar solids con-
centration and solids capture. Differences in unit cost
3—124
-------
for these three alternatives are small and the choice
of the preferred method should be determined during
facilities planning. In this study, vacuum filtration
was used for cost comparisons. However, belt filters
and centrifuges can be substituted for vacuum filtration
in any of the alternatives involving this unit process.
D. Conversion . All the exotic or unconventional conver-
sion processes have been eliminated because of the lack
of extensive operating experience to demonstrate their
practicability and cost-effectiveness.
E. Ultimate Disposal . Ocean disposal has been eliminated
because of EPA and public opposition to the use of the ocean
for sludge disposal.
The remaining unit processes which were considered
for developing sludge management systems for the inland
satellite treatment plants are shown in Table 3.2-29.
3—125
-------
TABLE 3.2-29
REMAINING SLUDGE PROCESS ALTERNATIVES
FOR SATELLITE PLANTS
Thickenin9 Stabilization Dewatering Conversion Ultimate Disposal
Gravity Anaerobic digestion Vacuum filtration Incineration Landfill
Air flotation Heat treatment Pressure filtration Pyrolysis Give away or market
product
Chemical condit- Heat drying Composting
ioning Land application
Resource recovery
center
Truck to coastal plant
-------
3.3 INTERMEDIATE SCREENING OF SUBSYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
3.3.1. Coastal Area Wastewater Treatment Plants
The coastal area wastewater treatment plants sites
considered which survived the preliminary screening process
were: Broad Meadows; Deer Island: Long Island; Nut Island
(for expansion of primary treatment facilities only); and
Squantum Point. Combinations of possible degrees of
treatment (primary only, secondary only, and both primary
and secondary) at the various remaining alternative sites
were developed into alternative coastal area wastewater
treatment plant subsystems. These subsystem alternatives
were then evaluated both with and without satellite
wastewater treatment plants.
In all alternatives that consider satellite plants
one satellite plant would be located along the Charles
River and one would be located along the Neponset River.
The satellite plants would treat wastewaters from the
outer areas of the southern MSD service area. Therefore,
when satellite plants are considered, the coastal area
plant treating the remainder of the wastewater generated
in the southern MSD service area would receive less flow
than when satellite plants are not considered.
Each coastal area treatment plant alternative can
be considered to be a combination of five elements, as
follows:
1 - The location of primary treatment facilities for
the wastewater from the northern MSD service area.
2 - The location of secondary treatment facilities
for the wastewater from the northern MSD service
area.
3 - The location of primary treatment facilities
for the wastewater from the southern MSD service
area.
4 - The location of secondary treatment facilities
for the wastewater from the southern MSD service
area.
5 — Inclusion or exclusion of inland satellite
treatment plants.
As a result of the preliminary screening process, the
following coastal area wastewater treatment plant subsystem
alternatives were developed:
3—127
-------
During the preliminary screening process it was
determined that, due to the relatively recent construction
(1968) and good condition of the existing Deer Island
Primary Treatment Plant, these facilities should be
maintained and expanded as necessary in order to provide
at least primary treatment to the wastewater generated
in the northern MSD service area. Therefore, all
alternatives consider primary treatment facilities for
the northern service area flow to be located on Deer Island.
In order to facilitate the discussion of these alter-
natives, each alternative will be referred to in an
abbreviated form. For example, Alternative G, which
consists of primary treatment facilities for the northern
service area at Deer Island, secondary treatment facilities
for the northern service area at Long Island, primary
treatment facilities for the southern service area at
Nut Island and secondary treatment facilities for the
southern service area at Long Island, and does not include
inland satellite treatment plants, would be designated:
“Deer: Long/ Nut: Long — w/o Sat.”. Therefore, the sixteen
alternatives under consideration in this section can be
designated as follows:
Deer! Broad Meadows: Broad Meadows - w/o Sat.
Deer! Broad Meadows: Broad Meadows - w/Sat.
Deer! Squantwn: Squantum — w,/o Sat.
Deer/ Squantum: Squantum - w/Sat.
Deer/ Long: Long - w,’o Sat.
Deer! Long: Long - w/Sat.
Long! Nut: Long - w ’o Sat.
North Flow
Loc. of
Primary
Alt. Treatment
Loc. of
Secondary
Treatment
South Flow
Loc. of Loc. of
Primary Secondary
Treatment Treatment
A Deer
B Deer
C Deer
D Deer
E Deer
F Deer
G Deer
H Deer
I Deer
J Deer
K Deer
L Deer
M Deer
N Deer
0 Deer
P Deer
Brd. Head.
Brd. Mead.
S qua n turn
Squantuxn
Isi.
Isi.
Isi.
Isl.
Isi.
Isi.
Isi.
Isl.
Isl.
Isi.
Isi.
Isl.
Isi.
Isi.
Isi.
Isi.
Deer
Deer
Deer
Deer
Deer
Deer
Long
Long
Deer
Deer
Long
Long
Deer
Deer
Deer
Deer
Isi.
Isl.
Isi.
Isi.
Isi.
Isl.
Isi.
Isi.
Isl.
Isi.
Isl.
Isi.
Isi.
Isl.
Isi.
Isi.
Brd. Mead.
Brd. Mead.
Squantuin
Squantuin
Long Isi.
Long Isi.
Nut Isl.
Nut Isi.
Nut Isl.
Nut Isi.
Long Isl.
Long Isi.
Nut Isi.
Nut Isi.
Deer Isi.
Deer Isi.
Sats. or
No Sats .
No Sats.
Sats.
No Sats.
Sats.
No Sats.
Sats.
No Sats.
Sats.
No Sats.
Sats.
No Sats.
Sats.
No Sats.
Sats.
No Sats.
Sats.
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Deer
Deer
Deer
Deer
Isi.
Isi.
Isi.
Isi.
Isi.
Isi.
Isi.
Isi.
Isi.
Isi.
Isi.
Isi.
A.
B.
C.
D.
‘ E.
F.
‘ G.
Deer:
Deer:
Deer:
Deer:
Deer:
Deer:
Deer:
3—128
-------
H. Deer: Long/ Nut: Long - w/Sat.
I. Deer: Deer/ Nut: Long - w/o Sat.
J. Deer: Deer/ Nut: Long - w/Sat.
K. Deer: Long/ Long: Long - w/o Sat.
L. Deer: Long/ Long: Long - w/Sat.
M. Deer: Deer/ Nut: Deer — w/o Sat.
N. Deer: Deer! Nut: Deer - w/Sat.
0. Deer: Deer/ Deer: Deer — w/o Sat.
P. Deer: Deer/ Deer: Deer — w/Sat.
The sixteen subsystem alternatives listed above are
described in more detail below. For intermediate screening
purposes, the quantities of wastewater assumed to be flowing
to the various plants are those which the EMMA Study estimated
will be generated in the various portions of the MSD service
area in the year 2000. These quantities of flow are:
Total MSD service area 2,220,000 m 3 /day (586 mgd)
Northern MSD service area 1,510,000 m 3 /day (400 mgd)
Southern MSD service area
without satellites 700,000 m 3 /day (186 mgd)
Southern MSD service area
with satellites 490,000 m 3 /day (130 mgd)
Satellite areas 210,000 m 3 /day (56 mgd)
A. Deer: Deer/ Broad Meadows: Broad Meadows - w/o Sat . In
this alternative, the wastewater from the northern MSD service
area would receive primary and secondary treatment at Deer
Island and the wastewater from the southern MSD service area
would receive primary and secondary treatment at Broad Meadows.
The existing primary treatmer.t facilities on Deer Island
would be expanded and secondary treatment facilities would
be constructed. In order to expand and upgrade the Deer
Island plant as required including provision for future
expansion (year 2050), without adding fill to Boston Harbor,
it would be necessary to utilize either the land presently
occupied by the prison or the drumlin area. Utilizing the
area occupied by the prison would require that all prison
facilities be removed from the island. Utilizing the drumlin
area would require the removal of the drumlin. The expansion
of the existing Deer Island Primary Treatment Plant would
enable most of the existing plant facilities to be utilized
in the upgraded plant.
The Brqad Meadows site has adequate area to accommodate
a 700,000 m ’/day (186 mgd) plant with provision for future
expansion (year 2050) and a buffer zone of approximately
152 meters (500 feet) to the nearest residence. The portion
of the High Level Sewer between Broad Meadows and Nut Island
would be utilized as a plant effluent conduit which would
transport the effluent from the Broad Meadows plant to
the existing Nut Island oütfalls. The hydraulic capacity
3—129
-------
of this portion of the High Level Sewer is adequate for average
flows, but a relief conduit would be required to transport peak
flows to Nut Island. Placing the plant at Broad Meadows would
enable the existing Nut Island Primary Treatment Plant to be
demolished. A pumping station would be required on Nut
Island for effluent discharge into the existing outfalls during
periods of above average flows and high tides. It is estimated
that the pumping station would operate approximately 35
percent of the time. A lift station would also be required
on Nut Island in order to lift the wastewater from the relief
conduit to the outfall system. The remainder of Nut Island would
then be available for other purposes, possibly for recreation.
In addition, plant influent and effluent conduits would be
required to connect the plant to the existing High Level Sewer,
a new interceptor would be required to transport the waste —
water from the Houghs Neck peninsula and the Braintree—
Weymouth Pumping Station to the Broad Meadows plant influent
conduit, and the existing Nut Island outfall system would
require modifications.
B. Deer: Deer/ Broad Meadows: Broad Meadows - w/Sat . This
alternative is similar to Alternative A described above,
except that approximately 30 percent of the wastewater from
the southern MSD service area would receive tertiary treat-
ment at two satellite treatment plants on the Charles and
Neponset Rivers, thereby reducing the amount of wastewater
requiring treatment at a plant at Broad Meadows. Therefore,
a Broad Meadows treatment plant for this alternative-would
be smaller than the corresponding plant in Alternative A,
thereby increasing the buffer zone to the nearest residence
to approximately 213 meters (700 feet). The High Level
Sewer would have adequate capacity to transport the peak
flow from this treatment plant at Broad Meadows to the Nut
Island outfall system and, therefore, it would not be
necessary to construct a relief conduit or a lift station
as would be required in Alternative A.
C. Deer: Deer/ Sguantum: Squantum - w/o Sat . In this
alternative, the wastewater from the northern MSD service
area would receive primary and secondary treatment at
Deer Island and the wastewater from the southern MSD
service area would receive primary and secondary treatment
at Squantum Point. The facilities at Deer Island would
be expanded and upgraded as described for Alternative A.
The Squantum Point site is remotely located from
existing residential areas. The site is of adequate area
to accommodate a 700,000 m 3 /day (186 mgd) treatment plant
with provision for future expansion (year 2050) and a buffer
zone of more than 107 meters (350 feet) between the plant
and a nearby marina. The buffer zone between the plant and
the adjacent Jordan Marsh warehouse would be more than
91 meters (300 feet).
3—130
-------
The Squantum site is nearly 6.4 kilometers (4 miles)
from the existing High Level Sewer, which is the main
interceptor in the southern MSD service area. The High
Level Sewer would be utilized to transport the plant
effluent to the Nut Island outfalls, which would require
modifications. It would be necessary to construct influent
and effluent conduits between the High Level Sewer and the
Squantum plant site. As the High Level Sewer would not
have adequate capacity to handle peak flows from the plant,
a relief conduit to Nut Island would be required. A lift
station would be required on Nut Island to lift the
wastewater from the relief conduit to the outfall system.
In addition, a new interceptor to transport the wastewaters
from the Houghs Neck peninsula and the Braintree —Weyrnouth
Pumping Station to the Squantum plant influent conduit
would also be required. The existing Nut Island Primary
Treatment Plant could be demolished, and an effluent
pumping station would be required at Nut Island to permit
discharge of peak flows at periods of high tides. It
is estimated that this pumping station would be required
to operate approximately 35 percent of the time.
D. Deer: Deer! Squantum: Squantum - w/Sat . This alter-
native is similar to Alternative C discussed above, except
that the quantity of wastewater reaching the treatment
plant at Squantum would be reduced by about 210,000
m3/day (56 mgd) due to the addition of two satellite
treatment plants on the Charles and Neponset Rivers.
Therefore, the Squantum treatment plant for this alternative
would be smaller than the corresponding plant in Alternative
C, resulting in an increase of the buffer zone between the
treatment plant and the marina to approximately 244 meters
(800 feet), and between the treatment plant and the Jordan-
Marsh warehouse to approximately 183 meters (600 feet).
It would be possible to utilize the High Level Sewer
without relief to transport the plant effluent to the Nut
Island outfalls.
E. Deer: Deer! Long: Long - w/o Sat . In this alternative,
the wastewater flow from the northern MSD service area would
receive primary and secondary treatment at Deer Island, and
the wastewater from the southern MSD service area would
receive primary and secondary treatment at Long Island.
The expansion and upgrading of the Deer Island Treatment
facilities is described in Alternative A.
Long Island was, as a result of the preliminary
screening, considered to be the most acceptable harbor
island alternative site for treatment plant construction
(not including Deer and Nut islands which are no longer
true islands) from both environmental and engineering
considerations. Construction of the treatment plant for
the southern MSD service area at this location would
require approximately 23.5 hectares (58 acres) of developable
3—131
-------
land on Long Island. Long Island has adequate area for the
construction of a treatment plant of this size without
requiring relocation of the cemeteries which exist on the
island or filling of the harbor. Extensive regrading of
the site would be required. A buffer zone in excess of 518
meters (1700 feet) could be maintained between the existing
hospital on Long Island and the treatment plant. The site
is remote from residential areas.
A submerged pipeline would be required across Boston
Harbor to connect the treatment plant on Long Island to
the end of the existing interceptor system at Nut Island.
It would be necessary to construct a headworks on Nut Island
to provide preliminary treatment (screens and grit chambers)
for the wastewater before it is transported to Long Island
for treatment. The High Level Sewer would not have adequate
capacity to carry peak flows to Nut Island. Therefore, a
relief sewer to Nut Island would be required. A lift station
would also be required on Nut Island to lift the wastewater
from the relief sewer to the headworks. Although siting
the plant on Long Island is contrary to the use of Long
Island recommended in the Boston Harbor Islands Comprehensive
Plan, it was felt that this alternative was justifiable
as it provided compensating benefits. Most of Nut Island
would become available for recreational development, there
would still be considerable area for recreational develop-
ment on Long Island, and filling of the bay would not be
necessary.
F. Deer: Deer! Long: Long — w/Sat . This alternative is
similar to Alternative E, except that about 30 percent
of the wastewater from the southern MSD service area would
receive tertiary treatment at two satellite plants. The
resulting decrease in wastewater which would reach Long
Island reduces the treatment plant area requirements to
approximately 154 hectares (38 acres), and the buffer
zone between the treatment plant and the hospital would
increase to more than 579 meters (1900 feet). A submerged
pipeline across Boston Harbor, connecting the treatment
plant on Long Island to the end of the existing interceptor
system on Nut Island, and a headworks on Nut Island would be
required, but would not be as large as those required for
Alternative E. It would be possible to utilize the High
Level Sewer without relief to transport the wastewater to
the headworks on Nut Island.
G. Deer: Long/ Nut: Long - w/o Sat . In this alternative,
the wastewater from the northern M D service area and from
the southern MSD service area would receive primary treat-
ment at Deer and Nut Islands, respectively. The primary
effluent from both primary treatment plants would flow to
Long Island, where secondary treatment would be provided.
The existing primary treatment facilities on Deer
Island would have to be expanded due to the anticipated
3—132
-------
increase in the quantity of wastewater generated in the
MSD. This expansion to the primary treatment facilities
would be possible without encroaching on the land presently
occupied by the prison or the drumlin, and without adding
any fill to the harbor. Similarly, the existing primary
treatment facilities on Nut Island would require expansion.
This expansion on Nut Island would require about 1.2 hectares
(3 acres) of fill.
The construction of secondary treatment facilities on
Long Island to treat the primary effluent from both the
Deer and Nut Island primary treatment plants would require
approximately 40.5 hectares (100 acres) of land. This
area is available on Long Island, and a buffer zone of
about 91.4 meters (300 feet) could be maintained between
the treatment plant and the existing hospital. However,
most of the area which was recommended for recreational
development by the Boston Harbor Islands Comprehensive Plan
would be utilized by treatment facilities. In addition, it
would be necessary to construct submerged pipelines across
Boston Harbor which would connect the treatment plants on
Deer and Nut Islands to the treatment plant on Long Island.
The High Level Sewer, which carries the wastewater to
the Nut Island facility, would not have adequate capacity
to carry peak flows. Therefore, a relief sewer to Nut
Island would be required, and a lift station would be
required on Nut Island to lift the wastewater from the
relief sewer to the treatment facilities on Nut Island.
H. Deer: Long! Nut: Long - w/Sat . This alternative is
similar to Alternative G, except that the inclusion of
satellite treatment plant would reduce the quantity of
wastewater reaching the Nut Island and Long Island plants.
It is possible that the necessary expansion of the primary
treatment facilities on Nut Island could be accomplished
without requiring any fill. The area required on Long
Island for the secondary treatment facilities would be
reduced to about 36.4 hectares (90 acres), and the pipeline
across Boston Harbor from Nut to Long Island would be of
a smaller size than would be required under Alternative
G. It would be possible to utilize the High Level Sewer
without relief to transport the wastewater to the Nut
Island facilities.
I. Deer: Deer! Nut: Long — w/o Sat . In this alternative,
the wastewater from the northern MSD service area would
receive primary and secondary treatment at Deer Island,
and the wastewater from the southern MSD service area would
receive primary treatment at Nut Island and secondary
treatment at Long Island. The existing primary treatment
facilities on Deer Island would require expansion and
upgrading as discussed for Alternative A.
3—133
-------
The existing primary treatment facilities on Nut
Island would require expansion in order to handle the
increase in wastewater flow anticipated. This expansion
would require approximately 1.2 hectares (3 acres) of fill.
A relief sewer would be required to carry peak flows to the
Nut Island facilittes, and a lift station would be required
on Nut Island to lift the wastewater from the relief sewer
to the plant.
The construction of facilities on Long Island which
would give secondary treatment to the effluent from the
primary treatment plant on Nut. Is1ar d would require approx-
imately 14.2 hectares (35 acres) of land. Most of the open
space on Long Island would remain available for recreational
purposes. Construction of a submerged pipeline across
Boston Harbor from Nut to Long Island would be required
to transport the primary effluent to the secondary treatment
facilities.
J. Deer: Deer/ Nut: Long - w/Sat . This alternative is
similar to Alternative I, except that the construction of
satellite plants would reduce the quantity of wastewater
reaching the Nut and Long Island plants. The expansion of
the primary treatment facilities on Nut Island could
possibly be accomplished without requiring any fill, and
the area required on Long Island for the secondary treat-
ment facilities would be reduced to about 9.3 hectares
(23 acres). The pipeline across Boston Harbor, from Nut
to Long Island, would be smaller in size than would be
required under Alternative I, and the High Level Sewer
would not require any relief.
K. Deer: Long/ Long: Long w/o Sat . In this alternative,
the wastewater from the northern MSD service area would
receive primary treatment at Deer Island and secondary
treatment at Long Island. The wastewater from the southern
MSD service area would receive primary and secondary
treatment at Long Island.
The necessary expansion of the existing primary
treatment facilities on Deer Island would be possible
without encroaching on the land presently occupied by
the prison or the drumlin, and without adding any fill
to the harbor. A submerged pipeline across the President
Roads Channel would be required to transport primary effluent
from Deer Island to the treatment facilities on Long
Island.
The treatment plant on Long Island would occupy
approximately 46.5 hectares (115 acres) of land. This
would require utilizing most of the available area south
of the hospital at d approximately 2 hectares (5 acres) of
fill for a roadway corridor to provide access to the hospital.
3—134
-------
Extensive regrading would be required, and a buffer zone
of approximately 91 meters (300 feet) could be maintained
between the treatment plant and the hospital. It would be
necessary to relocate the cemetery which is presently on
Long Island.
The existing primary treatment facilities on Nut
Island would be demolished. A headworks would be required
to provide preliminary treatment for the wastewater before
it is transported to Long Island. The High Level Sewer
would require relief, and a lift station would be required
on Nut Island. With the exception of the area required
for the headworks and the lift station, the remainder of
Nut Island would become available for other purposes, such
as recreation. A submerged pipeline across the Nantasket
Roads Channel would be required to transport the effluent
from the headworks on Nut Island to the treatment facilities
on Long Island.
L. Deer: Long! Long: Long - w/Sat . This alternative is
similar to Alternative K, except that the construction of
satellite treatment plants would reduce the quantity of
wastewater flowing to the treatment plant on Long Island.
The area required on Long Island for wastewater treatment
facilities would be reduced to approximately 40.5 hectares
(100 acres), and the pipeline across the Nantasket Roads
Channel would be of a smaller size than would be required
under Alternative K. Although this alternative requires
about 6.1 hectares (15 acres) less land that does Alternative
K, it is anticipated that, due to the shape of Long Island
and the limitations on treatment plant configuration, it
would still be necessary to add about 2 hectares (5 acres)
of fill and to utilize the land presently occupied by the
cemetery. The High Level Sewer would not require relief,
a lift station would not be required on Nut Island, and the
required headworks on Nut Island would be smaller than
would be required under Alternative K.
M. Deer: Deer! Nut: Deer — w/o Sat . In this alternative,
the wastewater from the northern MSD service area would
receive primary and secondary treatment at Deer Island,
and the wastewater from the southern MSD service area would
receive primary treatment at Nut Island and secondary
treatment at Deer Island.
On Deer Island, the existing primary treatment
facilities would be expanded and the required secondary
treatment facilities would be constructed. In order to
construct these facilities on Deer Island without adding
fill to Boston Harbor, it would be necessary to utilize
most of the island including the land presently occupied
by the prison, the drumlin area, and more than half of the
southern end which the Boston Harbor Islands Comprehensive
Plan recommended being used for rec eationa1 purposes.
3—135
-------
Otherwise, depending upon which parts of the island were
to remain unoccupied by treatment facilities, from about 4
to 24 hectares (10 to 60 acres) of fill would be required.
It would be necessary to expand the existing primary
treatment facilities on Nut Island, and this expansion
would require about 1.2 hectares (3 acres) of fill. A
relief sewer would be required to augment the capacity of
the High Level Sewer, and a lift station would be required
on Nut Island. In addition, it would be necessary to
construct a submerged pipeline across Boston Harbor which
would transport the primary effluent from Nut Island to
the treatment facilities on Deer Island.
N. Deer: Deer/ Nut: Deer - w/Sat . This alternative is
similar to Alternative M, except that satellite treatment
plants would treat about 30 percent of the wastewater from
the southern MSD service area, thereby reducing the quantity
of wastewater reaching the Nut Island and Deer Island
treatment plants. The area required for treatment facilities
on Deer Island would be reduced so that less than half of
the area recommended for recreational development would be
utilized by treatment facilities. The High Level Sewer
would not require relief, and a lift station would not be
required on Nut Island. Also, it is possible that the
necessary expansion of the primary treatment facilities
on Nut Island could be accomplished without requiring
any fill, and the size of the pipeline across Boston Harbor
would be smaller than would be required under Alternative M.
0. Deer: Deer! Deer: Deer — w/o Sat . This alternative
represents the greatest consolidation of wastewater treatment
facilities. The wastewater from the entire MSD service
area would receive primary and secondary treatment at
Deer Island.
The existing primary treatment facilities on Deer
Island would be expanded, and the required secondary treat—
ment facilities would be constructed. In order to eliminate
the need to add fill to Boston Harbor, the resulting treat-
ment plant would occupy the entire island, including the
land presently occupied by the prison, the drumlin area,
and most of the southern end.
On Nut Island, the existing primary treatment facilities
would be demolished. A headworks consisting of screens
and grit chambers would be required to provide preliminary
treatment for the wastewater before it is transported to
Deer Island. A relief sewer would be required to augment
the capacity of the High Level Sewer, and a lift station
would be required on Nut Island to lift the wastewater
from the relief sewer to the headworks on Nut Island.
With the exception of the area required for the headworks,
3—136
-------
and lift station, the remainder of Nut Island would become
available for other purposes, perhaps recreation. It would
be necessary to construct a submerged pipeline across
Boston Harbor which would transport the wastewater from
the headworks on Nut Island to the treatment facilities
on Deer Island.
p. Deer: Deer/ Deer: Deer - w/Sat . This alternative is
similar to Alternative 0, except that the construction of
satellite treatment plants reduces the quantity of waste—
water flowing to the headworks on Nut Island and the
treatment facilities on Deer Island. The area required
for treatment facilities on Deer Island would be reduced
so that approximately half of the land at the southern
end of the island would be available for recreational
purposes, and the size of the pipeline across Boston
Harbor would be reduced. The High Level Sewer would not
require relief, a lift station would not be required on
Nut Island, and the headworks on Nut Island would be smaller
than required for Alternative 0.
3—137
-------
3.3.2. Elimination of Coastal Area Treatment Plant
Subsystem Alternatives
The previous section described 16 coastal area treatment
plant subsystem alternatives (8 with and 8 without satellite
plants) to be considered during the intermediate screening
process. These alternatives were designated by the letters
A through P.
Alternatives E,F,K,L,O and P are similar to alternatives
I,J,G,H,M and N respectively, with the exception that the
former group of alternatives consider placing both the
primary and secondary treatment facilities for the flow
from the southern MSD service area at a single location,
whereas the latter group consider primary treatment
facilities for the southern service area at Nut Island,
and secondary treatment facilities at a separate location.
As discussed previously, the existing Nut Island
Primary Treatment Plant is in need of extensive renovation
and modernization to provide efficient primary treatment,
as nearly every portion of the treatment process requires
some form of upgrading, maintenance work, or replacement.
Preliminary cost estimates indicate that it would cost about
the same amount to revamp and expand the existing primary
treatment facilities on Nut Island as it would to construct
new primary treatment facilities elsewhere. In addition,
separate primary and secondary plants would require additional
facilities which would not be required for a combined primary
and secondary treatment plant, such as an additional
administration building and an additional pumping station
to pump the effluent from the primary plant to the secondary
plant. Also, it would require more men to operate and
maintain separate facilities than to operate and maintain
a combined facility. It is estimated that separate
facilities would cost about $7,000,000 to $10,000,000 more
to construct and at least $1,000,000 more per year to
operate and maintain than would combined facilities.
The difference in construction costs would probably
be somewhat, although not completely, offset by the cost of
demolishing the existing Nut Island treatment facilities.
The demolition of the existing facilities would allow
Nut Island to be utilized for other purposes.
Based on the factors discussed above, alternatives
G,H,I,J,M and N have been eliminated from further consider—
ation.
Alternatives E and F consider locating primary and
secondary treatment facilities for the wastewater from
the southern MSD service area on Long Island. Alternatives
A and B consider locating these facilities at Broad Meadows,
3—1g8
-------
and alternatives C and D consider locating these facilities
at Squantum. There are several factors which make utilizing
Long Island unattractive as compared to locating the
facilities at Broad Meadows or Squantum. These are:
A large submarine pipeline would be required from
Nut to Long Island.
Access to Long Island is limited to the causeway
which connects Moon and Long Islands with the
mainland.
Use of Long Island for wastewater treatment
facilities would conflict with the Boston
Harbor Islands Comprehensive Plan.
Implementation problems can be expected when
attempting to locate wastewater treatment
facilities in the vicinity of Long Island Hospital.
Therefore, alternatives E and F were eliminated from
further consideration since more favorable sites exist.
The best use of Long Island for the purpose of
wastewater management would be to locate primary and
secondary treatment facilities to serve the southern MSD
service area and secondary treatment facilities for the
northern MSD service area on the Island (alternatives K
and L), thereby minimizing the impacts on both Deer and Nut
Islands. (As discussed in Section 3.2.2.,due to the 4ood
condition of the existing Deer Island Primary Treatment
Plant, the wastewater from the northern MSD service area
should continue to receive primary treatment at Deer Island).
A comparison between these Long Island alternatives (K and
L) and the alternatives which locate all coastal area
treatment facilities on Deer Island (alternatives 0 and P)
results in the following observations:
Although both the Long Island and Deer Island
alternatives require the construction of a tunnel
across President Roads, the cross—sectional area of
the tunnel required for the Long Island alternatives
would be about 2 to 3 times the area required for the
Deer Island alternative.
The Long Island alternatives require facilities at two
separate locations (Deer and Long Islands), whereas
the Deer Island alternatives require facilities at
only one location (Deer Island).
The Long Island alternatives require two additional
pumping stations, one for an average flow of 490,000
or 700,000 m 3 /day (130 or 186 mgd) at Nut Island and
3- l39
-------
one for an average flow of 1,510,000 m 3 /day (400 mgd)
at Deer Island. The Deer Island alternatives require
only one additional pumping station, for an average
flow of 490,000 or 700,000 m 3 /day (130 or 186 rngd)
at Nut Island.
The Long Island alternatives would require using most
of the land available on Long Island for treatment
facilities, including land presently occupied by a
Civil War Cemetery, an area which supports a diverse
population of wildlife species, more than 40.5
hectares (100 acres) of land which is presently
proposed for recreational facilities, and would
require about 2 hectares (5 acres) of fill into Boston
Harbor. In addition, treatment facilities would be
located about 91 meters (300 feet) from Long Island
Hospital. The Deer Island alternatives would require
using most of the prison area, and south end. It
would be possible, but not desirable, to build
around the prison facilities. The addition of fill at
Deer Island is not anticipated. Although the Boston Harbor
Islands Comprehensive Plan recommends using the
drumlin and south end of Deer Island and the open
space on Long Island for recreational purposes, it
did recognize the possible expansion requirements
of the Deer Island Treatment Plant.
In view of the above comparison, the Deer Island
alternatives appear more attractive from economic, engineer-
ing and environmental points of view and, therefore, alter-
natives K and L have been eliminated from further consider-
ation.
The alternatives remaining after the intermediate
screening process are the following:
Alternative A . Primary and secondary treatment
facilities at Deer Island to serve the northern
MSD service area and primary and secondary treatment
facilities at Broad Meadows to serve the southern MSD
service area. Does not include inland satellite
treatment plants.
Alternative B . Similar to Alternative A, except
that inland satellite treatment plants are included.
Alternative C . Primary and secondary treatment
facilities at Deer Island to serve the northern MSD
service area and primary and secondary treatment
facilities at Squantuiti to serve the southern MSD
service area. Does not include inland satellite
treatment plants.
3—140
-------
Alternative D . Similar to Alternative C, except
that inland satellite treatment plants are included.
Alternative 0 . Primary and secondary treatment
facilities for the entire MSD service area at Deer
Island. Does not include inland satellite treatment
plants.
Alternative P . Similar to Alternative 0, except
that inland satellite treatment plants are included.
3—141
-------
3.3.3. Inland Satellite Wastewater Treatment Plants
A. Sites . The intermediate screening process for satellite
treatment plants was conceived to be that part of the study
in whiCh detailed environmental and engineering data were
developed on a smaller group of sites in order to permit a
comparison among these remaining sites and the selection of
one site for each basin. However, t1 e results of the water
quality analyses altered this strategy.
Neponset River
Six sites were evaluated for the proposed Neponset River
treatment facility. Prior to the determination that the ef flu-
ent discharge would not meet water quality standards, addi-
tional data on these sites was developed. This data is pre-
sented here for the record even though the concept of a
Neponset River treatment facility was dropped at this stage.
At the time that the decision to eliminate this facility was
made, a selection among the six sites had not been made.
Site 5 - Star Market, Norwood . This property is owned
by the Star Market Company and is approximately 12.1 hectares
(30 acres) in size. The site is bordered by the Star Market
Distribution Center and by a golf course. It can be charac-
terized as a flat, filled area vegetated by mixed grasses
and brush. The wildlife value and aesthetic value of the
site is low. Purgatory Brook flows adjacent to the site,
but the site’s flood potential is low. Two easements traverse
the site, a powerline easement and an MDC easement. Both road
and rail access are excellent.
If additional land were to become necessary for buffer-
ing or to acconmtodate certain sludge options (such as com-
posting), there appears to be suitable land lying west of the
Star Market site.
Advantages of this location include compatability with
the industrial zoning of the area, adequate distance from
residential areas, good access, and minimal impacts on the
natural environment. The discharge point associated with
this site would be located downstream of the Canton/Dedham
Water Company well fields.
The major disadvantage of this site is its location irnme-
diately adjacent to a major food hand1 ,ng facility. The exist-
ing Star Market facility is a 32,516 m (350,000 square feet)
distribution center which services 61 food stores in four New
England states. Since the danger of contamination via biologi-
cal aerosols cannot be completed discounted, and in light of
the great potential for exposure that this food distribution center
3—142
-------
offers, this must be considered a significant drawback to
this site. In addition, the management of Star Market has
voiced their opposition to this site on the basis of this
sanitation hazard, the public’s perception of this hazard
(and its potential ramifications on their business activity)
and the fact that Star Market has included this site in their
long range plans for contiguous expansion.
Sites 3 and 8 - Old Drag Strip and Norwood Arena, Norwood .
These sites are considered here as one, even though they were
treated separately by the Upper Neponset Site Selection Commit-
tee. In all, there exists over 28.3 hectares (70 acres) of
land on this site which lie above flood elevation. The area
is presently vacant with remnants of the arena and drag strip
remaining. Vegetation consists mainly of mixed grasses and
shrubs. Site preparation requirements would appear to be
minimal.
The site is bordered by Route ]., a lumberyard, an auto
dealer (across the highway) and the Neponset River. The wild-
life and aesthetic value of this location is low, and it is
not subject to flooding. Road access is good but rail access
18 poor.
The entire site has recently been acquired by Appendger,
Inc. (Faded Glory) of University Avenue, Norwood. The com-
pany has received approval by the town for a proposed indus-
trial complex and plans to relocate at this location.
Advantages of this location include compatability with
existing land uses. The site can be adequately screened
from residences across the river. Other advantages include
good access, minimal interceptor and outfall requirements
and minimal impacts on the natural environment.
The main disadvantage of this site is that the place-
ment of a treatment facility here may displace a planned
industrial use.
During the course of this study, Mr. David Aransky, an
adjacent landowner expressed his interest in selling his
property for the treatment plant site. Mr. Aransky’s property
lies southeast of the Norwood Arena Site and on lower ground.
The site comprises over 40.5 hectares (100 acres). The main
disadvantage of this site is that it is subject to flooding
during periods of severe runoff. The effect of filling in
this area on present flood stages in adjacent areas has not
been determined. If treatment facilities could be placed on
this site without appreciably affecting flood conditions and
wetlands in adjacent areas, this site would be feasible.
3—143
-------
Sites 6 and 7 — Dedham Street, Canton . This site (con—
sidered as one) is a natural flat area with piles of dirt and
debris scattered throughout. The site is located adjacent to
1-95, in an industrial area, Vegetation consists of mixed
grasses and hardWood seedlings and saplings. Much of the site
is bare and devoid of vegetation, and the wildlife and aes-
thetic value is low. A small drainage stream crosses the
northern part of the site, but it can be avoided. Flood
potential is low.
This site is currently slated for development by a local
construction company. The owner has speculated that the devel-
opment of the site may occur over a five year period. In this
regard, concern has been raised at the public workshops over
the economic loss to the town that would be incurred by devel-
opment of the site for a non-taxable facility.
Advantages of this locait.ion include compatability with
the industrial area, good access (especially rail) and minimal
impacts on the natural environment.
Site 9 — Knoll Across River from Norwood Airport, Canton .
This site consists of an open field and a knoll adjacent to
Route 1—95. Its elevation ranges from 15.2 meters (50 feet)
to 30.5 meters (100 feet) above mean sea level. It is situ-
ated across the Neponset River from Norwood Airport and is in
an isolated location. Owned by Roseland Properties Trust
(University Road, Canton), the site includes a total of 32.4
ha (80 ac), although only 12.1 ha (30 ac) are located on the
knoll above the maximum flood elevation. Vegetative cover
includes a mixture of oaks, hickory, pitch pine and mixed
grasses. Bedrock is present and accounts for the structure
of the knoll. This has been identified as a part of the Warn—
sutta formation, which is a fine—grained red sandstone.
Of the sites being considered at this time in the Nepon—
set Basin, primary construction-related impacts would be
greatest at this location. However, these effects are not
highly significant nor do they impact upon unique or endan-
gered species. A minimal impact upon the local tax base is
anticipated as this site does not have a high probability for
development. Access by road and rail is presently poor but
could easily be developed.
Overall, this site has a significant advantage due to
its isolated location. Environmental impacts are considered
to be acceptable. Disadvantages include the presence of some
steeply sloped areas in the vicinity of the knoll, and the
need for extensive site preparation.
3—144
-------
Charles River
For the Charles River, the water quality analysis con-
ducted in the preliminary screening stage determined that the
South Natick Darn was more appropriate as a discharge point
than the Cochrane Dam. Since the distance from a potential
site to the discharge point was a significant factor in the
preliminary screening process, a shift in the discharge point
would require a check on the previous elimination of sites
to determine if any were eliminated based on distance from
the Cochrane Darn. With a shift in discharge point, such sites
might again be feasible.
Site #9 (Off Eliot St., South Natick) . Site #9 is well
located with respect to the new discharge point. However,
the main reasons for elimination of this site relate more to
site size than location. Therefore, the site remains infeas-
ible with the relocated discharge point.
Site #14 (Pond Road, Wellesley) . Site #14 was eliminated
due to distance from the Cochrane Dam and the location, charac-
ter, and value of the site itself. While this site is closer
to the South Natick Dam than to the Cochrane Darn, it was
determined that the site should still be considered in the
eliminated category due to its previously mentioned high
aesthetic value.
Site #16 ( ravel pits, Routes 128 and 20, Weston) . Site
#16 had been eliminated because of its extreme distance of
nearly 12.9 km (8 mi) from the Cochrane Dam. This site is
not much closer to the South Natick Dam (more than 11.3 km
or 7 mi), and therefore, it remains in the eliminated cate-
gory.
Since the water quality analysis indicated that a dis-
charge in the stream segment above the South Natick Dam would
be desirable, and the original list of sites was selected
using the Cochrane Dam as the proposed discharge point, it
was felt that a search for new sites would be in order.
In the swnmer of 1977, the EPA decided to organize a Site
Evaluation Committee for the purpose of suggesting and evalua-
ting sites associated with a South Natick Dam discharge. The
committee was composed of two persons appointed from each of
the following towns: Dover, Framingham, Medfield, Natick,
Needham, Sherborn, and Wellesley. These are towns which could
be potentially affected by the selection and development of
the plant site.
The canmittee held five meetings during the months of August
through November, 1977. During that time the committee suggested
3—145
-------
and evaluated a number of sites. The committee was provided with
technical support and data from EPA personnel, who attended the
committee meetings. The sites which were considered included
some of those evaluated by the original committee as well as
new sites suggested by current committee members. A discussion
of the sites evaluated by the committee follows, beginning
with those sites previously discussed in Section 3.2.3.
(Figure 3.3-1 shows the location of sites 26, 27, A-i and A—2.)
Site 1/2 Sigmatine’ Fathers Prøperty . This site was
suggested for re-evaluation by one of the committee members.
It was thought that this location might be usable if facilities
are confined to the”uplan& portions of the site. On inspection,
this site was determined to be approximately 16.2 hectares (40
acres) in size and is bordered by a residential area on one side
and the Charles River on the other sides. Buffer requirements
would appear to significantly restrict the usable area present.
Other considerations include the exceptional quality of the site’s
vegetation and its scenic character. As noted in the preliminary
screening section, the site is recommended for recreational
usage in the MAPC Open Space Plan.
After several meetings at which sites were suggested, dis-
cussed, and evaluated, the committee at its October 13 meeting
voted to eliminate a number of sites. This site was one of those
eliminated, on the basis of its recreational and environmental
qualities.
Site 6 - ?Own of Needhain Sanitary Landfill . This site,
one of three remaining after preliminary screening, is
located off Marked Tree Road. It has been used for refuse
disposal for many years and has a ten year expected life.
The site has a usable area of about 16.2 hectares (40 acres)
and is reasonably well buffered from surrounding land uses.
Anticipated impacts on the natural environment are minimal
and the use of this site, for a treatment facility would be
comparable to its existing use. The principal effect of locat-
ing a facility here would be the displacement of Needham’s
present method of solid waste disposal.
Concerns raised by the committee concerning this site
included the accuracy of the foundation costs developed
(since the plant would be located on an unstable landfill)
and the possibility of the plant interferring with the nearby
radio station (WHDR).
At its October 13 meeting, the committee voted to con-
tinue considering this site.
Site 11 - merican Can Company Plant, Needham . This
site is located in the industrial park on the east side of
Route 128 at interchange 56. The site and adjacent median
strip are rather small, and the site is slated for major
3—14.6
-------
______ ____________________
O L Z j5
KILOMETERS Lake
o1 0 / d Waban
27
: : ; 7j 1D / I.
i/ ( -‘.., ø _ : i 4 Nat
‘\:.) 5 ‘
/ - 3° rr - j, --
FIGURE 3.3 -1 ADDITIONAL SITES EVALUATED BY
MID-CHARLES SITE EVALUATION COMMITTEE
-------
industrial development. The committee voted to eliminate this
site from further consideration.
Site 12 len Street and the Charles River, Natick .
This site is a large wooded area sloping from Glen Street
to the Charles River, and encompassing a total area of approx-
imately 38.5 hectares (95 acres). No structures are present.
Mature hemlocks are plentiful. Problems associated with
development at this location would result from the site’s
significant slope, the occurrence of exposed bedrock through-
out the site and the wet nature of the Bite. Vegetation
present on the site is significant but not unique, although
several trees are specimen size.
The owner of the site has stated that he is in the pro-
cess of applying a conservation restriction to a 30.5 to 45.7
meter (100 to 150 feet) strip of the site that borders the
Charles River. Further, two parcels totaling approximately
18.2 hectares (45 acres) are being deeded to the Massachusetts
Audubon Society.
In the committee’s discussions, the site was cited as a
scenic/conservation area similar to the Stigmatine Fathers
Site. The site was voted down by the committee for similar
reasons.
Site 16 - Gravel Pits, Route 128 and 20, Weston . This
site was reconsidered by the committee. As discussed previous-
ly, it is too far from the discharge point to be feasible.
This site was eliminated by committee vote.
Site 26 — Eliot Hill, South Natick . This site occupies a
wooded area locatedin the triangular area bounded by Cottage
Avenue on the west, Morningdale Road on the north, and Wilford
Road on the southeast. With a 152.4 meter (500 feet) buffer
zone, insufficient land would be available for a treatment plant.
In addition, this site is located in a scenic residential area.
This site was eliminated by committee vote.
Site 27 — Town of Natick Sanitary Landfill . This site
is located southwest of West Street, just before its inter-
section with South Main Street (Route 27), adjacent to the Sher-
born Town line. Total area of the parcel is 16.2 hectares (40
acres). Available buffer around this site is adequate. As with
the Needham landfill site, the major impact is expected to be
the town’s loss of a solid waste disposal facility.
In the committee’s discussion of this site, it was pointed
out that it is located near a high school recreation field, a
swimming pond, wetlands, and a skating rink. The committee voted
to continue consideration of this site.
Site A-i - Massachusetts Department of Corrections,
Framingham . This site is an open field of approximately 28
3—148
-------
hectares (69 acres) located between Western Avenue and
Merchant Road in Frainingham. It is owned by the State of
MassathUSettS and has sufficient area to establish a
suitable buffer zone. A treatment facility at this location
would be generally compatible with the character of this area
and, since it is owned by the State, would not remove ratable
land from the local tax b 9 e. The site could be used for the
construction of a 117000 in /d (31 mgd) facility, which would
involve the pumping of wastewater to the site fromdownstream
communities. As an alternative, the site could be used for a
smaller facility, treating only the wastewater which is
tributary to the facility from upstream communities. It is
estimated that this “reduced flow” plant would have a capacity
of 72000 m 3 /d (19 mgd). Wastewater generated downstream of
this facility would transorted to the coastal area treatment
plant.
It was noted during the committee’s discussion of this
site that the Town of Framingham plans to apply to the State
for the aquisition of this site for industrial development
purposes. Nonetheless, the committee voted to continue the
consideration of this site.
Site A-2 - Lincoln Properties, Natick . This site is
located to the southeast of the intersection of West Central
Avenue and Kendall Land in West Natick. The site is low, wet
and has been approved for a subdivision development. T
Natick Conservation Commission, which formerly endorsed
this site, has withdrawn their approval. The committee voted
to eliminate this site from further consideration.
Site A-3 - Median St4p on Route 128, Dedham . This site
includes the area within the median strip of Route 128, to
Dedham Avenue, as well as acreage on either side of Route 128.
Total acreage within the median strip is approximately 117.4
hectarea (290 acres), with an additional 101.2 hectares (250
acres) on either side of the highway.
Advantages of this site include its large area, its iso-
lation from other land uses, and the fact that the land is
already in the public domain and not readily usable for other
purposes. Road access is excellent. However, the site is located
9.7 kilometers (6 miles) from the discharge point.
The committee voted to continue consideration of this
site.
Site A-4 Medfield State Hospital, Medfield . This site,
not well defined, was suggested but not considered feasible
because it is extremely distant from the interceptor sewer
(which carries influerit wastewater), and the presence of
wetlands. The committee voted to eliminate this site from
further consideration.
3—149
-------
In its final meetings, the committee eliminated Site 6
(Needham Landfill) and Site 27 (Natick Landfill) and narrowed
its considerations to Site A-i (Massachusetts Departmentof
Corrections) and Site A-3 (Route 128 Median Strip). In its
final report, the committee made it clear that it in no way
condoned or approved of the concept of satellite plants nor
did it necessarily agree that the South Natick Dam was the
optimum discharge point. The report, which was unanimous
except for the members from Medfield who chose to remain
“mute” with respect to it, stated that it believed that
all sites (other than Sites A-i and A-3) were unacceptable
location for a sewerage treatment plant, and concluded as
follows:
“The Committee believes that the site which creates
the least environmental damage is Site A-3, the Median Strip
of Route 128. Site A-i, Framingham MCI, might be a possible
site for a much smaller facility than the proposed 31-million
gallon per day plant. However, the Committee feels that even
a smaller facility at Site A-l might create significant envi-
ronmental hazards.”
“After considerable deliberation, the Committee has ser-
ious reservations that any proposed Middle Charles River satel-
lite sewerage treatment plant can be located in the area without
creating major environmental (and, in the opinion of several
Committee members, health) hazards. Consequently, we believe
the EPA should direct its efforts to finding more acceptable
alternative solutions to the problem.”
At this time, the concept of a satellite treatment facility
on the Charles River was found to be infeasible based primarily
on water quality considerations (see Section 3.3..3B) Hence, all
satellite—based alternatives in the EIS study were eliminated
and, along with them, the selection of an optimum site became
unnecessary. It should be noted, however, that the work of
the Site Evaluation Committee was done on an advisory basis,
forming an input to this EIS study. Therefore, recommendations
of the committee as set forth in their final report do not
necessarily reflect the opinions or judgements of EPA nor
would they necessarily coincide with the final recommendations
of this study had a satellite alternative been deemed viable.
B. Effluent Dischar 9 e Evaluation . As discussed in Section
3.2.3B, an effluent discharge to the Charles River at the
Cochrane Darn was concluded to worsen an already serious dis-
solved oxygen situation in the downstream beaches. Conse-
quently, alternative discharge points located above the S.
Natick Darn, river kilometer 67.5 (river mile 42) and near the
Medfield State Hospital, river kilometer 75.6 (river mile 47),
3—l5
-------
(Figure 3.3-2 ) were modelled to determine if a viable dis-
charge location for a mid-Charles satellite plant exists.
Discharge above the S. Natick darn was modelled to analyze the
effects of the additional reaeration which would result as
the effluent passes over the Darn and the short section of
“rapids” below the Darn. (Examination of a Charles River pro-
file [ New England Division, Corps of Engineers, 19721 shows
the elevation change and length of the “rapids” below the
S. Natick dam are approximately equivalent to those of the
reach immediately downstream of the Cochrane dam). The Med-
field location represents the most upstream point on the
Charles within the proposed MSD. A discharge at this point
would maximize the number of river kilometers receiving flow
augmentation via the effluent discharge.
The effluent volume and characteristics simulated were
the same as those utilized during Preliminary Screening. In
addition, a “reduced”discharge of 7.19x10 4 m 3 /d (19 mgd) was
evaluated. This smaller discharge examines the impact upon
the River of reducing the proposed satellite service area to
include only the towns upstream of Site A-i in Framingham.
The following section summarizes the results of the various
cases simulated. Each case represents a variation in model
inputs parameters and these, along with the other modelling
details are found in Appendix 3.2.2. As in Section 3.2.3B,
DO. profiles and their corresponding figure numbers are
located in Appendix 3.2.2.
Profile C2, Figure 13, which represents discharge at the
Medfield location with the river meeting standards immediately
upstream of the discharge point, shows the EMMA proposed dis-
charge to violate water quality criteria within the impound-
ments of the South Natick, Cochrane and Silk Mill dams. Con-
versely, Profile E2 (a Medfield discharge with the River not
meeting standards), reveals an improvement in D.O. concentra-
tions as a result of the satellite plant flow; however, con-
centrations are still depressed below the designated allowable
minimum of 5 mg/l. Profiles C2 and C3, (the “advanced” dis-
charge at Medfield) Figure 14, show the effect of removing
all nitrogenous oxygen demand from the effluent. If the River
was meeting Class B D.O. standards whep i entered the MSD,
a satellite plant discharge of 1.l7xlO m /d (31 mgd), contain-
ing 5 mg/i BOD 5 and no NH 3 -N would not cause a violation of
water quality criteria.
Discharge just above the South Natick damn caused down-
stream dissolved oxygen conditions which were similar to
those shown in the Medfield State Hospital discharge D.O.
profiles. Consequently, it was concluded that discharge at
either of these locations has the same effect upon oxygen
resources in the Charles River.
In addition, the reduced discharge caused lower dissolved
oxygen concentrations than those resulting from a l.17x10 5
m 3 /d discharge.
(:3 in d) 3-151
-------
FIGURE 3.3-2 ALTERNATIVE DISCHARGE LOCATIONS
CHARLES RIVER SATELLITE PLANT
WATERSHED LOCATION
2 0 2
K ILOMETERS
2 0 2
__ J l
I —
MILES
Jamaica Pond
Mother Brook Diversion
Box Pond
LEGEND
* U.S.G.S. GAGING STATION
DISCHARGE LOCATIONS:
I ABOVE S. NATICK DAM
II AT MEDFIELD STATE HOSPITAL
Pearl
-------
Subsequent to the modelling report of November 30, 1977,
additional simulations were performed to determine the effects
of a discharge on DO. concentrations at flows greater than
the 7 day, 10 year low flow (see Appendix 3.2.2 for the
Addenda to the modelling report). Flows approximating the
expected average flow for the month of August in the year
2000 were simulated with all treatment plants on the Charles
discharging effluents containing 5 mg/i BOD 5 and 1 mg/i NH 3 -N.
The proposed satellite plant discharge was placed above the
South Natick darn. The results of these simulations indicate
D.O. concentrations fell to approximately 4 mg/i behind the
Cochrane and Silk Miii dams, while the concentration behind
the South Natick dam were depressed to roughly,. 2 mg/i. It
appears as though D.O. concentrations less than the water
quality standard of 5 mg/i may occur in the Charles River
at flows considerably greater than the 7 day, 10 year low
flow.
Water quality modelling undertaken to evaluate alterna-
tive discharge locations indicates a satellite plant discharge
may (1) violate Class B water quality criteria (profile C2 Figure
14); (2) not violate these criteria (profile C3 Figure 14); or
(3) increase D.O. concentrations, but not sufficiently to
reach the desired 5 mg/i level. The above conclusions would
apply as long as the discharge is at some point upstream of
the South Natick dam.
Water quality modelling is both a science and art and
the results of any modelling program must be carefully inter—
preted. The mathematical formulations used to describe
natural systems, including their assumptions and limitations,
as well as the input data utilized by the model, comprise
the science of modeiling. The art of modelling is the inter-
pretation of model output relative to its inherent limitations
and the real world conditions it attempts to simulate.
Conclusions (1) and (2) above are valid so long as the
Charles River enters the MSD meeting standards. To do this,
the Charles River Pollution Control District (CRPCD) and
Medfield-Millis treatment plants would be required to dis-
charge effluents containing 1 mg/i BOD 5 and no other oxygen
demand. This represents a level of treatment equivalent to
a water reclamation facility. The probability is extremely
small that such an effluent limitation would be imposed upon
these facilities. More importantly, all bottom material
would have to be dredged from the River in order for it to
exert no benthic oxygen demand. This would be a senseless
undertaking, since organic solids deposition is a continuous
process in any river. The possibility, therefore, of no
benthic oxygen demand is essentially zero. In light of these
factors, it does not appear logical to assume the Charles
River would enter the MSD meeting standards.
3—153
-------
If the future dissolved oxygen profile during the 7 day
10 year low flow is approximately equivalent to profile Eli
on Figure 13, then a satellite discharge is shown by profile
E2, on Figure 13 to raise D.O. concentrations by 1-2 mg/l.
This result assumes all treatment plants discharging to the
River consistently achieve an effluent quality of 5 mg/i
BOD 5 and 1 mg/i NH3. While it is not beyond the capability
of an AWT facility to produce this level of effluent quality,
it is questionable whether this level can be consistently
achieved. This point was emphasized in a recent paper (Taylor
1978) on water quality criteria. Testimony by experts in the
field of wastewater management before the Texas Water Quality
Board indicated that, based upon an evaluation of existing
systems around the country, the ability to operate a large
treatment plant which consistently produces a level of efflu-
ent quality equivalent to that assumed in this modelling is
not proven. In addition, for a facility to achieve high
levels of treatment on the average, it must be designed to per-
form better much of the time. Considering flow variability,
input pollutant and concentration fluctuation, and the uncer-
tainties associated with the biological nitrification process,
which is extremely sensitive, it is highly unlikely these
levels of effluent quality can be met consistently. Given
this situation it appears as though the effluent quality
could possibly be worse than assumed by the modelling and,
therefore, the improvement predicted by Case E2 may not
materialize.
It is also recognized that the modelling did not simu-
late the non-point pollution processes such as solid waste
leaching,which influence D.O. levels in the Charles River.
These processes are significant in the Charles and have a
negative influence on D.O. In addition, the benthic demands
utilized are generally lower than would be expected in a
river such as the Charles. It can be concluded that the
assimulative capacity of the Charles River will be extremely
stressed under low flow conditions by existing oxygen demands.
A satellite plant represents a major new pollutant source
for the Charles River, which will increase point source mass input
the River of BOD5 from 329 to 586 kg/d (725 to 1293 lbs/d)
and nitrogenous oxygen demand from 311 to 535 kg/d (685 to
1181 lbs/d) (See Table 7, Appendix 3.2.2). In addition,the fol—
lowi.ngtablecompares the proposed discharge with River cjuality
just upstream of the discharge. Imposition of this additional
load upon the already stressed river system may effectively
preclude the Charles from recovering from its present stressed
condition. If River conditions improve such that standards
are met, the satellite discharge is indicated to cause viola-
tion of standards unless an extremely high level of treatment
is achieved on a consistent basis. As the result of this
3—154
-------
COMPARISON OF AWT EFFLUENT AND CHARLES RIVER QUALITY
Charles River’ Satellite Discharge 2
Flow, m 3 / 0.89 1.35
(ft 3 / s) (31.4) (47.7)
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/i 3.1 6.0
BOD 5 mg/i 0.6 5.0
kg/d (lbs/d) 67 (148) 478 (1494)
Nitrogenous Oxygen Demand
mg/i 0.05 1.0
kg/d (lbsld) 17.5 (38.5) 535.8 (1181.5)
Total Oxygen Demand, mg/i 1.1 11.9
kg/d (ibs/d) 84.6 (186.5) 1231.4 (2675.5)
analysis, a satellite plant discharge:is seen as not improv-
ing water quality in the Charles River and contributing to
the maintenance of its present condition. The implementation
of a satellite plant discharging to the Charles River isnot
recommended.
River conditions as modelled at river kilometer 80.3 (river
mile 50), just upstream of Medfieid State Hospital discharge
point, during 7 day, 10 year low flow. All upstream point
sources have effluent quality of 5 mg/i BOD 5 and 1 mg/i NH 3 -N.
recommended discharge and effluent quality.
3—155
-------
3.3.4. Sludge Disposal for Coastal Area Wastewater
Treatment Plants
As discussed in Section 3.2.5., several stabilization,
dewatering, conversion and ultimate disposal processes and
operations remained as possible alternatives following the
initial screening. Air flotation was selected as the
method of choice for the thickening of secondary sludge.
These unit processes and operations were assembled into
process trains to develop a number of complete sludge
management systems. Each system was developed by selecting
appropriate unit processes which were compatible with an
ultimate disposal or conversion process. All of the
alternatives include air flotation thickening. The
resulting alternative sludge management systems for second-
ary sludge from coastal area treatment plants are described
in this section and can be grouped under the following
major options:
A. Landfill
B. Incineration or Pyrolysis — Landfill of residue
C. Give Away or Market the Product
D. Land Application
E. Coincineration with Solid Waste
A. Landfill . All of the system alternatives in this
category would employ landfilling of dewatered sludge
either at a facility owned and operated by the MDC, at
the existing Plainville landfill at a fixed fee per ton
of sludge disposed, or at a new privately owned and
operated landfill at a fixed fee per ton of sludge
disposed.
The stabilization alternatives included in the
evaluation were chemical conditioning, anaerobic digestion
followed by chemical conditioning, and aerobic digestion
followed by chemical conditioning. The dewatering alter-
natives included vacuum filtration and pressure filtration.
A line diagram of projects involving landfilling of sludge
is shown in Figure 3.3-3.
B. Incineration or Pyrolysis . All of the stabilization
and dewatering processes considered for the landfill system
were also considered for the incineration or pyrolysis system.
Figure 3.3—4 shows the alternatives considered for incineration
or pyrolysis systems.
C. Give Away or Market the Product . Two basic approaches,
compostil)g and heat drying, were considered for producing a
high quality, dry sludge product for a give-away or retail
market program. All of the stabilization and dewatering
3—156
-------
FIGURE 3.3-3
LANDFILL ALTERNATIVES
DIRECTION
OF FLOW
-------
FIGURE 3.3-4
INCINERATION OR PYROLYSIS ALTERNATIVES
DIRECTION
OF FLOW
-------
processes included under the landfill system were also
considered for the give—away or market alternatives.
Figure 3.3—5 shows the alternatives considered for giving
away or marketing the sludge.
D. Land Application . Pasteurization, aerobic digestion
and anaerobic digestion, both with and without chemical
conditioning, were considered for the stabilization of
sludge for land application. Chemically conditioned
thickened sludge was riot considered because of its
potential pathogen content. Pressure filtration was not
considered since vacuum filtration can produce a sludge
cake of sufficient moisture content for incorporation into
the soil. Figure 3.3-6 shows the alternatives considered
for land application.
E. Coincineraticr with Solid Wastes . The feasibility of
coincineration of municipal sludge and solid wastes from
the Boston metropolitan area was investigated in a separate
study conducted by Stone and Webster Management Consultants,
Inc., for the MDC. The stabilization and dewatering processes
applicable to coincineration are identical to those discussed
under the landfill system. Figure 3.3—7 presents a flow
chart of the coincineration alternatives for the two sites
identified in the Stone and Webster report.
Elimination of Alternatives
All of the alternative sludge disposal systems
discussed above were evaluated for the disposal of sludge
from the coastal area wastewater treatment plants. Through
a series of successive screenings and eliminations, the
total number of alternatives was reduced to five basic
concepts. In some instances, alternatives were eliminated
because of institutional or spacial constraints. In other
cases, it was necessary to develop preliminary design data
so that the economics of one alternative versus another
could be compared. The rationale and criteria for elimination
of alternatives are described below.
A. Landfill . One option considered for a landfill operation
was to transport dewatered sludge to the existing Plainville
landfill located near the intersection of Interstate Route
495 and U.S. Route 1. The landfill currently contains 43
hectares (107 acres) , with an additional 121 hectares (300
acres) available for possible expansion adjacent to the site.
The Plainville landfill is equipped with a leachate recovery
system. The Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has prescribed a limit
of 15 percent by volume for the ratio of dewatered sludge to
solid waste which may be disposed of at the landfill. Based
cn discussions with the Massachusetts Department of Solid
Waste Disposal, a tipping fee of $7.00 per wet ton of sludge
3—159
-------
FIGURE 3.3-5
GIVE AWAY OR MARKET ALTERNATIVES
VACUUM
FILTRATION
DIRECTION
OF FLOW
-------
FIGURE 3.3-6
SLUDGE
THICKENING
LAND APPLICATION ALTERNATIVES
DIRECTION
OF FLOW
AEROBIC
DIGESTION
-------
FIGURE 3.3-7
DIRECTION
OF FLOW
COINCINERATION ALTERNATIVES
-------
has been assumed.
At a ratio of sludge to solid waste of 15 percent by
volume, and in order for the landfill to have a useful
life of 20 years, it is estimated that only about 20 percent
of the secondary sludge from the coastal area plants could
be disposed of at an expanded Plainville landfill. There-
fore, a second landfill option was considered.
The second landfill option would involve a new landfill
owned and operated by the MDC. It is estimated that the
area required for 20 years of operation would range from
150 to 200 hectares (370 to 500 acres), depending upon
the methods of stabilization and dewatering used. The
sludge would be buried in trenches about 18 meters (20
feet) deep. A 30 centimeter (1 foot) layer of earth for
every 60 centimeter (2 foot) depth of sludge would be
provided, with a 152 centimeter (5 foot) layer of earth
applied as a final cover.
A third landfill option would be similar to the second,
except that the new landfill would be privately owned and
operated. It is assumed that the tipping fee for use of
such a landfill would be the same as for the use of the
Plainville landfill, which was assumed to be $7.00 per
wet ton of sludge.
Estimated costs for an MDC owned and operated sludge
landfill were derived from construction bids for similar
projects, and include the costs of equipment, buildings,
roads and observation wells.
Based on preliminary cost estimates, the alternative
involving MDC operation of an independent landfill appears
to be preferable to paying the projected tipping charge for
use of a private landfill. Consequently, the landfill
alternatives were premised on the MDC developing and operating
their own sludge landfill site in the general vicinity of
the existing Plainville landfill.
A comparison of the costs of various alternatives for
stabilization and dewatering indicated that the most economical
alternative is chemical conditioning followed by filter press
dewatering. A second alternative employing anaerobic digestion
followed by chemical conditioning and pressure filtration
was maintained to allow for an environmental assessment of
the effects of undigested versus digested sludge on the
landfill.
B. Incineration or Pyrolysis . The two most common methods
used for sludge incineration are the multiple hearth furnace
and the fluidized bed furnace. Only the multiple-hearth
furnace will be considered for detailed study for the
following reasons:
3—163
-------
A multiple-hearth furnace can be modified to
a pyrolytic reactor more easily than can a
fluidized bed furnace.
There is much more experience with multiple—
hearth sludge incinerators.
The multiple—hearth furnace has a lower potential
for air pollution.
The typical multiple—hearth furnace consists of a
refractory lined vertical steel shell with a series
of 4 to 11 refractory covered hearths surrounding a central
shaft. The shaft has air—cooled rabble arms extending
across each hearth which rake the sludge to expose its
surface and promote downward movement of the sludge.
Temperatures generally range from 540°C (1,000°F) in
the top levels where the sludge is dried, 8700 to 980°C
(1600 to 1800°F) in the middle or combustion zone, and 315°C
(600°F) at the bottom. Exhaust gases generally exit at
around 425°C (800°F) although they sometimes have to be
heated in an afterburner to 760°C (1400°F) to burn off
noxious gases.
Ash from the furnace can be handled hydraulically
or mechanically. Hydraulic systems are generally preferable
because of simplicity. Space at the incineration site
will be required for ash storage lagoons if a hydraulic
system is used.
Particulate and gaseous pollutants are released by
sludge incineration. Gaseous pollutants can include
hydrogen chloride, sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen,
and carbon monoxide. With the exception of mercury and
possibly lead, metals are expected to remain in the ash
and not be emitted with the off-gases. Emissions from
sludge incinerators are generally controlled by scrubber
equipment.
The units were sized on hearth area requirement -
bases to completely combust sludge solids. The sludge
was assumed to be autogenous if the solids content was 30
percent or higher. The only fuel required would be for
start—up. This would be a negligible quantity since 24
hour operation was assumed. The incinerators were provided
with after burners and wet scrubbing exhaust gas cleaning
systems. The afterburners were provided in case they are
needed, but it was assumed that their use would not be
required. It was assumed that the ash would be handled
in the form of a slurry. The ash slurry would be stored
in lagoons, from which the supernatant will be continuously
decanted and recycled for treatment. The ash would be
removed from the lagoons on a periodic basis, and trucked
to the Plainville landfill for disposal.
3—164
-------
Pyrolysis of sludge may also be performed in the
multiple—hearth type furnaces. Therefore, it was assumed
that the type of units employed in this process would be
the same as in the incineration alternative. The limited
information available on this relatively new process
indicates that the size of a pyrolysis installation would
be approximately the same as an incineration installation.
Since the amount of excess air used in pyrolysis is
significantly less than that required for incineration,
the amount of exhaust gases and potential air emissions
should be lower. However, if the exhaust gases are burned
in an afterburner, the saving in air pollution control
equipment may not be significant.
While many pyrolysis studies have been performed
using refuse at large scale installation, relatively
limited information is available on the pyrolysis of
sludge even on a small scale level. In addition, the
experience with the large scale refuse pyrolysis plants
has not been entirely satisfactory.
Based on the above discussion, no attempt was made
to develop separate design bases and cost estimates for
pyrolysis systems, and the incineration and pyrolysis
concepts were treated as a single alternative.
Any thermal sludge treatment process is sensitive
to the moisture content of the sludge because of the
direct relationship between the fuel requirement and
moisture content. Since one of the major factors that
determines the economics of an incineration alternative is
the amount of supplemental fuel required, and due to the
increasing shortage of fuel resources and increasing price
trend for energy, it would be desirable to select stabiliz-
ation and dewatering processes which require the least
amount of fuel. As mentioned previously, it is anticipated
that the sludge would be autogenous if the solids content
was 30 percent or higher. Therefore, vacuum filtration
and centrifugation, which can only be expected to produce
a sludge with a solids content of about 15 percent, were
eliminated as dewatering processes, and pressure filtration,
which can produce a sludge with a moisture content of about
30 percent, was selected.
Under the stabilization category, the alternatives
developed included chemical conditioning of thickened
sludge and digestion, either aerobically or anaerobically,
followed by chemical conditioning. During the digestion
process, a fraction of the volatile solids present in the
sludge is destroyed, thus decreasing the heat content
in the sludge. The digested sludge also requires relatively
high chemical dosages prior to dewatering, thus increasing
the inerts and decreasing the unit heat content. The benefit
3—165
-------
derived by the solids destruction achieved in the digestion
process is more than offset by the decrease in heat content
and increased operational costs associated with the digestion
process. Therefore, the only stabilization process consid—
ered compatible with incineration or pyrolysis was chemical
conditioning of thickened sludge.
C. Give Away or Market the Product . All three stabilization
processes, chemical conditioning of thickened sludge, anaerobic
digestion followed by chemical conditioning, and aerobic
digestion followed by chemical conditioning, were included
in preliminary cost estimates for the sludge management
systems involving composting. Based on the comparative
cost of aerobic versus anaerobic digestion, aerobic
digestion was eliminated. Vacuum filter and centifuge
dewatering were eliminated because they would produce a sludge
cake with a solids concentration of less than 15 percent.
This high moisture content would require a larger land
area for the composting operation, and would incur higher
operating costs because of the increased recycle stream and
additional composting time that would be required. Taking
cognizance of the limited land area available and the
economics of the sludge disposal systems, only the filter
press dewatering process, which would produce a sludge cake
with a 30 percent solids concentration, was considered
for cost development.
Composting is a process which achieves high levels of
stabilization and volatile destruction of sludge through
natural biological aerobic decomposition. The sludge is
biochemically converted to a sterile humus material
suitable as a soil conditioner. The inicrobialactivity
generates heat with temperatures ranging from 60 to 70°C
(140 to 160°F) which is sufficient to destory most pathogens.
Most composting processes fall under one of three
basic types of systems; windrows, aerated static piles, and
mechanical units of various designs which usually supply
continuous mixing and positive aeration.
In the windrow system the sludge is placed in piles
which rely on natural ventilation and periodic turning
to maintain aerobic conditions. The windrow is normally
turned frequently using a specially designed vehicle
(composter) . This turning results in some. heat loss.
As a result, in cold climates it may be necessary to enclose
the facility to maintain adequate temperatures. The equip-
ment used for windrow composting includes a composter for
turning the windrows, and a front—end loader for transporting
the sludge. A pond and collection ditches are necessary to
collect runoff from the compost site.
The aerated static pile method has been developed t
3—166
-------
Beltsville, Maryland. In the static pile system, a
blower and a system of perforated piping is used to aerate
the piles, as opposed to the mechanical turning used in
the windr w process. The dewatered sludge is mixed with
a bulking agent to increase the prorsity so that air can
be forced through the pile. Various bulking agents can
be used including wood chips, bark chips, sawdust or
unscreened compost product.
Aerobic composting conditions are maintained by
drawing air through the pile at a predetermined rate, by
means of a pipe system located at the base of each pile.
Typically, the sludge mixture is aerated for about 21—24
days, separated from the bulking agent and aged for an
additional 30 days. The moisture content in the compost
product ranges between 35 to 45 percent.
The equipment required for the static pile system
include:
Front end loaders, composters, or pug mills for
mixing sludge and bulking agent;
Screens to remove the separated chips or bark
and compost; and
Blowers and pipes to draw the air through the piles.
Mechanical methods have been developed for compoSting
mixtures of sludge and solid wastes. These methods claim
accelerated composting rates by providing a very controlled
environment. Some of the more popular mechanical systems
include the Fairfield Hardy System, the Eweson Bio Conversion
System, the Dano Bio Stabilizer System and the Metro-waste
Conversion System.
While most manufacturers of mechanical systems claim
accelerated composting rates, additional curing is often
required to achieve the same level of stabilization
achieved by the windrow and static pile method. In
addition, none of the mechanical systems have been demon-
strated for full scale cornposting of municipal sludge.
For the purpose of cost estimates, an aerated static
pile system has been selected. The mechanical systems
have been eliminated because of lack of experience with
municipal sludge. The static pile method was selected
in favor of the windrow method to reduce heat loss in
in the cold New England climate.
It has been conservatively assumed that composting
operations would be conducted only nine months per year
to minimize the effect of cold winters. While cornposting
operations can be conducted during the winter, freezing
3—167
-------
TABLE 3 .3-1
COMPARISON OF COMPOSTING METHODS
Aerated
Turned
Windrow
Static
Pile
Mechanical
Process
Advantages:
May not require
bulking agent
Eliminates need
to turn pile
Possible reduction
in coxposting time
No need for
blowers
Lower land
requirement
Minimizes labor
requirements
Closer control
of aeration
rates
Protected from
weather
Less sensitive
to weather
Excellent process
control
Bulking agent
dilutes heavy
metals
Bulking agent
dilutes heavy
metals
Disadvantages:
Labor intensive
Requires bulking
agent
Usually requires
bulking agent.
Possible odor
problems with
unstabilized
sludge
Requires blowers
and air piping
Highest equipment
costs
Requires corn—
poster to turn
windrows
Limited operating
experience with
sludge in U.S.
3—168
-------
of condensate in aeration piping and operation of mechanical
equipment can pose some problems. It was also assumed that
there would be no cost associated with providing the bulking
agent. This was based on using recycled dried compost or
tree trimmings which could be obtained at no cost by the
MDC. It is believed that such materials would be a satis-
factory bulking agent for nine months per year operation.
Acreage requirements were developed for composting
12 months of generated sludge during a nine month period
and include storage facilities for the winter months, 24
days of composting time and 30 days for curing. It was
determined that approximately .2 hectares (.5 acres) per
dry ton per day of sludge generated would be required
for 9 months per year operation including land for storage
of dewatered sludge.
If the composting operations were continued through
the winter months, the land requirements could be reduced
to approximately .14 hectares (.35 acres) per dry ton per
day of raw sludge solids.
If it is not possible to use recycled compost as the
bulking agent or to obtain wood trimmings at no cost to the
MDC, commercial wood chips could be purchased from pulping
mills. At a typical cost of $6.00 per cubic yard, a wood
chip to sludge volume ratio of 1:1, and a 20 percent makeup
rate for wood chips, this would add approximately $4.14
per dry metric ton ($4.56 per dry short ton) of raw sludge
solids to the cost of composting operations. The additional
cost of screening the wood chips would be negligible in
comparison to other operating and maintenance costs. The
area requirements would be approximately the same, regardless
of the type of bulking agent used, since bulking agent
storage areas would be required in all cases.
The heat drying process, employing a rotary kiln type
dryer, was assumed to operate at 150°C (300°F). The loading
rate and capacity of the dryer were based on equipment
manufacturers’ information. The heat dried sludge was
assumed to have a solids concentration of 95 percent. In
this form, it may be conveniently bagged for marketing.
Based on preliminary cost estimates, the heat drying
alternative is decisively more expensive than the composting
alternatives. It also consumes large quantities of fuel.
Since both processes are capable of producing a high quality
product which is suitable for a marketing or give-away
program, heat drying was eliminated on the basis of the high
cost and high energy consumption.
D. Land Application . The disposal of primary sludge from
the coastal area treatment plants by means of land application
3—169
-------
was investigated previously in separate studies by Havens
and Emerson, Ltd., and Ecolsciences, Inc. Both studies
eliminated land application as a sludge disposal alternative.
The major factors contributing to this determination were
the large amount of area required, over 8100 hectares (20,000
acres), which required the utilization of a large number of
sites dispersed throughout Massachusetts, and the possible
adverse effects of the sludge (particularly the heavy
metal content of the sludge) on crops and groundwater. In
addition, the requirements of utilizing many sites outside
of the study area presented serious implementation and
institutional barriers to this method of sludge disposal.
There is no reason to believe that the situation would be
any different with regard to the disposal of secondary
sludge.
In addition, discussions with the Massachusetts Department
of Environmental Quality Engineering revealed that, at this
time, the application of sludge on agricultural land is not
permitted in Massachusetts. Therefore, the land application
alternative for the disposal of sludge from the coastal
area treatment plants was eliminated from further consider-
ation.
E. Coincineration with Solid Wastes . In November, 1976,
Stone and Webster Management Consultants, Inc. submitted
the results of a feasibility study concerning the coincin-
eration of MDC’s primary sludge with solid waste collected
by the Boston Public Works Department. The study invest-
igated the location of a coincineration facility at either
Deer Island or the City of Boston’s former incineration
facility at South Bay. The study considered a solid waste
to sludge ratio in the order of 10:1 as being technically
feasible for a multiple hearth facility. The economics
of both coincineration and separate incineration of sludge
and solid wastes were evaluated. While the study concluded
that coincineration was both technically and environmentally
feasib1e, the economics favor separate incineration. This
is largely a result of transportation costs between Deer
Island and South Bay, and Federal grant structures. These
grant structures provide 75 percent funding or sludge
disposal, but none for saud waste disposal. Although the
situation is somewhat different for secondary sludges, the
basic findings are still valid. Based on this study and
discussions with EPA, coincineration was not considered
for disposal of the secondary sludge for the coastal area
wastewater treatment plants.
3—170
-------
3.3.5. Sludge Disposal for Inland Satellite Wastewater
Treatment Plants
As described in Section 3.2.5., several thickening,
stabilization, dewatering, conversion and ultimate disposal
processes remained after the initial screening. These
unit processes were assembled into process trains to create
a number of complete sludge management system alternatives.
Each system alternative was developed by selecting appropriate
unit processes which were compatible with an ultimate
disposal or conversion process. The resulting alternative
sludge management systems which were considered for the
inland satellite plants are described in this section and
can be grouped under the following major options:
A. Landfill
B. Incineration or Pyrolysis - Landfill of residue
C. Give Away or Market the Product
D. Resource Recovery Center
E. Disposal at Coastal Area Plants
F. Land Application
All of the alternative systems include gravity thickening
of primary sludge and air flotation thickening of secondary
sludge. In systems which utilize heat treatment as the
stabilization process, only vacuum filtration was considered
for dewatering, since the combination of these two processes
yields a relatively dry sludge cake (about 35 percent solids).
A. Landfill . All the system alternatives considered in this
category employ landfilling of dewatered sludge at the exist-
ing Plainville landfill at a fixed fee per ton of sludge
disposed.
The stabilization alternatives deemed applicable with
landfilling include chemical conditioning, anaerobic digestion
followed by chemical conditioning, and heat treatment. The
dewatering alternatives include vacuum filtration and pressure
filtration. A line diagram of systems involving landfilling
of sludge is shown in Figure 3.3-8.
B. Incineration or Pyrolysis . As in the case of coastal
area treatment plants, pyrolysis and incineration have been
considered as interchangeable processes. All of the
stabilization and dewatering processes considered for the
landfill system were also considered for the incineration
or pyrolysis system.
Two of the options considered for this system involve
incineration or pyrolysis of sludge from both satellite
plants at a single site. Figures 3.3-9 and 3.3-10 depict
the incineration or pyrolysis alternatives.
3—171
-------
FIGURE 3.3-8
LANDFILL ALTERNATIVES
DIRECTION
OF FLOW
-------
FIGURE 3.3-9
ALTERNATIVES FOR INCINERATION OR
PYROLYSIS AT BOTH INLAND PLANTS
DIRECTION
OF FLOW
-------
FIGURE 3.3-10
ALTERNATIVES FOR INCINERATION OR
PYROLYSIS AT ONE INLAND PLANT
PRESSURE.
FILTRATION
PLANT ANAEROBIC TRUCK TO
A DIGESTION PLANT B
VACUUM
__________ F 1TRATION
HEAT
T REATMENT
SLUDGE
THICKENING
PRESSURE
FILTRATION
I INCINERA-
PLANT ANAEROBIC TION OR LANDFILL
B DIGESTION PYROLYSIS
VACUUM
FILTRATION
HEAT
TREATMENT
DI RECTI
OF FLOW
-------
C. Give Away or Market Sludge Product . Two basic approaches,
composting and heat drying, were considered for producing a
high quality, dry sludge product for a give-away or retail
market program. Under heat drying, a patented process which
consists of belt filter dewatering to 20 percent solids
followed by heat treatment was considered. For this process,
a polymer would be added to the thickened sludge prior to
the dewatering process. No stabilization processes were
considered, since the temperatures reached in heat drying
are sufficient for pathogen destruction. The product
material would consist of heat pasteurized dry pellets at
a solids content of approximately 95 percent.
For the composting alternatives, all the stabilization
and dewatering processes considered for the landfill system
were initially included. Figure 3.3-11 shows the alter-
natives considered for giving away or marketing the sludge.
D. Resource Recovery Center . The Commonwealth of Massach—
usetts has proposed locating a resource recovery center in
the general vicinity of the satellite treatment plants.
Alternative systems were considered which would dispose of
the sludge from the satellite treatment plants at the
proposed resource recovery center.
All the stabilization and dewatering alternatives
considered for the landfill system were also considered
for the resource recovery center system. The resource
recovery center alternatives are shown in Figure 3.3—12.
E. Disposal at Coastal Area Plants . Figure 3.3-13 depicts
alternative systems which were considered for transporting
dewatered sludge from the satellite treatment plants to
the coastal area treatment plants for disposal.
F. Land Application . Pasteurization and anaerobic
digestion, both with and without chemical conditioning,
and heat treatment were considered for the stabilization
of sludge for land application. Chemically conditioned
thickened sludge was not considered because of its potential
pathogen content. The dewatering processes considered were
pressure filtration and vacuum filtration. In addition,
the disposal of a liquid sludge, which would not undergo
dewatering, was investigated. The land application alter-
natives considered are shown in Figure 3.3—14.
Elimination of Alternatives
The alternative sludge management systems developed
above, were further reviewed to reduce the number of
alternatives to a reasonable number for final comparative
analyses. While the unit processes included under each
system are technologically compatible, some unit processes
have obvious advantages over others, when considered in
3—175
-------
FIGURE 3 3-11
GIVE AWAY OR MARKET ALTERNATIVES
DIRECTION
OF FLOW
-------
FIGURE 3.3- 12
RESOURCE RECOVERY CENTER ALTERNATIVES
DIRECTION
OF FLOW
-------
FIGURE 3.3—13
DISPOSAL AT COASTAL AREA
PLANT ALTERNATIVES
DIRECTION
OF FLOW
COASTAL
AREA
L PLANTS
-------
FIGURE 3.3-14
LAND APPLICATION ALTERNATIVES
DIRECTION
OF FLOW
-------
light of the complete alternative. In some instances,
alternatives could be eliminated during the screening
process without the need for conducting detailed cost
estimates. In others, it was necessary to prepare pre—
liminary design data, so that comparative cost estimates
could be developed. Through a succession of screening and
elimination, the number of alternatives was reduced to
nine basic concepts. The rationale and criteria for
elimination of the other alternatives are discussed in
this section.
A. Landfill . Based on discussions with the Massachusetts
Bureau of the Solid Waste Disposal, it was determined that
the Plainville landfill would be the most suitable site for
the landfill of dewatered sludge from the satellite plants.
The site is located near the intersection of Interstate
Route 495 and U.S. Route 1. The landfill currently contains
43 hectares (107 acres), with an additional 121 hectares
(300 acres) adjacent to the site available for possible
expansion. The site has been approved by the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering and is equipped with a leachate recovery system.
The Department of Environmental Quality Engineering has
prescribed a limit of 15 percent by volume for the ratio
of dewatered sludge to solid waste which may be disposed
of at the landfill. Based on discussions with the Massachu-
setts Department of Solid Waste Disposal, a tipping fee of
$7.00 per wet ton has been assumed. At a ratio of sludge
to solid waste of 15 percent by volume, it is possible to
dispose of all of the sludge from the satellite treatment
plants at an expanded Plainville landfill for a period of
more than 25 years.
Based on preliminary cost estimates, it appears that
filter press dewatering of chemically conditioned sludge
is the most cost effective landfill alternative. The
anaerobic digestion followed by filter press dewatering
alternative was retained to allow for an environmental
assessment of the effects of digested versus undigested
sludge on the landfill.
B. Incineration or PyroJ ysis . The type of incinerators
considered were multiple-hearth furnaces. The units were
sized on the basis of the hearth area required to completely
combust sludge solids. The sludge was assumed to be
autogenous if the solids content was 30 percent or higher.
Since sludge processing will most likely be performed on
a two shift basis at the satellite plants, auxiliary fuel
will be required to keep the unit at standby temperatures
during the 8 hour period when sludge is not being processed.
To ensure that sludge processing would not be interrupted
during periods when maintenance work would be required, at
least two incinerators were provided for each incineration
alternative. As in the case of the coastal area plants,
3—180
-------
no attempt was made to develop separate design bases and
cost estimates for pyrolysis systems, and the incineration
and pyrolysis concepts were treated as a single alternative.
Since any thermal process is sensitive to the moisture
content of sludge, because of the direct relationship
between the fuel requirement and moisture content, and since
a solids concentration of less than 30 percent is not
autoqenous, any combination of stabilization and dewatering
processes not capable of producing a solids concentration
of at least 30 percent should be eliminated from consideration.
The only stabilization process considered which, when
combined with vacuum filtration will result in a solids
concentration of at least 30 percent, is heat treatment.
Digestion was not considered desirable with thermal
processes such as incineration and pyrolysis. Although
the digestion process reduces the quantity of sludge to
be incinerated, this is more than offset by the decrease
in heat content of the digested sludge and the increase
in capital and operating costs of the digestion process.
The number of incineration or pyrolysis system
alternatives, therefore, was reduced to four. Two of
the remaining alternatives compare heat treatment followed
by vacuum filtration with chemical conditioning of thick-
ened sludge followed by pressure filtration, with inciner-
ation or pyrolysis at each satellite plant.
The other two remaining alternatives considered
incineration or pyrolysis of the sludge from both plants
at a single location. One of these alternatives involved
pressure filtration of chemically conditioned sludge at
both plants. Under the second centralized incineration
alternative, heat treatment and vacuum filtration was
substituted for filter press dewatering at the plant
where the incinerator would be located to take advantage
of the waste heat generated in the incinerator. Based
on the comparative cost analysis, the centralized
incineration alternative employing filter press dewatering
at both plants was eliminated in favor of heat treatment
at the plant where the incinerator would be located.
C. Give Away or Market the Product . Alternatives utilizing
the stabilization processes of chemical conditioning of
thickened sludge and anaerobic digestion followed by chemical
conditioning were included in the cost development for the
sludge management systems involving composting. Heat
treatment was eliminated because auxiliary fuel would be
required, and the disinfection benefits associated with
heat treatment are not required when followed by composting.
Filter press dewatering of chemically treated sludge
typically yields a sludge cake with a solids concentration
3—181
-------
of 40 percent. Experience in composting filter press cake
in this range of solids concentration have not been completely
successful at th Beltsville, Maryland demonstration project.
Furthermore, since pressure filtration is more expensive
than vacuum filtration, vacuum filtration was selected as
the preferred method of dewatering mixtures of primary
and secondary sludge for subsequent composting. The compost-
ing method considered was the aerated static pile method
using the recycled composted product or tree trimmings as
the bulking agent. Based on the cost estimates developed,
the composting of undigested sludge appears more cost
effective than composting anaerobically digested sludge.
However, both alternatives were retained because of potential
differences in environmental impact. Also, based on the
developed cost estimates, the heat drying alternative is
decisively more expensive than the composting alternatives.
It also consumes large quantities of fuel. Since both
methods are capable of producing a high quality product
which is suitable for a marketing or give-away program,
heat drying was eliminated on the basis of its high cost
and high energy consumption.
D. Resource Recovery Center . At present, the Bureau of
Solid Wastes has identifiedfour potential sites for the
location of the proposed resource recovery center. It is
anticipated that the facility would use some form of
incineration or pyrolysis of a refuse derived fuel to
generate power. Discussions with the Bureau of Solid Wastes
have indicated that the facility would probably be able to
handle a dry sludge cake at a cost of about $10 per wet ton.
It is not possible to place an exact cost for sludge
disposal or a limitation on compatible sludge moisture
content at this time, since the specific technology which
will be used at the proposed facility has not yet been
determined. For the purpose of this study, it has been
assumed that the facility would be located near the
intersection of U.S. Route 20 and State Route 128.
Due to the relatively high tipping fee of ten dollars
per wet ton and the desirability to have a high caloric
value, only filter press dewatered chemically conditioned
sludge was considered under this category. Heat treatment
was eliminated because of its high cost and the absence
of a waste heat source at the satellite plants. Anaerobic
digestion was eliminated because it reduces the caloric
value of the sludge. Vacuum filtration was eliminated
because it cannot produce as dry a cake as pressure filtration.
Preliminary cost data confirmed filter press dewatering of
chemically conditioned sludge to be the most cost effective
resource recovery alternative.
E. Disposal at Coastal Area Plants . Transporting inland
satellite plant sludge to a coastal plant for disposal by
landfill is not a viable alternative since landfill sites
3—18 2
-------
are located at inland locations. In addition, preliminary
costs indicate that, when sludge is to be composted, it is
more economical to compost at the location of sludge generation
than to compost at a centralized facility. Therefore, the
only method of disposal which is viable with transporting
satellite plant sludge to a coastal plant is incineration.
A comparison of preliminary costs showed that the
alternatives of vacuum filtration and pressure filtration
of chemically conditioned sludge are considerably less
expensive that the other alternatives considered for sludge
treatment prior to transport to a coastal area plant for
incineration. Pressure filtration was selected as the
more appropriate process, since it will result in a sludge
cake with a solids content of about 40 percent as compared
to a 20 percent solids content which would be achieved with
vacuum filtration.
F. Land Application . Both land application of liquid sludge
and dewatered sludge cake were investigated as possible methods
of ultimate sludge disposal. Liquid sludge has a solids
concentration of less than 5 percent, and sludge cake has
a solids concentration of from 20 to 40 percent, depending
on the selected dewatering process. Application rates were
based on typical nitrogen uptake rates. A value of 7.4
dry metric tons of solids per hectare per year (3.3 dry
tons of solids per acre per year) was assumed as a typical
rate of sludge application for both liquid sludge and
sludge cake.
Land application of liquid sludge or dewatered sludge
cake involves the transportation of the sludge to selected
tracts of land for either spray application or incorporation
into the soil. Based on the quantity of sludge anticipated
from the satellite plants, approximately 890 hectares
(2,200 acres) of land would be required for the Upper
Neponset satellite plant and 1210 hectares (3,000 acres)
for the Middle Charles satellite plant. A preliminary
survey indicates that there is insufficient land available
in the vicinity of the satellite plants to accommodate a
land application program. Land which is available and
could meet the necessary criteria for land application is
distant from the satellite plants and consists of fragmented
small parcels. Furthermore, discussions with State officials
at the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering has indicated that presently the State does not
permit land application of sludge. Based on these factors,
land application was not considered a viable alternative
for the disposal of sludge from the satellite plants.
3—18 3
-------
3.3.6. Discussion of the Remaining Sludge Management Systems
As a result of the environmental assessment of the
water quality impact of satellite treatment plant discharges,
the satellite treatment plant concept was eliminated in
favor of treating all the sewage at coastal area treatment
plants. The remaining non—satellite sludge disposal systems
and their associated costs and environmental parameters are
presented in this section.
As a result of the intermediate screening process,
the number of feasible sludge management alternatives for
non—satellite treatment systems has been reduced to five
basic concepts. These basic concepts include:
Landfilling of chemically conditioned, undigested,
filter pressed secondary sludge (RFL)
Landfilling of chemically conditioned, digested,
filter pressed secondary sludge (DFL)
Composting of chemically conditioned, digested,
filter pressed secondary sludge (RFC)
Composting of chemically conditioned, digested,
filter pressed secondary sludge (DFC)
Incineration of chemically conditioned, undigested,
filter pressed secondary sludge (RFI)
In order to facilitate the discussion of the numerous
sludge management concepts, abbreviations have been assigned
to each of 5 basic concepts and are shown in parentheses
after each of the alternatives listed above. In all cases,
it was assumed that primary sludge disposal would be handled
separately and independently of secondary sludge disposal.
Filter press dewatering was selected over vacuum filter
dewatering in order to obtain a 30 percent solids cake
concentration with secondary sludge. These five sludge
management alternatives are shown in Figure 3.3-15.
Detailed costs were prepared for the separate treatment
and disposal of sludge from separate treatment plants serving
the northern and southern MSD service areas and for the
treatment and disposal of sludge from a single treatment
plant serving the entire MSD service area. In addition,
costs were prepared for dewatering sludge at separate northern
and southern service area plants and hauling the dewatered
sludge from one plant to the other for centralized disposal.
Each of the five sludge treatment and disposal concepts
were considered for the first two options. For the third
option (separate dewatering-hauling-combined disposal), the
3—184
-------
FIGURE 3.3- 15
REMAINING SLUDGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
MDC
LANDFILL
I
ANAEROBIC I
DIGESTIONt__
DIRECTION
SLUDGE
THICKENING
CHEMICAL
CONDITION-
ING
SLUDGE
THICKENING
PRESSURE
FILTRATION
CHEN I CAL
CONDITION-
ING
SLUDGE
THICKENING
PRESSURE
FILTRATION
CHEMICAL
CONDIT ION-
ING
MDC
LANDFILL
SLUDGE
THICKENING
PRESSURE
FILTRATION
INCINERA-
TION OR
PYROLYSIS
CHEMICAL
CONDITION-
ING
LANDFILL
O1 ASH
PRESS U RE
FILTRATION
COMPOSTING
GIVE-AWAY
OR
MARKET
OF FLOW
-------
FIGURE 3.3-16
ALTERNATIVE PLANT CAPACITIES
FOR SLUDGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
RESIDUE
400 MGD PLANT SLUDGE SLUDGE DISPOSAL
FOR NORTHERN __________ TREATMENT CONVERSION
SERVICE AREA AND DEWATERING
OR DISTRIBUTION
TRANS PORT
DEWATERED SLUDGE
TO CENTRALIZED
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
FACILITY
RESIDUE
186 MGD PLANT SLUDGE SLUDGE DISPOSAL
FOR SOUTHERN ___________ TREATMENT CONVERSION — OR DISTRIBUTION
SERVICE AREA AND DEWATERING
586 MGD PLANT SLUDGE
SERVICE AREA AND DEWATERING
SLUDGE RESIDUE
FOR ENTIRE ___________ TREATMENT __________ ___________
CONVERSION DISPOSAL
OR DISTRIBUTION
-------
landfill concepts were not considered, since there would be
no further sludge processing required after sludge dewatering
prior to landfill. The quantity of raw sludge solids
processed, exclusive of chemical addition or recycle
quantities, and the costs for each of the alternatives
is shown in Table 3.3—2. The costs and quantities under
the separate disposal option reflect the summation of the
values for the northern and southern service area plants.
Table 3.3-3 presents the fuel, power, manpower, chemicals,
land area and other key elements for each of the 13
remaining non-satellite sludge management alternatives.
Landfill Alternatives . Of the remaining alternatives,
landfill of undigested, dewatered sludge represents the
most economical alternative. As shown in Table 3.3-2,
there is some economy of scale that can be achieved with
this alternative with a single wastewater treatment plant
as compared to separate wastewater treatment plants for
the northern and southern service areas. Most of the
economy of scale savings result from reductions in the
unit cost of the dewatering equipment and the associated
dewatering buildings.
The landfill of digested, dewatered sludge is more
expensive than the landfill of undigested, dewatered sludge
because of the added cost of new digestion facilities.
However, land requirements for the landfill of the dewatered
sludge can be reduced by approximately 25 percent if the
sludge is digested prior to landfilling. Digestion also
would decrease the consumption of fuel, chemicals and trans-
portation costs because of the lower sludge production.
While the potential for odor production is reduced by
digestion, the high lime dosage required to dewater undigested
secondary sludge would also tend to mitigate odor problems.
One potential disadvantage of digestion is that digested
sludge does not dewater as well as undigested sludge. The use
of stabilized sludge in a landfilling operation is normally
required under most situations (Federal Register Vol. 42,
No. 211 November 2, 1977) . The sanitary landfill must be
operated so as to prevent nuisance odors. On this basis,
any sludge which is labeled for landtilling, should be
stabilized by means of digestion.
The advantages of landfilling secondary sludge include
low costs, minimal air emissions and low manpower, power and
fuel requirements. The major disadvantages of landfilling
secondary sludge include the commitment of large quantities
of land for disposal of sludge at high loading rates and
the problems associated with obtaining a site. The site
must meet State and local requirements, and be acceptable
to the general public.
Sludge may be applied to a landfill in a liquid or a
3—187
-------
TABLE 3.3-2
Raw
COSTS FOR NON-SATELLITE
SLUDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Sludge Solids
Processed
Metric TPD
(Short TPD)
Amortized
Capital
Cost
$1000/yr
O and M
Cost
$1000/yr
Total
Annual
Cost
$100 0/yr
Total
Unit Cost
$/metric T
($/short T)
O i
(‘ :
r)o JH
Alternative
Capital
Cost
$1000
( )
I -i
OD
RFL
166.7
(184)
40,549.0
3,065.0
5,689.0
8,754.0
144.2
(130.8)
Separate
DFL
166.7
(184)
54,811.0
4,143.0
5,647.0
9,790.0
160.9
(145.9)
Treatment,
RFC
166.7
(184)
47,173.0
3,566.0
5,509.0
9,075.0
149.5
(135.6)
Separate
Disposal
DFC
RFI
166.7
166.7
(184)
(184)
59,798.0
65,117.0
4,520.0
4,922.0
5,483.0
6,532.0
10,003.0
11,454.0
164.4
188.5
(149.1)
(171.0)
Separate
Treatment,
Combined
Disposal
RFC
DFC
RFI
166.7
166.7
166.7
(184)
(184)
(184)
46,564.0
58,644.0
63,695.0
3,520.0
4,433.0
4,815.0
5,550.0
5,519.0
6,595.0
9,070.0
9,952.0
11,410.0
149.5
163.5
187.3
(135.6)
(148.3)
(169.9)
Combined
Treatment,
Combined
Disposal
RFL
DFL
RFC
DFC
RFI
166.0
166.0
166.0
166.0
166.0
(183)
(183)
(183)
(183)
(183)
32,792.0
47,823.0
39,614.0
52,153.0
56,651.0
2,479.0
3,615.0
2,994.0
3,942.0
4,282.0
5,071.0
5,436.0
5,080.0
5,374.0
6,016.0
7,550.0
9,051.0
8,074.0
9,316.0
10,298.0
124.7
149.5
133.3
153.8
170.0
(113.1)
(135.6)
(120.9)
(139.5)
(154.2)
-------
TABLE 3.3-3
ENERGY & RESOURCES CONSUMED BY
NON-SATELLITE SLUDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Raw
Sludge Solids
Processed
Metric TPD
(short TPD)
Labor
Man-
Hrs/D
GJ/D (MBTU/D)
Power
GJ/D (KWH/D)
Lime
Metric TPD
(short TPD)
Alternative
Land
Required
Ha (Acr)
Fuel
RFL
166.7
(184)
491
198.9
(491.0) 82.2
(77.9)
200.4
(54,700)
38.4
28.2
(42.3)
Separate DFL
166.7
(184)
512
146.2
(361.0) 61.6
(58.4)
334.2
(91,220)
Treatment, RFC
166.7
(184)
648
38.6
(95.4) 185.3
(175.6)
215.5
(58,815)
(42.3)
Separate DFC
166.7
(184)
605
29.7
(73.4) 138.7
(131.5)
345.2
(94,202)
28.2
(31.1)
Disposal RFI
166.7
(184)
626
50.2
(124.0)* 37.7
(35.8)
314.7
(85,880)
38.4
(42.3)
Separate
Treatment, RFC
166.7
(184)
648
38.6
(95.4) 185.3
(175.6)
215.4
(58,788)
38.4
(42.3)
Combined DFC
166.7
(184)
605
29.7
(73.4) 138.7
(131.5)
345.1
(94,183)
Disposal RFI
166.7
(184)
573
50.2
(124.0)* 37.7
(35.8)
288.2
(78,650)
38.4
(42.3)
RFL
Combined DFL
166.0
166.0
(183)
(183)
404
473
202.3
149.7
(500.0) 82.2
(370.0) 61.6
(77.9)
(58 4)
183.7
315.0
(50,149)
(85,980)
38.1
27.8
(42.0)
(30.6)
Treatment, RFC
166.0
(183)
583
38.5
(95.0) 184.2
(174.6)
198.7
(54,228)
Combined DFC
166.0
(183)
576
29.6
(73.0) 138.2
(131.0)
325.9
(88,943)
27.8
(30.6)
Disposal RFI
166.0
(183)
508
50.1
(123.8)* 37.6
(35.6)
271.5
(74,090)
38.1
(42.0)
*Includes landfill required for ash disposal.
-------
TABLE 3.3-3
(Cont ‘d)
ENERGY & RESOURCES CONSUMED BY
NON-SATELLITE SLUDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Fed 3
TPD
TPD)
Residue
Volume
m 3 /day (yd 3 /day)
Wet
Trips Per
Day
Truck
Capacity
15.3m 3 22.9m 3
(20yd 3 ) (30yd 3 )
Alternative
Metric
(short
Polymer
Metric TPD
(short TPD)
Residue
Weight
Metric TPD
(short TPD)
Dry
Separate DFL
7.1
(7.8)
0.29
(0.32)
158.3
(174.5) 658.9 (861.7)
43
29
Treatment, RFC
9.6
(10.6)
0.31
(0.34)
195.0
(215.0) 360.8 (471.9)
24
16
Separate DFC
7.1
(7.8)
0.29
(0.32)
144.2
(159.0) 266.8 (349.Q)
1.7
12
Disposal RFI
9.6
(10.6)
0.31
(0.34)
99.8
(110.0) 166.1 (217.3)
11
7
Separate
Treatment, RFC
9.6
(10.6)
0.31
(0.34)
195.0
(215.0) 360.8 (471.9)
24
16
Combined DFC
isposa1 RF1
7.1
9.6
(7.8)
(10.6)
0.29
0.31
(0.32)
(0.34)
144.2
99.8
(159.0) 266.8 (349.0)
(110.0) 166.1 (217.3)
17
11
12
7
RFL
9.5
(10.5)
0.30
(0.33)
214.6
(236.6) 893.4 (1168.4)
58
39
Combined DFL
7.0
(7.7)
0.29
(0.32)
157.7
(173.9) 656.6 (858.8)
43
29
Treatment RFC
9.5
(10.5)
0.30
(0.33)
194.1
(214.0) 359.1 (469.7)
23
16
Combined DFC
7.0
(7.7)
0.29
(0.32)
143.3
(158.0) 2651. (346.8)
17
•
12
Disposal RFI
9.5
(10.5)
0.30
(0.33)
98.9
(109.0) 164.6 (215.3)
11
7
-------
dewatered form. The sludge may lso be raw or digested.
Different problems will arise in landfilling of the sludge
depending on the form of the sludge. An analysis to
determine the most environmentally sound alternative for
sludge landfilling will be discussed.
Problems associated with landfilling of sludge include,
increased leachate production, odors, public health consider-
ations, compacting difficulties and nuisance. No specific
guidelines exist for operation of a sewage sludge landfill;
however, guidelines for proper design and operation for
sanitary landfills apply.
If a sanitary landfill accepting sludge is not operated
by the wastewater treatment authority, a binding agreement
should be required between the wastewater treatment authority
and the operator of the sanitary landfill to assure compliance
with EPA guidelines and criteria being developed under PL94-580
(EPA, 1977)
Application of liquid sewage to sanitary landfills
has been tested in the past. Odor and leachate problems
were found. This would cause even a greater problem if
heavy precipitation falls on a landfill. Since only dried
sludge is accepted in Massachusetts, disposal of liquid
sludge will receive no further considerations. Any disposal
of sludge in a landfill requires a separate permit to be
obtained by the landfill owner since sludge is designated as
a special waste.
It has been suggested that a new landfill site,for sewage
sludge only, be developed. To accomplish this task a new
site would have to be found. In light of public opposition
to landfills in a community, this would be a difficult task.
If such a site were found, it would require special permits
and it would have to be a controlled landfill, assuming the
sludge is designated a hazardous waste. Environmental
concerns for such a fill would be similar to those for any
landfill.
Surface water and ground water pollution are of major
concern in sanitary landfills. Precipitation is the principal
source of moisture over a landfill site. Once the cover soil
field capacity is exceeded, the moisture percolates down into
the landfill material below and ventaully the field capacity
may be exceeded. At this point the moisture, in the form of
leachate, will percolate into the base soil of the landfill.
Movement of leachate through soils depend on the composition
of the soil, its permeability and the type of contaminant.
Organic materials that are biodegradable do not travel far,
but inorganic ions and refractory organics can.
If leachate is determined to be a problem, a controlled
3—19 1
-------
landfill would be required. This would mean that leachate
and runoff from the landfill would need to be collected and
suitably treated to prevent pollution of ground surface waters.
This can be accomplished by lining the landfill with a layer
of clay or other impervious material. In Massachusetts today,
only one small controlled landfill exists.
The production of odors resulting from the application
of digested sludge should be very similar to those associated
with normal landfill operations. To control any odors which
may be produced by the application of digested sludge, cover-
age with soil as soon as possible after filling is necessary.
The principal gases which will be produced due to de-
composition are methane, nitrogen, carbon dioxide and
hydrogen sulfide. Gas production will vary as the landfill
ages and with the composition of the landfill. Methane gas
is explosive, therefore, measures must be taken to prevent
its accumulation. If the landfill is porous, the methane
gas will escape through the surface of the fill to the
atmosphere. However, if there is the possibility of methane
pockets forming, the landfill must be vented. The potential
presence of methane does not differ between ordinary landfills
and those where sludge is added to the fill.
Air pollutants from landfilling will be due to the sludge
handling, soil covering and support vehicles. The equipment
at the fill and the trucks delivering the sludge will be the
sources of air emissions in addition to fugitive dust. Noise
levels will also be raised due to the equipment.
Exposure to pathogens in the sludge should be minimal
at the landfill since it will have been digested prior to
application. Bacteria, protozoan cysts, heirnirithic ova and
viruses present in the sludge will be greatly reduced, but
will not be totally eliminated. Landfill site workers may
be exposed to some degree of hazard; however, few, if any,
substantiated cases of disease due to landfill operations
exist.
Finally, it is essential for the community surrounding
the landfill to be separated from the associated problems
and possible nuisances of the landfill. Therefore, a buffer
zone to screen the landfill is necessary. The buffer zone
should screen the site from view with plantings and/or
a berm which would also provide a barrier to limit noise
and dust.
Composting Alternatives . Next to landfill, the composting
alternatives provide the most economical sludge disposal
system. Six of the remaining alternatives for sludge disposal
involve composting of either undigested, dewatered sludge or
anaerobically digested, dewatered sludge. The anaerobic
3—192
-------
digestion step adds between $14 to $19 per ton to the cost
of the composting operation. The only advantage of digesting
the sludge prior to composting is to reduce the potential
for odor generation during the composting process. Since
undigested sludge has been successfully composted by the
aerated pile method without significant odor generation,
it is questionable whether the potential benefit derived
from digestion prior to composting is worth the added cost.
The effect of the economy of scale on composting can
be gleaned from Table 3.3-2. By comparing the cost of
composting for the separate treatment/separate disposal
alternative to that of the separate treatment/combined
disposal alternative, it can be seen that there is little
cost savings for hauling dewatered sludge from the southern
service area to the northern service area for centralized
composting. The added transportation costs more than offset
any savings resulting from a larger composting oepration.
This is understandable since most of the costs associated
with composting are operating costs, which tend to be
directly proportional to the quantity of sludge processed.
Table 3.3-2 does indicate however, that combined sludge
dewatering and cornposting for a single centralized waste-
water treatment plant is less expensive that the separate
wastewater treatment alternatives. This is primarily a
result of the economy of scale achieved with a large sludge
dewatering facility, housed in a single building rather than
separate sludge dewatering facilities for the northern .and
southern service areas.
The success of a composting operation is contingent
upon finding a suitable outlet for the composted material.
It has been assumed that certain high quality sludge products,
such as shredded compost or heat dried sludge, could be
distributed to the public by either a give-away or retail
marketing program. For a give—away program, it has been
assumed that the general public would pick up the sludge
product free of charge at the coastal treatment plants.
The product would be available in bulk for transfer to
containers or trucks for general public distribution. For
the give-away alternative, no cost would be incurred for
sludge trucking or ultimate disposal. This program is similar
to Philadelphia’s present Philorganic program and Chicago’s
NuEarth program. For a retail market program, it was assumed
that the sludge product would be prepared in 50 pound bags
and distributed through retail outlets such as nurseries,
garden supply stores, etc. This program is similar to the
LA/OMA program in which composed sludge is privately distributed
by the Kellogg Company, a Los Angeles based compost
distributor. It has been assumed that the cost of bagging
and distribution would be offset by revenues derived from the
sale of the bagged product.
A preliminary study of land suitable for compost appli—
3—19 3
-------
cation within the MSD service area was made. This study
focused on large or institutional users and did not include
small scale or individual users. Those areas which were
considered for compost application were; parks (including
the Harbor Islands), golf courses, parkway medians, military
installation, prisons, airports, cemeteries and wildlife
or natural preserves. Compost application was not considered
for wetlands or 33 meter (100 foot) buffer zones around
rivers and streams, areas with slopes in excess of 10 to 15
percent, cemeteries smaller than 1.2 hectares (3 acres), in-
accessible woodlands and beaches or beach parks. The area
suitable for compost application was approximately 4700
hectares (11,600 acres). Application rates of approximately
4.4 metric tons/hectares/year (2 tons/acre/year) are
possible, based on the expected chemical composition of the
composted sludge. At this application rate, it would
be possible to apply approximately 20,700 metric tons (23,000
short tons) of compost annually to the large tracts of avail-
able land area. While it would not be reasonable to assume
that all of these large land area owners would elect to use
compost as a soil conditioner, when the large volume user is
combined with small users such as individual homeowners,
industrial parks, landscape contractors and others, a
considerable market for composted sludge as a soil conditioner
can be expected.
While it is difficult to project markets for sludge
based compost in an area without a more formalized survey,
it would appear that the MDC jurisdictional area and environs
could support a market of 18,000—27,000 dry metric tons
(20,000—30,000 dry tons) per year after 3 or 4 years of
development. This market would include several sectors, one
of which would be the reatil or consumer sector. Other
sectors would be MDC—controlled or related municipal and
county agencies, commercial nurseries, golf courses, and
landscape contractors. Market projections for other cities
throughout the U.S. are presented in Table 3.3-4.
The major advantage of composting is that the sludge
is converted to a useful product. The product therefore
recycles a valuable resource by utilizing the nutrient
and soil building properties of composted sludge. The major
disadvantages of composting are the relatively large land
requirements, the seasonal operation cycle, and the uncertain-
ty of the market for the end product. Consequently, it would
be desirable to conduct an extensive marketing survey prior
to implementing an extensive composting program.
At the present time, Energy Resources Company Inc.,
ERCO, is conducting a market survey for the MDC to determine
user acceptance to cornposted sludge. Approximately 76.5
cubic meters (100 cubic yards) of compost have been produced
from Deer Island raw primary sludge for test marketing. The
compost is being distributed to a number of non-agricultural
3—194
-------
TABLE 3.3-4
ESTIMATED MARKET POTENTIAL FOR SLUDGE PRODUCTS
Survey Area
Colorado Springs
Placerville
Fort Worth
Washington, D.C.
Los Angeles
Chicago
2,270
73,000
99,000
187 ,000
(2, 500)
(80,000)
(109,500)
(205,500)
Extracted from Ettlich, W.F. and A.K. Lewis, “Is There a
Sludge Market?” Water and Wastes Engineering, Dec. 1976.
Annual Market Potential
Dry Metric Tons per Year (Short Tons per Year)
990 (1,090)
162 (178)
3—19 5
-------
potential users for testing and evaluation. Based on the
results of the test marketing and user acceptance, ERCO
will estimate the potential size of the compost market
in the area. This study should be completed by the end of
the third quarter of 1978.
The aerated static pile method of composting was designed
to reduce odor emissions into the atmosphere, eliminate
costly digestion and reduce pathogen levels. This method
allows the use of undigested sludge since it reduces malodors
and destroys pathogens due to raised temperatures. There-
fore, sludge digestion is unnecessary.
In order for the composting operation to have no adverse
effect on ground or surface water quality, an impervious
layer of asphalt or other suitable material should be installed
under the storage, drying, composting, mixing, dewatering and
screening operations. The runoff and leachate should be
collected and treated. Area must be provided for stockpiling
the compost during curing and frr storing the final product
until distribution. The impacts which may place the greatest
limitations on the process include land availability, odor
control and aesthetic impacts.
The process is designed to operate in a manner whereby
odors are minimized. The odors are kept to a minimum by
drawing the effluent air from the compost through a pile
of cured compost. At times, odors may be present in the
vicinity of the composting area and may cause objections.
Also, depending on the actual site, residences or business
may be in full view of the composting area. Therefore, it
is essential for the community surrounding the composting
site to be separated from the associated problems and possible
nuisances of the operation. A buffer zone to screen the
site is necessary. The buffer zone should screen the site
from view with plantings and/or a berm which would also
provide a barrier to limit noise and dust.
The static pile operation requires the use of front end
loaders and trucks to move the compost materials and residues.
Equipment used for these purposes will raise noise levels
and air emissions.
Various bacteria, protozoa, Helminthic parasites and
viruses are found in sewage. Composting, when properly
conducted, destroys the human enteric pathogens that are
present in the sludge. However, the compost is not sterile.
Successful composting depends on raised temperatures that
will destroy the primary pathogens while not inhibiting
the composting process itself.
While composting destroys primary pathogens, certain
thermophilic fungi and actinomycetes normally present in
3—196
-------
low concentrations can proliferate during the composting
process (Burge, 1977) . These organisms can produce
respiratory infections and allergic reactions to individuals
susceptible to asthmatic reactions resulting in a potential
occupational hazard to workers at the cornposting site.
This impact can be readily mitigated by screening personnel
with a history of health problems from consideration for
composting jobs. Enclosure of the cabs in operating equip-
ment and dust control measures can also reduce the exposure
of the workers to spores of these secondary pathogens.
Incineration Alternative. The incineration alternative
represents the most expensive of the remaining sludge
disposal alternatives. However, the amount of area
required to landfill incineration ash is about one fourth
of that required to landfill chemically conditioned dewatered
sludge cake. Hence, if available land is at a premium,
the reduction of land requirements could make the incineration
alternative attractive.
As in the case of the other alternatives, there is only
marginal economy of scale to be gained by hauling sludge
from the southern service area for centralized incineration.
The main economy of scale savings are associated with the
dewatering process and can only be achieved by constructing
a single centralized wastewater treatment plant serving
both service areas.
It should be emphasized that the incineration costs
as developed in this EIS reflect the costs of dewatering
and incinerating secondary sludge separate and independent
of primary sludge. If the secondary sludge were blended
with primary sludge prior to dewatering, it may be possible
to reduce the amount of chemical conditioning required,
thereby reducing the costs of incineration somewhat from
the costs reported in Table 3.3-2.
Incineration processes have their drawbacks. Even
with the most advanced air pollution control system,
the incineration of secondary sludge will emit air pollutants.
Thus the high cost and air emissions associated with incin-
eration alternatives must be weighed against the high land
requirements and public acceptance uncertainties of landfill
alternatives, and the land requirements and market uncertain-
ties of the cornposting alternatives.
Air emission and air quality issues are of major concern.
The Clean Air Act Amendments and various EPA rules and
regulations related to air quality must be adhered to. An
air dispersion study of the area was undertaken. The study
included an air quality model for the air pollutants
emanating from sludge incinerators at various locations
within the study area. The air dispersion study is presented
3—197
-------
in Appendix 3.5.4. A general discussion of air pollution
emissions from sewage sludge incinerators is presented here.
Sludge incinerator systems have been shown to emit
particulates, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide,
hydrocarbons and small but measurable quantities of heavy
metals and organic chemical compounds. The amount of a
particular pollutant which is emitted is directly related
to the characteristics of the sludge being burned. Sewage
sludge, in general, contains organic material, carbon,
phosphorus, and such major elements as silicon, sodium,
potassium, magnesium, aluminum, iron, calcium and aminonium.
A substantial number of minor elements may also be found,
including, chromium, maganese, copper, nickel, mercury,
lead, cadmium, zinc, boron, silver and cobalt.
In addition to the sludge characteristics, operating
procedures also determine the types and amounts of pollutants
that may occur. Poor operating procedures may cause excess
particulates to leave the incinerator or may ca zse hydro—
carbons and carbon monoxide to form. Sulfur oxides are not
emitted in significant amounts when sludge is burned, in
comparison to other combustion processes, since the sulfur
content (by dry weight) in sludge is generally 1 to 2
percent.
Particulate emissions are generally a major problem
in both multiple hearth and fluidized bed incinerators.
The standards for discharge of particulate matter from
sewage sludge incinerators allows not more than 0.65 grams
per kilogram (1.3 lbs/ton) of dry sludge input. For
uncontrolled multiple hearth incinerators, particulate
emissions average about 50 grams per kilogram (100 lbs/ton)
of sludge. Stack tests at existing sludge incinerators
with control equipment have shown that the emissions
standards can be met (EPA 1975).
It is not anticipated that gaseous pollutant (nitrogen
oxides, sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide) levels would
violate any regulations. As mentioned previously, sulfur
dioxide levels are dependent upon sulfur levels in the sludge.
With control equipment, sulfur dioxide levels are reported
to be 0.4 g/kg (0.8 lb/ton), in contrast to 0.5 g/kg (1.0
lb/ton) uncontrolled. Sludge typically has a high nitrogen
content due to the proteinaceous compounds and the ammonjum
ion. The amount of nitrogen emitted from a controlled
sludge incinerator is about 2.5 g/kg (5 lb/ton) versus
3 g/kg (6 lb/ton) for uncontrolled emissions (EPA 1975).
Pesticides and PCB’s (polychlorinated-biphenyl) may
occur as a wide range of concentrations in sludge as is
summarized by a random selection of sludges below:
3—198
-------
Compound Range (mg/kg)
Aidrin 16.2 (in one sludge only)
Dieldrin 0.08 — 2.0
Chiordane 3.0 - 32.0
DDD n.d. - 0.5
DDT n.d. - 1.1
PCB’s n.d. — 105
n.d. - not detected
The preceding data was obtained by the National Research
Center, Cincinnati, Ohio as related by EPA (1974) . No
pesticides were found in the sludge ash. Analysis also
showed no pesticides or PCB’s in scrubber water. However,
the study failed to determine whether or not they appeared
in the gas stream leaving the incinerator. It therefore
appears the materials are either destroyed via incineration
or escape in the exhaust gas. Since all of these materials
have some solubility in water, it is unlikely that no trace
amounts would be present in the scrubber water. Thus,
it appears that PCB’s and pesticides are destroyed.
Other data also point to complete or near complete
(99 percent) destruction of pesticides at temperatures near
900°C (1,652°F). PCB’s which are slightly more stable,
were found to be totally destroyed at temperatures of
1315°C (2,400°F) for 2.5 seconds or 99 percent destroyed
at 871—982°C (1,600—1,800°F) in two seconds. When
oxidized in combination with sewage sludge, at an exhaust
gas temperature of 593°C (1,100°F) , total destruction of the
PCB’s was achieved (EPA 1975)
The concentration of metals in sludge varies widely
due to the source of the wastewater and the type of waste-
water treatment. Subsequently, metal concentrations in
the products of incineration (sludge ash, particulates
and gaseous emissions) will vary depending upon the initial
sludge metal content.
Tests conducted at three incinerators showed that the
ratio of a metal to fixed solids in the sludge was not
always the same as its concentration in the ash. For
example, if the ash showed a lower concentration of a
metal than its concentration in the sludge on a fixed
solids basis, this indicates that the particulate (or fly
ash) should have a higher concentration of the metal than
either sludge or ash (EPA Task Force Study, 1972). Table
3.3-5 gives a comparison of metals in the sludge to ash.
Mercury vapor or a volatile mercury compound is
discharged to the atmosphere in the exhaust gases from
sewage sludge incinerators. There is strong evidence that
3—199
-------
TABLE 3.3-5
METAL TO FIXED SOLID RATIO FOR
SLUDGE AND ASH FOR INCINERATOR TEST SITES (mglg)
i.d. — insufficient data
blank — not determined
n.d. — not detected
micrograms/gram
multiple hearth incinerator
fluidized bed incinerator
Data on most elements were determined by emmission specto—
graph by J. Kopp, Analytical Quality Control Laboratory.
As, Sb, and Se were determined by neutron activation
analysis at North Carolina State University (coordinated by
D. von Lehmden, Analytical Branch, Division of Air Programs).
Element Lake
Tahoe, Calif.(MH)
Barstow, Calif.(FB)
Residue
Residue
Sludge
Ash
Ratio
Ash
Ratio
Lorton, Va.(MH )
Residue
Sludge Ratio
Ag,
Silver
0.6
L.d. 1
—
0.14
0.36
0.33
Al,
Aluminum
27.
24.
0.88
16.
1.0
2.0
Ba,
Be,
Barium
Beryllium
6.0
n.d. 3
1.1
n.d.
0.18
—
4.1
n.d.
0.37
-
0.75
—
Ca,
Calcium
62.
290.
4.6
46.
1.6
—
Cd,
Cadmium
0.37
0.20
0.57
n.d.
—
0.71
Co,
Cobalt
0.2
—
n.d.
—
Cr,
Chromium
2.0
0.3
0.15
2.9
0.17
0.86
Cu,
Copper
2.6
1.3
0.5
2.5
0.68
1.0
Fe,
Iron
18.
8.9
0.49
12.
0.91
0.86
Hg,
Mercury
9.0*
n.d.
—
20.*
K,
Potassium
1.4
1.3
0.92
3.3
—
1.3
Mg,
Magnesium
12.1
16.2
1.3
2.8
—
0.94
0
°
Mn,
Na,
Ni,
Manganese
Sodium
Nickel
1.1
1.8
2
0.5
1.8
i.d.
0.45
1.0
0.18
n.d.
1.0
1.0
1.3
—
P,
Phosphorus
81.
84.
1.0
1.3
Pb,
Lead
5.8
0.7
0.12
7.0
0.12
2.0
Sb,
AntImony
1.3*
1.3*
1.0
Se,
Selenium
12.3*
12.3*
1.0
Sr,
Strontium
1.0
0.7
0.7
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
V,
Vanadium
n.d.
0.4
—
n.d.
2.1
—
n.d.
n.d.
-
Zn,
Zinc
1.6
1.6
1.0
2.4
1.4
0.58
0.8
0.7
0.88
0.05
16.
1.5
n.d.
73.
0.58
n.d.
0.5
1.7
11.
n.d.
0.18
n.d.
0.85
0.15
8.1
1.2
n.d.
0.31
n.d.
0.7
1.6
50.
6.*
1.8
7.0
0.9
1.1
n.d.
45.
2.0
0.05
16.
0.9
n.d.
235.
0.22
n.d.
0.6
1.6
43.
n.d.
2.3
6.6
0.9
1.4
n.d.
57.
1.0
(1)
(2)
(3)
*
(MN)
(FB)
Source: EPA Sewage Sludge Incineration 1972
-------
lead compounds are being classified into the fly ash stream
and carried off by the combustion gases. It appears,
however, that the lead is removed via scrubbers. Silver,
barium, chromium and copper may show a similar effect,
but more substantial data are needed. An analysis
representative of particulates which leave the stack
is presented for the Tahoe, Barstow and Lorton sewage
sludge incinerators. The ratio of metal concentration
in the particulates to the metal concentration in the
sludge (fixed solids basis) is presented in Table 3.3-6.
No precise quantitative relationships may be established
from the data. However, there is reasonable agreement
between samples.
The literature indicates that discrepancies exist
regarding the percentages of mercury which enter the atmos-
phere. Several sources (EPA, 1972; Dewling, 1977; Olexsey,
1974) point to the complete vaporization of mercury into
incinerator gases. Other data suggest between 10 and 35
percent release of mercury into the atmosphere. The data
generated by Dewling (1977) shows, with the exception of
mercury, 78—95 percent of the heavy metal contained in
sludge is retained in the ash and all but 1 percent is
removed by the scrubber. This data is indicative of
incineration in general. A summary is provided in Table
3.3-7. Mercury is shown to be almost completely emitted
to the atmosphere (97.6 percent)
Due to the high emissions of mercury, a careful
examination of the quantity of mercury emitted on a daily
basis should be made. The EPA emission standard for mercury
from sewage sludge incinerators is 3,200 grams (7.06 ibs)
per day.
It is estimatec . that the sludge from the northern MSD
service area will contain about 6 mg/kg of mercury, and the
sludge from the southern service area will contain about
3 mg/kg. Assuming all of the mercury is vaporized upon
incineration, the incineration of all secondary sludge
will result in emissions of about 701 grams (1.55 lbs) of
mercury per day. This level, in addition to the 1634
grams (3.60 ibs) per day of mercury from primary sludge
incinerators, is well within the EPA allowable limit of 3200
grams (7.06 ibs) per day.
Airborne concentrations of metals are of concern since
they are generally associated with particles in the respirable
range (0.2u) and they may have toxic properties (Dewling
1977). Thus, the amount of heavy metals emitted should be
controlled to within acceptable limits to avoid contamination
to the environment.
Many of the minor elements found in the sludge will be
3—201
-------
TABLE 3.3—6
CONCENTRATION OF METALS IN PARTTCULATES (mgf )
1 R in ratio of metal concentration In partlculates to
particulate concentration used In the calcul;it mu.
2 n.a. means “not analyzed”
3 Rerylllum concentration In given In micrograms pr r gram
4 n.n.i. means “not sufficient Information’
5 n.j. means “no Information”
rofl(Pfl t rat I on In the s lujd ’e . Med I an
SOURCE: EPA Sewage Sludge Incineration
1972
Location
Sample
Elements
South
1
Lake
Tahoe
Rarstow
1
Ag, Silver
0.2
n.a. 2
0.6
0.05
n.a.
n.a.
0.6
n.a.
n.s.i. 4
As, Arsenic
<0.5
<0.3
<0.3
<0.3
0.3
<0.3
<0.3
<0.3
n.a.
fl.5.I.
Be, Beryllium
1.O 3
O.5
n.s.I.
O.5
O.5
0.5
n.s.I.
<0.5
n.s.f.
Cd, Cadmium
1.0
1.0
1.5
2.6
0.1
0.08
0.1
n.s.f.
<0.25
<0.8
Co, Cobalt
4.0
0.05
0.3
n.s.f.
n.j. 5
0.4
0.05
n.s.f.
0.05
n.s.I.
Cr, Chromium
1.0
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.2
0.5
0.7
Cu, Copper
1.0
0.04
0.8
0.1
2.0
1.8
2.5
0.7
1.3
0.8
Fe, Iron
4.0
28.
11.
0.6
5.0
12.
16.
1.0
17.
0.3
Mn, Manganese
0.5
0.6
0.3
0.4
11.1
0.1
0.2
0.6
0.4
0.5
Ni, Nickel
0.4
0.2
0.3
n.s.f.
0.1
0.05
0.1.
n.s.f.
2.0
n.s.f.
Pb, Lead
20.
7.
15.
2.6
1.0
0.1
0.9
0.1
9.0
4.5
Sr, Strontium
0.6
n.a.
n.a.
<0.4
0.2
n.a.
n.a.
n.s. f.
n.a.
n.T [ .
V, Vanadium
<0.2
<0.05
<0.05
n.s.f.
<0.1
<0.05
0.1
n.s.I.
<0.05
n.s.f.
Zn, Zinc
40.
50.
55.
30.
2.5
8.
12.
36.
19.
74.
-------
TABLE 3.3-7
FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR - HEAVY METAL MASS BALANCE
% Weight Distribution (Normalized)
Metal Ash Scrubber Stack
Zinc 79 20 1
Copper 78 21 1
Lead 87 12 1
Chromium 95 4 1
Nickel 80 20 N.D.
Mercury 0.4 2.0 97.6
Cadmium 80 20 N.D.
N.D. — Not Detected
Source: Dewling, 1977
TABLE 3.3-8
HEAVY METALS IN SLUDGE ASH
(mg/kg dry weight basis)
Silver 50
Boron N.D.
Cadmium 200—500
Chromium 300-600
Cobolt N.D.-200
Copper 1,300—1,600
Mercury N.D.
Manganese 200-900
Nickel N.D.
Lead 700—1,000
Strontium N.D.-700
Zinc 700—1,600
N.D. - Not Detected
Source: Dewling, 1977
3—203
-------
found in the ash in concentrations greater than the levels
found in dried sludge. Except for mercury, metals generally
remain in the ash or the fly ash. If the ash is about 25
percent fixed solids after ignition, it will have approximately
four times the concentration of metals as did the dried sludge.
These levels may range as high as 10,000 mg/kg, thereby
posing a possible pollution threat upon ultimate disposal.
Sludge ash data is difficult to find in the literature.
However, Table 3.3-8 summarizes available eta1s concentration
data.
The incineration alternative presents a potential source
of air pollution along with a sludge ash disposal problem.
Enüssion controls are used to clean effluent gases before
their release to the environment, thereby allowing air
emission standards to be met. The incinerator ash must be
disposed of in a properly designed landfill. When epositing
ash in a landfill, leachate and runoff should be collected
and treated and the site should be adequately monitored.
As mentioned previously, an air dispersion study is
presented in Appendix 3.5.4. The study provides computer
estimates of air emissions for sludge incineration at various
locations within the study area. The impacts of sludge
incineration are discussed in Section 5.4.
3—204
-------
3.4 FINAL SCREENING OF SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
3.4.1. Non—Satellite Systems
In the previous sections of this report, interceptor
sewer, waste’ yater treatment and sludge management subsystems
have been discussed as separate entities. In this section,
these subsystems will be brought together to form alternative
systems. Each alternative system will include interceptor
sewer, wastewater treatment and sludge management facilities.
As discussed previously, the least expensive means of
sludge disposal would be landfilling undigested, dewatered
sludge at an independent landfill owned and operated by the
MDC. However, sludge should be digested prior to landfilling
in order to stablize it and to reduce its volume. Due to
the nature of the sludge, particularly the presence of heavy
metals, leachate from the landfill would have to be prevented
from reaching groundwater. This could be accomplished by
lining the landfill area with a layer of clay or other
impervious liner, and collecting and treating the leachate.
Landfilling of sludge is the most land intensive sludge
disposal method, requiring about 150 hectares (370 acres)
of land to dispose of all the secondary sludge generated in
the MSD service area.
Transporting all the dewatered secondary sludge to an
inland sludge landfill would require considerable truck traffic
from the treatment plants to the landfill. Depending on the
capacity of the trucks used, from 16 to 24 trucks would be
required each day to transport the sludge generated from the
treatment of wastewater from the northern MSD service area,
and from 13 to 19 trucks per day would be required to trans-
port the sludge generated from the treatment of wastewater
from the southern MSD service area. For the alternative which
includes treating all wastewater at Deer Island, 29 to 43
trucks per day would be required. Truck traffic would have
the largest impact when transporting sludge from a plant on
Deer Island, since it would mean that from 16 to 43 trucks
would have to pass through the residential areas of Point
Shirley and Winthrop each day. The impact of truck traffic
would not be as great when transporting sludge from a plant
at either Squantura or Broad Meadows, where the number of
trucks required are less (13 to 19 per day) and the plants
are located closer to major arteries.
Due to the problems associated with leachate control,
the large land area requirements, and the heavy volume of
truck traffic required, methods of sludge disposal other
than landfilling should be used where possible. The remain-
ing feasible sludge disposal options available are composting
sludge for a market or give away program, and sludge incin-
3—205
-------
eration with ash disposal in a controlled fill area.
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement addressing
the disposal of primary sludge from MDC wastewater treat—
ment facilities prepared for EPA, Region I by the firm of
Ecoisciences, Inc., concluded that “The MDC should not
attempt to produce and sell a fertilizer product.” However,
that conclusion was specifically made for the production
and sale of fertilizer derived from stabilized primary
sludge. It was stated in the primary sludge Draft EIS that
a “review of other sludge fertilizer programs indicates that
the established operations with successful marketing programs
are those which dry activated sludge from secondary treat—
ment processes”.
While it would be desirable to conduct an extensive
marketing survey to determine the possible market for
composted secondary sludge prior to implementing an
extensive composting program, such a survey is beyond the
scope of this study. (The marketing study currently being
conducted by Energy Resources Company, Inc. for the MDC
should provide some insight into market potential for
composted sludge) . Based on the experiences of other
metropolitan areas and preliminary investigations during
this study, it is estimated that, with an extensive
promotional campaign, the MDC jurisdictional area could
support a market of about 18,000 dry metric tons (20,000
dry short tons) of compost per year. The product could
be utilized as a soil conditioner and applied to parks,
highway median strips, golf courses, cemeteries, residential
lawns and other landscaped areas. Other possible outlets
are commercial nurseries and landscape contractors in the
area. In addition to existing park lands, the Boston
Harbor Islands Comprehensive Plan (MAPC 1972) recommends
the development of the Boston Harbor Islands into major
recreation and conservation sites. The combined land area
of these islands provides another outlet for composted
secondary sludge.
The estimated compost market of 18,000 dry metric tons
(20,000 dry short tons) per year would result in the disposal
of about 25 percent of the secondary sludge generated at
the MDC wastewater treatment plants. Based on th’e estimated
sludge characteristics presented in Table 3.2-26, the sludge
from the southern MSD service area wastewater will contain
considerably lower concentrations of heavy metals than the
sludge from the northern MSD service area wastewater.
Since the quantity of secondary sludge generated from the
wastewaters of either service area can more than fully
satisfy the anticipated market for composted sludge, the
compost should consist of sludge from the southern service
area, as this sludge is of a better quality (lower heavy
metals concentration) than the sludge from the northern
3—206
-------
service area. It is estimated that about half of the second—
ary sludge generated from the treatment of the wastewater
from the southern MSD service area could be disposed in the
form of compost.
As discussed previously, landfilling the secondary
sludge generated from the treatment of wastewater from the
northern MSD service area would require from 16 ro 24 trucks
to transport the sludge to a landfill. The landfill would
require an area of about 81 hectares (200 acres) . In
addition, due to the characteristics of the sludge, particularly
the heavy metals content, leachate and precipitation runoff
from the landfill area would have to be collected and treated
in order to prevent contamination of groundwater or surface
water. The sludge from the northern service area cannot
be di posed of as a composted product 1 since it was concluded
that the available market would be utilized to dispose of
sludge from the southern service area. A third alternative
for disposing of the northern service area sludge is incin-
eration. Although the Boston Air Quality Control Region is
in a status of “non-attainment”, recent investigations by
the Massachusetts Division of Air Pollution Control have
determined that Deer Island is in a “clean zone” of the
non-attainment” area. The incineration of the secondary
sludge from the northern MSD service area would result in
a residue of about 95 cubic meters (125 cubic yards) per
day. This residue, which must be disposed of, is about 25
percent of the volume of sludge which would require disposal
under the landfill option. It would be possible to dispose
of the residue from incineration either on Deer Island or at
a location near Deer Island, as will be discussed shortly.
As a result of the preceding discussion, it is felt that
incineration is the most practical method of disposing of
the secondary sludge generated from the treatment of the
wastewater from the northern MSD service area.
The remaining half of the southern service area
secondary sludge still requires a method of disposal. Land-
filling of this remaining sludge would not have as severe
impacts as would the landfilling of all the secondary sludge
generated from the treatment of wastewater from the entire
MSD service area or from the northern service area. An area
of about 34 hectares (84 acres) of land would be required.
Approximately 7 to 10 truck loads per day would be required
to transport this sludge from the treatment facility to the
landfill. In addition, due to the lower estimate of
concentrations of heavy metals in the sludge from the
southern service area and the smaller landfill area involved,
the collection and treatment of leachate and runoff would
be less involved than it would be at a landfill for the
sludge from either the northern or entire service areas.
If it is found that a larger market exists for composted
secondary sludge than is estimated, the amount of sludge
3—207
-------
requiring landfilling would be reduced.
The three non-satellite treatment plant system alter-
natives which survived the intermediate screening process
(see Section 3.3.2) will be described below, together with
their respective sludge management and interceptor sewer
requirements. Then, a comparative analysis will be made to
compare the relative merits of the three systems in order
to select an optimum non-satellite system which can, in
turn, be compared to the plan recommended in the EMMA Study
and a “No Action” alternative.
A. Deer: Deer/Broad Meadows: Broad Meadows - w/o Sat . This
alternative includes expanding and upgrading the existing
Deer Island treatment plant to provide secondary treatment
for the northern MSD service area wastewater flows, and the
construction of a new treatment plant at Broad Meadows to
provide secondary treatment for the wastewater from the
southern MSD service area.
Deer Island has a land area of approximately 85 hectares
(210 acres). The existing primary treatment plant occupies
about 8.9 hectares (22 acres) of land. The Suffolk County
House of Correction prison is located to the north of the
existing treatment plant and occupies about 9.3 hectares
(23 acres). To the south of the treatment plant is the 30
meter (100 foot) high drumlin, which covers an area of about
13 hectares (44 acres) of land, part of which contains the
remains of Fort Dawes. The remainder of the area on Deer
Island consists of several parcels of open space.
The expansion of the existing primary treatment facllit—
ies and the addition of secondary treatment facilities at
Deer Island to treat the wastewater from the northern NSD
service area can be accomplished by expanding the plant
site either northward or southward. A northward expansion
would require utilizing the area presently occupied by
the prison and would, therefore, necessitate removing the
existing prison facilities. ExpandIng southward would
require the construction of treatment facilities on the land
presently occupied by the drumlin, and would necessitate
removing the drumlin. A third option would be to expand
the primary treatment facilities adjacent to the existing
facilities and to construct secondary treatment facilities
on the southern end of Deer Island, below the drumlin.
This option was not considered because, in addition to the
additional costs of constructing, operating and maintaining
essentially separate facilities, there is not enough land
area south of the drumlin to accommodate the necessary
facilities, and about 6.1 hectares (15 acres) of fill would
be required.
The incineration of the secondary sludge generated
3—208
-------
300 0 300 $00
SCALE IN FEET
PRIMARY 100 0 100 ?O0
SETTLING •1 J-i _ i-- —I
SCALE IN METERS
AERATION TANKS
AREA FOR SECONDARY
SLUDGE ASH DISPOSAL
AREA FOR PRiMARY
SLUDGE ASH DISPOSAL
SLUDGE
MANAGEMENT
BUILDING
OUTLINE
LEGEND
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
OTHER EXISTING STRUCTURES
NEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACLITIES
REQUIRED —YEAR 2000
FUTURE EXPANSION - YEAR 2050
FIGURE 3 .4-I DEER ISLAND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
FINAL
TANKS
CHLORINE
CONTACT
TANKS
PUMPING
STATION
0
I,
LI
FOR NORTH MSD SERVICE AREA
-------
at the proposed treatment plant on Deer Island would produce
about 95 cubic meters (125 cubic yards) of ash per day.
This volume is based on a moisture content of 25 percent
and a density of 800 kg/rn 3 (50 lbs/ft. 3 ), which are the
anticipated characteristics of the ash at the point of
disposal. Disposing of the ash by depositing it in a large
basin to a height of 4.6 meters (15 feet) would require
a disposal area of about 15 hectares (36 acres) for 20 years
of operation. Including required berms and access roads,
the overall area required for disposal of the ash would be
about 20 hectares (50 acres). There is sufficient land
on Deer Island to accommodate the required ash disposal
facilities. If the treatment facilities are expanded
southward, over the drumlin area, the ash would have to be
disposed of in two separate areas; one located on the south
end of the island and one located on the existing prison
site. Expansion of treatment facililities northward, over
the site of the prison, would leave enough area south of
the treatment facilities for ash disposal. The area
occupied by the drumlin and about half of the area south
of the drumlin would be required for ash disposal. In
either case, there would be some land available at the
southern end of the island for the disposal of ash from
primary sludge incineration.
Since both options require the removal of both the
prison and the drumlin, the better plan would be to expand
the treatment facilities northward and dispose of incinerator
ash south of the treatment plant, as shown in Figure 3.4-1.
It would be necessary to collect any leachate and runoff
from the ash disposal basin so that the metals in the ash do
not reach the groundwater or Boston Harbor. This would
require lining the basin with a layer of clay or other
impervious liner and constructing a runoff collection system
around the perimeter of the disposal area. The collected
leachate and runoff would then be returned to the treatment
facilities.
The Broad Meadows site has a total land area of about
44.5 hectares (110 acres). Of this area, about 13.3 hectares
(33 acres) along the southern edge of the site is tidal marsh
land. The remaining 31.2 hectares (77 acres) of land above
the marsh is an adequate area to accommodate the required
treatment facilities and a cornposting operation to compost
t least half of the secondary sludge generated at this
treatment plant. However, locating both the treatment
and composting operations on this site would result in
facilities being constructed within about 46 meters (150 feet)
of some residences and about 91 meters (300 feet) of the
Broad Meadows School. In order to maintain a buffer zone
of at least 152 meters (500 feet) between the treatment
facilities and the nearby residences and school, the composting
operation would have to be located off the Broad Meadows
site. For this alternative, it is proposed that the northwest
3—210
-------
LEGENO
REQIJRED FACILITIES -
YEAR 2000
FUTURE EXPANSION-
YEAR 2050
— - - — PROPERTY LINE
FLOOD LINE (tOO YEAR)
• — — MARSH EDGE
BLOWER
BUILDING
FINAL SETTLING
TANKS
/
/
0
SCMI I
SCALE IM M(TEPI
TOWN RIVER PAY
INFLUENT
STATION
PRIMARY
TANKS
TOWN RIVER BAY
350
I00
PUMPING>
ADMINISTRATION
BUILDING
‘\
FIGURE 3.4-2
BROAD MEADOWS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
-------
corner of Squantum Point be utilized for the composting
operation. Composting half of the secondary sludge generated
at the treatment facilities at Broad Meadows would require
an area at Squantum Point of about 8.5 hectares (21 acres).
The sludge would be transported from Broad Meadows to Squantum
by barge via a circuitous path of about 19.3 kilometers
(12 miles) around Long Island, or by truck (7 to 10 required
per day) along major arteries for a distance of about 8
kilometers (5 miles).
The remaining secondary sludge from the Broad Meadows
facilities would require landfilling. A landfill area of
about 34 hectares (84 acres) would be required. The proposed
treatment plant at Broad Meadows is shown in Figure 3.4-2.
As mentioned in Section 3.2.1, the present MDC inter-
ceptor sewer system is currently overloaded in some areas
and, as increased flow5 are to be expected from the existing
service area and additional municipalities may be added to
the MSD, the interceptor system will require modifications
and additions to provide adequate service. The interceptor
sewer system which serves the northern MSD service area
would require the addition of about 51.5 kilometers (32
miles) of sewers ranging in size from 30.5 to 167.6 cent-
imeters (12 to 66 inches) in order to relieve overloaded
interceptors and to extend the northern interceptor system
into municipalities which will possibly be added to the
northern MSD service area. These required interceptors
are listed in Table 3.2-1 and shown in Figure 3.2-2.
The effluent from the Deer Island treatment plant would
be discharged through the existing outfall system. The
outfall system requires some repair work to restore it to
its design capacity.
Similarly, additions to the southern interceptor sewer
system are required. Most of the additions would be required
regardless of the location of the treatment plant to serve
the southern MSD service area. Other interceptor sewer
additions are dependent on the treatment plant location.
The additions common to all alternative southern area plants
include about 90.5 kilometers (56 miles) of sewers ranging
in size from 53.3 to 274.3 centimeters (21 to 108 inches),
as listed in Table 3.2-3 and shown in Figure 3.2-2. In
addition, for this alternative, about 2740 meters (9,000
feet) of 35.6 centimeter (14 inch) diameter force main and
1220 meters (4,000 feet) of 182.9 centimeter (72 inch)
diameter sewer would be required between Nut Island and the
Broad Meadows site in order to transport wastewater from
Houghs Neck and the Braintree-Weymouth pumping station to
the treatment facilities at Broad Meadows. The wastewater
from the High Level Sewer upstream of Broad Meadows would be
3—212
-------
BOSTON
BOSTON
HARBOR
DEER
4 IS LAND
MILTON
QUINCY BAY
BROAD
MEADOWS
QUINCY
\_ .
LEGEND
BRA INTREE
TREATMENT PLANT
SEWER / EFFLUENT CONDUIT WITH
FLOW DIRECTION AND SIZE
PUMPING STATION
OUTFALL EXTENSION AND SIZE
TOWN BOUNDARY LINE
FIGURE 3.4-3 COASTAL AREA FACILITIES REQUIRED FOR
If
DEER ISLAND - BROAD MEADOWS ALTERNATIVE
-------
diverted to the treatment plant. The effluent from the
plant would flow into the High Level Sewer downstream of
the site, and would be transported to the outfall system
at Nut Island. Since the High Level Sewer is not adequate
to handle peak flows from this plant, a relief pipeline
would be required. Preliminary investigations indicated
that there is not adequate space to locate a relief pipeline
parallel to the High Level Sewer through Houghs Neck, and
therefore, the required 289.6 centimeter (114 inch) diameter
relief pipeline would be routed under Quincy Bay, for a
length of about 2,590 meters (8,500 feet). These modifications
between Nut Island and Broad Meadows are shown in Figure 3.4-3.
The relief pipeline crossing Quincy Bay would reach Nut
Island at a lower elevation than the High Level Sewer and,
therefore, a pump station would be required at Nut Island to
lift the plant effluent from the relief pipeline to the
outfall system. During periods of peak flow and high tide,
the plant effluent from the High Level Sewer and the relief
pipeline would require pumping in order to be discharged
through the outfall system. Therefore, the existing raw
sewage pumping station on Nut Island would be converted to
an effluent pumping station. During periods of lower tides
and average flows, the effluent would discharge through the
outfall system by gravity. The modifications required at
Nut Island for this alternative are shown in Figure 3.4-4.
The existing Nut Island outfalls would be extended to
a point in the harbor where there is about a 13.7 meter
(45 foot) depth of water. This would require an extension
of about 470 meters (1550 feet) for two of the existing
152.4 centimeter (60 inch) outfall pipes, and about 1585
meters (5200 feet) for the third existing 152.4 centimeter
(60 inch) outfall pipe. Diffusers would be added to the
end of each outfall pipe.
Each of the ten pumping stations which are located
along the interceptor system would be renovated or replaced
in order to provide efficient and adequate capacities for
future flows, as recommended in the EMMA Study.
In addition to the above facilities, the overall
wastewater management plan includes facilities which are
not included as an integral part of this EIS. These include
combined sewer overflow regulation facilities and primary
sludge management facilities. Several combined sewer
overflow regulation projects are included in the overall
plan. These projects will provide collection, treatment
and disposal facilities to replace the numerous combined
sewer overflows which presently discharge to Boston Harbor
and its tributaries.
The primary sludge produced at the treatment plant
serving the southern MSD service area will be pumped
3—214
-------
_J
I
SCALt IN PUT
0
I
SCALE IN
EXISTING INFLUENT PUMPING
TO BE MODIFIED TO AN
EFFLUENT PUMPING STATION
LEGEND
EXISTING FACILITIES
TO BE DEMOLISHED
D EXISTING FACILITIES
TO BE MODIFIED
NEW FACILITIES
FIG. 3.4-4 NUT ISLAND FACILITIES
EXISTING FACILITIES
TO BE DEMOLISHED
REQUIRED WITH A BROAD MEADOWS
LIFT STATION
D
OR SQUANTUM PLANT
-------
through a force main across Boston Harbor to Deer Island,
where it will be dewatered and incinerated along with the
sludge produced at the northern service area treatment
plant, as recommended in a separate EIS.
B. Deer: Deer/Squantum: Squantum - w/o Sat . This alter-
native includes expanding and upgrading the existing Deer
Island treatment plant to provide secondary treatment for
the northern MSD service area wastewater flows, and the
construction of a new treatment plant at Squantum Point
to provide secondary treatment for the wastewater from the
southern MSD service area.
The wastewater treatment, sludge disposal, and inter-
ceptor sewer facilities required for the northern service
area are the same as discussed under Alternative A. The
proposed layout of the Deer Island facilities is shown
in Figure 3.4-1.
The Squantum Point site has a total land area of
slightly over 28.3 hectares (70 acres), of which approximately
50 percent is presently owned by Boston Edison. The remainder
is presently owned by Jordan-Marsh. The area is large
enough to accommodate a treatment plant to provide secondary
treatment for the wastewater from the southern service area,
but there is not enough additional area for a composting
operation. For this alternative, it is proposed that
Broad Meadows be utilized for composting. Composting half
of the secondary sludge generated at the treatment facilities
at Squantum Point would require an area of about 8.5 hectares
(21 acres) at Broad Meadows. The composting operation would
be located in the southwest corner of Broad Meadows so that
it is as far away from the residential areas as possible.
The sludge could be transported from Squantum to Broad
Meadows either by barge or by truck. The remaining second-
ary sludge generated at the Squantum Point treatment plant
would require landfilling. A landfill area of about 34
hectares (84 acres) would be required. The proposed treat-
ment facilities at Squantum Point are shown in Figure 3.4-5.
The southern interceptor system requires the addition
of about 90.5 kilometers (56 miles) of sewer pipe ranging
in size from 53.3 to 274.3 centimeters (21 to 108 inches)
in order to relieve and extend the present system, as listed
in Table 3.2-3 and shown in Figure 3.2-2. In addition, an
influent sewer is required to transport the incoming waste-
water from the High Level Sewer to the treatment plant at
Squantum Point. About 6500 meters (21,400 feet) of influent
sewer, 3 meters by 4.3 meters (10 feet by 14 feet) in
cross—section, would be required. In order to transport
wastewater from Houqhs Neck and the Braintree-Weymouth
pumping station to the influent sewer, about 2740 meters
(9,000 feet) of 35.6 centimeter (14 inch) diameter force
main and 1830 meters (6,000 feet) of 182.9 centimeter
3—216
-------
300 0
300 600
SLUDGE
SCALE IN FEET
SCALE IN METERS
CHLORINE CONTACT
TANKS (If required)
JORDAN
MARSH
WAREHOUSE
PRIMARY SETTLING
TANKS
II
-a.’,
II
1J
EFFLUENT
STATION
LEGEND
AERATION
TANKS
PEQUIRED FACILITIES -
YEAR 2000
FUTURE EXPANSION -
YEAR 2050
LIMIT OF OPEN SPACE
100
0
100
200
4
BU
TANKS
I
()
0
0
MARINA
FIGURE 3.4-5
SQUANTUM WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
-------
(72 inch) diameter sewer would be required. The effluent
from the Squantum Point treatment plant would leave the
plant through two effluent pipelines. One effluent pipeline
would be 365.8 centimeters (144 inches) in diameter, and
would connect to the High Level Sewer downstream of the
influent sewer connection. This pipeline would be about
6,500 meters (21,400 feet) in length. The second effluent
pipeline, which is required during periods of high waste—
water flows, would be 289.6 centimeters (114 inches) in
diameter and would be routed under Quincy Bay to Nut Island.
The length of this pipeline would be about 6,700 meters
(22,000 feet). The sewer modifications required between
Nut Island and Squantum Point are shown in Figure 3.4-6.
A lift station would be required at Nut Island to lift
the plant effluent from the 289.6 centimeter (114 inch)
effluent piepline to the elevation of the High Level Sewer.
The flow from both effluent pipelines would then enter the
the Nut Island outfall system. During periods of peak flow
and high tide, pumping is required to facilitate discharge
through the outfall system. Therefore, the existing raw
sewage pumping station on Nut Island would be converted
to an effluent pumping station. As in Alternative A, the
outfall system would be extended to reach deeper water.
The modifications required at Nut Island for this alternative
are shown in Figure 3.4-4.
Each of the ten pumping stations which are located
along the interceptor system would be renovated or replaced
in order to provide efficient and adequate capacities for
future flows, as recommended in the EMMA Study.
As discussed in the description of the previous alter-
native, combined sewer overflow regulation facilities and
primary sludge management facilities, while not included
as an integral part of this EIS, would be included in an
overall wastewater management plan for the study area.
C. Deer: Deer/Deer: Deer — w/o Sat . This alternative includes
expanding and upgrading the existing Deer Island treatment
plant to provide secondary treatment for the wastewater from
the entire MSD service area. Due to the different heavy
metal characteristics of secondary sludge from the northern
and southern service areas and the decision to dispose of
these sludges by different methods, it is necessary to keep
the secondary sludge from the northern service area separate
from the secondary sludge from the southern service area.
In order to accomplish this, it would be necessary to keep
the wastewaters from the northern and southern service areas
separate and to process the secondary sludge from the two
service areas separately.
Constructing the facilities which would be required to
3—218
-------
-—
\DEER
ISLAND
BOSTON
HARBOR
BOSTON
0
MILTON
.
QUINCY
BRAINTREE
LEGEND
TREATMENT PLANT
SEWER/EFFLUENT CONDUIT WITH
FLOW DIRECTION AND SIZE
PUMPING STATION
OUTFALL EXTENSION AND SIZE
TOWN BOUNDARY LINE
FIGURE 3.4-6 COASTAL AREA FACILITIES
REQUIRED FOR
AND ‘
WEYMOU
DEER ISLAND - SQUANTUM ALTERNATIVE
-------
provide secondary treatment for the wastewater from the
entire service area on Deer Island would require utilizing
the areas currently occupied by the prison and the drumlin
and all but about 7.3 hectares (18 acres) of the land south
of the drumlin. Therefore, both the prison and the drumlin
would have to be removed. Figure 3.4-7 shows the proposed
treatment facilities at Deer Island. Whereas sludge
dewatering and incineration would be accomplished on
Deer Island, there is not enough area for the ash disposal
and composting operations. However, since this alternative
utilizes only one site for wastewater treatment, it would be
possible to utilize one of the sites which were considered
for treatment facilities in the previous two alternatives
(Broad Meadows and Squantum Point) for the ash disposal and
composting operations. A desirable aspect of utilizing
an inland site, is that incinerator ash and dewatered sludge
could be barged from Deer Island to either of these two
sites. Due to the relatively isolated location of the
Squantum Point site as compared to Broad Meadows, of which
about half the perimeter is bordered by a residential
area (private houses and a school are located adjacent to
Broad Meadows), Squantum Point would be the better location
for the ash disposal and composting operations. In addition,
the travel distance for a barge between Deer Island and
Broad Meadows is almost twice the travel distance between
Deer Island and Squantum Point.
The site proposed for ash disposal and composting
operations is located at the northwest corner of Squanturn
Point and is bordered on the east side by a marina, on the
south side by the Jordan-Marsh warehouse, on the west side
by the Neponset River, and on the north side by Dorchester
Bay. The area consists of approximately 28.3 hectares (70
acres) of land, of which approximately 60 percent is
presently owned by Boston Edison and the remainder is presently
owned by Jordan-Marsh. The area which would remain for
actual ash disposal and sludge composting (total area minus
area required for berms, access roads and buffer) would be
about 20 hectares (50 acres). The area required for the
disposal of the ash generated by the incineration of the
secondary sludge rom the northern service aera would be
approximately 15 hectares (36 acres), based on an ash
moisture content of 25 percent and density of 800 kg/rn
(50 lbs/f t. 3 ). Composting half the sludge from the southern
service area would require approximately 8.5 hectares (21 acres)
of land. Therefore, it would be necessary to start disposing
of ash on half the available area while composting secondary
sludge from the southern service area on the remaining half.
After about 14 years, it would be necessary to move part of
the composting operation over the completed fill area and
continue disposing of ash over the vacated composting area.
However, it has been reported that during the normal ash
filling operation, where equipment which is spreading new ash
3—2 20
-------
300 0 3C0 60u
TANKS
ADM INISTRAT ION
CHLORINE
BUILDING
FINAL
SETTLING
00 0
SCALE IN FEET
00 200
SCALE IN METERS
AERATION
TANKS
BLOWER
BUILD ING
FINAL
SETTLING
TANKS
LEGEND
STATION
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
OTHER EXISTING STRUCTURES
O NEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
REQUIRED - YEAR 2000
s FUTURE EXPANSION - YEAR 2050
‘I
INFLUEN
PUMPING
STATION
MANAGEMENT
BUILDING
DRUMLIN
OUTLINE
AERATION
TANKS
AREA FOR PRIMARY
SLUDGE ASH
DISPOSAL
FIGURE 3.4-7 DEER ISLAND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
FOR TOTAL MSD SERVICE AREA
-------
passes over previo s deposits, the ash compacts to a density
of about 1280 kg/ma (80 lbs/it. 3 ) . If the conservative
assumpiton is made that the ash will compact to a density
of 1040 kg/rn 3 (65 lbs/it. 3 ) , then the area required for
20 years of ash disposal would be reduced to about 11.3
hectares (28 acres) , in which cast there would be enough
area available for ash disposal and composting without
it being necessary to move the composting operation. If
it is found that there is a market for more than half of
the southern service area secondary sludge, then some of
the composting operation may have to be moved over an ash
filled area.
It would be necessary to collect any leachate and runoff
from the ash disposal basin and composting area so that the
metals in the ash and sludge do not reach ground or surface
waters. This would require lining the fill and composting
areas with clay or other impervious liner and constructing
a runoff collection system around the perimeter of the work
area. The collected leachate and runoff would then be
returned to the interceptor sewer system. The remainder
of the sludge produced in the treatment of the wastewater
from the southern service area would require landfilling.
If there is a market for 18,000 dry metric tons (20,000 dry
short tons) of compost per year, a landfill area for de-
watered, digested sludge of about 34 hectares (84 acres)
would be required.
The interceptor sewer system which serves the northern
MSD service area would require the addition of about 51.5
kilometers (32 miles) of sewer pipe ranging in size from
30.5 to 167.6 centimeters (12 to 66 inches) in order to
relieve overloaded interceptors and to extend the northern
inteeceptor system into municipalities which will possibly
be added to the northern service area. These required
interceptors are listed in Table 3.2-1 and shown in Figure
3.2—2.
Similarly, the southern interceptor sewer system would
require the addition of about 90.5 kilometers (56 miles)
of sewer pipe ranging in size from 53.3 to 274.3 centimeters
(21 to 108 inches) in order to relieve and extend the present
southern interceptor system (see Table 3.2-3 and Figure 3.2-2)
In addition, some submerged pipelines would be required (see
Figure 3.4—8). The portion of the High Level Sewer that
passes through the Houghs Neck section of Quincy requires
relief in order to be able to transport anticipated peak
flows. Since there does not appear to be adequate space
to locate a relief sewer parallel to the High Level Sewer
through Houghs Neck, the required 289.6 centimeter (114 inch)
relief sewer would be routed under Quincy Bay, for a length
of about 2590 meters (8,500 feet). In order to transport
the wastewater from the end of the southern interceptor sewer
system at Nut Island to the treatment facilities on Deer Island,
3—222
-------
BOSTON
BOSTON
HARBOR
DEER
LAND
150” DEEP ROCK
TUNNEL
-
0
MILTON
QUNCY
QUINCY BAY
7—.—
BRAINTREE
LEGEND
TREATMENT PLANT
SEWER/EFFLUENT CONDUIT WITH
FLOW DIRECTION AND SIZE
PUMPING STATION
OUTFALL EXTENSION AND SIZE
TOWN BOUNDARY LINE
NEW HEADWORKS
FIGURE 3.4-8 COASTAL AREA FACILITIES
REQUIRED FOR
WEYMOUT
THE ALL DEER ISLAND ALTERNATIVE
-------
submerged pipleine would be required across Quincy Bay and
along Long Island. From the northern end of Long Island a
deep rock tunnel would be constructed to carry the wastewater
to Deer Island. Two 274.3 centimeter (108 inch) diameter
submerged pipleines would be required for a length of about
5800 meters (19,000 feet) from Nut Island to the northern
end of Long Island, and the tunnel would be 381 centimeters
(150 inches) in diameter and about 1520 meters (5,000 feet)
in length.
A headworks would, be required at Nut Island in order
to provide screening and grit removal prior to transporting
the wastewater from the southern service area across Boston
Harbor to Deer Island. In addition, since the relief sewer
crossing Quincy Bay will reach Nut Island at a lower elevation
than the High Level Sewer, a lift station would be required
at Nut Island to lift the wastewater from the relief sewer
to the headworks. Most of the existing facilities on Nut
Island could be demolished. The modifications required
at Nut Island for this alternative are shown in Figure 3.4-9.
In addition to utilizing the existing outfall system
at Deer Island, a new outfall pipe would be required. This
pipe would be 304.8 centimeters (120 inches) in diameter and
about 640 meters (2100 feet) long. Diffusers would be added
to the end of the outfall, which will be in the water at a
depth of about 18.3 meters (60 feet) . The existing outfall
system requires some repair work to restore it to its design
capacity.
Each of the ten pumping stations which are located along
the interceptor system would be renovated or replaced in
order to rpovide efficient and adequate capacities for future
flows, as recommended in the EMMA Study.
As discussed-in the description of the previous alter-
natives, combined sewer overflow regulation facilities and
primary sludge management facilities, while not included
as an integral part of this EIS, would be included in an
overall wastewater management plan for the study area.
D. Comparative Analysis On inspection it can be seen that
the Deer: Deer/Broad Meadows: Broad Meadows alternative
(which will be referred to as the Deer Island-Broad Meadows
alternative in this analysis) and the Deer: Deer/Squantum:
Squantum alternative (which will be referred to as the
Deer Island—Squantum alternative) closely resemble each
other. Indeed, they can be considered as variations of the
same basic concept. Since this is. the case, a two way
comparison can be made between the two, with the better of
the two then compared to the Deer: Deer/Deer: Deer (which
will be referred to as the All Deer Island alternative). This
approach avoids the confusion of a three—way comparison.
3—224
-------
so 0
10
ISO
_J- j
SCALE IN FEET
-
0
25 0
P r .j-
25
.
50
LEGEND
EXISTING FACILITIES
TO BE DEMOLISHED
D EXISTING FACILITIES
TO BE MODIFIED
NEW FACILITIES
EXISTING FACILITIES
TO BE DEMOLISHED
FIG. 3.4-9 NUT ISLAND FACILITIES REQUIRED WITH TREATMENT FOR
NEW SCREEN AND
GRIT CHAMBER
EXISTING SCREEN AND
GRIT CHAMBER BUILDING
TO BE MODIFIED
SCALE IN METERS
LIFT STATION
D
ENTIRE MSD SERVICE AREA AT DEER ISLAND
-------
In locating sites for new treatment facilities, the
number of facility sites to be used is of great importance,
expecially in densely populated areas such as Boston.
Wastewater treatment facilities are, unfortunately, thought
of as bad neighbors and are generally not welcome by nearby
residents. While this is not true in all cases, there is
no doubt that facilities of the magnitude under discussion
will significantly and unavoidably impact the settings in
which they are located.
Both the Deer Island—Broad Meadows alternative and
the Deer Island-Squantum alternative would utilize three
sites for the location of treatment facilities and the ash
disposal and composting operations. As explained previously,
if treatment facilities are located at Broad Meadows, then
ash disposal and composting would be accomplished at
Squantunt. Since the reverse is also true, these alternatives
are similar in this respect.
Sludge disposal plans for a plant at Broad Meadows
or Squantum would remain the same for both alternatives.
That is, primary sludge would be piped to Deer Island,
and secondary sludge would be landfilled (50 percent)
and composted (50 percent). The only differences that
arise with regard to sludge disposal are the slightly
longer primary sludge pipeline which would be required
from Broad Meadows and the fact that truck traffic, moving
digested, dewatered secondary sludge and compost from the
sites would be routed over different local roads. Since
secondary sludge must be transported from one site (where
it is produced) to the other site (where it is composted)
under either alternative, this is another area of similarity.
In terms of outfall requirements, both alternatives
require the repair of the existing Deer Island outf ails
and the extension of the existing Nut Island outfalls.
Since both alternatives would use the Squantum and
Broad Meadows sites, these alternatives are again similar
in this respect.
One area in which these alternatives differ greatly
is the need for additional interceptor construction (as
opposed to the relief of existing interceptors). The
Deer Island—Squantum alternative requires an interceptor
sewer to convey influent from the High Level Sewer to the
Squantum Point plant. This sewer is of substantial size,
3 meters by 4.3 meters (10 feet by 14 feet), and is over
6.4 kilometers (4 miles) inlength. In addition, a parallel
effluent sewer, 366 cm. (144 inches) in diameter, would be
required from the plant back to the High Level Sewer. A
second effluent pipeline would be required for periods of
peak flow. This effluent sewer would be routed under Quincy
Bay to Nut Island.
3—226
-------
Since the High Level Sewer passes adjacent to the Broad
Meadows site, influent and effluent sewer requirements to
connect this site to the sewer are minimal. For the Deer
Island—Broad Meadows alternative, an effluent sewer would
also be required under Quincy Bay. However, this pipeline
would be less than half the length required under the Bay
from the Squantum plant.
In order to assess the impact of these additional inter-
ceptors which are required for treatment facilities at
Squantum, a detailed field study was undertaken to select
the best route for the parallel sewers and to evaluate the
impact that construction of these sewers would have on the
surrounding areas. The field evaluation (see Appendix 3.4
for a characterization, evaluation and detailed discussion
of the alignments) indicated that the effects of sewer
construction between the High Level Sewer to Squantum would
be severe in spite of all reasonable attempts to reduce
the impacts. Among the effects which are unavoidable
are the removal of mature roadside vegetation, traffic
disruption, and negative effects on local businesses due
to extended street closures.
The need for these additional sewers, including the
longer subaqueous crossing of Quincy Bay, weighs heavily
against the Deer Island-Squantum alternative. In addition
to construction impacts, additional energy would be
required on a continuous basis for wastewater pumping.
It is estimated that the Deer Island-Squantum alternative
would require about 5.9 million kilowatt hours per year of
electricity over and above that required for the Deer Island—
Broad Meadows alternative.
Given these facts, the Deer Island—Broad Meadows
alternative emerges as the clearly better alternative.
Preliminary cost estimates (see Table 3.4-1) for the two
alternatives show that the Deer Island—Squantum alternative
involves approximately $3,500,000 per year additional cost
(amortized capital cost and operation and maintenance cost)
and confirms the choice of Deer Island—Broad Meadows as the
better alternative. Prior to the election of a sludge
management strategy, it was hoped that the use of the
Squantum site for treatment facilities would completely
avoid any need to use Broad Meadows. On the basis of
sites alone, Squantum would be preferred since it is a
more isolated location. About half of the Broad Meadows
perimeter is adjacent to high density residential and
commercial developments. However, the requirements for
sludge processing now require the use of both sites, which
then clearly favors the Deer Island—Broad Meadows alternative.
When comparing the Deer Island-Broad Meadows and the
All Deer Island alternatives, an immediate difference arises
in the number of sites which are required. The Deer Island—
3—22 7
-------
TABLE 3.4-1
COMPARISON OF COSTS 1
All Deer Deer Island- Deer Island-
Island Plan Broad Meadows Plan Squantum Plan
Wastewater reatment
Facilities 404,291,000 425,755,000 420,509,000
Secondary Sludge Management 58,78 ,QQO 64,144,000 64,144,000
Interceptor System 3 307,620,000 248,772,000 307,951,q00
Total Capital Costs 770,696,000 738,671,000 792,604,000
Amortized Capital Costs 4 59,783,000 57,299,000 61,482,000
Operation and Maintenance Costs 24,765,000 25,961,000 26,233,000
Total Annual Costs 84,548,000 83,260,000 87,±5Q,000
Applicant’s Share of
Capital Cost (10%) 77,070,000 73,867,000 79,26,(, 000
Applicant’s Share of
Amortized Capital Cost 5,978,000 5,730,000 8- --F72,000
Applicant’s Share of
O & M Costs 24,765,000 25,961,000 26,233,000
Applicant’s Share of
Total Annual Cost 30,743,000 31,691,000 3 i00 5,000
(1) Engineering News Record Construction Index = 2654
(2) Includes work at Nut Island and Outfall
(3) Includes submerged pipelines, tunnel and related pumping stations
(4) Assume average life of facilities = 30 years; Interest rate = 6—5/8 percent.
-------
Broad Meadows alternative requires three sites while the All
Deer Island alternative requires only two. The Broad Meadows
site is not needed for the latter alternative. Of the three
sites under discussion, Broad Meadows offers the greatest
potential for environmental impact with respect to land use
incompatibility. The fact that this site is not required
under the All Deer Island alternative gives this system an
immediate and significant advantage over the Deer Island-
Broad Meadows system.
The price which must be paid to eliminate one site
is that a major harbor crossing is required. This component
of the project also involves significant environmental
impacts. For example, excavation of a trench in which the
pipes can be constructed would displace benthic fauna.
During construction, siltation would occur in and near the
excavation area. Excess spoils would be generated from
this excavation, presenting a disposal problem. Clean sand
(if it is necessary) for backfilling the trench may present
a storage problem. Finally, the type of construction is
expensive. However, these construction effects are largely
temporary. With time, the benthic community will become
reestablished over the pipeline. Benthic fauna located
adjacent to the trench which may be affected by siltation
will also recover. Given the intensively developed nature
of the Boston area, this type of construction, which can be
done in open waters, may ultimately be preferable to the
construction of large sewers in city streets.
With all of the treatment facilities at Deer Island,
further advantages in routine operation and maintenance
activities can be realized. That is, a more efficient
operation, in terms of manpower and costs, will be
realized. It is estimated that operation and maintenance
costs would be about $26,000,000 per year for the Deer
Island-Broad Meadows alternative, and about $25,000,000
per year for the All Deer Island system.
Energy costs also favor the All Deer Island system.
It is estimated that this alternative would use about 7.5
million kilowatt hours less of electric power annually than
the Deer Island--Broad Meadows alternative.
With respect to outfall considerations, the All Deer
Island system would require the construction of an additional
outfall pipe into President Roads to handle peak flows. This
is comparably offset (in terms of construction) by the
extension of the Nut Island outfall system required under
the Deer Island—Broad Meadows system. An important
difference, however, is that the All Deer Island system
would completely remove all sewage discharges from Quincy
Bay and would add additional effluent flow into the President
Roads. However, the Deer Island outfall will extend into 18.3
meters (60 feet) of water which will provide ample dilution.
3—2 29
-------
Amendments to Public Law 92-500 in December, 1977
(Public Law 92-217) allows the requirement for secondary
treatment to be waived in certain coastal areas if eight
specific statutory requirements are fulfilled. Should this
occur in the Boston area, it is expected that some additional
treatment beyond primary would be required (perhaps chemical
treatment to reduce metal concentrations) and a longer ocean
outfall would be needed to discharge the effluent out of the
harbor. This modification would greatly favor the All Deer
Island system, since a single outfall to reach offshore waters
would be far more efficient than the extension of the two
outfalls as would be necessary for the Deer Island-Broad
Meadows alternative. Also, since secondary sludge would
not be generated, there would be no need to utilize the
Squantum site. This would reduce the number of sites used
to one.
Interceptor relief requirements for the All Deer Island
and the Deer Island—Broad Meadows alternatives in the
northern service area and in the southern service area
upstream of Broad Meadows are the same. The differences
in the two alternatives can be found in the Houghs Neck
area. The changes to the interceptor system for the Deer
Island—Broad Meadows alternative constitute a much greater
impact on this locality because much of the interceptor work
to be done will take place in the streets of Houghs Neck.
The interceptor relief requirements for the All Deer Island
option constitute a much less severe impact because the
relief sewer is located under Quincy Bay.
To summarize, the All Deer Island alternative is
superior in terms of the number of sites required; the
fact that the Broad Meadows site is not needed; operation
and maintenance advantages; lower energy costs; and a more
favorable outfall location.
Deer Island—Broad Meadows is superior in terms of
the need for new pipeline construction (the harbor crossing
is not needed)
In terms of estimated total annual cost, the two
alternatives are relatively similar — about $83,300,000
for the Deer Island-Broad Meadows alternative and about
$84,500,000 for the All Deer Island alternative (see Table
3.4—1)
The All Deer Island alternative emerges as the better
of the two alternatives and is the recommended non—satellite
system.
3—2 30
-------
3.4.2. Satellite Systems
The purpose of this section was to select the best
satellite system. However, the results of sections 3.2.3
and 3.3.3 indicate that satellite facilities on the Mid-
Charles and Upper Neponset Rivers will not meet water
quality standards. This fact renders a satellite system
infeasible, and therefore, it was eliminated from consider-
ation during the intermediate screening phase of this study.
However, the plan recon mended by the EMMA Study, which is
a satellite system, will be compared with the best non-
satellite plan which was selected in Section 3.4.1. This
satellite system, the EMMA plan, is described in Section 3.4.3.
3—2 31
-------
3.4.3. EMMA Plan
The MDC’S proposed wastewater management plan, as
presented in the EMMA Study, includes secondary treatment
plants at Deer and Nut Islands and two advanced wastewater
treatment plants (providing a higher degree of treatment
than secondary) at inland locations.
The existing Deer Island primary treatment plant would
be expanded and upgraded to provide secondary treatment to
the wastewater from the northern MSD service area. The
proposed facilities would be constructed to the north of
the existing facilities, and would require removing the
prison and filling about 5.7 hectares (14 acres) of
Boston Harbor. This treatment plant would be capable
of providing secondary treatment for an average daily
wastewater flow of 1,514,000 m 3 /day (400 mgd), which is
estimated to be generated in the northern service area
in the design year 2000.
The wastewater from the southern MSD service area
would receive treatment at three treatment plants. One
of these plants would be located on Nut Island. The
existing Nut Island primary treatment plant would be
expanded and upgraded to provide secondary treatment
for an average daily wastewater flow of 492,000 m 3 /day
(130 mgd). Nut Island is presently almost completely
occupied by the existing treatment plant, and the additional
facilities would be constructed on an area of fill of about
11.3 hectares (28 acres) in Quincy Bay.
The remaining wastewater from the southern service
area would receive treatment at two inland satellite
advanced wastewater treatment plants. One of these plants
would be located along the Charles River and would be
capable of treating an average wastewater flow of about
117,300 m 3 /day (31 mgd) . The other satellite plant,
located along the Neponset River, would have an average
design capacity of about 95,400 m 3 /day (25.2 mgd). The
specific sites of these two inland satellite plants have
riot been selected.
The sludge produced at the Nut Island plant would be
pumped through a force main across Boston Harbor to Deer
Island, where it would be dewatered along with the sludge
produced at the Deer Island plant. The dewatered sludge
would then be incinerated on Deer Island. The resulting
ash from the incinerators would be stored on Deer Island
and subsequently disposed of at an inland landfill. The
sludge produced at the satellite plants would undergo
incineration at each plant.
Under this plan, modifications and additions would be
made to the existing interceptor sewer system. About
3—232
-------
5.15 kilometers (32 miles) of sewer ranging in size from
30.5 to 167.6 centimeters (12 to 66 inches) in diameter
would be added to the northern interceptor sewer system
and about 57.3 kilomters (36 miles) of sewer, from 53.3
to 198.1 centimeters (12 to 66 inches) in diameter, would
be added to the southern interceptor sewer system. In
addition, each of the ten pumping stations which are
located along the interceptor system would be renovated
or replaced in order to provide efficient operation and
adequate capacity for future flows.
The MDC’s proposed plan also includes several combined
sewer overflow regulation projects which would provide
collection, treatment and disposal facilities to replace
the numerous combined sewer overflows which presently
discharge to Boston Harbor and its tributaries.
3—233
-------
3.4.4. No Action Alternative
The purpose of evaluating a “No Action” alternative is
to compare the benefits and adverse effects of a proposed
action with a parallel set of benefits and adverse effects
of doing nothing, or maintaining present practices. The
No Action alternative assumes that no capital improvements
will be made to the existing wastewater management system.
Within the MSD system there presently exists about
362 kilometers (225 miles) of trunk sewers, serving over
8,000 kilometers (5,000 miles) of local sewers; 12 pumping
stations (including two at wastewater treatment plants);
four headworks; and two primary treatment plants. The
two treatment plants, located at Deer Island and Nut
Island, have a combined average daily design capacity of
about 1,703,000 m 3 /day (450 mgd). Consideration of the No
Action alternative implies the continued use of the present
system’s facilities with its present levels of effluent
discharge. The No Action alternative would provide for
operation and maintenance of the existing interceptors,
pumping stations, headworks and treatment plants in the MSD
service area. No additional towns would be added to the
service area and no interceptor relief would be provided.
Present pumping station, interceptor and treatment plant
capacities would remain limited. Present excess flows and
future additional flows would exceed the capabilities of
the present facilities.
The Nut Island Primary Treatment Plant presently serves
a population of about 634,000. During the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1975, the verage daily flow entering the plant
was about 522,000 ma/day (138 mgd), which was about 95,000
m 3 /day (25 mgd) above the average design capacity. Built
in 1952, much of the original equipment is in need of repair
or replacement. Assuming the plant is maintained at present
levels, poorly treatment wastewater will continue to be
discharged into Boston Harbor. Following digestion of the
plant’s sludge, the unchlorinated sludge is disposed of
through a pipeline extending into deep tidal water.
The Deer Island Primary Treatment Plant, constructed
in 1968, is in relatively good condition. The plant has an
average daily design capacity of about 1,300,000 m 3 /day
(343 mgd), and during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975
treated an average of about 1,105,000 m 3 /day (292 mgd).
However, it is anticipated that the quantity of wastewater
reaching the plant will exceed the design capacity in the
near future. The discharge from the facility is a mixture
of chlorinated effluent and digested sludge which is released
from the plant into President Roads. Three emergency outfalls
exist for high flow periods.
3—234
-------
3.4.5. Modified No Action Alternative
This alternative includes specific plans which have
been made, but are yet to be implemented, or are presently
in the process o. being implemented. These include the
regulation of combined sewer overflows and the treatment and
disposal of the primary sludge generated at the wastewater
treatment facilities.
The combined sewer area consists of over 9700 hectares
(24,000 acres) serving almost 900,000 people. Present
combined sewer overflow regulation facilities consist of
the following:
1. The East Boston Pumping stations and the North
Metropolitan Trunk Sewer which have a capacity
to divert about 454,000 m 3 /day (120 mgd) from
upstream areas to Chelsea Creek or to the Deer
Island Treatment Plant.
2. The 3oston Calf Pasture pumping station which
diverts about 587,000 m 3 /day (155 mgd) of flow
during periods of wet weather to the holding
tanks on Moon Island prior to overflowing to
Boston Harbor.
3. The Cottage Farm Chlorination and Detention
Station designed to treat up to 882,000 m 3 /day
(233 mgd) prior to overflowing into the Charles
River Basin.
4. The Somerville Marginal Conduit Project which is
designed to treat about 606,000 m 3 /day (160 mgd)
prior to overflowing into the Mystic River tidal
waters.
5. The Charles River Marginal Conduit Project
presently under construction, to treat about
1,223,000 m 3 /day (323 rngd) prior to discharge
to the Harbor.
Approximately 125 combined sewer outlets presently
discharge to Boston Harbor and its tributaries. The proposed
Combined Sewer Overflow Regulation Program will provide a
system to eliminate these discharges by collecting the flows
and providing treatment and disposal facilities. Treatment
will consist of screening, skimming, sedimentation, and
chlorination.
Under the primary sludge management plan, the sludge
from the existing Nut Island Primary Treatment Plant will
undergo digestion prior to being pumped through a force
main across Boston Harbor to Deer Island. At Deer Island
2—2 35
-------
this digested sludge will be combined with the primary sludge
from the Deer Island plant. The sludge will then be
dewatered and incinerated at Deer Island.
3—236
-------
3.5 COMPARISON OF SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
This section of the report is intended to compare and
contrast the four remaining System alternatives. This will
be done on the basis of environmental parameters as well as
cost. This comparison will then permit the selection of a
recommended plan.
3.5.1 Water Quantity
As was stated earlier, a system alternative which employs
satellite treatment facilities will tend to minimize any
effects that sewering will have on basef low conditions in the
Charles and Neponset Rivers. This will be a result of the
discharge of treated effluent into the rivers on a continuous
basis. Without satellite plants, wastewater is sent to the
harbor and “lost” to local watersheds. This can, potentially,
affect the river’s baseflow regime.
The following rather detailed discussion explores the
significance of water quantity as a determinant in selecting
a system alternative. It should be noted that even though
the “satellite system” was eliminated from further considera—
tion, the EMMA Plan contains satellite facilities and,
therefore gives significance to this discussion.
Traditionally, river flow augmentation is provided to
avoid the problems associated with the unpredictable nature
of streamf low. Random periods of low flow stress the waste
assimilative capacity of rivers, restrict recreational use,
and, potentially, create water supply problems. Flow
augmentation normally comes from surface impoundments or
groundwater pumpage.
It has been stated (Frimpter, 1973b) that a potentially
severe flow problem exists in the Charles Watershed. In
addition, utilization of the Neponset River for industrial
water supply controls its flow characteristics (Metcalf and
Eddy, 1969). Enhancement of the recreation potential, and
other beneficial uses, of the lower Neponset has been re-
ported (Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1969) to depend upon
augmentation of low flows. The proposed satellite plant
wastewater discharges are a method of addressing the aug-
mentation issue.
The proposed satellite treatment plants are presented
by the EMMA study as providing flow augmentation benefits
for their respective rivers. Highly treated wastewater
would enhance water quality during low flow periods and re-
tention of water within its basin of origin would, by impli-
cation, have a favorable impact on the water supply situation
within the Charles and Neponset watersheds. However, as
discussed in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 of this EIS, the pro-
3—2 37
-------
posed discharges have major adverse impacts upon water
quality in both rivers during low flow situations. These
adverse impacts must be weighed against benefits which might
result from the increased flow during all times in order to
determine the net impact upon the river systems. Consequently,
a comparison of the satellite and non-satellite alternatives
was performed to determine the effects of each upon the
hydrologic budget of the Charles and Neponset watersheds.
The analysis consisted of three steps:
1. Determining the effect of the discharge on flow
over the course of an average year;
2. Development of water balances about each plant
and its watershed;
3. Examination of flow records to determine if a
historical trend toward streamf low reduction
exists.
Mean daily discharge for each month was extracted from
U.S.G.S. flow records for the Charles River at Charles River
Village and for the Neponset River at Norwood and Canton.
The average year 2000 design flow from the satellite plants
was then added to their respective river flow to derive an
approximate flow after wastewater discharge. The corres-
ponding percent increase in flow and the percentage of total
flow consisting of wastewater were calculated. Tables 3.5-1
and 3.5—2 summarize the computations.
Charles River flow increases ranged from 7.9 to 103.8
percent with the August, September, and October months ex-
periencing the largest increases. Under these average
flow conditions wastewater would make up a significant por-
tion of the flow from June through October, a period of heavy
recreational use.
Flow increases for the Neponset River ranged from 20.7
to 141 percent, with July, August, September and October all
experiencing more than a doubling of flow. Wastewater would
make up a significant component (>20%) of river flow for all
but one month during this average year. These increases
would be greater during low flow periods. It can be con-
cluded that both discharges would significantly alter the
flow regime in their respective river.
The desirability of having wastewater as a major com-
ponent of flow for significant periods of time is question-
able because of public health considerations. Downstream
of any discharge point on either river are major water supply
wells (see Figures 2.5-15 and 2.5—18) which are hydraulically
connected to the rivers (Frimpter 1973b,c). The potential
for adverse public health impacts is created by such a
situation. Indeed, the Town of Wellesley voiced opposition
to a Charles River discharge during the original satellite
3—2 38
-------
TABLE 3.5—1
Daily Mean Discharge ’
(ft /s)
6.8 (240)
9.9 (350)
17.0 (604)
14.2 (502)
8.8 (311)
5.0 (177)
2.3 (81)
1.4 (49)
1.3 (46)
1.7 (60)
4.3 (152)
6.5 (230)
Waste Dischar e
m 3 /s (ft /s)
1.35 (47.7)
1.35 (47.7)
1.35 (47.7)
1.35 (47.7)
1.35 (47.7)
1.35 (47.7)
1.35 (47.7)
1.35 (47.7)
1.35 (47.7)
1.35 (47.7)
1.35 (47.7)
1.35 (47.7)
Total Flow
m 3 /s (ft 3 /s)
8.15 (287.7)
11.25 (397.7)
18.35 (648.7)
15.55 (549.7)
10.15 (358.7)
6.35 (224.7)
3.65 (129.7)
2.75 (96.7)
2.65 (93.7)
3.05 (107.7)
5.65 (199.7)
7.85 (277.7)
% Increase
% Waste In In
Total Flow Mean Discharge
16.6 19.9
12.0 13.6
7.4 7.9
8.7 9.5
13.3 15.3
21.3 27.0
37.0 58.9
49.1 96.4
50.9 103.8
44.3 79.4
23.9 3.14
17.2 20.8
Month
EFFECTS OF PROPOSED SATELLITE PLANT
DISCHARGE ON CHARLES RIVER FLOW
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
De cexnb er
1 Flow at Charles
River Village Gage for Period of Record 1932—1973
-------
TABLE 3.5-2
‘Total flow after confluence of and east
Norwood Gage Period of Record 1940—1973
Canton Gage Period of Record 1953—1973
Month
Daily
Mean
Discharge’
DISCHARGE
Waste
ON NEPONSET
RIVER FLOW
% Waste in
% Increase
In
m 3 /s
(ft 3 fs)
m 3 fs
(ft 3 /s)
Total
Flow
January
3.1
(109)
1.2
(42.4)
4.3
(ft 3 / s)
(151.4)
Total Flow
27.9
Mean Discharge
38.7
February
3.9
(138)
1.2
(42.4)
5.1
(180.4)
23.5
30.7
March
5.8
(205)
1.2
(42.4)
7.0
(247.4)
17.1
20.7
April
45
(159)
1.2
(42.4)
5.7
(201.4)
21.1
26.7
May
3.2
(113)
1.2
(42.4)
4.4
(155.4)
27.3
37.5
,
°
June
July
1.7
1.0
(60)
(35)
1.2
1.2
(42.4)
(42.4)
2.9
2.2
(102.4)
(77.4)
41.4
54.5
70.6
120.0
August
0.96
(39)
1.2
(42.4)
2.16
(76.4)
55.5
125.0
September
0.85
(30)
1.2
(42.4)
2.05
(72.4)
58.5
141.0
October
i.o
(35)
1.2
(42.4)
2.2
(77.4)
54,5
120.0
November
2.2
(78)
1.2
(42.4)
3.4
(120.4)
35.3
54.5
December
2.6
(92)
1.2
(42.4)
3.8
(134.4)
31.6
46.1
branches.
-------
$ite selection process in 197€ because of potential virus
contamination of its wells (see Appendix 3.5 1).
A Charles River satellite plant would receive flows
from six towns in the year 2000. Figure 3.5—1 presents a
schematic of these sources, while Table 3.5-3 quantifies
flows as developed by the EM1 A study (Metcalf and Fddy,
l975c)
Examination of Table 3.5-3 reveals approximately 75%
of the total flow originates in two towns, Framingham and
Natick. More importantly, 26 percent of the total design
flow is extraneous I/I. Significant I/I reduction would,
therefore, considerably alter the wastewater volume requiring
treatment. Additionally, I/I reductions in Sudbury watershed
towns would reduce the volume exported from this basin.
Sources of water for each town were defined and
Table 3.5—4 summarizes this data. In the development of
this table, I/I was assumed to originate in a particular
town’s watershed. However, in the case of Natick, a portion
of these flows will come from the Sudbury River Basin and,
therefore, its export figure is underestimated.
This data indicates less than 40 percent of the projected
flow originates within the Charles River Watershed. Approx-
imately one—quarter comes from the Sudbury River Basin, while
roughly 35 percent is MDC water. Augmentation of Charles
River flow is a worthy objective, but it should not occur
at the expense of the Sudbury River. Indeed, no further
expansion of the MSD into the Sudbury should he allowed until
detailed analysis of the effects of sewering to the harbor
have been analyzed. This is especially significant because
Sudbury towns presently sewered and those envisioned for
future sewering lie at that basin’s headwaters.
In the final accounting, it is the net difference in
export between a satellite and non-satellite system which
determines the impact of sewering upon the hydrologic bud-
get of the Charles River Watershed. Four towns - Dedham,
Natick, Needham and Wellesley — enter into this calculation.
(All other towns within the watershed either return water to
the basin via either septic tanks or upstream treatment
plants, or receive MDC water and discharge it to MDC sewers.)
Table 3.5-5 summarizes the watershed water balance computed
with these municipalities.
If the satellite facility is constructed 35.35xl0 3 m 3 /d
(9.34 mgd) would be exported from the basin, while
84.56x10 3 m 3 /d (22.34 mgd) would leave the Charles watershed
if all flows are sewereci to Boston Harbor. The net benefit,
therefore, is the retention of 49.21x103m 3 /d (13.0 mgd)
within the Charles watershed by the construction of a
satellite plant.
3—241
-------
TABLE 3.5-3
YEAR 2000 WASTE FLOWS
CHARLES RIVER SATELLITE PLANT
Waste Flows Total
Town 2 Flow Total
Ashland 4.99 3.74 1.77 10.50 8.74
(1.32) (0.99) (0.47) (2.78)
Dover 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Framingham 33.23 5.57 13.70 52.50 43.66
(8.78) (1.47) (3.62) (13.87)
Hopkinton 2.73 0.49 1.02 4.24 3.53
(0.72) (0.13) (0.27) (1.12)
Natick 15.86 7.80 5.60 29.26 24.33
(4.19) (2.06) (1.48) (7.73)
Sherborn 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Southborough 2.16 0.83 0.80 3.79 3.15
(0.57) (0.22) (0.21) (1.00)
Wellesley 11.01 0.61 8.33 19.95 16.59
(2.91) (0.16) (2.20) (5.27)
TOTAL 69.98 19.04 31.22 120.24
(18.48) (5.03) (8.25) (31.77)
% TOTAL 58.2 15.8 26.0 100.0
Waste Flow 1 - Domestic, Co m ercia1, and Minor Industrial Flows
Waste Flow 2 - Major Industries and Other Industrial Flow
I/I - Infiltration and Inflow
Entries - m 3 /d (mgd)
SOURCE: Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 1975c
3—242
-------
TABLE 3.5-4
SUMMARY OF YEAR 2000 SOURCES
TO
CHARLES RIVER SATELLITE
Water Source
Charles Sudbury
____ Watershed Watershed _______________
10.50
(2.78)
13.70
(3.62)
4.24
(1.12)
Flow entries m 3 /d x 1O 3 (mgd)
*Sudbury losses due to I/I
Entries total flows from Table 3•5-3 assumed to originate at indicated source
CONTRIBUTING
PLANT
MDC
Water District
Town
Ashland
Dover
Frami ngham*
Hopki nton
Natick
Sherborn
Southborough*
Welles 1 ey
Total Flow
% Total Flow
0.00
29.26
(7.73)
0.00
19.95
(5.27)
49.21
(13.00)
40.92
Total
Flow
10.50
(2.78)
0.00
52.50
(13.87)
4.24
(1.12)
29.26
(7.73)
0.00
3.79
(1 . 00)
19.95
(5.27)
120.24
(31.77)
38.80
(10.25)
2.99
(0.79)
41.79
(11 . 04)
34 .75
0.80
(0.21)
29.26
(7.73)
24.33
3—24 3
-------
TABLE 3.5-5
YEAR 2000 WATER BALANCE
CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED
Vol ume
Local Export Always
Town Waste Flow I/I Capacity Volume Exported
Dedham 1 12.64 7.15 6.93 14.08 14.08
and Westwood (3.34) (1.89) (1.83) (3.72) (3.72)
Natick 23.66 5.60 34.67 29.26
(6.25) (1.48) (9.16) (7.73)
Needham 17.83 8.40 12.87 21.27 21.27
(4.71) (2.22) (3.40) (5.62) (5.62)
Wellesley 11.62 8.33 28.39 19.95
(3.07) (2.20) (7.50) (5.27)
TOTAL 65.75 29.48 82.86 84.56 35.35
(17.37) (7.79) (21.89) (22.34) (9.34)
Entries 3fd x
(mgd)
1. Dedham and Westwood are served by the Dedham Water Co., which has wells in the
Chaires and Neponset Watersheds. Local capacity set equal to that of the Bridge
Street wells in the Charles Watershed. Dedham’s additional needs come from White
Lodge wells in Neponset watershed. Total Dedham 3 Water Co. capacity, 29.14 x
rn 3 /d (7.7 mgd) exceeds total demand, 20.70 x 10 m 3 /d (5.47 mgd).
See Table 3.5-6 for definition of terms
3—244
-------
TABLE 3.5-6
DEFINITION OF TERMS
CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED
WATER BALANCE COMPUTATIONS
Waste Flow = Sum of domestic, conTnercial, and all industrial flows.
= Infiltration and Inflow.
Local Capacity = Capacity of existing township water supply system (Frimpter, 1973b).
The Dedhani Water Co. supplies Dedham and Westwood, which lies in the Neponset
River Watershed, from wells in both watersheds. Dedham’s local capacity re-
ported is the pumping capacity of the Dedham Water Company’s Bridge Street
wel is.
Export = The volume of water discharged by a town to the MDC interceptor system.
It is computed as:
Export = Waste Flow + I/I if Local Capacity > Waste Flow
OR
Export = Local Capacity + I/I if Waste Flow > Local Capacity
Total Export is the volume discharged out of the watershed if no satellite
facility is constructed.
Always Exported = The volume discharged out of the watershed if a satellite plant
is constructed.
3—245
-------
BOUNDARY CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED
SUDBURY WATERSHED
WELLESLEY
FRAMINGHA ...... : i<.
SOUTHBOROUGH NATICK ’.. .. I
CHARLES
RIVER TO CHARLES RIVER
SATELLITE ______
PLANT
ASHLAND
—.
HOPKINTON
SHERBORN* * DOVER *
LEGEND
WATER SOURCE
• FRAMINGHAM AND SOUTHBQROUGH
SUDBURY WATERSHED EXPORT SUDBURY
WATER VIA I/I
MDC WATER DISTRICT
___ • CONTRIBUTE NO FLOW
- - CHARLES WATERSHED UNTIL 2020
FIGURE 3.5-1 WATER SOURCES
CHARLES RIVER SATELLITE PLANT
YEAR 2000
-------
The proposed Neponset satellite would receive flows from
five towns in the year 2000. Figure 3.5-2 schematically re-
presents these sources and Table 3.5-7 summarizes corres-
ponding flow quantities (Metcalf and Eddy, 1975c).
Projected flow is fairly evenly distributed over the
five towns. A large portion of the total flow is I/I, as
was the case in the Charles, and its reduction would produce
a smaller wastewater volume requiring treatment.
Table 3.5-8 presents water sources for these towns.
Unlike the Charles, 95 percent of the flow to a Neponset
facility would originate within the Neponset watershed.
SIX towns - Canton, Norwood, Sharon, Stoughton, Walpole
and Westwood - determine the net effect upon the Neponset
watershed when the non-satellite and satellite systems
are considered. Table 3.5-9 summarizes the year 2000 water
balance around the Neponset basin utilizing these towns.
(Other municipalities within the Basin receive MDC water and
discharge to the MDC sewer system or discharge within the
Basin via septic tanks.)
Construction of the Neponset River satellite facility
would result in an export of 16.35x10 3 m 3 /d (4.32 mgd) of
Neponset Basin water to Boston Harbor, while eliminating a
satellite plant will increase the export to l07.20xl0 3 m- /d
(28.32 mgd) . The net benefit of a satellite plant, therefore,
is the retention of 90.84x10 3 m 3 /d (24.0 mgd) within its
basin or origin.
Historically, towns within the metropolitan Boston area
have joined the MSD as growing populations presented waste-
water disposal problems. At the same time, however, commun-
ities water supply needs generally outstripped local capacities
and these towns also tied into the MDC water system. The net
effect - positive or negative - of this trend is probably
negligible.
The additional export of 49.2x10 3 m 3 /d (13.0 rngd) and
90.84x10 3 m3/d (24.0 mgd) respectively, from the Charles and
Neponset basins to Boston Harbor has potential for long term
negative impacts, the most important of these are decreased
groundwater availability for water supply and reduction of
base flow in these rivers. These impacts would be most
severe when the region is experiencing a drought.
During these periods without precipitation, river flow
will drop to its base flow level. Base flow is that portion
of flow coming from groundwater storage. For a given
aquifer and its associated recharge area, groundwater storage
will naturally fluctuate as a function of the random precipi-
tation inputs. However, if storage has been reduced by
3—2 47
-------
Waste Flow 1 = Domestic, commercial and minor industrial
Waste Flow 2 = Major industries and other industrial flows
I/I = Infiltration and Inflow
Entries m /d x 10 (mgd)
SOURCE: Metcalf and Eddy, 1975c
TABLE 3.5-7
SUMMARY OF YEAR 2000 FLOWS
NEPOMSET RIVER SATELLITE PLANT
Waste Flows
2 I/I
Town
Canton
12.45
(3.29)
5.22
(1.38)
4.09
(1.08)
Norwood
11.58
(3.06)
5.15
(1.36)
9.27
(2.45)
Sharon
3.22
(0.85)
1.29
(0.34)
1.21
(0.32)
Stoughton
9.92
(2.62)
3.75
(0.99)
4.58
(1.21)
Walpole
9.08
(2.40)
19.38
(5.12)
4.13
(1.09)
Total
46.25
(12.22)
34.79
(9.19)
23.28
(6.15)
% Total
44.3
33.4
22.3
Total
Flow
21.76
(5.75)
26.00
(6.87)
5.72
(1.51)
18.25
(4.82)
32.59
(8.61)
104.32
(27.56)
Total
20.9
24.9
5.5
17.5
31 .2
100
3—24 8
-------
TABLE 3.5-8
SUMMARY OF YEAR 2000 SOURCES
NEPONSET RIVER SATELLITE PLANT
Total
Town Water Source Flow
Neponset MDC
Watershed Water District
Canton 21.76 21.76
(5.75) (5.75)
Norwood* 20.63 5.37 26.00
(5.45) (1.42) (6.07)
Sharon 5.72 5.72
(1.51) (1.51)
Stoughton 18.25 18.25
(4.82) (4.82)
Walpole 32.59 32.59
(8.61) (8.61)
Total Flow 98.95 5.37 104.32
(26.14) (1.42) (27.56)
% Total 94.85 5.15 100
Entries m 3 /d x (mgd)
*Assljnes Norwood supplies 11.35 x M 3 /d (3 mgd) from local water, and
remainder fr MDC
—249
-------
TABLE 3.5-9
YEAR 2000 WATER BALANCE
NEPONSET RIVER WATERSHED
Vol ume
Local Export Always
Town Waste Flow IfI Capacity Volume Exported
Canton 17.67 4.07 11.51 15.60 0.00
(4.67) (1.08) (3.04)
Norwood 1 16.73 9.72 11.36 20.63 0.00
(4.42) (2.45) (3.0) (5.45)
Sharon 4.51 1.21 14.00 5.72 0.00
(1.19) (0.32) (3.7)
Stoughton 13.67 4.58 11.73 16.31 0.00
(3.61) (1.21) (3,1)
wa lpo le 2 28.46 4.13 13.25 32.59 0.00
(7.52) (1.09) (3,5)
Westwood 3 8.06 2.57 22.22 23.28 23.28
and Dedham (2.13) (0.68) (5.87) (6.15)
TOTAL 89.10 25.85 84.07 107.79 23.28
(23.54) (6.83) (22.21) (28.48) (6.15)
Entries m 3 /d x (mgd)
See TABLE 3.5-10 for footnotes.
3—250
-------
TABLE 3.5-10
FOOTNOTES TABLE 3.5-9
1. Norwood served by Metropolitan Water District. Local capacity used
for emergencies; however, Norwood is pre en ly reactivating wells to
allow for the r use to supply 11.36 x lO m /d (3 mgd). Therefore,
11.36 x 1O3 m /d (3 mgd) of waste flow is assumed from local supplies.
2. Surface water withdrawals for industrial consu ption is assumed equal
to Walpole major industrial flow 11.59 x i 3 m /d (4.51 mgd), local
capacity 13.25 x 1O 3 m /d (3.5 mgd) ‘ local demand 11.39 x lO M /d
(3.01 mgd): Export = Total Waste + I/I.
3. Westwood and Dedham are served by the Dedham Water Co., which has
wells in the Charles and Neponset watersheds. Local capacity set
equal to that of the White Lodge wells in the Neponset watershed.
Total Dedhacn Water Co. cap city 29.14 x i 3 m 3 /d (7.7 mgd) exceeds
total demand 20.70 x i 3 m’ /d (5.47 mgd). Westwood export set
equal to its waste flow + I/I and the amount of Dedham’s demand
5.71 x iü m 3 /d (1.51 mgd), not satisfied by Bridge St. wells.
Waste Flows, I/I, Export Volume, and Volume Always Exported defined
in Table 3.5-6.
3—25 1
-------
NEPONSET AWER WATERSHED BOUNDARY
NORW000.. CANTON
NEPONSETI
I TO NEPONSET R%V€R
SATE LLITE [
PLANT
WALPOLE \
ST OUGH TO N
SHARON
LEGEND
MDC WATER
- NEPONSET RIVER WATER
FIGURE 3.5-2 WATER SOURCES
NEPONSET RIVER SATELLITE PLANT
YEAR 2000
-------
withdrawals for water supply and if this water is exported
from the basin in sewer pipes, the base flow of a river
could be expected to decrease. There appears to be a general
perception that the Charles River has experienced major base
flow reduction and will experience severe flow problems in
the near future unless flow augmentation is instituted.
Historical flow records were examined to determine if such
a trend is discernabie.
The seven day period with the lowest average flow during
a water year is generally considered as base flow. Table
3.5-li summarizes Charles River “base flow” for the period
1938-1973 as measured at Charles River Village gage
station of the U.S.G.S. In addition, the average discharge
is included as a measure of water input for the year. The
conclusion drawn from this data is that base flow appears
random and if a long term trend towards base flow reduction
does exist, it is masked by natural fluctuations.
Future flow problems have been predicted by a U.S.G.S.
open file report (Frimpter, 1973b Appendix 3.5.1) Assuming
that increased water demand would be met with local sources
and all wastewater is sewered to Boston Harbor, the report
predicted that in 1990:
.if the st.reamf low regulation remains unchanged,
if the water consumption increases as predicted,
and if sewage is discharged outside the basin, the
flow in the Charles River at Waltham will be expected
to approach zero for approximately 9 days during an
average year. However, because the maximum monthly
demand is expected to be 1.2 times greater than the
average demand and is expected to occur when stream-
f low is lowest, the flow of the river will be
expected to approach zero for approximately 14 days
during an average year.”
River flow at Waltham is assumed to be reduced by the total
amount (0.297m 3 /s [ 10.5 ft 3 /sJ) of additional withdrawal for
water supply, with the resultant predictions of no flow
conditions. (A no flow condition should not be envisioned
as the bed of the Charles River becoming dry. Significant
volumes of water are stored behind the many dams along the
lower Charles and it is unlikely these will dry up. The no
flow situation, therefore, should be looked upon as a
situation in which water is not passing over the spiliways
of the dams along the river). Although these predictions
were presented as preliminary and this is the only known
quantification of the problem, this report has been quoted
to substantiate the need for augmentation of Charles River
flow.
3—25 3
-------
TABLE 3.5—11
HISTORICAL FLOWS
CHARLES RIVER AT CHARLES RIVER VILLAGE
1 Water Year runs fran
it ends. (i.e. Oct.
Oct. 1 to Sept. 30 and is
1, 1937 to Sept. 30, 1938
designated as the year in which
is Water Year 1938).
Water 1
Year
1938
Avg.
m 1 /s
12.716
Flow
ft 3 /s
7 Day Flow
m 3 7s 1t /s
1.756 62
Period
7 Day
in Which
Low Occurred
Oct.
13-19, 1937
499
1939
9.034
319
0.906
32
Sept.
22—28, 1939
1940
6.174
218
0.991
35
Sept.
4-11, 1940
1941
5.069
179
0.510
18
Sept.
24—30, 1941
1942
5.551
196
0.340
12
Oct.
10-16, 1941
1943
8.043
284
0.481
17
Sept.
24-30, 1943
1944
4.729
167
0.481
17
Sept.
5-11, 1944
1945
9.317
329
1.586
56
Sept.
11-17, 1945
1946
9.997
353
1.614
57
July
16-22, 1946
1947
6.429
227
1.416
50
Sept.
14-20,1947
1948
9.034
319
0.935
33
Sept.
24-30, 1948
1949
1950
1951
5.749
5.013
8.128
203
177
287
0.396
0.595
0.850
14
21
30
Aug.
Aug.
Oct.
25-31, 1949
13-19, 1950
1-7, 1950
1952
10.054
355
0.793
28
Sept.
10-16, 1952
1953
8.808
311
0.340
12
Oct.
22-28, 1952
1954
9.997
353
0.510
18
Oct.
16-22, 1953
1955
11.866
419
0.963
34
Aug.
5-11, 1955
1956
13.197
466
0.850
30
Aug.
24-30, 1956
1957
6.429
227
0.176
6.2
Aug.
18-24, 1957
1958
10.195
360
0.127
4.5
Oct.
1—7, 1957
1959
11.186
395
1.473
52
Sept.
23—20, 1959
1960
9.544
337
0.906
32
Sept.
5-11, 1960
1961
9.997
353
1.133
40
Sept.
8-14, 1961
1962
8.751
309
0.850
30
Sept.
14-20, 1962
1963
8.326
294
0.453
16
Sept.
10-16, 1963
1964
7.052
249
0.453
16
Sept.
6-12, 1964
1965
4.220
149
0.396
14
Sept.
6-12, 1965
1966
3.313
117
0.340
12
Aug.
28-Sept. 3, 1966
1967
7.986
282
0.793
28
Oct.
10-16, 1966
1968
8.977
317
0.651
23
Aug.
30-Sept. 5, 1968
1969
7.845
277
0.736
26
Aug.
30-Sept. 5, 1969
1970
10.478
370
0.850
30
Aug.
5-11, 1970
1971
6.853
242
0.481
17
Aug.
20-26, 1971
1972
10.563
373
0.538
19
Oct.
1-7, 1971
1973
11.158
394
0.244
86
Sept.
11-17, 1973
3—2 54
-------
The above conclusion is based upon analysis of a flow-
duration curve developed using discharge data for the period
of record 1932-1968 recorded at the U.S.G.S. gaging station in
Waltham. (A flow-duration curve is prepared by counting
the number of average daily flows which occurred within a
given range. The lower limit of this range is then plotted
against the percentage of days in the period of record this
flow was exceeded.) Discharge at Waltham, according to this
flow-duration curve, (Figure 3-1, Appendix 3.5.1) was equal
to or less than 0.297 m 3 /s (10.5 fti/s) 2.5 percent of the
time during the 36 year period of record analyzed. However,
prior to 1954, low flows at Waltham were completely regulated
by the Boston Edision Power Company dam just upstream of the
gage (U.S. Geological Survey, 1976).
The effect of this regulation upon flow was analyzed by
developing flow duration curves for the entire period of record
(1932—1973), as well as the regulated (1932-1953), and unregu-
lated (1954-1973) portions. Figure 3.5-3 presents these curves.
The skew towards lower flows occurring more frequently exhibited
by the entire period, and regulated period curves is the result
of active regulation. To illustrate the influence of regu-
lation, the occurrence of 0.297 rn 3 /s (10.5 ft 3 /s) was investi-
gated. During the period of record, average daily flow was
less than 0.297 m 3 /s (10.5 ft 3 /s) on 469 days. Of this total,
389 days (83 percent) occurred from 1932-1954. While 80 days
(17 percent) in the unregulated period had average flows of
this magnitude or less. Within the unregulated period, only
six years experienced average daily flows of 0.297 m 3 /s (10.5
ft 3 /s) or less. In addition, 73 days (91 percent) are clustered
into three years. These years 1966 (14 days), 1965 (27 days),
and 1957 (32 days) represent, respectively, the first, second
and third driest years (based on average annual flow) in the
20 year unregulated period analyzed. Furthermore, 1966 and
1967 are the driest years in the entire period of record for
the Waltham gage.
The future low flow hydrology of the Charles F iver
will be influenced by a number of factors not previously
considered. The most significant of these is the presence
of point source discharges upstream of the NDC service area.
Discharge from th se sources is expected to increase approx-
imately 48.lxlO 3 m /d .(12.7 mgd) - from l9.68x10 3 m 3 /d (5.2 mgd)
in 1973 to 67.75xl0 3 rn /d (17.9 mgd) in 2000. These upstream
communities draw groundwater from public wells scattered
throughout the Upper watershed (see Figure 2.5-13b) and many
private wells. Groundwater withdrawals from wells distant
from the river will adversely influence the Charles only
after a significant time lag. Conversely, the water will
rapidly reach the river via the sewer systems. The net effect
can be considered as augmentation of river flow by pumping
groundwater storage. These upstream sources roughly balance
the export volume and the flow situation in the Charles can
3—255
-------
2.83
(100)
0
-J
U-
-1 - - - -4- -
V --
b ii H iH -ii .i - iiiiii
.- ———--—- .-—— . — ——-———
EE H H
0.0283 ; _______
(1) 0.01 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2
40 30 20 10
- I -
100 RECbRD __
FIGURE 3.5-3 FLOW DURATION CURVES
U.S.G.S. GAGING STATION AT WALTHAM, MASS.
‘999
999990 99 99 98
95 90 80
70
6c
H 1- . HI. • . H
_ _T
— — -
1 4
± -
05
0.2 0 1 0.05 001
- . f .-= -H ______
• I -1--
- - --
( 1000) jIj I II. ______
Eii IE1 H1i
:
____ PERi - F REC
1954-197.8 .
. -
_____RIEC 1 O21 -
0.283
(10)
- - i :i L —t - : : 4-
±1—Hi ±- 1 :
::::j:
4- ..
- - -
__ -+ I
ii: .
5 10 2 99 9095
PERCENTAGE OF TIME FLOW EXCEEDS INDICATED VALUE
-------
be anticipated to remain relatively constant. In addition,
implementation of water conservation methods, reduction in
I/I and more effective management of the Mother Brook diver-
sion are techniques which can be utilized to ensure low flow
problems in the lower Charles watershed do not develop.
In summary, it is felt that the benefits of flow augmenta-
tion to the Charles River by an additional point source dis-
charge, are not sufficient to warrant the degradation in water
quality that such a discharge would cause. Given the option
of Harbor discharge, the risks involved with a Charles River
satellite discharge are not offset by the benefits to be
derived.
While recycling of water within a basin is a worthy
objective of a wastewater management plan, it should not
be done at the expense of water quality considerations.
Indeed, recycling is occurring in the Charles upstream of
the study area. As a result of this, water is conserved
during times of drought and water quality is frequently
degraded. Adding an additional 120.24x10 3 m 3 /d (31.77 mgd)
point source to the river does not appear to be environ-
mentally sound. The expenditure of resources on advanced
waste treatment would be best applied to existing point
sources in the river to maximize the water quality and
quantity benefits of their operation. The water quantity/
f low augmentation issue is extremely difficult to project
and is by no means closed. However, it is felt that a
system without satellite plants will best protect the over-
all environmental concerns within the study area.
The Neponset River is actively regulated for industrial
water supply and this controls its low flow characteristics.
In addition, the only upstream discharges are industrial
cooling waters. Sources of water to make up for export to
the Harbor are not readily available as in the Charles
watershed.
Between 1970 and 2000, export of Neponset water to
Boston Harbor would increase by approximately 45.42xl0 3 m 3 /d
(12 mgd). The loss of this water is a negative impact asso-
ciated with non—satellite alternatives. However, as pre-
viously discussed, significant water quality impacts will
be caused by a Neponset discharge. Major water supply wells
lie immediately downstream of the most likely discharge
points, creating public health concerns. The water quality
related impacts are more severe than the water quantity
impacts and, therefore, an all harbor alternative is
preferable.
The potential to mitigate those impacts through an
alternative augmentation system should be investigated. The
active regulation of the Neponset for industrial water supply
3—25 7
-------
could be coordinated with flow needs such that both are
satisfied during drought conditions. In addition, major I/I
reductions and water conservation should be emphasized as
* ethods to mitigate quantity related impacts. Such actions
will have greater long term benefits for the Neponset River
Watershed than augmentation with wastewater.
Water quantity impacts associated with the no action
or modified no action alternatives are approximately equiv-
alent to those of a non-satellite system.
3—258
-------
3.5.2 Wate 4
Each of the remaining system alternatives has associated
water quality impacts. The following discussion summarizes
these impacts.
No Action . The No Action alternative would have severe
water quality impacts on Boston Harbor and throughout the
EMMA study area. Continued degradation of the entire Harbor
would occur. In addition, various sections of the intercep-
tor system would continue to be overloaded. As future in-
creases in wastewater generation further overload these sec-
tions, and cause additional sections to become overloaded,
wastewater overflows within the service area can be expected
to increase. These overflows will continue to violate water
quality standards. Also, in the near future, the design
capacities of the present treatment plants will be surpassed,
reducing the treatment efficiency below present levels.
Modified No Action . Modified no action will have a bene-
ficial effect upon Harbor water quality because sludge dis-
charge will be discontinued and combined sewer overflows
will be controlled. However, the problems associated with
insufficient interceptor hydraulic capacity and overloaded
primary treatment facilities will continue to have a detri-
mental water quality impact. During periods when the hydrau-
lic capacity of the system is exceeded, overflows would vio-
late water quality standards. Discharge of primary effluent
to Boston Harbor would continue to add significant amounts of
toxic metals. In addition, it is unlikely that the present
outfalis achieve acceptable dilutions.
EMMA Study . There are major adverse water quality impacts
associi ed with this alternative. Wastewater discharge by
satellite plants cause dissolved oxygen problems in both the
Charles and Neponset Rivers. At the Harbor, secondary treat-
ment would remove additional toxic metals; however, effective
dilution is required to reduce these pollutants to “safe”
levels. It is not known if the proposed outfall modifications
and locations car achieve safe dilution levels.
Deer Island_Plan. Elimination of proposed satellite dis-
charges would prev significant water quality impacts (See
Sections 3.2.3B and3.3.3B). Similarly, the removal of the
Quincy Bay overflow would benefit water quality in Quincy Bay.
Treatment of all flow at Deer island allows the discharge to
be placed in a location which will assure proper dilution. In
addition, should MDC obtain a waiver of secondary treatment
requirements, an all Deer Island Plan allows for discharge
into the deep waters of Massachusetts Bay.
3—259
-------
In summary, the Deer Island Plan is the only system alter—
native evaluated which meets water quality standards. This
plan will generally improve areas of existing water quality
degradation. With respect to water quality considerations,
the Deer Isaind Plan is the best of the four system alterna-
tives.
3—260
-------
3.5.3 Biota
Deer Island Plan . This alternative will cause various
impacts on the biota in the vicinity of Construction. The
severity of the impact of the wastewater treatment facili—
ties and influent and effluent lines leading to the Deer
Island facility will be discussed.
Deer Island has a total land area of some 85 ha (210
acres), portions of which are owned by the City of Boston,
the MDC and The U.S. Government. Located on the island is a
City of Boston Prison, the MDC’S Deer Island Wastewater
Treatment Plant and what is left of Fort Dawes, a U.S. Govern-
ment installation. The remains of several past uses exist in
various areas of the island. The dominant physical feature
of the site are the drurnlins which occupy portions of the island.
The major drumlin rises to an elevation of over 30.5 meters
(100 feet) and is composed of a mixture of glacial materials.
Access to the site is very poor, being limited to the narrow
streets of Point Shirley and Cottage Hill.
During the site development phase, displacement of exist-
ing wildlife and vegetation will occur. Vegetation found through-
out most of the proposed area of expansion is characterized as
being that of an early successional field. Some isolated patches
of secondary growth woodland are found, and portions, particu-
larly at Fort Dawes, are devoid of any ground cover. Neither
habitat nor wildlife species on the site are considered unique.
The most dominant features of Deer Island are the drumlins.
If all treatment is provided at Deer Island it will not be
possible to prevent drumlin removal. However, it is projected
that the Deer Island site can be developed without the need to
fill, providing that the drumlins, prison and/or Fort Dawes
properties are made available.
The Squanturn site will be used for ash disposal and corn-
posting under the Deer Island Plan. The site is approximately
28.3 ha (70 acres) in area and is located on the old naval
airfield at Squantum. The site was vacated by the Navy in 1953
and the area being considered for composting and ash disposal
has remained vacant since that time. Today remnants of the
old runways still exist.
Squantum is located on what appears to be a filled wet-
land where a bulkhead (of wood and/or steel and concrete) was
erected and the inner area was filled. The site is flat and
vegetation is limited principally to low growing grasses.
Access is provided via Morrissey Boulevard and Squantum Street.
Site development will cause displacement of existing wild-
life and vegetation. The vegetation on the site is composed
of a mixture of grass with a variety of other annuals,
3—261
-------
shrubs and trees being found scattered throughout. Some
Phragmites are found on the site, but no wetland species are
present except beyond the bulkhead where some wetland vegeta-
tion (apparently Spartina alterniflora ) can be found. The
habitat is not rare or unique and is not thought to support
any rare or endangered species. The proposed use of the site
will displace both vegetation and wildlife from the site.
Overall magnitude of the impact from such action is minimal.
In considering an all Deer Island alternative, the need
for an influent sewer across Boston Harbor from Nut Island, a
relief sewer across Quincy Bay to a pumping station on Nut
Island and an additional outfall from Deer Island arises. Any
construction across the Harbor will disturb the marine environ-
ment in the path of the construction to some degree. The actual
effects and the degree to which they will influence the Harbor
environment can vary.
Many factors will influence the extent of the detrimental
impacts to the Harbor due to the construction. These include:
the construction technique utilized, the physical character-
istics of the Harbor in the vicinity of the crossing, the
disposal of construction spoils, the duration of construction
activity and the season of the year. The construction of the
pipe across the Harbor will result in both short-term and
long-term impacts.
The immediate effects of the project on the Harbor would
consist of destruction of flora and fauna, loss of habitat and
increased turbidity and subsequent disruption by sedimentation
in the vicinity of construction. Non-mobile benthic organisms
in the path of the sewer, such as hydrozoans, bryozoans and
algae will suffer at least temporary loss of habitat.
In addition, fine spoils material would be suspended in
waters surrounding the construction area. This would cause
undesirable environmental effects including siltation,
temporary reduction of photosynthetic activity and possible
mortality to certain flora and fauna. The suspended material
may also be contaminated with heavy metals.
Siltation would alter the habitat on either side of the
pipeline cut, with the greatest effect nearest the cut and
diminishing effects with increasing distance, depending upon
tidal effects. Areas where tidal currents have greater velo-
city will cause a wider distribution of silt than those areas
with lower velocities. Since two 2.75 meter (9 foot) diameter
pipes are to be constructed across the Harbor, and a 4:1 ratio
of horizontal footage to vertical footage is required to make
the cut, large volumes of material will be disturbed. These
large quantities of spoils, if improperly disposed of (e.g.
side casting of spoils), would pose a significant detrimental
environmental effect or. the Harbor.
3—262
-------
Disruption of benthic organisms such as clams, crabs,
and worms would occur as long as sedimentation continues,
however, they should adjust themselves to the level of the sedi-
mentwithin a short time period after turbidity is reduced.
Recovery time may be longer if the water is cold since animals
are more sluggish.
The impact of the proposed plan on shellfish and other
benthic organisms is dependent on the method of dredge spoils
disposal. If dredge spoils are deposited on the bay bottom
adjacent to the trench, shellfish and other benthic organisms
both in the path of the pipeline and in adjacent areas will
be disrupted. If dredge spoils are removed and deposited on
an existing spoils site, disruption of adjacent benthos would
be minimized, but some of those organisms contained in the
spoils would be destroyed.
Overall, the most damaging effects will occur to benthic
sessile forms, burrowing benthic animals and to aquatic plants
directly in the path of construction. This, in conjunction
with the possible disturbance of heavy metal-contaminated
sediments will pose the most significant environmental effects.
However, as mentioned previously, these effects are short term
in nature. The overall effect of the project on the estuarine
community will be beneficial. After completion of the con-
struction activities, benthic organisms will resettle and
develop on the new bottom substrate.
In the area of the present Nut Island outfall, water
quality would improve. This would be due to the elimination
of the treatment plant outfall and plant overflows. This
should result in increased recreational uses of Quincy Bay
and surrounding areas. Shellfish production would also be
positively affected. Areas which are now condemned or need
depuration may possibly become open areas, depending upon
recovery time for the environment and other pollution inputs
still entering the harbor.
Water quality at the present Deer Island outfall will
also be improved due to improved treatment efficiency. At
this location, however, heavy metal levels may accumulate in
the benthic sediments over time. Other water quality para-
meters should not violate standards.
Disposal of spoils from the various pipeline trenches
will influence the biota wherever the material is deposited.
If the Foul Area Site is used, whatever biota exists at this
site will be covered. This should cause minimal impact,
since dumping of contaminated wastes has occurred for over
a decade at this site.
A final consideration with respect to biotic impacts is
the issue of interceptor relief. As has been mentioned pre-
viously, the Deer island Plan (a non-satellite system) will
3—26 3
-------
require approximately 23 miles of relief above and beyond the
relief requirements of the EN? A Plan. This relief work
involves the Wellesley Extension Sewer, the New Neponset
Valley Sewer, and a segment of the High Level Sewer. While
this FIS study did not attempt to select specific alignments
for the relief sewers (which will be done during facility
planning), a reasonable estimate of the biotic impact can be
made. In each case, the relief sewers will roughly parallel
the existing sewers. Deviations from this condition will
occur to avoid other utilities, structures, or obstacles and
to minimize environmental impacts (a result of facility
planning). However, for the purpose of a rough cut analysis,
a parallel alignment was assumed, regardless of the type of
area beinc traversed. Furthermore, a 22.9 m (75 ft.)
right-of-way was assumed where the sewer passes through
undeveloped areas. A 15.2 rn (50 ft.) right-of-way was assumed
through developed areas. With these assumptions, the amount
and type of area impacted was calculated and is presented
below:
Wellesley Neponset High
Extension Valley Level Total
ha (ac) ha (ac) ha (ac) ha (ac )
Wooded 12.9 (31.9) 15.7 (38.8) 0.7 (1.8) 29.3 (72.5)
Wetlands/Water 1.3 (3.2) 1.1 (2.6) 0 2.4 (5.8)
Developed 3.6 (8.9) 9.6 (23.8)13.2(32.6) 26.4 (65.3)
Open 2.6 (6.5) 1.2 (3.0) 2.2 (5.3) 6.0 (14.8)
Impacts of sewer construction through areas designated
as open will be minimal. Restoration of the impacted areas
to their original state will be rapid.
Construction through wetland/water areas is much more
likely to result in adverse environmental impacts. It is
expected that facilities planning will reduce the area to be
impacted by a substantial amount. Controlled construction
and restoration procedures can further mitigate impacts on
aquatic and wetland biota.
Wooded areas are quite variable in terms of the amount
of impact which can be expected. The productivity of a
wooded area is often significantly increased by the clearing
of a right-of-way. Clearing results in the formation of an
ecotone, or transition zone between two habitat types.
These zones are known to support a greater diversity and
density of wildlife compared to either habitat type alone.
In areas where woods are present in scattered parcels,
ecotone benefits already exist and the main value of any
parcel may be aesthetic. Here, clearing will have a greater
impact. Again, during facilities planning, emphasis should
be given to avoiding routes which impact significantly upon
unique, scenic, or otherwise valuable woodlands.
3—264
-------
It is not generally advisable to replant trees in all
easements as a matter of course. However, if scenic or
unique woodlands are impacted, barrier screening can greatly
mitigate these effects.
Finally, construction through developed areas results
in the greatest amount of short-term disruption to local
residents. Biotic impacts are few and result mainly from the
loss of roadside vegetation. Judicious routing of sewers can
avoid most mature specimens, however.
Overall, the impac of relief sewer construction are
mostly short-term in nature and are readily controllable
through the facility planning process.
EM A Study . Implementation of the EMMA study will alter
the biotic community at the proposed facility sites. This
will include land based impacts as well as impacts on marine
resources.
Two satellite plants were proposed, one for the Upper
Neponset River and one for the Middle Charles River. No
specific sites were chosen under this plan, therefore, no
quantitative impact analysis can be made. However, it was
determined that approximately 32 and 28 acres of land (in-
cluding buffer zones) would be required for the Neponset and
Charles plants respectively. The majority of the land on the
proposed sites would be dedicated to wastewater treatment
and sludge processing facilities.
The acreage dedicated to treatment facilities would be
permanently lest as far as its ecological value is concerned.
Wildlife displacement and vegetative losses at the plant
sites would be dependent upon the site locations. The buffer
zones may still possibly provide productive wildlife and vege-
tation habitat.
In addition to the 70 acres of land which would be
permanently committed, some additional land may be impacted
through the construction of interceptor and outfall connec-
tions (depending on the specific site). It should also be
noted that the selection of satellite sites has been studied
and deliberated at great length both in this study and in
the EMMA study, by two site evaluation committees, and by the
public through workshop sessions. In spite of all this effort
no clear indication, of an optimal (or even satisfactory) site
has emerged. Basically, this is a result of the essential
incompatibility of such a. facility in an area like the Middle
Charles. To locate a facility there, near the discharge
point will result in hiotic, aesthetic, and land use
impacts. This very significant fact should be remembered in
forthcoming discussions about acreage trade—offs among the
various alternatives,
3—265
-------
Water quality impacts will be associated with the
effluent characteristics of the two plants along with the
location of the effluent discharge. Since a specific site
for effluent discharge was not determined, water quality
effects and subsequent impact on the biota due to water
quality are discussed generally.
Water Quality Modeling of the Neponset and Charles
rivers indicates effluents from the proposed satellite
plants cause dissolved oxygen problems in their respective
rivers. In the Neponser, the recommended discharge will
cause a violation of applicable water quality criteria,
with D.O. concentrations dropping to less than 1.0 mg/i.
However, the situation for the Charles River is not so clear.
Class B water quality criteria for dissolved oxygen
could be met by a satellite plant discharge above the
S. NatickDarn if the river water quality were to meet
standards where the river enters the MSD. This condition
will not occur, however, because the present Benthic
Oxygen demand in the upstream reaches will not dissappear.
Even though the Charles River, as modelled, is predicted
to be in violation of standards without a satellite plant,
discharge by the proposed facility would worsen an
already critical dissolved oxygen problem. Such low
D.C. levels would pose even more severe constraints on the
indigenous aquatic populations.
Oxygen is as important to aquatic organisms as it is
to terrestrial ones. However, oxygen gas is poorly
soluble in water: water containing 10 mg/i of “D.C.”
is rich in oxygen. Depletion of even a few mg/i of D.O.,
therefore, can subject aquatic species to the same
suffocating stress as air-breathing animals experience in
a stuffy, enclosed atmosphere. In fact, almost any reduction
in D.O. levels can reduce somewhat the effeciency of oxygen
uptake by aquatic organisms, which reduces an animal’s
ability to survive other stresses of its environinent(just
as a shortness of breath weakens one). Lowered dissolved
oxygen concentrations may not kill an adult fish outright,
for instance, but may interfere with its growth, reproductive
activity, or the survival of the eggs and young. In addition,
many fish species require healthy populations of lower organ-
isms as food and the dissolved oxygen concentrations must
be sufficient to maintain these insects and other inver-
tebrates.
Maintaining a healthy, balanced ecosystem, and therefore,
good populations of fish, may be difficult when the decay of
material such as wastewater, consumes a major portion of a
river’s dissolved oxygen.
There is some disagreement among authorities as to a
precise, minimum dissolved oxygen concentration needed
to sustain a balanced fish community, consisting of a
3—266
-------
related with confidence to maintaing a good fish
population.
“To allow for the differences among require—
ments affected by species and other variables, the
dissolved oxygen criteria are based on the concen-
tration that will support a well-rounded population
of fish (Ellis, 1937) as it would occur under
natural conditions. A population of fish is composed
of a number of different but more or less inter-
dependent species, of different feeding and repro-
ductive habits, but which will include game and
pan fish (bass, pike, trout, perch, sunfish, crappie,
depending upon the location), some so—called rough
or coarse fish (carp, buffalo, bullhead, sucker,
chub), and large numbers of smaller ‘forage’ fish
(e.g., minnows). Theoretically it should be
possible to base oxygen criteria on the needs of
the most sensitive component of such a population,
but there is not enough information for this at
present; that is why the criteria must be based on
oxygen concentrations known to permit the main-
tenance and well—being of the population as a
whole.
“The requirement that the data be applicable
to naturally occurring populations imposes limits
on the types of research that can be used as a
basis for the criterion. Aside from a few papers
on feeding, growth, and survival in relation to
oxygen concentration, very little of the laboratory-
based literature has a direct bearing; field data
are in general more useful. Field studies have
the disadvantage that the numbers of variables
encountered in the natural environment (temperature,
pH, dissolved solids, food supply, and the like, as
well as dissolved oxygen) make it necessary to be
conservative in relating fish cibundance arid
distribution to oxygen concentration alone, but enough
observations have been made under a variety of con-
ditions that the importance of oxygen concen—
tr tion seems clear.
“Field studies, in which fish catches have been
related to dissolved oxygen concentrations measured
at the same time, indicate that a dissolved
oxygen concentration of 3 rng/l is too low to main-
tain a good fish population (Thompson, 1925; Ellis,
1937; Brinley, 1944), this finding is supported by
3—26 7
-------
diversity of species and general types of fish (such as
game fish, pan fish and rough fish). By implication,
such a minimum D.O. level would also maintain the rest of
the organisms in the aquatic system.
On one hand water quality criteria developed by the
National Academy of Science and National Academy of
Engineering for the Environmental Protection Agency
(Committee on Water Quality Criteria, 1972) state:
“There is evidently no concentration level or
percentage of saturation to which the 02 content of
natural waters can be reduced without causing or
risking some adverse effects on the reproduction,
growth, and consequently, the production of fishes
inhabiting those waters.
Accordingly, no single, arbitrary recommendation
can be set for dissolved oxygen concentrations that
will be favorable for i1 kinds of fish in al].
kinds of water, or even one kind of fish in a
single kind of water. Any reduction in oxygen may
be harmful by affecting fish production and the
potential yeild of a fishery.”
The allowable minimum recommended in this reference
is 4 mg/i, except when naturally occurring concentrations
are less. In that case, no depression below the naturally
occurring minimum is recommended. The value of 4 mg/i
was chosen by the National Academy Committee because the
literature reviewed indicated subacute or chronic damage to
fish below this level. The accumulated evidence also
revealed appreciable effects on embryonic and juvenile sur-
vival and growth of several fish species at oxygen concen-
trations below this level.
Representing a more conservative approach, water quality
criteria recently published by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (1976) specify 5 mg/i as the minimum
consentration which will maintain a good fish population.
The E.P.A. discusses this criterion as follows:
“A discussion of oxygen criteria for fresh-
water fish must take into account these facts:
(1) fish vary in their oxygen requirements according
to species, age, activity, temperature, and nutri-
tional state; (2) they are found from time to time,
and can survive for a while, at oxygen concen-
trations considerably below that considered suitable
for a thriving population; and (3) although there
is much literature on the oxygen consumption of
fish and the effects of varying oxygen concentrations
on behavior and survival, few investigators have
employed methods or sought endpoints that can be
3—2 68
-------
laboratory observations that in the vicinity of
3 mg/liter and below feeding is diminished or
stopped (Lindroth, 1949; Mount, 1960; Hermann,
et al. , 1962), and growth is reduced (Hamdorf,
1961; Itazawa, 1971), even when the lowered oxy-
gen concentration occurs for only part of the day
(Stewart, et al., 1967).
“A dissolved oxygen concentration of 4 mg/i
seems to be about the lowest that will support a
varied fish population (Ellis, 1937), even in the
winter (Thompson, 1925), and for a well-rounded
population including game fish it should be above
that. Both Ellis (1937) and Brinley (1944) set
the minimum for a well rounded population at 5
mg/I. It should be pointed out, however, that
Thompson found the greatest variety of species at
9 mg/i, Ellis found good populations more fre-
quently at 6 than at 5 mg/i, and Brinley reported
the best concentrations for game fish populations
to be above 5 mg/i.
“Fish embryonic and larval stages are espe-
cially vulnerable to reduced oxygen concentra-
tions because their ability to extract oxygen
from water is not fully developed and they can-
not move away from adverse conditions. Although
many species can develop at oxygen concentra-
tions as low as 2.5 to 3 mg/l, the effects of a
reduced oxygen concentration even as high as 5
or 6 mg/i can cause a partial mortality or at the
least retard development (Brugs, 1971; Siefert
et al. , 1973, 1974, 1975; Carlson et al. , 1974;
Carison and Siefert, 1974; Garside, 1966; Gulidow,
1969; Hamdorf, 1961). Unless it is extreme, how-
ever, the retardation need not be permanent or
detrimental to the species (Brannon, 1965; Eddy,
1972). For most fish, maintaining a minimum of
5 mg/i in the water mass in the vicinity of the
embryos and larvae should suffice.”
Extensive information was not found on the present bio-
logical populations, especially of fish, in the Charles River.
A 1973 survey by the MDWPC (Erdmann, Bilger and Travis, 1977)
showed bottom dwelling invertebrate communities consisting
largely, but not exclusively of pollution—tolerant species.
(These organisms have a better natural ability to tolerate
low dissolved oxygen levels). A 1969 survey (Massachusetts
Division of Fisheries and Game, 1970) showed the middle
reaches of the Charles River to have a fairly diverse fish
3—26 9
-------
community, consisting of pickerel, bass, perch, bluegills,
pumpkinseeds, carp, suckers and others. Although not the
most abundant in numbers, coarse fish such as carp or suckers,
accounted for a large proportion of the total weight of fish
collected during the survey. This could be due to man in—
duced pollution effects, or the natural characteristics of
the Charles River may be favoring these fish species.
Regardless, it seems clear that the River has at least
the potential to support a healthy, balanced ecosystem.
The future D.O. concentrations of the Charles River, how-
ever, are indicated to be stressed by the existing oxygen
demands entering the River. Adding a new, major point
source is likely to have a significant, adverse impact on
the present, or the potential, fish populations of this
system.
3—270
-------
3.5.4. Air Quality
Sludge produced by the Deer Island Plan would be kept
separated according to its origin (northern or southern
service area). All of the sludge from the northern system
would be incinerated along with all of the primary sludge
from the southern service area. The secondary sludge
from the southern system would be sent to Squantum for
transfer and disposal. One half of this secondary sludge
would be composted at Squantum and the other half would be
transferred to a landfill.
Incineration of the sludge would add significant
quantities of pollutants to the atmosphere. The estimated
yearly maximum allowable emissions (emission rate based
on maximum rated capacity using new source performance
standards and AP-42 controlled emission factors) in
kilograms (tons) for Deer Island are: particulates 117,936
kg (130), sulfur dioxide 302,098 kg (333), nitrogen dioxide
(as NO 2 ) 609,638 kg (672) and hydrocarbons 69,854 kg (77)
Long term and short term analyses of air quality were
conducted. On an annual basis it was estimated that the
maximum annual concentration of pollutants would occur
800m (2624.8 ft) east of the Deer Island site. It is
estimated 4.1 pg/rn 3 of sulfur dioxide and 1.2 pg/rn 3
of total suspended particulates will be added to the back-
ground level pollutants. The estimated maximum 24 hour
concentrations will be 10.2 pg/rn 3 for particulates and
34.2 pg/rn 3 for sulfur dioxide. The 3 hour maximum is
expected to be 137.8 pg/rn 3 for sulfur dioxide. It should
be noted that due to prevailing winds, the maximum con-
centrations occur over water. None of the above concen-
trations would exceed the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration standards set by EPA for a Class II area.
It is expected, according to the air quality model
(Appendix 3.5.4), that the effect of the emissions on
areas designated as being in non—attainment will be
negligible for annual concentrations. Sulfur dioxide levels
will meet the 24 hour standards, however, 24 hour particulate
levels are projected to violate the secondary NAAQS for
par ticulates.
Under the EMNA study all of the secondary sludge would
be incinerated. Sludge from the harbor plants would be in-
cinerated at Deer Island and each satellite plant would in-
cinerate its own sludge.
3—2 71
-------
Based upon the incineration of all the sludge, the
estimated yearly maximum allowable emissions in kilograms
(tons) were calculated for the EMMA Plan. The estimated
emissions for all incinerator sites were calculated to be:
141,523 kg (156) particulates, 399,168 kg (440) sulfur
dioxide, 793,800 kg (875) nitorgen oxides and 88,906 kg (98)
hydrocarbon.
In the EMMA plan greater air emissions levels are
found than under the Recommended Plan. This is due to the
fact that half of the secondary sludge from the southern
system in the Recommended Plan is being composted and
half is being landfilled instead of being incinerated. Thus
greater quantities of air pollutants would contribute to
the ambient air concentrations due to the EM M Plan.
An analysis was made of emissions from the combination
of incinerators located at the Deer Island, Charles River
and Neponset River plants. This analysis provides estimates
for the annual ground level concentrations of sulfur
dioxide and total suspended particulates. The total
suspended particulates estimates for the Deer Island,
Neponset River and Charles River facilities, were 1.5,
2.3 and .06 .ig/m 3 , respectively. Sulfur dioxide levels
for the three plants were estimated to be 5.0, 0.09 and 1.7
g/m 3 .
Incinerating sludge at the Neponset and Charles sites
would expose a larger population to the added pollutants of
incineration. Aithougn the emission increments are not ex-
pected to violate any standards, these emissions will be
generally “upwind” of populated areas and thus, less
desirable. This is in contrast to Deer Island where most
emissions are expected to be blown over water.
Based on the lower quantities of emissions and site
location, the Deer Island alternative would have less of
an impact on air quality than the EMMA Plan. The No
Action and Modified No Action alternatives would both have
fewer emissions than either the EMMA or Deer Island plans.
The No Action alternative would not involve any
additional emissions. Air quality would not be influenced,
since no sludge would be incinerated. This alternative
would have the least effect on air quality.
3—272
-------
The Modified No Action alternative would include the
incineration of only primary sludge. This is part of the
on-going plans for the MDC wastewater management scheme.
Incineration of primary sludge is assumed in both the EMMA
and Deer Island alternatives. Since secondary sludge is
not incinerated in the Modified No Action alternative,
this alternative would have significantly less emissions
than either of the aformentioned plans; however, it would
create more emissions than the No Action alternative.
3—273
-------
3.5.5 Socio—econornic Effects
The primary socio-economic impacts associated with each
of the alternatives are related to employment resulting from
the construction activity required for each. In addition,
the construction related employment should result in in-
creased commercial activity in the immediate vicinity of
the construction staging areas. Both of these beneficial
impacts should accrue for the duration of the construction
phase.
Assuming that the Deer Island and the EMMA Plan have
approximately equivalent man power requirements for construc-
tion, it would appear that their respective impacts would be
quite similar. However, differences will emerge due to the
two additional construction sites required under the EMMA
Plan. Under this alternative, construction employment would
take place at four distinctive locations; Deer Island, Nut
Island, in the Charles River and Neponset River watersheds.
Under the Harbor Plan, construction activity would be
concentrated on and around Deer Island and Nut Island. The
effect of this employment concentration in the Harbor area
could result in more positive impacts on inner city residents
with skills in the building trades. Also, the utilization
of minority contractors and subcontractors should be greater
under the Deer Island Plan than under the EMMA Plan due to
the proximity of Deer Island and Nut Island to the urban
core of Metropolitan Boston.
The No Action alternative will not result in these bene-
ficial, employment related impacts, since no construction
would take place.
The Modified No Action alternative would require sub-
stantially less construction than either the Deer Island
Plan alternative or the EMMA alternative. Therefore, the
probable employment related impacts would be proportionally
less than either the Harbor or the EMMA alternatives.
There is also potential for adverse fiscal impact on
local governmental units. This is associated with the
acreage requirements for the implementation of the alterna-
tives. Use of land for sewerage treatment facilities, a
tax exempt public use, reduces the tax base in the rnunici-
palities in which the facilities are located. The extent
of this impact will depend on the amount of currently pri-
vately owned land to be consumed and the current and future
assessed value of that land, as well as these magnitudes
relative to the entire municipality.
Neither of the No Action alternatives would result in
the removal of any privately owned land from municipal tax
rolls.
3—274
-------
The Deer Island Plan alternative will result in the
consumption of about 28.3 ha (70 acres) of privately owned
land at the Squantuin site in Quincy. The remaining land
required for this alternative is already publicly owned.
The EMMA Plan alternative would require the acquisi-
tion of 30 to 32 ha (75 to 80 acres) of private land for the
construction of the two satellite plants on the Charles and
Neponset Rivers.
No comparisons can be made, however, between the Harbor
and EMMA alternatives in terms of either absolute or rela-
tive loss of tax ratables resulting from acquisition since
specific sites have not been delineated under the EMMA Plan.
3—2 75
-------
3.5.6 Construction—Related Transportation Impacts
In order to assess primary impacts against the transpor-
tation/accessibility factor, the affected construction points
for each of the various alternatives must be identified, as
well as the nature of the access routes into these areas, and
the type of vehicular traffic these routes would be expected
to carry. The following discussion will outline these details
and contparatively evaluate the varying alternatives.
No Action . By the nature of this alternative, no con-
struction, and therefore, no induced transportation/access
impact would be realized.
Modified No Action . This strategy entails storm sewer
overflow relief in the Boston core area along the r ystic,
Charles arid Neponset Rivers as well as around the harbor face.
Additionally, a primary sludge incinerator is proposed for
Deer Island, as well as ongoing interceptor relief in the core
area. Aside from the Deer Island site, specific construction
areas cannot be identified for the storm sewer overflow relief
and interceptor renovation. This is due to the fact that
measures to correct overflows have only recently been
initiated, and the relief program operates interrnittantly on
a “need” basis.
It is felt that construction pertaining to these tasks
would not lead to any extended severe impacts on the viability
of the affected transportation links in the metropolitan Boston
area. Construction of the primary incineration facility at
Deer Island would not require maThr topographic alteration of
the facility site, and would, therefore, engage a work force
strictly for construction purposes only. It is not expected
that the crew required for this task would be large enough
to overload the carrying capacity of the through routes into
the Deer Island site.
Storm sewer overflow and interceptor renovation would
entail short-term intensified activity at a number of small
sites located sporadically around the metropolitan core.
Due to a limited duration at each site and the discrete un-
connected spatial character of the sewer relief projects,
major accessibility and/or through-traffic impacts would not
be expected to occur.
EMMA Study . This alternative concentrates construction
activities into four areas: 1) Deer Island (construction of
a 17.5 m 3 /s (400 mgd) treatment plant including the filling of
5.7 ha (14 acres) of harbor and removal of the prison facility),
2) Nut Island (construction of 5.7 m 3 /s (130 mgd) treatment
plant and the filling of 11.3 ha (28 acres) of harbor), 3) Mid
Charles River Watershed (construction of 31 rngd treatment plant,
and 4) Upper Neponset River Watershed (construction of 1.1 m 3 s
(25 mgd) treatment plant).
3—27 6
-------
Examination of access routes into Deer Island indicates
that the work force required for implementation of the proposed
facility would severely stress the traffic handling capability
of these roads. Intensive development in spatially restricted
land areas (Beachrnont, Cottage Hill and Point Shirley sections
of Winthrop) has led to a very disorganized and constrictive road
system leading to Deer Island.
A similar case may be made for access to the Nut Island
site. However, the range of construction activities at that
location is much smaller, comparatively, and the roadway
pattern is less restrictive and more organized in the Houghs
Neck and Central Quincy area. Therefore, while a significant
impact is expected on local traffic and accessibility into
the proposed Nut Island facility, it would not be of the mag-
nitude of that associated with Deer Island construction.
Facility construction in the Charles and Neponset Basins
will tend to affect through-traffic flow, as opposed to local-
ized access inconvenience associated with facility implemen-
tation in the Harbor area. Especially in the Mid—Charles
Basin, with a limited number of secondary transportation cor-
ridors, reductions in the vehicular flow rate may be expected,
due to slow moving construction equipment and additional con-
gestion due to the influx of workers into the work area.
Deer Island Plan . This strategy concentrates construc-
tion activity into three major areas, all within the Boston
Harbor area: 1) Deer Island (25.7 in3/s (586 mgd) treatment plant,
including the removal of the drumlin and removal of the prison
facility), 2) Nut Island (dismantle existing facility and
construction of headworks and pump station), 3) Squantum
(construction of 4.6 m (15 ft.) berm enclosing compost and
ash fill area). Construction of the subaqueous connection
between Nut and Deer Islands may potentially have a negative
impact on ship traffic into Boston Harbor, although this
should be avoidable through proper construction management.
In any event, the northern portion of Long Island (in addition
to areas within Nut and Deer Islands) has been preliminarily
designated as a staging point for this proposed action.
In regard to the Deer and Nut Island areas, transportation/
accessibility impacts for this strategy are expected to be
similar in severity to those expected with implementation of
the EMNA plan. Vehicular flow impairment would most likely
be less significant for construction in the Nut Island area,
due to the swaller size and reduced complexity of the pro-
posed facilities. In the area of Houghs Neck, where a relief
interceptor is proposed to be lain under Sea St. (Near Manet
Avenue) and out into the harbor to Nut Island, impacts on vehi-
cular flow and local access are expected to be severe, but
only for the short period of time necessary to cross the
roadway.
3-277
-------
Impacts in the Deer Island area, however, would be more
serious than those expected with construction of the proposed
EMMA facility, due to the increase in facility size.
Disturbance to the free flow of vehicular traffic is
not expected to occur to any significant degree in the Squan—
turn area. In direct opposition to the other sectors affected
by construction of the Deer Island alternative, the Squantum
area is virtually free from residential development (limiting
access inconvenience) and is directly served by major through
routes (Routes 3, 3A and Morrissey Blvd).
Comparison of Alternative Strategies . It is readily
apparent that both the No Action and Modified No Action alter-
natives yield no or minimal primary impacts against the trans-
portation/accessibility factor. The EMMA plan and the Deer
Island alternative are similar in that they exhibit a magni-
tude of disturbance far above those encountered with the initial
two alternatives. Both the EMMA and Deer Island alternatives
will severely affect transportation flow in the Deer Island
area. It is felt that transportation impacts generated by
the Harbor plan will not greatly exceed those of the EMMA plan,
because the excavated drumlin material is proposed to be barged
out, thus eliminating a potential large increase in vehicular
traffic. Additionally, the traffic flow capacity differential
between the two proposed Deer Island facility alternatives is
not expected to greatly affect the size of the generated work
force (and associated traffic flows) due to their great size
and the economies of scale inherent in projects of that magni-
tude. For the EMMA plan, during construction, it is estimated
that an average work force of 750 men, with a peak manpower
level of 1500 men would exist. The Deer Island plan would
call for approximately a 2000 man construction force at peak
operations, and an average work force of about 1000 men.
Traffic patterns will be significantly affected by both the
EMMA plan and Deer Island alternative in the Nut Island/Houghs
Neck area; however, the time of disturbance will be less with
the Deer Island alternative. The overall magnitude of impact
upon the transportation factor is expected to be less for a
Deer Island alternative as the impacts associated with the
construction of Charles and Neponset STP’s outweigh those
associated with construction at Squantuin. In addition, the
concentration of facilities at Deer Island may render the
delivery of materials, equipment, and/or manpower by barge
feasible, thereby greatly mitigating transportation effects.
Transportation impacts arising from the channel dredging
of Boston Harbor are difficult to assess. However, with the
exception of minimal disturbance at Long Island, it is not
felt that this action will affect any areas other than those
already disturbed by the proposed facility construction.
3—27g
-------
TABLE 3.5-12
COMPARISON OF COSTS 1
All Deer
Capital Costs Island Plan EMMA Plan
Wastewater Treatment 404,290,900 503,400,000 ’
Facilities 2
Secondary Sludge Management 58,784,500 33,892,l00
Interceptor System 3 307,620,000 l32,532,l00
Total Capital Costs 770,695,400 669,824,200
Amortized Capital Costs 6 59,782,800 51,958,300
Operation and Maimtenance Costs 24,765,200 30,447,000
Total Annual Costs 84,548,000 82,405,300
Applicant’s Share of Cap. 77,069,500 66,982,400
Cost (10%)
Applicant’s Share of 5,978,300 5,195,800
Amortized Cap. Cost
Applicant’s Share of 24,765,200 30,447,000
0 & M Costs
Applicant’s Share of
Total Annual Cost 30,743,500 35,642,800
(1) Engineering News Record Construction Index = 2654
(2) Includes work at Nut Island and Outfall
(3) Includes submerged pipelines, tunnel and related pumping
stations.
(4) From EMMA Study, adjusted to ENR CI of 2654.
(5) Includes satellite treatment plant, and satellite sludge
management adusted to account for primary sludge
(6) Assume average life of facilities = 30 years; Interest
rate = 6-5/8 percent
3—27 9
-------
3.5.7 Aesthetics
Removal of the drumlin from Deer Island would present a
permanent significant aesthetic impact on Boston Harbor. The
drumlin, which rises 100 feet above the harbor provides a
good vantage point for viewing the harbor activities.
Presently little use is made of the drumlin area due to a
lack of accessibility. Although other views of Boston are
available from Point Shirley, they do not afford as pan-
oramic a view.
From Boston, the drumlin on Deer Island is clearly
evident. Under the Deer Island Plan, the treatment plant
would take the entire island, therefore necessitating re-
moval of the drumlin. No objective value of the site is
quantifiable since each individual may place a different
value on the drumlin’s scenic qualities.
Significant water quality improvements will occur as
a result of the Deer Island alternative. Concurrent with
an improvement of overall water quality will be an increase
in the opportunity for recreational use of the entire
Harbor. The Nut Island site, in specific, would accrue
large benefits from this plan. A recreation area could be
placed at the present Nut Island facility site and other
harbor islands could be put to greater recreational use.
Therefore, it is felt that drumlin removal is an acceptable
negative impact in light of the overall benefit which will
result from the Deer Island alternative.
3.5.8 Costs
Table 3.5-12 shows the estimated costs for facilities
which were considered in this EIS. These include the costs
of the interceptor sewer system (including related pumping
stations, submarine pipelines, and the deep rock tunnel),
wastewater treatment plants, and secondary sludge management
facilities. These costs, both capital (construction) and
operation and maintenance, are shown in Table 3.5-12 for the
EMMA Plan and the All Deer Island Plan )the No Action and
Modified No Action alternatives do not include any of these
facilities). The capital cost of the EMMA Plan was based on
costs developed in the EMMA Study, which were adjusted to
May 1978 costs. Estimates of all other costs were
developed during the course of this study and are discussed
further in Section 4.1.6.
As shown in Table 3.5-12, the All Deer Island Plan
would cost about $101,000,000 more to build than the EMMA
Plan. 2 mortizing the construction costs over the average
life of the facilities (estimated to be 30 ye.ars) at an
annual interest rate of 6—5/8 percent results in the
amortized capital costs of the All Deer Islan d Plan being
3—280
-------
about $7,800,000 per year more than the amortized capital
costs of the EMMA Plan. This is considerably offset by the
fact that operation and maintenance costs are about $5,700,000
per year less for the All Deer Island Plan than for the
EMMA Plan. This is due primarily to the relatively high
operation and maintenance costs of the advanced wastewater
treatment satellite plants included in the EMMA Plan. The
result is that the total annual cost of the All Deer Island
Plan is about $2,100,000 more per year than the total annual
cost of the EMMA Plan.
Since the capital costs would be eligible for 75
percent Federal aid and 15 percent State aid, the
Applicant’s share of the capital costs is 10 percent.
However, the Applicant’s share of operation and maintenance
costs is 100 percent, since these costs are not grant eligible.
Taking these factors into account, the All Deer Island Plan
would cost the Applicant about $4,900,000 less annually than
the EMMA Plan.
3.5.9 Conclusion
With respect to water quality considerations, the non-
satellite system (the Deer Island Plan) is the only system
alternative which will meet water quality standards. This
system will not affect water quality in inland streams and
will greatly improve the quality of the existing effluent
discharges. The EMMA Plan will similarly improve the aual-
ity of the harbor discharges and will reduce their volume
somewhat. The EMMA Plan, however, will cause degradation
of water quality in the Charles and Neponset Rivers. A
Neponset River discharge will cause its dissolved oxygen
standard to be violated, while the Charles River discharge
will significantly increase the magnitude of projected
water quality violations. The No Action alternative will
result in the continued degradation of harbor waters.
Modified No Action will cause an improvement in ambient
water quality conditions but degradation in the vicinity
of the existing primary discharge will persist. Overall,
the Deer Island Plan is the best of the four system alterna-
tives with respect to water quality.
In terms of water quantity, the Deer Island Plan and
both “No Action” alternatives will have a similar effect.
That is, they will result in the export of water from the
Charles and Neponset watersheds in the form of sewage. For
the Charles River watershed, this loss will be approximately
offset by additional point source discharges to the river.
For the Neponset River, an estimated export of 45.42x10 3 m 3 /d
(12 mgd) per day has been projected. The EMMA Plan, since
it will result in the discharge of treated effluent to the
rivers, will have a lesser impact on low river flows. In
fact, the EMMA Plan will result in substantially higher dry
weather river flows than have occurred in the past, but at
the expense of water quality.
3—281
-------
The effects of the No Action alternative on the area’s
biotic communities will represent a continuation of present
trends. That is, organisms associated with polluted waters
will remain. Increased degradation of water quality as a
result of increased pollutant loads will continue to damage
the harbor’s flora and fauna as well as the public’s use of
them. Modified No Action will improve the situation
except in the vicinity of the existing primary outfalls.
Both the EMMA Plan and the Deer Island Plan will further
improve biotic conditions.
The EMMA Plan and the Deer Island Plan will further
improve biotic conditions.
The EMMA Plan will require the use of two additional
sites for facilities construction and specifies the filling
of Quincy Bay to expand the Nut Island plant and the filling
of Boston Harbor to expand the Deer Island plant. This is
considered to be a major impact. The Deer Island Plan avoids
filling the harbor but requires the complete use of Deer
Island plus a major bay crossing. Also, additional inter—
cepter relief is required for the Deer Island Plan.
In terms of construction-related impacts, both the
Deer Island Plan and the EMMA Plan will cause more disturb-
ance than either No Action alternative. While each of
these systems will produce its own set of characteristic
construction impacts, they cannot be easily separated on
this basis in terms of a value judgment.
As far as air quality characteristics are concerned,
the No Action alternative would result in the least air
emissions followed by the Modified No Action alternative.
The Modified No Action alternative represents an increase
in emissions to the ambient air due to the incineration of
the primary sludge, but it would not include the incinera-
tion of the secondary sludge. Comparisons of the emissions
from primary and secondary sludge incineration at the Deer
Island Plan and EMMA Plan sites, indicates the Deer Island
Plan would have less air quality impact. This is based
upon the lower quantities of emissions and the site loca-
tion of the Deer Island Plan. This differential is offset,
however, by the need to establish a landfill for disposal
of digested sludge under the Deer Island Plan.
On the basis of the preceding comparison, the best of
the four system alternatives can be selected. The No Action
alternative, while it is economical and impacts upon air
quality the least, is not considered feasible. Existing
primary sludge discharges to the Harbor, poor operation of
existing facilities, gross and visible pollution from the
Nut Island facility, and persistent bacterial contamination
of the Harbor render this alternative untenable.
3—282
-------
The modified No Action alternative will improve water
quality conditions and benefit the harbor’s biota in a general
sense, but the gross pollution from the existing primary out-
falls and by-passes will persist. Pollution from sludge dis-
charges will be abated, however. This plan is significantly
less expensive than either the Deer Island plan or the EMMA
plan and will be more favorable in terms of air quality impacts
and primary construction-related impacts. The alternative is
rejected, however, on the basis of permitting unacceptable
water quality conditions to persist.
The EMMA plan and the Deer Island plan both further
improve water quality conditions in the Harbor. As described
previously, these alternatives vary in terms of their specific
impacts, but they can be separated on the basis of several
significant parameters. These include:
1. The violation of water quality standards in the
Neponset River and a further deterioration of the
Charles under the EMMA plan.
2. The need for 42 acres of fill in the Harbor under
the EMMA plan.
3. The need for a major harbor crossing, additional
interceptor relief and drumlin removal under the
Deer Island plan.
Beside these factors, the other levels of impact are
generally similar with some trade-off s existing between the
alternatives. Costs are approximately equal. While Item
#3 above represents significant impacts, they can be justi-
fied in light of the magnitude of the problem and its solü-
tion. Except for drumlin removal, these effects are short
term. Items *1 and #2, however, represent long term impacts
which are considered unacceptable. The solution to a waste—
water management problem should not be resolved by causing
other water quality problems. The loss of 40 acres of the
Harbor likewise represents an irreversible impact which
should not be accepted if there exists any alternative. We
therefore, select the Deer Island Plan as the best of the
four system alternatives.
3—283
-------
CHAPTER 4
THE RECOMMENDED PLAN
4.1 DESCRIPTION
4.1.1. General Description
The wastewaters from the member municipalities of
the MDC’s Metropolitan Sewerage District (MSD) would be
treated at a wastewater treatment plant located on Deer
Island. Provision has been made for the possible addition
of the Towns of Dover, Hopkinton, Lincoln, Lynnfield,
Sharon, Sherborn, Southborough and Weston* to the 43
municipalities presently making up the MSD. The northern
and southern interceptor sewer systems, and related
pumping stations, would be expanded and modified as
required to handle the peak flows anticipated from an
expanded MSD. The wastewater from the southern inter—
ceptor sewer system would receive preliminary treatment
at a headworks on Nut Island (screening and grit removal)
and would then be transported to Deer Island through a
conduit which would be constructed across Boston Harbor.
At Deer Island this wastewater would be pumped into the
treatment plant.
Most of the wastewater from the northern interceptor
sewer system receives preliminary treatment at three
headworks and then enters the Deer Island plant at a main
pumping station. The remainder of the northern wastewater
enters the plant at a separate headworks (Winthrop Terminal
Facility) where it receives pretreatment and is pumped to
the effluent conduit from the main pumping station. The
main pumping station and the headworks on Deer Island
would be upgraded and expanded as required.
The treatment i 1ant on Deer Island, which presently
provides primary treatment to the wastewater from the
northern MSD service area, would be expanded and upgraded
to provide secondary treatment to the wastewater from
both the northern and southern service areas. The
secondary sludge generated at the treatment plant would
be aewatered and then disposed of by a combination of
incineration followed by ash disposal, composting followed
by giving away or marketing the compost product, and
landfilling. The ash disposal and composting operations
would be accomplished at Squantum Point. The primary
sludge generated at the treatment plant was the topic
of a separate HIS which recommended it be incinerated at
Deer Island.
*Durina 1977 the Town of Weston voted against joining the MSD.
4—1
-------
4.1.2. Flow and Waste Reduction Measures
For the purposes of this study, the quantities of
wastewater which will require collection and treatment
in the year 2000 (design year) are assumed to be those
which were estimated in the EMMA Study (prepared for
the MDC by Metcalf and Eddy, Inc.). T iese quantities
were estimated to be about 2,220,000 m /day (586 mgd)
for the average daily flow and 5,235,000 mi/day (1,383
mgd) for the peak flow.
Possible methods of reducing the volume of wastewater
requiring collection and treatment should be investigated
during facilities planning. One method of flow reduction
is the elimination or reduction of infiltration and inflow
which enters the sewerage system. Infiltration/inf low
studies currently underway will, when completed, identify
those areas where the cost of eliminating infiltration/
irif low by means of rehabilitating the sewer system is
economically justifiable as compared to the cost of trans-
porting these flows to, and treating them in, a wastewater
treatment plant. From data presented in Technical Data
Volume 2 of the EMMA Study, it is estimated that approx-
imately 680,000 m 3 /day (180 mgd) of the average daily flow
and 1,135,000 m 3 /day (300 mgd) of the peak flow is due to
infiltration. The results of the infiltration/inflow
studies would be investigated at the time of facilities
planning, and if these studies result in the removal of
infiltration and inflow into the system, the design flows
should be adjusted accordingly.
Another method of reducing the quantity of wastewater
in the sewerage system is water conservation. The intro-
duction of water conserving shower heads, toilets, and
kitchen sinks, and more intelligent use of dishwashers and
washing machines can significantly reduce water consumption.
It Is estimated that, through the use of relatively simple
domestic water conservation measures, domestic wastewater
production can be reduced gy at least 20 gallons per capita
per day. The related cost savings from reduced water
supply, wastewater management and heating fuel charges
would probably equal the initial cost of installing water
conservation devices within the first year of use, after
which time the home owner would realize an estimated
savings of at least $60.00 per year. An extensive
public education program should be implemented to impress
upon the general public the need for, and the benefits of,
conserving water. Also, a detailed study of the water
rate schedules of the MSD member municipalities should
be made. A water conservation program will benefit from
the adjustment of water rate schedules so that conservation
efforts in the home will produce a reduction in water bills.
In addition, the possibility of forcing conservation measures
4—2
-------
by legislative means should be investigated. For example,
legislation requiring new residences to install low flush
toilets would be a large step toward the water conservation
goal. The results of these efforts should be examined
during facilities planning. If it is found that water
conservation efforts have resulted in a reduction of domestic
wastewater flows, the design flows should be adjusted
accordingly. Even if a significant reduction in the volume
of domestic wastewater is not realized at the time of
facilities planning, a water conservation program may
result in eliminating the need for expanding facilities
in the future.
In Technical Data Volume 2 of the EMMA Study, the
quantities of average and peak residential, commercial and
industrial wastewater flows and infiltration are estimated
for each of the municipalities included in the expanded
MSD. These sources account for an average daily flow of
about 2,025,000 m3/day (535 mgd) in the year 2000. The
remaining flow of about 195,000 m 3 /day (51 mgd) which is
estimated will enter the system on an average day can be
accounted for b the fact that, in 1972, an average of
about 185,000 mi/day (49 mgd) of seawater entered the
northern sewerage system, mainly through inoperative
or broken tide gates. The MDC has recently completed a
tide gate rehabilitation program. The results of that
program should be investigated during facilities planning,
and the design flows adjusted accordingly.
Using the values estimated in Technical Data Volume 2
of the EMMA Study for peak industrial and infiltration flows
and applying a peak factor of 2.0 to the average residential
and commercial fl ws results in a peak flow for the MSD of
about 4,288,000 m- /day (1133 mgd) in the year 2000. A
higher value, 5,235,000 m 3 /day (1383 mgd) was used for design
purposes in the EMMA Study. The difference of 947,000 m 3 /day
(250 mgd) consists of about 757,000 m 3 /day (200 mgd) from
the northern system and about 190,000 m 3 /day (50 mgd) from
the southern system. The use of the higher peak flows was
based on the assumption that “the full capacity of the
incoming sewer system would be utilized in the future during
storm runoff periods” (EMMA Study, Technical Data Volume
10, page 3-1) . This seems to be a reasonable assumption.
Presently, about 45 percent of the population and 20 percent
of the area tributary to the MSD sewerage system are served
by combined sewers. Combined sewers, which collect storm-
water runoff as well as sanitary wastewater, transport
large quantities of stormwater to treatment plants. The
combined sewers are located in the northern service area.
During rainfalls, the runoff entering the combined sewers
would cause the tunnels and sewers entering Deer Island to
reach full capacity. The southern system does not contain
any combined sewers. However, it is reasonable to assume
that, during periods of rainfall, the sewers in the southern
4—3
-------
system will experience significant quantities of stormwater
inflow.
Using a desing peak flow of 5,235,000 m 3 /day (1,383 mgd)
in the design of the wastewater treatment facilities would
result in providing secondary treatment for about 947,000
m 3 /day (250 mgd) of storm related flows. The design of certain
facilities, such as primary settling tanks and aeration tanks,
are based on average daily conditions (flow and biochemical
oxygen demand). Other facilities, such as pumping stations,
final settling tanks (usually), and chlorine contact tanks,
are designed based on peak flow conditions. It would be
possible to reduce the peak flow entering the treatment
plant by about 15 percent by diverting the excess flow due
to storm runoff from the combined sewers to a combined
sewer overflow regulation facility. This would result in
a reduction of required pumping equipment, final settling
tanks and chlorine contact tanks as well as power required
for pumping and chlorine required for disinfection. However,
pumping and chlorination would be required for the diverted
flow at the combined sewer overflow regulation facility.
Therefore, anticipated savings would be limited to the
reduced number of final settling tanks required. A better
optio.i would be to let the stormwater enter the treatment
plant and allow the excess flow to by—pass the secondary
treatment facilities. It is not known at this time whether
the Federal and State regulatory agencies would permit such
a plan, and this should be investigated during facilities
planning.
The excess peak flows due to stormwater inflow into the
southern sewerage system should be addressed by the infilt-
ration/inflow studies discussed previously.
As discussed above, the following four methods are
available to significantly reduce the quantity of wastewater
requiring treatment:
Sewer rehabilitation to reduce the amount of
infiltration and inflow entering the sewer
system where it is shown to be cost-effective
by Infiltration/Inflow studies.
Water conservation measures.
Tide gate repair program to reduce or eliminate
seawater which presently enters the system.
Removal of excess flows due to storm runoff in
combined sewers, or by-passing this excess flow
around the secondary treatment facilities.
Each of these flow reduction measures should be given
serious consideration during facilities planning. The
4—4
-------
success of any or all of these measures would result in a
significant reduction of facilities required for the
collection, transportation, pumping, and treatment of
was tewater.
4—5
-------
4.1.3. Interceptor Sewer System
The wastewaters from the MSD service area will be
collected and transported to a central wastewater treat-
ment facility on Deer Island. Due to increasing population,
increases in water use and the possible expansion of the
service area to include additional communities, increased
wastewater flows are to be expected. The criteria used
in evaluating the adequacy of the present interceptor sewer
system was to test the ability of the system to transport
1970, 1980, 2000, 2020 and 2050 flows. If the 1970 or 1980
flows showed insufficient existing interceptor capacity,
relief capacity was determined on the basis of 2020 flows.
If the interceptor section was inadequate for the year 2000
flows, relief capacity was determined on the basis of 2050
flows. This was the method of analysis used in the EMMA
Study interceptor system analysis. Significant portions
of the EMMA Study analysis are directly applicable to the
Recommended Plan of this EIS. The analysis and recommend-
ations for relief of the northern MSD interceptor system
have been incorporated into this Recommended Plan. The
analysis and recommendations related to the portions of
the southern interceptor system upstream of the EMMS Study
satellite plant locations in the Charles and Neponset River
Valleys have also been incorporated into this Recommended
Plan. A hydraulic analysis of the interceptors downstream
of the EMMA Study satellite plant sites was performed to
determine the adequacy of these interceptors to transport
increased flows to the new headworks on Nut Island. This
analysis indicated that the entire Wellesley Extension
Sewer, Neponset Valley Sewer, and High Level Sewer down-
stream of its junction with the Neponset Valley Sewer
required relief. The relief capacity requirements were
determined using a 50 year design life criteria.
Relief sizes are based on the assumption that the
r lief pipes would be installed parallel to existing
facilities and at the same slope. In final design more
economical or appropriate arrangements may be selected.
Special consideration should be given to the route selection
and installation of the large diameter relief interceptors
that are required in urban areas. In many cases, it may not
be possible to construct the relief lines in the same
streets as existing sewers due to utility congestion.
In those instances, it will be necessary to construct the
relief sewers on adjacent streets.
The High Level Sewer relief downstream of the Braintree-
Weymouth Pumping Station required special consideration due
to the space restrictions on Houghs Neck. There did not
appear to be any available area to construct the relief
interceptor on the peninsula itself and, therefore, the
relief conduit was located under Quincy Bay. This install-
ation requires an additional pumping station at Nut Island
4—6
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
to lift the wastewater in the relief conduit to the Nut
Island headworks. The relief conduit under Quincy Bay
will only be used at times when the wastewater flow rate
exceeds the capacity of the High Level Sewer in Houghs
Neck.
After the wastewater has received preliminary treat-
ment at the Nut Island headworks, it will flow to Deer
Island by gravity via a submarine pipeline and deep rock
tunnel system under Boston Harbor. The pipeline and
tunnel will have usfficient capacity to transport flows
anticipated in the year 2050. The submarine pipeline
portion of the transmission system consists of two-274
centimeter (108 inch) diameter reinforced concrete pipelines
buried under the harbor bottom, between Nut Island and
the north end of Long Island. Between the north end of
Long Island and the southern tip of Deer Island, a deep
rock tunnel 380 centimeters (150 inches) in diameter will
pass beneath the President Roads Channel. A drop shaft
on Long Island and an uptake shaft on Deer Island are
required because of the great depth of the tunnel. The
influent pumping station for the southern wastewater flow
will be located in the uptake shaft at Deer Island.
The locations of the interceptor relief work and new
wastewater pipeline construction are shown on Figure 4.1—1.
The sizes, lengths and costs of each of these facilities
are shown on Tables 4.1-1 and 4.1-2 in Section 4.1.6.
4—9
-------
4.1.4. Wastewater Treatment Plants
In the Recommended Plan, the wastewaters from the MSD
service area will be treated at a central treatment facility
on Deer Island. In order to meet the NPDES permit require-
ments for acceptable wastewater discharges, secondary treat-
ment is necessary. This level of treatment will provide
monthly average concentrations of BOD and suspended solids
which are no more than 30 mg/l. For the MSD service area,
effluent characteristics of 30 mg/i BOD and suspended
solids correspond to treatment efficiencies of approximately
85 percent removals. Secondary treatment includes pre-
liminary treatment, primary settling or sedimentation,
biological aeration, final settling or sedimentation, and
disinfection. For the purpose of this study, it has been
assumed that the air activated sludge method of secondary
treatment will be utilized. Each of the phases of treat-
ment, and its counterpart in the Recommended Plan, will be
described below. Due to the different heavy metal character-
istics of secondary sludge from the northern and southern
service areas and the decision to dispose of these sludges
by different methods, it is necessary to keep the secondary
sludge from the northern service area separate from the
secondary sludge from the southern service area. In order
to accomplish this, it is necessary to keep the wastewaters
from the northern and southern service areas separate and
to process the secondary sludge from the two service areas
separately. Detailed design information can be found in
the Bases of Design in Appendix 4.1.4.
Preliminary treatment consists of screening and grit
removal. Screening is accomplished through the use of bar
screens or gratings which trap large objects as the waste—
water passes through them. These large objects (bottles,
sticks, large rags, etc.) could cause severe damage to
pumps and other equipment if allowed to flow into the plant.
Grit removal is necessary to remove sand and other small,
heavy particles from the wastewater. This is usually
accomplished in small settling tanks where the flow velocity
is reduced just enough to permit the heavy particles to
drop out, but keep the remainder of the solids suspended
in the wastewater. Removal of grit is necessary to protect
mechanical equipment from excessive abrasion and wear,
and to prevent grit from accumulating in the piping and
the various tanks in the plant.
Although pumping is not a treatment process, it is
generally included after preliminary treatment in a waste-
water treatment plant. The purpose of the pumps is to lift
the wastewater from the level of the sewers into the treat-
ment plant facilities (i.e. pirmary settling tanks). It
is common practice to pump the wastewater at the beginning
of the plant and allow it to flow through the different
treatment phases in the plant by gravity, if possible.
4-10
-------
In the Recommended Plan, preliminary treatment is
provided at separate headworks. There are presently four
operating headworks in the MSD service area; Ward Street,
Columbus Park, Chelsea Creek, and the Winthrop Terminal
Facility on Deer Island. An additional headworks on
Nut Island is being proposed in the Recommended Plan.
The three major headworks, Ward Street, Columbus Park
and Chelsea Creek, are all of modern design and construction
and have adequate capacity for the peak dry weather waste-
water flows for the year 2050, which is the limit of our
planning period. These headworks do not have sufficient
capacity for wet—weather peak flows, which they are
presently receiving. When their capacity is exceeded,
they overflow into surrounding water-courses. This
current overflow practice emphasizes the need for combined
sewer overflow management, as it will eliminate the
overloading of the headworks. No additional work is proposed
at these three locations in the Recommended Plane They
are expected to continue in their present mode of operation
by providing preliminary treatment to wastewaters prior to
discharge to the Boston Main Drainage Tunnel and the North
Metropolitan Relief Tunnel for transport to Deer Island for
treatment. The Winthrop Terminal Facility on Deer Island
is currently increasing its pumping capacity of 454,200 m 3 /day
(120 mgd) , while ts capacity for screening and grit removal
is only 227,100 m /day (60 mgd). Wastewater in excess of
the screening and grit removal capacity discharges to a
plant bypass conduit which discharges directly to the Harbor.
This presently occurs during periods of peak wet weather
flow In the Recommended Plan, this practice of discharging
untreated wastewaters to the Harbor will be discontinued,
and sufficient pumping, screening and grit removal
capability will be provided for 511,000 m 3 /day (135 mgd),
which is the estimated flow that will reach this headworks
in the year 2000.
The previously described facilities are all for the
northern service area wastewater flow. The southern service
area wastewater flow will receive preliminary treatment
at a new headworks to be located on Nut Island. This new
headworks will consist of the renovated and modernized
screening and grit removal system of the present Nut Island
plant (as proposed by the EMMA Study) and additional
screening and grit removal capability required to adequately
handle the design flows. After receiving preliminary
treatment at Nut Island, the wastewaters from the southern
service area will flow by gravity to the Deer Is land Treat-
ment plant via a submarine pipeline — deep rock tunnel system.
Screenings, skimmings, and grit collected at the various
headworks will be trucked to Deer Island and incinerated in
the sludge incinerator.
When the southern service area wastewaters reach Deer
Island they will be lifted into the treatment plant through
4—11
-------
a new influent pumping station. This pumping station will
be located over the uptake shaft of the deep rock tunnel
which passes under the President Roads Channel to Deer
Island. The pumping station will have eight raw sewage
pumps powered by electric motors, with sufficient capacity
to pump peak flows utilizing only seven of the pumps.
The eighth is provided as a spare. Space will be provided
for one additional pump which will be needed for the year
2050 flows.
The wastewaters which enter the Deer Island plant via
the two existing rock tunnels will be pumped at the present
Deer Island Main Pump Station. Following the recommendations
of the EMMA Study, the nine existing pumps will be switched
from dual-fuel engine drive to electric motor drive. One
additional pump will be provided at this station to provide
standby capacity. Since the capacity of this pumping station
is fixed by the capacity of the deep rock tunnels under the
Harbor, no future additions are envisioned.
Primary settling (or sedimentation) is used to permit
small suspended particles to settle out of the wastewater.
This is accomplished by providing quiescent conditions in
large settling tanks. In this portion of the treatment
process, approximately 20 percent of the biological
pollutants and 40 percent of the suspended solids in
the wastewater will be removed. The sludge (settled solids)
which collects on the bottom of the tank is collected and
pumped to the sludge management facility for further
treatment and ultimate disposal.
The existing primary treatment facilities on Deer
Island are being maintained in the Recommended Plan
wastewater treatment facility. The existing eight primary
settling tanks are being supplemented with eight additional
settling tanks for the northern service area wastewater
flow, with provision for one settling tank to be added for
the year 2050 flows. The wastewater from the southern
service area will enter separate primary settling tanks.
Eight tanks are required and provision is made for the
addition of two settling tanks for the projected increases
in flow for the year 2050.
The sludge that is produced in the primary treatment
phase is not utilized in the composting operation. The
two waste sludge streams (one from the northern flow
primary settling tanks and one from the southern flow
primary settling tanks) are combined at the sludge
management facility for processing and disposal as
recommended in a separate Environmental Impact Statement
that addresses primary sludge management.
Biological aeration is the process in which wastewater
becomes the food for a community of bacteria and other
4—12
-------
single-celled organisms (biomass) . During this phase of
treatment, the biomass consumes the biological waste
materials as food for cell growth and reproduction.
This process takes place in the aeration tanks. In order
to keep this natural system operating, it is necessary to
add oxygen. The oxygen is added by bubbling air into the
bottom of the aeration tank. In order to ensure complete
uitilization of all incoming food sources (biological
waste materials) by the biomass, surplus biornass is added
to the aeration tank. This surplus biomass is supplied
by returning some of the sludge that is withdrawn from the
final settling tanks to the aeration tanks. If there are
adequate bacteria to consume all the available food sources,
then all of the biological waste materials will be consumed
by the biomass, which is the object of this phase of
secondary treatment.
Biological aeration is accomplished in the wastewater
treat3nent facility of the Recommended Plan using the air
activated sludge process. There are twenty aeration tanks
provided to treat the wastewaters from the northern MSD
service area. These aeration tanks also provide adequate
capacity for the year 2050 projected loading from the
northern service area. The southern MSD wastewaters are
treated in eleven aeration tanks. Provision is made for
two additional tanks which will be required to handle the
projected increase in pollutant loading from the southern
service area in the year 2050.
These facilities are designed to accommodate both
the influent wastewater BOD and the recycled biomass.
Each aeration tank will have air distribution piping and
diffusers on the tank bottom to bubble air into the waste-
water. In addition to providing oxygen to support biological
activity in the aeration tank, the air bubbles also agitate
the wastewater, mxiing the recucled biomass with the waste—
water and preventing solids from settling out in the aeration
tanks. The air is provided by low pressure blowers located
in a central blower building which supplies all process
air to both the northern and southern portions of the plant.
Final settling (or sedimentation) is used to remove
the biomass from the wastewater. In this phase of treatment,
the remaining settleable solids are removed in large quiescent
settling basins. The effluent that flows from these tanks
generally contains less than 15 percent of the pollutant
load of wastewaters entering the plant. sludge collected
in this phase of treatment is recycled to the aeration tanks
to provide the excess biomass and is also wasted to the sludge
management facility for further treatment and ultimate
disposal.
The northern MSD wastewaters, after passing through the
4—13
-------
aeration tanks, will flow to the final settling tanks.
Thirty final settling tanks are provided to provide the
necessary quiescent conditions. There is no need for
additional final settling tanks to be added in the future
for the northern service area flow, since the present
and future peak flows are the same. The southern service
area wastewaters will pass through fifteen final settling
tanks, with provision for adding a sixteenth tank in the
future. The sludge that is collected from the northern
flow final settling tanks is recycled to the northern flow
aeration tanks for process control or wasted to the sludge
management facility where it will be dewatered and incin-
erated. The sludge collected from the southern flow final
settling tanks is recycled to the southern flow aeration
tanks or wasted to the sludge management facility for
conditioning and dewatering prior to composting and land—
filling operations.
Disinfection of treated wastewaters is practiced to
kill nay harmful organisms in the wastewater (virus, bacteria)
which can spread water—borne diseases. This is commonly
achieved through the addition of chlorine, in the form of
sodium hypochiorite, to the wastewater. The amount of
chlorine added is carefully monitored and controlled to
provide the desired disinfection without wasting chlorine.
The chlorinated wastewater is held in a detention tank
for a minimum of 15 minutes before it is discharged to
the plant outfall. This contact time is sufficient to
achieve the disinfection desired.
In the Recommended Plan wastewater treatment facility
disinfection is provided in a common chlorine contact
chamber. This is the first time that the wastewaters from
the northern and southern service areas are combined in the
plant. The chlorine contact tank is designed to provide 15
minutes detention time at periods of peak flow. No future
expansion is contemplated because the increase in peak
flow is such that there is only a 2 percent decrease in
detention time. The size of this facility reflects a
conservative design approach, since no allowance for
detention in the plant outfall system, either in the land
portion on Deer Island or the marine portin, was made.
At the time of facilities planning, reductions in the size
of the chlorine contact tank should be considered, using
outfall detention time in conjunction with chlorine contact
tank detention time.
An effluent pumping station will follow the chlorine
contact tanks. This pumping station will have 16 pumps
with space provided for an additional pump to be added when
the wastewater flow increases in the future. The pumping
station is designed so that there is always one space pump
available in the event of a mechanical failure. The number
of pumps that are in operation at any one time will be
4—14
-------
LEGEND
EXISTING FACILITIES
To BE DEMOLISHED
D EXISTING FACILITIES
TO BE MODIFIED
NEW FACILITIES
- J
A
ISO
-
SCALE * FUT
*
25 0
2 5
I-I J-LI- 1
—I
EXISTING FACILITIES
TO BE DEMOLISHED
NEW SCREEN AND
GRIT CHAMBER
EXISTING SCREEN AND
GRIT CHAMBER BUILDING
TO BE MODIFIED
SCALE IN METERS
LIFT STATION
D
00
FIG. 4.1-2 NUT ISLAND FACILITIES
REQUIRED FOR RECOMMENDED
PLAN
-------
governed by the wastewater flow through the plant and the
water elevation in the Harbor. At times of peak flow and
high tides, all pumps except the spare, will be required
to be in operation. At times of lower tides and lower
flows, as few as four pumps will be required.
The existing Deer Island outfall system is not
adequate for the increased flows. An additional 3.05 meter
(10 foot) diameter outfall with diffusers is required to
meet the increased hydraulic loading. The EMMA Study
contained recommendations for outfall renovation and
modification which have been incorporated into the Recommended
Plan. If the outfall system is modified as recommended in
the EMMA Study and the additional outfall is added, there
will be sufficient capacity to meet the peak flow demands
effectively. The existing and additional outfalls should
be investigated during facilities planning to ensure that
the outfalls discharge to deep enough water and the diffuser
system is adequate to provide the necessary dilution of
effluent.
The two sites undergoing substantial changes in the
Recommended Plan are Nut Island and Deer Island. The
changes at Nut Island include the construction of a waste-
water pumping station and additional grit chambers, while
most of the existing treatment plant facilities are to be
demolished. Examination of the proposed Nut Island Head-
works facilities on Figure 4.1-2 indicates that most of Nut
Island will be available for recreational development once
the existing primary facilities are phased out of operation
and demolished.
The modifications at Deer Island constitute the
Recommended Plan’s most significant changes to the Boston
Harbor area. Due to the size of the wastewater treatment
facility, the entire island will be required for plant
construction. The proposed layout of the Deer Island plant
is shown on Figure 4.1-3. This will require the relocation
of the existing prison facilities and the demolition of all
prison structures, the removal of the Deer Island drumlin,
and the removal of all buildings and topographic features
‘south of the drumlin.
4—16
-------
300 0 300 600
TANKS
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
CHLORINE
STATION
FINAL
SETTLING
LEGEND
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
OTHER EXISTING STRUCTURES
NEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
REQUIRED - YEAR 2000
FUTURE EXPANSION - YEAR 2050
STATION
100 0
SCALE IN FEET
100 200
SCALE IN METERS
AERATION
TANKS
BLOWER
BUILDING
FINAL
SETTLING
TANKS
DRUMLIN
OUTLINE
AERATION
TANKS
AREA FOR PRIMARY
SLUDGE ASH
DISPOSAL
0
‘U,
Lu
FIGURE 4.1-3 RECOMMENDED PLAN DEER ISLAND FACILITIES
-------
4.1.5 Secondary Sludge Disposal
The Recommended Plan will utilize three means of sludge disposal;
incineration, composting to a marketable product, and direct landfill
of dewatered and digested sludge. Figure 4.1-4 presents a solids bal-
ance and flow diagram for the sludge management phase of the Recommended
Plan. The selection of these methods of disposal was based on the
characteristics of the sludges produced and on a desire to provide an
acceptable alternative to incineration of all sludge produced. The
characteristic of the sludge which most affects which disposal means are
feasible is its chemical composition.
It is estimated that the secondary sludge generated in the treat-
ment of wastewaters from the northern MSD service area would contain
higher heavy metals concentrations than the secondary sludge generated
in the treatment of the southern service area wastewaters. Since the
primary restriction related to sludge disposal systems such as compost-
ing is related to heavy metals concentration, it was decided to use the
southern secondary sludge for composting. The volume of southern
secondary sludge produced would more than adequately supply the antici-
pated market for compost in the MDC area. The remaining portion of the
southern secondary sludge will be landfilled. The secondary sludge from
the northern service area will be incinerated and the ash will be land—
filled.
In order to take advantage of these factors in formulating the
plan for sludge disposal, it was decided to separate the portions of
the treatment plant so that the northern sludge would not be mixed
with the southern sludge. It should be noted that although these
recommendations are only related to the disposal of secondary sludge,
the primary treatment facilities must also be separated to prevent
the wastewaters from mixing. The method of ultimate disposal of the
primary sludge is the subject of a separate Environmental Impact State-
ment and therefore is not included in this report.
The sludge that is removed from the final settling tanks is
secondary sludge. Some of this material is returned to the aeration
tanks for process control. The sludge that is to be wasted is pumped
from the final settling tanks to the sludge management facility. At
this stage in sludge processing, air flotation thickening is used to
increase the solids content of the sludge. Separate thickeners are
required for the northern and southern sludge processing. Following
the thickening process, lime and ferric chloride are added to the
southern wastewater sludge that is to be composted at Squantum Point.
Following the chemical addition and conditioning this sludge is passed
through pressure filters which will remove additional water. The
sludge cake that remains will be loaded into containers for barge
shipment to the composting site at Squantum Point. The sludge to be
composted is approximately 23 percent of the total secondary sludge
produced or approximateiy 50 percent of the secondary sludge produced
in treating the southern service area wastewaters.
4—18
-------
‘(.‘(A “ () ()
FROM NORTHERN
SERVICE AREA
SECONDARY SLUDGE
FROM SOUTHERN
SERVICE AREA
I-
z
0
a-
2
4
C i)
0
I—
LU
a:
4
0
LU
N.J
a:
LU
2
4
I—
2
0
0
(BuLKING AGENT MAKEUP)
TRUCK
TO MDC
LANDFILL
LANDFILL
- HS2
UANTUM
LEGEND
00 DRY SOLIDS - METRIC TONS/DAY
DRY SOLIDS — SHORT TONS/DAY
0% PERCENT SOLIDS CONCENTRATION
28.8
I(3 1.8)
75%
40.9
(45.1 )
75°Jo
RECYCLED COMPOST
(BULKING AGENT)
r 17.6 VOL. SQL
i (I9,4)DESTROYED
46.4 I r ———‘
(51.2) I I I
COMPOST
I-
z
a 1
Li
I— _____________
- u 46 . 4
‘(5I.2) I
I COMPOST
3O%¶ ____________
6.7 I
(7.
75% (BULKING AGENT)
RECYCLED
WOOD CHIPS
z
0
I-
J
a:
I-
(1)
0
I-
LU
x
a:
4
34.7
(38.3)
3O%
L J
12.2 VOL. SOL.
(13.5) DESTROYED
RECYCLED SUPERNATANT SOLIDS
SECONDARY SLUDGE
-.9’ (7]
r
DESTROYED
RECYCLED SUPERNATANT SOLIDS
WOOD CHIPS OR
TREE TRIMMINGS
FIGURE 4.1-4 SLUDGE MANAGEMENT FLOW DIAGRAM AND SOLIDS BALANCE
-------
After thickening, the remaining 50 percent of the southern second—
ary sludge is taken directly to anaerobic digestors where, in the ab-
sence of oxygen, microbial activity produces a stable end product by
utilizing the sludge as a source of food. It has been assumed that the
fuel value of the gas produced during the digestion process would
balance the fuel requirements for maintaining the digesters at 35° C
(95° F) . Following digestion, the residue is chemically conditioned
with ferric chloride and lime to aid in dewatering. After chemical
addition, the digested sludge is passed through pressure filters for
additional dewatering. After dewatering, the digested sludge will be
loaded into containers, barged to Squantum Point, and then trucked to
an MDC operated sludge landfill. Approximately 34 metric tons (38 short
tons) on a dry weight basis, or 170 m 3 (227 cubic yards) of digested
sludge will be landfilled each day.
The secondary sludge that is produced in the treatment of the
northern service area wastewaters is conditioned chemically with lime
and ferric chloride after it passes through the flotation thickeners.
The sludge is then passed through pressure filters where it is dewatered
into a “cake”. This “cake” is then broken up and fed into multiple
hearth sludge incinerators where it is burned. The incinerators in-
clude afterburners and wet scrubbing exhaust gas cleaning systems.
Under normal operating conditions it should not be necessary to use
the afterburners. The ash that remains and the particulate matter
that is collected in the air pollution control equipment is pumped in
slurry form into a temporary holding tank. The ash is permitted to
drain and is then loaded into containers for barge shipment to Squanturn
Point where it will be used as a landfill material.
Storage space at Deer Island for both sludge ash and sludge for
composting and direct landfill is provided for inclement weather
periods when daily barge shipments are not possible.
The composting and ash landfilling operations at Squantum Point
will occur within the confines of an earth embankment enclosed area.
This enclosed area will be lined with a layer of clay or other imper-
vious material which will prevent any leachate from the ash landfill
or composting operation from mixing with the local groundwater. A
leachate collection system will be constructed to collect all rainfall
that falls on the site and discharge it to the MDC Squantum interceptor
which will return it to the treatment plant. There is sufficient area
available at Squantum Point for twenty years of northern secondary sludge
ash storage and a composting operation. After several years of opera-
tion of the landfill, it may become necessary to compost sludge on top
of the completed portions of the landfill. When the landfill reaches
its design height of 5 meters (15 feet) it will be covered with topsoil
and converted to a recreational area. During the operation of the land-
fill and composting area, the embankment surrounding the area will con-
ceal the operation from surrounding areas. Landscaping of the exterior
slopes and top of this embankment will also screen the filling and com-
posting operations. Approximately 58 metric tons (63 short tons) of
dry sludge solids or 91 m 3 (125 cu. yards) of ash material will be
4—20
-------
300
0 300 600
0
SCALE IN FEET
SCALE IN METERS
ASH DISPOSAL AREA
ADMINISTRATION AND
MAINTENANCE BUILDING
MARINA
FIGURE 4.1-5 SQUANTUM POINT ASH LANDFILL AND
SLUDGE COMPOSTING AREA
zoo
200
400
JORDAN
MARSH
WAREHOUSE
/
-------
landfilled at Squantum Point each day. The compost production rate will
range from about 29 to 41 metric tons (32 to 45 short tons) of dry
sludge solids, or 52 to 74 m 3 (70 to 98 cu. yards) per day depending on
the type of bulking agent used. This composted material is expected to
be absorbed by a market which will be developed among the MDC, land-
scapers and private citizens who can use the composted sludge as a soil
conditioner.. Figure 4.1—5 shows the required facilities for the sludge
Qomposting and ash landfill operation at Squantum Point.
4—22
-------
4.1.6. Costs of Recommended Facilities
The cost of a wastewater management system includes both capital
(construction) costs and operation and maintenance costs. In order to
effectively evaluate the true costs of a wastewater management alterna-
tive, it is necessary to determine both the annual operation and main-
tenance costs and the construction costs amortized over the life of the
facilities.
Annual operation and maintenance costs were determined from esti—
mated manpower requirements to staff the facilities, plant maintenance
costs for both structures and equipment, electric power consumption,
fuel oil and chemical requirements. Manpower requirements were esti-
mated for effective operation and maintenance of the facilities, using
the manpower requirements of the EMMA Study as a basis. Electric power
consumption was estimated for the various pumping systems in the plant,
process air blowers, small motors, lighting and ventilation require-
ments. Fuel oil quantities were based on estimates of fuel oil needed
to heat the plant facility and for sludge incineration start-up.
Chemical quantities were determined using estimates of chlorine for
disinfection and ferric chloride and lime for sludqe conditioning and
processing. Using the estimated quantities and the following unit
costs, based on May 1978 prices, operation and maintenance costs were
determined:
Manpower $14,500/man year
Electric Power $0.0475/kwhr
Fuel Oil $0.40/gallon
Chlorine $157/ton
Ferric Chloride $220/ton
Lime $62/ton
Plant maintenance costs were based on a percentage of the construc-
tion cost of a structure or the purchase price of mechanical equipment.
Capital or construction costs were based on the design of the var-
ious facilities of the wastewater management system using current con-
struction costs and equipment prices. An additional allowance is made
for unforseen contingencies and engineering costs. There were no
allowances for land acquisition or administrative costs in any of these
estimates.
The cost of interceptor sewer work was based on the estimates of
sewer construction costs found in the EMMA Study. Using EMMA Study
costs per unit of length for a given pipe diameter and depth, it was
possible to estimate sewer construction costs. These costs were in-
creased by 25 percent to include an allowance for contingencies which
are encountered in underground work and for engineering costs. These
costs were then updated from their January 1975 base to the May 1978
cost base of this EIS.
Costs of treatment plant related pumping stations were estimated
from conceptual estimates of different capacity pumping stations and
actual construction cost data. It was assumed that the pumping station
4—23
-------
would provide a 10 meter (30 foot) lift and would have adequate standby
pumping capability. An allowance of 50 percent for contingencies and
engineering costs was also included. These costs also reflect May 1978
construction costs.
Outfall and submarine pipeline costs were based in part on the EMNA
Study cost estimates, conceptual cost estimates and construction cost
data. It was assumed that no rock would be encountered that would
require blasting, and that there would be no severe weather restrictions
related to the marine work. A 25 percent contingency and engineering
cost allowance was also included.
Since the wastewater treatment plant is the single most expensive
item in a wastewater management system, the estimate of its cost re-
quires the most attention. Estimates of structural and mechanical costs
were made from preliminary designs for each of the major treatment
plant facilities. Estimated quantities of earthwork, concrete, piping,
architectural costs and prices for major items of equipment such as
pumps, blowers, sludge collection systems, air diffusers and inciner-
ators were also obtained. Economies of scale in concrete work due
to the large volume of repetitive work, and in equipment sizing due to
the large capacities involved were also considered. Plumbing, heating,
ventilating and air conditioning and electrical installations were
also included. Due to the overall complexity of a wastewater treat-
ment plant, an allowance of 35 percent was included for contingencies
and engineering costs.
Cost estimates for the various phases of the Recommended Plan are
shown on Tables 4.1-1 through 4.1-5. A summary of costs for the
Recommended Plan is shown in Table 4.1-6.
4—24
-------
TABLE 4.1-1
INTERCEPTOR SEWER MODIFICATIONS FOR
NORTHERN MSD SERVICE AREA
Estimated
Cost
Ref Interceptor Diameter Length (Millions
No. Sewer cm. (in) m. (ft) f $ (2)
1 Milibrook Valley
Sewer 91 (36) 3883 (12,740) 4.5
2 Wilmington Extension
Sewer 76 (30) 2905 (9,530) 3.8
3 Reading Extension 61 (24) 411 (1, 350) On—
Sewer 76 (30) 1664 (5,460) Going
107 (42) 414 (1,360)
4 Lynnfield Extension
Sewer 30—53 (12—21) 1829 (6,000) 0.4
5 Stoneham Extension
Sewer 30 (12) 1259 (4,130) 0.4
6 Wakefield Branch 38 (15) 942 (3,090)
Sewer 107 (42) 1664 (5,460) 1.2
7 Stoneham Trunk Sewer 46 (18) 930 (3,050) 0.2
8 Wakefield Trunk Sewer 107 (42) 2723 (8,935)
122 (48) 927 (3,040) 5.8
9 North Metropolitan
Sewer 137 (54) 610 (2,000) 0.8
10 North Metropolitan
Sewer 152 (60) 792 (2,600) 1.2
11 Cuuimingsville Branch
Sewer 91 (36) 1515 (4,970) 1.2
12 Chelsea Branch Sewer 53 (21) 347 (1,140) 0.1
13 Revere Extension 30 (12) 314 (1,030)
Sewer 76 (30) 969 (3,180) 4.1
14 Soxnmerville—Medford 61 (24) 2277 (7,470)
Branch Sewer 107 (42) 280 (920) 5 .4
4—25
-------
TABLE 4.1-1 (Continued)
Estimated
Cost
Ref., Interceptor Diameter Length (Mi11iq
No. Sewer cm. (in) rn (ft) of $)
15 Weston—Lincoln
Extension Sewer 76—107 (30—42) 10180 (33,400) 4.5
16 South Charles 91 (36) 2487 (8,160)
Relief Sewer 107 (42) 6062 (19,890)
122 (48) 1609 (5,280) 6.8
17 North Charles 61 (24) 826 (2,710)
Metropolitan Sewer 91 (36) 945 (3,100) 1.5
18 South Charles River 91 (36) 213 (700)
Sewer, Charles River 137 (54) 884 (2,900)
Crossing & Cross 168 (66) 1679 (5,510) 15.3
Connection
Total for Northern System 57.2
(1) Reference Number — See Figure 4.1—1
(2) Cost Index - ENR 2654 (May, 1978).
Source: Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. , 1975 i
4—26
-------
Re f.
No. (1)
TABLE 4.1 —2
INTERCEPTOR SEWER MODIFICATIONS FOR
SOUTHERN MSD SERVICE AREA
Interceptor
Sewer
Estimated
19
20
Southborough Extension
Sewer
Ashland-Hopkinton
Extension Sewer
61—91 (24—36) 8169 (26,800)
53—122 (21—48) 11186 (36,700)
2.9
5.3
21 Framingham Extension
Sewer
152 (60)
168 (66)
3101 (10,175)
6581 (21,590)
27 . 2
22 Upper Neponset
Valley Sewer
61 (24)
91 (36)
3344 (10,970)
3152 (10,340)
On-
Going
23 Westwood Extension
Sewer
76 (30)
3752 (12,310)
2.9
24 Walpole Extension
Sewer
122 (48)
152 (60)
1503 (4,930)
3335 (10,940)
14 . 4
25 Sharon Extension
Sewer
91 (36)
2256 (7,400)
1.5
27 Lower Braintree
Connecting Sewer
61 (24)
152 (60)
227 (744)
877 (2,878)
0.5
28 Hingham Force Mai
61 (24)
2316 (7,600)
0.6
29 Braintree-Weymoutri
Extension Sewer
152 (60)
3121 (10,238)
On-
Going
30 Wellesley Extension
Sewer
183 (72)
198 (78)
6736 (22,100)
5212 (17,100)
23 . 2
Cost
Diameter
cm. (in)
Length
m. (ft)
(Millions
of $) (2)
26 New Neponset Valley
61
(24)
472
(1,550)
Sewer and
76
(30)
692
(2,270)
Stoughton Extension
91
(36)
1524
(5,000)
Sewer
137
198
(54)
(78)
1501
152
(4,925)
(500)
2.3
31 New Neponset Valley 183
Sewer 198
213
(72)
(78)
(84)
4602
2926
5029
(15,100)
(9,600)
(16,500)
29.0
4—27
-------
TABLE 4. 1-2(Contjnued)
Estimated
Interceptor
Sewer
Length
m. (ft)
33 Submarine Pipeline
& Tunnel System
2@274 (2@108)
381 (150)
6863 (22,500)
1678 (5,500)
57 . 2
20.0
Total for Southern System
(1) Reference Number — See Figure 4.1—i
(2) Cost Index — ENR 2654 (May 1978)
Source: Items 19 through 29: Metcalf & Eddy Inc., 1975 i
232.6
Ref
No.
32 High Level Sewer
Diameter
cm. (in)
Cost
(Milli
of $)
244
(96)
1189
(3,900)
259
(102)
6005
(19 700)
274
(108)
2591
(8,500)
289
(114)
2593
(8,500)
45.6
4—28
-------
TABLE 4.1—3
MDC PUMPING STATION CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Item(l)
a
b
C
a
e
f
g
h
1
j
Pump Station
Reading
Alewife Brook
Charlestown
East Boston Electric
East Boston Steam
Squantum
Quincy
Braintree-Weymouth
Rough’s Neck
Hingham
EMMA Study
Recommendation
Replace
Rehabilitate
Replace
Rehabilitate
Replace
Replace
Replace
Replace
Replace
Rehabi. litate
Cost
( Miilons/$ ) (2)
On-Going
.85
7 .24
.44
1.77
On-Going
2 . 68
3 . 52
.25
1 . 07
17.82
(1) See Figure 4.1-1
(2) ENR Cost Index = 2E54 (May 1978)
Source: Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. , 1976
4—29
-------
TABLE 4.1-4
TABULATION OF COSTS FOR THE RECOMMENDED PLAN
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
Item ________
Nut Island Headworks & Primary
Plant Demolition
Winthrop Terminal Facility
Raw Sewage Pumping Stations
Primary Settling Tanks
Aeration Tanks
Final Settling Tanks
Sludge Pumping Facilities
Blower Building
Operations/Administration Building
Chlorine Contact Tank/Chlorination Equipment
Outside Piping/Site Development
Channels, Conduits and Galleries
Effluent Pumping Station
Outfall
Landscaping/Roads
Electrical and Instrumentation
Sludge Management Facilities
Drumlin Removal/Extraordinary Site
Development _____
All prices reflect construction costs of May 1978 (ENR
Index = 2654)
Cost
(Millions of $)
16.43
.73
13.37
27. 07
82.03
73 . 54
1; .47
40.49
7.63
7.16
22.42
15.50
22.36
7 .61
2.59
31.47
58.79
16.42
463. 08
4—30
-------
TABLE 4.1-5
RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
COSTS OF THE RECOMMENDED PLAN
Resource Wastewater Treatment Sludge Manage-
Requirements Plant ment Facility
Manpower 298 86
Chlorine -Tons/Year 7 .135
Fuel Oil-Gallons/Year 706,000 224,214
Electric Power-Kwhr/Year 196,571,000 27,482,675
Lime -Tons/Year 14,600
Ferric Chloride-Tons/Year 3,504
Polymer-Tons/Year 113
Annual Operation & Maintenance
Costs ($ Million) $17.14 $6.31
Interceptor System & Related
Pumping Stations
Annual Operation & Maintenance
Costs ($ Million) $1.31
Total Annual Operation & Maintenance
Costs ($ Million) $24.76
Note: If it is necessary to purchase wood chips to
serve as a bulking agent for the composting
operation, approximately 9,000 cubic meters
(12,000 cubic yards) of wood chips would be
required per year. At a cost of $6.00 per
cubic yard for wood chips, the resulting in-
crease in the annual operation and maintenance
costs for the sludge management facility
would be about $72,000 per year.
4—31
-------
TABLE 4.1-6
COST OF RECOMMENDED PLAN 1
Wastewater Treatment
Facilities 2
Secondary Sludge Management
Interceptor System 3
Total Capital Costs
Amortized Capital Costs 4
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Total Annual Costs
Applicant’s share of Cap.
Cost (10%)
Applicant’s Share of
Amortized Cap. Cost
Applicant’s Share of
0 & M Costs
Applicant’s Share of
Total Annual Cost
404,290,900
58,784,500
307,620,000
770,695,400
59,782,800
24,765,200
84,548, 000
77,062,500
5,978,300
24,765,200
30,743,500
Engineering News Record Construction Index = 2654 May 1978)
Includes work at Nut Island and Outfall
Includes submerged pipelines, tunnel and related pumping stations
Assume average life of facilities = 30 years; Interest rate =
6-5/8 percent
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
4—32
-------
CHAPTER 5
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE RECOMMENDED PLAN
5.1 INTRODUCTION
This section of the report will describe the specific
environmental impacts associated with the proposed plan.
While this plan has been described in detail in Chapter 4,
it is helpful to outline those components of the project in
terms of the impacts they are expected to cause.
First, being a wastewater management project, water
quality will be significantly affected. The project will do
this by replacing two existing discharges of primary
effluent in Boston Harbor by one larger, secondary effluent
discharge. Therefore, the amount of pollutants being dis-
charged will be reduced and the present site of one primary
discharge will be eliminated. Other components of the over-
all project will eliminate the present practice of discharging
primary sludge into the harbor and will help eliminate com-
bined storm sewer overflows into the Harbor. Also, the present
practice of by-passing raw sewage from the treatment plants
during periods of peak flow will be eliminated by expanding
the hydraulic capacity of the treatment facilities. The net
effect of these actions will be the improvement of water
quality in Boston Harbor. However, some short term adverse
effects will occur during construction of the facilities
(i.e. siltation from dredging activities).
As a consequence of employing secondary treatment (which
will benefit water quality) a new problem will be created.
That is, a “secondary” sludge will be generated in large
volume which will require disposal. The proposed plan
recommends disposal of this sludge in three ways. The second-
ary sludge resulting from treatment of wastewater originating
in the northern service area will be incinerated at Deer
Island. This will result in air quality impacts. Inciner-
ator ash will be transported to Squantum for landfilling. One
half of the secondary sludge from the southern service area
will be digested at Deer Island, then transported to Squantuin
where it will be loaded on trucks and transported to a sani-
tary landfill for final disposal. This landfill will have to
be specially designed in order to provide for the containment
and collection of leachate. Furthermore, it will require a
special permit from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to operate
as a “sludge—only” landfill. Since no landfills suitable for
this purpose presently exist in eastern Massachusetts, it is
expected that the MDC must locate and establish a suitable
facility. Other than specifying the approximate acreage of this
landfill (which will indicate the magnitude of the land require-
ment) and discussing general localized water quality effects,
no further specific environmental impacts can be projected at
this time.
5—1
-------
The other half of the secondary sludge which will be
generated from the southern service area’s wastewater will
be transported to Squantum, composted, and made available to
the general public for their use. Composting is intended to
represent both an environmentally acceptable method of sludge
disposal and a means by which resources (nutrients, organic
matter) can be “recycled.” Provided that all the generated
compost is properly utilized, this should indeed be the case.
However, beyond the discussion of compost disposal given in
Section 3.3.6, no further details can be given due to the
dispersed nature of compost disposal. However, should com-
post be stockpiled or stored improperly, leachates rich in
nutrients and metals may form and could cause environmental
damage.
Another component of the project which will cause en-
vironmental impact is the permanent consumption of land by
the proposed facilities. This will result in the loss of
land for other uses and the temporary displacement of pres-
ent biotic communities. Essentially all of Deer Island and
28.33 ha (70 acres) at Squantum Point will be committed for
permanent use. It should be noted, however, that when land-
fill operations at Squantum (for ash disposal) result in a
4.57 m (15 foot) thickness of ash throughout the site, the
area will be covered with topsoil and will revert to other
uses, perhaps recreational. Deer Island, however, will be
permanently committed. The proposed plan will also require
the removal of the drumlins on the Island for the develop-
ment of treatment facilities. Loss of the drumlins is ex-
pected to cause negative aesthetic impacts.
The project will also cause socio—economic impacts as
a result of the use of Squantum Point. This will be a re-
suit of the removal of this tract from the pool of taxable
land since the MDC-owned operation would not be taxable.
Further, the facility may affect the value of adjacent par-
cels which are zoned for PUD use. During the construction
of relief sewers, road closings may temporarily affect local
businesses along the construction routes. Positive impacts
will result from improved water quality, especially near
Quincy Bay, which enhance the recreational use of the
Harbor.
Another component of the project which will result in
environmental impacts is the need for interceptor relief.
The need for new sewers to relieve existing overloaded
sewers is an inevitable requirement with old facilities.
Thus, interceptor relief can be considered to be a part of
the normal maintenance associated with an existing system.
5—2
-------
As such, relief work is required in any circumstance. There-
fore, this study does not deal with the specifics of inter-
ceptor relief alignments. Specific alignment corridors,
detailed costs, and environmental impacts should be
evaluated during the facility planning process. Even
though relief is required for any configuration of facilities,
without satellite plants, the need for relief is somewhat
greater. Approximately 36.8 km(23 ml) of additional sewer
(Wellesley Extension Sewer and New Neponset Valley Sewer)
will require relief. While this is now known in concept,
the specific detailed alignments for this sewer have yet to
be studies and selected. Section 3.5.3 presents a first cut
analysis of the impacts of the relief sewer on various land
use categories. This Construction will cause significant,
localized short term effects.
Finally, the construction and operation of the facili—
ties will cause environmental effects due to the movement of
materials, machinery, personnel, etc. It will be helpful to
describe the details of these activities for the value of
the information as well as for reference in the subsequent
evaluations. For the purposes of discussion in this chapter,
the “project” is considered to include the treatment facilities,
outfalls and specific interceptor modifications resulting
from the recommended configuration.
For the construction phase, the following activities
will be undertaken:
Excavation for Bay Crossings-In order to install a
submarine pipeline from Nut Isiand to Deer Island, a relief
sewer across Quincy Bay, and a new outfall line into Presi-
dent Roads, substantial excavation in Boston Harbor will
required. It is estimated that a total of 1.68 million m
(2.2 million yd 3 ) of excavated material will be generated.
If some of this material is suitable for use as backfill, it
may be stored either on Squantum or at another land based
storage site.
If this material is not suitable for backfill, it
should be disposed of at an offshore site known as the “foul
area”. This is an area where the dumping of wastes has been
practiced for years. Disposal of dredge spoils here should,
therefore, result in minimal impacts on the marine environ-
ment. As 3 suming an average barge capacity of 1146.9 rn 3
(1500 yd ), approximately 1410 barge trips will be needed
to transport these spoils to the disposal site. Assuming
a maximum of 48.27 km (30 miles) per round trip over a
total duration of two years, an average of 2.7 barge trips
will be needed per working day. A total of 68,061 barge
kilometers (42,300 barge miles) will be involved.,
5—3
-------
Drumlin Removal—In order to construct treatment facil-
ities at Deer Island, removal of drumlin material from the
site is required. Some of this material will be used at
Squantum for the construction of berms. If suitable for
trench backfill, additional fill may be stored at Squantum
or in the harbor until needed for backfill purposes. Remain—
ing drumlin material can be offered to the public for fill
on a give-away basis. Whatever remains may have to be dis-
posed of at the “foul area”. In any event, the removal of
2,293,800 m 3 (3,000,000 yd3) of material will require
approximately 2,000 barge trips. Over a period of one year,
this will average 7.7 barges/day. Assuming that an average
round trip is 48.27 barge km (30 barge miles) approximately
96,450 barge km (60,000 barge miles) will be required.
Materials Delivery-With all treatment facilities
located at Deer Island, the delivery of materials will be
facilitated by the use of water transportation. This will
greatly minimize the effects of construction in Winthrop and
other communities which may lie along main access routes.
The materials to be delivered to Deer Island (and other loca-
tions) include the following:
Cement - It is recommended that a batch mix plant
for concrete production will be operated
on Deer Island. Cement deliveries will
be barged in (from out of the area) at
the rate of one barge per month.
Aggregate - One barge delivery per day of aggre-
gate is anticipated during the active con-
struction phase. This is expected to come
from a local off-loading facility which
may receive aggregate by rail. At 16.09
barge km (10 barge miles) per round trip,
this would require 4183.4 barge km (2,600
barge miles) per year.
Mechanical and Heavy Equipment - It is anticipated
that this material can be barged to the
site at a rate not exceeding one barge trip
per day (average). This would amount to ap-
proximately 4183.4 barge km (2,600 barge
miles) per year.
Pipe - Pipe will be delivered to appropriate staging
areas (near Deer Island, Long Island, and
Nut Island) by truck at an average rate
estimated at 3 trucks per day during active
pipe—laying periods. At an average of
80.45 km (50 miles) per trip (within the
MDC area), this will amount to 241.35 km
(150 miles) of travel per day.
5—4
-------
Backfill Delivery - As a worst-case condition, the en-
tire volume of needed backfill may have to
be purchased and transported to the construc-
tion site. It is not expected that this will
occur since the drumlin material and/or
dredge spoils may prove to be suitable material
for this purpose. However, in the worst case,
app 1 oximatelv 1.45 mi)lion m 3 (1.9 million
yd ) of backfill will be needed. Over a
period of two years, this would require 1,300
barge trips (2.5 barge trips per day) which
is equivalent to 10,458.5 barge km (6,500
barge miles) per year.
Personnel - While the project will positively impact on
the local economy by the creation of jobs, the movement of
workers into and out of the construction sites each day may
adversely affect local communities by increasing the local
traffic flow and by increasing air emissions. These effects
will be most significant at Deer Island where the labor force
is expected to reach 2,000 workers during the peak construc-
tion period. If each worker drove his (or her) own vehicle
to the site (worst—case conditions), 2,000 additional vehicle
trips per day through Winthrop would result. If the average
distance travelled per round trip is 48.27 km (30 miles),
then total local travel would amount to 96,450 vehicle km
(60,000 vehicle miles) per day for the peak period.
Other locations where workers will be employed, in con-
nection with this project, include Nut Island, Long Island
and Squantuin. The peak personnel requirement, and vehicle
kilometer (mile) increment for these locations (using the
same assumptions) is shown below:
Peak Total Vehicle Total Vehicle
Location Work Function Labor Force kni/Day Miles/Day
Nut Island Headworks Construction 150 7,240.5 4,500
Bay Crossing Staging
Area
Long Island Bay Crossing Stagling 40 1,930.8 1,200
Area
Squantuin Landfill, Ccinposting 30 1,448.1 900
Area Construction
5—5
-------
For the long—term operational phase, the logistical re-
requirements are considerably less stringent. They are summa-
rized below:
Ash Transportation - As Chapter 4 indicates, incinerator
ash resulting from the burning of secondary sludge from the
northern service area will be transported to Squantum for
landfilljng. This will be accomplished by barge, the ash
being held in bulk containers The total volume of ash to
be transported is about 91.75 m 3 (120 yd 3 ) per day.
Sludge Trans ortation — Similarly, secondary sludge from
the southern service area will be transported to Squantum
from Deer Island. This will amount to 405.24 m 3 (530 yd 3 )
per day and will also be shipped by barge in bulk containers.
Both the sludge and the ash from a single day’s operation
can be shipped to Squantum in one barge.
From Squantum, digested sludge will be trucked to a
remote landfill site. Approximately 10 truck trips per day
will be needed to move this material. For the purpose of
impact assessment a round trip travel distance of 128.7 km
(80 miles), to an unspecified site, was assumed as a worst
case condition. This equals 1287.2 truck kin (800 truck
miles) per day. Also, composted sludge will be made available
to the public (as well as to institutions, agencies, and com-
mercial organizations) at the Squantum site. Approximately
18,144,000 kg (20,000 tons) of compost will be produced
annually. If this material is removed from the site in
vehicles with an average capacity of 450 kg (one half ton)
approximately 40,000 vehicle trips will be required annually
to pick up compost. This is equivalent to 110 vehicles per
day or 5,309.7 vehicle km (3,300 vehicle miles) per day (at
48.27 km (30 miles] per day).
Materials Delivery - During operation the treatment
facility will require several chemicals (chlorine, ferric
chloride, lime and polymer) on a continous basis. It is
recommended that these materials will be trucked to Squantum
(8 trucks per day or 643.6 truck km [ 400 truck miles] per
day) then barged to Deer Island via return barge from the
sludge/ash shipment. Fuel oil will be trucked directly to
Deer Island at the rate of one oil delivery per week.
Personnel - Approximately 300 persons will be required
to staff the Deer Island facility. At worst, this will
amount to 300 trips per day through Winthrop, totalling
14,481 vehicle km (9,000 vehicle miles) per day. This value
does not represent a net increase, however, since signifi-
cant staff already travels to the existing treatment plant
and prison facility.
5—6
-------
At Squantum, the operating staff will be small, amount-
ing to 15 persons (724 vehicle km [ 450 vehicle miles] per
day).
The following sections in this chapter will further
detail the impacts and effects described above.
5—7
-------
5.2 WATER QUALITY IMPACTS
Implementation of the Recommended Plan will eliminate
the discharge of primary effluent and sewage overflows from
the southern portion of Boston Harbor. Cessation of the Nut
Island treatment plant operation should yield an immediate
aesthetic improvement in Quincy Bay due to the elimination of
wet weather plant bypasses which discharge floating debris
and solids to near shore areas. Elimination of the contitL-
uous primary effluent discharge removes significant pollutant
inputs from the southern portion of the Harbor and thus will
have a long term positive impact upon its water quality.
Productive shellfish beds, presently adversely influenced by
these discharges should, over time, become useable.
The discharge of all MDC secondary effluent into
President Roads will impact Boston Harbor by changing the mass
of pollutants it receives. Table 5.2-1 summarizes the
differences in pollutant discharge between the present primary
and future secondary effluent.
Wastewater volume discharged into President l oads will
increase by 85 percent, yet the total mass of BOD 5 and SS de-
crease by 53 and 32 percent respectively. The mass discharge
of three toxic metals - chromium, copper and zinc - decrease
while cadmium, mercury and nickel increase. This occurs if
one assumes the pretreatment program removes 25 percent of the
present influent mass of toxic metals.
Pretreatment removal, as well as removal by the secon-
dary facility, cannot be quantified at this time. Actual
removals will depend upon the success of the ! DC in imple-
menting and enforcing its pretreatment program and the
ability of its secondary facility to remove the toxic
materials. The figures in Table 5.2—1 do illustrate the
need for reducing toxic metals inputs to the c system.
Unless inputs are reduced, high concentrations of toxic
metals in northern Boston Harbor can be expected to continue.
Toxic metals are sure to be present in the proposed
discharge due to input from non-industrial sources and
variations in removal efficiency within the secondary
facility. Effluent must be properly diffused into Harbor
waters to prevent water quality impacts. The magnitude of
dilution required for the various toxic metals is summarized
in Table 5.2—2. These dilutions assume metal mass discharges
found in Table 5.2—1 and, since these are expected to vary,
dilution requirements will vary accordingly. Nevertheless,
dilution in the 50:1 to 100:1 range is required to avoid
potential impacts.
5—8
-------
TABLE 5.2—1
COMPARISON OF POLLUTANT DISCHARGE INTO
PRESIDENT ROADS
Present Northern Year 2000
Service Area Total NSD
Average Primary Plant Secondary Plant 2 Change % Change
Flow m 3 /d 1200000 2218000 (+) 1018000 85.4
(mgd) (316) (586) (270)
BOD 5 kg/d 128000 58123 (—) 69870 53.4
(lbs/d) (282240) (128160) (154080)
SS kg/d 87400 59667 (—) 27730 31.7
(lbs/d) (192717) (131565) (61151)
Cadmium kgld 22.7 25.0 (+) 2.3 10.1
(lbs/d) (50.1) (55.16) (5.1)
Chromium kg/d 129.0 105.4 (—) 23.6 18.3
(lbs/d) (284.6) (232.5) (52.0)
Copper kg/d 426.7 173.8 (—) 252.9 59.3
(lbs/d) (940.9) (383.2) (557.7)
Lead kg/d 156.6 153.5 (—) 3.1 1.9
(lbs/d) (345.2) (338.5) (6.7)
Mercury kg/d 1.32 1.54 (+) 0.22 16.7
(lbs/d) (2.9) (3.4) (0.5)
Nickel kg/d 156.6 177.2 (+) 20.6 13.2
(lbs/d) (345.2) (390.7) (45.4)
Zinc kgld 583.3 452.7 C—) 130.6 22.4
(lbs/d) (1286.1) (998.2) (288.0)
1. See Tables 2.5—2 and 3.2—5 for flow, BOD, and SS. Metals values calculated
with effluent concentrations, Table 3.2—8.
2. Assumes 85 percent removal of total influent mass of BOD and SS, See Tables
A4.1—l and A4.l—2 of Appendix 4.14
Total mass of metals calculated using Scenario C concentrations, See Tables
3.2—12 and 3.2—13.
5—9
-------
TABLE 5.2-2
DILUTION REQUIR 2IENTS
YEAR 2000 DEER ISLAND SECONDARY PLANT
METAL DILUTION *
Cadmium 56.5
hromium 0.9
Copper 7.8
Lead 6,9
Mercury 14.0
Nickel 40.0
Zinc 10.2
*Dilution required such that minimum risk criteria are not exceeded.
See section 3.1.2B
5—10
-------
Previous analysis (Section 3.2.2B) has indicated a
properly diffused discharge to President Roads will not
violate water quality criteria. However, the analysis
assumed a single discharge point rather than the three out-
falls presently envisioned. The hydrodynamics of President
Roads should be studied prior to design in order to
optimize the dilution of a three outfall system. In
addition, all outfalls must include diffusers to insure
proper near field dilution of the wastewater. Water
quality impacts can be minimized if the outfall system is
designed to achieve the greatest dilution in excess of 50:1 that
the hydrodynamics of President Roads will permit.
The discharge of chlorinated secondary effluent into
Boston Harbor can have significant water quality impacts.
Residual chlorine in wastewater discharges has been shown
to have detrimental effects upon aquatic life. Major prob-
lems, as summarized in a recent report to the Congress by
the Controller General (1977), include:
“Major fish kills occurred in the lower James River
in Virginia in 1973 and 1974. The Virginia Insti-
tute of Marine Science investigated the kills and
attributed them to chlorine residuals from sewage
treatment plants. Overall, 5 to 10 million fish
probably died over a 3-week period in 1973. The
species affected included bluefish, striped bass,
weakfish, and menhaden. Following a reduction in
the levels of residual chlorine in the sewage of
effluent, dead fish counts dropped from thousands
to tens within 2 days. A similar experience
occured the following year. In addition, when
the chlorine was cut back, the oyster season was
unusually successful while other estuaries enter-
ing the Chesapeake Bay were no more productive
than usual.
“A major fish kill due to chlorine residuals from
sewage treatment plants was noted by the California
Fish and Game Department in 1972 in the Sacramento
River of California. Estimated losses of eggs,
larvae, and fingerlings were in the millions for
salmon, and in the billions for striped bass and
shad. Sturgeon and catfish were also killed. The
California Fish and Game Department reported that the
fish lost would have been a significant portion of the
State’s fishery resources. For kincr salmon alone,
the Fish and Game Department estimates the loss at
$1,123,200.
5—il
-------
“In studies of San Francisco Bay published in 1972 and
1974 (made because of periodic fish kills and deteri-
oration of the fisheries there), sanitary engineering
researchers at the University of California at Berkeley
suggested that chlorine in watewaters may be the
largest single source of toxicity entering San Francisco
Bay. The researchers concluded that chlorinated sewage,
even after secondary treatment, is harmful to aquatic
life. The tests demonstrated impairment to oysters
exposed near plant outfalls; and in laboratory studies,
baby clams and oysters experienced 50—percent mortality
at chlorine residuals less than 5 parts per billion (ppb).
Chlorine discharges above 1,000 ppb are frequently found
in sewage discharges.
“A 1974 progress report prepared by fisheries researchers
at Oregon State University reported that coho salmon ex-
posed to only 20 ppb of residual chlorine had signif i-
cantly impaired growth.
“Chlorine has been found to affect the environment in very
subtle ways. Several studies, including four done by
Michigan Department of Natural resources rearchers in
1971, reported long river reaches downstream rendered
uninhabitable to many fish due to chlorine residuals in
sewage effluents. Aquatic organisms in the food chain
other than fish may be killed or harmed. Tests have shown
that the highest total residual chlorine concentration
having no measurable chronic adverse effect on an impor-
tant fish food organism was 2 to 4 ppb. A level of 6 ppb
is roughly equivalent to a quart of laundry bleach in 2
million gallons of water. Chlorine also interferes with
the anaerobic conditions essential to the normal process-
es in a tidal salt marsh, or swamp, and with the repro-
duction of some aquatic animals.”
The recommended water quality criteria to protect
marine organisms, 10 pg/i of total residual chlorine
(Water Quality Criteria,1976).
In addition to toxicity effects, residual chlorine has
been reported (Shumway, 1971) as impairing fish flavor.
The addition of dechlorination with sulfur dioxide to the
treatment process stream will tend to mitigate these impacts.
Chlorination of wastewater also results in the for-
mation of chlorinated organics (Rosen, etal,. 1972, Tolley,
1975) and the long term insidious effects of these, upon
aquatic life and potentially people, is a major adverse im-
pact of wastewater chlorination. Chlorinated organics re—
moval which requires the application of carbon adsorption,
is not practical. Alternative disinfection processes, as
5—12
-------
well as the no disinfection and de-chiorination options,
may be utilized to mitigate these impacts. Chapter 6
discusses these options.
Dredging operations for the required Harbor crossings will
have a temporary negative impact upon water quality. Ex—
cavation of bottom materials can cause increased water
column turbidity and suspended solids levels. Chemical con-
stituents, such as toxic metals, associated with the dredged
materials may mobilize into the water column. Depending
upon prevailing currents, these effects may not be localized
in the vicinity of the dredge site. However, construction
techniques are available to minimize these impacts and will
be discussed in Chapter 6.
Disposal of dredge material will also present problems.
Increased suspended solids and turbidity will occur at the
disposal site. Constituents absorbed to the dredged spoils
may be mobilized into the water columns. Disposal of this
material at any approved duxttpsite will not eliminate these
impacts; however, the use of an approved dredge spoils dis-
posal site will confine the impacts to an acceptable area.
The “foularea” appears to be an environmentally acceptable
disposal site due to the existing degradation of the area
caused by previous dumping. Disposal of dredge spoils
into the bay for backfilling the trench following construc-
tion of the bay crossing will cause additional water quality
impacts. Hence, only material which is substantially free
of fines should be backfilled.
Potential exists for long term adverse water quality
impacts from landfilling of sludge and incineration ash.
High concentrations of toxic metals will be present in both
materials (see section 3.3-6). Leaching of these metals
poses a potential threat to surface and ground-
waters proximate to the disposal sites. Disposal of these
materials by landfilling in a “secured landfill” (one from
which all leachate and surface drainage is collected for
treatment) can prevent these impacts.
Interceptor relief programs will have a positive impact
upon water quality by eliminating overflows to the rivers
from hydraulically overloaded sewers during wet periods.
In summary, the following water quality impacts are
associated with the recommended wastewater managmentplan.
Positive impacts resulting from the upgrading to secondary
treatment and consolidation of all treatment on Deer Island
include improved quality in southern harbor waters, re-
duced mass discharge of pollutants to President Roads and
the elimination of sludge discharges and interceptor over-
5—13
-------
flows. Dredging activities will cause temporary negative
impacts; however, their magnitude is difficult to quantify.
In addition, potential negative water quality impacts are
associated with landfilling of incinerator ash and secondary
sludge as well as wastewater chlorination. Negative impacts
tuay be reduced and deemed acceptable through institution of
proper mitigating procedures. Measures to mitigate the neg-
ative impacts associated with the proposed project are
presented in Chapter 6.
5—14
-------
5.3 Water Quantity Impacts
The Recommended Plan will result in the export of water
to Boston Harbor from local watersheds*. Seventeen towns
within the proposed, expanded MSD utilize surface and/or
groundwater for water supply and discharge wastewater to the
MSD sewerage system. Table 5.3-1 sununarizes this export.
A total of 2,180,000 m 3 /d (57.5 mgd) of local water
would be exported to Boston Harbor under the recommended
option. This represents approximately 10 percent of the
total projected flow to Deer Island. The export represents a
negative impact of undefined magnitude upon these watersheds.
I/I has been estimated at 681,300 m 3 /d (180 mgd), which
is approximately 31 percent of the total projected wastewater
flow. This water represents a significant potential loss of
local water, especially from the Charles and Neponset rivers
where interceptors run through sand and gravel deposits
adjacent to the rivers.
These potential impacts upon the watersheds draining
to Boston Harbor may be mitigated through effective water
conservation, a vigorous program to correct I/I, and
limiting the size of the MSD.
*Th term local watershed refers to those watersheds within
the expanded MSD. Local water originates in one of these
basins rather than coming from the MDC water supply system.
5—15
-------
TABLE 5.3 -1
WATER EXPORT TO BOSTON HARBOR
YEAR 2000
Export Watershed Export Watershed
Watershed Town Volume Total Watershed Town Volume Total
Mystic Winchester 2.65 33.65 Neponset Canton 11.51 69.61
(0.70) (8.90) (3.04) (18.39)
Woburn 31.0 Norwood 11.36
(8.20) (3.0)
Sharon 4.50
Charles Dedham 6.93 55.10 (1.19)
(1.83) (14.55) Walpole 28.46
Natick 23.66 (7.52)
(6.25) Westwood 13.77
U, Needham 12.87 (3.64)
(3.40)
Wellesley 11.62 Weymouth Weymouth 17.10 47.6
(3.07) (4.51) (12.58)
Hingham 7.1
Sudbury Ashland 8.7 11.9 (1.87)
(2.31) (3.16) Holbrook 4.7
Hopkinton 3.2 (1.25)
(0.85) Weymouth 18.7
(4.95)
Entries: m 3 /d x 1000 (mgd)
Export is the volume of water originating in basin discharged to MDC Sewerage System.
Export = projected wastewater volume if local water supply > projected wastewater
or
Export = capacity of local water supply if projected wastewater > local water supply
Wastewater = total of residential, commercial and industrial flows
Total volume export from local water supplies = 21.8 x lO m 3 /d (57.5 mgd)
-------
5.4 AIR QUALITY
The effects of the project on air quality will be
primarily due to incineration of the northern service
area sludge, with transportation related sources providing
a secondary, and relatively minor, addition to pollutant
emissions. A general discussion of air quality effects
due to incineration was presented in Section (3.3.6).
An air quality model was prepared (Appendix 3.5.4) in
which the detailed effects of incineration on air quality
were examined.
To determine annual ground level concentrations
the G/C Air Quality Model based upon the Modified Air
Quality Display Model was used. For short term analyses,
the EPA Single Source Program (CRSTER) and. Texas Episodic
Model (TEM) were used, along with the EPA Point Maximum
(PTMAX) program.
It should be noted that the Deer Island alternative
was examined in the air quality model considering the
incineration of all the MDC sludge on site; however,
under the Recommended Plan, only the secondary sludge
from the northern service area and all primary sludge would
be incinerated. Since the air model calculated ground
level concentrations for incinerating all the sludge, a
ratio of the sludge to be incinerated in the Recommended
Plan to the total sludge generated was used to determine
ground level concentrations. Table 5.4-1 gives the
increments resulting from incinerating sludge at Deer
Island along with the total concentration resulting from
the background concentrations (l9 5) and those induced
by the Recommended Plan.
Annual and short term concentrations were determined
for the Deer Island site. On an annual basis, maximum SO 2
levels were determined to be 4.1 . g/m 3 while particulate
levels were 1.2 ilg/m 3 . The short term analysis (24 hour)
showed that the sulfur dioxide and particulate concentrations
were 34.2 and 10.2 pg/rn 3 , respectively. For a three hour
averaging time for sulfur dioxide, the maximum concen-
tration was found to be 137.8 pg/rn 3 . Nitrogen dioxide
and hydrocarbon levels are anticipated to be 6.7 pg/rn 3
and 9.7 pg/rn 3 HC.
5—17
-------
TABLE 5.4-1
IMPACT OF RECOMMENDED PLAN ON AIR QUALITY ( .ig/m 3 )
1985 1985 Federal Standard
Total Suspended Increment Background Total
Particu].ates Due to Incineration Concentration Concentration Primary Secondary
Annual Geometric Mean 1.2 45 (Deer Island)’ 46.2 260 150
24 Hour Maximum 10.2 168 (Revere) 2 178.2 75 60
Sulfur Dioxide
Annual Arithimetjc Mean 4.1 21 (Deer Island)’ 25.1 1,300
U,
24 Hour Maximum 34.2 189 (Revere) 2 223.2 365 —
3 Hour Maximum 137.8 648 (Revere) 2 785.0 80
1. Projections are based upon the Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering Division of Air Quality Control.
2. Based upon Ecoisciences projected 1985 background data for the
Revere monitoring site.
-------
The quantities of pollutants emitted from incinerating
the sludge at Deer Island were calculated. It is estimated
the yearly maximum allowable emissions in kilograms (tons)
for the Recommended Plan would be: particulates 117,936 kg
(130) tons, sulfur dioxide 302,098 kg (333) tons, nitrogen
dioxide 609,638 kg (672) tons and hydrocarbon 69,854 kg (77)
tons. A comparison of emissions from the Recommended
Plan and the all Deer Island Plan appear in Table 5.4-2.
It is apparent that lower emissions will occur under the
first option due to composting and landfilling of
approximately half the secondary sludge.
On the basis of the air quality model it may be seen
thattheNationalAmbjentAjr Quality Standards (NA QS)
and Prevention of Significant Deterioration Standards (PSD)
are met except for the twenty-four hour secondary
particulate standard. The 24 hour TSP standard may be
exceeded due to background concentrations at Revere and
possibly due to incineration increments. Using the 1985
annual projections for Deer Island and adding the maximum
incinerator increments to the Deer Island levels
satisfies the NAAQS. Short term 1985 projections for
the Deer Island site are not available; however, air
quality standards are expected to be met in the immediate
vicinity of Deer Island. If the nearest monitoring site
to Deer Island with short term projected concentrations
(Revere) is used for predicting 1985 air quality concen-
trations, it appears a violation of the secondary 24 hour
particulate standard occurs. It must be emphasized that
the projected 1985 Revere background data (which already
exceeds the secondary standard) was used because no closer
monitoring site for background data was available, and
that it is not representative of Deer Island. The Deer
Island site, where incineration is to occur, has been
declared a “clean” zone (meets NAAQS) for particulates. In
addition maximum incremental concentrations due to
incineration will occur approximately 800 meters (2624 ft.) due
east of Deer Island, not at Revere.
Table 5.4-3 gives the percentage of the permitted
PSD standards which would be used by the project. It
may be seen that for each averaging time 28 percent
or less of the allowable PSD increment is used under the
Recommended Plan, except for the 24 hour maximum for sulfur
dioxide which uses 38 percent of the allowable increment.
5—19
-------
TABLE 5.4-2
A COMPARISON OF
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE EMISSIONS AND POTENTIAL EMISSIONS
FOR THE RECOMMENDED PLAN AND
THE 100% SLUDGE INCINERATION ALTERNATIVE kg/yr (TONS/YR)
Recommended Plan 100% Sludge Incineration
Maximum Allowable 1 Potential 2 Maximum Allowable Potential
1. Maximum allowable emissions the emission rate calculated based upon the maximum
rated capacity using new source performance standards and AP-42 controlled
emission factors.
2. Potential emissions - the emissions based on maximum rated capacity in the
absence of air pollution control equipment.
NOTE: Emissions are based upon incineration of sludge and fuel oil.
Total Suspended
Particulates
117,936
(130)
8,512,257
(9383)
Sulfur Dioxide
302,098
(333)
315,706
(348)
Nitrogen Dioxide
609,638
(672)
675,864
(745)
Hydrocarbons
141,523
399,168
793,800
88,906
69,854 (77) 103,421 (114)
(156)
(440)
(875)
(98)
10,191,485
416,405
878,170
130,637
(11234)
(459)
(968)
(144)
-------
Table 5.4—3
PERCENTAGE OF PREVENTION OF SIGMIFICANT
DETERIORATION STANDARDS USED BY T}
RECOMMENDED PLAN
Maximum Concentration Percentage of
Max Allowable From S udy Allowable
Increment ( fm ) Increments
Particulate Matter
Annual Geometric Mean 19 3 2
24 Hour Maximum 37 10.2 28%
Sulfur Dioxide
Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 4.1 21%
24 Hour Maximum 91 34.2 38%
3 Hour Maximum 512 137.8 27%
5—21
-------
Air quality projections were prepared by the Common-
wealth of Massachusetts, Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering, Division of Air Quality Control. Figures 5.4-1
and 5.4—2 present annual sulfur dioxide projections for
the years 1980 and 1985, while figures 5.4—3 and 5.4-4
present the annual total suspended particulate levels
for the same years.
Examination of the annual sulfur dioxide projections
shows that the levels expected at Deer Island for the years
1980 and 1985 to be .006 ppm (16 pg/rn 3 ) and .008 ppm
(21 pg/rn 3 ). These levels are well below the primary and
secondary air standards (see Appendix 2.8-1). The addition
of sulfur dioxide concentrations of 4.1 pg/rn 3 , as in-
dicated by the air model, would not cause a violation of
any standard. The concentrations added by the Recommended
Plan to existing monitoring sites would be expected to be
approximately 80 percent of the maximum levels found
from the alternative where all the sludge is incinerated
at Deer Island. Concentrations of sulfur dioxide added
from incinerating all of the sludge at Deer Island would
be less than .3 pg/rn 3 (Appendix 5.4, Figure A5.4-l) at both
the Kenmore Square and Revere monitoring sites. Thus, it
may be seen that on an annual basis, sulfur dioxide air
quality standards would be met at the present and for
the future, as evidenced by the air quality projections.
Short term increments for sulfur dioxide were estimated
to be 34.2 pg/rn 3 . The maximum concentration is expected
to occur over water. Similar to the isopleth map in Figure
A5.4—l for annual SO 2 concentrations, short term concentra-
tions will decrease with increasing distance from Deer
Island. Twenty-four hour sulfur dioxide levels are not
projected to violate the NAAQS standards. In terms of
the Prevention of Significant Deterioration regulations
neither the annual nor short term concentrations will exceed
those presented in Table 5.4-3 for sulfur dioxide.
Examination of the estimated annual total suspended
particulate levels projected for the year 1980 and 1985 at
Deer Island shows 45 pg/rn 3 and 40 pg/rn 3 would be expected
for those years. The maximum additional increment of
particulates from incinerating the northern service area
sludge is estimated to be 1.2 pg/rn 3 for the annual maximum.
Adding this level to the background concentration would be
in compliance with all existing air quality standards.
At the surrounding monitoring sites the additional an-
nual particulate pollutants added from the Recommended Plan
would be insignificant. Figure A5.4-2 (in Appendix 5.4)
shows that the levels added to the Revere and Kenmore Sauare
5—22
-------
2 1 ; \
//
Q
Re ocV.. —
CONTOUR LINES
FIGURE 5.4-1 ANNUAL ESTIMATED SULFUR DIOXIDE (S02 )
LEVELS (ppb) IN 1980, BASED ON REGULATIONS EFFECTIVE 5/1/76
T r
(
e (
4
---- -
4
l0
LEGEND
AIR QUALITY
CONTROL REGION
MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY
‘P
ip
5 0 5
MI LES
K I LOMETERS
SOURCE: Department of Environmental Quality Engineering Division of Air Quality Control
-------
AIR QUALITY
CONTROL REGION
— ——- MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY
CONTOUR LINES
5 0 S
FIGURE 5.4-2 ANNUAL ESTIMATED SULFUR DIOXIDE (SO 2 )
LEVELS (ppb) IN 1985 BASED ON REGULATIONS EFFECTIVE 5/1/76
LEGEND
10 0
KILOMETERS
‘p
MILES
SOURCE: Department of Environmental Quality Engineering Division of Air Quality Control
-------
eff 4 (
L — - - -
/
: To
/ /
40 P - CtTO..
1’ r-
I
AIR QUALITY
5 0 5
FIGURE 5.4-3 ANNUAL ESTIMATED TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATE (TSP)
LEVELS (ug/M 3 ) IN 1980 BASED ON REGULATIONS EFFECTIVE 5/1/76
LE GE ND
CONTROL REGION
— ——- MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY
L
CONTOUR LINES
10 0 10
KILOMETERS
MILES
SOURCE: Department of Environmental Quality Engineering Division of Air Quality Control
-------
AIR QUALITY
CONTROL REGION
— ——- MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY
CONTOUR LINES
10 0 10
KILOMETERS
S 0 S
-I__J I
MILES
FIGURE 5.4-4 ANNUAL ESTIMATED TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATE (TSP)
LEVELS (ug’M 3 ) IN 1985 BASED ON REGULATIONS EFFECTIVE 5/1/76
SOURCE: Department of Environmental Quality Engineering D3visãon of Air Quality Control
LEGEND
-------
sites would be less than .07 pg/rn 3 (about 80 percent of
this level for the Recommended Plan).
Examining the 24 hour particulate increment shows a
maximum 10.2 pg/rn 3 increase is projected to occur east
of Deer Island. This increase is not expected to violate
NAAQS or PSD standards at the inceneration site since
Deer Island is a “clean” zone. Although air quality
impacts from many sources fall of f rapidly to insignificant
levels, the short term model was not carried out to neighboring
non—attainment areas to show this fact. Thus as a “worst
case” analysis, the maximum 24—hour increment was added to
the nearest monitoring site, Revere.
It should be noted that the maxima observed in these
studies almost invariably occured over adjacent water
bodies. These maxima, therefore, may not be additive to
observed values for land based observation stations.
If the 10.2 pg/rn 3 level for particulates is added
to the short term concentration of 168 pg/rn 3 (already
in violation) at Revere a continued violation of the
secondary TSP standard is projected to occur. Other sites
projected to exceed short term particulate levels may
also receive some short term impact from incineration
emissions. This is not a direct result of incremental
incineration concentrations due to the Recommended Plan,
rather it is a result of projected high background
concentrations (Ecolscience, 1976) . Such an increase
would exacerbate an existing violation of the NAAQS.
Therefore, the Deer Island incinerator as a major source
of particulates may also be subject to the “emission offset”
policy.
If a major source in an attainment area (Deer Island)
exerts a significant affect on a non-attainment area (Revere)
(Table 5.4—4) the emission offset policy is triggered.
If the assumption is made that the 10.2 pg/rn 3 increment
would occur in Revere, the 5 pg/rn 3 twenty—four hour
significance level would be exceeded. Before construction
is undertaken at Deer Island, a determination as to the
actual potential for violation of the secondary NAAQS
particulate standard due to the background concentration
and the actual incinerator induced increment at Revere
should be made.
5—27
-------
TABLE 5.4-4
MINIMUM AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS CONSIDERED
TO BE SIGNIFICANT LEVELS
Pollutant Averaging Time
Annual 24-Hour 8-Hour 3-Hour 1-Hour
SO 1 ug/m 3 5 ug/m 3 25 ug/Tn 3
TSP 1 ug/m 3 5 ug/m 3
NO 2 1 ug/m 3
CO 0.5 mg/rn 3 2 mg/rn 3
5—28
-------
An examination of the various standards and regulations
which influence sludge incineration is listed in Table
5.4-5 . This involves the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS), Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Permits (PSD) including Best Available Control Technology
(BACT) and the Emission Offset Policy (EOP). This table
assumes all standards and regulations are met, except the
N.AAQS secondary standard for particulates.
A sewage sludge incinerator is not one of the 28
major stationary sources categories listed in the PSD
regulations (June 19, 1978 Federal Register). Therefore
a 250 ton/year potential emission level makes a sludge
incinerator a major source. If a source exceeds the 250
ton limit, and has allowable emissions of more than 50
tons/year, a PSD review is required. This requires a close
examination of many factors to ensure air quality is
not degraded due to the new major source. For the Deer
Island incinerator a PSD review will be required for
particulates, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide.
These three categories will also require Best Available
Control Technology for their emissions.
A major source is defined under the EOP as one with
allowable emissions greater than or equal to 100 tons/year.
If such a major source locates in a non-attainment area
or exacerbates a violation in an adjoining non-attainment
area for any individual criteria pollutant the EOP is
triggered. Exacerbating a projected violation of the
secondary NAAQS for particulates in an adjoining
non-attainment area (Revere) triggers the offset policy
for particulates. No other pollutant requires offsets.
(However, this assumes the maximum 24 hour particulate
increment will occur at the Revere monitoring site).
Transportation related emissions compose a second
source of air pollutants due to the proposed plan. The
sources of these emissions are heavy duty vehicles, barge
traffic and worker related automobile traffic. A
compilation of the emissions from the various sources is
presented in Table 5.4-6. The emission factors used to
calculate the quantities of transportation related
pollutants are represented in Appendix 5.4, Table A5.4-l.
Emissions are separated into the construction and operation
phases of the project.
5—29
-------
TABLE 5.4-5
STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS
INFLUENCING SLUDGE INCINERATION
POLLUTANT
Sulfur Nitrogen
Par ticulates Dioxide Dioxide Hydrocarbons
A. Violation of
National Ambient
Air Quality
Standard
Annual no no no
24 Hr. yes no
3Hr. no no
B. Requires
Prevention Of
Significant
Deterioration
Review yes yes yes no
Requires Best
Available Control
Technology yes yes yes no
C. Requires
ission Offsets yes* rio no no
* Offsets are required if a major source violates or
exacerbates a NAAQS. May require Lowest Achieveable Emissions
Rate (LAER)
5—30
-------
Table 5.4-6
TRANSPORTATION RELATED AIR
POLLUTION EMISSIONS kg (tons)/year
Construction Phase
•
Heavy Duty Vehicles 1,130 (1.2) 184 (0.2) 831 (0.9) 50 (0.1) 109 (0.1)
A ztomobL1es 832,847 (918.0) 116,380 (128.3) 82,909 (91.4) 2,251 (2.5) 8,796 (9.7)
Barge 61,021 167.3) 27,736 ( 30.6) 149,779 ( 165.1) 14 977 ( 16.5 ) ______ ——
TOTAL 894,998 (986.5) 146,300 (159.1) 233,519 (257.4) 17,278 (19.1) 8,905 (9.8)
perat ion and Maintenance Phase
CO HC TSP
Heavy Duty Vehicles 48,097 (49.7) 7,359 (8.1) 33,183 (36.6) 4,356 (4.8) 2,022 (2.2)
Automobiles 168,531 (185.7) 23,550 (26.0) 16,777 (18.5) 4 5 (0.5) 1,780 (2.0)
Barge 1 59l ( 1.8) 723 ( 0.8) 3,906 ( 4.3) 390 ( 0.4 ) ——
TOTAL 215,219 (237.2) 31,632 (34.9) 53,866 (59.4) 5,201 (5.7) 3,802 (4.2)
Percent of Total
Emissions* ** 31 8 2
t in
(J-)
1 0 & M Emissions
*Percent Total Emissions — L 0 & M Emissions & Incinerating Emissions
**Represente most of the CO emissions from the project since CO emissions from
incineration are insignificant.
-------
The annual number of miles traveled during construction
for heavy duty diesel trucks was estimated to be 62,751 km
(39,000 miles) (worst case condition). This figure was
then multiplied by emission factors found in Supplement No. 5
for Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors (USEPA, 1975)
for 1975 vehicles. The year 1975 was chosen as a worst
case example, since it is assumed vehicle emissions will
decrease in future years due to stricter emission controls.
During the operation and maintenance (O&M) phase of the
project the number of vehicle miles traveled increases
greatly due to the landfilling of sludge and removal of
compost. It is estimated over 2.4 million kin (1.5 million
miles) of travel will occur annually. Emission estimates
for 0 & M were qenerated based upon this figure. It should
be noted that 1.2 million miles of this total are due to the
removal of compost.
There would be a substantial increase in barge
traffic due to the Recommended Plan. Emissions were cal-
culated for both the construction and 0 & M phases of the
project for barge related emissions. The average fuel
consumption rate of a diesel powered barge was estimated
to be 8.74 gallons per mile (Ecoiscience 1976 ). Emissions
were calculated based upon the number of miles traveled
and the emission factor from Compilation of _ Air Pollutant
Emission Factors, AP—42 ( USEPA 1975) .
Automobile emissions were calculated based upon
vehicle miles traveled by workers to and from work during
the construction of 0 & M phases. It was assumed, as a
worst case, that each worker would drive to work alone and
have a 30 mile round trip. Emission factors were obtained
from Supplement No. 5. The automobile emissions given in
Table 5.4-2 represent the total emissions from all workers.
These numbers, however, do not represent a totally new
emissions source since the present 0 & M emissions from
Deer Island personnel, amount to more than one—third
of the projected automobile related 0 & M emissions.
Transportation emissions were related to the total
emissions from the project once incineration would begin.
In Table 5.4-6 the percentage of transportation emissions
in relation to the total emissions from the project were
calculated. It is evident that transportation emissions
add a small percentage of the overall emissions for parti-
culates, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide, 3, 2, and 8
percent respectively. For hydrocarbons transportation
sources would be a significant source (31 percent) of
added emissions. Since the carbon monoxide emissions from
5—32
-------
incineration are considered negligible, transportation
sources would contribute almost all of the Co emission.
In summary, incineration may be seen to add small
increments of the various pollutants to ambient concentra-
tions as shown by the air quality model. Transportation
related emissions should present an insignificant addition
of pollutants to the ambient air concentrations. All air
quality standards are projected to be met except the
secondary 24 hour particulate standard which will exacerbate
a projected violation.
5—33
-------
5.5 NOISE
Three sites will be examined for noise impacts; Deer
Island, Nut Island and Squanturn. Noise impacts will be dis-
cussed for expansion of the Deer Island facility, installa-
tion of a lift station, headworks and demolition of the
present treatment works at Nut Island, along with construc—
tion of composting and ash landfill facilities at Squantum.
The State of Massachusetts has no noise standards indicating
specific noise levels, in decibels, which are acceptable
or unacceptable. Therefore, the City of Boston’s Noise
Control Regulations (Table 5.5—1) were used as a
for acceptable noise levels for the study area. This was
used in place of use of a subjective evaluation based on
nuisance.
The Deer Island facility would utilize almost the
entire area on Deer Island, including the present site of
the House of Corrections. Winthrop is the nearest community
with residences that may be affected by noise. The nearest
residence is 700 feet from the nearest portion of the
proposed plant.
Ambient noise levels were presented for the Deer
Island site in the Stone and Webster Coincineration Report.
The minimum sound level was found near the old pumphouse,
a rather low 38 decibels. At Deer Island Point the ambient
noise was recorded at 43 decibels. In the administration
parking lot, 200 feet from the sewage treatment plant, a
56 decibel level was found. The highest level was found
at a garage door opening to the pumping station building,
88 decibels.
A projection of noise levels from the Deer Island
facility may be made. Assuming that the highest noise level
emanating from the completed plant is the measured 88
decibels originating at the main pumping station, a level
of 50 DBA may be expected in the vicinity of the nearest
residence. This level is acceptable for residential areas
and therefore, it is not expected that noise levels during
the operating phase would impact on local residences.
Noise levels at the Squantum site, due to facility operations,
should not impact any local residences. At present, the
nearest property to be impacted would be commercial in
nature. The use of equipment on site during operation is
not expected to cause any detrimental noise impacts. On
Nut Island a lift station and headworks are to be con-
structed. Noise levels during operation should not impact
upon adjacent residences.
5—34
-------
Table 5.5—i
Boston Noise Control Regulations
Maximum Allowable
Noise Levels
Residential
7:00 A.M. — 6 00 P.M.* 60 dEA
All other times 50 dBA
Residential/Industrial
7:00 A.M. — 6:00 P.M. 65 dBA
All other times 55 dBA
Business
Any time 65 dBA
Industrial
Any time 70 dBA
*Except Sundays
Construction Noise Regulations
Maximum
Lot Use of Affected Property L 10 Level Noise Level
Residential or Institutuonal 75 dBA 86 dBA
Business or Recreational 80 dBA
Industrial 85 dBA
Note : L 10 defines the noise level that is exceeded 10 per
cent of the time.
SOURCE : Regulations for the Control of Noise, City of Boston.
5—35
-------
Construction noise may be more intrusive than the
noises associated with the normal operation and maintenance
of the various sites. Although construction noise is not
permanent, it can be disturbing. Construction equipment
may be categorized into equipment utilizing internal
combustion engines to provide motive and operating power
(the more prevalent source) and impact tools and machinery.
Table 5.5-2 provides noise levels associated with con-
struction equipment.
The noise levels generated by construction equipment
would not have any significant impact at the Squantuin site.
On Deer Island, noise levels should meet the construction
noise regulations (see Table 5.5-1) at the Winthrop boundary.
Noise levels may reach as high as 82 dba at the nearest
property line (approximately 152.4xn, 500 feet) on the Nut
Island construction site. These levels should be infre-
quent. during construction. During the demolition of the
old facilities at Nut Island, impact noise may more frequently
reach, or occasionally exceed, the 82 DEA level at the nearest
property line.
Noise levels on site would be much higher than those
at the surrounding site boundaries. The attenuation of
sound may be primarily attributed to the distance between
the source and receptor. Typical noise levels may be
expected to range between 85-95 DBA near operating con-
struction equipment. If and when pile driving equipment is
necessary noise levels may reach 101 DBA on site.
While construction noise may affect the area adjacent
to the construction site, transportation related noise may
affect the surrounding community. Transportation related
noise levels may be raised significantly. Noise levels of
up to 88 DBA (50 feet from road) may occur intermittently
along truck routes. Average noise levels due to transpor-
tation induced noise will be lower. The transportation re-
lated noise levels due to operational truck traffic would,
however, be limited to the Squantum site. At Squantum,
approximately 125 vehicle round trips per day would be made,
removing compost and digested sludge and bringing in treat-
ment plant supplies for use at the Deer Island treatment
plant. The impact on surrounding areas should be minimal
at Squantuin due to the existing commercial nature of the
area and the proximity to major transportation arteries.
However, with the proposed residential use of the adjacent
parcel, the potential for nuisance effects may increase.
5—36
-------
Table 5.5-2
TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION SITE EQUIPMENT SOUND LEVELS (in dBA)
Typical
Sound Level
Construction Equipment at 50 Feet
1. Dump truck 88
2 Portable air compressors 81
3. Concrete mixer (Truck) 85
4. Paving Breaker 88
5. Scraper 88
6. Dozer 87
7. Paver 89
8. Generator 76
9. Pile driver 101
10. Rock drill 98
11. Pump 76
12. Pneumatic tools 85
13. Bac1thoe 85
SOURCE: EPA 1975
5—37
-------
Automobile traffic would cause transportation related
noise levels to rise in Winthrop. Noise levels could reach
between 68-75 DBA and possibly higher, during hours of peak
traffic flow during the construction period. Assuming all
the workers were to drive to the Deer Island site, the road-
ways through Winthrop would become extremely congested since
the carrying capacity of the roads would be exceeded. Mini-
mal truck traffic would go to Deer Island since materials
and equipment are to be barged to the site. Thus, increased
noise levels through the community would be primarily due to
construction worker traffic.
The Nut Island site could have a maximum of 150 vehicles
traveling through Houghs Neck per day during the construc-
tion of the lift station and headworks. Sea Avenue would
provide the only route with direct access for the workers
to travel. Noise levels would increase near Quincy Great
Hill (Sea Avenue) due to the increase in traffic. The carry-
ing capacity of the road may be exceeded during rush hours,
causing congestion and further increases in noise levels.
Noise levels within 50 feet of the road should intermittent-
ly reach between 65-70 DBA. However, this should occur only
during periods of peak traffic flow. Sea Street should not
experience any noticeable increase in traffic or noise
levels due to the Nut Island construction since it would
produce a minimal increase relative to the existing traffic
volume.
Raised noise levels should occur at Deer Island and
Nut Island only during the construction phase of the pro-
posed project. Squantuin would experience raised noise
levels during the operation phase of the project since only
then would digested sludge and compost need to be moved.
In summary, the raised noise levels at Deer and Nut
Island due to construction would be temporary in nature
and would not pose a significant noise impact. Transpor-
tation noise may be perceived as a nuisance during con-
struction at the two island facilities. However, this
noise would also be temporary. Squanturn truck traffic
would produce a long term addition to noise levels. None-
theless, the impact on the surrounding area would be minimal
due to the easy access to major roads and the relative
isolation of the site as it now exists.
5—38
-------
5.6 BIOTA
The proposed project will impact upon existing biotic
communities in several ways. First, upgrading the existing
primary discharges into Boston Harbor and eliminating the
sludge discharge will significantly improve water quality
conditions and thereby positively affect estuarine biota.
Existing discharges affect adjacent benthic communities by
causing a build-up of organic solids resulting in anaerobic
mud deposits. These deposits support only a limited benthic
community. The elimination of a Quincy Bay effluent dis-
charge and the sludge discharge, will positively affect the
Bay by an immediate improvement in water quality. The
reversion of degraded benthic communities to their former
condition will occur slowly and only to a limited extent.
This is due to the very slow decomposition of organic mat-
erial within the bottom muds. The localized water quality
improvements which are realized may eventually open areas
which are presently closed to shellfish harvest.
In general, water quality improvements should improve
the diversity of species found within the harbor. The total
abundance (biomass) of organisms should not be greatly
affected. Similarly, aquatic biota should be benefited to
some degree by the relief of inland interceptors, thereby
minimizing polluting overflows within the river systems.
Another impact of the Recommended Plan is the displace-
ment (and loss) of biota due to the construction and place-
ment of sewerage facilities. Within the harbor area, sig-
nificant impacts on terrestrial biota will occur on Deer
Island, Long Island and Squantum. Biotic communities on
Deer Island and Squantum site will be displaced by the
construction of treatment, compostirig and ash landfill
facilities. Approximately 4 ha (10 acres) of land on Long
Island may be needed as a staging area in connection with
the Bay crossing. These effects are discussed below:
Deer Island - The entirety of Deer Island will be used
for the development of treatment plant facilities. In addi-
tion to the areas nowoccupiedby the prison and the treat-
ment plant, Deer Island contains a grassy drumlin and the
highly disturbed Fort Dawes area at the southern tip of the
island. Some sections of the Fort Dawes area are bare and
rocky. A low, marshy area exists adjacent to the rocky area.
Common freshwater forbs are present. Many species of grass
abound here, as well as on other parts of the island. In
addition, barn swallows, red winged blackirds, kilideer and
black—backed gulls are very common.
5—39
-------
The land adjacent to the existing treatment plant is
equally unimportant. Large grassy expanses roll over the
area with small forbs appearing occasionally. Young stands
of trees exist, but they are young and not attractive or
important ecologically.
Development on Deer Island will not destroy any valu-
able biota. Though attractive, the island exclusively con-
tains secondary growth ecosystems.
The littoral wash contains a predominance of Lamaria
sp., chondrus crispus and Rhodymenia sp. The low diversitty
of these rnacroalgae does not seem to indicate locally,
healthy benthic conditions. As such, any siltation or dis-
turbance to the bottom benthos could cause further degradation.
Squantum - Approximately 28.3 ha (70 acres) of land at
Squantum Point will be affected by the proposed project.
The vegetation on the site is composed of a mixture of
grasses with a variety of other annuals, shrubs and trees
being found scattered throughout. Meadow areas, both wet
and dry, are present. The wet areas are dominated by a
virtually monotypic expansc of ra s. Large patches of
bayberry shrubs are also found in this area.
A small Spartina alterniflora salt marsh exists around
the perimeter of the site (water boundaries). While the
complete loss of this marsh would probably be insignificant
surficially, too many acres of marshland have already been
lost. By careful planning during construction and operation
phases of the project, this marsh can be protected from loss.
Overall, development of the Squanturn site will have a
minimal effect upon terrestrial biotic communities. Provid-
ed that an effective barrier is used to contain leachates
from the ash landfill, adjacent aquatic biota will be unaffected.
Long Island — Approximately 4 ha (10 acres) of land on
Long Island will be needed as a staging area during the con-
struction phase only. While areas south of the state mental
hospital are available, they are not suitable due to the
steep slopes which parallel the water/land interface. The
area north of the state hospital is topographically more
suitable. Biotic impacts will not be significant and will
be short-term (the area will be restored following staging
operations). However, land Ownership problems may be
restrictive because the land is under the jurisdiction of
the hospital. If access to a site north of the hospital
cannot be gained, then staging operations will have be
5—40
-------
restricted to the other construction areas (Deer Island and
Nut Island).
Another component of the project which will cause sig-
nificant biotic impacts is the dredging of the harbor asso—
ciated with the construction of two bay crossings and one
outfall pipeline. In terms of displacing the benthic biotic
community, approximately 32.4 ha (80 acres) of bay bottom
(hence benthic organisms) lie in the direct path of the pipe-
lines and would be lost along with the dredge spoils. An
even greater area of bay bottom would be affected by sedi-
mentation. Many forms would be smothered while other (more
motile forms) will adjust to the level of the sediment.
While the short-term effects would be significant, berithic
recovery would occur over several seasons. The placement
of clean backfill over the pipes may result in an ultimate
improvement over existing conditions.
Other biotic impacts would result from the construction
of relief sewers and a landfill for digested sludge. While
the location and magnitude of these effects cannot be accu-
rately determined at this point, they are expected to repre-
sent significant displacement. In the case of relief sewers,
construction rights-of-way will be restored following con-
struction. While some losses of nature vegetation will
probably occur, these impacts are primarily short—term in
nature. Again, see Section 3.5-3 for a first approximation
analysis.
5—41
-------
5.7 SOCIO-ECONOMIC EFFECTS
Implementation of the Recommended Plan can be expected
to have significant socio-economic impacts, both positive
and negative.
The positive impacts will be primarily associated with
construction employment and increased commercial activity
in the vicinity of the staging areas.
Construction of the recommended project will require
approximately 4,400 man years of construction labor. At an
average wage rate of $25,000 per man year, this amounts to
approximately $110 million in wages that would be dispersed
over a two to four year period. Substantial portions of
this money would be spent locally, thereby increasing employ-
ment in other sectors of the economy.
In addition, sustained employment of 385 persons for
operation and maintenance of the facilities, at an average
salary of $14,500 annually, would account for $5.6 million
in regional income per year.
Other positive impacts of the proposed project result
from the availability of Nut Island for recreational pur-
poses. This, plus the elimination of a Quincy Bay discharge
will greatly increase the attractiveness of the Quincy
Bay area for revenue-generating recreational uses.
Negative impacts associated with the Recommended Plan
include the removal of land from municipal tax rolls and
possible devaluation of the property value (or usefulness)
of the areas adjacent to the Squantum site. Specifically,
implementation of the Recommended Plan would result in the
removal of 28.3 ha (70 acres) of land from the tax rolls of
the City of Quincy. Since this land is now assessed at a
rate of $.l0 per square foot and taxed at the rate of $187.20
per thousand dollars of assessed value (personal communica-
tion with Jim Papile, Tax Assessor, City of Quincy, on
May 19, 1978), the actual tax loss to the City of Quincy
would be about $57,000 annually. The actual loss of future
taxes could be even greater, not only because the Plan pre-
cludes future residential development on the site, but also
because the location of facilities at Squantum could diminish
the attractiveness of adjacent land for residential develop-
ment. This adjacent land is now zoned for Planned Unit De-
velopment. It is not possible to quantify these potential
losses accurately at this time, but they could be signifi-
cant. The specific reasons for this impact relate to the
5—42
-------
operation of the site as a landfill (visual impact); the
increased vehicle traffic which will be involved in trans—
porting chemicals, sludge and compost; and the possible
nuisance conditions (chiefly odors) from the composting
activity. Chapter 6 discusses mitigating measures which
can greatly reduce these adverse effects. The proposed pro-
ject, by the inclusion of a 5.2 meter (17 foot) berm in its
design, will minimize visual impacts. However, the place-
ment of high rise residential structures on the adjacent par-
cel would negate the shielding effect of a berm for upper
story residents.
Another potential negative impact in the localized
effect of street closure on local businesses in the vicinity
of sewer line construction. For the areas surrounding Boston
Harbor, this does not seem to be a problem since very little
construction will occur in or near streets. However, for
inland interceptor relief projects, the potential for impact
is significantly greater.
The construction of sewerage facilities in many parts
of the country is often associated with secondary (on in-
duced) impacts. Typically, the installation of needed sewer
capacity where it was formerly a limiting factor serves as
a catalyst for significant population growth. This growth
often results in negative environmental impacts to a far
greater degree than those associated with sewer construction
itself. Therefore, the potential for secondary impacts was
evaluating for the recommended project. This was done by
evaluating the expected rate of growth for all MDC communi-
ties from 1975 to 2000 (Appendix 5.7). Communities with an
annual growth rate exceeding 3 percent may be suspected of
showing induced growth. An annual growth rate of less than
3 percent would indicate a growth rate not stimulated by
sewerage facilities. This analysis indicated that all MDC
communities, except one, show growth rates less than 3 per-
cent annually. This one exception is Dover, whose population
is expected to increase 4 percent annually from 1975 to 2000
(using 1975 as the base year for calculation, i.e. total
growth is projected to be 25x4 percent = 100 percent). How-
ever, Dover is not expected to contribute flow to the sewer-
age system until after 2000. Hence, the high growth rate of
the Town of Dover must be ascribed to other factors. Overall,
it does not appear that the proposed project will cause second-
ary, induced-growth impacts to any significant degree.
5—43
-------
5.8 CULTUBAL RESOURCES
In order to determine if documented cultural resources
are present in the proposed construction areas in Deer Island
and Squantum, a preliminary analysis of State records and
files was performed. For historical properties, this includ—
ed examination of the site location maps and files of the
Massachusetts Historical Commission. This material locates
and describes sites on the National/State Register of His—
toric Places, as well as properties documented by local his-
torical commissions.
For aboriginal sites, the site location maps and files
of the Massachusetts Historical Commission’s staff archae-
ologist were reviewed. Additionally, the site maps of the
State archaeologist (Bronson Museum), were also checked and
correlated with the above data.
Finally, the Massachusetts Landscape and Natural Areas
Survey, prepared by the Massachusetts D.E.M. Office of Plan-
ning, was examined for possible identification of Historical/
Aboriginal properties. None of these sources nor field visits
to the sites indicated the presence of any cultural resources
in the proposed Deer Island and Squantum construction areas.
It is recommended that a more intensive field survey of
these sites, as well as the interceptor relief alignments and
landfill site, be conducted during facility planning.
5—44
-------
5.9 RECREATIONAL AND SCENIC SITES
The Recommended Plan will have both positive and nega-
tive effects on recreational sites and recreation in the
study area. Negative effects can be attributed to the total
loss of Deer Island for recreational use. The Boston Harbor
Islands Comprehensive Plan (MAPCI 1972) proposed recreation-
al uses for those portions of the Island not used by the
Er4MA-recornmended expansion. Specifically, the drurnlins were
suggested as a vantage point from which the harbor can be
viewed. The Fort Dawes area was recommended for use as a
passive recreational area. However, the presence of a large
treatment facility at the northern end of the Island is con-
sidered to diminish somewhat the value of an immediately
adjacent recreational area. It should also be noted that
the MAPC, in formulating its recommendations, acceded to the
plans for expansion of the two presently existing uses (the
prison and treatment plant) on the Island. Perhaps the
trade—offs which are inherent in the Recommended Plan will
also be acceptable to the MAPC and other Boston Harbor Island
Plan supporters.
Positive recreational impacts will result from the
demolition of most of the Nut Island treatment facilities
and the availability of this area for recreational use.
Also, in the future, the Squantum site will be available for
reversion to recreational use when the design capacity of
the ash landfill has been reached (about 20 years).
In a general sense, the recreational use of the harbor
and the inland rivers will be enhanced by the improvements
in the wastewater effluent quality, reduction in pollutant
loads, elimination of sludge discharge and the reduction in
wastewater overflows and bypasses.
On balance, the construction of the Recommended Plan
would appear to positively affect the status of recreational
sites and recreation in the study area. Although the future
construction of relief sewers may cause specific local ad-
verse effects, these can be mitigated through careful facil-
ities planning.
5—45
-------
5.10 SITES OF SPECIAL SIGNIFICANCE
Included under sites of special significance are
designated historic preservation areas, pre-historic aborig-
inal sites and significant natural areas.
The construction of harbor-based facilities (treatment
facilities, bay crossings, outfalls) will not affect any
documented or recorded historic sites. Similarly, no known
aboriginal sites are recorded on either Deer Island or
Squantum. However, a detailed field survey of thse sites,
especially Deer Island, should be conducted during facilities
planning to determine if any unrecorded aboriginal sites are
present. While this is unlikely due to the extremely dis-
turbed nature of both sites, the discovery of such a site
would require proper mitigation (removal of artifacts or
recording of data).
With respect to singificant natural areas, no sites on
the National Registry of Natural Landmarks will be impacted
by the proposed action. One site (Deer Island) on the
Massachusetts Landscape and Natural Areas Survey will be
impacted as discussed previously.
5—46
-------
5.11 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
Significant and/or sensitive components of the environ-
ment are described in Chapter 2, Environmental Inventory.
A summary of impacts on these features is summarized below:
Geology — Over one hundred drumlins have been identi-
fied as distinctive geologic features in the Boston area.
The Recommended Plan impacts the two drumlins present on
Deer Island. The Boston Harbor Islands Plan will serve
to protect the remaining drumlins which form most of the
Harbor’s Islands.
Surface Waters — Water quality will be positively
impacted by the Recommended Plan. In addition to water
quality improvements, no water areas will be lost by fill-
ing any harbor areas.
Recharge Areas The proposed project will not involve
the permanent construction of any facilities on recharge
areas.
Wetlands - Construction at Deer Island and Squantum will
not result in the displacement of any salt marsh areas.
These wetlands are found on the perimeter of both sites
but should be minimally affected by facilities construction.
A small wetland area exists within the Squantum site
but is not flushed by the tide. Hence, it makes no detrital
constribution to the bay ecosystem. During relief sewer
construction, some inland freshwater wetlands may be
temporarily distrubed. However, proper facilities planning
should minimize these disturbances and mitigate any long
term effects.
Steeply Sloped Areas - It is not anticipated that
any facilities (except for minor segments of relief
sewers) will be constructed on steeply sloped areas.
Forests and Woodlands - Harbor facilities will not
affect forests and woodlands. Relief sewers will traverse
wooded areas to a significant degree and will impose sig-
nificant effects.
5—47
-------
Air Quality - Since Boston is designated as a non-
attainment area, every effort has been made to reduce air
emissions from the recommended project. This has been done
by maximizing the amount of sludge to be disposed of by
composting and landfilling. However, incineration still
represents the major method of sludge disposal. The result-
ant increased emissions will remain within permissible
limits and standards,except for the secondary TSP standard.
Habitat of Rare or Endangered Species - The Recommended
Plan will not result in the loss of any significant habitat
for rare or endangered species. Again, caution during
facilities planning can minimize this effect resulting from
relief sewer construction.
Public Use/Cultural Resource Sites - Cultural resource
sites will not be affected by the construction of harbor
facilities. Public use sites will be both negatively
affected (Deer Island) and positively affected (nut Island).
5—48
-------
CHAPTER 6
MEASURES TO MITIGATE ADVERSE IMPACTS
As discussed in Chapter 5, the Recommended Plan is ex—
pected to result in a number of adverse environmental effects.
It is the function of this Chapter of the ElS to present feas—
ible recommendations which can significantly minimize these
impacts. These are listed below:
1. The possible adverse effects of wastewater chlorina-
tion are presented in Chapter 5. Several alternatives exist
which can serve to both disinfect the effluent and minimize
the adverse effects of chlorine. The simplest option is to
eliminate the chlorination step during that period of the
year when the harbor is little used for water-contact recrea-
tion, Labor Day to Memorial Day. During the summer season,
effluent could be both chlorinated and then dechlorinated
(using sulfur dioxide). The additional cost of dechlorina-
tion would be more than offset by the savings realized from
the elimination of chlorine addition for nine months each
year.
The rationale behind the seasonal chlorination concept
is that, in addition to killing bacteria in the wastewater,
chlorine residuals also kill “normal” harbor microorganisms
which would otherwise prey upon and deplete the sewage bac-
teria. Because seawater has been demonstrated to be a hostile
environment for sewage bacteria, the practice of chlorination
only when human contact with the diluted effluent may occur
quickly has received ever-increasing support. The recently
discovered harmful effects of chlorine and chlorinated hydro-
carbons has strengthened this position.
Other options include year round chlorination and de-
chlorination; the use of an alternative disinfectant during
summer months (such as permanganate or ozone); and the use of
a low-level chlorine dose (which could be quickly diffused
to a sub-toxic level).
This study recommends that these alternatives be exam-
ined with respect to cost and feasibility during facilities
planning. Environmental considerations would seem to favor
the first approach (chlorination and dechlorination during
the summer season only). In addition to the water quality
and biotic benefits, a savings in resources (chemicals) and
transport requirements will be realized. This should be
coupled with a coliform monitoring program to test the effi-
cacy of this approach and to safeguard the public health.
6—1
-------
2. The Recommended Plan will continue the present prac-
tice of exporting water from inland river basins to the har-
bor. The analysis of water losses shows that losses due to
inflow and infiltration (I/I) greatly exceed net water export
values. Hence, efforts which will reduce I/I will tend to
significantly mitigate the effect of water export. It is
recommended that, wherever possible, the cost of developing
additional water supplies should be figured into the cost/
benefit analysis for I/I removal.
Furthermore, water conservation programs (both voluntary
and involuntary) should be promoted. The MDC, acting as both
a sewer and water authority, is in an ideal position to ad-
vance this concept. For example, the MDC should seek the enact-
ment of new plumbing codes which specify the installation of
water saving devices in new homes. The MDC should also actively
campaign toward the education of the public concerning the need
for water conservation and what steps can be economically and
easily taken to save water. Further details can be found in
Chapters 3 and 4.
3. Another way in which groundwaters are often lost is
by lateral movement along the outside sewer pipes. That is,
sewer pipes are often installed by placing them in a bed of
coarse porous gravel. Since the pipes are often placed to
allow water to flow by gravity, the gravel beds can act as
large subsurface drains and result in the loss of water from
aquifers and recharge areas (the water travels down the gravel
bed until it can reach a surface stream in which it is soon
transported to the harbor). In order to avoid this situation,
a plug of impermeable material (such as clay) should be placed
around the sewer pipe (in lieu of the gravel bed) for 1.5 m
(5 ft) of pipe length on every third pipe section.
4. This project attempts to mitigate air quality impacts
by maximizing the disposal of sludge by marketing or giving
away a composted product. Therefore, the success of the corn-
posting operation is important in ultimately keeping air emis-
sions as low as possible. In order to enhance the feasibility
of this program, the MDC should actively publicize the avail-
ability and virtues of composted sludge. This includes pro-
viding leaflets instructing the public in its proper use and
contacting other institutions, agencies, and commercial organi-
zations concerning the use of composted sludge. Since the
use of composted sludge is a relatively new idea on this scale,
the program must be actively promoted.
In order to enhance the quality (hence, the usefulness)
and market potential) of the composted sludge, the MDC should
investigate additional methods of reducing its metal content.
5. To ensure that the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards and any other applicable regulations are maintained,
an air monitoring station should be placed in the vicinity
6—2
-------
of Deer Island. This station would ensure constant surveil-
lance of air quality in order to prevent air quality violations
due to incineration.
6. In order to mitigate the effects of dredgingin the
Harbor, the use of a specially designed dredging barge should
be investigated. The barge would be equipped with legs which
are lowered to stabilize the barge once it is properly posi-
tioned. Steel sheeting is then driven around the front and
sides of the barge and the trench section below is excavated.
Utilization of sheeting will reduce the volume of material
excavated, decreasing the number of barge trips necessary for
disposal and the cost of the harbor crossing. The volume of
backfill required also is reduced, as well as the cost of this
operation. In addition localized sedimentation and siltation
impacts are limited to the area within the sheets.
Under actual operating conditions elsewhere, the cost of
this method, has been shown to be competitive with other, more
conventional approaches.
7. In addition to providing cornposted sludge for public
pick-up at Squantum, the MDC should truck compost to dispersed
distribution sheds located through the study area. These
sheds could be located on MDC parkiand or other public land.
This will greatly reduce traffic into Squantum; will reduce
total travel and air emissions; and will increase the market
for compost.
8. To further mitigate impacts on the adjacent PUD zone
at Squantuin, coniposting operations should be conducted on
that part of the site farthest from the PUD zone. Also, the
berm nearest the PUD zone should be well screened with vege-
tation to shield the site to a maximum extent possible. Ash
placed in the landfill shouldbewetted and covered with soil
as needed to prevent dust and wind erosion. Compost piles
should not be broken down for movement to curing areas when
the prevailing wind is in the direction of the PUD zone.
9. In order to minimize the effect of increased traffic
through Winthrop to Deer Island, the maximum use of water
transportation to move materials and machinery is recommended.
The feasibility of bringing construction workers to the site
via shuttle bus should also be investigated. If workers can
be brought in from outlying parking areas, traffic could
potentially be reduced from 2000 vehicle round trips to 50
vehicle round trips (at 40 workers per bus).
6—3
-------
10. To mitigate impacts upon the seasonal recreational
use of the harbor, construction activities should be sched-
uled to avoid intensively used recreational areas during the
peak—use season.
11. To minimize the loss of terrestrial biota during
the construction of relief sewers, a minimum right-of-way
width should be employed. A maximum width of 15 to 23 m
(50 to 75 ft) is recoiimiended in vegetated areas.
12. To insure the sludge landfill does not contaminate
underlying groundwaters, a series of monitoring wells should
be installed around the landfill site. A water quality
sampling program should be maintained to guard against the
degradation of groundwater.
6—4
-------
CHAPTER 7
ADVERSE EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED
This chapter of the EIS recognizes that the Recommended
Plan will result in some adverse impacts on the environment
which cannot be mitigated or avoided. These are summarized
below in qualitative terms.
While water quality conditions are expected to generally
improve, the proposed effluent discharge will still introduce
organic and inorganic pollutants to the harbor. Specifically,
the total loading of cadmium, mercury and nickel into Presi-
dent Roads from the effluent discharge will increase margin-
ally over present conditions. (This ignores the present
sludge discharge). However, these metals should be quickly
diluted to acceptable levels.
Other unavoidable water quality effects include the intro-
duction of silt, organics and metals to the harbor from the
bottom muds during dredging operations.
The increased export of water from inland river basins
to the harbor can be viewed as an adverse effect. Strictly
speaking, this effect is avoidable through water conservation
measures and through the reduction of inflow and infiltration.
However, it is not likely that this effect will be completely
mitigated by these measures. Hence, net water export will
probably represent an adverse effect. This impact should be
manageable and, if sincere efforts are made by the MDC and
the public, it should be minimal. In any event, severe
impacts on local water supplies and river flows are not fore-
seen.
The Recommended Plan attempts to minimize air quality
impacts through the use of alternate sludge disposal methods,
thereby relying on sludge incineration to the least degree
possible. However, air emissions from sludge incineration
will be significant and will represent an unavoidable adverse
effect. Similarly, air emissions resulting from additional
barge, truck and automobile traffic are unavoidable.
Noise impacts during construction (especially along
interceptor sewers) are unavoidable. However, during facili-
ties operation, noise impacts should be minimal.
Unavoidable adverse impacts on the area’s biota will
result from the permanent displacement of existing biotic
communities at Deer Island, Squantum and at the recommended
7—1
-------
sludge landfill. Unavoidable short-term impacts will result
from dredging the harbor and the construction of relief sewers
through vegetated areas. Additional short-term effects may
result from the use of a Long Island site for staging opera-
tions and the storage of backfill material in the bay.
With respect to socio—economic effects, the negative f is-
cal impact of taking the Squantuxn site for a tax exempt use
is unavoidable. Also, the recommended use of the Squantuin
site may hamper a developer in marketing units in the adjacent
PUD zone. At such time when residents occupy the PUD zone,
high-rise residents may be affected by the visual impact of
the ash landfill and compost operation.
In terms of recreational and scenic areas, the loss of
Deer Island (particularly the drwnlins) for recreational pur-
poses will represent an unavoidable adverse impact.
7—2
-------
CHAPTER 8
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE
COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
The construction, operation and maintenance of the
Recommended Plan is expected to result in the irreversible
and irretrievable commitments of resources. These major
resources include land, energy, chemicals, dollars and labor.
In addition to these items, other resources which are diff i-
cult to quantify will also be committed. These include such
things as cement, aggregate, backfill, etc. They are, how-
ever, reflected as costs.
Labor — Labor is considered a resource whose commitment
to this project is irreversible. That is, once labor (which
could be spent in other ways), is committed to this project,
it isa resource that has been expended in an irretrievable
manner. This project will require approximately 4,400 person
years for the construction of the proposed facilities (this
does not include inland relief sewers). For operation and
maintenance, a permanent staff of 384 persons will be needed.
Energy - The energy requirement of the proposed facili-
ties during the operational phase is approximately 224 million
kilowatt hours per year. In addition, about 3,520 m 3 (930,000
gallons) of fuel oil will be needed annually. No estimate of
energy requirements during the construction phase has been
made.
Land - Approximately 85.6 ha (210 acres) of land at Deer
Island will be permanently committed to wastewater treatment
use. Twenty-eight and five tenths ha (70 acres) at Squantum
will be reversibly committed. That is, when the ash landfill
reaches its design capacity, it will be restored and can revert
to an alternate use.
The construction of relief sewers will require permanent
easements which can restrict the use of land through which the
rights-of--way pass.
Chemical Resources — For operational purposes, chemicals
are required, in bulk, for disinfection and treatment. These
commitments are quantified below. The estimate for chlorine
is not adjusted in accordance with a seasonal chlorination
program.
8—1
-------
Chlorine kg/year (tons/year)
Lime kg/year (tons/year)
Ferric Chloride kg/year (tons/year)
Polymer kg/year (tons/year)
Dollars - Dollars are included here in the sense that
once money is appropriated, it can be considered a resource
with alterative uses. Dollars also represent a common basis
with which other resources can be quantified. In this sense,
the cost of a project represents the sum total of all resources
corr rtitted to a project. The total capital cost of the RecoIn-
mended Plan is estimated at 771 million, with annual operations
and maintenance costs estimated at $24.8 million.
6.5x10 6
l.3x10 7
3. 2x10 6
1.0x10 5
(7,135)
(14,600)
(3,500)
(113)
8— 2
-------
The Metrolxlitafl District CcxrmissiOn ath the Executive Office of
Envixox enta1 Affairs revie d a preliminary draft of this document.
Their ca ents are nc1t iei . It should be riotel, however, that
a number of changes re made to the “preliminary draft” eis
before it was printeL These changes re made in response to
caiirtents frau the State of Massachusetts arxi the Boston Harbor
Citizens ? visory Carmittee.
8—3
-------
c97Ti 12 ii 2 ii /
J lie 1o12m mcn, jj eattlz tai acIu eU4
c€d e o/ &vôonrnenI’a/ 2Ø u
100 amL p 9 Le
J acA et/ 02202
:vELYN F. MURPHY
August 1, 1978
Ms. Rebecca Hanjner
Deputy Regional Administrator
U.S.Environmental Protection Agency
J.F.Keimedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Dear Ms. Hanmer:
This letter presents some initial comments by both the Executive Office
of Environmental Affairs and the Metropolitan District Commission on the
Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on MDC’S Mk Plan
for Upgrading of Facilities of the Metropolitan Sewerage District. We
appreciate the opportunity to review this document and to have our comments
included as part of the Draft EIS (DEIS).
As time for this review has been rather short, this letter presents
only a tentative response to the Preliminary Draft. The Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs and its various Departments and Divisions, including
the Metropolitan District Commission, will utilize the sixty-day federal review
period for a more thorough analysis of the data in the DEIS and the recommendations
based upon them. We recognize that the magnitude of the proposed upgrading of the
Metropolitan Sewerage Systems and the complexity of the environmental impacts
associated with the alternatives considered makes a more thorough and complete
evaluation imperative. As the implementation of any one of these alternatives may
come within the purview of a number of EOFA agencies, it is essential to assess
potential impacts upon agency programs and, where necessary, to weigh trade-offs
between conflicting goals.
Thus, while we must defer acceptance of any specific plan for the Metropolitan
Sewerage System, the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs and the Metropolitan
District Commission offer the following comments on the Preliminary Draft ETS:
I. General Comments
1. The EOEA and the MDC appreciate the difficulty of finding a treatment
plant site or sites in the metropolitan area suitable for the expansion
SECRETARY
8—4
-------
-2-
of the system as required by the Federal Clean Water Act. The EPA
has generated and evaluated a sizable array of additional sites
for primary and secondary treatment of the flows from the Metropolitan
Sewerage District EMSD). However, we believe that the assessment
of the sites and the screening of alternatives still requires
further analysis.
When the E?4 1A Plan was completed, a number of wastewater treatment
issues were identified that remained to be resolved. Foremost among
these were: the locations and impacts of the satellite treatment
plants and related interceptor relief sewers, the need for secondary
treatment at the harbor plants in terms of costs and environmental
impacts rather than legislated requirements, and means for expanding
the Deer Island and Nut Island plants considering the impacts of
filling in the Harbor and the intended recreational use of the
Harbor Islands. The environmental impacts associated with these issues
have not been thoroughly evaluated in the Preliminary Draft EIS.
2. The EIS represents a departure from the usual procedure of preparing
an EIS on a treatment plant after completion of Step 1 facilities
planning. The sequence followed in this ETS approximates the process
of hItiering! recently proposed by the Council of Environmental
Quality which provides for a progranmatic EIS with more detailed analysis
of site specific impacts during or after the Step I Facilities Planning.
We feel that such an approach is appropriate for a regional system such
as the MSD. However, further determinations are still necessary to
identify which system components and/or alternatives may result in unacceptable
negative impacts upon the environment.
3. The EOEA recognizes, therefore, that this document represent a
preliminary evaluation of environmental impacts of particular combinations
of coastal and of inland treatment plant alternatives. Although a great
deal of work has gone into such elements as the modelling of water-quality
impacts of satellite treatment plant discharges, we expect the plan
recommended in the Draft EIS to be modified as a result of the comments
received during the formal review period from EOEA, other state agencies,
local officials, and from the public. The analysis conducted during
the Step I planning which will begin soon is expected to resolve the
outstanding issues, provide additional environmental analyses and produce
an acceptable plan for the improvement of MSD wastewater treatment
facilities.
At this time we have a number of more specific coan ents to make based on
review of the Preliminary Draft EIS.
II. Specific Comments
1. While the Recommended Plan appears to be an all Deer Island solution,
it necessitates the operation of two separate plants at Deer Island as
well as several scattered sites for conveyance, treatment and disposal.
8—5
-------
-3-
The segregation of flows from the northern and southern parts of the
MSD are proposed in order to dispose of the sludge in various ways.
The duplication of facilities and the added costs required by the
two plants at Deer Island have not been identified. The operation
of several sites, widely-separated processes, and various transpor-
tation modes are likely to create severe managerial problems. Little
or no information is given on the amount and availability of land,
the energy requirements, and the legal arrangements for implementation
of the Recouuiiended Plan.
Some of the other major elements of the Reconmended Plan, require
evaluation of their environmental impacts. These include relieving
the High Level Interceptor and other interceptors, construction of a
pipeline from Long Island to Nut Island, a single discharge location,
leveling of the drumlin, elimination of recreational use at Deer
Island, and site determinations for composting sludge.
2. While it is important to retain composting as an option for the
disposal of sludge, the method devised in the Preliminary Draft seems
cumbersome and costly. Other alternatives for developing a composting
facility should be identified and evaluated. In this regard, the
experience of USDA indicates that composted sludge requires a bulking
agent, such as wood chips. The compost alternative should include
the availability of wood chips, their cost, and the resulting increased
volume of compost.
3. In the analysis of Harbor treatment plant sites, a number of
problems are evident. In the Preliminary Draft, certain sites were
eliminated primarily because of a conflict with the Conmionwealth’s
Boston Harbor Islands Plan. However, the Recomended Plan does not
conform with the Harbor Islands Plan. In fact, the Preliminary Draft
overlooks the importance of Deer Island as the only island in Boston
Harbor with a shoreline to open ocean waters that is accessible by land
and available for recreational development. The potential recreational and
open space use- of all sites should be considered in compliance with EPA
requirements.
4. The discussion in the Preliminary Draft of the potential impacts
of effluent discharge from inland treatment plants does not seem compelling
enough to eliminate satellite plants from consideration as components
of the MSD.
The impacts of the discharges from the satellite plants into the
rivers are discussed in terms of a single parameter, dissolved oxygen,
as determined by mathematical simulations. The specific ecological
effects of failing to meet the dissolved oxygen criteria are not described
nor are methods examined for compensating for this projected deficiency.
The adverse and beneficial impacts of dissolved oxygen and other water
quality parameters as well as the impacts on potential sites should
be delineated.
8—6
-------
The beneficial environmental impacts of satellite plants, such as
retaining wastewater in the basin of origin, decentralization of
treatment plants, and options for sludge disposal (land application,
cotreatment,composting) have not been evaluated. Most importantly,
opportunities for reuse, which satellite plants will provide and an
all-harbor solution will preclude, have not been considered.
The EOEA will devote a great deal of attention during the review
period to assessing the potential impacts of these systems on water
quality of the Charles and of the Neponset Rivers.
5. The Preliminary Draft in several instances reflects a misunderstanding
of the EM LA Plan. The ENMA Plan does not promote expansion of DC’s
service area or the building of capacity for future growth. The
basis of the plan is the provision of adequate treatment capabilities
and interceptor capacities for present member communities. The D1 ’L-\
Plan could accommodate flows from additional peripheral communities,
should these communities decide to develop sewerage systems, without
significant increase in the size of treatment plants. For example,
Lincoln, Lyrmfield, and Weston, if sewered, would contribute only
slightly more than one percent of the projected 400 mgd average flow
at an improved Deer Island Plant. Similarly, low flow augmentation
was not one of the main objectives for recommending satellite plants.
Low flow augmentation was an environmental benefit derived from this
recommendation.
In conclusion, we regard the Recommended Plan as another alternative for
the treatment and disposal of wastewater, which warrants careful study by EO ,
MDC, other governmental agencies and the general public. We fully expect this
alternative along with other alternatives to be carefully evaluated during Step
1 Facilities Planning conducted by the MDC. We are confident that that the Step
1 process, which includes ample public participation, can serve as the framework
for, reaching a decision on an environmentally sound, cost-effective, publicly
supported plan for improving the MDC wastewater treatment plants.
Both EOEA and MDC look forward to a productive formal review period and
are ready to assist in encouraging public comment on the DEIS.
Sincere lv yours,
‘
Eve lvr F
Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs
cc: W.Adams, EPA 8—7
R.Thompson, EPA
W.Stickney, EPA
Joim P. Snedeker
Commissioner
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson — Nichols and Company, Inc., Neponset River Basin
Flood Plain and Wetland Encroachxneiit Study . Boston,
Massachusetts, 1971.
“A Seasonal Survey of the Fishes in the Mystic River, a
Polluted Estuary in Downtown Boston, Mass.” Estuarine
and Coastal Marine Science , Vol. 2, pp. 59-73, 1974
Brackley, R.A., W.B. Fleck and W.R. Meyer, “Hydrology and
Water Resources of the Neponset and Weyinouth River Basins.”
Hydrologic Investigations Atlas MA-487 . U.S. Geological
Survey, Washington, D.C., 1976.
Beauregard, D.C., Mystic River, 1973 Water Quality Analysis:
Part C , Water Quality Section, Division of Water Pollu-
tion Control, Mass. Water Resources Commission, West-
borough, Mass., May, 1975.
Benesh, F.H., K.W. Wiltsee and R.D. Siegel, Technical Support
to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on Development of
an Air Quality Maintenance Plan , Massachusetts Division
of Air Quality Control and U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air Programs, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, 1976.
Berg, G.., “Integrated Approach to Problem of Viruses in Water,”
Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division, Proceedings
of the American Society of Civil Engineers, SA6, 97
(1971).
Berg, G., “Removal of Viruses from Water and Wastewater,”
Thirteenth Water Cuality Conference: Virus and Water
Quality, University of Illinois, 1971.
Berg, Gerald, “The Virus Hazard - A Panorama of the Past, A
Presage of Things to Come,” Virus Survivial in Water
and Wastewater Systems, edited by Maline and Sagik,
Center for Research in Water Resources, University of
Texas at Austin, 1974.
Berg, G., et al., “Removal of Poliovirus I from Secondary
Effluents by Lime Flocculation and Rapid Sand Filtra-
tion,” Journal of the American Water Works Association,
60, 1968.
Brungs, W.A., “Effects of Residual Chlorine on Aquatic Life,”
Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation, 45, 2180,
1973.
9—1
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)
Burge, W., P. Marsh and P. Miller, Occurrence of Pathogens
and Microbial Allergens in the Sewage Sludge Composting
Environment, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington ,
D.C., 1977.
Burns, R.W. and Sproul, O.J., “The Virucidal Effects of Chlor-
ine in Wastewater,” New England Water Pollution Control
Association, Boston, Mass., 1966.
Bush, A.F. and Isherwood, J.O., “Virus Removal in Sewage
Treatment,” Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division
of the American Society of Engineers, 92, SA-1: 99, 1966.
Camp Dresser and McKee Inc., Environmental Engineers, An
Evaluation of the Removal of Salt Water from the Charles
River Basin , Boston, Mass., August, 1976.
Chambers, C.W., et al., “Chlorination of Wastewater Manual
of Practice No. 4,” Chlorination of Wastewater Subcom-
mittee, 1976.
Chaudhuri, N., et al., “Virus Removal in Wastewater Renovation
by Chemical Coagulation and Flocculation,” Advances in
Water Pollution Research, San Francisco, 1970.
Chaudhuri, N. and Engelbrecht, R..S., “Removal of Viruses from
Water by Chemical Coagulation and Flocculation,” Journal
of the American Water Works Association, 62, 563, 1970.
Chesebrough, E.W. and, A. J Screpetus, Upper Mystic Lake 1974-
1975 Water Quality Study . Water Quality Section, Massa-
chusetts Division of Water Pollution Control, Westborough,
Massachusetts, 1975.
Chesmore, A.P., S.A. Testaverde and F.P. Richards, A Study
of the Marine Resources of Dorchester Bay . Monograph
Series Number 10. Massachusetts Division of Marine
Fisheries, Boston, Massachusetts, 1971.
Chran, E., F. DeWalle, Evaluation of Leachate Treatment , Vol.
1, Characteristics d f Leach tes, EPA—60072—77—l869, 1977.
Christiansen, N.H., Users Guide to the Texas Episodic Model ,
Texas Air Control Board, l 75.
Clarke, N.A., et al., “Removal of Enteric Viruses from Sewage
by Activated S1ud e Treatment, “ American Journal of
Public Health, 51, 118, 1961.
9—2
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)
Coffin and Richardson, Report to the Board of Health of the
Town of Natick, Mass, on Sanitary Landfill for Solid
Waste Disposal , Boston, Mass., July 1974.
Coher, E.G., “The Value of Liquid Digested Sewage Sludge”
Journal of Agricultural Science, 1966.
Committee on Environmental Quality Management of the Sanitary
Engineering Division, “Engineering Evaluation of the
Virus Hazard in Water,” Journal of the Sanitary Engineer-
ing Division of the american Society of Civil Engineers,
SAl, 96, 111,1970.
Committee on Sanitary Engineering Research, “Effect ofWater
Temperature on Stream Reaeration,” J. Sanitary Engineer-
ing Div., Proceedings american Society of Civil Engineers,
87, SA6, 1961.
Committee on Water Quality Criteria, “Water Quality Criteria,
1972,” National Academy of Science, National Academy of
Engineering, Washington, D.C., 1972, pp. 594.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, “Report on the Metropolitan
District Commission and the Department of Natural
Resources Relative to the Department of Natural Resources
Carrying Out Certain Water Management Projects on the
Neponset River and Acquiring Certain Lands Adjacent to
the River for Conservation and Recreation Purposes,”
House of Representatives Report Number 4940, December
1969.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, “Rules and Regulations for
the Establishment of Minimum Water Quality Standards
and for the Protection of the Quality and Value of
Water Resources,” Division of Water Pollution Control,
Westborough, Nassachusetts, 1974.
Comptroller General of the United States, Report to the Con-
gress, “Unnecessary and Harmful Levels of Domestic
Sewage Chlorination Should be Stopped”, CED-77-108,
August, 30, 1977.
Culp, Russel L., “Breakpoint Chlorination for Virus Inacti-
vation,” Journal of the Mterican Water Works Association,
66, 699, 1974.
Curran Associates, Inc., Water Usage Study in Communities
Served by the Metropolitan District Commission , Water
Resources Research Center University of Mass. at mhurst,
Northampton, Mass., June 1975.
9—3
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)
Daubenxnere, R.F.,, (1974), Plants and Environment, A Textbook
of Plant A tecology , Third Edition, John Wiley and Sons,
New York.
Davis, J.A. I II and J. Jacknow, “Heavy Metals in Wastewater in
Three Urban Areas’ J. Water Pollution Control Federation,
47, 9, September, 1975.
Defeo, D.L., “The Establishment and Operation of the Aberjona
River Commission,” M.S. Thesis, Tufts University, Boston,
Massachusetts, 1971.
Dewling, R., Fate and Behavior of Selected Heavy Metals in
Incinerated Sewage Sludge , Rutgers University, Ph.D.
Thesis, June, 1977.
Division of Water Pollution Control, Boston Harbor Pollution
Survey - 1972 Part A: Data Record of Water Quality and
Wastewater Discharge , Massachusetts Water Resources
Conixnission, Boston, Massachusetts, 1973.
Ecolsciences, Inc., Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Pro-
posed Sludge Management Plan’,: Metropolitan District Coinmis-
sion, Boston, Mass. Volumes I and II , 1976.
England, B., et al., “Transmission of Viruses by the Water
Route,” G. Berg, Ed., New York: John Wiley and Sons,
1967.
Environmental Effects Laboratory, Eco1o ical Evaluation of
Pro?osed Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material Into
Navigable Waters , U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experi-
ment Station, 1976.
En’V jronmenta1 Protection Agency, Disinfection of Wastewater -
Task Force Report , EPA-430/9-75-0l2, March 1976.
Epstein, E., G. Wilson, W. Burge, D. Mullen and N. Enkiri,
“A Forced Aeration System for Composting Wastewater
Sludge,” Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federa-
tion, Vol 48, Number 4, April1976.
Erdmann, J.B., M.D. Bilger, and S.C. Travis, Charles River
and Charles Basin 1973-1976 Water Quality Analysis, Water
Quality and Research Section, Massachusetts Division of
Water Pollution Control, Water Resources Commission,
Westborough, Massachusetts, May 1977.
9—4
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
Fairbrothers, D. and E. Maul, Aquatic Vegetation of New Jersey-
Part I , Extension Service, College of Agriculture Rutgers-
The State University, New Brunswick, N.J.
Federal Register, Vol 41-No. 246, December 21, 1976, pp 55525-
55530, 55558-55560, (Air Quality Standards, Interpretive
Ruling).
Federal Register, Vol. 42—No. 21, February 1, 1977 pp 6256-
6261, (National Register of Historic Places).
Federal Register, Vol 42-No. 211, November 2, 1977, pp 57420-
57427, (Municipal Sludge Mangement Environmental Factors,
Technical Bulletin).
Federal Register, Vol 42-No. 212, November 3, 1977, pp 57459-
57462, 57479—57488, (1977 Clean Air Act Amendments to
Prevent Significant Deterioration).
Fetner, R.H. and Ingols, R.S., “Some Studies of Ozone for
Use in Water Treatment,” Proceedings of the Society of
Water Treatment and Examination, 1957.
Frimpter, N.H., “Groand-water Management: Mystic River Basin,
Massachusetts,” Open-file Report, U.S. Geological Survey,
Boston, Massachusetts, 1973a.
Frimpter, M.H. “Ground—water Management: Charles River Basin,
Massachusetts,” Open—file Report, U.S. Geological Survey,
Boston, Massachusetts, 1973b.
Frimpter, M.H. “Ground—water Management: Neponset River
Basin, Massachusetts,” Open-file Report, U.S. Geological
Survey, Boston, Massachusetts, 1973c.
Gilbert, Thomas R., Clay, Alice M., and Karp, Caroline A.,
Distribution of Polluted Materials in Massachusetts
Bay , Research Dept., New England Aquarium, Boston, Massa-
chusetts, December 1976.
Gilbert, Thomas R., Studies of the Massachusetts Bay Foul
Area , Research Department, New England Aquarium, Boston,
Massachusetts, January 1975.
Gilbert, T., G.C. McLead, R. Moehi, K.V. Ladd, A. Clay, and
A. Baker, “Trace Metal Analysis of Boston Harbor Water
and Sediment,” Boston Harbor Water Quality Monitoring
Program, Vol. II, Research Department, New England
Aquarium, Boston, Massachusetts, 1972.
9—5
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
Golet, Francis C., “Classificaton and Evaluation of Freshwater
Wetlands as Wildlife Habitat in the Glaciated Northeast ,
Vol. 30, pp 257—279, Transactions of the Wildlife Society,
Northeast Section.
Gray, D., and C. Penessis, “Engineering Properties of Sludge
Ash,” Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation.
Vol. 44, Number 5, 1972.
Harrison, J., Chishoim, L., Identification of Objectionable
Environmental Conditions and Issues Associated wtih Con-
Hned Spoils Areas , U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experi-
ment Station, 1974.
Havens and Emerson, Ltd., “A Plan for Sludge Management for
the Metropolitan District Commission,” Report to the
Metropolitan District Commission, Boston, Massachusetts ,
Cleveland, Ohio, l9fl.
Hazo, H., What’s New in Landfill Liners , The American City
and County, February 1977.
Helden Associates, Inc., Final Joint Environmental Impact
Report -Vol. 1, Soufh Eore Community College , Cambridge
and Fairhaven, Massachusetts, June 1975 .
Hogan, Paul M., Concord and Sudbury Rivers 1975 Water Quality
Analysis , Part C Water Quality Section, Division of Water
Pollution Control, Massachusetts Water Resources Commis-
sion, Westborough, Massachusetts, June, 1975.
Hydroscience, Inc., “Development of Hydrodyriamic and Time
Variable Water Quality Models for Boston Harbor’ Westwood,
New Jersey, 1973.
Iwanowicz, H.R., R.D. Anderson and B.A. Ketschke, A Study of
the Marine Resources of Hingham Bay . Monograph Series
Number 14, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries,
Boston, Massachusetts, 1973.
Jacknow, J., Environmental Impacts from Sludge Incineration -
Present nate-of-the-Art . Water and Wastewater Equipment
Manufacturers Association , Inc., McLean, Virginia.
Jerome, William C., Jr., Chesmore, Arthur P., and Anderson,
Charles, D., Jr., A Study of the Marine Resources of
Quincy Bay , Divisi.on of Marine Fisheries, Department of
Natural Resources the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
Boston, MassachusettS, March, 1966.
9—6
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
Kadlec, J.A. and W.A. Wentz, “State-of-the-Art Survey and
Evaluation of Marsh Pond Establishment Techniques:
Induced and Natural,” U.S. Army Waterways Experiment
Station, Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi,
Contract DACW-2-74-c-O100, 1974.
Katzenelson, E., et al., “Studies on the Disinfection of
Water by Ozone: Viruses and Bacteria,” First Inter-
national Symposium on Ozone for Water and Wastewater
Treatment, December 1973.
Kennedy Engineers Inc., Phase I Engineering Report - A Scien-
tific and Technical Evaluation of the Environmental
Protection Agency’s Wastewater Facility Planning: Bos-
ton Case Study , San Francisco, California, July 1976.
Khanna, S.B. Handbook for UNAMAP . Walden Division of Abcor,
Inc., Wilimington, Massachusetts.
Klein, L.A., M. Lang, N. Nash, and S.L. Kirschner, “Sources
of Metals in New York City Wastewater,” J. Water Pollu-
tion Control Federation, 46, 12, December 1974.
Kruse, C. W., et al, “The Enhancement of Virus Inactivation
of Halogens,” Thirteenth Water Quality Conference: Virus
and Water Quality, University of Illinois, 1971.
Lathrop, T.L. and Sproul, O.J., “High Level Inactivation of
Viruses in Wastewater by Chlorination,” Journal of the
Water Pollution Control Federation, 41, 1969.
Le Blanc, Debra, Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Management, Office of Planning, Personal Communication.
Liu, O.C., et al. , “Relative Resistance of Twenty Human Enteric
Viruse t6Free Chlorine in Potomac Water,” Thirteenth
Water Quality Conference: Virus and Water Quality,
University of Illinois, 1971.
Lockowitz, T.G., et al. , “Deactivation of Virus by Ozonation
in a Stirred Taii Reactor,” First International Symposium
on Ozone for Water and Wastewater Treatment, December
1973.
Lord, S.M., R.C. McAnespie, D.E. Costello, and W.R. Jobin,
Boston Harbor Pollution Survey 1968, Part A: Wastewater
Discharges and Part B: Sample Analysis , Division of
Pollution Control, Massachusetts Water Resources Commis-
sion, August 1970.
9—7
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
Mack, W.N. and Fiegle, F.J., “Enterovirus Removal by Activated
Sludge Treatment,” Journal of the Water Pollution Control
Federation, 34, 1133, 1962.
Maiherbe, H. and Strickland—Cholinly, M., “Transmission of
Viruses by the Water Route,” G. Berg, e d . , New York:
John Wiley and Sons, 1967.
Maline, J.F., Jr., et al., “Poliovirus Inactivation by Acti-
vated Sludge,” Virus Survival in Water and Wastewater
Systems, edited by Maline and Sagik, Center for Research
in Water Resources, University of Texas at Austin, 1974.
Mantell, C., Solid Wastes: Origin, Collection, Processing
and Disposal , John Wiley and Sons, 1975.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management, Massa-
chusetts Outdoors - Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plan , 1976.
Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, “A Study of the
Marine Resources of Quincy Bay,” Contribution *18,
Department of Natural Resources, Boston, Massachusetts,
1966.
Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, “A Study of the
Marine Resources of Lynn- Saugus Harbor” Monograph Series
#11, Department of Natural Resources.
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Game, “Coidwater
Fisheries Investigations, Survey and Inventory of Streams
Job Progress Report, Project Number F-36-R, Job Ill-B,
Publication Number 5146, 1970.
Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control, The Concord
and Sudbury Rivers, Part C , 1973.
Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control, The SUASCO
River Basin - Part D , 1976
McConnell, William, P., Cobb, Marcia, “Remote Sensing 20 Years
of Change in Middlesex County, Massachusetts, 1951-1971,”
University of Massachusetts at Amhurst, November 1974.
9—8
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
MacConnell, W., Cunningham, W., Blanchard, R., “Remote Sensing
20 Years of Change in Essex County, Massachusetts, 1951-
1971:’ University of Massachusetts at Amhurst, May 1974a.
MacConnell, W.P., Pywell, H. Ross and Young, P.E., “Remote
Sensing of Change in Suffolk and Norfolk Counties, Massa-
chusetts, 1951—1971, ?’ University of Massachusets at
Ainhurst, November 1974b.
McDonald, P., Clerk, Town of Hull Sewerage Authority, July
1978, Personal Communication
Meister, R., Federal Energy Department, July 20, 1978, Per-
sonal Communication
Merkens, J.C., “Studies on the Toxicity of Chlorine and
Chioramines to the Rainbow Trout,” Water and Waste
Treatment Journal, 7, 150, 1958.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. “Report to Hollingsworth and Wase Com-
pany, East Walpole, Massachusetts on Low Flow Augrnenta-
tion of the Neponset River,” 1969.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., Wastewater Engineering and Management
Plan for Boston Harbor - Eastern Massachusetts Metropoli-
tan Area EMMA Study Main Report for the Metropolitan
District Commission, Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
Boston, Massachusetts, March, 1976.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., Wastewater Engineering and Management
Plan for Boston Harbor — Eastern Massachusetts Metropoli-
tan Area, EMMA Study, Technical Data Volume 1 Planning
Criteria for the Metropolitan District Commission, Com-
monwealth of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts, October
1975a.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., Wastewater Engineering and Management
Plan for Boston Harbor - Eastern Massachusetts Metropoli-
tan Area. EMMA Study Technical Data Volume 2 Engineering
Criteria for the Metropolitan District Commission, Com-
monwealth of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts, October
197 5b.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., Wastewater Engineering and Management
Plan for Boston Harbor - Eastern Massachusetts Metropoli-
tan Area. EMMA Study Technical Data Volume 3 Industrial
Process Wastewater Analysis and Regulation for the Metro-
politan District Commission, Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
Boston, Massachusetts, October 1975c.
9—9
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., Wastewater Engineering and Management
Plan for Boston Harbor — Eastern Massachusetts Metropoli-
tan Area. EMMA Study Technical Data Volume 3A Study
of Certain Industrial Wastes for the Metropolitan flis-
trict Commission, Commonwealth of Massacriusetts, Boston,
Massachusetts, October l975d.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., Wastewater Engineering and Management
Plan for Boston Harbor — _ Eastern Massachusetts Metropoli-
tan Area. EMMA Stu4y _ Technical Data Volume 3B Study of
Wastes . from Large Industries for the Metropolitan District
Commission Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Boston, Massa-
chusetts, October 1975e.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., Wastewater Engineering and Management
Plan for Boston Harbor - Eastern Massachusetts Metropoli-
tan Area. EMMA udy _ Technical Data Volume 4 Water Oriented
Wastewater Disposal Concepts for the Metropolitan District
Commission, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Boston, Massa-
chusetts, October 1975f.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., Wastewater Engineering and Management
Plan for Boston Harbor — Eastern Massachusetts Metropoli-
tan Area. EMMA Study Technical Data Volume 6, Formulation
of Wastewater Utilization Plan for the Metropolitan Dis-
trict Commission, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Boston,
Massachusetts, October, 1975g.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., Wastewater Engineering and Management
Plan for Boston Harbor - astern Massachusetts Metropoli-
tan Area. EMMA Study Technical Data Volume 7 Combined
Sewer Overflow Regulation for the Metropolitan District
Commission, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Bostor Massa-
chusetts, October 1975h.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., Wastewater Engineering and Management
Plan for Boston Harbor - Eastern Massachusetts Metropoli-
tan Area. EMMA Study Technical Data Volume 9 MDC Inter-
ceptor and Pumping Station Analysis and Improvements ,
for the Metropolitan District Commission, Commonwealth
of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts, October 1975i.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., Wastewater Engineering and Management
Plan for Boston Harbor - Eastern Massachusetts Metropoli-
tan Area. EMMA Study Technical Data Volume 10 Deer Island
Wastewater Treatment Plant Analysis Improvements for the
Metropolitan District Commission, Commonwealth of Massa-
chusetts, Boston, Massachusetts, October 1975j.
9—10
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., Wastewater Engineering and Management
Plan for Boston Harbor — Eastern Massachusetts Metropoli-
tan Area. EMMA Study Technical Data Volume 11 Nut Island
Wasteater Treatment Plant Ana1 (sis and Improvements for
the Metropolitan District Counnission Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts, October 1975k.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., Wastewater Engineering and Management
Plan for Boston Harbor — Eastern Massachusetts Metropoli-
tan Area. EMMA Study Technical Data Volume 15 Recommended
Plan and Implementation Program for the Metropolitan Dis-
trict Commission, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Boston,
Massachusetts, October 19751.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., Wastewater Engineering and Management
Plan for Boston Harbor - Eastern Massachusetts Metropoli-
tan Area. EMMA Study Technical Data Volume 16 Agency
Reviews for the Metropolitan District Commission, Common-
wealth of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts, October
197 Sm.
Metropolitan Area Planning Council, Open Space and Recreational
Plan and Program for Metropolitan Boston . 4 Volumes,
1969.
Metropolitan Area Planning Council, Boston Harbor Islands
Comprehensive Plan , 1972.
Metropolitan Area Planning Council, Regional Report on Growth
Policy — Tentative Report for Public Hearing Discussior 1976.
Metropolitan Area Planning Council, The 1976 Regional Open
Space Plan, Volume I, Open Space and Recreation Program
for Metropolitan Boston , U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development, Washington, D.C. 1976.
Metropolitan Area Planning Council, Summary of Data Analyses
on Sediments and Benthic Invertebrates from the Ipswich,
Charles, Assabet, Sudbury and Neponset Rivers , 208 Water
Quality Project, Task 05107 - Hydrographic Modifications,
September 1977.
Metropolitan District Commission, Sewerage Division, “Fifty-
third Annual Report - Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1972,”
Boston, Massachusetts, 1972.
Metropolitan District Conimission, Sewerage Division, “Fifty-
fourth Annual Report - Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1973,”
Boston Massachusetts, 1974.
9—11
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
Metropolitan District Commission, Sewerage Division, “Fifty-
fifth Annual Report Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1974,”
Boston, Massachusetts, 1975.
Metropolitan District Commission, Sewerage Division, “Fifty-
sixth Annual Report - Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1975,”
Boston, Massachusetts, 1975.
Metropolitan District Commission, Sewerage Division, “Fifty-
seventh Annual Report - Fiscal Year Ending June 30,
1976,” Boston, Massachusetts, 1976.
Mitchell, Ralph, “Destruction of Bacteria and Viruses in Sea-
water,” Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division of
the P merican Society of Civil Engineers, SA 4, 97, 425,
1971.
Moore, M.B., Water Quality Measurements of Boston Harbor, Vol-
ume I , New England Aquarium, Department of Water Pollu-
tion Control, Boston, Massachusetts, 1973.
Morris, J.C., in Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal (Fair
and Geyer), p. 805, Wiley, 1954.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boston Har-
bor Tidal Current Charts , U.S. Department of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
Ocean Survey, Rockville, Maryland, 1974.
Nebel, C., et al., “Ozone Disinfection of Secondary Effluents,
Laboratory Studies,” First International Symposium on
Ozone for Water and Wastewater Treatment, December 1973.
Nebel, C., et al., “Ozone Pilot Plant Disinfection of Combined
Indust ial and Municipal Secondary Effluent,” First Inter-
national Symposium on Ozone for Water and Wastewater
Treatment, December 1973.
New England Aquarium Research Department, Water Quality Measure-
ments of Boston Harbor , Vol. 1, 1973.
New England Division, Corps of Engineers, Charles River Massa-
chusetts , Waltham, Massachusetts, August, 1972.
New England Division, Corps of Engineers, Wastewater Engineer-
ing and Management Plan for Boston Harbor — Eastern Massa-
chusetts Metropolitan Area. EMMA Study Technical Data
Volume 5, Land Oriented Wastewater Utilization Concept
for the Metropolitan District Commission, Commonwealth
of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts, October, 1975a.
9—12
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
New England Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wastewater
Engineering and Management Plan for Boston Harbor - Eastern
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. EMMA Study Technical
Data Vo].uine 8 Urban Storrnwater Management for the Metro-
politari District Conunission, Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
Boston, Massachusetts, October, 1975b
New England Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wastewater
Engineering and Management Plan for Boston Harbor - Eastern
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. EMMA Study Te hñical
Data Volume 8A A pendix to Urban Stormwater Management
for the Metropolitan District Commission, Commonwealth
of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts, October 1975c.
New England Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wastewater
Engineering and Management Plan for Boston Harbor - Eastern
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. EMMA Study Technical
Data Volume 13 Impact Anal ’sis and Evaluation for the
Metropolitan District Commission, Commonwealth of Massa-
chusetts, Boston, Massachusetts, October 1975d.
New England Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wastewater
Engineering and Management Plan for Boston Harbor - Eastern
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. EMMA Study Technical
Data Volume 13A Biolo ical Impacts Analysis for the Metro-
politan District Commission, Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
Boston, Massachusetts, October 1975 e.
New England Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wastewater
Engineering Management Plan for Boston Harbor - Eastern
Massachusetts Metro o1itan Area. EMMA Study Technical
Data Volume l3b Socio-Econornic Impact Analysis for the
Metropolitan District Commission, Commonwealth of Massa-
chusetts, Boston, Massachusetts, October 197Sf.
New England Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wastewater
Engineering and Management Plan for Boston Harbor - Eastern
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. EMMA Study Technical
Data Volume 13c Hygienic Impacts Analysis for the Metro-
politan District Commission, Commonwealth of Massac iusetts,
Boston, Massachusetts, October 197 5g.
New England Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wastewater
Engineering and Management Plan for Boston Harbor - Eastern
Massachusetts MetrolDolitan Area. EMMA Study Tec}inical
Data Volume 14 Public Involvement for the Metropolitan
District Commission, Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
Boston, Massachusetts, October 1975j.
9—13
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
New England River Basins Commission, “Southeastern New England
Water and Related Resources Study Boston, Massachusetts,
1975.
Olexsey, R.A. “Thermal Degradation of Sludges.” Proceedings
of Symposium on “Pretreatment and Ultimate Disposal of
Wastewater Solids,” EPA (Region II) and Department of
Environmental Science, Rutgers University, May 1974.
Olivieri, V.P. Donovan, T.K.,, and PCawata, K., “Inactivation
of Virus in Sewage,” Journal of Sanitary Engineering
Division, Proceedings American Society of Civil Engi-
neers 97, SA5, 661, 1971.
Pavoni, J.L., et al., “Ozonation as a Viral Disinfection
TechniqueTn Wastewater Treatment Systems,” First Inter-
national Symposium on Ozone for Water and Wastewater
Treatment, December 1973.
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Co., Wastewater Engineering and
Management Plan for Boston Harbor - Eastern Massachusetts
Metropolitan Area. EMMA Study Technical Data Volume 12
Part 1, Financin and Management for the Metropolitan
District Commission, Commonwearth of Massachusetts,
Boston, Massachusetts, October l975a.
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Co., Wastewater Engineering and
Management Plan for Boston Harbor — Eastern Massachusetts
Metropolitan Area. EMMA Study Technical Data Volume 12
Part 2 Financing and Management for the Metropolitan
District Commission, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Bos-
ton, Massachusetts, October, 1975b.
Pound, C.E. and R.W. Crites, Wastewater Treatment and Reuse
by Land Application, Volume II, EPA 660/2-73-0066,
Washington, D.C. 1973.
Process Research Inc., Environmental Impact Assessment Water
Quality Analysis, Charles River/Boston Harbor . Report
No. NCWQ 75/94. National Commiss3 n on Water Quality.
Washington, D.C. 1976.
Purves, D., “Consequences of Trace Element Contamination of
Soils” Environmental Pollution , 3:17—24, 1972
Quirk, Lawler and Matusky Engineers, Systems Analysis for
Water Pollution Control , New York, New York, June 1971.
9—14
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
Resource Analysis, Inc., Scientific and Technical Evaluation
of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Wastewater
Facilities Planning: Boston Case Study Phase I: Water
Quality Considerations , Council on Environmental Quality,
Washington, D.C. 1976.
Robbins, Maurice, Massachusetts State Archaeologist, Personal
Communication.
Robeck, G.G., et al., “Effectiveness of Water Treatment Pro-
cesses in Virus Removal, t ’ Journal of the American Water
Works Association, 54, 10, 1962.
Runes, C.E. and Resi, L.A,”Chemical and Physical Aspects of
Water Quality Boston Harbor — Charles River Study Massa-
chusetts;’ Technical Advisory and Investigations Branch,
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, U.S.
Department of the Interior, February 1968.
Ruttner, F., Fundamentals of Lirnnology , 1973
Safferman, R.S. and Morris, M.E., “Assessment of Virus Removal
by a Multi-stage Activated Sludge Process,” Water Research,
10, 1976.
Sanderson, W.W. and Kelly, S., Discussion following Clarke in
Advances in Water Pollution Research, Vol. 2, MacMillan
Co., New York, 1954.
Sawyer, C.M., “Wastewater Disinfection: A State of the Art
Summary,” VPI-VWRRC-BUSS 89, October 1976.
Sawyer, C.N. and P.L. McCarty, Chemistry for Sanitary Engineers ,
2nd edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, New
York, 1967.
Shaw, Jonathan A. (1978) Executive Director, New England
Wildflower Society, Inc. (Personal Communication).
Shuval, H.I.,”Developments in Water Quality Research;’ Ann
Arbor: Humphrey Science Publishers, 1970.
Shuval, HI., et al. , “Natural Virus Inactivation Processes
in Seawater, Journa1 of Sanitary Engineering Division
of the American Society of Civil Engineers, SA 5, 97,
587, 1971.
Shuval, H.I., et a l. , “The Inactivation of Enteroviruses in
Sewage by ChI rination,” Advances in Water Pollution
Research, Water Pollution Control Federation, Washington,
D.C., 1967.
9—15
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
Silva, D. Assistant to Sewerage Commissioner, Town of Hull,
Massachusetts, Personal Communication, February, 1977.
Skehan, James W. (1975) Puddingstone, Drumlins and Ancient
Volcanoes , Trustees of Boston College.
Smith, R.L. Ecology and Field Biology . Second Edition, Harper
and Row, New York, New York, 1974.
Sobsey, M.D., “Enteric Viruses and Drinking Water Supplies,”
Journal of American Water Works Association, 67, 1975.
Sproul, O.J., “Virus Inactivation by Water Treatment,”
Journal of the American Water Works Association, 64,
31, 1972.
Sproul, O.J., et al., “Poliovirus Inactivation with Ozone
in Water, First International Symposium on Ozone for
Water and Wastewater Treatment, December 1973.
Sproul, O.J., et al.., “Virus Removal by Absorption in Waste-
water Treatment Processes,” Advances in Water Pollution
Research, Proceedings of the Fourth International Con-
ference, Prague, 1969.
Streeter, H.W. and E.G. Phelps, “A Study of the Pollution
and Natural Purification of the Ohio River: III. Fac-
tors concerned in the phenomena of oxidation and reaera-
tion,” Public Health Bulletin No. 146, U.S. Public
Health Service, Washington, D.C., 1925.
Szczurko, S., Neponset River 1973 Part C Water Quality Analysis ,
Water Quality Section, Massachusetts Division of Water
Pollution Control, Westborough, Massachusetts, February,
1976.
Taheda, N. and N. Hiraoka, “Combined Process of Pyrolysis
and Combustion for Sludge Disposal,” Environmental
Science and Technology , Vol. 10, Number 12, 1976.
Tarwell, K., Chief of Land and Water Use, Metropolitan Boston,
Northeast Region, Personal Communication, March 1978.
Taylor, T.E. “Landmark Texas Decision Agrees Benefit is not
Worth the Cost.” Water and Wastes Engineering, Vol 15,
No. 4, 1978.
9—16
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
Tittlebaum, M.E., Spencer, H.T., Pavoni, J., and Fleishman,
M., “Ozone Disinfection of Viruses,” presented at Ozona-
tion in Sewage Treatment, University of Wisconsin,
November 9-10, 1971.
TRW Systems Group, Air Quality Display Model , National Air
Control Administration, Washington, D.C. 1969.
Tsivoglov, E.C. and L.A. Neal, “Tracer Measurements of Reaer-
ation: III, predicting the reaeration capacity of inland
streams”, Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 48,
12, 1976.
Turekian, K.K. Oceans , Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey, 1968.
Turner, D.B., Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates ,
En P.ironmental Protection Agency Office of Air Programs,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, Pub. No. AP-26,
1970.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Administration, “Proceedings 4/30/69 — Conference:
In the Matter of Pollution of the Navigable Waters of
Boston Harbor and Its Tributaries.”
U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Administration, “Proceedings 5/20/68 - Conference:
Pollution of the Navigable Waters of Boston Harbor and
Its Tributaries.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Pollution Aspects
of Sludge Incineration , Environmental Protection Agency
Technology Transfer Seminar Publication, 1975.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Compostir 9 of Municipal
Solid Wastes in the United States , SW—47, 1971.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Monitorin 9 and Air
Quality Trends Report 1973EPA - 450/1-74-007, October,
1974.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Monitoring and Air
Quality Trends Report, 1974 , EPA — 450/1-76-001, Febru-
ary 1976.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1973 National Emissions
Report , EPA—450/2-76—007, May 1976.
9—17
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, Surveillance
and Analysis Division, 1976 Annual Report on Air Quality
in New England , Lexington, Massachusetts 1977.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, Surveillance
and Analysis Division, 1975 Annual Report on Air Quality
in New England , Lexington, Massachusetts, 1976.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, Surveillance
and Analysis Division, 1974 Annual Report on Air Quality
in New England , Lexington, Massachusetts, 1975.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, Interim Report
on Combined Sewer Overflows in Boston Harbor , New England
River Basins Commission, Boston Harbor Coordinating Group,
Boston, Massachusetts, 1971.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Quality Criteria for
Water , EPA — 440/9-76—023, Office of Water Planning and
Standards, Washington, D.C., July, 1976.
U S. Environmental Protection Agency, Compilation of Air Pollu-
tant Emission Factors , (AP-42), Second Edition, 1975.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Guidelines:
State and Local Pretreatment Pro rams , MCD-43 Office of
Water Programs Operations, Municipal Construction Divi-
sion, Washington, D.C. 1977.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, Interim Report
on Combined Sewer Overflows in Boston Harbor, New England
River iins Commission, Boston Harbor Coordinating Group,
Boston Massachusetts, October 1971.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, User Manual for Single
Source (CRSTR) Model . Office of Air Qual [ ty Planning
md Standards, Resiàrch Triangle Park, North Carolina,
EPA 450/2—77—013, 1977.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Compilation of Air Pollu-
tant Emission Factors , Office of Air QuallEy Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, AP-42
(3rd Ed.), 1977.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Sewage Sludge Incinera-
tion , EPA Task Force, Washington, D.C., 1972 (PB-21l—323).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Resources Investi-
gation Charles River Study Appendix E Water Quality ,
U.S. EPA Federal Water Quality Adminstration, Neëdham
Heights, Massachusetts, December 1971.
9—18
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Data for Massachusetts
and Rhode Island Water Year 1975 , Data Report MA-RI-75-
1. Water Resources Division, Boston, Massachusetts,
1976.
U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Local
Climatological Data - Annual Summary with Comparative
Data — Worcester, Massachusetts , 1975.
U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Southeastern New Eflgland
Study — General Soils Project , 1973.
Upper Neponset Site Selection Committee, “Report on the Selec—
tion of Sites for the Proposed Upper Neponset Wastewater
Treatment Plant,” October, 1976.
Vertex Corporation, Phase I Final Report on Greater Boston:
Water Quality’ Issues in Planning for Pollution Control ,
McLean, Virginia, July 1976.
Walker, E.H,, S.W. Wandle, Jr., and W.W. Caswell, “Hydrology
and Water Resources of the Charles River Basin, Massa-
chusetts,” Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-554 . U.S.
Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., 1975.
Water Quality and Research Section, Commonwealth of Massachu-
setts 1977 Summary of Water Quality , Massachusetts
Division of Water Pollution Control, Westborough, Massa-
chusetts, March 1977.
Water Quality and Research Section, Weymouth Fore and Back
River Survey 1975 Part A Water Quality Data and Part B
Wastewater Discharge Data , Massachusetts Division Water
Pollution Control, Westborough, Massachusetts, December
1976.
Water Quality Section, Assabet River 1974 Water Quality Sur-
vey Data: Part A , Division of Water Pollution Control,
Massachusetts Water Resources Commission, Westborough,
Massachusetts, 1974.
Water Quality Section, Charles Basin 1974 Water Quality Sur-
vey Data , Division of Water Pollution Control, Massachu-
setts Water Resources Commission, Westborough, Massachu-
setts, November 1976B.
Water Quality and Research Section, Charles River 1973 and
1976 Waste qater Discharge Survey , Massachusetts Division
of Water Pollution Control, Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering, Westborough, Massachusetts, April
1977.
9—19
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
Water Quality Section, Massachusetts Division of Water Pollu—
tion Control, Charles RiVer 1976 Water Quality Manage-
ment Plan , Westborough, Massachusetts, 1976C.
Water Quality Section, Massachusetts Division of Water Pollu-
tion Control, Boston Harbor 1975 Wastewater Discharge
Data , Westborough, Massachusetts, March 1976A.
Water Quality Section, Massachusetts Division of Water Pollu-
tion Control, Classification and Segmentation of Massa-
chusetts River Basins and Coastal Zones 1976 , Westborough,
Massachusetts, May 1976D.
Water Quality Section, Massachusetts Division of Water Pollu-
tion Control, Neponset River 1973 and 1975 List of Waste-
water Discharges , Westborough, Massachusetts, June 1976F.
Water Quality Section, Massachusetts Division of Water Pollu-
tion Control, Mystic River 1975 Waste Discharge Survey:
Part B , Westborough, Massachusetts, February 1976E.
Water Quality Section, Massachusetts Division of Water Pollu-
tion Control, Neponset River 1973 Part A Water Quality
Survey Data , Massachusetts Water Resources Commission,
Westborough, Massachusetts, May 1974.
Water Quality Section, Massachusetts Division of Water Pollu-
tion Control, SUASCO River Basin 1975 Part D Water Quality
Management Plan , Westborough, Massachusetts, June 1976G.
Water Quality Section, Massachusetts Water Resources Commis-
sion, Division of Water Pollution Control, The Mystic
River 1973 Part A: Water Quality Survey Data . WesE—
borough, Massachusetts, 1974.
Weber, Margo, Massachusetts Historical Commission, Personal
Communication.
Weidenkopf, S.J., Virology , Volume 5, p. 56, 1958.
White, F.A., Our Acoustic Environment , John Wiley, & Sons,
Inc .., New York, 1975.
Wilson, T.E., “Report of the Use of Ozone for Effluent Disin-
fection, t ’ 1972, unpublished.
Wineznan, Janet, Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Management, Office of Planning, Personal Communication.
9—20
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
Wolf, H.W., et al., “Virus Inactivation During Tertiary Treat-
ment,” Vtrus Survival in Water and Wastewater Systems,
edited by Maline and Sagik, Center for Research in Water
Resources, University of Texas at Austin, 1974.
Zenz, D.R. and Weingarden, M.J., “Ozonation of Microstrained
Secondary Effluent,” presented at Ozonation in Sewage
Treatment, University of Wisconsin, November 9-10, 1971.
Zillich, J.A., “Toxicity of Combined Chlorine Residuals to
Freshwater Fish,” Journal of Water Pollution Control
Federation, 44, 2, 212, 1972.
L/. S. GOVERNMENT R NT1NG OFFICE: 197R—-700-2R0—-1V8
9—21
------- |