BOSTON HARBOR SUPPLEMENTAL
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REPORT OF FINAL SCREENING RESULTS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION I
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION SECTION
JOHN F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02203
May 16, 1984
Prepared by:
CE MAGUIRE, INC.
ONE DAVOL SQUARE
PROVIDENCE, Rl 02903
-------
THE GOAL OF THE EIS IS TO SELECT ONE PRIMARY TREATMENT AND
ONE SECONDARY TREATMENT.OPTI ON FROM A LIST OF TWENTY ALTERNATIVES.
BASED ON A PRELIMINARY COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS, THE LIST OF
TWENTY ALTERNATIVES WAS REDUCED TO A LIST OF SEVEN ALTERNATIVES.
THE LIST OF SEVEN ALTERNATIVES SHALL BE REDUCED TO TWO BY
EXAMINING EACH ALTERNATIVE AGAINST SIX OBJECTIVES
PRESERVE AND PROMOTE HARBOR VISION
BUILD AT LOWEST COST
PRESERVE CULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE*
IMPLEMENT QUICKLY
ASSURE FUTURE RELIABILITY
MINIMIZE EFFECTS ON NEIGHBORS
JW ALTERNATIVE WILL FULLY ACHIEVE ALL SIX OBJECTIVES. THEREFORE,
CHAPTER IV WILL DISCUSS THE FACTORS WHICH WILL ENTER INTO THE CONSIDERATION
OF EACH OBJECTIVE, AND WILL THEN SET FORTH HOW THE DECISION-MAKERS PROPOSE
TO WEIGH THE OJECTIVES.
-------
BOSTON HARBOR
SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REPORT OF FINAL SCREENING RESULTS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region I
Environmental Evaluation Section
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
May 16, 1984
Prepared by
CE MAGUIRE, INC.
One Davol Square
Providence, RI 02903
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 1-1
2.0 BACKGROUND 2-1
2.1 Previous Wastewater Studies 2-1
2.2 Previous Sludge Studies 2-5
2.3 Legal and Institutional Background 2-6
3.0 REPORT OBJECTIVES 3-1
4.0 SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS 4-1
5.0 FORMULATION OF INITIAL OPTIONS 5-1
5.1 Introduction 5-1
5.2 Secondary Treatment Alternatives 5-2
5.2.1 Deer Island-Nut Island Treatment Facilities 5-2
5.2.2 Nut Island-Deer Island-Long Island
Treatment Facilities 5-3
5.2.3 New Island Option 5-4
5.3 Primary Treatment Alternatives 5-4
5.3.1 Deer Island-Nut Island Treatment Facilities 5-4
5.3.2 Deer Island-Nut Island-Long Island
Treatment Facilities 5-4
6.0 EVALUATION OF THE OPTIONS 6-1
6.1 The Matrix of Findings 6-1
6.2 Screening Criteria 61
6.3 Findings of the Screening Process 6-7
6.3.1 Options Recommended for Further Study 6-8
6.3.2 Alternatives Eliminated 6-10
1.
-------
7.0 DETAILED DESCRIPTIONS OF FINDINGS 7-1
7.1 Summary of Analysis Results 7-1
7.2 Options Recommended for Further Study 7-2
7.2.1 Secondary Options 7-2
7.2.2 Primary Options 7-12
7.3 Options Not to be Studied Further 7-19
7.3.1 Secondary Options 7-19
7.3.2 Primary Options 7-26
8.0 REFERENCES 8-1
APPENDIX
A. Public Participation Summary A-i
B. Feasibility of Sub-Regional “Satellite”
Treatment Facilities (under separate cover)
ATTACHNENTS
1. Matrix of Findings 4-4
2. STEEPLI Impact Categories 6-2
3. Summary of Options and Their Impacts 7-2
4. Summary of Options and Costs 7-3
4a. Revised Cost Summary 7-4
5. Summary of Screening Results 7-6
12.
-------
1.0 SU1IMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
This report defines the process followed in the first phase of the
Supplemental Draft EIS (SDEIS) analysis by which eighteen siting
options for wastewater treatment facilities to serve the Boston
metropolitan area were screened to select the eight most feasible
for further detailed study.
These eight alternatives include four primary treatment and four
secondary treatment options. Siting of major treatment facilities
are proposed either at Deer Island (DI), Nut Island (NI) or Long
Island (LI) in varying combinations as follows:
Secondary Treatment (with harbor outfalls )
Option No .
la .2
lb. 2
2b. 1.
2b .3.
Secondary Treatment at DI, Headworks at NI.
Secondary Treatment at DI, Primary Treatment at NI.
Secondary Treatment at LI, Headworks at DI and NI.
Secondary Treatment at LI, Primary Treatment at DI,
Headworks at NI.
1—1
-------
Primary Treatment (with extended outfall)*
Option No .
4a .2.
4b .2.
5a .2.
5b .2.
Primary Treatment at DI, Headworks at NI.
Primary Treatment at DI, Primary Treatment at NI.
Primary Treatment at DI, Primary Treatment at LI,
Headworks at NI.
Primary Treatment at LI, Headworks at DI and NI.
These alternatives were selected on the basis of an analysis of
social, technical, economic, environmental, political, legal, and
institutional impacts with input from those involved in the public
participation process and comment by federal, state and local
agencies.
The most important criteria used in determining the feasibility and
suitability of options were:
1. Engineering feasibility and economic cost.
2. Environmental impacts as they affect the people living and
working in the communities impacted by the construction and
operation of the proposed facilities.
*Extended outfall with primary treatment is the stated preference of the
Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs and is the
alternative submitted by the MDC under the federal review of a waiver
from secondary treatment.
1—2
-------
3. Site suitability, including size and accessibility, and the
availability of buffer areas.
4. Potential for consolidation of treatment facilities to limit
impacts, provide centralized construction and operations, and
facilitate sludge disposal.
5. Opportunities for mitigation of adverse impacts.
The following sections address the background studies leading to this
SDEIS analysis, the objectives and scope of the analysis, formulation of
the initial set of options, evaluation of the options, and detailed
descriptions of the findings under each option.
1—3
-------
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 Previous Wastewater Studies
The SDEIS study now underway will supplement a prior EPA Draft EIS
(DEIS) completed in 1978 and titled Draft Environmental Impact
Statement on the Upgrading of the Boston Metropolitan Area Sewerage
System . The DEIS examined a variety of wastewater management
proposals presented by the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) in
the report, Wastewater Engineering and Management Plan for
Boston Harbor - Eastern Massachusetts Metropolitan Area (EMMA Study)
completed in 1976.
The principal recommendations of the EMMA Study report were:
1. To upgrade the existing Deer Island and Nut Island treatment
plants from primary to secondary treatment.
2. To dispose of sludge by means of incineration, as recommended
in a separate report prepared for the MDC in 1973 entitled
A Plan for Sludge Management .
3. To alleviate combined sewer overflows (CSO).
4. Construction of two advanced waste treatment plants on the
Charles and Neponset Rivers.
2-1
-------
5. Extension and improvement of the MDC’s interceptor system.
After analysis and assessment of the impacts of the MDC’s proposals,
the Draft EIS (1978) concluded that some elements of the EMMA Study
(1976) were not suitable. The Recommended Draft EIS (1978) Plan
included:
1. Centralized secondary treatment of all wastevater flows at a
new facility on Deer Island with discharge to Boston Harbor.
2. Sludge disposal of primary sludge by incineration and ash land-
filling at Deer Island (as recommended by EPA in a separate
Final EIS on primary sludge disposal completed in 1979).
3. Sludge disposal of secondary sludge by a combination of incin-
eration at Deer Island, landfilling at an unspecified MDC
landfill, and composting at Squantuni in Quincy.
4. Upgrade of the existing interceptor sewer systems for the
northern and southern Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD) areas
to provide for expansion of the MDC system.
5. No construction of satellite advanced waste treatment plants
discharging to tributary rivers at inland sites.
2-2
-------
6. No specific proposals for alleviating CSO problems; separate
CSO plans beyond the scope of the Draft EIS (1978) were being
formulated and reviewed by the State and EPA.
The recommendations of the Draft EIS (1978) were controversial and
drew considerable public comment. Also, changes to the federal
Clean Water Act occurred at that time which included provisions for
waivers from secondary treatment levels ( 301(h) waiver).
As a result of these events, EPA and the MDC reached agreement that
detailed facilities planning should proceed on the upgrading of the
wastewater treatment facilities in a flexible segmented fashion in
order to accelerate actions needed to remedy the chronic problems
and immediate upgrade needs of the MDC wastewater treatment plants
and still provide for sequential decision making on an overall
program for Harbor cleanup.
Meanwhile, the MDC began work on a 301(h) waiver application for its
proposed harbor treatment plant(s). This entailed an extensive
analysis of water quality in Boston Harbor and designation of an
extended effluent discharge location approximately seven miles into
the ocean. An assessment of further wastewater treatment
alternatives was also undertaken by the MDC in development of their
facilities plans.
First-phase recommendations were presented in the Nut Island
Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Planning Project, Phase I
2-3
-------
Site Options Study , June 1982. This plan, referred to hereafter as
the Site Options Study (1982), was prepared by Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
consultants to the MDC. It concluded that upgrading to primary
treatment at both Deer Island and Nut Island with discharge via
harbor outfalls was both environmentally sound and economically
preferable.
2.2 Previous Sludge Studies
EPA undertook a separate Draft and Final Sludge Management EIS which
was concluded in 1979. This document provided an environmental
evaluation of the MDC’s proposals for sludge disposal and concluded
that incineration at Deer Island was the most cost-effective and
environmentally acceptable sludge disposal method. EPA issued a
Record of Decision on sludge management in 1980. The Record of
Decision directed the MDC to continue environmental evaluation of
incineration, as well as to examine further the feasibility of
composting for the MDC system. This included EPA’s funding of a
pilot composting facility located at Deer Island. MDC then issued a
Sludge Management Update (1982) report to address these issues.
Study of sludge management options continued by MDC and the State,
focusing primarily on alternate disposal methods of composting,
incineration, and ocean disposal.
A state policy on sludge management has recently been formulated.
It states that the preferred disposal method is composting, with
ocean disposal and incineration as possible back-up methods. The
2—4
-------
SDEIS will review the three options under study to determine their
influence on siting of harbor treatment facilities and any
associated impacts resulting from sludge disposal facilities. EPA
has not, as yet, reached a final decision on those issues remaining
following the Record of Decision on sludge disposal and expects to
conclude this review jointly with the State following development of
sludge disposal facility plans.
2.3 Legal and Institutional Background
While these studies were under way, a series of legal actions and
State initiatives were instituted to improve water quality and
coordinate State, Federal, and local facility planning efforts. The
City of Quincy instituted a lawsuit against the MDC because of
pollution of Quincy Bay by the Nut Island treatment plant. The
Conservation Law Foundation instituted a separate lawsuit, also
aimed at addressing the problems of pollution in Boston Harbor,
against EPA, MDC and the Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution
Control (DWPC) for alleged deficiencies in administrative and regu-
latory reviews required of these agencies. This legal suit is still
pending.
The State court under the Quincy lawsuit appointed a Special Master
to establish the facts in this suit. Following submission of his
Findings of Fact in the case, the Court issued a ruling outlining a
10—year plan to clean up the harbor. The schedule for completion of
the SDEIS conforms with this plan.
2—5
-------
Also, an independent advisory committee, known as the Boston Harbor
Water Quality Committee (or Sargent Committee), was appointed by
Governor Dukakis to examine programs and plans to improve water
quality in Boston Harbor and to make recommendations to the Governor
on the overall clean-up of the harbor.
In further actions, on June 8, 1983, EPA issued a tentative decision
denying the LIDC’s application for a waiver from secondary treatment
requirements. This tentative finding was issued because of expected
water quality and marine life impacts at the proposed outfall
locations. The MDC has formally stated to EPA that it will
reexamine those water quality impacts which led to a denial, and
resubmit the application to EPA within one year. A final decision
by EPA on the MDC Waiver Application will be made by March 1985.
Concurrent with these events, the preparation of a SDEIS and Final
EIS conforms with the overall schedule established by the Court.
This schedule coordinates the various facilities planning elements
which are being developed by federal, state and local parties. The
SDEIS will be prepared and a draft copy reviewed during August of
1984. A final copy of the SDEIS will be distributed in October and
a Public Hearing scheduled sometime that month or the next. Once
all comments have been received following the close of the comment
period, a Final EIS will be prepared and distributed in January of
1985. A Record of Decision by EPA on siting of wastewater treatment
plants will consolidate the question of level of treatment and
siting preference and is expected to be issued in March of 1985.
2-6
-------
3.0 REPORT OBJECTIVES
The SDEIS being prepared will enable EPA to provide funds for
facilities proposed for the MDC System in Boston Harbor. The
objectives of this report are to clearly define the first-phase
screening process of the SDEIS by which the numerous siting options
for wastewater treatment facilities to serve the Boston metropolitan
area were narrowed to those judged to be most feasible. The report
describes the steps followed in the analytical process leading to a
determination of the most feasible options which will be subject to
further detailed study. Supporting criteria and data utilized to
reach these conclusions are presented.
The results of this screening process are a final set of eight
siting alternatives for further study, whose impacts will be
analyzed in greater detail in the second phase of the SDEIS
analysis. This set of eight options was derived from an initial
listing of eighteen siting alternatives which were proposed at both
coastal and inland sites.
3-1
-------
4.0 SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS
Data from existing studies was used to perform the preliminary
screening of all reasonable alternatives for the SDEIS. The
principal sources used were:
- EPA Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Upgrading of
the Boston Metropolitan Area Sewerage System (August 1978).
- MDC Nut Island Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Planning
Project, Phase 1, Site Options Study (Metcalf & Eddy, June,
1982) [ Site Options Study].
- MDC Wastewater Engineering and Management Plan for Boston
Harbor — Eastern Massachusetts Metropolitan Area (Metcalf &
Eddy, 1976 ) [ EMMA Study].
- MDC Application for Modification of Secondary Treatment
Requirements for Its Deer Island and Nut Island Effluent
Discharges into Marine Waters (Metcalf & Eddy, 1979 and 1983)
[ reapplication due in June 19841.
- MDC Wastewater Sludge Management Update (Havens & Emerson,
1982).
- MDC Deer Island Facilities Plan, Vol. I, Fast-Track
Improvements (Havens & Emerson/Parson Brinckerhoff, January
1984).
4-1
-------
Most of the data came from the MDC Site Options Study (1982). This
data was updated and refined where applicable, and all previous cost
figures were updated to an ENR of 4200. Meetings and discussions
were also held with representatives of a variety of governmental and
private organizations to obtain current information and copies of
work in progress. These additional sources included:
Metropolitan District Commission
• Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
• Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
Division of Water Pollution Control
Department of Environmental Management
• Coastal Zone Management Office
• Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. (Consultants to the MDC for Nut Island
Facility Plan and 301(h) waiver application)
Havens & Emerson/Parsons Brinkerhoff (Consultants to the MDC
for Deer Island Facility Plan)
In addition to the above named sources, further analysis, data
manipulation, and collection of new data was carried out during this
first phase of the SDEIS. This was done because in some cases
existing information was out of date or inapplicable to the current
evaluation of options; in other cases, new options not previously
examined, such as man-made islands in Boston Harbor, satellite
treatment facilities discharging to wetlands, and primary treatment
on Long Island, were identifed for evaluation. The process was
structured to use existing data where available and new data where
4-2
-------
necessary to select an optimal set of alternatives for further
detailed study based on the application of defined screening
criteria.
The assessment undertaken was comparative in nature. The screening
process enabled EPA to determine an optimal set of alternatives for
further detailed study. The wastewater treatment facility options
were examined for a determination of which options warranted further
detailed study in the SDEIS. This was based on the application of
the defined screening criteria, as noted above, and through the
conduct of an evaluation of each option across several impact
categories.
The information that was compiled in this screening process has been
summarized and presented in a condensed matrix shown in this report
(Attachment 1). The matrix summarizes the options and their impacts
with data reported in the matrix referenced by its source. Where
data gaps or inconsistencies exist, this is noted in the matrix. A
copy of the full matrix is available upon request from EPA.
4-3
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAI LABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
5.0 FORMULATION OF INITIAL OPTIONS
5.1 Introduction
This Supplemental Draft EIS (SDEIS) in large part constitutes an
environmental impact analysis of the facilities proposed in the
MDC’s Site Options Study (1982). This facility plan evaluated
eleven options for siting primary or secondary wastewater treatment
facilities in Boston Harbor. The suing options evaluated in this
facilities plan provided the initial definition and basis for
options to be examined in the SDEIS.
At the outset of the SDEIS analysis, a series of public scoping
meetings was conducted to solicit input from citizens groups and the
public at large, plus federal, state and local agencies. Comments
were received on the various site options proposed and on the
critical issues which should constitute the primary basis for an
evaluation of impacts. As a result of those scoping meetings, the
following additional options were considered for evaluation:
1. Primary or secondary wastewater treatment facilities con-
structed on a new man-made island in Broad Sound (near the
Brewsters or Lovells Island).
2. Consolidated primary and/or secondary wastewater treatment
facilities sited on Long Island.
5-1
-------
3. Separate primary wastewater treatment facilities sited on Long
Island and Deer Island.
4. Sub—regional “satellite” facilities based upon recommendations
previously presented in the MDC EMMA Study (1976) and the EPA
Draft EIS (1978).
5. A proposal for satellite facilities, recently developed by the
Quincy Shores Association Inc., with discharge into wetlands
for effluent polishing and groundwater recharge.
The complete list of prior and new alternatives determined to be
most appropriate for analysis in this first phase screening process
are described in the following section.
5.2 Secondary Treatment Alternatives
5.2.1 Deer Island - Nut Island Treatment Facilities
a. Convert Nut Island to a headworks and construct secondary
treatment facilities (either separate or combined system
flows) at Deer Island; inter-island transport of effluent
via tunnel.
b. Construct upgraded primary treatment at Nut Island and
construct secondary treatment facilities (either separate
5-2
-------
or combined system flows) at Deer Island; inter-island
transport of effluent via tunnel.
c. Separate secondary treatment facilities at Nut Island and
Deer Island.
d. Satellite AWT treatment facilities on the Neponset River,
Charles River, or other locations in association with one
of the above options.
5.2.2 Nut Island - Deer Island - Long Island Treatment Facilities
a. Construct secondary treatment facilities (for north system
flows) on Deer Island and secondary treatment facilities
(for south system flows) on Long Island with preliminary
treatment (either headworks or primary) facilities on Nut
Island; inter-island transport of effluent via tunnel.
b. Construct secondary treatment facilities on Long Island
for combined system flows with preliminary treatment
facilities (either headworks or primary) on Deer Island
and Nut Island; inter—island transport of effluent via
tunnels.
c. Satellite AWT treatment facilities as noted above.
5-3
-------
5.2.3 New Island Option
a. Construct a new island site for secondary treatment
facilities in an appropriate outer harbor location.
5.3 Primary Treatment Alternatives
5.3.1 Deer Island - Nut Island TreatmentFacjljties
a. Construct combined primary treatment facilities at Deer
Island with a headworks at Nut Island (and either a harbor
or extended outfall); inter-island transport of effluent
via tunnel.
b. Construct separate primary treatment facilities on Deer
Island and Nut Island (and either separate harbor outfall
or combined extended outfall).
5.3.2 Deer Island - Nut Island — Long Island Treatment Facilities
a. Construct separate primary treatment facilities at Deer
Island (for north system flows) and Long Island (for south
system flows) with headworks on Nut Island.
b. Construct combined primary treatment facilities on Long
Island (with extended outfall) with pump station on Deer
5-4
-------
Island and Headworks on Nut Island; inter-island transport
of effluent via tunnels.
5-5
-------
6.0 EVALUATION OF THE OPTIONS
6.1 The Matrix of Findings
A matrix was developed to compare all options on the basis of a
specified list of impacts*. The impacts were defined in seven cate-
gories-—social, technical, environmental, economic, political,
legal, and institutional (“STEEPLI”). These formed the matrix rows
while the options formed the columns. Within each impact category,
several sub-categories were defined (see Attachment 2). The
expected impact of each alternative was then noted in the appro-
priate cell of the matrix. For each impact and option, data was
displayed either numerically or entered as a written description.
The configurations of the various levels of treatment are displayed
graphically in the matrix to show either headworks, primary or
secondary treatment facilities.
6.2 Screening Criteria
The next step in the screening process was to develop a basis for
elimination and/or consolidation of the options. A set of screening
criteria was developed with input from both the CAC (Citizens
Advisory Committee) and the TAG (Technical Advisory Group) partici-
pating on the project.
*Satellite treatment facilities are an adjunct to harbor treatment sites
and are evaluated in a separate technical report (Appendix B) to this
report.
6—1
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
Impact Categories and Sub-Categories (STEEPLI)
Social/Community
Construction impacts
Traffic and safety
Noise/air quality/odor
Property value
Land use
Social consequence
Technical
Level of treatment and acres required: Nut, Deer, Long, and
other islands
Average and peak daily flows and level of treatment in design
year: north, south and combined systems
Construction period
System operation during Construction
Energy requirements
Long-term viability and opportunity for expansion/upgrade
Relationship to other facilities’ plans (including immediate
upgrade of system)
Sub-regional systems and their relationship to harbor treatment
facilities
Economic
Capital cost
Operation and maintenance costs
Present worth/annualized costs
Local share (by town)
User charges (per capita/family)
Affordability
Employment and wages
Secondary economic benefits
6—2
-------
Environmental
Water quality standards
Recreational resources and visual quality (regional)
Fisheries
Habitats
Air quality/health
Other natural resources
Political
Federal: EPA EIS
EPA 301(h)
Army Corps of Engineers
Other agencies
State: MEPA
MDC
DEQE/DWPC
CzM
Other agencies
Legislature
Governor
Boston Harbor Water Quality Committee (Sargent Comm.)
Local: City of Boston/Suffolk County
City of Winthrop
Town of Quincy
Other MDC member communities
Other: CACs
Houghs Neck and other Quincy residents
Point Shirley and other Winthrop residents
Quincy Shores Association
Legal
Permits required
Statutory requirements/limits
Compliance with court actions
Institutional
Institutions involved/affected
Policies
Management of facilities
Other planning elements
Site ownership and acquisition
6-3
-------
The CAC was asked to comment on the importance and relative weight
of each of the “STEEPLI” impacts. They ranked the categories in the
following order of importance: social, environmental, technical,
institutional, economic, political, and legal. Within each
category, the sub—categories considered significant to the siting
process were identified as follows:
• Social - construction activities, odor, property values, and
land use;
• Environmental — water quality, marine life, air quality,
fisheries, and wildlife;
• Technical - engineering feasibility, land availability, infil-
tration/inflow impacts; and
• Institutional — future planning, and growth/expansion of
system.
A Public Workshop was also held to solicit comment from the general
public. The workshop audience placed a greater relative importance
on economic impacts (cost of alternatives) than did the CAC, but in
other areas expressed priorities and concerns comparable to those of
the CAC.
The TAG was also consulted for agency views on the alternatives. A
questionnaire was used to identify TAG preferences for final
6-4
-------
alternatives. The majority of responses indicated a clear
preference of TAG members for use of the Deer and Nut Island sites
with various combinations of wastewater treatment. A minority of
responses indicated that Long Island options should be studied
further. No support was received for the outer harbor options. The
factors most cited in support of these conclusions were costs,
continuation of established land uses, environmental impacts, and
management advantages of consolidating facilities.
Upon review of the data developed, as arrayed in the matrix, and
with consideration of comments from those participating in the EIS
process, EPA and its consultants then determined which of the impact
categories in the “STEEPLI t ’ matrix were most critical to the
screening process. These impacts, along with three other factors
mentioned below, became the basis for the final screening. The
principal impact categories that were applied to the screening
process which distinguished the more feasible options were:
1. Technical : site suitability, including adequate land area and
appropriate buffer; access; and engineering feasibility.
2. eer.in: consolidation of major treatment facilities in
the harbor to take advantage of centralized construction and
operation activities; reduced operation and maintenance
requirements; and consolidation of sludge handling and
disposal.
6-5
-------
3. Social : reducing construction and operations impacts on
abutting residential neighborhoods, primarily as a result of
increased traffic, duration of construction, and associated
disruption; opportunities to apply mitigation measures to
reduce adverse impacts.
4. Environmental : environmental effects of large-scale dredge and
fill activities; recreational resources and visual quality
impacts.
Economic impacts are also an important criteria in selection of a
final recommended plan, but were shown during the screening process
to be secondary to the above criteria. This was based on estimated
annualized costs for all of the various site options within their
respective treatment levels which were within 10% of each other
(with the exception of the new island alternatives)*. Thus cost
could not be used to select between alternatives at this stage of
review.
In addition to the impact categories of the “STEEPLI” matrix, three
other elements were factored into the screening criteria. These
included:
*This narrow cost range is reflected in a comparison of the acceptable
primary and secondary options, respectively. The range for primary
treatment options with a harbor outfall (no longer considered
acceptable) reflect a 25% cost range.
6-6
-------
1. ?IDC’s preferred primary and secondary options, as identified in
the Site Options Study (1982), and the proposed option in the
301(h) waiver application included to address the recommenda-
tions of the grantee.
2. State policy regarding the location of the primary treatment
outfalls which led to exclusion from further study of alter-
natives involving primary treatment with harbor outfalls.
3. Public comment on the preliminary screening recommendations
circulated for review at meetings in Quincy and Winthrop.
Analysis of these options during this phase of the SDEIS was based
on a comparison of the screening criteria, preliminary analysis of
impacts, outfall policy considerations, and public comment to
develop a discreet set of options for further study in the following
phase of the SDEIS analysis.
6.3 Findings of the Screening Process
In screening the numerous options being considered for wastewater
treatment facilities in Boston Harbor, several important elements
associated with review of siting alternatives became clear. First,
it was found that no alternative siting or treatment option is
without potentially significant adverse impacts. Such impacts are
associated with the effects of construction and operation activities
upon nearby residential areas and the adjacent community at large,
6-7
-------
the effects upon the natural environment, cost of the proposed
actions, and the potential incompatibility of wastewater treatment
facilities with surrounding land uses.
It must be noted also that none of the options satisfied all of the
screening evaluation criteria. The combination of the size and
complexity of the proposed project, the difficulty of siting such
facilities in an urban area such as Boston, and the past poor
performance of existing facilities has limited the acceptability of
every option to one or another constituent group and neighboring
community. Nonetheless, the alternatives selected best represent
viable and realistic choices for further study of the siting
feasibility of major wastewater treatment facilities in Boston
Harbor.
6.3.1 Options Recommended for Further Study
Options recommended for more detailed study were those which best
met the established criteria, when compared to other alternatives
recognizing that no alternatives could fully meet all the critieria.
Options lacked sufficient analysis at this stage to determine their
full impacts and were carried to allow such a more detailed analysis
to be conducted in the next phase.
Briefly summarized, the eight alternatives to be studied will
examine both primary and secondary treatment options located at
either Deer Island, Nut Island, or Long Island. Under secondary
6—8
-------
treatment levels, two options Cia and ib) consider secondary
treatment at Deer Island with either headworks or primary treatment
at Nut Island; one option (2b.l)proposes either headworks or pumping
facilities at both Deer Island and Nut Island with consolidated
treatment at Long Island; and one option (2b.3) would site primary
treatment at Deer Island, secondary treatment at Long Island and
headworks at Nut Island. For primary treatment levels, two options
(4a.2 and 4b.2) consider primary treatment at Deer Island with
either headworks or primary treatment at Nut Island; one option
(5a.2) would site primary treatment at both Deer Island and Long
Island and headworks at Nut Island, and one option (5b.2) proposes
either headworks or pumping facilities at both Deer Island and Nut
Island with consolidated treatment at Long Island. Two of these
options noted above (lb and 4b.2) involving expansion at Nut Island
were also retained because they were the preferred plans of the MDC.
Section 7.0 discusses these options in detail.
In order to reach a final recommendation in the SDEIS, subsequent
detailed analysis in the second phase of the work plan will examine
in greater detail the benefits and adverse effects of facilities at
each of the three sites: Deer Island (DI), Nut Island (NI) and Long
Island (LI). Each siting option will also be evaluated with
analysis of mitigation measures to eliminate or limit potential
adverse impacts.
6—9
-------
6.3.2 Alternatives Eliminated
This section sets forth the options that have been dropped and the
major reasons for their elimination from further consideration (as
specified by Federal CEQ guidelines S1502.14(a)). The following
section of the report also discusses these options in detail.
Four options (4a.l, 4b.l, 5a.1 and 5b.l) which included primary
treatment and harbor outfalls were eliminated because of likely
adverse impacts on water quality and the stated policy of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts that the harbor outfalls will not be
considered further under primary treatment levels.
Two options (3a and 3b) which provided for creation of man-made
islands seaward of Boston Harbor were eliminated because of
excessively high costs, and limited engineering and operational
feasibility.
Three options (ic, la.2 and 2b.2) which provided for expansion of
the Nut Island wastewater treatment facility to secondary level
were dropped because of lack of land availability and general
absence of buffer space between the site and nearby residential
neighborhoods. These plans would also require the greatest degree
of decentralized plant operations and maintenance and would have
resulted in adverse impacts across the broadest area of the harbor
and land based areas.
6-10
-------
One option (2a.1) involving separate secondary treatment facilities
on Deer Island and Long Island was also eliminated because it too
resulted in scattered, multiple impacts and decentralized plant
operations and maintenance.
Subregional treatment or “satellite” facilities have been dropped
from further study at this stage of analysis, because the
anticipated benefits of such facilities are insufficient to offset
their significant costs, questionable benefits and uncertain
environmental impacts. Negligible system flow reduction would
result from such plants. This conclusion is further documented in
Appendix B issued as a separate volume to this screening report.
6—11
-------
7.0 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF OPTIONS
7.1 Summary of Analysis Results
The following tables (Attachments 3 and 4) summarize the key impact
findings and costs for the options considered. The impact
categories listed reflect those identified as having the greatest
significance, based on analysis and public comment, for the
comparative screening phase. These results show those impact
categories by option which are projected to have the greatest
impacts and, in some cases, unacceptable impacts in comparison to
other options available. The final eight options selected for
further study cover a range of possible alternatives for treatment
plant siting among those alternatives which appear must suitable
based on the established criteria and impact comparisons.
In addition, Attachment 4a presents a summary of recently revised
costs for the eight preferred options to be studied in detail.
These revisions reflect more recent reviews of the facility costs
and 0&li costs for the preferred options carried out as part of the
impact assessment analysis. This was carried out following
selection of the preferred options and was based in part on further
analysis and verification of the data developed in both the MDC Site
Options Study (1982) and EPA Draft EIS (1978). As a result of these
further reviews, the costs shown in Table 4a update those in Table
4. It should be noted, however, that these updated costs do not
alter the prior screening conclusions since the relationship of
7—1
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
ATTAC1I1 NT 4
BC TJ H RW)R SI IS: SUI ’1M7½RY OF OPTIONS ND THEIR INITEAT, (TjS1
+
+
Option No .
SECONDARY
+ 1* fi 2 )
+ b ( 2)$
ic
2a .1
2a .2
2b 4 1
2b • 2
2b.3
3a/b**
PRIMARY
4a.l
+ _4•4
4b. 1*
+
5a • 1
5a.z
5b.l
+ 5b.2
Nut Island
a ( 2)
• _ (;e)
• — (36 )
• ( 2)
• (18)
a(2)
• (18)
• (2)
• ( 2)
• ( 2)
a t 2 )
• (18)
• •(•18)
•(2)
,.... (3)....
(2)
Doer Island
• — (115)
• — ( US)
• — (104)
• — (104 )
• — (104)
• ( 2)
• ( 52)
•(52)
• C 2)
• (62)
• ( 52)
(52J
• ( 52)
• ( 2)
U ( 2)
• ( 18)
• ( 18)
• (62 )
• (62)
KEY: headworks only primary treatment secondary treatment
D deep ocean outfall * MDC’s preferred options **a alongside Lovells Island b alongside Brewster Islands
Assumes 8-1/8% interest rate over 20 years. + = preferred options 1 or detailed study
1 Assurn s all sts as developed initially in MDC Site Options Study (1982)
yt--. (P M rnjjr, .. Tnr (M ’i 1A.1 R4
Sites, Level of Treatment, and
(Acreaae Reauirad
Long Zaland
Other
Ialand**
Costs in
Cuill
•—
—
C 36)
C 21)
(115)
C 68)
1 01)
• (154)
9$ 1.
O&M
Annualized
Costs*a*
(SMilljons
131.3
8526
43.7
8874
45.2
136.4
884.4
43.4
134.3
897.9
46.0
138.3
915.5
46.1
140.2
998.5
43 7
i .45 .4
1001.8
48.9
151.9
49.5
1496
1515.9/2037.6
42.9+
198.7/252.3
390.5
22.7
62.9
D
21.1
374.0
22.6
61.1
D
22.0
101.7
•
436.2
22.3
67.2
792.5 D
21.9
103 2
•
536.5
22.1
77.3
861.4 13
20.5
109.1
4
-------
ATTACHMENT 4a
BOSTON HARBOR SDEIS: SUMMARY OF OPTIONS AND THEIR REVISED COSTS 1
Sites, Level of Treatment, and Coats in
( Acreage Required) SMillions _____ Annualized
Other Coats 1 5
Option No. Nut Island Deer Island Long Island Island’ Capital O&M ( $14illions )
Secondary Opt.i.ons
is
•
( 2)
(115)
869.68
43.7
133.1
lb *
•
(18)
(115)
966.88
45.2
144.6
2b.i
I
( 2)
•
( 2)
•
(115)
1022.97
42.7
147.9
2b.3
•
( 2)
•
( 52)
•
( 81)
1061.48
48.5
157.6
Pr.un try Options
4a.2 D
•
C 2)
•
( 62)
799.47
21.1
103.3
4b.2*D.
S
(18)
5
( 52)
879.59
22.0
112.4
Sa.2 0
•
( 2)
5
( 52)
•
( 18)
875.77
21.7
111.7
5b.2 D
•
( 2)
•
( 2)
5
( 62)
961.38
20.5
119.3
KEY: — headworks only 5 = primary treatment = secondary treatment
D — deep ocean outfall * MDC’S preferred options
AssUmes 8—1/8% interest rate over 20 years.
1. Revised costs reflect baseline construction factors with reduction in previously estimated
secondary treatment costs and deletion (for the time being) of incineration coetøj see
discussion in section 7.0. These revised Costs will increase upon addition of costs for
sludge disposal facilities, as well as Costs for mitigation measures such as construction
barging or reduced work schedules. These total costs will be presented in the SDEIS.
Source: CE Maguire, Inc. (June17, 1984)
-------
Costs between options has not significantly changed, and, as stated
previously, costs were not a primary determinant in screening.
The following discussion describes in greater detail each of the
options considered and explains the basis for its inclusion or
exclusion in further SDEIS analysis. The preferred eight options
are listed first, followed by the remaining options considered. For
each option, the information is summarized by the major impact
categories analyzed — technical, social/community, engineering and
economic, and environmental - with specific data presented by
subcategories determined to be most significant. Attachment 5
further summarize these findings and conclusions for all options.
For the category of impacts dealing with traffic and construction
activities, no assumptions regarding barging of materials or workers
have been factored into the analysis at this stage. This will be
addressed in the detailed impact analysis for the SDEIS.
7.2 Options Recommended for Further Study
7.2.1. Secondary Alternatives
la.2. Secondary Treatment (Separate Waste Flows) at DI,
Headworks at NI.
Technical : This option would convert the 17-acre Nut Island (NI)
site owned by the MDC to a 2-acre headworks to screen and pump waste
flows of the southern MSD to a consolidated secondary treatment
7—5
-------
Attachment 5
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE SCREENING RESULTS
Facility Siting
Option NI DI LI Other Screening Comments
SECONDARY
TREATMENT
la (1 & 2) H P/S Recommended for further study ;
1978 Draft EIS preferred option;
improvements at NI; community
benefits in Quincy; consolida-
tion of facilities; increased
impacts of DI; lowest cost.
lb (1 & 2) P P/S Recommended for further study ;
preferred by MDC for secondary
treatment; increased impacts at
NI and in Quincy; higher costs;
greater impacts at DI and in
Winthrop.
ic P/S P/S Major construction and opera-
tions impacts at NI and DI;
legal and environmental impacts
to filling of Quincy Bay; higher
costs; major separate plants at
both sites; no apparent advan-
tages.
2a.1 H P/S P/S Major construction and opera-
tions impacts at DI and LI;
possible preclusion of other
uses at both sites; conflict
with prison and hospital;
higher costs; dispersed facili-
ties at three sites; does im-
prove conditions at NI, but not
to any greater degree than
other less costly more advan-
tageous options such as la, ib,
or 2b.
2a.2 P P/s S Increased construction and
operations impacts at NI with
no appreciable advantages at
DI or LI compared to prior
choice; higher cost; major
facilities at all sites; Op-
tions la, ib, and 2b appear
preferable.
7-6
-------
Facility Siting
Option NI DI LI Other Screening Comments
2b.1 H H P/S Recommended for further study ;
significant potential benefits
at NI and DI; consolidation
advantages; among the highest
cost; greatest impacts at LI
with possible preclusion of
other present and future uses;
adverse impacts likely to occur
in Squantum/Quincy with Pos-
sible mitigation opportunities
to minimize traffic or other
effects.
2b.2 P P S Additional impacts at DI; from
expanded facility size; in-
creased NI and LI impacts;
higher costs; no advantage over
Option 2b.3.
2b.3 H P P/S Recommended for further study ;
improved at NI; DI increase in
facility size and potential
impacts in nearby community;
major new impacts at LI with
possible preclusion of other
uses and likely conflict with
the hopsital; higher cost; most
removed from nearby residential
areas.
3 H H P/S Highest potential impacts;
highest costs; difficult and
long construction; greatest
operational difficulties; envi-
ronmental impacts high; im-
provements at NI and DI not suf-
ficient to offset impacts/costs;
other options afford better bal-
ance and likely acceptable cost
effectiveness.
7—7
-------
Facility Siting
Option NI DI LI Other Screening Comments
PRIMARY
TREATMENT
4a.1 H P (Harbor Out- Harbor outfalls not recommended
falls) based on State 301(h) reapplica-
tion preference; independence of
outfall from siting decision.
4a.2 H P (Extended Recommended for further study ;
Outfall) improved conditions at NI with
reduced impacts in Quincy; im-
pact at DI in Winthrop; consoli-
dated facilities; comparable
costs considering long outfall.
4b.1 P P (Harbor Out- Not considered as noted above;
falls) MBC’s Site Options Study pre-
ferred option.
4b.2 P P (Extended Recommended for further study ;
Outfall) NBC ’s 301(h) preferred option;
increased impacts at NI; in-
creased impacts at DI; separate
facilities with associated con-
struction effects and staffing/
maintenance requirements;
higher costs; maintins present
facility siting; no consolida-
tion.
5a.1 H P P (Harbor Not considered as noted above.
Outfalls)
5a.2 H P P (Extended Recommended for further study ;
Outfall) improved conditions at NI and
on Houghs Neck; community im-
pacts in Quincy and in Point
Shirley/Winthrop area; impacts
introduced to LI, however, mini-
mal (18 acre) area required;
possible conflict with recrea-
tional plans; higher costs;
separate treatment facilities
with potential for mitigation of
adverse impacts.
5b.1 H H P (Harbor Not considered as noted above.
Outfalls)
7—8
-------
Facility Siting
Option NI DI LI Other Screening Comments
5b.2 H H P (Extended Recommended for further study ;
Outfall) reduced impacts at NI and DI
with major facilities removed
from proximity to residential
areas; greatest impacts at LI
with preclusion of some land
uses, and possible conflict
with hospital; adverse impacts
likely in Squantum/Quincy with
possible mitigation opportuni-
ties for the optins; higher
costs potential benefits at NI
and DI.
7—9
-------
facility on Deer Island (DI). In this option, some buffer area
would be available on NI to better separate the proposed facility
from abutting residences. The headworks facility would be located
on the site of the present treatment plant in the vicinity of the
existing administration building.
On DI, the 210-acre site under multiple ownership could accommodate
a proposed secondary treatment plant encompassing about 115 acres.
The present primary treatment plant covers about 26 acres. Most of
the expanded facility construction on DI would occur towards the
southern portion of the site which is vacant. Additional buffer
areas on DI would be limited due to the short causeway leading to
the site from nearby residential areas, and the close proximity of
the Suffolk County/City of Boston prison just to the north of the
existing treatment plant. Some encroachment of an expanded treat-
ment plant on the prison could occur, although future consolidation
of the prison would make available additional land for siting of
treatment facilities.
Social/Community : During construction, impacts would occur at both
Deer and Nut Islands and in the adjoining communities of Winthrop
and Quincy. At NI, an average of about 13 workers and 35 trucks
daily would travel to the site. Construction activities would last
3 to 4 years, and impacts would be limited to the site, with
moderate additional traffic in Quincy and through Houghs Neck.
During future operations of the headworks, a total staff of 20 would
be maintained over three daily shifts. This option would improve
7—10
-------
conditions on the site through a reduced facility use and minimize
impacts upon abutting residential uses in Hough’s Neck and in
Quincy.
At DI, the construction period would last about 7 years. Major
impacts would result from the daily transportation of an average of
415 construction workers, and up to a peak of 940 truck trips per
day through Winthrop (as well as through Boston and other
neighboring communities). This estimate and those for all options
assumes (at this stage of the preliminary analysis) that no barging
activity or other mitigation to reduce the truck or auto traffic is
employed. Operations staff at DI would increase to 230 persons from
the 160 presently employed at the plant.
Engineering and Economic : This option would consolidate treatment
at a single facility on DI, thereby affording benefits of
centralized operations and maintenance. Sludge disposal would
likewise be consolidated at a single site. Treatment facilities
proposed in this option would be located at the site of an existing
treatment plant, allowing possible reuse of certain components at
the site.
Preliminary cost estimates for this option are among the lowest of
the secondary treatment options. Construction costs are estimated
to be $852.6 million with operations and maintenance (0&Z1) costs at
$43.7 million. The annualized costs for debt service (20 years at
8-1/8%) and O&N are $131.3 million.
7—11
-------
Environmental : This option would impose no additional adverse
impacts upon the use, water quality, or recreational resources of
the Harbor beyond the limited, controlled period of its construc-
tion. Visual quality at DI would be impacted due to the expansion
in the size and number of treatment works there. Access to and use
of the site would remain limited by the security requirements of the
prison on the island. Buffer zones and screening could be
established at DI, however, the expanded size of the facility would
nmke it visible from numerous locations on land and from water. At
NI, a reduction in the size of the facility to a headworks would
allow the introduction of plantings or earthwork which may improve
present visual intrusion upon nearby residences. Noise and odor
problems emanating from the present plant would be lessened.
However, the small size of the island limits its potential as a site
for new recreational areas or other uses of benefit to the
community.
This option is recommended for further study based on its having
sufficient area on DI to accommodate expanded treatment facilities,
its utilization of existing treatment sites and the advantages of
consolidation as noted above, and the improvements to the NI site.
lb.2. Secondary Treatment (Separate Waste Flows) at DI, Primary
at NI
Technical : This option expands the present treatment facilities at
both NI and DI. It is the preferred choice of the MDC for secondary
7-12
-------
treatment. The 17 acre NI site would be converted to a larger
primary treatment plant requiring a total of approximately 18 acres,
of which 1 to 3 acres would be filled land added to Quincy Bay.
Expansion at NI would necessitate utilizing the full extent of the
site for expanded facilities, reducing the already limited
separation between the treatment plant and abutting residences.
The 210-acre DI site could accommodate a secondary treatment plant
of 115 acres. While there is sufficient area on DI to accommodate
the expanded plant, there may be some encroachment onto the site of
the existing prison facility. Expansion on DI would utilize most of
the presently vacant land on the island.
Social/Community : During construction, major impacts would result
at both DI and NI and in the adjacent communities of Winthrop and
Quincy. At DI, construction would last 7 years with an average of
412 workers and up to 880 truck trips daily passing through Winthrop
during peak activity. Operational staff required at DI would be 215
persons. At NI, construction would last for 5 years and would be
significant with 36 workers and 40 truck trips daily at peak.
Operations staff at NI would be 83 persons.
Engineering and Economic : This option maintains separate primary
treatment facilities and consolidates secondary facilities at two
locations in the harbor. As such, it does not fully consolidate
operations or maintenance and sludge disposal requirements, although
savings are achieved at the secondary level from centralization at
7—13
-------
DI. Preliminary costs of this option are $887.4 million for
construction, $45.2 million for O&N, and $136.4 million annualized
cost.
Environmental : This option would pose added environmental and water
quality impacts as a result of harbor filling needed to expand the
present site at NI. Constraints would exist due to the state
prohibitions against harbor filling. Visual quality would be
altered significantly at NI from the enlarged and expanded
facilities and total utilization of the site with closer proximity
and greater scale of treatment works to abutting residences. No
buffer zones or screening would be possible. At DI, this option
would be comparable to option la.2.
As one of the MDC’s preferred facility plan options, this option is
recommended for further study.
2b.1. Secondary Treatment at LI, Headworks at DI and NI
Technical : This option would convert the existing 26-acre DI
treatment plant to a pump station (2—acre) and the 17-acre NI
treatment plant to a headworks (2-acre) to respectively pump and
screen waste flows to a new consolidated secondary treatment plant
of 115 acres on Long Island (LI). The total area of LI, which is
owned by the City of Boston, is 213 acres.
7-14
-------
A treatment plant could be accommodated on LI; however not without
encroachment upon existing and proposed future uses there. The LI
Hospital currently occupies about 26 acres in the central portion of
the island, with the remaining areas of the island vacant. An
abandoned Nike missle base is also situated in the central part of
the site with a former U.S. defense installation, Fort Strong, and a
lighthouse located at the northern head of the island. There is a
‘causeway and bridge connecting LI to Moon Island and Quincy. The
condition of the bridge will have to be investigated relative to its
use by heavy construction traffic.
Social/Community : Impacts of this option during construction would
be significant, involving an estimated total peak level of 428
workers and 975 truck trips daily traveling through Quincy to both
LI and NI. The construction period at these sites would be 3 to 4
years at NI and 9 years at LI. These levels of construction
activity would impose major adverse impacts upon the Squantum
community and moderate impacts upon nearby residential areas of
Houghs Neck. Conditions on-site at NI would be improved with
improvements for abutting residences. During operations, total
daily staffing levels over these shifts would be 20 persons at NI
and 215 persons at LI.
At DI, construction activities would require 28 workers and 35 truck
trips per day over a 4 to 5-year period. This would impose moderate
traffic impacts on the community while it improved conditions
7-15
-------
on-site and for abutting residential areas. Operational staff at DI
would be 40 persons over three daily shifts.
Engineering and Economics : This option consolidates all treatment
at a new site on LI with smaller headworks and pumping facilities at
NI and DI, respectively. This would afford benefits of centralized
operations, maintenance and sludge disposal. Preliminary costs of
this option entail $998.5 million for construction, $42.7 O&H, and
$145.4 million annualized cost.
Environmental : Improvements and potential benefits would result on
both DI and NI from reduction to pump station and headworks
respectively of the present treatment facilities located there. On
NI, this would be most beneficial to abutting residences in Houghs
Neck (as noted in option la.2), while on DI the reduction of the
present treatment plant to a pump station would lessen the visual
impacts and odor and noise problems currently experienced by
residents of Point Shirley in Winthrop. However, the continued
operation of the prison on DI and size of the pump station would
limit access to and use of the site. Buffer areas and screening
could be established on both DI and NI.
On LI, there would be major impacts due to the potential conflict of
treatment facilities with the existing hospital and proposed
recreational use under the Boston Harbor Islands State Park plan.
In addition, known historical and archaeological resources,
including a cemetary, would be impacted by siting of a treatment
7-16
-------
facility. Visual impacts on LI and of views from Boston Harbor
would be significant with a large facility as proposed.
This option is recommended for further study based on its potential
for benefits at DI and NI from reduction of treatment facilities and
the improvements to abutting residential areas in both communities.
It would site major treatment facilities furthest away from
residential areas. Impacts on LI involving the hospital use,
recreation plans and open space, visual quality, and preclusion of
other use potential on the island will be analyzed in greater
detail.
2b.3 Secondary Treatment at LI, Primary Treatment at DI, Headworks
at NI
Technical : This option would construct new primary treatment
facilities for southern IISD flows and consolidated secondary
treatment facilities at LI. The size of the treatment facilities at
LI would be about 80 acres of the 213-acre island. NI would be
converted to a headworks (2-acre). At DI, the present primary
treatment plant of 26 acres would be expanded to double its size (52
acres) to accommodate an upgraded primary treatment plant for
northern MSD flows as presently is treated.
Land area is available at all three sites to accommodate the
proposed facilities. At all three sites, also, sufficient area
7—17
-------
exists to allow for buffer zones with possible screening provided
although NI affords the least opportunity for buffer.
On DI, expanded facility construction would occur on the vacant
portion of the site to the south; on LI, construction would be in
the central portion of the island in the area of the abandoned Nike
installation.
Social/Community : During construction, the average number of
construction workers at peak would be 360 at LI, 13 at NI and 80 at
DI. Truck traffic would involve about 535 vehicle trips through
Quincy, mostly through the Squantum community, and 335 vehicle trips
through Winthrop. Construction would last about three to four years
on NI, four to five years at DI, and eight years at LI. Operational
staff for these facilities would number 130 persons at LI, 12
persons at NI and 41 persons at DI over the three daily shifts.
Impacts from traffic would be greatest in this option on LI and in
Squantum and through parts of Quincy leading to LI. Access over the
LI bridge would require further investigation. Impact on DI would
be significant from an expanded and larger sized primary treatment
facility with traffic impacts through the neighboring community. On
LI, there would also be potential for impacts on historical and
archaeological resources, like in option 2b.1, and encroachment upon
the hospital site is possible. At DI, the treatment plant would
require additional area which presently is unused open space
although encroachment on the prison grounds may occur. At NI,
7-18
-------
reduced facilities to a headworks would improve site conditions and
minimize impacts upon abutting residences.
Engineering and Economics : Separate primary treatment facilities on
LI and DI with consolidated secondary treatment on LI would afford
lessor consolidation advantages at the primary treatment level than
other options noted above. Some reuse advantages could result on DI
from siting at an existing facility. Preliminary costs for this
option are estimated at $983.5 million for construction and $48.5
million for O&M, with $149.6 million in annualized costs.
Environmental : This option’s environmental impacts are similar at
LI to those described for option 2b.1. The acreage requirements
would be slightly less; however, the extent of land area disturbed
to accommodate treatment facilities and a relocated roadway would
approach the disruption under the larger sized option. At NI, the
impacts would be comparable to those under option la.2. At DI,
impacts would result from the expansion of treatment works to double
the present size. Encroachment upon the prison may occur. Under
this option reuse potential of remaining open space areas to the
south would be limited by the continued security restrictions of the
prison. Visual intrusion of the treatment plant (and the prison)
would continue and be increased by the expanded facility size.
7—19
-------
7.2.2 Primary Alternatives
4a.2 Primary Treatment at DI, Headworks at NI (Extended Outfall)
Technical : This option would site an expanded consolidated primary
treatment plant (62 acres) on DI with a headworks (2 acres) on NI.
Present treatment facilities on DI encompass 26 acres of the total
210 acre site, while at NI they cover most of the 17-acre site.
Both sites can readily accommodate a facility of the type proposed.
Sufficient buffer area exists with screening possible to limit views
from nearby residential areas and improve views from points in
Boston Harbor.
Social/Community Impacts : Construction activities under this option
would last between three and four years at NI and five to six years
at DI. An estimated 414 workers and 480 truck trips per day would
travel through Winthrop. In Quincy, there would be 13 workers and
39 truck trips daily. At NI, construction impacts due to traffic
would be moderate with limited on-site disruption. Reduction of
facilities on-site would improve conditions relative to abutting
residences. At DI, site impacts would be significant from the
expansion of the present facility. Traffic impacts on local roads
are likely to cause disruption of normal traffic patterns and access
through Winthrop and neighboring communities. Point Shirley
residents would experience the greatest disruption from both
increased heavy vehicle traffic and on-site activities. Operations
7-20
-------
staff at DI would require 136 persons over three daily shifts, while
at NI the figure would 20 persons.
Engineering and Economics : This option maximizes consolidation
advantages associated with operations, maintenance and sludge
disposal at a single treatment plant on DI. Preliminary costs under
this option are $759.6 million for construction, $21.1 million O&H,
and $99.1 million annualized cost.
Environmental : Impacts under this option for DI and NI are
comparable to those in option 2b.3. The slightly larger
consolidated facility under this option (62 acres) would still be
readily accommodated at DI with open space areas remaining to the
south. However, the securi.ty requirements of the prison would
limit, if not preclude, new recreational or other uses on DI. There
would be construction impacts as noted on-site and in Winthrop. At
NI, the reduced facilities would improve conditions on-site and
lessen impacts to abutting residences, but the small ara of the site
limits its future reuse potential.
This Option is recommended for further study based on its
consolidation advantages, the partial improvements expected at the
NI site and benefits to nearby residences at Houghs Neck.
7-21
-------
4b.2 Separate Primary Treatment at DI and NI (Extended Outfall)
Technical : This option would maintain and expand primary treatment
facilities at both DI and NI. It is the preferred primary treatment
choice of the MDC in their 301(h) waiver application. At DI, the
present 26-acre treatment facility would be expanded to a 52—acre
facility, while at NI the entire 17-acre site would be utilized for
treatment works, plus new landfill would be required of one to three
acres in Quincy Bay to accommodate an expanded treatment facility.
Sufficient area exists at DI to accommodate new facilities,
including buffer areas and screening opportunities. However, there
may be some encroachment on the nearby prison grounds. At NI the
present site is inadequate for expansion, and filling of the harbor
would pose additional constraints to construction (particularly in
light of the local and state legal prohibitions against such
action). Limited buffer area would be available at NI, and abutting
residences would be even closer to treatment facilities which would
be larger and more extensive than the presently in operation.
Social/Community Impacts : Construction activities at DI would
involve and average of 340 workers and 355 daily truck trips through
Winthrop. Impacts of traffic on local roads and of construction
activities on site and to adjacent residential areas would be
significant. The duration of construction activities would be six
years. At NI, the number of average daily construction workers and
trucks are 38 and 95, respectively, over the projected five-year
7-22
-------
construction period. Impacts on residents of Houghs Neck and in
Quincy during construction from traffic and on-site activities would
likewise be significant.
Operations staffing at DI would be 80 persons and at NI 55 persons
over three daily shifts.
Engineering and Economics : This option would expand and maintain
separate primary treatment facilities at two locations in Boston
Harbor. No advantages of consolidation would be achieved in this
option compared to other choices noted above. The preliminary costs
of this option are estimated to be $774.8 million for construction,
$22 million for O&}1 and $101.7 annualized cost.
Environmental : The impacts under this option are comparable for NI
with option lb.2 and for DI with option 2b.3. The impacts on the
environmental and water quality resources of Quincy Bay from filling
would be significant. On DI, the impacts of construction traffic on
local roads in Winthrop and the effects of construction activities
on the residents of Point Shirley would be significant.
This option is recommended for further study based on its recom-
mendation by the MDC in their 301(h) waiver application, and the
question of its possible operational advantages versus siting
impacts at the NI site.
7-23
-------
5a.2 Separate Primary Treatment at DI and LI, Headworks at NI
( Extended Outfall)
Technical : This option would build a new 18-acre treatment plant on
LI for southern MSD flows, a 52-acre treatment plant on DI for
northern ?ISD flows, and a headworks at NI to screen flows prior to
conveyance to LI. Sufficient area exists at all three sites to
I
accommodate the proposed facilities. Buffer areas would be
available and screening could be provided to minimize or enhance
views of the facility. Some encroachment of proposed facilities
with other site uses could result at DI with the prison and at LI
with the hospital and recreational plans for the island.
Social/Community Impacts : Construction activities under this option
are dispersed over three separate sites over a period of three to
four years for the headworks at NI and six years each for treatment
facilities at DI and LI. Daily average construction workers would
number 77 at LI, 13 at NI, and 340 at DI. Truck trips during
construction would number a total of [ 17 vehicles in Quincy at both
NI and LI and 335 vehicles in Winthrop at DI. These impacts would
be significant, disrupting local traffic and access in both Quincy
and Winthrop and in their respective neighborhoods closest to the
sites. On-site impacts at NI would be moderate affecting Houghs
Neck in Quincy, while they would be greater at LI affecting Squantum
also in Quincy. At DI impacts would be greatest impacting most upon
Point Shiny in Winthrop and upon the on-site use of DI and the
prison.
7-24
-------
Engineering and Economics : Consolidation would not be achieved
under this option. Separate primary treatment plants at DI and LI
with further remote headworks at NI are proposed. Additional
operations, maintenance and sludge disposal requirements and higher
costs would result. Preliminary costs under this option are
estimated to be $792.5 million for construction and $21.7 million
0&M with $103.2 million annualized cost.
Environmental : Impacts at NI and DI under this option are
comparable to those described under option 2b.3. In addition, at LI
there would be significant impacts from siting of a 18-acre facility
adjacent to an existing hospital. Further significant impacts are
likely from on-site archaeological and historical resources on LI
and from possible incompatibility with the state’s plans for
recreational uses on the island.
This option is recommended for further study based on its potential
benefits at NI and limited expansion at DI. Its limited siting on
LI, although accommodated, requires further analysis to determine
the extent of potentially significant impacts there and in Quincy.
5b.2 Primary Treatment at LI, Headworks at DI and NI (Extended
Outfall)
Technical : This option would convert DI to a pumping facility and
NI to a headworks (2 acres each), and would consolidate all
treatment on LI (62 acres). All three sites can accommodate the
7-25
-------
proposed facilities with available buffer areas based on their
existing acreages of 210 acres at DI, 213 acres at LI, and 17 acres
at NI. Screening could further limit views of the facilities at all
three sites from nearby residential areas or from Boston Harbor.
Possible encroachment of proposed facilities may occur at LI with
the hospital use there or with recreation plans for the island.
Social/Community Impacts : Construction activities would be moderate
at DI and NI and greater at LI. At DI, an average of 28 construc-
tion workers and 39 truck trips occur over a five—year period. At
NI, an average of 13 workers and 35 truck trips would occur over a
three to four-year period. On LI, an average of 340 workers and 355
truck trips would last over a seven-year construction period.
Disruption and impacts at DI and NI under this option would be
moderate due to a reduction of facilities and are comparable to
those under option 2b.1. At LI, traffic impacts in Quincy and to
residents of Squantum would be major. The greater distance of the
LI site from the nearest residences would minimize the influence of
on—site construction impacts such as noise and dust.
Engineering and Economics : Consolidation under this option would be
maximized with all treatment at LI, comparable to advantages under
option 2b.1. Preliminary costs would be $861.4 million for
construction, $20.9 million O&M and $109.1 million annualized cost.
Environmental : Impacts of this option at DI and NI are comparable
to option 2b.1. At LI, the proposed facility (62 acres) could be
7—26
-------
accommodated, but not without impacts on the hospital and potential
archaeological and historical resources in the vicinity of the site.
Recreational plans for LI would possibly also be in conflict with
the proposed treatment plant.
This option is recommended for further study in order to analyze
issues such as that of access to LI via the bridge and the extent of
improvements on—site at DI and NI, as well as to the neighboring
communities of Winthrop and Quincy adjoining the two sites.
7.3 OPTIONS NOT TO BE STUDIED FURTHER
7.3.1 Secondary Options
la.1 Secondary Treatment (Combined Waste Flows) at DI, Headworks
at NI
This option was similar to la.2 as described in the previous section
with only its internal piping of treatment flows configured
differently. It was dropped from further consideration, since it
was not appreciably different than Option la.2 and it did not appear
to offer any significant advantages.
7-27
-------
lb.1 Secondary Treatment (Combined Waste Flows) at DI, Primary
Treatment at NI
This option is not considered further, since it is essentially the
same as option lb.2 described in a previous section as noted above.
ic. Secondary Treatment at DI and NI
Technical : This option would expand both existing treatment plants
to separate secondary plants. At DI, this would entail a 104-acre
facility; at NI, the proposed facility would require 36 acres. At
NI, the existing 17—acre site would require about 20 acres of fill
to Quincy Bay in order to accommodate the proposed larger facility.
Buffer zones or screening would be limited at the NI site under this
option. Proximity to nearby residential areas at NI would be
greater. At DI, land is available to accommodate the larger
facilities; however, encroachment on the prison area would likely
occur. Other uses at DI would be limited under this option.
Social/Community : Impacts at DI would be comparable to those
described under option lb.2 as described in the previous section,
with the modification of a longer nine-year construction period.
There would be somewhat reduced traffic levels under this option
with an average of 225 workers and 690 truck trips daily. Impacts
on-site and in Winthrop would be significant. At NI, the impacts of
such an expanded and larger facility at the site would pose severe
adverse impacts and disruption to residents of Houghs Neck and
7-28
-------
Quincy. Traffic during construction at NI would entail a daily
average of 110 workers and 230 truck trips. Construction duration
at NI would be for nine years also. Operating staff at DI would be
150 persons and at NI would be 80 persons over three daily shifts.
Engineering and Economics : This option offers no consolidation
advantages. Its preliminary costs are estimated at $884.4 million
for construction, $43.4 million 0&Z1, and $134.3 million annualized
cost. These costs are comparable to other options due to the
elimination of a need for inter-island conduits to convey flows even
though separate major treatment facilities would be built.
Environmental : This option impacts environmental parameters and
particularly water quality in Quincy Bay, on-site land uses on DI
and NI, and adjoining residential areas and communities to a greater
degree than other options. It would preclude any On-site mixed uses
and limits establishment of buffer zones. It also advisely impacts
visual quality in the harbor by establishing separate major
facilities of such large scale and visual intrusion.
This option is not recommended for further study based on its major
on-site and neighborhood impacts and its clear unsuitability of
siting a secondary treatment plant on NI.
7-29
-------
2a.1 Secondary Treatment at DI and LI, Headworks at NI
Technical : This option would place separate secondary treatment
plants at two harbor locations, while reducing one present site to a
headworks. DI would be the site of a major 104-acre facility, while
LI would be the site of a major 36—acre facility. Both sites can
accommodate such facilities based on their 210 acre and 213 acres
respective areas; however, at DI encroachment on the prison would
result with limited buffer areas available, while at LI encroachment
on potential archaeological and historical resources, proposed
recreational plans and on the hospital are likely. NI would show
improved site accommodation from location of a proposed 2-acre
headworks.
Social/Community Impacts : Impacts at NI are moderate and comparable
to those described under option la.2; DI impacts are significant and
comparable to those described under option lc. At LI, there would
be an average of 150 construction workers and 340 truck trips daily.
The duration of construction activities would be three to four years
at NI and seven years at LI. At DI, construction is estimated to
last eight years. Construction traffic, involving an average 250
workers and 690 truck trips at DI, and 163 workers with 375 truck
trips at NI and LI, would pose significant impacts on the local
roads in Winthrop and Quincy and would result in major disruption to
the communities of Point Shirley and Squantum with lesser impacts at
Houghs Neck. Operations staff at these sites would involve 12
7-30
-------
persons at NI, 75 persons at LI and 140 persons at DI over three
daily shifts.
Engineering and Economics : This option offers no consolidation
advantages with major facilities sited at two separate island
locations. Its preliminary costs are estimated at $897.9 million
for construction, $46 million for O&I1, and $138.3 million annualized
cost.
Environmental : At DI and NI this option’s impacts are comparable to
those under option la. Under this option, some uses at LI would be
precluded with significant impacts resulting. There exists at LI a
potential for adverse impacts upon archaeological and historical
resources, and encroachment on the hospital site is possible.
Recreational uses may likewise be impacted under this plan. This
option does not meet sufficient criteria relative to other choices
to warrant its further study.
2a.2 Secondary Treatment at DI and LI, Primary at NI
Technical : This option would locate secondary treatment facilities
of 104 acres at DI and 21 acres at LI, while siting a primary
treatment plant of 18 acres at NI. There is adequate land area at
both DI and LI to site such uses, although at DI a facility would
encroach upon the adjoining prison site, while at LI encroachment
may occur with regard to historical or archeological resources.
Buffer areas are available at both locations with opportunities for
7-31
-------
screening of the facility from view. At NI, the present 17-acre
site would require one to three acres of fill to Quincy Bay to
accommodate a primary treatment plant.
Social/Community : Impacts of this option are major and wide
ranging, given the distribution of traffic and construction impacts
over three sites and two adjoining communities. These impacts are
comparable for DI and LI to those described in option 2a.1 above.
At NI, impacts would be comparable to those described in option lb.2
described in the previous section.
Engineering and Economic : No consolidation advantages are attendant
with this option to site three major separate treatment facilities
at separate sites in Boston Harbor. Preliminary costs are estimated
at $915.5 million for construction, $46.1 million 0&I1, and $140.2
million annualized cost.
Environmental : This option would impose major impacts at all three
sites with filling of Quincy Bay a principal concern. Land use
impacts and those on adjoining communities would be comparable at NI
to those described under option lb.2 and at DI and LI to those
described under option 2a.1. This option is not recommended for
further study based on the extent of impacts and lack of compliance
with the established criteria relative to other options.
7-32
-------
2b.2 Secondary Treatment at LI, Primary Treatment at DI and NI
Technical : This option would maintain and expand primary treatment
facilities at DI (52 acres) and NI (18 acres) with a new
consolidated secondary treatment facility on LI (68 acres). These
facilities can be accommodated at both DI and LI with unavoidable
encroachment on abutting land uses and resources at both sites. At
NI, the proposed facility could not be teadily accommodated
requiring fill to Quincy Bay.
Social/Community : Construction impacts under this option from
workers and trucking activities would pose major disruption to both
adjoining communities and at each of the three sites. Impacts at NI
are comparable to those described under option lb.2 in the previous
section. At DI and LI, impacts would be comparable to those
described under option 2b.3, although the size of the LI facility is
slightly smaller.
Engineering and Economic : This option affords no consolidation
advantages with major treatment facilities at three separate
locations in Boston Harbor. Preliminary costs are estimated to be
among the highest at $1001.8 million for construction, $48.9 O&?1,
and $151.9 annualized cost.
Environmental : Impacts under this option would be major and wide
ranging across all three sites and in both adjoining communities of
Winthrop and Quincy. Filling of Quincy Bay would pose environmental
7-33
-------
and water quality impacts. Impacts are comparable at NI to those
described under option lb.2 described in the previous section; DI
and LI impacts are comparable to those described under option 2b.3.
This option is not recommended for further study based on its
greater impacts and lack of compliance with the criteria.
3a/b. Man—Made Island Adjacent to Lovells Island or The Brewsters
Technical : This option introduces unique construction solutions in
order to locate treatment facilities in the outer harbor furthest
away from residential areas. DI and NI would be converted to
pumping and headworks facilities respectively. It would require
major dredging, filling and stabilizing of the island’s shallow
water areas; all—weather barging with no land backup would be the
sole access; construction of additional storm barriers and
protective jettys are needed; and the existing islands would be
physically altered. This option would create a filled area of 154
acres adjacent to the existing island sites.
Social/Community : Construction impacts, in addition to the unique
engineering and special construction practices necessary, would
involve 400 to 500 construction workers at the outer harbor
locations, plus another 13 workers at NI and 28 workers at DI. More
than 900 truck trips daily would be required and converted to barge
transport. These requirements alone make this option highly
speculative. Operations staff would be 140 persons over three daily
shifts to be barged to the treatment plant.
7-34
-------
The only advantage of such a plan would be the removal of major
treatment facilities furthest away from residential areas. However,
the limitations of such an approach appear to outweigh its
advantages.
Engineering and Economics : While this plan consolidates treatment
at a single site, this is not as feasible a solution to achieve that
goal as other options. Preliminary costs for this option are
significantly higher than all others at $1515.9 to $2037.6 million
for construction, $43 million plus for 0&M, and $198.7 to $252.3
million annualized costs.
Enviromental : The considerable consequences for marine habitat and
water quality during construction, plus the major additional costs
associated with transport of staff and materials to the site during
construction and operations are of such magnitude and uncertainty
that the potential for adverse impacts far outweighs any of the
possible benefits. In fact, other options offer far greater
benefits at lower costs and with fewer likely adverse impacts. This
option is therefore not recommended for further study.
7.3.2 Primary Options
41.2 Primary Treatment at DI, Headworks at NI (Harbor Outfall )
7—35
-------
4b.1 Separate Primary Treatment at DI and NI (Harbor Outfall)
5a.1 Separate Primary Treatment at DI and LI, Headworks at NI
( Harbor Outfall)
5b.1 Primary Treatment at LI, Headworks at DI and NI (Harbor
Outfall )
All of the above primary treatment options with harbor outfalls into
Boston Harbor are not Consistent with the recently stated policy of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental
Affairs and the MDC Commissioner, which favor an extended outfall
with primary treatment. These options are not, moreover, among
those proposed by the MDC under their 301(h) waiver application.
Therefore, primary treatment options with harbor outfalls are not
recommended for further study.
Since this conclusion only deals with the length and location of an
outfall conduit and does not affect the siting of treatment
facilities, any future change in policy regarding outfall locations
could readily be accommodated to the EIS process at a later date.
7-36
-------
8.0 REFERENCES
1. EPA Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Upgrading of
the Boston Metropolitan Area Sewerage System (August 1978).
2. MDC Nut Island Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Planning
Project, Phase 1, Site Options Study (Metcalf & Eddy, June, 1982)
[ Site Options Study].
3. MDC Wastewater Engineering and Management Plan for Boston Harbor
- Eastern Massachusetts Metropolitan Area (Metcalf & Eddy, 1976 )
[ EMMA Study].
4. MDC Application for Modification of Secondary Treatment
Requirements for Its Deer Island and Nut Island Effluent
Discharges into Marine Waters (Metcalf & Eddy, 1979 and 1983)
[ reapplication due in June 1984].
5. MDC Wastewater Sludge Management Update (Havens & Emerson, 1982).
6. MDC Deer Island Facilities Plan, Vol. I, Fast-Track Improvements
(Havens & Emerson/Parsons Brickerhoff, January 1984).
7. MDC, Discharges from Moon Island . Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc. -
Draft Report March 28, 1984.
8-1
-------
8. MDC, Report on Combined Sewer Overflows in the Dorchester Bay Area .
Camp, Dresser & Mckee, Inc. - October 1980.
9. MDC, Combined Sever Overflow Report, MDC, Inner Harbor Area
Facilities Plan . O’Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. - January 1981
8-2
-------
APPENDIX A
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STJMNARY
Barry Lawson Associates, Inc.
Public Participation Coordinator
-------
INTRODUCTION
Two Public Information Meetings were held during January 198 I to obtain public
reaction to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA)
recommendations that the eighteen major wastewater facilities siting options be
narrowed down to six for further study. The meetings were sponsored jointly by the
EPA and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
(EOEA) as part of their joint environmental review of alternative sites for
wastewater treatment facilities for the Metropolitan Sewerage District (MSD).
In order to obtain comments from residents most directly affected by the present
(and possibly future) plants, one meeting was held in Quincy and one in Winthrop.
The meetings were advertised in the local press and announced on local radio. A news
release was sent to about 25 media outlets. State and local elected officials,
members of the Citizens Advisory Committee and Technical Advisory Group members were
personally invited to attend and/or submit written testimony. Approximately 100
people attended each meeting. A comment period followed the meetings, during which
written comments were received and reviewed.
Michael Deland, EPA’s Regional Administrator, welcomed those attending the public
meetings. He stated that a Boston Harbor clean—up would benefit more communities and
individuals than any other project in the region. He stressed the commitment of both
EPA and the Commonwealth to the selection of an alternative which will mimimize
adverse community impacts. He also emphasized his agency’s commitment to reviewing
the widest possible range of options and analyzing thoroughly the impacts of options
recommended for further study.
Secretary Hoyte of EOEA reiterated Mr. Deland’s comments on the importance of the
siting project. He then described the steps the state is taking to obtain immediate
improvements in the wastewater system:
o EOEA has sought increased staffing and resources for the Deer and Nut Island
wastewater treatment plants.
o EOEA is working with William Geary of MDC and Amy Anthony of the Executive
Office of Communities and Development to develop a long—term water and sewer
management plan.
o DEQE is developing a comprehensive Infiltration/ Inflow (I/I) relief plan and
legislation will be filed shortly for a $100 million I/I removal grant
program.
o EOEA is working actively with the Massachusetts congressional delegation to
obtain federal long—term funding sources.
o EOEA is committed to immediately improving the Deer and Nut Island treatment
plants.
William Geary, Commissioner of the MDC, acknowledged the problems associated with
the MDC’S role in wastewater treatment. He stated that it is important to determine
how to repair these facilities. He stressed that the MDC serves inland communities
A—i
-------
from Framingham to Reading. Wastewater treatment facilities siting is not solely a
problem faced by Winthrop, Quincy or Boston but is also a regional problem. Each MSD
community must take responsibility for absorbing environmental and financial costs
associated with adequate wastewater treatment. If we fail to act in a concerted
fashion, he said, the judiciary will take from our hands the means by which we can
rectify our own problems. This could result in grave consequences, such as sewer
moratoria, which could impair growth. He mentioned that he was encouraged by the
improved lines of communication with the EPA evidenced by this SDEIS process.
EPA’s David Fierra (in Quincy) and Robert Mendoza (in Winthrop) briefly reviewed
past studies conducted on wastewater treatment facilities siting, and described the
timetable for the development of the SDEIS. They also described the 301(h) process
whereby the MDC is applying for a waiver of ehe req 4rement to provide secondary
treatment at its plants. The EIS will be finalized in December 198k, and will
contain a preferred primary and preferred secondary alternative site. The decision
on which option is selected will be made concurrently with the decision on the 301(h)
secondary treatment waiver process, expected by about March 1985.
Daniel Carson of C.E. Maguire, Inc., EPA’S consulting engineers, described his
firm’s preliminary screening analysis and conclusions. He presented a handout
showing a site comparison, principal screening criteria used to select alternatives,
preliminary recommendations of which options would be recommended for further study,
and possible mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate potential adverse impacts
resulting from the construction and operations of proposed harbor treatment
facilities. At the Quincy meeting, Mr. Carson also detailed the reasons for
recommending that sub—regional (satellite) treatment plants be dropped from further
consideration at this time. He emphasized, however, that the consultants will be
recommending consideration of satellites as part of future wastewater planning beyond
the scope of this work.
The remainder of the meeting was moderated by Barry Lawson of Lawson Associates,
Inc. The comments which are summarized in Part I of this documuent were those made
orally at the meeting, on the participation sheets which were distributed, or those
sent to EPA as part of the screening process. Comments have been grouped together by
issue or topic and restated for clarity. Responses follow each issue and were either
those given at the meeting or those formulated by EPA following agency review and
deliberation. Part II of this document contains EPA responses to specific questions
listed on the participation sheets or posed at the meetings. Part III is a summary
of all formal written statements received and EPA responses where appropriate. Part
IV is a tabulation of responses to the Participation Sheets which were distributed at
the public meetings.
PART I — SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT ISSUES/EPA RESPONSES
Use of Long Island as a Site for Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Opposition : Many people at the Quincy meeting expressed opposition to the use of
Long Island as a site for a wastewater treatment facility. Its potential as a
regional recreational facility was stressed as was a desire to avoid simply
transferring all the negative impacts of wastewater treatment from one harbor island
to another. The attorney who reviewed the screening results on behalf of the
Squantum Community Association stated that the consultants’ recommendations imply
A—2
-------
that siting a wastewater treatment plant at Long Island will have virtually no
residential impact. However, she and several others expressed their strong concerns
about traffic and other impacts on the Squantum neighborhood and, indeed, all of
North Quincy. The costs associated with repairing and maintaining the bridge to Long
Island were seen as factors which would limit the site’s availability, as was assumed
opposition from the City of Boston.
While opposition in Quincy to use of Long Island was strong, a minority felt that
it was a suitable site for a wastewater treatment facility.
A representative of the City of Boston Department of Health and Hospitals
strenuously opposed the use of Long Island, stating that a wastewater treatment
facility is inconsistent with the Island’s present use as a chronic disease hospital
and with the possible development of non—hospital related activities. In his view,
Deer Island has been dedicated by the City of Boston for such uses as the Deer Island
House of Correction and neither the present wastewater treatment facility, nor any of
the recommended Deer Island options, would impair these uses. By contrast, the
construction of a primary or secondary wastewater treatment facility on Long Island
would forever eliminate opportunities for non—hospital related uses.
Support : Attendees at the Winthrop meeting overwhelmingly supported placing all
primary and secondary treatment at a new facility to be constructed on Long Island.
Many people felt that the City of Boston (owner of Long Island) has an obligation to
share some of the burden of wastewater treatment because a large percentage of the
region’s waste is produced by Boston and because Boston has been encouraging a
building boom with little concern about the problems of treating the resulting
increased wastewater. Others stressed the isolated nature of the Island and the fact
that it was far away from dense residential areas, which, they felt, would result in
the fewest adverse impacts. It was also stated that sufficient land would remain for
recreational purposes.
EPA Response :
The options of siting MDC wastewater treatment facilities on Long Island received
significant support from some parties and raised serious opposition from other
groups. EPA will evaluate various wastewater treatment scenarios for Long Island in
the Supplemental Draft EIS and appreciates the level of public involvement expressed
at the Quincy and Winthrop Public Information Meetings. The agency wishes to
emphasize that the purpose of the preliminary screening process is to identify which
alternatives warrant further study in the SDEIS. The benefits and impacts of siting
a treatment facility on Long Island will be fully evaluated during the development of
the SDEIS. These alternatives will be compared to similar environmental impact
analyses of the Deer and Nut Island site options. Final recommendations will then be
put forth for a preferred primary site and a preferred secondary site based on a
thorough impact analysis. Mitigation (and compensatory) measures necessary to make
the siting decision acceptable will be included as part of the final recommended
plan.
Use of Deer Island as a Site for Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Opposition : The majority of those attending the meeting in Winthrop were opposed to
the use of Deer Island as a site for wastewater treatment facilities. They favored
using Deer Island as a headworks facility, an option not recommended for further
study by the consultants. Many people spoke of the adverse impacts from the present
A—3
-------
facility, particularly noise, odor and traffic impacts. They felt that ill effects
caused by poor maintenance, poor operational policies, lack of proper personnel and
misplacement of the plant have been borne by the Town of Winthrop and this could only
be remedied if Deer Island were no longer used as a treatment facility.
Many were angry that Winthrop has had to host or be adversely affected by a
disproportionate number of regional facilities, including the Deer Island House of
Correction, Logan Airport, and the Deer Island Wastewater Treatment Plant. They felt
that this burden should be shared more equitably. Another reason for opposition to
use of Deer Island as a site was fear that the plant would need to be expanded in the
future. According to this view, if the plant were relocated (to Long Island) now,
residents of Winthrop would never be faced with the issue again.
Many of those present felt that the options presented by the consultants did not
represent a balance between impacts and benefits. They pointed out that even the
so—called “status quo” option, consisting of primary treatment at Deer Island, would
involve many years of construction impacts associated with the rebuilding of the
plant. Finally, mention was made of the recreational potential of Deer Island if the
wastewater treatment facilities were removed.
Support : Limited support was expressed in Winthrop for options 14b2 and 5a2, which
would involve separate facilities with Deer Island taking no more flow than it
already receives. Support for alternatives Ia or a2 (combined primary or secondary
treatment at Deer Island) was expressed by several Quincy meeting attendees. They
stated that consolidated treatment at one site would be best for Boston Harbor as a
whole and would lead to centralized, consolidated and accountable management of the
sewerage system. Deer Island was said to be a more suitable site because of its
large area. Several mitigation and compensation measures were suggested, such as
barging and busing of construction workers and supplies to Deer Island; opening of
Shirley Gut with passenger vehicle access to the prison maintained by a drawbridge
manned by prison personnel; sewage assessment exemption; odor/noise control; visual
shielding; and improvement of future plant operations by changing the governing
structure of the Metropolitan District Coismission.
EPA Response :
Several Deer Island alternatives will be evaluated as part of the SDEIS,
including: the use of Deer Island as a headworks facility, primary and secondary
treatment of North System flows, and primary and secondary treatment of consolidated
System flows. The use of Deer Island as a site for wastewater treatment raised
serious community concerns in Winthrop, but received considerable endorsement from
other groups. EPA would like to emphasize that no decisions have been made at this
point in the SDEIS other than the recommendation to narrow the range of sites to
Deer, Long and Nut Islands. The environmental impact analysis will fully evaluate
the serious community concerns raised at the public information meetings in Winthrop
and Quincy. Deer Island alternatives will be studied on an equal basis with other
alternatives to determine the most environmentally sound, cost—effective site for MDC
wastewater treatment facilities.
Use of Nut Island as a Site for Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Opposition : Opposition to the use of Nut Island was not so vocal as opposition to
Long and Deer Islands, due to the fact that the consultant’s preliminary report
listed Nut Island as the least suitable of the sites for a major wastewater treatment
-------
facility. Four of the six options recommended converting Nut Island into a
headworks. Opponents noted neighborhood impacts in the Hough’s Neck area and
objected to the filling of the Harbor needed to construct new facilities at Nut
Island. Some pointed out that current state law prohibits any filling of Quincy Bay.
The problems of constructing on filled land were emphasized. Several people noted
that the present Nut Island facility’s primary sedimentation tanks had settled,
causing disruption to the treatment process. There were claims that landfill
negatively affected the Harbor’s flushing action and that further filling would
damage the area’s fish resources.
Support : There was very little support for the location of a treatment plant on Nut
Island. Written comments from the Boston Harbor CAC expressed disappointment that
the MDC preferred option consisting of upgraded primary treatment at Deer and Nut
Islands with a local outfall, had been dropped from consideration. This group felt
this option to be a good first step which could be immediately implemented. State
Representative Saggese (Winthrop) expressed support for option qb2, which consists of
primary treatment at Deer and Nut Islands with a deep ocean outfall.
EPA Response :
Use of Nut Island as a site for treatment of South System flows and for a
headworks facility will be evaluated in the SDEIS. As with the other two sites under
consideration, Nut Island was recommended for further study, but no final decision
can be made until the environmental impact analysis is completed.
Need for Sub—regional (“Satellite”) Treatment Facilities
Considerable support was expressed for decentralization of the MDC treatment
system and reduction of flows to the MSD. Many of those attending the Quincy meeting
wanted to retain consideration of sub—regional, or satellite, treatment facilities to
attain these goals. State Representative Brownell stated that such facilities should
have been adopted many years ago. In his view, this would have avoided the present
situation in which Quinoy and Winthrop must continue to be host communities simply
because wastewater facilities are already located in these communities. The Charles
River Watershed Association asserted that satellite treatment facilities are needed
now to correct serious deficiencies, not simply for the unspecified future.
The issue of the equitable distribution of wastewater facilities was raised
frequently, with many stating that “upstream” communities are insensitive to
wastewater treatment problems because of an “out of sight, out of mind” mentality.
It was the view of several meeting attendees that all communities should share the
problems along with the benefits of wastewater treatment. Many called for a
moratorium on expansion of the Metropolitan Sewerage District.
One Quincy resident specifically asked that all information upon which the
decision to eliminate satellite treatment plants was based be made public. It was
also recommended that an in—depth study on the feasibility of satellite wastewater
treatment facilities be initiated soon, since planning for new facilities can take
years. One person suggested that every community (in the MSD) have a mini—plant to
screen and treat sewage before it reaches the main treatment plant.
EPA Response :
As part of the documentation of the screening of alternatives for further study,
A—5
-------
EPA is issuing a separate evaluation of the need for satellite treatment facilities
for the Metropolitan Sewerage District (MSD). This document, entitled “Evaluation of
Satellite Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facilities”, is attached as Appendix B of
this Final Screening Report. The report documents the factors which led to a
judgment that proposed satellite treatment options are not a feasible alternative at
the present time. It was determined that these options do not influence the sizing
or siting of Harbor wastewater treatment plants, and pose potential water quality and
public health problems. In particular, the State strongly opposes wetlands disposal
of treated effluent.
As a follow—up to this conclusion, and as part of the EIS, EPA will be outlining
the long range options and benefits associated with satellite treatment plants for
the MSD.
Other causes of pollution in Boston Harbor: Combined sewer overflows (especially
Moon Island); Infiltration/Inflow; Sludge
Considerable attention was focused on other components of the wastewater
collection and disposal system which many felt contributed as much, if not more, to
the overall Harbor pollution problem as faulty or overloaded treatment plants. The
Boston Harbor CAC cautioned that the total cost of a Harbor cleanup must be factored
into the treatment plant siting decision or it is likely that the price will be
considered too high.
Combined sewer overflows (CSO’s) were frequently mentioned as prime causes of
pollution leading to periodic beach closures. Several people faulted the EPA for not
giving consideration to repairing and upgrading the Boston Water and Sewer
Con nission’s Moon Island facility which, it was charged, periodically discharges
untreated waste into the waters off Squantum. The cumulative effect of all sewage
discharges must be considered when evaluating the water quality impact. The Boston
Harbor CAC suggested that water quality in Boston Harbor could be significantly
improved if funds which would be needed to construct a deep ocean outfall were
instead used to address the Harbor CSO problem.
Another concern was the tremendous amounts of Infiltration/Inflow (I/I) entering
the MDC system through cracked or leaky pipes and illegal connections of storm drains
into the sanitary sewer system. Millions of gallons of extra flow enters the system
in this way and leads to wastewater treatment plant overloads and discharge of sewage
through CSO’s. One person stated that significant flow reductions are a necessary
part of’ a long—term solution to wastewater problems and another advocated progressive
user fees, with metering if necessary, to place the financial burden of’ treatment at
its source.
A third concern was the issue of sludge disposal. One person expressed
opposition to the use of incineration as a method of disposal, while another asked
whether ocean incineration was under consideration. Concern was expressed that the
analysis of the options presented by the consultants didn’t take into account the
impacts of the probable location of a sludge incinerator on the same site as the
wastewater treatment plant. Finally, one person cited the tide gates in the system
as a source of’ pollution and suggested their elimination and the re—routing of sewage
into the system.
A—6
-------
EPA Response :
The MDC prepared a CSO Facilities Plan in 1980 which inventoried the 108 CSO’s in
the Boston Harbor area and suggested ways of controlling them. To date, three CSO
projects are moving into the construction phase. The state is setting up an
interagency group to review the status of the remaining CSO’s and develop a master
plan for their correction. EPA reviews the environmental impacts of the correction
programs and participates in funding the projects as they develop on the state’s
priority list.
In addition, EPA has directed its consultant, C.E. Maguire, to investigate in the
SDEIS possible inclusion of the Moon Island overflows or other CSO sources to a new
treatment facility on either Deer Island or Long Island.
On the issue of Infiltration/Inflow (I/I), EPA agrees that flow reductions are a
necessary part of the long—term rehabilitation of the MDC infrastructure. The
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE) is pursuing I/I
reduction and rehabilitation in member communities. DEQE has filed legislation to
provide $100 million for a grants program to fund up to 90% of the cost of I/I
reduction.
On the issue of sludge management, the SDEIS will integrate the EOEA sludge
management policy into the siting evaluation. EOEA has reviewed three sludge
management techniques: composting, incineration and ocean disposal, and has
formulated a sludge management policy for the MDC. Composting has been recommended
as the preferred solution for handling MDC sludge. The SDEIS will evaluate the
siting impacts of these three sludge management options in conjunction with its
review of siting impacts of wastewater treatment facilities.
Support for Deep Ocean Outfall
At both meetings there was considerable support for selecting an option
containing a deep ocean outfall. The basic argument put forward is that disposal of
treated wastewater should not take place in areas close to residential neighborhoods
and beaches. It was stated that a deep ocean outfall would provide the lowest
potential for irreparable environmental harm. Several people requested assurances
that, if approved, EPA would enforce construction of the deep ocean outfall. Others
supported the concept of deep ocean outfall, but asked how EPA would safeguard the
Harbor to ensure that raw sewerage would not be pumped far out to sea.
Some opposition to a deep ocean outfall was expressed. The Boston Harbor CAC
stated that it is easier to monitor water discharged in the Harbor than water
discharged beyond the Harbor. The group did not want a Harbor cleanup at the expense
of the water quality in the outer Harbor.
EPA Response :
At the Quincy public information meeting, MDC Commissioner William Geary stated
his agency’s support for pursuing a deep ocean outfall in its 301(h) secondary
treatment waiver reapplication to EPA. Based on EOEA’s commitment to a deep ocean
primary outfall, EPA has retained only those primary options which propose a deep
ocean outfall. The SDEIS will not make a water quality determination on these
primary alternatives because the 301(h) waiver application will evaluate the
acceptability of a primary effluent at the deep ocean site. The SDEIS will evaluate
A—?
-------
the water quality impacts of secondary effluent within the Harbor.
Regional Administrator Michael De].and pledged to use EPA’s enforcement powers to
ensure that federal requirements are carried out.
Level of Treatment: Primary vs. Secondary
The majority of the comments on this issue centered on the impacts on
communities, rather than the environmental merits of construction and operation of
secondary treatment plants. A great deal of support was expressed for granting of
the MDC’S request to EPA for a waiver of the requirement to provide secondary
treatment (the “301(h) waiver”) because construction of a primary treatment plant
would necessitate far less land than a secondary plant. Others supported secondary
treatment at specific sites.
EPA Response :
The level of treatment required will be determined as part of EPA’s review of the
revised MDC 301(h) waiver application. A revised application is expected to be
submitted to EPA by June of 19811 and a final decision on the waiver will be made by
March of 1985.
Mitigation and Compensation
The possibility of devising ways of reducing the effects of adverse construction
and operating impacts of awastewater treatment facility was widely discussed.
Opinions varied considerably. Many of those who felt mitigation was feasible said
every possible measure should be taken to protect the safety and convenience of
neighborhood residents, regardless of potential inconvenience to contractors,
construction workers or suppliers, and increased operation and maintenance costs.
Many proposed water—based transportation (barging) of construction workers and
material; noise and odor control methods; visual screening; modified construction
scheduling; reduction/elimination of sewer assessments; and financial compensation
for the burdens of hosting such a facility, among other methods.
Others felt that no mitigation measures are possible. Several Winthrop residents
said that there would be limited opportunities for mitigation in Winthrop at the
scale of construction proposed.
EPA Response :
EPA views mitigation of adverse impacts as an essential step in determining an
environmentally acceptable solution for siting of wastewater facilities in Boston
Harbor and will include mitigation measures in the evaluation of each alternative.
Investigation of Other Sites
One person proposed that EPA should erect a sewage treatment plant on land
underneath the “Northeast” Expressway, Route 93, using a high technology laser beam
method of treatment.
EPA Response :
This proposal offers some unique state—of—the—art concepts which are as yet
A—8
-------
unproven. The likely high cost of such a technologically sophisticated system would
be expected to be prohibitive. Annual energy and operational costs would likewise be
very high compared to conventional treatment systems. Also the technical
sophistication and newness of laser treatment is likely to make such a system
susceptible to malfunctions beyond the norm for sewage treatment plants.
As for the suggestion of a treatment plant location on land underneath Route 93.
the relocation of these facilities to other inland sites appears infeasible for the
following reasons: the limited availability of 50 to 100 acres suitable to
accommodate treatment plants; the likely prohibitive costs of renovating existing
sewers, interceptors and pumping stations; the problem of locating suitable effluent
discharge lines from the treatment plants; and as yet uncertain requirements for
sludge handling and disposd’l.
Modified No Action Option
Many people expressed opposition to keeping this option under consideration.
Since the current situation is in violation of the Clean Water Act, it was stated
that the “modified no action” option is illegal and should not be pursued further.
It was clear that most of those attending the meetings felt that action must be taken
to upgrade and improve harbor treatment facilities.
EPA Response :
EPA will not be studying “modified no action” as an option for Boston Harbor;
however, as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a description of
the existing and future environment without the proposed overall improvements must be
documented. The agency will use existing information to document the environment in
Boston Harbor and will briefly describe what the immediate improvement programs in
the treatment plants will achieve for short—term water quality improvements. These
descriptions will serve as a baseline against which to compare the various “action”
options under study.
Management of the MDC System
Many comments focused on MDC’s ability to operate and maintain a wastewater
treatment system efficiently and effectively. Many said that poor management by MDC
has led to the current controversy over siting of improved wastewater treatment
facilities. They doubted that MDC could maintain newly constructed facilities.
Several expressed the view that an independent water and sewer authority is the only
way to guarantee proper management of the system in the future.
EPA Response :
EPA Administrator Michael Deland has stated his support for an independent
authority to guarantee proper management of the Metropolitan Sewerage District.
A—9
-------
PART II — QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON SPECIFIC CONCERNS ’
(‘Taken from Participation Sheets distributed at meetings)
Q: What safeguards will EPA impose to insure that raw sewerage is not being pumped
out to sea?
A: EPA has an influence over treatment plant performance in two basic ways: first,
since EPA will be granting money to the MDC to build proposed treatment plants
under the Clean Water Act, the MDC facilities must be designed using specific
approved and accepted design standards intended to maximize plant performance and
reliability in order to meet the applicable water quality standards.
Such standards include the inclusion of redundant or back up systems and
machinery (such as pumps). Lack of back up equipment and poor maintenance has
been a major cause of raw sewage bypassing at both Nut and Deer Island facilities
in recent years.
The second major influence EPA has over treatment plant performance is through
effluent discharge monitoring and permitting. By monitoring the quality and
quantity of MDC’s discharges, corrective action can be enforced if plant
performance falls below the level specified by the discharge permit issued by
EPA.
Q: Will present treatment plant options be large enough for future growth and
expansion needs?
A: The harbor facilities options under study in the SDEIS are being sized to handle
all the flow which may physically reach the plant or plants through existing
sewer interceptors (which currently convey sewage to the facilities at Nut and
Deer Islands).
Population and usage forecasts presented in the Nut Island Site Options Study
suggest that these main interceptors are large enough to handle all the flow
which is likely to be generated in the existing service area over the 20 year
planning period. However, at some future time, population growth in the existing
service area, and/or service area expansion may cause future flows to exceed
interceptor capacity. Future plans should evaluate the use of inland (satellite)
treatment plants as one possible alternative to interceptor enlargement and
harbor facility expansion.
It must be pointed out, however, that even with present “average” sewage flows
less than the peak capacity of the interceptors leading into the Nut and Deer
Island treatment plants, wet weather conditions quickly result in peak hydraulic
flows. In fact, a portion of the system’s sewage flows never reach the treatment
plants because of leaks, combined sewer overflows (CSO’s), “bottle necks”, and
other hydraulic limitations and problems upstream in the sewer system. These
leaks and overflows contribute significant amounts of raw sewage to the Harbor
from sources in addition to the plants themselves. Finding and implementing
remedies for these hydraulic problems is an ongoing effort of the state and
federal governments — efforts which are consistent with, but separate from, the
actions under study in the SDEIS.
A—iD
-------
Q: Why is the water in Quincy Bay brown?
A: Although the SDEIS water quality evaluations are still underway and no conclusive
determination is possible at this time, there appear to be several possible
sources for the “brown” color of Quincy Bay’s water:
o sewage effluent
o stormwater and urban runoff
o salt marsh detritus
o resuspension of bottom muds by tide/wave action
o brown algae
It is likely that all of these sources contribute to the water’s color. As with
other water quality criteria, color is expected to fluctuate daily, as
environmental conditions vary.
Q: Have satellites been ruled out as an option?
A: See response to comments made at public meetings.
Q: Why was the water quality so poor in the ser of 1982 and 1983 when it was not
so consistently poor before that?
A: Yearly changes in water quality are difficult to doc ent, and vary by location,
activities and background water quality parameters. It is assumed that the
question refers to water quality in shoreline areas around the treatment plants,
in which case one possible answer is that equipment failures at the treatment
plants and wet weather conditions caused an unusually high amount of raw sewage
bypassing the plant during 1981, 1982 and 1983. However other pollution sources,
such as CSO discharges and urban runoff also contributed to this problem.
Q: Would new primary treatment plants at Nut Island and Long Island require further
filling of Quincy Bay?
A: If a new primary treatment plant were built on Nut Island to treat south system
flows only (SDEIS options lb and 14b.2), the MDC estimates that 1 to 3 acres of
Quincy Bay would need to be filled. This estimate may be reduced if buffer areas
are not included in the design criteria for such a facility.
No filling of Quincy Bay would be required to build any of the primary treatment
facilities under study for Long Island.
Under secondary treatment options (Option ic) it was proposed that upwards of 20
acres be filled in Quincy Bay. Due to the potentially severe environmental
impacts and other unacceptable consequences of this option, it was eliminated
from further study.
Q: Has filling over the years to build up beaches (especially Wollaston Beach)
changed the flushing ability of the tides?
A: Filling to build up beaches does not, per se, significantly restrict tidal
flushing actions. However, where tidal channels are restricted, for example by
bridge abutments or causeways, tidal flushing behind or upstream of the
restriction will be limited and more brackish or freshwater species may replace
saltwater fauna and flora. In general, tidal action continually alters shoreline
A—li
-------
areas moving sand and soil particles from one location to another.
Q: Wouldn’t proper primary treatment at Nut Island necessitate 23 additional acres
rather than one additional acre?
A: No. According to the Nut Island Site Options Study , between one and three
additional acres of land, depending on the size of buffer areas, would be needed
at Nut Island to site a primary treatment facility built to current standards.
Secondary treatment facilities at Nut Island, an option judged to be unacceptable
and not recommended for further study, would require about 20 acres be filled.
Q: C.E. Maguire estimates that only one acre of fill would be required to construct
a primary treatment facility at Nut Island without a buffer. Does this take into
consideration where construction—related materials would be stored? Does it take
into consideration roadways and employee parking?
A: C.E. Maguire’s preliminary evaluations related to plant size and layout at Nut
Island are based on tIDC’s engineering estimates presented in the Nut Island Site
Options Study . The range of fill estimated is 1 to 3 acres, reflecting
differences in amount of buffer areas and the like. The plant layout shown in
Volume I, Figure 5—10 of that study suggests that adequate lay down areas, roads
and parking areas are provided.
Q: What is the status of the Boston Harbor Water Quality Committee and the Master
appointed by the courts?
A: The Boston Harbor Water Quality Committee, also known as the Sargent Committee,
was established by Governor Dukakis to examine, coordinate and make
recommendations on the problems and needs of Boston Harbor in order to begin to
address the pollution problems in the harbor. The Committee is examining such
diverse and related issues as treatment plant siting, sludge disposal, a new
water and sewer authority to replace the present structure at the MDC, water
quality and environmental resource issues and other associated elements. The
Committee expects to make its final recommendations to the Governor in April.
Their findings and conclusions will be incorporated into the analysis for the
SDEIS.
Q: What is the status of sludge management planning?
A: The most recent plans concerning sludge management include engineering studies
done for the MDC in 1973 and updated in 1983 which recommended incineration of
primary sludge at a facility to be built on Deer Island. A Draft and Final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared by EPA (concluded in 1979)
supported the HDC’s recommended disposal plan but also directed the MDC to
investigate composting of sludge as an additional method. In addition, a
separate Draft ElS prepared by EPA in 1978 concluded that in addition to
incineration of primary and some secondary sludge, composting of some remaining
secondary sludge should be done at a site on Squantum in Quincy, while the
remaining secondary sludge should be landfilled at an unspecified MDC—owned site.
Since those studies and decisions, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has
undertaken a comprehensive study to determine the most acceptable method of
sludge disposal/management. The Commonwealth evaluated three alternatives:
A—i 2
-------
incineration, composting, and ocean disposal (barging). The Commonwealth has
decided that composting is the preferred method of sludge handling. They also
plan to explore the feasibility of ocean disposal as a back up disposal method.
The preferred Commonwealth sludge handling and disposal methods will be
incorporated into the eight treatment plant alternatives which remain for
detailed analysis.
Q: Why hasn’t a study been conducted on the effects of treatment plants on the
health of area residents?
A: The question of the effects of treatment plants on the health of area residents
is a critical one which affects people’s daily lives. Public health threats
along shoreline areas involving beaches and shellfish resources are more frequent
than is acceptable and efforts to address these problems are currently underway.
These efforts include the current work to site new, improved treatment plants for
the MSD and the State and EPA’s work to eliminate the present sludge discharges
to the harbor. Other pollution sources, of perhaps even greater impact upon
public health, such as CSO discharges and urban runoff, add to the complexity and
seriousness of this problem. No one pollution source is solely responsible for
public health threats. Therefore, any solution to these problems must be a
coordinated response involving a variety of projects beyond the scope t the
SDEIS.
Public health issues are more appropriately considered by the state and local
authorities. The Massachusetts Division of Public Health and Division of Water
Pollution Control (DWPC) are involved in monitoring these issues in Boston
Harbor, as is the MDC, while local health departments in Winthrop, Quincy and
other shoreline and inland communities likewise are monitoring water quality at
beaches and other recreational areas.
Q: Has EPA considered a “natural” facility for waste treatment, such as a California
facility detailed in a recent Boston Globe article?
A: Wastewater treatment using “aquaoulture” has not been given any consideration as
an alternative for Boston Harbor facilities for three reasons:
1. New England’s cold winters would prevent adequate growth of aquatic plants
which remove chemicals (nutrients) in the wastewater. Such a system could not
provide adequate treatment in the winter, unless facilities could be built
enclosed, dramatically increasing their costs and affecting their viability.
2. Such systems in general require much more land than conventional mechanical
secondary treatment facilities. The land requirement would make such a
facility much more expensive and more difficult to site than those options now
under study.
3. Such facilities typically are feasible in small—scale uses of less than 50
million gallons per day (MGD). The MDC system would require capacity to treat
at least 50 MCD.
Note also that all secondary treatment options under study employ biological
(microbial) treatment of wastewater and are, therefore, as equally “natural” a
system as the aquaculture facility referred to, except they are housed in
associated mechanical facilities.
A—i 3
-------
Q: If infiltration and inflow to the high level sewer were eliminated, would this
lessen the load sufficiently to make satellite treatment plants feasible?
A: Any reductions to infiltration and inflow (I/I), while necessary to improve
overall sewage system operations, would not significantly reduce flows to the
Harbor treatment plants. This is an issue that was specifically examined for the
Southern MSD system and Nut Island treatment plant in the Nut Island Site Options
Study and it was concluded that regardless of likely I/I removals upstream, 310
MGD of wastewater flows would still be delivered to a harbor treatment plant.
The sizing of the facilities, therefore, reflects this realistic capacity flow.
Since satellite advanced wastewater treatment plants were determined to be
infeasible even if I/I were reduced, consultants then considered whether
they could be used to reduce and treat the I/I and overflow problems upstream.
It was determined that, for this planning period, satellites are still not
warranted. A full report detailing these evaluations and conclusions regarding
satellites, I/I, and associated water quality issues has been prepared by C.E.
Maguire and will be released shortly. A further consideration of this question
will be included in the SDEIS as a long—term planning issue to address wastewater
management solutions.
Q: Would the primary options presented entail construction of an entirely new
facility or rehabilitation of the present facility?
A: At Deer Island and Nut Island, existing treatment facilities are in need of
replacement now and these improvements have been undertaken by the state with
funding assistance from EPA. These so—called “fast—track” improvements do not
upgrade the present facilities nor do they alleviate the capacity problems of the
treatment plants.
To be conservative in developing cost estimates for new facilities proposed, it
has been assumed that implementation of any of the options involving Deer or Nut
Islands would require the construction of entirely new facilities. Since the
fast—track improvements are being implemented currently and new treatment plants
would not be completed for at least 10 to 15 years, it is reasonable to expect
that any new equipment installed now would have reached the end of its
depreciation value by the time of subsequent financial coimmitment for new
facilities.
Q: How will data on social impacts be evaluated?
A: The kinds of social impacts to be examined include the numbers, ages, and
distribution of people throughout the communities affected by the construction
and operation of a proposed treatment facility, the impacts on businesses, local
institutions and public facilities that may be affected, local tax base and
provision of public services such as police and fire protection, questions of
family affordability of possible higher sewer costs, issues of local real estate
values, and overall MDC system—wide distribution of the costs and benefits of new
treatment facilities located in the Harbor. Another important aspect will
examine the traffic and other construction—related impacts of each option.
Once this data is compiled the basic question to be analyzed is the effects of
each of the eight options on the communities adjacent to the three proposed
A—i ’ 4
-------
sites, primarily Winthrop, Quincy and Boston, and upon the other user communities
of the Metropolitan Sewerage District. For example, the traffic analysis will
determine what the impacts of proposed auto and truck traffic associated with
each option will be. This will identify bottlenecks, congestion, travel delays,
safety issues, noise, and other disruption to normal local activities in the
vicinity of the projects. Likewise, the established social/cultural patterns of
the communities in terms of residential activities will also be evaluated to
determine disruptions and other problems.
Finally the identified impacts will be analyzed to establish whether any
mitigation measures are available to lessen or eliminate their effects. One such
mitigation technique might involve barging as a substitute for some truck
delivery, or pooling of construction workers to cut back on the auto traffic in a
community.
Q: How can you mitigate a secondary facility at Deer Island when you’re discussing
removing the drumlin and levelling he site?
A: Clearly, the construction of secondary treatment facilities requiring over one
hundred acres would be difficult to mitigate to a degree that no serious impacts
result. Construction of these facilities would result in significant and
unavoidable adverse impacts ranging from traffic and noise to preclusion of other
uses at the sites where such facilities are proposed.
Given that fact, however, there remain several viable opportunities to apply
mitigation measures that reduce some of the serious impacts expected to result.
In the case of siting at Deer Island or Long Island, possible mitigation measures
could include analysis of methods to reduce truck and auto traffic, establishment
of staging areas off—site, alternate layout of treatment facilities to take
advantage of natural screening elements such as the drumlin (still a possibility
even with secondary treatment), or alternate locations for the prison (at Deer
Island) or hospital (at Long Island).
In any case, mitigation would not be assumed to remedy all of the expected
adverse impacts. Rather, this approach would seek to lessen and control, to more
acceptable levels, the impacts that would result in order to achieve the ultimate
goal and benefits of modern and adequate treatment facilities.
Q: With regard to balance, not one of the proposed options benefits Winthrop, yet
four have a positive benefit to Quincy. Where is the balance in this?
A: The SDEIS screening process evaluated all the options in terms of the criteria
established to limit the options for detailed study. These criteria included:
availability of required acreage at each site, engineering feasibility,
minimizing adverse environmental impacts, minimizing adverse community impacts,
consolidation of treatment facilities, and opportunities for mitigation. It was
determined from the outset that no one option could satisfy all the criteria
established. Therefore, all the options initially recommended for further study
entail some impacts.
Initially, C.E. Maguire recommended to EPA that only the options that utilized
Deer Island for at least a primary treatment site be carried forth for further
study, because these options met many of the established criteria. However, due
to the input of the Winthrop community at the public information meeting, options
A—i 5
-------
involving less than primary treatment at Deer Island and consolidation of all
treatment at Long Island were included for further study. The options involving
a headworks at Deer Island would clearly provide benefits to Winthrop and will be
examined to the same level of detail as the other six alternatives.
Q: What is the population along the pathway to Long Island compared to the
percentage of Winthrop residents who are affected by the Deer Island facility?
A: There are approximately 19,000 residents in Winthrop and 811,000
residents in Quincy. The Hough’s Neck neighborhood has approximately 111100
residents, Squantum has about 3000 residents and the Point Shirley and Cottage
Hill neighborhoods have about 3000 residents. These figures are only estimates
at this stage of the analysis. The impact assessements which will be conducted
during the next stage of the SDEIS process will review the 1980 U.S. Census data
and refine these figures based upon field observation.
These numbers alone do not reflect the potential impacts of proximity to proposed
treatment plants. Additional information on numbers of elderly and children,
traffic levels and routing through a community, existing roadway conditions and
deficiencies, construction schedules and practices, and opportunities for
mitigation are some of the specific details that will investigated during the
detailed environmental impact analysis that will follow the screening results.
A—i 6
-------
PART III — WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED/EPA RESPONSES
The comments below summarize letters received during the process of screening
alternatives for wastewater facilities siting. The Final Screening Document
addresses the concerns reflected in these comments. EPA has prepared responses only
to specific points which need clarification or further explanation.
COMMENTS FROM QUINCY OFFICIALS AND RESIDENTS
City of Quincy, Mayor Francis X. McCauley :
o Supports decision of MDC to limit 301(h) waiver to deep ocean outfall.
o Supports single consolidated primary treatment facility w/deep ocean outfall.
o Supports effective mitigation for unavoidable adverse construction and operation
impacts (residential streets and communities shouldn’t be used as routine
thoroughfares; visual shielding, odor control and noise abatement should be
provided)
o Supports retaining consideration of sub—regional treatment facilities.
o Suggests rejection of modified no action option.
o Concerned about new treatment facility on Long Island: fears that sludge
management facility would be placed there; sees Long Island as unmatched
recreational resource; has seen no situations in which recreational/waste disposal
activities shown to be compatible; feels facility would downgrade Long Island’s
recreational potential.
• Response :
There are several examples nationwide of the concept of mixed use wastewater
treatment facilities/recreation. One specific example is the Taliman’s Island
wastewater treatment plant in New York City which provides for a waterfront
park adjacent to the treatment plant.
o Those who share in benefits of sewage treatment must share the burden of costs and
facilities.
o 301(h) waiver process would benefit from continuing public information discussion
and impact.
o Cost of repairing bridge to Long Island must be assessed.
o Moon Island causes periodic discharges of untreated waste into the waters off
Squantum.
State Representative Thomas Brownell :
o Subregional facilities should have been adopted many years ago. Quincy and
A—i 7
-------
Winthrop are the communities that. must be hosts because they already have
facilities.
o If harbor facilities are required, the following conditions must be met: 1)
Moratorium on expansion of district; 2) Host communities must be exempted from
assessments related to sewage treatment and paid compensation for the burden; 3)
Separate Metropolitan Water and Sewer Authority must be established.
o A long—term solution must include significant waste flow reductions (including
I/I, CSO, general water resource wastefulness)
o Progressive user fees (including meterin if necessary) should be used to place
financial burden of treatment at the source.
o Deep—ocean outfalls necessary.
o Rejects options ib, tb.2, since they will require landfill at Nut Island and
increase in level of activity (state law prohibits filling of Quincy Bay).
o Cannot accept facility at Long Island (transferring and imposing impacts on
another Quincy neighborhood). Shouldn’t forego future economic and aesthetic
benefits in iiaintaining Long Island.
o Plant consolidation is best alternative — Option la and I$a.2 provide greatest
overall benefit/cost ratio (personally feels i is best since it calls for
secondary treatment.)
o Change in structure governing Metropolitan District Commission will improve future
operations of treatment plant. Adequate mitigation measures will help in
construction process.
o Reject modified no—action proposal.
State Representative Michael Morrissey :
o Supports options la.2 and 4a.2
o Suggests payments in lieu of taxes/reduced assessments as mitigation measures.
o Regarding Long Island, consider Mayor Flynn’s plans for revitalizing hospital and
development of land, cost of reconstruction and repair to bridge, traffic impact
on Squantum and North Quincy.
o Little thought has gone Into repairing/upgrading Moon Island which Is a constant
source of problems to Quincy residents.”
“ Response•
On the contrary, the Noon Island holding tanks and associated Calf Pasture
pumping station which serve as overflow diversions and storage for the Deer
Island treatment plant are actively being studied. The MDC will soon complete
an hydraulic assesanent of the Moon Island facilities and their condition while
EPA’s consultants are examining the feasibility of connecting these flows to a
proposed primary treatment plant that will serve the southern MSD flows. If
A— 18
-------
such a connection proves viable, this major CSO discharge point could be
eliminated and the existing facilities on Noon Island dismantled.
Squantum Community Association, Rona Goodman, Attorney :
o Thinks problems with Long Island site seriously underestimated.
o Disagrees with implication of CEM study (Dec. 10) that siting a wastewater
treatment plant at Long Island will have virtually no residential impact. Thinks
construction work will have adverse impact since only land access is through
Squan um
“ Response :
It is true that there will probably be adverse impacts during construction
involving traffic associated with a facility on Long Island. These impacts are
acknowledged in previous studies and will be reexamined in greater detail
during the upcoming phase of the EIS analysis.
The reference to “no residential impacts” was intended to apply specifically to
the absence of in residential uses at Long Island, unlike the current
conditions at both Hough’s Neck in Quincy and Point Shirley in Winthrop where
residences are as close as several hundred feet from the plants. This
so—called “benefit” would apply more to the operational period than to
construction when impacts would be more widespread.
o If land access planned, Long Island bridge will have to be upgraded. If not
planned, equipment barging expenses would be similar to those found to be
infeasible at Lovel].s and Great Brewster Islands.”
• Response :
The quality of the Long Island bridge is an important consideration in judging
the cost effectiveness and viability of any Long Island options. At a minimum,
the roadway surface will require resurfacing; however, the structural steel
supports and integrity of the bridge may prove sound and adequate to support
construction equipment of the type required in such a project. At this time,
any judgment on the bridge’s adequacy is speculative. A careful engineering
assessment will be made to determine exactly the condition of the bridge and
any limitations relative to the proposed truck traffic. The costs for any
upgrading will be added to those options.
Alternatively, barging will also be a more costly undertaking involving greater
contingencies of construction and operations. However, it is incorrect to
assume that barging activities at Long Island are similar to those required for
an outer harbor site. First, Long Island would still have land access allowing
a possible combination of land and water borne transport; secondly, much of the
infeasibility of the outer harbor sites was associated with their greater
construction problems resulting from the need to build a so—called “man—made”
island rather than constructing on solid ground as is available at Long Island.
Moreover, the barging uncertainties were due to the harsher weather conditions
(waves and winds) experienced in the outer harbor area which is less protected
and at a greater distance from staging terminal areas. While it is likely that
barging activities would experience some effects from weather and adverse
A—i 9
-------
conditions in winter months resulting in higher costs, these would not be
expected to preclude such activities at a close—in site such as Long Island or
Deer Island.
o After construction, the effect of a wastewater treatment plant at Long Island
will be similar to that at Deer Island. Sees no reason why another community
should be spoiled by wastewater treatment plant.
o Valuable recreation site lost (past experience indicates that MDC sewage
treatment facilities never appropriate for recreational use).
o Moon Island problem not solved or taken into account when considering cumulative
effect of sewage discharge.”
• Response :
The water quality impacts of the Moon Island raw discharge to Quincy Bay and of
other CSO discharges elsewhere in the Harbor will be described in this EIS in a
general discussion of the existing pollutant sources to Boston Harbor. Control
of CSO’s is the objective of separate state and federal projects and their
existence does not alter the need to site treatment plants in the Harbor which
will accommodate the current MSD flows. That is not to say, however, that the
issue of Moon Island’s relationship to treatment facilities is not being
considered. On the contrary, careful consideration is being given to this
question. See response to comment of State Representative Michael Morrissey.
o Deep ooean outfall is dependent on state policy and water quality conditions
which are subject to change.
o Supports options la.2 or 4a.2. Consolidated treatment at one site will be best
for Boston Harbor as a whole. Will lead to centralized, consolidated and
accountable management of system.
o Favors long outfall approach (assuming such an outfall will be used in overflow
situations). Secondary treatment alone is unsatisfactory because it leaves raw
sewage in our backyards in an overflow situation.
Save Our Shores, Inc. :
o Concerned about amount of time devoted to exploration of primary treatment
options when doubt exists concerning waiver application and decision.
o Disagrees with theory that putting waste in ocean is best alternative.
o Satellite options should be explored more effectively. All communities should
share the problems of wastewater treatment along with the benefits.’
• 1 Response :
The question of satellite advanced wastewater treatment options at several
sites inland has been reevaluated during the screening process. See EPA
response to this issue detailed in the summary of comments made at the public
information meetings.
A—20
-------
o Sees no benefits in destroying Long Island as Deer and Nut Islands have been
destroyed. Cites impacts on Squantum and North Quincy (and possibly Montclair).
o Opposed to any local outfall proposal.
o Emphasis should be on quality of the system and its ability to minimize adverse
impacts on the environment rather than on the cost.
Andrea Sault, Quincy resident
o Regrets that satellite options eliminated.
o Wants to see information upon which C.E. Magurie based decisons to eliminate
satellites made public.”
• Response
A report fully documenting the analysis and conclusions of EPA’s consultants is
being released concurrently with the final screening document. See response
above.
o Recommends that an in—depth study of satellites take place soon, because planning
for a new facility can take years.
o Any primary option should have a deep ocean outfall. Funds and time limitations
for its construction should be instituted.
o Site chosen must have enough land area to allow for design error, technical
upgrade and expansion. Filled land, as on Nut Island, is not suitable for
primary holding tanks. In addition, filling has an adverse impact on the already
hampered natural flushing action of the Bay.
o Before Long Island can be considered as a site, there must be relative certainty
that it is available for use as a treatment plant, or delays in constructing a
facility will occur.
Janet Burgei meister. Quincy resident
o Erect a sewage treatment plant on land underneath the Northeast Expressway, Route
93. The plant should use laser beams to treat and purify sewage before it
reaches Boston Harbor.”
See response detailed in Part I of this document.
o Each community should have its own plant to screen out and treat sewage before it
reaches main plant in Boston. I
o EPA’s proposed sites are not suitable. Two sites need a great deal of
modernization and renovation to bring them to appropriate level. The third site,
Long Island, would destroy a beautiful island in Quincy Bay. Proposed sites
would pose environmental and other problems to Winthrop and Quincy. In addition,
A—2 1
-------
filling of Quincy Bay would have a negative effect on fishing.”
“ Response :
It is clear that the siting of new wastewater treatment facilities is not an
easy task. There are unavoidable problems and adverse impacts that accompany a
construction project of the scale and magnitude required in this case.
However, the MDC treatment system is in need of major renovation. The public
health of Communities and the natural and recreational resources of the Harbor
would be threatened if renovation of the system were not undertaken.
The eight options to be examined in detail involving Deer Island, Long Island,
and Nut Island have been developed after careful study and examination of more
than eighteen alternatives. For some options this analysis has been conducted
over the past eight years, while other proposed options have had only recent
examination. In all cases, however, the solutions proposed represent the best
possible choices given the multitude of constraints inherent in such an
undertaking. Other sites around Boston Harbor offer less opportunities to
accommodate major treatment facilities of 50 to 100 plus acres in size. In
addition, the SDEIS will explore mitigation of many of the adverse impacts
associated with siting.
John Murphy, Quincy resident :
o Outflow from the Nut Island wastewater treatment plant is a large source of
pollution in Quincy Bay and is increased due to breakdowns, plant malfunctions,
and deficiency of supervision. Corrective measures include routine servicing,
preventive maintenance and construction of deep ocean outfall.
o With regard to the Deer Island wastewater treatment plant, outflow must also be
piped or tunnelled to deeper water.”
“ Response :
The so—called long outfall associated with any primary treatment options would
involve a single outfall from either a Deer Island or Long Island facility with
wastef]ows consolidated from any other treatment facilities at another site.
For secondary treatment options, no such long outfalls are required since the
effluent quality would meet established state water quality standards in the
Harbor.
o Long Island should not be considered as a site for wastewater treatment plant
because the area has so much potential for recreation.
o Steps should be taken to remove other sources of pollution to Boston Harbor,
including periodic discharges from Calf Pasture pumping station 1 CSO’s, storm
drain water run—offs and industrial outflows.
o Tidegates should be eliminated from the sewerage system by rerouting sewerage
into the system.”
“ Response :
A—22
-------
This comment appears to refer to the existence of tidegates at the plants used
to control the inflow of seawater into the treatment facilities. Such gates
are necessary to control flows during incoming tides both to prevent the
increases to treatment flows and capacity at the plant by seawater and to
minimize exposure of the plant’s pumps and other equipment to the corrosive
effects of seawater. Current problems associated with these tidegates result
from their breakdown and improper operation. These problems can be remedied in
the design of new facilities. In addition, the Boston Water and Sewer
Commission has undertaken a major rehabilitation program of tidegates in the
Boston system that have caused untreated sewage discharge into the Harbor.
o With regard to sludge, incineration should never be adopted as a means of
disposing of the sludge.
COMMENTS FROM WINTHROP OFFICIALS AND RESIDENTS
Town of Winthrop, Beard of Selectmen, Robert Noonan :
o Only option favored by Winthrop is full primary and secondary treatment at Long
Island.
o Long Island is only site which features fewest adverse impacts, acceptable
operating conditions, affordable cost to public.”
While the preference of the Winthrop Board of Selectmen has been clearly
stated, it must be remembered that Long Island options are but one set of
alternatives that were judged to merit further detailed study. Other options
involve siting at Deer Island and Nut Island, as well as combination of these
three sites. To conclude at this early stage that one option or site is the
least impacting and most acceptable does not consider the facts which are as
yet incompletely assembled. Only upon a careful review and comparison of the
facts for all remaining options and sites, equally, can a fair judgment be made
on a recommended option/site. This is the task of the EIS and will be achieved
by the conclusion of the study.
o Sufficient area would still remain for recreational and hospital uses.”
“ Response :
The question of available area and compatibility of mixed uses on Long Island
is an important one with regard to any proposed treatment plant siting there.
This will be analyzed in detail in the upcoming phase of the analysis,
including the opportunities for mitigation of potential adverse impacts or
incompatible uses.
o (There are a range of] studies and lawsuits underway and all the separate
agencies (involved] should be working together to solve problem.
o Option 2b, or amended 2b.3 (to include headworks at Deer Island) would fulfill
purpose of EPA — fewest adverse impacts, acceptable operating conditions, and
affordable cost.
A—23
-------
Board of Selectmen, Mr. Vecchia :
o Eastern edge of Deer Island is an area of natural beauty (Original Boston Harbor
Islands Comprehensive Plan issued by MAPC called for relocating prison and using
south end of Deer Island as a large informal park).
o Long Island is good site for expansion of wastewater treatment. City of Boston
promulgated building boom (high—rise apartments, condos, office buildings,
hotels) and must share responsibility and burden of cleaning up harbor and
maintenance.
Board of Selectmen, Mr. DeLeo :
o Federal and State govenments are responsible for closing Shirley Gut and
constructing a roadway to Deer Island, which in turn, led, to the location of the
wastewater treatment plant.
o Winthrop has suffered adverse impacts from Logan International Airport, Deer
Island House of Correction and MDC wastewater treatment plant.
o City of Boston, Commonwealth of Massachusetts and federal government have each
contributed to the problems on Deer Island and should show consideration for the
residents of Winthrop by finding a permanent long range solution to the
wastewater treatment problem.
Winthrop Board of Health :
o None of the six options is acceptable to Winthrop.
o Board of Health concerned with sewage in waters and has had to bear the expense
of water tests twice a month.
o All adverse effects of poor maintenance, poor operational policies, lack of
proper personnel, misplacement of plant are borne by Town of Winthrop.
o Demands placement of primary/secondary treatment facilities at Long Island.
Winthrop Conservation Commission :
o None of six options benefit Winthrop.
o Once a site chosen, there can be minimal reduction of impacts.
o Asserts that 5b.2 and 2b.1 were dropped because of higher cost. Supports these
two options.
State Representative Alfred Saggese:
o Opposed to secondary treatment at Deer Island.
o Opposed to any expansion of Deer Island facility.
o Granting of waiver is most desirable option — Urges EPA support.
A—2
-------
o Unique location forced Winthrop to bear regional problems (prison, Logan Airport)
o Supports options 1 b.2, 5a.2, consisting of separate primary facilities with Deer
Island doing no more than it does now.
o Favors prohibition of expansion of MSD.
OTHER WRITTEN COMMENTS
Boston Harbor CAC
o Pleased that options reduced. May not agree with options selected for further
study, but sees why EPA still evaluating them.
o Disappointed that MDC preferred option (Upgraded primary at Deer Island & Nut
Island w/local outfall) was dropped. Either data compiled during site options
study are erroneous (that local outfall could meet with water quality standards)
or other factors have changed of which the BHCAC is not aware.
o Under a waiver application, it could be proved or disproved whether water quality
standards could be met with no waiver. If not, option for long outfalls could
then be built.
o If effluent from upgraded primary plants will not meet water qualtiy standards at
local level, will it meet standards by extension of outfall?
o If water quality standards can be met with local outfall, a deep ocean outfall is
a waste of money and an unnecessary disruption. Easier to monitor water
discharge in close than waters beyond Harbor. Does not want harbor clean up at
expense of outer harbor.
o Believe upgraded primary at Deer and Nut Islands with local outfalls is a first
step and can be started inmediately.
o Long outfall or secondary treatment can be added if necessary, but CSO problem
could be addressed with funds needed for deep ocean outfall tunnels and pipes.
o Sludge and CSO’s responsible for more pollution than treatment plants.
o Total cost of Harbor cleanup must be factored into wastewater treatment plant
siting.
*IResponse :
EPA has based its exclusion of local outfall options on the Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs’ clear indication to EPA that the MDC 301(h) revised
application will evaluate a deep ocean outfall site. The conclusions reached
in the Nut Island Site Options Study alone do not constitute a sufficient basis
for pursuing local outfalls. The 301(h) waiver process is an extensive
biological and water quality evaluation of the impacts of primary effluent at a
proposed site. Since the first round waiver application was tentatively denied
for the deep ocean site, EOEA has determined that the most prudent course of
action would be for MDC to reapply for a deep ocean site. EPA would like to
emphasize that the siting issue is not affected by the length of the outfall
A—25
-------
and that if the 301(h) waiver process comes to a different conclusion, EPA’s
siting evaluations will not be .ompromised.
o Opposed to No Action concept.
o Oppose use of Long Island for treatment facility.
o Do not want consolidation of treatment at one plant: (a) disaster if system
breaks is too great (b) concentration of effluent may cause water quality
problems; Cc) how would Southern System overflows be handled? (have provisions
for overflows been considered in this option?)”
A consolidation of all treatment (either primary or secondary) at one plant and
site can be viewed as a positive benefit due to the associated advantages from
centralized construction and operation activities, staffing, and sludge
disposal measures. There are, likewise, potential disadvantages from this
option in terms of land area needed and greater expansion of treatment works.
These opposing factors will be evaluated in detail in the EIS to determine an
acceptable solution.
The SDEIS does not plan to evaluate consolidated options solely on the
potential problems of system breakdowns. If there are breakdowns in a
consolidated treatment plant, as might reasonably be expected for some limited
period of time, these problems would not shut down an entire treatment process
or result in total plant bypass of raw sewage. Modern treatment facilities
on—line today do not operate in that fashion.
A more reasonable “worst case” expectation would be breakdowns of some
equipment, such as pumps or valves etc., with resultant lessening of the
treatment processes for only a limited period of time. Such reduced treatment
capacity, moreover, would only last as long as it would take to repair or
replace the broken equipment. Given the back—up pumps and other redundancy
required to be built into a modern plant design, such repairs would be expected
to occur immediately. There may be water quality problems of a short duration,
but not of the extent which would warrant dropping consolidated options from
further study.
With regard to effluent concentration, proper location of effluent discharge
pipes, diffuser design, and the controlling state and federal water quality
discharge standards and permit requirements will insure that any effluent,
including that from a combined facility, will not violate water quality
standards.
On the issue of overflows, the SDEIS will finalize the siting of a South System
treatment plant that will be designed to handle the peak flows carried by the
High Level Sewer, thus significantly reducing overflows at the plant. Upstream
overflows will not be addressed directly in the SDEIS. Some relief of these
overflows will be realized when the Frainingham and We].lesley Extension projects
are completed. The issue of excess flow in the Southern System is also being
addressed in the current I/I planning being undertaken by DEQE.
Finally, the SDEIS will consider the feasibility of connecting the Moon Island
A—26
-------
CSO facility (currently associated with overflows at Deer Island) to a proposed
primary treatment plant which handles southern MSD system flows. This option,
it is expected, will contribute to significant water quality improvements to
the Harbor.
o Supports waiver of requirement for secondary treatment.
o Supports requirement that large upstream projects provide own treatment and cease
reliance on MDC. Innovative wastewater treatment on site should be actively
sought; community or regional sewage treatment plants in outer reaches of present
MDC should be part of long range planning. 55
‘ 5 Response :
This comment is an important statement of planning and policy considerations
which, although not directly related to the siting questions in the SDEIS,
merit further consideration and analysis. The question of satellite advanced
wastewater treatment facilities was evaluated and judged not viable at this
time. However, this option along with other possible solutions to wastewater
management as noted in the cosinent will be considered in the £13 as a long—term
planning element.
City of Boston Department of Health and Hospitals
o Recommends elimination of all primary or secondary treatment alternatives
proposing use of Long Island because this is inconsistent with both the Island’s
present use as a chronic disease hospital and with the possible development of
non—hospital related activities.
o Option 4b.2 should be rejected in favor of a.2.
o Option lb.1 should be dropped from further consideration. There would be no
significant additional burden on Winthrop due to elimination of Nut Island
primary in favor of headworks but significant benefits would be gained by Quincy.
o Boston has little to lose and may benefit from siting of a well designed,
maintained and operated primary or secondary treatment facility on Deer Island,
but would sustain a substantial and irretrievable loss of opportunity if a
facility were constructed on Long Island.”
The preference of the Department for consolidated treatment (either primary or
secondary) on Deer Island is noted. However, it must be pointed out, that a
conclusion that such a solution would not impact residents of Winthrop appears
premature at this time. There appear to be serious impacts to Winthrop from
the construction and operations of a secondary plant at Deer Island; while a
primary plant siting also appears to generate some adverse impacts. What is
not as yet established is the extent of such impacts, their severity and
duration, and the comparison of adverse impacts to potential benefits among all
of the remaining options.
o All reasonable mitigating measures should be taken to safeguard health, comfort
and convenience of residents of Quincy, Winthrop and Boston.
A—27
-------
o Favors barging and busing of construction workers and supplies to Deer Island and
opening of Shirley Gut, with passenger vehicle access to the prison maintained by
a drawbridge manned by prison personnel.
o Favors deep water outfall.
Charles River Watershed Association
o Supports the proper operation and upgrading of the MSD’s treatment plant and
system.
o Believes flows to the plants should be reduced, especially in the Southern
System.
o Supports satellite treatment plant as means of reducing flows, and disagrees with
screening decision to remove them from consideration.
o Advocates a plant in a commercial area, away from river bank, with aerated
discharge to the river.
o Concerned with MSD overflows to the Charles River as a recurring source of wet
weather pollution.
o Loss of groundwater from Quabbin and Charles watersheds to Boston Harbor is
unnecessary, especially since it is needed to replenish stream flow and
groundwater.
o Three treatment plants now discharge into the Charles River. A quality effluent
from a satellite plant would not degrade the river and could augment stream flow.
o Proposes a treatment plant in the Framingham—Ashland area where much of the
growth affecting the Southern System is taking place.
**Response : See response to this issue detailed in Part I of this document.
A—28
-------
PART IV — COMPILATION OF PUBLIC MEETING PARTICIPATION SHEETS
WINTHROP PARTICIPATION SHEETS
1. Views on the suitability of the site shown for the location of primary and
secondary wastewater treatment facilities.
Deer Island Nut Island Long Island
Most Least Most Least Most Least
Primary 0 13 0 19 0
Secondary 0 i1 1 5 18 0
Reasons for choices (sample of responses):
o Winthrop destroyed by present treatment plant; can’t swim at beaches.
o People will be least affected with plant at Long Island.
o Nut Island doesn’t have acreage; use of Deer Island would severely impact quality
of life in Winthrop (air, noise; overcrowding); streets of Winthrop cannot handle
daily traffic of trucking workers and supplies for 8 — 10 years; Long Island is
located further away from communities of Winthrop and Quincy.
o Recommended options would present a severe adverse impact on an already congested
town; construction required would cause severe damage to roads, homes,
environment. Cost of 2b1 outweighed by improved quality of life for citizens of
Winthrop and Quincy.
o Long Island not nearly as populated and therefore it will not have adverse effects
on residents; Long Island is more centralized and near the heaviest sewerage
spiller (Boston).
o Boston should accept impact of its building boom and provide for most effective
treatment of increased sewerage at a plant cited within City (Long Island).
o Long Island would be centralized facility most isolated from a population; if
waterborne traffic used, there would be no impact on any community including
Quincy.
o Long Island is only logical technical site for sewerage treatment facilities for
Boston; Winthrop has done more than its share for Boston, including donating land
to Massport for Logan Airport.
2. Additions/Eliminations to consultants’ recommendations
o Open up Shirley Gut so water can clean up beaches
o Add 2b1, 5b2; eliminate la, lb , 4a2, 1 b2, 5a2 (many responses).
o Delete all 6 options as they have no relevance from an engineering standpoint.
3. Preferences among options
o 2b1 (10 responses)
o This option will save the town.
o Any other option will decimate community.
o If people of Winthrop trusted MDC we might accept improved primary treatment
A—29
-------
at Deer Island for existing flow with no secondary treatment. However we do not
trust MDC.
o 5b2 (3 responses)
o 2b3 (U responses)
o Would not increase present capacity of Deer Island.
o Would prefer no further expansion at Deer Island, but this seems most
intelligent evil if 2b1 eliminated.
o Provides least impact to the communities, maximum treatment and room for
further expansion.
o Least offensive (but not preferred).
o 5a2 (2 responses)
o Only acceptable option — no increased impact on Winthrop; facilitates future
expansion on Long Island when required.
o Least offensive (but not preferred).
U. Mitigation measures which could be taken (sample of responses)
o Practice of allowing large trucks along Winthrop Shore Drive (to Beacon, Shirley
Streets) should be stopped.
o Barge construction equipment.
o Payment in lieu of taxes; barging of construction workers and materials; no land
traffic.
o Never remove the drumlin at Deer Island.
o Construct primary/secondary facilities at Long Island.
o Proper and efficient plant operation; odor and chlorine emission control through
proper technology, use and operation.
o Not possible to mitigate. Traffic is already congested; impact of thousands of
construction workers by barge or otherwise would be devastating.
o You can’t buy the community; no mitigating circumstance, no compromise possible.
QUINCY PARTICIPATION SHEETS
1. Views on the suitability of the site shown for the location of primary and
secondary wastewater treatment facilities.
Deer Island Nut Island Long Island
Most Least Most Least Most Least
Primary 6 0 0 8 3 2
Secondary 5 0 0 7 3 3
Reasons for choices (sample of responses):
Long (Most)
o Closest to deep ocean/separated from neighborhoods.
o Poor health effects diminish with distance from population areas.
A—30
-------
Deer (Most)
o Outer/larger; no need of landfill; less neighborhood problems
o Has no alternative uses due to prison.
Nut (Least)
o Not enough land; close to neighborhood; congestion of access road;
impact of construction noise on community.
o Access road too narrow; site limitations severe; filling in Quincy
Bay would be disastrous to all fishing.
2. Additions/Eliminations to consultants’ recommendations
o Site plant using land under Route 93.
o Add satellite plants so waste is treated before arriving.
o Eliminate 4b2 — too close to poulation; eyesore to Quincy Bay area.
o Eliminate lb and 4b2 — not enough land available at Nut Island;
plant has adverse neighborhood impacts; headworks would add to
recreational use of Nut Island.
o Eliminate lb — due to filling of 18 acres at Nut Island
o Use “no action” for comparison purposes only.
o Safeguards to ensure construction of deep ocean outfall.
3. Preferences among options
o Modernize Nut and Deer Island sites (no expansion or landfill).
o Site facility at Long Island (closest to deep ocean and separated
from neighborhoods).
o 2b3 — Most advantageous to environment (improves Hough’s Neck and
relocation of outfall improves Winthrop).
o la, 4a2 (4 responses)
o causes less problems and costs less.
o puts effluent nearer mouth of Harbor.
o Deer Island has prison, so other uses limited.
4. Mitigation measures which could be taken (sample of responses)
o Barging of contruction materials.
o Construction of athletic facilities.
o Work with community to schedule construction.
o Design facilities to be more in keeping with surrounding
communities (e.g. like forifications)
o I/I reduction incentives.
o Busing of workers.
o Noise abatement.
o Development of viable evacuation plan in the event of a chlorine
or gas accident.
o Moratorium on system expansion
A—3 1
------- |