EPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 1
JFK Federal Building
Boston, Mass. 02203
Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement
May 1989
Long-Term Residuals Management
for Metropolitan Boston
-------
Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement
May 1989
Long-Term Residuals Management
for Metropolitan Boston
Prepared by:
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
RegIon 1
JFK Federal Building
Boston, Mass. 02203
Technical Assistance by:
Michael It Deland
Regional Administrator
U.S. EPA, Region I
/% (; i
-------
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PROPOSED ACTION: SITING AND EVALUATION OF TECHNOLOGIES
FOR LONG-TERM RESIDUALS FACILITIES
LOCATION: Boston, Massachusetts, and Metropolitan Boston
DATE: May 19, 1989
SUMMARY OF ACTION: The draft SEIS considers the environmental
acceptability of alternative locations and
technologies for the processing of residuals from
the new wastewater treatment facilities for
Boston 1-larbor.
LEAD AGENCY: U.S. EPA, Region I
3FK Federal Building
WQE-1900C
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
COOPERATING AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
TECHNICAL CONSULTANT: Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
Wakefield, Massachusetts
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Ann Rodney
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region I
JFK Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
617/565-4420
FINAL DATE BY WHICH
COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED: July 19, 1989
-------
NOTICE TO READERS
This Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) identifies and
evalLates alternatives for processing and disposing of residuals associated with the new
secondary wastewater treatment plant being constructed by the Massachusetts Water
Resources Authority (MWRA) on Deer Island. This report represents one of several
environmental reviews related to the federal court-ordered cleanup of Boston Harbor
conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the National
Enyironmental Policy Act. The Deer Island Wastewater Treatment Plant and associated
residuals management facilities are primary components of the cleanup program.
This Draft SEIS is organized to promote comparison among alternatives by describing
consecutively the screening method used to identify alternatives for detailed evaluation
(Chapter Two), the alternatives chosen (Chapter Three), the existing environment
around each candidate site (Chapter Four), and the potential impacts for each site use
(Chapter Five). Chapter Six presents the environmentally acceptable alternatives and
recommended plan. The public participation program conducted in conjunction with
this project is described in Chapter Seven, and Chapter Eight provides a list of
preparers. Because of the extremely detailed table of contents and the methodical
discussion of each potential technology at each site by potential impact area (i.e.,
noise, traffic, etc.), there is no index for this document.
This report is a “piggyback” document in that it builds upon the Draft Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) and the Residuals Management Facilities Plan (RMFP) developed
by the MWRA for long-term residuals management. While this Draft SEIS is based on
scientific and technological data generated during the RMFP process, it is an
independent report in that it provides a separate evaluation of both the potential
environmental impacts and the process of alternatives development presented in the
MWRA’s planning documents. Due to the piggyback nature of this Draft SEIS, much of
the supporting information developed by MWRA is referenced throughout this document
to avoid unnecessary duplication and confusion. The MWRA Draft EIR, RMFP, and
other supDorting documents are available for public review at the repositories listed in
Chapter Seven of this document.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LISTOF TABLES •.. . XVIII
LISTOF FIGURES. • . XXVIII
CHAPTER ONE - PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.1 Introduction 1—1
1.2 Project Background . 1—2
1.3 Purposeand Need 1—2
1.4 EIS Process. •• 1—3
CHAPTER TWO - DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES
2.1 Screening Criteria and Procedures • . 2—1
2.1.1 Criteria . . 21
2.1.2 Procedure 2—2
2.1.3 Consideration of the No-Action Alternative 2-2
2.2 Screening of System Alternatives 2-2
2.3 Identification of Candidate Options 2—8
2.4 Screening of Candidate Options for Detailed Analysis 2-10
2.4.1 Evaluation Criteria 2—10
2.4.1.1 Technical Criteria 2—10
2.4.1.2 Cost Criteria 2—10
2.4.1.3 Environmental Criteria 2—10
2.4.1.4 Institutional Criteria 2—11
2.4.2 Differentiation Among Options 2-12
2.4.2.1 Coastal Transfer Locations 2-12
2.4.2.2 Coastal Processing sites 2-13
2.4.2.3 Island Processing Sites 2-13
2.4.2.4 Inland Processing Sites 2-14
2.4.2.5 Landfill Sites 2—14
2.5 Summary of Alternatives Recommended for
Detailed Analysis 2—15
CHAPTER THREE - DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
3.1 ResidualsCharacterization 31
3.1.1 DigestedSiudgeCharacteriStics 3—1
3.1.1.1 Sludge Quantity 3—1
3.1.1.2 SludgeQuality 3—1
3.1.2 Heat-Dried Sludge Characteristics 3-10
3.1.2.1 Heat-Dried Sludge Quantity 3-10
3.1.2.2 Heat-Dried Sludge Quality 3-10
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
CHAPTER FOUR - ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY SETTING
I..Jse.
Introduction
Regulatory Setting
4.1.2.1 National Environmental Policy Act
4.1.2.2 Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act
4.1.2.3 Federal Coastal Zone Management Act
4.1.2.4 Federal Coastal Barrier Resources Act
(E a)
Page
3.1.3 Compost Characteristics
3.1.3.1 Compost Quantity
3.1.3.2 CompostQuality.
3.1.4 Combustion Ash Characteristics
3—10
3—10
3—11
3-13
3.1.4.1 Combustion Ash Quantity
3.1.4.2 Combustion Ash Quality
3.1.5 GritandScreeningsCharacteristics
3.1.5.1 Grit and Screenings Quantities
3.1.5.2 Grit and Screenings Qualities
3.1.6 Scum Characterisitcs
3—13
3-13
3—15
3-16
3-16
3—16
3.2
3.1.6.1 Scum Quantity
3.1.6.2 ScumQuality
3.1.7 Summary
Sludge Processing and Disposal Technologies
3.2.1 Digestion and Thickening
3.2.2 Sludge Dewatering
3.2.3 Cornposting
3.2.4 Heat Drying . . . .
3.2.5 Combustion
3—16
3—20
3—20
3-22
3—23
3—25
3—27
3—30
3—32
3.3
3.2.6 Landfilling
TransportationModes
3.3.1 Truck
3—34
3—37
3—37
3.4
3.3.2 Barge .
3.3.3 Pipeline
Candidate Sites
3—43
3—44
3—44
3.4.1 ‘Ialpole MCI
3.4.2 R.o ve Quarry .
3.4.3 Stoughton
3.4.4 Quincy FRSA
3.4.5 Spectacle Island
3.4.6 Deer Island
3—45
3—49
3—51
3—58
3-62
3-64
3.4.7 Integration of Technologies at Different Sites
3-69
4.1 Land
4.1.1
4.1.2
4-1
4-I
4-I
4-1
4-1
4-I
4-2
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
4.1.2.5 Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act
( AEPA) • 42
4.1.2.6 MWRA Legislative Authority 4-2
4.1.2.7 Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management
Act 4—3
4.1.2.8 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
(ACEC)Program 4—3
4.1.2.9 Chapter 91 Waterways License 4-4
4.1.2.10 Zoning - Massachusetts Legislative
Authority 4—4
4.1.3 Baseline Descriptions of Sites,
Transportation Corridors, and Utility Corridors 4-4
4.1.4 Walpole MCI Baseline Conditions 4-4
4. 1.4. 1 Study Area 4—4
4.1.4.2 Existing Baseline Conditions 4-5
4.1.4.3 Projected Baseline Conditions 4-8
4.1.4.4 Other Possible Developments 4-9
4.1.5 RoweQuarry BaselineConditions 4-Il
4.1.5.1 StudyArea 4—Il
4.1.5.2 Existing Baseline Conditions 4-10
4.1.5.3 Projected Baseline Conditions 4-15
4.1.5.4 Other Possible Developments 4-15
4.1.6 Stoughton Baseline Conditions 4-17
4.1.6.1 StudyArea 4—17
4.1.6.2 Existing Baseline Conditions 4-17
4.1.6.3 Projected Baseline Conditions 4-22
4.1.6.4 Other Possible Developments 4-23
4.1.7 Quincy FRSA Baseline Conditions 4-25
4.1.7.1 Study Area 4—25
4.1.7.2 Existing Baseline Conditions 4-25
4.1.7.3 Projected Baseline Conditions 4-31
4.1.7.4 Other Possible Developments 4-32
4.1.8 Spectacle Island Baseline Conditions 4-33
4.1.8.1 Study Area 4 .33
4.1.8.2 Existing Baseline Conditions 4-33
4.1.8.3 Projected Baseline Conditions 4-37
4.1.8.4 Other Possible Developments 4-38
4.1.9 Deer Island Baseline Conditions 4-40
4.1.9.1 Study Area 4-40
4.1.9.2 Existing Baseline Conditions 4-40
4.1.9.3 Projected Baseline Conditions 4-43
4.1.9.4 Other Possible Developments 4-44
4.2 Transportation and Traffic 444
4.2.1 Regulatory Setting 444
4.2.2 Study Area 4-46
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
4.2.3 Traffic Analysis Methods .. 4—46
4.2.3.1 Traffic Levels and Projections . . 4-46
4.2.3.2 Operating Conditions 4-47
4.2.3.3 Functional Classification . .. 4—47
4.2.4 Walpole MCI Baseline Conditions 4-47
4.2.4.1 Description and Use of the Winter Street
Truck R.oute 4—47
4.2.4.2 Description and Use of the Pine Street
TruckRoute 4-51
4.2.5 Rowe Quarry Baseline Conditions 4-51
4.2.5.1 Description of the Truck Route 4-51
4.2.5.2 Existing and Projected Use of the
Truck Route 4-54
4.2.5.3 Proposed Physical Changes in the Truck
Route 4—54
4.2.6 Stoughton Baseline Conditions 4-54
4.2.6.1 Description of the Truck Route 4-54
4.2.6.2 Existing and Projected Use of the
Truck Route 4-55
4.2.7 Quincy FRSA Baseline Conditions 4-55
4.2.7.1 Description of the Truck Route 4-57
4.2.7.2 Existing and Projected Use of the
Truck Route . 4—59
4.2.7.3 PierFacilities. 4—59
4.2.7.4 Barge Route . . . 4—59
4.2.7.5 Existing and Projected Use of the
‘ 1 aterways •. 4—61
4.2.8 Spectacle Island Baseline Conditions 4-65
4.2.8.1 Pier Facilities 4—65
4.2.8.2 Barge Route 4-65
4.2.9 Deer Island Baseline Conditions 4-66
4.2.9.1 Pier Facilities 4-66
4.2.9.2 Barge Route 4-66
4.3 Air Quality arid Odors 4-66
4.3.1 Introduction 4-66
4.3.2 Regulatory Setting 4-67
4.3.2.1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) 4-67
4.3.2.2 Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) 4—67
4.3.2.3 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) ... 4-67
4.3.2.4 National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (NESt-lAP) 4-69
4.3.2.5 EPA Proposed Sludge Regulation 4-69
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
4.3.6.5
4.3.6.6
4.3.7 Stoughton
4.3.7.1
4.3.7.2
4.3.7.3
4.3.7.4
4.3.7.5
4.3.7.6
4.3.8 Quincy
4.3.8.1
4.3.8.2
4.3.8.3
4.3.8.4
4.3.8.5
4.3.8.6
4.3.9 Spectacle
4.3.9.1
4.3.9.2
4.3.9.3
4.3.9.4
4-71
4-71
4-71
4-71
4-71
4-71
4-75
4-75
4-75
4-76
4-77
4-77
4-77
4-77
4-79
4-79
4-79
4-79
4-79
4-79
4-81
4-81
4-81
4-81
4-81
4-81
4-81
4-83
4-83
4-83
4-83
4-83
4-83
4-83
4-85
4-85
4-85
4-85
4-86
4-86
4-86
4-86
4-86
4-88
Page
4.3.2.6 Massachusetts Ambient Air Quality
Standards
4.3.2.7 DEQE Air Toxics Program
4.3.2.8 Massachusetts Odor Regulations
4.3.2.9 DEQE Dioxins and Furans Guidelines
4.3.3 Regional Meteorology and Air Quality
4.3.3.1 General Weather and Climate Summary
4.3.3.2 Statistical and Climatological Records
4.3.3.3 Temperature
4.3.3.4 Precipitation
4.3.3.5 Background Air Pollution Levels
4.3.4 StudyArea
4.3.5 Waipole MCI Baseline Conditions
4.3.5.1 Topography
4.3.5.2 Sensitive Receptors
4.3.5.3 ExistingMajorSources
4.3.5.4 Ambient Air Quality
4.3.5.5 Odor Ordinances
4.3.5.6 Projected Baseline Conditions
4.3.6 RoweQuarry Baseline Conditions
4.3.6.1 Topography
4.3.6.2 Sensitive Receptors
4.3.6.3 Existing Major Sources
4.3.6.4 Ambient Air Quality
Odor Ordinances
Projected Baseline Conditions.
Baseline Conditions
Topography
Sensitive Receptors
Existing Major Sources
Ambient Air Quality
Odor Ordinances
Projected Baseline Conditions.
FRSA Baseline Conditions
Topography
Sensitive Receptors
Existing Major Sources
Ambient Air Quality
Odor Ordinances
Projected Baseline Conditions.
Island Baseline Conditions
Topography
Sensitive Receptors
Existing Major Sources
Ambient Air QualitY
V
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
4.3.9.5 Odor Ordinances .... 4—88
4.3.9.6 Projected Baseline Conditions.. . . 4-88
4.3.10 Deer Island Baseline Conditions 4-88
4.3.10.1 Topography..... •. 4—88
4.3.10.2 SensitiveReceptors ....... 4—90
4.3.10.3 Existing Major Sources . 4—90
4.3.10.4 Ambient Air Quality . . 4—90
4.3.10.5 Odor Ordinances . . . . . . . . . 4—90
4.3.10.6 Projected Baseline Conditions 4-90
4.4 Water and Soils . 4—90
4.4.1 Regulatory Setting . . . . . . . . 4—91
4.4.1.1 FederaiWater Regulations . 4-91
4.4.1.2 StateWaterRegulatioris 4-91
4.4.1.3 Federal Sediment Regulations 4-91
4.4.1.4 State Sediment Regulations 4-92
4.4.2 Study Area . 4—92
4.4.3 Walpole MCI Baseline Conditions 4-93
4.4.3.1 GeologyandSoils 4-93
4.4.3.2 Groundwater 4-93
4.4.3.3 Surface Water and Sediments 4-97
4.4.4 Rowe Quarry Baseline Conditions 4-101
4.4.4.1 Geology and Soils . . . 4—101
4.4.4.2 Groundwater . 4—104
4.4.4.3 Surface Water and Sediments 4-104
4.4.5 StoughtonBaselineConditions 4-109
4.4.5.1 GeologyandSoils... 4—109
4.4.5.2 Groundwater 4—109
4.4.5.3 Surface Water and Sediments 4-112
4.4.6 Quincy FRSA Baseline Conditions 4-112
4.4.6.1 Geology and Soils 1’- 1l2
4.4.6.2 Groundwater ... 4—114
4.4.6.3 Surface Waterand Sediments 4-116
4.4.7 Spectacle Island Baseline Conditions 4-116
4.4.7.1 Geology and Soils . . . . 4—116
4.4.7.2 Groundwater 4—120
4.4.7.3 Surface WaterandSediments ..... 4-120
4.4.8 Deerlsland BaselineConditions . 4-121
4.4.8.1 Geology and Soils 4-121
4.4.8.2 Groundwater 4—121
4.4.8.3 SurfaceWaterandSediments 4-123
4.5 Noise 4—123
4.5.1 Introduction 4—123
4.5.2 Noise Measurement Scales 4-1 24
4.5.3 RegulatorySetting . 4-126
4.5.3.1 Federal Noise Guidelines 4-126
vi
-------
4.5.3.2 Massachusetts Noise Regulations and
Guidelines . . . . . . . .
4.5.4 Walpole MCI Baseline Conditions
4.5.4.1 Local Noise Ordinances
4.5.4.2 Ambient Noise Levels .
4.5.5 RoweQuarryBaselineCoriditions
4.5.5.1 Local Noise Ordinances . . . . . 4-130
4.5.5.2 Ambient Noise Levels
4.5.6 Stoughton Baseline Conditions
4.5.6.1 Local Noise Ordinances
4.5.6.2 Ambient Noise Levels
4.5.7 Quincy Baseline Conditions
4.5.7.1 Local Noise Ordinances
4.5.7.2 Ambient Noise Levels..
4.5.8 Spectacle Baseline Conditions. .
4.5.8.1 Local Noise Ordinances
4.5.8.2 Ambient Noise Levels
4.5.9 Deer Island Baseline Conditions
4.5.9.1 Local Noise Ordinances
4.5.9.2 Ambient Noise Levels
Walpole MCI Baseline Conditions
4.6.1.1 Residences on Winter Street
4.6.1.2 Residences on Main Street (Rt. IA) in
Walpole
4.6.1.3 MCI Cedar Junction
4.6.1.4 MCI Norfolk and Mass Bay Correctional
Institute .
4.6.1.5 Residences Near Beehive Drive
4.6.2 Rowe Quarry Baseline Conditions
4.6.2.1 Residences on Genoa Path and Ricker Street
4.6.2.2 Residences on Blue Hill Avenue
4.6.2.3 The North Shore Assembly of God Church
4.6.2.4 Residences Along Kennedy Drive
4.6.2.5 Town Line Estates Trailer Park
4.6.3 Stoughton Baseline Conditions
4.6.3.1 Residences and Industry on Maple Street
4.6.3.2 Residences on Sunrise Terrace
4.6.4 Quincy FRSA Baseline Conditions
4.6.4.1 Skyline Apartments
4.6.4.2 Quincy and South Shore Mental Health Center
4.6.4.3 Clement O’Brien Towers
4.6.4.4 Presidential Estates Tov nhouses
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
4-127
4-127
4-127
4-127
4-130
4.6 Visual
4.6.1
4-130
4-130
4-130
4-130
4-135
4-135
4-136
4-138
4-138
4-138
4-141
4-14 1
4-143
4-143
4-143
4-143
4-143
4-144
4-146
4-146
4-146
4-1 1 6
4-146
4-148
4-148
4-I 1L8
4-148
4-148
4-148
4-148
4-148
4-151
4-151
4-151
vi ’
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
4.6.5 Spectacle Island Baseline Conditions . .
4.6.5.1 Long lslandHospital .
4.6.5.2 Thompson Island
4.6.5.3 Castle Island
4.6.5.4 Squaw Rock Park
4.6.6 Deer Island Baseline Conditions
4.6.6.1 CottagePark
4.6.6.2 Long Island Hospital
4.7 Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecosystems
4.7.1 Regulatory Setting ....
4.7.1.1 Federal Regulations
4.7.1.2 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Regulations
4.7.2 Study Area
4.7.3 Walpole MCI Baseline Conditions
4.7.3.1 Overview
4.7.3.2 Terrestrial Communities
4.7.3.3 Wetlands
4.7.3.4 Wildlife
4.7.3.5 Resources of Special Concern
4.7.3.6 Speciesof Special Concern
4.7.4 Rowe Quarry Baseline Conditions
4.7.4.1 Overview
4.7.4.2 Terrestrial Communities
4.7.4.3 Resources of Special Concern
4.7.4.4 SpeciesofSpecialConcern
4.7.5 StoughtonBaselineConditions
4.7.5.1 Overview
4.7.5.2 Terrestrial Communities
4.7.5.3 Wetland Communities
4.7.5.4 Wildlife
4.7.5.5 Resources of Special Concern
4.7.5.6 Species of Special Concern
4.7.6 Quincy FRSA Baseline Conditions
4.7.6.1 Overview
4.7.6.2 Wetlands
4.7.6.3 Wildlife
4.7.6.4 Estuarine Communities
4.7.6.5 Resources of Special Concern
4.7.6.6 Species of Special Concern
4.7.7 Spectacle Island Baseline Conditions
4.7.7.1 Overview
4.7.7.2 Terrestrial Communities
4.7.7.3 Coastal Wetland and Intertidal Resource
Areas
4.7.7.4 Wildlife
Page
4-151
4-151
4-153
4-153
4-153
4-153
4-15 3
4-153
4-153
4-153
4-153
4-15)
4-155
4-155
4-155
4-158
4-158
4-160
4-162
4-162
4-162
4-16 2
4-16 2
4-163
4-165
4-165
4-165
4-165
4-165
4-168
4-168
4-169
4-169
4-169
4-169
4-171
4-171
4-171
4-172
4-17 2
4-172
... 4-174
4-174
4-176
viii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
4.7.7.5 Marine Communities 4—176
4.7.7.6 ResourcesofSpecialConcern.... 4-179
4.7.7.7 Species of Special Concern 4-181
4.7.8 Deer Island Baseline Conditions 4—18 1
4.7.8.1 Overview . . 4—181
4.7.8.2 CoastaiWetlands 4—181
4.7.8.3 Marine Communities 4—182
4.7.8.4 SpeciesofSpecialConcern 4-182
4.8 Public Health 4—182
4.8.1 Introduction 4—182
4.8.2 RegulatorySetting 4—183
4.8.2.1 Federal Clean Air Act 4-183
4.8.2.2 Federal Safe Drinking Water Act 4-183
4.8.2.3 Federal Clean Water Act 4-183
4.8.2.4 State Air Quality Standards 4-184
4.8.2.5 State Water Quality Standards 4-184
4.8.3 Study .A reas 4—184
4.8.4 Walpole MCI Baseline Conditions 4-185
4.8.4.1 Existing Conditions 4-185
4.8.4.2 Future Projections 4—186
4.8.5 Rowe Quarry Baseline Conditions 4-186
4.8.5.1 Existing Conditions 4—186
4.8.5.2 FutureProjections 4—187
4.8.6 StoughtonBaselineConditions 4-187
4.8.6.1 Existing Conditions 4—187
4.8.6.2 Future Projections 4—188
4.8.7 Quincy FRSA Baseline Conditions 4-188
4.8.7.1 Existing Conditions 4—188
4.8.7.2 Future Projections 4-139
4.8.8 Spectacle Island Baseline Conditions 4-189
4.8.8.1 Existing Conditions 4-189
4.8.8.2 Future Projections 4-190
4.8.9 Deer Island Baseline Conditions 4-190
4.8.9.1 Existing Conditions 4-190
4.8.9.2 Future Projections 4-191
4.9 Historic and Archaeological 4-191
4.9.1 Introduction 4—191
4.9.2 Regulatory Setting 4-192
4.9.2.1 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) 4-192
4.9.2.2 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 4-192
4.9.2.3 Protection of Historic Properties 4-192
4.9.2.4 National Register of Historic Places 4-192
u.9.2.5 MGL Chapter 9, Sections 26-27C 4-194
4.9.2.6 Underwater Archaeology Act 4-l9
ix
-------
4.9.3
4.9.4
4.9.5
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
4.9.5.1 Prehistoric Background
4.9.5.2 Historic Background
4.9.5.3 Site Sensitivity
4.9.5.4 Architectural Survey
4.9.6 Rowe Quarry Baseline Conditions..
4.9.6.1 Prehistoric Background
4.9.6.2 Historic Background
4.9.6.3 Site Sensitivity
4.9.7 Stoughton Baseline Conditions
4.9.7.1
4.9.7.2
4.9.7.3
4.9.8 Quincy
4.9.8.1
4.9.8.2
4.9.8.3
4.9.8.4
4.9.9 SpectacLe
4.9.9.1
4.10.2.3 MWRA Legislative Authority
4.10.2.4 Massachusetts Proposition 24
4.10.3 Walpole MCI Baseline Conditions
4.10.3.1 Site
4.10.3.2 Property in the Vicinity
4.10.3.3 Community
4.10.4 Rowe Quarry Baseline Conditions
4.10.4.1 Site
4.10.4.2 Property in the Vicinity
4.10.4.3 Community
4-199
4-199
4-200
4-200
4-200
4-20 I
4-20 1
4-201
4-201
4-201
4-201
4-201
4-202
4-202
4-202
4-202
4-202
4-202
4-203
4-203
4.9.2.7 Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act
(1’.4EPP) ........
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
Study Area
Walpole MCI. Baseline Conditions
I.
Page
4-194
4-194
4-194
4-194
4-194
4-195
4-195
4-196
4-196
4-196
4-196
4-196
4-197
4-197
4-197
4-197
4-197
4-197
4-197
4-198
4-198
4-199
Prehistoric Background
Historic Background
Site Sensitivity
FRSA Baseline Conditions
Prehistoric Background
Pre-2Oth-Century Period
20th-Century Period
Site Sensitivity . .
Is land Baseline Conditions
4.9.9.2
4.9.9.3
4.9.9.4
Prehistoric Background of the Boston
Basin Area . . . . .
The Harbor Islands
Historic Background
Site Sensitivity
4.9.10 Deer Island Baseline Conditions
4.10 Socioeconomic
4.10.1 Introduction
4.10.2 Regulatory Setting
4.10.2.1 National Environmental Policy Act
4.10.2.2 Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act
x
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
4.10.5 Stoughton Baseline Conditions 4-203
4.10.5.1 Site ..... .. 4—203
4.10.5.2 Property inthe Vicinity 4-203
4.10.5.3 Community... 4—203
4.10.6 Quincy FRSA Baseline Conditions 4-204
4.10.6.1 Site .... 4—204
4.10.6.2 Property in the Vicinity 4—204
4.10.6.3 Community 4—204
4.10.7 Spectacle Island Baseline Conditions 4-204
4.10.7.1 Site 4—204
4.10.7.2 Property in the Vicinity 4-204
4.10.7.3 Community 4-205
4.10.8 Deer Island Baseline Conditions 4-205
4.10.8.1 Site ..... 4—205
4.10.8.2 Property in the Vicinity 4-205
4.10.8.3 Community 4—205
CHAPTER FIVE - IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS OF ALTERNATIVES
5.1 Engineering 5—i
5.1.1 Engineering Considerations 5—1
5.1.2 EmergencyBack—up 5—1
5.1.3 Cost . . 5—1
5.1.4 Implications of Residuals Qualities 5—2
5.1.4.1 SludgeQuality 5—2
5.1.4.2 Heat Dried Sludge and Compost Qualities 5-2
5.1.5 Implications of Residuals Quantities 5-4
5.1.5.1 WalpoleMCI 5-4
5.1.5.2 Rowe Quarry 5-5
5.1.6 Implications of Residuals Qualities and Quantities
on Marketing 5-5
5.2 Land-Use Impacts 5-9
5.2.1 Significance Criteria 5-9
5.2.2 Walpole MCI 5—10
5.2.3 RoweQuarry 5-10
5.2.4 Stoughton 5-li
5.2.5 Quincy FRSA 5-12
5.2.6 Spectacle Island 5-13
5.2.7 Deerlsland 5—15
5.3 Transportatioriand Traffic 516
5.3.1 Introduction 5—16
5.3.2 Methodology 516
5.3.3 Significance Criteria 5-17
xi
-------
5.5 Water
5.5.1
Page
5-17
5-17
5-20
5-20
5-23
5-23
5-26
5-26
5-29
5-30
5-30
5-30
5-31
5-31
5-31
5-32
5-33
5-33
5-33
5-34
5-34
5-34
5-34
5-35
5-35
5-39
5-39
5-39
5-39
5-42
5-42
5-42
5-42
5-45
5-45
5-45
5-45
5-48
5-48
5-50
5-50
5-50
5-51
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
5.3.4 ‘a1po1e tvtCI .
5.3.4.1 Winter Street Route
5.3.4.2 PineStreet Route
5.3.5 Rov.’e Quarry
5.3.6 Stoughton
5.3.7 Quincy FRSA ....
5.3.7.1 TruckTraffic .
5.3.7.2 t 4arine Traffic
5.3.8 Spectacle Island
5.3.9 Deer Island .
5.4 Air Quality and Odors Impacts
5.4.1 Introduction and Methodology
5.4.1.1 Industrial Source Complex Short Term
L vtodel(ISCST)
5.4.1.2 Odor Predictions .
5.4.1.3 Fugitive Dust Emissions
5.4.2 SignificanceCriteria
5.4.3 “ .alpole MCI
5.4.3.1 Operations
5.4.3.2 Construction
5.4.3.3 Transportation
5.4.4 R.ov.’e Quarry
5.4.4.1 Operations and Construction .
5.4.4.2 Transportation
5.4.5 Stoughton .....
5.4.5.1 Operations
5.4.5.2 Interactive Sources .
5.4.5.3 Transportation
5.4.6 QuincyFRSA
5.4.6.1 Operations
5.4.6.2 InteractiveSources
5.4.6.3 Transportation
5.4.7 Spectaclelsland
5.4.7.1 Operations
5.4.7.2 Interactive Sources
5.4.7.3 Transportation
5.4.8 Deer Island
5.4.8.1 Operations
5.4.8.2 Interactive Sources
5.4.8.3 Transportation
and Soils
Significance Criteria
5.5.1.1 Soils
5.5.1.2 Groundwater and Surface Water
xii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
5-51
5-51
5-52
5-56
5-58
5-58
5-58
5-60
5-63
5-63
5-63
5-63
5-68
5-68
5-68
5-68
5-69
5-69
5-70
5-70
5-71
5-71
5-71
5-71
5-71
5-71
5-72
5-72
5-74
5-75
5-75
5-76
5-76
5-78
5-78
5-79
5-79
5-80
5-80
5-81
5-81
5-83
5-83
ivICI . •. . . . . . . .
5.5.2 Walpole
5.5.2.1 Soils ......... ..
5.5.2.2 Groundv ,ater . . . . . . . .
5.5.2.3 Surface Vlater . . . . . . . .
5.5.3 P_owe Quarry .
5.5.3.1 Soils
5.5.3.2 Groundwater . . . . .
5.5.3.3 Surface Water
5.5.4 Stoughton
5.5.4.1 Soils
5.5.4.2 Groundwater
5.5.4.3 Surface Water
5.5.5 Quincy FRSA
5.5.5.1 Soils
5.5.5.2 Groundwater
5.5.5.3 Surface Water
5.5.6 Spectacle Island
5.5.6.1 Soils
5.5.6.2 Groundwater
5.5.6.3 Surface Water
5.5.7 Deer Island
5.5.7.1 Soils
5.5.7.2 Groundwater
5.5.7.3 Surface Water
5.6 Noise
5.6.1
5.6.2
Impacts. .
Introduction and Methodology...
Significant Criteria
5.6.2.1 Noise Guidelines
5.6.2.2 Impact Criteria
5.6.3 WalpoleMCI
5.6.3.1 Noise Activities and Receptors
5.6.3.2 Site-Specific Criteria
5.6.3.3 Noise Projections and Impacts
5.6.4 RoweQuarry
5.6.4.1 Noise Activities and Receptors
5.6.4.2 Site—Specific Criteria
5.6.4.3 Noise Projections and Impacts
5.6.5 Stoughton
5.6.5.1 Noise Activities and Receptors
5.6.5.2 Site Specific Noise Criteria
5.6.5.3 Exterior Materials Handling Operations
Noise
5.6.5.4 Continuous Process Noise
5.6.5.5 Construction Noise
xiii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
5.6.6 Quincy FRSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5—83
5.6.6.1 Noise Activities and Receptors ...... 5-83
5.6.6.2 Site Specific Noise Criteria 5—84
5.6.6.3 Exterior Materials Handling Operations
Noise 5-84
5.6.6.4 ContinuousProcessNoise 5—85
5.6.6.5 Construction Noise 5—85
5.6.7 Spectacle Island . . . . . . . 5—86
5.6.7.1 Noise Activities and Receptors 5-86
5.6.7.2 Site Specific Noise Criteria 5—86
5.6.7.3 Exterior Materials Handling Operations
f’sIoise ... 5—86
5.6.7.4 Continuous Process Noise 5-86
5.6.7.5 Construction Noise ...... 5—87
5.6.8 Deer Island 5—87
5.7 Visual Impacts 5—88
5.7.1 Walpole MCI 5—88
5.7.2 Rowe Quarry 5—89
5.7.3 Stoughton 5—89
5.7.4 Quincy FR.SA 5—90
5.7.5 Spectacle Island 5—91
5.7.6 Deer Island 5—91
5.8 Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecosystems . . . . 5—92
5.8.1 SignificanceCriteria .. 5—92
5.8.2 Ialpole MCI ... ...... 5—92
5.8.2.1 Displacement and Contruction Impacts 5-92
5.8.2.2 Operations Impacts. 5—94
5.8.3 Rowe Quarry 5-95
5.8.3.1 Displacement and Construction Impacts 5-95
5.8.3.2 Operations Impacts 5-95
5.8.4 Stoughton 5—96
5.8.4.1 Displacement and Construction Impacts 5-96
5.8.4.2 Operations Impacts 5-96
5.8.5 Quincy FRSA 5—97
5.8.5.1 Displacement and Construction Impacts 5-97
5.8.5.2 Operations Impacts 5-97
5.8.6 SpectacLe Island 5—98
5.8.6.1 Displacement and Construction Impacts 5-98
5.8.6.2 Operations Impacts 5-98
5.8.7 Deer Island . 5—99
5.8.7.1 Displacement and Construction Impacts 5-99
5.8.7.2 Operations Impacts 5-99
5.9 Public Health 5—99
5.9.1 Introduction and Methodology 599
5.9.2 Significance Criteria 5-102
xiv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
5.9.3 ‘ 1a1pole MCI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5—102
5.9.3.1 Inhalation . • 5—102
5.9.3.2 Contact . 5—102
5.9.3.3 Ingestion 5103
5.9.4 Rov.’e Quarry 5—104
5.9.5 Stoughton 5—105
5.9.5.1 Inhalation . . . . . . . . . . . 5—105
5.9.5.2 Contact 5—105
5.9.5.3 Ingestion 5—105
5.9.6 Quincy FR.SA 5—108
5.9.6.1 Inhalation 5—108
5.9.6.2 Contact 5—108
5.9.6.3 Ingestion 5—108
5.9.7 Spectacle Island 5—109
5.9.8 Deer Island 5—109
5.10 HistortcandArchaeologica l 5—110
5.10.1 Significance Criteria 5—110
5.10.2 ‘ /alpole MCI 5—111
5.10.3 Rowe Quarry 5—111
5.10.4 Stoughton 5—112
5.10.5 QuincyFR SA 5—112
5.10.6 Spectacle Island 5—112
5.10.7 Deer Island 5—112
5.11 Socioeconomiclrr ipaCts 5—113
5.11.1 SignificanceCriteria. 5—113
5.11.2 Changes in Property Values 5-113
5.11.3 TaxRevenuelmpacts 5-114
5.11.3.1 Walpole MCI 5—114
5.11.3.2 RoweQuarry 5—114
5.11.3.3 Stoughton 5—115
5.11.3.4 QuincyFRSA 5—115
5.11.3.5 Spectaclelsland 5-116
5.11.3.6 Deer Island 5-116
5.11.4 Land Taking 5—116
5.11.4.1 WalpoleMCI 5-116
5.11.4.2 RoweQuarry 5—116
5.11.4.3 Stoughton 5—116
5.11.4.4 QuincyFRSA 5-116
5.11.4.5 Spectacle Island 5-117
5.11.4.6 Deerlsland 5—117
xv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
CHAPTER SIX - ACCEPTED ALTERNATIVES
6.! Introduction 6—1
6.2 SiteAcceptabilityandMitigation 6—1
6.2.1 /alpole ttvICI. 6—1
6.2.2 Rowe Quarry 6—2
6.2.3 Stoughton 6—6
6.2.4 Quincy FR.SP 6—8
6.2.5 Spectacle Island 6-9
6.2.6 Deer Island 6—9
6.3 Formulation and Discussion of Options 6-10
CHAPTER SEVEN - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM
7.1 Introduction 7—1
7.2 Major Public Participation Activities . 7—1
7.2.1 Scoping 7—I
7.2.2 forkpIan 7—2
7.2.3 Facilities Planning Citizen’s Advisory Committee 7-2
7.2.4 The Regional Task Forces 7-2
7.2.5 Public Meetings and Hearings 7-3
7.3 Support Services 7—3
7.3.1 Announcements and Notice of Availability ... . 7-3
7.3.2 Listof Repositories 7—3
7.3.3 Mailing Lists and Interested Parties 7-3
7.4 Issues - 7—3
7.4.1 Air Quality 7—5
7.4.2 Water Supply 7-5
7.4.3 Transportation/Traffic 7-5
7.4.4 Property Values 7-5
7.4.5 Land Use Conflicts 7-5
7.4.6 Health Risks 7-5
7.4.7 Equitable Distribution of Regional Responsibility 7-6
7.4.8 Community Perception 7-6
7.4.9 Screening Process 7-6
7.4.10 ReuseofResiduals 7-6
7.4.11 Reliability of Technology 7-6
7.4.12 Site Utilities 7-6
7.4.13 Cultural Resources 7—7
7.4.14 Safety 7—7
7.4.15 Costs 7-7
7.4.16 Pretreatment Program 7-7
xvi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
CHAPTER EIGHT-LISTOFPREPARERS.............. ......... 8-1
APPENDICES
A ResidualsCharacterization A—I
B Transportationandlraffic.... B—I
C Sensitive Receptors C—I
D WaterandSoilsSamplingData D—l
E Screening DataSummary. E-1
REFERENCES
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
GLOSSARY
xvii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
Ci-IAPTER ONE - PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
CHAPTER TWO - DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES
2.2.! Summary of Technology Screening ... . . . 2-6
2.2.2 Technology Alternatives Examined . .... 2—7
2.3.1 Summary of Candidate Options 2-9
2.5.1 Sites and Potential Uses Recommended for Detailed Analysis
in the SEIS 2—16
CHAPTER THREE - DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
3.1-1 Projected Sludge Quantities for Deer Island WWTP 3-2
3.1-2 Comparison of Wastewater Treatment Plant Removal
Efficiencies 3—3
3.1-3 Comparison of Projected Pollutant Concentrations to
Measured Concentrations of Primary Digested Sludge for
the ?vt /RA System
3.1-4 Summary of Quality Projections for Digested Combined
Primary and Secondary Sludge and 1-leat-Dried Sludge 3-7
3.1-5 Summary of TCLP Leachate Analysis of MWRA Digested
Primary Sludge 3—S
3.1-6 Projected Quantity of Heat-Dried Sludge 3-10
3.1-7 Summary of Probable Composung Process Parameters 3-1 1
3.1-8 Maximum Digested Sludge Compost Quantities for Reactor
System 3—11
3.1-9 Projected Combined Primary and Secondary Sludge Compost
MetaisConcentrations 3—12
xviii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
3.1-10 Projected Combined Primary and Secondary Ash Quantities 3-13
3.1-11 Major Chemical Constituents of Combined Primary and
Secondary Sludge Ash . . . . . . . . 3—14
3.1-12 Projected Digested Combined Primary and Secondary Sludge
Ash Metals Quality 3—14
3.1-13 Summary of EP-Toxicity Analyses Performed on Dewatered
DigestedPrimarySludgeandAsh 3—15
3.1-14 Projected Annual Average MWRA Grit and Screenings
Quantities 3—18
3.1-1) Conventional Characterisitics of Minor Residuals 3-18
3.1-16 Extraction Procedure Toxicity Analyses Performed on Grit
and Screenings 3—19
3.1-17 Projected Scum Quantities 3-19
3.1-18 Extraction Procedure Toxicity Analyses Performed on North
and South Systems Scum 3—20
3.1-19 Summary of Projected Residuals Characteristics 3—21
3.1-20 Summary of Projected Residuals Pollutant Concentrations 3-22
3.2-1 Utility Requirements for Residuals Management Technologies 3-23
3.2-2 Major Compost Users 3-29
3.3-1 Possible Transport Mode/Residuals Combinations 3-39
CHAPTER FOUR - ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY SETTING
4.2-1 Level of Service Designations 4-48
4.2-2 Functional Classification of Roadways 4-49
4.2-3 Walpole MCI Worst-Case Existing and Projected Traffic
and Operating Conditions 4—52
4.2-4 Rowe Quarrty Worst-Case Existing and Projected Traffic
and Operating ConditLons 4-55
xix
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
4.2-5 Stoughton Worst-Case Existing and Projected Traffic
and Operating Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4—57
4.2-6 Quincy FRSA Existing and Projected Traffic and Operating
Conditions . 4—60
4.2-7 Characteristics of the Marine Approaches to the Alternate -
ResidualsSites. 4—60
4.3-1 Summary of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 4-68
4.3-2 Federal PSD Significant Emission Level Thresholds 4-69
4.3-3 Federal PSD Maximum Allowable Increments 4-70
4.3-4 Massachusetts Air Toxics Guidelines 4-72
4.3-5 MASN Monitor Locations and Monitored Pollutants 4-76
4.3-6 Estimated Background Levels for Toxic Pollutants 4-77
4.3-7 Walpole MCI Representative Ambient Air Quality
Monitoring Data . 4—79
4.3-8 Rowe Quarry Representative Ambient Air Quality Monitoring
Data . 4—81
4.3-9 Stoughton Representative Ambient Air Quality Monitoring
Data 4—83
4.3-10 Quincy FRSA Representative Ambient Air Quality Monitoring
Data 4—85
4.3-11 Spectacle Island Representative Ambient Air Quality
Monitoring Data 4—88
4.5.1 Summary of Noise Levels Identified as Requisite to Protect
Public Health ands Welfare with an Adequate argin of
Safety 4—126
4.5-2 Typical Daytime Noise Levels at Urban and Suburban
Residential Areas 4—127
4.5-3 Walpole MCI Noise Measurement Locations 4-1 29
xx
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
4.5-4 Walpole MCI Noise Measurement Results . 4-129
4.5-5 Rowe Quarry Noise Meaurement Locations 4-132
4.5-6 Rowe Quarry Noise Meaurement Results 4-132
4.5-7 Stoughton Noise Measurement Locations . 4-134
4.5-8 Stoughton Noise Measurement Results 4-135
4.5-9 Quincy FRSA Noise Measurement Locations .... 4-136
4.5-10 Quincy FRSA Noise Measurement Results 4-139
4.5-11 Spectacle Island Noise Measurement Locations .. 4-141
4.5-12 Spectacle Island Noise Measurement Results .... 4-141
4.5-13 Deer Island Noise Measurement Locations 4-144
4.5-14 Deer Island Noise Measurement Results 4-144
4.7—1 fa1pole MCI Flora 4—159
4.7-2 Walpole MCI Bird Species 4-161
4.7-3 Walpole MCI Fish Species Potentially Occurring in
the Stop River 4—163
4.7—4 Stoughton Flora 4—168
4.7-5 Quincy FRSA Bird Species 4-172
4.7-6 Spectacle Island Bird Species 4-177
4.7-7 Spectacle Island Benthic Specteis 4-178
4.7-8 Partial Listing of Fish Species Occurring in Boston Harbor 4-180
4.8-1 Walpole MCI Projected Percent Change in Population 4-186
4.8-2 Rowe Quarry Projected Percent Change in Population 4-187
4.8-3 Stougton Projected Percent Change in Population & -lSS
xxi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
4.8-4 Quincy FRSA Projected Percent Change in Population 14-189
4.9—1 Prehistoric and Historic Time Periods 4—195
CHAPTER FIVE - IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS OF ALTERNATIVES
5.1-1 Comparison of Heat Dried Sludge and Compost Pollutant
Concentrations to State Land-Application Regulations 5-3
5.1-2 Available Capacities of the Walpole-MCI and Rowe Quarry
Landfill Alternatives 5—6
5.3-I Walpole MCI Possible 2020 Residuals Traffic Scenarios 5-18
5.3-2 Walpole MCI Existing Traffic and Worst-Case Residuals
2020 Traffic 5—19
5.3-3 Rowe Quarry Possible 2020 Residuals Traffic Scenarios 5-21
5.3-4 Rowe Quarry Existing Traffic and Worst-Case Residuals 2020
Trafficimpacts 522
5.3-5 Stoughton Posible 2020 Residuals Traffic Scenarios 5-24
5.3-6 Stoughton Existing Traffic and Worst-Case Residuals
2020 Traffic Impacts 5—25
5.3-7 Quincy FRSA Possible 2020 Residuals Traffic Scenarios 5-27
5.3-8 Quincy FRSA Existing Traffic and Worst-Case 2020 Residuals
Traffic Impacts 5—28
5.3-9 Maximum 2020 Residuals Barge Scenarios 5-29
5.4-1 Stoughton Heat Drying and Combustion NAAQS Compliance
Analysis 5—36
5.4-2 Constituents of Concern Exceeding the DEQE 10 Percent AAL
Guideline Based on the Worst-Case 24-Hour Maximum
Concentration at Each Site 5-37
5.4-3 Quincy FRSA Heat Drying NAAQS Compliance Analysis 5-41
xxii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
5.4-4 Spectacle Island Heat Drying and Combustion NAAQS Compliance
Analysis 5-43
5.4-5 Deer Island Heat Drying and Combustion NAAQS Compliance
Analysis 5-47
5.4-6 Deer Island Stack Parameters and Emission Rates from the
Potential MWRA 40m MW and 80 MW Power Plants 5-49
5.4-7 Deer Island 40MW and 80 MW Potential
Power Plants NAAQS Compliance Analysis 5-50
Walpole MCI Predicted Pollutant Concentrations at
Norfolk MCI Water Supply Wells Due to a Landfill Leak
Landfill . 5—55
5.5-2 Walpole Landfill Predicted Pollutant Concentrations in
StopRiverDuetoaLandfillLeak .
5.5-3 Rowe Quarry Predicted Pollutant Concentration in Groundwater
Due to a Landfill Leak . . . 5—60
5.5-4 Rowe Quarry Predicted Pollutant Concentrations in Surface
Water Due toaLandfillLeak ...... 5—62
5.5-5 Pollutants for Which Water Quality Impacts Due to Emission
Deposition Were Predicted 5-65
5.5-6 Stoughton Predicted Pollutant Concentrations in Brockton
Reservoir Due to Maximum Processing Scenario 5-66
5.5-7 Stoughton Predicted Pollutant Concentrations in Glen Echo
Pond Due to Maximum Processing Scenario 5-67
5.6-1 Noise Levels Identified as Requisite to Protect Public
Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety 5-73
5.6-2 Maximum Allowable Hourly Le Noise Emissions Equivalent
to LDN 55 dBA 5—73
5.6-3 Ambient Noise Level (L 90 ) for DEQE Requirement Comparable
toNoiseEmissionsat LDN = 55dBA 5-73
5.6-4 Recommended Significant Impact Criteria for Site Noise
Emissions 5-75
xxiii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
5.6-5 Typical Noise Emission Levels for Earthmoving Equipment 5-75
5.6-6 Equipment Scenario for Landfill Operations . . . . . 5-77
5.6—7 Walpole MCI “Worst—Case” Noise Emissions 5—77
5.6-8 Rowe Quarry “Worst-Case” Noise Emissions . 5-80
5.6-9 Typical Noise Emission Levels for Exterior Materials
HandlingEquipmeflt 5—82
5.6-10 Stoughton Noise Emissions from Exterior Materials Handling
operations 5—82
5.6-li Quincy FRSA Noise Emissions from Quincy FRSA
Exterior Materials Handling Operations 5-85
5.6-12 Spectacle Island Noise Emissions from Exterior
Materials Handling Operations 5-87
5.9-I Stoughton Site Water Quality Criteria Exceedances 5-107
CHAPTER SIX - ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVES
6.2-1 Recommended Mitigation Measures 6-3
6.3-1 Acceptable Site and Technology Combinations 6-li
CHAPTER SEVEN - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM
7.3-1 List of Repositories
CHAPTEREIGHT-LISTORPREPARERS 8-1
xxiv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
APPENDIX A - RESIDUALS CHARACTERIZATION
A.! Comparison of Projected Pollutant Concentrations to
Measured Concentrations of Primary Digested Sludge for
the V1WRP System. A—I
A.2 Deer Island Finished Compost Inorganics Data From the MWRA
Pilot Compost Monitoring Program A—2
APPENDIX B - TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
6.1 Residuals Vehicles Trucks by Material, Per Day, .5 Days a
Week(Year 2020 WorstCase) B—i
6.2 Landfill Site Truck Trips Per Day, 5 Days Per Week, by Site
( ‘Year 2020 — Worst Cast) . . . . . . . . . . . . B—i
6.3 Processing Site Truck Trips Per Day, Five Days Per Week, by
Site (Year 2020—WorstCase) B—2
B.4 Residuals Vehicles by Material, Per Week and Day (Year 2020
Worst—Case) 6—3
6.5 Landfill Site Truck Round Trips Per Day, By Site (Year 2020
Worst—Case) . B—4
6.6 Processing Site Truck Round Trip Per Day, By Site (Year 2020
Worst—Case) 6—5
APPENDIX C - SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
C.i Walpole MCI Sensitive Receptors C-I
C.2 Rowe Quarry Sensitive Receptors C-4
C.3 StoughtonSensitiveReceptors C-b
C.4 Quincy FRSA Sensitive Receptors C-17
C.5 Spectacle Island Sensitive Receptors C-31
C.6 Deer Island Sensitive Receptors C-35
xxv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
APPENDIX D - WATER QUALITY
0.1 Pollutant Concentrations in Surface Soil at Walpole MCI 0-1
0.2 Pollutant Concentrations in Subsurface Soil at Walpole MCI . . . D-2
0.3 Pollutant Concentrations and Water Quality Parameters in
Groundwater at Walpole MCI 0-4
0.4 Pollutant Concentrations and Water Quality Parameters in
Surface Waterat WalpoleMCI . 0—6
0.5 Pollutant Concentrations in Sediment at Walpole MCI D-8
0.6 Pollutant Concentrations and Water Quality Parameters in
Croundv 1 ,aterat t.4aIden D9
D.7 Pollutant Concentrations and Water Quality Parameters in
Surface WateratMalden 0—Il
0.8 Pollutant Concentrations in Sediment at Maiden 0-12
0.9 Pollutant Concentrations in Surface Soil at Stoughton D-13
0.10 Pollutant Concentrations in Subsurface Soil at Stoughton 0-14
0.11 Pollutant Concentrations and Water Quality Parameters in
Groundwater at Stoughton 0—15
0.12 Pollutant Concentrations and Water Quality Parameters in
SurfaceWateratStoughton D—17
0.13 Pollutant Concentrations in Sediment at Stoughton 0-18
0.14 Metal Concentrations in Surface Soil at Quincy FRSA D-19
0.15 Organic Pollutant Concentrations in Subsurface Soil
atQuincyFRSA D-20
0.16 Metal Concentrations in Subsurface Soil at Quincy FRSA 0-21
0.17 Pollutant Concentrations Detected in Groundwater at
Quincy FRSA D-22
xxvi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
D.18 Comparison of Toxic Metal Contaminants of Concern Detected
in Quincy FRSA Groundwater with Selected Regulatory
Criteria . D—23
D.19 Pollutant Concentrations in Surface Water at Quincy FRSA D-24
D.20 Pollutant Concentrations in Sediment Samples at Quincy
FRSA...... •...... D—25
D.21 Pollutant Concentrations and Water Quality Parameters in
Groundwater and Surface Water at Spectacle Island D-27
D.22 Priority Pollutant Concentrations in Groundwater and
Surface Water at Spectacle Island . D-28
D.23 Pollutant Concentrations in Sediment Collected Offshore
Spectacle Island D—29
D.24 Classification of Dredge Material from the Potential
Deer Island to Spectacle Island Pipeline by Chemical
Constituents D—30
D.25 Classification of Dredge Material from the Potential
Deer Island to Spectacle Island Pipeline or Fill
Material by Physical Characteristics D—3l
D.26 Physical Characteristics of Offshore Spectacle Island D-32
D.27 Pollutant Concentrations in Groundwater at Deer Island D-33
D.28 Pollutant Concentrations in Boston Harbor near Deer Island D-34
D.29 Pollutant Concentrations in Sediment near Deer Island D-35
APPENDIX E - SCREENING DATA SUMMARY
E.l Screening Data Summary E-l
xxvii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
2.1-1 Overall Logic of the SEIS Alternatives Screening 2-3
2.1-2 Summary of Long-Term Residuals Management Facilities
PlanAlternativesScreeningStepS 2—4
2.5-1 Proposed Processing and Landfill Sites for Final Options 2-17
3.1-1 Locations of Grit and Screenings Collection 3—17
3.2-1 Deer Island Residuals Processing Site Layout 3-24
3.2-2 Two Stage High Rate Digester System 3-26
3.2-3 Processing Diagram for Composting 3-28
3.2-4 Schematic of Proposed Heat Drying Facility 3-31
3.2—5 Fluidized Bed Incinerator 3—33
3.2-6 Schematic of Cap and Liner Systems 3-36
3.2-7 Schematic of Cell Development 3-38
3.3-1 TypicalStandardDumpTrailer 3-40
3.3—2 TypicalPusherlrailer 3—41
3.4—1 Walpole MCI Landfi llSite 3—46
3.4-2 Walpole MCI Residuals Landfill Site Layout 3-47
3.4-3 Walpole MCI - Existing and Proposed Utilities 3-48
3.4-4 Rowe Quarry Landfill Site 3-50
3.4-5 Rowe Quarry Residuals Landfill Site Layout 3-52
3.4-6 Rowe Quarry - Existing and Proposed Utilities 3-53
3.4-7 Stoughton Processing Site 154
3.4-8 Stoughton Residuals Processing Site Layout 3-55
3.4-9 Stoughton - Existing Utilities 3-57
3.4-10 Quincy FRSA Processing Site 3-59
xxviii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Page
3.4-11 Quincy FRSA Residuals Processing Site Layout. 3-60
3.4—12 Quincy FRSA — Existing Utilities . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 3—61
3.4—13 Spectacle Island Processing Site 3—63
3.4-14 Spectacle Island Residuals Processing Site Layout 3-65
3.4—15 Spectacle Island — Proposed Utilities . . 3—66
3.4—16 Deer Island Processing Site 3—67
3.4—17 Deer Island — Proposed Utilities 3—69
4.1-1 Walpole MCI Predominant Land Uses Within One Mile of the
Site 4—6
4.1—2 Walpole MCI Important Farmland 4—10
4.1-3 Rowe Quarry Predominant Land Uses Within One Mile of the
Site 4—12
4.1—4 Rowe Quarry Important Farmland 4—18
4.1-5 Stoughton Predominent Land Uses Within One Mile of the
Site . 4—19
4.1—6 Stoughton Important Farmland 4—26
4.1-7 Quincy FRSA Predominant Land Uses Within One Mile of the
Site 4—27
4.1-8 Quincy FRSA Important Farmland 4-34
4.1-9 Spectacle Island Predominant Land Uses Within One Mile of
the Site 4—35
4.1-10 Spectaclelsland lmportantFarmland 4-39
4.1-11 Deer Island Predominant Land Uses Within One Mile of the
Site 4—41
4.1-12 Deer Island Important Farmland 4-45
4.2-I Walpole MCI Truck Transport Alternatives Route 4-50
XXIX
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Page
4.2-2 Rowe Quarry Truck Transport Alternatives Route 4-53
4.2-3 Stoughton Truck Transport Alternatives Route ......... 4-56
4.2-4 Quincy FRSA Truck Transport Alternatives Route 4-58
4.2-5 Boston Harbor Navigation Channels and Residuals Barge
Routes - Quincy FRSA, Deer Island and Spectacle Island 4-62
4.2-6 Boston Harbor Water Transportation Facilities 4-63
4.2-7 Recreational Land Uses on Boston Harbor 4-64
4.3-1 Walpole MCI One Kilometer Study Area 4-78
4.3-2 Rowe Quarry One Kilometer Study Area 4-80
4.3-3 Stoughton Three Kilometer Study Area 4-82
4.3-4 Quincy FRSA One Kilometer Study Area 4 -8t
4.3-5 Spectacle Island Three Kilometer Study Area 4-87
4.3-6 rj s [ andOneKilometerStudyArea 4-89
4.4-I Soil Boring and Monitoring Well Locations at the Walpole
MCI Site 4—94
4.4-2 Neponset Sole-Source Aquifer in the Vicinity of the Walpole
MCI Site 4—95
4.4-3 Water Resource Protection Overlay District in the Vicinity
of the Walpole MCI Site 4-96
4.4-4 Delineation of Aquifer Yield Within One Mile of the Walpole
MCI Site 4—98
4.4-5 Zone II Delineations for Existing and Proposed Norfolk MCI
Water Supply Wells
4.4-6 Surface Water Bodies and Major Drainage Basin Delineations
Within One Mile of the Walpole MCI Site 4-100
4.4-7 100-Year Floodplains Within One Mile of the ialpo [ e MCI
Site LL_102
xxx
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Page
4.4-8 Surface Water and Sediment Sampling Locations at Walpole
tvlCl .............. . 4—103
4.4-9 Delineation of Aquifer Yield Within one Mile of Rowe
Quarry 4—105
4.4-10 Soil Boring and Monitoring Well Locations at Rowe Quarry 4-106
4.4-1 1 Surface Water Bodies and Drainage Basin Delineations Within
OneMileofRoweQuarry 4—107
4.4-12 Surface Water and Sediment Sampling Locations at Rowe
Quarry 4—108
4.4-13 Soil Boring and Monitoring Well Locations at Stoughton
Site . . 4—110
4.4-14 Delineation of Aquifer Yield Within One Mile of Stoughton
Site 4—111
4.4-15 Surface Water and Sediment Sampling Locations at Stoughton
Site 4—113
4.4-16 Surface Water and Sediment Sampling Locations at Quincy
FRSA 4—115
4.4-17 Surface Water Bodies and Major Drainage Basin Delineations
Within one Mile of Quincy FRSA 4—117
4.4-18 100-Year Floodplains Within One Mile of Quincy FRSA 4-1 18
4.4-19 Soil, Groundwater, Surface Water, and Sediment Sampling
Locations at Spectacle Island 4—119
4.4-20 Delineation of Aquifer Yield Within One Mile of Deer
Island 4—122
4.5-I Typical Sound Levels in dBA and Their Subjective Loudness 4-125
4.5-2 Walpole MCI Noise Monitoring Locations 4-128
4.5-3 Rowe Quarry Noise Monitoring Locations 4-131
4.5-4 Stoughton Noise Monitoring Locations 4-133
xxxi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Page
4.5-5 Quincy FRSA 1000 Foot Study Area and Noise
Monitoring Locations . . . . . . . 4—137
4.5-6 Spectacle Island 1000 Foot Study Area and Noise
Monitoring Locations 4—140
4.5-7 Deer Island 1000 Foot Study Area and Noise
Monitoring Locations . . . . . . 4—142
4.6-1 Walpole MCI Potential Visual Receptor Areas 4-145
4.6-2 Rowe Quarry Potential Visual Receptor Areas 4-147
4.6-3 Stoughton Potential Visual Receptor Areas 4-149
4.6-4 Quincy FRSA Potential Visual Receptor Areas 4-150
4.6-5 Spectacle Island Potential Visual Receptor Areas 4-152
4.6-6 Deer Island Potential Visual Receptor Areas 4-154
4.7—1 WalpoleMClandEnvirons 4—156
4.7-2 Location of Ecological Communities on the Walpole MCI
Site 4—157
4.7—3 Rowe Quarry and Environs 4—164
4.7—4 StoughtonSiteandEnvirons 4—166
4.7-5 Location of Ecological Communities on the Stoughton Site 4-167
4.7-6 Productive Soft-Shell Clam Flats in the Weymouth Fore River
and Hingham Bay, 1970 4-170
4.7-7 CommercialFishingResources 4-173
4.7-8 Spectacle Island Resource Areas and Habitat 4-175
4.9-1 The Basic Steps of Section 106 Review 4-193
5.1-1 Comparison of Volume of Sludge Product Produced and
Available Capacity of Landfill Alternatives 5-7
5.4-1 Stoughton Air Quality Impacts 5-38
xxxii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Page
5.4.2 QuincyFRSAAirQualitylmpacts .... . 5—40
5.4—3 Spectacle Island Air Quality Impacts . . . 5—44
5.4.4 Deer Island Air Quality Impacts . . . . . 5—46
5.5-I Drainage Areas to Rumney Marshes and Its Tributary 5-61
5.9-1 Potential Exposure Pathways for Landfill Sites 5-100
5.9-2 Potential Exposure Pathways for Processing Sites 5-101
C.l Walpole MCI Sensitive Receptors C-3
C.2 Rowe Quarry Sens it iveReceptors C-9
C.3 Stoughton Sensitive Receptors C—16
C.4 - Quincy FRSA Sensitive Receptors C-30
C.4 Spectacle Island Sensitive Receptors C-34
C.5 Deer Island Sensitive Receptors C-4l
xxxiii
-------
CHAPTER ONE
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SE IS) addresses the siting,
construction, and operation of residuals management facilities associated with the
secondary wastewater treatment plant being constructed by the Massachusetts Water
Resources Authority (MWRA) on Deer Island. Residuals are by-products of the
wastewater treatment process, including:
• Sludge - Particles and microorganisms that settle out of wastewater during
the treatment process
• Screenings - Large objects such as cloth, wood, and plastic floatables
removed from wastewater before treatment
• Grit - Small, heavy particles such as sand and gravel that settle before the
wastewater reaches the treatment plant and that are collected at sewer
headworks
• Scum - Floating matter such as oil and grease skimmed from the surface of
wastewater during treatment
This Draft SEES describes, compares, and evaluates the potential impacts of a range of
proposed alternatives for processing, reusing, and disposing of residuals generated as
by-products of the new Deer Island plant and remote headworks operations. It
evaluates the options for residuals management against criteria related to land use, air
quality and odor, public health, transportation and traffic, water and soils, noise, visual
resources, ecology and wetlands, cultural resources, community and socioeconomic
factors, and engineering and cost. Its objective is to analyze and identify the
acceptable options(s), which will provide a basis for the subsequent EPA Final SEES and
Record of Decision (ROD) on residuals management.
This Draft SEIS has been prepared in accordance with the EPA and Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) procedures for implementing the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), set out in 40 CFR Parts 6 and 1500 respectively. It is termed
“supplemental” because it augments the EPA’s 1985 Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) for siting the new Deer Island Wastewater Treatment Plant (U.S. EPA,
FEIS, 1985), which did not evaluate alternatives for managing the residuals produced at
the plant.
This Draft SEIS addresses long-term residuals management associated with the new
treatment facilities for residuals generated after 1995, as opposed to short-term
residuals management that addresses residuals generated from 1991 to 1995 from the
existing treatment plant. The EPA’s review of the short-term program is separate from
its review of the long-term program.
1—1
-------
1.2 PRO3ECT BACKGROUND
Boston Harbor covers approximately 50 square miles; supports a wide variety of
significant commercial, recreational, and aesthetic resources; and is today severely
polluted. Based on an account of harbor pollution sources identified in the EPA’s
treatment plant siting SDEIS (U.S. EPA, DSEIS, 1, 1984), effluent and sludge discharges
from the MWRA’s existing treatment plants on Deer and Nut Islands account for more
than 50 percent of the oxygen-depleting matter and suspended solids entering Boston
Harbor.
These two facilities serve 43 communities in the greater Boston area. They release 450
million gallons of insufficiently treated wastewater and 70 dry tons of digested sewage
sludge into the harbor during average daily operations (U.S. EPA, FEIS, 1985). The daily
discharge of 135 tons of effluent solids and approximately 70 tons of digested sludge
solids are a result of the two outdated and overloaded plants and their ocean-
discharging outfalls. Added to the plants’ inadequately treated effluent, the discharges
of over 100 CSOs, river discharges, and direct runoff from over 322 square miles of land
in the greater Boston area have contaminated fish and shellfish, caused beach closings,
and severely degraded the quality of the harbor (U.S. EPA, DSEIS, 1, 1984).
The MWRA is now in the process of designing and constructing new primary and
secondary wastewater treatment facilities on Deer Island to serve metropolitan Boston
and to improve the conditions in Boston Harbor. This project is being conducted in
accordance with a schedule mandated by the U.S. District Court (U.S. v. M.D.C., et al.,
Civil Action No. 85-0489-MA). Since the 1982 filing of a suit in the Massachusetts
courts by the city of Quincy against the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC), the
MWRA’s predecessor agency, for the unlawful pollution of Boston Harbor, litigation has
been a part of the effort by citizen and environmental groups, affected communities,
and the EPA to reverse the severely polluted conditions in Boston Harbor. The MWRA
took over the sewer and water operations serving the greater Boston area from the
MDC at the time of the MWRA’s creation on July 1, 1985. Thus, MWRA became
responsible for meeting the mandated schedule for harbor cleanup. The MWRA is
required by the court schedule to halt sludge disposal into the harbor by 1991, to
initiate full primary treatment by 1995, and to have its new secondary treatment
facilities in operation by 1999.
1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED
The purpose of this Draft SEIS is fourfold: to satisfy the EPA’s commitment for further
environmental review as specified in the EPA’s 1986 Record of Decision for the siting
of the new treatment plant, to assure compliance with NEPA requirements for this
major and complicated project, to provide an independent review of the MWRA’s
residuals management facilities plan, and to ensure that the decisions made will result
in compliance with the federal Clean Water Act.
The siting FEIS and the EPA’s subsequent Record of Decision (issued on February 28,
1986) supporting the selection of the Deer Island site for the new wastewater treatment
plant required that related project components other than the plant itself, including
long-term residuals management, undergo additional environmental review. The
environmental review was partitioned in this way because it would have been infeasible
1-2
-------
to conduct the environmental review of all related project components at the same
time, and because these components, although a part of the overall harbor cleanup
project, did not affect the treatment plant siting decision. Nevertheless, because these
components are related to the new treatment plant and because they contribute, with
the wastewater treatment plant, to the overall projected impacts of the cleanup
project, they require supplemental environmental review.
Other components specified in the ROD as requiring further review included a
conveyance system to move untreated sewage between Nut Island and Deer Island, the
new effluent discharge system, piers and staging areas to be used for treatment plant
construction, and the disposal of earthen or dredged materials generated during
construction. Separate NEPA action has been completed for these other aspects of the
project ( U.S. EPA, DSEIS, I, 1988; and U.S. EPA, Piers, 1988). This Draft SEIS
addresses the residuals management aspect of the Deer Island wastewater treatment
process. Where there are significant interactions between residuals management and
other aspects of harbor cleanup, this SEIS evaluates the aggregate impacts.
The second purpose of this residuals SEIS is to assure that the objectives of NEPA for
environmental impact statements are met, in particular the requirement for considering
a comprehensive range of reasonable alternatives. This report describes the potential
impacts of a range of feasible alternatives for the processing, disposal, or reuse of
residuals produced by the Deer Island treatment facilities and remote headworks. It
compares the relative impacts among alternatives, recommends a plan of action, and
discusses mitigation measures for significant impacts.
Thirdly, this Draft SEIS provides an independent review of MWRA’s long-term Residuals
Management Facilities Plan (RMFP) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This
Draft SEIS is a “piggyback” document in that it draws heavily on the technical and
scientific studies conducted by the MWRA for its residuals management program as
described in its Draft EIR and RMFP, issued in February of 1989, and associated
documents. However, the EPA supplemented the existing MWRA data where necessary
and conducted an independent evaluation of the data and assumptions used by the
MWRA. The EPA also critically evaluated the process by which the MWRA developed
and screened its candidate options for residuals management. Thus, this Draft SEIS is
an independent document from the MWRA’s Environmental Impact Report.
Fourth, an important role of the SEIS is to provide an arena in which the EPA can
evaluate the MWRA’s residuals management progress to ensure that it will satisfy the
requirements of the Clean Water Act and will, along with the other cleanup steps, allow
Boston Harbor to be gradually restored from a severely polluted to an environmentally
sound condition.
1.4 EIS PROCESS
The EPA began this SEIS process by publishing a Notice of Intent on January 17, 1986,
and holding a series of scoping meetings in the metropolitan Boston area (see Chapter
Seven). The EPA’s subsequent February 1986 draft scoping outline for the SEES
presented proposed residuals management alternatives, the issues to be addressed for
each option, and an approach for SEES preparation. The scopirig outline also described
features of a comprehensive public participation program for the residuals management
1-3
-------
planning process. A final EPA scoping outline issued in June of 1987 provided a
framework and process for the EPA’s evaluation of the alternatives retained for
detailed analysis and made clear the key issues needing emphasis. This Draft SEIS also
addresses additional components identified in the ongoing scoping process and made
part of the project scope in February of 1988.
After a 60-day public review and comment period, the EPA will publish its Final SEIS in
the fall of 1989, responding to and incorporating comments received. After a similar,
subsequent review period, the EPA will issue its final Record of Decision on the
residuals management facilities plan associated with the Boston Harbor cleanup in early
1990. As the final NEPA document in the EIS process for residuals management, this
Record of Decision will document the EPA’s decision and any required mitigation
measures.
1-4
-------
CHAPTER TWO
DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES
2.1 SCREENING CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES
2.1.1 Criteria
The Environmental Protection Agency is obligated under NEPA to evaluate a reasonable
range of alternatives in its SEIS and Record of Decision (ROD) on the Residuals
Management Facilities Plan. Further, EPA is obligated to specify the single or several
environmentally preferred alternatives in the ROD. When the range of potentialty
reasonable alternatives is impracticably large for analysis, NEPA directs that a
reasonable range of alternatives be analyzed. What constitutes a reasonable range will
depend in each case on the nature of the program being analyzed and other facts of the
case. Generally, an appropriate range represents that which covers the full spectrum of
types of alternatives.
In addition, the EPA must define this range of alternatives for the SEIS on the basis of
the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA Regulations (40 CFR 1502.14).
These specify that the evaluation include 1) all reasonable alternatives, including those
not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency; and 2) the alternative of no action. In
addition, Section 1505.2 of the NEPA regulations requires that the EPA discuss in its
ROD all relevant factors used in reaching its decision upon one or more environmentally
preferred alternatives. These factors are defined broadly by the CEQ regulations and
may include environmental, economic, and technical considerations; agency statutory
missions; and any essential considerations of national policy.
EPA’s own NEPA regulations (40 CFR 6) are more specific. Section 6.506(b)(5) requires
that alternatives be screened with respect to 1) capital and operating costs; 2) direct,
indirect, and cumulative environmental effects; 3) physical, legal, or institutional
constraints; and 4) compliance with regulatory requirements. Among other relevant
requirements of these regulations, EPA must consider “alternative locations, capacities,
and construction phasing of facilities”; and “alternative methods for management of
sludge, other residual materials, including utilization options such as ... conversion of
sludge for marketing as a soil conditioner or fertilizer” (40 CFR 6).
These NEPA guidelines were used as the basis for alternatives screening in the
preparation of this Draft SEIS. At each stage of the screening, EPA ensured that a
reasonable range of alternatives, in light of the existing information available at that
stage of the review process, would be carried into the next stage of analysis. The goal
was to maintain a reasonable number of types of technologies, sites, and
site/technology combinations (from facilities consolidated at one site to the use of
multiple sites) based an available information at each stage of the screening process. In
addition, the EPA endeavored to carry a set of alternatives for detailed analysis that
were sufficiently diverse and comprehensive, to represent similar alternatives that did
not undergo detailed analysis. At the same time, the EPA tried to maintain the
maximum flexibility to mix and match site/technology components of the overall
residuals management program, to maximize the number of different alternatives
subject to analysis. Finally, the EPA also recognized the need to include alternatives
2-1
-------
that appear to have potentially significant features from other perspectives, including
reasonable alternatives being proposed by the project sponsor.
2.1.2 Procedure
In preparing NEPA documents, agencies often need to make preliminary comparisons
among alternatives, to reduce the number of alternatives to be evaluated in more
detail. Reduction of alternatives makes the assessment process more manageable and
allows in-depth analysis of key issues. This reduction process is generally referred to as
screening. It involves comparisons of readily available facts about the alternatives.
Figure 2.1-1 illustrates the overall logic of the screening process used for this Draft
SEIS.
The procedure used by EPA to screen SEIS alternatives was shaped by a unique
institutional constraint. Specifically, the SEIS was prepared as a “piggyback” document
based on MWRA’s Facilities Plan and EIR (FP/EIR) for long-term residuals
management. Therefore, the screening of alternatives by EPA was an iterative process
that parallelled MWRA’s own screening of alternatives for the FP/EIR. At each major
milestone in MWRA’s screening process, EPA employed its NEPA-mandated screening
criteria to ensure that the results of MWRA’s screening were consistent with the
requirement for coverage of a full, reasonable range of alternatives. These were to
include the environmentally preferred alternative(s). Figure 2.1-2 illustrates the
sequence of key milestones in the alternatives screening process.
2.1.3 Consideration of the No-Action Alternative
This Draft SEIS addresses the long-term Residuals Management Facilities Plan for the
time period of 1995 to 2020, for residuals associated with the Deer Island wastewater
treatment facilities. Independent of this plan, MWRA is also developing a short-term
residuals management plan for the 1991 to 1995 time period. This short-term program
is the subject of separate NEPA review and is assumed to be in place after 1991. The
no-action alternative for the long-term program would theoretically consist of
discontinuation of the short-term program after 1995, with no other means in place to
dispose of MWRA’s residuals. Thus, the no-action alternative could theoretically lead
to resumption of sludge discharges to Boston Harbor, a practice which has been found
illegal by the Federal District Court of Massachusetts, and which results in
well-documented adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, the no-action alternative
was screened out as unreasonable based on legal/institutional and environmental
grounds and received no detailed consideration in this SEIS.
2.2 SCREENING OF SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
System alternatives are defined as combinations of residuals processing technologies
and transportation modes. EPA’s development and screening of system alternatives
relied primarily on three of the four NEPA implementation criteria: 1) capital and
operating costs; 2) physical, legal, or institutional constraints (including but not limited
to technical feasibility); and 3) compliance with regulatory requirements. The criterion
of direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects could not be meaningfully
2-2
-------
Technical and Cost
Comparison of Generic Disposal
and Transportation Options
Screening Evaluation of
Candidate Options Using
Technical Cost, Environmental,
and Institutional Criteria
FIGURE 2.1-1. OVERALL LOGIC OF THE SEIS
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING
-------
TIME FRAME
SCREENING
PROCEDURE
ALTERNATIVES
RETAINED
FOR FURTHER
EVALUATION
ALTERNATIVES
NOT RECOMMENDED
FOR FURTHER
EVALUATION
JAN —JUNE 1987
DEVELOPMENT
OF SYSTEM
ALTERNATIVES
- COMPOSTING AND
DRYING/COMBUSTION
- LANDFILL OF MINOR RESIDUALS
— 300 POTENTIAL SITES
—
r JUNE 1987—APRIL 1988
I
IDENTIFICATION
OF CANDIDATE
[ OPTIONS
TECHNOLOGY/SITE
COMBI NATIONS
- TRANSFER AT OUINCY FRSA
OR LYNN
- PROCESSING AT QUINCY.
LYNN. DEER I . SPECTACLE I.
STOUGHTON. WALPOLE BIRD.
WILMINGTON
- LANDFILL AT ROWE QUARRY.
WALPOLE N WALPOLE MCI
- PROCESSING AND LANDFILL
AT SPECTACLE I .WALPOLE N
I ____________
H
APRIL — NOV. 1988
I
FIGURE 2.1-2. SUMMARY OF LONG-TERM RESII)IJAI.S MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
PLAN ALTERNATIVES S( REENINC STEPS
SELECTION OF FINAL
OPTIONS FOR DETAILED
EVALUATION
- TRANSFER AT QUINCY FRSA
- ANY PROCESSING AT
STOUGHTON OR SPECTACLE I
- DRYING! COMPOSTING
AT QUINCY
- LANDFILL AT ROWE QUARRY
OR WALPOLE MCI
- THERMAL PROCESSING AT
DEER I
- SLUDGE LANDFILL
- OCEAN DISPOSAL
- LAND APPLICATION
— LONG TERM PRIVATIZATION
- ANY ACTIVITIES AT REMAINDER
OF 300 SITES
COMBINED COMPOSTING PLUS
COMBUSTION AT DEER I
- ANY PROCESS AT WALPOLE
BIRD. WILMINGTON, OR LYNN
- TRANSFER AT LYNN
- COMBUSTION AT OUNICY FRSA
- LANDFILL AT N WALPOLE OR
SPECTACLE ISLAND
-------
applied, because the technologies and transportation modes were being considered at
this stage only on a non-site-specific basis. Table 2.2-1 summarizes the results of this
stage of technology screening.
For each of the major technology blocks retained after screening (Table 2.2-1), one or
more specific technology alternatives were selected as being best suited for the
MWRA. Selection of the specific technologies occurred at different points in the
decision-making process and were usually noted in MWRA documents as they were
made. The specific technology selected for some of the technology blocks became a
consensus opinion at an early stage. For example, the fluidized-bed incinerator was
chosen over the multiple-hearth incinerator early on for its completeness of
combustion, temperature stability, and better control of nitrogen oxide emissions; and a
reactor composting system was chosen instead of a nonreactor system (MWRA, Memo 4,
1988) because of its smaller area requirement, better odor control, and lower cost.
Table 2.2-2 summarizes the technologies retained for analysis in this Draft SEIS. A
further description of each technology is provided in Chapter Three.
It was determined that the long-term plan for residuals management should be based on
construction and flexible use of dual sludge-processing technologies. This decision was
based in part upon the recognition that, although “beneficial reuse” or “recycling”
technologies such as composting were desirable to pursue, they have not yet been shown
to be sufficiently reliable, in terms of sludge product placement, to be proposed without
adequate, ultimate sludge disposal backup such as combustion and ash landfill. Thus,
sludge composting and combustion technologies were retained along with landfilling of
grit, screenings, sludge, and combustion ash.
Thermal conditioning (e.g., heat drying) was initially retained as a support technology in
conjunction with combustion. Later, heat drying in the form of fertilizer pellet
production was also retained as a major reuse technology. As such, it was recognized
that placement of the heat-dried product posed similar concerns as those for compost
with regard to reliability. The technologies dropped and the bases for the
recommendations were:
Ocean disposal. On the basis of institutional/regulatory constraints. MWRA had,
in the mid-1980s, attempted to get approval to dump its sludge at an ocean
disposal site off the Coast of New York and New 3ersey. During the permit
review process, Congress voted to prohibit dumping of MWRA sludge at the
proposed site, and it was felt that any attempts to identify another dump site
would be met with similar legal or regulatory opposition. Since that time,
Congress passed the Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 1988, which prohibits dumping of
municipal sludge anywhere in the ocean after 1991.
Direct land application of sludge. On the basis of insufficient land area within the
MWRA sewer-service area. It was suggested that the option of land application
outside the service area be revisited if the other options within the service area
proved to be unreasonable and infeasible.
2-5
-------
TABLE 2.2-1. SUMMARY OF TECHNOLOGY SCREENING
Technology Block Classification Applicable Planning Period
Major Technologies :
Landfilling (minor residuals) Viable 1995-2020
Composting and compost Viable 1995-2020
distribution
Co-composting and Nonviable
compost distribution
Ocean disposal Nonviable -
Combustion and ash Viable 1999-2020
disposal
Co-combustion and ash Nonviable
disposal
Direct land application Nonviable
Sludge oxidation and Nonviable
ash disposal
Combustion at sea Nonviable -
I-feat Drying and Pelletizing Viable 1995-2020
Support Technologies :
Thickening Viable 1995-2020
Anaerobic digestion and Viable 1995-2020
gas utilization
Thermal conditioning (heat Viable 1995-2020
drying) prior to combustion
Dewatering
Mechanical Viable 1995-2020
Thermal Viable 1995-2020
Chemical treatment Viable 1995-2020
Source: Adapted from MWRA, Tech., 1987
2-6
-------
TABLE 2.2-2. TECHNOLOGY ALTERNATIVES EXAMINED
Major Technologies:
Combustion Composting Heat Drying
Fluidized bed* Reactor_horizorltal* Rotary drum*
Multiple hearth Reactor-vertical Rotary disc
Nonreactor-vertical Flash drying
Nonreactor-horizontal Multiple effect evap6ration
Support Technologies:
Dewatering Digestion
Centrifuge* Two-stage high rate*
Membrane filter press
Belt filter press*
*Technologies retained for analysis in SEIS
• Landfilling of sludge as a primary disposal method. With or without various
stabilization techniques, this also was dropped, on the basis of too little available
land in the MWRA sewer-service area. Revisiting this option, if necessary, was
suggested. Landfilling was retained as a backup technology.
• Co-combustion or co-composting of sludge with solid waste. On the basis that
such a choice would remove control of sludge processing from the MWRA.
• Long-term privatization. On the basis that this would remove control of sludge
processing from the MWRA. This did not preclude continued public-sector
implementation of options developed by the private sector for the short-term
program, which were retained for analysis. The short-term program contract
calls for rotary heat drying of sludge for pellet production at the Fore River
Staging Area in Quincy.
Four transportation modes (barge, pipeline, truck, and rail) were analyzed and all four
were retained for further consideration. Rail transportation was considered a potential
opportunity in special circumstances where sites had existing rail access, but not a
likely component at most of the sites.
Chapter One of the candidate options identification report (MWRA, RMFP, Options Id.,
1987) displays the system alternatives in a series of flow diagrams. These diagrams
show the potential RMFP activities distributed among unspecified island, coastal, and
inland sites.
2-7
-------
2.3 IDENTIFICATION OF CANDIDATE OPTIONS
The second screening step involved combining the chosen system alternatives with
potential sites to establish a list of “candidate options,” or site/technology
combinations, to be considered. This screening step took into account all of the NEPA
implementation considerations and criteria discussed in Section 2.1. The site inventory
under consideration included 300 potential sites, mostly within the MWRA sewer-
service area. Some 200 of these were sites retained from an earlier screening
conducted by MWRA in 1984-1985. The additional sites were identified on the basis of
parcels of vacant land apparent from map analysis and follow-up driving surveys. The
criteria used to evaluate the suitability of the 300 potential sites were:
Technology-specific environmental suitability; components of this criterion
included engineering suitability, noise environment, land use, cultural resources,
transportation access, surface water, groundwater, wetlands, ecology, and air
quality
Site-use flexibility, including potential to be part of environmentally preferred or
least-cost alternatives by consolidation or dispersal of RMFP facilities
• Development status and competing use proposals
• System compatibility (logistics)
• Permitting feasibility
• Retention of a variety of site types (island, coastal, inland)
• Potential conflicts with other unrelated environmental remediation projects
In applying these criteria, particular emphasis was placed on identifying potentially
unmitigable constraints or site conditions in the following categories:
• Existing on-site or near-site contamination
• Preemptive or incompatible land use
• Transportation access
• Potential conflicts with drinking water supplies
• Physical and land-use features that could limit the attainment of air quality
objectives
• Potentially unmitigable conflicts with wetlands or endangered species
The analysis recommended retaining 10 sites for more detailed analysis:
• Two coastal sites - Lynn South Harbor and the Quincy Fore River Staging Area
(FRSA)
2-8
-------
• Two island sites - Deer Island and Spectacle Island
• Six inland sites - Wilmington, Stoughton, Walpole Bird, Rowe Quarry, Walpole
MCI, and Walpole North
Table 2.3-1 summarizes the resulting combinations of sites and potential site uses that
represent the candidate options retained for further analysis.
TABLE 2.3-1. SUMMARY OF CANDIDATE OPTIONS
Sludge
Digestion
Coastal
Transfer
Composting
and/or
Thermal( 1 )
Processing
Thermal Processing
Proc ing (2) Plus
Only Landfill Landfill
Coastal Sites
Quincy FRSA X X
Lynn South X X
Harbor
Island Sites
Deer Island X X
Spectacle X X
Island
Inland Sites
Wilmington X
Stoughton X
Walpole Bird X
Rowe Quarry X X
Walpole MCI X
Walpole North X X
Notes:
(1) Raw or digested sludge; thermal processing includes heat drying and/or
combustion. Dewatering assumed to occur at island or coastal sites
(2) Landfill of grit and screenings, combustion ash, and backup for sludge cake and
sludge products
2-9
-------
2.4 SCREENING OF CANDIDATE OPTIONS FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS
After identification of the candidate options, additional field and background data were
collected on each candidate site. Preliminary air quality modeling analyses were
conducted for combustion uses of possible processing sites. Further reduction of the
options list occurred through a screening based on technical and cost criteria, along
with consideration of environmental impacts and potential institutional constraints.
2.4.1. Evaluation Criteria
The evaluation criteria applied to each option based on available site-specific data are
presented below.
2.4.1.1 Technical Criteria
• Reliability. The potential of the candidate options to operate consistently and
effectively throughout the life of the project.
• Flexibility. The potential of the candidate options to adjust to future changes in
operating goals and objectives, as well as to potential changes in regulatory
requirements. A primary factor was the ability to adjust the allocation of sludge
between composting and thermal processes.
2.4.1.2 Cost Criteria
• Capital costs. The estimated costs for construction of facilities; purchase and
installation of major processing equipment and electrical and instrumentation
components; site preparation; engineering, legal, fiscal and administrative fees;
and contingencies.
• Operations and maintenance costs. The estimated annual cost for fuel, utilities,
chemicals, maintenance materials, processing materials (such as compost
amendment), labor, and transportation.
• Total present worth costs. The estimated amount of money that must be invested
at a given interest rate at the start of a project to provide all funds necessary to
construct, operate, and maintain the required facilities and equipment over the
design life of the project.
2.4.1.3 Environmental Criteria
• Wetlands/ecology. The extent of on-site wetlands and the apparent potential for
these wetlands to interfere with site usage, as determined by site visits. The
existence of potentially important habitat within two kilometers of the site and
the potential need for dredging at coastal sites. No attempt was made at this
stage to determine the likelihood of adverse impacts on such habitat or impacts
resulting from dredging.
• Surface and ground water. The presence or absence of drinking water supplies and
small recreational water bodies within the potential impact area of the site; the
2-10
-------
potential need for dredging at coastal sites; and the combined existence of soil,
surface, or groundwater contamination on site. This screening-level analysis did
not evaluate whether impacts were likely to occur at such water bodies, but
simply whether or not water bodies or contamination existed around the site.
• Air quality. The potential for exceedance of Massachusetts ambient air levels for
air toxics from an incinerator at the site, as determined from preliminary air
modeling; and the number of other known or potential sources of toxic pollutants
around the site. This screening level analysis did not evaluate the potential
impacts from interactions between emission sources, but simply noted their
number and proximity.
• Land use. The extent to which use of the site would pose an apparent conflict
with surrounding present and future land use, based on aerial photos and visits to
the site and surrounding local access roads. In particular, sites bordered by
undeveloped or residential areas were considered less favorable than those
bordered by industrial areas.
• Transportation and traffic. The apparent extent of truck passage through
residential areas on local roads, the existence of height and weight restrictions on
access roads, and the potential for traffic tie-ups getting to and from the site (as
evidenced by existing levels of service at access intersections), based on land use
and road inventories to date, aerial photos, previously documented numbers of
required truck trips, and knowledge of traffic patterns in the surrounding areas.
In addition, for transfer sites (i.e., Quincy FRSA and Lynn) the reasonableness of
the transportation links between those sites and the candidate processing sites
was considered.
• Public health. The number of human exposure pathways present at the site
including the presence or absence of drinking water systems (see “Surface and
Ground Water,” above) and the presence or absence of potentially significant
inhalation or ingestion exposures as inferred from preliminary air modeling results
(see “Air Quality,” above).
2.4.1.4 Institutional Criteria
• Timely implementation. The extent to which conditions existed that could make
it easier or more difficulf for MWRA to use the site within the court-scheduled
time frame. This included whether or not MWRA owned the site or would need
legislative approval, such as eminent domain authority, to obtain it.
• Equitable distribution of regional responsibility. The extent to which candidate
site communities already host major permanent wastewater treatment facilities.
• Coordination and competing public use. The extent to which the site was already
being considered for use related to another statewide public use such as a
highway, park, or prison; and the extent to which use of the site for residuals
facilities would interfere with such pubLic use.
2-11
-------
• Consistency with NEPA requirements. The extent to which the candidate option
was consistent with the goals and requirements of NEPA (see Section 2.1.1). This
included the extent to which it was judged to potentially be part of an
environmentally preferred option (based on the environmental criteria discussed
above), and the extent to which an option was judged to represent a part of a
“reasonable range of alternatives” for residuals management. In this regard, EPA
wished to retain options that illustrated both ends of a spectrum of potential
impacts; that is, potentially consolidating impacts and reducing costs by
consolidating residuals at fewer sites compared to potentially dispersing impacts
and increasing costs by having multiple sites for each technology.
Consistent with NEPA’s goal of full disclosure of potential impacts from a
reasonable range of alternatives, EPA felt that the Draft SEES should evaluate
environmentally preferred sites for as many potential RMFP uses as they may be
suited for. This approach allowed mixing and matching different combinations of
uses among sites after comparing their potential impacts. Further, it provided
opportunities to interpolate impact analyses for each site because, having
performed analysis of multiple uses at a given site, the analysis could readily be
refined to examine alternatives (or impact mitigation) that involved only some of
the evaluated uses of the site.
• Consistency with MWRA stated recommendations. Because the MWRA is the
project proponent and will have to construct and operate any residuals facilities,
and because of the “piggyback” nature of this SEES, EPA desired to maintain
consistency with MWRA’s recommendations, wherever EPA believed that the
MWRA’s decisions constituted good judgment and would result in long-term
compliance with both NEPA and the Clean Water Act.
Table E.l (Appendix E) summarizes the information that was available in the
environmental and institutional criteria categories for the screening review for each
site. Complete details of the information available at this screening step are contained
in supporting documents to the DEER issued by the MWRA in the fall of 1988.
2.4.2 Differentiation Among Options
The evaluations led to the following conclusions concerning which sites should be
retained for detailed analysis in the Draft SEES. All factors listed in Table E.1 were
considered, but the discussion below emphasizes factors that showed differentiation
among candidate options.
2.4.2.1 Coastal Transfer Locations. Quincy FRSA was favored over the Lynn South
Harbor site for the following reasons:
Dredging would be required at Lynn in the vicinity of a newly designated Area of
Critical Environmental Concern (inclusive of the marshes adjacent to the mouth
of the Saugus River, which abuts the site), whereas no further dredging would be
required for use of the Quincy FRSA
• Truck transportation routes to and from the Lynn site were long, inconvenient,
and congested compared to those for the Quincy FRSA
2-12
-------
• The Lynn site was designated to be used only in conjunction with the Wilmington
processing site, which was not retained for further analysis (see below)
• The Quincy FRSA site was already disturbed by previous use as a shipyard, making
incremental disruption of local land use minimal
2.4.2.2 Coastal Processing Sites. For those reasons cited above, the Quincy site was
also favored as a combined transfer and processing site over the Lynn site. Preliminary
analysis showed that thermal processing at either site might pose air quality problems,
but for different reasons. Potential interactions with two existing sources, including
Lynn’s sewage sludge incinerator and a nearby operating waste-to-energy plant, ci-eated
a questionable setting for either combustion or heat drying at the Lynn site. At the
Quincy site, preliminary modeling results showed potential AAL violations only for
combustion due to poor dispersion characteristics.
2.4.2.3 Island Processing Sites. Both island sites were favored over any of the other
potential processing sites from a public health perspective because they provided no
drinking water exposure pathway, and they had favorable air-dispersion characteristics.
• Given the greater flexibility in processing digested rather than raw sludge, the
construction of digesters at Deer Island would consume 15 acres or more of the
available 20-22 acres for potential residuals processing. This would restrict
potential processing options at Deer Island to heat drying and/or combustion, but
not composting, which requires 18 acres for the proposed residuals quantities
(MWRA, RMFP, Options, 1988).
• The potential for combustion at Deer Island may be constrained based on the
potential interaction of emissions from the proposed secondary wastewater
treatment facility (including supporting power generating units) and any potential
heat-drying or sludge combustion facility. However, screening model results
shov ed the air-dispersion environment for thermal processing at Deer Island to be
considerably more favorable than at the FRSA.
• Spectacle Island appeared to have neither interacting source nor dispersion
constraints for air quality.
• Spectacle Island had the minimum potential for public health exposure among all
the potential processing sites based on presence or absence of exposure pathways
and exposed populations.
• Space available for residuals processing on Spectacle Island required further
analysis, based on potential conflicts with other planned institutional uses of the
island. In particular, the Massachusetts DPW has announced a plan to use the
island as a site for disposal of excavated material from the Central Artery and/or
Third Harbor Tunnel projects as well as DEM’s plans to make Spectacle Island a
park as part of the Boston Harbor Islands State Park. In view of this uncertainty,
the availability of sufficient acreage for heat drying and/or combustion facilities
(on the order of five to ten acres) on the south drumlin was assumed, but the
timely availability of sufficient acreage for composting was subject to question.
2-13
-------
Deer Island will continue to host the major MWRA wastewater treatment plant,
with corresponding impact on the neighboring town of Winthrop. The site was
therefore negatively viewed for the criterion of equitable distribution of regional
responsibility.
• From the standpoint of timely implementation, only the Deer Island and FRSA
sites could be used by MWRA for residuals processing without further action by
the Massachusetts legislature.
2.4.2.4 Inland Processing Sites. In comparing the Wilmington, Walpole Bird, and
Stoughton processing sites, the following features led to retention of the Stoughton site
for detailed analysis:
• The Stoughton site is generally in an industrial rather than residential land-use
setting. The Walpole Bird and Wilmington sites have not been directly disturbed
by industrial use. The Walpole Bird site is in a residential setting, and a new
residential development was underway on the eastern half of the Wilmington site.
• The Stoughton site is already disturbed by ongoing and previous construction
materials staging, rock crushing, and extraction activities.
• The Stoughton site can be accessed from Route 24 over a Less than one-mile route
bordered by mixed commercial, industrial, and residential uses. Access to the
Walpole Bird site involved passage from Route 95 through more than two miles of
local residential roads and streets.
• Although the dispersion environment at the Walpole Bird and Wilmington sites
appeared suitable from screening model analysis, the proximity of surrounding
residential areas to these sites creates potential for some types of nuisance odor
impacts not present at the Stoughton site.
2.4.2.5 Landfill Sites. Four potential landfill sites were retained in the list of
candidate options identified in the second screening step. These are Walpole MCI,
Walpole North, Rowe Quarry, and Spectacle Island. The Walpole MCI and Rowe Quarry
sites were favored over the other two for the following reasons:
• The Walpole North site overlaps an aquifer protection zone and sole-source
aquifer; the other potential sites do not.
• Extensive wetlands occupy large areas of the Walpole North site; the other sites
do not have such extensive wetlands.
• The Walpole North and MCI sites require access through local streets and
residential areas in Walpole. The access to Walpole North also passes through
neighboring towns including Westwood center. The Rowe Quarry site is accessible
within one mile of Route 1.
2-14
-------
• The Walpole North site is undeveloped open space surrounded by encroaching
residential development. Rowe Quarry is an active industrial site and Walpole
MCI is part of a larger property presently used as a state prison.
• Spectacle Island is also under consideration as a site for disposal of material
generated during the Massachusetts DPW’s Third Harbor Tunnel/Central Artery
construction project and as part of the Harbor Islands State Park. The size and
shape of the island and DPW’s time frame for work on different on parts of the
island are still generally undefined. The MWRA, DEQE, and DEM stated that this
uncertainty and the potential conflict in time frame for use of the island between
DPW and MWRA, and DEM and MWRA, would make construction of a large
landfill on the island an unreasonable alternative for further analysis. EPA
believes that the judgment of these agencies as to how the Commonwealth will
use Spectacle Island is entitled to substantial weight, and on the basis of this and
the other factors described above, determined that the (large) landfill alternative
for Spectacle Island was unreasonable for further detailed analysis.
• Although construction of a small landf ill on Spectacle Island for ash only, in
connection with construction of an incinerator on the island, could represent a
least environmental impact alternative for combustion, EPA believes that
MWRA’s stated desire to only build and operate one landf ill (regardless of the
chosen site) made this an unreasonable alternative for further analysis. As the
entity that will be responsible for ensuring proper operation of the residuals
management program, MWRA’s concerns regarding the reliability and operability
of two landfills are not unreasonable.
2.5 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES RECOMMENDED FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS
Table 2.5- I summarizes the alternatives recommended for detailed analysis in the Draft
SEIS on the basis of the considerations discussed above. Figure 2.5-1 shows the map
locations of the six sites included in the matrix. As shown in the table, it was decided
to analyze as many potentially suitable activities as possible at each site. These
analyses will establish expected outer boundaries of the range of adverse impacts of the
reasonable alternatives. Within these boundaries, the impacts of alternatives involving
different combinations of uses at each site will be described by interpolation and
deduction. This approach allows flexibility in determining how to combine site uses to
make up a recommended plan, and it gives the reader the maximum amount of
information with which to reach a decision. -
2-15
-------
TABLE 2.5-1. SITES AND POTENTIAL USES RECOMMENDED FOR
DETAILED ANALYSIS IN THE SEIS
Uewater Heat Dry Combust
Site Transfer
Compost Landfill
Walpole MCI
X
Rowe Quarry
X
Stoughton
X
X
X
Quincy FRSA
X
X
X
X
Spectacle IsI.
X
X
X
X
Deer Isi.
X
X
X
2-16
-------
Rowe Quarry
(Maiden/Revere) U
Deer Island
(Boston)
Fore River Staging Area
(Qu incy/Braintree)
Stoughton Crushed Stone
(Stoughton)
Walpole MCI
(Walpole)
LEGEND
• Processing Site
— MWRA Service
Area
SOURCE:MWRA, RMFP. DEIR, 1,2, 1989.
• Landfill Site
FIGURE 2.5.1. PROPOSED PROCESSING AND LANDFILL SITES FOR FINAL OPTIONS
-------
CHAPTER ThREE
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
3.1 RESIDUALS CHARACTERIZATION
This section provides a characterization of residuals that will be generated at MWRA’s
Deer Island Wastewater Treatment Plant. These projections will provide a basis for
subsequent analyses to be performed in other portions of this Draft SEIS. Residuals
characteristics are projected for digested sludge from the treatment plant; sludge
products from composting, combustion, and heat drying; and minor residuals (scum, grit,
and screenings). Residuals quantities are predicted for the scenarios of improved
primary treatment in 1995, full primary treatment plus approximately 20 percent
secondary treatment in 1996, and implementation of full secondary treatment by 1999.
Residuals qualities are predicted for primary treatment in 1995 and for the design year
2020. Section 5.1 of this Draft SETS compares projected residuals qualities to
applicable state and federal sludge-use regulations and compares projected quantities to
capacities of processing and disposal alternatives. Predictions of air and water quality
impacts resulting from the various residuals processing and disposal alternatives
(Sections 5.4 and 5.5, respectively) are based on the residuals qualities presented in this
section.
3.1.1 Digested Sludge Characteristics
Projections of digested sludge quantities and qualities are provided below, which are
used in estimating the characteristics of sludge products from composting, combustion,
and heat drying. Digested sludge projections are based upon existing sludge
characteristics, projected influent flows and loads, and expected pollutant removal
rates of the new treatment plant.
3.1.1.1 Sludge Quantity. Future raw and digested sludge projections (Table 3.1-1) were
calculated using the influent loadings of conventional pollutants and primary and
secondary treatment plant design parameters presented in MWRA’s Secondary
Treatment Facilities Plan (MWRA, STFP, II, 1988). These projections assume that the
digested primary sludge volume will increase approximately 15 percent from 1995 to
2020. Future digested combined primary and secondary sludge production was assumed
to increase approximately 10 percent from 2000 to 2020. It was also assumed that
95 percent of the raw primary biodegradable volatile solids and 90 percent of the raw
secondary sludge biodegradable volatile solids mass would degrade during anaerobic
digestion. These quantities correspond to those used by MWRA for long-term residuals
planning (MWRA, Report No. 1, 1987 and MWRA, RMFP, Options, III, B, 1989).
3.1.1.2 Sludge Quality. Future pollutant concentrations in sludge were estimated using
existing Deer and Nut Island treatment plant influent pollutant concentrations,
projected wastewater flows and loads developed for the new Deer Island plant, and
3-1
-------
TABLE 3.1-I. PROJECTED SLUDGE QUANTITIES FOR DEER ISLAND WWTP
Item
Year
1995 (a)
(dtpd)
1999 (b)
(dtpd)
2000 (c)
(dtpd)
2020 (d)
(dtpd)
Digested Primary Sludge
85
90
90
95
annual average
maximum month
115
120
120
125
Digested Combined SludgeW
N/A
109
165
180
annual average
maximum month
N/A
139
215
230
Source: MWRA, Report No. 1, 1987; and MWRA, RMFP, Options, 111, B, 1989
Notes:
dtpd dry tons per day
N/A Not applicable; assumes that secondary sludge will not be generated until 1999
(a) Quantities represent operation of 100 percent primary treatment
(b) Quantities represent operation of 100 percent primary treatment and
approximately 20 percent secondary treatment
(c) Quantities represent operation of 100 percent primary treatment and 100
percent secondary treatment
(d) Quantities represent design year operation of 100 percent primary treatment
and 100 percent secondary treatment
(e) Quantities assume that all of the primary sludge undergoes digestion
(f) Quantities assume all of the primary and secondary sludge undergoes digestion
expected removal efficiencies for primary and secondary treatment. Table 3.1-2
presents a comparison of primary and secondary treatment removal efficiencies used in
the MWRA’s RMFP (MWRA, Report No. 1, 1987) and those presented in the EPA’s
Boston Harbor Wastewater Conveyance System SEIS (U.S. EPA, SEIS, 11, H, 1988) for
primary treatment and combined primary and secondary treatment, respectively. In
most cases, the removal efficiencies were identical. Where they differed, the higher
removal efficiency (and therefore greater amount of pollutant in the sludge) was used in
this document to provide a margin of safety. This process resulted in use of removal
efficiencies cited by EPA for lead, mercury, nickel, zinc, diethyl phthalate, and
toluerie.
Table 3.1-3 presents projected digested primary sludge pollutant concentrations
calculated from the projected level of each pollutant in the treatment plant influent
and its projected removal rate. No predictions of organic pollutant concentrations were
made for digested sludge because little information is available concerning
biodegradation of organic pollutants through anaerobic digestion. Information that is
available is limited and may not be applicable to biodegradation of organic compounds
present in MWRA’s sludge.
3-2
-------
TABLE 3.1-2. COMPARISON OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
Pollutant
MWRA Average 1
Removal Efficiency a!
EPA
Removal
Average b
Efficiency
Primary Secondary
Treatment Treatment
Primary
Treatment
Secondary
Treatment
Metals Including Cyanide (% )
Antimony 30 60 NA 60
Arsenic 25 50 NA 50
Boron 2 5 NA NA
Cadmium 15 50 15 50
Chromium 40 76 27 70
Copper 35 82 25 80
Cyan ide 10 60 20 60
Lead , 46 57 50 80
Mercury C 22 75 25 80
Molybc eçium 10 50 NA NA
Nickel C, 15 32 15 35
Selenium 10 50 NA 50
SIlve() 30 90 20 90
Ztnc 40 76 30 80
Acid Base Neutrals (% )
Phenol 20 95 8 95
Benzyl Alcohol NA 90 NA NA
1,2-Dichlorobenzene NA 90 NA 90
2-Methyiphenol NA 90 NA NA
4-Methyiphenol NA 90 NA NA
Benzoic Acid NA 90 NA NA
Naphthalene 0 95 20 95
2-Methylnaphthalene NA 90 NA NA
2,4,5-Trichiorophenol NA 90 NA NA
Dimethyl Phthala e 24 95 NA 95
Diethyl Phthalate c 0 90 0 95
N-Nitrosodipheny lamine NA 69 NA NA
Di-N-butyl Phthalate 0 90 20 90
Butylbenzyl Phthalate 0 95 50 90
Bis( 2-ethylhexy 1)
Phthalate 0 90 0 60
Di-n-octyl Phthalate 0 90 NA 80
Florene 0 90 NA NA
3-3
-------
TABLE 3.1-2 (Continued). COMPARISON OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
Pollutant
MWRA Average,
Removal Efficiency a
EPA
Removal
Average b
Efficiency
Primary
Treatment
Secondary
Treatment
Primary Secondary
Treatment Treatment
Volatile Organics (% )
Bromomethane NA 95 NA 95
Methylene Chloride 0 95 0 50
Acetone NA 95 NA 95
Carbon Disulfide NA 95 NA 95
Trans-1,2-Dichloro-
ethene 36 90 36 90
Chloroform NA 90 14 60
2-Butanone NA 90 NA NA
1,1,1-Trich loroethane 40 95 40 90
Trichloroethene 20 95 20 90
Benzene 0 95 25 90
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone NA 90 NA NA
Tetrachloroethene 0 90 4 80
1,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloro-
ethane, NA 90 NA NA
Toluene c1 0 90 0 95
Chlorobenzene NA 90 NA 90
Ethylbenzene 0 95 13 90
Styrene 0 90 NA 90
Total Xylene NA 95 NA 95
Pesticides and PCB (% )
Total PCB 0 92 NA 92
Aldrin 0 90 NA 90
DDT 0 90 NA NA
Heptachlor 10 90 NA NA
Dieldrin 0 90 NA NA
Notes: (a) Source: MWRA, STFP, III, 1988
(b) Source: EPA, SEIS, U, H, 1988
(c) Removal efficiency predicted by MWRA is less than removal efficiency
predicted by EPA
NA Not available
3-4
-------
TABLE 3.1-3. COMPARISON OF PRO3ECTED POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS
TO MEASURED CONCENTRATIONS OF PRIMARY DIGESTED SLUDGE
FOR THE MWRA SYSTEM
Residuals
Projected
Digested Primary
Pilot
Pelletizin )
Program
Monitoring Program
Weightec )
Average
Antimony
26
Arsenic
10
Beryllium
<16
Boron
170
Cadmium
7
13
15
Chromium
190
190
300
Copper
740
740
1000
Lead
185
280
350
Mercury
7
Molybdenum
11
26
Nickel
62
70
80
Selenium
28
Silver
28
44
Thallium
<25
Zinc
1895
PCB-1254
NP
0.61
1.86
Notes: Units measured in mg/kg
NP Not Predicted
(a) Measured pollutant concentrations are indicated only for pollutants
whose projected concentrations are less than the 95 percent confidence
interval of the measured concentrations (see Table A.1)
(b) Weighted average assuming 70 percent from North System (Deer Island)
and 30 percent from South System (Nut Island)
To determine whether the projected primary sludge pollutant concentrations differ
significantly from the concentrations measured in the primary digested sludges at the
Deer and Nut Island treatment plants, the projected concentrations were compared to
the average concentrations recently measured in the plants’ primary digested sludge for
MWRA’s residuals monitoring program and pilot pelletizing program. Although MWRA’s
future sludge will be produced in a new treatment plant and therefore will not be
identical to MWRA’s existing sludge, the sampling data do provide some indication of
the MWRA system’s future sludge quality.
Averages and 95 percent confidence intervals of pollutant concentrations for these
sampling programs were calculated using detected pollutant concentrations or one-half
the detection limit for undetected pollutants (see Table A.1, Appendix A). Most of the
projected pollutant concentrations were higher than the weighted average for the
residuals monitoring program or within the 95 percent confidence interval f or the pilot
3-5
-------
pelletizing program. It was therefore assumed that the projected concentrations were
conservative or reasonable estimations of what would occur in the future. For
cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, molybdenum, nickel, and silver, the average
measured concentrations were higher than the corresponding projected concentrations
(Table 3.1-3). To ensure a conservative analysis, both the projected and the highest
average measured concentration of each pollutant are used in this Draft SEIS to assess
impacts from the proposed residuals management facilities.
Consistent with the analysis for primary sludge, two values were determined for
digested combined (primary and secondary) sludge pollutant concentrations by using
both the projected and the highest average measured digested primary sludge
concentrations and by applying the highest (most conservative) removal efficiencies and
the volumes of primary and combined sludges projected for the year 2020 (Table 3.1-4).
Metal concentrations are usually expected to be higher in secondary sludge than in
primary sludge since secondary treatment provides higher removal efficiencies and
since metals are not destroyed during the treatment process. Again, to be
conservative, both values are used in the impacts assessments discussed in
Chapter Five.
The MWRA residuals monitoring program data indicate that most polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the digested Deer Island
sludge were present only at trace levels, if at all. Toluene and ethylbenzene were
detected in one of the two samples analyzed for PAHs and VOCs, while chlorobenzene
was present in both samples.
The emergency disposal of sludge in the MWRA’s landfill is an alternative evaluated in
this Draft SEIS. To assure that the sludge is not hazardous and that it can be landfilled
at the facilities, the sludge was tested in accordance with hazardous waste regulations
as established by EPA (40 CFR 261) and by the Massachusetts DEQE (310 CMR 30).
Recent toxicity analyses conducted on the MWRA’s digested primary sludge
(Table 3.1-5) indicate that the sludge is not hazardous. The pollutants tested were
found to leach at lower concentrations than the maximum concentration limits
established by EPA and DEQE. However, detection limits of the herbicides and some of
the volatile organics used in the analyses were higher than leachate concentrations
required or proposed by EPA and DEQE. MWRA will have to conduct further toxicity
analyses on its combined primary and secondary sludge prior to landfilling.
MWRA’s sludge is expected to contain a population of microbes that could include
pathogenic bacteria, viruses, protozoa, and helminth ova. Since some of these
organisms have been found to cause illness in their hosts (human or animal), EPA
currently requires two levels of pathogen reduction, depending upon the sludge’s
intended use (40 CFR 257.3). The first level, Process to Significantly Reduce Pathogens
(PSRP), requires sludge management techniques such as digestion, lime-stabilization,
and air-drying prior to restricted use as fertilizer for pastures or crops. The second
level, Process for Further Reduction of Pathogeris (PFRP), requires processes such as
composting or heat drying prior to less restrictive uses.
A recent EPA study examined the densities of indicator microorganisms associated with
several types of sludge processing including heat drying, in-vessel composting, and
anaerobic digestion plus air drying (U.S. EPA, HERL, 1988). Results of this study
3-6
-------
TABLE 3.1-4. SUMMARY OF QUALITY PROJECTIONS FOR DIGESTED
COMBINED PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SLUDGE AND HEAT-DRIED SLUDGE
Constituent
Projected
Digested Combined
Digested Combined
Based on Measured
Concentrations
Antimony
27
Arsenic
11
-
Beryllium
<16
-
Boron
220
-
26
Cadmium
12
Chromium
190
300
Copper
910
1,240
Cyanide
190
-
Lead
154
230
Mercury
12
13
Molybdenum
30
69
Nickel
77
99
Selenium
74
-
Silver
45
70
Thallium
<26
-
Zinc
1,895
-
PCB-l254
-
0.61 to 1.86
Source: MWRA, Report No. 1, 1987 and MWRA, RMFP, Options, I II, B, 1989
Notes: All concentrations given as mg/kg dry-weight basis
indicated that, although all of the sludge products examined contained some popuLation
of indicator microorganisms, none contained these microorganisms at levels high enough
to be considered a hazard. The lowest microorganism concentrations were detected in
the heat-dried sludge. In addition, anaerobic digestion plus air-drying sludge processing
produced a lower level of microorganisms than several types of composting facilities.
Nearly all of MWRA’s sludge is expected to be processed by anaerobic digestion and
then either heat drying or in-vessel composting. Pathogens will be killed in this
two-step process and are not expected to be present at levels which could cause health
hazards. During a six-month emergency period when MWRA’s processing equipment
could be taken off-line for repairs, MWRA’s anaerobically digested sludge would be
landfilled. Some indicator microorganisms would be present in this sludge; however,
most pathogenic organisms have been found to be short-liv.ed once they have been
introduced to the soil environment. In addition, the landfill’s double liner and daily
cover would significantly reduce the exposure pathways of any remaining pathogens to
other organisms. Therefore, although indicator microorganisms are expected to be
present in MWRA sludge and sludge products, they will have been significantly reduced
during processing and are not expected to be present at levels which could cause health
hazards.
3—7
-------
TABLE 3.1-5. SUMMARY OF TCLP LEACHATE Ar) %LySES(a)
OF MWRA DIGESTED PRIMARY SLUDGE” ’
Existing
Proposed
Regula oçy
Limit CF
Item (ugh)
Regula y
Limit
(ugh)
Measured
Levels
Mean
(ugh)
Range
(ugh)
Metals
Arsenic 5,000 5,000 7 7
Barium 100,000 100,000 2,000 700-3,900
Cadmium 1,000 1,000 17 12-26
Chromium 5,000 5,000 90 60-190
Lead 5,000 5,000 280 70-1,300
Mercury 200 200 <0.5 <0.5
Selenium 1,000 1,000 <20 <20
Silver 5,000 5,000 20 10-30
Volatiles
Acrylonitrile NA 5,000 <200,000 <200,000
Benzene NA 70 <500 <500
bis(2-chloroethyl)Ether NA 50 <10 <10
Carbon Disulfide NA 14,400 <500 <500
Carbon Tetrachloride NA 70 <500 <500
Chlorobenzene NA 1,400 (500 <500
Chloroform NA 70 <500 <500
1,2-Dichioroethane NA 400 <500 <500
1,2-Dichioroethene NA 100 (500 <500
Isobutanol NA 36,000 <200,000 <200,000
Methylene Chloride NA 8,600 <500 <500
Methyl Ethyl Ketone NA 7,200 <20,000 (20,000
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane NA 10,000 <500 <500
1,l,2,2-Tetrachloroethane NA 1,300 <500 <500
Tetrachioroethylene NA 100 (500 <500
Toluene NA 14,400 (500 <500
1,1,1-Trichioroethane NA 30,000 (500 <500
1,1,2-Trich loroetharie NA 1,200 <500 <500
Trichioroethylene NA 70 (500 <500
Vinyl Chloride NA 50 <1,000 <1,000
Semivolatiles
o-Cresol NA 10,000 <10 <10
m-Creso l NA 10,000 (10 (10
p-Cresol NA 10,000 86 16-200
1,2-Dichlorobenzene NA 4,300 <10 <10
1,4-Dichlorobenzene NA 10,800 (10 <10
2,4-Dinitrotoluene NA 130 (10 <10
Hexachlorobenzene NA 130 (10 <10
3-8
-------
Existing
Proposed
Item
Regu1a ojy
Limit C
(ugh)
Regu1a 9çy
Limit ‘ ‘
(ugh)
Measured
Levels
Mean
(ugh)
Range
(ugh)
Semivolatiles (Cont’d)
NA
720
<10
<10
l4exach lorobutadiene
Hexachloroethane
NA
4,300
<10
<10
Nitrobenzene
NA
130
<10
<10
Pentachlorophenol
NA
3,600
<50
<50
Phenol
NA
14,400
<10
<10
Pyridine
NA
5,000
<10
<10
2,3,4,6-Tetrachiorophenol
NA
1,500
<10
<10
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichiorophenol
NA
NA
5,800
300
<10
<10
<10
<10
Pesticides
gamma-BHC
400
60
(0.5
<0.5
Chiordane
NA
30
(5
<5
Endrin
20
3
(0.5
(0.5
Heptachior
NA
1
<0.5
<0.5
Methoxychlor
10,000
1,400
<10
<10
Toxaphene
500
70
(10
<10
Herbicides
2,4-D
10,000
1,400
<5,000
<5,000
Silvex
1,000
140
(5,000
<5,000
Source: MWRA, ISPD, V i i, 1989
Notes: NA Not applicable
(a) Analyses done using Toxicity Characteristic
as described in 40 CFR 261, Appendix II
(b) Analyses for digested primary sludge samples collected August 1988
from Deer and Nut Island Treatment Plants
(c) Based on Extraction Procedure (EP) analysis, which will generally give
similar or lower results than the TCLP analysis
(d) Based on TCLP analysis as proposed in the June, 13, 1986 Federal
Register
TABLE 3.1-5 (Continued). SUMMARY OF TCLP LEACHP ANALySES(a)
OF MWRA DIGESTED PRIMARY SLUDGE’’
Leaching Procedure (TCLP)
3-9
-------
3.1.2 Heat-dried Sludge Characteristics
The sludge-processing alternatives evaluated in this Draft SEIS include heat drying a
major fraction (approximately two-thirds) of the Deer Island WWTP sludge as an
agricultural, commercial, and/or residential fertilizer. The purpose of this section is to
determine the quantity and quality of heat-dried sludge that will be generated by
MWRA.
3.1.2.1 I-feat-dried Sludge Quantity. To project quantities of heat-dried sludge, the
EPA examined the processing of two-thirds of MWRA’s digested sludge. Projected
quantities of heat-dried sludge are presented in Table 3.1-6. These projected quantities
were based on the assumption that dewatered sludge (20 percent solids) after heat
drying would contain 90 percent solids.
TABLE 3.1-6. PROJECTED QUANTITY OF I-tEAT-DRIED SLUDGE(a)
Item
Year
1995
Year
1999
Year
2000
Year
2020
Quantity, dry
tons
per
day
57
73
110
120
Volume, cubic
yards per day(b)
98
125
189
206
Adapted from MWRA, Report No. 1, 1987 and MWRA, Options, Ill, B, 1989
Notes: (a) Quantities for annual average conditions. These quantities assume that
approximately two-thirds of the total sludge production will be
processed into a heat-dried product, with the balance turned into
compost.
(b) Volume for pelletized material at 90-percent total solids and bulk
density of 48 pounds per cubic foot.
3.1.2.2 Heat-dried Sludge Quality. Since the decrease in pollutant concentrations
expected during heat drying is minimal (ranging from 0.03 to 1.1 percent, depending
upon the pollutant), pollutant concentrations in heat-dried sludge were conservatively
projected to be equal to those concentrations in digested sludge (Table 3.1-4).
3.1.3 Compost Characteristics
Sludge processing alternatives evaluated in this Draft SEIS include composting
approximately one-third of the Deer Island wastewater treatment plant sludge for
marketing and distribution as a soil conditioner. The purpose of this section is to
project the characteristics of the composted material.
3.1.3.1 Compost Quantity. MWRA proposes to use a reactor composting system using
sawdust or woodchips as amendment and recycled compost for mixing. In addition to
the assumptions listed in Table 3.1-7, it was assumed that the maximum total solids of
initial mixtures will be 40 percent, that sufficient energy will be available in the
3-10
-------
TABLE 3.1-7. SUMMARY OF PROBABLE COMPOSTING PROCESS PARAMETERS
Item
Total
Solids
(%)
Bulk
- Density
(lb/cu It)
Volatile
Solids
(%)
Biodegradable
Volatile Solids
(%)
Feed Sludge
Digested PrimarY b)
Digested Combined
18 - 25
18 - 25
63 - 44
63 - 44
56
58
50
50
Amendment
Woodchips
60
20
95
30
Sawdust
60
20
95
30
Recycle
Used Woodchips
60
30
--
0
Compost
60
33
--
0
Source: MWRA, Report No. 1, 1987
Notes: (a) For years 1995-1999
(b) For years 2000-2020
mixture for composting and drying, and that the finished compost total solids will be
60 percent. Results of the compost quantity projections are presented in Table 3.1-8.
The compost quantities presented are consistent with a conservative scenario of
dewatered sludge with a lower solids content of 18 percent entering the composting
facility. Sludge with a lower solids content (more water) would require more
amendment (and therefore produce more compost) to increase compost solids content to
the desired 60 percent.
3.1.3.2 Compost Quality. Compost pollutant concentrations are related to the amount
of compost produced with a given amount of sludge. The conservative assumption for
compost quality projections is that the sludge would have a high solids content and
would therefore require less amendment, producing compost with higher concentrations
of pollutants. Although this is inconsistent with the assumptions used to conservatively
project compost quantities, these assumptions result in the most conservative estimates
for compost quality. It was also conservatively assumed that rio biodegradation or
volatilization of the metallic constituents in MWRA’s sludge would occur during
composting, although some volatilization of mercury would be likely. None of the
projected pollutants are expected to be present in the compost amendment material.
Therefore, the pollutant concentrations in the compost would be less than those in the
digested sludge (because the sludge would be “diluted” by the amendment). Table 3.1-9
presents the EPA’s projected ranges of compost metals concentrations.
3-Il
-------
TABLE 3.1-8. MAXIMUM DIGESTED SLUDGE COMPOST
QUANTITIES FOR REACTOR SYSTEM
Year Year Year Year
Item 1995 1999 2000 2020
Sludge, dry tons per day 28 36 55 60
Sludge, cubic yards per day 166 214 326 356
Amendment, cubic yards per day 581 714 1,141 1,246
Compost, cubic yards per day 354 455 703 767
Source: MWRA, Report No. 1, 1987
Note: Quantities calculated assuming 18-percent solids content of sludge, 3.5:1
ratio of amendment to sludge, and one-third of sludge is composted.
TABLE 3.1-9. PROJECTED COMBINED PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SLUDGE
COMPOST METALS CONCENTRATIONS
Combined Primary Measured
and Secondary Concentration
Projected (MWRA Pilot
Constituent Concentration Primary Compost)
antimony 25 -
arsenic 9.9 11.1
beryllium <15 -
boron 210 18.4
cadmium 11 to 24 19.6
chromium 180 to 284 418
copper 860 to 1172 1162
lead 140 to 209 484
mercury 10.7 to 12.6 8.4
molybdenum 28 to 64 10.3
nickel 73 to 93 93.2
selenium 70 4.6
silver 42 to 65 -
thallium <24 -
zinc 1,700 1,825
cyanide 180 -
PCBs 0.58 to 1.76 -
Source: MWRA, Report No. 1, 1987
Notes: All concentrations-given as mg/kg, dry-weight basis
3-12
-------
Sampling and chemical analyses of uncured compost and finished (or screened) compost
for MWRA’s pilot compost monitoring program were conducted from December of 1986
to October of 1988. Average pollutant concentrations measured in this compost are
also presented in Table 3.1-9. Concentrations of chromium, lead, and zinc measured in
MWRA’s primary sludge compost are higher than the predicted concentrations for
combined sludge. These differences can be attributed to the high concentrations of
chromium, lead, and zinc in the Deer Island treatment plant sludge (Table A.2,
Appendix A) which was used by MWRA during its compost monitoring program. Future
compost pollutant concentrations could be higher than predicted concentrations since
the future compost would be produced using combined, rather than primary sludge.
Since the reason for these differences is not clear, pollutant concentrations projected in
this Draft SEIS are used to project compost quality. -
3.1.4 Combustion Ash Characteristics
The combustion of all or part of the MWRA’s sludge, beginning in 1999, is considered as
a sludge processing alternative in the event that reuse products cannot be distributed.
The purpose of this section is to project quantities and qualities of any sludge residue,
or ash, that remains after combustion.
3.1.4.1 Combustion Ash Quantity. Results of ash quantities projected for this Draft
SEIS are presented in Table 3.1-10. Approximately 45 percent of the sludge’s heat-dried
volume would be retained as combustion ash.
TABLE 3.1-10. PROJECTED COMBINED PRIM %R Y AND SECONDARY SLUDGE
ASH QuANTIflES al
Year 1999 (b)
Year 2000
Year 2020
Annual
Average
Mass (dtpd)
46
70
77
Annual
Average
Vo1ume (cyd)
86
130
142
Annual
includ
Average Volume ,
ing scrubber solids (cyd)
112
169
184
Sources: MWRA, Report No. 1, 1987 and MWRA, Landtill 1, 1988
Notes: (a) Assumes 100 percent of sludge is incinerated
(b) Incineration would begin in 1999
(c) Bulk density of 42 lbs/cu ft was assumed
(d) Scrubber solids volume assumed to equal 40 percent of ash volume
3.1.4.2 Combustion Ash Quality. Ash resulting from the incineration of digested sludge
is expected to have the highest metals concentrations of all the Deer Island treatment
plant residuals (Tables 3.1-11 and 3.1-12) since incineration destroys much of the sludge
product that “dilutes” these metals. Although these projections were made assuming
that no volatilization or oxidation of metals would occur, it is likely that volatilization
3-13
-------
TABLE 3.1-Il. MAJOR CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS OF
COMBINED PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SLUDGE ASH
Constituent Range of Composition %
Silica 20 - 60
Alumina 5 - 20
Iron oxides 2 - 25
Phosphoric pentoxide 3 - 15
Magnesia I - 3
Quicklime 10 - 30
Sodium oxide 0.1 - I
Potassium oxide 0.1 - 1
Titanium dioxide I - 3
Source: Gray and Pennessis, 1972 as reported in MWRA, Report No. 1, 1987
TABLE 3.1-12. PROJECTED DIGESTED COMBINED
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SLUDGE ASH METALS QUALITY
Combusted Digested
Combined Sludge Ash
Constituent (mg/kg)
Antimony 63
Arsenic 25
Beryllium <38
Boron 510
Cadmium 27 to 59
Chromium 440 to 695
Copper 2,100 to 2,862
Lead 364 to 544
Mercury 26 to 28
Molybdenum 70 to 161
Nickel 187 to 240
Selenium 170
Silver 110to162
Thallium <60
Zinc 4,500
Cyanide 440
Source: MWRA, Report No. 1, 1987
Notes: All concentrations given on dry-weight basis
3-14
-------
and oxidation of mercury, cadmium, and other metals would occur to some extent
during sludge incineration. However, metals that are volatilized during combustion
would likely be recovered by emissions control equipment and would require disposal
along with metals that remain in the combustion ash. Therefore, the assumption of
conservation of metals during combustion is appropriate, for conservative projections of
ash quality.
Based on toxicity analyses performed in 1983 on sludge and sludge ash from the Deer
Island and Nut Island facilities (MDC, 1983 and MWRA, Report No. 1, 1987), the ash is
not expected to be a hazardous material (Table 3.1-13). However, leachate
coficentrations from combined primary and secondary sludge ash are expected to be
higher than concentrations measured previously because secondary sludge typically
contains more metals than primary sludge. Therefore, combustion ash would have to be
tested again for toxicity before landfilling.
TABLE 3.1-13. SUMMARY OF EP-TOXICITY ANALYSES PERFORMED ON
DEWATERED DIGESTED PRIMARY SLUDGE AND ASH
Parameter
Maximum Allowable
Concentration*
(mg/i)
Range
Concent
(mg/i)
of
rations
Arsenic
5.0
0.01
- 0.087
Barium
100.0
0.5
- 1
Cadmium
1.0
0.005
- 0.31
Chromium
5.0
0.05
- 0.42
Lead
5.0
0.05
- 0.96
Mercury
0.2
0.005
- 0.06
Selenium
1.0
0.001
- 0.046
Silver
5.0
0.01
- 0.025
Endrin
0.02
<0.001
- <0.01
Lindane
0.40
<0.00 1
- <0.01
Methoxychlor
10.0
<0.01
- <0.05
Toxaphene
0.5
<0.005
- <0.05
2,4-D
10.0
<0.002
- <0.01
2,4,5 TP (Silvex)
1.0
<0.002
- <0.01
Source: MDC, 1983
Notes: (*) Limitations are for EP-toxicity characteristics of hazardous waste,
40 CFR 261.24, and 310 CMR 30.125
3-15
-------
3.1.5 Grit and Screenings Characteristics
Grit is made up of heavier inorganic solids (such as sand) and organic materials such as
fats and grease which settle out of wastewater prior to treatment. Screenings are
materials large enough to be screened out of wastewater (such as logs and tampon
applicators). Grit and screenings from the MWRA sewage system will be disposed of in
the same landfill as potential combustion ash. Projected quantities and qualities of
MWRA’s grit and screenings are presented in this section. Future characteristics of grit
and screenings are not expected to differ from existing characteristics. These residuals
are collected before wastewater enters the treatment plant and the quantities
generated are not dependent upon the level of wastewater treatment provided.
3.1.5.1 Grit and Screenings Quantities. Grit and screenings will be collected at several
headworks and combined sewer overflow facilities in the MWRA service region
(Figure 3.1-1). Based on historical data from the Deer and Nut Island treatment plants
and from values obtained from literature, grit quantities were projected based on
average removal rates ranging from 0.5 to 3.0 cubic feet per million gallons of
wastewater. Screening quantities were based on removal rates of 0.9 cubic to 2.0 cubic
feet per million gallons of wastewater. Table 3.1-14 presents projected grit and
screening quantities.
3.1.5.2 Grit and Screenings Qualities. The future qualities of MWRA’s grit and
screenings (Table 3.1-1)) are not expected to be affected by the implementation of
improved primary or secondary treatment at the Deer Island treatment plant since this
treatment will affect the system’s effluent, and not its influent. Therefore, present
chemical characteristics of MWRA’s grit and screenings can also be used to project
future qualities of these residuals.
Results of the toxicity tests performed on MWRA’s grit and screenings (Table 3.1-16)
indicate that the contaminant concentrations for both grit and screenings are between
two and four orders of magnitude below the maximum allowable limits for nonhazardous
waste and would therefore be suitable for landfilling.
3.1.6 Scum Characteristics
Scum consists of floatable materials skimmed from the surface of primary and
secondary settling tanks and may include grease, vegetable and mineral oils, animal
fats, waxes, soaps, and similar materials (Metcalf & Eddy, 1979). During MWRA’s
long-term residuals management program, scum will be combined and processed with
the MWRA’s wastewater sludge. Quantity and quality projections of the MWRA’s scum
are projected in this section to provide a basis for predicting impacts associated with
the processing and disposal of the MWRA’s sludge.
3.1.6.1 Scum Quantity. Scum quantities were projected using a rate of 15 pounds of
scum per million gallons of wastewater (MWRA, Report No. 1, 1987). This scum
production rate is based on historical data collected from the Deer and Nut Island
treatment plant records and from literature. Implementation of secondary treatment
at the Deer Island treatment plant is not expected to significantly increase the
production of scum. The addition of the MWRA’s scum to the sludge will increase the
projected raw sludge volume by less than 0.05 percent (Table 3.1-17).
3-16
-------
*1
1 Deer Island
2 Nut Island
3 Fox Point CSO
4 CommerCial Point CSO
5 Ward Street
6 Cottage Farm CSO
7 Prison P jr CSO
8 Constitution Beach CSO
9 Somerville CSO
10 Chelsea Creek
ISLAND
SOURCE: MWRA, MEMO 11, 1988
FIGURE 3.1-1. LOCATIONS OF GRiT AND SCREENINGS COLLECTION
-------
TABLE 3.1-14. PROJECTED ANNUAL AVERAGE MWRA GRIT AND
SCREENINGS QUANTITIES
Item Total
Grit*
Cubic yards per
Tons per day
day
47 - 52
50 - 56
Screenings*
Cubic yards per
Tons per day
day
25 - 29
20 - 23
Source: MWRA, Report No. 1, 1987
Notes: * Mass flows calculated using approximate bulk wet densities of 80 and
60 pounds per cubic foot for grit and screenings, respectively
TABLE 3.1-15. CONVENTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF MINOR RESIDUALS
Parameter
Grit
Range
Screenings
Range
Scum
Moisture Content (%)
13 - 65
80 - 90
75
Specific Gravity (unitless)
1.3 - 2.7
1.0
0.95
Total Solids (%)
35 - 87
10 - 20
25
Volatile Solids (% of IS)
8 - 46
80 - 90
90
Fixed Solids (% of TS)
54 - 92
10 - 20
10
Grease Fraction (% of TS)
-
-
70
Plastic Fraction (% of IS)
-
-
1.2 - 1.5
Particle Size (mm)
0.1 - 2
-
-
BTU Content (BTU/lb)
-
5,000
-
Source: MWRA, Res. Char., 1987
3-18
-------
TABLE 3.1-16. EXTRACTION PROCEDURE TOXICITY ANALYSES
PERFORMED ON GRIT AND SCREENINGS
RCRA Allowab1e Grit screenings
Constituent Limit (ugh) (ugh) (ugh)
Arsenic 5,000 <1 1
Barium 100,000 530-720 360-530
Cadmium 1,000 <20 <20
Chromium 5,000 <50-460 <50
Lead 5,000 100 <100
Mercury 200 0.2-1.2 <0.2-0.35
Selenium 1,000 11-17 4-9
Silver 5,000 <10-20 <10
Lindane 400 <1 <1
Endrin 20 <1 <1
Methoxychlor 10,000 <1.5 <1.5-1.5
Toxaphene 500 <4 <4
2,4-D 10,000 <1 <1
Silvex 1,000 <1 <1
Source: MWRA, Res. Char., 1987
Notes: (a) As listed in 40 CFR Part 261, Table I
(b) Represents measured levels from North and South systems
TABLE 3.1-17. PROJECTED SCUM QUANTITIES*
Dry tons/day 3.7
Gallons/day 3,700
Source: MWRA, Report No. 1, 1987
Notes: * Volumetric flows calculated assuming a 25-percent solids content and a
bulk density of 60 pounds per cubic foot
3-19
-------
3.1.6.2 Scum Quality. Implementation of improved primary or secondary treatment at
the Deer Island treatment plant is not expected to affect the chemical characteristics
of the system’s scum. Thus, existing scum quality is representative of future scum
quality. Table 3.1-15 presents results of conventional pollutant analyses. The results of
MWRA’s toxicity test indicate that all concentrations are below the detection limits,
and are at least two to five orders of magnitude below the maximum allowable limits
for non-hazardous waste (Table 3.1-18). Based on this testing, MWRA’s scum will not be
considered hazardous and will not be subject to regulations addressing the handling and
disposal of hazardous waste.
TABLE 3.1-18. EXTRACTION PROCEDURE TOXICITY ANALYSES
PERFORMED ON NORTH AND SOUTH SYSTEMS SCUM
RCRA - Leachate
Allowable Limit a! Concentration b
(ug/l) (ugh)
Arsenic 5,000 <10
Barium 100,000 <2,000
Cadmium 1,000 <20
Chromium 5,000 <200
Lead 5,000 <200
Mercury 200 <0.2
Selenium 1,000 <10
Silver 5,000 <20
Lindane 400 <0.1
Endrin 20 <0.1
Methoxychlor 10,000 <0.1
Toxaphene 500 <0.1
2,4-D 10,000 <1
Silvex 1,000 <1
Source: MWRA, Res. Char., 1987
(a) As listed in 40 CFR Part 261, Table 1
(b) Concentrations presented for North and South Systems
3.1.7 Summary
Summaries of projected residuals quantities and qualities are presented in Tables 3.1-19
and 3.1-20, respectively.
3-20
-------
TABLE 3.1-19 SUMMARY OF PROJECTED RESIDUALS QUANTITIES
Digested Sludge Volume of
to Process Product
(dtpd) (cu yd/day)
1995
Digested Sludge , . 85 504
J-1eat dri Sludge’ 57 98
Compost ( ) 28 354
Ash Plus Scrubber Solids C 0 0
1999
Digested Sludge 109 647
Heat-dri Sludge a 73 125
Compost’ ) 36 455
Ash Plus Scrubber Solids C 109 112
2000
Digested Sludge , . 165 979
Heat dri S1udge a 110 189
Compost” ) 55 703
Ash Plus Scrubber Solids C 165 169
2020
Digested Sludge , . 180 1068
Heat_dri Sludge aI 120 206
Compost ( ) 60 767
Ash Plus Scrubber Solids.C 180 184
Notes: (a) 67 percent of digested sludge would be heat dried
(b) 33 percent of digested sludge would be composted
(c) Assumes 100 percent of digested sludge would be incinerated
3-21
-------
TABLE 3.1-20. SUMMARY OF PRO3ECTED RESIDUALS
POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS
Digested and Heat
Dried Sludge
Compost
Combustion Ash
Concentration
Concentration
Concentration
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
Antimony
27
25
63
Arsenic
11
9.9
25
Beryllium
<16
<15
<38
Boron
220
210
510
Cadmium
12 to 26
11 to 24
27 to 59
Chromium
190 to 300
180 to 284
440 to 695
Copper
910 to 1240
860 to 1172
2100 to 2862
Cyanide
190
180
440
Lead
154 to 230
140 to 209
364 to 544
Mercury
12 to 13
10.7 to 12.6
26 to 28
Molybdenum
30 to 69
28 to 64
70 to 161
Nickel
77 to 99
73 to 93
187 to 240
Selenium
74
70
170
Silver
45 to 70
42 to 65
110 to 162
Thallium
<26
<24
(60
Zinc
1895
1700
4500
PCB-1254
0.61 to 1.86
0.58 to 1.76
-
3.2 SLUDGE PROCESSING AND DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES
Four sludge processing and disposal technologies have been retained for detailed
analysis in this Draft SEIS. These technologies are composting of sludge, heat drying of
sludge, combustion of sludge, and landfilling of grit, screenings, scum, and sludge or
sludge products that cannot be otherwise disposed of. Described below are the four
major technologies as they apply to the MWRA’s digested sludge, as well as two support
technologies (digestion with thickening and dewatering) which would be used in
combination with all of the four major technologies. The projected utility requirements
of each of the technologies discussed in this section are summarized in Table 3.2-I.
3-22
-------
TABLE 3.2-1. UTILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDUALS
MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGIES
MWRA, RMFP, Options, II!, 1989 and MWRA, RMFP, Landfill, I, 1988
Utility requirement for Spectacle Island only (more dewatering
required due to higher liquid content for pipeline transport)
Fuel oil would replace natural gas on Spectacle Island only
Includes backup water supply for fire protection
Utility estimates represent maximum monthly conditions except for
landfill, which represents daily average conditions
3.2.1 Digestion and Thickening
The first processing step that the sludge from the Deer Island wastewater treatment
plant would undergo is sludge thickening and anaerobic digestion on Deer Island. Sludge
is thickened at various stages in residuals handling to increase the solids content
(reduce the volume) and to create a sludge material that is easier to process.
Anaerobic digestion is a destructive biological process that reduces the total solids
mass and the pathogenic organism content of raw sludge while producing a less odorous
product. Anaerobic digestion occurs in the absence of oxygen and involves a biological
process that converts organic compounds to a gas consisting primarily of methane,
carbon dioxide, and water. Figure 3.2-1 shows the area of Deer Island reserved for
sludge thickening and digestion facilities.
Utility Type
Electricity
(kwh/day)
Potable
Water
(mgd)
Nonpotable
Service Water
(mgd)
Sewer
(mgd)
Natural
Gas
(cf/hr)
TECHNOLOGY:
61,000
0.17
7.5
19.95
62,000
Digestion and
Thickening
Dewatering
26,000
(52,000)
0.18
(.39)
-
1.03
(2.40)
-
Heat Drying
84,000
-
-
-
112 0O0( )
(19,200) a
Composting
23,000
0.17
-
0.17
-
Combustion
13,000
0.02
-
-
-
Landf ill
80
02 (b)
-
0.2
-
Source:
Notes:
( )=
(a)
(b)
3-23
-------
LEGEND
AREA FOR SLUDGE THICKENING
AND DIGESTION FACILITY
AREA FOR HEAT DRYING
AND COMBUSTION FACILITIES
600
600
SCALE IN FEET
• ______ ___ ___
I ..
•.
PIERS
PROPOSED
SITE ACCESS
SOURCE: MWRA, RMFP,
II, 1988
30
SCALE IN METERS
300
FIGURE 3.2-1. DEER ISLAND RESIDUALS PROCESSING SITE LAYOUT•
-------
The sludge that has undergone primary treatment (i.e., taken from the primary
clarifiers) would be thickened in four gravity thickeners, which would occupy one acre
on Deer Island, and the sludge that has undergone secondary treatment (i.e., taken from
the secondary clarifiers) would be thickened using a centrifuge housed in an enclosed
building occupying half an acre on Deer Island. The thickened primary and secondary
sludge would then be pumped into the digester complex where the sludge is combined.
A two-stage, high-rate anaerobic digestion process is proposed (Figure 3.2-2). The
digester complex would consist of 24 first-stage digesters, 6 second-stage digesters and
4 storage tanks. It would occupy approximately 14 acres on Deer Island. The two-stage
anaerobic process refers to the two step process of digestion. In the first stage, a fixed
cover digester would be used and in the second stage, a floating gas cover digester
would be constructed. The floating gas cover in the second stage provides extra storage
space for the methane gas produced. High-rate refers to the use of mechanical mixing,
which increases the rate of digestion. Most of the digestion process would occur in the
fixed-cover digester tanks while the floating-gas cover digesters would support
remaining digestion and collect the gas produced during digestion. Digester gas would
provide an energy source to produce power for the treatment plant or as a source of
heat to the feed sludge (which must be heated to between 86 to 100° F to support the
proper bacteria). Also located within the digestion complex will be storage tanks for
digested sludge.
After digestion, the sludge would be thickened once more (to about 6 percent solids)
using a centrifuge housed in the same building as the centrifuge used for thickening the
raw secondary sludge. This last stage of thickening would be omitted only if the sludge
were to be transported by pipeline to Spectacle Island (a lower solids content is more
desirable for pipeline transport).
Polymers would be added to the digested sludge before thickening and again before
dewatering. Polymers are used to condition (enhance the agglomeration of particles)
the sludge. Polymers are supplied in a dry form as powder, granules, beads, or flakes;
or in liquid form as emulsions or solutions.
3.2.2 Sludge Dewatering
Digested sludge would be dewatered before heat drying, compostirig, combustion, or
landfillirig. Dewatering is a mechanical method of removing liquid from sludge that
achieves a much greater volume reduction than thickening. The product of dewatering
is called sludge cake, which could have a solids content in the range of 15 to 30 percent
depending on operating conditions and type of equipment used. Therefore, for planning
purposes, in this document, a solids content of 20 percent has been assumed for all
sludge cake produced.
Two dewatering technologies, the belt filter press and the solid bowl centrifuge, have
been retained as potential dewatering technologies for the MWRA residuals facilities.
The solid bowl centrifuge uses a centrifugal force generated by the rotational
3-25
-------
Digester Gas Outlet
U)
w
C
0 ,
V
: 3
C l )
Source: Metcalf & Eddy, 1979
First Stage
(Completely Mixed)
Second Stage
(Stratified)
Fixed Cover
Floating Cover
U)
a)
:3
0
a)
0 )
V
:3
Cl )
C
U)
)u0
FIGURE 3.2-2. TWO-STAGE HIGH RATE DIGESTER SYSTEM
-------
movement of a bowl to separate sludge solids from liquids. The belt filter press
removes liquid by first using the force of gravity as the sludge moves along a conveyor
belt, and then squeezing the sludge between two conveyor belts with an increasing
amount of pressure. Before dewatering the sludge would be treated with a polymer as
discussed in Section 3.2.1 above. Dewatering would occur at one of three alternative
locations: Quincy FRSA, Deer Island, or Spectacle Island.
3.2.3 Composting
Composting is an aerobic process that results in the decomposition of organic
components of sludge and in the reduction of pathogenic (viral) bacteria. The primary
product of composting is a soil-like material that can be used to increase the water-
holding capacity of sandy soils, improve the structure of heavy clay soils, and increase
the air content of soils. Compost improves the workability of soil, making it easier for
plant roots to penetrate. Most compost contains only small amounts of plant nutrients
and thus is not useful as a primary fertilizer. It can, however, be useful as an organic
base (with fertilizer amendments), mulch, soil top dressing, or as a soil-like product for
conditioning or erosion control.
A horizontal-flow reactor composting system has been chosen for the MWRA
facilities. Reactor (or in-vessel) composting systems are those in which sludge is
physically contained in a reactor during processing. Horizontal flow refers to the
direction the compost moves through the system. Aeration provides the oxygen
required for the aerobic process. Biological activity during composting generates heat;
thus aeration can also be used to control the compost at temperatures that promote
maximum biological activity. Some reactor systems use mechanical mixing to aid in
aeration. An aeration rate of approximately 60,000 cubic feet per minute would be
required for the MWRA facility. Reactor systems are particularly suitable when odor
control is important because of their ability to contain odors. Odor control is necessary
in all systems. A two-stage, counter-current chemical scrubber system would be used
to control odors for the MWRA composting facility.
Prior to composting, dewatered sludge (sludge cake) is delivered to the compost
facility, where bulking agents, or “amendment” material, can be added to improve
porosity, for moisture control, and to provide nutrients such as carbon. Woodchips,
recycled compost, sawdust, and rice hulls are examples of bulking agents used to
increase the volatile organic or carbon content of the sludge cake. The compost
mixture must be porous to be capable of sustaining the decomposition reaction.
During composting, the sludge or sludge/amendment mixture is conveyed to a reactor
vessel. Oxygen levels are maintained in the range of 5 to 15 percent of gas volume to
ensure aerobic conditions (anaerobic decomposition would cause nuisance odors). A
temperature in the range of 55 to 60° C is attained for at least three days to ensure
destruction of pathogenic organisms and to provide the driving force for evaporation of
water, further reducing the compost moisture content. Temperatures in excess of
60° C or below 55° C are not adequate for pathogenic destruction. See Figure 3.2-3 for
a process diagram of MWRA’s proposed composting system.
3-27
-------
Uquid
Sludge
(From Storage)
MECHANICAL
DEWATERING
Centrate
Return To
Treatment
Plant
SOURCE MWRA. RMFP. OPTIONS, III, 1989
Product
Distribution
EmIssions
Control
Stack
Amendment
Uquld
Sidestream
Liquid
Recycle Sidestream
FICURE 3.2-3. PROCESS DIACRAM FOR COMPOSTING
-------
The compost is stored at a lower temperature for an extended period after the primary
composting operation, to further stabilize the mixture. Additional drying may be
required if the cured compost is too wet for further processing. Time required for
drying depends on the desired total solids concentration of the finished compost.
Average compost has an approximate total solids concentration of 60 percent. The
principal by-products of composting are heat, carbon dioxide, ammonia, other odorous
gases, and a liquid sidestream consisting of condensate and leachate.
The compost product can be marketed for sale or distribution either directly to
consumers or in bulk quantity through a retailer. A list of major compost users can be
found in Table 3.2-2. Once a user has been identified, the distance to market,
transportation costs, quality of compost, and costs of competing products all become
determinants of market viability.
TABLE 3.2-2. MAJOR COMPOST USERS
Private Residential • Garden applications for food
• Nonfood applications
Private Food Crops • Field crops for food and feed
• Garden crops for food and feed
• Fruit trees
Private Non-Food Crops • Greenhouses
• Nurseries
• Golf courses
• Landscape contractors
• Turf Grass farmers
• Industrial park grounds
• Cemeteries
• Fertilizer companies
Public Agencies • Public parks
• Playgrounds
• Roadsides and median strips
• Military installations
• Public grounds
Land Reclamation • Landfill cover
• Strip-mined lands
• Sand and gravel pits
Landfill • Compost disposal
Source: U.S. EPA, 1985
3-29
-------
Compost is generally sold for between $8-29 per ton (U.S. EPA, 1985). The revenue
from sales does not usually create a self-supporting operation, but does help offset
some operational costs. To maximize consumer demand and acceptance of compost,
the consumer must be made familiar with the product and educated about the proper
use of the compost material. Sludge quality will directly affect the ability of sludge
compost to be marketed through either distribution or sales. If pollutant concentrations
in the sludge are high, the available markets will be more limited. A more detailed
description of the MWRA’s projected sludge quality and associated land application
regulations can be found in Sections 3.1 and 5.1 of this document.
The utilities required for composting include power, water, and sewer service for the
sidestreams from composting and odor control processes (Table 3.2-1). The total
required acreage for the type of composting facility envisioned by the MWRA would
range from 25 to 46 acres depending on site conditions (MWRA, RMFP, Options, III,
1989; and MWRA Options Id., 1987).
3.2.4 Heat Drying
Similar to composting, dewatered sludge is the main ingredient in the heat-drying
process. Heat drying uses an external heat source to increase the solids content of the
sludge cake, preparing the sludge for subsequent packaging, reuse, or incineration.
Sludge must be dried to 90 percent total solids to adequately reduce pathogens and to
be sold for some fertilizer uses. Since the solids content of heat-dried sludge is high, it
also makes a good fuel for an incinerator. The heat-dried product can be left in a
powder form or shaped into various-sized pellets depending on the ultimate use. Dried
sludge is brown to olive-brown in color, and typically has an odor similar to fertilizer.
Rotary drying has been chosen as the heat drying technology for the MWRA sludge. A
rotary dryer is a cylindrical vessel that is heated by a natural-gas fueled combustion
chamber. The combustion chamber generates hot air (700°F) which is injected into the
rotary drum at the same time as the dewatered sludge. The hot air transports the
sludge through baffles in the cylindrical vessel and kills pathogens.
Odorous gases are emitted during heat drying because of the volatilization of chemicals
in the sludge. Air pollution control devices that help control odors must be in place
during the heat-drying operation. Two cyclone separators and an afterburner (MWRA,
Air Modeling, 1988) are proposed for air pollution control devices for the MWRA
heat-drying facility. Fine particles are first removed or recycled by the dual cyclone
using a centrifugal force. Then, a fan transports exhaust gas to the afterburner where a
very high temperature (1800°F) is attained that combusts any volatiles present. An
afterburi er fan then transmits gases to the exhaust stack (Figure 3.2-4).
An advantage of heat drying is that the sludge retains useful nutrients and can be
marketed or distributed as a fertilizer. Most of the nitrogen in heat-dried sludge is
insoluble in water because it is in an organic form. Because of this, nutrients are slowly.
released into the soil as the dried sludge is degraded. Chemical fertilizers, in contrast,
typically contain higher levels of water-soluble nitrogen, which can leach below the
root-growing zone where it is out of reach of plant roots.
3-30
-------
EXHAUST
SlACK
I IOU ID
SLUDGE
SOLIDS AP WATER
AF TCRBURt’CR
FAN
WASTE WATER
OYERS?ZE PART ICLES
SOURCE MWRA. RMFP. ISPD. II, 1989
FIGURE 3.2-4. SCHEMATIC OF PROPOSED HEAT DRyIN(; FACILITY
-------
Metal concentrations in heat-dried sludge can vary depending on the characteristics of
the wastewater stream into the sewage treatment plant and on the process it undergoes
before being heat dried. Most states have standards that classify and restrict use of
sludge product based on levels of metals and other contaminants. The quality of
MWRA’s sludge could constrain the type of markets in which heat-dried sludge can be
sold and distributed. A more detailed description of MWRA’s projected sludge quality
and associated land application regulations is presented in Sections 3.1 and 5.1 of this
Draft SEES.
Similar to compost, heat-dried sludge can be either sold or distributed. The markets
available for both selling and distributing heat-dried “fertilizer” pellets are essentially
the same. The market demand and constraining uses will determine whether or not the
sludge can be sold or distributed. There are many constraints in the use of
sludge-derived products, varying from legal and institutional to environmental, health
and safety, to economic constraints.
Approximately half of the heat-dried sludge currently marketed in the United States is
sold to Florida citrus growers. Other markets include horticultural application to
lawns, golf courses, parks, athletic fields, sod farms, and nurseries. Feasible markets
for both selling and distributing the MWRA sludge include the Florida Citrus groves,
horticultural uses within New England, and as a sludge-derived fuel for combustion with
energy recovery.
A small scale heat-drying facility was built at Deer Island by the New England
Fertilizer Company (NEFCo) as a pilot plant to test heat drying of the MWRA sludge.
An interim sludge management facility is being built at the Quincy Fore River Staging
area to be in operation by 1991. The interim facility will use a belt filter press for
dewatering, a rotary-drum heat drier, and will pelletize the heat-dried sludge for
marketing (a more complete description of this facility can be found in MWRA, ISPD, I
and II, 1989). The overall estimated area requirement for the heat drying facility is
five to six acres, depending on location.
3.2.5 Combustion
Combustion, or incineration, is a process of burning sludge to reduce its volume by
70 percent or more, and results in the production of exhaust gases and ash. The
combustion reaction chemically combines oxygen with the volatile solids in sludge,
converting them to carbon dioxide and water that exit as exhaust gases. Metals present
in the sludge remain through the process and exit with the exhaust ash. The heat
created by the combustion process generally reduces or destroys the toxic organic
chemicals and pathogens present in the sludge. Ash, the inert portion of the sludge, will
not pose odor problems when disposed of in a landfill.
A fluidized-bed incinerator is the MWRA’s proposed design for a combustion facility. A
fluidized-bed incinerator is a vertically oriented, cylindrically shaped, heat-resistant
steel chamber separated into upper and lower zones by a grid (Figure 3.2-5). The lower
zone is a wind box and the upper zone is a combustion zone. A bed of sand or inert
material is placed on the grid and is suspended by pressurized air from below. The air
and sand is initially heated by burners to an adequate temperature to begin the
combustion process. Sludge is fed to the upper area of the sand bed, v.here it is dried
3-32
-------
Exhaust and Ash
Sludge
Intel
Thermocouple
Fluidizing
Air Inlet
OURCE MWRA. RMFP. OPTK NS , 1988
Pressure Tap
Burner
FIGURE 3 .2-5. FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR
-------
and burned. Ash and other products of combustion exit the chamber with the exhaust
gases and are separated in a subsequent process. Some sand, which is carried out with
the ash, must be replaced. Approximately eight acres of land would be required for the
construction of an MWRA incineration facility.
Exhaust oxygen monitoring and high-temperature stack conditions can control most of
the potential for air pollution. However, particle emissions into the atmosphere are a
function of the air-pollution control equipment efficiency. The proposed MWRA
incinerator design would include the following emission control equipment: a spray
dryer (using a lime slurry reagent), a baghouse, induced-draft fans for discharge, and a
reagent preparation system for the lime slurry. The exhaust gas would first enter the
spray dryer where acid gases would react with the lime slurry to form a solid
by-product, which would collect in the bottom of the conical-shaped dryer. Water from
the slurry mixture would serve to cool the gas stream. Approximately 5 to 15 percent
of the fly ash (ash that becomes suspended in the air) would also be removed in the
spray dryer.
Exhaust gas leaving the spray dryer would then enter a baghouse, several compartments
with approximately 100 bags constructed of teflon cloth (able to withstand high
temperatures), which acts as a filter to remove additional fly ash and spent reagent.
Filter cake that collects on the bags would be periodically removed by pulses of
compressed air and collected in hoppers below the bags. The induced-draft fans would
draw the gas stream through the air-pollution control equipment for discharge to a flue
leading to a common stack. Heat is recovered from the exhaust gases to conserve
energy that would otherwise be wasted.
Heat that is released from volatile organics in the sludge during incineration can cause
combustion to occur spontaneously once the combustion reaction starts. The burnLng
can become self-sustaining or autogenous when there is a high concentration of volatile
solids in the sludge. If the process is not autogenous, auxiliary fuel is needed to induce
burning. Fuel systems are also required to provide start-up, to control temperatures
during the process, and to control cool-down of the furnace. Possible fuels include all
common liquid and gaseous ones such as oils, natural gas, digester gas, and propane.
3.2.6 Landfilling
Landfilling is the method selected for management of grit and screenings from the Deer
Island wastewater treatment plant and remote headworks. It is also a potential method
for disposal of digested dewatered sludge cake, heat-dried pellets, and sludge ash from
incineration.
The design and Construction of the minor residuals landfill would use the area fill
landfilling method because of shallow groundwater and bedrock conditions at the
alternative sites. The area method is used in either a naturally occurring or excavated
area depression. If excavation is required, the soil is temporarily stockpiled.
Successive layers of residuals would be placed on a ground-surface liner until a final
height is reached. The proposed MWRA landfill area would be developed in 5- to 6-year
phases using an active cell system. Lined landfill cells ranging from 3 to 13 acres would
be enclosed by a dike. Internal working dikes would be constructed within an open cell
to separate active areas from the inactive areas. A temporary gravel road would
3-34
-------
provide access to the active cells. The phased development of the landfill helps
minimize the area exposed and the rate of leachate generation.
To prevent the flow of leachate into the subsoil and subsequently to the underlying
aquifer, the MWRA residuals landfill would be designed with a double liner, one liner of
synthetic material (primary liner) and one of natural material (secondary liner).
Cur ent state policy requires the use of a liner system with a permeability of
l0 cm/second or less for all sludge landfills. Clay, beritonite, and synthetic
membranes are examples of materials capable of providing this low level of
permeability. Figure 3.2-6 illustrates the proposed MWRA liner system.
The landfill would have two leachate control systems providing separate collection
systems for leachate above both the primary and secondary liners. Leachate collection
laterals (four-inch diameter) would be installed at a two percent slope and leachate
collection pipes (six-inch diameter) would be installed at a 0.5 percent slope. Leachate
would flow by gravity to a leachate storage and pumping facility. This facility may
accommodate a pretreatment operation if it is necessary before leachate is discharged
to the sewer; however, at this time the projected [ eachate quality would not require
it. Groundwater must be protected from leachate by a vertical separation of the
landfill bottom from the groundwater table as well as by the installed leachate control
system. In Massachusetts, a minimum of five feet of unconsolidated soil must be
provided between the landfill bottom and the groundwater table.
Groundwater and surface water monitoring would be necessary during both active
landf ill operations and after the closure of the landfill. A thorough knowledge of
hydrologic conditions in the area surrounding the site is important. Two types of
groundwater monitoring wells would be installed, background wells (upstream and not
affected by leachate) and downstream wells (in areas of potential groundwater
contamination). A surface water sampling program would also be developed for water
bodies with possible contamination pathways.
Surface water runoff control facilities would be developed to capture sediments
resulting from the construction and operation of the landfill and to handle the increased
rain runoff caused by landfill grading. Water control structures such as detention
ponds, dikes, catch basins, gravity pipes, and temporary rock trenches would be
constructed.
Control for the movement of decomposed gases, especially carbon dioxide and methane,
would be included in the MWRA landfill design. If not controlled, carbon dioxide is
soluble in water and can form carbonic acid which may dissolve minerals and cause
water quality impacts, and methane gas can collect in nearby sewers or buildings in
explosive concentrations. A gas collection system Consists of perforated lateral and
header pipes centered in a trench of crushed rock overlying the daily soil cover layer.
The crushed rock is enclosed in filter fabric and covered with a high density
polyethelerie (HDPE) membrane. The filter fabric prevents clogging and provides a
cushion between the rock and the HDPE membrane. The HDPE provides an
impermeable barrier that maximizes suction of gas below if vacuum application is
necessary, and minimizes suction from above. The gases collected in the landfill are
released through surface vents at high elevations.
3-35
-------
LU
c i)
c i)
0
C -)
Leachate Pipe
___________________________________________ _________ 60 Mu Membrane
LU
Sand Drainage Layer
TJ 16”
Source: MWRA, RMFP, Landfill, I, 1988 in-Situ Soil
U)
RESIDUALS
.
>
Th Sand Drainage Layer
FIGURE 3.2-6. SCHEMATIC OF CAP AND LINER SYSTEMS
-------
The proposed landfill would operate nine hours/day for six to seven days per week and
would be closed on major holidays. The operation schedule would be determined by a
variety of factors including local traffic regulations; collection schedules at various
generation sites; weather conditions; and equipment malfunctions or operation delays.
Daily operations of the landfill include unloading of trucks, spreading and compacting of
residuals, and maintaining appropriate cover material (Figure 3.2-7).
Cover material is used at a landfill during interim stages to maintain proper operation.
Cover material minimizes vector (disease-transmitting organisms) breeding and animal
attraction and helps control water and gas movement. Additionally, aesthetic
conditions are improved with cover because it controls noxious odors and improves
appearance. The operation of a landfill depends on cover to aid in compaction,
decrease settling, minimize wind erosion, increase slope stability, increase crack
resistance, and provide a good soil for vegetative growth after landfilling.
The three categories of cover material used in landfilling are daily, intermediate, and
final. Daily cover is applied on compacted landfilled material at the end of the work
day and has a minimum thickness of six inches. Intermediate cover is applied on daily
cover at a minimum of six inches in thickness, if the daily cover is exposed for more
than one month. Final cover of a minimum of two feet is applied over the intermediate
cover material, if the intermediate cover has been exposed for six months to a year.
The type of cover materials used varies according to purpose, site conditions, type of
waste, effectiveness, and application strategy. For the MWRA landfill, these materials
can include natural soil, otherwise unpiaceable compost, or sludge-amended soil. Upon
closure of the MWRA landfill, standard closure procedures would be follov,ed, such as
capping the landfill with an impermeable layer, a drainage layer, and a layer capable of
supporting vegetation. Figure 3.2-6 illustrates the MWRA’s proposed cap system.
3.3 Transportation Modes
The between-site transportation requirements of the long-term residuals management
facilities vary depending on the type of residual being transported and the site
combination chosen for processing the residuals. This section describes the modes of
transportation remaining after screening: truck, barge, and pipeline (rail is being
considered as a mitigation measure and is discussed in Section 5.3). The residuals
compatible with each transportation mode are discussed, as well as the more specific
type of equipment proposed for use within each transport mode category. Table 3.3-1 is
a summary of the residuals and the transport mode options.
3.3.1 Truck
Truck transport is the most flexible transport mode available and is feasible for all of
the residuals except for liquid sludge. Liquid sludge has such a large volume and heavy
weight that transporting by truck would not be efficient. Transporting residuals by
truck would offer more flexible transportation routes and combinations with other
transportation modes.
3-37
-------
INTERMEDIATE COVER
STORMWATER
______ :I 11 DIKE
_
(PRIMARY LINER)—
NATURAL LINER
(SECONDARY LINER)
SYNThETIC LINER
SAND
DRAINAGE
LAYERS
SOURCE MWRA. RMFP. LANDFILL. I. 1988 NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 3.2-7. SCHEMATIC OF CELL DEVELOPMENT
-------
TABLE 33-1. POSSIBLE TRANSPORT MODE/RESIDUALS COMBINATIONS
Residual Type
Transport Liquid Thickened Dewatered Pellets/ Minor
Mode Sludge Sludge Sludge Compost Ash Residuals
Truck
X
X
X
X
Ba ge
X
X
X
X
X
X
Pipeline
X
X
Source: Adapted from MWRA, Tech., 1987
In particular, the roll-on/roll-off (RO/RO) method of transporting residuals uses storage
units, such as a truck trailers, designed to move easily from barge to truck or from
truck to barge. This allows residuals to be moved from one transport mode to another
by moving the container holding the residual, without Loading or unloading the
material. Movement of the residuals through the RO/RO method makes land and water
transportation connections easier and more efficient. Section 3.3.2 provides a more
detailed description of the RO/RO barges proposed for transporting the MWRA
residuals.
The two truck types proposed to transport MWRA residuals both consist of the same
type of cab or power unit, with a detachable trailer. The trailer type is the distinction
between the two truck types, which are an aluminum-bodied dump trailer and an
aluminum-bodied pusher trailer. The dump trailer has a flat bed which is raised by a
hydraulic lift to empty its contents (Figure 3.3-1). The dump trailer would be used for
the transport of compost amendment materials. Compost material could also be
transported by a dump trai er; however, the buyer of compost would choose the means
of transporting, therefore, it is not discussed here. The pusher trailer also has a flat
bed, but rather than being lifted it remains in a horizontal position and a hydraulic ram
pushes across the floor of the trailer to empty the bed (Figure 3.3-2). The pusher
trailer would be used for the transport of sludge cake, ash, heat-dried pellets, grit, and
screenings.
The aluminum-bodied dump trailers used to transport compost amendment would be
owned and operated by the amendment supplier. A supplier would not provide the
hydraulic dump machine needed to elevate the trailer into an unloading position, so this
piece of equipment would have to be provided by the MWRA and located at their
designated unloading area. Two 50,000 square foot flat, paved unloading areas would be
needed to unload the required quantity of amendment material. The weight of the main
body of the truck chassis is 15,000 lbs. The dump trailer weight is 17,200 lbs. The
maximum payload is 47,800 lbs.; therefore the trailer capacity is approximately
80 cubic yards of amendment material. Truck transport of compost amendment is
expected to require 109 round trip truck trips per week. Assumptions used to determine
transportation figures are presented in Section 5.3 and Appendix B.
3-39
-------
SOURCE: MWRA, TRANS, 1987.
FIGURE 3.3-1
TYPICAL STARDARD DUMP TRAILER
-------
U
SOURCE: MWRA, TRANS. 1987.
FIGURE 3.3-2 TYPICAL PUSHER TRAILER
-------
The aluminum-bodied pusher trailer would be used by the MWRA for transporting sludge
cake to a processing site, ash to a landfill site, and heat-dried pellets to a landfill or
incinerator. The trailer would be covered to reduce odors and water would be added to
ash before transporting, to control fly-away material during loading and unloading. The
weight of the main body or chassis is 15,000 lbs. The pusher trailer weight is 13,700 lbs.
The total trailer capacity is 42 cubic yards of sludge cake, with road weight restrictions
constraining the volume of sludge cake or ash to be transported in each trailer. The
maximum payload of the truck is 51,300 lbs., therefore allowing a maximum volume of
36 cubic yards of ash, 29 cubic yards of sludge cake, or 29 cubic yards of heat-dried
pellets.
The transport of ash from either a coastal or inland site to a landfill site will require an
operational fleet of two trucks and one truck as a standby unit. If 66 percent of sludge
(pe.lletized) is combusted, 18 round trip truck trips per week would be transported; if
100 percent sludge is combusted, 28 round trip truck trips per week would be required
for transport of ash.
The number of trucks required for the transport of sludge cake will vary depending on
the quantity of sludge cake being transported. The maximum number of trucks required
will be 37 with 3 standby units for a scenario with 100 percent of the sludge cake
transported to an inland site for composting, heat drying, and incineration or backup
landfill. This scenario would require 258 round trip truck trips per week. The minimum
scenario for transporting sludge cake would be to transport 33 percent of the total
sludge cake to an inland site for composting only. This would require a fleet of
20 trucks with 2 standby units making 86 round trips per week.
The number of truck trips required for transporting heat-dried pellets would range from
50 to 75 round trips per week for scenarios of 67 percent or 100 percent sludge
produced in pellet form, respectively.
There are federal, state, and local weight restrictions for truck transport. The federal
weight restriction of 80,000 lbs. for an 18-wheel tractor/trailer has been assumed as an
upper limit when selecting the capacities of the truck trailers (Table 3.4-3). In
Massachusetts, this weight limit can be increased to 104,000 lbs. by purchasing a permit
for certain uses. However, local weight restrictions are usually more stringent than the
federal regulations and can restrict transport over certain roads and bridges, and during
weather conditions such as frost seasons (Domas, 1989).
Truck transport of residuals is to some extent affected by weather conditions. Some
difficulties might include temperature restrictions during the loading process, freezing
of the residual during the transport process, frozen residuals restricting the unloading
process, disruption of the transport operation, and road weight restrictions during the
frost season (MWRA, Tech., 1987).
Truck equipment may require heating and insulating during cold months. The pusher
trailer is the only unit that can unload a partially frozen material because of the even
pressure it applies when unloading. Additional residuals storage may be required during
transportation disruptions due to weather conditions (MWRA, Tech., 1987).
3-42
-------
3.3.2 Barge
The three types of barges proposed for the transport of MWRA residuals are a liquid
tanker barge, bulk barge, and roll on/roll-off (RO/RO) barge. The liquid tanker barge
would be used for the transport of thickened digested sludge; the bulk barge would
transport compost amendment material; and the RO/RO barge would transport ash,
heat-dried material, and composteci material. The location of various facilities will
determine the exact combination of types of barges necessary for transporting
residuals.
A liquid tanker barge has a fixed storage container attached to the barge. Liquid is
pumped into the container by a pump at the loading area, usually through a porthole at
the top of the container, and pumped out of the container by on-board pumps. These
containers can be custom-made for transporting particular types of liquid necessary,
can have insulating and heating elements for transport during cold weather, and can be
divided into several compartments for the transport of a variety of liquids or for
stabilization purposes.
The proposed liquid tanker barge will have a maximum rated weight of 3,000 tons, a
690,000-gallon capacity, and have several storage compartments for the sludge to help
stabilize the barge during loading and unloading. The barge dimensions will be 290 by
52-feet with a 12-foot hull depth. The loading pumps at Deer Island will operate at
6,000 gpm, and the four unloading pumps will each operate at 2,000 gpm. The barge
will be towed by a contracted tug boat service, which will have an approximate
2.25-hour cross harbor transit time each way. One hour of this time is estimated for
docking and securing the barge at the end of each harbor crossing. A fleet size of two
liquid barges would be needed for eleven trips per week.
The bulk barge is proposed for transporting compost amendment from a transfer site to
an island site, if necessary. The amendment material would be brought to a coastal
transfer site by vehicles owned by the supplier and then stored loosely in piles at the
transfer site. A bulk barge is most appropriate when loose material is being loaded
directly onto a barge. Such a barge could also be considered for transporting of heat-
dried pellets produced at an island site in place of a RO/RO barge (see below).
The bulk barge also has a fixed storage container that would be completely open at the
top while loading and unloading. The proposed system would use cranes to load dump
trucks, which will be on a pier and dump directly into the bulk barge container already
in place on the barge. At the island site the amendment material would be unloaded
using a truck crane with a clam shell bucket and would operate around the clock taking
30 hours to unload one barge. The clamshell bucket would empty amendment material
into a storage hopper that funnels onto a conveyor belt. This conveyor belt would then
bring the amendment material to a storage area near the composting facility.
The bulk barge will have a 3,000-ton maximum weight and have the capacity to
transport 11,000 cy of amendment material on each trip. The barge will have
dimensions of 275 by 75 feet with a 16-foot hull depth. The bulk barge will also be
towed by a contracted tug boat service, making one trip every nine days.
3-43
-------
The roll on/roll-off (RO/RO) barge is proposed for the transport of ash, heat-dried
material (pellets), and compost. A RO/RO barge is designed for movable storage units
to be attached and detached for transport. The storage units to be transported by
RO/RO barge for the project are truck trailers. The proposed RO/RO barge will have
dimensions of 300 by 40 feet with a 10-foot hull depth and will carry 21 to 28 truck
trailers on each trip. A yard tractor will load and unload the barges. The cross-harbor
transit time is estimated to be 2.5 hours one way.
Transportation of ash would require a fleet size of one RO/RO barge, and move
approximately 142 cubic yards of ash/day for 100 percent of MWRA sludge combusted,
requiring one to two round tripbarge trips per week of ash. The heat-dried and
compost product transported by RO/RO barge would be transported on the MWRA
(pusher and dump, respectively) trailers and attached to truck cabs at the coastal
transfer site. Each transport system would require a fleet of one ROIRO barge,
operating five days/week. Approximately 309 cubic yards/day (100 percent MWRA
sludge) of heat-dried product and 767 cubic yards of compost material would be
available for RO/RO barge transport per day. Two to three round trip barge trips per
week are estimated for heat-dried pellets and six round-trip barge trips per week for
compost material.
3.3.3 Pipeline
A pipeline is an efficient transporter of low-solids-content liquid. A pipeline is
considered in the final options for the residuals management plan for the transport of
digested sludge (with a solids content of three percent or less) between Deer Island and
Spectacle Island.
Three 12,000-foot long pipelines 12 inches in diameter are proposed to connect a pump
station at Deer Island with a pump station at Spectacle Island. One pipeline would be
used for liquid sludge, one would be on reserve for use with liquid sludge, and one would
be used for wastewater return from the dewatering process at Spectacle Island. The
pipelines would have fused joints and be made of high-density polyethylene which
provides excellent flow characteristics (MWRA, RMFP, DM Trans, 1989). All three
pipelines would be constructed at the same time. The pipelines would either be
installed in an excavated trench using stone and bedding as backfill, or by laying the
pipe on the submarine surface and capping the entire route with stone.
The two pump stations will operate 24 hours/day for 7 days/week. Each pump station
should have one operating and two backup pumps (50 horsepower at Deer Island,
25 horsepower at Spectacle Island). The Deer Island pump station would require
approximately 2,600 kwh/day for power and the Spectacle Island pump station would
require approximately 1,700 kwh/day.
3.4 CANDIDATE SITES
This section describes the candidate sites being given detailed evaluation in this Draft
SEIS. The landfill sites are the Rowe Quarry and Walpole MCI, and the sludge
processing facility sites are Stoughton, Quincy FRSA, Spectacle Island, and Deer Island.
3-44
-------
3.4.1 Walpole MCI
The Walpole MCI site has been identified as a potential long-term dedicated landfill site
for the MWRA’s residuals. Walpole is a suburban community of approximately
19,000 residents located 20 miles southwest of Boston. The Walpole MCI site is located
in the southwest corner of Walpole. Portions of the towns of Norfolk and Foxboro also
lie within a one-mile radius of the site (Figure 3.4-1).
The site, which is a part of the Walpole Massachusetts Correctional Institution (MCI)
Prison Reservation, is owned by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The proposed
site covers 94 acres of land, 60 percent of the land (56 acres) is forested, and
40 percent (38 acres) is partially open land with grass and brush cover. The total area
that would be landfilled (the landfill “footprint”) at the Walpole MCI site is
approximately 47 acres. Section 5.1 of this document describes the landfill capacities
and requirements for Walpole MCI in greater depth.
Figure 3.4-2 shows the preliminary layout of the site. The personnel building,
equipment storage building, and truck-washing facilities would be located near the
entrance to the site, off the permanent access road. A leachate pump station would be
located on the north side of the site near the Winter Street sewer connections, and a
leachate storage area at the western edge of the landfill area.
There are two potential vehicle transportation routes to the Walpole site; both would
follow Route 1. One route alternative would turn onto Water Street at the
Walpole/Foxboro town line. Shortly after crossing Washington Street, the route turns
west onto Summer Street and turns again in a westerly direction onto Winter Street to
Route IA. The site access driveway would be off of Route IA near Winter Street
before the prison access driveway (Figure 3.4-2). An alternate route would turn west
off of Route I onto Pine Street in Norfolk (Rt. 115). This route turns onto Route IA in
Norfolk and continues beyond the Norfolk/Walpole town line to the site access
driveway. Sections 4.2 and 5.3 describe the transportation routes in more detail and
present a map showing their exact location.
The utilities required for the operation of a landfill at this site include water, sewer,
and electricity. Approximate locations of the existing and proposed utilities are shown
on Figure 3.4-3. Following is a description of the existing utilities in the vicinity of the
site.
The town of Walpole has its water supplied by municipal wells. There are seven storage
tanks with a total capacity of 4.4 million gallons that serve the town. Three municipal
water lines exist adjacent to the site near the Winter Street and Main Street
intersection. The most accessible of these is a 6-inch diameter line that runs along
Winter Street and Main Street; however, it is very old and has inadequate water
pressure to provide the quantity of water that the site requires. Two other lines (8-inch
and 12-inch diameter, run along Main Street approximately 1,500 feet from the landfill
site. These two lines are in better condition and have adequate pressure to provide the
daily water needs of the landfill. An on-site water storage tank may be required if the
pressure from these lines does not provide an adequate water supply for fire protection
(peak demand time).
3-45
-------
SCALE IN METERS
2000 0 2000
SITE BOUNDARY
— — — TOWN BOUNDARY
IHHI SITEAREA
FIGURE 3.4-1. WALPOLE MCI LANDFILL SITE
• o k
(I
74
7. - 1 .. -.._. . . .. . •
/ ‘S______ _ S S . :- \ —‘ \ 7.. ..•:.•A cv . I
1 ’ . ./ • - ‘v-, . ..- -• - . . -:.
- —V ‘¼ /_?O 4 S
- t— . . •..• - - _ -‘ 7 ‘
- — Wti . .- ‘—_ - v -
L K . - W&j 1 i, - : . . S ‘ / /
- / - 0
S 5- 7’ - . - - - - -\ .4 / S -. / )
4 - -- -- -- i - )— -
-. — Hifl • ‘ -,- . - ‘) 5 5
/
/ - % / •1fl4 5) S.. , .. /
, - -/
••-• t4!’ 4:\ • -
S . at. S /
.1 7. *‘. .T .. - . . -
FOLK
- . : ‘ ,,/ “‘,,: ...WALPO
. , :.• ./
& J ‘>KST AT r It I
ps :4r > • S. ____________
I
-S
--
SQ
C
I .’
—V ___
NOR
I— LE :g. .
F 0 Cedar
\ bp S
-
. ‘4 T / ., / r
— i /Pond IIe \ /
FOXBORO
:‘
1000
0
1000
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
-------
:
PROPOSED
SITE ACCESS
DRIVEWAY
B
S
ln tit
LEGEND
LANDFILL AREA
3 0
£ 600 0 600
I I
0
i -_
SCALE IN METERS
300
SCALE IN FEET
FIGURE 3.4-2. WALPOLE MCI RESIDUALS LANDFILL SITE LAYOUT
-------
L’HI vr . R
I
r— LJ \ \I’I \
SCALE IN METERS
9 1 O
SCALE IN FEET
1
Ia a a
PROPOSED SEWER
EXISTING WATER
EXISTING ELECTRICITY
FIGURE 3.4-3. WALPOLE -MCI EXiSTING AND PROPOSED UTILITIES
/
- - ---“—_-‘, •W’ / / \_\
\ /tP f, j
N
Ii•j
J
/
p.
/
-.7
.\ i :
w
A
L
\.‘
I)
S.
.1
..,
\
I’
‘
. . ,.l.
500
0
500
1000
LEGEND
-------
There are no sewers presently on site; however, a connection to Walpole’s municipal
system is proposed. The closest sewer manhole to the site would be approximately
two miles north of the site on Route IA (near Bernardi’s Restaurant) at the edge of a
drainage divide. The main line leaving this manhole is a 10-inch gravity sewer line
extending into Norwood and connecting to the MWRA sewer system. An extension of
the sewer in a southern direction would require the construction of a pump station with
a force main (Bernstein, 1989). A study prepared for the town of Walpole has
recommended the extension of this sewer to the corner of Winter Street and Route IA
(Ryan, 1989, and MWRA, RMFP, Landfill, II, 1989). The sewers proposed for the site
would combine leachate and domestic wastewater from the personnel building.
Landfill leachate would be directed through the leachate collection system to primary
and secondary pump stations. A sewer line would be installed to transfer the leachate
from the secondary pump station to the primary pump station where the treated
leachate combines with domestic wastewater. This line would be a force main of
approximately 1,400 feet. In addition, 1,100 feet of gravity sewer would be needed to
convey domestic wastewater from the personnel building to the primary pump station.
Electricity for Walpole is provided by Boston Edison. Power lines are located along both
Winter and Main Streets. The power line along Main Street would be used for the site
because the main site access road would be off of Main Street. Approximately 400 feet
of new cable would be required to provide electricity to the site.
The minimum-use scenario for the Walpole MCI landfill is the disposal of MWRA grit
and screenings only. In addition, if one or both of the sludge-processing technologies
temporarily fails to operate, or if one or both of the sludge products cannot be
successfully marketed for a period of time, dewatered sludge or heat-dried pellets could
be disposed of at the Walpole MCI landfill.
3.4.2 Rowe Quarry
The Rowe Quarry site is also being evaluated as a long-term dedicated landfill site for
the MWRA’s residuals. Maiden and Revere are both densely populated urban
communities located 10 miles north of Boston on Route 1. The MaIden/Revere town
line splits the site in half. The Malden/Meirose line lies directly to the northwest of the
site, and the Revere/Saugus line lies directly to the northeast. Portions of these four
communities all lie within a one-mile radius of the site (Figure 3.4-4).
The site is owned by the Rowe Contracting Company and currently hosts an active
rhyolite quarrying operation. The quarry has been active since 1885. The site has been
excavated to a depth of 180 feet at the deepest point, and 100 feet at the shallowest
point. The quarry floor is 750 feet long and ranges from 40 to 130 feet wide.
The cell system used for managing the landfill would begin in the northwestern corner
of the site and progress toward the quarry entrance over time. The personnel building,
equipment storage building, and truck-washing area would all be located just inside the
entrance to the quarry. A leachate storage area would also be located near the
entrance to the north of the access road. The landfilling area is for the most part
defined by the rim of the quarry. Approximately 50 of the 52 acres in the site
footprint would be used for landfilling. Section 5.1 of this document discusses the fill
requirements and capacities for both of the landfill alternatives.
3-49
-------
,
-
- —.
M E L R 0 S E
—
— - ‘I - -.
• - - ---
• _.: - - : -
:
- ‘-J%• -.• - • .• -, •--•
‘I,
- i-_S • • •
• —-- -
M A L D E N
- - .- ,• .
5• ._ ,-
L .lIt j -.. .5 / .4.
• f.z: - . . - • rft/
• , . F.- ••-
-. : -‘
• Giepdi
0
P1€u&ntJiili * —
.c ‘- .ç -- •• •• ..c• *•S 5 . N. - -
T
SAUGU
•- ‘
.5.-.— --
SCALE I METERS
2000 0
SCALE IN FEET
SITE BOUNDARY
— — — TOWN BOUNDARY
FIGURE 3.4-4. ROWE QUARRY LANDFILL SITE
/
-p
5/
‘ --I
1 O OC
1000
2000
LEGEND
____ SITE AREA
-------
The proposed MWRA vehicle transportation route to the Rowe Quarry site would follow
Route 1 and exit at Salem Street in Revere. The site access driveway would be off of
Salem Street where the present quarrying operation has access (Figure 3.4-5).
The utilities needed for the operation of a landf ill at this site include water, sewer, and
electricity. Figure 3.4-6 shows approximate locations of the proposed and existing
utility connections at the Rowe Quarry site. Water service is provided to both Revere
and Maiden by the MWRA distribution system. On Salem Street in Revere there are
two 16- and 20-inch water service lines that run under Route 1 into Maiden. Between
500 to 700 linear feet of 8-inch diameter ductile iron piping would be needed to connect
thee site to one of the service lines on Salem Street.
Sewer service is provided by the MWRA to the communities of Maiden and Revere. The
closest sewer connection for the site is a MWRA sewer collector on Lynn Street in
Maiden. This collector originates as a 10-inch-diameter sewer and gradually increases
to 18 inches before discharging into a 24-inch interceptor on Eastern Avenue in
Maiden. The site would require approximately 900 feet of new gravity sewer to
transport ieachate and wastewater to the Lynn Street connector.
An alternate sewer connection is to a sewer on Salem Street in Revere, just beyond the
Rowe Quarry entrance. However, the pump station, force main, and interceptor
associated with this sewer are all in need of repairs and nearing capacity. This sewer
discharges to a pump station just south of Salem Street and travels along the American
Legion Highway and Revere Beach Parkway into Chelsea.
Electricity is provided to both Revere and Maiden by Massachusetts Electric. The site
already has adequate electrical wiring at the presently operating quarry.
Uses of the Rowe Quarry would be identical to those scenarios described for the
Walpole MC I landf ill alternative in Section 3.4.1. The minimum-use scenario for the
Rowe Quarry landfill site is the disposal of MWRA system grit and screenings only. The
maximum-use scenario involves the disposal of grit and screenings, heat-dried sludge,
compost, and dewatered sludge or sludge combustion ash.
3.4.3 Stoughton
The Stoughton site (Figure 3.4-7) is being considered for composting, heat drying, and
combustion. The town of Stoughtori is located approximately 20 miles south of Boston
and has an approximate population of 27,000. The Stoughton site is located in an
industrial area. Fifteen percent of the site is currently in use by an abutting asphalt
operation. The three industrial owners of the site property are Simeone Stone
Corporation, Massachusetts Broken Stone, and Stoughton Crushed Stone. Figure 3.4-8
presents the site footprint arid layout. The MWRA long-term residuals facilities
footprint would be located at the northern end of the site.
The proposed MWRA vehicle transportation route to the Stoughton site would follow
Route 24 south and turn at exit 20 onto Turnpike Street in Stoughton (Route 139). The
access driveway would be on the western edge of the site off of Turnpike Street
(Figure 3.4-8). Sections 4.2 and 5.3 in this document describe the transportation routes
in more detail and present a map showing the exact location.
3-51
-------
SCALE IN METERS
LANDFILL AREA 0
JThJ
SCALE IN FEET
• S.
. 4
.
• .
• S
0 • • ‘
N.
0
1
\. ... I
, LEACHATE. • I
STORAGE BUILDING
. fr
_-
-
•.‘ .‘‘.
• 0
,5 *
• • •
S. ••
5 , • • 0
• ‘ • .sS•
, . •4.
• ••S •
•.- )•,• •
EXISTING
SITE ACCESS
DRIVEWAY
-- - PERSONNEL,
5 TRUCK WASHING AND
fl-S EQUIPMENT STORAGE
BUILDING
LEGEND
390
0
600
300
600
1
FIGURE 3.4-5. ROWE QUARRY RESIDUALS LANDFILL SITE LAYOUT
-------
0
SCALE IN METERS
0
SCALE IN FEET
- S
- S ,&.t-
*=== ; cricjp .
Il/ B kei 4tii
-
I
T
NOTE: ELECTRICITY EXISTS ON•SFTE
FIGURE 3.4-6. ROWE QUARRY - EXISTING AND PROPOSED UTILITIES
..
- M,t od
I
• ••
:o.
lNy’ \
500
SOURCE: MWRA, RMFP, OPTIONS. III, 1989
500
1000
I EGF P
EXISTPIG SEWER
4 EXISTUIàG WATER
1 I PROPOSED SEWER
-------
ca-- • .•••.•
NTON ......
- - •— ‘ - - T4 S
I
-RANDOLPH
.. - - -
:.- —
•-. : .. -- - v-: \--I . -
t .T \}
\\ - I I /; ;: : - - \
rj 21 -‘ - -
• -- -- - I. . . . .-
AV —
•.: .‘ ‘•
:-
701 l4
- . .
-j..- ., I
SITE BOUNDARY
— — — TOWN BOUNDARY
1:1
FIGURE 3.4-7. STOUGHTON PROCESSING SITE
d
CA
ST
oc
SCALE IN METERS
0
2000 2000
llLJ
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
-------
LEGEND
v,,,, AREA FOR COMPOSTING
V. 2 AND HEAT DRYING FACILITY
AREA FOR COMBUSTION FACILITY
600 0 600
I I ____
SCALE IN FEET
PROPOSED
SITE ACCESS
SOURCE: DERIVED FROM MWRA, RMFP, OPT1ONS,II,
300
0
SCALE IN METERS
300
FIGURE 3.4-8. STOUGHTON RESIDUALS PROCESSING SITE LAYOUT
-------
The utilities needed for this site are water, sewer, gas, and electrical connections.
Figure 3.4-9 shows the approximate locations of the proposed and existing utility
corridors for the Stoughton site.
Stoughton’s water supply is limited and depends solely on groundwater supplied by
municipal wells, which are pumped to capacity on a 24-hour basis. There is a current
moratorium on new water connections to the Stoughton water system and a water
emergency is in effect for the town, reflecting a severe shortage. The town of Avon,
abutting the site to the east, also depends solely on local sources of groundwater
through municipal groundwater wells and water is in short supply. The Brockton
Reservoir, located about a mile southeast of the site, is in the process of being
activated as a water supply for several area towns.
The proposed water supply for the site is through Canton, a bordering community to the
northwest of Stoughton, that is classified as a “partially supplied community” by the
MWRA. Stoughton has an arrangement to use some of Canton’s MWRA water in an
emergency situation. Approximately half (1.45 mgd of a total of 3 mgd) of Canton’s
water is supplied by a MWRA connection on the Norwood/Westwood border. A 12-inch-
diameter Canton water line along Pleasant Street (Canton) crosses the town line into
Stoughton along Pearl Street (Stoughton) where it connects to a Stoughton pump station
of one-mgd capacity.
The water line leaving this pump station to distribute water to Stoughton is also
12 inches in diameter and under higher pressure than the Canton water line. Another
6-inch Stoughton water line near the pump station on Stoughton Street could also assist
in delivering water from Canton to the northeast section of Stoughton; however, this
line would require reinforcement because of its small size. A 16-inch Stoughton water
line exists on Turnpike Street near the intersection of Maple Street, abutting the site.
A 6-inch water line is proposed to connect the 16-inch Turnpike Street line to the site.
Approximately 50 feet of water pipe would be needed to make this connection.
Sewer service is provided to Stoughton by the MWRA. The site sewer lines are proposed
to be 8 inches in diameter and 50 feet long. They would connect to a 10-inch sewer line
on MapLe Street. The Maple Street line discharges to an 18-inch interceptor at the
intersection of Maple Street and Turnpike Street and proceeds west to the York Street
pumping station. The station’s force main discharges into an 18-inch gravity
interceptor on Washington Street. This interceptor eventually discharges into the
MWRA Stoughton Extension Sewer at the Stoughton/Canton town line.
Electricity is available at the site and supplied by Eastern Edison (MWRA, RMFP,
Options, III, 1989). Existing feeders along Turnpike and Page Streets have a potential
output of 14-kV, each of which can sufficiently supply the residuals management
facility with its anticipated load requirements. However, Eastern Edison’s long-term
plans through 1992 involve the use of these feeders to meet electrical requirements for
other projected growth in the area, and they have not accounted for the residuals
management facility in their plans. If the Stoughton site is chosen, Eastern Edison may
have to construct a new substation (a break in the high-voltage lines that reduces the
higher voltage to 14kV feeders) so that the residuals facility’s electricity demand could
be met. An on-site generator (fueled with oil or gas) would be used for backup power at
the site.
3-56
-------
M lewood :
A .:•:
0
SCALE IN METERS
0 1000
SCALE IN FEET
500
$
‘Os
LEGEND
WATER
SEWER
GAS
I ELECTRIC
FIGURE 3.4-9. STOUGHTON - EXISTING UTILITIES
.7
500
1000
-------
Gas service is provided to Stoughton by Bay State Gas Company. An existing 6-inch gas
main is located along Turnpike Street near the site. This may need to be upgraded to
8-inch main to supply the MWRA’s projected gas requirements for heat drying (MWRA,
RMFP, Options, II!, 1989).
The minimum-use scenario for the Stoughton site would be composting of one-third or
less of the MWRA sludge. The maximum-use scenario would involve heat drying,
composting, and combustion of heat-dried products. Other combinations of the
technologies are possible for the Stoughton site and include heat drying and incineration
only, composting and incineration only, and heat drying and composting only.
3.4.4 Quincy FRSA
The Quincy Fore River Staging Area site (Figure 3.4-10) is being considered as a site for
transfer of materials, dewatering, composting, and heat drying. Quincy has a
population of around 85,000 and lies approximately 10 miles south of Boston. The site is
located in the southern portion of Quincy along the Weymouth Fore River. The
Braintree/Quincy town line runs through the southern part of the site, and the
Weymouth/Quincy town line is defined by the Weymouth Fore River, which abuts the
site to the east.
The Quincy site became known as the Fore River Staging Area (FRSA) after the MWRA
purchased the site in August of 1987 to use as a staging area for the construction of the
new Deer Island secondary wastewater treatment plant. The site was previously
occupied by a General Dynamics shipbuilding operation and had been an active shipyard
since 1901. Abandoned buildings currently stand on the site as does a 280-foot Goliath
crane.
Twenty-one acres of the site are planned to be used as a staging area for Deer Island,
another portion (75 acres) has been leased to the Massachusetts Shipbuilder’s
Corporation, and five acres have been allocated for the MWRA interim sludge
management facility. Figure 3.4-11 shows the site footprint and layout. The proposed
compost facility would be constructed in the southwestern portion of the shipyard, and
the heat-drying facility would be an expansion of the interim facility along the
northeastern edge of the site.
The proposed MWRA vehicle transportation route to the Quincy FRSA site would follow
Route 3 and turn at Exit 16 onto Washington Street in Weymouth (Route 53), which
becomes Quincy Avenue through Braintree and into Quincy. Just over the
Braintree/Quincy line the route would turn east onto East Howard Street. MWRA
vehicles would access the site by an existing entrance gate off of East Howard Street.
Sections 4.2 and 5.3 in this document describe the transportation routes in more detail
and present a map showing the exact location.
Water and sewer are provided to Quincy and Braintree by the MWRA. There are existing
water, sewer, and electrical connections to the site (Figure 3.4-12). An extensive water
distribution system exists in the vicinity of the Quincy FRSA, with two main water
connections to the site. A 12-inch diameter water line connected to a 16-inch water
main on South Street currently supplies the site’s fire protection system. A 6-inch
water line connected to a 8-inch water main on East Howard Street supplies most of the
3-58
-------
SCALE iN METERS
2000 0
SITE BOUNDARY
— — — TOWN BOUNDARY
SITE AREA
FIGURE 3.4-10. QUINCY FRSA PROCESSING SITE
-
• -
t
.
c
.. —
I
+
B’c.i
Q U INC Y
, ‘ .,
Soi.i,’ C mmo,,s
0
1000
2000
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
-------
.,:
.4
111,,
AREA FOR COMPOSTING
— AND/OR DEWATERING FACiliTY
AREA FOR HEAT DRYING
AND/OR DEWATERING FACILITY
600
9
SCALE IN FEET
600
FIGURE 3.4-11. QUINCY FRSA RESIDUALS PROCESSING SITE LAYOUT
q- 4
I
EXISTING
SITE
ACCESS
LEGEND
300
9
SCALE IN METERS
300
-------
Snug H& *øy
ScI
6t ondaceI Ch
Grie ntowi
;___ ._i . ..‘ A c
rninp __•_•3 o_- ½-.
)ieaii : — 1
- Pfl4!fl WI! -. —
:-iri — -;
(1\ North
‘W i
I Pow r j e
: I, *ct /
4 1:.
r
0
SCALE IN METERS
0 1000
______ J
SCALE IN FEET
500
LEGEND
SEWER
WATER
GAS
NOTE: ELECTRICITY EXISTS ON-SflE
FIGURE 3.4-12. QUINCY FRSA AREA - EXISTING UTILI11ES
500
1000
-------
water. Some buildings along East Howard Street have independent connections to the
municipal system. The water supply needed to support the residuals management
facility will be less than the previous water requirements of the shipyard.
A detailed study on the Quincy sewer system was done for the interim residuals facility
(MWRA, RMFP, ISPD, U, 1989). Several sewer lines throughout the shipyard have
diameters of less than 15-inches, which are cited as being too small to handle the
maximum flows from the interim facility. It is therefore assumed that the
small-diameter sewer pipes are also too small to handle maximum flows from the
long-term facility.
There is an existing 15-inch gravity sewer extending approximately 400 feet on to the
site from East Howard Street. The 15-inch line intercepts a 27-inch gravity sewer at
the intersection of East Howard Street and Des Moines Road, which flows into the
Quincy Point pump station on Des Moines Road. The pump station discharges into the
20-inch Quincy Point force main, which is a two-mile line conveying wastewater to the
MWRA- High Level Sewer. There are several possibilities for sewer connection, which
range from connecting the facility to the 15-inch on-site sewer; connecting directly to
the 27-inch sewer line on Des Moines Road; or bypassing the pump station and
connecting directly to the 20-inch force main leaving the Quincy Point Pump Station.
There is an existing 12-inch gas line on East Howard Street provided by Boston Edison,
which extends into the site. A connection to this line is proposed for the interim
residuals facility and could be made for the long-term facility. Electric power is
supplied to the site by Massachusetts Electric with a 13,800-volt line.
The minimum-use scenario involves the use of the site as a coastal transfer site only
(with processing at an island site) for the storage and transfer of (dried) sludge or
amendment material to a processing site, or the storage and transfer of compost or
heat-dried pellets to a buyer. The maximum use scenario involves the use of the site as
a coastal transfer site and for sludge dewatering, heat drying, and composting from
1995 to 2020. Other combinations of residuals activity include dewatering, and transfer
(with processing at inland site); dewatering, transfer, and heat drying; and dewatering,
transfer, and composting.
3.4.5 Spectacle Island
The Spectacle Island site is being evaluated for dewatering, composting, heat drying,
and/or combustion. Spectacle Island is one of 34 Boston Harbor Islands
(Figure 3.4-13). The island is located in the middle of Boston Harbor, approximately
one mile from the mainland in all directions. Land areas within three kilometers of
Spectacle Island include Deer Island, Long Island, Thompson Island, Rainsford Island,
City Point (Castle Island), and Logan Airport (all in Boston), as well as Moon Island and
Squantum (in Quincy). Ownership of the island is shared by the state and the city of
Boston.
Spectacle Island is currently abandoned, although it is zoned for industrial use. It has
been used in the past as a landfill and the site of a grease extraction plant. A 90-foot
draft chimney from the grease factory still stands on the southwest corner of the island
and is the only remaining structure on site. The island size at mean low water (MLW) is
3-62
-------
GOVERNOR’S
ISLAND
S
-- —--— - - -
0.. ,
LE
ISLAND
-S
-S
S..
_.J-L..ARBOR
SPECTACLE
1000
0
- ,- --J---1
SCALE IN METERS
2000 0
1000
200U
LE 3ENfl
— SITE BOUNDARY
SCALE IN FEET — — — TOWN BOUNDARY
SITE AREA
FIGURE 3.4-13. SPECTACLE ISLAND PROCESSING SITE
-------
currently 97 acres, having grown in size from its original 62 acres by landfill activities
and development over the years. Spectacle Island was originally two separate drumlins,
connected by a sandbar running in a north-south direction. The island’s shape has
changed over the years because of landfill activities and natural erosion. The island is
currently 60 percent forested and 40 percent open land.
Figure 3.4-14 shows a prospective residuals facilities footprint of the Spectacle Island
site. Spectacle Island has been cited as a potential disposal site for the Massachusetts
Department of Public Work’s (DPW) excavate material from the Third Harbor Tunnel
and Central Artery Depression projects. Although this use of Spectacle Island is
contingent on approval by EPA and other agencies, it has been assumed that
modification of the island by DPW would occur for the purpose of these evaluations. If
the DPW’s excavate material is placed on Spectacle Island, the island could expand as
shown in Figure 3.4-14. If no expansion of the island occurs, there would not be
sufficient space for the MWRA composting facility (which has the largest area
requirement). However, all other technologies could still be located on the island.
The proposed MWRA barge transportation route to Spectacle Island would follow marine
channels through Boston Harbor. Site access would be by a pier on the western side of
the island off of the Western Way marine channel, which has depths in the range of 15
to 19 feet below mean low water. A pier or landing dolphins would be constructed to
handle vessels at the island. Dredging would be necessary in the immediate vicinity of
the proposed pier site where the channel depth reduces to six feet below MLW.
There are no utilities on the island. To support the proposed MWRA residuals
management facilities, water, sewer, electrical and gas or fuel oil utilities would be
needed. Figure 3.4-15 presents the approximate location of the proposed utility
corridor for these connections. Telecommunication connections and sludge pipelines
from Deer Island would be installed at the same time as these utilities by a 12,000-foot
under harbor corridor originating at Deer Island. This corridor would extend west of
Deer Island to Governor’s flats and cross the President Roads Channel, connecting to
the western side of Spectacle Island. If fuel oil is needed to support thermal processing
facilities, it would be transported by barge (MWRA, RMFP, Options II, 1988).
The minimum-use scenario for Spectacle Island involves dewatering plus only one of the
following technologies: composting, heat drying, or combustion. The maximum use
scenario would include all of the technologies mentioned above. Other combinations
(all including dewatering) which are possible at Spectacle Island include: heat drying
and combustion, heat drying and composting, and composting and combustion.
3.4.6 Deer Island
The Deer Island site is being considered for dewatering, heat drying, and incineration.
Deer Island has also been chosen as the site for digestion of sludge, which would take
place at Deer Island regardless of the processing site chosen. Deer Island, which is
located in the city of Boston, will also be the site for MWRA’s new wastewater
treatment plant.
Deer Island is attached to the southeast of Winthrop by a causeway, which is the only
land access to the island (Figure 3.4-16). The island is approximately one mile east of
3-64
-------
PROPOSED PIER FACILITY CONST RUCTED BY
MDPW FOR EXCAVATE MATERIALS UNLOADING. ,
PIER WOULD A. SO BE USED BY MWRA FACILITIES.
SOURCE: MWRA. RMFP. OPTIONS. II, 1988
LEGEND
U PROPOSED AREA OF NEW FILL
FOR ISLAND EXPANSION BY MDPW
AREA FOR COMPOST FACILITY
AREA FOR HEAT DRYING
AND COMBUSTION FACILITIES
300
600
SCALE IN METERS
0
_j- __J
SCALE IN FEET
PROPOSED
ACCESS\
----i-
F _________________
0 300
I - ______
600
FIGURE 3.4-14. SPECTACLE ISLAND RESIDUALS PROCESSING SITE LAYOUT
-------
1000
/
0
SCALE IN METERS
0 1000
_____ UNDER HARBOR UTULflY CORRIDOR
71 FOR ELECTRICflY. SEWER, WATER,
AND TELEPHONE
ORIGINATING
FROM DEER ISLAND
THROUGH
GOVERNORS
ISLAND FLATS
-
Sculpin
Ledge
SUn —
-
/
Moor,
/
SOURCE: MWRA, RMFP, OPTIONS, III, 1989
500
500
Head
SCALE IN FEET
tEGEND
FIGURE 3.4-15. SPECTACLE ISLAND - PROPOSED UTILITIES
-------
? -
:‘ TTTvH
/
/
1
‘.1
F ,
‘S
_
‘I
— -- ---
SLAND
,1 /
_____./ I
Li:rI. Faun
lV/Gl,
B
0 S 7 T 0 N
I
___________ ____________ -—
VS
0
pR ES
¶
J -ARBQR
SPECTACLE
ISLAND
-V ,‘
4- - - .1.
___________________
“a
C
_- -
H m
Mat
\
_p -I
- ‘-I /1
2t__
IOOC
GEORC
ISLAND
0 1000
S(..ALE IN METERS
RAINSFORD
ISLAND
- -
- - -
0 2000
SCALE IN FEET
0
LEGEND
SITE BOUNDARY
— — — TOWN BOUNDARY
IHH1 SITEAREA
FIGURE 3.4-16. DEER ISLAND PROCESSING SITE
-------
Logan Airport. Approximately 20 to 30 acres are available on the island for the
residuals facility. Figure 3.2-1 presented the proposed site layout for the long-term
residuals facility at Deer Island.
The proposed MWRA vehicle transportation route to Deer Island would follow marine
channels through Boston Harbor. Access to Deer Island by land is through Winthrop.
Site access would be by a pier at the western side of the island built for activities
associated with the construction of wastewater facilities on the island, or through
proposed loading dolphins with a sludge pipeline connection (constructed for the MWRA
interim facility).
Figure 3.4-17 shows utility corridors proposed for Deer Island. A sufficient water supply
is not currently available at Deer Island; however, in a February 1988 Memorandum of
Understanding, MWRA agreed to jointly supply Deer Island and the community of
Winthrop with long-term potable water supplies. A 24-inch water main is proposed
from the MWRA’s meter 41, located at the Winthrop/Revere town line. This will be
installed concurrently with a gas main and electrical cable and is projected to be
constructed by 1991. Since Deer Island is the site of the MWRA wastewater treatment
plant, any sewerage discharges from the residuals processing activity on the island will
be discharged directly into the headworks of the plant.
Two off-site power sources are currently being sought for Deer Island to support the
new wastewater treatment plant. An underground cable originating at the Boston
Edison substation in Chelsea and passing through Revere and Winthrop is planned to be
installed by mid-1990 to provide power for construction activities. Water and gas lines
will be installed at the same time to minimize impacts. Al o, a submarine cable under
Boston Harbor from Boston Edison’s K-Street substation in South Boston to Deer Island
is being planned for an alternate source of power.
A permanent power source for the island may include a combined-cycle cogeneration
plant using both natural gas and the methane produced from digestion of the sludge.
The underground utilities will serve as backup power if the cogeneration facility meets
the normal operating power requirements.
The minimum-use scenario for Deer Island involves the use of Deer Island for sludge
digestion only. The maximum-use scenario for Deer Island involves sludge digestion,
dewatering, heat drying, and incineration. The other combination of residuals activity
possible is digestion, dewatering, and heat drying.
3.4.7 Integration of Technologies at Different Sites
The integration of technologies at a variety of different sites produces a network of
combinations possible for siting the long-term residuals facilities (Table 2.5-1). Placing
a certain technology at one site has constraining effects on the possible combination of
technologies at other sites. The selection of a technology for a certain site can also
have transportation or storage implications at other sites. By evaluating a range of use
scenarios for each potential site, it is possible to optimize overall options by including
the most appropriate combinations of site uses and transport linkages.
3-68
-------
1000
0
SCALE IN METERS
0 1000
I ELECTRICITY
_____ WATER
TFROM K-STREET
SUBSTATION
. atJ !
IN SOUTH BOSTON
ittle Faun
Deer s an
Lig
SOURCE: MWRA, RMFP, OPTiONS, III, 1989
500
500
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
GAS LINE
FIGURE 3.4-17. DEER ISLAND PROPOSED UT1LI11ES
-------
CHAPTER FOUR
ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY SETTING
4.1 LAND USE
4.1.1 Introduction
A knowledge of existing and projected land-use patterns is critical to assessing the
impacts upon host communities of alternative residuals processing and disposal
facilities, and more specifically, the impacts upon the neighborhoods that abut the sites
and the transportation and utility corridors. This section of the Draft SEIS describes
the existing and projected land-use activities in the study areas around each site. It
discusses the regulatory framework governing the proposed residuals management
facilities as they might affect land use and describes the land uses in the vicinity of
each site and associated transportation and utility corridors.
4.1.2 Regulatory Setting
4.1.2.1 National Environmental Policy Act. The National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 and subsequent Council on Environmental Quality regulations establish the
framework within which federal agencies must ensure that their projects consider
impacts to the environment. One policy established in the act is a mandate that federal
agencies, using all practicable means, work to restore and enhance the quality of the
human environment and avoid or minimize any possible adverse effects of their actions
upon the quality of the human environment. The act specifically states that federal
agencies must work toward assuring for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and
aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings. This act applies not only to land use,
but to all other sections of this SEIS.
4.1.2.2 Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act. The Farmland Protection Policy Act
of 1981 requires federal agencies to evaluate adverse effects of federal programs on
the preservation of farmland and to consider alternative actions that could lessen such
effects. Farmland, as defined by this act, includes four categories of agricultural
land: prime farmland, unique farmland, farmland of statewide importance, and
farmland of local importance. Land is classified by the USDA Soil Conservation
Services (SCS). Compliance with the act requires consultation with the SCS to identify
the agricultural lands of importance and subsequent assessment and evaluation of the
direct and indirect impacts associated with the proposed action. Agencies also need to
consider avoidance or mitigation of any adverse effects to the extent possible.
4.1.2.3 Federal Coastal Zone Management Act. The Coastal Zone Management Act of
1972 provides states with the authority to establish coastal zone management
programs. States with approved programs must review all federal funding, permitting,
construction, or other actions proposed within the coastal zone for consistency with the
state’s coastal policies. The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program is
administered by the Office of Coastal Zone Management and is discussed in greater
detail below.
4-1
-------
4.1.2.4 Federal Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA). The Coastal Barrier Resources
Act of 1982 establishes the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) and restricts
future federal expenditures and financial assistance that encourage development on
undeveloped coastal barriers. Currently, there is one approved barrier beach in Boston
Harbor, located at the southern end of Long Island. In addition, Peddocks Island is being
recommended for inclusion in the CBRS (U.S. Department of Interior, 1988).
4.1.2.5 Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). The Massachusetts
Environmental Policy Act provides the framework under Massachusetts law within
which project proponents must address the environmental impacts of their proposed
actions. It requires that agencies use all feasible means and measures to avoid or
minimize damage to the environment. The MEPA regulations establish a process by
which project proponents are required to first determine whether or not preparation of
an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is necessary to determine the impacts of state
actions (permits, approvals, and financing). Secondly, it requires the proponent to
address the potential environmental impacts of their proposed action.
Section 61 of this act defines the term “damage to the environment.” Land use is a
broad category contained in a number of the specific areas of concern. Section 61
states that damage to the environment shall mean any “destruction, damage or
impairment, actual or probable, to any of the natural resources of the commonwealth
and shall include, but not be limited to ... excessive noise ... destruction of seashores,
dunes, marine resources, open spaces, natural areas, parks, or historic districts or
sites.” The concern with potential impacts upon land uses is evident in the definition of
which projects automatically require preparation of an EIR: those projects which by
their nature would have significant impacts upon existing land-use patterns. This act
also applies to all areas addressed in this SEIS.
4.1.2.6 MWRA Legislative Authority. Chapter 372 of the Acts and Resolves of 1984
established the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA). Under Sections 1
and 3 of the act, the (MWRA) is established within the Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs (EOEA) to operate, regulate, finance, and improve the delivery
of water and sewage collection, disposal, and treatment systems and services
(U.S. EPA, FEIS, II, 1985).
The MWRA is required to obtain all necessary federal permits and approvals; however,
it is not required to comply with all state laws and regulations because it was intended
to be an independent public entity (U.S. EPA, FEIS, II, 1985). In fact, the act states
that the MWRA shall not be subject to “the supervision or control of the EOEA or any
other executive office, department, commission, board, bureau, agency or political
subdivision of the commonwealth except to the extent and in the manner provided in
this act”. The applicability of local bylaws and regulations is thus limited. The act
itself does not expressly make MWRA subject to local law or regulation (U.S. EPA,
FEIS, II, 1985). Therefore, it is generally agreed that the MWRA is not subject to local
bylaws.
Section 8 of the act lists the majority of the environmental laws and restrictions to
which the M RA is subject. Among these are the Massachusetts Environmental Policy
Act, the Massachusetts Historic Preservation Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act,
and the Massachusetts Waterv avs Licenses Act. The MWRA is also subject to other
governing lav s in its acquisition of property.
-------
The MWRA is subject to Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution which provides
that public land taken or acquired for conservation, scenic, historic, or recreation
purposes may not be used for other purposes or otherwise disposed of without a
two-thirds vote of the legislature (U.S. EPA, FEIS, II, 1985).
There does appear to be some question as to whether or not the MWRA is subject to
Chapter 742 of the Acts of 1970, part of which provides that “in, under, or bordering
Boston Harbor there shall be no acquisition of land by any such public agency or
instrumentality other than [ the Department of Environmental Management (DEM)]
without the approval of [ OEM],, and no public land on or bordering said area may be sold,
leased or used as a dump or refuse disposal area, and no land, gravel or soil may be
removed therefrom or deposited thereon, and no structure may be built thereon,
without the approval of the [ OEM]” (U.S. EPA, FEIS, 11, 1985). A detailed discussion of
the applicability of the law to MWRA can be found in Volume II of the Siting EIS for
Boston Harbor (U.S. EPA, FEIS, II, 1985).
Some of the alternative sites are privately owned. The act does enable the MWRA to
acquire real and personal property or interests or rights therein, if deemed essential for
operation, improvement, or enlargement of its sewer and waterworks systems. The
authority is also granted limited powers of eminent domain under Section 9(a). The
taking of private or public land by the MWRA requires prior approval of the legislature
and the governor, and also prior certification by the MWRA.
4.1.2.7 Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Act. As noted above under 4.1.2.3,
the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, and 1976 Amendments, enabled
states to develop comprehensive management plans for their coastal regions and
empowered states to develop coastal zone management programs (requiring federal
approval) to review all federal funding, permitting, construction, and other actions
proposed within the coastal zone for consistency with state coastal policies. The
Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management administers the federal lavb in this
state. A Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management (MCZM) Consistency Review is
required for all projects that are located in the coastal zone (as delineated by MCZM)
that involve federal action such as funding, permitting, or licensing, and for which an
EIR is being prepared under MEPA.
4.1.2.8 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) Program. The ACEC program
was established in 1974 as part of a legislative reorganization of the state agencies
which regulate environmental concerns. The legislation for reorganization required
development of statewide policies addressing the acquisition, protection, and use of
areas of critical environmental concern to the state (CZM, 1987). Protection of coastal
or inland ACECs does not require new permits or administrative programs. Instead,
existing environmental programs provide higher performance standards and greater
review by agencies and the public for activities proposed in an area designated as an
ACEC (CZM, 1987). These programs include the MEPA, CZM, and Chapter 91
Waterways programs, among others. For example, under MEPA, any state-regulated or
funded project within an ACEC will trigger MEPA review and require public input
(CZM, 1987). Under the Wetlands Protection Act and the Waterways licensing program,
regulations governing what can and cannot be done in sensitive coastal or waterway
areas that are included in the ACEC designation become more restrictive. Instead of
requiring that certain actions be mitigated the laws require that in ACECs there be no
adverse effects upon certain resources (EOEA, 1988).
4-3
-------
4.1.2.9 Chapter 91 Waterways License. Chapter 91 Waterways Licenses are
administered by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering.
Chapter 91 controls filling, construction of new structures, dredging, disposal of
dredged material, and/or removal of sand and vegetation in tidelands seaward of the
historic mean high-water line, in historic or filled tidelands, in certain great ponds and
rivers, and in certain portions of Designated Port Areas.
4.1.2.10 Zoning - Macsachusetts Legislative Authority. Chapter 40A of the
Massachusetts General Laws empowers local communities to enact zoning bylaws and
ordinances to regulate the use of land, buildings, and structures to the full extent of the
independent constitutional powers of communities to protect the health, safety, and
general welfare of their present and future inhabitants. The specific nature of each
community’s zoning bylaw/ordinance as it relates to sites being considered for residuals
management facilities is discussed below for each host community.
4.1.3 Baseline Descriptions of Sites, Transportation Corridors, and
Utility Corridors
Chapter Three details the alternatives for processing and landfilling activities at the
alternative sites. For each alternative site, the following sections describe the existing
land uses at the alternative sites and along corresponding transportation and utility
corridors. Projected land uses that are in the permitting or approval stage are also
described to establish a future baseline for analyzing impacts associated with
construction and operation of the residuals facilities. In addition, the future baseline
includes a general characterization of development in the area which could occur based
upon the communities zoning regulations and land-use planning policies.
Among the information presented in this section are maps showing the predominant land
uses v ithin the one-mile perimeter of each proposed site. The categories of land uses
on each map include the following:
• Residential - single and multi-family
• Commercial - retail and office
• Industrial - light and heavy
• Institutional - schools, hospitals, churches, cemeteries
• Recreation/parks/conservation
• Vacant/undeveloped
The maps are generalized; however, where information is available, the text provides
greater detail on the types of land uses found within the vicinity of each site.
4.1.4 Walpole MCI Baseline Conditions
4.1.4.1 Study Area. The study area for the residuals landfill site in Walpole extends to
a one-mile perimeter around the site and includes property in Walpole and Norfolk.
Sensitive receptors up to approximately 1.2 miles (2 kilometers) from the site are
identified.
4-4
-------
4.1.4.2 Existing Baseline Conditions
Site. The potential residuals landfill site, which is owned by the state of Massachusetts,
is located in the southern portion of Walpole, approximately 20 miles southwest of
Boston (Figure 4.1-1). The site is approximately 94 acres in size and is partially open
field and partially forested (MWRA, RMFP, Landfill, 1, 1988). An exercise course for
the use of the prison guards is located in the central portion of the site.
Contiguous Property. The site is bordered by state Route IA (Main Street) to the east
and Winter Street to the north. Residences abut the site to the north along Winter
Street and at the intersection of Winter Street arid Main Street (MWRA, RMFP,
Landfill, 1, 1988). A kennel on Winter Street abuts the site on its northeast side
(MWRA, Field, 1988). The southern border abuts the Massachusetts Correctional
Institute at Cedar Junction in Walpole (MWRA, RMFP, Landfill, I, 1988). To the west
of the site and crossing its northwest corner is the Stop River, which, in this location, is
also the approximate municipal boundary between the towns of Walpole and Norfolk.
Beyond the Stop River is land associated with the State Correctional Institute of
Norfolk (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, 1, 1988).
Property Within One-Mile Perimeter. The predominant land uses within one mile of the
proposed landfill site are primarily residential and institutional in nature, although
there are some smaller pockets of industrial and commercial activity, particularly along
Main Street (Figure 4.1-1). To the north of the site, development is predominantly
single-family residential. The closest residential dwellings are on Winter Street,
approximately 100 feet from the site boundary. Cedar Street bears to the west off of
Main Street approximately 800 feet north of the site and leads to an area of relatively
new residential development. Cedar Street intersects the edge of the one-mile
perimeter just north of a utility right-of-way, in the Cedar Hill section of West Walpole
(MWRA, RMFP, Screen, 1, 1988).
Although the intersection of Main Street and Winter Street is primarily residential, land
uses become mixed as Main Street heads northward toward Walpole Center and include
both commercial and light industrial developments (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, 1, 1988).
A utility right-of-way runs to the north of a large auto salvage operation on Main street
toward a relatively new residential single-family subdivision on Hitching Post Drive.
Across Main Street from Hitching Post Estates is the Walpole Industrial Park, a 37-lot
industrial subdivision that borders Cedar Swamp. Conrail tracks intersect the industrial
park approximately 1,000 feet east of Main Street, and cross Cedar Swamp and the
utility right-of-way (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, I, 1988).
An active Conrail right-of-way lies 700 feet east of the site, beyond Main Street.
Cedar Swamp occupies most of the one-mile perimeter to the northeast and east of the
site. At one mile from the site, Cedar Swamp reverts to wooded land and abuts a
second Conrail railroad right-of-way (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, 1, 1988).
To the southeast of the site, east of Main Street, new residential construction has
developed along the length of Winter Street to its intersection with Summer Street
(M RA, RMFP, Screen, 1, 1988). On the north side of this portion of Winter Street, the
new development abuts Cedar Swamp. Approximately 3,000 feet to the southeast of
4-5
-------
SCALE IN METERS
SCALE IN FEET
2000
IN ST . : ON
VACANT
UN V E LOP ED
—1 MILE — ONE MILE PERIMETER FROM
SITE BOUNDARY
— — SITE BOUNDARY
FIGURE 4.1-1. WALPOLE MCI: PREDOMINANT LAND USES
WITHIN ONE MILE OF THE SITE
500
0
500
2000
LEGEND
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
STATE PRISON
RESERVATION
RECREATION. PARKS. &
CONSERVATION LAND
-------
the site are single family residential cul-de-sacs branching off of Winter Street (MWRA,
RMFP, Screen, 1, 1988). Residential land uses continue to predominate out to the edge
of the one-mile perimeter.
To the south-southeast, approximately 2,000 feet from the site is land belonging to the
Southwood Community Hospital, formerly known as the Pondville State Hospital. The
hospital, located in Norfolk, includes several four- and five-story buildings situated in a
relatively wooded area. The complex, which is part of the Neponset Valley Health
System includes a school of nursing, hospice, and an alcohol and drug treatment center
(MWRA, Field, 1988).
Institutional uses are the predominant land uses to the south and west of the site.
Directly south, within several hundred feet of the site is the maximum security prison,
MCI Cedar Junction, which houses approximately 620 inmates. The complex, which
straddles the Walpole/Norfolk line, includes offices, storage, and parking outside the
prison walls. Also to the south of the site, at the edge of the one-mile perimeter, is an
abandoned sewage disposal area once connected to the Southwood Community
Hospital. Wetlands associated with the Stop River occupy much of the southwestern
and western portions of the one-mile perimeter. With some exception, most land in this
area is part of the Prison Reservation (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, 1, 1988). Pond Street in
Norfolk intersects with Main Street at the edge of the one-mile perimeter to the
southwest of the proposed landfill site.
To the west of the site are lands associated with prison uses. These include a
pre-release facility and a weapons firing range, 300 and 600 feet, respectively, from the
site’s border. An unimproved circulation road crosses the Stop River, connecting MCI
Cedar Junction to MCI Norfolk, located approximately 1200 feet from the site. The
road passes abandoned structures located 2,000 feet from the site related to former
prison agricultural operations. Water supply weilfields are in this area along Stony
Brook. Approximately 4,400 feet west of the site are residential neighborhoods.
Wooded areas surround these residences out to one mile from the site (MWRA, RMFP,
Screen, 1, 1988).
To the northwest of the site, the Prison Reservation extends 3,500 feet. It is bounded
by Winter Street in Walpole, which becomes Clark Street in Norfolk (MWRA, RMFP,
Screen, I, 1988). Although Winter Street is wooded in most parts, there is some
residential development on Clark Street across from the MCI Norfolk facility (MWRA,
RMFP, Screen, 1, 1988). Some nonresidential land uses are located at the intersection
of Clark and Main Streets in Norfolk. The Old Norfolk Cemetery is located at the
intersection of Main and Seekonk Streets (MWRA, Field, 1988). The remainder of the
property one mile to the northwest of the site is predominantly residential (MWRA,
RMFP, Screen, 1, 1988).
Sensitive Receptors. Land uses located within two kilometers of the site that could be
considered as sensitive receptors are listed on Table C.1 and are shown on Figure C.I in
Appendix C.
Transportation Corridors. One proposed transportation access route to the residuals
landfill facility is via Interstate-9) and Route 1, fo Water Street, Summer Street, and
Winter Street in Walpole. Details on the route are provided in Section 4.2.4.1. The
4-7
-------
total distance traveled along this route from 1-95 to the site is 4.8 miles. Of this total
distance, 2.7 miles are along Route 1, which is predominantly commercial and industrial
in nature. The remainder of the route, along Water, Summer, and Winter Streets is
approximately 2.1 miles in length, almost all of which is criaracterized as residential.
Sensitive land uses along this portion of the route include a church on Water Street.
(MWRA, RMFP, Screen, I, 1988).
An alternate route to the site (described in Section 4.2.4.2) would be Route 1 to Pine
Street to Main Street. The route is approximately 4.1 miles in length from the
intersection of Route 1 and Water Street to the site. Land uses along Route 1 are
commercial and industrial in nature, while land uses along Pine Street include some
residential development, primarily on the northeastern side of the route. Land uses
along Main Street are described above.
Utility Corridors. It is expected that leachate and wastewater would be discharged into
the Walpole municipal sewer system. The closest existing sewer connection is located
approximately 2 miles north of the site on Route IA. This sewer would have to be
extended south to the intersection of Winter Street and Route IA for subsequent
connection to the landfill site. Land uses along much of Route 1A and Winter Street
have been described above.
As currently planned, water would be obtained from the existing town supply by making
a connection to an existing water line at the intersection of Route IA and Winter
Street. Land uses along this corridor are described above. Power would be supplied b
Boston Edison through a connection to an existing power line on Main Street (MWRA,
RMFP, Landfill, 1, 1988).
4.1.4.3 Projected Baseline Conditions
Site. Land uses on the potential residuals landfill site, which is part of the prison
reservation, are subject to the provisions of Chapter 799 of the Massachusetts Acts of
1985. Chapter 799 outlines the state’s responsibility for county prison facilities
expansion and upgrading, and authorizes funding for the preparation of plans and the
renovation, upgrading, and expansion of existing state correctional facilities (MWRA,
RMFP, Screen, 1, 1988). Both the MCI Cedar Junction and Norfolk facilities are
included as sites covered under the appropriation. Under proposed plans, an extension
of prison walls to the west of the potential landfill site would occur, and prison capacity
at MCI Cedar Junction would be expanded by approximately 130 beds. MCI Norfolk is
currently undergoing some construction within existing prison walls (MWRA, RMFP,
Screen, 1, 1988).
Contiguous Property and Property Within One-Mile Perimeter. There are no definitive
plans for development within the one-mile perimeter, although field surveys completed
by the MWRA indicate that construction is continuing in the industrial park on the
northern edge of Cedar Swamp on Industrial Park Road off Main Street (MWRA, RMFP,
Screen, I, 1988).
Transportation and Utility Corridors. There are no definitive plans for development
along these corridors.
4-s
-------
4.1.4.4 Other Possible Developments.
Site. The entire potential residuals landfill site is zoned for rural residential
development, the most rural of the residential zones designated by the town under its
zoning bylaws (1984). The town’s zoning bylaws establish two special overlay districts:
the Flood Plain District and the Water Resource Protection Overlay District.
Section 4.4 provides details on the areas subject to flooding on the Walpole site. The
Water Resource Protection District addresses four specific resource areas: 1) areas of
pumping influence of all existing municipal wells within the town, 2) potential water
supply areas, 3) primary rechar.ge areas, and 4) secondary recharge areas. Certain uses
are prohibited or restricted in each of these overlay zones. A small portion of the site,
bordering Main Street, does fall within resource areas 3 and 4 (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, I,
1988). Disposal of solid wastes, other than brush and stumps, and disposal of liquid or
leachable wastes other than sanitary domestic wastes or innocuous process wastes are
prohibited in these resource areas. Sanitary domestic wastes are defined in the bylaw
as wastewater arising from ordinary domestic use from toilets, sinks, and bathing
facilities. Section 4.4 discusses in more detail the significance of these resource areas.
A large portion of the Walpole MCI site is classified as prime farmland or farmland of
statewide importance (Figure 4.1-2). Because this land is undeveloped, it represents a
potential resource area.
Contiguous Property and Property Within One-Mile Perimeter. Development in the
vicinity of the site will be guided by the communities’ zoning bylaws and by the
Communities’ plans of development. The land in the immediate vicinity of the potential
site in Walpole is zoned for residential development of varying densities. The
predominant zoning in the remainder of the property in the one-mile perimeter is also
designated for residential development, although there are smaller areas designated for
industry or light manufacturing. These two zones are located northeast of the site
along Main Street and along Industrial Park Road.
Objectives for future land development within Walpole are addressed in the town’s
Master Plan Update. The major policies addressed in the plan are water quality
protection, agricultural land preservation, establishment of land trusts, and
improvement and expansion of precinct park and outdoor recreation facilities (MWRA,
RMFP, Screen, I, 1988).
Portions of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management’s (DEM) Bay
Circuit Plan are incorporated into the town’s Open Space Master Plan. The Bay Circuit
Plan is a proposal by DEM to ring metropolitan Boston with a belt of designated open
space which would provide places to rest and points of interest. Among sites suggested
by the town for inclusion in the plan is the area around Cedar Swamp, which could be
connected to the Town Forest through School Meadow Brook and Cedar Swamp Brook
(MWRA, RMFP, Screen, 1, 1988).
The property within Norfolk that falls within the one-mile perimeter is primarily zoned
for low-density residential development under the town’s zoning bylaws (1987). Smaller
areas are zoned for health maintenance and professional office development and
industrial activity. Norfolk has also established flood plain and wetlands protection
districts. Permitted uses, and uses allowed with a special permit in these districts, are
defined in the tov n’s zoning regulations.
L&-9
-------
SCALE IN METERS
0
S1. LE N FEET
2000
LEGEND
PRIME FARMLAND
fl FARMLAND OF STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE
OPEN LAND - VACANT. BEACHES.
PARKS, CONSERVATION LAND.
AND INSTIWT)ONAL LAND
— — —SITE BOUNDARY
—1 MILE— ONE MILE PERIMETER FROM
SITE BOUNDARY
FIGURE 4.1-2. WALPOLE MCI: IMPORTANT FARMLAND
• •• • :t.eoar —
1000
0 1000
201
-------
There is a significant amount of land classified as prime farmland or farmland of
statewide importance within the one-mile perimeter (Figure 4.1-2). Undeveloped
portions of these areas represent potential resource areas.
4.1.5 Rowe Quarry Baseline Conditions
4.1.5.1 Study Area. The study area for,the Rowe Quarry site extends to one mile from
the perimeter of the site and includes property within the communities of Maiden,
Revere, Saugus, and Meirose. Sensitive receptors up to a distance of approximately
1.2 miles (2 kilometers) are identified.
4.1.5.2 Existing Baseline Conditions
Site. The Rowe Quarry site is located 10 miles north of Boston and is approximately
57 acres in size (Figure 4.l-3)(MWRA, RMFP, Screen, 1, 1988). The site has been
actively quarried since 1895 by the Rowe Contracting Company (MWRA, RMFP,
Landfill, 1, 1988). Approximately half the quarry is located in Maiden and half in
Revere. Steep walls of varying elevation enclose the excavation area, which is
stockpiled with earthen materials and equipment related to the quarry operation
(M’ RA, RMFP, Screen, 1, 1988). There are several buildings located on the site
including the office headquarters and a tail stone-crusher building.
Contiguous Property. The site is bordered to the north, east, and south, by residential
neighborhoods (Figures 4.1-3). Properties north and east of the quarry are part of the
Franklin Park section of North Revere, while those bordering on the south are part of
the Linden section of Maiden (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, I, 1988).
The land slopes down from the perimeter of the quarry. At its southeastern corner is a
truck and heavy machinery storage yard which, although not part of the operating
quarry, is owned by the Rowe Contracting Company (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, 1, 1988).
Three homes are approximately 200 feet from the southern perimeter of the quarry
(MWRA, RMFP, Landfill, I, 1988).
To the southwest and west of the property are developments which border Route 1.
Land uses along this stretch are primarily commercial and industrial businesses serving
the highway traffic. To the north between the site and Route I is an area where
dumping of cars, household materials and other debris has occurred (MWRA, RMFP,
Screen, 1, 1988).
Property Within One-Mile Perimeter. Predominant land uses within one mile of the site
are mixed and include large commercial complexes, single- and multi-family residential
neighborhoods, industrial activities, and recreational and institutional uses
(Figure 4.1-3) (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, 1, 1988).
U.S. Route I bends around the western portion of the site. North from the site along
the Route 1 corridor land uses continue to be highway-oriented, including restaurants,
motels, retail stores, and auto dealers. A few residences are located between the site
and Route I. Route 99 parallels Route 1 to its western side. Between Routes I and 99
to the west and north of the site are a trailer park, a church, and several single-family
residences. The Trirnorit Quarry is located along Route 99, approximately
4-il
-------
SCALE IN METERS
2000 0
SCALE IN FEET
20p0
* END
RESDENTIA.
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
RECREATION PA K
CONSERVATiON
IN ST T UT ONA
VACANT
UNDEVELOPED
—1 Mfl.E — ONE MILE PER’METER FROY
SITE BOUNDARY
— — — SITE BOUNDARY
FIGURE 4.1-3. ROWE QUARRY : PREDOMINANT LAND USES
WITHIN ONE MILE OF THE SITE
>
I’ f-
r,-. e
C.
I . ’
‘ t
• : -- - • i
• •: P1+. a t i1is
>
t •.
V.
4A .i
1
‘4 ’
t Cia
‘ cx d
•v _. _
“-, r’r
I .-
!t ‘
‘u 1 - -j
t_ .•— xT1
+ Vk kk 1
>
-
Vç
-- r-•
A
- <\
- - t —
. —2
4.
500 9 50
r 1 MILE
•4
-------
2,000 feet northwest of the site. Approximately 4,800 feet north of the site, Route 99
and Route I merge to become a six-lane highway. Land uses serving highway traffic
dominate this stretch (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, 1, 1988).
The Franklin Park neighborhood, which is primarily residential, is located to the north
and east of the site in Revere. The Boston and Maine Railroad right-of-way borders
this neighborhood on its eastern side. Streets in this neighborhood are narrow and
residences are generally close together on small lots. The city of Revere recently
acquired 17 acres of conservation land in this neighborhood, approximately 1,200 feet
from the site. Access to the conservation land is off of Franklin Street or Grandview
Avenue (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, 1, 1988).
New condominiums have been built 250 feet east of the Quarry off of Salem Street,
which runs in a northeasterly-southeasterly direction from the site. The Annemark
Nursing Home lies just beyond the condominiums, approximately 500 feet from the
current quarry entrance (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, I, 1988).
Approximately 4,000 feet northeast of the site across the Franklin Park residential
areas is the Cliftondale section of Saugus which includes a neighborhood retail center
and high-density single- and multi-family residential areas. To the south of the
Cliftondale neighborhood is the abandoned Saugus Race Track and beyond that the Pines
River Marshes ACEC (M vRA, RMFP, Screen, I, 1988).
Route 60 (Squire Road) intersects Route I southeast of the site at Copeland Circle.
Cinemas, retailers, and restaurants dominate the intersection. Southeast of the site,
along Route 60, predominant land uses are mixed retail and residential. Multi-family
residential buildings, as well as several commercial buildings, extend to the edge of the
one-mile perimeter (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, I, 1988).
To the west of Route I, beyond the Cinema complex at Copeland Circle, is the Linden
residential section in Maiden. The Linden neighborhood is roughly bounded by Salem
Street to the north, Route I to the east, Route 60 to the south and Route 99 (Broadway)
to the west. This neighborhood contains mixed single- and multi-family residential
dwellings. Mixed uses dominate the edges of the neighborhood2long Routes 60, 1, and
99 and there are a fevh recreational areas located within this section of Maiden. South
of the Linden neighborhood, at the edge of the one-mile perimeter, is the Holy Cross
Cemetery (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, I, 1988).
The southwest section of the one-mile perimeter, to the west of Route 99, is primarily
in the Maplewood section of Maiden. St. Joseph School and Church, and the Maplewood
Elementary School are located in this section near the edge of the one-mile perimeter.
Houses surrounding the church and school are predominantly multi-family complexes
(MWRA, Field, 1988).
Residential neighborhoods which are divided by Routes 1 and 99 extend to the west and
southwest from the site to the Maplewood section. Topography in this area is more
diverse than in some other sections of the study area (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, I, 1988).
The largest residential complex in this area is the.Granada Apartment complex,
approximately 10 stories high, located on the crest of the incline on Kennedy Drive.
The complex consists of several buildings and is surrounded by predominantly
4-13
-------
single-family residences. The North Shore Assembly of God Church sits upon a ledge
adjacent to Route 1. Further west, north of the Maplewood section, is a predominantly
residential neighborhood. Traf ton Park is located in this area, northeast of the St.
Joseph’s complex. The park contains areas for basketball, softball, tennis, and a
playground area (MWRA, Field, 1988).
To the northwest of the site, on the western side of Route 1, land uses are mixed and
include residential, commercial, and industrial (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, 1, 1988). Much
of the commercial activity is oriented toward the intersection of Routes 99 and I.
To the west of Route 99, in the city of Meirose, are low-density residential
neighborhoods. To the northwest of this neighborhood are the Mount Hood Memorial
Park and Golf Course. The park and golf course are considered to be regional
recreational facilities and are located approximately 1,200 feet from the site.
Northern portions of the park are located in the town of Saugus (MWRA, RMFP,
Screen, I, 1988). The park borders the Trimont Quarry and mixed-use areas on
Route 99.
Sensitive Receptors. Sensitive receptors identified within 1.2 miles (2 kilometers) of
the proposed landfill site are listed on Table C.2 and shown on Figure C.2 in
Appendix C. It is important to note that a sensitive ecological resource, the Rumney
Marshes, which is located within the one-mile perimeter, has been designated as an
Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) by the state Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs (EOEA, 1988). The marshes, which are also included in the
Massachusetts CZM Program’s Coastal Resource Inventory, were designated as an
ACEC because of their significance to “flood control, the prevention of storm damage,
the protection of land containing shellfish, and fisheries; the protection of public and
private water supplies; and public interests defined in the Wetlands Protection Act”
(EOEA, 1988). The quarry site is located approximately 500 feet northwest of the
ACEC and borders directly on the Coastal Zone overlay, which follows the centerline of
Salem Street (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, I, 1988). See Section 4.1.2.8 for more detail on
the ACEC program and Section 4.7 for more detail on the ecological value of the
Rumney Marshes.
Transportation Corridors. Access to the site is via Route 1 to Salem Street, a two-lane
local street. The distance traveled on Salem Street is 0.2 miles. Land uses along Salem
Street are commercial and industrial, although access from the site to Route 1 North
passes five residences. The industrial activity here is associated with the quarry
operation. There are no sensitive receptors along the Salem Street access route
(MWRA, RMFP, Screen, 1, 1988).
Utility Corridors. There are two alternatives for leachate disposal from the Rowe
Quarry site to the local sewer system. One alternative would require installation of
new gravity sewer from the site to an existing sewer on Lynn Street in MaIden. The
second alternative would involve discharge into sewer systems owned by the city of
Revere, located on Salem Street just beyond the Rowe Quarry entrance (MWRA, RMFP,
Landfill, 1, 1988). Land uses along these proposed corridors are described above.
Water would be supplied through the existing MWRA water distribution system by
connection to the existing service lines on Salem Street. The land uses along this
4-14
-------
stretch consist of the existing quarry operation and residences. Adequate electrical
power for residuals landfilling needs currently exists at the quarry (MWRA, RMFP,
Landfill, I, 1988).
4.1.5.3 Projected Baseline Conditions
Site. There are no definitive plans for reuse of the quarry, however, there have been
proposals for the realignment of Route 1. The Massachusetts DPW is currently planning
a reconstruction of Route I through MaIden, Revere, and Saugus. The purpose of the
reconstruction is to improve hi ghway capacity, reduce safety hazards, and improve the
quality of flow through the area. One proposed change to the Route 1 configuration is
to relocate Route 1 through the western part of Rowe Quarry to eliminate a safety
hazard resulting from both vertical and horizontal curvature of the Route I hill north of
Salem Street (MaIden, 1985).
Contiguous Property and Property Within One-Mile Perimeter. There are very few
large, undeveloped parcels remaining within the one-mile perimeter of the site. The
proposals that have been discussed are primarily for residential development, although a
few commercial ventures have been planned. Within the city of Revere, a 160-unit
Comfort Inn is under construction on Morris Street and Route 1, approximately
1,900 feet from the site. Other projects that have been approved by the city in the
North Revere portion of the study area include 16 residential units on Muzzey Street,
51 residential units on Marshall Street, and several smaller developments off Salem
Street (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, 1, 1988). There is also a residential development planned
for Breeden’s Lane.
Some approvals have been granted for residential projects in Maiden within the
one-mile perimeter. These include 90 units on Linehurst Road and several smaller
developments, primarily in the Linden neighborhood (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, I, 1988). A
new Weylus Restaurant is under Construction north of the site off Route 1 in Saugus.
Transportation Corridors. The proposed changes in the Route 1 alignment could alter
the access route to the site, and thus the land uses that are adjacent to the site may be
affected. There are no known proposals for land-use activities along the route at this
time.
4.1.5.4 Other Possible Developments
Site. Currently, the portion of the Rowe Quarry Site located in the city of Maiden is
zoned for highway business under the City’s zoning ordinance (1988). Multi-family
residential dwellings, institutional uses, offices, and most retail establishments are
permitted in the highway business zone. Some industrial uses are permitted or are
allowed by special permit. The Maiden Comprehensive Plan, prepared in 1970,
addresses future policy for the site. The plan recommends that the portion of the
quarry that lies in MaIden be reclaimed and developed for high-density residential,
commercial, or industrial uses (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, 1, 1988).
These possible uses are reflected in proposals for future reuse of the quarry site,
although none have been formally presented to the community. An initial study
prepared for the Maiden Redevelopment Authority in 1984 recommended mixed retail,
4-15
-------
commercial, and residential development for the site. Subsequent to this study, three
development options giving consideration to possible changes in Route 1 were
prepared. These options were evaluated against the stated goals of the city with regard
to the development of the qiarry property (Maiden, 1985). The three options as
presented in the report range from high-density residential development to intensive
mixed-use development including residences, offices, retail space, and a hotel.
The portion of the site located in Revere is primarily zoned for highway business,
although the northeast corner of the site zoned for general residential use as noted on
the city’s zoning map (1986). Future use of the Rowe Quarry site is mentioned in the
City of Revere’s Growth Management Plan, prepared in 1987. The study recommends
that the zoning for the quarry be changed from highway business to a proposed
industrial district (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, 1, 1988). In 1988, the city amended its zoning
ordinance to state that special permits are not to be given for sludge, ash residue, or
any end product of incineration, composting, or any process associated with the
processing and disposal of refuse or solid waste, treated or untreated toxic or hazardous
wastes, or sewerage, or effluent of any kind.
Contiguous Property and Property Within One-Mile Perimeter. Within the city of
Maiden, the property immediately to the south of the site along Fenwick, Vining, and
Richer Streets is zoned for residential use. The properties adjacent to the site to the
west and north along Route I are zoned for highway business.
The remainder of the Maiden property within one mile of the quarry is zoned for a
variety of uses. The predominant zoning for the property closest to the site and
extending west on the north side of Salem Street is residential, although it varies in
allowable density. To the south of Salem Street, and to the west of Broadway
(Route 99), the predominant zoning is for industrial, highway business, and residential
development. Close to the edges of the one-mile perimeter in Maiden the land is
primarily zoned for residential development, with some small areas zoned for
neighborhood business and residential office use.
Properties within one mile of the site are included in the policies outlined in the Maiden
Comprehensive Plan. The plan recognizes that commercial and residential development
are often in conflict. For the most part, the plan recommends development of
residential activity, with the maintenance of current low to medium densities, and the
development of high-income, high-density properties (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, 1, 1988).
In the city of Revere, the property immediately contiguous to the quarry in all
directions is zoned for general residential activity. There is one small area across
Salem Street from the quarry which is zoned for industrial activity. The remainder of
the area in the one-mile perimeter north of the B&M Railway right-of-way in Revere is
also zoned primarily for general residential development. South of the B&M Railway
right-of-way, the predominant zoning is for highway business, industrial, and residential
activity.
The Growth Management Plan prepared for Revere in 1987 recommended that the area
in the vicinity of the site be encouraged for mixed-use residential development. The
development of residential activity would serve to link the quarry site to its abutters in
the Franklin Park area, while also limiting potential traffic impacts (MWRA, RMFP,
Screen, I, 1988).
u- 16
-------
The portion of the one-mile perimeter located within the city of Meirose is zoned for
suburban residential development in the vicinity of Mount Hood Memorial Golf Course
and Park, and industrial and extensive business activity in the vicinity of Route 99
according to the community’s zoning regulations (1987). The portion of the one-mile
perimeter that falls within the town of Saugus is primarily zoned for neighborhood and
highrise/industrial business development in the Route 99 vicinity, and residential and
floodplain in the northern and eastern portions of the study area as noted in the town’s
zoning regulations (1986).
There are a few undeveloped parcels of land within the entire one-mile perimeter of the
site classified as prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance (Figure 4.1-4).
As such, these areas are potential resource areas.
Transportation Corridors. The development or changes in land-use activities along the
access route will be highi) dependent upon any changes in the Route 1 alignment.
4.1.6 Stoughton Baseline Conditions
4.1.6.1 Study Area. The study area for the Stoughton site is defined by a one-mile
perimeter drawn from the boundaries of the site, and includes portions of the towns of
Stoughton, Avon, and Canton. In addition, because Stoughton is being considered for
residuals processing, sensittve receptors up to approximately 1.8 miles (3 kilometers)
from the site have been identified.
4.1.6.2 Existing Baseline Conditions
Site. Figure 4.1-5 illustrates the land uses in the vicinity of the Stoughton site. The
site is approximately 90 acres in size, and is bounded by Route 24 to the east, Maple
Street to the north, Turnpike Street to the west, and wooded area running to an
abandoned railroad line to the south (MWRA, RMFP, Options, II, 1988). A number of
commercial and industrial uses currently occupy the site. These include portions of
several construction companies along Maple Street. One of these construction
companies, the iF. White Company, uses a portion of the site for construction
materials and equipment storage. The company maintains large stockpiles of railroad
ties and track and assembles these materials into prefabricated track sections. The
northeastern portion of the site contains part of a timber disposal area which is used by
a tree-removal contractor. The remainder of the eastern portion, closer to Route 24, is
not used and contains pockets of wetland areas bordering a small stream (MWRA,
RMFP, Options, II, 1988).
The southwestern portion of the site borders an office and light manufacturing
complex. The western portion of the site borders the Simeone Quarry (MWRA, RMFP,
Options, II, 1988).
Contiguous Property. Figure 4.1-5 shows the types of land uses contiguous to the site.
To the north and northeast of the site, adjacent to White Construction are several
industrial warehouses and office facilities. Between the site and Route 24 is a small
area of forested land. The southeastern edge of the site is bounded by Mass Broken
Stone and wooded area which eventually leads to an abandoned railroad grade. The land
abutting the railroad grade is partially forested, and the remainder is developed as part
4-17
-------
••..
/
-
• .•.
I
‘.‘ ‘• -
‘Z ’ -. - -
H ;J
\ i L nde 1 -
- ----- - --f • - - - -!
. - --‘ L-J -
F i —- - -
Sc
%
1000
2000 0 2000
SCALE IN FEET
FARMLAND OF STATEWIDE IMPORT A E
OPEN LAND- VACANT, BEACHES
PARKS. CONSERVATION LAN:
AND INSTITUTIONAL LAND
— — StTE BOUNDARY
1 MILE ONE MILE PERIMETER FROM
SITE BOUNDARY
FIGURE 4.1-4. ROWE QUARRY: IMPORTANT FARMLAND
,U , ‘?2$ -
-
p
I
0
SCALE IN METERS
LEGEND
1000 _____
PRIME FARMLAND
D
-------
2000
RECREATION.PARKS &
CONSERVATION
INSTITL)TIONA
VACANT/
UNDEVELOPED
—1 M LE — ONE MILE PERIMETER FROM
SiTE BOUNDARY
— — — SITE BOUNDARY
FIGURE 4.1-5. STOUGHTON : PREDOMINANT LAND USES
WITHIN ONE MILE OF THE SITE
I,. • • .
i
••.
—
2000
SCALE IN METERS
9
500 LEGEND
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
SCALE IN FEET
-------
of the Avon Corporate Center. Condynes’s Stoughton Corporate Center, accessed via
Turnpike Street, lies southwest of the property (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, 111, 1988). To
the west, the site borders and partially encompasses the Simeone sand and gravel
operation and asphalt facility. The northwestern corner of the site abuts a residence at
the intersection of Maple and Turnpike Streets, adjacent to the Simeone property.
Property Within the One-Mile Perimeter. The area within the one-mile perimeter of
the site includes portions of the towns of Avon and Canton, as well as portions of the
town of Stoughton. Industrial and commercial developments are the predominant land
uses, although there are areas of residential development in the vicinity of the site
(Figure 4.1-5). Much of the industrial development in this area of Stoughton, east of
Turnpike Street, is highway oriented to the interchanges of Route 24 with Routes 139
and 27 (Stoughton, Study, 1987).
To the north of the site, on the north side of Maple Street, are several residences as
well as businesses. Heading north on Turnpike Street from Pleasant Street,
single-family residential dwellings line both sides of the roadway. The area on Turnpike
Street in the vicinity of Page Street is predominantly mixed residential, commercial,
and light industrial. At the Page Street intersection, commercial retail establishments
include a convenience store and two gasoline stations (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II I,
1988). A public playground is located on the southwest corner of the intersection,
approximately 2,800 feet from the site.
Continuing north on Turnpike Street toward the interchange with Route 24 are
predominantly office buildings and industrial and commercial properties (MWRA,
RMFP, Screen, III, 1988). Further north on Turnpike Street, beyond the Route 24
interchange, the area is dominated by a single-family residential neighborhood (MWRA,
Field, 1988). West on Page Street from its intersection with Turnpike Street are office
developments, residences, and the St. James Church (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, III, 1988).
Residential, light industrial, and commercial office development, such as the Deerfield
Corporate Center, is found to the northeast of the site along Page Street south of
Turnpike Street. The growth in light industrial and commercial development along Page
Street is causing conversion of residential property, and incrementally removing most
of the residential neighborhood (Stoughton, Study, 1987). Remaining houses lie close to
the roadway. Old Page Street runs off of Page Street to the northeast of the site. A
few residences and businesses line the street; there are also several wooded lots
(MWRA, Field, 1988).
Behind the Page Street homes, abutting Route 24, is the South Crossing Executive
Industrial Park. On the northeast side of Route 24 the land use is predominantly
industrial and commercial, and the North Stoughton Industrial Park is located in this
area (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, III, 1988). B ar Swamp is to the east of the Industrial
Park and represents the edge of the one-mile perimeter. Bear Swamp is considered
ecologically significant, according to the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program, and
is under a conservation restriction which prohibits all development in the Swamp
(Stoughton, Study, 1987).
To the east of the site, across Route 24, is the Bodwell Street/Page Street intersection
in the town of Avon (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, I II, 1988). Just west of the intersection on
4-20
-------
the north side of the street is a small dump. Bodwell Street on the north side of Page
Street is a nonthrough extension leading toward Three Swamp Brook. To the south of
Page Street, it is a through street serving as the access road to the Avon Industrial Park
which includes v arehousing and office park activities (MWRA, Field, 1988).
Although the Avon Industrial Park represents a large percentage of the southeastern
portion of the one-mile perimeter, this area is also occupied by residential
development. Residences line small cul-de-sacs on both sides of Page Street from
1,600 feet from the site to the edge of the one-mile perimeter (MWRA, RMFP, Screen,
III, 1988).
Residential neighborhoods are also located to the south of the potential processing site,
beyond the Condyne facility and the Avon Corporate Center. The closest residences in
this direction are 1,000 feet from the site (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, III, 1988). The main
branch of Beaver Brook lies just north of these residences, flowing in a southeasterly
direction under a former railroad grade and under Route 24. Approximately 3,500 feet
south of the site is Central Street, lined with mixed residential and commercial land
uses.
Ann Cross Square is located approximately 2,000 feet west of Route 24, on Central
Street; it serves as a boundary between the mixed commercial and residential
properties on Central Street and the predominantly residential properties to the south
and southwest. There are also several residential streets that run off of Central Street
to the north. The closest residences to the site in this direction are located about
1,500 feet from it on Larson Road. They are buffered from the Condyne facility by
forested and wetland areas. Land uses at the Central and Turnpike Street intersection
are primarily residential; however, there are a few professional space conversions.
Approximately 3,700 feet from the site is a new Jewish Community Center (MWRA,
Field, 1988). Close to the Central and Pleasant Street intersection, single-family
homes predominate (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, III, 1988).
To the west, the site abuts the existing Simeone sand and gravel operation on Turnpike
Street. Also along Turnpike Street and west of the site are some residences, a service
station, and an auto salvage yard. Further to the west are pr dominantly residential
properties along Pleasant, Pine, and connecting streets (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, III,
1988). Also in this area are some properties that have been identified for conservation,
recreation, and agriculture purposes (Stoughton, Study, 1987). The Reynolds Estate
near the Pine/Pleasant Street intersection is a conservation area, which is presently
under the management of the Stoughton Conservation Commission; the commission
hopes to turn the site into a working farm. The Almori Fredericks Estate, located a
short distance from the Reynolds Estate off of Pleasant Street, is undeveloped and is
used for hiking (Stoughton, Study, 1987).
A commuter parking lot, a National Guard armory, and a Masonic lodge are located at
the intersection of Pleasant and Turnpike Streets. Single-family residential
neighborhoods dominate the area northwest of the site (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, III,
1988). There are also several institutional properties in the area northwest of the
proposed site. The North Elementary School is located on Lowe Avenue, approximately
4,000 feet from the site. Just at the edge of the one-mile perimeter are the New
England Sinai Hospital, a 212-bed, long-term health care facility, and a Kingdom HaLl of
Jehovah’s Witnesses along York Street (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, III, 1988).
4-21
-------
The Doogood Estates, over 14 acres of conservation land, lie 2,500 feet north of the
site. The property, used for hiking under the management of the conservation
commission, has frontage on Turnpike Street, but access is currently undeveloped
(Stoughton, Study, 1987). Glen Echo Boulevard leads from Pleasant Street to properties
on Glen Echo Pond, approximately 4,400 feet northwest of the site. The one-mile
perimeter crosses Glen Echo Pond and abuts some undeveloped areas within the town of
Canton.
Sensitive Receptors. Sensitive receptors located up to approximately 1.8 miles
(3 kilometers) from the perimeter of the site are listed in Table C.3, and are mapped on
Figure C.3 in Appendix C.
Transportation Corridors. The proposed access to the Stoughton site is off of Route 24
to Route 139/Turnpike Street. Vehicles would follow Turnpike Street to just south of
its intersection with Maple Street, where access to the site would be located. The total
distance of the route from Route 24 is 1.3 miles. The primary land uses along the route
are residential (0.5 miles) near the Turnpike Street intersection with Pleasant Street;
mixed residential and commercial (0.2 miles) near the intersection of Turnpike and Page
Streets; mixed commercial and industrial (0.2 miles) also near the intersection of
Turnpike and Page Streets; and highway (0.4 miles). There is one sensitive receptor
located along the route, a small playground/park located at the southwestern corner of
the intersection of Page and Turnpike Streets. (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, III, 1988).
Utility Corridors. The town of Stoughton has been experiencing water shortages and
has a water emergency declaration in effect, as well as a moratorium on new water
connections. Water supply to the site in Stoughton would come from the MWRA system
lines in Canton. The existing pipe system from the MWRA connection at the Norwood/
Westwood boundary through Stoughtori would be used, although one particular section on
Stoughton Street near Pearl Street and Ralph Mann Drive may need reinforcement
(MWRA, RMFP, Options, II, 1988). It is expected that the connection to the site would
be made from a water line at the intersection of Turnpike and Maple Streets (MWRA,
RMFP, Options, II, 1988). Sewer service to the site would be provided through a
connection to the town system on Maple Street near the intersection with Turnpike
Street. Both the water and sewer lines would share the same utility corridor. Land
uses in the vicinity of the site along Maple and Turnpike Streets are described above.
Electric power is available in the vicinity of the Stoughton Crushed Stone property;
however, system improvements would be needed (MWRA, RMFP, Options, II, 1988).
4.1.6.3 Projected Baseline Conditions
Site. There are no formal plans approved by the town for conversion of the site to
other uses (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, III, 1988).
Contiguous Property and Property Within One-Mile Radius. The properties contiguous
to the site have, for the most part, already been developed (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, III,
1988). Construction is continuing in the Avon Corporate Park to the southeast of the
proposed site.
Reebok International Ltd. plans to base its world headquarters in the Stoughton
Technology Center, in a 6-story 250,000-square-foot office complex (Chmielewski,
4-22
-------
1988a). Also, the Marriott Corporation plans to build a 150-room motel and restaurant
in the Stoughton Technology Center, to open in late 1990. The corporation has signed
an agreement to construct its complex and has made applications to the community for
lot-size and height variances (Chmielewski, 1988c).
4.1.6.4 Other Possible Developments
Site. The entire site is currently zoned industrial. While sewage treatment facilities
are permitted in the industrial zone, waste disposal, hazardous waste, and radioactive
waste disposal facilities are not. Uses not listed in the regulations are construed to be
prohibited under the town’s zoning bylaws (1987). Under Section XI of Stoughton’s
bylaws, the town has established performance standards. This section includes
specifications on standards for noise, odor, visible smoke, particulates, vectors, and
vibration (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, [ 11, 1988).
Stoughton has established flood hazard, wetlands, and watershed overlay districts. The
regulations state that certain activities, including construction of buildings, are not
permitted in the flood hazard or wetlands districts unless for an expressly allowed
purpose. The processing of sludge products is not noted as an approved purpose in the
bylaw. Uses in the watershed districts, except to the extent permitted in the flood
hazard and wetlands districts, may not be developed within 25 feet of these areas. In
addition, uses allowed in the v atershed area (subject to the underlying zoning) are
required to meet further locational and drainage regulations. There are several areas
of designated wetland and watershed districts on the site, however, most are located
outside the facilities footprint. See Section 4.4 for further detail on the significance of
the district.
The Stoughton Strategic Planning Study, prepared for the town in December 1987 by the
Old Colony Planning Council, provides an overview of existing development patterns
and growth trends. The site is located in an area defined by the plan as being a
highway-oriented industrial area geared toward the Route 139/Route 24 and
Route 24/Route 27 interchanges. The site is included in a larger 200-acre parcel which
is identified in the plan as being one of the major undeveloped areas in Stoughton. The
plan notes that the trend for the area in the vicinity of the site will result in continuing
growth in industrial and distribution activity and increased traffic on Turnpike and
Central Streets. The study recommends that an internal north-south industrial service
road be considered to connect the Avon Industrial Park-West and Maple Street
(Stoughton, Study, 1987).
There has been a proposal by a developer to purchase and develop a portion of the site.
The IKEA Corporation, an international furniture retailer, announced plans to build a
complex on the southeast corner of the site (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, III, 1988). The
proposal calls for a complex to occupy 12 acres, approximately 13 percent of the
potential residuals processing site.
The Stoughton Redevelopment Authority (SRA) is considering a taking of the site for
economic development purposes. According to the SRA, the development of
approximately 190 acres in this area of Stoughton, including the proposed site, was
envisioned in the community’s urban renewal plan drafted 20 years ago (Chmielewski,
l988b). The SRA has begun the process necessary to take the land under eminent
4-23
-------
domain, because it believes that the configuration of the site and the number of owners
involved would make individual private development unlikely (Chmielewski, 1988b).
Contiguous Property and Property Within One-Mile Radius. The properties immediately
contiguous to the site are zoned for industrial use, and according to Stoughton’s
strategic planning study, are expected to be developed as such. The area immediately
north of Maple Street is zoned for industrial, highway business, neighborhood business,
or residential development. The study notes that the trends in this area are toward
increasing commercial and industrial development, replacing industrially zoned
residential uses or intensifying development in neighborhood business-zoned land
(Stoughton Study, 1987). To the north of the site along Page Street residential
properties continue to be converted to professional office space. Several contiguous
parcels along Turnpike Street to the west of the site are identified in the Stoughton
Strategic Planning Stud) as being part of a large parcel (208 acres) zoned for industrial
use in the triangle of Central, Turnpike, and Pleasant Streets.
A significant portion of the area within the one-mile perimeter to the east of the site
also lies within industrially zoned property in the Town of Stoughton. Adjacent to the
industrially zoned areas are tv o smaller areas zoned for neighborhood business and
highway business.
The area in Stoughton to the northwest, west, and southwest beyond the industrially
zoned land immediately surrounding the site, is primarily zoned for residential use,
although there are small pockets of land zoned for general business. Residential
development is planned for areas to the north and northwest of the proposed site, in the
area between Glen Echo Boulevard and adjacent residential streets; and on Page Street,
west of the Turnpike Street intersection (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II, 1988).
Much of the land in Stoughton within the one-mile perimeter lies within the specific
development areas cited in the Strategic Planning Study. The Study notes that the
major current constraint on long-term residential and commercial and industrial growth
is the town’s water supply (Stoughton, Study, 1987). The study states in its overall
land-use recommendations that the objective is to “accommodate a range of residential
and commercial/industrial growth while encouraging diverse housing stock and providing
an open space setting for most neighborhoods,” and “recognizes the value of existing
scattered industries with acceptable neighborhood impacts, while encouraging
long-term industrial growth to occur close to major highways and remote from growing
neighborhoods” (Stoughton, Study 1987).
A small portion of contiguous property to the south/southeast of the site lies in the
town of Avon. This area, which includes the 3ordan’s Furniture complex and portions of
the Avon Corporate Center, is zoned for industrial use under the town’s zoning bylaw
(1987). The property within the one-mile perimeter of the site in Avon also includes a
large industrially zoned area in the northern part of the town. Another portion of the
one-mile perimeter in Avon, in the vicinity of Beaver Brook and the Three Swamp
Brook, is overlaid by the Watershed Protection District. The district was established
within Avon to facilitate the adequate protection and provision of the community water
supply, to protect and preserve inland wetlands and water courses, and to encourage the
most appropriate and suitable use of the land. The remaining portion of the land
located in Avon that falls within the one-mile perimeter is zoned for residential use.
Retail and industrial activities are prohibited in the residential districts.
u-24
-------
A very small portion of the land within the one-mile perimeter of the site falls within
the town of Canton, along the southeastern border and in the vicinity of Glen Echo
Pond. This area is zoned for rural residential development under the town’s zoning
bylaw (1987).
There are many areas of prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance within
the one-mile perimeter of the site, as shown in Figure 4.1-6. Much of this land is
undeveloped and thus represents potential resource areas.
Transportation Corridors. The proposed transportation route is along Route
139/Turnpike Street to the site. Portions of this route, particularly the intersection of
Route 139 and Page Street, have been noted as problem areas in the Stoughton
Strategic Planning Study. The Study recommends redesign of the intersection to handle
increasing traffic, and also calls for rezoning of a portion of Turnpike Street south of
the intersection from residential to industrial to preclude conflicts resulting from any
development of new houses along that stretch. There is also a recommendation in the
Study to consider an access road from the Avon Industrial Park-West, up to Maple
Street and then onto Page or Turnpike Street (Stoughton, Study, 1987). The
development of this roadway could alter the existing routing of industrial vehicles awa ,
from at least a portion of the transportation route and could subsequently have an
impact upon the types of future land uses that develop in the immediate area.
4.1.7 Quincy FRSA Baseline Conditions
4.1.7.1 Study Area. The study area for the Quincy FRSA site is defined by a one-mile
perimeter surrounding the site. This perimeter includes portions of Quincy, Braintree,
and Weymouth. In addition, because the Quincy FRSA is a potential site for processing,
sensitive receptors have been identified within approximately 1.8 miles (3 kilometers)
of the FRSA. Transportation and utility corridors are also identified.
- 4.1.7.2 Existing Baseline Conditions
Site. The Quincy FRSA, which borders the Weymouth Fore River, is the former General
Dynamics Shipyard. MWRA purchased the FRSA in late 1987 for the expressed purpose
of establishing a staging area for movement of equipment and workers to the
wastewater treatment plant construction area on Deer Island. The majority of the
150-acre site, shown in Figure 4.1-7, is located within the city of Quincy. However, the
southeastern portion of the site extends into the town of Braintree. The site is bounded
by East Howard Street, South Street, and Nash Avenue to the west; Washington Street
to the North; the Weymouth Fore River to the east; Hill Avenue to the southeast; and
Quincy Avenue to the southwest (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II, 1988).
The site is not currently in use. Buildings formerly used by the General Dynamics
Shipyard occupy the site. The eastern portion of the site, adjacent to the river, is
covered by piers, drydocks, and other equipment related to ship building and repair.
Contiguous Property. The southern and southeastern portions of the site are bordered
by Hill Avenue, v hich provides access to Clean Harbors Environmental Services, a
-------
0
SCALE V. ‘r;
2000
PRIME FARMLAND
FARMLAND OF STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE
OPEN LAND - VACANT, BEACHES.
PARKS. CONSERVATION LAND,
AND INSTITUTIONAL LAND
— — —SITE BOUNDARY
MILE— ONE MILE PERIMETER FROM
SITE BOUNDARY
FIGURE 4.1-6. STOUGHTON: IMPORTANT FARMLAND
200C
1000 0 1 0D ’ * LEGEND
-------
— — — SITE BOUNDARY
FIGURE 4.1-7.
QUINCY FRSA : PREDOMINANT LAND USES
k t i i “ ‘0° _____
\\ ‘ 7 c E —v i jJ • aIand
Sta o l w
_____ ___ -
- Bro a d M 68 d ow
- ___
a. ____
___ ____
Evwa \ \
i . ‘\- ______ — ‘ ‘i.f —
___ I ! ______
s _______
___ __ - __ ___
C __ _____
_____ ___________ S
_________ I _____
>I 2 1fr•• _____ _
___ ;
__ , “.
______ - 4 ... .. .. .
_________ - ______ .. .. /
O O JJ p. ‘ .— .
_______ - •d. . .. —
________ c
• ___ . .T . ______ . •• -
r ___
______ • .•
rr, . . . - . . • • .-.. .
___ -
- ‘ . ___ -,
• -S - _____ -,
: _ I Tit 14
LEGENfl
500 0 500
, RECREATION.PARKS &
SCALE IN METERS RESIDENTIAL 4 CONSERVATION LA
2000 C 200 ElIll COMMERCIAL INSTITUT IONA
______________________________ VACANT/
INDUSTRIAL UNDEVELO ED
SCALE IN FEET
—1 MItE — ONE MILE PERIMETER FROM
SITE BOUNDARY
WITHIN ONE MILE OF THE SITE
-------
hazardous ‘waste disposal company. The southern edge of Hill Avenue includes vacant
lots, a small wooded area, and an auto salvage operation. Clean Harbors Environmental
Services is bordered by the Citgo tank farm, which occupies more than one hundred
acres (MWRA, RMFP, Screefl, 11, 1988).
The intersection of East Howard Street and Quincy Avenue, dominated by commercial
development, forms the southwest corner of the site. North along East Howard Street
from Quincy Avenue, land uses consist of an isolated residence, an office building, a
few commercial developments, and several empty lots. East Howard Street joins South
Street, which becomes the site’s western and northwestern boundary for approximately
700 feet, after which the site’s boundary is formed by various parcels off of Nash
Avenue. There are a few commercial establishments, including small restaurants
located along South Street, as well as a few vacant lots. Two residences abut the site
boundary at the intersection of South Street and Nash Avenue (MWRA, RMFP, Screen,
II, 1988).
Land uses along Washington Street, the site’s northern boundary, are primarily
commercial and industrial. Those on the southern side of Washington Street abutting
the proposed site consist of a gas station and several commercial retail developments.
The northern side of Washington Street is bordered by the Quinoil oil tank and terminal
area and by the Proctor and Gamble industrial development. The eastern boundary of
the site abuts the Weymouth Fore River Harbor.
Property Within One-Mile Perimeter. There are a variety of land uses within the
one-mile perimeter including residential, recreational, commercial, and industrial (see
Figure 4.1-7). The Fore River Harbor represents the eastern boundary of the site as
well as the Quincy-Weymouth corporate boundary. Across the harbor, 1,000 feet due
east of the site, is the Boston Edison Edgar Station, an inactive power plant on the
south side of Bridge Street. The Weymouth Terminal of Sprague Energy is located on
the north side of Bridge Street (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, 11, 1988). Continuing east on
Bridge Street in Weymouth, the predominant land use is commercial strip development,
although a few residences are scattered along the roadway. North and south of Bridge
Street, from 2,000 feet to one mile east of the site are single-family residential
neighborhoods. The Idlewell portion of Weymouth, approximately one mile southeast of
the site contains single-family residential neighborhoods as well (MWRA, RMFP,
Screen, II, 1988).
Also southeast of the site, on the west side of the Weymouth Fore River across from
the Idlewell section of Weymouth, is a residential area in East Braintree. These
primarily single-family neighborhoods extend approximately 3,000 feet to one mile
southeast of the site.
Quincy Avenue runs in a north-south direction through the East Braintree residential
area. Close to the site, land uses along Quincy Avenue are predominantly commercial
(MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II, 1988). This commercial development borders the large
Citgo oil tank farm which in turn abuts the Clean Harbors facility. The Resthaven
Nursing Home is also located on Quincy Avenue, roughly 4,000 feet from the FRSA.
Recreational land uses within the portion of East Braintree described above include
Watson Park, which offers active recreational opportunities as well as a public boat
launching area, and the Metropolitan Yacht Club, approximately one-half mile from the
4-28
-------
FRSA (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, 11, 1988). Also in Braintree and to the southwest of the
site are some newer residential areas.
Quincy Avenue continues in a northwest direction from its intersection with East
Howard Street, at the southwest corner of the FRSA. The roadway is lined with
primarily commercial and multifamily development (MWRA, Field, 1988). Quincy
Avenue serves as the southern edge of some primarily residential neighborhoods that lie
between Quincy Avenue and Washington Street to the north. Residential densities vary
considerably in this area.
The Quincy Mental Health Center overlooks the southwestern corner of the site. It is
located several hundred feet west, with access off of Quincy Avenue. Beyond the
Quincy Mental Health Center and a small open-space area are a number of high-rise
residential buildings, the Faxon Commons and the Presidential Estates Complexes.
These complexes have access off of a roadway known as Southern Artery. At the
corner of Southern Artery and South Street approximately 800 feet from the site is a
major multistory residential complex for the elderly.
Approximately 500 feet west of the site’s southwestern corner.and to the west of
Quincy Menue is a large tract of land where quarrying has taken place. Condominium
Construction is occurring in a portion of this area. The quarry area surrounds a small
residential neighborhood and also borders on Faxon Park (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II,
198S). Faxon Park is large with a wooded perimeter and a developed inner area
consisting of a roadway and various recreational facilities, including a balifield and
tennis courts (MWRA, Field, 1988). At its closest points, the park is approximately
3,500 feet from the site.
Washington Street runs in a northwest direction away from the site and is primarily
commercially developed. Land uses also include some multi-family residential and
institutional uses, such as the Saint 3oseph Church and Rectory 3,000 feet from the
%ite. Side streets between Washington Street and Quincy Avenue are primarily
residential as are streets extending northward of Washington Street. However, further
north beyond the residential neighborhoods are a number of maritime-dependent land
uses, including the Quinoil Fore River Oil Terminal, approximately one-half mile
northwest of the shipyard. The tank farm area abuts the Captain Cove Apartments, a
planned unit development bordered to the east by a recreational boat yard and boat
launch area. A small public beach area is also located in this vicinity, approximately
2,000 feet from the site. The beach area abuts additional recreational lands associated
with the Fore River Club House, as well as an additional boat mooring area (MWRA,
RMFP, Screen, II, 1988).
At the northeastern edge of the one-mile perimeter is a peninsula across the Town
River Bay. This area includes an older residential beachfront community, a newer
multistory apartment building, and a number of streets consisting of elderly housing
which is part of the Quincy Housing Projects. Institutional land uses in this area include
a school and several churches (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II, 1988).
Sensitive Receptors. There is a large number of sensitive land uses in the immediate
vicinity of the site (see Table C.4 and Figure C.4 in Appendix C).
4-29
-------
Transportation Corridors. The primary truck transportation route in arid out of the
Quincy FRSPt is expected to be Route 18N . in Weymouth to Route 53N into Braintree
and Quincy, and then to East Hov ard Street to the site (MWRA, RMFP, Options, II,
1988).
Land uses along the 0.9 miles of Route 18 traveled are commercial and industrial in
nature. There are no sensitive receptors noted on this portion of the two-lane state
highway. The total distance traveled on Route 53 is 2.5 miles. Of this distance, the
primary land uses are 0.3 miles of residential, 1.3 miles of mixed residential and
commercial, and 0.9 miles of mixed commercial and industrial. There are several
sensitive receptors along this portion of the route, including three churches, one nursing
home, two libraries, one park, and one fire station. The final portion of the route, along
East Howard Street, is approximately 0.4 miles long and is predominantly commercial
and industrial in nature. There are no sensitive receptors along this portion of the route
(MWRA, RMFP, Options, II, 1988).
Routes 53 and 18 are characterized as being major commuter throughfares and serve as
shopping and commercial strips for the surrounding communities. Commercial
establishments include restaurants, numerous service stations, auto repair shops,
several large car dealerships, and the Quintree Mall (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II, 1988).
The Weymouth Landing commercial area is a community shopping area and serves major
portions of the northwesterly areas of Braintree and several of the larger neighborhoods
of Weymouth.
Transportation of sludge between the treatment plant at Deer Island and the Quincy
FRSA would be by barge along the Weymouth Fore River. Four yacht clubs are located
in the vicinity of FRSA. These include the Town River Yacht Club in Quincy, the
Braintree Yacht Club and the Metropolitan Yacht Club in Braintree, and the
Wessaquisset Yacht Club in North Weymouth (MWRA, ISPD, I, 1989). Boats from the
Braintree Yacht Club and Metropolitan Yacht Club must pass the FRSA on the way to
Hingham Bay (MWRA, ISPD, I, 1989). It is estimated that 250 boats are moored in the
Weymouth Fore River between Memorial Day and Labor Day (MWRA, ISPD, II, 1989).
In addition, commercial traffic uses the Fore River. The Citgo oil storage facilities
generate 100 tanker trips and 500 barge trips per year (MWRA, ISPD, II, 1989).
Utility Corridors. The existing water connections to the Quincy FRSA would be used if
they are determined to be of adequate condition and capacity. These lines, serviced by
the MWRA, are located on South and East Howard Streets (MWRA, RMFP, Options, II,
1988).
It is expected that if discharge of process wastewater to the Quincy sewerage system
were selected as the preferred method of disposal (as opposed to barging the waste to
Deer Island) the existing sewer lines would be used (MWRA, RMFP, Options, II, 1988).
The connections to the Quincy FRSA are located on East Howard and South Streets.
It is expected that existing electric utility connections would also be used, and that a
gas connection could be made to an existing main near the intersection of Quincy
Avenue and East Howard Street. The land uses along these utility corridors are
described above.
4-30
-------
i ; i a
Ye £ S I • & I S & S I £ S&%PI 10
Site. Several activities are proposed for development at the Quincy FRSA. Two of
these are proposed by the MWRA itself, while the third is being proposed by the
Massachusetts Shipbuilders Corporation.
The first of the two proposed MWRA projects is a roll-on/roll-off facility for materials
to be used in construction of the Deer Island Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Particularly, it is Piers 1 and 4, and areas to the north of these that have been proposed
for use as the roll-on/roll-off facility (See Figure 3.4-11). MWRA has also proposed to
use part of the site for the interim processing of sludge during the years 1991 to 1995.
Sludge will be barged from Deer and Nut Islands to the site, where the liquid sludge will
be dewatered and transformed into dried sludge pellets which will be transported
off-site by rail or by barge (see Figure 3.4-11) (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II, 1988). This
activity will terminate upon initiation of the long-term residuals management project.
The other currently proposed activity at the Quincy FRSA is for a shipbuilding, ship
repair, and marine construction facility (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II, 1988). The MWRA
Board of Directors approved, at the end of October, 1988, a lease to the Massachusetts
Government Land Bank (MGLB) and subsequently to the Massachusetts Shipbuilders
Corporation (MSC) to restore a shipbuilding facility. The shipyard activity will use
17 buildings, 2 dry docks, 3 shipbuilding basins, a wet basin, numerous cranes, over
800 feet of pier space, and surrounding open yard area (Figure 3.4-11). The lease is for
a term of seven years, with a multi-term option (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II, 1988). The
MWRA has determined that this use will be compatible with its own proposed activities
(MWRA, RMFP, Options, II, 1988).
Contiguous Property and Property Within One-Mile Perimeter. Clean Harbors is
proposing to install a new rotary kiln incinerator and related ancillary systems at the
existing hazardous waste facility immediately adjacent to the FRSA (MWRA, RMFP,
Screen, II, 1988). Clean Harbors has been operating as a licensed hazardous waste
facility since 1977 and presently consists of solvent treatment and hazardous waste
storage and transfer facilities (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II, 1988). Clean Harbors has
prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report to address the environmental concerns
associated with the project.
A residential development has been proposed in the area within the one-mile perimeter
of the site. A portion of this project, called the Falls project, is actually under
construction and is being developed at the site of the now-abandoned quarry described
above. Currently approved are a total of 600 units, to be constructed in two phases.
Phase I, to consist of 186 units, is currently under construction. One building (18 units)
is completed and three more buildings are to be constructed this summer. The
remaining units will be constructed over the fall and spring of 1990 (Snider, 1989).
Another proposed activity within the one-mile perimeter of the site is the upgrading of
the existing Quinoil Industries marina and boatyard less than one-half mile northv 1 est of
the shipyard. The marina currently serves recreational boats and has space for
178 berths. The proposal, currently awaiting final approval from DEQE, originally
called for an expansion to 248 berths (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II, 1988). This number
may be reduced due to possible inteference with the channel (McGregor, 1989).
4-31
-------
Transportation and Utility Corridors. There are no reasonably projected developments
along the transportation route in Quincy other than the Clean Harbors and Quinoil
Marina projects noted above. There are no identified projected developments along
utility corridors.
4.1.7.4 Other Possible Developments
Site. The portion of the site located in the city of Quincy is zoned as planned unit
development (PUD) under the city’s zoning ordinance (1988). According to the city’s
zoning ordinance, all uses permitted by right or by special permit in any district shall be
allowed in a PUD. Waste recovery activities are allowed by special permit in industrial
zones, and thus would be permitted in the PUD zone under the zoning ordinance. The
site itself is not addressed in any current land-use or master plan for the city of
Quincy. (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, I I, 1988).
Approximately 10 acres of the Quincy FRSA are within the town of Braintree. The
town has zoned these lands for highway business. (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, I I, 1988).
According to the town’s zoning bylaw (1986), commercial businesses such as retail
stores, restaurants, and office parks are permitted, and light industry is permitted with
a special permit. Waste disposal is specifically prohibited.
The site is located within the Weymouth Fore River Designated Port Area (DPA),
pursuant to Chapter 91, Waterways Licenses. The site is also on flowed and filled
tidelands of the Weymouth Fore River and Bent’s Creek (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II,
1988).
Two possible uses at the FRSA have been mentioned in recent months. One is the
possible relocation of MWRA headquarters from Charlestown to the shipyard. A
decision on the location of the new headquarters is expected in late spring, 1989. The
other possible activity on site, suggested by local students, is development of a
shipbuilding museum to preserve the history of the shipyard (Klemovich, 1989).
Contiguous Property and Property Within One-Mile Perimeter. The site is surrounded in
Quincy by properties zoned for general business development. In addition to some
commercial and institutional uses light industrial activity and some heavy industrial
activities are allowed. Waste disposal operated by or under contract to the city of
Quincy is also permitted. Existing and proposed land uses in the immediate vicinity of
the site and extending westward up Town River are addressed in the Quincy Town River
Bay Master Plan, which does not suggest any significant departure from existing land
use in the site vicinity. It recognizes the co-existence of industry, recreation, and
mixed-use developments (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II, 1988).
The zoning of the remainder of the area in Quincy within the one-mile perimeter
reflects the intention to preserve the mixture of existing land uses. These zones
include single-family, low- and medium-density multi-family residential; business; light
industrial; open space; and PUD. For example, one project being considered for
development within one mile of the proposed residuals management facility is the South
Landing Project, a 72-unit condominium complex. This complex, to be located west of
the site at the corner of Quincy Avenue, West Howard Street, and Bower Road, was
recently rezoned a PUD (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II, 1988).
4-32
-------
The area within Braintree which is contiguous to the site is zoned for highway business
development. The area within Braintree that is included within the one-mile perimeter
of the site includes the developed area along Quincy Avenue zoned for highway general
business, as well as residential areas zoned for single-family dwellings.
The 1985 version of the Braintree Master Plan proposes that the northern portion of
Braintree along Quincy Avenue, including the area abutting the site, be designated for
commercial and industrial activity (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II, 1988). The plan states
that the town is already largely developed and that major residential and nonresidential
activities are already established (Braintree, 1985).
The area within the town of Weymouth that is included within one mile of the site
includes areas zoned for industry, general business, and low-density residential
development under the town’s zoning bylaw (1986). The Boston Edison Edgar Station
Facility is located in the general industrial district. The property is being considered by
Boston Edison for construction of a 300 megawatt facility to burn gas and oil (MV RA,
RMFP, Screen, 11, 1988). Boston Edison is currently reviewing the projected energy
demands of its customers and its own productivity potential, and expects to make a
decision in 1991 as to whether or not the facility is needed (Richards, 1989).
The area along Bridge Street in Weymouth is zoned for general business, and residential
neighborhoods to the north and south of Bridge Street are zoned for single-family
dwellings.
There are several areas of prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance within
the one-mile perimeter of the site, as can be seen from Figure 4.1-8. Portions of these
areas are undeveloped and thus represent potential resource areas.
Transportation and Utility Corridors. Based upon existing zoning and land-use plans,
future development along the truck transportation route would be primarily
nonresidential, although there are small pockets of residentially zoned land in
Weymouth and Quincy. Possible developments along the proposed utility corridors are
described above.
4.1.8 Spectacle Island Baseline Conditions
4.1.8.1 Study Area. The study area for Spectacle Island extends to a one-mile
perimeter of the site including portions of neighboring islands in Boston Harbor.
Because Spectacle Island is being considered for processing of residuals, sensitive
receptors located up to approximately 1.8 miles (3 kilometers) from the site are
identified.
4.1.8.2 Existing Baseline Conditions
Site. Spectacle Island is approximately 93 to 97 acres in size (including the area
between the tides) and is located 1.5 miles southwest of Deer Island (Figure 4.1-9). The
nearest neighboring islands are Thompson Island, approximately 2,800 feet to the west;
Long Island, approximately 5,000 feet to the east; Moon Island, approximately
8,000 feet to the south; and Castle Island, approximately 6,000 feet to the northwest.
President Roads, the major shipping channel which connects Boston to the ocean, is
4-33
-------
SCALE IN METERS
2000 0 2000
[ J PRIME FARMLAND
OPEN LAND- VACANT. BEACHES,
PARXS. CONSERVATION LAND.
AND INSTITUTIONAL LAND
— — —SrTEBOUNDAR Y
—1 MILE— ONE MILE PERIMETER FROM
SITE BOUNDARY
FIGURE 4.1-8. QUINCY FRSA: IMPORTANT FARMLAND
‘eyn -ouL
leighi
rA rn ’
1000
•\ ,Ii’
——
x
1000 _____
LEGEND
SCALE r FEET
-------
-
SCALE tN FEET
RE S DEN TIAL
COM ME PC A
INDUSTRIAL
1r S— T TD ,,A
VACANT
UNDEVELOPE
—1 MLE — ONE M LE PER:METE F CV
SITE BOUNDARY
— — SITE BOUNDARY
FIGURE 4.1-9. SPECTACLE ISLAND : PREDOMINANT LAND USES
WITHIN ONE MILE OF THE SITE
500 0 50
2000 9 2000
SCALE IN METERS
* LEGEND
RE0PEA D -s
CONSEP .A3P
-------
approximately 700 feet north ol the northern tip of Spectacle Island (DPW, CAITHT,
1988). Approximately 77 acres of the island is owned by the city of Boston, the
remainder is owned by the Massachusetts DEM (DEM, 1986). The history of past land
uses on the island is presented in Section 4.9 of this report.
Contiguous Property and Property Within One-Mile Perimeter. Spectacle Island is
surrounded by Boston Harbor (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II, 1988). Commercial lobstering
and marine-based recreation areas and facilities are located in these waters. Among
the recreational activities are fishing, sightseeing, and whale-watching (U.S. EPA,
DSEIS, I, 1988). Recreational fishing activity peaks during summer months and,
according to the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, the most popular
recreational fishina areas include a spot off of Deer Island. Other popular areas include
the harbor islands rt .s. EPA, DSEIS, 1, 1988). Fishing does not take place from the
island itself because of the lack of access, and because of existing safety hazards (DPW,
CA/THT, 1988).
Long Island and the Long Island Bridge lie to the east and southeast of Spectacle
Island. Long Island, approximately 214 acres in size, is owned by the city of Boston
(DEM, 1986). It is connected to Moon Island and the mainland by bridge. Historic
buildings and others that have been built over the last century support the Long Island
Chronic Care Hospital, a homeless shelter with 400-person capacity, a mental health
center, and centers for treatment of drug and alcohol abuse (Boston, 1987). These
facilities are located in the central portion of the island. The southern part of the
island is primarily undeveloped, and contains a large wet meadow, a dune environment,
and forested areas (DEM, 1986).
Moon Island, owned by the city of Boston, was the site of a sewage treatment facility
(Boston, 1987). Currently, the island is used by both the Boston Fire Department and
the Boston Police Department. The fire department trains in a specially constructed
building located at the northern end of the island, while the police department uses a
firing range on the southern end of the island specifically established for training and
target practice purposes (Boston, 1987). The Boston Water and Sewer Commission owns
the now-unused sewage settling tanks on the island. Moon Island serves as a critical
link between the mainland and Long Island.
Thompson Island lies to the west of Spectacle Island and its northern tip falls within the
one-mile perimeter of the proposed residuals processing site. Thompson Island is
approximately 157 acres in size and is privately owned and operated by the Thompson
Island Education Center. The Center, located on the northeastern portion of the island,
offers programs on Boston Harbor Islands ecology (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II, 1988).
While approximately 15-20 staff members live on the island year-round it is estimated
that approximately 50,000 people visit the island annually, many of whom camp or use
the program’s dormitories for overnight stays (Cox-Goldman, 1989). Although the island
is privately owned, it is considered to be one of the islands in the Boston Harbor Islands
State Park (DEM, 1986).
Sensitive Receptors. Because Spectacle Island is being considered for residuals
processing, sensitive receptors located within the vicinity of the 1.8 mile (3 kilometer)
radius have been identified (see Table C.5 and Figure C.5 in Appendix C).
-------
Transportation Corridors. The transportation of residuals and any required processing
material to and from Spectacle Island would be by barge and/or pipeline (MWRA,
RMFP, Options, II, 1988). A pier on the island would be necessary to accommodate the
barge traffic. If MWRA constructed the pier, it would be located at the southwestern
corner of the island. There is recreational and commercial fishing and commercial
marine traffic in the vicinity of Deer and Spectacle Islands.
Utility Corridors. Spectacle Island does not have any utility services. Required
services for residuals processing would be provided through a submarine utility corridor
from Deer Island with the exception of oil for thermal processing, which would be
transported by barge (MWRA, RMFP, Options, II, 1988). The Deer Island utility corridor
would be approximately 12,000 feet long and would cross President Roads, the main
channel into the inner harbor (MWRA, RMFP, Options, II, 1988).
4.1.8.3 Projected Baseline Conditions
Site. There are two major proposals for use of Spectacle Island. One is proposed by the
Massachusetts DEM, and the other is proposed by the Massachusetts DPW. DEM plans
to develop Spectacle Island as part of the Boston Harbor Islands State Park. According
to the 1986 Master Plan developed by DEM, Spectacle Island would be intensively
developed as a major recreation and interpretive center. Stabilization of the landfill on
the island would be required prior to use as a park. Plans call for the north and south
ends of the island to support passive recreation with attempts made to preserve existing
habitat areas. The central portion of the island would be more extensively developed
with construction of a nev pier, docking for transient visitors, and a visitor center.
Interpretive trails, picnic areas, a swimming beach, and an environmental artwork
pavilion are also envisioned. The original plan by DEM called for the stabilization of
Spectacle Island to begin between 1986 and 1988 and for development of the park to
start between 1989 and 1992; the site would actually be opened for activity in
1993-1994 (DEM, 1986). This schedule has not been implemented with regard to
Spectacle Island because of concerns about cost and engineering difficulty in stabilizing
the abandoned landfill (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II, 1988).
The DPW is considering Spectacle Island as a possible location for deposit of excavated
material from the Third Harbor Tunnel and Central Artery Projects (Bailey, 1988). As
proposed by DPW, the disposal of material at this location would also serve to cap and
stabilize the landfill on Spectacle (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, 11, 1988). DPW has proposed
several different scenarios for using the island. The scenarios differ in the amount of
excavate deposited, and the subsequent configuration of the island. Each of the
scenarios would result in an increase in the size of Spectacle Island. DPW is currently
evaluating the scenarios and is studying the engineering and conceptual design elements
of the proposal (Bailey, 1988). Current DPW plans call for barging of the excavate to
Spectacle Island to start in late 1990 and continue to 1997. The peak period for
deposition is scheduled for 1992 to 1994 (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II, 1988).
Contiguous Property and Property Within One-Mile Perimeter. The primary proposals
for use of the islands within the one-mile perimeter are stated by the DEM in its 1986
Master Plan for the Boston Harbor Islands State Park, and by the city of Boston in its
1987 Urban Open Space Plan.
4-37
-------
Long Island is being proposed for development of several recreational facilities to serve
up to 4,000 people on an average weekday (DEM, 1986). Among the improvements and
new facilities proposed are a pier, a visitor center with exhibits, a transportation
exhibit at the historic lighthouse, stabilization and safety 1: provements to the gun
battery at the Head, interpretive trails overlooking the harbor, picnic areas and
playgrounds, swimming beach, and a bike path from the Head to the mainland (DEM,
1986). There is some concern regarding minimizing the impact of proposed recreational
areas upon the Chronic Health Care facility (Boston, 1987). There is also a recognition
that there will be infrastructure needs if additional facilities are located on the island
(Boston, 1987).
No major changes in use have been proposed for Moon Island. However, a major issue
regarding the use of the island is the access it provides to Long Island, which is
proposed for active recreational use (Boston, 1987). The firing range used by the Boston
Police Department on the island is located adjacent to the roadway linking Moon Island
to Long Island (Boston, 1987).
The Thompson Island Education Center is expected to continue its educational
programs. Because the island is considered part of the Boston Harbor Islands State
Park, state and private coordination has been encouraged to fully use the island’s varied
resources (DEM, 1986).
Transportation and Utility Routes. Inner harbor improvement dredging is planned by
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the areas of the Reserved Channel in South Boston,
Mystic River, and Chelsea River. The dredging is projected to begin in late 1989.
Additional dredging, related to the Third Harbor Tunnel/Central Artery project, is
scheduled to occur between 1991 and 1992. (U.S. EPA, DSEIS, II, 1988). Projected
marine traffic in the Boston Harbor Channels is addressed in Section 4.2.
4.1.8.4 Other Possible Developments
Site. Comments from Mass DEQE on the DPW proposal include a suggestion that DPW
create an area dedicated to secure disposal of contaminated harbor dredged material
(from other projects) as part of its proposal for Spectacle Island (DEQE, 1988).
Spectacle Island is zoned for general manufacturing activity by the city of Boston
(MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II, 1988). It should be noted that Spectacle Island is within the
jurisdiction of the state’s Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program as one of the
30 Boston Harbor islands.
Portions of Spectacle Island are classified as prime farmland (Figure 4.1-10), and are
potential resource areas.
Contiguous Property and Property Within One-Mile Perimeter. The character of the
neighboring islands is expected to be in keeping with existing land uses and those
proposed in DEM’s 1986 Master Plan for the Boston Harbor Island State Park, and by the
city of Boston in its 1987 Urban Open Space Plan. These islands also fall under the
jurisdiction of the state’s CZM Program. Portions of Long Island are classified as prime
farmland (Figure 4.1-10), and as such are potential resource areas.
4-38
-------
2000 0
______ PRIME FARMLANL)
SCALE IN METERS FARMLAND OF STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE
2000 OPEN(.ANDVACANT,BEACHES.
PARKS. CONSERVATION LAND.
AND PISTrftTflONAL LAND
— — — SITE BOUNDARY
—1 MILE— ONE MILE PERIMETER FROM
SITE BOUNDARY
‘#7
op
“S .,
6/70,
1000
0
GE ND
1000
SIALE I ’ FEET
FIGURE 4.1-10. SPECTACLE ISLAND: IMPORTANT FARMLAND
-------
4.1.9 Deer Island Baseline Conditions
4.1.9.1 Study Area. The study area for the Deer Island site is defined by a one-mile
perimeter surrounding the site. This area includes portions of the town of Winthrop and
portions of the Boston Harbor Islands. In addition, because Deer Island is being
considered for residuals processing, sensitive receptors in the vicinity of approximately
1.8 miles (3 kilometers) from the site have been identified. Transportation routes and
utility corridors are also identified.
4.1.9.2 Existing Baseline Conditions
Site. The residuals processing area encompasses approximately 22 acres at the southern
tip of Deer Island, an island approximately 210 acres in size located southeast of the
Point Shirley section of Winthrop (see Figure 4.1-11). Deer Island itself is part of the
city of Boston (MWRA, RMFP, Options, II, 1988). The residuals site, owned by the
MWRA, currently houses portions of the MWRA primary wastewater treatment plant
(MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II, 1988). Structures on the site include military fortifications
and bunkers built prior to World War H (Fort Dawes). A grit and screenings dump for
residuals from the existing treatment plant is found at the northern end of the residuals
site area. Storage of compost from MWRA’s pilot plant also occupies part of this
area. The rest of the site is covered by scrubby and grassy vegetation (MWRA, RMFP,
Screen, II, 1988). The open areas of the site are used to a minimal extent for recreation
purposes by prison inmates and treatment plant employees (MWRA, STFP, III, 1988).
The MWRA’s primary sewage treatment and the Deer Island House of Correction
buildings and grounds occupy much of the northwestern section of the island (MWRA,
RMFP, Screen, II, 1988). There is a pump station located along the southwestern
coastline, north of the residuals site. There are also some abandoned industrial
buildings located on the southwestern portion of the island (MWRA, STEP, III, 1988).
The northeastern portion consists primarily of disturbed open lands and a cemetery.
The old Fort Dawes facilities are located along the southeastern portion of the Island
(MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II, 1988).
Contiguous Property and Property Within One-Mile Perimeter. Boston Harbor borders
the site to the west, east, and south. Deer Island is linked to the town of Winthrop by a
causeway extending from the House of Correction property in a northwesterly direction
to Point Shirley (Figure 4.1-11). Point Shirley is primarily a single-family residential
neighborhood with narrow roadways (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II, 1988). A majority of
the homes have been converted to year-round homes from cottages (MWRA, STFP, III
1988). The neighborhood is dotted with recreational areas related to use of the harbor
area. Among these is Yirrell Beach, which forms the eastern boundary of the Point
Shirley neighborhood, and which runs from the causeway 3,000 feet north to Cottage
I-fill, a more heavily populated residential area. Coughlin playground is located in the
northwest portion of Point Shirley, approximately 2,000 feet from Deer Island (MWRA,
RMFP, Screen, II, 1988). The playground borders the harbor, and includes fields,
basketball courts and playground facilities. A small number of boats are moored in the
harbor. An old church serving the Point Shirley Association is located in Point Shirley
(MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II, 1988).
4-40
-------
SCALE IN METERS
9 oo
SCALE IN FEET
RECREATION PA .E &
CONSERVATION j .:
TiONA.
V A C A
UN E ’ELO EtD
—1 MILE — ONE MILE PER’METEP FROM
SITE B JNCA .
— — — SITE BOUNDARY
FIGURE 4.1-11. DEER ISLAND: PREDOMINANT LAND USES
WITHIN ONE MILE OF THE SITE
Dee- ‘ôrc,
Sun
plats
Faun
Dee sIe’ d
C
1
0
50C
2000
Long Island
MILE Head
LE E
PESIDENTIA-
COMME CI
INDUSTRIAL D
-------
As noted above, the Cottage Hill neighborhood is located at the northeastern end of
Yirrell Beach, approximately three quarters to one mile northwest of Deer Island.
Several recreational facilities are located on the western portion of Cottage Hill. The
DEM operates the Winthrop boat landing which provides public access to the harbor
(MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II, 1988). The Winthrop Yacht Club is located north of the
public boat landing. Most of the central and eastern portions of Cottage Hill are
residential (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II, 1988). The eastern edge of the neighborhood is
bounded by a concrete seawall, which runs along a bluff used for informal recreational
activities. The Massa Playground is located in this area, as well, and the primary
commercial development is the Governor Winthrop Motel (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II,
1988).
Long Island Head is located approximately one mile south of the tip of Deer Island, and
is part of the Boston Harbor Islands State Park. The 100-foot-high drumlin at the head
of Long Island is the site of Fort Strong, which until 19 6 hosted a series of coastal
defense batteries that were initially established prior to the Civil War. The casements,
magazines, and fortifications remain (MWRA, STFP, III, l98a). The lighthouse
established on the head in 1819, is currently operated by the Coast Guard (MWRA,
RMFP, Screen, II, 1988).
Logan Airport, which is located across the harbor in East Boston, represents the
western edge of the one-mile perimeter from the site.
Sensitive Receptors. Sensitive receptors within a 1.8 mile (3 kilometer) radius of the
Deer Island site are listed in Table C.6 and are shown on Figure C.6 in Appendix C.
Transportation Corridors. All transportation of materials and labor to and from Deer
Island would be by boat or barge during normal operations. No land-based
transportation route to the island is expected to be used (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II,
1988).
The marine access to the island is leeward of the island from President Roads, the
primary access channel to Boston Harbor (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II, 1988). The
President Roads channel serves port and pier facilities in Boston, Charlestown,
East Boston, South Boston, Everett, Chelsea, and Revere (U.S. EPA, DSEIS, I, 1988).
Both commercial and recreational fishing occur along the proposed transportation
route. Commercial fishing in the Boston Harbor vicinity consists largely of lobster
fishing and shellfish (clam and mussel) harvesting. The closest commercial shellfish
beds are located off the western shore of Deer Island (MWRA, JSPD, 1989). A
significant number of lobster buoys are seen between Deer Island and Spectacle Island
(U.S. EPA, DSEIS, 1, 1988). Marine-based recreational activities are described in
Section 4.1.8.2.
Most of the commercial vessel traffic entering and exiting the inner harbor uses the
President Roads channel. In 198. , 6,25.5 commercial shipping vessels traveled through
the President Roads channel (U.S. EPA, DSEIS, 1, 1988). Commercial shipping traffic is
expected to remain stable or increase slightly during the next decade (U.S. EPA, DSEIS,
I, 1988). Section 4.2 discusses in more detail the marine traffic in the Boston Harbor
channels.
4-42
-------
Sensitive receptors along the proposed transportation route include shellfish beds
located along the shore of Deer Island arid areas of submerged vegetation to the
west-southwest of the Island (U.S. EPA, DSEIS, 1, 1988). These sensitive receptors are
discussed in detail in Section 4.7.
Utility Corridors. The planned wastewater treatment plant will require additional
utility service at Deer Island. Plans call for a new water supply line to be connected to
Deer Island, with adequate sizing of the line to meet potential residuals processing
requirements. Sewage flows from the residuals processing facility would be discharged
directly to the headworks of the new wastewater treatment plant on the island (M\X RA,
RMFP, Options, II, 1988).
Plans to increase electric power to Deer Island include estimates for residuals
processing needs. The plan provides for both on-site generation and off-site supply
from Boston Edison Company. The off-site supply is expected to be routed via two
routes, one overland, and one underwater (MWRA, RMFP, Options, II, 1988). It is
planned that a 12-inch gas line will be installed in conjunction with the installation of
the waterline. With the connection of this line, Boston Gas will be able to meet the
additional natural gas requirements of the residuals processing facility (MWRA, RMFP,
Options, II, 1988).
4.1.9.3 Projected Basel me Conditions
Site. Other than the proposal by MWRA to use the southern end of Deer Island for the
long-term residuals program, there are no other definitive development proposals known
for that portion of the Island (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II, 1988). The land area
immediately surrounding the site to the north will be used for the construction of the
secondary wastewater treatment facility. The Deer Island House of Correction is
scheduled to be relocated by December 1991 in order to provide additional area for
wastewater treatment plant construction (Fleming, 1988).
Contiguous Property and Property Within One-Mile Perimeter. Long Island is owned by
the city of Boston. The city, in its Urban Open Space Plan, has stated that Long Island
offers great opportunity for recreational and environmental activities (Boston, 1987).
The plan makes note of the fact that the city has worked in recent years to insure that
additional public institutional facilities, such as the sewage treatment plant and the
prison, are not located on the island. The plan mentions some of the problems which
could be encountered in further developing the island, but notes that the health care
and social service facilities will remain on the island. The plan also notes that the
development of recreational facilities should be sensitive to historical and
archaeological sites and fragile ecosystems located on the island (Boston, 1987).
The future development of Long Island is also addressed in the Boston Harbor Islands
State Park 1986 Master Plan prepared by DEM. The plan advocates that DEM purchase
the island from the city of Boston for development into recreational areas. The
northern tip of Long Island, which is within the one-mile perimeter of the proposed
residuals processing site on Deer Island, is proposed for heavy recreational use (DEM,
1986). The plan for Long Island Head includes safety improvements and stabilization of
the major gun emplacement related to Fort Strong, development of a visitors’ center
and interpretive trails, and development of picnic and scenic vista viewing areas. The
4-43
-------
master plan predicts that Long Island Head could accommodate up to 2, OO persons on
an average weekday (DEM, 1986). Additional property within the one-mile perimeter of
the residuals processing site on Deer Island includes Logan Airport. Changes in land-use
activity include expansion of existing airport facilities.
Transportation and Utility Corridors. There are no known projected developments along
the transportation and utility corridors. Projected marine traffic in the Boston Harbor
channels is addressed in Section 4.2.
4.1.9.4 Other Possible Developments
Site, Contiguous Property, and Property Within One-Mile Perimeter. The island is part
of the city of Boston and is zoned for general business, which permits all commercial
and residential uses by right, but permits industrial or other nonconforming uses by
variance only. Both the treatment plant and prison predate the zoning for the island
(MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II, 1988). The site is within the jurisdiction of the state’s
Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program as one of the thirty Boston Harbor Islands.
As noted above, the Point Shirley and Cottage Hill neighborhoods are within the town of
Winthrop. Both of these areas are zoned for one- and two-family residential
development under the town’s zoning bylaws (1986). Redevelopment on neighboring
islands is expected to be in keeping with existing land uses and with the plans of the
Massachusetts DEM and city of Boston as noted above.
There are two areas of prime farmland on Deer Island (Figure 4.1.12) some of which is
undeveloped. There are also several areas of prime farmland on neighboring islands.
Portions of these are also undeveloped and thus represent potential resource areas.
4.2 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
The transportation activities that may be associated with residuals facilities include
trucking and barging of sludge, grit and screenings, sludge product, ash, materials and
supplies, and placement of an underwater pipeline to transport liquid sludge.
This section describes the existing traffic volume and its impacts on each potential
traffic route. Also discussed are background traffic, which is the projected future
traffic environment, without the contribution of the residuals project. Each discussion
focuses on the characteristics along the local routes, from the closest limited access
highway to the alternative sites. A generic discussion of the relevant regulations,
methods of analysis and areas of study is also presented here.
4.2.1 Regulatory Setting
Transportation resources and traffic are regulated by a variety of federal, state and
local regulations. Activities affecting interstate highways and waters of the United
States are regulated by the federal government; activities on state roadways and
waterways are regulated by the Commonwealth, and municipalities have jurisdiction
over local roads and streets. In general, a governmental body does not regulate who
uses its roadways. However, localities may post certain streets and roads prohibiting
large trucks or the transport of hazardous materials. Certain vehicles may also be
4-44
-------
0 1000 _____
2000 0 2000
LEGEND --
________________________ (J PRIME FARMLAND
[ ] FARMLAND OF STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE
OPEN LAND- VACANT, BEACHES.
PARKS. CONSERVATION LAND,
AND INSTflIJflONAL LAND
— — SITE BOUNDARY
—1 MILE— ONE MILE PERIMETER FROM
SITE BOUNDARY
FIGURE 4.1-12. DEER ISLAND: IMPORTANT FARMLAND
—-
t
f4
a
Faun
Deer
Light
- -4 -
Long Island
Head
1000
SCALE IN METERS
SCALE IN FEET
-------
prohibited from roads and bridges due to weight restrictions or overpass clearances.
Aside from these exceptions, the trucks involved in this project are free to travel public
roads; the proposed routes avoid areas where they are prohibited by law.
Regulations which may be considered applicable to the residuals transportation system
include those which apply to construction of water transportation facilities, such as
piers and channels (as described in Section 4.4) and air and noise pollution regulations
(as described in Sections 4.3.2 and 4.5.2, respectively). The other applicable regulations
are the federal and state environmental coordinating regulations, the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act
(MEPA). In general, NEPA requires that for projects involving federal funding or
permits, impacts on the environment must be considered. All practical means to
restore and enhance the human environment must be addressed and the federal agency
must work towards providing a safe and healthful environment. MEPA requires much
the same of state agencies for projects with state involvement.
4.2.2 Study Area
The study area for transportation related impacts includes all those areas directly
adjacent to the traffic routes, and all nearby properties that may be adversely affected
by truck or barge traffic.
4.2.3 Traffic Analysis Methods.
There are three elements used to describe the existing and projected conditions of a
transportation route: traffic volumes, functional classification of the road, and
operating conditions on the road. Each of these elements, and its purpose in describing
traffic conditions, is described below.
4.2.3.1 Traffic Levels and Projections. Existing traffic volumes are determined by
performing traffic counts at designated intersections. A particular intersection is
selected for analysis either because it is representative of several intersections along
the route, or because it is believed to be either the most sensitive or congested
intersection along the route. Traffic was counted during the morning and evening peak
periods (7:00-9:00 a.m. and 4:00-6:00 p.m.) at one to three intersections along each of
the routes designated by MWRA (MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, 1, 1989). For Walpole MCI,
traffic was counted by EPA at comparable intersections on each of two alternative
routes (see Section 4.2.4) between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m, resulting in average hourly traffic
counts rather than peak-hour traffic counts. The purpose of the EPA counts is to
compare the two alternative Walpole MCI routes.
MWRA also projected peak-hour traffic for each route. Traffic was projected for the
year 1999 because it is expected to be the worst-case nonresiduals traffic volume
(MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, 1, 1989). Although MWRA projected traffic for both peak hours,
the projections used here reflect afternoon peak-hour traffic, the worst-case of the two
peak hours for each route. Hereafter, projected background traffic without the
residuals traffic added is referred to as the projected “rionresiduals” traffic. For the
two intersections counted by EPA on the Walpole route alternatives, traffic was
projected by adding to the existing average hourly traffic the average percentage of the
increases projected by MWRA at the MWRA-counted Walpole intersections.
4-46
-------
There are two components to the projected traffic environment: background traffic
growth and major new traffic generators. Background growth is the increase from
expected minor changes in land use. Major new traffic generators result from major
changes in land use (from vacant lot to commercial use, for example) that will directly
and significantly increase traffic along the route under study. Major generators are
discussed for appropriate sites and included in the MWRA projections (MWRA, RMFP,
DEIR, 1, 1989).
4.2.3.2 Operating Conditions. The operating conditions of a roadway quantitatively
express the quality or efficiency of the traffic flow at a particular location. Included in
the expression of operating conditions are travel time, speed, and freedom to maneuver,
which are collectively known as driver comfort. Factors included in the determination
of operating conditions include the physical attributes of the road, such as width, grade,
horizontal curvature, signage, and signalization; and the traffic volumes and mix (e.g.,
proportion of cars and trucks) (Highway Capacity Manual, 1985). Level of Service (LOS)
is a measure that rates operating conditions from A (the best, free-flowing conditions)
to F (the worst, forced flov. conditions) (Table 4.2-1). The existing and projected Levels
of Service presented in each site discussion are extracted from analysis performed by
MWRA (MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, 1 and 2, 1989).
4.2.3.3 Functional Classification. Functional classification involves grouping streets
and highways into classes or systems according to the character of service they are
intended to provide. Roads generally serve a dual purpose in a transportation system,
providing both travel mobility (through-traffic) and access to property (local traffic).
Thus, roadv ays may be viewed as a hierarchical system consisting of roadway classes
with differing purposes and levels of importance (Table 4.2-2). The term “major” used
with either arterial or collector refers to a road on which the primary function leans
more towards mobility while the term “minor” refers to a road on which the primary
function is typically property access (Wright and Parquette, 1987).
4.2.4 Walpole MCI Baseline Conditions
In a normal operational situation, minor residuals would be transported to the Walpole
site by truck. In an emergency situation, dewatered sludge would be transported to the
site for a period of a few days or a few weeks. There are two alternative truck routes
to the potential Walpole MCI landfill site, each of which is described below. These
routes are referred to as the “Winter Street route” and the “Pine Street route.”
4.2.4.1 Description arid Use of the Winter Street Truck Route. Site-bound traffic
would travel on Route I to the intersection of Route I and Water Street
(Figure 4.2-1). At this intersection, the traffic would turn west onto Water Street and
continue to the intersection with Summer Street, where it would turn left, and bear
right at the fork onto Winter Street. From Winter Street, the site traffic would turn
left onto Route IA (Main Street) to the site access. The return route is the reverse.
The distance from the Route I/Water Street intersection to the site is approximately
2 miles; the distance on residential streets is approximately 1.9 miles (MWRA, RMFP,
Screen, I).
4-47
-------
TABLE 4.2-1. LEVEL OF SERVICE DESIGNATIONS
Delay
Range’
(Seconds
Category/Description per Vehicle)
Reserve
Capacity
Passenger
(Cars Per Hour)
LOS A: Describes a condition of free flow, with low 0.00-5.0 400
volumes and relatively high speeds. There is little
or no reduction in maneuverability due to the presence
of other vehicles, and drivers can maintain their
desired speeds. Little or no delays result for side
Street motorists.
LOS B: Describes a condition of stable flow, with 5.1-15.0 300-399
desired operating speeds relatively unaffected, but
with a slight deterioration of maneuver-ability within
the traffic stream. Side street motorists experience
short delays.
LOS C: Describes a condition still representing stable 15.1-25.0 200-299
flow, but speeds and maneuverability begin to be
restricted. The general level of comfort begins to
deteriorate noticeabl) at this level. Motorists
entering from side streets experience average delays.
LOS D: Describes a high-density traffic condition 25.1-40.0 100-199
approaching unstable flow. Speeds and maneuverability
become more seriously restricted, and the driver
experiences a poor level of comfort. Side street
motorists may experience long delays.
LOS E: Represents conditions at or near the capacity 40.1-60.0 0-99
of the intersection. Flow is usually unstable, and
freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream becomes
extremely difficult. Very long delays may result for
side Street motorists.
LOS F: Describes forced flow or breakdown conditions 60.1 or N/A
with queuing along critical approaches. greater
Operating conditions are highly unstable as
characterized b erratic vehicle movements along
each approach.
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 1985
Notes: (a) Delay ranges relate to the mean stopped delay incurred by all vehicles
entering the intersection and do not consider the effects of traffic signal
coordination. This criteria is intended for use in the evaluation of
signalized intersections.
(b) Reserve capacity refers to the unused capacity of the minor approach, on a
per lane basis. This criter:on is limited to use in the evaluation of
unsignalized intersections.
4-48
-------
TABLE 4.2-2. FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF ROADWAYS
Classification Function and Characteristics
Urban or Sub- Primarily serves a mobility function; divided and undivided multi-
Urban Arterial lane highways; spacing between signalized intersections is two
miles or less and turning movements at intersections do not exceed
20 percent of total traffic volume.
Collector Signalized or unsignalized; equally serves both local and through
Streets traffic in residential, commercial, and industrial areas; typically one
to two lanes; serves as the route between local streets and arterials.
Local Street Signalized or unsignalized road with the primary function of access
to abutting property; many turning movements, numerous pedestrian
conflicts and land obstructions from stopped vehicles; typicall one
lane in each direction.
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 1985
Within the study area Route 1 is a four-lane highway with two travel lanes in each
direction. Over the length of the highway to be traveled, the roadway is high speed,
direct, and free of problem grades or sight distance restrictions. Water, Summer, and
Winter Streets are two-lane, locally maintained roads without shoulders, which
primarily function as local residential streets. These roads are not designed for trucks,
as roadway and intersection geometry are generally quite confined and travel lanes are
typically 10 or 11 feet wide. Where there would be turning movements by the residuals
trucks, there are no designated turning lanes on Water, Summer, or Winter Streets;
grades are moderate along these roads, but generally not greater than five percent
(MWRA, RMFP, Screen, 1, 1988). The pavement is in fair condition on Water and Winter
Streets and in poor condition, with cracks, potholes and bumps, on Summer Street,
particularly around the at-grade, unsignalized, railroad crossing. On-street parking was
not observed during any of the several field visits and is prohibited during events at
Sullivan Stadium.
Only the intersection of Route I and Water Street is signalized, and it is in
conformance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. All other
intersections on the route are posted with stop or yield signs to indicate the right-of-
way. Winter Street forks just east of the Route IA intersection. The southern leg
creates a four-way intersection with Route IA and the other leg carries northbound-
only traffic to Route IA about 100 feet further north. Sight distances are somewhat
limited at the four-v. ay, signed intersection, where Winter Street intersects Route IA
at an angle of approximately 60 degrees and also as Winter Street westbound
approaches Summer Street at a similar angle (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, 1, 1989).
Level of Service analyses was performed by MWRA at two intersections on this route.
During peak periods, traffic is heavy and operating conditions are barely acceptable to
poor. The projections indicate that operating conditions on this route will be unstable
4-49
-------
r
—
,I
/ -
/
- —-- - -- - -
.
/ (J
ON ft-EH\ ATI( \
—S
SCALE IN FEET
POOR,
— .•1.• ;
_________ __________ /
] Ipol \%. :•
- • Water Tan
J
Winter Street Route
FIGURE 4.2.1. WALPOLE MCI - TRUCK TRANSPORT ROUTE ALTERNATIVES
.\/“, a
0 200&
I I
2000
N
1000
‘3
0
SCALE IN METERS
1000
- - - - - — — - - -
LP
/
OLE./
PAVEMENT POOR TO VERY
UNSIGNALIZED AT.GRADE
Cedar Swan’ RAILROAD CROSSING
Ir ‘ 0 I I
/
&
RESIDENCES DENSE
CLOSE TO ROAD,
PAVEMENT FAIR.
2
CONFINED ROADWAY GEOMETRY:
NARROW LANES, NO SHOULDERS
AT INTERSECT iONS. ONE LANE IN
EACH DIREC11ON AT INTERSECTiONS.
NO SIDEWALKS,
EXCLUSIVELY RESIDENTiAL
:1
Mann
Pond
2e4
Cro
\ Pon
Walpole MCI Landfill Site Atternative
— Pine Street Route
-------
and at or near LOS F by 1999 (Table 4.2-3) (MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, 2, 1989). Comparison
of average hourly traffic from the EPA counts and peak-hour traffic from the MWRA
counts indicate that there is little difference between peak- and off-peak traffic on
Winter Street.
4.2.4.2 Description and Use of the Pine Street Truck Route. From Route 1 South,
site-bound traffic would Continue south past Water Street on Route 1 to Pine Street
(Route 115), a distance of approximately 2 miles. Turning west on Pine Street, the
route continues west to Route IA, where it turns right to reach the site access on
Route IA. The return route varies slightly for northbound traffic. Trucks returning
northbound would travel east on Pine Street; as they approach Route 1 they would bear
right onto Turnpike Street, where they would access Route 140 and then immediately,
Route 1 northbound. The distance on the Pine Street route from the Route 1/Water
Street intersection to the site is 4.1 miles; the distance on Pine Street, v hich is
residential, is approximately three-quarters of a mile. The total length of this route is
approximately two miles longer than the Winter Street Route. The portion of the
Winter Street route that is characterized as residential is approximately twice the
length of the residential portion of the Pine Street Route.
This route continues beyond Water Street on Route 1 south past Sullivan Stadium in
Foxborough to Pine Street; Pine Street is located partially in Foxborough and partially
in Norfolk. Most of the portion of Route IA that is traveled to reach the site is in
Norfolk as well, although the site access is in Walpole. Lane widths on Pine Street vary
but average approximately 12 feet each; large trucks observed on the route do not
appear to have any difficulty negotiating on this road, although the roadway geometry
at each intersection is generally quite confined (Field observation, November 1988).
There are no designated turning lanes on Pine Street where residuals trucks would
turn. The pavement is in fair condition on Pine Street; on-street parking was not
observed during any of the several field visits and is prohibited during events at Sullivan
Stadium. The Route lA/Pine Street intersection is posted with stop signs to indicate
the right-of-way on Route IA. A railroad bridge crosses Pine Street just east of Valley
Road.
Pine Street functions primarily as a collector road, connecting.the two highways,
Route 1 and Route IA. Although no intersection analysis was performed on this route,
traffic counts were performed by EPA at the most sensitive intersection, Pine and
Turnpike Streets. Traffic at this intersection is approximately double the traffic at the
Winter Street/Summer Street intersection; the proportion of trucks in the traffic
stream at this intersection, 11 percent, is also approximately double the proportion at
Winter and Summer (Table 4.2-3).
4.2.5 Rowe Quarry Baseline Conditions
In a normal operational situation, minor residuals would be transported to the Rowe
Quarry site by truck. In an emergency situation, dewatered sludge would be transported
to the site for a period of a few days or weeks.
4.2.5.1 Description of the Truck Route. From the closest limited access highway,
Route 1, trucks traveling to the Rowe Quarry site would leave the highway at the Salem
Street-Lynn Street Interchange (Figure 4.2-2). Northbound traffic would make a
4-51
-------
TABLE 1 L2-3.
WALPOLE MCI WORST-CASE EXISTING AND PROJECTED TRAFFIC
AND OPERATING CONDITIONS
Source for Route 1/Water Street and Route
DEIR, 2, 1989
Notes: n.a.- not available
(a) For Route 1A & Winter Street the
turns and through movements
(b) EPA Counts: Average hourly count from 8 a.m. to 14 p.m. not
right turn off the Route 1 exit ramp onto Salem Street. From the southbound Route I
ramp, access to the site is via a left turn onto Salem Street and a left turn under the
Route 1 bridge to remain on Salem Street. From the site, southbound traffic would head
west on Salem Street and pass under Route I to a four-way, unsignalized intersection
with the Route 1 ramps and Lynn Street. A right turn at this intersection, and another
right turn 300 feet to the north of the intersection would load traffic onto Route I
southbound. Northbound traffic from the site would head west on Salem Street and
then turn right to head northbound on Route 1 (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, 1, 1988).
The site is very close to the Route 1/Salem Street-Lynn Street interchange; it is within
a few hundred feet of the base of the Route 1 northbound ramps and the distance along
Salem Street is no more than one-quarter mile. There is one travel lane in each
direction on Salem Street, with shoulders in some areas. The lanes are generally 15 feet
or wider, with the widest parts near the Route I ramps. Grades of the roads are not
greater than five percent, with the highest grades on the ramps leading up towards
Route 1; the pavement on Salem Street and the ramps is in fair to poor condition with
many cracks and potholes. The Route I underpass has clearance of 13.5 feet and the
structure is in poor condition; it has been supplemented by temporary bracing. There
are two intersections on Salem Street, one each at the northbound and southbound
Route I ramps. Each of these four-way intersections is controlled by flashing
Winter Street Route
Pine St. Route
Route 1 &
Water St.
Route 1A
Winter St.(a)
Winter &
Summer St.
Turnpike &
Summer St.
Peak Hour LOS
Existing a.m./p.m.
Project. a.m./p.m.
F/F
F/F
D/E
E/F
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Vehicles per Hour
2,852
3,372
1,189
1,348
257 (b)
296 (b)
580 (b)
593 (b)
Existing worst case
Project worst case
Truck Portion of Traffic
5 %(b)
11 (b)
lA/Winter Street analysis:
MWRA, RMEP,
Level of Service presented is for left
worst-case
4-52
-------
ALL ROADS ONE LANE. SOME
SHOULDERS USED FOR
DECELERATION AND TURNING.
FAIR TO POOR PAVEMENT.
/ Ienv
0
SCALE IN METERS
9
ic o
400
I
_. — U
Rowe Quarry Landfill Site Alternative
Designated Transportation Route
.
400
1000
SCALE IN FEET
FIGURE 4.2-2. ROWE QUARRY TRUCK TRANSPORT ROUTE
-------
red/yellow lights, with the right-of-way accorded to Salem Street. (MWRA, RMFP,
Screen, I, 1988).
4.2.5.2 Existing and Projected Use of the Truck Route. Salem Street functions as a
collector, serving as a link between local streets and Route 1. Level of Service analysis
was performed at the intersection of the Route 1 southbound ramps and Salem Street
(Table 4.2-4). Projected traffic between 1988 and 1999 will cause slight decreases in
the operating conditions of some traffic movements at the intersection of the Route 1
southbound ramps and Salem Street. Most significantly, southbound left and through
movements, which are currently approaching LOS F would drop to LOS F and morning
northbound movements would change from relatively free-flowing (LOS B) to LOS D.
Operation of the southbound right turn movement will decrease from excellent (LOS A)
to good (LOS B and C); all east- and west-bound movements will continue to operate
very well (MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, 2, 1989).
4.2.5.3 Proposed Physical Changes in the Truck Route. The Massachusetts Department
of Public Works (DPW) is planning to realign and rebuild Route I in the area of the
quarry. The design calls for widening of Route 1 from four to six lanes and upgrading of
several interchanges, including the Salem Street-Lynn Street interchange. A total
redesign of the intersection is planned; a modified diamond pattern is expected, along
with standardization of pavement cross sections and modernization of signalization and
signage. Because only two traffic movements are projected to be unacceptable in 1999
(southbound left and through movements), the revised design will likely enhance the
flow and safety of traffic in the interchange, although no time schedule has been set for
these improvements (M\ ’RA, RMFP, Screen, I, 1988).
Potential residuals activities that could occur at the Stoughton site are heat drying,
composting, and incineration. Residuals trucks may carry dewatered sludge, compost
amendment, compost, heat-dried pellets or ash to or from the site.
4.2.6 Stoughton Baseline Conditions
4.2.6.1 Description of the Truck Route. From Route 24, the closest limited access
highway, trucks traveling to the Stoughton site would leave the highway at exit 20 to
reach Route 139/Turnpike Street and travel west on Route 139 for approximately 1.1
miles to the Y-shaped intersection of Turnpike Street and Pleasant Street
(Figure 4.2-3). At this intersection, Route 139 turns to the west and continues on
Pleasant Street; site traffic would continue straight on Turnpike Street for 0.2 miles to
the site entrance (MWRA, RMFP, Screen III, 1898). The total distance from Route 24
to the site is 1.3 miles.
In the immediate vicinity of Route 24, Route 139 is two lanes wide in each direction to
accommodate traffic movements entering and exiting Route 24. An acceleration lane
is also provided at the Route 24 southbound ramp to Route 139 west. For the remainder
of Route 139 one travel lane is provided in each direction; north of Page Street the
lanes are each 18 feet wide; south of Page street each lane is approximately 12 feet
wide. The shoulders on Route 139 vary in width from zero to two feet wide. Grades
are minimal, approximately one percent. None of the intersections on the route are
signalized; at each, however, stop or yield signs indicate the right-of-way. Route 139
is the principal roadway at which traffic from the intersecting streets must stop or
yield (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, III, 1988).
4-54
-------
TABLE 4.2-4. ROWE QUARRY WORST CASE EXISTING AND PROJECTED
TRAFFIC AND OPERATING CONDITIONS
Traffic
Movement
1988
Existing
1999
Projected
LOS
#Veh.
LOS
//Veh.
Rte.1 S.bound at Salem
Street
A
1,688
A
1,797
E.bound left
W.bound left
A
A
N.bound all moves
D
D
S.bound right
A
B
S.bound left/through
E
F
5ource: MWRA, RMFP, Dt.ik, 2, 1888
Notes: LOS = Level of Service
1/ Veh. = Vehicles per hour in the worst case peak hour
4.2.6.2 Existing and Projected Use of the Truck Route. Level of Service analysis
performed by MWRA at two intersections is used to evaluate the operating conditions
on this route. A proposed conversion of a property on Route 139 between Turnpike
Street and Page Street from residential use to 130,000 square feet of office space is
considered a major traffic generator; as such, traffic from this development has been
included in the 1999 projected traffic (MWRA, RMFP, Screen III, 1988). However, the
primary factor affecting operating conditions on this route is the right-of-way accorded
to Route 139 and the dominance of traffic on that road. Route 139 is a minor arterial
linking local streets to Route 24; Page and Turnpike Streets are local streets of an
industrial nature. Generally, operating conditions on Route 139 are excellent at both
the Page Street and Turnpike Street intersections and are expected to remain so
through 1999 (Table 4.2-5). Two movements, however, are affected. At Page Street
the southbound left turn from Route 139 deteriorates from LOS D in 1988 to LOS F in
1999; at Turnpike Street it deteriorates from LOS B to LOS D (MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, 1,
1989).
Operating conditions for all movements from Page Street are currently at failure
(LOS F), and will remain at failure through 1999. The same is true for all movements
from Turnpike Street. Although operating conditions on Page and Turnpike Street
remain at the same level of service (F), additional traffic will negatively affect
conditions on those routes. Significant trucking activity associated with the asphalt
plant and the batching plant on Turnpike Street occurs in the area of the site access and
is expected to continue through the project period (MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, 1, 1989).
4.2.7 Quincy FRSA Baseline Conditions
Potential residuals activities that could occur at the Quincy FRSA site include heat
drying, composting and transfer of materials between the mainland and the island sites,
should residuals activities occur on either of the island sites. Residuals trucks and
4-55
-------
;-
t;
\2
/
/
j
SCALE
IN METERS
0
-I—— —
I
• •
1Q
A
.; ./ ‘
4Ii -
C
—
Cern.
A.?::. v 0
Water •; • .
Tank
A .r -:4- - pP
FIGURE 4.2-3. STOUGHTON TRUCK TRANSPORT ROUTE
C
C
-, “S
#1 T.
R i r , oI pP
Countr, Ciut
7,
7,
V
te ch i\ V ”
ONE LANE EACH DIRECTION,
FOUNDATiON SUBSTANDARD,
NARROW SHOULDERS .
INTERSECTION
PROPOSED FOR
RECONSTRUCTION.
fl cc
Map ewooø
Cern
DIFFICULT MOVEMENTS ) ,
FROM MINOR STREETS. /J
0
500
2000
SCALE IN FEET
_I I
Stoughton Processing Site Alternative
Designated Transportation Route
• •- •:
- ‘ i . QL _
-------
TABLE 4.2-5. STOUGHTON WORST CASE EXISTING AND PROJECTED TRAFFIC
OPERATING CONDITIONS
Traffic
Movement
1988
Existing
1999
Projected
LOS
I/Veh
LOS
//Veh
Rte.139 and Page St.
Rte. 139 N.bound left turn
A
2,241
A
2,690
Rte. 139 S.bound left turn
D
F
Page St. - all movements
.
F
F
Rte 139 & Turnpike St.
Route 139 S.bound left turn
B
1,466
D
1,926
Turnpike St - all movements
F
F
Source: MWRA, RMFP, DLIR, 1, 1889
Notes: LOS = Level of Service
1/ Veh. = Vehicles per hour in the worst case peak hour
barges may carry dewatered sludge, compost amendment, compost, heat dried-pellets,
or ash to or from the site; tanker barges may also carry digested sludge to the site. The
truck and barge routes, as well as the piers at the site, are discussed in this section.
4.2.7.1 Description of the Truck Route. The total distance of the truck route from exit
16 of Route 3, the closest limited access highway, to the Quincy FRSA site is 3.8 miles
(Figure 4.2-4). Although there are exists from Route 3 that are closer to the site, they
were not designated for residuals traffic because of their residential nature. Exiting
Route 3 in Weymouth, sitebound trucks would travel north on Route 18 (Main Street) for
approximately one mile to the intersection of Route 53 (Washington Street). The trucks
would turn left on Route 53; after traveling approximately one mile, the road crosses
into Braintree, where it is called Quincy Avenue. Continuing another 1.5 miles, just
past the Quincy border, the sitebound traffic would turn right onto East Howard Street
and travel approximately one-quarter mile to the site access (MWRA, RMFP, Screen,
11,1988).
Two travel lanes in each direction are provided for most of this route. In three areas
there is only one lane in each direction: on Route 18 near Winter Street, where wide
shoulders are provided and in Weymouth Landing, where the lanes are very wide (21 feet
each) arid on-street parking is provided. Also, East Howard Street is striped to indicate
only two lanes, although each lane is very wide and traffic operates as if there are two
lanes in each direction. Generally, the lanes vary in width from 10 to 21 feet (Clean
Harbors, 1988).
On-street parking occurs on the southbound side of Route 53 south of Front Street,
where it is not a problem. In Weymouth Landing, on-street parking is problematic
because it is permitted on both sides of the street and frequent turnover, coupled with
the opening of vehicle doors, causes vehicles moving through the area in both directions
4-57
-------
I
__ Cr
.5 .5..
RAILROAD
enns — CROSSING,
NO GATES.
: ::: ci : .
,I S’ ’ - Cr
OUINTREE MALL
LEFT TURNS &
SEASONAL
FLUCTUATIONS.
5 ,.
- ‘St -
- - re ‘ t.A h
_ ‘ S5SS ta
Jr HighSch
/ Trd iFt t “ .-‘
2000 0 2000
I I
SCALE IN FEET
c
\500
SCALE IN METERS
y ’ • •. • :
500.
‘O ’
!lei
SOUTH. 1
CONGESTION, DUE TO 1 - ‘
NORThBOUND VEHICLES
MAKING U.TURNS.
/ /7
-
— Cntral ___
JrHighSch .
0.
I I
WEYMOUTH LANDING, 2 LANES,
PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY,
PARALLEL PARKING ON BOTH SIDES,
FREQUENT DOUBLE PARKING.
ø - :-
‘ ‘ ‘ INTERCHAN E
27
I .(, .,,,South L/ ’ I
t ’ Quincy FRSA Processing Site Attemative
• — . —. Designated Transportation Route
FIGURE 4.2-4. QUINCY FRSA TRUCK TRANSPORT ROUTE
C
-------
to move towards the center line. The narrowing of lanes caused by the activities of
parked cars, and the required movements towards the center line is a safety hazard,
particularly for large trucks which are wider and less maneuverable than other vehicles.
Frequent double parking further exacerbates this situation. Most of the route is level,
but northbound Route 53 approaches Commercial Street on a downgrade of
approximately three to four percent. (Clean Harbors, 1988).
The bridge on Route 53 just north of Commercial Street was built relatively recently
(1972) and there are no posted weight limits. The Fore River Railroad line crosses
Route 53 just outside the Quincy FRSA site; the crossing is rubberized and has overhead
warning lights but no gates. The crossing was rehabilitated in 1981 and is currently
used for one or two trips each morning. On the entire route, the pavement is in good to
excellent condition and there are six signalized intersections (Clean Harbors, 1989).
14.2.7.2 Existing and Projected Use of the Truck Route. Level of Service analysis was
performed at three key intersections on this route: Route 18/Route 53, Route
53/Commercial Street and Route 53/East Howard Street. These intersections were
selected because turning movements occur at the Route 18/Route 53 and Route 53/East
Howard Street intersections and the Route 53/Commercial Street intersection
represents the most congested area on the route. Existing operating conditions during
peak hours vary by intersection and time of day (morning or evening), with LOS ratings
from B to E (Table 4.2-6). The projected operating conditions include two proposed
major traffic generators, the staging activity at the FRSA associated with construction
of the wastewater treatment plant at Deer Island and a 1,000-unit condominium project
on Route 53 just north of the site. With the exception of the Route 18 intersection
during the morning hours, all of the intersections will be at LOS F by 1999 (MWRA,
RMFP, Screen, II, 1988).
Routes 53 and 18 are minor urban arterials which serve primarily as accesses to
abutting commercial properties. East Howard Street is a local street which provides
access to abutting industrial, residential and some commercial uses. Due to the number
of cross streets and the numerous commercial driveways on Route 53, an excessive
number of turning movements occur on the route. Also, vehicles use the Commercial
Street intersection to reverse direction from Route 53 northbound. The vehicles make
a left turn onto Commercial Street and again at the end of the traffic island into the
Commercial Street eastbound exclusive right lane. Although not prohibited, the u-turn
tends to tie up east- and south-bound traffic (Clean 1-larbors, 1988).
4.2.7.3 Pier Facilities. The pier at the FRSA known as the wet basin will be used for
residuals-related water transportation. The wet basin, with a length of 800 feet and a
width of 156 feet, has the capacity to handle roll-on/roll-off (RO/RO), bulk and liquid
barges. Minor retrofitting would be required to accommodate a RO/RO car float,
which would be the access ramp between the mainland and the barge deck. With a
depth of 40 feet, this facility would require no dredging and poses no limitation on
vessel size (Table 4.2-7). The wet basin is well protected from the weather by the Fore
River Bridge and the land masses of Quincy, Weymouth and Hull (MWRA, RMFP,
Screen, II, 1988).
4.2.7.4 Barge Route. The barge route from the Quincy FRSA follows existing channels;
water depth in most of the established channels is generally greater than 25 feet MLW
4-59
-------
TABLE 4.24. QUINCY ERSA EXISTING AND PROJECTED TRAFFIC AND
OPERATING CONDITIONS
Traffic 1988 Existing 1999 Projected
Movement LOS #Veh LOS lfVeh
Rte. 53/Rte. 18 C 2,454 F 3,051
Rte. 53/Commercial St. C 2,738 E 3,403
Rte.53/E. Howard St. E 2,538 F 3,867
Source: MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, 1, 1889
Notes: LOS Level of Service
# Veh. - Vehicles per hour in the worst case peak hour
TABLE 4.2-7. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MARINE APPROACHES TO THE
ALTERNATE RESIDUALS SITES
Approach Depth at
Channel Site Dredging Existing
Site Width Depth (MLw) a Required Pier Facilities
FRSA (b) 11.5’ 40’ none The wet basin, some
-16’ required adaptation required for
RO/RO barges
Spectacle (c) 15’ 0-6’ 50,000 none
Island -19’ cu.yds
Deer (b) 19’ 18 ,(c) (d) RO/RO, bulk &
personnel barge piers
are under construction
by MWRA
- II, 1988
Approach is via existing channels, width is sufficient and is not a
factor.
(c) Dredging of the Western Way and an approach channel required;
construction of pier facilities required, see Section 5.2.8.
(d) Dredging is under way by MWRA for piers and for a channel across Deer
Island Flats; dredged depth will be 18 feet.
Source: MWRA, RMFP, Screen,
Notes: (a) Mean low water
(b)
4-60
-------
(mean low water) and the channels are approximately 200 to 500 feet wide
(Table 4.2-7). From the Quincy FRSA, barges and other marine vessels would travel
north under the Weymouth Fore River Bridge, through the designated channel of the
Fore River, then through Hull Gut, which is between Pemberton Point in Hull and
Peddocks Island (Figure 4.2-5). After Hull Gut, vessels would turn northeast into
Nantasket Roads and then northwest through the Narrows and into President Roads.
Vertical clearance under the Weymouth Fore River Bridge is 33 feet mean high water;
horizontal clearance is 175 feet (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II, 1988; NOAA, 1986).
li.2.7.5 Existing and Projected Use of the Waterways. Boston Harbor is used for a
number of different commercial and recreational purposes. Two major navigation
channels, President Roads and Nantasket Roads, provide commercial and recreational
boating routes from Massachusetts Bay into Boston Harbor and to and from various
points in the harbor (Figure 4.2-6). President Roads channel, which lies between Deer
Island and Long Island, leads into the Inner Harbor and serves the waterfronts of Boston,
Charlestown, East Boston, South Boston, Everett, Chelsea and Revere. Nantasket
Roads channel serves the industrial waterfront of Quincy, including the Quincy FRSA.
Anchorage #2, used by 95 percent of the commercial shipping traffic in the harbor, is
located west of Deer Island. Maintenance dredging of the channels is provided by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (U.S. EPA, DSEIS, II, 1988).
Commercial cargo ships and tankers, passenger liners and ferries, fishing boats, and
sightseeing craft all operate in Boston Harbor. In 1985, 6,899 vessels were recorded
entering the harbor; approximately ten percent of this number traveled through the
Nantasket Roads channel to the Quincy waterfront and 90 percent traveled through
President Roads to the Boston, Chelsea River and Mystic River waterfronts (U.S. EPA,
DSEIS, II, 1988). Most of the commercial vessel trips from the Quincy waterfront are
to CITGO; ten trips per week are made through the Fore River Channel by barges and
other vessels from CITGO, located just up-river from the FRSA (MWRA, ISPD, 1, 1989).
Of the nearly 7,000 ships that entered the harbor in 1985, 961 were large vessels (draft
greater than 18 feet); 50 large vessels traveled through Nantasket Roads and the
remainder travelled in President Roads. During 1986, the number of large vessels
declined to 782; again the great majority passed through Presidents Roads channel.
The total number of ships passing through the harbor decreased by half between 1972
and 1983; since 1983 there have been small annual increases in the number of vessels.
In the first six months of 1987, cargo vessels calling at Massport facilities was up six
percent over the same period in 1986. Approximately 200 fishing vessels are berthed in
Boston Harbor, but commercial fin fishing is not permitted in the harbor, and the
recreational fishing industry has declined in recent years (U.S. EPA, DSEIS, II, 1988).
Local passenger ferry services operate from piers in Quincy, Hingham, Hull, downtown
Boston, the Harbor Islands State Park and Logan Airport (Figure 4.2-6). Trips made to
downtown Boston each day include six from Marina Bay in Quincy, 11 from Hingham and
one from Hull. In addition, several trips are made each day between the downtown piers
and Logan Airport and from the downtown piers to the Boston Harbor Island State Parks
(MWRA, RMFP, Screen, 11,1988).
Recreational resources in Boston Harbor include shoreline and island parks and beaches,
diving facilities, boat ramps and marinas, fishing areas and piers and commercial
fishing, sightseeing and whale watching vessels and piers (Figure 4.2-7). All of these
4-61
-------
NN Gc vernos
Ista C
N
Ce
QUINCY
0 ’ c fr
Anchorage #2
Bay
F as
Presdent Roads
.
Nut
Island
.
SCALE IN FEET
Navigation channels
— Proposed Barge Routes
• . Alternate Barge Route
FIGURE 4.2-5. BOSTON HARBOR NAVIGATION CHANNELS AND RESIDUALS
BARGE ROUTES-QUINCY FRSA, SPECTACLE ISLAND AND DEER ISLAND
— — —
/
o /
/
‘U —
south Chanfle
/
Ga c ’
/
/
•
I
HJ
I
Pe1 sa n:
I
I
.
4000
-------
Dee
F a
4090
SCALE IN FEET
OUINCY
SOURCE: U.S. EPA, SEIS, 1988.
Bay
Nut
Island
Boston Harbor Island State Park Ferries (Existing and Projected)
— — Commuter Services
FIGURE 4.2-6. BOSTON HARBOR WATER TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
4900
0
P.
K
-------
Boston Harbor Island State Park * Boat Ramps Recreat onaI Beaches
• Other Parks S Marinas With More Than 50 Slips
FIGURE 4.2.7. RECREATION LAND USES ON BOSTON HARBOR
Dee sand
Fas
4o
0
4 0o
SCALE IN FEET
PresCe Roacs
I
ts a
Galops
cko?
HU .
Q&,I,cJ,
Bay
/
“ (i,
Nut
QUINCY
1’
-------
activities are seasonal, occurring primarily between Memorial Day and Labor Day (U.S.
EPA, DSEIS, II, 1988). The number of commercial and private recreational vessels that
use the harbor is estimated in the thousands (MWRA, ISPD, 1989). In 1986, 30 passenger
boats were registered in the harbor, with a total capacity of over 8,100 passengers
(MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II, 1988). The mouth of the Fore River along with Hingham and
Hull Bays constitute an expanse of water that is one of the best boating and fishing
areas along the Massachusetts coast. The volume of recreational boating in this area is
heavy, particularly on weekends. Hull Gut, the main access from this area to the Outer
Harbor, is a particular congestion point (U.S. EPA, DSEIS, II, 1988). Discussions with
the Pilots Association, the Boston Shipping Association, the U.S. Coast Guard, and
private marine contractors indicate that, in general, while the harbor is generally busy,
it is not excessively crowded (MWRA, ISPD, 1, 1989).
Commercial vessel traffic in the harbor is expected to remain stable or increase
slightly during the next ten years. Aside from the MWRA wastewater treatment plant
construction at Deer Island, another major generator may add substantial traffic in the
harbor. The Central Harbor/Third Harbor Tunnel project dredged and excavated
material may be transported from the inner harbor by barge to either the Massachusetts
Bay Disposal Site (formerly the Foul Area) or to Spectacle Island (U.S. EPA, DSEIS, II,
1988).
4.2.8 Spectacle Island Baseline Conditions
Spectacle Island is being considered for potential dewatering, heat drying, composting
and incineration. Digested sludge would be transported to Spectacle Island via an
underwater pipeline. All other residuals products, materials and supplies would be
transported onto and off of the island via bulk barges or RO/RO barges (MWRA, RMFP,
DEIR, I, 1989).
4.2.8.1 Pier Facilities. Currently, there are no useable pier facilities at Spectacle
Island. If the Massachusetts DPW selects Spectacle Island as a disposal site for dredge
spoils from the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project, piers would be built by the
DPW on the southwest, lee side of the island; some dredging would be associated with
the construction of pier facilities (Table 4.2-7). With careful scheduling and DPW’s
cooperation, these piers could also be used by MWRA (MWRA, RMFP, Screen II, 1988).
4.2.8.2 Barge Route. From the location of the projected piers on the southwest side of
Spectacle Island, barges would travel south to the Western Way. Travelling east
towards Long Island, the barges would turn north into Sculpin Ledge Channel and travel
north into President Roads, from which both the Inner Harbor and Massachusetts Bay
can be reached. The route between President Roads and Nantasket Roads, the channel
to the Fore River, is described above in Section 4.2.7.4. Sculpin Ledge Channel is
sufficiently wide and deep to accommodate the barges (Table 4.2-7). The Western Way
is only 15 to 19 feet deep and somewhat narrow, however, the channel would be
improved as part of the DPW construction (MWRA, RMFP, Screen 11,1988). Existing and
projected use of Boston Harbor and the channels is described in Section 4.2.7.5.
4-65
-------
4.2.9 Deer Island Baseline Conditions
The wastewater treatment plant at Deer Island is the origin of the digested and
thickened sludge. Deer Island is also being considered for dewatering, heat drying and
incineration. Thus, in any form, all of the sludge must be transported from Deer
Island. In liquid form, the sludge would be transported via either a pipeline or a tanker
barge. Dewatered sludge would be transported in bulk barges and heat-dried pellets or
ash would be carried from the site in RO/RO barges (MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, 1, 1989).
4.2.9.1 Pier Facilities. Piers for receiving materials and personnel associated with the
wastewater treatment plant construction are currently under construction by MWRA on
the south side of Deer Island (Table 4.2-7). With careful scheduling, the piers will also
able to accommodate the residuals traffic (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, 11, 1988).
4.2.9.2 Barge Route. From the south side of Deer Island, vessels would travel across
Deer Island Flats to President Roads. This major channel leads to both the Inner Harbor
and Massachusetts Bay. The route between President Roads and Nantasket Roads, the
channel to the Fore River, is described above in Section 4.2.7.4. A channel across the
Flats will be dredged by MWRA in conjunction with construction of the piers associated
with the wastewater treatment plant (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II, 1988).
Substantial recreational boating occurs in the area around Deer Island. There are three
yacht clubs and three marinas in Winthrop, as well as numerous boating facilities in
Boston and East Boston; boats at all of these facilities must travel through President
Roads and pass the westerly shore of Deer Island to reach the Outer Harbor (Hardy,
1989). Existing and projected use of Boston Harbor and the channels is described in
Section 4.2.7.5.
4.3 AIR QUALITY AND ODORS
4.3.1 Introduction
All of the processing technologies being considered will emit “criteria” pollutants -
NOx °2’ CO, PM-lO, Pb, ozone (VOCs) - and toxic pollutants that are regulated at the
federal level by the EPA and at the state level by the Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering (DEQE). Landfilling can generate fugitive dust and emissions of
odorous compounds. Depending on the amount of pollutants emitted and the ambient
air quality at the site, different types of air quality analyses will be required.
This chapter defines and describes the current and expected baseline conditions at each
alternative site and the applicable federal, state, and local regulations for both air
quality and odors. It reviews the climatological and meteorological conditions for the
eastern Massachusetts region and the local topography of each site as well as existing
and future ambient air quality, emission sources, and sensitive and elevated receptor
locations. The sources of data used to describe baseline conditions include the MWRA
Candidate Options Environmental Screening documents (MWRA, RMFP Screen, I, II, III,
1988), the Draft Environmental Impact Report (MViRA, RMFP DEIR, 1989), and
information gathered during field visits to the sites.
4-66
-------
4.3.2 Regulatory Setting
The proposed project is subject to air quality rules, regulations, and standards which
define: 1) air pollution control technology requirements for the processing technologies
being considered, 2) emission limits for specific types of pollutants, and 3) maximum
allowable incremental and cumulative ambient air quality impacts of the project. Each
applicable regulation is described below.
4.3.2.1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). NAAQS, as established by
the Clean Air Act, are defined as the maximum ambient air concentrations for criteria
pollutants. Table 4.3-1 summarizes the current NAAQS. When levels of pollutants do
not exceed the annual average standards and do not exceed the short-term standards
(1-, 3-, 8-, 24-hour) more than once per year, an area is considered in “attainment” of
the NAAQS.
43.2.2 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD). The federal PSD regulations
apply to the emission of selected pollutants from new major sources in areas that are in
attainment of the NAAQS. A source is considered major if emissions of any regulated
pollutant exceed 100 tons per year for 28 listed source types or 250 tons per year for
any other source type. Neither the potential sewage sludge incinerator, heat drying
facility nor composting facility for residuals management are not one of the 28 listed
source types. Therefore, it would be considered a major source only if emissions of any
of the 15 pollutants (6 criterIa pollutants and 9 other pollutants) regulated by the Clean
Air Act would be greater than 250 tons per year.
If a new source (i.e., incinerator) is considered major because it exceeds the
250 ton-per- year threshold for any one attainment pollutant, a PSD review would be
required for all other attainment pollutants that exceed the significant emission level
thresholds shown in Table 4.3-2. For sources subject to PSD review, the following
requirements apply for all pollutants that exceed significance levels identified in
Table 4.3-2.
• Emissions must be controlled by using the Best Available Control
Technology (BACT)
• The source’s air quality impacts, in combination with other PSD sources,
must not exceed the maximum allowable increments for sulfur dioxide and
particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or greater (PM-b), shown
in Table 4.3-3
• The cumulative air quality impacts of all sources in the area cannot exceed
the NAAQS
• Pre- and/or post-construction air quality monitoring may be required
• The air quality impacts on soils and vegetation must be addressed
4.3.2.3 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). As a guide for emission control of
criteria pollutants, the federal government has established new source performance
standards for a number of classes of major sources (including sewage sludge
4-67
-------
TABLE 4.3-1. SUMMARY OF NATIONAL A IENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
(NAAQs) a1
Pollutant
Averaging
Time
NA
AQS (ug/m 3 )
Primary
(b)
(b)
Secondary
Carbon monoxide (CO)
8-hours
lrhour
10,000
40,000
(same as primary)
Lead (Pb)
Calendar
quarter
1.5
1.5
Nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 )
Ozone
Annual
1-hour
100
235
(same as primary)
(same as primary)
PM-b
Annual
24-hours
50
150
(same as primary)
Particulate matter (TSP)
Annual
24-hours
75
260
None
150
Sulfur dioxide
Annual
24-hours
3-hours
80
365
None
None
None
1,300
Source: MWk(A RM 1P Screen, I, II, III, 1988
Notes:
(a) NAAQS, other than those based on annual averages or annual geometric means, are
not to be exceeded more than once a year (except where noted).
(b) Primary ambient air quality standards define levels of air quality which EPA judges
are necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health.
Secondary ambient air quality standards define more stringent levels of air quality
which are necessary to protect the public health from any known or anticipated
adverse effects of a pollutant.
(c) The ozone standard is attained when the maximum hourly average concentration is
exceeded for no more than one day of a calendar year.
(d) Determined as geometric mean; secondary annual standard is a guide for attaining
secondary 24-hour standard.
incinerators). The NSPS is the maximum allowed emission level for a particular class of
emission source. These regulations apply to new or modified stationary sources that
combust waste containing more than 10 percent sewage sludge (dry basis), or that
combust more than 2,205 lbs. of sludge (dry basis) per day. For sewage sludge
incinerators, the NSPS regulations limit particulate matter emissions to no greater than
1.3 lbs./ton of dry sludge feed.
4-68
-------
TABLE 4.3-2. FEDERAL PSD SIGNIFICANT EMISSION LEVEL THRESHOLDS
Pollutant Emission Rate (tons/yr)
Carbon monoxide 100
Nitrogen oxides 40
Sulfur dioxide 40
Particulate matter 25
VOC (as ozone precursor) 40 (of VOCs)
Lead 0.6
Asbestos 0.007
Beryllium 0.0004
Mercury 0.1
Vinyl chloride 1
Fluorides 3
Sulfuric acid mist 7
Hydrogen sulfide (H 2 S) 10
Total reduced sulfur (including H,S) 10
Reduced sulfur compounds (including H 2 S) 10
Source: 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)
4.3.2.4 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs). Under
section 112 of the Clean Air Act, EPA is required to list hazardous air pollutants that
must be controlled for industrial sources and to provide standards (or “NESt-lAPs”) for
each pollutant listed. This regulation establishes a uniform national standard for
existing, modified, or new sources that emit the listed hazardous pollutants. The
NESHAP regulations applies to sludge incinerators and heat drying facilities that limits
the emissions of the mercury to 3,200 grams per day.
4.3.2.5 EPA Proposed Sludge Regulations. EPA has proposed regulations under the
authority of Section 503 of the Clean Water Act to establish limits on levels of
pollutants in sludge for certain management practices, including incineration. As
proposed, the regulations will specify certain operating conditions for incinerators to
achieve the most effective combustion conditions and to reduce the amount of toxic
pollutants released into the atmosphere. In addition, specific limits are placed on the
emission levels of mercury, beryllium, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel, and
total hydrocarbons. Limits for concentrations of these metals in the sludge fed to the
incinerator are calculated using equations based on feed rate of sludge, efficiencies of
emission controls, dispersion of emissions, and maximum allowable concentrations of
the pollutants in the air after dispersion. Because some hydrocarbons may be created
during the combustion process, limits for total hydrocarbons are related to the emission
characteristics and allowable air concentrations rather than the sludge feed. The
allowable air concentrations are based on the current NESt-lAP for mercury and
beryllium, 25 percent of the NAAQS for lead, and risk-specific concentrations for
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, nickel, and total hydrocarbons. However, under the
proposed regulations, case-specific limits can be developed for a facility by conducting
tests to determine efficiency of emission control technologies, or air dispersion
modeling using approved EPA models.
4-69
-------
TABLE 4.3-3. FEDERAL PSD MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE INCREMENTS
Maximum Allowable lr rease to NAAQS
Class* (ug/m )
Class I Areas
Particulate Matter (PM-b)
Annual geometric mean 5
24-hour maximum 10
Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 )
Annual arithmetic mean 2
24-hour maximum 5
3-hour maximum 25
Class II Areas
Particulate Matter (PM-b)
Annual geometric mean 19
24-hour maximum 37
Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 )
Annual arithmetic mean 20
24-hour maximum 91
3-hour maximum 512
Class III Areas
Particulate Matter (PM-b)
Annual geometric mean 37
24-hour maximum 75
Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 )
Annual arithmetic mean 40
24-hour maximum 182
3-hour maximum 700
Source: 40 CFR 52.21
Notes:
* Class I areas include those designated national parks and national wilderness areas
where pristine air quality is to be maintained or at which minimal degradation of
air quality is allowed.
Class II areas have been defined as regions where moderate incremental increases
in ambient pollutant concentration levels are allowed.
Class Ill areas allow increases in pollutant concentrations up to the Federal
NAAQS.
4-70
-------
4.3.2.6 Massachusetts Ambient Air Quality Standards. The DEQE has adopted Ambient
Air Quality Standards that are judged necessary to protect public health. These are the
same as the NAAQ (Section 4.3.2.1) with two exceptions: the one-hour standard for
ozone is 0.12 ug/m and there is no PM-1O standard.
4.3.2.7 DEQE Air Toxics Program. DEQE has developed a list of Threshold Effects
Exposure Limits (TELs) and Allowable Ambient Limits (AAL5) for certain air toxics
based on assessment of data evaluated for four public health effects categories: acute
and/or chronic toxicity, carcinogenicity, mutagenicity and developmental and/or
reproductive toxicity (M ’RA, RMFP, DEIR, 1, 1989). The 1989 Air Toxic Guidelines
are derived using the information generated from a public health assessment and are
presented in Table 4.3-4.
The TELs are a 24-hour limit fo non-carcinogenic pollutants and the AALs are an
annual average based on I x 10 health risk for carcinogenic pollutants. These AALs
are guidelines used to assess a facility’s contribution to the allowable ambient limits of
air toxics in a given area. They apply to all emission sources permitted by the
Corn monweal th.
4.3.2.8 Massachusetts Odor Regulations. In Massachusetts, odors are regulated in
general terms, rather than through numerical limits by local boards of health and by the
Division of Air Pollution and Water Pollution Control of the State Department of
Health. In previous studies conducted by the MWRA, the Massachusetts Secretary of
Environmental Affairs required that there be no detectable odor when one part of
ambient air from the project is diluted with one part of odor-free air (M RA, STFP, Ill,
1988).
4.3.2.9 DEQE Dioxms and Furans Guidelines. The DEQE has established ambient air
quality guidelines for total polychlorodibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDD) and total polychloro-
dibenzofurans (PCDF). These levels are listed below, are based on annual averages for
particulate and gaseous total PCDD and PCDF.
Particulate PCDD and PCDF - 1.1 picograms m 3
Gaseous PCDD and PCDF - 2.2 picograms/m
These guideline levels are applicable to any source that has the potential to emit
dioxins and furans (MWRA, Memo 12, 1988).
4.3.3 Regional Meteorology and Air Quality
The climatological records of weather conditions for the region were reviewed to obtain
information directly related to the transport of air pollutants and to determine the
effects of climate and weather on pollution buildup.
4.3.3.1 General Weather and Climate Summary. New England is generally affected by
a current of air known as the prevailing westerlies, but fluctuations in this air stream
may induce a surge of tropical or polar air masses. The majority of this area’s
precipitation occurs from late October to late April, with major-east coast storms that
produce substantial rain and snow. May through September is a drier period, during
which rainfall tends to occur in showers and thunderstorms.
4-71
-------
TABLE 4.3-4. MASSACHUSETTS AIR TOXICS GUIDELINES
Threshold Effects
Exposure
(TEL)
Limit
Allowable Ambient
Limit (AAL)
(24-hour
Chemical ug/m3
ceiling)
ppb
(annual
ug/m3
average)
ppb
Acetaldehyde 4.89 2.72 0.44 0.18
Acetone 160.54 68.03 160.54 68.03
Acrylonitrile 1.18 0.54 0.01 0.01
Ammonia 4.73 6.80 4.73 6.80
Aniline 2.07 0.54 0.14 0.04
Asbestos 0.0002 f/cm ’* 0.0001 f/cm ’*
Benzene 1.74 0.54 0.12 0.04
Benzyl chloride 14.08 2.72 0.94 0.18
Beryllium 0.001 - 0.0004 -
1,3-Butadiene 1.20 0.54 0.003 0.002
n-Butyl alcohol 412.24 136.05 412.24 136.05
Cadmium 0.003 - 0.00 1 -
Calcium chromate 0.003 - 0.0001 -
Carbon tetrachloride 85.52 13.61 0.07 0.01
Chlordane 0.14 0.008 0.03 0.002
Chlorine 3.95 1.36 3.95 1.36
Chlorobenzene 93.88 20.41 6.26 1.36
Chloroethane 717.55 272.11 358.78 136.05
Chloroform 132.76 27.21 0.04 0.01
Chloroprene 0.98 0.27 0.98 0.27
Chromic acid 0.003 - 0.000 1 -
Chromium (metal) 1.36 - 0.68 -
Chromium (VI) compounds 0.003 - 0.0001 -
p-Cresol 24.05 5.44 12.02 2.72
Cyclohexane 280.82 81.63 280.82 81.63
o-Dichlorobenzene 81.74 13.61 81.74 13.61
p-Dichlorobenzene 122.61 20.41 0.18 0.03
1,2-Dichloroethane 11.01 2.72 0.04 0.01
1,2-Dichloroethylene 215.62 54.42 107.81 27.21
Dichloromethane 9.45 2.72 0.24 0.07
1,2-Dichloropropane 94.23 20.41 0.05 0.01
Diethylamine 8.13 2.72 4.07 1.36
Di(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate 1.36 0.09 0.77 0.05
Dimethylformamide 8.13 2.72 8.13 2.72
1,4-Dioxane 24.49 6.80 0.24 0.07
Diphenyl 0.34 0.05 0.09 0.01
Diphenylamine 2.72 0.39 0.68 0.10
Epichlorohydrin 0.54 0.14 0.54 0.14
Ethanol 51.24 27.21 51.24 27.21
Ethyl acetate 391.84 108.84 391.84 108.84
Ethyl acrylate 0.56 0.14 0.28 0.07
4-72
-------
TABLE 4.3—’# (Continued). MASSACHUSETTS AIR TOXICS GUIDELINES
Limit
Allowa
ble Ambiet
Exposure
(TEL)
Limit (AAL)
(annual average)
(24-hour
Chern:cal ug/m3
ceiling)
ppb
ug/m3
ppb
Ethv lbenzene 118.04 27.21 118.04 27.21
Ethylene glyccil 34.50 13.61 34.50 13.61
Eth l ether 329.80 108.84 164.90 54.42
Fluoride 6.80 8.76 6.80 8.76
Formaldehyde 0.33 0.27 0.08 0.06
Heptach lor 0.14 0.009 0.001 0.0001
Hexach oroc ciope t8die’ 0.006 0.OOC) 0.01 0.001
Hexa:r :oroethare 0.53 0.0) 0.25 0.03
Hexachiorophene - - -
2-Hexano ie 10.88 2.66 10.88 2.66
Hvdrazine 0.007 0.005 0.002 0.OC I
H droge ch.o de 2.03 1.36 2.03 1.36
H coc’e fluc ce 0.68 0.83 0.3 CI.L?
H droge SJ! e 3.79 2.72 3.79
Isoar. I ace:at l 1..76 27.21 lüL .76 27.2:
lsobu:v ace a e 193.77 40.82 193.77
1sobu ’l alcoho i.22 13.61 41.22 13.6.
lsopop aceta:e 283.81 68.03 283.S1 68.03
Lead 0.14 - 0.07 -
Lead subacetate 0.14 - 0.01 -
Lindane 0.14 0.11 0.003 0.0002
Maleic anhy&ide 0.27 0.07 0.14 0.03
Methano 7.13 5.44 7.13
2-Metho’. etharc 4.23 1.36 2.12 0.68
Meth 1 acr late 9.57 2.72 4.79 1.36
Methyl br3rn lde 5.28 1.36 2.64 0.68
Meth. Ethyl Ketone (MEK) 32.07 10.88 32.07 10.8S
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (MIBK) 55.70 13.61 55.70 13.61
Methyl methacrylate 22.27 5.44 22.27 5.44
Mirex - - - -
Napthalene 14.25 2.72 14.25 2.72
Nickel (metal) 0.27 - 0.18 -
Nickel oxide 0.27 - 0.01 -
Nitrobenzene 13.69 2.72 6.84 1.36
Pentachlorophenol 0.01 0.001 0.01 0.001
Phenol 52.33 13.61 52.33 13.61
Phosphoric acid 0.27 0.07 0.27 0.07
Phthalic arihydride 1.65 0.27 0.82 0.14
PCBs 0.003 - 0.0005 -
Prop l alcoho 133.63 54.42 133.63 54. 2
Propylene oxide 12.92 5.44 1.50 0.63
4-73
-------
TABLE 4.3—’ (Continued). MASSACHUSETTS AIR TOXICS GUIDELINES
Thresholc Effects
Exposure Limit
Allowable Ambient
(TEL)
Limit
(AAL)
Chemical
(24-hour ceiling)
ug/m3 ppb
(annual
uglm3
average)
ppb
Resorc nol
12.24 2.72
3.06
0.68
Seler.iurn
Oiu -
0.54
-
Selenium sulfide
0.5 1k -
0.05
-
St re-ie
115.81 27.21
1.75
0.41
Sjlfuric acid
2.72 0.68
2.72
0.6S
l,1.2,2-Tet achloro-
1133.33 136.05
566.67
68.03
1.2-D.f!uo oe :ra-e
l,l.2,2-Tet acnioroe:ha-.e
18.67 2.72
0.02
0.003
Te:rach1oroethvle- e
922.18 136.05
0.02
0.003
Te:rah’.crofLrar
160.35 51..42
80.18
27.21
Tojene
10.2 1 . 2.72
10.2 1
2.72
Tc’:jene d :iscc iaze
0.10 0.01
0.10
C.01
o-To. -- e
2.38 0.5k
0.17
0.0 -
1.1.1-Tric i-o - oe:nare
1,038.37 19.:.1.3
l.038.37
19C.LS
l.1.2-Tic-.or e:nare
14.81. 2.72
G. 6
o.: 1
Tic roe it .e e
36.52 6.80
0.61
C.1 I
- -
0.16
-
Trie:— 1 —.re
1.13 .27
1.13
C.27
\ a a ium
0.27 -
0.27
-
VaradiL’- pe to>.ide
0.14 0.02
0.03
0.005
1 acetate
38.29 1 .SS
9.57
2.72
c i1orice
3.1.7 1.36
0.38
0.15
:- !:de-ie c 1oride
1.08 0.27
0.02
0.01
Xyleres(m-.e-, - orne s)
11.80 2.72
11.80
2.72
Source: DLQL. 19
\ote : * Fibe-s per c :ic centimete-
The northeast is affected by high- and low-pressure systems that originate from
diffe erit climatological areas of North America. The direction of air flow and duration
of a pa-ticular air flov over New England depends or the direction of mo emerit, or
“track” (reta:i e to Ne Englanc) and the speed of these high- and 1o -pressure
s s:errs.
Two types of high-pressure s sterns frequently affect Ne England, the polar
continental and the trop.cal maritime. A polar continental high-pressure system forms
ii the interior polar reg.ons of \or:h America. This type of system affects New
Eng:and )ear roLnc anc usua!Iy is accompan :ed 5 cry, abnorrnal1 Cold air i:h partly
4-71.
-------
cloudy sky conditions. The tropical maritime high-pressure system develops off the
east coast of the United States (near Bermuda). A southwest air flow around the
system imports abnormally warm and humid air to New England (MWRA, STFP, 111,
1988).
Low-pressure systems that affect New England tend to originate from the west or the
south. Winter low-pressure systems are larger and more intense than summer systems
and typically race up the Atlantic seacoast. Flows off the ocean affecting all of New
England for extended periods of time are usually a result of the counterclockwise flow
around a low-pressure system p ssing to the east of New England. Low-pressure systems
that originate in the center of the United States are usually drier and less intense than
coastal low-pressure systems (MWRA, 51FF’, III, 1988).
The climate at the site areas is represented by meteorological data collected by the
National Weather Service at Logan International Airport in Boston, Massachusetts.
These data best represent the sites, since Logan Airport is the closest available
meteorological monitoring location with 40 years of climatological data. Eastern
Massachusetts climate is continental , but the influence of the Atlantic Ocean can
significantly modify the regional weather pattern. During the spring and summer,
afternoon seabreezes commonly occur, displacing the warm, westerly wind flow v ith a
cool, moist wind off the water. This influence tends to affect the immediate coastline,
seldom penetrating beyond 10 to 15 kilometers inland.
4.3.3.2 Statistical and Climatological Records. Annual average wind directions at
Logan International Airport for the years 1981 through 1985 are shown in the Residuals
DEIR (MWRA, RMFP, Screen I, 1988). The predominant wind flow is from the
southwest clockwise through northwest. There is a small easterly wind component, a
result of sea breezes off the Atlantic Ocean. Winter winds are typically from the
northwest and summer winds from the southwest. The spring and autumn months are
transition periods, during which wind directions fluctuate between the northwest and
southwest.
The annual average hourly wind speed at Logan International Airport is 12.5 mph. Calm
conditions are an unusual phenomena, only occurring about 0.3 percent of the time.
Wind speeds are highest during the winter, because of frequent and intense storms
affecting New England. Wind speeds are lowest during the summer, resulting from the
lack of large-scale storm activity, although brief high-wind gusts can occur from
localized thunderstorm activity.
4.3.3.3 Temperature. The mean annual temperature for the Boston area is 51.5°F, but
temperatures can range from above 90°F to below 0°F. The months of January and
February are the coldest, with the daily mean average about 29°F; July and August are
warmest, with the daily mean average near 70°F. Freezing temperatures occur on an
average of 99 days annually from mid-November through March, and very v arm days of
90°F or higher occur 12 days per year on average (MWRA, STFP, III, 1988).
4.3.3.4 Precipitation. The annual average precipitation in Boston for the period of
1943 through 1982 was 41.40 inches, with amounts ranging from as low as 23.71 inches
in 1965 to a high of 62.32 inches in 1954. A maximum 24-hour rainfall value of 8.40
inches was recorded in August of 1955. The average annual snowfall (which occurs
4-75
-------
generally between November and March) is 42 inches, but it has ranged from a low of
10.3 inches in 1972 to 1973 to a high of 85.1 inches in 1977 to 1978. A monthly
maximum snowfall of 41.3 inches occurred in February of 1969 (MWRA, STFP, 111,
1988).
Thunderstorm activity generally occurs from late spring to early fall. Frontal passages,
where one air mass replaces another, tend to develop thunderstorms, which may be
accompanied by strong gusty winds and heavy rains for a brief period. Thunderstorms
occur an average of 19 days per year. During late summer and early fall, tropical
cyclones or hurricanes develop in the tropics and occasionally travel up the east coast,
producing destructive winds and heavy rains in the northeast.
4.3.3.5 Background Air Pollution Levels. The DEQE maintains an air quality
monitoring network which measures ambient air concentrations of the criteria
pollutants. The Massachusetts Air Surveillance Network (MASN) is established
throughout the state to determine if ambient criteria pollutant concentrations are in
compliance with federal NAAQS. The results are used to designate which regions of the
state are in attainment of the national standards. The MASN locations in the Boston
area and the monitored concentrations for the years 1984 through 1986 are shown in the
MWRA’s DEIR (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, A, 1988).
The entire state of Massachusetts is designated as nonattainment for the ozone
standard and as being in attainment for sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) and nitrogen dioxide
(NO 2 ). There are certain areas in the state designated as nonattainment for carbon
monoxide (CO) and PM-10. DEQE recommends that monitor locations within
10 kilometers of a candidate site be used to characterize existing air quality (MWRA,
RMFP, Screen, 1988). The MASN monitor locations that best represent the ambient air
quality for the alternative sites and the pollutants monitored at each location are
presented in Table 4.3-5.
TABLE 4.3-5. MASN MONITOR LOCATIONS AND MONITORED POLLUTANTS
Monitor Location Pollutants Monitored
Kenmore Square, Boston Carbon monoxide, lead, sulfur dioxide,
Nitrogen dioxide
Kneeland Street, Boston Carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide
340 Breman Street, Boston Carbon monoxide, PM-b, sulfur dioxide,
Nitrogen dioxide
Southampton Street, Boston PM-b
200 Columbus Avenue, Boston PM-10
Washington Street, Boston Carbon monoxide
Chelsea Lead, sulfur dioxide, PM-10, nitrogen
dioxide, ozone
Charlestown Lead, PM-ID
Medfield Sulfur dioxide, PM-10
Quincy PM-b, ozone
Source: MWRA, RMFP, Screen, A, 1988
4-76
-------
No data exist for background levels of toxic air pollutants in the region, but background
levels of some compounds were estimated in order to evaluate impacts of processing
alternatives. Measurements reported for other similar urban and rural sites were used
to make these estimates. However, measured levels were available for only a fevb toxic
pollutants. Toxic air pollutant levels used for the evaluation and the applicable
references are presented (Table 4.3-6).
TABLE 4.3-6. ESTIMATED BACKGROUND LEVELS FOR TOXIC POLLUTANTS
Pollutant
Average Baclçg
Levels (ug/m )
round
*
Source
Cadmium
0.00 1 to 0.004
Lioy, 1987
Lead
0.12 to 0.42
Lioy, 1987
Tetrachloroethylene
0.07 to 1
Graedel, 1978
Note: * Ranges for rural to urban areas
4.3.4 Study Area
The study area, or the area in which potential impacts from residuals facilities are
assessed, is defined as the area within a one-kilometer perimeter around landfill sites or
a three-kilometer radius around the processing sites. The study area is larger for
processing sites than landfill sites because pollutants are more dispersed from a
compost facility, heat dryer or incinerator stack. Pollutant and odor emissions from a
landfill are closer to the ground and therefore, only the immediate vicinity is affected.
The following sections discuss baseline air quality conditions within the study area of
each candidate site. Topography, sensitive receptors, other major sources of similar
pollutants, odor ordinances, and projected future conditions (without residual facilities)
are described for each alternative site.
4.3.5 Walpole MCI Baseline Conditions
4.3.5.1 Topography. The topography around the site is a mixture of hilly terrain and
wetland. The average elevation is 250 feet above mean sea level (MSL) with the highest
peaks located to the south and southeast, with elevations of 350 to 390 feet above
MSL. The lowest elevations are located to the west of the site, averaging 150 to
180 feet above MSL. Figure 4.3-1 shows the topographical features of the area.
4.3.5.2 Sensitive Receptors. Sensitive receptors are areas where high levels of air
pollutants and odors would likely first be encountered or where particularly sensitive
populations (i.e., children or the elderly) are found. Sensitive receptors are defined for
this analysis as any elevated building (three stories or greater) and/or institutional
facility with the potentially affected area. The latter includes schools, hospitals,
libraries, nursing homes, churches, and recreational areas. Appendix C, Table C.!,
summarizes these sensitive receptors, and their locations are shown in Figure C.1.
4-77
-------
\
/ / / L. -
— - 4 a Ij
-/ - - /1 -
/ - / - ‘7 / /
- - - --I - .
. ‘ - Sx”
, yud.. h •- _ >. • - 1
-. - ‘- /
• :::• .4 - - ‘ - • ‘ - - /\.‘(-
- I/;iy L
‘ \c - ‘p, —p K. -
I .. ‘f -. ‘! ‘ V ’, ____
• .. / - - . - ‘ y ,__\
- I __ ‘ 5 .7.
\ - £ - ;L $ “ \ 2cr P 0 L E
) Cedar p
) - / / -1
\ ‘ /- - - . :‘: : ;;
C (‘ ‘ \ S., Sj \ • • -• •• ‘ : 4 ;” - - -.
• . •: • •‘. •.N; ’
____ 4 \_L14 ;
S sff .;/j / I
— V,)e4 \ - -T 4 —
lell J /7” ,7T_::V:y,/ (, /c \: IIh •
•Yi ’lj.i’ i/:Pond ine . ,{ / WaIF
• -• ‘ ‘ S
Dipo . \ j •‘ “ Ii
c \ / ‘ M
1000 0 1000
___________________________ LEGEND
SCALE IN METERS
2000 0 2000 IHHI POTENTIAL SITE
_ J- _ J
SCS_E \ EE T
LANDFILL FOOTPRINT
FIGURE 4.3-1. WALPOLE MCI ONE KILOMETER STUDY AREA
-------
4.3.5.3 Existing Major Sources. Currently, there are no major air pollution sources in
the immediate vicinity that would interact with the potential landfill.
4.3.5.4 Ambient Air Quality. The town of Walpole is designated as in attainment of the
standards for all the criteria pollutants except ozone (Table 4.3-7). The MASN monitor
in Medfield lies approximately seven kilometers from the Walpole MCI site, in an area
with similar land-use characteristics. Ambient levels of sulfur dioxide, PM-b, and
ozone recorded at the Medfield monitor are therefore likely to reflect levels in
Walpole. The closest monitors for nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and lead are
located in Kenmore Square.
TABLE 4.3-7. WALPOLE MCI REPRESENTATIVE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
MONITORING DATA
Exceedances
Monitor Site
Approx.
the
Distance
Site (km)
from
Pollutants
Monitored
of NAAQS
Over Last
5 Years
Kenmore Square
27
Nitrogen dioxide
no
Medfield
7
Sulfur dioxide
no
Kenmore Square
27
Carbon monoxide
no
Medfield
7
PM-b
no
Medfield
7
Ozone
yes
Kenmore Square
27
Lead
no
Source: MWRA, RMFP, Screen, 1, 1988
4.3.5.5 Odor Ordinances. Both the Walpole Zoning Bylaws and the Norfolk Zoning
Bylaws prevent uses that generate odors adversely affecting the immediate
neighborhood.
4.3.5.6 Projected Baseline Conditions. Currently, there are no proposed plans for any
facility that may emit significant additional amounts of pollutants into the ambient air
near the Walpole MCI site. Therefore, the ambient air quality should remain unchanged
from the present conditions.
4.3.6 Rowe Quarry Baseline Conditions
4.3.6.1 Topography. The quarry has been excavated to about 60 feet above MSL at its
western side and to about 30 feet above MSL at its exit to the east onto Salem Street.
The topography around the site is hilly except to the east and south. One to two
kilometers to the east and southeast of the site is marshland and the Sea Plane Basin.
The terrain increases to about 150 feet above MSL to the west, northwest, and north.
Elevations are lower to the northeast of the site, averaging 50 to 100 feet above MSL
(Figure 4.3-2).
4-79
-------
Pb
•4 . -
— 1_ — — ;‘ ___
I -- --
y f
- t€
: L h
- — 4c -- - - 4
,. -
V / M i oo - - -
• •. • )7 ui
-- -
ii• :
- -. • - -
- -.
- :-
- ‘r4! - 4 hi k
,
‘ -p
— 1
S S
I .-
‘-a:-
0
SCALE IN METERS
0
SCALE IN FEET
2000
1000
LEGEND
____ POTENTIAL SITE
LANDFILL FOOTPRINT
FIGURE 43-2. ROWE QUARRY ONE KILOMETER STUDY AREA
1000
2000
-------
4.3.6.2 Sensitive Receptors. The definition of sensitive receptors is in
Section 4.3.5.2. Table C.2 and Figure C.2 in Appendix C, summarize the sensitive
receptors that could be affected by a landfill at the Rowe Quarry site.
4.3.6.3 Existing Major Sources. The only major source of air pollution in the area is the
current Rowe Quarry operation.
4.3.6.4 Ambient Air Quality. Rowe Quarry is within the city limits of both Maiden and
Revere. Each city is in attainment of the NAAQS for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide,
and carbon monoxide and each •does not attain the NAAQS for ozone. In addition, the
city of Revere is designated as nonattaining the PM-tO standard. Table 4.3-8 presents
the ambient air quality representative of Rowe Quarry.
4.3.6.5 Odor Ordinances. Neither the Maiden Zoning Ordinance nor the Revere Zoning
Ordinance state any odor regulations for industrial areas, only for home occupations
(Maiden Zoning Ordinance, 1988, Revere Zoning Ordinance, 1985).
4.3.6.6 Projected Baseline Conditions. Currently, there are no new proposals for major
sources within one kilometer; therefore, the ambient air qualLty is expected to remain
similar to the present conditions, except for the termination of quarry activities if the
site is used for residuals.
TABLE 4.3-8. ROWE QUARRY REPRESENTATIVE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
MONITORING DATA
Monitor Site
Distance
the Site
from
(km)
Pollutants
Monitored
Exceedances of
NAAQS Over
Last 5 years
Chelsea
7.6
Nitrogen dioxide
no
Chelsea
7.6
Ozone
PM-lO
yes
no
Breman Street
7.7
7.7
Carbon monoxide
Sulfur dioxide
no
no
Charlestown
8.2
PM-1O
yes
Source: MV RA, RMFP Screen,
I, 1988
4.3.7 Stoughton Baseline Conditions
4.3.7.1 Topography. The overall terrain of the Stoughton site is relatively hilly. The
average elevation within the 3-kilometer area is 250 feet above MSL (Figure 4.3-3).
The highest peaks are located on the site property (the pinnacle at 310 feet) and
directly to the west 1 kilometer from the site at 300 feet above MSL. High elevations
occur to the west and south of the site (240 to 270 feet), tapering off to the north and
east toward the center of Randolph (190-230 feet).
4-81
-------
‘I • ‘ ‘ j
______ ___ 44 4
_
‘L - ‘ • ‘ 4 a m’ c\
- - - - .& I - -
— - ________
• - - - •4;. — \- t —
• - ‘ -
:.- ___
— ‘ 4 t V ____ *
—- - - • - 2
“ -‘ ort - - - - -
/ • - -
I • . — S -
• .. 1’ -./ -.
- •f I
— . a
__L :
0 G }r — ______ - -
is I - J— * I
L : . - £ •, -
‘. sp -
-\, 4 C0 I
:•:. -—•• -••
1000 0 1000
LEGEND
FIGURE 4.3-3. STOUGHTON THREE KILOMETER STUDY AREA
- - - - : ir ii ’ \\ .r
C k : ‘:
•/ —
— : - • • / - • • - - - - . •
r \ \ - F ._ A 0
- - : -. •
• th 8 • —
- / , • ••••• • i
••.... ___— 0 S
• . I • • - 5- .• -,
• f / • - 2__
—
S .•- • -.
• - • —. • • WT , W a i da .,_ -
— - • Lake
t’ C.- .‘
SCALE METERS
20 0C 0
SCALE IN FEET
E:::::l POTENTIAL SITE
-------
4.3.7.2 Sensitive Receptors. The definition of sensitive receptors is in
Section 4.3.5.2. Table C.3 and Figure C.3 in Appendix C, summarize the sensitive
receptors that could be affected by processing facilities at the Stoughton site.
4.3.7.3 Existing Major Sources. Currently there are no potentially interacting major
air pollution sources in the immediate vicinity of the Stoughton site.
4.3.7.4 Ambient Air Quality. Table 4.3-9 presents the ambient air quality
representative of the Stoughton area. All monitored pollutants are in compliance with
NAAQS except ozone which exceeded the standard in 1984 and 1985.
TABLE 4.3-9. STOUGHTON REPRESENTATIVE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
MONITORING DATA
Monitor Site
Distance
the Site
from
(km)
Pollutants
Monitored
Exceedances of
NAAQS over the
last 5 years
Kenmore Square 23.6
Nitrogen dioxide
‘
no
Kneeland St.
20.1
Sulfur dioxide
no
Kneeland St.
20.1
Carbon monoxide
no
Chelsea
28.5
Ozone
yes
Charlestov n
23.2
Lead
no
Quincy
12.7
PM-IC
no
Source: MWRA, RMFP, Screen, III, 1988
4.3.7.5 Odor Ordinances. The bylaws of Stoughton and Avon, state that “Any use
permitted by right or special permit in any district shall not be conducted in a manner
as to em - any dangerous... smoke, dust, odor or other form of environmental pollution”
(Stoughton Bylaws, 1987, Avon Bylaws, 1983).
4.3.7.6 Projected Baseline Conditions. The Baird & McGuire Superfund site in Holbrook
is approximately 3.7 kilometers from the Stoughton site. A rotary kiln incinerator is
proposed for burning hazardous soils on site, which is expected to be in operation for
five to eight years starting in the spring of 1991.
4.3.8 Quincy FRSA Baseline Conditions
4.3.8.1 Topography. The terrain to the northwest, west, and southwest of the Quincy
FRSA site is hilly compared to the coastal areas to the east and northeast
(Figure 4.3-4). The terrain rapidly rises west of the site to an average of 90 feet above
MSL within one-half kilometer to one kilometer away on the west side of East Howard
Street. Within one to two kilometers the elevation increases steadily to a maximum of
180 feet above MSL at Penns Hill, west and southwest of the site. Elevations to the
south and southeast range from sea level at the shore to 120 feet above MSL around
4-83
-------
SCALE U\METt
FIGURE 4.3-4. QUINCY FRSA THREE KILOMETER STUDY AREA
5e8
Sr.
1000
c 2000 LEGEND
- - j ___ ___
SCALEI? \FEET ‘ ‘ POTENTIALSITE
-------
Audubon Avenue, Braintree. The remainder of the topography to the south of the site
ranges between 50 and 100 feet above MSL, but increases again heading towards Whites
Hills in Braintree to 200 feet.
The terrain to the north and northeast of the site is relatively flat, especially around
the coastal areas of Germantown and Houghs Neck, with the exception of the Quincy
Great Hill (90 feet above MSL). Elevations to the northwest begin to increase beyond
two kilometers heading towards the President Hills (130 feet).
4.3.8.2 Sensitive Receptors. The definition of sensitive receptors is in
Section 4.3.5.2. Table C.4 and Figure C.4 in Appendix C summarize sensitive receptors
that could be affected by processing facilities at Quincy FRSA.
4.3.8.3 Existing Major Sources. Currently, the other existing major sources in the
immediate vicinity of the Quincy FRSA site emitting more than 100 tons per year of
pollutants include Proctor and Gamble (sulfur dioxide), the Citgo Oil Terminal (VOCs),
New England Book Components (\‘OCs), and Braintree Electric Light Department
(nitrogen oxides) (Clean 1-larbors, III, 1988).
4.3.8.4 Ambient Air Quality. In Quincy, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide are
designated as in attainment. However, for PM-l0, carbon monoxide, and ozone, the
area is in nonattainment of the standards. Monitors closest to the site are used to
represent air quality in Quincy (Table 4.3-10).
TABLE 4.3-10. QUINCY FRSA REPRESENTATIVE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
MONITORING DATA
Monitor Site
Distance from
the Site (km)
Pollutants
Monitored
NAAQS over the
last 5 years
Breman Street 16.9
Kneeland Street 13.7
Kneeland Street 13.7
Nitrogen dioxide
Sulfur dioxide
Carbon monoxide
rio
yes
no
Chelsea
18.2
Ozone
yes
Charlestown
16.6
Lead
no
Quincy
6.7
PM-10
yes
Source: MWR
A, RMFP Screen, II, 1988
4.3.8.5 Odor Ordinances. The Quincy Bylaws state that “manufacture, processing,
assembly or other industrial operations subject to Building and Health Department
regulations [ must provide] that (a) all dust, fumes, smoke or vapor are effectively
confined to the premises or so disposed of as to avoid air pollution” (Quincy Zoning
Ordinance, 1988). The town of Braintree Bylaws (Braintree Bylaws, 1986) are the same
as Stoughton’s odor ordinance (Section 4.3.7.5).
4-85
-------
4.3.8.6 Projected Baseline Conditions. Two major projects that may significantly
impact future ambient air quality at the Quincy FRSA site are the Clean Harbors rotary
kiln incinerator located in Braintree, adjacent to the FRSA and the Boston Edison
Edgar Station power plant to the east of the site, in Weymouth. The proposed Clean
Harbors rotary kiln incinerator is planned to combust 45,000 tons per year of hazardous
waste and is presently undergoing permit review. One major issue is the potential for
toxic pollutant emissions. Clean Harbors is in the process of profiling proposed
emissions for the future facility in consultation with the DEQE.
The Edgar Station has been inactive for several years. However, Boston Edison is
currently considering constructing a 300-megawatt facility to burn gas and oil. The
combustion of gas and oil at this facility which would emit relatively high levels of
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides. Plans for the Edgar Station are not definitive at this
time.
4.3.9 Spectacle Island Baseline Conditions
4.3.9.1 Topography. Spectacle Island is located three kilometers to the east and
southeast of the South Boston coast. It is surrounded by the nearby islands of Deer
Island (3.5 kilometers) Long Island (2 kilometers), Moon Island (1.5 kilometers), and
Thompson Island (1 km). The island’s existing topography is characterized by two major
drumlins to the north and south (Figure 4.3-5). The north drumlin is higher of the two
at approximately 100 feet above MSL. An inactive landfill is located near the north
drumlin. The south drumlin stands at 65 feet above MSL. Spectacle Island is under
consideration for use by two or more major public works projects underway in Boston,
the MWRA’s residuals management project and the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel
project. The latter is to be managed by the Massachusetts Department of Public Works
(MWRA, RMFP, Options, II, 1988). The Island has also been designated as part of the
Harbor Island Parks by DEM.
The DPW will generate several million cubic yards of excavated material from the
Central Artery and Third Harbor Tunnel. Although the DPW has not recommended a
specific plan for disposal of this material, two options involve placing some or all of it
on Spectacle Island, thereby increasing the area of the island by 40 to 80 acres.
Therefore, the existing topography of the island could change significantly.
The surrounding islands have a considerable amount of hilly terrain. Long Island
topography slopes upward to the center of the island, where the Long Island Hospital
stands at 70 feet above MSL. At the northern tip, a lighthouse is perched on a 91-foot
hill. Moon Island also has a 90-foot elevation. Finally, Thompson Island peaks at the
center of the island at 70 feet above MSL, at the location of the Thompson Academy.
4.3.9.2 Sensitive Receptors. The definition of sensitive receptors is in
Section 4.3.5.2. Table C.5 and Figure C.5, in Appendix C, summarizes the sensitive
receptors that could be affected by processing facilities at Spectacle Island.
4.3.9.3 Existing Major Sources. The closest major source is the Deer Island Wastewater
Treatment plant 3.5 kilometers away at Deer Island. Other major sources emitting
more than 100 tons per year of pollutants include Boston Edison Mystic (nitrogen oxides,
sulfur dioxide) and New Boston (nitrogen oxides, PM-lO, sulfur dioxide) Stations (Clean
Harbors, DEIR, 3, 1983).
‘4-86
-------
SCALE IN METERS
2000 9
SCALE IN FEET
FIGURE 4.3-5. SPECTACLE ISLAND THREE KILOMETER STUDY AREA
0*,,
I?,
1000
0
1000
2000
LEGEND
____ POTENTIAL SITE
-------
‘i.3.9.4 Ambient Air Quality. Spectacle Island is considered part of the city of Boston
and is subject to air quality regulations of the city. Boston is designated as attaining
the NAAQS for nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and PM-b, but is nonattainment for
carbon monoxide and ozone. Table 4.3-11 presents the locations of the monitors that
are used to represent the ambient air quality of Spectacle Island.
TABLE 4.3-11. SPECTACLE ISLAND REPRESENTATIVE AMBIENT AIR
QUALITY MONITORING DATA
Monitor Site
Approxi
Distance
the Site
mate
from
(km)
Pollutants
Monitored
Exceedances
NAAQS over the
Last 5 Years
340 Breman Street
8
Nitrogen dioxide
no
Chelsea
8
Ozone
yes
Kenmore Square
8
Sulfur dioxide
no
Charlestown
9
PM-10
no
200 Columbus Avenue
4
PM-l0
no
Washington Street
8
Carbon monoxide
yes
Source: MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II, 1988
4.3.9.5 Odor Ordinances. According to Boston City Inspectional Service Department,
the city has no odor ordinances per Se. If there is a nuisance odor from a source, a
complaint can be filed.
4.3.9.6 Projected Baseline Conditions. Currently, there are no known plans forany new
source of air pollution within three kilometers of the site, so future ambient air quality
should remain unchanged from present conditions.
4.3.10 Deer Island Baseline Conditions
4.3.10.1 Topography. The island’s landscape is characterized by a large drumlin
occupying its central area (Figure 4.3-6). The western shore of the island is sheltered
with gradual slopes, whereas the eastern shore is less sheltered, steeper, and more
rocky (MWRA, RMFP Options, II, 1988). Approximately 80 percent of the
three-kilometer area is surrounded by water.
The terrain in Winthrop is very flat. The elevation ranges from sea level to 30 feet
above MSL, except for Cottage Hill which is at 90 feet above MSL. Cottage Hill is
approximately two kilometers from the site. Approximately 2.3 kilometers to the south
is Long Island Head, standing at a 91 foot elevation. Another island within three
kilometers of Deer Island is Gallops Island, the northern portion of which has a peak
elevation of 72 feet above MSL.
4-88
-------
SCAE N METERS
200 C 2000
SC E FEET
FIGURE 43-6. DEER ISLAND THREE KILOMETER STUDY AREA
• 71
1000
C
LEGEND
POTENTIAL SITE
-------
The terrain of the island will change significantly during the construction of MWRA’s
new secondary wastewater treatment plant. The central drumlin will be leveled and
large berms will be built around the north end of the island to act as visual and noise
barriers between Winthrop and the plant.
4.3.10.2 Sensitive Receptors. The definition of sensitive receptors is in
Section 4.3.5.2. Table C.6 and Figure C.6 in Appendix C, summarize the sensitive
receptors in the study area around Deer Island.
4.3.10.3 Existing Major Sources. Currently, major air pollution sources emitting more
than 100 tons per year of pollutants in the immediate vicinity that could interact with
the potential residuals facilities are Boston Edison’s Mystic (sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
oxide) and New Boston (sulfur dioxide, PM-IC, nitrogen oxides) Stations (Clean Harbors,
DEIR, 3 1988).
4.3.10.4 Ambient Air Quality. Ambient air quality for Deer Island is the same as
described for Spectacle Island in Section 4.3.9.4.
4.3.10.5 Odor Ordinances. Information about odor ordinances is the same as described
in Section 4.3.9.5. The Winthrop Zoning Bylaw states that “the emission or discharge of
fumes, vapor, gas, dust,... that would be dangerous or injurious to the public health or
safety is prohibited” (Winthrop Bylaws, 1987).
4.3.10.6 Projected Baseline Conditions. The new Deer Island Wastewater Treatment
Plant will be a major source of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). MWRA has
proposed an emission control system that will achieve a control efficiency of 85 percent
for all constituents except the reduced sulfur compounds for which 95 percent control is
proposed (MWRA, STFP, III, 1988).
A 40 megawatt or 80 megawatt combined-cycle power plant is in the planning stages.
It would generate electricity for the new treatment plant. The plan would be to
combust natural gas or combined natural gas and digester gas from the plant. An
optional fuel source considered was number 2 fuel oil. The power plant would consist of
gas turbine generator(s), heat recovery generator(s), and one steam turbine generator.
Natural gas and digester gas (hydrogen sulfide removed during scrubbing process) are
very clean fuels; therefore, toxic pollutant emissions should not be a problem and
criteria pollutants will be the only pollutant emissions of concern. Nitrogen oxides are
the pollutants emitted from natural gas in the largest quantities, but they could be
sufficiently controlled by steam injection (MWRA, On-Site Power, 1989).
Another major planned project in the study area is the construction of the Third Harbor
Tunnel to Logan Airport. However, this project would not be a point source and should
not have a major influence on the air quality at Deer Island because of the distance of
construction activities from the site.
4.4 WATER AND SOILS
This section identifies and characterizes surface water bodies and groundwater aquifers
located on or near each of the alternative residuals sites. It also presents descriptions
of general geologic conditions of each alternative site including depth to bedrock, soil
4-90
-------
type, and chemical concentrations in the soil. Because much of the supporting data for
this section has been presented previously in MWRA documents, these data are
presented in Appendix D of this Draft SEIS.
4.4.1 Regulatory Setting
4.4.1.1 Federal Water Regulations. Applicable federal regulations include the Clean
Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, which require EPA to publish and
periodically update ambient Water Quality Criteria for surface water and Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for sources of drinking water. These criteria provide a
guide for determining the concentrations of toxic pollutants in freshwater or seawater
that adversely affect aquatic life and human health.
The EPA Water Quality Criteria (U.S. EPA, WQC, 1986) are guidelines established to
protect against acute (or short-term) effects on sensitive aquatic organisms, chronic (or
long-term) effects on aquatic organisms, and effects on human health from drinking
water and eating fish. Separate human health criteria have been developed for fish
consumption only and for fish and water consumption. These criteria are used in
establishing standards and regulatory requirements; however, they are only guidelines
and do not serve as regulatory standards themselves. The MCLs for drinking water are
established to protect public health and are regulatory standards.
The Safe Drinking Water Act allows EPA to identify sole-source drinking vbater aquifers
for protection. EPA can review any proposed federal financially assisted projects
within a sole-source aquifer which have the potential to contaminate groundwater. This
review could either prevent a commitment of federal funding or cause redesign of the
project.
4.4.1.2 State Water Regulations. The Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards
classify surface water bodies into use categories, establish criteria necessary to support
these uses, and define various policies regarding the protection and enhancement of
water resources. Proposed amendments to the Massachusetts standards include
maximum allowable concentrations for several toxic pollutants. The Massachusetts
Ground Water Quality Standards establish groundwater classifications that designate
uses for the various groundwaters, and water quality standards and criteria necessary to
sustain these uses and maintain existing groundwater quality. Maximum contaminant
levels for drinking water have also been established by Massachusetts and, except for
sodium, are identical to those regulated by EPA.
4.4.1.3 Federal Sediment Regulations. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires a
permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) for any dredging, filling, or
disposal of material to the waters of the United States.
The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, as amended through 1987 (also
known as the Ocean Dumping Act), regulates disposal activities in the ocean seaward of
the territorial sea boundary. EPA and ACE are charged with developing and
implementing regulatory programs associated with this act.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), administered by EPA,
regulates the disposal of nonagricultural solid and liquid wastes which are not subject to
the Clean \ ater Act.
4-91
-------
The Solid Waste Disposal Act regulations provide EPA guidelines for the land disposal of
nonhazardous solid wastes. Although this act has been completely replaced by RCRA,
compliance with its guidelines is still mandatory for feder 1 agencies and recommended
for state, regional, and local agencies. The Solid Waste Disposal Act guidelines pertain
to dredged material disposal with respect to water quality preservation and odor
control. Land disposal facilities for dredged material are required to control leachate
and runoff, to protect groundwater and to use cover material to prevent odor, if
necessary. Land disposal must also conform to local and federal water quality
standards and applicable Clean Air Act standards.
Floodplain management is addressed in Executive Order No. 11988, which requires that
federal agencies that finance or assist construction or improvement projects must
determine whether or not the proposed action will occur in the floodplain as defined b
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and what potential flooding
effects would be. Agencies must provide for early public review of any plans or
proposals for actions in floodplains.
Executive Order No. 11990 also requires federal agencies to take action to minimize
the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the
natural and beneficial values of wetlands in carrying out the agencies’ responsibilities
for providing federally financed construction and improvements. Agencies are not to
provide assistance for new construction located in wetlands unless no practicable
alternative is found by the agency and unless the harm to the wetlands which may result
is minimized. The public must also be given the opportunity to review any new
construction plans or proposal.
4.4.1.4 State Sediment Regulations. The Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act
(MEPA) requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to determine
the environmental impacts of state actions (broadly defined to include permits,
approvals, and funding). Projects involving dredging or disposal of more than
10,000 cubic yards of material (such as construction of a pipeline from Deer Island to
Spectacle Island) require the preparation of an EIR.
State Waterways Licenses and Dredging Permits are issued by the DEQE Division of
Wetlands and Waterways Regulation. All activities involving dredging and filling in
tidelands require permits. Projects must also comply with the Massachusetts Coastal
Zone Management Program regulations which categorize dredged materials based on
level of contamination and assign areas where material may be disposed.
Upland disposal of dredged material in Massachusetts is regulated by EOEA and DEQE.
Upland disposal of marine sediments is prohibited where groundwater or surface water
may be affected by leachate or runoff, unless sodium chlorides in the sediment have
been treated so as to pose no threat to groundwater.
4.4.2 Study Area
The study area for assessment of water quality includes surface water that is on or
receives runoff from the alternative processing or disposal sites and aquifers that are
recharged by water from the sites. Soil that is located on the processing or disposal
sites is considered the study area for soil quality.
4-92
-------
4.4.3 Walpole MCI Baseline Conditions
4.4.3.1 Geology and Soils. Between April and May 1988, MWRA drilled 17 soil borings
to characterize geologic conditions at the Walpole MCI site (Figure 4.4-1) (MWRA,
RMFP, Screen 1, 1988, and MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, 2, 1989). Bedrock was reached at
three of the on-site borings, with depth to bedrock ranging from 54 feet at Boring 8, to
57.2 feet at Boring 13 to 120 feet at Boring 12R. West of the site, depth to bedrock
ranged from 20 feet at Boring 5 to 64 feet at Boring 6. There are bedrock outcrops in
the northeast portions of the site, near Boring 16. The bedrock beneath the site is the
Wamsutta Formation, which includes conglomerate, greywacke, sandstone, and shale.
More detailed geologic information including the survey’s 17 boring logs is presented by
MWRA (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, I, 1988).
The soil at the Walpole MCI site is glacial till, predominantly sand and gravel with some
silt and clay. Soils in the lowland areas of the site (near the Stop River) are generally
unsorted, dense, and of limited permeability. Soils in the southern end of the site in the
vicinity of the landfill footprint are compacted but less dense than those in the lowland
areas of the site (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, 1, 1988).
MWRA collected surface and subsurface soil samples at Borings 1, 6, 8, 13, and 16
(Tables D.I and D.2, respectively). Soil quality at Walpole MCI is of particular interest
since clean soil could be used as cover for the landfill. Although no federal or
Massachusetts soil quality regulations currently exist, the concentrations of pollutants
detected at the site are generally orders of magnitude below levels that would require
cleanup action at the site.
4.4.3.2 Groundwater. Based on resources such as U.S. Geological Survey and Soil
Conservation Service maps, groundwater for most of the Walpole MCI site is expected
to flow to the Charles River Drainage Basin. The site falls Just outside of the head of
the Neponset Sole-Source Aquifer (Figure 4.4-2) as petitioned for the town of Walpole
and designated by EPA in November 1988. The aquifer boundaries are based on the
delineated surface water drainage divide of the Charles and Neponset River drainage
basins. Walpole is currently considering re-petitioning the boundaries of its sole-source
aquifer designation based on groundwater drainage divides. Additional sampling would
be needed to definitively verify that no groundwater from the site contributes to the
Neponset Sole-Source Aquifer. If the aquifer’s boundary was determined to extend into
the landfill footprint, more extensive review of the potential landfill by EPA would be
necessary to determine if it could contaminate groundwater and pose a threat to public
health. This review could either prevent a commitment of federal financial assistance
or cause redesign of the project, under the authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
A portio i of the landf ill footprint is within the secondary recharge area, Area 4,
(Figure 4.4-3) of the Walpole Water Resource Protection Overlay District as designated
by the town’s zoning bylaws (these bylaws are described in Section 4.1 of this Draft
- SEIS). The boundaries of the Water Resource Protection Overlay District are not
located at the drainage divide but conservatively include an area beyond the Neponset
River drainage basin.
Groundwater characteristics in the site area are variable, reflecting topography and soil
characteristics. The depth to groundwater within the footprint of the landfill at the
4-93
-------
‘ 0
z
. wT -
‘ S a - --c i onar r ttut
- -
SITE BOUNDARY
1000
0
SCALE IN METERS
9 1000
SCALE IN FEET
FIGURE 4.4-1. SOIL BORING AND MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS
AT WALPOLE MCI SITE
.., t—,
C ,, •
;:
‘ F
S)
/ :
PROPOSED
PRODUCTION
WELL
17 -- ;T; -5
LI OW-5 5
r
24
ER VA
-: -STATE
‘
LEGEND
SOIL BORING AND MONITORING
WELL LOCATIONS
PROPOSED PRODUCTION WELL
MINI-PIEZOMETER
SOURCE: MWRA, RMFP, SCREEN, I, 1988
.4 —.--.-—S.- LANDFILL FOOTPRINT
1 0 0
10100
-------
SCALE N METE
0 1000
SCALE IN FEET
LiJ Walpole MCI Sfte
VZ21 Neponset Sole Source Aquifer
Neponset Sole Source Aquifer
Boundary
FIGURE 4.4-2. NEPONSET SOLE SOURCE AQUIFLER BOUNDARY
IN THE VICINITY OF THE WALPOLE MCI SITE
/
I,
I’,!’
4I/ii
500
I
500
1000
LEGEND
-------
ac h
\ \c:o ‘
\
\\\I
) v’
T 7
/ Y
/\ \ j///
II 1 —J
‘ =JI I—- ‘I 1 W
/i IL’
(/ 4f.! -
-
f i .I A
SCALE IN METERS
SCALE IN FEET
FIGURE 4.4•3. WATER RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT
IN THE VICINITY OF THE WALPOLE MCI SITE
T
t/2fr’\ A ‘ ;
In ttute\\ W%4
J-
ER V NT
-
— •
.- I
-
/ , /‘ ‘
) c
. .
/
p
\‘fl1 ./ I
1 • 11’I. ’
.I U ‘I!
_ ., U, II
•\I •\ . Il
, _J,. S I I
r •.
s ’• 7
s 4j ,
(
u e tt-s
fl titut
SOURCE: TOWN OF WALPOLE ZONING BY-LAWS, 1987
] rEGEF4 D
SITE BOUNDARY
..... LANDFILL FOOTPRINT
AREA 3
i... _J PRIMARY RECHARGE AREA
AREA 4
L _J SECONDARY RECHARGE AREA
250 0 250 1000 0
t__ I I
1000
-------
southern end of the site varies from 30 to 50 feet. In the lower northern end of the site
groundwater is generally 0 to 10 feet below the surface (MWRA, RMFP, Screen,
I, 1989).
The regions of high (300 gpm and 250 gpm for Neponset and Charles River Basins,
respectively), medium (100 to 300 gpm and 50 to 250 gpm for Neponset and Charles
River Basins, respectively), and low (less than 100 gpm in the Neponset River Basin)
yield aquifers within a one-mile radius of the Walpole MCI site are presented in
Figure 4.4-4. Of particular concern with respect to a landfill at Walpole MCI is the
area of medium and high yield aquifers immediately northwest of the Stop River
impoundment. Three high yield water supply wells are located in this area, along with
one inactive well and another which has been installed but must meet DEQE approval
prior to initiation of operation (Figure 4.4-1). These wells supply water to the MCI
Norfolk and MCI Cedar Junction facilities.
Two studies (DCPO, 1987; and MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, 2, 1989) have been conducted to
delineate the immediate recharge, or Zone II area for these wells (Figure 4.4-5). A
Zone II Recharge Area is defined by DEQE as “that area of an aquifer which contributes
v.ater to a well under the most severe recharge and pumping conditions that can be
realistically anticipated.’ t DEQE defines a Zone III Recharge Area as “that land area
beyond the area of Zone II from which surface water and groundwater drain into
Zone II” (DEQE, 1986). Both studies indicate that the landfill footprint is not within the
Zone II Recharge Area but is within the Zone III Recharge Area of the prison wells.
Therefore, a groundwater flow path exists from the site into the weilfield.
Two groundwater quality investigations were conducted at the Walpole MCI site in 1988
(MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, 2, 1989). The results of the first investigation were noted as
“qualitative” to indicate problems related to laboratory analyses and a high degree of
uncertainty. During the second investigation, beryllium, chromium, copper, lead,
nickel, and zinc were the only detected pollutants and all concentrations were below
Massachusetts groundwater standards and drinking water MCLs. Table D.3 presents the
results of both investigations. All of the data for wells 1, 3, 6, 8, 13, and 16a
(Figure 4.4-1) are from the first investigation and were determined to be qualitative
results. The data for wells 7, 10, 11, 12, and 16b represent the results of the second
investigation.
4.4.3.3 Surface Water and Sediments. Surface water runoff from the site drains to the
Stop River which is adjacent to the northwestern portion of the site (Figure 4.4-6). The
Stop River flows from a surface water impoundment about half a mile west of the site
and discharges to the Charles River six miles downstream. The drainage divide between
the Charles and Neponset Rivers runs north-to-south along the eastern edge of the site.
Average flow in the Stop River at the Winter Street Bridge was estimated to be
14.6 cubic feet per second (cfs) based on an average discharge per drainage area of
1.69 cfs per square mile (at USGS stream gauges 103500, 105000, 108500 and 112500)
and the Stop River’s drainage area at the bridge (approximately 8.65 square miles).
There are no surface water bodies on the site, however there is a minor drainage way
along the western edge of the site. To the west and southwest of the site are Bristols
Pond, Stony Brook, and the upstream portion of the Stop River. Cedar Swamp, which
drains to the Neponset River, lies immediately to the east of the site.
4-97
-------
4 ______________
,
— , , ___
--
_ ____ / I
LEGEND
HI, H2
HIGH YIELD AOUIFE R
Ml ,M2
MEDIUMYIELDAQLJIFER
Li,
LOW
LL1 LL2
TILL AND BEDROCK
SI.- / ‘ V ••. - ... .
T T H J CeQ
- -/\ (\
I . . :: ‘.. ‘:. //‘j,i I. -.-- r J f7 t\r ’
I LL4 _____ s4 L>A \
4 L.L_ - .LL2 ”. •(M9— 7 - : ‘ - _ . v
i%,,Af ji ’ fr/ ‘ £ )/4 - L P 0 L E
- 4M2 . ‘.‘ - .- -.
• , •f 4 \ .1.. --
1- / 1:. ’ >/ / -;:/ / . - :c d . Swamp ,. 4
‘ — LL2 I LL2 :
— / H2 j -. , /, a — I -
g 7 L ?. . . , . - -
1. -
I < - -
- L .
: k;:z r $
SOURCE: MWRA. RMFP, SCREEN. I, 1988
SCALE IN MILES
FIGURE 4.4-4. DELINEATION OF AQUIFER YIELD WITHIN ONE MILE
OF WALPOLE MCI SITE
.5
9
-------
-
• \
- - c /
. • / ‘/‘Ii
/4I4gj // / 2
T. \V—-
I
- —, _“_‘\__ I
i. -) ii ‘ /
/
6 ’ \— / / - /1 — i ‘
Jr T’ ’ / Y, I, ° /
- ts F - ‘ -
- - I
S.. ‘•--
45 ; STA1E ? 9 R SERV ION __ :1.
L:- ii’ (1 .
- - ‘ - b- ’- -- , - I 7
/ • /
‘h&L r ec /
/ 0 \ tute’4f .w oie 4— / \•
/ T
/7
- \ \ \/\\
— I\
- ‘_1 — — — — — \ \ ‘ —
_ 5 / 9 , \
; _ ‘S / _____
1000 0 1000 1000 0 1000
I _____________________
SCALE IN FEET SCALE iN METERS
FIGURE 4.4-5. ZONE H DELINEATIONS FOR EXISTING AND
PROPOSED NORFOLK MCI WATER SUPPLY WELLS
LEGEND
PUBUC WATER SUPPLY
— — — — ZONE II DELINEATION- (DCPO. 1987).
ZONE II DELINEATION- (MWRA. RMFP, DEIR. II. 1989 ,.
• S S S LANDFILL FOOTPRINT
-------
LEGEN :
_______ _______ —. DRAINAGE DV IDE
SURFACE WATER
DRAINAGE BASINS
CH • CHARLES
NT - NEPONSET
— 1 _ VL _ Ii J:’ F- H ‘\ \ - -- -
\I \CHh \ ‘4: L’ — -
\\ ‘: * L \ “ ‘
:i T * k A
: . • 1 ‘) X7 2
I — , — ona I tu t I / / _ _ — ( —j’ - - —
17 .‘ - - -. —f( - —-
d - - / i - 7- vs
.. /
C L
< - “ ‘ ( t - - j • ‘- -
/ .Cedar. Suam 1 / - 4
L \ç \ b ±; tU t $c “Z ’
____\ _I - - tf • - — I
- f =/
>/ U’i/ J /”
\ ( )1\ 4 \. f
/ \? ‘ r’ ?’ 1
(c’ / 1 MILE H I
\ /
SOURCE: MWRA, RMFP, SCREEN, I, 1988
.5 0 .5
SCALE IN MILES
FIGURE 4.4-6. SURFACE WATER BODIES AND MAJOR DRAINAGE BASIN DELINEATIONS
WITHIN ONE MILE OF WALPOLE MCI SITE
*- - -
2
\ / jiHil
-------
Based on the 1978 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps, a small portion of the northwest
tip of the site is within the 100-year floodplain (Figure 4.4-7); however, this portion of
the site is not within the landfill footprint.
There are three wastewater discharges to the Stop River. Two of these are upstream of
the site: Wrentham State School and Southwood Community Hospital. The Norfolk-
Walpole MCI Wastewater Treatment Facility discharges about two miles downstream
from the site. The wastewater effluent characteristics are generally typical of small
facilities and DEQE monitoring has revealed no discharge permit violations (M\ RA,
RMFP, Screen, 1, 1988).
Water quality surveys were performed by DEQE on the Stop River in 1978 and 1986
(MWRA, RMFP, Screen, I, 1988). In general, the river was of poor quality in the
downstream reaches. Specifically, coliform bacteria counts and dissolved oxygen levels
were in violation of Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards and ammonia
concentrations were high. Upstream water, including the area near the site, was of
better quality with no violations in the most upstream reaches and only minor problems
with dissolved oxygen in the middle reaches.
In spring and late fall of 1988 MWRA conducted a surface water sampling program in
the vicinity of the site (Figure 4.4-8). The earlier program analyzed for TOX, TOC,
priority pollutant metals, and conventional water quality parameters, while the later
program only analyzed volatile organic compounds (Table D.4) and none were
detected. There were analytical problems with the earlier program, but the results can
be used for general description purposes. The results indicate that concentrations of
arsenic, lead, mercury, and zinc may exceed applicable water quality standards or
criteria in surface water on or near the site. In addition, the pH was consistently below
water quality standards on site (this is considered acceptable if the low pHs are
naturally occurring). The northwest tip of the site had consistently higher pollutant
concentrations than other stations.
Sediment samples were also collected on and off the site and contained some metals.
Some halogenated or petroleum-derived organics may also be present in the sediments
but sampling results were too variable to be conclusive (Table D.5).
4.4.4 Rowe Quarry Baseline Conditions
4.4.4.1 Geology and Soils. Rowe Quarry is oval in shape, between 2,200 and 2,500 feet
in length. Its maximum width is 800 feet. The quarry is in the red rhyolite member of
the Lynn Volcanic Complex. The quarry walls are higher and more stable to the south
and east than to the north and west, where the walls tend to drop off in elevation to
about 100 feet. In general, the quarry floor slopes gently from the western end, at
elevation 60 feet abo e mean sea level, to the east entrance on Salem Street where the
elevation is 30 feet above mean sea level. Much of the current quarrying activities are
occurring in large trench in the center of the quarry. The trench floor is below the
water table and must be continuously dewatered. The trench dimensions are estimated
to be approximately 1,000 feet long and 100 feet wide (MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, 1, 1989).
The quarry rock is highly fractured as a result of years of drilling and blasting and
pressure releases from the removal of as much as 100 feet of overlying bedrock
4-101
-------
-
LEGEND
100- YEAR FLOODPLAIN
LANDFILL FOOTPRINT
SOURCE: MWRA, RMFP, SCREEN, I, 1988
SCALE IN MILES
FIGURE 4.4-7. 100. YEAR FLOODPLAINS WITHIN ONE MILE OF WALPOLE MCI SITE
.5
0
.5
-------
SITE BOUNDARY
SCALE IN METERS
SCALE IN FEET
FIGURE 4.4-8. SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS
AT WALPOLE MCI
\*
• --- - --
(
r assachu etts Cc rrec1iona
C c flStitute df W
SOURCE: MWRA, RMFP, SCREEN, I, 1988
IEGEND
SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
- . • -* - SITE FOOTPRINT
250
500
9 500
-------
(MWRA, RMFP, Screen, I, 1988). Due to the quarrying activities, the quarry floor is
bedrock or crushed stone, and there are no natural soil layers remaining. Therefore, no
surface or subsurface soil samples were collected by MWRA for laboratory analysis.
4.4.4.2 Groundwater. Much of the Rowe Quarry site is surrounded by unconsolidated
low (0 to 100 gallons per minute) to medium yield (100 to 300 gallons per minute)
aquifers (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, 1, 1988). Rowe Quarry itself is underlain by bedrock,
with well yields expected to be 10 gallons per minute or less (Figure 4.4-9). No
groundwater is withdrawn from the Rowe Quarry site for municipal use. The only well
located on the site provides the quarry with water for cleaning the quarried aggregate.
Depth to groundwater ranged from 0.6 to 3.9 feet at monitoring well locations
(Figure 4.4-10) during the summer, 1988 sampling program (MWRA, RMFP,
Screen, I, 1988). This shallow depth to groundwater is also evident from springs and
seeps in the eastern quarry wall and three feet of water standing in the excavated
trench at the center of the quarry.
The groundwater gradient in the western portion of the site is approximately
0.2 percent, sloping towards the east (ERT, 1983). In the east and southeast end of the
quarry, the groundwater gradient is between 2.2 and 3.0 percent. The gradient between
the quarry entrance and the Pines River is estimated to be between 3 and 4 percent
(ENSR, 1983).
Groundwater samples were collected from the monitoring wells on the site in summer
and late fall of 1988. The results of the analyses show’ that concentrations of iron and
manganese (Table D.6) violated the Massachusetts Groundwater Quality Standards of
300 ugh and 50 ug/l, respectively, during both monitoring programs. These levels of
iron and manganese are naturally occurring and typical of groundwater concentrations
found in the New England area. The results of the May monitoring program were noted
as being “qualitative” for all metals and most volatile organic compounds. The
monitoring program also indicated the presence of potentially significant levels of
halogenated organics in the groundwater.
4.4.4.3 Surface Water and Sediments. The Rowe Quarry site is within the North Shore
Coastal Drainage Basin. Natural drainage from the area is to the Rumney Marshes,
tributary to the Massachusetts Bay system. Currently the drainage from the site is
routed to the Pines River either through a sump, a series of pipes and catch basins, or
the city storm drains. The only surface water resources in the vicinity are the Pines
River system and several small isolated ponds (Figure 4.4-11). No natural surface water
bodies exist at the quarry.
Surface water onsite (leachate and small pools) and in the Rumney Marshes was sampled
in the summer and late fall of 1988 (Figure 4.4-12). Although the results of the summer
1988 sampling program were determined to be “qualitative” due to difficulties during
laboratory analyses, the results indicate that iron concentrations at all stations are
elevated and may exceed applicable standards or criteria (Table D.7). High
concentrations of iron are considered typical in this area. In addition, high
concentrations of halogenated organics were detected in both surface water and
sediment on site. Petroleum-derived hydrocarbons were found in sediment on and off
site (Table D.8).
4-104
-------
_5 Pc i
• ... - ‘- 5- -1S• -
PA . :
LL1
- S
5—-
- •- --- - - .: -
- ci.. - - •
-
- — *r . • •.. . .• . -
-- - J - . • 16r . .
S - - .•. : :-. .
- S
HOLY CPC’S
- S .—
Isra
Hi
Mi
Li
LL1
LEGENO
\ - - - !nM, \
idale
,4 \u_’
Sa g_s a:e
Li
(J
Ce r ,
WOODLAWN \
CEMF TER’v
SOURCE: MWRA, RMFP, SCREENS I, 1988
SCALE IN MILES
FiGURE 4.4.9. DELINEATION OF AQUIFER YIELD WITHIN ONE MILE OF ROWE QUARRY
HIGH YIELD AQUIFEP
MEDIUM YIELD AQUIFER
LOW YIELD AQUIFER
TILL AND BEDROCK
.5
0
.5
-------
p
*
p
• S
4
.
•1
.
6’
• tt lhl: S ’ :
/
Lind
• 5,1
- -1._s.
SCALE IN FEET
FIGURE 4.4-10. SOIL BORING AND MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS
AT ROWE QUARRY
-
V
\
\\ • . •:‘ --
S
. 5-
4
.4
4 4
S
‘‘. 4
4 S
4 4 4 5
S
•.‘, 4 fr
p
If
; liii
p -.
• ,•• S
4. 4 p
•. :
—
1
)1 ’
(
/
SOURCE: MWRA, RMFP, SCREEN, 1, 1988.
LEGE 1D
* BORING & MONITORING
WELL LOCATIONS
I C D
I
250
0
25
SCALE IN METERS
0
ioc:
-------
SCALE IN LES
FIGURE 4.4-11. SURFACE WATER BODIES AND DRAINAGE BASIN DELINEATIONS
WITHIN ONE MiLE OF ROWE QUARRY
_____ _____ DRAINAGE DIVIDE
SURFACE WATER
DRAINAGE BASINS:
NS - NORTH SHORE
SOURCE: MWRA, RMFP, SCREEN, I, 1988
.5 0 .5
-------
1000
- ,- . -
. __..*
+
1.
..I
a
LEGEND
0
SCALE IN METERS
0
SCALE IN FEET
FIGURE 4.4-12. SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS
AT ROWE QUARRY
— —
a
• a,
‘a •
\ .
S nI?r P
SOURCE: MWRA, RMFP, SCREEN, I, 1988
• ON-SITE SURFACE WATER AND
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
SEDIMENT
100C
-------
4.4.5 Stoughton Baseline Conditions
4.4.5.1 Geology and Soils. The predominant soil type found at the Stoughton site is
glacial till consisting of unsorted fine to medium, gray to brown colored sand with some
silt and gravel (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, III, 1988). Swamp deposits were noted in low
areas of the site. The depth to bedrock ranges from 23 feet to 25.5 feet. However,
bedrock outcrops occur in much of the west central portion of the site. The bedrock at
the site is mapped as diorite but the cores drilled by MWRA were logged as andesite.
MWRA collected surface and subsurface soil samples on and off site (Figure 4.4-13).
The presence of halogenated organics and petroleum-derived hydrocarbons was detected
in these samples (Table D.9). In addition, semivolatile organics were detected on site.
The presence of semivolatiles in surface soil at this location could potentially be
related to on site commercial uses, where material such as creosoted poles are stored in
the open.
Subsurface soil samples were collected at the five boring locations and analyzed for
total organic carbon, organic halogens, and petroleum hydrocarbons (Table D.l0). Total
organic carbon was detected at Stations 1, 2, and 4; halogenated organics were detected
in Station 5; and total petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in Stations 1, 2 and 3.
4.4.5.2 Groundwater. Aquifers within one mile of the Stoughton site are shov n in
Figure 4.4-14 (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, III, 1988). With the exception of a medium-yield
aquifer (100 to 300 gallons per minute) to the west, the area around the site is
comprised of bedrock and till, which are generally low-yield aquifers (producing less
than 100 gpm).
No municipal groundwater supplies exist within a one-mile radius. Several municipal
water supply wells exist within a two-mile radius of the site: west of the site, along the
Stoughton-Canton border, there are three active and two inactive water supply wells;
and there are five active water supply wells in Avon, approximately one and one half to
two miles southeast of the site. None of these wells are downgradient of the site.
The five borings drilled at the site by MWRA in May of 1988 were completed as
monitoring wells for the collection of hydrologic information (Figure 4.4-13). Depth to
groundwater ranged from 4.7 feet (Well 5) to 12.0 feet (Well 3) on August 3, 1988,
(MWRA, RMFP, Screen, III, 1988). Groundwater flow directions have been estimated
based on topography and drainage. Groundwater from the northwestern portion of the
site flows northwest and eventually joins Beaver Brook. Groundwater in the southern
region of the site flows south to Beaver Brook. Groundwater in the northeastern part of
the site flows northeast and discharges to a tributary of Beaver Brook.
MWRA sampled groundwater at the five monitoring wells on the Stoughton site.
(Table D.1l). Acetone, toluene and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate were detected in
groundwater from Well 4 and metals were found in samples from Wells 2 and 3.
Although the laboratory analysis is questionable, cadmium, chromium, lead, iron,
sulfate, and copper were detected at concentrations high enough to potentially degrade
groundwater quality.
4-109
-------
BORING & MONITORING
WELL LOCATIONS
ADDITIONAL SURFACE SOIL
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
0
250
SCALE IN METERS
0 1000
SCALE IN FEET
FIGURE 4.4-13. SOIL BORING AND MONITORING
AT STOUGHTON SITE
WELL LOCATIONS
Ma plewood
Cem
S
tO.’..
LEGEND
SOURCE: p,qWRA, RMFP. SCREEN, III, 1988
1000
250
-------
FIGURE 4.4-14. DELLNEATION OF AQUIFER YIELD WIThIN ONE MILE
OF STOUGHTON SITE
--
N
.,.• \
( ,
Z7 T
SOURCE:
MWRA, RMFP,
SCREEN, III,
1988
END
M l LEDIUM YIELD AQUIFER
Li LOW YIELD AQUIFER
ILl BEDROCKANDTILL
.5 0 .5
I - I
SCALE IN MILES
-------
4.4.5.3 Surface Water and Sediments. Although no surface water bodies or streams
exist on the Stoughton site, approximately 20 percent of the site is covered by wetlands
(MWRA, RMFP, Screen, III, 1988). Site drainage runs to Beaver Brook and its
associated wetlands and ultimately to the Taunton River.
Approximately one mile southeast of the site is the Brockton Reservoir, which receives
inflow from Beaver Brook. Pending completion of a water treatment plant and
Massachusetts DEQE permitting and approval, the Brockton Reservoir is expected to
become an active water supply for the towns of Brockton, Halifax, Whitman,
Bridgewater, and portions of East Bridgewater. Other surface water bodies near the
Stoughton site include an unnamed pond across Turnpike Street to the west of the site,
Glen Echo Pond, three small ponds, Meadow Brook and its tributaries to the northwest
of the site, and four small, inactive reservoirs near the Brockton Reservoir. Although
Canton is allowed to take (and hold) water from Glen Echo Pond and its tributaries
(Starkowsky, 1989), this has never happened and Canton now receives water from
MWRA. Since the area around Glen Echo Pond is privately owned, access to the pond is
difficult. Thus, it is unlikely that the pond will be used as a drinking water supply.
The degree of impact that a sludge processing facility may have on a water body is
related to the amount of each pollutant that enters the water body and how long it
stays there. Since sludge processing at the Stoughton site could potentially affect
water quality in Brockton Reservoir and Glen Echo Pond (see Section 5.5), the average
retention times for both v ater bodies were calculated to be 90 and 210 days,
respectively. Average flows were calculated to be 5.4 cfs and 0.78 for the Brockton
Reservoir and Glen Echo Pond, respectively.
During its investigation of the Stoughton site, MWRA sampled surface water at six off
site locations (Figure 4.4-15), including off-site in Beaver Brook (Table D.12). The
Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standard and EPA’s public health fish and water
ingestion criterion for iron were violated in water samples collected both on and off
site. Manganese concentrations exceeded EPA’s public health criterion for fish and
water ingestion at Stations 4 and 5 and the public health criterion for fish ingestion only
at Stations 3, 4, 5, and 6. Surface water at Stations I and 6 is somewhat acidic, with
pH levels below the recommended range for EPA water quality Criteria. Sediment
samples collected from the six locations on the Stoughton site contained organic carbon
and some semivolatile organics (Table D.13).
4.4.6 Quincy FRSA Baseline Conditions
As part of the agreement between MWRA and General Dynamics, the former owner of
the Quincy FRSA site, the site’s contamination will be remediated by General
Dynamics. Therefore, it was assumed for this Draft SEIS that the former shipyard site
will be adequately cleaned prior to 1995.
4.4.6.1 Geology and Soils. The elevation of the bedrock surface on the site varies
between 56 feet above mean sea level and 95 feet below mean sea level. Bedrock
underlying the site slopes down from southwest to northeast (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, 11,
1988). The unconsolidated deposits at the site are quite variable but generally consist
of an upper layer of fill averaging 10 feet thick and consisting of sand, gravel, and
miscellaneous debris; a layer of sand or silty sand, varying in thickness from
4-112
-------
0
SCALE IN METERS
0
FIGURE 4.4-Is.
SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT
AT STOUGHTON SITE
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
Niaplewood
Cern
-1.
SOURCE: MWRA, RMFP. SCREEN, UI, 1988
1L
LEGEND
•1
SURFACE
WATER AND SEDIMENT
1000
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
250
250
SCALE IN FEET
1000
-------
O to 70 feet; a layer of clay or silty clay which, where it occurs, is either within or
below the sand layer and up to 30 feet thick; and a basal layer of glacial fill, up to
10 feet thick. Bedrodc types found on the Quincy FRSA include argillite and granite.
Over 100 surface and subsurface soil samples were collected from the site arid analyzed
for chemical contamination prior to the sale of the property (MWRA, QSSA, 1, 1988).
Results of these investigations indicate that six of the surface soil locations are
contaminated v.ith high concentrations of metals (Table D.14). Pesticides were present
in surface soil samples in lOVh concentrations. PCBs were present in six surface soil
samples at concentrations less than 10 ppb. Highest concentrations of volatile organic
compounds and semivolatile compounds were detected in the northern portion of the
site. Volatile organic compounds identified in these samples were trichloroethylene,
tetrachloroethylene, toluene, benzene, xylene, and chloroform (MWRA, QSSA, I, 1988).
Throughout the site, subsurface soil samples contained high concentrations of volatile
organic compounds and metals (Tables D.15 and D.16, respectively), ith toluene and
trichloroethylene detected most frequently. Pesticides were undetected in the
subsurface soil samples and semivolatiles were detected in subsurface soil collected at
only one location. PCBs were detected in samples collected at four locations.
4.4.6.2 Groundwater. Groundv.ater investigations, also conducted prior to the sale of
the properTy, re ealed that ground ater occurs in the unconsolidated deposits of fill,
sand, and gravel beneath the site. Although thick sand deposits do apparent I) exist
beneath portions of the site, the extensive development at the site, poor water oualit: ..
and proximity of salt v ater in the mouth Fore River essential1 preclude use of this
aquifer for water suppi ,.
Depth to groundwater on the site ranged from 1.5 to 21.5 feet (MWRA, RMFP, Screen,
II, 1988). Groundwater levels fluctuate betv een +6.6 and -2.1 feet above mean sea
level due to tidal influences in the Weymouth Fore River estuary. Groundwater flows
predominantly east towards the Weymouth Fore River. There are no public water
supplies within a one mile radius of the site. Both Quincy and Braintree receive their
water supplies from the MWRA system.
High concentrations of volatile organics, total petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals,
pesticides, and PCBs were detected in groundwater collected from several monitoring
wells on site (Table D.l7). Groundwater in the southern region (Figure 4.4-16) of the
site had high concentrations of volatile organics, dissolved petroleum hydrocarbons,
PAHs, metals, and pesticides. Since pollutants in the site’s groundwater ultimately flow
to the Weymouth Fore River, these concentrations were compared to EPA Marine
Water Quality criteria. Concentrations that exceed the water quality criteria for
arsenic, barium, chromium, copper, total cyanides, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium,
thallium, and zinc occurred throughout the Quincy FRSA site (Table D.18), however
these levels v ould be diluted once groundwater entered the river.
An oil recovery program was initiated in August 1986 to recover a plume of No. 2 fuel
oil in the groundv ater at the center of the site. The pumping of oil recovery wells at
the site is still on going and could affect the site’s groundwater hydrology and quality.
4-114
-------
*
FIGURE 4.4-16.
SOA E IN FEET
SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING
LOCATIONS AT QUINCY FRSA
\\
/
/
SOURCE MWRA, OSSA, 1988
Legend
Samp ng Locations
5 c 9 500
-------
4.4.6.3 Surface Water and Sediments. No surface water bodies exist on the Quinc ,
FRSA site. Several small ponds are located to the west and southwest, within one mile
of the site boundary. These ponds are hydraulically upgradient of the site (MWRA,
RMFP, Screen, I I, 1988). Surface water on the site flows into the tidal section of the
Weymouth Fore River, located to the east of the site (Figure 4.4-17). The Weymouth
Fore River is 12 miles long and receives drainage from a 42.25-square-mile area of
Braintree and Quincy (MWRA, RMFP, Screen II, 1988).
Much of the site is within the 100-year floodplain as delineated by the 1985 FEMA
Flood lnsurance Rate Map (Figure 4.4-18). The 100-year flood elevation is predicted to
be 12 to 13 feet above the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (MWRA, RMFP,
Screen, II, 1988) in the central portion of the site, where heat drying is proposed, and in
the southern portion of the site, near the proposed long-term composting facility.
Water samples collected in the Weymouth Fore River near the Quincy FRSA
(Figure 4.4-16) contained high metals concentrations (Table D.19). Earlier sampling
indicated that coliform levels in the river did not meet Massachusetts Surface Water
Quality Standards. Surface water concentrations of cadmium, nickel, copper, selenium,
silver, and thallium exceeded EPA’s marine water quality criteria at locations
throughout the site.
Sediment samples from the Weymouth Fore River and the site’s wet basins
(Figure 4.4-16) (MVvRA, QSSA, 1988) had high concentrations of polyaromatic
hydrocarbons, petroleum hydrocarbons, and heavy metals (Table D.20). High levels of
tributyltins (ranging from 10 to 180 ug/kg) v ere detected in sediment collected near the
Quincy FRSA site (Makkar, 1989). Tributyltins are effective agents in antifouling
marine paint; however, they are also a known toxin.
4.4.7 Spectacle Island Baseline Conditions
4.4.7.1 Geology and Soils. Spectacle Island originally consisted of a northern drumlin
and a southern drumlin connected by a low sandbar. Drumlins are hills composed of
glacial till, a poorly sorted, compact mixture of sand, silt, and gravel. For
approximately 60 years (and especially between the years 1923 and 1946), the city of
Boston filled the area between the drumlins with refuse. By 1946, the existing
perimeter of the island was established, creating an island of approximately 96 acres,
including 38 acres of fill (DEM, 1984; and MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II, 1988). Since
landfilling at Spectacle Island ceased in 1960, the major change in the island’s shape has
been due to natural erosion along the shoreline. The future size of Spectacle Island
could be increased should the Massachusetts Department of Public Works dispose of
excavated material from the Third Harbor/Central Artery project on the island.
Eleven borings were drilled on Spectacle Island (DEM, 1984). Wells were installed at
the same time to allow for the collection of groundwater samples (Figure 4.4-19). The
three borings that were drilled into the two naturally occurring drumlins on the island
encountered very compact glacial till consisting of sand, gravel, and silt. The other
eight borings penetrated up to 85 feet of landfill materials. The refuse landfill is
underlain by till near the drumlins and by a hard yellow clay between the drumlins
(MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II, 1988).
4-116
-------
:k :1sjasid
•DRAINAGE DIVIDER
SOURCE: RMFP, SCREEN It, 1988.
DRU4AGE BASINS:
0
SCALE IN MILES
.5
(BOSTON HARBOR)
FiGURE 4.4-17. SURFACE WATER BODIES AND MAJOR DRAINAGE BASIN DELINEATIONS
WITHIN ONE MILE OF QUINCY FRSA
.5
-------
____ 100 - YEAR FLOODPLAIN
FACILITIES FOOTPRINT
SOURCE: MWRA, RMFP, SCREEN, II, 1988
1000
2000
SCALE IN FEET
0
SCALE IN METERS
i
- t,t o
LEGEND :
0
2000
FIGURE 4.4-18. 100-YEAR FLOODPLAINS WITHIN ONE MILE OF QUINCY FRSA
-------
ft.Conto
1FG ND
DEM STATION
80
100
1/8
SCALE IN MILES • MWRA STATION
0 MASS. DPW STATION
SOURCES: DEM, 1984. MASS. DPWS 1988
MWRA, RMFP, SCREEN, II, 1988.
FIGURE 4.4-19. SOIL, GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING
LOCATIONS AT SPECTACLE ISLAND
Shore Sample
0 1/8
I I
-------
Based on observations of elevated ground temperatures and patches of brown grass in
May of 1984, underground fires could be burning in the landf ill portion of the island
(DEM, 1984). However, no indications of underground burning were observed during
field investigations conducted by EPA and MWRA during the spring and summer
of 1988.
No soil quality samples have been collected at Spectacle Island. Should Spectacle Island
be selected as an MWRA residuals management site, the collection and analysis of soil
quality samples would be required.
4.4.7.2 Groundwater. Low-yield aquifers of very compact sand, silt, and gravel exist in
the drum lins on Spectacle Island. Groundv.ater also occurs in the compacted fill and
garbage. Depth to groundwater ranges from 5 to 45 feet in the monitoring wells that
were installed during the 1984 investigation (DEM, 1984). The wells in the fill and the
refuse were slov to recharge during sampling, indicating low permeability materials.
Odorless, brown colored groundwater has been noted percolating to Boston Harbor from
the refuse in the center of the island (DEM, 1984). This seepage was most apparent on
the island’s west side during low tide. No municipal water supplies exist on Spectacle
Island and none are expected to be developed.
Groundwater samples were taken at eleven wells (Figure 4.4-19, Tables D.21 and
D.22). In seven of the eleven samples, iron concentrations were greater than the
Massachusetts Groundwater Quality standard and manganese concentrations violated
the Massachusetts standard in eight of the eleven samples. Concentrations of arsenic,
chromium, lead, nickel, and phenol detected in groundwater were higher in the sample
collected at Station 7 than in the surface water sample collected on Spectacle Island’s
western shore. Leachate from the Station 7 region of the landfill may be contributing
to the shoreline contamination. Pollutant concentrations detected in Station 8
groundwater were typically lower than concentrations detected in Sample 7, or the
shore surface water sample. The Station 8 region of the landfill appears to be less
contaminated than the Station 7 region and does not appear to influence water quality
along the western shoreline (DEM, 1984).
4.4.7.3 Surface Water and Sediments. Three surface water quality samples were
collected on or near the site (Figure 4.4-19, Tables D.21 and D.22) (DEM, 1984).
Concentrations of iron at the shore station and Station WQ3 violated Massachusetts
Surface Water Quality Standards. Concentrations of copper, lead, mercury, nickel,
silver, zinc, cyanide, manganese, and phenol found of the shore of the island violated
the Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards for marine and coastal waters and
exceeded EPA’s Marine Chronic Water Quality Criteria.
In preparation of the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project, the Massachusetts
Department of Public Works collected ten sediment samples in May of 1987
(Figure 4.4-19) and analyzed the samples for physical characteristics (Table D.23). The
predominant sediment types west of Spectacle Island are black silt and/or clay with a
trace of sand. East of the island, the predominant sediment type is grey silt.
In July 1988, sediment samples were collected by MWRA at four locations offshore of
Spectacle Island (Figure 4.4-19, Table D.24). With the exception of iron and manganese
4-120
-------
concentrations, which are highest in sediment collected at Station 1, the highest metals
concentrations occurred in sediments collected at Stations 2 and 3. The sediment
surrounding the island contains significant levels of metals such as copper, lead,
mercury, and zinc. Stations 1, 2, and 3 are located southwest of the island and are
about one-half mile closer to Moon Island than is Station 4. Based on documented
current patterns (MDC, 1984), the Moon Island combined sewer overflow discharge may
have influenced sediment quality in this area and may account for the variation in
quality between sediment samples collected southwest of the island and those collected
west of the island.
Ranges of sediment pollutant concentrations and physical characteristics measured
along the potential pipeline route from Deer Island to Spectacle Island are presented in
Tables D.25 and D.26, respectively (MWRA, STFP, III, H, Supp., 1988). Comparison of
pollutant concentrations to Massachusetts regulations (314 CMR 9) for dredging,
disposal, and filling in waters indicates that the excavated sediments would likely be
classified as either Category Two or Three (medium to high levels of pollutants). Based
on physical characteristics, the excavated sediment would be classified as either Type B
orC.
4.4.8 Deer Island Baseline Conditions
4.4.8.1 Geology and Soils. Numerous soil borings have been drilled on Deer Island
(MV ’RA, RMFP, Screen, 11, 1988). A large drumlin exists near the center of the island,
and remnants of smaller drumlins exist at the north and south ends. Deposits of grey
silty marine clays surround the central drumlin. The drumlins consist of silty, claye
glacial till. Construction of the new Deer Island wastewater treatment plant will
involve removal of the drumlin as well as expansion into areas of the island which have
not been developed. The residuals processing area on Deer Island is not expected to be
affected by treatment plant construction. Fill material exists beneath and east of the
existing Deer Island wastewater treatment plant, near the west shore, and in the
southern portion of the island. The depth to bedrock ranges from 60 to 180 feet. The
bedrock beneath Deer Island is a thinly bedded grey argillite. Soil chemistry data
collected from Deer Island during earlier site evaluations indicates that heavy metals
contamination is of concern at this site (MWRA, Closure 1, 1986, and MWRA,
Closure, 2, 1986).
Ii.4.8.2 Groundwater. Most of Deer Island, which is underlain by till and bedrock, is
expected to yield between 0 and 10 gallons per minute of groundwater (Figure 4.4-20).
In the southern and western regions of the island there are low-yield aquifers expected
to yield between 0 and 100 gallons per minute. These aquifers are thin sand layers
above or below the less permeable till and clay and would probably be subject to
saltwater intrusion if pumped. Depth to groundv .ater ranges from 0 to an estimated
80 feet under Deer Island. Groundwater flow on the southern portion of the island, the
potential location of the residuals processing site, is towards the southeast
(MWRA, Closure, 1, 1986, and MWRA, Closure, 2, 1986).
No municipal water supply wells exist on Deer Island and it is unlikely that one will be
developed because of the groundwater’s poor quality and the potential for saltwater
intrusion. Previously collected groundwater samples were used to characterize the
4-121
-------
0
FIGURE 4.4-20. DELINEATION OF AQUIFER YIELD WITHIN ONE MILE OF DEER ISLAND
I-
op
tittle F ui,
/
SOURCE: MWRA, RMFP, SCREEN, II, 1988
Li LOWYIELD AQUIFER
LII BEDROCKANDTILL
.5
SCALE IN MILES
-------
groundwater quality at Deer l land (MWRA, Closure, 1, 1986 and MWRA, Closure,
2, 1986). The data presented in Table D.27 indicate that arsenic, chromium, lead, and
selenium exceed both EPA’s Drinking Water MCLs and EPA’s water and fish
consumption human health criteria.
4.4.8.3 Surface Water and Sediments. Surface water exists on Deer Island in a small,
possibly intermittent, stream on the island’s central drumlin which drains into a small
wetland. Surface water runoff currently drains radially from Deer Island to Boston
Harbor. An inactive reservoir exists on top of the central drumlin. There are no
freshwater bodies within one rriile of the processing site. With construction of the new
Deer Island treatment plant, the drumlin, stream, and reservoir will be eliminated.
Heavy metals and persistent organics have been detected at high concentrations in the
water (Table D.28) and sediment (Table D.29) surrounding Deer Island (MDC, 1984, and
MWRA, STEP, 111, 1-I, Supp., 1988). All pollutants detected in the surface water (except
aluminum) violate or exceed at least one applicable water quality standard or
criterion. These concentrations are likely due to the existing combined sewer overflov s
and Deer Island treatment plant outfalls which discharge to this area.
4.5 NOISE
4.5.1 Introduction
Noise emissions do not necessarily result in any adverse impacts on a community. Only
if noise emission levels exceed certain impact criteria will there be any significant
adverse impact. Noise impact criteria for a particular neighborhood are determined
based on a consideration of several factors, including the following:
Land Use - Commercial or industrial land uses are relatively insensitive to
noise; the most sensitive land uses are residential and certain types of
institutional and recreational uses.
• Ambient Noise Level - Existing noise levels determine how sensitive a
neighborhood will be to a new noise source. In very-quiet neighborhoods the
sounds from a new activity will be more noticeable than in a neighborhood
where there is already a significant amount of noise.
• Health and Welfare - If a neighborhood is already quite noisy, then sounds
from a new activity may not be readily noticeable. However, an adverse
impact can occur if the overall noise levels are loud enough to interfere
with the public health and welfare, even though the new noise emissions are
not readily noticeable against the pre-existing ambient noise.
Responding to concerns over health and welfare, government agencies have
promulgated noise regulations at the federal, state, and local levels. Federal and state
noise regulations are addressed in Section 4.5.2. Local noise regulations are cited in the
discussions of each candidate site.
4-123
-------
Any potential noise impact will occur within close proximity to the noise source. It is
unlikely that significant noise impacts will occur more than 200 feet from a
transportation corridor, or more than 1,000 feet outside the property line of a residuals
site. While these distances are not absolute, they are the working assumptions that
have been used in conducting the baseline studies for residuals management options and
are judged adequate for environmental impact analysis.
This section addresses each of the six candidate sites for long-term residuals
management and defines the site-specific conditions related to the potential for noise
impact. These conditions include land use, sensitive receptors, and ambient noise
levels.
A general description of land use around the residuals sites is described in Section 4.1.
Sensitive receptors are defined as any residential dwelling and/or institutional facilit ,
(e.g., schools, hospitals, nursing homes, churches, and recreational areas) and are
summarized in Appendix C.
Existing ambient noise levels were obtained during the MWRA monitoring program
conducted in 1988 (MWRA, RMFP, Screen I, II, III, 1988).
4.5.2 Noise Measurement Scales
All noise levels in this study are expressed in dBA (decibels on the A-weighted scale).
Noise levels expressed in dBA are closely correlated with Loudness or noisiness as
percei ed by humans and are used to measure commonly heard sounds (Figure 4.5-1).
Noise levels in a community fluctuate with passing events, over periods of a few
seconds or minutes. There are also longer-term variations. For example, it is generally
quieter at night when there is less activity. Various noise measure scales have been
developed to take account of the cumulative effects of these short- and long-term
fluctuations in noise. One of the cumulative noise exposure scales used is LDN
(day-night equivalent sound level).
The LDN is calculated from a mathematical average of the sound energy received over
a 24-hour period. In calculating the LDN, a 10 dBA penalty is applied to any sound
occurring at night (defined as 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). The nighttime penalty is based
on the assumption that there is a greater sensitivity to noise events occurring at night,
when it is generally quieter and people are either relaxing or sleeping.
Closely related to LDN is the LEn (equivalent noise level). LEn is calculated in the
same way as L N except that no”highttime penalty is applied. ‘The LEn is most
commonly appfl’ed to shorter time periods, such as one hour. The LEn 1% dominated by
occasional intrusive sounds: the short term, louder events. It is als& ensitive to
regularly occurring but fluctuating sounds. The LD has the same sensitivity to
occasional intrusive sounds and regularly occurring but fluctuating sounds. The only
additional feature of the LDN is its added sensitivity to nighttime sounds because of the
10 dBA penalty from 10 pm to 7 am.
Another type of noise measure scale is a statistical index, such as L 90 . The L 90 is that
noise level (in dBA) which is exceeded cumulatively for 90 percent of the time (e.g., 18
4-124
-------
LOUDNESS SOUND PRESSURE
SCALE SCALE (dBA)
VERY LOUD 8
7
6
5
LOUD 4
3
SNOWMOBILE
GASOLINE
LAWNMOWER
JACKHAMMER
(AT 50 FT.)
DIESEL TRUCK
(AT 50 FT.)
DIESEL TRAIN
(AT 100 FT.)
PHONE RING
(AT 5 FT.)
DIESEL TRUCK
(AT 200 FT.)
QUIET
I
1 2
VERY QUIET 1/8
50
AUTOMOBILE
(AT 50 FT.)
TYPEWRITER
(AT 10 FT.)
CONVERSATiON
(AT 3 FT.)
CRICKETS
RESIDENTIAL AREA
(EVENING)
NOTE . AT OPERATORS EAR
FIGURE 43-1. TYPICAL SOUND LEVELS IN dBA AND THEIR SUBJECTIVE LOUDNESS
90
SOUND SOURCE
2
60
30
20
-------
minutes out of 20 minutes). The noise environment is therefore quieter than the L 90
level for only 10 percent of the time. Thus the L 90 is a good measure of the
background ambient noise level, reflecting conditions when there are no clearly
identifiable sound source. The L 90 noise level generally results from a combination of
many distant sources.
4.5.3 Regulatory Setting
Noise is regulated by federal, state, and local legislation and policies. On the national
level, noise guidelines are provided by the EPA and at the state level the Massachusetts
DEQE has published guidelines based primarily on consideration of the pre-existing
ambient noise level. Local noise ordinances are important for comparison of facility
impacts with the noise levels set by the municipal bylaws and regulations. These are
discussed in greater detail below for each site.
4.5.3.1 Federal Noise Guidelines. The Noise Control Act of 1972 established a national
policy by statutory mandate “to promote an environment for all Americans free from
noise that jeopardizes their public health and welfare” (U.S. EPA, Levels Doc., 1974).
The EPA was directed by Congress to publish information about levels of environmental
noise consistent with protection of public health and welfare, with an adequate margin
of safety (Table 4.5-1). Table 4.5-2 describes typical noise ranges on a single value of
TABLE 4.5-1. SUMMARY OF NOISE LEVELS IDENTIFIED AS REQUISITE
TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE WITH AN ADEQUATE
MARGIN OF SAFETY
Effect
Level
Area
Hearing Loss
LEQ(24 hr.)
<70
dB
All areas
Outdoor activity
interference and
LDN
<55
dB
Outdoors in residential areas,
farms and other outdoor areas
annoyance
where people spend widely
varying amounts of time and
other places in which quiet is a
basis for use
LE(_ ( 2 4 hr.)
<55
dB
Outdoor areas where people spend
limited amounts of time, such as
school yards and playgrounds
Indoor activity
interference and
LDN
<45
dB
Indoor residential areas
annoyance
LEQ(24 hr.)
<45
dB
Other indoor areas with human
activities such as schools
Source: U.S. EPA,
Levels Document, 1974
4-126
-------
TABLE 4.5-2. TYPICAL DAYTIME NOISE LEVELS AT
URBAN AND SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AREAS (L 90 )
Daytime Residual Nuise Level in dB
Typical Range
Description
Quiet Suburban Residential
36
to
40
Normal Suburban Residential
41
to
4)
Urban Residential
46
to
50
Noisy Urban Residential
51
to
5)
Very Noisy Urban Residential
56
to
60
Source: MWRA, RMFP, Screen, D, 1988
broad-band noise levels using a frequency weighting measure (A-weighted) that
simulates human perceptions (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, 1988).
4.5.3.2 Massachusetts Noise Regulations and Guidelines. The Massachusetts DEQE
noise regulation prohibit excess noise emissions, and are based primarily on the
pre-existing ambient noise level. An increase of up to 10 dBA above the ambient noise
level is allowed. Therefore, the maximum allowable ambient noise level after the
contribution of the new project (LE(- ) is the L 90 + 10 dba. Noise sources that emit pure
tones are based on an octave band a1 ialysis, therefore the allowable increase in the
‘overall noise levels may be significantly less than 10 dBA, according to the DEQE
•‘guideliries. These criteria apply at the facility property boundary.
4.5.4 Walpole MCI Baseline Conditions
4.5.4.1 Local Noise Ordinances. The Walpole MCI site is on the town line of Walpole
and Norfolk, therefore noise ordinances for both towns apply. Both towns generally
prohibit generation of noise or vibration that adversely affect any surrounding area.
4.5.4.2 Ambient Noise Levels. Noise monitoring was conducted in the vicinity of the
Walpole MCI site on two weekdays in 3une of 1988 (Figure 4.5-2 and Table 4.5-3). No
nighttime measurements were required because the proposed landfill operations would
be confined to the daytime. Meteorological conditions were favorable for accurately
measuririg ambient noise; local wind speeds were below 12 mph, roads were dry, and no
precipitation fell during the monitoring period. During monitoring sessions, the most
significant noise sources noted consisted of traffic on Winter and Main Streets and
aircraft activity. Additional background noise was attributed to birds and insects.
Table 4.5-4 presents the measured noise levels at the six measurement locations and
-also indicates the predominant contributing sources. The indicated noise levels are
4-127
-------
ir
- ,/_ . ..
• .
SER
SCALE IN METERS
0
SCALE IN FEET
250
1000
LEGEND
MONITORING LOCATION
1000 FT 1000 FOOT PERIMETER
— — — FROM SfTE BOUNDARY
SITE BOUNDARY
FIGURE 4.5-2. WALPOLE MCI 1000 FOOT STUDY AREA
AND NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
441
250
1000
-------
TABLE 4.5-3. WALPOLE MCI NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
Approx. Location
Relative to Site Boundary
Monitor Distance
Locations Land Uses/Location Descr ipt ion Direction (feet)
1 Prison (MCI Walpole) and open space; South 100
opposite north security wall and
west of training building (Walpole)
2 Residential; south side of Winter St. East 100
approximately 500 feet west of
Route lA (Main Street Walpole)
2A* Residential Property Line East 50
3 Open space; south side of Winter St. Northwest 100
on prison land (Norfolk)
4 Prison (MCI-Norfolk) On State Prison West 1700
Reservation
5 Residential end of Drone Rd., off Southeast 500
of Beehive St. (Walpole)
Source: MWRA, RMFP, Screen, I, 1988
Notes: * An additional location was added for the noise impact analysis
(Section 5.6.3)
TABLE 4.5-4. WALPOLE MCI NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS
Measured Levels (dbA)*
Monitor Residual Average
Location (L 90 ) (LEQ) Predominant Sources of Noise
1 45 43-52 Aircraft, birds, crickets
2 46-49 64-67 Traffic on Winter St.
3 39-40 5 1-53 Traffic on Winter St., birds,
aircraft
4 38-42 45-49 Aircraft, birds, firing range
5 41-43 47-48 Traffic on Rte. IA, aircraft,
birds
Source: MWRA, RMFP, Screen, I, 1988
Notes: * For the sample period
4-129
-------
presented in terms of the residual noise level denoted by L 90 (also referred to by DEQE
as the “ambient” noise level), and as the equivalent noise level, LE( (MWRA, RMFP,
Screen, lii, 1988). The noise measurement results indicate that noi’ e levels are typical
of “normal suburban residential” or “urban residential” according to EPA classification.
There are plans to renovate, upgrade and expand the existing state correctional
facilities at MCI Cedar Junction (Walpole) by approximately 130 beds (MWRA, RMFP,
Screen, 1, 1988). Noise generated by the construction at the prison could be a
predominant source of noise in the area and thus raise the ambient noise levels during
the construction period.
4.5.5 Rowe Quarry Baseline Conditions
4.5.5.1 Local Noise Ordinances. The Rowe Quarry site is situated on the municipal line
of Maiden and Revere. However, Revere noise ordinances do not pertain to industrial
areas, and thus do not affect the site.
Maiden’s ordinance prohibits the creation or continuation of any loud, unnecessary,
offensive and/or unusual noise which endangers public health or interfere with peaceful
and quiet enjoyment of residents of the city of Maiden. In particular, activities which
exceed 50 dBA are banned, excluding the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
4.5.5.2 Ambient Noise Levels. Noise monitoring was conducted in the vicinity of Rov.e
Quarry on two weekdays in June of 1988 (Figure 4.5-3 and Table 4.5-5). Meteorological
conditions were favorable for accurate noise measurements; local wind speeds were
below 12 mph, roads were dry, and no local precipitation fell during the noise
monitoring study. The most noticeable noise was produced by traffic along Route I and
on Salem Street, aircraft overflight, and quarry operation. Table 4.5-6 presents the
measured noise levels at four measurement locations and also indicates the predominant
contributing sources. The noise levels monitored around the proposed site would be
classified as “noisy urban residential” according to EPA standards.
4.5.6 Stoughton Baseline Conditions
4.5.6.1 Local Noise Ordinances. Since the Stoughton site is situated near the town line
of Stoughton and Avon, noise ordinances for both towns apply. The towns of Stoughton
and Avon bylaws state that “Any use permitted by right or special permit in any district
shall not be conducted in a manner as to emit any ... noise or vibration, ..., or condition
or element in an amount as to affect adversely the surrounding environment” (Avon
Bylaws, 1983; Stoughton Bylaws, 1987).
4.5.6.2 Ambient Noise Levels. Noise monitoring was conducted on two weekdays in
June of 1988. Meteorological conditions were favorable for accurate noise
measurements; local wind speeds were below 12 mph, roads were dry, and no
precipitation fell during the monitoring period (Figure 4.5-4 and Table 4.5-7).
The most significant noise noted during monitoring was attributed to Route 24 traffic
and truck traffic serving the various commercial firms in the area including the
Simeone Corporation industrial activities on the site. Additional background noise was
caused by cars traveling on local streets and by aircraft flying overhead. Table 4.5-8
4-130
-------
-I
I
‘I
• •I..IPf4bbS., b
4%
• _ ;—
SCALE IN METERS
.1000 0
SCALE EET
1000
LEGEND
MONITORING LOCATION
1000 FT 1000 FOOT PERIMETER
— — — FROM SITE BOUNDARY
SITE BOUNDARY
FIGURE 4.5-3. ROWE QUARRY 1000 FOOT STUDY AREA
AND NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
;/t
-------
TABLE 4.)-). ROWE QUARRY NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
Monitor
Location
Approx. Location
Relative to Site Boundary
Distance
Land Uses! Location Description Direction (feet)
1
Residential neighborhood, nursing East ‘400
home, condominiums; approximately
150 feet east of Salem St., and
north of Waitt Park Rd. in a vacant
lot (Revere)
2
Single-family homes, vacant land North 200
parcels; center of Genoa St. off
of Liberty Ave. (Revere)
3
Commercial strip development, several Northwest 500
residences; planned site for future
condominium development; approximately
150 feet of Rte. 1 and 200 feet south
of Linehurst Rd. in vacant field
(Maiden)
4
Single-family residences bordering South 100
quarry site; at north end of Fenwich
St. on border of site (Maiden)
Source:
MWRA, RMFP, Screen, 1, 1988
Monitor
Location
TABLE 4.5-6. ROWE QUARRY NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS
Measured Levels (dBA)*
Residual Average
(L 90 ) (LEQ) Predominant Sources of Noise
1
52-57 58-59 Salem St. traffic, aircraft
2
49-56 - 52-59 Rte. I traffic, aircraft
3
65-67 68-7 1 Rte. I traffic
4
53-54 57-58 Quarry activity, traffic
Source: MWRA, RMFP, Screen, 1, 1988
Notes: * For the sample period
4-132
-------
a
I
U
S
I
Map ev ood
Cen-
/
I.
S
SOURCE: MWRA, RMFP, SCREEN, III, 1988
1000
SCALE IN METERS
0
SCALE IN FEET
1000
LE GFND
MONITORING LOCATION
1000 FT 1000 FOOT PERIMETER
FROM SITE BOUNDARY
— SITE BOUNDARY
FIGURE 4.5-4. STOUGHTON 1000 FOOT STUDY AREA
AND NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
/
-------
TABLE 4.5-7. STOUGHTON NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
Monitor
Location
.
Land Uses/Location Description
Direction
Distance
(feet)
I
Mixed commercial/residential;
commuter parking lot at intersection
of Turnpike St. and Pleasant St.
Northwest
300
2
Industrial; Condyne Office Park
parking lot, adjacent wooded area
South
200
3
Industrial; landscaped areas at Old
Page St. and Maple St.
North
600
4
Industrial, with a single residence;
Page St. at Simeone Site access road
Northeast
300
5
Industrial/residential interface area,
Page St. at Bodwell St. exit (Avon)
East
1,500
6
Office area with a single residence;
Turnpike St. near Codyne Office Park;
vacant lot on south side of street
Southwest
1,200
Source:
MWRA, RMFP, Screen, 1, 1988
presents the measured noise levels at six measurement locations and indicates the
predominant contributing sources.
The residences northwest and northeast of the project site (in the vicinity of
measurement location 1 and 4, respectively) would be in the “noisy urban residential”
range of the EPA classification system based on the measurement results. The
residential neighborhood to the east of the site, beyond the industrial park in Avon
(characterized by location 5), would be in the same classification. The residence to the
southwest, in the vicinity of location 6, would be in the quieter classification of “urban
residential.” Nighttime noise levels were lower than daytime noise levels, by
approximately 5 to 10 dBA, primarily because of reduced traffic volumes (MWRA,
RMFP, Screen, 1988).
The main sources of future baseline noise emissions will be truck traffic transporting
construction materials and construction noise due to development of the Stoughton and
Avon Corporate Parks. After construction, the additional traffic that will serve the
new planned Corporate Park development may result in increased noise levels.
4-134
-------
TABLE 4.5-8. STOUGI-ITON NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS
Monitor
Location
Measured
Levels (dBA)(a)
Predominant Sources of Noise
Resid ial
(L 90 )
Average
(LEO)
1
2
Day
Night
Day
55-56
43
47-48
67-68
53
53-63
Local traffic, commercial
activities
Local traffic, trucks on Rte. 24
HVAC , birds, Rte. 24 traffic
Night
38
49
Rte. 24 traffic
3
Da
Night
49-5 1
43
62-63
48
Page St. and Rte. 24 traffic,
commercial activ.
Rte. 24 traffic
4
Day
Night
50-53
40
63-66
47
Old PageRd. trucks, Rte. 24
traffic wood chipper on Simeone
Site
Rte. 24 traffic
5
Day
Night
5 1-53
46
63-64
53
Local & Rte. 24 traffic,
aircraft, birds
Rte. 24 traffic, idling trucks
in industrial park
6
Day
Night
47-49
43
63-65
48
Turnpike St. traffic, 1-IVAC,
aircraft, birds
HVAC fans
Source: MWRA, [ (MI-I-’, Screen, 1, 1988
Notes: (a) For the sample period
(b) 1-leating, ventilation and air conditioning system
4.5.7 Quincy FRSA Baseline Conditions
4.5.7.1 Local Noise Ordinances. Because the FRSA is situated on the town line of
•.Quincy and Braintree, noise ordinances for both are discussed.
The city of Quincy bylaws require that a processing facility not generate “... any noise
and vibration not normally perceptible without instruments at a distance of five
hundred (500) feet from the premises ...“ (Quincy Bylaws, 1987). The town of Braintree
bylaws address various sources of noise and set specific noise limits for the transmission
of sound between properties of the same and different zoning. The allowable noise
transmitted to a residential zone during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. is 60 dBA.
4-135
-------
A 50 dBA level is allowable during the remaining nighttime hours and all day Sunday.
The maximum noise allowed to be transmitted to an industrial site is 70 dBA.
The Braintree noise code limits construction noise at residential and institutional
property lines to L (the level exceeded 10 percent of the time) of 75 dBA and a
maximum level of 8 dBA. The allowable L 10 for recreational land is 80 dBA.
Construction is not permitted at night or on weekends unless the construction noise
level at the residential property line does not exceed 50 dBA.
4.5.7.2 Ambient Noise Levels. Noise measurements at in the vicinity of the Quincy
FRSA were conducted on two weekdays in June of 1988 (Figure 4.5-5 and Table 4.5-9).
Meteorological conditions were favorable for accurate noise measurements; local wind
speeds were 12 mph, roadways were dry and no precipitation fell during the period.
Since residuals processing should occur in a 24-hour a day schedule, both day and night
noise levels were measured.
TABLE 4.5-9. QUINCY FRSA NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
Monitor
Approx. Location Relative
to Site Boundary
Distance
Location
Land Uses/Location Description
Direction (feet)
1
Mixed commercial and residential;
South 150
measurements on Columbia Terr.,
between Hill Ave. and Patten Ave.,
(Braintree)
2
Mixed commercial and residential;
West 150
measurements on northwest side of
E. Howard St. and just south of
South St., in vacant parking lot
3
Mixed commercial and residential;
North 50
measurements at southeast end of
Nash Rd., in parking lot
4
At the southern end of Monatiquot
East 1,800
St., Weymouth; by shoreline and
accross from a residence at No. 76
Monatiquot Street
Source:
MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II, 1988, and MWRA, I
SPO, 1, 1989
During the noise monitoring, background noise was primarily from traffic along Quincy
Avenue (Route 53), East Howard and South Streets, and Washington Street (Route 3A).
4-136
-------
--
St Josept Ship yar
Sch • q ; • Pr
‘I
.
•1
0
•
•
SOURCE: MWRA, RMFP, SCREEN,
AND MWRA, ISPD , 1989
0
SCALE IN METERS
0
SCALE IN FEET
250
‘. .o
1000 FT.
0
II, 1988 -
1000
SITE BOUNDARY
FIGURE 4.5-5. QUINCY FRSA 1000 FOOT STUDY AREA
AND NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
omm
- S..
1000
LEGEND
MONITORING LOCATION
1000 FT 1000 FOOT PERIMETER
FROM SITE BOUNDARY
-------
Additional noise came from aircraft and insects. Construction and other nonroutine
sources were not detected. Table 4.5-10 presents the noise levels at the three
measurement locations and also indicates the predominant contributing sources.
Monitoring locations 2 and 3 were selected to represent noise levels for the residential
areas. According to the ambient noise levels, these areas are classified as “urban
residential” as described by the EPA classification system. Noise levels measured along
East Howard and South Streets are somewhat higher due to industry and, therefore, are
classified as “noisy urban residential.” A reduction of approximately three to eight dBA
occurred during nighttime noise monitoring. The primary reason for reduced noise levels
was due to a decrease in traffic volume (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II, 1988). These
measured levels are consistent with the results of other sampling programs for the area
(MWRA, ISSD, 1989).
Future baseline noise emissions will be produced from trucks and barges transporting
Construction materials to Deer Island. Other future noise sources may result from the
shipbuilding and repair business on the site. Off-site noise emissions may include the
proposed Clean Harbors hazardous waste incinerator. For the next 10 years, there could
be a significant increase in new noise emissions if all the proposed projects are operating
concurrently.
4.5.8 Spectacle Island Baseline Conditions
4.5.8.1 Local Noise Ordinances. The noise ordinance for the city of Boston (Boston,
Noise Ordinance, 1984) is identical to that of the town of Braintree described Lfl
Section 4.5.7.1.
4.5.8.2 Ambient Noise Levels. Noise monitoring was conducted on Long Island during
weekdays in June of 1988 (Figure 4.5-6 and Table 4.5-Il). Additional noise monitoring
was conducted on Thompson Island in November of 1988. Meteorological conditions were
favorable for accurate noise measurements. Since Spectacle Island is under
consideration as a processing site, both day and nighttime noise was monitored because
the facility may operate 24 hours a day. Table 4.5-12 presents the noise levels at three
measurement locations and indicates the predominant contributing sources.
The most noticeable noise sources noted during the study were power boats and aircraft
flying to and from Logan Airport. Automobile traffic traveling to the Long Island
hospital was also detected. Based on the monitoring results, the islands surrounding
Spectacle Island would be classified as “urban residential” under EPA’s classification
system.
If the DPW’s proposed plan for depositing excavated material from the Central
Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel construction on Spectacle Island is implemented, then barge
and truck noise sources will increase noise emissions significantly at Spectacle Island for
several years. In addition, bulldozers used to move large piles of earth would also
generate noise. Noise emissions would be expected to peak during 1992 to 1994, when
the greatest amount of excavated material would be deposited at Spectacle Island.
4-138
-------
Traffic on E. Howard St.,
train, birds, aircraft, fans
Traffic on E. Howard St.,
aircraft, fans
Traffic on Rte. 3A and
South St.
Traffic on Rte. 3A, insects
Local Traffic
Distant traffic, industrial noise
ISPD, 1, 1989
TABLE 4.5-10. QUINCY FRSA NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS
Measured Levels (dBA)*
Monitor Residual Average
Location (L 90 ) (LEO) Predominant Sources of Noise
1 Day 44-49 54-64 Traffic on Hill Ave., Quincy
Ave.; Aircraft
Distant traffic, insects
Night 41 43
2 Day 51-52 61-67
Night 47 56
3 Day 46-49 49-66
Night 43 47
4 Day 52 60
Night 46 49
Source: MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II, 1988; and MWRA ,
Notes: * For the sample period
4-139
-------
/
—-
-
‘4
‘ ‘1
• ¼
I
rPiDmpson t
i/and
‘S
/ Sculpir.
—— Ledge
1000 FT.
suff0
Moon
0
SCALE IN METERS
1000 0 1000
SCALE IN FEET
500
SOURCE: MWRA, RMFP, SCREEN, II, 1988
LEGEND
MONITORING LOCATION
1000 FT 1000 FOOT PERIMETER
FRO l SITE BOUNDARY
SITE BOUNDARY
FIGURE 4.5-6. SPECTACLE ISLAND 1000 FOOT STUDY AREA
AND NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
\
-.t
I
I
I
• 2
p. —
/
+
• 4
/
/
500
Head
-------
TABLE 4.5-11. SPECTACLE ISLAND NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
Approx. Location
- Relative to Site Boundary
Monitor Distance
Location Land Uses/Location Description Direction (feet)
1 Undeveloped land and hospital Southeast 4,000
institutional use of Long Island;
measurement location at southwest
end of Long Island adjacent to
bridge to moon Island
2 Undeveloped land and Thompson West 3,000
Academy; measurement location at
northeast end of Thompson Island
Source: MWRA, RMFP, Screen, 1, 1988; and ENSR Memorandum, 11/21/88
TABLE 4.5-12. SPECTACLE ISLAND NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS
Measured Levels (dBA)*
Monitor Residual Average
Location (L 90 ) (LEQ) Predominant Sources of Noise
1 Day 47 54 Aircraft, power boats, traffic
Night 37 40 Distant noise from direction
of Boston
2 Day 47 55 Motorcraft, students, diesel
vessel, traffic
Source: MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II, 1988, and ENSR Memorandum, 11/21/88
Notes: * For the sample period
4.5.9 Deer Island Baseline Conditions
4.5.9.1 Local Noise Ordinances. Although Deer Island is within the city of Boston it is
also adjacent to Point Shirley in the town of Winthrop (Figure 4.5-7). The city of
Boston’s noise regulations (Boston, Noise Ordinance, 1984) is identical to these of the
town of Braintree discussed above in Section 4.5.7.1. The Winthrop town bylaws prohibit
the generation “... of noise or vibrations which adversely affect public health or safety”
:(winthrop Bylaws, 1987). Winthrop has a Memorandum of Understanding with MWRA
that states “daytime and nighttime noise transmitted to the town line from the
wastewater treatment facility shall not exceed 36 dBA” (MWRA, MOU, 1988).
4-14 1
-------
4-
‘I
SOURCE: MWRA, RMFP, SCREEN, II, 1988
1000
250
0
250
SCALE IN METERS
0
SCALE IN FEET
1000
1
St
‘S
I
I
I
i&t/
‘4
‘4
‘4
‘4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
1000 FT.
/
1000 FT
LEGEND
MONITORING LOCATION
1000 FOOT PERIMETER
FROM SITE BOUNDARY
— SITE BOUNDARY
FIGURE 4.5-7. DEER ISLAND 1000 FOOT STUDY AREA
AND NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
-------
4.5.9.2 Ambient Noise Levels. Noise measurements were conducted during September of
1986 (Figure 4.5-7 and Table 4.5-13). Meteorological conditions were favorable for
accurate noise measurements; local v ind speeds were below 12 mph, roads were dry and
no precipitation fell during the period.
The monitoring results indicated that the most significant noise sources affecting the
Point Shirley area were attributed to aircraft traffic, Logan Airport surface operations,
surf, and the Deer Island Treatment Plant wastewater pumps. No atypical noise sources
were noticed. The surrounthng residential areas adjacent to the project site v ould be
classified as “normal suburban residential” to “urban residential” according to the EPA
classification system. Noise levels during the night were lower than daylight
measurements by an average of 3 dBA, a result of reduced aircraft traffic (MWRA,
RMFP, Screen 11, 1988). Table 4.5-14 presents the noise levels at the three measurement
locations and also indicates the predominant contributing sources.
Construction noise resulting from the renovation of the treatment facilities began in
1988 and could continue until 1999. Noise emissions will increase during the construction
period.
4.6 VISUAL
Sensitive viewing areas surrounding each site were identifed from DEIR documents
(M ’RA, RMFP, DEIR, I and II, 1989), site visits, and the sensitive receptor list (Appendix
C). The inventory of sensitive visual receptors was assessed to select the most
significant or representati\ e receptors for use in the impact evaluation. These primary
visual receptors were chosen based on proximity to the site, type of view, and extent of
human use. Any designated scenic viewing areas with a view of an alternative residuals
site were considered as primary receptors.
4.6.1 Walpole MCI Baseline Conditions
The site is characterized by 60 percent forested land and 40 percent partially open land
with grass and brush cover. The site’s base elevation is 210 to 260 feet MSL (MWRA,
RMFP, DEIR, 1, 1989). The primary visual receptors for the Walpole MCI landfill site are
described be1ov . Figure 4.6-1 identifies these receptors and indicates other areas from
which the site could be seen. Following is a description of the existing viewshed (the
area that a person could see looking in a specific direction) of the landfill site from each
primary receptor.
4.6.1.1 Residences on Winter Street. Several single-family residences are on this street
approximately 2,200 feet from the site boundary. Views from these residences consist
primarily of neighboring residences in the forefront, tree cover in the midview, and an
upwardly sloping banking in the background of the viewshed. A wooded portion of the
site is difficult to distinguish from the trees in the midground.
4.6.1.2 Residences on Main Street (Rt.IA) in Walpole. Several single-family residences
are approximately 200 feet from the site on either side of Route IA near the proposed
access drivevbay to the site. The viewshed includes the forested hillside of the site,
which would be in the midground of the view.
4-143
-------
TABLE 4.5-13. DEER ISLAND NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
Monitor
Location
Approx. Location
Relative to Site Boundary
Distance
Land Uses/Location Description Direction (feet)
1
Prison grounds, staff housing; Northwest 4,000
measurements at the “Engineer’s
House”
2
Residential; measurements at Northwest 4,750
150 Taft Ave., off of Adams Street
3
Residential; measurements at Taft Northv est 5,200
Ave., and Otis Ave.
Source:
Notes:
MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II, 1988
* Residuals processing site boundary
TABLE 4.5-14. DEER ISLAND NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS
Measured Levels (dBA)*
Monitor Residual
Location (L 90 )
1
Day 47-53
Night 48
2
Day 48-51
Night 40
3
Day 43
Night 38-47
Source: MWKA, RMFP, Screen, 1988
Notes: * For the sample period, sources of noise consisted of aircraft, air and
surface operations; surf, and waste treatment pumps on Deer Island
4.6.1.3 MCI Cedar Junction. The landfill site would abut the MCI Cedar junction
facility, however only employees and prison inmates are allowed on the MCI property.
There are an estimated 620 inmates and 430 employees at this facility (EOl-IS,1989).
Only the guard tower areas and activities outside of the prison walls (a guard training
area and shooting range) would have visual access to the landfill, which would be in the
forefront of the viewshed from these facilities. The prison walls would block any view b
inmates and from the main parking area at the prison.
4-144
-------
.\ ‘I PHI
,. \ -
‘N-
.,. \
2
/1 -
, - e .i:
/
, *1’
r ,J.
--
I.
;;.• •
- 7
- -
-; / )‘ C
/-)
/ ‘ 1%
• ••..••
A •.•••
/
/
SCALE IN METERS
SL’ L EE
2000
lIi 1 ’
LEGEND
I:: :1 POTENTIAL SITE
LANDFILL FOOTPRINT
F 1 POTENTIAL VISUAL
RECEPTOR AREA
FIGURE 4.6-1. WALPOLE MCI POTENTIAL VISUAL RECEPTOR AREAS
- ; -.- - . •• - I
/!
JLc.
H3gtianu Lai s-_ •
1
I 1—
K
/
C-
.t.
#7
CeAlJ r -
1’
I
1-
p .’
‘p
P 0 L E
ffll 1”
/7
SO 2t . \ ( r .-
-- - -‘
j/Po d”jIp€ •
II
A
-------
4.6.1.4 MC! Norfolk and Massachusetts Bay Correctional Institute. These prison
facilities lie to the northwest of the site. There are an estimated 1,196 inmates and 449
employees at the MCI Norfolk facility and 140 inmates and 47 employees at the
Massachusetts Bay Correctional Institute facility (EOHS,l989). Open fields and the
wetland area associated with the Stop River characterize the viewshed between the
facility and the landfill site. Employees coming and going from work would view the site
in the midview of their viewshed.
4.6.1.5 Residences near Beehive Drive. The single-family residences near Beehive Drive
in Walpole lie approximately 300 feet from the site. The existing viewshed includes a
thinly wooded area in the forefront, and it includes residences on Main Street and the
large blue water tank which currently stands on the southeast corner of the site in the
midground of the viewshed.
4.6.2 Rowe Quarry Baseline Conditions
The existing Rowe Quarry site looks like a large rock mountain from a distance. It can
be seen in the background of viewsheds almost two miles away (in Saugus, Melrose,
Maiden, and Revere) because of the relatively flat lands leading out to the ocean which
surround the site to the south and east. The proposed landfill site footprint would be
enclosed within the walls of the quarry. The surrounding area is highly industrial and
commercial in nature and a similar-looking gravel operation lies to the west of the site
on Route 99. Primary visual receptors identified have a view into the quarry rather than
just of the quarry walls.
The primary visual receptors identified for the Rowe Quarry landfill site are described
below, along with their viewshed. Figure 4.6-2 identifies these primary receptors and
indicates other areas from which the site could be seen.
4.6.2.1 Residences on Genoa Path and Ricker Street. The Rowe Quarry fills the entire
viewshed to the south for the residents in the Genoa Path area of Revere. The inside of
the deepest trench of the quarry can be seen from there. The view includes piles of
rocks and gravel, bulldozers, cranes, trucks, and winding roads between gravel piles. A
chain-link fence seperates the residences from the quarry. A grassy ledge of the quarry
can be seen in the foreground, the quarry landscape fills the midgound, and houses on
Ricker Street and Kennedy Drive can be seen in the background. A residence on Ricker
Street in Maiden has an opposite view from the Genoa Path residents, looking to the
north. The quarry would lie in the m dground of the viewshed, with the Genoa Path
residences and a wooded area in the background.
4.6.2.2 Residences on Blue Hill Ave. Several single-family residences on Blue Hill
Avenue have a view into the quarry looking east. The western edge of the quarry is
visually more open than to the north or south, giving a better view from the west. Blue
Hill Avenue rises above Route 99 on a rocky ledge. In the foreground of the viewshed is
the Townline Tenpin Bowling and Billiard Center and the rooftops of a trailer park, which
visually block Route 1. In the midground both the north and south walls of the quarry and
the floor of the quarry can be seen. In the background of the viewshed lie flatter lands
of Revere and the ocean.
4-146
-------
SCALE IN METERS
____ POTENTIAL SITE
LANDFILL FOOTPRINT
POTENTIAL VISUAL
RECEPTOR AREA
FIGURE 4.6-2. ROWE QUARRY POTENTIAL VISUAL RECEPTOR AREAS
F
•1
‘S
I.
I
St
S 4 u -’ _.:: ;i:
I ,,
/
ILa,afl k-LL
-i
, a.,, ••
C if ndaJe
$Ch.
C -
S/ -a
I-
I
1o
0
1000
-J
0
?OOT
LEGEND
-------
4.6.2.3 The North Shore Assembly of God Church. The North Shore Assembly of God
Church, a parish of over 200 people, overlooks the quarry from the west. The front of
the church has a view of trees and shrubs in the foreground, Route 1 i in the midground,
and the inside of the quarry is in the background of the viewshed.
4.6.2.4 Residences along Kennedy Drive. Residents along Kennedy Drive and the upper
floors of the Granada Highlands Apartments have a view of the Rowe Quarry site. Thin
trees and shrubs stand in the foreground, the site lies in the mid-background of the
viewshed, and Revere rooftops and the ocean are in the background.
4.6.2.5 Town Line Estates Trailer Park. Several trailers bordering Route I also have a
view directly into the Rowe Quarry. Route 1 lies in the foreground, the western portion
of the quarry lies in the midgrourid, and the quarry rims on the eastern side lie in the
background of the viewshed.
4.6.3 Stough ton Baseline Conditions
Approximately 70 percent of the Stoughton site is forested, 15 percent is open land, and
another 15 percent is associated with an abutting asphalt plant operation. A high-tension
power line with a 150-foot corridor crosses the site from east to west. The primary
visual receptors identified for the Stoughton site are identified and described below.
Figure 4.6-3 identifies these primary receptors and indicates other areas from which the
site could be seen.
4.6.3.1 Residences and Industry on Maple Street. Maple Street residences would have
the most extensive view of the northern portion of the proposed site. Maple Street and a
chain-link fence lie in the foreground of the viewshed. The site, which lies in the
midground of the viewshed, is characterized by an old equipment and railroad tie storage
area. The area is highly industrial in nature with several old buildings still standing. The
view from neighboring industry would be similar to the view from residences, although
the site is more likely to be in the background than in the midground of the viewshed.
4.6.3.2 Residences on Sunrise Terrace. Sunrise Terrace lies approximately 1,400 feet
west of the site on the top of a small hill. The foreground of the viewshed Consists of
thin tree cover, the midground consists of treetops at lower elevations, and in the
background the Stoughtori site can be identified by the abutting asphalt operation.
4.6.4 Quincy FRSA Baseline Conditions
The Quincy FRSA site is characterized by heavy industrial uses with no natural open
space. The surrounding properties to the north, south, and east are predominantly
industrial in nature. To the west of the site lies a dense residential area with many
apartment buildings and condominiums. A large blue Goliath crane currently stands at
the Quincy FRSA, marking the site from distances as far away as Hull and Long Island
(Boston). The primary visual receptors identified for the Quincy FRSA are shown in
Figure 4.6-4 and are described below.
4.6.4.1 Skyline Apartments. The Skyline Apartments lie to the south of the site on the
southern side of Quincy Avenue. Several apartments on the northern edge of the
complex have views directly into the southwestern portion of the site (where MWRA’s
4-148
-------
• 1 :& \ .
I
- p
Y . ________
I\ I ____
I \. I Residents & Industry — - — /
on Ma le St ‘ ‘
:
j \ 1 Sunrise Terrace
Residerit
km
- ... -. \ - ç-’
— IO tO! / - ) ] • 0 jO
1 ., •.. - :. _‘ _.t_._ *
• •
________ • •-. •-- • —4 .
r _ ___ - 4- a
¶ . .
- ‘ ‘ 4I 2 km • yLac .M
1Sc:. - - - - ‘
th \
3km
- ..
M4 . - - - \,. ____
- • \ Ws1do
G - / j
_____________________ LEGEND
700C I 1 POTENTIAL SITE
__ I I
POTENTIAL VISUAL
RECEPTOR AREA
FIGURE 4.6-3. STOUGHTON POTENTIAL VISUAL RECEPTOR AREAS
-------
—-
- • - - - -r
a’ -
UINCY ;: :
( & I I 7 TTI
Co I -
Pt •.- - / -
- -) - -- - - -Y ‘ ‘ ‘ it - -
‘A - N —SI’?
: \ k> ç\1 /;T’. .;‘ /
.‘ - / I
-,\. -ISkyhne ‘1Shore1 - -— J - : - . j
Apartments Hea t1 L.. - - — -‘C
___ :Li
\ ‘‘ i’ i _
‘- , .‘‘L - -
hr*1ntr \ - %- - _ - -4 : :L - ‘
17
* _____ LEGEND
POTENTIAL SITE
POTENTIAL VISUAL
- 1 RECEPTOR AREA
FIGURE 4.6-4. QUINCY FRSA POTENTIAL VISUAL RECEPTOR AREAS
- 1
-------
composting facilities v ould be built). The foreground of the viewshed consists of Quincy
Avenue, while the Quincy FRSA lies in the midground and background of the viewshed.
Portions of a tank farm and waste disposal company can also be seen a bit more to the
south.
4.6.4.2 Quincy and South Shore Mental Health Center. The Quincy and South Shore
Mental Health Center lies on Quincy Avenue just north of East Howard Street. This is
primarily an outpatient facility; however there are approximately 20 beds for overnight
patients. The center is on a hillside overlooking East Howard Street and the Quincy
FRSA site. The foreground of the viewshed from the parking lot is completely filled v ith
existing scaffolding, cranes, and buildings on the site. The Weymouth Fore River can be
seen in the background.
4.6.4.3 Clement O’Brien Towers. The Clement O’Brien Towers are an eight-story
complex located at the Germantown point in Quincy at the confluence of the Town River
and the We) mouth Fore River. The view consists of the Boston Edison power plant in the
midground and the Fore River Bridge and Quincy FRSA site in the background.
Scaffolding and cranes on the eastern edge of the site dominate the Quincy FRSA site
from this viewpoint.
4.6.4.4 Presidential Estates Townhouses. The Presidential Estates townhouses lie on a
hill to the west of the Quincy FRSA site. Several townhouses at the eastern edge of the
complex overlook the site. The view consists of a chain-link fence in the foreground,
several shipyard buildings in the midground, and Boston Edison and the eymouth Fore
River in the background.
The Quincy FRSA site can be seen from many other visual receptors in the area because
of the great heights of scaffolding and cranes at the site. Although the following
locations cannot view directly onto the grounds of the site, they have been identified as
being visually sensitive to existing structures: the Clipper Apartments, Rock Island
Head, East :Junior High School, Granite Street Senior Citizen Complex, the residential
area of Viden Hill Road and 3ohn Paul Circle, Hancock Court and Hancock House
Condominiums, Faxon Commons, The Falls Condominimums, Town Brook House
Apartments, Captain Cove Apartmetns, the Constazo Pagnano Towers, and a senior
citizen complex at 1000 Southern Artery. A complete list of all visual receptors
identified for the Quincy FRSA site is presented in Appendix C.
4.6.5 Spectacle Island
The site currently consists of two drumlins connected by a sandbar, which has been filled
over the years by landfilling activities and is currently 40 percent open land and
60 percent forested. The only existing structure is a 90-foot draft chimney on the
western side of the island. The primary visual receptors identified for the site are
identified in Figure 4.6-5 and discussed below.
4.6.5.1 Long Island Hospital. Long Island Hospital lies on the northern edge of Long
Island with a panoramic view of the eastern side of Spectacle Island. Most patients are
bedridden and all are long-term patients. The hospital cafeteria window overlooks
Spectacle Island. The ocean lies in the foreground of the viewshed. Spectacle Island is in
the midground of the viewshed with portions of the Boston skyline in the background.
4-151
-------
•1
o.
1-
1 ’
S(A ( ‘ Y T
2000
3km
lo U -
LEGEND
POTENTIAL SITE
POTENTIAL VISUAL
A RECEPTOR AREA
FIGURE 4.6-5. SPECTACLE ISLAND POTENTIAL VISUAL RECEPTOR AREAS
-------
4.6.5.2 Thompson Island. Thompson Island hosts a summer middle-school program,
Environmental Education Center, a marine-based Outward Bound program, and is a
function site for many company clambakes and barbecues. Views toward Spectacle Island
are partially buffered by vegetation screens, and abandoned fields stretch northeast to
within three-quarters of a mile of Spectacle Island (MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, I, 1989).
Spectacle Island would be in the midground of a view from Thompson Island with
surrounding ocean in both the foreground and background.
4.6.5.3 Castle Island. Castle Island hosts a public recreation facility and Fort
Independence, an historic monument and tourist site. Castle Island lies approximately
8,000 feet northwest of Spectacle Island. The view from Castle Island consists primarily
of the northwestern portion of Spectacle Island. The southern portion of Spectacle
Island, where the MWRA facilties would be built, would be less visible and partially
blocked by the northern end of the island.
4.6.5.4 Squaw Rock Park. Squaw Rock Park lies at the northern corner of the Squanturn
area of Quincy, just before the gate leading to Moon Island and Long Island. The western
side of Spectacle Island can be seen in the midground of the viewshed from the park, and
the existing draft chimney on the island can be easily identified.
4.6.6 Deer Island Baseline Conditions
Deer Island currently Consists of the existing MWRA wastewater treatment plant and the
Deer Island House of Correction. The proposed MWRA residuals facilities would be
located on the southwestern Corner of the island, which is currently open space. The
primary visual receptors identified for the Deer Island site are identified in Figure 4.6-6
and described below.
4.6.6.1 Cottage Park. The western side of Deer Island can be seen from coastal sections
of the Cottage Park area of Winthrop. The prison facilities and the wastewater
treatment plant can both be distinguished in the landscape; however, Deer Island would
be considered in the background of the viewshed from this point.
4.6.6.2 Long Island Hospital. Deer Island can be seen to the north across the President
Roads channel. The ocean would be in the foreground, with the view of the island in the
midground, and parts of Revere and Boston Harbor in the background of the viewshed.
The southern portion of Deer Island, where the MWRA residuals facilities would be
located, would be seen the most clearly.
4.7 AQUATIC AND TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS
-The following sections describe existing biological communities at the six alternative
sites being considered for long term residuals management facilities. Where appropriate,
projected or future baseline conditions for sites are described.
4.7.1 Regulatory Setting
4.7.1.1 Federal Regulations. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires
consideration of impacts to biota and coordination with the Federal Endangered Species
Act for all federal projects. The Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 protects
4-153
-------
-1 POTENTIAL VISUAL
I RECEPTOR AREA
p -—s
r’ . L ..
C
SCLL I? -,
?9
C
*
I.-
LEGEND
POTENTIAL SITE
FIGURE 4.6-6. DEER ISLAND POTENTIAL VISUAL RECEPTOR AREAS
-------
federally listed species. In accordance with Section 7(c) of the act, formal consultation
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may be required if significant impact may occur
to any federally listed endangered species or critical habitat as a result of a proposed
action. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is also required by the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act. The Marine Mammal Protection Act requires protection
of all marine mammals, some of which use the Boston Harbor area.
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 requires an Army Corps of Engineers
permit, including wetlands review, for any work that could obstruct or alter navigable
waters. An Army Corps of Engineers permit is also required for discharge of dredge or
fill material in waters of the United States under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
The “waters of the United States” include wetlands, stream tributaries, and floodplains.
4.7.1.2 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Regulations. The Massachusetts Division of
Fisheries and Wildlife officially lists animal species that are endangered, threatened, or
of special concern in the Commonwealth. The Natural Heritage Program maintains
records of sitings of listed species and has developed estimated habitat maps.
The Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act is administered by.the DEQE through local
conservation commissions and protects banks, bordering wetlands, beaches, dunes, flats,
marshes, swamps bordering on the ocean, estuaries, creeks, rivers, streams, ponds,
lakes, and the land under these water bodies. It also protects the bordering land subject
to tides or flooding. All of these resources have enforceable definitions cited in the
regulations, but the intent of the act is to provide protection to any water related
resource. Work in any of the above areas requires a permit, typically from a local
conservation commission. Under this act, work in a 100-foot buffer area around
wetland resources may also require a permit. Performance standards have been
established by regulations that identify the level of protection that the permitting
- authority (typically a conservation commission) must impose to protect wetlands.
As discussed in Section 4.1.2.8, “Areas of Critical Environmental Concern” are areas
within the Commonwealth that have been determined to have natural and human
resource values meriting high levels of evaluation and protection.
4.7.2 Study Area
The study area for an alternative landfill site includes the site and those adjacent
off-site areas that are hydrologically connected or that could potentially be affected by
noise or surface runoff from the proposed activity. The study area for an alternative
processing site includes off-site areas hydrologically connected or potentially subjected
to surface runoff and areas potentially affected by air emissions.
4.7.3 Walpole MCI Baseline Conditions
4.7.3.1 Overview. The Walpole MC I site is about 90 acres and slopes from a knoll at its
southern end, elevation 280 feet, down to wetlands bordering the Stop River,
approximate elevation 150 feet (Figures 4.7-1 and 4.7-2). The Stop River at this
location is downstream from a dam for an impoundment on the State Prison
reservation. The River is part of the Charles River drainage basin. Cedar Swamp, in
the Neponset River drainage basin, is located 3,000 feet east of the site. The site
4-155
-------
L / -
H 1t
T 1H
( - — —
.1 • \ i\ ‘
: I - - ‘ --- :
H j$, - - I ,-
— - - - - - -
/ —
— - -
- - , -“
t / a ) I_,,’, O
. - _“ -,
“NORFOLK ‘— 4
/ ) i ii v n v I
I — - —4 ) ‘ o •• VT ? L I .J Is E
/ 1’ •1 &
‘CEDARSWAJ J
F I - / -
k $. /
II -‘ — - -c
;
ICALE IP MIlIPS
LEGEND
sax o sax
__j
ICALE IN FEET
SITE BOUNDARY
— — — TOWN BOUNDARY
FIGURE 4.7-1. WALPOLE MCI SITE AND ENVIRONS
-------
PASTURE
srr BOUNDARY
PREDOMINENT Pi .E
FOREST
OLD FIELD (Suc ssiona )
HERBACEO JS SHRUB
FIGURE 4.7-2 LOCATION OF ECOLOGICAL
COMMUNITES ON THE WALPOLE MCI SITE
WETLAND B
WETLAND C
WETLAND D
WETLAND A
50
0
LEGEND
SOURCE : MWRA, RMFP, SCREEN, I, 1988.
WETLAND AND [ ] MIXED DECIDUOUS FOREST
OPEN WATER (Pr dorrwnant Oak)
E
500
SCALE IN FEET
-------
consists of pasture, two old fields (early successional, previously cleared, upland
vegetation), a pine forest, a mixed hardwood forest, and wetland resource areas.
Since there are no significant future plans for the site, the existing conditions are
synonomous with future conditions.
4.7.3.2 Terrestrial Communities. Three distinct upland communities are on the site
(MWRA, RMFP, Screen, 1, 1988). Deciduous upland forest, consisting of a red oak/white
oak overstory and an understory comprised of red maple, sassafrass, American beech,
white pine, and successional shrubs, covers about half the site (Table 4.7-1). There is a
pine forest of about 10 acres in the eastern portion of the site, adjacent to Winter
Street. White pine predominates, with sparse understory shrub or herbaceous plant
Communities.
Old field habitat (17 acres) is found in two locations on the site, both surrounded by
mixed deciduous areas. The old field habitat on the hillside in the southern half of the
property has been developed for an exercise course. This area is covered by a variet ,
of grass and wildflower species. Numerous large stands of red-panicle dogwood are a
distinctive feature, along with isolated young black cherry and white cedar. The second
old field habitat is on the northern half of the site. It consists largely of thickets of
arrov wood and dogwood but contains a mixture of grasses, shrubs, and trees such as
cherry and sumac in some areas. Adjacent to this northern old field area is a pasture
community, which is mov ed yearly for hay.
4.7.3.3 Wetlands. There are over 10 acres of emergent wetland resource regulated
under the federal Clean Water Act and Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act at four
locations on the site (Figure 4.7-2).
Wetland A. This wetland is four acres in size and includes two small man-made
ponds that retain water through the growing season. The upper pond contains
potential habitat for the spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum). Since this
is an indicator species for vernal pools, the upper pond may qualify for protection
as a vernal pool under the state Wetlands Protection Act. The surrounding
vegetated wetland is connected with the Stop River to the north by subsurface
natural drainage. The vegetation surrounding the impoundment includes blue flag
iris, cattail, boneset, soft rush, twig rush, sensitive fern, ;oe-pye weed, cinnamon
fern, buttonbush, speckled alder, and red maple. The northern end of this area is
a forested wetland v .ith red maple, ironwood, and arrowwood as overstorv; and
skunk cabbage, sensitive fern, cinnamon fern, false hellebore, and mosses as
ground cover (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, 1, 1988).
Wetland B. This one-acre wetland is located adjacent to Winter Street in the
northeastern section of the site. It drains under Winter Street into a large
forested wetland that borders a downstream portion of the Stop River. Field
hydrologic evidence showed that this wetland floodplain receives contribution
from surface runoff and groundwater (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, I, 1988).
4-158
-------
TABLE l.7-1. WALPOLE MCI FLORA
Common Name
Scientific Name
FWS
Habitat
Blue flag iris
iris versicolor
OBL
Wetland
Cattail
T pha sp.
OBL.
Wetland
Boneset
Eupatorlum perfoliatum
FACW
Wetland
Soft rush
Juncus etfusus
FACW
Wetland
Twig rush
Cladium marisoides
OBL
Wetland
Sensitive fern
Onoclea sensibilis
FACW
Wetland
-Joe pie-weed
Eupatorium maculatum
FACW
Wetland
Cinnamon fern
Osmunda cinnamomea
FACW
Wetland
Buttonbush
Cephalanchus occidentalzs
OBL
Wetland
Speckled alder
Alnus rugosa
FACW
Wetland
False hellebore
Veratrum viride
FACW
Wetland
Skunk caobage
s smp1c arpus foc:idus
OBL
Wetland
Arrowwood
Viburnum molle
FACW
Wetlar.c
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
FAC
Wetland
Sweet pepperbusn
Clechra alnifclia
FAC
Wetland
Steeplebush
Spzraeu comencosa
FACW
Wetland
Red oak
Quercus rubra
FACU
Upland
White oak
Quercus alba
NA
Uoland
Red maple
Acer rubrum
FAC
Wet/Uplai:
Sassafras
Sassafras alb.zdum
FPCU
Upland
American beech
Fagus çrandifolia
FACU
Uoland
White pine
Pinus scrobus
FAC
Upland
Aspen
Populus sp.
FAC
Wet/Upland
Red—panicle dog400d
Cornus racemosa
—-
Upland
Cherry
Prunus sp.
--
Wet ’Upla
White Cedar
Thu)a accidencalis
FACW
Wet/Uplarla
Source: MWRA, RMFP
, Screen III, 1988
Notes: (a) U.S. :sr and !i1dlife Service etiand indicatory sDecles
ciasslflcator.
OBL Obligate wetland plant
FAC . Fac lta:i’ e wetland piart
FAC Fac 1 lltazi e plan:
FACU Facultacive upland plant
(b) Habitat in which species most commonly occurs
4-159
-------
Wetland C. This area is a floodplain associated with the Stop River. Only a
portion of this wetland (3.5 acres) occurs within site boundaries. Vegetation
includes arrowwood, steeplebush, skunk cabbage, and red maple. Closer to the
river banks, the wetland vegetation becomes largely meadow species (MWRA,
RMFP, Screen, I, 1988).
Wetland D. This wooded wetland borders Winter Street along the eastern edge of
the site (MWRA, Walpole, 1989).
In addition, a small (600-square-foot) wet area lies on the edge of the old field near the
center of the site. This area is too small to qualify as a wetland under the Wetlands
Protection Act.
All wetland areas described above may be hydrologically connected with the Stop River
and would therefore have 100-foot buffer zones that may also require consideration in
wet land permitting. The Stop River has a floodplain that extends from the edge of
bordering vegetated wetlands to the 100-year flood or FEMA line (Figure 4.4-7), which
is also a wetland resource.
Two additional wetlands are located adjacent to the Walpole MCI site. One, situated
between the pine forest and northern old field area (Figure 4.7-2), is a small algae-
covered pond on the K-9 Kennel property adjacent to the site. The other is a forested
wetland which is located along the southeastern border of the site and appears to be
defined or created b two street crossings. Red maple, sweet pepperbush. and
cinnamon fern are the predominant species on this wetland.
Cedar Swamp is located 3.000 feet to the east of the site on the far side of Route IA
and is in the Neponset River drainage basin. This large expanse of wetland area is
likely to provide habitat for resident and migratory wildlife.
4.7.3.4 Wildlife. The Walpole MCI site provides diverse wildlife habitat adjacent to the
off-site Stop River and impoundment. The site is a likely habitat for migratory and
resident fauna including mammals, reptiles, birds, and amphibians (MWRA, RMFP,
Screen, 1, 1988). Animals observed during site visits included white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginian s), grey squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis), toads (Bufo spp.), green
frogs (Rano clamitans), a black racer snake (Coluber constrictor) and a painted turtle
(chrysomys picto). Signs of woodchuck (Marmota monax), and muskrat (ondatra
zibeth.zca) have also been observed.
The Stop River impoundment and adjacent area represent an important resource. This
area contains a heron rookery and is reported to be a breeding ground for muskrat.
Both painted and snapping turtles have been found on the site (personal communication
with Mark Powers, Environmental Engineer, Walpole MCI, May 1988). In addition, two
pied-billed grebes, a threatened species in the state, were observed on the impoundment
in March of 1988. Wood duck boxes were placed in the Stop River impoundment by the
Massachusetts Division of Fish and Wildlife. In 1987 there were 16 wood duck boxes; 10
had nest starts and S were successful (DFW, 1989). Breeding bird species on and n the
vicinity of the Walpole MCI site were documented in late spring of 1988 (\IWRA, EFP,
1988). A summary of findings is discussed in the MWRA’s RMFP (MWRA, RFMP,
Screen, 1, 1988) and observed species are listed in Table 4.7-2.
4-160
-------
TABLE 4.7-2. WALPOLE MCI BIRD SPECIES
Common Name
Tufted Titmouse
White-breasted Nuthatch
Veery
Wood Thrush
American Robin
Gray Catbird
Northern Mockingbird
European Starling
Blue-winged Warbler
Nashville Warbler
Yellow Warbler
Chestnut-sided Warbler
Prairie Warbler
Black-and-white Warbler
Ovenbird
Common Yello throat
Northern Cardinal
Indigo Bunting
Song Sparrow
Red- inged Blackbird
Common Grackle
Brown-headed Cowbird
Northern Oriole
American Goldfinch
Double-crested Cormorant
Great Blue Heron
Green-backed Heron
Canada Goose
Wood Duck
Mallard Duck
Hooded Merganser
Red-tailed Hawk
Ring-necked Pheasant
Northern Bobwhite
Ring-billed Gull
Rock Dove
Mourning Dove
Chimney S ift
Hairy Woodpecker
Northern Flicker
Eastern Wood-Pewee
Eastern Phoebe
Great Crested Flycatcher
Eastern Kingbird
Tree Swallow
Cliff Swallow
Barn S ¼allow
Blue Jay
American Crow
Black-capped Chickadee
Pied-billed Grebe
Source: M RA. RMFP, Screen, 1, 1988
Scientific Name
Parus bicolor
.Si tta carol inensis
Catharus fuscescens
Hylocichia mustelina
Turdus ml gratori us
Dumetella carolinensis
Mimums polyglottos
Sturnus vulgaris
Verm.zvora pinus
Vermimvora ruficapilla
Dendroica petechia
Dendroica pens ylvanica
Dendroica discolor
Mn.zotilta varia
Seiurus aurocapillus
Geothylpis trichas
Cardinalis cardinalis
Passerina cyanea
Melospiza melo4ia
Agelaius phoeniceus
Quiscalus guiscula
Molthrus acer
Icterus galbula
Carduelis tristis
Phalacrocorax auritus
Ardea herodias
Butorides striatus
Branta canadensis
Aix sposa
Anas platyrhynchos
Lophodytes cucullatus
Buteo jamaicensis
Phasianus colchicus
Colinus virginianus
Larus delawarens.zs
Columba livia
Zenaida macroura
Chaecura pelag ca
Picoides villosus
Colaces auratus
Contopus virens
Sayornis phoebe
My.iarchus crinitus
Tyrannus tyrannus
Tachycineta bicolor
Hirundo pyrrhonota
Hirundo rustica
Cyanocicta cr.iscata
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Parus atricap llus
Podil ymus pod ceps
4-161
-------
The surveys on this site were preliminary; more intensive surveys are needed to
determine if nesting areas for certain warbler or raptor species listed for protection in
Massachusetts exist on the site. The site provides potential habitat for Cooper’s hawks,
sharp-shinned hawks, long-eared owls, golden-winged warbiers, and loggerhead shrikes.
4.7.3.5 Resources of Special Concern. The impoundment and wetlands located
immediately to the west of the site represent habitat of special concern. The size,
ecological characteristics, and isolation associated with the prison reservation provide a
refuge-type environment. The size of the water-wetland-upland area has provided
nesting habitat for a significant population of a number of species.
The Stop River and associated wetlands that receive drainage from the site are also
resources of concern. Several fish species are likely to occur in the River and upstream
impoundment (Table 4.7-3). The impoundment is known to contain bass, sunfish, and
pickerel. Bass and sunfish nests were noted at the edges of the impoundment in April of
19S8. Numerous organisms were found in samples from Stop River sediments. The
dominant species found were a miage larva, Pal ypedilurn convict urn (an organism
common to many freshv ater habitats), mayfly larvae, caddisfly larvae, and the
amphipod Hualella azteca. These organisms generally have high oxygen requirements
and are usually restricted to waters that have high dissolved oxygen concentrations
(MWRA, RMFP, Screen, I, 1988).
4.7.3.6 Species of Special Concern. The Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program
reported no occurences of rare, threatened, or endangered species on the Walpole MCI
site. The have identified an insect of special concern and a threatened plant v ithin
the Cedar Sv amp ecosystem east of the site (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, I, 1988). As noted
above, pied-billed grebes, a state threatened species, were observed on the pond in
March 1988.
The Massachusetts DEW reported no fisheries concerns associated with the site. The
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reported no federally listed or proposed threatened or
endangered species known to exist in the area, except for possible transient individuals
(Beckett, 1989).
4.7.4 Rowe Quarry Baseline Conditions
4.7.4.1 Overview. The Rowe Quarry site has limited ecological resources because of
the amount of disturbed land, ongoing quarrying activity, and truck traffic. It is
located in an urbanized area adjacent to the Pines River Estuary (Figure 4.7-3) and is
hydrologically connected to the Pines River Marsh at its southern tip (MWRA, RMFP,
Screen, 1, 1988). This marsh and the Pines River are included in a designated ACEC
(see discussion in Section 4.1.5.2). Since there are no significant alternative plans for
the Rowe Quarry, the existing and projected environment are the same.
4.7.4.2 Terrestrial Communities. Vegetation at this site consists of disturbed early
successional gro th (willows and sumac) in areas not so recently excavated and a
narrow band of mixed oak forest along the edges of the cliffs at the top of the quarry
(MWRA, RMFP, Screen, 1, 1988).
Lz_’62
-------
TABLE 4.7-3. WALPOLE MCI FISH SPECIES: STOP RIVER
POTENTIAL SPECIES LIST
Common Name Scientific Name
Redf in Pickerel Esox americanus
Tesselated Darter Etheostoma olmstedi
Swamp Darter Etheostoma fusiforme
Banded Sunfish Enneacan thus obsesus
American Eel A.nguilla rostrata
Yellow Bullhead Ictalurus natal is
Brown Bullhead Ictalurus nebulosus
Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus
Chain Pickerel Esox niger
Golden Shiner Not emi gonus crysoleucas
Bluegill Lepom.zs macrochirus
Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides
Sources: M .RA, RMFP, Screen, 1, 1988
A drainage collection area near the quarry entrance supports a stand of reedgrass
(Phragmites sp.). Although this is considered a wetland species under state and federal
regulations, it is known to exist in nonwetlard environments. This stand is not
considered a v.etland resource because it is relatively small and disturbed (M RA,
RMFP, Screen, 1, 1988).
Wildlife resources are limited to seed-eating birds, common in urban and nearby
residential areas, as well as small mammals occurring in the upland forested areas of
side walls and back slopes.
4.7.4.3 Resources of Special Concern. The Rowe Quarry is hydrologically connected to
the Pines River estuarine system. Adjacent to the site, the Town Line and Linden
Brooks converge to form the Pines River (U.S. ACE, 1988), which is the upstream
portion of the Rumney Marshes ACEC.
This upstream portion of the Pines River flows past and is connected to the Seaplane
Basin, a sandy-bottom deepwater habitat. A mixed-species, high marsh habitat extends
northward from the banks of the brooks and river (U.S. ACE, 1988). This portion of the
Rumney Marshes system is bordered by a highly urbanized area along its southern,
western, and eastern borders. In addition, the abandoned 1-95 embankment forms an
eastern boundary that interferes with much of the tidal flow to this portion of the
estuary (MACC, 1988). There are plans to remove this barrier and restore the marsh
(EOEA, 1988).
The tidal creeks, mud flats, and deep-waters in closest proximity to the quarry provide
excellent habitat for a v ide variety of waterfowl, wading birds, and shorebirds, as v ell
as resting areas for species such as gulls and cormorants. The adjacent high marsh,
which is heavily ditched, also provides habitat for ducks, egrets, herons, and sparro .s.
4-163
-------
. //
DIAMOND
moo
SCALE INME1ERS
SCALE IN FEET
20cc 0 2000 SITE BOUNDARY
— — — TOWN BOUNDARY
GEND
FIGURE 4.7-3. ROWE QUARRY SITE AND ENVIRONS
-------
A former racetrack located in this high-marsh area is used by recreational vehicles,
which probably limits its value for nesting. Many small and larger mammals are likely
to exist along the marsh and upland borders (U.S. ACE, 1988).
The Pines River is considered an important recreational fishery (EOEA, 1988). The
Seaplane Basin is a popular fishing area for mackerel, small Atlantic cod, and in winter,
American eel (U.S. ACE, 1988). In general, the estuary supports a recreational fishery
for winter flounder and several other species. Bluefish, pollack, striped bass, alewives
and rainbow smelt are fished for from bridges and shorelines. Benthos sampling of the
Saugus and Pines Rivers indicated a dominance of opportunistic species typically found
in areas of organically enriched conditions, as well as in areas of stress from
temperature or salinity changes or contamination. The Pines River tidal flats up to the
Seaplane Basin have historically been productive soft-shell clam (Mya arenaria) habitat;
however, recent surveys did not indicate large quantities of shellfish (U.S. ACE, 1988).
Two forested upland areas close to the Rowe Quarry site are resources of special
concern. One consists of 17 acres of conservation land located one quarter mile
northwest of the site and the other is the Mount Hood Memorial Park, located about one
mile northwest of the site (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, I, 1988).
4.7.4.4 Species of Special Concern. The Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program
reported no verified rare plants, animals, or natural communities within the site area
(MWRA, RMFP, Screen, 1, 1988). Historical records indicated rare plants and a rare
amphibian species in the Saugus/Pines Estuary, but none were observed in field
observations (U.S. ACE, 1988). The Massachusetts Department of Fisheries and \\ ldiife
reported no fisheries concerns for the area. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reported
no federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered species in the site area except
for occasional, transient individuals (Beckett, 1989).
4.7.5 Stoughton Baseline Conditions -
4.7.5.1 Overview. The Stoughton site is approximately 100 acres, 30 percent of which
is considered highly disturbed or developed (Figures 4.7-4 and 4.7-5). These conditions
contribute noise, limit wildlife accessibility and alter site hydrology by influencing the
size and condition of on-site wetlands (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, III, 1988). The rest of
the site is forested-over rock outcrop and hilly terrain. There are one large and several
small wetlands resource areas. Because there are no significant alternative plans for
the Stoughton site, the existing environment is projected to remain the same.
4.7.5.2 Terrestrial Communities. Approximately 44 acres of the Stoughton site are
mixed deciduous forest (principally scrub and red oak trees and maple, American
‘chestnut, and white pine saplings), located in the southern half of the site
(Table 4.7-4). A number of wildflower species and upland ferns are found in this area.
There are many rock outcrops which support dense growths of shrub thicket (MWRA,
RMFP, Screen, III, 1988). The disturbed portions of the Stoughton site (approximately
30 acres) are in the northern half and are nearly devoid of natural habitat.
4.7.5.3 Wetland Communities. The Stoughton site contains five distinct wetland areas
(MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II, 1988).
4-165
-------
\ U
- - —%‘ . ;- . ‘ S .. •• \• :• , 4.d
.. —
/ - . - . ‘1 ’
.. . .. I I -‘ #• Nil., - I /
- . . -.‘ - . ‘ ‘. .‘- .A .- li -Su .‘i ...r -. i
, — L s c.r c .m,
2’ 4 A RAF DOLPH
- p! - : . y jr (\ -. I - /
CANTOS .1’ 1 ,‘ 1 1 X - I
- - - )? ‘L Y c . .? •i
— - - - - -
-:: Q \ - .1 •’ ’
GLEN ECHOSk’V ¶ - ‘ _1 “i • - ../
POND - —- —- / 4’ \
i\O
- - -1 - - - - - ‘ •: - .±1—— -j -- - - -
• -i S.. -.
. —o -ç’ . -. -:
- - - . - - . :- .. - -- - . -. IN • -. -. - . —
5. 5 . 1- . . - : .-- . . . - f . . -,. —• - -
••.
. .-. - / ‘ ‘ ‘ . . -
S .U’ .l k I - -. - — - —
* S T c - ir - - — - — - - -
S.. - ... - • - • - - . - -
- .- ••.
/ .
C S I C H TON - - i-/ -- ,
— i. ‘ ‘ .t - .- - . ,, • . - ,
- -:
• ‘. ‘ . : •.‘ 1 3 A . .-v--o -,
i- “\. ) i95.jr, th ‘ 5, . ..
- — (1S \ -:, ___wAL;
; - F 5 G
.1: T - - -
-L . - - - . . \ .. \ -: . . . • . ._ . I \
5 ’ ( S. ” C.,,
0
_ J _ _ __ J -
SCALE 1P4 METERS
200C 0 00O
sc* .i it u ’r — — — TOWN BOUNDARY
FIGURE 4.7-4. STOUGHTON SITE AND ENVIRONS
-------
50
o 500
-J
SOURCE MWRA. RMFP. SCREEN, III, 1988
D UIXEDDECI JO JS
OAK OREEST
D
FORESTED
WETLANDS
FIGURE 4.7-5 LOCATION OF ECOLOGICAL
COMMUNITES ON THE STOUGHTON SITE
SCALE IN FEET
WET ..AND E
LFGEND
NOTE Boundaries
OEVELODED OR
DISTURBED LAND
SITE BOUNDARY
-------
TABLE 4.7 -il. STOUGHTON FLORA
Common Name
Scientific Name
FWS(a)
Habitat
Red Maple
Acer rubrum
FAC
Wetland
Highbush Blueberry
Vaccinium sp.
NA
Wetland
Buttonbush
Cephalanthus occidentalis
OBL
Wetland
Skunk Cabbage
Symplocarpus foetidus
OBL
Wetland
Duckweed
Acorns sp.
OBL
Wetland
Steeplebush
Spiraea tomentosa
FACW
Wetland
Cinnimon Fern
Osmunda cinnamomea
FAC
Wetland
Scrub Oak
Quercus sp.
UPL
Upland
Red Oak
Quercus rubra
FACU
Upland
American Chestnut
Cascanea dentata - NR
Upland
White Pine
Pinus strobus
FACU
Upland
Source: MW1 A, REM?, Screen, 111, 1988
Notes:
(a) U.S. Fish and Wildlife wetland indicator species classification:
OBL Obligate wetland plant UPL ODligate upland plant
FACW Facu1tat ve wetland plant NA No agreement
FAC Eacultative plant NR No record
FACU Facultatlve uplana plant
(b) Habitat in wruch species most comiTlonly occurs
Wetland A is a 1)-acre forested wetland (Figure 4.7-5). Red maple and highbrush
blueberry predominate, although several dead upland trees suggest increases in
the area of saturated soils. Standing water with algae and duckweed were noted
in much of this area. Wetland A contains a small, slow-moving stream that is
adjacent to the site and drains portions of the northern upland area. A partially
blocked culvert under Route 24, causing backup ponding of water, was also
noted. Wetland A appears surf icially connected with larger wetlands and a Beaver
Brook tributary that exist on the eastern side of Route 24.
Wetlands B, C, 0, and E are half to three-and-one-half acre isolated areas that
retain runoff from surrounding areas and are sufficiently wet to support wetland
vegetation (Figure 4.7-5) (MWRA, RMFP, Screen II !, 1988).
4.7.5.4 Wildlife. Wildlife access to on-site habitat areas is limited by Route 24, the
railroad bed, and commercial and industrial activities on and adjacent to the site. The
activity along the boundaries of the natural areas suggests that wildlife diversity would
be limited to species adapted to such conditions. Squirrels, chipmunks, grouse, and
rabbits were noted during March and June 1988 visits.
4.7.5.5 Resources of Special Concern. Wetland A is an area of special concern or the
Stoughton site because it is a bordering vegetated wetland resource that drains into
Beaver Brook. Of f site, the Beaver Brook system is of special concern because it is
4-168
-------
connected to the Brockton Reservoir (Figure 4.7-4). Another branch of this brook with
extensive wetlands is located 2,000 feet to the west of the site. Both the brook and
reservoir are considered v.arm-water fisheries.
Glen Echo Pond, located one mile northwest of the site, is a local recreational area.
Fish species collected from the pond in 1960 (the most recent data available) included
pickerel, large-mouth bass, sunfish, and bullhead (DFW, 1989). Bear Swamp and Three
Swamp Brook are within one mile of the site to the northeast and are resources of
special concern.
4.7.5.6 Species of Special Concern. The Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program
reports a vertebrate species of special concern (listed by the DFW) one-half mile from
the Stoughton site (MWRA, RMFP, Screen 111, 1988). Wetland A is reportedly suitable
habitat for this species, although none were observed during site visits. The
Massachusetts DFW reported no fisheries concerns around the site. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service reported that no federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered
species are known to occur on site, with the expection of occasional transient
individuals (Beckett, 1989).
4.7.6 Quincy FRSA Baseline Conditions
4.7.6.1 Overview. The Quincy FRSA site includes approximately 150 acres of
developed land located on the Vieymouth Fore River in both the city of Quincy anc the
town of Braintree (Figure 3.u-10). Although development is planned for the site. its
ecological character v ill be the same at the time of long-term residual management
facilities development. The site is industrial land and is almost completely covered by
asphalt, concrete, and buildings. Isolated areas of colonizing or stunted plant growth
represent the only terrestrial communities on the site, and these all occupy small areas.
4.7.6.2 Wetlands. There are no freshwater wetlands on the Quincy FRSA site. The
Weymouth Fore River is an estuary and hence, the site is coastal. The two major
sources for the Weymouth Fore River are the Smelt Brook and Monatiquot River, both
upstream of the shipyard. Two tidal creeks, Hayward Creek and Bents Creek, have
been contained and currently flow under the site, discharging into the River through
culverts. The Tov n River discharges into the Weymouth Fore River downstream of the
site near the river’s entrance into Hingham Bay (Figure 4.7-6). Mudflats and low and
high salt marshes exist upstream and downstream of the site. The coastal wetland
resource areas associated with the Quincy FRSA site as defined by the Massachusetts
Wetlands Protection Act are brief l summarized below:
• The Quincy Shipyard is part of an area on the Weymouth Fore River that the
Massachusetts DEQE has called a designated port area (Clean Harbors,
DEIR, 3, 1988).
• The Weymouth Fore River is an estuarine resource area. The Massachusetts
Division of Marine Fisheries has identified the Weymouth Fore River as one
used by both anadromous (e.g., alewife, smelt, herring) and catadromous
(e.g., eel) species.
4-169
-------
LEGEND
L :.: . .J PRODUCTIVE FLATS
— — — TOWN LINE
BRAINTREE
SOURCE: IWANOWICZ ET AL., 1973
WEYMOUTH
1000
0
SCALE tN METERS
2000 0 2000
1
SCALE IN FEET
FIGURE 4.7-6. PRODUCTIVE SOFT SHELL CLAM FLATS IN THE WEYMOUTH FORE
RIVER AND HLNGHAM BAY, 1970
1000
-------
• Coastal wetland resources have been modified by bulkheads, piers, and
riprap.
• Areas of the shipyard in the vicinity of the culverted Bents Creek and
Hayward Creek are in the 100-year flood plain (Clean Harbors, DEIR, 3,
1988).
4.7.6.3 Wildlife. Wildlife associated with the Quincy FRSA site are limited to species
adapted to urbanized conditions, given the near lack of natural habitat. The most likely
animals on site would be rodents such as rats, mice, foraging squirrels, or racoons
adapted to urbanized conditions.
A bird survey was conducted on the site in June of 1988 (Table 4.7-5). Pigeons and
European starlings were the dominant species at that time (MWRA, EFP, 1988). In
addition, a number of wintering or migratory species were noted over and in the water
off site during a Februar) visit. These included red-tailed hawk and a number of
waterfowl species. A survey of a quarter-mile radius around the adjacent Clean
Harbors site had similar results (Clean Harbors, DEIR, 3, 1988).
The lack of surface water at the site limits its suitability for amphibians or reptiles. A
survey of the adjacent Clean Harbors site concluded that snakes could exist in its
limited vegetated areas. However, the very limited vegetation and lack of vegetated
natural shoreline at the Quincy FRSA site would render it even less hospitable for such
species.
4.7.6.4 Estuarine Communities. Clam flats are located upstream and dov nstream of
the shipyard (Figures 4.7-6 and 4.7-7). As in the rest of the harbor, they are restricted
to use by master diggers only when they are open to harvesting. These flats are known
to have supported soft shell clams (Mya arenaria), quahogs (Mercenarla mercenaria),
mussels (Mytilus edulis), green crabs (Carcinus maenus), and horseshoe crabs (Limulus
•polyphemus) in the past.
The Weymouth Fore River is used by anadromous and catadromous species including
rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax), alewife (Alosa pseudoharensu ), blueback herring
(closa alstivales), and eel (Anguilla rostiafa). Smelt are believed to spawn in the
river. Sampling in 1988 indicated tomcod and winter flounder, as well as smelt larvae
in samples upstream of the site (Clean Harbors, DEIR, 3 1988). The river also supports
a summer recreational fishery for striped bass (Morone saxatiZes) and bluefish
(Pomatomus salcatrix), a spring and fall fishery for winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes
americanus) and a winter fishery for smelt or eel.
J-larbor seals (Phoca sp.) have been sighted in the river in winter and spring (Clean
‘Harbors, DEIR, 3, 1988). However, the site does not have areas that seals could use as
‘-hauling (resting) areas.
4.7.6.5 Resources of Special Concern. The wetland value of the Quincy FRSA site,
other than the estuary itself and the port facility status, is comparatively low. The
lack of vegetation, alteration of the shoreline, culverting of tidal creeks, and limited
-access to the river reduce the value of coastal wetlands. However, there are
significant off-site areas upstream and downstream of low and high salt marsh,
4-171
-------
TABLE 4.7-5. QUENCY FRSA BIRD SPECIES
Common Name Scientific Name
Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus
Herring Gull Larus argentatus
Great Black-backed Gull Larus marinus
Rock Dove Coluniba livia
European Starling Sturnus vulgaris
Red-tailed Hawk* Buteo jamaicensis
Black Duck* Anas rubripes
Black-crowned Night Heron* Nyctzcorax nycticoz-ax
Common Goldeneye* Bucephala clan gula
Red-necked Grebe* Pod.zceps grisegena
Buff lehead* Bucephala aleola
Mallard Duck* Anas platyrhynchos
Source: MWRA, RMFP, Screen, U, 1988
Notes: *Reported in February 1988; not observed in lune 1988
mudflats, and shellfish beds. The fishery resources of the river and tributary streams
are also of special concern.
Three ponds are within the study area, including Cranberry Pond, Echo Pond, and one
unnamed pond. Their estimated sizes range from 10,000 to 80,000 square feet.
4.7.6.6 Species of Special Concern. The Natural Heritage Program of Massachusetts
reported that there were no threatened, rare, or endangered species on or near the
site. The Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife reported no fisheries
concerns for the Quincy site and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reported no known
occurrences of federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered species, except
for occasional transient individuals (Beckett, 1989).
A transient peregrine falcon (Falco perigrinus), a protected species, and occasional
transient osprey (Pardian haliaetus), a species of special concern, have been sighted in
the Weymouth Fore River area. However, both area surveys and conversations v ith
federal, state, and local bird survey specialists led to the conclusion that this heavily
disturbed urbanized area did not contain important habitat for avian breeding, feeding,
or migration (Clean Harbors, DEIR, 3, 1988). Small off-site wooded or park areas do
provide habitat and stop-over areas for a small number of avian species, but such
habitat does not exist on the Qurncy FRSA site.
4.7.7 Spectacle Island Baseline Conditions
4.7.7.1 Overview. Spectacle Island is located within the limits of the city of Boston, at
the eastern edge of Dorchester Bay and south of the President Roads shipping channel
in Boston Harbor (Figure 3.4-13). The existing ecological environment is described
below; however, the projected conditions are expected to be significantly altered
4-172
-------
NAUTICAL MILES
96 ] Approxlmsts Numbr of Lob r Bijoys 7127179
SMifish Bsds c*os.d M Dfggsrs
Sh&tffsh B.ds R. rtct.d to Mastsr D gers
FIGURE 4.7-7. COMMERCIAL FISHING RESOURCES
SOUTH
BOSTON
Summer
Lobster
5
QUINCY
1
0
A
1
SOURCE: MWRA, STFP, Ill, H, SUPP., 1988
-------
because of potential use of the island by the Massachusetts DPW for disposal of
excavated material. The extent of the alteration depends on the specific DPW plan and
timing of the activity. It is anticipated that the maximum ecological resources that
could remain when residuals management facilities are constructed would be limited
remnants of the existing environment as described below.
4.7.7.2 Terrestrial Communities. Figure 4.7-8 depicts the terrestrial and marine
communities associated with Spectacle Island (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, 1, 1988; DEM,
1984; DPW, CA/THT, 1988). Terrestrial habitat on the Island reflects decades of
disturbance. The upland communities represent several successional stages that appear
related both to the time elapsed since the last disturbance and the nature of underlying
substrate. The southern drumlin remains relatively natural and is largely forested with
aspen, sumac (Rhus spp.), and elm (Ulmus spp.). The slopes are covered by grasses and
shrubs such as hawthorn (crataegus spp.) and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), among
other species. A small wetland had existed above the beach at the tip of the southern
drumlin (see discussion below) but has evidently been replaced by upland shrub species
(MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II, 1988).
The northern drumlin, composed of refuse and natural materials, is also predominantly
covered by an aspen-sumac forest area, along with thicket- or bramble-type
communities. The forested area changes into grass-shrub (sumac) communities along
the northern edge and grassland community in the center of the island between the two
drumlins. Two small wetlands (discussed belov ) occur at the northern and southern
edges of this northern drumlin. The central portion of Spectacle Island is largely refuse
fill and supports a grassland community. Distinct colonies of stinging nettles (urtica
dioica) and wild geranium (Geranium maculatum) are in this grassland area (MWRA,
RMFP, Screen, II, 1988). A stand of apple (Malus spp.) trees and briar grows along the
eastern edge of this central portion (DEM, 1984).
4.7.7.3 Coastal Wetland and Intertidal Resource Areas. 1-fistorically, two saltmarsh
wetlands have been noted on Spectacle Island: one at the southern tip and one in the
northeast corner (DEM, 1984). More recent visits have shown that the southern wetland
is greatly reduced (DPW, CA/THT, 1988) or nonexistent perhaps because of storms
(MWRA, RMFP, Screen, Il, 1988). A small Spartina alterniflora marsh occupies a 10- to
15-foot strip at the northeastern edge of the northern drumlin, near the high-water
mark. Additionally half-acre stand of reed grass (Phragmites sp.) is on the western side
of the island, at the base of the northern drumlin. Although reed grass is listed as a
wetland species by the Wetlands Protection Act, this stand is hydrologically isolated
from surface waters and thus is not a significant resource.
The coastal bank area of Spectacle Island borders all but the southern tip of the island.
The eastern and western banks consist of refuse and are being eroded. The natural bank
at the northern end of the island is vegetated, largely with shrub vegetation. Beach
habitat Consists of a natural boulder beach around the northern drumlin. Along the
western coast and around the southern drumlin, the beach area consists of both natural
and old landfill materials such as broken glass, porcelain, and metal. Mussel shell
fragments are common, especially along the northern beaches (DEM, 1984).
Rocky intertidal habitats extend offshore for a short distance around the northern end
of the island. Intertidal mudflats are found along the eastern shoreline. A small, rocky
4-174
-------
ABANDONNED COLONIAL
BIRD NESTING AREAS
COASTAL BANK
(REFUSE)
ROCKY
INTERTiDAL SHORE
COASTAL BANK
LOW SALTMARSH
COASTAL BANK
(REFUSE)
INTERTIDAL
FLATS
COASTAL BEACH
LEGEND
GRASSLAND
FOREST
SHRUB VEGETATION
APPROX. LOCATION OF OFFSHORE
SEDIMENTIBENTHOS SAMPLING
SOURCE: SEE TEXT
SCALE IN FEET
u-1 1
L i i
300
0
300
FIGURE 4.7-8. SPECTACLE ISLAND RESOURCE AREAS AND HABITAT
-------
nearshore area consisting of abandoned piers and rocks exists along the protected
western shoreline between the two drumlins. The mudflats and rocky intertidal area
are reported to support mussels, Mytzlus edulis (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, 11, 1988; MDPW,
CA/THC, 1988). However, these beds are currently closed to harvesting because of
contamination (MWRA, STFP, III, H, Supp., 1988). The intertidal areas also support
populations of barnacles (Balanus sp.), periwinkles (Littorina sp.), and hermit crabs
(Pa gurus sp.) where more rocky habitat permits. Irish moss (Chondrus crispus) is the
most abundant vegetation along the eastern coastline, while rockweed (Fucus sp.)
predominates on piers and logs along the western shore (MWRA, RMFP, Screen,
II, 1988).
4.7.7.4 Wildlife. Based on several visits to Spectacle Island, wildlife is limited. Rats
are reported to inhabit the island, but none were observed during 1984 or 1988 site
visits. Mammalian burrows were noted in the southern drumlin (MWRA, Field, 1988).
These may have been inhabited by rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.), skunk (Mephitus mephitus), or
raccoon (Procyon lotor), but none of these animals were observed. A large nesting
population of herring and blackback gulls has historically existed along the northern
portions of the landfill area. The northeastern portion of the northern drumlin
supported a diverse nesting bird colony that included black-crowned night heron, snowy
egret (Leucophocyx thula), great egret (Casmerodius albus), green heron (Butor.zdes
virescens) and glossy Ibis (flegadis falcinellus) (Figure 4.7-8). This nesting area
appeared abandoned during 1988 site visits.
Nests were found along cliffs and in other locations on the northern drumlin, but there
was no evidence that they had been used by any of the earlier reported colonial nesting
species (MWRA, EFP, 1988). A large similar nesting area occurs at Middle Brewster
Island in Boston Harbor and some of these colonial species are known to use different
locations in successive years. Hence, the Spectacle Island population could have
relocated there or elsewhere. The northern drumlin, open field 10 years ago, now has a
predominantly sumac, multiflora rose community and may no longer be a suitable
habitat. No definitive reason was found for the abandonment of this nesting area by
these species, and the abandonment is not known to be permanent (MWRA, EFP, 1988).
During the May 1988 visit, 29 species of birds were observed on the island and in
adjacent waters (Table 4.7-6). Common yellowthroats, redwing blackbirds, and yellow
warblers dominated upland areas. Herring gulls, black-backed gulls, and double-crested
cormorants were observed in tidal areas; and black ducks, mallards, and eider ducks
were observed offshore. The old pier on the western side of the island has been used as
a roosting area by the cormorants. One nesting black duck was flushed from a cliffside
nest containing eggs. This species is declining along the Atlantic flyway and is
considered a species of special concern in Massachusetts (MWRA, EFP, 1988). The
Common terns, also considered a species of concern in Massachusetts, were seen
foraging.
4.7.7.5 Marine Communities. Several substrate samples were taken in 1988 from three
locations off the island to the west and southwest (Figure 4.7-8). A summary of the
organisms identified is found in Table 4.7-7. The offshore area around Spectacle Island
is relatively shallow (less than 20 feet deep). This area is likely used as breeding
grounds for flounder or lobster, as it generally has the same characteristics as areas
known for such activities (Grosslein and Azarovitz, 1982). Soft-shell clam beds exist at
4-176
-------
TABLE 4.7-6. SPECTACLE ISLAND BIRD SPECIES
Common Name Scientific Name
Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax a un tus
Common Eider Somatericc mollissima
American Black Duck Anas rubripes
Mallard Duck Arias platyrhynchos
Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus coichicus
Killdeer Characlrius voclferus
Spotted Sandpiper Actitus macularia
Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus
Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa 11 a vipes
American Woodcock Scolopax minor
Unidentified Petrel
Herring Gull Larus argentatus
Great Black-backed Gull Larus marinus
Common Tern Sterna hirundo
Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus t yrannus
American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos
Black-capped Chickadee Parus atricapillus
Marsh Wren Cistothorus pal ustris
Gray Catbird Dumetella carol .inensis
Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora pinus
Yellow Warbler Dendroi ca petechia
Common Yellowthroat Ceothlypis trichas
Rufous-sided Towhee Pipi lo eyrthrophthalmus
Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia
Unidentified Sparrow
Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus
Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula
House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus
American Goldfinch Cardeulis tristis
Source: MWRA, RMFP, Screen, I I, 1988
4-177
-------
TABLE 1I.7 7. SPECTACLE ISLAND BENTHIC SPECIES
Station 02
Station 03
Tharyx acutus
01 igochaeta
Streblospio benedicti
Splo armata
Polydora cornuta
Capitella capitata
Autolytus cornucus
Nudibranchia
Spirorbidae spp.
Microphthalmus sczelkowii
Caprellidae spp.
Crepidula sp.
Modiolus modiolus
Hyd rozoa
Neanthes spp.
Larval Spionidae
Decapoda zoea
Eteone longa
Brachyura zoea
Station 01
01 igochaeta
Tharyx acutus
Balanus improvisus
Spio armata
Streblospio benedicti
Spiophanes bombyx
Balanus improvisus
Clycera dibranchiata
Crangon Sep temspinosa
Capitella capitata
Larval Spioridae
Aricidea catherinae
Pal ydora cornuta
Bryozoa
Spio setosa
Streblospio benedicti
Tharix acutus
Pal ydora cornuta
Ampelisca spp. juvenile
Eteone longa
Spio armata
Neomysis americana
01 igochaeta
Phloe minuta
Microphthalmus sczelkowii
Photis pollex
Polycirrus eximius
Autolytus cornutus
Ensis directus
Mediomastus californiensis
PrionoSpiO steenstrupi
Dropedos spp. juvenile
Amphipoda spp.
Spiophanes bombyx
Polydora quadrilobata
Arnpharete arctica
Nephtys caeca
Flabelligeridae spp.
Unicola irrorata
Edotea spp. juveniles
Tellina agilis
Nassarius trivittatus
Modiolus modiolus
Spio limicola
Aricidea catherinae
Tharyx marioni
Crangon septemspinosa
Brachyura zoea
En.isis directus
Spio setosa
Lumbrineridae spp.
Edotea spp.
Hydrozoa
Bryozoa
Source: MWRA, Field, 1988
Notes: *In approximate order of’ abundance
4-178
-------
Spectacle Island but have been closed to harvesting because of contamination
(Figure 4.7-7).
The marine resources in the vicinity of Spectacle Island as well as other alternative
Boston 1-larbor sites are of special concern because of both recreational and commercial
significance.
Historically, Boston Harbor has served as an active port as well as a fish processing and
distribution center. The latter function continues while the harbor’s importance as a
port has diminished (NOAA, 1987). The harbor itself remains important for commercial
- (lobster and shellfish) and recreational (finfish) fisheries. Numerous species of finfish
- have been observed in surveys of the fishery (Table 4.7-8). Of these, winter flounder
have frequently been the most abundant (MDC, 1979).
The lobster fishery in Boston Harbor is highly significant. In 1986, 1.6 million pounds of
lobster were reported to have been caught from the port of Boston. Additionally,
approximately 1.2 million pounds were reported at ports in the greater Boston Harbor
area, from Hull to Winthrop (Hoopes, 1985). The most heavily fished areas are
northeast and southeast of Spectacle Island (Figure 4.7-7). There is also a significant
noncommercial fishery; while reporting requirements are voluntary, it is estimated that
this fishery represents two percent of the commercial catch (Nash, 1984;
Hoopes, 1985). It is probable that recreational fishermen primarily fish nearshore
areas.
• Commercial trawling for bottom fish such as flounder is not allowed within the harbor.
However, there has historically been a large recreational flounder fishery throughout
the harbor, centered in Quincy Bay. The most recent angler survey of this fishery was
in 1975, with a reported 166,000 angler trips (NOAA, 1987).
More general survey data on finfish populations in the harbor is limited. Trawl surveys
- conducted in 1980 indicate that winter flounder are the most abundant finfish of the
ocean bottoms (Metcalf & Eddy, 1980). Pollock, cod, cunner, hake, and smelt were
among the other species taken from 11 harbor stations (Table 4.7-8). Movement of
Boston Harbor winter flounder is essentially localized and confined to inshore waters
(Howe and Coates, 1975; Grosslein and Azarovitz, 1982). Therefore, it is assumed that
spawning for harbor populations of this species occurs within the harbor in 7 to 20 feet
of water in late winter to early spring. Information suggests that the harbor waters are
feeding grounds, rather than breeding grounds, for a number of other species. There is
a known breeding area for cod just outside the harbor (Grosslein and Azarovitz, 1982).
Another important harbor fishery is shellfish. This is regulated as a commercial fishery
only with special permitting. Of the approximately 4,700 acres of shellfish beds in the
harbor, only approximately 2,800 acres are open to fishing because of coliform
contamination (Figure 4.7-8). Those open are sufficiently contaminated to require
depuration of all catches at a purification plant prior to sale. In 1986, about 50,000
bushels of shellfish were harvested from Boston Harbor (NOAA, 1987).
4.7.7.6 Resources of Special Concern. Examination of fish taken in trawl samples over
the last 10 years have shown the effects of contamination in harbor waters and
4-179
-------
TABLE 4.7-8. PARTIAL LISTING OF FISH SPECIES
OCCURRING IN BOSTON HARBOR
Common Name Scientific Name
Winter flounder Pseudopleuronectes americanus
Atlantic tomcod Mi crogadus tomcod
Atlantic silverside Men.zdia menidia
Mummichog Fundulus heteroclitus
Striped killifish Fundulus majalis
Rainbow smelt Osmerus mordax
Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus
Blueback herring Alosa aestivalis
Cunner Tautogolabrus adspersus
Red hake urophycIs chuss
Pollock Pollachius virens
Fourspine stickleback Apeltes quadracus
Threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus
Ninespine stickleback Pungi ti us pungi ti us
Windowpane flounder .Scopthalamus aquosus
Striped bass Morone saxatilis
White perch Morone amez-icanus
American eel Anquilla rostraca
Silver hake Merlucc.ius bilinear.is
Northern pipefish syngnathus fuscus
Lumpfish Cyclopterus lczmpus
American sand lance Amznodytes americanus
Spiny dogfish squalus acanthias
Grubby Myxocephalus aeneus
Ocean pout llacrozoarceS americanus
Atlantic mackerel Scomber scombrus
Smooth flounder Liopsetta putnami
Yellow flounder Limanda ferruginea
Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix
Source: Modified from MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II, 1988
4-180
-------
sediments. For example, 50 to 75 percent of the winter flounder taken in samples from
Dorchester Bay and President Roads had fin erosion (MDC, 1979). In a more recent
study, 83 percent of the 100 flounder examined in Quincy Bay had liver pathology, many
- with additional or more advanced pathological changes in tissues (U.S. EPA, 1988).
Examination of soft shell clams from two locations in Quincy Bay indicated various
adverse histopathological changes to a majority of specimens taken (Gardner & Pruell,
1988). Resources from the area around Spectacle Island may be as contaminated as
organisms from the cited studies.
4.7.7.7 Species of Special Concern. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reported that
except for occasional transient individuals no federally listed or proposed threatened or
endangered species are known to exist in the study area (Beckett, 1989). The
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife reported no fisheries concerns
associated with Spectacle Island. The Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program had
reported the presence of an important colonial nesting bird area on the island, but more
recent site visits and a breeding bird survey (MWRA, EFP, 1988) indicate that this
colony was abandoned prior to this year’s breeding season (see Section 4.7.7.4).
4.7.8 Deer Island Baseline Conditions
4.7.8.1 Overview. Deer Island is situated at the mouth of Boston Harbor close to
several harbor islands including Long, Lovell, and Spectacle Islands. The western
shoreline extends into extensive tidal flats. The eastern shoreline extends into a rocky
intertidal area. Three man-made rock jetties extend off the tip of the island
(Figure 3.4-16). The entire island is currently undergoing site preparation for the new
MWRA wastewater treatment plant. When this activity is completed the site will
consist of treatment facilities and large landscaped areas designed to serve as buffers.
• The terrestrial community associated with the island is expected to be severely reduced
by this activity.
‘4.7.8.2 Coastal Wetlands. The Deer Island site is surrounded by water on all but its
northwestern edge. Therefore, coastal wetland resources exist as defined by the
Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and include:
• Land under ocean, which extends from the mean low-water line seaward.
• Coastal beach and coastal bank, which both exist along the eastern,
southern, and western shores. The eastern beach is sand and rock with
broken shell fragments, met by the steep slopes of old Fort Dawes berms
along much of its length. The western beach is rockier and quite steep, met
by a more gently sloped bank area. The southern tip of the island has been
modified by three rock jetties in the vicinity of the existing effluent
outfalls.
• Land containing shellfish, which exists around much of Deer Island, although
it is most extensive along the eastern and western shorelines. These
shellfish beds are closed due to contamination (MWRA, STFP, Ill, H, Supp.,
1988). Mytilus edilus were most commonly observed.
4-18 1
-------
• Rocky intertidal habitat, which exists along both eastern and western
shorelines, although more extensive along the former. Mussels (Mytilus
edilus), periwinkles (Littorina sp.), and barnacles (Balanus sp.) were the
dominant species observed along with rockweed in tidal pools (MWRA, STFP,
III, H, Supp., 1988). Barnacles and mussels were observed on the breakwater
at the southern tip of the island.
4.7.8.3 Marine Communities. In the vicinity of Deer Island, Boston Harbor contains
fisheries resources as described in 4.7.7.5 for Spectacle Island. The area immediately
surrounding Deer Island is shallow, with a steep shelf dipping into the President Roads
shipping channel. Deer Island Flats, west of the island, supports a significant area of
submerged vegetation. Benthic populations sampled off the southwestern shore of Deer
Island in 1987 found the nearshore communities dominated by worms (polychaetes) with
occasional amphipods, small crustaceans, and whelks (MWRA, STFP, III, H, Supp.,
1988). Such communities are common in organically enriched environments, and these
observations are similar to general summaries of Boston Harbor benthos. Crustaceans,
such as lobster and molluscs, are also dominant in benthic communities. The mussels
observed around Deer Island are not harvestable due to pollution. Softshell clams (Mya
arenaria) are commercially harvested by master diggers only from mud flats around
Snake Island and off Point Shirley in Winthrop, both about a mile from the Deer Island
site (MWRA, STAFP, III, H, Supp., 1988).
Boston Harbor is considered suitable habitat for lobster spawning, growth, and
development (MWRA, STFP, III, H, Supp., 1988). Lobsters (Homerus americanus) are
harvested commercially and recreationally throughout Boston Harbor. In July of 1979,
243 pots were counted between Deer, Spectacle, and Lovell Islands (see discussion in
Section 4.7.7.5).
Winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) are known to spawn in Winthrop
Harbor from mid-February until April (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, II, 1988). Deer Island
flats probably serve as a benthic food resource for this species, as well as others. A
relatively high number of winter flounder have been taken in sampling nets in this area
compared to other species and other harbor areas. While the harbor area is closed to
most commercial I infishing, it is probable that relatively high flounder density attracts
considerable recreational fishing off Deer Island.
4.7.8.4 Species of Special Concern. The discussion of these resources at Spectacle
Island (Section 4.7.7.7) is also applicable to Deer Island.
4.8 PUBLIC HEALTH
4.8.1 Introduction
The baseline evaluation for public health includes a discussion of federal and state
regulations and an identification of potentially affected populations surrounding each
site. In some cases, the primary purpose of a regulation is to protect public health; in
others, protection of public health is only one of several purposes of the regulation.
The baseline descriptions of each site focus on populations located near the site and
projected population changes expected between the years 1985 and 2010. Projected
populations to cover the planning period (through the year 2020) were not available.
4-182
-------
Populations particularly sensitive to health impacts such as the young, elderly, and
chronically ill are identified.
4.8.2 Regulatory Setting
There are several federal and state laws discussed in other sections of this chapter that
are also relevant to protection of public health. Presented below is a summary of the
public health aspects of the major laws. Because criteria and standards are presented
in other sections, they are discussed but not repeated here.
4.8.2.1 Federal Clean Air Act. The purpose of the Clean Air Act is “to protect and
enhance the quality of the Nation’s air resources so as to promote the public health and
welfare.” Primary national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) are set to protect
human health, allowing for an adequate margin of safety to account for unidentified
hazards and effects. They are based on reduction or elimination of direct health
effects of chemicals to particularly sensitive groups of citizens such as bronchial
asthmatics and emphysematics.
Other air quality requirements regarding protection of public health and welfare are
primarily emission limits and control technology requirements. These are discussed in
greater detail in Section 4.3.
4.8.2.2 Federal Safe Drinking Water Act. Maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) and
maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs) are set to protect sensitive populations
from adverse health effects due to lifetime exposure to contaminants in drinking
water. In addition to health factors, including exposure to contaminants from other
sources, an MCL is set based on the technological and economic feasibility of removing
the contaminant from the water supply. The first step in developing an MCL is the
development of the MCLG, which is entirely health-based.
4.8.2.3 Federal Clean Water Act. The objective of this act is to restore and maintain
the integrity of the nation’s waters. Research conducted under this act focuses on the
harmful effects on the health and welfare of people caused by pollutants in the water.
Ambient water quality criteria for the protection of human hea,lth are estimates of the
maximum allowable ambient water concentrations of criteria pollutants for which
adverse health impacts will not occur, or are estimates of cancer risk levels.
Recommended criter 5 ia are the ncentrations associated with a range of incremental
cancer risks (1 10 to 1 x 10 ); the concentration associated with a one-in-one
million (1 x 10- ) increased lifetime cancer risk is often cited. The increased individual
lifetime canc er risk associated with a given exposure is expressed as a small fraction
(e.g., I x 10 ). It represents the incremental increase in an individual’s lifetime risk or
chance of developing cancer that is attributable to a given exposure. Another way to
-view a one-in-one million risk is that should there be an exposure to a million persons,
one additional cancer incident is likely to occur above normal rates, from the
exposure. For most chemicals, ambient water quality criteria to protect human health
are available for two exposure pathv ays. One criterion is based on protection of health
v hen exposure includes both the drinking of water and the consumption of fish and
shellfish, the other is based on exposure to only the consumption of fish and shellfish.
These criteria are often used by agencies to establish regulatory requirements,
however, they do not independently serve as standards.
4-183
-------
4.8.2.4 State Air Quality Standards. The Massachusetts DEQE has developed standards
from the NAAQS as deemed necessary to protect public health. In addition, threshold
effects exposure limits (TELs) and allowable ambient levels (AALs) are health-based
guidance levels that have been developed as part of the DEQE Air Toxics Program.
These criteria are designed to prevent adverse health effects in sensitive populations.
TELs are developed to prevent threshold effects, which are acute, chronic,
developmental, and reproductive effects. AALs are developed to prevent the above
listed threshold effects and northreshold effects, which include carcinogenic and
mutagenic effects. Carcinogenic effects are effects for which cancer is the health end
point, and mutagenic effects are effects for which the genetic material in a cell is
altered.
4.8.2.) State Water Quality Standards. It is the responsibility of the Massachusetts
Division of Water Pollution Control (DWPC) to protect the public health, enhance the
quality and value of water resources, and establish a program for preventing control and
abatement of water pollution. Applicable state regulations include the Massachusetts
Surface Water Quality Standards and the Massachusetts Ground Water Quality
Standards.
The Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards (proposed 1988 revisions) classify
surface water bodies into various water use categories, establish criteria necessary to
support these uses, and define various policies regarding the protection and
enhancement of water resources (314 CMR 4). Safe exposure levels for human health
are adopted from those recommended by EPA as part of the water quality criteria
discussed above. Hovb ever, alternative, site-specific safe exposure levels may be
determined in accordance with methods approved by the DWPC.
The Massachusetts Ground Water Quality Standards consist of groundwater
classifications, which designate and assign the uses for which the various groundwaters
of the Commonwealth shall be maintained and protected (314 CMR 6). Most of the
groundwater in the state is Class I or H. In general, for Class I and II groundwater,
pollutants should not be present in amounts sufficient to render groundwater
detrimental to public health and welfare or impair the groundwater for use as a source
of potable water. It is also specified that the level of a toxic pollutant in Class I and
Class II groundwaters shall not result in greater than one additi 3 nal incident of cancer
in 100,000 people exposed for a lifetime, which equals a 1 x 10 increased lifetime
cancer risk (314 CMR 6).
4.8.3 Study Area
Similar to the study area defined in Section 4.3, the study area for determining
potential public health impacts is defined as the area within a three-kilometer radius
circumscribed around processing sites. The landfill study area is within a two-kilometer
radius circumscribed around the candidate site. The candidate processing sites have a
larger study area due to the wider-ranging potential impacts from air emissions. The
landfill study area is defined to include the smaller area impacted by potential air
emissions, as well as the area potentially impacted by water emissions. Critical
information from previous sections is presented here as it relates to public health.
4-184
-------
Population descriptions include estimation of numbers of people living in the study area
(U.S. Census Data, 1980) and descriptions of populations likely to be in the area for
other reasons (i.e., occupational or recreational). Sensitive populations are also
identified based on the sensitive receptors identified in Appendix C. Sensitive
populations include the young, elderly, and chronically ill. Information on projected
changes in study area populations was obtained from a Metropolitan Area Planning
Council preliminary report, with data available up to the year 2010 (MAPC, 1988).
Proposed industrial and residential developments are also discussed.
4.8.4 Walpole MCI Baseline Conditions
4.8.4.1 Existing Conditions. The following populations exist within the study area and
could potentially be affected by a landfill:
• Residential populations (closest residences are north of the site, and are
approximately 100 feet away)
• Prison inmates, some of whom may be serving life sentences, and are
• incarcerated at the Massachusetts Correctional Institute-Cedar Junction,
the Massachusetts Correctional Institute-Norfolk, or the Bay State
Correctional Center
• Employees of nearby industries, including the prisons
• Users of surface water bodies for rereational purposes including the Stop
River, Bristol’s Pond, Stony Brook Pond, Highland Lake, and Mann Pond
• Users of private wells as a source of potable waters in the vicinity of the
site
The population living within the study area, including the prison inmates, is
approximately 2,700 people based on 1980 U.S. Census data. The three correctional
institutes; Southwood Community Hospital, which serves as a 183 bed acute care
hospital; various industries; and 2 schools bring employees to the area. People may also
frequent the study area to visit prisoners, get medical care, or use any of the water
bodies for recreational purposes such as swimming, fishing, boating, or picnicking. The
Stop River, located to the west of the site, supports a diverse population of fish and
may therefore be considered an attractive area for recreational fishing. The Stony
Brook Visitor’s Center, owned by the Massachusetts Audubon Society, is approximately
7,000 feet southwest of the site near Bristol’s Pond. A number of people travel to the
center on a regular basis to birdwatch.
Several groundwater sources of public drinking water are located within one mile of the
site. Three operating wells and one proposed well serve the MCI-Norfolk and Cedar
Junction prison facilities, and three wells supply the Southwood Community Hospital,
two of which are presently on line. There are numerous private wells within one mile of
the site.
Sensitive populations or receptors within the two-kilometer-perimeter study area
include three correctional institutions, two schools, one nursery school (at the
4-185
-------
Federated Church of Norfolk), the Southwood Community Hospital, and three churches,
some of which may offer daycare (see Appendix C).
4.8.4.2 Future Projections. Portions of three towns fall within a two-kilometer radius
of the site: Walpole, Norfolk, and a very small portion of Foxborough. The projected
percent change in population for the towns as a whole are presented below
(Table 4.8-1).
TABLE 4.8-1. WALPOLE MCI PROJECTED PERCENT CHANGE IN POPULATION
Town
Population in 1985
Percent
1985-1990
Change
1990-2010
Walpole
19,910
+5.6
+3.2
Norfolk
8,210
+13.6
+27.1
Foxborough
14,522
+4.9
+11.9
Source: Adapted from MAPC, 1988
Both state correctional institutes at Walpole and Norfolk are planning to upgrade and
expand their facilities to accommodate more prisoners. Some additional industrial and
residential expansions in the study area are also proposed. A new water supply well for
MCI Norfolk has been installed but must meet DEQE approval prior to operation.
4.8.5 Rowe Quarry Baseline Conditions
4.8.5.1 Existing Conditions. The populations within the study area that may be
affected by the landfill consist of residential populations (several residences are within
100 feet of the site, with the closest residence being within 50 feet of the edge of the
quarry) and employee populations working in nearby industrial and commercially
developed areas.
The number of people living within the study area is approximately 31,000 based on
1980 U.S. Census data. Apart from the residential population, people spend time within
the study area while at work at the various office buildings and industries and at the
numerous stores located within the heavily developed commercial strip along Route I.
A large volume of consumers frequent this commercial area.
Recreational activities in the vicinity consist largely of extracurricular sports played at
the various nearby school fields and playgrounds. The Mount Hood observatory and golf
course and the Mount Hood Memorial Park in MaIden, which has a few ponds, also
attract people to the area. In addition, recreational fishing and boating occur along
Diamond Creek and its tributary, the Pines River and Rumney Marshes.
4-186
-------
Sensitive populations or receptors within the 2-kilometer perimeter study area include
13 schools, 2 nursing homes with apartments for the elderly, 1 field (Hunting Field),
1 park (Common Park), and 17 churches, some of which may provide daycare (see
Appendix C).
4.8.5.2 Future Projections. Portions of five towns fall within the site’s study area. The
projected percent changes in population for these communities are presented below
(Table 4.8-2).
TABLE 4.8-2. ROWE QUARRY PROJECTED PERCENT CHANGE IN POPULATION
Town
Population in 1985
Percent Change
1985-1990 1990-2010
Revere
42,000
÷4.8
+3.3
MaIden
53,300
+1.8
-3.6
Meirose
29,282
-2.0
-6.9
Saugus
24,700
+1.8
-2.7
‘
Everett
36,100
-0.3
Source: Adapted from MAPC, 1988
Proposed developments within the study area consist largely of additional commercial
and residential land uses.
4.8.6 Stoughton Baseline Conditions
4.8.6.1 Existing Conditions. Populations within the study area, or impacted by
resources from the study area, include residential populations (closest v, ithin 1,500 feet
of the site), employees of nearby industries, and people using nearby ponds or other
recreational areas.
The population living within the study area is approximately 17,000 based on 1980 U.S..
Census Data. Industrial and office facilities are located near the site, where individuals
from both within and outside the study area work. Other land uses that may attract
.people include recreational areas and ponds where fishing, swimming, and boating
occur. Glen Echo Pond is approximately 4,000 feet northwest of the site and is used
recreational ly.
Sensitive populations within the study area include people who use the 16 schools, the
N.E. Sinai Hospital, one convalescent home, 2 parks, 1 field, and 3 daycare centers (see
Appendix C).
4-187
-------
4.8.6.2 Future Projections. Portions of four towns fall within the Study area of the
site. The projected percent changes in population for these towns as a whole are
presented below (Table 4.8-3).
TABLE 4.8-3. STOUGI-ITON PROJECTED PERCENT CHANGES IN POPULATION
Town
Population in 1985
Percent
1985-1990
Change
1990-20 10
Stoughton
27,500
+4.4
+2.4
Canton
18,200
0.0
0.0
Randolph
28,400
+0.7
+1.1
Avon
4,815
-1.3
(not
available)
Source: Adapted from MAPC, 1988
Proposed development of office complexes near the site could increase the number of
employees potentially affected in the area.
The Brockton Reservoir and its watershed are located within the study area. The
reservoir is expected to become an active water supply to be used over the next five to
ten ,ears for an average safe yield of nine million gallons of water each day to be
distributed to Brockton, Halifax, Whitman, Bridgewater, and portions of East
Bridgewater.
4.8.7 Quincy FRSA Baseline Conditions
4.8.7.1 Existing Conditions. Populations that exist within the study area are identified
as follows:
• Residential populations (closest residences are along East Howard Street in
Quincy and are approximately 200 ft. from the site)
• Employees of the numerous offices, industries, and retailers
• Users of any of several recreational areas for swimming, boating, fishing,
sports, skating, walking, or bike riding
The population living within the Quincy FRSA study area is the largest and most densely
populated of the potential residuals sites. The number of people within
three kilometers of the site is estimated to be approximately 48,000 based on 1980 U.S.
Census data. Since a large portion of the study area consists of industrial, commercial,
and institutional land uses, a significant number of people commute there to work.
4-188
-------
Recreational areas near the site offer swimming, boating, fishing, picnicking, skating,
bike trails, basketball, and tennis as well as many athletic fields and community
centers. These facilities may attract people from the surrounding communities. The
Weymouth Fore River is used extensively for recreational fishing, and the tidal flats are
.an area of commercial shellfish harvesting by master diggers. Other tidal flats that are
open to master diggers include the Town River Bay, Rock Island, King Cove, and Mill
Cove. Small inland surface water bodies in the area that are used for fishing have also
been identified (Section 4.4.6.3).
Sensitive populations or receptors within the study area include 24 schools, 3 hospitals
(the Quincy Mental Health Center, South Shore Mental Health Center, and Quincy
:1-lospital), 6 community health centers, 5 convalescent homes or senior citizens
apartment complexes, 20 parks, S playgrounds, 3 beaches, 4 day care or children’s
centers, and 23 churches, some of which may provide daycare (see Appendix C).
4.8.7.2 Future Projections. Portions of three towns fall within the study area of the
site. The projected percent changes in population for these communities as a whole are
presented below (Table 4.8-4).
TABLE 4.8-4. QUINCY FRSA PROJECTED PERCENT CHANGES IN POPULATION
Town
Population in 1985
Percent
1985-1990
Increase
1990-2010
Quincy
88,000
+5.9
+5.0
Weymouth
56,900
0.0
0.0
Braintree
36,400
0.0
0.0
Source: Adapted from MAPC, 1988
Part of the site has been leased to the Massachusetts Shipbuilding Corporation for a
ship repair and construction facility, so employees of the shipyard represent a potential
population should shipbuilding resume. Industrial expansions and additional apartment
and condominium complexes are also proposed in the study area.
4.8.8 Spectacle Island
4.8.8.1 Existing Conditions. The following populations within the study area could be
affected by the potential residuals processing facility:
• Residential populations (closest residents are living on Long Island at the
Long Island Chronic Care Hospital, the shelter for the homeless, and the
mental health and drug and alcohol abuse centers; and staff who reside on
Thompson Island on a year-round basis)
4-189
-------
• Employees at the above institutions or people working on Thompson island or
Moon Island
• People engaging in recreational fishing or commercial lobstering, or using
any of the recreational facilities on Long Island, Moon Island, Thompson
Island, or Castle Island
The number of people living within this study area is the lowest population of all the
candidate residuals sites and is approximately 600 based on 1980 U.S. Census data. The
residential population includes people residing on Long Island who declared the hospital
or long-term care facility as their home address.
Visitors to the islands in the study area are attracted to various historic sites or
participate in recreational activities such as swimming, biking, fishing, or picnicking.
There is a firing range on Moon Island used by the Boston Police Department and a
training area for firefighters.
Sensitive populations or receptors in the vicinity of the site include the Tobin Shelter
for the Homeless; Long Island Hospital facilities, including the rebound program for
teenage drug abuse, the Department of Mental Health and the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Detoxification Center; four parks; two schools; the Outward Bound
Educational Center at Thompson Island; and three churches (see Appendix C).
4.8.8.2 Future Projections. Spectacle Island is located within Boston city limits. A
small portion of Quincy (including Squantum and Moon Islands), Long Island, Thompson
Island, Castle Island, and Rainsford Island are located within the three-kilometer radius
of the site. The population of Quincy, which was 88,000 in 1985, is expected to increase
by approximately seven percent from 1985 to 2010 (MAPC, 1988).
Spectacle Island has been targeted by the Department of Environmental Management
for development as a recreational area as part of the Boston Harbor Islands State
Park. It is also being considered by the Department of Public Works as a disposal area
for dredged and excavated material removed during construction of the Third Harbor
Tunnel and Central Artery projects. Continued recreational development is anticipated
for Long Island and Thompson Island.
4.8.9 Deer Island
4.8.9.1 Existing Conditions. The following populations exist within the study area and
could be affected by the residuals facilities:
• Residential populations (the closest residences are located in the Point
Shirley section of Winthrop and are approximately 2,000 feet from the site);
residents living on Long Island at the Long Island Chronic Care Hospital, the
Shelter for the Homeless, or at the Mental Health or Drug and Alcohol
Centers
• Employees of nearby institutions and businesses and those working on Deer
Island at the wastewater treatment plant
4-190
-------
• People engaging in recreational fishing or using any of the coastal or Long
Island recreational facilities
The population within the study area is approximately 2,400 people based on 1980 U.s.
Census data. The estimate does not include the prison inmates on Deer Island since the
prison will be relocated prior to construction of the residuals processing facility. The
employee population in the study area is expected to be small. People travel to this
area for recreational purposes associated with the Winthrop beaches or to fish the
waters surrounding Deer Island.
Sensitive populations or receptors in the study area include the Tobin Shelter for the
Homeless, Long Island Hospital Facilities (including the rebound program for teenage
drug abuse, the Department of Mental Health and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Detoxification Center), Winthrop Hospital and the Bentley Medical Center, two
convalescent homes, five schools (one kindergarten), five beaches, seven parks or
playgrounds, two children’s centers, and eight churches (see Appendix C).
4.8.9.2 Future Projections. Deer Island is located within the Boston city limits. A
portion of Winthrop falls within the three-mile radius from the site. The residential
population in Winthrop is expected to decrease by 5.9 percent between 1985 and 2010.
The land area immediately to the north of the residuals processing site will be used for
the ne secondary waste ater treatment plant. As a consequence of the new
treatment plant being built on Deer Island, the Deer Island House of Correction is
scheduled to be relocated by December 1991. Additional recreational areas on Long
Island are planned.
4.9 HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL
4.9.1 Introduction
The historic and archaeological sensitivity of the potential residuals processing and
landfill sites is evaluated below and the potential for the presence of important
resources is assessed. This evaluation is necessary to determin the potential for
impacts created by this project on important cultural resources.
Prehistoric archaeological sensitivity is based primarily on environmental and locational
characteristics and the presence of nearby known or recorded prehistoric sites.
Undisturbed areas of well-drained soils and relatively slight slopes near water sources
and wetlands are generally considered as having high sensitivity. Areas of sandy,
well-drained soils not near water are considered to be of moderate sensitivity.
Disturbed, extremely rocky areas with no water resources or wet areas and extremely
steep slopes are considered of low sensitivity.
Archaeological sensitivity for historic period resources is generally identified on the
basis of known or recorded sites, evidence from documents such as historical maps or
deeds, or surface evidence of sites such as surface scatters of artifacts, structures, or
features such as cellar holes. Architectural sensitivity is based upon the number of
properties within or near the site that are listed or eligible for listing in the National
:Register of Historic Places (described below). Sensitivity is also determined by
4-191
-------
evaluating the number of structures in the area that are at least 50 years old.
Architectural sensitivity may be determined by a combination of documentary research
and field inspection.
Because the majority of the material in this section is extracted from previous studies,
the level of information available for each site varies. For the Rowe Quarry, Walpole
MCI, and Stoughton sites the material is derived from preliminary reconnaissance
surveys, the least intensive of this type of investigation. The material for Deer Island
is extracted from previous architectural and archaeological analyses, which are more
detailed. The material for the Quincy FRSA is extracted from both an architectural
analysis of the site and a reconnaissance survey prepared for an adjacent site. The
information on Spectacle Island is summarized from an intensive archaeological survey,
which is more detailed than the others and which included site excavation.
4.9.2 Regulatory Setting
4.9.2.1 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966 established the National Register of Historic Places (“National Register”),
a list of significant buildings, sites, districts, structures, and objects maintained under
the direction of the Secretary of the Interior. By mandating review of the effects of all
federally funded or licensed projects on National Register eligible resources, Section
106 of the NHPA created an important mechanism to provide protection for those
properties. Under Section 106, federal agencies are responsible for identifying National
Register eligible properties and for assessing the effect of any federal action on them.
The NHPA also establishes the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (“Advisory
Council”), which acts as the independent federal agency responsible for implementation
of Section 106. The Advisory Council’s “Protection of Historic Properties” and the
National Register of Historic Places Criteria are the administrative rules for
implementing the NHPA.
4.9.2.2 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Through NEPA, historic
preservation has become part of national environmental policy. Under NEPA, federal
agencies must assess the impacts of major federal actions that affect the human
environment, including historic and archaeological resources.
4.9.2.3 Protection of Historic Properties. These regulations of the federal Advisory
Council govern the review process established by Section 106 of NHPA. They define
the process used by a federal agency to meet the responsibilities dictated by the above
legislation, commonly referred to as the “Section 106 process.” Figure 4.9-1 illustrates
the step-by-step process, which includes coordination with the State Historic
Preservation Officer and other interested parties.
4.9.2.4 National Register of Historic Places. A property is eligible for the National
Register if its significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, or culture is
present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects of state and local importance
that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and
association. In addition, the property must 1) be associated with events or people that
have made a significant contribution to history; 2).embody distinctive characteristics of
a type, period, or method of construction; represent the work of a master; possess high
artistic value; or represent a significant and distinguishable entity; or 3) have yielded or
be likely to yield information important to history or prehistory (MHC, [ 985).
4-192
-------
AD V I flSE
LIH
rrici
I
I
I
I
—I
Step 1: IDENTIFYIF VALUATE
HISTORIC PROPERTIES
Agency asa.aus Iofofml%lIon meds. egnncylSHPO
locein erd evaluate National Rngtster eligibflhty
Of poscible hluio,4c pivpenlee
Step 2: ASSESS EFFECTS
AgencylSHPO apply Crltecla of FHert and Art nr q Ettect
Step 3: CONSULTATION
AgencylSHPO (other,) aneutl. agency noteea
Council. Council paflicipalion i optional
I
Public may rep,est Council review of agencya ilrdtnge at these pointa
Step 5: PROCEED
I1(;IJRF. 4.9-I. 1 1W. BASIC SiEP’ OF SV( 1 ION IOVt I F ’t!W
-------
4.9.2.5 MGL Chapter 9, Sections 26-27C. Chapter 9 establishes the Massachusetts
Historical Commission (MHC) and the Office of the State Archaeologist and their
respective duties. It also mandates the MHC to administer the federal historic
preservation program represented as the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
4.9.2.6 Mtssachusetts Underwater Archaeology Act. This act established the Board of
Underwater Archaeological Resources to protect and preserve historical, scientific, and
archaeological information about underwater archaeological resources located within
the waters of the Commonwealth. The board has established rules and regulations for
removing and salvaging underwater resources that have educational and historical
value, for granting permits for exploration and salvage, and for maintaining an
inventory of sites and materials salvaged.
4.9.2.7 Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). MEPA requires evaluation of
projects in order to describe their environmental impacts and stipulates that agencies
use all feasible means to avoid or minimize degradation of the natural and human
environments, including historical and archaeological sites and structures of
significance.
4.9.3 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
In September 1988, an MOA was executed by the Advisory Council, EPA, and MHC
(represented as the SHPO), with the concurrence of the MWRA and DEQE. The MOA
contains measures that must be carried out to ensure that the effect of MWRA’s Boston
Harbor projects on National Register eligible properties will be accounted for in
compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. For the long-term residuals management
activities, the MOA sets out procedures for identification of National Register eligible
resources that may be affected by the project, and for mitigation of any adverse effect
on those resources (ACHP, 1988).
4.9.4 Study Area
Two study areas have been identified for examining the impacts on historic and
archaeological resources. The archaeological study area is within the boundaries of the
potential project site. It is the area of an potential direct physical disturbance from
clearing or temporary access to excavation and construction. Transportation routes and
utility corridors that affect previously undisturbed areas are also considered to be part
of the archaeological study area. The architectural study area is the “viewshed” for the
site, the surrounding area from which the site can be seen; this is a concern because of
the potential for visual and other intrusions from the project on National Register
eligible resources.
4.9.5 Walpole MCI Baseline Conditions
4.9.5.1 Prehistoric Background. Table 4.9-1 shows the time frame associated with each
prehistoric and historic period of classification used by archaeologists. The Neponset
River Drainage Basin, of which this Site iS a part, was used extensively by prehistoric
hunter-gatherer populations up to 9,000 years ago, as exemplified by sites reported
along the margins of the Neponset’s floodplain and on the isolated glacial kames and
drumlins along the river’s edge. Several lithic (stone) source areas and workshops, rock
4-194
-------
TABLE 4.9-1. PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC TIME PERIODS
Name Period (in Years Before Present)
Paleo-Indian Period
12,000 - 9,000
BP
Early Archaic Period
9,000 - 8,000
BP
Middle Archaic Period
8,000 - 6,500
BP
Late Archaic Period
6,500 - 3,000
BP
Early Woodland Period
3,000 - 1,800
BP
Middle Woodland Period
1,800 - 1,100
BP
Late Woodland Period
1,100 - 400
BP
(European) Contact Period
around 400
BP
shelters, and small open sites have been documented including sites at the
Meadowlands, Green Hill, and Ponkapoag in Canton; at the Neponset Raceway in
Norwood; and along the Neponset River. These sites contained Middle and Late Archaic
and Middle and Late Woodland finds (MWRA, Arch. Survey, 1988).
4.9.5.2 Historic Background. The Walpole MCI site is located in an area that was an
outlying district of Walpole throughout most of the town’s history. Farming was
apparently the major economic activity in the 17th and 18th centuries. The first roads
in the area appeared around the end of the 18th century including Cedar Street, Winter
Street (east of Route IA), and Main Street (later Route IA). B 1852, Winter Street
had been extended west from Main Street and several houses were built along it in the
area of the site. In addition, a road had been built that forked from the east part of
Winter Street and crossed Main Street. The remains of this road are still evident, and it
skirts both the project site and the Walpole MCI prison. An 1876 map of the area shows
several structures along this road in Norfolk adjacent to the project site as well as some
on Winter Street. While none of the historical sources consulted indicate that there
were any historic sites within the project area itself, some farmsteads were located
close to the area by the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Based on investigations
done as part of this Draft SEIS, it is likely that at least portiorI of the project area
were historically used for farming and pasturage.
4.9.5.3 Site Sensitivity. A preliminary field walkover indicated that portions of the
project area have the potential for prehistoric remains and evidence of historical land
use. The primary area of prehistoric sensitivity is located in the northeastern part of
the site, near the base of a slope. While large portions of the area are rocky and wet,
there are several level, dry areas that extend into the wetlands; these areas have high
...potential for undisturbed prehistoric remains. Portions of the cleared fields have
moderate potential for prehistoric remains.
While no evidence of historic structures was identified during the walkover, a number of
stone walls were noted, especially in the low-lying north and east areas, along Winter
Street and Route IA. The stone walls, one of which runs almost the entire length of the
parcel near the base of the slope, probably represent boundary or pasture walls and
possibly correspond to historical lot lines. Other historical evidence includes a road
4-195
-------
running approximately northeast-southwest at the southwestern edge of the cleared
fields. The road is located on what appears to be a raised causeway that is faced on at
least one side by a stone retaining wall. Finally, there were several Concentrations of
field stones on the east and northeast slopes of the fields, suggesting that farmers may
have dumped their stone sleds at these locations.
4.9.5.4 Architectural Survey. There are no known National Register eligible properties
within the study area. However, several structures located within the viewshed of the
project area and along the transportation route were researched and evaluated to
determine if any of them may be eligible for the National Register. The Boyden house
(ca. 1720) on Winter Street and the Moses Smith House (1745) on Cedar Street have
been inventoried by the Walpole Historic Commission. The survey also identified four
other structures near the project area that are at least 50 years old and that may be
significant, but have not been inventoried. These are a Federal farmhouse at 2112 Main
Street (Route IA), a small 19th-century cottage at (east) Winter Street and Route IA,
the late 19th-century farmhouse and cupolaed barn on the Northeast Kennels property
(west Winter Street), and a Dutch Colonial Revival house that now serves as the prison
Pre-Release Center in Norfolk. The cottage is on the Winter St. transportation route
and the other structures are in the viewshed of the site.
The Winter Street transportation route (Figure 5.2-1) passes through South Walpole
Center (at the intersection of Water, Neponset, and Winter Streets), which contains a
number of potentially significant architectural structures. South Walpole was described
in a MHC Reconnaissance Survey as stan exceptionally well-preserved village of. . . [ the
Federal] period . . . where several of the town’s most elaborately decorated Federal
houses remain, together with a Federal tavern, possibly a small mill and two rows of
wooden workers’ houses.”
4.9.6 Rowe Quarry Baseline Conditions
5.9.6.1 Prehistoric Background. The prehistoric background for the MaIden and Revere
area is the same as for the Boston basin area described in Section 5.9.9.1. The MHC
files contain no record of prehistoric sites for Maiden or Revere. However, the
Wyoming Quarry in nearby Meirose was reported to contain Woodland period artifacts.
The Saugus Estuary site, now destroyed by a housing development, was reported to
contain thousands of arrowheads; the Saugus Quarry (now destroyed) reportedly
produced thousands of pieces of chipped debris, bifaces (artifacts with scars on both
sides), scrapers, and projectile (spear, dart, or arrow) points (MWRA, Arch. Survey,
1988).
4.9.6.2 Historic Background. The Rowe Quarry has been in active operation by the
Rowe family since 1848 and contains several buildings related to the quarry operation
that are reportedly more than 50 years old.
4.9.6.3 Site Sensitivity. There are no known National Register eligible sites in the area
of the Rowe Quarry. The general area of the quarry has a high sensitivIty for
prehistoric resources because of its location near water resources (the Pines Saltmarsh
and Seaplane Basin) and because prehistoric sites have been found nearby and close to
the Saugus and Mystic Rivers. In addition, several Contact Period native trails are
known in the area including Salem Path, now Salem Street. However, extensive
4-196
-------
quarrying over most of the project site substantially reduces its likelihood for
containing intact prehistoric or historic resources. Undisturbed areas on the perimeter
of the quarry, particularly the woods to the north and northeast of the site, contain
areas that may be moderately sensitive, particularly for historical features; the stone
walls found in this area indicate historical activity (MWRA, Arch. Survey, 1988).
Rowe Quarry, in Continuous operation since the mid-1800s, presents several potentially
significant historic resources, particularly the stone crusher building and possibly other
quarry-related structures. As the original setting of these structures, the quarry may
be significant. The MWRA has prepared inventory forms for the quarry itself and for
the stone crusher building and is of the opinion that the stone crusher building is
potentially National Register eligible (Personal Communication with Elizabeth Holstein
of Public Archaeological Laboratories, March 21, 1989). An 1 830s map of Maiden shov s
a road that runs through the western side of the site. Field observations indicate that
in the same general area, but off the site, there is a road on which are situated several
potentially National Register eligible structures. If, however, the road shown on the
map is not the contemporary road and is actually on the project site, potentially
significant archaeological resources may exist in that area.
4.9.7 Stoughton Base! me Conditions
4.9.7.1 Prehistoric Background. The regional prehistory of the Taunton River Basin has
been extensively studied by professional and avocational archaeologists. Although no
prehistoric sites in the town of Stoughton have been reported to the MHC, Early and
Late Archaic and Early, Middle, and Late Woodland sites have been reported in nearby
Sharon, Canton, and Randolph (MWRA, Arch. Survey, 1988).
4.9.7.2 Historic Background. Historic maps and background research indicate that no
historical activity occurred on the potential residuals facilities site in Stoughton
(Holstein, 1989).
4.9.7.3 Site Sensitivity. There are no known National Register eligible sites in the area
of the Stoughton site. Although the site is extremely rocky, its proximity to other
known sites and to a variety of water resources (primarily wetlands) indicates that it is
of moderate archaeological sensitivity. A portion of the northern area of the site is
drier and less rocky, but most of it is substantially disturbed by industrial activity,
resulting in a low to moderate sensitivity designation (MWRA, Arch. Survey, 1988).
3ust south of the disturbed area is an undisturbed wooded area of moderate potential
for archaeological remains.
4.9.8 Quincy FRSA Baseline Conditions
-4.9.8.1 Prehistoric Background. The prehistoric background for the Quincy FRSA area
is the same as that described for the Boston Basin Area in Section 5.9.9.1. The MHC
archaeological site inventory map (Map 62) indicates no recorded sites in the vicinity of
the Quiricy FRSA or the parcels adjacent to it (MWRA, FRS Survey, 1988).
4.9.8.2 Pre-2Oth-Century Period. The earliest available historical period maps (Quincy,
1795; Hales, 1830), indicate that Quincy Point, a peninsula north of Bent’s Creek, was
efirst occupied during the pre-2Oth-century period by settlers who constructed homes
4-197
-------
along the Quincy-Weymouth Turnpike (now Washington Street). A bridge at the narrow
constriction of the river provided direct access to Weymouth. The connecting
promontory on the Weymouth side is called Ferry Point, indicating that crossing the
river at this site was long established, perhaps dating to the 18th century.
During the mid -l9th century, Howard Avenue was surveyed as a Street extending the
length of Quincy Neck and intersecting with the present Howard Street just south of
Winter Street, at a point opposite the former shipyard office. Toward the last quarter
of the 19th century the area was a mixture of residences and local businesses including
the H.H. Faxon granite works at the head of Hayward’s Creek, on the south side of
Howard Street. The granite works included a railroad line that extended several miles
to the west. Later, acquisition of the railroad connection played an important part in
the development of the shipyard, allowing raw materials to be brought to the site for
construction of vessels (Clean Harbors, DEIR, 2, 1988).
4.9.8.3 20th-Century Period. In 1901, the Fore River Engine Company, founded by
Thomas Watson (former assistant to Alexander Graham Bell) in 1884, was moved to the
Quincy FRSA site in order to have a facility large enough to construct the U.S. Navy
cruiser, Des Moines. As the shipbuilding industry grew, increasingly larger entities
acquired Watson’s shipbuilding business; stock v as sold in 1902, in 1913 Bethlehem Steel
purchased it, and in 1964 General Dynamics acquired the business.
The shipbuilding history at the Quincy FRSA encompasses three major periods: the
prewar years through World War I, the 1920s through World War II, and the postwar
years up to 1986, when General Dynamics closed its doors. In the early period the Fore
River Engine Company grew from a producer of marine engines to a large shipyard
producing all types of naval ships. After it was acquired by Bethlehem Steel, it became
the largest producer of U.S. Navy ships in World War I. During World War II, Bethlehem
Steel’s major upgrading laid the foundation for the production of ships from landing
craft to aircraft carriers. In the postwar years, Bethlehem Steel and then General
Dynamics pioneered the design and production of large tankers and nuclear-powered
guided missile cruisers, frigates, and submarines (Clean Harbors, DEIR, 2, 1988).
4.9.8.4 Site Sensitivity. During the shipyard’s operation, substantial filling of wetlands
and grading of uplands have significantly altered the original terrain and soils of the
site. As a result, much archaeological evidence of early activities has been
eliminated. On Quincy FRSA properties outside the shipyard itself, many areas are
paved parking lots. Subsurface features may remain in these areas; this is where the
potential for archaeological evidence of pre-2Oth-century activity is greatest.
The shipyard has sufficient integrity and historical significance to be eligible for the
National Register as an historic district (Deland, 1989). Both buildings and engineering
features (such as cranes) contribute to the significance of the district. However, only
one building within the area set aside by MWRA for potential composting is considered
a major contributing element of the district. Several structures in the area of the
potential heat drying facility are also considered to contribute significantly, but will be
affected by construction of the interim sludge processing facilities. Adverse effects to
these elements of the district v ill be mitigated for the interim sludge project, and
therefore would not be a concern for long-term residuals management (Deland, 1989).
4-198
-------
4.9.9 Spectacle Island Baseline Conditions
The information presented for Spectacle Island is more detailed than for the other sites
because an “Intensive Archaeological Survey of Spectacle Island in Boston Harbor” was
prepared for the Massachusetts Department of Public Works’ Central Artery/Third
Harbor Tunnel Project (DPW, 1988). All of the information in this section is extracted
from the DPW survey.
4.9.9.1 Prehistoric Background of the Boston Basin Area. (Also relevant for the Rowe
- Quarry, Quincy FRSA, and Deer Island sites.) Human inhabitation of eastern
Massachusetts began around 12,000 years ago. Following the retreat of the glaciers, a
tundra-like environment developed, followed by a spruce parkland or spruce woodland.
This woodland provided Paleo-Indian hunters with a variety of plant and animal life;
however, no Paleo-Indian sites are recorded f or the harbor islands.
By the Early Archaic period, the spruce woodland had changed into a mixed pine and
hardwood forest that supported a variety of plant and animal communities; however,
settlement and subsistence patterns were oriented to take advantage of seasonal food
resources. Discovery of an isolated bifurcate base point (a triangular blade with a split
base) on Long Island suggests that the harbor islands, at that time hills adjacent to
many water courses, were inhabited.
Known Middle Archaic period sites on the harbor islands are not numerous but are
larger in number than sites of earlier periods. As sea levels continued to rise, estuaries
were formed at the mouths of major river drainages, providing habitats rich in food
resources. Seasonal settlement patterns established earlier possibly intensified to take
advantage of these resources. Lithic (stone) assemblages comprised of locally available
materials have been found from the Middle Archaic period.
As inland populations grew, competition for limited resources grew and inland sites
appear to have been abandoned in favor of resource-abundant coastal sites during the
—Late Archaic Period. Many Woodland Period shell middens (refuse heaps) on the harbor
islands contain Late Archaic components below them, showing earlier use. The few
Middle-Woodland period shell middens indicate that population on the islands probably
increased in this period. The exploitation of coastal resources seems to have intensified
during the Late Woodland period, and the number of known sites for this period is
greater than for earlier periods on both the harbor islands and the mainland. By the
time of the European contact during the 16th and 17th centuries, the major river
estuaries (the Neponset to the south and the Mystic to the North, with the Charles
serving as the boundary) had become regional core areas serving as social, political, and
trade centers. The harbor islands were probably associated with the Neponset core area
(DPW, Survey, 1988).
4.9.9.2 The Harbor Islands. Spectacle Island is unique in that, as a part of the Boston
Harbor Islands Archaeological District, it is already listed on the National Register.
Twenty-one of the 34 harbor islands are included in the District. Thirteen of these
islands have been surveyed by professional archaeologists; on 10 of the islands, 34
archaeological sites were identified. Nine of the 34 recorded sites have been the
subject of ii tensive investigations, including a site on Spectacle Island. These
:investigations indicate that the islands were used in varying degrees from the Middle
4-199
-------
(and possibly Early) Archaic through Late Woodland periods, with more intensive use
occurring in the later period. The majority of these prehistoric sites are characterized
by Middle- to Late-Woodland period shell middens, located on south or southeastern
facing slopes within 500 feet of the shoreline (DPW, Survey, 1988).
4.9.9.3 Historic Background. The earliest history of Spectacle Island indicates it was
granted to the town of Boston in 1634, and parcels were rented to individuals. By the
late 17th century, the island was in private ownership and used for farming and
pasturage. Except for a brief period in the early l700s when a quarantine hospital was
sited there, the island remained in farm use and in private ownership until the mid-l9th
century.
In the mid-l9th century the use of Spectacle island changed dramatically. Between
1847 and 1857 the island hosted two hotels. Soon after, the entire island was purchased
for a horse rendering business. At that time the island reportedly contained a wharf
and the possible remains of earlier, undocumented military activity. In 1901, two range
lights were located on the northeast point of the north drumlin for use as navigational
aids by ships leaving the harbor. In 1904, two more range lights facing a different
direction were added. The original lights were taken down by 1919.
In 1912 the city of Boston took by eminent domain a parcel of the island, to move its
garbage disposal plant there from Moon Island. in 1935 the city began dumping raw
garbage, which increased the size of the island by five acres. As the dumping
continued, especially between the drumlins, the island’s topography was dramatically
altered; by 1946 the “landbridge” connecting the two drumlins had been substantially
widened. By 1950 almost all of the northern rendering buildings were covered v ith
garbage. The city stopped dumping garbage and abandoned the site in 1959. Subsequent
charts and photos show continuing deterioration of the buildings, wharves, and range
lights, as well as the badly eroded eastern side of the south drumlin (DPW, Survey,
1988).
4.9.9.4 Site Sensitivity. As part of the Boston Harbor islands Archaeological District,
Spectacle Island is listed on the National Register. A prehistoric site located on the
south drumlin is significant enough to merit the protection provided by its own listing
on the register. The range lights complex located on the north drumlin is the only other
site not totally covered or destroyed by the garbage operation (MDPW, Survey, 1988).
4.9.10 Deer Island Baseline Conditions
As a result of the historic and archaeological studies performed by MWRA as part of
the Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan (MWRA, STFP, 1988), the following properties
on Deer Island were determined to be eligible for nomination to the National Register:
the Hill Prison, Farmhouse, Steam Pumping Station, Superintendent’s House, and New
Resthaven Cemetery (Advisory Council, 1988). Because it was determined that these
properties were eligible for the National Register prior to the execution of the
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), it was possible to include in the MOA specific
conditions for the disposition of these resources. These measures will be carried out
during the construction of the new wastewater treatment facilities and possible
residuals management facilities on Deer Island. More detailed information regarding
these resources may be found in the Deer Island Secondary Treatment Facility Plan
(MWRA, STFP, II, 1988) and the MOA and accompanying documentation (ACI-IP, 1988).
4-200
-------
4.10 SOCIOECONOMIC
4.10.1 Introduction
The primary socioeconomic issues of concern to host communities of the residuals
processing and disposal sites are 1) the potential loss of tax revenue generated by
existing activities on site, and 2) the potential decrease in the value of property located
in the vicinity of the sites. This section presents information on the existing tax
revenues generated by the current activities on the alternative residuals sites and a
general discussion of the status of each community with regard to limitations imposed
by Proposition 23. Section 4.1 details the types of uses that are located in the
immediate vicinity of the alternative sites and transportation routes, and serves as the
basis for the qualitative property value impact assessment presented in Section 5.11,
Socioeconomic Impacts.
This section briefly discusses the federal and state regulatory framework governing
socioeconomic concerns as they might be affected by the siting of residuals
management facilities, and summarizes the available socioeconomic data for each
alternative site.
4.10.2 Regulatory Setting
4.10.2.1 National Environmental Policy Act. Among the goals stated in the act is
• fulfillment of the social and economic requirements of present and future generations
- ‘of Americans, and the balancing between population and resource use which will permit
high standards of living and a v ide sharing of life’s amenities. NEPA requires federal
agencies to identify and compare the potential economic and social effects of proposed
alternatives.
4.10.2.2 Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act. An important element of the MEPA
-process, as stated in the act, is the decision-making power of state agencies which must
balance critical environmental, economic, and social objectives.
4.10.2.3 MWRA Legislative Authority. The MWRA legislative.authoritY as it relates to
land use and socioeconomic concerns is discussed in Section 4.1.2.6. Under certain
conditions and with certain approvals, the MWRA has the authority to acquire and/or
take public and private property.
4.10.2.4 Massachusetts Proposition 23. Proposition 23 legislation was passed in 1980
for the purpose of limiting the annual amount a city or town can increase its levy upon
property taxpayers from year to year. Proposition 23 contains two separate levy
limits. The first of these limits, called the overall limit, restricts a city or town to
-levying a maximum property tax equal to 23 percent of the community’s full and fair
valuation each year. The second limit, known as the growth limit, restricts the amount
a community can increase its levy from year to year to 23 percent of the previous
year’s levy plus a percentage of new growth. Excess capacity is the difference between
the levy and the levy limit (expressed as a percent) and represents the additional taxes
a city or town may collect without overriding Proposition 24 (Massachusetts Taxpayers
Foundation,-1988). Many communities in Massachusetts are near their established levy
limits, meaning they cannot (without local overrides) resort to increases in property tax
4-201
-------
levies to raise local revenues. In fiscal year 1988, 48 percent of Massachusetts
communities were within one percent of their established levy limits. The statewide
average for excess taxing capacity in fiscal year 1988 was 2.5 percent, (Buckholtz,
1989).
As noted above, growth in a community’s property tax base is an important element in
establishing a community’s levy limit. Communities can increase their tax limits by
taxing growth in property value. Allowable growth under Proposition 23 includes the
value of property taxed for the first time, the increase in value of any property whose
value is up more than 50 percent, and increases in the value of income-producing
property over $100,000 (Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, 1988).
4.10.3 Walpole MCI Baseline Conditions
4.10.3.1 Site. The Walpole MCI site consists of four lots. The site, owned by the state
under the jurisdiction of the Department of Correction, is within the boundary of the
State Prison Reservation and as such is tax-exempt (MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, 2, 1989).
The Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR) maintains a reimbursement program
in lieu of annual taxes for this property in Walpole. Under DOR jurisdiction, the value
of the property has been reevaluated every five years since 1975. The most recent
property evaluation for the alternative landfill site is based upon 1985 Walpole zoning
and subdivision regulations and corresponds to the value of the four lots making up the
potential landfill site (MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, 2, 1989). Although portions of several of
these lots are not expected to be entirely occupied by MWRA landfill activity, only
values for the entire lots were available (MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, 2, 1989). The 1985
assessed value of the four lots was $2,400,000, subject to a 1985 tax rate of $19.00 per
$1,000 of property value. Therefore, the annual amount paid by Massachusetts DOR to
the town of Walpole in lieu of taxes since 1985 has been $45,600 (MWRA, RMFP, DEIR,
2, 1989).
4.10.3.2 Property in the Vicinity. The predominant land uses in the immediate vicinity
of the potential landfill site in the towns of Walpole and Norfolk are institutional,
residential, and undeveloped (Figure 4.1-1). In addition to the MCI Walpole and Norfolk
complexes, there are approximately 60 residences within 1,000 feet of the potential
landfill site (MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, 2, 1989).
4.10.3.3 Community. According to 1989 municipal financial data supplied by the
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, the total property tax levied by the town in 1989
was $15,245,000. The town had only 1.2 percent excess taxing capacity under
Proposition 23 limitations.
4.10.4 Rowe Quarry Baseline Conditions
4.10.4.1 Site. The Rowe Quarry site consists of approximately 30 privately owned
parcels located within the cities of Maiden and Revere, valued and taxed as industrial
(extractive industry) land. The Rowe Quarry properties in the city of Maiden had a
1988 assessed value of $598,000, generating tax revenue of $17,012. The Rowe Quarry
parcels in Revere had a 1989 assessed value of $787,880, generating tax revenue of
$19,301. The approximate total assessed value of the Rowe Quarry site (recognizing
4-202
-------
the different years for which financial information is available) is, therefore,
$1,385,880, with tax revenues of $36,313 (MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, 2, 1989).
4.10.4.2 Property in the Vicinity. The Rowe Quarry site is Located in a moderately
developed area (Figure 4.1-3), resulting in a considerable number of properties falling
within 1,000 feet of the site, including approximately 140 residences. In addition to the
residences, there are areas of commercial and industrial activity geared toward Route
1, as well as open and marsh areas. (MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, 2, 1989).
4.10.4.3 Community. According to 1988 municipal financial data supplied by the
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, the total property tax levied by the city of
Maiden in 1988 was $27,258,000. In 1988, the city had no excess taxing capacity under
Proposition 2 limitations. The total property tax levied by the city of Revere in 1989
was $27,129,243. The city had no excess taxing capacity under Proposition 2
limitations in 1989, down from 3.9 percent in 1988. Industrial property in Maiden was
taxed at $28.79 per thousand dollars value in 1988, while industrial property in Revere
was taxed at $24.69 per thousand in 1989.
4.10.5 Stoughton Baseline Conditions
4.10.5.1 Site. The Stoughton site consists of 19 parcels, 17 of which are assessed at the
commercial/industrial tax rate, while two are assessed at the residential rate. Based on
available data through January of 1989, the parcels within the approximate boundaries
of the site have an estimated assessed value of $3,021,607, generating tax revenue of
approximately $47,406 for fiscal year 1989 (MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, 1, 1989). The land
area required for the facilities footprint represents only a portion of the site.
Estimates of the 1989 assessed value and tax burden of the portions of lots in the
footprint are $1,980,695 and $26,613, respectively. These estimates do not include the
value of structures that are located on the parcels but that are outside the residuals
facilities footprint boundaries.
4.10.5.2 Property in the Vicinity. The types of land uses found in the vicinity of the
site in the towns of Stoughton and Avon are described in Section 4.1.6.2. Land uses
within 1,000 feet of the Stoughton site are mixed industrial, commercial, and
residential (Figure 4.1-5). As noted in Stougton’s strategic planning study, recent
industrial and commercial development has resulted in conversions of some residential
properties, particularly to the north and northeast of the site along Page Street.
However, there are approximately 30 residences located within 1,000 feet of the
Stoughton site (MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, 1, 1989).
4.10.5.3 Community. According to 1989 municipal financial data supplied by the
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, the total property tax levied by the town of
Stoughton in 1989 was $18,073,000. The town had 1.2 percent excess taxing capacity
under Proposition 2 limitations.
Industrial property in Stoughton was taxed at a rate of $15.61 per thousand, while
residential property was taxed at a rate of $13.21 per thousand in 1989 (Massachusetts
Taxpayers Foundation, 1989).
4-203
-------
4.10.6 Quincy FRSA Baseline Conditions
4.10.6.1 Site. The Quincy FRSA, which is located in both the communities of Quincy
and Braintree, is owned by the MWRA and is designated tax-exempt with regard to
community valuation and tax assessment (MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, 1, 1989). The Quincy
FRSA parcels located within the town of Brairitree have a 1989 assessed value of
$23,135,000 and would generate tax revenue of $185,549 if they were not tax-exempt
(MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, 1, 1989). The Quincy parcels purchased by MWRA from General
Dynamics in 1987 have a 1989 assessed value of $79,991,800, which would generate
taxes of $1,976,602 at the city’s 1989 industrial tax rate of $24.71 per thousand dollars
of assessed value (Fantucchio, 1989). The city of Quincy does have a compensation
agreement with the MWRA related to use of a portion of the site for interim residuals
processing. This agreement is described below in Section 4.10.6.3.
4.10.6.2 Property in the Vicinity. The area surrounding the Quincy FRSA includes
portions of Quincy, Braintree, and Weymouth. It is densely developed, containing mixed
industrial, commercial, and residential land uses within 1,000 feet of the alternative
site (Figure 4.1-7).
4.10.6.3 Community. According to 1989 municipal financial data, the total property
tax levied by the city of Quincy in 1989 was $60,424,000 (Massachusetts Taxpayers
Foundation, 1989). The city had no excess capacity under Proposition 2 limitations in
both 1988 and 1989. The town of Braintree levied a total property tax of $28,333,000 in
1989 (Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, 1989). The town had 1.4 percent excess
taxing capacity under Proposition 2 limitations in 1989, down from 4.3 percent in
1988.
As noted above, the city of Quincy and the MWRA do have a Memorandum of
Understanding regarding the interim processing of sludge at the Quincy FRSA. This
agreement, finalized in July of 1988, stipulates specific compensation amounts to the
city for fire protection services, traffic management, and engineering and legal costs.
Total compensation for these items is approximately $160,000 per year. In addition, the
MWRA has agreed to pay the city $2.25 million dollars annually (subject to inflation) for
the duration of the interim sludge processing program at Quincy FRSA, which is
expected to be in operation until 1995 (MOU, Quincy, 1988).
4.10.7 Spectacle Island Baseline Conditions
4.10.7.1 Site. There are five land parcels on Spectacle Island, all of which are
classified as tax-exempt under ownership by either the city of Boston or the
Massachusetts DEM (MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, 1, 1989).
Projected land uses for the island, in addition to the potential MWRA residuals
facilities, include the Massachusetts DEM’s proposal for a harbor park and the
Massachusetts DPW’s proposal for the disposal of Central Artery excavation material.
Both of these are public projects and thus would not result in tax revenue generation.
4.10.7.2 Property in the Vicinity. The nearest land uses to Spectacle Island are
neighboring Boston Harbor Islands (Figure 4.1-9). The site is approximately 2,800 feet
from the nearest island (MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, 1, 1989).
4-204
-------
4.10.7.3 Community. According to 1989 municipal financial data supplied by the
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, the total property tax levied by the city of Boston
was $483,725,000. The city had no excess capacity under Proposition 2j limitations in
both 1988 and 1989. The island is zoned for industrial use. If a taxable activity were to
occur on the island, the property would be taxed at a rate (1989) of $22.44 per thousand
dollars assessed value (Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, 1989).
4.10.8 Deer Island Baseline Conditions
4.10.8.1 Site. The potential residuals site on Deer Island is part of the city of Boston
but is owned by the MWRA; as such, it is tax-exempt. There is currently no agreement
between the MWRA and the city of Boston for any payment in lieu of taxes (Hearn,
1988). Projected uses for the island include expansion and upgrading of MWRA’s
wastewater treatment facility, which will require the relocation of the Deer Island
House of Correction.
4.10.8.2 Property in the Vicinity. Land uses n the immediate vicinity of the site
currently include the institutional uses associated with the MWRA treatment plant and
the Deer Island House of Correction (Figure 4.1-11). The nearest residences are located
on the southern portion of Point Shirley in the town of Winthrop, within 1,000 feet of
Deer Island.
4.10.8.3 Community. Information regarding municipal financial data for the city of
Boston in 1989 is presented in Section 4.10.7.3. According to 1989 municipal financial
data supplied by the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, the total property tax levied
by the town of Winthrop was $7,616,000. The town had nine percent excess taxing
capacity under Proposition 2 limitations.
The MWRA does have a Memorandum of Understanding with the town of Winthrop
concerning certain effects from the construction and operation of planned secondary
wastewater treatment facilities on Deer Island. The Memorandum of Understanding
stipulates certain conditions to be met by MWRA such as odor and noise control,
compensation for impacts of construction and operation on Winthrop roads, and
compensation for temporary fire protection. In addition, the MWRA is responsible for
establishing a grant program that will mitigate the impact of the MWRA facilities on
the operation of Winthrop’s town government and on the lives of affected residents.
The agreement calls for MWRA to grant the town the average maximum sum of
$2,000,000 per year beginning in 1989, until the year 2000. The MWRA also agreed to
pay the town a grant of $550,000 in 1988 (MOU, Winthrop, 1988).
4-205
-------
CHAPTER FIVE
IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS OF ALTERNIATIVES
5.1 ENGINEERING
The purpose of this section is to assess engineering considerations of the proposed
processing and disposal alternatives, landfill capacity, and impacts that the MWRA’s
sludge and sludge products will have on processing and disposal options and upon
marketability.
- 5.1.1 Engineering Considerations
As described in detail in Chapters One and Two, before detailed evaluation in this Draft
SEIS, the methods and technologies were screened and evaluated on such factors as
their ability to accommodate necessary changes in residuals processing based on sludge
characteristics and regulations; compatibility of facilities construction and operation
with site characteristics; past performance at other locations including reliability and
ease of operations; the degree to which they provide sludge processing redundancy; and
cost-effectiveness (see Chapter Two). As a result of this process, the proposed
technologies and operating procedures are: horizontal-flow reactor compost facilit);
rotary heat dyrer; fluidized-bed incinerator; and double-lined and underdrained
landfill. Each of these technologies is considered to be capable of effectively
processing MWRA’s v.astewater residuals in the manner proposed, and no further
evaluation is conducted in this Draft SEIS.
5.1.2 Emergency Backup
‘The technology alternatives evaluated will be designed to include sufficient back-up
capacity for emergency conditions such as equipment failures or periodic
maintenance. Each alternative considered has adequate capacity for six months
emergency disposal of dev atered sludge during periods of downtime of sludge
processing equipment. Also, each facility would include multiple, complete processing
systems with significant redundancy planned for the heat-drying equipment (200 percent
of planned capacity), the incinerator (157 percent of planned capacity), and the compost
facility (150 percent of planned capacity). Consequently, the total downtime from
breakdown or maintenance of all equipment is not predicted to exceed the six-month
emergency capacity planned for the landfill. This is considered more than adequate
backup for any emergency condition that could arise because of equipment breakdowns
or technical malfunctions during the residuals management planning period.
5.1.3 Cost
Jn earlier stages of analysis, EPA considered the projected costs of the various residuals
management alternatives. Although cost is generally an important criteria for program
evaluation, it was found that costs are not a determinative factor because the
differences in estimated costs among alternatives is within the level of uncertainty of
the cost estimates. Therefore, costs of residuals management alternatives is not
.evaluated further in this Draft SEIS.
5-1
-------
5.1.4 Implications of Residuals Qualities
The quality of MWRA’s sludge will determine, to a large extent, the impacts of sludge
processing and disposal on air and water quality. These impacts are presented in
Sections 5.4 and 5.5, respectively. In addition, MWRA’s sludge quality will in part
determine how acceptable its sludge products will be to potential consumers.
5.1.4.1 Sludge Quality. Sludge from the MWRA system will either be disposed of in a
landfill or processed into heat-dried pellets, compost, or combustion ash. Since
preliminary testing of sludge leachate indicates that it is not hazardous
(Section 3.1.2.2), landfill disposal of the MWRA’s sludge is not expected to be subject to
EPA hazardous waste regulations. The MWRA’s landfill will be subject to EPA’s
technical sewage sludge regulations when promulgated, which will regulate disposal of
sewage sludge in monof ills (landfills of sludge or sludge products only) based on sludge
quality and classification of the landfill site’s underlying groundwater. With the
addition of incinerator ash to a sludge-only landfill, these proposed regulations would no
longer be applicable and would be replaced by the regulations established in the EPA’s
Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices, which
establish generic guidelines for acceptable solid waste management. If MWRA’s sludge
is incinerated, it would also be subject to EPA’s proposed sludge regulations for
incineration. These present maximum allowable pollutant concentrations based on
sludge incineration feed rates, air pollution control efficiencies, federal air quality
standards, and dispersion factors. Since these regulations are only proposed and not
final, no direct comparisons of predicted MWRA sludge quality to the proposed
regulations are made in this Draft SEIS. These regulations are likely to be revised
before they are implemented, which is projected to occur in 1991. Once these
regulations are promulgated, MWRA will be required to comply with them.
5.1.4.2 I-feat-Dried Sludge and Compost Qualities. The quality of the MWRA’s sludge
products is critical since the ability to reuse the material largely depends upon
pollutant concentrations in the sludge. Drawing from an analysis conducted by the
MWRA (MWRA, RMFP, Options, In, C, 1989), the EPA has defined the potential market
for the MWRA’s heat-dried sludge as New England, New York, and southeastern U.S.;
and the potential market for it compost as Massachusetts. Comparison of predicted
pollutant concentrations in the sludge products to applicable land application
regulations for these states (using regulations from Florida and Texas to represent the
southeastern U.S.) indicates that four pollutants, cadmium, copper, mercury, and
molybdenum, may exceed land application standards in one or more states (Table 5.1-1).
The best outlook for MWRA’s sludge product land application may be in Florida and
Texas. However, the projected concentrations of copper (for Florida) and of both
copper and cadmium (for Texas) could cause its use to be controlled, and its application
on land may require prior approval of the states’ environmental agencies. The
comparison indicates that even the low end of the range of predicted concentrations
exceeds land application regulations for mercury in Vermont and for cadmium in Maine
and New Hampshire. Thus, these states may not be likely markets for MWRA sludge
products unless levels of these contaminants can be reduced. In the remaining states,
mercury is predicted to be I to 3 mg/kg above the limitation and the predicted
concentration range for molybdenum may not meet standards for agricultural use in
Massachusetts. Therefore, if some reduction of mercury (and perhaps molybdenum) can
5-2
-------
TABLE 5.1-1. COMPARISON OF PREDICTED HEAT-DRIED SLUDGE AND
COMPOST POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS TO STATE
LAND-APPLICATION REGULATIONS
Cadmium Copper Mercury Molybdenum
Projected Concentrations (mg/kg )
MWRA Heat Dried Sludge 12-26 910-1,240 12-13 30-69
MWRA Compost 11-24 860-1,172 11-13 28-64
Applicable Regulations (mg/kg )
Massachusetts
Type 1 2 1,000 10 l0/40
Type II 25 1,000 10
(Type Ill if higher)
Connecticut 25 1,000 10 NA
Maine 10 1,000 10 NA
New Hampshire 2 1,000 10 NA
Rhode Island 15 1,000 10 NA
Vermont 25 1,000 5 NA
New York
Case I Compost 10 1,000 10 NA
Case II Compost/Category 25 1,000 10 NA
I, II Land Application
Florida
Grade I (b) 30 900 NA NA
Grade II 100 3,000 NA NA
Texas
Uncontrolled 25 1,000 NA NA
Contro1led 50 NA NA NP
Source: U.S. EPA, Market Regs., 1986
Notes: All other pollutant concentrations are predicted to be less than maximum
allowable concentrations; see Section 3.1 for a full description of project
concentrations
(a) Type I - no distribution restrictions, Type III - severe distribution restrictions
(b) Sludge products with higher pollutant levels not to be applied
(c) Limit is 10 mg/kg for grazing areas; 40 mg/kg for nongrazing areas
NA Not applicable
5-3
-------
be achieved, these states could be more promising potential markets for the sludge
products.
Between 1995 and 1999, the MWRA’s heat-dried sludge and compost will be produced
using mostly primary sludge; therefore, it is expected to be of better quality than the
heat-dried sludge and compost to be produced from combined primary and secondary
sludges after 2000. Thus, for a five-year period, the effects of sludge quality on the
MWRA’s marketing program would be less constraining than discussed above.
The EPA’s sludge regulations, when promulgated, will regulate maximum annual and
cumulative pollutant loading rates for sludge products that are applied to agricultural
land, maximum pollutant concentrations for products applied to nonagricultural land,
and maximum annual pollutant application rates for sludge products that are distributed
and marketed.
5.1.5 Implications of Residuals Quantities
Alternatives for long-term processing of the MWRA’s residuals include construction and
operation of a 90-dtpd composting facility, a 240-dtpd heat-dryer, and if necessary, a
210-dtpd incinerator. These facilities will provide more than enough capacity for the
processing of the 2020 design year projected annual average sludge production of
180 dtpd and the maximum monthly sludge production of 230 dtpd. The major issue
with respect to residuals quantities is the available capacities at the alternative
landfills, Walpole MCI and Rowe Quarry.
Landfilling is the only alternative considered for the disposal of grit and screenings
from the MWRA system. In addition, available landfill capacity must be reserved for
emergency sludge landfilling (in case of mechanical breakdown of sludge-processing
facilities), and for materials required during landfill construction and operation (such as
the cap, liner, cover, and fill). This section also evaluates the capacity of the
alternative landfill sites to accept unmarketed sludge product based on the remaining
landfill capacities after addition of the materials listed above.
In the event that MWRA cannot market all or a portion of the sludge products, it could
be necessary to landfill that product or the corresponding amount of dewatered sludge
cake. Landfill of all the sludge cake generated (if more of the product could be
marketed, beginning with start-up in 1995) would fill either of the two landfills in
approximately two to three years, or both landfills in approximately five years. This
scenario is not considered in the Draft SEIS because it does not meet the need for
reliable capacity for the full project planning period (1995-2020).
Two scenarios representing the worst-case situation of not being able to market any
product are evaluated: 1) landfill of heat-dried sludge from 1995 to 2020, and 2) landfill
of heat-dried sludge from 1995 to 1999 and combustion ash from 2000 to 2020 (assuming
all sludge is incinerated after 2000). For this analysis, it was conservatively assumed
that sludge cake would be dewatered to 20 percent solids and that heat-dried sludge
would contain 90 percent solids.
5.1.5.1 Walpole MCI. After considering grit and screenings, cap, cover, liner, and six
months of emergency sludge disposal (assuming design year annual average sludge
5-4
-------
production rate), the alternative Walpole MCI landfill would have approximately
0.98 million cubic yards (Mcy) of remaining capacity (Table 5.1-2). If all of the MWRA’s
sludge is landfilled as heat-dried sludge from 1995 through the design year 2020, an
additional 1.46 Mcy of landf ill capacity would be required for heat-dried sludge
-disposal. This means that the landf ill would reach its capacity after about 12 years or
• that another landfill would be required to cover the entire planning period. If all of the
MWRA’s sludge was landfilled as heat-dried sludge from 1995 to 1999 and then as
combustion ash from 2000 to 2020, there would be approximately enough capacity for
all the material in the Walpole MCI landfill. The rate at which a landfill at the Walpole
MCI site would be filled under these scenarios is presented in Figure 5.1-1. This figure
- shows landfill capacities remaining after space for grit, screenings, cap, cover, liner,
fill, and six months of emergency sludge disposal is reserved.
The footprint of the Walpole MCI landfill could not be increased because of the site’s
geographical limitations, including adjacent roadways and wetlands. In addition,
expansion of the landfill in a downward direction would not be possible because of the
state requirements for a minimum of four feet (existing requirement) and five feet
(proposed requirement) of distance between the landfill and the underlying high
groundwater table. Thus, expansion of the alternative Walpole4andf ill would be
possible in an upward direction only, but this could increase noise and odor impacts to
surrounding neighbors. Thus, assuming MV RA is not able to market at least 60 percent
of its sludge product, the alternative Walpole MCI landfill would not have adequate
capacity for disposal of the heat-dried sludge product not marketed and either an
incinerator or a second landfill would be required.
5.1.5.2 Rowe Quarry. The available capacity of the alternative Rowe Quarry landfill
would be 0.84 Mcy after landfill construction and disposal of grit, screenings, and six
• months of backup sludge capacity (assuming realignment of Route 1). Landfilling
100 percent of the MWRA’s sludge as heat-dried sludge from 1995 to 2020 would fill the
Rowe Quarry landfill by approximately 2005 (Figure 5.1-1). Landfill disposal of
Theat-dried sludge from 1995 to 1999 and of combustion ash from 2000 to 2020 would fill
the landfill by approximately 2015.
Expansion of a landfill at Rowe Quarry is limited by the existence of the quarry walls
and by the site’s high groundwater table. If required, the landfill capacity could be
expanded by increasing the landfill’s height and side slopes. Again, however, this could
result in increased noise and other impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods. Adequate
capacity resulting from landfill expansion may be available for the 0.22 Mcy of excess
material from the heat-drying (1995 to 1999) and combustion ash (2000 to 2020)
scenario. However, it is unlikely that landfill expansion would provide the additional
capacity for the heat-drying only (1995 to 2020) scenario. Therefore, an additional
-landfill or an incinerator would be needed.
5.1.6 Implications of Residuals Qualities and Quantities on Marketing
Heat-dried sludge and compost volumes were conservatively estimated for this Draft
SEIS (Section 3.1). It was assumed that sludge would be heat-dried to 90 percent solids,
and that sludge that is composted would be dewatered to 18 percent solids. Although
these estimates may over-predict actual volumes of the MWRA’s sludge products, they
were used in this Draft SEIS to conservatively assess maximum potential impacts of
5-5
-------
TABLE 5.1-2. AVAILABLE CAPACITIES OF ThE VALPOLE-MCI AND ROWE QUARRY LANDFILL ALTERNATIVES
Walpole-MC I
y, Incin.
Rowe Quarry w
ith Rte. I realignment
Heat
Dry Only
Heat Dr
Heat Dry Only
Heat
Dry, Incin.
Material
—
Material
Material
Material
Added
(Mcy)
Capacity
(Mcy)
Added
(Mcy)
Capacity
(Mcy)
ACicled Capacity
(Mcy) (Mcy)
Added
(Mcy)
Capacity
(Mcy)
Total Capacity
+3.20
+3.20
+3.50
+3.50
Grit & Screenings
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
Cap, Cover, Liner, Fill
1.28
1.28
1.72
1.72
6 Months Back-Up
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
Available Capacity
+0.98
+0.98
+0.84
•
+0.84
Heat Dried Sludge
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
(1995-1999)
Heat Dried Sludge
(1999-2020)
2.20
0
2.20
0
Combustion Ash
0
0.82
0
0.82
(1999-2020)
Remaining Capacity
-1.46
-0.08
-1.60
-0.22
Adapted From: MwKA, RMFP, Landfill, II, 1989
Notes: Mcy Million cubic yards
Assumptionsi
(a) 1:1 bulking ratio of sludge to sand
(b) Dewatered sludge would contain 20 percent solids
(c) Heat dried sludge would contain 90 percent solids
-------
2 44
‘0
0)
C.)
0
0
a.U)
.‘ E
. Ct
CC.)
0).-
Q-o
0) o
0
0)
1. .
C)
I
1 0€,
2020
Years
(a) After addition of grit, screenings, cap, liner, cover, fill and six months’ emergency sludge disposal
(b) Assuming no sludge product marketing
FIGURE 5.1-1. COMPARISON OF VOLUME OF SLUDGE PRODUCT PRODUCED
AND AVAILABLE CAPACITY (a)OF LANDFILL ALTERNATIVES
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
-------
sludge product quantities. It is likely that the heat drying and dewatering processes will
operate more efficiently than assumed for at least part of the planning period.
To avoid incineration in 2000 or the purchasing of a second landfill for excess sludge
disposal, MWRA must successfully market between 851,000 to 933,000 dry tons or
approximately 60 to 66 percent of sludge (depending on the landfill alternative selected)
between the years 1995 and 2020. This corresponds to 570,000 to 625,000 dry tons of
heat-dried sludge and 3.62 to 3.97 Mcy of compost, assuming a two-thirds heat-dry,
one-third compost split of the sludge.
Potential markets for heat-dried sludge include use as fertilizer for sod production, golf
courses, cemeteries, horticulture and silviculture, and as topsoil amendment.
Marketing in New York is not considered a reasonable outlet since New York and Nev
3ersey sludge product would likely saturate the New York market. Potential fertilizer
markets for heat-dried pellets as fertilizer for corn, hay, and orchard crops have been
estimated to be approximately 478,000 dtpy in New England (M iRA, Options, III, C,
1989). If this potential market is adjusted to eliminate New Hampshire, Maine, and
Vermont due to sludge product quality restrictions (as discussed in Section 5.1.1), then
the potential fertilizer market in Nev England is approximately 134,000 dtpy. The
average heat-dried sludge production between 1995 and 2020 is projected to be
approximately 39,000 dtpy. Thus, total marketing of MWRA heat-dried sludge in Nev.
England would require capture of approximately 30 percent of the potentially feasible
fertilizer market.
Markets for MWRA heat-dried sludge in the southeast regions of the U.S. are expected
to be developed as a result of MWRA’s interim residuals management program (1991 to
1995). If marketing efforts in this region of the country are successful and the same
market could continue into the long-term, with at least 31,000 dry tons per year (85 dry
tons per day) of heat-dried sludge potentially marketable in this area.
Potential markets for compost include use as a soil conditioner in topsoil, landscaping,
golf courses, cemeteries, parks, and nurseries. Estimated annual demands for
approximately 334,000 and 409,000 cubic yards of compost exist in eastern
Massachusetts and in the entire state of Massachusetts, respectively (MWRA, Options,
III, C, 1989). Given the potential use restrictions for compost based on quality, it is
likely that only large-scale users such as state and local agencies (such as MDC, MWRA,
DEM and DPW) and golf courses would accept compost. Thus, the available compost
market has been conservatively estimated to be approximately 256,000 and 458,000
cubic yards per year in eastern Massachusetts and all of Massachusetts, respectively
(MWRA, RMFP, Options, III, C, 1989). Average compost production from 1995 to 2020
is projected to be up to 246,700 cubic yards per year. Therefore, the MWRA’s sludge
would account for up to 96 and 54 percent of the total available compost market in
eastern Massachusetts and all of Massachusetts, respectively.
The outlook for marketing or distributing MWRA heat-dried pellets and compost is also
somewhat uncertain due to two other factors. First, there is the possibility that state
or federal regulations f or the use of these products could become more restrictive than
the discussion in Section 5.1.4. Second, there is a reasonable likelihood that there will
be increased competition from other generators of similar products, including
yard-waste compost. A comprehensive monitoring and enforcement program could
-------
serve to improve the quality of the products, but it is difficult to predict the ultimate
effects of such a program.
Thus, the success of the sludge-derived product marketing effort depends on several
uncertain factors; product quality, restrictiveness of state and federal regulations,
competition from other generators of similar products, market acceptance, and the
effectiveness of efforts to improve product quality.
5.2 LAND USE
5.2.1 Significance Criteria
Significance criteria are the measures against which anticipated impacts related to the
processing and disposal of residuals are analyzed to determine their importance. The
criteria for analyzing land-use impacts address the compatibility of the potential
residuals management facilities with existing and future land uses and with land-use
policies and regulations. An impact is considered significant if a scenario would likely
result in:
1. Any direct conflict with local, state, or federal land-use policy. Although
MWRA is exempt from local zoning, a conflict with such regulations could
represent a significant land-use impact.
2. Taking of prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance currently in
agricultural use, or with a high potential for agricultural use.
3. Development of residuals facilities in such a manner as to significantly limit
the use of the site for other activities in the future (for landfill sites only).
4. Adverse secondary growth impacts directly resulting from extension of
utilities to the residuals site.
5. Development of residuals facilities in such a manner as to severely limit the
use of recreational activities near the site.
The potential impacts of the residuals management facilities are analyzed in the
following sections by site. The discussion of each site assumes that the maximum
number of potential activities would occur, and it assesses the impacts related to that
scenario. If no impacts are considered significant, it is assumed that there would also
be no significant impacts related to the implementation of a lesser number of
activities.
-For each site, there may be impacts to surrounding land uses as a result of traffic,
odors and dust, noise, and visual impacts generated from residuals processing
facilities. These impacts (especially as they relate to the sensitive receptors for each
site as listed in Appendix C) are discussed in detail in Sections 5.3, 5.4, 5.6, and 5.7 of
this document. For sites where significant impacts may result from operation of the
residuals facilities, pressure for induced land-use changes among adjacent properties,
particularly agricultural and residential land uses, may result. These types of land-use
.changes have occurred in some Massachusetts communities (i.e., Amesbury) as a result
of adjacent landfill activities.
5-9
-------
5.2.2 Walpole MCI
The Walpole MCI site is being considered as a landfill site. Details regarding design and
operation of the landfill are provided in Chapter Three.
The site is currently undeveloped and, therefore, the construction of the landfill
facilities would not have any impact upon other activities occurring on site with the
exception of the prison guard exercise course. This training area would have to be
relocated onto prison grounds. Although this would be an adverse impact, it is not
considered to be significant.
The site is zoned for rural residential use and therefore landfill development would be
in conflict with the local zoning and could represent a significant conflict with land-use
intentions of the community. Also, a portion of the proposed site falls within Resource
Areas 3 and 4 of the town’s Water Resource Protection Overlay District, as discussed in
Section 4.4. Although there are potentially significant land-use conflicts, they do not
represent an institutional conflict because MWRA is exempt from local zoning bylaws.
Mitigation measures could include close cooperation and coordination between the
MWRA and the tov n to ensure that MWRA construction and operation activities would
not result in pollution of these resource areas. Section 5.5.2 describes in greater detail
potential mitigation measures, such as monitoring systems, which could be implemented
to reduce the potential for water quality impacts in the area.
As noted in Section 4.1.4.4, a significant portion of the site is designated as prime
farmland and thus represents a potential resource area. Landfill construction and
operation would have an adverse impact upon the potential use of the site for
agricultural activity in keeping with the designation. It should be noted, however, that
the site is not currently in agricultural use nor are there any known plans for such use,
and thus the impact is not considered to be significant.
Development of the landfill would inhibit use of the site for major construction
activities in the future because of stability concerns. The site could, however, be
recovered for passive recreational use by the State Department of Correction or by the
town. Although there would be an adverse impact related to the loss of development
opportunity on the site, proper construction and operating methods would not result in
contamination of the site. Thus, when reclaimed, the actual use of the site would not
be substantially different from what it is today and, therefore, the impact is not
considered to be significant.
There is currently no formal recreational activity on site. However, unofficial
recreational use of the site for activities such as bird watching does occur, and there
would be interference with these activities during construction and operation of the
landfill. Although these recreational activities on the site periphery could be
intermittently affected by increased noise levels, it is not expected that they would be
severely limited.
5.2.3 Rowe Quarry
The Rowe Quarry site is being considered as a landfill site. Details regarding the
construction and operation of the landfill are provided in Chapter Three.
5-10
-------
The zoning of the Maiden portion of the site is for highway business development.
Landfill activities are not specifically permitted or prohibited in this district, hovever,
- Maiden zoning regulations do state that only uses that are permitted by right or by
special permit in a district may be developed. Therefore, there is a conflict with local
• zoning policy in Maiden representing an adverse impact to the city. The city of Revere
specifically prohibits the processing or disposal of sludge products. MWRA would thus
be considered in conflict with the city’s local zoning ordinances, representing an
adverse impact. However, there is not an institutional conflict because the MWRA is
considered to be exempt from local zoning regulations. The use of the quarry as a
landfill does conflict with the cities’ plans for future site use based on their respective
long-term plans for redevelopment of the site. This conflict represents potential lost
economic opportunity for the cities and is discussed in Section 5.11.3.2.
Salem Street is the boundary of the coastal zone, and thus use of the quarry for a
landfill does not require Massachusetts CZM consistency review (Pelczarski, 1989). The
quarry falls outside the designated area of the Rumney Marshes Area of Critical
Environmental Concern (ACEC); hovever, indirect effects resulting from construction
or operation of the landfill (noise, runoff) that could affect the ACEC must be
considered. Potential impacts and mitigation measures are discussed in detail in
Section 5.8.
:Development of the landfill would inhibit use of the site for major construction
activities in the future because of stability concerns. The site could, however, be
recovered for passive recreational use, or other uses having minimal foundation
requirements. This represents a potential loss of economic opportunity to the cities,
and as noted in the preceding section, conflicts with their long-term plans for the site
that call for intensive mixed-use activities.
Under normal construction and operating conditions and even during landfilling of
pellets, no significant impact upon recreational activities in the area would be
-expected. However, if emergency sludge landfilling were to occur at the site, there is
the potential for more significant short-term noise and odor impacts upon conservation
land recently acquired by Revere approximately 1,200 feet from the site. However, the
mitigation measures discussed in Sections 6.4 and 6.6 would reduce potential impacts,
and it is not expected that recreational activities would be seriously limited.
5.2.4 Stoughton
The maximum potential activity at the Stoughton site would include composting, heat
drying, and incineration. The site is also being considered for fewer activities, such as
tcomposting alone, or heat drying and incineration alone, as discussed in Section 3.4.3.
Detai1s regarding the anticipated construction and operation practices are also
-presented in Chapter Three.
Operation of the facilities would present potential conflicts with local land-use policy.
Although the site is zoned for industrial use, sludge processing facilities are not
specifically a permitted use. Under the zoning regulations, uses not specifically
permitted are prohibited. Thus the siting of the sludge processing facilities would
represent a significant conflict with local land-use regulations. However, the MWRA is
exempt from local zoning regulations, and thus there would be no institutional conflict.
5-11
-------
The town has established performance standards for potentially noxious facilities, and
mitigation measures could include close coordination between MWRA and the town to
ensure that the construction and operation of all the residuals processing facilities
comply with the standards.
The siting of residuals facilities is not in conflict with the town’s strategic planning
study, which notes the trend in the area for continued industrial activity. However, the
siting does represent a potential conflict with the specific plans of the Stoughton
Redevelopment Authority for economic development activity on the site. Mitigation
measures could include reducing the total amount of acreage required for the site and
providing adequate buffer to reduce any potential site impacts that might inhibit
development of adjacent sites. Implementing only one or two of the processing
technologies instead of all three would also result in less potential conflict.
There are many parcels of prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance within
the one-mile perimeter of the site. Much of this land is vacant and represents a
potential resource area. It is not expected that the opportunity for use of these lands
for agricultural purposes would be precluded by operation of residuals facilities at the
Stoughton site.
There would be the potential for enhanced development in the area due to the siting of
the residuals facilities if MWRA water service was extended to the site. Stoughton has
been operating under a severe water shortage, and development which has been
curtailed due to an inability to connect to existing public water supplies could be
stimulated. The potential for secondary growth activity would be further enhanced if
MWRA chose to take only a portion of the site as currently depicted, because there
would be a greater amount of land available for private development.
There are several recreation areas located within the one-mile perimeter. No adverse
impact upon these recreation areas is expected, with the possible exception of the
playground at the intersection of Page and Turnpike Streets, along the proposed
transportation corridor. The use of the playground could be negatively affected by the
truck volume passing by it on a daily basis. The extent of the impact would be lessened
somewhat by the fact that both these streets currently carry heavy truck traffic.
However, there might be a minor decrease in use of the playground as a result of all
facilities being constructed at the processing site. If composting facilities (which
generate the greatest number of trucks) were not located on the site, the potential
impact on the playground use would be reduced.
5.2.5 Quincy FRSA
The potential activities which would occur at the Quincy FRSA are compostirig, heat
drying, and materials transfer, although the site is being considered for transfer and
composting or transfer and heat drying alone. Details regarding the anticipated
construction and operation practices are presented in Chapter Three.
The zoning applicable to the portion of the site designated for residuals activity in the
city of Quincy does permit waste recovery activities with a special permit; therefore,
there is no land-use conflict. The portion of the site that falls within the town of
5-12
-------
Braintree is zoned for highway business, and waste disposal is specifically prohibited.
Therefore, there is a significant conflict with Braintree land-use policy. Because the
MWRA is exempt from local zoning bylaws, the conflict is not an institutional barrier to
use of the site.
The anticipated impact of the operation of the residuals facilities is not considered to
be significant with regard to the potential conflicts with community plans of
development. The city of Quincy does not have a plan which specifically addresses
future uses of the site, and the town of Braintree’s master plan includes the site in an
area generally designated for continued commercial and industrial activity.
The Quincy FRSA is located within the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Coastal Zone
Management (CZM) program and thus consistency review would be required. CZM
policy requires that the agency ensure that state and federally funded wastewater
projects primarily serve existing developed areas, assigning the highest priority to
projects meeting needs of urban development centers. Construction and operation of
the MWRA facilities would adhere to strict technical and environmental standards in
order to ensure that impacts to the coastal environment are minimized. Therefore, it is
not expected that there would be any conflict with CZM policy.
The site is located within the Weymouth Fore River Designated Port Area. As such,
-maritime-dependent industrial uses are encouraged. However, if DEQE finds that a
specific development is in the public interest, it may approve a project that interferes
with other public rights of fishing, fowling, or navigation. The development of the
..MWRA facilities does serve a public purpose, and is dependent upon marine
transportation in order to reduce land-based transportation impacts upon local
-communities. It is, therefore, not expected that there would be a conflict with the
State’s Waterways program.
There would be some intermittent noise impacts to recreational activities on the
Weymouth Fore River because of construction activity at the Quincy FRSA. Since the
noise level increases would be intermittent and would be short-term in nature, they
would not be expected to be significant. In addition, mitigation measures discussed in
Section 5.6 would help reduce peak noise levels. Mitigation measures, such as
avoidance of construction on weekends to avoid conflict with peak weekend
recreational boaters, could be implemented.
It is expected that the only impact on recreational activities resulting from operation
of the residuals facilities would be due to minor interference from barging of sludge or
sludge products with recreational boating on the Weymouth Fore River. As discussed in
Section 5.3 mitigation measures could include avoidance of barging during weekend
daytime hours in the summer season in order to avoid interference with peak marine
-recreational activity. Therefore, it is not expected that any effect on recreational
activities would be significant.
5.2.6 Spectacle Island
Spectacle Island is being considered for composting, heat drying, and combustion
activity. A discussion regarding the different possible combinations of processing
facilities and details on construction and operation practices is presented in
Chapter Three.
5-13
-------
The island, previously used for industrial activity, is not currently used. Projected uses
of the island include disposal of excavate from the Central Artery project by the
Massachusetts DP’ and park development by the Massachusetts DEM. Should MWRA
facilities be constructed on the island, the impact on the Massachusetts DPW activity
would be minor, and is related to possible scheduling conflicts and coordination of land
requirements. There would need to be close cooperation between the agencies to
ensure that scheduling conflicts did not arise and that each agency’s need for space on
the island was accommodated.
The impact upon the Massachusetts DEM plans for developing a park on the island could
be more significant because MWRA plans to construct a facility on the southern portion
of the island would conflict with DEM’s plans to develop the entire island. Development
of only one or two of the processing facilities would reduce the overall impact to the
extent that more land would be available for park development and negative impacts
on the park would be reduced. The island is zoned for industrial use and, therefore,
there would be no conflict with local zoning policy.
There is a possibility that commercial and recreational fishing activity in the vicinity of
Spectacle Island would be affected by transportation and noise activity during
construction of the facilities and a pipeline for utilities or sludge. Disruption to
shipping and boating activities during construction of the utility pipeline could be
significant. These impacts would be temporary in nature, and close coordination and
planning between the M\ RA and affected private and public authorities would help to
reduce the overall impact.
The island is located within the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts CZM program, and
thus consistency review would be required. The CZM program recognizes the
legislative intent to preserve the Boston Harbor islands for recreation and conservation
activities, but also acknowledges that some accommodations must be made for sewage
treatment. CZM policy states that CZM must ensure that state and federally funded
wastewater projects primarily serve existing developed areas, assigning highest priorit ,
to projects meeting needs of urban development centers. Construction and operation of
the MWRA facilities would adhere to strict technical and environmental standards in
order to ensure that impacts to the coastal environment are minimized. Therefore, it is
not expected that there would be any conflict with CZM policy.
Development of the MWRA facilities would require a state Waterways License.
Waterways regulations are intended to be consistent with the state’s CZM program.
Water dependent uses and projects serving a proper public purpose are encouraged. The
development of the MWRA facilities serves a public purpose, and is dependent on
marine transportation in order to reduce the land-based transportation impacts on local
communities. It is not expected that there would be a conflict with the state’s
Waterways program.
Portions of the island, the south drumlin, and the northern ridge are designated as prime
farmland. Both of these areas are currently undeveloped. Any MWRA activity on the
site would result in minor impacts given the fact it is not likely the island would ever be
actively farmed due to its relative isolation from populated areas, the lack of water
supply, and its past use as a landfill.
5-14
-------
The site does riot currently provide any active recreational opportunities. However, as
- noted above, the island is part of the legislated Boston Harbor Islands State Park and
Massachusetts DEM has plans for its development into a park. The impacts on the
possible recreational use of the island are discussed above.
5.2.7 Deer Island
The maximum activity which is being considered at Deer Island is digestion and
thickening, heat dr ing, and incineration of sludge. Discussions regarding the different
possible combinations of processing facilities and details on construction and operation
practices are presented in Chapter Three.
The island is currently host to the Deer Island House of Correction and the MWRA
wastewater treatment facilities. The MWRA has begun a major upgrading of the
existing wastev.ater treatment facilities and construction of a new secondary
waste .ater treatment plant which will require relocation of the Deer Island House of
Correction off the island. Utility service for residuals processing activities would be
supplied as part of the secondary treatment plant construction activity.
The siting of industrial facilities on Deer Island would be in conflict with the island’s
general business zoning classification. The MWRA is exempt from local zoning
regulations and thus, although there would be a land-use conflict, there would not be an
institutional barrier to use of the site. Both the existing treatment plant and prison
predate zoning on the island.
The island is located within the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts CZM program, and
•thus consistency reviev would be required. CZM program policy states that CZM must
ensure that state and federally funded wastewater projects primarily serve existing
developed areas, assigning highest priority to projects meeting the needs of urban
development centers. Construction and operation of the MWRA facilities would adhere
to strict technical and environmental standards in order to ensure that impacts to the
coastal environment are minimized. Therefore, it is not expected that there would be
any conflict with CZM policy.
There are parcels of prime farmland located on Deer Island, portions of which are
undeveloped. However, the parcels are located in the central and northwestern portions
of the island and will be taken for use in the upgrading of the wastewater treatment
facilities.
There is not expected to be any loss of recreational opportunities on site related to the
Construction of the residuals facilities. The open areas of the island could still be used
for passive recreation.
The impacts related to construction and operation of the residuals facilities upon
nearby recreational activities would be similar to those described for Spectacle Island,
as discussed in Section 5.2.6.
5-15
-------
5.3 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
5.3.1 Introduction
This section provides a discussion and analysis of the impacts of trucks and barges
carrying residuals materials and supplies on designated routes. It does not address the
impacts of processing facilities and landfill personnel traveling to the alternative sites
because those trips would be dispersed in many directions, and therefore the number of
automobiles along each potential route to each of the site alternatives would not be
significant.
5.3.2 Methodology
Traffic-related impacts from the residuals management facilities and landfill
alternatives affect transportation routes, users, and abutters to the routes; such
impacts may include those on and off the actual roadways. Truck traffic impact
analysis is performed for each of the alternative residuals processing and landfill sites
by considering four different evaluation categories: air pollution, noise pollution,
operating conditions, and functional classification of the roadway. Air and noise
pollution are addressed by site alternative in Sections 5.4 and 5.6, respectively. The
other two categories are described in Section 4.2.3. An explanation of what is
considered to be a significant impact for each category is described below in
Section 5.3.3.
The analysis describes the worst-case, 2020 residuals traffic scenario, (i.e., combination
of activities at a site that creates the most traffic) along with other less extreme
scenarios. It is assumed for each case that trucks would operate only during daylight
and not during the morning or evening peak hours on each route. Residuals truck traffic
in 2020 represents the worst-case, or highest level of residuals traffic because the
greatest amount of residuals will be processed that year. Where significant impacts are
found to occur as a result of the worst-case scenario, less severe 2020 scenarios are
also evaluated. The differences in traffic and route conditions with and without the
residuals traffic is evaluated to determine impacts resulting from the additional
residuals traffic. Mitigation measures are discussed for each significant impact.
Level of Service (LOS) is typically used to rate operating conditions in both the existing
and with-project scenarios for large projects that would generate a substantial increase
in traffic (see Section 4.2.3.2). A significant impact is then quantified as a change in
the LOS. However, in measuring the impact that a moderate number of trucks would
have on operating conditions, LOS analysis is not entirely appropriate. Like a drop in a
bucket, unless the existing LOS is very close to spilling over into the next level, 37
vehicles more per hour (the maximum under the worst-case scenario) would have
virtually no effect on the LOS, incorrectly implying that there is no effect on operating
conditions. Therefore, LOS is used here to assess only the existing conditions. Other
quantitative means, which take into consideration the physical attributes of the road,
traffic congestion, volume, and mix, are used here to assess the with-residuals
operating conditions and to evaluate the project impact.
5-16
-------
5.3.3 Significance Criteria
This section establishes the level at which an impact from the residuals project
produces a significant change. Impacts on operating conditions and functional
classification can be quantified, although the distinction between significant and not
significant impacts is partially qualitative.
In the case of residuals management, the additional truck volume that constitutes a
-significant impact depends upon the existing nonresiduals traffic and roadway
conditions: the physical attributes of the road, LOS, traffic volumes, traffic mix
.(percentage of cars and trucks), and functional classification (Section 4.2.3.3).
Generally, for local streets with poor, projected, nonresiduals operating conditions (LOS
E or F), a 50—percent or greater increase in the number or proportion of trucks in the
traffic stream is considered to cause a significant impact on operating conditions. For
collector roads or for local roads with projected nonresiduals operating conditions of
LOS D or better, a significant change is generally one of greater magnitude.
A change in the functional classification of a road from one to another of the
classifications of arterial, collector road, and local Street iS considered a significant
impact. The existing traffic and physical condition of a road influence whether or not a
change in functional classification occurs. Generally, an increase in the number or
‘proportion of through trucks in the traffic stream of 75 percent or more is considered
significant for local streets; for collector roads the changes that stimulate a change in
classification are generally much greater.
- 5.3.4 Walpole MCI
Four different transportation scenarios that were examined for this landfill site
alternative are described in Table 5.3-1.
There are two alternative routes to the Walpole MCI landfill site, which are evaluated
below. One route leaves Route 1 at Water Street and travels primarily on Summer and
Winter Streets in Walpole to Route IA and the site access. It is referred to here as the
Winter Street route (Figure 4.2-1). The second route leaves Route 1 at Pine Street
(Route 115 in Foxborough) and travels on Pine Street to Route LA. Returning from the
landfill site, this route travels a short distance on Turnpike Street in Foxborough, the
route from Pine Street to Route I northbound (Figure 4.2-1).
5.3.4.1 Winter Street Route. The maximum change in traffic from the worst-case
transportation scenario (Scenario 4) for this site alternative is 4.4 percent, which is not
-considered a significant impact (Table 5.3-2). However, projected effects due to
increases in the number of trucks and the proportion of trucks in the traffic stream may
be considered significant. Increases in the number of trucks of over 50 percent at the
intersections of Route LA/Winter Street and Winter Street/Summer Street are a
concern. The projected increase in the proportion of trucks in the traffic stream, which
is more than 85 percent from the nonresiduals average daily traffic at the
Winter/Summer Streets intersection, is also a concern (Table 5.3-2). In addition, at the
Route IA/Winter Street intersection left-turning movements such as the residuals
traffic would make are difficult because of poor sight distance and the traffic on
Route IA. Finally, this increase in through-truck traffic could change the function of
5-17
-------
TABLE 5.3-I. WALPOLE MCI POSSIBLE 2020 RESIDUALS TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
Scenario
Material Transported
No. round
trips
per day
per
hour
1.
Normal Operation,
No Incineration
grit, screenings, cover
5
<1
2.
Normal Operation,
Incineration
•
grit, screenings, cover,
ash, scrubber solids
9
<2
3.
Marketing Difficulties
No Incineration
grit, screenings, cover,
pellets
23
3
4.
Emergency, Heat
Dryer Breakdown
grit, screenings, cover,
sludge cake, bulking material
52
6-7
Notes:
I. Scenario 1 assumes mat 25 percent of the total cover necessary would be brought
in from of f site and that the remainder would come from the site. It also assumes
that cap and liner materials would constantly be brought to the site and stockpiles
for cell preparation and closure, which would occur once every three to five
years. If all this material was brought to the site at one time, the short-term
traffic construction impacts would be more severe, but the daily traffic would be
one less truck per day.
2. Scenario 2 assumes that two-thirds of the sludge is heat-dried and then incinerated.
3. Scenario 3 assumes all the sludge is heat-dried and landfilled as pellets.
4. Scenario 4 assumes a breakdown of the heat dryer, requiring that dewatered sludge
be taken directly to the landfill. Although this scenario is unlikely, it may occur
for an estimated six months over the lifetime of the landfill, and at most, for a few
days or weeks at a time.
5-18
-------
TABLE 5.3•2. WALPOLE MCI PROJECTED TRAFFIC WITH AND WITHOUT WORSTCASE 2020 (SCENARIO 4) RESIDUALS TRAFFIC IMPACTS
PROPORTION OF TRUCKS
LOCATION
Residuals
Truck Trips
ALL TRAFFIC
NUMBER OF TRUCKS
Nonresid.
Proportion
Proportion
of Trucks
Percent
Nonresid.
Traffic
Percent
Nonresid.
Trucks
Percent
per hour*
Traffic
w/Resid.
Change
Trucks
w/Resid.
Change
of Trucks
w/Resid.
Change
Winter Street Route
Route 1 & Water Street
13
3.372
3.385
0.4
98
111
13.2
2.9
3.3
12.8
Route IA & Winter Street
13
1,348
1 .361
1.0
24
37
53.7
1.8
2.7
52.3
Winter & Sumier Streets
13
296
309
4.4
15
28
86.7
5.1
9.1
78.8
Pine Street Route
Pine Street (Route 115)
&
13
693
706
1.9
76
89
17.1
11.0
12.6
14.9
Turnpike Street
Source: Nonresiduats Traffic and Proportion of Trucks from MWRA , RNFP, DEIR, Vol. 1, B, 1989.
For calculations of Residuals Trucks see Appendix B of this docunent.
* This assunes that each truck makes two trips (there and back) through each intersection.
-------
Summer and Winter Streets from local streets to collectors. Consequently, use of the
Winter Street route under emergency conditions (Scenario 4)is considered a significant
adverse impact on operating conditions.
The physical condition of Summer Street, which is already deteriorated, would be
further adversely affected by the substantial increase in truck traffic. These impacts
could be mitigated by improving and maintaining the pavement and at-grade railroad
crossing on Summer Street. Upgrading and signalization of the Route lA/Winter Street
intersection, as well as construction and designation of a left turn lane, would further
mitigate residuals impacts. Operation of the trucking system outside of morning and
evening peak-traffic hours would avoid the heaviest nonresiduals traffic each day and
reduce the chance of conflicts with automobiles on Routes 1 and IA. Even with these
mitigation measures, the traffic impacts associated with the emergency situation would
be significant. However, such conditions would likely only occur for a total of six
months over the life of the landfill, or for a few days to weeks at a time. The impacts
of the other traffic scenarios are fevber and less significant; in fact the normal
operating scenarios (Scenarios 1 and 2), involve no more than one truck round trip per
hour and result in no significant impacts.
5.3.4.2 Pine Street Route. The increase in traffic due to the maximum scenario at the
critical Pine Street/Turnpike Street intersection is less than two percent and is not
significant (Table 5.3-2). Given the existing traffic and collector classification of Pine
Street, the increases in the number and proportion of trucks at the intersection (17 and
15 percent more than average daily traffic, respectively) are also not considered to be
significant. Therefore, there would be no significant adverse Impacts on this route from
any of the landfill scenarios. However, the heavy residuals trucks could contribute to
physical deterioration of the roadway. This could be mitigated by preparing the route
for the additional truck traffic by upgrading the route and signalizing the Pine
Street/Route IA intersection. In addition, operation of the trucking system outside of
peak morning and evening traffic hours would avoid the heaviest of the daily
nonresiduals traffic and reduce the chance of conflicts with automobiles.
5.3.5 Rowe Quarry
Four different transportation scenarios examined for this landf ill site alternative are
described in Table 5.3-3. The proposed route to this site is from Route 1 to Salem
Street to the site access (Figure 4.2-2).
The change in traffic from the maximum residuals scenario (Scenario 4) for this site
alternative is approximately one percent and thus is not significant (see Table 5.3-4).
The residuals-produced increases of approximately 45 percent in the number and the
proportion of trucks in the traffic stream are not significant, because Salem Street is
already a collector with heavy truck traffic, and the intersection will be operating at
adequate levels. Therefore, an additional 12 truck round trips per hour is judged to
have minimal, if any, impacts. This scenario represents an emergency and would occur
only for short periods of time; thus with normal operation, the impact of residuals
trucks would be insignificant.
Even without significant impacts, operation of the trucking system outside of peak
traffic hours would avoid the heaviest traffic of the day and reduce the chance of
5-20
-------
TABLE 5.3-3. ROWE QUARRY POSSIBLE 2020 RESIDUALS TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
- No. round trips
Scenario Material Transported per day per hour
1.
Normal Operation,
No Incineration
grit, screenings, cover
7
<1
2.
Normal Operation,
Incineration
grit, screenings, cover,
ash, scrubber solids
13
<2
3.
Marketing Difficulties
No Incineration
grit, screenings, cover,
pellets
33
4
4.
Emergency, Heat
Dryer Breakdown
grit, screenings, cover,
sludge cake, bulking material
97
12
Notes:
1. Scenario 1 assumes that all of the total cover necessary would be brought in from
off site. It also assumes that cap and liner materials would constantly be brought
to the site and stockpiled for cell preparation and closure, which would occur once
every three to five years. If all this material was brought to the site at one time,
the short-term traffic construction impacts would be more severe, but the dail
traffic would be one less truck per day.
2. Scenario 2 assumes that two-thirds of the sludge is heat-dried and then incinerated.
3. Scenario 3 assumes all the sludge is heat-dried and landfilled as pellets.
4. Scenario 4 assumes a breakdown of the heat dryer, requiring that dewatered sludge
be taken directly to the landfill. Although this scenario is unlikely, it may occur
for an estimated six months over the lifetime of the landfill, and at most, for a fev
days or weeks at a time.
5-21
-------
TABLE 5.3-4. ROWE QUARRY PROJECTED TRAFFIC WITH AND WITHOUT WORST-CASE 2020 (SCENARIO 4) RESIDUALS TRAFFIC IMPACTS
PROPORTION OF TRUCKS
LOCATION
Residuals
Truck Trips Nonresid.
per hour* Traffic
ALL TRAFFIC
NUMBER OF TRUCKS
Nonresid.
Proportion
of Trucks
Proportion
of Trucks Percent
w/Resid. Change
Traffic
w/Resid.
Percent
Change
Nonresid.
Trucks
Trucks
w/Resid.
Percent
Change
Route 1 & Salem Street
24 1,793
1,817
1.3
53
77
45.0
3.0
4.3 43.0
Source: Nonresiduals Traffic and Proportion of Trucks frcm MIIRA, RMFP, DEIR, VoL. 1, B, 1989.
For calculations of Residuals Trucks see Appendix B of this docuuent.
* This assi.unes that each truck makes two trips (there and back) through each intersection.
-------
conflicts with automobiles. En the short term, additional congestion and delays could be
caused by the DPV -proposed improvements to Route 1 and the interchange (see
Section 4.2.5.3). In the long run, however, upgrading of Route 1 from four to six lanes
and standardization of the intersection and the road base will serve to reduce the
effects of all projected traffic. Because the DPW is currently pursuing redesign and
reconstruction of the Route I interchange, signalization is not advisable at this time.
However, during emergency operation, providing a uniformed traffic officer at each
ramp intersection during periods of congestion would improve traffic flow for both
residuals trucks and other vehicles (MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, 2, 1989).
5.3.6 Stoughton
The worst-case traffic scenario at this alternative site would be the normal operation
of the composting and heat drying facilities, without incineration. In this scenario, all
dewatered sludge, compost amendment, and sludge product would be transported to and
from the Stoughton site by trucks. The numbers and types of trucks for each mater aI
in this scenario (Scenario 4) are described in Table 5.3-5 along with three other
substantially reduced traffic scenarios for this site alternative.
The maximum change in traffic results from Scenario 4. In this scenario, the residuals
project would increase total traffic at each of the intersections along the route by no
more than two percent (Table 5.3-6), which is not significant. However, because most
traffic movement at the intersections will be at LOS F without residuals, increases in
-. the number and proportion of trucks in the traffic stream are significant. At the Page
Street intersection the number and proportion of trucks in the traffic stream would
increase by about 42 percent; at the Turnpike Street intersection, by up to 96 percent
(see Table 5.3-6). The residuals related increases in truck traffic would have significant
• adverse impacts on operating conditions at both of these intersections, particularly on
the minor streets, Page and Turnpike. Eliminating composting at this site would most
drastically reduce the number of trucks to one quarter of the maximum scenario
number and substantially reduce all of the traffic impacts.
Expedition of the planned reconstruction of the Route 24/Route 139/Page Street
intersection would assist in mitigating these impacts (Old Colony Planning Council,
1987). In addition, signalizing the Page Street/Route 139 intersection and the Turnpike
Street/Route 139 intersection would mitigate these impacts. It is expected that these
upgrades would improve the operating conditions on the minor streets from LOS F to
LOS E and C at Page Street during the morning and evening peak hours respectively and
to LOS B during both peaks at Turnpike Street (MWRA, RMFP, Screen 1, 1989).
The magnitude of the residuals-related heavy truck traffic could have an adverse
.impact on the pavement conditions along the route; upgrading of the pavement on
Turnpike Street and the foundation on Route 139 would alleviate these impacts.
Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 (Table 5.3-5) would result in substantially less traffic impacts.
5.3.7 Quincy FRSA
At the Quincy FRSA site alternative, both barges and trucks would be used to transport
residuals, residuals products, and supplies to and from the site. Truck and barge traffic
impacts are evaluated here separately. .The truck traffic scenarios examined for this
5-23
-------
TABLE 5.3-5. STOUGHTON POSSIBLE 2020 RESIDUALS TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
Scenario - Round trips Per Day
2 3 4
25 37 37 37
67 67
Type of Truck/Purpose
Liquid tanker, sludge to Stoughton
Small trucks, compost from Stoughton
Bulk materials trucks
amendment to Stoughton
pellets from Stoughton
ash from Stoughton
Total truck round trips per day
Truck round trips per hour
36 48 130 134
4-5 6 16-17 16-17
Scenario 1 assumes composting elsewhere, two-thirds of sludge heat-dried at
Stoughton, no incineration.
2. Scenario 2 assumes no market for compost, all sludge
incineration.
3. Scenario 3 assumes that all sludge to Stoughton, two-thirds heat-dried and
incinerated, one-third composted.
4. Scenario 4 assumes that all sludge goes to Stoughton, two-thirds heat-dried and
one-third composted, no incineration. -
11 11
22
4
22
8
Notes:
1.
heat-dried at Stoughton, no
5-24
-------
TABLE 5.3-6. STOUGHTON PROJECTED TRAFFIC WITH AND WITHOUT WORST-CASE 2020 (SCENARIO 4) RESIDUALS TRAFFIC IMPACTS
PROPORTION OF TRUCKS
LOCATION
Residuals
Truck Trips Nonresid.
per hour* Traffic
ALL TRAFFIC
NUMBER OF TRUCKS
Nonresid.
Proportion
of Trucks
Proportion
of Trucks Percent
w/Resid. Change
Traffic
w/Resid.
Percent
Change
Nonresid.
Trucks
Trucks
w/Resid.
Percent
Change
Route 139 (Turnpike
Street)
34 2,669
2,703
1.3
81
115
42.2
3.0
4.2 40.4
& Page Street
Route 139 (Pleasant
Street)
34 2,079
2,113
1.6
35
69
96.2
1.7
3.3 930
& Turnpike Street
Source: Nonresithjals Traffic and Proportion of Trucks from MWRA , RMFP. DEIR, Vol. 1, B, 1989
For calculations of Residuals Trucks see Appendix B of this docunent.
* This assunes that each truck makes two trips (there and back) through each intersection.
-------
site are described in Table 5.3-7. The land-based site access follows Route 3 to
Route 18 to Route 53 to East Howard Street to the site (Figure 4.2-4). The barge route
through President Roads is shown in Figure 4.2-5.
5.3.7.1 Truck Traffic Impacts. The maximum increase in total traffic would result
from the emergency residuals transportation scenario for this site and would be about
one percent, which is not considered a significant impact (Table 5.3-8). The maximum
increase of 30 to 50 percent in the number of trucks at each intersection is of moderate
significance, as is the equivalent increase in the proportion of trucks in the traffic
stream. However, this scenario represents an emergency situation and would only occur
for a short period. The orst-case normal operating scenario is Scenario 3, in which all
processes would be located at the FRSA or the islands, and yields a maximum 37
percent increase in the number of trucks at the intersection of the two collectors
(Routes 53 and 18); this would result in a minor adverse impact.
Pedestrian activity, parallel parking on both sides and double parking currently create a
difficult maneuvering situation for large trucks in Weymouth Landing (Route 53 and
Commercial Street). It is likely that the emergency scenario (Scenario 4), and the
worst-case nonemergency scenario (Scenario 3), would have a moderate impact on
operating conditions in We) mouth Landing. Impacts on operating conditions at
Commercial Street and Route 53 could be mitigated by upgrading the signalization and
improving the intersection geometry. If possible, adding a left turn lane to the
northbound Route 53 approach to Commercial Street, along with updated signalization
and timing would upgrade the intersection from LOS F to LOS C and E in the morning
and evening peak periods, respectively (MWRA, RMFP, DEER, 1, 1989). Likewise, at the
East Howard Street and Route 53 intersection, upgrades including the addition of one
lane on each approach to the intersection would mitigate congestion. Such
improvements would improve the operating conditions from LOS F to LOS E and C
during the morning and evening peak hours, respectively (MWRA, RMFP,
DEER, 1, 1989).
Prior to implementation of the long-term residuals program in 1995, all mitigation
measures in effect as a result of other MWRA activities at the FRSA should reviewed
with input from Quincy, Braintree, and Weymouth. Mitigation measures regarded as
effective should be continued; those that have not proven to be effective should be
revised (MWRA, DEIR, 1, 1989). Operation of the residuals trucks outside of peak
periods would reduce congestion. In addition, if sludge product is marketed to
long-distance mass users, transport of this material by barge or bulk rail would
considerably reduce the number of residuals trucks and the associated impacts.
5.3.7.2 Marine Traffic. The maximum number of barge round trips from the Quincy
FRSA, 11 per week or two per day, would occur if all the residuals processing facilities
were located at the Quincy FRSA or the Stoughton site (see Table 5.3-9).
Two barge trips per day is a very small increase in Boston Harbor traffic, as described
in Section 4.2.8.3. The Fore River channel is several hundred feet wide; adding two
trips to the current two per day by CITGO will have no significant impact. As separate
pier facilities would be used, the residuals barge traffic would not affect other MWRA
marine transport activities at the Quincy FRSA. Substantial recreational boating does
occur near the mouth of the Fore River, but with only 11 barges per week, they
5-26
-------
TABLE 5.3-7. QUINCY FRSA - POSSIBLE 2020 RESIDUALS TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
Scenario - Trucks Per Day
Type of Truck/Purpose 1 2 3 4
Tanker, dev atered sludge from FRSA 37 25
Small trucks, compost from FRSA 67 67
Bulk materials truck, amendment to FRSA 22 22
Bulk materials truck, pellets from FRSA 8
Liquid tanker truck, sludge from FRSA
Bulk materials, ash from site 6
Total trucks per day 6 37 97 114
Truck round trips per hour (1 8 12-13 14-15
Notes:
1. Scenario 1 assumes that all sludge is dewatered, heat-dried, and incinerated at
island sites; ash transferred through Quincy FRSA.
2. Scenario 2 assumes that all sludge is dewatered at Quincy FRSA or island site,
transferred through FRSA.
3. Scenario 3 assumes that all sludge is processed at Quincy FRSA or island sites;
two-thirds is heat dried, one-third composted, and all is transferred through FRSA.
4. Scenario 4 assumes that all heat drying and composting at-iQuincy FRSA or the
island sites, and an emergency breakdown of the heat drier, therefore, two-thirds
of sludge transferred through Quincy FRSA, one-third composted at FRSA or
island.
5-27
-------
TABLE 5.3-8. QUINCY FRSA PROJECTED TRAFFIC WITH AND WITHOUT WORST-CASE 2020 (SCENARIO 4) RESIDUALS TRAFFIC IMPACTS
PROPORTION OF TRUCKS
LOCATION
Residuals
Truck Trips
ALL TRAFFIC
NUMBER OF TRUCKS
Nonresd.
Proportion
Proportion
of Trucks
Percent
Plonresid.
Traffic
Percent
Nonresid.
Trucks
Percent
per hour*
Traffic
w/Resid.
Change
Trucks
wlResid.
Change
of Trucks
w/Resid.
Change
Route 53 (Quincy Avenue)
29
3,867
3,896
0.7
99
128
29.3
2.6
3.3
28.3
& East Howard Street
Route 53 (Washington Street)
29
3,051
3,080
1.0
59
88
49.1
1.9
2.9
67.7
& Route 18 (Main Street)
Route 53 (Quincy Avenue)
29
3,403
3,432
0.9
76
105
38.3
2.2
3.1
37.1
& ComnerciaL Street
Source: Nonresiduals Traffic and Proportion of Trucks fran MWRA, RNFP , DEIR, Vol. 1, B, 1989.
For calcuLations of Residuals Trucks see Appendix B of this docunent.
* This assunes that each truck makes two trips (there and back) through each intersection.
-------
TABLE 5.3-9. MAXIMUM WORST CASE 2020 RESIDUALS BARGE SCENARIOS
Type of Barge, Purpose
— Barges Per Week
FRSA Deer I.
Spec. I
Tanker, digested sludge (7 days/week)
11
11
(a)
Bulk, compost amendment from FRSA
(b)
RO/RO, compost to FRSA (5 days/week)
6
RO/RO, pellets (2/3 sludge) (5 days/week)
Total barge round trips per week
2
11
11
8
Maximum Barge round trips per day
2
2
2
Notes:
(a) Digested sludge would be transported from Deer Island to Spectacle Island
by pipeline
(b) Compost amendment would be transported on the return trip of compost
(c) Assuming fi re day per week operation, worst-case scenarios which do not
include incineration.
can be scheduled to avoid peak recreational use (summer weekends and early
evenings). With no channel dredging required, barge traffic from this project would
have no adverse effects on the marine environment.
5.3.8 Spectacle Island
If composting and heat drying were to occur at Spectacle Island there would be a
maximum of 11 barge trips to the island each week (maximum of two per day) to
transport compost, compost amendment and sludge products to and from the island (see
Table 5.3-9). As described in Sections 5.3.7.2, this traffic would have no adverse
;impacts on the environment or use of Boston Harbor. If suitable pier facilities are not
-constructed at Spectacle Island by the DPW for its use as a dredged or excavate
disposal site, then piers would have to be constructed and a channel dredged from
Western Way to the island. Pier construction and channel dredging activities could
temporarily disturb the harbor floor, but would have no long term adverse impacts on
Boston Harbor’s use or environment. If dewatering were to take place at Spectacle
Island, digested sludge would be transported from Deer Island via an underwater
pipeline. Facilities for constructing the pipeline would temporarily be located in
President Roads, but the channel is large enough to accommodate both the construction
facilities and normal marine traffic.
5-29
-------
5.3.9 Deer Island
The maximum number of round trips per day to and from Deer Island (two) would occur
for only heat drying located at Deer island (see Table 5.3-9). As described in
Sections 5.3.7.2 these trips would not generate any adverse impacts on the environment
or use of Boston Harbor. Pier construction and dredging related to other MWRA
projects are already planned or underway at the site; with careful scheduling and
design the piers could accommodate long-term residuals traffic as well.
5.4 AIR QUALITY AND ODORS
5.4.1 Introduction and Methodology
In order to examine potential air quality impacts from the proposed residuals processing
facilities, EPA used computer modeling to predict changes in ambient air quality around
each candidate site due to residuals processing. Estimated pollutant emission rates,
stack operating parameters, and meteorologic data are input to the model, which
predicts levels of pollutants in the ambient air surrounding the site. These predicted
levels can then be compared to federal and state air quality standards and regulations
to determine potential impacts.
Individual pollutant emission rates are based upon the control efficiency (i.e., percent
of pollutant particles collected during processing) of the process and upon the quantity
of the pollutant in the feed stream. Pollutant emission rates for composting and
incineration processes were derived from literature searches, which assembled
emissions data that would best represent the MWRA’s potential facilities and predicted
sludge quality. Heat-drying emission rates were estimated using data from the
heat-drying pilot plant operated on Deer Island in 1988.
The control efficiencies used by EPA for this analysis are the same as those used b the
MWRA with three exceptions, the control efficiencies for cadmium, PCB-1254 and
hydrogen chloride during incineration. The MWRA’s control efficiency for cadmium was
based on an average control efficiency found in the literature, which included
incinerators operating at substantially higher temperatures and with less efficient
emission control devices than proposed by the MWRA. The EPA excluded these
incinerators when determining its control efficiency for cadmium. The EPA also
conducted a more extensive literature search than the MWRA to determine its
PCB-1254 control efficiency. A fluidized-bed hazardous waste incinerator similar to
the type of incinerator proposed by MWRA achieved a 99.996 percent control efficiency
for PCBs (Oppelt, 1987). Therefore, to calculate the PCB-1254 emission rate, a 99.9
percent control efficiency was conservatively assumed for the potential incinerator
PCB emission rate. EPA used a 90 percent removal efficiency for hydrogen chloride
because it is consistent with the level of air pollution control equipment proposed by
MWRA for its incinerator (MWRA, Air Deviation, 1989).
In all cases, projected emission rates are consistent with the residuals quality
projections presented in Section 4.1.
Computer modeling of nonpoint source emissions from landfills was not conducted, but
a qualitative air quality and odor impact analysis for the potential landfill sites is
5-30
-------
presented. The discussion of air quality impacts for each site includes projected
transportation air quality impacts and potential mitigation measures.
5.4.1.1 Industrial Source Complex Short Term Model (ISCST). The ISCST model
(Version 6) was used to predict incremental pollutant concentrations from MWRA
processes for time averages ranging from 1 hour to 24 hours and for calculating annual
average concentrations. ISCST is an EPA model that uses hourly sequential
meteorological data along with peak short-term emission rates to predict hourly
pollutant concentrations at key receptors. The model also calculates multiple-hour
averages from the predicted hourly averages. ISCST was also used to predict annual
.average ground-level concentrations of pollutants for use in the deposition analysis
-(Section 5.5).
5.4.1.2 Odor Predictions. Odorous compounds include reduced sulfur compounds, such
as mercaptans and hydrogen sulfide, and nitrogen containing compounds, such as amines
and ammonia. Odors can be perceived over the duration of a breath, which is no
greater than a few seconds. Consequently, a transient puff of odorous compound
emitted from a residuals facility can potentially be detected at a receptor.
To determine if odor thresholds would be exceeded at a receptor near any of the
composting sites, short-duration ambient concentration estimates of odorous pollutants
• were made at key receptors. These estimates were made by comparing predicted peak
one-hour odor concentrations with established odor thresholds to determine if impacts
are significant.
For the landfill options, emission estimates of odorous pollutants are not readily
available. Impacts were evaluated by simply identifying those odorous compounds that
;may be contained in the material to be laridfilled, without predicting whether they
would be detected at nearby receptors. The analysis of landfill options is qualitative,
and emphasis is placed on management and operating practices because they will have a
.significant effect on the emission of odorous compounds.
5.4.1.3 Fugitive Dust Emissions. Significant atmospheric dust arises from mechanical
disturbances of granular material exposed to the air. Dust generated from these open
sources is termed “fugitive” because it is not discharged to the atmosphere in a
confined flow stream (U.S. EPA, AP-42, 1985).
The dust generation process is caused by two basic physical phenomena: 1) pulverization
and abrasion of surface materials by application of mechanical force through
implements (wheels, blades, etc.), and 2) entrainment of dust particles by the action of
rturbulent air currents, such as wind erosion of exposed surface by windspeeds over 12
‘miles per hour (U.S. EPA, AP-42, 1985).
-Quantifying the amount of fugitive dust particles caused by a residuals processing
operation is difficult since there is no substantial data available to produce an accurate
and realistic fugitive dust analysis. A qualitative analysis is described below for the
landfill sites based primarily on good engineering practices and mitigation measures.
5-31
-------
5.4.2 Significance Criteria
The significance criteria used in the air quality analysis are based on applicable federal
and state regulations and standards (Section 5.3.2) as follows:
1. The predicted incremental pollutant concentrations from the proposed
projects were compared to DEQE’s Threshold Effects Exposure Limits
(TELs, these are equivalent to 24-hour Allowable Ambient Limits) and
Ambient Air Quality Standards and Guideline Levels for dioxins and furans
and to EPA’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), and Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) levels. If the emissions for any MWRA
facility exceed EPA or DEQE guidelines, then the impacts are considered to
be significant. Note that DEQE only recently established annual average
AALs, and no analysis of these predicted concentrations with these new
guidelines was conducted with for this Draft SEIS.
For the NAAQS analysis, appropriate modeling results were first compared
to EPA ’s Significant Impact Levels (SILs). If SILs were exceeded, then an
aggregate analysis was done to determine if the predicted emissions plus
background pollutant levels would exceed NAAQS.
To predict the maximum pollutant concentrations from the processing
options at each site, the maximum number of processes potentially
operating simultaneously for each site were modeled. The predicted
resulting ambient air concentrations were compared to the guidelines listed
above. If an exceedance of a TEL was not predicted, any or all of the
potential facilities were assumed to operate without significant air quality
impacts. If a TEL exceedance was predicted, the modeling process was
repeated assuming a reduced number of processes operating. This process
was continued until the significance of predicted impacts from all potential
combinations of processes was determined.
2. To determine if cumulative impacts could occur from interactions between
residuals facilities emissions and other emissions sources in the area of each
site, a threshold of 10 percent of TELs was used (per DEQE guidance). If
predicted incremental emissions from residuals facilities exceed 10 percent
of applicable TELS, their potential cumulative impacts are considered.
3. The total ambient air concentration (predicted incremental from the project
plus the background ambient air concentration) was compared to the DEQE
and EPA guidelines listed above. If the total ambient air concentration
exceeds a guideline, then the impacts are considered to be significant.
4. If odor thresholds established in the MWRA Secondary Treatment Facilities
Plan (Vol. III, 1989) were exceeded at receptors surrounding the site then the
impact is considered significant. Only composting was analyzed for odors
because malodorous compounds are destroyed during heat drying and
combustion.
5-32
-------
5.4.3 Walpole MCI. The Walpole site is a potential location for landfilling minor
residuals, ash from an incinerator, and heat-dried pellets (if necessary) and dewatered
sludge on an emergency basis. Receptors that could be impacted by disposal activities
at the site include the MCI Cedar Junction and MCI Norfolk. A number of residences
that are within a half kilometer of the eastern boundary of the site could also be
affected by air emissions from the disposal operations. The sensitive receptors
surrounding the site are summarized in Appendix C.
5.4.3.1 Operations. Air quality impacts from residuals could occur as a result of
fugitive dust emitted during the dumping and spreading of material. However, the grit
and screenings will have considerable moisture content, well in excess of the minimum
required to prevent particles from becoming airborne. Therefore, no particulate matter
impacts would be expected during the disposal of grit or screenings. Combustion ash
would be moistened to a slurry condition before being transferred to a truck and
transported to the landfill. Thus, particulate matter emissions would not be expected
to occur during disposal of any combustion ash since the moisture content would exceed
10 percent. Howe er, if the working face of the disposed material is left exposed
during warm and dry periods, the surface layer could dry out, enabling particles to
become entrained by the wind and potentially causing significant impacts at nearby
receptors. These impacts would be minimized by keeping the surface layer moist or by
covering the exposed surface with soil.
Odors can occur as a result of evaporation of odorous substances such as reduced sulfur
compounds and amines during disposal activities. These compounds have been observed
in grit and screenings and exceedance of odor thresholds for these compounds could
potentially occur at nearby receptors, which are located only a few hundred meters
away. Therefore, the odor impacts from landfilling grit and screenings could be
significant. Malodorous compounds are not found in combustion ash because they are
destroyed during the incineration process. Again, odor impacts can be mitigated by
covering exposed surfaces with soil.
It is possible that dewatered sludge or heat-dried pellets could be landfilled during
periods of processing equipment breakdown or slow marketing seasons. Fugitive dust
emissions during disposal of dewatered sludge would be insignif icant because the sludge
would be moist. Furthermore, pellet size and consistency discourage dust generation,
so fugitive dust emissions during landfilling of heat-dried pellets would also be
insignificant.
Malodorous compounds would not be emitted from heat-dried pellets because they are
destroyed during the heat drying process. Odorous compounds could be emitted from
sludge, however, and could add to emissions from grit and screenings. Concentrations
.of odorous compounds that might be emitted from dewatered sludge could reach up to
80 ppb for compounds such as hydrogen sulfide and up to 190 ppm for ammonia. These
levels could be v ell above perceivable odor thresholds and could significantly impact
residential receptors a few hundred meters away. During periods of dewatered sludge
landfilling, these impacts could be mitigated by covering the sludge frequently with
moist soil.
5.4.3.2 Construction. Construction activities would include clearing and grading within
the boundaries of the landfill footprint. Fugitive dust emissions could occur during
5-33
-------
grading activities, therefore, there is a potential for significant particulate matter
impacts at the residences immediately bordering the site to the east. However, these
impacts would be only temporary during actual construction operations. They can be
mitigated by reducing the intensity of construction during abnormally dry periods
and/or by frequently watering dry areas and using dust suppressant. Diesel exhaust
emissions would occur from heavy construction equipment such as trucks, graders and
earth movers, but the expected intensity level would not be great enough to cause
significant air quality impacts.
5.4.3.3 Transportation. Residuals materials would be transported to the Walpole MC I
site by trucks. The number of truck trips required to transport grit and screenings to
the landfill at Walpole would be five round trips per day in 2020. If an incinerator is
included as part of the project, up to four additional round trips per day would be
required to transport ash and soil cover to the landfill in 2020. Landfilling heat-dried
pellets and soil cover would generate 18 round trips per day in 2020. As discussed in
Section 5.3.4, this would represent only a small increase in the traffic along the access
route; the air quality impacts from this small increase in traffic would be insignificant.
During emergencies there may be a need to dispose of dewatered sludge at the
landfill. It is estimated that up to 52 round trips per day would be required to transport
dewatered sludge cover and bulking material to the landfill during such emergencies.
Exhaust emissions from the incremental traffic over the baseline conditions are still not
significant.
5.4.4 Rowe Quarry
The Rowe Quarry site is a potential location for landfilling minor residuals, ash,
heat-dried pellets (if necessary), and dewatered sludge on an emergency basis.
The area around the site contains several residential dwellings with some directly
adjacent to the present quarry operation. Some key receptors within approximately a
half kilometer of the site include Williamsburg Square Townhouses, Annmemark Nursing
Home and the Northshore Assembly of God Church. Residences in this area could be
impacted by potential odors and air emissions from a landfill operation. The sensitive
receptors surrounding the site are summarized in Appendix C.
5.4.4.1 Operations and Construction. Impacts from operations and construction at the
Rowe Quarry Site would be similar to those described for the Walpole MCI site in
Sections 5.4.3.1 and 5.4.3.2.
5.4.4.2 Transportation. Residuals material would be transported to Rowe Quarry by
truck. The number of round trips required to transport grit and screenings and cover to
Rowe Quarry is expected to be seven round trips per day in 2020. If a incinerator is
operating up to an additional six round trips per day would be needed to transport ash
and additional cover to the landfill. Landfilling heat-dried pellets and soil cover would
generate 26 round trips per day. As discussed in Section 5.3.5, this would represent only
a small increase in traffic along the access route; the impacts from this small increase
in traffic would be insignificant.
5-34
-------
The number of round trips per day required during emergency sludge land! illing would
be 97 (see Table 5.3-3). Exhaust emissions from the incremental traffic air would still
be insignificant over the baseline conditions.
5.4.5 Stoughton
Composting, heat drying, and combustion are the possible process options at the
Stoughton site.
5.4.5.1 Operations. A criteria pollutant analysis was conducted for heat drying and
incineration but not for composting, because the compost process does not generate
‘these pollutants.
Table 5.4-1 indicates that for all criteria pollutants except for the 3-hour and 24-hour
sulfur dioxide averages, the heat drying and incineration combined increment did not
exceed the SILs. For increments that exceeded the SILs, total concentrations
(contribution from residuals facilities plus background concentrations) were calculated
for these time averages and were compared with the NAAQS to test for significance.
In both cases the total sulfur dioxide concentrations were welLbelow the NAAQS. Thus,
for heat drying and incineration, the emission of criteria pollutants would not result in a
significant impact to air quality.
The maximum 24-hour toxic pollutant concentrations, as calculated by the ISCST
model, were compared with the Massachusetts TELs (24-hour AALs) (Table 5.4-2). This
table shows only those pollutants that are predicted to exceed 10 percent of the
appropriate TEL. All other pollutants are not predicted to exceed 10 percent of TELs.
Table 5.4-2 also shows predicted air concentrations from 213 foot stacks to facilitate
comparison with predicted concentrations at Quincy (for which 213 foot stacks are
proposed) and to illustrate the relationship between height and pollutant dispersion. It
also shows that only phosphoric acid emitted from the incinerator exceeded the TEL
(24-hour AAL) for both the 150 foot stack incinerator and the 213 foot stack
incinerator. TELS do not constitute regulatory limits. Rather they are guidelines
which DEQE uses to assess air quality impacts from emissions sources. Therefore, the
exceedence noted above would not necessarily preclude state p rmitting of an
incinerator. EPA does not regard these phosphoric acid emissions as unacceptable
because they are not regulated under federal law, and although they could potentially
cause eye or upper respiratory tract irritation in sensitive populations, they would not
cause any severe environmental or public health impacts. Figure 5.4-1 illustrate the
processing facilities stack location and predicted maximum concentration locations.
Predicted dioxin and furan concentrations are below state standaç ds. Total predi ted
dioxins and ftjrans maximum annual concentrations are 7.65 x 10 and 8.55 x 10
picograms/m for the heat dryer and incinerator with a ISO 3 foot stack. Ma ximum
annual conce trations f or the 213 foot stack are 1.69 x 10 and 6.62 x 10
picograms/m for heat drying and incineration, respectively. These levels are well
below the standard (Section 5.3.2.9). The compost facility will not emit dioxins or
furans.
5-35
-------
TABLE 5.4-1. STOUGHTON HEAT DRYING AND INCINERATION NAAQS COMPLIANCE ANALYSIS
Pollutant!
Averaging Time
Predicted
Concejnration
(ug/m )
SILs
(ug/m )
Background
Concejitration
(ug/m )
Background
Monitor
Total
Concentjation
(ugim )
NAA S
(ug/m
Sulfur dioxide
3-Hour HSH
24-Hour HSH
Annual H
39.7
l6.8( )
1.4 a
25
5
364
191
43
Kenmore
Square
403.7
207.8
44.4
1,300
365
80
PM-jo
24-Hour HSH
Annual H
14 (a)
0.1 a
5
75
41
Quincy
-
-
150
50
Carbon monoxide
1-Hour HSH
8-Hour HSH
8.S
a
2,000
500
20 ’ 000 (b)
12,000
ashington
Street
-
-
40,000
10,000
Nitrogen dioxide
Annual H
0 • 7 (a)
1
83
Kerimore
Square
-
100
Lead
24-Hour H
0.012
-
-
-
0.012
1.5
Source: MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, I, 1989
Notes: HSH and H denotes highest second highest and highest concentration,
respectivel), over the five-year modeling period
(a) Impacts insignificant, NAAQS comparison not necessary
(b) Exceeds standard
5-36
-------
Aiu nis
Csóuuii (sin.) (1)
C.c1 1i (ess.) (1)
Chrc.iiVt (sin.) (1)
chr kVI (esx.) (1)
NexecMorcclcpent.d l sne
Hydrogen chloride
Hydrogen flouride
Hydrogen Sulfide
PentechlorcØi s not
Phosphoric Acid
Sulfuric Acid
NOTE:
(1) lASSO ON EPA RESIDUALS CIIARACTERIZATIOU (SECTION 3.1)
CPOUI( SONCENTRATIDU IS lASSO ON 85.6 PERCEUT REHONAL EFFICIE1ICS
ANO HYDROGEN CNLONIOE IS USED ON 90 PERCENT REMOTAL E?FICIEUCT
NO • NOT DETECTED IN THE STACE EMISSIONS
TABLE 5.4-2. CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN EXCEEDING 10 PERCENT OF ThE DEQE TEL (24-HR AAL) GUIDELINE
BASED ON THE WORST-CASE 24-IIO(JR MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION AT EACH SITE
Stoughten (150 ft. st.c ) Stoughtan (213 ft. stsck) Spectecie isIsid (150 ft. st.ck) Oulncy FRSA (213 ft. .t.ck) beer Iulend (150 ft. itsck)
(Percent of the ML) (Percent of the ML) (Percent of the ML) (Percent of the ML) (Percent of the ML)
24- Hour
Nest All U..t All Nest All Nest All Nest All AALS
Coestituents of Cceeern Dry C ost incin. C ined Dry C ost 1cm. Cc ined Dry C o.t Incin. Cosbined Dry Coiq ost C ined Dry Inc ln. Ccu&ined ug/u3
NO
33
NO
33
NO
13
NO
13
Nb
27
Nb
27
Nb
25
25
Nb
NO
NO
4.73E.0O
ci
NO
I I
IS
ci
ND
10
10
1
NO
20
20
2
Nb
2
2
23
25
3.005-03
I
NO
43
44
1
NO
22
23
3
NO
46
49
4
NO
4
4
50
54
3.005-03
ci
NO
B
S
ci
NO
4
4
1
Nb
5
9
1
NO
1
1
10
11
3.00503
I
NO
13
14
1
NO
7
S
I
NO
13
14
2
NO
2
2
15
17
3.005-03
ci
NO
69
69
ci
NO
39
39
ci
NO
75
75
ci
Nb
ci
ci
55
55
6.005-05
NO
NO
62
62
NO
NO
35
35
NO
NO
67
67
NO
Nb
NO
NO
76
76
2.OSS.00
ci
Nb
1?
17
ci
NO
9
9
ci
NO
IS
IS
I
NO
1
1
21
22
6.505-01
ci
12
10
12
ci
5
NO
S
ct
10
NO
10
1
9
10
d
Nb
ci
3785.00
ci
NO
15
IS
ci
NO
10
10
1
NO
20
21
I
NO
1
1
22
23
1.005-02
NO
NO
227
227
NO
NO
127
127
Nb
NO
246
246
NO
NO
NO
NO
250
250
2.705-01
I
NO
40
41
1
NO
22
23
2
NO
43
45
2
ND
2
3
49
52
6.505-01
-------
‘ f L 2
- : - — . . -“
-
‘: -7 - I
- —- -
— I
D
SCALE IN METERS
2000 0 2000
SCALE IN FEET
D 1HRW.X.000PCONC
FIGURE 5.4-1. STOUGHTON AIR QUAUTY AND ODORS IMPACTS
3 .“.,-
.1 -
II
1000
0
1000
L END
D CANDIDATE SifE
• COMPOST
I IIC 4ERATOR
A HEAT DRYER
A
H 24HRi .u x.cONC
-------
Predicted emission rates for composting, heat drying, and incineration separately do not
exceed PSD emission standards; therefore, a PSD review would not be required.
NESHAP for mercury applies to incineration and heat drying. Incineration and heat
drying predicted emission rates for mercury are 2,100 and 11.9 g/day, respectively.
These are below the 3,200 g/day standards.
The odor impact analysis for a potential compost facility at the Stoughtop site
indicated that mercaptans would exceed the odor threshold of 4.19 ug/m . The
maximum 1 hour mercaptans concentration was estimated to be 1.2 times greater than
the threshold level. Odor emissions for mercaptans were based on a removal efficiency
of 85 percent for a two-stage countercurrent scrubber system. This estimate was
conservatively lo , considering some facilities reported removal efficiencies ranging
from 90 to 99 percent (MWRA, Air Derivation, 1989). Based on information from other
facilities, these removal efficiencies should be achievable with good engineering
practice and should mitigate odor impacts to insignificance.
Emissions of \‘OCs and odors from sludge storage tanks would be controlled by a dry
scrubbing system using activated carbon adsorption and alumina saturated with
potassium permangariate. VOCs would be controlled by activated carbon adsorption,
while both media would serve to remove odorous compounds. Removal efficiencies of
VOCs by this means are expected to be in the range of 70 to 90 percent (MWRA, ISPD,
II, 1989). Therefore, odor impacts from the storage area should be minimal.
5.4.5.2 Interactive Sources. The emissions of ammonia from a composting facility in
Stoughton are predicted to slightly exceed the 10 percent of TEL threshold for potential
cumulative impacts. There are, however, no existing or projected major sources of
ammonia in the area of the Stoughton site.
5.4.5.3 Transportation. Dewatered sludge cake would be transported by truck to the
Stoughton Site. This would require 37 round trips per day. Under the worst-case
scenario an additional 97 round trips would be required to bring compost amendment to
the site and to transport compost and heat-dried pellets from the site (Section 5.3.6).
Exhaust emissions from the incremental traffic would be insignificant over the baseline
conditions.
5.4.6 Quincy FRSA
Transfer, heat drying and composting are the possible process options at FRSA site.
5.4.6.1 Operations. Predicted levels of criteria pollutants emitted from the heat dryer
at Quincy FRSA are shown on Table 5.4-3. The compost facility does not emit criteria
pollutants. The location of the 24 hour and annual maximum receptor is shown on
Figure 5.4-2. Pollutants for which predicted levels exceed 10 percent of the DEQE
- TELs (24-hour AALs) are shown or-i Table 5.4-2. No exc dances are pr dicted. Total
dioxin and furan predicted concentrations are 7.65 x 10 picograms/m for heat drying,
which is well below the standard. Dioxiris and furans are not emitted from the compost
facility. No exceedance of PSD emission standards is predicted. NESHAPs for mercur ,
applies to heat dryers, but the predicted mercury emission rate is 2100 g/day which is
below the 3,200 g/day standard. Control of emissions from the storage tanks is
described in Section 5.4.5.1. Similar controls could be used for tanker barges.
5-39
-------
IE ND
CANDIDATE SITE
• COMPOST
A HEAT DRYER
c COMBINED 24 HR. ANNUAL MAX. CON C.
1 HR MAX. ODOR CONC.
Sc. sc
/ /
1 - - S -. I ’
; .:;
- ‘ .- jI SO(* a• -
I
“z_—,-\ td - ‘I /
& - ) ; -QUINC’ Rexoc /
f 1 - I . $o:k s ia n / /
• - ‘ . — .. S S •&; - • - - aa ,,
/ - Reck 14G d t /
OL
r.,r ‘‘ . Meao - / c
: .
- ; - -. - - . ‘S / - - I,,
-. • - • — --
-
-S
- ‘DrI’C -.
S
- - . -
S - S -
-: -
- •- I • -
- N .. -. S. _ • -
, . S - • . ,
1 -. - : — •
- - : - - /
S • S -
• S. - • .. - - --
I e nr-oi - s - ‘ T t -Coia -
•:• : -.‘- - -
: i1 ‘i • .
j • . : Ki/5 % S
-: - ‘\. • 4 ’ k N
b nt;e;\.
__ ‘ \
- 4 r .” fJ . - W7 . 3 km _____ - - S - - - -
1000 0 1000
SCALE IN METERS
2000 0 2000
SCALE IN FEET
FIGURE 5.4-2. QUINCY FRSA AIR QUALITY AND ODORS IMPACTS
-------
TABLE 5.4-3. QUINCY FRSA HEAT DRYING NAAQS COMPLIANCE ANALYSIS
Pollutant/
Averaging Time
Predicted
Conc tration
(ug/m )
SILs
(uglm )
Background
Conce itration
(ug/m )
Background
Monitor
Total Con-
centra 3 tion
(uglm )
NA QS
(uglm )
Sulfur dioxide
3-Hour HSH
24-Hour HSH
Annual H
7 • 0 (a)
3.7
0.5
25
5
1
.
364
191
43
Kenmore
Square
-
-
-
1,300
365
80
PM-b
24-Hour HSH
Annual H
19 (a)
03 a
5
1
75
41
Quincy
-
-
1.50
50
Carbon monoxide
1-Hour HSH
8-Hour HSH
2.9
0.9
2,000
500
20 ’ 000 b)
12,000
Washington
Street
-
-
40,000
10,000
Nitrogen dioxide
Annual H
03 (a)
1
83
Kenmore
Square
-
100
Lead
24-Hour H
0.003
-
-
-
0.003
1.5
Source: MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, 1989
Notes: HSH and H denote highest second highest and highest concenhiation, respectivel), over the
five-year modeling period
(a) Impacts insignificant, NAAQS comparison not necessary
(b) Exceeds standard
5-41
-------
Dewatering facilities will use either belt filter presses or centrifuges to dewater
sludge. The dewatering operation is described in Section 3.2.2. The worst-case
scenario would be use of belt filter presses because sludge is exposed to the air and
vulnerable to turbulence during the dewatering process allowing for VOC and odor
emissions. There would be two techniques for controlling VOCs and odors released from
dewatering sludge: 1) active carbon adsorption of ventilation air, and 2) recycling the
ventilation air for the heat drying process. Carbon adsorption would have a VOC
control efficiency of 85 percent while VOCs and odors would be combusted during the
heat drying process, achieving a control efficiency of 95 percent.
Predicted odor impacts from the compost facility indicate that mercaptans could
exceed the odor threshold. The maximum one-hour concentration is estimated to be
two times the odor threshold; therefore odor impacts would appear to be considered
significant. As discussed in Section 5.4.5.1, mitigation includes good engineering
practice which should reduce odor impacts to insignificance.
5.4.6.2 Interactive Sources. The criteria pollutant impacts predicted for potential
residuals processing facilities at the Quincy FRSA site are insignificant. Therefore,
even if the Boston Edison’s Edgar Station is reactivated, criteria pollutant emissions
from the residuals project are predicted to be so low that they v ill not interact
significantly with emissions from Edgar Station, the proposed Clean Harbor project or
the following existing major sources (within 10 kilometers): Braintree Electric Light
Department, Citgo Petroleum Corporation, N.E. Book Components and Proctor &
Gamble (MWRA RMFP, DEIR, 1989). In addition, the emissions of ammonia from a
composting facility at the Quincy FRSA are predicted to exceed the 10 percent TEL
threshold for potential cumulative impacts. There are, however, no existing or
projected major sources of ammonia in the area of the Quincy FRSA.
5.4.7.3 Transportation. The two modes of transportation associated with the Quincy
FRSA would be barge and truck. There would be two barge trips per day delivering
digested liquid sludge to Quincy FRSA. This number of trips would not significantly
impact the ambient air quality. The maximum number of truck round trips associated
with long-term residuals managem nt at Quincy FRSA would include 22 round trips per
day for compost amendment and 75 round trips per day for pellets and compost to be
transported for distribution. This would represent an approximate 1 percent increase in
traffic along the access route and would not significantly impact the ambient air
quality (Section 5.3.7).
5.4.7 Spectacle Island.
This site is being considered for composting, heat drying and combustion on the
southern portion of the island.
5.4.7.1 Operations. Predicted levels of pollutants emitted from processing facilities on
Spectacle Island are shown on Tables 5.4-2 and 5.4-4. The compost facility will not
emit criteria pollutants because no heating is required for the composting process, thus
it is not included. The location of the 24-hour and annual maximum concentration,
along with the stack location for each facility are shown on Figure 5.4-3. No
exceedance of the NAAQS levels is predicted and only phosphoric acid emitted from the
5-42
-------
TABLE 5.4-4. SPECTACLE ISLAND HEAT DRYING AND INCINERATION
NAAQS COMPLIANCE ANALYSIS
Pollutant/
Averaging Time
Predicted
Concej tration
(ug/m )
SILs
(ug/m )
Background
Conc 9 itration
(ug/m )
Total Con-
Background centra 3 tion
Monitor (ug/m )
NA \QS
(ug/m )
Sulfur dioxide
3-Hour HSI-I
24-Hour HSH
Annual H
51.1
17.9
1.7
25
5
1
364
191
43
Kenmore 415.1
Square 208.9
44.7
1,300
365
80
PM-tO
24-Hour HSH
Annual H
1 • 1 a)
0.1 a)
5
197
82
Columbus Ave -
Charlestown -
150
50
Carbon monoxide
1-Hour HSH
8-Hour HSH
80 a
a
2,000
500
20 ’ 000 (b
12,000
Washington -
Street -
40.000
10,000
Nitrogen dioxide
Annual H
Lead(a)
0.9w
1
83
.
Kenmore -
Square
100
24-Hour H
0.015
-
-
- 0.015
1.5
Source: MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, 1989
Notes: HSH and H denotes highest second highest and highest concentration, respectively, over the
5-year modeling period
(a) Impacts insignificant, NAAQS comparison not necessary
(b) Exceeds standard
5_14 3
-------
I
- ..‘ t
O rNJ
-
- Pd - \
/
P . ,•. -
PRES
. -
•f f . “
4 ‘.
/ / —., .. .
____ : 7; )
M t ‘4 . 1 ___ L2 ’ /j
/ w ; — I ct; (
\t ; \
.2km
1000
EJ CANDIDATE SITE
•
• PICWERATOR
0 1000
SCALE IN METERS
2000
SCALE IN FEET
Quarw’vzqe
tf *o
M Ouc co ----
A HEAT DRYER
H 24HRMAXLANDCONC
0 1 HR MAX. COOP CONC.
A ANNUAL MAX. CONC.
FIGURE 5.4-3. SPECTACLE ISLAND AIR QUALITY AND ODORS IMPACTS
0*.
1 i1 ; K
-
p- I-.
I-
-------
incinerator exceeds the DEQE TEL (24 hour AAL) (Table 5.4-2) and the maximum
concentration occurs over water, so impacts would be even lower in populated areas.
TELS do not constitute regulatory limits. Rather they are guidelines which DEQE uses
- to assess air quality impacts from emissions sources. Therefore, the exceedence noted
above would not necessarily preclude state permitting of an incinerator. EPA does not
regard these phosphoric acid emissions as unacceptable because they are not regulated
under federal law, and although they could potentially cause eye or upper respiratory
tract irritation in sensitive populations, they would not cause any severe environmental
or public heait impacts. Tot l dioxin and fuijan predicted p rticulate concentrations
are 2.77 x. 10 picograms/m and 1.66 x 10 picograms/m for heat drying and
incineration, respectively. This is well below the state standard. Composting does not
emit dioxins and furans. No exceedance of PSD emission standards is predicted and
predicted mercury emission rates are well below NESI-IAP limits.
Odor control and VOC reduction for the dewatering facilities is discussed in Section
5.4.6.1 and odor controls and \‘OC reduction for the storage areas and tanker barges are
discussed in Section 5.4.5.1.
5.4.7.2 Interactive Sources. The emissions of ammonia from a composting facility on
Spectacle island are predicted to exceed the 10 percent TEL threshold for potential
cumulative impacts, hov e er, sources discussed above would not consist significant
amounts of ammonia.
5.4.7.3 Transportation. Sludge would be conveyed through a pipeline from the Deer
Island treatment plant to the island. Therefore, no emissions would occur from sludge
transportation. Emissions from barges would occur during the transport of compost
amendment to the site and transport of compost, heat dried pellets and combustion ash
to Quincy FRSA for market distribution or landfill disposal. However, the estimated
two barge trips per day would not cause significant impact to the ambient air quality
(See Table 5.3-9).
5.4.8 Deer Island
This site is being considered for digestion, dewatering, heat drying, and incineration on
the southern tip of the island.
5.4.8.1 Operations. Predicted levels of pollutants emitted from processing facilities on
Deer Island are shovbn on Tables 5.4-2 and 5.4-5. The location of the 24-hour and annual
maximum concentration, along with the stack location for each facility are shown on
Figure 5.4-4. No exceedance of the NAAQS levels is predicted and only phosphoric acid
emitted from the incinerator exceeds the 24 hour AAL (Table 5.4-2). TELS do not
constitute regulatory limits. Rather they are guidelines which DEQE uses to assess air
quality impacts from emissions sources. Therefore, the exceedence noted above would
.not necessarily preclude state permitting of an incinerator. EOEA does not regard
these phosphoric acid emissions as inacceptably because they are not regulated under
federal lav , and although they could potentially cause eye or upper respiratory tract
irritation in sensitive populations, they would not cause any severe environmental or
public health impacts.
5-45
-------
/
1/ ___
is
I EGF Pt
SCALE iN FEET
• WCP PATOR
A HEAT DRYER
P 40 kWJ, eo Wi. ANNUAL .X. CONC.
COMBINED 24 HR. ANNUAL MAX. CONC.
C (HEAT.DRYP4CIN.)
T 24 HR WX. TETRI 1 cHLORETFELENE
CONG. FROM TF .AT}.EHT PtAP4T
FIGURE 5.4-4. DEER ISLAND AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
; . . F ,re5 sre’
‘Ii ,
I ’
IH.
I
/ -- I
K
I •“ ‘
-t .,. B \
A R B R
—
I
&P*dh1
-.
E
L
Scu ’p ’-
- L*dp.
-.
T
• , <‘/- 2 k
-
- -
. .,
, . I.
Rarn fo d
-? -
/1
• J
; -- /
It • 1.4 ’
G
- — 7, - o . .o¼_ _ !•_. •_. -
— -‘
( Ixc -
- -
- - -— . — —— 4
L
1000
0 1000
SCALE IN METERS
2000 0 2000
CA WTE SifE
• P ER PLANT
-------
TABLE 5.4-5. DEER ISLAND HEAT DRYING AND INCINERATION
NAAQS COMPLIANCE ANALYSIS
Pollutant/
Averaging Time
Predicted
Conc jitration
(ug/m )
SILs
(uglm )
Background
Conc 9 ,tration
(ug/m )
Total Con-
Background centrajtion
Monitor (uglm )
NA tQS
(ugfm
Sulfur dioxide
3-Hour HSH
24-Hour HSH
Annual H
33.8
l0.9(
0.7 a,
25
5
.
364
191
43
Kenmore 397.8
Square 201.9
1,300
365
80
PM-jO
24-Hour HSH
Annual H
o.s
< 0 1 (a)
1
197 (b)
82 (b)
Columbus Ave -
Charlestown -
150
50
Carbon monoxide
1-Hour HSH
8_Hour HSH
6 (a)
2.4 a
2,000
500
20 ’ 000 (b)
12,000
Washington -
Street -
40,000
10,000
Nitrogen dioxide
Annual H
Lead(a)
01 (a)
1
83
Kenmore -
Square
100
24-Hour H
0.017
-
-
- 0.017
1.5
Notes: NSH and H denotes highest second highest and highest concentration, respectively, over the
five-year modeling period
(a) Impacts insignificant, NAAQS comparison not necessaryt
(b) Exceeds standard
5-47
-------
Total dioxin a 3 nd furan predi 9 ed particulate 3 concentrations are 4.05 x l0
picograms/m and 1.68 x l0 picograms/m for heat drying and incineration,
respectively. This is well below the state standard. No exceedance of PSD predicted
and mercury emission rates for heat drying and incineration are well below NESI-IAP.
Odor controls and VOC reduction for the dewatering facilities is discussed in Section
5.4.6.1 and odor controls and VOC reduction for the storage areas is discussed in
Section 5.4.6.1.
The sludge digestion process is described in Section 3.2.1. Most of the digestion process
would occur in covered digester tanks. The amount of gas produced depends on the
amount of volatile solids removed from the influent and the digester reduction
efficiencies (MWRA, STFP, III, 1988). Digester gas collected would be available for
power supply to the treatment plant or to supply heat for the digestion process. The
digester gas produced consists primarily of methane, some carbon dioxide and hydrogen
sulfide. Therefore, air quality impacts from digestion facilities should be insignificant.
5.4.8.2 Interactive Sources. Two additional air emissions sources in the site vicinity
are the secondary wastewater treatment plant under construction and the associated
power plant. The pollutants of concern are volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
emissions from the treatment plant and criteria pollutants from the proposed power
plant.
The air quality analysis for the new wastewater treatment plant was covered in
MWRA’s Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan (MWRA STFP, III, 1938). The modeling
results predicted that one VOC, tetrachioroethylene, was 2.4 times higher than the 1987
AAL guideline. This exceedance occurred 200 meters offshore, east of Deer Island.
The tetrachloroethylene concentration from the MWRA combined (wastewater and
residuals) facilities at that exceedance location would add another five percent to the
predicted concentration. Figure 5.4-4 indicates where the predicted
tetrachloroethylene exceedance occurred. As discussed earlier, these AALs are used as
guidelines by the state for air permitting, and DEQE has determined that this one
exceedance will not present permitting of the new treatment plant.
The two power plant alternatives evaluated by MWRA were 40MW and 80MW on-site
combined cycle facilities. The primary fuel source was assumed to be natural gas
(number 2 fuel oil is an optional fuel source). The gas turbine is also capable of
operating on digester gas or a blend of natural gas and digester gas. The major
pollutant emitted from natural gas combustion would be nitrogen oxide emissions, which
would be controlled by steam injection. Toxic pollutant emissions from natural gas are
minute, therefore, the analysis was conducted for criteria pollutants only. Table 5.4-6
indicates stack parameters and emissions assumed for both the 40MW and 80MW
facilities. The ISCST model predicts that criteria pollutant emissions would be
insignificant. Predicted emissions from both power plants are shown in Table 5.4-7 and
Figure 5.4-4 illustrates the predicted on-land annual maximum concentrations.
5.4.8.3 Transportation. Sludge would be transported from the treatment plant directly
to the heat dryer and back-up incinerator by pipeline. Thus, no emissions v ou1d occur
from sludge transportation on the island. Emissions from barges would occur during the
transport of heat-dried pellets to FRSA for commercial distribution and two during
5-48
-------
TABLE 5.4-6. DEER ISLAND POTENTIAL 40 MW AND 80 MW
POWER PLANT STACK PARAMETERS AND EMISSION RATES
Stack Parameters 40 MW* 80 MW
Stack Gas Temperature 278°F 278°F
Flue Gas Volume 5,390 ft 3 /sec 10,780 ft 3 /sec
Flue Gas Velocity 50 ft/sec 50 ft/sec
Stack Height 125 ft 125 ft
Stack Diameter 11.7 ft 16.6 ft
Estimated Emissions (tons/yr)
Hydrocarbons 25 126
Carbon Monoxide 67 344
Particulates 8.2 42
Sulfur Oxides
:Nitrogen Oxides 70 361
Source: MWRA, On-Site Power, 1989
Note: * Emission rates are based on an operating period of 13 hr/day, 5 days/wk
5-49
-------
TABLE 5.4-7. DEER ISLAND POTENTIAL 40 MW AND 80 MW
POWER PLANTS NAAQS COMPLIANCE ANALYSIS
Pollutant/
Averaging Time
40MW
Predicted
Concejitration
(ug/m )
80Mw
Predicted
Concejitration
(uglm )
SILs 3
(ug/m
)
Background
Conce tration
(ug/m )
Back-
ground NAA S
Monitor (ug/m
PM-jO
24-Hour HSH
Annual H
077 (a)
0005 (a)
04 (a)
001 (a)
1 7 (b)
8 (b)
Columbus Ave 150
Charlestown 50
Carbon monoxide
1-Hour HSH
8-Hour HSH
3 • 67 a
1.25 a
10 • 2 a
1.22 a
2,000
500
20 ’ 000 (b)
12,000
Washington 40,000
Street 10,000
Nitrogen dioxide
Annual H
011 (a)
01 (a)
1
83
Kenmore 100
Square
Notes: HSI-1 and H denotes highest second highest and highest concentration,
five-year modeling period
(a) Impacts insignificant, NAAQS comparison not necessary
(b) Exceeds standard
respectively, over the
transport of the combustion ash for disposal at a landfill. However the 2 barge trips per
day (Table 5.3-9) would be small, and the air quality impacts would be insignificant.
5.5 WATER AND SOILS
5.5.1 Significance Criteria
Significance criteria for impacts to water and soils are defined to assess the importance
of impacts associated with the proposed MWRA residuals processing and disposal
alternatives.
5.5.1.1 Soils. Adverse impacts to physical characteristics of soil and geology due to
MWRA actions include alteration of existing site topography and slopes and change in
soil type. Adverse impacts with respect to soil quality would include the movement of
contaminants from residuals or residual products into soil. The significance of these
impacts is determined by the magnitude and duration of soil quality or geology
alterations and their associated impacts on future site use and nearby water resources.
5-50
-------
5.5.1.2 Groundwater and Surface Water. Significantly adverse impacts to water are
defined as:
Contamination from residuals facilities that would be extensive (i.e.,
reaching off site) and that could create or increase violations or
exceedances of applicable water quality standards or criteria
Contamination from residuals facilities that would either be long-term or
extremely severe for a shorter period and that would result in loss of a
drinking water supply or degradation of a water body resulting in elimination
of existing uses
Situations where these impacts could be mitigated include those where water
treatment, site remediation, or an alternate water supply (for drinking water) is
feasible. Situations which could not be fully mitigated include instances requiring
measurable reductions in water use (i.e., for drinking, fishing, recreation, agriculture,
industry, etc.) v here such measures are not feasible.
Adverse but insignificant impacts to water are defined as:
• Site contamination from residuals facilities that would result in increased
contaminant concentrations on site but that would not create or increase
violations or exceedances of applicable water quality standards or criteria
• Contamination from residuals facilities that would not result in a change of
water use
.Beneficial impacts to water resulting from MWRA action could include elimination of
an existing v ater supply shortage (by providing a new water supply) or remediation of
an already contaminated site.
5.5.2 Walpole MCI
5.5.2.1 Soils. The construction and operation of a landfill at the Walpole MCI site
would significantly alter the soils within the footprint of the landfill. Erosion during
Construction could result in sediment transport to nearby streams or wetlands. Soil
control measures taken during construction could help minimize this short-term
impact. The site slope and topography would be drastically changed by the development
of the individual landfill cells, drainage control system, associated roads, and mixing
areas. In addition, the physical characteristics of the soil (i.e., water content and type
of material) would be significantly altered by the placement of liners, residuals, bulking
agent, and capping material. As a result of the changes, future potential use of the site
would be affected (See Section 5.2). The result of site alterations would likely make
•the site unusable for any future activity except passive recreation or similar activities.
The Walpole MCI landfill would have a double liner, leachate collection, capping, and
monitoring well system similar to the system described in Chapter Three. These design
features v ould help to ensure the protection of the underlying groundwater and
adjacent surface water. For a leak to contaminate these water resources during the
active life of the landfill, leachate would have to be transported through breaches in
5-51
-------
both liners, bypass the leachate collection system and pass the monitoring wells
undetected. Following closure of the landfill or capping of an individual landfill cell,
the landfill cover and its collection system would also have to be bypassed for the
groundwater to be contaminated.
Escape of leachate to the soil beneath the lined area should not be expected for a
properly operated and maintained double-lined landfill that is capped after filling of
each cell. Potential pollutants Lfl the residuals material should not come into contact
with the soil, and thus there would be no contamination. Runoff from the active
portion of the landfill would be controlled, thus no contaminated material would be
incorporated into surrounding soil by runoff.
To produce any soil (or groundwater) impacts, a leak in both landfill liners would have
to occur in the same cell. The magnitude and the location of the liner system leak
would have a direct influence on soil quality impacts. A large breach in the system
located at the most down-gradient location in the landfill cell (which would receive the
greatest amount of flow) would produce the largest soil quality impacts.
If there were a leak in both liners during the active life of a cell, there would be the
potential for chemical contamination of soil. If the leachate penetrated both liners into
the surrounding soil, some of the contaminants would be adsorbed onto the soil
particles. If the leak continued, the affected volume of soil would gradually increase.
The process would be halted or severely restricted at the end of the active life of the
cell (about four to five years), after the placement of an impermeable cap. During the
active life of the cell, the groundwater movement would be slight and thus, the volume
of contaminated soil would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the cell. Thus, the
soil contamination would occur only if both liners leaked and even then the area of
contamination would be largely confined to the soils under and adjacent to the landfill
cell with the leaky liner.
5.5.2.2 Groundwater. It is not likely that a breach in the landfill double liner and a
breakdown of the leachate collection system would occur simultaneously; however, the
impacts of such a breach were assessed for this Draft SEIS. Maximum available
leachate concentrations measured from MWRA digested primary sludge (MWRA, ISPD,
VII, 1989) and from digested primary sludge and combustion ash (MDC, 1983) were used
to project potential impacts on the MCI water supply wells from a leak in the Walpole-
MCI landfill liner system. Metals are of particular concern since they generally remain
in the sludge or sludge product after digestion, heat drying, and incineration. Other
pollutants are less likely to be present in the leachate since most are destroyed during
processing. Leachate concentrations for these other pollutants (volatile and
semivolatile organic compounds) were below detection limits and were not used in this
analysis. Leachate from combined primary and secondary sludge and combustion ash of
combined sludge is expected to have somewhat higher concentrations of metals than the
concentrations used in this analysis. However, these concentrations cannot be
determined at this time because secondary treatment at the Deer Island wastewater
treatment plant is not yet on-line. Concentrations of contaminants in leachate from
grit and screenings are expected to be less than leachate concentrations from sludge or
sludge products.
5-52
-------
If a leak occurred in the landfill liner system and leachate entered the groundwater, the
major concern would be that the contaminated groundwater would mix with the water
withdrawn from the four MCI wells. The landfill footprint is located outside of the
head of the Neponset Sole-Source Aquifer (see Section 4.4) and therefore it would not
be expected to affect that aquifer system.
The three Southwood Community Hospital supply wells are located about 4,000 feet
from the landf ill Site ifl an upstream direction. They are pumped at a rate of 35 to
62 gallons per minute. Groundwater flow under non-pumping conditions is expected to
be from the landfill, westward to the Stop River and thus, not toward the hospital
wells. It is unlikel ,, given the wells’ low pumping rates, that groundwater levels would
be sufficiently affected beyond the immediate area of the wells to cause movement of
groundv ater from the landfill to the wells.
The degree of potential contamination to the MCI water supply is dependent upon the
leachate pollutant concentration from the landfill (C 1 ), the leachate flow from the
landfill (Q 1 ), background pollutant concentration (CBI, background groundv ater flow
and tf 1e total prison well-field pumping rate Making the very conservative
assumption that all the leachate goes to the well, these factors can be combined as
follows to estimate the worst-case concentration at the well (Cu,):
+C Q
w
Background pollutant concentrations (CR) were calculated by averaging detected
pollutant concentrations or one-half of the detection limit of an undetected pollutant,
for MWRA sampling stations located along the path which the groundwater would flow
.as it traveled from the landfill footprint to the prison wells. Leachate flow from the
landfill leak (Q 1 ) was calculated using the average anticipated water requirements for
landfill operation of 875 gallons per day, assuming all of the water is applied to the
landfill (MWRA, RMFP, Landfill, 1, 1988), and an annual average rainfall of 40 inches
per year over the area of one landfill cell. Annual average operating flows and rainfall
were used since it would take at least 30 years for groundwater to travel from the
landfill footprint to the prison wells (the method used for calculating travel time from
the landfill to the well-field is presented below). Thus, the effects of peak operating
flows or rainfall events would be moderated over this long period of time and would not
result in peak concentrations measured at the wells. It was assumed that only one cell
.of the landfill would leak at a time since the cell would be capped with an impermeable
-material once it was filled. Provided the site is well maintained by MWRA after
-closure of the landfill, little or no rainwater would be expected to infiltrate a capped
celI. There are five cells proposed for the 50-acre Walpole MCI landfill footprint.
Thus, for the purpose of this analysis, it was assumed that the surface area of each cell
would be approximately 10 acres.
The well-field pumping rate is the expected pumping rate of 615 gallons per minute for
the four Norfolk-MCI prison wells (515 gpm for the three operating wells and an
estimated 100 gpm for the proposed well). Background groundwater flow is the
5-53
-------
difference between the well-field pumping rate and leachate flow. Although leachate
concentrations are only available for digested primary sludge and combustion ash, the
method used to determine impacts of leachate pollutants on the four MC! water supply
wells s conservative since it assumes that all of the leachate flow would travel to the
wells and that none would be lost to evaporation, the Stop River, or the leachate
collection system.
Table 5.5-1 presents predicted pollutant concentrations at the prison wells for the
scenarios of 50 percent, 10 percent and 1 percent leachate leakage in one cell of the
landfill. For a 50 percent leakage rate occurring in each active landf ill cell over the
landfill’s 25-year lifetime, cadmium, chromium, lead, and mercury are predicted to be
at the limit of the Massachusetts Groundwater Standards and the EPA/Massachusetts
MCLs for drinking water. Background concentrations of chromium and lead in the
groundwater already exceed Massachusetts Groundwater Standards and
EPA/Massachusetts MCLs. Continuous leaks of 10 percent and 1 percent of the landfill
leachate over the landfill’s lifetime are not predicted to significantly elevate pollutant
concentrations at the wells above the applicable standards or existing background
levels.
The occurrence of an undetected and thus, unrepaired, leak in the proposed Walpole
MCI landfill liner system would be highly unlikely. However, even if the landfill liner
system did leak, at least 50 percent of the leachate from one cell would have to reach
the Norfolk-MCI prison wells before any additional applicable water criteria could be
exceeded at the wells, and there would be sufficient time for such a leak to be detected
and for corrective action to be taken. If less than 50 percent of the leachate from one
cell leaked, then no additional water quality criteria would be exceeded, except for
those which are already exceeded by existing background concentrations. Therefore,
impacts on groundwater around the Walpole-MCI site would not be significant in the
unlikely event that the landfill leaked and was not detected.
In order to determine hov much time would be available to mitigate a landfill leak at
Walpole MCI, the length of time it takes groundwater to travel from the landfill to the
prison wells was calculated. The time required for groundwater to travel from one
location to another is dependent upon the groundwater velocity (V), which is a function
of the soils hydraulic conductivity (K), porosity (n), slope of the groundwater table
(dh/dx), and distance traveled (L). Velocity of the groundwater can be calculated using
the equation:
v - K dh
- n dx
Travel time is then calculated by dividing the distance traveled (L) by the groundwater
velocity (V). For this analysis, groundwater elevations measured at MWRA sampling
stations 13 and 2 (224.8 feet and 143.6 feet, respectively) and the distance between
these two stations (approximately 4,270 feet) were used. A value of 0.25 was used in
the equation for soil porosity. Hydraulic conductivity was conservatively assumed to
equal five feet/day based on estimated hydraulic conductivity for the area (MWRA,
RMFP, DEIR, 2, A, 1989). Travel time of groundwater from the top of the proposed
5-54
-------
TABLE 5. 5 -I. WALPOLE MCI PREDICTED POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER AT NORFOLK-MCI
WATER SUPPLY WELLS DUE TO A LANDFILL LEAK
Metal
Highest
Leachate
Concentration
Background
Concentration
Mass.
Groundwater
Standard and
Mass/EPA MCLs
Predict
ed Concentration
at Wells
50% Leakage
In One Cell
10% Leakage
In One Cell
1% Leakage
In One Cell
Arsenic
87(a)
15.2
50
17
16
I)
Barium
3,900(b)
--
1,000
69
17
5.2
Cadmium
310(a)
4.6
10
0’
6.0
5.0
Chroiiiuuni
1 120(a)
414’
50
422’
416’
415’
Lead
1,300(b)
j49*
50
172*
155’
151’
Mercury
60(a)
I
2
2.1*
1.3
1.1
Selenium
46(a)
3.55
10
4.4
3.8
3.6
Silver
30(b)
2.6
50
3.1
•
2.7
2.6
Notes: All units in ugil
* Concentration exceeds or is at the limit of applicable water quality standard or criterion
Duration of increased concentrations at wells equals duration of leak
(a) Source: MDC, 1983
(b) Source: MWRA, ISPD, VII, 1989
-------
landfill (Station 13) to the well-field (Station 2) was calculated to be approximately
30 years. This does not account for the retardation of contaminant migration due to
adsorption which would cause pollutant travel time to be much longer than 30 years.
Thus, from this analysis, it can be determined that it would take many years for the
landfill leachate to travel to the four MCI wells.
5.5.2.3 Surface Water. Similar to the analysis done for groundwater, potential surface
water pollutant concentrations in the Stop River (CSR) resulting from a leak in the
Walpole MCI landfill liner system were predicted for this Draft SEIS using the equation:
CLQL+ CBQB
SR SR
This equation assumes that all of the landfill leachate discharges into the Stop River.
This is obviously conservative, as some of the leachate would be drawn elsewhere.
(Note that all of the leachate was assumed to be drawn by the MCI wells in the previous
assessment.) The values of leachate concentration (C 1 ) and leachate flow (Q 1 ) used in
the groundwater impact analysis were also used here. Metals were not detected during
sampling in the river (MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, 2, 1989), so background pollutant
concentrations in the Stop River (CB) were estimated as one-half the analytical
detection limit. Average f 1ev. in the Stop River was calculated as approximately
14.6 cubic feet per second (cfs) at the ‘3.’ inter Street bridge (Section 4.4). Background
groundwater flow equals the difference between flow in the Stop River and
leachate flov..
Assuming one half detection limits, existing background pollutant concentrations of
cadmium, lead, mercury, selenium, and silver in the Stop River may already exceed
applicable water quality standards or criteria (Table 5.5-2) and therefore could exceed
applicable criteria in the river at the Winter Street bridge under any leachate leakage
scenario. Under the leakage scenarios of 50, 10, and 1 percent of the leachate from one
landfill cell entering the Stop River, no additional exceedances or violations of
applicable water quality criteria or standards are predicted. Thus, even in the unlikely
event that the Walpole landfill would leak, the water quality of the Stop River would
not be expected to be significantly changed from existing conditions.
To control surface water runoff, the landfill plans should include design and operation
features such as drainage structures, holding ponds, surface slope and slope length
specifications, and appropriate cover material types and thicknesses, vegetations,
compaction methods and soil layerings. If not properly managed, surface water
entering the Walpole MCI landfill could result in leachate generation or contaminated
surface drainage. Therefore, there would be some potential for surface water to be
contaminated by runoff from the landfill. To prevent this, surface water from the
active portion of the landfill should be collected by a drainage system and returned with
the leachate to the sewer system. Surface water runoff upgradient of the landfill
should be diverted around the entire landfill area (active and capped cells) to minimize
the potential for contamination. In addition, the redirection of surface water runoff
would help maintain the flow to the wetlands in the vicinity of the landfill footprint.
5-56
-------
TARLE 5.5-2. WALPOLE MCI PREDICTED POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN STOP RIVER DUE TO A LANDFILL LEAK
Metals
Highest
Leachate
Concentra-
tion, CL
Assumed
ackgrcuind
Concentration
in Stop River
Impoundment CB e,
Proposed
Mass Fresh
Surface Water
Standards
EPA
Fresh
Acute(f)
Criteria
EPA
Iresh
Chror
Criteria
EPA Fish
Consumption
Criteria
Predicted Concentration at
Winter Street l3ridge
1%
50% Leakage 10% Leakage
Leakage
In One Cell In One Cell In One Cell
Arsenic
87(a)
5’
50
850(c)
‘ .8( r)
0.0175
6.5’ 5.0’ 5.0’
Cadmium
310(a)
1.5*
1
0.50(d)
0.27(d)
6.7* 1.6* .5’
Chromium
420(a)
1.5
II
387(d)
46(d)
3,433,000
8.5 1.7 1.6
Lead
1,300(b)
2.5’
I
7.9(d)
0.31(d)
-
31 * 3.0’ 2.7’
Mercury
60(a)
0.1’
0.012
2.’.
0.0l2
0.1 1 .6
1.1’ 0.12’ 0.11’
Selenium
46(a)
5
--
260
35
-
5.8 5.0 5.0
Silver
30(b)
3’
0.12
0.17(d)
0.12
-
3.5’ 3.0’ 3.0*
Notes: All units in ugh
Concentration exceeds or is at limit of applicable water quality criteria
Duration of increased concentrations in river equals duration of leak
(a) Source: MDC, 1983
(b) Source: MWRA, ISPD, VII, 1989
(c) “Lowest observed effect level” for pentavalent arsenic
(d) Assuming hardness 16 mg/I (measured by MWRA in surface water at Site 5)
(e) l ackground concentration was assucmd to be equal to one-half of the detection limit
(f) Source: U.S. EPA, 1986
-------
In the event of a landfill leak, adverse impacts to surface water and groundwater
resources could be mitigated by early detection of leakage and by developing a
contingency response and cleanup plan. Detection of landfill liner leaks could be
identified by comparing the volume of water which is applied to the landf ill to the
volume of leachate which enters the collection system. In addition, an extensive
monitoring program of pollutants present in the adjacent groundwater would allow leak
detection. With an emergency-response plan established prior to the landfill’s operation
and a commitment by MWRA to implement such a plan, any leak which did occur in the
landf ill liner could be quickly repaired, thus minimizing the extent of potential
contamination.
5.5.3 Rowe Quarry
5.5.3.1 Soils. Existing operations at the Rowe Quarry have resulted in the removal of
all of the site’s naturally occurring soils. Topography and soil type of the quarry Site
would therefore be significantly altered during construction and operation of the
proposed landfill. Over the 25-year lifetime of the landfill, the quarry would be filled,
gradually eliminating the existing cavity.
Contamination of soils due to leakage of leachate through the landfill liner is not
probable since the only soils which exist on the site are above the quarry’s steep v alls.
Leachate which might seep through a breach in the landfill liner system would be more
likely to travel in a downward direction to the bedrock. Thus, no significant impact on
soil quality is expected due to construction and operation of a landfill at this site.
5.5.3.2 Groundwater. Although a breach in the Rowe Quarry landfill liner would be
unlikely, the impacts of groundwater contamination from a landfill leak were examined
for this Draft SEIS. To predict the impacts of landfill leachate on groundwater quality,
predicted groundwater pollutant concentrations (Ccw) were calculated using the
equation:
CBQB + CLQL
CGW:
Maximum available leachate concentrations, C 1 , (measured for digested primary sludge
and combustion ash) (MDC, 1983 and MWRA, l PD, VII, 1989) and average groundwater
pollutant concentrations, CB (MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, 2, 1989), were input to this
equation. Background groundwater flow (QR ) was estimated by assuming that
25 percent of the average annual rainfall or4O inches per year which falls within the
quarry’s 530-acre drainage area becomes groundwater. Leachate flow (Q 1 ) was
estimated to equal the 40 inches of rain per year which would fall into the largest
landfill cell (Cell V) plus the expected average landfill operating flow of 875 gallons per
day. Using the area of Cell V (the landfill’s largest cell) provides a conservative
estimate of leachate flow which might seep through the landfill liner and into the
Rumney Marshes at any time during landfill operation. Concentrations of lead and
mercury are predicted to violate Massachusetts groundwater standards if 50 percent of
the leachate from Cell ‘ leaks (Table 5.5-3). No violations are predicted for scenarios
of 10 and I percent leachate leaks.
5-58
-------
TAflLE 5.5-3. ROWE QUARRY PREDICTED POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION IN GROUNDWATER DUE TO A LANDFILL LEAK
Metal
I lighest
Leachate
Concentration
Background
Concentration
C
Proposed
Mass
Groundwater
Standard
Concentration
in Groundwater
50% Leak
10% Leak
1% Leak
Arsenic
87(a)
2.8
50
7.2
3.9
3.1
Barium
3,900(b)
--
1,000
200
49
13
Cadmium
310(a)
3.0
10
19
6.9
4.0
Chromium
420(a)
7.2
50
29
12
8.6
Lead
1,300(b)
t2.l
50
79’
28
16
Mercury
60(a)
0.1
2
3.2’
0.86
0.30
Selenium
46(a)
3.1
10
5.3
3.6
3.2
Silver
30(b)
6.0
50
7.2
6.3
6.1
Notes: All units in ug/l
‘ Concentration exceeds or is at limit of Mass Groundwater Standard
Duration of increased concentration in groundwater equals duration of leak
(a) Source: MDC, 1983
(b) Source: MWRA, ISPD, VII, 1989
(c) Average measured concentration (one-half detection limit used [ or nondetected concentrations) based on leak in
Cell V
-------
Although a 50-percent leachate leak in the Rowe Quarry landfill liner system could
cause violations of lead and mercury standards in the underlying groundwater, it is not
likely that such a leak would occur. Even with some contamination, impacts would not
be significant because groundwater is not withdrawn from the site for municipal use.
Since DEQE currently requires a minimum four foot separation between a landfill and
the underlying groundwater and has proposed a five foot separation, the water table
elevations measured at Rowe Quarry (ranging from just above, to six feet below the
quarry floor) are of concern. Mathematical modeling was conducted to predict
groundwater elevations at the landfill and to determine the effectiveness which a
passive rock drainage system or an installed fill layer would have for providing the
required separation. Results of the modeling indicate a passive drainage system would
likely provide the required separation between landfill and groundwater. A more
detailed analysis of the separation layer would be required during landfill design to
determine whether fill would be required and how much the landfill’s capacity would
decrease by adding such fill (MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, 2, A, 1989).
5.5.3.3 Surface Water. If a landfill cell leaked during the cell’s active lifetime,
leachate could seep into the underlying groundwater which ultimately drains to the
adjacent Rumney Marshes, an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) as
designated by the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program. If the leachate
reached the marshes, it would be diluted by water from the remainder of the marsh
drainage area. Using this dilution, pollutant concentrations were predicted for the
small stream flowing into the ACEC and for the ACEC itself. Pollutant concentrations
in the surface vbater can be predicted using the equation;
c CL+CBQB
Highest available leachate concentrations (CL) were measured during toxicity testing of
MWRA digested primary sludge and combustion ash (MWRA, ISPD, VII, 1989 and
MDC, 1983). The leachate flow (Q 1 ) was calculated based on an average daily
operating water demand of 875 galrons per day for the landfill plus an annual average
rainfall of 40 inches per year over the area of Cell V, the largest cell in the proposed
landfill. Since data on background metals concentrations in the ACEC are not
available, it was conservatively assumed that background pollutant concentrations (CB)
in the ACEC are equal to measured or assumed background pollutant concentrations in
the groundwater. Background flow was calculated for two drainage areas
(Figure 5.5-1), one area draining to a small stream which flows into the nearby ACEC
and the other draining to the northeast portion of the ACEC. Since there is a mixture
of impermeable material (such as pavement) and open land in these drainage areas, it
was assumed that 50 percent of the average annual rainfall (40 inches per year) which
falls into the drainage area would ultimately reach the ACEC.
Comparison of background pollutant concentrations in the groundwater to applicable
Massachusetts DEQE and EPA surface water quality criteria (Table 5.5-4) indicates that
concentrations of arsenic, lead, mercury and silver may already exceed one or more
standards or criteria. Use of these high groundwater pollutant concentrations is
5-60
-------
-.
- - -
• I - —‘
--
1 -
T ,P
- r -- • •
_‘L
G END
ACEC Drainage Area
— — Smal! Tributary Drainage Area
1000 0
I I
SCALE IN METERS
0 2003
2000
i oo:
SCALE IN FEET
FIGURE 53-1. DRAINAGE AREAS TO RUMNEY MARSHES AND iTS TRIBUTARY
I
S :
-M7 —
1
- -
Rumne
MarsheE
-
-------
TABLE 5.3-4. ROWE QUARRY PREDICTED POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE WATER DUE TO A LANDFILL LEAK
Highest
Leachate
Metals Concentration
Background
Concentrati 9
in Groundwater d)
Proposed
Mass Marine
Surface Water
Standards
EPA
Marine
Acute(
Criteria e)
EPA
Marine
Chroni
Criteria e
EPA Fish
Consump u n
Criteria e
Concentration in Stream
Concentration in ACEC
50% Leak
10% Leak
1% Leak
50% Leak
10% Leak
1% Leak
Arsenic 87(a)
2.8’
35
2319(c)
13(c)
0.0t75
4.6’
3.2’
2.9’
3.1’
2.9’
2.8’
Cadmium 310(a)
3.0
5
43
9.3
--
9.5’
4.5’
3.4
3.9
3.2
3.1
Chromium 420(a)
7.2
--
10,300
--
3,433,000
16
9.3
7.7’
8.5
7.5
7.3
Lead 1,300(b)
Mercury 60(a)
12.1*
0.1’
5
0.025
140
2.1
5.6
0.025
--
0.146
40’
1.4’
19’
0.40’
14’
018’
16’
0.28’
13’
0.14’
2’
0.1 I’
Selenium 46(a)
3.1
—
410
54
--
4.0’
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.1
3.1
Silver 30(b)
6.0’
0.05
2.3
--
--
6.5’
6.1’
6.0’
6.1’
6.0’
6.0’
Notes: All units in ugh
* Concentration exceeds or is at limit of applicable water quality criteria.
Duration of increased concentrations in ACEC equals duration of leak
(a) Source: MDC, 1983
(b) Source: MWRA, ISPD, VII, 1989
(c) “Lowest observed effect level” for pentavalent arsenic
(d) Average measured concentration (one-half detection limit used for nondetected concentrations) based on leak in Cell V
(e) Source: U.S. EPA, 1986
-------
conservative since the data are considered “qualitative” (Section 4.4) and may not
represent actual concentrations of pollutants in the nearby surface water. Some
cadmium and selenium criteria could also be exceeded if the landfill leaked. The
significance of this impact is difficult to assess because background surface water
pollutant concentrations are not well defined, Impacts on aquatic life due to the
pollutant concentrations predicted for the ACEC in this Draft SEIS are presented in
Section 5.8.
Adverse impacts to surface water and groundwater due to a leak in the Rov e Quarry
landfill liner could be mitigated using the same measures described for the Walpole
landfill in Section 5.5.2.3 of this Draft SEIS.
5.5.4 Stoughton
5.5.4.1 Soils. The construction of processing facilities at the Stoughton site would not
be expected to have a significant effect on the physical characteristics of the soil.
Disturbance of these soils during construction could result in short-term effects,
however, sampling has shown that some soils onsite may already be contaminated
(MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, 1, 1989). If significant contamination is found, it would have to
be remediated before construction. In addition, physical changes to site topograph) and
soil layers would occur during construction. Large areas would be excavated for
foundation construction and site preparation, however these would be short-term
impacts.
Pollutants which are deposited on the soil as a result of incineration, heat drying or
composting (See Section 5.4) and are not washed into other portions of the drainage
area by surface runoff are likely to remain on the surface soil or be transported down
through the soil matrix to the subsurface soil. Elevated surface and subsurface soil
pollutant concentrations resulting from deposition of processing emissions would not
significantly alter existing pollutant concentrations in soil.
5.5.4.2 Groundwater. Since only a small amount of deposited pollutants would move
through the soil matrix from the surface soil to the subsurface soil, groundwater quality
in the vicinity of the Stoughton processing site would not be significantly affected by
pollutant deposition. A more critical concern is deposition of pollutants into surface
water, which is discussed below.
5.5.4.3 Surface Water. Impacts from deposition of pollutants emitted from sludge
processing facilities in Stoughton on the Brockton Reservoir and Glen Echo Pond were
assessed for the maximum processing scenario of composting, heat drying and
incineration. To conduct a conservative deposition analysis for this Draft SEIS, the
2020 maximum month assumptions that 160 dry tons of sludge would be heat dried and
incinerated and that 70 dry tons of sludge would be composted each day v.ere used.
Stack height for all three processes was assumed to be 150 feet.
Dry weather pollutant deposition was estimated at regularly spaced receptors
throughout the two drainage areas by multiplying pollutant concentrations at these
receptors (as predicted by the air quality model ISCST described in Section 5.4) by a
deposition velocity based on particle size. A conservative deposition velocity of
1.3 cm/sec was assumed based on Sehmel’s methodology (Sehmel, 1984). The total
5-63
-------
annual dry deposition to a watershed was then calculated by integrating over all of the
receptors in the watershed (a more detailed description of air quality modeling
conducted for this Draft SEIS in presented in Section 5.4).
Total pollutant loading to either Brocktori Reservoir or Glen Echo Pond was estimated
by adding all of the material predicted to be deposited directly into the water body plus
a certain fraction of the material which is predicted to be deposited in the remainder oi
the drainage area and would be washed into the waterbody by surface runoff. For
typical residential areas with combined wooded and paved areas, approximately
50 percent of precipitation becomes runoff (McCuen, 1982). Therefore, it was
conservatively assumed that up to 50 percent of pollutants deposited within the water
body’s drainage area would be transported to the water body by surface water runoff.
Pollutants entering the water body by deposition and runoff were assumed to
accumulate for the water body’s entire hydraulic retention time (90 days for Brockton
Reservoir and 210 days for Glen Echo Pond). By assuming that all pollutants would
remain in the water column, sedimentation or resuspension of deposited pollutants were
not included in this analysis. For both Brockton Reservoir and Glen Echo Pond, two
cases were examined for Stoughton’s maximum processing scenario: 1) direct deposition
into the water body and no pollutant transport from other portions of the drainage area
and 2) direct deposition into the v ater body plus 50 percent pollutant transport via
runoff within the drainage area to the water body. Pollutants for which this analysis
was conducted are presented in Table 5.5-5.
Although fishing is not permitted in the Brockton Reservoir, it has been reported that
fishing does occur. Thus, EPA’s human health criteria for both fish consumption only
and for fish and water ingestion were compared to the predicted pollutant
concentrations for Brockton Reservoir. Predicted water quality was also compared to
EPA criteria for protection of aquatic life and to drinking water and surface water
criteria. Tables 5.5-6 and 5.5-7 show the results of this analysis for those compounds
which are predicted to exceed one or more criteria at Brockton Reservoir and Glen
Echo Pond, respectively. Since there are no recent water quality data for the Brockton
Reservoir or Glen Echo Pond, the predicted concentrations do not include background
concentrations of pollutants, if any, which may already exist in the water bodies.
Therefore, pollutant concentrations in the water bodies could be higher than predicted.
Based on the results of the pollutant deposition analyses (Table 5.5-6), up to eight
pollutants are predicted to exceed or violate water quality criteria or standards in the
Brockton Reservoir under the worst-case scenario of 50 percent transport of pollutants
deposited into the drainage area to the reservoir. Up to six pollutants are predicted to
exceed various water quality criteria or standards in Glen Echo Pond (Table 5.5-7),
under the same worst-case scenario.
Impacts of pollutant deposition into Brockton Reservoir and Glen Echo Pond from
maximum-scenario sludge processing at the Stoughton site could be adverse and
significant since a number of water quality standards and criteria are predicted to be
exceeded over the lifetime of the project. During periods of wet weather, such impacts
5-64
-------
TABLE 5.5-5. POLLUTANTS FOR WHICH WATER QUALITY APACTS
DUE TO EMISSION DEPOSITION WERE PREDICTED ‘
Acrylonitrile Hexachloroethane
Aidrin Lead
Arsenic Mercury
Benzene Naphthalene
Beryllium Nickel
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Pentachiorophenol
Cadmium Phenol
Carbon Tetrachloride PCBs
Chloroform Selenium
Chlorobenzene 2378-TCDD Dioxin
Chlorodane 1,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
• Chromium (HEX) Tetrachloroethene
Chromium (TRI) Trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene
Copper 1,1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Dieldrin 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
l,2-Dichlorobenzene Toluene
- l,4-Dichlorobenzene Toxaphene
I ,2-Dichloroethane 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Ethy lbenzene Trichloroethylene
Heptachlor Vinyl Chloride
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Zinc
* Impacts predicted for Stoughton, Quincy FRSA, Spectacle Island and Deer
Island
5-65
-------
TABLE 5.5-6. STOUGHTON PREDICTED POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN BROCKTON RESERVOIR
DUE TO MAXIMUM PROCESSING SCENARIO
Concentratio
nlCriterion Ratio
MA Prop.
Drinking
EPA Human
Predicted
Surface
Water
EPA
EPA Human
Health (Fish &
Concentration
Compound (ugh)
Water
Standard
EPA &
MCL
MA
Aquatic Life
(Chronic)
Health (Fish
Consumption)
Water Consump-
tion)
Acrylonitrile
Pond Surface 0.036
Drainage Area 0.38 - - 6.5
Aidrin
Pond Surface 0.0026 1.3 1.4 33 35 -
Drainage Area 0.027 13 14 340 360
Arsenic
Pond Surface 0.00047 -
Drainage Area 0.0048 - 2.2
Chlorodane
Pond Surface 0.0011 - - 2.3 2.4
Drainage Area 0.013 3.2 2.9 26 27
Due Idr in
Pond Surface 0.0023 1.2 1.2 31 33
Drainage Area 0.024 12 13 320 340
Heptachlor
Pond Surface 0.00004 I - -
Drainage Area 0.00043 1.5 1.5
I
Mercury
Pond Surface 0.025 2.1 2.1 - 18
Drainage Area 0.26 22 22 1.8 180
Toxaphene
Pond Surface 0.00061 - 3.1 - -
Drainage Area 0.0064 1.3 32 8.7 9.0
Notes: Blank indicates no applicable criterion exists
“-“ indicates ratio is less than one (concentration is less than criterion)
*No EPA acute aquatic life criteria are predicted to be exceeded
Based on highest predicted sludge concentration of 13 mg/kg
-------
TABLE 5.5-7. STOUGI-ITON PREDICTED POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN
GLEN ECHO POND DUE TO MAXIMUM PROCESSING SCENARIO
Concentration/Criterion Ratio
MA Prop.
EPA
EPA Human
Predicted
Concentration
Surface
Water
Aquatic
Life
Health
(Fish
Compound
(ugh)
Standard
(Chronic)
Consumption)
Aidriri
Pond Surface
0.0045
2.3
2.4
57
Drainage Area
0.023
11
12
287
Chiorodane
Pond Surface
0.0019
-
-
4.0
Drainage Area
0.0097
2.4
2.3
20
Dieldrin
Pond Surface
0.001 1
2.0
2.2
54
Drainage Area
0.021
10
11
270
Heptachlor
Pond Surface
0.000072
-
-
-
Drainage Area
0.00036
-
-
1.2
Mercury *
Pond Surface
0.044
3.7
3.7
-
:
Drainage Area
0.22
19
19
1.5
Toxaphene
Pond Surface
0.00 1 1
-
5.4
1.5
Drainage Area
0.0054
1.1
27
7.4
Notes: * Based on highest predicted sludge concentration ol 13 mg/kg
Blank indicates no applicable criterion exists
“-“ Indicates ratio is less than one (concentration is less than criterion)
No EPA acute aquatic life criteria are predicted to be exceeded
would be worse due to the rain’s scavenging effect on atmospheric pollutants. Such
impacts could limit fishing and other recreation in Glen Echo Pond as well as use of
Brockton Reservoir as a drinking water supply. Elimination of incineration at Stoughton
• would eliminate all the predicted water quality violations or exceedances in Brockton
Reservoir and Glen Echo Pond, between 99 and 99.9 percent of the input for the
compounds that exceed criteria is from incineration. Implications of predicted
pollutant concentrations on aquatic life are presented in Section 5.8 of this Draft SEIS.
5-67
-------
Effects of pollutant deposition on the Brockton Reservoir and Glen Echo Pond could be
reduced if the stack heights for the three processing facilities were increased from 150
feet to 213 feet since the dispersion, or dilution, of pollutants increases with stack
height. However, since some of the predicted pollutant concentrations are orders of
magnitude higher than applicable water quality standards, using a 213-foot stack would
not be sufficient to reduce all predicted pollutant concentrations below applicable
criteria.
5.5.5 Quincy FRSA
5.5.5.1 Soils. Physical changes to topography and soil layers would be expected during
construction of composting and heat drying facilities at the Quincy FRSA. Large areas
on-site would be excavated for the foundations of both facilities. Site preparation
could involve demolition of existing structures which would result in the removal of
floors and adjacent pavement, thus exposing surface soils to the environment.
Transport of soils due to Construction procedures or natural occurrences (such as rain or
wind) could result in increased dust or sediment deposition to the Weymouth Fore
River. Following construction, the topography of the Quincy FRSA would be similar to
the existing topography. In addition, new structures and pavement would provide a cap
over the site’s soils preventing them from being transported to other areas. Thus,
impacts on the physical characteristics of the soil would be expected to be short-term
and precautionary measures conducted during construction could control these potential
impacts.
Concentrations of emitted pollutants from the composting and heat drying facilities are
predicted to be low relative to applicable standards, therefore associated soil deposition
is also expected to be low. These low levels of pollutants deposited onto the surface
soils in the Quincy area would be expected to either remain on the surface soil, be
transported via runoff to a surface water body such as the Weymouth Fore River or be
transported to the underlying groundwater. Impacts on subsurface soils due to pollutant
deposition would not be significant.
5.5.5.2 Groundwater. Since only a small amount of the pollutants which could be
deposited from the MWRA processing facilities to the surface soils are expected to be
transported to the subsurface environment (because of the large amounts of pavement
in the area), impacts on groundwater would not be expected to significantly impact
groundwater quality.
5.5.5.3 Surface Water. As described above, there would be potential for some sediment
deposition to the Weymouth Fore River during construction of the proposed processing
facilities at the Quincy FRSA. With proper sediment control techniques, however,
these short-term impacts could be minimized or prevented.
The Weymouth Fore River and the Boston Harbor drainage area would be expected to
receive some of the pollutants deposited as a result of air emissions from composting
and heat drying facilities at the Quincy FRSA site. To assess impacts of pollutant
deposition from the MWRA processing facilities on the Weymouth Fore River/Boston
Harbor (WFR/BH) s stem, steady-state pollutant concentrations in WFR/BH due to
MWRA sludge processing emissions were estimated (pollutants for which surface water
concentration predictions were made are identical to those presented for Stoughton in
5-68
-------
Table 5.5-5). Emission predictions were conservatively based on full capacity use of the
240 dry ton per day (dtpd) heat dryer and the 90-dtpd compost facility. The approach
used to estimate the steady-state pollutant concentrations provides only a first-level
approximation of impacts to the WFR/Bl-l system, by comparing relative differences
between surface water pollutant concentrations due to emission deposition to applicable
water quality standards and criteria. This method is not as detailed an estimate of
deposition as was presented for Stoughton (Section 5.5.4.3) since there are no drinking
water supplies which could potentially be threatened by pollutant deposition in the
vicinity of the Quincy FRSA.
Steady-state pollutant concentrations in the WFR/BH system were calculated by
dividing total pollutant deposition during one tidal period (12.4 hours) by the tidal
exchange volume in which it would be diluted. The volume of dilution water was
assumed to be that volume of water contained in the WFR/Bl-l system within a
90 degree wedge-shaped area with a 3.5 kilometer radius emanating northward from the
site. The v ater surface elevation change during one tidal cycle is 2.7 meters
(U.S. EPA, DSEIS, II, A, 1988). Average pollutant loading was estimated by summing
estimated pollutant loading from both the composting and heat drying facilities and
conservatively assuming that a maximum of 2.5 percent of this total would be deposited
in the WFR/BI-I system. Comparison of pollutant deposition in the Brockton Reservoir
drainage area to pollutant emissions predicted for Stoughton indicates that between 0.1
and 0.2 percent of the emitted pollutants would be deposited in the 7.1 square kilometer
drainage area. Since the areas of Boston Harbor and the WFR/BH system are larger
than 7.1 square kilometers, a value of 2.5 percent was selected to conservatively
estimate pollutant deposition due to processing at either Quincy FRSA, Spectacle Island
or Deer Island. Background concentrations of pollutants in the WFR/B}-I system were
not considered in this analysis.
Predicted concentrations of deposited pollutants were compared to
Massachusetts surface water quality standards and EPA water quality criteria. Results
-of this analysis indicate that all deposited pollutant concentrations in the WFR/BH
system would likely be 1 to 10 orders of magnitude lower than the most stringent
applicable water quality standards or criteria. Therefore, impacts due to deposition of
pollutants to the WFR/BH system would not be expected to sigl)ificantly alter the
quality or use of the surface water system.
5.5.6 Spectacle Island
5.5.6.1 Soils. Construction of the heat drying, incineration, and composting facilities
on Spectacle Island could result in short-term disruption of the soils on the island’s
southern drumlin. Construction activities such as excavation and truck traffic could
cause soils to be more easily transported by wind or rain and could generate dust. Soil
control practices used during construction would help to alleviate these impacts.
Soil quality on Spectacle Island would not be expected to be significantly altered with
the addition of sludge processing facilities. Pollutants which would be deposited onto
the soil as a result of air emissions from the facilities would either remain on the
surface soil, be washed in Boston Harbor via surface wate runoff, or be transported
into the underlying groundwater.
5-69
-------
5.5.6.2 Groundwater. No water supply wells exist or are expected to be developed on
Spectacle Island due to the groundwater’s existing poor groundwater quality and the
possibility of salt-water intrusion to the water supply. Only a small amount of the
pollutants deposited by emissions from the sludge processing facilities on the island
would be likely to move through the soil matrix to the subsurface soil and the island’s
aquifer. Thus, impacts of sludge processing at Spectacle Island to the underlying
groundwater are not predicted to be significant.
5.5.6.3 Surface Water. During construction of sludge-processing facilities on Spectacle
Island, there could be some soil transported by wind or rain from the island to Boston
Harbor. Impacts on Boston Harbor due to soil transport and deposition could be
mitigated with proper soil control practices. Construction of a pipeline from Deer
Island to Spectacle Island (for transport of liquid sludge and utilities) could cause more
significant impacts to Boston Harbor water quality, as described below.
The proposed pipeline route from Deer Island to Spectacle Island is west from Deer
Island to Governors Island flats and then south-southeast to the west side of Spectacle
Island. Water depths are shallow along this pipeline route, typically indicative of high
pollutant deposition areas in Boston 1-larbor. Pipeline excavation would be expected to
resuspend harbor sediments and their associated pollutants. As a result, impacts to the
harbor waters and aquatic life could be significant during pipeline construction,
however these impacts would only be for the duration of the construction period.
Sediments excavated during pipeline construction would likely be classified by
Massachusetts DEQE as either Category 2 or 3 (moderate to high contamination), based
on chemical characteristics, and as Type B or C, based on physical characteristics
(Section 4.4.6.3). Land or in-harbor disposal (with bulkheading) would normally be
approvable for this type of sediment. Ocean disposal at low energy, silty sites may also
be approvable, provided bioassay testing indicated that no significant impact would
occur due to disposal.
Operation of the heat dryer, incinerator, and compost facilities on Spectacle Island
would result in deposition of emitted pollutants to Boston Harbor. To obtain a first-
level approximation of resulting pollutant concentrations in Boston Harbor due to sludge
processing on Spectacle Island, an approach similar to that used for the Quincy FRSA
(Section 5.5.5.3) was used. Pollutants which were considered in this analysis are listed
in Table 5.5-5. For this analysis, it was assumed that the area of deposition was an
entire 5 kilometer (km) radius circle. The radius of 5 km is somewhat larger than the
3.5 km used for the Quincy FRSA since greater pollutant dispersion is predicted in the
vicinity of Spectacle Island (see Section 5.4). All pollutant concentrations resulting
from sludge processing on Spectacle Island were predicted to be between one and ten
orders of magnitude lower than the most stringent applicable water quality standards or
criteria. Thus, adverse impacts of sludge processing on Spectacle Island would not be
expected to be significant with respect to the harbor’s overall quality or use. It should
be noted that implementation of the long-term residuals management activities at this
and the other sites would result in a beneficial effect on the water quality of Boston
Harbor because of the elimination of the current sludge discharges.
5-70
-------
5.5.7 Deer Island
5.5.7.1 Soils. Short-term changes to the topography and soils on Deer Island would be
expected during the construction of the digestion, thickeni.ig, transfer and potential
heat drying and incineration facilities. On-site surface soil could be disturbed during
construction, allowing dust and soils to be transported to Boston Harbor via wind or
surface water runoff. These impacts could be significantly reduced with the use of
precautionary measures during construction. Following the construction period, no
impacts on the soil’s physical characteristics would occur.
Sludge processing on Deer Island could result in some deposition of pollutants on the
surface soil. The accumulation of deposited pollutants would not be expected to
significantly affect surface soil quality, however, because some of the deposited
pollutants would runoff to Boston Harbor during rain events and some would be
transported into the subsurface environment.
5.5.7.2 Groundwater. No municipal water supply wells exist on Deer Island and it is
unlikely that an wells will be developed due to the underlying aquifer’s poor quality and
low yield, the potential for saltwater intrusion and the availability of MWRA water
supply. In addition, only a small amount of the pollutants which would be deposited
onto Deer Island soils due to sludge processing v ould be washed down through the soil
- matrix. The aquifer underlying Deer Island is not a significant water resource and
impacts on groundwater due to the Deer Island residuals processing activities site are
not predicted to be significant.
5.5.7.3 Surface Water. With heat drying and incineration on Deer Island, Boston Harbor
would be expected to receive most of the pollutants deposited from air emissions, as
.well as some of the pollutants deposited on land which would runoff to the harbor during
rain events.
‘ Applying the same approach used to assess surface water impacts from deposition due
to sludge processing at Quincy FRSA (Section 5.5.5.3) and Spectacle Island
(Section 5.5.6.3), concentrations of deposited pollutants (listed in Table 5.5-5) within a
five-kilometer radius of Deer Island were calculated and compared to applicable
Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards and EPA Water Quality Criteria.
Results of this first-level approximation indicate that all pollutants would be between
one and ten orders of magnitude lower than the most stringent applicable standards or
criteria. Therefore, adverse impacts on water quality in Boston Harbor due to sludge
processing on Deer Island are not expected to be significant with respect to use or
overall quality of the harbor. As discussed above in Section 5.5.6.3, a beneficial effect
on the water quality of the Harbor would result.
5.6 NOISE IMPACTS
5.6.1 Introduction and Methodology
Many of the activities involved in residuals management produce noise emissions.
These include processing activities and materials handling on site, as well as
transportation of materials between sites. In addition there will be short-term noise
emissions during facility construction.
5-71
-------
For each of the above components of residuals management the methodology for
analyzing noise impact was as follows:
1. Identify the activities that produce noise emissions, and to the degree
possible quantify their noise emission characteristics.
2. Identify the sensitive receptors that may be affected by noise emissions
(nearby residences, etc.). Conduct noise monitoring at representative
sensitive receptors to determine the existing noise exposure. This includes
LE as a measure of. intrusive noise exposure, and L 90 as a measure of the
bac’f
-------
TABLE 5.6-1. NOISE LEVELS IDENTIFIED AS REQUISITE TO PROTECT
PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE WITH AN ADEQUATE MARGIN OF SAFETY
Outdoor Noise Receptor Category Noise Level
Outdoors in residential areas arid farms
and other outdoor areas where people
spend widely varying amounts of time LDN = 55 dBA
and other places in which quiet is a
basis for use.
Outdoor areas where people spend limited
amounts of time, such as school yards, LEQ (24 hour) 55 dBA
playgrounds, etc.
Source: EPA, Levels Document, 1974
‘
TABLE 5.6-2. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HOURLY L Q NOISE EMISSIONS
EQUIVALENT TO LDN = 55 dBX
Hours of Fac lit Operation Hourly LEQ* (dBA)
24 Hour 49
7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 57
7 a.m. to 6 p.m. 58
‘Note: Analysis assumes hourly LEQ emission the same for each hour of operation.
* For LDN=SS dBA
• TABLE 5.6-3. AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL (L 0 ) FOR DEQE REQUIREMENT
COMPARABLE TO NOISE EMISS1 NS AT LnM=55dBA
UNDER DIFFERENT FACILITY OPERATING S C1-IEDULES
Hours of Hourly LF Ambient (L 9 )
Facility Operation for LDN 53 BA for DEQE Equivalence
24 Hour 49 cIBA 39 dBA
7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 57 dBA 47 dBA
7 a.m.m to 6 p.m. 58 dBA 48 dBA
Source: — - --
DEQE, 1988, 310 CMR 7.10
DEQE, Form, 1988
Analysis assumes hourly LEQ emission the same for each hour of
operation
Note:
5-73
-------
According to noise monitoring data at the Walpole MCI site, the existing daytime
ambient noise level is L 90 = 43 cIBA. Therefore, according to the DEQE criterion, the
maximum permissible noise emission would be LF(- = 53 dBA. According to Table 5.6-2,
the EPA criterion of L N 55 dBA is equivalenf b a noise emission of LF(- =SS dBA
since the landfill wouldonly operate during daylight hours. Thus, the EPA biterion is
five dBA less restrictive than the DEQE criterion for this site.
According to the noise monitoring data at the Quincy FRSA, the existing night-time
ambient noise level near this site is L 90 44 dBA. Therefore, according to the DEQE
criterion, the maximum permissible noise emission would be LE( = 54 dBA. Using
Table 5.6-2, the LE( equivalent of the EPA criterion of LDr.,J = Y5 dBA is LEQ 49 dBA
since the processin 9acility could operate 24 hours a day. Thus, for this case, the EPA
criterion is five dBA more restrictive than the DEQE criterion.
Based on these two examples, the DEQE and EPA criteria are potentially quite
different. In a relatively noisy urban area, like Quincy, the EPA criterion may be more
restrictive. But in a semirural setting, such as Walpole, the DEQE criterion will be
more restrictive. Thus, to cover different situations, both criteria are considered in
identifying potential noise impacts.
In addition to these “broad-band” noise level criteria, DEQE defines a “pure-tone
condition” in terms of the octave-band analysis of the noise emission, and prohibits such
a condition. Insufficient noise emission data are available to permit a meaningful
analysis in terms of octave bands in the SEIS. Another approach, which is appropriate
for EIS analysis, is to appl a penalty to pure-tone noise emissions, customarily five
dBA. Thus, the permissible noise emissions for a pure-tone source would be five dBA
quieter than for a broad-band source. This is the approach used for the SEES. Many
noise sources are likely to produce pure tones, including fans, pumps, conveyors, and
truck and equipment safety signals.
5.6.2.2 Impact Criteria. Noise emissions at or above the criterion levels identified as a
noise sensitive land use by EPA (Tables 5.6-1 and 5.6-2), or above the DEQE criterion
(site-specific) are considered a significant adverse noise impact. Any pure-tone noise
emission is penalized by five dBA.
In addition, a threshold of onset of noise impact is established at 5 dBA quieter than the
significant impact criterion as defined above for both broad-band and pure tone noise
emissions. The onset threshold is an indication of when a noise effect would be
noticeable, without reaching a level of significant impact. In any situation where site
noise emissions are projected to exceed the onset threshold, then mitigation measures
should be incorporated, if feasible, to quiet the noise emission below the onset
threshold. The foregoing noise impact criteria are summarized in Table 5.6-4.
5-74
-------
TABLE 5.6-.1#. RECOMMENDED SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
CRITERIA FOR SITE NOISE EMISSIONS
Type of Noise Emission
Significant Impact Criteria
A.
Broad-Band Noise Emission
LDN) 55 dBA(a)
(Emission) LEQ > (Ambient) L 90 + 10 dBA(b)
B.
Pure-Tone Noise Emissiori
Same as for broad-band noise, except that the
calculated LDN emission levels for pur - tone
sources are penalized by adding 5 dBA. /
(a) based on U’A, Levels Document, 1974
(b) Based on DEQE, Form, 1988
5.6.3 Walpole MCI
5.6.3.1 Noise Activities and Receptors. The primary noise sources at Walpole MCI
would be from various pieces of earthmoving equipment: trucks, loaders, bulldozers.
compactors, etc. These sources would range over the entire site during various phases
of the 25-year planning period. During any particular phase the equipment would be
concentrated in one area. In addition, haul trucks would access the site off Route lÀ
and proceed over temporary roads within the site to the active landfill area. It is
assumed that all activity by trucks and earthmoving equipment would occur during
daylight hours only (7 a.m. to 6 p.m.).
Table 5.6-5 shows typical noise emission levels for the categories of earthmoving
equipment that would be used at the landfill. All of these are expressed as noise levels
•(dBA) at 50 feet from the equipment. At distances greater than 50 feet the noise level
would be progressively quieter. Two noise levels are presented corresponding to the
equipment operating at full power and also at idling or low power.
TABLE 5.6-5. TYPICAL NOISE EMISSION LEVELS
FOR EARTHMOVING EQUIPMENT
(Noise levels in dBA at 50 feet from the equipment)
Equipment Category
Idling/Low Power (dBA)
Full Power (dBA)
Compacter
7275
Front Loader
7285
Backhoe
7293
Scraper/Grader
8093
Truck
8393
Source: EPA, Construction, 1971
5-75
-------
Earthmoving equipment and haul trucks are equipped with safety backup signals that
emit an intermittent pure tone which is designed to be noticed. While actual sound
pressure level data are not available, common experience indicates that the perceived
loudness of these signals exceeds that of the earthmoving equipment itself. In the
absence of quantitative data it is estimated that the sound pressure level of the backup
signal (dBA) is equal to that of the earthmoving equipment at full power. Thus the dBA
levels in Table 5.6-5 apply either to the equipment or to the signal. However, in
accordance with the noise impact criteria set forth in Table 5.6-4, the signal noise
levels are penalized by adding five dBA to the operating noise level due to their pure
tone character.
Figure 4.5-2 shows sensitive receptor locations that were selected for noise monitoring
by MWRA. It is evident that locations 1, 2, and 5 are the ones most likely to be
affected by noise from operations on-site. Fig. 4.5-2 also shows an additional location,
designated “2A”. This is intended to represent areas of residential property located
immediately adjacent to the landfill site. Location 2A will receive higher levels of
noise from landfill activity than location 2 due to the closer proximity. Also, the
existing ambient noise levels at location 2A will be quieter than at location 2 due to the
greater distance from roads. Thus location 2A will be more sensitive to noise than
location 2.
5.6.3.2 Site-Specific criteria. Analysis of noise monitoring data in Section 4.5.3,
ambient noise levels at Walpole generally range from 38 to 49 dBA. Averaging these
samples suggests that the daytime background ambient noise level in this area is
L90 43 dBA. According to the DEQE criteria, the permissible emission to 53 dB ,
which is less than the EPA criterion (LEQ 58 dBA) shown in Table 5.6-2. Thus, the
DEQE criterion is more restrictive.
The critical noise impact criteria for this site, as calculated shown in Table 5.6-4 are
LEQ> 53 dBA for significant impact and LEQ: 48 dBA for the onset threshold.
5.6.3.3 Noise Projections and Impacts. Based on projected operation (Section 3.2.6) and
transportation traffic (Section 5.3) at the site, projections of noise levels can be made.
The assumed equipment scenario in Table 5.6-6 has been used as a basis for calculating
predicted noise emissions reaching the community. Table 5.6-7 summarizes the results
of these calculations. The backup signal (a pure tone) has been accounted for by
assuming it operates 10 percent of the time, and is shown in Table 5.6-7 as the Pure
Tone Adjusted LF -I. The tone adjusted emission level is lower than that predicted for
hourly broad-ban ’ missions because the latter assumes operation at full power
50 percent of the time, while the pure tone backup signal is only assumed to operate
10 percent of the time. The noise emission predictions have been calculated for the
five noise monitoring/receptor locations; and for Location 2A, the closest residential
property (Table 5.6-7).
5-76
-------
TABLE 5.6-6. EQUIPMENT SCENARIO FOR LANDFILL OPERATIONS
Equipment Category Quantity Noise Emissions at 50 Feet*
Depositing & Spreading
Residuals Haul Truck 1 90 dBA (LEQ)
Loader 1 82
.
Grader 1 90
Covering
Loader 1 82 dBA (LEQ)
Truck 1 90
Grader 1 90
Compacter 1 74
Combined Total Noise Emissions 97 dBA (LEQ) at 50 feet
Notes: * In all cases the equipment is assumed to operate with a duty cycle
50 percent. Thus, the LE is computed from Table 5.6-5, assuming
50 percent of the time at 1ull power and 50 percent at idle speed.
TABLE 5.6-7. WALPOLE MCI WORST-CASE NOISE EMISSIONS
Over
Dist. To Broad- Pure Tone Excess
Edge of Banc AdJ t?d Over , Significance
Landfill LEQ LEQ Threshold c Level
•
Receptor Location (ft) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA)
1—Prison , \
(MCI Walpole) d 200 62 60 14 9
17
2-Resid.-Winter St. 400 70 68 22
2A-Resid. P.L. 200 77 75 29
3-Norfolk Prison 1900 45 43 0 --
4-Norfolk Prison 2500 35 33 -- --
10
5-Resid.-Drone St. 700 63 61 15
Notes:
(a) The hourly LFQ noise level calculations are based on the equipment scenario
shown in TabTe 5.6-6, and assuming the different pieces of equipment are
deployed over an area 400 feet in diameter, just inside the edge of the nearest
active landfill area/phase. The acoustical analysis assumes spherical spreading
from distributed point sources with excess attenuation of 1 dBA per 100 feet of
propagation distance to allow for ground effect and vegetation.
(b) The tone-adjusted LFC) corresponds to the safety backup signal, assuming a
signal duty cycle of TO percent (as compared to 50 percent for the equipment).
(c) The threshold of onset of noise impact is 48 dBA. The analysis indicates that
the critical noise is the broad band noise from the equipment, due to the low
duty cycle assumed for the safety signals. However, the safety signals will
probably be the most audible sounds during periods when they are activated.
(d) For the MCI Walpole prison receptor, an attenuation of 15 dBA is applied, due
to the masonry v.all surrounding the prison.
5-77
-------
The projections in Table 5.6-7 indicate that the noise emissions could exceed the impact
criterion by a significant margin for four of the receptor locations. At receptor
locations 3 and 4, however, the analysis indicates that the noise emissions would not
result in any adverse noise impact.
At the four closest receptor locations, the predicted noise emissions are loud enough to
be considered a severe adverse noise impact. It should be emphasized, however, that
the calculations are for a worst-case condition, when the landfill operations are at the
closest portion of the closest portion of the closest phase/area. These worst case
conditions will not last throughout the 25-year planning period. However, each
phase/area will be active for about five years and the worst-case scenario analyzed in
Table 5.6-7 will certainly occur for many weeks or months at a time for each receptor.
Some possible noise mitigation measures that should be explored include the following:
1. Plan and execute the landfill so that operations occur to the maximum extent
possible in a depression surrounded by berms configured to act as noise barriers
protecting the community.
2. Because the backup signals may be the most noticeable source of noise when they
are activated, the landfill could be designed and operated to minimize the need
for sounding backup safety signals. This would include the selection of methods
and equipment to minimize the need for backing up. The feasibility of eliminating
the signals by managing personnel to exclude pedestrians from the active
operations area could also be explored.
Because the equipment used for construction of the landfill would be similar to that
used during operation (e.g., graders, loaders, etc.), the noise impacts during the
construction period would be comparable to those described above.
Assessment of noise impacts from truck traffic was based on the percent increase of
residuals trucks over the present conditions (Section 5.3.4). An increase of greater than
50 percent in volume of trucks over present conditions at the intersections of Route 1
and Winter Street and Winter Street and Summer Street was assumed to cause
significant noise impacts. However, this would only be for the worst-case scenario.
During normal operation (grit and screening only), no noise impact would be anticipated.
5.6.4 Rowe Quarry
5.6.4.1 Noise Activities and Receptors. The primary noise sources at this site will be
various pieces of earthmoving equipment: trucks, loaders, bulldozers, compactors,
etc. These sources will range over the entire site during various phases of the 25-year
planning period. During any particular phase the equipment will be concentrated in one
area. In addition haul trucks will access the site off Salem Street, and proceed over
temporary roads within the site to the active landfill area. It is assumed that all
activity by trucks and earthmoving equipment will occur during daylight hours only
(7 a.m. to 6 p.m.).
MWRA identified four monitoring locations for noise sampling (Figure 4.5-3). Locations
1, 2, and 4 are in residential areas. Location 3 is in a commercial development.
5-78
-------
Noise generation activities at Rowe Quarry are expected to be the same as at Walpole
MCI (Section 5.6.3.1).
5.6.4.2 Site-Specific Criteria. As described in Table 4.5-5 ambient noise levels a
‘Rowe Quarry come from transportation and quarry activities. The L90 noise ieve s
range from 49 dBA in residential areas to 67 dBA along a commercial strip
development. Referring to Table 5.6-3, for facility operation 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., if the
• ambient L 9 exceeds 48 dBA then the DEQE noise criterion is less stringent than EPA’s
= 55 dBA. Therefore LDM = 55 is the operative criterion for this site. From Table
5.6-), this is equivalent to an hourly LE(_., 58 dBA. This is the tentative criterion for
significant noise impact near Rowe Qua’ r)i and the onset threshold in 53 dBA.
5.6.4.3 Noise Projections and Impacts. Based on projected operation (Section 3.3.6) and
transportation (Section 5.3) at the site, projections of noise levels can be quantified.
The assumed equipment scenario has been used as a basis for calculating predicted noise
emissions reaching the community (Table 5.6-6). Using the same methods as for the
Walpole site (Section 5.6.3.3), the noise emission predictions have been calculated for
the five noise monitoring/receptor locations (Table 5.6-8).
The projections in Table 5.6-8 indicate that the noise emissions could exceed the impact
• criterion by a significant margin for all the receptor locations.
At the four receptor locations, the predicted noise emissions are loud enough to be
considered a significant noise impact, but especially at the closest two: locations 2
and 4. Again, it should be emphasized, however, that the calculations are for a “worst
case” condition, when the landfill operations are at the closest portion of the closest
landfill operation. These worst case conditions would not last throughout the 25-year
planning period. However, each phase/area will be active for about five years and the
worst-case scenario analyzed in Table 5.6-8 v. ill certainly occur for many weeks or
months at a time for each receptor. Potential mitigation measures for the Rowe
Quarry site would be similar to those described for the Walpole MCI site (5.6.3.3).
Because the equipment used for construction of the landfill would be similar to that
used during operation (e.g., graders, loaders, etc.), the noise impacts during the
construction period would be comparable to those described above.
Noise impact from truck transportation was based on the percent increase of residual
trucks over present conditions (Section 5.3.5). The worst-case scenario (short-term
emergency, heat dryer breakdown, grit and screening and cover material) would
increase the truck traffic 45 percent. Since the access route is presently heavily
traveled by truck this would not cause a significant noise impact. During normal
operation (grit and screening and cover only), rio noise impact would be anticipated.
5-79
-------
TABLE 5.6-8. ROWE QUARRY “WORST CASE” NOISE EMISSIONS
Receptor Location
Dist. To
Edge of
Landfill
(ft)
Broad-
Ban4
LEQ’
(dBA)
Pure Tone
Adju,st ed
LEQ b)
(dBA)
Excess
Over
Threshold
(dBA)
Excess Over
Significance
Level
(dBA)
1-Residential
-Salem St.
400
70
68
17
12
2-Residential
-Genoa St.
200
77
75
24
19
3-Corn merc ia I
Development
500
68
66
15
10
4-Residences
Border of Site
100
83
81
30
25
Notes:
a. The hourly LF(_ noise level calculations are based on the equipment scenario
shown in TabTh<5.6-6, and assuming the different pieces of equipment are deployed
over an area 400 feet in diameter, just inside the edge of the active landfill
area/phase. The acoustical analysis assumes spherical spreading from distributed
point sources with excess attenuation of 1 dBA per 100 feet of propagation
distance to alloy, for ground effect and vegetation.
b. The tone-adjusted LE(_1 corresponds to the safety backup signal, assuming a signal
duty cycle of 10 percê t (as compared to 50 percent for the equipment).
c. The threshold of onset of noise impact is 53 dBA. The analysis indicates that the
critical noise is the broad band noise from the equipment power plants, due to the
low duty cycle assumed for the safety signals. However, the safety signals will
probably be the most audible sounds during periods when they are activated.
5.6.5 Stoughton
5.6.5.1 Noise Activities and Receptors. The Stoughton site is a candidate for
composting, heat drying and incineration and all could operate continuously 24 hours per
day. The quiet nighttime period will be the most sensitive to noise from these
continuous operations. Noise sources within the processing facilities would include
different types of mechanical equipment, such as pumps, compressors, fans and
blowers. Figure 4.5.4 indicates the six MWRA noise monitoring locations, which are
used as the noise sensitive receptors in this analysis.
During the daytime period (7 a.m. to 6 p.m.) there would be additional materials
handling activity. Trucks loaded with residuals or amendment (wood chips) would arrive
and be unloaded. Trucks loaded with compost and heat dried pellets would depart the
site. Also, under the incineration option, trucks loaded with ash would depart the site.
In addition to the trucks there could be mobile loaders on site, moving materials in or
out of storage, or assisting with loading or unloading of trucks.
5-80
-------
5.6.5.2 Site Specific Noise Criteria. The noise impact criteria depend in part on the
existing ambient noise levels, which were determined during MWRA’s noise
monitoring. Since the potential processing operations would occur continuously, the
noise monitoring was conducted during the daytime and nighttime periods.
The results of MWRA’s noise monitoring are summarized in Table 4.5-8. Three noise
samples were taken at each location: two in the daytime and one at night The lowest
measured daytime L90 levels range from 47-55 dBA (average = 50 dBA) and the six
nighttime L 90 levels range from 38 to 43 dBA (average = 42 dBA).
For daytime activity (exterior materials handling), the EPA LDN 55 dBA (LF(- . 58)
criterion is more stringent than DEQE’s ambient based criterion (LF(-..i 60 d A ’). For
continuous process noise (24-hour), the EPA LDN = 55 dBA (LEn = dBA) criterion is
again more stringent than the ambient based criterion. The on et thresholds are
therefore 53 dBA and 44 cIBA for daytime and nighttime activity. The significant
impact criteria are LEQ = 58 dBA (daytime) and LEQ= 49 dBA (nighttime),
respectively.
5.6.5.3 Exterior Materials Handling Operations Noise. The noise emissions from
exterior handling operations can be estimated at the processing facilities
(Table 5.6-9). The estimates assume three each front end loaders and haul trucks
(MWRA, RMFP, Options, 1, 1989) and equal time split between idling and full pov er.
Table 5.6-10 summarizes the predicted noise emissions reaching the community based
on the assumed equipment noise scenario shown in Table 5.6-9. The noise emission
predictions have been calculated for the three closest noise monitoring/receptor
locations. The backup signal (a pure tone) has been accounted for by assuming it
operates 10 percent of the time, and is shown in Table 5.6-7 as the Pure Tone Adjusted
LE(-I. The tone adjusted emission level perceived at a receptor is lower than that
preThcted for hourly broad-based emissions because the latter assumes operation at full
• power 50 percent of the time, while the pure tone backup signal is assumed to operate
only 10 percent of the time.
The projections in Table 5.6-10 show that the noise emissions could exceed the criteria
by a significant margin at each of the three receptor locations. These significant
impacts could be mitigated by the measures listed below, however for these measures
to be effective they must be incorporated during the design phase of the project.
1. Handle all sludge and products via enclosed conveyor belts and unload sludge and
compost using pusher trailer trucks in an enclosed area.
2. Locate the exterior materials handling areas as far as possible from sensitive
receptors in the community. Provide for shielding by use of noise barriers, such
as facility buildings, or specially designed noise barrier walls or berms.
3. Design and operate the facility to minimize the need for sounding backup safety
signals. This could include the selection of methods and equipment to minimize
the need for backing up. Also explore the feasibility of eliminating the signals by
managing personnel to exclude pedestrians from the active operations area.
5-81
-------
TABLE 5.6-9. TYPICAL NOISE EMISSION SCENARIO FOR
EXTERIOR MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT
(Noise levels in CIBA at 50 feet from the equipment)
Equipment Idling/Low Full Number Predicted Noise*
Category Power (dBA) Power (dBA) of Trucks Emission (LEQ)
Front Loader 72 85 3 87
Truck 83 93 3 95
Combined Total Noise 96
Source: EPA, Construction, 1971
Notes: * In all cases the equipment is assumed to operate with a duty cycle of
50 percent. Thus, the LE is computed assuming 50 percent of the time at
full power and 50 percent t idle speed.
TABLE 5.6-10. STOUGHTON NOISE EMISSIONS FROM STOIJGHTON
EXTERIOR MATERIALS HANDLING OPERATIONS
Dist. To Broad- Pure Tone Excess Excess Over
Edge of Banc Adiu 0 trd Over Significance
Landfill LEQ a, LEQ Threshold C Level
Receptor Location (ft) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA)
I - Commerc./Resid. 500 67 65 14 9
(Turnpike/& Pleasant)
3 - Future Resid. 500 67 65 14 9
(Old Page & Maple)
4 - Indust./Resid. 500 67 65 14 9
(Old Page St.)
Notes:
a. The hourly LFQ noise level calculations are based on the equipment scenario
shown in TabTe 5.6-9, and assuming the different pieces of equipment are
deployed just inside the edge of the nearest active area. The acoustical
analysis assumes spherical spreading from distributed point sources with excess
attenuation of I dBA per 100 feet of propagation distance to allow for ground
effect and vegetation
b. The tone-adjusted LF corresponds to the safety backup signal, assuming a
signal duty cycle of TOpercent (as compared to 50 percent for the equipment
power plant)
c. The threshold of onset of noise impact is 53 dBA. The analysis indicates that
the critical noise is the broad band noise from the equipment, due to the low
duty cycle assumed for the safety signals. However, the safety signals will
probably be the most audible sounds during periods when they are activated
i-S2
-------
Assessment of noise impacts from truck traffic was based on the percent increase of
residuals trucks over present conditions. The worst-case scenario (all sludge to
- Stoughton for heat drying and composting, no incineration) would increase the
proportions of trucks in the traffic stream by 42 percent. Therefore, this should not
cause a noise impact at the Page Street and Turnpike Street intersection. The increase
in truck traffic at the Turnpike Street and Pleasant Street intersection would be
93 percent. This would cause a significant noise impact. No noise impact is expected
for all other scenarios, which generate less truck traffic.
5.6.5.4 Continuous Process Noise. Composting, heat drying and incineration facilities
will include a variety of mechanical noise sources including: pumps, centrifuges,
blowers, fans, cyclones, compressors, mixers, conveyors, etc. All of the process
equipment will be inside a building that is sealed for odor control purposes. However,
there will of necessity be openings in the building for materials handling purposes, and
also for ventilation and combustion air. The top of the stack is also a significant noise
path, especially for the induced draft fan.
The noise generation and facility insulation characteristics are not well enough defined
at this stage to estimate noise emissions. In any event the noise can be substantially
controlled by containing the equipment inside a building. Of particular importance is
that there should be no major exterior equipment, such as cooling towers or air-cooled
heat exchangers, which do not lend themselves readily to noise control. In order to
avoid any adverse noise impact, all continuous process facilities should be designed so
that their noise emissions do not exceed the onset threshold criterion of LEQ 44 dBA
at any residence or other noise sensitive receptor. In evaluating any pure tone noise
emission, its level should be penalized by five dBA.
5.6.5.5 Construction Noise. The noise emitted during construction of the processing
facilities would be comparable to that generated by exterior materials handling
equipment because the typical noise emitted from construction equipment would be in
the same noise level range. However, if any blasting were required, this would be a
source of significant noise emissions, but would only occur over a short period of time.
5.6.6 Quincy FRSA
5.6.6.1 Noise Activities and Receptors. The Quincy FRSA site is a candidate for heat
drying and composting of residuals. These two areas are over 1,000 feet apart, and so
should be considered separately in analyzing their potential noise effects.
Four noise sensitive receptors are shown in Figure 4.5-5. Location 1 is in a
commercial/residential area near the composting area. Location 2 is representative of
receptors along Howard Street, the main access road. Location 3 is in a
commercial/residential area that is closest to the heat drying area. Location 4 is
.across the river from the heat drying and barge docking area (MWRA, ISPD, 1, 1989).
The heat drying and composting processes would operate continuously 24 hours per
day. The quiet nighttime period would be the most sensitive to noise from these
continuous operations. Noise sources within the processing facilities would include
different types of mechanical equipment, such as pumps, compressors, fans and blowers.
5-83
-------
Liquid sludge from Deer Island would arrive by tanker barge a maximum of 11 times a
week. The sludge would be pumped out of the barge into storage tanks using barge
mounted cargo pumps driven by electric motors (MWRA, RMFP, Options, III, 1989).
Barge arrivals and unloading could occur at any time of the day or night.
During the daytime period (7 a.m. to 6 p.m.), there would be additional materials
handling activity. In the heat drying area, trucks would arrive to be loaded with dried
product, and then depart. In the composting area, trucks loaded with amendment (wood
chips) would arrive and be unloaded. Trucks loaded with compost would be loaded and
depart the site. In addition to the trucks, there could be mobile loaders on site moving
materials in or out of storage or assisting with loading or unloading of trucks.
5.6.6.2 Site Specific Noise Criteria. The noise impact criteria for this site are based
on the MWRA noise monitoring data summarized in Table 4.5-10. The daytime levels in
Table 4.5-10 range from 44 to 52 dBA and the nighttime L90 levels range from 41 to
47 dBA. The average L 90 levels in the environs of the site are 48 dBA (daytime) and
44 dBA (nighttime).
For daytime activity (exterior materials handling), the DEQE ambient-based and the
EPA LDN = 55 dBA criteria are identical for a significance level of LF(-.i = 58 dBA. For
continuous process noise (24-hour), the EPA LDN = 55 dBA (LEa = 49 A) criterion is
more stringent than the ambient-based criteria. The daytime áhd 24-hour onset
thresholds are LEQ 53 dBA and LEQ = 44, for daytime and nighttime, respective1 ,.
5.6.6.3 Exterior Materials Handling Operations Noise. The major sources of noise at
the barge off-loading area would be the pumps on the barges and the tugboat engines.
The barge pumps will be electrical, thus there will not be any engine noise associated
with the pumping operations. The pumps will be enclosed and below deck but the
electric motor will be on deck. The pump could operate day or night thus the
LDN = 55 dBA criterion would apply. The noise level emitted by barge pumping is
estimated at 33 dBA (MWRA, ISPD, II, 1989) which is less than the significance
criterion of LE( 49 dBA and thus no significant noise impact is expected from sludge
pumping. Theséc estimates are based on no reverberation noise from the barges and
design of the system would have to assure this occurred for the predictions to be
accurate. Tugboat operation will generally be during daytime and the area already
accommodates significant tugboat traffic. Consequently, no significant noise impacts
are expected from tugboat operation.
Other exterior noise generation would be similar to that described for Stoughtori
(Table 5.6-9). Based on these projections, Table 5.6-11 summarizes the results of
calculating predicted noise emissions reaching the community. These predictions
indicate that the noise emissions could exceed the onset threshold at the receptor
location just south of the composting area. At the other three receptors, only a effect
is projected.
Assessment of noise impacts from truck traffic was based on the percent increase of
residuals trucks over present conditions. The worst-case scenario would increase truck
traffic by 30 to 50 percent (Section 5.3.7). This is considered of moderate significance
and would only occur for a few days or weeks at a time. Therefore, noise impacts
would not be considered significant.
5-84
-------
TABLE 5.6-11. QUINCY FRSA NOISE EMISSIONS FROM
EXTERIOR MATERIALS HANDLING OPERATIONS
(Heat Drying or Composting)
Excess
Dist. to
Broad
Over
Edge of
Band
Tone-
Excess
Signif-
Active
Area
Hourly
LEQ’
Adjust cj
LEQ ’
over
Threshold
icance
Level
Receptor Location (ft)
(dBA)
(dBA)
(dBA)
(dBA)
1 - Commerc./Resid. 150 78 76 25 20
(Columbia Ice.)
2 - Commerc./Resid. 1000 57 55 4
(E. Howard St.)
3 - Commerc./Resid. 1000 57 55 4
(Nash Ave.)
4 - Indust./Resid. 1600 47 45
(Monatiquot St.)
Notes: (a) The hourly LE(_i noise level calculations are based on the equipment
scenario shov r in Table 5.6-9, and assuming the different pieces of
equipment are deployed just inside the edge of the nearest active area.
The acoustical analysis assumes spherical spreading from distributed point
sources with excess attenuation of 1 dBA per 100 feet of propagation
distance to allow for ground effect and vegetation
(b) The tone-adjusted LF(-. corresponds to the safety backup signal, assuming
a signal duty cycle oflO percent (as compared to 50 percent for the
equipment)
(c) The threshold of onset of noise impact is 53 dBA. The analysis indicates
that the critical noise is the broad band noise from the equipment power
plants, due to the low duty cycle assumed for the safety signals.
However, the safety signals will probably be the most audible sounds
during periods when they are activated
5.6.6.4 Continuous Process Noise. The description of process noise is the same as for
Stoughton as presented in Section 5.6.5.4. In this case, the noise emissions should not
exceed the onset threshold of LEQ = 44 dBA at any noise sensitive receptor.
5.6.6.5 Construction Noise Impacts. The noise emitted during construction of the
processing facilities would be comparable to that generated by exterior materials
handling equipment because the typical noise emitted from construction equipment
would be in the same noise level range. If necessary, pile driving would be a significant
source of noise emissions, but would only occur over a short period and could be
scheduled so as not to occur during sensitive periods (i.e., nighttime and weekends).
5-85
-------
5.6.7 Spectacle Island
5.6.7.1 Noise Activities and Receptors. The Spectacle Island site is a candidate for
composting, heat drying and incineration. The residuals processes will operate
continuously 24 hours per day. The quiet nighttime period will be the most sensitive to
noise from continuous operations. Noise sources within the processing facilities would
include different types of mechanical equipment, such as pumps, compressors, fans and
blowers.
MWRA noise monitoring locations for Spectacle Island are shown on Figure 4.5-6.
Location I is located on the southern top of Long Island. Location 2 is on the eastern
point of Thompson Island.
Liquid sludge from Deer Island would arrive by pipeline or by tanker barge a maximum
of 11 times a week. The sludge would be pumped out of the barge into storage tanks,
using barge mounted cargo pumps driven by electric motors (MWRA, RMFP, Options,
III, 1989). Barge arrivals and unloading could occur at any time of the day or night.
During the daytime period (7a.m. to 6 p.m.), there would be additional materials
handling activity. Trucks loaded with residuals or amendment (wood chips) would arrive
by barge and be unloaded. Trucks loaded with compost and heat dried pellets would be
loaded onto barges and depart the site. Also, under the incineration option, trucks v. Lth
ash would be loaded onto barges and depart the site. In addition to the trucks there
would be mobile loaders on site moving materials in or out of storage or assisting with
loading or unloading of trucks.
5.6.7.2 Site-Specific Noise Criteria. The results of MWRA’s noise monitoring data are
summarized in Section 4.5, Table 4.5-12. Daytime L90 noise levels are 44 to 47 dBA
(average 45 dBA) and the nighttime noise level is 37 dBA.
For daytime activities at the site, the daytime ambient-based criterion of LEn =
dBA is more stringent than the EPA L 1 - = 55 dBA (LEn = 58 dBA) criterion. 1or
continuous processing (24-hours), the DEQE nighttime a’fribient criterion of
LE( 47 dBA would again be more stringent than the LDN = 55 dBA (LF(-) 49 dBA)
crii’ rion. The daytime and nighttime onset thresholds are 50 dBA and 4TdBA,
respectively.
5.6.7.3 Exterior Materials Handling Operations Noise. The description of noise from
handling operations and possible mitigation measures is the same as for Quincy FRSA
(Section 5.6.6.3). The projections in Table 5.6-12 indicates that the predicted noise
emissions would not exceed the onset threshold criterion.
5.6.7.4 Continuous Process Noise. The description of continuous process noise from the
potential residuals processes is the same as for Stoughton as presented in
Section 5.6.5.4. In this case, the noise emissions should not exceed the onset threshold
of 42 dBA at any noise sensitive receptor.
5-86
-------
TABLE 5.6-12. SPECTACLE ISLAND NOISE EMISSIONS
FROM EXTERIOR MATERIALS HANDLING OPERATIONS
Receptor
Distance
to
Broad
Tone
Excess
- Location
Edge
Area
of Active
(ft)
Band
LEQ
(dBA)(a)
Adjusted
LEQ
(dBA)
Over
Threshold
(dBA)
1 - Long Island
4000
,
37
35
-
2 - Thompson Island
3000
45
42
-
Notes:
(a) The LE( . noise level calculations are based on the equipment scenario
shown i Table 6.7-10, and assuming the different pieces of equipment are
deployed just inside the edge of the nearest active area. The acoustical
analysis assumes spherical spreading from distributed point sources with
excess attenuation of 1 dBA per 200 feet of propagation distance to allow
for air absorption
(b) The tone-adjusted corresponds to the safety backup signal, assuming a
signal duty cycle of percent (as compared to 50 percent for the
equipment)
(c) The threshold of onset of noise impact is 50 dBA. The analysis indicates
that the critical noise is the broad band noise from the equipment, due to
the low duty cycle assumed for the safety signals. However, the safety
signals will probably be the most audible sounds during periods when they
are activated
5.6.7.5 Construction Noise Impacts. The noise emitted from construction of the
processing facilities would be comparable to that generated by exterior materials
handling equipment because the typical noise emitted from construction equipment
would be in the same noise level range. However, if pile driving was necessary, it v ould
be a significant source of noise emissions, but would only occur over a short period of
time and during the daytime.
5.6.8 Deer Island
The residuals processing facility would be located at the extreme south end of the
peninsula. The center of the residuals processing facility would be approximately
2,500 feet south of the center of the secondary treatment plant (i.e., 2,500 feet farther
away from the nearest residential area in Point Shirley). Therefore, the residuals
-processing facility will be approximately 5,000 feet from the nearest residence in Point
Shirley.
Considering the greater distance to the residuals processing facility as compared to the
primary and secondary treatment plants, noise from residuals processing would be even
more attenuated. In fact, for the relative distances cited above, the residuals
5-87
-------
processing activity noise would be attenuated 31 dBA more than the noise from the
secondary treatment plant (this analysis assumes a combination of spherical spreading
plus excess attenuation at I dBA per 100 feet of propagation distance, to account for
absorption and scattering by vegetation, terrain, and built structures).
It is most unlikely that noise from residuals processing would result in a significant
effect in the residential area of Point Shirley, especially in comparison with noise from
the closer primary and secondary treatment facilities.
5.7 VISUAL IMPACTS
The following section describes the visual changes that would occur at each site if the
maximum potential MWRA residuals facilities for that site were constructed. Visual
impacts considered significantly adverse and requiring mitigation include: facilities
that would be in the forefront of a viewshed and that v ould impair an existing view to a
v aterfront or a scenic area, facilities that would be in the foreground or midground of a
view from a designated scenic viewing area or tourist site, and facilities that would be
different in visible character from all surrounding visible land uses and would represent
an anomaly in the landscape.
5.7.1 Walpole MCI
The Walpole MCI landfill site, which is currently partially open space and partially
wooded, would be excavated in phases during landfill construction. The vegetated cover
within the footprint would be removed, making the site easier to distinguish from the
surrounding land. During operating hours, a viewer would see bulldozers working near
an open cell area and pushing excavated soil, residuals, and cover material into place.
Trucks unloading residuals would also be seen. Over the lifetime of the landf ill, a
mound ranging from 45 to 95 feet above the landfill base elevation (slightly lower than
the nearby Cedar Junction prison walls) would cover the area (MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, II,
1989). Excavated soil, cover material, and boulders would also be piled in mounds
during various stages of operation; however, these would remain lower than the final
landfill mound height.
The primary visual receptors identified for the Walpole MCI site are the residences on
Winter Street, residences on Main Street, residences near Beehive Drive, MCI Cedar
Junction, MCI Norfolk, and the Bay State Correctional Institute. The landfill facilities
would be partially visible from the Main Street and Winter Street residences, especially
during winter months. The 500-foot, on-site woodland buffer would partially screen the
view and mitigate the visual impact (MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, II, 1989). The residences in
the Beehive Drive area may have a view of the site’s access driveway. It is unlikely
that these residents would see bulldozer or dump-truck activity on the site.
As discussed Section 4.4. 1, only prison guards using the training area behind the prison,
guards in the towers at MCI Cedar Junction, and the Norfolk MCI and Bay State
Correctional Institute employees would view the landfill activities. A vegetation buffer
on the northwestern edge of the landfill could be planted to partially screen the views.
Drivers along Winter Street and Main Street may also be able to view portions of the
landfill site; however the vegetation buffer should screen most activities. With the
proposed woodland buffer areas, the landfill activities at the Walpole MCI site would
not create a significant visual impact.
5-88
-------
5.7.2 Rowe Quarry
The landfill would be located inside the existing excavated quarry, and the landfill
would not reach heights greater than the existing quarry w Ils. Trucks arid bulldozers
would be active during operating hours, compacting residuals and cover material into
place. The existing quarrying operations use dump trucks and bulldozers as well as
many other heavy pieces of equipment such as cranes and rock-blasting equipment. The
amount of activity within the quarry would be reduced from existing operations because
the landf ill activities use less equipment than the present quarrying operations. The
residuals activities could appear much the same as existing activities.
The primary visual receptors identified for the Rowe Quarry site are the residences on
Genoa Path and Ricker Street, residences on Blue Hill Drive, the North Shore Assembly
of God Church, residences along Kennedy Drive, and the Town Line Estates Trailer
Park. Although there are several visual receptors with good views into the quarry, the
landfill facilities would not create a significant visual impact because it is not in a
scenic or tourist area and it would be consistent with the already industralized
character of the area. Existing views from the northwestern edge of the quarry could
be buffered by creating a higher banking or planting vegetation along the eastern side
of Route 1. This effort could be coordinated with the DPW during the realignment of
Route 1.
5.7.3 Stoughton
- Processing at the Stoughton site might include heat drying, composting, and
incineration located on the northern portion of the site, closest to Maple and Turnpike
Streets. A small portion of the vegetated area could be cleared; however the majority
of the facilities would be located on previously cleared industrial lands. Facilities at
the site may include a compost storage building, compost reactor building, dewatered
sludge storage area, amendment material storage area, heat-drying building, and
incinerator building. All three processing buildings (heat drying, composting, and
incineration) would have equal height emission stacks of either 150 or 213 feet. The
facilities would be set back from Maple Street beyond the approximately 60-foot-high
power line that traverses the site (MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, I, 1989).
The two primary visual receptors for the Stoughton site are the residences and industry
on Maple Street and the residences on Sunrise Terrace. The Maple Street receptors
could easily view the residuals facilities and could be considered as visually impacted.
However, it is unlikely that a view of the residuals facilities would be any different in
quality than the existing view due to the existing industrial nature of the area.
The three stacks from the facilities would be visible to Sunrise Terrace residents, would
probably be visible off of Route 24, and would possibly be visible to the elevated
receptors for the Stoughton site (Table C.3). The stacks would not be in the viewshed
of drivers along Route 24 for a long enough period of time to create a visual impact.
To de-emphasize the appearance of the stacks against the existing topography, the
stacks might be constructed using materials or colors that would blend more easily into
the surroundings.
5-89
-------
The visual impact at the Stoughton site would be created primarily by the tall emission
stacks that would rise above the tallest existing structure in the area, the power
transmission lines on the site. The impact would not be significant, though, because it
would not lie in a scenic area and would be consistent with the industralized character
of the site. The impact to the Maple Street residents and industry could be mitigated
by cleaning up the existing old equipment and railroad tie storage area and by planting
trees along Maple Street to partially screen the immediate view onto the site.
5.7.4 Quincy FRSA
The Quincy FRSA site alternatiVe might include a composting, heat-drying, dewatering,
and materials transfer and storage area. The composting facility would be located in
the southwestern corner of the site, while the heat-drying and dewatering facility would
be located on the eastern edge of the site.
The primary visual receptors identified for the Quincy FRSA site are the Skyline
Apartments, Presidential Estates townhouses, the Quincy and South Shore Mental
Health Center, and the Clement O’Brien Towers. The Skyline Apartments, Presidential
Estates townhouses, and Quincy and South Shore Mental Health Center are all near the
southwestern corner of the site. These receptors would view the compost storage and
reactor buildings, which would replace the existing empty buildings and inactive storage
equipment areas (MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, I, 1989). The composting facility would have a
213 foot emission stack, adding to the industrial nature of the site. The stack would
also be seen from receptors located at greater distances from the site. The neighboring
Boston Edison Edgar Station has two emission stacks that are taller than the Goliath
crane at the Quincy FRSA site. The stack height proposed for the composting facility
would be lower than the cross-arm of the Goliath crane on site.
The heat-drying facilities would be seen most clearly from the Clement O’Brien
Towers. These facilities would include a barge pier, a dewatering and heat-drying
building with a 213-foot stack, thickened sludge storage tanks, dewatered sludge
storage tanks, and heat-dried pellet storage silos. The heat-drying area would not
significantly change the visual character of the site because of other currently active
industry in close proximity. A person viewing the site from the Clement O’Brien
Apartments would see Edgar Station’s taller emission stacks in the midground of the
viewshed while the MWRA’s shorter stacks would be seen in the background.
The composting facility would present the greatest potential for a visual impact at the
Quincy FRSA site by bringing an active industrial site closer to neighboring residents.
Mitigation measures could include setting the facilities back from East Howard Street
and Quincy Avenue as far as possible and placing the emission stack in the northeast
corner ofthe reactor building, if feasible, during the design. Although the views of the
Weymouth Fore River from the Quincy and South Shore Mental Health Center and the
Presidential Estates townhouses are limited and already distracted by the industrial
nature of the Quincy FRSA site, the stack from the composting facility could also be
sited to avoid blocking existing water views. Therefore visual impacts at this site are
not considered to be significant.
5-90
-------
5.7.5 Spectacle Island
Residuals facilities would be located on the southern portion of the island. The
facilities could include a dewatering area, digested sludge storage tanks, dewatered
sludge storage tanks, heat-drying building, incineration building, heat-dried pellet
storage silos, and a compost storage and reactor building. There could be up to three
150-foot emission stacks as part of these facilities.
The primary visual receptors identified for the Spectacle Island site are Long Island
Hospital, Thompson Island, Squaw Rock Park, and Castle Island. The residuals facility
buildings would be seen from all but Castle Island. Barge activity would be seen from
Thompson Island and Squaw Rock Park, but not from Long Island Hospital, because it
would be on the western side of the island. Buildings and barge facilities might be seen
from Castle Island, but the details would be difficult to distinguish. Because of their
height, the emission stacks on the island could be seen from all receptors.
Users of Squaw Rock Park and visitors on Thompson Island would be the most visually
impacted. Both are recreation areas where people go to view the ocean and enjoy the
open environment. The view from these locations could change significantly because
the activity on Spectacle Island would contrast with the existing, more serene view of
the island and Boston Harbor. Although activity on Spectacle Island could be seen from
Long Island Hospital, the visual impact would not be as great because the viewshed is
wider from this vantage. The open space on the rest of Spectacle Island and the open
waters of Boston Harbor to the north would serve to offset impacts from residuals
activities.
Mitigation for visual impacts to Thompson Island visitors and users of Squaw Rock Park
might be either the use of vegetation buffers on Spectacle Island to screen the
activities as much as possible, or relating the receptor land uses with the activities on
Spectacle Island in an educational manner. Examples of the latter might be to
integrate discussions of the residuals facilities into existing Thompson Island
environmental education curricula or putting a telescope near a plaque or board at
Squaw Rock Park describing Spectacle Island activities.
The emission stacks would have the most visual impact upon those receptors at a
greater distance or upon those partially blocked by land such as Castle Island and Long
Island Hospital. Users of Thompson Island or Squaw Rock Park would be affected by the
proximity of the entire facility.
5.7.6. Deer Island
The residuals facilities that might be located on Deer Island include digestion,
dewatering, heat-drying, incineration, barge loading, sludge storage, and heat-dried
pellet storage facilities. All of the residuals facilities would be on the southern portion
of the island. There would be a maximum of two 150-foot emission stacks associated
with the facilities.
The two primary visual receptors identified for the Deer Island site were the Cottage
Park area of Winthrop and the Long Island Hospital. Tall or dominant features on the
Deer Island landscape from Cottage Park would include a stack from a pump station
5-91
-------
associated with wastewater treatment facilities on the western shore, the MWRA’s new
wastewater treatment plant and a wide red and white tower in Winthrop. The buildings
of the residuals facilities would blend in with the character of the island, and the
emission stacks would not be the only tall dominant features. The view from Long
Island Hospital encompasses the southern end of Deer Island. Because the viewshed
from this receptor is so wide and inclusive, the Deer Island facilities would not obstruct
or impair the views to Boston Harbor or the open ocean, and visual impacts from the
Deer Island site would be minimal.
5.8 AQUATIC AND TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS
5.8.1 Significance Criteria
The significance of impacts to ecological systems is based on both regulations that
protect certain species or specific habitats and projections of changes in ecological
resources. An impact is considered significant if it is likely to 1) cause or substantially
contribute to measurable changes in the function of any important habitat for an
extended period of time; or 2) cause or substantially contribute to measurable changes
in the population of any species of recognized regulatory, commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational importance for an extended period of time. In order to be
judged as significant, the impacts must be project-related and beyond the range of
changes caused by background environmental fluctuations.
Any impact on rare, threatened, endangered, or “special concern” species is considered
significant if it is likely to reduce local population size to the extent that the sustained
vigor of the population or its capability to expand is reduced. Species to which this
criterion applies include those identified by the federal Endangered Species Act and the
state Natural Heritage Program.
Removal or long-term degradation of environmentally sensitive habitat is considered
significant unless it can be demonstrated that the ecological function of the habitat will
not be impaired. Sensitive habitat includes wetlands (as defined by the Massachusetts
Wetlands Protection Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act), areas designated by
the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program, and any undesignated habitats with
characteristics functionally equivalent to those already designated.
The above criteria are established as guidelines for evaluating aquatic and terrestrial
ecosystem impacts in this Draft SEIS. Information on existing conditions or on the
activity producing the impact is not always available to the extent that allows
quantitative comparisons of impacts to the applicable criteria. Consequently, much of
this impact evaluation is based on qualitative comparisons of the impact and the
criteria. The evaluation below addresses the alternative options for each of the
potential residual management sites.
5.8.2 Walpole MCI
5.8.2.1 Displacement and Construction Impacts. The landfill would replace portions of
mixed deciduous forest and an old field that exist along the slopes above the Stop
River. Construction of a landfill would cause impacts to wetlands A and D
(Figure 4.7-2). In conformance with the Wetlands Protection Act, these impacts would
5-92
-------
require a notice of intent (NOl) to be filed with the Walpole Conservation Commission.
A buffer of trees or vegetation is proposed around all perimeters of the landfill. This
buffer would mitigate both noise and erosion impacts to local biota.
Approximately 50 acres would be cleared, half of which are currently forested.
Because of the large areas of similar habitat in the area, loss of forested upland habitat
at the site would not have a significant impact on common plant or wildlife species
(Section 4.7.1 contains a complete descriptions of biota on the site).
No special-interest species have been observed or are known to inhabit the site (MWRA,
RMFP, Screen, I, 1988; Beckett, 1989). However, the surveys conducted for this analysis
were preliminary, and more intensive surveys might be required to ascertain that the
site is not a potential nesting area for certain warbler or raptor species listed for
protection in Massachusetts. The site provides potential habitat for Cooper’s hawks,
sharp-shinned hawks, long-eared owls, golden-winged warblers, and loggerhead shrikes
(DeGraaf and Rudis, 1987). If any of these species are present, development of the
Walpole MCI site v ould degrade critical habitat and displace the site inhabitants. This
impact could be mitigated by the identification and management of suitable habitat off
site.
The landfill footprint would disturb a small portion of wetland D (Figure 4.7-2). This
displacement could be avoided by slight modifications to the footprint design.
MWRA plans for regrading around the western toe of the landfill slope indicate that
work would be done in the 100-foot buffer zone of Wetland A (Figure 4.7-2). In the
absence of mitigation, the steep slopes draining to the proposed catchment pond and
adjacent wetlands could cause wetland impacts due to siltation from erosion and
runoff. These impacts could also degrade the spotted salamander habitat provided by
the upper pond (potential vernal pool). Slight alterations to the footprint design could
minimize impacts to these wetland resources and ensure that the landfill is at least
100 feet from the upper pond. Mitigation measures such as runoff catchments and
erosion control would further reduce the impacts on both wetlands A and D.
Construction of the landfill would also result in loss of the small (600-square-foot)
isolated wet area. This area is too small to fall under the jurisdiction of the Wetlands
Protection Act, and its loss would not be significant.
Noise levels exceeding 60 dBA are considered loud to wildlife, and levels exceeding
75 dBA may cause damaging effects (Santa Barbara County, 1984). Since noise levels
are projected to be about 45 dBA at the edge of the Stop River impoundment
(2,000 feet from the noise source), significant noise impacts would not occur to wildlife
(including the heron rookery) using the impoundment. Noise levels at adjacent wetlands
could approach 60 dBA and thus potentially impact waterfowl and other wildlife at
these wetlands. Resident wildlife species at the site currently use the nearby
impoundment, wetlands, and forested areas in spite of the activities of two local prisons
and an adjacent firing range. These activities have resulted in ambient noise levels up
to 49 dBA at the closest sample point to the reservoir (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, I,
1988). Animals using the site have likely become accustomed to such daily noise levels
given the extended exposure. Any noise-related impacts that occur at the heron rookery
(a resource of special concern) could be mitigated by limiting construction activity to
noribreeding periods such as fall and winter.
5-93
-------
5.8.2.2 Operations Impacts. Operation of a landfill at Walpole would result in impacts
similar to those described above for construction. The range of noise impacts on
wildlife would be similar to those discussed above, but would extend over the active
lifetime of the facility.
Sedimentation and siltation of adjoining wetlands could continue during site operation.
However, as cut slopes are filled and become vegetated, the chances of material
eroding to wetland areas would decrease. Similarly, impacts to wetlands by runoff
would be reduced as the active landfill area moved east on the site and as the
previously exposed western areas were closed and revegetated.
The small wetland area northwest of the landfill footprint receives recharge from
groundwater and surface runoff from the proposed site (Section 4.4.3). If the landfill
and its liner divert groundwater or surface water, this wetland could be reduced in
size. Changes in site hydrology could also affect small wetland areas to the south and
east of the landfill. These impacts could be mitigated by a drainage system designed to
maintain existing flows to the wetland areas.
As discussed in Section 5.5.2, under normal operations no contaminants from the landfill
would reach the Stop River or any other surface water body. Thus no impacts on
aquatic biota would be anticipated. However, if an undetected leak occurred in both
liners, the landfill leachate could reach the Stop River and potentially result in
exceedances of EPA aquatic life water quality criteria (Section 5.5.2.3). If 50 percent
or more of the leachate from the active cell reached the Stop River, the landfill’s
contribution could result in exceedances of acute (or short term) criteria. Contribution
of 10 percent of the leachate would only result in exceedances of chronic (or long-term)
criteria, and 1 percent of the leachate would not produce any exceedances. The water
quality predictions assume that all the leachate leaking from the landfill enters the
Stop River, which is conservative because much of it would most likely pass under the
River and be significantly diluted before being discharged to any other water body.
Based on the predicted water quality, if 50 percent or more of the leachate from an
active cell reached the Stop River there would be significant aquatic biota impacts.
The impacts would be greatest in the portion of the stream adjacent to the landfill and
would diminish downstream as stream flow, and thus dilution, increases. The pollutant
concentrations in the river would affect the more sensitive organisms in the river, such
as the mayflies and caddisf lies, and shift the dominance to less sensitive organisms such
as oligochaets (aquatic worms). This potential impact could be mitigated by installing a
groundwater monitoring system and implementing remediation in the event of leak.
If a landfill leak resulted in 10 percent or less of the leachate from the cell reaching
the Stop River, only chronic aquatic biota impacts would be expected. This could
affect the sensitive life stages (such as breeding) of the more sensitive species. Thus,
the total population production of the sensitive forms could be reduced in the area of
the river adjacent to the landfill. This is not considered significant because drifting
organisms from upstream areas should be able to maintain population densities in the
affected area.
5-94
-------
5.8.3 Rowe Quarry
5.8.3.1 Displacement and Construction Impacts. The Rowe Quarry site is dominated by
an active quarry and contains little natural vegetation. Cnnstruction activities,
including earth movement, liner placement, and building construction, would displace
few trees and some scrub vegetation. Resident wildlife consists of species adapted to
disturbances, such as squirrels and seed eating birds, and its displacement would
therefore not represent a significant impact.
Noise impacts due to construction of a landfill at the Rowe Quarry site would not be
significant to resident wildlife. Existing operations, including earthmoving, rock
crushing, truck transport, and blasting generate ambient sound levels up to 60 dBA in
many locations (MWRA, RMFP, Screen, I, 1988). Noise levels resulting from landfill
construction would be similar to existing levels, but would not include blasting and rock
crushing. Therefore, construction-related noise would not be expected to cause a
significant incremental impact on biota because of the existing noise conditions.
Several hydrological changes would result from landfill construction at the site. First,
placement of fill and a liner on the site would redirect groundwater around rather than
through the quarry. Second, the cessation of current process-water withdrawals from
the site would increase the amount of water reaching the downgradient Pines River
marsh system. Third, noncontact stormwater runoff from the site would be discharged
to the marsh. Because the predominant source of water for the marsh is tidal, however,
these changes in the water balance would not be expected to significantly affect the
marsh or its ability to support existing fisheries or wildlife.
5.8.3.2 Operation Impacts. Potential wildlife disturbances from operation would cause
less impact than the disturbances associated with the current quarry operation.
‘Consequently, no significant impacts from noise or other operation activities would be
anticipated.
As discussed in Section 5.5.2, under normal operations no contaminants from the landfill
would reach Rumney Marshes or the tributary tidal stream. Thus no impacts on aquatic
biota would be anticipated. Even if 50 percent of the leachate from the active portion
of the landfill reached the tidal tributary, no acute water quality Criteria would be
exceeded. However, if an undetected leak occurred in the liner system and if
10 percent or more of the leachate from the active portion of the landfill reached these
water bodies, one or two pollutant concentrations could exceed chronic aquatic life
water quality criteria (Section 5.5.3.3). The water quality predictions assume all the
leachate leaking from the landfill enters the tidal tributary, which is conservative
because much of it would most likely not discharge directly to the tributary. Even
though Rumney Marshes is an ACEC and thus sensitive, the aquatic biota impact
resulting from leakage of a landfill at Rowe Quarry would not be considered
significant. Only two compounds could exceed chronic criteria and this is not
considered significant. Such concentrations would only affect long-term population
densities, and since the area is tidal there is the potential for continued influx of new
recruits from other areas on each tidal exchange. In addition, the incoming tide would
provide significant dilution not accounted for in the water quality analysis.
5-95
-------
5.8.4 Stoughton
5.8.4.1 Displacement and Construction impacts. The footprint for maximum use of the
site indicates that most of the facility would occupy existing industrial land.
Development of the footprint area would not require considerable clearing. Much of
the habitat that would be lost is already disturbed. No impacts on threatened or
endangered species would be anticipated, since no such species have been identified or
reported on the developed portion of this site (Section 4.7.3).
Impacts on adjacent wetland systems due to erosion and sedimentation could occur
during construction. Sediment tion increases turbidity and smothers organisms that use
or inhabit the wetland substrate. Wetlands potentially affected include the large
wetland on the eastern portion of the site and wetlands immediately to the west of the
site. Both these wetlands drain into Beaver Brook. Attention to erosion control during
construction would reduce these impacts.
Existing operations on and adjacent to the Stoughton site generate a considerable
amount of noise. Construction of the residuals facilities would not likely have
significant incremental noise impacts on wildlife populations. The possible exception
would be noise from any blasting required to remove rock outcrops from the southern
portion of the site. Blasting activities could cause reductions in both wild life
populations and nesting activity. However, even if on-site populations were displaced
to neighboring wooded and wetland areas, the impact would be short term and
ultimately not significant.
5.8.4.2 Operations Impacts. Displacement of wildlife resulting from composting, heat-
drying, or combustion operations would not be anticipated at the site. Noise levels
would not be expected to significantly affect wildlife associated with the site.
As discussed in Section 5.5.4.3, deposition of incinerator emissions could have
significant water quality impacts in Brockton Reservoir and Glen Echo Pond. For each
of these water bodies, concentrations of some compounds could exceed chronic aquatic
life criteria because of dry deposition of incinerator emissions. Predicted exceedances
are up to five times the criteria based on the deposition on the water surface only, and
they are 300 times the criteria if deposition on the entire drainage basin is included
(Table 5.5-7).
Even though no acute toxic effects are predicted, significant adverse aquatic impacts
could occur in Brockton Reservoir and Glen Echo Pond. Each water body supports
relatively isolated, self-sustaining populations of aquatic organisms. The predicted
concentrations could affect sensitive life stages including reproduction; since the
predicted concentrations apply to the entire water body, entire populations could be
affected. These effects could include lower species diversity, reductions in density,
eventual replacement with more tolerant species, and in some cases potential loss of
functional groups. During critical periods, some ecological functions of the water
bodies (such as assimilative capacity or food production) could also be impaired.
The water quality predictions do not include wet deposition, and they reflect yearly
averages. If concentrations were higher because of an extended dry period (thus
minimum dilution) followed by brief periods of concentrated rainfall (thus high wet
5-96
-------
deposition), the concentrations could be significantly higher. If these events coincide
with sensitive periods for aquatic organisms, the impacts could be significant and long-
term recovery could be impaired.
5.8.5 Qumcy FRSA
5.8.5.1 Displacement and Construction Impacts. Construction of heat-drying facilities
would not be expected to eliminate vegetation or displace wildlife in this disturbed
industrialized area. Because the site is within the 100-year flood plain, severe flooding
during construction could cause significant erosion and sedimentation of the Fore
River. Potential impacts on fisheries include increases in turbidity, abrasion on fish
gills, and smothering of benthic organisms and fish eggs. These impacts could have
temporary affects on the food chain in the river.
Construction of composting facilities would not cause significant displacement impacts
on the limited terrestrial communities on the site. Virtually the entire area is covered
by buildings and impervious surfaces. The site is used mainly by organisms highly
adapted to urban environments, such as rats and crows. The composting site is above
the 100-year flood zone, although some of the required sludge pipeline would traverse
land within this flood zone.
Noise impacts due to truck and construction activities would not be expected to exceed
levels previously occurring at the site. Therefore, incremental impacts on wildlife from
these activities would not be significant.
5.8.5.2 Operations Impacts. For the reasons stated above, noise impacts due to
facilities operations would have no significant impact on biota at the FRSA site.
Runoff from the site would be contained in several detention basins (MWRA, ISPD,
1989). If the runoff were contaminated and were discharged to the Fore River during
flood times, impacts to marine organisms such as shellfish and benthic infauna could be
significant. However, if contamination did occur, these impacts could be mitigated by
provisions for discharge of runoff to the sewer system.
As discussed in Section 5.5.5, residual processing at Quincy could contribute
contaminants to the surrounding surface water via deposition from air emissions.
However, since projected contaminant concentrations do not exceed applicable criteria,
significant impacts on marine biota would not be expected. A large spill of sludge or
sludge products during barge transport to or from the Quincy FRSA site could smother
localized benthic populations in Boston Harbor or the neighboring Weymouth Fore
River. Contaminants in the sludge are similar to those found in sewage discharges and
sediments elsewhere in the harbor. However, a large spill at the Quincy FRSA could
occur in an area of poor dispersion, creating locally anoxic conditions and contributing
metals and organic compounds to sediments and benthic communities. These impacts
could be significant, although short-term, if shellfish beds or nursery habitat were in
the affected area. The risk of such impacts could be minimized by the development of
a spill prevention and cleanup contingency plan in advance of site operation.
5-97
-------
5.8.6 Spectacle Island
As described in Section 3.4.5, it is assumed that the construction of residuals
management facilities on Spectacle Island would follow the possible capping and
expansion of the island by the Massachusetts Department of Public Works (DPW) as part
of the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel (CA/THT) Project.
5.8.6.1 Displacement and Construction Impacts. Construction of heat-drying,
compost ing, or combustion facilities would not be likely to cause incremental impacts
to marine or avian habitat on Spectacle Island. It is assumed that all scrub forest and
open field/thicket habitat would be lost in the DPW construction activity.
Impacts due to erosion from construction on the southern drumlin would be minor in
comparison to activities associated with expansion of the island. Even uncontrolled
erosion would likely have insignificant impacts in this open water setting because of the
potential for dilution. It is not likely that these incremental impacts would be
measurable in the nearshore habitats. However, erosional impacts would be temporary,
and the nearshore marine communities would likely recover following construction.
Areas susceptible to erosion could be protected by practices such as silt fences, berms,
and retention basins.
Use of Spectacle Island could require reconfiguration of piers constructed by the DPW.
If such upgrading involved dredging or resuspension of sediments in the area, it would
cause an incremental impact on benthic organisms in the nearshore area. This impact
would be similar to the disturbances that normally occur from storm events.
Specifically, pier construction would extend disruption of sediments and delay
re-establishment of benthic communities. If, in a worst-case scenario, populations were
essentially prevented from re-establishing around the pier, the impacts would still not
be significant in light of the large amount of similar habitat around Spectacle Island.
Construction of a sludge pipeline to the island would cause suspension of sediments
along the pipeline route across Governor’s Island Flats. Impacts to biota would be
minimal because the biota consists mainly of pollution-tolerant species adapted to the
effects of the existing wastewater and sludge discharges from Deer Island, Long Island,
and Moon Head. Native biota is also adapted to frequently recurring sediment re-
suspension caused by major storm events.
Impacts due to pipeline construction would last longer than impacts due to storms
(several weeks compared to several days), but pipeline construction impacts would
affect a much smaller area. Pipeline construction could also cause short-term
reductions in areas open to lobstermen and recreational fishermen, but construction
would have no impact on commercial fishing because it is prohibited in the harbor.
5.8.6.2 Operations Impacts. Noise impacts caused by the operation of residuals
facilities at Spectacle Island would not be significant because of noise and habitat
losses associated with DPW island modifications.
As discussed in Section 5.5.6, residuals processing on Spectacle Island could contribute
contaminants to the surrounding surface waters via deposition from air emissions.
However, since the projected contaminant concentrations do not exceed applicable
standards, adverse impacts to marine biota would not be expected.
5-98
-------
Barge traffic using pier facilities could suspend benthic sediments. This disruption
would likely represent a continuation of similar disturbances resulting from DPW
activities and from frequently recurring storms. For the reasons cited above for
construction impacts, sediment disturbances due to barge traffic and associated facility
operations would not likely cause incremental impacts on local biota.
Spills of sludge or residuals products could potentially affect benthic populations near a
barge or pipeline route. Contents of the sludge would be similar to the contents of
existing sludge discharges and sediments in the harbor; hence, impacts of sludge spills
would not be significant in light of existing harbor conditions. Rapid repopulation of
spill areas by tolerant benthic species v.ould be expected. However, these impacts
could be mitigated by development and implementation of a comprehensive spill
prevention and cleanup contingency plan.
5.8.7 Deer Island
5.8.7.1 Displacement and Construction Impacts. Construction of digestion, heat-
drying, or incineration facilities on the southern portion of Deer Island would occur in
the context of ongoing MWRA construction necessary for completion of the new
secondary wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) on the island. ‘The incremental physical
or noise-related displacement of vegetation and wildlife would not be significant, given
that the entire area is aiready being disturbed by site preparation activities.
5.8.7.2 Operations Impacts. Incremental noise impacts from operation of residuals
management facilities at Deer Island would not be significant because of the existing
noise from Logan Airport and the WWTP. In addition, there are rio local populations of
noise-sensitive biota. As discussed in Section 5.5, residual processing on Deer Island
could contribute contaminants to the surrounding surface waters. However, since
predicted contaminant levels do not exceed applicable water quality criteria,
significant impacts to marine biota would not be expected.
.9 PUBLIC HEALTH
5.9.1 Introduction and Methodology
Evaluation of public health impacts considers possible exposure pathways and the
potential magnitude, either qualitatively or quantitatively, of the exposures. Exposure
pathways are defined in the EPA guidance manual (U.S. EPA, 1986) as consisting of four
necessary elements: I) a source and mechanism of chemical release to the
environment, 2) an environmental transport medium (e.g., air, groundwater, surface
water) for the released chemical, 3) a point of potential human contact with the
contaminated medium (i.e., exposure point) and 4) a human exposure route (e.g.,
drinking water ingestion) at the contact point. Potential exposure pathways for
•alternative landfill and processing sites are presented in Figures 5.9-1 and 5.9-2. The
likelihood of public health impacts resulting from each of the listed exposure pathways
is discussed below, addressing the receptors identified in the public health baseline
(Section 4.8). It should be noted that health impacts for workers at the landfill or
processing sites, as opposed to the general public, are not considered part of the
environmental evaluation and are not included here. The public health risk of chemical
releases resulting from traffic accidents or accidental releases due to the temporary
5-99
-------
EXPOSURE ROUTE
migration
through
groundwater
Contominoted
Groundwater
discharge to
surface water
rcont ominated
Surface Wate
bioconcentroflon
in fish.
Contaminated
Fish & Shellhlsh
Ir hoiolion of gases and parlicies
ingestion of Water
Dermal Contact/inhalation
when BathIng
Ingestion of Wóter
Dermat Contoct/ Inhalation when
Bathing
Dermai Contact during
Recreational Use -
Ingestion of Fish arid ShellfIsh
surface
runoff
Leochate Direct Contaci
FIGURE 5.9-I. POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS FOR I.ANDFIIL SITES
-------
Heat Dryer.
Incinerator.
or
Composting
All? EMISSIONS }
EXPOSURE ROUTE
• Inhalation of Gases and Particles
Deposition
L ntamlnated Soil
Deposition
on plants
.lnated
Water
bloconcentratlon
In fish
Contaminated
Fish & Shellfish
Uptake by
plants
runoff I
CcntorT
Surface
Contaminated
Plants
ingestion of Soil
Dermai Contact with Soil
Ingestion of Plants
ingestion of Water
Dermal Contact/Inhalation when
Bathing
Dermal Contact with Water during
RecreatIonal Use
Ingestion of Fish and Shellfish
FIGURE 5.9-2. I’OTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS FOR PROCESSING SITES
-------
breakdown of pollution control equipment are similarly not part of the environmental
evaluation.
5.9.2 Significance Criteria -
Significance criteria from the air and surface water quality analyses are used to
evaluate public health impacts resulting from residuals management. The criteria used
for comparison with predicted concentrations of contaminants in air and surface water
are: 1) state and federal ambient air quality standards and 2) state and federal
maximum contaminant levels and water quality criteria. The first refers to the
Massachusetts DEQE’s alloy able ambient levels (AALs) and threshold effects exposure
limits (TELs) (24 hour AALs) as well as national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS). These are compared to incremental pollution concentrations predicted in
Section 5.5. If the predicted concentrations exceed either the Massachusetts or federal
guidelines, the impacts are considered significant. The second set of crieria refers to
federal and state maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), and ambient water quality
criteria (AWQC) for protection of human health. MCLs are compared to predicted
surface water and groundwater concentrations. AWQC are compared to predicted
surface water concentrations only. If the predicted concentrations exceed the
Massachusetts or EPA guidelines then the impacts are considered significant.
5.9.3 Walpole MCI
The general population and also sensitive populations or receptors within the study area
that could be affected by a landfill were identified in Section 4.8.4.1. The total
population living within the study area is estimated to be approximately 2,700 people
(based on 1980 census data) with a moderate predicted increase in population size
through the year 2010.
5.9.3.1 Inhalation. Air emission from residuals could be released as fugitive dust or
gases during dumping and spreading of residuals. Grit, screenings, dewatered sludge,
and ash (which is moist and in a slurry condition) are expected to have a high enough
moisture content to prevent particles from becoming airborne. Neat-dried pellets are
large enough to discourage fugitive dust emissions. There is no analytical data
available on the quantity of volatile organic compounds in grit and screenings, so
impacts cannot be fully evaluated. However, toxic volatile organic compounds are not
expected in high concentrations in grit and screenings; thus, impacts are expected to be
minimal if present.
5.9.3.2 Contact. The potential for public contact with leachate from the landfill would
be minimized through routine operation and maintenance of the Jandf ill in accordance
with the design features described in Section 3.2. However, de gn fa Iurc such as
erosion of the cap followed by infiltration of rainwater could result in leachate seeps.
While this is not expected at a properly managed landfill, it is mentioned here to allow
consideration of all potential hazards. Direct contact with leachate from potential
leachate seeps during operations or after closure is of concern because contaminants
can be absorbed through the skin. In general, organic compounds are absorbed more
readily through the skin than metals. No volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
herbicides, or pesticides were detected in the leachate toxicity analyses performed on
the digested sludge and ash (see Tables 3.1-5 and 3.1-13). The only semivolatile organic
5—102
-------
compound detected was p-cresol which was detected at levels below proposed
regulatory limits. The detection limits for many of the VOCs in the leachate analyses
were above their proposed regulatory limits, so it is not known whether VOCs are
present in sludge at concentrations that would exceed toxicity criteria. Toxic VOCs are
not expected in high concentrations in grit, screenings, heat-dried pellets, or ash.
Emergency use of the landfill for dewatered sludge could introduce VOCs into the
landfill. However, since the volume of sludge is expected to be only a small portion of
the landfilled material, and since under proper management landfill leachate seeps are
not expected, the potential for public health impact from this exposure pathway is not
expected to be significant. In addition, in the event of leachate seepage, only people
who gain access to the site (a small subpopulation of the total study population) are
likely to be exposed.
5.9.3.3 Ingestion. Human ingestion of contaminated groundwater, skin contact with the
water, or inhalation of volatile compounds during showers could occur only if there is a
leak in the landfill, allov ing leachate to enter the groundwater, which in turn reaches
an active potable groundwater supply well. Impacts on groundwater from a potential
leak in the landfill liner system were evaluated in Section 5.5.2.2. It was determined
that a leak at the proposed Walpole landfill would be unlikely. However, if a leak
occurred in one cell of the landfill, and 50 percent of the leachate moved into
groundwater, some exceedances of the Massachusetts groundwater standards and state
•and federal drinking water standards could occur at the nearest potable water supply
well, the Norfolk-MCI prison wells. Hov ever, it was also predicted that it would take
over 30 years for the leachate to migrate to the water supply. Existing concentrations
of some chemicals may presently exceed applicable groundwater quality criteria.
• Exceeding these standards indicates the potential for noncarcinogenic health effects
from a lifetime exposure to the metals in potable water. People using the Norfolk-MCi
-well-field or any private wells in the study area for potable water would be the
subpopulation affected by a landfill leak. If less than 50 percent of the leachate from
one cell leaks and reached the well-field, no criteria exceedances over background are
predicted.
There is no surface water in the study area that is being used as a source of potable
water; therefore, public exposure to potentially contaminated surface drinking water is
not being evaluated. However, public exposure to pollutants could result from ingestion
of fish from contaminated surface water. Any potential surface water impacts would
be expected only from migration of contaminants from a leak in the landfill liner
system through groundwater. Runoff, if any, will be collected from the active portion
of the landfill and returned with the leachate to the sewer system. While an
undetected, uncontrolled leak at the landfill is not expected, potential impacts on the
nearby Stop River, should a leak occur, have been evaluated in Section 5.5.2.3. A
comparison of predicted surface water concentrations in the Stop River to ambient
.water quality criteria for protection of human health based on the ingestion of fish and
shellfish indicates that criteria exceedances could occur under some conditions. These
exceedarices could result in an increased public health risk to the potential
subpopulation that consistently catch and consume fish from the surface water bodies in
the study area. Impacts from consuming contaminated fish are not expected to be
significant because the criteria are based on an assumption of 16 meals per year of fish
from the potentially impacted area which is not likely, and because a leak in the landfill
is not expected.
5-103
-------
Exposures through the skin and by inhalation resulting from use of these surface water
bodies are unlikely. Processed sludge and ash were not found to contain VOCs,
pesticides, or herbicides; only one semivolatile organic compound was detected.
Exposure to this semivolatile by inhalation could only occur if it were released into the
air from surface water. Only a small subpopulation that uses the water bodies in the
study area for recreational purposes would be exposed to any contaminated surface
water through skin contact. Since skin contact with surface water bodies near the site
is anticipated to be minimal and infrequent, and since no swimming seems likely,
impacts from exposure to pollutants would not be expected to be significant.
5.9.4 Rowe Quarry
The general population and sensitive populations or receptors within the study area that
may be affected by a landfill were identified in Section 4.8.5.1. The total population
living within the study area is estimated to include approximately 31,000 people (based
on 1980 census data). The size of the population within the study area is expected to
decrease slightly through the year 2010.
Potential human exposures to air emissions and direct contact with leachate are the
same as those presented above for the \Tialpole MCI site. A leak in the landfill resulting
in migration of contaminants from leachate into groundwater and surface water is not
expected to occur (Section 5.5.2). However, potential impacts, should a leak occur, are
evaluated to alloy, consideration of all potential hazards.
Ingestion of contaminated groundwater, skin contact with the water, or inhalation of
volatile compounds during household water uses are not considered since no private
potable water wells or municipal wells are known to exist nearby. Impacts on
groundwater were evaluated in Section 5.5.3.2 by comparing analytical data with
Massachusetts groundwater standards to determine impacts for potential potable water
use. Public health impacts from exposure to groundwater are not expected since no
exposure is expected to occur.
Public exposure to contaminated fish and shellfish from the Rumney Marshes and a
nearby stream could occur. If there is a break in both landfill liners, some pollutant
levels in the marsh and stream are predicted to exceed criteria for fish and shellfish
consumption under some scenarios (Section 5.5.3.3). However, background
concentrations of these pollutants in the groundwater at Rowe Quarry may already be
exceeding criteria. Exceeding criteria indicates that if the landfill leaks, it could result
in an increased public health risk to a small population that catch and consume fish or
shellfish from the study area. Again, public health impacts would not be significant
because it is unlikely that a leak will occur, and it is unlikely that assumptions built into
the criteria (approximately 16 meals per year ovar a lifetime) would be realized.
Public health impacts from exposures through skin or by inhalation resulting from use of
these surface water bodies are not considered significant. In the analyses of the
processed sludge and ash extract, no VOCs, pesticides, or herbicides, were found, and
only one semivolatile organic compound was detected. Skin contact with these water
bodies should be minimal since no swimming seems likely. Only a small subpopulation
that uses the surface water bodies in the study area for recreational purposes would be
exposed to contaminated surface water through skin contact.
5-104
-------
5.9.5 Stoughton. The general population and also sensitive populations or receptors
within the study area that may be affected by a residuals processing facility have been
identified in Section 4.8.6.1. The total population living within the study area is
estimated at approximately 17,000 (based on 1980 census data) and is expected to
increase slightly through the year 2010.
5.9.5.1 Inhalation. Predicted air concentrations associated with operating the three
processing technologies were presented in Section 5.4.5.1. A comparison of predicted
concentrations of criteria pollutants (sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide,
lead, and PM-to) emitted from heat drying, composting, and combustion facilities
- compared to NAAQS indicates that no standard would be exceeded. Thus no public
health impact is expected.
A comparison of predicted maximum 24-hour toxic pollutant concentrations with
Massachusetts TELs indicates that only the criterion for phosphoric acid vbould be
exceeded. Phosphoric acid is only emitted by the incinerator. As discussed in
Section 5.4, phosphoric acid emissions could potentially cause eye or upper respiratory
tract irritation in sensitive populations.
Air pollutant deposition on soil, inadvertent ingestion of soil (i.e., from hand-mouth
contact, when eating or smoking) and skin contact with the soil was not quantified. A
previous studs (DPV , Risk Assess., 1986; DPW, Risk Assess., Supp., 1987) determined
that a human dose from soil ingestion (assuming 100-percent absorption of contaminants
‘in the lung and gut) v .as equal to approximately 12 percent of an inhaled dose.
-However, the ingestion rates used may be low. The values used were lower than alues
Cm EPA guidance documents (U.S. EPA, Superfund, 1988) and values reported in current
literature (LaGoy, 1987). If higher ingestion rate values were used, such as the values
4n either of the above cited references, the dose from inadvertent ingestion of soil may
equal or exceed the dose from inhalation of contaminants.
t5.9.5.2 Contact. Potential human dose from skin contact with soil was found to
represent approximately 1.7 percent of the inhaled dose. This calculation wa based on
a number of assumptions such a density of soil adherence to skin (0.5 mg/cm ), surface
area of skin affected (1,400 cm ), fraction of days exposed (90 days/year), and fraction
of pollutant absorbed through the skin (0.01) (DPW, Risk Assess., 1986; DPW, Risk
Assess., Supp., 1987). Most of the population within the study area would potentially be
exposed through skin contact and soil ingestion. The largest potential exposures are
expected for children playing in dirt and people who work with soil; such as construction
workers, landscape architects, or farmers.
5.9.5.3 Ingestion. Potential exposure to contaminants by ingestion of contaminated
plants from a vegetable garden was not quantified in this report. In the study cited
-above (DPW, Risk Assess., 1986; DPW, Risk Assess., Supp., 1987) it was estimated that
the maximum human dose from ingestion of leafy vegetables represented 110 percent of
the inhaled dose, assuming that contamination of vegetables occurs through deposition
on leaves (uptake through the roots was negligible) and one quarter of all vegetables
(three months/year) come from a local, affected garden. It was discussed in the report
that a more realistic population dose from ingestion of plants represents 18 percent of
the population dose from inhalation of contaminated air. This was based on a national
average for urban households that only 11 percent of the vegetables eaten are obtained
5-105
-------
from the local garden (instead of one quarter) arid that only about 37 percent of all
households have vegetable gardens.
A review of the relative importance of worst-case exposure from soil ingestion, skin -
contact with soil, and plant ingestion indicates that the total potential dose from the
sum of these pathways could result in a dose equal to 32 to 124 percent of the potential
inhaled dose. It is not appropriate to compare the relative toxic or carcinogenic effects
from ingestion of or skin contact with contaminated soil to those from inhalation since
each exposure route may be associated with different physiological effects or different
potencies.
Estimates of dry deposition were used to calculate impacts to Glen Echo Pond and the
Brockton Reservoir. Predicted concentrations of chemicals and metals in the surface
water bodies were compared to public health-based standards and criteria to assess
potential health impacts. MCLs are established for potable water supplies to protect
human health. Two types of ambient water quality criteria to protect human health are
presented. One type is established to protect health assuming consumption of fish and
shellfish (includes bioconcentration of chemicals in fish tissue), it is appropriate to use
these criteria where the water body supports a fish or shellfish population used for
human consumption but is not used as a drinking water supply. Glen Echo Pond was
designated a backup drinking water supply approximately thirty years ago. To date it
has not been used to supply drinking water, so when evaluating impacts, predicted
chemical concentrations for Glen Echo Pond are compared to the criteria based on fish
and shellfish consumption only.
The second type of criteria are established to protect human health assuming ingestion
of fish and shellfish and use of the water body as a drinking water supply. These
criteria are appropriate to evaluate predicted chemical concentrations at the Brockton
Reservoir. Although fishing is not permitted in the Brockton Reservoir, it has been
reported to occur. Predicted water body concentrations and standards have been
presented in Section 5.5.4.3 and Table 5.5-6. A range of predicted water concentrations
are presented for each water body. The low end of the range was calculated including
only the deposition falling directly on the water body; the upper end was calculated
including both the deposition on the water body plus one half of the deposition within
the watershed.
Predicted surface water concentrations exceed human-health based criteria at Glen
Echo Pond and the Brockton Reservoir (Table 5.9-1). Exceeding the EPA human health
criteria indicates that emissions from all three of the facilities at the processing site
could result in an increased lifetime cancer risk and significant noncarcinogenic health
effects from consuming fish from Glen Echo Pond and from consuming fish and drinking
water from the Brockton Reservoir. The population of people that cculd be affected
includes those who fish in local water bodies and those who would receive drinking
water from the Brockton Reservoir.
A comparison of the relative contribution of each processing technology to the total
pollutant loading when all three processes are operating simultaneously indicates that
the emissions from the incinerator would contribute an average of 99 percent of the
pollutant loading to the reservoir from the residuals facilities.
5-106
-------
TABLE 5.9-1. STOUGHTON SITE WATER QUALITY CRITERIA EXCEEDANCES
Surface
Water Body
Deposition
Assumption
Used In Model
EPA &
MA
MCL
Fish
Consumption
Fish and
Water
Consumption
Glen Echo Pond
WB
WBWS
NA
NA
4
6
NA
NA
Brockton
Reservoir
--
WB
WBWS
-
0
0
3
6
4
8
Notes: (a)
W - Deposition on water body
WBWS - Deposition on water body plus 50. percent of deposition on
watershed
(b) Maximum Contaminant Level for Drinking Water
(c) Ambient \ ater Quality Criteria
NA - Not applicable
For the Stoughton site, exposure to contaminants in surface water from use of the
Brockion Reservoir as a potable v ater supply was evaluated by comparing predicted
concentrations with health-based standards and criteria. Most drinking water standards
are based on exposure by ingestion only. Other exposure pathways considered here are
skin contact with contaminants in “water and inhalation of contaminants volatilized
from water. Exposure to contaminants from skin contact with water during daily use
varies depending on: 1) the nature of the contaminant, 2) the presence of other
compounds that might facilitate absorption into the skin, and 3) the permeability of the
skin. Generally organic compounds are more important than metals when evaluating
absorption through the skin. Brown et a!. (1984) reported that when compared with
ingestion, skin absorption of VOCs in drinking water can account for approximately 29
to 91 percent of the total dose incurred.
Inhalation of VOCs released from contaminated water during showers and other
domestic water uses has been discussed by some investigators as an important exposure
pathway (MDHS, 1985; 111. DENR, 1987; Ande [ man, 1985). A comparison of the dose
from an inhaled exposure to that of an ingested exposure for VOCs has been estimated
by Clark et a! (Ill. DENR, 1987). An inhaled exposure in an enclosed shower stall was
iound to represent eight times the intake from ingestion. Others have found an inhaled
exposure to contaminants in drinking water to represent 18 to 97 percent of the
ingested dose (MDHS, 1985). The relative dose does not imply relative toxicity since
health effects can be different for different exposure pathways and different durations
of exposure.
Skin contact with surface water during recreational use may occur in Glen Echo Pond
but is not expected at Brockton Reservoir. It is not expected to be a significant
exposure pathway since it vbOuld only be occasional during three or four months of the
year and limited to people v ho swim in either water body.
5-107
-------
5.9.6 Quincy FRSA
The general population and sensitive populations within the study area that could
impacted by a residuals processing facility have been identified in Section 4.8.7.1. The
total population living within the study area was estimated to include approximately
48,000 people (based on 1980 census data). The population is expected to increase
slightly by the year 2010. This site has a larger number of people located within the
study area than any other potential site. In general, significant impacts associated with
the use of this site would have the potential to affect the greatest number of people.
5.9.6.1 Inhalation. Potential air concentrations associated with heat-drying and
composting options were estimated, and the results presented in Section 5.4.6.1. A
comparison of predicted concentrations of criteria pollutants (sulfur dioxide, carbon
monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead, and PM-b) emitted from a heat-drying and
composting facility compared to NAAQS indicates that no standards are expected to be
exceeded. Thus no public health impact is expected.
A comparison of predicted maximum 24-hour pollutant concentrations with
Massachusetts TELs indicates that no standards are expected to be exceeded.
Therefore, no adverse public health impacts are expected.
5.9.6.2 Contact. Potential impacts from air pollutant deposition on soil and resulting
exposures from inadvertent ingestion of soil, skin contact with soil, and ingestion of
plants were not quantified here. In Section 5.9.5.1, the relative importance of the
routes of exposure were discussed by relying on conclusions from other studies. Total
dose from ingestion of soil, skin contact with soil, and ingestion of plants is expected to
equal 32 to 124 percent of the inhaled dose. A discussion of relative toxicity is not
appropriate since toxic or carcinogenic effects from ingested and inhalation doses can
be quite different.
5.9.6.3 Ingestion. None of the surface water bodies in the study area are used as
domestic water supplies; therefore, ingestion, skin contact, and inhalation exposures
from domestic water uses are not evaluated.
The Weymouth Fore River and the Boston Harbor drainage area would be expected to
receive most of the deposited pollutants from composting and heat-drying facilities at
the Quincy FRSA site. Skin contact during recreational use has the potential to occur
when swimming, but exposure periods would be limited. The relative impact of this
exposure pathway has not been quantified, but based on low contaminant concentrations
and limited exposure, it is not considered significant.
Impacts from pollutant deposition to the Weyrnouth Fore River/Boston Harbor system
were estimated in Section 5.5.5.3. The results indicate that fish and shellfish
consumption criteria would not be exceeded from deposition to this system. Small
inland surface water bodies have been identified as recreational fishing areas. Impacts
from consuming fish from these ponds has not been quantified; however, since it is
unlikely that the ponds can support a significant fish population, exposure would
probably be low. Potential public health impacts from ingestion of fish or shellfish due
to the effects of potential residuals activities are not considered significant in the
vicinity of the Quincy FRSA site.
5-108
-------
5.9.7 Spectacle Island. The geheral population and also sensitive populations or
receptors within the study area that could be affected by a residuals processing facility
were identified in Section 4.8.8.1. The total population living within the study area was
estimated at approximately 600 (based on 1980 census data) with the potential to
increase slightly by the year 2010. This site has the smallest number of people within
the study area; hence potential impacts from a processing facility on Spectacle Island
would be expected to affect the fewest people.
Estimated emissions for Spectacle Island are presented along with criteria in Tables
5.4-2 and 5.4-4. A comparison of predicted concentrations of criteria pollutants (sulfur
dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead, and PM-b) associated with heat
drying and combustion compared to NAAQS indicates that no standard is expected to be
exceeded. A comparison of predicted maximum 24-hour toxic pollutant concentrations
with Massachusetts TELs indicates that only the criterion for phosphoric acid would be
exceeded. Phosphoric acid is only emitted by the incinerator. As discussed in
Section 5.4, phosphoric acid emissions could potentially cause eye or upper respiratory
tract irritation in sensitive populations.
Ingestion of soil, skin contact with soil, and ingestion of plants are not expected to be
important exposure pathways within the Spectacle Island study area because the island
would probably not be used to grow plants for human consumption nor would people
spend a significant amount of time on the island. Therefore, exposures of the general
public to deposited pollutants would not be expected to occur. Skin contact v ith and
ingestion of contaminated soil could occur following deposition at Thompson Island,
Moon Island, Long Island, Castle Island, Rainsford Island, and Squantum and is similar to
-that discussed for Stoughton. However, the maximum location for deposition would be
over water, not the islands within the study area. It is expected that few, if any,
vegetable gardens would exist within the study area.
No surface water body impacted by emissions from Spectacle Island is used as a potable
ater supply, so none of the potable water supply pathways are considered here.
Beaches exist within the Spectacle Island study area where skin contact with surface
water could occur during recreational activities. Exposure to surface water from
swimming is expected to occur only occasionally during three to four months of the
year; so the potential for public health impacts is not considered significant.
The estimation of dry deposition to Boston Harbor indicate that fish and shellfish
consumption criteria v ould not be exceeded (Section 5.5.6.3). Thus, the potential for
public health impacts is not considered significant.
5.9.8 Deer Island
The general population and also sensitive populations within the study area that could
be impacted by a residuals processing facility were identified in Section 4.8.9.1. The
total population living within the study area is estimated at approximately 2,700 (based
on 1980 census data) with the potential to decrease slightly by the year 2010.
The operation of residuals processing facilities on Deer Island would result in exposures
similar to those that would result from operations at the Spectacle Island site.
5-109
-------
Predicted emissions to air presented in Section 5.4.8.1 indicates that no NAAQS is
expected to be exceeded. Only the TEL for phosphoric acid (emitted by the incinerator)
is predicted to be exceeded. As discussed in Section 5.4, phosphoric acid emissions
could potentially cause eye or upper respiratory tract irritation in sensitive populations.
Estimates of impacts to Boston Harbor based on predicted dry deposition are the same
as were identified for Spectacle Island. Public health impacts associated with
deposition in Boston Harbor from potential processing facilities at Deer Island are not
considered significant.
5.10 HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL
This section discusses potentially significant and known historic and archaeological
resources on each site that may be affected by the proposed residuals processing and
landfill activities. At least a preliminary-level historic and archaeological
reconnaissance survey has been performed at each site. This level of survey is
appropriate for the present stage in the site selection process, when multiple sites are
still under consideration. A preliminary survey can determine whether it is likely that
such resources exist. It can also determine where additional investigations are
necessary to assess National Register eligibility of a resource, should the site be
selected for residuals processing or disposal. Recommendations for such further studies,
including close inspection walkovers, intensive archaeological surveys (including
subsurface testing), architectural surveys, and additional historical research are made
in this section. Note that additional work proposed for any site is contingent upon its
selection as a location for residuals facilities.
For the Quincy FRSA, Spectacle Island, and Deer Island, additional surveys or
investigations have already been performed. The results of these surveys vary, with
some recommending additional work and others outlining mitigation measures.
5.10.1 Significance Criteria
The impact of the project on a particular cultural resource is considered to be
significant if 1) the resource is listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places, and 2) the residuals facility or landf ill will have an adverse impact on
the resource, as determined through the Section 106 process (see Figure 4.9-1).
Eligibility of a resource for nomination should be determined by the project proponent,
the MWRA, in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (MHC) and
EPA. Identification of potentially eligible resources is the first step of the Section 106
process, followed by a determination of whether or not the residuals facilities and
activities will affect the resource, and if so, whether that effect is adverse.
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Procedures provide a clear step-by-step
process to be used in determining effect (see Figure 4.9-1). A finding of adverse effect
is made if the project will 1) result in the destruction or negative alteration of a
National Register property, 2) isolate the property from its environment, 3)
degenerate its setting, 4) result in neglect, or 5) generally cause harm to it (MHC,
1985).
5-110
-------
.1O.2 Walpole MCI
Several areas of the Walpole MCI site footprint have high or moderate potential for
prehistoric or historic archaeological remains arid, therefore, the potential for
significant impacts. If the site is selected for a landfill, an archaeological survey
should be performed in these areas including a complete, close walkover and subsurface
testing of areas determined by the walkover to have potential for archaeological
remains. Additional historic research, consisting primarily of limited deed research of
the project area, should be conducted to determine more accurately its historical land
use and to determine areas that should be closely examined during the walkover.
Inventory forms should be updated or completed for the potentially significant
structures described in Section 4.9.4.4, to determine their National Register
eligibility. These structures may be affected by the residuals activities because they
either have a view of the site or because they are on the transportation route. For each
historic and archaeological resource determined eligible, the Section 106 requirements
stipulated in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) as described in Section 4.9.2 should
be carried out to determine if there is a potential for adverse effects, in which case
mitigation measures should be developed and implemented (ACHP, 1988). It should be
noted that the ‘ .‘alpole Historical Commission has plans to nominate the district at
South Walpole Center, on the Winter Street transportation route, to the National
Register.
5.10.3 Rowe Quarry
There are three areas of the Rowe Quarry site that potentially contain significant
historic or archaeological resources (see Section 4.9.5.3). Although the undisturbed
areas north and northwest of the active quarry have high sensitivity for prehistoric
remains, they would not be disturbed by landfill operation, and therefore no additional
investigation is required. The area of the 1830s road on the west side of the site
kontains houses that are at least 50 years old and significant historic or architectural
Yimpacts could occur in this area. A change in the use of the proposed site from a
quarry to a landfill could affect historic structures in the area, and an architectural
analysis of these structures should be performed to determine if any of them are
eligible for the National Register.
Part or all of the cuarry operation is likely to be eligible for inclusion on the National
Register; the quarry and many of the related buildings are likely to be historically or
architecturally significant, particularly the stone-crusher building. Regardless of
whether they would be demolished or altered, most of these resources would be
affected; at a minimum, transforming the site from its original land use may have an
adverse effect on the historic setting of the structures. An architectural/historic study
should be conducted to determine if the quarry or buildings are eligible for the National
• Register. If the site is selected, Section 106 procedures should be initiated to
•determine if the proposed landfill activities would adversely affect any eligible
resources on or around the site; if so, measures should be taken to mitigate the effects
of the project in accordance with the MOA (Section 4.9.2).
5-111
-------
5.10.4 Stoughton
The preliminary layout of the proposed residuals facilities lies in the dry, less rocky
northern portion of the Stoughton site. Most of this area, particularly the southern
portion of the footprint (an undisturbed wooded area) has moderate potential for
prehistoric archaeological remains (see Section 4.9.6.3). In addition, a cellar hole was
found on the site, indicating that historic activity also occurred in the area. There is,
therefore, the potential for significant cultural impacts at this site. Should residuals
activities be initiated here, an archaeological survey including a complete, close
walkover and limited subsurface testing should be performed. Because no previous
architectural analysis is recorded for this site, an architectural survey of the study area
would be necessary to determine if there are any eligible properties that may be
affected by the project. Any National Register eligible sites found would be subject to
the Section 106 process (Section 5.10.1 and Figure 4.9-1) and any adverse impacts would
be mitigated in accordance with the MOA (Section 4.9.2).
5.10.5 Quincy FRSA
The Fore River Shipyard, on a part of which the Quincy FRSA residuals site is located,
has been determined to be eligible for the National Register as an historic district.
Only one building on the long-term residuals composting site contributes significantly to
the historic district (Deland, 1989). If, through consultation with MHC, it is determined
that this structure could be adversely affected by construction or operation of the
compost ing facility, mitigation would need to be developed as stipulated by the
Section 106 process and the MOA (Section 4.9.2). The long-term heat-drying facility
would be located on the site of the interim residuals facility; any required mitigation
would be implemented before the interim facility is constructed.
5.10.6 Spectacle Island
Only two sites on Spectacle Island are considered likely to have significant cultural
resources and would merit further study prior to any activity on the island. One site, a
range lights complex, is located on the north drumlin and would not be directly affected
by the proposed residuals activities. The other is a prehistoric site located on the south
side of the southern drumlin. Given the preliminary site footprint proposed by MWRA,
this site, which has been determined to be eligible for the National Register, could be
disturbed by construction (DPW, 1988). Mitigation for the prehistoric site, in
accordance with the MOR, would have to be undertaken by the MWRA prior to any
disruptive activity, if the site is chosen.
5.10.7 Deer Island
National Register eligible resources have been identified on Deer Island in association
with other MWRA activities on the site, and specific mitigation measures have been
stipulated in the MOA described in Section 4.9.2 and Section 4.9.9. No additional
significant resources would be affected by proposed residuals processing facilities on
the island.
5-112
-------
5.11 SOCIOECONOMIC
5.11.1 Significance Criteria
The criteria for analyzing socioeconomic impacts address three key financial concerns
related to the siting of the alternative residuals management facilities, namely changes
in property values of surrounding land uses, changes in tax revenues to host
communities, and taking of private property. The significance criteria are listed below:
1. Change in property values of land uses within 1,000 feet of residuals facility
or along transportation corridors because of siting of the facility, or changes
in property values within the general vicinity of the site because of the
extension of utilities to the site
2. Any taking of privately or publicly owned land resulting in loss of either tax
revenue or payment in lieu of taxes to the host community representing
greater than one percent of the community’s current tax levy
3. Taking of private property without fair market value compensation and
taking of designated open space, or conservation or recreation land without
replacement with comparable land.
5.11.2 Changes in Property Values
Potential impacts of residuals facilities on the value of properties surrounding those
facilities and along the transportation and utility corridors cannot be quantified.
-Property values are highly dependent on a number of different factors including the
strength of the economy and real estate market in the area, the quality of amenities
offered in the area (such as schools and other public services), and the subjective needs
and desires of potential purchasers. The existence of a negatively perceived facility
i(such as a landfill or sludge processing plant) near a residence or other type of land use
‘-does not necessarily result in a drop in the value of that property if these other factors
remain strong.
However, it is possible that private properties which are not sufficiently buffered from
the negative impacts of a residuals facility could experience a drop in value. This could
include properties that are impacted by traffic, noise, odor, or dust from the facility
and properties that overlook or are within viewing distance of the facility. The extent
of such impacts on properties around each candidate site is directly related to the
.proxlmity of the property to the site or to transportation and utility corridors. These
impacts are discussed in Sections 5.3, traffic; 5.4, air quality and odors; 5.6, noise;
5.7, visual. For this analysis it is assumed that properties within 1,000 feet of each
alternative site and properties along the transportation and utility corridors could
experience some decrease in value related to noxious effects generated by the
facilities.
5—1 13
-------
Institutional, commercial, and ii dustrial uses around the residuals sites are not likely to
experience a drop in property value because their viability is related to services,
populations, and traffic patterns that are not expected to change significantly during
construction and operation of the residuals facilities. These nonresidential uses include
the prison developments around the Waipole MCI site and the industrially and
commercially developed land around the Rowe Quarry, Quincy FRSA, and Stoughton
sites.
In addition, private properties around the Rowe Quarry, Quincy FRSA, and Deer Island
sites would be less likely to experience a significant decrease in value because of the
presence of residuals facilities since these sites have historically hosted industrial uses
(or industrial-like uses, such as the wastewater treatment plant on Deer Island) and
have been subject to impacts similar to those associated with the proposed residuals
facilities.
It is also Important to note that the potential exists for increases in property values in
the immediate vicinity of the residuals facilities if utility services are extended to the
sites. Development that might have been curtailed in the area because of inadequate
services (i.e., water and sewer) could be stimulated.
5.11.3 Tax Revenue Impacts
The discussion of projected ongoing and potential tax revenue impacts to host
communities is discussed on a site-by-site basis below and is quantitative, where
municipal financial data are available. The discussion assumes the taking of the entire
site, including facilities footprint and buffer areas as defined by the MWRA. The
discussion focuses on impacts related to the operation rather than the construction of
the facilities, because it is long-term operation and not short-term construction that
would affect tax revenues.
5.11.3.1 Walpole MCI. As noted in Section 4.10.3, the Massachusetts Department of
Revenue makes annual payments to the town of Walpole in lieu of taxes for the Walpole
MCI site. The current amount of these payments, approximately $45,600, represented
less than one-half of one percent of the total property tax levied by the town in 1989.
Thus, while there would be an adverse impact to the town related to these lost
revenues, the impact is not considered to be significant. It should be noted, however,
that in 1989, Walpole had only 1.2 percent excess taxing capacity, down from 4.1
percent in 1988. Thus, every tax dollar of revenue is becoming more critical to the
town, and the loss of any payments in lieu of taxes would be of concern to the
community.
5.11.3.2 Rowe Jarry. As noted in Section 4.10.4, the parcels o.f the Rowe Quarry site
located in Maiden had a 1988 assessed value of $598,000 generating tax revenue of
$17,012, which represented less than one-half of one percent of the total property tax
levied by the city in 1988. Thus, while there would be an adverse impact to the city
related to these lost revenues, the impact is not considered significant. However, the
city had no excess taxing capacity under Proposition 2 in 1988, meaning not only that
every existing tax revenue dollar was critical to the city, but also that the city would
probably depend on allowable taxes generated by new growth in coming fiscal years to
increase its levy limit. Thus, expansion or redevelopment of the quarry site by private
developers might be an important tax revenue source for the city.
5-1 14
-------
The parcels of the Rowe Quarry site located in Revere had a 1989 assessed value of
$787,880 and generated tax revenue of $19,301, which represented less than one-half of
one percent of the total property tax levied by the city in 1989. Thus, while there
would be an adverse impact to the city related to these lost revenues, the impact is not
considered significant. Revere had no excess taxing capacity under Proposition 2j in
1989, and it would seek revenues generated by new growth to increase its levy limit.
The expansion or redevelopment of the quarry would also be important to Revere.
5.11.3.3 Stoughton. As noted in Section 4.10.5, the parcels making up the potential
residuals processing site in Stoughton had an estimated 1989 assessed value of
$3,021,067 and generated tax revenue of approximately $47,406, which represented less
than one-half of one percent of the total tax levied by the town in 1989. Thus, while
there would be an adverse impact to the town related to these lost revenues, the impact
is not considered significant. However, the town in 1989 had 2.6 percent excess taxing
capacity under Proposition 2 . While this was slightly more capacity than the town
had in 1988, it is anticipated that every existing tax revenue dollar is critical to
Stoughton and that the town will probably depend upon allowable taxes generated by
new growth in coming fiscal years to increase its levy limit. The development of the
Stoughton site by private developers would be an important tax revenue source for the
town, although there would also be municipal service costs associated with that
development.
5.11.3.4 Quincy FRSA. As discussed in Section 4.10.6, the property within the Quincy
FRSA was declared tax-exempt upon its purchase by the MWRA. Therefore, there
would be no direct financial impact to the communities of Quincy and Braintree with
regard to lost tax revenues if the MWRA uses the Quincy FRSA for the processing of
residuals. However, it should be noted that the MWRA parcels on the Quincy FRSA had
a 1989 assessed value of $79,991,800, which would have generated $1,976,602 in tax
revenue at the 1989 industrial tax rate of $24.71 per thousand, if the site were not tax
exempt. The tax revenue that could be generated at the FRSA represents
approximately three percent of the city’s total 1989 tax levy, representing a significant
loss to the community. However, the parcels that would be used for residuals
processing represent only a portion of the total FRSA, and thus would represent only a
portion of the assessed value and taxes generated.
En both 1988 and 1989 the city of Quincy had no excess taxing capacity under
Proposition 2+, meaning not only that every existing tax dollar was critical to the city,
but also that Quincy would probably depend on allowable taxes generated by new growth
in coming fiscal years to increase its levy limit. Thus, redevelopment of the Quincy
FRSA by private developers would be an important tax revenue source for the city. The
operatior of the Massachusetts Shipbuilders Corporation on a portion of the FRSA
would result in potential tax revenues to Quincy and would thus help to alleviate any
financial burden of the city (Pelham, 1989).
Although the FRSA parcels located in the town of Braintree were tax-exempt in 1989,
they would have generated approximately $185,549 in tax dollars, less than one percent
of the total tax levied by the town. Although this is considered to be an adverse effect,
it is not considered to be significant. However, Braintree had only 1.4 percent excess
taxing capacity in 1989, and thus every tax dollar is critical to the town. As in Quincy,
redevelopment of the FRSA by private developers would be an important tax revenue
source for Braintree.
5-115
-------
5.11.3.5 Spectacle Island. As discussed in Section 4.10.7, all of the land parcels at the
alternative residuals processing site on Spectacle Island are classified as tax-exempt.
Therefore, no adverse impact is expected upon the city of Boston’s tax revenues
resulting from use of the island for residuals processing activities. However, the city of
Boston had no excess taxing capacity under Proposition 2 in 1988 and 1989, and it
would probably depend upon allowable taxes generated by new growth in coming years
to increase its levy limit. The development of Spectacle Island, which is zoned for
industrial development, by private developers would be an important income source for
the city. However, private development of the island is unlikely because of its
isolation, inaccessibility, and current lack of services.
The proposed alternative uses for Spectacle Island are public projects, which would not
result in direct tax revenues for the city. The proposed use of the island as part of the
Harbor Island Park might result in indirect financial gain for the city and state, as there
would be tourism dollars generated.
5.11.3.6 Deer Island. As discussed in Section 4.10.8, property on Deer Island is ov ned
by the MWRA and is tax exempt. Therefore, it is not expected that operation of the
residuals processing facilities would have an adverse impact upon the total tax revenues
of the city of Boston.
5.11.4 Land Taking
5.11.4.1 Walpole MCI. The land is publicly held by the state, and thus there would be
no taking of private land. The land would have to be transferred from the State
Department of Correction to the MWRA, a process which requires a vote of the state
legislature. The residuals landfill activity would not interfere with the planned
expansion (130 beds) of the MCI Cedar Junction facility.
5.11.4.2 Rowe Quarry. The quarry is privately owned, and thus there would be a taking
of land, representing an adverse impact to the current owners of the property.
However, the owners would be compensated for the fair market value of their property,
and thus the impact is not considered to be significant.
5.11.4.3 Stoughton. The Stoughton site is privately held by a number of different
owners, and thus there would be a taking of land representing an adverse impact to
these property owners. However, the taking process requires compensation to the
property owners for the fair market value of their property, and thus the impact is not
considered to be significant. A possible mitigation measure to reduce the potential for
adverse effects to property owners is for the MWRA to reduce the total amount of land
needed. The actual facilities footprint represents only about one-half of the total site
area, arid it might be possible for the MWRA to take sufficient acreage for the
facilities and necessary buffer and to leave the remainder in private ownership.
5.11.4.4 Quincy FRSA. The MWRA owns the proposed site, and, therefore, there would
be no impact with regard to the taking of land.
5-116
-------
.11.4.) Spectacle Island. The island is owned by the city of Boston and the
Massachusetts DEM, and, therefore, there would be no taking of private land. However,
because the island is part of the Boston Harbor Islands State Park, approval by the
legislature and the governor would be required to transfer ownership to the MWRA.
The potential loss of all or a portion of the island for use in the Boston Harbor Islands
State Park is discussed in Section 5.2.6.2.
5.11.4.6 Deer Island. The Deer Island site is owned by the MWRA, therefore, there
would be no taking of private land.
5-117
-------
CHAPTER SIX
ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVES
6.1 INTRODUCTION
Preceding chapters screened and described alternative residuals processing and disposal
methods, described conditions at alternative sites, and predicted impacts at each site
from potential residuals management options. This chapter reviews the information
presented in the earlier chapters and synthesizes and compares the findings on sites and
management methods. The areas of impact at each site are briefly discussed in terms
of significance and acceptability, and mitigation for the significant impacts is
evaluated. Finally, the acceptable combinations of technology options and alternative
locations are discussed and the requirements for acceptable residuals management plans
presented.
6.2 SITE ACCEPTABILITY AND MITIGATION
6.2.1 Walpole MCI
No significant impacts are expected at the ‘ alpole MCI site in the areas of air quality
or odors under an operating conditions. Grit and screenings could potentially generate
odors; hov ever, they would be landfilled only in relatively small quantities. Using
proper management procedures such as daily cover, grit and screenings would not
:generate noticeable odors or air quality concerns. The ash and heat-dried pellets would
not contain volatile materials, which are generally the source of odors. Thus, if brought
to the landfill, these materials are not expected to cause odors. Dried sludge cake,
when landfilled, could generate odors, but these would be controlled through the use of
daily cover. Therefore, air quality and odor impacts at the site would be acceptable.
‘Under normal operating conditions there would be no surface or groundwater impacts
‘because all water from the landfill and associated contaminants would be contained on
site. The landf ill’s double liner, leachate collection system, and runoff control system
should prevent contaminants from reaching surface or groundwater. In the unlikely
event that all of these controls fail and a leak develops in the liner system, there would
be the potential for contaminants to reach adjacent groundwater and surface waters.
However, more than half of the leachate from a leaking active cell would have to reach
the nearest groundwater supply wells before water quality criteria and standards for
drinking water would be exceeded, and it is predicted to take over 30 years for
groundwater from under the landfill to reach the wells. In order to doubly ensure that
contamiriation of a local water supply would not occur, the EPA recommends that the
MWRA install a groundwater monitoring system as mitigation. A properly designed and
executed monitoring plan would detect any laridf ill leaks in sufficient time to remediate
any groundwater contamination before significant impacts occurred, based on the
calculated times that would be needed for contaminants to travel to the groundwater
resources of concern.
Because no significant air or water impacts are expected, there are no pathways for
public health impacts.
6-1
-------
Noise generated by trucks and earth-moving equipment, particularly during emergency
landfilling of dewatered sludge, could generate significant impacts for the closest
receptors. At some receptors, including the Stop River wetlands and associated wildlife
habitat, the change from a relatively quiet ambient condition creates a potentially
significant impact. The EPA recommends that noise impacts be mitigated through
berm construction, using excess on-site material, and the use of earth-moving
equipment specially modified to reduce noise.
Also, during emergency land! filing of dewatered sludge there could be significant
traffic and noise impacts at the site and along the Winter Street transportation route.
Under these conditions truck traffic could more than double on local residential
streets. The physical characteristics of the streets are not well suited to heavy trucks,
which exacerbates the impact. EPA recommends that the impacts of trucking during
this emergency situation be mitigated by splitting the truck traffic between the Pine
Street and the Winter Street access routes. Adverse traffic impacts would remain but
they are not expected to be significant because they are not expected to occur for
periods longer than a few days. During other operating conditions the increased truck
traffic is not expected to significantly impact traffic or land uses along the
transportation corridor.
The Walpole MCI site is relatively isolated and generally buffered from neighboring
residential areas by wooded and undeveloped land. Also, the prisons, which are among
the adjacent land uses, are less susceptible to land use, visual, and socioeconomic
impacts than are residential or commercial uses. Consequently, landfill development at
the Walpole MCI site is not expected to generate significant adverse impacts in these
areas. There are no known cultural or ecological resources on the site, so significant
impacts in these areas are not expected. There is, however, the potential for
archaeological remains at the site and an archaeological survey would be required
before construction.
The Walpole MCI site is environmentally acceptable for a landfill, however there could
be potentially significant impacts in the area of noise, traffic, and water quality. The
EPA recommends that the mitigation measures discussed above be implemented to
reduce the significance of such impacts. Additional measures that could be initiated to
further reduce potential impacts at the Walpole MCI site are shown in Table 6.2-1.
6.2.2 Rowe Quarry
As at the Walpole MCI site (Section 6.2.1), no air quality or odor impacts would be
expected for a landfill at Rowe Quarry, assuming standard landfill operating practices
are used such as daily cover. Also similar to Walpole MCI, the Rowe Quarry landfill
would have a double liner and leachate collection and runoff control systems, so there
should be no groundwater or surface water impacts. Even if the liner system leaked,
groundwater implications are not considered significant because the concentrations of
contaminants would be low and the groundwater in the area is not a significant
resource. A major leak in the liner system would have to occur for there to be a risk of
exceedances of applicable criteria at the nearest surface water body, the adjacent
Rumney Marsh, a significant ecological resource. Again, this possibility could be
6-2
-------
TABLE 6.2-1
IMPACT
RECONMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
TRAFFIC AND NOISE IMPACTS ON WINTER STREET
DURING EMERGENCY LANDFILLING OF DEWATERED
SLUDGE
ODOR GE IERATED BY GRIT AND SCREENINGS
RECO11ENDED MITIGATION
SPLIT TN t TRAFFIC BEINtEN WINItN SlNttl AND PINt SINttI
LEAK IN LANDFILL LINER SYSTEM CWLD
CONTAMINATE WATER
W
A
L
P
0
L
E
FREQUENTLY COVER GRIT AND SCREENINGS AND MINIMIZE TNE %CRKING FACE
NOISE GENERATED BY LANDFILL OPERATION
POTENTIAL CULTURAL RESWRCES ON SITE
LOSS OF PRIME FARMLAND ON SITE
M
C
MONITOR LEACHATE VDLLI4E
CONDUCT PERIODIC LEAK DETECTION TESTS
CONDUCT MONITORING PROGRAM
TEMPORARILY DIVERT LEACNATE TO SEWER 1 REPAIR LANDFILL LEAK
PROVIDE CLEANUP. IF NECESSARY
DESIGN BERMS TO ACT AS NOISE BARRIERS TO DSJNITT
SURVEY TO IDENTIFY ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESGJRCES; DEVELOP MITIGATIOPI
IF NECESSARY
ACQUISITION BY MWRA OF UNDEVELOPED PRIME FARMLAND
IN VICINITY OF WALPOLE MCI SITE
CONTROL OR CONTAIN RUNOFF
RUNDFF FRON LANDFILL CCJLD AFFECT
SURFACE WATER AND/OR WETLANDS
POTENTIAL SEDIMENTATION DURING CONSTRUCTION
NOISE GENERATED BY BACKUP SAFETY SIGNALS
OP. LAND’ILL EOUIPMEhT/TRUCKS
CONTROL OR CONTAIN EROSION WITH HAY BALES 1 SILT FENCES • BERMS, ETC
DEGRADATION OF WETLANDS AND ASSOCIATED
HABITAT
POTENTIAL DISPLACEMENT OF WILDLIFE AND
WILDLIFE HABITAT
MINIMIZE THE NEED FOR BACKING UP OR ELIMINATE TRUCK BACKUP
SAFETY SIGNALS BY PERSONNEL SAFETY TRAINING 1 AND EXCLUDE
UNTRAINED PERSONS FRON SITE
MODIFY FOOTPRINT DESIGN TO AVOID BORDERING VEGETATED WETLANDS
AND WETLAND BUFFERS
LIMIT CONSTRUCTION TO HON-BREEDING PERIODS
R
0
V
E
WUN btNt CAitU NT laNAI AND NttNINIfl
LEAK IN LANDFILL LINER SYSTEM JLD
CONTAMINATE GRQJNDWATER
IMPACT RECOSIENDED MITIGATION
NOISE GENERATED BY LANDFILL OPERATION
SUSPECTED HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF STONE
CRUSHER BUILDING
0
U
A
R
R
Y
FREQUENTLY COVER GRIT AND SCREENINGS AND MINIMIZE TNt WURKINIà FACt
MONITOR LEACHATE VDLLJNE
CONDUCT PERIODIC LEAK DETECTION TESTS
CONDUCT MONITORING PROGRAM
DESIGN BERMS TO ACT AS NOISE BARRIER TO COISJNITY
HISTORICAL/ARCHITECTURAL ANALYSIS OF STONE CRUSHER BUILDING FOR
DETERMINATION ELIGIBILITY FOR NATIONAL REGISTER:
DEVELOP MITIGATION IF NECESSARY
CONTROL OR CDNTAIH 11110FF
RUNOFF FRON LANDFILL CO.JLD AFFECT
SURFACE WATER AND/OR WETLANDS
POTENTIAL SEDIMENTATION
NOISE GENERATED BT BACKUP SAFETY SIGNALS
ON LANDFILL EQUIPMENT/TRUCKS
VISUAL IMPACT TO TOWNLINE TRAILER PARK 1
NORTH SHORE ASSEMBLY OF GOD CHURCH AND
RESIDENTS AT RIM OF QUARRY
CONTROL OR CONTAIN EROSION WITH HAY BALES. SILT FENCES 1 BERMS, ETC
MINIMIZE THE NEED FOR BACKING UP OR ELIMINATE TRUCK BACKUP
SAFETT SIGNALS BY PERSONNEL SAFETY TRAINING, AND EXCLUDE
UNTRAINED PERSONS FRON BITE
CONSTRUCT A HIGHER BANKING WITH VEGETATION BUFFER ALONG
RQJTE I . AND ADDITIONAL VEGETATION ALONG RIM OF QUARRY
-------
TABLE 6 1-1 (CONTINUED)
RECOV4ENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
1KAPFJ IMPALI UNDER WRSECASL CONDI IIONS
ODOR IMPACTS FRON THE CONPOST FACILITY
RECOHS1ENDED MITIGATION
ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION AT ROUTE 2 1., RWT E 139. AND PAGE
STREET INTERSECTION
UPGRADE INTERSECTION AT ROUTE 139 AND TURNPIKE STREET
SIGNALIZE INTERSECTIONS ON ROUTE 139 AT PAGE AND TURNPIKE STREETS
UPGRADE PAVEMENT ON ROUTE 139 AND TURNPIKE STREET
ENCLOSE ALL UNLOADING AND MATERIALS HAI IDI ING OPERATIONS
LOCATE MATERIALS HANDLING AREAS WHICH CANNOT BE ENCLOSED
AS FAR FRON SENSITIVE RECEPTORS AS POSSIBLE
PROVIDE DESIGN THAT MEETS NOISE CRITERIA AT RECEPTORS
SURVEY TO IDENTIFY PRESENCE OF NATIONAL REGISTER
ELIGIBLE RESOURCES AND DEVELOP MITIGATION IF NECESSARY
REDUCE AMOUNT OF ACREAGE NEEDED FOR SITE USE, ALLON FOR
ADEQUATE BUFFER
CLOSE COORDINATION BETWEEN MWRA AND STOUGNTON TO INSURE
CONPLIANCE WITH TOWN’S PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR ODORS
CONTROL OR CONTAIN EROSION WITH HAY BALES, SILT FENCES, BERMS, ETC.
MAXIMIZE SCRUBBEP EFFICIENCY USING GOOD ENGINEERING PRACTICES
CAREFUL MONITORING OF p 4. IN FIRST-STAGE SCRUBBER SOLUTIDN
MAINTAIN MERCAPTONS REMOVAL EFFICIENCY IN SECOND-STAGE ABOVE 95%
MINIMIZE THE NEED FOR BACKING UP OR ELIMINATE TRUCK BACKUP
SAFETY SIGNALS BY PERSONNEL SAFETY TRAINING AND EXCLLOE
UNTRAINED PERSONS FRON SITE
CONSTRUCT STACKS OF MATERIALS OR COLORS WHICH BLEND MORE EASILY
INTO SURROUNDING TERRAIN
RECOSIENDED MITIGATION
UPGRADE AND SIGNALIZE INTERSECTION AT EAST HOWARD STREET AND ROUTE 53
MAXIMIZE SCRUBBER EFFIEIENCY USING ENGINEERING PRACTICES
CAREFUL MONITORING OF pH IN FIRST-STAGE SCRUBBER SOLUTION
MAINTAIN MERCAPTONS REMOVAL EFFICIENCY IN SECOND-STAGE ABOVE 95%
ENCLOSE ALL UNLOADING AND MATERIALS HANDLING OPERATIONS
LOCATE MATERIALS HANDLING AREAS WHICH CANNOT BE ENCLOSED
AS FAR FRON SENSITIVE RECEPTORS AS POSSIBLE
PROVIDE DESIGN THAT MEETS NOISE CRITERIA AT RECEPTORS
EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES AND DEVELOP MITIGATION
IF DEMOLITION PROPOSED
UPGRADE INTERSECTION GEONETRY AND SIGNALIZATION
LIMITED USE OF RAIL TRANSPORTATION AND COVERING ALL RAILCARS TO ENSURE
THAT RESIDENTIAL USES ALONG THE ROUTE ARE NOT IMPACTED
ESTABLISH PROTECTIVE PROCEDURES TO BE USED DURING CONSTRUCTION
MINIMIZE THE NEED FOR BACKING UP OR ELIMINATE TRUCK BACKUP
SAFETY SIGNALS BY PERSONNEL SAFETY TRAINING AND EXCLLCE
UNTRAINED PERSONS FRON SITE
CONSTRUCT STACKS OF MATERIALS OR COLONS WHICH BLEND OE EASILY
INTO SURROUNDING TERRAIN
DEVELOP A SPILL PREVENTION AND CONTINGENCY PLAN
IMPACT
S
T
0
U
C
H
T
0
I.
TRAFFIC AND NOISE IMPACTS ON STREETS
WNICP CROSS ROUTE 139 (PAGE, TURNPIKE)
TRAFFIC IMPACTS OH. ROADWAY SURFACE
MATERIALS HANDLING OPERATION NDISE IMPACTS
NOISE IMPACT FRON PROCESSING EQUIPMENT
POTENTIAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ON SITE
CONFLICT WITH THE STOUGHTON REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY PLANS
CONFLICT BETWEEN RESIDUALS FACILITY SITE
AND TOWN’S ZOhING ORDINANCE
EROSION IMPACTS TO SURFACE
WATER DURING CONSTRUCTION
ODOR IMPACTS FRON THE CONPOST FACILITY
BACKUP SAFETY SIGNALS NOISE
VISUAL IMPACT OF EMISSION STACKS
IMPACT
0
U
N
C
Y
F
R
S
A
MATERIALS HANDLING OPERATION NOISE IMPACTS
NDISE IMPACT FRON PROCESSING EQUIPMENT
BUILDING ON CONPDSTING SITE CONTRIBUTES
TO CULTURAL SIGNIFICAhCE OF SHIPYARD
TRAFFIC IMPACTS ON cOI#IERCIAL STREET AND
ROUTE 53 (WEYMOUTH LANDING)
ROADWAY TRANSPORTATION AND NOISE IMPACTS
DUE TO HEAVY VOLLJIE OF TRUCKS
EROSION IMPACTS TO SURFACE
WATER DURING CONSTRUCTION
BACKUP SAFETY SIGNALS NOISE
VISUAL IMPACT OF EMISSION STACKS
POTENTIAL DISTURBANCES TO MARINE HABITAT
AND BENTHIC POPULATIONS FRON A SLLVGE SPILL
-------
TABLE 6.2-1 CEONTINUED)
1
u s a . . . . . .
RECOU4ENDED MITIGATION MEASURES I
• •ssu • .S .S.uSSu .SasSCSU •SaSflCCUCa .............a........UC.UU..U.aafl . .Sa .a .fl .S .flS .U . .aaa.afl.SSU . .s .SS . . .
IMPACT RE ENDED MITIGATION
DISTURBANCE OF A NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE
DEVELOP MITIGATION IF DISTURBANCE IMAVDIDARLE
SITE ON THE S JTH SIDE OF THE SWTHERN
DRUMLIN
S
NOISE IMPACT PROP PROCESSING EQUIPMENT
PROVIDE DESIGN THAT MEETS NOISE CRITERIA AT RECEPTORS
P
E
I
S
CONSTRUCTION OF PIPELINE MAY
INTERFERE WITH NORMAL SNIPPING AND
RECREATIONAL BOATING
CLOSE COORDINATION BETWEEN MWRA AND PRIVATE AND PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
TO ENSURE THAT OPERATION AND UTILITY PIPELINE INSTALLATION DOES
NOT SEVERELY IMPACT SHIPPING AND BOATING ACTIVITIES
C
T
L
A
ODOR IMPACTS FRON THE CONPOST FACILITY
MAXIMIZE SCRUBBER EFFICIENCY USING GOOD ENGINEERING PRACTICES
CAREFUL MONITORING OF pM IN FIRST-STAGE SCRUBBER SOLUTION
MAINTAIN MERCAPTONS REMOVAL EFFICIENCY IN SECOND-STAGE ABOVE 95Z
A
C
N
EROSIOk IMPACTS TO SURFACE
WATER DURING CONSTRUCTION
ESTABLISH PROTECTIVE PROCEDURES TO BE USED DURING CONSTRUCTION
Oe. HAY BALES, SILT FENCES, BERMS)
D
L
CHANGES IN VIEWS OF THE SITE FRON THOPPSON
ISLAND AND SOUAW ROCK PARK
PROVIDE FUNDS FOR DEVELOPING EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS AND FACILITIES
ON THONPSON ISLAND TO DISCUSS MWRA RESIDUALS FACILITIES
E
VISUAL IMPACT OF EMISSIOk STACKS
CONSTRUCT STACKS OF MATERIALS OR COLORS WNICH BLEND MORE EASILY
INTO SURRDJNDING TERRAIN
POTENTIAL DISTURBANCES TO MARINE HABITAT
AND BENTI4IC POPULATIONS FRON A SLIDGE SPILL
:nr:n:n::.r: ::::: :c .:r::.......n.:
IMPACT
DEVELOP A SPILL PREVENTION AND CONTINGENCY PLAN
.
: ............ .............t...t. ......... rr
REcG4MENDED MITIGATION
1:::: rrr r
I
D
S
EROSION IMPACTS TO SURFACE
WATER DURING CONSTRUCTION
ESTABLISH PROTECTIVE PROCEDURES TO BE USED DURING CONSTRUCTIOk
E
L
E
R
A
N
VISUAL IMPACT OF EMISSION STACKS
CONSTRUCT STACKS OF MATERIALS OR COLORS WHICH BLEND MORE EASILY
INTO SURR)JNDING TERRAIN
DEVELOP A SPILL PREVENTION AND CONTINGENCY PLAN
SUCH A SPILL
POTENTIAL DISTURBANCES TO MARINE HABITAT
AND BENTNIC POPULATIONS FRON A SLLEGE SPILL
sun
D
an::
:. ....nnu...................
-------
mitigated by the installation of a groundwater monitoring system downgradient of the
landfill and a commitment to remediate any groundwater contamination caused from a
landfill leak before it reached the marsh.
Because no significant air or water impacts are anticipated, there are no expected
pathways for public health impacts.
Noise generated by trucks and earth-moving equipment, particularly during emergency
landfilling of dewatered sludge, could generate significant impacts for the closest
receptors. However, noise impacts already exist at receptors around the Rowe Quarry
site from ongoing quarry operations. Noise impact could be somewhat mitigated by
requiring specially modified equipment; however, other forms of mitigation are limited
because material is not available on site to construct berms and because the raised
nature of the receptors relative to the landfill operations would make berms less
effective.
Although residences and other active land uses are close to the site and there is only
minimal buffer, no significant land use, socioeconomic, or visual impacts are expected
because landfill activities would not be significantly different from the current quarry
operations. Similarly, although there is a nearby important ecological area (Rumney
Marsh), the change in activity from quarry to landfill operation is not expected to alter
any ecological resources or processes. There is the potential for significant historical
resources on the Rowe Quarry site, and a survey would have to be conducted before
construction to determine if the quarry or buildings are eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places.
Projected traffic along the access route to Rowe Quarry generally is not excessive and
the addition of residuals vehicles would not result in deteriorated service under any
operating conditions. The relatively small percentage increase in trucks is not seen as
significant and even this small increase would be at least partially offset by elimination
of trucks associated with quarry operation if the site is converted to a landfill.
The Rowe Quarry site is environmentally acceptable for a landfill; however, there could
be potentially significant impacts in the area of water quality and noise. The EPA
recommends that the mitigation measures discussed above be implemented to reduce
the significance of such impacts. Additional measures that could be initiated to further
reduce potential impacts at the Rowe Quarry site are shown in Table 6.2-1.
6.2.3 Stoughton
Some adverse air quality impacts could result from the incineration of residuals at
Stoughton. One exceedance of DEQE Threshold Effects Exposure Limits (TELs,
equivalent to maximum 24-hour Allowable Ambient Limits, or AALs) is predicted.
TELs are not regulatory limits but are used as guidelines in the state permitting
process, and this one exceedance is not considered by the EPA to be unacceptable
because it would not result in severe environmental or public health impacts (see
Section 5.4). No significant air quality impacts or AAL exceedances are predicted from
any combination of heat drying and composting at the site. Composting would be the
most odorous process at the site, but the distance to the nearest receptor is far enough
that no odor impacts are expected.
6-6
-------
There are predicted to be significant adverse water quality impacts from incineration
at Stoughton. Dry weather deposition from incinerator emissions could result in
numerous exceedances of aquatic life and human health water-quality criteria in nearby
Brockton Reservoir and Glen Echo Pond. Additional deposition of contaminants during
wet weather was not estimated but would increase the magnitude of the adverse
impact. The predicted water quality impacts would have significant adverse effects on
aquatic life in the two water bodies and could have public health impacts because
Brockton Reservoir is slated to become a public water supply. The water quality and
public health impacts from deposition due to heat drying and composting, however, are
not predicted to be significant..
If all materials handling were conducted outdoors at the Stoughton site, there would be
significant noise impacts, which in turn could potentially affect adjacent land uses.
However, the noise impacts could be mitigated by confining most of the handling
operations to areas shielded by noise barriers. There are also potentially significant
adverse impacts from processing operations; noise from fans and blowers could be
particular problems. These impacts could be mitigated by designing low noise
generating mechanical systems and minimizing building openings.
Under the maximum traffic scenario (heat drying and composting), the transportation
impacts would be significant because of the large number of trucks going to and from
the site. This impact could be at least partially mitigated by expediting the planned
reconstruction of the Route 24/Route 139/Page Street area and by upgrading and
signalizing the affected Route 139 intersections. Because composting is the greatest
-contributor of traffic, if incineration and heat drying occur at the site (together or
alone) no significant traffic impacts are predicted. With composting only at the site
the number of trucks is reduced by about 30 percent from the maximum. Although this
would still result in adverse traffic impacts, these impacts would be mitigated by the
-above Route 139 improvements.
*.No significant visual, land use, or socioeconomic impacts are expected from residuals
iprocessing at the Stoughton site because the industrial nature of the site and
surrounding area are generally compatible with residuals processing; thus no substantial
change is expected to occur as a result of developing the site for any combination of
heat drying, composting, or incineration. Also, much of the operation at the site could
be buffered from any sensitive visual resources.
The Stoughton site is environmentally acceptable for either heat drying or composting,
alone or in combination, Incineration is not acceptable at the Stoughton site because
even though state-of-the-art air pollution control equipment is proposed for the
}incinerator, it is not presently predicted to be sufficient to mitigate the predicted
:water quality impacts from an incinerator on the site. For heat drying and compost
there isa potential for significant impacts in the areas of traffic and noise. The EPA
•recommends that the mitigation measures discussed above be implemented to reduce
the significance of such impacts. Additional measures that could be initiated to further
-reduce potential impacts at the Stoughton site are described on Table 6.2-1.
6-7
-------
6.2.’i Quincy FRSA
No significant air quality impacts are expected from heat drying and composting at
Quincy FRSA, either alone or in combination with impacts from other sources in the
area. However, significant odor impacts could result from the composting operation,
particularly because of its proximity to potential receptors. Such odor impacts can be
mitigated with good engineering practices including monitoring of the scrubber to
ensure control of mercaptan, the main odorous compound of concern.
No significant water quality impacts are predicted for the Quincy FRSA site either.
Deposition of air pollutants would not be significant because any pollutants deposited
into the Weymouth Fore River would be sufficiently flushed and diluted by the river so
as not to exceed water quality criteria. Due to the absence of predicted significant air
and water quality impacts, no pathways for public health impacts are predicted.
Noise impacts are expected to result from residuals processing and handling at Quincy
FRSA. The noise impacts are minimal at the heat-drying and off-loading facilities
because of the distance from these facilities to receptors. Operating noise at the
compost facility can generally be mitigated by designing low noise generating
mechanical systems and by minimizing building openings. Materials-handling activities,
particularly at the compost facility, could also be noisy. This impact could be
mitigated by enclosing all loading and off-loading areas and by providing a bermed area
for idling trucks that are waiting to load or off-load. Use of enclosed, insulated pipes
for conveying materials would also mitigate noise impacts.
There would be increases in truck traffic resulting from residuals processing activities
at Quincy FRSA, and the traffic could overlap truck traffic generated from the
MWRA’s use of the site as a staging area for construction of the new secondary
wastewater treatment plant on Deer Island. The site access route is already heavily
used by truck traffic, and the impacts from the additional traffic related to residuals
facilities are not considered to be significant.
Potential land use and visual impacts at the site are not significant, largely because the
site has a long history of intense industrial use and residuals processing would be a
similar use of the site. Similarly, the industrial nature of the site has generally
preempted the existence of ecological resources at the site; thus, use of the site would
not have significant ecological impacts. Long-term residuals processing at Quincy
FRSA would not have significant socioeconomic impacts and could potentially decrease
effects of the departure of General Dynamics on the local commercial community by
making at least part of the site active again.
It has been determined that the Quiricy FRSA is eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places as an historic district. One building in the composting area is considered
as contributing to the historical significance of the shipyard, and thus mitigation
measures would need to be developed if demolition or other adverse effects to the
structure would result from construction of the compost facility.
The Quincy FRSA site is environmentally acceptable for transfer, dewatering, heat
drying and composting (alone or in combination); hov ever, there could be potentially
significant impacts in the area of odor, noise, and historic resources. The EPA
6-8
-------
recommends that the mitigation measures discussed above be implemented to reduce
the significance of such impacts. Additional measures that could be initiated to further
reduce potential impacts at the Quincy FRSA are shown on Table 6.2-1.
6.2.5 Spectacle Island
One exceedance of DEQE Threshold Effects Exposure Limits (TELs, equivalent to
maximum 24-hour Allowable Ambient Limits, or AALs) is predicted from incineration
at Spectacle Island. TELs are not regulatory limits but are used as guidelines in the
state permitting process, and this one exceedance is not considered by the EPA to be
unacceptable because it would not result in severe environmental or public health
impacts (see Section 5.4). The DEQE recently established annual average AALs;
however, annual average concentrations from incineration at Spectacle Island have not
been predicted. The combination of heat drying and composting with no incineration
would not have significant air quality impacts.
Since no water quality impacts are predicted from processing at Spectacle Island (any
pollutants deposited in the harbor around the island would be diluted and would not
exceed water quality criteria), water quality would not impact public health. As
discussed above, the one predicted exceedance of a DEQE TEL is not considered to be
unacceptable. Further analysis would need to be conducted to determine potential
exceedances of annual average AALs (and therefore potential public health impacts).
The isolated nature and public ownership of Spectacle Island render the noise, land use,
•visual- and socioeconomic impacts of any residuals-processing scenario on the island
minimal. The ecology on Spectacle Island reflects decades of disturbance, and although
a large nesting bird colony was reported to exist on the island it appears to have been
abandoned, so ecological impacts from residuals facilities would not be significant.
Barge transportation to and from the island is not predicted to result in any significant
impacts. Use of piers constructed by the DPW would minimize or eliminate any
‘additional impacts from construction of piers for residuals facilities. Construction of a
pipeline from Deer Island to Spectacle Island could have significant impacts on water
quality and aquatic life during dredging operations. In order to mitigate these impacts,
the planning and design for the pipeline would have to consider and minimize impacts in
the areas of dredging and construction methods, location of pipeline route, quality of
dredged material, and dredged-material disposal sites and methods.
Spectacle Island is environmentally acceptable for heat drying and composting (either
alone or in combination) and is also acceptable for incineration (subject to further
-analysis to assess predicted annual average pollutant concentrations relative to annual
average AALs and to determine the significance of any predicted exceedances). EPA
recommends that the mitigation measures discussed above be implemented to reduce
the significance of such impacts. Measures that could be initiated to further reduce
potential impacts at the Spectacle Island site are shown in Table 6.2-1.
6.2.6 Deer Island
As at Stoughton and Spectacle, one exceedance of DEQE Threshold Effects Exposure
Limits (TELs, equivalent to maximum 24-hour Allowable Ambient Limits or AALs) is
6-9
-------
predicted from incineration at Deer Island. TELs are not regulatory limits but are used
as guidelines in the state permitting process, and this one exceedance is not considered
by EPA to be unacceptable because it would not result in severe environmental or
public health impacts (see Section 5.4). DEQE recently established annual average
AALs; however, annual average concentrations from incineration at Deer Island have
not been predicted. Any combination of digestion, dewatering, and heat drying with no
incineration would not have significant air quality impacts at Deer Island. The
pollutants emitted from an incinerator or a heat dryer would not be the same as those
emitted from the new wastewater treatment plant, so no impacts are predicted from
interactions between these emissions.
Since no water quality impacts are predicted from processing at Deer Island (any
pollutants deposited in the harbor around the island would be diluted and would not
exceed water quality criteria), water quality would not impact public health. As
discussed above, the one predicted exceedance of a DEQE TEL is not considered to be
unacceptable. Further analysis would need to be conducted to determine potential
exceedances of annual average AALs (and therefore potential public health impacts).
There are no significant environmental impacts in any other areas predicted for any of
the processing options at Deer Island. The island is already designated for wastewater
treatment and it is publicly owned, so no land use, visual, socioeconomic, or ecological
impacts are anticipated. All transportation of sludge and sludge products would be b
barge using pre-existing piers, and thus no transportation impacts are expected. The
residuals area of the island is far removed from any noise receptors, so the elaborate
noise mitigation measures employed for the wastewater treatment plant (which is much
closer to the receptors) would be adequate to prevent noise impacts.
Deer Island is environmentally acceptable for digestion, dewatering, and heat drying
(either alone or in combination) and is also acceptable for incineration (subject to
further analysis to assess predicted annual average pollutant concentrations relative to
annual average AALs and to determine the significance of any predicted exceedances).
Measures that could be initiated to reduce potential impacts at the Deer Island site are
shown in Table 6.2-1.
6.3 FORMULATION AND DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS
Table 6.3-1 lays out the acceptable residuals technologies for each site as described
above. These sites and technologies can be combined in many ways to fashion an
integrated plan for residuals management. Having determined above and in
Chapter Five that the options shown on Table 6.3-1 are environmentally acceptable, and
given that they are all constructable and of comparable cost (as discussed in
Section 5.1), the remaining task is to combine the possible parts into one integrated
plan that will adequately provide for residuals treatment and disposal for the full
planning period (1995 to 2020). The MWRA, as the entity that will have to build and
operate the residuals facilities, has the primary voice in determining what combination
of sites and processes would most optimally serve its needs for residuals management.
The EPA’s role is to evaluate the MWRA’s proposed program and alternatives to it in
accordance with NEPA and to ensure that the sites and technologies chosen are
environmentally acceptable and will result in long-term compliance with the Clean
Water Act.
6-10
-------
TABLE 6.3-1. ACCEPTABLE SITE AND TECHNOLOGY COMBINATIONS
Site
Transfer Dewater Heat Dry Combust Compost Landfill
Walpole
MCI
X
Rowe
Quarry
X
Stoughton
X
X
Quincy
FRSA
X
X
X
X
Spectacle
Island
X
X
X
X
Deer
Island
X
X
The MWRA Board has chosen as its recommended plan a combination of heat drying and
composting of sludge at the Quincy FRSA and landfilling of grit, screenings, and
dewatered sludge (on an emergency basis) at the Walpole MCI site. Each of these
components is acceptable to the EPA with the recommended mitigation, as discussed
above in Section 6.2. However, the EPA is not fully convinced that this plan by itself
will adequately provide for the treatment and disposal of all residuals generated during
the planning period. As discussed in Section 5.1, the MWRA’s compost and heat-dried
sludge products are projected to contain contaminants in concentrations that could
jeopardize its marketability, especially in New England, both because the sludge
products may not meet existing or future state or federal regulatory requirements for
several of the uses intended by the MWRA and because the contaminant levels may
discourage potential consumers. In addition, future competition from other
municipalities who are planning to produce compost or other sludge products could
decrease the potential market for the MWRA sludge products. MWRA would have to
successfully distribute at least 60 percent of the sludge products it produces over the
25-year planning period and heat dry the rest prior to landfilling, in order to avoid using
up all the available capacity in the Walpole MCI landfill prior to the year 2020.
Although EPA supports the goal of 100 percent reuse of sludge through the production
of compost and heat dried sludge, EPA also believes that it is imperative that the
recommended residuals management plan reasonably ensure that sludge discharge to
Boston Harbor does not resume. The following steps would help guarantee that
adequate sludge product distribution will take place throughout the planning period.
6-11
-------
1. The MWRA should commit (in its Final Environmental Impact Report) that,
in the event it is unable to successfully market its sludge products and needs
to use the Walpole MCI landfill as a backup sludge disposal option, it will
heat dry that sludge prior to landfilling. 1-leat drying substantially reduces
the volume of sludge and thus would ensure that the Walpole MCI landfill
capacity is preserved to the maximum extent possible. Also, the impacts
associated with landfilling dewatered sludge cake, such as increased truck
traffic (Section 5.3), noise (Section 5.6), and odors (Section 5.4), which would
be significant if continued for more than a week or so, would be avoided.
2. The MWRA should enter into agreements with or obtain commitments from
the Massachusetts Department of Public Works (which maintains the state
highway system), the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Management (which maintains the state park system), or other governmental
agencies to use the MWRA’s compost or heat-dried sludge product for their
landscaping, fertilizing, or soil enhancement needs. Such agreements would
represent a firm market for at least some of the sludge products produced,
would demonstrate the state’s commitment to reuse of the M RA’s sludge
products and which may serve to increase the demand for sludge products by
other consumers by demonstrating their usefulness. These agreements or
commitments should be described in the MWRA’s Final Environmental
Impact Report (EIR).
3. Prior to issuance of its Final E!R, the MWRA should obtain a classification
from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
of the compost being produced by the compost pilot plant currently
operating on Deer Island, and it should begin a program of significant
distribution of that compost. This would demonstrate the MWRA’s ability to
negotiate the regulatory process for compost distribution and to develop
marketing agreements with potential compost users.
4. Several metals have been identified by the EPA as potentially exceeding
regulatory standards for distribution of sludge products in several states (see
Section 5.1). These include mercury, copper, cadmium, and molybdenum. In
its Final EIR, the MWRA should present a plan for first confirming the
projected levels of these chemical through additional sludge and influent
monitoring and then, if confirmed, for reducing these levels through
pretreatment, source reduction, or targeted enforcement.
5. The MWRA should also present in its Final EIR a marketing strategy for
sludge products that describes the methods that the MWRA will use to
contact potential buyers, to advertise its product, to transport its product,
and to assist buyers in obtaining appropriate permits if necessary.
Like the MWRA, the EPA supports beneficial reuse of sludge and sludge products.
However, without the assurances listed above or other equally effective measures that
MWRA can provide, EPA does not believe, based on current information, that the
MWRA Board’s recommended plan establishes a reasonably adequate program for
residuals management for the 25-year planning period. Should such assurances not be
6-12
-------
forthcoming in the Final EIR, EPA believes that the following two alternative residuals
management plans can be fashioned from the acceptable sites and technologies shown
on Table 6.3-1 to provide an adequate program for the full planning period.
•The first alternative combines heat drying and composting at the Quincy FRSA
(MWRA’s preferred site) with landfilling at both the Walpole MCI and Rowe Quarry
sites. As discussed in Section 5.1 of this Draft SEIS, if a significant portion of the
sludge products were not successfully distributed and were heat dried, adequate
capacity would exist to dispose of all sludge in the two landfills.
The second, and less desirable, alternative combines heat drying and composting at
Quincy FRSA and landftlling at Walpole MCI (both MWRA’s preferred sites) with
incineration at either Spectacle Island or, if needed, Deer Island. Because incineration
provides more volume reduction of sludge than heat drying, should MWRA be unable to
distribute a significant percentage of its sludge products it could incinerate the sludge
and have adequate capacity for the incinerator ash in the Walpole MCI landfill (see
Section 5.1). This alternative is contingent on the results of additional air quality
analysis for incineration (to determine potential annual average AAL exceedances)
being acceptable. If this alternative were chosen, Spectacle Island would be preferred
over Deer Island as the incinerator site because the town of Winthrop (which could be
impacted b incinerator emissions) already hosts the MWRA’s wastev ater treatment
plant, and fairness concerns dictate that it should not have to bear further v.aste
treatment burdens beyond those currently planned unless absolutely necessary.
6-13
-------
CHAPTER SEVEN
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM
7.1 INTRODUCTION
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process ensures that the public is offered an
opportunity for involvement in assessing projects subject to environmental review under
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Public involvement throughout the
review process helps to ensure that the resulting plans, recommendations, and policies
are not only environmentally and technically appropriate, but also politically and
socially acceptable. In addition, NEPA regulations for implementation of projects
funded by the Clean Water Act (under 40 CFR Parts 6 and 25) and the Council of
Environmental Quality’s regulations (40 CFR 1500 et seq.) require a public participation
program. The public participation program conducted for this Draft SEIS, which
consists of EPA’s program supplemented by and coordinated with the MWRA’s full-scale
public participation program, satisfies these requirements.
The need for organized and integrated public participation is increased by the
complexity of issues and concerns and by the large number of communities, interest
groups, and government agencies involved in this SEIS. The long-term residuals SEIS
public participation program performs two basic functions. It 1) provides the public
with information on the EIS process and the progress of studies for the Draft SEIS, and
it 2) creates opportunities for the public to provide input and consultation to the Draft
SEIS study team and responsible agencies.
Throughout development of this Draft SEtS the public was supplied with information
needed to understand the EIS program, to make informed comments, and to ask
pertinent questions.
7.2 MAJOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES
7.2.1 Scoping
The EPA, the Massachusetts Water Resource Authority, and the Massachusetts
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs participated in a total of eight scoping
meetings. These meeting were divided into two phases, with four meetings in each
phase. Phase I meetings were held in various towns within the MWRA service district
to determine public and local government views on the options for long-term residuals
management in relationship to technology, environmental, economic, and other issues.
These meetings were held on January 27, 1986, in Walpole; January 28, 1986, in
Charlestown; January 28, 1986, in Natick; and February 4, 1986, in Boston.
In early 1988, meetIngs for Phase II of the project were held in the areas designated as
potential locations for the long-term residuals management facilities. The purpose of
these meetings was to update the public on the progress of the residuals management
plans and the schedule for further studies, to explain the role of each agency, and to
inform the public of their opportunities for involvement. In addition, these meetings
were held to solicit input from those communities selected as potential hosts for
residuals management facilities through MWRA’s candidate options screening. These
7-1
-------
meetings were held February 18, 1988, for Bedford/Wilmington; February 22, 1988, for
Lynn/Winthrop/Boston/Malden/Revere; February 23, 1988, for Quincy/Braintree; and
February 25, 1988, for Stoughton/Walpole.
In both phases of the scoping meetings the objectives were to determine and collect
public concerns and environmental considerations for examination and analysis in the
Draft SEIS.
7.2.2 Workplan
A public participation workplan was developed by the EPA. The workplan included all
of the activities summarized here and was modified as appropriate to meet the
changing needs of the EPA and public. The EPA coordinated its public participation
efforts with the MWRA’s public participation program for the long-term residuals
management program, to avoid duplication of effort. In addition to public participation
activities coordinated with MWRA, the EPA will hold independent public hearings on
the Draft SEIS and Final SEIS when the documents are issued (See Section 7.2.5
below). Components of the MWRA’s program in which the EPA took part are discussed
more specifically below.
7.2.3 Facilities Planning Citizen’s Advisory Committee
The Facilities Planning Citizen’s Advisory Committee (FPCAC) was formed in October
of 1986. This FPCAC vbas appointed by the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act
(MEPA) Unit of EOEA to observe, review, evaluate, and comment on the siting process
and technologies to be used in the facilities plan. This FPCAC reflects a wide range of
concerned local citizens from various groups such as business, environmental,
governmental, and scientific groups.
The facilities plan has many components including the treatment plant, outfall and
tunnels associated with the plant, sludge-processing facilities, and combined sewer
overflows. To review the proposed plans in more detail, subcommittees were formed
within the FPCAC. Background information pertinent to the various plans and
technologies was provided to the subcommittees, in order for them to give educated
comments. Background information on wastewater treatment technologies used in other
cities, state and federal regulations relating to the proposed technologies, and other
information was provided. The FPCAC and the subcommittees met monthly, and EPA
and MWRA staff attended most meetings.
7.2.4 Regional Task Forces
Five Regional Task Forces (RTFs) were formed in January of 1988 in conjunction with
the MEPA unit and MWRA, to broaden the regional perspective and supplement the
FPCAC involvement in the planning process for long-term residuals management. Each
RTF was comprised of concerned citizens from each of the 12 communities identified
as potential sites for residuals management facilities and was grouped by regional
area. These are Bedford/Wilmington, Spectacle Island, Ashland/Walpole/Stoughton,
Lynn/Malden/Revere/ ’inthrop, and Quincy/Braintree. The RTF members were selected
to represent a balanced variety of viewpoints within each community and were able to
provide perspectives on local concerns at monthly meetings.
7-2
-------
Restructuring of the RTFs took place in December of 1988 to address the changing
needs of the communities, the FPCAC, the MWRA, and the various agencies. Two
representatives from each of the five original RTF groups were incorporated into the
FPCAC Residuals Subcommittee, which had been meeting on a monthly basis since
April 9, 1987.
7.2.5 Public Meetings and Hearings
In addition to the scoping meetings, the EPA staff has attended meetings involving the
RTFs and the FPCAC and its subcommittees to convey information and to stay aware
of public concerns. After Phase II of the MWRA scoping process, numerous affected
communities requested more intimate meetings with the EPA staff. The EPA did meet
with these town officials and their consultants to listen and to receive more site-
specific information.
Upon release of this Draft SEIS, public hearings will be held by EPA in the affected
areas. These public hearings will be held to solicit public comment and to determine
public concern regarding the Draft SEIS. Public testimony will be recorded. The Final
SEIS will be prepared taking these comments into account, and will contain a summary
of the public comments and of the EPA’s responses to the issues raised.
7.3 SUPPORT SERVICES
7.3.1 Announcements and Notice of Availability
A news information package was prepared and sent to appropriate media (i.e., local
newspapers and radio stations) announcing the public hearings and comment periods for
this Draft SEIS. Also, a notice of availability was sent to interested parties who are
included on the EPA’s mailing list (7.3.3).
- 7.3.2 List of Repositories
This Draft SEIS has been distributed to the local repositories shown in Table 7.3-1,
where it is available for public review. Repositories were selected in areas designated
as potential host communities for the residuals management facilities.
7.3.3 Mailing Lists and Interested Parties
A mailing list has been developed by the EPA and MWRA of approximately 5,000 people
and organizations who wrote or called EPA or MEPA, who attended any one of the
FPCAC,RTF, public meetings, or who indicated an interest in this project. The mailing
list was updated on a regular basis and used for distribution of fact sheets and
announcements of public participation events, as described above.
7.4 ISSUES
In preparation of this Draft SEIS many concerns and issues were raised at the FPCAC,
RTF, and public meetings, and through letters and other forms of communication. The
general issues and concerns that were recurring and applicable to long-term residuals
management are listed below.
7-3
-------
TABLE 7.3-1. LIST OF REPOSITORIES
Boston Public Library
Attn: Lloyd Jameson
66 Boylston Street
Boston, Mass. 02117
617/536-5400
EPA Region I, Library
JFK Federal Building
15th Floor
Boston, Mass. 02203
617/565-3300
Massachusetts State Library
Attn: Jennifer Nason
State House/Rm. 341 Document Dept.
Boston, Mass. 02133
617/727-2590
MWRA Library
Char lestown Navy Yard
100 First Street
Boston, Mass. 02129
617/242-6000
Thayer Memorial Library
Attn: Bruce Anderson
798 Washington Street
Braintree, Mass. 02184
617/848-0405
Maiden Public Library
Attn: Dma Malgeri
36 Salem Street
Maiden, Mass. 02148
617/324-0218
Norfolk Public Library
Attn: Jeanne Hill
139 Main Street
Norfolk, Mass. 02056
508/528-3380
Hough’s Neck Community Center
Attn: Patricia Redlen
1193 Sea Street
Quincy, Mass. 02169
617/471-8251
Thomas Crane Public Library
Attn: Linda Beeler, Reserve Dept.
40 Washington Street
Quincy, Mass. 02169
617/984-1950
Revere Public Library
179 Beach Street
Revere, Mass. 02151
617/284-0102
Stoughton Main Library
Attn: Lucy Loomis
84 Park Street
Stoughton, Mass. 02072
617/344-2711
Walpole Main Library
Attn: Jerry Romelczyk
65 Common Street
Walpole, Mass. 02082
508/668-5497
Winthrop Public Library
Attn: George Pillion
2 Metcalf Square
Winthrop, Mass. 02152
617/846-1703
7-4
-------
7.4.1 Air Quality (Including Noise and Odor)
Concerns were raised over the quality of air in the vicinity of the residuals management
facilities, especially at sensitive receptors such as schools, recreational areas,
hospitals, and other facilities used by the general public. The cumulative impacts of
other private or public facilities in addition to the residuals-processing facilities were
also a concern, as well as the air quality impacts from increased truck traffic and the
relationship of those traffic impacts to the facility impacts. Each of these issues is
addressed by site in Section 5.4, as are mitigation measures for all significant impacts.
7.4.2 Water Supply
The issue of locating a sludge-processing site near either a municipal water supply or
private water supply was a major concern. The potential cumulative impacts of the
residuals program and other facilities in the surrounding area on water supplies was also
of primary interest. For each site a discussion of these issues can be found in Section
5.5.
7.4.3 Transportation/Traffic
Questions about the transportation aspect of the residuals management program were
raised concerning the projected needs, whether these needs could be met at the
different sites given existing road conditions, and if not, what mitigation options were
available. How traffic vibration and noise would affect the surrounding community
were of interest. These issues and possible mitigation measures are addressed in
Section 5.3 by site.
7.4.4 Property Values
The effect of the facilities on private and public property values and upon the property
tax base in the community were issues that were brought up. Effects on property
values and tax revenues and possible mitigation are addressed in Section 5.11.
7.4.5 Land-Use Conflicts
Town officials and developers were concerned that some of the sites considered for the
residuals program were also proposed for other public (i.e., parkland) and private (i.e.,
industrial) use. They were anxious that these conflicts be resolved, and that the
residuals facilities not interfere with proposed development in the community.
Potential land-use conflicts and mitigation measures are addressed by site in Section
5.2.
7.4.6 Health Risks
A major concern was the potential health risks to people in the neighborhood and the
surrounding communities, not only for the short term (i.e., day to day) but also the
long-term cumulative (i.e., life time) affects. In particular, many people were
concerned about potential health risks from incinerator emissions or landfill leachate.
A discussion of these issues by site can be found in Section 5.9.
7-5
-------
7.4.7 Equitable Distribution of Regional Responsibility
One of the criteria discussed for site selection was “equitable distribution of regional
responsibility.” Many people were concerned about how that criterion would be defined
and applied during the site-selection process. Suggestions were given for what could be
considered as a burden of regional responsibility (i.e., prisons, rail stations, hazardous
waste facilities) and what should be included in this inventory. This issue is addressed
in Chapter Two.
7.4.8 Community Perception
Many citizens were worried that as the host of a residuals facility the community might
develop a negative perception of itself and that its civic pride would suffer, resulting in
outside business not investing in the community. This issue is similar for all potential
sites and the impact of such perceptions is not quantitative.
7.4.9 Screening Process
The screening process and the criteria used to screen sites were issues raised during the
public participation process. MWRA and EPA used a multistep screening process based
on several sets of criteria (a more refined set for each subsequent screening step) and
different levels of information about the sites and technologies. Citizens were
concerned that screening decisions were being made without accurate data and that the
screening criteria were not adequately defined or fairly applied. A detailed discussion
of the screening process can be found in Chapter Two.
7.4.10 Reuse of Residuals
Many people suggested that technologies that resulted in beneficial reuse of sludge
products should be used. These technologies include composting, heat drying, and
pelletizing, but not incineration. The advantages and disadvantages of each of these
technologies is discussed in detail in Sections 3.2 and 5.1.
7.4.11 Reliability of Technology
In looking at the technologies under consideration for sludge processing, people wanted
a reliable, workable, and cost-efficient technology. Citizens wanted assurances that
the equipment would be properly operated and maintained to decrease on the rate of
possible failure. Incidence of failure in other similar systems was of interest to people.
These issued are addressed in Chapters Two and Three and summarized in Section 5.1.
7.4.12 Site Utilities
Site utilities were a concern, and people wondered what utilities were workable for the
technologies used and who would supply those utilities. Some of the utilities of concern
were water, sewage, and electricity. Would MWRA bring the utilities into the town, or
would the town be responsible for providing them; would there be mitigation measures
for any or all of the utilities used? Who would pay for the utilities? A discussion of
these issues can be found in Sections 3.4 and 5.11.
7-6
-------
7.4.13 Cultural Resources
For some of the sites, concern was expressed that significant historic or archaeological
resources on the sites would be disturbed or destroyed. The presence of such resources
and mitigation of impacts on them are discussed in Section 5.10. In addition, a
Memorandum of Agreement signed by all involved parties outlines the mitigation
required of MWRA, where there are impacts (Section 4.9.2).
7.4.14 Safety
The safety of the citizens in the community v as a concern, especially as it relates to
the increased traffic and the impact on the efficiency of the police, fire, and other
emergency services. General traffic safety is addressed by site in Section 5.3.
7.4.15 Costs
The cost of the facility was an issue. Who v as to pay for the capital cost and the
maintenance of the facility? What ou1d the cost be? Ratepayers and users of the
system indicated that the less costly the facility, the better for all concerned. Cost
screening criteria are discussed in Chapter Two.
7.4.16 Pretreatment Program
People were concerned about the quality and implementation of the pretreatment
program as a method for reducing toxics going into the system. These toxics end up in
the sludge if they are not removed. People wanted assurances that the MWRA had a
good, enforceable program. The idea of source reduction instead of end-of-the-pipe
treatment was very attractive to communities. Mitigation measures and
recommendations related to pretreatment are discussed in Chapter Six.
7-7
-------
CHAPTER EIGHT
LIST OF PREPARERS
U.S. EPA - REGION I
Preparers:
Gwen S. Ruta, BS
Kathleen Kirkpatrick Hull, BS
Anne D. Rodney
Mark Stein, 3D
Reviewers:
Thomas W. D’Avanzo, MPA
3effr T. Fowle , 3D
Cynthia L. Greene, BS
Douglas Heath, MS
C. Brian 1-lennessy, MS
Richard P. Kotelly, MS
Susan C. Kuistad, BA
Corrine L. Kupstas, BS
Ronald G. Manfredonia. MS
Brian Pitt, BS
Edward L. Reiner, BS
Karen 3. Wilson, B
Thomas F. Wholle , BS
METCALF & EDDY, CONSULTANT
Preparers:
James T. Maughan, PhD
Kathleen M. Baskin, BS
Charles B. Cooper, BS
Andrew R. Cutko, MS
Warren F. Diesl, MS
Mary E. Doyle, MS
Maria S. Engel, MRP
Gina H. Gill, MBA
Karin 3. Shepardson, MS
Betsy Shreve-Gibb, MRP
Linda L. Travaglia, BS Candidate
Marc C. Wallace, BS
Reviewers:
Richard L. Ball, Jr., MS
David R. Bingham, MS
Dominique N. Brocard, PhD
Burton B. Bryan, PhD
Christopher D. Costello, BS
Robert H. Griffin, MS
James M. Osborn, MS
Robert 3. Reimold, PhD
8-1
-------
METCALF & EDDY, CONSULTANT
(Continued)
Thomas A. Spearin, MS
Michael A. Stafford, MS
3oseph Towarnicky, PhD
Thomas K. Walsh, MS
BOSTON UNIVERSITY - OFFICE OF PUBLIC
ARCHAEOLOGY
Reviewers:
Ricardo 3. Elia, PhD
Donald C. 3ones, MA
ABEND ASSOCIATES
Reviewers:
Norman A. Abend, MS
Michael R. Abend, MBA
COPLEY ASSOCIATES
Preparer:
Lawrence G. Copley, PhD
OTHER
Preparer:
Sara E. Bysshe, MA.
Reviewer:
Robert G. Vranka, PhD
8-2
-------
APPENDIX A
RESIDUALS CHARACTERIZATION
-------
TABLE A.I. COMPARISON OF PRO3ECTED POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS TO MEASURED CONCENTRATIONS
OF PRIMARY DIGESTED SLUDGE FOR TIlE MWRA SYSTEM
.
Projected
Digested Primary
(mg/kg)
Pilot PelIet .
izing Program e,
(mg/kg)
Residuals Monitoring
Pro
gramW
Deer lslav d
(mg/kg) a)
Nut lslan 1
(mg/kg) a)
Weughte
Average
Antimony
26
Arsenic
10
5.88 ± 1.16
6.70 ± 0.72
9.75 ± 5.43
7.62
Beryllium
<16
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
170
7
190
740
12.7 ± 176 (c)
187 ± 40.8
740± 131
284 ± 539 (c)
23.7 ± 3.88
19.1 ± 1.31
387 ± 25.2
1150 ± 38.0
415 ± 16.3
69.1 ± 49.6
6.63 394
85.3 ± 45.7
708 ± 232
183 ± 79.6
37.3
54 (d)
296
io2o )
345
Merctn’y
Molybdenum
Nickel
7
II
62
6.35 ± 1.35
70.3 ± 7.80
7.35 ± 0.78
14.3 ± 1.63
90.5 ± 5.93
4.95 ± 3.53
52.3 ± 28.9
54.3 ± 24.5
6.63
25.i
796 (d)
Selenium
Silver
28
28
44.2 ±
4.10 ± 0.61
7.00 ± 2.40
4.97
Thallium
<25
Zinc
1800
1800 ± 103
887 ± 280
1530
PCB- 1254
NP
0.61
1.86
Notes: NP Not Predicted
(a) 95-percent confidence interval is presented
(b) Weighted average calculated assuming 70-percent from North System (Deer Island) and 30-percent from South
System (Nut Island). (This is also assumed by MWRA during preparation of its Secondary Treatment Facilities
Plan.)
(c) 95-percent confidence interval exceeds projected concentration
(d) Weighted average exceeds projected.concentration
(e) Source: MWRA, ISPD, VII, 1989
(1) Sludge from Nut Island collected from March to October, 1988, sludge from Deer Island collected from
December II, 1996 to October, 1988.
A-I
-------
TABLE A.2. DEER ISLAND FINISHED COMPOST INORGANICS DATA
FROM MWRA PILOT COMPOST MONITORING PROGRAM
Sample
Concentrati
on (ppm)
Date
As
B
Cd
Cr
Cu
1-Ig
Mo
Ni
Pb
Se
Zn
1987
February
17.25
442.5
977.5
9.525
11.6
79.5
412.5
1412.5
March
19.75
482.5
1007.5
9.525
II
89
400
1545
April
21.2
546
1120
5.44
11.64
94
468
17)4
May
17.)
432.5
975
7.6
9.575
87
400
1462.5
June
18
440
1040
9.5
I )
80
400
1520
July
17.5
405
990
10
10.95
87.5
390
I SI S
August
September
Octobert
20
21
18
440
470
400
1100
1150
1160
8.7
12
14
12
12
IS
95
100
85
480
510
490
1650
1920
2020
November
21
470
1300
8.8
16
100
550
2040
December
19
410
1180
7.4
17
91
490
1980
1988
January
February
March
32.5
21.69
19
16
21.69
400
340
403
1210
1060
1167
14
10
3.9
16
II
13
95
79
117
460
420
525
1910
1810
2040
April
May
June
0
7.7
10
12.52
13
21
19.2
20
405
411
398
1300
1250
1330
5.3
6.4
7
101
102
88
506
447
479
5
2070
1925
1960
July
August
September
October
7.9
5.7
6.6
6.3
29’
15’
23
23
19
19
23
24
291
408
384
399
1210
1250
1180
1440
7.3
3.8
5.5
<7
<4
<4
(4
104
85
92
106
633
485
651
557
4’
4.6
4.6
4.6
2080
1860
1770
2080
Average
11.1
18.4
19.6
418
1162
8.4
10.3
93.2
484
4.6
1825
Source: MWRA Residuals Monitoring Program (1/1987 to 6/1988). Results for each month were derived from a composit
consisting of samples collected daily.
Notes: ‘Concentration is within five times the detection limit and is therefore of lower precision
A-2
-------
APPENDIX B
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
-------
TABLE B.l. GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS AND CRITERIA
FOR TRUCK TRANSPORT SYSTEMS
• Maximum over the road weight taken as 80,000 pounds.
• Trucking of residuals material has been confined to a daytime operation that will
not, unless under exceptional circumstances, be permitted to operate in urban
areas during morning peak periods (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.) or evening peak periods
(4:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.). Exceptional circumstances include situations where
significant operational advantages may be obtained compared to a negligible
increase in environmental impact, or where environmental impacts may be
mitigated.
• Loading operations are flexible in that their schedules can be tailored to optimize
truck operations.
• Unloading operations can take place between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Actual
times will vary according to each residuals transportation system.
TABLE B.2. GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS AND CRITERIA
FOR BARGE TRANSPORT SYSTEMS
• Coastal sites have existing piers, wharves or bulkheads adaptable to RO/RO use at
one-half the cost of a new RO/RO pier.
• Construction of a new RO/RO pier will be necessary at Deer Island and/or
Spectacle Island for management systems utilizing RO/RO transport at those
sites.
• Barging can occur at any time during the day or night.
• The effect of inclement weather on marine transport operations has not been
considered transportation.
B-I
-------
TABLE 6.3. GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS AND CRITERIA
FOR PIPELINE TRANSPORT SYSTEMS
• The following properties have been used in relevant calculations:
Liquid sludge 3% solids; 62.7 lb/cf
Centrate 0.2% solids
• The pipe is a high density polyethylene pipe with a friction coefficient of 140. No
mechanical joints are used, as the various pipe lengths are heat-fused together
during installation.
• The cross-harbor pipe construction detail consists of a 10 foot trench with pipes
bedded in five feet of gravel covered by a five-foot-thick stone layer.
• All dredged spoils from Construction can be disposed of properly at an approved
offshore spoils area.
• A redundant pipeline is provided in each pipeline system.
• Pumping is to take place 24 hours/day. Flow velocities are three fps or greater.
• Pump stations are to be staffed 24 hours/day.
B-2
-------
TABLE 6.4. IESIDIMLB VEUICIES By RATERIAL , PER IEEE A DAT (TEAJ 2020 i RST-CASE)
,aier o.rge uigesteo II Jto s1 .Ioge
Bulk bsrgs C ost . .. . .da ...t
10 110 Coapost (1/3 of slidg)
barge
Pellets (2/3 of sludge)
Pellets (all of aludge)
Ash & sc, . solid, (all)
Ash & scrih. sot ida (2/3)
Push., Dester.d sludge (cake)
trailer 1/3 to c oster
213 to heat dryer
All cake
C oet (1/3 of c i A .)
trailer
C ost t
Sulking asterial
Pud,,, Pellets (2l3)
trail., Pellets (2/3)
Pellets (sll)’
Pellet. (all)
Ash I scrsh. soli o (.11)
Ashi I scrsh. soli (2/3)
Grit & screeningi
Vehicle leterisl
Material
ci ic
yd.!d.y
Quantity
ethic
yd./week
Maxi.a
Vehicle
Load
(cu.yd.)
Uo. of
Vehicles
per week
No. of
days!
week
No. of
Vehicles
per day
of Vehicle Capacity Data or Nudser
of Vehicles
——
) ,3.IU
3 1’ ,31u
35i
11 1 2
HuRl,
Options,
III,
1988:
verge It) ovu ,uuu g.ItC
1,246
8,772
11,000
1 barge every 9 days
HuRl,
Design
Memo, 1988.
767
3,369
966
6 5 I
mIRA,
RF ,
Options,
lit,
1988 & Design lowe,
1988.
206
309
1,442
2,163
795
798
2 berges/weel
3 bergeslwreek
mill,
HuRl,
RFNP ,
RFMP,
Options,
Options,
itt,
III,
icea a Design Ieee,
1988 & Design Hes . ,
1988.
1988.
142
95
9%
665
715
795
1 to 2 barges/week
1 barge/week
tRill,
HWRA,
IFIP,
PFMP,
Opt ions,
Options,
Ill •
III,
1988 & Design lees,
1988 & Design lees,
1988.
1988.
356 2,492 29 86
712 6,984 29 172
1,068 7,476 29 258
767 5,569 16 536
1,246 5,722 80 109
712 4,954 60 62
206 1,442 29 50
206 1,442 38 38
309 2.163 29 75
309 2,163 38 57
142 996 36 28
95 663 36 18
7 12
7 25
7 37
5 67
S 22
5 12
5 10
5 8
S IS
5 Ii
7 4
7 3
5 4
S Sal
21 trucks/bergs B 46 cu.yds.
21 trucks/barge B 38 cu.yda.
21 trucks/barge B 38 cu.yds.
21 trucks/bargs B 38 cu. .
21 trucks!b.rge B 38 cu.yda.
tRilA, RF , Options, lit, 1988.
MWRA, RFMP, Options, iii, 1988.
HUlA, RFHP, Options, Itt, 1988.
HUlA, 5F 1, Options, tIl, 1988.
tRill, Design Memo, 1968.
For short period, of lmdfilling assles bitting .aterial:d .wetered sludge • 1:1
tRilA, UMFP, DElI, 1, 1989 and RilA Design Utmo, 1988.
HUlA, RFMP , Options, lii, 1988.
tRill, RNFP, DEll, 1, 1989 sad tRill Desigh Il , 1988.
A, IFMP, Options, tIl. 1988.
l , Design lees, 1988.
1111*, Design Mees 1988.
1 1 1 1*, PMFP, DEll, 2, 1919
l i lA, RMFP, DElI, 2, 1989
C c for grit a geruminga (I 1008. lhalpole 38 to site)
trailer
Cover • ask a ecr,h uclids (Iowa 1008, ihalpole 258 tO site)
Insinerste all pellets 162 7 4 a 2 mill, RMFP, 0811, 2. 1989 (For more ash hulA agst s S trucks per day of corer)
Iweinerate 2/3 peliuts 95 7 c3 a d HUlA, R1IFP, DEll, 2, 1989 (For more ash Vlu .astaiws 3 trucks per day of cover)
C r for 2/3 of sli*j cake (lowe 1008, Vaipole 258 to site) 3 53 a is HUlA, BF , DEll, 2. 1989: .116 million ethic yard, dawetered sludgel6 nths
.48 trucks per day; EPA: .19 million ethic yords dewatered sltme/6 itha
.116/68 — .19/a; a. 79; 2/3 of 79 • Si rucka B Rowe; 1/4 of 53 • IS B Valpole
C r for all pellets (lessa 1008, Valpole 258 to site) 5 Ii a 3 Fron i.uedi.tely above: If all dewatered sludge • bilking terial to the
landf ill • 2136 ethic yards per day 79 trucks of cover per day, then 309
Soiree,: For teri.l see chapter 4; asxi load, sad days per wash fros MIII docusents as i ctbic yard. of pellets per day • II trucks of cover.
• Sulking osterial is sssuivd to kuive the ames load size as . .,. ,. M . ,.t .
MIIA would use smoller truck. iu haul pellets than bilk buyer, would (tRill, INFP, DElI, 1, 1989).
B-)
-------
TABLE B.5. LANDFILL SITE TRUCK ROUND TRIPS PER DAY, BY SITE (YEAR 2020 • RST CASE)
Operation/Vehicles NateriaL
Vehicles
per
Day
WaLpoLe
Rowe
NormaL Operation no incineration
Pusher trailer Grit & screenIngs
4
4
DLsrp trailer Cover for grit & screenings
1
3
Total trucks per day, normal operation no IncIneration
Total truck ro .xid trips per hour (8 hours per day)
5
c i
7
ci
Normal Operation - with incineration
Pusher trailer Ash & scr*. ber soLids C2/3 of cake)
Grit & screenIngs
3
4
3
4
Dut trailer Cover for ash & scri±ber soLids
Cover for grit S screenings
1
1
3
3
TotaL trucks per day, normal operation with incineration
TotaL truck round trips per hour (8 hours per day)
9
1-2
13
1-2
No market (Alt sludge heat dried and taken to landfill)
Pusher trailer Grit S screenIngs
4
4
D r trailer Heat dried sludge (pellets)
Cover for pal Lets
Cover for grit S screenings
15
3
1
15
11
3
Total trucks per day, no market
Total truck ro s d trips per hour (8 hours per day)
23
3
33
4
Short term emergency (two-thirds dewatered sLudge to landfiLl)
Pusher trailer 2/3 of dewatered sludge 25 25
Grit & Screenings 4 4
Dutp trailer Cover for dewatered sLudge 13 53
BuLking materiaL for dawater.d sLudge 12 12
Cover for grit & screenIngs 1 3
Short term emergency, total trucks per day 55 97
Total truck round trips per hour (8 hours per day) 6-7 12
Source: See Table BA.
B -k
-------
Total trucks per day
Total truck ro.., d trips
Source: See Table 8.6.
N A will ac smaller
Naterlal
Dewatered sludge (cake)
1/3 ccrpost
213 heat dryer
ALL
Cc ost (113 of sludge)
Conpost sss Jint
Pellets (2/3 of ceke)
Pellets (2/3 of cake)
Pellets (all cske)
Pellets (all ceke)
Ash & •cri. er solids (213 of cake)
Ash & scr b.r solids (all of cake)
12
25
37
67
22
10
S
15
11
4
6
TABLE 8.6. PROCESSING SITE TRUCE Ra.mD TRIPS PER DAYS 8? SITE (TEAR 2020- I RST CASE)
Nazi*r Nazi..r
No. of luster of Ni. er of
Trucks Trucks at Trucks at
per day Stougtiton iincy FRSA
Vehicle
Pusher trailer
Small trucks
Dusp trailer
Pusher trailer
25
67
22
37
67
22
a
134 114
per hour (8 hours per day) 16-17 14-15
trucks to haul pellets than smss buyers would ( RA RIIFP DEIR 1, 1989)
B-5
-------
APPENDIX C
SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
-------
I Southwood Coninunity
Hospital
2-U 1/2 story bldgs.
2-U story bldgs.
3-3 story bldgs.
2 Bristol/Blake State
Reserva t ion
3 St. Judes Church
U Norfolk Cooperative
Nursery School at
Federated Church
of Norfolk
5 Mass. Audubon Society
Stony Brook Visitor
Center
6 The Methodist Church
7 The Massasoit School/
Boyden School
B The Bay State Raceway
9 M.C.I. Cedar Junction
10 M.C.I. Piorfolk
TABLE C.1. WALPOLE MCI SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
rublic Water
Health Quality
Receptor
Number Description Location
Air Traffic Noise Visual
Dedham Street, Norfolk
X
X
North Street, Norfolk
X
Main Street, Norfolk
X
Union Street (Rt. 115),
Norfolk
IC
Diamond Street, Norfolk
IC
Sununer Street, Walpole
IC
Washington Street, Walpole
IC
IC
Route I, Foxboro
Main Street (Rt. 1A),
Wa 1 pole
X
X
IC
IC
Main Street, Norfolk
IC
IC
IC
C-i
-------
TABLE C. I (Contim ed). WALPOLE NCT SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Public Water
Health Quality
Air TrafTic Noise Visual
Receptor
Number
Description
Location
11
Ray State Correctional
Center
Clark Street, Norfolk
X
X
X
X
12
Sullivan Stadium
Route 1, Foxboro
13
Walpole Sportsman’s
Association Picnic Area
Dirt road off of Lincoln
Road, Walpole
X
lii
nanuel Baptist Church
Rockwood Road, Norfolk
X
15
Alvin J. Freeman School
Boardman Street, Norfolk
I C
16
Stop River and
Impoundment
Norfolk
X
17
H.C.I. Norfolk Ground—
Water Supply
Norfolk
IC
C-2
-------
i00 0 0 ooc
SCALE iP WE1t
2000 0
SC. E FEE
SITE BOUNDARY
SITE AREA
LANOFLI. AREA
( ) SENSITIVE RECEPTOR
NOTES. 1. SENSITIVE RECEPTOR NUMBERS
RE FER TO TABLE C
2. V2 KM I KM. 1 MI. AND 2 KM PERIMETERS
ARE DRAWN FROM ThE POTENTLAL
LANDFLL BOUNDARY
FIGURE C.1. WALPOLE MCI: SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
-------
Description
Williamsburg Square
Townhouses - 5 Bldgs.
(2 stories)
2 Annemark Nursing Home
(3 storIes)
8 MasonIc Temple
(2 stories)
9 AugustIne J. Belmonte
Saugus Middle School
10 Cllf’tondaie Methodist
Church
11 St. Margaret’s Church
13 The Linden School and
the Hunting Field
(2 storIes)
11$ Apartments, possibly
elderly housing
15 Maiden Public Library,
Linden Branch
16 St. Lukes Episcopal
Church
17 St. Josephs Parish
TABLE C.2. ROVE QUARRY SENSfTIVE RECEPTORS
Public Water
Location He 1th Quality
Salem Street, Revere
Receptor
Number
Air Tratf’ic Noise Visual
x
SaJem Street, Revere X
Adams Avenue, Saugus X
Adams Street, Saugus X
Lincoln Ave., Saugus X
Lincoln Ave., Saugus X
Wescott Street, Maiden X
Springdaie Street, Malden X
Oiiver Street, Maiden X
Sherman Street, Revere X
Salem Street, Nalden X
x x
x x
x
x
x
x
c- I l
-------
18 Piaplewood Elementary
School
20 Christ United Methodist
Church
21 Temple Tifereth Israel
23 FIrst Church of the
Nazarene
211 Briar Hill Estates,
Ii Buildings
with balconies
(3 stories)
28 Trailer Park on Rt. 1
30 Whelan School
31 Maiden Catholic High
School (3 stories)
32 Marcia Brown Middle
School (3 stories)
33 Lutheran Church
311 Winthrop School
(2 stories)
35 The Church of Christ
36 Vineyard Chr1 tian
Fellowship
TABLE C.2 (Continued). ROWE QUARRY SENSITIVE RF.CEPTORS
Public Water
health Quality
Salem Street, Maiden X
577 Salem Street, Maiden X
Salem Street, Maiden X
Faulkner Street, Maiden X
Loomis Street, Maiden X
Route 1, Maiden X
Maiden Street, Revere
Crystal Street, Maiden
Broadway, Maiden I
99 Water Street, Maiden
Asheroft Road, Melrose
Upham Street, Meirose
Upham Street, Meirose
Receptor
Number Description Location
Air Traffic Noise Visual
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C-5
-------
37 Common Park
38 RIpley School
(3 storIes)
39 The Forestdale School
(2 stories)
110 McFadden Memorial Manor
III Forestdale Community
Church
113 Maplewood Baptist Church
1111 Church (no name)
115 St. Mary’s of the
Assumption Church
116 Assembly of Cod Marinara
II? Saugus Senior Center
(2 stories)
119 The Waybright School
(2 storIes)
50 Saugus High School
(3 stories)
51 Evans Elementary School
(3 stories)
TABLE C.2 (Continued). ROWE QUARRY SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Public Water
H aIth Quality
Receptor
Number Description Location
Air Traffic Noise Visual
Corner of Larabee and
Laurel Streets, Meirose
Forest Street, Meirose
Sylvan Street, Maiden
Forest Street, Maiden
235 Forest Street, Maiden
Salem Street, Maiden
Salem Street, Maiden
Washington Avenue, Revere
Central Street, Saugus
Central Street, Saugus
Talbot Street, Saugus
Highland Avenue, Saugus
East Denver Street, Saugus
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
C-6
-------
TABLE C.2 (Continued). ROWE QUARRY SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Public Water
Health Quality
Receptor
Number
Description
Location
Air Traffic Noise Visual
52
Central Street Children’s
School (2 stories) -
Central Street, Saugus
(Corner of Stone St.)
X
53
Veterans Memorial
School (3 stories)
Hurd Avenue, Saugus
X
511
North Shore Convalescent
Home (3 stories)
Riverside Court, Saugus
X
55
Groundwater under Rowe
Quarry
Route 1, Malden/Revere
X
56
Rumney Marshes
Revere
x
C-?
-------
TABLE C.2 (Continued). ROWE QUARRY ELEVATED SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Receptor No. of Eleva- Public Water
Number Description Location Stories tlon(ft)’ Health Quality Air Traffic Noise Visual
3 Salem Place Condominiums Salem Street, Revere 5 115 X X
with balconies
12 Granada Highlands Kennedy Drive, Maiden 8 270 X X
Apartments
19 Maiden Housing Authority 60 Salem Street, 10 190 X
Maiden
26 Caruso Northgate 259 Lantern Road, 5 85 X
Apartments Revere
27 Dartmouth Condominiums 175 Ward Street, 5 85 x
Revere
29 Northahore Assembly of 77 Kennedy Dr., (60 ft) 1110 X X X X
God Church (on hill Maiden
overlooking quarry)
1 12 Webster Arms Apartments 2 Webster Street, 5 105 K
Maiden
118 Heritage Heights 13 Talbot Street, 6 190 K
Condominiums Saugus
(with balconies)
‘ Includes height above MSL plus the height of the building, assuming one story equals 15 ft.
C-8
-------
SCALE IN METERS
U
2000
SCALE IN FEET
FIGURE C l. ROWE QUARRY: SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
1000 9 10 )0
LEGEND
SITE BOUNDARY
LI__i SITE AREA
LANDF!LL AREA
SENSfl1VE RECEPTOR
NOTES: 1. SENSITIVE RECEPTOR NUMBERS
REFER TO TABLE C2.
2. 1/2 KM. 1 KM. I MI. AND 2 KM PERIMETERS
ARE DRAWN FROM ThE PROPOSED
LANDFILL BOUNDARY
-------
2 N.E. Sinai Hospital
3 Jewish Community Center
11 Avon High School
5 Avon Jr. High School
6 Young School
7 Randolph Country Club
8 Library
9 Edwin A. Jones
Elementary School
11 Brockton Reservoir
12 Adams Tower Hill
Elementary School
13 High School
11$ Stetson School
15 Robert F. Middle School
16 Brockton Reservoir
Location
North School Drive,
Stoughton
Pine Street, Stoughton
Central Street, Stoughton
W. Main Street, Avon
W. Main Street, Avon
Lou Courtney Drive,
Randolph
Warren Street, Randolph
Park Street, Stoughton
Jones Terrace, Stoughton
Avon, Brockton
Adams Street, Randolph
S. Main Street, Randolph
S. Main Street, Randolph
Fogun Street, Avon
Avon
x
x
x
x
x x
x
x
x
x x
Receptor
Number
1
Description
North School
TABLE C.3. STOUCIrFON SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Public Water
Health Quality
Air Traffic Noise Visual
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
C-b
-------
________Description
Blue Hills Convalescent
Home
18 South Clement School
20 Stoughton High School
21 Stoughton Jr. High
School
22 West Elementary School
23 Glen Echo Pond
25 New England Sinai
Hospital Daycare
Center
26 St. James Roman Catholic
Church of Stoughton
27 2 Apt. Bldgs. with
balconies (3 stories)
28 Christ the King Lutheran
Church
29 Lainplighter Village ten
buildings, no balconies
(2 stories)
30 Charlotte Apartments
(3 stories) Presidential
Courts (2 stories)
(townhouses)
Receptor
Number
17
Locat ion
TABLE C.3 (Continued). STOUGIT CN SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Public Water
Health Quality
Air Traffic Noise Visual
x
Park Street, Stoughton X
Cedar Street, Stoughton X
Pearl Street, Stoughton X
Adams Street, Stoughton X
Central Street, Stoughton X
Canton, Stoughton
Pine Street, Stoughton X
Page Street, Stoughton X
(near Page Terrace)
552 Central St., Stoughton
Central St., Stoughton X
(near Pleasant St.)
Stagecoach Road (on Canton/
Stoughton line)
Adams Street, Stoughton
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
—
-------
Description
District Court House
Condominiums
(2 stories)
Immaculate Conception
Church
Baseball field
First Presbyterian
Church
Joseph H. Gibbons
Elementary School
Faxon Park
Condominiums
(3 stories)
First Congregational
Church & Park
Pine Crest Apartments
Apartments - 6 buildings
(3 stories)
Trinity Episcopal Church
Traff’ic Noise Visual
Receptor
Number
31
32
33
314
35
37
38
39
110
Ill
142
143
TABLE C .3 (Continued). STOUGHTON SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Public Water
Location Health Quality
Central Street, Stoughton
(near Adams Street)
1600 PennsylvanIa Avenue,
Stoughton
School Street, Stoughton X
Corner of Perry & Drake X
Ave., Stoughton
Pearl Street, Stoughton X
Lothrop Street, Stoughton X
Paul Street, Stoughton X
Corner of Walnut & Park
Streets, Stough ton
Pierce Street, Stoughton X
149 Summer Street, Stoughton
Summer Street, Stoughton
Summer Street, Stoughton X
C: —]
Air
x
‘C
‘C
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
‘C
x
-------
1j7 Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter Day Saints
118 Avon Public Library
119 Park with playground &
Swings
50 Moses Curtis Park &
Blanchard House
51 Avon Baptist Church with
ballf’ield-Fellowship
Field
52 St. Michael’s Church
53 First Congregational
Church Daycare & Nursery
511 Apartments (3 stories)
55 Trinity Episcopal Church
TABLE C.3 (Continued). S UCI1FON SENSITIVE RECEP RS
Public Water
Health Quality
Park Street, Stoughton X
Patrick-Clark Drive, X
Avon
1 I5 Our Lady of the Rosary
Church
116 South School - Ralph
Butler Elementary
School
Receptor
Number Description Location
Air Traffic Noise Visual
South Street, Avon X
W. Main Street, Avon
Page Street, Avon X
E. Main Street, Avon X
E. Main Street, Avon X
E. Main Street, Avon X
S. Main Street, Randoiph X
117 Highland Ave., Randolph
Warren Street, Randolph X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
-------
Description
Presidential Avenue
Condos (with balconies)
(2 stories)
57 North Jr. High
58 Cabot Place Executive
Park (3 stories)
59 Mary Baker Eddy House
60 Isacc Talbot House
61 2—story townhouses
62 Samuel Atherton House
(est. 18111)
63 John Atherton House
(est. 1769)
611 Masonic Temple
65 Lynngate Apartments
(3 stories - with
balconies) (118-units)
66 Small Pond
67 Henry Drake House
(est. 1821)
68 First United Methodist
Church
Locat ion
LaFayette Street, Randolph
High Street, Randolph X
Page Street, Stoughton
Central Street, Stoughton
Central Street, Stoughton
Page Street, Stoughton
Central St., Stoughton
1170 Central St., Stoughton
Pleasant St., Stoughton X
Pleasant St., Stoughton
Indian Lane, Canton
69 Pleasant St., Stoughton
Pleasant St., Stoughton X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Receptor
Number
56
TABLE C.3 (Continued). STOUGITFON SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Public Water
Health Quality
Air Traffic Noise Visual
x
x
x
x
1 —ili
-------
TABLE C.3 (Continued). STOUGHTON ELEVATED SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Receptor
Number
Description
Location
No. of’
Stories
Elevation
(1 t)*
Public
Health
Water
Quality
Air Traffic
Noise Visual
211
6-Story Reebock Office
Warren Street,
6
280
X
X
Building
Stoughton (near
Route 211 entrance)
36
Stoughton Housing
I l Capen Street,
5
305
X
X
x
Authority Elderly
Stoughton
Housing
1111
Canterbury Apartments — Oak Street,
7
305
X
X
X
2 buildings, (with
Stoughton
balconies); Another
apartment complex - 2
buildings with
balconies; Kindercare
daycare center
69
Cardinal Cushing
830 Oak St.,
15
350
X
X
General Hospital
Brockton
* includes height above MSL plus the height of the building, as
suming one
story equals 15
ft.
-15
-------
SCALE IN METERS
0
SCALE IN FEET
2000
L i
LEGEND
SflE BOUNDARY
srr AREA
SENSITiVE RECEPTOR
NOTES: 1. SENSITiVE RECEPTOR NUMBERS
REFER TO TABLE C.3
2. 1 KM, I MI. 2 KM. AND 3 KM RADII
ARE DRAWN FROM THE POTENTLAL
RESCUALS PROCESSW4G FACILFTh
STACK LOCAT1O4
FIGURE C.3. STOUGHTON: SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
200
-
— ____
1000 C 1000
-------
1 Newell Playground
2 Victory Park
3 Fore River Field &
Mound Street Beach
(Clubhouse & Community
Center)
11 St. Joseph’s School
5 Snug Harbor School
7 Broad Meadows School
8 Bicknell School
(now Condominiums)
9 Beals Park
10 Condominiums
11 Eldon H. Johnson School
12 Adams School
13 John Adams Children’s
Center
i’i Avalon Beach & Chipwood
Park
15 Webb Park
Circle Dr., Weymouth
Southern Artery, Quincy
Nevada St., Quincy
Hersey Place, Quincy
Palmer St., Quincy
Mofat Road, Quincy
90 Sea St., Weymouth
Washington St., Weymouth
North St., Weymouth
Pearl St., Weymouth
Green St., Weymouth
Green St., Weymouth
Avalon Ave., Quincy
Gibbens St., Weymouth
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x
x x
TABLE C. 1 $. JTNCY FRSA SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Public Water
Health Quality
Receptor
Number Description Location
Air Traffic Noise Visual
x
x x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
C- 17
-------
Description
Sacred Heart School and
Church
17 Hunt School
18 Weston Park
19 Watson Park
20 Playing field at old
Lincoln School
21 Donald E. Ross School
22 Mary Deb
Day Care Center
23 Boston Harbor
211 Eldrldge School
25 Archle T. Morrison
School
26 East Jr. H.S.
27 Town of’ Braintree
Council on Aging;
Multipurpose Center
28 St. Thomas Moore School
29 Faxon Park
Location
Front St., Weyniouth
Broad St., Weymouth
Washington St., Weymouth
Gordon Road, Braintree
May St., Braintree
Elm St., Braintree
237 Conniterclal St.,
Bra in tree
Lincoln St., Braintree
Morrison School St.,
Bra in tree
River St., Braintree
Middle St., Braintree
Blanchard Blvd., Braintree
Bradford St., Quincy
Receptor
Number
16
TABLE C.Il (Continued). iINCY FRSA SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Public Water
Health Quality
Air Traffic Noise Visual
x
x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
C- 1R
-------
32 St. Jerome’s School
33 TOT Gym; First Chance
Headstart and Country
Academy Chi]dren’s Center
31 1 Legion Field
36 Resthaven Nursing Home
37 Condominiums
(11 stories)
38 St. John’s School
39 Lincoln Conmiunity School
110 Kincaide Park
Ill Lincoln School
l2 Rae E. Sterling Middle
School
113 St. Coletta’s School
1111 Archbishop Williams H.S.
115 Athletic Field
Coninercial and Middle St.,
Weymouth
155 Southern Artery,
Braintree
Phibbs St., Quincy
Whitwell St., Quincy
Water St., Quincy
Water St., Quincy
Ill Brooks St., Quincy
Granite St., Quincy
85 Washington St., Braintree
Independence Ave., Braintree
Storrs Ave., Braintree
31 WT Park
TABLE C.11 (Continued). QUINCY FRSA SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Public Water
He alth Quality
Receptor
Number Description Location Air Traffic Noise Visual
Weymouth Great Hill,
Weymou th
Bridge St., Weymouth
182 Green St., Weymouth
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x
C- 1Q
-------
116 South Shore Mental
Health Center
Ill The Landmark Condominiums
118 High School
119 Jr. College
50 Quincy Hospital
51 Woodward School
52 Central Middle School
53 Adams National
Historical Site
511 Faxon Field
55 Penns Hill
56 Whites Hill
57 Park Near Pond Street
58 Metro Yacht Club
61 Park in Germantown
on Bay
62 Weymouth Fore River
72 Thayer Public Library
Washington St., Braintree
Washington St., Braintree
Coddington St., Quincy
Coddington St., Quincy
Whitwell St., Quincy
1102 Hancock St., Quincy
Hancock St., Quincy
Furnace Brook Parkway, Quincy
Coddington St., Quincy
Quincy
Brain tree
Pond St., Quincy
39 Vinedale Road, Braintree
Captains Walk, Quincy
x x
‘C
x
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C ‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C x
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
x ‘C
TABLE C. 1 l (Continued). QUINCY FRSA SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Public Water
Health Quality
Receptor
Number Description Location
Air Traffic Noise Visual
x
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
Southern Artery
Bra intree
n
-------
86 David J. Cràwley Court
Apartments (hist. signif);
10 bldgs, 5 units each)
Gordon St., Bralntree
Vindale Road, Braintree
93 I Southern Artery,
Qu I ncy
2 l Field St., Quincy
2 I5 Sea St., Quincy
353 Sea St., Quincy
Intersection of
Sea St. & Pelican
Road, Quincy
Corner of Riverside
Ave. & Sea St., Quincy
53 Empire St., Quincy
Receptor
Number Description Location
TABLE C. 1 (Continued). QUINCY FRSA SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Public Water
Health Quality
Air Traffic Noise Visual
73 Bralntree Yacht Club
71j Small Public Beach
(+ picnic area)
75 Pollard Place (condos)
77 Apartment Building
79 Apartment Building
80 Reservoir Mannor
Apartments 2 Buildings
Quincy Comm. United
Methodist Church
(with Day Care)
82 Library
83 Bethel Church of the
Nazarene (good possib -
day care)
81$ Playground
85 St. Bonifacé Church
x
x x
x
x
x
x
x x
x
x x
x x
x x
x
Palmer St., Quincy
Corner of Palmer St.
& Shed St., Quincy
Snug Harbor St., Quincy
C-2 1
-------
87 Joseph Palmer Park
88 Manet Coimiunity Health
Center at Snug Harbor &
Quincy Housing Authority
& Harborview Resident
Conmiittee
89 Quincy Yacht Club
90 Hughs Neck Coastal Park
(CZM) (IIughs Neck
Veterans Memorial Park)
91 Houghs Neck Cotimunity
Center & Manet Community
Health Center
92 Hough School (WWII
monument)
93 Chris Peter Memorial
Park
911 Apartment Building
95 Apartment Building
(balconies)
97 Workers Compensation
Training Center,
Physical Therapy
98 Crestview Healthcare
Facility Nursing Home
Darrow & Sea St.,
Quincy
Pond St., Quincy
39 Pond St., Quincy
365 Washington St.,
Quincy
78 Greenleaf ’ St.,
Qu i ncy
TABLE C.I4 (Continued). QUINCY FRSA SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Public Water
Health Quality
Receptor
Number Description Location
Air Traf’fic Noise Visual
Bicknell St., Quincy X
in Rotary, Quincy X
Sea Ave., Quincy X
Fensmere St., Quincy X
1193 Sea St., Quincy X
Manet Ave., Quincy X
x
x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
C -X
-------
109 Granite Ledge Condos
(Townhouses)
110 Family Counseling and
Guidance Center
111 Independence Manor
Sr. Citizen’s Complex
112 Playground - Basketball
and Baseball
113 Erwin Davis Memorial Park
115 American Overseas
Marine Corp.
Lancaster St., Quincy
Grafton St., Quincy
Whitwell St., Quincy
(next to Quincy
Hospital)
Granite St., Quincy
Independence Ave.,
Bra in tree
Independence Ave.,
Bra in tree
E. Commercial St.,
Braintree
Faxon St., Braintree
116 E. Howard St.,
Quincy
TABLE C. 1 1 (Continued). QUINCY FRSA SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Public Water
Health Quality
Receptor
Number Description Location
100 Greenleaf Arms
Apartments
101 JFK Health Center
102 Thomas Crane Public
Library
103 Daniel Webster Elementary
1011 Temple or Hebrew School
107 YMCA Daycare Center
17 Greenleaf St.,
Qu I ncy
1120 Hancock St.,
Quincy
Washington St.,
Qu i ncy
Air Traffic Noise Visual
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x
x
x
x
x
x x x
C’- 73
-------
Description
South Landing Condos
Quintree Mall
St. Joseph’s Church
Our Lady of’ Good Council
Church
Playground - Basketball
and Tennis
Houghs Neck
Congregational Church
St. Thomas Aquinas Hall
Most Blessed Sacrament
Church
Glad Tidings Church
First Church of’ Christ
Sc lent 1st
Playground/Watson Park
John Paul Circle
TABLE C.Ii (Continued). JINCY FRSA SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Public Water
Location Health Quality Air
Southern Artery, x
Quincy (across from
QMHC)
Southern Artery, x
Brain tree
Washington St., X X
Quincy
21 13 Sea St., Quincy X X
Seagull Road, Quincy X X
Manet Ave., Quincy X X
Darrow St., Quincy X X
Sea Ave., Quincy X X
Washington St., X X
Qu I ncy
Greenleaf St., Quincy X X
Gordon Road, X X
Bra intree
John Paul Circle, X
Bra Intree
Receptor
Number
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
1211
125
126
127
Traffic Noise Visual
x x
x x
x
C—?”
-------
128 First Presbyterian
Church
129 Fort Square United
Presbyterian Church
130 Christadapel Chapel
131 St. John’s Catholic
Church
132 SkylIne Condominiums
and Apartments
(3 stories)
1311 Union Congregational
Church
135 Monadequat Village
(3 stories)
136 Apartment Building
(3 stories)
137 Pond
138 The Quincy Homestead
(est. 1680)
139 Trinity Episcopal Church
1110 Tufts Library, North
Branch
Skyline Dr.,
Brain tree
TABLE C. 1 1 (Continued). QUINCY FRSA SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Public Water
Health Quality
Receptor
Number Description Location
Air Traffic Noise Visual
272 Franklin St.,
Quincy
X
X
Stevens & Penn St.,
Quincy
X
X
134 Penn St., Quincy
X
X
School St., Quincy
X
X
Union & Washington
St., Braintree
X
X
Hamilton St.,
Braintree
X
191 Comercial St.,
Bra in tree
X
Butler Rd., Quincy
X
Butler Rd., Quincy
X
Broad St., Weymouth
X
X
North St., Weymouth
X
x
-------
liii MDC Park and Skating
Rink
East Junior High School
Masonic Temple
Weymouth North High
School and Vocational
Technical High School
The Tufts Library
Cranberry Pond
St. Thomas Mores Church
All Soul’s Church
First Congregational
Church
150 Emanuel Parish
Episcopal Church
1511 Quincy Ave Apartments —
11 stories with
balconies)
157 Grace Presbyterian
Church
158 Monatiquot Brook
159 Wessagusset Beach
Broad St., Weymouth
Academy Ave., Weymouth
Broad St., Weymouth
Maple St., Weymouth
Broad St., Weymouth
Cranberry Road, Weymouth
Storrs Ave., Braintree
Elm St., Braintree
Elm St., Braintree
Washington St., Braintree
Hancock St., Quincy
Hayward St., Braintree
Bra in tree
Wessagusset Rd., Weymouth
x
x
x
x
x
x x
x
TABLE C.1$ (Continued). f JINCY FRSA SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Public Water
Health Quality
Receptor
Number Description Location
Air Traffic Noise Visual
1112
1113
11111
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x
x
x
x x
x
x x
f, -c ..
-------
TABLE C.II (Continued). QUINCY FRSA ELEVATED SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Receptor
No.
of
Eleva-
Public
Water
Number Description
Location Stories
tlon(ft)*
Health
Quality Air Traffic Noise Visual
63 Costanzo Pagnano Towers 109 Curtis Ave., lii 210 X X
Quincy Housing Authority Quincy
between Washington & -
Curtis - has balconies
61 1 Faxon Commons (West Side 1001 + Southern Artery, 6 105 X X
of Southern Artery) - has Quincy
balconies (80 Apts. per
Bldg. + 9 Bldgs.) -
59 Senior Citizens Center 1000 Southern Artery, 8 130 X X X
East side of Southern Quincy
Artery - has balconies
(3 Bldgs.)
65 Presidential Estates, 1020 Southern Artery, 3 75 X X X
East side of Southern Quincy
Artery next to Senior
Citizens Center - only
three stories with
balconies but on high
terrain (15 Bldgs.)
35 Quincy Mental Health 1160 Southern Artery, 3 65 X X X X
Center Southeast of’ Quincy
Presidential Estates
only three stories but
on high terrain
66 Quincy Towers Condos # Washington Street, 8 125 X X
Washington Street & S. Quincy
Artery - has balconies
C -27
-------
TABLE C.1$ (Continued). ( JINCY FRSA ELEVATED SE ISITIVE RECEPTORS
Receptor
No.
of’
Eleva-
Public
Water
Number Description
Location Stories
tion(ft)*
Health
Quality Air Traffic Noise Visual
67 Captain Cove Apartments Cove Way, Qulney 10 153 X X
on Town River Bay -
has balconies
30 Academy Park Condos 155 Kendrick Ave., 6 180 X X
(has balconies) Quincy
68 Clipper Apartments off 75 Palmer Street, 6 93 X X
Palmer Street on Town Quincy
River Bay - has
balconies
60 Clement O’Brien Towers 23 Bicknell Street, 8 126 X X X
in German Town - Senior Quincy
Citizens Housing
69 Town Brook House Apts. 115 Bracket Street, 8 126 X X
with balconies (in back Quincy
of’ Super Stop & Shop
off S. Artery)
70 Southgate Apartments 27 Des Moines Road, 5 85 X X X
(1&2 Bdrms) Quincy
(almost finished)
71 Kendrigan Place Condos 10 Winter St., Quincy 6 105 X X X
(under construct ion)
78 The Sincon Co. Townhouse 151 Sea St., Quincy 5 78 X X
Apartments balconies
23 buildings
96 Dora! Apartments 2711 Washington St., 5 80 X X
(balconies) Quincy
C -
-------
TABLE C. 1 1 (Continued). ( JINCY FRSA ELEVATED SENSITIVE RECEP RS
Receptor No. of’ Eleva- Public Water
Number Description Location Stories tion(f’t)* Health Quality Air Traffic Noise Visual
99 Apartments (balconies) 20 Greenleaf St., Quincy 6 110 X
105 Hancock Court Condos 25 School St., Quincy 9 1 I0 X X
w/ba icon les
106 Hancock House Condos 1 5 School St., Quincy 8 125 X X
w/ba icon ies
108 Granite Place 125 Granite Place, 10 190 X X X
(Sr. Citizens) Quincy
liii Cadmen Towers 575 Bridge St., 7 112 X X
Weymou th
133 Union Towers 210 Washington St., 11 195 X X
Weymouth
151 Executive House Apts. 1025 Hancock St., 13 235 X X
(with balconies) Quincy
152 Apartments (with 77 Adams Place, Quincy 12 220 X X
balconies)
153 Rev. Victor V. Sawyer 95 Ellerton Rd., Quincy 10 160 X X
Towers (with balconies)
155 Apartments (with 182 Quincy Ave., Quincy 5 160 X X
(balconies)
156 The Falls Condominiums Quincy Ave., Quincy 3 100 X X
(under construction)
(on high terrain)
*jncludes height above MSL plus the height of the building, assuming one story eqiia s 15 ft.
C- 2Q
-------
1 Sea
‘,. . ,- a ’ Rock
N \ -: yL S - QUINCY - -
\ç; A ‘ J
; <
M
a •,,—y -
___ P ’ ‘ (1 \
S /v T L • b 55 - - /
‘
• - - - ,
• \ .2 .? ‘ -I
1000 0 1000
METERS - ______ SITE BOUNDARY
7000 0 SITE AREA
____ L J
SCALE iP FEEl CD sEwsmvE RECEPTOR
NOTES. 1. SENSITIVE RECEPTOR NU ERS
REFER TO TABLE C 4
21KA.2KL4AP4D3XU DII
ARE DRAWS FRO/ T 4E PCTEP4TiA.
RESICUA_S PROCESSING rACILsr
STAC. ( LOCATION
FIGURE CA: QUINCY FRSA: SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
-------
7 Tobin Shelter for
Homeless (3 Stories)
8 Richards Building -
Rebound Program for
Teenage Drug Abuse
(2 Stories)
9 Morris Building -
Dept. Mental Health and
Comm. of MA detox center
(2 Stories)
10 Boston Fire Dept.
Training Academy
Moon Island, Quincy
(Moon Head)
Long Island, S. Boston
Receptor
Number Description
1 Long Island Hospital
and Church
2 Squantum School
3 Park/Day Blvd. City Pt.
lj Outward Bound
Educational Center
5 Castle Island Fort
Independence, Public
Park Area
6 Police Shooting Range
TABLE C.5. SPECTACLE ISLAND SENSITIVE RECEP )RS
Public Water
Location Health Quality
Long Island, S. Boston
Huckings Aye, Quincy
Farragut Rd., S. Boston
Thompson Island,
S. Boston
William J. Day Blvd.,
S. Boston
Air Traffic Noise Visual
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x
x
x
x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
Long Island, S. Boston
Long Island, S. Boston
Moon Island, Quincy
C- 31
-------
TABLE C.5 (Continued). SPECTACLE
ISLAND
SENSITIVE
RECEP RS
Receptor
Number
Description
Location
Public
Health
Water
Quality
Air
Traffic
Noise
Visual
11
Squaw Rock Park,
Squan turn
Dorchester St., Quincy
X
X
X
12
Retarded Adult Behavior
Modification Center
and Childcare Building
Dorchester St. Quincy
X
X
15
Pleasure Bay Recreation
Area
William J. Day Blvd.
X
X
X
16
.
2, 3-Story Apartment
Buildings
E. Squantum St. Quincy
X
17
3-Story Apartment
Building
(with Balconies)
E. Squantum St., Quincy
X
18
The First Church of
Squan turn
Huckins Ave., Quincy
X
X
19
Star of the Sea Church
Bellevue Rd., Quincy
X
X
21
Boston Harbor
x
C- 32
-------
TABLE C.5 (Continued). SPECTACLE ISLAND ELEVATED SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
No. of Eleva- Public Water
Stories tion(ft)* Health Quality
Receptor
Number Description Location
Air Traffic Noise Visual
13
Marina Bay — large
condominium complex
Victory Rd., Quincy
10
150
X
ill
UMASS Boston,
Massachusetts Archives,
and JFK Library
Mt. Vernon St.,
S. Boston
8
130
X
20
Nelson Apartment
Buildings (est. 1915)
11 Dorchester St.,
Quincy
5
105
X
* includes height above MSL plus
the height of the building,
assuming one story
equals 15 ft.
C- 33
-------
[ j
SCALE IN FEET
C !) SENSITiVE RECEPTOR
NOTES: 1. SENSrnVE RECEPTOR NUMBERS
REFER TO TABLE C.5
2. 1 KM, I MI. 2KM. AND 3 KM RADII
ARE DRAWN FROM THE POTENTtAL
SI)UALS PROCESSUIG FACILITY
STACK LOCATION
FIGURE C3. SPECTACLE ISLAND: SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
1000 0 rnc) I
_ __ J
SCALE IN METERS
0
00
2000
LEGEND
SITE BOUNDARY
-------
Description
Pillar House Apartments,
3 buildings ( Il stories
w/balconies)
5 Lawrence W. Larson,
Athletic Facility and
Winthrop Middle School
6 Cottage Park Yacht Club
and Pico Beach
7 Govenor Winthrop Nursing
Home
8 Edward B. Newton School
9 N. Elliot Willis
Elementary School
10 Library & Town Hall
11 St. John’s Evangelist
Church
12 St. John the Evangelist
School
13 The First Methodist
Church
111 First Church of Christ
Scientist
Bartlett Parkway, Winthrop
1112 Pleasant Street,
Winthrop
Pauline Street, Winthrop
Hermon Street, Winthrop
Corner of Pauline & Hermon
Street, Winthrop
Lincoln Street, Winthrop
Lincoln Street, Winthrop
Hermon Street, Winthrop
Hermon Street, Winthrop
Receptor
Number
II
TABLE C.6. DEER ISLAND SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Public Water
Location Health Quality
Walden Street, Winthrop X
Pau] Inc Street, Winthrop X X
x x
Air Traffic Noise Visual
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
r- v.
-------
TABLE C.6 (Continued). DEER ISLAND SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Public Water
Health Quahty
Wahington Avenue, Winthrop
229, 235, 2141 Washington
Ave., Winthrop
600 Shirley Street, Winthrop
Shirley Street, Winthrop
Shirley Street, Winthrop X
Deer Island, Boston
Tafts Avenue, Winthrop
Winthrop Shore Dr., Winthrop
Groves Avenue, Winthrop
Cliff Avenue, Winthrop X
Cliff Avenue, Winthrop
Revere Street, Winthrop
Air Traffic Noise Visual
x
x x
x x
x
x
x x
Receptor
Number Description Location
x
x
x
x
15 Elks Club
16 Apartment Buildings
(14 Stories w/baIconles)
18 Winthrop Yacht Club
19 Govenor Winthrop
Historic House now:
Govenor Winthrop Motel
& Apartments
20 Holy Rosary Church
21 Suffolk County House
of Correction
22 Yirrell Beach
214 Winthrop Beach
25 Arthur W. Dalrymple
Middle School
27 Nils V. Nelson
Playground
28 Cliff House Nursing Home
29 Edward J. King Gardens
Public Housing (esp.
for elderly) approx.
25 bldgs. (3 story
townhouses)
x
x
x
x
x
x x
x
C -
-------
Description
Covenors Park Condos
approx. 18 bldgs. (11
stories with balconies)
31 Deane Winthrop Historic
House
32 Temple Tifereth Israel
33 Congregation Tifereth
Abraham
314 Winthrop Children’s
Center: Nursery School,
Kindergarten, and after
school programs
35 Crystal Cove Apartments
(11 stories with
balconies)
36 The Chase Condominiums
(3 stories)
37 United Congregational
Church
38 Massa Playground
39 Lewis Lake and Norman
F. Daw Playground
Receptor
Number
30
TABLE C.6 (Continued). DEER ISLAND SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Public Water —
Location Health Quality Air
Covenors Drive, Winthrop x
Traffic Noise Visual
Veterans Road, Winthrop
X
X
Shirley Street, Winthrop
X
X
Shirley Street, Winthrop
X
X
1 135 Shirley Street, Winthrop
X
Shirley Street, Winthrop
X
Tewksberry Street, Winthrop
X
X
Beacon Street, Winthrop
X
X
Veterans Road, Winthrop
X
X
C -
-------
45 Pleasant Park Yacht Club
1 16 St. John’s Episcopal
Church and After school
Activity Center
117 Small Park (w/benches)
48 Curtis Guild School
119 St. Lazarus Church
50 St. Lazarus Parochial
School
TABLE C.6 (Continued). DEER ISLAND SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Public Water
Health Quality
Veterans Road, Winthrop
Corner of Lincoln Street X
and Walden Street, Winthrop
56 Pleasant Street, Winthrop
Bowdoin Street, Winthrop X
Thornton Park, Winthrop
Ashley Street, East Boston
Ashley Street, East Boston
Ashley Street, East Boston
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Receptor
Number Description Location
110 Executive Apartments,
2 bldgs. (11 stories
with balconies)
Ill Winthrop High School
and Miller Field
112 Viking Regency
Apartments (4 storIes
with balconies)
113 Winthrop Hospital &
Bentley Medical Center
1111 Ingleside Park
Air Traffic Noise Visual
x
Payson Street, Winthrop X
ill Bowdoin Street, Winthrop
110 Lincoln Street, Winthrop X
x
x
x
x
1’-
-------
Orient Heights Community
Center
52 Noyes Playground
53 Long Island Hospital
and Church (Il stories)
51 Tobin Shelter for the
Homeless (3 stories)
55 Richards Building —
Rebound Program for
Teenage Drug Abuse
(2 stories)
56 Morris Building -
Department of Mental
Health and Comm. of’
MA Detox Center
(2 stories)
57 Fort Warren
58 Picnic Area
59 Short Beach
60 Orient Heights Beach
61 Coughlin Park
62 Boston Harbor
Receptor
Number
51
Description Location
TABLE C.6 (Continued). DEER ISLAND SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Public Water
Health Quality
Air Traffic Noise Visual
x
Boardman St., East Boston
X
X
Boardman St., East Boston
X
X
Long Island, Boston
X
X
Long Island, Boston
X
X
Long Island, Boston
X
X
Long Island, Boston
X
X
Georges Island, Boston
X
Georges Island, Boston
X
X
Winthrop Parkway, Winthrop
X
X
Bennington St., E. Boston
X
X
Point Shirley, Winthrop
X
X
x
C- 3Q
-------
TABLE C.6 (Continued). DEER ISLAND ELEVATED SE 1SITIVE RECEP RS
Receptor
Number
Description
Location
No. of
Stories
Eleva- Public
tion(ft)’ Health
Water
Quality
Air Traffic Noise Visual
1
Madonna Holy Shrine and
Historic Site (on high
terrain)
Gladstone Street,
East Boston
(200 It)
350
X
2
Hail Holy Queen
Parochial School (on
high terrain)
Orient Avenue,
East Boston
1
165
X
X
3
Manassah E. Bradley
School (on high terrain)
Beachview Road,
East Boston
1
115
X
-
X
17
Nautilus Office Building
2 l9 Washington
Avenue, Winthrop
5
75
X
X
23
Cottage Hill (on high
terrain) (many SF homes)
(Winthrop Head),
Winthrop
NA
65
X
X
26
Seal Harbor Condos
(with balconies)
Cliff’ Avenue,
Winthrop
10
160
X
X
the height of the
building, assuming one story equals 15 ft.
* includes height above MSL plus
NA Not applicable
(‘- IO
-------
I- —
pr 0
b
iqoo
1000
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
— SITE BOUNDARY
LIJS RtA R EA
0
- — _ j
SCALE METERS
2000 0 2000 _______
• _
SENsmvE RECEPTOR
NOTES: 1. $ENSmVE RECEPTOR NUMBERS
REFER TO TABLE C.6
2. 1 KM, 2 KM. AND 3KM RAD
ARE DRAWN FROM THE POTENT .
RESIDUALS PROCESSING FAOI.!r’
STACK LOCATION
FIGURE C.6. DEER ISLAND: SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
-------
APPENDIX D
WATER QUALITY BASELINE
-------
TABLE D.I. POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE SOIL AT WALPOLE MCI
Location Number
Analyte 1 3 6 8 13
NJDEP
16 Action
Soii
Level
Volatile Organics (mg/kg) :
2-Butanone 0.003 - - 0.003
Acetone - 0.036 0.009 0.024 NA
Carbon Disulfide 0.008 - - - NA
Chioromethane - - 0.001 - NA
Methylene Chloride - 0.012 0.003 0.0135 1
Toluene 0.001 0.003 - -
Semivolatile Organics (mg/kg) :
4-Methyl-2-pentanone 9.0 NA
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.045 NA
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.039 10
Pesticides and PCBs ( mgjkg) :
4,4’-DDE 0.0 19 NA
4,4’-DDT 0.017 - NA
Priority Pollutant Metals (mgFkg) :
Arsenic 2.8 2.67 2.95 - 20
Chromium 7.83 12 100
Copper 5.84 13.7 170
Lead .32 13.7 250- 1,000
Mercury 0.278 0.124
Nickel - 1.46 100
Silver 3.28 2.09 5
Zinc 16.8 22.4 350
Source: MWRA, f MFP, DEIR, 2, 1989
Notes: - Not detected
A blank indicates that the field parameter was not measured
All results are qualitative
(a) Average of two samples
(b) NJDEP action levels used for comparative purposes only
NA Not applicable
D- I
-------
TABLE D.2. POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN SUBSURFACE SOIL AT WALPOLE MCI
Location
Number
N3DEP Soil
Analyte 1 3 6
8 13
16 Action
Level*
Volatile Organics (mg/kg) :
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane 0.020 - - - - - 1
2-Butanone - 0.009 0.007 0.008 0.008 0.003 NA
Acetone 0.039 0.036 0.035 0.009 0.028 - NA
Carbon Disulfide 0.022 - - 0.005 N.D - NA
Carbon Tetrachloride - 0.003 - - - - 1
Chloroform - - 0.001 - - - 1
Chiorornethane - - 0.003 - - - NA
Methylene Chloride 0.010 0.008 0.720 - 0.003 0.003 1
Toluene - 0.014 0.003 - - - I
Trichioroethene - - - 0.001 1
Semivolatile Organics (mg/kg )
4-Methy l-2-pentanone 8.0 10.0 NA
Benzo(a)Anthracene 0.068Q 10
Benzo(a)Pyrene 0.067Q 10
Benzo(b)F luoranthene 0.062Q NA
Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene 0.060Q NA
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene - 0.058Q 10
Bis(2-Ethylhexy l)Phthalate 0.041 0.084Q 25
Butylbenzylphthalate O.052Q 10
Chrysene 0.066Q 10
Di-n-Butylphthalate - 0.047Q 10
Di-n-octyl phthalate 0.036Q 0.084Q 10
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene - 0.063Q 10
Pesticides and PCBs (mg/kg )
Beta-BHC - 0.045 0.074 - NA
D-2
-------
TABLE D.2 (Continued). POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN SUBSURFACE SOIL AT WALPOLE-MCI
Analyte
‘
•
1
Loc
3
ation Number
6 8
13 16
NJDEP Soil
Action Level*
Priority Pollutant
Metals
(mg/kg):
l.97Q
4.63Q
2.67Q
2.73Q
1.34Q
-
20
Arsenic
Chromium
10.9Q
1O.OQ
9.81Q
100
‘
Copper
Lead
35.8Q
10.8Q
lI.8Q
15.5Q
7.44Q
14.SQ
250
170
- i;ooo
Mercury
.
-
0.196Q
0.193Q
I
Nickel
•
1.36Q
-
-
100
Selenium
-
1.19Q
l.29Q
-
-
-
4
Silver
1.59Q
2.533Q
3.16Q
5
Zinc
21.2Q
26.6Q
19.4Q
350
Source: MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, 2, 1989
Notes: - = Not detected
A blank indicates the field parameter was not measured
Q indicates qua1i ative
* = NJDEP action eve1s used for comparative purposes only
NA: Not applicable
D-3
-------
TABLE D3. POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS AND WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS IN GROUNDWATER AT WALPOLE MCI
Location
Analyte I 3 6 7 8 10
Mass.
Number Standard
II 12 I i 16 013 PPW (a)
Drinking
Water
MCI (b)
Volatile Organics (ugjfl :
2-Rutanone
Acetone
Methylene Chloride
4.5 2
- tO.,
4 - 2
9 - 19
28 - -
Semivolatile Organics (ugjI )
Chrysene
Diethylphthalate
Pesticides and PCBs ( ug/l)t
4” .’ - DDE
4,4’ - DDT
Priority Pollutant Metals (ugJl )
0.13
0.10
- - 125
18 16.8 49.4
3.40 0.85 22.6
I SO 45.65 1920
525 76.1 1880
112 59.8 429
170 31.2 1470
- - 2.4
395 120.5 38.0
- - 59.4
- 3.7 8.3
2 - 2.35
- S
90 78 125.3
4)0 135 294.3
48 82.1 53.35
170 69.8 14).)
342
- - 50
- - 10
- - 50
7.1 - 1000
6 33 50
- 33
- - 5000
14 107
5
— I —
Antimony
Arsenic
Bery Ilium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
lead
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
20
370
700
220
410
7.1
1.3
255
180
50
174
S
135
290
119
IS)
8
200
S80
160
270
1,600 392 1,600
680 850 210
l0
50
D-4
-------
TABLE D.3 (Continued). POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS AND WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS IN GROUNDWATER AT WALPOLE MCI
Location
Analyte 3 6 7
Number
Mass.
Standard
16 OP, PPW (a)
Drinking
Water
MCL(b)
10 II 12 13
Water Quality Parameters (mgJl )
Chloride 2 II 40 4 4 2 18
Hardness 60
Iron 117,000 50,050 1,937,000 192,000 93,600 193,000 0.112 0.561 0.300
Manganese 5,900 3,045 48,100 5,550 1,440 3,740 - 0.130 0.50
Nitrate 0.18 0.435 - 0.167 0.27 0.23 030 0.11 IO(N0 1 -N) 10
Sulfate 8 13 39 21 - - - 14 25
TDS 58 177 298 126 48 80 50 138
TSS 6
COD 25
Miscellaneous :
Temperature (°C) 12.3 12.1 13.2 13.5 17 13
p 11 6.66 7.18 8.14 6.90 7.05 6.40
Conductivity Omhos) 28 190 220 89 47 35 6.5 - 8.5
DO (mg/I) 7.5 8.6
Redox (mV) 65 180 76 202
Source: MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, 2, 1989
Notes: - Not detected
A blank indicates the field parameter was not measured
OB Indicates a field blank
PPW: Proposed pumping well
(a) 3I4CMR6
(b) 4OCFR 141,142
D-5
-------
TABLE 0.4. POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS AND WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS (N SURFACE WATER AT WALPOLE MCI
Location
Analyte I 2
Number ProPoce(i)
3 4 5 OB Standard a
Water Qui J 0 i y
Criteria
Ingestion WatP(b)
Quality Criteria
Water QutJ, y
Criteria
DrInkung( )
Water MCL
Indicator Parameters (mgJI
TOC 9 8 IS 3 2
TOX 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.02 -
Priority Pollutant Metals (mgJI) :
Arsenic - - - - 0.038 - 0.050 0.04$ 0.0000022 0.0000175 0.050
Lead - 0.0152 0.048 0.025 0.046 0.033 0.003 0034 tc) 0.0s0 0.050
Mercury - 0.000957 - - - - 0.000012 0.0009I 0.000144 0.000146 0.002
Zinc 0.023 - 0.079 0.0 16 0.020 - 0.030 0.070 c,
Water Quality Parameters ( mgJI) .
Chloride 24 25 6.0 6.0 4.0 2.0
Hardness 16
Sulfate - - 7.6 6.3
Total dissolved solids 190 83.5 94 39 16 240
Total suspended solids - - 340 - 24
Total Iron 210 236 15.000 54 2,995 1.00 1.0 0.3
Total Manganese 21 25.5 1340 9 95 0.050 0.100
BOO 66 73 160 63 63
COO 25 15) 39 21
0-6
-------
TABLE D. (Continued). FOLLUTANT CONCENTRATiONS AND WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS IN SURFACE WATER AT WALPOLE MCI
Ana lyte
Location
Number
5
OB
Mass.
Proposed,
Standard a
Fresh Chronic
Water i J ,yy
Criteria
Water and Fish
Ingestion Wate(b)
Quality Criteria
Fish Consumption
Water Qu J Jy
Criteria
Drinking
Water Quatfl
Water MCL
I
2
3 4
Other Quality Parameters
(Misc.):
Cyanide (ugiL)
Temperature(°C)
-
16.5
-
16.7
-
17.9
-
15.3
10
10.6
10 5
5.2
200
pt-I
1)0 (mg/I)
Redox mV)
7.6
8.2
314
7.22
8.5
452
6.2
6.3
361
6.24
8.5
356
4.89
9.1
83°F
6.5-8
5.0
6.5-9
0.20
Source:
MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, 2, 1989
Notes: - Not detected
A blank indicates that the field parameter was not measured
OB indicates a field blank
Units are mg/I unless otherwise noted
(a) 3 14CMR4
(b) 40 CFR 141, 142
(c) Water quality criteria calculated using a hardness of 16 mg/I
(d) Minimum
D-7
-------
TABLE D.5. POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN SEDIMENT AT WALPOLE MCI
Analyte
i
2 (a)
Location Number
3 4
5
Indicator Parameters (mg/kg):
1,302,000
183,500
560,000
9,500
737,000
TOC
lox
409
-
209
-
187
TPH
60,000
23,000
51,000
9,500
28,000
Priority Pollutant Metals (mgfkg):
-
1.74
7.21
1.10
Arsenic
Chromium
31.7
18.6
30.5
9.76
Copper
-
2.73
6.73
-
Iron
8,730
4,712
8,877
4,249
Lead
88.4
32.4
120
19.2
Manganese
650
155
705
125
Mercury
-
0.24 1
-
-
Nickel
6.34
4.355
24.7
3.83
Selenium
-
1.75
-
-
Silver
-
0.960
-
45.4
Zinc
146
34.7
126.9
22.4
Source: MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, 2, 1989
Notes: - = Not detected
A blank indicates that the field parameter was not measured
All results are qualitative
(a) = Average of two samples
All units in mg/kg
-------
TABLE D.6. POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS AND WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS IN GROUNDWATER AT MALDEN
Mass.
Location Number Groundwater
Analyte 2 3 4 5 OB DWS? Standards (a)
Drinking
Water
MCL (b)
Volatile Organics (ugJl )
l,l,l-Trichloroethane - - 23.5 22 31,700
1,1-Dichloroethane - - 27 36
1,1-Dichioroethene - - 21 30 - -
1,2-Dichloroethene (totaI) C 35 25 3100 4400 13 -
2-Butanone - - - 12
Acetone - 9
Chlorobenzene - - - 10
Trichloroethene 16 7.9 1817 1445
Vinyl Chloride - - 122 590
Indicator Parameters ( ugh) :
ICC 6 6 2 2
lox 30 50 10 24
IPH - 700 500 -
Priority Pollutant Metals (ugJI )
ChromLum 9 3 1.) - 50 50
Lead C 12 I ) 13.) 21 - )0 50
Nickel 12 II 80 -
SilvT 17.5 17 62 50
140 50 66.75 381 40 - 500
Chloride 82,000 66,000 63,000 36,000 110,000 2,000 76,000
Hardness 308,000 172,000 400,000 304,000 - 260,000
Nitrate - 130 50 30 1,900 - 1,400 lO,000(N0 3 -N) 10,000
Sulfate 18,000 40,000 87,500 44,000 43.000 - 51,000 2)0,000
TDS 520,000 344,000 552,000 504,000 560,000 30,000 370,000
Total Iron 3,260 7)2 13,1)0 8,870 404 36 23 300
Total Manganese 2,110 70 4,545 10,700 93 5 - 50
0-9
-------
TABLE 0.6 (Continued). POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS ANT) WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS IN GROUNDWATER AT MAIDEN
M . i5rinkinj
_______________________________________________________________ Groundwater Water
Standards (a) MCI (b)
Analyte
Loca
tion Number
I
2
3
4
5
OB
DWS2
Priority Pollutant Metals (ug/l)
(Continued):
70
6
3
II
-
-
16
-
-
75
-
2
3
IS
-
-
-
-
Copper
Cadmium,
Berylliun ’
Arsenlc CJ
Water Quality Parameters:
8.0
41.0
17
7.36
600
3.0
-109
-
8.99
320
125
-
20
6.60
650
26
-
18
6.32
750
18
-
20
7.38
625
175
-
81.0
-
BOO (mg/I)
COD (mg/I)
Temperatui-e (°C)
pH
Conductivity Omhos)
DO (mg/I)
Redox(mV)
MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, 2, 1989
- = Not detected
A blank indicates that the field parameter was not measured
08 = Field blank
DWS= Drilling water sample
(a) 3 14CMR4
(b) 4OCFR 141,142
(c) Indicates average of May and December results
Source:
Notes:
D-l0
-------
TABLE D.7.. POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS AND WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS IN SURFACE WATER AT MALDEN
Analyte
Location
Number
Mass. Fresh-,
Water Standardla
Mass. Marine, .
Water Standard aI
Marine Chronic
Water Qu ij 1 r tY
Criteria’ ‘
Fis
W
h Consumption
ater Qu ty
Criteria’
I
2
3
4
08
Volatile Organics (ugJfl
1,2-Dichloroethene
620
Trichloroethene
280
Indicator Parameters (mgJl)
5
8
10
4
-
roC
TOX
0.03
0.04
0.02
0.39
-
Conventional Pollultants (mg/I):
50
70
41
3,200
2.0
Chloride
hardness
400
580
595
4,300
-
Nitrate
0.44
0.6
0.165
0.14
-
Sulfate
12
61.3
14.5
1,300
-
TDS
230
640
250
13,000
-
Total Iron
174
306
0.5
4.690
-
1.00
0.30
Total Magnesium -
BOD
7.880
86
4.310
86
0.268
56
0.153
136
-
106
0.100
COD
120
46
46
240
-
Water Quality Parameters:
22.1
.
16.0
21.0
17.4
Temperature (°C)
pH
Conductivity Omhos)
DO (mg/I)
Redox mV)
8.7
290
IOi
151
6.67
900
3.4
38
7.9
450
21
145
7.77
29,500
10.6
109
6.5-8.5
Source: MWRA, RMFP, DEIR,
2,1989
Notes: - = Not detected
A blank indicates that the field parameter was not measured
08 Indicates a field blank
3D Indicates a duplicate sample
(a) 3 14CMR4
(b) 4OCFR, 141, 142
D- II
-------
TABLE D.8. POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN SEDIMENT AT MALDEN
Analyte
Station
1
2
3
4
Indicator
Parameters:
11,200
380,000
19,000
2,860
TOC
TOX
-
483
-
6,150
TPH*
340
430
-
-
Source:
MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, 2, 1989.
Notes: - Indicates the analyte was not detected
* Indicates qualitative data
All units in mg/kg
D-12
-------
TABLE D.9. POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE SOIL AT STOUGHTON
Station
Analyte I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Semivotatile Organics (mg/kg) :
Acenaphthene 0.063’
Anthracene 0.270*
Benzo(a)Anthracene 1.400
Benzo(a)Pyrene 1.100
Benzo(b)flouranthene 4.500
Benzo(b)flouranthene 4.500
Benzo(g,h,i)Pery lene 0.890
Benzo(g,h,i)pery lene 0.890
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 0.250*
Benzyl Alcohol 26.000*
Bis(2-Ethy lhexyl)Phthatate 0.130*
Chrysene 3.400
Bi-n-l3utylphthalate 0.046*
Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene 0.220’
Dibenzofuran 0.070*
Fluoranthene 4.200
Fluoranthene- 4.200
Fluorene 0.091*
lndeno( I ,2,3-cd)Pyrene 1.100
Indeno( l,2,3-cd)pyrene 1.100
Isophorone 0.041 *
Phenanthrene 1.400
Pyrene 3.000
Indicator Parameters (mgJkg) :
TOC 7,300* 2,800 15,200 129,000 2,680 52,100 19,700 9,600 38,600
lox -* - - - - - 15.8 12.9 33.4
TPI-I -* 36* 1,500* - -* 1,800 10,130 - 1,180
Source: MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, I, 1989
Notes: - = Not detected
A blank indicates that the field parameter was not measured
* Indicatesquatitative data
All units in mg/kg
F)-. 13
-------
TABLE D.1O. POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN SUBSURFACE SOIL
AT STOUGHTON
Anatyte
Location
Number
1
2
3
4
5
Indicator
Parameters:
174
217
-
904
-
TOC
TOX
-
-*
-*
-
588
TPH
350
3,903*
230*
...*
Notes:
- Not detected
* Indicates qualitative data
A blank indicates that the field parameter was not measured
All units in mg/kg
D- 14
-------
TABLE D.ll. POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS AND WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS IN GROUNDWATER
AT STOUGHTON
Analyte 1 2
Sampling Station
3 4 5
Mass.
OB DWSL Standard
Volatile Organics (ug/l) :
Acetone 10 8 11
Toluene 7 7 8
Semivolatile Organics (ugh) :
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) 2
Phthlate
Indicator Parameters (ugh) :
TOC 11,000 4,000 4,000 1,000 2,000
lox 30 20 20 10 60
Metals (ug/l) :
Antimony - - 68.4 - - -
Arsenic 5.9 8.1 8.3 7.6 5.2 6.5 50
Beryllium 6,400 7,900 - 1,900 6,300 -
Cadmium 73,200 50,900 42,700 28,100 39,000 - 10
Chromium 260 509 176 144 192 - 50
Copper 906 517 1,290 190 396 6.4 1,000
Lead 89.1 123 62.4 72.1 97.6 58.9 50
Mercury - 4,900 - - - - 2
Nickel - 239 267 219 275 102 -
Zinc 983 1,030 904 405 543 14.4 5,000
D- 15
-------
TABLE D.1 I (Continued). POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS AND WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS IN GROUNDWATER
AT STOUGI lION
Analyte 1
2
3
Samphng Station
4
5
OB
DWS I
Mass.
Standard
Water Quality Parmaters (mg/i):
2.6
493
295
3.620
-
620”
252 ,
5 5 10 b)
.785
4.0
270
171
3.320
-
34.0
383
212
-
2.0
-
.218
-
16.0
40
1.020
.200
.300
.010
Chloride 222
Hardness 676
IronIC) 369
Manganese 7.030
Nitrate -
Sulf tç 97
TDS’ ’ 680
BOD
19
278
59.5
135
I I
38
16
148
6.7
10
-
44
.250
81 b
COD 60
102
-
25
78
46
27
Total Iron
1.020
Total Manganese
.018
Water Quality Parameters:
Temperature, (°C) 14.5
pH 6.23
Conductivity(umhos) 860
Redox (mV) 6
15.0
6.64
1.80
13.9
6.77
170
159
12.0
5.77
226
15.6
5.96
170
Source: MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, 1, 1989
Notes: - = Not detected
A blank indicates that the field parameter was not measured
OB = indicates a field blank
DWS drilling water sample
(a) 3 14CMR6
(d) = indicates qualitative data only for the entire analyte category
(c) indicates qualitative data only for this analyte
(b) indicates qualitative data
D- 16
-------
TABLE D.12. POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS AN!) WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS IN SURFACE WATER AT STOUGIITON
Analyte
S
ampling Station
6
OB
Fresh Chronic
Mass. ., Water Qu ty
Standards a, Criteria
Drinking ‘b’
Water MCLs’ ‘
Water and Fish
Ingestion Wat%
Qual. Criteria ‘
Fish Consumption
Water Qu i y
Criteria’
I
2
3
4
Indicator Parameters (ugh):
TOC
8,000
7,000
10,000
23,000
9,000 7,000
-
TOX
20
30
30
50
30 20
20
Water Quality Parameters (mg/l)
4.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
10.0 16
-
Chloride
Hardness
28
32
64
40
44 8
-
Nitrate
-
0.12
-
0.32
0.34 -
-
10
10
Sulfate
14
13
10
13
- -
5.2
105
54
74
58
70
68 92
12
Total Iron -
0.467
1.190
2.550
130.0
10.4 1.430
0.101
1.00
1.00
0.30
Total Mangnesium
60!)
0.036
27
0.047
24
0.463
20
2.110
83
2.310, .. 0.142
4.6’ 16
0.004,
0.50
0.100
COD
-
-
48
69
- 41
-
Water Quality Parameters:
Temperature (°C)
pH
Conductivity, (umhos)
DO(mgJl)
Redox mV)
20.0
5.45
60
3
215
16.6
6.5
95
1.5
193
12.0
6.15
120
4
96
13.3 32.0
6.6 4.6
100 55
9.5 7.6
71 256
83°F
6.5, .
6.5-9
Source:
MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, I, 1989
Notes: - Not detected
A blank indicates the field parameter was not measured
06 indicates a field blank
(a) 3 14CMR4
(b) 4OCFR 141,142
(c) indicates qualitative data
(d) minimum
0-17
-------
TABLE D.13. POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN SEDIMENT AT STOUGHTON
Analyte
Sampling Station
1
3
4
5
6
Semivolatile Organics* (mg/kg):
.
0.340
0.170
0.090
0.190
0.250
0.110
0.073
0.220
0.089
0.120
0.140
3.000
4-Methylphenol
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzoic Acid
Chrysene
Di-n-Butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Indeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)Pyrene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Sulfur, mol. (S8)
Indicator Parameters (mg/kg):
1,245,000
41,400
500,000
3,200
3,550
TOC
Source: MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, 1, 1989
Notes: A blank indicates that the field parameter was not measured
* Indicates qualitative only for the entire analyte category
ID-18
-------
TABLE D.14. METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE SOIL AT QUINCY FRSA
Analyte
Range
Mean
Aluminum
620
-
11,000
13,992
Antimony
0.57
-
20
3.4
Arsenic
1.5
-
58.2
19.2
Barium
17
-
750
183.8
Beryllium
17
-
160
12.9
Cadmium
0.27
-
33
6.3
Calcium
98
-
23,800
.
5173.2
Chromium
28.7
-
780
129.6
Cobalt
3.7
-
38
11.4
Copper
17.7
-
2,700
426.7
Iron
12,000
-
370,000
63,854.5
Lead
33
-
2,300
428.3
Magnesium
630
-
5,300
3,318.8
Manganese
160
-
3,500
715.6
Mercury
<0.1
-
0.60
0.3
Nickel
12.9
-
660
126.7
Potassium
260
-
5,600
1,266.4
Selenium
<0.2
-
2.48
.5
Silver
0.05
-
7
1.1
Sodium
42.6
-
4,200
771.5
Thallium
<0.2
-
0.24
0.24
Vanadium
25.6
-
10,600
431.4
Zinc
113
-
20,000
1,956.7
Source: NUS, 1988
Notes: All units in mg/kg
D-19
-------
TABLE D.15. ORGANIC POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN SUBSURFACE SOIL
AT QUINCY FRSA
Shipyard Subsurface
Compound Soils Range
Volatiles :
Trichioroethylene ND-0.840
Toluene ND-0.250
Acetone ND-0.l40
1,2-Dichioroethylene (total) ND-0.030
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane ND-0.096
Semivolatiles :
Phenanthrene ND-l.20
Fluoranthene ND-2.20
Pyrene ND-l.20
Benzo(a)anthracene ND-0.820
Chrysene ND-0.950
Benzo(b)fluoranthene ND-I .30
Benzo(a)pyrerie ND-0.760
Polychiorinated Biphenyls :
PCB-1242 ND
PCB-1254 ND-6.60
PCB-1260 ND-0.120
Source: NUS, 1988
Notes: All units in uglkg
D-20
-------
TABLE D.16. METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN SUBSURFACE SOIL
AT QUINCY FRSA
Ranges of
Pollutant Concentrations
Aluminum 2,460 - 25,500
Antimony <0.19 - 5.6
Arsenic 0.8 — 31
Barium 9.22 - 20,900
Beryllium 0.13 - 1.54
Cadmium 0.1 - 5.2
Calcium 510 - 7,240
Chromium 3.45 - 120
Cobalt 2.26 - 20.3
Copper 7.58 - 384
Iron 5,200 - 50,000
Lead 8.2 - 4,910
Magnesium 500 - 6,100
Manganese 109 - 2,650
Mercury <0.03 - 0.50
Nickel 3.27 - 35
Potassium 390 - 11,000
Selenium <0.1 - 0.89
Silver (0.022 - 1.27
Sodium 49.1 - 1,440
Thallium <0.1 - 0.4
Tin (6.0
Vanadium 3.7 - 56.3
Zinc 21.7 - 5,160
Source: NUS, 1988
Notes: All units in mg/kg
D-21
-------
TABLE D.17. POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS DETECTED IN GROUNDWATER AT QUINCY FRSA
Area
Total
Volatile
Organics Range
Total
Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
Polynuclear
Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
Total
Pesticides
Cyanide
Northern Area
0.069 - 0.685
0.230 - 64.0
0.161 - 1.974
0.00047-0.0033
0.006 - 0.520
Former Bent’s Creek
0.0056 - 0.0989
0.520 - 21.0
0.031
0.00054 - 0.0051
0.010 - 0.460
Central Area
0.044 - 0.200
0.750 - 530.0
27.5
0.00076 - 0.03014
0.008 - 0.400
Southwestern Area
1.50 - 7.30
Southern Area
0.0093 - 12.26
8.00-68.0
0.032 - 0.120
0.0002 - 0.00076 1
0.090 - 0.200
Source: NUS, 1988
Note: All units in mg/I
D-22
-------
TABLE D.18. COMPARISON OF TOXIC METAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN DETECTED IN QUINCY FRSA
GROUNDWATER WITH SELECTED REGULATORY CRITERIA
Marine
Marine
Water and Fish
Fish
Range in
Groundwater
Massachusetts
Drinking
Acute
Water
Chronic
Water
Ingestion
Water
Consumption
Water
Toxic Metal
Directed by
GZA and NUS
Grouridwa ej-
Standard a
Water
MCL
Quallt b)
Criteria
QuaIit b
Criteria ‘
Qualit b)
Criteria
Qualit b)
Criteria
Arsenic
2 - 190
0.05
0.05
2319 (d). 0069 (e)
0013 (d); 036 (e)
0.0000022
0.0000175
Barium
10- 670
1.0
1.0
NA
NA
1.0
NA
Chromium
3 - 1,900
0.05
o.o s &
1 • 10 W; 1030 g)
005 (f)
005 (f); 170 (g)
3 , 433 (g)
Copper
8 - 1,100
1.0
NA (1.00)
0.0029
0.029
NA
NA
Cyanides (Total)
6 - 520
NA
0.200
0.00 I
0.01
0.200
NA
Lead
I - 200
0.05
0.05
0.140
0.056
0.050
NA
Mercury
0.2 - 0.6
0.002
0.002
0.002 1
0.000025
0.000000144
0.000000146
Nickel
20 - 165
NA
NA
0.075
0.0083
0.0134
0.100
Selenium
5 - 2,000
0.01
0.01
0.4 10
0.0)4
0.010
NA
Thallium
1 - 170
NA
NA
2.13
NA
0.013
0.048
Zinc
19 - 30,500
5.0
NA (5.00)
0.095
0.086
NA
NA
Source: NUS, 1988
Notes: NA = Not Available
(a) 314 CMR 6.00 Massachusetts Ground Water Quality Standards
(b) EPA Water Quality Criteria, update May 1, 1987
(c) EPA Maximum Contaminant Level, 50 FR 47155, November 14, 1985, values in parenthesis, 44 FR 42198 3uly 19, 1979
(d) Pentavalent arsenic criterion
(e) Trivalent chromium criterion
(1) Hexavalent chromium criterion
(g) Trivalent chromium criterion
All units in mg/I
D-23
-------
TABLE D.19. POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE WATER AT QIJINCY FRSA
SAMPLING
STATION
8
9
Cr iter ta
2
Southerly
3
4
5
Piers I & 2
6
River
Channel
River
Channel
River
Channel
Off Basin
Hayward’s
Creek
Mass.
Proposed
Standard
Aquatic Marine
Life Fish
Consumption
Acute Chronic Only
Analyte
Wet Basin
Pier I & 4
Wet Basin
Wet Basin
Upstream
Downstream
No. 6
Discharge
Aluminum
0.07
0.06
0.07
0.18
0.05
0.06
0.03
0.06
45
Antimony
0.1
0.1
0.094
0.09
0.086
0.091
0.1
0.14
0.007
Barium
0.008
0.007
0.008
0.008
0.007
0.008
Calcium
400
400
410
350
410
310
320
130
0.003
0.043 0.0093
Cadmium
0.014
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.050
1.1 0.05
Chromium
0.004
-
-
-
-
-
0.004
-
•
0.005
0.003 0.003
Copper
Iron
0.5
0.11
0.37
0.12
0.29
0.13
.036
.037
0.29
0.1
0.29
0.15
0.27
0.12
30
0.003
0.140 0.006
Lead
-
-
-
0.4
0.2
0.39
0.42
0.006
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
1,100
0.028
0.04
730
0.021
-
910
0.019
-
1,100
0.3
-
700
0.021
-
930
0.04
-
1,000
0.02
-
4.8
-
0.007
0.1
0.075 0.0083 0.1
Potassium
380
380
380
370
390
360
370
35
0.41 0.054
Selenium
Silver
0.18
0.04
0.2
0.04
0.2
0.03
-
.03
-
0.03
-
0.03
-
0.03
-
-
580
0.0003
0.0023
Sodium
Thallium
10.000
0.71
10,000
0.6
10,000
0.33
9,500
0.26
10,000
0.39
9,400
-
9,800
0.28
0.002
2.13 0.048
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.014
0.015
0.97 0.71
2.35
Source: NUS, 1988
Notes: - not detected
All units in mg/I
-------
TABLE D.20. POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN SEDIMENT SAMPLES AT QUINCY FRSA
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Upstream
Southern
Analyte Wet Basin
Pier 1 &
Pier 1 & 2
4 Wet Basin Wet Basin
River-
Upstream
River-
Downstream
River
Basin
Of f
1/6
Locatiçn
(range) a
Anthracene 1.2 1.8
Benzo(a)Anthracene 2.7 1.7
Bcnzo(a)Pyrene 1.4 - 1.9
3,4-Benzofluoranthene 1.9 2.7 1.9
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 0.88 - 1.2
Benzo(lc)fluoranthene 1.3 - 1.7
Chrysene 1.5 3.1 1.2
Fluoranthene 4.6 9.8 3.5
Fluorene 1.2 2.6 -
Indeno(l ,2,3cd)Pyrene 1 1.3
Phenanthrene 7.9 - - 1.5
Pyrene - - 3.8 - - 3.4
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 1.2 0.73 1 4.5 0.93 - -
Petroleum hydrocarbons 5.20 47 23 1,100 250 190 82
PCB-1254 1.1 (b) (b) (b) (b) - -
Aluminum 11,000 11,000 8,800 16,000 14,000 15,000 6,600
Antimony 10 - 30
Arsenic 6 3.9 4.6 8.7 7.5 6.9 2.7 3.6 - 10
Barium 77 66 57 120 60 3.1 38
Beryllium 1.6 1.4 1.8 9.1 1.8 3.1 1.3
Calcium 210,000 17,000 59,000 59,000 64,000 44,000 250,000
Cadmium 1.9 1.5 1.3 4.9 2.9 3.4 0.91 3-15
Chromium 85 27 28 250 87 97 37 42 - 94
Cobalt 6.8 5.8 4.9 Il 7.9 8.6 4.9
Copper 100 71 69 320 130 130 7.4 36-96
Iron 20,000 18,000 19,000 61,000 26,000 30,000 13,000
Lead 390 68 97 230 140 140 75 88 - 192
D-2)
-------
TABLE D.20 (Continued). POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN SEDIMENT SAMPLES AT QUINCY FRSA
Analyte
2
Southern
Wet Basin
3
Pier 1 & 4
4
Wet Basin
5
Pier 1 & 2
Wet Basin
6
River-
Upstream
7
River-
Downstream
8
River Of f
Basin 1/6
Upstream
Locatii n)
(range) a
Magnesium
6,100
3,100
3,100
8,900
8,400
9,300
6,200
Manganese
370
160
170
310
290
310
250
Mercury
-
-
-
0.2
0.12
-
0.12
0.37 - 0.74
Nickel
22
26
17
53
24
21
17
32-41
Potassium
3,700
1,800
1,500
2,100
-
4,900
2,000
Selenium
-
-
-
-
-
-
Silver
6
-
2
4
5
5
5
Sodium
18,000
4,300
4,800
14,000
22,000
22,000
16,000
Thallium
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Vanadium
60
30
30
100
70
80
60
94 - 102
Zinc
360
750
520
540
320
290
180
158-288
Source: NUS, 1988
Notes: - = Not detected
(a) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1985 data samples
(b) present at trace levels below detection limit
PCB Polychlorinated biphenyls
All units in mg/I
D-26
-------
TABLE D.2 1. POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS ANt) WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS IN
GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER AT SPECTACLE ISLAND
Sampling
Number
I (°C)
Specific Conductance
(umho/cm @ 25°C) pH
Field Laboratory
Iron Manganese
Sodium Chloride ioc lox
.
Groundwater Samples:
I 10 540 827 8.3 (0.10 2.8 92 125 350 0.12
2 9 290 638 8.5 (0.10 <0.05 136 56 7.2 0.07
3 tO 3300 4424 8.7 0.19 2.6 650 580 66 0.18
4 23.5 33000 37520 7.7 2.2 0.90 8400 14400 46 0.07
5 - - 11424 8.2 3.6 0.30 1500 1690 310 0.60
6 - - 24304 8.6 16.0 <0.05 4200 5250 1200 0.95
7 25 14500 13832 8.4 10.3 0.43 2000 2400 500 0.85
8 38 24000 26320 8.3 7.8 0.72 5300 7970 440 0.54
9 22.5 2570 2184 7.9 0.64 1.0 78 64 62 0.05
10 26.5 9500 7616 8.1 7.8 <0.05 760 520 300 0.58
U - - 513 7.7 <0.10 2.! 36 31 14 0.12
Mass Standards 6.5 - 8.5 0.3 0.05
Fresh Surface Water Samples :
2 - 267 8.3 0.32 0.07 27 45 3.6 0.02
3 - - 5712 8.5 1.7 0.17 940 300 170 0.14
Mass Standards 1.00
Marine Surface Water Sarnp g :
Share - 26320 8.0 1.7 0.27 5100 9350 145 0.51
Mass Standards 0.30
EPA Criteria
Source: BSC, 1984
Notes: (a) DEQE 314 CMR 6
(b) DEQE3I4CMR4
(c) EPA Marine Chronic Criterion
(d) EPA Fish Consumption Criterion
All units in mgfI
D-27
-------
TABLE D.22. PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER
AT SPECTACLE ISLANI)
Groundwater
Marine Surface Water
Mass
Mass
EPA
Ground-
Surface
Marine
Sample
Sample
water
Shore
Water
Chronic
Constituent
7
8
Standard
Sample
Standard
Criteria
Arsenic
0.028
0.036
0.05
0.027
0.035
NA
Antimony
(0.005
(0.005
NA
0.007
NA
NA
Beryllium
<0.010
<0.010
NA
<0.010
NA
NA
Cadmium
(0.010
(0.010
0.01
(0.010
0.005
0.0093
Chromium
0.20
<0.04
0.05
(0.04
(Cr +
0.050
0.050
Copper
0.10
0.13
1.0
0.40
0.010
0.0029
Lead
0.036
<0.005
0.05
0.007
0.005
0.0056
Mercury
<0.0002
<0.0002
0.002
0.0021
0.000025
0.000025
Nickel
0.051
0.022
NA
0.025
0.007
0.0071
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
0.042
<0.02
(0.010
<0.010
0.07
(0.010
0.1
0.05
NA
0.042
0.05
0.023
NA
0.0005
NA
0.054
000 a
Zinc
0.15
0.06
5.0
0.2
0.050
0.058
Cyanide
Phenol
0.03
0.060
0.02
0.085
NA
NA
0.05
0.0 10
0.001
0.001
0.0O
5.80 a
Source: BSC, 1984
Note: All other priority pollutants not detected
(a) EPA Marine Acute Criteria
NA Not Applicable
All units in mg/I
D- 28
-------
TABLE D.23. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF OFFSHORE SPECTACLE ISLAND
Sample
No. Description
I
Black silt and/or clay, trace sand
2
Black silt and/or clay, trace sand, pudding texture
3
Subangular chips of shale, range of sizes from course sand to pebbles, also
some hermit crabs and snails retrieved - one larger stone approximately 4.0
centimeters
4
Black silt and/or clay, pudding texture
5
Medium-dark grey silty fine sand, some gravel
6
Black silt and/or clay, somewhat cohesive, some shell fragments
7
Live mussels, no sediments in sample after two attempts - indicates that the
bottom is probably ledge
8
Dark grey silt and/or clay, pudding texture
9
Dark grey silt and/or clay, some light brown-green silt/clay at surface of
sample
10
Dark grey-brown silt and/or clay
Source: DPW, 1988
D-29
-------
TABLE D.24. POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN SEDIMENT
COLLECTED OFFSHORE SPECTACLE ISLAND
Pollutant
Sampling
Station
1
2
3
4
Arsenic
5.20
14.0
12.5
4.20
Beryllium
0.28
-
0.35
0.12
Cadmium
1.20
3.00
2.40
1.30
Chromium
14.9
196.
213.
15.2
Copper
44.10
331.
233.
7.80
Iron
43300.
40000.
33100.
18000.
Lead
124.
478.
343.
14.4
Manganese
472.
311.
294.5
297.
Mercury
-
1.40
1.175
—
Nickel
19.5
30.9
27.95
14.7
Silver
-
7.9
4.0
-
Zinc
98.4
503.
340.
48.
Source: MWRA, 1988
Notes: - Not detected
A blank indicates that the field parameter was not measured
All concentrations are qualitative
AU units in mg/kg
D-30
-------
TABLE D.25. CLASSIFICATION(a) OF DREDGE MATERIAL FROM THE POTENTIAL
DEER ISLAND TO SPECTACLE ISLAND PIPELINE BY CHEMICAL
CONSTITUENTS
Range of
Concentrations
.
Parameter
Along Proposed
Route (b)
Category
One
Category
Two
Category
Three
Arsenic
3.5 - 48
<10
10 - 20
> 20 (C)
Cadmium
<0.8 - 5.6
<5
- 10 (c)
>10
Chromium
20 - 380
<100
100 - 300
300w
Copper
6.2 - 240
<200
200 - 400
>400
Lead
4.3 - 180
<100
100 - 200 (c)
>200
Mercury
<0.1 - 2.2
<0.5
0.5 - 1.5
Nickel
5 - 46
<,o(c)
50 - 100
>100
Polychlorinated
Biphenyls (PCBs)
0.02 - 1.2
<0.5
0.5 - 1.0
>1.0w
Vanadium
22 - 710
.
<75
75 - 125
>125
Zinc
32 - 380
<200
200 - 400
> 400 (c)
Notes: (a) Source: 314 CMR 9.00
(b) Source: MWRA STFP, III, H, Supp., 1988
(c) Highest concentration is in this category
All units are in mg/kg
D-31
-------
TABLE D.26. CLASSIFICATION(a) OF DREDGE MATERIAL FROM THE POTENTIAL
DEER ISLAND TO SPECTACLE ISLAND PIPELINE
BY PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Parameter
Range of
Concentrations
Along oposed
Route
Type
A
Type B
Type C
Percent silt-clay
12 - 85
<60
60
- 90 (c)
>90
Percent water
NA
<40
40
- 60
>60
Percent volatile
solids (NED method)
2.2 - 9
<5
5
( )
- 10 C
>10
Percent oil and
grease (hexane method)
0.05 - 1.3
<0.5
0.5
- 1.0
,
>l.O
Notes: NA not available
(a) Source: 314 CMR 9.00 Certification for Dredging, Dredged Material
Disposal and Filling In Waters
(b) Source: MWRA STFP, III, H, Supp., 1988
(c) Highest value is this type
D-32
-------
TABLE D.27. POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER AT DEER ISLAND
Substance
Maximum Value
from 4 Samples
EPA Water
Drinkin&)
MCL
EPA Water
Drinking( )
Criteria b
Well I
Well 2
Well 3
Well 4
Cl-
230.0
80.0
1890.0
98.6
Fl
0.29
0.41
0.2
0.25
Nitrate
0.921
1.89
0.73
0.31
Sulfate
65.0
36.0
380.0
84.0
Orthophosphate
0.073
0.086
0.053
0.101
Oil & Grease
2.5
1.1
4.1
4.8
Arsenic
0.17
0.057
0.38
0.13
0.05
0.000002
Chromium
0.25
0.13
0.12
0.12
0.05
0.05
Copper
0.28
0.15
0.25
0.39
1
Lead
0.18
0.08
0.077
0.32
0.05
0.05
Nickel
0.26
0.12
0.1
0.22
0.0134
Selenium
0.57
0.18
0.25
0.49
0.01
0.01
Zinc
0.69
0.34
0.72
0.85
5
Source: MV.’RA, RMFP, Screen, II, 1988
Notes: a. 40 CFR 141,142
b. EPA Human Health Criteria, Water and Fish Ingestion
c. Bas(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate reported but below detection limits in all wells on
11/25/86 and 10/22/87 except at .038 ppm in well 4 on 10/22/87
d. All other organics were not detected
e. All units in mg/I
D-33
-------
TABLE D.28. POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN BOSTON HARBOR NEAR DEER ISLAND
Ranges of
Concentrations
Mass. Marine
Surface Water
EPA Wat
er Quality Criteria
Fish
near Deer island
Standard
Acute
Chronic
Consumption
Aluminum
<100 - 100
200
NA
NA
NA
Arsenic
<1 - 13.3
35
2,319
13
NA
Cadmium
Chromium
0.28 - 50
1.2 - 60
5
50
43
10 , 300 (c)
9.3
50 (b)
10
3 , 433 , 000 (c)
Copper
3.3 - 80
10
2.9
2.9
NA
Lead
4.4 - 280
5
140
5.6
NA
Mercury
<0.005 - 0.5
0.025
2.1
0.025
0.146
Nickel
1.8 - 160
7
75
8.3
100
Silver
40 - <80
0.5
2.3
NA
NA
Tin
900
NA
NA
NA
NA
Vanadium
<40
NA
NA
NA
NA
Zinc
13.7 - 40
50
95
86
NA
Source: MDC, 1984
Notes: All units in ugh
NA Not Available
a. Pentavelent arsenic
b. Hexavalent chromium criterion
c. Trivalent chromium criterion
D-34
-------
TABLE D.29. POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN SEDIMENT NEAR DEER ISLAND
Ranges of
Concentrations
Arsenic 3.8 - 48
Cadmium (0.26 - 5.6
Chromium 28 -380
Copper 12 -240
Lead 10 -180
Mercury 0.06 - 2.2
Nickel 11 - 44
Zinc 31 -380
Vanadium 64 -140
PCBs 0.01 -0.61
PAHs 15.3
Silt/Clay, % 17 - 77
Oil/Grease, % 0.00 -0.10
Volatiles, % 2.78 -13.1
Source: MVRA, STFP, III, H, Supp., 1988
Notes: All units in mg/kg
D-35
-------
APPENDIX E
SCREENING DATA SUMMARY
-------
TABLE E.1 SCREENING DATA SUMMARY
Transfer/Processing Sites :
1. Quincy FRSA
Land Use
I. On-site disturbed (former shipyard)
2. Proposed use for MWRA short-term sludge program and secondary treatment
plant staging area
3. Surrounding land use mixed industrial, commercial, and multifamily residential
Air Quality
I. Seven AALs exceeded in preliminary air-screening analysis of combustion
2. Interacting sources proposed: Edgar Station, Clean Harbors within one mile
Water Quality -
I. Existing groundwater contamination onsite, adjacent off-site Contamination
(oil terminal)
2. No local potable water supplies within one mile
3. No new dredging required for barge access
4. Several small recreational ponds and streams within two kilometers
Public Health
1. No drinking water exposure
2. Seven AALs exceeded in preliminary air screening of combustion
3. Two interacting sources proposed within one mile
Wetlands/Ecology
1. No on-site wetlands
2. Potentially important habitat (marine mammal, wintering waterfowl,
recreational fishery)
3. No new dredging required
Transportation
1. Existing barge facilities from other projects, no dredging
2. 3.8 mi. access route; one mile, two-lane; 0.3 miles residential
3. No height or weight restrictions for truck access
4. E. Howard/Route 53 intersection LOS B-F
Timely Implementation
1. MWRA owned; no legislative approval required
Coordination/Competing Public Use
I. None planned by other than MWRA
E- 1
-------
TABLE E.I (Continued). SCREENING DATA SUMMARY
Transfer/Processing Sites (Continued) :
1. Quincy FRSA (Continued)
Consistency with NEPA
1. Some potential for consolidated processing and transfer
2. Poor dispersion environment for combustion
Consistency with MWRA
1. Recommended by MWRA for transfer, heat drying, and composting in final
options
Equitable Distribution of Regional Responsibility
1. No permanent wastewater treatment or related facilities
2. Lynn S. Harbor
Land Use
1. On-site disturbed (landfill)
2. Proposed future city/private sector redevelopment plans for site and adjoining
areas (conceptual)
3. Surrounding industrial, nearest residential 0.5 miles
Air Quality
1. One AAL exceeded in screening analysis of combustion
2. Existing WWTP and MSW incinerators interacting sources within one mile
Water Quality
1. Onsite groundwater contamination
2. No local potable water supplies within one mile of site
3. Dredging required
Public Health
1. No potential drinking water supply exposure
2. One AAL exceeded in analysis of combustion
3. Two existing interacting sources (WWTP incinerator, MSW incinerator)
Wetlands/Ecology
I. Isolated wetlands on 15 to 20 percent of 48-acre site
2. Important habitat (ACEC) at Saugus River mouth .25-i miles SW of site
3. New dredging required
Transportation
1. Barge access dredging required
2. Lynnway access rejected by MWRA.’ ‘ Route 107 to Route 60 - Lynn
downtown access
E-2
-------
TABLE E.l (Continued). SCREENING DATA SUMMARY
Transfer/Processing Sites (Continued) :
1. Lynn S. Harbor (Continued)
3. Height or weight restrictions on two bridges (one drawbridge)
4. LOS D/F intersection Squire Road/Sigourney Street
Timely Implementation
I. Requires eminent domain or purchase
Coordination/Competing Public Use
1. None in implementation stage (see land use)
Consistency with NEPA
1. Potential for consolidated processing and transfer
2. Linked only to Wilmington processing site by MWRA
Consistency with MWRA
1. Screened out from final options
Equitable Distribution of Regional Responsibility
1. Permanent WWT facilities for Lynn Sewer District
Note: (1) Lynnway access route may be reconsidered and may rate dxfferentl than
Routes 107/60
Processing Sites :
1. Walpole Bird
Land Use
1. Undeveloped former estate
2. Proposed plans for residential development (conceptual)
3. Surrounding land use largely residential (N, NW, E); some industrial (S, SE)
Air Quality
1. One AAL exceeded in analysis of combustion
2. No known interacting sources within one mile (verification required)
Water Quality
1. Localized onsite soil contamination leaking underground storage tank
2. Drains to Neponset Aquifer, proposed by town as sole-source aquifer; nearest
drinking water supplies approx. two miles.
3. Several large ponds (Willet, Bird) within two kilometers
Public Health
1. Drinking water exposure potential
2. One AAL exceeded in analysis of combustion
E-3
-------
TABLE E.1 (Continued). SCREENING DATA SUMMARY
Processing Sites (Continued) :
1. Walpole Bird (Continued)
3. No known interacting sources of air pollution (verification required)
Wetlands/Ecology
1. 0.5-acre isolated wetland on approx. 75-acre site
2. Fisheries concern stream within two kilometers
Transportation
1. Access by 3.0 mi. Route 1/ Route 27; Route 27 two-lane roadway, 1.8 mile
residential
2. Potential height restriction on Route 27 bridge
3. Two Route 27 intersections, four turning movements
Timely Implementation
1. Requires eminent domain or purchase
Coordination/Competing Public Use
1. None planned
Consistency with NEPA
1. Potential for consolidated processing
Consistency with MWRA
1. Screened out from final options
Equitable Distribution of Regional Responsibility
1. No permanent WWT facilities
2. Stoughton
Land Use
1. Approx. 50 percent disturbed (industrial) on 90-acre site
2. Recently proposed redevelopment (town, conceptual); encroachment by new
industrial uses around perimeter
3. Surrounding land use largely industrial; some residences
Air Quality
1. One AAL exceeded in analysis of combustion
2. No known existing/proposed interacting sources within one mile (verification
required)
Water Quality
1. Onsite contamination in N. industrial area (extent unknown)
2. Drainage to Beaver Brook, one mile to Brockton Reservoir (public supply);
public supply wells one to two miles from site, NW and SE
E-4
-------
TABLE E.1 (Continued). SCREENING DATA SUMMARY
Processing Sites (Continued) :
2. Stoughton (Continued)
3. Glen Echo Pond and Beaver Brook within two kilometers of site
Public Health
1. Drinking water exposure potential
2. One AAL exceeded in air analysis
3. No existing/proposed interacting sources within one mile (verification
required)
Wetlands/Ecology
1. 25 acres of wetland on 90-acre site (S. half)
2. State listed wildlife documented within two kilometers, onsite habitat;
recreational fishery one mile NW of site (Glen Echo Pond)
Transportation 2
1. Access 139 to Turnpike Street (1.3 miles), 2 lane, 0.5 residential
2. No height or weight restrictions for trucks (2)
3. Tv o Route 139 intersections LOS F for two turning movements
Timely Implementation
I. Requires eminent domain or purchase of several properties
Coordination/Competing Public Use
1. None in advanced stages (see land use)
Consistency with NEPA
1. Potential for consolidated processing
Consistency with MWRA
1. To be analyzed for combustion and composting in final options
Equitable Distribution of Regional Responsibility
1. No long-term wastewater treatment facilities
3. Wilmington
Land Use
1. Mostly undeveloped; residential subdivision under construction on eastern
portion
Note: (2) Alternative route by Central Street is shorter, and would avoid LOS-F
intersections and residential land use
E-5
-------
TABLE E.1 (Continued). SCREENING DATA SUMMARY
Processing Sites (Continued )
3. Wilmington (Continued)
2. Plans for intruding residential use (E. implementation stage N. conceptual
stage), industrial park expansion (S, N conceptual stage, W - implementation
stage)
3. Surrounding lan use indus/comm (NW, W, 5), sparse residential (E), town
forest (N)
Air Quality
1. Two AAL5 exceeded in preliminary air screening results for combustion
2. No existing/planning interacting sources within one mile (requires verification)
Water Quality
1. No contamination in preliminary tests
2. Six public water supply wells within one mile, many private wells
3. Two large ponds (Fosters, Martins) within two kilometers (E)
Public Health
1. Drinking water exposure potential
2. Two AALs exceeded in preliminary air screening results for combustion
3. No interacting sources of air pollution (requires verification)
Wetlands/Ecology
1. 11 acres of wetlands bisecting and surrounding west portion of 50-acre site; do
not
overlap footprint of proposed facilities
2. Aquatic resources in on-site streams, off-site recreational ponds (not
documented)
Transportation
1. Access by 1.3 ml. route, two-lane all industrial/commercial
2. No truck height/weight restrictions.
3. LOS-F for four Route 125 intersections
Timely Implementation
1. Requires eminent domain or purchase of several properties
Coordination/Competing Public Use
1. None planned
Consistency with NEPA
1. Potential for combined processing
2. Linked to Lynn transfer site by MWRA
E-6
-------
TABLE E.1 (Continued). SCREENING DATA SUMMARY
Processing Sites (Continued) :
3. Wilmington (Continued)
Consistency with MWRA
1. Screened out from final options
Equitable Distribution of Regional Responsibility
1. No long-term wastewater treatment facilities
4. Deer Island
Land Use
1. MWRA owned, disturbed site (WWTP)
2. 22 acres available for residuals handling/processing; not enough for compost ing
plus digestion
3. Surrounding uses: WWTP, park (implementation stage), nearest off-island land
use residential one mile away on Point Shirley
Air Quality
1. One AAL exceeded in analysis of combustion
2. WWTP potential interacting source
Water Quality
I. Existing WWTP contamination of nearshore, on-site landfills
2. No potable water resources within one mile
3. No new dredging required for barge access
4. No recreational ponds or streams within two kilometers
Public Health
1. No potential drinking water exposure
2. One AAL exceeded in air analysis of combustion
3. Interacting source for air quality (WWTP) onsite
Wetlands/Ecology
1. Small, isolated wetlands onsite
2. State-listed bird species previously recorded on other islands within two
kilometers
3. No new dredging required for barge access
Transportation
1. Barge access facilities under construct ion, no new dredging
2. No overland traffic at site, induces traffic at transfer site
Timely Implementation
I. MWRA owned; no legislative action required
E-7
-------
TABLE E.1 (Continued). SCREENING DATA SUMMARY
Processing Sites (Continued) :
4. Deer Island (Continued)
Coordination/Competing Public Use
1. Site of new wastewater treatment plant; land available for heat drying and/or
combustion
Consistency with NEPA
1. Potential for consolidated thermal processing only
Consistency with MWRA
1. Screened out for processing, retained for digestion in final options
Equitable Distribution of Regional Responsibility
1. Site of long-term wastewater treatment facilities
Processing/Landfill Sites :
1. Spectacle Island
Land Use
1. 35-acre trash fill on 97-acre island
2. Proposed institutional use: MDPW spoil disposal/DEM park (planning
alternative)
3. Nearest surrounding uses (.5-.75 miles) institutional uses on Thompson
(schools),
Moon (wastewater), Long (hospital) Islands
Air Quality
1. One AAL exceeded in air analysis of combustion
2. No known interacting sources within one mile (requires verification)
Water Quality
1. Existing groundwater and leachate contamination of nearshore
2. No potable water resources within one mile
3. New dredging required
4. No recreational ponds or streams within two kilometers
Public Health
1. No potable drinking water exposure
2. One AAL exceeded in analysis of combustion
3. No major interacting source within two mile (requires verification)
Wetlands/Ecology
1. Less than one acre wetland on 97-acre island
2. Colonial nesting bird habitat (currently abandoned), state-listed
species on nearby islands, seen at site
E-8
-------
TABLE E.I (Continued). SCREENING DATA SUMMARY
Processing/Landfill Sites :
1. Spectacle Island (Continued)
3. New dredging required for barge access
Transportation
I. Barge access, dredging required, pipeline access feasible
2. No overland traffic to/from site; induces transfer-site traffic
Timely Implementation
1. Requires legislative approval for
Coordination Competing Public Use
I. Potential plans for material disposal from Third Harbor Tunnel/Central Artery
project and use as state parkiand
Consistency with NEPA
1. Potential for consolidated processing and landfill
Consistency with MWRA
1. Retained for heat drying, combustion, and composting in final option
Equitable Distribution of Regional Responsibility
1. Permanent WWT facilities elsewhere in Boston
Landfill Sites :
Walpole North
Land Use
1. Institutional/undisturbed site (ag. schools, wooded/wetland)
2. Proposed (town) conservation acquisition areas in NE/SW corners
3. Surrounding land use suburban/rural residential, expanding
Air Quality
1. Surrounding residential uses may create odor impact potential
Water Quality
1. Prior off-site groundwater contamination from gasoline spill (Route 109), may
extend on site
2. Entire site part of town-proposed solesource aquifer; no public wells but many
private wells within one mile, several public wells within 1.5 miles
3. Off-site ponds within two kilometers (Willet)
Public Health
1. Potential drinking water exposure
E-9
-------
TABLE E.1 (Continued). SCREENING DATA SUMMARY
Landfill Sites (Continued) :
1. Walpole North (Continued)
Wetland/Ecology
1. 130 acres wetland (potentially more) on 650-acre site
2. No fed/state listed species to date (partial survey, suitable habitat), potential
recreational fisheries in off-site ponds within two kilometers
Transportation
1. Access by 5.5 miles, two-lane Route 109 including Westwood Center (4.6 mile
residential)
2. Weight limit of eight tons on North Street
3. Route 109/N. Street intersection LOS B-F, two turning movements
Timely Implementation
1. Requires eminent domain or purchase of several properties
Coordination/Competing Public Use
1. None in advanced stage; see land use
Consistency with NEPA
1. Potential for consolidated landfill and processing
Consistency with MWRA
1. Screened out for landfill or processing
Equitable Distribution of Regional Responsibility
1. No long-term WWT facilities
2. Walpole MCI
Land Use
1. Institutional/undisturbed site (prison)
2. No proposed competing plans for future use
3. Surrounding land use sparse, residential and commercial on one side,
vacant/prison on three sides
Air Quality
1. Vacant/prison on three sides; limited prison property buffer on east side may
create odor impacts
Water Quality
1. Some potential site contamination (requires verification)
2. Edge of Zone 2 for prison well borders site, Zone 3 for prison well on majority
of site
3. Stop River (recreational stream) crosses site
E- 10
-------
TABLE E.1 (Continued). SCREENING DATA SUMMARY
Landfill Sites (Continued) :
2. Walpole MCI (Continued)
Public Health
1. Potential drinking water exposure pathway
Wet lands/Ecology
1. 10 acres wetlands delineated on 90-acre site, less than 5,000 square feet
overlap foot print of proposed landf ill
2. State-listed species and wading bird rookery on adjacent portion of prison
property;
some recreational fishing in Stop River, which crosses site
Transportation
1. Access by local roads (2.1 miles) two-lane, all resid. (Water, Summer, Winter
Street) alternative route available (Route I - Route 115 - Main Street)
2. No truck height or weight restrictions
3. Route IA/Winter Street intersection LOS D-F for two turning movements
Timely Implementation
1. Legislature approval required for land transfer
Coordination/Competing Public Use
1. None planned
Consistency with NEPA
1. Sufficent area for landfill only
Consistency with MWRA
1. Carried for landfill in final options
Equitable Distribution of Regional Responsibility
1. No long-term WWT facilities
3. Rowe Quarry
Land Use
1. Disturbed/industrial use (quarry)
2. Several proposals for future use at conceptual stage
3. Surrounding land use mixed industrial nursing home
Air Quality
1. Proximity of surrounding residences may create odor impact potential
Water Quality
1. On- and near-site contaminatiàn of groundwater by volatile organics
2. Communities on MWRA water, no potable water supplies
E-l 1
-------
TABLE E.1 (Continued). SCREENING DATA SUMMARY
Landfill Sites (Continued) :
3. Rowe Quarry (Continued)
3. ACEC marsh downgradient
Public Health
1. No drinking water exposure pathway
Wetlands/Ecology
1. No wetlands onsite
2. Adjacent Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) - Saugus Pines
Marsh
Transportation
1. Access by Salem Street (0.2 miles), two lane, mixed industrial/residential
2. No apparent truck height or weight restrictions
3. Route 1/Lynn Street intersection LOS DIE for one turning movement
Timely Implementation
1. Legislative approval required for land transfer; eminent domain or purchase
required
Coordination Competing Public Use
I. None planned
Consistency with NEPA
1. Sufficerit area for landfill only
Consistency with MWRA
1. Carried for landfill in final options
Equitable Distribution of Regional Responsibility
1. No long-term WWT facilities
E- 12
-------
REFERENCES
ACI-IP, 1988. Memorandum of Agreement. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,
Washington, D.C.
ACHP, 1986. Section 106, Step-by-Step. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,
Washington, D.C.
Andelman, 1985. Inhalation Exposure in the Home to Volatile Organic Contaminants of
Drinking Water. lB. Andelman. The Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 47,
pp. 44 3-460.
Bailey, 1988. Presentation by Martha Bailey of the Massachusetts Department of Public
Works, Boston, to Spectacle Island Regional Task Force. July 6, 1988.
Beckett, 1989. Letter from Gordon E. Beckett, Supervisor, New England Area, Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Concord, New Hampshire, to
Kathleen Kirkpatrick Hull, Environmental Engineer, U.S. EPA, Region I, Boston,
concerning federally listed and proposed endangered or threatened species in the
project area. April 11, 1989.
Bernstein, 1989. Personal communication between Steve Bernstein of SEA, Cambridge,
Mass., and Karin Shepardson of Metcalf & Eddy, Wakefield, Mass. April 11, 1989.
Boehm et a!, 1984. Boehm, Paul D., William Steinhauer, and John Brown. Organic
Pollutant Biochemistry Studies in the Northeast U.S. Marine Environment.
Prepared by Battelle MERL for National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. NA-83-7A-C-00022. Washington, D.C.
Boggs, 1989. Personal communication between S. Boggs of Old Colony Planning Council,
Brockton, Mass., and Linda Travaglia of Metcalf & Eddy, Wakefield, Mass.
Boston, 1987. City of Boston. Boston’s Open Space, An Urban Open Space Plan,
Volume One: The Plan.
Braintree, 1985. Master Plan, Town of Braintree, Mass. Prepared by Connery
Associates.
Bridges, 1987. W. Lee Bridges, Division of Massachusetts Fisheries, Department of Fish
and Wildlife and Recreational Vehicles. Fisheries: Past, Present, and Future. In
Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay: Issues, Resources, Status, and
Management. NOAA Estuary-of-the-Month Seminar Series No. 4, U.S. Department
of Commerce. February 1987.
Brown et al, 1984. Brown, H.S., D.R. Bishop, and C.A. Rowan. The Role of Skin
Absorption as a Route of Exposure for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in
Drinking Water. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 74, No. 5, pp. 479-484.
-------
REFERENCES (Continued)
Buckholtz, 1989. Telephone conversation between Donald Buckholtz of Massachusetts
Taxpayers Foundation and Betsy Shreve-Gibb of Metcalf & Eddy. March 9, 1989.
Chmielewski, 1988a. Levy Told Sludge Site Would Hurt Business. Dawn Chmielewski.
The Patriot Ledger. October 7, 1988.
Chmielewski, 1988b. Town Panel Acts to Take Land State May Want for Sludge. Dawn
Chmielewski. The Patriot Ledger. September 21, 1988.
Chmielewski, 1988c. Proposed Hotel is Too Big, Randolph Official Argues. Dawn
Chmielewski. The Patriot Ledger. November, 1988.
Clean Harbors, DEIR, 1, 1988. Rotary Kiln Incinerator Project. Draft Environmental
Impact Report. Baseline Report, Vol. I. Prepared by HMM Associates in
association with Buonicore-Cashman Associates, Arthur D. Little, and John Clark
Associates. Clean Harbors, Braintree, Massachusetts.
Clean Harbors, DEIR, 2, 1988. Rotary Kiln Incinerator Project. Draft Environmental
Impact Report. Baseline Report, Vol. 2. Prepared by HMM Associates in
association with BBN Systems and Technologies Corporation. Clean Harbors,
Braintree, Mass.
Clean Harbors, DEIR, 3, 1988. Rotary Kiln Incinerator Project. Draft Environmental
Impact Report. Baseline Report, Vol. 3: Land, Water, Biotic, Air Quality.
Prepared by HMM Associates. Clean Harbors, Braintree, Mass.
Cox-Goldman, 1989. Phone conversations between Rhonda Cox-Goldman of Outward
Bound Education Center, Thompson Island, and Linda Travaglia of Metcalf & Eddy,
Wakefield. March 9 and April 3, 1989.
CZM, 1987. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs), The Massachusetts
Program for Identification, Designation, and Protection of Critical Areas.
Prepared by Steven Bliven, CZM; revised by Bradley W. Barr, CZM. Public Doc.
I/15004-lll-250-9-87-C.R. Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office,
Boston, Massachusetts.
DCPO, 1987. Prolonged Pump Test at 48 x 24-Inch Gravel-Packed Well at M.C.I.
Norfolk. Prepared by Fay, Spof ford & Thorndike. Massachusetts Department of
Capital Planning and Operations, Boston, Mass.
DeGraàf and Rudis, 1987. DeGraaf, R.ichard M. and Deborah D. Rudis. New England
Wildlife: Habitat and Natural History and Distribution. General Technical Report,
NE-l08. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest
Experiment Station. Amherst, Mass.
Deland, 1989. Letter from Michael Deland, EPA Regional Administrator, Boston, to
Christopher Barnett, MWRA, Charlestown, concerning National Register eligibility
of Fore River Shipyard, Quincy. April 12, 1989.
2
-------
REFERENCES (Continued)
DEM, 1986. Boston Harbor Islands State Park 1986 Master Plan. Prepared by Wallace,
Floyd, Associates, Boston, Mass. Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Management, Boston, Mass.
DEM, 1984. Spectacle Island Engineering Feasibility Study, Final Report. Prepared by
BSC Engineering, Boston, Mass. Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Management, Boston, Mass.
DEQE, 1989. Massachusetts Air Toxics Guidelines. May 14, 1989.
DEQE, 1988. Letter from D. Greenbaum of Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering, Boston, Mass., to W. Twomey of U.S. EPA. Region 1, Boston,
Mass. November 29, 1988.
DEQE, Form, 1988. Form DDS-8: Design Data Sheets for Equipment Generating Noise.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering, Boston, Mass.
DEQE, 1986. Hydrogeologic Study Requirements for the Delineation of Zone 11 and Zone
Ill for New Source Approvals. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering, Division of Water Supply, Boston, Mass.
DEQE, 1982. Water Supply Protection Atlas and Handbook. Massachusetts Department
of Ernironmental Quality Engineering, Boston, Mass.
DFW, 1989. Personal communication between Peter Jackson, Division of Fish and
Wildlife, Boston, Mass., and Linda Travaglia, Metcalf & Eddy, Wakefield, Mass.
DMF, 1986. PCB Data. Unpublished data from 1983 to 1986 collected by DMF Cat Cove
Laboratory. Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, Boston, Mass.
DMF, 1983. Heavy Metals in Boston Harbor. Unpublished data from 1976 to 1983
collected by DMF Cat Cove Laboratory. Massachusetts Division of Marine
Fisheries, Boston, Mass.
Domas, 1989. Phone conversation between R. Domas of Hayderi/Wegman, Allston, Mass.,
and Karin Shepardson of Metcalf & Eddy, Wakefield. January 26, 1989.
Domas, 1988. Memo from R. Domas of Hayden/Wegman, Allston, Mass., to L. Day of
ENSR, Acton, Mass., addressing final options transportation analysis. December
28, 1988.
DPW, CA/THT, 1988. Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel Project. Disposal Site
Screening, Dredged, and Excavated Materials (Draft). Prepared by Jason M.
Cortell and Associates. June, 1988. Massachusetts Department of Public Works,
Boston, Mass.
3
-------
REFERENCES (Continued)
DPW, Survey, 1988. Intensive Archaeological Survey of Spectacle Island in Boston
Harbor (Second Revised Draft Report). Prepared by Boston University Office of
Public Archaeology, Boston, Mass. Massachusetts Department of Public Works,
Boston, Mass.
DPW, Risk Assess., Supp., 1987. Supplemental Information on the Site Assessment for
the Proposed City of Boston Waste-to-Energy Facility. Submitted by the City of
Boston, DPW, to the DEQE. Massachusetts Department of Public Works, Boston,
Mass.
DPW, Risk Assess., 1986. Qualitative and Quantitative Health Risk Assessment,
Airborne Emissions from the City of Boston Waste-to-Energy Facility. Prepared by
CSI (by Meta Systems), for the City of Boston, DPW. Massachusetts Department of
Public Works, Boston, Mass.
ENSR, 1983. Hydrogeologic Evaluation of the Rowe Quarry, Maiden, Mass., for Fly Ash
Landfill. Prepared by ENSR (formerly ERT), Acton, Mass.
EOEA, 1988. Designation of Portions of the Cities of Boston, Lynn, and Revere, and the
Towns of Saugus and Winthrop as the Rumney Marshes Area of Critical
Environmental Concern with Supporting Findings. Massachusetts Executive Office
of Environmental Affairs, Boston, Mass.
EOHS, 1989. Letter from Linda K. Holt, Manager of Operations Research, Executive
Office of Human Services, Department of Correction, to Linda Travaglia of
Metcalf & Eddy. March 1989.
EONS, Count, 1989. Daily Count Sheet for early March, 1980 and 1989. Executive
Office of Human Services, Department of Correction, Boston, Mass.
Fantucchio, 1989. Written communication from Marion Fantucchio, Assessor, city of
Quincy, to Betsy Shreve-Gibb of Metcalf & Eddy, Wakefield. April 6, 1989. Phone
conversation, April 13, 1989.
Fleming, 1988. State Ordered to Move Deer Island Prison by 1991. Payton Fleming. The
Patriot Ledger, July 7, 1988.
Gardner and Pruell, 1988. Gardner, George R., and Richard 3. Pruell. Quincy Bay
Histopathological and Chemical Assessment of Winter Flounder, Lobster and
Soft-Shelled Clam Indigenous to Quincy Bay, Boston Harbor, and an Insitu
Evaluation of Oysters Including Sediment (Surface and Cores) Chemistry. USEPA
ERI. Narragansett, R.I.
Graedel, 1978. Chemical Compounds in the Atmosphere. T.E. Graede [ . New York:
Academic Press, 1st ed.
Gray and Pennessis, 1972. Engineering Properties of Sludge Ash. Journal of Water
Pollution Control Federation.
4
-------
REFERENCES (Continued)
Grosslein and Azarovitz, 1982. Grosslein, Marvin D., and Thomas R. Azarovitz. Fish
Distribution, MESA New York Bright Atlas Monograph 15, New York Sea Grant
Program. Albany, New York.
Hardy, 1989. Letter from Ernest E. Hardy, Jr., of Winthrop to John DeVillars of the
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Boston. March 7, 1989.
Hearn, 1988. Telephone conversations between Kathy Hearn of Massachusetts Water
Resources Authority, Charlestown, Mass., and Betsy Shreve-Gibb of Metcalf &
Eddy, Wakefield, Mass. February 23 and March 7, 1989.
Highway Capacity Manual, 1985. Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209.
National Research Council, Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C.
Hoopes, 1985. Massachusetts Lobster Fishery Statistics, Technical Series 20. Prepared
by Thomas B. Hoopes. Publication 1/14530-21-310-8-12-86-CR. Massachusetts
Division of Marine Fisheries, Boston, Mass.
Howe and Coates, 1975. Howe, Arnold B., and Phillip G. Coates. Winter Flounder
Movements, Growth and Mortality. Transacuons of the American Fisheries
Society, Vol. 104, No. 1, pp. 13-29.
Ill., DENR, 1987. The Total Exposure and Risk Assessment for Drinking Water
Contaminated with Volatile Organic Compounds. Prepared by J. M. Clark and C. L.
Fuller for the DENR, Energy and Environmental Affairs Division. Illinois
Department of Natural Resources.
Iwanowicz, et al, 1973. Iwanowicz, H. Russell, Robert D. Anderson and Barry A.
Ketschke. A Study of the Marine Resources of Hingham Bay. Monograph Series
No. 14. Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, Department of Natural
Resources, Boston, Mass.
Jackson, 1989. Personal communication from Peter Jackson, Massachusetts Division of
Wildlife, to ENSR, Acton, Mass.
Klemovich, 1989. Idea for Museum Comes from Strong Shipbuilding Past. Della
Kiemovich. Patriot Ledger. February 18, 1989.
LaGoy, 1987. Estimated Soil Ingestion Rates for Use in Risk Assessment. P.K. LaGoy.
Risk Analysis, Vol. 7, No. 3.
Lioy and Daisey, 1987. Lioy, P.1, and Daisey, J.M. Toxic Air Pollution. Chelsea, Mich.:
Lewis Publishers, 2nd ed.
MACC, 1988. An Endangered Estuary. MACC Newsletter. Article by Judith Skinner.
Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions. Tufts University,
Medford, Mass.
5
-------
REFERENCES (Continued)
Makkar et a!, 1989. Makkar, N.S., A.T. Kronick and 3.J. Cooney. Butyitins rn Sediments
from Boston Harbor, USA. Chemosphere, (in press).
MaIden, 198). Rowe Quarry Land Planning Study, Working Paper No. 5: Evaluation of
Development Options and Study Conclusions. Prepared by Jurig/Brannen
Associates, Boston, Mass., for Maiden Planning Board.
MAPC, 1988. The Population and Employment Outlook for the Metropolitan Boston
Area, A Preliminary Report and Methodology. DA/88-04. Metropolitan Area
Planning Council, Boston, Mass.
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, 1989. Preliminary 1989 Municipal Financial Data.
Boston, Massachusetts.
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. 1988. Municipal Financial Data (1987 Rates) and
Preliminary Data for 1988. Boston, Massachusetts.
McCuen, 1982. A Guideline to Hydrologic Analysis Using SCS Methods. R.H. McCuen.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1st ed.
McGregor, 1989. Telephone conversation between Bruce McGregor of Quinoil Bay Point
Marina and Betsy Shreve-Gibb of Metcalf & Eddy. March 30, 1989.
MDC, 1984. Application for a Waiver of Secondary Treatment for the Nut Island and
Deer Island Treatment Plants. Prepared by Metcalf & Eddy, Wakefield, Mass.
Metropolitan District Commission, Boston, Mass.
MDC, 1983. Final Report on Sludge Sampling and Analysis of the MDC Wastewater
Treatment Facilities in Boston Harbor. Prepared by C.E. Maguire. Metropolitan
District Commission, Boston, Mass.
MDC, 1979. Application for Modification of Secondary Treatment Requirements for its
Deer Island and Nut Island Treatment Plants. Data Report prepared by Metcalf &
Eddy, Wakefield, Mass. Metropolitan District Commission, Boston, Mass.
MDHS, 198). A Multi-Route Exposure Assessment to Chemically Contaminated Drinking
Water and Health Significance with Emphasis on Gasoline. Prepared by A.T.
Shehata for the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Environmental
Toxicology Program, Maine Department of Human Services.
Metcalf & Eddy, 1980. Task II. Demersal Fish: Marine Environmental Study of Nut
Island and Deer Island Sewage Treatment Facilities. Data report prepared by John
W. Williams of Battelle, William F. Clapp Laboratories, Duxbury, Mass., for
Metcalf & Eddy, Wakefield, Mass.
Metcalf & Eddy, 1979. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, Reuse, 2nd ed.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
6
-------
REFERENCES (Continued)
MHC, 1985. Public Planning and Environmental Review: Archaeology and Historic
Preservation. Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston, Mass.
MOU, Quincy, 1988. Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Quincy and the
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority Concerning the Interim Processing of
Sludge at Quincy FRSA. July, 1988.
MOU, Winthrop, 1988. Memorandum of Understanding Between the Town of Winthrop and
the Masssachusetts Water Resources Authority Concerning Certain Aspects of the
Construction and Operation of Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities at
Deer Island.
MWRA, ISPD, I, 1989. Residuals Management Facilities Plan, Interim Sludge Processing
and Disposal Project. Vol. I, Draft Facilities Plan, Environmental Impact Report.
Prepared by Tighe and Bond, Easthampton, Mass. Massachusetts Water Resources
Authority, Charlestown, Mass.
MWRA, ISPD, II, 1989. Residuals Management Facilities Plan, Interim Sludge Processing
and Disposal Project. Vol. II, Draft Facilities Plan, Environmental Impact Report.
Prepared by Tighe and Bond, Easthampton, Mass. Massachusetts Water Resources
Authority, Charlestown, Mass.
MWRA, ISPD, VII, 1989. Residuals Management Facilities Plan, Interim Sludge
Processing and Disposal Project. Volume VII: Sludge Characterization Studs, May
22, 1988 - September 30, 1988, Analytical Results, Dry Weight Units, by Date.
Prepared by Tighe and Bond, Easthampton, Mass. Massachusetts Water Resources
Authority, Charlestown, Mass.
MWRA, On-Site Power, 1989. Conceptual Engineering Study, On-Site Power Generation
Facilities 40 MW and 80 MW Alternatives to MWRA. Prepared by Metcalf & Eddy,
Wakefield, Mass. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Charlestown, Mass.
MWRA, Air Derivation, 1989. RMFP, Air Emission Derivation Report. Prepared by
ENSR for Black & Veatch. Document #0940-013-600. January 1989.
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Charlestown, Mass.
MWRA, RMFP, DEER, 1, 1989. Residuals Management Facilities Plan, Draft
Environmental Impact Report. Vol. 1, Final Options. Massachusetts Water
Resources Authority, Charlestown, Mass.
MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, 2, 1989. Residuals Management Facilities Plan, Draft
Environmental Impact Report. Vol. 2, Landfill Sites. Massachusetts Water
Resources Authority, Charlestown, Mass.
MWRA, RMFP, DEIR, 2, A, 1989. Residuals Management Facilities Plan. Volume 2,
Appendix A, Water Resources. Prepared by ENSR, Acton, Mass. Massachusetts
Water Resources Authority, Charlestown, Mass.
7
-------
REFERENCES (Continued)
MWRA, RMFP, Landfill, II, 1989. Residuals Management Facilities Plan, Draft Report
on Minor Residuals Landfilling. Vol. II: Final Analysis of Landfill Options.
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Charlestown, Mass.
MWRA, RMFP, Options, III, 1989. Residuals Management Facilities Plan, Draft Report
on Candidate Options Evaluation. Vol. UI: Final Options Analysis. Massachusetts
Water Resources Authority, Charlestown, Mass.
MWRA, RMFP, Options, III, B, 1989. Residuals Management Facilities Plan. Vol. III,
Appendix B, Residuals Characterization Supplemental Report No. 2. Massachusetts
Water Resources Authority, Charlestown, Mass.
MWRA, Walpole, 1989. Revised Wetland Resources Map for Walpole MCI. Material for
the MWRA Final Environmental Impact Report for Residuals Management (in
progress). Prepared by ENSR, Acton, Mass. Massachusetts Water Resources
Authority, Charlestown, Mass.
MWRA, Air Modeling, 1988. Modeling Protocol for the MWRA NEFCO Sludge-Drying
Facility, Quincy, Massachusetts. MWRA Interim Sludge Processing and Disposal
Project. Prepared b Alternative Resources, Concord, Mass., for NEFCO.
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Charlestown, Mass.
MWRA, Arch. Survey, 1983. Reconnaissance Level Archaeological Survey, MWRA
Residuals Management Facility Project, Draft. Prepared by Public Archaeolog ,
Laboratory (PAL), Pawtucket, R.I. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority,
Charlestown, Mass.
MWRA, EFP, 1988. Breeding Bird Census of Four Sites for MWRA Ecology Field
Program. Draft Report to ENSR, Acton, Mass. Prepared by New England
Environmental, Amherst, Mass. June 17, 1988. Massachusetts Water Resources
Authority, Charlestown, Mass.
MWRA, Field, 1988. Site Visit Field Visit Notes. Prepared by ENSR, Acton, Mass.
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Charlestown, Mass.
MWRA, FRS Survey, 1988. Quincy Fore River Shipyard Historic Resources Survey.
Prepared by Boston Affiliates, Boston, Mass. Massachusetts Water Resources
Authority, Charlestown, Mass.
MWRA, Memo 4, 1988. Technical Memorandum No. 4, Composting Analysis. August
1988. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Charlestown, Mass.
MWRA, Memo 8, 1988. Technical Memorandum No. 8, Evaluation of Selected Support
Processes. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Charlestown, Mass.
MWRA, Memo 12, 1988. Technical Memorandum No. 12, Combustion Emissions
Control. August, 1988. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Charlestown,
Mass.
8
-------
REFERENCES (Continued)
MWRA, Noise Assess., 1988. Memorandum from T. Fontanella, ENSR, Acton, Mass., to
R. Earsy, ENSR, concerning MWRA Baseline Noise Assessment. November 21,
1988. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Charlestown, Mass.
MWRA, QSSA, I, 1988. Quincy Shipyard Site Assessment, Vol. I. Prepared by NUS
Corporation, Burlington, Mass. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority,
Char lestown, Mass.
MWRA, RMFP, CDMSPS, 1988. Residuals Management Facilities Plan. Conceptual
Design Memoranda for Sludge Processing and Storage. Massachusetts Water
Resources Authority, Charlestown, Mass.
MWRA, RMFP, DM, Trans., 1988. Residuals Management Facilities Plan. Design
Memoranda for Transportation Systems. Massachusetts Water Resources
Authority, Charlestown, Mass.
MWRA, RMFP, Landfill, 1, 1988. Residuals Management Facilities Plan, Draft Report on
Minor Residuals Landfilling. Vol. 1: First-Level Screening of Landfill
Alternatives. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Charlestown, Mass.
MWRA, RMFP, Options, 1, 1988. Residuals Management Facilities Plan, Draft Report o
Candidate Options Evaluation. Vol. I, Non-Site Specific Evaluation and First Le ei
Screening. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Charlestown, Mass.
MWRA, RMFP, Options, II, 1988. Residuals Management Facilities Plan, Draft Report on
Candidate Options Evaluation. Vol. II: Site Specific Evaluations and Second Level
Screening. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Charlestown, Mass.
MWRA, RMFP, Screen, 1, 1988. Residuals Management Facilities Plan, Draft Report on
Environmental Screening Analysis of Candidate Sites. Vol. 1: Landfill Sites.
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Charlestown, Mass.
MWRA, RMFP, Screen, I, A, 1988. Residuals Management Facilities Plan, Draft Report
on Environmental Screening Analysis of Candidate Sites. Vol. I: Landfill Sites,
App. A. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Charlestown, Mass.
MWRA, RMFP, Screen, 11, 1988. Residuals Management Facilities Plan, Draft Report on
Environmental Screening Analysis of Candidate Sites. Vol. 11: Coastal and Island
Sites. Massachusetts V.’ ater Resources Authority, Charlestown, Mass.
MWRA, RMFP, Screen, III, 1988. Residuals Management Facilities Plan, Draft Report on
Environmental Screening Analysis of Candidate Sites. Vol. III: Inland Sites.
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Charlestown, Mass.
MWRA, RMFP, Screen, D, 1988. Residuals Management Facilities Plan, Draft Report on
Environmental Screening Analysis of Candidate Sites. Appendix D: General
Characteristics of Environmental Noise and Definition of Terms. Massachusetts
Water Resources Authority, Charlestown, Mass.
9
-------
REFERENCES (Continued)
MWRA, Shipyard, 1988. MWRA-Quincy Shipyard Site Assessment. Prepared by NUS
Corporation, Burlington, Mass. March 1988. Massachusetts Water Resources
Authority, Charlestown, Mass.
MWRA, STFP, II, 1988. Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan, Final Report. Vol. 11,
Facilities Planning Background. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority,
Charlestown, Mass.
MWRA, STFP, III, 1988. Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan. Vol. 111, Treatment
Plant. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Charlestown, Mass.
MWRA, STFP, III, E, 1988. Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan, Treatment Plant,
Vol. III, Air Emissions, App. E. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority,
Charlestown, Mass.
MWRA, STFP, Ill, H, Supp., 1988. Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan. Supplement to
Appendix H., Vol. III, Off-Island Utility Supply. Massachusetts Water Resources
Authority, Charlestown, Mass.
M\ RA, STFP, \‘, X, 1988. Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan. Vol. \‘, App. X,
Bioaccumulation. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Charlestown, Mass.
MWRA, STFP, GL.C, 1988. General Law Code 30 Section 61 Findings by the MWRA on
the Final Secondar Treatment Facilities Plan for Boston Harbor. December
1988. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Charlestown, Mass.
MWRA, Options Id., 1987. Residuals Management Facilities Plan, Draft Report on
Candidate Options Identification. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority,
Charlestown, Mass.
MWRA, Report No. 1, 1987. Characterization of Residuals, Supplemental Report No. 1.
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Charlestown, Mass.
MWRA, Res. Char., 1987. Residuals Management Facilities Plan, Draft Report on
Characterization of Residuals. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority,
Charlestown, Mass.
MWRA, Screen Anal., I, 1987. Residuals Management Facilities Plan, Draft Report on
Site Screening Analysis. Vol. 1, Site Screening Methodology. Massachusetts Water
Resources Authority, Char lestown, Mass.
MWRA, Screen Anal., 11, 1987. Residuals Management Facilities Plan, Draft Report on
Site Screening Analysis. Vol. II, Site Screening Results. Massachusetts Water
Resources Authority, Char lestown, Mass.
MWRA, STFP, I, 1987. Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan. Volume I, Executive
Summary. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Char lestown, Mass.
10
-------
REFERENCES (Continued)
MWRA, Trans., 1987. Residuals Management Facilities Plan, Draft Report on
Assessment of Transportation Alternatives. Massachusett Water Resources
Authority, Charlestown, Mass.
MWRA, Tech., 1987. Residuals Management Facilities Plan, Draft Report on Assessment
of Technologies. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Charlestown, Mass.
MWRA, 1986. Draft Report, On-Shore Water Transportation Facilities. September
1986. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Charlestown, Mass.
MWRA, Closure 1, 1986. Field Investigations and Interim Closure Design Plan and
Report for Grit and Screenings Disposal Areas on Deer Island. Prepared by Camp,
Dresser & Mckee, Boston, Mass. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority,
Charlestown, Mass.
MWRA, Closure 2, 1986. Deer Island Landfill Interim Closure System. Prepared by
Black & Veatch. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Charlestown, Mass.
Nash, 1984. 1984 Massachusetts Lobster Fishery Statistics. Gerald M. Nash. Technical
Series 19. Publication 1/14181 -22-300-9-85-CR. Massachusetts Dix’ ision of Marine
Fisheries.
NJDEP, 1987. Correspondence from :John W. Gaston of the N3DEP to Steven Luftig of
the U.S. EPA, Attachment 6: Cleanup A%pproaches used b NJDEP. February 19,
1987. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
NJDEP, 1985. An Environmental Review of Air Pollution Control for Reseource
Recovery Facilities. Vol. I: Study Approach and Results. Prepared by Beaumont
Environmental. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
NOAA, 1987. National Status and Trends Program for Marine Environmental Quality,
Boston Harbor Station, Unpublished 1984 data. Prepared by W. Lee Bridges,
Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.
NOAA, 1986. Map of Boston Harbor, Massachusetts, 49th ed., April 1986. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). U.S. Department of
Commerce, Washington, D.C.
O’Connell, 1988. Memo from Jim O’Connell of CZM to Sue Cobler of Metcalf & Eddy
concerning Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program Federal Consistency
Review. September 8, 1988.
Oppelt, 1987. Incineration of Hazardous Waste, A Critical Review. E.T. Oppelt. Journal
of Air Pollution Control Association, Vol. 37, No. 5, pp. 557-586.
Pelham, 1989. Phone conversation between Thomas Pelham, Director, Development
Department of Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, and Betsy Shreve-Gibb
of Metcalf & Eddy. March 28, 1989.
11
-------
REFERENCES (Continued)
Pelczarski, 1989. Phone conversation between Joseph Pelczarski, CFIP Coordinator,
CZM Office, and Betsy Shreve, Metcalf: & Eddy. April, 1989.
Petrasek, et al., 1983. Fate of Toxic Organic Compounds in Wastewater Treatment
Plants. Albert C. Petrasek et al. Journal of the Water Pollution Control
Federation, Vol. 55, No. 10, pp. 1286-1296.
Richards, 1989. Boston Edison Considers Fore River Gas, Oil Plant. Ray Richards.
Boston Globe. March 24, 1989.
Ryan, 1989. Personal communication between Mark Ryan of SEA Consultants,
Cambridge, Mass., and Karin Shepardson of Metcalf & Eddy, Wakefield, Mass.
April 27, 1989.
Santa Barbara County, 1984. Point Arguello Field, Gaviota, Processing Facility Area
Study, Chevron/Texaco Development Plans, EIR/EIS. Technical Appendix J,
Terrestrial and Freshwater Biology. Prepared by Arthur D. Little, Santa Barbara,
California. Prepared for the County of Santa Barbara, U.S. Minerals Management
Service, California State Lands Commission and California Secretary of
Environmental Affairs.
Sehmel, 1984. Deposition and Resuspension, Chapter 12 of Atmospheric Science and
Power Production. G.A. Sehmel. D. Anderson, ed. U.S. Dept. of Energy,
Washington, D.C.
Snider, 1989. Falls Condominium Development Group. Telephone conversation between
Norm Snider of FCDG and Betsy Shreve-Gibb of Metcalf & Eddy. March 16, 1989.
Standley, 1988. Critical Review, Residuals Management Facility Plan. David Standley,
private consultant to the city of Quincy. November 28, 1988.
Starkowsky, 1989. Personal communication between Charles Starkowsky, Town Engineer,
Stoughton, Mass., and Kathleen Baskin of Metcalf & Eddy. March 27, 1989.
Stoughton, Study, 1987. Town of Stoughton, Mass. Strategic Planning Study. Final
Draft. Prepared by Old Colony Planning Council, Brockton, Mass., in conjunction
with the Stoughton Strategic Planning Grant Committee.
Swartz, 1987. PCB Concentrations in Marine Fish and Shellfish from Boston and Salem
Harbors, and Coastal Massachusetts. Jack P. Swartz. Progress Report 1 /14,997-36-
110-8-87-CR. Cat Cove Marine Laboratory, Massachusetts Division of Marine
Fisheries.
U.S. ACE, 1988. Wetland - Estuary Assessment for the Saugus River and Tributaries,
Flood Damage Reduction Study (Working Copy, Advanced Draft). Prepared by IEP,
Northborough, Mass. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, New England Division,
Waltham, Mass. -
12
-------
REFERENCES (Continued)
U.S. Census Data, 1980. 1980 Census of Population and Housing, Block Statistics. U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Interior, 1988. Report to Congress: Coastal Barrier Resources
System, Vol. III. Recommendations for Additions to or Deletions from the Coastal
Barrier Resources System, Massachusetts. Mapped, edited, and published by the
Coastal Barriers Study Group, Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA, 1988. Reviev. of Historical Data for Characterization of Quincy Bay
Contamination, and Analysis of Risks from Consumption of Quincy Bay Fish and
Shellfish. Prepared by Metcalf & Eddy, Wakefield, Mass. Contract No. 68-02-
4357. U.S. EPA, Region I, Boston, Mass.
U.S. EPA, DSEIS, I, 1988. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Boston
Harbor Vastev ater Conveyance System. Vol. 1. U.S. EPA, Region I, Boston, Mass.
U.S. EPA, DSEIS, II, A, 1988. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
Boston Harbor aste Conveyance System. Vol. 11: Appendices, Appendix A,
Physical Oceanography and Water Quality Figures. U.S. EPA, Region I, Boston,
Mass.
U.S. EPA, DSEIS, I!, H, 1988. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
Boston Harbor V astev ater Conveyance System. Volume II, Appendix H,
Operational Reliability. U.S. EPA, Region I, Boston, Mass.
U.S. EPA, FSEIS, 1988. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Boston
Harbor Wastewater Conveyance System. U.S. EPA, Region I, Boston, Mass.
U.S. EPA, HERL, 1988. Occurrence of Pathogens in Distribution and Marketing
Municipal Sludges. Prepared by Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, Calif.
Health Effects Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
U.S. EPA, Piers, 1988. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority On-Island (Deer Island
Personnel Shelter and Nut Island Pier) and On-Shore (Revere Sugar and Fore River
Staging Area) Water Transportation Facility. U.S. EPA, Region I, Boston, Mass.
U.S. EPA, PSD, 1988. Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality,
40 CFR 52.2 lb.23. U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA, Superfund, 1988. Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual. EPA 540 1-88
001. Office of Remedial Response, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA, 1986. Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual. EPA 540 1-86 060. Office
of Emergency and Remedial Response, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA, Market Regs., 1986. Sludge Compost Marketing and Distribution Regulatory
Requirements in the United States. Prepared by Metcalf & Eddy, Wakefield,
Mass. U.S. EPA Region I, Boston, Mass.
13
-------
REFERENCES (Continued)
U.S. EPA, ROD, 1986. Public Record of Decision on the Final Environmental Impact
Statement for the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority’s Proposed Siting of
Wastewater Treatment Facilities for Boston Harbor. February 1988. U.S.
EPA,Region I, Boston, Mass.
U.S. EPA, WQC, 1986. Criteria for Water 1986, EPA 440/5-86-001, updated in May
1987. U.S. EPA Region 1, Boston, Mass.
U.S. EPA, AP-42, 1985. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Vol. 1:
Stationary Point and Area Sources, AP-42, 4th ed. North Carolina: Research
Triangle Park.
U.S. EPA, Composting, 1985. Seminar Publication, Composting of Municipal Wastewater
Sludges. EPA/625/4-85/0l4. Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA, DSEIS, II, 1985. Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Report
on Siting of Wastewater Treatment Facilities for Boston Harbor, Vol. II. U.S. EPA
Region I, Boston, Mass.
U.S. EPA, FEIS, 1985. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Siting of Wastewater
Treatment Facilities for Boston Harbor. Volumes I - IV. U.S. EPA, Region I,
Boston, Mass.
U.S. EPA, FEIS, II, 1985. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Siting of Wastewater
Treatment Facilities for Boston Harbor. Vol. II, Technical Evaluation. U.S. EPA
Region I, Boston, Mass.
U.S. EPA, 1984. Recreation and Visual Quality Baseline for the DSEIS on Boston Harbor
Wastewater Facilities Siting. Prepared by C.E. Maguire, Providence, Rhode
Island. U.S. EPA, Region I, Boston, Mass.
U.S. EPA, DSEIS, I, 1984. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Report
on Siting of Wastewater Treatment Facilities for Boston Harbor, Vol. I. U.S. EPA,
Region I, Boston, Mass.
U.S. EPA, FDA, and DA, 1981. Land Application of Municipal Sewage Sludge for the
Production of Fruits and Vegetables, A Statement of Federal Policy and Guidance.
U.S. EPA, FDA, and DA, Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA, Levels Doc., 1974. Information on the Levels of Environmental Noise
Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of
Safety. Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA, Construction, 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations,
Building Equipment and Home Appliances. Washington, D.C.
14
-------
REFERENCES (Continued)
Wallace, et al, 1988. Wallace, Gordon T., Robert P. Eganhouse, Leonard C. P.Hs, Benson
R. Gould. 1988. Analysis of Contamination in Marine Resources, Environmental
Sciences Program. DEQE Contract 85-18 and U.S. EPA 812527-01-0 The
University of Masscichusetts, Boston, Mass.
Wright and Parquette, 1987. Wright, Paul H. and Radnor 3. Parquette. Highway
Engineering, 5th ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Zenz, 1988. Letter from D.R. Zenz of Black & Veatch to C. Shimp of Black & Veatch.
15
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AALs allowable ambient levels
ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern
ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
ADT average daily traffic
As arsenic
BACT best available control technology
BECo Boston Edison Company
BP before present
Btu British thermal units
CAA Clean Air Act
CAC Citizen Advisory Committee
CBRS Coastal Barrier Resources Act
ccm cubic centimeter
Cd cadmium
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
cf cubic foot
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
Cl chlorine
cm centimeter
CMR Code of Massachusetts Regulations
CO carbon monoxide
COD chemical oxygen demand
Cr chromium
CSO combined sewer overflow
Cu copper
CWA Clean Water Act
cyd cubic yards per day
CZM (Massachusetts) Coastal Zone Management
degrees Centigrade
DAQC Division of Air Quality Control
dBA decibels on the A-weighted scale
DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report
DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement
DEM (Massachusetts) Department of Environmental Management
DEQE (Massachusetts) Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
DFW (Massachusetts) Division of Fisheries and Wildlife
DMF (Massachusetts) Division of Marine Fisheries
DO dissolved oxygen
DPA Designated Port Area
DPW (Massachusetts) Department of Public Works
DSEIS Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
dtpd dry tons per day
dtpy dry tons per year
DWHA Drinking Water Health Advisory
D%j PC Division of Water Pollution Control
d per day
1
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EOEA (Massachusetts) Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
EPA (United States) Environmental Protection Agency
ESP Early Site Preparation
FDA Food and Drug Administration
Fe iron
FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report
FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FPCAC Facilities Planning Citizens Advisory Committee
FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act
FRSA Fore River Staging Area
ft foot, feet
FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Act
°F degrees Fahrenheit
g gram
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
H highest concentration
Hg mercury
hr hour
Hs wave height
HSH highest second highest
ISC Industrial Source Complex (model)
ISCST Industrial Source Complex Short-Term (model)
kg kilogram
km kilometer
kwh kilowatt hours
liter
lb pound
L 1 - day-night average sound level
LOS level of service
LEQ equivalent A-weighted sound level over a given
time interval
noise level exceeded 90 percent of the time
m meter
MAPC Metropolitan Area Planning Counc il
2
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)
MASN Massachusetts Air Surveillance Network
MBtu million British thermal units
MCI Massachusetts Correctional Institute
MCL maximum contaminant level
MCLG maximum contaminant level goal
MDC Metropolitan District Commission
MEPA Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act
mg milligram
mgd million gallons per day
MGL Massachusetts General Law
MI-IC Massachusetts Historical Commission
ml milliliter
MLW mean low water
mm millimeter
Mn magnesium
MN 1-IP Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
mph miles per hour
MSC Massachusetts Shipbuilders Corporation
MSL mean sea level
MTR mechanical traffic recorder
MUTCD manual on uniform traffic control devices
MW megawatt
MWRA Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
mV millivolts
U micron
ug microgram
NA not available or not applicable
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAS National Academy of Sciences
ND not detected
NEFCo New England Fertilizer Company
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NESHAPs National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
Ni nickel
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Services
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NO! Notice of Intent
NP not predicted
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NTIS National Technical Information Service
NW! National Wetlands Inventory
NWS National Weather Service
3
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBBREVIATIONS (Continued)
OPA Office of Public Archaeology
PAHs polycyc 1 ic aromatic hydrocarbons
PAL Public Archaeology Laboratory
Pb lead
PCBs polychiorinated biphenyls
pH acid/base value
PICs products of incbmplete combustion
PM-b particulate matter with a diameter under 10 microns
ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million
PPM priority pollutant metal
PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration
psi pounds per square inch
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REDOX reduction-oxidation potential
RMFP Residuals Management Facilities Plan
RO/RO roll-on/roll-off
ROD Record of Decision
R/T round trip
RTF regional task force
SCS Soil Conservation Service
sec second
SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
SHPO (Massachusetts) State Historic Preservation Officer
SIL significant impact level
SRA Stoughton Redevelopment Authority
SRT solids retention time
SS suspended solids
SSA Sole-Source Aquifer
STFP Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan
SWDA Solid Waste Disposal Act
TCE trichioroethylene
TDS total dissolved solids
TEL threshold effects exposure limit (24-hour AAL)
THF tetrahydrofuran
TOC total organic carbon
lox total organic halogens
tpd tons per day
TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons
tpy tons per year
TRL target risk level
4
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)
TSP total suspended particulates
TSS total suspended solids
U.S. ACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USDC United States District Court
U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation
U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geologic Survey
VOC volatile organic compound
VPH vehicles per hour
WQI v ater quality index
WWTP wastewater treatment plant
yd yard
yr year
Zn zinc
5
-------
GLOSSARY
acid gas. A gas that forms during the combustion process and that includes sulfur
compounds such as sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, and hydrogen flouride.
afterburner. An air emissions control device in which the gas stream passes through a
chamber preheated to a high temperature, controlling odorants and volatile organic
compounds.
allowable ambient limits. AALs are state guidelines for the maximum ambient amounts
of toxic pollutants allowable in the atmosphere.
ambient. Refers to conditions (e.g., concentration, temperature, and other parameters)
at a specific location and resulting from activities in the surrounding environment.
amendment. Material added to compost, such as wood chips, to increase bulk and
nutrient content.
anadromous. Refers to species that migrate from marine waters to fresh waters to
breed.
anaerobic digestion. The decomposition of organic and inorganic matter in the absence
of molecular oxygen.
anoxic. An environment deficient in oxygen.
arochlor. Mixture of polychiorinated biphenyls.
ash. The solid residue that remains after incineration.
atmospheric deposition. The process by which airborne constituents settle onto
surfaces (e.g., ground, plants, buildings, etc.).
attainment pollutant. A pollutant that does not exceed a given standard.
baffle. A barrier used to slow or impede the movement of a substance.
bank. For coastal areas, the standard face or side of any elevated landform, other than
a coastal dune, that lies at the landward edge of a coastal beach and is subject to
tidal action, or other wetland. For inland areas, the portion of the land surface
that normally abuts and confines a water body. It occurs between a water body and
a vegetated bordering wetland and adjacent flood plain, or, in the absence of these,
it occurs between a water body and an upland. See wetlands.
beach (barrier). A narrow low-lying strip of land generally consisting of coastal beaches
and coastal dunes and extending roughly parallel to the trend of the coast. Beach
(coastal) unconsolidated sediment subject to wave, tidal, and coastal storm action
that forms the gently sloping shore of a body of salt water and includes tidal flats.
-------
GLOSSARY (Continued)
bedrock. The solid rock beneath soil and other Unconsolidated surface material.
benthic organisms. Organisms that live in sediments or attached to rocks under water.
bioassay. A test using organisms, typically to determine the toxicity of a substance.
biological oxygen demand (BOD). The amount of oxygen used during the biochemical
oxidation of organic matter during a given time period and at a specific
temperature.
biota. Refers to all plant and animal life in a geographic area.
bordering wetlands. Freshv ater wetlands that border on creeks, rivers, streams, ponds,
or lakes.
buffer. A physical barrier.
carcinogen. A substance that causes cancer.
catadromous. Refers to species that migrate from fresh waters to marine waters to
breed.
centrate. The liquid removed from sludge in the dewatering process through centrifugal
force.
chronic effects. Lethal reaction or prolonged debilitating damage to an organism
resulting from prolonged exposure to a toxicant. Exposure time may be several
days, weeks, months, or even years.
co-combustion. The combustion of dried sludge with solid waste or fossil fuel.
combustion. The process of burning a material.
compost. Organic material that has undergone biological degradation to form a stable,
humuslike material used as a soil conditioner.
composting. A method of stabilizing wastewater sludge by biological decomposition of
putrescible organic matter to produce a material that can be used as a low-grade
fertilizer and soil conditioner. The basic steps of composting are the combination
of dewatered sludge with an amendment (sawdust, woodchips, recycled compost),
and the aeration of this mixture during a “curing” period.
condensate. The liquid resulting from gases emitted from the composting process.
corridor. Access that leads to a given point or entity, such as for utilities or for a
transportation route. -
2
-------
GLOSSARY (Continued)
cultural resource. A resource of historical or archaeological importance.
cumulative impacts. Combined effects resulting from more than one action.
decibel. One tenth of a bel, 2 where a bel is the log of the ratio of the intensity of two
sounds in the watts/cm ; a unit for expressing the relative intensity of sounds.
deciduous. Refers to trees or shrubs that lose their leaves in the fall.
demersal. Bottom dwelling.
detection limit. The smallest quantity that can be measured with certainty by a given
analytical method.
depuration. A process of removing some contaminants from organisms.
dewater. The process of removing excess water from a substance.
digested sludge. The thickened mixture of sewage solids and water, that has been
decomposed by anaerobic or aerobic bacteria.
dioxins. Cyclic ethers frequently used as solvents and often produced during
combustion.
drainage basin. The land area from which water drains into a particular river, lake, or
reservoir.
drumlin. A hilly area caused by the deposition of glacial till.
dry ton. Two thousand pounds of material (sludge) with approximately 20 percent
moisture content.
dunes. Any natural hill, mound, or ridge of sediment landward of a coastal beach
deposited by wind action or Storm overwash. Dune also means sediment deposited
by artificial means and serving the purpose of storm damage prevention or flood
control.
ecosystem. Plant and animal communities in a specific environment, such as in a
marine or pond environment.
effluent. The outflow of treated wastewater from a wastewater treatment plant.
emergent wetlands. Wetlands in which vegetation grows above the water. (See
wetlands.)
emissions estimates. Estimated levels of pollutants or chemicals released into the
environment from a particular process.
3
-------
GLOSSARY (Continued)
estuary. A coastal body of water, typically where salt and fresh water meet.
exposure route. The means by which a pollutant is introduced into the body such as by
inhalation of gases and particles, ingestion of contaminated organisms or water,
and dermal contact with contaminated water or leachate.
facilities plan. The conceptual design of a treatment system such as a residuals
management facility.
floodplain. The valley floor adjacent to a river, which may be inundated during high
water.
footprint. The area over which a facility is to be built.
fugitive dust. Refers to particles not traceable to a single source but which enter the
atmosphere as a result of a variety of physical activity or disturbance.
grit. A substance consisting of sand, gravel, cinders, and other heavy solid materials
accumulated by the collection system of wastewater treatment plants, headv orks,
and at combined sewer overflow facilities requiring removal and disposal.
habitat. The geographic area in which a plant or animal community exists.
headworks. A low point in a sewerage system where wastewater is collected and
pumped to treatment works or to a continuation of the system at a higher
elevation, and where grit and screenings are collected and removed. Also referred
to as a wastewater pump station.
herbaceous plant. Plants that have soft instead of woody stems.
histopathological. Refers to animal tissue pathology or disease.
hydraulic retention time. The compostirig and curing time in the compostirig reactor
for the mixture of sludge, amendment, and recycled compost.
hydrology. The study of waters; their occurrence, circulation, and distribution; their
chemical and physical properties; and their reaction with their environment.
ichthyoplankton. Young fish that are carried along in the water prior to developing into
free-swimming creatures.
infauna. Animals living within the sediments of the ocean bottom.
infiltration/inflow. The entrance of water into a sewerage system as a result of factors
such as wet weather, high groundwater conditions, leaking pipes, illegal
connections, and combined sewer systems.
4
-------
GLOSSARY (Continued)
influent. Inflow to a wastewater treatment plant.
infrastucture. Refers to public water, sewer, gas, and other utilities serving a
community or urban area.
interceptor system. A large sewer that meets a number of main or trunk sewers and
conveys the wastewater from them to treatment facilities.
intertidal. Area affected by tides.
invertebrate. Animals v ithout backbones.
kame. A deposit of sand and gravel formed into a short ridge by the melting of glacial
ice.
land application. The direct disposal of sludge by land spreading.
land use. Refers to the ways in which a community or area makes use of its natural
resources.
leachate. Water that percolates through the soil, a landfill, or compost, which may or
may not contain contaminants.
level of service (LOS). A measurement that defines congestion as determined by
vehicle operating speed, driver comfort and maneuvering ability, potential for
queuing, and extent of traffic delay.
listed species. Plants or animals that appear on protected or special-concern lists
published by federal or state agencies.
loading dolphin. An offshore platform where sludge is pumped into a barge.
major and complicated. Classification assigned to the MWRA’s Residuals Management
Facilities Plan (RMFP) for the Boston Harbor cleanup in February 1986 by the
Secretary of Environmental Affairs. The designation necessitated the EOEA’s
“Special Procedure” to be issued for RMFP implementation.
marsh. See wetlands.
mass balance. Mathematical expression for process reactions that describe the inputs
and outputs of a system.
mass flux. Rate at which a constituent is discharged, expressed in mass per unit time,
e.g., mg/sec.
mean low water. The average water elevation at low tide.
5
-------
GLOSSARY (Continued)
midden. An accumulation of refuse or highly organic debris.
minor residuals. Minor residuals include grit, scum, and screenings removed as part of
the wastewater treatment process and ash from a sludge combustion facility.
mitigate. To reduce or lessen.
monofilling. Placement of one type of material into a landfill dedicated to the disposal
of that material exclusively.
North System. The part of the MWRA’s sewer system that is influent to the Deer Island
Wastewater Treatment Plant.
nuisance control. The lessening of some action or condition that is unpleasant.
nutrients. Anything other than the elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen needed in
the synthesis of organic matter. Common nutrients are nitrates and phosphates.
outfall. The pipe that conveys effluent from the wastewater treatment plant to its
discharge location.
overstory. Refers to the tallest height of plant growth in an area.
overburden. Sedimentary rock and other loose material that is found on top of older
rock.
oxygen demand. Consumption of oxygen by bacteria to oxidize organic matter.
particulate. Small, separate particles.
pathogen. Any cause of disease, such as certain microorganisms.
pelletization. The process by which sludge is transformed during heat drying into small
rounded shapes or pellets for use as a soil conditioner.
pH. The negative logarithm of hydrogen ion concentration, used to measure acidity or
alkalinity.
phytoplankton. Small floating waterborne plants.
pond. Any open body of water, either naturally occurring or man-made by
impoundment, and which is never without standing water due to natural causes,
except during periods of extended drought.
primary sludge. The solids settled out by gravity from wastewater and removed from a
treatment plant’s primary clarifier after primary treatment.
6
-------
GLOSSARY (Continued)
primary treatment. Treatment of wastewater including pumping, screening, grit
removal, and settling of heavy solids and floatable materials.
priority pollutant. A pollutant that is listed by the EPA as a pollutant of concern.
process technology. Combustion, heat drying, and composting.
raptor species. A bird of prey.
receptor. A site, area, or population, including any sensitive populations, that would
likely be affected by a particular impact or by a combination of impacts.
redox potential. Refers to oxidation-reduction, a chemical reaction in which a
molecule or atom loses electrons to another molecule or atom.
removal efficiency. The effectiveness of a process in eliminating a pollutant.
residuals. Sludge, grit, screenings, combustion ash, and scum that are byproducts of the
wastev .ater collection and treatment process.
river. A natural flov ing body of water that empties to any ocean, lake, or other river
and which flows throughout the year.
runoff. Rainfall that is not taken into the ground.
screenings. Refers to material collected and separated from wastewater during the
treatment process including twigs, logs, and cloth. See also minor residuals.
scum. Floatable materials skimmed from the surface of wastewater primary and
secondary settling tanks such as oil and grease.
secondary sludge. The solids that are a by-product of secondary wastewater treatment.
secondary treatment. Biological treatment of wastewater following primary treatment
involving removal of dissolved organics.
sediment. Soil and organic particles that exist on the floor of a water body.
sidestream. Water circulated through a compost facility that collects condensate and
leachate for odor control and removal.
sludge. The solid materials of high water content separated from wastewater during
the treatment process.
sludge cake. Wastewater sludge from which excess water has been removed (i.e.,
dewatered).
7
-------
GLOSSARY (Continued)
sole-source aquifer. A groundwater aquifer thai is considered the primary water supply
for a geographic area.
solids retention time. The average amount of time that solids remain in a composting
reactor as a result of the use of recycled compost in the overall process.
South System. The part of the MWRA’s sewer system that empties into the Nut Island
Wastewater Treatment Plant.
stream. A body of water, including brooks and creeks, that moves in a definite channel
in the ground because of a hydraulic gradient.
substation. A diversion in a high-voltage electric line that reduces high-voltage
electricity to a lower and more usable level.
surf icial geology. Pertaining to the structural surface of the earth.
suspended solids. Solids that are present, but not dissolved, in a solution.
swamp. Area where groundwater is at or near the surface of the ground for a
significant part of the growing season or where runoff water from surface drainage
frequently collects above the soil surface. See wetlands.
taxon. A category of biological classification, such as a genus or species.
thermal processing. Sludge processing by heat drying or combustion.
threshold. A point or level beyond which certain effects would occur.
tidal flat. Any nearly level part of a coastal beach that usually extends from the mean
low water line landward to the more steeply sloping coastal beach or that may be
separated from the beach by land under the ocean.
tideland. Coastal land that is submerged under water at high tide.
till. Rock debris made of a combination of sand, gravel, clay, and boulders that has
been deposited by a glacier or the running water from it.
toxicity. Degree to which an element or compound is capable of causing an adverse
health effect when introduced into tissues.
tributary. A stream, creek, or river that flows into a larger stream, creek, or river.
transmissivity. The relative ability to convey something or to allow it to pass through.
8
-------
GLOSSARY (Continued)
udorthents. A soil type belonging to the order entisol and suborder orthent. Udorthents
are soils that are formed in humid climates and that are relatively homogeneous in
composition.
understory. A lower height of plant growth (e.g., shrubs).
upland communities. Plant and animal groups found in a particular region on land of
higher elevation.
vertebrate. An animal with a backbone.
viewshed. The area visible from a specific point.
water column. The water located vertically over a specific point or station.
watershed. The land from which water drains into a particular river, lake, or reservoir.
wetlands. An area characterized by a high degree of moisture in the soil. Also refers
to areas defined as wetlands under state or federal regulations. For fresh water:
wet meadows, marshes, sv amps, bogs; areas where groundwater, flowing or
standing surface water, or ice provide a significant part of the supporting substrate
for a plant community for at least five months of the year; emergent or
submergent plant communities in inland waters; that portion of any bank which
touches any inland waters. For coastal areas: Any bank, marsh, swamp, meadow,
flat, or other lowland subject to tidal action or coastal storm I lowage.
9
------- |